At first glance, it is beyond belief that having worked through months of tortuous negotiations to come to an agreement on teachers' salaries that the Ministry of Education would then fail to ensure that all staff received the pay that they had been promised.

But that is what happened this week. The problem with these kinds of mistakes is that they inevitably give the public reason to question whether the Ministry can get anything right.

And since the same Ministry is embarking on the most comprehensive overhaul of public education in more than a decade, the public would be right to ask if it has any chance of success at all.

The good news is that Minister Randy Horton, with whom ultimate responsiblity lies, immediately launched an investigation to find out what went wrong. He needs to hold those responsible accountable. This kind of sloppiness is simply unacceptable.

However, as easy as it is to sympathise with the teachers in this case, it is impossible to accept that their decision to hold a union-wide meeting in the middle of Wednesday morning was right or wise.

It may have inconvenienced the Ministry and helped to force a resolution. But the people who really suffered were the students, who were either sent home or herded into assembly halls for extended periods of time, and the parents, who entrust their children to the teachers' care.

They are the innocents in this, and they suffered the most.

Worse, one wonders what kind of a message this sends to children: When things go wrong, don't show up? That's going to make for some interesting classroom discussions in the next few weeks.

There were other ways of dealing with this problem, not least holding the meeting at the end of the school day instead of in the middle of it.

The next time, there is a dispute between teachers and the Ministry, and it is very nearly certain that there will be a next time, it is to be hoped that the teachers will set a better example to those in their care.

Vehicle cuts

When Government announced earlier this year that it was going to stop advertising in this newspaper as an economy measure, it said it was launching two other cost-cutting drives – one on the Government vehicle fleet and the other on Government travel.

While this newspaper maintains that the advertising ban had nothing to do with economising and everything to do with Government's animus towards it, it is welcome news that Works Minister Derrick Burgess has proceeded with the vehicle review, which was announced last week.

Mr. Burgess said his committee "noted with concern" that the cost of maintaining the fleet had risen from $3 million in the 2004-2005 fiscal year to $3.76 million in 2007-8 – a 25 percent increase in just four years, a rise that was well ahead of the overall rate of inflation.

The committee was right to have been concerned, especially for a Government which had been elected in 1998 to, in Mr, Burgess' words, "effect enhanced efficiency and fiscal prudence in all areas of the Government's operation". Ten years is a long time to wait, at least where Government vehicles are concerned. Where was the prudence beforehand?

Nonetheless, the reduction has gone ahead, with a decision to take nine percent or 45 vehicles out of the fleet. That means there were 500 vehicles in the fleet before, or one for every 11 Government employees, which seems like a pretty high number.

Mr. Burgess would not say how much money would be saved as a result, but nine percent of $3.75 million works out at around $400,000 a year and that would be a pretty good savings.

Mr. Burgess also praised public servants losing their vehicles for accepting the decision, and it is to be hoped that none of them will be prevented from doing their jobs as a result.

What is disappointing but not surprising is that a Government that is "about operational efficiency and fiscal prudence" in Mr. Burgess' words did not lead by example.

Does every Cabinet Minister need their own car? And does the Premier really need at least two?

Cutting vehicles at the Cabinet level would have shown real leadership.