Three where four were needed. Ādaži council in 2026, from the municipality's own documents

The Latvian Association of Regions (LRA) has been the largest group on the Ādaži council since at least 2017. That year it won 10 seats out of 15, and in 2021 and 2025, in the already merged Ādaži municipality, 6 seats out of 15 (Central Election Commission data). Māris Sprindžuks (elected in 2013 for the Union of Greens and Farmers (ZZS), later LRA) chaired the council for about nine years in total. In 2014 Normunds Zviedris chaired the council for four and a half months. In 2022 Sprindžuks was elected to the Saeima. On 1 November 2022 Karīna Miķelsone (LRA) became chair in his place.

According to information obtained by LETA, on 28 September 2022 seven councillors demanded that an extraordinary sitting be convened to decide on removing Sprindžuks. The submission was signed by Imants Krastiņš, Daiga Mieriņa, Jānis Leja, Arta Deniņa, Genovefa Kozlovska, Gatis Miglāns and Raivis Pauls. Krastiņš was intended for the post of chair. The submission was one vote short. After the Saeima elections on 1 October, the Latvian Farmers' Union (LZS) councillors withdrew their signatures, and a month later LZS, including Miglāns and Pauls, formed a coalition with LRA. In 2025 Miglāns was Miķelsone's deputy. Five of the seven from 2022 — Krastiņš, Leja, Deniņa, Miglāns and Pauls — are in the council majority in 2026.

On 8 January the council's Finance Committee decided by 8 votes to 7 not to consider the municipality's draft budget for 2026 and to have it reworked. The proposal was submitted by councillor Imants Krastiņš. Council chair Karīna Miķelsone (LRA) took this as an expression of no confidence and resigned.

The council then worked without a chair for almost five months. In March the Ministry of Smart Administration and Regional Development told the news agency LETA that it was following the situation. The Saeima may dissolve a council if it fails to elect a chair, a deputy or committees within two months, but the ministry added that this power is to be used only if a council persistently and over a long period fails to ensure the lawfulness of its work.

On 3 March the acting mayor, Gatis Miglāns (ZZS), told LETA that agreement had been reached not to increase the number of deputy chairs of the council.

On 28 May Miglāns was elected council chair with 14 votes, including LRA votes. Ģirts Dubkēvičs of The Progressives (P) was elected deputy by 8 votes to 5. The next day Krastiņš became chair of the Development Committee, with Jānis Leja of Latvia First (LPV) as his deputy.

In the most contentious votes since the summer (the replacement of the board on 16 September, the reorganisation on 2 October, the third deputy on 7 and 29 October) the council split the same way: 8 or 9 votes from ZZS, LPV, P, the Sovereign Power / Jaunlatvieši alliance (SV/AJ), Krastiņš, Deniņa and sometimes the Latvian Green Party (LZP) against 5 or 6 LRA votes. Not all votes were like that, however: in the suspension of the executive director on 20 August, LRA councillors voted in different ways.

The first competition. On 31 July the selection board (6 of its 7 members) gave Sniedze Brakovska a total of 210.5 points, and the other two candidates 161 and 158. The board decided 6:0 to put her forward for approval by the council.

After that the municipality's position changed twice. On 10 August the Human Resources Department informed Brakovska in writing that her candidacy “will not be put forward for approval in the post”. On 12 August the competition regulations with a new application deadline, 31 August, were placed on the municipality's server (file date: 12 August 2026, 16:47 Latvian time). On 20 August the head of the Human Resources Department wrote that the board “has taken a decision to offer you … the post”, and the matter was placed on the council's agenda.

On 27 August the council did not appoint Brakovska: 6 for, 1 against (Leja), 7 abstentions. Before the vote, councillors asked her no questions. After the vote, councillor Arnis Rozītis (LRA) asked those who had abstained for their arguments. Miglāns, chairing the sitting, replied that the questions section was over, but councillors could comment on their vote. Councillor Arta Deniņa explained that she had abstained because she had been unable to take part in the board's work. The others did not explain their vote at the sitting. Later, on 11 September, Miglāns, Varts and Leja explained their votes to Latvian Radio.

Two things should be added here. First, appointing a head is the council's right, not its obligation. However, on 11 September the Ministry of Smart Administration and Regional Development explained to Latvian Radio: “councillors must be able to justify why they do not support the appointment of the competition winner to the post, thereby promoting the transparency of decisions and public trust.” Second, the day before the council vote, on 26 August, Riga City Council appointed Brakovska head of Riga Preschool No. 231. Brakovska said so herself at the 27 August sitting.

