I’m confused by the IBN.
The committee members are to create their own SMS records, but committee members are already recorded on SMS. Are we creating new records for them? Doesn’t mention anything about using the existing records. Just assume that if it’s already there details get taken from it?
Assumption that the majority of CivCom members are not listed on SMS
Not all units record all members of their committees on SMS.
If there is an existing record, you don’t need to create another one.
If they don’t have an existing record, they can do it through Join.
Looks to me like it will be more of a burden at sqn, not less! Also noted turn-around time has gone from 1 week to 1 month. Hmm
When renewals come up who will get the letters, the Chairman or the OC?
There seems to be a lot expectation that eDBS will be global by this point, but having been around for a while, I’m not holding my breath, so it will be paper ones in 3 years.
Many CWC are parents who join to help out their kids (like PTAs) and only hang around while their kids are cadets, so having SMS records is all well and good, but will need managing and will this be down to the Chairman or OC?
Will new Chairmen be advised of what they need to do and if so by whom?
While we work with the CWC, I do not get involved in the day to day stuff and have no interest in managing anything related to the CWC and you can see this a blurring of the lines.
Under the notion of squadron associations I thought every parent is regarded as a trustee, so although I’ve not heard of anyone pursuing this, theoretically every parent should be told they need to do this.
is this any different to Staff or even Cadets?
if parents only last as long as their kids…who need to managed on SMS is it any more effort really to do the same to the parent CWC member
Really there is no need for anyone to actually “renew” a DBS these days when you can sign up for the DBS Update Service. No idea what “letter” you’re talking about.
SMS is the responsibility of the OC and Wing (only perm staff can add/remove at the moment if i recall correctly), but of course an OC could delegate that responsibility to the Chair to manage.
You’d hope there would be a handover from “old” chairman to “new” but ofcourse you’d also hope a “new” chairman would have support and guidance from Sqn OC and Wing Chair.
And that’s exactly as it should be . . . A unit OC works with the CWC, but does not manage them directly.
Nope, the committee (and specifically the executives of the committee) are the trustees, and the “association” supports the committee.
So why are they responsible for managing them on SMS, surely that should be the Chairman or the Secretary?
The problem with pushing all these application at once is simple, all the renewals will come around at the same time.
Surely, you would have hope, someone realise that the renewals would come at the same time. Bet they didn’t 
in my work organisation, someone in the HR department is responsible for inputting all my personal info into the Oracle HR system we use, but they’re not my line manager. What’s the difference? 
The difference is that OC’s aren’t a HR department, they are in a different pillar, you might as well make the Padre responsible
I think what we mean is OCs get all the crap jobs.
my analogy was meant to be “you don’t have to be someone’s manager to be responsible for their info in an online internal system, regardless of what pillar you are in”
…or adj, if you feel they are the “HR department” of the Sqn
What’s all this talk about OC’s doing the admin? Surely it’s Adj anyway?!
As for CFAV or CWC responsibility, I find far easier and more efficient to have CFAV adminning SMS profiles - one head responsible, no additional training or hand-holding to give. We’re not talking dozens per hit annually.
And, er, ahem… “chairperson”.
I don’t think I’d mind as much if it was just being responsible for inputting data.
The tone of the emails I’ve had from OC Wing and the Wing Chair is very much that I’m expected to take ownership of the issue, chase up members, and make sure they complete the eDBS. More like a manager would, rather than a HR admin clerk.
in my org, all of that kind of stuff is the responsibility of HR, not of my line manager
We are coming back to “we’re not HR or line management”.
We’re also off the main theme of DBS, however the solution is simple - slap the CivCom member form in front of them at a meeting and take them in at the end. Or rather, get the chair/sec to do it if you’re that fussed 
Heck, you could go so far as to make a Sqn pc or laptop (or few) available before/after meetings to crack on with the online DBS.
Job jobbed, no mess, no fuss, minimum effort.
go on then i shall bite - going off topic.
Chairman - is a title not a indication of gender.
it is still acceptable to use Chairman and there is no need to adopt a new title of Chairperson. there are many females who hold chairman positions, they can be addressed as “madam chair” or “madam chairman” rather than “Mr Chairman”
of course for those females who take up the role and wish to change their title they can do if they feel it necessary but it isn’t…
I’ll bite back…
but it does contain a gendered term, which a lot of people feel is outdated throwback to when power was only wielded by men - and so I can understand why some men and women don’t want to be associated with the word and do change it to “chair”
Aaaaaand we’ll leave that particular rabbit hole their for this thread…