Candidate Profile: Katie Neustaeter — An Open Book?

Katie Neustaeter wants another four years as a Kamloops City Councillor.

That sounds good, but for me, it needs a closer look. After watching Neustaeter's first term and reviewing her record, I'm wondering what those three phrases actually mean in practice.

What exactly will she do differently? And more importantly, what evidence from her first term should give residents confidence that she will?

What does “Good Governance” actually mean?

I don't expect a councillor to get every decision right, or to agree with me. I don't even expect them to agree with Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson.

But, I do expect them to listen to residents, ask difficult questions, exercise independent judgment, accept criticism without treating it as a personal attack, and be willing to explain their decisions.

Those aren't particularly ambitious campaign promises. They're the basic requirements of the job. And that's why I have difficulty with Neustaeter's three campaign pillars.

Local Leadership is difficult to measure. What does it mean beyond the leadership we should already expect from an elected councillor?

Accountable Advocacy raises a similar question. Advocacy for whom? And accountable to whom? Is Neustaeter promising to be accountable generally, or is “accountable advocacy” simply a campaign phrase?

And then there is Good Governance.

This is the pillar I would most like to see defined. What measurable changes would tell us that Kamloops is being governed better four years from now? I don't see those answers in the campaign announcement. So, that leaves us with her record.

Listening to the public

One of the first examples that comes to mind is a November 2024 Council meeting concerning the proposed Pathways shelter at 142 Tranquille Road.

When the public submissions began, Neustaeter offered Council a reminder about how the process was supposed to work.

“Our primary job right now is to listen.”

She went on saying that this was the public's time, not Council's, and councillors were there to “listen, to learn, and to take on board” what citizens had to say. I agree.

Then a citizen used that opportunity to question Neustaeter herself.

Katherine Wunderlich of Kamloops Citizens United spoke about the proposed shelter and concerns she had heard from businesses and other residents. She then raised a conflict-of-interest concern involving Neustaeter and Joshua Knaak, one of the owners of the property.

Wunderlich described Knaak as a close personal friend of Neustaeter, mentioned a meme of the two together, and noted Knaak's support for Neustaeter's 2022 campaign. She asked Neustaeter to recuse herself from the vote.

Neustaeter responded that due to related insinuations made by the Mayor, she had obtained an independent legal opinion confirming she had no conflict. But the recording of the meeting gives us considerably more context.

What she didn't say was significant. She didn't say Knaak was not a close personal friend. Instead, she said:

“You would be hard pressed to find someone in this room who doesn't know this developer.”

She went on to say: “I did my homework; I did my job. I made sure that we didn't have conflicts.”

What some may find interesting is that we are often reminded by City staff and councillors that an independent investigator found that the Mayor was in a non-pecuniary conflict of interest when he voted on the Pathways TUP because he had an ongoing defamation lawsuit against Knaak.

The investigator found that the Mayor's lack of a financial interest did not prevent a conflict from existing. He found that the lawsuit created a personal interest that was distinct from that of the electorate as a whole.

In other words, the finding wasn't based on the Mayor having something to gain financially from Knaak. It was based on the highly personal interest created by the lawsuit.

That's relevant because Neustaeter's 2024 response focused heavily on whether she had a financial interest in Knaak's success.

My subsequent reporting established that Neustaeter and her husband attended Knaak's wedding. That doesn't mean Neustaeter was legally required to recuse herself in 2024. I don't have the legal opinion she obtained, and I don't know what information was provided to her lawyer in order to arrive at that opinion.

I'm not suggesting that a friendship with Knaak automatically created a legal conflict. But the evidence now available gives us more context for the question Wunderlich was asking in 2024. It's reasonable to ask whether Neustaeter's personal relationship with Knaak was something that should have been considered when deciding whether she could participate in the vote.

Bottom line, I think it's fair to ask how Neustaeter defines a conflict.

That question became more interesting in 2026

The Pathways permit came back to Council in 2026.

On March 24, Neustaeter recused herself from the matter. The minutes say she had received new information about the permit from an individual with whom she had a personal relationship and had determined that this placed her in a conflict. She specifically said the person was not the project proponent.

Let's compare the two situations.

In 2024, Neustaeter was asked to recuse herself because of an alleged personal relationship with the property owner and project proponent. She said she had no financial interest and relied on independent legal advice confirming that she was not conflicted.

