This one smells to high heaven boys and girls

[dwb]

Internal e-mails are FOUO and should be labeled as such.

I'm not sure all internal E-mails are FOUO...

[lordmonar]

Why was it necessary to write this press release? Why not just send out a memo to subordinate unit commanders to make them aware of the situation? The members in question were not Corporate officers and were not paid employees of the government. They were volunteers. Volunteers who may have (or may not have, we don't know exactly) made mistakes. That's a reason to terminate membership, it's not a reason to discredit them as people. Such actions are VENGEANCE, not public information. The public's trust wasn't breached here and if it was, the Wing CC should be the one written about because HE/SHE is in command and HE/SHE is responsible for people under his/her command.

I don't know why this specific new release was made....but who does know......there are a lot of people including the first poster who automatically assumed it was for relatiation or kicking a man when he is down.   I am only arguing from the point of view that there MAY be good reason to make a public announcement.   The individuals in this case may not be Corporate Officers...but they most certainly where people who affect CAP's good name and were in positions of public trust...as ICs and a squadron commander.  We assume VENGEANCE because the orginal poster...and that is all.  We have zero details about this case.   

Sure we should protect the reputations of our members and ex-members.  But there are some cases where we may need to protect CAP's reputation as well.

Like I said several times.....if this is a bogus 2b and if this is a vengance/false report...by all means the members need to seek redress to the full extend of the regulations and laws. 

If it's okay to write stuff in the press about former members, then why not okay about current members? If it's okay to write about mistakes of senior members, then what's stopping you about discrediting cadets? There's no law against this if it's true, sure, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

But I do write up stuff about current members and cadets all the time.  When they screw up I let them know and I let those whe need to know in on the conversation.

Sure...if there was no need to tell everyone...then we should correct the situation.....but sometimes there is in fact a need for the general members and sometimes the general public to know that we terminated a member and why we did so.

What should have stopped them from doing this?  CAP core values, that's what.

That works both ways....core valuse sometimes compells us to inform the world.

[Eclipse]

Have you done the OPSEC course? Internal e-mails are FOUO and should be labeled as such.

Internals emails are FOUO only when specifically labeled as such.

There's plenty of internal communication which has no expectation of confidentiality.

[Short Field]

If you terminate a member's membership for cause, then you owe it to the membership to let them know the basis for the termination.  If the person had one too may DUIs and it serves no useful purpose, then you don't need to tell everyone.  But if one of your MPs runs out of fuel and puts the airplane down off-airport, you don't keep it a secret that he is permanently grounded or has his membership terminated.  You let everyone know what happened in the hopes that bad example and the results will prevent future incidents.  If it causes a former or current member embarrassment, too bad.  I had my RM squadron commander fired during a major exercise because he was DUI in a restricted area on the parking ramp.  Everyone was briefed on exactly why he was fired and he had already outprocessed our home base when we returned.  The point - don't drink and drive on base - especially around the aircraft.

You do need to use common sense.  If a member skids a airplane tire and ruins it, then lies to avoid paying for the tire, he deserves to pay for the tire and lose his flying privileges for a while.  You do need to tell the membership the facts of the incident but it serves no useful purpose to name names.

Just FYI, termination of a member is not covered by OPSEC.  if it is posted on a website, it is not FOUO information.  OPSEC training covers some very specific things that are FOUO.  I have yet to get an email marked FOUO that is really FOUO.           

[desertengineer1]

I don't know why this specific new release was made....but who does know......there are a lot of people including the first poster who automatically assumed it was for relatiation or kicking a man when he is down.   I am only arguing from the point of view that there MAY be good reason to make a public announcement.   ]

That works both ways....core valuse sometimes compells us to inform the world.

There was NO reason for that release to be transmitted - none.  We are not AIG.  We are CAP.  We are SUPPOSED to hold ourselves accountable to a higher standard - to take the high road.  That does NOT include announcing firings of volunteer members related to "incidents". 

Not knowing a single detail of the situtaion, I'm still aghast that someone did it.  Core values?  Yeah, just like the wingman concept.  We do a lot of talk, but that's about it...

Disgusting...

[Short Field]

I still don't know if it was a true press release or just used that format for posting on the wing's web site.  Did the wing PAO send it to the news media?

I will agree that using the member's names was not needed.  Still, annoucing to the membership that two ICs had their membership terminated due to violating policy and safety rules is a good thing to do.  They failed in not providing the details of which policy and safety rules were violated.

