Is getting rid of David Dingwall worth paying $9,600 worth of taxpayer's money? Because, according to the Hill Times, that's the amount he can legitimately claim for severance:
The Privy Council Office guidelines for Terms and Conditions of Employment for Full-Time Governor in Council Appointees states that appointees are allowed one week's pay for each completed year of service up to 28 weeks, "payable on termination of employment, regardless of reason for departure."
Mr. Dingwall's salary at the Mint was approximately $250,000 a year and he worked there for almost two-and-a half years before he resigned as president before his five-year term was up. That means that according to PCO rules, Mr. Dingwall is allowed approximately $4,807 per year that he worked at the Mint, bringing his grand total for two years of service up to $9,615.38.
This is the link to the actual PCO policy.
Obviously it's still a fair chunk to choke on -- you could buy a five-year-old car or furnish a living room with IKEA furniture with that kind of dough. But it certainly beats the half-million that David Dingwall was asking for and that the Libranos were prepared to pay.
Is it fair? I suppose if I were the head of a Crown corporation, I'd want some form of compensation to tide me over until my next posting, since obviously I'm not in the kind of position that qualifies for EI. But I'd be curious to see how the Price-Waterhouse audit goes; if it turns out the Ding owes money, $9,600 sounds like a good base to start deducting from.