Structural Change

[Hawk200]

Your potential structure assumes there will be some sort of relationship with the NGB and that it further assumes they would adequately represent the interests of CAP's state "customers".  Since the NGB uses CAP for very little I don't see that they would be the best at oversight.  I would rather see people from state emergency management agencies since they are by far a much bigger "customer" (both now and in the future) than the national guard. 

I don't think we should be controlled by a state EMA. Like it or not, Civil Air Patrol is a paramilitary ( http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/paramilitary ) organization. It doesn't need to be controlled under a wholly civilian organization.

The Guard does get tasked out to assist emergency agencies, I've worked a few of those myself. One of which my paycheck for that particular incident came from the Forestry Service.  The benefit there is that the Guard could task us out on incidents, and could make sure we get paid. We can't afford to be performing our services for free.

[DNall]

You really get a check direct from forrestry service, or was it from the state & they were reimbursed by forrestry? Cause that's wierd, I've never heard of that.

I don't think you're goign to get paid by falling under the state. CAP can add a per diem, regs already allow for that. The best chance it to pay a small amount from grant money as some of the amtr radio orgs have worked out. We can charge it as part of our rate on corporate missions though. I'm all for it, that & protected leave from work on a national level.

[RiverAux]

Like it or not, state emergency management officials are going to have a much better idea of how CAP can be utilized in emergencies than some random AF or NG officer.  Having some representatives of these agencies involved in running CAP could not hurt. 

[Hawk200]

You really get a check direct from forrestry service, or was it from the state & they were reimbursed by forrestry? Cause that's wierd, I've never heard of that.

I think it was Forestry. It came direct, not from the state. I don't even remember the amount, they only used us for one day. IT was small though. But even nickels and dimes will add up to thousands of dollars eventually.

[Hawk200]

Like it or not, state emergency management officials are going to have a much better idea of how CAP can be utilized in emergencies than some random AF or NG officer.  Having some representatives of these agencies involved in running CAP could not hurt. 

They may have a better idea, but we shouldn't be run by them. That's why I say the TAG can task CAP to the State EMAs. The TAG tasks Guard troops to state EMAs all the time. It would be easier, if all he or she had to say was "CAP, you're handling the state emergency stuff from now on. We'll call the Guard in if you don't have enough folks to handle it."

Civil Air Patrol should never have to answer to state EMAs. We are a military modeled organization, we should never be administered or by an agency that isn't directly affiliated with the military. For the TAG to task you to an EMA is one thing, completely different story when they're your boss.

[flyguy06]

Again, everyone is focused on ES. We have two other prmary missions. I doubt the EMS or Air Guard could help us with those two missions

[Hawk200]

Again, everyone is focused on ES. We have two other prmary missions. I doubt the EMS or Air Guard could help us with those two missions

Not entirely focused on ES  . I think the idea concerning the reins of CP and AE should indeed remain in NHQ's hands.

I think the idea of aligning under the Guard is a really good one. There have been some quite thought out questions, but I think this idea would work. Question is, who do we sell it to?

[RiverAux]

Civil Air Patrol should never have to answer to state EMAs. We are a military modeled organization, we should never be administered or by an agency that isn't directly affiliated with the military.

Having a few representatives from state emergency management agencies on the CAP BoG is a far cry from being administered by them. 

[Nick Critelli]

Focus....the question is who is the BEST strategic governmental partner (DoD,FEMA, USN, USA, USMC,USCG,  USAF, NGB,  DHS, USCG-Aux) to oversee and assist us with our Title 36 mission.  I described the Title 36 tasking in an earlier post.  Refer back to it and you will see that we have two missions....one very broad (to assist the federal government i.e. Title 10) and the other specifically referencing local communities.)

It's about ES but it is also about civil aviation,  aviation education, etc.  

Let's vote on a strategic partner then we'll go to work on the relationship:  Rank the following from 1 to 10 with 10 being the hightest:  Keep in mind the sponsoring agency MUST facilitate both national and state relationships and missions.

