Village of Barons Mayor responds to concerns and reported allegations

Posted on November 12, 2026 by Sunny South News

By Kristine Jean
Sunny South News

Village of Barons Mayor Clinton Bishop is responding to reported allegations by Village Councillor Kyle Prince, as detailed in an article in the Nov. 3 edition of the Sunny South News, and is sharing his take on matters raised, providing context and information about the allegations. 

Bishop agreed to respond to an inquiry by the Sunny South News and answered several questions, including those around the Village of Barons June 2 Organizational Meeting, concerns over municipal practices, public confidence in Council and Administration, bylaw and policy review, the June 2 Special Council Meeting, grant auditing, the Oct. 7 municipal inspection, the formal workplace harassment complaint and the July 27 meeting between the Village and area municipalities with the Minister of Municipal Affairs. 

In addition, Bishop also provided a response to the Nov. 3 Sunny South News article, where he stated “I disagree with Coun. Prince’s characterization of Village decisions. I have provided specific explanations and references to Village records that give important context to his allegations,” said Bishop. “Residents deserve to consider that information and draw their own conclusions.”  

In his original email reply, dated Oct. 2, Bishop also stated then that he did not agree with the Sunny South News characterization that “the (council meeting) minutes demonstrate inconsistencies or questionable undertakings by Council and staff” as was noted in the questions asked about municipal practices. 

Bishop said he “was pleased to respond as the Mayor of the Village of Barons and in his personal capacity, in a spirit of openness and transparency.” 

One concern raised by Coun. Prince involved the Village of Barons June 2 Organizational Meeting. Bishop stated that the Village was following standard procedure. 

“The June 2 Organizational Meeting was held following the May 25, 2026 by-election and was consistent with the Village’s previous practice of holding an organizational meeting following a by-election and a change in the composition of Council,” said Bishop, noting an example of the 2023 by-election, where he was elected to Council and the Village held an organizational meeting on June 13, 2023. 

“At that meeting, members took their oaths of office, Council selected a Mayor and Deputy Mayor, established meeting arrangements and made its Council appointments. The June 2, 2026 Organizational Meeting followed the same general process,” he added, referencing Section 192 of the Municipal Government Act. “It does not state that an organizational meeting may only be held during that period or expressly prohibit an additional organizational meeting.” 

The Mayor said the Village sought guidance from Municipal Affairs regarding the June 2 meeting and was advised that the MGA establishes the deadline for the required annual organizational meeting but does not specify that organizational meetings may only be held at that time. Municipal Affairs also suggested, in verbal form (not a formal written determination), that the Village could amend its Meeting Procedures Bylaw to provide greater clarity regarding organizational meetings following by-elections. 

Bishop said the Village’s Meeting Procedures Bylaw came into effect in 2024 and states the CAO sets the time and place for an Organizational Meeting and that the Chief Elected Official is selected by Council at that organizational meeting.

Bishop noted his appointment as Mayor was a decision of Council determined by a majority vote. 

Earlier this year, a suggestion to conduct a municipal inspection was raised by Coun. Prince at a council meeting – Bishop voted against a motion requesting the inspection and explained his reasoning behind that decision. 

“I voted against requesting a municipal inspection because I did not believe that a broad municipal inspection was warranted at that time, particularly when the Village was already approaching its second-cycle Municipal Accountability Program review by Municipal Affairs,” said Bishop, noting the Municipal Accountability Program is an external Municipal Affairs compliance review for smaller municipalities, adding the Village had implemented the required compliance changes arising from the first MAP review (completed in late 2020).   

“At the time of the June discussion, Council was aware that another MAP review was approaching,” he said. “Since that meeting, the Village’s second-cycle MAP review has commenced. The Village submitted the requested materials to Municipal Affairs during the week of September 14.”

