Questions about what Hawkesbury councillors knew when approving an estimated $340,000 payment associated with former General Manager Elizabeth Richardson's departure have prompted Councillor Eddie Dogramaci to call for the Minister for Local Government to intervene.
Cr Dogramaci, who was suspended from Council when the matter was considered and did not participate in the deliberations or vote, has written to the Minister seeking an independent examination.
"The Minister must ensure councillors properly inform themselves about the payment's basis and exercise reasonable care when approving it as required under Section 439 of the Local Government Act," Cr Dogramaci said.
At the centre of the controversy is a payment equivalent to 38 weeks' remuneration, estimated at approximately $340,000.
Questions remain about its legal and contractual basis, what councillors were told before approving it and whether Richardson's subsequent employment with the NSW Office of Sport was known to decision-makers at the time.
What happened
Richardson resigned as Hawkesbury City Council General Manager on 14 April 2026, with her final working day reportedly 17 April.
According to information provided to the Gazette, her resignation correspondence referred to her financial entitlements, including an amount equivalent to 38 weeks' remuneration.
The distinction between resignation and termination is important because a voluntary resignation would not ordinarily trigger a contractual entitlement intended for termination without fault. A separate deed or negotiated settlement may, however, provide another basis for payment.
The Gazette has not obtained the deed or legal advice relied upon and therefore cannot determine the precise legal basis for the payment.
Richardson subsequently commenced employment with the NSW Office of Sport in early May as Executive Director, Centres and Venues.
The Gazette has not independently established when she was offered or accepted that position.
How was the payment approved?
Richardson's resignation was considered by councillors late on 14 April during a closed section of the ordinary Council meeting.
According to accounts provided to the Gazette, councillors Amanda Kotlash, Sarah McMahon, Danielle Wheeler and Mary Lyons-Buckett advocated in favour of the 38-week payment.
Those accounts allege that discussion included references to bullying or harassment Richardson had allegedly experienced through media reporting about Council matters, as well as uncertainty about how long it might take her to secure future employment.
The Gazette has also received an account that an attempt was made to obtain advice from the Office of Local Government before the payment was approved, but that this was not pursued.
These accounts have not been independently verified against the complete records of the closed meeting. The Gazette has not established that each councillor made the same statements or relied upon the same reasons.
Each councillor was given an opportunity to confirm, correct or dispute the accounts.
What happened next?
According to accounts provided to the Gazette, Crs Kotlash, McMahon, Wheeler and Lyons-Buckett later attended the General Manager's office and spoke with Richardson, while other councillors went to the Mayor's office.
The Gazette has also been told that another councillor later attended Windsor Police Station in connection with concerns about the meeting. These accounts have not been independently verified.
Deputy Mayor Nathan Zamprogno subsequently wrote to the Office of Local Government.
According to correspondence described to the Gazette, the Office of Local Government indicated that a payment equivalent to 38 weeks' remuneration could potentially be made through a separate agreement following a resignation, subject to the circumstances and justification for the expenditure.
The Gazette reported on the meeting on 25 April and was subsequently banned from Council premises. The ban was later lifted after the Gazette's legal representatives wrote to Council indicating that court relief would be sought if the restriction remained.
Did councillors have all the relevant information?
Several councillors have told the Gazette they were unaware Richardson had secured employment with the NSW Office of Sport when the payment was considered.
The Gazette wrote to Crs Kotlash, McMahon, Wheeler and Lyons-Buckett asking whether they knew Richardson had been offered or accepted another position before the vote and whether any such information was disclosed during deliberations.
Responses were also sought from Richardson and the remaining councillors.
Deputy Mayor Nathan Zamprogno responded by referring the Gazette to his previous correspondence with the Office of Local Government.
The Gazette has not independently established when Richardson accepted her Office of Sport appointment or what individual councillors knew about it before voting.
If uncertainty about how long Richardson might remain without employment was advanced as a reason for the payment, the timing of another secured appointment could be relevant.
However, Richardson obtaining another position does not establish what any councillor knew at the time. Nor does another appointment determine whether the payment could have been justified on separate contractual, settlement or other lawful grounds.
Why was the payment made?
Accounts provided to the Gazette allege Crs Kotlash, McMahon, Wheeler and Lyons-Buckett supported the payment partly because of concerns about potential claims arising from alleged harm suffered by Richardson in connection with media coverage, including coverage by the Hawkesbury Gazette and Hawkesbury Radio.
Other considerations may also have been put to councillors.
The Gazette has not independently established that preventing such a claim was the legal or financial basis for the payment.
Council has been asked what the payment was intended to settle or compensate for and what legal and financial advice supported it.
The councillors identified in the accounts were also asked what evidence supported any allegation that the Gazette bullied or harassed Richardson and whether any independent investigation or finding had been made.
At the time of publication, the Gazette had not received evidence establishing such a finding.
Was the payment lawful?
The existence of a Council vote or separation deed does not, by itself, answer this question.
A voluntary resignation would not ordinarily activate a provision dealing with termination without fault. A separately negotiated settlement may have another legal basis.
The Gazette therefore asked Council to explain:
- the legal and contractual basis for the payment;
- its total value and any additional amounts;
- what resolution authorised it;
- what councillors knew about Richardson's subsequent employment;
- whether employment uncertainty or allegations concerning media coverage formed part of the justification; and
- what legal and financial advice informed the decision.
At the time of publication, no response had been received.
Council's lack of response does not establish the accuracy of the accounts put to it or that the payment was unlawful.
Cr Dogramaci said it would be premature to reach a conclusion without examining the relevant records.
"Without examining that basis and the documents, it would be premature to conclude either that the payment was lawful or that it was illegal," he said.
"If I had been present I would have made the reasons clear for this payment of ratepayers' money so the community can understand what is going on."
Dogramaci pointed to provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 dealing with responsible expenditure, transparency, accountability and the obligation of councillors to act honestly and exercise reasonable care and diligence.
"Section 439 requires honesty, care and diligence. Councillors must properly inform themselves about the payment's basis and exercise reasonable care when approving it," he said.
"Council has provided no information on how the payment was in the public interest. Council must justify the payment as a proper use of public money."
"I have written to the Minister asking him to help Hawkesbury ratepayers and residents understand what has happened and provide the reasons for the payment."
Call for an independent examination
Dogramaci has asked the Minister for Local Government to refer the matter to the Office of Local Government for assessment.
His request seeks examination of:
- The authority and amount of the payment, including its legal or contractual basis.
- What was settled and the public benefit, including what Council obtained in exchange.
- Richardson's subsequent employment, including when the Office of Sport position was offered and accepted and when Council became aware of it.
- The reasons presented to councillors, including whether employment uncertainty or allegations concerning media reporting were relied upon.
- The decision-making process, including what legal and financial advice was available.
- Accountability and disclosure, including what information Council can publicly release.
Dogramaci has also asked the Office of Local Government to consider whether an investigation under section 430 of the Local Government Act is warranted.
"Hawkesbury residents are entitled to an explanation of why this expenditure was approved and how it served the public interest," Dogramaci wrote.
"Independent examination would allow those questions to be answered fairly and on the evidence."
The Gazette has not independently determined that any councillor or Council officer acted unlawfully or improperly.
Until the underlying resolution, deed, relevant advice and contemporaneous records are available, significant questions remain about the basis for the expenditure and the information available to councillors when the decision was made.
Read the Gazette's questions and right-of-reply requests →
Read the Council minutes for 14 April 2026
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.
