NB approval %

[NCRblues]

Many times on Captalk, we have seen the "if I was in charge" line used. I started to look at congress approval polls, and wondered what a small poll of captalkers would turn out for our version of congress (the NB and NEC).

You can base your answer on any criteria you want, and please feel free to share why you voted the way you did. (If you are so inclined).

I really look forward to seeing how this goes. Please vote!!

[NCRblues]

To answer a couple PM's I have got...

No, I am not the owner of one of the blogs that talks about CAP all the time, nor do I contribute to said blog.

Now back to the poll, thank you.

[jimmydeanno]

I think that the NB and NEC are too focused on tactical level issues, constantly.  New uniform items, award proposals, minor program changes like what the requirements for the Eaker Award should be, etc.

I think that they need to be more focused on the strategic level issues that our organization faces.  Year after year we worry about losing our funding.  Year after year we have no concrete marketing plan. 

The new Nat Cmdr has already told people that he is working on all sorts of low level tactical programs, and that he's just going to "tweak" a few things.  "Tweak" sounds like "in the weeds" to me.

Our national level leaders, seem to lack strategic vision for the organization and are not adhering to their fiduciary responsibility to ensure that this  corporation is financially solvent.  We have no endowment fund, we have the "CAP foundation" that has made little to no progress in raising funds since it's inception.

We have an unqualified audit for three years running and no grant money coming in, no "big donors."

We lack leaders who think that it is a good idea to actively pursue expanding our membership.

We have corporate officers (which in most non-profits are the primary fundraising body) who cost the organization more than they bring in each year. 

Membership is growing, but I don't think that it is a result of national level leadership, instead it's a result of local leaders doing a better job.

[lordmonar]

I agree....but that's not their fault....it is the way the rules are written.

I also think that they should not be focused on the stratigic level either.

I "appoved" of the NB and NEC's performance....because for a bunch of part time volunteers they are doing a good job. 

Jimmydeanno points out a lot of things that have not happened....and again...he is right.

Here is the rub......we have written our rules in such a way that we try to have our cake and eat it too.

We got a national commander who on one hand has a lot of power.....but on the other hand has no power.
We have wing commanders who are selected on the basics of 1) availability.  2) their ability to perform their missions and 3) politicals/GOB/likeability. 

The fix is really simple.

1)  The BoG take on their job (Governance).
2)  The BoG hires a proffessional (that is full time paid) national command staff.
3)  The National Command staff.......COMMANDS
4)  Wing Commanders focus on training, manning and equiping their units to accomplish assigned missions.

The BoG does the stratigic planning and setting broad policy outlines.  The National Commander and his staff writes the regulations, procedures and managment systesm to accomplish those policies.

NO NB.
NO NEC.

A Commander selected by the BoG, answerable to the BoG and only the BoG.

Top Down Leadership.

In a really ideal world eliminate regional commanders and staffs.....and hire full time wing commanders.

Then we can add the additional duty of fund raising to their duties.

[Walkman]

I agree....but that's not their fault....it is the way the rules are written.

I also think that they should not be focused on the stratigic level either.

I "appoved" of the NB and NEC's performance....because for a bunch of part time volunteers they are doing a good job. 

Jimmydeanno points out a lot of things that have not happened....and again...he is right.

Here is the rub......we have written our rules in such a way that we try to have our cake and eat it too.

We got a national commander who on one hand has a lot of power.....but on the other hand has no power.
We have wing commanders who are selected on the basics of 1) availability.  2) their ability to perform their missions and 3) politicals/GOB/likeability. 

The fix is really simple.

1)  The BoG take on their job (Governance).
2)  The BoG hires a proffessional (that is full time paid) national command staff.
3)  The National Command staff.......COMMANDS
4)  Wing Commanders focus on training, manning and equiping their units to accomplish assigned missions.

The BoG does the stratigic planning and setting broad policy outlines.  The National Commander and his staff writes the regulations, procedures and managment systesm to accomplish those policies.

NO NB.
NO NEC.

A Commander selected by the BoG, answerable to the BoG and only the BoG.

Top Down Leadership.

In a really ideal world eliminate regional commanders and staffs.....and hire full time wing commanders.

Then we can add the additional duty of fund raising to their duties.

+1

[JeffDG]

In a really ideal world eliminate regional commanders and staffs.....and hire full time wing commanders.

That would make for an entirely ineffective span of control for the national commander.

[RiverAux]

Top Down Leadership.

Yes, because the top down leadership model CAP is currently using is so effective.   

[lordmonar]

Top Down Leadership.

Yes, because the top down leadership model CAP is currently using is so effective.   

We don't have it now....that's my point.

The BoG is not IMHO doing their job.

We have a sort of government by committee where the chairman can't enforce any rules (see PAWG and and their ranger bling).
We have a goverenment where the appointed middle mangement pick their own boss.

That's not top down leadership.

[lordmonar]

In a really ideal world eliminate regional commanders and staffs.....and hire full time wing commanders.

That would make for an entirely ineffective span of control for the national commander.

Not if he had a good staff.

Really what do regional commanders/staff do for us now?

[Major Lord]

I think that the NB and NEC are too focused on tactical level issues, constantly.  New uniform items, award proposals, minor program changes like what the requirements for the Eaker Award should be, etc.

I think that they need to be more focused on the strategic level issues that our organization faces.  Year after year we worry about losing our funding.  Year after year we have no concrete marketing plan. 

