EDITORIAL – City council tightens the screws on public input at its meetings

Read it and weep. (Image: Mel Rothenburger)
An editorial by Mel Rothenburger.
THE NAIL IN THE COFFIN of civic democracy was hammered in tighter today (Dec. 9, 2025) by Kamloops City council. By majority vote, the council members extended the ban on public inquiries it put in place earlier in the year.
Some councillors cautiously endorsed a return of public input, at least on a trial basis. Others, such as Katie Neustaeter and Stephen Karpuk, were steadfastly opposed, fearing disruption and loss of meeting time. Karpuk and Bill Sarai took the opportunity to blame Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson for supposedly not keeping a lid on public behaviour at the meetings.
So, no public inquiries at least until the end of council’s current term. But removing the opportunity for taxpayers to ask questions at the meetings isn’t the only barrier to public participation.
Mere presence at the meetings is now stringently under the watch of Community Service Officers. You must first get past a couple of them posted near the entrance. They will ask you your reason for being there, and if you are allowed into council chambers, you’d better behave yourself.
A list of no fewer than 15 conditions has been posted on the door. “ATTENTION: ALL PUBLIC THAT WISH TO ENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS” it says in large block letters.
“The City of Kamloops encourages public engagement in civic matters…” it begins, then commences to outline the ways in which public engagement is discouraged.
For example, the contents of any bags you carry with you may be inspected, and large bags can’t be taken into chambers. You are not allowed to use your cell phone or laptop to record the meeting or take photos.
And no food or beverages. Kids under 12 must be accompanied by an adult. I guess there’s been a stampede of pre-teens wanting to observe first-hand the riveting deliberations over rezonings and development proposals.
No standing room, either. Once the very limited number of seats is taken, nobody else is allowed in. And don’t try to sit at the media table.
Remember that quaint little “reading” in which the corporate officer briefly quotes from some author or philosopher as the meeting gets underway? You must now rise, unless you aren’t able. For the rest of the meeting, though, you must remain seated at all times. No talking, no applause or booing, and don’t say anything nasty.
My goodness, how fearful can these elected representatives of the people be of those who elected them? If only the parts about “disrespectful, abusive, hurtful, hateful, or inappropriate comments and behaviour” would apply to the councillors too.
Today, for example, when Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson told the group that a Facebook troll with the handle “Bob’s Yer Uncle” posted a comment that the mayor “should be shot and pissed on,” Coun. Kelly Hall apparently found it funny.
When Hamer-Jackson asked him why he was laughing, Hall replied, “I just think it’s kind of humorous we’re talking about Facebook right now.”
Various councillors, here and elsewhere, have expressed concern about threats to politicians on social media, but Hall finds it funny when the mayor is the target.
But, hey, the rules are for the public, not for councillors.
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.
Authoritarian tendencies masquerading as fragile snowflakes. Trust that when the time is right, I’ll be ready to strike.
Cowards.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Armchair Mayor; could I please get your help on the grammar shown on the sign posted on the door of council chambers?
May I question the wording, “All public THAT wish to enter council chambers”?
“That” seems to be used to reference people and if so, my question is based upon the use of “that”.
Should the proper word be “WHO”, as nominative case, (as opposed to ‘whom’) wish to enter council chambers?
To become a bit more precise, and not as clumsy, should the wording perhaps be, “All members of the public who wish to enter council chambers”?
Thanks in advance for your assistance with the use of the King’s grammar.
LikeLike
You are correct, unless the use of “that” was intentional ;-)
Maybe it does refer to a “thing”: Some kind of dehumanized threat that pays taxes but isn’t entitled to consideration and can’t be trusted.
LikeLike
Could someone on staff identify the dolt who is responsible for fabricating the wording on that sign? Surely, one of the many who have a University degree would have recognized the obvious alluding to citizens as dehumanized objects and made the correction before it was put into print.
Since I’m assuming the City sign shop printed the sign, would no one there have proof read what was given to them?
We think along similar lines, Bronwen. For that I am thankful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is this the next lawsuit?
LikeLike