Sometimes the simplest solutions...

[detlef]

I can't believe it's taken me this long to finally do something like this, but I finally had an idea this morning that I expect will save me a ton of grief.

 

So, we get literally hounded for donations. Seriously, I would say at least 5-10 per month. It's freaking endless and I can only do so much, but of course, everyone thinks their benefit is the single most important thing ever and, "it will be great exposure for the restaurant". Well, today in the paper, there was a letter to the editor from someone so happy that Papa John's decided to donate 20% of their sales on a given day to Wake County schools, that she basically said everyone should get off their butts and go shake down every local business to do the same. Again, "It would be great exposure for all involved". Yeah, well it's also bloody expensive and, as I've mentioned before, a rather unintended consequence of the movement away from government spending.

 

Follow me: We cut spending on social programs and schools. These programs end up short on funds. People start having fund-raisers and fleece every small business in the area for donations. People buy gift certificates in silent auctions for likely less than they're worth. People get $50 worth of food at a place they go to anyway for $40 or something. Why do these go for less than face value? Well, two reasons: One, there are so damned many of these events that attendance can't be great at all of them so there's not much of a bidding war. Two, it's human nature. It's one thing to get caught up in the moment and get into a bidding war over some high ticket item in a live auction, but silent auctions are all about scoring a deal so almost nobody is going to bid $60 for a $50 dinner. So, the school gets money, the people who "supported" the auction get a deal on dinner, and the restaurant foots the bill.

 

The irony is that many people who champion for this reduction in gov't spending claim to be champions of the small businessman. However, in a rather indirect way, they simply pass the buck to these very same small businessmen who get essentially nothing for the effort. After all, it's not so much that you get great exposure from being included in these events, you simply stave off the bad vibes associated with telling some influential society type that you're not going to give her a donation for her pet cause.

 

My biggest beef is that it is so hard to figure out which of these events is worth a damned and which is going to be some lame excuse where basically the people putting on the thing are the only ones bidding and, basically, all end up buying all the swag (again, at a very cheap price), so $500 in total is raised for the local HS band despite the fact that local businesses have donated well over $1000 in goods and services to make that happen. And most of us couldn't give two craps about whether the band gets new unis, we just cave to the society mafia-like pressure of, "you know we eat here all the time..."

 

So I designed a very detailed form for everyone who wants my money to fill out. If you're serious and are running a legit gig, and aren't coming to me at the 11th hour with your hand out, you should have no trouble taking the time to fill it out and bring it back. Since one of the questions is what percentage of the total take makes it to the charity, all the sleaze-balls selling things on behalf of someone else will be weeded out right from the get-go. If it goes well, enough won't get returned so I'll be able to keep my donations budget reasonable without having to turn down any legitimate request for support.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

That sounds like a pretty good idea. If I were going to someone for a donation and they supplied me with a form to fill out I wouldn't think it was an unreasonable request. What other questions besides the donation percentage to charity question are on the form?

[Chief Dick]

The simplest solution is to make it a policy to not donate to anyone.

[Ursa Majoris]

The simplest solution is to make it a policy to not donate to anyone.

Could put a sheet of paper on the restaurant door saying "if you want a donation, f off. Have a nice day."

[SayItAintSoJoe]

Could put a sheet of paper on the restaurant door saying "if you want a donation, f off. Have a nice day."

 

....and make sure to tell all your friends about us.

[chester]

I hate to agree with det, but he's right. The number of fundraisers/auctions/benefits have skyrocketed in the last few years. You have to be selective.

[Ursa Majoris]

I hate to agree with det, but he's right. The number of fundraisers/auctions/benefits have skyrocketed in the last few years. You have to be selective.

I agree. My post above was being facetious.

[detlef]

What other questions besides the donation percentage to charity question are on the form?

If it's an established benefit, how much have you raised the past three years, if it's a new one, how many tickets have you sold and what are your fundraising goals. How are you promoting your event. What are the specific ways in which my business will be promoted within your event. What sort of donation are you asking for. Date, time, pick-up details. If it's a food donation, details about how that will be handled (this is sort of a big deal because if I'm donating food but will not be sending someone from the restaurant to man the table, I don't want my food looking like crap or get effed up in some other manner because that very much undoes any good pub). And, of course, the tax #.

 

Basically, pump them for as much info as I can so I can Josh Gordon out the, "gee, let's have a benefit, we can hit up all our favorite restaurants for gifts and, worst case, it'll be a fun night" from people who are actually taking it seriously.

 

The other thing is that this gives us all the info in one handy place without us having to do the legwork. Handy for tax time.

 

I hate to agree with det, but he's right. The number of fundraisers/auctions/benefits have skyrocketed in the last few years. You have to be selective.

