Historic National Winter Board Session

Started by Kipper, March 06, 2011, 09:38:54 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kipper

Several major changes in the governance of CAP (developed by the "Governance Committee") were finally proposed to the Board yesterday afternoon.

In a dramatic (some would say historic) session, the National Board voted not to adopt the Governance Committee's report.  :clap:

Amy Bradford was right. I'll say no more.

NIN

Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

NCRblues

Quote from: NIN on March 06, 2011, 10:12:02 PM
Quote from: Kipper on March 06, 2011, 09:38:54 PM
Amy Bradford was right. I'll say no more.

Who is Amy Bradford?

I will second this....who is Amy Bradford?
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

Kipper

Amy Bradford is a very gutsy gal (a former cadet and current cadet mom, I'm told) who wrote an open letter to the NB in January on current command issues. The letter has gotten around since then, and one of the other CAP blogs has picked it up.  It's still on the page of that blog if you scroll down far enough.

How's that for a cautious reply?  ::)


lordmonar

It was historic.....but I won't tell you about it?!?! :(  Not cool dude.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Kipper


Oh, I'll tell you all right. Someone tried to "pull a Pineda." And the NB said no.

I'm treading cautiously here to avoid the thread getting pulled for excessive controversy.

PHall

Quote from: Kipper on March 06, 2011, 10:36:53 PM

Oh, I'll tell you all right. Someone tried to "pull a Pineda." And the NB said no.

I'm treading cautiously here to avoid the thread getting pulled for excessive controversy.

Oh, you're way past that point.  Just the thread title was enough to get some people going.

Kipper


So be it.

There are two other widely-read CAP blogs. Call them "for" and "against"

The ever-faithful "for" blog has no coverage of the closed Saturday session. The "against" blog has plenty to say about it.

Even after one boils away all the usual invective of the "against" blog, there's a lot of truth there.

It is common knowledge that Pineda tried to orchestrate a permanent takeover in early 2007. What we have here is another failed attempt to amend the C&B to allow expanded powers and indefinite term. The Board saw right though the smoke screen. Hopefully, this nonsense wiull end now, and elections will take place at the Aummer Boards.

FW

It's no secret what the committee report was about.  The NB rejected it's recommendations however, the report/reccommendations are going to the BoG for consideration at it's June meeting.
Some interesting items:

The Executive Director will report to the National Commander; not the BoG.
The Commander will be selected by 2/3 majority of the BoG
Vice commander will be appointed by commander with confirmation of the BoG
The Vice Commander will not serve on the BoG.  A third "at large" member will be elected by the NEC.
Commander will serve a 3 year renewable term (as many terms as the BoG allows).
Commander will be "compensated"
The Commander will have sole authority to change the regulations, constitution and bylaws of CAP.
The National Legal Officer will be the principal attorney to the corporation and, the General Legal Counsel to CAP will report to the NLO.
NB will have no governance role what so ever.
The current commander will be "allowed" to step into the new role.

I think that about covers it.

Let's just say that Pineda would have been proud to present these recommendations to the BoG.
I am proud the NB acted, in what they feel, is in the best interests of CAP.  Good work!

RiverAux

Wow, asking to have sole authority to change the CAP Constitution?  Yeah, I don't see that one ever happening. 

Kipper

Okay, good, it's out there now. I'm not the old CAPTalk hand that Fred is, hence my cautious pussyfootin' around.

I have some questions of my own now.

1. How could the BoG even consider this power play seriously after the Board has rejected it?

2. Wouldn't such a "coronation" require blessing from Big USAF? And Congress as well?

3. I'd also be curious to hear what the vote margin was.  ;)


FW

The BoG can do what it wishes regarding the delegation of it's powers.  However, I was informed there would be a conflict with our "Statement of Work" and "Cooperative Agreement" with the OMB and the Air Force.  It would take a change of public law to change the makeup of the BoG. 

What bothers me is that the BoG has already authorized a 3rd party study of our governance.  I think it prudent we wait for a totally independent report that gathers data from all the stakeholders of CAP.  Even though I have some ideas on why this is happening, I don't think it is right to bring it up in a public forum. 

Since a change in the law would be needed and, the possibility our annual grant may be at issue, it may be wise to contact your Representatives in congress to voice your opinions.  Maybe Sen. Harkin would be interested in these events?  He is an active member.....

Gee, doesn't anyone remember 1999?

No matter what the vote margin was; it did send a message the BoG will listen too. 

Kipper

Excellent idea! The CAPTalk viewership should know just what is afoot here, and (if they oppose this coup d'CAP as we do) they should contact their local Congressional representatives!

If I may, I believe that something of this gravity would certainly merit its own thread.




