Just saw a message from CAWG CC.
Quote
It is my pleasure to announce the next CAP National Commander elected this morning in Louisville, KY is Brig Gen Chuck Carr. Gen Carr is the current CAP National Vice Commander, experienced CAP commander at the squadron, group and wing levels and a retired USAF senior non-commissioned officer.
Congratulations to Gen Carr!
Thanks,
Ken
Kenneth W. Parris, Colonel, CAP
Commander, California Wing
Civil Air Patrol, US Air Force Auxiliary
Why even have an election? The Nat CC should have just picked who she wanted.
Vento - way to keep up.
It is a little disappointing to think that with 60k+ members, only two people are even interested in the job.
Like that wasn't expected.. :| progression of the chain. If you want to be at the top, start at the bottom.
Status Quo.. lets' go .. another few years of the same thing.
Should have checked the other thread regarding the video stream first. Such is life for people in California with a late start without enough caffeine... yes, very sad indeed that only two of our members stepped up for the job.
Can anyone elaborate on Gen. Courter's motion to postpone the election until tomorrow? She said that according to CAP Constitution and By-Laws, nominations are accepted on the floor of the NB Meeting and that, since new nominees did not have the opportunity did not follow the procedure to show themselves 90 days prior to the meeting (like the other candidates how did follow the procedure), elections should be postpone for 24 hours so that NB members can become acquainted with the new interested late candidates. The motion was defeated but the interesting part is that, no one stood up to nominate new candidates. So what was the purpose?
Quote from: a2capt on August 18, 2011, 04:17:21 PM
Like that wasn't expected.. :| progression of the chain. If you want to be at the top, start at the bottom.
Status Quo.. lets' go .. another few years of the same thing.
:'(
Quote from: Capination on August 18, 2011, 04:36:45 PMwhat was the purpose?
Stealth campaigns and last minute mud bomb scud runs..
Politics. :)
Quote from: Capination on August 18, 2011, 04:36:45 PM
Can anyone elaborate on Gen. Courter's motion to postpone the election until tomorrow? She said that according to CAP Constitution and By-Laws, nominations are accepted on the floor of the NB Meeting and that, since new nominees did not have the opportunity did not follow the procedure to show themselves 90 days prior to the meeting (like the other candidates how did follow the procedure), elections should be postpone for 24 hours so that NB members can become acquainted with the new interested late candidates. The motion was defeated but the interesting part is that, no one stood up to nominate new candidates. So what was the purpose?
I think the purpose was not for this election (i.e. no dark conspircy).....just a way of two wants of the organsiation. We want to keep floor nomination and we want to have the chance to vet the candidates before the NB votes.
Personally I think we need to nix floor nomination....but that was not on the tabe this time around.
She even mentioned "until tomorrow so that we can meet them". It was clearly intended for this election.
Quote from: Capination on August 18, 2011, 04:36:45 PM
Can anyone elaborate on Gen. Courter's motion to postpone the election until tomorrow? She said that according to CAP Constitution and By-Laws, nominations are accepted on the floor of the NB Meeting and that, since new nominees did not have the opportunity did not follow the procedure to show themselves 90 days prior to the meeting (like the other candidates how did follow the procedure), elections should be postpone for 24 hours so that NB members can become acquainted with the new interested late candidates. The motion was defeated but the interesting part is that, no one stood up to nominate new candidates. So what was the purpose?
Actually the motion passed, it was all a part of agenda item 4. If there had been a floor nomination, the election would have been postponed for 12 hours. Since there were no floor nominations, there is no postponement, but it is now a part of the rules on electing national commander and vice commander. Also, if there is a floor nomination on national vice commander, that election will be postponed until tomorrow.
Thanks.
Vice???
Col Vasquez won Vice
Is there a vote breakdown, or is it not specified, just announced?
One round of voting was done for him, 38-28 for Col Vasquez.
While I'm sorry to learn Col Weiss did not get the nod, I'm pleased that a retired AF SP got it. Does anyone have the breakdown of votes for national commander?
If my notes are correct, Nat CC numbers were: 48-18 for Gen Carr.
I just wanted to say thank you to those who supported my efforts as a candidate for CAP National Commander. I wish Gen Carr the best and, hope he is successful in moving CAP forward.
As to the way certain members of the NEC "asked" their questions; I can only wish they understood what our Core Values meant. IMHO, it was shameful. Now, it's on to "what's next'... ;)
Quote from: FW on August 19, 2011, 10:46:06 PM
I just wanted to say thank you to those who supported my efforts as a candidate for CAP National Commander. I wish Gen Carr the best and, hope he is successful in moving CAP forward.
As to the way certain members of the NEC "asked" their questions; I can only wish they understood what our Core Values meant. IMHO, it was shameful. Now, it's on to "what's next'... ;)
If this was Facebook, I will not hesitate to click a big "Like" (thumbs up).
Best wishes to you Sir as well and thanks for bringing some fresh air into the CAP universe, albeit only for a short while.
I can not speak for Brig Gen Carr as I have never met the gentleman,
However I had the honor of working under Col Vazquez when he was a Group Commander, Vice Commander and Wing Commander of Virginia Wing and I can say that there couldn't have been a better selection and he has my full support.
Quote from: vento on August 19, 2011, 11:30:53 PM
If this was Facebook, I will not hesitate to click a big "Like" (thumbs up).
Best wishes to you Sir as well and thanks for bringing some fresh air into the CAP universe, albeit only for a short while.
I guess that I have to go back to my original plans
since I was a cadet...taking over CAP and becoming its Supreme Commander.
Luckily I've had many supporters here on CAPTalk for my initiative at becoming Supreme Commander and NOW that the
"Solutions for Civil Air Patrol" (http://www.ourcap.org/wp-content/uploads/Solutions_for_CAP.pdf) document exists, I have a manifesto for my evil plan! >:D
Now,
since many on CAPTalk have said that they would vote for me, I have to figure out how to get the vote to be done by CAPTalk and we'll be in business (heh heh) - using the manifesto and opening the currently DEAD initiative that would have been coming next week under Col Weiss - the
Civil Air Patrol Center for Innovation.
JC004, can't we just have a good ol' civil war? We elect a National CC here, and challenge those in charge as illegitimate? :P
I guess that I don't NEED to be Supreme Commander - I just mostly want my Center for Innovation.
I have always been encouraged by CAPTalk people to be the Supreme Commander, and people have liked my platforms that I've posted, so, I mean, if they're offering. >:D
I'd probably do something evil, though, like only serve as a Colonel until I prove that things actually get done and have a real impact on the field.
Nothing says we can't innovate from the field.
So much of plans and programs is subjective or just left blank. That which fills the vacuum generally becomes the standard.
I am considering what can be done if we could organize people to get things accomplished.
I have had bad experiences in the past of some things being shut down (like e-learning) because they were not THEIR stuff.
Having the inside view, I'd say a lot dies with the National Board's vote. Not rhetoric. Action. Real, concrete, action that would be felt to the very newest, very lowest member. DEAD. This is what has me annoyed.
The CAP Center for Innovation, as envisioned, would need resources and command support. I don't see why it COULDN'T happen if they wanted to do it - it's not about individuals, politics, or the like. It's about the mission and people. That's it.
