London Marathon snail crawl man Lloyd Scott sacked

[Guest]

To my mind, what has happened here is absolutely disgraceful. Charities are supposed to be about understanding and compassion.

I really hope that anyone considering donating to a childrens' charity chooses another one. Every time I see a reference in the future to "Action For Kids" I will just think "utterly loathsome". And I wouldn't put the founder or the trustees in charge of a whelk stall:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13751871

(Probably if they cut one or two of their posts they could make up a lot of the difference!)

[Lateralthinking1]

.....I don't have the latest figures but their income in 2008/2009 was £2,205,066. They were disappointed that this fell slightly short of their target.

[Paul Sherratt]

>>Charities are supposed to be about understanding and compassion.


Only after they've set themselves up in a fully funded management structure.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

"Gob-smacked" is all I can say.

[Lateralthinking1]

And here is the sterling effort of the woman who runs it. She did an "adrenaline rush" in March - minimal time, minimal pain - and not a lot of gain by the look of it. A whopping £2,838.44. That would be just over 10% of what Brian the Snail got then.

Well done Sally!!! (Oh yeah, and I can climb a foot off the ground too).

http://www.haringeyindependent.co.uk/resources/images/1596327/?type=display

http://uk.virginmoneygiving.com/fundraiser-web/fundraiser/showFundraiserProfilePage.action?userUrl=SallyBishop

[vinteuil]

My understanding of this was that the expenses he incurred exceeded the funds he raised for the charity. If I was running a charity (and as it happens, I do) I would have to consider very seriously whether it was a Good Idea to employ someone as a fundraiser who actually lost the charity money.

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes, but it also says he has made £5m for charity in total. It is clear that he is very committed to this one so one might ask how much have they benefited from him so far overall.

Plus they are saying that there were press and publicity costs. Those should be management decisions, as indeed any assessment on whether the stated target was realistic.

I see he is saying that people could still send in money. The cynic in me might think they have sacked him to get the public sympathising and then the shortfall might become less but realistically of course no charity would use people in that way.

[Dave2002]

I see he is saying that people could still send in money. The cynic in me might think they have sacked him to get the public sympathising and then the shortfall might become less but realistically of course no charity would use people in that way.

I couldn't possibly comment!

From a business point of view I guess he should have been sacked, though the whole thing seems regrettable. Maybe it would also depend on whether long term his ideas could have bounced back, and the overall income due to him would have risen, but in the short term a loss around £100k does seem hard to take.

It all goes to show that charity and business don't mix well, which is why bankers sometimes get million pound bonuses, and people in charities and caring organisations often get paid peanuts or nothing at all.

Maybe Fred The Shred or some of his other mates could donate a few millions to help this poor man and the charity out.

[PatrickOD]

My understanding of this was that the expenses he incurred exceeded the funds he raised for the charity. If I was running a charity (and as it happens, I do) I would have to consider very seriously whether it was a Good Idea to employ someone as a fundraiser who actually lost the charity money.

vinteuil

It strikes me that there is a contradiction between employing and paying a fundraiser, which I would call 'business', and the activities of those fundraisers who go out to raise funds for the organisation, which I would call 'charity'. It strikes me further that sacking an underachieving fundraiser is, as they say, 'business, not personal', and calls into question the whole meaning of 'charity'. Perhaps we should distinguish between The Charity, and the Virtue. It would seem, as many people point out from time to time, that charity begins with the organisation. I know that when I 'give to charity' I am giving to the wee man or woman who is standing there with the tin box, braving the elements and the attitudes of the passing public. I have stopped all payments, bar one, by direct debit as I concluded that this was just too 'businesslike' for my own sensitivities.

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes, my advice to people wanting to do good things and be sponsored for it would be to do it individually. Then give the money either to a charity you have complete trust in or in many cases better still hand the money directly to the beneficiaries.

Whenever I sense the business hard sell, I'm turned off it completely. A few charities - like others I have my favourites - don't resort to that kind of thing.

[Lateralthinking1]

.....it turns out that the Founder's abseil in March was widely publicised in the press beforehand as having a target of £3,000. Then afterwards it had to be printed that she had "nearly" achieved £3,000.

The figures on the Virgin site suggest that one person's spin on "nearly" might be different from another's.

If she was frustrated at not having achieved what she set out to do, it seems less than consistent or indeed sensitive that one of her fundraisers should have got the sack from the Trustees for failing to meet his target only two months later.

[Dave2002]

I think I was wrong in msg 8. I may have made an incorrect inference that his losses were very high. If they were merely a few thousand pounds, then given that overall he seems to have been successful with other charity collections, he should probably have been allowed to continue. However, it also seems that he might have been employed, rather than someone giving time freely, which again is a different situation from volunteering which also happens for many charities.

[Lateralthinking1]

A very fair minded comment. Thanks for it.

[french frank]

Is there a bigger picture? - Scott describes himself as having been the charity's 'director of fundraising'. That will surely be something more than dressing up as a snail to participate in the marathon. Is it the snail that's been sacked or the director of fundraising? Mightn't the director have lost his job if he hadn't himself taken part in the event at all? http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/43098...f-fundraising/

[Lateralthinking1]

Here is his tremendous charity record:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Scott

They made him Director last autumn so they don't seem to have given him much of a chance:

http://www.actionforkids.org/downloads/action_for__kids_september2010_mailout.pdf