Kamloops Council Minutes Misrepresent How January 13 Decisions Were Made

Municipal council minutes are supposed to be the official historical record of what occurred during a public meeting.

They are relied upon by residents, journalists, lawyers, and courts as evidence of how decisions were reached.

But a review of the City of Kamloops’ publicly posted YouTube recording of the January 13, 2026 Regular Council Meeting, compared against the published agenda and official minutes, shows a troubling pattern. While voting outcomes are usually recorded correctly, the minutes repeatedly omit procedural breakdowns, suppressed questioning, and even an entire vote.

As a result, the document gives the appearance of orderly governance while concealing significant disorder visible in the City’s own video.

How This Review Was Conducted

I reviewed the City’s full YouTube recording of the January 13, 2026 Regular Council Meeting and cross-referenced it with the meeting agenda and official minutes.

All findings below are observable in the City’s own recording.

An Entire Vote Is Missing from the Minutes (Item 10.4)

Under Item 10.4 (Request for a Closed Council Meeting), the City’s video shows the motion first being moved by Councillor Dale Bass and seconded by Councillor Bill Sarai at approximately 1:03:43, followed by a vote.

Later in the meeting (approximately 1:04:06–1:05:17), Councillor Mike O’Reilly and Corporate Officer Maria Mazzotta state that Item 10.4 has not yet been voted on. Councillor O’Reilly then moves the same motion again, seconded by Councillor Katie Neustaeter, and a second vote is taken.

The official minutes record only the second motion and second vote. Notably, the first motion and first vote do not appear anywhere in the minutes.

This is not a matter of interpretation. The first vote is visible in the City’s own video. Council voted twice on the same motion. The official record acknowledges only one.

A Recusal That Occurred — But Was Poorly Administered (Item 9.4)

During consideration of Housing Agreement Bylaw No. 64-8 (1024 8th Street), the Mayor declares a previously disclosed conflict of interest and asks how to recuse while attending by Zoom (approximately 58:16–58:45).

The Mayor expressed uncertainty about how to recuse on Zoom, asked how long he would need to be gone, indicated the Chair (Deputy Mayor Kelly Hall) was not responding to his texts, and after the vote was completed, the Chair openly asked, “C’mon back. Mr. Mayor, where are you?” before the Corporate Officer called for the Mayor to return.

While the Mayor did properly recuse himself and remained absent during the vote, the transcript shows that Council and staff did not manage or track the recusal in a controlled or auditable manner.

The Mayor was not formally advised when the vote concluded and ultimately relied on a third-party journalist to know when to return. The minutes collapse this unmanaged process into a tidy one-minute in/out sequence.

This sequence demonstrates a confused and poorly controlled recusal process that undermines confidence the conflict was properly managed.

Importantly, the issue is not the Mayor’s conduct. The issue is that the City has no controlled, auditable method for administering electronic recusals.

Suppressed Fiscal Questions

During the Capital Projects Update, the Mayor attempts to ask about the Performing Arts Centre budget escalating from roughly $154 million to over $211 million (approximately 1:40:17). In the video, the Mayor’s question is acknowledged, then bypassed.

When the Mayor presses the issue (approximately 1:42:53), the Chair directs him to take the matter “on a sidebar.” A recess follows shortly afterward.

The minutes state only that Council received the report. There is no record that a major public question about cost escalation was raised.

Governance Warnings That Disappear

During Item 10.3 (Request for a Closed Committee of the Whole Meeting), the Mayor states he is opposed and begins referencing Ombudsperson guidance regarding closed meetings (approximately 1:02:55). He is interrupted by the Chair, who calls on the Corporate Officer.

Corporate Officer Maria Mazzotta appeared to be well prepared to address this topic, and to be fair, the Mayor regularly expresses his objections to the many closed meetings this Council conducts:

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. We are aware. Actually, I’m pleased to share that the City of Kamloops has been highlighted as a transparency best practice in that report.

To be clear, the report “Open Meetings: Best practice guide for local governments” simply mentioned in a footnote, Kamloops’ posting of land transactions and legal matters on their website, as an example of releasing minutes and other records after a closed meeting.

The minutes record only the vote.

Conflict Management Problems Are Smoothed Over

During Item 9.3 (Housing Agreement Bylaw No. 64-7), the Corporate Officer interrupts after the vote because Councillor O’Reilly has not yet recused himself due to a conflict of interest (approximately 57:18-58:15).

The minutes present the recusal as already completed.

Minutes Are the City’s Legal Memory

Minutes are not ceremonial paperwork. They are the City’s legal memory.

When minutes omit confusion, suppressed debate, and procedural failures, the public loses the ability to evaluate Council’s performance.

This is not about agreeing or disagreeing with particular votes. It is about whether Kamloops has an honest institutional record of how decisions are made.

What Should Happen Now

The City of Kamloops should:

Transparency is not achieved by publishing clean-looking documents. It is achieved by publishing accurate ones.

Watch the January 13, 2026 Kamloops Council Meeting Video

Readers can view the full City recording of the January 13, 2026 Regular Council Meeting on YouTube:

Watching the video alongside the official minutes makes the discrepancies described above plainly visible.