[Foundation-l] (no subject)

[Andrew Gray]

On 09/07/07, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:

> Think of reimbursement as the foundation as a corporate entity buying
> things.  You have to go to Tapei. The foundation purchases the
> ticket, as you are a board member. They purchase your hotel room.
> Those are expenses inherent in the travel. The foundation does NOT
> purchase your child care. The foundation does NOT purchase your
> electric bills while you are away, or your pet feeding expenses, or
> your family member's lunch budgets.

The difference here is that childcare is an additional expense; it is
an expense that would not be incurred had you not gone away. You'd pay
your heating bills or buy your partner's meals *regardless*, even if
you stayed home; if you normally provide childcare for your children
but cannot for the duration of the travel because of this commitment,
then it is entirely reasonable for the employer [or whoever] to
consider that a valid expense.

It may not be *common*, but it certainly isn't absurd.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk