A thought slightly aside - should Wing Chairs/Treasurers be signatories on Sqn accounts? If the signatories of a sqn account are not contactable would this be a prudent measure to ensure business (Sqn) continuity? I know that the Wing fund can act as a stop gap in certain cases to ensure sqn staff are not left out of pocket but I thought this measure would prevent that need.
I suspect that Wing Chairs etc as they are not members of the Squadron would be under charity law normally be unable to have access to Civ Com funds except under very restricted circumstanes. They maybe like OCs and Padre’s ex-officio members but without any voting rights on the committee.
The only time that the Wing Chair can step in if if the committee has stood down or a quorum cannot be formed.
Thank you - I was thinking that in the event of all signatories abandoning the cause, that having a Wing Chair/Treasurer on the signatory list would assist in any administrative actions required with the bank, rather than having to try to convince said Sqn’s bank that individuals were connected (no idea how this would be proved aside from waving Wing Constitution and pointing to Org charts etc).
If a committee collapses the Wing Civ Com chair can in effect declare the Squadron Civ Com is under ‘Wing Guardianship’ until another committee is elected and functioning and comes out of guardianship as a fully functioning committee.
The big problem is actually finding people usually parents to take on the role of committee members. The other problem is a lack of training for Civ Coms in the rights, responsibilites and legal standing including knowledge of charity law.
This latter point is never made clear that Civ Coms maybe made personally responsible in the event of a problem. If the problem ends in court, anybody within a regulated profession ie, has a statutory governing body maybe in contravention of that bodies regulation regarding conduct.
I would suggest that even this is questionable under Charity Law as the true nature of trusteeship as tested in law comes with serious unique and non-transferable responsibility. I know of several high street banks who have roundly rejected the current revision of ACP-11 as the involvement of non trustees in control of the finances is (i.e. Wing/Region Chairs) is utterly contrary to EU finance laws alongside Charity Law.
By all means don’t take my word for it, run into your local bank and leave a copy with them. Then sit back and wait for your squadron account to freeze.
I walked away from being a Civ Com chair when I discovered how lacking integerity and honesty parts of the ACO really are and I would not allow that to compromise my professional accountability. There is at least one MP who is taking an interest in the workings of the ACO in all its activities and I have been in contact with their office with details from my perspective.
There are as noted in another thread, two cases against Wings at the High Court, one does wonder the nature of these cases and how much it is costing the ACO to defend them?
Depends on the situation - technically Trustees of an unincorporated associations are individually liable and not being members of the organisation, they are not entitled to benefit from the public purse. Of course it would be rather different if it is the uniform side in court.
There have instances where a Civcom has ceased to function; you actually need a minimum of three Trustees, so having Wing Chair as a signatory does not help - a Charity is acting illegally if it has less than three active Trustees. In anycase Trustees cannot walk away from their statutory responsibilities; even if they do walk, they remain liable even after their Trusteeship ends. Say in the event that monies were misappropriated during their term.
Besides which there are reports of where Charities met only once a year, during which time someone had helped themselves - the case in point has seen that person excluded from acting as a Trustee, plus a free holiday. There is also an archived report where a charity was down to one Trustee, and certain failures alerted the Charity Commission and it was found that the one individual had been posted overseas.
So again I am not sure how a Wing Chair as a signatory helps avoid any of the legal issues - but keep building up the role and they will get the idea that Sqn Charities ought to pay them expenses.
1 Like
I must admit I quite liked the idea of that CWC, as it had the potential to create an independently sustainable cadet unit, especially if the premises was leased back to RFCA. But that doesn’t fit the model and could see people telling HQAC to do one. If they’d sorted out the charity side of it, they may have been on more solid ground. If you look around, many local communities have set ups like this, but they don’t have the likes of HQAC sticking their noses in.
As it was IIRC Cooper went as a result of this maybe not officially but, as mentioned above once they proper people got involved, as I recall HQAC got toasted as they tried to use the CWC rules they had at the time to sort it out, but to no real avail, hence ACP11, which I tried to read out of interest.
1 Like
My initial thought was so that there would be at least one person that the bank would talk to in the event that all other signatories walked. Without it I’m not sure how new signatories would be appointed.
Whilst I’m yet to read them fully I assume ACP10/11 holds the info about the processes to be followed if the above situation occurs. I’m also interested to see the process regarding what happens (or is supposed to happen) to Sqn funds when a Sqn ceases to exist.
I assume that the matter is managed by the Wing Chair/Treasurer.
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
No doubt people like Warkitten will knock in the odd mischievous jibe. But the law is the law and a squadron closing leaves an independent charity whose trustees must do their duty in the eyes of the law to distribute funds and assets AS THEY SEE FIT. Wing Chairs/Treasurers are largely irrelevant and even if they did step in, they would have no legally sustainable basis for doing so.
Sad mess of trying to retain control. (With all due respect to those who perished … see Charge of Light Brigade, Battle of the Somme commanders and other WWI situations for reference).
1 Like
Was the Ian Todd who re-wrote the ACP 11(?) the Ian Todd, formerly of Bristol and Gloucestershire Wing?
