Odd that, I’ve seen reports of various clubs and groups getting lottery money and not being charities.
I have seen groups not charity registered too but I go back to the info given to me by the person at OSCR and I know it only relates to scotland.
If you take money from people then you are:
Option 1 your a company pay tax
Option 2 your a charity no tax.
The reason I know about this group I was asked to help write there group constitution.
Having read this thread, I would like to add some things (Strange, I hear you say. LW never usually gets involved and controversial !)
- Lawyers hate simple. Complicated and obscure means they can earn fees arguing about meanings of words, phrases and implications.
- Civil Servants are never overworked.
- Politicians hate simple. As most Politicians are ex lawyers, see point 1.
- In law you can never claim ignorance or that you did the wrong thing for the right reason.
- HQAC have produced another policy that does not stand the scrutiny of lawyers & politicians.
- Well meaning volunteers will get stitched up and abandoned, meaning less people to run this organisation.
The trouble is these points could apply to many of the issues discussed on ACC!!
Loosely may be apt, because there was never any reference to it prior to the re-write of ACP11. BUT the Association has always been with us, and it is that which is the legal entity, which elects a Committee, who are then the Trustees.
So I am not sure all the dots are joining up, but some interesting comments.
Let us not overlook the fact that when the ATC was created it was recognised that public and non pub funds needed to be kept separate, and Charity Management was an obvious choice because there were clearly defined statutory arrangements.
So without dismissing ideas, I would be interested to know how anyone would propose to police a non statutory bunch of individuals with direct access to funds and an evident lack of accountability.
There are a lot of recent reports about bogus military charities, which just shows how adept people are when it comes to using other peoples’ money. The ATC is about future citizenship, so does that now extend to money laundering - at least with a Regulator there is some degree of propriety.
- As a lawyer I would disagree. Most of us prefer certainty in legislation as it makes the job easier.
- As a civil servant I would disagree. Some of my colleagues have it very easy I agree but most of my team are putting in 65-70 hour weeks on pay for 37 hours and still the backlog is growing.
- The ministers I’ve worked for always want it simple, often too simple to actually work.
- Generally yes (with some few exceptions)
- Quite possibly
- Most likely
These exist all over the place and have done for years. I’m part of one and we get accused of all sorts, but people have been invited to come and join us and look at all the accounts and bank statements, but there have never been any takers in the 15 years I’ve been part of it, 6 of which I was treasurer.
I agree from my experience, but that is because it is not generally that the public have access to that information, after all where does the ACO make Treasurer details available to the public.
With a Registered Charity that information is part of the recorded details and the accounts are published and available to the public - that happens for all Scottish Sqns.
My observations relate to the alternative thinking which seems to be prepared to dispense with the Civcom, what control of monies would there be?
That is somewhat half baked, as why do all SCC units have a registered charity in addition to the MSSC being a registered charity - all open and above board, not like the ATC which gives the impression that the ACMB is calling the shots regardless of Charity Law, and that includes public access to accounts.
Thanks for the contribution Hola.
So do these two responses and your status mean members of the forum/someone could hire you in case of alleged irregular activity within the ACO or might we contact you via the Law Society for that or legal clarification?
Nah. Just my opinion on here.
Plenty of people you could find on the law society site who would be better at that side of things.
Let me pose a hypothetical scenario, to help re-focus on the original question .
Say the Civcom identifies that a member of the uniformed staff has been withholding monies, (collected, donated or whatever) ie possible misappropriation.
What should happen? a) The Civcom approach the staff member concerned directly , b) refer the matter to the Police, or c) go to the Wing Chair
There is nothing procedural in ACP10/11, but charity guidance is reasonably clear, that Trustees have a duty to safeguard monies on behalf of the beneficiaries. They could be considered to be acting correctly in a) and b), (ultimately they have the power to go to Court to recover monies, which neither the Wing Chair nor the ACO has )
In the event of option © what action can the Wing Chair take ? Suspend the Civcom for being incompetent and/or making allegations against the staff?.
The Wing Chair however has no power over staff, although ATC rules suggest that there is power over the Sqn Civcom, despite Charity and Trust Law saying the opposite.
So what stance does the Wing Chair take in this situation, and how is this affected by the apparent tendency of filling those positions with nominations from the senior echelons. Is there an independent impartial mediator to get involved.
Mind you if a Civcom member has been responsible for the misappropriation, the follow up rests entirely the other Trustees, and logically anyone so caught can be disqualified from acting as a Trustee for any Charity, again though, no guidance in ACP10/11.
From the way I read it the Wing Chair would inform OC Wing who would then engage - in what fashion, I cannot say, but I’d assume a recovery based one.
In this instance, again assumed, that said Civcom member is relieved of membership by Sqn Civcom and then either legal proceedings started against said member or insurance (if in place) claimed upon (or both) according to Civcom decision.
But then what if the money is not available? - say the money has been used to support online gambling debt - Region, Wing nor HQAC do not have the power of Trustees.
The insurance proffered is about avoiding personal liability; I am not sure if this will work to re-imburse the lost funds. Personal Indemnity seems to cover Wrongful Acts include actual or alleged acts (including breach of duty or trust) and the policy is designed to pay for and defend these actions.
Whereas fidelity guarantee insurance is what appears to cover for fraud or dishonesty by employees or volunteers, and that does not appear what is suggested to be taken out by CWC Trustees.
So it seems that if you do not have the latter, Trustees will be obliged to go to court. Doing nothing is not an option as the Trustees would then be failing in their duty of Trust.
It will not.
Loss of funds is a matter of criminal or civil recovery in which RAFAC has no status to pursue. I am aware of a squadron whose treasurer acted wrongly through a ‘temporary’ loan to themselves from squadron funds and when push came to shove Wing had to push for the remaining committee members to report and pursue the matter as, despite making a lot of noise, they knew they were legally impotent without the remaining trustees.
Is not any insurance that could be taken out to protect in such cases? Ofc this seems to point down the path of never ending insurance >.<
I would assume that this would be the case (as in the money would not be available) as in such cases where funds are misappropriated, the individual concerned has often exhausted their own personal funds and assets prior to taking the path of misappropriation (I appreciate, not always) as such taking the individual to court would yield nothing as there would be nothing to recover but I understand due process would need to be followed and a Civcom having to show that every effort possible was taken wrt recovery.
Not really … before insurance companies part with dosh … there is this old English thing of ‘innocent until proven guilty’.
So no payout until trial and then, if guilty, then the monies would be mainly (but not wholly) recovered through court process. So non need for insurtanc e companies to get involved …
Insurance payouts would be on balance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt.