Training for CC chairmen

Adult Staff Execs
50

I’m not sure about that personally…

With the greatest of respect to the people who support their local Squadron by joining the CivCom (and I am thankful to have a great committee at the moment) I have encountered too many instances of what I’ve termed “PTA Syndrome” with committees in the past.

By that I mean “The idea that by virtue of being a parent and sitting on the committee they can dictate the squadron activities, set training priorities, and basically expect the staff to run the squadron in accordance with their wishes”.

That’s not how it works and I wouldn’t like to encourage that situation in any way because it can become a royal PITA.

I’ve been in this game for 23 years, others have been in for far longer. Those of us in OC/OIC/Adj positions are generally there because we know what we’re doing (not always I’ll grant!). I don’t like being told how to run my unit by people who have no experience and are overstepping their remit in doing so.
I welcome suggestions, but I make no guarantee that I’ll impliment them.

As far as i see it the Civcom exist to support the unit. I and the other staff run the unit. We make the decisions and take the actions - we keep the CivCom appraised of the situation and approach them for financial input where needed.
The CivCom job is then to:
a. Ensure that I’m not asking to spend money frivolously,
b. Ensure that the finances can support the expenditures, and
c. Raise more money if they can’t .

2 Likes
51

Has anybody here, or is anybody here in a position to try and push some of these ideas upwards ?.

Re writing ACP11 for example, if legally its not well drafted ( something a solicitor member of one of my CCs pointed out) then lets see what can be done about it. Obviously this would need to diplomatically broached with Ian Todd probably from above.

A

52

It works in schools, but the headmaster/mistress has the final say on what happens, but the governors’ have a say in how or what happens. There is staff representation on the governors’ apart from the head. Personally as the CO, getting a query or criticism from a parent or CWC member is never a bad thing and given we are doing this in our spare time and have distractions, it might be something we’ve lost sight/track of, or not thought about. Might be hard to swallow but not a bad thing. Think about a school and they are obliged by law to do things and heads are far more accountable than any OC might be (right up to CAC), so the Head of a school getting grilling would be more serious.

PTAs have no remit in how a school runs and operates, so you must have had former governors’ not PTA. I admit when I was a CO we had people from PTAs who never really understood it wasn’t down to them what the money was spent on. The CO suggests something, it goes to a vote, although I never experienced a no to what I asked for. I know that sometimes heads suggest something to the PTA and the PTA decide and times when the PTA say we are going to, whether the head wants it or not, but by and large this is not the case. Mostly school budgets are so tight (in our school 80% is salaries) without a PTA doing what they do, many schools would not have much if anything. The PTA and Governors’ at my current school has and has had people with fingers in many pies (business people, Rotarians, Round Table et al) and the school has benefited massively. But in the Corps this sort of thing is not welcomed, as it has the potential to urinate all over someone’s fire or derail a trainset.

What the ATC lacks is someone outside the bubble properly holding people running the show to account. Imagine a situation where say could ask for CAC, COS and RCs to be replaced as they aren’t doing what is best and getting a substantial salary. That would be an interesting situation, as our current CAC wouldn’t (I imagine) be there now and it would mean anyone coming into post would know they just can’t mess around on social media. They actually have to be active in securing the best for the cadets. I have to admit in all of my years I’ve never really understood how things like CAC and RC especially are full time jobs.

53

Sadly I have in the past.
Two previous generations of our committee were hugely obstructive. I recall for instance an occasion where the purchase of a much-needed piece of basic IT equipment was suggested at a cost of £15. Somehow the committee managed to spend all evening not making a decision (despite the pot being very healthy - into 5 figures) and then two weeks later their solution was that one of their number donated their old, crapped-out PC with the intention that I salvage the item from that instead.

There were frustratingly many other examples.

Now that I’ve finally got a committee who are on our side and who take advice from those of us who’ve been around long enough to know what we’re doing I guess that I worry about losing it… Because to end up back with the sort of meddling and obstruction that I’d experienced for 15+ years would “do my head in” as they say. :stuck_out_tongue:

54

No they do not The chair of governors can direct a head to do things. Governors set the strategic direction of the school. they can ratify or go against the decision of a head on many things. They even employ the head.

In most good schools it is a partnership run in the best interests of the school but sometimes it goes wrong. Sometimes whole governing bodies have been sacked or heads resign.

55

‘Diplomatically’ may not be enough.

It was Ian Todd who constructed the current ACP-11 and for a specific purpose that many have questioned the legality of. I tend to agree with the sentiment that the Wing upward would benefit from a bright torch and some probing questions.

the_silverback uses a critically important word which is ‘partnership’. When that is applied it works. I feel wdimagineer2b’s frustration at his bad experiences. This probably takes us back to the original topic of training.

