Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!

Code of Conduct complaint investigator Sarah Chamberlain’s report finds Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson guilty of misleading the public. Look beyond the guilty verdict and draw your own conclusion. Below is my review of that report.

Oct 2024 Report

Witness “A”

Witness “A” is Joshua Knaak, known to Councillor Neustaeter, and a financial contributor to her campaign. Witness “A”’s spouse is Nikole Knaak (Peters), also known to Councillor Neustaeter, and also a financial contributor to her campaign.

The Complaint

Councillor Neustaeter complained about comments made by the Mayor and his counsel to media, specifically alleging:

• That the Mayor misled the public into believing that her public statement on Mar 17, 2023 was responsible for accusations about the Mayor’s alleged sexual impropriety towards Ms. Knaak, and a later confrontation with Mr. Knaak
• That the Mayor discriminated against her, on the basis of gender, age, and physical appearance when his counsel made comments to the media
• That the Mayor “endorsed and perpetuated the misogynistic view with his own statements and support of the position.”

This is a frivolous complaint. If the Knaak incident is well known to the Council, why would anyone question whether the Mayor has been negatively impacted by the Council’s statement? What is to be gained by claiming he wasn’t? What was the intent for this complaint and investigation? It appears to have been submitted in attempts to minimize the Mayor’s claim of defamation, and perhaps in retaliation.

The Mayor emailed his concerns to Council on Apr 13, 2023, prior to filing a lawsuit. Did the Council respond to his concerns, or did they ignore his email as it seems they do with many of the public’s emails? Why didn’t the Council simply release a statement indicating there was no intent to imply any sort of sexual misconduct?

The Investigation

The investigator’s determination of the Mayor’s credibility is flawed and likely biased. Both the Mayor and Councillor Neustaeter said the Knaak incident occurred on Mar 31, 2023, while Mr. Knaak stated Mar 9, 2023. Given the significance of whether the incident occurred before or after the Mar 17, 2023 statement, why challenge the Mayor rather than Mr. Knaak on the date of the incident?

The investigator seemed frustrated by the Mayor’s refusal to provide names of citizens, and comments on it repeatedly and extensively:

• …stated he did not want to provide the names of individuals … given the ongoing Civil Claim
• …declined to provide the name of the citizen he was referring to
• …no valid reason based in civil law and procedure for the Mayor’s refusal to provide the information sought … I informed the Mayor of this determination … and requested particulars of the identity of citizens
• I advised the Mayor that absent his participation and willingness to provide particulars, I might draw an adverse inference against him
• I requested a meeting and he declined to participate and asked for questions in writing
• …he believed that disclosing names of the individuals who had allegedly spoken to him without receiving their consent was a breach of their privacy, despite my original assurances that the law did not prevent him from disclosing these names
• …both declined to provide me with the names of these individuals
•  I will address the impact of their refusal
• … evidence they provided to support their refusal was relevant to my assessment of credibility.
• …declined to provide particular details
• …advised that his failure to attend and provide the names of individuals … may result in an adverse inference being drawn against him
• … already advised him there was no legal basis for refusing to provide the information sought
• He bears some onus to provide evidence in this investigation to substantiate that what he claimed 
• …repeatedly refused, on various basis, to provide information to support his assertion
• …has provided inconsistent reasons for refusing to provide the names of the citizens 
• Given the Mayor’s unwillingness to provide names

I find that the Mayor not providing names was in the best interest of citizens: Who cares if he provided names of people who said things to him? Why did this matter? If the Mayor provided names, who knows how the public may have reacted to those individuals, or how it may affect their futures in this small town? And let’s not forget, this is Kamloops; people yell from cars here.

The words “violation of personal and professional boundaries” can easily lead a person (myself included) to think they may imply unwanted physical touching and/or sexual impropriety. It is not unreasonable in a city of 100,000+ that at least 2 others agree with me. If you don’t want people to jump to conclusions, try being a little clearer.

His reasons for not providing names were not inconsistent. He presented two reasons. His accounts of incidents were not inconsistent. He provided multiple accounts. When the Mayor requested questions by email, why weren’t they provided. Why would he attend another meeting only to be hounded by this obsession to gather names of citizens?

