NEC Summary

[lordmonar]

6. The National Board. The National Board is the governing body of CAP. The National Board consists of the:
a. National Commander
b. Senior Air Force Advisor (CAP-USAF/CC)
c. National Vice Commander
d. National Chief of Staff
e. National Legal Officer
f. National Finance Officer
g. National Controller
h. Region Commanders
i. Wing Commanders
7. The National Executive Committee. When the National Board is not in session, the NEC is vested with all the powers of the National Board except amending the Constitution and Bylaws and electing the National Commander and National Vice Commander. The NEC consists of all members of the National Board except the wing commanders.

Details here.
********************************

(a) Governing Body.— The Board of Governors of the Civil Air Patrol is the governing body of the Civil Air Patrol.       
(b) Composition.— The Board of Governors is composed of 11 members as follows:     
(1) Four members appointed by the Secretary of the Air Force, who may be active or retired officers of the Air Force (including reserve components of the Air Force), employees of the United States, or private citizens.       
(2) Four members of the Civil Air Patrol, selected in accordance with the constitution and bylaws of the Civil Air Patrol.       
(3) Three members appointed or selected as provided in subsection (c) from among personnel of any Federal Government agencies, public corporations, nonprofit associations, and other organizations that have an interest and expertise in civil aviation and the Civil Air Patrol mission.

The National Commander and National Vice Commander are members of the BoG.

(Details here.)

This was brought up at the last NB.....they enacted a comittee to look at the language of constitution and the regulations to remove the conflicts.

[FW]

The C&BL are not the problem.  It's CAPR 20-1 which is totally out of date.  There was a committee formed to change it ( I was a member) however, it seemed to vanish last year after a heated NB argument about the companion pamphlet authored by the CAP/CC.   

The committee Patrick aludes to is about formalizing the BoG's involvment with the election/removal process of the CAP/CC and CV.

[Westernslope]

In a meeting, after the televised meeting, the NEC voted to remove Col John Tilton from the BOG.

[Майор Хаткевич]

In a meeting, after the televised meeting, the NEC voted to remove Col John Tilton from the BOG.

Source and why?

[FW]

My sources on the Board of Governors tell me that Col Tilton was removed from the board during "closed" procedings of the NEC.  According to my knowledge the vote during a closed session is not valid.   
I also understand the NEC may have been given incomplete information of an IG investigation from 2005 while he was the ALWG/CC;  the findings of which did not prevent Col Tilton from becoming the SER commander and then National Safety Officer or his election to the BoG.
Other sources tell me it seems more than coincedental he was removed after questioning the recomendations of the NEC for a new investment advisor and associated costs involved...

[lordmonar]

Does the NEC have the power to remove someone from the BoG?

[FW]

Yes, for at large members; as they are the electing body.  However, they must follow the approved guidlines set by the BoG and agreed to by the NEC.  Of course, if no one cares about procedure....

[Spike]

Wow, two separate groups thinking they run the organization.  How jacked up is this crap.  Perhaps less uniform changes and more begging at the feet of Congresswomen and Congressmen is needed. 

I think a total reorganization is needed.   

[RicL]

I've discussed this time and time again with other members of civil air patrol. CAP needs one national governing body.

The Air Force / CAP-USAF should have control over all AF related subject matter such as missions, training for performing assigned missions and USAF style uniforms. CAP is a "Yes We Can!" organization, if the USAF gives us a task to do or a mission to perform that means it's time to step up to the plate and get it accomplished. If you're not sure how, figure it out.

There should be one national governing body that oversees the business side of CAP which is made up of experienced CAP officers and perhaps a couple of paid board members that have a history in non-profit administration. There should be one member of the board that is an experienced grantseeker, one member of the board that is in charge of marketing, etc.

There's no need for multiple governing bodies that have roughly the same description. If you want checks and balances then have an oversight committee made up of the region commanders. Allow for the oversight committee to have veto power over national board decisions if their vote is 2/3 or greater.

