CAP Talk

INDIANA WING CIVIL AIR PATROL COMMANDER TERMINATES TWO MEMBERS (http://www.indiana-wing.org/www/index.php)

QuoteNovember 12, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Indiana Wing Civil Air Patrol Headquarters
Indianapolis, IN -- Colonel Mark Reeves, Indiana Wing Civil Air Patrol commander, terminated the Civil Air Patrol membership of two Indiana Wing Civil Air Patrol officers, Capt Chris Curdes and Lt Col John Bryan, on November 11, 2008. Curdes was the commander of the Valparaiso Composite Squadron and both he and Bryan were qualified incident commanders within Civil Air Patrol's emergency services program.
The membership terminations came after the completion of an internal review of Indiana Wing Civil Air Patrol mission activities. This routine review revealed violations of Civil Air Patrol safety and operational response policies. These violations could have placed volunteers or assets at risk during emergency services operations under Bryan and Curdes' leadership.
"I take the safety and security of our volunteers, especially of our teenaged cadets, and of our taxpayer-provided ground and air assets very seriously," said Reeves. "A review of mission activities on two separate occasions showed violations of CAP policy of a nature that I felt that these two individuals could no longer participate in the Civil Air Patrol program."
1st Lt Mark Whitman, previously commander of the Civil Air Patrol unit in Rensselaer, has been appointed commander for the Valparaiso Composite Squadron, Civil Air Patrol's presence in the Porter County community.
Indiana Wing Civil Air Patrol consists of almost 1200 adult and youth volunteers active in more than 30 communities across the state of Indiana. Nationally, CAP performs 95 percent of continental U.S. inland search and rescue missions as tasked by the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center, and was credited by the AFRCC with saving 103 lives in 2007. Its volunteers also perform homeland security, disaster relief and counterdrug missions at the request of federal, state and local agencies. The members play a leading role in aerospace education and serve as mentors to the more than 22,000 young people currently participating in CAP cadet programs. CAP has been performing missions for America for almost 65 years.

I know details but will not share as things are still in motion. I will say that this is pure political Bravo Sierra.

Is it really necessary for them to do a news release?

Wow.....terminated?  Wheeew.

What in the world possessed them to put out a news release?  The only scenario where I can see that this would make sense would be if the "terminated" members contacted the media and tried to whip up some negative press coverage of CAP, which might then force the Wing to put out a formal statement. 

Slow news day In Indiana???  Talk about a lack of class in regards to a release!!!!

Quote from: RiverAux on November 14, 2008, 03:34:40 AM
What in the world possessed them to put out a news release?  The only scenario where I can see that this would make sense would be if the "terminated" members contacted the media and tried to whip up some negative press coverage of CAP, which might then force the Wing to put out a formal statement. 

No. I know these guys. That's not how it went down. I'll keep my theories to myself but John Bryan was the wing commander before Col. Reeves and he wouldn't do that. He'd run the appeals process out and then call it a day.

I don't know what's wrong with a press announcement.

If nothing else it gets the official word out to everyone all at once.

I'm still correcting people that I am not the squadron commander of my squadron and it has been two months.

If we're playing politics, then a news release is the perfect give-away.

I mean, I don't know ANYONE involved (not sure I actually know anyone from Indiana wing...), but to release a press release seems to be... odd. All it really serves to do is to embarrass the terminated members to all of CAP, which seems to ensure that any subsequent investigation has a slight spin...

But, like I said, I'm just musing. Who doesn't love a good conspiracy theory? :)

I agree, why the hurry for a press release unless the intention was to embarass and smear the officers involed. 

I have known John Bryan for years and have met Chris Curdes at an ES function.  I have found both to be excellent professionals who are very safety minded.  As RiverAux points out, there are alot of politics involved in this.  John Bryan was the former Wing Commander.  He relieved Mark Reeves (current Wing Commander) from a wing staff position.  With the press release and all that, this definitely sounds like political reprisals.  I have not heard either of the two, Bryan or Curdes, speak any ill of CAP.  In fact, I have heard from friends in the know, neither has even spoken about it unless directly asked.  And when asked, all they do is encourage their former fellows to continue serving their community and keep up the good work with CAP.  From what I hear, these two are showing the dignity and professionalism truly befitting our values and ideals.  If they are getting hosed, and I think they are, they are taking it like men. 

Too bad the author of the press release didn't have even half their class.

I think its unfortunate that in an organization like ours, where we a sacrifice to be here, if your going to take the time to put out a press release, TELL THE WHOLE STORY or nothing at all.
Putting out an article that basically says "Two senior and life long dedicated members were terminated for violating policy."  Does nothing but raise the BS flag.

I know I'm really speaking out of line here, but regardless of the situation, this kind of public "release" should be restricted to Maxwell AFB approval.  They have little or no utility from my casual perspective, and gives the impression that we are a bunch of loose cannons that require CEO-similar press releases to do damage control.

I don't know any of these folks, and am sure there are several sides of it all.  But I am very disappointed in CAP leadership.  At all points in the time continuum from start to finish, someone in the chain should have had someone else standing with them to say "umm, let's think about this for a second"

So, I'll get myself into trouble here (again) with a small diatribe regarding a pet peeve of mine...

Leaders in today's generation do a LOT of talk about "wingman", but we have failed miserably in it's execution.  THIS is a perfect example of why EVERYONE should spend a little less time talking about it and start doing it.

Where was XXXX's wingman in the incident(s) that started this all?

Where was YYYY's wingman when someone decided to transmit this press release?

In 99% of the incidents I've watched from initial act to final mitigation, had anyone in the chain actually had a partner (i.e. professional teamwork) actively watching out for them, none of the time and expense would have been needed.

I'm very disappointed with this press release.  It was not necessary.  if someone screws up and needed a 2B, you take care of it with professionalism as priority.

Is there anyone at NHQ watching the flock here?  They are making a lot of wingman noise.

Caveat -

I suspect (or really hope) we'll be seeing a policy letter or even an update to 190-1 over this.

If any of you new folks have done the "what the h is that rule for?" game while reading regs, this is a perfect example.  Someone did something like this that caused a big mess and the rules had to be tightened accordingly.

I thought there was a restriction somewhere on press releases regarding member terminations or disciplinary actions, but I was wrong.  Lots of latitude in the 190-1.

There's a recommendation for the CAPR 190-1 review.  These should be approved by NHQ before release.

I will speak only briefly on this as I am very closely tied to this situation and to say much would be inappropriate. I have known both of these gentlemen for some time now and both have made the choice to take the high road and handle this with all the dignity that we should expect from our members. I sincerely hope that their example will encourage more to do the same.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 14, 2008, 04:13:57 AM
I don't know what's wrong with a press announcement.

If nothing else it gets the official word out to everyone all at once.

I'm still correcting people that I am not the squadron commander of my squadron and it has been two months.

While it is certainly appropriate to send out an internal email to announce the new commander of a unit there is no real need to air any dirty laundry with a release to the press about it. 

Now, if the people involved had violated a bunch of regulations, especially those involving safety, some might argue that making an example out of them like this might act as a way of making others think before doing something similar.  But, even then I would not have done a press release about it as again, internal email would have been a better way to go.   

Quote from: RiverAux on November 14, 2008, 05:36:48 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 14, 2008, 04:13:57 AM
I don't know what's wrong with a press announcement.

If nothing else it gets the official word out to everyone all at once.

I'm still correcting people that I am not the squadron commander of my squadron and it has been two months.

While it is certainly appropriate to send out an internal email to announce the new commander of a unit there is no real need to air any dirty laundry with a release to the press about it. 

Now, if the people involved had violated a bunch of regulations, especially those involving safety, some might argue that making an example out of them like this might act as a way of making others think before doing something similar.  But, even then I would not have done a press release about it as again, internal email would have been a better way to go.   

I think that even though we are a "volunteer" organization that terminations or any other punitive consequences should be communicated ONLY to those with a need to know.  That's how it is handled in the state that work in.

I don't know the motives for sending out a press release for a membership termination, but it doesn't seem like an appropriate action for the wing to take. 

Quote from: DogCollar on November 14, 2008, 06:28:26 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on November 14, 2008, 05:36:48 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 14, 2008, 04:13:57 AM
I don't know what's wrong with a press announcement.

If nothing else it gets the official word out to everyone all at once.

I'm still correcting people that I am not the squadron commander of my squadron and it has been two months.

While it is certainly appropriate to send out an internal email to announce the new commander of a unit there is no real need to air any dirty laundry with a release to the press about it. 

Now, if the people involved had violated a bunch of regulations, especially those involving safety, some might argue that making an example out of them like this might act as a way of making others think before doing something similar.  But, even then I would not have done a press release about it as again, internal email would have been a better way to go.   

I think that even though we are a "volunteer" organization that terminations or any other punitive consequences should be communicated ONLY to those with a need to know.  That's how it is handled in the state that work in.

I don't know the motives for sending out a press release for a membership termination, but it doesn't seem like an appropriate action for the wing to take. 

I think anytime you remove a commander from his position.....everyone needs to know that information.   No need to go into detail about why he was removed, but everyone needs to know....just so you cut his access off from things a "civilain" does not need access to.

In the military when the remove a commander they usually send a press release that has a stock phrase "Col Soandso has lost conficdance in LtCol Squadleader's ability to fulfil his duties as commander".   They may or may not mention that was the result of an investigation or an incident.


Again....bottom line there is a general need to know that someone was removed from command and/or terminated.......but not necessarily a need to go into details.

On the other there is also the group message that needs to be sent out to the whole unit.

"Hey everyone......Col Daredevil got canned because he is unsafe and will not change.....take this a warning to anyone who emulates his actions".

-----Please NOTE-------

I have no details on this issue...I don't know if the terminations were politically motivated, proper or inproper....I am only commenting on the the press release.

If someone is terminated....that fact needs to be transmitted to everyone.   It is called transparancy.   Otherwise you end up with back room firings and it allows the leadership to pass what ever story they want to via the rumor mill.....and that is not the way to do buisness.

Is it embarising?  Sure is.....but it is better for both parties to get the word out in an offical release then to have to deal with the rumor mill.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 14, 2008, 06:55:21 PM

Quote from: DogCollar on November 14, 2008, 06:28:26 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on November 14, 2008, 05:36:48 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 14, 2008, 04:13:57 AM
I don't know what's wrong with a press announcement.

If nothing else it gets the official word out to everyone all at once.

I'm still correcting people that I am not the squadron commander of my squadron and it has been two months.

While it is certainly appropriate to send out an internal email to announce the new commander of a unit there is no real need to air any dirty laundry with a release to the press about it. 

Now, if the people involved had violated a bunch of regulations, especially those involving safety, some might argue that making an example out of them like this might act as a way of making others think before doing something similar.  But, even then I would not have done a press release about it as again, internal email would have been a better way to go.   

I think that even though we are a "volunteer" organization that terminations or any other punitive consequences should be communicated ONLY to those with a need to know.  That's how it is handled in the state that work in.

I don't know the motives for sending out a press release for a membership termination, but it doesn't seem like an appropriate action for the wing to take. 

I think anytime you remove a commander from his position.....everyone needs to know that information.   No need to go into detail about why he was removed, but everyone needs to know....just so you cut his access off from things a "civilain" does not need access to.

In the military when the remove a commander they usually send a press release that has a stock phrase "Col Soandso has lost conficdance in LtCol Squadleader's ability to fulfil his duties as commander".   They may or may not mention that was the result of an investigation or an incident.


Again....bottom line there is a general need to know that someone was removed from command and/or terminated.......but not necessarily a need to go into details.

