Corruption Thesis

[Nathan]

You don't think so?  I think integrity also means that we don't do things for our personal gain and we don't intentionally do things that harm others.  If you assume that members have integrity, then this isn't a personal battle against any particular person or group.  Or turned around, if you assume that there is a personal agenda with an intent to cause harm, then you must conclude that those with the personal agendas aren't practicing integrity.

I choose to believe the best about people, I've found that it usually gives the best results.

So, I stand by my assertion that if we as an organization have integrity, then there is no concern of having an open and honest dialog.  And turning that same statement around, if we cannot have an open and honest dialog because we don't respect others or we believe they don't have the integrity to place the organization before themselves, then honest dialog isn't possible.

So, I'll go back to my suggestion that rather than talking about the semantics, let's have a good converstaion about our organization.

Having an "open and honest dialogue" is something quite different than "talking openly without anyone getting upset."

IE, a member who reports a hazing incident is acting with integrity. It is most definitely going to be upsetting to the people who get thwacked in the hazing report. A member with integrity is almost certainly going to be getting people upset, because if doing the right thing was always the popular thing to do, then the need to define integrity would not exist.

And, just to be open and honest, I hope you realize your implication that the members who disagree with your assertion are lacking integrity. After all, by your view, anyone who does not agree about CAP's alleged corruption is "lying to themselves", and I assume in your world therefore are "getting upset", which apparently means that they are not "talking openly." Which means that you're basically saying that anyone who disagrees with you has no integrity, because they reject a premise you have assumed to be true.

If I may be open and honest, that's harsh, dude.

[Eclipse]

What rocks do we think he need kick over?

"We" don't need to kick over any rocks.  While a few who participate here are actually charged with those tasks, the majority are not,
and none of it should be done in public, especially as general conversation with the implication that a few isolated incidents are endemic
to the organization as a whole.

"Unintended Consequences" is not just an indie band appearing this Saturday at the Thirsty Whale.

[bflynn]

Having an "open and honest dialogue" is something quite different than "talking openly without anyone getting upset."

IE, a member who reports a hazing incident is acting with integrity. It is most definitely going to be upsetting to the people who get thwacked in the hazing report. A member with integrity is almost certainly going to be getting people upset, because if doing the right thing was always the popular thing to do, then the need to define integrity would not exist.

And, just to be open and honest, I hope you realize your implication that the members who disagree with your assertion are lacking integrity. After all, by your view, anyone who does not agree about CAP's alleged corruption is "lying to themselves", and I assume in your world therefore are "getting upset", which apparently means that they are not "talking openly." Which means that you're basically saying that anyone who disagrees with you has no integrity, because they reject a premise you have assumed to be true.

If I may be open and honest, that's harsh, dude.

Well, if nobody brings a personal agenda to the converstaion, then open discussions shouldn't upset anyone.  This isn't personal, this is about the organization.

As far as an implication that I say anyone is lacking integrity, that isn't true at all.  If you do not hold the premise that corruption exists, then you just disagree.  That's just disagreement, no harm, no foul.

On the other had, if you know that corruption exists and you want to hide it from members, then you're bringing your personal agenda to the table.  Now, you could still just avoid the topic and practice integrity.

So I think your statement that I'm splitting people into those who talk and those who have integrity is a bit much.

Regardless - it's clear that nobody wants to discuss the topic.  I'm not sure that's healthy because it helps sustain the issues that caused corruption in the first place.

[Major Carrales]

Integrity is a "sort of strength from within" the almost compulsion to "do the right thing."  It prevents you from doing the unethical thing and compells you to remain within the limits of established ethichs, rules and laws for the benefit of the greater organization, or (if you will) for no direct benefit to oneself.  Yielding only to the concept of "the right thing."  It is, in a since, the antithesis of corrpution, where a wrong thing is eiter justified or don't in a concious violation of ethics, rules and laws for a PERSONAL benefit.

Integrity called people, at times, to disagree with concepts, premises and actions that they are opposed to.  There is no choice for a person who has integrity.  It, integrity, cannot be built "over night."  However, when it is present in the character of a member it "eats at" that person to remain silent or be on the "unethical side" of the matter.

As a commander there is plenty of times that arrise where the "ethical" path is the more difficult road to follow.  Integrity causes internal conflict when tough decisions are made.

All this said, it is not a lack of integrity to disagree with a premise.  In fact, in some cases, it is mandatory.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

This is the sort of paper I could have seen myself writing for my Social Psychology class.

Without getting into the minutiae of Stanley Milgram, Emile Durkheim or any of those, I am sure most of us have heard of the "close-the-wagons mentality" and "learned helplessness."

