June BoG meeting

[RiverAux]

Anyone got a bootleg copy of the agenda? 

[Ned]

Well, no, not a bootleg copy. 

[RiverAux]

An official copy would be satisfactory 

[bosshawk]

Uniforms, perhaps?

[JC004]

OK, folks - here is the plan (Ned, don't read this): we get the copy, then slip an agenda item on to address the issue of the insane governing structure (BoG, NB, NEC, volunteer leaders, NHQ staff), then quietly slip the revised agenda into their things.  This should help get things on a more clear, cohesive path.

[Ned]

Couple things.  First, I'll check and see why the agenda was not publicly released and advise.  It could be an oversight, or maybe it is a policy of some sort.  I know the minutes should be (and are) public records, but I'm less sure about agendas.  My bias is toward releasing them, but I'm the new guy, so let me check.

Second, the agenda looks pretty routine - review of budgets, financial investment strategies, etc.  And governance issues are definately in the mix.

And no uniform items, I promise.

Cheers.

[JC004]

...
And governance issues are definately in the mix.

And no uniform items, I promise.
...

That sounds...surprisingly refreshing for a CAP governing body meeting.

There has been talk on here and off about governance issues for quite some time now.  It particularly came to light after the whole TP thing.  Not even TP knew who was really in charge of the organization apparently.  Many of us discuss this on the forum, on PM, by e-mail, and offline.  I and others think that it's an absolutely critical issue to address in order for the organization to move forward as one.

It seems nobody on the National Board (referred to by some as the "National Uniform Committee") never even took an interest in the governance issues until the NEC did their thing with the TPU.  Suddenly, there was all this backlash from the Wing Commanders over what the NEC could decide and that showed in the agenda for the NB meeting.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Uniforms, perhaps?

IF there is, it should be focussed on being allowed to retain the CSU with General Courter's modifications.

However, I think that the brass is too scared of its own shadow on anything to do with the U word to consider such a thing.

One thing I think should be adopted is a mandatory picture ID.

[Mustang]

The National Board needs to be dissolved IMHO. 

[JC004]

They SHOULD be afraid to discuss uniforms.  They have to stop it.  It is costly.  I've talked to members from EVERY part of the country and I know that the terms like "Come And Pay" are pretty universally known and used.  Volunteer burden problem.  Morale problem.  RETENTION PROBLEM.  BIG PROBLEM.


I don't remember the BoG discussing uniforms before, but they may have.  It seems to me the BoG should focus more on issues of governance and strategic planning at this time and in general.  We've got all these components with a say in what we do - Air Force (CAP-USAF), BoG, National Board, National Executive Committee, National Headquarters.  NHQ isn't a governing body, but without question decides things that impact us and does things like create the Triangle Thingy which impact things like our marketing and branding.

Too many cooks in the kitchen - a major obstacle in moving forward IMO and in the opinion of others that I've spoken to on this.   

[FW]

The usual agenda for the BoG meetings are formatted as such,
Opening
National Commander's and Executive Director's report
Lunch
Audit Committee's report
New Business
Closed Session
Closing

Most of the meeting will be focused on "new business".  Word on the street is the possible decision to have an outside management group study our governance and recommend changes.

[Cecil DP]

The Governance of CAP is incestuous: NB elects the Commander and Vice Commander, who appoints the NEC, which appoints the Wing Commanders, who in turn elect the National Commander and Vice. When someone asks the wrong question or doesn't vote with the party who appointed them, they can become ex-board members. This situation  has existed from well before TP was National Commander and can still be seen today.

[Earhart1971]

Sounds like a very unusual way to steer a ship, without rudder, by Committee, Boards, Appointed and the lucky people on salaries at National embedded forever.

[bosshawk]

Where is it mentioned that this ship is steered?  More like wallowing in the waves.

[Ned]

The meeting is over.  A day and a half of briefings and discussion.  While it was informative, nothing very dramatic occurred.  We ha a quorum and conducted business.  We had a briefing from the outside auditors and approved the budget.  We received reports from the national staff on things like safety, current missions, membership issues, MARB cases, the NHQ renovation, etc.

No fireworks, no drama, no uniform issues.  Just the business of running the corporation.

Questions?

[Cecil DP]

The meeting is over.  A day and a half of briefings and discussion.  While it was informative, nothing very dramatic occurred.  We ha a quorum and conducted business.  We had a briefing from the outside auditors and approved the budget.  We received reports from the national staff on things like safety, current missions, membership issues, MARB cases, the NHQ renovation, etc.

