Nobody would suggest being a local government chief executive is a walk in the park.
Such roles are complex. Ways must be found to work constructively with councils which might change direction from one election to the next.
Councillors and mayors turn up from a variety of backgrounds, with a range of abilities and experience, and a plethora of views, some of which may not be reasonable, relevant or achievable.
Sometimes there is a poor understanding of the difference between the governance role of the councillors and the chief executive’s responsibility for managing the organisation.
Somehow, the chief executive must steer a way through that, providing leadership to staff and having a good working relationship with the mayor and councillors.
As the office of the auditor-general has previously pointed out, a healthy and productive relationship between a local authority and its chief executive is an important factor in an authority’s effectiveness.
The office described the relationship as the vital link between governance and management, and between decision-making by elected representatives and operational activity: "If there are problems in that relationship, they can have a significant effect at all levels of the organisation."
When councils choose chief executives, under the law, among the things they must have regard to is the need to appoint someone who will maintain appropriate standards of integrity and conduct among the employees of the local authority.
Given the revelations this week about the behaviour of Dunedin City Council chief executive Sandy Graham, it is hard to see how she can set the right tone for employees.
Our sources have described a pattern of Ms Graham repeatedly using disparaging and derogatory expressions referring to councillors, Mayor Jules Radich, staff and council departments. Such events have been observed in both council and public settings.
It is all very magnanimous for Mr Radich to say that while he did not condone the way Ms Graham had behaved in the workplace, because she regretted her behaviour, had shown remorse and had taken steps to change, he still backed her.
He described her leadership style as direct and forthright. However, being direct and forthright is not the same thing as being repeatedly disparaging and derogatory.
It is hard to understand how such behaviour does not irretrievably damage the trust and confidence the council has in its chief executive.
Does forgiveness for such repeated behaviour effectively give other staff licence to behave similarly? Say what you like, repent, apologise and seek help, everything will be OK. Really?
This was not a one-off incident from someone you might expect to be unfamiliar with understanding how to act with decorum. Before Ms Graham was appointed to the chief executive position in 2020, she held senior positions in the council for more than a decade.
We can understand how dealing with elected representatives may be frustrating. Indeed, members of the public observing some of the shambolic DCC meetings in the early part of this term might have privately employed their own colourful language to describe them.
But the role of the CEO in such situations must be one of advice and guidance.
We can also grasp that anyone at the top of an organisation can tread a lonely path. But it is not appropriate to vent to colleagues or others at public events.
That is what confidential services such as professional supervision allow for.
The murkiness around the decision-making process over the staff complaint made in April about Ms Graham’s behaviour, and the findings of the subsequent King’s Counsel investigation gives the impression, as Mosgiel Taieri Community Board chairman Andrew Simms says, the issue is being "swept under the rug".
If the complaint included allegations about Ms Graham making derogatory statements about the mayor or councillors, were all made aware of them?
Protecting the privacy of the staff member who complained cannot be used as a convenient excuse to avoid proper public scrutiny of Ms Graham’s behaviour.
