[Foundation-l] Travel policy

[Ray Saintonge]

The Uninvited Co., Inc wrote:

><<<Jimbo wrote:
>
>I do not agree with this reasoning.  If it were legally possible (and  
>it is not) I would like to see the possibility for board members
>to get at least a small paycheck  (10,000 euros per year or similar).
>
>I think that board diversity is an important goal.  And the practical  
>reality is that serving on the board of the foundation takes up quite  
>a bit of time and energy for all of us, and that is not likely to  
>change.  Reimbursement of board expenses is quite important to  
>ensuring that people are able to serve without their service being a  
>financial burden.
>  
>
>
>I don't believe that it is wise to attempt to remunerate board members
>through liberalization of travel policy.  There are a number of problems
>with this even if you accept that some means of remunerating board
>members is necessary.  The largest problem with doing so is fairness and
>parity: Some board members will gain more than others.  Those who travel
>more, those who are more willing to push the edges of policy, and those
>whose situation permits them to claim the greatest expenses will benefit
>the most.  I also believe that such policy works at cross purposes with
>the board's mandate to control costs.  How can someone control costs and
>yet seek to remunerate themselves through the travel policy at the same
>time?
>
I'm sure that Jimbo would characterize his comments above as more 
appreciative and wishful than a specific policy proposal.  Reimbursing 
travel expenses is for removed from remuneration.  Travelling more does 
not equate to greater benefits.  If the reimbursements are bigger, it's 
because the expenses are bigger.  There is still no compensation for the 
hours that must be wasted hanging around airports waiting for flights, 
or the time away from family.  While there may sometimes be a small gain 
from accepting a per diem for meals instead of accumulating piles of 
receipts, you only need to look at the price of restaurant meals to 
understand that it's not much of a gain.

>If you believe that board members should receive a stipend, we would be
>better off finding a better and more transparent way to achieve that. 
>Even if they are on the board we can remunerate them for services
>provided in some other capacity.
>
Sponsors could pay them under the table, and it wouldn't appear in the 
books. ;-)

Paying them for other services would invite a whole new set of problems.

>On the other hand, I believe that the foundation would be better served
>by drawing its board from individuals who have already achieved
>sufficient financial independence that they need not look to the
>foundation as a source of financial support.
>
Having only people who have achieved financial independence would have a 
profound effect.  I guess it would eliminate radical students from the 
Board. ;-)

Ec