Civilian committee

Cadets Ask the Staff
27

Phew!

Ok … here goes …

No … the OC is responsible for the use of non-public equipment, but all associated squadrons funds are charitable and therefore the responsibility of the trustees. Items purchased at the request of the OC or other staff are charitable assets held in perpetuity and in trust for the squadron.

I agree … it doesn’t. It dertives its status from UK Charity Law and exists in parallel. I agree that the squadron is the raison d’etre - that is common sense.

No … but that can only be the beneficiaries (who are actually the cadets, not the staff and therefore unfortunately in the main unable to bring such an action on their own), or the Charity Commission as the Regulating body. As much as it may be disliked on this forum, the ATC has no legal status or authority over trustees. I’m not justifying that position, nor am I wishing it to be grounds for abusive argument. It is merely a fact - and one that having widely researched, I know ATC-HQ have come up against a number of times and come unstuck.

Talking specifically about the Thurston thing, I have the benefit of having seen a letter sent by the then OC Barbara Cooper telling the Civilian Committee that the money raised was not required by the squadron, or in fact the ATC as a whole, and would not be required or used for the purpose intended
That is quite different from a CivCom running off with the money.

Quite agree … but it does not absolve responsibility.

Unlikely unless the values are way higher than the average squadron - they have neither the resource nor the inclination. In direct correspondence with me they have asserted that all such situations are matters for the trustees. If trustees have followed a due process then they will not intervene on the basis that another party disagrees with the decisions of trustees. Again, my investigations have revealed that the Charity Commission were consulted and did not obstruct the diversion of funds at Thurston, particularly in the light of the letter mentioned above. No criminal charges were made against the trustees, however they were made against members of the ATC. You may not like it but that seems to be the shape of things. Again … it all supports working together and getting on.

I agree both points - however, see earlier comment re who the beneficiaries actually are. Wing Chairs can have constructive discussion with CivComs of course. But the decision remains with the CivCom.

No need for the insult - I broadly have - and many other relevant documentation - I can assure you I do not have a tiny mind. It even expands beyond the ATC!

Totally agree. However as a point of interest the CWC is involved in appointing the CO and the written process for the formation of a new squadron starts with the formation of a CWC.

That is appalling. The Sea Cadets are entirely charitable (as opposed to the Army Cadets who are 100% MOD funded). RAFAC sits uncomfortably half and half - hence discussions like this.

Totally agree. But that does not may the CO the owner.

Again from my own experience I agree - however ATC-HQ do little or nothing to educate and/or train CWC members in trusteeship - somethign the Charity Commission has previously been critical of. It can be a total pain at squadron level where there is friction, but it is not in ATC-HQ’s interest to change things.

Total supposition.

That is a charitable principle and one which makes me question the F60 admin grant - payment of charitable money from one charity to another charity (expressly forbidden) for the completion of an internal form that is irrelevant to the Charity Commission and which RAFAC is actually not entitled to.

I appreciate the example of Grandma and broadly agree. But you omit that without the CivCom, current rules do not allow staff handling non-public funds - equally it is not the squadron who have charitable status it is the CivCom through the Exception Order or registration. So I come back to my point that the squadron needs the CivCom as much as they need the squadron. It is a partnership which only goes wrong when one or the other gets too inflated.

That is not necessarily true. There may well be situation where the expertise on the CivCom exceeds the Sqn staff - again … partnership not assumption.

There we go … in a nutshell! But don’t forget that complete moron’s might not be confined to the CivCom!

… and any squadron assets purchased charitably …

It is this same statute that prevents interference by non trustees which brings us full circle.

OK to finish. Before anyone starts lobbing grenades, please just pause to consider:

1/. I am trying to be helpful
2/. Repeat again that partnership, mutual respect and co-operation is the best way
3/. If your treasurer were to do a runner with £5k, it would be the fellow trustees who would need to pursue. Not members of RAFAC. (Yes and ultimately the Charity Commission). Do consider the Thurston situation where RAFAC was powerless and in fact refused the money before it was re-purposed, the Charity Commission saw no reason to act and agreed the course of re-purposing plus there was no police action or criticism.
4/. Consider situations outside of RAFAC, such as the principles of Lasting Powers of Attorney which have distinct similarities.
5/. Don’t be anngry just because you don’t agree
6/. If you are an OC, why not have a chat with your CWC chair and set a New Year’s resolution.
7/. If you are a CWC Chair, then point 6 in reverse.

If you really can’t accept the above, remember that it is not CivComs who have created the current situation, please don’t shoot me a load of vitreole on this forum. Instead, please remember that the current situation exists because it is the RAFAC leadership created it by seeking the benefits of charitable status without considering the full implications and developments in recent years which have caused something of a mess.

