THE leaked news that the Education Department tried to secure £30,000 of taxpayers’ money to pay its chief officer’s personal legal bills is shocking.

These mega-expenses are reported to have been run up as a result of the Jane Stephens unfair dismissal tribunal.

If that’s really so, then there are two questions which seem difficult to answer.

Firstly, why did the director of Education [Derek Neale] need a private advocate when the States were already being represented by crown advocate [now Comptroller] Richard McMahon? Secondly, how is it right that he should be reimbursed for these costs when he came out of that tribunal so badly?

We should remind ourselves that the independent tribunal decided Mrs Stephens had indeed been unfairly dismissed. Despite attempts by the Education Department to cloud the issue, it didn’t concern itself over whether or not she had faults as an employee that justified disciplinary action. Instead it rightly focused on how she had been treated.

Instead of being extended the courtesy of being dealt with under the properly agreed procedures, this long-serving educationalist was simply ‘ambushed’ at an informal meeting, without due warning, and told curtly that she should resign or be sacked.

That wholly unprofessional action was taken by the director of Education, who now wants his private legal bills picked up by the public purse.

The tribunal’s criticism of the department and its senior management didn’t stop there.

It called into question the whole credibility of the department’s evidence, given under oath to the inquiry.

For instance, at one point Le Rondin was described as having ‘incredibly generous’ staffing requirements and at another as having ‘a bare minimum’.

The tribunal was bemused by Mr Neale being described as ‘equivalent to a non-executive director’ when he was actually head of the entire line management.

The tribunal also made clear that either the department, or else the Rev. Linda La Vasseur, was being dishonest about when the decision had been taken to sack Mrs Stephens.

Even worse, the department presented incorrect minutes to the tribunal.

What those minutes didn’t show was that after Jane Stephens and her advocate had made their case to the Education Board, the director had remained in the meeting instead of withdrawing.

It was only when then board member Deputy Dan Le Cheminant gave evidence that he produced the true minutes and revealed that the director had remained and influenced the meeting.

In those circumstances, either the current Education Department or its predecessor made a monumental error of judgement by supporting the use of public funds – which are desperately needed for schools – to pay the director’s private legal bills.

Another possible, and perhaps more likely, explanation for the legal bills racked up by the director of Education is that they relate to the call from States members for a review of the management of the Education Department.

This followed the Stephens’ Tribunal and a trend for the department to keep losing members of its senior management team in strange circumstances.

In the end the Policy Council commissioned such a review and the resulting report was as clear as mud.

The consultant found opposing views – ‘Where some people saw giraffes, others saw elephants’, or some such nonsense – followed by a typical consultant’s offer to do more work for the States.

Once again, if the director of Education chose to employ advocates, that was his choice. There was every option for him to make input to the inquiry himself without the need for lawyers.

If he wasn’t able to fully articulate his case, then what hope for the rest of us?

Once again, if either the current or previous cash-strapped Education departments wanted to foot those legal bills, then their judgement was flawed.

What’s worse is the precedent it would set. We are about to have a judicial inquiry into the firefighters’ dispute. The role of many civil servants will come under the spotlight. These include senior officers at Public Services, PSRC and the Policy Council.

They will be provided with representation from St James’s Chambers if they want it. However, if they all decide they prefer to go externally and seek legal counsel from Court Row, then that is their choice.

The problem would come if they then expected the taxpayer to pick up the tab.

We are already being told the inquiry could cost £250,000, but if you then add on private advocates’ bills, the sky really would be the limit.