CAP Talk

Is anyone out there familiar with Virginia Wing's "Wing Bank Solution"?  It's a program for managing squadron funds that the NEC has decided should be implemented nationwide and it will be phased in over a 3 year period.

The May NEC meeting minutes describe it as follows:

"(h) Unqualified Audit Opinion: Based on the direction of the Board of Governors to
have an unqualified audit opinion, CAP would like to implement a system similar to what the VA Wing has to consolidate all unit funds below wing level to be managed by wing headquarters. In Virginia, the unit funds were turned over to wing for management and accountability, but the squadrons still retained control of how the money was spent. The Virginia Wing test proved successful and would be the least expensive route toward obtaining an unqualified audit opinion for Civil Air Patrol. If approved, a minimum of 15 wings will be identified as Phase I to implement this initiative nationwide.  Selection of wings or wings volunteering for phasing in this program will be approved by region commanders, but no wing on a very high financial risk level will be a part of Phase I. Recommendation: A plan to extend the "Wing Bank Solution" to other wings and establish a three year goal of obtaining an unqualified audit opinion." p. 26-27

I've recently been informed that my Wing (Georgia) will be implementing this program very soon.  There are a variety of aspects to this idea I'm uncomfortable with.  I'm also expecting the squadrons under my command to be resistant to turning over their funds to the Wing to administer. 

The fact that CAP regs haven't actually been changed to reflect this methodology doesn't make me very happy either.  However, I expect that the regulatory changes are just a matter of time.

Thanks in advance for any input on this!

Delaware Wing started this in the spring... at first, we liked the idea (no more finance reports to do), but it's a pain to get money to pay for stuff or reimburse members.  We have to submit a form to Wing with signatures from the squadron finance comittee, then wing has to get 2 signatures for the check before they can give it to us.   For our money...

On way to help aleviate some issues would be to have a set Check Cutting day each week when the wing AA would have all the checks ready and two signers would come in and develop writer's cramp signing. The signers could rotate (I believe most wings have more than just two signers) so no one is being unduly put upon.

Not a total solution, but it would help speed things up and reduce the impression of favoritism.

Does this mean that I would turn over all my squadron donations and dues to Wing and then ask for it back?  What about my bank debit card that I now have?  I guess that would be given up also?  How would one propose that I order rank, ribbons, etc., from Vanguard and/or elsewhere?  I don't think this is a good idea.  Considering the lack of financial support we have received from Wing in the last four years, and the fact that our Wing personnel are too overworked to get their current work done timely, I just don't see how this will work.  With the centralization of everything at Maxwell and everything being on computers, why don't we just give it all to National and they can give it back when they get good and ready?  I think this is just one more way of taking away from the squadron for no good reason.  Why should Wing get any interest earned while our money is setting in their account?  If our people earn this money, it should stay with us.  JMHO

Yes, this does mean that you would be turning over all your unit funds to Wing HQ to administer.  I don't think debit cards are going to be authorized since they want all funds to be distributed by check so that Wing can track expenditures.  Petty cash accounts, as now, will not be allowed. The question of account interest hasn't been addressed at this point as far as I know.

I also have a great many concerns about how the "logistics" of this thing are going to work.  Our wing administrator, as wonderful as I think she is, already has her hands full.  I can't imagine how she's going to handle bill paying for 40 units (# of sqdns. & flights in GAWG).  If Delaware with only a handful of units has slow response time in getting checks, can you imagine how much fun we're going to have! :-\

It's my understanding that units will be allowed to make their own deposits, if they wish.  GAWG uses Wachovia Bank.  There are units in certain parts of the state where the CC or Finance Officer would have to drive a considerable distance to make a deposit at a Wachovia location.

Bottom line is that it doesn't appear that we're being given a choice about doing this. 

Hope you're planning to make the Commanders Call on Saturday.  This item is on the agenda!

Fellow Baffled CAP Members;
Here comes another edict from National HQ that will cause more problems.
If it isn't uniform changes (that we really dont need, except for or CG wanting
to wear shiny stars not sewn stars on his bus drivers uniform) now it is a way for SQRDN's to "not" handle there own money.  Our SQRDN does things to help
itself... solicit donations... have fund raisers... etc... etc.  To have our wing get
that money to give back to us, after we have to prove why we need it, is entirely unacceptable.  What about when we "help" a cadet with uniform or registration
fees, without making a big deal about it.  Some units have a scholarship fund...I'm sure they will not Wing to administer that !!!!
Our Wing CC's must be too scared to "just say no" to these ideas...What is the CG going to do..."send them to Vietnam" ???
It is time for the back-bone people of CAP .... the members... to get a back-bone...Contact your leadership and express your views....They are our voice...
All the reports show our membership numbers are dropping.... well "DUH"

If you did some research you would find out that those "petty cash funds" most SQD's have are illegal.  As non-profit, the money needs to be at the Corporate level.  That level is Wing. 

This plan will make everything money related flow more smoothly!  Just think, Wing will automatically pay your rent each month along with any other recurring bills you have.  If you need to buy junk from vanguard, get a credit card, buy the crap early in the month, and wait for reimbursement from Wing to pay the card off. 
There will need to be some planning involved with how to spend squadron money now.  We will get rid of the spur of the moment "lets buy a new radio, because we may use it sometime". 

I just don't see the problems with this plan.  As soon as a larger wing, say PAWG begins in October with hundreds of thousands of dollars, then we will see that it is a good plan.  This will be no different than commercial business operations.  Take a retail franchise, look at how the individual store operates and you will see no difference. 

In the end, this is what the FEDS want anyway, so lets make them happy!

It would appear that you are not in the management, ie, command structure of a squadron.  I take affront to the mere implication that I am not trustworthy enough to handle squadron funds, which I have managed to raise at a squadron level.  I can guarantee you that there will not be near as much fund raising at the squadron level if we have to go begging and substantiating a reason to get our money back.  I also will have second doubts about ordering $500.00 worth of rank, ribbons, etc., from Vanguard on my personal credit card and waiting for Wing to re-imburse when they get around to it.  As a squadron commander, I have to make monetary decisions in a timely manner.  I have had cadets that couldn't afford to go to encampment unless the squadron "sponsored" or "scholarshipped" them.   I don't have time to wait for Wing to take a month to two months to review the request, think about and finally yeah or neah it.  If I can be trusted to run a squadron with 40-50 members, I think I should be able to handle any finances we have.  I don't go to Wing asking for money, why should they?  I consider this an insult to all command positions and finance positions.  I have been handling all finances for the past 4 years, every since I began this squadron (without Wing help, I might add), so why am I all of a sudden incapable?

...

Phil's right about this.  Our best grant donator requests that we ask for the grant in writing stating what we will use the money for, who is managing the money in the local community and that the money must be used in the local community to help the cadets in our squadron.  There are too many local needs for our community to be supporting Wing.  JMHO

This is coming and I don't think we can stop it. 

My theory is that NHQ is very pleased with the book keeping by Wings using the Quick Books Pro via the online server.  NHQ can look at each Wing's books anytime they wish without having to travel to that Wing.

I believe that NHQ wishes to expand this to the Squadrons but I imagine the license fee multiplied times the number of squadrons would be a very high dollar amount indeed.

By requiring each Wing to be responsible for it's squadron's finances would lead to the need for only the 53 (52 wings and NHQ) licenses which is already being funded.

Though I am very much in favor of unit autonomy, I do see advantages, some of which are mentioned above.  In the end, any unit assets belongs to the Wing and ultimately Corporate CAP anyway so the feeling that "Hey, that's our money" is misplaced.  If you are keeping clean books then you should not be afraid of the oversight, right?

But I agree, there will be red tape and delays and this will ultimately lead to a reduction of fund raising activities.  I also believe that this too, will be another brick in the wall being built up between units and Wing's.

We have enough problems with retention as it is.

Quote from: BlackKnight on August 24, 2006, 05:24:40 PM
90% of the funding for my squadron comes from taxpayer dollars given by the local county government for services rendered (mostly ES and cadet program related). The remaining funding consists of grants ($500 or more each) from private organizations who support youth and community services.  We request these grants annually in writing, explaining specifically what we intend to do with this funding and who's responsible for managing it.  We simply don't have the legal authority to transfer control of these taxpayer funds to a 3rd party (the wing bank) to be managed by an entity who isn't part of the original grant contract. People go to jail for pulling stunts like that with taxpayer dollars.  We'd have to go back to our benefactors and revise the grant contract. Once the county commissioners and our local supporters get wind of this deal, 100% of our funding will dry up- instantly.  Most folks around here already have a big sore spot from having to send all their state tax money to Atlanta for little in return. They're not going to risk hard-earned grant money and local taxpayer dollars on a similar charade. :(

Well first....if you look at CAP regs....squadron money is national's money.  If your unit folds the money does not get divided among the survivors but is sent up the chain of command.  In theory.....national/region/wing could order your unit to disband and take those monies.

  Second...from what I understand...it is still your money....it is just in the wing's bank account.  This issue seems to have come up because there is no way for wing and national to account and audit all the sub account that they are required to do by federal law.

Again....it is your money....if you put in $10,000 from local fundraising....you will get to take out that same money....it will not be going to some other squadron, up to regional or national or be used for some wing event.  It will just be held for you in a single depository.

My problem is....it will slow down the process needed to run your squadron.  Waiting for wing to cut you a check to reimburse a member, or pay for some gas, or buy supplies when it used to take just a few minutes will be frustrating.

Secondly...again from what I read of the regulations Debit Cards are not allowed anyway because they don't have the two signature requirements.

An easy fix would be to remove the two signature requirement....this was supposed to protect us against a single CAP member embezzling the funds....now that they are all controlled at the wing level.  It would be better controlled and audited.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 24, 2006, 10:32:26 PM

Quote from: BlackKnight on August 24, 2006, 05:24:40 PM
90% of the funding for my squadron comes from taxpayer dollars given by the local county government for services rendered (mostly ES and cadet program related). The remaining funding consists of grants ($500 or more each) from private organizations who support youth and community services.  We request these grants annually in writing, explaining specifically what we intend to do with this funding and who's responsible for managing it.  We simply don't have the legal authority to transfer control of these taxpayer funds to a 3rd party (the wing bank) to be managed by an entity who isn't part of the original grant contract. People go to jail for pulling stunts like that with taxpayer dollars.  We'd have to go back to our benefactors and revise the grant contract. Once the county commissioners and our local supporters get wind of this deal, 100% of our funding will dry up- instantly.  Most folks around here already have a big sore spot from having to send all their state tax money to Atlanta for little in return. They're not going to risk hard-earned grant money and local taxpayer dollars on a similar charade. :(

Well first....if you look at CAP regs....squadron money is nationals money.  If your unit folds the money does not get divided among the survivors but is sent up the chain of command.  In theory.....national/region/wing could order your unit to disband and take those monies.

  Second...from what I understand...it is still your money....it is just in the wing's bank account.  This issue seems to have come up because there is no way for wing and national to account and audit all the sub account that they are required to do by federal law.

Again....it is your money....if you put in $10,000 from local fundraising....you will get to take out that same money....it will not be going to some other squadron, up to regional or national or be used for some wing event.  It will just be held for you in a single depository.

My problem is....it will slow down the process needed to run your squadron.  Waiting for wing to cut you a check to reimburse a member, or pay for some gas, or buy supplies when it used to take just a few minutes will be frustrating.

Secondly...again from what I read of the regulations Debit Cards are not allowed anyway because they don't have the two signature requirements.

An easy fix would be to remove the two signature requirement....this was supposed to protect us against a single CAP member embezzling the funds....now that they are all controlled at the wing level.  It would be better controlled and audited.

Agree one-hundred percent! 
Perhaps this move is being made because there are some squadrons out there who can't even follow the simple guidelines we have now!  Seriously, the turn around for a check Can be 1 or 2 days if it had to be.  What could possibly be so time critical that you would need to buy something immediately. 

My biggest problem are SQD Commanders who forget that ALL purchases have to be discussed by the SQD Finance commite and voted on.  I routinely observe many Sqd Commanders purchase CRAP on the spur-of the moment basis.  Now if you truly want something equipment based, it better be authorized as an approved item or guess what, Wing says NO.  Also, since the money is going to Wing to pay for a cadets Encampment costs, whats the big deal?  You say "Wing, cadet "so and so" is going to Encampment, please transfer the money appropriately.

Most of the excuses that have been and will be presented as opposition to the "plan" are ridiculous!

It is my understanding that this is all coming about because an Air Force audit revealed that $7,000,000.00 was unaccountable.  It is also my understanding that individual squadrons were not audited, only Wings.  Therefore if the Wings can lose $7,000,000.00, why not punish the functional squadrons and give the Wings more money to lose?  Is this typical of government/military thinking?  And seriously, turn around on a check can be 1-2 days..get real.  Wing can and does routinely lose everything from promotions to Unit Citations requests.  Now all of a sudden they are going to be Mr. Efficiency.  This is about as good an idea as Vanguard was/is.  This is going to increase the bookkeeping and paperwork at both Wing and squadron levels by an immense amount.  Each squadron already has between 80-90 annual reports to Wing and National.  Please, do we have the time and personnel for this?  JMHO

Quote from: capchiro on August 25, 2006, 01:15:58 PM
It is my understanding that this is all coming about because an Air Force audit revealed that $7,000,000.00 was unaccountable.  It is also my understanding that individual squadrons were not audited, only Wings.  Therefore if the Wings can lose $7,000,000.00, why not punish the functional squadrons and give the Wings more money to lose?  Is this typical of government/military thinking?  And seriously, turn around on a check can be 1-2 days..get real.  Wing can and does routinely lose everything from promotions to Unit Citations requests.  Now all of a sudden they are going to be Mr. Efficiency.  This is about as good an idea as Vanguard was/is.  This is going to increase the bookkeeping and paperwork at both Wing and squadron levels by an immense amount.  Each squadron already has between 80-90 annual reports to Wing and National.  Please, do we have the time and personnel for this?  JMHO

No...the wing should have been auditing the squadrons all along...but it is very difficult to do so given the distances involved and simply the number of squadrons.  NHQ as a corporation has a legal requirement to audit all of its functions all the way down to the squadron level.

Yes this may have happened because CAP lost $7M, but that investigation only showed that wings were not/could not audit all of its subordinate units.   

Evidently VAWG came up with a method to do that....they would keep the books.

You have to remember deep down in the bottom of the regulations...every penny raised by any squadron belongs to the corporation and not the individual units.

 

My biggest problem are SQD Commanders who forget that ALL purchases have to be discussed by the SQD Finance commite and voted on. 

[/quote]

Actually, group and squadron commanders can authorize expenditures up to $200 without finance committee approval.

Both the units I have belonged to here in CAWG have been audited every year. It's done by the folks in Group, so it's not a huge burden WRT to the driving.

Keep in mind, too, that the supposed reason behind this is so that Civil Air Patrol can obtain an "unqualified" audit opinion each year.   A "qualified" audit means that there is either uncertainty or disagreement in the overall audit process.  My guess is that CAP's audit is qualified since unit level funds are usually not fully accounted for by the time the annual audit comes around.  (late finance reports, anybody?)

Now, regions & wings are under tighter control yet we still have a qualified audit opinion since the 700+ squadrons (did I just say 700+ squadrons?) hold "corporate funds that are not accounted for under the audit."  Ever read a non-profit audit? Ever read our audit? It doesn't include squadron funds at all.

So now, unit funds would be tracked and maintained by wing.  So now units will no longer hold "unaccounted for funds" and our audit opinion would include those funds and no longer be "qualified."

(I KNEW that Finance for Managers class would come in handy. I can even spell GAAP...)

BTW, Colonel, I think that under CAPR 173-1, a debit card is probably a no-no. IIRC, a few years back a squadron in FL wing got burned for that (following a SWAT team demo that apparently didn't sit well with some folks. The IG then dug around and found something they could make stick).  My bet is that it violates both the intent and spirit of the "two signature" rule.

EDIT: I just went back in and examined 173-1 (it has been almost 2 years since I last commanded a squadron. My memory is really good, but I wanted to be sure), and it specifically states "All unit expenditures will be by check" in two places.  A debit card is a definite no-no. 

According to the COWG/cc, they're planning to have two check runs weekly in CO, so that should handle that protest. The plan, at least for now, is to have one account for the wing and each squadron has a portion of that account based on how much they had at the start and have raised since, which would be that smae amount they would have if they were still maintaining their own bank account. By pooling the money, the account can generate more interest which will be divided amoung the units according the percentage of the pool they 'own'. Each unit will have deposit slips so they can deposit money in their local branch without having to send it to wing.

One benefit to the wing is those units who owe wing money will have it taken straight out of their account. Currently, in CO, some units owe wing a substancial amount of money and have refused to pay it.