Thanks for reading.

28

It’s not as simple as you say regarding whether the cadets are the only beneficiaries. It depends on the constitution adopted by the committee. Does it say it’s for the benefit of the cadets, the cadets and staff, or the squadron. If squadron does it define it? If not then arguably it includes the staff.

29

out of curiosity, I have seen no information relating to this in the FOI request relating to communication between HQAC and the CWC from Thurston, so where does this information come from?

30

This? @big_g

31

I read that and saw no mention of money being returned,
did I miss it?

32

@big_g big thread on it here, see @celticmentor1 's post.
https://forum.aircadetcentral.net/t/atc-sqn-suspended-over-civcom-staff-rift/

33

Sorry Alfa,
I am asking where the information that HQAC refused the return of the money to the Thurston Sqn came from.

The information in the FOI and what Celticmentor’s info seem to show

  1. the money wasn’t returned
  2. the money was sent else where

I find it strange, in Celticmentor’s info another sqn got a donation and thurston who
it seems burst their backsides raising this money got nothing.

34

Rumpole,
The letter written by Barbara Cooper that you refer to interests me. As I understand it (and happy to be corrected) the money was originally raised by the Thurston Sqn Civ Com with the intention of it being spent in support of a new Sqn HQ building. However, in process terms, I thought that for non-public funds under the control of the Civ Com to be used, a request is made by an OC Sqn for consideration by the CivCom. If they are content that the request is legitimate (in term of being in support of authorised activity) they discuss and vote. Therefore, in the Thurston case, at some stage the OC would have had to request the money to be allocated in support of a new build.
While I can understand that Barbara Cooper might wish to establish the principle that all Air Cadet building should be supported from public funds (if only to stop the Treasury or MOD reducing the Air Cadet budget), once the original project was no longer available to support what stopped the money being used , through the normal request process, to support other sqn activities?

35

The Squadron is “The train set”. It’s what we are all here to support wearing whichever hat we’ve chosen, and the OC runs the Squadron.
The funds and any charitable assets which are held in trust by the committee are ancillaries.

Now, that may seem like a minor point of semantics but actually I’d say that the crux of many of the instances where friction has developed is specifically because the committees have been under the misguided impression that they get to call the shots. They don’t. They either support the unit or they don’t. That’s really the limit of their decision making.

Frankly I feel that giving committee members the impression that they have some sort of control over the operation of the Sqn is setting them up to create friction and is entirely unfair to all parties.

Herein is the fundamental error in that point… Where do you think it says that the cadets only are the beneficiaries?
I think you’ll find that since most Committee constitutions are written up using the standard template that in fact in most cases the beneficiary will be defined in the following paragraph:

“…it is envisaged that [the charity funds and assets should be applied] primarily for the direct benefit of the squadron and its cadets, including as appropriate providing funds for the wider RAFAC (ie the Region and Wing) as part of the squadron’s contribution to the Organisation.”

“The Squadron and it’s cadets”. That does not mean “the cadets only”.
The Squadron as an entity in its own right is a beneficiary. That is, that funds should be spent for the benefit of the Squadron in general as well as the cadets specifically.
That may for example include future-proofing which does not directly benefit the current crop of cadets, but will benefit those down the road. It may also include welfare-type support for Squadron staff to enable them to do their job, which in turn will directly support the Sqn’s objective to provide the cadet experience.
For example, a committee might agree to fund the travel costs for a new CI to attend Wing HQ for BPSS process (since, as they are not yet appointed as staff they can’t claim travel).
Or they might provide additional home to duty travel funding to cover the shortfall between what is actually spent on public transport and what the RAFAC will refund.
The staff who, like the cadets, are members of “the Squadron” would be eligible beneficiaries should the committee decide that it’s within the spirit of their remit to assist.

“The wider RAFAC” would also therefore be considered a beneficiary, albeit one with a limited ‘claim’.

Your suggestion therefore that the cadets are the only beneficiaries and that only the cadets could initiate legal proceedings is, I’m afraid, patently unfounded.

As a further point of interest - in the real world that is simply not the case and probably hasn’t been since about 1950.

It’s not supposition at all… The Thurston situation arose because that committee felt that it could make decisions which affected the running of the unit. A responsibility which rests solely with the CFAVs. That’s what lead to the initial split between Sqn and CivCom.
As I mention above there have been numerous reports of friction between staff and CivCom grounded entirely in the CivCom overstepping their remit.

That is rather what I was getting at. The reason we have the civcom and why funds are held in charity trust is as a check against some moron OC wasting money unable to be checked by his fellow, but subordinate, CFAVs.
But where the OC (or any other staff member) makes a reasonable request for funds then the CivCom should be supporting it in accordance with their constitution.
I.e. if it is a genuinely reasonable request then they’d need to have a damned good reason to refuse it if they intend to claim that they are acting in the best interest of the Sqn.