Here's an example that people can see (an easy one, part of a much larger initiative aimed at member resources). The CAP version of this. I'd need support to get it posted on the National website. I would have expected this to have been implemented in 2 weeks with a full set of additional items not included in the Air Force items, which would have been helpful to making it easy for people (ESPECIALLY those without military experience) - stuff like videos, ribbon checker, etc. - http://www.afpc.af.mil/dress/index.asp
Nonetheless, I am considering what could be accomplished. There is a massive list of things that die with this and THEY SHOULDN'T DIE WITH THIS. They really shouldn't. We should be building an engine of creativity that puts resources in the field, makes it easier to volunteer, and gets things done.
I have no real opinion on Brig Gen Carr because I do not know him. I don't care about that. I don't want to see ACTION die. That is all.
I don't think there is anything CAP Inc. can do to stop a non-profit, member for member web-portal of helpful things outside what they put out.
There absolutely is. DMCA complaint, copyright & trademark violation complaints, and internal CAP stuff. I have no evil intent (despite my having fun with "Supreme Commander" or whatever) and do not wish my resource-building to be negative, an attack site, anything like that. I only want to HELP OUR MEMBERS and MAKE CAP THE BEST IT COULD BE. Nonetheless, they COULD still make me miserable for doing something positive if they didn't like it.
Let's call it "intellectual property", instead of copyrights and trademarks, because CAP essentially has none of those.
They gain their power here:
Quote from: TITLE 36, US Code, Subtitle II, Part B, CHAPTER 403, Section 40306
ยง 40306. Exclusive right to name, insignia, copyrights, emblems, badges, marks, and words
The corporation has the exclusive right to use the name "Civil Air Patrol" and all insignia, copyrights, emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, words, and phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights.
It's just semantics. Same issue.
I do hundreds of hours of work and get shut down because it's not their stuff - even if it's great. Again, it's not an attack or whatever - it's for the members. But if it displeases them and doesn't have their blessing, it's destroyed and just a waste.
Copyright DOES apply because even if you don't file for it, you still own it when you make it (unless otherwise released into the public domain or covered BY LAW in the public domain).
In that case they could shut down CAPTalk as well. They haven't yet, not even when the conversation turns somewhat hostile towards the top leadership.
Besides, how well would it play out if NHQ shuts down a webportal that is HELPFUL to the membership at large?
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 20, 2011, 05:49:21 PM
In that case they could shut down CAPTalk as well. They haven't yet, not even when the conversation turns somewhat hostile towards the top leadership.
Besides, how well would it play out if NHQ shuts down a webportal that is HELPFUL to the membership at large?
There is very little CAP signage on CAPTALK, if any save doe some signature lines by members, and what are posted here are mostly opinions and speculations. Even the aircraft in the BANNER above is ambiguous. In fact, there is an aircraft, former CAP, here in South Texas which has the CAP paint scheme and no CAP roundels or markings.
Secondly, The HOCK SHOP was most helpful to CAP members and it is now followed the way of the dodo! There were some intellectual propery issues there.
Quote from: vento on August 18, 2011, 04:10:35 PM
It is my pleasure to announce the next CAP National Commander elected this morning in Louisville, KY is Brig Gen Chuck Carr. Gen Carr is the current CAP National Vice Commander, experienced CAP commander at the squadron, group and wing levels and a retired USAF senior non-commissioned officer.
Another CAP national commander that is totally unaccountable to CAP members. Ho hum. Hopefully no long-term damage will occur with this one and that he is reasonable good at picking our leaders for us.
Quote from: Major Carrales on August 20, 2011, 05:57:55 PM
Secondly, The HOCK SHOP was most helpful to CAP members and it is now followed the way of the dodo! There were some intellectual propery issues there.
The Hock shop was a for-profit business that sold inferior product. Not quite the same as a place where people can start change/improvement/help each other online.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 20, 2011, 05:49:21 PM
In that case they could shut down CAPTalk as well. They haven't yet, not even when the conversation turns somewhat hostile towards the top leadership.
Besides, how well would it play out if NHQ shuts down a webportal that is HELPFUL to the membership at large?
There is a difference between CAPTalk and doing something like that in the use of the name, other intellectual property, and fair use under U.S. law.
Let's say I take one of the projects that is currently dead: The
Unit Commander's Handbook, the
Guide to Starting a CAP Unit, or
the guide and wing/group-level framework for repairing suffering squadrons. I would need to use CAP intellectual property, quotes, old materials to update, seals, etc. That is doing something CAPTalk isn't really.
It would look horrible. But that doesn't mean the wouldn't do it. It would suck because as I've hopefully made clear, it wouldn't be to attack CAP's leadership or make them look bad - it'd be to help the members. Some priorities as Col Weiss's campaign (since the stuff comes from in, in addition to my own stuff): the mission and our people - the end.
As I said, I don't know this Gen Carr and I hope he is good. He didn't publish a plan so I have no way of knowing what he wants to do and I can't look and say "hey, I have a project like that, it's half-done, and I can offer my services to the commander!"
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 20, 2011, 06:30:10 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on August 20, 2011, 05:57:55 PM
Secondly, The HOCK SHOP was most helpful to CAP members and it is now followed the way of the dodo! There were some intellectual propery issues there.
The Hock shop was a for-profit business that sold inferior product. Not quite the same as a place where people can start change/improvement/help each other online.
OK...NHQ works darned hard to kill IMU, which helps members all the time.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 20, 2011, 05:49:21 PM
In that case they could shut down CAPTalk as well. They haven't yet, not even when the conversation turns somewhat hostile towards the top leadership.
Besides, how well would it play out if NHQ shuts down a webportal that is HELPFUL to the membership at large?
While I am not suggesting that the folks who run the site have any more connection to NHQ than anybody else does (to my knowledge, they do not), you can bet that since they're also CAP members, they would tend to put the kibosh on *really* stupid and counter productive stuff found here. (discussion, disagreement, those are OK. Outright character assassination, lies, rumor mongering about stuff that's outright BS, etc, thats something else).
If someone from NHQ emailed Mike, Mike or Jerry and said "dudes, that thread about [insert inappropriate topic here] probably needs to go away," my guess is that the mods would make it go away or would look closely at it to mod it down.
If NHQ shut down CAP-Talk somehow (which I doubt they'd do), the discussion would likely move someplace like military.com's forums.
Think about how much love is lost for CAP over there. Do you think the moderators are "CAP positive" as the guys here are? No.
And I think NHQ knows that.
Quote from: NIN on August 20, 2011, 06:42:55 PM
If NHQ shut down CAP-Talk somehow (which I doubt they'd do), the discussion would likely move someplace like military.com's forums.
Think about how much love is lost for CAP over there. Do you think the moderators are "CAP positive" as the guys here are? No.
I've never noticed any anti-CAP stuff over there. But, then again they haven't had a new thread started on the CAP board since June. Not a very active place. And due to their severe limitations on posting web site links, it is almost not worth using.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 20, 2011, 06:05:03 PM
Quote from: vento on August 18, 2011, 04:10:35 PM
It is my pleasure to announce the next CAP National Commander elected this morning in Louisville, KY is Brig Gen Chuck Carr. Gen Carr is the current CAP National Vice Commander, experienced CAP commander at the squadron, group and wing levels and a retired USAF senior non-commissioned officer.
Another CAP national commander that is totally unaccountable to CAP members. Ho hum. Hopefully no long-term damage will occur with this one and that he is reasonable good at picking our leaders for us.
Don't like 'em already.. I see.. Your first message still had a bit of the 'CAWG CC' in it, too. I was wondering which you were picking on.. ;)
Have no opinion of him yet. I just don't expect much from any of our national leaders, just hope that they don't do anything stupid.