In simple terms the CivCom does all of the three things that wdimagineer2b identifies, but must act to the Charities Act and is accountable to the Charity Commission, NOT the ACO. This is the nub of the imbalance for more active CivComs I feel. CO’s may well not be aware through the organisation that this is in fact the case.

(BTW … as a side issue … the communications I have seen on civilian data and Bader are woefully out of step with the impending law change known as GDPR. So I expect that to be a subject that soon features on these pages … which I also note are not currently compliant!)

56

Governors’ may direct but the Head implements, if the Head disagrees and does it their way, there is little the Governors can do, so as such the Governors’ do not have the final say. If it causes conflict, so that’s how it is. The Head is largely hog tied by the DfE and the plethora of paper shufflers therein, so there isn’t much, as I see it, wriggle room.

The school I work in created a 6th Form many years ago against the will of the then Governors’ and has been regarded the best 6th Form in the borough for a number of years. Many children of Governors’ have benefited from this, but had the Governors’ at that time had their way, this would not have happened.

My wife was a parent governor and gave it up due to the frustration of the Headmistress having her thoughts on how things should be done and ignored the Governors’. She introduced a formal uniform and the whole of the Governing body was opposed. But the school still went down a formal uniform route and also on aspects if teaching and learning.

It works best when people work together and concensus reached, but it’s not how it always is.

Governors’ can look to replace a head, but if it is known and school’s operate a vicious rumour mill and if it was known that the Governors’ forced a head out, no one would want to take it on and then without a head or worse revolving door, the school goes into flux.

57

The analogy with Governors / PTA is a little flawed as the school staff are paid individuals.

It must be difficult for them to accept advice / instruction from unqualified individuals who have ended up in the Governor / PTA roles though I would imagine the paycheck makes it easier to bear.

On average, compared with a CFAV, I feel that the Civ Comm’s very limited time expenditure on matter ATC, taken together with their limited knowledge does not fit them morally or technically for a more directive role than they have at present.

I’d be interested to see a poll of what Civ Comm’s actually do. In my mind, they might fall into one of several categories

Hands Off - operating in name only, driven by OC, signed off by cooperative but disinterested CC members

Helpful Basic Governance - making all required returns, operating the bank account, authorising reasonable expenditure without drilling down to the Nth degree

Helpful Basic Governance Plus - the above plus operating Gift Aid

Helpful Active Governance - the above plus identifying and applying for grants

Very Helpful Active Governance - the above plus setting up and running fundraising occasions

Unhelpful Basic Governance - like its Helpful namesake, but inserting unnecessary obstacles and over scrutiny

Active Unhelpful Basic Governance - introducing an element of ‘I know better’ / fighting the OC at every decision

I wonder if anywhere has got a CC which does it all, but is at odds with the CFAV side of things???

and shades in between!

58

In my experience (on two units) it’s been mostly (a), sometimes (b) and on one occasion (f).

And the (f) it has to be said was largely down to one individual.

The issue for me though is that it’s usually (a), and we spend more time trying to form a committee than it would actually take to do their (bare-bones) job.

59

Yes … I can recognise all those potential characteristics …

But this is as much a result of uniform and civilian guidance, training and understanding falling too short. CivCom bashing is obviously going to occur where a rather demotivated assembly, probably only interested in having something for their offspring to do on a weekday evening, do little to help - or worse still become obstructive.

I mentioned previously that the CivCom is responsible to the CC - perhaps a real first step would be to encourage all CivComs to register. This will probably happen over the coming years (the current ‘Excepted’ status for CivComs having been withdrawn as a new mechanism). It would perhaps focus the commitment required in an active group.

The whole thing for me revolves around the requirement for CivComs to be charitable. If they were not, then I can see many of the ideas above being up for discussion. But within RAFAC you have a cross-breed of the other two cadet organisations at this level and here is the rub. Inactive and uncommitted CivCom members is disappointing at the least. But then the answer is not for the ACO to attempt to dominate all aspects by assuming control it does not have.

If CivCom members wanted (and were accepted) into RAFAC uniform they would presumably do so and become involved. I really doubt that the initiative to see more CivCom involvement is much more than plugging a leaky ship.

So the better way I would suggest is to see things for how they are and structure around that. Recognising there will always be tales of woe on both sides, then as long as everything is legal and he boundaries are clear, there shouldn’t be a problem. As it stands, CivCom members are not members of the organisation, bound by contract or indeed anything much beyond honesty and integrity. Much of the difficulty at squadron level occurs when the lines are blurred, misunderstood or ignored in the belief that the line of command must be right.

