Uniformity of governance

[Teflon]

Rather than the doom and gloom of the ATC is loading people on Civ Comms with all sorts legal nasties that seems to imply personal financial liability if it all goes wrong, what are the actual circumstances that would lead to the CC launching an investigation / court appearance and potential personal liabilities that people could be open to.
It would be interesting if there are any recorded instances of CWC members being held personally liable and to what extent. The conjecture that CWC members are acting illegally in following the ‘rules’ laid down by HQAC already in terms of charity law should mean many instances out there, as people doing it in their spare time and not part of their job.
What about charities like the RBL, MacMillan, RNLI, RAFA and the whole raft of ‘medical’ charities, that have members doing financial things, do they have internal systems and rules which do not sit within the CC’s likes? They all rely on volunteers doing the financial management at the grassroots.

In general terms in a large organisation volunteers everywhere in any role can be called to account if it goes wrong.

[Aries]

Those charities mentioned all have a national status, and many will also be registered in other jurisdictions ie Scotland, Isle of Man etc. The ACO is slightly different in that each unit is supported by an independent charity but all with a shared objective. The only national identity for the ACO is the GPF, but the ACO itself is NOT a Charity. And each such charity is governed by the relevant Law.

As far as England & Wales is concerned we have the Charities Act 2011 (plus additions in 2016) and all Charity Trustees without exception, are governed by those statutes. The ACO rules are in house, and are of lesser value because they do not come within the reach of the High Court. They do come within the reach of a Government Minister who is still subject to Parliamentary control.

The Trustee is responsible for court action where loss or misappropriation of charitable funds is concerned - that is part of their statutory duty to manage and apply. The CC will not involve itself in that, but has power to open a public inquiry where a charity is failing in compliance or generally failing to satisfy the public benefit requirement if Trustees are neglecting their duties. A recent case involved monies being used to pay for a car lease, and a Trustee been stopped at an Airport with a case full of notes.

There was also a case where a Kindergarten did not send in returns ,because it was down to one Trustee who as Service Personnel had been posted overseas. A public inquiry ensured and the Charity was closed. There are parallels with this in the ACO except that the ACO creates the problems such that volunteers do not step forward.

Of course the ACO charities does not deal in mega bunce but the principles of misappropriation are the same. Known ACO cases are the one in Bath and a case in Devon. In both instances it should have been the relevant Trustees to bring court action, through involvement of the Police - firstly there is a need to establish whether a crime has been committed, after which Trustees pursue action to recover any lost funds. The one case was proven but the other strangely was dropped at the court hearing.

Technically the ACO is not involved because they have no legal jurisdiction over any charity (on account of the ACO not being a legal entity) But it does seem that the MOD will fund a defence where the accused is a uniformed CFAV. Dont forget Civcom are not members of the organisation so have no such entitlement - but as a Trustee and an accused that is a personal problem, as an ex friend found when he borrowed 185k from his branch charity.

This is all way above what is printed in the ACPs and one wonders whether there is a desire to prevent Civcom knowing these things , although as a Trustee, to operate efficiently one needs an understanding of Charity and Trust Law. Where, for example, do the ACPs point Trustees in the direction of creating a Trust?.

Rumpole said - the CAC is in full knowledge that all volunteers are subject to the law over and above her remit - as a Trustee of the GPF she should be in full awareness of the Law to fulfill her GPF obligations, and yet she presides over various decisions which are not consistent with the Law, and which actually compromise the management of independent charities.

Can anyone explain how the Civilian voice is now presented, when Regional Chairs are a component of the ACMB and Wing Chairs are acting under direction - maybe effectively stifled by the threat of removal!

[Teflon]

While not a national charity per se, I cannot believe for one second the CC does not know of the existence of ATC squadrons and higher up, acting as charities for the purpose of donations and grants. If this was so wrong you would have expected the CC to have acted and started at the top with the GPF, which all squadrons contribute to. For the CC to start coming in and playing Billy Big Balls with individuals at squadron level, if the problems stem from them following the “club rules”, and not sorting them first, would be disproportionate.
If there are only two cases in the ATC and I imagine the one in Suffolk and the one where an OC seemingly had cheques made payable to him, things can’t be that bad and the internal rules work well (whether they are up to scratch or not) enough to dissuade / prevent people from being dishonest and the CC are happy with the current set up. Which is all that you want to happen in anything with a charitable status, however loose.