On the other there is also the group message that needs to be sent out to the whole unit.

"Hey everyone......Col Daredevil got canned because he is unsafe and will not change.....take this a warning to anyone who emulates his actions".

-----Please NOTE-------

I have no details on this issue...I don't know if the terminations were politically motivated, proper or inproper....I am only commenting on the the press release.

If someone is terminated....that fact needs to be transmitted to everyone.   It is called transparancy.   Otherwise you end up with back room firings and it allows the leadership to pass what ever story they want to via the rumor mill.....and that is not the way to do buisness.

Is it embarising?  Sure is.....but it is better for both parties to get the word out in an offical release then to have to deal with the rumor mill.

Captain Harris, we will have to agree to disagree.  I believe that any and all negative personnel decisions should be communicated on an absolutely need to know basis.  Sending out a press release to anyone and everyone just stokes the possibility of litigation.

In the denomination of the church I serve, whenever a clergy member is removed from pastoral office, the announcement is something like "Pastor so and so has been removed from the role of clergy by the office of the Bishop."  I think it is a practice that would be in CAP's interest to emulate

I can't believe that this made it past the Indiana Wing Legal Officer...

I think I have seen one of those guys in here and I have to say I was more than impressed by his demeanor.  This seems like a good pile of dog poo to me but I've seen stuff like this before, unfortunately.  There was no need to publish names and I agree that this was totally need to know.  Something bad is about to happen I think...

Quote from: DogCollar on November 14, 2008, 07:17:15 PMCaptain Harris, we will have to agree to disagree.  I believe that any and all negative personnel decisions should be communicated on an absolutely need to know basis.  Sending out a press release to anyone and everyone just stokes the possibility of litigation.

In the denomination of the church I serve, whenever a clergy member is removed from pastoral office, the announcement is something like "Pastor so and so has been removed from the role of clergy by the office of the Bishop."  I think it is a practice that would be in CAP's interest to emulate

I understand where you are coming from...but as you say....I guess we will agree to disagree.

Sure there are times when the rest of the world does not need to know the "why" of a personel change or termnation...but sometimes you may need to send a message to everyone 'needs to know".

Again....playing devil's advocate...in this situation, wing may have wanted to send the message that "we are getting tough on safety".
Therefore a general press announcement...get's that message out.
On the other hand....again playing devil's advocate....I don't need to worry about litigation if everything in the press release is true.
If these gentlemen were fired for lax safety standards discovered during a routine review of past operations....what are they going to sue about?

Sure I can understand the concept of allowing the "defeated to leave the field with their honor intact".....I think that our leadership owes us some explaination to us when they do this.....just so we know what not to do, if nothing else.

Saying somebody is being kicked out of the organization or removed from command for violating safety-related regulations (or any regulations) will have little actual use as a preventative scare tactic unless you also get fairly specific about what exactly they did. 

Because when you start going down this road you are also leaving yourself open to being judged by the membership about whether or not ther termination was justified given the specific nature of the offense(s) that were committed.

For example, if I was an Indiana Wing member, I would want to know whether they got fired for not sending in a safety report (not terribly serious) or for doing or authorizing an incredibly dangerous and stupid activity.  If it is the latter, then there is some value to telling the membership exactly what they did. 

Here's a little test...

How about if a press release was put out when YOU were fired from a job?  your name, etc. was published as being fired for violating company policy?

Guess what.. Aint going to happen, there are laws preventing that.  I would think at least the same common sense would be followed with CAP.

It was unprofessional, stupid and downright asinine for this release.  I hope whoever released it will be thrown under the bus and removed from CAP as well.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 14, 2008, 07:46:04 PM

Again....playing devil's advocate...in this situation, wing may have wanted to send the message that "we are getting tough on safety".
Therefore a general press announcement...get's that message out.
On the other hand....again playing devil's advocate....I don't need to worry about litigation if everything in the press release is true.
If these gentlemen were fired for lax safety standards discovered during a routine review of past operations....what are they going to sue about?

Sure I can understand the concept of allowing the "defeated to leave the field with their honor intact".....I think that our leadership owes us some explaination to us when they do this.....just so we know what not to do, if nothing else.

To do such a public release over safety is an absolute no no.  Any room for interpretation by the average member not knowing the full details is bad for a list of reasons.  Unit commanders have to clean up the mess for rumor control.  Unit and Wing safety officers have to work against fears of retaliation and/or poorly run safety programs (i.e. find a fall guy instead of fixing the culture that led to the incident).  Of course it's a direct slap in the face for the "wingman" concept.  Commanders and Cadet leaders have to answer to parental concerns after they read it.  Then there's the relationships with other agencies.  The rest of our senior membership will have to run point and waste a LOT of energy because of this.  I'm pretty disgusted at the face value of this release.  All the work I did as a squadron commander and safety officer could be completely nullified by such a stupid press release.  It goes against current guidlines and common sense in all facets.

Lawsuits?  Yeah, this could get the wing and corporate sued - hard.  If any shenanigans existed in the investigation, real or percieved, it could affect the members' civilian employment and professional reputations.  If the press release can be tied to any form of retaliation, you can bet a lawsuit can be filed. 

You take the high road here - always.  You terminate the members professionally, quietly, and honorably because it protects everyone and is the right thing to do.

Quote from: Pumbaa on November 14, 2008, 08:19:14 PM
Here's a little test...

How about if a press release was put out when YOU were fired from a job?  your name, etc. was published as being fired for violating company policy?

Guess what.. Aint going to happen, there are laws preventing that.  I would think at least the same common sense would be followed with CAP.

It was unprofessional, stupid and downright asinine for this release.  I hope whoever released it will be thrown under the bus and removed from CAP as well.

I see press releases about this sort of thing all the time....if there are laws about it then there are a lot of people violating that law.
How many of you were upset about the press release when Pineta was booted?

Quote from: RiverAux on November 14, 2008, 08:02:56 PM
Saying somebody is being kicked out of the organization or removed from command for violating safety-related regulations (or any regulations) will have little actual use as a preventative scare tactic unless you also get fairly specific about what exactly they did. 

Because when you start going down this road you are also leaving yourself open to being judged by the membership about whether or not ther termination was justified given the specific nature of the offense(s) that were committed.

For example, if I was an Indiana Wing member, I would want to know whether they got fired for not sending in a safety report (not terribly serious) or for doing or authorizing an incredibly dangerous and stupid activity.  If it is the latter, then there is some value to telling the membership exactly what they did.

Well that is where the face saving aspect comes in......those who know what the safety issues were will know not do the same (I am assuming they were not fired for simply not filing safety reports).

As I said before....I don't know the details....but looking at the press release....it simply said the command reviewed their operations and the committed enough safety violations to warrent getting 2b'ed.

Now it is out in the open....everyone know that they were 2b'ed for cause....everyone knows who the new commander is and everyone can move on.

The parties involved may still have appeals in the work....so a detailed press realease would not be called for.

If you don't do a press release you never get the chance to get out the company line...and you still have the membership wondering about if this termination was justified...only now the information is only controlled by the rumor mill.

Quote from: desertengineer1 on November 14, 2008, 08:54:08 PMTo do such a public release over safety is an absolute no no.  Any room for interpretation by the average member not knowing the full details is bad for a list of reasons.  Unit commanders have to clean up the mess for rumor control.  Unit and Wing safety officers have to work against fears of retaliation and/or poorly run safety programs (i.e. find a fall guy instead of fixing the culture that led to the incident).  Of course it's a direct slap in the face for the "wingman" concept.  Commanders and Cadet leaders have to answer to parental concerns after they read it.  Then there's the relationships with other agencies.  The rest of our senior membership will have to run point and waste a LOT of energy because of this.  I'm pretty disgusted at the face value of this release.  All the work I did as a squadron commander and safety officer could be completely nullified by such a stupid press release.  It goes against current guidlines and common sense in all facets.

Not doing a press release opens us up to accusations that we are conducting a cover up. 

What would have been the public's reaction to the Loose Nuke Scandal if the USAF simply fired the commanders and then said nothing?

The word is "Transparancy".  We can control unjustified 2b's and command changes only when we have visibility on them.  It is by operating in the gray areas that we force people out and then distroy them in the rumor mill that has given CAP such a bad taste in everyones mouth.

By being up front and in the open about these sort of things it protects everyone, both CAP and the member involved.

If the information in the press release is false...then they have a clear, open and shut case when they sue.   If the information is true then there is not case.

But if the 2b's are done in the dark....the only the rumor mill controls the information.  The 2b'ed parties can't get redress...because they can't prove where the rumors were comming from.   CAP is put into a bad light because they are either coveing up or trying to do politically motivated firings.

QuoteLawsuits?  Yeah, this could get the wing and corporate sued - hard.  If any shenanigans existed in the investigation, real or percieved, it could affect the members' civilian employment and professional reputations.  If the press release can be tied to any form of retaliation, you can bet a lawsuit can be filed.

Not if everyone is doing their jobs correctly.  If the information in the press release is true...then what's to sue about?  Assuming that these individuals actually violated safety protocols (for the sake of arguments)....where do the have a case?  Even if the investigation was shoddy or not done to the letter of the regulations, by being out in the open we are saying to the world that we have nothing to hide. 

QuoteYou take the high road here - always.  You terminate the members professionally, quietly, and honorably because it protects everyone and is the right thing to do.

I am interpeting this differently than you are....I think CAP did terminate these members professionally, quietly and honorbly........and they told the world that they did it. 

Read the realse......the members were terminated following a rewiew of operations......safety violations were found that could have resulted in loss of life to CAP members and the commander thinks that they were sufficent enough to warrent being 2b'ed.

That is it in a nut shell.

I'm sure there was a lot of screaming and cussing going on behind closed doors.....I don't doubt that a lot of mean things were said by all parties involved.  Or there might not have been....either way nothing really nasty was said.  No one was really trashed in the press release.

I think it is what we need to do for all our 2b actions.   That way we can't sneak around in the dark getting away with everything short of murder and one day find ourselves as the National Commander.

QuoteIf you don't do a press release you never get the chance to get out the company line...and you still have the membership wondering about if this termination was justified...only now the information is only controlled by the rumor mill.

People are removed from command all the time in CAP.  Some of the time this is probably for cause and other times it might just be because the Wing/Region/National Commander wants them gone and has the power to make that happen whether they "deserve" it or not.  

Other than the removal of Pineda (and in the case of the head of the organization, its impossible to do that quietly), I cannot recall a press release ever being issued about someone being kicked out of the organization or removed from command that was like this one.  As I said earlier, you have to notify folks of change of command, but you don't have to explain why the change took place.    

QuoteNot doing a press release opens us up to accusations that we are conducting a cover up. 

How?  As I said above this is not at all typical. 

Any personnel action is a private matter between CAP, Inc., and the member - just the same as if this were an employment situation or military service.  This includes positive (promotions, decorations, assignments) and negative (demotions, reprimands, and removal from office).

Situations such as command changes, or where actions are taken because of violation of safety regs (or common sense) can be addressed in general ways without naming names.

Situations where a member may be a threat or danger to the membership should be addressed in the smallest possible circle of "need to know" (i.e. a cadet does not need to know a member was accused of being a predator, only that they are no longer allowed to be anywhere near a cadet - the seniors should be in the way of that).

CAP is a private organization, there is no requirement, either internal or external, for "transparency", especially where it violates a member's privacy.  The reporting requirements in cases like these are very specific, and limited to the chain of command - they certainly don't include the general media.

Rather than calling out people publicly by name, perhaps a better tactic would have been to detail the situation that caused the issue, and simply indicate that "two members involved were terminated...".

