On May 9, 2023, all nine members of Council unanimously adopted the Council Code of Conduct Bylaw No. 53, 2023. Through this process, each member of Council agreed to abide by the bylaw in fulfilling their duties and responsibilities as elected officials.
The fundamental principles that support this Bylaw are as follows:
- Council Members shall serve and be seen to serve their constituents in a conscientious and diligent manner;
- Members shall be committed to performing their duties and functions with integrity and shall avoid improper use or influence of their office, and conflicts of interest;
- Members are expected to perform their duties in office and arrange their private affairs in a manner that promotes public confidence and will bear close public scrutiny; and
- Members shall seek to serve the public interest by upholding both the letter and spirit of the laws of the Federal Parliament and British Columbia Legislature, and the laws and policies adopted by Council.
On August 29, 2023, Council adopted an amendment to the Code of Conduct Bylaw that restricts members of the public from making Code of Conduct complaints.
A code of conduct is a written document that sets shared expectations for conduct or behaviour. A local government council or board can adopt a code of conduct to establish shared expectations for how members should conduct themselves while carrying out their responsibilities and in their work as a collective decision-making body.
Responsible conduct of elected officials is not optional; it is essential to good governance. Responsible conduct refers to how government elected officials conduct themselves with their elected colleagues, with staff, and with the public. It is grounded in conducting oneself according to principles such as integrity, accountability, respect, and leadership and collaboration.
A code of conduct is one tool that can be used by a local government council or board to promote or further responsible conduct.
Source: MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT: GETTING STARTED ON A CODE OF CONDUCT FOR YOUR COUNCIL/BOARD, Produced by the Working Group on Responsible Conduct; a joint initiative of the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM), The Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs, and the Local Government Management Association (LGMA).
Code of Conduct Complaints and Investigations
When a member of Council fails to uphold these principles and breaches the Council Code of Conduct, the Complaint and Resolution Procedures outlined in Part 4 of the Bylaw is used to address the situation.
Being transparent, accountable, and respectful is important to Council, which is why the Bylaw also outlines a public disclosure requirement, subject to redaction under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The summary below is current to April 29, 2025 and will be updated as necessary.
Code of Conduct Breaches Substantiated
Date July 2023 Subject of Complaint Councillor Neustaeter alleged Mayor Hamer-Jackson breached the
Code of Conduct Bylaw by misleading the public.Bylaw Sections Engaged 3.11(a) Investigation Fees $8,904 (includes complaint #2023-0002) Conclusion
- The Investigator found that the Mayor's evidence was inconsistent and not credible.
- The Investigator found that the Mayor was in breach of his obligations under s. 3.11(a) by making public statements he knew or ought to have known were false or misleading.
- The Investigator found that "There is no evidence to corroborate his statements...are true and not misleading."
- This was investigated at the same time as Complaint #2023-0002, and therefore reported together in the below investigation and addendum reports.
Date March 2024 Subject of Complaint Councillor Bass alleged Mayor Hamer-Jackson breached the Code of Conduct and FIPPA. Bylaw Sections Engaged 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.11, and 3.15 Investigation Fees $60,957.16 Conclusion
- The Investigator found that Mayor Hamer-Jackson breached section 3.15(a) of the Code of Conduct and section 25.1 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act when he forwarded photographs of individuals in downtown Kamloops to the Chamber of Commerce Executive Director.
- The Investigator stated that he could not find that Mayor Hamer-Jackson took reasonable steps to prevent the breach, that the breach was trivial or inadvertent, or that the breach occurred because of an error in judgment made in good faith. The Mayor was given many opportunities to participate in the investigation and refused to do so. As such, the Investigator concluded that Mayor Hamer-Jackson took no steps to avoid this breach.
- The Investigator found that there was a clear act by Mayor Hamer-Jackson that he should have known would constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct. He requested and received photographs from the third party. At that point, he either reviewed the photographs and forwarded them to the Chamber of Commerce Executive Director, or he did not review them and forwarded them despite not knowing their contents. For the purposes of FIPPA, whether the Mayor knew what the photographs depicted or not is irrelevant - he collected and disclosed records that contained personal information. This reflects one of the many principles that FIPPA is intended to reflect. Local governments and their elected officials are required to adhere to certain standards when they collect, use, or disclose personal information. The Investigator stated that "the Mayor has fallen well below those standards in these circumstances."
