Historic National Winter Board Session

[Ned]

So your telling me I should go along with the idea of (. . .)

You are free to agree or disagree with any suggestion (real or otherwise) that you see here on CT.  Have at it.

I am suggesting that all of the angst and outrage being expressing on this thread is wildly premature, at best.

There are no imminent changes to CAP governance.

None.

The BoG is not scheduled to meet until June.  There isn't even an agenda yet.

But if you want to tilt against windmills (in this case against governance suggestions that may or may not be made by the NB), knock yourself out.

A new national commander will be elected this summer.

In the meantime, the various governing bodies of CAP will continue to study governance and necessary changes will be made after that process is complete.

Ned Lee

[BillB]

Wow...three pages in one day. so much speculation on what the BoG may or may not do. Eevryone agrees that governence needs change. But the best course is wait till the BoG completes the outside consultents review and recommendation and let the BoG take the action required.

[MSG Mac]

I hope this doesn't result in a slew of early departures from NB Members who voted against the proposal.

[FW]

I'm too curious of Kipper's true identity and intentions, but Col. Weiss isn't a troll. I wouldn't shoot the messenger yet. Things like this spring leaks eventually.

Oh, no, Colonel Weiss is no troll (well, he might resemble one, I dunno. Never met the man!).

Darin, you don't remember our times together at the NHWG conferences?  Gee, I didn't realize I was so memorable...

[FW]

Guys, I think "wild speculation" is good therapy.  We should enjoy our angst and embrace it.

At least CAPTalk gives us a vent.  It also gives us a sounding board which is obviously heard. 

I believe We are on a long road  to positive change.  I believe the National Board has signed on to making this change.  And, I believe Ned's statements nothing will happen until all stakeholders are counted in. 

Pylon has made some excellent points.  In our various threads relating to governance, some of the committee's recommendations are similar.  Some are not.  My thoughts, if any are interested, are on another thread. 

What bothers me, is this report is not agreed to by the NB and was sent forward to the BoG anyway.  Wasn't this committee set up by the NB?  Wasn't this committee supposed to report to the NB?  Wasn't the report controlled by the NB?   To me, this just isn't clicking correctly.  Something doesn't feel right.  Of course it could be food poisoning....

[lordmonar]

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!

Of these suggestions the only one I have a problem with is the National CC having the sole authority to change the Constitution and bylaws.

Other then that....what is the problem?

The BoG "hires" the National CC on a 3 year contract who then selects his/her team to run the organisation.  This is exactly like any other large corporation.
The NB should not have a say in governance except in an advisory capacity.   You don't see the Chief of Staff of the Air Force asking his MAJCOM commander permission to change a regulation or policy.  He may ask for advice or get feed back from the field....but he DIRECTS someone to write the regs and sets the policy for everyone under him.

He gets his marching orders from the SECAF/SECDEF and the President.

So the model is out there.

The model will eliminate a lot of the politics we currently see.  The body we call the NB can change its focus from arguing about regulation changes, uniform items, and political infighting to actually talking about how we do our missions and making CAP better.

Going to a "more Representative government" i.e. wings electing their own wing CC's and they in turn electing region and national commanders will only make the political infighting worse IMHO.

[jeders]

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!

Of these suggestions the only one I have a problem with is the National CC having the sole authority to change the Constitution and bylaws.

Other then that....what is the problem?

The BoG "hires" the National CC on a 3 year contract who then selects his/her team to run the organisation.  This is exactly like any other large corporation.
The NB should not have a say in governance except in an advisory capacity.   You don't see the Chief of Staff of the Air Force asking his MAJCOM commander permission to change a regulation or policy.  He may ask for advice or get feed back from the field....but he DIRECTS someone to write the regs and sets the policy for everyone under him.

He gets his marching orders from the SECAF/SECDEF and the President.

So the model is out there.

The model will eliminate a lot of the politics we currently see.  The body we call the NB can change its focus from arguing about regulation changes, uniform items, and political infighting to actually talking about how we do our missions and making CAP better.

Going to a "more Representative government" i.e. wings electing their own wing CC's and they in turn electing region and national commanders will only make the political infighting worse IMHO.