I appreciate that you don’t like the current situation regarding HQAC and the wording of ACPs 10 and 11, but I would put it to you that you’ve approached this from too far the other extreme.
Your previous comments on this topic seem to imply that you’ve spent so much time arguing the legal responsibility of the trustees that you almost forget why they’re even there in the first place - which is for no other reason than to support the Squadron.
The Squadron whose business output is directed entirely by the OC and RAFAC CoC.

36

The OC might run the sqn, but they do not run the CWC. They are ex-officio members only. As OC I cannot get rid of CWC members, an OC can try and manipulate a coup, but that can go badly wrong, which leaves the sqn up the proverbial creek.
What the squadron is, is a working partnership between the CWC and the squadron staff.
In the starkest terms no CWC = no Sqn, no OC means someone else does it and as long as the CWC is still there the squadron exists.

37

That’s pretty much what we were all saying previously before someone else started implying that the whole affair is the CWC’s train set.

That is correct, but fairly unimportant.
All we need concern ourselves with is what is best for the Squadron and then we ask the question “can/will the committee support “x,y,z”? …”
The committee do their bit and if the answer they come back with is “yes” then great.
If they come back with “no”, then we need to know why.

  • Is it a lack of funding? In which case we need more funds…
  • Do they not understand the benefit of “x,y,z”? In which case we need to explain it…
  • Are they being obstructive? In which case they need to be reminded of why they exist…
  • Is it something else? In which case, discuss…

Yes.
Or to look at it the other way… No Sqn = no cadets = no subscriptions & no donations for hard work carried out = No money for a CWC to preside over and no beneficiary for them to support.

Ergo No Sqn would equal = No CivCom Excepted Charity.

As you say (and as I’ve said, as have many others), it is a partnership.

But it’s a partnership where one partner controls the business and the other supports it.

Nobody with a brain should ever believe that (under the current regulation) a Sqn could work (or even exist) without an active and supportive committee.
But also, no committee should ever feel that they are “above” the Squadron staff.
Everyone must know their place in the grand plan.

1 Like
38

Essential as that is the way that the ATC was created, there was a necessity to separate public and non public funding, each having separate accountability, the first to the Treasury, and the second under Charity Law. You can have the squadron without a Civcom, but you would legally have access to any money. And before you think the can have a bank account yo need to take a look at what the Banks expect of a Community Account - a constitution for one thing.

Civcoms now no longer handle public funds so they only have accountabililty under Charity Law, and that applies to charitable funds, including all assets purchased and owned by the Fund.

Staff cannot be beneficiaries, partly as they receive allowances from the public purse, and the exclusion from decision making within the CWC, stems from that. I assume you will all agree that Cadets do not receive any allowance and apart from the elements which are funded by the MOD, they are entirely dependent on the CWC for their enjoyment of the extended range of ATC activities.

CWC members do not receive any remuneration or allowance, so are entirely voluntary and what is more important on that account they are then entirely independent. Nor can thay pay themselves out of charitable funds, because they cannot be beneficiaries; otherwise they would be in contravention of the Law. However it appears there are instances where no-public funds have been used for non charitable purposes, but it was not the doing of any Sqn Civcom.

It is also worth extending the arguement to fundraising. An addition to Charity Law was made in 2016 which created a Fundraising Regulator, and this further refined what is the entity we are talking about. It is the CWC or the Squadron Welfare Fund which is the Charity, managed by Trustees who are the CWC. It is also those Trustees and the Charity which is then recognised as the fundraiser.

I note that the GPF is acknowledged to have a fundraising interest but that is distinctly different to anything which might happen at Squadron level, but it means that donors need to be aware of the intent of their donation. It seems then that Cadets undertaking a bagpack would be an initiative agreed by the OC and CWC, whereas the CWC is not required to be involved should the OC agree to help fundraise for any other cause. In that situation, the CWC should not be expected to handle any of those proceeds because it is outside of their remit.

The situation is getting complex, because of the need for accountability, but there are several on this forum who evidently cannot see the wood from the trees. I will admit there may have been some CWCs who have failed to develop a working relationship, but it is those Trustees who are held accountable by the Charity Regulator, not the OC or any of the staff if charitable assets are unaccounted for.

And if anyone believes that accountability is satisfied by the use of Form 60, then you need to question why there is often an incomplete record of assets, with receipt by Wing being just a rubber stamping exercise.

It is evident from some posts that there is a considerable lack of understanding, which is supported by copious amounts of verbal diarrhea, so whilst that condition persists, it is going to be difficult to achieve a good working relationship where a different hymn sheet is being used - and that cant be good for the Cadets.

