Marryatt's pay exceeded the norm

The Mayor states: "When you look at his experience and skill set and the [performance] rating he received, he's in the right place." There are serious questions over Mr Marryot's skill set. The experience of the Christchurch community pre and post quakes has shown that his ability to engage and communicate with the community sector is abysmal. There are also serious questions about the performance rating. This is a combination of his own ratings, ratings by the senior management team and ratings by the Councillors. Aspects of performance that appall the public such as questions over dodgy delegations, the Henderson debacle, rent increase debacle, insurance debacle were clearly not considered important to the senior management team who gave him glowing ratings on most categories. Christchurch needs to be asking why the senior management team ignored Mr Marryots failings when scoring his performance. This seems very unprofessional if not downright dodgy to me.

... And this is coming after they've told us that the pay rise was "on par" with other CEO's across New Zealand and that Marryat was "underpaid" for his job - yet, now, we get told he was being paid MORE for most likely doing less.

If I had ANY trust left in our council, it's now gone.

Bob, just repeating yourself a lot won't make it any more true. In fact many of your statements appear to be becoming less and less true the more information the Christchurch Press gets hold of.

I had to laugh at Bobs comment that Tony had a very big job !!

He is getting paid more than the Prime Minister of Australia Bob, how do you explain that??

Why is it I am no longer suprised?

Councillors had "progressively" tested the size of the increase until they found a figure that most were happy with, Parker said.

If this were so you would have gone with the first vote of 10 for and 2 against for the amount of $509k - but you kept pushing the figure up. All subsequent votes after this one ended up being 7/5 in favor. so once again Parker is spinning the truth somewhat.

Good on ya Bob. Keep defending him and justifying his unwarranted salary!! And come election day, we the public will remember that you did and vote you out of office!!

Yes Bob, we've all looked at his performance ratings now, just that some of us can read numbers!

Even through the employment agreement states "Local Government" levels will be used, the CCC use a mix of private/public, weighted more towards private?

The key issue that Bob and obviously others miss, is that in the private sector, CEO's and senior managers have all the stresses and associated pressures of generating revenue and profits. One of the largest drawcards for Private CEO's etc to the Local Government sector is that these pressures are gone, there is not the great emphasis on revenue generation and profits as there is in the private sector.

What would be good to find out is when the process for setting changed and who drove it.