The failures of the council to gain progress on a number of big issues, including the Civic Hall and the relocation of the saleyards, have been laid by many squarely at Anthony Schinck’s door. 

Others just as ardently promote his achievements in running a large and multi-layered organisation and promoting the city, and say the trouble lies elsewhere. 

This debate comes into renewed focus on Wednesday night when the councillors assess this performance at a closed-door meeting. 

While the role of the chief executive position and its remuneration dictates that it is the person who must ultimately accept responsibility for running the city council, it is the elected councillors who must accept responsibility for the appointment and the ongoing performance. 

Council’s meeting comes at a critical time when the renewal of the contract is again a pressing issue. 

The necessary decision on a six-month period for advertising the role may be a month away if deemed appropriate, but it cannot be doubted that the outcome of the meeting will heavily shape that next step in who leads the council organisation from 2016. 

The gravity of the meeting has prompted several former mayors to argue that the whole process should be out in the open and Anthony Schinck should make his pitch to the ratepayers. 

Putting aside the confusion the public can legitimately claim from

a former mayor declaring the council would not renew the chief executive’s contract beyond 2016, even advocates for Schinck’s performance agreed in 2013 that the position should be advertised to secure the best possible person for the role, be it the present incumbent or someone else.

Either way, it is the councillors who must carry the responsibility for this decision. 

In the interests of better governance, after an in-camera meeting, they should therefore be able and willing to openly justify their decision to the voting public.

 It may not solve the divisions, but it will help to make the debate more informed. 

It is a weighty decision for councillors, but for the sake of ratepayers who have delegated to them, the decision should be a considered and balanced one – free of affiliations, promises, alliances or even personal interest, and where the future of the city is paramount.