Education boss opts for silence
Education department boss Tony Harrison has opted to remain silent on the case of a convicted embezzler being employed by his department as a financial counsellor.
The decision to offer no further comment on the matter comes five days after Harrison demanded InDaily publish his view that departmental support for the embezzler had been personal, not official.
The case of Melissa Green was exposed by InDaily in August.
Green had embezzled a private sector employer out of $118,000 and was arrested and charged in December 2009.
In February 2010 she was employed by the State Government, first at Housing SA and later at Families SA.
In November 2010 Green pleaded guilty to 16 counts of misappropriation from her former employer and while awaiting sentence was promoted to the position of financial counsellor in the Elizabeth office of Families SA.
Green had glowing references from departmental colleagues and told the court she had been open with the department about the embezzlement charges and her possible jail sentence.
The sentencing Magistrate applied a 15 month jail term which Green appealed.
In July this year the Supreme Court upheld the appeal and suspended the jail sentence, noting the commitment by her employer to allow her to continue in her job under a “supervised work program” and that “the woman’s history is known to her employer”.
The matter went unreported and when InDaily started digging into the case, we uncovered statements, letters and affidavits that suggested broad knowledge within the Education Department about Green’s plight.
You might like
When we broke the story, the minister – Jennifer Rankine – said her new departmental head, Tony Harrison, would conduct an internal investigation.
Harrison did: Green’s employment was terminated and three staff remain under investigation.
In an exclusive report last Thursday of Green’s termination, InDaily stated the Education Department had “back flipped” on its commitment to employ Melissa Green.
Tony Harrison rang us and disputed the interpretation.
In Harrison’s view, the letters and affidavits provided to the courts were not an official departmental endorsement of Green’s employment and the subsequent decision to sack her was therefore not a back flip.
None of the documents, he said, “were on official letterhead”.
In the conversation we had with Harrison we made it clear that we were happy to run his response and the basis on which he, unlike the courts, had concluded that the department had made no commitment to Green being employed in the event she received a suspended sentence.
We made a commitment to Harrison that he could offer whatever length of response he wished and we would publish it.
We did, however, ask that the department respond to a range of questions we had raised in the past – most of which went to the question of who knew about Green’s issue, when they knew and what internal decisions were taken in light of that knowledge.
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-AU
X-NONE
X-NONE
Stay informed, daily
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Garamond”,”serif”;
mso-ansi-language:EN-AU;}
Green, for example, had told the court of extensive discussions with the human resources section of her department. If that evidence was true, it seemed to suggest that Green had the support of the department.If that evidence was not true, then it appeared to be an issue that the department should bring to the attention of the court or refer to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
In the 30-minute conversation with Harrison last week, he seemed very keen to clear up these issues publicly.
Not any more, it appears.
Late yesterday InDaily received a note from the acting head of the Education Department’s media unit.
“He feels there is nothing more to add at this stage,” the spokeswoman’s email said.
In the interests of clarity, we produce below the questions that Harrison and his department now find it unnecessary to answer:
1. In a letter dated 2nd October 2012 to the sentencing magistrate, Jenna Kovacs makes a detailed positive assessment of Melissa Green’s performance as a Financial Counsellor, a position to which she was appointed subsequent to her being charged and pleading guilty. The letter begins with the statement that Kovacs is the Senior Social Worker at Families SA and Kovacs signs the letter in that same capacity. In a letter dated 5th October 2012 Bianca O’Brien makes a similar case, states her position and talks about Green’s work “as an invaluable member of our team”. Can Mr Harrison advise the basis on which he takes the view that these letters are not an “official statement of employment support”?
2. The statements of O’Brien and Kovacs, along with an affidavit of Green’s, show that both the Senior Social Workers were aware in late 2010 that Green was facing charges. Did either have an involvement in the interviewing and selection process for the Financial Counsellor position?
3. Green’s June 2013 affidavit states that she “discussed my situation with the HR department of Families SA and they were made aware that my offending was dishonesty and related to the taking of money”. She also stated; “My discussion with them was in relation to the continuity of my employment should I be given a suspended sentence”. A second affidavit (14 June 2013) stated: “..if I was to receive a conviction and suspended sentence, the HR department had informed that I would be on a supervised work performance program of 12-24 months”. This statement, if true, would appear to be a clear indication of official support for Ms Green in the event of a suspended sentence decision. Has Mr Harrison’s internal investigation established whether the statements by Green are correct?
4. The pre-sentence report of Community Corrections Officer Tanya Sala, dated 7 August 2012, says that Green “stated that she had negotiated with (Families SA) to reduce her fulltime status to allow her more time to go to court and deal with financial issues…”. Again, this appears to indicate official sanction of her situation; has Mr Harrison’s internal investigation established the veracity of this statement?
5. If the Green affidavit about a supervised work program is not correct, or about the reduced hours negotiation is not correct, has the information been referred to police or the DPP for their consideration?
6. Prior to this case becoming public via InDaily’s report, was there any action underway to review the suitability for employment of Ms Green.
7. When was the HR department first advised of the charges, plea, sentence and appeal?
8. When was the first briefing on Ms Green’s situation first provided to the Minister’s office?
As InDaily promised Tony Harrison last week, we are more than happy to run whatever he wants to say re his view that no official endorsement of Green’s future employment has ever been given to the Courts.
Over to you, Mr Harrison.
