Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2018, 02:12:25 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Forum Support  |  Topic: CAP regs discussions/policy questions, etc
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: CAP regs discussions/policy questions, etc  (Read 3919 times)
mynetdude
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 982

« on: February 06, 2008, 07:43:27 PM »

I see we have a thread about ES, Ops and all but tbh it doesn't relate to questions I may have say about logistics policies for 67-1, 70-1, 173-4 etc.  It doesn't fit in Membership/Professional Development IMHO.

I believe there would be a good benefit to having a sole forum for topics regarinding other regulations that do not have their own category specifics forum such as Uniforms & Awards.

I'm looking to ask questions about Logistics issues I'm having. Although one could just say read the manual, but its not clear to me about a few things I've been told and what I'm reading.
Logged
whatevah
Administrator

Posts: 1,045

my personal website, yo!
« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2008, 10:13:11 PM »

For the time being, post your questions in the "Lobby" section..  We'll watch how it goes, and make a new section once there are enough posts to warrant a dedicated board.
Logged
Jerry Horn
CAPTalk Co-Admin
mynetdude
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 982

« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2008, 12:31:31 AM »

k, fair enough :) of course I could have posted there but thought maybe I'd point it out.
Logged
Capt Rivera
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 639
Unit: NCR-ND-005

Grand Forks Composite Squadron
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2008, 10:29:53 AM »

Just wanted to comment that I think this is a good idea.

What about a board dealing with items that are "open for comment"? Only those reg's pamphlets etc that are accepting comments could be discussed there.

I believe it would make it easier to find and discuss those issues. Instead of looking through the AE or ES etc areas for this, one would always know where to go.

What do you guys think?   

By the way, thank you for captalk.
Logged
//Signed//

Joshua Rivera, Capt, CAP
Squadron Commander
Grand Forks Composite Squadron
North Dakota Wing, Civil Air Patrol
http://www.grandforkscap.org
DC
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,718

« Reply #4 on: August 22, 2008, 08:40:40 PM »

Just wanted to comment that I think this is a good idea.

What about a board dealing with items that are "open for comment"? Only those reg's pamphlets etc that are accepting comments could be discussed there.

I believe it would make it easier to find and discuss those issues. Instead of looking through the AE or ES etc areas for this, one would always know where to go.

What do you guys think?   

By the way, thank you for captalk.
I think that is an excellent idea. An area specifically for questions and/or comments about regs, and maybe a sticky with a list and links to regs up for comment.
Logged
ADCAPer
Member

Posts: 89

« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2008, 11:07:36 AM »

I think this "could" be a good idea in the aspect that very often the comments that are submitted up never make it to the people who should be seeing them.  If some of the people at National are going to continue to read this board they would at least get some indication of what the members really think.

A downside to CAP is that the people who are above you are not necessarily well versed in the issues that are raised, but they often don’t have the good sense to actually forward things that they either don’t understand, or don’t agree with, which is exactly how we ended up with the whole Wing Banking fiasco.

The bigger problem is that there isn’t anyone who will force National to play by their own rules and regulations, which is why the last two rewrites to the financial regulations were issued in violation of their own procedures. They were never posted for comment; they just appeared and were suddenly binding.

There is supposed to be another major change to the financial regulations coming, but if past actions are any indicators the membership won’t get to review it either, it will just appear and will suddenly be mandatory.
Logged
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,171

« Reply #6 on: August 26, 2008, 02:10:52 PM »

Regulations are made in accordance with CAPR 5-4.  

There have been no new regulations from finance in the last 3 years.  The "new" regs currently published just include the WBP or RBP established in the last 2 years and, some minor changes required by our auditors or the BOG.

The Wing Banker Program was approved by the NEC and BOG in 2006 as an experimental program which was so successful it was extended to all wings in '07 at the request of the entire National Board.  

As to the New CAPR 173-1 (combining current 173-1&2&4); it is currently being reviewed by the region commanders. It will go to the auditors and then, the BOG before going out for general membership comments and a vote by the NB or NEC.

BTW, regulations originating from the BOG are not open to review by the membership nor, are they voted on by the NB or NEC.  

Logged
ADCAPer
Member

Posts: 89

« Reply #7 on: September 05, 2008, 08:46:51 PM »

Regulations are made in accordance with CAPR 5-4.  

