Councillor Shane Latcham, Rockhampton Regional Council, under investigation for inappropriate conduct

Heavy discussions were held on Tuesday morning, as councillors decided the fate of Rockhampton councillor Shane Latcham’s actions in a breach of the Councillor Code of Conduct. Here’s what happened.

Rockhampton region councillor Shane Latcham has been found to have engaged in inappropriate conduct and ordered to attend training.

Lengthy discussions about the matter were held around the council table in a general meeting on Tuesday.

The conduct in question was around Mr Latcham contacting a property owner on February 19, 2022 to arrange a site visit for two days’ time for himself, other councillors, council officers and the CEO.

Rockhampton Regional Council had been in negotiations to purchase the property.

The location of the property was a confidential matter however it is understood to be Kern Arcade in Rockhampton’s CBD, which closed in January 2021.

It had been decided at a previous council meeting in June 2021, that the CEO (Evan Pardon) was authorised or delegated to enter into negotiations to purchase the property.

There was a belief that by contacting the property owner, Mr Latcham was in breach of the CEO’s delegation.

A complaint about Mr Latcham’s actions was referred to the Office of the Independent Assessor - the body that investigates councillor conduct - earlier this year.

It was found Mr Latcham’s actions may have breached the Code of Conduct for Councillors in Queensland and/or conduct that contravened a resolution of council.

The investigation report discussed that because the CEO was previously authorised to handle the property matter, not any councillor, any contact with owners of the property should have been made through the CEO’s office, particularly when negotiations may have been at a sensitive and complex stage.

In a written response to the investigation, Mr Latcham said he did not intend to contravene the Act and he was “carrying out his responsibilities conscientiously in the best interests of the council and the community”, nor was he intending on conducting any negotiations.

He also stated he did not know the property co-owner personally and had not contacted him at any other time.

The Councillor Conduct Tribunal determined in its report the evidence was sufficient for an allegation of inappropriate conduct and council was recommended to give a final outcome.

“The CCT has investigated the suspected inappropriate conduct referred by Council pursuant to s150DL (1)(a)(i) of the Act and has formed the opinion that the evidence is sufficient to sustain an allegation of inappropriate conduct on the balance of probabilities,” the report states.

Councillor Latcham was able to stay in the meeting for the early discussion of the matter and took the chance to ask the CEO, Evan Pardon, if he knew who made the complaint.

Mr Pardon said it was inappropriate to comment.

Various councillors then asked questions of Mr Latcham and RRC coordinator Workforce Relations and Ethics Travis Pegrem, who was presenting the report.

Mr Latcham specified that at no point was he planning on talking about the purchase of the property and his intention in organising the meeting was to inspect the property.

“For me I felt that we hadn’t been afforded the opportunity to have a site inspection,” he told the table.

“I thought it would be beneficial for all councillors to have a site visit to form an opinion.

“At no stage was there an intent to negotiate.

“For me I think it is an overreach to call a site inspection … to have anything to do with a negotiation.”

Mayor Tony Williams said the process should have been that the CEO authorise the visit.

Mr Latcham said a site inspection should have occurred before council even got to the stage of negotiations, which Councillor Donna Kirkland with.

“We had gotten to a point where it needed to go through the CEO,” she said.

“I do feel this was just an oversight.”

Deputy Mayor Neil Fisher said he had been agonising over the matter all night and barely got any sleep.

“We try, we follow all of the dot points but it is very easy sometimes to not intentionally … get hung by actions that you honestly hand on heart not intended to have any wrongdoing,” he said at the meeting.

“Training in all fields, whether it’s professional, in personal life; training is important.

“Having updates in training is so important, it shouldn’t be the responsibility of the CEO, it should be from the watchdog.”

All councillors asked questions, including Councillor Grant Mathers who participated by videolink, and the same sentiment was felt that Mr Latcham had good intentions.

“This job is difficult at the best of times, the number of discussions we have in and out of meetings,” Councillor Cherie Rutherford said.

“This one (Mr Latcham’s investigation) is just someone trying to do something for the right reasons.”

Mr Latcham left the council meeting room for a decision to be made on the matter.

Six out of the seven councillors voted that in accordance with the Act, Mr Latcham had engaged in inappropriate conduct as alleged and he was ordered to attend training to address his conduct and the relevant registers be updated.

Councillor Ellen Smith voted against the motion.

“I don’t think there was any malice or intent to break the rule,” she had said before the vote.

Councillors also voted that they all attend further training on the Code of Conduct.

It should be noted the site inspection meeting in the complaint never actually occurred.

Mr Latcham is serving his first term at council, after he was elected in 2020 for Division 1, which covers Norman Gardens, Parkhurst and Limestone Creek.

He first ran for council in 2016 but was unsuccessful.

Mr Latcham is also the portfolio chair of Waste and Recycling.