Cultural Shift in CAP

[Spaceman3750]

I rarely have issues with eServices. I don't know, maybe I'm just more flexible than most of the people on here, but honestly it's not any more challenging than any other computer operation you do on a routine basis. I don't know why so many are so resistant to it because it's not nearly as bad as they make it out to be. Occasionally frustrating? Maybe, but no more than any other aspect of my life.

[SAR-EMT1]

I'd personally be willing to pay $2/year more so that the NCSAs wouldn't have to cut things like pins and T-shirts because of budget cuts.  We'll have to wait and see if the federal budget news of the last few weeks has any impact on CAP.

Ditto

[flyboy]

In order for the membership to "buy into" cultural shift it has to start at the top.  In my 10+ years in CAP I've seen countless dedicated volunteers walk out the door due to frustrations with the leadership.  They give of their time to come out and train, then submit paperwork that is then lost or never acted upon.  I've seen members wait years for action on ribbons and awards.  There is no independent review of the CAP command structure performance and no true ability of a member to seek accountability by those in command. 

[Spaceman3750]

There is no independent review of the CAP command structure performance and no true ability of a member to seek accountability by those in command.

But there doesn't have to be - we're a paramilitary organization, not the Boy Scouts. You follow the orders of those appointed above you (and put up with their crap) or you take your ball and go somewhere else/home. Since we're all volunteers, we're all free to take our ball elsewhere or go home (go to a different squadron, group, etc or just plain quit), but that doesn't make chiefs any more accountable to the Indians - it just means that the commander's retention is going to suck.

I'm not saying we don't have some dopes in command - we do - but in a paramilitary organization you don't have commanders answering to their followers (unless you're the CAP/CC).

[Eclipse]

^ the flaw in that idea is that there is no legal compulsion to act on orders, and little to any ramifications for failures of command.  Both sides
are generally allowed to simply say "no" and leave on a whim, and in many cases with no consequences.  Military commanders risk their careers and even their freedom for poor choices and / or lack of performance, that is a powerful (but not foolproof) motivator.

There also is a lack of standardized training, few real expectations for either side, and, while no organization can exist without its "doers", CAP
is much more dependent on the benevolent cooperation of subordinates than a "normal" paramilitary organisation.  Worse, in many cases it's not just
the benevolence of subordinates in general, but all too often the benevolence of specific subordinates who control access to a specific resource(s) or
who don't understand the concept of collateral damage.  (i.e. Jimmy' sick, and he's got the keys to the hangar...)

The real culture shift has to be towards personality-agnostic, scale-able systems (of both people and technology), which have consistent expectations and
consistent consequences for failure.  No one is going to Levenworth because they fell 2 hours short on the required encampment curriculum, but perhaps they should also not be running the show next time around (etc.).

[flyboy]

There is no independent review of the CAP command structure performance and no true ability of a member to seek accountability by those in command.

But there doesn't have to be - we're a paramilitary organization, not the Boy Scouts. You follow the orders of those appointed above you (and put up with their crap) or you take your ball and go somewhere else/home. Since we're all volunteers, we're all free to take our ball elsewhere or go home (go to a different squadron, group, etc or just plain quit), but that doesn't make chiefs any more accountable to the Indians - it just means that the commander's retention is going to suck.

If CAP were truly a private not-for-profit organization I'd agree with you.  However, that is not really the case.  CAP receives the majority of its funding from the government. Absent our tax dollars, there would be no CAP.   As both a taxpayer, and a member, I think it's only fair to expect transparency and a degree of accountability within the organization, especially at the top.  Instead, CAP leadership plays the "corporation" versus "military organization" game as it suits them to avoid any degree of meaningful accountability. 

[Ned]

CAP receives the majority of its funding from the government. Absent our tax dollars, there would be no CAP.   As both a taxpayer, and a member, I think it's only fair to expect transparency and a degree of accountability within the organization, especially at the top.  Instead, CAP leadership plays the "corporation" versus "military organization" game as it suits them to avoid any degree of meaningful accountability.

Speak plainly, please.

What specificly should be changed?

In this respect, how is CAP different than any other Federally-chartered corporation like, say, the Red Cross?

