SC - NRW Feast Recap - costing issue

[Jenne Heise]

>  Whatever accounting games one plays with the numbers, it all adds up to
>whether people knew the Royals, et al.  were receiving personal
>enrichment without the expenditure of personal funds.  While not a huge
>sum, and certainly below the radar of Corporate NFP statutes, but a
>meaningful question.  Whether the money is deemed gift from the group
>(which would, methinks, require a group decision before the fact and not
>post hoc) or money from the people paying at the gate, someone is
>gettingpersonal enrichment from SCA funds, the more we spend toward that,
>the closer we get to the black side of the grey area.

Divide that into 2 issues:
1- complementary waivers of feast or site fees for any specific group.
2- provision of special services to a specific group, which cost money.

I'm not sure whether you're arguing about 1, 2, or 1 and 2 together? 

In any case, I think number 2 is a gray issue, since if we never put
anything in the event budget that everybody didn't get/use, I can think of
a lot of activities that would never occur at all at events. At the other
end of the spectrum, excessive catering to any specific group can be not
only an abuse of the event funding but of the event staff.

Comping or reducing people's fees (number 1) is something that should be
undertaken with great hesitiation. It often causes a major hassle for
everyone, and it can really cut into your budgeting. But again, were we to
comprehensively reject the possibility of comping or reducing fees, we
would straightjacket ourselves in terms of getting outside speakers, of
encouraging teachers to come to events, even providing reduced rates to
kids.



- -- 
Jadwiga Zajaczkowa, mka Jennifer Heise	      jenne at mail.browser.net
disclaimer: i speak for no-one and no-one speaks for me.
"It's no use trying to be clever-- we are all clever here; just try
to be kind -- a little kind." F.J. Foakes-Jackson