NOTF on Wing Banking

[ELTHunter]

Other agencies have credit cards or procurement cards that can be used in these situations as long as the required back up documentation is presented to verify the purchase.  In our case, we have to foot the bill and hope we get the money back some time.

That is just your wing.  Other wings have credit cards in the plane for use for fuel. 

Actually, TNWG does use multi-service cards, but I have heard horror stories about some other wings.  Was thinking more about big HLS or disaster missions.

[mikeylikey]

Never, ever keep a cash drawer at the squadron.   That will get you in big trouble.

CAPR 173-1, 5 (h).  Units will not establish or maintain petty cash accounts. Reimbursement for out of pocket expenditures will be made by check.

So what if a squadron keeps a small "store" with cadet rank insignia, patches, cut outs and other uniform items on hand so cadets don't have to order a $4 item from vanguard and wait a month for it to come in.  When cadets buy $10 worth of stuff, how's that money supposed to be handled?  By the letter of the regulations, if I keep a cash box in the drawer to make change and keep receipts in until I place another $50 order to Vanguard, I'm technically breaking the regulations.  Under the WBP, I gotta go deposit the $10 in the Wing bank.  Turn around and order the items that I just sold, and then turn in a request to Wing to get reimbursed.  Are you telling me that makes sense and is more efficient?

Good question.  Get a parent, or non CAP member to start the cash drawer.  When questioned about the money (which you should not be if you take the cash home with you after meetings) tell them Cadet Snuffy's mother started that, it is not the SQD's. 

[lordmonar]

I think that is one thing the wing banking program will have to fix.

There IS a need to have SOME cash on hand.

But!

There is always a BUT!

At this point in time....we have to head off those who would try to use their "soda fund" or "Company store" to stash away a lot of money they are scared that wing may steal from them.

The USAF deals with this from time to time....there are some big squadrons out there with multiple shops that have some really large soda funds.  PACAF a number of years ago had to write a reg limiting them to under $500 in cash and murchandise.  Because the IG found that there were soda funds in PACAF that had $20,000 in their tills and storage lockers.

So...bottom line....don't try to cercuvent the Wing Banker Program.  Get with your Wing CC and help him hack out a local regulation that will allow you to keep some money on hand for change and such. 

But be careful that you don't cross that line and start running your squadron out of your soda fund.

Just my $.02

[RiverAux]

Just my $.02

Did it come from the soda fund or the Wing account? 

[RiverAux]

It just isn't potential non-governmental donars that care about how CAP squadrons spend their money.  This was mentioned as an issue in a GAO audit of CAP in 2003. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04183r.pdf which said, in part,:

The audit report for fiscal year 2001 included the auditors' opinion that with one exception, the financial statements of the corporation were presented fairly in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. The exception related to units below wing level not being audited and not being included in these financial statements. The exception is discussed in the notes to the financial statements and in the auditors' report.

[mikeylikey]

Yes that was from 2003!  For an audit from 2001!!  They recommended no changes and there were NO changes as a result.  We have only had the Wing Banker Solution for one year.  You can not tell me that the Virginia Plan was due in large part to the report you quoted.  Virginia SCREWED up, so we all have their solution pushed on us, even though the majority of units were doing the right thing.

[RiverAux]

I'd say that a statement in your audit that your accounting practices are okay except for the fact that you can't account for money below Wing level is obviously a problem.  Keep in mind that this audit was made during a time when squadrons were supposedly providing all this information to Wing and National and obviously that wasn't working. 

Wing Banker is just the latest attempt to fix the problem. 

[Galahad]

"Civil Air Patrol, Inc. has never received an "Unqualified" annual audit from its external audit firm. A "Qualified" audit report shows weaknesses exist and our Corporation was noted for funds at the unit level that are not audited. The Board of Governors recommended that Civil Air Patrol obtain an unqualified audit opinion as soon as possible. The most cost effective way to obtain an unqualified opinion is to audit the unit funds at the wing level."  ... Maj. Gen Antonio Pineda, 21 Sep 2006, MEMORANDUM FOR ALL CAP REGION AND WING COMMANDERS, http://www.cap.gov/documents/National_Commander_Directive_Letter.pdf

"... Additionally, I am pleased to report CAP has continued to advance in fiscal accountability. For the first time since reorganization of Civil Air Patrol in 1995, outside auditors assessed an "unqualified" audit rating for CAP's annual financial statement in summer 2006. This high rating is the result of years of hard work by both CAP volunteers in the field and professional staff at CAP National Headquarters. The outcome of this effort is increased public trust in the organization."  ... Col. Russell D. Hodgkins Jr., CAP-USAF Commander, p. 39, CAP 2006 Annual Report to Congress, published ~31 Dec 2006. http://www.cap.gov/documents/2006_CAP_Annual_Report_To_Congress_lorespdf.pdf

The above two statements are mutually exclusive. One must be in error.  You be the judge.

