ATC Sqn suspended over civcom/staff rift

Adult Staff Execs
250

while i’d broadly agree with the thrust of your argument, this is where the exact transfer of system breaks down - in a Mess you might easily have 100+ members, from which perhaps 10 might be voted onto the commitee, but in a Sqn you might only have half a dozen staff who turn up with any regularity, of which 3 ‘need’ to be on the commitee (chair, treasurer and secretary), and it could do with at least another 2 members to have any semblance of genuine debate about the spending of ‘big money’.

the first provides geninue choice about the expression of members interests, the second is just a staff meeting by another name.

while i absolutely accept that the CivCom system needs an overhaul - i’ve seen a useless one, a non-existant one, and a fifth column one - i’m hugely wary of giving a brand new Sqn Cdr the keys to the (sometimes very large) piggy bank with no real check on his spending plans.

this is, for me, a problem that is magnified by the long-running OC shortage in the ACO - 20-odd years ago the average OC was a 40yo with kids, wife and mortgage, he’d been there, seen it and done it in the ACO and in real life. he was, because of his life experience, relatively unlikely to see the piggy bank as something to be emptied, whereas now the pressure on YO’s to take a Sqn command means that the person with sole authority over the funds is not a 40yo bloke who had learnt about money the hard way, but a 23yo who’se understanding of ‘the future’ extends to sometime next year.

two of the three very, very good OC’s i’ve had in the ACO have been young, 22/23/24/25yo YO’s, they were brilliant leaders, organisers and managers - but part of what made them brilliant ACO YO’s was the lack of caution, the lack of ‘wo there horsey…’ that you probably want in a bank manager.

we need a check and balance, and asking the other staff on a sqn to be that balance on an OC is the way to beg for problems in the long run.

251

I’m sure that as a reuslt of this there is a new ACP 11 in production, which should provide the clarification sought.

I shall have to find out where that process has reached.

MW :mad:

252

At present I don’t have enough staff to fill my Squadron Exec posts and am having to use senior cadets in many roles (Adj for a start). If we had to manage the money and accounts on top it would be the straw that broke me!

253

[quote=“xab” post=17916]I am torn with this response. As a Sqn Cdr, I absolutely agree that ultimately it is my neck on the line for the direction and decisions that the Sqn makes. On the other, I am very much aware that the spending of non-public funds has to be controlled and managed by a suitable check and balance.

Fortunately, I enjoy an excellent working relationship with the Committee and we rarely have a difference of opinion. I do put business cases forward for large spends because I feel that is the right thing to do. I don’t ever want to be in a position where a spend is questioned by a higher authority and I feel it is our (and my) responsibility to ensure that there is an audit trail for the money the cadets and the public invest in our non-public funds.

However, I absolutely agree with the points about how the Committee is neither current, competent or trained to manage any aspects of the military side of the organisation. The bit about helping with the selection of Sqn Cdrs is a hangover from a time long past in the early days of the Corps. An update of the publications relating to the role of Committees is several decades overdue and it is shame that it took a situation like the one at 863 for something to happen…[/quote]

I think we’re actually pretty much on the same page.
I’m aware that due to the negative experience with our own committee I probably come across as somewhat intolerant of them in general.

As it happens, our civcom haven’t done anything to raise a penny in the past few years. They haven’t even bothered to sort out claiming gift aid despite my regular, strong suggestions. Their lack of organisation meant that recently we had almost 50% of cadets not paying subs, and as staff we had no idea.

The irony is that the civcom are meant to ensure that the OC doesn’t go wasting Squadron money; the reality in our world is that we’re having to police them.
Though, this thread acutely highlights the problems with outing a civcom.
In this case, it’s better to have them ‘active’ and doing ■■■■■■ all than it would be to find them dissolved and the Sqn up the creek.

The only funds to the unit have come as a result of grant applications submitted by the staff, and from donations from local organisations as thanks for assistance at fêtes, etc. Suffice to say that if it weren’t for the hard work of the cadets and staff we’d have no money.

The two largest recent expenditures (around £500 each) did not warrant a case being put forward to the civcom because the money was donated specifically for those items.

When we’ve got a civcom who do no fundraising and are reluctant even to dip in £50 to subsidise the cost to cadets for the annual dining night, I’m sure you can understand why I’ve got little time for them.