There have been no new regulations from finance in the last 3 years.  The "new" regs currently published just include the WBP or RBP established in the last 2 years and, some minor changes required by our auditors or the BOG.


Well, regulations are “supposed” to be made in accordance with CAPR 5-4, but I’m not going to argue semantics with you. Suffice it to say that there are things that CAP at the National level can do with regulations either because they “need” to, they “have” to, or they “want” to. A “legitimate” emergency change to a regulation, as spelled out in Article XX, Section 3 of the CAP Constitution is something that would “have” to be done. On the other hand, bypassing the membership review of a regulation just because you “want” to avoid the confrontation associated with it demonstrates nothing more than poor leadership, as was exhibited in the 8 Nov 2006 version of CAPR 173-1.

Your comments are typical of the revisionist history that continues to accompany any discussion which indicates that there are negative aspects to Wing Banking. I’m not going to debate your assertion that there were no “new” regulations, but the fact is that there were three different versions of CAPR 173-1 that occurred over a period of about 4 months. While you may consider the changes to have been “minor”, or “administrative”, as one “former” Wing Commander called them, they were in fact very significant because they changed the way that an entire national organization handles its finances.  Unfortunately the changes were rushed through with no forethought to the consequences of what was about to happen. For the record, prior to the implementation of Wing Banking the current version of CAPR 173-1 was dated 17 Aug 2002.

Apparently National didn’t realize what was going on with the implementation of this program, because when the membership was told about the Wing Banking Program they were simply told that is was going to happen, and that they were not going to be allowed to have any input because it had been “so successful”; of course they did forget to mention that is was “so successful” in one of the smallest wings in the nation and that all of the concerns with the program hadn’t been addressed. And, by the way, questioning the program was absolutely not allowed. When units like mine sent our questions and concerns up to our Wing based on the so called “White Paper”, (which by the way is not the White Paper that is presently in on the National page, the original has conveniently disappeared) they should have forwarded our concerns to National; instead, most Wings simply drafted a Wing Policy letter ordering all units to surrender their funds to the Wing Bank immediately. This was the first major misstep, because the people who were legitimately concerned about this program just said no.

So many units called BS on this “policy letter” method of implementation that the word finally came down that there had been an “Emergency” update issued in accordance with the CAP Constitution to make Wing Banking legitimate, and there was another new version of 173-1 that was about to come out for review that would answer everyone’s questions, and if it didn’t they would be addressed during the comment period. The reality was that the new revision appeared on the national website unannounced, with no opportunity for membership review on 8 Nov 2006, and approximately .005 seconds after it appeared on the pubs site the units who had refused to comply were contacted by their Wing Commanders and ordered to surrender their funds immediately or else their charters would be suspended and their units would be deactivated. (And before you say this didn’t happen, I’d advise you to check with the National IG) To make things even better, the 8 Nov 2006 revision turned out to be nothing more than a few added lines that were whipped together by someone who obviously thought that they knew how to make the Wing Banking program “legal” so that the Wings could “order” the units to surrender their funds; however, in their haste to get something published they put out a regulation they didn’t even mandate participation in the Wing Banking Program, and again, a few units said no.

Now this created problems for the existing regime at the time. There were Wing Commanders who had to call their Region Commanders to tell them that they couldn’t get their Units to comply with a regulation that was so screwed up that it was incomprehensible. Fortunately there were also some very ethical IG personnel out there who refused to help shut down units who refused to simply surrender their funds. (And if you don’t think that was happening, go ask the region IG’s)

Fortunately for everyone, somewhere up the line, someone with half a brain finally realized that stripping units of their charter because they were only asking questions was a sure fire way to do harm to not only the Wing Banking program, but to CAP itself. This ultimately led to National agreeing to let a unit in the Southeast region re-write the Wing Banker changes to CAPR 173-1 so that they offered some protections for unit funds, and so that participation in the program was actually mandatory. Most, but not all of their changes were incorporated into the 11 Feb 2007 version. (If you weren’t keeping count, that makes three “published” regulations in the space of about 4 months) Of course the people who made these suggestions also said that the new regulation should be posted for comments by the membership, because they understood that no two units operate exactly the same, and there were bound to be other issues somewhere in CAP that needed to be addressed. Unfortunately, again, that never happened, the new revision just appeared on the National web site.