Quote from: arajca on August 27, 2006, 12:34:46 AM
One benefit to the wing is those units who owe wing money will have it taken straight out of their account. Currently, in CO, some units owe wing a substantial amount of money and have refused to pay it.

Negative, and exactly what we are all concerned about - the only people authorized to dispense unit funds, are the unit commander and HIS designees.  Wing would / should not have god-like authority to simply decide a unit owes it money.

That wing staff believes it should be anything but a transparent banker is precisely the problem with this entire plan.

And to the issue of interest - its probably a better idea to simply forgo the idea of any kind of division of the money and let Wing keep it.

Just how, exactly, are you going to figure out who gets what?

In ILWG, the three major encampments are responsible for more money than the entire Wing budget, but it is "bursty" money, meaning it is in fast and spent fast - so in terms of pure percentage, those events would get ALL the interest.

Banks have entire departments devoted to calculating interest, do you think one overworked FM is going to be able to make everyone happy?

And how, precisely, do we intend to KEEP the Wing FM’s?  Or even the unit FM’s?
Finance is a huge PITA right now, and that’s without an additional layer of burecracy at the Wing level.

One of the factors that was noted in the retention issues was that “people don’t want to do their day jobs in CAP…”. So going after accountant-types isn’t going to work.

And don’t look to the Wing Administrators to do this work, as many wings seem to think, including ILWG.  The wing admins are simply administrative >assistants< to the Wing Commander and staff.  They have ZEE-RO authority, and in most cases aren’t even members.  They can’t write checks, dispense funds, or approve ANYTHING.  All they can do is type the forms and put them on someone’s desk.

We’re doing that today and still can’t get things done.

I want to add an additional point to this - how much is "too much" to ask a unit or event CC to layout of personal funds?

That seems to be NHQ's answer for slow pay out of Wing - the members simplay pay the bill and request reinburseiment.

Right.

I have members NOW who are owed hundreds of dollars in gas money for years because Wing can't get its act together financially.

I am also the CC of an encampment.  Up until now, this hasn't been much of an issue, because we filtered the money for the event through a local account - this will no longer be allowed.

The Navy mess halls have a non-negotiable rule that says we have to pay for each meal with a seperate check based on the count for each meal, which varies.

So, that means we either have to have a Wing signatory at the event for its entirety (not likely), or I'm supposed to front about  $5000 in CASH (no credit cards not accepted) because some jokers out East and West stole money from their pizza fundraisers?

I would consider fronting it on a credit card, but CASH?  No way?  That actually COSTS >ME< money in lost interest, assuming I have the money to start with.

This would be a BAD idea if we were a fully staffed organization with members who are fully engaged in the singular task of finance.  We're not.

What should have happened was to put in place better controls, and real internal ramifications for units that don't comply, but like everything else CAP, they are swinging the pendulm all the way around, instead of addressing the issue head-on.

Heck - they >DID< provide Quicken to each unit? Right?  Oooops, some FM's dont' even OWN a computer, and have no interest in touching one. Hmmm...

Activities are a separate issue. From what I've been told, activities will get a separate, short term account with checkbook. The signers would be the activity cc and whoever is doing the finance for it.

As for units owing wings money, part of the issue is the policy that units pay for fuel used for their corporate vehicles, which is purchased on a wing credit card. Some units have not been doing that. OTher units enter into an agreement with wing to split hte cost of hangering a/c. Wing writes the check for the whole thing (many small airports won't split the bill) and invoice the unit for their share. The unit doesn't pay the wing back. In both of these cases, the authorization already exists via the regs and agreements, so it would not be out of line for the wing to ensure the units bills get paid - even if the money is owed to the wing. Providing, of course, proper notification is sent to the unit.

As for dividing the interest, it's a spreadsheet calculation. I do it at work with a couple of accounts my dept. has. They are split among 25-30 different departments based on a varying percentage set twice a year. The amount each get billed for differs, but the percentage remains the same.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 27, 2006, 07:58:46 PM

Quote from: arajca on August 27, 2006, 12:34:46 AM
One benefit to the wing is those units who owe wing money will have it taken straight out of their account. Currently, in CO, some units owe wing a substantial amount of money and have refused to pay it.

And don't look to the Wing Administrators to do this work, as many wings seem to think, including ILWG.  The wing admins are simply administrative >assistants< to the Wing Commander and staff.  They have ZEE-RO authority, and in most cases aren't even members.  They can't write checks, dispense funds, or approve ANYTHING.  All they can do is type the forms and put them on someone's desk.

We're doing that today and still can't get things done.

??  Please call your Wing Admin and see what he or she can realy do!  They are in no way "assistants", and can do more than most of the volunteer staff.  In fact, they can even sign checks if need be.   

Quote from: mikeylikey on August 27, 2006, 11:57:02 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on August 27, 2006, 07:58:46 PM

Quote from: arajca on August 27, 2006, 12:34:46 AM
One benefit to the wing is those units who owe wing money will have it taken straight out of their account. Currently, in CO, some units owe wing a substantial amount of money and have refused to pay it.

And don't look to the Wing Administrators to do this work, as many wings seem to think, including ILWG.  The wing admins are simply administrative >assistants< to the Wing Commander and staff.  They have ZEE-RO authority, and in most cases aren't even members.  They can't write checks, dispense funds, or approve ANYTHING.  All they can do is type the forms and put them on someone's desk.

We're doing that today and still can't get things done.

??  Please call your Wing Admin and see what he or she can realy do!  They are in no way "assistants", and can do more than most of the volunteer staff.  In fact, they can even sign checks if need be.   

People forget that not all Wing's have these.

Quote from: Pylon on August 28, 2006, 12:44:48 AM
People forget that not all Wing's have these.

IIRC, they all do, or are in the process of, getting them

Quote from: arajca on August 27, 2006, 11:26:57 PM
Activities are a separate issue. From what I've been told, activities will get a separate, short term account with checkbook. The signers would be the activity cc and whoever is doing the finance for it.

I don't think that is correct, in fact, encampments are no longer allowed NOW to have seperate accounts, which, without this other Wing Bank nonsense, was gearing to be a PITA in and of itself.

Quote from: mikeylikey on August 27, 2006, 11:57:02 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on August 27, 2006, 07:58:46 PM

Quote from: arajca on August 27, 2006, 12:34:46 AM
One benefit to the wing is those units who owe wing money will have it taken straight out of their account. Currently, in CO, some units owe wing a substantial amount of money and have refused to pay it.

And don’t look to the Wing Administrators to do this work, as many wings seem to think, including ILWG.  The wing admins are simply administrative >assistants< to the Wing Commander and staff.  They have ZEE-RO authority, and in most cases aren’t even members.  They can’t write checks, dispense funds, or approve ANYTHING.  All they can do is type the forms and put them on someone’s desk.

We’re doing that today and still can’t get things done.

??  Please call your Wing Admin and see what he or she can realy do!  They are in no way "assistants", and can do more than most of the volunteer staff.  In fact, they can even sign checks if need be.   

Under what authority would a WA, who isn't even a member, be able to sign checks?

Checks have to be dually (sp?) signed by two officers of the unit. and those signing would have to be both authorized as part of the finance committe and on the account itself at the bank.

In fact, the Wing admins are not allowed to be Unit CC's specifically because of the control over money issue.  Check it out on the KB.

Bob,

the way we do it at encampment is to get blank checks from the wing's CP account. (wing is supposed to maintain seperate accounts for CP, overhead and operations (Planes)) make sure that the encampment CC and another officer are on teh signature card and go to town.

When you do your finance report to wing give back the blank and unsigned checks with a check log/reciepts for every check issued and wing finance can enter them into quickbooks and everybody is happy.

No fuss and no muss.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 28, 2006, 02:50:12 AM

Quote from: mikeylikey on August 27, 2006, 11:57:02 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on August 27, 2006, 07:58:46 PM

Quote from: arajca on August 27, 2006, 12:34:46 AM
One benefit to the wing is those units who owe wing money will have it taken straight out of their account. Currently, in CO, some units owe wing a substantial amount of money and have refused to pay it.

And don't look to the Wing Administrators to do this work, as many wings seem to think, including ILWG.  The wing admins are simply administrative >assistants< to the Wing Commander and staff.  They have ZEE-RO authority, and in most cases aren't even members.  They can't write checks, dispense funds, or approve ANYTHING.  All they can do is type the forms and put them on someone's desk.

We're doing that today and still can't get things done.

??  Please call your Wing Admin and see what he or she can realy do!  They are in no way "assistants", and can do more than most of the volunteer staff.  In fact, they can even sign checks if need be.   

Under what authority would a WA, who isn't even a member, be able to sign checks?

Checks have to be dually (sp?) signed by two officers of the unit. and those signing would have to be both authorized as part of the finance committe and on the account itself at the bank.

In fact, the Wing admins are not allowed to be Unit CC's specifically because of the control over money issue.  Check it out on the KB.

WA's are not authorized to sign checks. they can  do everything (AR and AP) else but cannot approve expenditures. This is VERBOTEN!!!!!!!

Quote from: Eclipse on August 28, 2006, 02:45:32 AM

Quote from: arajca on August 27, 2006, 11:26:57 PM
Activities are a separate issue. From what I've been told, activities will get a separate, short term account with checkbook. The signers would be the activity cc and whoever is doing the finance for it.

I don't think that is correct, in fact, encampments are no longer allowed NOW to have seperate accounts, which, without this other Wing Bank nonsense, was gearing to be a PITA in and of itself.

Maybe in your wing, but in mine, the encampment had a separate account with its own checkbook.  Like we were a chartered unit, we adhered to the same rules (finance committee, 2 signers, etc), but it was the encampment's bank.

Your wing should have a similar thing.  In this case, its about flexibility.

Up until this point, its been fine, but I was under the impression that this was a national directive regarding elmination seperate accounts.

That's an intreresting idea about setting up a seperate charter, though.
In fact, we have an inactive charter we might be able rename and light back up. 

Very interesting idea indeed.

...

Quote from: BlackKnight on August 29, 2006, 02:25:15 AM
First... Our unit (chartered during WWII, then recharted in the early 1960s) may indeed FOLD under this plan. And quickly. As I explained earlier it will wipe out our funding completely, effective October 2006.  T

I'm as staunchly opposed to this as anyone, and I >WON'T turn over my money voluntarily until many questions, including those related to things raised here are answered, in writing.

But how does this plan wipe out your funding?

Somethig else I just thought of,

We've been seriously discussing setting up a merchant account or using PayPal to process payments for some of the bigger events like encampments.

I imagine this will all but ki-bosh that idea.

Okay....let me caveat that I have never worked with this program yet and don't know all the ins and outs of it.

With that said....if you don't trust your wing on their say so....join the wing Finance staff and write a WING OI or sup to the CAPR, stating that squadron money will only be used to pay for squadron bills to wing or will be disbursed to the squadron.

Also you have got to remember......Eclipse, BlackKnight....its not your money....you may have raised it and you may have used it for your squadron's activiteis....but legally it is CAP's money.

CAP is legally obligated to account for all of its money including the moneys raised and spent at the squadron level.

Currently there is no way of doing that....this is attempt to fix that problem.

Instead of fighting it.....find a way to better account for all the money (not just your squadrons) and move from there.

A suggestion I can think of off the top of my head...is that wings should designate a statewide bank that every squadron has access to and then give the wing audit authority.

That way they can see what you are doing and call up at anytime a bottom line.  I don't know if this sort of thing is even possible but it can be check out.

...

...

Quote from: BlackKnight on August 29, 2006, 12:35:46 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2006, 03:39:14 AM

Quote from: BlackKnight on August 29, 2006, 02:25:15 AM
First... Our unit (chartered during WWII, then recharted in the early 1960s) may indeed FOLD under this plan. And quickly. As I explained earlier it will wipe out our funding completely, effective October 2006.  T

I'm as staunchly opposed to this as anyone, and I >WON'T turn over my money voluntarily until many questions, including those related to things raised here are answered, in writing.

But how does this plan wipe out your funding?

Capt.,  see my original post on page 1 of this thread.  The majority of my squadron's funding is from local government, with another 10% or so from local civic organizations.  We have squadron members who hold seats on the airport commission and others who are members of our benefacting civic groups.  When these organizations discover that our local squadron cannot ensure that contributions are spent as designated by the grant contract that funding will terminate.  (There may even be lawsuits to recover funds already given.) The county government has many deserving requests for funding and they cannot politically afford to be caught sending taxpayer dollars out of the county or knowingly putting funds at risk. Ditto for the local civic organizations. We've already been told this informally (and bluntly) by CAP members who hold positions of authority in these other organizations. 

Now I realize that to a lawyer or CPA, nothing has changed. Per the fine print all funds and donations have always 'belonged' to CAP NHQ. However, local control provided a level of personal assurance and accountability that donated funds would be used as intended. There has always been an implied understanding that if CAP NHQ exercised their "funds seizure option" that would be the last time those organizations would consider donating to CAP.

In the final analysis it doesn't matter how efficient or well run the wing bank is.  In our particular case loss of local control means loss of local funding. Period.  We'll find ourselves spending most of our time on bake sales and car washes instead of ES training.  NHQ needs to find another way. The current plan is a PR disaster at the local level.

Prepare a list that shows what you would use your money on, and say here "civic organization" is what we intend to use your money on.  Take the same list and say hey "Wing HQ" here is what we intend to buy.  Go to "big box retail store" and say I intend to but this junk, place it aside and bill Wing HQ.  I will then come back and pick it up".  Most retailers will work in this fasion, some may not.  There is nothing in the plan that says you can not send a recurring or corporate account bill to Wing for them to pay directly. 

I feel bad that you are giving your members that sit on these civic and charity boards the wrong impression about the plan before you know all of the details.  If they decide to walk because of it, it is your fault for not being a supporter of the plan from the beginning. 

HERE is the best advice I can give everyone.  SUPPORT the plan, even if you do not agree with it, and if it truly is a bad plan it will FAIL on its own, without you causing it to fail.  THEN you can say "I supported it, it is just a bad plan"

I do believe that Phil has seen the manual for this program and fully understands how it works and I think we should give him credit for knowing his squadron and donors well enough to know how this will impact his squadron.  I was at a meeting the other day and about half of the squadrons said they don't have any funds.  This floored me.  How does anyone run a squadron without funds?  As a Composite squadron, I have to obtain rank, ribbons, various awards, and other incidentals at a cost of about $2,500.00 to $3,000.00 per year, not to mention Christmas Parties, etc.  I just don't see how any squadron runs without supplies, etc.  Perhaps these squadrons are really doing some creative financing to make it look like they don't have any funding.  Anyhow, I think we should give Phil the credit to know what is going on in his squadron and not bust his chops about his concerns.  By the way, I doubt if Wal-mart or the local army-navy or Vanguard will sit on your order while you obtain funding from Wing.  JMHO

...

Quote from: capchiro on August 29, 2006, 09:49:51 PM
I do believe that Phil has seen the manual for this program and fully understands how it works and I think we should give him credit for knowing his squadron and donors well enough to know how this will impact his squadron.  I was at a meeting the other day and about half of the squadrons said they don't have any funds.  This floored me.  How does anyone run a squadron without funds?  As a Composite squadron, I have to obtain rank, ribbons, various awards, and other incidentals at a cost of about $2,500.00 to $3,000.00 per year, not to mention Christmas Parties, etc.  I just don't see how any squadron runs without supplies, etc.  Perhaps these squadrons are really doing some creative financing to make it look like they don't have any funding.  Anyhow, I think we should give Phil the credit to know what is going on in his squadron and not bust his chops about his concerns.  By the way, I doubt if Wal-mart or the local army-navy or Vanguard will sit on your order while you obtain funding from Wing.  JMHO

I can see it, there's nothing in the program that says a unit needs to have a store, or fund activities.  If you're creative, everything could be self-funded, or activity specific.  If you meet in a donated space and have no utilities, there's not really any recurring expenses for a unit.

Have the members order their insignia from Vanguard like everyone else does.  There's no reason a cadet can't get on line once every few months and buy 2-3 grades above what they are today in anticipation.

And for a "store", have your members donate their old insignia, grade sleeves, etc., to
the store and give them out as needed/as available.  I've been /cc for two years and
we've got a ton of extra stuff from our own stashes - what the heck are you going to do with old grade when you move on?

Holiday parties are fine, but no one says the unit has to pay for it.  Sarex's, self-funded missions, bivouacs, should all be funded as-needed.  I just got wind today that a major event around here is sitting on 5-figures of surplus.

As noted ad nauseum, the program, as detailed, does not absolve a unit from managing its own finances, nor does it allow a Wing King to dip in at his leisure.