I agree completely with what you said here, especially taking the NB out of the governance cycle, which I imagine, not surprisingly, is why the NB voted it down. The only other part I would be unsure about is the General Counsel reporting to the NLO, simply because I'm not sure what the ramifications of that might be.

[Thom]

I am much relieved to read Ned's comments regarding just how quickly this proposal, or any other governance changes, will be considered and acted upon.

Here are my concerns:

1. Having the National Commander have the sole power to alter the Constitution and Bylaws is untenable. In any case, it seems this would require the BoG to delegate this power, and is unlikely to happen, so I'll rest a little easier.

2. No one, no matter how good at their job, should be allowed to continue in the CC post indefinitely. The organization needs, and deserves, fresh ideas and leadership. Personally I would think that 6 years is long enough for anyone. I'm not even sure why you would want the job any longer than that. As to being paid, as long as the net effect (due to their stewardship of the Corporation's resources and increased donations from new outreach programs) is cost-neutral, that would be fine.

3. I'm not too sure about the idea of having one person, no matter how well-intentioned, control all the Regulations of CAP. Just recently we have seen proposals to require medical screenings of our members, and some other intrusive ideas which would drive away members. With a single 'all-powerful' National Commander, we might wake up one day to find that, for instance, only Instrument Rated pilots can fly G1000 aircraft. Yes, it is silly, but it could happen. Or, if you want to work with Cadets, you must give the NLO access to all of your online accounts so CAP can verify that you are not a threat to children. Again, silly, but with no checks and balances, other than the BoG removing the CC, those are the kinds of things that could happen. Forget about the current National CC, think about the next person. Or, to think back, what would Pineda have done with that power? I'm not sure the current system is all that much better, with the NB gridlock, but there must be some middle ground between the two extremes.

OK, that's my two cents.


Thom

[NC Hokie]

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!

Of these suggestions the only one I have a problem with is the National CC having the sole authority to change the Constitution and bylaws.

Other then that....what is the problem?

Here are my concerns/comments:

1) The 2/3 majority required to appoint the National CC might be a problem, as that is dangerously close to making the entire SECAF contingent irrelevant. The current makeup of the BoG is four SECAF appointees, four CAP members, and three others from interested organizations. If the BoG were to add another CAP or non-affiliated member, a 2/3 majority could be achieved with no consent from the Air Force. If that were to happen, I suspect that the fall out would be far worse than a slap on the wrist and the imposition of berry boards on the membership.

2) We need to know more about what the National CC's compensation will be and where it will come from before agreeing to it.

3) IMHO, no sitting National CC should be given a free pass to the new CC slot. If they are qualified, they deserve consideration, but I'd hope that a change such as this would be accompanied by an evaluation of any and all interested and qualified candidates.

[FW]

I'm uncomfortable with a couple of points:

First, I believe in a need for a paid staff, with an Executive Director to Manage and lead it.
Second, I believe in a sound leadership structure for the volunteer membership with a say in how "our" CAP is run. 
Third, I believe in sound and effective governance of all by an effective Board of Governors.

How we put this together is what it's all about. To me, a National Commander that effectively controls the paid staff, NEC (which would select 3 at large BoG members), a say in the selection of 3 BoG members and, the wing commanders is, IMHO, to much central authority.  Especially, with the added bonus of changing the rules at will. In fact the Air Force study of 2006 expressly frowned upon the current authority of the National Commander as excessive.  The proposals brought forth would be totally unacceptable.

We have been groping around for the last 17 years figuring out a way to better conduct business. Let's hope we come up with a model which really works.

[Eclipse]

Going to a "more Representative government" i.e. wings electing their own wing CC's and they in turn electing region and national commanders will only make the political infighting worse IMHO.

Yep.

Worst.

Idea.

Ever.

Generally elections are suggested by disgruntled people who disagree with those appointed in leadership positions, with the assumption that they know better, and that they have enough votes to get elected (or support someone who does).  It has nothing to do with proper governance, and everything to do with the 10-year-old mentality of occasionally being told what to do and being expected to do it.