The first could apply to CAP leadership (or cronyism) from a bunch of GOB's who have known one another for years, have been in CAP ever since we had silvertan uniforms and are probably all Lieutenant Colonels.  First Lieutenant Silverbar witnesses what she believes to be clearly unethical behaviour from her squadron CC, Major Goldleaf, and deputy CC, Captain Railtracks.  Since the Lieutenant is relatively new to CAP, she does not know the regulations inside and out, like us old-timers do (cough, hack, ahem) but her gut instinct tells her that something is wrong.  So she initiates an IG investigation.  However, the wing IG, Lieutenant Colonel Silverleaf, the wing CC, Colonel Chickenshield, and the wing Chief of Staff, Major Butterball, have all known Maj. Goldleaf since (as my dad used to say) Shep was a pup.  There is no way they could ever believe that Maj. Goldleaf could ever do something that egregious, and he is a sound judge of character, otherwise he would not have appointed Capt. Railtracks to the deputy CC position, and Capt. Railtracks seems like such a nice young woman anyway.  So, the august Wing personages hold a private, closed-door brainstorm (knock on the office door at your peril of being busted down to A3C) and decide "this young looie is getting a head too big for her hat; it is time to show her how the real world operates."  So, said august personages summon Lieutenant Silverbar to their presence.  They tell the young Lieutenant in no uncertain terms that what she did is a breach of discipline, ethics, morals and regulations (they are quite sure that someone as "green" as she is has not studied the regulations).  They offer her three choices:

• Take a demotion to Second Lieutenant, and the word will quickly get around, making Silverbar persona non grata around the Wing;
• Accept a 2B, and get your tail out of my office and out of my life;
• Resign "gracefully," and no shame or dishonour will come upon you, and you might even get to rejoin CAP in a couple of years if you do not drag a lawyer into it!

Cronyism, corruption or circling the wagons?

Then, regardless of what our now-very dispirited young Lieutenant decides to do (in her position, my reply would possibly involve some inventive and colourful invective and a certain upraised digit, followed by a precipitous departure), the word gets around Wing and scares the life out of everyone not in the nexus of the crisis.  The prevalent attitude becomes "oh, what's the use?" and the CAP members within the Wing eventually demonstrate learned helplessness, meaning that even if an action is clearly in violation of regulations, it will be "let it pass."  Even Major Boffin, who holds Master ratings in Administration and Personnel, will be too frightened to rock the boat.

Corruption?  I do not know.

Disclaimer:  I have never witnessed either of the situations above; they are totally hypothetical based on broadly similar situations I know of (or have heard rumour and hearsay of) within CAP over the past couple of decades.  No resemblance to any ladies, gentlemen or otherwise serving or having served in CAP is intended.

[RiverAux]

Having written a masters thesis and published articles in professional journals, I agree with a few of the previous posters who don't see any way that someone could write any sort of article on cronyism in CAP since you're not going to find any reliable sources.  Now, if you want to write about real corruption -- misuse of funds, etc., you probably could put together a decent paper based on various newspaper accounts.  These might not be terribly accurate, but could work.

[Nathan]

Well, if nobody brings a personal agenda to the converstaion, then open discussions shouldn't upset anyone.  This isn't personal, this is about the organization.

As far as an implication that I say anyone is lacking integrity, that isn't true at all.  If you do not hold the premise that corruption exists, then you just disagree.  That's just disagreement, no harm, no foul.

On the other had, if you know that corruption exists and you want to hide it from members, then you're bringing your personal agenda to the table.  Now, you could still just avoid the topic and practice integrity.

So I think your statement that I'm splitting people into those who talk and those who have integrity is a bit much.

Regardless - it's clear that nobody wants to discuss the topic.  I'm not sure that's healthy because it helps sustain the issues that caused corruption in the first place.

Now see, that's exactly the kind of attitude that I'm talking about. "Nobody wants to discuss the topic." Really? We have several pages discussing the topic. The problem is that almost nobody is simply accepting that corruption exists in the first place, at least not in any way that's been defined.

It's like you saying that you want to talk about how to stop the alien lizard people from invading our government, and then claiming that "nobody wants to talk about it" when we deny that there ARE alien lizard people. We're not trying to cover up corruption by denying its existence. We simply don't think it exists, and we're waiting for you (or the original poster) to come up with a strong assertion that supports that it DOES exist. If you can do that, then we can start discussing it. But we aren't going to speculate on what corruption MIGHT be happening when there is no real evidence that it is happening, or has actually happened in the past.

