Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson’s vote is absolutely worthless. Yet Kamloops City Councillor Dale Bass wants to focus on whether the Mayor had a conflict of interest.
Reece Harding, an investigator frequently used by the city, delivered his findings for complaint 2025-0024 on June 18, 2025. Harding declared the Mayor was in a non-pecuniary (non-financial) conflict of interest when he voted on a temporary use permit (TUP) on November 26, 2024.
The Complaint
Bass filed the complaint in January 2025 at a cost of $29,863.65. She alleged the Mayor breached the Code of Conduct (CoC) by voting on a TUP for a highly controversial wet (drug use permitted) shelter to be located at 142 Tranquille Road.
Her issue was that the Mayor had previously declared a conflict of interest in another matter related to local developer Joshua Knaak, and chose to withdraw his conflict for the purposes of this new matter. Knaak is one of the directors of the company who owns the Tranquille Road property.
Harding’s Report
Harding didn’t agree with Corporate Officer (CO) Maria Mazzotta that the Mayor was required to withdraw his conflict before participating in the TUP matter. He states “The matter … does not turn on whether there was a proper withdrawal of a conflict declaration at that meeting”.
He further stated: “I cannot find that Mayor Hamer-Jackson ought to have engaged the withdrawal process” and “Rather, he was required … to consider whether he had a conflict of interest … on the TUP matter.”.
In point 58, he states “… The application of this test requires me to determine that Mayor Hamer-Jackson: (1) had a personal interest in his vote on the TUP application, which is not shared with other electors; and (2) whether a reasonable person might believe that this personal interest could influence his vote.”
In point 64, Harding states “… Hamer-Jackson had a personal interest in Council’s consideration of the TUP application, due to his ongoing lawsuit against the applicant’s principal, Joshua Knaak.” In point 71, he states “… I find that there is a sufficient connection between the lawsuit and the TUP application such that a reasonable person would believe that he voted on the TUP application for reasons that were personal in nature.”
In point 73, Harding states “There is a substantial likelihood that reasonably well-informed members of the public would believe that the Mayor cast his vote in this way to punish or disadvantage Mr. Knaak on the basis of his personal dispute with him.”. However, in point 35, Harding indicates that Knaak “… declined to speculate, when questioned, about whether the lawsuit had anything to do with Mayor Hamer-Jackson’s vote …”.
Although pointing out in point 27 that Bass noted that the Mayor was not required to disclose legal advice if he had obtained it, Harding recommended the Mayor be given another opportunity to “provide the Council with some objective form of proof of the legal advice he claims to have received”. Should that proof be provided, “we recommend that Council … impose no sanctions or other measures against the Mayor”.
Harding further recommended if that proof was not provided, that “the Mayor be required to take personalized mandatory training on his obligations regarding conflicts of interest” and “the Mayor be censured”. Furthermore “should the Mayor refuse or fail to participate and complete mandatory training as noted above within 30 days of Council’s direction, that Council reduce the Mayor’s remuneration by 5% for a period of 12 months”.
You can read the full report here: Investigator’s Report
Council’s Response
After over a month and multiple council meetings had passed since Harding’s report was submitted, Council made their decision on the Mayor’s fate. On July 29, 2025, in a closed council meeting, they decided on the following:
- Hamer-Jackson’s pay will be cut by 10% unless he provides proof of the legal advice he received.
- Hamer-Jackson’s pay will be cut by 10% unless he signs and delivers an apology letter to Knaak.
- Hamer-Jackson’s pay will be cut by 10% unless he takes training on his obligations in respect to conflicts of interest and his oath of office.
- A public censure will be posted on the city’s website.
The Meeting
The TUP section of the meeting was about 3 hours long. There were numerous public submissions both for and against the proposed shelter. Many spoke very passionately about their thoughts and/or concerns. At the end of it, Council approved the application, with the Mayor being the only one to oppose it.
At the start of the discussion, CO Mazzotta asked the Mayor about his legal advice regarding his previously declared conflict of interest. She seemed to accept his response and the meeting moved on.
Almost an hour later, Bass interrupts the meeting to ask the CO if the discussion relates to the agenda item. A couple minutes later, Councillor Kelly Hall asks the CO if the Mayor should be permitted to stay after he told Radio NL that he was opposed to the permit.