The new Nat Cmdr has already told people that he is working on all sorts of low level tactical programs, and that he's just going to "tweak" a few things.  "Tweak" sounds like "in the weeds" to me.

Our national level leaders, seem to lack strategic vision for the organization and are not adhering to their fiduciary responsibility to ensure that this  corporation is financially solvent.  We have no endowment fund, we have the "CAP foundation" that has made little to no progress in raising funds since it's inception.

We have an unqualified audit for three years running and no grant money coming in, no "big donors."

We lack leaders who think that it is a good idea to actively pursue expanding our membership.

We have corporate officers (which in most non-profits are the primary fundraising body) who cost the organization more than they bring in each year. 

Membership is growing, but I don't think that it is a result of national level leadership, instead it's a result of local leaders doing a better job.

Hey, you don't have to sugar-coat it for us! Go ahead and come right out with whats on your mind!

Major Lord

[JeffDG]

In a really ideal world eliminate regional commanders and staffs.....and hire full time wing commanders.

That would make for an entirely ineffective span of control for the national commander.

Not if he had a good staff.

Really what do regional commanders/staff do for us now?

Provide a division in the span of control.

So instead of a region commander, you will have someone else to whom the Wing commander will report in order to provide an effective span of control...and you would call that person what?  Let's see...they'd probably be arranged on a regional basis, just for convenience, and since commanders report to higher echelon commanders (not to staff), I know...Region Commander!

[jimmydeanno]

I think that the NB and NEC are too focused on tactical level issues, constantly.  New uniform items, award proposals, minor program changes like what the requirements for the Eaker Award should be, etc.

I think that they need to be more focused on the strategic level issues that our organization faces.  Year after year we worry about losing our funding.  Year after year we have no concrete marketing plan. 

The new Nat Cmdr has already told people that he is working on all sorts of low level tactical programs, and that he's just going to "tweak" a few things.  "Tweak" sounds like "in the weeds" to me.

Our national level leaders, seem to lack strategic vision for the organization and are not adhering to their fiduciary responsibility to ensure that this  corporation is financially solvent.  We have no endowment fund, we have the "CAP foundation" that has made little to no progress in raising funds since it's inception.

We have an unqualified audit for three years running and no grant money coming in, no "big donors."

We lack leaders who think that it is a good idea to actively pursue expanding our membership.

We have corporate officers (which in most non-profits are the primary fundraising body) who cost the organization more than they bring in each year. 

Membership is growing, but I don't think that it is a result of national level leadership, instead it's a result of local leaders doing a better job.

Hey, you don't have to sugar-coat it for us! Go ahead and come right out with whats on your mind!

Major Lord

I do what I can. 

[Spaceman3750]

In a really ideal world eliminate regional commanders and staffs.....and hire full time wing commanders.

That would make for an entirely ineffective span of control for the national commander.

Not if he had a good staff.

Really what do regional commanders/staff do for us now?

-Distribute vehicles/aircraft
-Region-wide cadet activities (RCLS, encampment, cadet competition, etc)
-Logistics accountability/auditing/Report of Survey/etc
-Divide the CAP-USAF/CC span of control
-Appoint wing commanders
-Serve on the NEC
-Decide who gets to wear shiny bottlecaps

Of course, that could all be pushed down to wing or pushed up to NHQ but I don't think you're going to find any commander or staffer who is willing to take on all of that plus everything that I can't think of right now.

[jimmydeanno]

One source suggests that a non-profit board does this:

The role of a non-profit board member is comprised of only three activities:

Fundraising (80 percent): Fundraising is the most important responsibility of a board member, yet many board members are reluctant to engage in this activity. Board members are expected use their connections to spur interest in and support of the organization they serve. Board fundraising activities may include major donor solicitations, sponsorship solicitations, membership recruitment, and efforts to boost event registrations.

Oversight of Programs (10 percent): The non-profit board is responsible for general oversight of the organization's programs. This role does not extend to the operations behind the programs, but does include fiduciary oversight.

Strategic Planning (10 percent): The board is the primary force behind the organization's strategic planning decisions. Board members create or update the strategic plan and evaluate the implementation plan presented by staff.

Our board doesn't do #1, except for the handout they're looking for from the gov't.

Our board jumps right into the operations behind the programs.

I couldn't even tell you what our strategic vision is, but with a board that changes half it's membership every few months, I can't foresee it being very steady.

Here's the rest of the article, which is a pretty good read and will leave you with the indication that our board of directors (national board) doesn't understand what their role should be.

http://www.idea.org/blog/2005/12/02/an-organization%E2%80%99s-board-of-directors/

[RiverAux]

Top Down Leadership.

Yes, because the top down leadership model CAP is currently using is so effective.   

We don't have it now....that's my point.

Gee, I guess I must have missed a whole bunch of meetings where regular members were having a say in what happens rather than being told what was going to happen by a squadron commander who was told what was going to happen by the wing commander, etc., etc..

[jimmydeanno]

Now let's look at the top fundraising methods of normal non-profits.  How many do we do?

1) Attracting individual support and donations.

2) Soliciting Gifts from Major Donors.

3) Holding a Capital Campaign.

4) Promoting Legacy and Planned Giving.

5) Raising Money from Business or Sales.

6) Applying for Foundation Grants.

7) Apply for Government Grants.

8) Requesting Corporate Gifts.

9) Special Fundraising Events.

[RiverAux]

7) Apply for Government Grants.

Actually the biggest single source of revenue for CAP. 

[jimmydeanno]

7) Apply for Government Grants.

Actually the biggest single source of revenue for CAP.