- The Investigator found that whether or not he was aware that his actions would breach FIPPA, Mayor Hamer-Jackson ought to have known that the photographs contained personal information and that, as such, he should not have collected them from and transmitted them to persons who are external to the City.
- The Investigator noted that: "In the course of our investigation, it came to our attention that the Mayor’s decision to forward the Photographs to the CoC Executive Director may have engaged the Intimate Images Protection Act (the “IIPA”), in addition to FIPPA. However, at that time I determined not to include the IIPA in our investigation. I made this determination largely because the IIPA was not cited in the complaint – or in any of our subsequent correspondence with the Complainant – and is not directly referenced in the relevant Code of Conduct provisions. As a result, our processing of the complaint until that time, which included multiple notifications to the Mayor and his legal counsel, did not include any notice or assessment of whether the IIPA was breached. Given all of these factors, and a procedural fairness concern of late notice, I choose not to include the IIPA in this investigation."
Date April 2024 Subject of Complaint Councillor Bass alleged Mayor Hamer-Jackson repeatedly breached confidentiality and privacy by releasing a privileged and confidential report and closed council meeting resolution to the media. Bylaw Sections Engaged 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.8, 3.10, 3.11, 3.15, 3.18, and 3.22 Investigation Costs $46,413.26 Conclusion
- The Investigator found that Mayor Hamer-Jackson breached sections 3.15(a) of the Code of Conduct and 117(1)(a) of the Community Charter when he released a privileged and confidential report to the media in early April 2024.
- The Investigator also found that Mayor Hamer-Jackson breached sections 3.15(a) of the Code of Conduct and 117(1)(a) of the Community Charter when he released a resolution from a closed council meeting.
- The Investigator stated that Mayor Hamer-Jackson's behaviour in releasing the report and the resolution was "a substantial departure from the standard to be expected of a mayor" and that "Mayor Hamer-Jackson has shown no willingness to take any responsibility for his actions, and Council must proceed on the assumption that he is likely to continue to disclose confidential documents either through lack of care or simply when it suits him".
Investigations In Progress
Date December 2024 Subject of Complaint The Complainant (member of Council) alleged the Respondent recorded a conversation with another elected official and then lied about it. Bylaw Sections Engaged* 1.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.15 Investigation Fees to Date $29,586.52 *Investigator retains discretion to determine applicable sections of Code of Conduct Bylaw.
Date January 2025 Subject of Complaint The Complainant (member of Council) alleged the Respondent contravened the conflict of interest rules contained in the Community Charter when the Respondent participated in and voted on a matter involving a member of the public whom the Respondent is suing. Bylaw Sections Engaged* 3.1, 3.8, 3.11, and 3.18 Investigation Fees to Date $11,037.76 *Investigator retains discretion to determine applicable sections of Code of Conduct Bylaw.
Date April 2025 Subject of Complaint The Complainant (member of Council) alleged the Respondent made public statements which the Respondent knew or ought to have known were false or misleading. Bylaw Sections Engaged* 3.1, 3.2, 3.8, and 3.11 Investigation Fees to Date No fees to date *Investigator retains discretion to determine applicable sections of Code of Conduct Bylaw.
Date April 2025 Subject of Complaint The Complainant (member of Council) alleged the Respondent made public statements which the Respondent knew or ought to have known were false or misleading and which defamed the Complainant. Bylaw Sections Engaged* 3.1, 3.2, 3.8, and 3.11 Investigation Fees to Date No fees to date *Investigator retains discretion to determine applicable sections of Code of Conduct Bylaw.
Date April 2025 Subject of Complaint The Complainant (member of Council) alleged the Respondent made public statements which the Respondent knew or ought to have known were false or misleading and which defamed the Complainant. Bylaw Sections Engaged* 3.1, 3.2, 3.8, and 3.11 Investigation Fees to Date No fees to date *Investigator retains discretion to determine applicable sections of Code of Conduct Bylaw.