Another couple of minutes and Councillor Bill Sarai voices his concerns around the Mayor’s bias. He quotes the Radio NL article’s title: “Kamloops Mayor slams north shore shelter plans ahead of Permit decision”. The Mayor then points out “That’s their headline, not mine”.
You can listen to the full TUP discussion here:
My Finding
As Harding determined the Mayor was not required to withdraw a previously declared conflict, it makes no sense to require him to provide proof of legal advice in regards to it. As Harding also stated no sanctions should be imposed on the Mayor if he provides that proof, it stands to reason that this complaint should have been dismissed.
Although Harding claims the Mayor had a personal interest in the matter, there is no evidence to support that claim.
During the meeting, the Mayor expressed empathy for the homeless and advocated for more services and support for them. He also mentioned multiple times that he would support the application if he was satisfied there was sufficient supports for the residents, it was likely to be successful, and if it would be a dry vs wet shelter. At no time, was there any indication that the Mayor was concerned with who owned the property.
A reasonable person cannot listen to that discussion and believe the Mayor had a personal bias. On the other hand, they may be inclined to believe that Councillor Katie Neustaeter has a pecuniary conflict of interest.
Katherine Wunderlich of local watchdog group Kamloops Citizens United (KCU) pointed out that Knack (and his wife) contributed to Neustaeter’s campaign. A reasonable person could perceive that voting against the application may impact Knaak’s further decisions to contribute to Neustaeter’s campaigns.
Although the Mayor had previously claimed Harding is biased towards him, Harding claimed he wasn’t biased in this investigation. As previously noted, neither the Mayor nor Knaak connected the Mayor’s lawsuit with his vote. Yet somehow, Harding still concluded that there was a conflict due to personal interest related to that lawsuit. As a reasonable person, I am inclined to suspect Harding did have a bias.
Final Thoughts
It saddens me that after hearing all the emotional public submission, Bass felt it was important to submit yet another complaint against the Mayor. Bass should be ashamed of herself for using this particular TUP matter as an opportunity to add to her ever growing list of complaints she has filed against the Mayor.
In my opinion, this was a frivolous and vexatious complaint with little to no consideration of value to the public, and was an irresponsible use of taxpayer funds.
A reasonably informed person knows the Mayor’s vote on ANY matter is absolutely worthless as Council routinely refuses to second his motions, and votes against him.
Although the Mayor moved to amend the recommendation to permit a dry shelter for 20 months, no one was willing to second his motion. The Mayor’s motion was consistent with what the general public wants: dry shelters, not more wet shelters. Council however seemed to prefer ignoring the Mayor’s motion rather than seconding and discussing it.
The Radio NL article that Hall and Sarai were so concerned about, appears to have been originally titled “Kamloops Mayor suggests end to new shelters”. The Mayor expressed concerns that were based on both the public’s concerns, and on his own research and knowledge of Kamloops shelters and the homeless population. Claiming he “slams” the shelter was a bit of a stretch, but apparently it was effective, as that headline managed to grab Hall and Sarai’s attention.
Council let Sarai off with little more than a slap on the wrist for his CoC breach. However, in the Mayor’s case, they went far beyond Harding’s recommendation and decided to cut the Mayor’s pay by up to 30%.
Having the Mayor sign an apology crafted by Council and/or staff is as worthless and insincere as the letters of thanks Council gets staff to send to the various delegations that appear at council meetings
.
Maybe start with the cause of all this – Hamer-Jackson’s irresponsibility. When he ran for mayor, that came with a covenant that he would work in the best interests of the citizens but he’s chosen not to. He’s has not learned one thing about doing his job resulting in not one single motion being brought forth in his time in office that me procedural requirements. He alienated every local player in the addictions and housing community making it impossible for him to work on the agenda he used to get voted. Everything stems from this buffoon being in office and everything else is just a fruit from his poisonous tree. Council needs to make his position as uncomfortable as possible in hopes he will do the right thing and resign.
“Reading this report proves to me how immature this council is. I would expect more respect for our elected mayor for the people by the people.
If this was a play ground it would be called bullying.
Cutting Reid Hammer-Jackson’s pay 30% is unconscionable..
I suggest his pay be reinstated and council grow up..try seconding his motions for discussion.
That’s why we voted him in as our Mayor..