Niki Gladding: The importance of best practice in hiring a new council CEO

Opinion/Candidate Commentary. By Councillor Niki Gladding.

Putting our district’s most important decision in safe hands

Right now, the most important job facing elected members is employing a new Chief Executive (CE) – the elected Council’s only employee. Trust in that person will be crucial – and that trust starts with protecting the integrity of the selection process.

Best practice dictates that the process must be independent of the CE and handled by the elected Council. Every councillor needs equal access to information and all must be able to shape the process. Transparency and accountability must be a key consideration. That’s how democracy works.

So how is that looking at QLDC?

On 5 August, Mayor Glyn Lewers emailed councillors to say that CE Mike Theelen would not seek another term and would leave in February. Then silence. Until 16 September, when Glyn announced that a recruitment company had already been engaged – without any involvement from the full Council. Yes, you’re reading that correctly: to date there has been no involvement from the full Council in arguably our most important role - the process of hiring of the CE. He also advised that the CE Performance Review Committee would meet the recruiter this week “to discuss timing and process.”

A quick look at the Delegations Register shows that this Committee – made up of Crs Guy, Cocks, and Mayor Lewers – has no authority over CE recruitment. Its role is limited to performance and contract management.

When I raised the issue with the CE, he agreed it wasn’t appropriate for the Committee to meet the recruiter – but suggested it would be “appropriate” for Glyn to meet him alone, without any Council mandate.

Of course, alarm bells began to ring. So I asked around about the wisdom of the Mayor getting in touch with a recruiter in this circumstance “to discuss timing and process”. Here’s a summary of the concerns raised:

• • A perception that the Mayor is steering or controlling the recruitment.
• • The potential for conflicts if the Mayor favours certain timing or candidates.
• • Erosion of councillors’ confidence in the fairness and independence of the process.
• • A risk that community confidence in the process and the new CE could be undermined

The greatest risk

I believe in naming the elephants in the room before they trample us. This has got me in trouble before, but here goes:

The CE role carries enormous power. Right now, the CE holds broad delegations, including full control of the Lakeview development agreement. Add a compliant council majority and that power would grow.

It’s obviously not unlawful for a Mayor to build a majority, but if a political agenda is in play, there may also be a push for a sympathetic – as opposed to objective - CE. And steps could be taken to achieve that.

That’s why process matters. I’m not saying it’s happening here – but the risk of ‘capture’ by certain interests is real and needs to be guarded against.

I remember the 2020 reappointment well: a glowing review for Mike Theelen, followed by an expensive recruitment round that produced just one shortlisted candidate. Mike was reappointed, not for two years but five. I’ll leave that there.

So where are we, and what do we do now?

Back to the present. I don’t know who drafted the procurement plan for the new recruiter – the objectives, evaluation criteria, and contract provisions. What I do know is that it wasn’t an open tender (nothing was listed on GETS). Instead, it seems three agencies were approached in a closed process, and Crs Cocks, Guy, and the Mayor assessed the proposals and selected the winning bid. All without delegation, mandate, or notice to councillors.

In my view, the integrity of the process has already been undermined by the Mayor’s poor leadership. But we can no doubt fix that if we elect a new Mayor.

I’m still trying to get hold of a copy of the procurement plan and establish who formally approved the plan and the recruiter – the Committee or a staff member. Unsurprisingly, QLDC is treating my request for those things as a request under the LGOIMA - disregarding my clear common law right to know about a process I should have been involved in from the outset.

I’ve also been in touch with staff about the risks and the need for a policy or guidance document (to be developed with councillors) covering both the CE recruitment and performance review processes.

And I’ve asked the CE to ensure any meeting Glyn has with the recruiter is accurately documented and that no guidance is given by the Mayor. I think it’s unlikely my request will be met, and we’ll probably never know.

A pattern of poor process – why we should be concerned right now

After two terms, 6 years, on the QLDC, I’ve come to expect this sort of thing. Usually, it’s just mistakes or lack of competence driving breaches of process, but it’s undeniable that on occasion it’s deliberate. Part of my job is to call it out and fix it. The other part is strategy, policy, and investment decisions. But if elected members don’t hold each other – and management – to account on process, there’s a risk that spending and policy will end up benefitting ‘the few’. That’s when trust in council, and ultimately democracy, starts to erode. For good reason.

Unfortunately, Glyn’s track record shows little regard for good process. A few examples:

• • He accepted $10,000 from Mr Drury but denies there will be any conflict to manage.
• • When I brought a notice of motion to review the CE’s Lakeview delegation, he used ratepayer funds to pay lawyers to block it – twice. He then called a closed workshop, brought in consultants at public expense, and took a straw poll (in that workshop) to stop it reaching a public agenda. The result: no review on his watch unless councillors take him to court.
• • He called an extraordinary meeting to strip me of committee roles, claiming I’d breached the Code of Conduct. No complaint was ever laid, and the investigation process in the Code (a statutory document) was ignored.
• • Together with the CE, he blocked councillors’ access to Regional Deal Joint Committee papers and meetings – despite the law clearly requiring it. When Cr Forbes refused to enter public-excluded without proper access for councillors, Glyn even argued that agreed consensus voting rules be ignored.

To me, all of this shows a consistent and blatant disregard for democratic process. In my opinion, that makes Glyn a dangerous choice for Mayor. His actions over many years suggest he either doesn’t understand or doesn’t respect the safeguards that protect fairness and accountability in local government.

It’s election time and your vote matters. Please vote for who you think will be the most transparent, listen to the community most, avoid back room deals and arrangements, and most importantly lead councillors in an inclusive way.

I’ll be voting for John Glover for Mayor.