ROTHENBURGER – The tale of the mayor’s FOI texts continues to confuse

AN UPDATE to the FOI battle at City Hall is in order. Call it the Tale of the Texts. As of today (March 16, 2026), Coun. Margot Middleton maintains she has not received the files requested of Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson in response to a Freedom of Information application from iNFOnews.ca in August 2025.

The mayor, on the other hand, thinks she has. What’s the explanation for these contradictory impressions of what’s going on? It goes like this.

As I reported last week, following the Tuesday council meeting in which Hamer-Jackson was ordered to produce the records sought by iNFOnews.ca within 24 hours or face further cuts in his pay amounting to the City’s legal fees and other expenses, the mayor texted Middleton some records.

Middleton confirmed to the mayor that she had received what he’d sent, and had forwarded them to the City’s lawyers. But, in answer to a request from me to confirm this was the case, she responded that the City “has not received the responsive records.”

Later in the day she released a lengthy statement to local media reiterating that position, so I asked again for an explanation of the apparent discrepancy. Today she emailed: “The text the Mayor sent was not the records specified in the FOI request.”

An hour later, the mayor sent me a copy of a new text from Middleton, in answer to another ping from him asking, “FOI not received IT?” — “Yes, my phone is receiving your texts.”

Which prompted the mayor to conclude, “Just checked my other device. Looks like I don’t have to print off as days later verification of receipt. I asked her if she deleted my Aug. 26 text but no answer as of yet.”

The Aug. 26 text being his original response to the FOI, and the one Middleton says she never received.

So what was in those texts? The issue with what he sent could have to do with it not being within the time frame requested, or being outside the application’s parameters.

Whatever, all this focus on who sent and received texts over a period of six months or so is kind of silly. There are many ways to communicate. If there was a problem with Middleton confirming receipt of the mayor’s text, why wasn’t another method used? Which is what I asked the mayor in a phone call this morning and his reply as I understand it is that he didn’t really think about it until I asked.

But the truly ridiculous part is that. in a normal world, sensible adults would have had a courteous discussion about how to comply with the FOI. Those sensible adults should have been the mayor and the City’s FOI officer Stephanie Nichols. No middle person would have been involved.

But Hamer-Jackson, by the council’s direction, isn’t supposed to talk to staff. So, when the FOI was filed, Middleton was appointed via a council resolution to take point. (The fact that council passed a motion on her role is something I found out just today; I’d been asking about it for a few days.)

The way it’s supposed to work is that an FOI is received, the FOI officer informs the subject or subjects of the application that certain records have been requested, they provide said records, the FOI officer does any appropriate redactions and then makes them available to the applicant. The applicant remains anonymous to all but the FOI officer.

That certainly isn’t the way this one happened. In addition to Middleton’s involvement, the applicant was contacted by Hamer-Jackson himself, who says he figured out who it was. Not only that, he used his personal phone for at least some of the texts.

At any rate, when I asked “…was it ever suggested to the mayor that he provide the records in a method other than texting, and assistance offered to him on how he might do that?” she replied, “Many times, this is not the first FOI request this term.”

One can’t help but think that if there was a normal relationship between the mayor and other members of council, the problem wouldn’t have come up. At the least, it would have made sense to lift the ban on talking to staff members in the case of FOI applications. Indeed, contrary to the council’s own dictum, Middleton’s motion last week directed Hamer-Jackson to provide the records to Nichols, which the mayor decided not to do because of the previous order forbidding contact.

Another interesting point is the assertion by iNFOnews.ca editor Marshall Jones that someone at the City suggested the news outlet’s application not be withdrawn, and that iNFOnews.ca “keep it going.” Middleton says she has no knowledge of that.

So, since there’s no longer an application, nor a complaint, what will happen to Middleton’s motion? Will it be put on the shelf? “This will be considered at the next council meeting,” which is next week.

As ArmchairMayor.ca reader Rob Madsen has observed, “It is unbelievable that just about everyone involved with this debacle has taken a very simple process under freedom of information legislation and botched it so completely.”

Mel Rothenburger is a former regular contributor to CFJC-TV and CBC radio, publishes the ArmchairMayor.ca opinion website, writes for the Kamloops Chronicle 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.