1.  DoD (Like the FDIC and other federal corporations, CAP would be under the DoD with no operational sponsor)

2. FEMA

3.  US Navy

4, US Army

5. US Marine Corps

6. US Coast Guard

7.  US Air Force

8.  National Guard Bureau (Air/Army NG)

9,  Dept Homeland Security,  (CAP would be under the DHS with no operational sponsor)

10.  USCG-Aux  CAP and USCG-AUX would merge.

[JohnKachenmeister]

DNall:

As always, your points are well taken.

The ANG is NOT currently involved in state missions.  This is for a very good reason, and the reason is also one which has effected the long-term missions of CAP.

The Feds support the ANG as an element of the Air Force.  They are trained and equipped by the feds for a federal mission.  The federal mission of the USAF is to establish and maintain air superiority and to provide strategic and theater air logistical supprt.  To do this requires aircraft that have very little use elsewhere.

So it is NOT that the states do not need a light-plane air arm, its just that they don't have one readily available for the missions that call for it.  One cannot do DR evacuation route recon from an F-16. 

So since the ANG doesn't have the aircraft that CAN help, they are simply not asked to help.

Under the plan I proposed, our CAP wing in each state will become functionally an ANG asset.  As such, we would be included in all planning.  Our status would be constantly reviewed by the AG and Asst AG/Air.  Our planes and crews would be called up early and often.

Just as the NG has a dual state/federal role, so would we.  The AFRCC could still directly task CAP wings with SAR missions on Uncle Sam's dime.

Now, under the current system, an AG could call up CAP assets by making a request to 1AF, but that puts another whole HQ into the mix, and the state AG would have an asset for a single mission, but none of the flexibility that he would have if the air asset were his own.

That's why AG's end up calling up their Army aviation assets.  They cost more, and in the long run such callups degrade the ability to respond to federal missions, but C3 is a lot simpler.

Wouldn't it be so much better to have a seat with the AG and all the major Guard units in the advance planning and exercises for disasters?  Wouldn't we be able to serve our country and communities better by being the "Go-to guys" when air assets are needed?

And by having a seat, I mean that our wing commander's response to a tasking is, "Can-do, sir!" not "I'll run that by NHQ (or the SJA, or 1AF) and get back with you."

[RiverAux]

So, I still don't see what is in this for the NG.  Under this theory a "NG asset" would be getting missions directly from the AFRCC bypassing the NG leadership entirely?  I don't see that flying at all.  If the NG wants a light air arm all they have to do is convince their Governor to start an SDF with a few airplanes and they would have total control over the whole structure.  Sure, it would cost some money, but I bet they would rather spend money and have total control over not spending money and getting the administrative headaches without total control over what we're doing. 

Everything we want to do can be accomplished under the current structure, its just not terribly efficient.  As long as we're still being primarily a federal asset we need to be under federal "control".  I agree with Dnall that we're currently in the wrong part of the AF. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

So, I still don't see what is in this for the NG.  Under this theory a "NG asset" would be getting missions directly from the AFRCC bypassing the NG leadership entirely?  I don't see that flying at all.  If the NG wants a light air arm all they have to do is convince their Governor to start an SDF with a few airplanes and they would have total control over the whole structure.  Sure, it would cost some money, but I bet they would rather spend money and have total control over not spending money and getting the administrative headaches without total control over what we're doing. 

Everything we want to do can be accomplished under the current structure, its just not terribly efficient.  As long as we're still being primarily a federal asset we need to be under federal "control".  I agree with Dnall that we're currently in the wrong part of the AF. 

River:

Of course, you are correct.  A state COULD establish a non-federal state defense force and attach it to the ANG.  And it would only cost money.  The rub is it would cost LOTS of money!  The fed. govt gives zero support (by law, it cannot) to SDF's.  That means the state has to pay all the bills.  A fleet of planes, gas, uniforms for members, training, basing, insurance, support vehicles, etc., ad infinitum.

