Kamloops Critic Recommends Pivot Kamloops

Four candidates, four individual recommendations, and some questions worth answering

I've reached a point in this election campaign where I'm comfortable recommending all four members of Pivot Kamloops: Nelly Dever for mayor, and Kathrine Blair-Wunderlich, Dennis Giesbrecht and Randy Sunderman for council.

I haven't had time to complete or update all four of their candidate profiles. That doesn't mean I haven't been paying attention. I've followed their campaigns, listened to what they've said publicly, and had recent interviews or individual conversations with each of them. Those conversations have helped me assess not just their positions on individual issues, but how they think, how they communicate and how they approach the challenges facing Kamloops.

I know recommending four candidates who are campaigning together will raise questions. Are they a voting bloc? Is Coley Ecker directing them behind the scenes? What about Dennis Giesbrecht's video that drew criticism recently? And given my own involvement in local civic issues, including my support for Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson, how much weight should readers give my recommendations?

Those are fair questions. Rather than ask readers to take my word for it, I'd like to explain how I've arrived at my decision.

Why recommend a slate?

Let's start with something that shouldn't be controversial: Kamloops needs councillors who can work with other people.

That means working with the mayor, with fellow councillors, with City staff and with residents who may have very different views. It means being able to disagree without turning every disagreement into a personal conflict. It also means knowing when to stand firm and when somebody else has made a better argument.

I've heard concerns that Pivot Kamloops is a slate and that its members could become a voting bloc. The distinction matters. Campaigning together, sharing priorities and supporting one another's election campaigns aren't the same thing as agreeing in advance to vote together on every issue.

In my conversations with the four members, I've been assessing them individually. I want to know whether they can explain their own positions, think through difficult questions and exercise independent judgment. I don't expect every councillor to agree with every other councillor. In fact, I wouldn't want a council where everyone simply followed the lead of the people they campaigned with.

What I want is a council that can work together when it makes sense, disagree when necessary and still get the job done.

Pivot's shared platform also addresses a number of concerns I've heard from residents, particularly around council decorum, accountability, transparency and meaningful public input. Those are important issues, and I'm encouraged that the group has made them part of its campaign.

But a shared platform isn't enough on its own. The people elected still have to put those promises into practice. My recommendation is based on the individual members, not simply on the fact that they've chosen to run together.

If my assessment of one of them changes, I'll say so. Supporting four candidates today doesn't mean giving any of them a free pass tomorrow.

Is Coley Ecker running Pivot Kamloops?

This is another question that deserves a direct answer.

I've heard the suggestion that Coley Ecker, a co-founder of Kamloops Citizens United (KCU), is behind Pivot Kamloops and is directing its members. Rather than rely on speculation, I asked each member individually about their relationship with Coley and her involvement with the group.

Each assured me that they manage their own campaigns, create their own content and aren't being directed or influenced by Coley. Those assurances are relevant to my assessment, although I recognize that readers must ultimately decide how much weight to give them.

Kathrine Blair-Wunderlich was particularly clear about her own arrangements. She told me she has stepped away from KCU while running for council, that her sister helps with her campaign, and that she writes her own material. Kathrine also had a successful professional career before she met Coley. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that her experience, judgment or opinions can be attributed to somebody she came to know later in life.

I've considered the relationships, asked the questions and listened to the answers. I haven't found a reason, based on those conversations, to conclude that Coley is controlling the four candidates or directing their positions.

That doesn't mean the question should never be asked again. If evidence emerges that a candidate is being directed by somebody outside council, voters should know about it. For now, I think it's fair to distinguish a person's relationships and shared interests from an allegation that they control somebody else's political decisions.

What about KCU and the Alternative Approval Processes?

Kathrine Blair-Wunderlich's involvement in the challenge to the City's Alternative Approval Processes (AAPs) has also been raised as a concern.

It's important to be clear about what that challenge was about. Kathrine opposed the way the City sought borrowing approval through the AAPs. That is not the same thing as opposing the arts centre itself.

