letter of non endorsement for New FL Wing Commander

[RiverAux]

I know of at least one recent Wing commander selection process where comments about potential candidates were solicited by the region commander.  While making negative comments about anyone is always difficult to pull off, it can be done in a way that can be useful to those making the decision.  However, something like the original post of this thread would probably be ignored. 

[Cherokeepilot]

In all this questioning of the Wing CC selection process, we need to start to address one question.  "Who represents the dues paying members of the CAP?" 

This question has been very quietly addressed by some folks at Maxwell in the past.  And, this issue has no simple answer.  The lowest level corporate officer is the Wing CC who is appointed by the Regional CC who is appointed by the Nat CC, all of whom elect the Nat CC.  There is supposed to be adult supervision by the USAF with USAF officers, enlisted, employees who answer to various levels of the USAF and USAF Sec.  There is a paid support and supervision staff for CAP, a major percentage who are not mbrs of CAP.  Still the question remains as to who represents the dues paying members of CAP?

This is not a barn burner of an issue, but it is one which will have to be addressed someday in some open legal and/or political arena. 
73s

[JeffDG]

In all this questioning of the Wing CC selection process, we need to start to address one question.  "Who represents the dues paying members of the CAP?" 

This question has been very quietly addressed by some folks at Maxwell in the past.  And, this issue has no simple answer.  The lowest level corporate officer is the Wing CC who is appointed by the Regional CC who is appointed by the Nat CC, all of whom elect the Nat CC.  There is supposed to be adult supervision by the USAF with USAF officers, enlisted, employees who answer to various levels of the USAF and USAF Sec.  There is a paid support and supervision staff for CAP, a major percentage who are not mbrs of CAP.  Still the question remains as to who represents the dues paying members of CAP?

This is not a barn burner of an issue, but it is one which will have to be addressed someday in some open legal and/or political arena. 
73s

There's actually a somewhat active discussion of this very subject going on:

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=11808.100

[Ned]

Still the question remains as to who represents the dues paying members of CAP?

What do you mean here?

In one sense, of course, all commanders "represent" the membership because commanders are responsible for the welfare of the members in their units, and act on the members' behalf.

Our regulations serve to protect our members - by providing specific protections as well as fairly clear guidelines for conduct by the members and leadership.  We even have a whistle-blower protection regulation.

We also have an active and independent IG system that serves to protect members from abuses by commanders, as well as the independent MARB for the most serious cases involving membership terminations, etc.  The IG system appears to work very well, at least for matters not involving misconduct by corporate officers.

At the very top is the Board of Governors, charged with ensuring the well being of CAP and our relationships with our customers and stakeholders.  The Governors have acted - and will act in the future if necessary - to correct misbehavior by senior CAP officials.

We do not have any sort of "union - like" protections, nor an independent ombudsman program.  Perhaps these are ideas worth reviewing as part of the upcoming governance study.

What sort of "representation" or influence do you think is necessary for the membership beyond the existing protections?

Ned Lee

[BillB]

Ned I disagree. Send in a whistleblower complaint and it's ignored by Wing. In Florida the IG sysyem has been broken since a guy named Pineda was Wing King. Send in appeal to the MARB after the 60 days per reg and the Chair bounces it back even though he has the authority to waive the 60 day requirement. But if a corporate officer is involved at any point, CAP supports the corporate officer, right or wrong, rather than the members.

[Ned]

Ned I disagree. [ . . .] But if a corporate officer is involved at any point, CAP supports the corporate officer, right or wrong, rather than the members.

1.  I was mostly asking a question about "representation."

2.  I did point out that historically the system has not worked as well as it should for allegations of misconduct by corporate officers.  So, I'm not sure if we really disagree or not.

[Major Lord]

Ned,

I suggest establishment of a "recall", which would allow some pre-determined ratio of voting members to remove a Corporate Officer. The other option would be a simple petition, but I think that would be problematic.

Major Lord

[Ned]

Ned,

I suggest establishment of a "recall", which would allow some predetermined ratio of voting members to remove a Corporate Officer. The other option would be a simple petition, but I think that would be problematic.

Major Lord

I assume you mean a percentage of the rank-and-file members voting to recall, rather than a percentage of NB members voting to remove a fellow NB member.

While not a bad concept, the devil will be in the details and any vagueness or sloppiness in drafting could lead to no end of mischief.

As it is, our senior leadership is subject to literally dozens of IG complaints each year by disgruntled members.  Some are clearly frivolous, some appear to have merit.  It is hard to sort the wheat from the chaff, but that is exactly what we have a professional IG staff to do.  In the meantime, a significant percentage of our senior leaders' time is spent responding to IG and other complaints.  Time that could otherwise be spent on CAP business.

