Proposal 1: CAP Officer Advisory Councils

[Major Carrales]

Where is the true voice of "CAP?"  Is it in forum such as this one and on-line polls and blogs?  Actually, not, its right there in our units.   But, how do we know what that voice is? 

Cadet's have a method of representative-democracy in the cadet Advisory Council.  It's out side the chain-of-command and purely advisory, but it does demonstrate a glimpse into ideally what cadets want of Cadet Programs in their Group, Wing and Region.

Thus, to monitor the true voice of CAP Membership how 'bout...

CAP Officer Advisory Councils, the CAC for CAP Officers that serve as advisory bodies to Groups, Wing and Region.  The place to lobby through democratic practice.  The place to gauge reactions on wear tests, policy flag balloons and to better address suggestions. 

While not part of the Chain of Command, it allows the voice to the people in the trenches to have a say...a meaningful say.  Current Commanders are forbidden membership, encourage "Joe Everyday CAP OFFICER" to join.

The National Version of this Body has a place to make suggestions at the National Board and can issue a "report card."  While it has no force of law, it demonstrates the importance of MEMBER VOICE.

[IceNine]

As a former Regional CAC Chariman, I say SIGN ME UP!

Great idea, how do we use the current voice that we have to make this happen?

[Major Carrales]

As a former Regional CAC Chariman, I say SIGN ME UP!

Great idea, how do we use the current voice that we have to make this happen?

I'm glad you like the proposal, we have a good time in these forums debating issues and making solutions to things that really are an issue.  I don't see why we could not have that at the CAP Officer Level.

Let's hammer this out...as CAP Officers we could meet by teleconference or at Wing Conferences.

[RogueLeader]

Could we call it SAC: Senior Advisory Councils?

[lordmonar]

Why reinvent the wheel?

Your Senior Member "CAC" is called your squadron commander.....or his designated alternate attendning wing/group staff meetings.

[Major Carrales]

Why reinvent the wheel?

Well, to be honest.  This proposal is based on the current situation where people claim that the Leadership doesn't listen to the "will of the people."  It is a stituation, that according to lots of folks here, where the "leadership is a problem."

These are places where representative-deomcracy can be practiced, produce a system of proposals and present them to the Leadership.  Then, if this process is followed, and a leader snubbed these ideas...the allegations could be backed up with documentation.

So when people say, the "leadership is not listening to the will of the membership," it would be more than just an agendistic catchphrase.

Also, it would give ownship to the membership when proposals are adopted. 

[lordmonar]

It's called a chain of command.....there is no "will of the people."

You are buying into RAYRAY's line of thinking.

[ZigZag911]

We already have places for members to express their views freely-- places like CAP Talk!

[Major Carrales]

It's called a chain of command.....there is no "will of the people."

You are buying into RAYRAY's line of thinking.

The CAP Officer Advisory Council's function is advisory only, a tool for the Chain of Command to have another angle to consider when making descisions.  It is not sedition...but advice built up from the grassroots.

As for your last comment...

Such a body would make the actions of such parties a moot point.  I think he would agree...as well as his nemeses. 

[Major Carrales]

We already have places for members to express their views freely-- places like CAP Talk!

Yes, but these forums are not mainstream.  CAP Officer Advisory Councils would be and the great ideas that so often make their way to the oblivion of "page three" could actually per officially proposed.  That is the difference.

Places like CAPTALK would not be obsolete, I foresee these places as forums for CAP Officer Advisory Councils across the nation.

[AlphaSigOU]

We already have places for members to express their views freely-- places like CAP Talk!

Yes, but these forums are not mainstream.  CAP Officer Advisory Councils would be and the great ideas that so often make their way to the oblivion of "page three" could actually per officially proposed.  That is the difference.

Places like CAPTALK would not be obsolete, I foresee these places as forums for CAP Officer Advisory Councils across the nation.

Much like the RealAirForce's Company Grade Officer's Council (CGOC) or the unofficial Lieutenant's Protective Association (LPA).

[jimmydeanno]

Perhaps we could get the CAC to sponsor the idea

[Pylon]

The problem is that it's difficult to focus local-level CAC's to their actual purpose of advisory bodies.  Instead, they often find themselves planning picnics and joint activities or trying to write proposals for ribbons.  Higher level CAC's, such as NCAC, seem to have the right ideas but they also likely benefit from better advisors and more experienced members.

I see senior-version of CACs suffering from the exact same mess.  Endless proposals on new ribbons or getting tasked to plan the (insert echelon here)-wide picnic or bivouac or whatever.

In addition, based on the level of the "opinions" expressed here at CAPTalk, I don't see the overall senior membership as ready to properly and effectively voice legitimate concerns and opinions to corporate officers.

