For authorised MOD activities. The Charitable arm of the organisation is completely separate from the MOD; so committees are not automatically insured.
Absolutely that would not be acceptable and the other Committee members (ie working within the specific Charity) should pursue recovery of the money from the Trustee who lost it. Clearly any use of charitable funds has to be authorised by the Committee. However if the loss arises through the actions of the holder of a cash holding certificate, it is still charitable funds and the question then will the MOD (or HQ RAFAC) pick up the tab? There is no obligation on the part of Region/ Wing or GPF, because there is nothing which affiliates any of those other Charity to the Sqn Charity or vice versa.
Well it seems that Wings never check the books despite the insistance of submitting Form 60 -
1 Like
Because Charities are independent and cannot expect money from the HQAC, but HQAC have set up access to Indemnity insurance at supposed preferential rates. It is a legitimate expenditure of charitable funds. CCEW guidance issued in that subject.
Unfortunately I should say that there are some in the Corps who do not exactly see things that way. The Civcom support has worked well over the years, except where there has been Corps interference, leading to the Civcom all walking regardless of their statutory obligations. I saw that happen leaving the Charity operating illegally for about 12 months with just one Trustee, (you could not do it now and continue to operate as Banks have tightened up on requirements) . and it has always amazed me that for all the rules and guidance issued by HQ, there is a singular inability to play by the rules or rather to act within the Law. We wait with baited breath to see what comes out of the Strategic Review.
I can see no reason why they would⌠As you are fond of reminding us, charity funds are nothing to do with the MOD. If the charity chooses to delegate authority to Mrs Bloggs who happens to be OC 1234 Sqn then that is between the charity and Mrs Bloggs.
Mrs Bloggs can not accept liability on behalf of the MOD and if she runs off with the petty cash tin, then the trustees would have to pursue that loss through the courts or claim on their insurance (if indeed the loss - whatever it may be, theft is only one example - was covered).
Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the trustees to take reasonable steps to ensure that they only delegate access to trustworthy people.
If Mrs Bloggs had a long list of CCJs and a previous record for fraud, for example, and a reasonable person could have ascertained that, then the trusties might find themselves liable for not having acted with due care.
âSo you gave the petty cash tin to the guy in the mask and stripy shirt with the bag labelled âSWAGâ over his shoulder?.. Yeah⌠Thatâs on youâ.
To be fair, there are plenty of other exceptions where it hasnât worked well⌠Like when a Sqn gets stuck with a problem Committee. Been there. Seen it first hand over at least 2 generations of CivCom.
Indeed.