EDITORIAL – AAP was legal but that doesn’t mean it was best
(Image: Mel Rothenburger)
An editorial by Mel Rothenburger.
THE ALTERNATIVE APPROVAL process that was used to get approval for $275 million worth of civic projects, including a new performing arts centre, was legal. It’s been found so, in court.
But that only means the way in which AAP was applied by the City of Kamloops in order to gain approval for two borrowing bylaws was correct. It doesn’t mean it was the best way of putting the question to taxpayers.
The choice was between a traditional referendum and the AAP. A referendum would have worked the same as an election — eligible voters would go to the polls, and if a majority of them voted in favour, the projects would have passed. Those who didn’t bother to voter would have no say.
The AAP, on the other hand, required eligible electors to sign and return a form if they opposed the projects. If they didn’t return a form to City Hall, they were considered to have voted yes.
There are so many things wrong with the AAP method as compared to the referendum process that it would take a lot of space to go into them all again. The were discussed thoroughly already in the lead-up to the deadline.
Coun. Kelly Hall is obviously happy with the outcome of the court case, in which a challenge to the way the APP was handled was ruled invalid. He claims it’s used by many municipalities these days and saves them loads of money.
It’s true that the Kamloops wasn’t the first city to use AAP. In fact it wasn’t even the first time Kamloops used it — but as I’ve written here before, the other major project it was used for was essential, namely the water treatment plant. A performing arts centre and sports complex are desirable but certainly not essential – residents should have been given the opportunity to vote on it. The fact City Hall wanted the facilities is not justification for the way the issue was handled.
By the way, it would sure be nice if City councillors would resist the temptation to take shots at residents who happen to disagree with them. Hall, in his official comments as chair of the Build Kamloops committee after the court decision, claimed it was some sort of problem that a single resident could take City Hall to court. “It’s unfortunate that the actions of one resident have resulted in additional costs to all local taxpayers to defend a legal, democratic process,” he said.
He knows very well that the petition to overturn the AAP results was filed by Kamloops Citizens United spokesperson Kathrine Wunderlich but that it was an initiative of KCU as a group.
In fact, after the court decision the group issued its own news release headlined “Fight not over for KCU.”
“Wunderlich thanked all who supported the court challenge and urged them to have confidence as KCU moves forward with an appeal process,” the news release said in part.
It was even noted in the court decision that a significant number of residents disagreed with the use of AAP. Best council drop the “us” vs. “them” approach and ditch the AAP method for future optional projects.
Mel Rothenburger is a former regular contributor to CFJC-TV and CBC radio, publishes the ArmchairMayor.ca opinion website, and is a recipient of the Jack Webster Foundation Lifetime Achievement Award, and a Webster Foundation Commentator of the Year finalist. He has served as mayor of Kamloops, school board chair and TNRD director, and is a retired daily newspaper editor. He can be reached at mrothenburger@armchairmayor.ca.
ArmchairMayor.ca 
Appreciate the sentiment and agree for the most part, with one correction. While the AAP is itself a legislated process and therefore legal, the question was whether the alternative notice requirement was reasonable, as distinct from correct. The actions of municipalities are, for the most part, decided on the former lower standard of “reasonableness”. To give you an idea what reasonableness means at law, imagine a nail hole on the broad side of a barn. The nail hole would be what is unreasonable. The barn would be what is considered reasonable in the deferential scheme that is administrative law. The implication is that municipalities don’t have to get it right. They can get it wrong, as long as they get it wrong “reasonably”, meaning as long as the court can follow the chain of reasoning that led to the wrong answer. Deference to administrative decision makers is a perversion of the rule of law, but it’s nothing terribly new. Constitutional theorist AV Dicey had it right.
LikeLike
Nice insight. But Groves said “ that citizens expect a traditional referendum process for decisions that would result in a significant debt or tax burden.” Hence was it “reasonable” that council bypassed (under pressure from staff I am sure) the traditional referendum to avoid getting the unintended results?
LikeLike
please let this rest, nothing to be gained by continuing to get people riled up.
LikeLike
I agree, Mel. The AAP may have met the letter of the law, but it was not the appropriate method of getting taxpayer feedback on borrowing so much money for 2 projects, one of which has been extremely controversial in the past.
The timing of the AAP and the methods of advertising it were chosen to maximize the probability of Council getting the outcome they wanted. Underhanded tactics or what!! When the city changed the “watering day rules” back in April 2024, they seemingly managed to deliver card stock announcements city-wide. The city certainly could’ve printed up some sort of information sheet about the AAP and paid someone to put a copy in everyone’s mailbox. But that wouldn’t have meshed with their agenda. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favour of a new performing arts centre (though not the Cadillac glass-walled showpiece) and also in favour of the sports complex. But a referendum should’ve been used to get approval for borrowing.
It is laughable, and somewhat pathetic, to see Kelly Hall quoted as saying “it’s unfortunate that the actions of one resident have resulted in additional costs to all local taxpayers…”. Seriously?? Does he listen to himself?? The court challenge was made on behalf of Kamloops citizens (his bosses) who questioned the methodology. The actions of 8 city councillors have resulted in at least $275 million in additional costs to all local taxpayers! Plus a $2.2 million bike lane than even city councillors are saying is essentially useless. And $$ for this, $$ for that and on and on and on. Costs incurred for the court challenge are peanuts in comparison to the ridiculous and wasteful overspending by this group of self-important councillors. The next civic election cannot come too soon!
LikeLiked by 3 people
So well said! Thank you for writing this–it could be an editorial on its own.
LikeLike
Thanks again, Mel. It takes an experienced and mature journalist to write an editorial like this. The letter of the law may not always be equal to the spirit of the law. The application of the AAP proved this to be true.
And Barb, we need people like you at City Hall to sit on council and represent truth and the citizens of our city.
Sometimes one might wonder why we end up with folks like Councillor Hall in a position of making decisions for the citizens of our city. He can hardly wait to try and put the blame (as it were) on a woman who dared to have her voice heard in court and therefore be the reason for costing the City a lot of unnecessary expense. Perhaps, or especially, a woman.
Is that not a form of bullying? Is today “pink shirt day”?
Yes, Barb, some things to remember for the next election when some of these same folks might be begging for our vote.
LikeLike
I feel sorry for the young people who will see massive tax increases now and in a short 25 years when all this crap will have to be torn down. Too bad we can’t vote them out now.
LikeLike
When this was called negative billing it was thoroughly trashed and called undemocratic. Now this council thinks it is wonderful, can companies be looking at this with renewed interest?
LikeLike