Kamloops’ Mayoral Campaign: Facts vs. Allegations

As the October 17 municipal election approaches, the exchanges between Kamloops' mayoral candidates and the people supporting them have become increasingly personal. Some of the criticism raises legitimate questions about candidates' records and judgment. Other exchanges leave me wondering whether we're spending more time trying to discredit people than examining what they would actually bring to the mayor's office.

What concerns me most is the growing divide between people who support Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson and those who oppose him. His critics accuse his supporters of ignoring documented allegations and findings. His supporters point to examples of criticism they believe is unfair, incomplete or unsupported. From what I've observed, there are people on both sides who appear more interested in defending their existing position than in examining evidence that might complicate it.

I don't believe every allegation should be accepted simply because it appears in an investigator's report or a court judgment. Nor should an allegation be dismissed because the person making it is unpopular or politically opposed to the person being criticized. The question is what was actually established, what wasn't, and what the available evidence allows us to conclude.

That standard should apply to every candidate in this election, including the ones we like.

When allegations become campaign ammunition

The recent controversy surrounding Nelly Dever and the Cooper Family Foundation is an example of how quickly questions can become ammunition during an election campaign.

An anonymous Facebook post circulated an image of a letter dated April 30, 2026, purportedly signed by Tod Cooper, president of San-Co Holdings. The letter states that the company ended its relationship with Dever and her business in March, withdrew its financial support from the Cooper Family Foundation, and no longer supported the foundation's leadership or decisions made in recent years.

Those are serious statements. Dever has presented her business and charitable work as part of her qualifications for mayor, so questions about that record are fair. But the letter doesn't explain the reasons for the decisions it describes, and its authenticity has not been independently established in the material I've reviewed.

Dever has since responded publicly, saying she remains the foundation's president and CEO, that Cooper left its board in March, and that the foundation's day-to-day operations have continued unchanged. She also clarified that Wings Above Kamloops leases space at Cooper Centre, which she says is owned by San-Co Holdings. Her statement gives voters her account of the situation, but it doesn't independently settle every question about the separation.

I don't think voters should ignore the letter. Nor should they treat it as proof of wrongdoing. If further information establishes problems with the foundation's governance or Dever's handling of her responsibilities, that information could be relevant to her candidacy. Until then, we should distinguish between what the letter says, what Dever says in response, and what remains unknown.

The timing also deserves attention. The decisions described in the letter reportedly took effect in March, and the letter is dated April 30. Why has this become a campaign issue now? That's a reasonable question, but the answer isn't established simply by the fact that the controversy surfaced during an election. The timing may be relevant to understanding why the information is circulating, but it doesn't establish who is responsible for circulating it or whether the underlying claims are true.

For me, the important question is what the available evidence tells us about Dever's judgment and ability to lead. A business disagreement isn't automatically evidence of poor leadership. If further information establishes something relevant to her qualifications, voters should consider it. Until then, we should resist turning an unexplained separation into a conclusion about her suitability for public office.

Is Pivot Kamloops a voting bloc?

Another recurring criticism is that Pivot Kamloops is a voting bloc waiting to take control of council.

The concern is understandable in principle. If several elected councillors agree in advance to support one another's decisions regardless of the merits of an issue, voters have a legitimate reason to question how that arrangement would affect independent judgment and accountability.

But running together, sharing priorities and supporting one another during a campaign doesn't establish that candidates have agreed to vote as a bloc. Councillors can agree on many issues without surrendering their responsibility to consider each decision on its merits. The reverse is also true: candidates who run independently can still vote together consistently.

The important question is what evidence exists of actual coordination. Have candidates made commitments that would limit their independence? Is there an agreement to vote together, or are people inferring that outcome simply because the candidates are associated with one another?

Based on the material I've seen, I haven't seen evidence establishing that Pivot Kamloops has agreed to operate as a voting bloc. That doesn't prove such coordination could never occur. It means the claim shouldn't be presented as an established fact without supporting evidence.

There is a legitimate debate to be had about the advantages and disadvantages of candidates campaigning together. Shared priorities can help voters understand what a group wants to accomplish, but voters should also know whether elected members intend to exercise independent judgment. That question deserves a substantive answer, not an assumption based on a label.

The same standard should apply to every group of candidates, including those who oppose Pivot Kamloops. If we're going to question whether one group will act independently, we should be prepared to examine the conduct and commitments of the others as well.

What the campaign tells us about its candidates

The controversies surrounding Dever and Pivot Kamloops are only part of the picture. How candidates respond to criticism, how they treat people who disagree with them, and whether they can acknowledge a good point made by someone else can also tell us something about their approach to leadership.

