BOG June minutes

[keystone102]

The minutes for the June BOG meeting are on the members website.
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/BoG_2011_06_draft_0E43656D5EB4A.pdf

Items of interest:
A. The December 2011 meeting will be held at Tyndall AFB, FL.
B. FY12 CORPORATE FINANCIAL PLAN that starts on page 12 includes The following $1,261,291 is unfunded.
NEC Staff Travel $ 18,955
Diversity Committee Travel $ 1,097,500
Region Commander Travel $ 11,034
Reserves $ 30,000
Membership System Upgrades $ 20,300
CAP Magazine $ 10,000
Membership Card Production $ 10,000
NHQ O&M $ 31,702
Cadet Special Activities & Prof. Development $ 31,800

While Diversity should be encouraged do we really need to plan to spend over a million dollars on it with the DOD budget on the chopping block.

[afgeo4]

Then minutes for the June BOG meeting are on the members website.
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/BoG_2011_06_draft_0E43656D5EB4A.pdf

Items of interest:
A. The December 2011 meeting will be held at Tyndall AFB, FL.
B. FY12 CORPORATE FINANCIAL PLAN that starts on page 12 includes The following $1,261,291 is unfunded.
NEC Staff Travel $ 18,955
Diversity Committee Travel $ 1,097,500
Region Commander Travel $ 11,034
Reserves $ 30,000
Membership System Upgrades $ 20,300
CAP Magazine $ 10,000
Membership Card Production $ 10,000
NHQ O&M $ 31,702
Cadet Special Activities & Prof. Development $ 31,800

While Diversity should be encouraged do we really need to plan to spend over a million dollars on it with the DOD budget on the chopping block.

WOW!  That better be a typo with an "extra" one or two zeros having been added in error. 

[NCRblues]

Wait wait...

After the unfunded portion, it says "CAP is able to accept these shortfalls with minimal mission impact."....  Really? We can spend a million of unfunded money this year and feel NO effects? I'm ganna go ahead and call BS on that....

What the heck could the "diversity committee" be spending over a million dollars for travel on??

I have a great idea, cut that in half and give it to expand NCSA's or start new ones...

My god, what a waste...

[a2capt]

Well, you gotta figure it costs Joe Member about $700 to attend the average 5 star hotel hosted CAP conference.

3-4 nights lodging at $99-$159, the conference fee of about one nights lodging, and travel to the place. 

Okay, so they don't do this 10 times a year, but NCC was said to be about $160K event, bringing Wing Commanders in, and putting them up in hotels has to be close to half that. Not to mention the rest of the board, 4 times a year.

[NCRblues]

Well, you gotta figure it costs Joe Member about $700 to attend the average 5 star hotel hosted CAP conference.

3-4 nights lodging at $99-$159, the conference fee of about one nights lodging, and travel to the place. 

Okay, so they don't do this 10 times a year, but NCC was said to be about $160K event, bringing Wing Commanders in, and putting them up in hotels has to be close to half that. Not to mention the rest of the board, 4 times a year.

That million plus is not listed as NATIONAL BOARD travel funds, it is listed as "diversity committee"....so unless the whole NB is on the committee.....

[Ned]

I hate to interrupt a classic CAPTalk furball-in-the-making, but please consider two things:

1.  Note the the Diversity Committee initiatives were listed in the financial plan as "unfunded," which means that no CAP corporate or appropriated dollars have been dedicated toward those costs.  As described to us, it sounded like the Diversity Committee was going to seek outside grants to fund some or all of the costs they have projected.

2.  Even more importantly, take a look at the top of page 11 where the BoG approved the financial plan EXCEPT for the diversity costs (even unfunded) which will be examined in more depth at our December meeting.


Recapping, there was a request for funding for the Diversity Committee to the NB/NEC which was not funded.  And even then, the portion of the plan that refers to the unfunded Diversity costs was not approved by the BoG.

Please read carefully before speculating, even anonymously on the internet.