I HATE this idea, but assuming the worst in people is a great way to get the worst.

I find it hard for a Squadron pilot to pay for fuel for a Cadet O-ride. The FBO wants credit card payment or cash, and do not want to wait for a Wing to write a check.  It's the immediate need for funds for an activity or whatever that will cause problems. Also asking a cadet to order insignia from Vanguard and pay their $7 shipping can be a problem for many cadets. Squadrons need to have a petty cash fund to pay for the purchases that come up in day-to-day operations, and Wing holding the Squadrons funds can be a problem. Plus can you see the Wing Commander sitting down and signing sixy or seventy checks a week? (Florida has 66 Squadrons/Groups, so it is very possible)

Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2006, 11:40:10 PM
[...]
Have the members order their insignia from Vanguard like everyone else does.  There's no reason a cadet can't get on line once every few months and buy 2-3 grades above what they are today in anticipation.
[...]

I agree with 95% of what you've said.  I'm intrigued on the topic of how the funding of the beast they call CAP is worked -- hence, I've been watching this thread.

The 5% I don't agree with is what I've quoted.  Don't get my wrong, I pour away enough money here, but to be honest -- no, we can't just jump online and pay.  I have a $20,000/yr college bill to pay... the $20 for insignia does add up (going 2-3 grades at a time) especially paying $3/gal for gas.

Plus, we aren't required to purchase any uniform items beyond our nametags and cutouts.

So, yes, respectfully, there are a couple reasons.

Quote from: BillB on August 29, 2006, 11:50:07 PM
I find it hard for a Squadron pilot to pay for fuel for a Cadet O-ride. The FBO wants credit card payment or cash, and do not want to wait for a Wing to write a check.  It's the immediate need for funds for an activity or whatever that will cause problems. Also asking a cadet to order insignia from Vanguard and pay their $7 shipping can be a problem for many cadets. Squadrons need to have a petty cash fund to pay for the purchases that come up in day-to-day operations, and Wing holding the Squadrons funds can be a problem. Plus can you see the Wing Commander sitting down and signing sixy or seventy checks a week? (Florida has 66 Squadrons/Groups, so it is very possible)

The wings that are solvent and pay their bills on time have wing credit cards to pay for gas, but I don't have much time for pilots who complain it is too much expense to front cash to fly for free.  Without CAP, they'd be burning 3x's the amount per hour, and never get it back (ILWG = $35 an hour dry for a 172).   If you're an active, current pilot, CAP saves you money if you take advantage of the opportunities to use the airplane for all your currency.

And yes, the Wing WILL write a bazillion checks, that's the whole idea.  And hopefully they will get tired of it, see what a bad idea it is, and move us back to the way we're doing it today.

Quote from: Matt on August 30, 2006, 02:20:36 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2006, 11:40:10 PM
[...]
Have the members order their insignia from Vanguard like everyone else does.  There's no reason a cadet can't get on line once every few months and buy 2-3 grades above what they are today in anticipation.
[...]

I agree with 95% of what you've said.  I'm intrigued on the topic of how the funding of the beast they call CAP is worked -- hence, I've been watching this thread.

The 5% I don't agree with is what I've quoted.  Don't get my wrong, I pour away enough money here, but to be honest -- no, we can't just jump online and pay.  I have a $20,000/yr college bill to pay... the $20 for insignia does add up (going 2-3 grades at a time) especially paying $3/gal for gas.

Plus, we aren't required to purchase any uniform items beyond our nametags and cutouts.

So, yes, respectfully, there are a couple reasons.

Sorry, but whether its your $20k, or my kids college bill, I don't see how it is the responsibility of the Unit to provide insignia for individual members. Even in Squadron stores you should still be eating the cost of shipping, though the economies of scale would make the cost less.

And while you’re technically correct, and certainly we’ve beaten to death the idea
of what you can and cannot “require” a member to buy/wear, its silly to think you can be successful in CAP with a single set of FCU short sleeve blues and just buy grade as you progress.

Yes, CAP can be expensive, but so is everything these days.  If you want to play, you gotta pay.

Now I understand the feeling that once the wing gets their grubby little hands on the $723.46 that you worked hard washing cars and picking up trash after the air show to raise.

I also understand the felling that your local sponsors will stop donating to your squadron if the feel their money is going out of the local area.

But again....as I understand it.....that is not supposed to happen.  The money deposited by a squadron will still be there to be used by that squadron.

The only reason why local sponsors would know that their money was going into a wing level account would be because you are telling them that.

My question....are you guys trying to create an excuse to do something that you don't really want to do?

I mean....you go to wing and say..."hey my sponsor will pull their money because they think it will all get spent across the state".......and when wing asks "why would they think that?"....you respond "because that's what we are telling them."

Don't get me wrong.....I don't have 100% warm fuzzies on this program....I can see many, many problems and points of abuse.

But that does not mean the system cannot be made to work.  We in the field need to raise our concerns and work with the FN guys and insure all of our requirements are met.

If we need timely pay out for reimbursments....we need to work that....if we need a way to make local and/or internet purchase for supplies we need to work on that.

But what must happen, absolutely, with out any question, is that national must be able to account for all of CAP's money and that is the bottom line.  Any solution that does not meet that minimum goal is an automatic non-starter.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 30, 2006, 05:03:59 AM
Now I understand the feeling that once the wing gets their grubby little hands on the $723.46 that you worked hard washing cars and picking up trash after the air show to raise.

I also understand the felling that your local sponsors will stop donating to your squadron if the feel their money is going out of the local area.

But again....as I understand it.....that is not supposed to happen.  The money deposited by a squadron will still be there to be used by that squadron.

The only reason why local sponsors would know that their money was going into a wing level account would be because you are telling them that.

My question....are you guys trying to create an excuse to do something that you don't really want to do?

I mean....you go to wing and say..."hey my sponsor will pull their money because they think it will all get spent across the state".......and when wing asks "why would they think that?"....you respond "because that's what we are telling them."

Don't get me wrong.....I don't have 100% warm fuzzies on this program....I can see many, many problems and points of abuse.

But that does not mean the system cannot be made to work.  We in the field need to raise our concerns and work with the FN guys and insure all of our requirements are met.

If we need timely pay out for reimbursments....we need to work that....if we need a way to make local and/or internet purchase for supplies we need to work on that.

But what must happen, absolutely, with out any question, is that national must be able to account for all of CAP's money and that is the bottom line.  Any solution that does not meet that minimum goal is an automatic non-starter.

Agreed!

I guess the real question is best asked of members of the Virginia Wing.  How is this working out for you?   It is rather interesting that no one from Virginia Wing has been jumping up and down touting that it's the best thing since MREs.

It's human nature to not like change, especially if it's change for the sake of change ($). 

As far as unit supplies (grade insignia, etc), you have to think of it in terms of how everything else works...does the unit "have" do provide that?  Of course the unit doesn't.   When I was a C/CC, I had a job and went to college.  What I did was keep a box of insignia that I paid for (either the extras I bought as I had progressed or additional ones I bought as membership increased) and recycled them.  The first set of grade insignia a promoted cadet recieved were likely a set I once wore and they were free of charge.  Any additional were purchased by the cadet for $2 each (the money going toward the next supply purchase) on the condition that they would be turned back in and recycled upon the next promotion.  The number of insignia the cadet turned in is how many she/he got of the next grade up. Eventually, the squadron had plenty of everything.   Did I put my own money in?  Absolutely.  But I also declared every dime on my income taxes.  I did this not because it was required or expected of me, but because I wanted to.  And that is the difference.

I appreciate all the comments that this topic has generated - on both sides of the issue.  That's what freedom of speech is all about.

I would still like to hear from some of the folks who have already gone to the Wing Banking Solution.  How does this thing work in reality rather than just theory?

We've heard from only one person (Delaware Wing) who indicated that they were experiencing some slow turnarounds on funds requests.  The 2005 CAP membership number for Delaware was 346.  That makes it slightly smaller than the Group that I command.  I am not comforted by the implication of this for my Group or my Wing.

Virginia Wing is roughly the same size (membership wise) as Georgia Wing.  I really hope that there are some Virginia Wing members out there who would be willing to share their experience with this system.  I'd have a better idea as to how well this is going to work in my own Wing.

Thanks for the input!

Again, the gut response is that the unit doesn't have to furnish rank, etc., but look at your own example, you said you put $2.00 into the kitty for the next supply purchase.. This is exactly the problem.  Your unit would not be able to maintain a fund to put the $2.00 into until the next supply purchase.  That $2.00 would have to be deposited by the unit finance officer, a record and copy of the deposit slip would have to be kept at the unit, a copy and paperwork would have to go to wing, wing would enter it into your squadron account, they would send you a form verifying that your squadron account at wing matches what you say it should at the squadron level, the squadron would eventually make a supply purchase, buying more rank from Vanguard, either putting it on the CC's personal credit card, requesting funds ahead of time to pay for it, or attempting to arrange with Vanguard some type of billing arrangement.  Again, copy of receipts would have to be kept at the squadron level and sent to wing, who would once again send out a form requesting verification of your account at wing with what you think should be there.   So, for the lack of individual squadron accounts, many hours of effort will go into tracking and spending your $2.00.  As far as the question of whether the unit should supply rank, etc., it would appear that the uniform manual says that the only uniform required of cadets is the short sleeve blue uniform and that any other uniforms will be either voluntary or supplied by the unit.  I think this makes it fairly clear that cadets should not have to expend money to be in uniform.  I am aware that they are required to provide their own shoes, but I am not sure what would happen if a cadet couldn't afford shoes?  I guess we would provide them if we had the money?  Or they could wait for a while as we waited for wing to cut loose our funds? This is a real problem as I have had foster children in my squadron and money was an issue to them.  This discussion seems to have two sides and I think the sides are divided by those that are in command positions of squadrons and those that are not really aware as to the hoops squadron commanders already have to jump through in an attempt to run a good program.  JMHO          

I don't agree with the level of bureaucracy you're insinuating.

The money goes to wing, and they write the checks.  The accounting and tracking of the money stays local in Quicken (now required, gents).  Wing will not be maintaining a per-transaction balance sheet of HOW the money is spent, only records of deposits and check requests.  Their records should be purely check #'s matching check requests.

39-1 says the only uniform we can require a cadet wear is the blue FCU, because it is supplied by NHQ.  That means we can't (on paper anyway) require a cadet to buy a service coat or BDU's.  It doesn't absolve the cadet of the responsibility of making sure the uniform is correct (updating grade, awards, ribbons, etc), nor does it mean that the cadet can get away with wearing the same pair of pants from 6th grade through college.

The first set is "free" the rest is on them, including the initial accessories, etc.

Our cadets are lucky as it is that they GET an FCU.  Join the BSA, or your local hockey team and see what they hand you walking in the door - a bill.

EDIT: Spellcheck!

Capt Williams....That is the most unrealistic post I've seen lately. You say cadet are not required to purchase BDU's, in that you are correct. But not purchasing BDUs means the cadet can't take part in minor things like Encampments, ES exercises, and like most squadrons require BDUs for at least one meeting per month. You indicate that the cadet has to buy rank and ribbons. Does this mean your Squadron doesn't award the ribbon to the cadet, and hand him the new rank (while turning in the old rank)? Several years ago, National figured out it costs a cadet $1000 to go through the cadet program. That's just the cost of activities and uniforms (rank insignia and ribbons were not included since most squadrons maintain a stock for cadets).
The majority of Squadrons maintain a stock of blues and often BDUs obtained from DRMO, AFJROTC or a University AFROTC unit. So uniforms after the initial free cadet uniform is no problem with old uniforms turned in as the cadet outgrows them.
But it is impossible for a cadet to go through the cadet program with only a blue uniform.

In all honesty, things were a little different in the 1990s than they are today.  If the question of finances ever came up, I would be able to argue that the vast majority of the unit's supplies belonged to individual members.    What I did was essentially fund/ran the cadet insignia/ribbon cabinet.  The $2 the cadets contributed went right back into the next order.  When I turned 21, everything cadet oriented I had was donated to the squadron.  The cadets' accomplishments and achievements were of more concern to me at the time than pouring over every rule/regulation on proper finances.  Of course, there was the issue of very limited Senior Member support at the time.

On the issue of cadet minimum uniforms, CAPR 39-1 says that cadets are required to have the basic minimum uniform, which consists of:

                       "Minimum Basic Service Uniform. Male: Short-sleeve, light blue shirt; dark blue trousers; blue belt/silver buckle, blue flight cap; black shoes, and socks. Insignia: CAP nameplate, shoulder patch, collar/lapel insignia, embroidered epaulet sleeve, and flight cap emblem.    Female: Short-sleeve light blue blouse; Dark blue skirt or slacks; flight cap; neutral nylon hose; black shoes; black handbag.   Insignia: CAP nameplate, shoulder patch, collar/lapel insignia, embroidered epaulet sleeve, and flight cap emblem."

This obviously goes beyond what is given out with the CFU (when it's available).   Add all that up and we're talking some serious "buckage" if you suddenly get an influx of new cadets.   What I have seen done in the past is that these items were provided/donated to the cadet once she/he earns the Curry Award.  Until then, jeans and a t-shirt were thier uniform.  However, if you read the description carefully, the shirt and slacks/skirt are mandated to be A.F. items. That cuts the cost down considerably since even Walmart carries items that are similar.  Just a thought.

It's called Come And Pay for a reason.  CAP has set a minimum standard which all members are expected to meet.

Quote from: CAPM 39-11-5. Uniform Combinations. Various combinations of CAP uniforms are authorized in order to allow
for various climatic conditions, availability of uniforms, etc., but no member is obligated to equip
himself/herself with all or even a major part of the combinations described in this publication. Members
will equip themselves with the basic uniform. The minimum basic uniforms for male and female cadets
and senior members, which will satisfy most occasions, are listed below. Members may obtain and wear
the additional uniform items authorized in this publication on an optional basis. Uniform clothing may
be altered to improve fit. However, alterations must not change the intended appearance of garment as
designed. It is the member's personal responsibility to equip himself/herself with a proper uniform.
Commanders may assist if they have the capability, through use of unit funds and/or donations or by
acquiring surplus uniforms. Cadets are required to have the minimum basic uniform. A commander
may require cadets to wear other optional uniform items only if the purchase is voluntary or if the
uniform is supplied without expense to the cadet. The omission of a specific item or appearance standard
does not automatically permit its wear.

Emphasis added.

Quote from: BillB on August 30, 2006, 03:16:56 PM
Capt Williams....That is the most unrealistic post I've seen lately. You say cadet are not required to purchase BDU's, in that you are correct. But not purchasing BDUs means the cadet can't take part in minor things like Encampments, ES exercises, and like most squadrons require BDUs for at least one meeting per month. You indicate that the cadet has to buy rank and ribbons. Does this mean your Squadron doesn't award the ribbon to the cadet, and hand him the new rank (while turning in the old rank)? Several years ago, National figured out it costs a cadet $1000 to go through the cadet program. That's just the cost of activities and uniforms (rank insignia and ribbons were not included since most squadrons maintain a stock for cadets).
The majority of Squadrons maintain a stock of blues and often BDUs obtained from DRMO, AFJROTC or a University AFROTC unit. So uniforms after the initial free cadet uniform is no problem with old uniforms turned in as the cadet outgrows them.
But it is impossible for a cadet to go through the cadet program with only a blue uniform.

Check other threads for the arguments for and against requiring cadets to wear anything but SS blues.
The letter of 39-1 would say we would have to allow a cadet to participate in anything but ES field work in that FCU unless the unit can provide the uniform - that is also unrealistic, and has been argued ad museum here and on CadetStuff.
I agree it is unrealistic to expect a cadet to be successful with a single service dress uniform, but it is equally unrealistic to expect the unit to foot these costs.

Of course we award ribbons and grade, but we, like many units, have a historical stock of grade which has been built up over the years, and we have a communal Officer store for the adult members (we're not Seniors Members anymore, remember that!).

We have some stock left over from CC's past who had no issue just dropping money in the pot and buying stuff, hoping to get it back "someday", - when that stuff is gone, its gone.   We ask members nicely to donate old insignia, etc., to the pot, but I'm certainly not going to tie up hundreds of dollars in unit funds to back fill it. 

When new members join, we set them up with a "kit" of tapes, insignia, nametags, hat, whatever - costs about $50 per cadet.  That is handled by my CDC and never hits the unit funds, so is not part of this mix. Its just straight convenience for new members. 
It hasn’t become a burden for him, but if it does we'll likely just put together a punch list of stuff and point them to the vendors. This is a program about taking initiative, figuring out the uniform is not rocket science if you avail yourself of resources.  Heck, we could just have a uniform night and the new cadet and mom & dad can sit on our computer with their own credit cards.  These are not the days of “call the depot” with URLS and shopping carts, things are two clicks away.