We’ve had two recent parents join who are apparently somewhat appauled at the attitude of the current chair and others. Hopefully, they’ll be strong enough to overpower and stand as chair themselves. The risk is that they lose faith and leave.

254

Yeah completely get where you are coming from and I have been in a similar situation to you as well.

Have you considered elevating the issue under the provisions of ACP 11 Chapter 4 paras 17-21?

255

After a break of more than 5 years why reopen this thread? Well, being the sad individual I am, I was checking though previous posts on this forum and asked myself whether the proposed new HQ building, which started the issue commented on here, was ever built and it seems it was. QED position of the Civcom/Salmon Trust justified… well perhaps not.
Before I go any further I do not wish to accuse anyone involved in acting in anyway other than in what they believed was in the best interests of the cadets, neither do I accuse anyone of acting outside the rules laid down in Charity Law…but…a reading of publicly available information reveals the following:

Salmon Trust

The Purposes and Aims

Our charity’s purpose as set out in the objects contained in the company’s memorandum of association are to:

Help, encourage and support the work of the Air Training Corps and other organisations involved in the development of young people in Thurston Village and throughout West Suffolk to work with young people to achieve their full physical, intellectual, social and spiritual potential

Objectives

  1. The establishment of a community centre and to maintain or manage or cooperate with any appropriate authority in the maintenance and management of such a centre.

  2. The provision of recreational and leisure time activities provided in the interest of social welfare, designed to improve their conditions of life.

  3. Providing support and activities which develop their skills, capacities and capabilities to enable them to participate in society as mature and responsible individuals

Summary of Activities and Achievements.

The Trustees have identified a need within the Thurston 863 Air Training Corps for additional premises so that they are able to expand their recruitment and undertake more training for the development of the young cadets It is apparent that for the squadron to thrive and extend the range of activities available that further space is required The Trustees have begun the process of raising funds and organising Architectural plans and Planning permission to build additional facilities to further the trusts objectives

In the first year of setting up the Salmon Fund we have raised funds by way of Gifts and running the Thurfest event in Thurston. The event involves the cadets with the Parent committee to organise the arena, stalls, public parking and safety for all those who attended For 2009 Thurfest was a three day event which included a Bohemian tribute band on the Friday, a Proms night on the Saturday and an Air Fair on the Sunday.

The Management Committee now have funds available of £102,062 most of which has been donated from the Thurston 863 Air Training Corps Parents Committee to get the Salmon Trust started. The management committee have set a target of £200,000 to be able to build, furnish and run premises to help the squadron develop The management committee have outline plans that have received planning consent, detailed plans will be drawn during 2010
The initial donation from Thurston 863 Air Training Corps Civ Comm was £76589.

So what happened to the fundraising efforts?

Fundraising seems to have peaked in the year ending March 2012 with £119929 raised towards the £200k target. Following that date the funds declined. In Feb 2014 the name of the Trust was changed to the West Suffolk Youth Trust Ltd.

The following grants were made:

2013-14: £2000 a H&S related youth activities grant.

2014-15: Rattlesden Flying Club £1750 (Air Cadet Gliding)Thurston Rugby Club £40760 upgrade youth facilities.

2015-16: Rattlesden Flying Club £562 (Sim) Thurston Rugby Club £38120 upgrade youth facilities

2016-17: Ist Horringer Scouts £5000 towards new hut. Thurston Rugby Club £1574 . Thurston Youth Football Team and 301(Bury) ATC Sqn £752 (combined figure).

At the end of the accounting year in March 2017 the Trust had £20874 left in the account.

At the end of the accounting year in March 2018 the Trust had £ 13472 left in the account.

On the 11 June 2019 the Trust was dissolved by Voluntary Strike Off and is no more.

I can find no evidence that any of the original £76589 (other than the 2 minor grants to Rattlesden Flying Club) have been allocated to the benefit of 863 Sqn or its cadets.

As I stated at the beginning, I do not accuse anyone of acting in bad faith or breaking Charity Commission rules . However, my limited research would indicate than none of the money made it back to support the new “additional premises” required to support the expansion of the sqn.
If you are unable to meet your original objectives perhaps there is a moral requirement to give back the original donations, draw a line and move on.
I understand that the RAFAC and the RAF learned a lot from this issue, I hope they were not the only ones!!!