Lordmonar already pointed out that your squadron commander is your voice to higher levels.  Your squadron and group commanders can let their respective wing commander know what their membership feels, and that wing commander may bring that opinion to the NB.  Perhaps the NB should seek membership feedback on certain items (such as brand new uniforms) before rolling it out, but really the NB should be effective enough at making their own informed decisions.

[jimmydeanno]

The problem is that it's difficult to focus local-level CAC's to their actual purpose of advisory bodies.  Instead, they often find themselves planning picnics and joint activities or trying to write proposals for ribbons.  Higher level CAC's, such as NCAC, seem to have the right ideas but they also likely benefit from better advisors and more experienced members.

That's just a failure of the senior advisor of the CAC.  The CAC pamphlet specifically says that the CAC isn't the "Cadet Activities Council." (well, not those exact words).  But that's another topic.

But in all honesty, I don't really see the practicality of a senior council.  At the local level, things get run (for the most part) in the focus of what the general membership wants.  They plan what they want to do, do what activites they want to do etc.

It is already the Sq CCs responsibility to speak for his squadron to the closest corporate officer and anyone can draft a proposal to submit - heck, I just did last week in an effort to get a standardized wing Cadet of the quarter cord.  I originally wanted to get approval for just my squadron, but figured - what the heck, get the process done for everyone else at the same time.  My Sq CC forwarded it to the Wing King because he thought it was a great idea.

[Pylon]

The problem is that it's difficult to focus local-level CAC's to their actual purpose of advisory bodies.  Instead, they often find themselves planning picnics and joint activities or trying to write proposals for ribbons.  Higher level CAC's, such as NCAC, seem to have the right ideas but they also likely benefit from better advisors and more experienced members.

That's just a failure of the senior advisor of the CAC.  The CAC pamphlet specifically says that the CAC isn't the "Cadet Activities Council." (well, not those exact words).  But that's another topic.

Absolutely, but it still happens.  A lot.  Regardless of what we know to be the purpose of CAC and what we know the pamphlet says.

I've said time and time again what the original purpose of this discussion community was for, but yet we drift pretty far from that sometimes and I still find myself and the other moderators spending time playing referee for adults.

Intent and how things actually implement are two totally separate things.  We can't get a handful of senior advisors to implement CAC successfully and properly at the lowest levels in many places - how can we expect more from a larger group of seniors?

[RiverAux]

Why reinvent the wheel?

Your Senior Member "CAC" is called your squadron commander.....or his designated alternate attendning wing/group staff meetings.

Hmm, there is a cadet chain of command, so should the cadet advisory councils be eliminated? 

Lets face it, personality issues often will keep higher ups from listening to some individuals, even if they have great ideas.  You get a "well if its Joe Blow's idea, I don't want to hear it", even if Joe Blow is a Squadron Commander.  Having a council sort of spreads responsibility for the idea and vets it among a group of impartial observers before it would get to someone in the chain. 

Yes, the official chain of command is one way to transmit ideas, but it is way too limited.  The squadron members really only see what is happening in their squadron and rarely have opportunities to really get together with their peers to discuss common issues.  A senior advisory council at the group or wing level with 1-2 members from each squadron (none of which should be in Commander or Deputy Commander position) might be helpful.

[Flying Pig]

>>Lets make sure we dont turn this into a thread on CAC.

Regarding "SAC"

As far as a "grassroots" idea.  We have Sq. Commmanders who attend  Group Commanders Call, we have Wing conferences, etc.  We work with other Sq. in our area.  If we want to do a joint training, I pick up the phone and coordinate it.   As an officer, at least here in Ca I feel like I have plenty of resources and contacts without making another trip to a CAP meeting. 

If you cant trust your Sq. Commander to pass on info, what makes you think an SAC rep would be any different in passing on an idea he/she didnt agree with?

[Major Carrales]

As an officer, at least here in Ca I feel like I have plenty of resources and contacts without making another trip to a CAP meeting. 

If you cant trust your Sq. Commander to pass on info, what makes you think an SAC rep would be any different in passing on an idea he/she didnt agree with?

Well, I guess we can assume that all in well in the CAP STATUS QUO and the leadership is listening to the membership.

[Pylon]

Well, I guess we can assume that all in well in the CAP STATUS QUO and the leadership is listening to the membership.

Works fairly well enough for the Air Force.

[Major Carrales]

Well, I guess we can assume that all in well in the CAP STATUS QUO and the leadership is listening to the membership.

Works fairly well enough for the Air Force.

Congrats on joining the USAF!!!  The majority of the rest of us are in CAP...and reality.

[Pylon]

Congrats on joining the USAF!!!  The majority of the rest of us are in CAP...and reality.

