Wing Chairs


#1

It was always my understanding that the Wing Committee were elected at the annual Wing AGM with Squadron Civcom. reps being present.

As there is no Wing Association, such individuals on the Wing Civcom, are then elected from within the membership of the Squadron Associations represented at the AGM; the Wing Committee of course essentially to acts as Trustees of the Wing fund, which incidentally generally derives its’ finance from Squadron ‘donations’.

That position has been tenable for years , but reading ACP11 things do not add up!

Specifically a reference to disciplinary action and the Wing Chair being able to refer matters to the Regional Chair who can act to suspend a member of a Squadron Committee. There is no reference to acting in the interests of the charity.

With Charity management, it is the Trustees of a Charity who are themselves supposed to manage their own affairs, without outside interference. It is then difficult to see how an elected person can take action against those individuals who were responsible for electing him/her in the first place.

More so how does it work, where the Wing Chair might have a place on the Squadron Committee, but he/she cannot possibly hold a majority or casting vote.

Anyone able to clarify that?


You know what really makes me laugh?
#2

Yawn, Still banging on about CivComs & Wing Chairs, axe to grind?


#3

To be fair, it is an important structure within our organization and something that isn’t always 100% clear how it lines up with charity law.


#4

Or far more importantly where it doesn’t and that is more of a concern in particular where Civ Coms maybe personably liable for their actions or inactions.


#5

Something to hide WarKitten?


#6

My experience is that Wing Chairmen are a done deal and someone who is seen as safe and even more so at Region level.
I knew a sqn chairman who wanted to do it, but was a bit of a prickly character and although popular with other chairmen, not so Wing.


#7

I thought the purpose of this forum was to help one another understand - ie mutual self help for the ultimate benefit of the Cadets.

So what about trying to be helpful? As I recall you had input on the ACMB discussion, but did not exactly help then, and it also became clear that the majority of the forum were not much better informed and as much in the dark as I am.

One is much better able to do any job, when fully conversant with the facts.

Rumpole may have something!


#8

I can understand that scenario, but as I said the stated process is for nominations from within the Sqn Associations, so it should not be what Wing wants (or anyone else), but who the Sqns want to represent them, bearing in mind that ACP11 talks about the Civilian voice being represented at Air Cadet Council. Anything different is not what we are told.

If Wings want to pick and choose, the individual charities become less independent of the organisation itself, and Wing Chairs act as puppets of the uniforms.

Wing Chairs are also Trustees in their own right, who are required to be accountable under Charity Law -isnt that what it also says in ACP11.

At least my colleagues all agree.


#9

Nope nothing to hide.

In my experience (well in the Wing I’m part of anyway), the current & previous Wing Chairs were Sqn Chairs who put themselves forward for election and were duly elected in a competitive vote by the Sqn Chairs.

I’ve not come across a “your it” scenario.

As to Aries’ query ACP11 does stipulate that the Wing Chair makes recommendations to the Rgn Chair in cases of inappropriate activity on the part of Sqn Committee members & the Rgn Chair decides what to do, not the Wing Chair. (& the Rgn Chairs are all members of the ACC).

Also ACP11 also states that Wing Chairs should standown from their Sqn Committee when elected

After all there has to be some form of oversight of the Sqn Committees to prevent another Thurston debacle.


#10

Regional Chair was an ex-Group Captain, hardly a totally unconnected civilian.


#11

Would like to see that!! Not always followed…


#12

The you’re it scenario isn’t that straightforward. We had a Wing Chairman who ‘retired’ and everyone knew who the next one would be. Our sqn chairman at the time said 3 threw their hat in the ring and 2 withdrew on the day of the vote and lo and behold the favoured on got it. Former WSO who had retired, became a Sqn Chairman and effectively Wing Chairman in waiting. Even as staff we knew who it would be.


#13

Similar to what happens at Regions where I dont think there are now any non Uniforms as Chair.

So what you are saying is that even if I might be a Squadron Chair, with all the worldly charity and fundraising experience and willing to become Wing Chair under the democratic process in ACP11, I might as well forget it, if there is a retired uniform waiting behind the curtain.

So having had Wing Chairs expending effort on getting Civcoms to sign acceptance of ACP11, it actually does not work how it reads. No wonder I am confused.


#14

Care to expand you meaning?


#15

I have read about this and wondered so maybe someone will put me right… and I maybe totally wrong but from what I read and understood on what do they know…

A sqn’s Civcom has the cadets bursting their bums raising funds, the funds were then donated/ transferred to a community trust who by coincidence was the civ com.
The plan theory was that the trust would use the funds and then build a community centre and rent it out to local organisations including the cadets who raised the money in the first place.

The Fund raising wasn’t just bag packs but large big scale community gala days

When HQAC got Involved as the (maybe new) OC raised issues it went mental with police and CAC actually having to go to the sqn…

I actually think maybe some of the people involved are on here by their attitudes to HQAC involvement in Civcoms.

If I am wrong then I am happy to be corrected as it did make me wonder…

If it’s true in my opinion then no wonder people want over sight of Civcoms and the “trust” shouldn’t be trusted with the cadets money


#16

You’re talking about the 863 Squadron debacle?


#17

Couldn’t tell you the sqn number but thought it was Thurston… as I said could be completely wrong


#18

The FOI documents are a quite interesting read.


#19

Yes HQAC may of done things wrong from an admin point of view but WTF was that Civcom thinking about…


#20

Unfortuntely the FOI trail has gone cold, so we may never know unless one was a participant in the situation.