| Advertisement |
|
Local Guides
|
|
|
MR DI IANNI HOW WERE ALL THESE CAMPAIGN MISTAKES HONEST?
|
by
View
September 21 - 27, 2006 |
|
For the last two and a half years, Hamilton Mayor Larry Di Ianni
has been saying that dozens of illegal gifts to his election
campaign were “honest mistakes.” He’s written over 50 refund
cheques for over contributions totalling over $23,000. What he
hasn’t done, and must do, is explain exactly how his campaign
honestly accepted all these illegal donations.
He should start by explaining very carefully why he spent so
much on lawyers trying to prevent a full audit of his books, and
why he remains so bitter toward the citizen who pointed out these
problems. Most folks who make honest errors usually appreciate
someone letting them know so they can apologize for the
mistakes and make them right.
Let’s start with the $1,000 cheque accepted from Village
Green Denture Clinic, one of several cheques over the $750 limit
accepted and cashed by the Di Ianni campaign, and eventually
revealed during court hearings. This one was written on the same
day the first deposits were made in the mayor’s campaign
account. That $1,000 cheque was reported in his sworn financial
statement as two donations, one for $750 from the clinic and one
for $250 by the individual who signed the cheque.
What honesty led to this mistake in reporting the donation?
Why was the cheque accepted, since it was over the maximum
allowable donation? And why wasn’t it recognized that the clinic
is not incorporated and therefore not eligible to make any
donations?
On that same day, the campaign deposited its first five
cheques, all from corporations. Two of those, for $750 each, were
signed by the same person. Although the company names were
different, the addresses were the same, the cheques were both
dated for the same day and drawn on the same bank.
We know now from court documents that Di Ianni’s
campaign team was given written instructions about what
donations were legally acceptable that included the specific
warning that “corporations associated under the Income Tax Act
are considered to be a single contributor.”
Why didn’t Di Ianni ask if these two companies were
associated? That was only done after Dundas businesswoman
Joanna Chapman pointed to this and many other violations of the
election law. There were at least four other examples of this
particular type of inappropriate donation—two or more cheques
from companies at the same address who turned out to be
associated—a fact quickly identified by Chapman, but not by Di
Ianni.
In one case four associated companies each gave donations.
A DeSantis Real Estate Ltd, A DeSantis Developments Ltd, A
DeSantis Holdings Ltd and HGH Developments Limited, all with
the same address and at least three signed by the same person.
Copies of those three cheques were presented in court. What logic
led the mayor to accept this $1,700 without questioning whether
the donors were associated?
Then there’s the really embarrassing stuff. The six instances
where a single company gave multiple cheques adding up to more
than $750, and the two instances where this happened with
individual donors. How were these eight sets of illegal donations
missed?
Was it because the list of donors that Di Ianni handed in was
printed in very small type and wasn’t put in alphabetical order like
most other candidates? Maybe the multiple donations could have
been missed during the campaign, but the sworn financial
statement listing them wasn’t handed in until nearly five months
after election day.
And what is the explanation for the Pasquale Smith
donation, the apparently ficticious guy listed as making a $750
donation from the same address as Paletta International
Corporation, a company headed by Pasquale Paletta, who also
donated $750. The Hamilton Spectator called the company and
was told the company had never heard of Mr Smith. Apparently
Joanna Chapman got the same answer.
Di Ianni’s final campaign statement simply lists this as an
“error” and indicates that the cheque actually came from Paletta
International Corporation, a company which also gave another
$150 and was apparently associated with Tender Choice Foods
which also donated $750. So $900 was returned, but no
explanation is provided of how this “honest mistake” occurred.
Then there’s the five cheques from 237 Barton Street East in
Stoney Creek, including three from numbered companies. All five
were written on the same day and four appear to have the same
signature. They include a $1,000 cheque from Losani Homes Ltd
and a $2,000 one from Losani Homes (1998) Ltd. The legal
maximum is $750 so why didn’t red flags didn’t go up when
these gifts crossed the mayor’s desk?
When Di Ianni’s lawyers presented copies of these cheques
in court, it came out that these donations also didn’t get recorded
properly in the mayor’s March 2004 statement. The $1,000 one
was listed as $750, and the $2,000 as a $500 donation. A year
later, Di Ianni’s final statement described these as “clerical errors”
and listed five companies and two individuals as sharing this
$3,000 in donations. How can all this be all sluffed off as “honest
mistakes?”
Then there’s the last minute reclassification of 36 donations,
just before the end of the trial where Justice Culver ordered the
compliance audit. All 36 were listed in the March 2004 sworn
statement as coming from individuals, but then a year later, in the
March 2005 financial statement, they were all changed to
corporate donations.
How does a corporate cheque get confused with one from an
individual? Corporate cheques have the name of the business
printed right on them. Was it because many of these companies
had already been recorded elsewhere as having made a corporate
donation, and consequently the reclassification of these cheques
led to many more refund cheques for over contributions?
But think a bit about that. How does one corporate cheque
get listed as an individual donation, and another corporate
cheque from the same company get listed as a corporate
donation?
And there’s something even stranger here. In eight
instances, the reclassified corporate cheque was recorded as now
having a different address than when it was first listed as an
individual donation. How can the address printed on a cheque
change? And if it was wrongly listed the first time, how did the
person making the list come up with an address that wasn’t on
the cheque?
The above isn’t a complete list of the admitted “mistakes.”
The mayor’s response, however, needs to be exhaustive. If he
thinks he can just declare these were honest, then more than his
integrity is in question. Hamiltonians deserve much better. V
[DON MCLEAN]
|
Share on
 |
No comments yet... be the first! |
|
