Isn’t there a rugby club forum you should be devoting your time to?
8 Likes
I’m not suggesting anything, it’s in the books in black and white and has been for a long time. Just because you’ve never claimed them, doesn’t mean they’ve never existed.
In amongst that legal waffle, I don’t think, again, you’ve really answered my points in plain english.
Registered CivCom members can be responsible for cadet activities if they are suitably qualified and also can claim allowances.
‘Standard’ CivCom can also claim allowances.
So, if they aren’t entitled to allowances then you’d better inform HQAC and make sure that Registered CivCom members cannot be trustees, and any entitlement to mileage, hotel bookings and so on is removed from the organisational policies shortly. I look forward to seeing the policies change.
I very, very much doubt that HQAC didn’t get legal advice on adding in registered Civ com as a thing.
They have to go through RAF Legal to change what pattern shirt we wear FFS.
Reg CWC is a way to get around not being able to recruit adult staff in sufficient numbers, so I doubt anyone at HQAC put any thought into it. Like so many things as and when someone catches up, it could all backfire and end badly.
It would be interesting to know if they could be trustees or not, as I know of a couple of sqns where at least one of the 3 execs are Reg CWC. TBH if it wasn’t for the Reg CWC one of the sqns would be in serious shtuck. I’ve avoided this like the plague as it seems to cross-over and give people entitlements in decision making processes denied to ‘proper’ staff.
All 3 of the Execs on my Committee are Registered CivCom
Technically that’s incorrect.
We’ve already spoken about receiving payment for services - that’s an example where a trustee can receive payment and it certainly relates to their appointment - because if they weren’t a trustee it wouldn’t even be a concern.
Such a service needn’t just be to provide activities for cadets, or to undertake repairs; it could be something regular such as providing administrative or secretarial service to the charity.
i.e. Where the charity might have to otherwise employ someone to perform a job a trustee could be paid to do that work if it doesn’t present a conflict of interest and where the other trustees agree and the detail are recorded in writing.
The law also allows trustees to claim out of pocket expenses from the charity fund.
What you may be trying to say is that trustees are not usually paid for simply being a trustee - though even that is not a hard and fast rule. If the charity’s governing document allows it then the law supports that (being that the Charity Commission will have approved the charity based upon that document). Further, charities can apply to the Commission at any time for authority to a pay a trustee.
However, this all relates to payment from the charity funds. The intention of the law here being to safeguard the fund (and ultimately the beneficiaries) for example to prevent Joe Bloggs from creating a charity for no other reason than so that he can pay himself a nice fat salary from the donations.
The Charities Act does not concern itself with a trustee receiving expenses payment from another source.
The fact that a CivCom member can claim from public money certain allowances in relation to their duty as a CivCom member is neither here nor there.
It doesn’t affect the charity fund and neither is it a conflict of interest.
It really doesn’t.
What utter drivel! People refuse a commission because they don’t want that role or they don’t want the additional responsibility which comes with that level of management. It’s got nothing to do with taking “the King’s shilling”.
WOs & SNCOs have not taken a commission and we receive the same remuneration from public money as do Commissioned Officers.
This is yet another example where you prove that you don’t understand the CFAV side of things at all.
You appear to think that public money has some magical property, the receipt of which makes a person ineligible for all sorts of things.
I’d love to know from where you’ve gotten this idea…
I think you’ll find that review was initiated because a certain CivCom in Thurston went mental and starting trying to do god knows what against the best interest of the beneficiary…
Is it? Are you sure it’s not in the market to remind trustees what their obligations are and to ensure that they understand what is required to act in the best interest of their various Sqns?
As others have been keen to point out, trustees are given very little training (if any) and noone outside the RAFAC is going to be coming along to help them out.
Those taking on the responsibility of trusteeship are legally required to take expert advice when making decisions outside their area of knowledge and also to consider the wishes of their beneficiary - the Sqn - and of the donors.
So there are two options - the RAFAC leaves entirely alone and committees - which consist of primarily well-intentioned but ultimately ignorant members - get themselves into hot water because they don’t understand their legal responsibilities; or the RAFAC provides guidance to those people who are good enough to volunteer their time to help support the cause, and is then accused of trying to manipulate them.
4 Likes
Many CFAVs have refused a Commission because certain OC Wings are inclined towards using staff as pawns, and there was a widespread tendency not to allow staff any choice about where they are based. HTD allowance is totally irrelevant if a greater level of personal time is swallowed up by an unwanted move. I know several individuals who have resigned rather than be shunted from pillar to post.
