Yes, that you’re either asking the wrong people or the wrong question.
I think the ACMB is a bit like WSO meetings (which are attended by Wing Chairs) but with more clout, the RODs are on SharePoint for all RAFAC personnel to see (& via some Answered FOI requests), so it’s not the “secret society” the OP thinks.
Frankly it makes sense for the Civ Com side to be represented, they can advise (note the word) the Senior commanders on matters financial relating to the GPF & on how the CivCom world is getting on.
There is one on the what do they know site waiting to be answered so I’m sure that’ll help.
Yes except that the relevant level of representation appears to be appointed (ex VRT) as opposed to being elected: ACP11 makes the reality of that quite clear for all to see.
So you have supposedly independent representation appointed by Management.
By which you mean patsies who won’t rock boats or upset apple carts. Which of course would be entirely acceptable to people whose whole working life has been one of servitude and seeking acceptance to ascend the greasy pole.
Our works council is elected and there have been a few who haven’t been "management friendly’, which has created some interesting positions when we’ve had management who have been total Richards.
1 Like
Same as when trade unions get into bed with management, nobody wins.
My understanding is that the Rgl Chairs are elected, someone asked an FOI about that and I’m sure that was the response, as to the rest of the ACMB they are the Senior Managers in the RAFAC (I believe CACWO also attends).
So don’t see where you are going with this?
I would be interested to know how you interpret ACP11 Ch3 para 5b, and whether it is simply just a coincidence that the majority of Regional Chairs just happen to be retired VRT.
1 Like
In the great words of Sir Humphrey Appleby (Yes Minister) ‘is he one of us.’
1 Like
You really have a thing for Officers don’t you, did one upset you?
As the Rgl Chairs are elected from the Wing Chairs and historically many of them (although not so much now) are former Officers (with some being ex regulars), then statistically Rgl Chairs are more than likely to have been former Officers, & they do bring experience of how the Organisation works.
As to your original question, having perused the RoDs of the ACMB released under an FOI request, it is obvious that this is the functional Management Board of the RAFAC much like the Regional Boards comprised of the Wing COs, Rgl Comdt & Rgl Chair, & Wing Staff Meetings at the lower levels.
Some people really do not get the picture: it says in the referenced part of ACP11: The Regional Chairman need not necessarily be a Wing Chairman!
and para 5a says:
Prior to the retirement of a Regional Chairman, Nomination Forms should be sent to all Wing Chairmen to facilitate the election of a new Regional Chairman before any approach is made to a candidate from outside the Regional Council
So if they are not a Wing Chair, how do they get to be elected? and who makes the decision to approach an outside candidate, more to the point who actually nominates the outside candidate?
Strange that when one such Chair retired recently, he was immediately replaced by another of equal status - gives the impression that within the Wing Committees there is an ample supply of replacements just waiting their turn .
I agree about experience and I am aware of several former VRT doing an excellent job on a Civcom, but might it not be of equal benefit and the general interests of the cadets best served by having someone with wider ranging experience of the world outside of the ACO, rather than a background based upon military style discipline, and a tendency towards unquestionable obedience.
I cannot see the dividing line, where the uniform comes off, especially when you sit as a member of a Management Board.
If staff can only be ex officio members of the Civcom, should not a Regional Chair be ex officio on the ACMB?
It is interesting that the ACMB is comprised solely of people who have no real idea about the ATC and are parachuted into the ATC purely on the basis that they have been in the RAF. This is based on a set of minutes (FOI) from 2011, aside from CAC, COS and RCs, who seem to be the main members, the only others ‘in attendance’ which implies they are not full members, were Wg Cdr (CCF), a Reg Chmn, Corps Chaplain and a Budget Manager from HQAC. It also appears there was a pre-meeting, which makes you wonder why you have the main meeting IF the attendees are as it seems the same for both and the same things discussed.
What is clear is the lack of involvement / influence of people actually doing the things day to day. I’ve met and listened to RCs and CACs over the years and while “nice enough people” although very political in not answering questions, I’ve never been left convinced they really understand the grassroots of the organisation. I can’t think of anything where (regarding work, football, athletics and schools) I’ve attended meetings, presentations etc where senior people are speaking, that they have such poor knowledge / experience of the lowest echelons of the organisation, as you find in the ATC. I recall one lady in particular who while part of the regional athletics set up, was still an active competitor and coach for her club. She fully understood the debt of gratitude to people like us parents who did so much; time keeping, recorders, running tuck shops, taking children all over the place, helping to set up and pack away for training and meets. It was the same when we went to football presentations. I think it is folly not to have people who have a relevant experience having an influential position, if for no other reason than ensure an eye is kept on the concerns of the shop floor.
