LATEST

CITY COUNCIL – Take a polygraph and I will too, mayor challenges Neustaeter

Coun. Neustaeter. (Image: Mel Rothenburger)

Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson challenged Coun. Katie Neustaeter Tuesday (October. 6, 2026) to take a lie detector test and said he’ll do the same.

It came after a three-hour afternoon session at a regular council meeting — the last one before the Oct. 17 civic election — during his Mayor’s Report.

“I’d like to talk a little bit about polygraph tests and crime,” he began.

He then quickly connected his remarks to a claim by Neustaeter in May 2024 that he had monitored her bathroom breaks during council meetings.

Hamer-Jackson sued Neustaeter over it the following year, saying she sent an email to senior administrators and other councillors accusing him of “surreptitiously tracking her movements, documenting when she uses the bathroom, engaging in creepy behaviour and being an unsafe person.”

The email was in response to one the mayor had sent to civic operations manager Jen Fretz asking why Neustaeter was allowed into a restricted area of City Hall. Fretz replied by email, with a copy to other council members, that Neustaeter had permission to use a washroom in the area despite a policy forbidding council members to enter that part of the building.

The mayor’s lawsuit also claimed Neustaeter had repeated her accusation at a meeting with council and staff.

Hamer-Jackson has repeatedly said he was only interested in knowing why Neustaeter was in a restricted area of the building, not whether she was visiting the washroom. He claimed in his lawsuit that Neustaeter had defamed him with her accusation about washroom breaks.

The suit has reportedly been inactive for several months.

Tuesday he proposed mutual polygraphs to clear it up. He said the kind of behaviour Neustaeter accused him of is a crime, and she should report it to the RCMP. “I will take a polygraph test and I think she should, too.”

Coun. Nancy Bepple tried to interrupt him but Hamer-Jackson finished up and Neustaeter then countered with references to their legal battles, quoting the “crossing personal and professional boundaries” claim she made in a speech on behalf of councillors in 2023. That remark was the subject of a different lawsuit filed by the mayor. It was thrown out of court.

She said Tuesday the evidence backed up her side of the story.

“Have a great day, everyone,” she concluded.

The entire exchange took about one minute before the meeting was unofficially recessed for a public hearing.

Mel Rothenburger's avatar
About Mel Rothenburger (12166 Articles)
ArmchairMayor.ca is a forum about Kamloops and the world. It has more than one million views. Mel Rothenburger is the former Editor of The Daily News in Kamloops, B.C. (retiring in 2012), and past mayor of Kamloops (1999-2005). At ArmchairMayor.ca he is the publisher, editor, news editor, city editor, reporter, webmaster, and just about anything else you can think of. He is grateful for the contributions of several local columnists. This blog doesn't require a subscription but gratefully accepts donations to help defray costs.

6 Comments on CITY COUNCIL – Take a polygraph and I will too, mayor challenges Neustaeter

  1. Unknown's avatar John Noakes // October 7, 2026 at 3:45 PM // Reply

    Citizens should be thankful to Mel for providing this article. We should also be thankful that he is a good moderator.

    Like

  2. Unknown's avatar iamoutback1971 // October 7, 2026 at 2:17 PM // Reply

    As per what was said in Kamloops Critic

    The Mayor sent the following email to Fretz

    https://kamloopscritic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/kamloops-mayor-defamation-observed-vs-spying-a.jpg

    Fretz replied, cc’ing Council and CAO Byron McCorkell

    https://kamloopscritic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/kamloops-mayor-defamation-observed-vs-spying-b.jpg

    Escalation

    Neustaeter replied later that same day

    https://kamloopscritic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/kamloops-mayor-defamation-observed-vs-spying-c.jpg

    Clarification

    The Mayor asked Fretz why she included Council on the email exchange

    https://kamloopscritic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/kamloops-mayor-defamation-observed-vs-spying-d.jpg

    The following day, Fretz replied

    https://kamloopscritic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/kamloops-mayor-defamation-observed-vs-spying-e.jpg

    The Mayor then replied

    https://kamloopscritic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/kamloops-mayor-defamation-observed-vs-spying-f.jpg

    In his reply, the Mayor points out the seriousness of Neustaeter’s allegations and questions whether there should be a Code of Conduct complaint against her.Further Escalation

    The next day, Neustaeter replies again

    https://kamloopscritic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/kamloops-mayor-defamation-observed-vs-spying-g.jpg

    It’s at this point the word “observing” is introduced. Neustaeter also indicates that she could submit a Code of Conduct complaint against the Mayor, which is not what the Mayor had suggested.

    Neustaeter elaborates on her reference to “another female Councillor” in her Response to the Mayor’s Notice of Civil Claim:

    On May 28 2024, the plaintiff made verbal inquiries with Christine Cossentine, the Executive Assistant to Mayor and Council of the City of Kamloops, regarding his observing City Councillor Margot Middleton being given access to a locked area of City Hall by City staff. The plaintiff was specifically advised by Christine Cossentine that Councillor Middleton had likewise been given access to a locked area of City Hall with an escort for the purpose of using the washroom.

