Minister’s Handling of Advisor’s Exit Bonus Under Scrutiny
Christina Egelund, a member of the Moderaterne (Moderates) political party, is embroiled in a case that deviates from standard procedures. Egelund awarded her former special advisor, Anders Langballe, almost 500,000 Danish kroner (approximately $75,000) as an exit bonus upon his departure from the position. Experts have criticized the handling of the case, noting that it has been managed in a manner that is atypical, which has drawn scrutiny from the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman’s criticism arose following a change in information related to Langballe’s resignation before it was communicated to the media. Jesper Olsen, chairman of Transparency International Denmark and an associate professor of public law at the University of Copenhagen, stated that the case stands out for its departure from usual procedures. He insists that the ministry should clarify the process to restore public trust in its handling of the situation.
Langballe, a former profile with TV 2, was employed as a special advisor for 15 months before resigning in April, reportedly to spend more time with his children. In addition to his resignation, he received 455,000 Danish kroner as an exit bonus. Although the ministry maintained that the rules were followed and the payment was justified, this level of compensation is far from standard practice for departing political advisors in the government.
For instance, Magnus Ulveman, a former advisor to Health Minister Sophie Løhde, resigned during the same week as Langballe but did not receive any exit bonus. This has led critics, including Ole Birk Olesen from the Liberal Alliance (Liberal Alliance), to suggest that there may be elements of favoritism involved.
The Ombudsman has now requested that the Ministry of Education and Research (Uddannelses- og Forskningsministeriet) reopen the case and make a new determination, citing the serious errors in the handling of the situation. Jesper Olsen has also expressed concern regarding why the ministry altered information related to a case that should have been straightforward.
The ministry has declined to comment on the specifics of the case or the Ombudsman’s criticisms. However, it has confirmed that it acknowledges the criticism and will revisit the case to provide a revised decision.