LETTER – Citizens were turned away from public hearing for lack of room

Mayor and Members of Council,
CAO McCorkell,
Corporate Officer Mazzotta,

We are writing to raise concerns regarding access to the public hearing held at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 13, 2026, to consider Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 68-1, 2025 for the properties located at 2440, 2450, and 2600 Trans-Canada Highway West.

As you are aware, the Council Chambers gallery has seating for approximately 15 members of the public in a city of more than 100,000 residents.

That evening, two residents arrived at City Hall at approximately 6:45 p.m., ahead of the 7:00 p.m. hearing start time. Upon arrival, the doors were found to be locked. A Community Safety Officer (CSO) opened the door slightly and advised that the meeting was “full.” Shortly thereafter, two additional residents arrived, followed by another resident and a companion. A man asked the CSO how seating was allocated, to which the CSO replied: “First 15, essentially, that there’s room for.”

As the doors were locked, it appeared that other individuals observed walking away from the same area moments earlier were also members of the public who were turned away.

When advised that one attendee needed to briefly enter the gallery to inform the person they were meeting inside that they would be unable to attend, the CSO responded: “I can’t let you in because we’re full, so I can pass on the message for you.” The CSO left and returned shortly after with news that one seat had become available.

Inside the gallery, seating was largely occupied by individuals associated with development interests, with just three seats occupied by members of the general public. After the meeting began, four unoccupied media-designated seats were released for public use by CSOs; by that point, those previously turned away had already left, and two of the seats were taken by new arrivals.

Only two public submissions in opposition were made. There is no way of knowing how many others may have wished to speak but were unable to attend.

Public interest in this application, from residents as well as representatives of development interests, was foreseeable. The hearing was promoted publicly through City social media channels and subscriber email notices, as well as by others through social media. Access to public meetings should not depend on estimating attendance, but on ensuring reasonable access regardless of turnout.

In past instances, the City has demonstrated the ability to accommodate overflow attendance, including a 2024 Performing Arts Centre (PAC) delegation in which Mr. Ron Fawcett addressed Council and an additional boardroom with a live video feed was opened to accommodate attendees. More recently, the City held the 2026 Budget Meeting at the Sandman Centre KIA Lounge.

By contrast, at other high-interest meetings, including the session regarding proposed changes to the public enquiries portion of the agenda that would have limited the public’s ability to speak at Council, no overflow arrangements were provided, and members of the public were denied entry once the limited capacity was reached. At that meeting, a CSO suggested that some residents enter briefly to deliver their submissions and then leave the meeting so that others could enter.

Administrative convenience cannot override the Community Charter obligation to conduct meetings open to the public, nor can a public hearing meaningfully serve its purpose when residents are excluded due to preventable logistical constraints or the absence of contingency planning.

The manner in which access to the hearing was controlled—including locked doors, restricted entry, and communication conducted through a partially opened doorway—was security-oriented rather than service-oriented and disproportionate for a legislated civic process.

To ensure that future public meetings meet both the letter and the spirit of public participation requirements, we request confirmation that overflow or alternative viewing arrangements will be treated as a standing requirement for all meetings open to the public, rather than an exceptional measure implemented only on an ad hoc basis.

We also request clarification on what steps will be taken to ensure that access to future public meetings is administered in a manner that prioritizes public service and accessibility, rather than restrictive practices.

We look forward to your response within a reasonable timeframe.

Respectfully,
COLEY ECKER and KATHRINE WUNDERLICH 
Kamloops Citizens United