[Foundation-l] Travel policy

Tue Jul 10 07:40:54 UTC 2007

The Uninvited Co., Inc wrote:

><<< Anthere wrote:
>Let me get the point through. Are you saying that "claiming a childcare 
>expense" is a "remuneration" for me ?
>  
>
>
>I would like to start out by making it very clear that this is not about
>you.  It is about travel policy in general.
>
>By the operating conventions of U.S. corporations, 501 (c) 3 or
>otherwise, child care is not widely seen as a reimbursable travel
>expense even if it may technically be permitted by tax law.  
>
I don't think that 501(c)(3) gives any details about what is meant by 
travel expenses.  "Technically" permitted is still permitted.  That 
phrase is often used to mean, "It's allowed but I personally don't like 
it."  Can you provide a link to the law of any state where it forbids 
reimbursing child care expenses.

>In the
>context of a U.S. based 501 (c) 3 corporation seeking substantial funds
>from U.S. donors, reimbursement for these expenses would be seen by most
>observers as a form of indirect compensation.
>
What evidence do you have about what is seen by most observers.  You 
also fail to recognize that the donors do not just come from the United 
States, but the paid staff is disproportionately from the United States.

>I recognize that standards may be different in, for example, France or
>the Netherlands.
>
There's no reason to avoid applying  optimum standards.

><<<
>Either our board members are from the community, diverse in their 
>origin, in their gender, in their financial ability, in their age etc...
>And we might get people having a little bit more trouble covering their 
>costs. Actually, people with income usually also have a job and have low
>
>availability. Or they have no job and much more time to dedicate. But 
>they need to be reimbursed the costs of working as volunteers.
>  
>
>
>You present a false dichotomy.  There are sitting board members as well
>as past candidates, current candidates, and potential candidates who,
>while not wealthy, are able and willing to make time to volunteer.  This
>would be more true if the board were to discontinue its practice of
>being a "working board" and instead limited its activities to those
>items within its proper purview.
>
While looking for people to fill these positions, the Board has no 
option but to be a working Board.  The work still needs to be done, and 
I have yet to hear of any one Board member who has demanded compensation 
for that work.

Ec

Ec