Do you think the senior leadership at BSA is more or less transparent and accountable than CAP?  Why?

Uncle Sam spends millions of dollars specfically to oversee CAP and our use of taxpayer dollars.  That is the primary mission of all of the good folks at CAP-USAF.  CAP has outside auditors go over our books, and report their findings publicly.  The minutes of the NB, NEC, and the BoG are posted on line for the world to see.  Heck, we broadcast the overwhelming majority of the business meetings of the NB and NEC.

We have an active IG system as well as command oversight.  Senior commanders have been fired because they were accountable for their mistakes.  Sometimes leaders and members are terminated for misconduct.  (Because they are accountable for their actions.)

So, what are you looking for?

[flyboy]

How about an independent system of review? The way it works now, each level of command is reviewed by the next most senior level.  For instance, you appeal a Group Commander's actions to the Wing Commander.  Of course, the Wing Commander is the person who appointed the Group Commander, so it's a pretty good bet they're friends.  Even the IG's are appointed within the chain of command and serve at the will of the existing command structure.  That's hardly critical review or meaningful oversight. Rampant cronyism is a better description.  Add in the fact that CAP Command comes to the table with an entire command staff, including legal officers, how fair is that playing field going to be for a member seeking review? 

No, the government doesn't spend millions over-seeing CAP operations.  The government was completely unaware of the rampant corruption within the Pineda Command and only found out because those guys all started fighting with each other.  The government's biggest issue is making sure the members don't run off with government property.  I don't think the government much cares whether or not the organization runs ethically or provides its members with a fair review process.

In closing, I would point out that the military has the JAG corps who function independently of the command structure and provide for what should be neutral and fair hearings to their members. 

[RiverAux]

No, the government doesn't spend millions over-seeing CAP operations. 

Sure they do.  The cost of all the State Directors salary, office budgets, travel expenses as well as the same for the CAP-USAF operation and CAP-RAPs has got to easily be in the low millions. 

[Ned]

How about an independent system of review? The way it works now, each level of command is reviewed by the next most senior level.  For instance, you appeal a Group Commander's actions to the Wing Commander.  Of course, the Wing Commander is the person who appointed the Group Commander, so it's a pretty good bet they're friends.

Like, say, the MARB?  The independant board of officers that can (and have) reviewed and reversed the actions of the wing, region, and national commanders?

That sounds pretty independant.

Even the IG's are appointed within the chain of command and serve at the will of the existing command structure.  That's hardly critical review or meaningful oversig

Well, the wing commander cannot fire his/her IG without the region commander's permission.  Similarly, the region commander can't fire an IG without the permission of the national cc.  And the CAP IG cannot be relieved without permission of the BoG.  See CAPR 123-1.

And I submit this IG same IG system has resulted in the sacking and disciplining of wing, region, and national commanders in the not-so-distant past.  If that is "rampant cronyism," I susect that is has not worked as the cronys would have liked.

Add in the fact that CAP Command comes to the table with an entire command staff, including legal officers, how fair is that playing field going to be for a member seeking review? 

Commanders are held responsible for all that their command does or fails to do.  That traditionally means that they get to select their staff within the limits of the C&BL.  CAP is hardly unique in this regard, as most organizations allow CEOs and executives to select the best staff possible.

No, the government doesn't spend millions over-seeing CAP operations.  The government was completely unaware of the rampant corruption within the Pineda Command and only found out because those guys all started fighting with each other.  The government's biggest issue is making sure the members don't run off with government property.  I don't think the government much cares whether or not the organization runs ethically or provides its members with a fair review process.

Non-concur.  The whole point of the CAP-USAF organization is to provide oversight to CAP.  That includes multiple O6s, O5s, O4s, and a whole lot of civilians from SDs on up.  That is millions of dollars, my friend, even if you don' t agree.  And we send tens of thousands of dollars on outside auditors - licensed CPAs - who look at our books and conduct forensic analysis specifically to uncover evidence of corruption at any level of our organization.

They are humans, or course, and not perfect.  But licensed CPAs have a lot on the line when they certify our books.

In closing, I would point out that the military has the JAG corps who function independently of the command structure and provide for what should be neutral and fair hearings to their members.