Bottom line, in cases where the terminations were 100% justified, this looks like CAP, Inc. "piling on" for the sake of kicking someone when they are down, however in cases where a member may be on the fence about challenging the action or going public with more dirty laundry, this could be just the thing to tip the basket over.

Either way, it shines a less than positive light on all of us.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 14, 2008, 09:14:49 PM
How many of you were upset about the press release when Pineta was booted?

Different scenario.  Executives and people legally responsible for the organization are different than normal "workers." 

CAPR 123-2 (7)
k. Commanders and all personnel involved or having knowledge of an investigation are cautioned not to discuss the complaint, investigation, or findings with persons not involved in the investigation or in the direct chain of command of the complainant or subject. Unauthorized discosure may result in a claim of defamation against the individual making such unauthorized disclosure and against CAP in a court of law.

A news release indicating the fact that the squadron concerned had a new CC (and even naming the outgoing CC, but not reason for leaving post) would be fine.

Notification to the wing that the two terminated officers were no longer functioning as ICs would be reasonable -- again, no mention of reasons.

This release, however, even if approved by IN Wing CC, is asking for legal problems; it strikes me as being against the letter of the regulation cited --certainly it goes against its spirit.

I do not know the individuals involved, nor the case at hand; I am simply addressing the propriety (or lack of!) of sending out this news release -- big mistake!!!

Quote from: Eclipse on November 14, 2008, 10:28:41 PM
Any personnel action is a private matter between CAP, Inc., and the member - just the same as if this were an employment situation or military service.  This includes positive (promotions, decorations, assignments) and negative (demotions, reprimands, and removal from office).

Not necessiarily so.

There are lots of times when someone is fired from a private sector job for cause where it is manditory that people be notified.

When doctors or lawers get their certifications pull, teachers, some government employees.

Granted we have the general principle that we praise in public and criticise in private......that is a general rule of thumb with lots of exeptions.

QuoteSituations such as command changes, or where actions are taken because of violation of safety regs (or common sense) can be addressed in general ways without naming names.

I disagree....how do you tell the general membership that Capt Soandso is no longer allowed access to CAP property, records, etc and no longer has command authority with out nameing names?

QuoteSituations where a member may be a threat or danger to the membership should be addressed in the smallest possible circle of "need to know" (i.e. a cadet does not need to know a member was accused of being a predator, only that they are no longer allowed to be anywhere near a cadet - the seniors should be in the way of that).

And if someone from INWG had not posted the new release here....it would have been.  You can't control the information once it is out.

QuoteCAP is a private organization, there is no requirement, either internal or external, for "transparency", especially where it violates a member's privacy.  The reporting requirements in cases like these are very specific, and limited to the chain of command - they certainly don't include the general media.

Just because it is not a "requirement" does not mean it is not a good idea to operate as if it were.

QuoteRather than calling out people publicly by name, perhaps a better tactic would have been to detail the situation that caused the issue, and simply indicate that "two members involved were terminated...".

So you just let the rumor mill work it's way around to filling in the information?

QuoteBottom line, in cases where the terminations were 100% justified, this looks like CAP, Inc. "piling on" for the sake of kicking someone when they are down, however in cases where a member may be on the fence about challenging the action or going public with more dirty laundry, this could be just the thing to tip the basket over.

No...I see it as CAP informing its members and the public that we take safety seriously and have nothing to hide...while at the same time informing everyone that these people are no longer members of CAP.

QuoteEither way, it shines a less than positive light on all of us.

There is almost never a positive side to these sort of things.  It is never a good thing when you have to resort to a 2b action.  If there is a positive it is that we (CAP...or the INWG/CC) feel confidant that what we are doing is right are we are not trying to hide anything.

Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 14, 2008, 10:53:16 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 14, 2008, 09:14:49 PM
How many of you were upset about the press release when Pineta was booted?

Different scenario.  Executives and people legally responsible for the organization are different than normal "workers." 

Disagree.....both on principle and on the fact that a squadron commander and senior IC are not "normal workers".

Sure if Cadet Dumbdumb is 2b for bad grades or lack of progression I don't see a need for a press release...but if I felt that for good order and disciplin getting the word out in that format was warrented I would certainly leave that option open.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 14, 2008, 11:23:20 PMI disagree....how do you tell the general membership that Capt Soandso is no longer allowed access to CAP property, records, etc and no longer has command authority with out nameing names?

Route it through internal channels, down to the appropriate level. Here in CAWG, we have email groups, so that info can go directly to Unit CCs, Group CCs, different staff groups, etc. Put out a message to All Unit CCs, for example, and the the folks with need to know are informed, without telling the whole world.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 14, 2008, 11:28:30 PM
Disagree.....both on principle and on the fact that a squadron commander and senior IC are not "normal workers".

Sure if Cadet Dumbdumb is 2b for bad grades or lack of progression I don't see a need for a press release...but if I felt that for good order and disciplin getting the word out in that format was warrented I would certainly leave that option open.

You can inform members that a given officer is no longer in command, no longer holds certain qualifications, or in fact is no longer a member -- you simply can't reveal the details or reasons.

Example: 1) Capt Jones has been relieved as commander of XYZ Squadron by Lt Smith.  2) Maj Brown is no longer a CAP member, and thus not authorized to serve as IC (mission pilot, etc)

Quote from: SarDragon on November 14, 2008, 11:34:41 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 14, 2008, 11:23:20 PMI disagree....how do you tell the general membership that Capt Soandso is no longer allowed access to CAP property, records, etc and no longer has command authority with out nameing names?

Route it through internal channels, down to the appropriate level. Here in CAWG, we have email groups, so that info can go directly to Unit CCs, Group CCs, different staff groups, etc. Put out a message to All Unit CCs, for example, and the the folks with need to know are informed, without telling the whole world.

As far as I know...that was what was done in this case.....but once again...once any release is made you can't control the information...so your options are either release or don't release.  Sure we should use internal channels as much as possible...but sometimes a general release may be called for.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on November 14, 2008, 11:34:55 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 14, 2008, 11:28:30 PM
Disagree.....both on principle and on the fact that a squadron commander and senior IC are not "normal workers".

Sure if Cadet Dumbdumb is 2b for bad grades or lack of progression I don't see a need for a press release...but if I felt that for good order and disciplin getting the word out in that format was warrented I would certainly leave that option open.

You can inform members that a given officer is no longer in command, no longer holds certain qualifications, or in fact is no longer a member -- you simply can't reveal the details or reasons.

Example: 1) Capt Jones has been relieved as commander of XYZ Squadron by Lt Smith.  2) Maj Brown is no longer a CAP member, and thus not authorized to serve as IC (mission pilot, etc)

And sometimes you may feel the need to inform them why...with out getting into gory details.

Let's put our "just suppose" hats on for a second.....

Just Suppose....your wing has a bad safety record.....just suppose your customers may have commented on it to you as the wing king......so you follow up on it....find that Squadron XYZ is flying loose and dangerous with the safety regs.  So you confront the squadron CC and you can't come to an understanding....the only recourse is to remove the commander and another member.

Now you want to let the general public and the organisation that you and your wing takes safety seriously.  The quickest, easiest way is to publicly disclose that you have looked into it, found the problem and dealt with it.

As and example I offer the Loose Nuke Scandal the USAF just delt with.

Those Commanders and officers had same right to privacy as any leader in CAP does.  But the USAF still discolsed that they were fired, reprimanded and the reason why.

Taking off my "just suppose hat" now.

Now.....I don't know if that is the way this went down.....I am just using this an a leadership exercise.

If these guys were rail-roaded....then by all means I hope they fight it and get reinstated and the wing leadership who are playing fast with the 2b rules get canned.

But if the allogations are true....and the offenses were gross, willful and negligent enough to warrent summary termination.....then again....I see no reason why I can't tell the world if it in fact does the organisation some good.

That is a judgement call on the part of the Wing Commander.

QuoteBut if the allogations are true....and the offenses were gross, willful and negligent enough to warrent summary termination.....then again....I see no reason why I can't tell the world if it in fact does the organisation some good.

But in this case, no specific mention of what they did wrong was given, so the use of this incident as an example for others is quite low. 

Reading though the posts here I strongly believe (without having any specific knowledge on the situation) that  these officers got a really bad deal. If they were removed for fair or unfair reasons it doesn't matter. The general public does not need to know.     

Quote from: lordmonar on November 14, 2008, 09:14:49 PM

Quote from: Pumbaa on November 14, 2008, 08:19:14 PM
Here's a little test...

How about if a press release was put out when YOU were fired from a job?  your name, etc. was published as being fired for violating company policy?

Guess what.. Aint going to happen, there are laws preventing that.  I would think at least the same common sense would be followed with CAP.

It was unprofessional, stupid and downright asinine for this release.  I hope whoever released it will be thrown under the bus and removed from CAP as well.

I see press releases about this sort of thing all the time....if there are laws about it then there are a lot of people violating that law.
How many of you were upset about the press release when Pineta was booted?

Wow Capt Harris... are you sure you're not mixing stuff up here?

Press releases about relief of command aren't done to notify the public of the inner happenings of military units. When was the last time a Company CO put out a press release on a platoon Sgt he's fired?  NEVER!

Press releases about relief of command are published as a follow up to a story that was made public through need to know or leaks. To reassure the public that proper measures are being taken to correct the problem stated before, the commander relieved the officer of command. That's what that's all about. It is not customary or smart or proper to talk about changes in management in military otherwise. Creates too much "cooler talk", uncertainty with troops, uncertainty with the public and the impression that things are worse than they are (only hearing about negative things creates such impressions).

That's exactly what's happening here... the story's creating a sour, negative feeling and image about our organization. And from what it seems like, for no reason too.

No...but I bet that company commander told his other company commanders and all this NCO's about the change.

We have a wing level officer removing a squadron level officer and he makes a press release.

We have accusations that this is:
1) Illegal
2) Forbidden by regulatins
3) Kicking a man while he is still down
4) Poor leadership.

But no-one said a thing about the press release when a wing commander is fired or when Pineda was fired.

But we got someone who posts the release here, yells "politics" and suddenly we are questioning a wing commander's judegment.

Again....I am not talking anything about the nature or the rightousness of the 2b actions....only the press release.

I have never heard of a wing commander's firing be announced with a press release describing the causes for which they were fired.  Every one I've seen just describes a change of command and usually focuses more on the guy coming in than the guy going out.  There isn't anyone here who would have a problem with that. 

lordm--most everybody here is questioning the judgement of the wing commander for issuing the press release, not kicking out the members. 

The Press Release should have stated exactly why they were terminated and released only through CAP channels after all appeals were exhausted.  As a result, lots of what ifs will result into a flood of gossip, defamation of character and false rumors will spread that will only further complicate the case and may even go as far as a lawsuit.   

What happened to the National Appeals process.  I thought they had the final decision.   This case seems very questionable and politically motivated.    The Indiana Wing Commander may end up getting the boot instead.   I wouldn't be surprised if this case got reversed because it appears that CAP regs were not followed correctly or ignored. 

Quote from: lordmonar on November 15, 2008, 05:42:28 AM
But no-one said a thing about the press release when a wing commander is fired or when Pineda was fired.

That is because Pineda and a Wing Commander are different.  Notice you see press releases about execs from Enron, AIG, etc executives but not the lowly guys beneath them.  That is because they have public legal responsibility for the organization.  Corporate Officers are different than squadron commanders and other normal members. 

I'm sure you'd see many press releases if the POTUS was impeached or a senator was arrested, etc.  No one would say a word because people need to know that information.  The entire world doesn't need to know that two members got 2b'd.  Would you publish a news release when you termiate a cadet for having bad grades?  Didn't think so.

