When you say the same: do they have an “independent” committee, analogous to our CivCom, who are responsible for managing funds?
I believe they only need independent chair, treasurer, secretary although I’m not aware of anything in writing barring volunteers from holding the roles (I say this only because I can’t find a public reference stating that’s the case). All section leaders from the various menageries are able to be involved and Group Scout Leader is automatically in like our OCs.
I don’t know how hot their Council’s/District Committees are on ensuring greater numbers of independent members through nominations or co-opting.
There may be non-public info that stipulates minimum requirements for elected/nominated members independent of the group’s operations, but nothing I can find. Only thing I can find is that there can’t be more Nominated or Co-Opted members than Elected, but not mention of ratios to the Ex-Officio (Chair Treas, Sec, Leader) members.
Girl Guiding puts trusteeship firmly in the hands of leaders and assistant leaders, with ability to delegate although are not absolved from responsibility if they do so.
Pretty much yes. The group scout leader is on the committee and section leaders (cubs, scouts etc) can ask to join, otherwise it is chair, secretary & treasurer, and usually a parent rep.
This is mirrored at District level (smaller than our Wgs, closer to an ACF Company).
Essentially though, you could have more “uniformed” members than non-uniformed, right?
Section Leaders can’t hold executive positions unless there are exceptional circumstances.
I had assumed this would be the norm considering they are listed separately.
Would Baloo be barred from being Treasurer though?
(Side note: committee talk is tangentially related to the original topic considering changes to committee structures are also being considered in addition to where we started regarding regions, etc)
I was just wondering if maybe ‘ASTRA’ needs to be a new category with a few separate posts for each thing. But for now this works. I think a lot of the committee talk is a guessing game anyway as all we have is a rough letter to the GPF trustees and nothing more!.
Normally yes.
I’d not necessarily advocate the Scout system above ours.
Sod that.
I wouldn’t raise money to have it held by RFCA/ serfca etc.
Would never see it again.
1 Like
Fair enough.
I expect new threads will form as new changes and announcements are made to different areas. I’ll retitle this one, but the recent thoughts and ideas flow on from talk of RFCA, ACF, and the boundary changes.
But that was my point, the Scout system is exactly the same as ours.
I’d expect that whoever ran a DF would attend their parent squadron’s civcom meetings, as a non voting non-exec of course.
If the scouts can run the same system (and there are more of them) then why is the system flawed?
And yes, Scouts have a lot more freedom to run commercial activity/fundraising because they own the land etc. At the national level, they setup Scout Adventures to run activities centers around the UK at discounted rates for scouts and guides and commercially for everyone else. They setup Scout Shop as another commercial enterty to provide uniform and other stuff, again selling discounted to scout groups and then full price to public.
The GLRFCA runs runs Alternative Venues (https://alternativevenues.co.uk/) to hire out cadet centers and other areas of the defence estate as s way of making some money.
It’s only flawed in the same way as democracy is flawed - it works well until it doesn’t in one or two places.
We all know that we’ve headed in a very risk-averse direction, with many changes also driven by a desire for efficiency and cost-effectiveness. If our structure was reviewed and considered more of a risk and more of a burden than an alternative (which it is), then a geographical shuffle could be a precursor to other changes…
I hope we don’t end up lumbered with RFCA administration - or even solely wing-level - but at the same time wouldn’t be against certain types of changes which could still lower risk and burden.
Obviously a lot of stuff above has moved across from a different thread, so on the topic of the letter:
I was sent this a while back, but there was already lot of “what’s next” slippery slope type chat and I didn’t want to fuel that fire.
The letter talks about fraud risk, and reducing that, which sounds a lot like removing financial independence.
But at the same time, the mass eDBS of Committees would quickly become a wasted effort/expenditure(? If I remember right it’s coming from public funds instead of taking the free charitable route) if committees die.
I’ve been on the conspiracy train for a little while regarding the public org’s increasing influence on the charity arm - before this CAC - and am pretty skeptical but trying to be open minded and fair. It’s not uncommon that what spurs a consultation can sound a lot more drastic than the eventual reality.
But… I’m not sure there’s enough understanding of individual units to make these decisions without going further down the chain. So hopefully more trickles down soon.