Bishop shared that a municipal inspection is a “significantly broader undertaking” that can require extensive examination of a municipality’s governance, administration, finances and operations and can require considerable staff time and municipal resources. His concern was not with external scrutiny but whether the broader process was necessary and proportionate. 

Bishop said if further changes are identified (in the most recent MAP review), he will be eager to work with Council and Administration to address them.

With regards to conducting municipal business, Bishop said Coun. Prince is entitled and encouraged to raise concerns about municipal practices. 

“That is part of the role of every member of Council,” said Bishop, adding his disagreement with Prince stems from “how some serious allegations have been presented and substantiated.”

“When an allegation is first raised during a public Council meeting, Council and Administration may not have had an opportunity to examine the relevant records, verify the information or provide an informed response,” he said. “I believe serious allegations should be accompanied by sufficient information and evidence to allow them to be properly examined.” 

Bishop gave an example of the July 22 Special Council Meeting, where Coun. Prince presented a report on Village grant administration.  

“Council had not received the report when, on July 27, Coun. Prince provided it directly to the Minister of Municipal Affairs during the joint meeting involving Barons, Picture Butte and Nobleford,” explained Bishop, adding he requested  Coun. Prince provide Council with the same report, attachments, supporting documents and evidence that was provided to the Minister. 

“My request expressly stated that I was not asking him to withdraw his report or restricting his ability to raise concerns. The purpose was to allow Council to determine what information had been communicated, whether a review or response was required, and whether the Village needed to take any action.”

Bishop said as of Oct. 2, he had still not received that report and material from Coun. Prince.

“Councillor Prince is entitled to communicate concerns directly to Municipal Affairs, and I do not dispute that right,” said Bishop. “At the same time, Council cannot meaningfully investigate or respond to specific allegations concerning the municipality when the underlying report and supporting information have not been provided to it. If evidence identifies a genuine problem, I believe Council has an obligation to address it,” he added, noting concerns should be assessed against the underlying records and evidence rather than Council reaching conclusions based solely on an allegation.

Bishop said he does not agree with Coun. Prince’s assertion that the Village as a whole does not trust Council or Administration, nor would he claim that every resident supports Council, Administration or every decision the Village makes. 

“Residents have regular opportunities to express their confidence or dissatisfaction, including through municipal elections, communicating directly with Council and Administration, attending public meetings and participating in municipal matters,” said Bishop, adding that Administration has his confidence.   

“I believe public confidence is best maintained by being transparent about municipal decisions, allowing concerns to be raised, examining factual allegations against the evidence, participating fully in external accountability processes such as MAP, and correcting problems when they are identified,” he added. 

With regards to a motion to review all Village policies and bylaws, Bishop believed conducting another comprehensive review of them was not necessary or an effective use of the Village’s limited administrative resources at that time. 

“I want to clarify the suggestion that defeating that particular motion prevented the Village from reviewing its bylaws and policies or complying with the recommendations arising from the first Municipal Accountability Program review – the historical record shows otherwise,” said Bishop 

Bishop said following the first MAP review, in March 2021 Council was made aware of 16 identified items requiring action. Council accepted the report and directed Administration to make the identified changes. He noted Village records from that period document subsequent work to address the MAP findings, including changes to bylaws and policies.

“The Council and Administration of the day took the MAP findings seriously and put considerable effort into implementing the required changes,” said Bishop. “I do not think it would be accurate or fair to suggest that the Village simply ignored those findings,” he added, pointing out the second-cycle MAP review is underway and the Village submitted the requested materials to Municipal Affairs during the week of Sept. 14.

“I look forward to reviewing the results with the rest of Council,” said Bishop. “Where Municipal Affairs identifies deficiencies or opportunities for improvement, I expect Council and Administration to address them.”

Another concern raised by Coun. Prince involved the Special Council Meeting held following the June 2 Organizational Meeting. Bishop said it was called to address three specific time-sensitive matters requiring Council decisions. Those matters included Administration’s attendance at the Local Government Administrators Association conference later that month, the declaration of Seniors’ Week – which had already begun on June 1, and Council attendance at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference beginning June 4. 

