Less a Debate About Public Engagement, More a Diagnostic Session on the Mayor
On December 9, 2024, Kamloops City Council revisited the contentious motion to suspend Public Input (formerly called Public Inquiries).
What initially appeared as a debate about citizen participation quickly revealed itself for what it truly was: a rotating critique of the Mayor’s meeting management skills.
Public engagement was not so much debated as used as a prop. Councillors expressed theoretical support for reinstating public input — but always contingent on the Mayor behaving properly, a caveat repeated again and again.
Councillors’ “Support” Came With Conditions
Several councillors followed the same pattern: express theoretical support for public participation, immediately shift focus to the Mayor, then condition that support entirely on improved chairing.
Councillor O’Reilly: Support, but only if the Mayor can handle it
Councillor O’Reilly acknowledged that meetings had been “running very smoothly” since public input was removed — not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Still, he insisted he was “open to trying it again” if the Mayor could chair effectively. Otherwise, the suspension should remain.
O’Reilly, who is widely expected to challenge the current Mayor in the October 17, 2026 municipal election, signaled support while voting in favor of extending the suspension — a neat political maneuver: support the principle, blame the person, preserve the status quo.
Councillor Bepple: Only One to Vote Against
Councillor Bepple focused on the Mayor’s role over the public’s, asking if someone else could chair if things went wrong. Corporate Officer Maria Mazzotta clarified this was not possible routinely, reinforcing that the Mayor would remain central to any reinstatement.
Ultimately, Bepple voted against extending the suspension, joining only the Mayor in opposition.
Councillor Hall: Careful Support, Blunt Diagnosis
Councillor Hall recognized the Mayor’s challenges openly:
“We have a challenge with the chair not being able to manage public inquiries. History has shown, history has proven.”
Hall supported a trial return only under tight conditions.
Councillor Sarai: Willing to Try — If the Mayor Proves Himself
Councillor Sarai floated a 30–60 day experimental reinstatement, contingent entirely on the Mayor’s behaviour.
The responsibility for public engagement, in Sarai’s telling, rested almost entirely on the Mayor’s temperament.
Councillor Karpuk and Neustaeter: Support with Caveats
Councillors Karpuk and Neustaeter both expressed concern about procedural control but ultimately supported the suspension, arguing that nothing had changed to warrant reinstating public input at this time.
The Mayor’s Defense: Video Proof or Bust
Rather than addressing procedural issues, the Mayor repeatedly demanded video evidence that he had ever chaired poorly. Anecdotes, past incidents, and grievances from councillors were treated as suspect until “proof” could be delivered via email or archives.
Councillor Neustaeter summarized the situation succinctly:
“This conversation is exactly why I’ll be voting in favor of the motion.”
In other words, the argument against public input was happening live, in real time.
A Curious Double Standard
Council justified suspending Public Inquiries by citing a few “bad apples” in the public and claiming the Mayor could not control them. Staff have since posted extremely strict rules for anyone attending:
- No talking, applause, booing, or any verbal or physical demonstration
- No hate speech, obscenity, defamation, violence, or threats
- No disrespectful, abusive, hurtful, or inappropriate behaviour
Meanwhile, councillors frequently interrupt the Mayor, whisper, call Points of Order, speak out of turn, or stage walkouts — behaviour that would see a member of the public removed from chambers. Yet the public continues to be blamed for any disorder.
Public Behaviour as Pretext, Not Problem
Council’s justification rests on two linked claims:
- Some members of the public misbehaved during Public Inquiries
- The Mayor failed to control them
These claims have been used to justify a full suspension of public participation, even after strict rules were put in place.
Meanwhile, the December 9 meeting itself featured repeated interruptions, cross-talk, and personal grievances aired mid-meeting — without any public present.
The chaos council fears from the public is happening anyway, just with the gallery empty.
Election Calculus in the Mix
With the October 17, 2026 municipal election approaching, conditional support for public input is politically convenient. Councillors can:
- Signal support for public participation
- Criticize the Mayor for mismanagement
- Preserve the suspension without risking actual disruption
O’Reilly demonstrates this perfectly: support the principle, blame the person, avoid consequences.
Who Opposed Extending the Suspension
Only the Mayor and Councillor Bepple opposed the motion. All other councillors voted in favor, albeit some with theoretical or conditional support for reinstatement in the future.
This underscores that opposition was focused on procedural control and the Mayor’s ability to chair, rather than public engagement itself.
Conclusion: Public Inquiries Suspended, Mayor Diagnosed
This was not a debate about public engagement. It was a confidence vote on the Mayor, conducted publicly, one councillor at a time.
The public remains muzzled, while councillors continue to act with impunity. For now, meetings serve less as a forum for citizen input and more as a rotating diagnostic session on the Mayor’s meeting management skills.
You can watch/listen to the debate here:
Pretty sick and tired of having the provinces MOST dysfunctional city council. Not too happy about having the PAC rammed through using underhanded, totally inapropriate approval methods, and getting entirelt sick and tired of triple consecutive double-digit property tax increases all while having ZERO ability to have any personal input at city hall meetings. Is it even legal to completely exclude the tax paying citizens from city hall attendance? I for one, WILL be voting in the upcoming civic election, and will NOT be putting a check mark beside any incumbents name on the ballot.