$1000 to run through the cadet program?  What a BARGAIN!!! Assuming you join at twelve and ascend at 18, that's less that $170 a year, though I would really like to know what costs them $1000, and if that includes activities, you can't count that in this discussion.

Try playing hockey for 6+ years for under $1000 total.

This is life, participation costs money.  There will always be exceptions who need help, but the majority of members have no issue stepping up if they choose to. Its also not a zero-sum game.  Cadets and Officers have a significant amount of unique opportunities, and if they work the plan correctly, CAP can actually save them money in the form of reimbursed flying and scholarships.

Re:  - costs about $50 per cadet.  That is handled by my CDC

How do you avoid the rule against petty cash funds?

twe

This is not petty cash nor connected to the unit's finances.

He simply orders the stuff the cadets need and hands the charge recipt to the parents.  They reimbursie him.  No gain, no pain.

But as he gotr burned at least once on this, I think we'll likely just send an email w/ URLs or completed shopping carts and let them handle it.

Quote from: BillB on August 29, 2006, 11:50:07 PM
I find it hard for a Squadron pilot to pay for fuel for a Cadet O-ride. The FBO wants credit card payment or cash, and do not want to wait for a Wing to write a check.  It's the immediate need for funds for an activity or whatever that will cause problems. Also asking a cadet to order insignia from Vanguard and pay their $7 shipping can be a problem for many cadets. Squadrons need to have a petty cash fund to pay for the purchases that come up in day-to-day operations, and Wing holding the Squadrons funds can be a problem. Plus can you see the Wing Commander sitting down and signing sixy or seventy checks a week? (Florida has 66 Squadrons/Groups, so it is very possible)

Some wings have wing credit cards and/or standing accounts with the main FBOs in their areas of operation for flight fuel.

Petty cash accounts are specifically forbidden by CAP regulations.

Unit dues, with wing approval, are permitted, and offer one possible solutions; another is to have individuals pay the unit  for items as they order them (with a cash receipt issued, of course).

What my squadron does for cadet insignia, hats, belts, ties, name plates&tapes, etc.:

(1) Cadet pays supply and gets receipt.  Money goes into "change box" (not "petty cash")
(2) Supply officer orders from AAFES or wherever with squadron check
(3) About once/month, cash from change box is deposited to squadron bank account.

We NEVER pay anything out of that supply change box (except to give change),
so calling it a "change box" is not just some name fiddle to satisfy a CAPR.

We slip the AAFES order (with squadron check) under the AAFES door and pick
up the filled order the next week.  Result: one week turn-a-round. It helps to be
on USAFA with AAFES just 200 feet away.

The new scheme of "wing is the banker" with a one week delay (if all goes right)
to issue a check, will obviously have a negative impact on our quick response.

Quote from: twe on August 31, 2006, 07:05:50 PMThe new scheme of "wing is the banker" with a one week delay (if all goes right)
to issue a check, will obviously have a negative impact on our quick response.

I'm not a Finance Officer, but wouldn't it keep the same expediency you're used to if you simply get a money order with the cash the cadets have deposited?  Place the certified money order with the AAFES order form and voila!  Of course the M.O. may cost you 50 cents to a buck, but you guys are already avoiding any shipping charges, so it's not that big of an expense.

Any money remaining from your deposits after the M.O. has been cut, gets deposited into squadron funds.

Just a thought.

We could use a money order, but it would take extra time/manpower to get it, even with a USPO within 250 feet of the squadron building: the USPO is not open when we are doing squadron business.

So the "wing bank" still will cause us extra work/delay.

And that is without considering whether or not using cash to get a money order violates the CAPR about all payments must be by squadron check.

Quote from: Pylon on August 31, 2006, 07:12:17 PM

Quote from: twe on August 31, 2006, 07:05:50 PMThe new scheme of "wing is the banker" with a one week delay (if all goes right)
to issue a check, will obviously have a negative impact on our quick response.

I'm not a Finance Officer, but wouldn't it keep the same expediency you're used to if you simply get a money order with the cash the cadets have deposited?  Place the certified money order with the AAFES order form and voila!  Of course the M.O. may cost you 50 cents to a buck, but you guys are already avoiding any shipping charges, so it's not that big of an expense.

Any money remaining from your deposits after the M.O. has been cut, gets deposited into squadron funds.

Just a thought.

Addressing twe and Pylon together.

Well, this sounds non-kosher in the first place. It resembles a similar situation frequently we have in our unit. Joe Schmuckatelli spends money for some widget for the squadron. He also flies the airplane, and now owes the unit money. Logically, one might think that the funds exchange would be for the difference between the two amounts. According to the rules, not so. The unit pays Joe the full amount, and Joe pays the unit the full amount.

Your scheme is similar. The collected funds should be deposited in toto, and then the appropriate amount spent on the uniform items. Where is the "extra" money coming from in the "change box"?

At the beginning of each quarter, the "change box" is primed with about $25 in change using a squadron check. I can go to the bank (credit union actually) which is about 300 feet from the squadron building to do that.

Quote from: twe on August 31, 2006, 08:24:07 PM
At the beginning of each quarter, the "change box" is primed with about $25 in change using a squadron check. I can go to the bank (credit union actually) which is about 300 feet from the squadron building to do that.

Well, you can take that task off your calendar now - regardless of what you call it, that's a petty cash account, and you won't be allowed direct access to the bacnk anymore.

The two solutions to this are:

let the cadets / members take care of this themselves

have a member take care of this external from the unit's finances.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 31, 2006, 09:35:51 PM

Quote from: twe on August 31, 2006, 08:24:07 PM
At the beginning of each quarter, the "change box" is primed with about $25 in change using a squadron check. I can go to the bank (credit union actually) which is about 300 feet from the squadron building to do that.

Well, you can take that task off your calendar now - regardless of what you call it, that's a petty cash account, and you won't be allowed direct access to the bacnk anymore.

If no funds are distributed or dolled out of the box, and members are only making deposits to the box, how is it a "petty cash" account?  The very definition of petty cash is for spending money, not making deposits - right?  Or do I have this all wrong?

Nota Bene:  I am not a Finance Officer.  I do not like Math.  Be gentle.  Thank you.

Quote from: Pylon on August 31, 2006, 10:07:41 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on August 31, 2006, 09:35:51 PM

Quote from: twe on August 31, 2006, 08:24:07 PM
At the beginning of each quarter, the "change box" is primed with about $25 in change using a squadron check. I can go to the bank (credit union actually) which is about 300 feet from the squadron building to do that.

Well, you can take that task off your calendar now - regardless of what you call it, that's a petty cash account, and you won't be allowed direct access to the bacnk anymore.

If no funds are distributed or dolled out of the box, and members are only making deposits to the box, how is it a "petty cash" account?  The very definition of petty cash is for spending money, not making deposits - right?  Or do I have this all wrong?

Nota Bene:  I am not a Finance Officer.  I do not like Math.  Be gentle.  Thank you.

It would seem to me that it becomes a "petty cash" account once official unit funds are used as the start-up capital.     What is commonly done is that a member "donates", say a case of soda. The cans/bottles are then purchased by the members at cost (or a tad more) then those funds are used to buy more soda.  At that point it becomes self-sustaining.   Using a unit check for $25 seems to me to be more of a hassle than it's worth. 

I've heard of too many finance officers being tempted to request reimbusement for Excedrin to ever want to be one.  I think I'll stick with Safety. :)

(1) It is not a "petty cash" box because no money is ever spent out of it.  Look up the definition of "petty cash" in the dictionary. I've done so.

(2) I have discussed it with both group and wing. They have no problems with it. We have passed an inspection with EXCELLANT on finance after I've called explicit attention to our "change box" and what we do, and do not, do with it.

(3) The problem with a "petty cash" box is that money is spent out of the box with no record of where it went or for what. Since the squadron spends money ONLY by check (and never out of our "change box"), there is not a problem.

Quote from: twe on August 31, 2006, 11:51:40 PMLook up the definition of "petty cash" in the dictionary.

Ok:

Quote from: Wikipedia
Businesses often need small amounts of cash known as petty cash for expenditures where it is not practical to make the disbursement by check.

The most common way of accounting for these expenditures is to use the imprest system. The initial fund would be created by issuing a check for the desired amount. Usually $100 would be sufficient for most small business needs. The entry for this initial fund would be to debit Petty Cash and credit cash.

As expenditures are made the custodian of the fund will reimburse employees and secure a petty cash voucher in return. At any given time the total of cash on hand plus reimbursed vouchers must equal the original fund.

When the fund gets low the custodian submits the vouchers for reimbursement. Assuming the vouchers add up to $80 and that the majority of expenditures were for office supplies, an $80 check is issued and an $80 debit towards office expenses is marked. Once the check is cashed, the custodian has cash at the original amount.

Oversight of petty cash is important because of the potential for abuse. Examples of petty cash controls include a limit (such as 10% of the total fund) on disbursements and monthly audits by someone other than the custodian. Use of petty cash is sufficiently widespread that vouchers for use in reimbursement are available at any office supply store.

Subsitute "insignia" for "office supplies" and your running petty cash, and that is verboten.

If your unit store is operating at a zero-sum, the original $25 from the first quarter should still be in there and you'd just have to be taking that same
money and breaking into smaller bills and cions again.  There would be no need to re-seed the account every quarter.

If you have to "refill" each quarter, its going somewhere, and not being accounted for.

Passing a Wing-level inspection does not equal compliance with regulations, it simply means you have convinced someone at that level its ok.

A Region or NHQ guy might disagree.

I think the only proper way to run a unit store anymore would be to order stuff from the vendors with Wing-issued checks, and require members to pay with checks, remove the cash altogether.  And since that IS a huge PITA, just
sell out what you have and let the members worry about it from there on.

Or...

Get a donor to grant the unit some cash towards insignia, buy it and give it away.

Yes, your quote from Wikipedia accurately describes how to run a petty cash box.  But carefully note this part of the quote: "As expenditures are made the custodian of the fund will reimburse employees and secure a petty cash voucher in return." We don't do that (expenditures), and not doing that is how we stay inside the CAPRs.

"If you have to "refill" each quarter, it's going somewhere, and not being accounted for."  The first part of your statement is correct but not the second. At the end of each quarter the entire contents of the change box are deposited into the squadron bank account and thus *are* accounted for and thus need to be replenished.

"A Region or NHQ guy might disagree." Or might agree.  Until one chooses to comment officially, I believe my squadron is fully within both the letter and intent of the CAPRs. As soon as somebody with proper authority tells me to stop, then I will stop.

Enough of this sub-thread.

Quote from: twe on August 31, 2006, 11:51:40 PM
(1) It is not a "petty cash" box because no money is ever spent out of it.  Look up the definition of "petty cash" in the dictionary. I've done so.

(2) I have discussed it with both group and wing. They have no problems with it. We have passed an inspection with EXCELLANT on finance after I've called explicit attention to our "change box" and what we do, and do not, do with it.

(3) The problem with a "petty cash" box is that money is spent out of the box with no record of where it went or for what. Since the squadron spends money ONLY by check (and never out of our "change box"), there is not a problem.

I believe this is correct, the problem with petty cash accounts is the lack of record-keeping; nothing in the regulations states that small quatities of cash can not be used where circumstances mandate (i.e., running a fund-raiser such as a car wash) where change will need to be made.....regs simply require adequate documentation of the transactions (a register tape, if one can come up with a cash register, or an appropriate computer program on a laptop, would seem to do the trick....so would simple handwritten cash receipts.

 This seems to be coming down the pike right about now, ladies and gentlemen.

PAWG/CC dropped a line to unit commanders re: an upcoming urgent conference call dealing with finance issues.

WRT the so-called "petty cash" and CAPRs, unit supply funds, etc.

I think the intent of the regulation is that you shouldn't run a "slush fund" in the unit thats not on the books or has no foms of documentation.  Petty cash in this connotation (Wikipedia notwithstanding) is "undocumented transactions."   That would be like having a fishbowl at the meeting, and the proceeds from the unit carwash go into it.  And then you buy gas for the squadron van out of that.  No record of the money coming in, no record of it going out.

A properly done unit supply system is, however, not "undocumented." My unit's supply system is simple, and our "cash on hand to make change" amount is well documented and covered under receipts. The unit has a stash of insignia that is purchased on occasion by unit funds (check to Vanguard, or check to the supply officer who tenders a receipt to the finance committee after putting it on her credit card, which was a method I did not prefer).

Insignia sold has a small (by policy) markup to cover shipping, etc. So your $.30 cent ribbon is now $.40, or similar.  Cadet Schmuckatelli comes to squadron supply and buys a half-dozen ribbons, a ribbon holder and three sets of chevrons.  That's $.40 x 6, $1.60 for the ribbon holder, and the chevrons are $3.00 even each (hypothetical prices).  For C/SSgt Schmuckatelli, that's $13, of which he pays with a $20 bill. The squadron cashbox has $20 in change: a ten, a five, four ones and assorted change to equal a buck.  He gets back a receipt for $13 and $7 in change.  That receipt stays in the books.  Its now part of the official record of "ins and outs" for whatever account is "Materials sold" in the finance ledger. 

This is really not "petty cash," but rather an accounted for transaction that happens to involve cash (but isn't really petty).   Whenever we get more than something like $30 in supply's cashbox (it floats between $20 or $40, depending on how busy supply gets on a given week) our supply officer whips up a finance transmittal to the finance officer with the "receipts from sales" (the money and an accounting of the receipts) and the finance officer deposits that in the bank. He has receipts to show that the money was taken in from whomever is on the list and items went out, and he has receipts that show the money was disbursed to Vanguard or the supply officer's credit card.  The inventory on hand plus the "change making money" in the supply cashbox is an asset,  while the insignia sold & the money spent to acquire are liabilities. In theory, this should all equal zero.  In theory. (in practice, seldom does, but it comes pretty close, within the range of the markup on the materials)

NIN, in simple terms, you have a cash drawer though maybe not as sophisticated as the local 7/11.  I see no problems with it myself.

Quote from: mawr on September 02, 2006, 01:43:33 AM
NIN, in simple terms, you have a cash drawer though maybe not as sophisticated as the local 7/11.  I see no problems with it myself.

Hey, man, leave my college job outta this!

Yes, I know, another old topic, but I saw this topic being brought up in another thread and thought this the appropriate place to post.

I have experience working with the "wing banker" program, as a former member of VAWG.

The greatest skepticism lies in the reliability of 'Wing,' as well as units thinking that 'their' money is going to be used by someone other than them, or that they need permission to spend 'their' money.

This program worked out great for us at our squadron.  The wing delivered on their promise to process check requests and such quickly (once per week).  As for the "re-reimbursement" amounts, if you are ordering a large amount of supplies from vanguard or the hock, you just placed the order and sent in a check request to mail the check amount to wherever you needed it to go.

The only checks (not checks) that were performed was that you had the right amount of signatures or that you had finance committee approval. 

As for the 'petty cash' dilemma, it never came up.  We had a snack fund that brought cash in every week.  At the end of the night a deposit was put together and dropped off at the bank.  Just had to send a receipt to wing to show where the money came from.

Anytime we wanted a 'report' we'd just ask and we'd have it within a couple hours.

I think this program worked wonderfully.  Again, the only thing that raised concern was the reliability and credibility of 'wing.'

^^  we still have Wings that employ executive directors and paid staffers that have free reign of credit cards and gas cards.  Why couldn't the groups have these cards to help with upfront costs of some situations that a unit may find themselves in? 

I'm not sure what costs would be associated that would need to be paid "upfront."  The group that I was in handled their plane fuel etc. through a billing system pre-arranged at the airport.  They would then bill the wing and it would be paid accordingly.

The only situation that came up was with encampment with quick "supplies needed" runs, but the wing just sent someone with check writing authority to encampment and all was good.

Someone earlier in the thread said no one from VAWG is jumping up and down about the greatness of the program, or something to that effect.  There's a reason.  The program is "OK" but, as has been noted, it is tedious.  We have wing questioning our use of funds after we've approved it.  We have to submit more paperwork than if we had simply had to conduct an audit each year.  Funds are drawn from the account occasionally without our asking so we have to go back to question them.  We have discussed asking for an audit now of Wing due to the issues our squadron has encountered.  If this was a simple process of submit a form electronically it would be fine.  We have to submit a spreadsheet detailing where everything is going or where it went in the case of a reimbursement.  Then they want the receipts as well.  For crying out loud it is our money that we raised.  Not money the wing gave to us.  OK, end of rant.

