Re: subs
- From: "Ewan Scott" <ewanscott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 08:48:35 -0000
"GAGS" <gags.nw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:83d33c77-d390-443c-801f-024c64de5443@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 5 Jan, 13:17, bill <eightet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We're trying to sort out how better to collect subs from scouts and
their parents.
There are a 1001 ways; pick one and JFDI.
Snip thought provoking post from GAGS
There are a few issues here, as I see this.
1/ You have kids paying when they come, and only when they come.
2/ You have kids who cannot afford to pay
3/ You have kids who pay in full and can afford it
4/ You have kids who pay in full who may have money troubles at home.
To my way of thinking 1/ is unacceptable. It is not playing the game. It
shows a lack of committment and a lack of understanding. If these kids can
afford to pay, they pay in full same as the rest and if they elect only to
come to the meetings where they are doing only what they are interested in,
then that's their loss. (Curiously, we don't publish a detailed programme of
what we are doing and we rarely tell them from one week to the next what we
are doing. We went through a spell of certain kids asking what we were doing
next week - we didn't tell them. Turned out it was their parents who were
deciding whether it was "important enough" for them to come or not.) By only
paying when they come they are being subsidised by the rest of the section.
2/ Well here we have to make judgements whether we like it or not. We have
to ask if the wool is being pulled over our eyes. Is the lack of ability to
pay because there genuinely is no money available (let's call these 2a/).,
or is it a choice to spend disposable income elsewhere - anywhere from
foriegn holidays, through the latest sports gear to going to the pub. If
the former, then there will be signs supporting this case( however, if those
signs and the lifestyle of the parents run counter to each other there may
be cause for concern - ie poverty afflicted kids from a family where mum and
dad lead an affluent life style may give rise to questions of neglect - the
largest type of abuse - not in every case but possibly there is an indicator
to keep an eye open for). If the latter, then we have to decide how much of
a child's welfare we are prepared to aid whilst at the same time subsidising
the lifestyle of the family (let's call these 2b/).,
There may also be issues with honesty, the kid may realise that if he pays
termly, he hands over a cheque. If he pays weekly he gets £2.50 (whatever)
to do with what he likes. It would not be the first kid who took the money
and went elsewhere. We once had a parent come into the hall shouting the
odds because we had allowed her son to walk home on his own. She was
somewhat surprised to learn that he had not paid subs and that we had not
seen him in six weeks. Turned out that he had been getting dropped off and
picked up every week but had gone off and done his own thing instead of
coming to Scouts.
3/ Well no problem, so long as they don' mind subsidising those who can pay
but don't pay...
4/ Ostensibly not a problem as you get your money and the parents have made
a choice. However, these people do present a problem or two. Firstly, these
people who are on very tight budgets may be subsidising 1/ and 2/ and that
is clearly unfair. They are also often the families who will make the
decision to quit on financial grounds rather than accept charity or defraud
others - so retention becomes an issue. I'm sure that there will be other
points to consider.
My view is that 1/ and 2b/ are unacceptable, they are both breaches of Scout
Law and whilst 3/ and 4/ essentially subsidising 1/ and 2 (a and b)/ is
within the ethos of Scouting that does not mean that we should allow the
situation to continue. It is easy to say that a Scout is not a fool, and
that should be justification enough for dropping the non-payers (though not
perhaps those in /2a). However, Baden Powell was very clear in his approach
to this. My copy of SFB is out of reach at the moment, but he says that when
we come upon a fellow down on his luck it is our duty to assist him to
improve his situation. However, should we offer help and that help be taken
and the fellow make no attempt to improve himself, then we should walk on.
So whilst it is entirely wihin our ethos to assist 2a/ who has not got the
funds top pay, it is in fact contrary to Scouting ethos to assist 1/ and 2b/
for more than a short period.
Setting aside the funding question, there is in many cases another aspect to
this non-payment/ no show issue. That of its impact upon the waiting lists.
If we have sections with waiting lists then those who are "regular" no shows
( you know the ones that I mean), or who do not pay subs, are keeping other
young people who may well be more committed out of the Group. They may be
denying Scouting to others who genuinely want to be Scouts.
My rule, and it is a local rule specific to the Group, is that all members
will pay subs in full within three weeks of the invoice being issued ( or
talk to us about an extension). Any member who misses three weeks in a row
without advising us of why will be considered to have resigned their
membership and their place will be granted to the first name on the waiting
list. (This does not resolve the hit and miss attendance from one or two -
buty it has resolved the subs issue - for the first time in many years we
had a 100% payment last term.).
We have not yet had any resignations as a result of this policy and losses
"in section" (as opposed to between sections) have been reduced to some of
the hit and miss kids.
This was an issue that I had played about with for many years before being
forced to come up with a policy when the closure of an adjacent Group
created waiting lists for us, bringing the whole issue to a head.
A corollary to all of this is that our aim (remember PISS) might suggest
that none of the above is an issue and that it is the duty of the Executive
to address funding to enable us to fulfil those aims by the prescibed
method - that the ability or willingness to pay is not an issue that should
impact on young people who wish to be Scouts. (Though I don't believe in
free lunches).
Whatever is done to address this issue, it needs to be clear and fair and
adhered to, as GAGS has already said.
Ewan Scott
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: subs
- From: Paul Symons
- Re: subs
- Prev by Date: Re: subs
- Next by Date: Re: Your Top 5 troop Games
- Previous by thread: Re: subs
- Next by thread: Re: subs
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