In most recall procedures in local governments, there is no requirement for any "reality check" of the complaint - as long as a certain number of signatures are attached, it goes on the ballot.  This has led to abuses in the past.

Once again, all of this is good input and definitely worth serious consideration as we look to rework our governance.

[lordmonar]

Maybe I've just spent too much time in the military.

No one ever asked directly my opinion of any of my commanders or supervisors.

We periodicaly had "climate surveys" where you could give feed back on your leaders.....but no one ever asked me....."we are thinking of putting Cols X, Y, Z in command of the squadron/group/wing....and would like comments from the field".

I think CAP has enough problems with just plain GOB politics........making our leadership positions all political would make the situaiton even worse....YMMV.

[Cherokeepilot]

Gentlemen..........
I'm not stating that Commander slots are a popularity contest.  However, CAP will have to develop a means of representing the dues paying members.  I've seen other Congressional Chartered Corporations which were slapped up the side of their heads and compelled to provide for their dues paying members by courts and Congressional committees. 

At present there is no one in either the charter of CAP nor the national corporate structure who represents the basic dues paying member.  CAP will have to figure it out or the structure along with the money machine from Congress will be changed.  And that change may or may not be beneficial to CAP and/or CAP Membership.

73s

[Ned]

Gentlemen..........
I'm not stating that Commander slots are a popularity contest.  However, CAP will have to develop a means of representing the dues paying members.  I've seen other Congressional Chartered Corporations which were slapped up the side of their heads and compelled to provide for their dues paying members by courts and Congressional committees. 

At present there is no one in either the charter of CAP nor the national corporate structure who represents the basic dues paying member.  CAP will have to figure it out or the structure along with the money machine from Congress will be changed.  And that change may or may not be beneficial to CAP and/or CAP Membership.

73s

May I gently repeat my request to help me understand by what you mean by "represent the members?"

Also,  I am genuinely interested in specifically which organizations you are refering to when you mentioned actions/investigations by Congress and the Courts.  I have been doing quite a bit of research into other Congressionally chartered corporations, and have not come across any litigation or records of Congressional hearings.  I would really, really like to find documents and reports related to this.

Ned Lee

[davidsinn]

May I gently repeat my request to help me understand by what you mean by "represent the members?"

I can only speak for myself when I say that the members, the actual boots on the ground, doing the job, paying money, giving time, members; Have little to no say in where the organization as a whole is headed. I know that I'm about fed up with the administrative BS that keeps getting shoved down our throats(annual reports that no one reads, Intro to safety that everyone needs to take, all the safety stand down crap) when all I want to do is make sure my unit works. Do we really need to spend $2m a year on new aircraft(why not refurb older ones?) when we have cadets that can't afford uniforms? This organization would be nothing without the 60k members doing the job everyday yet we have no say in how policy is set. I don't think we should elect our commanders at any level. I do think that the NB should instead be elected by the membership and they elect the Nat/CC who appoints the region CCs who appoint the wing CCs etc.

[Major Carrales]

Ned,

I suggest establishment of a "recall", which would allow some pre-determined ratio of voting members to remove a Corporate Officer. The other option would be a simple petition, but I think that would be problematic.

Major Lord

Can't agree...The whole thing would be problematic.  What body oversees the "recall?"  What stops vexatious types from calling for a "recall" for any reason?  What happens when a "recall" is successful?  If recalls, why not a "referendum" on unpopular regulations or "nullification" of regulations where Wings feel the regs "don't represent the membership?"

I can't understand what compels many here to try to add element to CAP that distract from the missions.  These ideas of elections and recalls and all the rest of these idea will create many more problems that I believe they will solve.

[Major Lord]

The beauty of a recall ballot ( and yes Ned, you understood correctly that I meant the general membership in the "jurisdiction") is that it first needs to be qualified by a petition of sufficient numbers to qualify. This would take quite a bit of time, and prevent rash action. It would also serve to provide notice to our National body as a de facto vote of "No confidence" and might get them to clean up their messes without having to go through the entire recall process. (note, see Pineda, Antony) As Ned also pointed out, it would be tricky to administer and operate, and the administration with control would have to be outside the jurisdiction where they would be subject to political retaliation ( See Glassgow, Rex) I suggest that only members in good standing would have the authority to initiate a recall petition, to avoid vexatious litigants. (see, Hayden, Ray) It could get ugly, but are we afraid to do the right thing because its too difficult? ( see, why did I have to ask that question?)

