I'm curious as to whether this is a common practice...
For a certain Cadet Programs activity, Cadets are being charged an activity fee of $50, which includes the hotel stay of several nights, food, and all other activity expenses.
SMs who attend (instructors/staff) are required to pay full price for the hotel, food, and everything else, resulting in a total of a few hundred dollars.
A SM is/was going to drive some Cadets to the activity and ultimately stay at the activity as staff so as to drive them back home. Several SMs who were thinking about driving are complaining that they were under the impression of it being only $50 as the Ops Order did not specify Cadet vs SM activity cost. To be honest, $50 is one thing and isn't so bad, but when the cost surges beyond $200 or $300(+), I can understand the concern.
Any thoughts? Is this a common practice to charge substantially more like this? In my experience, staff rates are usually in the neighborhood of (or the same as) the participant fee. It almost seems like a slap in the face to SMs trying to help the Cadets by driving them or staffing an event- as was actually mentioned to me recently.
Its not everywhere, NBB this year cost the cadets $300 and the SM's $100.... *shrug* ???
Sometimes activities do subsidize cadet participants so that their cost is less, but this should definitely be spelled out up front.
I have actually experience this in the opposite... Encampment around here usually cost the cadets a little more then the seniors. and most activities are slightly more expensive for the cadets too. The reason I thought that this was is because senior members GENERALLY have to take off from work to attend and are usually a head of household or provider for the family. Cadets are usually dependents of their parents and while they may still have jobs, they are not the head of household.
Staff is the same. I am not sure why sometimes cadets staff gets to pay less, but it happens.
When I have served as activity officer, i generally try to keep the fee's as low as possible and to have all participants pay the same amount. I have even gone as far as inviting cadets parents and siblings to the event, as well as my fiancee and family so I could get a bigger group discount to make it cheaper for everyone.
If the activity involves food, lodging, or supplies i think it is reasonable for all participants, cadet or senior, to pay for the actual cost of the event. Tickets to a park or event, model rocket parts, dinner or breakfast supplies..... I also think that if a cadet or senior wants to bring their own food to a bivouac or campout they should have the cost of food removed from their activity fee if possible, although this is not always possible.
When ever we plan an activity, we try to do what we can to minimize the cost for all involved. When possible, the use of military facilities or school gyms. It may not always be the most lavish accommodations, but for the most part, it is very inexpensive or free.
The money I invested in that air mattress has payed for itself 100 times over! ;D
Several SMs have been discussing this topic locally and many of the points mentioned have been raised. For most SMs, we are taking off from work and realistically going out of our way to help with the activity. We are willing to do it because we believe in the program and in helping the Cadets, but when the cost is a HUGE difference like this for a SM to attend, it either makes it financially impossible to attend or at least makes us think twice about attending.
Supposedly, the $50 activity cost for Cadets is largely subsidized by region funds so that theoretically more Cadets could attend. Fair enough, but what about the SMs who need to attend?
Also, it wasn't covered in the Ops Order that states "Cost this year will be $50.00 per person" and now we have Cadets planning to ride in a van that is supposed to be driven by a SM who just recently learned of it costing a few hundred dollars instead of the $50 for him to attend- all just days before the event. Obviously, the SM isn't happy about this.
This is turning out to be a messy situation, and one that is souring a lot of people into not wanting to participate in activities, not to mention the current situation of what to do about the activity only days away and the Cadets needing transportation.
One of the BSA's tricks has always been to pay the way of the adult leaders by the number of scouts they brought with them.
Summer Camp for example....10 scouts=1 adult leader free of charge.
It helps increase the number of scouts participating and insures that units brough alonge enough leaders to ride hurd on them.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 31, 2010, 04:59:48 PM
One of the BSA's tricks has always been to pay the way of the adult leaders by the number of scouts they brought with them.
Summer Camp for example....10 scouts=1 adult leader free of charge.
It helps increase the number of scouts participating and insures that units brough alonge enough leaders to ride hurd on them.
Exactly. Considering that SMs are needed to attend, by price gouging the SM, it only hurts the Cadets as that SM then may not be able to attend to drive them, etc.
Nobody has brought up the fact that the SMs are already subsidizing cadets just by being members. Our dues are higher and they pay for things like this. So to charge SMs more for an activity is double dipping and is dishonest IMO.
Quote from: davidsinn on August 31, 2010, 05:58:04 PM
Nobody has brought up the fact that the SMs are already subsidizing cadets just by being members. Our dues are higher and they pay for things like this. So to charge SMs more for an activity is double dipping and is dishonest IMO.