For those who find it difficult to sleep:
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06807092/filing-history?page=1

256

£80k to the local rugby club.

257

that stands out like a sore thumb.

258

It all sounded mighty fishy to me at the time and at first glance it still sounds mighty fishy to me now…

2 Likes
259

Now a cynical person would be bound to ask the question of what link, if any, the trustees had to the rugby club?

6 Likes
260

You raise an interesting point. And again without suggesting any impropriety. In the end of year statements for the 2 grants to Thurston Rugby Club (March 15 and March 16) the records lodged with the Charities Commission for West Suffolk Youth Trust Ltd show Mr B Pettitt as Trust Chairman and Mr N Paxman on the Committee (They have both been involved with the Salmon Trust/West Suffolk Youth Trust since 2009). A look at the current Thurston Rangers RFC webpage for 2019:

https://www.pitchero.com/clubs/thurston/contact/contact-official-224561

shows a Brian Pettitt as Facilities Manager and a Neil Paxman as Steward. Of course it could just be a coincidence (they could be totally different people) and, indeed, if they were involved with both organisations at the time that the grants were made I am sure that any minutes for the meetings of the West Norfolk Youth Trust Ltd would show that they declared an interest, did not take part in any vote, left the meeting while the remaining committee members elected a temporary chairman to enable them to conduct the appropriate vote within what I would hope would be a quorate meeting. Because, of course, that is what should happen. Indeed Paragraph 5.3 of their Memorandum of Association says so.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06807092/filing-history?page=2

02 February 2009 Incorporation

3 Likes
261

My understanding is that the law does not place any restriction on how many Trusteeships an individual can hold, but they do have to declare anything which might create a conflict of interest. Transparency is the key work here, which is actually in short supply within the ACO, but which is something the Charity Commission is keen to promote.

How about having the Chairman of a supposed independent Charity who is also the Boss of the organisation making decisions affecting the beneficiaries of that Charity, and how the charitable funds are applied.

Ah you might say but there are other Trustees! - well some of these are also involved in that decision making process. But to mitigate against the conflict of interest, some further Trustees have been introduced, which under the TofR have probably been nominated by that same Chairman of Trustees.

I dont think Transparency is maintained when Trusteeships seem to involve individuals who are ineligible under the provisions of the revised Governance guidance in ACP11. Those appointments slip in under the radar. For what purpose we wonder?

262

YAWN… you go on like a broken record…
We see what you are saying and whilst sometimes you are correct other times you talk utter drivel…

Can you get back to the real issue here
Over £100k raised about £76k was by the air
Cadets yet they get what seems like nothing back

Yet they were meant to of gotten new premises so why did they not get their money back?

£76k would do a lot for a sqn I’m sure you would agree…

263

Why not take it up directly with HQAC instead of moaning about it on here.

Or with the charities commission.

Noone bar noone on here is going to be able to do a jot about it!

264

Well, unless of course some of the old committee members are on here - something that the usual suspects have never denied being…

4 Likes
265

We see what you are saying and whilst sometimes you are correct other times you talk utter drivel…

Do you and is that so?

I wonder where those figures came from? HQAC perhaps.

As paracetamol has posted, if the many who cannot see the wood from the trees, believe there was wrong-doing, they should raise a complaint with the Charity Commission - look at their website and find Report a Charity. But I think you might find there are Trustees who actually fully understand their responsibilities under the Law, and who were consistently acting in the interests of the beneficiaries.

If there was any wrong-doing the Commission has the power to open a public inquiry, even for an Excepted Charity, but to do so might reveal the HQAC hand, and I dont think they would want that, given they have a tendency to keep the lid tightly shut.

If the opposite was true this thread would have ended long, and Charity business would be managed by independent Trustees without HQAC interference, so subjective judgements without possession of the full facts is not a win- win.

266

There’s a difference between whether they did anything legally wrong - which there doesn’t seem to be evidence of - and morally wrong, which is clear to anyone with a set of eyes.

4 Likes
267

Well, go on then!

No one is stopping you…

2 Likes
268

i take the view that what happened at Thurston was deliberate, premeditated theft.

2 Likes
269