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
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?
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 donāt have a clue what they are doing spending other peopleās 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 Iām 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 Iām 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 doesnāt bear previous funding in mind. As for Wing stores as an alternative, thatās 90-120 minutes each way for some units depending on traffic.
But I am unsure if there is a āgood solutionā 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 itās very specific. āLets do X so we can buy Yā. If that goes away it wonāt 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 couldnāt not be carried out.
I wonder if multiple squadron accounts could be overseen by more professional, sectorised committees? Heck, Iād 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.
ā¦CFAV are more clued up about the requirement/validity of othersā requests, any funding signed off by treasurer and a different unitās 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 unitās budget meaning greater financial efficiency of purchases, etcā¦
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 Iāve had to advise our CWC from buying things as they think itās a great idea, but I know as a CFAV that it isnāt.
Having sqn Civ Comm execs refusing to spend money, because they ādonāt want to bankrupt the sqnā, even though they have more (alot more) than 10k in the bankā¦
Used to have a treasurer that wouldnāt spend money, but also wouldnāt apply for grants or other funds because āwe have money in the accountāā¦
Personally Iād 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!
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.
(Iāve certainly paid a lot of money to scout camps to run DofE for cadets and schools!)
