Travel Exceeding Business Purpose by ~14 days

[Rachel Veenstra]

Location: Chile

Conference dates: 9/11-13

Actual Travel: 9/11-10/1

Assuming business purpose was 9/9-9/14, this leaves two weeks of personal travel which is twice as long as the business purpose.

A comparable flight was not provided, but using similar parameters to book in the future, the cost of the ticket was reasonable.

The University requests, but does not require a flight comparison to be generated at the time of booking, in order to be reimbursed.  After the fact comparisons are troublesome and not always very accurate. 

Flight comparison aside, the University is silent on how to handle situations where the personal exceeds the business purpose.  When personal exceeds business, it begs the question, was the purpose of travel for the conference or vacation and/or visit to a home country?

I feel my hands are tied to reimburse, but what I would like feedback on is a) would you allow this expense on a sponsored project given the following

• Student has never been paid on this project (requesting more info from him on his role on the project)
• Personal travel is twice as long as business travel

Thank you for your feedback.

[Andrew Carlson]

I would definitely get clarification where the limits are in terms of the personal benefit to the employee traveler outweighing their business purpose. Since University policy does not directly address this matter, I would have your CFM clarify if this is the type of activity they should review for reimbursement allowability. You could also check in with the Financial Help Desk, but I assume that they would just direct you to check in with your relevant CFM. If this was scrutinized under the U.S. tax code for deduction, it might not meet the limit of being substantially connected to the student's business purpose.

Based on policy, this wouldn't even qualify for a financial hardship appeal, which again goes back to a University higher up (CFM) needing to review this expense reimbursement. I too would appreciate having solid policy language that addresses how to handle personal travel exceeding the dates for the business purpose.

[Carrie Meyer]

From the perspective of "if someone called the helpline" I would likely ask these questions in response to the inquiry:

If the cost of the business trip was X and they're only asking for X, how long they were gone doesn't matter--per Beth Tapp.

So, if the traveler isn't seeking per diem or lodging expenses for the personal days, and the airfare seems comparable to a shorter trip based on what you know today, is it just "how it looks" that is the concern? This would be an issue for the person's leader to address. 

Here's the part of policy that is "a price comparison is required" (uses different words), "If the traveler uses an indirect route or interrupts travel for personal convenience, any additional expenses incurred are the sole responsibility of the traveler and should be documented." 

[Andrew Carlson]

Hi Carrie,

First, I would like to apologize to you and your staff if any offense was taken by my statement above referencing the University Financial Helpline. I shouldn't have stated any uninformed speculation about how The Controller's Office would respond to this matter. That was unfair and irresponsible on my end.  

However, I must relate my personal frustration for length of trip time not being an issue that is stated clearly within the travel policy language. I would strongly disagree that it should fall on the reviewing accountant, or the relevant local administration, to determine whether the scenario described above is reasonable and allowable. You can contact me directly for more detail about why I feel this way, if necessary. Your statement seems to agree with me, as you suggest that a higher authority than the reviewing accountant needs to deliberate on the matter. 

I just have a few questions based on the proposed way to handle this situation. 

1) Who inhabits the role of the leader in relation to the traveler? I assume that is a swiftly moving target depending on the individual traveling. 

2) If the leader role is also determined to be their supervisor who first approves the Chrome River reimbursement, does anyone need to follow up with the leader/supervisor about the traveler extending their stay to a length greater than the original business purpose? This gets to be even more fundamental when the traveler does not provide an airfare comparison with their reimbursement request. I'm sorry, but the ground level reality is that supervisors are not greatly scrutinizing the Chrome River reimbursements that route to them for approval. Perhaps an education push about responsibility as a Chrome River approver and the leader role is needed if this is truly the solution to this situation

3) How can we not address the issue of after travel price comparisons in this particular scenario? This should either not be allowed (I would agree with that possibly being too harsh), and open for a financial hardship review by the relevant CFM, or allowed with very strict rules/parameters stated in the policy. There is too much manipulation that can occur when dealing with after travel price comparisons. It puts me in an uncomfortable position as an accountant and weakens the perception of fairness with how we handle each reimbursement.

In general, what is described in your reply is unstated policy. I dislike unstated policy. It undermines the credibility of the original written language available to all University employees. Unstated policy also gives wiggle room to move the metaphorical goal post, allowing a certain reimbursement for one person, but not another. I hope one day that many of these unstated policy positions are truly codified into written language, so they can be applied and understood by all University employees.

Thanks for your time.

