EXCLUSIVE: Alberta Town Council Accused of Financial Mismanagement as Residents Petition for Audit
"If we are as bad as I think we are, we could go bankrupt and be absorbed by the county," said Amber Harris, the longest-serving councillor in the Town of Gibbons since 2013.
Video report: EXCLUSIVE: Alberta Town Council Accused of Financial Mismanagement as Residents Petition for Audit
"If we are as bad as I think we are, we could go bankrupt and be absorbed by the county," said Amber Harris, the longest-serving councillor in the Town of Gibbons since 2013.
I travelled to Gibbons, Alberta—a small town north of Edmonton—to speak directly with residents who are raising alarm over what they believe is serious financial mismanagement and a growing pattern of secrecy within their municipal government.
"The corruption here is not isolated to Gibbons—it's all over the province," stressed Darren Longstaff—a 25-year veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces, a Gibbons resident for 21 years, and a volunteer firefighter for 8 of those years.
"Our current council seems to have no set agenda to actually be transparent with the people," he added. Charlotte St. Germain, a 12-year resident of Gibbons, argues that many policies, bylaws, and procedures are not being followed. "I believe there are a lot of things being discussed in-camera (closed to the public) that shouldn't be—they don't want us to know how bad it is."
Residents have launched a petition demanding accountability and transparency from Municipal Affairs, asking whether the now-former Municipal Affairs Minister would be proud to have Gibbons on his resume. Minister Ric McIver resigned last night—just hours after Media Bezirgan submitted a media inquiry to the Town of Gibbons.
Councillor Amber Harris alleges that Gibbons is facing deep financial mismanagement, secretive decision-making, and preferential treatment of developers—all enabled through closed-door meetings and a lack of provincial oversight.
UPDATE:
Acting Mayor Dale Yushchyshyn responded to our media inquiry with a brief statement, categorizing the questions raised as either already addressed in public forums or related to in-camera sessions protected under FOIP legislation. He wrote: “All of the questions that you have asked can be classified into one of two categories: questions that have been asked and answered in public several times, and questions that relate to discussions that occurred in closed session (in-camera) and cannot be answered in public.”
Help cover legal risk, travel, and fees to obtain court and regulatory records.
Get our next investigation by email
We’ll email you when we publish. No spam; unsubscribe anytime.
Thanks, you’re on the list. We’ll email you when we publish.