John
VAWG Member

Quote from: capchiro on August 25, 2006, 01:15:58 PM
It is my understanding that this is all coming about because an Air Force audit revealed that $7,000,000.00 was unaccountable.  It is also my understanding that individual squadrons were not audited, only Wings.  Therefore if the Wings can lose $7,000,000.00, why not punish the functional squadrons and give the Wings more money to lose?  Is this typical of government/military thinking?  And seriously, turn around on a check can be 1-2 days..get real.  Wing can and does routinely lose everything from promotions to Unit Citations requests.  Now all of a sudden they are going to be Mr. Efficiency.  This is about as good an idea as Vanguard was/is.  This is going to increase the bookkeeping and paperwork at both Wing and squadron levels by an immense amount.  Each squadron already has between 80-90 annual reports to Wing and National.  Please, do we have the time and personnel for this?  JMHO

Your understanding is not accurate.

There WERE funds that could not be accounted for.  They were the funds retained by the squadrons.  The ESTIMATE is that the amount could be as high as $7 million, but since they are largely unaccounted-for funds, nobody knows how much is actually unaccounted for.

That's why all auditors give CAP a "Qualified" audit;  The funds accounted for are correct, but we don't know what else might be out there.

Now, if you are the Combined Federal Campaign, or the United Way, do you give money to an organization that has no way of accounting for millions of dollars?  Not unless you want a FoxNews camera crew chasing you down in the mall parking lot!

So, NHQ has come up with a fix:  Wing will manage the funds.  They ARE STILL YOUR SQUADRON'S FUNDS!  Nobody is stealing from you.  Wing cuts the checks instead of you.

If you have any ways of fixing this and making it better, suggest them.  The idea of getting rid of the 2-signature requirement is good. (I don't even think you need 2 signatures if Wing cuts the check.  There is a different regulation for disbursing funds at Wing and higher HQ.)  Another idea would be a direct-pay system with Vanguard where the unit can order supplies, and Vanguard would bill the wing with an identifyer as to which squadron's account to debit.

But this is going to happen.  Quit if you want to, but there are two locomotives driving the train:

1.  There is a history of financial irregularities.  Yes, the financial irregularities all occurred at echelons higher than Squadron, but in CAP, as in the RealMilitary, $hit rolls downhill.  We happen to live in the valley.

2.  National-level charities, such as CFC and United Way will NOT make contributions to organizations that cannot show an unqualified audit.

So, lets deal with it as best we can.

John, your comments were certainly timely..only about 8 months late..by the way, I don't see anywhere in my post that I was considering quitting..So I don't know where you came up with that. It would also appear from posting since mine that not everyone is happy with the Virginia Banking Solution and as I predicted, it has not cut down on the paper work at Squadron level or the problem/need/violation of having/using a slush fund or petty cash or any other name one would like to call the need to have disbursable funds at the squadron level at all times for things like awards, ribbons, rank, cokes, gas for the Church van, etc..So, while some of my fears were unfounded, some were well founded and have been realized..

Quote from: c172drv on May 01, 2007, 02:46:25 PM
Someone earlier in the thread said no one from VAWG is jumping up and down about the greatness of the program, or something to that effect.

I will agree that it's not the greatest thing since sliced bread, but would consider it to be equal in terms of "management" as the previous one.  You still need finance committee minutes and approval, you still need to keep receipts, etc.  The advantage therein lies in the additional grants and monies that CAP can compete for now.

QuoteWe have wing questioning our use of funds after we've approved it.

My squadron never had this happen, in VAWG.  The only "questioning" I saw was when the "price limit" was reached without a finance committee approval.

QuoteWe have to submit more paperwork than if we had simply had to conduct an audit each year.

Only in terms of check requests, but that's just good practice anyway.  It ensures that checks are being sent to the right people, and are "approved."

QuoteFunds are drawn from the account occasionally without our asking so we have to go back to question them.

Never had that happen either.  The only monies that were withdrawn "without knowing" were tie down fees for the group, but that was known before hand.  When they did it was the "unknown."

QuoteWe have discussed asking for an audit now of Wing due to the issues our squadron has encountered.

That's a shame that your squadron is encountering these issues. 

QuoteIf this was a simple process of submit a form electronically it would be fine.

All of our transactions were submitted electronically.  Scan in the receipt, e-mail it to wing, scan in the check request, e-mail it to wing, we didn't find it that tedious or time consuming.

QuoteWe have to submit a spreadsheet detailing where everything is going or where it went in the case of a reimbursement.

Of course they want to know where the money went.  Your unit finance officer needed that information too so when they submitted the finance report the corporation knew what "accounts" to charge the money to for tax purposes, etc.  It's not different information than from before.

QuoteThen they want the receipts as well.

Of course they do, it's good record keeping.  It looks pretty bad to have all sorts of outgoing checks and no justification for them...

QuoteFor crying out loud it is our money that we raised.  Not money the wing gave to us.

It still is the money you raised.  The person handling the accounting at wing just wants the information required.  All the information they want is all information that your unit finance officer would need as well.  Your unit finance officer would need the receipts, finance committee approvals, etc.  It really is no different, in fact I think it was easier than locally managed funds.

Harry:

Sorry, I went back and re-read the posts, and actually you talked about OTHERS quitting.

The purpose of this program is NOT to make life easier for the unit.  The purpose is to make life easier for National and their auditors.  There will be some difficulties in transitioning to this program.  There are ways to make it easier and still stay legal.  We will find them.

As far as "Slush funds" "Flower funds" "Officer funds" and "Other funds," my advice to you is ask the Chaplain or MLO about the 11th Commandment:  "Thou shalt not get caught doing any of the above."

As a reserve unit commander, we had a slush fund, which we used for hail and farewell gifts, flowers for dead and hospitalized soldiers, and once in a while for pizza to give the cooks a break.  I just made sure that the cash box was in my personal locker and not in the safe when the IG came around.  We dinged each officer $2 per drill weekend and each NCO $1 per drill weekend.  We also would sell beer and sodas after drill a few weekends each year.  All of this was completely illegal.  But family members were all pleased when a floral arrangement arrived at the funeral home "From the officers and troops of Headquarters Company, 300th Military Police Command."

John, Sounds like you and I would get along fine.  Slush fund?  We got no stinkin' slush fund..  It always amazes me that Wing, Region, and finally National find it so easy to forget that there purpose in live is to support the squadron..this thing has gotten so screwed up it seems more like a Ponzi scheme than what it should be.  I will survive.  The greatest reward I have received (I have never had the pleasure of finding survivors on my searches), has been to see the cadets grow and mature through the program.  We just had a female cadet graduate from Air Force Basic last month.  She was a Mitchell and is in school for Security as an E-3 now.  Somehow, somewhere, I was part of that.  Her Dad, one of our members, has repeatedly thanked my wife and myself for the time and effort we put into her and what a difference it made.  Just as an example of the program, we received a call from this girl, hysterical, and she had run away from home.  This was a Sunday at 3:00 p.m.  We picked her up and spent the day with her calming her down and then got her Dad to come to sit down with all of us to try and talk it out.  We got home about 1:00 a.m. and things were okay.  We didn't have a mission number and didn't get a ribbon, but we saved a cadet and I think it was all worthwhile.  Does anybody above squadron level even know what we do down here?  I think I am singing to the choir as I am sure almost everyone on this board has similar stories and successes to share..but that is because almost everybody on this board is at the squadron level and knows what's what.  John, keep on keeping on and I will too.  Harry

John,

We never had a 'slush fund' when I was Group CC....what we had was a finance officer and finance committee that saw things as clearly as you do, and had no qualms about dedicating some of the member-raised funds to morale maintaining activities -- an annual dinner for group staff & squadron CCs, 'coffee and' at Level 1s and similar training events, sympathy cards or congratulatory cards on appropriate occasions.....I think we entered most of it as "senior activities", had receipts for all, of course, and never got questioned, not even during change of command audit when I moved on.

Of course that would not work in the reserves or active military, different rules apply.

Harry, you reminded me of a cadet I had back in the mid 80s....lot of potential, not much encouragement at home....his mom was fighting cancer, dad struggling with that and his own business....kid seemed headed nowhere, we (my squadron commander & I, mostly) spent a lot of time with him, mentored him, motivated him to improve in school, to get his Earhart, to get involved with CAC and other wing activities.

I left the unit just before he graduated high school....lost touch while he was in community college....fast forward to around 1995, when I get a call out of the blue from this former cadet, calling to thank me -- he had finished college, was finishing his last year of law school, and was engaged!

They're not all success stories, but enough are, and they are all worth the effort..

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on May 02, 2007, 04:37:44 AM

The purpose of this program is NOT to make life easier for the unit.  The purpose is to make life easier for National and their auditors.  There will be some difficulties in transitioning to this program. 

Then this program is 100% >WRONG< and should be stopped immediately. Anything which is not to the benefit of the units and the membership is ass-backwards. 

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on May 02, 2007, 04:37:44 AM
As far as "Slush funds" "Flower funds" "Officer funds" and "Other funds," my advice to you is ask the Chaplain or MLO about the 11th Commandment:  "Thou shalt not get caught doing any of the above."

Unit funds are, and will continue to be, spent at the discretion of the unit CC with the approval of the finance committee. What some think is a waste, others would consider the cost of doing professional business.

You get tens of thousands of dollars in free services from a municipal airport?  You better believe there's flowers at unit expense if the manager dies, and a unit coin or patch tucked in your fingers when you shake hands and say thank you for letting us "play with you" to the local PD, FD or military commander, goes further than you can even imagine towards the image.

Can all units afford this?  No, but they probably aren't running a full ES program including aircraft, either, so its a wash. 

That's why its called "commander's discretion" - another area where we are not the RealMilitary® and I'm quite fine with that. If we want to play with the big guys, and look like the big guys, it costs money.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 02, 2007, 09:05:40 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on May 02, 2007, 04:37:44 AM

The purpose of this program is NOT to make life easier for the unit.  The purpose is to make life easier for National and their auditors.  There will be some difficulties in transitioning to this program. 

Then this program is 100% >WRONG< and should be stopped immediately. Anything which is not to the benefit of the units and the membership is ass-backwards. 

The purpose of the wing banker program is to allow CAP to get an "unqualified" audit rating. Which will allow CAP to compete for larger grants and funding, much of which CAP, with its current "qualified" rating, is not eligible for.

Quote

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on May 02, 2007, 04:37:44 AM
As far as "Slush funds" "Flower funds" "Officer funds" and "Other funds," my advice to you is ask the Chaplain or MLO about the 11th Commandment:  "Thou shalt not get caught doing any of the above."

Unit funds are, and will continue to be, spent at the discretion of the unit CC with the approval of the finance committee. What some think is a waste, others would consider the cost of doing professional business.

You get tens of thousands of dollars in free services from a municipal airport?  You better believe there's flowers at unit expense if the manager dies, and a unit coin or patch tucked in your fingers when you shake hands and say thank you for letting us "play with you" to the local PD, FD or military commander, goes further than you can even imagine towards the image.

Can all units afford this?  No, but they probably aren't running a full ES program including aircraft, either, so its a wash. 

That's why its called "commander's discretion" - another area where we are not the RealMilitary® and I'm quite fine with that. If we want to play with the big guys, and look like the big guys, it costs money.

Nothing I have seen or experienced in using the wing banker program restricts how a unit spends its funds. The finance committee makes a decision and the papers get signed. Simple.

Quote from: arajca on May 02, 2007, 11:00:21 PM
The purpose of the wing banker program is to allow CAP to get an "unqualified" audit rating. Which will allow CAP to compete for larger grants and funding, much of which CAP, with its current "qualified" rating, is not eligible for.

Right - which is ridiculous show me a single instance where an informed donor, without some silly agenda, decided not to donate a significant sum of money because we have qualified audits.

You can't.

All the big-ticket stuff comes from Uncle Sam, and nothing at the unit level is ever going to be impacted by an audit.

Want unqualified audits?  Kick unit CC ass on the regs.  Just because you have reduced the hands in the pot, doesn't mean the money will be managed any better.  Will still get qualified audits but now we'll be able to blame Wing.

Great plan.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 03, 2007, 02:27:29 AM

Quote from: arajca on May 02, 2007, 11:00:21 PM
The purpose of the wing banker program is to allow CAP to get an "unqualified" audit rating. Which will allow CAP to compete for larger grants and funding, much of which CAP, with its current "qualified" rating, is not eligible for.

Right - which is ridiculous show me a single instance where an informed donor, without some silly agenda, decided not to donate a significant sum of money because we have qualified audits.

You can't.

All the big-ticket stuff comes from Uncle Sam, and nothing at the unit level is ever going to be impacted by an audit.

Want unqualified audits?  Kick unit CC ass on the regs.  Just because you have reduced the hands in the pot, doesn't mean the money will be managed any better.  Will still get qualified audits but now we'll be able to blame Wing.

Great plan.

Single instance?  There are two, at least.

Neither United Way nor the Combined Federal Campaign will disburse funds to organizations that cannot produce an unqualified audit.

I agree, the "Qualification" on the audit is, in our opinion, no big deal.  There are locally-raised funds spent by local units on local stuff.  BUT, the fact that the National organization cannot statehow much is out there, nor precisely how much is spent and how, is of critical importance to auditors.

My problem is that the plan virtually assues that units will maintain closet cash accounts.  "Slush funds" is a harsh word, but "Coffee fund" and "Flower fund" are the same things.  In theory, one can still spend unit funds on unit activities at the discretion of the unit commander.  But try to find a pizza delivery restaurant that will bring pizzas out to the airport on a promise to pay later.  The commander will dip into the coffee fund, collect an extra dollar from each officer, and the party is on. 

Its illegal, and as an IG I'd have to tell you not to do it.  On an inspection, I would list such a fund as a "Finding" if you are dumb enough to tell me about it, or (As an Army unit did once) leave cash in the safe next to the key box in a manila envelope labeled "Unit Slush Fund."

But it almost HAS to happen under this prgram, just as it did in the RealMilitary, where it's just as illegal.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on May 03, 2007, 02:19:50 PM
My problem is that the plan virtually assues that units will maintain closet cash accounts.  "Slush funds" is a harsh word, but "Coffee fund" and "Flower fund" are the same things.  In theory, one can still spend unit funds on unit activities at the discretion of the unit commander.  But try to find a pizza delivery restaurant that will bring pizzas out to the airport on a promise to pay later.  The commander will dip into the coffee fund, collect an extra dollar from each officer, and the party is on. 

I had a "flower fund" in my last command that was never used for flowers in over 2 years.  I think we took the money and had beer and pizza after duty one night for the retiring SGT Major. 

One way around keeping a unit fund is to have one member "buy" a few uniform items and then sell them to who ever needs them.  Keep the cash on hand and if questioned mention that it is wholly, "member X's" money, not the units.  It is impractical for units not to have cash on hand.  That is one area I totally disagree with the Virginia Plan!

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on May 03, 2007, 02:19:50 PM
My problem is that the plan virtually assues that units will maintain closet cash accounts.  "Slush funds" is a harsh word, but "Coffee fund" and "Flower fund" are the same things.  In theory, one can still spend unit funds on unit activities at the discretion of the unit commander.  But try to find a pizza delivery restaurant that will bring pizzas out to the airport on a promise to pay later.  The commander will dip into the coffee fund, collect an extra dollar from each officer, and the party is on. 

Sometimes we put up cash ourselves (or used credit card), got receipt, got reimbursed.

Not everyone is in a position to do that, of course.

Come to think of it, why couldn't units be allowed debit cards?

Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 03, 2007, 08:47:03 PM
Come to think of it, why couldn't units be allowed debit cards?

Wow.....good question.  Most Wings allow the Top Officers and Executive Directors the use of Debit Card directly linked to the account. 

The reason the plan does not allow for debit cards is that there is still a 2-signature requirement on disbursement of unit funds.  You would have to re-tool every bank in the country to accept some cards with 2-PIN's.

Or, change the regulation to allow local units to spend small amounts on single signatures.

I think the Wing limit is $500, but I haven't read the regulation for Finance ops at wing and higher in more than a year.

Dang!

5 pages already on a thread that's NOT about uniforms!

