Interesting comment about not understanding how people at Wing Region or HQAC can make elected individuals stand down. Technically the requirement for a Trustee to stand down should revolve around Charity management, but even then it is not a power given to anyone with no direct involvement in specific Charities. The ACO seem to regard the Resolution of Disputes Procedure ( a requirement for all Charities) to be a disciplinary mechanism. I have yet to hear of any disputes resolved in favour of the Civcom, more to resolve any difficulties which make the VRT uncomfortable, you simply take out the Civcom ie the people who actually provide the funding. nd it never seems to happen where there is a struggle to get a functioning Civcom - it is always where there is considerable input and experience.
So over the past 10 years having witnessed a significantly high turnover of uniformed staff, it seems the ACO also likes to target the experienced non-member volunteer support as well - Civcom volunteers are not members of the ACO, so without any formal contractual link, it is then difficult to see how the ACO can construe how it gains any authority.
Mind the way it does perform, it contributes nicely toward the downward spiral - Charity data for Scotland shows a 20% reduction in numbers over the past 5 years.
The RAFA model, shows a national charity and individual branch charities - the branch manages its’ own affairs within the context of Charity Law.
And each such branch is independent, and those Trustees inline with all other Charities, work to the established arrangements.
This is always how it has been with the ACO, although with the ACO there is no National Charity (the GPF is just that and is a CIO) The other charities are unincorporated associations.
So perhaps that is where the Association idea stems from, but according to Charity Law, the unincorporated but stems from the legal liability - either as a corporate entity, or each member being individually liable (unincorporated ) BUT the Committee are the Trustees, and any association will a Committee under its’ rules of engagement.
So we have ACP11 stood on its’ head because it was claimed we were not previously compliant, and therefore to be compliant, the documentation actually moves further way from being compliant, under the smoke screen of a document which belies intelligent interpretation.
Four years later it seems we are no clearer on the need for an Association, and evidently there has been little progress towards this, else people would not be asking questions.
And to confuse matters further, how is it then that Wing and Regional have Sports & Welfare funds, which operate under the same Governance arrangements, but do not seem to require an Association. I must have missed the bit which sets them apart from or the rest of us, but without the Squadron Committee being expected to pay monies over twice a year, they would actually have very little funding.
So again what value an Association?.