Quote from: tedda on January 10, 2008, 10:43:13 PM
Always with the knee-jerk up in here...
Chances are, a distinctive polo and khakis are typical dress for Wing Administrators and State Directors (of liaison services)
They are around this wing, and the two gentlemen in those positions who work in our Dept of Military Affairs building exemplify professionalism.
Do not, I say again, do not turn this into a uniform thread.
hahahahahahahahah!! ;D I promise!! No uniform thread!!! ;D hahahahahahahahahah!!! ;D
Quote from: modHere's a nice safe place for you guys who cannot resist discussing everything there is to discuss about the uniform. Go nuts.
-TA
I don't *DO* polo shirts.
***POLO****
I don't even own a horse......and I don't play golf.
::)
Nuff said.
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on January 11, 2008, 05:30:31 PM
I don't *DO* polo shirts.
Well then, good sir, perhaps this combination (http://www.cap.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&nodeID=6192&newsID=3891&year=2008&month=1) better suits your high sartorial standards?
Having had another chance to review the web version of the story, I see a few things:
- This seems to be directed at supporting military families - I see nothing that would indicate support to operations.
- The "uniform" seems to be a CAP, as opposed to a VSAF, uniform. This seems to indicate VSAF is working for CAP instead of us working for VSAF.
- Still no idea on the work envisioned or the imagined skillset.
Right now, the jury is still out if this is just another "Mission for America" or a mission suited for CAP.
Someone recently coined the term the "Seven Mission Spread" for CAP.
CAP's missions now look more like CP, AE, ES, HLD, DDR, Safety, Wreaths Across America, VSAF...
What we need to ask ourselves:
What exactly is CAP's true mission these days? Does VSAF fit into our missions? How does it?
I predict this thread will grow to be at least 3x as big as the thread discussing the VSAF program itself.
I guess it's true that the amount of discussion on an issue is inversely proportional to the issue's actual importance.
It's a business casual outfit with a CAP logo... big deal. The attire is comparable to what state directors wear these days.
Besides, VSAF will live or die based on the actions of the participants, not what they're wearing.
Enough with the uniform religious wars. Crickey!
Quote from: Pylon on January 11, 2008, 08:03:22 PM
Someone recently coined the term the "Seven Mission Spread" for CAP.
Yeah, that guy was some major wiseacre...
And its more properly "Seven Mission Spread™"
QuoteCAP's missions now look more like CP, AE, ES, HLD, DDR, Safety, Wreaths Across America, VSAF...
What we need to ask ourselves:
What exactly is CAP's true mission these days? Does VSAF fit into our missions? How does it?
AE, ES and CP.
Then Safety, DDR, Wreaths Across America, CISM...
Quote from: RocketPropelled on January 11, 2008, 06:44:34 PM
Well then, good sir, perhaps this combination (http://www.cap.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&nodeID=6192&newsID=3891&year=2008&month=1) better suits your high sartorial standards?
Gee, that looks an awful lot like the Oxford shirt I mentioned (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3711.msg75836#msg75836) last week... and it's certainly not the 'polo' as detailed in the article. Oops much? ;D
There was no need to mention the uniform in the article. It could have been omitted and had absolutely zero effect on the message. It's like the uniform description was added just so there could be another CAPTalk thread.
The article describes one uniform and the accompanying photo shows a uniform that doesn't match what is described in the article. Makes one wonder about public affairs. Let's add an unnecessary item to the article, then add an unrelated photo.
Not to mention the creation of one more uniform combo, which is?. Glad CAP has its priorities straight.
Mike
QuoteDoes VSAF fit into our missions?
Helping the AF perform non-combat missions is one of the specific tasks of CAP outlined in the federal legislation and this would seem to fally quite nicely in that category.
I'd hate to derail a uniform thread by bringing up something else like I did in my previous post, so back to the VSAF uniform:
There is some benefit in going with this uniform in that all the CAP people that participate will be wearing the same thing and it give us some brand identification with those we're working with as compared to 5 different CAP people showing up to help wearing 5 different uniforms.
I think the proposed uniform is probably okay assuming that the volunteer tasks are basically going to be indoor office work of some kind or another.
Personally, I would rather have it be one of the military style uniforms, but as any CAPTalker knows, if any AF person accidentally salutes a CAP officer the whole American military system will collapse....
Realistically though, if we have to wear this uniform to get our foot in the door, so be it. Maybe at some point in the future other options would be available.
The shirt really looks good. Not that I would want to wear it during a CAP meeting, but if it meant helping on an AF Base- you better believe that I would.
Is Col. Chitwood the designated CAP uniform model now?
One possibility --- When CG Auxies are augmenting they are supposed to remove their office insignia (looks like rank, but isn't) from their uniforms. However, it isn't uncommon at all for the CG unit commander to tel them to go ahead and wear it anyway.
I wouldn't be surprised if at some point either the CAP people in this program ask or the AF unit commander tells them to wear one of the military uniforms. After all, the AF guys probably aren't going to know our uniform regulations anyway, and might think it strange to see us in those uniforms. Or, perhaps they don't want people in civvies working in their units. So, they may exercise a little command perogitive.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 12, 2008, 02:05:55 PM
One possibility --- When CG Auxies are augmenting they are supposed to remove their office insignia (looks like rank, but isn't) from their uniforms. However, it isn't uncommon at all for the CG unit commander to tel them to go ahead and wear it anyway.
I wouldn't be surprised if at some point either the CAP people in this program ask or the AF unit commander tells them to wear one of the military uniforms. After all, the AF guys probably aren't going to know our uniform regulations anyway, and might think it strange to see us in those uniforms. Or, perhaps they don't want people in civvies working in their units. So, they may exercise a little command perogitive.
Why wouldn't they want
civilians (us) wearing a civilian uniform when helping out?
It's not gonna be the end of the world if we can't wear our military uniforms for this thing guys.
Whats more important? Helping the Air Force out? Or making ourselves feel better by wearing BDUs or what not?
I like the new Polo and Khaki look! :o
QuoteWhy wouldn't they want civilians (us) wearing a civilian uniform when helping out?
It's not gonna be the end of the world if we can't wear our military uniforms for this thing guys.
Whats more important? Helping the Air Force out? Or making ourselves feel better by wearing BDUs or what not?
I said it would be my preference. Why? Two reasons -- 1. It requires CAP members to purchase yet another new uniform in order to do the mission when they already own a uniform and 2. The AF has already authorized us to wear AF-style uniforms and there is no real good reason to not allow them to be worn while doing this mission.
The only reason not to that has ever been presented is that we're worried that CAP will not follow proper customs and courtesies. If a CAP member can't figure those out then they probably can't figure out the volunteer job they're trying to do on base anyway, so it isn't an issue. Frankly, it is a bit of put-down in saying that essentially we can't be trusted to wear the uniform they've said we can wear.
However, as I said earlier, I strongly expect that it won't be very long before the uniform requirement is relaxed and if this is what it takes to get us started, its worth it.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 12, 2008, 07:24:52 PM
QuoteWhy wouldn't they want civilians (us) wearing a civilian uniform when helping out?
It's not gonna be the end of the world if we can't wear our military uniforms for this thing guys.
Whats more important? Helping the Air Force out? Or making ourselves feel better by wearing BDUs or what not?