Now it appears that National has still not learned anything from this experience, and they are about to spring yet another change to the Wing Banking program on the membership. Unlike the majority of the general membership I have seen a draft copy of the new regulation that was circulated at one of the financial meetings at the National Conference. If you’re still reading this, let me offer just a few comments that probably won’t be considered anyway.

1. Whoever drafted this new regulation has obviously never written a real regulation, and they have completely failed to consider their audience. Unit level finances are handled by volunteers, who may have no financial background; this regulation needs to be addressed to the lowest level finance person.

2. There are numerous problems, but at least a few of them could be handled by adding some definitions. A good place to start would be by defining things like petty cash, accrual basis accounting, and exactly what “adequate” is.

3. Speaking of Petty Cash? Are you actually saying that anyone with a soda fund who doesn’t deposit the proceeds immediately after their meeting is in violation? There is absolutely NO WAY that this can be policed, and it’s ridiculous to do so. This needs to be reconsidered and units need to be specifically allowed to maintain a limited amount of cash which can “legally” be visible in the unit. If no cash is legal than you can bet that the majority of it will never be seen, either in the unit, or in the Wing Bank. If people have to hide a little, why not hide a lot?

4. The statement that “Supplements and OI’s are not authorized” should be in the header, in large bold letters, not buried in the document, and it needs to be aggressively enforced.

5. This is supposed to be a regulation. Regulations are supposed to announce policies, direct actions and prescribe standards. Statements which include verbiage such as “maintain an adequate system” do not do anything to clarify matters. This regulation also states that failure to comply could subject the unit to “administrative actions”. I can assure you that you do not want to be caught up in a discussion of what was meant by “adequate” when you are talking about money.

6. What is the purpose of requiring units to develop an annual budget? If the money that a unit deposits into the Wing Bank is actually theirs, why do they need a budget? (I bet I know the answer to this, but I’d like to hear the “official” answer) And if National wants an annual budget why don’t they give the units a template so that they will all be standardized, otherwise this is just going to be a useless stack of paper buried in a filing cabinet at Wing HQ.

7. If National wants everything coded according to their Chart of Accounts why aren’t they included in the regulation so everyone knows where they are? Better yet, why isn’t this the start of the Annual Budget submission?

8. As was stated at the National Conference, interest rates are low now; however, they will not always be this low. National has now decided that the Wings can confiscate the interest from the Wing Bank and not return it to the units, but instead can “transfer” it to the Wing? We were told that there would be no extra expense by converting to Wing Banking, and now we are losing our interest? Was this just another “misunderstanding”, like the Annual Report to Congress which stated that CAP had received an “unqualified” audit prior to converting to Wing Banking, or is this just the beginning of how local units are going to start losing their funds because National is now discovering that there are significant expenses to actually running the Wing Bank? This is a serious point of contention; especially since one of the original selling points from the Wing Banking White Paper, (Pages 7 and 25 in the original document) and the various Wing Banking Policy Letters, was that the units “would not” lose their interest? (Personally I think I know why this is happening, but I’d be interested in knowing what the “Official” reason is, and then I’ll probably have some more comments.) In either event, confiscating interest is wrong. It may not be illegal, but it is unethical, because it means that the membership was lied to.

9. Unclaimed deposits will now be allowed to be confiscated and redistributed within the wing? I thought the whole purpose of Wing Banking was to make our financial procedures better? Statements like this also don’t help when you’re trying to solicit financial support and a potential donor wants to know what your procedures are.

10. “All” donation checks “must” be sent to the Wing for deposit? Why? If there’s a local bank this is just like any other deposit, unless, like the interest redistribution plan, there are other plans in mind for donations to local units?

11. All payments will be made by the Wing. That’s a good start, but who pays the penalty when they make a late payment? And don’t say that it hasn’t happened. I know, it shouldn’t happen, but we also know now that at least one Wing is being so overwhelmed by the Wing Bank burden that they want to hire another person to manage it for them. (We’re really saving money now, aren’t we?)

12. I find it interesting that the new version suddenly considers “appropriated funds”, but only as it applies to National. When my unit brought up the fact that Wing Banking jeopardized our funding because it involved “appropriated funds” we were told that it was not an issue. I guess it’s only an issue if Nationals reputation is on the line.

13. Units that fail to comply with the regulation may be subject to disciplinary or administrative action, including deactivation. Okay, do away with any requirements in the regulation that are supposed to be done “adequately”, and make the instructions clear enough that a Volunteer at the Unit Level actually knows what’s expected. For example, don’t make a blanket statement about something like using “accrual basis accounting” without defining “who” will be responsible for ensuring that it happens, and telling them what it is.

14.  The Unit Commander can no longer remove a member of the Finance Committee? Why? It would seem that this should be a local decision, but I’d like to hear the reasoning. And what if the Finance Officer simply resigns? What does a Unit do if the Unit Commander appoints a new Finance Officer before the next higher commander approves the removal of the existing Finance Officer? This needs to be spelled out, because failure to comply can result in administrative and disciplinary action.

Well, that’s a start; are you beginning to understand why something like this “should” be put out for the membership to review? I have nothing against you people at National, but there is no way you can know every scenario, for every unit, in every state in the Nation. National "can" force things down the throats of the membership while hiding behind the coattails of the BoG, but it doesn’t change the fact that the “right” thing to do is to work with the Volunteers who make up this organization, because in a Volunteer organization, regulations only apply to the people who want to abide by them.
Logged
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,171

« Reply #8 on: September 05, 2008, 11:35:49 PM »

Nice post however, I guess we'll just have to disagree on this subject.  

First, let me clarify my previous statement.  The revisions to the current finance regulations are inclusions of BOG ordered programs which were voted on by the NB/NEC and have been commented on by the general membership.  There was one change to the regs in Nov '06, to include the WBP, voted on by the NEC.  (the CAP/CC decided to make this an "emergency change", so input from the field was not requested and, there was no further change from the NB/NEC).  The other change to the regs was not brought up at the NB/NEC but, was also an "emergency change" made by the CAP/CC.  In this case, CAPR 5-4 was followed; just not the way you would have wanted it.

Second, the Wing Banker Program was voted on by the BOG.  Done deal.  Say what you will, the program works.  The money still is controlled by the individual unit and, squadrons currently are on "cash accounting"; not accrual accounting.  If your squadron has a problem with the wing on this, I suggest your sq/cc contact the region/cc or CAP/FM for help.  Things like "petty cash" accounts have been addressed in the regs for a long time.  If the other 1499 units in CAP can handle it, I'm sure your unit can do it too.

Third, Wing Administrators are supposed to be trained in FM procedures.  Unit Finance Officers are supposed to understand their job.  There is enough material/help out there to get an idea on how to budget and the regs are self explanatory.  Finance officers can always go to the wing/fm or to CAP/fm for assistance in any financial matter.

I personally have had not one complaint on the WBP which could not be addressed and fixed.  The program has consistently been improved on with membership input.  CAP/FM has a "summit meeting" each year to review the program and improve on it if needed.  This is where the membership input is reviewed and integrated into the program when indicated.  Also, national/region/wing conferences are great places for Finance Officers to get together to suggest improvements to the leadership.

CAP/FM is the most scrutinized department in CAP.  OMB, USAF, IRS and our independent auditors go over every aspect of the program and report directly to the BOG.  GET IT... THE Board of Governors.    Yes, the NB/NEC can make recommendations on getting this stuff done.  The NEC/NB gets input from the membership.  CAP/FM gets input.  BUT, the BOG makes the final decisions with the money in CAP.

To a select few of the membership, there seems to be a misunderstanding about funds coming into the unit.  Yes the membership controls the money however, the money belongs to CAP, inc.  And the BOG, as the governing body of CAP, can make any regulation/policy/program necessary to serve their objectives and goals for the organization.

Now after saying all of the above, CAP/FM is coming out with a totally revised and combined finance regulation covering the whole aspect of CAP Finances.  The new CAPR 173-1 will combine the current regulations and, hopefully, make things clearer for those who still can't/won't figure things out.  This regulation, as it is coming from direction of the NEC and CAP/FM will be open for membership comment.  When the comment period starts, go ahead and copy your post to your wing/cc.  No one at NHQ or in the volunteer leaderhip of CAP "afraid" of any comments; we welcome them.  

Our goals are to make CAP governance as transparant as possible.  No one who volunteers to be in CAP leadership is worried about losing their "job" or "salaries".  We make as much as anyone else in CAP.  It's our goal to make things work as well and as easy a possible for everyone.   All of us spend our "2 hours a week" pretty much like everyone else and, it alway seems like 200 hours a week.