    According to Neustaeter, we again see no mention of the Mayor referencing a washroom. Rather, it is the Executive Assistant who mentions it.Visibility

    During Neustaeter’s application to dismiss the Mayor’s first defamation claim against her, she submitted to a cross-examination on August 25, 2025. While under cross-examination, she agreed the washroom inside the restricted area wasn’t visible from the Mayor’s office.

    https://kamloopscritic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/kamloops-mayor-defamation-observed-vs-spying-h.jpg

    The Mayor saw Neustaeter exit a restricted area. He asked why. Staff replied Neustaeter had used the washroom. She then accused him of monitoring women in the bathroom.

    We are left wondering how Neustaeter translated the Mayor witnessing her exit from a locked area into the Mayor monitoring her usage of a washroom. Those are very different things.Professional Communicator

    The Mayor has described Neustaeter as a “professional communicator” in his claim

    https://kamloopscritic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/kamloops-mayor-defamation-observed-vs-spying-i.jpg

    On the other hand, Neustaeter denies this in her response to the claim, admitting only to being a councillor

    https://kamloopscritic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/kamloops-mayor-defamation-observed-vs-spying-j.jpg

    https://kamloopscritic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/kamloops-mayor-defamation-observed-vs-spying-k.jpg

    To resolve this disagreement, we can look to Neustaeter’s LinkedIn profile, which appears to support the Mayor’s statement

    https://kamloopscritic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/kamloops-mayor-defamation-observed-vs-spying-l.jpg

    It appears that the Mayor is correct, and according to Neustaeter herself, she is Director of Communications at United Way BC, owner of Refraction Communications, and a professional writer.

    We can also look at Neustaeter’s bio on one of her “REFRACTION” articles she has written

    https://kamloopscritic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/kamloops-mayor-defamation-observed-vs-spying-m.jpg

    Neustaeter background as a professional writer and communications consultant matters because this case is entirely about language.Words Chosen, Not Words Slipped

    During her cross-examination, Neustaeter portrayed the Mayor as spying on her

    I believe there was a circumstance under which Reid was apparently spying on me while I was in City Hall using the bathroom.

    She testified that, to her, observing someone without their knowledge is the same as spying

    https://kamloopscritic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/kamloops-mayor-defamation-observed-vs-spying-n.jpg

    She also testified that “spying” was simply a synonym for “observing”. For many readers, those words do not carry the same meaning.

    He sent that email saying that he was observing us. And what we were doing when he was observing us was using the bathroom. So while I use the word “spying” as, you know, just a synonym for what he describes, that — that’s what was happening.

    It may seem insignificant, but the Mayor actually used the word “witnessed” as opposed to “observing“. There is a bit of nuance between the words in that observing is considered a little more formal and can suggest a more careful scrutiny than witnessed. On the other hand, the Mayor could have just as easily used the word “observed” to indicate he “saw” something.

    Neustaeter is described in the court pleadings as a professional communicator. Language is her profession.

    The phrases “spying,” “tracking,” and “monitor women in this way” are not neutral. They carry strong implications. Observing someone exit a secured area is not the same as secretly surveilling women in a washroom.

    The court will decide what a reasonable reader would understand from the words Neustaeter chose. When the dispute is about wording, the precision of those words matters.After‑Hours Email and Gender Insinuation

    Neustaeter has also pointed to two additional factors to bolster the appearance of impropriety. The Mayor’s email was sent after hours, and the recipient of the email was a female staff member. Neither withstands scrutiny.

    During cross-examination, Neustaeter stated

    Reid sent a late night email to a female member of staff saying that he observed us while we were using the bathroom.

    and also

    So when a member of staff receives a late email that says “I was spying on you and Councillor Neustaeter”, yes, that is unsettling both for her — and then when I found out, for me as well.

    City business does not cease at 4:30 pm. And the director responsible for a restricted area does not become the wrong person to contact because of her gender. Suggesting otherwise cheapens a serious issue and distracts from the actual facts……

    …. (Moral of this story is, Time marches on, and sooner or later it is marching across your face.)

    Like

    • Unknown's avatar Mel Rothenburger // October 7, 2026 at 6:22 PM // Reply

      The above is an extensive excerpt from a Feb. 20, 2026 article by Richard Wilbur in his Kamloops Critic blog, headlined, “Kamloops Mayor Defamation Case: ‘Observed’ vs. ‘Spying.’ For his full article, go to KamloopsCritic.ca.

      Like

    • This information is damning for Katie. It points out that there is no logical reason we need this woman on council for another term.

      Like

  3. OMG, the sooner we are rid of him the better.

    Like

  4. Pseudoscience is not in anyone’s favour. There’s a reason lie detectors are excluded from use as evidence.

    Like

Leave a Reply