Lewers launched recruitment process before telling councillors that Theelen had resigned

Editor’s Note: Crux is publishing this article from Councillor Niki Gladding who has managed to obtain documents linked to the QLDC’s controversial recruitment of a new CEO – without reference to the elected members.

We urge readers to digest the full article, but these are the key points revealed by the documents.

· Mayor Lewers started the new CEO recruitment process before telling councillors that Mike Theelen had resigned.

· Mayor Lewers used a non-existent delegated financial authority to fund the recruitment work.

· The selection of a recruitment agent was limited to existing QLDC suppliers and therefore less likely to produce “fresh blood” to the CEO role.

· The CEO’s pay and performance committee (Lewers, Guy and Cocks) has no remit to get involved in the recruitment of a new CEO.

· The full council has still not been told what is going on.

· Niki Gladding is giving CEO Mike Theelen a few days to release more information before she reconsiders her position

· The procurement process appears almost identical to the one used five years ago – which produced a shortlist of one candidate

Here is Niki Gladding’s article:

Fact-checking the CE recruitment process

QLDC’s Chief Executive recruitment process has been in the news - with council candidates variously expressing concerns, providing reassurance, levelling accusations, or wondering what all the fuss is about. The public debate has been full of words but very short on facts - because even councillors didn’t have the detail.

With the Procurement Plan finally in front of me, this is an attempt to provide a few more facts; I hope QLDC will decide to provide the rest. And I hope the next Council, under a new Mayor, will consider pushing ‘restart’ on this process.

Recapping – when alarm bells started ringing

First, some background. This is already public knowledge – so, if it’s familiar, you can skip to the section below.

On 5 August, councillors were told by Mayor Lewers (by email) that the current Chief Executive, Mike Theelen, would not be seeking a two-year extension to his contract. The next communication that all councillors received on the matter was another email from the Mayor, received 16 September, stating that a recruitment agency had been appointed and that the CE Performance Review Committee was planning to meet the recruiter that same week – to discuss the recruitment process and ‘next steps’.

So, a significant chunk of the recruitment process had occurred without the full council’s knowledge or input. But the Performance Review Committee was clearly involved.

I emailed the CE that day, reminding him that the Committee has no delegation or mandate to deal with CE recruitment. Mr Theelen agreed it would be inappropriate for the Committee to meet the recruiter but said it would be appropriate if the Mayor did.

Concerned, I requested a copy of the Procurement Plan for the appointment of the recruiter. Ten days and an email exchange later, the Plan arrived in councillors’ inboxes. That was last Friday.

Procurement Plan finally released to councillors

As required by QLDC’s Procurement Policy and Guidelines, the Plan sets out the process for appointing a company to recruit the Council’s next Chief Executive (CE) – the objectives, desired supplier relationship, stakeholders, tender process, evaluation criteria and method, risk management, as well as the scope of work.

The Plan sheds light on the process - past and still to come. Having read it, I’m deeply concerned.

Given the level of public interest, the importance of the CE role, and the fact that the appointment of the recruiter has been made, I don’t believe there are grounds for keeping the plan ‘confidential’. So, I’ve encouraged the CE to release it. He may or may not do that next week.

For me, because we’re in the middle of an election, providing clarity is both important and urgent.

Providing clarity – the facts

What I’ve decided I can do is provide some key facts to clear up any confusion around some of the conflicting statements made by elected members in the public arena. If the organization thinks these facts are incorrect, it can release the full document and details about the recruitment process implemented 5 years ago:

1. The Procurement Plan (the Plan) and tender documents were fully developed and signed on 4 August 2025, the day before councillors were told that Mike Theelen would not be requesting a contract extension.

2. Mayor Lewers is listed in the Plan as the ‘Project Sponsor’ and as the ‘Delegated financial authority holder’. These roles are listed beside his signatures – signed 4/8/25. It’s important to note that the Mayor does not have an individual financial delegation. The People and Capability Director does have a $650,000 financial delegation but that was not used. Why not is unclear.

3. The procurement approach was a “one-step closed RFP” (Request for Proposals). As I’ve previously stated, there was no open tender.

4. Three recruitment companies were invited to bid for the job – this invitation was also extended the day before councillors were told the CE would not seek a contract extension.

5. All companies who were invited to bid are existing QLDC suppliers that are part of a procurement panel from which QLDC purchases recruitment and HR services directly. Therefore, the new CE is likely to become a client of the recruitment agency. It’s relevant then that the ‘scope of services’ in the Plan requires the recruiter to be involved in contract and remuneration discussions. Any associated risks are not addressed in the Plan.

6. The full Council had nothing to do with the earlier procurement of the Panel mentioned above. I’ve requested details about the Panel – including its rules.

7. The closed tender was open from 4-15 August

8. Using the ‘RASCI stakeholder tool’ (as per the QLDC Procurement Guidelines), ‘the Mayor and CE Performance Review Committee’ are incorrectly categorised as ‘A’ - the ‘people’ that have authority to make decisions and are ultimately accountable for the outcomes.

The elected members are also incorrectly catagorised as ‘I’ - the “end users of the service” who don’t need to be involved in decision-making or delivery.

To be clear, the Committee actually has no authority to make decisions about CE recruitment – decisions and accountability sit with the full Council. How two staff members, Mayor Lewers (Committee Chair), and two councillors all got this wrong, I still don’t understand.

9. Mayor Lewers and other members of the CE Performance Review Committee were voting members on the tender Evaluation Panel – presumably a direct result of the errors mentioned in point 8.

10. Finally, the ‘scope of services’ specified in the procurement plan includes a long list. Relevant to recent public comments are the following requirements:

· Collaborating with the “performance committee, wider council and People & Capability Director” on the CE’s job description

· Long-listing candidates and refining that to a shortlist for consideration by performance review committee

· Collaborating with the performance review committee to select the most suitable candidates based on the assessment of their skills, experience, and fit with the organization

These requirements appear to create a forward process identical to the CE recruitment process used 5 years ago. That process delivered a shortlist of just one candidate for the full Council to decide on. So, the full Council technically made the decision but, in real terms, the decision was made before they even got to the table.

That experience is why I know that the procurement plan, the appointment of the recruiter, and the development of that contract are critical - for minimising the risk of ‘capture’, for creating trust in the process, and for ensuring the full Council chooses the next CE in a meaningful way. As with any council decision, those who develop and present the options have significant control of the outcome.

To wrap things up

The facts I’ve presented previously are correct.

Yes, the Council will appoint the next CE – I never suggested otherwise. But whether that’s a meaningful decision depends on the process that comes before the decision. Based on the content of the approved Procurement Plan, and the lack of detail presented to councillors over the last couple of months, I’m concerned.

I’m also concerned about the Plan’s focus on confidentiality over transparency, limiting procurement to existing QLDC suppliers, the way risk has been managed, the failure to involve (or even inform) all elected members, and the progression of this process during the election period. Given those concerns I will be making a complaint to the Office of the Auditor General.