No fireworks, no drama, no uniform issues.  Just the business of running the corporation.

Questions?

Are we going to have to wait until after the next BOG meeting for the minutes to be posted?

[JC004]

...
No fireworks, no drama, no uniform issues.  Just the business of running the corporation.

Questions?

Yes.  Is it possible to have that new format at the NB meetings?   

[NCRblues]

Another meeting where the volunteering, dues paying, general membership was not told of the agenda or of the "reports" that were to be made, and even after the meeting is over, still do not know what happened, or is happening. Nothing like a semi closed door, "open meeting" to make us lowlife volunteers that do the work in this organization Happy about the way it is run. Great job leadership, cant wait till the next one!  (sarcasm)

[Earhart1971]

Where is it mentioned that this ship is steered?  More like wallowing in the waves.

Soap Box Mode!

I agree, no vision, no goals.  I know HQ listed "objectives" I am lost on creating a "Brand" how is that going to happen?  CAP Membership walking the streets with flyers?  We cannot continue with dependence on Senior Members that have to devote 20 hours a week or more to CAP Activities and PRing CAP.

You cannot create a "Brand" on AIR and no MONEY! We are the third largest Command in the Air Force just behind AETC. We are funded on an organization crushing budget. We need a plan here folks !

I have run into LCols in the Air Force that never heard of CAP. Now that is INVISIBILITY!

When I was a Cadet we did have National Ads featuring actors like Cliff Robertson. The CAP HQ was Ellington Air Force Base back then circa 1968ish. Fla Wing had 4000 Cadets!

[Ned]

Re Minutes.  I don't know when they will be available, as you probably know the minutes are public by law and past minutes of the BoG, NEC, and NB are available on the website.  I'm just not sure of the timing of the release.

I agree that minutes and agendas should be generally available as soon as possible.

Concerning publicity, this topic was not agendized or addressed at this meeting.  As a personal note, I don't think much has changed over the last 40 years or so that I have been in the organization - IOW, we have always had a public awareness issue.  Having said that, we are still incredibly successful at accomplishing or missions.  Our cadet membership is up significantly, we are performing more AF-assigned missions than ever.  Our relationship with the AF is sounded than I can remember it being in a long time.

Branding is cerainly important - and we have some incredibly well qualified volunteers on the national staff working that issue.

Anything else?

[JC004]

You mentioned governance issues being "in the mix."  Did anything come of that?  It is certainly not something that is going to be wrapped up in a meeting or even a handful of meetings (most likely), but I think a lot of us would like to know if there is forward movement in that area.

How the organization is governed is central to everything moving forward, so I most certainly hope we are addressing this insane structure as it is now.  This is clearly the BoG's area legally (although it would certainly help if the other bodies were moving in this area).  Only the BoG can modify the Constitution and Bylaws, right?  (I haven't looked at them in a while)

[Ned]

You're correct that only the BoG can change the C&Bl.

And I think it is safe to say that the consensus (at least here on CT) is that we need to do something about it.  The CAP electoral culture has tended towards  . . . (looking for some good words here) . . . cliqueish, personal, and negative over the last couple of decades.

The first thing any of our bodies needs to do is carefully look at alternative governance models, evaluate them carefully, and if change is warranted, then manage the transition.  Not an easy task for an organization with 60,000 members and an annual budget in the tens of millions.

At this point everybody (and I mean seemingly everybody) has their own idea of exactly "what's wrong" and how to "fix it."  And a lot of the ideas I have heard sound reasonable to my lawyer brain.  But we need to be as sure as we can be before making any changes to the current model.  (Which, I think most people will agree that even if it is flawed, has still allowed the corporation to accomplish our missions.) 

The NB has two fairly high-level committees actively working the issues.  And many of our senior leaders are highly experienced in corporate governance issues themselves, and have their own experience and wisdom to share.

So, I guess this is the long way of saying that a whole lot of good folks are working the governance issue.  Ultimately, if I had to guess, I suspect we will see some sort of change sooner than later.  But nothing will happen until it has been thoroughly vetted and reviewed by the BoG.

And - I suspect - endlessly and vigorously debated here.   

[BillB]

Earhart 1971

You are incorrect on the number of cadets in 1968 in Florida Wing. But only off by about 100. There were 3890 cadets in 68. But enough that it required two summer encampments from 64 to 69.

