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.
Citizens should be thankful to Mel for providing this article. We should also be thankful that he is a good moderator.
LikeLike
As per what was said in Kamloops Critic
The Mayor sent the following email to Fretz
Fretz replied, cc’ing Council and CAO Byron McCorkell
Escalation
Neustaeter replied later that same day
Clarification
The Mayor asked Fretz why she included Council on the email exchange
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:
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
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.
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
and also
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.)
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
This information is damning for Katie. It points out that there is no logical reason we need this woman on council for another term.
LikeLike
OMG, the sooner we are rid of him the better.
LikeLike
Pseudoscience is not in anyone’s favour. There’s a reason lie detectors are excluded from use as evidence.
LikeLike