Where is 2010 Winter Board Meeting?

[High Speed Low Drag]

I just finished reading the "News of the Force" article about the upcoming NB meeting.  By the time I was halfway done, I was offended.   NOTF discussed the Pineda politics and how they shaped the board meeting.  It implied that a lot of the ideas that I think are good ideas (although not all) are ideas of "The Pineda Conspiracy." (TPC)

I like to think of myself as a reasonable, average person.  I have a college degree, am a member of an intellectual organization, have spent 18 years in law enforcement, 4 years in firefighting, and 7 years as a cadet.  I am married, two children, and while not poor, I am just a couple of paychecks away from disaster.  I am barely over 40, receding hairline, and a little more than barely overweight.  I was not a member of CAP during the Pineda Affair; I came back in after a 20 year hiatus.  The decisions I have reached, the platforms I have advanced are a result of MY background, not a TPC.  How can they say that anyone who supports certain ideas are Pineda's henchmen?

And just who or what posts NOTF anyway?  I never heard of them (not to say that I would have) before Eclipse's post, but where does he/she/they have the knowledge & authority to post opinion pieces on CAP?   WTHeck?

[Spike]

^ Although I agree with you about NOTF, and other here hate NOTF, they seem to have the real story before any of us "regular folks" know about it.

This most likely is due to the fact that those in leadership positions in CAP, when hearing of "new or interesting" things from senior leadership want to tell someone, and they tell NOTF.

Of all the bashing NOTF gets from CAPTALK members, they really do have the resources we do not.  Go back and read their archive and you will find many CAP stories that were "broken" by NOTF before CAP leadership made them known to the membership. 

I think those haters of NOTF (sometimes me included) hate the fact that they have the story instead of us. have the connections we don't and get insider information we are not privy to.

[FW]

I've been told their sources are at the very top of the leadership chain in CAP.  However, their motives are to discredit anyone who differs in the "party line".  I had a recent email dialog with Skip Munger.  I have given him point by point rebuttals to the attacks he made on the 3 Wing Commanders mentioned in his article.  He has decided not to have a public exchange of views on the subject due to "waste of time".  Read NOTF with a sceptical eye.  Objective reporting is not what it's all about when reporting on CAP.  NOTF is good entertainment though.  For real information about the politics of CAP, this forum seems to be more balanced. 

In my opinion the agenda items discussed in NOTF are appropriate attempts to bring policies in line with membership desires, AF requirements and, Corporate governance.

It is the opinion of the sources of NOTF, these agenda items are direct attacks on the National Commnader.   

To me, the allegations mentioned in NOTF are humorous and, in regard to the attacks on the 3 wing commanders, false and/or misleading.  Such is life in the blogosphere.

[High Speed Low Drag]

I am too low on the totem pole to know what the party line is.  I just go with my background and make my own decisions.  So far, I have not seen anything, in my mind, to discredit Gen Courter.  I think that she has been doing a good job.  But the issues I spoke up about are the way I see them.  How can I be discrediting her when I talk about policy and fact, not her.

Many years ago when I was a young sergeant, I had made some decisions about files that brought the Chief of Police's attention on me.  He decided to "ride along" with me one day and talk with me.  He flat out asked me what I thought of what he had been doing.  I told him that I didn't agree with all of his policies or ways of doing things, but I thought that he was honestly trying to make a difference.  He replied (and I still remember it) "I don't expect everyone to agree with me all the time.  I do expect everyone to render an opinion when asked and to follow the policy in its final form."  That made sense to me.

We don't have to dislike the leader just because we don't like some changes / policies / etc.  The only question I have of a leader is "Are they trying to make this a better place to be?"  If the answer is yes, then they are doing their job.  If the answer is no (such as they are trying to play politics or increase a power base) then they are not doing their job.

