The board is not bending the rules. The board sets the rules. They can decide whether to decide on each visa reimbursement individually or to set a policy or to ask the travel committee to set a policy. They can also as a group decide on any exceptions.It's perfectly reasonable for them to decide on one visa reimbursement individually before there is a policy if for some reason they are not ready to decide on the policy. Moving forward, regardless of the policy, there might be good reasons to handle cases as exceptions.There already was a rule in place that visa fees will not be reimbursed. Board *still* hasn't unambiguously said that my case was unexceptional (when I had applied to visa reimbursement in 2013) as compared to Deigo's in 2014. I only wanted the board to arrive at a conclusive decision about visa reimbursements before it dispersed out reimbursements. It must have brought the new policies in action and then acted according to them (whether they chose to reimburse visas prior to the policy or not).If board can treat cases as "exceptions", then it has and might favor members of the community who are senior, experienced. What good is a rule then? What good is a rule if there is meritocracy in deciding how a rule is enforced?