I’m in Scotland and in our Wing we have a deadline of 30th September to complete the OSCR return, after that we lose the admin grant (£75) and if the Sqn misses the OSCR deadline of 31st Dec the Sqn is suspended from attending any activities away from the Sqn building until the OSCR return is submitted.
Sqns do get suspended, one that was suspended as a result of missing the deadline last year has finally submitted OSCR and is now allowed to attend off-sqn activities again. Most of the missed returns are down to Civ Com changes / lack of Civ Com members and / or experience, so you really do need a pro-active, functioning Civ Com or you’re confined to barracks and the Cadets miss out!
1 Like
The question is why should the cadets be punished for the workings of the Civ Com? Collective punishment because this is what it is, is banned under international law.
Can we punish a committee that is under-performing? What sanctions are available for committees that are ineffective or, worse, out of control?
Can we run a unit without a committee? Can we get rid of the whole idea of committees altogether and replace it with something simpler?
it also seems that this collective punishment stems from the decisions made at the ACMB, where some of the members are themselves Charity Trustees; in effect they are then acting to restrict any benefit that is supposedly offered to Cadets for being members of the Organisation.
If there is a compliance failure the Regulator will never target the beneficiary and is more likely to offer guidance and support to the Trustees.
One must question why some Civcoms struggle - when you need help, all you have is a Wing Chair who is evidently working for the opposition ( definitely no impartiality if he/she works closely with OC Wing or even under direction of the ACMB) so help and guidance on Charity Law is out of the window.
Why is there an imbalance in Scotland where the ACO sets a tighter schedule for submission than is required by the Law?
My point is how can you punish cadets over something which they have no control of!
I often see this sort of collective phrase and, while I do not for one minute suggest all is well and good throughout the CivCom garden, I do move that the real question is ’ how many CivComs (and by extension squadrons) would be improved if the true nature and responsibility of trusteeship were transparently explained and maintained throughout the corps and civilian supporters.
If the ACO adjusted its mentality from ‘must have control over these errant b***ards at all costs’ to a more reasonable ‘we act to underpin the standards of the regulator to whom CivComs are lawfully responsible’ then I truly believe improvement would be organic.
What is not acceptable is punishing cadets (who in law are charitable beneficiaries) for non-legally required documentation that is NOT required as a condition in any way shape or form of Excepted status, and then paying charitable monies back through an Admin Grant as a financial inducement. And where does it end? If an F60 has not been submitted for 6 … 12… 18 months. Legal precedent means that the ACO has no authority over the CivCom, so shut the squadron?
What would be acceptable and sensible might be to suspend squadron status if the limits set by the Charity Commission are breached. That would not then prevent squadron activities for the cadets and would endorse the law rather than trying to insert unnecessary waffle in an effort to be relevant. This I think is almost the route that emz has described with the OSCR. But then why the false deadline and why such bullish/emotive action against the cadets which frankly is more likely to cause entrenched positions than resolution.
It would be a big climb down for senior people and the CAC who have spent the last 12 years hoodwinking people into believing a false doctrine (or at least one that has become irrelevant through changes in the law. Far better to support and endorse the law even if that means eating humble pie.
As I have suggested before, one of the best ways to support a squadron is for the CivCom to actually give up on the Excepted status stuff and Register - annual income being over £5k which I suspect most are. An annual return is no more onerous than an F60 and gives the squadron an up-to-date legal charitable status that is robust. Not some out-dated and discontinued ‘nod and a wink’ that falls over at the first challenge leaving everyone exposed.
If a squadron CivCom does register and comply, what is ATC-HQ going to do then when a timely annual return is made and the correct and legally required info is publicly available from the CC website or even a copy posted to them? Suspend the cadets? Or go look?
It is a conversation a wise CO would have with their Chairman to look after their squadron’s resources and also a conversation that might wake a few less effective committees up.
It should be a red flag to all that there are differing arrangements across England/Wales, N Ireland and Scotland - the latter requiring registration.
Only if you do it to POWs.
Not sure what the out of control bit relates to.
This is only something perceived by the ACO. because the appelation seems to suggest operating outside of the Law, when the Law (and Commissioners) is quite cler abou hwagtis expected of Civcom Trustees, and if that is the case then the Regulator will step in, and the alone have power to act.
If it is a matter of being ineffective, then that could be a act of fundraising, lack of community liaison., but equally it could be because the ACO/RAFAC determines to clip the Wings ( if you will excuse the pun)
If you read ACP11 and the bit where a disciplinary procedure is slipped in disguised as a Resolution of Disputes procedure (which all charities are required to have) this effectively is the Wing clipping because no-one can effectively raise a dispute, and be assured of impartiality, with Wing Chairs working under direction from outside of the Civilian support framework.
Basically the framework which existed before 2012 was not broken, but a fix has been ongoing since 2013 - maybe that is the problem and people don’t to have responsibility with their hands tied behind their backs.
If Trustees decide to Register their Charity, they can do so in the full knowledge that it is their Charity, and as ling as they comply with the Law, the Commission are entirely satisfied.
For the present arrangement to continue there are too many conflicts of interest being created, making it difficult for Trustees to operate with any degree of independence from external involvement.
And given that the South West Region was late with its’ 2018 return to the Commission, I bet that none of the Squadrons in the Region were suspended. Obviously that failure cant have been caused by a Committee which was ineffective, or out of control.
A two tier system no less.