[FW]

There should not be open opposition to the decisions of the National Commander, NB, NEC, or BoG.
However, there is nothing wrong with discussing the ways in which CAP can be made a better organization.  There are appropriate ways to do so.  A national board meeting is one of those ways.  Members of the National Board should be free to present their agenda items without fear of reprisal.  Members should not be attacked for doing their job .  Members should not be attacked and libeled.  There are some boundaries.  We have a code of conduct here.  NOTF has no such standard.  They print what they feel will attract readers.  As long as we realize this,  we can keep focused.  Having a debate on how we think things should be is what makes CT a great forum.
I'm glad it's here. :clap:

[Hoorah]

OK, here is the agenda for the NB meeting....

How did you attach the document?

[FW]

 
below the reply window is an "Additional Options:" button. 

[FW]

I've been told their sources are at the very top of the leadership chain in CAP.  However, their motives are to discredit anyone who differs in the "party line".  I had a recent email dialog with Skip Munger.  I have given him point by point rebuttals to the attacks he made on the 3 Wing Commanders mentioned in his article.  He has decided not to have a public exchange of views on the subject due to "waste of time".  Read NOTF with a sceptical eye.  Objective reporting is not what it's all about when reporting on CAP.  NOTF is good entertainment though.  For real information about the politics of CAP, this forum seems to be more balanced. 

In my opinion the agenda items discussed in NOTF are appropriate attempts to bring policies in line with membership desires, AF requirements and, Corporate governance.

It is the opinion of the sources of NOTF, these agenda items are direct attacks on the National Commnader.   

To me, the allegations mentioned in NOTF are humorous and, in regard to the attacks on the 3 wing commanders, false and/or misleading.  Such is life in the blogosphere.

Well now, Mr. Munger has decided to publish my notes to him following the recent article referenced by High Speed Low Drag; with commentary.