In 2026, she decided that receiving information about the project from someone with whom she had a personal relationship, even though that person wasn't the proponent, was enough for her to conclude that she was conflicted.

Those situations may be completely different. But Neustaeter's 2026 decision shows that, at least in that circumstance, she considered a personal relationship — even with someone who was not the project proponent — sufficient to create a conflict.

That makes her 2024 decision worth revisiting. Did she apply a consistent standard? If there's a good explanation, I think voters should hear it.

Public accountability gets uncomfortable

On August 29, 2023, Council amended its Code of Conduct Bylaw to prevent members of the public from submitting Code of Conduct complaints directly. I wrote about that in Thou Shalt Not Complain. The City's explanation was that the change was intended to control the cost and misuse of investigations.

The amendment was particularly concerning to me because an active Code of Conduct complaint against Neustaeter had already been submitted by a member of the public. She had participated in the discussion and voted while that complaint was outstanding.

During that discussion, Neustaeter said:

"This to me on its face just seems like an oversight in the initial draft of the bylaw."

The issue here isn't whether my complaint was justified. The issue is that the people who were subject to the Code of Conduct were also the people who changed who could trigger that process.

It's hard to accept Neustaeter's new promise of Good Governance when the change reduced one of the ways residents could hold elected officials accountable.

Then there is the way disagreement is handled

I've also watched how Neustaeter characterizes residents who disagree with Council.

The people who complain about a broken sidewalk, a dangerous tree limb or a problem in their neighbourhood aren't necessarily trying to undermine City Hall. Sometimes they're simply doing what residents are supposed to do: telling their elected representatives when something isn't working.

And this isn't an isolated example.

In the Pathways hearing, after Wunderlich challenged Neustaeter directly, Neustaeter described public inquiries as becoming “tremendously challenging” and criticized what she called “tarring and feathering”, “stunts” and “confirmation bias”.

That's a very different tone from: “Our primary job right now is to listen.”

The contradiction I have trouble getting past

Neustaeter supported Council's decision to suspend Public Inquiries during a period when the Mayor was repeatedly struggling to control Council meetings. But Neustaeter herself has frequently interrupted the Mayor while he is speaking. There have been numerous occasions when he has told her that she was out of order.

I've watched enough Council meetings that I don't think it's fair to blame every meeting-management problem on the Mayor. If an elected official believes public input needs to be restricted because meetings aren't being managed properly, I think that same official should also look closely at her own contribution to the disorder.

That's what accountability means to me. It shouldn't mean “the other person needs to behave better.” It should include asking, “What am I doing that is making this worse?”

Communication is another problem

Neustaeter describes herself as a professional communicator. I've watched this term's Council meetings and I don't see it that way. It's easy to say professional, but not so easy to say effective.

Neustaeter often speaks at considerable length, rapidly and in sentences that become difficult to follow. She frequently spends a long time praising staff or presenters before eventually getting to her actual question.

Maybe I'm impatient. But when I've heard the same pattern repeatedly over several years, I question whether lengthy speeches are effective communication. Communication isn't measured by how many words an elected official can put between the audience and the actual question. It's measured by whether people understand what she is saying.

Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I find that the length and speed of her speeches can make her intended message harder to follow. I actually consider her an eloquent speaker; it's the verbosity that I find difficult.

Her relationship with the Mayor

I don't accept the idea that all of Neustaeter's conflict with the Mayor can be explained by concerns about her father. The conflict has gone far beyond those issues.

I've watched Neustaeter repeatedly challenge and interrupt the Mayor while he is speaking, and there have been numerous occasions when he has told her she was out of order.

I also wrote about what I considered a particularly curious hypothetical example Neustaeter raised publicly. At the time, I understood it to be a hypothetical criticism of the Mayor. As future events unfolded, we later learned that the example was based on a real situation. Councillor Neustaeter’s Curious Hypothetical Example

I found that troubling because of what it said about communication and trust. If you're going to criticize someone publicly, say what happened. Don't present a real event as a hypothetical and leave the audience to figure out what you're actually talking about.

That's not the kind of communication I expect from someone campaigning on accountability.

The lawsuits are part of the context, but not the whole case

There are two defamation proceedings between Neustaeter and the Mayor, both of which I have written extensively about.

Council has resolved to indemnify Neustaeter in both matters. In practical terms, that means the City has agreed to cover the legal costs she incurs in defending the actions, subject to the terms of the indemnification.

