London-area Liberals fuming at stolen funds and party coverup
A massive theft of funds from the Liberal Party riding association in London has prompted a criminal investigation. But there is a serious political side to this as well, with allegations of an offer from the Director of Finance of the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario), David Pretlove, to cut a cheque to cover the shortfall with the promise not to take this to the police.
Over $15,000 has disappeared from the coffers of the Liberal Party riding association in London, Ontario. But the real story is the way the riding executive have tried to cover this story up, not just from the press, but specifically from riding members who supplied that money by buying party memberships:
About $16,000 has vanished from a London federal Liberal riding association, triggering a police investigation.
The probe comes amid indications an official with the party's Ontario wing offered a way to keep a lid on the issue.
Fingers are being pointed and aspersions cast among Liberals in advance of the June 28 annual meeting of the Elgin-Middlesex-London federal riding association.
The missing money and actions of the association's board of directors have prompted complaints from rank-and-file Liberals upset at being kept in the dark. They're demanding answers.
"I've never encountered anything like this and I've been in politics since I was 13," said Lois Jackson, a St. Thomas party member.
Jackson is upset the riding executive has said nothing about the matter publicly, despite conducting a nomination meeting in April for which nearly 800 party memberships were sold.
And the coverup?
The Free Press has learned a high-ranking party official tried to solve the problem by offering to cut cheques for the missing money provided local officials agreed to take no further action and considered the matter closed.
A letter from David J. Pretlove, then interim executive director of the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario), offered to cover the missing funds.
That letter was given to the board in January by Suzanne van Bommel, then a member of the board and now also the party's candidate in the riding for the next federal election.
Van Bommel said she presented the offer "on behalf of Mr. Pretlove."
Pretlove is now director of finance and administration for the party's Ontario wing.
I don't know about you, but allegations that the director of finance was offering to cut cheques to cover what to all appearances looked like a massive theft would make me very nervous. That the allegation extends to Pretlove trying to get the riding association to pretend it never happened would make me wonder about the true state of the Liberal Party finances.
I mean, you could ask Pretlove if the books are in good shape, but given the allegations, could you believe anything he tells you? Would you have to do an audit of the LPC(O) books in order to see if there were any mysterious cheques issued to ridings to cover...irregularities?
To the credit of the Liberal riding association in London, the decision was taken to investigate the crime:
Norm Feaver, president of the riding association, said Pretlove's letter prompted vigorous discussion.
In the end, the St. Thomas lawyer said, the board rejected the offer and instead referred the matter to police.
"The board has always been big on transparency," Feaver said, referring to the offer from Pretlove.
"We're not interested in trying to hush things up or anything like that. It's a very simple thing. The board was very clear we wanted it investigated and we were not prepared to sweep it under the carpet."
The funny thing about Pretlove's offer is that, even though it was turned down, the riding association has had its integrity called into question:
Feaver rejected complaints by party members the board is hiding information.
"Nobody on this board has ever suggested that should be covered up," he said.
Still, some riding association members think this is more about politics than sticky fingers:
Another board member, London lawyer Ed Corrigan, said the problem of the missing funds is "internal" board business.
"It's premature to report anything," he said, adding complaints about the situation come from "a few disgruntled people (who) were upset at the way the nomination meeting was handled, so I would take what they say with a grain of salt . . . This is not the sort of thing you discuss with the membership. This is a board matter."
Corrigan insisted those who are upset were supporters of Crispin Colvin, who lost the nomination to van Bommel.
No word if the police are checking local restaurants for brown envelopes.
Check out other entries from the David Pretlove category
Results will open in a new window.
Check out what Canadian bloggers have posted about David Pretlove
Results will open in a new window.
Check out what has been written about Liberal Party scandals on the web
Results will open in a new window.
Check out other entries from the True Crime category
Results will open in a new window.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Liberal Party London Ontario Canada David Pretlove Ed Corrigan Crispin Colvin Norm Feaver Suzanne Van Bommel theft
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
...how's that old saying go?
"what goes around, comes around?"
Posted by: tomax7 at June 15, 2007 04:28 PM
If you're from Liberal party HQ, and you just found out that $15,000 is missing or stolen from one of your riding associations, isn't your first reaction to find out who did and get that money back, if at all possible? And don't you do that by calling the police?
There are two possible reasons to hush it up:
1) You're embarrassed and you don't want anyone to find out, especially the riding members;
2) You don't want people to find out what actually happened to the money.
Posted by: Dennis (Second Thoughts) at June 15, 2007 04:36 PM
Has it come to this - that they will not only (allegedly) steal from the taxpayers, but from themselves too.
Posted by: Don't Want To at June 15, 2007 05:08 PM
The LIEberals are at it again.
This goes to show that there is no honor among thieves.
They should stay out of government for a long, long time.
Hans-Christian Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP
Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at June 15, 2007 06:00 PM
For sure not a good thing!!
It wouldn't be of any interest to the MSM, at least it won't have any legs. IT'S LIBERALS!
What's the loss of a few thousand bucks among Liberanos? Gee whiz, it's all in the family, the family of corruption and entitlements.