We used to use the grant channel for our funds, apparently the way we do this is changing this year.  However, I see that as a problem.  Our funding pie looks like a small mouthed pac-man.  So, if that one funding stream dries up, our organization is bankrupt.  Even a small decrease or lack of funding for a few weeks caused us to shut down operations, delay vehicle and aircraft maintenance, and stop performing our missions, to the point that we couldn't fund mailing members their membership packets.


A bit of diversity in that funding stream would allow for smoother operations.

Now we have the NEC pulling Vanguard "profit sharing" to pay for National Volunteer travel, to the tune of $25K.

[lordmonar]

I don't quite understand your point.

We are the USAF Auxillary.

So our primary funding source is going to be the USAF.....yes we have a bobble in the funding source....but so does the USAF.

In theory.....we could get full time fundraisers out there working the streets for more money.....but are you suggesting that all that money just sit in some pot waiting for USAF to have funding issues?

Now....don't get wrong.  I think we need to have paid wing commanders who would have the added job of fundraising from local donors....but I would also think that that money would be budgeted to expanded programs....so if in the future we have a funding issue from USAF something would still have to get cut to fund other budget items.

[Spaceman3750]

Since fundraising has to be approved by the wing CC, does a grant proposal submitted by a squadron have to be approved by the wing CC as well? (Walmart grant to buy new color guard equipment, etc).

(I know that a restricted grant with terms that are contractually agreed to will need a wing CC signature, but just for the initial application?)

[jimmydeanno]

I don't quite understand your point.

We are the USAF Auxillary.

So our primary funding source is going to be the USAF.....yes we have a bobble in the funding source....but so does the USAF.

In theory.....we could get full time fundraisers out there working the streets for more money.....but are you suggesting that all that money just sit in some pot waiting for USAF to have funding issues?

Now....don't get wrong.  I think we need to have paid wing commanders who would have the added job of fundraising from local donors....but I would also think that that money would be budgeted to expanded programs....so if in the future we have a funding issue from USAF something would still have to get cut to fund other budget items.

My point is that our National Board has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that our organization keep running.  We shouldn't take the attitude that we should just be given money each year, and take what we get and call it a day.  That type of attitude is short-sighted and irresponsible. 

As a non-profit corporation, we have the ability to fundraise.  The funds we raise from those other streams could be used to pay for things we can't use appropriated funds for currently, or build an endowment fund.

We COULD have an endowment fund whose interest could provide the necessary funding we'd need to operate every year.  We wouldn't have to be concerned about whether or not we had $3k to pay for shipping a binder to our members for a month.  But we don't, because we rely on the generosity of the American taxpayer, almost exclusively. 

Increased and diversified funding streams would allow us to start new programs that would bring our sphere of influence into areas we currently can't affect.

I picture a scenario where the Congress-critters decide, for some political step, that CAP doesn't get any funding.  So, we can either start looking for more money now, or wait until we're closing the doors to realize we mis-stepped.  Even if we raised funds and the appropriated stream decreased proportionally, it would be better than the scenario we have now.

[jimmydeanno]

Since fundraising has to be approved by the wing CC, does a grant proposal submitted by a squadron have to be approved by the wing CC as well? (Walmart grant to buy new color guard equipment, etc).

(I know that a restricted grant with terms that are contractually agreed to will need a wing CC signature, but just for the initial application?)

You need to get approval for your fundraising attempts.  So, if you're going to ask Walmart for money, you just get the Wing/CC to say you can.  In your request, you provide the details of how the program works, and what the expected result is.

When the grant gets approved, you will already have permission to receive the funds under the approval of what you requested.

[Spaceman3750]

I picture a scenario where the Congress-critters decide, for some political step, that CAP doesn't get any funding.  So, we can either start looking for more money now, or wait until we're closing the doors to realize we mis-stepped.  Even if we raised funds and the appropriated stream decreased proportionally, it would be better than the scenario we have now.

But then are we the USAF Auxiliary any more? Do most of us really want to be part of a non-auxiliary CAP?

[RiverAux]

I'm not aware of any general grant programs from other agencies that would really fit would CAP does.  And if I was in another federal agency or a major non-profit corporation I wouldn't feel a big need to give a grant to an organization that is almost entirely supported by the federal government already. 

And also remember that most CAP wings also receive a significant amount of funding from state agencies already and given the budget crises in many states it seems unlikely that those will be increased. 

[jimmydeanno]

I picture a scenario where the Congress-critters decide, for some political step, that CAP doesn't get any funding.  So, we can either start looking for more money now, or wait until we're closing the doors to realize we mis-stepped.  Even if we raised funds and the appropriated stream decreased proportionally, it would be better than the scenario we have now.

But then are we the USAF Auxiliary any more? Do most of us really want to be part of a non-auxiliary CAP?

Our status as the "Official Auxiliary of the United States Air Force" isn't contingent on who pays our bills.  It's something written into public law.

[Eclipse]

I'm not aware of any general grant programs from other agencies that would really fit would CAP does.  And if I was in another federal agency or a major non-profit corporation I wouldn't feel a big need to give a grant to an organization that is almost entirely supported by the federal government already.

Only a portion of 1/3 (of our stated mission) Federal support, AE & CP doesn't get much to speak of.

And also remember that most CAP wings also receive a significant amount of funding from state agencies already and given the budget crises in many states it seems unlikely that those will be increased.

Wings like PAWG that get 6-figure appropriations are few and far between.

