Mayor Reid Hamer-Jackson’s motion to bar family members of councillors from working for the city has failed.

Council addressed Hamer-Jackson’s motion at the Feb. 3 regular council meeting, with councillors concerned over the risks it presented.

The motion would have prohibited the hiring or employment of immediate family members of councillors while the councillor is in office. It would only apply to future councils, according to the motion’s text.

Appended to the mayor’s notice was a list of municipalities that supposedly have policies addressing the employment of relatives and nepotism.

Coun. Bill Sarai said he inquired with other locales and was met with confusion.

“They said it would actually be discrimination by not letting council’s family members apply for jobs, especially in smaller communities, if they didn’t have that opportunity, they wouldn’t be able to function,” Sarai said.

“And the other feedback I got from larger municipalities, it would actually be discrimination, by not allowing council members’ families to apply for jobs, unless they were answering directly to a family member.”

Coun. Kelly Hall said he believed the motion presented a “potential legal risk” and found it “unnecessary and quite problematic” and that he would not support it.

Coun. Katie Neustaeter had similar concerns and asked Hamer-Jackson who helped him craft the motion, concerned that he did not understand its implications.

“I’ve actually talked to other mayors and I had a couple people help me out. I don’t think that’s the point here,” Hamer-Jackson answered.

Neustaeter said she and other councillors had reached out to other mayors across the province and that “there was a lot of shock,” in response to the motion.

Neustaeter said it is “common knowledge” the motion would not be legal. Earlier in the meeting, and shortly after Hamer-Jackson put forward notice of his motion at the Jan. 27 meeting, Coun. Nancy Bepple questioned its legality, referring to the B.C. Human Rights Code, which provides protection based on family and marital status.

“I would strongly encourage you to work with those who can help you craft a motion that makes sense and doesn’t put the corporation at risk, because whoever you did work with seems to be grossly misinformed about the legality of this,” Neustaeter said.

Hamer-Jackson, who attended the meeting remotely via video call, called Neustaeter’s remarks a “lengthy spiel” but did not answer who had helped him craft the motion.

Couns. Stephen Karpuk, Margot Middleton and Mike O’Reilly recused themselves because of potential conflicts of interest or because they had an immediate family member who works at the city.