On October 22 at 11:00 a.m., I hand-delivered to the election president (who is also the municipality’s director general) the information requested by the revision commission, following a summons seeking my removal from the electoral list. On October 23, late in the morning, I went back to check with the election president whether any additional information was required. No request was made of me, and at no time was I able to meet with the revision commission.
On October 23 at 1:46 p.m., I was removed from the electoral roll by the review commission, without even meeting the people who represent it, on the grounds that the information I provided was deemed insufficient.
No response from the revision commission or the election president
At 3:00 p.m. on October 23, I immediately requested the written reasons and the documents used to make this decision, as well as the names of the people sitting on the commission. I still have not received any response. The commission concluded its work at 4:00 p.m. on October 23, as announced by the returning officer himself. It was therefore impossible for me to obtain explanations regarding the reasons and basis for the decision, or to submit additional documents—even though the removal cites a lack of information.
Who sits on North Hatley’s revision commission
Wishing to know the commission’s composition—and having received no answer from the returning officer (director general)—I conducted my own research. To my surprise, it is composed entirely of municipal employees, namely:
- Mathieu Abran, Building Inspector
- Marie-Pier Roy, Administrative Assistant
- Matthieu Simoneau, Assistant Clerk–Treasurer
- Benoit Tremblay, Director General and Clerk–Treasurer
Reference: Administrative staff of the Municipality of North Hatley
The municipal chief executive, who is the boss of the employees, sets up the committee
It is the election president—who is also the municipality’s director general and the supervisor of municipal employees—who establishes the revision commission and designates, from among the three revisors, the chair and the vice-chair. Two revisors constitute a quorum; decisions are made by majority vote, with the chair holding the casting vote in the event of a tie. Before refusing an inscription or striking an elector from the list, the commission must, to my understanding, give the person one clear day’s notice. This allows the commission, in the event of new facts or if the person was unable to present their observations, to review or revoke its decision.
Appearance of conflict of interest
I am not questioning the right of municipal employees to sit on the review board. However, in my view, this raises questions about the administrative neutrality of the process and the decisions rendered. This is especially true given that I have been questioning the work of these same individuals for several months.
