CAP Members' Input Sought on Corporate Governance

[ZigZag911]

So we want these folks, many of whom have no actual experience in implementing CAP programs (hey, they may never have even met a CAP member before being appointed to the BOG) and have no "skin in the game" making all the decisions?  CAP Wing Commanders have to actually consider whether or not they could make proposed regulations work in the real world.

So we adjust the BoG.

Think outside the box.  The BoG was a compromise between CAP and USAF.  We can always change it to allow for "member representation".  The question would be how big should it be.  One or two members from each wing?  A rep for ever 1000 members in a "district"?  How do we share power between the USAF appointees and the CAP representitives? 

My suggestion has always been.....each squadron elects a rep (not the commander) who represent the members at the wing, who elects a member to represent the wing at region.  The region levels elects a member to sit on the BoG.

More like a union forman structure then what we have now.

The BoG "hires" the National CC and his Vice....they select regional commanders who select the wing commander who select the group/squadron commanders.

Nice, easy, minimises the amount of politicing.  Terms would be 2 years.  Allows the BoG to hire professional people that can focus on the job of getting the mission done....instead of having to worry about long term political agendas.

Allows for the general membership to directly affect policy through the politica process with out having to mix that up with the command/mission responsibilities.

Less "Wing Commander X got fired because Regional Commander Y is loading the deck for his bid to National CC" and more "Wing Commander X got fired because the national commander lost faith in his ability to perform his job."

[/rant]

I like it too; I do feel 2 years is a very short tenure in national CC role, but perhaps it could work.

[coudano]

This is the exactly wrong attitude to have, and one of the initial objections to WBP up front.
The squadron's money is the squadron's money.

No....it is not.  It never has been.  If the squadron folds....the money has always gone back to the corporation.  Before wing banker we had no way to get any of that cash......see the TXWG with the $1M grant.

Of course I should have put "air quotes around that".  Yes it is CAP's money,
but within CAP, the money that a squadron has raised should be that squadron's prerogative to control.

THAT is the most compelling case for WBP that there is.
Although maintaining external authorized signers or conditionals on the account are a valid option that most banks will provide that would alleviate that situation.

An this is exactly why:

if Unit X has $10,000 in the bank and they don't use it.....Unit Y who just started could use some of that money to get on their feet.  WBP makes that sort of transfer much easier.

I mean sure if squadron X wants to GIVE a couple thousand dollars of its hard earned money to squadron Y, then fine.  They can cut a check or even do a wire transfer just like WBP can.

However, when group or wing commander "orders" a squadron to give money to another squadron or simply takes it and puts it somewhere else, that 'ought to' be wrong somehow.  Supposedly that is not the policy of WBP, and everyone constantly reassures that "that won't happen", and i'm not aware of any instance of it actually happening, yet.  However, that I am aware of, there is no /actual/ protection against it.  So from my cynical and jaded point of view, it's just a matter of time, if it hasn't happened already and we just don't know about it.

(not that I advocate any sort of hostile take over!  Your squadron raised that money.....no one should be taking it away from you with our your permission....that's just good manners!)

Manners have a tendency go out the window when you're talking about tens of thousands or more dollars.  It's not just manners, it's also management.  If my cadets go out and bust their humps and between fund raising and donations get a pile of $35,000 and a bunch of that pile gets taken and distributed elsewhere, what do you think that's going to do to the attitude and morale of my cadets?  How hard do you think they are going to work at my next fundraiser?

By the same token, I would /never/ take money appropriated from some other squadron's hard work.

It's one thing in something like the military where unit funds come down from hq.  They can pull it back and redistribute it all they want, and nobody has any problems with that, including me.

However when the money comes in from the bottom up, through the units, and directly from the personal pockets and hard work of the members,  I have a HUGE problem with the corporation moving it around.

If the money never hits the wing banker system,
then it was never the corporation's money. meh.