I said it would be my preference. Why? Two reasons -- 1. It requires CAP members to purchase yet another new uniform in order to do the mission when they already own a uniform and 2. The AF has already authorized us to wear AF-style uniforms and there is no real good reason to not allow them to be worn while doing this mission.
The only reason not to that has ever been presented is that we're worried that CAP will not follow proper customs and courtesies. If a CAP member can't figure those out then they probably can't figure out the volunteer job they're trying to do on base anyway, so it isn't an issue. Frankly, it is a bit of put-down in saying that essentially we can't be trusted to wear the uniform they've said we can wear.
However, as I said earlier, I strongly expect that it won't be very long before the uniform requirement is relaxed and if this is what it takes to get us started, its worth it.
Why don't you stop looking at it as a put down and just be happy we have the ability to help the Air Force out more?
Sometimes, you guys act like the Air Force senior guys sit around in smoking jackets and think of how to demean us bastard step children more.
Do you honestly believe some Air Force officer said 'Man, CAP can't get there C&C correct, so lets design them another uniform."
Quote from: JThemann on January 13, 2008, 02:05:27 AM
Do you honestly believe some Air Force officer said 'Man, CAP can't get there C&C correct, so lets design them another uniform."
YES. OR Vanguard said "Hey CAP here is something new for you to do....."
QuoteDo you honestly believe some Air Force officer said 'Man, CAP can't get there C&C correct, so lets design them another uniform."
Well, its either that, or some variation of that comment OR somebody in CAP said the very same thing and suggested it to them (after all you can't go two posts on CAPTalk without finding someone saying that CAP members can't tie their boots).
How else do we end up with a brand new uniform specifically for this mission?
I hope this replaces the GOLF SHIRT, I would wear this.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 13, 2008, 08:47:33 AM
I hope this replaces the GOLF SHIRT, I would wear this.
Ditto. Now if they added a spot for a name, better still.
^ Why do you need a name on the shirt?
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 13, 2008, 03:05:18 PM
^ Why do you need a name on the shirt?
I dunno... give 'em the option to do so if the wearer prefers. Not mando.
But then the aircrew mafia will soon be clamoring for wings on the new shirt. Then the ground-pounders will snivel if they can't wear their GT badges, finally everyone else will want their specialty track badge embroidered... whatta vicious circle! ;D
^ Agreed, it would get out of hand. Almost like it is right now! I say we need a new shirt, and I am glad they matched it up with Khaki's. I am just wondering how long until they say if your fat or wearing a beard, you can't wear the new uniform.
And offer it in both long sleeve and short sleeve lengths!
To quote Higgin's from Magnum P.I., "Oh my GOD!"
Why on Earth do we need yet another uniform?!?!?! Jeez louise! Say what you want about polo shirts, but this VSAF get up fits the same niche. Maybe the VSAF "uniform" will replace the polo shirt and grey slacks combo, but that seems like an unnecessary change and expense. On a positive note, maybe the new shirt will be available with long sleeves.
Sigh....
You guys talk about relaxing this polo-shirt thing and allowing CAP members to wear the blues? I think that will depend on how many fatties participate. Fat and slovenly people jump in on VSAF, everyone willl stay in the polo shirt. Period.
The Air Force is tired of CAP embarrassing it, let's face it. If you can't wear the uniform right, how in hell can you be trusted with anything more? This isn't the same CAP I joined in 1984, but it's because CAP's standards are so low -- and the organization has become mamby-pamby (safety pledge, paranoia about any physical activity becoming hazing, etc.).
American Cadet League members look plenty more professional than CAPers, and they're a totally civilian organization. Why is that? They appear to be better disciplined. No one has the guts to tell a volunteer to wear the uniform right or get out of it pronto. Of course, some of those unit commanders aren't wearing it right, either.
I know this is a rant, but we really, really need to wake up this organization, lest we lose it.
This is a foot back in the door. Be patient, grasshopper.
One possible reason for the new uniform shirt is that it doesn't have your rank on it like many of the CAP polo shirts do. Since the intention of the new uniform is to divest CAP of any military image, having the rank on there would cause untold chaos within the AF, possibly leading to the reabsorption of the AF by the Army.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 13, 2008, 10:15:37 PM
One possible reason for the new uniform shirt is that it doesn't have your rank on it like many of the CAP polo shirts do. Since the intention of the new uniform is to divest CAP of any military image, having the rank on there would cause untold chaos within the AF, possibly leading to the reabsorption of the AF by the Army.
And that would no doubt cause the graves of Generals Arnold, LeMay, Doolittle, Spaatz and a few others that fought for a separate Air Force to do some high-speed spinning six feet under! ;D
I think the "New" uniform has much more to do with preventing pretentious CAP'ers from wearing their wing laden golf shirts even than showing rank.
Now I dare you to wear your Black Leather Flight Jacket over this Uniform! >:D
Quote from: RiverAux on January 13, 2008, 10:15:37 PM
One possible reason for the new uniform shirt is that it doesn't have your rank on it like many of the CAP polo shirts do. Since the intention of the new uniform is to divest CAP of any military image, having the rank on there would cause untold chaos within the AF, possibly leading to the reabsorption of the AF by the Army.
What polo shirts have rank on them?
Its ugly.
No wings.
If I wanted to wear a uniform like that, I'd go work at Home Depot.
Something wrong with the existing Golf Shirt combination?
Every time we get a new mission we need a new uniform?
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 15, 2008, 02:19:23 AM
Every time we get a new mission we need a new uniform?
Of Course, Vanguard invents our new missions, we buy their products, they tell NHQ to invent new "better" versions, we buy their products, Vanguard tells them to rescind the new mission, we are forced to go back to the old product, which most of us recycled in the trash and the whole cycle repeats over and over and over and over and over and over.....................
However, with this introduction, we need to ditch the Grey pants and current polos NOW. Lets phase this new uniform in over 6 months.
I would surmise that this shirt ( I wont call it a uniform) was put out so that:
1 ) all the vollunteers would be wearing the same exact thing.
-- To forgo the AF vs Corp uniform battle, along with the fact that there are at least two versions of the polo.
2) cant be worn wrong,
3) doesnt have rank.
Something that the AF wanted to avoid.
4) No rank means CAP Officers can work under NCOs and do grunt jobs
5) non-military shirt in keeping with job purpose: family support
------------------
These observations aside, I hate it and would give anything to be in the
military uniform doing unit augmentation, instead of this family support stuff ( bases have groups for this already)
- Im going off the fact that the website said something about family support-
All things aside, I'll put this on, salute, do the job, and hope that this will be an IN to eventually allow us to wear the military uniforms while performing more important tasks.
^ Currently civilian volunteers are given a CAC card so they can move around Base/ Post and access computers if need be. Does anyone here think CAPERS in the VSAF will get a CAC Card?!? I don't.
Nope, the USAF will say that our current library cards can get us on base and that we wont be doing any job requiring network access.
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on January 15, 2008, 05:38:33 PM
Nope, the USAF will say that our current library cards can get us on base and that we wont be doing any job requiring network access.
Funny, I thought I read somewhere specifically they had mentioned IT support.... hard to do IT support without network access.....