[MIGCAP]

1. The Wing Banker solution is not necessary to achieve an unqualified audit.  There are many many organizations which leave control of finds at a local level and receive unqualified audits all the time.  The issue is that CAP could not show where their money was, and probably still can't. The Wing Banker was a solution cooked up to remove control of money from squadrons and put it at Wings where Nat HQ could exert pressure to make the books balence.  There are many many possible solutions to the problem, Wing Banker was only one, and certainly not the best, but it was the easiest for National to demand, and everyting in CAP happens to make life easier for our paid folks and harder on the volunteers. 
2. Petty cash is a fact of life in most organizations, it works well if properly accounted for. Military units are in fact allowed to do it with non-appropriated funds. National does not trust us to do it with dues and local funds, since again their interest is in self sustainment and not the volunteers.
3. The nasty fact is that if units did not submit their financial statements under the old system, or if the ones submitted did not add up, they should have had their Charters pulled, but nobody had the nerve to do that.
4. The real problem is that we have a huge paid staff that exists to serve themselves and offload work on the volunteers. They pick the easiest way to meet what the lawyers and accountants want with that one goal in mind.

MIGCAP

[Skyray]

Galahad:

  The above two statements are mutually exclusive. One must be in error.  You be the judge.


You don't suspect that our intrepid leader would LIE to advance his agenda, do you?

[RiverAux]

Frankly, I don't really care whether we get a qualified or unqualified audit, thoughy if an unqualified audit helps us in some way, thats great.  What I care about is making sure all the money is properly accounted for.  The old system certainly was not working very well.  I'm not terribly worried about fraud with local money, though it does happend, I am more worried with plain old mismanagement and have seen it happen. 

I've been a treasurer of another organization that had about the same amount of cashflow as a typical CAP squadron and also been a CAP squadron commander and I know you have to be on top of your game to make sure every little penny is accounted for even when it isn't actually all that much money.  Since squadron commanders usually end up doing the accounting in addition to all their other work, I would have loved this system had it been in place when I had that job since it would have freed me up to focus on more important issues. 

[genejackson]

Well, I see this certainly has generated a significant amount of keyboard traffic and that is great to see.   To those of you who have had problems in the past due to fiscal issues, I'm genuinely sorry that has happened to you.  My only experience with CAP has been VAWG and the MER, and I have to say that I'm fortunate that this Wing has been nothing but outstanding to myself and my members.   In my professional life it is rule #1 - If you don't take care of the customers, somebody else will.  And I treat each and every patient as if they were family and I have to sit at the dinner table with them that night.   So, they get my full and undivided attention and I deal with whatever they bring me as a complaint with the same attention.   

As for my CAP members, it's the same thing - they get my full attention.   I recently contolled a quite large CAP operation.   12 pilots, 5 airplanes, 150+ flight hrs over 10 days flying.   $19,000.00 budget of which $5800 was accomodations/perdiem, etc.   Every member had their CAPF 108 submitted to Wing HQ within 24 hrs of receipt and all but one has already been reimbursed for their personal monies spent.   This one pilot was late in sending me his CAPF-108 so he owns this tardiness for reimbursement.   They were each reimbursed before their credit card bill came.

I try to do the very same thing for every mission I run as an IC, get the CAPF 108's to Wing HQ within 24 hrs of receipt and our people get reimbursed as quickly as possible.    In the past,  it hasn't been that quick, both here in VA and other Wings as I've read.   All we can do now is not look back and say it was this or that way in the past, what we need to do now is say how we are going to work better for our members.   

From what I'm seeing in a lot of posts,  it is (or has been) the exception and not the rule that members were reimbursed quickly.  Hopefully that will chage as CAP continues to grow and we see a positive change in our upper leadership and those changes effect better things down the command chains.  Wing Banker is one positive change I've seen happen for us and I hope that all other Wings find it equally positive for them.   With that said, I'm gonna close my participation in this thread and wish everyone a great day.   I'm off to pick some more boogers at work

Gene

[floridacyclist]

Never, ever keep a cash drawer at the squadron.   That will get you in big trouble.

CAPR 173-1, 5 (h).  Units will not establish or maintain petty cash accounts. Reimbursement for out of pocket expenditures will be made by check.

So what if a squadron keeps a small "store" with cadet rank insignia, patches, cut outs and other uniform items on hand so cadets don't have to order a $4 item from vanguard and wait a month for it to come in.  When cadets buy $10 worth of stuff, how's that money supposed to be handled?  By the letter of the regulations, if I keep a cash box in the drawer to make change and keep receipts in until I place another $50 order to Vanguard, I'm technically breaking the regulations.  Under the WBP, I gotta go deposit the $10 in the Wing bank.  Turn around and order the items that I just sold, and then turn in a request to Wing to get reimbursed.  Are you telling me that makes sense and is more efficient?