There is a happy medium between hording every penny and getting robbed for all your cash.

I disagree.  If it's "yours", then it's "yours".

I think that argument is mostly just a straw man for the fear that wing may "steal" unit money.......even though it has always been the corporation's money.

I've seen donations made that were stipulated to be spent only on funding cadets from the local squadron to attend activities.  Donors can stipulate things like that, and those stipulations have to be met.

That's why the boosters come up.  They meet an actual need.  The booster's money isn't CAP's, so CAP has no visibility or control on it.  Simple.

If they want a $2,000 disco ball, and the squadron commander and finance committee approve it, and the money is in the account, then they get it.

To a point I agree with you.....but really?  People gave that money to CAP so you can do your mission.  Wasteing the funds on useless junk is just as bad as stealing it.  I have no problem with wing keeping an eye out for frivolous expenditures.  If you really need a disco-ball....the by all means get one.  I am sure you can justify it to wing.

Of course, when I say disco ball, I mean "anything" that someone might consider "frivilous".
Your squadron doesn't need a funded pizza party.
Your squadron doesn't need a MS flight sim setup with controls and stack.
Your squadron doesn't need (whatever).

You can always fire and/or prosecute members for buying stupid stuff.
That's the RIGHT thing to do.
Taking the money away from the unit isn't.

[lordmonar]

You know we have been doing WBP for quite a while now........any out there loose any money to the evil wing commander?

Anyone.....anyone?

As for haveing some wing level oversight for frivolous perchases......I absolutly don't see a problem with that. 

If you can't justify it to wing as a valid requirment to your mission.....then you should not buy it.

The money was not given to the unit so they could have the coolest cadet lounge in the wing! 

But again I will ask everyone.

Anyone out there ever been denied the permission to buy something that would really help CAP? 

Anyone?

[coudano]

yah that REALLY wasnt my original objection in this thread anyway
but...  :deadhorse:

[jimmydeanno]

If you can't justify it to wing as a valid requirment to your mission.....then you should not buy it.

That's what the unit finance committee is for, to ensure that expenses are authorized.  If a unit wants to upgrade their meeting location, so what?  As long as they don't spend money they don't have, it should be no business of the wing what they spend it on.  We buy meals all the time for cadets on SAREXs, lunch on Curry training days, etc.  Mission essential? No, but it is something that we budget for and approved. 

The last thing we need is some over zealous finance officer at wing telling us that they think an expense is frivolous and she isn't going to cut the check for something that the unit finance committee approved. Wing's only business into the expenses is that they unit doesn't overspend, cut checks, and provide a balance.  When was the last time your bank told you that you couldn't buy something because they didn't approve of it?

[lordmonar]

Never....because we don't ask for frivilous things.

But I hope that someone, somewhere would say WTF Over when they see something that is down right stupid.

But...as they say YMMV.

[coudano]

Never....because we don't ask for frivilous things.

But I hope that someone, somewhere would say WTF Over when they see something that is down right stupid.

But...as they say YMMV.

YMM REALLY V
when you and your squadron commaner and finance committee agree to fund something
and then YOU go out and shell out some hundred bucks for said thing
and submit for reimbursement

and THAT is the point where your friendly oversight doinks frivilous expense and apparently in your hypothetical world nay's the expense.  leaving you hanging with the unreimbursed bill.  thanks for the donation.

I've never seen that /actually happen/ either, but it's a very real situation that apparently you have no problem with... ()

[arajca]

I've been watching this discussion with a smirk.

A couple of points:
1. Wing cannot "take" or "reallocate" monies belonging to subordinate units

Except for unit deactivation, wings will not be permitted to co-mingle wing funds with subordinate unit funds nor use subordinate unit funds for any purpose not approved by the subordinate unit.

2. The level of review at wing finance re: $2000 disco ball is usually a. does the unit have the money and b. was it approved by the unit's finance committee.

