If you watched Griffith City Council's meeting on Tuesday, you'd be forgiven thinking you'd tuned into a sit-com.
Councillors voted to approve an extension to the general manager Brett Stonestreet's contract until 2024.
However not before the general manager made an impassioned plea for his job, although it's highly doubtful that there were councillors looking to push him out the door.
The stirring presentation focusing on council's financials was followed by a petition signed by 61 of council's 400 staff supporting the GM.
There was a letter from the senior management team casting doubt about whether all the projects under way would continue if the GM's contract was not renewed beyond 2021.
Considering many of these projects are partly funded the state and federal government money, it seems somewhat farcical that these projects wouldn't be delivered since delivering them is a key part of getting the money.
Former councillor and parliamentarian Noel Hicks addressed the meeting, and many of Mr Stonestreet's supporters were present in the public gallery.
These kinds of discussions between the general manager and council are normally held behind closed doors, so the question is, who was the show for? Who was the general manager defending his record to? Why are the terms of his contract being made public?
Perhaps the show was for the councillors who questioned whether mayor John Dal Broi counted the votes correctly during a meeting in October.
But that can't be right since Mr Stonestreet has been employed since 2011 and councillors haven't publicly raised questions about his performance.
Was the performance for the general manager's critics posting on social media or those who share tall tales over smoko and around the dinner table?
It does seem like a lot of effort for very little gain since the mayor wasn't entertaining any other options or discussing alternatives to a three year contract extension.
He knocked back Councillor Doug Curran's bid to have the full council make a decision and rejected Councillor Mike Neville's amendment to extend the contract to 2022.
The votes came down to five-all and the mayor used his casting vote.
If anything, Tuesday night's decision shows Griffith's ratepayers aren't getting value for money from their councillors.
Another question raised from Tuesday's meeting is why do we have 12 councillors when only 10 cast a vote?
The general manager is the only council employee that the councillors are responsible for, surely it's a decision which demands the full council make a decision?
It's just more evidence that Griffith City Council should only have nine councillors.