NB approval %

[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.