[jimmydeanno]

I'm not aware of any general grant programs from other agencies that would really fit would CAP does.  And if I was in another federal agency or a major non-profit corporation I wouldn't feel a big need to give a grant to an organization that is almost entirely supported by the federal government already. 

And also remember that most CAP wings also receive a significant amount of funding from state agencies already and given the budget crises in many states it seems unlikely that those will be increased.

We could apply for grants to send our AE materials packages to elementary and middle schools across the country. 

We could apply for grants to provide activities for youth.

The Gate's Foundation provides grants to education based programs, and will provide money for "unique challenges that the US faces."  They also have disaster relief grants.

The Walmart Foundation provides grants to education based programs.

So, even if we could fund two of our missions through external funding sources, grants, etc - and leave the ES/Ops side to federally appropriated monies, it would help.

Also, I wouldn't consider state provided funds to be "significant."  It may hurt wing operations, but in reality, my squadron has more money in their account than the wing does.  So, if we foresee that these streams are getting cut, why aren't we finding new streams?

[Eclipse]

Wasn't there a policy put in place by NHQ that restricted units below NHQ from requesting funding from national corporations?

[LTC Don]

In a really ideal world eliminate regional commanders and staffs.....and hire full time wing commanders.

That would make for an entirely ineffective span of control for the national commander.

There is a definite need for Region-level Command structure, as indicated above, but the current, long-time geographical boundries are broken.

The Region boundries need to be re-drawn/re-organized to match the FEMA/DHS area boundries so that the Region operations staffs are able to partner with their FEMA/DHS counterparts in a more organized and cohesive manner.

http://www.fema.gov/about/contact/regions.shtm

If that destabilizes the Force, or affects the balance of power in the West, then so be it, but it needs to be done.

[jimmydeanno]

In a really ideal world eliminate regional commanders and staffs.....and hire full time wing commanders.

That would make for an entirely ineffective span of control for the national commander.

There is a definite need for Region-level Command structure, as indicated above, but the current, long-time geographical boundries are broken.

The Region boundries need to be re-drawn/re-organized to match the FEMA/DHS area boundries so that the Region operations staffs are able to partner with their FEMA/DHS counterparts in a more organized and cohesive manner.

http://www.fema.gov/about/contact/regions.shtm

If that destabilizes the Force, or affects the balance of power in the West, then so be it, but it needs to be done.

Might work.  Having the NYWG, PR&VI groups in one region might be awkward...

However, I think this is another area that needs improvement.

We have Wing Commanders who have wings that are smaller than groups in other wings.  We have Region Commanders who's AOR is large geographically, but have fewer members and assets that they're responsible for than some wings.

It seems to me that if span of control is what we want, we should have some sort of procedure in place to allow flexibility in how our wings are structured.  Should all of Florida be a Wing, or should it be two?  Should Southern California be a wing?  Perhaps, ME, NH, RI, and MA become one wing, while VT,NY & CT become another.  Maybe the best situation is to have Texas as a Region.

[Spaceman3750]

Can we split everything north of I-80 into a separate wing? We wouldn't have to worry about this if they would just secede from Illinois like we all want them to .

(Eclipse, you're excepted. You can come hang with the rest of Illinois if you want )

I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

[jimmydeanno]

Wasn't there a policy put in place by NHQ that restricted units below NHQ from requesting funding from national corporations?

I recall HEARING something about this, but haven't seen anything in writing.  I can understand NHQ wanting to leave the HQ of larger corporations open to them to get bigger donations, but most local stores and divisions have budgets of their own for this sort of thing.  Another organization that I belong to gets sponsored by the local Boeing site, and the organization nationally gets money from Boeing.  It becomes a problem when Podunk Squadron CAP asks for 50K from Walmart, Inc in Bentonville, AK, then the national fundraising folks ask for money.

However, I can't imagine that it would be too much of a problem considering that we don't have any professional fundraisers on staff, and "outside donations" make up such a small portion of our national budget, the chances of us double dipping are pretty slim, at this point.

If we had an active fundraising program at NHQ, it might be another story.

[FW]

Wasn't there a policy put in place by NHQ that restricted units below NHQ from requesting funding from national corporations?

All NHQ asks is for wings to coordinate their requests with national. 

[NCRblues]

I never expected this many 'indifferent' votes...

[lordmonar]

It's about what I expected.

[Major Lord]

Perhaps the survey needs to include a category for "indignantly indifferent" and "passively indifferent".......to help us refine our sense of the range of complacency. Personally, I am adamantly indifferent.

Major Lord

[SarDragon]

In a really ideal world eliminate regional commanders and staffs.....and hire full time wing commanders.

That would make for an entirely ineffective span of control for the national commander.

There is a definite need for Region-level Command structure, as indicated above, but the current, long-time geographical boundries are broken.

The Region boundries need to be re-drawn/re-organized to match the FEMA/DHS area boundries so that the Region operations staffs are able to partner with their FEMA/DHS counterparts in a more organized and cohesive manner.

http://www.fema.gov/about/contact/regions.shtm

If that destabilizes the Force, or affects the balance of power in the West, then so be it, but it needs to be done.

Great idea. Who's going to pay for it?

[Spaceman3750]

In a really ideal world eliminate regional commanders and staffs.....and hire full time wing commanders.

That would make for an entirely ineffective span of control for the national commander.

There is a definite need for Region-level Command structure, as indicated above, but the current, long-time geographical boundries are broken.

The Region boundries need to be re-drawn/re-organized to match the FEMA/DHS area boundries so that the Region operations staffs are able to partner with their FEMA/DHS counterparts in a more organized and cohesive manner.

http://www.fema.gov/about/contact/regions.shtm

If that destabilizes the Force, or affects the balance of power in the West, then so be it, but it needs to be done.

Great idea. Who's going to pay for it?

Or we could partner on a national level and let the NOC sort out any requests internally.

[lordmonar]

In a really ideal world eliminate regional commanders and staffs.....and hire full time wing commanders.

That would make for an entirely ineffective span of control for the national commander.

There is a definite need for Region-level Command structure, as indicated above, but the current, long-time geographical boundries are broken.

The Region boundries need to be re-drawn/re-organized to match the FEMA/DHS area boundries so that the Region operations staffs are able to partner with their FEMA/DHS counterparts in a more organized and cohesive manner.

http://www.fema.gov/about/contact/regions.shtm

If that destabilizes the Force, or affects the balance of power in the West, then so be it, but it needs to be done.

Great idea. Who's going to pay for it?

Get rid of the State Directors and Wing Adminstrators and use that money to pay for full time National (and vice), wing and regional commanders.  Once they start their fund raising activiites we can fund more paid positions.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

The State Directors are not ours to get rid of.

As the chief method of CAP oversight I don't see Ma Blue  going for that idea.

[lordmonar]

The State Directors are not ours to get rid of.

As the chief method of CAP oversight I don't see Ma Blue  going for that idea.

I understand....but again being a contractor for Ma Blue I also know that there are other/cheaper methods of ensuring we are doing it right.  The funds that Ma Blue is already been paying for the SD's could be paid to CAP for wing commanders.

With full time paid wing commanders.....Ma Blue may not see the need for SD's anymore.

[Eclipse]

CAP is all volunteer and needs to stay that way.

No one in the chain of command should be a paid employee as that then changes the entire dynamic of the situation in a number of ways,
not the least of which is the reality of who in their right mind, with any real skill to offer CAP, would want to place their professional
career in the hands of people they have to ask nicely just to show up.

[SarDragon]

Adding two regions is not a trivial effort.

Just the administrative effort of changing regs, forms, letterheads, etc. will likely cost the equivalent of a couple of those annual salaries you are talking about. Then there's setting up two additional headquarters.

[lordmonar]

CAP is all volunteer and needs to stay that way.

No one in the chain of command should be a paid employee as that then changes the entire dynamic of the situation in a number of ways,
not the least of which is the reality of who in their right mind, with any real skill to offer CAP, would want to place their professional
career in the hands of people they have to ask nicely just to show up.

1)  CAP is not an all volunteer force.  We got SD's, wing admins, and whole bunch of paid professionals with "command" authority already.

2) Boy Scouts and Red Cross and many other "all volunteer" organisations do it all the time.

[RiverAux]

Adding two regions is not a trivial effort.

Just the administrative effort of changing regs, forms, letterheads, etc. will likely cost the equivalent of a couple of those annual salaries you are talking about. Then there's setting up two additional headquarters.

Not commenting in favor of the idea you're responding to, but all of thaf that stuff is electronic and except for a little bit of manpower costs nothing. 

[Ned]

1)  CAP is not an all volunteer force.  We got SD's, wing admins, and whole bunch of paid professionals with "command" authority already.

SDs, wing admins, and the paid professionals are not members and none exercise command authority.

Not a single voting member of the command structure is paid.  Neither are the members of the NB, NEC, or BoG.

Sounds kinda volunteer to me.  This is reflected in our Core Values which value "Volunteer Service."

2) Boy Scouts and Red Cross and many other "all volunteer" organisations do it all the time.

You are certainly correct that both the BSA and ARC have paid employees down to the council/county level.  And their paid employees exercise the command authority within those organizations.  IOW, the volunteers have little or no power.

Obviously a substantially different business and governance model.  Clearly both can be successful, and presumeably other types of organizations exist out there, including some sort of a blend where both volunteers and paid professionals share responsibilities.

Our outside consultants are in the final stages of preparing their governance recommendations for the NB under the contract.  We specifically asked them to look at the ARC and the BSA and compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of the different systems.

Their report is due at the December BoG meeting.  We will see what they have to say.

[NCRblues]

1)  CAP is not an all volunteer force.  We got SD's, wing admins, and whole bunch of paid professionals with "command" authority already.

SDs, wing admins, and the paid professionals are not members and none exercise command authority.

Not a single voting member of the command structure is paid.  Neither are the members of the NB, NEC, or BoG.

Sounds kinda volunteer to me.  This is reflected in our Core Values which value "Volunteer Service."

2) Boy Scouts and Red Cross and many other "all volunteer" organisations do it all the time.

You are certainly correct that both the BSA and ARC have paid employees down to the council/county level.  And their paid employees exercise the command authority within those organizations.  IOW, the volunteers have little or no power.

Obviously a substantially different business and governance model.  Clearly both can be successful, and presumeably other types of organizations exist out there, including some sort of a blend where both volunteers and paid professionals share responsibilities.

Our outside consultants are in the final stages of preparing their governance recommendations for the NB under the contract.  We specifically asked them to look at the ARC and the BSA and compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of the different systems.

Their report is due at the December BoG meeting.  We will see what they have to say.

Will we get to see the report Ned?

[lordmonar]

I hear what you are saying Ned.....and I understand and agree with most of it.

But we do have paid members with "command" authority.

Please note the quotation marks.

