I don’t know David Edge. I don’t know Gail Wilcox.

I don’t know any more than you do about the relationship they’ve had over the last decade or how it deteriorated into the debacle the county now faces.

I do know this: It never should have gotten this far.

As an outside observer trying to evaluate a classic “he said, she said” case, it seems to me that there’s much to question on both sides.

Edge says he was a confidante and father figure who offered a friendly ear to Wilcox when she wanted to talk. Sometimes the convos addressed intimate topics, but he indicates both were comfortable with that.

Not so, says Wilcox, who paints Edge as a jealous lech with a voyeuristic fondness for sex talk who may or may not have liked to have a relationship with her.

Apparently, they coexisted under this arrangement for many years, and both appeared to thrive in key posts in the uppermost echelon of county government.

Now, though, Wilcox is calling foul and says she tried to take steps to stop the alleged harassment but as a single mother felt she couldn’t risk losing her job in the interest of her kids, even though she didn’t become a single mother until 2006. What of all the years before that? What stopped her from taking stronger action then?

If she were truly the victim here, than the truth should have been her salvation.

Why, several years ago, couldn’t she have taken her case to Human Resources and demand that this hostile work environment cease? Then, if no action were taken, she could have conceivably taken civil action while protecting her job at the same time.

Just because Edge could fire Wilcox without cause doesn’t mean he’s above the law. The status certainly didn’t give him a free pass to harass away to his heart’s content.

On the other hand, what if what he says is true, that she initiated the intimate conversations, that she was a willing participant who regularly sought out his advice on personal topics?

Certainly, as the boss, it would seem he could have handled it better. At best, he was reckless; at worst, he’s an ogling lout. Unfortunately, without a recording of these interactions, there’s little hope of proving one way or another.

Wilcox, for example, says Edge “routinely commented on (her) body, saying how good her body looked.” What does that mean exactly?

It could have been like this: “Hi, Gail, you look great today. That’s a nice dress.”

Or it could have been like this: “Hey, honey, you’re smokin’ hot today. You look like a Hooters waitress.”

Both comments fit the description of her claim, but most would agree that one is pretty benign, while the other is overt sexism. The problem is, even if the talk was as “innocent” as the first comment is, Wilcox still might have taken the first to mean the second.

The weight that could tip the balance in this case one way or another may very well come from other female employees in county government. If they corroborate Wilcox’s claim, she’ll probably prevail. If they don’t, her case could be significantly diminished.

Either way, it’s an embarrassment for the county and never, in any kind of professional working environment, should have be allowed to draw out to this conclusion. All of the people working down there on Monterey Street are adults, yet no one, it appears, stood up and acted like one.

The worst thing about it is, in the end, all of this — the lawyers, the paid administrative leave, the time spent “investigating” — is costing money, and taxpayers will ultimately get stuck holding the bag, which may or may not contain a hefty check with Gail Wilcox’s name on it.