The Hawkesbury Gazette sought responses from Hawkesbury City Council, former General Manager Elizabeth Richardson and councillors in connection with its investigation into the payment equivalent to 38 weeks' remuneration associated with Richardson's departure from Council.
The questions are published below in the interests of transparency and to allow readers to see the matters put to the people involved.
Some of the matters described in the questions are accounts provided to the Gazette and have not been independently verified. Asking a person to respond to an allegation or account should not be taken as establishing that allegation or account as fact.
No finding of wrongdoing has been made by the Gazette.
Questions to Crs Amanda Kotlash, Sarah McMahon, Danielle Wheeler and Mary Lyons-Buckett
The Gazette wrote to the four councillors seeking their individual accounts of their knowledge, statements and reasons for supporting the payment.
They were told that the Gazette had received an account identifying them as councillors who advocated for the payment, referring to alleged bullying and harassment by the Gazette and uncertainty about Richardson's future employment.
They were also advised of accounts alleging that Richardson had already secured another position before leaving Council and that some councillors supporting the payment did not know this when they voted.
The Gazette expressly advised the councillors that these accounts had not been independently verified and invited them to confirm, correct or dispute them.
Questions
- Did you advocate for the payment? What reasons did you give, and did you make any statement about how long Ms Richardson might take to find another job? Please provide your wording as accurately as possible.
- Before the vote, did you know that Ms Richardson had been offered or had accepted another position? If so, when and how did you learn this, and what did you understand about its remuneration, status and any outstanding conditions?
- Did you disclose that information during the deliberations, or otherwise ensure it was available to the other councillors?
- What evidence supported any allegation you made or relied upon that the Gazette had bullied or harassed Ms Richardson? Were you aware of any investigation or independent finding?
- What did you understand the payment was intended to settle, and what advice or documents informed that understanding?
The Gazette also asked each councillor to identify inaccuracies in the account and provide any records they were able to disclose.
They were asked to respond by 5pm on 13 October 2026 and were invited to request additional time.
At the time of publication, the Gazette had not received a substantive response from these councillors.
Questions to Elizabeth Richardson
The Gazette wrote directly to former General Manager Elizabeth Richardson to provide her with an opportunity to respond before publication.
Richardson was advised of accounts alleging that four councillors advocated for the payment by referring to alleged bullying and harassment by the Gazette and uncertainty about how long it might take her to secure another job.
She was also advised that the Gazette had received accounts that she had secured her NSW Office of Sport appointment before the payment was approved and that some councillors supporting the payment were allegedly unaware of that appointment.
The Gazette expressly acknowledged that it had not independently verified those accounts, the date Richardson accepted the appointment or what individual councillors knew.
Richardson was invited to correct any inaccuracies.
Questions
- Request for payment: Did you request a payment equivalent to 38 weeks' remuneration? If so, on what contractual or other basis? What did you understand the payment was intended to cover or settle?
- Office of Sport appointment: Had you accepted the Office of Sport role before 14 April 2026? Please clarify when the offer was made, when you accepted it and whether any conditions remained outstanding at that date.
- Disclosure: When, how and to whom did you disclose the proposed or accepted appointment within Council? Was that information provided before councillors considered the payment?
- Allegations concerning the Gazette: Did you, or anyone acting on your behalf, raise alleged bullying, harassment or other mistreatment by the Gazette as a reason for seeking the payment? If so, what specific conduct was identified, to whom was it communicated and was any investigation or finding made?
- Employment uncertainty: Did you, or anyone acting on your behalf, suggest that you faced an uncertain period without employment? If so, what were the circumstances at that time?
- Description of the payment and deliberations: Do you dispute the description of the payment or the accounts of councillors' deliberations outlined above? Please explain any corrections or additional context you believe should be included.
- Remuneration and status: Is it accurate to describe your Office of Sport position as having equivalent remuneration and status to your General Manager role? If not, please clarify the relevant differences.
