Sunday, June 21, 2015

Pearson Compliance Audit Request

The following document (click here), sets out the allegations that form the basis of the request for a compliance audit of Maria Pearson's election campaign. The resident who made the request,provided The Hamiltonian with the following clarification with respect to the document filed:

Please note that the complaint document has been amended, and the new amended version has been submitted to The Hamiltonian. Thus, the link above brings you to the new amended document.


  1. On the face of it, it looks like this is a worthy referral to the compliance committee.

    1. AnonymousJune 22, 2015

      Thank you!
      I appreciate the endorsement.
      Hope you feel the same way after the other ones are filed.

  2. AnonymousJune 22, 2015

    I wonder if the Spec or the Stoney Creek News will write about this? If they don't, some serious questions should be asked about why not.

    1. AnonymousJune 22, 2015

      In addition to the Hamiltonian, 8 other media sources were provided with submission inclusive of the Hamilton News and the Spec. Only time will tell if they decide to write about this.
      - ComplianceRequestor

    2. AnonymousJune 23, 2015

      I no longer bother reading the Stoney Creek News. I find that it comes bundled with too many advertisements. Also, it is not really news. They don't take on any of the councilors and just allow them room to publish lightweight articles. I don't think it should be called a news agency. In terms of this matter, the financial contained in Councelor Pearson;s statement just does not sound right. The numbers should be verified.

    3. Matthew Van DongenJune 23, 2015

      Hi folks, I received by e-mail what appears to be the referenced submission.
      Are you making a formal request for a compliance audit?
      City election office says it hadn't processed a formal application as of this afternoon.
      Also, will it remain an anonymous complaint?
      I'm at 905-526-3241 or mvandongen@thespec.com if you want to chat.
      Matthew Van Dongen
      Spectator city hall reporter

    4. I think it is a very good thing when The Hamilton Spectator and The Hamiltonian work together. I think Matthew has shown good leadership here. I hope he gets his answers and that The Hamiltonian and The Spec work together on this story. Both are reputable sources.

    5. Term Limits NowJune 23, 2015

      Agreed source

    6. AnonymousJune 23, 2015

      Hi Folks!
      I love when the City is careful with their words which leaves the wrong impression with the questioner!
      If the Spec asked them if they've processed it, then literally, they gave you the right answer. (the committee date hasn't been set as yet)
      If you call them back and ask them if they've received one (which has been forwarded to the Committee and all of Council), they will have to answer with a Yes.
      I just got back from the Clerk's office and the Committee meeting will likely occur sometime the week of July 6th.
      - The Applicant (who's preference is to remain anonymous for as long as possible, but who definitely is not related to anyone at the Hamiltonian)

    7. The Hamiltonian AdminJune 23, 2015

      Nice to see you here Matthew.

      The Hamiltonian Admin

  3. AnonymousJune 22, 2015

    I had a few minutes so I thought I would respond on some of your comments. I didn't realize I used two different closing which might lead to confusion. To clarify, the replies to Anonymous' were from one and the same.
    I also read some previous posts and thought I would share with you some information/thoughts that led up to the actual filing.
    A great deal of research and background work was done. The 2014 filing and Compliance Request should not be compared to prior years or events. On the surface, it should be obvious it is completely different.
    With respect to the 1 cent difference, funny this should be pointed out. It was actually what twigged me to look further. In my mind, it's like when one receives a gift card for a present. I don't know about anyone else out there, but I don't recall ever spending exactly what is on the card. I'm always over, so I have to contribute my own funds; or I leave credits on the card which are carried forward and in most cases never spent.
    From there, the ball starting rolling.
    Now it's in the hands of the Compliance Committee for them to decide how to proceed. I've been told the meeting has to occur within 30 days and the meeting date and time will be posted on the city website.
    I'll check in now and then in case anyone has other other questions/comments that I might be able to help clarify.
    Hope everyone has a great evening,
    - Applicant

    1. what is your motivation in this regard?

    2. AnonymousJune 22, 2015

      Hmmm - good question! If I had to choose one word, I guess it would be concern.
      My initial motivation to look into this was a desire to learn more about my surroundings. I've heard chatter for years but always chose to ignore it.
      Once I acquired some knowledge, the dilemma was what to do with it.
      My motivation to file the Request is based on my belief that we all have a right to be heard, to ask questions when we are frustrated, curious or want to fully understand issues; especially when we feel that the provincial regulations are being abused.
      Or have I misinterpreted your question and you meant what was my motivation in checking in now and then to answer any questions?
      - Applicant

    3. Thank-you for your prompt, thoughtful response.It is encouraging to see engaged citizenry with civil intentions still exist, even in "the Creek!" I possess a deep rooted mistrust of anonymous posters, yet your perspective forces me to rethink my position. "Never judge a book......" seems to apply. You have my respect, keep at 'em.

  4. AnonymousJune 23, 2015

    I don't understand number 11, in kind contributions.

  5. I live in the Creek but not in Ward 10. I am on the mountain in Ward 9. Most of my family and friends live Ward 10 and some live in Winona - not sure if that is still Ward 10? Anyway, they are not suprised one bit by this Audit Request and to this day believe something terribly wrong happened in the last election. The publisher of this site - Teresa DiFalco should have won that race. I follow municipal and provincial politics - not so much federal, and although Ward 9 was an interesting race, Ward 10 was the biggest disappointment. Maria Pearson has had her day, and perhaps this audit will help her out the door. I encourage sure hope Teresa considers running in again in 2018. I love The Hamiltonian. It is always balanced and and respectful. I admire Teresa's integrity, not to mention her background. I think I may have gotten off topic. My point being, I hope this audit is taken seriously and something comes of it. Personally, I would like to see the entire Ward 10 race reviewed. Something very wrong happened because the outcome stunned a great majority.


  6. M Adrian BrassingtonJune 24, 2015

    Interesting phenomenon: When a newbie candidate wins, their supporters yell 'The people have spoken!'. But when the candidate is defeated, they yell 'Something's fishy here!' Hmm...

    BTW; if you've got a problem with an incumbent getting re-elected, you really need to broadcast your displeasure at the residents, not anyone else. I dunno; maybe go door-to-door admonishing the guilty parties?

    1. AnonymousJune 25, 2015

      By all means, minimalize any complaints that you do not deem worthy to a phenomenon. If you live in Ward 10 and are as connected as you portray yourself to be, you would have witnessed the highly irregular activities of the incumbent that went unchecked.
      This complaint is about an incumbent who after numerous elections doesn't understand the importance of accurate financial statements ... does that make it more palatable?

  7. AnonymousJune 24, 2015

    "success doesn't count unless you earn it fair and square."
    Michelle Obama

    Love that quote


Your comments are welcome. Please abide by the blog's policy on posting. This blog facilitates discussion from all sides of issues. Opposite viewpoints, spirited discussion and even pointed comments are welcome, provided they are respectful. Name calling is not allowed and any posts that violate the policy, will simply not be authorized to appear. This blog also reserves the right to exclude comments that are off topic or are otherwise unprofessional. This blog does not assume any liability whatsoever for comments posted. People posting comments or providing information on interviews, do so at their own risk.

Comments posted on this blog, may be used as excerpts in whole or in part, in other media sources .
This blog believes in freedom of speech and operates in the context of a democratic society, which many have fought and died for.

Views expressed by commentators or in articles that appear here, cannot be assumed to be espoused by The Hamiltonian staff or its publisher.