Who investigates city hall? City hall.

Accountability depends on who looks, how far they may look, and how much the public sees. City hall decides all three.

The law has consequences for misuse of public office, under both civil and criminal law. But first, the facts must be established.

That is the job of due process. It presumes no one is guilty, and lets the facts decide the outcome. Without it, nothing is resolved, and the next official learns that no one will look closely.

It is also the only real protection for those left under a cloud. When a limited review points toward someone without settling the question, inference and rumour fill the gap.

Prince George's George Street Parkade is a case in point. It ran nearly $10 million over its approved budget without council being told. The question is not whether it cost too much, but why council wasn't told. The 2021 review's findings fall most heavily on the former city manager. Yet on the key decision, covering the rising costs by reprioritizing other capital projects, it says only that "it appears" she made it. Setting the city's capital priorities is normally council's job, through the financial plan. The review doesn't say whether she had that authority or why council wasn't told, and doesn't say she was asked for her side. Inference is not a finding, and rumour is not evidence.

She was not the only one involved. The then-mayor was told in 2018 that costs were rising, though the review found no record he was given the figure. Senior staff prepared the reports council relied on, and council approved the budget and the wider spending powers. The review records those roles but doesn't assess them.

No one has been accused of wrongdoing, and we are not suggesting anyone should be. The point is that no one can say, because the facts that would decide it have never been gathered.

In B.C., oversight of city halls is limited. Council is meant to hold senior staff to account, but depends on those same staff for its information. The external auditor checks the books, not the decisions. The Ombudsperson can only recommend. And the province closed its Auditor General for Local Government, which could have examined municipal decisions.

So who investigates?

City hall investigates city hall. The body under scrutiny decides whether to investigate, who does it, what they may examine and how much of the report the public sees. The people whose conduct is in question, or their colleagues, can be part of every step. That doesn't mean anyone acts in bad faith. But an investigation is only as independent as the people who commission it, and only as complete as the questions it is allowed to ask.

The 2021 parkade review called itself independent. It was commissioned by council, itself one of the parties whose role was in question, carried out by a law firm the city describes as "its legal counsel," and reported to the city.

This matters because a limited review settles only what it is asked. To establish responsibility, a review has to cover every decision and every decision-maker, staff and council alike; see all the records; and hear from everyone involved, including those who have since left. Anything less answers some questions and leaves the rest to rumour.

How accountability disappears

The quiet exit. A senior official leaves by "mutual agreement," settled behind closed doors, terms confidential. It looks like a consequence, but nothing has been established. The parkade's city manager left this way in 2020, before the review began. The then-mayor didn't run again in 2022 and was granted the Freedom of the City the following year. The review doesn't say what he did with what he was told.

The limited mandate. A review that isn't asked who was responsible won't say. The city has never released the parkade review's terms of reference, and didn't provide them when we asked.

Responsibility without a name. The parkade review concluded "the City saddled itself" with the costs. Organizations don't make decisions. People do.

The forward-looking fix. The review called the lack of disclosure to council "troubling," then said it "has been addressed" by a lower spending limit. But if no one knows why council wasn't told, no one can say the new rule fixes the cause.

The audit that isn't worth it. In December 2021, Young Anderson, the firm that conducted the review, advised that an audit "both from an administrative and financial standpoint" was "not warranted given the costs of such an audit." The cost was never stated. Ruling out an administrative audit is surprising given what the review had found: weak due diligence, all the risk on the city, and "troubling" disclosure.

Why it matters

Why does it still matter, five years on? Because no outcome has been reached, including the one that clears people. None of what follows is a suggestion about anyone.

An arm's-length administrative audit might find no one at fault, and people living under a cloud would finally have a finding to point to. It might confirm the 2021 review's conclusion that the system failed and new rules were the right fix. That would also be worth knowing. Or it might find something more serious, which only police and prosecutors could take further. An arm's-length audit is how evidence comes to light, or how the question is put to rest.

The prospect of scrutiny is also a deterrent. Officials who know an audit can happen make and record decisions differently. When everyone knows it won't happen, that safeguard is gone.

The parkade, five years on and counting

In January 2021, then-mayor Lyn Hall promised that accountability for the parkade would be "based on facts and evidence," and that the city would "follow due process to get you the answers you deserve."

No independent body has established why council wasn't told, or who decided what it would see. Several people from that time are still at city hall, in senior staff posts and on the council. None is accused of anything, and none has had the chance to be cleared.

On November 2, a new council takes office. It has the power to order the review the parkade never had. Two steps would start it. Publish the 2021 review's terms of reference; it costs nothing. Then order an arm's-length administrative audit: terms set in public, run by people with no connection to the city, the project or the 2021 review, reporting to council and the public at once.

It would take five votes, cast in public. A decision like this belongs in open council, so residents can see who votes for it, who votes against, and why.

We are not suggesting wrongdoing by any official. The point is that accountability in public office can't depend on the people under scrutiny deciding whether, and how, they are scrutinized. In Prince George, it still does.

Documents

• Young Anderson, "Review of the George Street Parkade Project" (June 3, 2021): PDF on the City of Prince George website. See Part III, section I, and the Conclusion.
• Young Anderson covering report, "Quantity Surveyor's Opinion as to Reasonable Cost" (Dec. 20, 2021): PDF on the city's website.
• Mayor Lyn Hall's press conference, Jan. 25, 2021: video.
• Community Charter (B.C.): the Act at BC Laws. See s. 147, chief administrative officer; s. 165, financial plan; and s. 191, personal liability of council members for use of money contrary to the Act.
• Local Government Act (B.C.), s. 738: immunity for local public officers, which does not cover "dishonesty, gross negligence or malicious or wilful misconduct."
• Criminal Code, s. 122: breach of trust by a public officer.
• Ombudsperson Act (B.C.): the Act at BC Laws. Municipalities are covered by the Schedule, item 4.
• City of Prince George media release, "George Street Parkade final review released" (Dec. 21, 2021): on the city's website, describing Young Anderson as "its legal counsel".
• City of Prince George, preliminary results of the 2026 general municipal election: on the city's website.