#!/bin/bash
/etc/init.d/network stop
Quote from: jimmydeanno on January 14, 2008, 06:36:09 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on January 13, 2008, 10:15:37 PM
One possible reason for the new uniform shirt is that it doesn't have your rank on it like many of the CAP polo shirts do. Since the intention of the new uniform is to divest CAP of any military image, having the rank on there would cause untold chaos within the AF, possibly leading to the reabsorption of the AF by the Army.
What polo shirts have rank on them?
You're right, they're not SUPPOSED to have rank on them, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it there on a few people. Didn't recall the reg enough to realize it was wrong. Now I know.
Quote from: Falshrmjgr on January 15, 2008, 05:46:57 PM
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on January 15, 2008, 05:38:33 PM
Nope, the USAF will say that our current library cards can get us on base and that we wont be doing any job requiring network access.
Funny, I thought I read somewhere specifically they had mentioned IT support.... hard to do IT support without network access.....
#!/bin/bash
/etc/init.d/network stop
Depends. I know of some FSC - Family support centers that are not on the 'military' network ae: no CAC involved.
But then again I could be totally wrong, since we dont even know what it is we will be doing yet.
Im going to go to the corner, shut up, and color.
Just received this regarding CAP-VSAF.
A "VSAF Clarification" letter has been sent to the BOG and National Board answering questions regarding the new program. Here is the paragraph regarding uniforms.
QuoteThe selection of the distinctive polo and khaki uniform, rather than a military-style uniform, was a conscious decision as well. Since it is anticipated that members will frequently work side-by-side Air Force civilian employees and enlisted personnel, many of whom may not be familiar with CAP's rank structure and because members may be providing customer service to junior enlisted personnel or dependents, we did not want the uniform to become an obstacle that distracts from the support our volunteers will provide to the Air Force through this program.
The rest of the letter is in the VSAF thread in the Lobby. Never mind. Ricochet included it in his post.
Mike
^ That thing about the uniform means either CAP'ers will be working "dirty" jobs, or will be taking orders from Junior Enlisted personnel. I am all for the new shirt and khakis, but if we are working in the Base Ops (like the letter said) the dress requirements are usually more than "business casual". I know in my area the AF civilians working in the HQ section, or services section all wear suits/ Ties and the ladies wear equivalent. The guys and ladies cleaning the floors are wearing khakis. YMMV
Quote from: sardak on January 18, 2008, 07:07:35 PM
A "VSAF Clarification" letter has been sent to the BOG and National Board answering questions regarding the new program. Here is the paragraph regarding uniforms.
QuoteThe selection of the distinctive polo and khaki uniform, rather than a military-style uniform, was a conscious decision as well. Since it is anticipated that members will frequently work side-by-side Air Force civilian employees and enlisted personnel, many of whom may not be familiar with CAP's rank structure and because members may be providing customer service to junior enlisted personnel or dependents, we did not want the uniform to become an obstacle that distracts from the support our volunteers will provide to the Air Force through this program.
The rest of the letter is in the VSAF thread in the Lobby.
Never mind. Ricochet included it in his post.
Mike
So... can someone tell me why our existing golf shirt combo was not appropriate for this mission? It certainly meets the criteria cited by NHQ.
^ Vanguard. Simple as that. Makes you think......who at NHQ has a family member working for Vanguard.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 18, 2008, 08:18:48 PM
^ Vanguard. Simple as that. Makes you think......who at NHQ has a family member working for Vanguard.
That was my thought, exactly. The golf shirt has no rank and appears to be about equal to the new uniform on a business-casual plane. Plus, the golf shirt has the advantage to being similar to an Air Force uniform worn by recruiters. You know... one team, one fight, one uniform??
This new uniform has no purpose other than enriching Vanguard.
Tell me again how "Integrity" is a core value.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 18, 2008, 08:09:49 PM
Quote from: sardak on January 18, 2008, 07:07:35 PM
A "VSAF Clarification" letter has been sent to the BOG and National Board answering questions regarding the new program. Here is the paragraph regarding uniforms.
QuoteThe selection of the distinctive polo and khaki uniform, rather than a military-style uniform, was a conscious decision as well. Since it is anticipated that members will frequently work side-by-side Air Force civilian employees and enlisted personnel, many of whom may not be familiar with CAP's rank structure and because members may be providing customer service to junior enlisted personnel or dependents, we did not want the uniform to become an obstacle that distracts from the support our volunteers will provide to the Air Force through this program.
The rest of the letter is in the VSAF thread in the Lobby.
Never mind. Ricochet included it in his post.
Mike
So... can someone tell me why our existing golf shirt combo was not appropriate for this mission? It certainly meets the criteria cited by NHQ.
Got to concur here, don't know why "blue and grey" were not used. I'll have to ask first chance I get!
Tim Kelley, Lt Col, CAP
Deputy Commander for Seniors
Wright-Patterson Composite Sq
Quote from: JThemann on January 13, 2008, 02:05:27 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on January 12, 2008, 07:24:52 PM
QuoteDo you honestly believe some Air Force officer said 'Man, CAP can't get there C&C correct, so lets design them another uniform."
As a matter of fact, I do.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on January 13, 2008, 07:33:38 PM
You guys talk about relaxing this polo-shirt thing and allowing CAP members to wear the blues? I think that will depend on how many fatties participate. Fat and slovenly people jump in on VSAF, everyone willl stay in the polo shirt. Period.
Fat = Slovenly
Did you really mean to say that? I happen to be one of those fat guys. Unfortunately, I don't move very well any more. I used to run 2-5 miles a day to keep in shape. It's just my metabolism, buzz. It happens between 40 and 50 - especially if you're disabled. I've got more time under a T-10 than you've got in a T-shirt.
With that, I've still got more to offer than most of you 20-ish ectomorphs. Age and skill always trumps youth and agility. BTW, LeMay was a fatty. [/drift]
Quote from: Gunner C on January 19, 2008, 03:17:43 PM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on January 13, 2008, 07:33:38 PM
You guys talk about relaxing this polo-shirt thing and allowing CAP members to wear the blues? I think that will depend on how many fatties participate. Fat and slovenly people jump in on VSAF, everyone willl stay in the polo shirt. Period.
Fat = Slovenly
Did you really mean to say that? I happen to be one of those fat guys. Unfortunately, I don't move very well any more. I used to run 2-5 miles a day to keep in shape. It's just my metabolism, buzz. It happens between 40 and 50 - especially if you're disabled. I've got more time under a T-10 than you've got in a T-shirt.
With that, I've still got more to offer than most of you 20-ish ectomorphs. Age and skill always trumps youth and agility. BTW, LeMay was a fatty. [/drift]
Got yer back, Gunner!
The discussion isn't "New silly uniform vs. AF blues," since we already HAVE a uniform that meets the stated criteria that NHQ laid out for the new uniform. When I first read the VSAF release, I assumed "Polo" shirt was another term for the "Golf shirt."
Placing CAP members in no-rank golf shirts to serve in VSAF positions makes sense. Saying you want members to help the USAF but that they have to get a new (and ridiculous-looking) uniform from Vanguard in order to do so is a death blow to the program before it is even born.
Which strikes me as a cool and creative name for this new uniform... The "PAU," for "Program Abortion Uniform."
^ PAU......hope it catches on!
I agree that requiring a new shirt and new pants when we had similar shirts and pants is silly. (Almost as silly as that letter trying to tell us the reason was so that Junior Enlisted guys are not confused by CAP Rank). You know what.......this would be a perfect time for the organization to get rid of Rank altogether. They either do it now, when there is an appearant rhyme and reason to it, or we embrace the CAP rank.