Someone felt ENTITLED to it and simply snatched it up.
They haven't learned a thing, it's business as usual.
Posted by: Libby at June 15, 2007 07:12 PM
Isn't it also illegal to make a 'financial' arrangement that is made conditional on not reporting a (possible) criminal act? I thought money crimes don't go away by simply returning the money -- except for the appropriately connected, I guess.
Posted by: at June 15, 2007 07:35 PM
Until the Liberals get back into power with ultimate control of the treasury, they are doing "Corruption Calisthenics" to stay in shape.
Posted by: ZiLLa at June 15, 2007 08:40 PM
the riding executive has said nothing about the matter publicly, despite conducting a nomination meeting in April for which nearly 800 party memberships were sold.
800 people showed up and handed over money out of their own pockets for party memberships, just like that? Does that sound a teeny bit suspicious to you? I don't know nothin' bout no party memberships but I have a picture in my mind of at least 20 busloads of ethnics rolling up to the meeting, or more likely a whole lot of phantom members suddenly "joined" the party. Phantom members could mean phantom bookkeeping entries. If my speculation is correct then it is a case of massive fraud but not massive theft. The rank-and-file (read: idealistic but naïve stooges) who complained about the "theft" obviously haven't figgered out yet that party politics and government in general are nothing more than an institutionalized swindle. Instead of renewing their membership next year, they should do us all a favour and write "shove it" on the application and quit feeding the nanny state.
This ain't no Lieberal problem neither. It's a government problem.
Posted by: at June 15, 2007 08:55 PM
So totally witless and too devoid of imagination to even do a proper swindle. They should all take lessons from the RCMP.
Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at June 15, 2007 10:00 PM
Oh geez Steve, This is why I visit you every day. Excellent work.
Posted by: INP at June 15, 2007 10:11 PM
> Isn't it also illegal to make a 'financial' arrangement that is made conditional on not reporting a (possible) criminal act? I thought money crimes don't go away by simply returning the money -- except for the appropriately connected, I guess.
The proposed arrangement here is not illegal. However, you can't go to actual person you suspect of stealing and threaten to call in the police unless they return the money (that's a form of extortion).
I think you would be surprised at the number of corporations, societies and small business who are happy to get the money back if the thief offers to return it and not report the matter to the police. Many don't bother even if the crook doesn't offer. Why? Two main reasons - but first:
My guess is the person who took the funds has a gambling addiction, substance addiction or found themselves in dire financial straights. That person was also likely the treasurer or had access to the bank accounts and developed a scheme to siphon of funds for their own needs (e.g. phony or altered invoices)
So reason #1 not to report- embarrassment : either the victim did not have the proper control measures in place (e.g. two signatures on every cheque) or the person who was supposed to monitor the controls didn't do due diligence and let the money slip away from right under their noses.
More common is reason #2 - operational secrecy (for lack of a better term): here all the proper controls are in place and proper due diligence is done but the thief has come up with a sophisticated way to scam the funds. There really is no way to guard against the theft with out putting an onerous burden on the victims manpower or financial resources.
Lets suppose the the victim ordered 10,000 lawn posters for an election from xyz printing. Joe Treasurer presents an invoice to the control person for $15,000. Joe and the control sign the cheque and a week later the 10,000 posters arrive. The control person matches up the invoice, the cheque and the posters and everything checks out and looks fine - BUT:
Joe Treasurer was the one who formed xyz printing and it actually is only a PO box. xyz buys 10,000 posters from A1 legit printer for $10,000 accepts delivery and then bills the victim $15,000 and forwards the posters making a profit of 5 grand along the way.
The only way to fight that would be to have someone investigate each step of a supply chain for each and every transaction. That, in the long run, will wind up costing the victim more than the 5,000 they're out from the theft.
The reason for not going to the police is the fear that when the facts come out you've just provided a "how to" manual to every would be thief that may be lurking in the organization.
Posted by: Nbob at June 16, 2007 01:00 AM
Nbob:
What kind of convoluted logic is that?
The Liberals have been in power so long they know every trick in the book, they don't require a "how to" manual.
NOT going to the police has one purpose, keeping it hidden from the public. Covert activities and Liberals still walking hand in hand.
Liberals out of power bear even more watching than when in power,especially since they're broke.
They have no idea how to be an effective Opposition.
They're the worst in memory.
They can't even respect the people's choice to govern and graciously sit in Opposition doing constructive critique.
Instead they're playing schoolyard gotcha games and they're really a disgrace.
Posted by: Libby at June 16, 2007 06:55 AM
Nbob, if the operational details failed to prevent a scam in the first place, then those operational details need to be changed anyways, right?
Besides, it's a very lame excuse for a party that hasn't learned one thing since leaving office. Not one thing.
Posted by: Dennis (Second Thoughts) at June 16, 2007 10:10 AM
"Phantom members could mean phantom bookkeeping entries."
...somehow, Edmonton's Liberal Anne McLellan acount comes to mind. Strip joints and vacant lots.
Posted by: tomax7 at June 16, 2007 08:48 PM
 
|
|
