@Aries @Rumpole
What I cannot understand at all, is if you feel so strongly about the reams of guff you reel off why have you actually not done something about it?
Not HTD… but they are still eligible for a variety of other allowances from the public purse.
Reading all of this makes me very grateful that we don’t have civilian committees.
3 Likes
BOOM. Thank you for making my point for me. That is exactly what I stated about 12 posts ago.
…yes. Here it is:
Yes.
It’s called “Remuneration” and until we pointed it out you appeared to be under the impression that “CWC members do not receive any remuneration or allowance, so are entirely voluntary” (your words).
Given that each CivCom has to write their own constitution I’d love to know how you think you can make such a sweeping statement. You’ve presumably read all 600-odd of them?
Aside from which, remuneration for services under Section 185 need only be laid out in an agreement in writing - not embedded into the core constitution.
A “service” provided could be almost anything. It need not be, as in your example, something which provides for the beneficiary. It could be something as simple as buying stationary on behalf of the charity and receiving the costs back, or it could be for example, a charity trustee owns a cleaning business and it’s decided that his/her company will be contracted to clean the charity’s office building.
The law allows for remuneration of charity trustees. The point being that your argument that trustees are completely unremunerated - and that’s what makes them special - is nonsense.
Nothing in law would prevent me or any other CFAV from being a charity trustee.
The reason that we cannot be trustees for the Squadron charity is that, being part of the Squadron, we are also considered to be a beneficiary and that is a clear conflict of interest.
If the old fallacy that “only the cadets” are beneficiaries were correct then there would be nothing to prevent the Sqn Staff from holding the charity purse strings and acting in the best interest of the cadets.
I’m not sure you understand what that word means…
misconception (about something) a belief or an idea that is not based on correct information, or that is not understood by people.
Given that everything I’ve written thus far is clearly provable I’d love to know what misconceptions you think I and others hold?
I’ll break down the points I’ve made in précis and you can tell me which ones you think are wrong:
- The Squadron staff run the Squadron.
- The Squadron is a beneficiary of the charity fund.
- The CivCom exist to support their Squadron.
- If a particular CivCom are being intentionally obstructive and are not supporting their Squadron then they are breaking the law.
1 Like
With this in mind, and linking with a conversation elsewhere about SOV ownership and V5 details owner/keeper
does this thus imply that CWC should be listed as the “owner” of a SOV??
Wasn’t the outcome that the CivCom owns it as they hold and are named on the invoice, but that doesn’t impact the named registered keeper or vice-versa?
1 Like
Evidently you have never had to raise an issue and therefore not been privileged to see how the system works.
It is an eye opener that the Charity Commission has publicly stated support for whistleblowers, and yet takes no notice of complaints raised by Trustees. So what then? There was also research into bullying and harassment within the sector (using Government funds!) and the findings was extensive, and yet there is a charity to support victims, except that if you are an unpaid volunteer, they are not interested.
So what it means is that the ACO is free to continue indulging in such activities, and within the echelons there are those who specialise because that is how they manage and will never change. Little wonder the CAC made a plea about mutual respect, but unfortunately the evidence is that where she has had the opportunity to nip things in the bud, she has not done so.
From the Civcom viewpoint, why is it them perceived that non-members ought to be disciplined for being open and honest in the interest of the Cadets.
If we take the procedure where you have Wing Chairs trying to get all Sqns to adopt Governance without legal sufficiency, and those Wing Chairs report to the Regional Chairs, who are members of the ACMB, which just happens to be chaired by the CAC, you get a different picture to the schematic in ACP11 about how the Civilian pillar is supposed to work, incidentally supposedly for the benefits of the Cadets.
Sounds to me like it is a case of this is what we are doing, just go and get the money.
Does that amount to respect?
Maybe you exist in a garden of roses, where life is sweet and comments reflect that. Keep a low profile, toe the line, you survive that way. But any attempt to rock the boat, or seek redress is where things go off the rails, even if you are not at fault despite what is written in the ACPs.
Is it too much to expect a bit of lateral thinking?
I’m not sure what you mean? Can you expand please?
To put it across in that manner would absolute not be respectful, and I don’t think that anybody involved in this discussion would say that the example you gave of the OC and the minibus is a fair, right, or proper way to deal.
However the basic process on which we operate is much as you’ve summarised.
The Squadron staff determine and cater for the needs of the Squadron.
The CivCom have volunteered to support the Squadron.
So the process goes as follows:
- OC says “These are our plans for the Squadron… How can you help?”
