Out of interest…share a link?
Jesus…looks like a right mess!!! What was the outcome?
That I don’t know, and I don’t know if anybody on here does either?
As far as I am aware,
ATC-HQ got their bums kicked by the Charity Commission in the face of the Law and they then proceeded to divide and conquer when they were shown to have been acting outside the Law. Then, having got rid of the Regional Chairs and Regional Commandant who were supposed to '‘sort it’ (but couldn’t because they had no legal authority), they engaged Ian Todd to come up with some flaky ACP-11 rewrite that attempted to recover ground against the reality that there is a higher authority than ATC-HQ. But anyone of intelligence who reads it or tries to consider it with independent objectivity against a legal position simply dismisses it as the ignorant ramblings of a sad old ex uniform doing his Mistresses bidding.
Warkitten will argue, but as far as I am educated, I expect she knows that if it ever reached a court of law, she would be exposed for what the true position is - not in support of her position.
Merry Christmas to all genuine people of the ATC working for their cadets.
Previous AAC thread:
Not sure where the 863 situation fits in with the original question – but obviously Warkitten willno doubt elucidate on the reference .
However given what has been said in current and past posts on this forum, logically if there was evidence of any wrong doing on the part of the 863 Trustees, it was the statutory duty of the Charity Commission to intervene, acting in the interests of the beneficiaries.
Potentially if there was any wrong doing in charity management eg misappropriation of funds or fraud, it would merit a public inquiry, but records show there was no such involvement by the Commission.
The question then bounces back to Warkitten. who introduced the 863 debacle. Do please explain.
Are we now saying that ex VRT are the only ones competent enough to act as Trustees?
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.
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.
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).
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.