ROTHENBURGER – Is harsh punishment meted out to mayor proportionate?

SEVERAL THINGS about a new report finding that Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson was in a conflict of interest over a vote on a new homeless shelter are troubling.

The report itself — at 24 pages including the cover page, and a cost to the taxpayers of more than a thousand dollars a page — is thorough and fair. I see no indication of bias from the author, Reece Harding of the Vancouver law firm Young Anderson.

Hamer-Jackson, who admitted to me on the weekend he hadn’t read it, is sure it must have been, because he strongly believes Harding is biased against him in general. During Harding’s investigation, Hamer-Jackson made that clear, to the point where Harding paused his inquiry for a couple of weeks to do some navel gazing. Harding concluded he had no bias, and carried on.

“On May 26, 2025, I determined that I did not have a legal bias as alleged by the Mayor and issued a written decision in this regard to the mayor.”

As I said, I see no evidence of bias in the report he eventually wrote and turned in to the City on June 18, but that doesn’t absolve City Hall — that is, CAO Byron McCorkell — of criticism for so consistently hiring Harding to investigate complaints against the mayor. Knowing Hamer-Jackson’s strong feelings on the matter, it’s obvious he isn’t going to find any credence in any conclusions Harding reaches.

Therefore, the respectful and wise thing to do would be to hire an investigator that both Hamer-Jackson and the Code of Conduct complainant — in this case, Coun. Dale Bass — agree to. That’s what happens when a mediator is chosen to sort out labor vs. management conflicts. It’s not an exact parallel but the principle is the same — minimize concern on both sides about the person who’s trying to sort things out.

Due to his misgivings about Harding, the mayor refused repeated opportunities to be interviewed by him in response to the complaint. Harding even offered him the chance to submit a detailed written defence.

All Hamer-Jackson did was to send several emails that Harding regarded as not getting to the crux of the complaint.

“I will attend the courts when 10 citizens want to have me disqualified due to being in a conflict of interest. That way the judge will decide not you and the same jury you present your investigation to?” he wrote early in Harding’s investigation.

This refusal to participate is consistent with Hamer-Jackson’s reaction to pretty much all the investigations that have been done into his actions, and it’s natural for the average person to ask what good he thinks it does him.

I asked him that exact question a couple of days ago, noting that in this latest case what it’s got him is likely another 30 per cent cut in his salary. He bristled at this, saying basically he isn’t prepared to compromise his principles for the sake of his paycheque, even though all the monetary sanctions have made it hard for him to pay his bills.

But the key to Harding’s decision is Hamer-Jackson’s incomplete explanation of why he did not recuse himself from the vote involving a property in which developer Knaak has a financial interest.

The issue actually began with an earlier vote on a different application involving Knaak. On Sept. 24, 2024, Hamer-Jackson declared a conflict of interest regarding a rezoning for a daycare on 9^th Avenue. One of the owners was Joshua Knaak, whom the mayor had initiated a civil lawsuit against. He declared a conflict of interest for that reason and left chambers. He didn’t attend the Oct. 8 public hearing on the application.

On Nov. 5, the TUP application for 142 Tranquille Road came up. As Harding noted, “While Mr. Knaak was involved in this application, the corporate applicant was different than the one at issue in the September and October meetings.”

Corporate officer Maria Mazzotta reminded him of his Sept. 24 declaration of a conflict of interest in relation to the daycare rezoning. The mayor then left the meeting without declaring a conflict but without voting on the TUP.

On Nov. 26, however, Hamer-Jackson said he had received legal advice that he wasn’t in a conflict, and voted against the application. When Harding asked for proof that he’d gotten legal advice, Hamer-Jackson refused to give it to him.

Why? “That’s solicitor-client privilege,” the mayor said when I talked to him Saturday. He repeated it a couple of times when I pressed him.

But he wasn’t asked for details of the legal advice he received, I said. Why not just provide proof in the form of a letter from his lawyer that he’d received it? Lawyer-client privilege, he said again. “All I’ve gotta do is tell council I got it.”

