An unsuccessful applicant for Hawkesbury City Council's $400,000+ General Manager job has asked the NSW Office of Local Government to examine the recruitment that ended with Acting General Manager Will Barton winning the permanent role.
The complaint rests on three features of the process: a change that made previous general manager or CEO experience essential, promotional filming Mr Barton did with Council's communications team while he was a candidate, and public praise for him from a member of the selection panel. Together they raise a question Council has not yet answered. What did it do to stop the Acting General Manager's position giving him an edge over external applicants?
A complaint is an allegation, not a finding. The Office has made no finding against Council, its councillors, its recruitment consultant or Mr Barton, and the Gazette does not suggest Mr Barton was appointed for reasons other than merit. He was entitled to apply. His experience as Director of Infrastructure Services from November 2021, and as Acting General Manager from April this year, were proper matters for councillors to weigh.
Mr Barton, Hawkesbury City Council were asked for comment on 30 September 2026 and have not respond.
The standard the process must meet
Section 349 of the Local Government Act 1993 requires an appointment to go to the applicant with the greatest merit, judged against the duties of the position and each applicant's abilities, qualifications, experience and standard of work performance. Council must also consider equal employment opportunity principles.
Guidelines issued by the Office under section 23A of the Act, which councils must take into consideration when recruiting a general manager, set out how the selection panel should operate and recommend the use of an external recruitment consultant.
The experience requirement changed
The position description and the online application portal disagreed on whether previous general manager or CEO experience was essential. It was first publicly listed as desirable and after the closing date for applications was evaluated as essential. The purpose and approval of this change is unknown.
Making a criterion essential narrows who can compete. Mr Barton, as Acting General Manager, could point to experience in the role. Applicants without that experience could not. The complainant has reportedly sought official records of how candidates were assessed against the criteria.
Filming with Council's communications staff
About three weeks before councillors made their choice, Mr Barton posted on LinkedIn that he had spent about half a day filming promotional material with Council's media and communications team. He thanked staff for "the scripts, patience and laughs". The post is available for readers to view on Mr Barton's LinkedIn account.
Council is entitled to make promotional material featuring its Acting General Manager, and the Gazette makes no criticism of the staff involved. The issue is timing. External applicants had no comparable access to Council's communications staff or to Council-produced material while the contest was running.
The Gazette asked Council whether Mr Barton's candidacy was considered when the filming was approved, whether any conflict-of-interest or recruitment-integrity assessment was done, and whether another Council representative could have been used while recruitment was under way. Council has not answered those questions.
Praise from a panel member
Then-mayor Les Sheather sat on the selection panel. During the recruitment he told community members on several occasions that Mr Barton had "really stepped up" in the acting role.
Comments of that kind do not show the result was decided in advance. They can create a perception that one candidate started ahead, and in a process conducted almost entirely in confidence, perception is much of what the public has to go on.
Six hours behind closed doors
Councillors went into confidential session at 3pm on August 7. At about 9.15pm they authorised the Mayor Cr Sheather to negotiate a contract with a preferred applicant, without naming the person. On August 11 Council announced Mr Barton's appointment, saying he had been "overwhelmingly selected" from a high-quality field. Cr Sheather described him as the "outstanding candidate".
The length of the meeting does not, on its own, say anything about how councillors voted.
What the regulator could examine
If the NSW Office of Local Government takes up the complaint, it could look at how candidates were shortlisted and scored, whether every candidate was assessed against the same criteria, when and why the experience requirement changed, what the recruitment consultant did, whether the panel included an independent member, and whether councillors received probity advice about Mr Barton being both Acting General Manager and a candidate.
The Gazette has put questions on these points to Deputy Secretary Office of Local Government Brett Whitworth PSM. No response had been received at the time of publication.
Council can answer much of this without identifying unsuccessful applicants or releasing their details. It can say what safeguards it used, what its consultant did, and whether anyone assessed the risk created by the Acting General Manager's dual role.
The General Manager is Council's most senior employee and answers to the councillors who appoint him, which is why the process that chose him has to stand up to scrutiny.
Disclosure: The Gazette was in dispute with Council over its exclusion of Gazette reporters from Council premises, a decision made by Mr Barton was Acting General Manager and Mayor Cr Les Sheather.
