Changing Civil Air Patrol to U.S. Civil Air Patrol

[baronet68]

After doing a list, it looks like DCWG (actually National Capitol Wing) was in the original list, but I don't have enough info at hand to figure out PR. If someone from any one of these wings (RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY) could give me the old number, I can figure out the rest.

WY is 49

WA = 46

[ColonelJack]

Quoting RiverAux:

"You would think that something like this could at least have been put on the public agenda.  It was in the Uniform Committee report, which should have been part of the agenda.  So essentially it was sprung on people with no warning at the meeting itself."

Okay, I'm beginning to understand some of the reactions to this proposal.  Maybe I operate on the wrong track, or maybe I just want to play Devil's Advocate, or maybe I really am a smartass like people say I am ... but I have to ask this question.

Why should the membership have any say in these issues?

We never had any say in them before.  During World War II, we wore what the Army Air Corps told us to wear.  I would be surprised to learn that 100% of CAP members then liked the scarlet shoulder straps and sleeve braid.  Most probably didn't even think about it, but if they did, they can't all have liked it.  When we transitioned to the blues after the AF became a service, CAP had to wear that ridiculous "Coca-Cola" style patch over the right breast pocket for a long time.  You'd think the membership would've hollered about that ... but they weren't even asked.  The berry boards were forced upon us because of what one general officer did -- nobody asked us if we wanted to wear berry boards, we were simply told to wear them or give up the AF uniform entirely. 

I'm really not trying to start an argument, and I do understand those who say there have been WAY too many uniform changes in the past two years.  Maybe -- just maybe -- CAP is trying to find its own identity in the post-9/11 world.  We have already been told that we're only the AF Auxiliary when they need us to be ... I think we're trying to find our own identity when we're NOT the AF Auxiliary.  That, to some in the national leadership, means having a uniform that looks somewhat like our parent Big Blue, but not enough like it to make them nervous that someone out there with bad eyesight might actually think old, overweight me really IS an Air Force lieutenant colonel.

I join with you who say there's far too much emphasis on uniforms and changes.  I just think the reactions of some of us go that far -- or even farther -- in the opposite direction.  We need a sense of balance.  If we're not getting that from our leadership, just remember ... General Pineda has about a year left in his term.  Then ... we shall see what we shall see.

Jack

[A.Member]

Why should the membership have any say in these issues?

Simple...because we are a volunteer organization and members pay dues to participate.  The "leadership" of the organization has seemingly taken it upon themselves to make significant changes in the direction of the organization, either actively or passively.  They have done so without presenting this change to the membership (in essence, we are their shareholders).  These changes appear to take us down a road to becoming a much different organization than the one I and many others joined.

The focus on uniforms, letterhead, etc. seem to be much more the result of someone's ego and need for a legacy than it is for the good of the organization.  Hell, even the "real" military solicits feedback on uniform changes from it's members prior to implementing a change.  But most importantly, real issues of the organization are neglected as a result of this silly sideshow. 

[RiverAux]

I think it is more than proper for meeting agendas and any proposals that are to be voted on made public before the meeting so that CAP members can let their leaders, at the appropriate level, aware of their thoughts on the matter.  Having 60K people look over a proposal for potential flaws is better than 50-75. 

Over most matters such input probably isn't really necessary, but practically changing the name of the organization certainly seems to be as if something that every member should have some say in. 

[DNall]

I think what people are looking for is more of an independent joint CAP & AF uniform board that isn't wrapped up in all the other stupidity of our governance structure. And a wear-test process that gives people the chance to see & comment on things prior to it being thrust upon them. No one is saying memebrship should vote on uniform changes, but the chance to be heard & have ideas considered on merit is all that's being asked.

[Pumbaa]

I think the NB needs to ask this question...

Why has CAP bled more members than having members joining in the last oh... 6-7 years?

Sure part of it was the post 9-11 lemmee join and be a part, then dropped out once the fever went away..

But a big part is what is advertised.  We advertise what CAP USED to be, not what it has become. Expectations based on the recruiting materials do not reflect the reality.  Now add in this constant majoring on the minors of TPUs, BDU's Name Tapes, Not being able to get quality uniforms in a timely manner, (Bling too).  The cease and desist of suppliers who do turn out a good product in a quick time, etc...