The second competition. On 16 September, the last day for applications, the council replaced the selection board by 9:6. The number of members fell from 7 to 5. Councillors Kerola Dāvidsone (LRA) and Arta Deniņa and the head of the Accounting Department, Anita Snigireva, were removed from the board, and councillor Karina Sprūde (SV/AJ) was added. Councillor Zintis Varts (LPV) had been on the board since May. An LRA proposal to include professionals and representatives of the administration on the board received 7 votes to 7 and was not adopted.

Point 6 of the board's regulations states: “The board is quorate if at least 4 board members take part in its sitting.” The September amendments did not change this point. Four remained four.

On 22 September all five members took part in the document round. Brakovska received 13 points, the other candidate 11.

On 30 September three of the five took part in the interviews: the head of the Education and Youth Department, Vija Tomiņa, the head of the Human Resources Department, Laila Raiskuma, and Varts. The minutes state that the board “is competent to act, based on factual and expediency considerations”. The same sentence also appears in the minutes of 31 July, when 6 of the 7 members were present. Also present was the “invited expert” Snigireva. The regulations say nothing about inviting experts. In the assessment of budget questions, the minutes cite “the opinion of the invited expert”. On 27 October the municipality wrote to Brakovska that the board had invited an expert in accounting to obtain a professional opinion on the candidates' knowledge and understanding of accounting matters. “The information provided by the expert was advisory.”

In the interview the other candidate received 107 points, Brakovska 101. The board put forward the other candidate by 3:0. The reasons given cite her practical knowledge of stocktaking and budget preparation, as well as her participation in the opening of a municipal preschool.

The same three assessors gave Brakovska almost identical points in July and September: Tomiņa 34 and 34, Raiskuma 36.5 and 34, Varts 33 and 33. In September they gave the other candidate 35, 36 and 36 points.

Under the regulations the result must be announced within five working days, that is, by 7 October. Brakovska was informed on 13 October. On 27 October the municipality wrote that the announcement had been delayed “for organisational reasons”.

What is not a breach, and what the municipality can answer. The regulations determine the winner by the points in the final round, so 107 against 101 in itself complies with the rules. The first-round points do not have to be added up. The regulations also provide that a decision is taken if more than half of the board members vote for it, and three votes out of five meet that requirement. The questions were whether the sitting with three members was quorate, and about the expert and the deadlines. The municipality itself answered the first question on 22 October (see below).

State authorities. On 15 September the State Labour Inspectorate opened administrative offence proceedings over a possible breach of Section 29(9) of the Labour Law, which prohibits differential treatment, including on grounds of political beliefs. The Inspectorate put 14 questions to the municipality with a deadline of 5 October. The municipality did not reply by the deadline, so the Inspectorate extended the deadline for its decision to 18 January 2027. On 14 September the Ombudsman opened an inquiry into possible discrimination on grounds of political beliefs and a breach of the principle of good administration. According to what Brakovska said on 27 October, both inquiries are continuing and no authority has yet taken a decision.

On 21 October Brakovska filed a submission (reg. No. ĀNP/1-11-1/26/6596) with the council chair, the councillors and the acting executive director. In it she pointed to the lack of a quorum at the 30 September sitting, the involvement of the invited expert, the application of the assessment criteria and the failure to meet the deadline for announcing the result. She wrote that, having assessed both competitions, her conviction had grown that “actions were taken to prevent precisely my candidacy from being approved in the post, possibly because of my political affiliation with the Latvian Association of Regions (LRA)”. She asked for the lawfulness of the 30 September sitting to be assessed and for the decision on appointing the head to be postponed until that assessment.