39

I’d be interested in your sources for that …?

40

By all means go back and read through the old documents which were released under the original FoI request which brought it all to light…

I think you’ll find that Section 185 of the Charities Act 2011 and Part V (Sections 28-33) of the Trustee Act 2000 specifically deals with and allows for remuneration of charity trustees from the charity fund…

I’d be interested as to how you think that is relevant?
The Squadron is the beneficiary having, presumably, been deemed to constitute a suitable section of the public.
Nobody is talking about individual staff being named beneficiaries or such like, but where the purpose of the charity is to support the Squadron and where staff might receive no more than incidental benefit in furtherance of the charitable purposes the law makes that entirely justifiable.

Examples of personal benefit which are incidental to the furtherance of the purposes might be:

  1. That staff member who doesn’t receive sufficient HTD to cover their travelling expenses. Where they are necessary to the functioning of the Squadron - and thus the delivery of the Cadet Experience - a CivCom choosing to refund the additional travel costs would be no more than an incidental personal benefit to the staff member concerned. The primary benefit being that member of staff is able to provide cadet activities.

or,

  1. Staff using the same Sqn-owned expedition equipment which the cadets use. A tent is bought for the Squadron but a staff member sleeps in it on a DofE weekend. That staff member is benefitting from the use of the asset, but nobody would suggest that they shouldn’t be permitted to do so because they claim remuneration.
1 Like
41

Rumpole, perhaps you missed the questions…

Can you clarify where the information Where you say that the ATC did not want the sqn funds returned comes from?

And Celticmentor asked about why the money raised for new premises couldn’t get used for other more appropriate uses at the sqn?

42

Where 863 not actually based on school property not owned by RFCA.

43

Hi bob,
From what I read yes they were in a school.
The school said no to a new building.

If it’s like a unit I know locally The ATC own the building but it’s inside the school perimeter. So everything needs to be done with no parties consent.

44

Members of civilian committees also receive allowances from the public purse. Travel, subsistence allowance, accommodation expenses (e.g. hotels)… see ACP300. Reimbursement of collective travel costs by MOD on Accts Form 4 also goes back to the Civilian Committee.

What level of allowance is acceptable?

45

I think you will find that Section 185 is concerned with personal benefit- it talks about a service . Were a Trustee qualified to deliver Adventure Training, then it would be reasonable for him/her to be remunerated, especially if it relates to that persons line of business, because they are providing a service which benefits the Cadets. Trust Law is slightly different, as that Law has different requirements. But under Charity Law, there is no provision for payment, unless where there is a contractual obligation ie the person is employed by the Charity. There are several recent cases where Trustees have rewarded themselves and where the Charity Commission has got involved.

Besides which the Constitution would be expected to stipulate remuneration or expenses and it does not. The Law is clear as to beneficiary, and it is the Cadets, or the Squadron as a unit, and it is reasonable to expect staff to use equipment where they are engaged in the delivery of Cadet benefit. There is no derived non-entitled personal benefit. It would not be acceptable for staff to borrow equipment in connection with a non cadet related event. A bit like borrowing the SOV to do the personal shopping.

The point is that the CWC are unpaid volunteers, there is no HTD paid by the Exchequer, because they are it members of the RAFAC. But maybe if there was some sort of remuneration it might give scope to recruiting experienced Trustees with a clear understanding of the Law, and who might manage the Charities according to the Law without interference from HQAC, and this might also bring in some fundraising expertise.

In the example above, it might of course be an option for the individual to provide service gratis, because as a volunteer, the main objective is toward the Cadet activity programme - that is why I got involved.

Regretably there have been many such volunteers, freely giving their time only for the ATC to walk all over them. We had an excellent DofE leader, but a no-nonsense person who soon walked away.

For all those who willingly give their time, there are also those who see the Welfare fund as an available pot of gold. I recall a tale of an OC buying a SOV and then presenting the CWC with a bill, or expecting them to come up with the cash. That really is a good indicator of the level of cooperation, and I suspect it is little things like that which cause the Civcom to walk. As is also the Civcom raising a non charity related concern and being totally ignored or no action being taken to address the problem.

But that is not an issue now with ACP11; all you need to do is get hold of the Wing Chair, who will contact the Regional Chair and hey presto you can initiate a disciplinary against the Civcom.

Strange then Trustees are not members of the RAFAC but someone outside of the individual charity can go poking around and determine a disciplinary - I hope you might agree Charity and Trust Law does not permit outside interference (except by the Charity Commission which actually has no authority to delegate) - well that is what my legal source has confirmed.

Keep posting - it is interesting to know what misconceptions there are around.

46

So why does similar remuneration for me (as I am qualified to deliver adventure training) disqualify me from being a trustee?