The Photo Controversy: Was This Ever About a Slideshow — or About Control?

Guest commentary for KamloopsCritic.ca

When Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson issued a public letter on January 14, 2026 rejecting Council’s demand that he sign an apology over the cancelled March 2024 State of the City slideshow, most coverage treated it as another chapter in Kamloops’ ongoing political dysfunction.

But the letter deserves closer examination — not for its tone, but for what it reveals about how this controversy was constructed. Because if the Mayor’s account is accurate, the public has been debating a controversy built around something that never existed.

“No slideshow existed. No presentation occurred. No inappropriate material was ever shown to any audience—private or public.”

That is not rhetorical hedging. It is a categorical factual claim. And it immediately raises the first question.

Why Was This Not Handled Internally?

Kamloops’ Code of Conduct Bylaw explicitly allows for informal resolution of complaints. Its purpose is to correct behaviour without defaulting to public escalation, legal expense, and reputational damage. Yet in this case, escalation was almost immediate.

If the concern was that identifiable images may have been forwarded inappropriately, the situation could have been addressed with a deletion request, a privacy reminder, a clarification of expectations, and closure. Instead, the matter proceeded to formal investigation, media exposure, and financial penalties.

The Mayor states he was never even consulted before the matter became public:

“Then, without a single conversation with me, the matter was pushed to the media—transforming a non-event into a manufactured controversy.”

That decision alone guaranteed political consequences. It was not mandatory. It was discretionary.

What Actually Triggered Damage Control?

Public messaging quickly implied that a Chamber of Commerce presentation might have contained inappropriate or sexualized images.

But the Mayor directly disputes the foundation of that implication:

“There was no finalized slideshow, no selection process, and no intent to use any inappropriate image—because no image had been selected for use at all.”

And more bluntly:

“Any claim suggesting otherwise is categorically false.”

Which leads to an unavoidable question: Does anyone genuinely believe that a Mayor, working with the Chamber of Commerce, would present explicit or inappropriate material to a business audience?

If the answer is no — then what was the city really reacting to? Content… or optics?

Was the Incident Intentionally Inflated?

The Mayor acknowledges that bulk photo submissions may have contained images with “human content,” but states they were never curated, selected, or prepared for display:

“If any photos depicting human content appeared in the bulk submissions, they were incidental, unintended, and were never curated or prepared for display.”

Yet the public narrative quickly shifted from “bulk submissions” to “planned inappropriate slideshow.”

Once that implication was introduced, it could not be undone — even after it was later acknowledged that no slideshow ever existed.

This is where process became narrative. And narrative became punishment.

Who Benefited?

Every political controversy produces winners and losers.

In this case:

• The Mayor’s credibility suffered.
• Council gained leverage.
• Media narratives hardened.
• Internal power dynamics shifted.

The Mayor himself makes that point directly:

“The demand for an apology came solely from Council, and it has been used as part of an orchestrated external communications effort that escalated the issue far beyond reality.”

Whether one accepts that characterization or not, the result is undeniable: escalation produced political consequences. Which makes the public justified in asking whether escalation was driven solely by governance — or also by control.

Process as Punishment

The Mayor also points to the severity of the consequences:

“Punitive measures, including significant reductions to my compensation, imposed on the basis of claims that I believe are baseless and politically motivated.”

Even if one accepts that a technical breach occurred, proportionality still matters. A governance system that treats speculation as misconduct and escalation as default stops being corrective and starts being coercive.

The Code of Conduct was designed to guide behaviour — not to function as a political weapon.

The Real Issue Beneath the Photos

Perhaps the most revealing passage in the letter is not about images at all:

“Administration also instructed me to avoid discussing the actual challenges facing Kamloops and to present only positive content… That was unacceptable.”

This suggests the conflict was not simply about privacy — but about message control. About what the Mayor was allowed to say. And about who decides which version of Kamloops is acceptable for public presentation.

The Question That Will Not Go Away

The Mayor refuses to sign an apology because, in his words:

“The proposed apology letter requires me to confess to actions I did not take and intentions I never had.”

Readers can agree or disagree with his judgement. But they cannot ignore the structural question this controversy raises:

If the same situation had involved a councillor aligned with council leadership rather than a mayor in constant conflict with it — would the response have been the same?

That question will never be answered by an investigation. But it must be asked by citizens. Because governance is not only about rules. It is about how — and against whom — those rules are applied.

Editor’s Note

Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson’s full January 14, 2026 letter is reproduced below for transparency and public record.

Closing: What This Controversy Now Represents

At this point, the photo controversy is no longer about images. It is about discretion, proportionality, and power.

It is about whether Kamloops’ governance culture still understands the difference between correction and coercion, between accountability and control.

Mayor Hamer-Jackson’s letter does not prove that every decision he made was perfect. But it does credibly challenge the foundation of a narrative that portrayed speculation as misconduct and a cancelled presentation as a scandal.

Citizens are entitled to expect that informal resolution options in the Code of Conduct bylaw will be used when appropriate — not bypassed in favour of escalation that guarantees reputational damage.

They are entitled to expect that punishment will follow proof, not precede it. And they are entitled to ask whether governance in Kamloops is being guided by principle — or by politics.

And finally, if it is true — as the Mayor states — that neither Chamber’s Acacia Pangilinan nor Kamloops Central Business Improvement Association’s Howie Reimer requested an apology or believed they were harmed, then another question deserves to be asked.

Should they still be receiving apology letters? Not from the Mayor — but from a system that publicly invoked their supposed injury to justify a political and financial escalation they did not seek.

Public governance does not only require correcting perceived misconduct. It also requires protecting citizens from being used as instruments in political conflict. And when institutions forget that distinction, accountability does not disappear — it simply changes direction.

• Weaponizing Accountability: How Kamloops’ Code of Conduct Process Is Failing Taxpayers
• A Case for New Administrative Leadership at Kamloops City Hall

Election 2026

The next election is October 17, 2026. If you were considering voting for Councillor Dale Bass, I urge you to reconsider.

• Bass Complains About Photos
• Shame On Bass

---