Key Takeaways
- Councillor Zed Latinovic faced two separate complaints: one concerning his opposition to a filmed adjournment and another alleging “creative accounting” by the chief financial officer.
- Both the mayor and Latinovic declared conflicts of interest, leading Deputy Mayor Maria Te Kanawa to chair the meeting while Latinovic sat in the public gallery.
- Robert Lee, speaking on Latinovic’s behalf, requested ample time to present a defence but was limited to 15 minutes, prompting a walkout after he denounced the proceedings as a “sham.”
- Fellow councillor Dave Shaw defended Latinovic, citing standing‑order interpretation, video evidence that cleared him of abuse, and noting English is Latinovic’s third language.
- Councillor Josiah Teokotai argued that Latinovic’s lack of understanding of technical council information damaged staff‑councillor trust and formed the basis of the censure motion.
- The investigation report identified two code‑of‑conduct breaches (low‑to‑moderate and moderate‑to‑serious) but recommended remedial actions rather than removal of duties.
- Latinovic must now issue a written apology, undertake further training, and receive mentoring on council procedures and conduct.
Overview of the Dispute
The controversy began when Mayor [Name] moved to adjourn a council meeting, a decision that Latinovic loudly opposed. His objection triggered the first formal complaint, which centred on whether the adjournment could be filmed under standing order 12.4. Latinovic argued that the mayor could not compel a member of the public, Mr Simpson, to stop filming, setting the stage for a clash over procedural rights and transparency.
First Complaint: Filming the Adjournment
Latinovic’s opposition to the adjournment was framed as a defence of public access. He contended that standing order 12.4 permitted Mr Simpson to record the proceedings and that the mayor lacked authority to halt the filming. When attendees grew abusive, Latinovic intervened, urging calm. The complaint alleged that his conduct disrupted the meeting, but Latinovic maintained he was merely protecting procedural openness.
Second Complaint: Allegations of “Creative Accounting”
Later, a deferred meeting in March gave rise to a second complaint. Latinovic accused the chief financial officer of engaging in “creative accounting,” suggesting that financial statements were being manipulated to present a favourable picture. This allegation was serious enough to warrant a formal investigation, as it implied potential mismanagement of public funds and a breach of fiduciary duty.
Conflicts of Interest and Meeting Leadership
Both the mayor and Latinovic declared personal conflicts of interest regarding the complaints and excused themselves from the proceedings. Consequently, Deputy Mayor Maria Te Kanawa assumed the role of chair, while Rotorua Lakes councillor Robert Lee spoke on Latinovic’s behalf. Latinovic relinquished his seat and moved to the public gallery, a symbolic gesture underscoring his protest against the process.
Defence Time Allocation and Deputy Mayor’s Ruling
Robert Lee requested sufficient time to deliver a comprehensive PowerPoint presentation defending Latinovic. Deputy Mayor Te Kanawa denied the request, allocating only 15 minutes for Lee to address the investigator’s report. Lee argued that more time was essential to mount a “decent defence” and to mitigate the risk of being “named and shamed publicly, let’s say defamed.”
Natural Justice and Social‑Media Argument
In response, Te Kanawa asserted that Latinovic had already received natural justice through the investigative process and by voicing his concerns on social media, which rendered his sentiments public knowledge. She maintained that the limited speaking time was adequate, given that Latinovic’s position had already been aired elsewhere. Lee’s retort—“We will not be participating in a sham. Good afternoon”—highlighted his belief that the process was fundamentally unfair.
The Walkout: “We Will Not Be Participating in a Sham”
Following the denial of extra time, Lee, Latinovic, and their supporters exited the chamber. Lee reiterated that mounting a defence would be pointless if the meeting continued as a sham, and the group’s departure underscored their refusal to legitimize what they perceived as a prejudiced proceeding. The walkout became a focal point of media coverage and public debate about procedural fairness.
Councillor Dave Shaw’s Defence: Standing Order and Language
Putāruru Ward councillor Dave Shaw rose to Latinovic’s aid, describing him as a close friend whom he knew “better than most people in this room.” Shaw argued that standing order 12.4 indeed permitted filming and that the mayor could not override that right. He presented video evidence that, in his view, exonerated Latinovic from shouting or abusive behaviour at the February hui.
Shaw also emphasized that English is Latinovic’s third language, noting that he has occasionally assisted Latinovic in finding the appropriate English words. He claimed that Latinovic’s choice of words when addressing the chief financial officer was unfortunate but had since been corrected, and that Latinovic’s intent was benign rather than hostile.
Councillor Josiah Teokotai’s Motion: Trust and Technical Understanding
Tokoroa Ward councillor Josiah Teokotai introduced the motion that formed the core of Latinovic’s censure. Teokotai asserted that elected members must prioritize any complaints raised by council staff, warning that Latinovic’s conduct was “destructive of the critical trust between staff and elected members.” He argued that this erosion of trust hampered the council’s ability to serve the community effectively.
Teokotai further contended that Latinovic lacked a sufficient grasp of the technical information routinely presented to the council, a deficiency that, according to the investigation, contributed to his behaviour toward staff. He suggested that Latinovic’s limited comprehension led to misunderstandings and unnecessarily confrontational interactions.
Latinovic’s Rejection of the Censure
In a statement to Local Democracy Reporting, Latinovic declared that he did not accept the council’s censure, asserting that the decision emerged from an unfair process. He expressed willingness to engage in constructive dialogue should the council demonstrate genuine openness to discussion, maintaining that he remains approachable and committed to good‑faith participation.
Findings of the Investigation Report
Investigator Hill’s report detailed that the complaint originated from the council’s chief executive on behalf of staff. Latinovic submitted a thorough written response followed by a 52‑page supplemental submission. Hill identified two breaches of the code of conduct: the first, arising from the initial adjournment incident, was rated low to moderate; the second, linked to the March meeting and the “creative accounting” allegation, was moderate to serious.
While the breaches warranted remedial action, Hill concluded they did not merit the more severe penalty of removing responsibilities. She acknowledged the financial burden such processes impose on ratepayers but affirmed that the complaint had been “properly raised.”
Remedial Actions Required
As a result of the censure, Latinovic must undertake a series of corrective measures:
- Issue a formal written apology to council staff.
- Complete additional training focused on council duties, procedures, and expected conduct.
- Engage in mentorship with a senior councillor or officer to reinforce proper behaviour and understanding of council protocols.
These steps aim to restore trust, improve Latinovic’s grasp of council operations, and prevent recurrence of similar incidents.
Reporting Credits
The article was authored by Bronson Perich, a Local Democracy Reporting journalist stationed at the Waikato Herald and covering Taupō and South Waikato. Local Democracy Reporting is a joint initiative co‑funded by RNZ and NZ On Air, dedicated to delivering independent coverage of local government affairs.