‘Education job interview a sham’

In further details that the Guernsey Press can exclusively reveal, it has emerged that the job was created because Education wanted to employ Clare Sealy, a primary headteacher and blogger who had unsuccessfully applied to be director of education.

Ms Sealy was eventually appointed to the new post once the local applicant chosen by a recruitment panel withdrew their acceptance after frantic manoeuvring by senior civil servants to placate the board amid resignation threats.

It has also been claimed that Education president Matt Fallaize, who sat on the panel but was the only one to vote against the local candidate, had asked Ms Sealy at the end of the interview when an announcement of her appointment could be made public. No other candidate was asked this.

When the panel made its decision, he left the interview room ‘clearly upset’ by the outcome, according to Amanda Singleton, who was the HR manager who sat in on the interviews and has gone public with her concerns.

The States dropped their defence against a constructive dismissal claim by Mrs Singleton.

In her filing to the Employment and Discrimination Tribunal, she outlines details of what led her to resign from a job that she loved.

It is not disputed that Education, Sport & Culture wanted to employ Ms Sealy, and consideration was given to creating a fixed term position for her, but she did not want to relocate to the island on a non-permanent basis.

So the job of head of curriculum and standards was created and she was asked to apply. It was advertised locally and nationally.

‘The purpose of advertising this was to allow for a competitive process, but that appears to have been a sham based on the events that unfolded subsequently,’ said Mrs Singleton in her claim.

Four candidates were shortlisted.

Two already worked for the States, another was also based locally.

On Wednesday 17 April, interviews were held at Sir Charles Frossard House.

The interview panel was made up of then ESC chief secretary, Colette Falla, the director of education at the time, Andrew Warren, Deputy Fallaize and an external education advisor.

‘Deputy Fallaize asked Ms Sealy at the end of her interview when an announcement of her appointment could be made public. He did not ask this of any other candidates who were interviewed on the day,’ said Mrs Singleton.

‘Even if one accepted he asked this because she was an external candidate, the fact is he did not ask this of the other external candidate nor of either internal candidate.

‘At the time, I found this uncomfortable and it suggested to me that he had already determined that she would be offered the role before any of the other candidates were interviewed.’

In its defence, the States argued that if, which was not admitted, Deputy Fallaize did ask the question, the HR manager should have advised the panel to ask the same question of all interviewees.

Mrs Singleton said that both internal candidates were strong and the panel felt that both were appointable to the role.

But eventually it was whittled down to a local head teacher and Ms Sealy.

The panel voted four to one for the internal candidate, someone with experience of primary and secondary education.

‘Bearing in mind the comment Deputy Fallaize made to the one external candidate, he was clearly aggrieved by the outcome of the interview process and left the room without further comment, though clearly upset by the outcome. Regardless of that, a fair and transparent process had taken place for this civil service appointment.’

The local candidate was offered and accepted the role, agreeing a salary the same day.

By that evening, P&R president Deputy Gavin St Pier had sent an email in which he said Deputy Fallaize had raised concerns about the appointment and the process had been suspended.

Mrs Singleton said she helped prepare a briefing paper to be presented to those concerned about the appointment.

The chief secretary has drafted it the same night.

On the Thursday, senior staff met to discuss what had happened, but Mrs Singleton was not involved.

After this, the chief secretary remained on the top floor of Frossard House, the employment claim said, not returning to sit with staff at Education on level four.

She looked upset.

‘She said to me that Deputy Fallaize had told parties that he had threatened to resign before he left the interview room if the successful candidate was offered the role. That situation simply did not happen....at that point I realised the severity of the situation if someone so senior was willing to misrepresent the events on the day.’

The Education board meeting went ahead without the chief secretary.

By Tuesday 23 April, the successful candidate had outlined a transition plan for when she took on the role.

That day, Mrs Singleton was told that the director of education was meant to have contacted the successful candidate on Thursday the previous week to advise the process was being put on hold.

‘I was shocked that a non-political appointment could have this level of involvement by politicians and senior civil servants.’

She said it was becoming clear that the candidate appointed through a fair process was going to be removed ‘by whatever mechanism’.

Mrs Singleton was told that the successful candidate was to be encouraged to withdraw her application.

The States denied this in its response.

They said that an HR representative and the director of education met with the candidate to provide greater context of the challenges that the head of curriculum and standards might face and that they withdraw on their own accord.

It did not need to re-convene the interview panel before then offering the job to the next candidate, the States argued.

Mrs Singleton was then asked to make an out-of-policy long-term employment permit application for Ms Sealy.

‘I could not do that as I would have to make an unlawful declaration when completing the form by stating that there were not suitable on-island candidates.’

She felt she would have had to breach the civil service code of conduct to make that application and population management laws so she resigned.

The States does not accept it was an unlawful declaration or that the core values of the code were not upheld during the recruitment process or that it encouraged the HR manager to put herself in breach of the code.

The States believes it was not inappropriate for there to be political representation on the panel, particularly because the role directly contributed to delivering objectives set under political policy.