We were played by Council during their meeting November 4th, 2025. The name of the play could have been “Let’s Pretend to Support the Mayor’s Motion While Rendering it Useless”.
No wonder Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson seemingly opposed his own motion. By the end of the meeting, the approved motion was no longer the same motion the Mayor proposed. Like the numerous ways Council undermines the Mayor’s ability to act, they effectively neutralized his motion.
A Performance Review
I’m highlighting Armchair Mayor Mel Rothenburger’s critique of the performance: ROTHENBURGER – Mayor puts on an unmayoral performance at meeting. I read Mel’s article and agreed with it. I couldn’t believe the way the Mayor acted and I even reached out to the Mayor and suggested he consider apologizing. He immediately said no, and and after reviewing the performance again, I’m glad he didn’t heed my suggestion, as I was wrong.
It didn’t take long for social media to light up debating the Mayor opposing his own motion. The usual trolls were quick on the draw to point this out as another reason not to support the Mayor. Some supporters, including myself, were shocked and embarrassed by the performance, while others were just as quick to defend him.
A Repeat Performance
While preparing this article, I rewatched and listened to the lengthy discussions and decisions on the Mayor’s motion. By the end of it, I developed an entirely different understanding of what happened. It was like rewatching a confusing movie and the lights coming on the second time around.
I realized I just watched what looked like a carefully choreographed production. It was completely naive of me to believe these 8 councillors woke up one morning and decided to support the Mayor’s motion. It occurred to me that the Mayor was prepared for anything Council wanted to throw at him, and handled it with a surprising amount of patience and a sense of humour.
The Rehearsal
In the past, there used to be Agenda Review meetings that were closed to the public. Likely due to the increased scrutiny of meetings where a quorum is present, this practice was discontinued. Now, we have a closed Council meeting the morning of the Regular Council meetings.
The problem with these closed Council meetings is that the public has no idea what was discussed, or even what was on the agenda. There are no recordings. If there are minutes, no one can be sure they are accurate.
In the case of the Mayor’s motion, there is no evidence to confirm or deny whether it was discussed during the closed meeting that day. The unusual alignment of Council strongly suggests it was discussed, and even if there wasn’t a vote, a strategy appears to have been decided on, and everyone knew their parts.
Why Bother With a Performance?
Strong Public Support
The City received quite a number of emails showing support for the Mayor’s motion. While Council has shown a tendency to ignore public input, something was different this time. That may be due to the 2026 election drawing closer.
Election Getting Closer
So far, only the Mayor and Councillor Mike O’Reilly have indicated that they plan to run for Mayor in 2026. The remaining councillors have not disclosed their plans yet. With an increasing call to oust the whole council, it makes sense that they would be trying to put their best foot forward for the remainder of their term.
The Opening Act
Immediately before the Mayor’s motion was addressed, Councillor Kelly Hall took a full 6 minutes to read out his notice of motion to be addressed at the next council meeting.
While many may have considered a nap during all the whereases, they may have missed one of the most significant parts to taxpayers. That was item 2 in the motion: include funding options to support the construction of new recovery-oriented supportive housing within Council Policy EDS-19 Affordable Housing Reserve Fund.
To me, that sounds like Hall would like us to give even more money to ASK Wellness and CMHA to build recovery oriented shelters. Isn’t that generous of him? I’m not sure where he proposes to get that money from.
Ironically, if the Mayor’s motion passes as presented, we may finally find out whether we should have given and continue to give money to ASK Wellness and CMHA in the first place.
The Main Event – Mayor’s Motion
I’ll be the first to admit, this is a long post. Feel free to skim this section. If you want to review the drama in more detail, you’re welcome to click the headings to reveal the detail.
On cue, Councillor Nancy Bepple butts in before the Mayor can read his motion. She wanted the Mayor to remove the term “drug housing” as she feels it’s a stigmatizing term and contrary to their civil discourse statement.
I’m surprised Bepple brought up the civil discourse statement. If she was truly concerned about that, why would she interrupt in the first place? It would have been much more respectful for her to wait until the discussion of the motion to have her turn to state her opinion and request.
When the Mayor attempts to speak, Bepple says “No, I haven’t finished talking”. Quite an attitude considering the Mayor didn’t give her permission to speak in the first place.
Not surprisingly, the Mayor wasn’t willing to budge on his wording. In his opinion, that’s the term used by shelter residents and by individuals he knew, who have died over the years. In his view, he uses the term intentionally, and out of respect for those individuals.
To my surprise, Councillor Bill Sarai seconded the Mayor’s motion “for discussion”.
Councillor Dale Bass sticks up her hand, and Bepple who sits right beside her, ignores her hand and interrupts with a motion for an amendment to remove “drug housing”. Bass seconds it.
Sarai suggests the Mayor will have more success addressing the government without using derogatory wording.
