Potential change to GPF and committees at the local level (ASTRA?)

So with the discussion of the ASTRA plans that appear to be slowly trickling down the chain, I thought a separate thread would be worth-while to have to discuss possible changes to the charitable element to our organisation. You may all (especially those CWC members) be interested in the below letter.

This clearly has the potential for organisational-wide impacts.

This letter also has some other non-GPF related stuff in it too.

Oh and the letter has no protective markings so should be all good to discuss :+1:

Is there any more actually confirmed about this? I know the intention is to get rid of the GPF, but I have no real idea how that will effect the squadron comities?

Sorry, yes, should have put a big if in that one.

Does anyone know how that ACF ideal works in practice when it comes to private money?

Sqns often benefit significantly from their ability to have a fund. Eg supermarket checkout token voting schemes, donations from councils and other organisations, etc, which fund Sqn IT, SOVs and more. If that ability goes, what replaces it?


I do agree, but what the commandant has previously said about the reputational and compliance risks with a lot of people who don’t have a clue what they are doing spending other people’s money. Yes there are some great civcoms out there, but most just tick a long doing not much.

Having 900 separate charities with thousands of trustees is maybe not the best way of doing things. And I’m intrigued to see where he goes with it.

The fear, and greatest issue, for me is the loss of control of funds raised locally and/or a consequence of fewer fundraising activities reducing the total available to be spread over a greater distance.

A difference to note between the ACF model (and I’m not fully up on their funding and access structure) is that they have Company assets, which would be like us having Sector Minibuses and Kit Stores. Now our sectors have changed at least three times in the past 10 years which could be awkward if we went to an area funding model, a unit raises a shedload of cash for new sector kit, then moves sector shortly after and became lower priority for access. OR a unit claims funding for their own kit and then moves sector and is suddenly able to claim from a different pot that doesn’t bear previous funding in mind. As for Wing stores as an alternative, that’s 90-120 minutes each way for some units depending on traffic.

1 Like

And a lot further for some wings!!

But I am unsure if there is a ‘good solution’ really. Other than proper, central, non-public funding. Or better sponsorship style deals. It will be tricky to motivate cadets as much with fundraising. Currently it’s very specific. “Lets do X so we can buy Y”. If that goes away it won’t have the same effect.
But at the same time, I do think there is a pretty high level of risk in the way it is currently managed.

On the other hand a centrally controlled fundraising set up could, for example, fund and source a proper flight sim PC and controllers for every Sqn, Sets of daysacks and webbing, etc etc

Improved central fundraising through various means would have to be the way. There would be benefits to it, but it couldn’t not be carried out.

I wonder if multiple squadron accounts could be overseen by more professional, sectorised committees? Heck, I’d even be up for Sqn OCs forming a sector committee instead of random non-cfavs and parents, perhaps keeping independent positions for Chair, Treasurer, and Secretary. I think there would actually be a great deal of benefit to that model too.

…CFAV are more clued up about the requirement/validity of others’ requests, any funding signed off by treasurer and a different unit’s OC, a CFAV OC is somewhat more beholden to the potential consequences of responsibly releasing funds, greater collaboration between units, more compliant sharing of kit with the guarantee of replacement costs coming out of a different unit’s budget meaning greater financial efficiency of purchases, etc…

1 Like

This sounds like something that with a bit of thought could work. Would have a lot more oversight than the current system. And those approving payments actually know what they need. Multiple times I’ve had to advise our CWC from buying things as they think it’s a great idea, but I know as a CFAV that it isn’t.

1 Like

Also know of people with pet projects, gadgets and gizmos, and white elephant money pits that THEY wanted and the CivCom didn’t know any better.

1 Like

Yeah, it’d all-round help with better money spending I think.

Having sqn Civ Comm execs refusing to spend money, because they “don’t want to bankrupt the sqn”, even though they have more (alot more) than 10k in the bank…


I’m confident this is more common than not

1 Like

Used to have a treasurer that wouldn’t spend money, but also wouldn’t apply for grants or other funds because “we have money in the account”…


1 Like

^ this. The actual amount of money in the account is almost irrelevant (as long as there is some) - the important thing is the annual turnover.

1 Like

Personally I’d be happy with more central funding and doing away with committees locally. Not saying I have anything against them or have had issues, but it would be one less thing to manage for the OC.

As long as we are allowed a small fund holding for running a tuck shop and a reasonable petty cash account then all good for me.

The scouts manage with the same system as us. Every Scout Group has its own executive, and more often than not they look after their own facilities too!

1 Like

Is there not quite a large element of commercial money gain too that helps keep the scouts running? Like allowing outside groups to pay to use centres and such. That was how I thought they fund most things! I had only assumed up until now though.

(I’ve certainly paid a lot of money to scout camps to run DofE for cadets and schools!)

1 Like