To assume that our rejection of the premise is evidence of a cover-up or that the subject matter is uncomfortable is how baseless conspiracy theories are formed. "If you don't think that the alien lizard people are here, then that only means you're on their payroll."

[ol'fido]

I would think that if someone were really going to write an article, paper, thesis, etc. about "corruption" in an organization then there would have to be the perception that corruption was endemic or commonplace in that organization. Or there would have to be the direct knowledge that corruption exists but is being covered up by the organization in part or as a whole.

I'm sorry but I don't see corruption as endemic to CAP or there being a "vast Triangle Thingy conspiracy" to cover up the "hidden" corruption to CAP. Is there cronyism, nepotism, or just being an "egotistical doughhead"? Of course, but as has been pointed out, that is not corruption on the face of it.

Not being the most internet oriented person on CT, I'm not sure what the definition of a "troll" is, but telling somebody that you think is wrong that you think they are wrong is not being a troll. That's just being brutally honest.

On the whole, I think some of us have the "officer" part down cold, but maybe we should all remember the "gentleman" part of the equation.

[RiverAux]

Lets say a wing commander appoints a classic CAP "good ol boy" club inside his/her wing I would consider that a form of "corruption" more or less

Uh, that is exactly what CAP's system is designed for.  Those in charge get to pick their staff.  Most commanders are smart enough to realize that if they pick incompetent people just because they are their friends, its going to hurt them in the long run and make them look bad. 

So, most wing commanders are going to appoint people that they think are competent to be on their staff and to run their squadrons.  Sure, some will probably also be friends, but anyone that becomes a Wing Commander is going to have been around long enough that just about anybody who is anybody is their friend, so its almost unavoidable.

Now, those who don't get picked for the staff or squadron commander jobs are going to feel that they were slighted and that its corrupt because they didn't get picked. 

[bflynn]

Now see, that's exactly the kind of attitude that I'm talking about. "Nobody wants to discuss the topic." Really? We have several pages discussing the topic.

No, until this page we have several pages denying there's a problem and attacking those believe there is one.

Hint on how to read this - without passion and with a certain level of defeatism.

If you don't think the description CyBorg gave could (has?) happened, then you have a very different view of the structure here than I've experienced.  In general, how dare anyone question their superiors, how dare anyone make a suggestion. It's all been asked before, you don't know who you're offending, do pipe down before you get in trouble.

Tell me it won't happen.

I came to CapTalk because I had some ideas I wanted to bounce around. A mere three weeks later, I hate this place and being here is completely demotivating. I'll probably stop coming here soon before It makes give up and quit CAP all together. If this is what CAP is about then I completely understand the warnings I got three tears ago about joining. I heard about this attitude before I joined and dismissed it. Then I run smack into it here.

[lordmonar]

I think RiverAux has hit a good point.

Back in the Bad Old Days with HWSNBN and even during Gen Courter's time.....anytime a wing or regional commander was releived or resigned then it was almost instantly assumed that politics were involved.

I am not saying that there was not a lot of that going on.....but the "word on the street" was almost universally on the conspiracy side of things.

Same deal with wing appointments.....just look at Newsoftheforce's recent analysis of the NER and see how it is all spun toward the corrupt political side of things.

So yes...there is corruption.....sometimes a lot of it.....but there is also a lot of good officers doing their job in a volunteer organisation.  Appointing freinds and aquantances to "choice" jobs over other people is not necessarily a bad thing.  You know them, they know you and it makes for a good working team.

A large part of the problem is the governance at national level.   Who is really driving the train?  Is the BoG? The NB?  The NEC?  Is the NHQ staffers?  Fixing the governance model will go a long way to correct a lot of the politics involved at that level.  It would make selecting more skilled leaders at wing and regional level easier as you don't have to worry about political reliablity.

To go with this, if regions and wings were given clear operational expectations, it becomes easier to judge the effectivenss of a commander in a more meaningful way then just relying on the CIs and SUIs.

And back to NCR's original point......how does corruption start and spread?   When a memeber's personal desires and goals causes him/her to disregard the organisations core values and start gameing the system for his/her own aims instead of the aims and missions of the organisation.

[FW]

I'm sorry but I don't see corruption as endemic to CAP or there being a "vast Triangle Thingy conspiracy" to cover up the "hidden" corruption to CAP. Is there cronyism, nepotism, or just being an "egotistical doughhead"? Of course, but as has been pointed out, that is not corruption on the face of it.

On the whole, I think some of us have the "officer" part down cold, but maybe we should all remember the "gentleman" part of the equation.

