Nobody is going to go out of their way to raise funds for the Wing Civ Comm. It is too far removed for anyone at Sqn level to feel they should make the effort and If anyone did make the effort, they would feel put upon if other units did not demonstrably make the same, or similar, effort.
And yet there are things which it makes sense for Wings to buy and hold for the present or future benefit of all the cadets and units in the wing. A wing sports kit would be the prime example but shotgun kit, leadership kit are others - and there are certainly more.
I accept that there is a debate to be had about subsidies for things like IACE - some will see it as elitist, or a disproportionate expense for a small number of cadets - others will see it as allowing cadets who may not otherwise afford it to access the best that the organisation has to offer.
If we accept that Wings do need non-public money (I believe we must), and we accept that nobody is very much interested in raising it then we are left with having to get it from somewhere. A per capita levy on the cadets seems the most sensible way. You could levy charges on cadets who actually do take part in Wing activities but that seems to me to penalise such participation.
As to the level of subs - I think most people can afford Ā£10 per month. Get Gift aid sorted, and that becomes Ā£12.50 per month for a (perhaps large) proportion of the Sqn. Corps take Ā£2.50 per cadet and Wing may take a further share - Iād be interested what amounts are involved in different wings. Do any Regions add a further levy I wonder? As long as the squadron gets to keep Ā£5 to Ā£7 per cadet, I would think that would fit most needs.
Wholly agree that given the āunearnedā nature of the income, anything spent by Wing should be heavily scrutinised. Anyone CAN do that but Sqn Chairs should be playing a leading role
London & South East has this year reinstated the Region levy which had not been charged for a number of years because the pot was doing fine.
In the case of regions I would presume that occasional hire of sports venues might come up (though most venues are on RAF stations) so probably just sundries like the purchase of medals; contributions to the region AT equipment; supplies for the Region Activity Centres; that sort of thing.
I think from my perspective at least the question over ethics is around how one perceives the charge.
Some people apparently think of it as Wing dipping into the pot of money that the squadron has raised for itself. I disagree.
I am firmly in the camp which says: The levy has always been there. We know it is being charged and we are merely the point of collection. What we as Squadrons choose to charge for cadet subscription beyond that levy, or raise through our own initiatives, is ours and remains so regardless.
The levy is a set figure, itās not a percentage tax on what we bring in.
All groups charge subs and if you play sports there are usually registration fees and match fees as well. We used to pay for two of kids for athletics and our son also played football, so we were paying much more than you would do for the ATC. BUT the all subs stayed with the clubs and paid for trophies, socials and equipment.
I donāt see this as a problem and would be a leveller in terms of appreciating the work that squadrons have to do.
One squadron I was on we had families unable to pay and adjustments were made, but we were still expected to pay Wing etc.
What exactly do you have to do to charge subs? Itās left to the committee who set how much, how to pay and actually pay the bill each 6 months. What do you do towards that, other than maybe give information or info about the process.
Your suggestions are impractical and as usual not based on anything other than a chip on your shoulder and an expectation that the world and his dog owes you something (although I note you havenāt tried comparing it to your job or your past yet, well done for that).
Grow up, get real and stop trying to find issue where there isnāt any.
i pay Ā£19 as a member of the RBL
Ā£17 of that disappears straight up to Haig House (HQ) and is never seen again. I get a magazine from this every quarter but that is it.
the remaining Ā£2 goes towards the Branch funds (note NOT Poppy Appeal) and goes to cover the admin charges (paper, ink, printing costs and postal costs), hire of the monthly meeting room, other expenses such as fuel for travel, lunches for courses etc, wreaths for Remembrance and other such events.
All this comes from the membership fee. The Branch could charge more but the minutes list the finances which seem to tick along neatly so havenāt upped the membership fee for several years.
a āHQā taking a portion of a members fees is no unusual
I think as time goes on more and more is going to be pushed to squadrons in terms of cost they need to bear, as budgets tighten.
We are doing more at the squadron to make the organisation (that has air in its name, but doesnāt fly) attractive, which costs money. Fortunately my committee is quite active in getting money from people and I play a part in that using my contacts as well, but the need would be eased considerably if we didnāt hand money over to Wing etc, that could be put to much better use at the squadron and directly benefit the cadets.
Just because we have always passed money over, doesnāt mean we have to continue to do so.
I have seen sqn āadmin costsā go from Ā£30ish a year to nearly 30 times that as HQAC have passed costs on to squadrons, directly or indirectly (such as printing your own forms) and insisting we have internet connections. Back in the day the idea of a phone was a nice to have and like now it costs more in āstanding chargeā than calls.
I donāt see what is impractical about Wings and Regions having committees and raising their own funds in the same way as squadrons do, it would bring everyone into the same experience and help those no longer on squadrons appreciate what they left behind.
Surely that could be said of most of the issues that appear on this forum? and in that, the most active issues are ones where from a different viewpoint are trivial or shouldnāt really matter. But we are a passionate bunch!