There are a lot of staffers at NHQ that have a lot more power to veto operations then your average wing commander.
As do the wing SD's.

I know that our "on paper" command structure is all volunteer....but there has always been some friction between the paid NHQ staffers and the volunteer NHQ officers.

Not saying that anyone is stepping outside of their bounds or doing it wrong....just saying that you can't really call CAP and all volunteer force.

And as I said in my vote.....I think for the most part CAP is working......and I really hope to see what the governance report comes out with.

[Spaceman3750]

just saying that you can't really call CAP and all volunteer force.

Since it's the volunteer members that are actually performing the three missions, sure you can. The paid staffers are simply administering the program.

That's different from, say, ARC, whose paid staff both performs the missions and manages the program with volunteers augmenting them.

[Eclipse]

I know that our "on paper" command structure is all volunteer....but there has always been some friction between the paid NHQ staffers and the volunteer NHQ officers.

You can't equate people exerting influence outside their authority with "command" or actual authority.  In most cases the
paid staff step in when the volunteer staff fail to act in a timely manner. 

You also can't suggest we only hire wing CC's and then equate us with the BSA, ARC or anyone similar, as they have entire
cadres of paid staff all the way down to the field operator level.

There's also the reality that you'd never be able to get competent professionals for an SD's salary.  The SD's are GS-12's, that's mid-80's(ish).  A nice salary for someone considering the fairly narrow scope of responsibilities, but a professional administrator with experience to justify the appointment of state-level responsibility would want at least twice that, plus travel, and benefits.  Further, where's the career path in a 4-year term with no succession?

The "fix" for CAP is a reboot that includes more people, better qualified people in the proper jobs, and a 10-fold increase in expectations, which come with them the ramifications, and rewards commensurate with the high responsibility people are charged with.

[NCRblues]

And as I said in my vote.....I think for the most part CAP is working......and I really hope to see what the governance report comes out with.

I just hope we get to SEE the report, and it is not hidden away from the membership and only read behind closed door BOG meetings...

Hope and FOR change

[lordmonar]

I know that our "on paper" command structure is all volunteer....but there has always been some friction between the paid NHQ staffers and the volunteer NHQ officers.

You can't equate people exerting influence outside their authority with "command" or actual authority.  In most cases the
paid staff step in when the volunteer staff fail to act in a timely manner. 

You also can't suggest we only hire wing CC's and then equate us with the BSA, ARC or anyone similar, as they have entire
cadres of paid staff all the way down to the field operator level.

There's also the reality that you'd never be able to get competent professionals for an SD's salary.  The SD's are GS-12's, that's mid-80's(ish).  A nice salary for someone considering the fairly narrow scope of responsibilities, but a professional administrator with experience to justify the appointment of state-level responsibility would want at least twice that, plus travel, and benefits.  Further, where's the career path in a 4-year term with no succession?

The "fix" for CAP is a reboot that includes more people, better qualified people in the proper jobs, and a 10-fold increase in expectations, which come with them the ramifications, and rewards commensurate with the high responsibility people are charged with.

You can't get them for 80K but you think we can get them for free?

As for authority........I sat through a long NCO Academy course back in 2001 where we talked all about the different kinds of authority.
Having had to deal with NHQ over the last couple of years with the the SP program......and listening to some of the feldercarb that floats around the National Conference.....the leadership dynamic at NHQ is a little more complicated then just paid staff stepping in when the "volunteers" fail to perform. 

[Eclipse]

You can't get them for 80K but you think we can get them for free?

Sometimes, yes.  Because we're only capturing a "small" amount of their time.  And part of the "idea" is that you capture small amounts of time
of a lot of competent people, and st the end of the day you equal or better similar paid professionals.

That's the idea, anyway...

[Extremepredjudice]

How about get rid of the SDs(I.E. transfer them, fire them, bury them in a shallow grave somewhere... ) and hire 2 guys at 40k each...

Or, hire 2 guys (part-time) at 20k each. That leaves you with 40k to do whatever, pay for O-flights, membership cards, a new car, a new house, a one-way ticket to Columbia, with a satchel of cash(of course).

 
See what I did there?

[lordmonar]

You can't get them for 80K but you think we can get them for free?

Sometimes, yes.  Because we're only capturing a "small" amount of their time.  And part of the "idea" is that you capture small amounts of time
of a lot of competent people, and st the end of the day you equal or better similar paid professionals.

That's the idea, anyway...

Okay.....but I would rather have someone full time at 80K.....even if they are not some A Number One Hot shot.

Also....I think that if you look at the retired military field....you could get a lot of people for 80K......you also get the added benifit of not having to change them every 2-3 years.  You can also move them around where they are best needed.

And you can fire them for not performing....and hire their replacement.  In this economy  $80K is a lot of money.....they would have a lot of applicants for the job.

[Spaceman3750]

In this economy  $80K is a lot of money.....they would have a lot of applicants for the job.

$80K in ANY economy is a lot of money.

[jimmydeanno]

Perhaps "command" isn't the word you are looking for.  Perhaps "power" is.  There are different types of power, as pointed out in the cadet leadership books.  While NHQ employees may not have Positional Power, but may be exercising their expert power, based on their knowledge of what the end result will be of a certain action.

If a member calls up and asks the Cadet Programs shop if they can slap their cadets around, and the NHQ employee says, "No, you can't do that."  They aren't exercising positional power.  It's not a decision they make, but an understanding of the regulations based on their experiences.  "No, you can't do that because the regulations say you can't."

