A late-night decision, serious allegations, and limited documentation leave the community asking whether proper process was followed when the Council approved a $350,000 payout to the departing General Manager.
In the early hours of 15 April 2026, at the end of a council meeting that began at 6 pm and ran past 1 am, Hawkesbury City Council passed a Mayoral Minute approving a payout of approximately $350,000 to General Manager Elizabeth Richardson, whose contract was due to run until July 2027.
While personnel matters are often handled confidentially, the scale of the payment and the circumstances under which it was approved raise legitimate questions about governance, processes, and accountability.
The Basis for the Payment
A resignation does not ordinarily require a contractual payout. A negotiated resignation may have occurred, but there is no public evidence that the Council sought to negotiate the termination of Ms Richardson's contract. On the contrary, the Council approved a pay increase for the General Manager only weeks earlier, at its March meeting, raising her remuneration to approximately $430,000, effective 1 June 2026.
It has been alleged that the resignation was tendered alongside serious accusations, and that the payment was intended, in part, to head off a potential unfair dismissal claim. However, unfair dismissal protections do not apply to employees earning above the high-income threshold (currently around $175,000) or to those who resign of their own accord.
The allegations reportedly raised during the meeting included claims that the General Manager had been defamed by local media misogynistic coverage of her March pay increase and that she had been the victim of sexual harassment.
It has also been alleged that Deputy Mayor McMahon and Cr Kotlash advocated for full payment under the contract, and that the tenor of their advocacy, including references to the potential escalation of the allegations and the risk of a costlier outcome, shaped the debate in the chamber.
If accurate, these circumstances go directly to whether the payment was a measured, evidence-based decision or a decision made under pressure in response to untested claims.
Process Matters
The decision was made after midnight, more than six hours into a single council meeting, via Mayoral Minute rather than a detailed council report.
Councillors were allegedly not provided with supporting documentation or independent reports to substantiate the claims or to guide their decision. There is no indication that independent legal advice was sought during the meeting, for example from the Office of Local Government NSW or through external employment counsel, on the validity of the claims, the legal risks to Council, or the
appropriate process for managing allegations of this kind.
That absence is significant. Allegations of harassment and defamation are ordinarily addressed through formal investigation, evidence gathering, and, where appropriate, a structured determination of liability. Those processes exist not only to resolve individual claims but also to identify systemic issues so that future employees, including the next General Manager, are not exposed to the same risks.
The Questions That Remain
Several fundamental questions flow from this decision:
* Did the General Manager resign, or was this a negotiated separation?
* If negotiated, what were the legal grounds, and were lower-cost alternatives considered?
* What legal advice informed the decision, and when was it obtained?
* If the allegations of defamation and harassment were material to the payout, what is being done to investigate them and address any underlying issues?
The Hawkesbury community is entitled to clear, factual answers. Transparency here is not about revisiting the past; it is about ensuring that decisions involving significant public funds are made and seen to be made with integrity and proper process.
The Gazette has written to the Council and NSW Office of Local Government seeking clarification on these matters and will publish the response.