[bosshawk]

Ned: thanks for your reporting on the recent BoG meeting.  It seems to me that it is the first time in my 18 years that anyone on the Board has bothered to tell the trench soldiers what went on at the meeting.  My real sense is that the Board, the NB, NEC and those at Region have long adopted a mantra of "keep it secret, then they can't complain".

There is no doubt in my semi-military mind that running an organization as large and as diverse as CAP is no walk in the park.  However, open and frank communications go a long way toward heading off complaints.

[lordmonar]

Another meeting where the volunteering, dues paying, general membership was not told of the agenda or of the "reports" that were to be made, and even after the meeting is over, still do not know what happened, or is happening. Nothing like a semi closed door, "open meeting" to make us lowlife volunteers that do the work in this organization Happy about the way it is run. Great job leadership, cant wait till the next one!  (sarcasm)

No different then the BSA, Girl Scouts or the Red Cross and may other volunteer dues paying organisation.

Also no different then may other corporations and definatly not any different then the U.S. Military.

[NCRblues]

^ good thing we are not any of those organizations, but Lordmonar, i know for a fact, those organizations want open discussions, and push their general memberhip to submit ideas.

Now you will give me this line " if you have ideas send them up your chain of command", and lets be honest with each other here shall we? That wont get those ideas anywhere important.

I realize were not the military, i served on AD, open and frank discussion dose not work well with national defense and homeland security, but CAP cant post the BOG meeting agenda beforehand? give me a break 

*i feel my secret squirrel ring pulsing with energy*

[Ned]

  My real sense is that the Board, the NB, NEC and those at Region have long adopted a mantra of "keep it secret, then they can't complain".

Well, we do stream the NB and NEC meetings.  You really can't get much more public than that.

But there is certainly some truth in what you say.  Sometimes, a leader publicly discussing the topic can change the process and perhaps the outcome in a negative way.

Example:  You are not going to hear me discuss any specific governance proposals that we discuss in executive session.  The reason is fairly simple.  Essentially by definition, anytime you change the governance model, somebody is going to perceive the change as a "loss" and someone is going to see it as a "win."  And folks who think they are going to lose something - even just prestige or a badge or whatever - are going to being "politicking" against any such proposed change, even if it was only mentioned in passing as a possiblity.

Particularly in this organization. 

And those kinds of spin and politics can change the discussion dramatically, and not necessarily in a good way.

So while I think the default should always be toward openness and transparency, there is a time and place for candid discussions not in the public forum.

Good leaders should be able to distinguish between the situations that call for openness and the rare situations that call for privacy and candor.  Hopefully the membership will understand and approve.

We'll see.

[bosshawk]

Ned: I certainly concur that there is a time and a place for all discussions: some in confidence and some in the open.  My perception has been for some time that there is a decided preference for those in leadership positions in CAP to keep things secret, regardless of the subject.  Note that I said "leadership positions", as I perceive very few in those positions who actually possess leadership qualities.

Lets see how things go.

[FW]

That nothing dramatic occurred is a good thing these days.  Of course, though, it seems like the BoG agrees with the "fact" our governance structure needs to be looked at.  Luckily, the performance of our missions has little to do with how CAP is governed (up until now).  Dedicated members at the squadron level don't hold "governance" to be an important part of flying a mission, holding a model rocketry class or, tromping through the mud looking for a lost person.
Governance has more to do with creating the atmosphere to motivate members to get up at 2am consistently, keeping the members members, and, keeping the resources available for the members to do the mission safely and competently; without the corruption that has plagued many other non profits in the past (including CAP).

[a2capt]

BoG ... GoB... Hmm... LOL.

[Earhart1971]

Earhart 1971

You are incorrect on the number of cadets in 1968 in Florida Wing. But only off by about 100. There were 3890 cadets in 68. But enough that it required two summer encampments from 64 to 69.

Figure that Florida now has a population that is way more than 1968 and our Cadet Numbers around around 1600.

We had double encampments in 1970, 70-1 and 70-2. At a weekend Type B Encampment (Turkey Point, FL) we had 700 Cadets on the Ground (was it 1969 or 70?)

[BillB]

Turkey Point Type B was in 70. Col Bob Owen attneded and was the new Wing Com,mander

[Earhart1971]

Turkey Point and MacDill Type Bs that were HUGE! At Turkey Point, they had a guy from NHQ that announced the New Self Paced Cadet Program.

We could get to 4000 again, but it would take the School Program and funding to do it. That's one of my complaints with the Powers that Be. School Program operates on AIR, no money. Dependent on School Districts funding it.