I’ve never understood people’s problems with getting things via committees. Since my early days it has been I as the Sqn Cdr bring the ideas and costings for a spend to the meetings, put the case to the CWC and then a vote, with the Chairman having the casting vote, if needed. But then you can do things gradually, so a tent or laptop here and there, not always I want to spend several thousand all in one go. I’ve never experienced a problem ‘selling’ ideas as the majority if not all CWC are parents of cadets or ex-cadets. The only time I have experienced problems is when people have been involved in PTAs have joined the CWC, as PTAs operate differently, but they soon get the idea or go. If staff have ideas for things I tell them to go away, cost it and have a plan for it. This avoids pet project and personal interest. I had a bloke want to make model airfield and was looking at spending several 100 on models etc, I knew that this was his pet interest and from previous experience cadets soon lose interest, which I did point out. I got him a couple of models and some OSB free from a job at work. A year later the models were almost finished and I took the OSB home a couple of years later. Whereas we have a thriving (or it was until Mar 2020) gardening project, which the cadets liked and hopefully we can get them back into it.
I’m a treasurer for a group. People know how much we have in the account and we have a bottom line of operating expenses, so no one asks for silly things.
What this sounds like is a childish money grab. Say 900 sqns with £5K in their accounts, that’s around £4.5M if not more, that the GPF eye with envy. Personally I wouldn’t trust the GPF as far as I could spit.
The problem with the GPF is a lack of vision and ambition. They have the inertia to get corporate deals and sponsorship (not just RAF charity money) to pay for initiatives and other things. Rather than look at ways of basically nicking hard fought for money from sqns the head office needs to get their finger out. Many sqns have and have had sponsored kit through local businesses or (like me) schmoozed Lions, Round Table, Rotary etc for money towards things we need or want, mostly IMO things that HQAC should be giving us. So the GPF should be doing the same but on a national corporate level and roll CV out for photo ops. They should be and should have done 20 odd years ago, organised / negotiated discount deals and schemes with people like IT, phone & internet and AT suppliers, for us to access and help reduce costs, which in the case of the first 2, were only something we did because HQAC wanted to go down that route. But this requires work and if nothing else too many well salaried HQAC seat warmers are work shy, when they can get us to do it for them.
If you extrapolate this you could get to the point where there is no locally held fund and we (or for many those that come after) will have to apply for money to do the things that we want and no doubt put a business case forward as well. Want some admin, having in a previously life to jointly write a justification for tens of thousands for a project and then present it, not many in the CFAV would be interested.
The OC doesn’t manage the committee, the Chairman does.
1 Like
Yeah right.
Not if you want it to work.
1 Like
I can see great benefit in a Wing/Sector Run Fund.
I’ve seen a vast range of Sqn Civ Coms, proactive ones who run fund raising nights, aid squadron facilities (mini bus/canteen) and support Sqn staff and the other end of the spectrum (like ours now sadly) who sit once in a blue moon, tell the uniformed staff how the squadron should be run and treat Funds like a Nigerian bank manager and refuse to fund raise (because we’ve got funds?!?)
The ACF system does work, but would require each Wing/Sector to increase it’s full time staffing (Each ACF County have 3/4 QM staff running uniform and equipment stores and taking them to units who request it). Along with new HQ staff to control unit claims and fund raising and organising functions for supporters.
It would be good to have a Wing/Sector White Fleet of buses or a decent hiring system. Saves our Civ Coms (when they can be bothered) and Squadrons ploughing good money into rarely used assets.
I can but also the cynic in me also can see some squadrons sitting back and letting the others do the hard work.
There would have to be hard guidelines on what happens.
If my Sqns money was either reallocated.
OR
Any future money we earned went to a central pot.
I personally would not lift a single finger to support that pot.
That would remove approx £15k per year from the org.
Not my first desire, but if the money I directly raise, does not go to the Sqn I’m raising it for. Nope. Just nope.
Sqns want money.
Ger out there and get off your backsides and stop moaning.
2 Likes
Off the record, and don’t tell anyone
I’m with you on this 
1 Like
Sorry it’s not my trainset. I’ve seen sqns where the OC tries to run the CWC and it is an unholy mess. So I keep out of it. I may express my views in a meeting when things aren’t as they should be, but I leave it for the Chairman to sort out.
I experienced the other way round, ie CWC Chairman thinking they ran the sqn.
When I took over the sqn as they’d had 3 OCs in quick succession the Chairman at the time thought she ran the sqn and thought she could use my office as and when and issue uniform. Once balance was restored, things worked a lot better. She didn’t like it really, but tough.