NewHorizon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I couldn't confirm, but I understand McNeil ES of
> McKinney, Texas took in $10,000 and change while
> Booster got a little under $15,000 in
> child-generated revenue. Don't know if that
> includes the $2K fee or not. One of those very
> rare occurrences, I suppose.
>
> Don't know why that flyer wasn't seen at our
> school. In any case, it was pretty clear at our
> PTA meeting after the Fun Run that nothing beyond
> the children's Booster-prepared pitch was
> disclosed to the contributors. My PTA president
> said revenue would be lower if there was full
> disclosure to the contributors. But the Fun Run
> was lucrative - so, I gather, it's ok.
>
> But about the kids. The PTA/Os sign a
> Booster-supplied contract which offers nothing in
> the way of the child protections carefully drawn
> up in the FCPS-Booster contract which, in turn,
> isn't in force when the PTA/Os engage Booster.
> Kind of a biggie.
>
> Then there's turning our children rabid over the
> incentives with highly-charged pep rallies, free
> sno-cones
>
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/154529830936456080/
> , and engaging the students during lunch and
> recess
>
https://www.facebook.com/notes/boosterthon/a-day-i
> n-the-life-of-a-boosterthon-fun-run-team-member/16
> 9477546439485 . All in the name of revenue.
>
> And I don't suppose Booster will find out for
> themselves (because, ya know, I misrepresent stuff
> all the time) the PTA's stance on children making
> the ask...? I mean, wouldn't it make business
> sense to get up to speed on that...?
If you can't confirm it, why are you writing it? You folks are getting to the point to where you're making things up now just to further your agenda because you're running out of arguments to make.
How many times now have you mentioned "my PTA president said..." Rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat. I'm getting dizzy from the round and round in circles game.
John Koch, you seriously have no life.