[BillB]

It would help if there was an active Wing Recruiting program.  There hasn't been one since the 1990's. Meaning no direction or support from Wing. No program to provide guidence from National also.

[Earhart1971]

It would help if there was an active Wing Recruiting program.  There hasn't been one since the 1990's. Meaning no direction or support from Wing. No program to provide guidence from National also.

Recruiting is tough. Been to 1200 kid middle schools, we might get 2 or 3. If an elective like Civil Air Patrol is advertised at the same school we get 120 kids that want in, immediately, some with parents that own airplanes.

[Ned]

We could get to 4000 again, but it would take the School Program and funding to do it. That's one of my complaints with the Powers that Be.

Non-concur.  The last time I ran the numbers, comparing Florida's cadet population against US Census figures for the age 10-19 cohort (admittededly an imprecise comparison, but that's the way the census figures break down) showed that something like between .02 and .04% of that age group were cadets.

If you returned to the 4,000 figure, you would still only have about 1%.

That seems achievable.  One out of a hundred in CAP.

Have at it, gentlemen.

[BillB]

Ned

We'll wait for the BoG to give some direction to National Staff.

[lordmonar]

Now you will give me this line " if you have ideas send them up your chain of command", and lets be honest with each other here shall we? That wont get those ideas anywhere important.

I have to say it worked for me.  So it does work....maybe not well but it does.

I realize were not the military, i served on AD, open and frank discussion dose not work well with national defense and homeland security, but CAP cant post the BOG meeting agenda beforehand? give me a break 

*i feel my secret squirrel ring pulsing with energy*

I agree that the BOG, NEC and NB should post their agenda and their minutes in a timely manner.....just to foster open communications.....but that they don't does not necessarily mean that they are trying to be secret squirls....or trying something unethical.....it just means they don't post their agendas.

Heck...I am having a staff meeting with my cadet staff this Saturday and I have not posted an agenda.  Does that make me secret squir?  No...it just means I am too busy and/or lazy to get one out.

Same with the wing staff meetings I have attended.  Posting early helps...but let's keep things in perspective.

[Earhart1971]

Ned what are you Non Concuring about?

I am sure the NB, NHQ and the Committees, can all come up with ideas. What are they?

[davidsinn]

Now you will give me this line " if you have ideas send them up your chain of command", and lets be honest with each other here shall we? That wont get those ideas anywhere important.

I have to say it worked for me.  So it does work....maybe not well but it does.

I realize were not the military, i served on AD, open and frank discussion dose not work well with national defense and homeland security, but CAP cant post the BOG meeting agenda beforehand? give me a break 

*i feel my secret squirrel ring pulsing with energy*

I agree that the BOG, NEC and NB should post their agenda and their minutes in a timely manner.....just to foster open communications.....but that they don't does not necessarily mean that they are trying to be secret squirls....or trying something unethical.....it just means they don't post their agendas.

Heck...I am having a staff meeting with my cadet staff this Saturday and I have not posted an agenda.  Does that make me secret squir?  No...it just means I am too busy and/or lazy to get one out.

Same with the wing staff meetings I have attended.  Posting early helps...but let's keep things in perspective.

We have a paid NHQ staff paid for with tax dollars and members dues. They are not allowed to be lazy. There is no excuse in the 21st century that minutes and agendas can not be posted with in days of a meeting. NHQ expects us to have all of our reports in on time yet they can't do their jobs in a timely manner? Inexcusable.

[NCRblues]

Now you will give me this line " if you have ideas send them up your chain of command", and lets be honest with each other here shall we? That wont get those ideas anywhere important.

I have to say it worked for me.  So it does work....maybe not well but it does.

I realize were not the military, i served on AD, open and frank discussion dose not work well with national defense and homeland security, but CAP cant post the BOG meeting agenda beforehand? give me a break 

*i feel my secret squirrel ring pulsing with energy*

I agree that the BOG, NEC and NB should post their agenda and their minutes in a timely manner.....just to foster open communications.....but that they don't does not necessarily mean that they are trying to be secret squirls....or trying something unethical.....it just means they don't post their agendas.

Heck...I am having a staff meeting with my cadet staff this Saturday and I have not posted an agenda.  Does that make me secret squir?  No...it just means I am too busy and/or lazy to get one out.

Same with the wing staff meetings I have attended.  Posting early helps...but let's keep things in perspective.