Quote from: jimmydeanno on November 15, 2008, 03:13:40 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 15, 2008, 05:42:28 AM
But no-one said a thing about the press release when a wing commander is fired or when Pineda was fired.

I'm sure you'd see many press releases if the POTUS was impeached or a senator was arrested, etc.  No one would say a word because people need to know that information.  The entire world doesn't need to know that two members got 2b'd.  Would you publish a news release when you termiate a cadet for having bad grades?  Didn't think so.

Though to be fair, this isn't a news release about a cadet with bad grades or a unit commander being replaced.

This is a news release about two Incident Commanders--individuals who are vested with the (limited) authority of the Wing Commander to prosecute ES missions--who were relieved and terminated for what were apparently serious safety concerns.

Now, I don't know the members involved, so there's no reason to speculate on the whys. For almost all members in CAP, the terminating authority lies with the Wing Commander. If they want to appeal their terminations, they have routes open to them.

As an Incident Commander and Wing Duty Officer (someone who gets the mission alerts and assigns ICs), it gives me pause to think and mentally review the decisions I've made. So, in that respect, the press release has done its job.

I don't know if anyone's noticed or not but the press release was removed from the wing website.

^It's good to know the release was removed from the wing's website however, it is now on this site for good.  Once the box is open.....

Anyway, if the wing/cc terminated the members, it is the region commander who handles the appeal.  If the findings are sustained and the region/cc decides for the termination, the "former members" have 60 days to appeal to the MARB. If the MARB hears the case, its decisions are final.  Also, the decisions are published in the on-line edition of the "Volunteer"  for all to see.  Let's see what happens over the next few months.

Quote^It's good to know the release was removed from the wing's website however, it is now on this site for good.  Once the box is open.....

I know that Mike isn't generally in favor of eliminating older posts, but perhaps if Birddog requests that the press release in the post that starts this thread be taken out, he might allow it. 

Its already in the Google cache - something to think about no matter where you post anything - if it lives on a web server more than a few hours anywhere, its likely going to live forever.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 15, 2008, 05:42:28 AM
No...but I bet that company commander told his other company commanders and all this NCO's about the change.

We have a wing level officer removing a squadron level officer and he makes a press release.

We have accusations that this is:
1) Illegal
2) Forbidden by regulatins
3) Kicking a man while he is still down
4) Poor leadership.

But no-one said a thing about the press release when a wing commander is fired or when Pineda was fired.

But we got someone who posts the release here, yells "politics" and suddenly we are questioning a wing commander's judegment.

Again....I am not talking anything about the nature or the rightousness of the 2b actions....only the press release.

I'm all for internal memos. I'm all against press releases for no reason.

What is the substantive difference between and internal Email and a general press release?

If the information is damaging to a person's reputation (what I think everyone is up in arms about) then no mater how I get the information out....it gets out and damages the individual's reputation.

Bottom line is....if the press release is true...there is nothing anyone can do about it.  Commanders must use discretion and tack when ever something likes this happens.

In this case...I think INWG did a pretty good job....I guess I am the only one here who thinks so.

So be it....

Quote from: lordmonar on November 17, 2008, 01:10:58 AM
What is the substantive difference between and internal Email and a general press release?

An internal email can be labeled as such and members (or employees, etc.), can be held responsible to the point of termination themselves for releasing it publicly.

A press release is, by design, crafted and published for widest dissemination

Personnel actions should not be done in the public realm, and generally no company will release personal information about a someone being separated (regardless of the justification) for reasons of liability and defamation of character.

In most states, employees (and in this case, members), can be terminated "at will" with no explanation, public or otherwise.  However once you start making public statements about a person's behavior or attitude, the door is open
to all sorts of legal excitement.

In 99% of the cases, any public indication is simply a short statement that "Joe Employee" is no longer with Bagadonuts, Inc. Any speculation or detail is usually found in the media, not the press release.

Do those who think Plastering a false accusation on the wing web site

what part of the regulation do you not understand.

Unauthorized discosure may result in a claim of defamation against the individual making such unauthorized disclosure and against CAP in a court of law.

I hope the two sue the crap out of the wing commander, we are a corporation remember chartered by the congress of the united states. Many in CAP who are Colonels (Gone from LT to Colonel in 5 years) seem to have something akin to a Napoleon complex, but this is just another example of the dry rot in CAP.

CAP often forgets that the MEMEBERS HAVE RIGHTS, just because you join CAP does not give anyone the right to take away your rights. IN stead of us getting a calm professional report we consistently get these wild weird happenings from Pineda on down, It never stops. I ask you just how is it we look like a professional organization to the State Emergency Services Organizations.

Not to pick a wound but a few months ago I was told by AFRCC that it often takes hours to find an IC in many Midwestern States to take a mission, once it took over 8 hours, why is it that type of information does not require action, why because CAP is often filled by members who have reached their level of incompetence or known as the Peter Principle.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 17, 2008, 01:26:17 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 17, 2008, 01:10:58 AM
What is the substantive difference between and internal Email and a general press release?

An internal email can be labeled as such and members (or employees, etc.), can be held responsible to the point of termination themselves for releasing it publicly.

A press release is, by design, crafted and published for widest dissemination

Personnel actions should not be done in the public realm, and generally no company will release personal information about a someone being separated (regardless of the justification) for reasons of liability and defamation of character.

In most states, employees (and in this case, members), can be terminated "at will" with no explanation, public or otherwise.  However once you start making public statements about a person's behavior or attitude, the door is open
to all sorts of legal excitement.

In 99% of the cases, any public indication is simply a short statement that "Joe Employee" is no longer with Bagadonuts, Inc. Any speculation or detail is usually found in the media, not the press release.

So you agree...there is no "substantive" difference.....one simply plays lip service to "controling" the liability and defamation.

Just a point of order....I'm not a lawyer...but if the informaiton is true...it can't be a defamation/slander/lible.

Generally speaking you are right....personnel actions should not be done in public....but we are talking about the rules and the exception to those rule.  There are times when you fire someone publicly and loudly....and CAP has that right and duty.

Go look at all the treads about CPP and manditory reporters. 

Quote from: wingnut55 on November 17, 2008, 01:29:30 AM
Do those who think Plastering a false accusation on the wing web site

what part of the regulation do you not understand.

Unauthorized discosure may result in a claim of defamation against the individual making such unauthorized disclosure and against CAP in a court of law.

I hope the two sue the crap out of the wing commander, we are a corporation remember chartered by the congress of the united states. Many in CAP who are Colonels (Gone from LT to Colonel in 5 years) seem to have something akin to a Napoleon complex, but this is just another example of the dry rot in CAP.

CAP often forgets that the MEMEBERS HAVE RIGHTS, just because you join CAP does not give anyone the right to take away your rights. IN stead of us getting a calm professional report we consistently get these wild weird happenings from Pineda on down, It never stops. I ask you just how is it we look like a professional organization to the State Emergency Services Organizations.

Not to pick a wound but a few months ago I was told by AFRCC that it often takes hours to find an IC in many Midwestern States to take a mission, once it took over 8 hours, why is it that type of information does not require action, why because CAP is often filled by members who have reached their level of incompetence or known as the Peter Principle.

Is it really defamation if it's true?

And who is one that "authorizes" disclosure? Perhaps a corporate officer, like a Wing or Region commander?

I'm keeping myself far, far away from this thread, but it sounds like a lot of people, without a lot of knowledge on the intimate details of why this happened, are putting a lot of gossip and hearsay on here for the world to see.

That is my point.....I am not arguing this particular case.....but from a theoritical perspective.

While generally we keep our dirty laundry to ourselves....there are times when it is right and proper to let the world know that we made a change in leadership.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 17, 2008, 03:05:56 AM
So you agree...there is no "substantive" difference.....one simply plays lip service to "controlling" the liability and defamation.

I obviously don't agree at all, and in many cases it is quite more than lip service - people lose their jobs or are involved in
litigation everyday because they leaked confidential internal memos or emails.

Several years ago, this happened in another wing where the Wing Commander publicly announced a termination before the case was finalized.  The National Appeals Board reversed the action and the member was reinstated.    As a result, the Wing Commander lost his command and several staff members were reassigned to "Iceland".    And the reputation & credibility of the member was destroyed eventhough found innocent on all charges.    It only caused a wave of rumors and gossip that only made the situation worse.  The Wing Commander had good intention but was fed the wrong intel from a staff member and acted to quickly.   I find the Indiana termination release to be bad timing and poorly written.   I'm not siding with any of them but the Indiana Wing Commander needs an NSC refresher though.   The Wing Commander should have sought advice from the National IG first & waited until after National made the final decision, then it would be appropriate to announce the termination through CAP channels or publicly. 

The press release (if sent outside agencies) was not called for.  A press release that only went to the Wing's web site is fine.  This involved the membership termination of two Incident Commanders for cause.  Where the press release falls short is that it failed to spell out what the two Incident Commanders did that justified losing their membership.  If you want to prevent this bad behavior from being repeated in the future, you need to clearly state what the two ICs did wrong.  Otherwise there is no learning or behavior modification.  Without details, you leave the membership speculating over what happened and that is not a good thing.  Tell the membership what the ICs did, why it was wrong, and that the ICs are now paying the price.  The membership will get the point.  Failure to do this will result in a lot of people thinking it was a non-event that was blown way out of proportion.

You don't need to tell the world, but you do need to tell the membership.  If it is a hot enough story, the press will get it anyway.  If not, it is a newsroom non-event because no one outside of CAP cares.

This news release asks more questions than it answers.

For that reason alone, the judgment used in preparing and releasing this information is flawed.

To notify members internally that two members have been disciplined or terminated, and that they no longer are connected to CAP operations, is one thing. That can be done in CAP's equivalent of "interoffice e-mail."

To bring two CAP members -- not even limited public figures, as the former national commander was when the release was made about his termination -- into the public limelight by preparing a news release for non-CAP consumption, when it involves CAP processes in very vague terms, is shaky.

This is a personnel matter involving two people who aren't even limited public figures. If you put a release like this out there, and you aren't willing to back it up, it makes CAP look like a vengeful organization that publicly eats its own.

This does not warrant an external release, but instead demands internal notification. Whether it's a political move or not is another issue altogether.

It seems that the argument has broken down into a series of degrees.

CAP can make public announcements of terminations of "high officals" but not IC and Squadron Commanders.

CAP can make "internal annoucements" but not "public annoucements".

The argument then is.....where and who draws the line?

Assuming for the sake of argument that everyone is doing their jobs correctly (the investigation was conducted properly, the finders are true, legal and corporate officers were notified and consulted).......does CAP have the right to make any announcement about the status of any of their members?

I say they do.....and sometimes a duty to so.....based on the situation, subject, nature of the offense, and the publics right to know what we as semi government agency do.

I am not arguing the specifics of this case......but any case in general.

We have established that a squadron CC can make an announcement to the squadron that "Cadet Johnson was 2b'ed"....but can he say the same thing on the squadron website? Can he make the same announcement at the group/wing commander's call?

As for going into detail....."Cadet Johnson was 2b'ed for lack of progression under para 3.b. of CAPR 35-3"....is this permissible.

if so how about "Lt Col Dishwater was 2b'ed for failure to perform his duty and para 4.b.5 of CAPR 35-3"?

Do you see what I am getting to?

If we can say

QuoteU.S. CAP Board of Governors removes national commander

Acting National Commander Courter assumes command
October 03, 2007



NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS -- The U.S. Civil Air Patrol's Board of Governors voted in a teleconference the night of Oct. 2 to remove Maj. Gen. Antonio J. Pineda from his position as CAP national commander. 