Residents can disagree about the legal challenge, its merits or the best way to finance major municipal projects. Those are legitimate debates. But I don't think it's fair to treat opposition to a particular approval process as proof of opposition to the underlying project.

My interest in the AAPs has also been about the process, the information provided to voters and the public's ability to make an informed decision. People can share concerns about those matters without necessarily agreeing on every aspect of the arts centre, the multiplex or other capital projects.

I want councillors who are willing to question how decisions are made, even when doing so is unpopular. I also want them to consider the evidence, understand the consequences and be prepared to explain their conclusions. That's the standard I apply to Kathrine and to every other candidate.

Dennis Giesbrecht's video: was it appropriate?

I agree with Mel Rothenburger's criticism of Dennis Giesbrecht's recent video. I agree it was in poor taste, and I don't intend to defend it simply because I'm recommending Dennis for council.

I also think it's possible to criticize the video without treating it as the only thing worth knowing about the candidate.

I grew up watching cartoons such as Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner and television characters such as Archie Bunker. Some of the humour and attitudes in the entertainment I grew up with would be questioned much more closely today. In Archie's case, much of the humour came from laughing at his ridiculous opinions, not agreeing with them. Satire can make a point by exaggerating something, exposing its absurdity or making people uncomfortable enough to think about it.

Over time, I've come to appreciate how much we gain from the diversity of cultures, knowledge, food, skills and talents around us. I don't believe that enjoying satire means abandoning those values, nor do I believe every attempt at humour deserves to be excused because it was intended as a joke.

Dennis's video didn't land well, and I understand why people criticized it. A candidate who promises to help restore civility at City Hall should think carefully about whether a public stunt supports that objective. The fact that something is intended as satire doesn't automatically make it effective, appropriate or wise.

My recommendation of Dennis isn't an endorsement of that video. It's based on my broader assessment of him as a person and candidate, including my direct conversations with him. I can disagree with his judgment on one occasion and still believe he has qualities worth bringing to council. I also expect him, if elected, to understand that his public conduct will be subject to scrutiny and that criticism comes with the job.

I discussed the video with Dennis and asked him what he's learned from the incident. He told me it was a reminder that we "need to be more aware of where people may take offence."

I agree. While some us may recall laughing our heads off at Andrew Dice Clay or Eddie Murphy's Delirious years ago, times have changed. Some of us need to work on our sensitivity, while others may need to work on their sense of humour. Hopefully we all meet somewhere in the middle.

I wouldn't expect readers to ignore the video. I would ask them to consider it alongside the rest of the evidence about Dennis, just as I would expect them to do with any other candidate.

What about Ray Dhaliwal's comments?

Ray Dhaliwal recently responded to a Facebook question about who runs Pivot Kamloops. His comment made several allegations concerning Nelly Dever's past work, the Cooper Foundation, a dispute involving a former board member, Coley Ecker's influence and the relationships among members of the group.

Those are serious claims, and I don't think they should be repeated as established facts simply because a mayoral candidate has posted them online. Each allegation needs to be considered on its own merits, with the relevant context and evidence.

I haven't relied on Ray's comment to reach my recommendation. I've spoken directly with the people involved, asked questions about the relationships that concern people and assessed the answers alongside what I've observed during the campaign.

I also don't know what motivated Ray to make the comment. It may reflect genuine concerns, political disagreement or a mixture of reasons. Without evidence, I won't pretend to know. Voters can judge the comment for themselves, but I encourage them to distinguish between questions that deserve investigation and allegations that have actually been substantiated.

I've also seen a claim that someone associated with Pivot asked Ray to withdraw from the mayoral race to improve Nelly's chances. I haven't established whether that happened. If Coley, or any other private citizen, did ask him to withdraw, making such a request would not in itself establish wrongdoing. Citizens are entitled to express their political opinions and argue that another candidate would be a better choice.

