Travel costs to CISV events are unfairly unequal. Cost sharing could solve that problem.
During my short visit at this year's European Trustee Gathering (ETG), the topic of variable travel costs came up once again. Does it make sense to host a meeting in central Europe, so that travel costs overall are cheaper? Does a rotational scheme (meeting takes place somewhere else every year) as applied to ETG, AIM, etc really even out the travel costs in the long run? Shouldn't a cost sharing system, as used by NAs like Canada (as far as I know) be applied, instead?
I fiddled around with an Excel file for a while, to come up with a solution that adapts the participation fee in a way, that people with high travel costs would have to pay less participation and vice versa. It's not as easy as it sounds, because in the end the participation fees will still need to cover the expenses, while nobody should be payed out any money (and I'm no freakin' math genius to turn these criteria into a wonder formula).
Check out the Excel file with my suggested Balcony System for Cost Sharing, short BaSCoS: BaSCoS.xls.
Basically, all you have to do, is a) enter the participation fee that you would take, if everybody had to pay the same b) fill in the maximum fee participants with low or no travel expenses should pay and c) enter all the participants individual travel costs. A little adaption to the maximum fee may be necessary, if the final fee turns out to be negative for some - meaning you would have to pay out money to those with high travel costs, which (I guess) should be avoided. In the end the spreadsheet will tell the host how much participation fee each individual participant will have to pay, so that costs overall are more fairly distributed.
By adapting the participation fee according to travel expenses no extra money transfers are necessary. The system could - in theory - be applied to everything from national JB minicamps to national board meetings.
During my short visit at this year's European Trustee Gathering (ETG), the topic of variable travel costs came up once again. Does it make sense to host a meeting in central Europe, so that travel costs overall are cheaper? Does a rotational scheme (meeting takes place somewhere else every year) as applied to ETG, AIM, etc really even out the travel costs in the long run? Shouldn't a cost sharing system, as used by NAs like Canada (as far as I know) be applied, instead?
I fiddled around with an Excel file for a while, to come up with a solution that adapts the participation fee in a way, that people with high travel costs would have to pay less participation and vice versa. It's not as easy as it sounds, because in the end the participation fees will still need to cover the expenses, while nobody should be payed out any money (and I'm no freakin' math genius to turn these criteria into a wonder formula).Check out the Excel file with my suggested Balcony System for Cost Sharing, short BaSCoS: BaSCoS.xls.
Basically, all you have to do, is a) enter the participation fee that you would take, if everybody had to pay the same b) fill in the maximum fee participants with low or no travel expenses should pay and c) enter all the participants individual travel costs. A little adaption to the maximum fee may be necessary, if the final fee turns out to be negative for some - meaning you would have to pay out money to those with high travel costs, which (I guess) should be avoided. In the end the spreadsheet will tell the host how much participation fee each individual participant will have to pay, so that costs overall are more fairly distributed.
By adapting the participation fee according to travel expenses no extra money transfers are necessary. The system could - in theory - be applied to everything from national JB minicamps to national board meetings.