If you submit reimbursement for a mission that wasn't approved, it's not the NHQ employee deciding that you can't get reimbursed, but they're the ones that have to tell you "No, you won't be reimbursed for this because the rules in place prohibit it."

If you want to argue that they're exercising some sort of command over our members because of their knowledge of how the situation works, so be it. 

[jimmydeanno]

In this economy  $80K is a lot of money.....they would have a lot of applicants for the job.

I don't know that you'd get the caliber person that we'd need, though.  If we're looking for someone who can fundraise AND run a state level operation, we're well into the 6 figures. 

Most serious fundraising jobs have a quota the person has to meet for their salary range.  If you pay them 80K, I'd expect 500K in return.  That's without any operational obligations of running a wing.  For that 80K, I think you'd get what we have now, with significantly less money.

It costs money to make money.  If you spend money on fundraising, you'll get money in return.

[Eclipse]

There's another weakness - hiring someone to raise funds is not the same as hiring someone to run a large paramilitary organization.  They aren't remotely
the same skillset and you won't get a good one of either for $80k.

Just because $80k seems like a lot of money, and a lot of people might apply, doesn't mean you'll get the caliber you're looking for.  If anything, corporations are hanging on to their best people these days with a tight fist.

[lordmonar]

In this economy  $80K is a lot of money.....they would have a lot of applicants for the job.

I don't know that you'd get the caliber person that we'd need, though.  If we're looking for someone who can fundraise AND run a state level operation, we're well into the 6 figures. 

Most serious fundraising jobs have a quota the person has to meet for their salary range.  If you pay them 80K, I'd expect 500K in return.  That's without any operational obligations of running a wing.  For that 80K, I think you'd get what we have now, with significantly less money.

It costs money to make money.  If you spend money on fundraising, you'll get money in return.

But the alternitive is asking someone to do it for free.......and we get what we get.   I'm not a fund raiser...but my father was one after he retired from the AF.  He worked as a proffessional Boy Scout District Exec for a few years.  He did not get a lot of money from the BSA....but he was supposed to run a "group level" organisation, coordinate training for the volunteer leaders, supervise creation of new units and recruitment goals.....AND meet his fund raising quotas.   I know how hard it can be.....not saying it will be easy......but as the old saying goes...you got to spend money to make money.

Wing needs a $500K budget......then hire a guy for 80K to do it.....start small....hire the National Commander and Vice.....give them both $500K quotas in the first year.  With that $1M you can hire 12 guys the next year (regional commanders?)...give them each a $500K quota...thats $6M...(plus the 1 Million from the National CC and Vice for a total of 7$)...the third year you can hire 87 full time fundraisers and leaders..for a total of 101 full time fund raisers/leaders.....crack their quotas down to $200K and now they have the time to pay for themselves, do the work of managing their wing and still make CAP $120K per year.....($12.12M about half of what the USAF pays us each year).

So....for an initial investiment of $160K.....and getting the right guys......within four years we could have fully paid commanders and vice commanders at all levels of CAP.  That is not even touching the SD's or Wing Admins.  Continue the investment a couple of more years and we could add full time wing level fundriser to allow the commander and his vice to focus more on the mission.

Throw in a little stream lineing of what we consider a "wing" (i.e. combine some of the smaller ones and split up some of the bigger ones) and we would be rolling in cash....have full time professional staff all the way down to the wing level....and eliminate a lot of the political BS.

Squadrons could focus on doing the missions and move on.

Volunteer leadership at each level of the organisation can be acheived.....the BSA does something like this at each level with a sort of BoG....that has a lot to say about how the BSA program is run.

Now...I am not saying the BSA model is the 100% for us.  I don't know if there may be an even better model out there.  I am only throwing out the idea that just because we hire the boss at wing level.....does not automatically mean that "WE" the peons at the squdron level will loose control over CAP.  I am saying that we can focus on the mission and let managment.....manage...and fund raise....so we can focus on what we do best.

[lordmonar]

There's another weakness - hiring someone to raise funds is not the same as hiring someone to run a large paramilitary organization.  They aren't remotely
the same skillset and you won't get a good one of either for $80k.

Just because $80k seems like a lot of money, and a lot of people might apply, doesn't mean you'll get the caliber you're looking for.  If anything, corporations are hanging on to their best people these days with a tight fist.

I'm not happy with the caliber we are getting now.  And usually the #1 criteria is "hey do you have the time to do this?"
This is not a slam on any wing and/or regional commander specifically.  But we all know that there are a lot of professionals out there who could do the job.....but they just can't get away from their paying work to do it.....so we go with who ever has the time.....and sometimes we get someone who is not really suited to the job....or is in it for the wrong reasons.  (need I name names?).

Start small work our way up.  If $80K is too low....go with a bigger number and then extend the time line.  Rome was not built in a day...and remodeling the BoG, hiriing and training the commanders and then expanding the project will take time....a lot of time.

But someone first has to say.....hey...this just might work.....and look at it honestly.

[NCRblues]

Why not just hire people to do nothing but "fund raise"?

Why do we HAVE to combine that with "command"?

If the NB/NEC/BOG did not have to worry about "where is the money coming from this month", maybe the could focus on other issues like getting new or updated missions/faster advancement of online tools (eServices/WMIRS/OPsquals)/brining CAP into the 21st century?

Why does getting money, and having the power to spend it, HAVE to be in the same person?

I really think we need to keep the "command" leadership as volunteers.

[lordmonar]

They don't have to worry about where the money comes from now....

Money issues are not the reasons the NB/NEC/BoG are not efficiant.

The BoG IMHO has just never had to (until recently) stand up and do what I think is their job....this is not a hit on them....I think they are doing a good job for the most part....but if they stood up and really took over.....then we would have top down leadership (even if we did not change anything else....the BoG should select the National Commander....and the BoG should be making Policy Decisions).

The NEC and NB are just excuses at power sharing that were left over from before the BoG existed.....and back then thay made sense....because the AF hired the National Commander!  The problems started when we had part time leaders....

The wing commanders should be focusing on training, equiping and manning their wings to do the assigened missions.....not on getting comm taining on line or should we have a pink TuTu with our Orange T-shirts.....those are staff functions....you give those projects to some majors and CMSgts with a dead line and then they send the finished project to the CC for signature.

CSAF does not send out new regulations to his MAJCOM and Wing Commanders for a vote.  His subject matter experts send them out for outher subject matter experts for comment....the provide a draft to the CSAF and he signs it.

AS for funding and command.....they don't have to be the same person...not at all.   In fact you will see that I said that after the initial period we do in fact hire full time fund raisers to let the commanders focus on Training, equiping and manning their wings.  But I really, really feel that full time commanders would improve CAP.

A.  It would allow us to have someone available full time.
B.  It would allow us to forget about the political aspect of CAP and eliminate "term limits" and other BS.  If a guy is not working out....you let him go and hire another (hence why you hire his VICE as well).  If the guy can't follow orders....you fire him.....if the guy can't work with the local state/FEMA/USAF agencies....you move him or fire him.  But if he is working well.....you keep him.  If he sits there for 20 years...so what?
C.  If we had someone who could get fired if he allows his wing to blantenly violate orders/regulations, he will have a vested interest in enforcing those rules.  Since we can hire and fire at anytime....and none of it would have much influnce on the politics....we can be more effective.

I would still keep the ultimate "command" with the volunteers.  The BoG would be made up of the volunteers....it could be one from each wing, one for every 200 people, one from each region.......selcted by lotter, voted on, short straw.....I don't know.....but a way could be there for us to do this.
We the CAP member who wish to take on national leadership as a volunteer can still do so.

For the most part....for 80% of CAP, who the wing, regional or national commander is simply something they have to memorise.
Whether the guy is a full time employee of CAP, Inc or just someone doing it on the weekend.....the only diffence would be when he gets around to answering your E-mail.
But to our customers and potential donors.......it makes a very big difference.

[NCRblues]

Ok, I understand what you are saying. (Disagree with it, but that's ok, its a free country)

I have another question. Who gets to "hire and fire"?

If it is the BOG made up of one person from each wing, than, won't it descend into the same "good ol' boy club" we deal with now? (IMHO I think it will)

[lordmonar]

Well...the BoG would have ultimate authority....to hire and fire.

As for the make up of the BoG.....Yes I think a 50+ member board would be too big.

Something more like one or two member from each region.

Somethink sort of like a CAC for senior members....but the rep is elected by the members and can't be the commander.

Each squadron elects two reps that serve for two years.
Each Wing elects two reps that serve for two year at the region level.
Each Region elects two reps that serve for two years on the BoG.
That puts 8 CAP Representitives on the BoG.
The AF still gets their 4
And we still allow the BoG to select 4 from "concerned industries"
And of course the chairman of the BoG.

The AF and concerned industiries members act as a check to the GoB influence.
Limit the number of terms a rep can spend at a particular level (say two terms max)...it is either up or out.
At unit, wing and regional level they have very little real power....i.e.  the Wing SAC (Senior Advisor Council,until I get a better name) does not advise the wing commander on anything.  They are simply a conduit for information and desires from the member level up to the BoG representitives.
So Squadron Rep X can't use his "power" on the SAC to get his squadron commander fired.....not directly.  He would have to up channel that through the wing rep who would have to get it to the Regional reps who sit on the BoG who would be one voice out of 17.

The GoB network usually comes about because Me and Jim Bob have our circle of freinds.  Jim Bob moves up to Group.....and so does all our freinds.....as we move up so does the GoB.

Of course....this does not mean that you are ever going to get anyone with stratigic vision or abilities on your BoG.  It will only mean that you have people who "represent" the members at the highest levels.

That is the two edged sword of the volunteer organisation.  You can't ever get the "right" people for the job because they either have real jobs, or they never joined the organisation in the first place.  If you are lucky and find the right person who is available to do the job...because you fear someone getting entreanched or that the GoB network is locking you out of the "good" jobs/missions/equipment...we put term limits on them....so even if Col Round Peg is perfect for the job.....after 4 years...he's got to go.  So if you go out and hire the "right" people....then you are bringing in outsiders and you, the volunteer, loose some power to the hired gun.

Now I am sure that everyone is going to find hole in this idea.  Cool.  That's what I like about CT is that we can talk about ideas and maybe we can come up with something even better.

Maybe we can go the CGAUX route and just elect everyone.  Squadron Commanders, Group Commanders, Wing Commanders....everyone.  Now wouldn't that be fun!

[NIN]

Why not just hire people to do nothing but "fund raise"?

We did that once. I have his business card here someplace.

Chief Development Officer ("Development" in this context is a term used for the overall "fundraising"-type efforts in non-profits. Giving, grants, alumni giving, etc)

Unfortunately, I'm not 100% sure what organization he was actually the Chief Development Officer for, since 95% of his business card was taken up with a NASCAR car in red-white-and-blue with some big logo on the hood that was unreadable.