ROTHENBURGER – How mayor’s strategy on audit proposal backfired

 MAYOR REID HAMER-JACKSON snatched defeat from the jaws of victory on Tuesday. He could have achieved a significant win but he missed his chance.

The mayor has never had a motion of any consequence even seconded for debate, let alone approved. He might not — even probably not — have gotten his attempt at a forensic audit of City operations passed in total, but there was a good chance he could have gotten part of it through.

It went wrong because Hamer-Jackson couldn’t let go of his feud with councillors long enough to get to a constructive discussion.

His motion, submitted on notice at the last meeting, was for an audit aimed at reducing waste and increasing transparency and “restoring trust in City Hall.” It included an examination of cost overruns, misaligned staffing levels, payroll costs, duplications, staffing levels and other items on a lengthy laundry list.

The audit, he said, should be done by a qualified independent expert without prior affiliation with the City.

If councillors had wanted to simply shoot it down, they could easily have questioned whether the cost would justify it. An audit done a few years ago by the Thompson-Nicola Regional District is an obvious comparison.

That one emerged from some very specific spending issues. BDO Canada was chosen through an RFP process with an original estimated cost up to $75,000 over three months but ended up costing close to a half million as it was expanded in scope and timeline.

The eventual report revealed “a culture of inappropriate spending” at the management and board levels, and resulted in a long list of reforms.

But none of that made it into yesterday’s conversation around the horseshoe, because Hamer-Jackson decided to include a mini-lecture to councillors in the text of his motion, and then grill each one of them on whether they’d discussed the matter prior to the meeting.

“… I see no reason why any member of this Council would hesitate to support this action, as I believe each of you shares the same commitment to transparency, accountability and good governance,” he wrote in his motion.

That’s not the kind of thing you include in a motion. You present the idea and hope it will generate debate and support. Regardless, Hamer-Jackson then made certain his motion was doomed. After reading out the proposal, he began asking each councillor if he or she had discussed his motion with other members during meetings held that morning or otherwise, and if there was any reason they wouldn’t support it.

The first few councillors acknowledged they had spoken privately with their colleagues but things quickly degenerated; they were obviously pissed off at being questioned before the motion even got to the debate stage.

“I find this highly inappropriate,” said Coun. Katie Neustaeter in a familiar refrain. “I feel like you are conducting a bit of an inquisition.” She threw in “highly irregular,” “incredibly disrespectful” and “inappropriate” for good measure.

“What you’re implying is totally offside,” agreed Coun. Bill Sarai. “What you’re doing now, trying to put pressure on us to feel guilty, I will not answer it.”

Coun. Dale Bass said Hamer-Jackson should “do your job” or resign.

And Coun. Kelly Hall, in his usual unpleasant manner when addressing the mayor, chimed in at some length, saying the motion was “crafted by a group of henchmen.”

Despite that, he did move Hamer-Jackson’s motion, and got a seconder, but by then there was little debate to be had.

Ironically, several councillors acknowledged they had been willing to give serious consideration to the motion or, at least, parts of it. Coun. Nancy Bepple said some of the points in the motion had been addressed through reports on asset management and procurement, but if Hamer-Jackson wanted to bring back a motion that addresses a specific problem, she’d consider it.

So he went into a list of concerns including loss of grant funding, land purchases, Noble Creek irrigation system decommissioning costs, and possible conflicts of interest. But it was too late. The mayor had lost the day, again.

Coun. Stephen Karpuk said he was in favour of some parts of the motion but didn’t like the “biased” wording. There were some good things in it but he couldn’t support it as written, he said.

Sarai said the motion could be directed to committees for review, and the mayor could discuss it with councillors in the meantime.

The matter wrapped up in typical fashion. Neustaeter began interrupting with her “unacceptable” language, Hamer-Jackson told her she was out of order and asked her to leave, and Hall attempted to call the vote on the motion himself. (In the end, Hamer-Jackson did call it.)

Today, upon reflection, the mayor acknowledges he might have used the wrong strategy. “I just felt I had to do something different,” he said by way of explanation.

“I was doing the same thing over and over and over again — I’ve done it so many times. I didn’t feel I was grilling them. I don’t think I was being abusive. I was just asking for simple answers.”

As for accusations that someone else had written the motion for him, he says the thoughts were his own. “Sure, I had somebody help me write it,” but he doesn’t have access to an executive assistant or other staff so “a few people” in the community helped out. (I’m sure those folks will appreciate being called “henchmen” by a councillor who’s supposed to represent everybody.

The mayor’s approach, though, resulted in him getting nothing when he could have gotten something. It all ended in just another 1-8 vote against him.

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 has been 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.