Had some problems with the quote function.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 20, 2011, 08:39:09 PM
...
I just don't expect much from any of our national leaders, just hope that they don't do anything stupid.
...
WHY DOES EVERYONE SAY THIS?!
AM I THE ONLY PERSON WHO FINDS THIS REALLY SAD?!It's this and people say that hopefully National won't impact their squadron. I think this is all REALLY SAD. Like depressing sad.
Quote from: JC004 on August 20, 2011, 08:54:40 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 20, 2011, 08:39:09 PM
...
I just don't expect much from any of our national leaders, just hope that they don't do anything stupid.
...
WHY DOES EVERYONE SAY THIS?! AM I THE ONLY PERSON WHO FINDS THIS REALLY SAD?!
It's this and people say that hopefully National won't impact their squadron. I think this is all REALLY SAD. Like depressing sad.
I think most personnel at the squadron level have little or no interest in going ons at National HQ (I would throw region in there also) other than hoping that the appropriate support will be there for the squadron, or sort of like medical profession creed "do no harm". (I know in our wing, the wing commander's policy is that the wing staff is there to provide support and assistance to the squadrons in the wing :clap:) Interestingly I attended another local squadron's open house today and I know the unit commander, he had even forgotten there was a national election and advised him who was elected (less than a two minute conversation) -- we then went on talking about local things our squadrons were doing.
RM
Quote from: JC004 on August 20, 2011, 08:54:40 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 20, 2011, 08:39:09 PM
...
I just don't expect much from any of our national leaders, just hope that they don't do anything stupid.
...
WHY DOES EVERYONE SAY THIS?! AM I THE ONLY PERSON WHO FINDS THIS REALLY SAD?!
It's this and people say that hopefully National won't impact their squadron. I think this is all REALLY SAD. Like depressing sad.
Oh, it is.
But, I can't think of a single thing that any National Commander has pushed for that has ended up being a good thing. I can think of several bad things, but perhaps that is selective memory at work.
I'm sure that probably all of them actually have done a few good things behind the scenes in their time in office, but we have no way of knowing what those things are.
At least our organization has a little taste of democracy in it that puts somewhat of a leash on how much harm they can do, but on the other hand, it also limits how much good they can do since they have to get others to vote with them to get things changed. Decision-making by committee can be limiting in both a good and bad way.
Quote from: JC004 on August 20, 2011, 04:25:51 AM
The CAP Center for Innovation, as envisioned, would need resources and command support. I don't see why it COULDN'T happen if they wanted to do it - it's not about individuals, politics, or the like. It's about the mission and people. That's it.
Hmm, didn't the National website, at one time have a "Best Practices" area, that allowed posting of some innovative methods ??? I think it wouldn't be that difficult to set up something by every major functional area and have each "functional area" adviser review & approve, than post to the website.
RM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 20, 2011, 09:13:01 PM
Quote from: JC004 on August 20, 2011, 08:54:40 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 20, 2011, 08:39:09 PM
...
I just don't expect much from any of our national leaders, just hope that they don't do anything stupid.
...
WHY DOES EVERYONE SAY THIS?! AM I THE ONLY PERSON WHO FINDS THIS REALLY SAD?!
It's this and people say that hopefully National won't impact their squadron. I think this is all REALLY SAD. Like depressing sad.
Oh, it is.
But, I can't think of a single thing that any National Commander has pushed for that has ended up being a good thing. I can think of several bad things, but perhaps that is selective memory at work.
I'm sure that probably all of them actually have done a few good things behind the scenes in their time in office, but we have no way of knowing what those things are.
At least our organization has a little taste of democracy in it that puts somewhat of a leash on how much harm they can do, but on the other hand, it also limits how much good they can do since they have to get others to vote with them to get things changed. Decision-making by committee can be limiting in both a good and bad way.
I would rather be optimistic and watch how things unfold
I met the new national commander twice during the '09 NSC. I vote we give him a chance.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 20, 2011, 09:13:01 PM
Quote from: JC004 on August 20, 2011, 08:54:40 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 20, 2011, 08:39:09 PM
...
I just don't expect much from any of our national leaders, just hope that they don't do anything stupid.
...
WHY DOES EVERYONE SAY THIS?! AM I THE ONLY PERSON WHO FINDS THIS REALLY SAD?!
It's this and people say that hopefully National won't impact their squadron. I think this is all REALLY SAD. Like depressing sad.
Oh, it is.
But, I can't think of a single thing that any National Commander has pushed for that has ended up being a good thing. I can think of several bad things, but perhaps that is selective memory at work.
I'm sure that probably all of them actually have done a few good things behind the scenes in their time in office, but we have no way of knowing what those things are.
At least our organization has a little taste of democracy in it that puts somewhat of a leash on how much harm they can do, but on the other hand, it also limits how much good they can do since they have to get others to vote with them to get things changed. Decision-making by committee can be limiting in both a good and bad way.
That's really SAD.
I'm sure there are numerous things that the national leadership has pressed over the years that has been good, but we need things that are felt down to the local unit and have a real impact on them.
As much as we want to be separate from them (and it seems A LOT - I mean A LOOOOOOT of members do), what they do or don't do DOES impact us at the squadron. When we have members deciding not to attend ES training because they don't get missions, or quitting for the same reason, what national, region (kinda), and wing are doing in that area matters A LOT. If they aren't developing our base of missions and making it so we get as many missions as we can support, members LEAVE.
That's just one example. Another example issue is how freaking complicated it can be trying to run a unit as a volunteer. You get all these new requirements, things like that, and it makes it hard to do your job. Communication from national (like I had set up, read to go in the form of the National Commander's Blog and National Staff Blog) that is clear, consolidated, and regular would make a huge difference.
There's a lot that the national level could do to make a real difference that we could feel at the local level. I just don't feel like they are going to do that because they rejected the only specific blueprint laid out to make this reality.
I'm sorry but it really bothers me that what I would say is probably the vast MAJORITY of the membership doesn't want anything to do with their National Headquarters.Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on August 20, 2011, 09:19:36 PM
Quote from: JC004 on August 20, 2011, 04:25:51 AM
The CAP Center for Innovation, as envisioned, would need resources and command support. I don't see why it COULDN'T happen if they wanted to do it - it's not about individuals, politics, or the like. It's about the mission and people. That's it.
Hmm, didn't the National website, at one time have a "Best Practices" area, that allowed posting of some innovative methods ??? I think it wouldn't be that difficult to set up something by every major functional area and have each "functional area" adviser review & approve, than post to the website.
RM
This still exists in some form but it is very lightly used, not integrated into things, and doesn't function the way we had this set up to function. If you look through the best practices stuff that they have, you very quickly get to stuff posted years ago. It is barely updated, barely used, and not working heavily toward making things easier for the local units.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on August 20, 2011, 09:19:36 PM
Hmm, didn't the National website, at one time have a "Best Practices" area, that allowed posting of some innovative methods ??? I think it wouldn't be that difficult to set up something by every major functional area and have each "functional area" adviser review & approve, than post to the website.
Yep, but either no one ever bothered to send anything in or the things that were sent in weren't posted. Seemed like a good idea, but didn't seem to go far.
Does it occur to people that NHQ works on National level initiatives and those have indirect impact on what happens at the units. The CAP/CC is a voice/ambassador for all of us at the very highest levels
Examples:
Pairing with more closely with AFA, and AMA enabling getting Cyber Patriot and MARC off the ground. Those are things a local unit could start, but it takes NHQ to make it nationally available.