Usually, when staff gives their time and talents, they get a break, not the other way around.
If the SMs aren't subsidizing the cadets, and region is, then the costs to SMs should be posted.
I wish it was like the ATC... then the seniors would be getting paid to show up, and we would instead be complaining about not being allotted enough paid days.
Okay, so charge the cadets, who may or may not have any form of stable income, hundreds of dollars for an activity, and only charge SMs (the folks who likely have a steady income) the 50.
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on August 31, 2010, 07:43:21 PM
Okay, so charge the cadets, who may or may not have any form of stable income, hundreds of dollars for an activity, and only charge SMs (the folks who likely have a steady income) the 50.
I'm not necessarily saying we should charge the SMs less, but rather that we should be charged the same.
That, I would agree with.
All activities have a fixed cost to participate, especially encampments and other in-residence situations. With few exceptions everyone
should cover their costs.
Some wings, as well as common business sense, dictate that on-going activities build a surplus to account for inconsistent attendance, fuel fluctuations, and unforeseen circumstances. In most cases the people garnering the opportunity would pay a small extra amount to cover those as well as shared expenses like offices supplies, capital expenses (printers, flags, etc.), awards and the like. For encampments it would be the cadets, for flight training the students. Instructors, TACs, staff, etc., should cover their meals and billeting, but not the extras that others are paying for the opportunity.
There will always be members who can't afford "x", and those people need to be handled on a 1-off basis. You don't scale your budget based on an assumption a few needy member will have issues, because with very few exceptions activities are self-supporting and receive no subsidies from outside.
We usually only charge senior members for what they personally consume.
In other words, we split out things like food, billeting, and gas.
From things like instructional materials.
So suppose we're doing a "rocket retreat" (a fairly regularly held event at my squadron)
Seniors will be counted in on the price of food, since they are, after all, eating it.
However, the senior member that is instructing or even just being 'present' as a chaperone is not charged for any portion of the rockets, engines, photocopies, etc. --unless they wish to participate in the rocketry program, building their own stuff. (incidentally in cases like this, I for example, bring my own kit, which I procured on my own, and is usually more advanced, and more expensive than what the cadets are doing)
This condition results in cadets paying charges that are higher than seniors.
But I think it's perfectly reasonable.
--especially when you factor in that something like a rocket retreat, I will probably sponsor a cadet who can't afford it, to attend, out of my pocket.
I think the major beef here is that the costs were not advertised properly to the Senior Membership.
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on August 31, 2010, 09:43:14 PM
I think the major beef here is that the costs were not advertised properly to the Senior Membership.
Agreed.
There are two main issues:
1) General Issue: SMs having to pay substantially more.
2) Specific Issue: After a SM agreed to drive the Cadets, and the Cadets' applications being based on having this transportation, it was discovered that the SMs have to pay substantially more than the Ops Order dictates. Thus, the SM is essentially in a tough spot as the Cadets are all depending on him to drive, but he wasn't expecting to pay such a high cost when the original plans were made.
I would think they have 4 cadets per room verses the senior member having their own room. This is a common practice. If the seniors were willing to room with someone, the room rate would go down.
Quote from: Ohioguard on August 31, 2010, 10:17:34 PM
I would think they have 4 cadets per room verses the senior member having their own room. This is a common practice. If the seniors were willing to room with someone, the room rate would go down.
From what I understand, some SMs are willing to room together, but (at best) this only brings it down somewhat and still not in the range of the rate Cadets are being charged.
Quote from: DBlair on August 31, 2010, 10:04:43 PM
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on August 31, 2010, 09:43:14 PM
I think the major beef here is that the costs were not advertised properly to the Senior Membership.
Agreed.
There are two main issues:
1) General Issue: SMs having to pay substantially more.
2) Specific Issue: After a SM agreed to drive the Cadets, and the Cadets' applications being based on having this transportation, it was discovered that the SMs have to pay substantially more than the Ops Order dictates. Thus, the SM is essentially in a tough spot as the Cadets are all depending on him to drive, but he wasn't expecting to pay such a high cost when the original plans were made.
Sounds like those cadets need to pony up a few bucks to cover the transport costs, or get mom and dad to drive them - there are no free rides.
With that said, this is clearly nothing more than a communication issue, or a failure of the activity director to send the provide the proper costing information. I have no time for the "seniors are already taking time off work, blah, blah, blah..." discussions - that's when CAP happens, either you can play or you can't, but we're all in the same boat.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 31, 2010, 10:38:49 PM
Quote from: DBlair on August 31, 2010, 10:04:43 PM
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on August 31, 2010, 09:43:14 PM
I think the major beef here is that the costs were not advertised properly to the Senior Membership.