The board's action comes two months after the chairman of the Board of Governors, Maj. Gen. Richard Bowling, announced the 11-member board had suspended the CAP national commander for a period of up to 180 days. The suspension occurred after the board convened a special Aug. 5 meeting to receive the initial CAP inspector general's Report of Investigation concerning allegations that a Florida Wing member took U.S. Air Force Air Command and Staff College tests for Pineda in 2002 and 2003.



"This action was taken after careful review of the facts and circumstances and after numerous discussions of the report of the investigation against Gen. Pineda," Bowling said.

Vice Commander Brig. Gen. Amy S. Courter, who has served as acting national commander since Pineda was suspended, now takes leadership of CAP as interim commander, as prescribed in the organization's Constitution and Bylaws.

She will hold the position until the August 2008 board meeting, where members will vote to select a new commander.  Courter is eligible to run for the position.

"The members of the Civil Air Patrol are patriotic and highly dedicated volunteers of this great nation who routinely place duty before self to serve their communities," Courter said. "Their contributions during the search for aviation legend Steve Fossett, during Hurricane Katrina, 9/11 and thousands of other noteworthy missions throughout our 66 years of service have made a profound difference in the lives of thousands of Americans of all ages. I am honored to serve as interim national commander of Civil Air Patrol."

Courter joined the Michigan Wing in 1979 and most recently served as chair of the CAP Professional Development Committee. She served as commander of the Michigan Wing from 1999 to 2002 and as senior adviser to the CAP National Cadet Advisory Council.

Courter worked for 20 years as vice president of information technology with Valassis, a global billion-dollar marketing services company based in Livonia, Mich. Courter started her own company, Amy's Creative Solutions, in 2006 to allow her the flexibility to devote more time to her volunteer work in CAP. She consults on leadership, strategic planning, technology and program management.


Established in 2000, Board of Governors includes members appointed the Secretary of the Air Force and the CAP national commander from experts in education, the aviation industry and emergency management. Both the national commander and national vice commander serve on the Board of Governors.

Why can't we do the same at a lower level.....if the announcement is in the public good?

Sure there is a difference between the National CC getting canned and a cadet getting can.....but in between we cross the line between "the public doesn't need to know" and "the public needs to know".

Again....I am not arguing the specific case of these two from INWG....but in general.....does a wing commander have the right to make public announcements naming names and in giving details if the case warrents it?

Quote from: lordmonar on November 17, 2008, 01:10:58 AM
What is the substantive difference between and internal Email and a general press release?

If the information is damaging to a person's reputation (what I think everyone is up in arms about) then no mater how I get the information out....it gets out and damages the individual's reputation.

Bottom line is....if the press release is true...there is nothing anyone can do about it.  Commanders must use discretion and tack when ever something likes this happens.

In this case...I think INWG did a pretty good job....I guess I am the only one here who thinks so.

So be it....

Have you done the OPSEC course? Internal e-mails are FOUO and should be labeled as such. They are simply informational tools. In this case, to inform those who need to know about this about what was done. Anyone who doesn't need to know this negative information shouldn't. Why? How about so that discussions like this don't happen? Things like this are detrimental to the organization, can't you see that?

Patrick, this isn't a matter of can or can't. It's a matter of should or shouldn't.

Why was it necessary to write this press release? Why not just send out a memo to subordinate unit commanders to make them aware of the situation? The members in question were not Corporate officers and were not paid employees of the government. They were volunteers. Volunteers who may have (or may not have, we don't know exactly) made mistakes. That's a reason to terminate membership, it's not a reason to discredit them as people. Such actions are VENGEANCE, not public information. The public's trust wasn't breached here and if it was, the Wing CC should be the one written about because HE/SHE is in command and HE/SHE is responsible for people under his/her command.

If it's okay to write stuff in the press about former members, then why not okay about current members? If it's okay to write about mistakes of senior members, then what's stopping you about discrediting cadets? There's no law against this if it's true, sure, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

What should have stopped them from doing this?  CAP core values, that's what.

Quote from: afgeo4 on November 17, 2008, 08:39:38 PMInternal e-mails are FOUO and should be labeled as such.

I'm not sure all internal E-mails are FOUO...

Quote from: afgeo4 on November 17, 2008, 08:39:38 PMWhy was it necessary to write this press release? Why not just send out a memo to subordinate unit commanders to make them aware of the situation? The members in question were not Corporate officers and were not paid employees of the government. They were volunteers. Volunteers who may have (or may not have, we don't know exactly) made mistakes. That's a reason to terminate membership, it's not a reason to discredit them as people. Such actions are VENGEANCE, not public information. The public's trust wasn't breached here and if it was, the Wing CC should be the one written about because HE/SHE is in command and HE/SHE is responsible for people under his/her command.

I don't know why this specific new release was made....but who does know......there are a lot of people including the first poster who automatically assumed it was for relatiation or kicking a man when he is down.   I am only arguing from the point of view that there MAY be good reason to make a public announcement.   The individuals in this case may not be Corporate Officers...but they most certainly where people who affect CAP's good name and were in positions of public trust...as ICs and a squadron commander.  We assume VENGEANCE because the orginal poster...and that is all.  We have zero details about this case.   

Sure we should protect the reputations of our members and ex-members.  But there are some cases where we may need to protect CAP's reputation as well.

Like I said several times.....if this is a bogus 2b and if this is a vengance/false report...by all means the members need to seek redress to the full extend of the regulations and laws. 

QuoteIf it's okay to write stuff in the press about former members, then why not okay about current members? If it's okay to write about mistakes of senior members, then what's stopping you about discrediting cadets? There's no law against this if it's true, sure, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

But I do write up stuff about current members and cadets all the time.  When they screw up I let them know and I let those whe need to know in on the conversation.

Sure...if there was no need to tell everyone...then we should correct the situation.....but sometimes there is in fact a need for the general members and sometimes the general public to know that we terminated a member and why we did so.

QuoteWhat should have stopped them from doing this?  CAP core values, that's what.

That works both ways....core valuse sometimes compells us to inform the world.

Quote from: afgeo4 on November 17, 2008, 08:39:38 PM
Have you done the OPSEC course? Internal e-mails are FOUO and should be labeled as such.

Internals emails are FOUO only when specifically labeled as such.

There's plenty of internal communication which has no expectation of confidentiality.

If you terminate a member's membership for cause, then you owe it to the membership to let them know the basis for the termination.  If the person had one too may DUIs and it serves no useful purpose, then you don't need to tell everyone.  But if one of your MPs runs out of fuel and puts the airplane down off-airport, you don't keep it a secret that he is permanently grounded or has his membership terminated.  You let everyone know what happened in the hopes that bad example and the results will prevent future incidents.  If it causes a former or current member embarrassment, too bad.  I had my RM squadron commander fired during a major exercise because he was DUI in a restricted area on the parking ramp.  Everyone was briefed on exactly why he was fired and he had already outprocessed our home base when we returned.  The point - don't drink and drive on base - especially around the aircraft.

You do need to use common sense.  If a member skids a airplane tire and ruins it, then lies to avoid paying for the tire, he deserves to pay for the tire and lose his flying privileges for a while.  You do need to tell the membership the facts of the incident but it serves no useful purpose to name names.

Just FYI, termination of a member is not covered by OPSEC.  if it is posted on a website, it is not FOUO information.  OPSEC training covers some very specific things that are FOUO.  I have yet to get an email marked FOUO that is really FOUO.           

Quote from: lordmonar on November 17, 2008, 09:14:29 PM

I don't know why this specific new release was made....but who does know......there are a lot of people including the first poster who automatically assumed it was for relatiation or kicking a man when he is down.   I am only arguing from the point of view that there MAY be good reason to make a public announcement.   ]

That works both ways....core valuse sometimes compells us to inform the world.

There was NO reason for that release to be transmitted - none.  We are not AIG.  We are CAP.  We are SUPPOSED to hold ourselves accountable to a higher standard - to take the high road.  That does NOT include announcing firings of volunteer members related to "incidents". 

Not knowing a single detail of the situtaion, I'm still aghast that someone did it.  Core values?  Yeah, just like the wingman concept.  We do a lot of talk, but that's about it...

Disgusting...

I still don't know if it was a true press release or just used that format for posting on the wing's web site.  Did the wing PAO send it to the news media?

I will agree that using the member's names was not needed.  Still, annoucing to the membership that two ICs had their membership terminated due to violating policy and safety rules is a good thing to do.  They failed in not providing the details of which policy and safety rules were violated.

I fail to see where this violates core values:

--    INTEGRITY: THE VERY FIBER OF ALL CORE VALUES; WITHOUT IT ALL
OTHER CORE VALUES CANNOT PREVAIL. INTEGRITY IS THE CORNERSTONE
FOR ALL THAT IS MORAL AND JUST IN OUR SOCIETY, EMBRACING ATTRIBUTES
SUCH AS COURAGE, RESPONSIBILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, JUSTICE,
OPENNESS, SELF-RESPECT, AND HUMILITY. CAP MEMBERS MUST PRACTICE
THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF SELF-DISCIPLINE.

VOLUNTEER SERVICE: THE VERY ESSENCE OF CIVIL AIR PATROL'S
SERVICE TO HUMANITY. THIS CORE VALUE IMPLIES A COMMITMENT ON THE
PART OF ALL CAP MEMBERS TO PLACE THE ORGANIZATION'S PURPOSES
FIRST AND FOREMOST. THIS PROCESS BEGINS WITH THE MEMBER'S
AGREEMENT TO OBEY THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF CAP AND THE U.S.
AIR FORCE.
EXCELLENCE:

Quote from: Short Field on November 17, 2008, 11:07:40 PM
I still don't know if it was a true press release or just used that format for posting on the wing's web site.  Did the wing PAO send it to the news media?

If that release was really just a template for future stories, it's an error that should cost a PA his position, at least. That's irresponsible. People lose their jobs for stuff like that.

While it's nice to have openness in CAP as well as in society, we have to realize that even the accused have human dignity... and this isn't even a criminal action, just (allegedly) carelessness. If I were the PA in this situation, I would have advised the wing commander not to use the names for external purposes, and *maybe* not even internally except on a need-to-know basis.

^^^ Agreed.  First of all, this was totally irrelevant  to the world at large.  I ran a quick Google search and the only place I found anything about this was CAPTALK.  Non-CAP people just don't care.  Second, not identifying by name the people being removed is fine and probably in the best interests of everyone involved including CAP.  Third, we do need to announce to the membership that two ICs were removed for cause and then spell out the cause.  CAP does need transparency. 

On a personal note - I am a IC and I sure want to know what got them fired and their membership terminated so I don't ever come close to doing the same thing.

From what I understand...it was posted on the wing web site.....I don't know if was "released" to any new media...i.e. bulked E-mailed to local news, AP, CNN...but it had the standard new format CAP uses in its internal CAP NEW Online news stories.

I agree with Short Field...that if the message was supposed to go out to INWG members on what happens if you violate safety standards they did not go far enough in the details so that they could actually learn what not to do.

As for not sending out anything, like desertengineer suggests, I whole heartedly disagree.  We should hold ourselves to the higher standard of being a completely transparent organisation.

We build public trust in our abilities by being open and honest about our screw ups.....if these guys were in fact screw up....even if we quietly terminated these guys, if our state customers were the ones complaining, then there would be accusations of cover ups.

If you doubt this....let me us the Catholic Church as an example.  For years they were dealing with their screw ups quietly, transfering somes, terminating others....but when the bubble broke it made them look worse then they really were.