I'll leave the rest to you to think about and dwell on.

[JC004]

But a big part is what is advertised.  We advertise what CAP USED to be, not what it has become. Expectations based on the recruiting materials do not reflect the reality.

I've thought that often.  But the question is...can we be what we advertise if things are managed properly?

I also agree about suppliers.  I think it's part of a bigger issue...making things complicated when we should be making things as simple and stream-lined as possible whenever we can.  Having so many uniforms and stuff doesn't help.  It confuses and frustrates new volunteers to say that there are 14,000 options and rules.  They would feel much better about the organization if we were able to say "you can do it this way, or you can do it that way."  Referring someone to the already confusing uniform manual (or other regulation), and adding numerous changes on top is discouraging and frustrating.  The National Board's constant changes without a clear direction or purpose is going to cause more trouble than anything. 

Call it "Civil Air Patrol" or "US Civil Air Patrol," but be consistent and show your intent.

[Al Sayre]

Here's my 2 cents.  Back in the '70's WIWAC,  you either said "Civil Air Patrol"  or C. A. P. (pronounced See-A-Pee).  To say CAP, as in what you wear on your head, would be a hanging offense if you had been in the organization more than an hour.   

As Child Abuse Prevention organizations have become more popular over the recent years, many people who are not familiar with our organization see the acronym CAP and think Child Abuse Prevention, and I have actually had a couple of local people who have called me interested in joining the Mississippi Child Abuse Prevention Society because they got my name in a newspaper article that talked about MSCAP (reporters error, not mine), and were suprised to find out that we weren't the same organization.

I see this as part of the new branding iniative to help un-muddy the waters in acronym land, and as Nick stated to emphasize our national role.  I'm not real happy about buying and having to put new tapes on my BDU's, my wifes BDU's, and my cadet daughter's BDU's, as I know only too well how long it takes and what it will cost to have that many uniforms changed, but if it clears the confusion and brings more recognition to the organization, I guess I can live with it.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Good point Al. 

Frankly, my big problem isn't with this cosmetic change.  I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating.

We simply are not made privvy to the Natl. Commander's vision for our organization.  Is this change simply cosmetic, or is it to reinforce the "One CAP" concept that he identified when wing patches (sort of) went away?  Is it to clarify our mission and role?  Or is it a part of a move toward a more independent CAP, perhaps on a USCG model, where we would be under DHS unless called to USAF service?

I'd sure like to know.  Right now I feel like a mushroom.

[NIN]

Frankly, I just think we're tilting at windmills with some of this stuff.

Why do uniform items have to take up massive amounts of the agenda each time there is an NEC or NB meeting?  Why do we need a badge for every specialty track? (and those heinous enamelled badges, anyway..BLECH)  Why do we need to keep adding badges 3 times a year?

There was a big push years back for uniform changes, and if I remember right, a moratorium was placed upon them in the form of a uniform board that met only once a year (mind you, this might have been the AF and not us.. I honestly do not recall correctly).  And the massive "constantly chasing uniform items" noise dropped off considerably.  Why can't we do that again?

Unless we're here to make sure that people have to constantly go back to Vanguard to buy stuff (and suffer thru their non-existent customer service)

[DNall]

Frankly, I just think we're tilting at windmills with some of this stuff.

Why do uniform items have to take up massive amounts of the agenda each time there is an NEC or NB meeting?  Why do we need a badge for every specialty track? (and those heinous enamelled badges, anyway..BLECH)  Why do we need to keep adding badges 3 times a year?

It was 45mins out of a three day conference & several hours of agenda over two days. Yeah they make too makny changes & do so in a rash fashion w/o field testing ideas first or making the process at least appear accessible, and since we pay for everything it's the membership that takes a hit, but the national organization isn't wasting the majority of their time on this.

There was a big push years back for uniform changes, and if I remember right, a moratorium was placed upon them in the form of a uniform board that met only once a year (mind you, this might have been the AF and not us.. I honestly do not recall correctly).  And the massive "constantly chasing uniform items" noise dropped off considerably.  Why can't we do that again?

