Is the CEO Doing His Job — or Playing Politics?
This is one of the fundamental concerns in having a long time politician with NO experience in local government being appointed on a “mates vote”
A revealing exchange in Shoalhaven Council this month raised serious questions about the professionalism — and political neutrality — of the city’s most senior officer.
During the discussion of Item CL25.387 — Code of Conduct Complaints, councillors publicly speculated about the identity of community members who had lodged complaints. In doing so, they may have crossed one of the clearest red lines in NSW local government law: the confidentiality of the Code of Conduct process.
What Happened in the Chamber
The discussion began as a routine statistical report — simply noting the number of complaints received in 2024–25:
22 from the community and six from councillors.
But what followed quickly veered off course.
Cr Wilkins questioned whether “10 or 15 of the 22 community complaints” might have come from “one person.”
The CEO, rather than stopping the discussion, replied that while confidentiality applied, councillors could “make of it what you will.”
That one sentence changed everything.
Instead of enforcing confidentiality, the CEO effectively invited speculation about the identity of the complainant.
For a process that depends entirely on discretion, impartiality, and legal protection, this was a serious failure of professional judgment.
What the Code Requires
Under the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW and the Procedures for the Administration of the Code of Conduct (2020):
All complaints, complainants, and respondents are confidential.
Councillors and staff must not disclose or discuss any detail about a complaint, except as required by law.
Even acknowledging that an individual has made a complaint is considered a breach of the Code.
The confidentiality rule exists to protect fairness — not just for councillors under investigation, but for the public who use the system to report misconduct without fear of reprisal.
When councillors publicly speculate about “who’s making all these complaints,” and the CEO allows it, they send a message that confidentiality is optional.
The CEO’s Role — and the Problem
Under section 335 of the Local Government Act 1993, the CEO (or General Manager) must ensure that Council’s policies and decisions comply with the law, and that staff and councillors act within those boundaries.
The CEO’s job is not to smooth over tension or indulge political sensitivities. It’s to enforce compliance, even when that’s uncomfortable.
Instead, his response — “you can make of it what you will” — sounded more like political deflection than professional governance. It was a line designed to appease councillors rather than uphold integrity.
That suggests a CEO more concerned with political relationships than legislative obligations.
This is not neutrality. It’s political management — and it’s unacceptable in a role that requires strict independence.
What Should Be Done
There are formal steps available under NSW’s local government framework to deal with this situation:
Request a Review by the Office of Local Government (OLG)
A formal complaint can be lodged with the OLG seeking an investigation into:
A potential breach by Cr Wilkins (for prompting public speculation).
A possible governance failure by the CEO for failing to enforce confidentiality and for making statements that encouraged speculation.
The OLG has authority under the Local Government Act to review breaches of the Model Code of Conduct and assess whether the CEO has failed to meet his statutory responsibilities.
Internal Action by Council
The Mayor or a councillor may move a notice of motion requiring the CEO to provide a written explanation for his handling of the discussion and what steps he will take to prevent a recurrence.
Council could also direct the CEO to issue a confidentiality protocol reinforcing the obligations of all councillors and staff regarding Code of Conduct matters.
If Proven, Consequences
For Councillors: Referral to a conduct reviewer or the OLG for possible sanctions under sections 440G–440I of the Act.
For the CEO: A formal performance review or misconduct finding under section 439 of the Act, if his actions were inconsistent with his duty to ensure compliance.
Audit and Governance Reform
Council’s Audit, Risk & Improvement Committee (ARIC) should independently review how Code of Conduct data is reported and protected. If the CEO’s office is unable to guarantee confidentiality, that is a systemic risk to Council’s integrity framework.
Why It Matters
The Code of Conduct system exists to protect both sides — councillors from false claims and residents from intimidation or exposure.
When senior officials turn that system into gossip, they compromise every future complaint process.
Confidentiality isn’t a courtesy — it’s the legal foundation of accountability.
If the public can’t trust Council to handle complaints properly, fewer people will report misconduct. And that suits the worst actors just fine.
Leadership or Politics?
The Shoalhaven community expects its CEO to lead with integrity, not to lean into the politics of the chamber.
This is one of the fundamental concerns in having a long time politician with NO experience in local government being appointed on a “mates vote”.
A truly qualified CEO would have stopped the discussion instantly, reminded councillors of their legal obligations, and ensured the transcript was redacted before publication.
Instead, we heard a response that blurred the boundary between professional governance and political appeasement.
It’s fair now to ask:
Is this CEO enforcing the law — or managing the politics?
Shoalhaven deserves an answer.
And if the CEO can’t demonstrate impartiality, then perhaps it’s time for someone who can.
Shoalhaven Petition – Censure Mayor White - Accountability and Public Trust
Mayor Patricia White used her casting vote to appoint Andrew Constance as Chief Executive Officer of Shoalhaven City Council — a person she has publicly acknowledged knowing for over twenty years and whom she has previously supported in political campaigns.
She chaired the recruitment panel, declared what she described as a “non-significant conflict of interest,” and then exercised the deciding vote that gave Mr Constance the job.
Many residents see this as an apparent conflict of interest and a serious failure of judgment. Even though the Office of Local Government is conducting a separate investigation, councillors themselves have the authority to act now — to show leadership and to record, on the public record, that Shoalhaven ratepayers expect integrity in their local government.
That’s why I’ve launched a petition calling on councillors to formally censure Mayor Patricia White for her handling of this matter.
A censure motion does not remove anyone from office, but it records the Council’s disapproval of conduct that falls short of the standards of probity and impartiality required under the Local Government Act 1993 and the Model Code of Conduct.
As of today, 256 residents have signed. The petition started late on Friday 17 October 2025.
If you believe council decisions should be transparent and free from personal influence, please add your name and share the petition.
Click here to sign the petition.
https://forms.gle/huYaM4twGHgUAAKDA
Please share this with 2 friends who care about Shoalhaven.
If you get value from this post and you want to help me with information applications to get to the bottom of issues, you can donate here.
Thank you for considering this, the posts will always be free - but I could do with some help :)
Here are the current applications to council, seeking documents. At the moment I have one matter before NCAT. I will fight for transparency.
Disclaimer: This article provides analysis and commentary based on publicly available information and council transcripts. It does not make allegations of misconduct by any individual. Readers should verify details independently before drawing conclusions.
Here is a quick disclaimer, or explainer on the use of AI in the Eye.
I encourage you to take up your democratic right and engage with councillors, here are the contact details - send them questions or comments, text is best as they tend to ignore emails.