Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Well all I ask is that you show how it was abused? If the guy shouldn't have been entitled to have these expenses covered its really up to DND to make that call, not him.
I think people are expecting someone to be way too altruistic here. Like "I could get the $70k in expenses covered, and its totally within the rules and regulations, but instead I should just pay that." It just doesn't make any sense.
Is the rule in need of some tinkering where people should have to move a certain distance? Probably. But for the government to tarnish an individuals reputation over that is just wrong. Just announce that the policy needs tweaking and heres why. There is really no need to drag someone through the mud because he used the system as its set up.
|
What I understand from what you've posted here in reply is that your view is, if the public will pay for it based on the wording of a policy, let them pay for it and nobody should complain, even in a situation where the policy was not for the reason it was used.
For example, we now have Senators suspended from their positions by exploiting the wording of policys, and accepting large amounts of housing money, and the policy wording was such that it allowed the expenses to pass the first defence of Senate accounting.
Its about purpose and intent. The way I read your position, its, hey, if you can get money from the government, take it.
Edit: Also, you didn't even bother to respond to where my post stated the actual purpose of the policy. That's enough to suggest you don't care, if they can get the money, take it, in your view.