One of the problems with essentially implying that as a trustee you can be liable for losses/misappropriation and the full force of the law brought to bear, you have the very real position of people saying no thanks, which will leave you up the proverbial creek without a boat, let alone paddle. Not just in the ATC but everywhere.

Has there been anything said by the CC that would suggest they are not happy with the way squadrons operate, as I would imagine if they were, things would be changing or have changed PDQ.

[Rumpole]

Has there been anything said by the CC that would suggest they are not happy with the way squadrons operate, as I would imagine if they were, things would be changing or have changed PDQ.

Well … yes.

It is on record that in 2012/13 the CC wrote to the ATC criticising its rules and the treatment of trustees and trusteeship.In short the ATC was told to clean its act up. CAC took the route to appoint Todd as a trusted henchman to re-write ACP-11 but from a position of retaining control. The result is a document that is full of contradictions as the solution was to try and adapt the CIO model of charity to use the trustees plus members structure to allow outside involvement.

To my knowledge three high street banks have rejected ACP-11 as it breaches money-laundering rules (i.e. the principle that non-trustees can handle money or step in and act like a trustee) and the CC were by no means happy about it as constitution.

Various FOIs resulted in documents that demonstrated the CC was at odds with the ATC over some 18 months while the repeated attempts to fudge something that retained ATC-HQ control over charitable funds was rejected and in the end the stalemate was broken by a chap called Neil Robertson who basically stepped in and stood aside as the rest of his team had not been satisfied. The process stretched on until 2015 and even then the new ACP-11 was rolled out carefully in different areas of the country at a time. This in itself was in breach of Charity Law and indeed the orders of the then OC 22Group who wrote that each squadron would have to decide to adopt the new ACP-11. He recognised and understood the legal principal that only the trustees themselves can change their constitution and must vote among themselves to agree to change or remain. The concept that ATC-HQ can treat ACP-11 and ACP-10 in particular like another internal document is hogwash. OC 22 Group agreed it, the CC stucvk to that and eventually ATC-HQ / ACMB ignored it based on ignorance in the field.

ATC-HQ/Todd were continually looking for CC endorsement of ACP-11 and only received ongoing concern as the CC pointed out that it never endorses any constitution as to do so would remove its status as an independent regulator. Eventually the limited resources of the CC meant that they couldn’t keep up the attention required to keep pulling those at ATC-HQ back on song and essentially the message was that it is for the ATC to decide itself and then the legitimacy of its constitution (rules) would be subject to legal challenge.

There are many more cases than the two you have cited I can assure you, often involving the harassment of volunteers /trustees and should any hint of a legal challenge be felt - such as would test the legitimacy of the rules - there is immediate action to suppress it by whatever means.

I can assure you that under any legal challenge, ACP-11 would falter seriously as the burdens of proof and charitable precedents that apply would soon render the trustees uncomfortably exposed. And it is a basic principle of trusteeship that you are responsible for both decisions and consequences, so that is not implied but fact. It is this same fact that causes ATC-HQ and CAC to keep volunteers in the dark precisely because of the people saying ‘no thanks’ as you suggest. Better to keep a leaky ship moving and deal with the occasional hole! But when a treasurer goes AWOL with funds, it isn’t the ATC who pursue. They have no legal status. It is the trustees who are required in law and by the ATC to take action. There is nothing in place to say that the ACO will underwrite a squadron charity’s losses.

Had ACP-11 been re-written (though it needn’t necessarily have been) from a perspective of what is actually required and what meets the legal needs of the squadron, rather than what do we need to do to keep control, then it would have been a very different document and one that, frankly, would be in everyone’s interest. Now we have a move to make members of the CivCom part of the ATC (which they aren’t) to exercise the line of command in that direction which is wrong.

[MattB]

To my knowledge three high street banks have rejected ACP-11 as it breaches money-laundering rules

Is there any proof of this?

[pEp]

Probably not.

[Rumpole]

I never write anything that cannot be evidenced - Lloyds, NatWest and Barclays.

Just take your ACP-11 into your branch and ask if they are happy with the financial aspects of your squadron’s constitution and see how fast they suspend your account!