- CivCom discuss and decide how best to use the fund to support the needs and aims of the Squadron.
The basic process should work like this:
CFAVs need to be aware that the CivCom are not merely “the holders of the cash pot” and that they have legal responsibilities. Most occurrences along the lines of “I bought this - please reimburse me” are down to misunderstanding, not contempt.
But just as equally all CivCom members need to know how they fit into the picture too - and that is that they have no control over the operation of the Squadron but that they are volunteering to support it in whichever way they feel they can (and which the OC considers to be beneficial), and that they have a legal requirement to spend that fund for the benefit of the Squadron.
Much of the frustration going the other way has been because of committees who refuse to fund the needs of the Squadron. Particularly where such refusal is not backed by a legitimate reason.
I’ve been in that position and I can absolutely understand how that does breed contempt.
When the committee announce that they’ve got X amount in the bank but they won’t agree to spend £20 on an absolute necessity then once becomes particularly frustrated.
Or an urgent, unexpected need, and not to such a substantial financial scale.
1 Like
Yeah, fair point.
In fact, our CivCom have agreed a certain level of “pre-authorisation” in principal.
If the OC or Adj in (OCs absence) need to fund something (up to a set value) then they agree that, provided it’s determined to be a sensible spend, they are happy for us to do so without their prior approval.
If after the fact they decide that it’s not a legitimate spend then they can refuse to refund us.
All parties have agreed to it. All good.
It works well.
Example… It’s a hot day on out on a trip and the OC buys a case of bottled water for cadets and staff. No problem.
The minibus wiper breaks during a weekend trip and so we buy a replacement - no need to contact the committee to ask for permission.
I’d imagine that there are other units who’ve done likewise.
2 Likes
No garden of Rose’s here.
My civ com are all useless.
Would burn the civ com structure and requirement for it to the ground.
All you need is a treasurer to counter sign cheques for the OC.
Especially as OC, I have raised every single penny over the last X years.
No money raised by civ com = no right to say what it is spent on.
5 Likes
If you’re doing the job for them, they have no real reason to even try. If perhaps the people you have are new to CWCs and see that the CO is raising the money as far as they are concerned that’s how it works. Also if someone is meant to do something, but someone else is doing it, then the someone will let them carry on. It’s human nature.
Has this concern been raised at your AI? Have you spoken directly to the Chairman to see why they seem unable to raise money, although be prepared as above? If you have this conversation say you no longer have the time to devote to fundraising … over to you.
Don’t make cadets fundraisers. I make it clear that the cadets will be able to assist but it’s not their raison d’etre.
I don’t really have a Civ Comm, just a Treasurer, and this isn’t despite considerable efforts to recruit members.
Does it work? Just. Any funds raised have been by Cadets and Staff (although we don’t push this or overload). Do we have enough money, well yes, but with more we could of course do more.
Thankfully there is a very good relationship with the Treasurer, and we don’t have issues with expenditure where it is necessary, so the Squadron and Cadets do not suffer from not being able to spend.
Would I like a proper CWC? Of course. I’d happily take the ‘risk’ of having a few disagreements and a bit of cajoling of members to get things done, than rather be in the somewhat precarious situation we are presently in.
CWC needs a minimum of 3 members - Chair, Treasurer, Secretary - otherwise it’s not viable. ACP 11 states an “ideal minimum of 5 members”, but meetings must consist of at least 3 members (not including ex-officio members).
How are you still running?
Or own documents also state this:
“Committee members are not entitled to receive any payment out of the Charity’s property or finances, other than reasonable and necessary out-of-pocket expenses; these can be met from the Charity’s income.”
Aye, though that is a smidge misleading where it refers to payment… Before someone jumps in and uses that as justification to say they can’t claim any remuneration (beyond -out-of-pocket).
It refers to payment in the sense that being on the CivCom doesn’t provide them with a salary. They can’t expect payment for simply being a trustee.
If for example the parade hall floor needs buffing and CivCom member Joe Bloggs, of “Joe Bloggs Flooring Ltd” offers a good deal then the committee can vote to give the work to Joe. It merely needs to be laid out in writing to satisfy the law - giving proof that it’s not Joe making work for himself unethically.
I don’t think our regulations have even considered such a situation.
Just one problem there, you cannot exist as a charity that way, which means you wont be entitled to gift aid. Without being a defined charity in your own right, you cannot then fundraise on your own (or Cadets) behalf, because all such activities are required to be Regulated, soeocficasly ti ensure that money you raise is applied specifically for the purpose declared to the donor.
