Interesting can of worms beginning to open.
Not long ago HQAC stated they did not provide training for Civcom, nothing in the budget. I am not convinced in the intent of the initiative which seems to derive from a letter sent by the Charity Commission in 2017. In my own mind, ACP10/11 are very clear about what is expected of the Civcom and how they support their respective Squadron. The rules are very clear, and always have been. I came in as newbie, soon became Treasurer (Accountancy background) , but we had a very good Committee, all people who understood the rules, and stayed after their son/daughter had moved on. Because I am who I am, I made sure I understood things fully and without doubt I had commitment.
Tim referred to training for Chairmen and Treasurers, what about the Secretary? The Civcom are also the Trustees of the Sports & Welfare fund, and if you look at Charity Law, you will see that those three positions are essential for any Charity.
The training appears to be directed towards the support role, and appears to ignore the fact that as Trustees they have certain statutory responsibilities under Charity Law, as well as various other Statutes. And those statutory responsibilities do not involve the Uniformed chain, as clearly they are excluded (ACP11 Ch 5 para 11 refers to Squadron level)
The latest version of ACP11 makes reference to Trustee indemnity insurance. Has anyone, yet, started to wonder why this is now on offer? It is because the ACO Charities (each an individual entity) are unincorporated associations, which means that each individual trustee is personally liable for any loss etc. Evidently then if Trustees are not fully aware of their responsibilities and are not inclined towards proper management of their Charity, things could go wrong. For example, a failure to apply funds in accordance with the stated aims and objectives. Payment of car hire for an OC Wing overseas visit might not necessarily comply with that directive, because it does not directly benefit Cadet training.
You will note some references to the Charities Act 2011 have crept but not expanded, but there are things within Charity Law which do not appear in ACP11, but as the ACO is NOT exempt from Charity Law, it suggests that Civcom/Trustees also need to know about the Law.
Should any monies go missing it would be up to the Trustees to instigate measures (ie court action) , even where that might involve a uniformed member of staff.
Now we come to an interesting bit. Charity Law is reasonably clear about the fact that Charities are self managed within the scope of Charity Law. BUT somewhere there is a belief that a Squadron Trustee, who is entirely voluntary with no contractual obligation to the Organisation, can have Trusteeship removed because the Organisation is alleged to be able to remove a Civcom member under the Resolution of Disputes Procedure, and that effectively invalidates the Trusteeship. That is effectively saying the ACO Trustee is the same as an employee acting as a Trustee or that they have the same status as the CAC who is a Trustee of the GPF (CIO) but the one gets paid, and others don’t.
I am then wondering what if a Trustee ( or rather Trustees collectively) did take action to recover monies which had been misappropriated by a uniform, would the ACO intervene when they have no jurisdiction under the Law?
Why would anyone want to volunteer when there is a noose around their neck? but the Training should help identify that there is noose, unless of course there is a limit to how much volunteers should know.