Complaints Dismissed
Date July 2023 Subject of Complaint Councillor Neustaeter alleged the Mayor and his lawyer, acting on instructions from the Mayor, discriminated against her on the basis of gender, age, and physical appearance, and that the Mayor "endorsed and perpetuated the misogynistic view with his own statements and support of the position.” Bylaw Sections Engaged 3.1, 3.2, 3.8, and, 3.11 Investigation Fees $8,904 (includes complaints #2023-0001 and 2023-0002) Conclusion
- Complaint dismissed.
- The Investigator found that the Mayor cannot be held responsible for the conduct of his lawyer that was not based on his instructions, and that his lawyer's comments do not constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct by the Mayor.
- This was investigated at the same time as Complaint #2023-0001, and therefore reported together in the below investigation and addendum reports.
Date August 2023 Subject of Complaint The Complainant (member of the public) alleged the Respondent displayed a lack of decorum in a Council meeting and bullied and harassed another member of Council. Bylaw Sections Engaged 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.8, 3.11, and 3.14 Investigation Fees $66,411.46 (includes complaints #2023-0003, 2023-0004, 2023-0005, and 2023-0006) Conclusion
- Complaint summarily dismissed.
- The Investigator summarily dismissed the Complaint. No Investigation Report issued.
Date August 2023 Subject of Complaint The Complainant (member of the public) alleged Councillor Neustaeter breached the Code of Conduct Bylaw by giving a misleading answer when asked by a member of the public at a Council meeting whether there was a meeting of council to draft and edit a statement prior to its public release on March 17, 2023. Bylaw Sections Engaged 2.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.11, and 3.14 Investigation Fees $66,411.46 (includes complaints #2023-0003, 2023-0004, 2023-0005, and 2023-0006) Conclusion
- Complaint dismissed.
- The Investigator found that Councillor Neustaeter did not breach the Code of Conduct Bylaw.
- The Investigator found that Councillor Neustaeter answered the question honestly and to the best of her ability.
Date August 2023 Subject of Complaint The Complainant (member of the public) alleged Councillor Sarai was disrespectful to, bullied and harassed, and made false accusations of another member of Council about a matter in which he had a conflict of interest. Bylaw Sections Engaged 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.8, 3.11, 3.14, and 3.18 Investigation Fees $66,411.46 (includes complaints #2023-0003, 2023-0004, 2023-0005, and 2023-0006) Conclusion
- Majority of Complaint summarily dismissed.
- One component of Complaint proceeded to investigation. The Investigator concluded there was a trivial breach.
- The Investigator determined that, while there was a breach of the Code of Conduct, it was of a trivial nature and done because of an error in judgment made in good faith, as per subsection 4.32(c) of the Code of Conduct Bylaw. In fact, the Investigator noted that "perhaps some consideration should have been given by the complainant as to the purpose of filing it in the first place".
- Accordingly the Investigator strongly recommended that no censure, sanctions, corrective actions, or other measures be imposed. Council accepted the Investigator's recommendation.
Date August 2023 Subject of Complaint The Complainant (a member of the public) alleged that, by wrongly accusing another member of Council of inappropriate conduct, the Respondent misled the public, undermined the will of Council, and disrespected, bullied, and harassed another member of Council. Bylaw Sections Engaged 1.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.11, and 3.14 Investigation Fees $66,411.46 (includes complaints #2023-0003, 2023-0004, 2023-0005, and 2023-0006) Conclusion
- Complaint summarily dismissed.
- The Investigator summarily dismissed the Complaint. No Investigation Report issued.
Date August 2023 Subject of Complaint The Complainant (initially a member of the public, now Mayor Hamer-Jackson) alleged all remaining members of Council improperly disclosed or knowingly acquiesced to the improper disclosure of a privileged and confidential workplace investigation report and other confidential information and records. Bylaw Sections Engaged 3.1, 3.3, 3.9, 3.15, and 4.30 Investigation Fees $63,008.01 Conclusion
- Complaint dismissed.
- Investigation Report issued. However, because Mayor Hamer-Jackson is the Complainant and all councillors are the Respondents, conflict of interest rules prevent Council from considering the Report under s. 4.31(d) of the Code of Conduct as a quorum cannot be formed.
