Retired general claims $72K in moving expenses (CTV)

[Jarnhamar]

You sunk my battleship...

Excellent points, I concede

 

[Journeyman]

.....Mr Drapeau......

I have no idea why he gets interviewed about anything.  As soon as I see Scott Taylor's lapdog his name listed, I know it's not a credible news story.

...did Ex-general Leslie really plan on retiring when he did or did he retire because other aspirations for his career future did not pan out?....

        :nod:      [And he left with a hearty "good fucking riddance" from me]

 

[DAA]

I have provided good counsel to my subordinates, similar to ArmyVern, when they have been posted.  Take advantage of the relocation benefits and first and foremost on your mind should be, is that you will more than likely have to sell that house 3-7 years down the road.  Do not "over buy!"

Something I haven't see mentioned in this thread yet, is any comments or advice which were provided by your Relocation Consultant.  Something during your first interview which is generally "Hi, nice to meet you, my name is George and I have been assigned your relocation file for your upcoming posting.  It is my job to maximize these benefits on your behalf!"

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Everyone keeps coming back to policy. That's not what this is about. That is simply a side bar discussion.

It's about optics, and it will stick with Gen Leslie for the rest of his public career.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

        :nod:      [And he left with a hearty "good fucking riddance" from me]

And me. His newfound troubles make me feel somewhat better about the money he took from me in Afghanistan

 

[armyvern]

...

Something I haven't see mentioned in this thread yet, is any comments or advice which were provided by your Relocation Consultant.  Something during your first interview which is generally "Hi, nice to meet you, my name is George and I have been assigned your relocation file for your upcoming posting.  It is my job to maximize these benefits on your behalf!"

Have dealt with them many times now and have yet to hear it. 

 

[DAA]

Everyone keeps coming back to policy. That's not what this is about. That is simply a side bar discussion.

It's about optics, and it will stick with Gen Leslie for the rest of his public career.

You mean my comment?

So other than the "optics" involved with what would be viewed a local move

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You mean my comment?

No. In general.

 

[DAA]

No. In general.

Sorry, bad fingers on the keyboard.

This is about both policy and "optics".  Maybe the policy needs a review or maybe it doesn't.  Because something looks bad for one person and that person just happens to be a General Officer, then to do a revamp could end up hurting all of us, regardless of the rank level.

He didn't do anything wrong but what he did "looks" wrong.

One principle of leadership is to "lead by example".  So if our Senior Officers start declining the same benefits that Jr Offrs, Snr and Jr NCO's are also entitled to, then how do we interpret that?

I don't know him personally, but as a former CF/DND Relocation Advisor, I am inclined to support a relocating member, where necessary.

 

[George Wallace]

And me. His newfound troubles make me feel somewhat better about the money he took from me in Afghanistan

It is indeed a long line.  My bank account was affected by his handiwork.

 

[armyvern]

Recceguy and George,

I hope you both claimed the IPR upon your releases from the CF then given your donations to Crown coffers.  Me too - I'm just not aged enough to elect IPR yet.

:-*

 

[Jed]

Wow, M. Drapeau, is sure inflexible on any benefits to any military member. He appears to want all uniformed personnel to suffer to appease his sense of fair play.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Everyone keeps coming back to policy. That's not what this is about. That is simply a side bar discussion.

It's about optics, and it will stick with Gen Leslie for the rest of his public career.

It would have been politically savvy of him to forgo the entitlement that's for sure.

 

[armyvern]

Wow, M. Drapeau, is sure inflexible on any benefits to any military member. He appears to want all uniformed personnel to suffer to appease his sense of fair play.

I wonder if M. Drapeau claimed his IPR? No, apparently he "didn't even know it existed" as stated in someone's earlier post. (Are Colonels the new Lieutenants  [ie: lost] !!??  >).  :

You know, all uniformed pers should incur the costs of moving, selling/buying every 5 or so years, thus prohibiting and impeding their ability to build up any equity whilst being posted to wherever the government (read taxpayer) decides they should go.  Seems fair for us to be bankrupt after 25 years career due to paying these costs at the governments behest. [/sarcasm]

 

[Kat Stevens]

Everyone keeps coming back to policy. That's not what this is about. That is simply a side bar discussion.

It's about optics, and it will stick with Gen Leslie for the rest of his public career.

I really don't think it will stick to him for long at all, some people are just teflon.  In a year nobody will remember this.

 

[George Wallace]

Wow, M. Drapeau, is sure inflexible on any benefits to any military member. He appears to want all uniformed personnel to suffer to appease his sense of fair play.

M. Drapeau is a 'special' person.

 

[DAA]

M. Drapeau is a 'special' person.

I actually thought he was a somewhat "standup" kind of guy after reading some referring articles in print.  Now that I actually saw him in a televised Q&A, I need to rethink my opinion.

 

[dimsum]

I wonder if M. Drapeau claimed his IPR? No, apparently he "didn't even know it existed" as stated in someone's earlier post. (Are Colonels the new Lieutenants  [ie: lost] !!??  >).  :

You know, all uniformed pers should incur the costs of moving, selling/buying every 5 or so years, thus prohibiting and impeding their ability to build up any equity whilst being posted to wherever the government (read taxpayer) decides they should go.  Seems fair for us to be bankrupt after 25 years career due to paying these costs at the governments behest. [/sarcasm]

Shhh....sarcasm tag or not, the "good idea fairies" and bean-counters will run with this!  >

 

[Transporter]

I too remember that but am pretty sure it was $725 and one of the policy revisions actually listed "non-admissable" items of which bricks/blocks were one of them.    :nod:  In fact I think that at one point in time, receipts were also once required to claim the grant.  When they moved to a "straight up front" payment, with no requirement to provide proof of out of pocket expenses, I had some people trying to return that money, believe it or not and that was in the late 90's early 2000.

PS - the cinder block entertainment centres, used furniture from off someones front porch and disgarded appliances were generally referred to as a "dumpster to dumpster move".

I remember differently. One of us is getting old  ;D

 

[DAA]

The current relocation policy has gone through many many revisions over the years, some to the benefit of CF members and some to not so much a benefit.  Have you ever considered or tried to pursue one of those covetted OUTCAN postings, like to the US or maybe Europe and you own a home here in Canada?  Well, here comes your "Relocation Tip of the Day" that might give you second thoughts.......

When posted OUTCAN and you sell your home, you are venturing into Mortgage Breaking Penalties because your mortagage is not "portable" because you are not entitled to purchase a residence OUTCAN.  Before the most recent policy revision (2012), such penalties were limited in reimbursement to "3 months" of payments.  However, within your mortgage contract, the penalty normally imposed by the lender, was either "3 months of payments or the mortgage interest differential (ie; interest payments for the balance of the mortgage term)" and the "higher" of the two became applicable.

Today, that is no longer the case  ---->
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits-relocation/2011-2012-directive-ch8.page?#art-08-02-06

Back in 2008--2010, when the lending rates dropped into the 3% range in some cases, I saw people take some serious hits for accepting an OUTCAN posting and having to discharge their current mortage where the MID was applicable, one of them to the tune of $18K and that was a "Cpl". 

So, if you are a Home Owner, you best have your ducks lined up before not just seeking but actually accepting that posting.  It may cost you some serious out of pocket money.