Proposal 1: CAP Officer Advisory Councils

[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.