Ned Lee
BoG Member at Large

[RiverAux]

I'm betting on a major typo there.  I couldn't believe anyone in CAP would even think of requesting a million in travel funding for a diversity committee.

[NCRblues]

I hate to interrupt a classic CAPTalk furball-in-the-making, but please consider two things:

1.  Note the the Diversity Committee initiatives were listed in the financial plan as "unfunded," which means that no CAP corporate or appropriated dollars have been dedicated toward those costs.  As described to us, it sounded like the Diversity Committee was going to seek outside grants to fund some or all of the costs they have projected.

2.  Even more importantly, take a look at the top of page 11 where the BoG approved the financial plan EXCEPT for the diversity costs (even unfunded) which will be examined in more depth at our December meeting.


Recapping, there was a request for funding for the Diversity Committee to the NB/NEC which was not funded.  And even then, the portion of the plan that refers to the unfunded Diversity costs was not approved by the BoG.

Please read carefully before speculating, even anonymously on the internet.

Ned Lee
BoG Member at Large

Ok, i can admit when i am wrong. I freaked out a little at the number.  whoops

[arajca]

I hate to interrupt a classic CAPTalk furball-in-the-making, but please consider two things:

Spoilsport. 

[NIN]

I hate to interrupt a classic CAPTalk furball-in-the-making, but please consider two things:

Spoilsport. 

Ned is quite the killjoy.  I had just gotten a bucket of popcorn, turned off professional wrestling on TV and settled in when that came up.

That's his job on the BoG, BTW: "Official Killjoy."

[NCRblues]

I do have a question for you Ned.

I don't want to argue today (shocker i know)

About the governance study, you said they would ask questions to the standard members, not just leadership and wing/region kings.... yet on the meeting minutes it says that "Study will be accomplished largely through telephone and written interviews with board members, executive director, national headquarters staff members, volunteer leaders and selected wing and region commanders"

Now, maybe i am missing something, but that sure does not seem to cover normal due paying, hard working, time giving members.

So did they change minds about speaking to average membership not in command slots?

Also, how are the wing and region commanders "selected". Is it random, or some formula, or something else all together?

[Ned]

As it turns out, I am on the BoG Governance Committee, which is to say the group that is overseeing the adminstration of the contract.  Each time we have discussed this with BoardSource, they tell me they are working on some sort of tool to allow member input, which they plan to do once they are done interviewing the CC types first, partly to help them frame the issues.

I don't know how the commanders are selected for interview.  I keep bumping into commanders who tell me they have been or are scheduled to  be interviewed.

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.

[keystone102]

My original post was to point out the enormous cost of a Diversity Committee (yes I listed it as unfunded) as compared to all of the other issues that CAP needs funding for. Is the organization that out of whack compared to other nonprofits in diversity? Are we being denied funding due to this inequity? Did we have to settle a large civil lawsuit to cause us to go guns blazing on a diversity tangent?

[NCRblues]

As it turns out, I am on the BoG Governance Committee, which is to say the group that is overseeing the adminstration of the contract.  Each time we have discussed this with BoardSource, they tell me they are working on some sort of tool to allow member input, which they plan to do once they are done interviewing the CC types first, partly to help them frame the issues.

I don't know how the commanders are selected for interview.  I keep bumping into commanders who tell me they have been or are scheduled to  be interviewed.

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.

Great, thank you very much.

[JC004]

I hate to interrupt a classic CAPTalk furball-in-the-making, but please consider two things:

1.  Note the the Diversity Committee initiatives were listed in the financial plan as "unfunded," which means that no CAP corporate or appropriated dollars have been dedicated toward those costs.  As described to us, it sounded like the Diversity Committee was going to seek outside grants to fund some or all of the costs they have projected.

2.  Even more importantly, take a look at the top of page 11 where the BoG approved the financial plan EXCEPT for the diversity costs (even unfunded) which will be examined in more depth at our December meeting.


