Scouts-L Mail Archive for June of 1999: Re: Raffles
Bruce E. Cobern
Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:29:08 -0400
From: H. Rice Brewer, Sr. <HRiceB@AOL.COM>
To: SCOUTS-L@LISTSERV.TCU.EDU <SCOUTS-L@LISTSERV.TCU.EDU>
Date: Thursday, June 10, 1999 12:30 PM
>While two equally competent persons may have differing opinions as to
>or not a raffle constitutes gambling, the quote from
>http://fsd.org/unitfinance/policy.asp is as follows:
>"Value received for money spent." By "value", I assume that BSA means
>monetary value, not a warm fuzzy.
>That seems to settle the issue, at least in my mind.
I agree, but I'm in one of those pot stirring moods, SOOOO. . .
If it is important that any time Scouting is associated with fundraising
(at least at the unit level) value be received for the payer's money,
then how does the BSA and its local councils justify all of their
fundraising efforts, to wit:
The annual FOS campaign which is an outright cash solicitation. I
understand that one reason they don't want units to solicit cash is
because of potential interference with their fundraising. (I don't buy
that, but I understand it.) But how does putting your hand out for a
contribution provide value for the money? If someone from council can
justify the "benefit" received for a cash contribution (and there is
one, even if it IS just a warm fuzzy), then why don't they believe units
could do the same?
And probably even more problematically, how do they justify
council/district hike-a-thons, bowl-a-thons, etc. where the level of
contribution is tied to the performance by someone of a specific action.
Clearly the donor gets no more "benefit" when the Scout bowls 120 than
when he bowls 60, so why is the 120 worth twice as much? It is my
understanding that "-a-thons" would not be appropriate under the value
for money banner, so why can councils and districts to them?
Curious minds might or might not want to know. :-)
Bruce E. Cobern