I give two examples of "happenings" which are easily found in eservices; both MARB cases.  The first is the review of the relief from command of (redacted) wing in 2009.  The second was the review of the relief from command of (redacted) wing in 2011.

In the first case, the member was reinstated because the evidence was totally fabricated.  It seems the month before his relief of command, he openly questioned the national commander in open session of a NB meeting.  Is this corruption?

In the second case, the member was reinstated because his "infractions" did not rise to the level of misconduct as defined by the regulations. The review also showed the evidence was not only fabricated but, in direct condridiction to the written records.  This member, who was not liked in the wing, was then immediatly 2b'd for theft of CAP property.  The reinstated member decided to quit rather than continue fighting for his cause;even knowing he was in the right. This wing is now, according to published accounts, in total turmoil; all for the sake of a certain group of members who wanted their way.  Is this corruption?   

Is the system which allows for this corrupt?  Is this system endemic in CAP?  Is this perception?
Why did the USAF IG report his findings the way he did? I'd love to know what the SECAF's response was. There have been unconfirmed reports; were they leaked? If so, who leaked them?
Is this corruption?

I'll give other "actions" which are either hypothetical or can be found on earlier CT posts, other websites or, in "open letters" to the membership:

A member takes the time to become a mission pilot.  His squadron commander grounds him before he schedules his first flight because "he isn't safe".  The member has never had a safety issue before.  However, two other pilots in the squadron fly regularly; each having multiple infractions. Is there corruption here? 

A region commander is granted completion of Level 5 of the Professional Development program without completing the requirments because the National Commander needs their suppot.  Is that corruption?

A national commander, region commander and, some others get the silver medal of valor after fabricating an incident and strong arming the NEC. Is that corruption.

A national vice commander decides to make public his forced resignation and termination of membership.  Most of what is says is inconsitant with the written record.  However, many believe him at his word; is that corruption?

A wing is forgiven a $250000 debt to the Air Force for improper handling of aircraft maintanence funds because the national commander needs the support of the region and wing commander. All other wings must pay their bill. Is this corruption?

I could hypthosise that the above examples may fit the definition of the term.  Unethical conduct for personal gain seems to be the MO in almost all the cases presented. 

I could give many other examples however, the point is not to stick out our sores.  The point is to be honest with ourselves.  Correct the behavior and, move on.  Failing to recognize our weaknesses does nothing to help the situation.  And, to say there are many (the great majority) of members who are good, honest and, hard working individuals is irrelavent to a system which allows the above to happen.  Politics? I think this is something more. 

Any thoughts?

[ol'fido]

I don't think that anybody is going to argue that we have recently gotten rid of a doughhead National Commander who was in it for himself and not for the organization. And yes, if all those allegations are true then he needed to go. So the system worked like it was supposed to and he went. I didn't say there weren't instances of individual corruption in CAP but there is nothing that is endemic to the organization. Perhaps, we disagree on the definition of "endemic". I am using the term to mean ingrained and system wide and I don't think that there is that kind of corruption in this organization.

Having explained that I don't see any reason to alter my previous stance and opinion.

[FW]

You assume I speak of incidents  only under Pineda.  I don't.  The system worked then.  Does it now? Do the examples I've given show an inherant weakness of our system?  The Air Force IG says we have a problem.  Is it endemic? That is a good question.  We'll know the answer when we get the BoG's changes to CAP's governance structure.

 

[Nathan]

No, until this page we have several pages denying there's a problem and attacking those believe there is one.

I really just don't see that. I promise I'm not part of a conspiracy of denialism because I don't see it. But I simply don't see the evidence that anyone's being "attacked." I see that someone made a pretty bold assertion to a bunch of CAP members who have been around for a while that CAP has experienced corruption. I saw people either refute that idea directly, or ask for clarification on how "corruption" is being defined. Nobody is saying that anyone is an idiot for believing there is corruption, just that they disagree, and even that they might agree depending on how "corruption" is defined.

Which, again, is why I'm pointing out that your defensiveness about this isn't really warranted or helpful. I see a lot of people who are interested in debating the topic. In fact, you're the one saying that if we don't accept your view on things, we're "lying to ourselves." That's far more ad hominem than I have been.

If you don't think the description CyBorg gave could (has?) happened, then you have a very different view of the structure here than I've experienced.  In general, how dare anyone question their superiors, how dare anyone make a suggestion. It's all been asked before, you don't know who you're offending, do pipe down before you get in trouble.

