EDMONTON — Two of Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s longtime cabinet ministers are stepping down.

In letters posted on social media Wednesday, Finance Minister Nate Horner and Hospitals Minister Matt Jones both said they are leaving their posts after deciding not to seek re-election in the October 2027 general election.

“When the premier offered me this cabinet role, I told her it was likely that my second term would be my last,” Horner said in his letter.

“In discussing my plans with the premier, we both felt it was important for the election-year budget to be built by a member of cabinet who will be running for re-election.”

Jones, in his letter, said he asked to step back so that an “orderly transition” could take place ahead of the 2027 vote.

Horner and Jones say they remain supportive of Smith and the United Conservatives. They said they will continue to serve as backbenchers until the election is called.

“I am proud of our government’s work to restore the Alberta advantage by lowering taxes, reducing red tape, and championing Alberta’s innovative and entrepreneurial industries and world-class energy sector,” Jones said.

Smith thanked the ministers for their service Wednesday, saying on social media that both accomplished plenty in their respective roles.

Horner and Jones were first elected in 2019 when the United Conservatives and former premier Jason Kenney took power from the NDP.

Kenney appointed both Horner and Jones to his own cabinet in the later part of his tenure, with Horner serving as agriculture minister while Jones oversaw children’s services.

When Smith won the party leadership contest in 2022 to replace Kenney, she kept Horner in agriculture but moved Jones to the affordability and utilities portfolio.

After the spring 2023 election, Horner was shifted to finance, a role he had kept since. Jones had three separate ministry appointments in the years since, including stints in affordability and utilities, as well as jobs, economy and trade. He was also Alberta’s first minister in charge of hospitals, a portfolio created last year as part of Smith’s massive health-care restructuring that split the health portfolio into four.

As minister of hospital and surgical health services, Jones has been tasked with managing overburdened emergency rooms, especially in the two major cities.

Late last year, a 44-year-old man died in an Edmonton hospital after waiting nearly eight hours for care.

Jones, in January, called a fatality inquiry into the matter. He also promised to create a new physician triage role in hospitals to prevent similar deaths, but the government has found itself at odds with the provincial doctors association over compensation and the role still hasn’t been put in place.

A similar death was reported last week at the Royal Alexandra Hospital near downtown Edmonton. The Alberta Medical Association hasn’t provided details but has said the man had received some care but a lack of available stretchers meant he had to wait in the emergency room, where he died several hours later.

Alberta Health Services said it’s investigating the case.

Horner has overseen all but one of Smith’s budgets since she took office, including the most recent spending plan that forecasted a $9.4-billion deficit — the largest since the COVID-19 pandemic.

That figure isn’t expected to be nearly as steep anymore as a result of the U.S. war on Iran and the high oil prices it has caused. Some analysts and business groups have said Alberta’s fortunes could even swing into a surplus should prices stay high for longer.

Smith is expected to formally shuffle her cabinet on Thursday in Calgary.

Last week, Smith wouldn’t confirm or deny rumours that Jason Nixon, minister of assisted living and social services, could take over for Horner. She told reporters instead that an announcement would be made in due course.

Nixon told reporters last week that speculation was a “waste of time” and that he was focused on his current role.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 20, 2026.

Jack Farrell, The Canadian Press

The North Carolina State Board of Elections is weighing a set of new rules that could make it harder for the public to learn about campaign finance complaints.

The proposed rules will have a long road ahead if the board votes to advance them for public comment at a meeting on Wednesday. Some transparency advocates said they worry that if the rules are finalized, they could hinder the public’s access to timely information about allegations of illegal political donations and lobbying activities.

Under one of the proposals, “Complaints and any other documents gathered by the State Board during an investigation are confidential and shall not be made available for public inspection or copying until the investigation is concluded.”

The NCSBE typically levies civil fines or penalties in open meetings, but doesn’t have a set timetable in which investigations need to be completed. The board has, however, posted some complaints on its website before holding public votes to dismiss them, including a case last month involving an alleged conflict of interest by Linda Devore, the GOP chair of the Cumberland County Board of Elections.

Bob Hall, a campaign finance watchdog, has long lodged campaign finance complaints, including one last year about a lobbyist giving to state Supreme Court candidate and state Rep. Sarah Stevens. Hall often shares his complaints with news reporters before state election officials launch an investigation. The proposed rule suggests that might not be allowed if complaints are confidential.

Lindsey Wakely, director of campaign finance for the State Board of Elections, said the rule aims to codify the board’s longstanding approach to preserving the integrity of its internal investigations. She said the rules aren’t intended to prevent someone who is making a complaint or subject to one from sharing it with the public. Rather, it’s designed to establish a clearer process for the state to address campaign finance concerns.