Councillor Katie Neustaeter delivers one of her now famous monologues. At one point, she says “I support removing this because I believe it will be better for your objective. I think it will help to actually achieve what you’re looking for”. She then graciously suggests “let us help craft something that we believe will be successful and also reflects the values of the City of Kamloops”.
When the Mayor responds, Neustaeter tries to interrupt him a couple times, resulting in him calling her Out of Order.
Bass delivers a passionate, angry, and bitter sounding scolding to the Mayor. She starts out with “Just to clear the record up, you seem to think you’re the only person who’s ever walked into a shelter before”.
Bass also objects to calling facilities “drug houses”, noting that many residents are not drug users or addicts. She finishes her tirade with “… you need to stop saying you’re the only person who has ever stepped into a shelter or spoken to an unhoused person because some of us do it, and we don’t have to toot our own horns”.
Mayor: “You don’t live it every day. I live it every day. […] And I’m not saying we don’t need harm reduction, so don’t put words in my mouth”.
Bass: “Do you follow me around every day? Do you see what I see every day? No. Do not talk about me and do not talk like this because you are insulting many people”.
Mayor: “What do you think you’re doing to me?”.
Bass: “What should be done”.
As the Mayor attempts to get back on track, Sarai interrupts with some advice for the Mayor. Bepple offers another interruption and asks about voting on the language amendment she motioned for.
Corporate Officer (CO) Maria Mazzotta summarized what she’s heard so far and advises the Mayor: “If you feel and Council feels that there’s been sufficient discussion on the amendment, what I’m hearing is that there’s a desire to have you call that vote”.
Councillor Hall also has concerns: “there’s a couple of points on your motion that I find difficult to support, and one of them was the inflammatory language that we’re talking about right now”.
It’s easy to overlook, but Hall doesn’t disclose the other point he has an issue with.
Finally, the Mayor is permitted to call for a vote on the amendment. Of course, he is the only one who opposes.
Sarai leads further discussion with “Now that we’re discussing your notice of motion, there’s actually some really good information and requests in there…”.
He suggests rather than asking for an audit of facilities, they team up with other interior communities. Now, Sarai might have made some good points, but from my perspective, he’s talking about an entirely different motion. A worthy motion, which Sarai should present separately. Throughout Sarai’s commentary, Bass puts on her best bobblehead impression.
The Mayor responds that he doesn’t want to wait. Part of his response includes the statement “We have more harm reduction facilities per capita than anybody in British Columbia”. He then calls on Bepple to speak next. Twice. Sarai however wasn’t having it and interrupted.
Sarai addresses the Mayor with “…you’ve stated some facts, Mr. Mayor … but I need the public and the media to know that the facts that you’re telling people aren’t true”.
I know. Sarai is the last person we expect to hear the truth from. And in this case, you didn’t. The Mayor did say “A lot of communities don’t have the same problems”. He didn’t say no other communities have harm reduction facilities, or that Kamloops has the most ever in BC.
As for whether we have the most facilities “per capita”, or if the Mayor misinterpreted something Ravi Kahlon said, who really knows? I think we can all agree however, that Kamloops has seen more than its fair share of facilities sprinkled across our community, and there doesn’t seem to be an end in sight.
O’Reilly takes exception to the Mayor being the advocate, stating “Advocacy is a very big part of what we do as council, but we do it as a council and not an individual person. And so I would like to make an amendment that Reid personally advocates with the Safety and Security Committee”.
O’Reilly’s motion passes with only the Mayor opposing this amendment. It’s no surprise the Mayor opposed it as that particular committee is made up of Councillors Neustaeter as chair, Sarai, and Karpuk. That kind of collaboration would be worthy of an event of its own, with Karpuk likely delegated to being the referee.
Councillor Hall now reveals the 2nd point he has an issue with. He wants the focus to be on a provincial review of housing policies and the outcomes.
Hall imparts some of his wisdom before submitting to his tendency to provoke the Mayor: “… unfortunately, Mr. Mayor, I don’t see you as our spokesperson”. The Mayor responds with: “Councillor Hall, you thought that the night of the election”.
Hall: “I don’t see you as our spokesperson for many reasons. We’re seeing it here today. […] seeing your reaction around the horseshoe today, as well as the challenges that we have with code of conduct violations, confidential breaches”.
Mayor: “mostly dismissed. Don’t forget to talk about that”.
Hall: ”WorksafeBC proven cases. I just can’t support the fact that this guy can actually lead us to success down at the province”.
The Mayor obviously has reason to suspect Council’s discussion points were predetermined. He asks: “I drove by here yesterday, and there was a lot of Councillors’ cars in the parking lot. Did you have a council meeting over this prior to this meeting?”. That was a rhetorical question, and one that the Mayor has asked in the past.
