A motion introduced earlier in June by Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson saw no real support at the June 24 regular council meeting, resulting in public conflict between mayor and council and another call for his resignation.

At the June 10 council meeting, Hamer-Jackson put forward a notice of motion for a “third-party forensic audit of all City of Kamloops departments and management practices.”

According to the text of the motion read aloud by Hamer-Jackson, the comprehensive audit would look at cost overruns in capital projects, duplicated efforts in city departments, staffing levels and payroll costs, contracting practices, asset maintenance and mismanagement of infrastructure replacement cycles, budgeting/reporting practices, taxpayer value-for-money, and salary raises for city management, among other things.

After he introduced the motion, he questioned each council member individually, attempting to probe whether they had met in secret to discuss the motion.

“Has this motion been discussed in one of those meetings or in an online meeting?” Hamer-Jackson asked Coun. Stephen Karpuk.

“I’ve had discussions with all of my colleagues individually. I hope you would have, as well, because it’s your motion,” Karpuk responded.

Couns. Margot Middleton and Mike O’Reilly responded similarly.

When the mayor moved on to Coun. Katie Neustaeter, she called his line of questioning “an inquisition,” and said the implication that councillors had breached their oaths of office by holding illegal meetings was out of line.

“I find it incredibly disrespectful to the Community Charter, to this group, to staff, to the citizens listening. If you want to bring a motion forward, bring a motion forward, we can debate it,” she said.

When he asked the same of Coun. Bill Sarai, the councillor said he would be willing to hear the mayor’s concerns, if not for how he was treating council.

“Mr. Mayor, there is actually an opportunity that I could look at some of this and get some answers, but what you are implying, I agree with the rest of council is totally off-side.

“I would consider supporting it if you actually came and sold your notice of motion on why you want to do it and your reasoning behind it. You had seven days to talk to us about it. What you’re doing here is not helping, … You’re actually pushing me further away from supporting it because you’re making accusations,” Sarai said.

When Hamer-Jackson asked Coun. Kelly Hall the same questions, Hall asked corporate officer Maria Mazzotta if he was able to move the mayor’s motion for him so the issue could be discussed.

After moving the motion, Hall said he thinks most of council is in favour of audits if they are done for the right reasons.

“The question I have is, with respect to the notice of motion, who wrote it? I think it is very broad. I think it’s poorly written, from the scope of good governance. It attacks council and it’s not done in good will,” Hall said.

He continued, citing a recent budget meeting where council met to review supplementary budget items, which are determining factors in the city’s property tax rates. He said the mayor did not attend that meeting, calling the mayor’s concern over taxpayer dollars disingenuous.

“Audits can be helpful and are necessary at the right time, for the right reasons. This request is anything but right,” Hall said.

Hamer-Jackson then asked Coun. Dale Bass for her comments.

“I would like to applaud Coun. Hall for what he just said. Everything he just said applies to you and you need to do your job or resign,” she added.

Coun. Nancy Bepple talked about existing measures for financial accountability and transparency, before pointing out another flaw in the mayor’s motion.

“I took the time to review what other municipalities have done for a forensic audit, which is designed for one specific issue. In the motion you put forward, you haven’t actually identified a specific issue,” she said.

Bepple said she would consider a motion that is specific and focused.

The mayor said he would do that, “right now,” before further reasoning for his motion for eight straight minutes, with brief interruptions from Mazzotta and O’Reilly.

Neustaeter then interrupted, asking if councillors would be able to further debate the motion, with the mayor calling her out of order and asking the CAO to remove Neustaeter from council chambers.

“Let’s go together,” Neustaeter said in response. “Happily. If you step out, I’ll step out. Please allow us to debate the motion without attacking members of council with misinformation.”

After Neustaeter was not removed, Hamer-Jackson asked, “I just called someone out of order. Is that not a real thing?”

Mazzotta responded, “It’s not a real thing in this context,” and explained the role of a chair person to the mayor.

After further procedural confusion on the mayor’s part, the motion was voted on and defeated.