Quote from: FW on March 06, 2011, 11:57:20 PM
The BoG can do what it wishes regarding the delegation of it's powers.  However, I was informed there would be a conflict with our "Statement of Work" and "Cooperative Agreement" with the OMB and the Air Force.  It would take a change of public law to change the makeup of the BoG. 

What bothers me is that the BoG has already authorized a 3rd party study of our governance.  I think it prudent we wait for a totally independent report that gathers data from all the stakeholders of CAP.  Even though I have some ideas on why this is happening, I don't think it is right to bring it up in a public forum. 

Since a change in the law would be needed and, the possibility our annual grant may be at issue, it may be wise to contact your Representatives in congress to voice your opinions.  Maybe Sen. Harkin would be interested in these events?  He is an active member.....

Gee, doesn't anyone remember 1999?

No matter what the vote margin was; it did send a message the BoG will listen too.

Thom

Quote from: FW on March 06, 2011, 11:57:20 PM
<snip>
What bothers me is that the BoG has already authorized a 3rd party study of our governance.  I think it prudent we wait for a totally independent report that gathers data from all the stakeholders of CAP.  Even though I have some ideas on why this is happening, I don't think it is right to bring it up in a public forum. 
<snip>

Wait, I guess I was assuming (yeah, I know...) that this WAS the output of that external governance review that Ned mentioned. Now I see that that hasn't even fully started, but is in the startup and bid process.

WHY would we propose to undertake such a massive shift in our governance structure right BEFORE we get an unbiased, hopefully expert, outside review completed?

Am I missing something here???


Thom

cap235629

Quote from: Thom on March 07, 2011, 12:21:31 AM
Quote from: FW on March 06, 2011, 11:57:20 PM
<snip>
What bothers me is that the BoG has already authorized a 3rd party study of our governance.  I think it prudent we wait for a totally independent report that gathers data from all the stakeholders of CAP.  Even though I have some ideas on why this is happening, I don't think it is right to bring it up in a public forum. 
<snip>

Wait, I guess I was assuming (yeah, I know...) that this WAS the output of that external governance review that Ned mentioned. Now I see that that hasn't even fully started, but is in the startup and bid process.

WHY would we propose to undertake such a massive shift in our governance structure right BEFORE we get an unbiased, hopefully expert, outside review completed?

Am I missing something here???


Thom

an act of desperation by people who know what is coming?
Bill Hobbs, Major, CAP
Arkansas Certified Emergency Manager
Tabhair 'om póg, is Éireannach mé

Kipper

You're not missing anything - but She Who Should Be Blamed is running short on time.  So, she reasoned, let's package this power play in pretty code talk and legalese, and run this by an obedient, and gullible Board.  Except there wasn't such a Board, was there?   :clap:


JeffDG

Quote from: RiverAux on March 06, 2011, 11:13:47 PM
Wow, asking to have sole authority to change the CAP Constitution?  Yeah, I don't see that one ever happening.
Seriously...to misuse a common refrain, that's takes some serious stones to ask for.

JeffDG

Quote from: FW on March 06, 2011, 11:57:20 PMIt would take a change of public law to change the makeup of the BoG. 
I don't think so...IIRC, it says CAP gets 4 members on the BoG, but doesn't specify who or how they're selected.  To remove the CV from the BoG and add another At-Large member would not take a Congressional changes.  To add a 5th CAP member would, however, require that.

Westernslope

It is shocking to see that this was even considered/proposed. It appears to eliminate all checks and balances in the governing process and gives the Natl Commander total control of the organization. Perhaps the BOG would have some authority but who owns the BOG? Under this proposal, would the Natl Board be disbanned? Also, I am curious where the money to compensate the Natl CC would from?

The problem with secret meetings is that it leaves room for speculation only. IMO, the days of "trust me I am working on your behalf" have been gone for from CAP a number of years.

Since the Wing Commanders signed nondisclosure agreements, even they cannot tell their members. I applaud them for making the right choice on this one and hope the BOG will do the same.

FW

Quote from: JeffDG on March 07, 2011, 01:45:18 AM
Quote from: FW on March 06, 2011, 11:57:20 PMIt would take a change of public law to change the makeup of the BoG. 
I don't think so...IIRC, it says CAP gets 4 members on the BoG, but doesn't specify who or how they're selected.  To remove the CV from the BoG and add another At-Large member would not take a Congressional changes.  To add a 5th CAP member would, however, require that.

Thanks for the correction Jeff, you are correct here.  The BoG can change the composition of the 4 CAP Representatives to the BoG with a simple bylaws change.  The Bog can not change OMB rules nor the Statement of Work/Cooperative Agreement without changes to public law or agreement with the Air Force.  From what I know about these things, it would be extremely difficult to make such changes; as they would effect any entity which gets such funds from the government.  But, then, again.... :o