HALDIMAND—Accountant William Molson has completed his Municipal Election Compliance Audit on Mayor Shelley Ann Bentley’s campaign finances, revealing several items of concern and putting the mayor’s future in office in doubt.
Molson was contracted to complete the report following a meeting with the Audit Compliance Committee in June, launched due to resident Lisa Richardson’s concerns about perceived inconsistencies in the mayor’s campaign financial statement.
Molson has since determined that Bentley “did not comply with the requirements of the Municipal Elections Act … with respect to four of the five areas of concern (from Richardson).”
Richardson commented on the reasoning behind her initial application, “After seeing the financials and doing a comparison to the other candidates, I had issues with the cost per elector.”
Perhaps the most serious item in the report relates to the mayor failing to file an auditor’s report following the election. In cases where a campaign’s total expenses exceed $10,000, that report is a requirement, but Bentley did not submit one based on her incorrectly reported finances falling below the threshold.
While Bentley’s statement listed total expenses of $9,889.69, Molson’s report concludes that her actual campaign budget was $17,816.05, a difference of $7,926.36.
All candidates were notified of the requirements for an auditor’s report, with Bentley signing a document on July 4, 2022 acknowledging an understanding of these requirements. Further, Bentley was emailed on September 27, 2022 and February 2, 2023 with an attachment citing penalties listed in the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 (the Act).
The Act states, in subsection 88.23, that if a candidate fails to file their auditor’s report by the relevant date, “the candidate forfeits any office to which he or she was elected and the office is deemed to be vacant,” with Molson clearly stating that Mayor Bentley “contravened” the Act by not submitting the auditor’s report.
However, if it is determined in the upcoming process that Mayor Bentley committed the offence inadvertently or because of an error in judgement, the above noted penalty may not apply.
Molson’s report outlined several other discrepancies in the mayor’s campaign finances, noting several other ways that Bentley may not or did not comply with the Act, found in subsection 88.22, titled ‘Duties of Candidates and Registered Third Parties’.
Those requirements include:
- All contributions of money are deposited into the campaign accounts
- All payments for expenses are made from the campaign accounts
- Contributions of goods and services are valued
- Receipts are issued for every contribution and obtained for every expense
- Records are kept of the receipts issued for every contribution, the value of every contribution, whether a contribution is in the form of money, goods, or services, and the contributor’s name and address
As noted in Molson’s report, “Of particular significance, the Candidate did not deposit all revenues to the campaign bank account and did not pay all expenses from that bank account. My audit identified over 50 apparently unreported or incorrectly reported transactions…. As a consequence of the Candidate not complying with the requirements of 88.22, it was not possible to readily determine the extent to which, if any, there were apparent additional contributions and expenses.”
The report also notes that Bentley received $5,000 in “ineligible cash contributions” over the course of her campaign, which Bentley did not deposit to her campaign bank account, and which she is now required to either return to the contributors or pay to the County Clerk.
Having seen the auditor’s report, Richardson is most concerned by the number of findings made, and the severity of some of those findings, noting, “When you see cash donations of $5,000 not put into the campaign account, that sends off red flags. When you declare your intention to run you are given clear instructions of the do and don’ts.”
Also of note, the report claims Bentley exceeded the limit on contributions she was permitted to make to her own campaign by $696.68. According to a certificate given to candidates on September 16, 2022, candidates were permitted to contribute a maximum of $15,669.20 on their campaigns, based on the value of $0.20 per elector.
According to the Act, the surplus or deficit of a particular campaign is calculated by deducting the sum of total expenses and amounts properly returned to the candidate from total revenues. Molson’s report notes, “It appeared all suppliers had been or were to be paid. Presumably, use was made of the cash contributions received by the Candidate, and other Candidate resources. Accordingly, the deficit remaining at the end of the campaign may be considered a contribution from the Candidate.”
With the additional expenditures not initially listed in Bentley’s financial statement tallied up and subtracted against the campaign’s $11,265.08 deficit, Molson asserts that Bentley contributed a total of $16,365.88.
Another major focus of the report is the mayor’s election campaign signs, with a large part of the initial audit application tied to these purchases.
In her original financial statement, Bentley listed an expense of $1,921 for her campaign signs, and Richardson alleged in her complaint that Bentley had underreported this value based on the variety of signs on display throughout the campaign.
Bentley argued at the original hearing that the signs Richardson identified related to the Nanticoke development and MZO were not part of the election campaign, and therefore not included in her election finances. Molson notes that Bentley stated she “did not know the parties responsible for them and that there had been no direction given by the Candidate” in making or deploying them.
Additionally, Molson reports, “I was unable to identify other persons potentially responsible for these signs. Owing to the inclusion of the website address, which apparently promotes the Candidate, the argument can be made that those responsible for these signs also may have been third party advertisers subject to the Act. As such, there may have been an obligation for these persons to register as third-party advertisers, and to observe other requirements. Compliance issues relating to third parties are beyond the scope of this report.”
He added, “As well, the website domain was paid for from a credit card used consistently for the campaign. Because the signs included the Candidate’s website address, and that website included a (vote4shelleyannbentley@gmail.com) email address, signs promoting the Candidate were evidently placed prior to September 9, 2022 (the earliest date permitted for the display of election signs). However, I was not able to conclude who was responsible for such signs or identify the specific contraventions of the Act, whether by third parties or by the Candidate.”
Richardson expressed disappointment at the auditor’s lack of a conclusion on the sign issue, but noted, “I do believe that the additional infractions that have been uncovered are far more damaging than the sign issue.”
Bentley will once again sit before the Audit Compliance Committee, who will review Molson’s report and make a decision on the next steps in the process at that time. As of publication, the date of that meeting was unknown.
Richardson concluded, “The failure to file an auditor’s report suggests deceit as all the information required for the financials was clearly available. If the Auditor could find it, so could she. By accepting $5,000 in ineligible cash contributions and not depositing it into the campaign account, it suggests that she knew it wasn’t right. Again, the do and don’ts are clearly laid out prior to the campaign.”
Following a request for comment, Mayor Bentley had the following to say: “This report has not been deliberated by the Audit Committee yet and it is my understanding they just received it…. It would premature to make any type of comment at this point in time, prior to allowing the fair and impartial process to take place the way it is legislatively required to. The only people to receive a copy of this report was me, the committee, and the complainant. The people of our community are intelligent people. For someone to have released this document to the media prior to the committee meeting shines a light on what is really going on here.”
Stay tuned to The Press for more on this story as it develops.