Recapping, there was a request for funding for the Diversity Committee to the NB/NEC which was not funded.  And even then, the portion of the plan that refers to the unfunded Diversity costs was not approved by the BoG.

Please read carefully before speculating, even anonymously on the internet.

Ned Lee
BoG Member at Large

Ned, please do not ruin fun with facts.   

The number is correct?  So we can put the typo issue to rest either way.

Now to the topic...
I think we should look at diversity.  I can even give 'em some really good tips on how to address the issue.  I think a cost that high should remain unfunded with the current budget.

Does anyone have insight into the breakdown of why these costs are so high?

[RiverAux]

Well, you could buy complimentary memberships for a whole lot of people to "solve" the diversity "problem" at that price. 

[Ned]

The number is correct?  So we can put the typo issue to rest either way.

Let me start by pointing out that - at the request of the NB - Capt Levin has put together one of the most outstanding teams I have ever seen to address what is always a difficult and contentious subject.  Many of the committee members are outside experts with good track records of success.

And they have worked long and hard putting together proposals to ensure that CAP is both a meritocracy and a diverse organization.  Much work remains to be done by the committee before final proposals are ready to be vetted and perhaps implemented by CAP.

Having said all that, the figure in the report is accurate, and represents the committee's estimate for the diversity initiatives.  As I mentioned, the committee understands that it will be an "unfunded" request.  They know as well as you and I that CAP does not have a million dollars lying around.  I understand that the committee will be seeking outside grants and funding to cover some or all of the amount.

A full breakdown of the costs involved was not available to the BoG, which is one of the reasons the request was not approved, even on an "unfunded" basis.  We will be examining the initiative in more detail at our December meeting.

Perhaps someone on CT is a member of the Diversity Committee and can speak more fully as to the breakdown, but that is all I have.

[Major Lord]

These are (Some? All? ) of the budget items that were denied funding, but were under serious consideration? To the point where the proposed travel budget alone for this politically correct nonsense exceeds the total funding for many items that are actually functions of our mission? How much Approved funding has gone to the Diversity Committee? Is this the result of a CAP negotiated settlement or consent decree which we have not been made aware of?  What liabilities has CAP actually experienced as a result of problems within the realm of a Diversity Committee whose budget we might deduce from a single requested line item as being a multimillion dollar expense? Ned has stated that "many of the committee are outside experts with good track records of success". Are these CAP members or actual paid consultants, or god forbid, both simultaneously? Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot?

Major Lord

[Ned]

Slow, down there, Hoss.  The enemy is not at the gate.

These are (Some? All? ) of the budget items that were denied funding, but were under serious consideration?

What you are looking at are the minutes of the BoG meeting.  Specificially, the corporate financial plan.  Although you are just going to have to trust me on this, I can tell you that everything that appears on the corporate plan gets my "serious consideration."  And in this particular instance, was not approved.

To the point where the proposed travel budget alone for this politically correct nonsense exceeds the total funding for many items that are actually functions of our mission?

Yes, as I mentioned before, everyone in the process acknowledged that the specfic request for the diversity initiative could not be funded out of any known CAP resources.  I think I might have even mentioned that the request was larger than the entire CP corporate budget to help us maintain the appropriate perspective. 

How much Approved funding has gone to the Diversity Committee?

Nothing significant at this point.  I know they have worked exclusively through conference calls and self-funded travel.  I think CAP paid some travel for Capt Levin to attend a board meeting to brief the NB on progress to date, just like other committee chairs like Uniform, PD, etc.

Is this the result of a CAP negotiated settlement or consent decree which we have not been made aware of?

Nope.  No litigation; no settlements; no decrees.  For an organization that has elected both a woman and an African American national commanders, we are probably not doing a terrible job at attracting diverse members.  But we can almost certainly do a better job at looking for and eliminating barriers, outreach, etc.

What liabilities has CAP actually experienced as a result of problems within the realm of a Diversity Committee whose budget we might deduce from a single requested line item as being a multimillion dollar expense?

