Following a push to parents and the local dignitaries, I am in the very fortunate position to have more CWC members than we need.
We all believe a couple of parents have volunteered to “help” their own kids rather than support the squadron. They also don’t seem to have the right personalities.
How would you suggest we politely ask them not to attend? We want to keep some of the parents from the same cohort so we can’t say we don’t have vacancies.
Quote skills match at this time, maybe more opportunities on the future?
Are you also able to say that some parents had applied previously / earlier?
In schools, on the rare occasions where there are more volunteers for parent governors than vacancies, they hold elections.
Edit to add: Same for parochial church councils. I remember our rector used to make the same joke every year about having a 20-year-old batch of blank ballot papers that he’d never used.
Yep, it’s the same for normal Parish Councils too. If a seat becomes available through death or resignation, then Parish Councils are allowed to co-opt members, if the local electors don’t rally for a by-election.
In this case, I’d suggest the current trustees should agree how many new members they require, then look over applications, and vote for those members they wish to fill the new roles.
Create a sub committee that support the civ com but not part of the formal committee.
Try to persuade some of them to become CFAVs 
How far are you through the process?
I had the maximum 12 members after our May AGM however lost 4 during the BPSS process. Two didn’t even start the process despite support and cajoling. Two couldn’t get references. So I lost those naturally over the time allowed to be part of CivCom while still doing paperwork.
Therefore my advice is not to ask people to step aside until you’re sure you definitely have enough. BPSS itself definitely “sorts the wheat from the chaff”!
Are you sure you mean this? It’s just a reference. If people want to become in effect trustees of a charity and don’t consent to obtaining references for them, they probably shouldn’t be trustees…
Exactly. Whilst it may have been seen as a barrier to getting volunteers onto the committee, I’ve now seen how it can ensure the quality and commitment of those volunteering.
If someone is disabled, and not working, how would they go about getting a reference?
Petite what about those who’ve been retired for 20 years?
Just out of interest. Been a while since I read the form.
The reference thing is an interesting side bar.
what information or quality control does it give that you dont have without it?
It’s only meant to confirm identity, that’s it. It does nothing to confirm suitability.
So if it’s only to confirm ID can they not be done via ID provided & background checks.
in the 1980s there was very little digital information & none of the official information was joined up in any effective way. You needed something you could cross reference, someone to go back to.
Nowdays everything is linked & accessible over databases along with open sources like social media.
I appreciate that the BPSS form still insists on have the counterpart when providing a driving license.
How do you confirm if the references provided are genuine and then how far down the rabbit hole do you go?
We are supposed to contact them to follow up and make sure the people are real, they did the reference themselves and freely.
Two references are necessary. Also handwritten responses not typed. The latter being rejected on a form this year.
One should be a “line manager” the other someone with standing in the community or a professional.
if you don’t have a line manager then two professionals or individuals in the community.
The form last year asks if the individual abuses drugs alcohol or faces an “extravagant mode of living!”
What is this witchcraft?
Agreed. This is particularly tricky where so many now work from home. A line managers reference, which was typed and sent electronically, was rejected and had to be done by hand and sent!
There are definitely barriers to easily volunteering!
I have had had & submitted typed references for bpss for myself & others - all have been accepted.
The only thing is that it needs an actual signature rather than a typed name.
What is the purpose here? Much higher security clearances are being handled entirely digitally.
I have chaired squadrons and in one case had CC numbers up to 16. Never got any flack from above.
I would not worry about the max figure, especially with this 30x30 on the horizon. I would not jump on anyone for having to many, but thats not really the question.
What to do with those CC members that are being ‘disruptive’.
A, Bring your wing chair into attending meetings and get a second opinion, I would hope your CO would also have an opinion.
B, Having decided a person needs to be shown the corrrect path then in the first instance the chair and CO should have words, the time and date should be recorded. .
C, If there is no change then there are laid down procedures in either CCP10 or 11 or the CC members handbook or chairmans handbook.
A.