@Rumpole would be interested in getting a reply…
1 Like
Apologies - needed hunting out,
Here is an extract from Barbara Cooper’s letter that I think came from an earlier FOI.
I would only add that, to my knowledge, the Salmon Trust as referred to was only conceived at the recommendation of her predecessor, Region and Wing. So it may well be that this contributed to feelings at the time (2012).
In terms of using funds for other purposes, under normal circumstances that may well have been possible. But my understanding is that the subsequent actions by Region, Wing and HQ leading to the involvement of the Charity Commission and their criticism of the RAFAC approach in such matters caused too much uniform embarrassment. Again, this lead to a full written apology to the trustees from the 22 Group and, just at that time when things could have got back to normal, new kid on the block Dawn McCafferty waded in with her own agenda which was to ostracise the trustees rather than unify and move on.
Can anyone else find where in that letter it states, implies, or even hints that the Sqn declined the return of the funds, which had previously been transferred from the Squadron account to The Salmon Trust?
Because I’ll be buggered if I can…
3 Likes
I would also offer to the impartial that wdimagineer2b comes across to me as being quite shouty on the matter. A brief re-read through this thread reads to me that, in my case, there has not really been any significant differences beyond that I meant the money and resources as the ‘train set’ and he/she the whole squadron. That is simple misunderstanding.
When information is provided, then it requires a less indoctrinated reaction to consider possibilities beyond RAFAC. The application of wider law only serves to dig a deeper hole for RAFAC when the best option would be for the MOD to pay the lot and ditch charitable funding.
But while there is such funding then the lay of the land will apply and if RAFAC is at odds with that then it has to change.
I hold no desire to control a squadron at all, but I understand that a CO who has worked hard to reach that position may feel defensive and the weight of responsibility. De minimis arrangements for smaller expenditure are common sense - we ran to £100.
Why then should trusteeship be a different but equally valid responsibility?
For example
It is no good providing the information
“Shouty” - no. “Resolute” - certainly.
Mildly irritated - yes. The reason for that is grounded in my own previous experience of committees who have been under the misguided impression that they have a remit to exert control over the Squadron. Ergo when the topic comes up I am perhaps over-keen to nip that nonsense in the bud.
You may not have that desire, but there are plenty out there who still misunderstand their place.
The money/resources may be under the control of the civcom but they are not free to do with it as they will. Such freedom is what is generally implied by use of the term “train set”. i.e. “It’s my train set and I’ll play with it however I like”.
The committee can not play with it however they like. They have boundaries which limit their freedom beyond that of other “normal” charity trustees - That being that they have volunteered to be trustee of a fund which has a very specific purpose and one beneficiary.
They have a certain freedom to determine how to allocate the funds, but ultimately if they are not getting spent then they are not fulfilling the charity’s purpose.
If they are not acting for the benefit of the Squadron then the charity ceases to be compliant with the law and as trustees they are placing themselves in the firing line - nobody else needs to do that for them.
The committee, despite its charity status, has a supporting role to directly benefit the Squadron. Nothing else.
The crux of the Thurston problem was that the committee clearly felt that they knew best.
Anyone could have told them (and probably did) that self-funding a new building was a non-starter but for whatever reason they pushed ahead with the whole debacle and refused to listen to the expert advice of those who actually manage such things.
Had they listened instead of taking a vast sum of money from the Squadron fund and donating it to a totally separate charity they could perhaps have avoided all the ensuing unpleasantness.
Why? Are you forgetting who we are?
As an individual with an interest in law I am quite capable of looking at the bigger picture, and as you may discern I have done; but as a CFAV I have only one concern - is the committee working in support of the Sqn? If the answer is “yes” then everyone is happy. If it’s “no” then the civcom have volunteered for the wrong position.
1 Like
So, I’m following this as best as I can, but what happened to the money and what was it spent on?
And how does this line from the East Anglia Daily Times fit in to everything:
The Salmon Trust is part of 63 [sic] (Thurston) Squadron Air Training Corps.
Oh to be able to self build a sqn HQ and be able to have it as a community resource that doesn’t stand idle 162-160 hours a week and make some money out of it.
1 Like
Thanks for the response, I am sorry rumpole but to me that letter states…
-
The corps will not accept any new build and will not participate in any new build premises
-
whilst the origin of The salmon trust was to provide a new premises this option is not viable and the trust was now to be be totally separate from the corps.
-
if the salmon trust wishes to donate money to the sqn it may continue to do so as a third party (ie similar to RAFA or Rolls Royce giving to a sqn).
I don’t see any reference for returning or refusing any money except as above
The letter you refer to from 22group obviously went to those who we involved, as such we won’t see them and cannot agree or disagree with what they say unless you were someone who received it nobody knows what was said.
1 Like
I wonder on the idea of new builds, if a charity or private individual built a sqn HQ or gave a sqn one and rented it to RFCA for the ATC to use, with the charity/individual retaining ownership would that be acceptable. On the basis that RFCA already do this, ie rent buildings or lease the land.
Or the ATC just allowed to use it for say a peppercorn rent paid by the squadron with RFCA and HQAC out of the loop completely and it rented to other groups at other times.