Andrew Elias Carlson

[Carrie Meyer]

Andrew--no offense taken/intended! My attempt to be playful and ID myself as "not a CA" fell flat! I have the greatest respect for what you all do and often wonder (in a good way) how you manage to get all this work done every day. Those of us who aren't Certified Approvers in central admin occasionally note that you are some of the most dedicated and responsible people working here. We'd all do well to reflect and imitate your dedication. 

1) This would be the person's "supervisor" or manager, rather than a financial transaction approver (though the financial transaction approver does have the authority to deny the transaction--if they don't, then they're really not an approver). I know this is an oversimplification for faculty, but when it comes to being absent from work, the person's supervisor or manager is the one that should deal with concerns. In the case of a faculty member or researcher who is taking what appears to be a vacation on the University's or a sponsor's dime (even if that's not what they're doing), it needs to be someone with administrative authority over that person who talks to them about the poor optics of what happened. If the leadership of the unit is ok with the length of the absence, the reasoning behind combining it with work-related travel funded by the University/sponsor(s), then at the end of the day the activity is acceptable. It would be prudent to recommend that, if it is an ok behavior in your unit, the traveler does a price comparison for a "no vacation time added" on the airfare at the time of booking to ensure when someone from the press or the sponsor or an auditor looks at the activity, it's clear that they weren't abusing the privilege of travel or neglecting their responsibilities as stewards of those funds.

2) It would be prudent to follow up with the leader to ensure they noticed the lengthy stay and clarify that they're ok with this for this situation. It might also be useful to reinforce the idea that they could help people remember to get a price comparison to help with optics. As budgets squeeze, anything we can do to help reflect that we're being responsible is always helpful. The various owners of policies that involve approvals are working on approver trainings, I'll alert them that supervisors should be included somehow to address your concerns (they're shared widely among finance staff).

3) For now that's up to you, as the approver. You should have the authority to say yes/no. Since there wasn't documentation provided, per the admittedly vague policy language, you could say no and should receive support from those elsewhere on the approval chain. If you're not certain of that support, a conversation with your Chief Financial Manager would be in order.

The good news about the unstated policy, the travel policy is on the list for review right now! I'll make sure Beth Tapp sees this conversation. Please watch for opportunities to provide feedback on the policy--you can scroll to the bottom of the policy now on the policy.umn.edu website and put comments in the boxes at the bottom of the page. That actually does get sent to both the policy owner and the Policy Office.

Thanks for everything you do!

Carrie

[Andrew Carlson]

Carrie,

Thank you for taking time to read my lengthy post and give a substantive reply. We too appreciate your work to help the approver community comprehend and apply policy. I now feel that I have a better understanding of my role and the expected procedures for handling the scenario described by Rachel in the original post.

Best,

Andrew E. Carlson

[Andrew Carlson]

Carrie,

Apologies for continuing to harp on this matter. I've had a few hours to reflect on your previous reply. I think it would be beneficial to have the resolution to these matters clearly stated and on the record within this post. Please correct me if my summary of the proposed resolution to Rachel's original post is inaccurate.

1) The reviewing accountant should follow up with the traveler's supervisor to confirm the grad student's travel activity occurred outside of their regular appointment. Confirmation should also be received that the supervisor is okay with personal travel exceeding the dates related to attending the conference. 

2A) The accountant has the discretion to accept an after-travel price comparison as documentation for reasonable cost incurred. The accountant could then make a rationale for approving the reimbursement.

2B) The accountant could use their discretion to not accept an after-travel price comparison. The accountant should forward the matter up the approval chain to their department head, as a failure to properly document the reimbursement request. The department head should consult with the Chief Financial Manager (CFM) about how to best handle the situation.

3A) The accountant from 2A approves the expense reimbursement.

3B) The department head and CFM disagree with the accountant from 2B. Approvers from the relevant department are asked to accept an after-travel price comparison, adjust where necessary, and approve the reimbursement.

3C) The department head and CFM agree with the accountant from 2B. A financial hardship appeal is made and agreed to, which results in the expense not being charged to a sponsored funding source and recorded as taxable for the traveler.

3D) The department head and CFM agree with the accountant from 2B. The entire reimbursement is denied.

Is this a fair assessment of the outcomes for the scenario that initiated this post?