After the Mayor makes a comment about the committee writing a letter to the province saying Kamloops doesn’t need a review of properties, Neustaeter comments on it.
She says the letter wasn’t because they didn’t think a review was valuable. Instead, she firmly blames the Mayor saying “It’s because we were told by the minister repeatedly, which members of the media can confirm, that because you had poisoned that well, no one was willing to drink from the cup”.
Neustaeter also indicated that a prior request was not entertained “because of the stigmatizing language, which is why we continue to try and support a motion that this council can see as being productive in the future”
She followed that with “And it feels like you’re very defensive about this, but this is how it works for all of us. Anyone who tables a motion, a lot of that work is usually done in the background. […] When we have to work that out in real time, because you won’t talk to us, engage with us, but go to Facebook instead, it does mean that at this table, we have to have these conversations to bring something forward we can all support”.
According to the Mayor, he asked his fellow councillors for input on his motion prior to this meeting, but received no response. I can relate, and so can others, to sending emails to Council and receiving no reply.
During the exchange, Neustaeter also describes how she goes about preparing a motion that “can probably be successful around the horseshoe”. When the Mayor retorts “success, what successes have you had?”, Neustaeter proceeds to rattle off a list of things the Council has done.
That list sounded familiar, and it turns out that was a previously prepared list. She had also included the list in an email reply to a citizen.
The Mayor responded by noting, “Until you deal with the root cause of the problem, you’re gonna have to keep getting more police, more fire, more security, more ambulances, more, more, more; cost to the community, lots”.
Councillor Stephen Karpuk takes his kick at the can. After talking about collaborating, he hits the Mayor with “your demeanor […] is not in a body language that’s conducive to working well with others”.
Bepple tells the Mayor “I’m hoping for some success for you”. She says it’s more important to audit BC Housing’s criteria and “focusing on the service providers isn’t going to get the change we want”.
Time for a spirited exchange between Sarai and the Mayor. Sarai sounds genuinely helpful when he says “I’m trying to help this get to where you want it to get. I think your best bet right now is to say yes, I’ll work with the committee…”.
Councillor Margot Middleton indicates she can support the amended motion. She then cautiously words her concerns “it’s difficult for me […] to not see this as […] an opportunity to go after the nonprofits”.
She finishes up by telling the Mayor: “I will support it with the amendments. […] from what you’re saying, if this motion passes with the amendments as we’ve indicated, then you’re out on this. […] that you’re going to just claim that you’ve been pushed out of this, this is not your motion anymore, you don’t support it?”.
Middleton asks: “…if this motion passes as amended, will you participate?”, to which the Mayor responds with “I already did. There it is. Pass it out to everybody …”.
Hall starts with “I can’t support this”. He further says: “… you don’t even want to participate. So unless that changes, I can’t support it. […] We need you to participate!”.
Between Middleton and Hall, it seems to be very important that the Mayor supports the amended motion and participates in “crafting” the letter. Of course doing so would stifle any further objections from the Mayor. Should he say anything down the road, Council can say “You supported the motion” and “You helped craft the letter”.
While Bass is speaking, the Mayor comments “Great”. Bass immediately yells at him: “Excuse me, let me finish! I am speaking, not you! And I’m a little tired of you interrupting my colleagues!”.
The irony here is that Bass’ colleagues have been interrupting the Mayor throughout this meeting.
Councillor Hall is still concerned about the Mayor’s participation. He says: “… if we have the … committee […] crafting up a letter to the province […] my understanding is the Mayor doesn’t want to be a part of that committee”.
The Mayor replies: “Actually, I want to give you my motion and work with that, if you could. I’d like to see the way you’d like to craft it. I’m really interested to see what you’re going to craft”.
Hall reveals his real concern: “…if you don’t like what we craft, you go out into the community and you talk”.
Hall, in what appears to be a genuine spirit of cooperation, offers to include the Mayor’s letter in the motion Hall gave notice of earlier.
“I have a notice of motion that will be presented … at the next council meeting … to request a meeting so that we can discuss whatever letter is crafted. I would be open to that opportunity to have that presented along with the items that are on the notice of motion”.
That’s very generous of you Councillor Hall. I wonder though, what prompted you to present your motion in the first place? On this particular day?
After what seems like forever, the Mayor is able to call for the vote. The amendments if you recall are around making the Mayor work with the committee. He and Bass are the only ones to oppose the vote. The Mayor clarifies: “I’m opposed to the amendments”.
Neustaeter uses this as an opportunity to try to start an argument with the mayor: “We voted on the amendment like two hours ago”.
The Mayor asks the CO to clarify what they voted on and that should have been the end of it. It appears Hall had something to say though, and the Mayor responds with “Okay, you guys, we need microphones back here. We need them bad, and you wouldn’t be talking near as much”.