Overseeing the aircraft MX budget. This means individual wings don't have to foot the bill which may not affect some of the rich wings as much as the poor wings, but aircraft are expensive to MX.
Tire replacement program for vehicles. CAP/SE noted that there was a nationwide trend of tire issues. Squadrons/wings couldn't afford to replace tires on a regular basis, now NHQ picks up the bill.
ORMS, WMIRS, eServices are all NHQ functions that you likely use at the local level and provide national level support making it easier to maintain records and to report them to everyone who needs them.
NCSAs - Seriously, NHQ oversees these and provides a lot of funding to ensure there are some very high quality programs at low cost to the organization
They buy the freaking vans and airplanes your local unit/wing get to play with.
Ensuring we have successful audits, and when we were having issues taking on the burden of paying for wing administrators (something many wings likely could not afford on their own)
Interacting with 1st AF and the Chief of Staff of the USAF. That is something your local unit is not going to be doing and really provides a lot of high visibility to the organization.
The new Aerospace Dimensions and Learn to Lead curriculum
The 'new' standardized training for ES specialties making a GTM in one state theoretically equal in training to a GTM in another etc.
Free Cadet Uniform program. It may not always work wonders, but it's better than what we had before (which is to say nothing)
Your local unit may have issues that NHQ can't solve, but to say they have no impact is a foolish and blind thing to say. They are constantly working on things that make an impact. Before you disparage them and say NHQ or the CAP/CC don't affect your operations, think of all the support they have given and continue to provide.
^^^^^^^^^^^
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on August 20, 2011, 09:19:36 PM
Hmm, didn't the National website, at one time have a "Best Practices" area, that allowed posting of some innovative methods ??? I think it wouldn't be that difficult to set up something by every major functional area and have each "functional area" adviser review & approve, than post to the website.
RM
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cap_university/best_practices_exchange.cfm
In most large nonprofit organizations, the folks that run managerial and supervisory levels (that is, anything beyond "local") are normally full time, paid employees.
I know this is true on Scouting (Boy or Girl), believe it to be so in ARC, for instance.
In CAP, from group level up, we are volunteers.
Each wing has a state director and a wing administrator, salaried as AF civilian employees.
Each region has 2 or 3 USAF officers, 1 or 2 USAF NCOs, and 1 or 2 civilians...at least on paper; since 9/11, they are ALWAYS understrength because of greater needs elsewhere.
I will be the first to agree that often CAP above squadron level gets ridiculously political.
However, let's not lose sight of the fact that these CAP members, whether we agree completely with their point of view or not, dedicate a tremendous amount of personal time, money, and energy to this organization.
They're not perfect people, none of us are.
But, even as the squadrons are indeed the places where "the rubber meets the road" in CAP, as so many of us like to say, we ought to remember that the groups, wings, regions, NHQ, NB and NEC are full of hardworking fellow CAP members trying to keep that very "road" in good repair!
Quote from: ZigZag911 on August 23, 2011, 06:18:52 PM
Each wing has a state director and a wing administrator, salaried as AF civilian employees.
I believe that the wing administrators are CAP employees, not civilian AF.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 23, 2011, 07:18:18 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on August 23, 2011, 06:18:52 PM
Each wing has a state director and a wing administrator, salaried as AF civilian employees.
I believe that the wing administrators are CAP employees, not civilian AF.
Correct.
My mistake about wing admins salary source...always have trouble keeping straight who works for whom!
I have met the new CC at the NCR Conference last October, and during a Question/Answer period; I asked a question that I got BS for answer. That told me quite a bit. :-\
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 28, 2011, 10:47:21 PM
I have met the new CC at the NCR Conference last October, and during a Question/Answer period; I asked a question that I got BS for answer. That told me quite a bit. :-\
So what was the question and answer?
To reply to several posts:
We have elections because it is required by our constituion and by-laws. We have elections because we are also a corporation and when the National Board is in session it is acting as the corporations "board of directors" and boards of directors elect COOs. One would also hope that many brains are better than one.
It is not unusual to have only a few candidates. I have followed the elections of National Commanders since the late 80s. The most candidates I can remember is five candidates. The bottom two are favorite sons or people with a chip on thier shoulder or self-proclaimed wise men. They get very few votes and are eliminated early.
In order to be "qualified" as a candidate for National Commander you must have sucessfuly completed (not been fired or removed or non-renewed etc.) a term on the national board. That brings us down from from 60,000 candidates to a few hundred. Practicaly speeking you also need to be able to travel 50 weekends and be able to drop what you are doing and travel mid-week 24 to 36 times a year. You also must be able to take calls (several a day) any time of the day and respond to (way too) many emails during the day. This limits us to people who work for themselves or are retired (or have one heck of an understanding boss.) Lastly we normaly turn over 25% of the board every year (terms of office end) so if you have not been sitting on the board (or have a highly visable National Level job) in the last two years it is likely 50% of the board does not know who you are. Your chances of getting elected are very slim.
Lastly, you have to want a 60 hour a week job that does not pay and comes with 60,000 (give or take a few with self-dicipline and who know better) who will second guess everything you do. The other fringe benifit is you have to put up with rumors and articles in tabloids.
So do these candidates have to undergo some sort of psych eval? Because only a freakin sadist would want to be National CC! >:D I could barely handle being a SQ CC. But then again......I have a full time job, 3 little kids....and a hot wife that I need to keep entertained!
Quote from: davidsinn on September 29, 2011, 12:12:55 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 28, 2011, 10:47:21 PM
I have met the new CC at the NCR Conference last October, and during a Question/Answer period; I asked a question that I got BS for answer. That told me quite a bit. :-\
So what was the question and answer?
Question was about if the rumor that all AF style uniforms were going away was true, and there was no answer, just how the AF valued our work and how much USAF wants us to be more involved.
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 29, 2011, 01:23:35 AMQuestion was about if the rumor that all AF style uniforms were going away was true,
What "rumor"?
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 29, 2011, 01:23:35 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on September 29, 2011, 12:12:55 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 28, 2011, 10:47:21 PM
I have met the new CC at the NCR Conference last October, and during a Question/Answer period; I asked a question that I got BS for answer. That told me quite a bit. :-\
So what was the question and answer?
Question was about if the rumor that all AF style uniforms were going away was true, and there was no answer, just how the AF valued our work and how much USAF wants us to be more involved.
I would have ignored the question too. Sounds too much like a TROLL question.
Quote from: PHall on September 29, 2011, 02:28:25 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 29, 2011, 01:23:35 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on September 29, 2011, 12:12:55 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 28, 2011, 10:47:21 PM
I have met the new CC at the NCR Conference last October, and during a Question/Answer period; I asked a question that I got BS for answer. That told me quite a bit. :-\
So what was the question and answer?
Question was about if the rumor that all AF style uniforms were going away was true, and there was no answer, just how the AF valued our work and how much USAF wants us to be more involved.
I would have ignored the question too. Sounds too much like a TROLL question.
Wait - I just caught that. Seriously...
^^If it is just a rumour, and I'm going to treat it as such until fact says otherwise...
I can see it happening though...there have been enough people here on CT, covertly and otherwise, trying to turn us into the Polo-Shirted Flying ES Patrol.
If we were to lose the AF uniform, I and many others would probably look for other places to volunteer our time. I remember enough Marlinspike from my time in the CGAUX to be useful to something like the NSCC, where I wouldn't have to own a boat to "fit in."
