On December 9, 2022, Kamloops City Council gave Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson a confidential letter outlining concerns about his conduct. Among those concerns was a threatening phone call that then-CAO David Trawin reportedly received in the early hours of December 8.
Council's letter described the incident as a reason for the Mayor to exercise greater judgment in his public comments. A little over a month later, Castanet published a story about the alleged threat, quoting Trawin's account of what happened.
But where is the evidence that independently establishes what happened during that call? And why did an incident that Trawin reportedly considered relatively minor become part of the public dispute between the Mayor and City Hall?
Those questions become more interesting when we compare the letter, the media report and text messages the Mayor later disclosed.
What Council told the Mayor
The December 9 letter is unusually direct about confidentiality. On its first page, Council told Hamer-Jackson that the letter contained in-camera information under section 117 of the Community Charter. It said he could not share the document or its contents with anyone, including his legal advisers, unless Council expressly authorized it.
Council explained that disclosure could jeopardize the City's legal position and expose the municipality to legal and financial risk.
On page 3, the letter referred to a threatening telephone call received at a residence in the early hours of December 8. Council said the caller appeared to believe that someone was working against the Mayor. It added that it wasn't raising the incident to blame Hamer-Jackson directly, but because public comments by elected officials can have significant consequences for City staff and the municipality.
That was Council's stated position. The letter doesn't explain what evidence Council had about the call, whether anyone heard a recording or how the caller's identity was established.
The distinction matters because Council wasn't simply acknowledging an allegation. It was using the incident to reinforce its concerns about the Mayor's public conduct.
What Castanet reported
On January 15, 2023, Castanet published a story titled “City CAO threatened by person claiming to be Hamer-Jackson supporter.”
The report described a voicemail allegedly left at Trawin's home at approximately 2:30 a.m. The caller reportedly told Trawin to ease up on the Mayor and watch his mouth, or he would face consequences.
Trawin told reporter Kristen Holliday that he knew the caller. He said he didn't feel the incident warranted contacting police and explicitly rejected the suggestion that Hamer-Jackson was responsible for the call.
Those comments are important. Trawin described a threatening message, but he did not accuse the Mayor of arranging it or blame him for the caller's actions.
The published report records what Trawin told the journalist. It doesn't say whether the reporter heard the voicemail herself, whether Trawin supplied a recording, or whether anyone else independently verified the caller's words.
The text messages
According to text messages disclosed by the Mayor, he asked Trawin:
"the phone at your residence that was supposed to be my supporter but I didn't know him or play soccer with him. I felt with that threatening call there should have been a file number in case that person escalates his actions against you. Just my thinking"
Trawin's reply was:
"As per your supporter, threatening phone with me, I know the person I did not feel that I was in any danger from him"
Where is the recording?
If a voicemail was left, there may have been a recording. I haven't seen one in the material available to me.
That doesn't establish that a recording never existed. But the absence of a publicly available recording raises a reasonable question, particularly given the role the allegation played in Council's letter and the subsequent media coverage.
Did Trawin retain the voicemail? Did he provide it to the reporter? Did Council members or City staff hear it before referring to the incident in their letter? If a recording existed, was it preserved?
The answers would help readers distinguish between an allegation supported by a recording and an account that rests on someone's recollection of a phone call.
There may be legitimate reasons why a recording wasn't made public. But that doesn't answer the underlying question of what evidence was available to those who relied on the account.
If no recording existed, that too would be useful information. It would mean readers must assess the allegation on the basis of testimony and any other corroborating evidence, rather than the voicemail itself.
A curious detail about the caller
There is another detail that deserves a closer look.
Trawin reportedly described the caller as someone who played soccer with Mayor Hamer-Jackson. The Mayor has said he never played soccer in Kamloops and did not know the person.
If Trawin knew the caller, how did he know the caller had played soccer with the Mayor? Did the caller identify himself that way? Did Trawin learn it from someone else? Or was it an assumption about the caller's relationship with the Mayor?
The original report doesn't answer those questions. It's difficult to see why someone leaving a threatening voicemail would necessarily mention a soccer connection, although the caller may have done so. Without the recording or a fuller account of how Trawin identified the person, we cannot establish where that detail came from.
The claimed connection helped frame the incident as involving someone associated with the Mayor. If that connection was never verified, readers should know that. If it was verified, the source of that information should be clear.
The question is straightforward: what was the basis for saying the caller played soccer with the Mayor?
Who decided to take the story to the media?
How did the story reach Castanet? Did Trawin decide on his own to discuss the incident with a reporter, or was he encouraged or directed to do so by Council or City administration?
Council was already dealing with a difficult public dispute with the Mayor. Its December 9 letter raised the alleged threat as part of its concerns about the consequences of the Mayor's public conduct. A month later, Trawin discussed the incident with Castanet.