Oh, We’re Not Done Yet
Hall Later Struggles
Almost a half hour later, while on a completely unrelated agenda item, Hall decides he’s not done yet. Out it comes: “… something that I just struggle with, and I hate to go back in time and have to talk about this letter that we’re going to be crafting to the province. I think it’s incumbent upon us to ensure that the motion includes that we’re looking at the province … and not the providers”.
The Mayor asks: “Aren’t we done with that?” and Hall replies : “No, we’re not”. CO Mazzotta: shares “…there may be a desire to speak further to the question of what was determined under your notice of motion today”.
The Mayor suggests: “Maybe you can speak to that at the Safe and Secure Committee”. Hall isn’t satisfied with that: “I’d like to speak to it right now”.
After a brief interruption by Bepple, the Mayor calls the vote on the current agenda item. He then asks: “Now, are we going back to the notice of motions?”. CO Mazzotta explains: “… What’s left on the agenda is the Mayor’s Report. However, if you wished to invite further comment on that…”. The Mayor responds with: “I think we’re done with that. We’ve discussed it for … two hours”.
Mayor’s Report
As the Mayor attempts to start his Mayor’s Report, Hall speaks over the Mayor “I’d like to address the motion… The way the notice of motion is written is talking about the providers and not the programmers. And I think that is wrong”. CO Mazzotta finds some procedural stipulations and concludes that Hall can bring forward a reconsideration of that motion.
Hall makes it pretty clear he doesn’t want any focus on the providers: “… focus needs to be on the programming and not the providers. […] the way the motion is worded the focus is on the providers and not the programs that are offered by the province. … it puts the providers in a real challenged position. […] it’s gonna cause a nightmare”.
Council votes to revisit, and the motion to revisit is opposed by the Mayor, Karpuk, and Neustaeter. It passes, meaning Hall can continue flogging what used to be the Mayor’s motion.
Revisiting the Motion
Don’t Look at the Social Agency
Hall expresses his concern: “… the alternate motion has to include that we take a look at the actual provider of the services and the outcome […] as opposed to … the accountability and the measurables of that particular social agency”.
After another 10 minutes of discussion amongst Council and staff, they land on an amended motion. Bass suggests: “What about a motion just removing all of the references to the agencies?”. Bepple seconds, they vote, and the Mayor opposes it.
The Motion
What the Mayor Wanted
- A request for an audit of taxpayer-funded BC Housing harm reduction/drug housing facilities including shelters and supportive housing facilities operated by non-profit social service agencies within Kamloops
- Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson … be authorized to personally advocate on behalf of Council and the City of Kamloops
What the Mayor Got
- all instances of the term “drug housing” removed
- Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson, together with members of Council’s Safety and Security Select Committee, be authorized to advocate
- A request for an audit of taxpayer-funded BC Housing programs, including shelter and supportive housing programs
The Result
At the end of the day, the resulting motion ended up being a well censored version of the original motion. Without a doubt, this is no longer the Mayor’s motion.
Bottom Line
All in all, Council put on a hell of a show. They had me fooled first time around. They managed to make the Mayor look like an argumentative ass, who can’t get along with others, and is unwilling to give an inch.
In the long run, Council has again revealed that the Mayor is the one listening to the public’s concerns, while they continue to put their own interests ahead of ours.
Watch it Yourself
If you’ve got a couple hours to spare, you can watch Council’s stellar performance yourself.
As a bonus, you’ll get to see that your Mayor, in addition to wanting to hold shelter providers accountable, is also sincerely interested in getting more support for shelter residents AND staff. The rest of Council on the other hand, seems more interested in protecting shelter operators from public scrutiny. I wonder why that is?
The Mayor’s Motion
Hall Struggles With the Motion
Election 2026
The next election is October 17, 2026. If you were considering voting for any of the current Councillors, I urge you to reconsider.
- Kamloops Council: Amusing Us to Death
- Kamloops City Council: Modern-Day Roman Emperors — But with Ice Arenas and Costumes
- Kamloops Violated Spirit of AAP Guide
- Thou Shalt Not Complain
Its critically important for you to get out there and vote. Let’s vote for a Council that actually listens to its electors!
When the city first started useing the default approval process many years ago we were told that it was to save money in the cost of a referendum and would only be used when it was already a forgone conclusion that the initiative would pass. The office of the city administrator has been boiling the frog (taxpayers) a little bit more ever since. The previous vote on the theatre failed so no one could say that default approval would be an acceptable option. Omnibus with sports facilities. Announced in July when less people are here to see what is going on. I trust that Kamloops taxpayers are smart enough to make the right decision but city hall was too lazy to properly explain and sell us on the project. Instead they used the alternate approval trick. They have stolen your right to vote. Next they’ll say “Oh we always do it that way” These councillors and the administrator should all be sacked to send a clear message to future occupants of these chairs that this behaviour will not be tolerated