Using this plan, the organization has already been created, and is supported by the federal government.  CAP already has, just like the "regular" ANG, a federal mission.  We perform missions that ordinarily WOULD be state missions, but we only perform them at the order of the federal govt.  Placing us under the ANG seems a natural fit.

I don't know if you have ever served as a Guardsman, but this dual chain of command and duality of taskings is not unusual.  Having ANG assets federalized for an AF mission is an everyday occurance.  The fact that AFRCC can mobilize CAP assets for a fed. mission would not even raise an eyebrow at the AG's office. 

[bosshawk]

River Aux: don't recall which state you are from and I guess that it really doesn't matter.  In CA, we have an MOU with state OES that says, essentially, that we respond to requirements from them when they call.  They back that up with a sum of money sent to the CAP coffers every year.  Not a big sum, but money nonetheless, that is used by CAWG for equipment to be able to communicate with state police and emergency agencies.

That makes us responsible for responding to state OES as well as the AF: just what, I guess, you are objecting to.  Doesn't bother CAWG, we just respond to whomever calls.  We operate on OES mission numbers and OES pays the tab when we file a 108.  In my nearly 14 years of doing this, I have flown a bunch of OES missions without a single hitch.

Could resurrect the MOU, I guess, if necessary.

[DNall]

CAP & ANG are VERY different in key ways. The guard has a Captial title 32 state mission, and a lower case title 10 federal mission, both are well defined & not infringed upon. CAP has a capital title 10 mission set as defined by 1AF and AFNSEP http://www.afnsep.af.mil/ , and a lower case title 36 corporate mission set which is not defined well in law. Note: that's misleading as well cause title 36 doesn't actually grant any authority or mission.

This is an important distinction because it defines how we serve different masters. There is a place, in disaster response, where we may come together on similiar objectives, but the TAG is not in charge of that, FEMA is. In a federally declared disaster, it would be stupid for the state to task CAP to do anything when they can just as easily request that CAP support from the AF and have it paid on the fed dime. That need not be a single mission request. A smart EMA/TAG would request a CAP task force to provide SaR, assessment, comm, & logistics support for a defined timeframe, and they'd get everything they ask for plus a CAP-USAF team to keep it in the lines.

The only circumstance under which a state needs CAP is when they don't have the resources to respond to an incident, which is exactly the criteria for it becoming a federally declared disaster. Can CAP get in the show faster to trailblaze for state & federal response, yeah sure, that's a national MOU you're talking about between NGB, 1AF, & CAP. The framework of that MOU can streamline the process all the way down to putting CAP assets under the command of TAGs when that's appropriate.

Here's the bigger thing though. I can see where you're coming from on disaster, and that's fine, but 1AF runs homeland air defense (including air recon/detection/etc), ANG provides assets to that effort, but they don't run that show. Then there's inland SaR, run by AFRCC which works for 1AF. States & Feds run their own seperate shows on that one. What I owa has going isn't a bad method... send in CAP advisors to liaise at a state mission & if the circumstance is right for CAP then call AFRCC for the authroization (funding).

I really do appreciate where this NGB train of thought is coming from, but to me the dots seem to connect so much better under 1AF, and like I said in that framework we can be streamed as a resource to state command if we set up the agreement to do so. Lets be honest here, it's a lot easier to get an MOU like that done than to restructure CAP under the guard but hold back CP & AE... that just gets too complicated.

[RiverAux]

I'm all in favor of CAP doing a lot more state missions, I just fail to see how associating us with the NG will do that.  

In Virginia they have an SDF air wing that uses private planes.  In that case it would just cost the state the same sort of fuel costs that they would have to pay to CAP to do non-AFAMs anyway, plus they have full control and no PCA issues.  Last I saw I think they actually have over 20 planes involved.  This model (the same used by the CG Aux by the way) would be relatively inexpensive.    

