Nelly Kicks O’Reilly’s Rebuttal

At the September 23 Chamber of Commerce and Castanet Kamloops mayoral forum, Mike O’Reilly used his rebuttal time to challenge Nelly Dever’s record on arts and culture. His argument was straightforward: Dever had opposed the purchase of the former Kamloops Daily News building, spearheaded the PAC Not Yet campaign, and set up booths opposing the Alternative Approval Process (AAP). Taken together, he said, these actions showed “a track record of not supporting the arts with capital investments in our facilities.”

It was a serious criticism. If a mayoral candidate says she supports arts and culture but has repeatedly opposed the investments needed to provide them, voters have reason to ask questions. But there’s another question worth asking: Do the examples O’Reilly cited actually support the conclusion he drew from them?

I went back to the record. What I found was a more complicated history than his rebuttal suggested.

What O’Reilly Said

The exchange began with a question from the arts community about the role arts and culture should play in Kamloops’ growth, and what candidates would do to get more economic and community benefit from cultural investments.

Dever said arts and culture were incredibly important. She recalled supporting more than $200,000 for consultation on a performing arts centre when she was a councillor in 2011. She also said she had advocated from the beginning for a public-private partnership that could reduce the burden on taxpayers. One possibility she raised was a performing arts centre with housing, apartments or a boutique hotel above it, potentially generating revenue that could support other economic ventures.

O’Reilly was given 60 seconds for a rebuttal. He responded:

“When the Kamloops Daily News building came up for sale you were the one lone councillor that voted against the purchase of that for a potential performing arts center. You spearheaded the PAC Not Yet program during the referendum and I believe that was for $49 million. And then subsequently when the AAP process came forward you had booths set up in and around your business which is your right but there is a track record of not supporting the arts with capital investments in our facilities.”

The argument tied three examples together to support one broad conclusion: Dever’s record showed that she did not support capital investment in the arts.

Dever didn’t accept that characterization. She acknowledged that the two of them could go back and forth about it all night, then returned to the point she said she had made from the beginning: partnerships.

She explained that she had supported the revised arts-centre business case and had asked councillors to make sure taxpayers were properly informed about the AAP. She said she had publicly expressed support for the new business case while also asking the City to do its due diligence and inform residents about the process.

Dever also recalled O’Reilly responding to her public comments by saying, “If it’s not done the Nelly Dever way, it’s never good enough.”

The exchange was pointed, but it left an important question unresolved. Was Dever opposing the arts centre itself, or was she challenging how it would be financed and how residents were being asked to approve the borrowing?

The historical record helps answer that question.

The Daily News Building: What Was the Purchase For?

O’Reilly’s first example was Dever’s vote against the purchase of the former Kamloops Daily News building. He described the property as being purchased “for a potential performing arts center.”

Dever was indeed the lone councillor to vote against the purchase. A March 13, 2014, Castanet report described her as the only member of council opposed to the $4.8-million purchase. But the report described the proposed purchase as being for future downtown parking infrastructure, and it reported that Dever had argued the City could get a better deal and should consider a public-private partnership.

I also reviewed the City’s April 1, 2014, staff report, Property Purchase for Downtown Parking Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 14-1-173. The report asked council to establish an Alternative Approval Process to authorize $4.8 million in borrowing to purchase downtown property for parking. The proposed elector notice identified the properties as 393 Seymour Street and 368 Fourth Avenue and described their intended use as downtown parking.

The City’s Alternative Approval Process webpage also lists the 2014 process as “Property Purchase for Downtown Parking,” with borrowing of $4.8 million.

That is what the formal borrowing documents said the money was for. The records I reviewed do not establish that the property could never have been considered for another use, or that a performing arts centre was never discussed as a possible future use. But they do establish that the stated purpose of the 2014 borrowing process was a downtown parking purchase.

That distinction matters when assessing O’Reilly’s example. A vote against buying property for a stated parking purpose is not, by itself, proof that someone opposed investment in the arts. To make that case, more context is needed than the fact that Dever was the only councillor to vote against the purchase.

Her reported concerns about the price and the possibility of a public-private partnership also fit with the position she expressed at the 2026 forum: that the City should look for ways to reduce the cost to taxpayers.

PAC Not Yet: Against the Arts Centre, or Against the Financing?

O’Reilly’s second example was the PAC Not Yet campaign during the referendum on borrowing for a performing arts centre.

