Look thats good David. The point I was really trying to make is that we do not need to be scared of making something more than break even. Most charities exist to push profits from commercial ventures into charitable aims. The provision of courses should IMHO be viewed as commercial or semi-commercial ventures to subsidise other activities & overheads.
Of course that doesn't stop us giving a "reasonable discount" on the course fees because the courses _themselves_ further the trust's aims. ie we should be able to be cheaper than other providers while still making some dosh for the other aims. Then you get into the question: if a reasonably wealthy employer sends along a staff member to learn LPI to make the employer's business run better, should the employer pay the same price as someone on the dole trying to upskill themselves? The government seems to say "yes, but we will give the person on the dole a student loan to cover the fees" These issues are complex. On the one hand the training of the wealthy employer's IT person furthers the aim of spreading and cementing in OS solutions. OTOH some in the trust may have a more "socialist" (inverted commas used deliberately) tendency towards sponsoring the "poor" at the expense of the "rich". NZ education seems to have gone down the path of charging everyone the same, but addressing social differences via loans and such like. how much that philosphy should affect the OTSC is obviously for debate, and probably OT this list. Thanks for listening to my ranting. On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:31:59 +1200 David Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nick, > > > non-profit does NOT mean each course should be run on a break > > even basis. > > most non-profit organisations make a profit on one line of business to > > subsidise another. for example "op shops" run by the churches. > > The price of the course will more than cover all the costs to run the > course. There should be enough left over to pay all other OSTC expenses for > another month. > > > Later > > David Kirk >
