Mike O'Reilly wants Kamloops residents to ask him questions. I like that.
The councillor and mayoral candidate recently posted a video called “Elected Officials Read Social Media Messages.” He reads some of the comments and questions he's received over the past month, including a few that aren't exactly going to win any awards for civility, and then answers some of the more serious questions.
At the end of his post, it says, “Stay tuned for Episode 2!” After Episode 1, I'm definitely staying tuned. Mostly because I have some questions.
Some of them came from a comment I left on O'Reilly's Facebook post. He replied, which I appreciated, because not all councillors do. Yes Councillors Nancy Bepple, Margot Middleton, and Katie Neustaeter, I mean you.
The problem is O'Reilly's reply didn't answer my question. He made a statement that just didn't make sense to me.
Let's start with the question I asked
I thought my question was fairly simple:
Why has no code of conduct complaints been filed against the councillors who participated in and voted on removing the public’s ability to submit code of conduct complaints WHILE they themselves were the subjects of active code of conduct complaints by a member of the public?
Instead of answering my question, O'Reilly said the issue was “in and around one member of the public that was abusing the system.” He identified former councillor Denis Walsh as that person and said Walsh had submitted four complaints.
O'Reilly then said: “At the time the total cost of investigating all 17 Code of Conduct complaints had reached $93,033.97.” Of that amount, he said $66,411.46, or 71 per cent, was spent investigating Walsh's four complaints.
Okay. Let's go back to 2023.
Six complaints
When Council discussed changing the Code of Conduct bylaw on August 15, 2023, there were 6 complaints, not 17.
During the Public Inquiries portion of the meeting, Denis Walsh told Council that he had submitted four of the complaints, and why.
When former CAO David Trawin was asked about the number of complaints they had, he told Council:
"Right now. I believe we are going through six complaints, I believe."
I'm not sure why so much of O'Reilly's reply is almost word-for-word from a CFJC Today article. The article was published in February 2024, several months after Council changed the bylaw.
Nobody had decided the six complaints were frivolous
During the August 15 meeting, a member of the public asked Trawin how many of the six complaints had been judged as frivolous. Trawin answered:
"I haven't judged any of them; they've been all forwarded out to an independent party and I'm not aware of the completion of any of those at this time."
So, Council wasn't looking at six complaints that had already been found to be frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith. It was looking at six complaints that were still being investigated, and Trawin specifically told Council he had not judged any of them.
The Mayor wasn't enthusiastic about the idea
Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson wasn't convinced. He pointed out that Kamloops had about 100,000 residents and only six complaints had been received in the first few months of the new Code. He asked why Council was changing a process it had only recently adopted.
Members of the public had similar concerns. Walsh pointed out something that seems fairly obvious in hindsight: the proposed amendment already gave the City a way to deal with complaints that were frivolous, vexatious, made in bad faith or unrelated to an actual Code of Conduct breach. Another resident pointed out that nobody even knew yet whether the six complaints were valid.
On August 29, O'Reilly moved to adopt the amendment and Bepple seconded it. Council passed it. And the public lost its ability to file a Code of Conduct complaint directly with the City.
Which brings me back to “abusing the system”
This is the part where I start scratching my head. If the complaints were confidential, what did O'Reilly actually know about them?
I'm not saying councillors weren't entitled to know anything. There may have been information they were allowed to know. But O'Reilly is now telling the public that Walsh was “abusing the system.”
There was a legitimate concern about cost. Trawin told Council that the investigators were lawyers charging more than $300 an hour, and Council had to decide whether that was a reasonable way to handle future complaints. Fair enough. But that's not the same as saying one particular resident was abusing the system.
If O'Reilly knew who had made the complaints, did he also know who the complaints were against? If he knew what they were about, what did he know that led him to conclude Walsh was abusing the system? And if he didn't know enough about the complaints to judge whether they were legitimate, how did he know Walsh was abusing the system?
Councillors Stephen Karpuk, Katie Neustaeter, and Bill Sarai all had active complaints against them, but they were to be kept confidential. And nothing in the discussion indicates that Trawin's concerns had previously been discussed with Council. In fact, he described the concerns as his own, which he was bringing forward to Council.
Maybe there's a perfectly good answer. I'd like to hear it.
Let's look at what happened to Walsh's complaints
Walsh's four complaints were numbered 2023-0003 through 2023-0006. The City's current records show those four complaints cost $66,411.46 to investigate.