I have responded and, have copied it here for your enjoyment.  I hope he prints the rebuttal and engages in the "dialog which will do nothing to improve CAP". 
Gee, Skip, thanks for the "reply".   I am amazed at how you infer my defense of the 3 wing commanders you attacked are somehow an attack on the National Commander.    Now as to some continuing misinformation which needs to be corrected: I was the former National Finance Officer; not legal officer.  I was appointed twice by Pineda and twice by Gen Courter.  I was not appointed to a 5th term because it was "long enough".  If you have other information, I never heard it except by you.  If you or, anyone else wants to speculate on my handling of the investments, why don't you talk to our independent auditors, "Wilson Price", for their take.  BTW; the National Finance Officer does not choose the broker.  This is done by the CAP's Board of Governors.  No one ever asked for my opinion about it.  However, when Gen Courter decided to form an investment committee.  I made sure it was done according to our Constitution and Bylaws; not by making things up as I went along.  She was very grateful for my assistance. When she was accused, by some, she mishandled her travel budget, I defended her actions.  Also, I understand the Board of Governors has decided to withhold any decision on this until it investigates further why a personal colleague of the chairman of the investment committee was the recommended choice for new broker.  Our ethics policies and regulations governing contracts prohibits any member from profiting by our membership or creating even a perceived conflict of interest.  I have only recently have had a financial relationship with CAP's current broker which, was made at the end of my final term as NFO.  There is one other piece of information that needs to be told.  LPL Financial, the current broker, has been instructed to handle all trades as they see fit. All statements go to the Executive Director.  The Current National Finance officer, I was told, does not want to be involved with investment decisions; contrary to his fiduciary role as treasurer of the corporation.  I think I can understand why. To answer your question about the MARB, they are appointed by the National Commander and confirmed by the BoG.  They serve for an "indeterminate term" and, can only be removed by the BoG. I was appointed by Gen. Wheless. and confirmed by the BoG.  And, yes, the decisions of the MARB are made public.  You can find the reports in eservices on the CAP website.  We are required by the Constitution of CAP to publish our proceedings  That responsibility goes to the chair, the National Legal Officer.  When it is published, you can just read the report of this decision.  Col. Lee was returned to office because he was not "guilty" of the offence charged.  The MARB was placed in an interesting dilemma however, because Col Diduch improperly "extended his probation".  Col Diduch removed Col Lee without cause. When he was informed this could not be done, he found cause.  The cause however, was shown to be unfounded.  The MARB had no choice but to reinstate Col Lee.  Politically, this was probably the most damaging decision of my CAP career because, since that decision, Gen Courter's opinion of me changed.  I can live with that.  Oh, and the second most damaging political decision I made in CAP was in supporting Gen Courter publicly over Pineda's choice for CAP vice commander, Dan Levitch.  For that support I was "fired" as National finance Officer two weeks after my 2nd appointment.  I was reinstated after he was told the MARB would look unkindly to this.  Just think though; if Dan Levitch was elected (he lost by just 1 vote)  He would have become the National Commander after Mr. Pineda was removed.  This is the problem with electing "teams" in CAP.  You say Gen Chitwood has done nothing but try to undermine her tenure.  Could you give us any concrete examples.  I know she has published the "Mr. Ed email" about him.  Is there something he published?  Is there something in the record which shows anything other than loyal service to CAP?  Yes, what happens behind closed doors can be heated.  However, I know of nothing he has said publicly to go against her personally. He has not publicly spoken against any of her initiatives or policies.  Also, the National Board has elected him twice.  I think they will best decide what will happen for the future of CAP's leadership.  I agree with you on one point.  The BoG should clarify procedures for election and removal to both offices. Col Egry did invite Pineda to his wedding.  He was happy to have him there.  They are friends.  But, Col Egry is a dedicated CAP member and understands his fiduciary responsibilities as a corporate officer of CAP.  He also understands his role as a wing commander. Is there anything you can state which is otherwise?  Mrs. Egry, by the way, was never a cadet in CAP. I have known Col Marge Sambold for over 15 years and, have no doubt she is telling the truth about Col Davidson's appointment.  However, it was the region commander who made the appointment.  Ask him how and why he made it; if it is of concern to you.  Col Davidson is more interested in proper procedure and the welfare of CAP than in to loyalty of any one individual.  I have no idea how he handles those appointed to serve as squadron commanders.  Yet, none have ever accused him of wrongful removal to the MARB. Gen Courter has made some great strides in CAP.  She has started the Organizational Excellence  professional development track.  She has added leadership forums before every board meeting.  She instituted "affinity groups" so wing commanders with similar needs can get together.  NO ONE has gone against her on these initiatives.  As a former National Board member and NEC member, I will not speak about anything said in closed sessions I was present at.  However, in the last 6 months, I've witnessed such nonsense from your "sources".  Gen Chitwood is a fine man and, in my opinion has done nothing other than serve CAP to the best of his ability.  Gen Courter's supporters have done nothing but spew venom against him. She would love to have Col. Chazell be the next National Commander.  (he was also a Pineda appointee).  In August, there will be another election.  The National Board will decide.  The efforts of individual national board members concern us only if they are acting against the rules and regulations of CAP.  Are they?  Is there anything being done by those you attacked going against them?  What exactly are they doing to undermine the National Commander.  If she is being accused of anything wrong by them, are they doing something outside the rules?  I think these are questions which should be answered.  Questions about loyalty to a former member, who rightly was removed from membership is not the issue, in my opinion.  I think the issue is for National Board members to conduct their business properly and according to established rules.  That is my point.  Gen Courter's views on this can be brought up before the NB, NEC and BoG.  She is a member of all 3 bodies.  She has due authority from these bodies and, serves as the CEO of the CAP, Inc.  I am but a spectator now and, will be there next week to enjoy the proceedings and meet with some good friends; including her.   Skip, I would hope you print this rebuttal.  I do enjoy your articles however, I hope you really do strive for accuracy.Thanks for the time.   

[Gunner C]

FW

I read the NOTF article this morning.  NOTF does a reasonable job of doing cut-and-paste publishing of military and auxiliary news but their original, editorial reporting is pretty weak (being very charitable here).  I was reading the alleged facts as NOTF stated them thinking "this doesn't add up."

IMO, what NOTF is printing about some people is coming pretty close to libelous, if not there already.  I hope they have a good lawyer.

[PHall]

Skip's pretty good at hiding behind his First Amendment rights. And he's not worth $250 a billable hour...