Officers and Cadets,
In reflection of the recent cheating scandal at USAFA and this thread, I have to reconsider my position and feel bad about doing so.  We stress integrity in the program.  We understand the Honor Code about lying, cheating, stealing, and tolerance of those who do so.  We (and all Officer training programs discourage quibbling).  We post on this website the need to increase officer training, requiring some type of OTS, and increasing the professionalism in our ranks.  At the same time, we discuss the Banking Solution and the impossibility of running a unit with it.  There has been a consensus that there is a need for a "slush fund" or whatever it may be called, either that or one of the unit leaders or members will extend financing whenever instant money is needed and then apply for reimbursement.  If there is a member doing so, it still boils down to a "slush fund" of sorts.  Anyway you look at it is funding outside of the Banking Solution or asking members to go above and beyond with their offer to finance until reimbursed.  Some of the comments have been along the lines of "don't ask, don't tell", "keep it hidden", or the implication that one would be dumb to answer an IG truthfully or admittedly.  This is all very troublesome with the integrity issue that we struggle to maintain.  I realize that in the real world, one may justify somethings as being necessary, even though not right.  However, can we do that in this program?  We have allowed National to compromise us by putting into place a system that is impossible to sustain on a day to day basis.  To go even higher and perhaps where this attitude began, perhaps we should look at the gay issue of "don't ask, don't tell".  What kind of dilemma does that place one in?  If there is a violation of a rule and one knows about it, but doesn't "tell", does that release him from the honor code obligation?  How can we expect the youth of our country to learn right and wrong and uphold such a code when the powers that be place regulations in operation that cause such quandaries?  How do we talk integrity and then look the other way because it is expeditious to do so?  I submit that we are caught between a rock and a hard place and no amount of drill and ceremonies or OTS will make more professional officers out of us if we are placed in compromising positions by those above us.  I hope to hear some good dialogue from the learned members of this board.  Respectfully,   

Quote from: capchiro on May 04, 2007, 11:28:02 AM
Officers and Cadets,
In reflection of the recent cheating scandal at USAFA and this thread, I have to reconsider my position and feel bad about doing so.  We stress integrity in the program.  We understand the Honor Code about lying, cheating, stealing, and tolerance of those who do so.  We (and all Officer training programs discourage quibbling).  We post on this website the need to increase officer training, requiring some type of OTS, and increasing the professionalism in our ranks.  At the same time, we discuss the Banking Solution and the impossibility of running a unit with it.  There has been a consensus that there is a need for a "slush fund" or whatever it may be called, either that or one of the unit leaders or members will extend financing whenever instant money is needed and then apply for reimbursement.  If there is a member doing so, it still boils down to a "slush fund" of sorts.  Anyway you look at it is funding outside of the Banking Solution or asking members to go above and beyond with their offer to finance until reimbursed.  Some of the comments have been along the lines of "don't ask, don't tell", "keep it hidden", or the implication that one would be dumb to answer an IG truthfully or admittedly.  This is all very troublesome with the integrity issue that we struggle to maintain.  I realize that in the real world, one may justify somethings as being necessary, even though not right.  However, can we do that in this program?  We have allowed National to compromise us by putting into place a system that is impossible to sustain on a day to day basis.  To go even higher and perhaps where this attitude began, perhaps we should look at the gay issue of "don't ask, don't tell".  What kind of dilemma does that place one in?  If there is a violation of a rule and one knows about it, but doesn't "tell", does that release him from the honor code obligation?  How can we expect the youth of our country to learn right and wrong and uphold such a code when the powers that be place regulations in operation that cause such quandaries?  How do we talk integrity and then look the other way because it is expeditious to do so?  I submit that we are caught between a rock and a hard place and no amount of drill and ceremonies or OTS will make more professional officers out of us if we are placed in compromising positions by those above us.  I hope to hear some good dialogue from the learned members of this board.  Respectfully,   

You are right, Harry.

That's exactly what I do not like about the program.

We accepted on active duty and in reserve units the necessity of having some small amounts of discretionary cash available to commanders.  The regulations specifically forbid such funds, but we all did it.  Everyone knew we did, and there was an unspoken agreement that nobody would look too close for such funds, and no commander should make them so obvious as to force an IG or a superior commander into having to take action.

When I took command of a company, along with an inventory of our equipment, I asked about the "Unit fund" and the outgoing commander and I audited the money and records that did not, and under the regulations could not, exist.  The "Records" was a cash book bought from a local office supply store, and was kept up just like a checkbook.  I thurned it over to my relief three years later.

But what do you do when a water hose breaks on one of your trucks on a 2-day road movement, and the only auto parts store for miles around does not accept government credit cards?  I dipped into the cash fund, bought the hose, my mechanics put it on, and the convoy was able to continue.

Right now, a CAP unit commander with one other officer on the finance committee can sign a check for outright purchases.  Under the Wing Banker, he can't.  This looks like it will force unit commanders to adopt the active duty solution, which compromises integrity.

I don't like to identify problems without proposing solutions, so my suggestion would be to establish a cap on purchases or cash withdrawals of $50 that can be done with a single signature, and issue each unit an ATM debit card.  You are still going to have accountability, and safeguards in place against theft, but you will make it easier on unit commanders to get the things they need on a day-to-day basis.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 03, 2007, 08:47:03 PM
Come to think of it, why couldn't units be allowed debit cards?

Padewan, lost a petty cash fund you have? The means to retrieve it has been cloaked. Look carefully. Contain the legal solution you seek CAPR 173-1 and 173-2 do... 

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on May 04, 2007, 12:01:56 AM
The reason the plan does not allow for debit cards is that there is still a 2-signature requirement on disbursement of unit funds.  You would have to re-tool every bank in the country to accept some cards with 2-PIN's.

Or, change the regulation to allow local units to spend small amounts on single signatures.

I think the Wing limit is $500, but I haven't read the regulation for Finance ops at wing and higher in more than a year.

This could be resolved with an internal approval voucher requiring dual signatures (say for amounts over $50 or $100), and granting unit commanders disbursement authority up to $50 individually.....should just be a simple regulation change.

Quote from: capchiro on May 04, 2007, 11:28:02 AM
  We have allowed National to compromise us by putting into place a system that is impossible to sustain on a day to day basis. 

This statement implies that the NB/NEC answer to the membership.

They do not.

Technically they have some accountability to BOG & SECAF.

Practically speaking, for the most part, our leadership does as it sees fit with little reference to the local level.

They may, in fact, have done the right thing here, for the right reasons.

However, the plain fact is that 'we' have not allowed a blessed thing, it was imposed from above!

Quote from: Galahad on May 04, 2007, 03:04:39 PM

Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 03, 2007, 08:47:03 PM
Come to think of it, why couldn't units be allowed debit cards?

Padewan, lost a petty cash fund you have? The means to retrieve it has been cloaked. Look carefully. Contain the legal solution you seek CAPR 173-1 and 173-2 do... 

Sorry, I speak Vulcan and a smattering of Klingon, but NO Yodaese!

What's your point????

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on May 03, 2007, 02:19:50 PM
I agree, the "Qualification" on the audit is, in our opinion, no big deal.  There are locally-raised funds spent by local units on local stuff.  BUT, the fact that the National organization cannot statehow much is out there, nor precisely how much is spent and how, is of critical importance to auditors.

My problem with this whole thing is that those are considered national funds in the first place. I mean if CAP nationally were sued for a billion dollars & had to start coming up with cash, they couldn't take money from those local accounts to meet that obligation, because they are not signers & it's not their property.

The best fix to get an unqual'd audit is seperation. Either charter units as subsidiary corps so their money is not legally national's money, or establish a seperate national foundation with the soul purpose of obtaining & managing funds for the support of CAP. That foundation can then get the clean audit & apply for the grants, which it can then distribute freely within CAP.

On the whole, the previous system was fine if executed, the new system is not going to reduce the amount of money people put into things, just like Vanguard decreased the number of cadets in correct uniform because of supply issues.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on May 03, 2007, 02:19:50 PM

My problem with this whole thing is that those are considered national funds in the first place. I mean if CAP nationally were sued for a billion dollars & had to start coming up with cash, they couldn't take money from those local accounts to meet that obligation, because they are not signers & it's not their property.

Well, National can say that no one other than the local units can touch local funds, but, like it or not, once you are under the WBP you have surrendered the "control" of your local funds. Your funds will be deposited into an account that is controlled by the Wing and you only have "requesting authority" for your funds. (The Wing is in fact the ultimate signature authority because they are the only ones on the accounts)

Since everything belongs to CAP as a national organization I don't see why they couldn't simply confiscate these funds if the need arose.

This whole Wing Banker BS is more proof that CAP, Inc. will throw Joe Average member under the bus if it's in the best interest of CAP, Inc.

All unit funds raised belong to NHQ once you deposit the funds. If your unit folded with $30,000 in the bank that money will end up either in the Wing Kitty or NHQ's, probably the latter. Mark my words: There will be some A-hole Wing Kings that will skim unit funds for Wing use and others will make units jump through hoops to get the money they deposit.

The solution is simple: Set up a unit booster club, do all fundraising through the booster club and have the booster club "donate" the funds every time your unit needs them.

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on May 07, 2007, 03:31:33 PM
The solution is simple: Set up a unit booster club, do all fundraising through the booster club and have the booster club "donate" the funds every time your unit needs them.

Well, I'm not sure at this point if that's truly a workable solution, unless you have someone who is completely outside the organization running it, and even then it looks like a quick way to a lot of trouble.

You can tell from Nationals "Policy Letter" which came out last December that they haven't quite figured out how to completely strip the local squadrons of control of all of their funds, that's why Paragraph 1b states that "CAP policy regarding "booster clubs," organizations created to support local units, is being formulated."

Seems pretty clear that just as soon as someone finds a way to locally acquire funds that are not under the direct control of the Wings that their money making program will suddenly be in conflict with whatever policy National can formulate! And we've already seen time and time again that Regulations can be re-written overnight with no coordination to ensure that National is in the right.

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on May 07, 2007, 03:31:33 PM
This whole Wing Banker BS is more proof that CAP, Inc. will throw Joe Average member under the bus if it's in the best interest of CAP, Inc.

All unit funds raised belong to NHQ once you deposit the funds. If your unit folded with $30,000 in the bank that money will end up either in the Wing Kitty or NHQ's, probably the latter. Mark my words: There will be some A-hole Wing Kings that will skim unit funds for Wing use and others will make units jump through hoops to get the money they deposit.

The solution is simple: Set up a unit booster club, do all fundraising through the booster club and have the booster club "donate" the funds every time your unit needs them.

CAP exists to serve the United States, not the members.  Let's keep that in mind.

I can't say you are wrong about one or more Wing Kings trying to steal money.  There are a couple of safeguards against this that are commonsense:

1.  Someone other than the Wing King actually controls the money, and writes the checks.

2.  Units should review their statements, and challenge any unauthorized expenditures.

I don't think there will ever be a wing commander who would simply impound the funds, like Hugo Chavez nationalizing oil companies.  That move would be instantly obvious, and would effectively kill the program nationally.  Anybody who tried that would end up going to jail.

What if the person responsible is entrenched with folks he or she appoints?

This is one reason why I HATE politics and porporate mentalities.

Then they BOTH go to jail.  Politics is one reason that federal prisons are overcrowded.

And hey... they might get to share a cell with a former Navy ace from the Vietnam War.  Instead of "Hangar Flying" they can do "Cellblock Flying!"

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on May 08, 2007, 01:03:39 PM
CAP exists to serve the United States, not the members.  Let's keep that in mind.

Agreed, but the Wings and Groups are there to suport the needs of the units, in their work to serve America.

The inidvidual unit is the only "Actor" echelon in the USCAP...

As a group commander, my staff & I always sought to provide the units any support they needed, as far as we were able...including financial (sometimes from individuals, more often in the form of grants or loans from the group treasury).

I know this next part is going to go against the grain, but, in the other direction, far from the Wing HQ seeking to sink their hands into our funds, on numerous occasions the wing made grants, gifts, or budget allocations to the groups (earmarked for the support of the squadrons in the group).

This was not simply under one wing administration, but through a series of wing CCs over the past ten to twelve years.

Are we particularly fortunate in this wing?

Or is there at least some level of (understandable) paranoia on this topic?

I think part of the issue is the seemingly high turnover at the upper echelons without appearent reason during the past two years.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 02, 2007, 09:05:40 PM
Then this program is 100% >WRONG< and should be stopped immediately. Anything which is not to the benefit of the units and the membership is ass-backwards.

Gods...Bob!  This in the long run will benefit the units and membership by increasing the number of large dollar donors who right now will not touch us!  I checked this last CFC and CAP was NOT included in it!  How much money is simply being lost because no one is knows about us?  The United Way will not touch us...because they want to know it is being used more or less wisely.  When CAP can't account for "THEIR" money (and your squadron slush funds are CAP monies) no one wants to give us more.

This program is not perfect....but it was the "best" way to correct the problem of not being able to get a qualified audit.

Granted it is not as easy for squadron to make a quick purchase....but that is the cost of getting a qualified audit.   

Quote from: Eclipse on May 02, 2007, 09:05:40 PMThat's why its called "commander's discretion" - another area where we are not the RealMilitary® and I'm quite fine with that. If we want to play with the big guys, and look like the big guys, it costs money.

You think that the RealMilitary® is not just or more complicated in dealing with "unit money".  Let me tell you right now as someone who has dealt with several different colors of military and government monies.....there is no such thing as "commander's discretion" on where and how money is spent.  Yes there are soda/booster club/stripes/landing fees and other sort of un-official funds...but there are regulations about how much money and merchandise they can have on hand.  On-base private organizations are strictly controlled and audited by the base services squadron.  They have to make sure they have non-profit status and the have to submit their IRS paper work or they are not allowed to operate on base.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 03, 2007, 02:27:29 AM

Quote from: arajca on May 02, 2007, 11:00:21 PM
The purpose of the wing banker program is to allow CAP to get an "unqualified" audit rating. Which will allow CAP to compete for larger grants and funding, much of which CAP, with its current "qualified" rating, is not eligible for.

Right - which is ridiculous show me a single instance where an informed donor, without some silly agenda, decided not to donate a significant sum of money because we have qualified audits.

You can't.

We are not part of CFC because we can't produce an unqualified audit.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 03, 2007, 02:27:29 AMAll the big-ticket stuff comes from Uncle Sam, and nothing at the unit level is ever going to be impacted by an audit.

Want unqualified audits?  Kick unit CC ass on the regs.  Just because you have reduced the hands in the pot, doesn't mean the money will be managed any better.  Will still get qualified audits but now we'll be able to blame Wing.

Great plan.

That is one option....how many squadrons will suddenly find themselves with out any leadership?  Look at what happen to CAWG.  The CC gets canned because she did not want to follow the rules.....and it seemed like more than half the wing was ready to quit.  If we started to fire unit CC's....how many of them have a replacement waiting to take over?   Or are you just suggesting we pick one or two in each wing to be our examples to make sure all the rest fall in line?

With the Wing Banking Plan...it will be easier to identify which squadrons are operating with out declaring their funds and to take appropriate steps.  It will be easer for Wings/regions/national to account for our funds and produce that unqualified audit.

Quote from: DNall on May 04, 2007, 04:37:53 PMMy problem with this whole thing is that those are considered national funds in the first place. I mean if CAP nationally were sued for a billion dollars & had to start coming up with cash, they couldn't take money from those local accounts to meet that obligation, because they are not signers & it's not their property.

Denis,

The funds have always been nationals.  Even way back when in the dim ages....CAP is not a conglomeration of hundreds of little corporations all under an umbrella organization.  Each unit is part of the the whole corporation...so that $10 unit dues you collect "belong" to CAP....not the North Podunk Composite Squadron.  Always have.

Quote from: DNall on May 04, 2007, 04:37:53 PMThe best fix to get an unqual'd audit is seperation. Either charter units as subsidiary corps so their money is not legally national's money, or establish a seperate national foundation with the soul purpose of obtaining & managing funds for the support of CAP. That foundation can then get the clean audit & apply for the grants, which it can then distribute freely within CAP.

Gods....That is supposed to make things easier?  Each unit having to submit a separate IRS report.  Each unit owing their assets.  With each unit being its own corporation, national would loose all legal control over the units.  The unit could decide to do what it wanted and National would have no LEGAL basis to stop them...they could not fire the commander, could not get back any assets they gave the unit.  Each and every unit would have to a have a separate MOU to be able to work with the wing on ES.

Quote from: DNall on May 04, 2007, 04:37:53 PMOn the whole, the previous system was fine if executed, the new system is not going to reduce the amount of money people put into things, just like Vanguard decreased the number of cadets in correct uniform because of supply issues.

Well that's the rub....the old system had no way to enforce.  If a unit commander quit and took the squadron funds with him....no one knew how much was missing.  Because it was just as easy to keep it in a drawer in the office and to hand out cash as needed.  No need to sigh checks, no need for two person integrity and no way for wing to check up on you.

Now...it is easer to check up on units.  If they are collecting dues and not sending them up to the wing...you can start an investigation.  If you hear about a fund raiser but don't see any activity in the account you can check up on it.

Yes...it is harder/slower getting paid when you put up your own money to get things done.  That just means we need to do more planning to make sure we are not doing that.