The municipality admits. On 22 October the head of the Human Resources Department, Laila Raiskuma, wrote to Brakovska: “Thank you for drawing attention to the fact that our decision has no legal force, because the Board took the decision with 3 people present, but point 6 of the Selection Board regulations states that the board is quorate if at least four board members take part in its sitting.” She wrote that the board had noticed this fact, so a draft council decision had not been prepared and the matter was not being put forward to a council sitting. The board decided to hold the second round of the competition again on 23 October. The invitation was sent on the afternoon of 22 October, that is, less than a day in advance. The regulations do not set a minimum notice period. Point 7 of the regulations, however, provides that the board's work ends once the minutes on the selected candidate have been signed, so the question remains on what basis and in what composition the board decided to hold the second round again. On the same day Brakovska filed another submission with the municipality. In it she called this procedure “unacceptable and inconsistent with the principle of good administration” and asked for answers to the other questions in her 21 October submission as well: on the expert, the assessment criteria, the notification deadline and possible unequal treatment. She asked for it to be established who found, when and on what basis that the decision had no legal force, and for the decision on appointing the head to be postponed pending that assessment. She stressed that she was not withdrawing from the competition. At her request the municipality moved the interview to the following week. The 23 October interview did not take place. According to Brakovska, on 26 October the board secretary, Ļubova Petrovska, phoned her and invited her to the repeat interview on 30 October at 8.30. In her submission of 28 October Brakovska writes that the time “was agreed by telephone”. Point 18 of the regulations provides that the minute-taker notifies candidates of the time and place of the interview by e-mail. The 30 September sitting was minuted by Petrovska. Brakovska writes that by the evening of 28 October she had still not received such an e-mail.

On 27 October the municipality replied to Brakovska with two letters signed by council chair Gatis Miglāns (No. ĀNP/1-12-1/26/1948 and No. ĀNP/1-12-1/26/1949). They state that the discrepancy between the quorum and the board members actually present at the sitting was identified “while preparing the documents for consideration by the council”, and that the board members were informed of it on 20 October. On the 30 September sitting, the letter says that “one of the board members had not arrived” and that the board had been informed “of the occurrence of unforeseen circumstances”, so the board continued the sitting, interviewed the candidates and took a decision. The minutes of the sitting, however, list two members as absent, I. Reķe and K. Sprūde, marked “excused”. According to the letter, the decision on the repeat second round was taken by the selection board. On what day? In what composition? With what vote? The letter does not state this clearly (the sentence mentions 23 October, which was the date of the interview). On the short notice period, the municipality writes: “Legislation does not set a specific deadline for inviting candidates to an interview. The time of the interview is agreed between the selection board and the candidate, by agreeing on a time acceptable to both parties.” The letter also says: “The date of the interview will be notified by e-mail.”

On 29 October at 17.08, Human Resources Department specialist Ļubova Petrovska offered Brakovska a new interview time by e-mail: 2 November at 16.00 in Carnikava, at Stacijas iela 5. This is the first e-mail invitation from the minute-taker to the repeat round, as provided for by point 18 of the regulations; the invitation of 22 October to the interview on 23 October had been sent by e-mail by the head of the Human Resources Department. On the morning of 30 October Brakovska replied that this time was not acceptable to her because of her main job, and that before agreeing the next date she was waiting for the municipality's written reply to her 28 October submission on the legal basis for the repeat interview. As she had already written on 28 October, she was not withdrawing from the competition. On the afternoon of the same day Petrovska wrote that the 2 November time had been cancelled and that the municipality would give notice of further steps. Whether the 30 October interview with the other candidate took place is not known to knezins.com.

On 28 October Brakovska filed another submission with the council chair, the selection board and the head of the Human Resources Department. In it she stated that she would not take part in the 30 October interview. As the reason she cites the lack of a quorum admitted in the municipality's replies of 27 October and the fact that the legal basis for the repeat assessment is still unclear. She also points out that the board's decision and the minutes on the repeat round have not been issued. She requested six documents and explanations, including the minutes of the 30 September sitting, the board's decision on the repeat round and an explanation of the legal status of the result announced on 13 October, and asked for the interview to be postponed. She stressed that she was not withdrawing her candidacy and was not withdrawing from the competition, and asked that her non-participation not be treated as a withdrawal. She will also send both of the municipality's replies of 27 October and this submission to the State Labour Inspectorate and the Ombudsman.

The municipality's view: on 27 October knezins.com sent press questions to the municipality with a reply deadline of 3 November. No reply had been received by the time of publication. When it arrives, we will update the article.

Updated 5 November 2026. On 3 November the municipality replied to knezins.com's information request of 20 October about both competitions (letter No. ĀNP/1-12-1/26/1982, signed by deputy executive director Inga Reķe). It is a refusal. Candidates' documents, competition materials and minutes were given restricted-access status by an order of 23 February 2026, and therefore “we refuse to issue the requested information to you”. The letter cites Section 5(3) and (4) and Section 16(1) of the Freedom of Information Law; Section 5(2)(5) of that law allows information on the assessment of competitions to be restricted, with exceptions. knezins.com had also asked for document references and yes-or-no answers, for example whether the municipality had received requests from state institutions about these competitions and whether a draft decision had been prepared on appointing the winner of the repeat competition, and had asked for at least dates and references if the documents are restricted. The refusal does not address these separately, and it does not state where and within what time it can be contested or appealed, as Section 12(1) of the law requires. The minutes extracts used in this article were issued by the municipality to Brakovska as a candidate, and knezins.com received them from her.