The Gazette acknowledged that confidentiality obligations might limit what Richardson could disclose and invited her to identify anything she could address without revealing protected information.
She was advised:
"No finding of wrongdoing has been made by the Gazette. Your response will be considered and fairly reflected in our reporting."
Richardson was asked to respond by 5pm on Friday, 23 October 2026, or advise the Gazette if she required additional time.
At the time of publication, no response had been received.
Questions to other councillors
The Gazette also wrote to Crs Paul Veigel, Jill Reardon, Mike Creed, Shane Djuric, Les Sheather, Peter Ryan and Nathan Zamprogno seeking their recollections of the meeting.
Questions
- At the time of the vote, what did you know about Ms Richardson's future employment? When did you subsequently learn about her new appointment?
- Was uncertainty about how long she might take to find another job advanced as a reason for the payment? Who made that statement, and what wording do you recall?
- Were allegations of bullying or harassment by the Gazette presented? What particulars or supporting evidence were provided?
- Did employment uncertainty materially influence your vote? Would knowledge of a secured position of equivalent remuneration and status have affected your decision or prompted further questions?
- What did you understand the payment was intended to settle, and what documents or advice were available to you before voting?
Councillors were asked to distinguish their direct recollection from anything they learned afterwards and to provide any contemporaneous notes or records they were able to share.
They were also asked whether their responses could be attributed to them by name and were advised to agree any confidential basis with the Gazette before providing information on that basis.
The requested response deadline was 5pm on Tuesday, 13 October 2026.
Deputy Mayor Nathan Zamprogno responded by referring the Gazette to his previous correspondence with the Office of Local Government.
Questions to Hawkesbury City Council
The Gazette also sought information directly from Hawkesbury City Council.
Council was advised that the Gazette had received accounts concerning the payment which had not been independently verified and was invited to identify any inaccuracies.
Questions
- What was the legal and contractual basis for the payment? Was it a termination payment, settlement of an employment claim, compensation for anticipated loss of earnings, or another arrangement?
- What was the total payment, including any superannuation or additional amounts, whether Richardson transferred existing entitlements to her new position, and what resolution authorised it? The Gazette requested the resolution and deed of agreement, with redactions where necessary.
- When did Council become aware of Richardson's new appointment? Were councillors informed before voting, and through what document or briefing?
- Was uncertainty about Richardson's future employment presented as a reason for approving the payment? If so, what information supported that representation?
- What specific conduct by the Gazette was alleged to constitute bullying or harassment? Were those allegations investigated or independently assessed, and was the Gazette invited to respond?
- What legal or financial advice informed the decision? If the advice itself could not be disclosed, the Gazette asked Council to identify whether advice was obtained and whether it addressed the significance of any secured new employment.
At the time of publication, no response had been received.
Council's lack of response should not be taken as establishing the accuracy of the accounts put to it.
What remains unverified
For clarity, the Gazette has not independently established:
- the date Richardson was offered the NSW Office of Sport position;
- the date she accepted it;
- whether conditions remained outstanding;
- what each individual councillor knew about that appointment when the payment was considered;
- that each of the four councillors identified in accounts advanced the same arguments;
- whether employment uncertainty was a material basis for Council's decision;
- whether allegations concerning media reporting formed part of the legal basis for the payment;
- the complete contractual or legal basis for the payment; or
- whether the payment was lawful or unlawful.
These are among the reasons the Gazette sought responses and underlying documentation from the parties involved.
The Gazette will consider and fairly reflect substantive responses received after publication where appropriate.
Related material
Main investigation:
[Questions over $340,000 former General Manager payment prompt call for Ministerial intervention →]
Official Council record:
Hawkesbury City Council minutes, 14 April 2026, MM2 - Personnel Matter [hawkesbury...nsw.gov.au]
Disclosure
Hawkesbury Gazette publisher Kooryn Sheaves has familial ties to Councillor Mary Lyons-Buckett. The Gazette says its reporting and editorial decisions are made independently.