Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Abuse of budgets by department heads is a long hallmark of bureaucracy. Your per diem is probably smaller than hers.
|
As ministers and department/agency heads are not bound by the Treasury Board's Travel Directive, she likely does not have a per diem. That being said, her claim of $330.44 for incidentals on a 10 day trip is not out of line with the Travel Directive. The article's assertion that air fare was 1st class is troubling if true. Federal government employees may only upgrade to Business class as per cabinet guidelines set out in 1992. Of course, we don't know the fair structure of the flights. Perhaps business class was not available or sold out. There are plenty of valid justifications for the 1st class fare and we don't know the particulars.
I'm not as naive to think abuses don't take place and believe me, as a tax payer, as well as a public servant, I'm not happy about them. Other posters in this thread have done the math and I just don't think that was going on in this case. The article comes off as a lazy, poorly researched hack job. I see it as an editor telling a reporter to dig up some dirt. I really had to laugh at the bit about the catered working lunch for 19 employees to the tune of $143.83. That's a whopping $7.57 per employee. Wow, Adscam 2 I tell ya!
I know I'm ranting but I'm a little sick of the double standard applied to the public sector. Perhaps I'm being hyper-sensitive but a government official flies overseas and they're accused of spending like a rock star. Similar practices in the private sector are OK though and just the cost of doing business.