Region commanders should be chosen by rising through the ranks until they have sufficient grade and proven leadership experience and then nominations for region commander should be taken from each unit in each wing. Each wing would then take the nominations and select two nominations per wing to forward to a regional selection committe. Let the regional selection committee further narrow the candidates to three or four candidates that get forwarded to national for them to make a final selection.

Before people say that this method of selection won't work or will take too long. This is the 21st century and we all pretty much have internet access and computers. Let the ballots be cast through eServices.

I don't know, this is just the way I think would work. I'm aware that it may not be the "military way" of doing things or the "CAP way" but we've had some sticky issues with the national governing bod(y/ies) that need to get fixed.

[lordmonar]

I'm thinking just the opposite.

The Bog needs to stand up and do their congressionally mandated job.  Govern CAP.

They need to appoint the the National CC and Vice and their staff.

NHQ appoints regional CC's who in turn appoint Wing CC's and so on and so forth.

None of this the National CC serves at the pleasure of the NB who serves at the pleasure of the national CC.

It is this circular politics that messes things up.

The BoG tells the National CC what they want to happen and the National CC makes it happen.

Yes this put a lot of power into the National CC's hand but it eliminate a certain level of politics and we can focus our leadership appointments on leadership and managment abilities instead of political reliabilty.

My wing commander just pointed out last night that our leadership is disfuctional because the National CC and Vice CC don't like each other and she has to spend a lot of time working around him instead of them being a team hired by a single boss to get the mission done.

[Cecil DP]

My sources on the Board of Governors tell me that Col Tilton was removed from the board during "closed" procedings of the NEC.  According to my knowledge the vote during a closed session is not valid.   

Personnel Actions are always done in closed session

[FW]

^Personel Actions are discussed in closed session.   Votes are formalized in open session.  (As a 501C3 non profit, there are certain rules we must follow).  At the NB or NEC level, the power to make the final decision for "usual" personel actions (promotions or awards) is delegated to the CAP/CC.  Removing an "At Large" member of the BoG is not delegated.  I'm pretty sure the procedure is found in the minutes of the BoG; try 2005.

[ZigZag911]

As LordMonar pointed out, subordinates electing their commander is almost always a formula for trouble.

Another problem, in my view, is that the National CV is elected annually.

Should not be elected at all --selected by Nat'l CC, approved by BOG...serve at pleasure of CC (as should CS, FM, etc)

[flyguy06]

My wing commander just pointed out last night that our leadership is disfuctional because the National CC and Vice CC don't like each other and she has to spend a lot of time working around him instead of them being a team hired by a single boss to get the mission done.

Wow. I think you just threw the Nevada Wing Commander under the bus. 

[FW]

As LordMonar pointed out, subordinates electing their commander is almost always a formula for trouble.

Another problem, in my view, is that the National CV is elected annually.

Should not be elected at all --selected by Nat'l CC, approved by BOG...serve at pleasure of CC (as should CS, FM, etc)

Actually, boards always elect/select their chairman at an annual meeting however, directors are usually selected by members/stockholders.

Our system, IMHO, is getting out of hand.  The "too many cooks" syndrome is weighing us down.  Either the BoG must take a more active role in managing the affairs of CAP (they are the legal authority) or, formally delegate the day to day leadership of CAP to the National Commander.  BTW,this commander has only appointed 3 region commanders.  This commander will have the opportunity, though, to influence the appointment of every wing commander  (she will be in office for 4 years). She will not however, appoint any of them. Then again, by the time it happens, she'll have left office.

Over the years, some commanders have gotton along great with the vice; some have not.  But, since the duties of the vice are to stand by and assist, it really doesn't matter much.  The vice commander is there to "smile and make friends" in public.  In private, the vice is there to offer opinions which may or may not be in sync with the commander.  Do we, at the corporate level of CAP, really wish to have everyone on the leadership "team" to think as one.  The idea is to give the commander the best information possible before the decision is made.  After the decision, everyone steps in sync.  Board meetings are not supposed to be stage shows for the masses....

