Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 134

Thread: Fundraising Section Rules

  1. #31
    Warren Veteran ecudc's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Solihull
    Posts
    8,583

    Default

    I don't think that as a rescue we would have problems with people collecting cash on our behalf and posting us a cheque. In fact in many ways it is preferable than going in to our paypal account as (a) unless it is gifted we have to pay the paypal charge (b) We would have to monitor the paypal account to ensure that payments had been made which, if the fundraiser was especially popular or went on for a long time could be tricky. I think you do have to allow a certain level of trust for the person operating the fundraiser & I don't think that we would be allowing people to fundraise in aid of FF on here unless we knew them quite well. Ultimately it will be the rescue giving the mods authorisation to post the fundraiser & that should provide security & I know from our past experiences that we would want to know the person quite well before.

    A quick question though too to Tamsin. When you say has to have written permission from the rescue, in the cases of say Fat Fluffs and maybe other rescues as well where there are trustees and a couple of very trusted volunteers on here can we provide you with a list of user names for people who have our permission in advance to post straight to fundraising or give us and the rescues access to post straight to fundraising without going through the mods? It would seem a bit silly for a trustee to have to get permission from "the rescue" when they are the rescue so to speak?
    Last edited by ecudc; 19-04-2010 at 01:07 PM.

    Rabbits in rescue need your help www.fatfluffs.com
    Adopt, foster, donate, sponsor, volunteer

  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elve_mk2 View Post
    it would be easy for a person who volunteers in the admin of a larger rescue, such as Wood Green, to send an email verifying they have received funds.
    Woodgreen did contact me and verify that they had received 145 (the total raised to that date) that's why the fundraising was allowed to continue.

  3. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ecudc View Post
    A quick question though too to Tamsin. When you say has to have written permission from the rescue, in the cases of say Fat Fluffs and maybe other rescues as well where there are trustees and a couple of very trusted volunteers on here can we provide you with a list of user names for people who have our permission in advance to post straight to fundraising or give us and the rescues access to post straight to fundraising without going through the mods? It would seem a bit silly for a trustee to have to get permission from "the rescue" when they are the rescue so to speak?
    Yes, if you want to provide us with a list in advance of people with permission to collect on your behalf I don't see a problem with that - it would speed things up all round. You can now post in fundraising directly (like starting any topic), but the post won't appear until a mod has read it. If you are part of the rescue/on the list then it's just a simple case of the mod ticking the box to approve the post.

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    chattybunnies forum
    Posts
    9,002

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tamsin View Post
    Woodgreen did contact me and verify that they had received 145 (the total raised to that date) that's why the fundraising was allowed to continue.
    no what I meant was - with regard to the recent scam, 'maggie' could have been a volunteer at wood green, who sent the email herself - would be easy to do with a larger rescue, which is why I mentioned that the manager of the rescue or the owner of the rescue should verify it, rather than just a member of staff/volunteer.

  5. #35
    Wise Old Thumper
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Leicester
    Posts
    34,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elve_mk2 View Post
    no what I meant was - with regard to the recent scam, 'maggie' could have been a volunteer at wood green, who sent the email herself - would be easy to do with a larger rescue, which is why I mentioned that the manager of the rescue or the owner of the rescue should verify it, rather than just a member of staff/volunteer.
    good point..have Woodgreen been contacted via their e mail on the web or phone number to check they did actually get the money?
    Jill

  6. #36

    Default

    Yes, woodgreen definitely received 145.

    I don't think we can have rules in place to catch corrupt staff members of rescues How am I meant to know which member of staff is the manager if they are intercepting phone/emails?

  7. #37
    Wise Old Thumper *lily*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Staffordshire
    Posts
    42,385

    Default

    When it's a raffle being run with a prize at the end of it, maybe the prize could be kept at the rescue that funds are being raised for so they could confirm that it actually exists, rather than the individual fundraiser merely saying that they have a prize that DOESN'T exist?

  8. #38
    Wise Old Thumper
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Lincoln
    Posts
    12,574

    Default

    The thing that worries me is, by the new rules, maggie would still have got through. Surely the whole point of changing the rules was to make sure that couldn't happen again?


    Please check out my blog, about my soaps, bath bombs and quilt
    http://missbeaujangles.blogspot.com/

  9. #39

    Default

    Nope, because she didn't have permission in advance from the rescue.

    The cash got to the rescue though which isn't what happens in most scams.

    How would rescues feel about holding and posting out prizes? Again that's more work for them.

  10. #40
    Mama Doe kitschkitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Portsmouth, Hampshire
    Posts
    3,715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tamsin View Post
    Yes, woodgreen definitely received 145.

    I don't think we can have rules in place to catch corrupt staff members of rescues How am I meant to know which member of staff is the manager if they are intercepting phone/emails?
    I agree! I don't think that's a road to go down.

    Quote Originally Posted by *lily* View Post
    When it's a raffle being run with a prize at the end of it, maybe the prize could be kept at the rescue that funds are being raised for so they could confirm that it actually exists, rather than the individual fundraiser merely saying that they have a prize that DOESN'T exist?
    I can't see that ever being a practical option, due to the logistics of it, lots of people live nowhere near the rescues they support.



    I do agree that rules need to protect the RU members, but some are just not implementable, even though in theory they are great ideas.

    The only other option for protection of raffle ticket funds, is that all funds are paypaled to a dedicated RU email account and then passed onto the rescue. But that would mean more work for whoever was in charge of the RU paypal account.

    It would mean that if donations were coming in for more than one fund raiser at a time it could be difficult to keep track of totals, though you can register more than one email address to a paypal account so by allocating each fundraiser a separate email address you could keep track of the donation totals quite easily (and would just have to check a couple more email addresses on a regular basis, but easier than checking each and every donation onto a spreadsheet)!

    www.kitschkitty.co.uk
    Kitsch Kitty's Unique Boutique - Custom creations designed to delight
    *25% discount for all forum members quote ANGEL11*

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •