BOG June minutes

[Extremepredjudice]

This is America, you are free to choose to establish a scholarship and carry the financial burden for anyone who can't afford it if you wish. Please let us know where to send contributions. I have personally funded dues and uniform costs for many cadets, and I have found overwhelmingly that if these are given away, they don't value them. Surprised?

The fact that poor kids can't generally go very far in the program should be no surprise, its an expensive "hobby", but a worthwhile one. Its sad, and its unfair. Its too bad that a lot of good kids don't get into Harvard or play for the NFL, and you are free to use your money however you wish

I state that we self-select not as an indictment of CAP as some kind of a racist flying club, but as a simple and obvious observation that like- draws-like. If you thinks its unfair, and we should be better represented, you are free to spend your money and time to recruit however and whomever you wish. Go with God.

Diversity Committees have one purpose, ( besides filling high paid government parasitic jobs) and that is to create racist, sexist, and bigotted policies as a method of "leveling the field" by creating limitations, generally punitive, upon the group that is perceived as the cause of the imbalance. Its as if you were to tell me that we are establishing a KKK committee, but it would only be advisory and I should not worry about those wooden crosses in the back of the pickup truck. We have seen where this has gone before. How for instance, would the diversity committee solve the low income cadet problem? Look to the "Free Uniform" program as a good example of how well we can administrate any program.....

I have to agree.

I am a volunteer at a local organization called "Teen Court", which is exactly what it sounds like. Instead of being tried by juvenile court, you are tried by a jury of your peers. Almost everyone is a teen, and the "higher level" staffings are usually filled by volunteers, like me. Such as bailiff, attorney, clerk, co-ordinator.

Almost all of the staff has been middleclass or higher, I see only a few people that aren't middle class, as staff. But I recognize those people instantly, they are willing to volunteer their time for a cause. Another funny thing about the demographic: 90% are homeschoolers.

Besides, gas is expensive, and may be out of many families budgets, so it isn't just the dues.

Only a small amount of people are willing to give time, and money to volunteer for an organization. Thats a fact. Not everyone is willing to be a member of a paramilitary group. Forcing it down their throats won't help, in fact, it will probably hinder. Some people just plain don't care. They don't want to volunteer. There isn't much we can do to sway those people.

If we are that undiversified, tough, throwing money at it won't fix it. It will take a change in society to create more volunteerism.

[Ned]

We have a "how's it going" conference call coming up in a couple of weeks.  I will re-ask the question about rank-and-file input.

Just got off the "how's it going" call with Boardsource Reps.  The concept of rank-and-file input was discussed extensively, and it presents some interesting technical challenges.  Anonymous or not, selected by commanders or self-selected, how to prevent duplicate responses / "ballot box stuffing", should it be a survey or mostly open-end questions, their website or our eServices site (provides password protection to assure individual responses), how many self-selected responses should be expected - 60,000?; 100?, etc..

(Open ended questions will cost more, of course, since contractors will have to go over answers, extract and correlate, etc.).  Not a Bad Thing, just more expensive.)

Interesting technical discussion.

We will work through this, but it appears that there will be a mechanism for member input to our contractor.

And remember, once the BoG receives the contractor's report in December, there will be opportunities for input before any potential changes are made.

Ned Lee

[Майор Хаткевич]

tie in any responses to the capid.

[Ned]

tie in any responses to the capid.

If we ran it through eServices, that would work.  If we ran it through a non-CAP website there is no way to prevent spoofing.  CAPIDs are not particularly secret.

[Майор Хаткевич]

tie in any responses to the capid.

If we ran it through eServices, that would work.  If we ran it through a non-CAP website there is no way to prevent spoofing.  CAPIDs are not particularly secret.

capid+ip + email confirmation follow up. All automated and secure. I'm just a college kid, I'm sure those in the programming/survey business would have even better ways.

That's just how I'd run it based on my non-experience.

[Extremepredjudice]

Or you could issue a "voting" certificate from eservices.
Make it system generated.


Or use survey monkey, or something like that.

[Eclipse]

how many self-selected responses should be expected - 60,000?; 100?, etc..

(Open ended questions will cost more, of course, since contractors will have to go over answers, extract and correlate, etc.).  Not a Bad Thing, just more expensive.)

Survey response should be a requirement of membership, just like safety, etc.  Not involved enough to have the initiative to answer?  You're not involved enough.

[Ned]

Survey response should be a requirement of membership, just like safety, etc.  Not involved enough to have the initiative to answer?  You're not involved enough.

Hmmm. Maybe. 

Having spent the first 30 years of my membership squarely at the squadron level, my personal belief is that the great majority of members just come in and do their jobs at the unit and don't really reflect on things like corporate governance (except to complain that "those guys" at higher are slow on the paperwork and not sufficiently supportive of local units.  And they are right, of course.)

IOW, my guess is that the great majority of members do not have strong preferences on governance beyond hoping that whatever it is works well with a minimum of cost, overhead, and scandal. 

OTOH, I suspect that a much larger percentage of CAPTalk members DO have opinions on governance and are looking forward to a chance to be heard.

But I freely admit I have no idea what the numbers will turn out to be.

[Eclipse]

I would tend to agree, but part of the "I don't care grumbling" is because they feel they have no voice, so why bother.

Meanwhile, I'd be willing to bet the most fruitful input and detailed input would come from the mid-point of Group CC's and
Wing staffers because they are the ones who generally tend to have to deal with more administrivia and less "fun" just to keep things running.

At the end, though, the current situation where there information is solicited and then seemingly ignored is worse than not soliciting it at all.

Either we run things as a full paramilitary "salute and execute" model, with ramifications that people care about when they make mistakes or
are negligent in their command, or we increase the rank-and-file participation, with some requirements to adhere to those "suggestions", but
the appearance of participation with the knowledge it will be ignored is how we got to the apathy we have today (both in CAP as well as government in general).

[RiverAux]

If some system like that is set up, make sure it is flexible enough to be modified in the future (without paying consultants a huge amount of money) so that it can be used to gather input on other issues.

[Ned]

At the end, though, the current situation where there information is solicited and then seemingly ignored is worse than not soliciting it at all.

Either we run things as a full paramilitary "salute and execute" model, with ramifications that people care about when they make mistakes or
are negligent in their command, or we increase the rank-and-file participation, with some requirements to adhere to those "suggestions", but
the appearance of participation with the knowledge it will be ignored is how we got to the apathy we have today (both in CAP as well as government in general).

I agree that it is an issue, but those aren't the only choices.  Those are two positions close to the extremes, but there is a lot of room in the middle.

When I was in command in a military unit, I would generally go through a lot of effort to gather feedback from the rank and file for important decisions, time permitting.  Ultimately, I did whatever I did, but I hope that anyone who provided feedback that favored an alternative I did not select did not feel "ignored."

And I felt there were practical reasons to do so.  Most importantly, every once in a while I would hear some consideration that had not been raised by staff.  (Then the XO would hear about it from me.)  Additionally, it is important for the rank-and-file to be heard.  Just to be heard.  I know I feel better about my boss's decision if I have had an opportunity for input, even if the boss doesn't agree with me.

I would feel badly if my input was not genuinely considered, or if the opportunity to be heard was not meaningful or some sort of sham.

Towards the other end of the spectrum, opportunities to be meaningfully heard do not necessarily transform a given decision into some sort of popularity contest or an exercise in democracy.

Ultimately, the BoG will decide whatever the BoG decides.  Hopefully, the decision will be informed by careful and well-supported recommendations by the consultants, input from the NB, as well as the membership.

[RADIOMAN015]

how many self-selected responses should be expected - 60,000?; 100?, etc..

(Open ended questions will cost more, of course, since contractors will have to go over answers, extract and correlate, etc.).  Not a Bad Thing, just more expensive.)

Survey response should be a requirement of membership, just like safety, etc.  Not involved enough to have the initiative to answer?  You're not involved enough.

DOD/AF and other military services utilize civilian contractors to conduct surveys to active, reserve/guard, retired, and dependent personnel.   There's no regulation that requires military personnel to complete surveys.   Requiring this would result in surveys being completed by personnel who "don't care" and will just fill in the block randomly thus destroying any value of the survey.     Sometimes the way surveys are constructed shows a bias or asks questions that if answered would be of potential detriment to the survey takers.

My understanding that those that study survey response rates indicate that surveys sent to membership type organizations have a response rate in the range of 5% to 40% range.  Maybe the best approach is to send an email to every senior member asking them if they have an interest in participating in the survey and IF a yes response is received than send them the special access codes they need to complete the survey.  Also allowance would have to be made for members that don't have email addresses.
RM   

[lordmonar]

how many self-selected responses should be expected - 60,000?; 100?, etc..

(Open ended questions will cost more, of course, since contractors will have to go over answers, extract and correlate, etc.).  Not a Bad Thing, just more expensive.)

Survey response should be a requirement of membership, just like safety, etc.  Not involved enough to have the initiative to answer?  You're not involved enough.

Thanks for adding another burden onto the membership and squadron leadership.

I have to throw the BS flag on this one......not ever member is qualified to have a valid opinion.  Patrons, sponsors, brand spaking new members, cadets.

I agree we need to get some feed back from the field....but let's not make it 100% manditory and we do need to keep the BS reponse level down.

[lordmonar]

DOD/AF and other military services utilize civilian contractors to conduct surveys to active, reserve/guard, retired, and dependent personnel.   There's no regulation that requires military personnel to complete surveys.

Wrong again.  When I was on active duty we routinely got Climate Serves and AFSC Job Knowledge Surveys.....and they were manditory to completed.

[RADIOMAN015]

DOD/AF and other military services utilize civilian contractors to conduct surveys to active, reserve/guard, retired, and dependent personnel.   There's no regulation that requires military personnel to complete surveys.

Wrong again.  When I was on active duty we routinely got Climate Serves and AFSC Job Knowledge Surveys.....and they were manditory to completed.

Climate surveys are not mandatory.  See:  http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123225960
Regarding job tasks survey/analysis, that's on the government's dime, BUT here again if one isn't motivated they just might breeze through it without much thought (thus the survey results might not be accurate).   Generally if military members believe that a survey will benefit them they will fill it out properly.  Actually that goes for any group.
Rm

[Major Lord]

Just charge a $1.00 fee payable via Paypal to vote. A poll tax will keep out the riffraff. Donate any proceeds to "Wounder Warriors"  or similar organizations to prevent self-dealing.

Major Lord

[NCRblues]

DOD/AF and other military services utilize civilian contractors to conduct surveys to active, reserve/guard, retired, and dependent personnel.   There's no regulation that requires military personnel to complete surveys.

Wrong again.  When I was on active duty we routinely got Climate Serves and AFSC Job Knowledge Surveys.....and they were manditory to completed.

Climate surveys are not mandatory.  See:  http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123225960
Regarding job tasks survey/analysis, that's on the government's dime, BUT here again if one isn't motivated they just might breeze through it without much thought (thus the survey results might not be accurate).   Generally if military members believe that a survey will benefit them they will fill it out properly.  Actually that goes for any group.
Rm

It might not be AF reg mandatory, but try telling your first shirt "na, no thanks, don't wanna do one this time around"...or for that matter your flight chief or commander...

It was never AF mandatory for me, BUT, it was STRONGLY suggested if we wanted the next holiday off 

[PHall]

DOD/AF and other military services utilize civilian contractors to conduct surveys to active, reserve/guard, retired, and dependent personnel.   There's no regulation that requires military personnel to complete surveys.

Wrong again.  When I was on active duty we routinely got Climate Serves and AFSC Job Knowledge Surveys.....and they were manditory to completed.

Climate surveys are not mandatory.  See:  http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123225960
Regarding job tasks survey/analysis, that's on the government's dime, BUT here again if one isn't motivated they just might breeze through it without much thought (thus the survey results might not be accurate).   Generally if military members believe that a survey will benefit them they will fill it out properly.  Actually that goes for any group.
Rm

RM, when the Wing Commander says that there will be a 100% participation in the climate survey, that sounds pretty mandatory to me.
Maybe you were lucky and had better Commanders then Pat and I had.

[lordmonar]

DOD/AF and other military services utilize civilian contractors to conduct surveys to active, reserve/guard, retired, and dependent personnel.   There's no regulation that requires military personnel to complete surveys.

Wrong again.  When I was on active duty we routinely got Climate Serves and AFSC Job Knowledge Surveys.....and they were manditory to completed.

Climate surveys are not mandatory.  See:  http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123225960
Regarding job tasks survey/analysis, that's on the government's dime, BUT here again if one isn't motivated they just might breeze through it without much thought (thus the survey results might not be accurate).   Generally if military members believe that a survey will benefit them they will fill it out properly.  Actually that goes for any group.
Rm

Unless I am missing something, nowhere in the article does it say that it is optional.  AD members who do not fill out their surveys get nasty grams and their commands are notified.    I know as an NCOIC I had to track compliance and do a couple of LORs to correct substandard performance.

[JC004]

Make it so.  Since CAPIDs are all over the internet tubes, it wouldn't be an issue to share them with the contractor if needed.  I don't know how many people will do it as opposed to how many try to insulate themselves from echelons above reality, but our current situation is not very sustainable.  A couple little power struggles over a controversial regulation change or something could be a major unraveling as each of those at the top try to assert their authority given by law or the Constitution and Bylaws. 

Ned, I think one of my takeaways from CLA was that a republic is in some ways fragile - that it's always only a couple steps from a big mess.  I feel kind of the same way here.  CAP is only a couple steps away from a big mess that could be started by a power struggle or something of that sort.  While the BoG could assert its legal authority, as it did with HWSNBN, it could create massive rifts and the like.  In a republic, the people at large over a period of several terms have the option of throwing out the whole thing, but this system is even more fragile because it feeds itself.  I think there's a reason why I can't find any organizations organized quite like this - with so many chiefs.  It does impact the Indians, as much as they want to avoid the chiefs.  I've been analyzing national recruiting and retention numbers recently.  We have a lot of changes that we need to make if those numbers are going to start looking better.