If  our "leadership" is overly "busy and/or lazy" to post the agenda of the meeting that affects every single one of us, then it is time for them to step away.

By allowing the "leadership" to have this idea of "oh its ok to not post it, the membership doesn't get upset" it invites the opportunity (its not like they don't have enough ability to do so already)  to try to slip in something unethical, or unwarranted.

Their is no reason that a simple agenda should not be posted, oh lets say, one week before the meeting for the general membership.

What are we paying the people at national for if they cant do this?

It is time to fix the governance model for cap, but let us do it in the open. Let us not be afraid of debate or of change (because sometimes it is a needed thing, like now). Ned, give us some answers..... Where are we going and what are you doing about taking us their??

[Earhart1971]

The Agenda would be interesting to look at maybe, but the bottom line, we can see where we are at by examining our yearly funding from Congress.

We have to fight for status quo every year on the budget, we are FLAT, we are FLAT with a little growth in the Cadet Program, but I think the underlying problem is, we dont have great vision for programs that could get us more money and funding.

Case in point the School Program.  If we open up in a Middle School anywhere in the country, we can have 100 Cadets immediately. That is dramatic. The school program has languished and churned, because CAP has never asked for funds for it. Guess what, other programs get money, that are startups, we are here, we can execute now!
We go to Congress every year with Cadets and Seniors, what happens with that?

[Ned]

OK, here is the agenda, and my rough unofficial notes of what we did.

We convened with me and Generals Hopper (chair), Kehoe, Seigel, Courter, Anderson, & Chitwood.  We had a legal quorum to conduct business.  Mr. Rowland was present as the Secretary.  Also in attendance were various national volunteer staff including Cols Vest (NFO) and Starr (IG).  Corporate Team members included John Salvador and Susan Easter.  CAP-USAF representatives included Col Ward.

1.  We elected a new member of the Audit Committee - that was me.

2.  We approved the minutes of the last meeting.

3.  We elected a new vice chair - Brig Gen Anderson

4.  We received a briefing on the FY11 corporate budget and approved it.  We also received a report directly from our external auditors (a CPA firm) who generally had very good news - we received an unqualified opinion that we are in good shape, with a few minor problems noted and corrections briefed back by National FM staff.  We adopted a new set of guidelines for our investment manager.

5.  We received briefings from Gen Courter and Mr. Rowland on Safety, Membership, Logistics, ORMS, investments, and current missions.

6.  More briefings on various strategic initiatives including narrowband transition, glider program centers of excellence, association management software.  We passed a Diversity Resolution unanimously.

7.  Yet more briefings on financial matters including consolidated aircraft maintenance, Vanguard, line of credit usage.

8.  Briefings on CAP related organizations like the CAP Foundation, Historical Foundation, and the IACEA Planning Conference.

9.  NHQ building renovation brief.

10.  Surrogate Predator brief.

11.  CAP-USAF manning brief.

12.  We had one or more executive sessions where we received some briefings directly from our IG and legal staff.  Typically corporations discuss things in executive session like status of any outstanding litigation, confidential personnel issues, and any proposals for changes in governance.  Without disclosing any confidential information, I did not see any significant issues, indeed it was generally good news all around.  We have some homework to do as we look at potential governance issues.

13.  And we picked the location for our next meeting in December -- Maxwell.

And that was it.  No drama, no surprises.  No secret deals in smoke filled rooms.  No angst.

I was impressed with the knowledge, wisdom, and genuine good relationship with the SECAF appointees - Gens Hopper, Kehoe, & Seigel.  They honestly care about us and are honest brokers.

Again, I can only agree that we should post the agenda a resonable time before the meeting and the minutes within a reasonable time afterwards.  Let me see what I can do about that.

Questions?

[Chappie]

Ned....thanks for the update on the BOG meeting.

[lordmonar]

We have a paid NHQ staff paid for with tax dollars and members dues. They are not allowed to be lazy. There is no excuse in the 21st century that minutes and agendas can not be posted with in days of a meeting. NHQ expects us to have all of our reports in on time yet they can't do their jobs in a timely manner? Inexcusable.

That assumes that they are REQUIRED to post agendas and minutes.....I may be wrong but I can't think of any CAP Constitution and Bylaws that requires the BoG to post an agenda?  If you know of one....please enlighten.

[bosshawk]

Ned: many thanks for the quick rundown on the meeting.  It probably represents a thousand percent improvement over what we have had in the past: it seems to me that we usually get minutes from National level meetings some MONTHS after the event.  Now, if the NEC and the NB can figure out how to get the minutes posted in a reasonable time frame.

