This story is part of our ongoing investigative series, Hidden Wonder Valley.

Councillors in a rural Alberta municipality have stalled a new conflict of interest bylaw, even as they face criticism over the lack of transparency in their $70-billion deal with celebrity investor Kevin O’Leary to build the “world’s largest AI data centre,” The Energy Mix has learned,

Documents show that on July 14, 2026, councillors for the Municipal District of Greenview voted 9 to 1 to defer the new bylaw introduced in May that could help identify councillors with conflicts of interest.

No date has been set for when the bylaw will be back in front of council, Stacey Sevilla, Greenview’s manager of communications and marketing, told The Energy Mix.

“It is common practice for a municipality to implement [a disclosure bylaw],” she said. “Administration did research, talked with other municipalities who have them, and brought forward a draft for council consideration.”

The municipality is facing criticism over its lack of transparency, including around the details of a purchase agreement with O’Leary Digital Ltd. kept so secret that not even the courts have been allowed to fully view it.

While the company redacted 54 of 59 pages of the document, the viewable sections revealing that Greenview agreed to “act as an agent” for the company in obtaining the necessary water approvals for O’Leary’s Wonder Valley data centre and accompanying 9-gigawatt power plant from the province. Greenview Chief Administrative Officer Stacey Wabick has not responded to The Mix’s question about whether the agreement puts the municipality in a conflict of interest.

In the briefing package for the bylaw proposal [pdf], administration said its purpose is “to support transparency, manage potential conflict of interest, and strengthen public confidence in local governance.”

Mayors and companies across Canada have signed on to the federal government’s new data centre principles, which include a promise of transparency.

Sevilla said the draft bylaw was discussed ahead of time in a council committee meeting.

Yet Councillor Dave Berry introduced the motion to defer the disclosure bylaw on July 14, saying he “didn’t understand” why it was needed.

“I struggled with this one last time and I was talked off the ledge, but I’m still struggling,” he said in the meeting. “We haven’t had it ever and I don’t understand why we need this now.”

Berry said maintaining the confidentiality and security of personal information was an issue.

“Hackers are pretty good with what they do and if they can hack into stuff militarily, security is an issue for me.”

Councillor James Vander Leest said he felt the bylaw was unnecessary and increased administration workload.

“I feel like we’re making a lot of work for administration for something that I don’t feel is necessary,” he said, adding that he wanted to “keep government small” and not get “overly bureaucratic.”

“We have a population that we represent that’s around the 9,000 mark, not a huge population,” said Councillor Paul Bailey. “It seems like we’re investing a lot of energy into this item, which hasn’t really been required before, and we’ve been able to work without it.”

Wabick told council the bylaw wouldn’t add to their workload because they have to do it anyway for audit purposes.

Sarah Sebo, the municipality’s manager of legislative and administrative services, said the provincial Municipal Government Act directs that disclosure may be done through a bylaw, explaining the twofold intention for the proposal was to advise council on conflict of interest with business tenders, and to ensure council information is kept up to date. “We are fortunate right now in that we somewhat confidently know the relationships you guys have with your community and current businesses, so we have been able to muddle our way through it,” Wabick said.

According to a provincial guide to pecuniary interests and conflicts of interest for municipal councillors, elected officials must uphold the public interest ahead of any private interests they may have. It defines pecuniary interest as “something which could monetarily affect you, your spouse or adult interdependent partner, your children, your parents, or the parents of your spouse (in other words, your immediate family), or a business which employs you or in which you have an interest.”

But Vander Leest said councillors have a “moral responsibility” to make sure they’re not in conflict, arguing that “it’s not the administration’s job to baby us.”

“At the end of the day, it’s the elected official’s responsibility to his ratepayers,” he said. “If you don’t remove yourself, whether or not you have a bylaw in place to protect you, that’s on you.”

Grovedale Councillor Christine Schlief, one of two councillors representing the area closest to Wonder Valley, said that to her,  the bylaw’s purpose was to make the information clear for auditors, and that it’s up to councillors to disclose their conflicts and be upfront about them.

Wabick told council that staff “use the information as a coaching tool,” adding that in the past they have contacted councillors to explain their role in situations where they had a connection to a company bidding on a contract.

Councillor Nicholas Hansen, also representing Grovedale, voiced concerns about vagueness in the bylaw’s definition of family. The draft states it includes “a councillor’s partner, adult children, parents, and any other family member whose relationship to the councillor may reasonably give rise to a conflict or pecuniary interest.”

Wabick said “we’ll take another crack at it,” quipping, “if this does pass, we’ll send out genealogy kits so that you guys all swab your cheek, and then we’ll let you know who you need to record.”

The bylaw included a section on confidentiality and storage, saying that disclosure statements would be stored electronically with restricted access.

“As far as security, I understand that it gets uncomfortable giving your personal information, so I completely respect that,” Wabick said, reassuring councillors that checks and balances are in place to protect personnel files.

After the first reading, amendments were made to clarify the definition of an employer, and to emphasize storage and security, but council still voted to defer the second and third reading of the bylaw, asking administration to further address security concerns and to clarify the definition of family.

Reeve Ryan Ratzlaff was the only council member who opposed the deferral. He did not respond to The Mix’s question about the reasons for his vote.