The Education Department has sacked an employee it told the Supreme Court it would continue to employ to keep her out of jail.

It’s the latest twist in the story of a convicted embezzler who was given a job in Families SA as a financial counsellor while she awaited sentencing on 16 charges.

InDaily revealed in August that Melissa Green had pleaded guilty to 16 embezzlement charges in early 2011 and was later employed as a financial counsellor at Families SA while she awaited sentencing.

Yesterday, the department said Green had been sacked.

“The chief executive (Tony Harrison) has completed his investigation and Ms Green’s employment with DECD has been terminated,” a department spokeswoman said.

“The chief executive is still investigating the conduct of the (other) Families SA staff involved in this matter.”

The decision to terminate Green’s employment now raises further questions relating to the Supreme Court’s decision in July to suspend her jail sentence on the basis of promised continued employment at Families SA.

Green was sentenced to 15 months’ gaol, with a non-parole period of eight months, but then won an appeal for the sentence to be suspended.

Judge Nicholson’s appeal decision pointed to Green’s government employment.

“On the information that was before the Magistrate together with the additional information placed before the Court on appeal there is every likelihood that the appellant will retain her career opportunities with Families SA should a suspended prison sentence be ordered,” the judge said.

“However, it would seem clear that an immediate (jail) term would cause her to lose her job and her career with Families SA (with the obvious financial consequences for the family).

“It would seem that, given her history (which is known to her employer) the appellant has been extremely fortunate in being able to secure this particular career path with Families SA and the educational opportunities that are now available to her that will serve to promote that career path.”

When InDaily asked Education Minister Rankine in August why the Education Department had made such a commitment to Green, the minister claimed her department had been kept in the dark about the embezzlement charges. That claim was later contradicted when InDaily was given access to court documents that supported Green’s claim that she had been open in her dealings with the department.

Two affidavits, three written statements and court evidence show a succession of occasions where Green informed her superiors and the human resources section of the department about the proceedings against her.

The documents detail meetings, conversations, references, assurances and staffing decisions – all based on full disclosure by Green of the dishonesty charges and conviction.

She had pleaded guilty on 5 November 2010 to 16 counts of theft relating to the embezzlement of $118,978 from her employer while working as an administration manager for a software vendor between February 2006 and December 2009.

In mid-2012, while still on remand for the 16 charges and having pleaded guilty, Green won a position in Families SA as a financial counsellor in the financial counselling and support program.

In an affidavit dated 28 June 2013, Green told the Supreme Court she had told her supervisor Bianca O’Brien and they jointly approached another department official, Jenna Kovacs, “and disclosed my offending”.

“Both were made aware of the severity of my offending. They were both aware of the amount of money I had taken,” Green stated.

“Both were prepared to provide character references to the court.”

The affidavit further stated that “both Ms O’Brien and Ms Kovacs attended at court to support me on various occasions”.

Green’s affidavit then discloses another meeting.

“When I discussed my situation with the Human Resources Department of Families SA, they were made aware that my offending was dishonesty and related to the taking of money.

“My discussion with them was in relation to the continuity of my employment should I be given a suspended sentence.”

Green’s version of the support she received is backed up by another court document; an affidavit dated 5 July 2013 from her lawyer Damon Creagh Ind detailing conversations with and attendances by Families SA staff.

“It is my recollection that Ms Kovacs and Ms O’Brien were present in court supporting Ms Green at various times during the sentencing process.

“I am certain, however, that both Ms Kovacs and Ms O’Brien would have been present and heard for themselves the gravity of Ms Green’s offending.”

The lawyer then details a conversation he had with one Families SA official after his client had been sentenced.

“Indeed, Ms O’Brien spoke to me subsequent to Ms Green being sentenced and offered to assist with the funding of Ms Green’s appeal against the sentence.”

The affidavit doesn’t make it clear if the funding offer came from O’Brien as an individual or as a representative of Families SA.

In her appeal against the magistrate’s decision not to suspend the gaol sentence, Green also submitted to the court in an affidavit dated 14 June 2013 that she had discussed options with Families SA.

“If I was to receive a conviction and a suspended sentence, the human resources department had informed me that I would be on a supervised work performance program of 12-24 months.

“I also told Mr Ind that if I was to continue my work in the child protection role that I would still be permitted to continue in that field.”

The question of Green’s employment at Families SA was a central part of pre-sentencing reports prepared for the court.

A report by a North East Community Correction Centre officer, dated 7 August 2012, stated: “Ms Green reported that she is still permanently employed with Families SA and currently works 0.8 (80 per cent part time).”

“She stated that she negotiated with them to reduce her full time status to allow more time for her to go to court…”

In addition to the affidavits and reports that detail the awareness within Families SA, a further three written statements make it clear that department officials knew of Green’s offending.

There are two statements from Families SA Elizabeth office senior social worker Bianca O’Brien – one dated 2 May 2011, and another 26 October 2012.

InDaily has previously reported the existence of a statement from Families SA senior social worker Jenna Kovacs, dated 2 October 2012.

That statement reveals that “I am aware Melissa Green has pleaded guilty in relation to the theft offences she was charged for in 2010.”

The Kovacs statement also details how “Melissa had recently undergone an interview process and secured the role of financial counsellor with the Financial Counselling and Support Program at our office.

There is a third reference, dated 1 May 2011, from Rebecca Gibson.

It stated: “I met Melissa Kay Green at the beginning of August 2010 when she began working for Families SA as a community support worker in my team.”

The extensive documentation of awareness by Education Department officials was contradicted by the Minister Jennifer Rankine when she told InDaily in August that she had been advised “there is no record of her (Green) informing the department about charges laid against her, as is required”.

In a further statement to InDaily, the minister said her comments related to the issue of whether or not Green’s initial employment form of July 2010 had been properly filled out.

That form, however, pre-dates the laying of charges.

Rankine’s department head, Tony Harrison, later told InDaily he had asked for a full chronology of events surrounding the matter and explanations and that is underway.

“Clearly however there are matters of process and conduct that are of great concern and require the appropriate internal scrutiny,” he said.

Harrison later told FIVEaa that he questioned why Green had been allowed to keep her job.

InDaily has made inquiries to Green’s lawyer but there has not yet been a response.

Shadow Education Minister David Pisoni said the decision to terminate Green’s employment raised more questions than it answered.

“This department has leapt from crisis to crisis and this latest saga opens a new Pandora’s box of questions about who authorised the department to provide references for the court and on what basis, and when did Minister Rankine know?”

InDaily asked the Education Minister’s office whether it has advised the Director of Public Prosecutions of its decision to terminate Green’s employment, in contravention of assurances given to the Supreme Court.

Chief executive Tony Harrison’s response said his department had formed its own legal view; “The Department views that all relevant factors were taken into consideration as to the decision and appropriate sanction for Ms Green’s misconduct in the form of criminality, including the sentence imposed and sentencing remarks of the presiding Judge”.