That is my feelings for cases like these.

Assuming all the I's are dotted and the T's crossed....that we have a good investigation with solid evidence of wrong doing....then I see no reason why we should not report out in the open everything that needs to be said.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 18, 2008, 12:04:40 AM
From what I understand...it was posted on the wing web site.....I don't know if was "released" to any new media...i.e. bulked E-mailed to local news, AP, CNN...but it had the standard new format CAP uses in its internal CAP NEW Online news stories.

So it was released for public consumption, regardless of whether anyone picked it up.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 18, 2008, 12:04:40 AMI agree with Short Field...that if the message was supposed to go out to INWG members on what happens if you violate safety standards they did not go far enough in the details so that they could actually learn what not to do.

I agree that whatever lessons were learned should be passed along to others in CAP. But a release posted on a portal that's supposed to help welcome people to CAP isn't the way to do it.

I would like to know what procedural discrepancies were not followed that led to this, and if there was any previous warning/admonishment/etc. that, if heeded, would not have led to membership termination.

And that goes back to my orginal point...that commanders do have the right to publish the details of incidents/investigations/personnel actions....if the situations call for it.

Quote from: lordmonar on November 18, 2008, 02:22:31 AM
And that goes back to my orginal point...that commanders do have the right to publish the details of incidents/investigations/personnel actions....if the situations call for it.

I agree 100%, except that there isn't a single situation that would call for or justify it.

Transparency.   You don't want people thinking the only reason you got rid of a really great guy that everyone loved was because you were jealous of how well people thought of him, and he was just trying to keep the organization on the up and up and you couldn't stand it.  Because we all know that could be the only reason you fired him.  Especially since his friends are all quickly passing the word that he did nothing wrong.  :angel:

I can think of 4-5 situtations discussed right here on this board over the last 4 years or so...that should have been announced with an offical press release.

It would have solved a lot of speculation and back stabbing.

Can we all agree that the best thing that should have been done was to send memo e-mails to CAP membership and membership only notifying of the status of the former members followed up by a memo from NHQ reminding us of proper procedures and of what not to do without specific mentioning of names or situations?

Can we all agree that this info probably shouldn't have been posted on a public website?

If we can, let's learn our lesson and not do it ourselves. I think that's the best thing that can come out of this. Knowing what impact such actions have on the membership and what impact they can have on the public's view of us.

...and let's hope we find out what happened so we can avoid that trap in the future.

This proves exactly what I posted earlier, early release of a termination only increases rumors & the "he said, she said" talk.   We don't know who is guilty, we weren't there or involved in the situation.    The blame game has got to stop.   The Indiana Wing Commander authorized the release regardless of who wrote it.    The important concept is the fact that the termination release was publicly announced too quickly & poorly written.   And the release did not even mention the appeals process and that National had the final decision nor did it state there was an formal investigation, only a "review".   How is it even possible to have a clear understanding of what happened with only a "review" and not a full investigation.      Safety violations are top priority but this termination "review" was handled very badly & unprofessional.   For anyone who wants to command, this is a great lesson to learn from and not repeat.

CAP legalities are handled different than our current American court system.  National IG has a lot of great legal resources and a pool of lawyers to handle sensitive situations such as this from getting way out of hand.   Final judgment does not rest solely with the Wing Commander too.     It is very important that leaders in CAP handle delicate matters very carefully and get National IG advice when necessary.   

^^^  It got pretty out of hand here

With a shortage of IC's in some States, the games of CAP jealousy really needs to stop.

If CAP is to"integrate" and wants a desire to become a responder agency other than SEARCH and wnats to recieve more Federal funding thru DHS and others ....


It had better get it together and perform AAR's after each incident and IMPROVE.  We can all pat each other other on the back and say well done after each SAR and handing out MRE's at an incident

BUT

WE (CAP) still grill our members on a public forum.  CAP legalities?? great!!  May be the organization needs a kick in the fourth point of contact from Daddy AF. This outfit needs help as far as professionalism and boy it shows on this forum.  If there are problems this is not the place for it to be settled

This organization had better grow up after 64 years  "cuz I would not want PETTY CAP politics on my incident

Ya know...  While researching something entirely different, I came across this:

CAP REGULATION 110-1 (E)

a. CAP Internet Operation. Any activity operated or conducted through the Internet if: 1) such operations make use of a domain name registered or assigned to Civil Air Patrol, including, but not limited to, CAP.GOV or CAPNHQ.GOV or 2) use is made of the name "Civil Air Patrol" or its insignia, copyrights, emblems and badges, descriptive or designating marks and words used in carrying out its program which name and marks are specifically owned by Civil Air Patrol pursuant to 36 United States Code § 206.

And...

d. Prohibited CAP Internet Operations. The following acts shall be prohibited in CAP internet operations: 1) There shall be no use or distribution of any obscene, indecent, or offensive language or material that is defamatory, abusive, harassing, disrespectful or hateful. 2) There shall be no: a) use or distribution of junk mail, b) unauthorized advertising, c) communication that invades anyone's privacy, or encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offense or gives rise to civil liability or that otherwise violates any local, state, national or international law or regulation, d) communication that contains false statements about Civil Air Patrol or Civil Air Patrol employees or members.,  e) publication or distribution of any information that violates any copyright, trade name or trademark.

Maybe it's just me, but this is pretty straight foreward with respect to the "Press Release" being a no no.

According to that, then anything posted announcing new assignments or qualifications is also an invasion of privacy.......

Quote from: Short Field on November 18, 2008, 07:56:33 PM
According to that, then anything posted announcing new assignments or qualifications is also an invasion of privacy.......

I was more focused on the civil liability part.  If someone is removed for cause, and there is any perception of shenanigan, you risk civil liability with such a public release.  Best to take the benefit of the doubt and keep it within the corporate process.

We don't need additional, unneccessary risk - especially over safety.

Quote from: Short Field on November 18, 2008, 07:56:33 PM
According to that, then anything posted announcing new assignments or qualifications is also an invasion of privacy.......

No one sues when its good news...

Quote from: Eclipse on November 18, 2008, 11:12:10 PM

Quote from: Short Field on November 18, 2008, 07:56:33 PM
According to that, then anything posted announcing new assignments or qualifications is also an invasion of privacy.......

No one sues when its good news...

You can't sue if what was said is true.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 18, 2008, 11:12:10 PM
No one sues when its good news...

"Hey, you did a great job! The best job anyone could ever do! I'm suing your ass!"

Quote from: lordmonar on November 19, 2008, 12:36:40 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 18, 2008, 11:12:10 PM

Quote from: Short Field on November 18, 2008, 07:56:33 PM
According to that, then anything posted announcing new assignments or qualifications is also an invasion of privacy.......

No one sues when its good news...

You can't sue if what was said is true.

Actually, you can still sue, you just probably won't win.

Just a clarification , Col. Bryan is an RN and Captain Curdes is a Firefighter/Paramedic - not EMTs  ;)

Quote from: desertengineer1 on November 18, 2008, 03:18:16 PM
Ya know...  While researching something entirely different, I came across this:

CAP REGULATION 110-1 (E)

a. CAP Internet Operation. Any activity operated or conducted through the Internet if: 1) such operations make use of a domain name registered or assigned to Civil Air Patrol, including, but not limited to, CAP.GOV or CAPNHQ.GOV or 2) use is made of the name "Civil Air Patrol" or its insignia, copyrights, emblems and badges, descriptive or designating marks and words used in carrying out its program which name and marks are specifically owned by Civil Air Patrol pursuant to 36 United States Code § 206.

And...

d. Prohibited CAP Internet Operations. The following acts shall be prohibited in CAP internet operations: 1) There shall be no use or distribution of any obscene, indecent, or offensive language or material that is defamatory, abusive, harassing, disrespectful or hateful. 2) There shall be no: a) use or distribution of junk mail, b) unauthorized advertising, c) communication that invades anyone's privacy, or encourages conduct that would constitute a criminal offense or gives rise to civil liability or that otherwise violates any local, state, national or international law or regulation, d) communication that contains false statements about Civil Air Patrol or Civil Air Patrol employees or members.,  e) publication or distribution of any information that violates any copyright, trade name or trademark.

Maybe it's just me, but this is pretty straight foreward with respect to the "Press Release" being a no no.

1. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to names of members in the organization. No reasonable expectation of privacy in terms of personnel actions. The members' addresses, phone numbers and vital private information wasn't published. Their CAP weren't published. Just their names. That's not violation of privacy.

2. There is no criminal offense involved.

3. If the statements were true, then there is no libel involved. Libel only exists when false statements are made. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that the statement is false.

I don't see any way that this release was illegal or a tort. I just think it was in very poor taste, detrimental to our organization and more importantly than anything else, serves no positive purpose.

Quote from: RiverAux on November 19, 2008, 01:28:32 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on November 19, 2008, 12:36:40 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 18, 2008, 11:12:10 PM

Quote from: Short Field on November 18, 2008, 07:56:33 PM
According to that, then anything posted announcing new assignments or qualifications is also an invasion of privacy.......

No one sues when its good news...

You can't sue if what was said is true.

Actually, you can still sue, you just probably won't win.

Actually you can't sue. If you know the statement to be true and still attempt to file a lawsuit it will be considered a frivolous lawsuit. You can be fined for filing such a lawsuit.

Quote from: afgeo4 on November 19, 2008, 04:24:35 AM
Actually you can't sue. If you know the statement to be true and still attempt to file a lawsuit it will be considered a frivolous lawsuit. You can be fined for filing such a lawsuit.

That doesn't stop you from filing suit, and forcing the other person to defend themselves.  You may ultimately be stuck with court costs, but the judge would have to believe you filed the suit knowing the facts to be true.

"Truth" is an incredibly subjective word in a court of law.

Criminally its "beyond a reasonable doubt", civilly its a  "preponderance of the evidence", but in neither case does it have to be 100% based on what the average person would define as "truth", only what a judge and or jury believe.

In this case, I don't think anyone would argue any civil or criminal laws were broken, only internal policies regarding privacy and common courtesy.

One thing some tend to forget - we're all in this for free - anytime someone has a bad experience in CAP it is a failure of leadership and protection of the member, whether ultimately that person should not have been a member, or failure to provide proper supervision and training results in "bad" things happening, in 99% of the cases, especially the typical he-said/she-said ego-based nonsense that gets many members to an IG, there was a point where a cool head or better leadership could have
changed things for the better.

Even in the case of HWSRN, no matter what his motives or SOP was, at the end of the day you have someone who gave years of his life to CAP being run out of town on a rail - not the best stewardship of our most precious resource.

Let the legal "eagles" sort this mess out and find the truth.  Despite what happened, a lawsuit would not be appropriate for a poorly written press release.   