About 1/2 the organization is in the adolescent age-range, and few of them have much clue about how CAP actually "works" - do they get a vote?  If so, for most it would come down to whether they actually heard of "x", or whether "y" had the Cadet Competition near them or far way, appointed them or their friends to CAC seats, etc.  Not, frankly, that it would be much different for the seniors.

Further, this idea pre-supposes a level of involvement, understanding, and G-A-S factor regarding things outside the unit that is simply not a factor for the vast majority of CAP members.

[lordmonar]

Thom,

I understand your concerns that the "All Powerful Oz" may start making life hard for the rank and file.......but on the other hand....the object is to get the mission done.

NHQ has the position to see the big picture.  If the big picture says MP's should all be Comercial Instrement Rated.......then one would have to assume that there are issues pushing this policy.

There are checks and balances.....if the volunteers can't or won't qualify for the job then they will not join and then the mission fails.  Your assumption seems to be that NHQ is/will just make rules up for the fun of it.

I just don't see that happening.  Some of the regs (such as the handeling of medications) seem silly from our perspective...but NHQ has legal and liablity issues that they have to cover.  That is the nature of a national multi juristictional organisation.  But they have the missions of CAP as their bottom line.

As for the indefinate tenure issue......I agree....no one should be given a free pass and be selected as President for Life.......but lets just say for a moment that we, for once, get a round peg for the round hole.............why not allow the BoG to continue to keep the right person in the right job?  If the National Commander position became a paid position......the BoG would and should select the best person for job and have the ability to retain that individual if they continue to be the best peson for the job at the end of their employment period.

As for the 2/3 thing......that is a good thing.  It acts a check and balance within the BoG.  The SECDEF can't dictate to us and we can't dictate to the SECDEF.  While I agree we would not want anger our primary customer.....we are an independant corporation.

As for if the sitting CC should have a shot at a second term......well now you are arguing personalities.  I don't see any language in the proposal that says the sitting CC MUST be selected to a second term only that she can be considered at the discresssion of the BoG.

But that is a moot point as there is almost no way the BoG is going to sign off on these proposals in time for the Summer NB.   So this August we will have a new National Commander.  If the BoG decides to adopt these changes then that individual may be considered for the National CC position (as well as any past commanders one would assume).

The one thing I don't want to see is the general membership electing its leaders.

There are several reasons for this........one it would make our leaders responsible/subject to the the general membership instead of to our customers!  If a leader wanted to stay in power he would bend/ignore/violate the rules and regulations because he had a mandate from "his people" instead of being concerned about what the USAF/NLO/NHQ wanted.  Leadership at higher levels will spend more time in bringing rogue wing commanders in to complaince with the printed regulations.  They would have no or little power to remove wing commanders (because they are elected by the wing) if they need to.

We would increase the amount of political infighting....not decrease it.   Regional and National Commanders (or those trying to reach those positions) would have to form political pacs and partys in order to get to position of leadership.  Instead of selecting staff leadership roles to the best person they would become poltical gifts to cronies who will help them get elected.

[lordmonar]

I'm uncomfortable with a couple of points:

First, I believe in a need for a paid staff, with an Executive Director to Manage and lead it.
Second, I believe in a sound leadership structure for the volunteer membership with a say in how "our" CAP is run. 
Third, I believe in sound and effective governance of all by an effective Board of Governors.

How we put this together is what it's all about. To me, a National Commander that effectively controls the paid staff, NEC (which would select 3 at large BoG members), a say in the selection of 3 BoG members and, the wing commanders is, IMHO, to much central authority.  Especially, with the added bonus of changing the rules at will. In fact the Air Force study of 2006 expressly frowned upon the current authority of the National Commander as excessive.  The proposals brought forth would be totally unacceptable.

We have been groping around for the last 17 years figuring out a way to better conduct business. Let's hope we come up with a model which really works.

I agree.......the National CC should be on the BoG but should not be appointing 1/3 of it.

I also would support a change to the BoG where representitives from the general membership could be elected by the general membership (say one from each region).

But like you say....our leadership should be top down....and not our current mobius loop.

[disamuel]

@NCRBlues, true.  We don't really have to realize our full potential. 


Well, actually, we can't because CAP doesn't behave like a national non-profit or even for-profit, and it shows. 