I'm not sure I understand the question completely, but my experience has been that CAP does not always reflect the diversity of the communities from which we draw our members.  Being more inclusive means - essentially by definition - a larger and more vibrant program.  Which can only be a Good Thing.

Ned has stated that "many of the committee are outside experts with good track records of success". Are these CAP members or actual paid consultants, or god forbid, both simultaneously?

Many are highly qualified paid consultants in this area; they however, are not being paid by CAP.  Each committee member is volunteering their time and efforts for CAP; just like you and me. 

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot?

Major Lord

Dude,

Really?  Is it so hard to imagine that among our dozens of committees studying and improving every aspect of CAP that we would have a diversity committee?  We've got committees for historians, HSOs, operators of every flavor, and governance.  We have still more committees to study the Constitution and Bylaws, Public Trust, and chaplains' qualifications.  Don't forget committees for important stuff like social media and recommending folks for the CAP Hall of Honor.

So we have a diversity committee.  Just like every other large organization in the country.  Indeed, we would probably attract unfavorable attention if we didn't have a committee to deal with this difficult and important issue.  We know that diversity is important to our largest funder, Uncle Sam and the USAF.  And if it is important to the person who pays our bills, it should probably be important to us.

But as a practical matter, it is and should be important to us for the simple reason that we are unlikely to be as successful as we could be without carefully considering it and taking appropriate action.

Does any committee get a blank check to spend as much as they would like to improve their area of interest?  Of course not.  They study, recommend changes and hopefully cost out the pros and cons of any proposals.

It is up to the policy makers - that mystical combination of the NB, NEC, CAP-USAF, EX, CC, and the BoG - too decide what, if any, actions should be taken as a result of committee recommendations and resource  any necessary changes.

That's the process you are seeing.  Nothing more, nothing less.

[RiverAux]

Frankly, just increasing our advertising budget beyond the pittance it is today would probably do more for diversity than anything a  committee is likely to come up with. 

[Persona non grata]

AGREED

[keystone102]

Does anyone know what is the breakdown by gender and race/ethnicity of our Cadet and Senior membership?

[Ned]

Does anyone know what is the breakdown by gender and race/ethnicity of our Cadet and Senior membership?

We do not collect data on race or ethnicity, but we can probably come up with numbers for gender.  Last time I checked it was something like 80/20 male.

[NC Hokie]

Does anyone know what is the breakdown by gender and race/ethnicity of our Cadet and Senior membership?

We do not collect data on race or ethnicity, but we can probably come up with numbers for gender.  Last time I checked it was something like 80/20 male.

Wait...if we don't collect that kind of data, how do we begin to justify the need for a diversity committee?

[lordmonar]

Does anyone know what is the breakdown by gender and race/ethnicity of our Cadet and Senior membership?

We do not collect data on race or ethnicity, but we can probably come up with numbers for gender.  Last time I checked it was something like 80/20 male.

Wait...if we don't collect that kind of data, how do we begin to justify the need for a diversity committee?

Maybe one of the action items the Diversity Commitee is to figure out how to collect that data.

[NC Hokie]

Maybe one of the action items the Diversity Commitee is to figure out how to collect that data.

Put a check box on the membership application and do the same on the renewal forms to collect data on existing members.

Am I on the committee now? 

[Major Lord]

Ned,

In that your response indicates that there is no demonstrable need for a diversity committee, and in light of the incredibly disproportionate line item request indicated, I think its totally reasonable to question the intentions of such a committee. I am sure how you can see how I might have read your statement on professionals on the committee as lawyerly parsing, and no offense was intended.  Albeit, my well known Shakespearean views on lawyers, you are one of the few exceptions, and I am not just saying that because you could issue an arrest warrant and that you married my son. ( but not in a gay way)

