This one smells to high heaven boys and girls

[Pumbaa]

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.

[desertengineer1]

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.

[lordmonar]

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?

[lordmonar]

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

[RiverAux]

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.

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.    

Not 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. 

[Eclipse]

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.

[jimmydeanno]

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." 

[ZigZag911]

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!!!

[lordmonar]

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.

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.

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?

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).

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.

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.

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

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...".

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

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.

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.

Either 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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[SarDragon]

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?

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.

[ZigZag911]

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)

[lordmonar]

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?

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[RiverAux]

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.

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. 

[caprr275]

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.     

[afgeo4]

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[RiverAux]

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.