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on May 07, 2007, 03:31:33 PM
This whole Wing Banker BS is more proof that CAP, Inc. will throw Joe Average member under the bus if it's in the best interest of CAP, Inc.

All unit funds raised belong to NHQ once you deposit the funds. If your unit folded with $30,000 in the bank that money will end up either in the Wing Kitty or NHQ's, probably the latter. Mark my words: There will be some A-hole Wing Kings that will skim unit funds for Wing use and others will make units jump through hoops to get the money they deposit.

The solution is simple: Set up a unit booster club, do all fund raising through the booster club and have the booster club "donate" the funds every time your unit needs them.

Johnny...this has always been the case.....find and old copy of the finance reg.  It stated in black and white that funds left over when a unit folded went to national.  Wing Banking does nothing to change this....except the money is already in wings hands and is harder to get to by unscrupulous individuals just before the skip town.

Yes you are right....there is the possibility that the wing/regional/national may divert money to other uses.   Welcome to the real military.  Nothing new about that and we can only hope that the write the regulations to make this harder if not impossible.

Bottom line.  Unit funds are CAP funds....always have and always will.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 08, 2007, 09:52:55 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on May 08, 2007, 01:03:39 PM
CAP exists to serve the United States, not the members.  Let's keep that in mind.

Agreed, but the Wings and Groups are there to support the needs of the units, in their work to serve America.

The individual unit is the only "Actor" echelon in the USCAP...

No...not correct.  UNITS are not the only active units in CAP....in fact most units could not successfully perform any CAP's assigned missions by themselves.  Sorry it's not the way it is.

Here is my proof.

Specifically what is your unit's document statement in executing CAP's Congressionally appointed missions?

By that I mean....is your unit tasked to provide x number of qualified pilots?  x number of qualified ground teams? X number of radio Operators?  X AE instructors?  X number of anything?

The answer is no.

UNITS ARE NOT TASKED TO PERFORM MISSIONS.

Wings are.  They are assigned X number of aircraft and the Wing Commander is tasked with conducting CAP operations within the borders of his state.

Wings are the only units specifically tasked with missions.

Units are a convenient way of organizing the corporation....heck look at IOWG.  The came right out and said that they are taking operational control of ES away from units and managing and running at the wing level.

That's true, Pat.

Units have no operational missions.  The duty of the unit commander is to provide trained members to the Incident commander.  Units are nothing more than local training stations.

We don't deploy as units and we don't carry out our missions as units.  The first thing we do when a mission happens is throw unit integrity out the window and organize a mission task force.

To be fair, the cadet program is primarily a "unit mission."  Other than one encampment, a cadets whole association with CAP can be done at the squadron level.

The same isn't true of any of our other Missions for America.  All of those are managed at the Wing level, with squadrons acting as force providers.

That said, there really is no way out of centralization of funds.  Not if you want to claim any kind of "government-ness" in the organization.

All the money in a squadron is Wing money.  And more importantly, CAP money. 



I've seen units fold, or a commander leave,  and suddenly no one knows where the money is.  Unit level record keeping is a problem in all assets of CAP, including finance.

The CONCEPT of administering the funds at Wing level is a good one.  I think it has two real risks.

1.  Finding someone willing to do the administration.  Most wings have problems finding a good Wing finance officer now, and the job just go a lot harder.

2.  If a Wing does choose to "rob Peter to pay Paul" with unit funds, they'll probably find that units stop trying to raise funds.

Quote from: Dragoon on May 09, 2007, 07:02:23 PM
1.  Finding someone willing to do the administration.  Most wings have problems finding a good Wing finance officer now, and the job just go a lot harder.

VAWG uses the paid wing administrator to keep the records and such, and uses the volunteers to sign the checks.  Since the administrator doesn't come out of wing $ you don't have to worry about the Wing using local accounts to pay for the administration.

Quote from: lordmonar on May 09, 2007, 05:24:26 AM

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on May 07, 2007, 03:31:33 PM
...Mark my words: There will be some A-hole Wing Kings that will skim unit funds for Wing use and others will make units jump through hoops to get the money they deposit.

Yes you are right....there is the possibility that the wing/regional/national may divert money to other uses.   Welcome to the real military.  Nothing new about that and we can only hope that the write the regulations to make this harder if not impossible.

The latest edition of CAPR 173-2 prohibits wings from using squadron funds in the above manner.  From Section 7.p:

p. All wings participating in the Wing Banker Program will establish and maintain consolidated checking and savings accounts designated for the units below wing level. Wings will not be permitted to co-mingle wing funds with subordinate unit funds nor use subordinate unit funds for any purpose not approved by the subordinate unit.

And from Section 6.h:

h. Wings participating in the Wing Banker Program will provide the subordinate units with financial reporting regarding their cash and investment balances and expenditures at least quarterly.

The 8NOV06 revisions to CAPR 173-1 and CAPR 173-2 provided no such protection of unit funds under the WBP.  Almost everything associated with the WBP was contained in various "policy letters" but not encoded in CAP regulations. Certain squadrons noted said lack of protection, eventually resulting in the 11FEB07 revisions to CAPR 173-1 and CAPR 173-2.

Furthermore, squadron financial officers (or their designee) now have the right to independently audit the wing financial records. From CAPR 173-2:

16. Financial Records. All financial records must be made available to the commanders, region/wing director of finance, members of region/wing/unit finance committees, wing financial analysts, CAP/FM, State and United States Government auditors, external auditors, CAP/IG, or any CAP-USAF personnel.

Squadrons have thus been given the authority, power, and responsibility to ensure that their funds are used properly under the WBP.  But will they actually employ that authority, or will those sections of the regulations quietly disappear without fanfare during future revisions?

Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 04, 2007, 04:22:09 PM

Quote from: Galahad on May 04, 2007, 03:04:39 PM

Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 03, 2007, 08:47:03 PM
Come to think of it, why couldn't units be allowed debit cards?

Padewan, lost a petty cash fund you have? The means to retrieve it has been cloaked. Look carefully. Contain the legal solution you seek CAPR 173-1 and 173-2 do... 

Sorry, I speak Vulcan and a smattering of Klingon, but NO Yodaese!
What's your point????

"Many seek the grail, but only the most [credit] worthy will succeed in their quest."

Okay, no more word puzzles.  :)
The earlier thread discussion was essentially about how to maintain the squadron's ability to spend money without waiting up to 2-weeks to get a check request fulfilled from wing HQ. Debit cards were mentioned, but these are prohibited by CAPR 173-1.  And obviously a debit card under the WBP would give any squadron access to all squadron funds in the wing, not just their own.  However, unit credit cards are not prohibited by the WBP.  (See CAPR 173-1 Section 10. )   All you have to do is convince a credit issuing organization that you're credit-worthy even though you don't have a "local" checking account. 

Another advantage of holding a squadron credit card is that you can pay the squadron phone and electric bills on an emergency basis if wing drops the ball and doesn't get your check request done in time, or they fail to make the scheduled payment on your behalf.

How does all this qualified audit/Combined Federal Campaign stuff fit in with each wing having a separate federal tax number? 

Quote from: lordmonar on May 09, 2007, 04:55:30 AM

Gods...Bob!  This in the long run will benefit the units and membership by increasing the number of large dollar donors who right now will not touch us!

Obviously this issue won't be proven one way or the other for some time, but I'll offer my .02 cents anyway.

I say that you will never see the Wing Banker program provide any substantial benefit to the vast majority of the units at the local level. I'll agree that there might be some benefits gained at the National level by improving the accounting of funds, and CAP at the national level may even manage to acquire some large scale donations, but those funds will never trickle down to the local units in any amount that will offset what is being lost.

Unfortunately National is simply turning a blind eye to the money that is being lost at the local unit levels, and yes, it is in fact being lost. At least one of the local supporters in my area has already started moving their donations away from my squadron; they don't want to make a donation to support a local organization when they know that their funds are being transferred out of the local area and placed under the direct control of someone else.

(And please, I don't need to hear how you shouldn't be telling anyone that the money is leaving the local area; that is a matter of ethics that has already been decided at our local unit. Our membership determined that failing to disclose the details of the WBP to our supporters would not only be unethical, but could also be considered fraudulent.)

Quote from: lordmonar on May 09, 2007, 05:36:33 AM
Wings are the only units specifically tasked with missions.

Units are a convenient way of organizing the corporation....heck look at IOWG.  The came right out and said that they are taking operational control of ES away from units and managing and running at the wing level.

Yeah, ok, whatever.  Semantics won't win this.

The units contain the people, the assets, and perform the training and execute the missions.

Quote from: ADCAPer on May 11, 2007, 06:41:33 PM
Unfortunately National is simply turning a blind eye to the money that is being lost at the local unit levels, and yes, it is in fact being lost. At least one of the local supporters in my area has already started moving their donations away from my squadron; they don't want to make a donation to support a local organization when they know that their funds are being transferred out of the local area and placed under the direct control of someone else.

(And please, I don't need to hear how you shouldn't be telling anyone that the money is leaving the local area; that is a matter of ethics that has already been decided at our local unit. Our membership determined that failing to disclose the details of the WBP to our supporters would not only be unethical, but could also be considered fraudulent.)

Except they are not - the control, barring malfeasance, is at your unit.  Which bank its in is inconsequential.
If you want to shoot yourself in the foot, have fun, but don't misrepresent the program just to make a point.

Quote from: ADCAPer on May 11, 2007, 06:41:33 PMUnfortunately National is simply turning a blind eye to the money that is being lost at the local unit levels, and yes, it is in fact being lost. At least one of the local supporters in my area has already started moving their donations away from my squadron; they don't want to make a donation to support a local organization when they know that their funds are being transferred out of the local area and placed under the direct control of someone else.

(And please, I don't need to hear how you shouldn't be telling anyone that the money is leaving the local area; that is a matter of ethics that has already been decided at our local unit. Our membership determined that failing to disclose the details of the WBP to our supporters would not only be unethical, but could also be considered fraudulent.)

You are giving your donors erroneous information.  The money collected locally will be used locally.  It is just accounted for at the wing level.

Quote from: lordmonar on May 12, 2007, 04:26:32 AM

You are giving your donors erroneous information.  The money collected locally will be used locally.  It is just accounted for at the wing level.

First of all, if you think I'm out there simply spreading "erroneous information" then you are dead wrong. If the people you are requesting funds from are asking questions then all you need to do is show them the regulations and any of the myriad of "Wing Banker Guides" that are out there and they can decide for themselves whether or not to support you. If you are not fully disclosing the details of the WBP to your donors when they ask the questions then you are doing far worse than providing "erroneous information", you are guilty of deception.

For what it's worth, one of the donors who stopped financially supporting my unit is a long time CAP member. If someone who has been in this organization for years doesn't trust it with their donations under the WBP, then why should anyone else?

Anyway, I approached a local city and asked them about supporting my unit. I carried a copy of the Financial Regulations, the Wing Banker Guide, our Local OI, and a list of what we had been doing to support the local area. Their City Manager turned out to be a former AF enlistee who served for a few years in the 1950's. He has been involved in municipal government for over 50 years, the last 35 years as a professional City Manager. After telling him what CAP is about, and why I was requesting a donation these are some of the questions / answers / scenarios that came up:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to answer to the Mayor, the City Council and our local taxpayers, what guarantee do I have that these funds will ultimately be used in the local area. (This was the point I produced the Regulation / WB Guide / Local OI, which he actually sat and read while I waited) His responses were:

Why was this regulation recently revised? How often is it revised? Who decides when it should be revised? Do the local units or Wings have any input into the revisions? Why is there a separate "Wing Banking Guide" when there is a national regulation? Why does every state have a separate guide? If this is a national program then shouldn't all of the policies and procedures be in one regulation that addresses the operations in every state?

If I provide funds to support your local unit it would consist of taxpayer subsidized funds, so I would expect that they would be used to support activities in the local area, can I audit your operation to ensure that this is in fact what they are used for? If I discover that these funds are not used as intended, are you prepared to reimburse the local taxpayers who provided them?

If the funds are to support the local area, why are you transferring them out of the area, we have local banks here that would be more than happy to work with you? I explained that it was for accounting purposes, to obtain an unqualified audit for national CAP. Then why are there separate Wing Banker Guides instead of one national regulation that addresses everything? He also said that as far as he knew that other local chapters of other national organizations didn't function like this and that in his opinion I was requesting support for a local cause, but was then transferring the money to a national organization that may or may not decide to use it at the local level.

Who monitors / authorizes / controls the dispersion of the funds? (NOTE: This question ultimately led to a telephone conversation with his City Attorney.) Their final opinion was that the funds are not "controlled" locally because we are transferring the "physical control" of the funds to another entity. In their opinion we only have "requesting" authority for the funds, not "control" of them. I pointed out that the regulation required the approval of the local finance committee to obligate funds, and he pointed out that from what he could see I didn't have any control over what went into the regulation and that it could be rewritten tomorrow to say whatever National wanted it say. At this point his example was that I should start sending him my paycheck and then just send him a letter whenever I needed him to pay something for me.

He was also skeptical about how the Wing could apportion interest among different units without running afoul of the state banking laws. He said that it was his impression that in our state only a certified financial institute can legally apportion interest. He finally decided that he "wasn't sure" if it was legal for the Wing to do this, and that it would just be too much of a headache, and too expensive on his part to pay his city attorney to do all the research to ensure that he would be in the clear legally with the state, or ethically with his taxpayers.

His final decision was that he couldn't support us because he could not guarantee to his taxpayers that the funds he donated would in fact be used at the local level. He said that he believes that "legally" any Wing "could" redirect any locally obtained funds to wherever they wanted at any time, and that he would not have any avenue to protest what he would he see as a misuse of his taxpayer subsidized donation, because according to CAP own regulations all donations belong to CAP as a corporation, and not to the local unit. He said that in his opinion since the funds were being transferred out of the physical control of the local area that he viewed any he donation he could make as supporting a national organization, not a local function, and that his city was simply not interested in supporting the National CAP.

Bummer that you decided to find a nice way to torpedo your unit's funding source. Nicely done, there.

Whether you decide to bank with Wachovia, who only has a branch 500 miles from your unit, or Joe Podunk's First Bank & Trust 2 blocks from your meeting place is immaterial, regardless of Barney Fife's read on our regulation.    What happens when the local bank started to charge you a monthly fee and you decided to take your business to the bank up the road in the next town over?  Is the Mayor going to say "Sorry, you're banking in Centreville now... We won't give you any of our money if it means its going to reside in a bank 200 yards past the town line.."?? Great way to let yourself be held hostage there.

There are many nationwide organizations that have "local" chapters which are not "independent" chapters (and even some who are independent) who manage to do business in this way. The fact is, unless we want every "local chapter" (read as "squadron, group or wing" depending on your geographical area and unit span) to have a full-time paid staff of fundraisers & financial professionals, we're not going to see the same controls and flexibilities locally that, say, the local ARC chapter enjoys.

And by the way, hiding behind the fig leaf of "ethics" is pretty weak.  Your read on your "ethical concerns" doesn't stand up to the light of day. If it did, you'd sign your posts with your name and your unit, because if you're right, you're right and you shouldn't have to hide your face in the public forum.

But you're not.  You've just taken a stance that is essentially diametrically opposed to the needs and demands of the corporation and its duly appointed Board of Governors.  Your poorly thought out screed against the wing banking system doesn't take into account things like reality and GAAP. (ever heard of GAAP?  I highly doubt you have). Sure, the interest apportionment thing may be a little freakish state to state.  But you yourself said that they weren't even sure it was legal (meaning they weren't sure it was illegal, either), so why'd you even bother to bring it up?

Worse yet, you've taken your fairly boorish read of the situation and gone "off the reservation" with it, thus essentially putting a tourniquet around a funding source.     The good thing about this is that outstanding "leadership" such as this tends to cause units to fold up and die.  Its apparent that your unit, under its current "leadership" either needs a regime change to a group of officers who will get with the program, or it needs to go away.  Thanks for starting yourself on the process either way.

If you're so right, then stand up at your next commander's call and recite the screed you've posted here. Otherwise, stop undermining your unit's ability to accomplish its mission.

And like I said, prefacing your actions with "I have ethical concerns"  holds about as much water as "with all due respect."   I've been on the receiving end of "officers" who attempt to hide their illegal, immoral, disrespectful and unethical conduct behind a screen of "I was acting as a whistleblower" or "I couldn't ethically stand by while this happened.." as if by invoking the word "ethics" you suddenly wrap yourself in a cloak of nobility and righteousness.   Duh.

My first reaction was to say that most of this wasn't the town's business but on second though I do applaud them for checking on an organization they were considering giving money to.  However, I suspect that you managed to torpedo the donation by bringing up stuff that really isn't an issue.  As mentioned before local units have never had absolute control over their funds but as a practical matter they have and still do determine how the funds are spent.  You should have been able to convey that to the town. 