Sarcasm aside... processes, procedures, and ideas implemented by the Air Force that work well for them should be summarily and unilaterally ignored by CAP, even if they have parallels in our organization, because we're us not them?   

Frankly, it's a leadership issue.  If your commanders aren't doing a good job, then coming up with a fancy council to help them figure out what they should be doing isn't probably the best solution.  Figuring out how to put better leaders into the existing and functioning structure might be a better place to start.

[Major Carrales]

Congrats on joining the USAF!!!  The majority of the rest of us are in CAP...and reality.

Sarcasm aside... processes, procedures, and ideas implemented by the Air Force that work well for them should be summarily and unilaterally ignored by CAP, even if they have parallels in our organization, because we're us not them?   

Frankly, it's a leadership issue.  If your commanders aren't doing a good job, then coming up with a fancy council to help them figure out what they should be doing isn't probably the best solution. 

What are you gonna do...violently overthrow them? That'll go over well with the USAF?  Hey, but I guess it works for France in 1789...sort of.

Why is it that when someone brings up an issue to solve a CAP specific problem, the first impulse is to state "The USAF doesn't go it like that?"  Folks, we have issues and problems in CAP that the USAF will never have merely by their nature.  CAP is by design different.

So...is there a problem with leadership listening to the membership or not.  I think that is the true issue here.  Either they are and everything is great, so things like a CAP Officer Advisory Council are moot.  Or it's so "off" this is a possible solution.  Which is it?  You cannot have it both ways!

Figuring out how to put better leaders into the existing and functioning structure might be a better place to start.

Now, let's hear your solution and plan for doing that? 

[Pylon]

What are you gonna do...violently overthrow them? That'll go over well with the USAF?  Hey, but I guess it works for France in 1789...sort of.

Why is it that when someone brings up an issue to solve a CAP specific problem, the first impulse is to state "The USAF doesn't go it like that?"  Folks, we have issues and problems in CAP that the USAF will never have merely by their nature.  CAP is by design different.

So...is there a problem with leadership listening to the membership or not.  I think that is thre true issue here.  Either they are and everything is great, so things like a CAP Officer Advisory Council are moot.  Or it's so "off" this is a possible solution.  Which is it?  You cannot have it both ways!

You completely missed the entire point I've been driving at.

First off, I have no clue what you're talking about with regards to "violently overthrowing" somebody.      The French comments are un-called for, and I'd prefer to leave my former country of residence out of the discussion.

I get it that CAP has problems that USAF doesn't; my point wasn't to say that we have to stick to only things the USAF does.  My point was to suggest that sometimes things that work well for the USAF are worth noting on how they do it so well, so we can draw parallels to CAP.

As for your question, "So...is there a problem with leadership listening to the membership or not." :  I would have thought you proposed this idea in the first place because you did feel that leadership needs additional voice from the membership on issues.   I also feel that in many cases, voice from the membership would help leaders.

However, my point was that commanders should already be representing the best interests of their personnel and their particular command to their superiors.  That's part of the feedback cycle that they teach in leadership 101.  Your opinions are already welcomed to be submitted up the chain for consideration on any issue.  If you feel your leaders are inept at listening properly to membership opinions or that they ignore things in the best interest of CAP, perhaps it's more wise to better educate and train more effective leaders than to create a new, complex "crutch" for the existing leaders to continue their practices.

Already, new regulations and changes to regulations are posted publically for comment for a period of time before being ratified.  Already, CAP members at large are invited to apply for positions on the Board of Governors, welcomed to attend National, Region, and Wing Conferences, and can even submit proposals to the NB/NEC through the chain. 

Why not use the existing structure to submit recommendations to your commanders at various echelons?

[capchiro]

Unfortunately, we are in a quandary.  We are a quasi-corporation, which would lead one to think that shareholders would be entitled to vote on agenda ideas and leadership (as offered to the shareholders from a select nominating committee, which is a whole other ball of worms).  We are a quasi-military group which would lead one to think that we have little or no say about our welfare, existence.  However, we are truly a voluntary group, which would lead one to believe that if one is not happy with the situation, one could leave the group.  Now that doesn't sound like a good option, now does it??  However, there are established methods and channels to submit items to the National Board, such as Reg changes and they actually work, if they are a good idea.  If the Board is stacked, control may go to the stacker, but we have no control over that as long as the stacker doesn't mess up too much and give cause for removal.  Now, perhaps we get too worked up over too many things that don't mean anything.  We have a great lot of uniforms.  That doesn't mean that anyone has to acquire all of them or wear the ones they hate.  Just buy the ones that you can wear as authorized, short, fat, bearded or bald, and wear them.  If this isn't okay with you, don't let the door hit you in the tail.  Our Reg's are well published and it shouldn't have come as a surprise to you that certain things are authorized and others aren't.  This is a voluntary organization and you don't have to belong or participate if it causes your shorts to bind..If you truly feel that there is a real discrepancy or oversight in the Reg's, submit the proposed change and perhaps it will happen.  Our leaders do have a feel for the pulse of the members and even more so on the pulse of our customers/handlers and try to keep almost everybody happy most of the time.  Since we aren't paid, we think we have a right to gripe and complain and we do, but let's not try to organize and overthrow the best organized and managed voluntary air force/cadet program/aerospace program/and, yes, homeland security ES group that has ever come along and lasted as long as we have.  If you are so bothered by the Reg's, perhaps you could start a better voluntary national program and if so, we can always stand the competition.  I might even donate some money to your new organization, but maybe only if everyone got a voice in how it was formed and run.  Having been the chairman/president of a 660 member non-profit organization for 10 years, I can state that everyone has ideas and wants to tell one how to run everything, but no one wants to put the effort into it in the long run.  As usual, JMHO..

