The special election compliance audit committee has had a magnifying glass over the English public school board, too.

While we’ve been at City Hall following the shenanigans of Richard Cannings and Rideau-Rockcliffe Coun. Peter Clark, the committee has been ordering audits of a couple candidates from the trustee election.

According to a July 13 report for the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, the committee granted applications to audit the campaign finances of Doug Lloyd and Riley Brockington.

Going back through the paperwork, someone complained about the election finances of five candidates, including three winning trustees.

Patrick Ready, the complainant, told the committee Lloyd didn’t account for expenses accumulated to run an election website. For Brockington, Ready complained about his handling of contributions after the candidate decided against running for re-election.

The committee agreed to go ahead with audits of two candidates, who are not trustees.

It could cost the school board up to $10,000 for the audits.

Seems Coun. Peter Clark just needs three sentences to respond to Richard Cannings’ lastest complaint, detailed here a couple weeks ago.

Says Clark in his defence filed with the city:

“This application is pure and simple harassment. Mr. Belanger was not a “registered candidate” at the time of the municipal election and has all of the rights of a private citizen.

It is clearly vindictive, malicious and libellous.”

The election compliance audit committee will sort this out July 19.

—–
Follow City Hall reporter Jon Willing on Twitter at @JonathanWilling

Here we go again.

It seems Richard Cannings has filed another complaint against Rideau-Rockcliffe Coun. Peter Clark. Cannings, who ran against Clark in the October municipal election, wants the elections compliance audit committee to order an audit of Clark’s finances.

In Cannings’ first complaint, which the committee dismissed last month, he alleged Clark didn’t account for a so-called “Liberal list” of telephone numbers in his campaign finances.

Now, Cannings is questioning a $500 donation to Clark’s campaign by Liberal MP Mauril Belanger because under law federal election candidates or parties can’t make contributions to a municipal campaign.

(You can find Clark’s campaign donors in this PDF)

I’m no lawyer, but I suspect this will come down to whether or not Belanger was considered a candidate in the federal election when he made the donation before the October 2010 municipal election. The federal election writ wasn’t issued until March.

The election compliance audit committee (yes, the same one that recently received its own complaint) must make a decision by July 24, so we can expect a meeting soon.

Here is Cannings’ latest complaint received by city clerk and solicitor Rick O’Connor on Thursday.

Dear Mr. O’Connor;

I would like to file an application to appear before the Election Compliance Committee concerning Mr. Peter Clark’s Election Financial Statement. Please find below details of my allegation and the issue that I want to address.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Richard Cannings

Financial contributions prohibited under the Municipal Elections Act:

• According to the Municipal Elections Act , Section 70, sub-section 4, the following shall not make a contribution: “a federal political party registered under the Canada Elections Act or a registered candidate at a federal election that was endorsed by that party” .

• Receipt #4729 confirms a contribution by Mauril A. Belanger of $500 to Peter Clark’s campaign.

• As well, Mr. Belanger endorsed Mr. Clark on the “Vote Peter Clark” website. There is also an endorsement by Mr. Belanger for Mr. Clark on Peter Clark’s campaign literature. Unfortunately, even though I personally saw the literature I do not have a copy. However I’m certain the committee could request a copy from Mr. Clark.

• In the Municipal Elections Act, the penalty for such an infraction is a $25,000 fine and/or six months in jail.

I believe both Mr. Clark and Mr. Belanger knowingly violated the spirit of the law if not the letter of the law.

Looks like the city’s meetings investigator has caught wind of a strange committee meeting last April.

The five-member election compliance audit committee is responsible for deciding if there should be an audit of expenses of a municipal election candidate, but it got off to a rocky start this year trying to deal with its first complaint April 18.

Failed election candidate Richard Cannings wanted the committee to audit the campaign finances of Rideau-Rockcliffe Coun. Peter Clark.

During the meeting, the committee shut out the public and decided in private if it should grant Clark an adjournment. Only one member wanted to continue the meeting in an open, transparent manner.

At the time it seemed like a strange thing, to require a secret meeting on the issue of adjournment.

We’ll see what meetings investigator Douglas Wallace says about this at Wednesday’s council meeting.

By the way, the committee eventually rejected Cannings’ complaint.