[ZigZag911]

As LordMonar pointed out, subordinates electing their commander is almost always a formula for trouble.

Another problem, in my view, is that the National CV is elected annually.

Should not be elected at all --selected by Nat'l CC, approved by BOG...serve at pleasure of CC (as should CS, FM, etc)

Over the years, some commanders have gotton along great with the vice; some have not.  But, since the duties of the vice are to stand by and assist, it really doesn't matter much.  The vice commander is there to "smile and make friends" in public.  In private, the vice is there to offer opinions which may or may not be in sync with the commander.  Do we, at the corporate level of CAP, really wish to have everyone on the leadership "team" to think as one.  The idea is to give the commander the best information possible before the decision is made.  After the decision, everyone steps in sync.  Board meetings are not supposed to be stage shows for the masses....

I don't see any benefit in saddling the National CC with a CV who is the leader of the opposition (loyal or otherwise, as the Brits would say!)

I also don't see any benefit in electing the CV annually.

[FW]

^ Well, the vice commander is an elected member of the command staff; to begin the learning process of being the next possible commander and, to sit as a member of the NEC, NB and BoG.  The election selects the best qualified member available by the NB (who may or may not have been appointed by the CC).  The position has an annual term to insure we have the best qualifed member as he/she will have 3 years (usually) to prove themselves for the roles above.  The individual elected is or has been an experienced member of the NB/NEC and has already demonstrated (theory) the abilty to lead.  The CV's job is not to "serve" the CC.  The CV's job is to assist.
IF we were to elect the CC and CV as a team, we would end up with cronyism in it's most extream case, IMHO, as we would eventually have just 1 individual selecting an "heir".  I rather have our current system.  And, as one who has been closely involved with the process for a long time.... I feel strongly about the issue.
BTW, we don't have political parties in CAP.  We do however, have various personalities and regional preferances.  If a commander has issues with the vice, I think it would be a better use of time and resources to work them out.  We are supposed to be professionals volunteering our time to serve our (you know the catch phrases  ); not a bunch of spoiled amatures looking for self importance and ego gratification.

Ok, I'm now off the soapbox...

[CAPSGT]

^ Well, the vice commander is an elected member of the command staff; to begin the learning process of being the next possible commander and, to sit as a member of the NEC, NB and BoG.  The election selects the best qualified member available by the NB (who may or may not have been appointed by the CC).  The position has an annual term to insure we have the best qualifed member as he/she will have 3 years (usually) to prove themselves for the roles above.  The individual elected is or has been an experienced member of the NB/NEC and has already demonstrated (theory) the abilty to lead.  The CV's job is not to "serve" the CC.  The CV's job is to assist.
IF we were to elect the CC and CV as a team, we would end up with cronyism in it's most extream case, IMHO, as we would eventually have just 1 individual selecting an "heir".  I rather have our current system.  And, as one who has been closely involved with the process for a long time.... I feel strongly about the issue.
BTW, we don't have political parties in CAP.  We do however, have various personalities and regional preferances.  If a commander has issues with the vice, I think it would be a better use of time and resources to work them out.  We are supposed to be professionals volunteering our time to serve our (you know the catch phrases  ); not a bunch of spoiled amatures looking for self importance and ego gratification.

Ok, I'm now off the soapbox...

FW for CAP/CV '10?  I can get started on bumper stickers now.

[Fubar]

FW for CAP/CV '10?  I can get started on bumper stickers now.

Don't forget the campaign video.

[ZigZag911]

Still think annual election of CV is too often...maybe two year term.

Also, respectfully disagree, FW, that elections get the "best qualified" available person...it gets the person who is the best vote-getter which, 90% of the time, means the best politician.

Of course CAP doesn't have political parties, but certainly we do have factions or interest groups...and even a 'political boss' or two, I'd guess, human nature being what it is.