Kamloops issues cease and desist to its own mayor

The mayor of Kamloops is being warned against defaming city staff or risk city hall taking him to court.

An Aug. 12 cease and desist letter accuses Reid Hamer-Jackson of making “serious, unfounded” claims about staff in the city’s privacy department which are putting the municipality in “unnecessary legal risk.”

“If the city suffers any loss, damage, cost or expense as a result of your statements, the city reserves the right to pursue cost recovery from you personally,” the letter read.s

According to the letter, he claims privacy staff can’t process Freedom of Information requests for his records and he has challenged them on what can be released or what should be redacted. They are, Hamer-Jackson claims, “biased” against him and have a supposed conflict of interest.

The mayor shared the letter with iNFOnews.ca a day after Coun. Mike O’Reilly signed and emailed it to the mayor. Since early in the term, O’Reilly has been council’s designated official to handle human resources issues between Hamer-Jackson and city staff.

According to the letter, he claims it’s because city staff participated in the latest code of conduct investigation, which details how he bullied staff, and filed affidavits when the BC Attorney General took Hamer-Jackson to court over a leaked report.

The city has since gotten legal advice affirming privacy department staff are not in a conflict of interest, adding that there’s “no basis” to claim they are biased because they filed affidavits in court. It further describes Hamer-Jackson’s claims the affidavits were false as a “baseless” and “defamatory” attack against city staff.

“Your allegations are self-serving, completely unfounded, and risk undermining staff’s ability to perform the statutory roles assigned to them. (The allegations) should stop immediately,” the letter reads.

Hamer-Jackson’s penchant to cling to past grievances and conflicts with staff and council has been a theme throughout his term as mayor, even after investigations in which he refuses to participate. This case is no different, and it’s a continuation of a dispute that traces back to the first internal investigation against him.

He was the second person to leak the investigation report, months after it was first leaked to media by an anonymous source. When the Attorney General sought to have Hamer-Jackson return the report, a staffer filed an affidavit saying Hamer-Jackson’s claims should have mentioned the previous leak.

The dispute with the Attorney General’s office has been over for several months.

Speaking with iNFOnews.ca, Hamer-Jackson confirmed he believes privacy department staff are biased and in a conflict of interest, but he first suggested Coun. O’Reilly signed the letter as part of his upcoming election campaign rather than his role on council to deal with Hamer-Jackson’s numerous human resources disputes.

“Is that what that was? I thought that was a (mayoral) campaign run for Mike O’Reilly,” Hamer-Jackson said of the letter. He said O’Reilly and the city did not expect it to be made public.

He further accused the city staffer of making “misleading” statements in the months-old affidavit, which could amount to perjury. Though it’s a claim he has raised numerous times, he has not attempted to take the accusation to court.

The letter included a reminder that Hamer-Jackson does not have the authority to determine what records can be released through a Freedom of Information request.

When asked about whether he has interfered with what is released or redacted through Freedom of Information requests, Hamer-Jackson said yes, but said it was only in cases where he believed records should be made public.

It’s not clear how many times this has happened and the letter does not mention specific instances, but the he did so in response to an iNFOnews.ca information request last year.

The issue remained outstanding for months as Hamer-Jackson refused to provide the records to privacy department staff and when he did attempt to provide some directly to iNFOnews.ca, they were entirely unrelated to the request.

“Disagreement with staff’s approach to redactions does not give you a role in reviewing, supervising or second-guessing their work. Your role is to comply with staff’s directions by searching for and providing responsive records so the city can meet its statutory obligations,” the letter concludes.