At the All-Candidates Meeting in Dwight, a question was posed to Shane Baker. In the Huntsville Forester, he was quoted as saying he didn't have a chance to vote for the Mail-in ballots. The questioner asked him to reconsider, given that prior to the last elections in 2006 Mr. Baker was the sitting councillor for Sinclair/Finlayson. That Council did indeed vote to accept mail-in ballots. As did the current Council for this election. Mr. Baker replied that yes, he had in fact taken part in that process. So, yes, he did vote in favour of the mail-in ballot system used in the last election.
We learn every day. During the last election, through no fault of our staff, there was some lack of clarity on the mail-in ballots. As a result, many were disallowed as "spoiled" ballots. That was an issue, absolutely. Mr. Baker lost to Ben Boivin, the incumbent, by @ a 10% spread. In Baysville, the vote between Margaret Casey and Dan Waters was much closer -- a matter of two votes. It is understandable that the latter pair would demand recount. With a 10% spread, however, it is reasonable to assume that the vote results won't much change statistically, but exercising his right, Shane pushed to have the unopened ballots allowed.
As happens in these matters, since the Elections Act takes it all quite seriously, this went straight to the courts. At the end of the day, the ballots were opened. Margaret won by one vote over Dan. The 10% spread held for Ben Boivin. Lessons were learned about improving the mail-in ballots that you will be getting in the mail any day now.
So far, so good. There were problems with the mail-in ballots that time round. There was a cost to the Muncipality -- the courts ordered payments. The payment is insignificant in the context of democracy being served, really.
Then a question came from the floor to Mr. Baker indicating that he had personally cost the Township nearly $25,000.00 through this process.
That's not true. And Mr. Baker was rightfully quick to point out that the questioner was in error. So far, still so good. So far it is pretty much unfolding as one would expect -- with a result so close in Baysville, there had to be a recount. Those candidates, to whom one or two votes was going to make a big difference were naturally anxious to see which way the votes were going in those unopened ballots, so one would expect them to pursue all avenues.
But then it came a little off the rails. When asked if he, Shane Baker, had received money from this, Shane replied that he had not received a penny. That it had in fact cost him money.
This is the wonderful thing about democracy, about transparency and accountability. These documents are part of the public record. The end product of the process ensured that the ballots this time round will be better, clearer, easier. That's the way of it.
The courts ordered the Municipality to make payments. A cheque was written to the Muncipals Election Act in the amount of $21, 469.21. Did Shane cost the Township this? No. The closeness of the vote, particularly in Baysville, probably had more to do with driving this, although Shane did mount a legal challenge as well. He was certainly within his rights to do so.
A cheque was written, through the legal firm holding the money in trust, to Margaret Casey, for $1,000. Another, through another legal firm, was written to Dan Waters for $2,000.00. That's fact, and that's fine. They have never disputed this. Nor do we dispute that they were entitled to this money. There are always legal costs.
But another cheque was written, #07173, in the amount of $2000.00, for the court decision costs awarded to Shane Baker.
We don't dispute that he was entitled to mount a legal challenge. Nor that he was entitled to this court settlement. We don't assert that he was responsible for the total cost to the Municipality -- had the court found the other way, leaving the ballots unopened and unaccepted, these costs would not have accrued. If it is the Municipality's cost, then we have to pay it.
But Shane Baker has to wear it. He received $2000.00 from the Township of Lake of Bays.
This is still a sum of money which by the looks of it Shane Baker did receive even though he told eveyone at the candidates meeting he did not get a cent and actually cost him.It even gives me the idea he was in conflict of interest as he was a councilor at the time. I could be wrong but it sure appears this way seeing it was Bakerlaw and he said it was his brother??? I don't know you tell me as I'd like to know just for curiousity as a rate payer and now here he is runnig once again.
ReplyDelete