I would like an answer to a question I brought up before. What benefits will CAP-VSAF participants receive while on base? I only ask because I remember reading that Army Volunteers on Army Posts received a CAC card, and had full access to AAFES to purchase whatever they wanted, full access to MWR services etc. The only thing they could not use was the Commissary. It was a recruiting tool to bring volunteers into Family Readiness Groups and MWR functions. I totally expect CAP-VSAF people to get no less than that. At the very least, they should be allowed at the local O-Club (since most clubs allow GS-7 and above in, and CAP members are considered GS-7 right?!?), access to purchase whatever at AAFES, use of the Gas station, access to all MWR functions, and the theatre. I would hope they also receive a CAC card. It would be a real shame for them to drive to work all day at the base, only to have to sit in line for 30 minutes to get a visitors pass each and every day.
This program will die quickly after take-off if members are expected to work 9-5, and can't even go to the AAFES Burger King for their lunch. (I wish they would contract out to a different fast food joint, I am really getting sick of BK!)
Oh ya, uniforms! If they really go through with this new shirt and Khakis, it will be a HUGE disservice to all of us, if NHQ does not then eliminate the current polo and Grey pants. Why would we ever need both. This can either cost us tons of money, or can cost us tons of money for a long time. Elimination of the current polo would only cost the membership now, not future members!
Uniform Committtee....take note!
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 18, 2008, 08:23:44 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 18, 2008, 08:18:48 PM
^ Vanguard. Simple as that. Makes you think......who at NHQ has a family member working for Vanguard.
That was my thought, exactly. The golf shirt has no rank and appears to be about equal to the new uniform on a business-casual plane. Plus, the golf shirt has the advantage to being similar to an Air Force uniform worn by recruiters. You know... one team, one fight, one uniform??
This new uniform has no purpose other than enriching Vanguard.
Tell me again how "Integrity" is a core value.
This might be looked at from another perspective.
I believe that since there's a budget for VSAF from the DoD side, the budget will probably include uniforms for CAP-VSAF members. Could it be that USAF will issue these polo/khakis to those who are selected to do the job?
Mikey:
I don't think you need an ID card to make purchases at Burger King, or from AAFES concessionaires in the Mall of the BX.
CAP members on the VSAF program should be entitled to all benefits, MWR, BX, Gas Station, etc. I don't think we can get Commissary and Class 6 privileges, probably because of some different laws.
^ There is a budget? I must have missed that. What needs budgeted? I doubt there will be any expenses to this. Unless they pay per diem for a member to eat on base, and travel expenses to/from. But then I can see this program being open only to those members who meet on an AF base already for their weekly CAP meeting, and the logic will be, you don't get reimbursed for weekly meetings, no reimbursement for VSAF.
I would love for AF to provide the uniform!
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 19, 2008, 08:53:53 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 18, 2008, 08:23:44 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 18, 2008, 08:18:48 PM
^ Vanguard. Simple as that. Makes you think......who at NHQ has a family member working for Vanguard.
That was my thought, exactly. The golf shirt has no rank and appears to be about equal to the new uniform on a business-casual plane. Plus, the golf shirt has the advantage to being similar to an Air Force uniform worn by recruiters. You know... one team, one fight, one uniform??
This new uniform has no purpose other than enriching Vanguard.
Tell me again how "Integrity" is a core value.
This might be looked at from another perspective.
I believe that since there's a budget for VSAF from the DoD side, the budget will probably include uniforms for CAP-VSAF members. Could it be that USAF will issue these polo/khakis to those who are selected to do the job?
I think if that were the plan, they would have put that in the news release.
You know...
"We've got good news, and bad news. The bad news is we want you to work more for free but this time in an uglier uniform. The good news is your ugly uniform will be free."
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 19, 2008, 08:57:26 PM
Mikey:
I don't think you need an ID card to make purchases at Burger King, or from AAFES concessionaires in the Mall of the BX.
CAP members on the VSAF program should be entitled to all benefits, MWR, BX, Gas Station, etc. I don't think we can get Commissary and Class 6 privileges, probably because of some different laws.
I completely agree.
On an off-shoot... what uniform is worn in poor weather conditions? I doubt people will be wearing a polo shirt in Alaska in winter while performing outside duties.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 19, 2008, 08:57:26 PM
Mikey:
I don't think you need an ID card to make purchases at Burger King, or from AAFES concessionaires in the Mall of the BX.
All installations are different. For example some of the ones I have been too, you need an ID to get in the PX door, and once inside, you will find the BK and vendors. I have also been to some that have a food court that allows whomever in to dine.
I think at Wright PATT anyone is allowed to order food in that tiny (one of smallest I have ever seen) food courts.
I would just like to see those involved get the benefits that should go with the volunteer work they will be doing. Dining at a DIFAC for example would be a huge benefit, I know the Army allowed civilian volunteers in most, I am not sure what the AF does in regard to civilians and their dining facilities.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 19, 2008, 08:59:13 PM
^ There is a budget? I must have missed that. What needs budgeted? I doubt there will be any expenses to this. Unless they pay per diem for a member to eat on base, and travel expenses to/from. But then I can see this program being open only to those members who meet on an AF base already for their weekly CAP meeting, and the logic will be, you don't get reimbursed for weekly meetings, no reimbursement for VSAF.
I would love for AF to provide the uniform!
There's always a budget. Money has to be allocated for working environment, tools, administration of program and extra personnel on the AF side that may be assigned for all this. The issue is that the budget, considering how much work will be done, will be tiny and will make the Pentagon and base commanders very happy.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 19, 2008, 08:59:49 PM
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 19, 2008, 08:53:53 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 18, 2008, 08:23:44 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 18, 2008, 08:18:48 PM
^ Vanguard. Simple as that. Makes you think......who at NHQ has a family member working for Vanguard.
That was my thought, exactly. The golf shirt has no rank and appears to be about equal to the new uniform on a business-casual plane. Plus, the golf shirt has the advantage to being similar to an Air Force uniform worn by recruiters. You know... one team, one fight, one uniform??
This new uniform has no purpose other than enriching Vanguard.
Tell me again how "Integrity" is a core value.
This might be looked at from another perspective.
I believe that since there's a budget for VSAF from the DoD side, the budget will probably include uniforms for CAP-VSAF members. Could it be that USAF will issue these polo/khakis to those who are selected to do the job?
I think if that were the plan, they would have put that in the news release.
You know...
"We've got good news, and bad news. The bad news is we want you to work more for free but this time in an uglier uniform. The good news is your ugly uniform will be free."
I think most junior airmen will be very confused by the fact that we pay to work for USAF and we're going to have to be very resourceful in explaining it to them.
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 19, 2008, 09:04:50 PM
There's always a budget. Money has to be allocated for working environment, tools, administration of program and extra personnel on the AF side that may be assigned for all this. The issue is that the budget, considering how much work will be done, will be tiny and will make the Pentagon and base commanders very happy.