Date July 2023 Subject of Complaint The Complainants (members of the public) alleged the Respondent misled the public by wrongly accusing another member of Council of inappropriate behaviour. Bylaw Sections Engaged 3.1, 3.2, 3.8, 3.11, and 3.14 Investigation Fees n/a Conclusion
- Complaint summarily dismissed.
- The Investigator summarily dismissed the Complaint. No Investigation Report issued.
Date October 2023 Subject of Complaint The Complainant (member of Council) alleged the Respondent neglected or refused to abide by an order imposed by Council. Bylaw Sections Engaged 3.3, 3.5, and 3.11 Investigation Fees $3,112.53 Conclusion
- See 2023-0015
- Complaint summarily dismissed.
Date November 2023 Subject of Complaint The Complainant (member of Council) alleged the Respondent failed to follow a Council resolution by refusing to attend mandatory respectful workplace training. Bylaw Sections Engaged 3.3, 3.5, and 3.11 Investigation Fees $5,378.75 Conclusion
- Summarily dismissed.
Complaints Withdrawn
Date September 2023 Subject of Complaint The Complainant (member of Council) alleged the Respondent bullied, harassed, and mistreated two members of staff at a Council meeting. Bylaw Sections Engaged 3.1, 3.2, 3.8, 3.11, and 3.14 Investigation Fees $5,970.54 Conclusion
- Complaint withdrawn.
- Respondent would not agree to informal resolution and Complainant was concerned about costs of investigation.
Date November 2023 Subject of Complaint The Complainant (member of Council) alleged the Respondent breached confidentiality and harassed the Complainant. Bylaw Sections Engaged 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.11, 3.15, 3.18, and 4.40 Investigation Fees $4,167.31 Conclusion
- Clerical error - duplicative.
- Complaint now addressed in 2024-0020.
Date November 2023 Subject of Complaint The Complainant (member of Council) alleged the Respondent treated the Complainant disrespectfully in an email with a third party. Bylaw Sections Engaged 3.1, 3.2, 3.8, and 3.11 Investigation Fees $583.76 Conclusion
- Complaint withdrawn.
Date November 2023 Subject of Complaint The Complainant (member of Council) alleged the Respondent failed to respect the will of Council. Bylaw Sections Engaged 3.3, 3.11, 3.18, and 3.23 Investigation Fees $615.12 Conclusion
- Complaint withdrawn.
Date November 2023 Subject of Complaint The Complainant (member of Council) alleged the Respondent disrespected, bullied, and harassed a staff member at a public City event. Bylaw Sections Engaged 3.1, 3.2, 3.8, and 3.11 Investigation Fees $5,256.58 Conclusion
- Complaint withdrawn due to fear of indirect or direct retaliation by Respondent against City staff if investigation continued.
Date December 2023 Subject of Complaint The Complainant (member of Council) alleged the Respondent was disrespectful towards a staff member in a Council meeting. Bylaw Sections Engaged 3.1, 3.2, 3.8, 3.11, and 3.14 Investigation Fees $474.93 Conclusion
- Complaint withdrawn due to fear of indirect or direct retaliation by Respondent against City staff if investigation continued.
Date January 2024 Subject of Complaint The Complainant (member of staff) alleged the Respondent made inappropriate comments to staff about a matter in which the Respondent had a conflict of interest. Bylaw Sections Engaged 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.8, 3.11, 3.18, 3.22, and 3.23 Investigation Fees $1,585.25 Conclusion
- Complaint withdrawn due to fear of retaliation by Respondent.
Date February 2024 Subject of Complaint The Complainant (member of Council) alleged the Respondent attended a community event and aggressively confronted a staff member about a matter in which the Respondent has a conflict of interest. Bylaw Sections Engaged 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.9, 3.14, 3.18, and 3.22 Investigation Fees $3,009.56 Conclusion
- Complaint withdrawn due to fear of indirect or direct retaliation by Respondent against City staff if investigation continued.
Date September/October 2024 Subject of Complaint The Complainant (member of Council) alleged the Respondent repeatedly breached confidentiality and privacy. Bylaw Sections Engaged 3.1, 3.3, 3.8, 3.11, 3.15 Investigation Fees $21,987.56 Conclusion
- Complaint withdrawn due to mounting costs associated with investigating numerous alleged privacy breaches.