What I ever do to you?

Edited February 6, 2011 by detlef

[SayItAintSoJoe]

If it's an established benefit, how much have you raised the past three years, if it's a new one, how many tickets have you sold and what are your fundraising goals. How are you promoting your event. What are the specific ways in which my business will be promoted within your event. What sort of donation are you asking for. Date, time, pick-up details. If it's a food donation, details about how that will be handled (this is sort of a big deal because if I'm donating food but will not be sending someone from the restaurant to man the table, I don't want my food looking like crap or get effed up in some other manner because that very much undoes any good pub). And, of course, the tax #.

 

Basically, pump them for as much info as I can so I can Josh Gordon out the, "gee, let's have a benefit, we can hit up all our favorite restaurants for gifts and, worst case, it'll be a fun night" from people who are actually taking it seriously.

 

The other thing is that this gives us all the info in one handy place without us having to do the legwork. Handy for tax time.

 

Nothing unreasonable there. I think it will work for you.

[detlef]

Full disclosure, I'm actually the biggest fan of benefits that give a lion's share, but not all the take to the charity. Sometimes it makes sense to pay a little here and there to make the event better and make it easier to give. For instance, you could do some big deal food-oriented gig. If you want to give each and every penny to the cause, now you've got to find a hall who will donate the night and a bunch of chefs who will donate not only their time, but the cost of all the food they bring. That can be a tough sell to get guys to help out. On the other hand, if you reimbursed the chefs for what they spent on food and were willing to pay a drastically reduced rate for the room, now you might have something. The chefs are still giving their time (which may have been their only day off that week), but at least they're not actually paying to work on what was going to be their only day off. And the hall can at least pay for the linens and base staff. I mean, someone's got to pay the Guatemalan kid in the dish pit, he could give two poops about some high society benefit. Dude's got 2 jobs and, if he's not getting paid, he's sleeping.

 

I mean, the 100% of the take bit is all noble and such, but it does ask a lot of people who may already be stretched pretty thin.

[redrumjuice]

So the school system, which gets more and more money to produce absolutely horrible, terrible results... always has their hand out begging for more money while the number of administrators and non-educational positions sky-rocket.

 

The state says we need more money or we can't do our job, so the state adopts a lottery to 'fund public education'. Immediately after, schools still broke, still begging for money.

 

So the state expands casinos, allows vegas style games to 'fund education'.

 

The the school can't pay bus drivers, or they need a new surface in the gym so they do fundraisers.

 

The kids are sent out wh0ring for cash to buy cheerleader uniforms, or some trombone wax, always bitsching they have no money.

 

Then out of the blue, they decide to buy 5,000 middle school kids laptops.

 

They spend $10,000 a year per pupil for the worst gov't daycare imaginable, teaching absolutely nothing, always screaming for more money badgering the local populace daily for more money.

 

I send my kids to private school for $3k a year and give the finger to ANYONE who asks me for a damn cent to fund the abortion that's called public, government education.

[Savage Beatings]

Follow me: We cut spending on social programs and schools. These programs end up short on funds. People start having fund-raisers and fleece every small business in the area for donations.

 

I disagree with the premise that we are cutting spending on social programs and schools. If these programs end up short on funds, it is not because we are not giving them enough money to begin with. It is a combination of fraud, ineptitude, and complete and total mismanagement.

 

If a particular school district is coming short on funds, they don't look at possible pay freezes or at getting rid of the non-essential TA's etc., instead they blackmail parents by threatening to cut sports, or art or music from the curriculum unless they cough up more money.

 

I guarantee that if we spent more tax payer dollars on social programs and schools, that you would have just as many people with their hands out at your door. I think you've come up with a great way to deal with it.

[Atlanta Cracker]

Sounds reasonable. One other thing I might suggest is rather than just donating a $50 gift card or whatever here or there make it something more unique and memorable. A "dining experience for 2 (or 4) featuring our world famous 'Chicken' " Sorry, couldn't resist the jab but the sentiment is real. Maybe make it a wine or beer pairing special menu but something that everyone talks about at every silent auction or whatever where they are out to get your item because it is unique and an awesome experience.

 

Then, whenever it is cashed in spend some time with the patrons asking about the event, how much they paid, why they support that charity etc and how they like the experience you provide. That will give you a good read on how well it's working. Also, due to the unique nature of your donation, you can sort of inflate the value - "a $200.00 value" so it's not a direct trade of $50 for $40.

[chester]

What I ever do to you?

 

It was a joke. You're very opinionated and I don't always agree with you. No real problems!

[Ursa Majoris]

I disagree with the premise that we are cutting spending on social programs and schools. If these programs end up short on funds, it is not because we are not giving them enough money to begin with. It is a combination of fraud, ineptitude, and complete and total mismanagement.