Sure, that's a lot of money, but expensive doesn't automatically mean frivolous. And I can't find anything on the City's current Code of Conduct investigation page saying that Walsh's four complaints were frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith.
Two were dismissed. Another, 2023-0004, alleged that Neustaeter gave a misleading answer to a member of the public. That complaint was dismissed.
One of them, 2023-0005, gets a little more interesting. Most of it was dismissed, but one part went to an investigation. The investigator found a trivial Code of Conduct breach by Sarai, caused by an error in judgment made in good faith.
No penalty was recommended. So Walsh wasn't right about everything. But one of his complaints did result in a finding that a councillor had breached the Code.
That's a little odd if the whole thing is being summarized as one citizen “abusing the system.” Maybe there's another part of the story I'm missing. Again, I'd like to hear it.
And then there's 2023-0001
This is where I have to admit I find the whole thing a little ironic. Complaint 2023-0001 was about misleading the public.
Neustaeter complained about the Mayor, and the investigator ultimately found that the Mayor had breached the Code's rule dealing with communications that are false or misleading. That same rule is still in the Code. The rule applies to Council members, including O'Reilly.
Section 3.11(a) says members must make sure their communications about City, Council or Committee business are accurate and must not issue communications they know, or ought to know, are false or misleading.
O'Reilly's comment about Walsh was made while discussing City Council business. I can't help wondering if by doing so O'Reilly himself breached the same section of the Code of Conduct. Unfortunately, there's a slight problem with that.
I can't actually file the complaint
I can't submit a Code of Conduct complaint about O'Reilly's statement. Not because the rule doesn't apply to him. It does. Whether his statement actually breached that rule would be for an independent investigator to decide.
I can't submit a complaint because the public's ability to file Code of Conduct complaints directly with the City was removed in 2023. And the councillor who moved that change was O'Reilly. You just can't make this stuff up.
I could go to the B.C. Ombudsperson, but according to CBC, the Ombudsperson doesn't investigate complaints about elected officials. So the public can't use the City's Code of Conduct process, and the Ombudsperson isn't a replacement for it.
Which leaves me in the slightly ridiculous position of looking at a statement made by an elected official that may raise a question under the City's Code of Conduct, while being unable to ask the City to apply its own Code of Conduct.
Surprisingly, the Ombudsperson's office has accepted complaints I have filed in the past. I can't speak to why.
Jay Chalke was worried about this kind of thing
This isn't just something I came up with after reading O'Reilly's comment. Former B.C. Ombudsperson Jay Chalke spent years raising concerns about the way local governments handled ethics and integrity.
In March 2025, Chalke wrote to then-Minister Ravi Kahlon saying B.C.'s voluntary approach was “far too weak.” He was concerned that local oversight bodies could be created by local governments and then changed through local bylaws or political decisions. The Ombudsperson's office said local ethics and integrity bodies needed better protection so they could operate independently and effectively.
Chalke wasn't talking specifically about Kamloops. But look at what happened here. Kamloops adopted a Code of Conduct in May 2023. Three months later, Council changed it and removed the public's ability to make complaints directly.
Chalke's concern about local councils being able to change their own accountability systems isn't hard to understand.
O'Reilly now wants fair and predictable processes
There's another reason I find this interesting. O'Reilly has been involved in efforts to strengthen rules around the conduct of elected officials. He was part of the working group that helped inform the Province's move toward a mandatory province-wide Code of Conduct.
When the Province announced the new legislation, O'Reilly was quoted in it, saying:
“Having predictable, fair processes in place helps councils focus on effective governance and responsible use of local tax dollars.”
He also talked about the need for “clarity, consistency and a fair process for addressing conduct issues.” I agree with him. Which is why I think it's fair to ask whether those same principles should apply here.
If elected officials need predictable and fair processes when questions about their conduct come up, shouldn't the public get a predictable and fair way to raise those questions?
Now, about those flowers
Let's stop for a minute and smell the flowers. In his video, O'Reilly addressed someone's statement about flowers not being sent to the Mayor's wife until after Mel's article. I'm pretty sure I made that statement myself.
O'Reilly explained that they didn't send flowers to the hospital because the area where the Mayor's wife was staying wouldn't accept them. He said that after the Mayor and his wife returned home, flowers were sent to their house but were immediately returned.
Fair enough. But there are other ways of saying, “We're thinking about you.” A card comes to mind. A small gift or a plant, if appropriate, would be another possibility.
O'Reilly says he did reach out privately by email and didn't make an announcement at Council because he wanted to respect the Mayor and his family's privacy. I haven't been able to independently confirm when that email was sent, so I'm taking him at his word for now. But this is where I think the timing matters.