At the September 23 Chamber of Commerce and Castanet mayoral forum, it appeared to me that Ray Dhaliwal was reading answers from paper notes. It appeared that Kris Lloyd-Middleton did as well. I can't say that with certainty, and other candidates may also have referred to notes or mobile devices. The mayoral candidates appeared after three earlier council candidate forums had asked the same questions, giving them an opportunity to hear those questions and the responses in advance.

I later asked Hamer-Jackson whether he had known the questions ahead of time. He told me he hadn't and that his responses were unprepared. I can't speak for what the other candidates knew or how they prepared, but the circumstances raised questions for me about how fairly the candidates were being compared.

My concerns about Ray weren't limited to the forum. He subsequently posted comments on Facebook raising allegations about Dever and her association with the Cooper Family Foundation. I responded to someone's posting of an image of one of his posts. I had said that I hoped he would provide more context if the information was relevant, adding that I hadn't expected that kind of public criticism from him, although I respected that he had put his name to the comments rather than posting anonymously.

After a few other people questioned his comments, Ray replied to a few of our comments and the exchange became personal. He accused people, including me, of deflecting and referred to narcissistic traits.

The comments and our exchange were later deleted, so my account of the discussion is based on my recollection rather than a complete public record. I'm including it because I think a candidate's response to scrutiny is relevant when they're asking voters to entrust them with the mayor's office. Candidates don't have to agree with my reporting, and they're entitled to challenge it. But there's a difference between addressing a criticism and turning the discussion into a personal exchange.

Ray also asked why I didn't write about the positive things he does for the community. It's a fair question in one respect. People involved in community service deserve recognition, and I hope to find more time after the election to write about the good work Ray and others do. My coverage of municipal politics isn't a hobby built around criticizing individuals. I write because I believe residents deserve more information and context than they may get from official statements, council discussions and local media coverage.

That same interest in how candidates handle disagreement is why I paid attention to Ivory Winston. One thing that stood out was his willingness to acknowledge when he agreed with another candidate and give them credit for a good response. I didn't interpret that as an inability to answer a question. I saw it as a willingness to recognize a good point, even when it came from someone else.

I would like to see more of that in municipal politics. A candidate doesn't have to disagree with everyone to establish their independence, and acknowledging someone else's good idea can be a sign of sound judgment rather than weakness. It is one of the qualities I look for when assessing how someone might work with other elected officials.

The dispute between the Mayor and his critics

The disagreements surrounding the Mayor are more complicated than a simple division between people who believe him and people who don't. Some of his critics point to investigator findings, court decisions and documented incidents as evidence supporting their concerns. Some of his supporters question whether those findings or decisions are being interpreted fairly, or whether competing explanations have received sufficient attention.

The dispute between Hamer-Jackson and Councillor Katie Neustaeter is a good example. Some people point to the judge's anti-SLAPP ruling and the subsequent costs judgment as proof that the Mayor pursued a frivolous lawsuit. Others focus on aspects of the underlying dispute they believe support his position.

I think it's important to distinguish what the court actually decided from what people say the decision proves. The reasons for judgment, the legal test applied and the question before the court all matter. A ruling can be unfavourable to one party without establishing every allegation made against that party. Equally, a party's disagreement with a ruling doesn't make the ruling irrelevant.

The same care is needed when considering municipal investigations. An investigator's findings deserve serious consideration, but readers should understand what was investigated, what evidence was considered and what conclusions were actually reached. A finding about a specific matter shouldn't automatically be treated as proof of a broader claim that wasn't examined.

I have seen critics of the Mayor dismiss evidence that might support a competing explanation, just as I've seen supporters resist evidence that reflects poorly on him. I can't say that every person on either side behaves this way, or that the evidence is equally strong in every dispute. My concern is that political loyalty can become a substitute for examining the evidence.

If we're prepared to scrutinize every statement made by a candidate we oppose, we should be equally prepared to examine the claims made by someone we support. That's not a demand that everyone reach the same conclusion. It's a demand that we be honest about how we reached it.

What I look for in a mayor

When I assess candidates, I'm interested in more than their policy positions or their ability to deliver a convincing answer at a public forum. I look at their judgment, preparation, willingness to listen, ability to acknowledge a good point made by someone else, and how they respond when challenged.

I also look for evidence that a candidate understands the responsibilities of the job. A mayor needs to understand municipal finances, infrastructure, governance and the relationship between elected officials and administration. They need to be able to question staff when necessary, work with councillors who disagree with them and explain decisions to residents without treating scrutiny as an attack.