However, if this rumour were to be true, what is to stop us from designing our own, individual CAP uniform that doesn't have to be sickly grey and white with the bloody awful Realtor coat, as long as it doesn't incorporate any USAF items?
Please God, not another pointless uniform thread.
Quote from: PHall on September 29, 2011, 02:28:25 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 29, 2011, 01:23:35 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on September 29, 2011, 12:12:55 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 28, 2011, 10:47:21 PM
I have met the new CC at the NCR Conference last October, and during a Question/Answer period; I asked a question that I got BS for answer. That told me quite a bit. :-\
So what was the question and answer?
Question was about if the rumor that all AF style uniforms were going away was true, and there was no answer, just how the AF valued our work and how much USAF wants us to be more involved.
I would have ignored the question too. Sounds too much like a TROLL question.
I was informed that we ARE going to lose the AF style uniforms. I did not believe it, but one can't be too sure. Since I have to advise new members on uniform choices, and I do not want them to waste money on USAF style uniforms when the meet the criteria when they can not wear them long (provided the rumor is true.) I also don't want them to buy Corporate Style uniforms if the rumor is false (and they want USAF style.) I asked what I should tell the new members.
I ask a specific question that could very realistically impact member wallets, and I'm accused of asking a TROLL question. seriously. I take great care to ensure that the members that I deal with to have the best possible experience with CAP, and I get accused of of being a troll. An honest answer would have been: There has been a/no proposal/decision/action on removal of the USAF style uniforms.
That is a clear, concise answer that deals with a serious question. I guess he may know, just can't tell. . .
Quote from: RogueLeader on October 01, 2011, 12:31:34 AM
Quote from: PHall on September 29, 2011, 02:28:25 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 29, 2011, 01:23:35 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on September 29, 2011, 12:12:55 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 28, 2011, 10:47:21 PM
I have met the new CC at the NCR Conference last October, and during a Question/Answer period; I asked a question that I got BS for answer. That told me quite a bit. :-\
So what was the question and answer?
Question was about if the rumor that all AF style uniforms were going away was true, and there was no answer, just how the AF valued our work and how much USAF wants us to be more involved.
I would have ignored the question too. Sounds too much like a TROLL question.
I was informed that we ARE going to lose the AF style uniforms. I did not believe it, but one can't be too sure. Since I have to advise new members on uniform choices, and I do not want them to waste money on USAF style uniforms when the meet the criteria when they can not wear them long (provided the rumor is true.) I also don't want them to buy Corporate Style uniforms if the rumor is false (and they want USAF style.) I asked what I should tell the new members.
I ask a specific question that could very realistically impact member wallets, and I'm accused of asking a TROLL question. seriously. I take great care to ensure that the members that I deal with to have the best possible experience with CAP, and I get accused of of being a troll. An honest answer would have been: There has been a/no proposal/decision/action on removal of the USAF style uniforms.
That is a clear, concise answer that deals with a serious question. I guess he may know, just can't tell. . .
Phrasing the question differently probably would have helped.
As in, "According to what I have read in XXXXXX XXXXXX, Air Force style uniforms will no longer be authorised for wear by senior members.
Can you please conform or deny that please."
You told him what your source is and made it easy for him to give you a simple yes or no answer. With the oppertunity to expand on his answer if he wishes.
It also made it non-confrontational. Which means a better chance at getting an answer.
And what if the rumor mill turned out to be true, and CAP did give up ( or have taken away) the USAF style Uniform? Would anyone here quit or fail to renew because of such an action? My guess is that its major effects would be to hamper Cadet recruitment somewhat, and further separate the CAP identity from Ma Blue's, which some here would probably like. Its an idea that make no mistake, in my opinion, is repulsive and totally against the spirit of our core Charter, but a proposition which I have seen members of this board and the hate-America branch of CAP embrace. I have heard a lot of rumors in the past, some turned out to be true, some turned out to be false, so I reserve judgement. The really good gossip tends to have an element of articulable plausability, and this one has been floated for quite awhile. Hopefully, it goes the way of the "Mr. Rogers was Marine Corp Sniper with 93 confirmed kills and wore the sweater to cover his extensive tats" rumor, and is quickly denied and disposed . (FYI, one of several things Cadets have told me which made me shoot my drink out of my nose) I don't think its unreasonable or unexpected to have a bureaucrat respond with a bureaucratic-style answer, but I do thinks its unreasonable to infer that responding to a BS question with a BS answer should be taken as confirmation or denial.
Major Lord
It may be a little off-topic, but as a member of the BoG, the National Uniform Committee, and the National Staff, I have heard not one whiff, not a hint, nor even a mere suggestion that would support the notion that the AF-style uniforms will be given or taken away.
As in no discussions one way or another. It has not been discussed, mentioned, or rumored in any way. In the last month I have spoken personally with the National Commander, the CAP-USAF commander and vice-commander, and the Chair of the BoG. Nobody mentioned, hinted, or suggested that anything was changing.
Nada. Nothing. Zero. Goose egg. Zilch.
I have and will continue to personally invest in my AF-style uniforms. I will be heading to clothing sales this month and will spend some more money to replace a couple of shirts and some trousers.
But maybe the Trilateral Commission has a plan to discreetly force us into BBDUs and polos. They just haven't briefed me yet.
But what do I know?
Ned Lee
Wait! Listen Ned.....just because you are on the BoG does not you have to right to gain say "them".
I mean how are "they" supposed to convert CAP to a civilian flying club as their first step of world domination if you go around throwing facts and truth at them. :-[
The Iluminanti are going to take away your key to the executive wash room! >:D
That's good to hear, that there is nothing to it. I did not get a yes OR a no. That is what the issue was.
Quote from: Ned on October 01, 2011, 01:20:07 AM
It may be a little off-topic, but as a member of the BoG, the National Uniform Committee, and the National Staff, I have heard not one whiff, not a hint, nor even a mere suggestion that would support the notion that the AF-style uniforms will be given or taken away.
As in no discussions one way or another. It has not been discussed, mentioned, or rumored in any way. In the last month I have spoken personally with the National Commander, the CAP-USAF commander and vice-commander, and the Chair of the BoG. Nobody mentioned, hinted, or suggested that anything was changing.
Nada. Nothing. Zero. Goose egg. Zilch.
So...... what you're saying is everyone is being hush hush about taking away AF uniforms. >:D >:D >:D >:D
Seriously, I think we sometimes expend too much energy looking for things to worry about. :P
I keep wondering where my little money is headed. . . .
Quote from: RogueLeader on October 01, 2011, 02:45:09 AM
I keep wondering where my little money is headed. . . .
Well, there is a way to "fix" that... >:D
Quote from: Ned on October 01, 2011, 01:20:07 AM
Nada. Nothing. Zero. Goose egg. Zilch.
Until I hear something much more concrete otherwise, I am going to take Ned's statement as probably the most authoritative we've got on CT.
The only real caveat I have to that is the cloak-and-dagger "we don't give a rat's bum what you think" way that the CSU, which was very popular, was taken from us.
RogueLeader: I never thought you were trolling, because I've long suspected that there was a move behind the scenes to get us out of the AF uniform; in fact, people have
told me directly (not just on CT) that we have no business wearing it.
Major Lord: I doubt that cadet recruitment would be significantly impacted, because in such an eventuality, the cadets would no doubt get to keep wearing the AF uniform.
