Council has seen a shake-up of its leadership review process. Photo: Shellharbour City Council.
Shellharbour City Council has voted to expand its CEO review panel from four to nine councillors, marking a significant shift in local governance practices.
The motion, introduced by Councillor Rob Petreski was passed by majority and aims to ensure full transparency and avoid “backroom decisions” by providing all nine councillors an opportunity to participate in evaluating the council’s chief executive.
After a heated 30-minute debate, all but Mayor Chris Homer and councillors Craig Ridding and Kellie Marsh supported it.
The motion follows council’s 25 February meeting, where, in an urgent extraordinary meeting closed to the public, councillors received “a verbal report on personal matters” that led to leave being granted for CEO Mike Archer.
SafeWork NSW later confirmed it is investigating allegations regarding Mr Archer’s interactions with a female staffer at a Christmas party.
It’s believed council decided to appoint its own external legal advisor to advise on investigations.
Shellharbour MP Anna Watson has also spoken on the incident in parliament, including on 18 March where she attacked Cr Homer for initially attempting to “cover up complaints of sexual harassment by the CEO without any proper investigation”.
On the same day, she also highlighted the importance of local government whistleblowers, the pain and suffering they endure, and “their important work in exposing serious maladministration and/or corruption”.
During Tuesday’s (25 March) council meeting, Cr Petreski said his motion was about ensuring every representative had a say in assessing the city’s top executive.
“Right now, the CEO review panel is limited to just four councillors, shutting the majority of elected representatives out of one of the most critical decisions we make,” he said in a statement prior to the meeting.
“It’s about ensuring Shellharbour’s leadership is held to the highest standards, with full participation from the councillors the community elected to represent them.”
Cr Petreski said it aimed to eliminate exclusivity, improve oversight, and strengthen council’s leadership by allowing all councillors to contribute to performance assessments, professional development, and succession planning if they wished.
“Shellharbour deserves better than backroom decisions. I’m calling on every councillor to stand up for openness, accountability, and good governance,” he said.
Cr Homer said it was an industry standard from the Office of Local Government that it was best practice to have the mayor, deputy mayor and another councillor on the panel, with a further councillor nominated by the general manager.
“I feel we’re in danger of trying to fix a wheel that is certainly not broken as it stands right now,” he said.
“And further to that, councillors who are not members of the performance review panel are invited to contribute to the performance review process by providing feedback to the mayor and the panel.
“No-one is locked out here.”
Cr Homer said the fact it was brought up, when there had been outside commentary from the media, was disappointing.
He said a few other councils had used a full councillor review panel but it “doesn’t work out well”.
Cr Lou Stefanovski said for the past six months he had wanted to see all councillors involved in the review panel, believing that together the varied backgrounds of the councillors would make the best decision in the interests of the public.
Cr John Davey said he acknowledged the mayor’s comments about best practice, having an extensive background as a management consultant in change management.
“However I believe we are not in a best practice environment. We’re in extraordinary circumstances,” Cr Davey said.
“And as someone who has participated in our panel, I can say I don’t share your views, Mr Mayor. I believe our process, our panel and the communications through it, were convoluted, abridged and confusing.
“What I see, through the lens of my experience, is not working. If you took me back 24 months, 36 months, I would have argued against nine. I would have said that’s unwieldy.
“Given the situation we’re in and what’s happening, I believe there’s nothing but to go to nine. We need to offer all councilors the opportunity for inclusion in this and so we can say there’s total transparency.”
Cr Marsh argued that councillors were not locked out of the review process, with longer term councillors knowing how the processes worked.
She said in her 14 years on council, only one councillor had ever come to her with an issue they wanted raised in that panel.
“No-one sitting around this table here has ever raised anything with me to put forward to that panel,” she said.
“In the last council we also had a survey that was sent around the council. I won’t embarrass anyone here, but there were two councillors that didn’t even fill it out.
“That’s how concerned they were about being locked out of a crucial process. They didn’t even respond. We’re moving forward to now, and they want everyone on the panel.
“Who would go for a job interview at such an executive level and have nine people sitting around for basic interviews?”
She said she had spoken to many professionals in the field, including CEOs and mayors, who had told her what was being proposed was not best practice.
In a right of reply, Cr Petreski said, “If no-one’s locked out, then let us in. It’s pretty simple, isn’t it?
“This is all about good governance. This is all about due process. This is all about transparency.
“I would rather be proactive than reactive.”
The motion also included council officers updating all relevant documents to reflect the changes and ensuring the revised structure maintained compliance with legislation and policy requirements.
Loading ...