“These were the only three substantive matters considered at the meeting,” said Bishop, noting that Coun. Prince did not remain for the Special Meeting. “Because the matters required decisions that day, there was not sufficient time to provide 24 hours’ advance public notice,” he said. “A waiver of notice was completed and signed by two of the three members of Council and the original signed document is retained by the Village.”

Bishop said the meeting was not held in closed session. The public minutes record the members present, the matters considered, the motions made and the results of the votes. 

“I appreciate that holding a Special Meeting immediately following the Organizational Meeting was not ideal from the perspective of advance public awareness. However, my responsibility as Mayor was also to ensure that time-sensitive Council business was dealt with rather than allowing imminent deadlines to pass without the necessary Council decisions,” he added.  

Bishop was not in favour of adding grant auditing to the list of topics discussed with the Minister of Municipal Affairs on July 27, because the meeting was time-limited, involved three municipalities, and had been organized around priorities of common importance to Barons, Picture Butte and Nobleford.

His concerns revolved around the context in which the issue was raised and the effect it had on a coordinated advocacy meeting involving three municipalities. 

The meeting with Minister Dan Williams lasted about 45 minutes. 

“We had to share the available time with the other municipalities. I believed it was important that our messaging be coordinated with our municipal neighbours and focus on issues affecting all three communities, particularly capital and operating funding, infrastructure needs, the police funding model, downloading of responsibilities to small municipalities, and access to grant funding,” explained Bishop. “My objective was to work collaboratively with our neighbouring municipalities and present a coordinated picture of the challenges facing small municipalities in our area.” 

He once again pointed to the July 22 Special Council Meeting where Coun. Prince “presented a scatter plot chart that Prince said related to purported grant irregularities he was investigating,” noted Bishop. “In those circumstances I did not believe it was appropriate to make an unsubstantiated concern about Barons’ grant administration part of the Village’s official advocacy priorities for a short joint meeting with the Minister, particularly when doing so could displace issues that had been coordinated with the other municipalities.”  

Bishop noted the importance of distinguishing between voting against adding the issue to a particular meeting agenda and refusing to consider concerns about grant administration. He said he stated the request was not intended to restrict Prince’s ability to raise concerns, but the purpose was to allow Council to understand what had been communicated, examine the underlying information, and determine whether any review or response was required. 

Bishop also pointed out the annual independent financial audit of the Village’s finances, with grant funding also subject to oversight and review requirements associated with the applicable grant programs. 

“If credible information identifies an irregularity requiring further examination, I would support having it appropriately reviewed,” said Bishop, adding his concern is that Council had not been provided with the report and supporting information necessary to independently understand and assess the allegations concerning the municipality.

“My comments in the September Mayor’s Report concerning the Minister meeting were expressly identified as my own observations and perspective,” said Bishop. “They were not presented as a finding or determination by Council regarding another member’s conduct.”

Bishop did not reply to specific questions surrounding the formal workplace harassment complaint, citing confidentiality reasons, but did point to posted minutes of the July 28 Special Council Meeting. 

“Given that this remains an active independent workplace investigation, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to expand upon that public record,” said Bishop, noting the process involved included Council acknowledging receipt of a formal workplace harassment complaint dated July 27, and “directed that it be addressed promptly, fairly, impartially and confidentially to the greatest extent permitted by law.”

Council authorized the appointment of a qualified independent workplace investigator and the Village’s legal counsel recommended a separate external lawyer who had no previous involvement with the Village of Barons or prior knowledge of the circumstances underlying the complaint. That lawyer is now conducting the investigation.

Bishop added the investigator will report substantive findings, recommendations and any proposed corrective measures directly to Council. 

“Beyond what is contained in the public minutes, I will not comment on the identities of the parties, the specific allegations, evidence or investigative activity while the independent process remains underway.”