On 7 October the council decided by 9:5 to put out for public consultation amendments to the municipality's bylaws providing for a third deputy chair of the council for governance matters (final vote on 29 October, see below). At the same sitting the council, with 6 votes for, 8 against and 1 abstention, rejected Miķelsone's proposal to abolish three political posts and not to create a new deputy post. With 14 votes the council supported a proposal by councillor Raivis Pauls (ZZS) to reduce the deputies' pay from 90% to 85% of the maximum permitted by law.

The explanatory note to the amendments (council sitting materials) calculates that a deputy's salary including employer's taxes is 66,353 euros a year. If the third deputy post is created, a deputy chair of the council chairs the Development Committee and two deputy committee chair posts are abolished, the additional cost according to the explanatory note is 10,855 euros a year, or 11,967 euros with a 20% reserve. It is planned to cover this by reducing all deputies' salaries from 4,474 to 4,206 euros a month. The explanatory note also refers to Section 80 of the state budget law, which restricts the creation of new posts in 2026.

The figures are different in the final explanatory note, published together with the binding regulations in Latvijas Vēstnesis on 2 November. There, the cost of the third deputy is given as 62,378 euros a year (point 2.1), and the savings as 45,569 euros (point 2.3): 13,431 euros from abolishing two deputy committee chair posts, 7,949 euros from reducing the deputies' salaries and 24,189 euros from abolishing a vacant senior desk officer post in the Administrative Department. By knezins.com's calculation the difference is 16,809 euros a year. Point 2.4 of the same note also mentions savings of a further 44,278.84 euros a year if the deputy for development matters were at the same time to chair the Development Committee, but point 8.4.15 states that in the final version of the regulations the chairmanship of the Development Committee is not entrusted to the deputy. The earlier 66,353 euros corresponds to the old deputy salary of 4,474 euros a month. In point 2.4 of the same note, a deputy's annual cost is given as 65,497 euros, although the 5,198 euros a month stated there comes to 62,376 euros a year. The explanatory note does not say whether the vacant desk officer post was funded in the budget or how long it had been vacant.

In its 21 October reply to knezins.com, the municipality writes that the post has been created “temporarily”. The published regulations set no term for the post. The new deputy is to oversee the work of the administration, e-government and artificial intelligence solutions, as well as residents' participation. Some of these functions are performed by the executive director, but since his suspension they have been performed by the deputy executive director, and in the municipality's words “due to the large volume of work, performance is hampered”.

In the same reply the municipality writes that a calculation of the deputies' workload or an assessment of their performance “has not been carried out”. The letter gave no answers to the questions about alternatives, the budget programme and a specific candidate.

By 12 October the municipality had received two submissions with objections. The consultation ran from 8 to 22 October (the draft's explanatory note had mentioned 21 October). In total, as the head of the Legal and Procurement Department, Ilona Gotharde, reported at the 29 October council sitting, the municipality received 86 opinions: eight residents supported the amendments, 78 were against. According to the final explanatory note, 67 of the 78 objections were that the work could be organised within the existing administrative structure; three residents wrote that the administration should be reduced, not expanded.

An initiative against creating the post, published on the Manabalss.lv platform on 20 October, collected more than 340 signatures within one day. On 23 October it had 456 signatures, on 30 October 479. The initiative's representative is Brakovska. The collective submission reached the municipality with the signatures collected by 10.00 on 22 October, at that time 430. According to Gotharde's report, the municipality checked the data of 232 signatories against Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs data and identified 220 residents of the municipality. The Local Government Law requires 200 submitters for a collective submission in a municipality with 15,000 to 30,000 residents, so the submission was found to comply with the law. According to councillor Raivis Pauls (ZZS), the municipality did not check the remaining signatures, as with previous collective submissions, and he said that claiming all the signatories are residents of the municipality is speculation.