This would be Wg Cdr Ian Todd (VRT) (rtd) now Regional Chair South West, one of two Chairmen on the Air Cadet Council and one of two possible Regional Chair representatives who sit on the Air Cadet Management Board**
There is actually one Civcom which owns the property used for ATC purposes. This is managed as a separate Charity and has its’ own Trust deed. The purpose is also to let for other uses and thereby generate income for the benefit of Cadets.
It has a legally separate entity, and therefore is not within scope of ACP11, yet the Civcom as Trustees, may be the same in both cases. And that position cannot without resource to the Court, and the ACO would have no justification for doing that, as it cannot be identified as the beneficiary.
Maybe if this is the model that 863 were following, they were not then wrong, and I have little doubt, they were simply looking after the interests of the Cadets.
Past posts on this site have shown that the wider fraternity have little understanding of these things and are simply willing to swallow what appears to be the official line.
1 Like
Spot on Rumpole, could not aqree more.
The Government has been keen to support the Charity sector, but out of necessity, has had to introduce other legislation because elements within the sector use it as a screen for other purposes.
It has enhanced fundraising accountability (something not yet recognised by the ACO)
There has always been a necessity to maintain a space between charity management/fundraising and the end user of those funds, which is why you have Trusts, Trustees and related Laws, in order to safeguard the interests of the beneficiaries.
So I cant see how having the Wing chair/Treasurer supposedly parachuted in, solves any problems. It should not be simply a means to ensure the pennies keep rolling. It should be about safeguarding the interests of the beneficiaries.
Typhoon asked what happens to Sqn funds when a Sqn ceases to exist .
Not sure what is meant. But whether it is precisely that or simply the Civcom doing a runner, the position is the same.
The legal entity is the Squadron Association, which elects the Management Committee, and who are the Trustees. As a legal entity the Association, cannot simply disappear and has to make official closure. If it is the Civcom which disappears , the Association membership (still extant) must elect a replacement, even if it is for the purpose of winding up. But essentially it has money in the bank (unless someone has thieved it) and also owns assets (provided to benefit Cadet training) which always remain the property of that specific charity, that is until the Trustees effectively agree to dispose of it.
The ACO cannot do that as it has no legal status and did not set up the charity in the first place and, do note, that it is not a parent charity either.
Technically only the Charity Commission is able to appoint Trustees and usually acts where there is a failure of compliance, and they are hardly likely to break the Law and appoint just one or two individuals to be in a charge of a Charity. Anything below the minimum of three Trustees introduces risks attached to financial propriety .
So we have a document which is as clear as mud to understand. We have a good many individuals who have benefitted from Cranwell induction which does not appraise them of Charity Law, and then Civcoms, who have no training whatsoever but are expected to comply with the law and who volunteer for a position with personal liability.
The following quote somehow seems relevant:
The Commission is therefore urging all charities to foster a culture where staff, trustees and volunteers are reminded of the need to challenge any concerning behaviour and not turn a blind eye when internal processes aren’t followed…
Says it all really, when experience shows the ACO is endemic with not following internal procedures, (Wing Chair nominations?) so it is entirely relevant to the original question posed. What assurances do we have, when no-one seems to be able to answer that question?
perhaps while Warkitten is talking about the Thurston “debacle” and sarcastically yawning she will explain why (if rumours are to be believed) the trustees of the Thurston squadron funds found it necessary to take legal action to force the return misappropriated funds. I am sure she will defend the miscreant as his (like the Nuremberg trials) was only obeying the orders of his uniformed superiors. so much for independent, civilian wing chairman.
contrast this with the fact that no action has been taken against the civilian committee who know, respect and work in accordance with charity law.
A lot of nonsense has been written about the Thurston situation but I will leave it to you to decide who you think has the honour and integrity based on the facts.
1 Like
That is rather interesting, there is no guidance in ACP11 on those sort of things.
But I have found ample reading on Trustee responsibilities, mostly all produced by the Charity Commission. So it seems if funds are removed (maybe also assets) without the Trustees agreement, that is no different to misappropriation.
No wonder the Commission talks about not turning a blind eye, although I cannot see how that is viable, if a Wing Chair might have been following orders…
1 Like
Would you be involved in this, by amy chance?
4 Likes
as it was warkitten referred to the ‘debacle’ in the first place, maybe a better response would be to get someone to illuminate how it is relevant to the original question; clearly there is a link, or there would otherwise be no need to mention it.
Always two sides to every story, but a Trustee must act within the Law.
1 Like
Since most people don’t know the facts and only see what’s in public domain… I would say neither party can claim any sort of high ground from what’s written.
Just because you are working inside the law does not mean you are working in line of what is expected from the Sqn or corps. To me a Civ Comm is akin to a PTA in a school in that it is there to support and assist the school, it is not like a School Board which is there to direct and take responsibility for the daily goings on.
This is where some CivComs fall down with the wrong people believing they are there to direct the OC and staff in what is to happen in the sqn. A simple example would be the Sqn decides it needs some AT equipment so the CivCom would then go and fund this purchase but should a CivCom decide to instead purchase RC planes when there is no requirement or need then the CivCom has overstepped the mark.
2 Likes