Assessment of Credibility

How is this not a joke? The investigator used a legal case from 1951 as her test. That was 73 years ago! It was based on some guy who wrote a private letter to a buddy and mentioned that some people said a woman might be pregnant. The woman found the letter and claimed libel because it reflected on her chastity. Here’s a link for reference: https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/1951/1951canlii252/1951canlii252.pdf

Words of wisdom regarding determining credibility reference cases even further back in time. It suggests that a credible witness has a consistent story, and a practical and informed person would think it probably true. It also implies that a skilled liar cannot provide a consistent story. 

How naive were they back then? Using this ancient test, it’s no wonder there are many cases of innocent people being incarcerated. 

Anyone hearing the Mayor speak would note that he has a tendency to stray from the topic at hand, and return to the topic with additional content. As I have a similar tendency, I can attest to this not being an effort to be evasive or untruthful. I’ve just got a lot going on in my head at any given time. I offer my sympathy to those with ADHD or any other applicable condition being subjected to this test.

Addressing the Mayor’s refusal to provide names, she references a couple other cases:

• “…an unfavourable inference can be drawn when, in the absence of an explanation …”
• “Where the explanation is satisfactory, no adverse inference will be drawn.”

Explanations were provided, but were apparently not satisfactory. Satisfactory to who?? To an investigator obsessed with acquiring some names?

Mysogyny Accusation

Although the investigator found that “the Mayor cannot be held responsible for the conduct of his legal counsel that was not based on his instructions, and the McMillan Comment does not constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct by the Mayor”, the Mayor’s reputation has been further damaged by the claim itself. This is evidenced by a recent article written by Councillor Neustaeter’s former campaign manager: “The mayor’s misleading misogyny”.

McMillan’s comment was a fair statement and in no way misogynistic to my knowledge. Having a “background in communications”, Councillor Neustaeter can be assumed to be well aware that interpretation of a message can easily be influenced by any number of characteristics of the messenger. McMillan chose kind words in his description of Councillor Neustaeter. Failure to recognize that may be symptoms of low self-esteem, imposter syndrome, or some other issue. Regardless, there was no ill intent, and it was not helpful to suggest the Mayor would endorse any misogynistic behaviour.

Jan 2024 Addendum

Knaak Incident

The date is confirmed to be Mar 31, 2023, AFTER the Council’s statement.

What was that? Mr. Knaak was uncertain on the date in the initial interview? The investigator failed to mention that in the report, although she noted confronting the Mayor with the discrepancy.

Mr. Knaak refuses to provide his spouse’s contact info as she’s concerned about retaliation from the mayor. He can refuse, but the Mayor can’t? What retaliation would she be concerned about given the accusation and her identity was already common knowledge at the time? 

Applying the investigator’s own credibility test, and given:

• I’m a practical and informed person,
• the incident occurred two weeks after the Council statement, 
• Mr. Knaak hadn’t previously mentioned the incident with his spouse that allegedly happened months ago to the Mayor 
• Mr. Knaak’s spouse reportedly introduced herself and a tequila drink to the Mayor
• The Mayor reportedly doesn’t drink tequila, and his family could vouch for that
• The Mayor’s wife was reportedly present
• Mr. Knaak continues to say the incident had no connection to the Council’s statement

Ok, I’m going to put it out there. I think the Mayor is probably telling the truth again, and I don’t think Mr. Knaak’s statements are very credible. And how many women approach a man whom their husband dislikes, introduce themselves, and offer him a drink? Probability…low.

The Council Statement

I’m reminded that the statement was primarily due to committee changes the Mayor made, where he added public representation and input. As evidenced during a recent Council meeting, Councillor Hall has made it quite clear that members of the public are not welcome on the committees. 

I’m also reminded that Councillor Neustaeter wasn’t affected by committee changes, yet was selected as the messenger due to her “background in communications”. Given that background, I wonder why she allowed wording as vague as “violations of personal and professional boundaries”.

It seems she had a personal bone to pick, despite one of the councillors feeling it was a mistake for her to make reference to her “personal stuff”. As noted in the initial report, she “provided evidence about interactions between her own parent and the Mayor she believed were inappropriate”.

Conclusion

This investigation was a result of a frivolous complaint, and was a waste of taxpayer money.