The name could easily leave the impression that the group opposed a performing arts centre altogether. But contemporary reporting tells a different story.

In a November 9, 2015, iNFOnews report, Dever was identified as a spokesperson for PAC Not Yet. The report said the group supported an arts centre but objected to a financing model that placed the burden on property taxpayers. It favoured greater private-sector participation and considered possibilities such as housing above the facility to generate revenue.

That position is consistent with what Dever told the mayoral forum. She was arguing for a different financial model, not saying that Kamloops should never have a performing arts centre.

There is an important difference between opposing a project and opposing a particular way of paying for it. Residents can support a public facility while disagreeing about its cost, the amount taxpayers should contribute, the role of private partners or whether the proposed business case makes sense. Those disagreements deserve scrutiny, but they should not automatically be treated as opposition to the facility itself.

There is also evidence that Dever later supported a revised proposal. In November 2019, CFJC Today reported that Dever appeared before council in support of the revised arts-centre business case. She said the burden on taxpayers had been reduced and that the proposal offered a better balance between public and private contributions.

That does not mean every concern Dever raised about the project was necessarily correct, or that her preferred approach would have worked. It does mean that a fair assessment of her record should include her subsequent support for the revised proposal.

O’Reilly was entitled to challenge her history with PAC Not Yet. But using that campaign as evidence that she did not support arts investment leaves out a significant part of the story: the group’s stated support for an arts centre, its objections to the financing, and Dever’s later support for a revised business case.

The AAP Booths and the Question of Public Information

O’Reilly’s third example concerned booths set up in and around Dever’s business during the Alternative Approval Process. He acknowledged that this was her right, but included it as another piece of evidence that she did not support capital investment in the arts.

Dever’s response was that she had supported the new business case and had urged councillors to make sure taxpayers were informed about the AAP. Her objection, as she described it, was not that the City should never build an arts centre. It was that residents needed enough information to understand what they were being asked to approve.

I can’t independently verify every detail of the booths O’Reilly referred to from the forum exchange alone. But I can assess the distinction at the heart of their disagreement. Taking part in opposition to an AAP does not, on its own, establish that someone opposes the underlying public facility. It depends on what the person was opposing and why.

I had my own experience with public understanding of the AAP process in 2024. I sought out the Kamloops AAP Vote group at its table in front of the Cooper Centre because I wanted to meet people who shared my concerns about how the process was being presented. I spent about two hours helping fold flyers. During that time, I was surprised by how many people who approached the table seemed unaware of what an AAP was or that one was underway.

That was my personal observation over a limited period, not a survey of Kamloops residents. It cannot establish how informed the public was as a whole, nor does it tell us what happened at Dever’s business. But it explains why I take questions about public information seriously. When a borrowing decision is put to electors through an AAP, residents need to understand what is being proposed and how they can respond.

The City’s AAP process is a legal mechanism for determining whether elector opposition is sufficient to prevent a proposed borrowing bylaw from proceeding without a referendum. The fact that someone questions the process, or urges the City to do more to inform residents, does not automatically mean they oppose the facility the borrowing would fund.

Dever said she supported the revised arts-centre business case while asking the City to do more to inform taxpayers. The 2019 reporting supports her claim that she had publicly backed that revised proposal. Her concerns about the AAP process should be assessed on their own merits, rather than treated as proof that she opposed the arts centre.

What Does the Record Actually Show?

The three examples O’Reilly chose are not irrelevant. Dever voted against the 2014 property purchase. She was associated with PAC Not Yet during the earlier borrowing debate. And she was involved in activity surrounding the later AAP, according to O’Reilly’s account.

But the meaning of those examples depends on their context.

The formal City documents describe the 2014 borrowing as a purchase for downtown parking. Contemporary reporting says PAC Not Yet supported an arts centre but opposed the proposed financing. And reporting from 2019 records Dever’s support for a revised arts-centre business case.

Those facts do not prove that Dever’s position on every arts-related decision has been right, or that her preferred public-private partnership model would necessarily deliver better value. Voters can reasonably ask how such a partnership would work, who would carry the risks, what public control would be retained and whether private revenue could realistically offset the cost to taxpayers.

Those are substantive questions about policy and judgment. They are more useful than simply labelling a candidate as either for or against the arts.

O’Reilly’s rebuttal took three examples and used them to support a broad conclusion about Dever’s record. The difficulty is that the examples, when examined, do not all mean what that conclusion suggests. Opposition to a particular purchase or financing plan is not necessarily opposition to the public facility itself.