[pEp]

Or, you could provide proof.

[Rumpole]

I think I am wise enough to realise that the proof you seek would only be accepted if you had your own direct experience.

[Aries]

But the ACO is a non charity and Charities have been alerted to conflicts of interest in their dealings with the non-charity. We have the ACMB - the non charity, dictating to the other ACO charities how they will relate - that they will sign up to an imposed constitution, how they will submit returns when the Law says no, and how the Wing Chair can suspend a Trustee for disciplinary reasons, when the Trustee is not member of the Organisation but significantly where the decision can be influenced by the uniform chain - case proven.

There are only a few known cases of infringement of Charity Law ie the ones which actually get to court and are therefore recorded in the media; otherwise there is a total blackout. Does the ACO provide any guidance on charity matters - NO, because that would undermine the whole scenario and Trustees would be better prepared. If you care to study the whole Charity sector, it leaves me with the impression that ACO Trustees have one hand tied behind their back - lots of responsibility, minimal personal liability, but vulnerable for supporting an organisation which is intent in removing every bit of independence afforded by Charity Law.

You mentioned the Suffolk case - I think a lot of correspondents have an incorrect take on that one, and given that the law was being upheld by the Trustees, and NOT removed by the Charity Commission, it says something that there was an ultimate threat of sanction against the Beneficiaries because the entire situation created by the ACO, could not be resolved in line with Charity Law.

The ACO uses the Law to make it look like they are doing the right thing, - but insistence on compliance and a constitution which has no legal verification isn’t the right thing . - sort of PPI contract without the small print.

And yes this has serious implications for people willing to volunteer and be a Civcom member.

.

[pEp]

So what you’re saying is you either can’t or won’t provide proof.

If you’re going to be anonymous and post random unsubstantiated claims like that, who exactly do you think is going to believe a word you say?

What is the point? We get it, you’ve had a bad experience running a civcom somewhere. I sympathise with you, I really do, but just drop it or do something productive, please. For your sanity as much as ours.

(Both of you, Aries and Rumpole)

[Teflon]

And yes this has serious implications for people willing to volunteer and be a Civcom member.

But this needs to made clear as to what exactly the implications are ie financial and or jail with real examples that can be related to.
If the CC has made representations about the ATC “charity” status how come we are still operating with all these fragilities?

[Aries]

I have not noticed anyone on this forum explaining how the ACMB fits into the picture and why there is absolutely no reference in ACP11, so rather than slate someone for asking questions, be helpful and answer one for a change.

If you look closely, it is where many of the conflicts of interest arise.

I wonder if the constant use of social media builds a false sense of wellbeing- that helps MrTrump get through the day and as you see if anyone in the team wont toe the line, they become history.

Basically what is being said is that the ACO is using powers they do not have, because in house Regulations do not and cannot override any legislation - that is why we have always had independent charities with Trustees accountable to the Charity Commission and who are NOT members of the ACO.

Charities Act 2011 did not change any of this and we were always compliant, but since then ACP11 has been re-written and introduced things which are not compliant and that affects everyone. Signing to adopt that constitution, still would not mean you are legal, when the basic document fails any legal test.

So if the document is not legal, any actions taken purporting to enforce compliance are themselves not legal.

I can assure you the bad experience has not yet started and it wont be me.

ey don’t have is is how the ACO is transforming, but interesting if you look agt figures ugn xdinug if yo lokk atheh naosringin
GThsui is whagt the cd you are and uug kying znd veet hgh ooected leaves inne irmaito ingtusl ; the proof is beiiofi , with years of tried and tested the existing legal framework being prven to be sitgin if hwi rstartion yet Nkw) lisorivinig the bets illsutdtzio yhet iif ho

[pEp]

Did you stop and think you’re asking the wrong people? Why do i have to explain to you anything about the ACMB. Why don’t you ask them.

[pEp]

Also, I have no idea what your last paragraph says.

[Aries]

Interesting that there is an FOI response from the Charity Commission which confirms that Excepted Charities are not required to make an annual return and that they have no record of any agreement with the ACO over the use of Form 60.

So how can the ACO claim that completion and submission of Form 60 is essential to compliance with Charity Law?