No candidate will arrive with every answer. What matters is whether they can recognize what they don't know, ask the right questions and make decisions based on evidence rather than political convenience. Those are the standards I've tried to apply throughout this campaign, although my conclusions aren't all equally certain.

Some candidates have records in public office that can be examined over several years. Others have given me a more limited opportunity to assess them through interviews, forums and campaign statements. I think readers deserve to know the difference, particularly when I'm making a recommendation that could influence how they view a candidate.

Three serious contenders — and a question worth asking

At this point in the campaign, I see three serious contenders for the mayor's office: Reid Hamer-Jackson, Mike O'Reilly and Nelly Dever. They offer voters different backgrounds and approaches to leadership, and each has attracted support for different reasons. My assessment of their qualifications and records doesn't necessarily align with how I see their competitive position in the race. Being a serious contender doesn't automatically make someone my preferred choice.

There's another question I've found myself wondering about as the campaign unfolds. Could the fact that Nelly Dever is a woman influence how some people view her candidacy? I'm not suggesting that every criticism of Dever is rooted in sexism. Candidates should be questioned about their records, decisions and qualifications, regardless of gender. But I think it's fair to ask whether we're applying the same standards to everyone, or whether some candidates are being judged through a different lens.

Kamloops has only had one woman serve as mayor, and that was [thanks Cole Hickson], Kenna Cartwright. That fact doesn't tell us why voters have made the choices they have, but it is part of the city's history. In neighbouring Ashcroft, Barbara Roden has served as mayor since 2018 and chairs the Thompson-Nicola Regional District board. I have a pretty good opinion of Roden, and her experience is a reminder that women can bring substantial municipal knowledge and leadership experience to these roles.

I also find myself thinking about Devon Cole's song W.I.T.C.H., which asks: Tell me, "Why you're so scared of a woman in charge?" It's a pointed question, and I don't think the answer is always sexism. But neither should we dismiss the possibility that expectations about how women should behave, lead or respond to criticism can influence public perceptions.

Would a man be criticized for the same behaviour? Would we describe the same confidence as decisiveness in one candidate and arrogance in another? Would an unexplained business disagreement carry the same weight if the candidate involved were a man? These are questions worth asking, although we shouldn't assume the answers without evidence.

Ultimately, I want Kamloops to elect a mayor based on judgment, integrity, experience, accountability and the ability to lead. Gender shouldn't earn a candidate a free pass, but it shouldn't become an additional hurdle either. If we're serious about evaluating the candidates fairly, we need to examine not only their behaviour, but also the assumptions we bring to our assessment of them.

Where I stand on the mayoral candidates

Nelly Dever

I'm prepared to recommend Nelly Dever. My assessment is based largely on what I've seen during her campaign rather than on a record of her leading City Hall. She has served in municipal politics before, but I haven't observed her serving as mayor, and I can't tell readers from experience how she would manage the relationship with administration or respond when difficult decisions have to be made.

A new mayor faces a learning curve. Understanding the history behind municipal decisions, recognizing where problems have developed and knowing when to challenge staff takes time. Dever will need to get up to speed on those matters, and I can't promise she'll get every decision right.

Her campaign has nevertheless given me reasons to support her. I recognize the limits of what I know, and the outstanding questions surrounding the Cooper Family Foundation deserve to be examined fairly. But I don't think the existence of an unexplained business separation, on its own, is a sufficient reason to dismiss her candidacy.

My recommendation reflects the candidate I've seen during this campaign and my assessment of what she could bring to the office. It isn't a guarantee about how she would perform once elected.

Reid Hamer-Jackson

I continue to cautiously recommend Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson.

To his credit, he has put his heart and soul into what he believes is best for Kamloops. I don't think that commitment should be dismissed simply because people disagree with his approach. He also has first-hand knowledge of City Hall that a new mayor won't immediately possess. He knows the people, the history and the issues, including matters that may take a newcomer considerable time to understand.

That knowledge can be valuable when a mayor needs to question administration or challenge an established way of doing things. A new mayor may need months, or longer, to understand the background behind decisions and identify where intervention is necessary. Hamer-Jackson already has that experience.

But institutional knowledge doesn't automatically translate into effective leadership, and commitment isn't the same as good judgment. His record in office, the documented findings concerning his conduct and the disputes that have marked his term all deserve scrutiny. I remain cautious because I have concerns about aspects of his record that I can't simply set aside because I recognize his commitment.