I accept what you say about a Trustee providing say admin or secretarial, that could be work provided for the Charity, and which can be remunerated by the charity, but it is quite different to anything to di wth direct supervision of the beneficiaries.
However it is not for the Charity Commission to approve anything. The onus is on the Charity to ensure legal competence by taking advice - again that is something they have written in documentation.The Commission is an independent regulator and would compromise it’s ability to enforce the Law if it were to dispense approval of anything.
I am sure you will agree that the ACO has had consultation with CCEW and OSCR (recorded in ACP11), but there are four other regulators which have not been consulted, and which operate under quite separate legislation, so nothing is so cut and dried and you appear to believe.
You seem to be stuck in a groove and cannot let the 863 issue go. Indeed it would appear that the ACP11 review followed that series of events, but you are assuming that the ACO is right. The ACP11 review was simply an attempt to justify removal of Trustees, and I think you will find the legal opinion does not support the ACO.
And who has actually said the ACO acted properly in the 863 situation - only the ACO itself of course which is a bit one sided don t you think. Well actually the ACO does not talk about it, which is the best way to avoid embarrassing questions. You will also find no recorded minutes of discussion about the issue at ACMB, so what abounds on this forum has to be pure hearsay and speculation.
Perhaps the fact that the constitution and ACP11 are not legally competent, is the reason behind some Civcoms writing their own Constitution.
I always thought that the only people who came out of the 863 debacle well were the Squadron Staff.
The committee were entitled idiots, and the Head shed were arrogant fools.
2 Likes
That may be true… But that has absolutely nothing to do with “accepting the King’s shilling” as you put it. All CFAVs get public money. It makes no difference and doesn’t change the whole situation at all.
What has that got to do with the price of fish?
You keep claiming that CivCom are special because they don’t receive public money. I and others keep telling you that they can and do, and that receiving public money makes no difference whatsoever to anything here. I’ve got absolutely no idea what “supervision” has to do with that.
I’m not sure whether you’re just incredibly confused about this whole thing or whether you are intentionally waffling and backpedaling because you realise you’re out of your depth.
Well fella, you asked why we had a review and I told you. That’s not me being stuck in a groove.
And here you’ve agreed with me and answered your own question.
Frankly, whether or not the ACO had the legal right to act as they did in the Thurston case doesn’t really concern me. They may have been wrong, but so was the CivCom. Very much so!
They had no business pursuing the ridiculous course of action they took, but you seem almost adamant not to recognise that.
If my committee had taken £78,000 intended to benefit my Squadron and transferred it to some dodgy separate legal entity in a hairbrained scheme I’d be pretty miffed too and would take similar action.
10 Likes
I think I’d notice if my CWC accrued £78K and have plans for a bloody good party. I also think that it would get picked up in the annual CWC “how’s it going” and F60s.
I understand the need for Reg Civcom where staff numbers are insufficient, but also note the conflict of interest in their creation. However, perhaps any bias, if it were to exist, would do so toward the Squadron and therefore is a useful mechanism for fostering more understanding between the two parties for the wider benefit of the cadet.
I think that can go 50/50 as being able to physically run activities may delude some individuals into thinking that the staff are not required.
Where I do like the reg CivCom is in 2 areas, firstly it means the Committee can technically run fundraising without eating into Staff time, which is already far overstretches. (Bag Packs etc). Secondly it means that as many do, a member of staff wants to take a step back and go onto the Committee that they can do so, but where they have skills those skills are still available to the unit. (Specifically thinking about AT).
1 Like
This is exactly it in my mind. It means that committee activities can be run with cadet support without CFAV. There’s also a benefit for having CWC at PR and other events and volunteering.
Sure, there’s a little bleed and creep in places, but that’s the trade-off - mostly to the benefit of units by widening the pool of available skills and bodies (as alluded to in your second point).
Seems to me that those with issues around reg CivCom are voicing similar concerns to problems that exist among some CivComs anyway - the reg role isn’t the issue, but problems borne of attitudes, relationships, and a lack of understanding/cohesion.
Now, I’m no legal beagle, nor even a Freeman of the RAFAC, but surely the legal basis of reg CivCom was around safeguarding of cadets. I don’t expect for one moment that there was never previously direct and supervisory contact between CivCom and cadets prior to its rollout.
The role doesn’t directly impact the charity/beneficiary relationship. If individuals’ or their actions do, then that’s a separate matter.
1 Like
@Rumpole did you ever find the information where the Old Thurston Civcom offered to hand back the money to the squadron??
4 Likes