Proposed rules changes to the travel policy

[Brett Smith]

Hi everyone,

Following up on my last message: based on comments and requests I’ve
heard from you all while helping with accounting, I’ve prepared a second
branch with proposed rule changes to the travel policy. It’s
2017-08-proposed-updates. Here’s the history
<https://k.sfconservancy.org/policies/changelog?branch=2017-08-proposed-updates>;
here’s the latest policy in the branch
<https://k.sfconservancy.org/policies/files/51d8a9b8899af5da131e1a0eb3284ec917a21ba9/Travel/conservancy-travel-policy.md>.
I wanted to start a discussion about the proposals by describing the
rationale behind each, and hear your thoughts on them.

The 90-day limit on reimbursement requests is from the last day of
travel.
<https://k.sfconservancy.org/policies/changeset/ad6eb47205f5eb788e22bd7aa4895f933a3a42e0>
- Strictly read, the current travel policy says that we won’t reimburse
expenses that are over 90 days old. This means that, for example, if you
book a flight a month in advance of a trip, you only have about two
months after the end of the trip to submit for reimbursement for it. We
didn’t intend the 90-day deadline to be this strict; we just want it to
start at the end of the trip for all trip-related expenses. This change
spells that out.

Add $150 to the limit on international airfare that requires preapproval
<https://k.sfconservancy.org/policies/changeset/9569a5bbae38cffa181caa9df9cd91fcd3169e8e>
- Just based on economic factors, it’s become somewhat routine for some
international travelers to have fare searches where the cheapest flights
available start at $1,400 or higher. This means relatively normal
flights that shouldn’t require preapproval suddenly do. $1,500 has been
the limit since at least 2012, so this is just an update to keep pace
with changing fares. The total limit on international travel expenses
goes up to match.

Allow specific expenses to be approved by any officer of Conservancy
<https://k.sfconservancy.org/policies/changeset/dfb0b65537d652fdc6a7aaf2f2cf902a2af0282c>
- Normally individual expenses that require preapproval must get it from
the Executive Director. It can be difficult for us to respond in a
timely manner to those requests if Karen is traveling or otherwise busy.
This change would let any officer of Conservancy preapprove those
requests, helping us turn them around faster.

Set a budget for flights based on how much time they save compared to
the cheapest flight
<https://k.sfconservancy.org/policies/changeset/ee9e440d6d1662b718222422b88abfadd2041aec>
- I saved the best for last. You’re all familiar with Conservancy’s
current “cheapest fare + $100” cost limit for flights. This is easy to
understand and follow, but the most common feedback we get—either sent
directly or via requests for exceptions—is that you’d like to be able to
spend more on flights that save a lot of time.

This change makes that possible. It sets a flight budget that starts at
the same cheapest fare + $100, then goes up to book a flight that saves
substantial travel time over the one with the cheapest fare. Any flight
you book that’s within its corresponding budget would be in Policy and
eligible for reimbursement. Here are the exact rules.
<https://k.sfconservancy.org/policies/files/ee9e440d6d1662b718222422b88abfadd2041aec/Travel/conservancy-travel-policy.md#L353>

There are a lot of ways we could’ve implemented this, and we discussed a
lot of them internally. We ultimately went with this tiered system to
try to keep the rules simple to understand and follow. The obvious
alternative would be to set a budget that increases a set amount per
hour of travel saved. That’s “simpler” in the sense that it’s a single
rule that covers more cases, but it’s harder to write accurately and
harder to predict the financial consequences of.

I prepared all these changes with the hope that they’ll make travel
easier for our projects, and I hope they do that for you. If you have
any kind of feedback on them—whether you don’t like them, or just have
wording suggestions, or even just agree they’re useful—I hope you’ll
share that with the list. I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you,

​
-- 
Brett Smith
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/policies-discuss/attachments/20170829/adb0c319/attachment-0001.html>