 

If a particular school district is coming short on funds, they don't look at possible pay freezes or at getting rid of the non-essential TA's etc., instead they blackmail parents by threatening to cut sports, or art or music from the curriculum unless they cough up more money.

 

I guarantee that if we spent more tax payer dollars on social programs and schools, that you would have just as many people with their hands out at your door. I think you've come up with a great way to deal with it.

As one who is involved with my local HS, I tend to agree with this. The trend is more and more stuff, renewed more and more often. The whole concept of laptops for everyone, implemented in some places, is insane, IMO.

[wiegie]

The state says we need more money or we can't do our job, so the state adopts a lottery to 'fund public education'. Immediately after, schools still broke, still begging for money.

 

So the state expands casinos, allows vegas style games to 'fund education'.

I will note that part of the reason that the schools are still wanting money is that while, yes, the money from the lotteries go directly to the education budget, states will normally cut the other funding that it had been giving schools prior to the establishment of the lottery.

 

For example, suppose the pre-lottery state budget to schools = 500. Now suppose that the state implements a lottery which raises 200 for schools. You would think that schools now have 700. But what the states do is say, hey we used to give 500 to schools, but now that we have 200 from the lottery for schools, we only have to give them 300 and they can still have their 500 total. What do they do with the 200 that they used to give to schools? I don't know (but I would hope that it goes towards giving university professors a raise ).

 

 

 

As for the original question: Det, make them fill out a donation request form and tell them that donations will be made on a competitive basis -- and alas, because you can only afford to donate a certain budget for charity, funds may not be available for all worthy causes.

[redrumjuice]

I love the unwashed ugly pieces of white trash coming in beggin for money to enter some miss teen trailer park.

[wiegie]

I love the unwashed ugly pieces of white trash coming in beggin for money to enter some miss teen trailer park.

do you make them show you their "talents" to make sure that they are legitimate?

[Skilly]

Det, I love the idea of using a long, complicated, buerocratic form (or forms!) to Josh Gordon out the riff-raff. You know more than half of them will just take a look at that and be like, "I ain't filling all that in! They gotta be kidding?!"

 

You should have some fun with it.....add some nonsense questions in there, and make it a really small font so it's hard to read.

[SEC=UGA]

So the school system, which gets more and more money to produce absolutely horrible, terrible results... always has their hand out begging for more money while the number of administrators and non-educational positions sky-rocket.

 

The state says we need more money or we can't do our job, so the state adopts a lottery to 'fund public education'. Immediately after, schools still broke, still begging for money.

 

So the state expands casinos, allows vegas style games to 'fund education'.

 

The the school can't pay bus drivers, or they need a new surface in the gym so they do fundraisers.

 

The kids are sent out wh0ring for cash to buy cheerleader uniforms, or some trombone wax, always bitsching they have no money.

 

Then out of the blue, they decide to buy 5,000 middle school kids laptops.

 

They spend $10,000 a year per pupil for the worst gov't daycare imaginable, teaching absolutely nothing, always screaming for more money badgering the local populace daily for more money.

 

I send my kids to private school for $3k a year and give the finger to ANYONE who asks me for a damn cent to fund the abortion that's called public, government education.

 

Spot on.

[detlef]

I disagree with the premise that we are cutting spending on social programs and schools. If these programs end up short on funds, it is not because we are not giving them enough money to begin with. It is a combination of fraud, ineptitude, and complete and total mismanagement.

 

If a particular school district is coming short on funds, they don't look at possible pay freezes or at getting rid of the non-essential TA's etc., instead they blackmail parents by threatening to cut sports, or art or music from the curriculum unless they cough up more money.

 

I guarantee that if we spent more tax payer dollars on social programs and schools, that you would have just as many people with their hands out at your door. I think you've come up with a great way to deal with it.

I think you're only partially correct. On your side of the debate, one needs only look at the military to see that, the more money you throw at something, the worse job it is spent. However, I do think that the schools thing is a double edged sword. On one hand, I really don't think enough money goes that way, just look at how poorly teachers are paid for what is far more than a full-time job. On the other, the little that does make it there is wasted on BS.

 

The way it is, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy for those who hate public schools. Slash funding and continue grossly under-paying teachers. Then, nobody worth a crap wants to do it because you likely can't afford to even own a home in the district you teach in on those salaries (that was absolutely the case where I came from for any teacher who got into the game from the 90s on). So, now you're dragging the bottom of the barrel and ending up with a bunch of bad teachers (not all, I realize, there are some saints out there who simply want to teach despite the crappy $) and that results show it. So then we say, "well, this system sucks, let's give them less money until they turn it around."

