A proposal
On group trips it is often useful to create a pool
of money (a 'kitty' or 'Walter') for communal purchases such as drinks, meals
etc. These rules suggest a way of organizing such a kitty in a way that is
quick and easy to use, whilst being as fair as possible to all involved. Note
that these two aims are at loggerheads, and hence the rules are always a
compromise between them.
The
rules outlined below constitute the 'special theory of Waltertivity', and apply
specifically to the main annual Arrow Trip. We should consider creating the
'general theory of Waltertivity' to
cover other activities.
1.
At any point the group of people on the current
Arrow Trip (henceforth referred to as 'the group' ) can agree to create a
Walter. They then all contribute an equal amount of money into said Walter.
2.
By unanimous vote of the group, 'payment in kind'
can be substituted for cash when contributing into the Walter. This would
happen when one member has already carried out a service, or made purchases,
for the benefit of the group, prior to the creation of the Walter.
3.
The money is placed into a special holder called
the 'buck'. This receptacle has to be deemed 'suitable-for-purpose' by the
Arrow Technical Committee. (it needs to be secure, difficult to lose by
accident, and easy to use).
4.
Any contributor can, at any time, pull out of the
arrangement and remove their contribution (or whatever proportion remains) from
the Walter. Simply divide the current balance of the Walter by the number of
contributors: the resulting sum is the repayment. Obviously, such an individual
may no longer draw funds from the Walter, and has no interest in or voting
rights over it. Having pulled out of the Walter, and individual can then rejoin
it as though they where a "late comer", subject to the provisions of
rule (5).
5.
A "late-comer" can enter the Walter
subject to the unanimous vote of the group. The late-comer then contributes an
amount equal to the current balance of the Walter, divided by the current
number of contributors. Thereafter the 'late comer' is a full member of the
Walter, with all rights, protections and limitations accorded by these rules.
If we are to have a central fund (the Walter), then
it follows that at any one time there needs to be one central authority
monitoring and deploying it, otherwise there is no point. Accordingly....
1.
At any one time one person is deemed to be the
'Mitty'. The Mitty physically carries the Buck
2.
The role of the Mitty is deemed to be a rota-able
job, and hence is included in the Rota's along with such things as getting the
newspapers in the morning, cooking breakfast, washing up, etc etc.
3.
The Mitty has a duty of care for the physical
security of the Walter, and of the Buck. The Mitty has only limited liability
for loss or damage to the Walter or Buck, however. Only loss arising from
reckless endangerment would make the Mitty liable for making good any loss or
damage. Even then, the group as a whole has collective responsibility for the
welfare of the Walter and Buck. The Mitty is NOT liable for a loss due to
reckless endangerment if other group members could be reasonably expected to be
aware of such endangerment, but took no action to alert the Mitty or prevent
the endangerment.
4.
The Mitty must remain within sight of at least one
other member of the group at all times. The only exception is when using
bathroom facilities. If for some reason a Mitty needs to go beyond visual
horizon (except as noted above) then the Mitty must pass the buck, if only
temporarily, to the person who is next up in the rotas for Mittyhood.
5.
The Mitty is responsible for dispensing funds from
the Walter, using the rules outlined in section (3).
6.
The Mitty must keep an approximate running total of
the Walter at all times.
7.
When the Buck is passed, an accurate (to within a
pound) total of the Walter must be assessed by the incoming Mitty, and declared
to the group.
Its not there for decorative purposes!!
1.
If goods or services are deemed 'Walterable', then
they can be purchased from funds from the Walter.
2.
As everyone contributed equally to the Walter, then
'Walterability' can only be conferred by the unanimous vote of the group.
3.
For the same reasons, any dispensations from the
Walter should be to equal benefit to the entire group. Of course, individuals
may choose to waive their personal rights under this rule for any given
dispensation, and permit a purchase to go ahead even if it does NOT benefit them
equally.
4.
It is not necessary that the entire group be
present at the point of purchase. Walterability can be conferred in advance of
a purchase in accordance with the rules, and then an agent appointed to make
the purchase on behalf of, and with the authorization of, the group, employing
funds from the Walter.
5.
It is permitted that an individual, or a sub-set of the group, may make a purchase
and then apply for re-imbursement from the Walter at a later date. Such
reimbursement requires the unanimous approval of the group, as per rule (2)
above. Note that Retro-Walterablisation should never be assumed by anyone at
the time of purchase, and that the initial purchase is entirely at the
individuals risk.
Sometimes
an 'event' may be deemed Walterable, but still allow individuals to be drawing
different amounts from the Walter to cover their individual payments within the
event. A good example is a group meal. Obviously such an event should be
Walterable. However, some people might order a really expensive meal, and
others a cheaper meal. This then leads to the result that some members are
subsidizing others to an unacceptable level. Accordingly....
1.
Where a Walterable event gives rise to variation in
individual's liabilities on the Walter, top-up payments to the Walter may be
required.
2.
The 'top-up' payments are calculated thusly: All
individual liabilities within the event (individual bills) are rounded to the
nearest pound to make calculation easier. The Median of these rounded
liabilities is calculated. Any individual who's liability exceeds this Median
must make a payment into the Walter equal to the difference between the
liability and the Median.
3.
Where a liability is LESS than the Median, no
action is taken. (there are no rebates from the Walter). Otherwise the whole
purpose of the Walter is lost. (we may as well pay individual bills ourselves).
4.
Rounds of drinks constitute a special case. Due to
the volume of purchases, a rigid adherence to rule (2) would cause massive
complication, with resulting millage and hence thirst. Accordingly, a top-up
payment is only required when an individual's liability (a specific drink
within the round) is greater than 120% of the Median. As most of our drinks
cost roughly the same, it is intended that this 20% spread factor should bring
all drinks costs into line, and top-up payments would only be triggered in very
special circumstances.