Thanks for your interest.  Send any suggestions on improving the WBP to your Wing/CC or Wing/FM.  If you are getting any "road blocks", feel free to PM me.  I can point you in the right direction.  
« Last Edit: September 06, 2008, 09:10:48 AM by FW » Logged
ADCAPer
Member

Posts: 89

« Reply #9 on: September 06, 2008, 01:50:21 PM »

Nice post however, I guess we'll just have to disagree on this subject.  

I’m sure we don’t agree on everything, but that’s okay. My heartburn is ultimately not so much with Wing Banking as with the way this organization continues to implement policy and procedure changes that are so poorly planned and executed.


... (the CAP/CC decided to make this an "emergency change", so input from the field was not requested and, there was no further change from the NB/NEC)...

CAP Constitution, Article XX3. The National Commander, upon declaration of a situation requiring immediate action due to a state of emergency or an unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property, may promulgate emergency regulations without the ratification of a majority vote of the National Board. Such emergency regulation shall remain in force unless revoked by a majority vote of the National Board.

There’s nothing more that can be said here. The initial implementation of Wing Banking was conducted in violation of the CAP Constitution. How else could an “emergency change” result in a new regulation being issued that didn’t even direct or require units to participate in Wing Banking, but did result in some units being threatened with the loss of  their charters for failing to comply? I would hope that this was at least part of the reason that our former National Commander is now gone.


Second, the Wing Banker Program was voted on by the BOG.  Done deal.

And that’s not the problem, or the argument. As I stated previously, there are things that CAP at the National level can do with regulations either because they “need” to, they “have” to, or they just “want” to. Ultimately, what it comes down to is not whether it’s legal, or it’s allowed, but whether or not it’s right. Wing Banking is not necessarily “wrong”, but there is no arguing the fact that it was definitely not implemented in the “right” way.

And for the record, a statement like “Done deal” in this context doesn’t accomplish anything other than to further the perception that National “will do” what they want, when they want, and if you don’t agree with it, that’s just too bad, because we said it’s a “Done deal”. I spent 20 years in the real AF, and even when my leaders didn’t have the time to explain why we were doing something that everyone knew was stupid, they made sure they came back later to explain why things happened the way they did. The one thing I know for sure is that I was never told that we were doing something just because it was a “Done deal”. Of course real leaders also know that if they can’t explain something stupid to their people that they need to reevaluate what is going on, because if they can’t explain it, their people will realize that it’s their leadership that’s really stupid.


Things like "petty cash" accounts have been addressed in the regs for a long time.  If the other 1499 units in CAP can handle it, I'm sure your unit can do it too.

Well, it’s addressed, but my point was that it would be much better to address it in a realistic manner instead of just having everyone bury their heads in the sand and pretend that petty cash funds don’t exist because National says that they can’t exist. (Why don’t you ask any branch of the real military how successful they have ever been at regulating unit or work center “soda funds”?) Even the IRS acknowledges that Petty Cash funds are an essential part of running a business because they reduce the number of checks that are required, which ultimately lightens the load on the company bookkeeper. Since there are some Wings that are already having issues managing the Wing Banking program, which is resulting in late payments, and the need for them to try to arrange to hire people to help manage the workload, it sure would seem to make sense to allow the local units the ability to operate a petty cash fund, if they want to, and allow them to locally reimburse for amounts up to the Unit Commanders spending authority, and all that would require is a receipt book.,  In other words, it can be above the table, or below the table, but Petty Cash funds are going to continue to exist, so wouldn’t it make more sense to recognize them?


Quote from: FW link=topic=4258.msg113126#msg113126 date=1220672149
Third, Wing Administrators are supposed to be trained in FM procedures.  Unit Finance Officers are supposed to understand their job.  There is enough material/help out there to get an idea on how to budget and the regs are self explanatory.  Finance officers can always go to the wing/fm or to CAP/fm for assistance in any financial matter.

Yeah, right.  I am a state inspector with enforcement authority for several federal programs. I see all sorts of things that are “supposed to” be every day, and yet somehow they aren’t. And my programs follow regulations which are a whole lot clearer than anything CAP has ever put out, and are carried out by paid professionals who put a lot more than 2 hours a week into them. If anyone believes that CAPR 173-1 is “self explanatory” then they are beyond sadly mistaken. Again, when writing regulations, consider your audience, and remember that this is a Volunteer organization. It would also help to remember that real regulations are either performance based, or prescriptive, and typically do not contain criteria such as “adequate” unless it is defined in context.


