This one smells to high heaven boys and girls

[FlexCoder]

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

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

[jimmydeanno]

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

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

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

[ctrossen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[davidsinn]

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

[FW]

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

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

[RiverAux]

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

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

[Eclipse]

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

[afgeo4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[lordmonar]

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

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

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

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

So be it....

[Eclipse]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[wingnut55]

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

what part of the regulation do you not understand.

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

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

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

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

[lordmonar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SJFedor]

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

what part of the regulation do you not understand.

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

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

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

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

Is it really defamation if it's true?

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

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

[lordmonar]

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

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

[Eclipse]

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

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

[FlexCoder]

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

[Short Field]

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

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

[BuckeyeDEJ]

This news release asks more questions than it answers.

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

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

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

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

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

[lordmonar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you see what I am getting to?

If we can say

U.S. CAP Board of Governors removes national commander

Acting National Commander Courter assumes command
October 03, 2007



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[afgeo4]

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

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

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

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

So be it....

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

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

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

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

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