I for one would love to see the justification for the establishment of a committee with a desired budget in the millions of dollars in advance of such a program even shown as desirable or necessary. Diversity Committees are often used to establish race-based policies ( previously known as "racist policies") which would be offensive to the conscience of many CAP members, and a foolish waste of funds. If all CAP Policies had seen the clear light of day and subjected to ample debate and reflection by the members. we might have prevented such boondoggles as our NASCAR fiasco. Even a cursory look at CAP's population shows a widely diverse command structure, and many members of alternative lifestyles at the highest levels of command ( shall I compile a list?) and minority representation. Spending any of our dues as a sop to such special interest groups is unacceptable. You yourself have admitted to me that race and gender have been used as criteria for encampment staff selection, a practice that I believe most would find abhorrent. I would hate to see such a mindset migrate outside the People's Republic of California.

We have an IG mechanism in place with the authority and responsibility to investigate discriminatory practices and hostile environments. Why do we need a committee of people who by training, profession,  or temperament, see race, gender, and sexual preference disparities where none are even alleged to exist? Dude, Really!

Major Lord

[Briski]

Why do we need a committee of people who by training, profession,  or temperament, see race, gender, and sexual preference disparities where none are even alleged to exist? Dude, Really!

I get what you're saying, but who's even on the Diversity Committee? Can we really make judgments regarding their training, professions, and temperaments if we don't even know who they are?

I'm sure there's a list of committee members somewhere, but I don't think it's fair to jump to conclusions about the kind of person who would be interested in serving on the Diversity Committee.

I'm glad to see that more detailed information will be provided to the BoG at their next meeting, so they can make a more informed decision. It seems to me that, so far, the system might actually be... uhh... working. 

[RADIOMAN015]

The number is correct?  So we can put the typo issue to rest either way.

Let me start by pointing out that - at the request of the NB - Capt Levin has put together one of the most outstanding teams I have ever seen to address what is always a difficult and contentious subject.  Many of the committee members are outside experts with good track records of success.

And they have worked long and hard putting together proposals to ensure that CAP is both a meritocracy and a diverse organization.  Much work remains to be done by the committee before final proposals are ready to be vetted and perhaps implemented by CAP.

Having said all that, the figure in the report is accurate, and represents the committee's estimate for the diversity initiatives.  As I mentioned, the committee understands that it will be an "unfunded" request.  They know as well as you and I that CAP does not have a million dollars lying around.  I understand that the committee will be seeking outside grants and funding to cover some or all of the amount.

Well this is the way I see it.  First we will be required to gather stats at the local unit level on EVERY category listed in the objective (I especially like the gender identification one, maybe I can wear a dress one day to the squadron meeting if I'm confused when I wake up that day -- but in all seriousness that category is going to be the real "hornets nest" for the organization, based upon where the poor soul  is in the physical change process  )  and report it (eventually e service will be modified for members to enter this information on their own, with likely some of the categories being blocked from view except from perhaps a National HQ level).   Than what will happen is "someone" will decide how to break up various geographic areas and get and idea of the various minority categories represented.  Than just a comparison index will be made using some high level calculations that none of us will understand.  This will identify local units (or could be macro by wings) that are below (or above) the thresholds of various minority classes/index in the diversity plan.    Than we likely will have some sort of training session on diversity (this may come earlier).  On those units (wings) below the threshold the volunteers at the local (wing) level may have to come up with some sort of plan on how to reach certain desired minority membership levels.

Looking in my crystal ball, it will basically end up being another CAP paper chase exercise.  Why   There's X amount of time (and money) at the local (wing) level, so when the volunteers runs out of available time (remember that IF a CAP member doesn't want to do something for whatever reason/or is just uncomfortable than they aren't available) and/or it's costing too much money, the "special/targeted recruitment" program will be dead, pure and simple.  HOWEVER, again we will have our plan and it will look good/we will have made our attempt; some awards given out to the committee members for their hard work (which they will deserve :clap:) and life will go on in Civil Air Patrol. 

I don't think we need to spend over $1 million dollars (even if it is grant money) on this "paper chase"
RM           

[JC004]

Give me the million.  You won't BELIEVE what I could get done with a million dollars for CAP...   

