When Hawkesbury City Council approved a salary package of approximately $434,000 for its General Manager, many ratepayers likely asked the same question.
What exactly does the community receive in return?
A new community discussion paper argues that while councillors formally review the General Manager's performance each year, the public has little visibility of the measures used to assess success or failure.
The report is calling for a significant change: a publicly reported annual scorecard that would allow residents to see whether the General Manager is meeting agreed targets and delivering value for money.
The Most Important Job In Council
Under the Local Government Act, the General Manager is responsible for the day-to-day operation of Council.
The position oversees approximately 400 staff, manages an organisation with annual revenue of about $121 million and is responsible for services relied upon by more than 67,000 residents.
The role includes responsibility for implementing Council decisions, managing senior staff, overseeing major projects, ensuring legal compliance and providing professional advice to elected councillors.
It is arguably the most influential position within the organisation. Yet despite that responsibility, most residents have little understanding of how performance is measured.
Behind Closed Doors
General Manager performance reviews are generally conducted in confidential sessions. While councils are required to undertake annual performance reviews and maintain performance agreements, detailed results are rarely published.
The discussion paper argues this lack of transparency makes it difficult for residents to judge whether Council is receiving value from its most highly paid employee.
Today, when ratepayers ask, 'What does Council's General Manager actually deliver for $434,000?', there is no clear answer, the report states.
A Public Report Card
The report proposes a performance framework based on a Balanced Scorecard model widely used in large corporations, government agencies and public-sector organisations around the world.
Under the proposal, the General Manager would be assessed across five key areas:
Financial Sustainability
Measures would include:
- Operating performance.
- Infrastructure backlog reduction.
- Productivity improvements.
- Capital works delivery.
The report argues financial sustainability should receive the highest weighting because of Hawkesbury's current challenges, including its estimated $99 million infrastructure renewal shortfall and pending Special Rate Variation application.
Operational Delivery
This would assess whether Council is actually delivering services and projects.
Indicators could include:
- Development application processing times.
- Service request response rates.
- Delivery of major projects.
- Completion of grant-funded works.
- Asset renewal outcomes.
Community Outcomes
Perhaps the most visible measure for residents would be community satisfaction. The report proposes annual independent surveys measuring:
- Overall satisfaction with Council.
- Trust in Council.
- Perceived value for money.
- Community quality of life.
- Net Promoter Scores.
Supporters argue this would provide a direct measure of whether residents believe Council is meeting their expectations.
Workforce And Culture
The report also proposes measuring staff engagement, employee turnover, workplace safety and the ability to attract and retain skilled staff.
The argument is straightforward. If Council is a well-run organisation, staff should want to work there.
Governance And Risk
The final category would focus on legal compliance, audit findings, information access requests and implementation of Council decisions.
These measures are designed to assess whether Council is operating transparently, lawfully and efficiently.
Linking Pay To Results
Perhaps the most controversial recommendation is that part of the General Manager's remuneration should depend on achieving agreed performance targets.
The report proposes placing 10 to 15 per cent of the package "at risk", with payments only made when scorecard targets are achieved. Under the proposal, strong performance would be rewarded. Failure to meet targets would reduce or eliminate performance payments.
The report also recommends publishing a one-page summary scorecard in Council's Annual Report each year.
A Different Kind Of Accountability
Supporters argue the proposal would improve transparency and strengthen public confidence.
Rather than relying on speculation, residents could see objective measures showing whether financial performance, infrastructure delivery, community satisfaction and governance standards were improving or deteriorating.
Critics may argue that some aspects of local government performance are difficult to reduce to numbers and that public scorecards can oversimplify complex issues.
Nevertheless, the proposal reflects a growing expectation that public-sector organisations should demonstrate clear outcomes for taxpayer and ratepayer expenditure.
The Question Before Council
As Hawkesbury begins the search for its next General Manager, the report argues the community deserves more than promises and broad assurances.
It argues residents should know exactly what success looks like, how it will be measured and whether those targets are being achieved. For ratepayers now facing significant rate increases, the question is likely to resonate.
If Council is prepared to pay more than $400,000 a year for its chief executive, should residents be able to see precisely what they are getting in return?
Questions For Council
The Gazette has asked Hawkesbury City Council:
- What performance measures are currently used to assess the General Manager?
- Will Council publish performance criteria for the next General Manager?
- Would Council support publishing an annual General Manager scorecard?
- Does Council support linking executive remuneration to publicly reported outcomes?
Council's response will be published when received.
Disclosure
The Hawkesbury Gazette discloses that the Publisher has familial ties to Councillor Mary Lyons-Buckett. The Gazette maintains editorial independence and publishes this disclosure in the interests of transparency.