This is all politics! There are a few suspicious things that can be noted; as well as some logical points that need to be said....First. Capt. Curdes is a  Firefighter and a Paramedic, and Col. Bryan is an RN. It seems rather stupid to believe that these two men, who have jobs that included safety, would be accused of putting their cadets at risk! I have known them since I joined 4 years ago and these two men took safety very seriously. More so then most officers I know....Second. This whole thing seems to play back from a long time ago. When Col. Bryan was the Indiana Wing Commander he removed Col. Reeves from a wing staff position. Ever since then the two have been on rocky ground. When Col. Bryan was removed from his command of the Indiana wing, on the basis that he did his job to well and was making the higher up's look bad because they weren't getting things up and running like he was, then Col. Reeves to over the command....To me this seems like more politics and more favoritism being played out, and I, for one, am sick and tired of the CAP politics destroying capable leaders! I would go so far as to say that Indiana Wing would be better off with Col. Bryan as the wing commander...but then again he would still be the commander had it not been for the higher officers not doing their job right!...the press release was the lowest thing that CAP could have done! It should have to be consented by Maxwell AFB but it wasn't...and the only reason that I can see for it's purpose in being issued was to smear the name of these two gents so that it would taint any further investigation; a permanent spin on the issue if you will!...but the fact that so many people who know them have quickly spread the word that what these two men didn't do what they have been accused of is proof in itself of these two men's character! They would never and all their wingmen got their backs on this issue!...and whats more of a testimony for their character is the fact that while they are getting hosed for nothing they did, they are taking it like men! When asked about CAP they don't smear it, they encourage any members to keep trucking along and wish them well! I think that the higher up officers need to pay attention to these two men and need to learn something from them! If we had more men like these two as leaders then we would be so much better off! 

Truth is not always a defense. If you can prove malicious intent, you could well win a case.

1. I am an LPN , not an RN.....but I am working on it.   I am a former EMT but my EMT certification is expired.

2. I will not trash CAP or any of its leaders in public and I would encourage all others to follow that lead. True or not it does not help CAP to have members trashing or speaking ill of our, or maybe I should say your leaders.  Praise in public and address the negitive inside the organization.  If you see areas that are unfair or not working then work inside the system to try and fix them.

To all those who emailed, PM or called me with words of support , thank you. Stay positive...all the negitives just hurt the organization.

Thanks

Let me say here something about officership... You NEVER get credit for what you do. If you do an amazing job, your boss gets ALL the credit for that performance. YOU get credit for the performance of your assigned people, cause you as a leader provided the guidance, plans/pgms, motivation, facilitated their performance, and marshaled their efforts to complete the mission tasks. Their performance IS the evaluation of you, your performance is the evaluation of how well or poorly your boss is executing those leader tasks with the people assigned to him (namely you). For better or worse, that's life & it's generally right on target for judging leadership.

I don't care about yall's past politics. If you can't rise above that and behave as professionals w/o a grudge, then you aren't a very good officer. If you're waiting for credit for your work, then you are a crappy officer. If every time someone pats you on the back you passionately divert all the credit to your troops, and if you slave away knowing everything you do is to better serve your boss & make them look good by your accomplishments, then you're on the right track.

DNall, I want to agree with you, but too many people have been hosed by being "good little soldiers."

At some point, you need to toot your own horn, especially in an organization where sometimes politics pushes other things out of the limelight. That's about the only way to stay in the fray sometimes....

That said, and without commenting directly on the terminations in Indiana (which I think I've done a pretty good job of doing), politics needs to be cast aside more often in CAP.

MISSION FIRST. Not who you like or don't like. Team players, please, all the way up and down the food chain.

Quote from: FW on November 16, 2008, 04:26:24 AM
Also, the decisions are published in the on-line edition of the "Volunteer"  for all to see.

The on line edition has additional stuff???????

Quote from: DNall on November 19, 2008, 11:50:45 PM
Let me say here something about officership... You NEVER get credit for what you do. If you do an amazing job, your boss gets ALL the credit for that performance. YOU get credit for the performance of your assigned people, cause you as a leader provided the guidance, plans/pgms, motivation, facilitated their performance, and marshaled their efforts to complete the mission tasks. Their performance IS the evaluation of you, your performance is the evaluation of how well or poorly your boss is executing those leader tasks with the people assigned to him (namely you). For better or worse, that's life & it's generally right on target for judging leadership.

I don't care about yall's past politics. If you can't rise above that and behave as professionals w/o a grudge, then you aren't a very good officer. If you're waiting for credit for your work, then you are a crappy officer. If every time someone pats you on the back you passionately divert all the credit to your troops, and if you slave away knowing everything you do is to better serve your boss & make them look good by your accomplishments, then you're on the right track.

This subject is much bigger than CAP, or even all the military services.  It's probably the largest single spectrum subject in officer development, from ROTC to AWC and beyond.

As an officer in the military, you must FULLY accept a few things - this is one.  The very nature of the oath you take, the direct authority the president gives you, and the serious role you undertake demands it. 

You must be willing to accept the risk that (other than giving your life if necessary) an officer career has NO guarantees.  The only thing you may be entitled to is the opportunity - and that comes after the sacrifices and work. 

This includes the risk that you will never get credit for even the most heroic actions or deeds.  You better be fully accepting that if you are the one who saves mankind, no one might ever know about it - and you might even lose your life or career in the process.

That is one of the core realities of any officer. 

Now, among all the traits and requirements scattered about, and the subject of centuries of leadership study, are a few difficult things.  One of these is, in my opinion, the situation of telling a commander (or chain) that they screwed up.  Thousands of people have died throughout US military history because someone didn't speak up.  As a Nav student, we were subjected to hundreds of CRM briefings about this, many with cockpit audio recordings of such a thing.  Someone knew someone was screwing up and NEVER SAID A THING.

As much as I hate to do it, I have to remind everyone that in CAP you ARE NOT commissioned officers.  May of you are retired, or currently serving as one, but in this arena, you are a member of a different organization. The professionalism still applies, but I do claim that one of our responsibilities is to call some things honestly.  This "Press release" is one such time.

We have leaders in our midst who, by any number of reasons, sometimes don't make the best choices.  Sometimes they were not mentored on the correct thing to do.  Other times they didn't have a wingman there to help them, or didn't have proper guidance from regulations.  This list could go on and on.

None of this, however, will change if other leaders don't step in when required.  THAT is why this "press release" bugged me so much.  Investigations and 2B's happen all the time.  But there was an entire chain of checks that failed here - and it was within WEEKS of the safety stand down where "CULTURE" was spoken about.  THAT is what disturbs me the most.

In that respect, I'm going to speak up.  This should be a warning to everyone of deeper issues, and it should be the duty of others to step up to the plate and deal with it.

^ That's pretty well said. I find it hard to fault any of that.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on November 20, 2008, 12:56:01 AM
DNall, I want to agree with you, but too many people have been hosed by being "good little soldiers."

At some point, you need to toot your own horn, especially in an organization where sometimes politics pushes other things out of the limelight. That's about the only way to stay in the fray sometimes....

That said, and without commenting directly on the terminations in Indiana (which I think I've done a pretty good job of doing), politics needs to be cast aside more often in CAP.

MISSION FIRST. Not who you like or don't like. Team players, please, all the way up and down the food chain.

If you're not aware of this, the politics in the real military, especially among officers, is FAR FAR worse than CAP.

He who toots his own horn is a dirtbag. There are plenty ways to get your horn tooted when it needs to be, but that's not how you get ahead.

I'm not saying good little soldier does what's told & stays quiet. Not at all. You lead the way & cause your organization to perform, you keep things off your boss' desk to make their life easier, and you work hard so they look good. When you do that, your boss is beholden to you. They in turn toot your horn for you, and bring you along as they rise up.

You get ahead by being ahead. And you do it with work ethic & integrity. Of course you speak truth to power. They may hate it, and it may screw you, but any leader worth a crap will respect and appreciate you for doing it, even if you're wrong. The key is doing it professionally. Not just tactfully, but within the bounds of your subordinate role. If/when they hear you out & overrule you, you salute & charge those guns. That's where Billy Mitchell screwed up, but he did it with integrity & it made the Army better by his actions. That's all you can hope for as an officer is to drive forward as a professional for a whole career of pain and sacrifice, only to find yourself at the end retired in anonymity, or falling on your sword, and you have really no control over which it'll be.

DNall, I don't disagree. I guess what it boils down to is that you have to know when to pick your battles, knowing that integrity is first and foremost.

And, oh, yes, I know there's politics in the Real Military....

Sure you have to pick your battles, but not really in terms of making yourself look good. You just have to do your job really well, with integrity, which means calling your boss out privately & professionally when appropriate. If you're highly successful in your work, your boss will reward you. You don't have to trumpet your accomplishments. People will see thru the humility & respect you more for it.

This whole thing above is a deplorable example of people not behaving like officers. If you wanna know why people in the AF look back across here & don't always have a lot of respect for CAP... it's behavior like that, not even the actions themselves, but the character & professionalism. It is indeed a major cultural issue that will always hold CAP back till we're willing to address it more radically.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying we should all instantly become our own public-relations people. There are occasions when you have to step into the limelight, though, especially if you're in a situation where you're getting pooped on. I understand that we have to make our bosses look good... even when we're the bosses, we still have someone above to make look good.

I agree with you on the culture of pettiness that sometimes rears its ugly head. And as long as some CAP positions are elected -- which requires politics -- and appointments flow from those elected decisions, we'll have a certain degree of politics, even if the rest of the crap gets cut. We either accept it and move forward, try to reform it (seems there's been some of that lately?) or we get mired in it and do nothing.

Ah, heck, as long as there are people, there will be difficulties, whether in CAP or elsewhere. We could ban people, but then who'd get the work done? Those planes don't fly themselves real well....

Give it time & they'll come up with planes that do fly themselves pretty well & don't much need our weight or eyeballs next to the window to get it done. That's another subject though.

It's not even the pettiness. That goes on in the military too. The big difference there is advancement (both rank and positions) is meaningful, and far from automatic. Your reputation means everything. If you're a hard driving hard working squared away sharp individual with strong character/ethics & professionalism, you're going to work to make your boss look great by accomplishing the mission with the least pressure on them... well then you're going to get promoted, and your going to get important positions, and you're going to be brought along by more senior officers that'll take care of you.

In CAP, yeah elected positions is insane. Our elective system is even more jacked up then that. If they were elected by the membership, then they'd be responsible to the membership & not the government, but that's not the case, thank God or it would be a jacked up civilian flying club. If they were appointed by the AF, then they'd be responsible to the AF, which I would certainly favor. As it is, they're elected by the NB & so are responsive only to the internal politics of the NB. That's setting yourself up for failure right there, and the example just trickles down to every other level of the organization.

From a ground up perspective, we're so concerned with getting & keeping members at any cost, that we're not concerned with standards. I understand we need people. But not every one of them needs to be an officer. Being an officer means something. It certainly means something to people in the military, and when they see us using those titles/insignia & not trained, tested, competent, capable, or professional... well, that's going to breed problems that can't be overcome.

I would favor a system that put all members into the enlisted side, with a progression thru the mid grade levels there which is similar to what we have now. SNCO grades preserved for leadership roles, & a strong 1Sgt system to represent membership to the highest levels. Officers are managers & executives. There should be standards, competitive applications, and selection boards just to get into the training. The training should actually take that higher quality raw material, test their commitment, and train them to lead. Completion of our current level 2 is just barely getting into the range of what someone should know before they can be a 2LT. We don't have a professional capable officer corps, and it's messed the hell up. When you allow people that haven't endured the character and commitment test to rise unimpeded in the organization, many times over people who would pass those tests, then you end up with a skewed command structure - with a culture of mostly well-meaning people doomed to fail by their own limitations.

I don't blame those people. They were just never taught or guided or reinforced or mentored or held accountable by a system and culture that leads to success. And I don't just mean in the military. The same standards are just as equally true in any successful business of decent size. I believe the fundamental structure of CAP is jacked up & in need of somewhat radical change. That'll probably never happen unless someone is dumb enough to elect me president, and I wouldn't count on that, but it's not hard to see the major problems with who we are & translate from there to situations like this thread is about or why we don't get more volume or more meaningful missions.

Well said DNall....I agree with you about the Senior Program, enlisted ranks are a must for the Senior Program and the Senior Officer Levels I-V need a major upgrade and improvement as well.   How can a Senior Officer become a better, trained leader with 4 one time school requirements, 5 Levels & a bunch of misc add-ons.  Once you get past Level 5, then what! 