Sorry, I was only thinking about budgets for reimbursements to CAP members. I am sure the AF will spend the least amount of money doing whatever they do. Figuring we may be replacing a deployed Airman, his tools and work environment will already be there. They won't go invent things for us to do, they will just slot us in a space that was sitting open and wasting $$. We will actually save AF Money doing their work for them. Whats cheaper....hire a temporary civilian to work in the gym while Airman snuffy is gone, or get free help from CAP. If we even did 1/3 of the work the deployed did before he or she left, we just increased productivity and saved $$ for Blue.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 19, 2008, 09:22:21 PM
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 19, 2008, 09:04:50 PM
There's always a budget. Money has to be allocated for working environment, tools, administration of program and extra personnel on the AF side that may be assigned for all this. The issue is that the budget, considering how much work will be done, will be tiny and will make the Pentagon and base commanders very happy.
Sorry, I was only thinking about budgets for reimbursements to CAP members. I am sure the AF will spend the least amount of money doing whatever they do. Figuring we may be replacing a deployed Airman, his tools and work environment will already be there. They won't go invent things for us to do, they will just slot us in a space that was sitting open and wasting $$. We will actually save AF Money doing their work for them. Whats cheaper....hire a temporary civilian to work in the gym while Airman snuffy is gone, or get free help from CAP. If we even did 1/3 of the work the deployed did before he or she left, we just increased productivity and saved $$ for Blue.
Negative... slots of airmen cannot be filled by volunteers. We aren't trained for it, we aren't experienced in it and we don't have a job to lose if we screw up, so responsibility levels may be low.
I suspect they will create positions for us. Positions they've wanted for a long time and positions they would like, but never thought would be possible. That's where the whole Family Readiness things comes in. Normally, airmen volunteer for this shop anyway. It's not a military essential shop and it isn't part of base ops. The airman that used to man the base gym will now be working as a supervisor at the base gym and all we're going to do is change towels and check IDs.
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 19, 2008, 09:34:57 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 19, 2008, 09:22:21 PM
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 19, 2008, 09:04:50 PM
There's always a budget. Money has to be allocated for working environment, tools, administration of program and extra personnel on the AF side that may be assigned for all this. The issue is that the budget, considering how much work will be done, will be tiny and will make the Pentagon and base commanders very happy.
Sorry, I was only thinking about budgets for reimbursements to CAP members. I am sure the AF will spend the least amount of money doing whatever they do. Figuring we may be replacing a deployed Airman, his tools and work environment will already be there. They won't go invent things for us to do, they will just slot us in a space that was sitting open and wasting $$. We will actually save AF Money doing their work for them. Whats cheaper....hire a temporary civilian to work in the gym while Airman snuffy is gone, or get free help from CAP. If we even did 1/3 of the work the deployed did before he or she left, we just increased productivity and saved $$ for Blue.
Negative... slots of airmen cannot be filled by volunteers. We aren't trained for it, we aren't experienced in it and we don't have a job to lose if we screw up, so responsibility levels may be low.
I suspect they will create positions for us. Positions they've wanted for a long time and positions they would like, but never thought would be possible. That's where the whole Family Readiness things comes in. Normally, airmen volunteer for this shop anyway. It's not a military essential shop and it isn't part of base ops. The airman that used to man the base gym will now be working as a supervisor at the base gym and all we're going to do is change towels and check IDs.
You're speaking for yourself on that point, G. Some CAP members ARE trained to the standard at which airmen are trained, and beyond. Some CAP members are recently released from active duty, others are retired military. I was only required to forget classified material when I retired, not my basic skills.
You can do what you can, but I will go down to the base PA shop and work as a journalist or as an editor. Have my towel ready when I stop by the gym.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 20, 2008, 12:37:49 AM
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 19, 2008, 09:34:57 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 19, 2008, 09:22:21 PM
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 19, 2008, 09:04:50 PM
There's always a budget. Money has to be allocated for working environment, tools, administration of program and extra personnel on the AF side that may be assigned for all this. The issue is that the budget, considering how much work will be done, will be tiny and will make the Pentagon and base commanders very happy.
Sorry, I was only thinking about budgets for reimbursements to CAP members. I am sure the AF will spend the least amount of money doing whatever they do. Figuring we may be replacing a deployed Airman, his tools and work environment will already be there. They won't go invent things for us to do, they will just slot us in a space that was sitting open and wasting $$. We will actually save AF Money doing their work for them. Whats cheaper....hire a temporary civilian to work in the gym while Airman snuffy is gone, or get free help from CAP. If we even did 1/3 of the work the deployed did before he or she left, we just increased productivity and saved $$ for Blue.
Negative... slots of airmen cannot be filled by volunteers. We aren't trained for it, we aren't experienced in it and we don't have a job to lose if we screw up, so responsibility levels may be low.
I suspect they will create positions for us. Positions they've wanted for a long time and positions they would like, but never thought would be possible. That's where the whole Family Readiness things comes in. Normally, airmen volunteer for this shop anyway. It's not a military essential shop and it isn't part of base ops. The airman that used to man the base gym will now be working as a supervisor at the base gym and all we're going to do is change towels and check IDs.
You're speaking for yourself on that point, G. Some CAP members ARE trained to the standard at which airmen are trained, and beyond. Some CAP members are recently released from active duty, others are retired military. I was only required to forget classified material when I retired, not my basic skills.
You can do what you can, but I will go down to the base PA shop and work as a journalist or as an editor. Have my towel ready when I stop by the gym.
Only if you promise to take a nice picture of me for the base paper.
I was only kidding. I am NOT springing for the new uniform. Golf shirt is as casual as I get.
Kach: How goes the Tour Guide Business? You wont be required to change from the flight suit to this new thing. Be glad... lol
Working it this Friday... in my flight suit!
I'm all for filling a more active role in the Air Force. Heck I wish we (CAP) worked much closer with the AF right now! However, I will not be participating in a program that requires polo shirt and khakis over a legitimate uniform.
CAP should be proud of their heritage and wear blues or corporate uniforms as VSAF. A new uniform doesn't solve anything. We should use this opportunity to educate and train ourselves and our AF brethren about CAP. If proper uniform wear is an issue, train our members! If rank identification is an issue, we can help train our fellow blue-suiters. The answer is education, not obfuscation.
Please don't create a new "uniform", and please don't take away our rank and the right to wear our current uniform!
^ I am all for a polo and grey pants if that is what others in the job that CAP will be filling in for are wearing on a daily basis. However, if they wear bdu's then CAP should bear B(B)DU's, if they wear blues, then cap should wear equivalent.
I doubt we will find ourselves anywhere than the gym, lodging office, or kitchen. So no big deal!
Quote from: Wildblueflyer on January 22, 2008, 06:13:38 PM
I'm all for filling a more active role in the Air Force. Heck I wish we (CAP) worked much closer with the AF right now! However, I will not be participating in a program that requires polo shirt and khakis over a legitimate uniform.
CAP should be proud of their heritage and wear blues or corporate uniforms as VSAF. A new uniform doesn't solve anything. We should use this opportunity to educate and train ourselves and our AF brethren about CAP. If proper uniform wear is an issue, train our members! If rank identification is an issue, we can help train our fellow blue-suiters. The answer is education, not obfuscation.
Please don't create a new "uniform", and please don't take away our rank and the right to wear our current uniform!
Yep. Same here.
The family support aspects of this program are, as Gen. Courter noted, likely to involve junior enlisted personnel; I interpret that to mean senior airman and below.