I personally have had not one complaint on the WBP which could not be addressed and fixed.

I have no doubt about that. The problem is that CAP keeps fixing the problems in the wrong order; it would have been a lot easier to identify the issues with a program like this before rushing it in to operation and then having to threaten people to try and make them comply. The other problem is that most problems never make it to National; they are either handled, or disregarded by the Wings, which typically instruct their units not to bother the folks as National.


CAP/FM is the most scrutinized department in CAP.  OMB, USAF, IRS and our independent auditors go over every aspect of the program and report directly to the BOG.  GET IT... THE Board of Governors.    Yes, the NB/NEC can make recommendations on getting this stuff done.  The NEC/NB gets input from the membership.  CAP/FM gets input.  BUT, the BOG makes the final decisions with the money in CAP.

Except that input from the membership was not requested in beginning, and was then disregarded when it conflicted with the plan which was "so successful" in one of the smallest wings in the nation. Yes the BoG gets to make a decision, but the "final" decision will always come from the membership, and if they don't trust the organization they will voice there opinion with their feet, at which point everyone loses.


To a select few of the membership, there seems to be a misunderstanding about funds coming into the unit.  Yes the membership controls the money however, the money belongs to CAP, inc.  And the BOG, as the governing body of CAP, can make any regulation/policy/program necessary to serve their objectives and goals for the organization.

As far as I know no one has ever argued that the funds didn’t belong to CAP, I know I haven’t.  The misunderstandings that I have seen have been above the Unit level, and have been due to poor leadership, and misleading, incomplete, or confusing guidance and policy from Wing Level and above. What I have said is that weak, poorly written, poorly thought out, incomprehensible, ever changing regulations hinder the ability of units to solicit donations to support their local units, or to maintain their current support.

And while the BoG can do anything they want, they can’t just lie to the membership.  For instance, as I said previously, the “original” White Paper on Wing Banking stated that the units would not lose interest on their accounts because the wing would apportion interest based on deposits. Now the original White Paper is gone, the DRAFT 173-1 doesn’t address interest, and National told the people at a National Board finance meeting that the Wings had been given “Verbal Approval from National” to withhold the interest from the units. Now, if National wasn’t worried about doing this, why is it a secret? Again, I think I know why, but I’d really like to see if National has the nerve to admit it.


The new CAPR 173-1 will combine the current regulations and, hopefully, make things clearer for those who still can't/won't figure things out.  This regulation, as it is coming from direction of the NEC and CAP/FM will be open for membership comment.  When the comment period starts, go ahead and copy your post to your wing/cc.  No one at NHQ or in the volunteer leaderhip of CAP "afraid" of any comments; we welcome them.  

I really don’t think that the new leadership at National is afraid of the comments, however, there has been a history of the senior leadership in this organization just not caring what the membership thinks, but hopefully those days are behind us. I do think that when National actually decides to accept comments, (Like should have happened with Wing Banking from the beginning since it was never an emergency) that the problem comes in trying to get the comments from the units up to the top. This is a volunteer organization, but for some reason there are people who seem to think that raising any questions or concerns up the chain from the people below them reflects poorly on them. I still have my doubts that the new regulation will actually be posted for comments, but I’m looking forward to it, it will definitely be a step in the right direction.


Quote from: FW link=topic=4258.msg113126#msg113126 date=1220672149
Our goals are to make CAP governance as transparant as possible.

Transparency from the start would have been a better thing; it could have prevented many of the problems that have arisen. (I know, the program works, National has no knowledge of any problem with it, etc, etc, etc)  Anyway, any CAP Regulation which directs Unit Activities, and especially where finances are concerned, needs to be set up so that it can actually apply at the local unit level without making people choose between doing what is required, and what is actually possible.
Logged
MIKE
Super Moderator

Posts: 5,469
Unit: LANTAREA

« Reply #10 on: September 06, 2008, 01:59:34 PM »

Uh... this thread was to request a board... not to actually discuss regs and policy questions, which are not appropriate discussions for Forum Support.
Logged
Mike Johnston
Pages: [1] Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Forum Support  |  Topic: CAP regs discussions/policy questions, etc
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.404 seconds with 20 queries.
click here to email me