Ahead of the Oct. 17 municipal election, CFJC Today asked candidates for Kamloops City Council to complete a questionnaire, offering voters the chance to evaluate their candidacies.
QUESTIONNAIRE:
Describe yourself, your professional background, and why you’re running for public office in Kamloops?
I grew up in Kamloops, and my career has taken a fairly unconventional path. I have a BSc in biology and psychology, and my work has taken me from white shark research in South Africa and environmental education in Australia to a national leadership role with AIESEC in Nicaragua. Today, I’m back in the community where I grew up, working primarily as a dance teacher, choreographer and movement coach with children and adults. Across some very different jobs and countries, the common thread has been working with people, learning quickly, solving problems and helping people develop their own skills.
I first ran for Kamloops city council in 2022 because I believed I could bring a unique approach to municipal decision-making. I recognize that I won’t already know the answer to many of the issues that come before council. My approach is to define the problem, identify who is affected, seek out the people with relevant knowledge, experience and expertise, and look for solutions whose outcomes we can actually measure.
I’m running again because I’ve chosen to raise my own family here, and I want to continue to invest in the future of the community where I grew up. I want Kamloops to be a place where people want to live, not simply because they have a job or a house here, but because they can build a life worth living here.
What I bring to council is energy, curiosity, innovation and an ability to communicate across different perspectives and demographics. I’m more interested in finding the right answer than being right, and I believe that approach can contribute positively to the decisions Kamloops will face over the next four years.
What do you think is the biggest issue facing the City of Kamloops and how would you use your elected position to address it?
I think the biggest challenge facing Kamloops is uncertainty and this isn’t unique to our city. We are living through significant global economic, geopolitical and technological change, while at home the rising cost of housing, food and everyday life has left many people feeling less secure about their futures.
The city cannot control what happens internationally, but we can control how resilient our community is when those pressures reach us.
As a councillor, I would look for opportunities to give residents more choices and greater ability to build security into their own lives. That means removing unnecessary barriers to different forms of housing and proven alternative building methods, supporting local and household food production, encouraging designs that reduce energy and water costs, supporting local businesses, and making sure municipal regulations protect legitimate public interests without unnecessarily preventing people from finding innovative solutions for themselves.
It also means being rigorous about municipal spending. When household budgets are under pressure, the city needs to be able to explain what we are spending, why we are spending it, what outcome we expect, and whether we are actually achieving that outcome.
I also think there is a less visible consequence of uncertainty that we need to acknowledge. When people feel insecure about their future, simple explanations and clear divisions between “us” and “them” can be very appealing. Anger can feel more manageable than uncertainty. I don’t think local government should contribute to that by reducing complicated problems to opposing camps or looking for someone to blame.
We cannot make the world predictable, but we can make Kamloops more resilient. Greater local and household security gives people more capacity to navigate uncertainty, and good local governance can give people confidence that even when we disagree, we are still capable of identifying problems, working through them together and building something better.
Following a term highlighted by infighting and tension at city hall that impacted Kamloops’ public image, how would you ensure civil discourse and good governance would take place between yourself, fellow elected officials and city staff?
I would be cautious about diagnosing exactly why relationships at city hall broke down when I wasn’t in the room. Much of what I know has come through media coverage, public statements and other people’s accounts, and I don’t want to add another layer of interpretation to an already contentious situation. What I can be accountable for is how I would conduct myself if elected.
I am comfortable with disagreement. When I find myself in conflict with someone, my first step is to check in with myself. I identify what I am reacting to and why. Am I frustrated because I feel misunderstood? Is my reaction disproportionate to the issue? Or is the disagreement touching something I genuinely believe is an important principle or value? Those are very different conflicts, and they should be handled differently.
Then I try to understand the disagreement from the other person’s perspective. I ask myself what they would have to believe, know or have experienced for their position to make sense to them. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with them. It helps me identify whether we are actually disagreeing about facts, assumptions, values, priorities or the solution itself.
From there, I ask questions. Are we trying to achieve the same outcome? Are we defining the problem the same way? Is there information one of us doesn’t have? Have I misunderstood their position, or have they misunderstood mine?
I think good governance requires people who can disagree strongly without turning the person they disagree with into the problem. It also requires accountability. Civility doesn’t mean avoiding difficult conversations, failing to question decisions or accepting inappropriate behaviour. It means being able to address those things without losing sight of the problem we are supposed to be solving.