Even in the rank heavy AF (not a criticism, simply noting that all pilots are officers), junior enlisted, as I understand it, primarily interact with NCOs...and even then, mostly E-5/E-6 (staff or tech sgt).
Dealing with a bunch of middle aged characters sporting oak leaves and ribbons up to the epaulets could be more than slightly intimidating, no matter how often we explain CAP's auxiliary status....visual markers are going to trump vocal explanations every time!
So the question really becomes whether we are doing this to serve or to stroke our own egos?
Since we are civilians, I fail to see where it is insulting to ask (or allow) CAP personnel to wear the same uniform that USAF civilians use in fulfilling their duties.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 22, 2008, 06:38:04 PM
Since we are civilians, I fail to see where it is insulting to ask (or allow) CAP personnel to wear the same uniform that USAF civilians use in fulfilling their duties.
If in fact we are filling in for AF civilians, then YES wear what they wear. If we are filling in for a uniformed individual, wear a uniform that is equivalent.
However, the insult is not what you eluded to, it is the fact that we have a HUGE amount of uniforms we could have selected from, INSTEAD of creating something new. The insult is saying "those that want to volunteer for this MUST now spend between 45-60 dollars on a pair of khaki pants, and a dress shirt THAT CAN ONLY BE FOUND FROM VANGUARD. AND YOU MUST PAY A SHIPPING FEE".
That is what pisses me off the most. One more freaking cost to being a volunteer. Why don't we eliminate one PAID employee at NHQ, use that money to fund the new uniform, and issue everyone involved with VSAF that uniform for FREE!
COST is the issue! COST IS THE PROBLEM!
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 22, 2008, 06:38:04 PM
The family support aspects of this program are, as Gen. Courter noted, likely to involve junior enlisted personnel; I interpret that to mean senior airman and below.
Even in the rank heavy AF (not a criticism, simply noting that all pilots are officers), junior enlisted, as I understand it, primarily interact with NCOs...and even then, mostly E-5/E-6 (staff or tech sgt).
Dealing with a bunch of middle aged characters sporting oak leaves and ribbons up to the epaulets could be more than slightly intimidating, no matter how often we explain CAP's auxiliary status....visual markers are going to trump vocal explanations every time!
So the question really becomes whether we are doing this to serve or to stroke our own egos?
Since we are civilians, I fail to see where it is insulting to ask (or allow) CAP personnel to wear the same uniform that USAF civilians use in fulfilling their duties.
Assuming what you say to be correct ZZ (and I am not sure I fully agree with it) your post still fails to justify a whole new (and ugly) uniform. The golf shirt combo still works to do exactly what you say should be done.
I agree that a new uniform combo is not needed, we could easily use blazer combo or golf shirt with gray slacks....you folks do have a valid point about the expense involved, not to mention adding yet another uniform.
It also adds to the point when you consider that this VSAF uniform is not authorized for other CAP activities such as meetings.
Technically, it isn't authorized for anything yet since there isn't an change letter authorizing it to be worn. Actually, there are quite a few technical hoops they haven't jumped through relating to this uniform yet. But, when they get around to it, I would guess that it will be allowed for other CAP activities as well.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 23, 2008, 02:00:16 PM
Technically, it isn't authorized for anything yet since there isn't an change letter authorizing it to be worn. Actually, there are quite a few technical hoops they haven't jumped through relating to this uniform yet. But, when they get around to it, I would guess that it will be allowed for other CAP activities as well.
So you think sometime in the near future our members are going to have to face the difficult task of which polo to wear to which meeting? And we're going to have to read posts on that subject? Shoot me now!
As per an earlier post... I will happily do the VSAF job no matter what the uniform will be. I signed up with CAP to do missions for America, specifically the Air Force. I didn't sign up so I could wear a uniform. Whichever uniform we end up with for this, I will wear it. I'm just thankful that I can be of some help to Airmen and/or their families as they cycle through AEF rotations and TDYs. I just wish our upper management would recognize that our membership isn't that rich and reduce the financial burdens put through uniform decisions and the whole Vanguard situation/project.
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 24, 2008, 06:07:30 AM
As per an earlier post... I will happily do the VSAF job no matter what the uniform will be. I signed up with CAP to do missions for America, specifically the Air Force. I didn't sign up so I could wear a uniform. Whichever uniform we end up with for this, I will wear it. I'm just thankful that I can be of some help to Airmen and/or their families as they cycle through AEF rotations and TDYs.
:clap: :clap:
I'm glad to hear from at least a few people who aren't total whiners about this.
In this thread I've heard:
- Whining about not being able to look like officers.
- Whining about the nature of the duty.
- Theorizing about our leadership being in thrall to Vanguard and willing to jack over the membership so they can earn more profits.
Maybe the reason we're not taken seriously is not the cartoon patches, but that we wouldn't know professionalism if it came up and bit us in the seat of our oak leaf encrusted pajamas.
When I deploy, I doubt I'll sleep better because "CAP's got my back."
Quote from: ddelaney103 on January 24, 2008, 03:10:43 PM
When I deploy, I doubt I'll sleep better because "CAP's got my back."
No, you will sleep better because before you deploy you will;
1) get your financial affairs in order (call your creditors and loan agents, banks and see if they have a "deployment clause" so you don't have to pay them while you are overseas).
2) get your family affairs in order (make sure dependents have ID cards that won't expire while you are gone, make sure you sign them up for tricare, get wills/power of attorney written)
3) if you are single, make sure your home/apartment is cared for along with your personal property.
If you do those three things, you won't need CAP at the AF base helping your family, or other relatives deal with military benefit matters, etc.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 24, 2008, 05:32:04 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on January 24, 2008, 03:10:43 PM
When I deploy, I doubt I'll sleep better because "CAP's got my back."
No, you will sleep better because before you deploy you will;
1) get your financial affairs in order (call your creditors and loan agents, banks and see if they have a "deployment clause" so you don't have to pay them while you are overseas).
2) get your family affairs in order (make sure dependents have ID cards that won't expire while you are gone, make sure you sign them up for tricare, get wills/power of attorney written)
3) if you are single, make sure your home/apartment is cared for along with your personal property.
If you do those three things, you won't need CAP at the AF base helping your family, or other relatives deal with military benefit matters, etc.
I knew CAP had patron members - it seems they have patronizing members as well...
Delaney:
I don't know why you call this "Whining."
The new uniform is ugly. Vanguard will make sure it is expensive.
I think it is superfluous.
We have a golf shirt combo that does not indicate rank, but does indicate our organization. The reasons NHQ gave for the new uniform are also answered by the golf shirt.
We are left to ponder the reasons for a brand new uniform for this mission and this mission only.
Since NHQ gets a cut (License fee) from every CAP purchase made from Vanguard, many of us suspect that this money gleaned from members MAY be behind this decision. I cannot say that they are wrong in that assumption. Can you?
Quote from: ddelaney103 on January 24, 2008, 03:10:43 PM
I'm glad to hear from at least a few people who aren't total whiners about this.
In this thread I've heard:
- Whining about not being able to look like officers.
- Whining about the nature of the duty.
- Theorizing about our leadership being in thrall to Vanguard and willing to jack over the membership so they can earn more profits.
Maybe the reason we're not taken seriously is not the cartoon patches, but that we wouldn't know professionalism if it came up and bit us in the seat of our oak leaf encrusted pajamas.