Seems to me that you are providing yet another instance where the ACO is working te Law.
And if you think that you only need a counter signatory fir the Bank account, I think you might find the Bank will need to see a Constitution, and without one you cannot exist as even a mere Community group.
Seems also that you do not understand the basics behind being a Charity and it is unfortunate that your Civcom is in a similar position; that is perhaps because the ACO is failing to adapt to the requirements of the law, whereas it is more concerned with countering potential Civcom involvement in Management issues. Cant imagine that is your problem, looks like you lay claim to owning the train set as well as operating it, and you are not happy for anyone else to be involved, bearing in mind that you would not have a job if the Civcom parents (ie the Squadron Association) did not allow their offspring to be Cadets.
I agree with your last comment, one does not want to put in all the effort for others to claim credit. That should not be the case should it. Sounds like the Civcom have taken fright for whatever reason, the question is why?
Ineligibility.
b) They are currently serving as a uniformed or civilian staff member.
This appears through out ACP11 Region Wing and Squadron and especially membership of the Squadron Association. Otherwise there is a conflict of interest, a term which has yet to gain clarity within the ACO. This part of ACP11 is a supplement to the Constitution which is the Charity Governing document. Even though ACP11 in its present state has not been legally vetted, it is spot on with Trustee eligibility, something which has been in place since the beginning and which is unchanged by the Charities Act 2011.
So it is in black and white that you cannot be a Trustee.
No-one picked up on the red herring. Trustees cannot be responsible for Cadet activities, and in any case to do so, they would have been through ACO induction, at the public expense; so they become staff with no need for Civcom to fund their contribution of ‘service’. Maybe I should have referred to a Trustee with professional IT skills, maintaining the Sqn IT, which could be remunerated by the Civcom, because it would be of benefit to the Cadets.
IT maintenance does not involve Cadet supervision, but I have known many Cadets who are more IT literate than many so called experts who charge for the privilege.
Mind you that reminds me of situation where access to IT had no charge falling on the Civcom, but the involvement of Wing saw to it that all essential links were broken - that facility lost because the Civcom walked and the replacement were simply puppets, unable to rebuild any of the links.
Who lost out there?
On a broader scale, it is worth noting that the Law is in place to protect the interests of the beneficiaries.
Which is fine… but you seem to be suggesting that the reason for this ineligibility is that they receive allowances from the public purse. Which they do; but then so do civilian committee members. You still haven’t really answered this point, or my question about what level of allowance is acceptable?
So I presume all the ‘Registered’ civ com members who are also trustees will be resigning their trusteeship shortly?
1 Like
There are so many things wrong with this statement.
It’s not a “red herring” at all - it just shows that you don’t understand how cadet activities work.
Your hypothetical situation was a CivCom member who is “qualified to conduct AT”.
That person could deliver AT just as with any other external instructor. They would not need to go through “ACO Induction” (by the way, the ACO doesn’t exist any more and hasn’t done for some time now); in just the same way that we don’t make ANY external instructors/providers become staff or go through induction. That CivCom member wouldn’t be responsible for the cadets - the Staff would be, as we always are. The CivCom member would merely provide their service exactly as any other civilian AT centre would and be responsible for their customers.
You appear to imply that a course being publically funded magically bestows “Staff” status on the attendees. That is not the case.
Once again I will tell you that the law does not prohibit persons from being charity trustees for simply receiving some sort of benefit, directly or indirectly, from public funds.
Even if the CivCom member went through induction and became “Registered CivCom” (which is NOT the same as other Sqn staff) there could still be a reason for the CivCom to pay them from the fund…
If they run a climbing centre, they could offer to take the cadets climbing, but if there are costs to cover (such as paying the other company staff for the session) then they would still charge the Squadron, even if they give a good discount. That charge would be paid for by the CivCom to that trustee. Which is remuneration for providing a service.
Equally, a member of staff might provide a service to the Sqn through their day job which may actually cost money (although in this case as they are not trustees the law isn’t a concern). But your implication (intended or not) that, being staff, there is no need for the civcom to fund their service is somewhat short-sighted.
I’m sorry Aries, but over the course of the last week you have written much, however you have routinely misquoted the law; you’ve proven that you don’t understand how the RAFAC works - particularly in regard to CFAV and the operation of Squadron activities; and you’ve shown that apparently you do not have up to date knowledge of Civilian Committees.
You are not coming across as a credible source.
3 Likes