The 29 October sitting. Section 57(1) of the Local Government Law provides that the council chair includes a collective submission that complies with the law on the agenda of the next ordinary sitting. The publicly announced 44-item agenda contained no item on the collective submission and the bylaws amendments. Brakovska wrote on Facebook the day before that she had received the invitation to the sitting, but the item was not on the agenda. At the start of the sitting it was added as item 2 with the votes of all 15 councillors. Miglāns explained that the consultation had ended recently and there had been many proposals.

Gotharde reported that four alternatives had been assessed: keeping two deputies, adding the new areas to the existing deputies' duties, creating a post in the administration, or abolishing all deputy posts. The option chosen was a third deputy, while abolishing two deputy committee chair posts and reducing all deputies' salaries. According to Miglāns, the desk officer vacancy in the Administrative Department is also being abolished, after which there will be five political posts. Asked by Miķelsone about the views of state institutions, Gotharde replied that before the decision was put forward she had phoned the State Chancellery, which had said orally that creating a new post is lawful if another post is abolished at the same time. According to her, the ministry had not expressed a clear position and had indicated that the State Chancellery's opinion was decisive. No written opinion was mentioned at the sitting, and the final explanatory note states: “No opinions or assessments were received from institutions on the draft regulations.” A point stating that the deputy for development matters automatically chairs the Development Committee was deleted from the draft, because the Local Government Law requires the committee chair to be elected from among the committee members. Dubkēvičs said he was ready to continue chairing the Development Committee so that no additional costs would arise.

Brakovska, as the representative of the collective submission, spoke for about six minutes (recording 0:24–0:30). She cited 474 signatures, a survey by the Latvian Association of Regions in which 208 of 235 participants were against the post, and the result of the consultation (she said 79 against and 8 for; Gotharde had reported 78 and 8). She asked what specific problem the post would solve, why digitalisation needs a political official rather than a professional specialist, and whether it is not absurd to create a political post to promote participation at a time when the leadership itself does not respect participation. After about five minutes the chair of the sitting asked her to finish sooner; she spoke for another minute and a half. She was given the floor twice more at the sitting (0:44 and 0:45). Miglāns then said that the initiative's title and the information provided were misleading, because they did not mention the abolition of three posts and the savings, and called the initiative the activity of one political party. According to him, the Word file properties of a questionnaire that, in his words, LRA representatives distributed in chat groups list as author Juris Krūze, head of the LRA's Ādaži branch, who runs the municipal company SIA “Ādažu namsaimnieks” (LSM mentioned both posts in March 2025).

Krastiņš, for whom the post is intended according to information from Kodols and LRA, defended the amendments with an analogy of a wasps' nest: as long as the nest is left alone, it lives quietly and steals jam from residents' jars, but as soon as someone tries to drive it out, it attacks aggressively. That is how he described the resistance of the past ten months over the audit, the heating tariff, the SIA Ādažu ūdens vehicle fleet and the reorganisation; the nest, he said, is the “guardian of the system”. If there were a commission of inquiry into the use of funds, according to him, it could end in much more serious litigation and personal liability. He did not link the nest by name to any institution or person; he spoke in general terms about defenders of the old system.

Dubkēvičs said that the council was not deciding today who would be the third deputy, and that the deputy committee chair posts had been posts for drawing a salary. About Brakovska he said that she was taking on a leadership role in the LRA and, by writing submissions, was smearing people who had not wronged her; that, he said, was not conduct worthy of a councillor. Leja had said earlier that Brakovska was taking over the leadership of the LRA's Ādaži branch, and reproached her for having moved after the 2021 elections from the “For!” and New Unity list to the LRA (the CVK list of councillors elected in 2021 also shows this). LRA councillor Ieva Roze, long-time head of the Social Service, said that municipal employees were looking for work elsewhere because of the management style and were making mistakes because of bullying. Miglāns replied that in the January coalition talks Roze herself had proposed creating a third post and a consultant post in the social field; Roze denied this. Leja said that employees were not irreplaceable, that among them there were many non-locals who were intriguing against the new leadership, and addressed Roze with words about a misfortune in her own home. Miķelsone replied that this had been very unethical, and added that councillors' ethics are examined only by the council chair, which is why she had not turned to the Ethics Commission in 2026. (The minutes of the 7 October sitting do, however, record her request to refer Krastiņš's statements to the Ethics Commission for assessment.) She then called the coalition a Frankenstein coalition of change management.

