The RN agrees a Memorandum of Understanding with the Marine Society & Sea Cadets. This document, freely available at https://www.ms-sc.org/about-us, sets out what the RN expects it’s money (as a Grant in Aid) to be used for. During the tenure of the MOU the RN has little control over how the MSSC actually use the money, although all parties expect it to be used as agreed. If the MSSC was wildly out of control with the GIA then the renewal of the MOU and a further GIA would be a highly contentious issue. For instance the last MOU was due for renewal in 2017 and this kept getting ‘put back’ as “negotiations” couldn’t be agreed between the RN and MSSC. It mostly will have come down to the reduction in the GIA as budgets are generally shrinking, however, the more cynical think the RN are closely monitoring the activities of the MSSC and haven’t been completely bowled over by the direction Sea Cadets is going. This is conjecture, of course, but if the MSSC wants, indeed it needs, the GIA from the RN in order to operate the Sea Cadets, then they will have to adopt the RN vision within their strategy and follow the agreement(s) set out in the MOU. The MSSC cannot afford to cut off it’s nose in spite of it’s face, as can be seen in the annual accounts: the GIA is crucial to SCC operations.
Since Sea Cadets is a wholly civilian managed youth organisation, all policies are open and democratic in terms of appointing roles (regarding the retired RN officers faffing about!). The only exception are a serving RN Captain as Captain Sea Cadets, who is the Director of Ops for Sea Cadets and reports to the CEO of the MSSC, a Royal Marine in the training department to advise on RM matters within the syllabus, the Area Officers, now FTRS, who report to the Captain but manage the Area within MSSC rules and policy, and a few RN personnel within the offshore fleet who, again, comply with MSSC rules and policy and civilian Maritime and Coastguard Agency legislation for operating commercial ships.
Interesting to follow the links, and it wold appear the MSSC has no control over unit level funds, but the one thing apparent is that there is no Unit level parting with cash and giving it to two intermediately levels who do not appear to actively fundraise themselves, and by all accounts appear not to fully comply with the rules about the use of charitable funds.
As Warkitten seemed to infer, you need Rules and Regulations, but surely you actually need to follow them to the letter.
And how exactly do Wings & Regions not comply with the rules, do they not receive requests for funds that have to be voted on, I am aware of a number of Wings where funding requests are handled in exactly that manner (just like a Sqn Cdr asking for funds from the CivCom)?
The intimation at a meeting I was at was that the donation was mandatory rather than a decision for a Squadron Civ Com to accept or reject giving a ‘donation’ to the Wing Civ Com. There has to be, I believe, under charity law a demonstrable benifit to the cadets that the Civ Com is constituted for not the wider ACO community.
it does seem to be a case of the RN wanting to eat its cake and keeping it, by having the MSSC bound to it via the grant.
This is how you could see the RAF acting petulantly if the ATC broke free.
Does the grant provide a means to getting uniforms?
If the suggestion is that Wings hold compliant votes to govern charitable spending of the monies they hold then you are very much mistaken! They do not.
There is rarely, if ever, consultation with the Squadron Chairman who form the trusteeship of the Wing and certainly never a vote. Accepting that not every last decision can be by committee, there is as little maybe one vote per year and that is typically to pass the accounts through which no one typically has an opportunity to question.
Why?
Because the timings of internal procedures to uniform RAFAC require that Wings receive approval at an AGM held significantly before the final accounts can be ready for presentation. Has been that way for years. So a rough draft is cobbled together and voted through and then is totally open to later amendment without trustee knowledge. It is a sham and one of the largest weaknesses of RAFAC. On the’civilian’ side.
There is no incentive to change it as it is easier for the Wing Commander to phone his mate the Wing Chair and agree the dosh in private without scrutiny. Example? over in the Eastern Region, Wing funds were used just a few years ago to purchase a minibus ‘for Wing use only’. You can imagine the cost and that all came from the charitable monies intended for the cadets, the idea being that after a couple of years it would be available for wider use. Can anyone really see that getting past a needy Sqn chairman in a consultative trustee vote?
That is just one very large and important example of how Wing at least do not comply with the rules and if Wing Chairs are that malleable, then there is every reason to expect little improvement from Regional Chairs largely consisting of ex-uniforms with unquestioning allegiance.
Surely the Wing committee (where they exist) are like the Sqn Ctees able to approve expenditure requests by a vote of the Ctee members & not have to consult with all the Sqn Chairs?
My question to Aries revolves around his previous (& often repeated) claims that Wings spend money on things they should not, not on how it’s agreed upon.
As I understand it the Sqn Chairmen are the de facto Wing Committee and should be consulted on spends and amendments therein. It’s how its happened on the squadrons I’ve been on so why Wings could operate differently is odd. TBH if it was found that a Sqn CO and Chairman were just doing things on the nod, there would be problems, not least with the Squadron Committee.
At work we get emails with ‘voting’ for options for nights out, to save going round asking everyone. So if the Wing committee execs wanted to change something, it could be voted on very easily.
The Wing Committee is something that was quietly introduced a few years ago and is largely irrelevant (or should be) top the lawful spending of charitable monies. Some would say, like the ACMB, it has never really been needed and only has the Wing Chair as a representative on it. He/she should then take requests to Sqn Chairs for approval/vote.
Any deviation from this is taking charitable funds and removing those who have a legal responsibility from the decision.
Teflon is correct in his reflection that the Wing finance procedure should mirror the Sqn model whereby trustees must be consulted.
I would venture that your question to Aries are inextricably linked, because it is the maladministration surrounding the agreement process that encourages and breeds the incorrect assumption that it is a spending pot for the Wing Commander and Wing Chair - again remembering that the Wing Committee has no legal remit or authority to sanction any spend from its charitable funds.
Even in the latest ‘fudge’ of ACP-11 the principle clearly remains viz.
‘Composition. The Wing Committee consists of a representative, normally the Committee Chairman, for each squadron within the wing plus the Wing Commanding Officer and Chaplain as
ex-officio members without voting rights. Other individuals including staff members may from time
to time be invited to meetings for a specific purpose. They will have no voting rights.’.
To clarify my previous comment, Wing Committees have been around for a time … I meant the appearance of Wing Management Committees which apparently are a private arrangement in parallel.
Rumpole seems to be spot on. One can look at the introduction of Form 61, and what appears to be a lack of monitoring, if that is indeed the reason for having it. If there is no tie up between minuted
approval and actual spend, then almost anything can slip under the radar; especially if Sqn Chairs do not get to know all the details; which of course is rather remiss where they have a statutory duty as the main fundraisers, and Trustees, to ensure monies are applied strictly for the beneficiaries.
Close examination of ACP11, suggests that what once was, has now changed, but the Law has not at least not significantly since 2011,
We can then go full circle to the original asking- where does the ACMB fit into all this, and what are the ToRs? No-one has yet ventured to answer that.
On the face of it, it would appear as another level of bureaucracy inserted into the structure, which adds further distance between the boys/girls at the front and those at the centre. Bit like discovering that there are Squadron Associations, but nothing equivalent at Wing or Region (from which to form the Committee)
Clearly though, the ACMB is part of the decision making process.