60

That pretty much describes all volunteers in the Air Cadets. None of us are bound by a contract, just a polite nod to rules set by people who haven’t got nor ever had the slightest clue what it actually means to be a volunteer in the Air Cadets. Any one of us can just walk away without any notice whatsoever and not have any penalty for doing so. Walk away from a job like that and it’s a different story.
I don’t think squadron commanders use Civ Comm Chairmen/women to their best advantage, as they sit outside the CoC, whatever the CoC might like to think.

But I still think we need to have a body that sits outside the bubble and can hold those at the top to account.

1 Like
61

HQAC’s view it seems is the change in the law doesn’t apply to them. However I can see a flurry of activity when they suddenly realise it does and or a raft of new rules dreamed up over someone’s tea break.

62

see this discussion

63

As an ex Squadron Commander, ex Chairman and now CI… I couldn’t agree more.

A Civilian Committee that tries to dictate what the Squadron does on a day to day basis is on very dodgy ground. As a Squadron Commander I made sure the Squadron / Civ Comm relationship was maintained in a healthy way i.e suggestions on how to run the Squadron were always welcome but I had absolute say on whether the ideas were implemented. When I became a Chairman I made sure the Squadron Commander felt empowered to do the same and would encourage him to speak to me if any of the Civ Comm team tried to influence what was happening. Finally, any new Civ Comm member was told the same, especially the bit about promotions for cadets!.

Maybe this type of information is missing in the Senior Officers / Squadron Commanders courses?

The relationship between Civ Comm and Squadron is critical for a healthy Squadron. Regardless of how this is structured you need clear ground rules on where the responsibilities lie. ACP 11 is old but the basic ground rules still apply.

64

There was and still are massive gaps it seems in useful stuff on all the courses we do. But you could spend 2 weeks on ‘working with people’, because as a member of staff (not just CO) you need to be diplomatic, sympathetic and have empathy in how you deal with people, because it’s not just about rules and regulations and being the “big I am”, which is why I resigned my commission after dealing with a WSO who had all the compassion of nuclear warhead. Too many volunteers in uniform seem to forget that everyone volunteers from cadets to staff and the Air Cadets is not their main priority, it is or should be, at best, third on the list.

The CWC / Squadron relationship has to be one that is two way and with boundaries observed. I’ve seen instances where squadron commanders have tried to dictate how the committee operates, which makes for just as an unholy mess as for committees trying to dictate to squadron commanders.

What I found as a CO was I was the face of the squadron and people with money or offers of help came to me, where they should really just deal with the committee, but committees sit in the background and no one knows they exist, outside the Air Cadets. I was never shy on jumping on opportunities and offers. But this is where sometimes things can go wrong and COs or even committee members could get cheques etc written to them, as the people won’t know any difference. Even now there are people I had contact with who I have to divert to the OC.

65

Indeed. It can go the other way too.

My CivCom have in the past ended up booking and trying to arrange AT activities with a local outdoors centre… They do it with good intention but without realising that a. it’s not quite that simple, and b. it’s not part of their remit. If something goes tits up it’s not them who will be questioned and potentially held responsible as to how Little Johnny broke his leg on an unauthorised activity.

That’s where Staff and committee need to work together. Agree the idea together, and then the staff arrange, organise, and supervise the activity (since we are the ones who have to ensure that the processes are in place and it’s we who hold the responsibility); and then the committee pays the bill.

Which brings me neatly back around to my earlier point about how I consider it to be wholly improper and potentially problematic to impress upon CivComs the idea that they are “not part of the organisation”. If they are given the idea that it’s their trainset then they invariable end up doing things they shouldn’t because they don’t know any better.

Certainly, make clear their legal obligations to the Charities Commission; but also make clear that they work alongside the staff for the benefit of the Sqn - and that the people who make Sqn decisions are the staff alone.

It would also be useful if staff were given a better idea of how the CivCom works as part of their initial training.
I’ve had to rebrief my staff to explain that they can’t just go out and buy some unnecessary and expensive crap which we don’t really need, and then expect to be automatically reimbursed by the committee.

66

You must have had a really bad experience. My only experience has been CWC suggesting that we did something not going off and doing their own thing.
It was funny when a couple of parents asked the cadets (with my blessing) via their son and daughter what the cadets would like to do and gave me a list. Nothing outrageous but when I put up lists to gauge interest of the 6 things they gave me, only one had more than 5 showing a definite interest, which was a film night with food supplied. It appeared that climbing, canoeing, laser tag and a trip to Duxford were not that popular. When I reported back to the CWC the parents who had asked the cadets, seemed most surprised. I’d done ‘wish lists’ before and they never returned what you thought they might. I didn’t tell them this before. I think this was training in don’t expect the cadets to be excited about things.