The Alaska SDF does have some ancient state-owned low-wing airplanes which I can't see being of much use at all.

No matter what military agency you put us under (NGB, 1AF, or any other ) most CAP missions are going to originate with county or state agencies anyway.  

[DNall]

River Aux: don't recall which state you are from and I guess that it really doesn't matter.  In CA, we have an MOU with state OES that says, essentially, that we respond to requirements from them when they call.  They back that up with a sum of money sent to the CAP coffers every year.  Not a big sum, but money nonetheless, that is used by CAWG for equipment to be able to communicate with state police and emergency agencies.

That makes us responsible for responding to state OES as well as the AF: just what, I guess, you are objecting to.  Doesn't bother CAWG, we just respond to whomever calls.  We operate on OES mission numbers and OES pays the tab when we file a 108.  In my nearly 14 years of doing this, I have flown a bunch of OES missions without a single hitch.

See this is fine, that's exactly what I'm saying. That is in my view the best way to run this show. Now, I think you could enhance that MOU somewhat w/ lessons learned from Iowa. I think you should add the condition that "additional assets will be made available, but when conflict exists, priority will go to AF/federal mission requests." From there you can ask for more money, but in exchage agree to meet readiness goals, quality standards, etc in conjunciton w/ the guard & overseen by the TAG or AAG-Air. I like that just fine. Feel free to ask for employment protection & the possibility of deployed per diem while you're at it.

In no way does that conflict with OPCON under 1AF, which opens up a wider range of possibilities then I think are generally understood.

[JohnKachenmeister]

River Aux: don't recall which state you are from and I guess that it really doesn't matter.  In CA, we have an MOU with state OES that says, essentially, that we respond to requirements from them when they call.  They back that up with a sum of money sent to the CAP coffers every year.  Not a big sum, but money nonetheless, that is used by CAWG for equipment to be able to communicate with state police and emergency agencies.

That makes us responsible for responding to state OES as well as the AF: just what, I guess, you are objecting to.  Doesn't bother CAWG, we just respond to whomever calls.  We operate on OES mission numbers and OES pays the tab when we file a 108.  In my nearly 14 years of doing this, I have flown a bunch of OES missions without a single hitch.

See this is fine, that's exactly what I'm saying. That is in my view the best way to run this show. Now, I think you could enhance that MOU somewhat w/ lessons learned from Iowa. I think you should add the condition that "additional assets will be made available, but when conflict exists, priority will go to AF/federal mission requests." From there you can ask for more money, but in exchage agree to meet readiness goals, quality standards, etc in conjunciton w/ the guard & overseen by the TAG or AAG-Air. I like that just fine. Feel free to ask for employment protection & the possibility of deployed per diem while you're at it.

In no way does that conflict with OPCON under 1AF, which opens up a wider range of possibilities then I think are generally understood.

When I learned to call in artillery, I learned that once a 50 meter bracket is established by WP marking rounds, you call for "Fire for Effect."

DNall and I have established the 50 meter bracket.  Both of us are using the Iowa model as the basis for operations under the military authority of TAG.  (Yes, FEMA is the fed response in charge, but the TAG commands all military assets in the state.  If FEMA wants military forces, the run the tasking to TAG.  Fed. military forces are only used when NG forces are insufficient).

DNall wants to use the existing OPCON to 1AF, with Iowa-esque MOU's in all 52 wings.  That will work.

I propose restructuring the entire CAP command relationship so that the Iowa plan can be implemented nationwide.  That will also work.

The question then becomes, which plan is better?  Which can be implemented the easiest, and which offers the most benefits to us?

And those questions are tough.  DNall's plan IS easier to implement.

But I think my plan offers the most benefit to CAP and to its members.

[RiverAux]

Keep in mind that CAP already has MOUs with every state (or should -- I seem to recall hearing that one of the Katrina states had let their's lapse). 