We have no fundraising to speak of... we've never done a capital campaign, we don't do direct mail and online fundraising, awareness and fundraising special events like marathons and galas, nor do we encourage many of our tens of thousands of dedicated volunteers to consider planned giving.   The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, for example, raise millions every year through these very avenues.  As do thousands of flourishing non-profits.

We have no endowment -- pretty much unusual in any non-profit.  So we have no backup funding if our congressional funding gets reduced, and we have very little leeway in our operational funding to buy special items, fund one-time expenses, expand or improve certain things we'd like to do (special projects), etc.

We have very little national public awareness compared to other national organizations of similar size, scope, and age including the Boy Scouts or Venturing, American Red Cross, Big Brother/Big Sister, et cetera.

We have very few permanent facilities built for CAP over the years, uncovering an almost comical lack of long-range strategic planning and follow-through in the past few decades.  Even smaller fraternal organizations with less missions and less funding have permanent facilities in most cities: the Elks, Knights of Columbus, American Legions, et cetera.   Meanwhile, CAP units are on their own to beg, borrow, and make do with meeting in whatever they can scrounge up: church basements, school gyms, old dusty and rusty airport hangars, offices where they have no desk or storage space of their own, etc. 

We never keep in touch with our cadet alumni nor do we track them.  Just about any non-profit from private schools to Boy Scouts to universities keep in active touch with their "alumni" as they become successful in various careers from the military to the business world. The non-profits leverage those contacts for everything from political influence and corporate sales deals to fundraising and planned giving. We don't bother and never have.

We have a governing board with a massive size and high turnover, that has repeatedly reversed itself (and on occasion, reversed its reversals) and made dozens of decisions without researching the scope, impact, cost, pros/cons, and related information.  That's how we ended up with railroaded uniform creations that after being fully voted into existence, we realized "whoops... we forgot about females..." and then "Whoops... we forgot we had NCOs" and then "Whoops, we forgot we needed Air Force permission to use some of these items...", as just one example.

We have squadrons, encampments, NCSAs, etc. all over the country which waste tens of thousands (yes) of our precious dollars every year because they've never put out their purchases to bid.  Encampments which overspend on anything from printing to custom t-shirts because "Well, we've always used local vendor XYZ, or Capt Joe's friend owns a T-shirt shop so we just use him".  Meanwhile, a simple RFQ would find products of equal quality at better prices.   This is standard (and usually mandated) good practice in every non-profit I've worked at and interacted with, but CAP doesn't even suggest it to the organization let alone require it.

Our NHQ has amassed at least 8 different logos and 5 or 6 different taglines for the organization, our board has put 4 different patches on our flight suit (yeah, four!) in the last 8 years alone, we've changed our aircraft decals and even our organization's name several times back and forth --- but we can't find the time to provide basic marketing materials, or template websites, or software tools to our operating units the squadrons.  Heck, we haven't even been able to go digital with our paperwork and record keeping or give all of our members company email addresses yet.

So I dunno NCRBlues, maybe CAP is doing just fine with our current modus operandi and our current way of doing business.  Our fellow non-profit organizations that are far smaller and far younger who have raised tens of millions, build substantial endowments, are a known name in the public lexicon, and enjoy the certitude of perpetuity regardless of the future of federal and state funding are no better off than we, right?   We don't need to follow their examples.  They're probably not on to something at all....

I've been a member for about three years. I try to keep my focus on our local mission and my concerns not much higher than wing level. I really don't know the correct answer to these issues pf corporate governing. However, Pylon's description of the issues seems dead-on.

If it ever comes down to having an election for our leadership, I'm voting for Pylon.

[ZigZag911]

For the most part I agree with Pylon & Eclipse.

One person as amender of constitution and by-laws is a poor idea.

Our current situation -- wing CCs as majority of NB -- has led to both poor governance and poor command.

Wing CCs should be focused on their wings.

IF we determine each individual wing needs a "representative" involved in National governance, that individual should be selected by other means from a pool of qualified officers (by which I mean those who have completed Levels 4 & 5, major or above).

A wing's senior members should have some means of input to this selection -- nominating letters, a web site for comment on candidates -- but not an election.

Most of the rest of it strikes me as positive change; NB rejection is a sign of the colonels protecting THEIR turf more than OUR interests, in my view.