Nelly’s Response Was Ready — and Measured

I’ve met with Dever previously and have spoken with her on a couple of other occasions, including at Pivot Kamloops events. I also watched her at the September 23 forum. In those interactions, I have not heard her express opposition to arts or to the performing arts centre. What I have heard are concerns about financing, the use of the AAP process and whether residents are being adequately informed.

That is my experience, not proof of everything Dever has said or done over the years. It is, however, consistent with the public record I reviewed for this article.

At the forum, Dever did not simply dismiss O’Reilly’s criticism. She explained her position, referred to the PAC Not Yet material and described her efforts to have taxpayers informed about the AAP. I thought she was prepared for the challenge and defended herself with grace.

O’Reilly was entitled to question her record. Mayoral candidates should be challenged about their decisions, especially when public money and major civic projects are involved. But voters also deserve enough context to judge the answer for themselves.

In this exchange, Dever used her response to explain the distinction between supporting an arts centre and supporting a particular financing plan. The historical reporting gives that explanation substance.

This Isn’t the First Time I’ve Questioned O’Reilly’s Account or Judgment

Readers of Kamloops Critic may recognize that I have questioned O’Reilly’s statements and decisions before. That history is relevant to understanding my perspective, but it should not substitute for checking the evidence in this case.

In “Well Played, Councillor O’Reilly,” I examined O’Reilly’s public account of whether Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson had contacted him before a June 23, 2026, council meeting. O’Reilly acknowledged that he had blocked the mayor’s text messages since October 2024. I questioned whether his account gave the public a complete picture of the circumstances.

In “Calling Bullshit: O’Reilly and the Flowers,” I examined his explanation for why flowers had not been sent to the mayor’s wife while she was in hospital. I checked the hospital’s published guidance and contacted the hospital. The information I found did not support his explanation as presented, although some details surrounding the circumstances were confirmed.

In “O’Reilly Breaches Code of Conduct with Mayoral Bid,” I questioned his judgment in announcing his mayoral campaign on the steps of City Hall, given the questions that raised about the Code of Conduct and the use of municipal resources in an election campaign.

These are different situations. They do not establish that everything O’Reilly says is inaccurate, and they should not be treated as a substitute for examining the evidence in this case. They do explain why I believe his claims deserve to be checked rather than accepted at face value.

Watching the exchange with Dever, I found myself asking a similar question about his judgment in choosing to frame her record this way. She was prepared for the criticism, defended her position with grace and pointed to a consistent argument about financing and public information. Whether O’Reilly anticipated that response is something I can’t know. What I do know is that the exchange gave the audience an opportunity to hear Dever explain her position for herself.

My Assessment

My assessment of Nelly Dever remains Cautiously Recommended. As I spend more time listening to candidates and examining their records, my opinion of her has improved. That doesn’t mean I agree with every position she takes, or that she should be exempt from tough questions. It means I believe her record should be assessed fairly, with the same attention to context and evidence that I would expect for any candidate.

The question raised by O’Reilly’s rebuttal was whether Dever’s history showed that she opposed investment in arts and culture. The material I reviewed does not support that broad conclusion. It shows a candidate who has questioned the cost and financing of major projects, advocated for public-private partnerships and later supported a revised performing arts centre proposal.

Residents may disagree with her approach. They may believe the City should finance cultural facilities differently, or that a public-private partnership is not the right answer. Those are fair arguments to have.

But there is a difference between challenging how a project is financed and opposing the project itself. O’Reilly’s rebuttal blurred that distinction. The record is more nuanced, and voters deserve to see it that way.

Editorial Disclosure: I have met with Nelly Dever previously and have also spoken with her at Pivot Kamloops events. I observed her response to Mike O’Reilly during the September 23, 2026, Chamber of Commerce and Castanet Kamloops mayoral forum. My assessment of her preparation and manner during that exchange reflects my own observations.

I have also published previous Kamloops Critic articles critical of Mike O’Reilly, including articles examining his public statements and judgment. I recognize that this history may lead readers to question whether my coverage is fair. For that reason, this article focuses on the specific claims made at the forum and compares them with contemporaneous reporting and City records. Readers can review the linked sources and reach their own conclusions.

My current Kamloops Critic assessment of Nelly Dever is Cautiously Recommended. That assessment is my editorial judgment, not an endorsement by any other organization or individual.