That was AETC saying quit wasitng our CC's time with stupid crap, it can be considered in our regular board w/ all the other AF items & recommended or not for approval at that time, otherwise unless it's an emergency or in some way very pressing, spend your time better developing your proposals rather than tossing up this thrown together on the fly crap w/ no justification statements.

Several changes were shot down to the AF uniforms at the begining of Pineda's term, so now we're in this round of corporate side changes w/ no restrictions on how often they get heard. So yeah that's probably a good strategy that uniform items can only be addressed once every two years unless there are extenuating circumstances with strong justification & the board votes both to hear the individual issue early & to approve or disapptrove it.

As a side note, I think they're rolling hard on this stuff trying to fix retention, and obviously this isn't the place they need to spend their time.

[A.Member]

As a side note, I think they're rolling hard on this stuff trying to fix retention, and obviously this isn't the place they need to spend their time.

If this is the case, and it may well be, then they are rushing ahead with all this  without understanding the problem. 

AFAIK, there was no outcry for a change to the MAJCOM patch, there was no outcry for the TPU, there was no outcry for new name tapes, there was no outcry to change the vinyl on the aircraft, etc.   None of these addresses retention.  As a matter of fact, all this foolishness is more likely to add to retention issues than resolve any. 

[ZigZag911]

Sure part of it was the post 9-11 lemmee join and be a part, then dropped out once the fever went away.

They dropped out because 5 years have passed, and we have still not received an HLS mission for the organization as a whole....people came on board to help protect America, and did not see themselves getting that opportunity.

[ZigZag911]

Here's my 2 cents.  Back in the '70's WIWAC,  you either said "Civil Air Patrol"  or C. A. P. (pronounced See-A-Pee).  To say CAP, as in what you wear on your head, would be a hanging offense if you had been in the organization more than an hour.   

Beg to differ, but WIWAC in the early 70's, us darn Yankees here in NER said "CAP" (as in flight cap) referring to the organization all the time.

By the way, even then there were other 'CAP' groups....a lot of urban areas had Community Action Programs.

Just for the record, I think "US CAP" is absurd.

[SKYKING607]

An acquaintance of mine affiliated with the old Confederate Air Force refers to us as the Confederate Air Patrol since we adopted the grey colors on our uniforms.

Needed:  Return the green utilities (for the non-combat status).
                Standard CIVIL AIR PATROL tapes on 'em.

[Pylon]

My main question is:  WHY are these items never on the agenda?   

The items likely to cause the most controversey never appear on the agenda before the NB meetings.  They just pop up during the meeting and get rail-roaded through into a vote.

What about giving the voting members of the NB time to think about the issues and not put them on the spot?  What about, for the better NB members, give them time to ask their CAP colleagues and subordinates what they think on certain issues? 

Are these items not thought-of in time to make the agenda, or were they not put on there for a reason?

[A.Member]

My main question is:  WHY are these items never on the agenda?   

The items likely to cause the most controversey never appear on the agenda before the NB meetings.  They just pop up during the meeting and get rail-roaded through into a vote.

What about giving the voting members of the NB time to think about the issues and not put them on the spot?  What about, for the better NB members, give them time to ask their CAP colleagues and subordinates what they think on certain issues? 

Are these items not thought-of in time to make the agenda, or were they not put on there for a reason?

Excellent question/points.

And why is no else in attendance raising such questions?

[Hawk200]

Needed:  Return the green utilities (for the non-combat status).

One problem: Where you going to get them?

[RogueLeader]

Needed:  Return the green utilities (for the non-combat status).

One problem: Where you going to get them?

Already have them, had them for four years now
I got them at a surplus store.
BTW they don't have any CAP US CAP stuff on them

[afgeo4]

Sure part of it was the post 9-11 lemmee join and be a part, then dropped out once the fever went away.

They dropped out because 5 years have passed, and we have still not received an HLS mission for the organization as a whole....people came on board to help protect America, and did not see themselves getting that opportunity.

You hit the nail right on the head! Even in NYC we don't have any Homeland Security missions. We have no proper disaster relief mission training and we have no SAR mission to begin with since we're in a major metropolitan center. All of our non cadet programs personnel have dropped out and recruiting new ones feels like a blatant lie to me. I cannot, with integrity in mind, recruit someone to do "Missions for America" when I know full well that no missions are forthcoming.