Later in our conversation, though, Hamer-Jackson provided a clue to why he came to believe he wasn’t in a conflict. “I’m not suing Arpa Developments or any numbered company. I’m suing Joshua Knaak.”

Not being a lawyer, I don’t know whether distinguishing between a company and its owner is enough to remove a conflict in this case but it explains the rationale. Hamer-Jackson also said his reason for voting against the shelter was that he believed it should be a “dry” shelter, not “wet” which means residents can’t be actively under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

But Harding ruled that voting based on “policy” opinions doesn’t negate a conflict of interest.

He relied heavily on Hamer-Jackson’s refusal to provide proof of legal advice (“…had this legal advice or a summary of it been provided, either at the November 26, 2024 council meeting or to me in the course of this complaint, the outcome of this investigation may have been very different”) but also on public perception.

“There is a substantial likelihood that reasonably well-informed members of the public would believe that the Mayor cast his vote in this way to punish or disadvantage Mr. Knaak on the basis of his personal dispute with him.”

It’s indeed true that civic politicians often recuse themselves from participating in decisions based on a concern that the public will perceive a conflict of interest, whether or not it’s actual. Had Hamer-Jackson exercised that often-used abundance of caution, Coun. Bass wouldn’t have had cause to trigger an investigation costing more than $29,000.

Now then, to the matter of the sanctions levied on him by council. Were they fair?

Harding recommended this:

• that Hamer-Jackson be given another opportunity to “present a general description” of the legal advice he claimed at the November 26 meeting to have received. If he provided it, council should “impose no sanctions or other measures against the Mayor.”
• if he failed to provide such objective proof of his legal advice “or any explanation, or an insufficient explanation to Council regarding the rationale for his vote on Nov. 26” he should:
• be required to take mandatory training on conflicts of interest under the Code of Conduct and Community Charter and
• be censured and the investigation report be published and
• should he refuse or fail to “participate and complete mandatory training as noted above within 30 days of Council’s direction, that Council reduce the Mayor’s remuneration by 5% for a period 12 months. I stress that this measure should only be implemented as a result of the Mayor’s failure to complete the recommended training.”

Harding also strongly cautioned against overdoing it. He quoted the B.C Supreme Court judge in a 2011 Prince George case:  “I think it reasonable to think in certain cases council need to state the standard of expected conduct, but I note this: it is a power to be exercised with great care and great discretion. Far too easily, this could turn into an abuse of process for cheap political gain, and any council that sets out in this direction must be careful in what it is doing.”

To this, Harding added his own words of caution: “As an investigator under the Code, I need to ensure that I take care to recommend a remedy that is proportionate to the breaches that I have found, not only because doing so is consistent with the purposes of the Code, but because of the Court’s warning to municipal councils generally.”

So what did councillors do? They lowered the boom:

• he must provide the proof of legal advice within seven days or take a 10 per cent pay cut.
• he must sign and deliver a letter of apology to Joshua Knaak within 30 days or take an additional 10 per cent pay cut.
• within 60 days he must take mandatory training on his obligations under the Community Charter and the Local Government Act, including conflicts of interest and his oath of office, or take a further 10 per cent pay cut.
• a public censure to be published on the City’s web page “along with all other censures of Mayor Hamer-Jackson by Council that have not yet been published.”

That’s harsh by any measure. So he hasn’t provided the proof of legal advice, says he won’t apologize to Knaak, and points out he’s already taken two courses, one on “Responsible Conduct” from the Local Government Management Association and another on “Privacy and Access Fundamentals” from the Ministry of Citizens Services.

Will he take another one as directed by councillors? “I gotta think about that?” he said, but then added he’ll consider it if it covers new ground not included in the ones he’s already taken.

Bottom line, the mayor should have recused himself when the shelter proposal came up, and, arguably, made mistakes in his response to the resulting complaint. But the “remedy” imposed by councillors is unnecessarily harsh.

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.