I remember as a Cadet it was a lot of hard work & discipline to get the Mitchell but once you achieve it, it is an honor & has meaning and most important, you continue to get better as you progress through the cadet Officer ranks.  I feel for the new Senior that has no prior experience and as a result, a lot of unnecessary errors as an Officer happen.  Those basic leadership flaws are fixed at the enlisted level before Officer is even achieved.  The cadet enlisted ranks weeds out the bad and molds you into becoming a better Officer in the Cadet Program.  It's kind of like boot camp but extended.   And cadet achievements are awarded through ceremonies.  After a Senior completes level4/5, many of us get the award, like me in the mail or if your lucky you may get awarded at a CAP event.    The awards don't really mean much but a sense of belonging & accomplishment does.   It's a big deal in the Cadet program but in the Senior program, they could care less unless a photo op is present.   

Compare the Cadet vs Senior Program - which program develops better, disciplined leaders that represent the core values, the cadets by a mile.  Most cadets look very sharp & are professional in & out of their uniforms.   Cadets get upset because many Seniors don't lead by example and look like a bunch of bums and act like a bunch of kids in a street turf fight!     However, CAP does have good Senior Officers but when you mix all the poorly trained & unprepared in the mix, it gets diluted quite quickly.     And not all cadets are good but the Cadet advancement system is far superior though.    Enlisted ranks & advancement training would prepare Seniors to become better Officers but we lack that key ingredient.     Every aspect of our program is affected by leadership.   

Indiana Winggate is a good example as well as many other Wings that have leaders that lack the basic fundamentals &/or need annual refreshers in leadership.   All the parties involved in Indiana Wing are at fault in some which way or form.    Termination is rather harsh for two safety violations for a lifetime of service.  We all make mistakes, usually unintentional but we cannot escape the consequences though.  Suspension 'without pay' may have been more appropriate without global announcement.   

Senior Program is in need of major reform and a system that develops, fine tunes Seniors into becoming better leaders.      Many gripe about the USAF but without USAF funding and involvement, CAP would seize to exist.   The USAF deserves a lot more respect especially in how we wear the USAF type uniform & how we as CAP leaders conduct ourselves in/out of uniform.    USAF involvement as well as other branches and former cadets would be beneficial in helping CAP modernize and develop a new, better Senior Advancement Leadership system.   It starts at National!

Quote from: FlexCoder on November 23, 2008, 10:28:12 PM
Well said DNall....I agree with you about the Senior Program, enlisted ranks are a must for the Senior Program and the Senior Officer Levels I-V need a major upgrade and improvement as well. 

This again?

There is no place for an enlisted / officer caste system in CAP because there is no way to divide the grunt work from the management work in a volunteer organization that is begging for membership - slick sleeve SMWOG's will continue to be activity POC's and sometimes even commanders, and general officers will continue to empty the garbage cans after meetings.

You can argue that the grade system itself needs to go, and simply have commanders and everyone else, but enlisted is never going to work in today's CAP.

As to comparing the cadet program to the senior program, you can stop that, too.  I agree 100% that CC's need to be kicking people in the FPOC about bearing, uniforms, and attitude, however the goal and intent of the CP vs. the Senior program are entirely different.

The cadet program is about what a young person can take from the program, and thus the expectations of performance are higher because so are the personal rewards.  The senior program is about what a developed adult can bring to the program and in turn public service.  The expectations should not be lower, but the practical reality of dealing with adults gets in the way, especially, again, when there are way too many situations where the only adult willing isn't "Senior Member of the Year", but is a good guy who wants to help, and is willing to unlock the doors every week.

There are many of us who do understand the mandate and responsibility which comes with the uniform, opportunities, and rewards, and what we find is that real "full-bore" CAP membership takes 10-20+ hours a week or more, which is not time most rank-and-file members can give consistently, so you wind up with a lot of "ticket punching" at all levels just to keep the wheels moving.

The entirety of the problems with the program could be fixed in a week by enforcing existing regulations properly,  having the uncomfortable conversations too many commanders avoid, and accepting the likely 25+% attrition that raised expectations would bring.

You can't have it both ways - either you continue to accept marginal members and units to try and do "the best you can" or you raise the bar and accept the consequences.

I vote for #2.

This Again, you got it......we just got started

QuoteThere is no place for an enlisted / officer caste system in CAP because there is no way to divide the grunt work from the management work in a volunteer organization that is begging for membership - slick sleeve SMWOG's will continue to be activity POC's and sometimes even commanders, and general officers will continue to empty the garbage cans after meetings.

You can argue that the grade system itself needs to go, and simply have commanders and everyone else, but enlisted is never going to work in today's CAP.

As to comparing the cadet program to the senior program, you can stop that, too.  I agree 100% that CC's need to be kicking people in the FPOC about bearing, uniforms, and attitude, however the goal and intent of the CP vs. the Senior program are entirely different.

The cadet program is about what a young person can take from the program, and thus the expectations of performance are higher because so are the personal rewards.  The senior program is about what a developed adult can bring to the program and in turn public service.  The expectations should not be lower, but the practical reality of dealing with adults gets in the way, especially, again, when there are way too many situations where the only adult willing isn't "Senior Member of the Year", but is a good guy who wants to help, and is willing to unlock the doors every week.

There are many of us who do understand the mandate and responsibility which comes with the uniform, opportunities, and rewards, and what we find is that real "full-bore" CAP membership takes 10-20+ hours a week or more, which is not time most rank-and-file members can give consistently, so you wind up with a lot of "ticket punching" at all levels just to keep the wheels moving.

The entirety of the problems with the program could be fixed in a week by enforcing existing regulations properly,  having the uncomfortable conversations too many commanders avoid, and accepting the likely 25+% attrition that raised expectations would bring.

You can't have it both ways - either you continue to accept marginal members and units to try and do "the best you can" or you raise the bar and accept the consequences.

I vote for #2.

"Begging for membership", quite the opposite, many are begging to get out of CAP and join a better program.    Commanders and everything else, what does that mean (master & slaves).  The Cadet Program is not about what a cadet can "take" from the program.   And what if the Senior is not developed, then what, they usually end up quiting or have major blunders as a result!   The current Senior Program isn't enough training in regard to officer development and leadership.   And why would enlisted rank expectations be considered lower, what NCO rank not good enough for CAP!.   Fixing all of the problems with the current system would never resolve in a week.    A lot of CAP's membership woes & retention issues are because of this flawed system.  And yes we can have it many proven, better ways without dire consequences.   

Enlisted ranks worked in WWII for the Seniors!  They currently work in JROTC, ROTC, Military Schools/Academies, Reserves & the Military.   Why not CAP? 

I vote for you to become a Cadet Basic at an Encampment for one week.

Flex, I would suggest you re-read my post above and spend some time reviewing the endless discussions of this topic here on CT. 

Without trying to spark another argument, you're not understanding what I wrote, and I don't believe you actually understand the NCO / Officer situation in the military, which is specifically designed to physically, emotionally, and practically, separate the "doers" from the "planners".  That will never scale in CAP.

If your suggestion is to put stripes on arms just to make senior progression akin to cadet progression, that's a mis-guided idea.

As to the cadet program, few 12 year olds have anything to give to CAP but their time, that's the whole point, they are there to learn, absorb, and take from the program.

Quote from: FlexCoder on November 23, 2008, 11:55:49 PM
"Begging for membership", quite the opposite, many are begging to get out of CAP and join a better program.

I can't imagine the mental process that would have someone begging to leave yet unable to figure out how. 

We are most certainly begging for members.  Depending on who's numbers you choose to believe, we have shrunk as much as 16% in the last decade, and that doesn't account for the empty shirts that many commanders refuse to remove from the ranks.

The are way too many units all over the country that are running at below charter requirements, and/or are one senior member quitting away from folding.

I understand the NCO/Officer system completely, not only in the US but overseas as well.   It doesn't really matter what you think, I think or anyone in CAP for that matter.  CAP will continue to use the current system regardless.

Besides if you haven't heard, CAP may become the new Civilian National Air Security Patrol by the new administration next year.  Instead of beeping box hunts, we will get to play soldier in the air and on the ground and keep the public under control.  So, therefore, the old CAP would be a thing of the past!

Quote from: Eclipse on November 23, 2008, 11:12:41 PM

Quote from: FlexCoder on November 23, 2008, 10:28:12 PM
Well said DNall....I agree with you about the Senior Program, enlisted ranks are a must for the Senior Program and the Senior Officer Levels I-V need a major upgrade and improvement as well. 

This again?

There is no place for an enlisted / officer caste system in CAP because there is no way to divide the grunt work from the management work in a volunteer organization that is begging for membership - slick sleeve SMWOG's will continue to be activity POC's and sometimes even commanders, and general officers will continue to empty the garbage cans after meetings.

That's not what it's about. I do that stuff at times as an Army officer so my enlisted troops can stay on task. It has nothing to do with a caste system or status. It has everything to do with finding the best and brightest among us, and giving them the tools/training/etc to become effective executive leaders.

QuoteThe senior program is about what a developed adult can bring to the program and in turn public service.  The expectations should not be lower, but the practical reality of dealing with adults gets in the way, especially, again, when there are way too many situations where the only adult willing isn't "Senior Member of the Year", but is a good guy who wants to help, and is willing to unlock the doors every week.

Certainly we need the guy unlocking the door so the activity can go down. But, he's not in the executive trainee program is he? He's not in this organization to command, he doesn't really want to be Wg/CC. He wants to be a local operator & accomplish the ground level mission. That's great. We need a whole lot of people like that. But, we also need effective leader/managers across the organization.

What we do now is not seperate the two groups. We compromise our training to the middle ground that can be delivered to everyone at the least common denominator level. The problem is that's completely worthless for the Sq level operator, and equally worthless for the management track executive. Training can't be all things to all people, and all people can't become anything the organization needs them to be, not even with unlimited resources.

QuoteThere are many of us who do understand the mandate and responsibility which comes with the uniform, opportunities, and rewards, and what we find is that real "full-bore" CAP membership takes 10-20+ hours a week or more, which is not time most rank-and-file members can give consistently, so you wind up with a lot of "ticket punching" at all levels just to keep the wheels moving.

That's exactly the kind of time commitment involved in being a part-time officer in the guard. 90% of our enlisted troops don't do anything like that. They show up for drill, do their job, and go home. Any officer or senior NCO in a staff or leadership position has to do significantly more work outside that official work period to make the thing work. But see, people willing & capable of doing that move into those ranks & positions.

In CAP, we have a badge or ribbon to tell you all kinds of things about a person w/o conversation, but there is no way for me to tell the person dug in doing the work nor their leadership/mgmt capabilities or history of success. There is no training program to take those committed and capable individuals and nurture their abilities over the course of a career so that they can carry that commitment to higher levels of the organization. What we got is just a crap shoot, and it goes bad more than it goes good just based on human nature.

QuoteYou can't have it both ways - either you continue to accept marginal members and units to try and do "the best you can" or you raise the bar and accept the consequences.

That's well said. Our attrition rate now is much higher than that. We can't keep the doors open without a quantity of members, but certainly there should be an enforced quality standard there, though it need not be a 'next national commander' standard. But that doesn't free us from also needing effective leaders & managers. We desperately need those & it's not something most of the general public can bring to the table. Especially because of the unique nature of our organization, that's always going to be something we need to develop internally. If we're not committed to that, then this whole thing is a waste of time & the govt's money.

This one is sooo done.