Exactly what is in the Iowa MOU?  Frankly, it doesn't seem that different than some others from what I have heard posted.  Other states use NG facilities for meetings, many other Wings get state funding.  Other Wings do quite a few state missions.  The only significant difference seems to be the willingess to billet CAP on one of their bases every month and that isn't necessarily something that every state could do or be willing to do.  I'm just asking for information, not making a judgement call. 

I'm also trying to wrap my head around exactly how the states are going to be forced to accept CAP into their National Guard structure.  I can understand how CAP, as a national organization can be placed under the command of the National Guard Bureau, but do not see how the feds will be able to mandate that each state set aside people and money to oversee CAP. 

I think you're dramatically overestimating how much interest the NG will have in getting this responsibility.  I don't recall if I said it yet in this thread, but keep in mind that about half the state's haven't created a State Defense Force and of those States with them they get almost no money at all and in many states the Adjutant General would disband them if they had the opportunity and uses them as little as possible.  That is the sort of situation you would be dropping CAP into. 

By trying to integrate CAP into the state structure you will be putting CAP into a very risky situation where we would be at the whim of folks to whom we are a very insignificant part of their mission.  It is a receipe for making CAP into even more of a patchwork than we are now.  Some states may have great relationships and be overwhelmed with missions and resources while others get the short end of the stick. 

[DNall]

I don't know if I'd go that far with it, but I share some of those concerns... moving to an Army dominated command, reinforced fragmentation, 52 seperate standards. All bad. It was the right move for Iowa, but not the smae thing on a national scale. He's also right that many wings get tons of money from their states, & most have access to similiar facilities.

The logical "partner" on a national scale that gives you everything they are getting from the states while preserving the much more important roles we can be playing nationally; the place where all our missions converge.... that's 1AF.

I don't think you even need 52 seperate MOUs. What you need is ONE national MOU. 1AF takes resources from the states to run airspace monitoring, defense, HLS, counter-narc, etc & they have AFRCC too. What we need is an MOU that allows that flow to be reversed to address certain state needs. It'd spell out: the simple streamlined proceedures, range of resources & misisons that can be addressed, etc. 1AF is the coordinating  agency & resource provider. NGB sets national readiness standards to meet TAG needs, ensures support & interaction from TAGs, etc. TAGs are the requestor & merely need to affirm knowledge of this national agreement. I'd try to add that state participation in the agreement requires CAP members activated at state request to be covered by equiv employment & liability protections as NG members on state active duty.

I appreciate the NG centric perspective, but to me this broader simpler move is the best of both worlds. It is no small thing. It would be the same kind of thing you're seeing in Iowa, and states would have a high level of interaction & a lot to say about readiness standards for CAP in their state, but it keeps us federal first & focused on the big picture rather than the narrow mission set that the NG can hand us. I think we're shooting the same target though. How to get this done is a negotiation somewhere over our paygrade, unfortunately.

[Ricochet13]

Personally I consider MGen Pineda a stong leader. The only problem I see is the lack of communication from the CAP CC to the membership on HIS goals for the organization.

I have to strongly disagree.  He may be a strong 'manager' but he is far from a strong 'leader'.   A good leader would communicate their vision for CAP (or any organization).   He's displayed his strong arm management skills in the sacking of many CAP Officers.  Given the amount of time he has sat at the top he has done nothing to stem the growing tide of membership decline in the past five years, nor has he communicated to us what the blazes "Performing Missions for America" are.

I'm not sure "strong manager" should apply.  The evidence would seem to suggest "Micro Manager".  That is a trap many leaders easily fall in to for a variety of reaons.  Review the CAP publications page and note the number of /CC letters posted as clarification and explanation.  Many could and should have been passed down through the chain of command by staff at NHQ.  Strong "leaders" and stong "managers" both know how to delegate.  The role of the CG should be to develop a vision for the organization, communicate that vision to members/subordinates and outside interests, and then inspire others to take measures necessary to achieve the previously articulated vision.