āIt is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.ā - Joseph Joubert
In principle I agree, but I find the person I was quoting tends to take things to extremes and look for problems that sometimes are apparent only to them.
Sometimes you need to ask a question and maybe fly in the face of convention. The fact that some donāt like this is a personal matter for them and itās always easiest to decry those questioning.
If you donāt ask a question or query the status quo, nothing changes.
If more people in senior positions actually questioned things and those being asked were receptive, we may have a better organisation or better than we do currently.
I have just come back to this. In the light of certain recent events, it could be that the ACO are in breach of fundraising regulations. A donor is entitled to know what his/ her money is being used for, and that extends to knowing how Wing applies the levy they take. I have not found Wing readily open with what they are doing with the money, although I did come across the fact that they a load of PCs donated by a large firm and then expected Squadrons to buy one to use as for a simulator even when the squadron might already have a simulator. It just shows a lack of consultation and they are perhaps on a different planet - how else can OC Wing order his Civcom to spend money on non-training activities for non-beneficiaries.
And how would anyone propose that Wing should undertake a bagpack? Cadets actively support their Squadron, but why should they turnout for the Wing, which is simply a home for elevated uniformed personages who are content not to play by the rules which we at grass roots level regard as the bibleā¦
When you look at AP1919 there is a certain amount of distortion between what we once had and what we have now got.
ACP 11 states that the CWCs are independent of the chain of command, The OC Wing cannot demand monies are spent unless it is voted on by the Wing CWC which is in effect made up of the Squadron chairmen/women. They as a group have responsibilities under charity law and may by signing things off may actually leave themselves open to legal action should it be investigated. Many CWC members are not aware of the legal ramifications of membership of the committee, in that those who hold accountable qualifications may find themselves disciplined and disbarred from practice in the event of any court case at which they are found āguiltyā.
A Squadronās CWC is covered by a Wing charity number which may actually be illegal, in that, each CWC should have an individual number and be registered as an indiidual charity. This is a dubious practice.
A section offered by the Treasurer, perhaps some slides of what comes in, what goes out and the difference.
one of those āoutsā is āmaintenance grant to Wingā - wording a appropriate.
if a donor wanted to know more they would be invited to discuss further with the Treasurer,
At a formal Squadron we did these handful of slides as part of the Annual Presentation and awards night.
A piece from the OC, a piece from the CWC some items from Cadets and then the awards.
So a CWC for that read charity passes on Ā£2000 per year to another ācharityā and itās not specified what it is for, be very careful as the squadron CWC may actually be liable in law despite what ACP 11 may state.
Actually the ACO is not all it says on the tin. Having requested copy Wing accounts because I was privy to certain information, I did not bother to query with the Wing Chair, because he was unlikely to respond, or at least deny everything, even though he is accountable under Charity Law, so I complained to the Charity Commission. They in turn wrote to HQAC and came back with some lame excuse, but did not address all the compliance issues. They had suggested to HQAC that the issues might require a public inquiry, but after the response from HQAC, (which they wont release) they have stated things which contradict public guidance and stated disengagement from further communication. The matter is now with my MP.
So whilst the CWC is supposed to be independent, ( a requirement that the Charity has no beneficiary influence) and the Charity Commission is the Independent Charity Regulator, it appears not to work that way because the ACO believes it can dismiss Sqn Trustees and the CC wont say boo to a goose.
So whatever the position is supposed to be, and it is encouraging that some members of the forum are naive and believe that Wing Chairs are responsible people, it is reality that some do as they are told by OC Wing, and they get away with it because there is no close scrutiny by the Sqn Chairs. And whilst we are talking Sqn subs, without these ādonationsā the ACO cannot operate, and Cadets would be denied benefit.I dont believe that OC Wing popping overseas on Welfare fund expenses, benefits the Cadets one iota.
No Wing can be registered for gift aid, because the āsupposedā donationā to Wing is not made by a tax payer. Perhaps the original donation might have attracted Gift Aid, but it would be fraud to claim twice.
Charity Law does impose some requirements on all ACO related charities, but generally Wing Committees, in my experience, do not make an effort to reveal to donors,how they spend their money, but I think that shortly they will find out exactly what the Law requires. Strangely 7 years after the implementation of the 2011, nothing yet appears in ACP10 or ACP11, and we are led to believe these are compliant documents.
To add to the mix, subs to Wing have to be very carefully handled/described and are (yet) another example of the organisation sitting close to an unhealthy position.
Because of the charitable structure of Squadron, Wing, Region and the GPF, care is needed as it would be unlawful for one charity to wholly fund another. The subs that are paid from squadron to Wing can be argued as an affiliation payment but I doubt very much whether the existence of Wing charities are really correct to the law. Further I think that the subs payment should be direct into the GPF to be correct.
Here is some guidance on charities working together
which is very encouraging of the situation provided that certain stipulations are met ā¦ such as retaining charitable independence and being able to access information on how the money donated to a second (third) charity is being actually used.
Itās that old word accountability again ā¦ not in the RAFAC dictionary.