1 Like
67

Bad experiences in the past, but this current committee are far better.
Other than occasionally overstepping a little through eagerness they’re great.
They were all new in a couple of years ago and just need some guidance. Fortunately, the more obstructive of the old guard did not stick around to contaminate these guys. Chair, Secretary, and Treasurer are replaced with new blood in one swoop. Which naturally brought it’s own teething problems but nothing compared the dire state things were in before.

Though, like you I’ve had a similar experience with the “wish lists”.

68

Some really sensible comment there and of course it only works in partnership. But it also demonstrates a little misunderstanding.

The status of a CivCom is that of an ‘excepted’ charity. That charity is not legally responsible to the ACO and is in fact responsible to the charity commission. The Charities Act makes it crystal clear that the only authority over a charity’s funds are its trustees. There have been several cases where the ACO have fallen foul of this and also have been criticised by the Charity Commission.

There can be no argument that a CivCom should be exercising any control over the squadron, that is not their role. Uniform volunteers and civilian volunteers come together over a common area which is the cadets. The staff/CO decides programme and the CivCom decide funding. With permission the cadets may raise charitable funds which are then held by the trust and are administered under charity law.

However, in the absence of better understanding and training, the simple fact is that there is a rub between these two elements which needs mutual respect. To the staff the cadets are cadets, to the CivCom the cadets have the legal status of beneficiaries. Being a uniform volunteer is a serious commitment (admittedly among the other priorities of life in general) . Being a CivCom trustee is similar, but has the added spice that your personal finances may be on the line if the trust fund runs into problems.

I am not trying to emphasise one over the other, just explain that there is no doubt over the ownership of the train-set - the CO decides who plays with it, how and when the CivCom trust owns it.

As I have written before in this thread, there is no authority for the ACO over the charitable aspects of the squadron and this is a matter of written record. So we come back to the need for better training on these areas and some full-frontal honesty from the organisation with both civilian and uniform volunteers as to exactly how it is. Instead, there are numerous issues and bad experiences and I have to say complete inconsistencies throughout the UK regions in the way the ACO operates in this area (e.g. Scotland where every CivCom has to formally register as a charity direct and not to the ACO). in just that situation, ACP-11 becomes almost irrelevant.

Not fronting up to this allows the ACO to operate in a manner whereby it can tackle arising problems as if they are one-offs and local issues. Fronting up would probably disenchant many COs and would probably damage some squadrons as CivCom trustees who didn’t understand their commitment would run a mile. (Though this might not be perceived as a bad things for some of the less active CivCom members :slight_smile: )

So there isn’t really an incentive for the ACO to train people in these areas when

a) they are a bit boring
b) the majority of ACO officials do not understand them
c) to do so would limit problem solving and keeping a lid on things
d) the resulting knowledge would untrain the focus on cadet business
e) the ACO would actually be admitting it has no authority to uniform volunteers
f) to do so would reveal that the new ACP-11 introduced in the last 24 months has been done so unlawfully as the organisation cannot vary the CivCom charity constitution without the trustees of each squadron individually voting to accept (or reject) them - chaos!

Nevertheless, I sincerely believe that a better understanding of obligations, duties, roles and commitments that is closer to the actual legal position would strengthen the organisation and prevent alot of the conflicts that do develop between COs and over enthusiatic CivComs.

69

Any over enthusiastic CWC is better than one which is intransigent. I’ve set the CWC a task for organising things, although we have to do the boring bits on SMS, just to tick the boxes. It takes a lot of the initial load off of staff.

Whether there is a case for training Civ Comm’s is debatable, the majority of people join the CWC because they want, invariably, their children to have a good time in the Air Cadets, which is why people join PTAs and become parent governors’. The one thing that some information on would be useful is the minutiae we have to worry about, just so they understand we are not just being killjoys. You can tell from the quickly glazing expressions, when they suggest something and it then becomes a list of what we need before it can happen and ideally we need 4-6 weeks lead time.

Maybe someone from the Civ Comm community could produce a bullet point list relating to the “uniformed side” and financial points Civ Comm need to know about and maybe the conflicting points as mentioned relating to HQAC and the Charity Commission and which takes precedence. This could also be sent to parents wrt Squadron Association, which is something I’m still not sure I really understand and not many others do either.

Reading through the above opened my eyes. I think I get the gist of it, but, why am I not surprised that HQAC to do their own thing and fly in the face of Charity Commission rules.

As a CO as long as we have money to spend and the Committee are supporting us I’m happy.

1 Like