When anyone mentions Chairman I can’t help but remember this little gem from OFAH.
“I declare this meeting open. Now, the first item on the agenda is my resignation!”
4 Likes
Oc/adj same thing on alot of units
1 Like
I wonder where the idea of ALL CWC being on SMS and having a DBS is heading? A husband and wife on the CWC are not keen and made a point about not wanting to be ‘staff’. The wife is the treasurer.
Will we see the “demise” of the true CWC and everyone becoming de facto CFAV? It’s not too far to stretch this with CWC doing some of the online training and before you know where we are everyone’s regarded as the same. There needs to be some very serious lines drawn to ensure that the CWC are fully independent of the “uniformed” side of the organisation, as it is this which allows us to operate as we have done since the first days of the ADCC.
We’ve had the messy middle ground of Reg CWC, where I have what I regard as some Sqn Cdrs playing the emotional blackmail card of “think of the cadets”, where the proper staff can’t be bothered to do things or the sqn has an SOV and because of the individual’s age they can drive SOVs with no extra licensing. The CWC more than many staff do what they do to ensure the cadets a good experience as for many their children have been cadets.
Can you not simply explain it’s an administrative step?
Begs the question - what have they got to hide?
8 Likes
Whoever said holding details of these people made them staff???
A treasurer not wanting their details held and go through basic checks?
“wind your neck in and do it, or leave and take your self-centred entitlement with you”
Or polite words to that effect.
3 Likes
4 Likes
Has t that been a requirement for years?
2 Likes
I thought so also… hence mine all were.
But then apparently it wasnt…
Wt actual.
Why is it someone has to have something to hide if they don’t want to do something? Some people seem overly suspicious on the most spurious of whims.
The Chairman spoke to me, about their views, but it’s for him to deal with, as yet sqn cdrs have no role in the ‘management’ of committees.
They feel that doing a DBS is not required as they don’t have any direct contact with cadets. The Chairman said he has his suspicions as to where this is going. He’s been around for a while and seen how HQAC tinkers and drips things in from my updates on changes. He’s had a DBS for several years just to tick a box when he’s running fundraising or doing things with the cadets. I’ve got 2 others equally active and help out when requested with a DBS and are on SMS, because they get more involved, so are included on events. I see little point in having people on SMS that are there just for show. As yet no one has said anything, the treasurer is known as apparently she’s quite vocal at wing meetings. What’s the worst they can do to me for not putting them on?
My problem is HQAC and my ever developing mistrust of them as something starts, snowballs and decrees that things are mandatory.
I think it is essential that he CWC remains fully independent of the “unformed side”. For whatever reason senior bods in the organisation seem to have developed a bug up their backsides about CWCs in recent years.
I would suggest that at the very least anyone who is able to sign off on the money should have a DBS to make sure that they haven’t been done for fraud before. That’s should be normal due diligence.
7 Likes
And this is the misconception you need to quash. DBS’s are not just to catch pedophiles. . . yes that is a big part of it, but not the only aspect.
5 Likes
This is correct now for everyone. No more sending to WHQ. Certainly there was an email sent from my RHQ outlining the new process.
1 Like
Not heard that in SW, in fact got the direct opposite - Must not contact RHQ or HQAC. But I suspect this might be WHQ empire building
What? A publicly available Region Commandant Update? I doubt SW are the only region missing out. Shame.
Comms fail. Again.
I mean, it’s the opposite of empire building. L&SER HQ has told all their WHQs that we should send our DBS’s straight to DBS Cheadle Hulme rather than to WHQ. It’s taken them out the loop and made the process quicker! 
But yeah, not surprised that there has been a comms fail. I just went back to look at where I saw it and it was an email (well multiple emails) from the ARC when the Electronic On-Boarding IBN came out saying that this is the new way to do it.
Not known here… And I’m sufficiently located that I could hand deliver it!
Well, that’s HQAC comms I guess. Or maybe L&SER are just doing their own thing as a test? Might be one for VoV…