That doesn't make Neustaeter responsible for the Mayor's decision to sue her. But it does make her public comments about the dispute more relevant to voters.

When an elected official is involved in an ongoing personal and legal conflict with another elected official, I expect a high degree of personal restraint. Instead, we've seen comments such as her “so sue me” remark at a 2026 Council meeting. So Sue Me

These types of comments don't give me the impression of a councillor particularly concerned about lowering the temperature.

An open house invitation, and an interesting response

While I was writing this profile, Neustaeter announced two campaign open houses and invited residents to “share what matters to you.” One resident responded simply: “No will not participate.”

I find this exchange difficult to reconcile with Neustaeter's stated commitment to putting residents first. The resident didn't attack her in that comment. She didn't ask a question. She didn't even explain why she wouldn't attend. She simply said she wouldn't participate.

Yet Neustaeter responded by saying that the resident's conduct was deterring people who felt intimidated by what she called the "relentless trolling of elected people." Perhaps there's a history between them that explains the response. This short exchange probably doesn't tell us everything.

But it does illustrate the concern I've raised throughout this profile. When residents disagree with Neustaeter, how does she respond? Does she listen, or does she characterize the disagreement as negativity, trolling or something that should be taken somewhere else?

For a candidate campaigning on Good Governance, Local Leadership and Accountable Advocacy, I think those are fair questions to ask.

What about her campaign platform?

This brings me back to the announcement that started this article. Neustaeter says her second-term priorities are: Local Leadership, Good Governance and Accountable Advocacy.

Then she lists increasing housing options, meaningful solutions to homelessness, public safety, neighbourhood livability and sustainable economic growth. Those are reasonable things to support, but they are also things any candidate for City Council could say.

What I want to know is what Neustaeter would actually do differently.

And perhaps most importantly, what lessons has she learned from the first four years that will change how she approaches the next four? I don't see those answers in the announcement.

Instead, I see a councillor asking voters to trust her record while offering broad descriptions of the work she says she has accomplished.

I had one conversation with Katie

My preliminary recommendation

None of this means I expect Katie Neustaeter to agree with me. It doesn't even mean I expect her to agree with the Mayor. The question I'm asking is whether the way she exercises her authority, handles criticism and deals with disagreement gives me confidence that she should be given another four years in office.

So, would I vote for Katie Neustaeter for another term? No. At this point, my recommendation is Not Recommended.

My biggest concern is Neustaeter's judgment. Over her first term, I've seen someone who

And I've seen enough of the conflict between Neustaeter and the Mayor to believe that their personal conflict has become too large a part of how she approaches her role.

Maybe I'm wrong about some of that. That's why I've tried to show readers the record rather than simply tell them what to think.

When I put all of it together, I don't see the kind of judgment and temperament I want from someone asking for another four years at the Council table.

Neustaeter says she is an open book. I think voters should read the book, and they shouldn't stop at the cover.

My preliminary recommendation for the October 17, 2026 election is therefore: Not Recommended.

Editorial Disclosure: I've written extensively about Katie Neustaeter, Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson and the disagreements that have taken place between them during this Council term. Some of my previous articles have been critical of Neustaeter, and I have also expressed my own views about the Mayor, Council and the way local media have covered municipal politics.

My recommendation in this profile is my own opinion. It is based on my review of Council agendas and minutes, meeting recordings, City documents, court proceedings, campaign material, public social-media posts and my own observations of Council meetings. Where I have relied on allegations or matters that remain before the courts, I have tried to distinguish those allegations from established findings.

I have not attempted to conceal my opinions about Neustaeter, the Mayor, or other members of Council. I have, however, tried to distinguish documented facts, my observations and my conclusions, and to acknowledge evidence that does not support my position.

Readers should also know that I have expressed support for Reid Hamer-Jackson's re-election as Mayor, although that position remains subject to my assessment of the mayoral candidates as their campaigns develop.

I am not affiliated with Neustaeter's campaign or with any other municipal election campaign. I have had one personal conversation with Neustaeter, described in this article. I have no personal or financial relationship with her.

This is a preliminary candidate recommendation. I expect to update candidate profiles as campaigns develop, candidates answer questions and additional information becomes available.

Candidate Response: Kamloops Critic welcomes factual corrections from candidates and will promptly correct any verified errors. Candidates who wish to respond to this profile are invited to submit a response of up to 750 words. Responses may be edited only for length, formatting, or legal considerations.