After more than an hour of debate, Brakovska asked for the floor to put residents' questions that had reached her during the sitting. Miglāns did not give her the floor: the collective submission had been considered, residents could write themselves, and new questions thought up at the sitting did not have to be considered. He added that residents did not have to send questions through Brakovska, and mentioned artificial intelligence. Brakovska replied that he was belittling residents. Section 57(2) of the Local Government Law gives the representative of a collective submission the right “in accordance with the procedure set by the council to report on the collective submission at the council sitting” and to take part in its discussion.

The vote. The draft decision combined two points: rejecting the collective submission and adopting the bylaws amendments. Miķelsone objected at the start of the debate and again during the vote that consideration of the collective submission had not been separated and that this was not legally correct; Miglāns replied that there was one decision. Section 57(3) of the Local Government Law provides that the council, in accordance with the content of the submission, decides on its further handling by designating the responsible municipal institution, and Section 57(4) requires that institution to report to the council within three months. Whether such an institution is designated in the 29 October decision will be shown by the text of the decision, which knezins.com has not yet seen. The chair of the sitting annulled the first vote and repeated it. The decision was adopted by 9 votes to 6. For: Dubkēvičs (P), Miglāns (ZZS), Krastiņš, Sprūde (SV/AJ), Leja (LPV), Pauls (ZZS), Deniņa, Varts (LPV), Vaivads (LZP). Against: all six LRA councillors, Arnis Rozītis, Miķelsone, Kristīne Lakševica, Antra Krasta, Dāvidsone and Roze (voting system display in the sitting recording, 1:23). One of the LRA councillors, commenting on the vote, said that the draft decision had already been prepared for the sitting as negative for residents and that she was ashamed on behalf of her colleagues. knezins.com has not yet seen the minutes of the sitting; the regulations published in Latvijas Vēstnesis refer to minutes No. 26, paragraph 2. In the final explanatory note the rejection of the collective submission is justified by the fact that the number of deputies is set in the bylaws and is a matter of the council's discretion, and that other posts are being abolished at the same time.

No one was elected to the post on 29 October, and the council did not decide on a person. Miglāns, Dubkēvičs and Varts stressed at the sitting that only the bylaws were being changed. Kodols reported on 7 October, citing information available to LRA, and on 19 October, writing that this had been “said publicly”, that the post was intended for Krastiņš, and that Krastiņš had explained that the reorganisation needed a specific responsible official. Brakovska asked at the sitting whether it was ethical that the post would be taken by Krastiņš in particular, mentioned his changes of party and reputational problems, and possible problems with access to state secrets. Miglāns replied that this would be assessed by the relevant institutions and that the question of the person was not the question of the day. The bylaws amendments (binding regulations No. 31/2026) were published in Latvijas Vēstnesis on 2 November and take effect on 3 November (Section 47 of the Local Government Law). The deputy is elected from among the councillors by more than half of the votes of the council's councillors (Sections 12 and 13). On 27 October knezins.com sent Krastiņš press questions with a reply deadline of 3 November. No reply had been received by the time of publication.

On the afternoon of the same day Brakovska wrote on Facebook that Miglāns had interrupted her and had not given her the floor. The recording of the sitting shows that she spoke for about six minutes and that what was refused was the later opportunity to ask questions. She also wrote that the administration had been called a wasps' nest; Krastiņš applied the analogy to the system and to resistance to change, without naming the administration. The Ombudsman's award she mentioned is real: on 17 September the Ādaži municipality received the main award in the “Good administration in residents' involvement” category of the “Good administration in the municipality” competition for the initiative “A plan of its own for every village – co-creation based on residents' interests in Ādaži municipality”.

Updated 5 November 2026. The election. At an extraordinary sitting on 4 November the council elected Imants Krastiņš deputy chair for governance matters by 9 votes to 5. His candidacy was put forward by Arta Deniņa. Antra Krasta nominated Zintis Varts, who declined, so the only vote was on Krastiņš, with signed ballot papers. For: Miglāns, Pauls (ZZS), Leja, Varts (LPV), Dubkēvičs (P), Protasovs (SV/AJ), Vaivads (LZP), Deniņa and Krastiņš himself. Against: LRA councillors Brakovska, Rozītis, Dāvidsone, Lakševica and Roze. Krasta (LRA) took part in the sitting remotely and did not vote, because the vote was by ballot paper (report of the vote-counting commission, recording 1:09:15–1:10:20). Section 11(6)(2) of the Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Activities of Public Officials does not apply the restrictions of Section 11(1) and (2) to a councillor who, in accordance with the law, takes part in a decision on electing himself to a post.