It was exactly the same when squadrons weren’t getting “on message” when Bader was introduced. HQAC tantrum and teddies ejected with threats of sqns prevented from doing allsorts if they didn’t join the hive and resisted The Collective. There was no how can we help, given at the time there were at least 6 sqns in the Wing who didn’t have a phone line and relied on mobile internet via a dongle, so the COs didn’t bother. It cost one squadron over £500 to get a phone line in
They know that threatening volunteer staff with things is water off a ducks back, as what’s the worse they can do to you? But threaten things regarding the cadets and people listen.
Why do Civ Comms struggle? Why does anything that relies in people giving up their spare time, ie volunteers, struggle?
I think when it comes to finance like we have, people see it as being difficult, but it’s as difficult as you want to make it. Having been a treasurer for different groups, linked spreadsheets are a God send, I produce a summary of ins and outs as I go along, at any point i know the situation and produce a report each year. since online banking and paying for things with cards etc record keeping has become much, much easier.
Why can members of the ACMB have control over finance and operation of charitable funds and CFAV can’t?
More importantly, is it actually legal under charity law?
On 29 March 2019, the Charity Commission published a new guidance for charities with close links to non-charitable organisations.
In our case the non-charitable organisations are the RAFAC/ATC/ACO and ACMB ACC and even the MOD; in essence none of that lot are identifiable as a charity.
The guidance refers to conflicts of interest and is intended for organisations which have links to the Government or a department thereof ( no doubt reference to public monies). The significance is that Trustees should not be involved in the delivery of the services or activities for which their charity exists to support, nor have any involvement in the planning and direction that the non charitable organisation may take.
This guidance makes it even more apparent that there should be separation without compromise to the independent existence of the Charity.
This is not what appears to be happening and it is totally incomprehensible that beneficiaries should be penalised and must set a precedent within the Charity sector.
Somehow the entire scenario does not quite stack up and it is difficult to read into it any legal certainty, and quite clearly the Charity Commission guidance seeks it help Trustees conflicts of interest.
I can think of one straight away!
Absolutely.
But when you have financial professionals involved as volunteers and they can see that the foundation rules compromise their professional integrity or status, then it is probably time for whichever acronym to listen and behave in a more adult and responsible fashion.
We are not exactly talking high finance here, but as a professional there is only one way of doing things.
I recall a telephone call from OC Wing, pressure to get Form 60 in on time, and the instruction was that anyone can sign off Form 60, which to me suggests that you simply phone a friend or a member of the family.
Technically anyone signing Form 60 and attesting to be an independent examiner, should have seen the books and records, and the prepared annual accounts (which are retained by the Trustees) which show all the transactions, such that the signatory is then stating that all transactions comply with the aims and objectives of the Charity; that Form 60 then should be a correct statement based upon what is recorded in the accounts.
As it is, Form 60 and the way that the ACO is only concerned about getting completion, there is no scrutiny and after being receipted at Wing HQ, there is no evidence of any audit checks.
If the ACO sees itself as a Regulator, it needs to do better on the professional ethics front, and actually see the Civcom volunteers as a valuable asset and treat them accordingly AND recognise their statutory position. There are two Wings in Scotland recorded as having late returns, but presumably no action was taken.
The only help and guidance forthcoming to Trustees is a threat of action against the beneficiaries when Form 60 does not go in to HQ. Hardly a shining example of how you treat volunteers. Arguably the admin grant should be spent on the Independent Examiner, but I bet that in many cases through guidance of the ACO it is not.
It is debatable what causes delays to submission, but arguably only persistent offenders should be targeted, and that is the job for the Commission - that is how the Kindergarten Inquiry arose, the job was not getting done - latterly only one trustee who was absent from the UK.
Arguably even without previous experience a Trustee can benefit training, after the Corps insists that all staff are properly inducted.
Perhaps the ACO can then explain why someone who is not given any training can be held responsible for depriving the beneficiaries of benefit. I can find no parallel to this anywhere else - the cases which arise are where charitable funds have been used for other purposes!
Thanks for that insight - presume the same applies in Northern Ireland.
Even if they are professionals doing the basic record keeping and do as directed, even if it is a pile of dung. That way if the wheels fall off you can sit back watch it unravel knowing you’ve done as directed and can’t be held accountable.
I’ve not looked at an F60 for years, but as I recall there were a lot of things which seemed to be relevant to very few squadrons and created confusion. A new treasurer asked how much the land the hut was on was worth as there was a box, also if we had taken out any loans as there was a box about loans and repayments.
Wrong I’m afraid, if a case of any sort ends up in court and you are accused of any crime and are from the medical profession (doctors nurse or AHP) your professional body or the HPC can remove your registration for bringing the profession into disrepute. That equals no job. Same goes for police officers legal profession etc.
This was subject I raised at a meeting with a wing chair some pooh poo’'d it but she actually said I was correct. So anybody in the ACO should keep this in mind at all times.
Oh Dear …I refer my friend Teflon to the Nuremburg defense which I think will hold water even after all these years …
1 Like
First lesson at Cranwell during IOT, ignorance is no defence just as following an illegal order isn’t.
1 Like
and of course the same sort of issues are now arising within the American administration, and where it has recently been stated that no-one is above the Law!
One should have no concerns on that score with the ACO! but I cant see that it is acceptable to suspend activities, especially when all Cadets are beneficiaries of the GPF, then there is an intentional decision to deny benefit from at least two Charities, distinctly contrary to the aims and objectives of all the ACO Charities.
Charity Regulators only interact with the Trustees, so if the Regulators act in accordance with the Law, where does that leave us?
t
So … be well aware that although the ACO is constructed from volunteers, the CAC is in full knowledge that all volunteers are subject to the law over and above her remit.
1 Like