Can I expand the discussion because there is relevance to a lot of things going on.
For a start, the ACO has rules & regulations promulgated under the Royal Warrant, and these materialised as Defence Council Regulations. But none of these are statutory, but note there is nothing which says - nothing in these regulations affects your statutory rights. I say his because DCRs are not statute, but they have to comply with statute because that has higher jurisdiction eg Children’s Act 1985.
But as an unpaid volunteer you have very few rights, and whereas the MOD is required to take account of all manner of Legislation ( a court marshall is subservient to civil and criminal law) the RAFAC takes full advantage of the situation and makes very few concessions.
But how can you be sure that whatever provisions within ‘say’ ACP20 will be applied exactly as they are written. The MOD was unable to confirm that there is a mechanism to ensure fairness and impartiality. Someone commented that some Wings make their own rules which supports this; but who would be responsible for ensuring fairness I wonder?
I have just received a letter from the Charity Commission, which says the RAFAC (actually it uses ATC because no-one has told them of the change) has the power to remove a Trustee, by ceasing their membership of the Civcom; I interpret this to mean that within the DCRs it says they can, but that does not mean it has been tested against Charity Law.
Essentially Governance is so confused that it does not distinguish between the two positions, and actually provides a constitution which is equally applicable to both. The Commission then goes on to say that the Civilian Committee is it not a legal entity, but a Squadron Association, but it the says there is not distinction between the two!
To back up their argument they give examples of how Trusteeship is linked to the other appointment, and quotes Commanding Officers of the Armed Forces. There are other military personnel acting as Trustees of course, but Armed Forces charities in the main are subject to separate legislation of parliament, but the RAFAC Charities are not so privileges and just exist on exception orders made by the Commission.
However there is a formal contract or agreement between the individual and the organisation, because they are employees and receive a salary. It is then obvious that getting the sack would affect the ability to continue as a Trustee of a military charity. Another example would be RAF mess Funds. nd the other examples cited all involve a contractual agreement.
However the Commission (?) essentially ignores the fact that Trustees of your local Sports & Welfare Fund are civilian volunteers, They are appointed by their Colleague Trustees, and there is no formal, or otherwise, contractual link between them and the organisation.
It is fair to point out that the Trustees of the GPF are employees, so how can you regard these as being the same as unpaid volunteers, especially when the one is likely to exert unwritten pressure on the other, due to the lack of fairness and impartiality.
Why would anyone want to volunteer when things are not open and above board, but as was said, there is not exactly a queue of volunteers, and it is little surprise that I have seen a significant number pass through the system, never to return.
At one time it was always hoped that Senior cadets would stay on for the benefit of the Squadron, but they too disappear.
I did advise my Regional Commandant to appreciate the value of his volunteers, but evidently that fell on stony ground, and my Wing has since continue to decline.