Should Dix pay back his severance?

[Urbane]

Balderdash... the judge in the case lent no material weight to Dix's memo.

That's irrelevant. You could use the same argument for someone who committed perjury in a trial if the judge "lent no material weight to it." It would still be perjury though.

[Piecemaker]

...The question here would be whether or not his admission of error would effectively change the conditions under which the severance was paid. If his contract says no severance pay in cases of termination for cause, and he has admitted that there was indeed cause for termination, then it's not such a tough question is it? The trouble here is that moral obligations are not as easily enforced as legal obligations.

There's the answer.

[Urbane]

It's really a moral question and in my opinion a government should not be paying out severance to someone who has breached the public trust. Therefore, what Dix did should have disqualified him from receiving severance. At the time he received it he was telling us that he had done "nothing ethically wrong" and yet now he says that he has always accepted responsibility. It's troubling that he is lying about that all these years later. Anyway, it's his choice but giving back the severance would be the right thing to do.

[flamingfingers]

The issue is only being raised now because the Libs need more attack and smear. They are desperate and will use any dirty trick they can.

[Urbane]

The issue is only being raised now because the Libs need more attack and smear. They are desperate and will use any dirty trick they can.

The issue is still the issue. Dix did what he did and the question remains: Should he pay back his severance? (By the way, a smear is when the accusation is untrue. Example: saying that Christy Clark was in a conflict of interest in the BC Rail sale when a commissioner has found just the opposite).

[flamingfingers]

No. His contract stipulated his severance conditions and he is as entitled to his $70K as David Hahn is entitled to his $1+ million.

[Urbane]

No. His contract stipulated his severance conditions and he is as entitled to his $70K as David Hahn is entitled to his $1+ million.

I'm not in favour of David Hahn receiving that large a severance either but that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread. Back on topic. As Fluffy pointed out there are two factors - the legal factor and the moral factor. The legal question, as he pointed out, is more straightforward than the moral one. For you they're both easy because you've praised Dix for back-dating that memo. Most people do not agree with you though. Most people probably aren't that thrilled with Dix not accepting responsibility for his actions right away and they likely aren't that thrilled with him saying that he accepted responsibility right from the beginning when he didn't. And his excuse that he was only 35 likely doesn't sit too well with most people either. Anyway, looking at the second factor, the morality, tells me that Dix should return the severance.

[LoneWolf_53]

Was David Hahn a confessed forger too?

Dix is and as such he should have given the money back, if nothing else as a show of good faith, and testament to his humility, and desire to restore his character. Almost choked typing that last part, as if Dix ever had any character.

[Urbane]

Was David Hahn a confessed forger too?

Dix is and as such he should have given the money back, if nothing else as a show of good faith, and testament to his humility, and desire to restore his character. Almost choked typing that last part, as if Dix ever had any character.

Good points LW. Resigning in disgrace after forging a document should disqualify someone from receiving severance. Dix should do the right thing now and return the money. Better late than never.

[LoneWolf_53]

To be honest Urbane, in my world anyone confessing to forgery, would also automatically be excluded from ever running for the office of Premier.

That seems almost a no brainer, yet leave it to the NDP and their apologists to allow such a miscarriage of what's right, what's ethical, and what keeps the bar of role model high, to occur.

[Urbane]

To be honest Urbane, in my world anyone confessing to forgery, would also automatically be excluded from ever running for the office of Premier.

That seems almost a no brainer, yet leave it to the NDP and their apologists to allow such a miscarriage of what's right, what's ethical, and what keeps the bar of role model high, to occur.

I agree totally. We should be raising the bar and not lowering it.

[Its_Like_That]

To be honest Urbane, in my world anyone confessing to forgery, would also automatically be excluded from ever running for the office of Premier.

That seems almost a no brainer, yet leave it to the NDP and their apologists to allow such a miscarriage of what's right, what's ethical, and what keeps the bar of role model high, to occur.

The dippers have to be led by someone that they can look up to.
You know, someone that leads by example.
A confessed forger, someone apprehended for evasion. He's a liar too (positive campaign my butt, lol).

[fluffy]

No. His contract stipulated his severance conditions and he is as entitled to his $70K as David Hahn is entitled to his $1+ million.

That may be true, but there is a "before" and "after" to the issue. Had he come clean on his error at the time of termination would the severance have still been paid? We'd need to know the exact nature of of the wording for a legal judgement, and the moral judgement can be a slippery one to be sure, again without the contract in front of us there's a lot missing from the discussion. It has also been mentioned that there may well be statutory limitations that have passed preventing legal action. Somehow I think that if there was a legal recourse that would serve to make Mr. Dix look like a man of questionable ethics that someone would have jumped on it by now. That would leave the moral question. It is a legitimate question but we'd have to consider the motivation in asking it too, and at this point it I'm willing to bet that the money is taking second place to the potential negative impact on Mr. Dix's campaign. "Dirty trick" might be an accurate description at this point, as would "shrewd tactic", it depends on what colour sign is on your front lawn right now.

[twobits]

Dix's severance issue was dealt with back in 1999. If the Libs had a problem with it, they had 12+ years to bring this up. Nothing more than a smear tactic that the Christy Libs are using in desperation. Pathetic.

Yes but in those 12 years, who, including yourself, could have possibly foreseen Dix showing up minutes before deadline with paper bags full of 20 dollar bills without matching membership forms to buy the leadership. Did anyone think the morally corrupt weasel would have trumped Farnsworth? He was just a bad piece of history that everyone preferred to just forget about. Who would have thunk he would ever get close to the big chair? That's why it's important to remind people about it again.

[fluffy]

He's a politician. It's what they do. Even with all his pontificating against negative campaigning, do you think for a second that if he had a card like that to play against Ms. Clark that he would hesitate at all? There is no small amount of futility in arguing about the moral obligations of a politician.