As a retired Army officer and a former CAP legal officer, I know something about the JAG structure, and I think you are confusing it with the IG system.  JAG officers are special staff officers supporting military commanders.  Commanders write their OERs and recommend them for promotion when appropriate.  There is nothing particularly independant about JAG officers.  Of course, every officer  - regardless of branch - has ethcal responsibilities that require them to be fair and neutral when sitting as hearing officers or conducting routine staff responsibilities.

Which is inherent in the CAP Core Values of Integrity, required of all members.

Thank you for your service.

Ned Lee

[Dracosbane]

Throughout this discussion, I'm seeing one theme recurring, and it was only touch upon once.

If you are having an issue with someone who you're asking to perform a task, and they're not doing so, you find out why.  If they don't have a good reason, or any reason, or they just aren't reliable, you note that and don't count on them in the future. 

If I had a cadet or senior member who I tasked with a project and they didn't follow through, I'd discuss it with them and hope to rectify the situation.  If they can't or won't follow through, they don't get picked to play and I get someone else who will.  Same goes for ES specifically.  You're a member of my team (hypothetical team, not my real life GT) and you put out to train, keep your quals, "go camping" and do the fun stuff, but when it comes time to go out at o-dark thirty and do the work you're always unavailable, I stop calling you.  You can come and have fun (I'm hoping you're actually providing something while you're participating) but you don't get to do the real work.  If you're not providing any benefit, even while training or "having fun," then you're no longer on the team. 

Sure, you can do all the ES stuff you want.  It's part of the program.  That doesn't mean you're on the team.  A bit elitist, but not uncommon.  Same goes for ICs or Group CCs, or anyone in the program.  You can be a part of the program, but if you're not reliable or willing to do the work, you just don't get called on to participate.  Why would you? 

Now, I'm not referring to that "once in a while" where you're not able to help, or go out on a mission, or just don't feel like you want anything to do with CAP.  Everyone has those days and I'll admit to not liking CAP and being honked off and not wanting to go and do and be.  That's part of the "we'll discuss it later" and I'll move on to the next person.

However, being volunteers, I can't force anyone to do anything.  I can only hope that they have the personal dedication, drive and willingness to accomplish the mission to do so.    I also hope that the "not today" is a rare occurrence and even if you do feel that way, that you're willing to plow through and do it anyway.

As far as specified goals, hard numbers, OPPLANs and consequences, you run into the same problem that every program, volunteer and paid, runs into.  That is having people.  I'm in a squadron, and I'm sure we're not unique, where our SMs are dedicated and putting forth effort to make our squadron the best we can.  However, I'm also wearing several hats officially (and a few unofficially) as are the others.  Our squadron runs smoothly and like all squadrons has ups and downs in all aspects.  But we're still dedicated to making everything we can work as it should. 

You're saying that if I don't meet some goal (I have goals.  I'm not SQCC.  Just clarifying.) that my squadron is now not worth having and should be disbanded?  Or have the CC removed?  Or some other punitive measure?

I don't agree.  CAP has operating regulations and requirements, but when you clamp down or make it more restrictive based on new "do this or punishment" you don't allow for the fluid changes that happen within the program. 

Example:  I know my squadron needs to do more recruiting.  I want more cadets (who doesn't?).  I had a good core group that unfortunately have grown up and gone to college (2 to USAFA and one to West Point, btw) and that damaged my cadet ranks.  I look at the numbers being put out by the wing on membership and I see that we've dropped significantly in their tracking.  I don't like it, and I know that it's not because we're bleeding cadets, but someone who's looking at those numbers sees such a large drop and (hypothetically) now based on some new guidelines we're in jeopardy of sanctions or something else because of it?

Reading through all the posts above, I do agree that there are some things that CAP could be doing better.  I agree that there are some things CAP can change, and should.  I have to say, though, that change is constant and fluid, and CAP should recognize that as well.  Restricting people further can have negative consequences even if your intentions are meant to make the program better. 

Saying to members "to hell with you, go elsewhere" when they don't, or won't live up to ever restrictive standards isn't the best policy and will do more damage than good.  I want the program to be great, and I'm all for making things better, making necessary changes, and having standards.  But sometimes the "ends justify the means" isn't worth the damage.