Modify the Code of Ethics handle Delegate reimbursement more similarly to the Travel Reimbursement Policy

[Samuel-Baird]

While the Code of Ethics (COE) and the WCA Travel Reimbursement Policy (TRP) both cover aspects of staff being reimbursed for travel, the TRP is focused on Delegates being reimbursed by the WCA, while the CoE deals with Delegates being refunded using other funds (usually registration fees).

The TRP is fairly strict and specific, making travel reimbursements very regulated, which makes sense given its paid for by WCA dues. However, the CoE's outline of receiving reimbursement is incredibly vague. I think it is important to hold Delegate reimbursement as outline by the CoE to a higher standard as it is often directly covered by the registration fees of local competitors. The current CoE only outlines the following:

1.2 Reimbursements for Delegates must only include costs incurred as a direct result of
attending the competition as a listed Delegate.
1.2.1 This may include the following expenses:
1.2.1.1 Transportation
1.2.1.2 Accommodation
1.2.1.3 Equipment and Printing

I think that one important thing that could be added to the CoE to better ensure that competition funds are being used appropriately is ensuring that travel of Delegates is necessary, similar to the WCA Travel Reimbursement Policy. The TRP currently states:

Expenses can only be claimed for competitions in which WCA funded travel is absolutely
necessary for the competition to take place. This is ordinarily limited to the Delegate’s travel
expenses to countries or remote regions where suitable WCA Staff are not already available or
for countries who are still developing in speedcubing terms.

Currently, it can be argued Delegates can use competition fees to travel to competitions that already have an 'adequate number of Delegates' to function. For example, if my local community in Utah held our state championship with a limit of 200 competitors then I could argue that flying in 10 Delegate friends from out of state to "Delegate" is a justifiable reimbursement under the CoE. Essentially, I would be shifting the financial burdens of the Delegates over to the competitors, when in reality we already have 3 local delegates and it would probably be hard to justify more than 6 or 7 Delegates being necessary for a competition of this size to run smoothly without overburdening Delegates.

This could of course be categorized as a violating of the CoE under an abuse of power for "Monetary benefit", but it would be nice to clarify as it is all very much subjective at the moment.

It could also be beneficial for the WEC to create a some sort of internal "adequate number of Delegates for a competition with X competitors" metrics using existing data to help them make judgement calls.

I think that it could also be good to clarify some other restrictions like the TRP does. For example, the TRP covers how cases of Delegates sharing lodging with non-WCA staff should be handled by having non-staff pair their portion, states that alcohol can't be covered as a food expense, and asks Delegates to consider using cheaper forms of transportation when possible.

[EdHollingdale]

I would be against having such restrictions in the CoE, these things can be highly variable based on costs in a given region, demographics of competitions, relative experience levels of delegates, the process of how competitions are run, and tax laws.

Speedcubing Australia Inc already has an expenses policy which is used for all competitions in the region that covers things like how many delegates should be funded for a given number of competitors, how funded delegates are selected, what travel expenses will be covered and the approval process, lunch budgets, and payment mechanisms. It has taken us ~4 years and many iterations to get the policy to where it is - which is why I am very against having a blanket level directive from the WCA.

Region specific organisations should have frank discussions on their boards/committees and draft a set of procedures appropriate for their region and bound by the high level rules from the CoE. If they want to use the WCA's policy then that could be a good starting point, although they will quickly find that the WCA's allowances for certain things are a lot more generous than a lot of Delegates are used to getting.

I also think the 'adequate number of delegates' is a preference thing - in Australia we have a hard working bunch of Delegates so we are usually comfortable having slightly more delegates than the absolute minimum needed to make the competition run (plus it gives protection for if flights are cancelled, people get sick etc). There are also cases where priorities for travel funding in a region may not be focused on just the one competition (e.g. paying to send an extra experienced delegate to an area so they can spend more time focused on training a new set of organisers or trainee delegates).

[mirandapedro]

I also agree that trying to set strict cost/reimbursement rules from the top down is inefficient and would probably be unable to account for all the regions' differences and needs. The ROs/local Delegates should manage it, and the WCA/WEC should oversee any abuses.