For me, a better question is whether the candidates' positions, judgment and conduct give voters confidence in their ability to do the job.

Ray has also offered to give back half his salary if elected mayor. Some voters may find that appealing. Others may question whether it tells them much about his ability to lead the City. A pledge to donate part of a salary isn't, by itself, evidence of either good or bad intentions, and I wouldn't describe it as an attempt to buy votes without evidence to support that conclusion.

My job here isn't to speculate about Ray's motives or persuade people not to vote for him. It's to explain why I've reached a different conclusion about the four people I'm recommending.

Why I recommend Nelly Dever for mayor

Nelly brings previous municipal council experience, business experience and a record of involvement in community projects. In my conversations with her, I've found her intelligent, articulate and prepared to engage with difficult questions rather than simply repeat campaign slogans.

I'm particularly interested in her approach to large municipal projects and her Co-Build proposal, which focuses on using public-private partnerships to help address land acquisition and construction costs. The proposal deserves to be examined on its merits, including its financial assumptions, the allocation of risk and the degree of public oversight it would require.

I don't assume that a proposal will work simply because it comes from someone with business experience. But I value having a mayor who can bring practical experience to discussions about development, project delivery and the financial consequences of municipal decisions.

My recommendation also reflects my assessment of Nelly's temperament and communication. A mayor needs to be able to work with councillors who disagree, communicate clearly with residents and lead discussions without making every difference of opinion a personal battle. Based on my interactions with her, I believe she has the potential to do that.

I don't agree with every position she takes, and my recommendation isn't a promise that I will support every decision she makes. I believe she deserves the opportunity to lead, subject to the same scrutiny and accountability I would expect of any mayor.

Why I recommend Kathrine Blair-Wunderlich for council

Kathrine's background in labour advocacy gives her experience dealing with organizations, competing interests and questions of fairness and accountability. Her involvement in local civic issues has also shown a willingness to challenge decisions when she believes the process deserves closer examination.

I recognize that her role in the AAP challenge and her association with KCU will be viewed differently by different residents. Those are legitimate parts of her record to consider, but they shouldn't substitute for assessing the person who is actually seeking a seat on council.

In my conversations with Kathrine, I've been interested in how she approaches questions, whether she can explain her reasoning and whether she understands the difference between advocating for a position and governing a city. Her willingness to question established practices is something I value, provided it is accompanied by a willingness to examine evidence and consider other perspectives.

I also asked her directly about Coley Ecker and the suggestion that somebody else might be directing her campaign. Her explanation of her own campaign arrangements was clear. I have no basis from my conversations to conclude that Kathrine is simply somebody else's spokesperson.

Council needs people who are prepared to ask difficult questions, listen to residents and hold decision-makers accountable. I believe Kathrine can make a useful contribution in those areas, while being held accountable for her own decisions and conduct.

Why I recommend Dennis Giesbrecht for council

Dennis has experience with local politics and has been vocal about the need for changes at City Hall. I value candidates who are willing to raise concerns and challenge the way things are done, particularly when residents feel their questions haven't received satisfactory answers.

The recent video was a poor decision, and I've explained why I think so. But I don't believe the responsible way to assess a candidate is to select one incident, however ill-advised, and allow it to replace every other consideration.

My recommendation reflects my conversations with Dennis and my assessment of his broader suitability for council. I want councillors who can question decisions, explain their positions and engage with the public. I also expect them to recognize when their own conduct falls short of the standard they want from others.

If Dennis is elected, I won't hesitate to scrutinize his decisions or criticize him when I believe it's warranted. The same applies to every person I recommend. I think he has something to contribute, but that support doesn't exempt him from the expectations that come with public office.

Why I recommend Randy Sunderman for council

Randy brings a professional background in economics, consulting, land-use planning and economic development. That experience is relevant to a city making difficult decisions about growth, infrastructure, borrowing and the long-term costs of major projects.