I fail to see where this violates core values:

--    INTEGRITY: THE VERY FIBER OF ALL CORE VALUES; WITHOUT IT ALL
OTHER CORE VALUES CANNOT PREVAIL. INTEGRITY IS THE CORNERSTONE
FOR ALL THAT IS MORAL AND JUST IN OUR SOCIETY, EMBRACING ATTRIBUTES
SUCH AS COURAGE, RESPONSIBILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, JUSTICE,
OPENNESS, SELF-RESPECT, AND HUMILITY. CAP MEMBERS MUST PRACTICE
THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF SELF-DISCIPLINE.

VOLUNTEER SERVICE: THE VERY ESSENCE OF CIVIL AIR PATROL'S
SERVICE TO HUMANITY. THIS CORE VALUE IMPLIES A COMMITMENT ON THE
PART OF ALL CAP MEMBERS TO PLACE THE ORGANIZATION'S PURPOSES
FIRST AND FOREMOST. THIS PROCESS BEGINS WITH THE MEMBER'S
AGREEMENT TO OBEY THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF CAP AND THE U.S.
AIR FORCE.
EXCELLENCE:

[BuckeyeDEJ]

I still don't know if it was a true press release or just used that format for posting on the wing's web site.  Did the wing PAO send it to the news media?

If that release was really just a template for future stories, it's an error that should cost a PA his position, at least. That's irresponsible. People lose their jobs for stuff like that.

While it's nice to have openness in CAP as well as in society, we have to realize that even the accused have human dignity... and this isn't even a criminal action, just (allegedly) carelessness. If I were the PA in this situation, I would have advised the wing commander not to use the names for external purposes, and *maybe* not even internally except on a need-to-know basis.

[Short Field]

^^^ Agreed.  First of all, this was totally irrelevant  to the world at large.  I ran a quick Google search and the only place I found anything about this was CAPTALK.  Non-CAP people just don't care.  Second, not identifying by name the people being removed is fine and probably in the best interests of everyone involved including CAP.  Third, we do need to announce to the membership that two ICs were removed for cause and then spell out the cause.  CAP does need transparency. 

[Short Field]

On a personal note - I am a IC and I sure want to know what got them fired and their membership terminated so I don't ever come close to doing the same thing.

[lordmonar]

From what I understand...it was posted on the wing web site.....I don't know if was "released" to any new media...i.e. bulked E-mailed to local news, AP, CNN...but it had the standard new format CAP uses in its internal CAP NEW Online news stories.

I agree with Short Field...that if the message was supposed to go out to INWG members on what happens if you violate safety standards they did not go far enough in the details so that they could actually learn what not to do.

As for not sending out anything, like desertengineer suggests, I whole heartedly disagree.  We should hold ourselves to the higher standard of being a completely transparent organisation.

We build public trust in our abilities by being open and honest about our screw ups.....if these guys were in fact screw up....even if we quietly terminated these guys, if our state customers were the ones complaining, then there would be accusations of cover ups.

If you doubt this....let me us the Catholic Church as an example.  For years they were dealing with their screw ups quietly, transfering somes, terminating others....but when the bubble broke it made them look worse then they really were.

That is my feelings for cases like these.

Assuming all the I's are dotted and the T's crossed....that we have a good investigation with solid evidence of wrong doing....then I see no reason why we should not report out in the open everything that needs to be said.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

From what I understand...it was posted on the wing web site.....I don't know if was "released" to any new media...i.e. bulked E-mailed to local news, AP, CNN...but it had the standard new format CAP uses in its internal CAP NEW Online news stories.

So it was released for public consumption, regardless of whether anyone picked it up.

I agree with Short Field...that if the message was supposed to go out to INWG members on what happens if you violate safety standards they did not go far enough in the details so that they could actually learn what not to do.

I agree that whatever lessons were learned should be passed along to others in CAP. But a release posted on a portal that's supposed to help welcome people to CAP isn't the way to do it.

I would like to know what procedural discrepancies were not followed that led to this, and if there was any previous warning/admonishment/etc. that, if heeded, would not have led to membership termination.

[lordmonar]

And that goes back to my orginal point...that commanders do have the right to publish the details of incidents/investigations/personnel actions....if the situations call for it.