Eh... that's kind of a slippery thing to say. Saying that there is "corruption in CAP" isn't exactly just questioning superiors, that's accusing superiors of facilitating or directly participating in a system that is unethical and reflects poorly upon their personal integrity. I still doubt that such postulates would shift anything upstairs (there have been far worse things said by far more irritating individuals), but you can't exactly claim that any fallout from calling your superior "corrupt" is evidence of corruption.

I came to CapTalk because I had some ideas I wanted to bounce around. A mere three weeks later, I hate this place and being here is completely demotivating. I'll probably stop coming here soon before It makes give up and quit CAP all together. If this is what CAP is about then I completely understand the warnings I got three tears ago about joining. I heard about this attitude before I joined and dismissed it. Then I run smack into it here.

Well, if you're judging the entirety of CAP off of this place (as evidenced by your desire to quit CAP because of your apparent maltreatment here), then I can probably understand why you would extrapolate a few questionable, undoubtedly shifty incidents to how CAP itself operates (as an organization with, as you see it, a corruption problem). But really, CAP is a big organization that has a lot going on, and just as the culture here isn't indicative of how CAP as a whole operates, a few incidents which MIGHT be considered corruption doesn't necessarily indicate that the system itself is flawed, or that corruption actually even occurred.

And again, don't pretend that you aren't making direct remarks on the "integrity" of the individuals here when you are basically accusing us of maliciously attacking you. This is one of the tamer threads in CAPTalk, and despite your feelings of persecution, nothing that's been put forth by you or the original poster has said anything inflammatory enough to really rile anyone up yet.

I'm sorry that you feel upset that people don't agree with you, but if you're going to participate in an online discussion board, especially when you choose to make accusations of corruption to the members of the organization you are accusing, then you probably need to be prepared to defend your arguments by saying something other than "you all are out to get people like me."

Seriously, I'm not trying to be harsh or drive you off. You just seemed to believe that having an "open, honest conversation" is a mark of integrity, which I can respect, so per your own definition of integrity, I expect that you, as an individual with integrity, would not get upset at my open, honest remarks.

[SarDragon]

Yes, we need to train our members on aerospace topics so they can be proficient in the air.

Really? I learned a bunch of AE stuff as a cadet, but its intent wasn't specifically to prepare me as a pilot. It certainly gave me a lot of insight into what goes on in the cockpit, and how/why an airplane flies, but those segments were part of a scope of material.

The SM Aero Ed program is more oriented toward aviation history, current events, and new technology, rather than the hows and whys of flying.

How many volunteer hours are used to get an airplane in air for an hour?  It has to be huge.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Volunteers do ZERO maintenance on corporate aircraft. As far as basic flying goes, there's the usual preflight and postflight, and some minor cleaning (windows, interior, etc), but nothing extraordinary, over and above private aircraft ownership.

[bflynn]

How many volunteer hours are used to get an airplane in air for an hour?  It has to be huge.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Volunteers do ZERO maintenance on corporate aircraft. As far as basic flying goes, there's the usual preflight and postflight, and some minor cleaning (windows, interior, etc), but nothing extraordinary, over and above private aircraft ownership.

Overhead, not maintenance.  How many house of meetings, training, administration, etc....

Yes, we do more than fly, but flying is why CAP was brought into existence.

[Eclipse]

Overhead, not maintenance.  How many house of meetings, training, administration, etc....

Yes, we do more than fly, but flying is why CAP was brought into existence.

Relevance to corruption?  CAP's mission is no longer air-centric. 

Only ~3% of the USAF is aircrew, and the rest of the organization supports them, or are tasked with missions unrelated to air superiority.

The meetings, training, and administration are what keeps the aircrews and other mission-focused members flying.  You can pick nits about the charter, but our published mission is only 1/3 ES, and inside that 1/3 is only about 1/2 related to the aircrews and planes.

[bflynn]

Only ~3% of the USAF is aircrew, and the rest of the organization supports them, or are tasked with missions unrelated to air superiority.

Ok. 

I suspect that's why from time to time, there are dicussions about whether the country still needs the Air Force.  They compare very negatively to other services when you look at the amount of support needed for the pointy end of the spear to work.

We've drifted in topic.  CAP is not doing all of what Congress charged us to do.  Why shouldn't we invent our own mission then?

[Nathan]

Only ~3% of the USAF is aircrew, and the rest of the organization supports them, or are tasked with missions unrelated to air superiority.

Ok. 

I suspect that's why from time to time, there are dicussions about whether the country still needs the Air Force.  They compare very negatively when you look at the amount of support needed for the pointy end of the spear to work.

We've drifted in topic.  CAP is not doing all of what Congress charged us to do.  Why shouldn't we invent our own mission then?