Major Lord: I doubt that cadet recruitment would be significantly impacted, because in such an eventuality, the cadets would no doubt get to keep wearing the AF uniform.
[/quote]
Hmmmm, I don't think the hypothetical conspiracy theory included an exemption for cadets, ergo, you must know more about the plot than the rest of us, therefore, you must be made of wood, and like a duck, wood floats, so you must be a witch! I think its clear that I doubt the conspiracy ( although Ned's statements were not denials, but merely statements that he had not heard the conspiracy theory, so obviously , he must be in on it too!)
I stand by the assertion that if CAP were not permitted to be a happy part of the USAF family, and wear the uniform, it would be detrimental to Cadet recruiting efforts. Even in the "new Math", Cadets would be considered a subset of CAP.
Major Lord
I'm glad this didn't become a uniform thread.
IF.......IF.....IF the USAF ever took their uniforms away from us....it would be because they were soooo pissed at us that they would probably just pull their funding (and we discussed the possiblities of that happeing elsewhere).
There would be no secret squirel initive or any quiet behind closed doors discussions. It would be vocal, it would be public and it would be messy.
I guess we'd still have the CAP distinctive field uniform - the BDU. Much to RM's annoyance.
Quote from: Major Lord on October 01, 2011, 03:54:35 AM
Hmmmm, I don't think the hypothetical conspiracy theory included an exemption for cadets, ergo, you must know more about the plot than the rest of us, therefore, you must be made of wood, and like a duck, wood floats, so you must be a witch!
No, sir, actually, I am a Dark Lord of the Sith, not a witch. Darth Borgius.
My reasoning comes from the oft-expressed opinion of many in CAP that the AF is to a large extent only interested in CAP because the CP provides a certain number of warm bodies through the gates of Lackland AFB. About 10 years ago our State Director (complete with purple polo shirt and chinos) came to my then-squadron in my then-wing and gave what he thought was a pep talk. All it was about was urging the cadets to get their Mitchell so they could get their E-3 when they joined the Air Force. He didn't say a word about senior programmes...the only thing he said about us, period, is exhorting us to mentor the cadets to get their Mitchell! This was a composite squadron, incidentally.
I believe the AF would still allow the cadets to retain the AF uniform to stoke their interest in the AF, and because they feel (wrongly) that they don't have to worry about cadets being mistaken for AF personnel (sure, right, a 19-year-old cadet officer with blue nameplate and shoulder marks doesn't look AF
at all, eh?). Keeping the "oldsters" interested in the AF is a comparative non-issue.
I believe this thread took a deviation into uniforms because a lot of the friction between us and the AF has been over uniforms, ever since the days of the berry boards "thank you sir may I have another?" and more recently the skullduggery behind the CSU. I believe that the uniform issue is a strong, visually-symbolic emblem of our relationship or lack thereof with the Air Force. Those in CAP who really don't give a monkey's about our relationship with the AF tend not to care about us wearing the AF uniform, or they actively campaign against it. Those who
do care are the ones who tend to notice this issue. I know, fallacy of hasty generalisation.
I think that ever since some of the less-than-ethical National CC's we've had, many of us tend to hope (rightly or wrongly) that a new CC will help mend a relationship that's been dodgy for the better part of 20 years.
Quote from: lordmonar on October 01, 2011, 05:30:40 AM
IF.......IF.....IF the USAF ever took their uniforms away from us....it would be because they were soooo pissed at us that they would probably just pull their funding (and we discussed the possiblities of that happeing elsewhere).
There would be no secret squirel initive or any quiet behind closed doors discussions. It would be vocal, it would be public and it would be messy.
I don't foresee the AF pulling all it's funding from CAP due to the cost effectiveness at this point of ES support provided via the aircraft fleet and also the potential recruiting pool for cadets.
Additionally, I think the long term professional paid staff at National HQ ensures that we meet the grant/contract specifications. Of course there's always going to be some "bumps in the road" (e.g. the cellphone/data illegal usage with regular cellphone/data cards in our aircraft -- currently being addressed) BUT overall I think most members comply with the spirit of the regulations, policies, & guidance.
Lastly the new National Commander, is a USAF retiree, so he is fully aware of the realities of complying with USAF requirements as well as their informal guidance to keep us out of hot water, rather than historically with a few "wanna bees" running a muck.
RM
Quote from: JC004 on October 01, 2011, 05:59:26 AM
I guess we'd still have the CAP distinctive field uniform - the BDU. Much to RM's annoyance.
Well again, when we start talking about CAP branding, etc, at least in my opinion we need ONE field uniform (and flight uniform) that everyone can wear, and differentiates us from the military. I tend to believe the blue BDU's and flight suits with the appropriate highly colored emergency services patches accomplish this better than a uniform such as the camoflauge BDU that causes confusion.
When the American Red Cross is conducting any field operations, there's absolutely NO doubt in identifying them, due to the type of colorful uniforms & vests they wear. CAP National policy, wise this is probably a good debate to have, with the "wanna fraction" against the "branding/differentiation fraction".
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on October 01, 2011, 01:32:43 PM
I don't foresee the AF pulling all it's funding from CAP due to the cost effectiveness at this point of ES support provided via the aircraft fleet and also the potential recruiting pool for cadets.
The AF doesn't fund us. Congress does.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on October 01, 2011, 01:47:58 PM...such as the camoflauge BDU that causes confusion.
Who is confused?
Quote from: JC004 on October 01, 2011, 05:05:58 AM
I'm glad this didn't become a uniform thread.
Spoke too soon.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 01, 2011, 09:41:56 PM
Who is confused?
RM must be...he's the only one who keeps bringing up this "differentiate us from the military" issue.
I have never, in all my years of wearing woodland BDU on CAP ops, been confused for anything
but CAP. In contrast, NSCC wears woodland BDU's with
subdued nametapes and
metal subdued grade. I met an Ensign earlier this summer kitted out exactly that way, and I am literate enough to have read his subdued NSCC tape when I got close enough to talk to him to realise that he was not in the USN.
I frequently wear the dark-blue CAP utility jumpsuit and have never been mistaken for Air Force.
We are not the American Red Cross any more than we are the actual military.
I have never met our new NatCC (lame attempt to get thread back on track) - the only ones I actually met were General Bergman and ex-Generalissimo P*n*d* - but it would be interesting to hear General Carr's take on this endless, pointless debate on "distinctiveness." To me, the whole thing is a red herring because you are never going to get a common consensus on what an empirical definition of "distinctiveness" is.
After all, Australian, Canadian and New Zealand service uniforms are very, very close to their British forbears (excepting the RAAF midnight blue service dress) and the only thing "distinctive" about them is a curved shoulder flash with their nationality.
(http://www.ww2wings.com/wings/australia/insignia/images/gowanraafshoulderflashfrtsm.jpg)
(http://images.trademe.co.nz/photoserver/tq/49/185578249.jpg)
(http://cart.gijen.com/images/CdnFlash2.jpg)
To me, making something similar saying "CIVIL AIR PATROL" would go a lot further toward "distinctiveness" then endless uniform permutations and further "greying."
Quote from: CyBorg on October 01, 2011, 11:01:37 PMIn contrast, NSCC wears woodland BDU's with subdued nametapes and metal subdued grade. I met an Ensign earlier this summer kitted out exactly that way, and I am literate enough to have read his subdued NSCC tape when I got close enough to talk to him to realise that he was not in the USN.
