CAP Fiscal Transparency

[FW]

^ I have no idea why the DO would say that.  
Here was the initial FY 08 training budget for PAWG; which I first got in Oct 07:

AF training flights  $22K
Cadet O'flights          8K

Total Distribution   $30K

The numbers may have changed since Oct.  

[lordmonar]

You know.....I pay my dues....no one forced me to.....I don't really care what wing is doing with the money.

Or national for that matter.

Fiscal Transparency to the general membership makes the mistake of assuming that higher headquarters works for us.

We are not stock holders.  We serve at the pleasure of our respective commanders and our focus should be on the mission.

[desertengineer1]

NEGATIVE.  That's not what the paragraph says.  It says that financial records WILL be made available to unit commanders.  It does NOT say, "keep all financial records secret from everyone else".

Para 16 is extremely important.  It preserves transparency in the 1 out of 100 chance someone acts like a jerk and wants to keep books closed.  A unit commander is given direct authority to say, "while you might not want to show SM Joe, you will show it to me." 

Limiting this authority to the chain of command focal points protects the wing staff from being inundated with every member who wants to see something.  You know the members I'm talking about - everyone has had exposure at some point to the borderline black helicopter paranoid member who thinks everyone with access to finances is trying to steal something.  Wing finance officers would never get anything done if they had to constantly appease everyone. 

More importantly, there's nothing in the regs that says a wing finance officer can't show something to any member who has a concern.  It's really up to them.  Para 16 is there to prevent total shutdown in the event someone has a legitimate concern.

So, by our own regulation CAP members in general have no right to know anything about CAP finances at any level unless they are part of the select group.  That is just plain wrong. 

[desertengineer1]

Para 16 makes sure that the buck (pardon the pun, couldn't resist) stops at the commander.

Lord hath mercy on the wing staff member who refuses access to a unit commander who has a concern.  If the unit CC is on top of things, stern discussions will ensue - and heads will roll.  Para 16 is there to keep shenanigans under control.

If you have a need and a refusal is given, start going up the chain.  If the request is proper (and that includes a genuine interest), you'll get permission.  If you want regular access, I suggest you become a finance officer ,  I'm sure the position can be readily had at almost any level.

[fireplug]

Onother common misperception is that units are STILL required to keep track of thier expendatures/requests/approvals.
[

Units are very silly if they still don't maintain their own records. That is their check on the Wing Banker, as we are all human and subject to making mistakes.

[desertengineer1]

Onother common misperception is that units are STILL required to keep track of thier expendatures/requests/approvals.
[

Units are very silly if they still don't maintain their own records. That is their check on the Wing Banker, as we are all human and subject to making mistakes.

Oops.  Should have proof read that.  Meant to say the misperception that some units think Wing will take care of everything for them, i.e. don't need to track the finances anymore. 

[RADIOMAN015]

  Personally, I think that one of the major reasons given for the implementation of this wing bankers program isn't entirely correct.  CAP has gotten "qualified" outside auditors opinion because it rolls up all the income/expenditures from the unit level upward where the source documents are kept and aren't readily accessible to auditors for typical day to day operations which are funded at the local level anyways.  Contrast this with any Monetary Grants that are received from outside sources (and the grantor determines how the grantee accountability will be maintained anyways), since the reimbursement checks (cash disbursements) are likely to be written out of one designated office/fund at national headquarters, or respective region or wing(s) when the source document is received from the units, thus accountability would readily be available to any outside auditors in one central location FOR THE SPECIFIC GRANT and would NOT result in a qualified audit FOR SPECIFIC GRANTS ADMINISTRATION & ACCOUNTABILITY (Isn't this basically how reimbursement for AF missions is handled???).
Most if not all units' operational funding comes from unit members monthly/quarterly dues/contributions anyways (and I know in my squadron financial information is readily available to anyone who asks) and not from anyone at group, wing, or national level.  Again we see an increase in administration costs to the membership as a whole to develop/implement another  "program" that only the passage of time will tell IF this was of ANY VALUE (as in getting more program grants from outside CAP) that will benefit ANY squadron level unit.     

[FW]

^Interesting opinion.  However, the main reason CAP went with the WBP is to bring the audit trail down to the squadron/flight level without the need for 1500 separate unit audits.  Why spend another $2million dollars when we can do the same thing with a few thousand in "administrative costs"?

BTW, our current auditors are very pleased with the WBP.  Our audit for next year (FY 08) is on target to be our 1st "Unqualified Audit" in CAP history.  And, yes, this is a very good thing.

[Capt Rivera]

This reminds me about something else that bothered me. Why doesn't (CAP NHQ) keep CAP's info updated on websites like:

• http://www.bbb.org
• http://www.guidestar.org
• http://www.charitynavigator.org/