I don't believe voters should ignore those concerns, but I also don't believe every allegation or interpretation should be treated as an established fact without examining the underlying evidence. My recommendation reflects both sides of that assessment.

Mike O'Reilly

I've written several articles examining Mike O'Reilly's statements, decisions and conduct during his time on council. A recurring theme in that work has been my questioning of how he frames events and whether his public explanations give residents a complete and accurate picture of what happened.

Over time, those questions have added up to something more fundamental: I don't trust him. That isn't a conclusion based on a single disagreement or policy position. It's the cumulative effect of the issues I've examined and the questions that remain for me.

Trust matters in the mayor's office. A mayor needs to explain decisions honestly, acknowledge inconvenient facts and give residents enough information to judge whether those decisions were justified. Readers can examine the articles I've written and decide whether the evidence supports my assessment, but I can't recommend O'Reilly for mayor.

Ray Dhaliwal

I had concerns about Ray during the campaign, both in how he presented himself at candidate forums and in how he responded to criticism.

The September 23 forum raised questions for me about preparation and fairness. His subsequent Facebook comments about Dever, and the way he responded when people questioned them, added to my concerns. Because the comments were deleted, my account of that exchange is based on my recollection, and readers should understand that limitation.

I respect the community work Ray says he has done, and I hope to write about positive contributions made by him and others when I have the opportunity. My concerns relate to what I observed during the campaign, particularly how he handled scrutiny and disagreement. I think those are relevant considerations when assessing someone seeking the mayor's office.

Ivory Winston

I like Ivory. He brings enthusiasm and sincerity to the campaign, and I would have liked to see him run for council rather than mayor.

His willingness to acknowledge when he agreed with another candidate and give them credit for a good response stood out to me. I didn't interpret that as an inability to answer a question. I saw it as a willingness to recognize a good point, even when it came from someone else.

That's a quality I'd like to see more of in municipal politics. I hope Ivory considers running for council in the next election, where he could bring that approach to the work of governing the city.

Kris Lloyd-Middleton

I respect Kris's passion and the fact that she was willing to put herself forward as a candidate. At the same time, I came away from the campaign concerned that she wasn't adequately prepared for the breadth of issues a mayor needs to understand and address.

The job requires more than strong convictions about particular issues. It also demands an understanding of municipal responsibilities, budgets, infrastructure, governance and the competing priorities facing the city. Based on what I observed, I think Kris would benefit from gaining experience with those responsibilities and developing a broader understanding of how the city operates before taking on the mayor's role.

If she decides to run again, I would encourage her to consider a position as councillor. That would give her an opportunity to develop her understanding of municipal government while contributing to the issues she cares about.

My advice to voters

I recognize that voters will reach different conclusions about these candidates. Some will place greater weight on Hamer-Jackson's experience and commitment. Others will be more concerned about his record and the disputes that have marked his term. Some will be attracted to Dever's campaign, while others will want more information about her experience and the questions surrounding the foundation.

Those are reasonable differences to have. What matters is whether we're making those judgments based on evidence and clearly understood trade-offs, rather than accepting or dismissing information according to whom it helps.

My advice is straightforward. If you support Hamer-Jackson and believe his strengths outweigh your concerns about his record, I encourage you to vote for him. You don't have to agree with every decision he's made to conclude that he deserves another term.

If you don't support the Mayor, I recommend Nelly Dever. Among the other five candidates, she's the person I'm prepared to recommend based on what I've seen during this campaign. That recommendation comes with an important qualification: I haven't seen her serve as mayor, and she will need time to understand the organization and determine where administration needs to be challenged.

These are my current assessments, not guarantees about what either candidate will do in office. Voters should read the underlying evidence, question the claims made by every campaign and reach their own conclusions. An election is an opportunity to make a choice, but it shouldn't require us to stop thinking critically about the people we've chosen to support.

The question isn't whether we can find reasons to criticize the candidates. We can. The harder question is whether we're prepared to apply the same standard to the people we support as we apply to the people we oppose.

Editorial Disclosure: This article reflects my own observations, research and opinions about Kamloops’ 2026 mayoral campaign. I have formed views about the candidates based on their public statements, conduct, campaign performances, available documents and my previous reporting. I have recommended some candidates and not others, so I’m not a neutral observer of the race. My aim, however, is to distinguish documented facts from allegations, explain where evidence is incomplete, and give readers enough context to make up their own minds. Readers should treat my assessments as informed opinions, not as substitutes for reviewing the underlying evidence themselves.