Actually a lot of NSCC units are transitioning to the new NWU, configed in much the same way, and of course their adults wear the same uniforms as the Navy. Whatever the "issue" is, it has nothing to do with confusion with active forces.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on October 01, 2011, 01:32:43 PMLastly the new National Commander, is a USAF retiree, so he is fully aware of the realities of complying with USAF requirements as well as their informal guidance to keep us out of hot water, rather than historically with a few "wanna bees" running a muck.
RM
Actually, he's a Air National Guard Retiree.
No, he is an active duty USAF retiree.
No, it's rabbit season!
Quote from: Eclipse on October 01, 2011, 11:14:10 PM
Actually a lot of NSCC units are transitioning to the new NWU, configed in much the same way, and of course their adults wear the same uniforms as the Navy. Whatever the "issue" is, it has nothing to do with confusion with active forces.
The NSCC ensign told me that the acceptance throughout the NSCC of the NWU wasn't going very smoothly, at least at that time, and his unit would be wearing WBDU's for the foreseeable future.
But, yes, of course their adult members wear the same uniforms as the Navy, with very, very little alteration (I think it's just slapping a patch on the left sleeve and different hat device).
If the issue with us isn't "confusion with the active forces," I would ask: what is it that seems to keep poisoning the well between us and the AF? Some will say,
in their experience, that it
isn't poisoned at all; I dissent. When it gets to the point that such a big chunk of our parent service knows
nothing about its Auxiliary other than it being a bunch of fatties who don't know how to get a haircut or wear
our uniform properly but will try to make you salute them, that doesn't say a lot for the water in said well being exactly sweet.
Quote from: SARDOC on October 01, 2011, 09:42:28 PM
Quote from: JC004 on October 01, 2011, 05:05:58 AM
I'm glad this didn't become a uniform thread.
Spoke too soon.
Negative. Sarcasm.
Quote from: CyBorg on October 01, 2011, 11:01:37 PM
...
I have never met our new NatCC (lame attempt to get thread back on track) - the only ones I actually met were General Bergman and ex-Generalissimo P*n*d* - but it would be interesting to hear General Carr's take on this endless, pointless debate on "distinctiveness."
...
I'm not interested in this at all, expect perhaps a tiny bit.
I want to know his take on missions, mission development, technology, and laying the infrastructure to make CAP volunteering a great experience, an easy experience, a rewarding experience, and something with an operations tempo and other opportunities that just blow everyone else away. In short (so I don't have to write a lot), all the stuff written up in "Solutions for Civil Air Patrol."
Dreamer!!!!
Quote from: CyBorg on October 02, 2011, 04:12:24 AM
their adult members wear the same uniforms as the Navy, with very, very little alteration (I think it's just slapping a patch on the left sleeve and different hat device).
[nitpick] There's a NSCC patch on the left sleeve, different hat device, and I think also a NSCC tape above the left pocket [nitpick/]
Sorry for the probably superfluous nitpick.
As for the thread, I think that as long as Gen Carr continues mostly in the direction that Gen Courter went, we'll be fine. Not to say that we shouldn't change anything-- complacency is never a good thing. But General Courter, IMO, was what CAP needed after HWSRN.
Quote from: JC004 on October 02, 2011, 07:50:39 AM
Quote from: SARDOC on October 01, 2011, 09:42:28 PM
Quote from: JC004 on October 01, 2011, 05:05:58 AM
Quote from: CyBorg on October 01, 2011, 11:01:37 PM
...
I have never met our new NatCC (lame attempt to get thread back on track) - the only ones I actually met were General Bergman and ex-Generalissimo P*n*d* - but it would be interesting to hear General Carr's take on this endless, pointless debate on "distinctiveness."
...
I'm not interested in this at all, expect perhaps a tiny bit.
I want to know his take on missions, mission development, technology, and laying the infrastructure to make CAP volunteering a great experience, an easy experience, a rewarding experience, and something with an operations tempo and other opportunities that just blow everyone else away. In short (so I don't have to write a lot), all the stuff written up in "Solutions for Civil Air Patrol."
The way the organization is currently managed and even organized as far as overall governing, I don't see ANY National Commander as making a very big impact on the organization. Generally, my observations is that CAP goes VERY slow in adapting ANY internal changes, unless it is the Air Force that is putting on the pressure (since in reality they ARE the funding source and as THE MAJOR stakeholder (stock holder)),
anything else involving CAP is usually sent to a committee for years of study and than recommendations that may or may not go anywhere.
I think eventually funding support cuts from the USAF is going to have an impact on the organization (wouldn't be surprised to see the free cadet uniform program get reduced).. One thing that the unpaid volunteers don't need is more required training/administrative mumbo jumbo unless is specifically matches increased operational missions.
RM
What is this? I know you know how to use the quote feature.
You make an excellent point that there will be struggles of all kinds with the current messy governance structure. I think, however, that you are wrong that a national commander can't make a big impact. In some ways, it's like how a POTUS would make an impact.
I spent a lot of time looking at this issue over 3 months leading up to the election. I talked to a lot of people, read a lot, went through countless pages of meeting minutes, looked over years of history recorded as it happened on CAPTalk, CAP Blog, and elsewhere, etc., etc., etc. What worked, what didn't work, what happened when [insert whatever here]...
A national commander CAN make a good and lasting impact on the organization. This is how we arrived at the central focus of FW's campaign - laying groundwork for igniting the organization. Pull people in, get great ideas flowing, communicate effectively (and often) with the field, lay out goals, build teams (task forces rather than focusing on committees), etc., etc., etc.
So I think that a national commander can make a big impact on operations, morale, retention, and all the like. It's just that it requires a lot of work, leadership, field involvement, innovation, communication, etc.
The BOG doesn't involve itself with much of the little stuff, so it's the National Board approving those things and making them roll. The commander sets that pace, appoints people who will carry out those goals, and makes a real impact all the way to the unit level. When you have the type of tools and all that we laid out in the proposals, that makes a BIG impact directly and all the way down to the individual unit members.
The focus has to be on the field rather than echelons above reality. When they have that, they make a big impact, it ignites the membership, CAP retains people, and things get done.
One point......IMHO the National Commander should NOT be making that much of an impact. It should the be BoG who are shaping our direction and future. It should be the BoG who is looking into new fields of expertise.
The National Commander should be developing those goals and making it happen.
On the other hand........this is not a democrocy....it is a closed oligarchy.....and what you and I want or think has very little to do with what sort of National Commander we get (this is not to say Wing CC's don't value our ideas).
Quote from: lordmonar on October 02, 2011, 09:12:56 PM
One point......IMHO the National Commander should NOT be making that much of an impact. It should the be BoG who are shaping our direction and future. It should be the BoG who is looking into new fields of expertise.
The executive leader of any organization is the one who sets the goals and put the pressure on the other internal authoritative bodies to make things happen, without that force of will, the committees and boards within that organization will simply move along status quo until change is imposed from external forces.
This is a universal truth of any large organization or governing body and certainly applies to CAP.
"... you move with the times or the times move you. " Gordon Ramsay
Quote from: JC004 on October 02, 2011, 07:03:43 PM
What is this? I know you know how to use the quote feature.
You make an excellent point that there will be struggles of all kinds with the current messy governance structure. I think, however, that you are wrong that a national commander can't make a big impact. In some ways, it's like how a POTUS would make an impact.
A national commander CAN make a good and lasting impact on the organization. This is how we arrived at the central focus of FW's campaign - laying groundwork for igniting the organization. Pull people in, get great ideas flowing, communicate effectively (and often) with the field, lay out goals, build teams (task forces rather than focusing on committees), etc., etc., etc.
