LETTER – How to have one less distraction at Kamloops City Hall

It seems Coun. Neustaeter’s taxpayer-funded lawyers now plan to use anti-SLAPP legislation to dismiss the mayor’s defamation suit against her.

This is insulting to the spirit of the Protection of Public Participation Act and a slap in the face to bona-fide environmental and social activists.

Anti-SLAPP legislation was designed to protect those protesting “in the public interest” from corporations with deep pockets who use Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) to scare off, wear down or punish those opposed to pollution or human rights violations. Anti-SLAPP legislation was not designed to protect people who use their position of power to make damaging, unsupported claims about another person.

In Coun. Neustaeter’s case, she’s the one with the deep pockets anyway, since Kamloops taxpayers are footing her legal bills. And her comments when she read out the councillors’ March 17 statement were not designed to foster the public good. They were about how the councillors didn’t like the mayor’s standing committees and were upset with the mayor. Where was the public benefit in that?

The only reason taxpayers are even on the hook for Coun. Neustaeter’s legal costs is because the councillors invoked a bylaw allowing council to approve an extraordinary expense.

They didn’t have to do that. The City was in no way liable to pay for anything Coun. Neustaeter said. The City isn’t in any danger with the mayor, either. The councillors and others at City Hall have tried to justify proactively penalizing the mayor by removing him as City spokesperson just in case he might make a comment sometime in the future that causes the City to be sued. This fear is baseless.

When I made a Public Inquiry at the public council meeting following the councillors’ controversial March 17 statement, CAO Trawin told me that the city cannot be held liable for anything a council member says or does because council members are not employees of the municipal corporation. Further, clauses in both the Community Charter and the Council Code of Conduct squarely place liability upon any council member who speaks out of turn.

Instead of racking up more legal bills, Coun. Neustaeter should do the right thing and publicly explain exactly what she meant when she said the mayor was “crossing personal boundaries.” She could provide examples and describe instances of such boundary-crossing.

This would clear the air, as it is my suspicion that the boundaries crossed were not of the serious nature that Coun. Neustaeter’s insinuation implied. Why was she so coy in the first place? If the mayor seriously harassed her, she should have formally charged him with this crime, not just vaguely remarked on it at a media event.

Since no such charge has been leaked, I believe that Coun. Neustaeter may have used the strongest language possible to describe one or two instances that did not remotely approach any serious boundary.

If Coun. Neustaeter wouldn’t  clutch at SLAPP straws, perhaps the mayor could then drop his defamation suit, taxpayers would then be off the hook, and we’d have one less distraction at City Hall.

BRONWEN SCOTT