Was this simply Trawin's decision to speak publicly, or was the media coverage part of a broader communications effort? Did any communications strategy address the incident, and if so, what did it say?
The available documents don't answer those questions. They are worth asking because the answers would help explain how the incident became part of the public dispute.
Confidential for the Mayor, but what about everyone else?
The confidentiality warning in Council's letter raises a related question.
Council expressly told Hamer-Jackson not to disclose the letter or its contents without authorization. Yet the alleged phone call described in that letter was discussed publicly with local media.
The restriction was directed at the Mayor, so it doesn't automatically establish that Trawin was prohibited from discussing the underlying incident. But it does leave questions about how the information was handled. Was the incident itself considered confidential? Was Trawin authorized to discuss it? Did Council know he had spoken to the media?
The letter doesn't answer those questions, and its confidentiality warning alone cannot establish what rules applied to Trawin.
The later history of the letter adds another layer. The City eventually released it during the summer of 2025, and shortly afterwards it was used in Councillor Katie Neustaeter's application to dismiss the Mayor's defamation lawsuit against her. I wrote about that in The Mystery of the Released Letter.
The letter had originally been presented as a confidential record whose disclosure could expose the City to legal and financial risk. It was later released in the interest of transparency and subsequently became evidence in litigation involving one of the councillors who signed it.
That sequence doesn't establish that the release was improper or intended to benefit Neustaeter's defence. It does raise questions about the decision to release the letter, the timing and the consequences of making it public.
Why was the letter released when it was? What considerations did Council weigh before authorizing its release? And how did Council reconcile its original warning about legal exposure with its later decision to make the document public?
Questions the public still deserves answers to
After reviewing the letter, the media report and the text messages, several questions remain:
- Where is the voicemail? Does a recording exist, and if so, who received or reviewed it?
- What did the reporter verify? Did Castanet's reporter hear the recording or rely on Trawin's account?
- What evidence did Council have? Did Council members hear the recording or independently verify the incident before referring to it in their letter?
- Where did the soccer connection come from? How did Trawin know the caller supposedly played soccer with the Mayor?
- Who initiated the media coverage? Did Trawin speak to Castanet on his own, or was he encouraged or directed to do so?
- Was a communications strategy involved? Did any City or Council communications plan address the incident?
- What confidentiality rules applied? Was the underlying allegation considered confidential, and was Trawin authorized to discuss it?
- Why was the letter later released? What considerations led to its release, and what role did the subsequent litigation play in the decision?
These questions don't establish that the call was fabricated, that Trawin misrepresented the caller's identity or that Council directed the media coverage. They identify gaps in the public record that make it difficult to independently assess the allegation and the way it was used.
The voicemail may have existed exactly as described. There may also be a straightforward explanation for why it hasn't been produced publicly. But until we know what evidence was available to the City, Council and the reporter, readers are left relying largely on accounts provided by the people involved.
The issue isn't whether readers should automatically believe one person over another. It's whether the evidence behind a serious allegation can be established, and whether the public can understand how that allegation came to play a role in the dispute between the Mayor and City Hall.
Editorial disclosure
This article is based on Council's December 9, 2022, letter to Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson, Castanet's January 15, 2023, report about the alleged threatening phone call, and text messages subsequently disclosed by the Mayor. It also considers the letter's later release and its use in litigation.
I have not contacted the City of Kamloops, David Trawin or Castanet directly to seek answers to the questions raised here. I have not independently verified whether a recording of the voicemail exists, whether the reporter heard it, how Trawin learned of the alleged soccer connection, or whether Council or City administration played any role in the decision to discuss the incident with the media.
Based on my experience covering City Hall, I recognize that some questions may not receive a substantive response. I have not, however, asked these particular questions, so I cannot report how the City would respond.
The questions and observations in this article reflect my review of the available material. Where the record is incomplete, I have identified the uncertainty rather than treating an allegation as an established fact. This article does not conclude that the phone call was fabricated, that Trawin misrepresented the caller's identity or that Council directed the media coverage.
I may seek further information from the City and other parties as the investigation continues. Any substantive response or new evidence may warrant an update to this article.
This story seems like something out of a poorly scripted soap opera, Kamloops Critic.
I find it odd that Mr. Trawin felt there was no real threat so he didn’t make a police report or have an Officer listen to the recording. Instead, he passed along the information to some reporter or journalist.
Now, is she the one who used to be a hair dresser, went to Langera College for a few months and became a journalist? Is she the one who moved to Kamloops just before the Covid-19 lockdown? Why would Mr. Trawin feel he would be much safer and at peace with the world around him by sharing the intimate details of a phone message received in the wee hours of the morning with a young woman with credentials nowhere close to those of an RCMP Officer?
We may never know, Kamloops Critic.