Col Tilton Reinstated to BoG!

[Kipper]

This just in... the MARB has ruled, and Col Tilton is back on the Board of Governors!   :clap: :clap: :clap:

[MSG Mac]

Who is he replacing? Ned Lee or Rich Anderson?

[Turk]

...and long overdue, IMHO.   :clap:

Despite all the political nonsense these days in CAP's top echelon, both the MARB and the BoG have kept their integrity.

And now, she'll have the "pleasure" of having to introduce him at the National Boards in San Diego next week. LOL! 

[Kipper]

Who is he replacing? Ned Lee or Rich Anderson?

Ned Lee, I believe.

[MSG Mac]

Where was the decision reported. I just checked the MARB and there was nothing new there?

[NCRblues]

Where is this information posted? I can not find any evidence of this (so far)

[FW]

Wow! That was fast.  The letter went out to Col Tilton and, those concerned, just a few hours ago.  The report will not be officially presented on e-services until after it is presented to the BoG in December.   However, I'm pretty sure the National Board will get a copy of the personnel action in the next day or so.

[davidsinn]

Wow! That was fast.  The letter went out to Col Tilton and, those concerned, just a few hours ago.  The report will not be officially presented on e-services until after it is presented to the BoG in December.   However, I'm pretty sure the National Board will get a copy of the personnel action in the next day or so.

Scuttlebutt is the only thing that travels faster than light.

[Offutteer]

I don't understand it, if it's true.

How can the MARB decide to reinstate a BOG member?  According to the CAP Constitution:
    1.    The CAP Members at Large of the BOG "may be removed from office by a 2/3 vote of the National Executive Committee."
    2.   Adverse actions are defined "as demotion in grade; removal from command of a region, wing, group, squadron or flight; suspension of membership in excess of 60 days; or termination or non-renewal of membership." 
    3.   If you remove a current member of the BOG to reinstate Col Tilton, that person could then go to the MARB and bring up the lack of due process and start this process all over again.

December can't come fast enough.

[FW]

It's true.

Without going into detail, the MARB may, "at its sole discretion"  hear any case not meeting the standards listed if, "in its sole discretion", feels the case is of significant importance to CAP (CAPR 35-8). 
The removal of a BoG member has been deemed "important to CAP".  The MARB heard the appeal and made a decision.  Case is now closed.   There is no appeal, within CAP, of a MARB decision. 

The members will get the report after the December BoG meeting.  It will give you the reasons for the decision.  However, I'm sure the scuttlebut will make it out before....

[BillB]

Why does CAP need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on communications equipment. Information travels faster by member-to-member. The fastest communications method is tell something to a cadet. Within 18 hours it will be all over the cadet network.  Guess this applies to Senior members also

[NCRblues]

So, was Mr. Tiltion removed by 2/3rds vote of the NEC?

If so, did the MARB not overstep themselves?

Now will Ned get to go to the MARB?  .... is this a never ending circle?

[RiverAux]

Seems a little sketchy to me.  Are BoG members therefore considered "members" of the CAP?  I haven't really looked into this much, but I don't see where MARB has any jurisdiction over BoG. 

[lordmonar]

CAPR 35-8 gives the MARB extraordinary powers.  Basically they can hear anything they want to and their ruling is final.

[FW]

The MARB does not have jurisdiction over anyone.  It has jurisdiction over "Adverse Membership Actions".  These actions are defined by the CAP constitution and bylaws.  However, CAPR 35-8 allows the MARB to go above the definitions "IF" it feels the appeal is of significant importance to CAP that the resolution of the appeal is in the corporations interest. 
The MARB was created to protect member rights for wrongful adverse actions taken against them.
The MARB has the authority to sustain, change, modify or reverse any action it decides to hear.
If the MARB decides to reverse a decision, it means the original action was wrong.  In a removal of command (in this case; removal as an at large member of the BoG),  the wronged party is reinstated and the party who was wrongfully placed in the position is removed.  This is considered final and no further action may be taken by any party within CAP
Col Tilton is a member of CAP and, as such, sought relief from the action taken against him.  The MARB considered this as an adverse action and decided to hear his appeal.  The BoG did not remove Col Tilton, the NEC did.
The MARB is completely "outside the chain of command". 


Proceedings brought before the MARB are published in eservices.

[NCRblues]

Makes sense FW, but, if the NEC voted to remove him, and they had the proper amount of votes necessary... than how was he wronged, and how can the MARB over rule the NEC?

[FW]

^
1. Retaliation
2. Lack of Due Process
3. Material failure to follow the regulations.

If any 1 of the above is shown, the decision can be reversed.  This isn't about votes, it's about the process.  CAP leaders must be free to act within the rules; not by the whims of others.  That is what "good governance" is all about.

Since the MARB is "outside the chain of command", it has the constitutional authority to reverse the decisions of commanders; even if they act as a body like the NEC.

[NCRblues]

WOW, ok well, thanks. Should be interesting to watch play out anyway...

[Pace]

Politics and red tape aside, Col Tilton is a great guy, resourceful leader, and humble volunteer.  I, personally, am glad to see him back at the reins.

[Mustang]

He's no Ned Lee.

[FW]

Um, may we keep the discussion civil?  Lt Col Lee is a dedicated member who has spent many of his discretionary hours and dollars on CAP and our Cadets.  He is a highly respected member who is a wonderful role model for all of us. 

