When a system designed to protect the public interest becomes a tool of attrition, accountability itself is at risk.
Introduction: Accountability or Attrition?
Codes of Conduct exist to ensure ethical governance, protect the public interest, and maintain trust in elected officials. In Kamloops, however, the volume, cost, repetition, and framing of Code of Conduct complaints raise a harder question:
Has accountability become a political weapon—used disproportionately against the Mayor—rather than a neutral safeguard?
This article examines the City of Kamloops’ own records, attached investigation reports, and reporting from CFJC Today, Castanet Kamloops, and iNFOnews. It identifies troubling patterns: repeated use of a single high-cost investigator, inconsistent explanations of investigator selection, a concentration of complaints from specific councillors, and a media narrative that places responsibility for ballooning legal costs almost entirely on the Mayor.
This is not a defence of misconduct. It is a demand for process integrity, proportionality, and transparency.
What the City’s Own Website Reveals
The City of Kamloops maintains a public Council Conduct Investigations webpage that lists complaints, outcomes, investigators, and—in some cases—costs.
On its face, this appears transparent. Read closely, however, and several facts stand out:
- One investigator, Reece Harding (Young Anderson), has handled the overwhelming majority of investigations.
- Investigations conducted by Harding routinely cost tens of thousands of dollars, with some exceeding $60,000.
- At least one investigation conducted by a different investigator, Sarah Chamberlain, cost a small fraction of that amount.
The City justifies repeated use of the same investigator on grounds of “efficiency” and “consistency.” The cost data seriously undermines that claim.
The Cost Disparity Problem: Harding vs. Chamberlain
Based on City disclosures and media reporting:
Investigator Cost Comparison (Publicly Reported)
- Sarah Chamberlain — one investigation (2 complaints), under $10,000
- Reece Harding — multiple investigations, typically $30,000–$60,000+ per file
The City has never publicly explained why comparable Code of Conduct matters require radically different expenditures, why lower‑cost qualified investigators are not routinely rotated in, or why cost containment appears absent from the selection process.
Investigator Selection: What the CAO Actually Said
Officially, the City states that investigators are chosen based on qualifications, independence, and availability. CAO Byron McCorkell clarified the process in a council meeting, saying:
“The investigator is selected through a process of lawyers that are prepared to do the investigations. They have to be of legal status. We get the ones that are available to do the work. And the bill is what the bill is. […]
And it gets put out to a group of investigators who are prepared to do the work. And so it’s not we don’t select them. It’s who is available. And they select whether they can do the work in a timely fashion for us. […]
If an investigation is required, the request is made to get an investigator to investigate. That’s a staff purview. But the system provides us who the investigator is, not us. We don’t go and phone a bunch of people. We say, ‘We’ve got some work out there. Please provide an investigator.’ Investigator puts their hand up. We get whoever it is.”
While this clarifies that staff do not handpick investigators arbitrarily, the near-exclusive reliance on one investigator, Reece Harding, over multiple complaints still raises questions about transparency, cost, and rotation. The system may be designed to be neutral in theory, but in practice, repeated use of the same high-cost investigator has significant fiscal and perception implications.
Complaints as a Political Strategy
Patterns also emerge when examining who files complaints.
Councillor Dale Bass has been a frequent complainant against Mayor Reid Hamer‑Jackson. While councillors have a duty to raise legitimate concerns, volume matters—especially within a fractured council.
Important context often omitted from public discussion:
- Several complaints have been dismissed or withdrawn.
- Many involve procedural or interpersonal disputes, not corruption or personal gain.
- Every complaint, regardless of merit, triggers an expensive legal process.
The Code of Conduct does not meaningfully distinguish between serious ethical breaches and minor disputes. That structural flaw invites misuse.
Media Framing: How the Mayor Became the Cost Villain
Local reporting routinely emphasizes that the Mayor is involved in many complaints and that investigations are expensive.
What is often missing is institutional context.
The Mayor does not select the investigator, set hourly rates, decide whether complaints proceed, or control how the Code is structured or enforced. Yet public blame for rising costs is frequently personalized and directed at him alone.
What iNFOnews Adds
iNFOnews has reported that Council refused to pay the Mayor’s legal bills arising from Code of Conduct investigations, leaving him personally responsible for significant legal costs. This complicates the narrative that the Mayor is simply spending taxpayer money without restraint.
The Bias Question: When the Investigator Investigates Himself
After Mayor Hamer‑Jackson alleged bias and requested a different investigator, Reece Harding conducted a review of his own impartiality and concluded that no disqualifying bias existed.
The City accepted that conclusion without external review.
Even if no actual bias exists, allowing an investigator to rule on his own neutrality fails the appearance‑of‑fairness test and undermines public confidence.
One‑Way Scrutiny and Structural Imbalance
Across multiple reports, critics have pointed to heavy reliance on staff accounts, expansive interpretations of confidentiality provisions, and limited scrutiny of councillor conduct unless a formal complaint is filed.
The resulting dynamic is predictable: the Mayor is repeatedly investigated, while councillors face little scrutiny unless the Mayor initiates complaints himself—complaints that are more likely to be dismissed early.
The Bigger Problem: Institutional Failure, Not One Man
The evidence does not support the claim that “the Mayor is the problem.” It points instead to:
- A Code of Conduct with no cost controls
- A non‑transparent investigator selection process
- Repeated reliance on the most expensive investigator
- A council culture that resolves conflict through legal process rather than governance
- Media narratives that personalize structural failure
This is not accountability. It is dysfunction with a paper trail.
Conclusion: Reform or Continue the Farce
If Kamloops City Council genuinely values accountability, it should:
- Publish a full list of approved investigators
- Rotate investigators as a rule
- Introduce cost caps or proportionality thresholds
- Separate serious ethical breaches from minor disputes
- Prohibit investigators from ruling on their own alleged bias
Until then, taxpayers are entitled to ask:
Is the Code of Conduct protecting the public—or being used to politically exhaust one elected official at public expense?
Kamloops deserves better than governance by invoice.
Editorial disclosure: This article critiques governance process and institutional design. It does not deny substantiated findings nor allege improper motive without evidence. Its purpose is to assess whether Kamloops’ accountability framework operates fairly, proportionally, and in the public interest.
great article.
I called the city switchboard between xmas and new years. I asked who the “mayor of the month” was for January. They didn’t know as they hadn’t received the schedule for 2026 yet. I asked if I addressed something to Reid Hamer-Jackson would he receive it or the “mayor of the month”. I was told I could address it to Mayor Hamer-Jackson but he doesn’t pick up his mail very often.