Mayor, councillors silent on CEO's controversial pay rise vote

Many residents and ratepayers are demanding details of how the mayor and councillors voted on a controversial decision to bump up the pay packet for the council's boss by more than 15 percent - but Queenstown Lakes District Council elected members are largely opting to stay silent on the matter.

However from the few who have spoken to Crux it appears the discussion was not straightforward, leaving some around the table questioning if salary benchmarking and employer responsibilities left elected members of the council with little option but to sign off the substantial pay rise.

Chief executive Mike Theelen's salary has increased by close to $65,000 - from $415,000 to $479,486 - after an annual performance review.

Although the review was completed by a subcommittee comprised of mayor Glyn Lewers and councillors Lyal Cocks and Lisa Guy using non-public key performance indicators, the new salary level was approved by the full council during a closed door segment of the council meeting held on Thursday, September 19.

The council position has been that Mr Theelen is entitled to a level of privacy regarding employment discussions, but elected members can choose to disclose whether or not they voted in support - or not - of the pay rise.

A spokesperson for the council tells Crux the decision was a majority vote.

"We consider a further breakdown as directly related to the performance of the chief executive and councillors’ evaluation of that. It therefore remains an employment matter.

"You are of course welcome to ask individual councillors if they’re happy to share how they voted."

Which Crux has now done.

However the mayor, and all bar three councillors, have failed to even acknowledge correspondence from Crux on the subject.

Councillors Gavin Bartlett, Matt Wong, and Niki Gladding have provided statements.

On the vote, Councillor Bartlett was a 'yes'.

"The chief executive performance and salary review was the last item of a very full agenda, however we spent a considerable amount of time discussing and debating the merits of the recommendation and considering the alternatives and likely outcomes of these, in a very frank and open discussion," he tells Crux.

"The report for the agenda item noted both that the role had been subjected to updated benchmarking - required to be carried out every three years but delayed in 2021 due to the Covid response - and that the chief executive had generally met the agreed key performance indicators for the role. These matters were discussed at length during the meeting.

"My main concerns in deciding how I would vote centred around the level of the increase, both in percentage terms and dollar value, and how this would be received by the community, particularly given the adoption of the Long Term Plan and the setting of rates earlier in the meeting. It was noted however, that the delayed benchmarking effectively contributed to a 'catching up' of the indicated salary range with the demands and requirements of the position. I was very concerned about the potential outcome of not following the advice we had received with regard to the benchmarking of the role and the corresponding applicable salary range, and the potential outcome of not recognising the fact that the performance measures had been met.

"It was noted during the discussion, that given the requirement for the role to be benchmarked every three years, it is questionable why salary reviews should even be subject to approval by elected members, and whether it wouldn't be better left to an independent body such as the Remuneration Authority.

"Taking into account council's responsibility as the employer of the chief executive, the updated and overdue benchmarking of the role, and our duty of care to an employee who is meeting the agreed performance measures in the role, I voted to support the resolution."

Councillor Wong was another 'yes'.

"I voted in support with obvious reservations and it was not a simple vote for many reasons with some complex considerations," he tells Crux.

"Due to it being an employment matter I am unfortunately not able to offer the community more information."

Meanwhile, Councillor Gladding was not present at the meeting due to illness and, as a result, couldn't vote.

"I can confirm that I would not have voted for a pay increase - for a number of reasons," she tells Crux.

"I think the next council needs to look at ways to improve the chief executive performance review process. Within that should be an objective to make the process, discussions, and outcomes more transparent - for both councillors and the community.  

"The chief executive has the right to a level of privacy but that needs to be balanced against the rights of councillors and ratepayers. Councillors have a right to information they are currently not being supplied with, so they can make good decisions, and ratepayers have the right to know how elected members are representing them. Democracy doesn’t work well without those things."

An apology was also accepted at the meeting from councillor Esther Whitehead, who was absent due to medical reasons.

Main image (QLDC): Council chief executive Mike Theelen.