Quote from: RiverAux on May 19, 2007, 06:08:39 PM
My first reaction was to say that most of this wasn't the town's business but on second though I do applaud them for checking on an organization they were considering giving money to.  However, I suspect that you managed to torpedo the donation by bringing up stuff that really isn't an issue.  As mentioned before local units have never had absolute control over their funds but as a practical matter they have and still do determine how the funds are spent.  You should have been able to convey that to the town. 

Its a lot like saying "I'm wearing barbed wire underwear"  Is it really that important, and did you just scare people by saying so?

Quote from: NIN on May 19, 2007, 05:56:03 PM
Bummer that you decided to find a nice way to torpedo your unit's funding source. Nicely done, there.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but the only one who may have torpedoed anything would have to be National. The existing member made his own decision without consulting anyone after he reviewed the Wing Banking concept before it was implemented, and the other source had never had been a supporter; they were approached after the WBP went into effect.

Also, that "Barney Fife" comment is completely uncalled for. I found this man to be polite, well informed and exceptionally knowledgeable in financial matters. When he wasn't sure about something that I couldn't explain, and which wasn't addresses in the regulation, he made the effort (and I'm sure it cost him from his budget) to call his city attorney and look for ways to help. Even while he was eventually explaining that he wouldn't donate to a program that he considers full of potential flaws he stayed professional about it. If CAP had anyone who was looking out for their interest in the way that he appeared to be looking out for his cities we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

As far as moving from one bank to another, go back and read what I posted. The concern of the city manager that I talked to was not that the bank was changing; it was that the money would be leaving the "control" (his opinion) of the "local" unit.

You are free to disagree with anything I've said, but the individual I talked with said that he wasn't interested in giving money to National CAP, and in his opinion, that's what he would be doing. This may be an isolated issue of local tax dollars at play, but there are people and organizations out there who do not want to participate under these rules.

Also, if you'll go look at my post, it said that he decided that "...it would just be too much of a headache, and too expensive on his part to pay his city attorney to do all the research...   He shouldn't have to research anything to know that he would be okay in donating to a "local" unit, but he read the regulation that National put out, he read the Wing Banker Guide, he read our local OI, and then he decided that CAP didn't have a program in place to ensure that his donation "stayed" at the local level, and because he answers to the taxpayers that was a deal breaker.

As for GAAP, I am vaguely familiar, and having said vaguely I'm sure that someone will fill me in on what I'm missing, because I don't see where that has anything to do with the issue I've addressed. Any local government obviously has the right to say that they don't want to donate tax dollars to a "local" organization that is going to move them out of the "local" area and put them under the "control" (his opinion) of an outside entity.

Quote from: ADCAPer on May 19, 2007, 08:46:58 PMYou are free to disagree with anything I've said, but the individual I talked with said that he wasn't interested in giving money to National CAP, and in his opinion, that's what he would be doing. This may be an isolated issue of local tax dollars at play, but there are people and organizations out there who do not want to participate under these rules.

Do you see where the problem here is?  The rules have not changed one bit where the money is concerned.  The only difference is that you now must send National's money to a bank account under the control of the wing financial officer.  Before you had to send National's money into an account under the squadron's control.

You can't go around and say the WBP is costing you local donations because your donors don't want to give to national...because that is exactly what they have been doing all along.

But YOU are upset about the WBP because it seems like wing/national is taking control away from you at the squadron level.  So you let your donors know about YOUR misgivings about the program and gave them the impression that just because national "can" use money donated to "local units" that national "WILL" use that money.

So...that argument does not wash.  Don't give me the line about "total disclosure" because if you did that before then your donors would not want to "give money to national" 10 years ago.

No....if YOU explain what is really happening to your donors then they will understand that monies raised by local units in the form of donations, dues and fund raisers WILL be used at the local level.   You can explain that while the money is all "owned" by national the regulations do not allow for them to be shifted except in cases where the unit folds and/or very exceptional cases and only with unit approval.

Quote from: CAPR 173-1 para 4.b.In the Wing Banker Program the wing acts as the bank, accountant, reporter, and check-writer service for the subordinate units. Units continue to maintain control of the obligation and transference of their funds via the local unit finance committee. Wings may not transfer or obligate unit funds in any way without unit written approval. Wings must not impose internal service charges to units.

Emphasis mine.

So....bottom line.....what is the problem with WBP?

Sure it is slow, sure it's a pain when the wing's paperwork and the squadron's don't match.  But the WBP should be opening up sources of funds not closing them.  If your local donors don't trust the system it is because YOU have created the atmosphere of mistrust....ergo it is up to you to give them the CORRECT information and rebuild that trust.

It is as NIN said.....YOU scared them off with YOUR fears that wing/national was going to take "YOUR" money...with out really understanding that: 1) it was never yours in the first place and 2) wing and national has no intention or power to do so with out YOUR permission.

It looks like you have your work cut out for you.

Another thing....

I work in higher education. We have an office at the college that specifically raises funds from sources other than our traditional avenues (tuition, room & board, etc).  Alumni donations, grants, annual fund giving, etc.

Some of the gifts given to the college take the form of "restricted" funds, meaning that they have substantial donor restrictions on what they can be spent on.

CAP needs, at both the national and wing level, to have "advancement offices" whose sole duties are to shag down donations, gifts, grants, etc.  Now that we will have an "un-qualified" audit, the money should start rolling in ...  ::)  Our last advancement officer at the national level was a "one trick pony" whose sole idea was an $11 million investment in a multi year deal with a NASCAR team.  Ugh.

There's a pretty simple way out of this.

If you've got someone who wants to donate to your local unit, but doesn't want the money going anywhere else, just get the Wing Commander (as the lowest level Corporate Officer and owner of the "wing banker") to sign a letter to the doner promising that the money will be spent only on your unit.

Nothing illegal here.  Just the guy who controls the funds committing to spend them on a specific set of stuff  - your squadron's stuff.

You get the money and the doner sleeps well.

If the Wing CC won't do this, then the doner will have to understand that he's donating to the Wing, not the unit.  And then the doner can make up his own mind.

Wow......lets not forget that donated money from any source is going to the Corporation, not the local SQD.  NHQ is only allowing you (the local SQD) to use thier moeny.  If you did a car wash and raised money....you rasied moeny for CAP Inc.  Not your SQD. 

Quote from: mikeylikey on May 21, 2007, 09:55:40 PM
Wow......lets not forget that donated money from any source is going to the Corporation, not the local SQD.  NHQ is only allowing you (the local SQD) to use their money.  If you did a car wash and raised money....you raised money for CAP Inc.  Not your SQD. 

Whoa!... hold on there Mike. In no way should money I earned go to someone else. I am a member of several organizations. and CAP is the only one that has the ability to manage money at a non-local level.
I know the regulation "says" that the Wing will have control to get a clean audit and that money isn't moved without Sqn approval. BUT this already hints of the possibility of malfeasance. Skimming can take place, and as the city manager said " whats to keep NHQ from changing the reg tomorrow and 'confiscating ' local fundage for its own use" ??
I'm no lawyer but the whole program strikes me as being in the gray zone of common sense/legality.

In my humble opinion every unit should IMMEDIATELY create a separate entity - booster club etc.. and get as much money as possible safe within a LOCAL span of control.

Then again this is just one big example of how much I HATE and reject anything CORPORATE.

- This isn't an attack on anyone, including my / our Wing CC's etc. Just a gripe about the way the oversight is structured. Now, have there been issues with money? Yes, Should the Air Force and others go after those responsible? Yes. But this is a bit too extreme.
Knowing this si a done deal I officially support it, salute and carry on, however I feel that we should get rid of this program through channels ASAP, while doing what we can to protect local funds.

- Someone commented that ' in the past funds were never local to begin with' - or something like that. While I cant speak for your unit,
In so much as my local Squadron is concerned, thats hogwash.
While Wing saw the bank statments, they had not the power to touch the funds and 100% of any fundraising or gifts or whatnot went to the squadron no mention was even made of a Corporation. Just the AF Auxiliary's Cadet Program. to my knowledge the checks even went -
"to: 328th Composite Sq. USAF Auxiliary"  ... not "CAP Inc."
- Primarily for scholarships to allow cadets to attend a [flight] encampment.
No one at Wing complained, no one misplaced a decimal or stole out of the coffers.
And considering that the Wing IG resides at our Squadron we can be doubly sure that what is done is within the law and or Reg. 

JMHO

QuoteIn so much as my local Squadron is concerned, thats hogwash.

You may have thought so but Wing and National still had technical control over "your" squadron funds, they just did not exercise it. 

You know, SAR-EMT1 has a good point.  I have had scout and cub packs as a scout master and cub master and the money we collected we kept and there was really no accounting to any national entity.  Now, the question is, how do they receive money from the United Fund, etc., with all of the individual cubpacks and scout troops running around with $1,000.00 to $5,000.00 in unaudited accounts?  Why did we (CAP) have to get an unqualified audit to get money from donors when the scouting organizations don't?  Or was this just an excuse?  the main problem as I see it is that the new Wing Banking Solution forces squadrons to maintain an unauthorized "slush" fund in violation of the Regs or members to extend credit to the squadron and await for reimbursement from Wing.  this is assuming that there will always be a need for operating cash at the squadron level for things such as a coke machine and the ever changing amount of money in same.  Not everything is a major purchase expense and can wait for Wing to cut a check.  But again, how are other voluntary agencies such as Boy Scouts able to obtain donations from the same corporations that we have been told will not give us money without an "unqualified audit" without requiring the same of Scouts, etc???

It seems that the virginia plan is due to some HUGE f-up in Virginia.  I would really like to know what happened there!

Nothing happened there.  The gentleman that wrote it was the VAWG COS at the time, and the wing was looking for ways to gain access to more grants, etc. 

Maybe, just maybe, this proposal was created in an effort to genuinely HELP the organization instead of "sucking up unit funds" and denying people "their" money. (not attacking you, just "in general") It just seems that things with people do with genuine interests seem to always come up with "I wonder what the real reason behind this is."

Virginia was also one of the first places to even 'beta test it.'

WRT the "qualified versus unqualified" audit, let me clear up the terminology.  "Qualified" means "We, the auditors, have conducted an audit of this august organization and find it to be in fine finanical shape with the following qualifiers [...]"  thus the term "qualified."  The audit is conducted with various "oh by the way" and "here is this little odd thing" that a LOT of organziations have. 

Unfortunately what that means is that there are around 1,000 entities out there for which Civil Air Patrol's audit does not even begin to "touch" the veracity of the funding reporting.  We show it as an "asset" for these 50 units in Wing X, but we didn't see whether or not Squadron XY in Wing X spent 2/3 of its money on "Administration" instead of directly on "Cadet Programs."  (anybody remember the whole  Red Cross administrative overhead thing following 9/11?)  A LOT of businesses and granting organizations won't give money to a non-profit that cannot demonstrate reliably that donations to it, as proven by third party auditors, are going where "the rubber meets the road" instead of to support administrative actions.

Not sure if that's the case with United Way, but I know plenty of units that get United Way contributions (ask Shawn Stanford) without any sweat.

So we get branded with "qualified" and some outfits won't grant/donate unless they can tell that the majority or a supermajority of the money goes directly to support "the program" not "pay the light bill and the toilet paper bill.."

Another thing: Your unit has an EIN issued by the federal government.  That EIN is the same EIN that is used nationwide (and, heh, world wide) for Civil Air Patrol units.  That EIN is the EIN that a donating/granting organization wants to get back so they can get the credit for their grant or donation.

IOW, whether you're the Joe Podunk Cadet Squadron or Pacific Region, CAP, you have the same EIN number as... Civil Air Patrol, Inc.

So technically, when someone is donating money to the Joe Podunk Squadron, for legal and tax purposes, they ARE donating the money to Civil Air Patrol, Inc.

Unless your unit has a separate EIN that nobody is aware of.

Quote from: capchiro on May 22, 2007, 05:16:32 PM
You know, SAR-EMT1 has a good point.  I have had scout and cub packs as a scout master and cub master and the money we collected we kept and there was really no accounting to any national entity.  Now, the question is, how do they receive money from the United Fund, etc., with all of the individual cubpacks and scout troops running around with $1,000.00 to $5,000.00 in unaudited accounts?   Why did we (CAP) have to get an unqualified audit to get money from donors when the scouting organizations don't?  Or was this just an excuse?  the main problem as I see it is that the new Wing Banking Solution forces squadrons to maintain an unauthorized "slush" fund in violation of the Regs or members to extend credit to the squadron and await for reimbursement from Wing.

First off.  Individual packs and troops do not get direct operational funding from council or national level....so the council can produce an unqualified audit just by showing the donor their books.  Pack and troop funding is the property of the pack and/or troop not nationals or the local councils.  CAP could do this...but it would mean that ALL of a CAP unit's activities would have to be self funded.

Secondly.....just because the system may be slow does not "force" anyone to circumvent that system.  There is very little going on that would require a squadron to put out money "right now" vice waiting the 1-2 weeks it takes for the wing to cut a check.

Every CAP unit has a different federal EIN.  I have no clue as to whether this means anything from an auditing point of view. 

Quote from: RiverAux on May 23, 2007, 09:55:43 PM
Every CAP unit has a different federal EIN.  I have no clue as to whether this means anything from an auditing point of view. 

Quote from: CAPR 173-1 Para 11. Federal Tax ID Number. The Civil Air Patrol Employer Identification Number (EIN) 75-6037853 must be used to establish and maintain all bank accounts.

Every unit still has their own EIN identified in the CAPWATCH database so this must be a recent change. 

Which table is it located in?

Organization. 

There still may be other local uses for the EIN other than for bank accounts though I can't think of one at the moment. 

I don't know what that is about....the generic CAP EIN was in the last version of 173-1....Maybe they got the EINs for later use but they are not ready to issue them. 

Good thing, I'm not finance.  :D

They've been in CAPWATCH for Loong time and I remember having to request my unit's EIN for something about 6 years ago. 

Well we learn something everyday.

Here is just another example of the regs saying one thing and something else going on in the back ground.

So...the question is.....if I were to open a new account (and the WBP has not been implemented) or a donor asks for my EIN for tax purposes...which EIN should I be using.  The one the reg says to use or the one CAPWATCH says is assigned to my unit?

The unit EIN , unless of course the donor wishes the gift to be used on a stategic level.

Quote from: RiverAux on May 24, 2007, 01:11:57 AM
Organization. 

There still may be other local uses for the EIN other than for bank accounts though I can't think of one at the moment. 

What wing are you in? I can't find a single instance of an Organization table in any of the CAPWATCH downloads I have.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on May 24, 2007, 06:24:40 AM
The unit EIN , unless of course the donor wishes the gift to be used on a stategic level.

Then you are responsible at the unit level for filing the Form 990 with the IRS. If you use the EIN from the 173-1, NHQ takes care of that.

You may require Wing level access to get the Organization table (just guessing).  It acually lists all the units in CAP, their names, charter numbers, and their EINs. 

Quote from: RiverAux on May 23, 2007, 09:55:43 PM
Every CAP unit has a different federal EIN.  I have no clue as to whether this means anything from an auditing point of view. 

About a bazillion years ago (6? 8? Something like that) we all had to go out and get individual EINs.

That lasted about a year.  They tracked it in CAPWATCH.  It remains as legacy data.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on May 24, 2007, 06:24:40 AM
The unit EIN , unless of course the donor wishes the gift to be used on a stategic level.

And where is the guidance for that????? :D

Do you see my point?

 Tax code, and I would think, common sense; would dictate that the individual units EIN would go a long way in earmarking said funds to use by that unit and therefore at a local level. The CAPwide EIN dictates that the funds be used by the NHQ personnel or other corporate Officers.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on May 25, 2007, 06:46:08 AM
Tax code, and I would think, common sense; would dictate that the individual units EIN would go a long way in earmarking said funds to use by that unit and therefore at a local level. The CAPwide EIN dictates that the funds be used by the NHQ personnel or other corporate Officers.

Sorry but TAX CODE and Common sense are mutually exclusive terms.

Well, I found out some more info on the subject while looking through the current and most recently superceded versions of the CAPR 20-3.

The 1 May '98 version adds the requirement for units requesting a charter to obtain a Federal EIN.

The current 8 Nov '02 version specifically deletes the requirement.

"SUMMARY OF CHANGES
This revision deletes the requirement for each new unit to obtain an Internal Revenue Service Employer Identification Number. "

Got a CC e-mail from our Wing Commander asking if the squadron commander received the Wing Banker Program packet.  Guess we're in line to begin the program........ >:(  :-\