Millions in secret payouts: Inside the City of Parramatta’s staff crisis

The City of Parramatta has spent almost $5.24 million of ratepayers’ money removing 81 staff in four years, and 30 of them have signed secret agreements for payouts.

Figures obtained under a freedom-of-information request reveal the extent of a staffing crisis at one of the largest and most powerful councils in Sydney.

The council spent $4.26 million between January 1, 2022 and May 14, 2025 on 30 deeds and agreements – including settlement and non-disclosure agreements – with staff whose employment ended.

The City of Parramatta, with council chambers in the PHIVE building at Parramatta Square, has paid out millions to exiting staff in recent years.Credit: Sitthixay Ditthavong

In 2022, four agreements were signed. In 2023, there were 10, and in 2024 there were 15. Up to May 14 this year, there was one agreement. Those payouts included entitlements such as long-service leave, sick leave and other benefits.

Not all redundancies and terminations were covered by an agreement. The figures show 50 people had been made redundant during the same period, at a cost of $4.79 million.

A further 31 were terminated, with payouts totalling $446,234, for a combined total of nearly $5.24 million.

There was a restructure in 2022; in that year, 23 people were made redundant. Nine staff were made redundant in 2023, and 18 last year.

The council failed to respond to the freedom-of-information request within the legally required timeframe, and first requested that the Herald pay $750 to access the information before granting it for free.

‘This is fantasy’

The exits of dozens of staff over the past four years have been at the centre of much discussion and intrigue in council circles, but the City of Parramatta has never before acknowledged such deeds or payouts existed, and refused to answer councillors’ questions about them.

In a confidential councillor briefing in December, when presented with a list of names of staff who were reported to have left the organisation with details of alleged payouts, the council’s chief executive Gail Connolly responded, according to three people in the room: “I love a good fiction, but this is fantasy.”

How we got this information

• We made a freedom-of-information request in May after noticing the council did not answer questions put to them by a councillor in March. The request was not based on any confidential information provided to us.
• The council asked us, 29 days after the application, to reduce the amount of information we were asking for, as it was “was so broad [that the] council was unable to properly respond to the request”. We agreed to narrow it down.
• On June 24, the deadline for response, as required under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, passed.
• On June 30, the council said it had decided to hand over parts of the information requested, but only if we paid $750 in processing fees.
• We said the council should waive the processing fees in line with guidelines from the Information and Privacy Commissioner, which state this should be done if a decision is delivered late.
• We got access to the information for free on July 1.
• On July 3, we contacted the council for comment.

Connolly denied saying this. In an interview, she said: “I don’t recall that ever being asked in a council meeting.” When it was clarified that she was reported to have been asked in a councillor briefing meeting, not a public council meeting, she said: “I can’t comment on what happens in confidential councillor briefings. That would be a breach of the code of conduct.”

Two councillor questions on notice in March about specific deeds of release did not detail the answers. The council response, with Connolly’s name attached, was that any deeds “contain legal prohibitions that prevent council from acknowledging a deed exists”.

And a councillor asking questions about staff turnover “appeared inconsistent”, the response said, with the state’s code of conduct for councillors.

Connolly, who was appointed to the role in April 2023 on a total package worth $515,000 according to the latest annual report, told the Herald the response was “based on legal advice provided to us at the time”.

“I can’t divulge legal advice to The Sydney Morning Herald,” she said. “That would also be a breach of the code of conduct … Councillors at all times have been given answers in accordance with the legal advice and the advice that we received at the relevant point in time.”

Connolly said she would not discuss the matter with councillors, even after this story was published, because it involved operational matters.

“The code of conduct says … councillors can’t approach staff to discuss staff operational matters, including things like, you know, grievances, disputes, etc, etc. So if a councillor wanted to approach a staff member, whether it’s me or anyone else, and discuss operational matters that involve staff, then that’s restricted under the code of conduct.

“Councillors approaching staff to discuss operational matters is also a breach of the code of conduct. So I can’t approach councillors to discuss it, and nor can they approach me. So, what you’re advocating for me to do, could be interpreted as sort of encouraging me to breach the code of conduct. Is that what you’re doing?

“At an organisation this size, it’s not uncommon to have multiple terminations, redundancies, deeds of release every year.”

She said there was a “significant turnover of staff in the two to three years before I arrived”.

In a subsequent statement emailed on Friday afternoon, Connolly added: “There are a number of reasons the employment of council staff will end, and deeds of agreement are a common practice used when employment ends due to resignations, terminations and redundancies. This is all part of the normal operations of running a council.

“These decisions are never taken lightly and always made in the best interest of the community.”

The Sydney Morning Herald has opened a bureau in the heart of Parramatta. Email [e-mail] with news tips.