My wife was told that she would have to close her squadron store. No more sodas or insignia unless you fill out a form and send it off to disappear at Vanguard. Want something to drink? Bring it with you.

[jimmydeanno]

When I was in VAWG with the wing banker program, we could still operate our "snack fund."  The stipulation however, was that every night, after the meeting, the cash had to be removed from the box and deposited in the bank account.

We just told people to bring exact change (not that hard since a drink and candy bar was 1.00).  Even if people didn't bring exact change, by the 4th or 5th person, there was enough to make change for a 5...

[dwb]

The real problem is that we have a huge paid staff that exists to serve themselves and offload work on the volunteers. They pick the easiest way to meet what the lawyers and accountants want with that one goal in mind.

Although your whole post sounds like sour grapes, I'm going to throw the BS flag on this one point.

First off, given the size of our membership, the size of our paid NHQ staff that pushes all the paper is relatively small.  The CP shop, for instance, is three people.  Three people to create curriculum, oversee NCSAs, develop long-term plans for cadet programs, process milestone awards, implement NEC/NB policy, answer phone calls and E-mails from the field, etc.

That's a lot of work for three people.

My experience with the paid NHQ folks has been that they are 1. extremely helpful, and 2. doing the best they can with essentially shoestring budgets.  There's a reason changes to 39-1 take forever to work their way in to print; they've budgeted a slice of one person's time to work on it.

In short: I think you're absolutely wrong on the paid staff.  Not only that, but I think you're mischaracterizing their role in the organization.


Back on topic... my concern with Wing banker is that the NB will eventually vote to allow Wing CCs to raid unit funds.  I think it's only a matter of time before the "priorities of the Wing" take precedence and they steal the $500 that some squadron has worked hard to raise.

[jimmydeanno]

^

[lordmonar]

Back on topic... my concern with Wing banker is that the NB will eventually vote to allow Wing CCs to raid unit funds.  I think it's only a matter of time before the "priorities of the Wing" take precedence and they steal the $500 that some squadron has worked hard to raise.

Yes...but the NB has ALWAYS had that power.  Before wing banking, "squadron" money was "CAP" money.  The wing could have demanded it for other purposes.

But let's assume for a moment that this does happen....should not the "priorities of the wing" take precedence?  I mean someone really needs a new L-per and the Homer J. Simpson Squadron has a butt load of extra cash in its account.....why not help the new little squadron who has nothing?

I don't really see a problem with doing that.  I mean we are all one team aren't we?

[jimmydeanno]

Ahhh...but then where is the incentive for the "small poor squadron" to do some fundraising?

If the rich squadron has a whole lot of money, it was probably because they took the time to invest their time so that they didn't have to worry about finances.  It is a fiscally responsible squadron that balances their squadron needs with their income...

I for one would be rather unhappy if I spent 48 hours working an airshow for some cash for the squadron, only to have the wings say "well, such and such squadron needs new tires for their van...so we noticed you guys have a bunch of money from that airshow, so...we'll take that."

Its not that squadrons are "poor" because they can't get money, its because they don't put the effort in to earn the money.  It may be tough, but it is possible...

[dwb]

Yes...but the NB has ALWAYS had that power.

Except that it's a lot easier now.

But let's assume for a moment that this does happen....should not the "priorities of the wing" take precedence?

Maybe.  I remember times when NYWG was in financial distress, but it was due to mismanagement, and I don't want money a squadron worked hard to raise taken away because of Wing mismanagement.

Besides, what if Homer J. Simpson Squadron was saving that money for cadet encampment scholarships?  Now C/CMSgt ComesFromAPoorFamily will not be able to get his Mitchell, because his Wing was incapable of planning for new SAR equipment purchases.  Do you want to call his mom and explain that to her?

[MIGCAP]

First off, given the size of our membership, the size of our paid NHQ staff that pushes all the paper is relatively small. 

Yes, it is small, however the issue is that instead of doing what the volunteer staff tells them to do they are developing policy (our job), writting requirements, (our job), tasking their workers (us).  The problem is that the roles are 100% backwards, they are there do do what the volunteers (read real CAP) tell them to do, not to tell us what to do.  They should be the administrative staff to impliment what the vols say to, not the policy definers who tell us what to do.

My experience with the paid NHQ folks has been that they are 1. extremely helpful, and 2. doing the best they can with essentially shoestring budgets.  There's a reason changes to 39-1 take forever to work their way in to print; they've budgeted a slice of one person's time to work on it.

In short: I think you're absolutely wrong on the paid staff.  Not only that, but I think you're mischaracterizing their role in the organization.


Please do not take my comments as a personal attack on the folks, I have worked with many of them who are excellent.  I believe the mischaracterization is that we have the support dog wagging the operational tail. I do not want policy, procedures, and operational concepts designed by folks who have not be at a mission base, spoken to a cadet, driven a CAP vehicle, etc.  in 20 years, and that is where we are today. I want this outfit run by the folks who do the work, not those who create it.