…

On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 2:39 PM Edward Hollingdale ***@***.***> wrote: I would be against having such restrictions in the CoE, these things can be highly variable based on costs in a given region, demographics of competitions, relative experience levels of delegates, the process of how competitions are run, and tax laws. Speedcubing Australia Inc already has an expenses policy which is used for all competitions in the region that covers things like how many delegates should be funded for a given number of competitors, how funded delegates are selected, what travel expenses will be covered and the approval process, lunch budgets, and payment mechanisms. It has taken us ~4 years and many iterations to get the policy to where it is - which is why I am very against having a blanket level directive from the WCA. Region specific organisations should have frank discussions on their /committees and draft a set of procedures appropriate for their region and bound by the high level rules from the CoE. If they want to use the WCA's policy then that could be a good starting point, although they will quickly find that the WCA's allowances for certain things are a lot more generous than a lot of Delegates are used to getting. I also think the '*adequate number of delegates*' is a preference thing - in Australia we have a hard working bunch of Delegates so we are usually comfortable having slightly more delegates than the absolute minimum needed to make the competition run (plus it gives protection for if flights are cancelled, people get sick etc). There are also cases where priorities for travel funding in a region may not be focused on just the one competition (e.g. paying to send an extra experienced delegate to an area so they can spend more time focused on training a new set of organisers or trainee delegates). — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#332 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AM7U3AFIM46O3KJKXBDGDZLXD2PTNANCNFSM6AAAAAAXRA6W2A> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- *Pedro Miranda* Regional Delegate - Brazil Chair of ABRACM (Brazil)

-- * * *World Cube Association*https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/ <https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/> The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipients specified in the message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

[Samuel-Baird]

I would be against having such restrictions in the CoE, these things can be highly variable based on costs in a given region, demographics of competitions, relative experience levels of delegates, the process of how competitions are run, and tax laws.

That's a good point! Do you feel like adding some clauses that give some exceptions to allow for greater flexibility, while still trying to avoid any abuse from Delegates, would be an option?

Also, could you give some specific examples for some of your points? I understand how the relative experience levels of delegates and the process of how competitions are run could affect things, but some of the other points are a bit less clear for me :) thanks!

[EdHollingdale]

Do you feel like adding some clauses that give some exceptions to allow for greater flexibility, while still trying to avoid any abuse from Delegates, would be an option?

I'm not completely against adding anything to the CoE on this, but I'd want it to be very loose. Propose some wording and then I can criticize and refine it 😄

could you give some specific examples for some of your points?

• costs in a given region: accommodation, flights, trains etc are very different in various parts of the world - there isn't a one size fits all of how much you should be paying for delegate travel.
• Demographics: as an example, a competition with a very low average age (e.g. 11, like in Australia), a high proportion of newcomers, a low ratio of experienced competitors who'll be there would require more delegates per competitor than a competition with lots of experienced, older and responsible competitors. A comp expected to have more of the first group might justify sending an additional delegate or two.
• Experience levels: experienced delegates can do the work of say 1.5x less experienced delegates, so you may need to cover more/fewer delegate travel depending on which delegates in particular. Alternatively, if you are centrally managing finances (which all areas should) it is in the best interests of a local regional organisation to sometimes fund slightly less optimal travel so that an experienced delegate can go to a particular area and help train up less experienced ones.
• Competition process: how involved are delegates vs 'organisers' in the running of the comp (e.g. an area where all the organiser does is book the venue and then expects the delegates to just run everything vs one with a highly competent organiser) could mean different delegate to competitor ratios are preferred. There is also how the competition is set up - is it multi-stage (needs more delegates), many small groups, few big groups etc.
• tax laws: jurisdictions have e.g. a rate that can be reimbursed for car travel (fuel) above which it may become a taxable benefit, similarly with e.g. per day food allowance.

As you can see, there isn't a one-size fits all policy. Given the complexity it would be very challenging to have a policy that applied to all regions set by the WCA. Even within a given region there can't necessarily be hard and fast rules, the best practice I think is a semi-independent approval process where approvers would consider the range of factors.