When I deploy, I doubt I'll sleep better because "CAP's got my back."
Hear Hear!
That post made the most sense of any I've read in a while!
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 24, 2008, 09:11:29 PM
Delaney:
I don't know why you call this "Whining."
The new uniform is ugly. Vanguard will make sure it is expensive.
I think it is superfluous.
We have a golf shirt combo that does not indicate rank, but does indicate our organization. The reasons NHQ gave for the new uniform are also answered by the golf shirt.
We are left to ponder the reasons for a brand new uniform for this mission and this mission only.
Since NHQ gets a cut (License fee) from every CAP purchase made from Vanguard, many of us suspect that this money gleaned from members MAY be behind this decision. I cannot say that they are wrong in that assumption. Can you?
It's whining because.......It's whining.
What...is...the...duty?
No one seems to actually know >that<.
"TBD"
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 24, 2008, 09:11:29 PM
Since NHQ gets a cut (License fee) from every CAP purchase made from Vanguard, many of us suspect that this money gleaned from members MAY be behind this decision. I cannot say that they are wrong in that assumption. Can you?
Here's a thought:
If, after a directive I didn't like came down from from Headquarters Air Force, I decided to go to the NCO Club and declaim to all and sundry that the reason the Air Staff decided this was because "they were in the hip pocket of Lockheed," and, when challenged, demanded they prove to me it's not the case, would my actions add or subtract from my perceived professionalism? Further, would I be upholding the Core Value of "Respect" or using it as a boot cleaner instead?
I must admit I am puzzled as to why they did not use the golf shirt as an option - it does seem to be made for it.
A difficulty with NHQ's command style is they are very bad with providing the why that goes with the decisions they make. There may be a good reason for using the "VSAF shirt" for this mission.
However, since there's a knowledge vacuum, rumor rushes in to fill the gap.
Maybe the VSAF shirt has "VOLUNTEER" printed on the back, front, and on each sleeve, plus a hook for the AF to secure a leash to us, to make sure we don't run too far away. ;D
The new command has been better in keeping us in the field informed, hopefully we'll get more info on this soon.
Quote from: ddelaney103 on January 24, 2008, 11:05:15 PM
I must admit I am puzzled as to why they did not use the golf shirt as an option - it does seem to be made for it.
A difficulty with NHQ's command style is they are very bad with providing the why that goes with the decisions they make. There may be a good reason for using the "VSAF shirt" for this mission.
However, since there's a knowledge vacuum, rumor rushes in to fill the gap.
They did provide a reason, but the reason does not make sense as to why the new uniform was needed and the golf shirt would not be appropriate. That leads to speculation such as I have engaged in. it is not merely idle speculation or speculation in a vacuum. It is linking two facts... the "License fee" collected by NHQ on every uniform item; and the fact that the uniform, based on NHQ's own justification, is superfluous.
Maybe the core value of "Respect" took a bruise, but not until the core value of "Integrity" was evidently compromised.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 25, 2008, 03:09:47 PM
Quote from: ddelaney103 on January 24, 2008, 11:05:15 PM
I must admit I am puzzled as to why they did not use the golf shirt as an option - it does seem to be made for it.
A difficulty with NHQ's command style is they are very bad with providing the why that goes with the decisions they make. There may be a good reason for using the "VSAF shirt" for this mission.
However, since there's a knowledge vacuum, rumor rushes in to fill the gap.
They did provide a reason, but the reason does not make sense as to why the new uniform was needed and the golf shirt would not be appropriate. That leads to speculation such as I have engaged in. it is not merely idle speculation or speculation in a vacuum. It is linking two facts... the "License fee" collected by NHQ on every uniform item; and the fact that the uniform, based on NHQ's own justification, is superfluous.
Maybe the core value of "Respect" took a bruise, but not until the core value of "Integrity" was evidently compromised.
Again with the negative waves, Moriarity.
It might be better to ask why they didn't use the golf shirt instead of moving into "guilty until proven innocent" mode.
I really don't think it's "make money for Vanguard." Personally, I see too many folks assuming evil when the reality is just someone screwed up.
The existing golf shirt makes perfect sense. It meets all the requirements spelled out in the info from National we've got so far.
It doesn't have grade. It identifies us as CAP. It's pretty easy to wear correctly. It will work anywhere from light duty utility situations to office work. Seems about perfect.
I can't believe the issue is that some have wings on it. I also cannot imagine that having two different models is an issue - if it was, they could just specify which one to wear.
Frankly, I'm puzzled at the decison. I totally support not wearing a military style uniform - but why the heck invent a new one?
Could it be that some USAF guy suggested this without knowing CAP already has a golf shirt?
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 24, 2008, 09:11:29 PM
Since NHQ gets a cut (License fee) from every CAP purchase made from Vanguard, many of us suspect that this money gleaned from members MAY be behind this decision. I cannot say that they are wrong in that assumption. Can you?
You're suggesting someone at NHQ has impure motives. What would they personally gain from this? Nothing. For you to suggest funny business without any evidence is inappropriate.
And think about what you're saying. "NHQ gets a cut from every purchase." NHQ is CAP, that's us. We, the members, get a cut from every purchase. That money funds our programs. What is so nefarious about this?
News flash: Non-profit company enters marketing agreement.
I do not post here often, but I suggest that too many on this board have lost all perspective.
The simplest explanation is that they thought the polo shirt didn't look professional enough and wanted something a slight step upward.
Personally, I think that they wanted the pilot wings removed to make us look as unmilitary as possible.
I could be wrong, but from what Ive read the VSAF program is either currently up and running at Wright-Pat or it will be soon.
So... is anyone from OHWG on this forum?
Quote from: magoo on January 26, 2008, 12:19:41 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 24, 2008, 09:11:29 PM
Since NHQ gets a cut (License fee) from every CAP purchase made from Vanguard, many of us suspect that this money gleaned from members MAY be behind this decision. I cannot say that they are wrong in that assumption. Can you?
You're suggesting someone at NHQ has impure motives. What would they personally gain from this? Nothing. For you to suggest funny business without any evidence is inappropriate.
And think about what you're saying. "NHQ gets a cut from every purchase." NHQ is CAP, that's us. We, the members, get a cut from every purchase. That money funds our programs. What is so nefarious about this?
News flash: Non-profit company enters marketing agreement.
I do not post here often, but I suggest that too many on this board have lost all perspective.
What do they (some people at NHQ) have to gain from this?
Ok... how's this: Money is donated by Vanguard to CAP to fund training facilities across the nation. The money donated is based on the amount of sales they do through the CAP website. The more they sell, the more money is donated. "They" then decide which region/wing/special activity gets their wishlist granted. Then, the person in charge of that region/wing/special activity owes them one.
It's politics without checks and balances. Worse, it's politics without elections, without oversight, and without punishments for wrongdoing aside from loss of position or membership. In my opinion, it opens up a lot of doors for REAL corruption.
Tag spacing - MIKE
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 26, 2008, 05:16:04 AM
Ok... how's this: Money is donated by Vanguard to CAP to fund training facilities across the nation. The money donated is based on the amount of sales they do through the CAP website. The more they sell, the more money is donated. "They" then decide which region/wing/special activity gets their wishlist granted. Then, the person in charge of that region/wing/special activity owes them one.