Statistics shown in the ACMB minutes show that only ONE Form 60 was submitted within the timescale in Northern Ireland , which suggests that no squadron actually complied, so I wonder if the entire Wing was suspended from activities? However the other interesting thing, given that so many believe the ACO to be on the ball, is that under NI Law, since 2008, (but starting in 2013) ALL Charities are required to be registered. There are only three showing for potential registration so where is the ACO guidance on that or are they intent to support the operation of illegal charities.

And in all of this the ACO has never mentioned the Trustee Act 1925, because under you have a legal document signed by Trustees, so that no matter what power it thinks it has, it does not extend to changing a legal document, because it does not have and cannot ever have any authority because it is not a legal entity. The power to change anything has rested with the Trustees.

I would suggest that everyone visits ACP11 but that would simply add to the confusion.

Another interesting fact is that in Scotland the total charity income for 2012 was 808K, which had fallen to 660k by 2018. is that not a reflection on the way things are going.

And this - If the CC has made representations about the ATC “charity” status how come we are still operating with all these fragilities? - I agree good question especially when the CC is supposed to be the independent regulator.

[Giminion]

You really love rhetorical questions don’t you?

You’re saying a whole lot of nothing. It’s all just words - well, apart from whatever the heck this was:

ey don’t have is is how the ACO is transforming, but interesting if you look agt figures ugn xdinug if yo lokk atheh naosringin
GThsui is whagt the cd you are and uug kying znd veet hgh ooected leaves inne irmaito ingtusl ;

You’re asking questions you don’t know the answer to, to an apparently ignorant audience, while simultaneously trying to point out that ignorance to that audience that you’re asking questions to and wondering why you aren’t getting a response?

How about you ask the relevant bodies and authorities your questions and then come back with the evidenced responses so we can take your ramblings as genuine and maybe understand what you’re trying to tell us?

…Because at the moment it’s beginning to sound like you’re about to start on chemtrails, steel beams, and targeted individuals.

[Aries]

My problem is that I read a lot - crime and mysteries - where the author knows what the end result and has to construct a succession of scenarios, taking the reader along, testing their powers of perception.

You have been given the answers and facts over a period, most accessible if you know where to look, and the questions are only posed to test your ability to read between the lines.

Your negative contributions suggest you are not Civcom anyway, and you only have a one sided take - this simply only enhances the them and us situation, whereas I was under the impression that we were supposed to work together for the benefit of the Cadets - sort of mutual support .

No matter, I just hope that you have worked out how the answers actually relate, so that when SHTF your position is not compromised because you had failed to understand that Charity Law has the upper hand.

Whilst Governance should not be subject to bullying or abuse, this quote from a legal source says a lot:

You may be entitled to assume that everyone in your charity is on board with your mission statement, be that finding a cure for cancer, relieving hunger around the world, or whatever the cause. However, as has been shown by recent events, you are not entitled to presume that this makes everyone in your organisation a 100% “good” person. People who work for charities are human beings, not angels. They are subject to the same pressures, worries and temptations as any of us. They can still be bullies or sexual predators in the workplace; the two characteristics are not, unfortunately, mutually exclusive

so I leave you another question, does enforcement of governance by depriving beneficiaries of benefit constitute bullying?

[pEp]

Yawn. Bored now. Stop with the rhetoric and be productive.

If you genuinely, really care about your beneficiaries, go and get legal advice and take the organisation to court. Except you won’t, because that’s effort. It’s far easier to post anonymously on an internet forum to the wrong people.

[Rumpole]

If you genuinely, really care about your beneficiaries, go and get legal advice and take the organisation to court.

Speaking for myself, I have and on every occasion ‘won’. It does take effort which I, and others, have been prepared to make.

The difficulty is that if one is to comply with conditions surrounding such court decisions, one is limited to raising questions rather than quoting specifics.

The purpose of this forum is, or at least should be, to share views and information in a co-operative manner respecting views and opinions. You are starting to personalise your comments from a position of ignorance and therefore simply trying to shut down exchange rather than think for yourself.

I would point out that a number of squadrons have been in touch with me off forum and have all expressed similar concerns and been prompted to seek their own legal advice rather than blindly believe in the ‘official line’.

Just because you are bored, possibly to a point of prejudice, you shouldn’t be so keen to respond offensively and do some serious thinking for yourself.