I rather think that’s exactly what the Thurston lot were proposing, so it seems that it wouldn’t be acceptable.
It has to beg the question why?
Building owned by someone else with no financial or other involvement with HQAC or RFCA, should really be a no brainer. Or do HQAC and or RFCA need control?
You can understand it with the ACF as RFCA seem to be more involved, with as I understand CAAs visiting to do H&S etc.
Rumpole,
Thanks for hunting the letter out. I agree with big-g that there is nothing in the extract that would have precluded the Thurston Sqn from requesting support from what became the West Suffolk Youth Trust. However, as you point out , the larger organisation was probably embarrassed by the way it had handled the issue and that may have influenced the sqn staff (to whom I apportion no blame whatsoever) not to request the money that had been transferred from sqn funds to be returned. If I recall correctly the sum was in excess of £78k which could provide a megaboost to any sqn. Given that within the publically available exchanges the needs of the cadets were put front and centre by the Trustees it is such a shame that the they appear to have felt no obligation to return the money to those who had played a significant role in raising it in the first place.
1 Like
We asked the question several years ago. HQAC were open to conversation. RFCA said no from the start
To me I would be worried about the future…
It’s all good here and now, but what about 10/15 years down the line. Staff at the sqn may of changed the building owners/trustees etc may of changed.
What then:
a possibility the building has not been maintained and falling apart
They decided to charge huge sums of money for
Rent
They decide they want to sell it
They decide to just throw the cadets out.
There is just a few reasons I can think of against this proposal
1 Like
Forgot another reason…
RFCA won’t get their back handers 
4 Likes
How is that different from renting space in a school, or church hall?
If RFCA don’t like it, source a new place, and move out.
It’s not… but the last unit I knew that rented a school eventually got their own place as the conditions and rent had significantly changed over the years to a point it was cheaper to buy a fancy listed building and convert.
Also I know of a SCC unit that was homeless and eventually they were passed from church to community building, back to a church and now a college and what was given to them when they agreed to move into the college has been reduced by 2/3rds so they are again hunting for new premises.
With these 2 examples I wouldn’t want to use a third party building long term.
Indeed this ∆∆∆∆.
My only experience of a unit that fell out with its long term landlord/leaseholder is not a happy one - from a solid, small town Sqn with 45 parading to a homeless stray only kept above a DF by a fearsomely protective wing and region (for sentimental reasons, but a good sentimental reason) with no armoury, the tiniest store, a tiny office and no room for the minibus.
RCAF are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but dealing with a third party that is governed by personality is a disaster waiting to happen.
1 Like
In my experience, Civcom members never did get allowances from the public purse, so you appear to suggest that they do.
Technically a Trustee is not entitled to any payment relating to that appointment, unless the appointment is at the direction of the Court. Approval of registered status should not change the very reason for the individual being there in the first place, and of course how they got to be there - independently elected.
Your thoughts appear to relate to the initiative to allow registered Civcom member , so they can have ‘hands’ on experience. I suspect this idea stems from an attempt to overcome staff retention/recruitment problems.
It was always very clear that you were either Civcom or CFAV (working under two entirely separate pillars and ;nair the twain should meet’ . Effectively the ACO has created a conflict of interest, which is perhaps an attempt to control the Civcom by the back door. It is also notable that this idea has been slipped in, after the ACO had consulted with the CCEW and OSCR over the review to ACP11; it is also notable that there has never been any legal input, so who is to say that payment from the public purse to a Trustee (Committee members) for non trustee work is actually legal, and does not compromise the Trustee duty, or even the constitution.
Whatever one believes to be the case, Charity and Trust Law has not actually changed, and the Charities Act 2011 did not impose any requirements for change on the ACO. So why, 3 years after that act became Law, did the ACO undertake a review.
The ACO, as a non charity organisation (CCEW’s own definition) is not in a position to operate outside of statute, which is why it should have taken legal advice, especially now that it is apparently in the market to manipulate Trustees.
If a Civcom member becomes registered, that would be for duties outside of the Committee framework; if the individual was a Chairman, it would be difficult to differentiate roles - the Chairman has always had a monitoring duty (cadet welfare etc) which is essentially an independent duty - report back to the Wing Chair, who is also supposed to be independent of the chain of command.
My own view was always that I volunteered my time for free because I wanted to - the aims and objectives were sufficient. I had no wish to have responsibility for Cadets, but to supplement/support the work of CFAVs FOR FREE. Once you accept the King’s shilling the whole situation changes, which is why so many CFAVs have refused a Commission.
A question which arises, is whether the introduction of registered Civcom members was implemented after any consultation? I dont think so - it was all handed down as a fait accompli from the ACMB. (and we still do not have an official view of where they fit into the equation do we?
Effectively the ACO has created a significant grey area, but one where the independence of the Civcom is further diluted, simply because the ACO believes it has the authority to control Trustees; possibly as an extension of the CAC’s remit as Chair of the GPF Trustees - where the GPF is an entirely separate Charity - by definition it is not even a parent Charity to the various Squadron Charities.