The AAP: Bypassing the Ballot (And Other Administrative Magic Tricks)
Quick riddle for Kamloops taxpayers. Guess what I am:
I ask for your permission without asking for your vote. If you say nothing, I count it as a "Yes." And if you want to say "No," you’d better find a printer, a pen, and the right email address before the clock runs out. What am I?
If you guessed the Alternative Approval Process (AAP), congratulations—you’ve been following Kamloops local politics lately! It has rapidly become City Hall’s favourite mechanism for greenlighting massive loans...
Just a couple of weeks ago, City Council made headlines again regarding the proposed $160-million RCMP police services building on Battle Street. Instead of taking advantage of the upcoming municipal election ballot this October to give voters a direct say on the price tag, Council voted 5-4 in favour of pushing the decision to an AAP early next year.
The reasoning? Among other things, some members felt that placing major borrowing questions directly on a general election ballot might "confuse" voters or create unnecessary timeline pressure.
Now, I don't know about you, but I have a higher opinion of Kamloops voters. Giving citizens a clear "Yes or No" on a $160M project during an election they are already participating in isn't confusing—it’s democracy.
So, let's break down what the AAP actually is, how it’s being used, why it’s breaking public trust, and how we can fix it.
What Exactly Is an AAP?
Under the B.C. Community Charter, local governments are required to get "elector assent" before taking on major long-term debt. They have two ways to get it:
Assent Voting (A Traditional Referendum): City Hall presents the project, sets up polling stations, and asks citizens to vote YES or NO. If the majority says yes, the city borrows the money.
The Alternative Approval Process (AAP): City Hall assumes every single eligible voter in the city agrees with the borrowing unless 10% of voters (roughly 8,500 people in Kamloops) take the initiative to print, sign, and submit physical or official PDF opposition forms within a strict 30-day window.
In short: A referendum puts the burden of proof on City Hall to convince you to vote YES. An AAP puts the burden of effort on you to jump through bureaucratic hoops just to say NO.
What the AAP Was Actually Designed For
According to the B.C. Ministry of Municipal Affairs guidance documents, the AAP was created as an administrative efficiency tool.
It was designed for routine, non-controversial, minor local government matters—like small boundary adjustments, routine equipment loans, or basic utility maintenance where running a $200,000 standalone election would be a waste of taxpayer money.
In fact, provincial guidelines explicitly warn municipalities that if an issue is controversial, large in scale, or carries a significant financial price tag, local governments should proceed directly to a referendum.
What Kamloops Is Doing Instead
Instead of keeping the AAP for minor administrative tasks, Kamloops has turned it into a primary tool for massive, generational spending commitments.
We saw it with the multi-hundred-million-dollar Build Kamloops initiatives.
We saw it with property acquisitions and infrastructure borrowing on McMaster Way and Tranquille Road.
And now, we are seeing it again with the $160M RCMP detachment.
When you use an administrative loophole intended for routine business to bypass a direct vote on hundreds of millions of dollars, you aren't saving time—you are eroding public trust.
Opposing an AAP Shouldn't Require a Master's Degree
To make matters worse, relying on bureaucratic processes means relying on bureaucratic execution.
Just a few months ago, during an AAP for $25.7 million in capital borrowing, the city had to hold an emergency vote to amend its own bylaws after discovering that online opposition forms were embedded with links directing voters to the wrong City email address.
While Council moved swiftly to ensure those misdirected forms were retroactively counted, it highlighted a glaring flaw: when you make citizens jump through administrative hurdles to exercise their voice, even a minor clerical error can compromise public input.
How We Fix It: Restoring Real Public Assent
It doesn't have to be this way. Respecting taxpayers means treating them like shareholders. If a corporation wanted to take on massive debt, it wouldn't send a letter saying, "We're spending your money unless 10% of you fill out Form B-12 and mail it back in 30 days." They would hold a vote.
As a member of Kamloops City Council, Action 1 of my Disciplined & Accountable Leadership platform focuses directly on reforming how our city handles long-term debt and public consultation:
Reserve AAPs for Routine Business: I will advocate for strict local policy criteria that limit AAPs strictly to routine, lower-cost administrative items—matching the original spirit of provincial guidelines.
Mandate Referendums for Mega-Projects: Any non-essential capital borrowing over an established financial threshold must go to a direct, transparent referendum—ideally timed alongside general civic elections to save taxpayer dollars.
Streamline & Modernize Public Input: If an AAP is legally required for routine business, the response process must be user-friendly, transparently tracked, and widely accessible—not an obstacle course of forms and dead-end email links.
The Bottom Line
Good governance isn't about finding the legal path of least resistance to spend taxpayer money; it's about building trust, inviting accountability, and believing that the voters of Kamloops are smart enough to participate in the big decisions shaping our city.
I’d love to hear your thoughts. Do you think major borrowing projects should go directly to a ballot?
Explore my full platform at www.christophermitra.ca and join the conversation!
Comments