[Eclipse]

And that goes back to my orginal point...that commanders do have the right to publish the details of incidents/investigations/personnel actions....if the situations call for it.

I agree 100%, except that there isn't a single situation that would call for or justify it.

[Short Field]

Transparency.   You don't want people thinking the only reason you got rid of a really great guy that everyone loved was because you were jealous of how well people thought of him, and he was just trying to keep the organization on the up and up and you couldn't stand it.  Because we all know that could be the only reason you fired him.  Especially since his friends are all quickly passing the word that he did nothing wrong.  :angel:

[lordmonar]

I can think of 4-5 situtations discussed right here on this board over the last 4 years or so...that should have been announced with an offical press release.

It would have solved a lot of speculation and back stabbing.

[afgeo4]

Can we all agree that the best thing that should have been done was to send memo e-mails to CAP membership and membership only notifying of the status of the former members followed up by a memo from NHQ reminding us of proper procedures and of what not to do without specific mentioning of names or situations?

Can we all agree that this info probably shouldn't have been posted on a public website?

If we can, let's learn our lesson and not do it ourselves. I think that's the best thing that can come out of this. Knowing what impact such actions have on the membership and what impact they can have on the public's view of us.

...and let's hope we find out what happened so we can avoid that trap in the future.

[FlexCoder]

This proves exactly what I posted earlier, early release of a termination only increases rumors & the "he said, she said" talk.   We don't know who is guilty, we weren't there or involved in the situation.    The blame game has got to stop.   The Indiana Wing Commander authorized the release regardless of who wrote it.    The important concept is the fact that the termination release was publicly announced too quickly & poorly written.   And the release did not even mention the appeals process and that National had the final decision nor did it state there was an formal investigation, only a "review".   How is it even possible to have a clear understanding of what happened with only a "review" and not a full investigation.      Safety violations are top priority but this termination "review" was handled very badly & unprofessional.   For anyone who wants to command, this is a great lesson to learn from and not repeat.

CAP legalities are handled different than our current American court system.  National IG has a lot of great legal resources and a pool of lawyers to handle sensitive situations such as this from getting way out of hand.   Final judgment does not rest solely with the Wing Commander too.     It is very important that leaders in CAP handle delicate matters very carefully and get National IG advice when necessary.   

[heliodoc]

^^^  It got pretty out of hand here

With a shortage of IC's in some States, the games of CAP jealousy really needs to stop.

If CAP is to"integrate" and wants a desire to become a responder agency other than SEARCH and wnats to recieve more Federal funding thru DHS and others ....


It had better get it together and perform AAR's after each incident and IMPROVE.  We can all pat each other other on the back and say well done after each SAR and handing out MRE's at an incident

BUT

WE (CAP) still grill our members on a public forum.  CAP legalities?? great!!  May be the organization needs a kick in the fourth point of contact from Daddy AF. This outfit needs help as far as professionalism and boy it shows on this forum.  If there are problems this is not the place for it to be settled

This organization had better grow up after 64 years  "cuz I would not want PETTY CAP politics on my incident

[desertengineer1]

Ya know...  While researching something entirely different, I came across this:

CAP REGULATION 110-1 (E)

a. CAP Internet Operation. Any activity operated or conducted through the Internet if: 1) such operations make use of a domain name registered or assigned to Civil Air Patrol, including, but not limited to, CAP.GOV or CAPNHQ.GOV or 2) use is made of the name "Civil Air Patrol" or its insignia, copyrights, emblems and badges, descriptive or designating marks and words used in carrying out its program which name and marks are specifically owned by Civil Air Patrol pursuant to 36 United States Code § 206.

And...

d. Prohibited CAP Internet Operations. The following acts shall be prohibited in CAP internet operations: 1) There shall be no use or distribution of any obscene, indecent, or offensive language or material that is defamatory, abusive, harassing, disrespectful or hateful. 2) There shall be no: a) use or distribution of junk mail, b) unauthorized advertising, c) communication that invades anyone's privacy, or encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offense or gives rise to civil liability or that otherwise violates any local, state, national or international law or regulation, d) communication that contains false statements about Civil Air Patrol or Civil Air Patrol employees or members., e) publication or distribution of any information that violates any copyright, trade name or trademark.

Maybe it's just me, but this is pretty straight foreward with respect to the "Press Release" being a no no.

[Short Field]

According to that, then anything posted announcing new assignments or qualifications is also an invasion of privacy.......