How would uniformed colleagues on this forum react to being asked to become a Squadron or Wing Trustee?
This is a necessary element of managing the non public funds and brings with it a personal liability to account for all of those funds; the job seems to be the same, regardless of whether the Charity has registered or excepted status
Nope - separation of who controls the money and who spends it works, otherwise the door is wide open for potential abuse.
Exactly, I would even extend that to say we need to tighten up the committee/staff issue as it stands. (Squadron where OCâs Mum is also the Chair Person with another family member is Treasurer).
If it were allowed, Iâd do it.
Far easier to do it myself than trying to find some half-interested people and convincing them to do it instead.
In theory Iâd be happy. I consider myself trustworthy enough not to take the Mickey. The MOD considers me trustworthy enough to look after far more than just finances.
In reality, I wouldnât in my current role because Iâm already wearing about 20 hats.
I get what youâre saying, but I reckon that the âtrustee hatâ would be less of a burden than the âcivcom wrangler hatâ.
No, no, no & no twice on Sundays. The staff have enough on their plates.
Money is the route of all evil!! The separation between Staff and CivCom was established for a reason that has not gone away!!
Just in case you donât get my pointâŚ
No!!!
Yes⌠That is quite possible.
Though, as Iâm no longer wearing the OIC hat, the Wrangling hat has mostly been passed on along with it 
Iâve now got a ânew officer trainerâ hat instead (which is arguably even more involved than committee wrangling)
Just to put this to rest, the few comments suggest that some forum members understand the rules as set out in ACP11, whereas evidently some do not.
But it has to be born in mind, that ACP11 is not Charity Law or even attested to be directly related to it.
In essence Charity management is required to be distanced from the beneficiaries; it is not a simple case of whether staff have time on their hands to act as trustees. If Civcom are not entitled to be involved in Squadron Management, it is not easy to justify uniformed involvement in the management of charitable funds. There is a need to avoid conflicts of interest and to ensure proper compliance, not just claimed compliance.
In theory the Law is best served by the existing structure, using separate Committees, who are not members of the RAFAC, (ie totally independent of it), to raise and manage monies and enable it to be available for the Cadet experience, and NO other purposeâŚ
Unfortunately the ACO might claim compliance, and the forum has it first hand, that staff have enough to do, which is then strange various anomalies exist which undermine all this rhetoric.
Charity (and Trust) Law is very clear, but it is the application of such Law which is not.
Isnât that the point though? Itâs hard to argue that staff are the beneficiaries of the charity.
Hmmm ⌠not really. There are plenty of examples where financial independence is pre-requisite (accounts departments in companies as just one example) and the sensitivities surrounding charities and the public confidence in them makes this all the more important.
If you were to extend your line of thinking, then shouldnât staff have access to the MOD funding directly as well? Of course not, because it is actually handled by the treasury to whom the MOD must apply for funding.
What actually needs to happen is that the RAF needs to jump either to the Army Cadet fully-funded model, or the Sea Cadet fully charitable model and stop this half-way house charade which perpetuates many a difficulty on both uniform and civilian sides. But if they insist on the status quo, then the ACO management could at least be honest enough to face up to the reality that Aries describes.
Iâm still not convinced at all.
To an outsider, what difference is there between a CI and an âenhanced CivCom memberâ?
Nothing, both are members of staff on the sqn but one is also on the Civ Com.
I would add that a âRegistered Civ Comâ should be a Civ com member who want to help out on the sqn and not a CI who wants more power.
Exactly. So why is one allowed to control the money and not the other?
Is that not a conflict of interest?
Yep, which is why it wasnât allowed, but now we have an unackowledged staff crisis theyâve decided that doesnât matter!
What He said.
I have had a Registered Civ Con and it didnât work out. She was under the impression that she could make decisions well above that of a CI. When I pointed out that I was the CO and there was something called the chain of command and I was the one in the big seat and not her she didnât like it and left.
Nice slip 
In a nutshell ⌠though it shouldnât be that.