I want to see municipal decisions assessed not only in terms of what they cost to build, but also what they will cost to operate and maintain, how the costs will be paid and what benefits residents can reasonably expect. A candidate who understands economic trade-offs and can ask questions about assumptions and long-term consequences can help council make better decisions.

Professional experience doesn't automatically make someone a good councillor. The ability to listen, work with others, explain complex issues in plain language and change one's mind when the evidence calls for it is just as important.

My assessment of Randy takes both sides into account. I believe his analytical background can be an asset to council, particularly when combined with a willingness to work collaboratively and consider different perspectives. I would expect him to apply that same discipline to proposals he supports as well as those he opposes.

What about my own bias?

I don't claim to be politically neutral. I've written critically about decisions made at City Hall, I've expressed support for Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson, and I've given him a cautious recommendation for re-election. Readers should know that when considering my assessment of other candidates.

I also know each of the four Pivot members, but our relationships have generally been those of colleagues who share interests or concerns about local civic issues. We don't get together for drinks or barbecues. When we meet or interact, it's generally to discuss matters affecting the community. I don't regard that as a reason to disqualify myself from making a recommendation, but I recognize that readers may reasonably consider those relationships when weighing my conclusions.

I've always been clear with candidates, including the current mayor, that my own agenda is my own. I may support a person or a position today and criticize that same person tomorrow if the evidence warrants it. I've made that clear to candidates because I don't want there to be any misunderstanding about what a recommendation from Kamloops Critic means.

I also know that some people will see my support for Pivot as an extension of my existing views about City Hall. That's a fair possibility to consider. I can't ask readers to accept my claim of independence without question; I can only explain how I reached my conclusions and allow them to assess the reasoning.

For me, the test isn't whether a candidate agrees with my opinions. It's whether they demonstrate the judgment, temperament, independence and willingness to ask questions that I believe council needs. If I stop seeing those qualities in someone I've recommended, I'll say so.

My involvement with Kamloops Citizens United

I also want to be transparent about my own involvement with KCU. I've hosted its website, previously donated to its efforts, and participated in meetings and discussions. I've contributed as someone who believes I can offer a useful perspective on civic issues, drawing on my own experience and interests.

I don't control or direct KCU's activities, and I've always been clear that I retain the right to pursue my own agenda. My involvement doesn't mean I speak for the organization, nor does it mean the organization speaks for me.

Because Kathrine Blair-Wunderlich co-founded KCU with Coley Ecker, that connection is relevant to an article recommending Kathrine and the other Pivot candidates. Readers deserve to know about it. They can then consider whether they believe my involvement affects my judgment.

I wish to make it very clear that in my dealings with Coley, I have found her to be extremely committed to KCU's efforts. If she supports Pivot Kamloops, she currently does so as an individual, and I believe her support should be viewed in that light.

I don't expect everyone to agree with my conclusions. I do expect readers to be able to see the basis for them, including the connections that might reasonably cause someone to ask questions.

My recommendation, and what it does not mean

I'm recommending Nelly Dever for mayor and Kathrine Blair-Wunderlich, Dennis Giesbrecht and Randy Sunderman for council because, after following their campaigns and speaking with each of them individually, I believe they each deserve serious consideration.

I'm not recommending them because I expect them to agree with me on everything. I'm not asking voters to assume that a shared campaign means a shared vote on every issue. And I'm not promising that I'll support every decision they make if they're elected.

I want a council that can work together without abandoning independent judgment, that can disagree without becoming dysfunctional, and that treats residents' questions as part of the job rather than an inconvenience. I want councillors who can explain their decisions, examine evidence and take responsibility when they get something wrong.

I believe these four candidates offer a credible opportunity to move Kamloops in that direction. I've considered the concerns raised about them, asked questions where I thought they were warranted and reached my own conclusions. Those conclusions are mine, and I accept responsibility for them.

You may reach a different conclusion. I encourage you to read the candidates' platforms, attend their events, ask them questions and assess their records for yourself. My job isn't to make that decision for you. It's to explain why I've made mine.