Compliance Audit Application by Marjolein Winterink for the Election Campaign Finances of Ausma Malik

3. The Applicant provided information to the Committee to support the Applicant's belief that the Respondent contravened provisions of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996 relating to election campaign finances. 4. The Applicant raised concerns relating to the Respondent's compliance with the Act. In particular these related to: a. That Schedule 2, Part IV reported an expense of $7,950.00 for "Salaries Fundraiser Services (Independent Contractor)" which is included as an expense that is not subject to spending limits, however, more details are required to ensure this expense is an appropriate fundraising expense not subject to the general spending limit; and b. Specifically, the Applicant submitted that there was a lack of transparency because the disclosure failed to provide sufficient details. 5. The Committee then provided the Respondent with the opportunity to respond. The Respondent and her accountant spoke to the issues raised in the Application. 6. The Respondent submitted that the application should be denied because there was no evidence of any contravention of the Act. 7. The Committee has discretion to determine whether to grant or reject an application. After consideration of the evidence provided, the Committee concluded that the concerns raised by the Applicant were addressed by the Respondent's submissions and that an audit of the campaign's finances would not further the public interest and is therefore not required. 8. The Applicant failed to raise reasonable grounds to believe that there had been an apparent contravention of the Act. 9. For the reasons stated above and in accordance with s. 88.33(7) of the Act the Committee rejected the Compliance Audit Application of Marjolein Winterink for a compliance audit of the Election Campaign Finances of the Respondent, Ausma Malik.