Before the vote Krasta said this was a precedent and a very bad sign: people create a post for themselves, defend it and confirm themselves in it. Krastiņš replied that it would be hypocritical for his team to hide and say it does not know why it is putting forward such a deputy; they wanted to be open. On 29 October, when the council decided only on creating the post, Miglāns, Dubkēvičs and Varts stressed that it was not deciding on a person. In his speech Krastiņš said he wants to bring the municipality closer to residents, to see less money go on administration and more on streets, lighting and kindergartens, and he asked the opposition to hold him to his word.

Declarations. At the sitting Ieva Roze pointed out that in Krastiņš's public official's declarations for the past three years the council is named as his only workplace, that he took part remotely in 11 council sittings and 10 Finance Committee sittings, citing a business trip, and that the declarations show gifts from family members every year. That in itself is not a violation, Roze added, but in conversations Krastiņš has mentioned working as a consultant in three more companies, and this suggests that income and work have not been declared honestly. She was answered that the sittings were attended and that other councillors also work in hybrid mode. Krastiņš said he works in three start-ups in energy and defence, does not yet receive pay from them, and that when the companies capitalise, this will show in his declarations too. Arnis Rozītis asked whether Krastiņš was lying to residents or to the State Revenue Service (VID), since the declarations do not show that the companies he says he audited paid him. Krastiņš replied that he was lying neither to residents nor to VID, “but there are structures of one's own”; when pressed: “I have no such structures.” He once had a company of his own, he said, and in recent years his work has been in start-ups.

In the public VID declarations for 2023–2025, Krastiņš's pay is listed only from Ādaži municipality (EUR 16,048.64, 13,152.68 and 18,211.65). No company shares or income from companies are listed; there is a post in the Carnikava municipality development association. Gifts from natural persons are EUR 10,000, 5,000 and 12,757.84; declaring them does not in itself indicate a violation. The declaration for 2026 is not yet due.

Cost. Brakovska asked why the documents give three different annual costs for the deputy: EUR 66,353, 62,378 and 65,497. Miglāns replied that this was new information to him and called for the figures to be checked. He explained the saving as follows: two committee vice-chair posts abolished, the Development Committee chair's pay no longer paid because a deputy will replace that post, and a vacant post in the Administrative Department abolished. The saving of EUR 45,569 in the final explanatory note does not, however, include the committee chair's pay. On the vacancy, which provides EUR 24,189 of that saving, Brakovska said the post had not been advertised and no one had been sought for it. Miglāns replied that the post had not been advertised for several years but had been included in the budget every year, so abolishing it produces a saving. Brakovska objected that this money had not been paid out; Miglāns replied that it had not, but it was in the budget. The explanatory note justifies the abolition by saying existing staff can perform the functions, but does not say whether the post was funded or how long it was vacant.

The wasps' nest. Brakovska asked Krastiņš how he would work with the administration and whether he should not apologise to its employees for what he said on 29 October. Krastiņš replied that the comparison was about “the existing political clique”, which directly influences the administration and gives it tasks; as examples he named the executive director and the management of municipal companies. Employees, he said, should not be afraid of making mistakes and should be rewarded for initiative. He did not apologise.

As of the morning of 5 November there is no reply from Krastiņš to knezins.com's press questions of 27 October.

On 20 August the council decided by 8:4:3 to open an official inquiry into executive director Guntis Porietis and to suspend him for the duration of the inquiry, “but not for longer than three months”. A sworn advocate is to be invited onto the inquiry commission. Up to 50,820 euros (42,000 euros excluding VAT) has been set aside for this. The inquiry was demanded by councillors Krastiņš, Leja, Varts and Sprūde. The outcome of the inquiry is not publicly known. The three months are counted from the day the order took effect, so they end around 20 November. knezins.com has not established the exact date of the order.

Updated 5 November 2026. In the closed part of the extraordinary sitting of 4 November the council considered the official inquiry into the executive director's conduct (reported by Rita Sūna, Ainārs Grikmanis and Elīna Klindžāne). The agenda justifies the urgency by saying that “employee violations have prima facie been established” and that Labour Law deadlines must be observed. The content of the inquiry and any decision are not public. In the open part of the sitting Krastiņš referred to the report and gave as an example a heating contract which, he said, was concluded for ten years after a tender was not announced in time, and millions of euros in transmission costs paid by residents. knezins.com has not seen the report and so cannot check these claims. knezins.com has not yet sent Porietis any questions.