You get a sense that the ACMB is there to give people employed, not necessarily the right people, something to do. The RODs, having spoken to a few people who have been on them, are so detached by virtue of the rank and position (Regional Staff Officers) of the members, to have little understanding of the current dynamic of ATC squadrons, to be of little value. Even then as one person told me after the first meeting it became apparent anyone not the same page, was quite quickly advised as to how things worked and questioning ideas and decisions from HQAC was not encouraged. Also the meeting were so infrequent that progress was very slow. I’m not sure they went to many after their first, as they’re ideas and action people and used to just getting on and doing as squadron commanders and to some extent Wing Staff, that the intransigence at Corps level was stifling.
Would a business recruit people onto a management board, that has responsibility for steering and directing the business, making decisions that affect its day to day running and comes up with a business plan, that did not know the first thing about their business, but has only had some vague, superficial contact previously? They may recruit someone from a similar business or someone with experience of an area they want to expand into on a consultancy basis. But the ATC and RAF are not similar enough to warrant this. Therefore what we have in the ATC is those directing it may have had some vague contact with cadets and staff over the time they have been in the RAF and some may have even been cadets, but does this qualify them to be responsible for the ATC, once they have retired from the RAF? By this model every one of us could have directorships of umpteen businesses and direct their operation.
I don’t think I’ve seen an organisational structure which has the ACMB in it, so as to gauge its relevance or importance.
1 Like
I’ve always been an advocate of a condition of permanent staff employment to be to attend a local squadron - the benefits to the organisation as a whole are likely to be immense.
5 Likes
Well said. A considerable while ago the NHS launched into the concept of General Management as opposed to having Administrators. Someone in the corridors of power thought it would be good to open this out to retired Army types.
Those few incumbents were all decent people but whether it was because of a different culture, they gradually disappeared. The NHS being one of the most complex organisations with so many different trades. Maybe it was a failure to adapt from thinking you had to manage people and not order them?
Within the ACO we seem to have an echelon within the Civilian pillar who may be not quite as civilian as they should be.
A sheep in wolves clothing - Hors d’oeufs will be obeyed at all times, to quote one Torquay hotel proprietor.
1 Like
It would be interesting having a Gp Capt on squadron though…
1 Like
They’d be just there to be a bum on a seat, like all staff are.
If they wouldn’t be grown up enough to leave the rank at the door and just muck in, then no place in the organisation.
The interesting thing would be how many ‘sorry I can’t make it tonight, because …’ you might get.
To be honest I wouldn’t stop at them, I think all Corps, Wing and Regional CFAV Staff, with a minimum attendance requirement, should be attached to a squadron, so they are able to see the consequences of what comes out of their and higher placed people’s decisions.
1 Like
I really don’t get the issue here, we are always told that the Civilian & Uniformed pillars of the Corps are a team working together for the mutual benefit of the cadets, which for the most part works well granted there are issues from both sides where the boundaries get crossed, but we have ACPs 20 & 11 to deal with those issues.
The problem is that the whole of the management seems to be skewed to the uniform side at the top, to such an extent that I wouldn’t have the confidence that any civilians involved (potentially with many years experience in the ATC) are treated with more than disdain by the assortment of retired Officers, not yet ready to stop playing at being in the RAF proper.
Why is CAC a trustee and therefore influential in its use when it comes to the GPF, which I’ve always thought is the Corps “squadron fund” and therefore non public money. As a squadron commander I am purely ex-officio when it comes to CWC matters, I can put forward a case for spend, but if it gets voted down that’s it. If the GPF is non public funds coming from subs and investments, it should be managed by a Corps level CWC, with CAV ex-officio.
You only have to look at the money grab they made on the RAF CT to fund a few computer games to make it look like the ATC still does flying, to see they can’t be trusted or respected when it comes to financial matters.
It would be interesting to know why now we are not part of the RAF, all CFAV can’t be more influential and be full voting on CWCs. You could sort of see it before when we were nominally RAF Officers, but now we are civvies playing dress up it makes no real sense.
Strange you mention Trustees and the GPF; in fact three of the GPF Trustees sit on the ACMB (two do not) and I am told that the RAF refused to fund the new rank slides, but they still appeared.
And relating to CFC changes, it seems that the ACMB reported on the number of complaints being handled at HQAC; the point of the CFC changes is that it distances the ‘workers’ from the Armed Forces Act, which effectively removes access to Service Complaints Procedure, which requires total impartiality. This is similar to the Resolution of Disputes procedure which seems to enable troublesome Civcom to be removed. As part of the package they are availed of an appeal mechanism chaired by someone appointed by CAC, despite what it says in the book or maybe someone has acquired (undisclosed) delegated powers.
If you “know” so much why ask your question?
1 Like
To alert the vast majority who do not know what is happening and who may fall foul of charity law and regulations. Civ Com maybe laible in law for their actions or more importantly inactions. Those with qualifications and/or professional regulatory bodies to who they are accountable should take heed of the law. They, if in a criminal court, be found guilty may in the extreme, be found to have commited professional misconduct and maybe stripped of their qualification, no job no mortgage no house.