Although O'Reilly knew the Mayor's wife was in the hospital and he wanted to respect the family's privacy, the Mayor's absence from a council meeting soon became a very public matter. I wrote about that in Well Played, Councillor O'Reilly.
If privacy and concern for the family were important enough to keep his personal message private, it's fair to ask whether that same consideration should have been shown when the Mayor's absence became a public issue.
Was there something going on between O'Reilly and Walsh?
I don't know. But I think it's reasonable to ask.
O'Reilly could have said that four complaints from one person had the potential to create a large investigation bill and that Council decided the system needed to change. Instead, he said one person was “abusing the system.” Why?
Was there some history between O'Reilly and Walsh? Was there something about Walsh's behaviour that O'Reilly believes justified those words? Or is O'Reilly simply looking back at the four complaints and the eventual cost and describing them that way?
I don't know. But he chose the words. If there's something behind them that I'm missing, I'd like to know what it is.
I also wonder about the way Council talks about the public
This isn't just about O'Reilly. I've noticed quite a few comments over the years about residents being unreasonable, asking too many questions, taking too much time or misusing public processes.
We've heard complaints about people going over their time during Public Inquiries. We've heard Neustaeter talk about “trigger-happy” people calling in crimes every five minutes.
Some of those complaints may be completely justified. People can be rude. They can waste staff time. They can make ridiculous complaints. But there's a difference between dealing with unreasonable behaviour and treating public participation as the problem.
That distinction matters when Council is deciding how much access residents should have to the City's accountability processes.
One little thing caught my attention
During the August 15 Public Inquiry, O'Reilly raised the five-minute speaking limit while Walsh was still speaking.
O'Reilly wasn't the only councillor to ever raise concerns about people going over their time, and I'm not suggesting that one incident proves anything about his attitude toward the public. But the timing caught my attention. O'Reilly raised the time issue before Walsh had actually reached the five-minute limit.
On its own, I don't think that's a big deal. But when I put it beside O'Reilly's recent description of Walsh as someone who was “abusing the system,” I think it's worth mentioning.
What about Councillor Bass?
O'Reilly says one member of the public abused the Code of Conduct system. That raises another question.
Councillor Dale Bass has filed a substantial number of Code of Conduct complaints, and some of those investigations have become very expensive. So I'd like to ask O'Reilly:
Does he believe Councillor Bass has abused the Code of Conduct complaint process?
I'm asking whether O'Reilly applies the same standard to councillors that he applies to members of the public.
If four expensive complaints from a member of the public are enough to call it “abusing the system,” what number of complaints from an elected official would meet that standard? And if the answer is different, why?
So what should happen?
I don't think I should decide whether O'Reilly breached the Code of Conduct. That's what an independent investigation is for. Unfortunately, I can't ask the City to do that because the public no longer has that option.
So I'd be satisfied if another member of Council submitted a complaint and allowed an independent process to decide whether O'Reilly's statement was a breach.
That seems fair to me. It would also give O'Reilly the same sort of fair and predictable process he has said elected officials need. If nobody is willing to do that, voters are left to make their own judgment.
As for me, if O'Reilly can't explain or back up his accusation that Denis Walsh was “abusing the system,” I think he should resign.
That's my opinion. Readers can decide whether they agree.
A few questions for Episode 2
O'Reilly has invited people to send him questions, so here are a few I'd like to hear him answer:
- What information did you have about the complaints when you moved the amendment in August 2023?
- If the complaints were confidential, what led you to conclude that Denis Walsh was “abusing the system”?
- Where does the City's record say that Walsh's complaints were frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith?
- Why did you refer to 17 complaints when there were only 6 when you moved the amendment?
- Why did you use the $93,033.97 figure without explaining that it was the amount reported as of February 7, 2024?
- Did you believe Walsh's complaints were less reasonable than complaints made by councillors?
- Did you consider whether there was a conflict or other concern with councillors participating in the decision while they were subjects of active complaints?
- Was there a personal issue between you and Denis Walsh?
- What did you know about the Mayor's wife's hospitalization when the Mayor's absence became a public issue?
- Why did you make your mayoral campaign announcement on the front steps of City Hall?
- If you believe elected officials need predictable, fair and consistent conduct rules, are you willing to have your own statement examined under those rules?
And the question I'd most like answered:
What evidence do you have that Denis Walsh was “abusing the system”?