3. There is a process to request funding prior to payment in most wings. If you are going to get that disco ball, you can usually get a quote - including shipping - from the vendor and attach that to the check request BEFORE purchase and get a check made out to the vendor.

[FW]

YMM REALLY V
when you and your squadron commaner and finance committee agree to fund something
and then YOU go out and shell out some hundred bucks for said thing
and submit for reimbursement

and THAT is the point where your friendly oversight doinks frivilous expense and apparently in your hypothetical world nay's the expense.  leaving you hanging with the unreimbursed bill.  thanks for the donation.

I've never seen that /actually happen/ either, but it's a very real situation that apparently you have no problem with... ( )

You are not going to see this happen. It is against regulations and, could end up as a FWA issue.  The WBP is set up to provide CAP with total accountability of funds; not control.  Units may spend their funds anyway they want (according to CAPR 173-1 and CAPR 173-4).

Now, why are we discussing this instead of the survey?

[arajca]

Now, why are we discussing this instead of the survey?

Normal CAPTalk aimless wandering...

[coudano]

i actually asked for a split earlier today but the mods have either not gotten to it yet or decided not to do it

[Rowan]

I still haven't received the survey yet.  Does anybody know what's going on with this?

[peter rabbit]

I still haven't received the survey yet.  Does anybody know what's going on with this?

I understand the survey link was sent out to about 500 members, closing date for responses is today.

[a2capt]

Check your spam or other filtered options for anything like this:

ccarr@cap.gov CAPsurvey@boardsource.org
reply-to   CAPsurvey@boardsource.org
date   Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 06:10
subject   Civil Air Patrol Governance Study

Another similar notice was sent 26-Oct, as well.

[FW]

I'd thought I'd give the thread a bump since NOTF published the Air Force IG report of (redacted's) complaint agianst the CAP Board of Governors.  IMHO, the report is an accurate account of what is happening at the national leadership level of CAP.  The confusion of the "pecking order" is obvious to most and, of course, needs to be addressed.  The polarization of factions in CAP, like the rest of the country, will be more difficult to change.

However, it is my opinion the BoG must address these issues with this understanding; it is the volunteers who perform CAP's many missions.  No matter how the governance of CAP works, there must be an effective interface between the dedicated members of CAP and the senior leadership and the Board of Governors.   

The AF IG's report underlines the BoG's failure to govern appropriately.  Even though it did not fail its fiduciary responsibilities, the board failed to change CAP's regulatory publications to bring sanity and reason to CAP governance after 10 years of existance.  (redacted's) complaint was just another salvo in attempting to confuse the situation and, with the help of the NB's governance committee, make life more difficult for those trying to improve our organization. 

It's time for Gen Anderson, BoG Chairman, to step up to the plate and remind the other members of the board why CAP has been successful for the last 70 years.  Successful governance of a dedicated membership should not be that difficult... :angel:

[peter rabbit]

Is there a link to the News of the Force article, or how can we get access?

[bosshawk]

+-Google on News of The Force and you should be able to find it.  I read it and didn't find that the IG was very kind to the BoG.

[ColonelJack]

The IG wasn't too kind to the BoG or to "Redacted".  It's kind of easy to understand why, at least as far as regulations go - the regs haven't been updated in almost 10 years.

I'm gathering from the IG report that, while the AF loves CAP volunteers, they're not too thrilled with higher headquarters - on the BoG side and on the CAP side.

Jack

[MSG Mac]

The whole system is scrod. The rank and filemembers  were told that the National Board was the governing body of CAP, but there is  a subcommitte aka The National Executive Committee  which appoints the members of  Board and meets seperately from them. Now we have a Board of Governors two thirds of which have no connection to CAP which is charged with the governance. You need a Doctorate in Theology to understand the governance as explained to the membership.

[FARRIER]

The one thing that was mentioned, brought up many times here, was the updating of regulations and manuals. Even though it referenced this particular investigation, members have found the same issue elsewhere.