Major Lord

[bosshawk]

Major Lord: why do you insist on asking those retorical questions?

Previous poster: who do you think makes up the NB?  In my vague recollections, it is made up of the
Wing Commanders and Region Commanders.  They are, by and large, the major problem in this organization.  Someone will ask me to define "major problem".  Don't bother, because I won't define it.

[Major Lord]

Major Lord: why do you insist on asking those retorical questions?

Previous poster: who do you think makes up the NB?  In my vague recollections, it is made up of the
Wing Commanders and Region Commanders.  They are, by and large, the major problem in this organization.  Someone will ask me to define "major problem".  Don't bother, because I won't define it.

Dude! You asked me a rhetorical question! That's the cool thing about Irony; Its just so darn ironical!

Major Lord

[JeffDG]

Major Lord: why do you insist on asking those retorical questions?

Previous poster: who do you think makes up the NB?  In my vague recollections, it is made up of the
Wing Commanders and Region Commanders.  They are, by and large, the major problem in this organization.  Someone will ask me to define "major problem".  Don't bother, because I won't define it.

In the other thread I linked, I've asked the question:  Why does the NB have to be made up of Wing Commanders?  Nobody has yet given a reason for that.

IMHO, the NB could easily be translated into a an elected policy-making body for the volunteer side of the organization, with the BoG sitting over both them and the paid side.  Each Wing would select an NB member, separate and apart from their Wing Commander (in fact, I think prohibiting Wing Commander's election to the NB would be in order).  Ultimately, the NB would select the CAP/CC and CAP/CV, and the remainder of the Chain of Command would work as present, with CAP/CC appointing Region/CCs and Region CCs appointing Wing/CCs.

Wing and Region Commanders wold still be "Corporate Officers" and direct the day-to-day operations of the organization, much like corporate VPs run things day-to-day in most companies.  Companies don't insist on a Board of Directors consisting of Corporate VPs.  Policy setting should be separated from day-to-day ops.

[Persona non grata]

So we would end up having an executive body and a legislative body??   Yeah, I have seen how that one turned out before.

[JeffDG]

So we would end up having an executive body and a legislative body??   Yeah, I have seen how that one turned out before.

No, you would have a policy making body, accountable to the members of the organization, and then you would have people who run the day-to-day operations...it's how 99% of organizations operate.

Businesses have a Board of Directors, accountable to the shareholders of the company, that sets policy.  That Board selects the CEO and sometimes a few others.  Then the CEO selects the remainder of the executive team, etc.  The Board doesn't say to the CEO "You need to do this project!".  They say "Here are our priorities for the organization, now go make it happen."

[Major Carrales]

The beauty of a recall ballot ( and yes Ned, you understood correctly that I meant the general membership in the "jurisdiction") is that it first needs to be qualified by a petition of sufficient numbers to qualify. This would take quite a bit of time, and prevent rash action. It would also serve to provide notice to our National body as a de facto vote of "No confidence" and might get them to clean up their messes without having to go through the entire recall process. (note, see Pineda, Antony) As Ned also pointed out, it would be tricky to administer and operate, and the administration with control would have to be outside the jurisdiction where they would be subject to political retaliation ( See Glassgow, Rex) I suggest that only members in good standing would have the authority to initiate a recall petition, to avoid vexatious litigants. (see, Hayden, Ray) It could get ugly, but are we afraid to do the right thing because its too difficult? ( see, why did I have to ask that question?)

Major Lord

During the so-called "Pineda Affair," the only member of my unit who knew anything of what was going on was me, via CAPTALK and CAPBLOG.  No one else in my unit knew anything about it, nor cared.  Simply put, only the CAP "busy-bodies" (myself included) were in the know. 

Most "squadron level" people are concerned with getting their job done, maintaining the aircraft, mentoring cadets and maintaining those relationship that keep the unit in the facility.  The goings on in distance Wing and Regions and, even at Maxwell, were not of any priority.

How would these "recalls," "referendums" and "no confidence votes" come to matter to people?  I think it would be seen as I see it...political machinations.  I would not waste precious meeting time going over "rumor mills" and filling in unit members of the "agenda of the week."


Other questions:
What is a "member in good standing?" 

What "outside" agency is going to run and monitor these recalls?  (Committees of vigilance, CAP Gestapo, a "shadow" organization within CAP answerable to no one?)

It would be more than "ugly" it would be "putting the cart before the horse."  Ours is to do the work of out missions...not have to spend energy and resources furthering agenda after agenda.

I am glad none of this will come to pass.  And if it does, I will be there to say "I told you so" as people begin the next round of "HOW DO WE FIX THE FIXES!"