Re: subs
- From: GAGS <gags.nw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:38:56 -0800 (PST)
On 6 Jan, 20:04, "Grant Mitchell" <grjm...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 5 Jan, 22:27, "Grant Mitchell" <grjm...@xxxxxxx> wrote:Sorry, I should have been clearer.
Not a problem. I knew what you meant. I'm probing....
If someone genuinely can't afford to pay
anything, then we waive the whole fee. Other parents take the view they
would
rather feel they've contributed something rather than accepting our
charity - so
we make a suggested amount.
But that's still......okay never mind!
What about the instance when Mr Tarquin Farquaharson wishes to
contribute 22 pork chops, 25lb of potatoes and a wheelbarrow of
sprouts?
Let me spell it out just in case some has a pop at me for being
obtuse! :-)
When you grant a waiver do you expect - maybe even insist, however
politely - that some form of contribution is made. As I intimate
above, a contribution towards subs does not necessarily have to be in
£ & p, does it?
Don't forget I think I know someone in your group who doesn't pay any
subs and attends meetings and activities. And I definitely know what
their 'contribution' is.
Would you not expect others who don't pay subs to offer something
'similar'?
We do the same on camps (and this has happened more commonly). Parents
who can't afford the whole camp fee might well be happy paying a notional
fee
just to cover the cost of food.
Aha a more interesting slant to all this!
(NB! I'm being thought provoking here as Ewan said. I'm not trying to
be awkward or offensive.)
So if it's our duty to show help, compassion and support and not to
hinder anyone based on financial considerations, does this have a
limit? Should it be extended so that our policies have a social
service aspect?
I'm going to guess your answer is no. That's because you recognise
that if someone on camp has their food paid for from funds (which have
come from those able to pay) then not only will they not be at a
disadvantage, they will be at an advantage over the others. (I will
assume that those kids receiving support are not feral kids living on
the street with not a penny in their pockets and no food on their
plates.)
So let's go a tadge further.
Same kid signs up for next month's camp and the one after that, plus
the annual camp to France last week in July. Is your approach the
same?
Do you think you may get into a position where you'll maybe have to
run a fundraiser? Your subs funds are not limitless. How much will
those who can pay be willing to pay?
Are you able to run fundraisers? Can you raise what's needed in as few
as possible? Or would it mean having to do many which might impact on
the troop programme?
Would you ever consider saying in these circumstances that support
only goes as far as the kid being able to access and participate in a
basic/common/fundamental programme? Does al ine have to be drawn? Who/
what governs where that's drawn, if one is needed?
What happens if the policy has to be extended to three, four, five,
six, seven......more kids?
So going all the way back to Bills OP!
I hope you can see why there are a 1001 ways and that one needs to
think very deeply and widely and to be very clear on what you're
trying to do and where there may have to be boundaries.
It is not easy!
GAGS
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: subs
- From: Grant Mitchell
- Re: subs
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: subs
- Next by Date: Re: Capitation?
- Previous by thread: Re: subs
- Next by thread: Re: subs
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