[Major Carrales]

Here we go...

First off, I have no clue what you're talking about with regards to "violently overthrowing" somebody.      The French comments are un-called for, and I'd prefer to leave my former country of residence out of the discussion.

In 1789 the French overthrew their King because "their leaders weren't doing a good job" and they figured "out how to put better leaders into the existing structures."  What woudl your plan call for...firing are the Wing Commanders.  There is already an uproar because supposedly too many such folks have been so "fired."   These were not FRENCH BASHING comments, if that is what you were implying.

I get it that CAP has problems that USAF doesn't; my point wasn't to say that we have to stick to only things the USAF does.  My point was to suggest that sometimes things that work well for the USAF are worth noting on how they do it so well, so we can draw parallels to CAP.

Well then, answer this question.  Is the current leadership "working for us?"  If the answer is "no," in any form, it means that the system is not functioning as it should.  I made a proposal to try to address the matter so often discussed here...it's merely a proposal.

As for your question, "So...is there a problem with leadership listening to the membership or not." :  I would have thought you proposed this idea in the first place because you did feel that leadership needs additional voice from the membership on issues.   I also feel that in many cases, voice from the membership would help leaders.

I proposed this based on the commentary in this forum, and others, that claim that a large precentage of folks think the Leadership is not listening.  I tried to find a solution that would create a mechinism to provide and additional voice to insure that there was an indentifiable "voice of the membership" that was more than rethoric.

However, my point was that commanders should already be representing the best interests of their personnel and their particular command to their superiors.  That's part of the feedback cycle that they teach in leadership 101.  Your opinions are already welcomed to be submitted up the chain for consideration on any issue.  If you feel your leaders are inept at listening properly to membership opinions or that they ignore things in the best interest of CAP, perhaps it's more wise to better educate and train more effective leaders than to create a new, complex "crutch" for the existing leaders to continue their practices.

I am a Squadron Commander, this is my second go at it.  I have often run into obstacles and have discussed this with other Squadron Commanders identifying these issues commonly seen as problems... 1) "chain of command" level politics, 2) people don't "like an individual," 3) the "our unit is not as well connected as others" element, 4) the unit is not "geographically important enough," based on truth or not and 5)because "they are too busy to listen."

I'm still waiting for your plan to "better educate and train more effective leaders."  And I want it detailed, valid and implementable.

Already, new regulations and changes to regulations are posted publically for comment for a period of time before being ratified.  Already, CAP members at large are invited to apply for positions on the Board of Governors, welcomed to attend National, Region, and Wing Conferences, and can even submit proposals to the NB/NEC through the chain.  

Why not use the existing structure to submit recommendations to your commanders at various echelons?

OK, then you answer the question...Why do some many people say it is so bad?  If this system is working, then why so many complaints?

Listen, this was just a proposal.  A thought that came to me.  Its based on an existing methodology at the Cadet Level that I have seen work in Texas and works in most Wings.  

If you want, I'll withdraw the proposal!

[BillB]

The idea of the Squadron CC taking an idea, suggestion or proposal to higher Heqaduarters is fine...on paper. But there are to many Squadron CC that are afraid to take an idea up the chain of command. Or don't want to make waves, or are just marking time until the year is up and they can get promoted. When you also consider a Group CC on an ego trip because HE'S the Group CC, or another that may be ineffective, the idea of a seperate chain of command for the ideas that should go up the blocked chain makes sense. Often a Squadron or Group CC doesn't carry an idea forward because they don't understand the problem or more often because it might mean more work. So a Senior CAC makes sense for some Wings, but not all.

[ZigZag911]

I think you'll get more done with informal networking and discussion, particularly  among specialty counterparts at the various levels (the 'staff coordination network').

If there is an Air Force approach to this problem (especially one that works!), we ought to find out what it is and discuss if and how it can be adapted for CAP.