Having Andersen as the Vice-Chair is good news.

[davidsinn]

We have a paid NHQ staff paid for with tax dollars and members dues. They are not allowed to be lazy. There is no excuse in the 21st century that minutes and agendas can not be posted with in days of a meeting. NHQ expects us to have all of our reports in on time yet they can't do their jobs in a timely manner? Inexcusable.

That assumes that they are REQUIRED to post agendas and minutes.....I may be wrong but I can't think of any CAP Constitution and Bylaws that requires the BoG to post an agenda?  If you know of one....please enlighten.

I don't know of one. My concern is mainly with the NB/NEC and they need their butts kicked by the BOG to do their jobs in a timely manner.

[RADIOMAN015]

Ned....thanks for the update on the BOG meeting.

Of course the "devil is in the details" of what this very good, timely, summary provided.  Since BOG is a policy/strategic oversight of CAP, it should prove interesting especially the "Diversity Resolution".

Ned thank you for the information :clap:
RM

[RiverAux]

Why is it that BoG meetings are livestreamed?  Obviously we have the technology to do it and since the BoG is the highest governing board in CAP I'd say it is at least as important to let the members view its activities (other than those legitimately done in executive session) as it is the lower-ranking bodies.   Is it just an oversight or has a decision been made not to livestream them? 

Same question for agendas.  They are made public for the other bodies, though often not in a timely manner. 

[SarDragon]

Why is it that BoG meetings are livestreamed?

Perhaps you meant "aren't"?

[Ned]

Why is it that BoG meetings are[n't] livestreamed?  Obviously we have the technology to do it and since the BoG is the highest governing board in CAP I'd say it is at least as important to let the members view its activities (other than those legitimately done in executive session) as it is the lower-ranking bodies.   Is it just an oversight or has a decision been made not to livestream them? 

Same question for agendas.  They are made public for the other bodies, though often not in a timely manner.

I can't speak for the BoG on this issue. (I'm just one vote out of eleven, after all.)  But my impression so far is that the BoG meetings tend to be more agile than NB meetings and also have a smaller footprint than the NEC. 

I agree that we have the technology to stream the BoG, but it is not free.  It would take several paid NHQ staffers, a couple of large cases worth of equipment, and a rather expensive internet connection which must be purchased at hotel/convention prices.  Add in airfare, lodging, and per diem for the crew and freight for the equipment and we are probably talking about 4-5 thousand of your dues dollars for the webcast.

I'm not sure it would be worth it.  Reasonable minds could differ on this, of course.  Why do you think it would be helpful?

On a more intangible note, I'm not sure it is worth webcasting the NEC & NB meetings, either.  I have some experience at work when cameras are brought into court.  It is always troubling to me when we weigh and balance the competing interests.  I once allowed a Discovery Channel crew to videotape an entire "three strikes" trial (which still runs from time to time at 0300 I'm told), and I was struck by this simple observation:

People act differently when they are "on camera" than when they are not.

That may or may not be a good thing, but I am convinced it is true.

And I am not yet convinced that the changed behavior is necessarily a good thing.

Now, I'm with you on the agendas and minutes and strongly support the making them available as soon as possible.  And any member who wants to attend public portions of the meetings are able to do so; hundreds of members take advantage of this every year.

How would you identify and weigh the pros and cons of streaming the BoG meetings?

[Eclipse]

I think an audio stream or podcast would make a lot more sense and would obviously be a lot less expensive (podcasts could probably be "free" if handled properly.

There's a perception that being able to watch from the corners makes these meetings more "transparent", which I suppose is true, but
still irrelevant.

I know I personally would be much more interested in timely / clear information on the agenda and the decisions than sitting on a flaky video
stream straining to hear what the votes were.

Anyone with an smartphone could twitter or real-time blog from the floor (ala WWDC keynotes, etc.) and probably get a lot more attention and it would cost exactly zero.

[RiverAux]

There may also be other alternatives to the type of livestreaming that CAP has been doing that may bewould be cheaper.  For example, something like gotomeeting.com could be used which combines an audiostream with whatever is being shown on someone's computer would work great for the briefings portion. 

Why is it valuable?  Well, I see no downside to making it possible for all CAP members to see what our leaders are doing and what points come up in discussions.  We all know that oftentimes the real business is conducted outside of the formal sessions, but what can be made public, should be made public.