So I think that a national commander can make a big impact on operations, morale, retention, and all the like. It's just that it requires a lot of work, leadership, field involvement, innovation, communication, etc.
The BOG doesn't involve itself with much of the little stuff, so it's the National Board approving those things and making them roll. The commander sets that pace, appoints people who will carry out those goals, and makes a real impact all the way to the unit level. When you have the type of tools and all that we laid out in the proposals, that makes a BIG impact directly and all the way down to the individual unit members.
The focus has to be on the field rather than echelons above reality. When they have that, they make a big impact, it ignites the membership, CAP retains people, and things get done.
Well, again where are CAP's Long Term Goals as approved by the BOG published ??? That is going to drive the entire organization, from strategic to operational planning. Also FW was up front on his proposals -- I would think that since he didn't get elected that was because most didn't agree with his agenda :-\ ??? So what's the implications overall for CAP, is it "don't rock the boat" logic that will continue to prevail ???
RM
If there is a "don't rock the boat" attitude up top, I am both frustrated with it but understand it.
I am frustrated with it because if you do what you've always done expecting different results...I think that's Einstein's definition of insanity. I also remember what Ned said about a bunch of CAP colonels not being disposed toward radical change.
However, given what General Courter had to do to stop a severely-listing boat from going inverted, I understand it.
Nonetheless, it doesn't excuse holding a calcified, afraid-to-tick-off-the-Air Force attitude when one doesn't know what would tick off the AF without asking!
I would hope that a NatCC is more than just a "figurehead," which is how Lordmonar's description sounded to me.
One would assume that you are expecting "different results".
If you know where you are going....and you are happy with the way and speed that you are getting there.....then there is no need to plan a new route.
Just saying.
:angel:
Quote from: CyBorg on October 03, 2011, 12:25:00 AM
If there is a "don't rock the boat" attitude up top, I am both frustrated with it but understand it.
Nonetheless, it doesn't excuse holding a calcified, afraid-to-tick-off-the-Air Force attitude when one doesn't know what would tick off the AF without asking!
Well for the most part that's all Civil Air Patrol has to do is follow the guidance in the cooperative agreement and also what is in the AF Regulation. Anyone with any substantial military experience, knows that before officially staffing something you can always get an unofficial opinion/review. Sometimes the reviewer can make recommendations as to changes that will improve the chances of an initiative getting approved. That's why we have a paid professional staff at National Headquarters, and we also have the Office of CAP-USAF, including the commander right there. This really isn't that difficult to do. It's silly to think the AF is angry with CAP as an organization.
RM
Quote from: titanII on October 02, 2011, 06:21:15 PM
As for the thread, I think that as long as Gen Carr continues mostly in the direction that Gen Courter went, we'll be fine. Not to say that we shouldn't change anything-- complacency is never a good thing. But General Courter, IMO, was what CAP needed after HWSRN.
I'm sure Gen Carr will do CAP proud however, I'm a little curious on our conventional wisdom of his predecessors.
Mr. Pineda was removed from membership for, reportedly, being dishonest and, causing embarrassment to CAP for a lack of personal integrity. However, he put CAP on track to financial accountability by making the transistion to the Wing Banking Program sucessful, approved the consolodated aircraft maint. program and, gave CAP a distinctive uniform which was approved by the Air Force. This is fact and, no one can refute this (I have the correspondence in writing).
Gen. Courter was elected because she would "walk the talk" however; she was reprimanded by the BoG; reportedly for ethical violations and, mishandling funds related to "directed travel". She purged those who disagreed with her (even in private) and, held more "back room" meetings than anyone I've known in a leadership position in CAP. She has used "new business" agendas to bypass important vetting processes, had the NEC change election rules (reserved exclusively by the National Board) and, mislead the NEC on important issues such as the "Tilton affair". She also appointed a member to coordinate our overseas units, who is totally unworthy; just to appease a political crony. She sent letters of repremand to two distinguished former members of the NEC (one, a former National Commander) for acceptable actions which occured over 14 years ago. It was also reported she complained to congress and the Air Force because, the BoG was interfering with her governance of CAP...
IMO, it is time to understand that CAP politics is played hard. If you wish to opine on it, do your homework, think, then provide your thoughts. Don't continue to parrot the propaganda from the uninformed. There are no saints in CAP; especially at the National level.
I, for one, am glad the BoG's governance study is in full force. I'm sure there will be some eyes opened when the results are in. I look forward to positive change; even if it means the end of a "self licking ice cream cone".
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on October 02, 2011, 10:27:15 PM
Well, again where are CAP's Long Term Goals as approved by the BOG published ??? That is going to drive the entire organization, from strategic to operational planning. Also FW was up front on his proposals -- I would think that since he didn't get elected that was because most didn't agree with his agenda :-\ ??? So what's the implications overall for CAP, is it "don't rock the boat" logic that will continue to prevail ???
RM
You've never run a non-profit or large volunteer program, have you?
Strategic plans, called Long Term Goals in this case, are a common thing that everybody has because grants require them. Then there are two sorts of organizations: those who get action on their strategic plan and those who are trying out the path to hell (being paved with good intentions and all).
There is like this mystery around strategic plans - like they are some sort of mystical, magical thing. People ask questions at seminars and conferences about them like they are in some type of holy tabernacle and these organizational leaders are seeking the passcodes to enter that domain.
They do not, however, inherently guide the organization because they exist.I have a standard lecture that I give about strategic plans and making good on good intentions at this point (which I should probably copyright by now). In it, I talk about moving from lofty plans to laying foundations to tactical planning and execution. There is a lot in between the strategic plan and getting things done.
It's like fighting a war: You have long term goals of taking the capital, replacing the government, getting the economy going.
Then you have to make those happen. If you could get an economy going for want of it, the US wouldn't be in the situation it is right now.
By themselves, strategic goals (or Long Term Goals) are useless.
Only when you lay the infrastructure and get things executed, energizing and involving your people, does it work.
Organizational culture matters, infrastructure matters. Look at Google vs. Yahoo. Yahoo could have been Google. Western Union could have been PayPal. Any number of regional carriers could have been the ONLY national airline that posts a profit EVERY SINGLE YEAR - Southwest. CAP could be retaining rather than bleeding members. Look at the statistics. CAP could be doing great mission development, pushing the envelope, taking the lead in disaster relief, homeland security - all sorts of things. A lot of people I know think I'm CRAZY FOR RENEWING my membership. They think CAP is some antiquated organization - a remnant of World War II that isn't improving with the times.
I'd LIKE to prove them wrong.As for proposals, seems to me that they talked about CAPTalk and the NDA rather than proposals. Did they seem focused on proposals to you? For one thing, people are right about the NB not wanting to switch things up/rock the boat. That's because beating an incumbent team is incredibly difficult. That's how things are. I've seen that a million times from working in politics.
Quote from: JC004 on October 03, 2011, 06:05:04 AM
Strategic plans, called Long Term Goals in this case, are a common thing that everybody has because grants require them. Then there are two sorts of organizations: those who get action on their strategic plan and those who are trying out the path to hell (being paved with good intentions and all).
"No plan of operations extends with certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main strength" (or "no plan survives contact with the enemy").
"Strategy is a system of expedients."
Feldmarschall Karl Bernhard Graf von Moltke
Chief of Staff, Prussian Army