I hope there is an Episode 2
I appreciate O'Reilly's willingness to engage with people. He's reading the criticism out loud, answering questions and inviting people to send him more. That's better than avoiding difficult questions.
But answering questions isn't just about being willing to talk. It's also about answering the question that was actually asked.
I asked why no Code of Conduct complaints had been filed against councillors who participated in changing the complaint process while some of those councillors were themselves subjects of active complaints.
O'Reilly didn't answer that question. Instead, he told people that one member of the public was “abusing the system.”
When I went back and looked at the record, I found 6 complaints, not 17. None of those 6 had yet been found frivolous or vexatious when Council made the change, the eventual cost was unknown, the Mayor challenged the amendment, members of the public challenged it, and O'Reilly moved the amendment that removed the public's direct access to the process.
The $93,033.97 figure he quoted was real. We know where it came from. It was the amount reported by CFJC in February 2024 based on the City's February 7 information. But it wasn't the final cost, and it tells us nothing about what Council knew in August 2023.
None of this proves that Walsh's complaints were all reasonable. It does leave me wondering what evidence O'Reilly had when he decided to describe Walsh as someone who was “abusing the system.”
That's a question I'd like answered. After all, he's the one who invited us to ask.
O'Reilly ends his post by saying, “Stay tuned for Episode 2!” I hope he means it. After all, if he's willing to keep answering questions, I'd be happy to keep asking them.
I'd probably start with my initial question, which I remind you, wasn't actually answered.
Municipal Election 2026
October 17, 2026
It's important for all of us to get out there and vote. Please remember to only vote for candidates you truly believe are deserving of a seat at the council table. If that's only one or two of them, that's the only ones you should vote for.
Editorial Disclosure: I am the publisher of Kamloops Critic and have previously written about Mike O'Reilly, Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson and other members of Kamloops Council. Some of the issues discussed in this article also relate to my own experience with the City's accountability processes, including previous Code of Conduct complaints and complaints made to the B.C. Ombudsperson.
I have expressed support for Reid Hamer-Jackson's re-election as Mayor. I am not affiliated with his campaign, Mike O'Reilly's campaign, or any other municipal election campaign, and I have no personal or financial relationship with O'Reilly.
I have tried to distinguish documented facts from my own observations, opinions and conclusions. The factual portions of this article are based on Council agendas and minutes, meeting recordings, City documents, Code of Conduct investigation records, public social-media posts, court proceedings, provincial government and B.C. Ombudsperson material, and other publicly available sources. Where I have been unable to independently confirm something, I have said so.
The Code complaint that took the longest time and cost most of the $66,000 was Walsh’s claim that Coun. Neustaeter lied to a member of the public when she told them that there hadn’t been a meeting to draft the March 17/23 “statement” to media. In that investigation, it was found that there was indeed a meeting, but that Coun. Neustaeter didn’t understand the definition of a meeting and so her lie was made in good faith. It was a rubbish determination, since if the same had happened with the mayor, he would have been severely sanctioned.
ignorance of the law is no excuse. [maxim]
no one is above the law, especially public/elected officials [maxim]
point of light is each public agent, whether elected or employed has to have two things; one is a licence to operate, dictating what is within their scope of office and what they are liable for.. anything outside of that scope is then a tort,
second thing is a bond/indemnity/insurance that indemnifies their actions when inter actin in the public.. there should be no public money spent on these little spats. the bill goes to the indemnifier, [a large corporate lawyers group in vancouver indemnifies all BC municpalities] and like a driver’s license, if you get to many claims or events, they increase your rates, and eventually can’t drive.. its sad to see time and time again government officials on all levels placing themselves above the law, never being held accountable.
but I have a question< WTF TOOK ALMOST 70 GRAND TO INVESTIGATE THE INCIDENT OF KATIE LYING ABOUT PUBLIC MEETINGS.. IT SHOULDN'T AHVE TAKEN MORE THAN A COUPLE GRAND.. THERE ARE RECORDINGS THAT ARE EASILY LISTEN TO, what, about 10-15 minutes of dialoge, a monkey could have figured it out.. better yet.. have a volenteer of our peers on a board to hear these complaints.. easy peasey
O’Reilly has but a few short weeks to persuade people to vote for him. He has spent most of the last four years showing that he is a bully. O’Reilly seems to have a difficult time understanding how much he is disliked by so many people who have followed local politics.
And by the way, Kamloops Critic, great photo of O’Reilly. I’ll be able to recognize him if he comes to our front door while he is on the campaign trail.