Agreed.
There are two main issues:
1) General Issue: SMs having to pay substantially more.
2) Specific Issue: After a SM agreed to drive the Cadets, and the Cadets' applications being based on having this transportation, it was discovered that the SMs have to pay substantially more than the Ops Order dictates. Thus, the SM is essentially in a tough spot as the Cadets are all depending on him to drive, but he wasn't expecting to pay such a high cost when the original plans were made.
Sounds like those cadets need to pony up a few bucks to cover the transport costs, or get mom and dad to drive them - there are no free rides.
With that said, this is clearly nothing more than a communication issue, or a failure of the activity director to send the provide the proper costing information. I have no time for the "seniors are already taking time off work, blah, blah, blah..." discussions - that's when CAP happens, either you can play or you can't, but we're all in the same boat.
The Cadets are already being made to split the cost of gas to the activity, that isn't really the issue as they are fine with that.
Rather, the concern is how much the SM has to personally pay out of pocket to attend. The ops order stated "Cost this year will be $50.00 per person" but the Activity Director is stating this was only for Cadets (due to available funds lowering cost) and that SMs have to pay the full amount for their own hotel, food, etc.
Due to the distance, it doesn't seem logical for the SM to drive several hours each way just to then do it again a few days later (total of 4 trips), so realistically, the SM would have to attend.
I just feel that we are going to sour a good SM by imposing this high cost *after* he was locked in to driving the Cadets, rather than the rate on the ops order as was expected.
At a meeting tonight, members suggested this as a solution...
Since the Cadets are already contributing money for gas, perhaps they can add a bit more to help cover the SM's cost of attendance.
Is there anything prohibitive against this?
Quote from: DBlair on September 01, 2010, 03:07:17 AM
At a meeting tonight, members suggested this as a solution...
Since the Cadets are already contributing money for gas, perhaps they can add a bit more to help cover the SM's cost of attendance.
Is there anything prohibitive against this?
For most cadets, it's most likely the parents money. If they don't like it, they can drive the cadets...like my parents did until I could drive myself. Parent carpool also makes sense. One parent takes them, another takes them back. I had that working with a fellow cadet/friend for about three years before finally turning 16. The burden on his parents became easier, since for six months it was only them driving him, and was easier on my parents, since they would alternate weeks for meetings and do pick up/drop off for activities.
Never heard of it being done where I come from. Usually, when our squadron conducts an activity, usually for ES, we actually don't charge attendees anything, seeing how you can reserve a campsite for free and GTMs are supposed to carry enough gear and supplies to last through a weekend. ;)
When it comes to things such as encampments, it's usually the exact same price for both around here. Senior Members take the same amount of sleeping space, only slightly if any more food, etc. as a cadet. On the other hand, the logic behind increased prices could be that most adults have jobs, and can there afford more expenses. However, even for an encampment, cadets or seniors, anything over 200 clams is outrageous, and way too much to expect of volunteers with families. >:(
I've never heard of a Region setting a fixed cost for encampments and frankly I can't see how one could as a practical matter.
Each Wing has a unique set of logistical capabilities to put an encampment on. One Wing might be able to secure free .mil dormitories and cheap food while another Wing might be lucky to rent some college dorms and have to have meals catered in at $5/ head per meal. How any Region could hard set cadet encampment fees arbitrarily, especially a cost that low and expect results I dunno. Kansas has a Winter encampment and I believe they get the barracks free of charge. They couldn't afford to feed all the kids alone on $50/cadet and food costs out here are far cheaper than most.
Most all of the encampments I've been to have charged the Seniors less because of the reasons already stated, although I don't believe the whole cost to have seniors there should ride on the cadet's shoulders. Senior member costs should cover meals and lodging, if the encampment has to rent barracks/dormitory space. Cadet encampment costs should bear their own meals, lodging and all other expenses.
Most "Cadet Activities" I go to ... I'm going to support the cadets... Personally, If i have to take time off from work, it bothers me to have to pay the same or more then other cadets.
I gave feedback several ways... I let the appropriate people know how I felt... and didn't assist with things that didnt feel right... I have not noticed SMs being charged more then cadets at an encampment in ND since... (not that I monitor it)
I've never seen a SM/Staff price more than the event price here in CAWG. That would raise my ire as well. At least it would if there were not an explanation affixed, such as "the cadet primary attendance prices are being offset by an (anonymous) (or whatever) contribution from (such and such)" and the set cost otherwise wasn't something out of the normal range for what we're getting anyway.