George, this is a pretty good example of what we're talking about.
Yes, our volunteer leaders get to make decisions about the budget. IOW, the NB gets to decide how much money goes to any activity or training facility.
But the NB has ALWAYS been able to do that -- long before the Vanguard contract was a twinkle in anyone's mind. In fact, they have to. It's their solemn responsiblity to allocate scarce CAP resources among the various needs and missions.
And the NB is accountable for their decisions in several ways -- the budget is approved in public meetings, and the minutes and attachments for each meeting are published on the net. If you want to sit through the NB business meetings, you are welcome to do so. The BoG has oversight of the budget and the budgeting process. Parts of the budget are published in the annual Report to Congress.
Leaping to wild conclusions about corruption and politics based merely on uniformed speculation about what "they" might or might not do is the stuff of tinfoil hats and black helicopters.
Let's aim a little higher, shall we?
Ned, the issue here isn't what's happening. It's perception.
If NHQ needed more money to build or upgrade training centers and they wanted this money to come from membership, they could have done the upfront and honest thing to do and write about it to the membership and then increase member dues. Simple to execute and simple to account for. They instead decided to put a middle man into it. They decided to put this through a contractor. A contract we as membership pay for, but we as membership do not get accounted to for. Military contracts do have a degree of transparency to the people who fund it... the citizens through their representatives in congress. CAP contracts have no such provisions. Moreover, the membership has no access to Vanguard's sales numbers, so the membership has no access to how much money is being raised and donated to CAP. I'm sure the leadership does, but it's the 51,000 other members that are mostly making this happen, not the leadership. We need to see exactly how much money is raised through this and what the money is being allocated to. Then we need to compare it to what our leadership said it would go to and maybe then we'll know exactly who's in the wrong or right.
There is, in my opinion a case for possible misappropriations and possible wrongdoing when it comes to the way this money is acquired and spent. If nothing else, it isn't the most ethically correct way of doing it. If nothing else, it's poor treatment of members. At worst, it can be illegal.
I'm not accusing our leaders of any wrongdoing. I'm simply stating that the way things are being done creates the image of such and poor image is NOT what CAP needs when we've just had to fire our national commander. It makes it look like there's big disorder in the organization, to the members and the public.
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 26, 2008, 06:55:06 AM
Ned, the issue here isn't what's happening. It's perception.
George, I can only agree that perception is an issue.
The issue is whether it is appropriate post wild speculations on the internet based on some sort of biased perception, as opposed to some reasonable discussion based on facts.
Really, it is that simple.
The NB was presented with some basic facts -- that despite our best efforts by talented folks, we were losing significant amounts of money with our Bookstore and CapMart operations. As in tens of thousands of dollars of your dues money (and mine.)
So they contracted with an outsider for the services, and the outsider with the most experience with providing uniforms and insignia turned out to be Vanguard. Now they had a further choice -- Vanguard could sell the members CAP insignia for a given price and keep it all themselves, or we could negotiate a contract where Vanguard was required to return a portion of the sales to us, for uses that directly benefit the members..
Just like the Boy Scouts, Girls Scouts, and AAFEES (which returns money to the MWR funds).
So, the NB turned a significant deficit into a significant profit without raising your dues a nickel. Maybe Vanguard charges more for widgets than they would have, maybe not. We can never really know. We do know that Vanguard is subject to the same sort of supply and demand on non-CAP specific items as everyone else.
How you get from the rational, reasonable decision by the NB done in public with full disclosure of the terms to
Quote from: afgeo4There is, in my opinion a case for possible misappropriations and possible wrongdoing when it comes to the way this money is acquired and spent. If nothing else, it isn't the most ethically correct way of doing it. If nothing else, it's poor treatment of members. At worst, it can be illegal.
is simply mind-boggling.
And then you have the temerity to write
Quote from: afgeo4
I'm not accusing our leaders of any wrongdoing.
within three sentences of saying that our leaders "misappropriated" funds, were unethical, treat the members poorly, and committed potentially illegal acts.
Or did I misread your declaration as quoted above?
How exactly do these kinds of baseless public accusations of misappropriation, unethical behavior, and illegality square with our Core Value of Respect?
Really. Do you think the average Boy Scout has any idea how much money their national organization budgets for each of their training facilities and precisely where those funds came from. Can any soldier walk up to her company commander and demand to see an audit for how MWR receives, allocates, and spends the funds that come from the percentages of AFFES sales?
If you would like to know how much Vanguard is returning to CAP and how it is spent, may I gently suggest you ask your wing commander. After you have done that, feel free to share it with us.
Ned Lee
Yes... you did misread it. What I'm saying is that there is a possibility that such things may be happening.
Consider the facts:
1. A contract with Vanguard was made to allow it to be the sole vendor of CAP uniforms.
2. A letter went out to membership at the end of 2007 introducing a great opportunity in the agreement between Vanguard and NHQ where a part of Vanguard's proceeds would be donated back to CAP to fund Regional Training Facilities. The letter talks about how great that would be.
3. Members pay a higher premium for uniform items with the understanding that a part of that money goes to the above stated cause.
4. An article in the Volunteer (Jan-Feb 08) talks about how money donated by Vanguard through the sales contract paid for a new training site at the Hawk Mountain Ranger school and will be paying for improvements to the Blue Beret as well (those are National Cadet Activities, not regional training centers).
So... your pick:
a. Volunteer article is wrong (I personally doubt it due to the apparent research that went into it).
b. NHQ is confused about what constitutes a Regional Training Center and what is a National Cadet Activity (G-d, I hope they know this by now).
c. NHQ decided to change allocation of assets without notifying the membership of such change thereby misleading membership about where THEIR money is going (thereby opening the chance that the money can go anywhere else too).
By the way... the money donated by Vanguard does NOT go into the CAP National Budget at large. It was said to be allocated SPECIFICALLY for Regional Training Centers.
What Vanguard does is of no issue to us here. I'm not questioning their practices. That's for another thread. I'm saying that there is a situation which may serve as motive for NHQ to:
1. Create as many new uniform items as possible, thereby requiring as much purchasing through Vanguard as possible, thereby acquiring as much funding as possible through this means (funding that isn't capped or completely controlled as it does not pass through the main budget) for what seems to be whatever activity or support system at whatever level they choose. That to me is fertile soil for misappropriations. I'm not saying those misappropriations are taking place. I'm saying NHQ is in position where those actions are possible and likely.
2. Change allocation at will to appease anyone they like for any reason they choose to without having to dip into the CAP national budget (thereby not upsetting the NB). I'm not saying they're doing this, I'm saying there's now a possibility.
This isn't an upfront and transparent way of fund-raising and to me it is apparent that NHQ are taking advantage of the members' inability to control acquisition of CAP specific uniform items and turning it into a purse that could be used to gain favors with wing/region/activity commanders.
The end problem is that NHQ is saying one thing and doing another. That IS a fact my friend. Can they do it? According to our charter, they can. Is it ethical? Well... I think it isn't, but that's up to everyone to decide for their own.
^^This contributes to the VSAF uniform how? ???
Quote from: RogueLeader on January 26, 2008, 04:05:37 PM
^^This contributes to the VSAF uniform how? ???
Really. Just take your slander over to Ray Hayden's place - I'm sure he can put it to use.
Take the drift to PM guys.