If elected, I would bring that approach to my relationships with fellow councillors and city staff. I won’t always agree with them, and I don’t expect them always to agree with me. But I will make a deliberate effort to understand before assuming, ask questions before assigning motives, remain open to information that changes my understanding, and keep bringing the conversation back to the outcome we are trying to achieve for Kamloops.
Considering recent years of large municipal tax increases in Kamloops, how would you address the city’s tax rate going forward?
I understand why residents are concerned about municipal tax increases, particularly when the cost of almost everything else is increasing at the same time. My starting point, however, would not be to promise an arbitrary tax increase or decrease. It would be to understand why costs are increasing and determine which of those pressures we can realistically change.
I would look closely at operating costs, staffing and administrative growth, duplication, procurement, service delivery, and opportunities to work more efficiently. But I would also want to understand the consequences of a proposed cut. Saving money this year is not necessarily fiscally responsible if it creates a larger expense later, shifts the cost somewhere else, or significantly reduces a service residents rely on.
I would also expect spending to be connected to measurable outcomes. Council should be able to explain what we are spending, why we are spending it, what result we expect and whether we achieved that result. If a program or expenditure isn’t producing the outcome it was intended to produce, we should be willing to reconsider it.
At the same time, I don’t think fiscal responsibility means refusing to invest. Not all spending is equal, and not all debt is equal. An investment that reduces future costs, supports growth or creates infrastructure that will serve residents for decades should be evaluated differently from an ongoing operating expense.
I wouldn’t responsibly promise a specific tax cut without seeing the information behind it. I would promise to ask difficult questions about where the money is going, look for efficiencies before asking residents for more, and make decisions based on both the immediate cost and the long-term consequences.
As major infrastructure projects are on the horizon in Kamloops, how would you prefer the city go about gaining the electorate’s approval – via referendum or the alternative approval process (AAP)? Why?
I don’t think I would make a blanket commitment to always use either a referendum or the alternative approval process. They are different tools, and I would want to choose between them based on the scale and cost of the project, the level of public engagement that has already occurred, the cost and timing of the approval process itself, and the level of public trust surrounding the decision.
A referendum gives residents a clear opportunity to vote yes or no, and for a major or particularly contentious decision, that can have value beyond the result itself. If spending more on the approval process results in greater public participation, confidence in the decision and trust in council, that value should be part of the calculation too.
At the same time, referendums have costs, and I don’t think it is responsible to automatically choose the more expensive process simply because it is politically easier to defend. The AAP is a process established under provincial legislation, and there may be circumstances where it is an appropriate and efficient way to obtain elector approval.
I would also consider timing. Major infrastructure decisions extend well beyond a four-year council term. A new council may inherit projects that have already gone through years of planning, consultation, design and financial commitments. Changing course has costs too, and those need to be honestly included in the decision.
Ultimately, I would want residents to understand what decision is being made, how they can participate and why council chose a particular approval process. I don’t think good governance means declaring that one tool is always democratic and the other never is. It means choosing the process deliberately, explaining that choice, and making meaningful public participation as accessible as possible.
What are your thoughts on communication between the City of Kamloops and its residents? Are there areas of improvement you’d like to see?
Communication has to work in both directions. Residents need clear information from the city, but they also need to feel that there are meaningful ways for them to ask questions, raise concerns and be heard by the people they elected.
I recognize there has been frustration about changes to public input at council meetings. I also think we need to acknowledge why boundaries around public participation can sometimes become necessary. Elected officials and city staff should expect scrutiny, criticism and disagreement. Threats, harassment, personal attacks and abuse are different. People should be able to serve their community without feeling unsafe.
I don’t think the answer is to choose between public access and the safety of the people receiving that input. The challenge is designing communication systems that protect both.
I would like to see multiple ways for residents to communicate with the city and council, because not everyone will participate in the same way. That could include structured opportunities for public input, online engagement, written correspondence, community events and opportunities for councillors to meet residents outside council chambers. Clear expectations for respectful participation can allow those opportunities to remain open without requiring anyone to accept abusive behaviour.
The city also has a responsibility to communicate the reasoning behind its decisions. Even when residents disagree with an outcome, they should be able to understand what council was trying to accomplish, what information it considered, what trade-offs were involved and how public input affected the decision.
Ultimately, I want residents to feel that they can communicate with their city and that their participation matters. I also want the people serving the community to be able to do their jobs safely. I don’t think those goals are incompatible, but maintaining both requires us to be deliberate about how we create and protect the spaces where that communication happens.