Col Tilton is also a dedicated member who has served with dedication and honor and, holds the same respect with his peers as Ned. He is a gentleman and, has done nothing other than serve CAP selflessly.

For the MARB, this was not a "personality" thing; it was a "process" thing.  It's about adherence to rules and principles. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

Being "ignant" of most of the process with our dozen ruling bodies, what was the original reason given for removal?

[MSG Mac]

Being "ignant" of most of the process with our dozen ruling bodies, what was the original reason given for removal?

AdversePersonnel actions are considered confidential and are not disclosed.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Being "ignant" of most of the process with our dozen ruling bodies, what was the original reason given for removal?

AdversePersonnel actions are considered confidential and are not disclosed.

And that's where the ignorance comes in. What would be disclosed from the proceedings then, as was posted above?

[FW]

MARB actions are not confidential.  They are published on eservices after the report goes to the BoG. All the report will say is why there was an appeal, what and why the MARB decided and, what action was taken, if any.  It will not go into any aspects of investigations or 121 issues.

[MSG Mac]

The MARB actions are not confidential. The initial reasons for dismissal were because it's an adverse action against the member. 

[Westernslope]

Politics and red tape aside, Col Tilton is a great guy, resourceful leader, and humble volunteer.  I, personally, am glad to see him back at the reins.

I agree. Even after his removal from the BOG, Col Tilton continued to serve CAP with integrity and honor by supporting activities such as O flights, counter drug missions, Deepwater Horizon oil spill missions, as well as other Wing and squadron events. His leadership is exemplified in his professionalism and dignity.

The MARB actions reinforce that the CAP system of checks and balances works. I am very glad that this issue is now settled and FINISHED....especially before the upcoming National Board meeting.

I also think that Col Lee has served, and will continue to serve, with integrity and honor. Perhaps when Col Tilton rotates off the BOG, Col Lee will be standing ready.

[RiverAux]

It will be interesting to read exactly what the MARB thought the NEC did wrong here.  They did take a vote on it and decide to remove him after all.  That being the case, I can't see the logic in reinstating him unless there was a flaw in the procedure to remove him.  I don't recall seeing a successful MARB appeal except those where the proper procedure was not followed -- the "retaliation" complaints never seem to win. 

[NIN]

It will be interesting to read exactly what the MARB thought the NEC did wrong here.  They did take a vote on it and decide to remove him after all.  That being the case, I can't see the logic in reinstating him unless there was a flaw in the procedure to remove him.  I don't recall seeing a successful MARB appeal except those where the proper procedure was not followed -- the "retaliation" complaints never seem to win.

They do when its a clear case of retaliation. I've seen that one.

However, in CAP, that can be a hard one to prove without some kind of smoking gun evidence.

[FW]

It's almost impossible to prove retaliation.  For retaliation, you must show there was a threat before an action.  As, if you don't do this (which is against your principles) you will be removed, relieved, terminated or whatever. 

It is much easier to prove a material failure to obey the regulations or a failure to provide due process.  There are usually written records which show these. 

In a MARB appeal, it is the appealant which must show this proof. To the MARB, you are guilty until proved otherwise. 

[a2capt]

...and Ned has been good, and quiet, for he usually adds to these threads very often.

[Pace]

Just to add on my original comment: I think very highly of Col Lee, as well.  He has the same outstanding character traits as Col Tilton.  I simply am glad to see that Col Tilton was exonerated and being given a chance to complete the assignment for which he was wrongfully relieved.  I hope, in the future, Col Lee is given the same opportunity to finish out his tenure on the BoG.

[Westernslope]

The MARB reinstated Col Tilton and the ruling of the MARB is supposed to be final. So why is Col Lee still on the BOG and Col Tilton is not? In another thread someone said that Col Tilton would be reinstated at the Dec BOG meeting and until then Col Lee would remain. 

I understand that the MARB report will be available in Dec but if they felt Col Tilton was improperly removed, his reinstatement should be immediate.

Are there other games in play or is this normal procedure? Can anyone shed light on what it going on?

[Eclipse]

The answer is in your question.

[JeffDG]

So, where is the report from this MARB case?

[a2capt]

This just in... the MARB has ruled, and Col Tilton is back on the Board of Governors!

Was that exact ruling/decision/whatever actually posted anywhere, or just hear-say/interpretation based on the MARB ruling that the BoG would reciprocate?
I'm otherwise very much satisfied with Ned on the BoG. Someone who connects with whats really going on out there.

[JeffDG]

This just in... the MARB has ruled, and Col Tilton is back on the Board of Governors!

Was that exact ruling/decision/whatever actually posted anywhere, or just hear-say/interpretation based on the MARB ruling that the BoG would reciprocate?
I'm otherwise very much satisfied with Ned on the BoG. Someone who connects with whats really going on out there.

Well, there was this post early in the thread:

Wow! That was fast.  The letter went out to Col Tilton and, those concerned, just a few hours ago.  The report will not be officially presented on e-services until after it is presented to the BoG in December.   However, I'm pretty sure the National Board will get a copy of the personnel action in the next day or so.

I too have no quarrel with the current member of the BoG, but am curious about the arguments and decision in this case.

[FW]

The BoG clarified CAPR 35-8.  The "at the sole discretion of the MARB" clause was deemed to be inconsistent with the CAP C&BLs.  Soo, the MARB did not have the authority to hear the appeal. 
End of discussion.