Since April Krastiņš had led the working group evaluating the Central Administration. On 2 October the council supported his proposal to continue the reorganisation by 8:6. The minutes record that the deputy head of the Legal and Procurement Department, Rita Sūna, pointed out that the proposal differed substantially from the agreed draft decision, had not been agreed with the administration, and that putting it forward without the prescribed coordination could affect the lawfulness of the decision. Krastiņš said at the sitting that he had worked on the proposal together with the acting executive director and lawyers.

At the end of September, following an audit, the management board member of SIA Ādažu ūdens was recalled.

Leja. Councillor Jānis Leja's wife, Sabīna Leja, is the sole owner of SIA “Nēģītis”. The company runs the private preschool “Nēģītis” in Carnikava, which receives municipal co-funding. In his State Revenue Service (VID) declarations Leja has reported income from SIA “Nēģītis”: 22,000 euros in 2024 and 24,000 euros in 2025. According to the Food and Veterinary Service register, meals for “Nēģītis” are supplied by SIA “ESTA B”, which is owned by Jānis and Sabīna Leja.

Leja voted “for” in the decisions on co-funding for private preschools (30 January 2025: 469 euros a month per child; 29 January 2026: 510 euros) and did not declare a conflict of interest. Both decisions were adopted unanimously.

Brakovska. On 30 January 2025 Brakovska, as an LRA councillor, also voted on the same co-funding decision. At the time she ran the Ādaži branch of the private preschool “Patnis” as a salaried head. In the Register of Enterprises open data she is listed neither as a shareholder nor as an officer of the “Patnis” companies. She stresses that, unlike Leja, she had no direct financial interest in the co-funding. Brakovska told knezins.com that co-funding private preschools is a municipal obligation set by law if the municipality cannot provide a child with a place in its own preschool, and that the amount is calculated according to a methodology set by the Cabinet of Ministers: “Councillors do not set this amount at their own discretion.” She therefore believes that a conflict of interest cannot be inferred merely from the fact that she ran a private preschool. She calls the co-funding of private general education schools a voluntary initiative of the municipality. She added that the 2025 decision also covered childminding services, whose funding is not mandatory. The same argument about mandatory co-funding also applies to Leja's votes on preschools.

Dāvidsone. On 29 January 2026 LRA councillor Kerola Dāvidsone, who is an officer of the association “Ādažu Brīvā Valdorfa skola” and received remuneration there in 2025 (VID declaration), voted on co-funding for private general education schools. She did not declare a conflict of interest. knezins.com has asked the municipality whether this school receives Ādaži co-funding; a reply is expected by 10 November. On 7 October her possible conflict-of-interest risks were discussed in the Education Committee debate. On 2 November knezins.com sent Dāvidsone questions about this vote. Updated 5 November 2026. Dāvidsone replied on 4 November: decision No. 32 was issued on the basis of binding regulations No. 28/2023 of 2023, and therefore Section 11(6) of the law applies to it, which does not apply the restrictions to councillors taking part in the adoption of external legal acts. In Section 11(6)(1) of the law this norm reads “in the adoption of external legal acts or political decisions”. In this reply she did not answer the questions on whether the Waldorf school receives co-funding or on the 7 October debate; the deadline is 9 November.

For comparison: at the 29 January sitting, councillor Jānis Vaivads (LZP) declined in writing to vote on an item “because of a possible conflict of interest”. This shows that declining to vote because of a conflict of interest has been practised on this council.

Whether a general decision on a rate for all private institutions is a conflict of interest within the meaning of the law is for the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (KNAB) to assess, not journalists. The documents show no link between Leja's vote on the Podnieki head (the only vote “against”) and his family's companies. He explained his vote to Latvian Radio on 11 September. His vote was not decisive.

On 27 October knezins.com sent Leja press questions with a reply deadline of 3 November. No reply had been received by the time of publication.

• 3 November — the deadline for press questions has passed. As of the morning of 5 November there are no replies from the municipality, Krastiņš or Leja.
• 9 November — deadline for Dāvidsone's reply to the remaining questions.
• 10 November — the municipality's reply to knezins.com's request for information on the funding of private institutions.
• ~20 November — the maximum term of the executive director's suspension ends.
• Minutes of the 29 October and 4 November sittings — knezins.com has not yet seen them.
• 18 January 2027 — deadline for the State Labour Inspectorate's decision.

The documents show how the council decided. Why it decided as it did has been partly explained at sittings, but most of the written questions have not yet been answered. When the replies arrive, we will update the article.