Kamloops mayor’s early term legal risks exposed in newly released letter

Kamloops city council quietly made public a letter sent to Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson that lays out a litany of legal liabilities he posed to the city just a month into his term.

It was delivered to the mayor on behalf of council in December 2022 and he repeatedly asked for it to be released to the public in the months and years that followed. Why he wanted the four-page letter to be public and why council released it now isn’t clear, but it’s clear council had serious concerns about his behaviour from the outset beyond his treatment of people at city hall.

“One ill chosen comment or action can result in significant legal exposure that is often difficult to mitigate. We all want to avoid involving the city in unnecessary claims such as this,” the Dec. 9, 2022 letter reads.

Signed by all eight city councillors, it was given to him to explain why they held two closed-door meetings without him that same week. They were getting legal advice to address or minimize the legal risk that followed his behaviour.

It also warned the contents of the letter itself remain confidential and he was not to share it with anyone, even his own lawyer.

“If this information becomes public, it could further jeopardize the city’s legal position,” it reads.

Much of the examples included are early-term controversies which have already been reported, but it provides insight to how the city reacted to his conduct and fears it may cost taxpayers.

The first example within the letter was a November 2022 defamation threat against Hamer-Jackson from ASK Wellness and its CEO Bob Hughes. It resulted in fiery letters between Hamer-Jackson’s then-lawyer Dave McMillan and the non-profit’s lawyer.

According to the letter, McMillan “threatened” an investigation into non-profits like ASK Wellness, which “blurred the line” between mayoral duties and his personal legal disputes and “could be construed” as an abuse of public office. Hamer-Jackson has also repeatedly called for an investigation into social services, which left council concerned that even if the defamation dispute was resolved, there would be questions of Hamer-Jackson’s personal bias.

“As long as your public hostility toward them continues, the public may perceive that your personal interests are interfering with your official duties,” the letter reads.

According to the letter, he “invoked (his) mayoral title” to direct city staff’s work duties more than once, which was pointed out as expressly outside the scope of anyone’s role on council.

Similarly, he directed a city-funded security contractor to park their vehicles on or near his own business property. iNFOnews.ca reported on it around the time and Hamer-Jackson denied doing so to benefit himself through public funds, but council said it could be perceived as a conflict of interest.

Among the numerous incidents mentioned in the letter, it said Hamer-Jackson had publicly disclosed confidential information just days earlier.

Another was a threatening phone call a city staffer received who was “under the misapprehension” the employee was working against the mayor. Council said they did not blame him, but reminded Hamer-Jackson his words and actions can have consequences.

The employee’s name was redacted, but it was reported at the time former CAO David Trawin was on the receiving end of the phone call.

“We all have a duty to consider the well-being and interests of the municipality and its staff, and we request that you exercise greater judgment before speaking publicly. We are also concerned about the financial impact that potential constructive dismissal claims could have on the city and urge that you consider this in the course of your conversations and daily activities both inside and outside city hall,” the letter reads.

The letter concluded with no sanctions against the mayor and was written long before any of his restrictions and pay cuts. It was also before council’s news conference the following March accusing him of breaching personal and professional boundaries, leading to his civil lawsuit against Coun. Katie Neustaeter. Council’s code of conduct bylaw hadn’t even been finalized yet, and the first complaint against Hamer-Jackson wouldn’t be filed until more than six months later.

It repeatedly reminds Hamer-Jackson the letter is confidential and even it’s release could expose the city to legal risks, but the city has likely determined there is no longer any jeopardy to sharing it publicly.

On July 29, city council voted in a closed-door meeting to publish it to its website. It was posted this week with no other information about what led to the decision other than noting Hamer-Jackson’s “repeated” requests.

The letter can be found online here.