[PHall]

You know, with all of the fun and games that have happened over the past 10 years, maybe that "threatened" Air Force "takeover" would have been a pretty good deal?
Would have put an end to a lot of the political crap that goes on.

[Pylon]

So your telling me I should go along with the idea of letting Amy Courter (or any Nat/CC for that matter) stay on forever and pay them?

I don't agree with unlimited terms, but I do agree with giving the BoG the power to hire the National Commander for a period of time and renew them to continue serving as they see fit.  I wouldn't oppose to an upper limit on their total service.  Somewhere in the 6 to 8 year range would probably be a good maximum, to ensure, as others said: fresh ideas and keeping the organization moving forward.

Most of those things you listed could have been changed under any of the past national commanders, or the current one, but where they? Nope...

You're right, many of these things could have been fixed for years and years.  These problems are not unknown, many are aware of them.  So the very fact that we've never been able to fix so many major issues makes my point for me: our governance structure doesn't work well for us.  If our system worked well, you might have one or two periods where things weren't as good as they could be.  But decades of underperformance when compared to our peers points to systemic issues, not individual leaders.

What makes you think they would suddenly change with placing the Nat/CC on the payroll?

I don't think that just giving the National Commander a paycheck fixes this.  I think a systemic restructuring and also a serious study of the best practices of similar, major non-profits (and the insistence by the BoG that we begin adopting such practices) is the key.


Paying a National Commander is just part of it.  How effective can someone be at leading our organization if they have to maintain another full-time job like most people?   And if we insist future National Commanders are either retired, independently wealthy, or leave their job to volunteer for us like Gen Courter has done, we severely limit ourselves and prevent a number of otherwise capable people from holding that post.  In a critical period where we need the best leadership possible, we don't want to be artificially limited ourselves to retired and/or wealthy people only.

You really think it would be better to take away ANY say from the wing and region commanders and let ALL of CAP be run from one office in Alabama?

I think the organization would be better run by experienced experts from various fields, yes.  I think a group of development professionals, for example, with proven career track records of raising millions for national organizations and universities would better lead our fundraising and advancement than our wing commanders.   I think experienced public relations and marketing professionals with successful careers leading in similar sized non-profits or NGOs would do better making decisions on our external communications, recruiting, and brand than our wing commanders, yes.

Where would the paychecks come from? Like you said we have no fundraising.

Well hopefully the fundraising issue changes.  That's the point, isn't it?  To fix these issues one-by-one, so we can move forward?

If congress and the AF decided tomorrow they no longer needed us, do you really think CAP would survive on our own? No way in heck.

I completely and vehemently disagree.  Especially if CAP gets its non-profit act together.  After spending some years cultivating a loyal and engaged donor base, building an endowment, and fundraising and friendraising appropriately I think CAP's Cadet Program and Aerospace Education missions would survive on with flying colors.    We might have to streamline our headquarters and eventually give up many of our aircraft and many or all of our operational missions, but the organization would survive.

[Major Carrales]

Guys, I think "wild speculation" is good therapy.  We should enjoy our angst and embrace it.

At least CAPTalk gives us a vent.  It also gives us a sounding board which is obviously heard. 

Col Sir,
I disagree...wild speculation creates misinformation.   Especially if it is coming from unoffical places.  I, for example, am a nobody in a "Frontier Squadron," yet I can post a speculation that is taken as fact and "run with" on here.  I think that is an odd situation.

[FW]

Major, I was being facetious; at least with the first statement.....
Oie vay ist mir, y'all!...

[JeffDG]

Guys, I think "wild speculation" is good therapy.  We should enjoy our angst and embrace it.

At least CAPTalk gives us a vent.  It also gives us a sounding board which is obviously heard. 

Col Sir,
I disagree...wild speculation creates misinformation.   Especially if it is coming from unoffical places.  I, for example, am a nobody in a "Frontier Squadron," yet I can post a speculation that is taken as fact and "run with" on here.  I think that is an odd situation.

Well, when the NB considers issues such as corporate governance, that impact all members, in closed session, then they invite wild and rampant speculation about what happened.  Speculation will always fill an information vacuum.