Statement Regarding the RDCO Code of Conduct Complaints Against Chair Wooldridge and Vice Chair Ireland
Updated: Sep 27
Electoral Area west Director Wayne Carson has filed two Code of Conduct complaints with the Regional District of Central Okanagan. The first complaint concerns RDCO Board Chair Wooldridge. The second concerns Vice Chair Ireland and the administration of the first complaint.
The complaints themselves are not being released, and confidential information relating to the Code of Conduct process will not be disclosed. The purpose of this statement is to explain the publicly documented circumstances that led to the complaints being filed.
The complaint concerning Chair Wooldridge
The first complaint, submitted on July 15, 2026, concerns the handling of the North Westside governance issue and questions about whether the direction of the RDCO Regional Board was accurately represented to the Province.
The Electoral Area West and North Westside Governance and Services Study resulted in a recommendation for further work involving the RDCO, RDNO and Province to examine the financial implications of removing North Westside from the RDCO and creating a separate electoral area within the RDNO.
On September 26, 2022, the RDCO Regional Board endorsed that recommendation and directed the Chair to forward it to the Province.
In February 2023, the Province identified the “NW Boundary request” as a topic for a scheduled meeting with RDCO representatives and the Minister. In preparation for that meeting, Chair Wooldridge directed RDCO staff to prepare background information on “NW governance,” including correspondence, previous studies and a summary report.
A meeting subsequently took place at the BC Legislature on March 29, 2023, involving the Minister, senior Ministry officials and RDCO representatives.
The concern is what happened between the Board’s September 2022 direction and what was subsequently presented to the Province.
The question requiring independent examination is:
How did the Board endorsed recommendation for a further RDCO/RDNO/Province boundary study change to an approach focused on the RDCO Electoral Area Services Committee, and was that change authorized by the Board?
This is not a suggestion that the Province was required to accept the Board’s recommendation. The Province has its own authority and decision-making process.
The concern is whether the RDCO’s position was accurately communicated, whether the Chair acted within the authority given by the Board, and whether any significant change in direction was properly brought back to the Board for consideration and authorization.
Records available to the complainant do not identify a subsequent public Board resolution expressly authorizing the Chair to replace or materially alter the September 2022 direction.
There are also questions about the documentation surrounding the March 29, 2023, meeting. In response to an information request, RDCO advised that it could not locate certain follow-up correspondence or notes relating to the meeting. RDCO later indicated that additional records may exist and that further searches would be conducted.
The complaint is not alleging that records were intentionally destroyed or withheld. The concern is that important questions remain about what was discussed, what was presented on behalf of RDCO, what direction was provided to staff, and how the Board was subsequently informed.
Filing this complaint does not mean the complainant has concluded that a breach occurred. That determination belongs to the appropriate investigative process.
The complaint concerning Vice Chair Ireland
The second complaint was filed with respect to Vice Chair Ireland and concerns the administration of the first complaint, not the merits of that complaint.
The first complaint was submitted on July 15. Follow-up requests were made on July 31 and August 16. Approximately five weeks passed before there was a substantive discussion about how the complaint was being administered and the possibility of using an independent external investigator.
When that possibility was discussed, the complainant confirmed support for an external investigation and a willingness to fully participate in the process.
On September 5, Vice Chair Ireland advised the complainant that a reputable investigator had been engaged and that interviews were expected to begin the following week.
However, as of September 21, no investigator has been identified to the complainant and no investigation has commenced. There has also been no confirmation provided identifying who has actually been formally retained to conduct the investigation.
On September 16, the complainant met with RDCO’s Chief Administrative Officer to discuss the continuing lack of information and updates. The CAO encouraged him to give Vice Chair Ireland another opportunity to respond.
Approximately an hour later, he asked Vice Chair Ireland for an update. He indicated that he was busy and would follow up shortly. They encountered each other again the following day and the day after at UBCM, but no follow up was provided.
As of the date of this statement, to the complainant’s knowledge, the CAO and other RDCO directors have not been provided with confirmation identifying an investigator or confirming that an investigator has actually been retained.
This is not a request for confidential investigative information. The complainant is not asking for evidence, witness statements, interview notes or the substance of any investigation.
The questions being asked are basic procedural questions:
Has an investigator actually been appointed? Who is the investigator? Has the investigator been formally retained? And when will the investigation begin?
Those questions remain unanswered.
The second complaint therefore asks for an independent review of how the original complaint was administered and whether the delays, lack of communication and uncertainty surrounding the appointment of an investigator were consistent with RDCO’s Code of Conduct requirements.
The complaints were filed because these questions deserve to be examined through the formal process RDCO has established, based on evidence rather than speculation or public argument.
Comments