“[The proposed rule] speaks to what we will do with the records in our possession,” Wakely said. “It does not say anything about what members of the public may do with those records that they submit to us.”

If the rules are implemented, the State Board of Elections wouldn’t be able to release a copy of any complaint or any related documents until it has completed an investigation. Staff would have 15 days from the time the board receives a complaint to contact the parties accused of violating campaign finance laws. Staff would have 120 days to perform a preliminary review, though NCSBE Executive Director Sam Hayes could extend the timetable. 

“The rules allow the State Board to bury valid complaints in bureaucracy,” said Brooks Fuller, policy director for Common Cause North Carolina. “They owe it to the public and to the parties involved to handle complaints efficiently and fairly, and not let them drag on for many months.”

If the preliminary review shows someone may have engaged in conduct that could result in civil or criminal penalties, staff would open a case and launch a formal investigation. The rules don’t set out a timetable for how long a formal investigation would last.

If the investigation doesn’t uncover evidence warranting further review, staff will send a report to NCSBE members. Multiple members on the board would have five business days to request a full briefing on the matter.

If an investigation results in a civil or criminal penalty, it would be subject to public record laws, though the rules don’t lay out a timeline for disclosure.

AUSTIN (KXAN) — The city of Austin has released its final bond recommendation to city council members and the mayor. It’s one of at least three base options city council is expected to consider later this month. 

City staff ultimately recommended the city council not pursue a bond in 2026 — but rather in 2028 — citing the “decision tree” city council adopted earlier this year.

“Staff also recognizes that there are priority funding areas that will need to be considered in the FY 2027 budget process for programs within the existing bond propositions that have reached 90% of the funds expended,” staff wrote. Those areas include transportation, watershed protection and parks.

In a work session Tuesday, many city council members expressed they still wanted to move forward with a bond this year — especially one that focuses on parks.

“Parks are so central to the identity of Austin; they’re so valued by people here — almost uniquely — amongst so many communities that I know. They are essentially out of capital funds … and I do feel an obligation to continue to get them some capital dollars,” Mayor Pro Tem Chito Vela said.

The Bond Election Advisory Task Force proposal

There are at least two additional base proposals up for consideration: One from a task force that’s been working for roughly a year and a half to identify the city’s greatest needs and another from a group of five city council members that focuses on parks.

The Bond Election Advisory Task Force (BEATF) has identified a package that would cost the city roughly $767 million and would tackle major projects in affordable housing, parks, transportation and flood mitigation.

The BEATF proposal puts money in the following buckets:

• $200 million: Affordable housing
• $175 million: Parks and open space
• $106 million: Facilities (libraries, museums, the Austin animal center)
• $25 million: Homeless Strategy Office (helping fund a new 1,200 bed shelter)
• $147 million: Transportation
• $113 million: Storm and flood mitigation infrastructure

You can find the full list of recommended projects here.

The ‘parks’ proposal

Last month, a group of city council members proposed an additional 2026 bond idea, worth more than $400 million, but that also includes a second bond ask in 2028. The focus of that bond is parks.

In a message board post, five council members pitched the following for a 2026 bond:

• $250-$260 million for parks projects, not including any maintenance facilities
• $50-$60 million for community facilities, such as libraries and cultural arts
• $75-$80 million for active transportation projects

“Should this option ultimately be pursued, we would then use the work of the BEATF and staff for the non-parks categories as the starting point for a 2028 bond discussion,” the council members said.

The BEATF then reworked that additional option — which is not their preferred proposal, but satisfies the ask from some council members — that would come in at $436 million.

The breakdown is:

• $225 million: Parks and open space
• $106 million: Facilities
• $25 million: Homeless Strategy Office
• $80 million: Transportation

You can find the breakdown of that option here.

City staff also put forward a version of this scenario which would cost roughly $390 million.

The breakdown of that alternate proposal is:

• $92 million: Transportation
• $250 million: Parks and Recreation
• $48 million” Community facilities

What happens next?

Council members and the city will now need to narrow down which of these proposals — if any of them — will be the final proposal.

In a work session, council members suggested they would not be able to have a decision made by the end of the month (staff initially put a placeholder for that vote on the May 28 council agenda). Mayor Pro Tem Vela told staff he would like to see a vote happen in July.

The deadline to call an election is in August and voters would have the ultimate say in November.

How much would these cost you?

City staff previously said that for every $100 million in additional debt the city takes on, the average Austin homeowner will see their bill go up by $14.34 annually.

It’s worth noting that your property tax bill will go up over the next several years regardless of whether a bond is approved or not in 2026. City staff say the city still has more than $2 billion in outstanding debt.