Proposal: travel policy: reject reimbursement requests submitted to accounting later than 90 days after travel.

[Stormy Peters]

+1

On Jul 20, 2016 11:57 PM, "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn at sfconservancy.org> wrote:

> Proposal for travel policy "90 day late" rule.  Patch is attached, and
> can be found here:
>  https://k.sfconservancy.org/policies/pull-request/5/_/reject-90-day
>
> Reasoning:
>
> I think Conservancy needs to outright reject travel reimbursement
> requests after 90 days.
>
> In theory, the "Board of Directors approval for 90 days late" rule was
> originally instituted to make it clear that reimbursements beyond 90
> days were really difficult for Conservancy to process.
>
> In practice, the rule has meant that travelers simply believe that they
> "have another out" if they are late, and late reimbursement requests put
> an undue burden on Conservancy staff for special processing, and they
> create extra work for our volunteer Board of Directors.
>
> As such, Conservancy should simply rejects reimbursement requests that
> are received 90 days or more after the last day of travel.
>
> As a bookkeeping matter, the books are typically closed once 90 days
> have passed, and this is particularly important when an audit has begun.
> I've delayed the audit-prep this year in part to deal with untimely
> expense reports, but it really is unreasonable for travelers to wait so
> long to submit their expense reports, and it is a factor (in multiple
> ways) that causes Conservancy to be behind on bookkeeping.
>
> I admit that I once used the existing 90 day rule and got Board of
> Directors approval for a late travel reimbursement, so I'm taking away
> something that I've benefited from.  But I still think it's right
> because I just don't think it's good policy, even if it helped me once.
>
> Travel Policy Patch:
>
>
> --
> Bradley M. Kuhn
> President & Distinguished Technologist of Software Freedom Conservancy
> ========================================================================
> Become a Conservancy Supporter today: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter
>
> _______________________________________________
> policies-discuss mailing list
> policies-discuss at sfconservancy.org
> http://lists.sfconservancy.org/mailman/listinfo/policies-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/policies-discuss/attachments/20160721/05b60e50/attachment-0001.html>