Re: subs

On 7 Jan, 22:41, "Grant Mitchell" <grjm...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

snippety do dahs

What about the instance when Mr Tarquin Farquaharson wishes to
contribute 22 pork chops, 25lb of potatoes and a wheelbarrow of
sprouts?

If Mr Farquaharson can afford to pay the £30/term fee, then that's what
we insist on.  Other options only come into play if they can't afford to pay
in the normal way.  That being the case, we waive the fee - but any
contribution the parent is willing and able to make, whether that
is in money, goods, assistance with fundraising etc is gratefully accepted.
In reality, we would of course buy the pork chops, potatoes and sprouts
from Mr Farquaharson at the going market rate, he would then donate the
cash back to us so that we could claim gift aid (assuming he paid sufficient
tax)!


I'd do exactly the same.


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?

We don't insist, or necessarily even expect.  We certainly encourage.

I would encourage.

And I would expect!

In the past I have been involved in waiving subs for hard-up members.
When I was a SL, the parents of one kid I had to almost force a waiver
on to them as they were of the 'reluctant to accept charity' type.
They were prepared to pull their son from the troop if they couldn't
pay. Which they couldn't at the time because dad (low-paid worker) had
just been made redundant. When I said that I would get the funds from
the contingency account they became even more reluctant because they
thought that others would know their predicament. (The policy in that
group at that time was for the leader to appeal for support to the GEC
on behalf of 'a young person' from their section - no names are
involved in that part of the process. The GEC always rubber-stamped
the process.) In the end a sponsor stepped forward and secretly paid
all the subs and other fees for the kid. The family was the first to
turn up to help wih HQ jobs and fundraisers. 6 months later his dad
got a job and a month later he came to me with a cheque for all
outstanding money. I told him to keep it as the matter was closed. He
insisted on paying. The SL 'lost' the cheque. The kid became one of
the leading scouts in the troop as I knew he would be; that's why I
sponsored him.(He's a high-flyer at uni right now.)

I had another kid at roughly the same time who for a few months was
always late paying his subs. His mum (one-parent family) came to me
and asked for a reduction or if she could pay in arrears. I said I'd
sort out a waiver, which I did. His attendance at meetings and on
activities vastly improved but he didn't appear at any fund-raiser, HQ
support activity, or even bring a packet of biscuits or help with the
teas at the AGM. After the summer break his attendance went down again
and he soon disappeared. About £100 wasted imo. I saw his mum in the
queue at the shop some months later. She didn't say a word, just
popped her whisky in the bag and left.

Win some, lose some.


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.

That will be me then!

You got it in one! Well done!

Would you not expect others who don't pay subs to offer something
'similar'?

We would encourage in each case for everyone to offer what they could,
in whatever form that took.   I can, however, imagine (although I've never
had to address) a situation where perhaps a single parent, doing two jobs on
minimum wage to support four children, would struggle to make a contribution
either in money, goods or time.

There is always time! In most of the groups I've been in we would
always have at least one or two family-friendly fund-raisers or supprt
activties each year - e.g. a sponsored walk or kite-flying or family-
run HQ spring clean - and there's always need for a helping hand with
the tea and biscuits at the AGM or some such like event.

I would expect even a hard-pressed family to make some time to lend
their support.

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?

In principle, yes.  Although I can't think of a situation where it has
arisen.

I think in principle we'd all like to say yes, but reality might be
totally different. Finances don't come from a bottom-less piggy bank.

As I said, we are fortunate to be in a relatively affluent area.  But I see
the
potential problem you're driving at....

Yes. Once we become too involved and start acting as a social service
provider then, imo, we start to run into problems.

What I like to think I can always do is to be able to provide at least
the basic scouting opportunties. Certainly we'd financially support
someone to go on camp to Doncaster or Scunthorpe, but likely have to
say no to camp in the Dordogne or Sweden.

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?

The ultimate limit of this hypothesis is along the lines of a large
proportion
of the Group being unable to afford a particularly expensive camp - perhaps
not dissimilar to a Jamboree Unit.  With good planning, a few fundraisers
can
be arranged and incorporated into the programme (rather than competing
with it).  There would obviously be different ways of approaching this - one
option being to notionally divide the proceeds of a fundraising event only
between the "accounts" of those helping with the event - so effectively
Scouts / parents get a choice as to whether to help fundraising or
contribute hard cash.

Agreed.

The ultimate limit is that there is a limit, however, much we don't
want one to exist!

Funds are not limitless. Fund-raisers can't always bring in sufficient
funds. Fund-raisers can get in the way of programmes (and can't always
be incorporated). We can only do our best.



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?

Fortunately I have never had to consider that, and I hope I never have to
because it's a very difficult one.  In principle, I'd like to think we would
be
able to offer financial support as much as possible, using fundraising to
the
extent that it wasn't reasonable for those who can pay to subsidise those
who
can't.


I share the same ideals.

I think we also share the reality that those ideals can't be
guaranteed.

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!

I agree.  Within my Group, we have considered and adopted a policy that
fits all the circumstances we have ever encountered or can reasonably
expect in the near future.  That isn't to say there aren't other conceivable
circumstances that apply to other Groups (or to us in the future) when we
would have to reconsider our position.

Agreed.

I think it's important to have a policy or to at least have given some
thought to the possibility of what such a policy should be.

GAGS
.