 

Who's fault is it that the teachers union has been unable to negotiate good pay so merely had to settle for the fact that bad teachers can't get fired? The first may be an impossible request if the money simply isn't there. The second is an easy concession, even if it's not one that should be made. However, the first would go a lot longer way to making sure it worked (as long as the second part was not in play). Pay teachers enough so that people actually want to do the job but hold them accountable for results and such and don't make it impossible to fire someone. That would seem like a fine way to ensure a motivated batch of teachers.

[Square]

It was a joke. You're very opinionated and I don't always agree with you. No real problems!

You'd think people who respond to every post with 5 paragraphs of opinion would realize they come off a bit prickly at times.

 

Edited February 7, 2011 by Square

[NAUgrad]

Full disclosure, I'm actually the biggest fan of benefits that give a lion's share, but not all the take to the charity. Sometimes it makes sense to pay a little here and there to make the event better and make it easier to give. For instance, you could do some big deal food-oriented gig. If you want to give each and every penny to the cause, now you've got to find a hall who will donate the night and a bunch of chefs who will donate not only their time, but the cost of all the food they bring. That can be a tough sell to get guys to help out. On the other hand, if you reimbursed the chefs for what they spent on food and were willing to pay a drastically reduced rate for the room, now you might have something. The chefs are still giving their time (which may have been their only day off that week), but at least they're not actually paying to work on what was going to be their only day off. And the hall can at least pay for the linens and base staff. I mean, someone's got to pay the Guatemalan kid in the dish pit, he could give two poops about some high society benefit. Dude's got 2 jobs and, if he's not getting paid, he's sleeping.

 

I mean, the 100% of the take bit is all noble and such, but it does ask a lot of people who may already be stretched pretty thin.

I used to run a non-profit, and never understood why more companies no matter how small didn't do this. I expected every organization to have a limited budget and there be a competitive process. Makes perfect sense. Then, if I were you, I would only work with ones that I felt passionate about, or thought they were actually doing the work they set out to do. Other things like a 501c3, annual report, list of board members and 990 should all be required. Not that you want to read each one, but just to make sure they are legit.

 

Especially, don't feel bad about saying "no". You can't fund everything and any non-profit who things you should is just stupid.

 

Your doing the right thing. I hate what wake county schools does these days. Drives me nuts.

[Azazello1313]

recently got a flyer from my daughter's pre-school (which is part of a larger, private-parochial k-8 school), about the school's night at gunther toody's. the way it works is you show the flyer when you come in and the restaurant signs it or whatever. I don't remember the exact numbers, but if, say, 20 groups come in with the flyer, the restaurant gives 20% of their take on those tickets back to the school. if twice as many come in, the restaurant gives 40%, and if 3 times as many come in the restaurant gives 50%. if fewer than 20 parties come in, the restaurant doesn't have to give the school anything.

 

seemed to me like a reasonable way of potentially doing some good for all involved.

[SEC=UGA]

I think you're only partially correct. On your side of the debate, one needs only look at the military to see that, the more money you throw at something, the worse job it is spent. However, I do think that the schools thing is a double edged sword. On one hand, I really don't think enough money goes that way, just look at how poorly teachers are paid for what is far more than a full-time job. On the other, the little that does make it there is wasted on BS.

 

The way it is, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy for those who hate public schools. Slash funding and continue grossly under-paying teachers. Then, nobody worth a crap wants to do it because you likely can't afford to even own a home in the district you teach in on those salaries (that was absolutely the case where I came from for any teacher who got into the game from the 90s on). So, now you're dragging the bottom of the barrel and ending up with a bunch of bad teachers (not all, I realize, there are some saints out there who simply want to teach despite the crappy $) and that results show it. So then we say, "well, this system sucks, let's give them less money until they turn it around."

 

Who's fault is it that the teachers union has been unable to negotiate good pay so merely had to settle for the fact that bad teachers can't get fired? The first may be an impossible request if the money simply isn't there. The second is an easy concession, even if it's not one that should be made. However, the first would go a lot longer way to making sure it worked (as long as the second part was not in play). Pay teachers enough so that people actually want to do the job but hold them accountable for results and such and don't make it impossible to fire someone. That would seem like a fine way to ensure a motivated batch of teachers.

 

Those dolts that babysit your kids 5 days a week, for 8 months of the year, make plenty of money and receive excellent benefits.

 

The average salary is almost 55K here in GA. And they work 8 freaking months...

 

ETA: They work roughly, in Cobb County, 184 days during the 2010/2011 school year. They make 298 per day. The average person works, with 3 weeks vacation, 245 days, that is a difference of 61 working days or equivalent of 18,200 per year. Which, if they worked a real job would equate to 73K per year.

Edited February 7, 2011 by SEC=UGA