======================================================================================================================================

Personal soapbox: I appreciate that the position from your reply gives the reviewing accountant discretion to decide whether proper documentation has been submitted. I would also argue that this creates a very apparent issue with how policy is fairly applied. In one scenario, the reviewing account has no problems receiving an after-travel document showing the  incurred cost was reasonable, and the traveler is then quickly reimbursed. In another hypothetical, the expense is not allowed on the PI's grant and recorded as a taxable expense. Whether a traveler stands to lose a significant amount of money or favor with their PI for possibly making a documentation mistake, is purely at the discretion of their assigned expense reviewer and their greater administrative culture. Now this is not anything truly new. These matters have always hinged on a certain level of discretion and deliberation. However, the big difference is that the policy user is not informed at all about the discretion the reviewing unit apparently has or their general acceptance of after-travel comparisons.

Thanks again for taking the time to review and respond to the discussion posts. 

Best,

Andrew E. Carlson

[Carrie Meyer]

I love these discussions--this is how policy gets clarified or updated and shows when the business of the place has outpaced policy, etc.

I would say yes, I've seen your points reflect policy advice given to other units by the policy owner and other leaders. 

For 2A, I'd add that the accountant should be telling the person "this time & not again"--make sure they know these comparisons have to be done when they book and not later.

For 2B, the accountant should consult with the CFM either before or at the same time they're escalating to a department head, for this kind of situation. It's best not to have your CFM "blindsided" by a department head coming to talk about the situation when they easily could have been looped in earlier. Having the CFM conversation before escalating to the department head might yield more support for your decision or cause the CFM to share mitigating circumstances you may not have been aware of.

For 3C, the financial hardship case...remember that a denial can be partial, too. If there's reasonable confidence in what the trip would have cost without the personal travel combined (maybe others have taken the same trip or you can see future rates for the same kind of trip and they're comparable to a point), you could return or ask the traveler to pull the reimbursement request back and remove part of the amount claimed.

There's an up-front component that could be added where someone is orienting new people or letting existing students/faculty/staff know before they go what the general guidelines are (get those price comparisons...). Where possible, get people who are employees/on payroll a Travel Card. That way you'll have a chance of seeing some of these airfares before the trip takes place.

[Andrew Carlson]

Carrie,

These are all very good points. I could have written all day to nail every detail and scenario, so the top level information was described in my previous post.

One point of clarification for 2B, are you referring to the CFM with oversight authority over the relevant RRC, or the local finance manager that likely oversees the reviewing accountant? I am only referencing the CFM as described in the policy definitions in my previous posts. I assume that the accountant and finance manager would discuss this matter before escalation to the department head occurs. Great point to clarify that the accountant should discuss denying expenses with their local level administration before escalating matters.

Thanks again for your posts! Really helps me better understand my options. 

Best!

[Rachel Veenstra]

Clear language stating that a price comparison is required, along with language to explain what an acceptable price comparison would look like, would be most helpful.  While departmentally we stress the need for a price comparison, it's actually not part of policy.  If it is part of policy, I missed it.

Combined Business and Personal Travel

Travelers must remove non-business related expenses before submitting a reimbursement request, when they combine personal and business travel. Reimbursement for airfare may not exceed the lowest available cost of a direct or uninterrupted route. If the traveler uses an indirect route or interrupts travel for personal convenience, any additional expenses incurred are the sole responsibility of the traveler and should be documented.

I really appreciate the thoughtful discussion on this point.

[Andrew Carlson]

I fully agree! I swear language about documenting the lowest cost incurred at the time of purchase used to be somewhere within policy, an appendix, or the FAQ. There definitely is no reference to it at the time of writing this response. Was this removed with an update to the travel policy webpage? Legitimately asking if anyone can confirm with an older version of the policy or show where the relevant language is today.

[Andrew Carlson]

I'm the incorrect one. I checked the internet archives and it appears that language about price comparison has never been in the official travel policy as long as I have worked at the University. The topic is generally address in the related FAQ. I must have just wrongfully remembered the unofficial record about price comparisons as official policy language.

25. The conference ends on Friday, can I stay over through Saturday night to take advantage of a cheaper airfare?

If all associated trip costs (meals, lodging, transportation, etc.) for a Saturday night stay are lower than the trip cost to return on Friday, than yes. Include documentation with the Expense Report comparing the costs and highlight the savings.

Getting back to the original post, I still think there's a concern surrounding whether this is a legitimate expense issue or a failure to properly document the expense. I know that there is a point when the personal travel exceeds being a legitimate business purpose based on the length of time and the individual traveling. Again, I argue that determining that break point is likely above a reviewing accountant's pay grade.