People are right that this is and will be a hot issue.  People get in a huff about it and go nuts without facts.  I remember one time a student at my organization made some crazy statement that something was racism.  Fact was we had more black students than white students, so her whole thing was invalid.  And there was no telling her that she didn't make any sense.  But people get started and go craaaaaaazy. 

[jimmydeanno]

A diversity committee, IMO, has nothing to do with race, but instead opening the CAP doors to previously untargeted segments of the population.

If we had data that showed that CAP was comprised of 90% white males over the age of 65 who's income was >100K/year, I would wonder what our organization was doing that didn't appeal to females, other races, lower income levels, and younger populations.  What about CAP only draws that certain segment of the population?

Is it policy? (Why does the KKK only appeal to white Christians?)
Is it politics? (Why don't poor people like Republicans?)
Is it perception? (CAP?  Oh, that flying club of old guys, got it.)
Is it members only recruiting like members? (Wouldn't it be cool if I had a flying club of all my old retired military buddies?)
Is it expense? (Are we closing the doors to potential low-income cadets because of uniform costs, membership dues, etc?)
Is it mission?  (Do we only do things that a small segment of the population is going to want to do anyway?  Do different groups of people typically volunteer in different ways?)

As a business, and non-profit corporation, exposing the organization to other segments of the population has real fiscal realities, and can help us accomplish our missions to greater effect.  More members can result in new connections, funding sources, as well as people to continue providing a great program.

Sometimes, getting those people in the door requires that initiatives be done.  Perhaps pilot programs where you have a targeted segment (say low income inner-city students), where you offer lower membership fees and provide uniforms.  Collect some data and we find out that it isn't that the segment dislikes CAP, but couldn't afford to participate, so they didn't.

I don't think we have discriminatory policies, but we do have a lack of diversity.  Just looking at my unit, which has 50 members, we have 1 Black cadet, 1 Hispanic cadet, 5 Female cadets and 25 white male cadets.  All of our Seniors are white, upper-middle class, split 50/50 male/female.

The area we live in is actually 60% Black, 15% Hispanic, 5% Asian, and 20% White.  When I think of diversity, I would expect that our organizational breakdown would be representative of the community that we are servicing.  So, what are we, or aren't we doing that is discouraging more racial diversity, income diversity, etc?

[Thom]

A diversity committee, IMO, has nothing to do with race, but instead opening the CAP doors to previously untargeted segments of the population.

<snipped a bunch of Good Reasons to have a strong Diversity Policy/Committee/Program/etc.>

I don't think we have discriminatory policies, but we do have a lack of diversity.  Just looking at my unit, which has 50 members, we have 1 Black cadet, 1 Hispanic cadet, 5 Female cadets and 25 white male cadets.  All of our Seniors are white, upper-middle class, split 50/50 male/female.

The area we live in is actually 60% Black, 15% Hispanic, 5% Asian, and 20% White.  When I think of diversity, I would expect that our organizational breakdown would be representative of the community that we are servicing.  So, what are we, or aren't we doing that is discouraging more racial diversity, income diversity, etc?

I agree, almost completely, BUT I would caution you on your last statements. There is a serious sinkhole to be found when you try to make sure that any group's makeup EXACTLY matches that of the surrounding community.

There are numerous reasons that your group will never quite match the general populace, some socio-economic, some cultural, some merely the nature of limited outreach in communities larger than a tiny village.

So, while seeking Diversity is good, and knowing that you have a group that is very unrepresentative of the surrounding community is helpful, you cannot simply target a membership that perfectly mimics that community. You'll never get exactly there, and it is a waste of effort to try.

So, aim for what you can achieve, and don't stress over the exact numbers.

Diversity is an ongoing process, not a set of target numbers. (At least it should be...)



Thom

[jimmydeanno]

A diversity committee, IMO, has nothing to do with race, but instead opening the CAP doors to previously untargeted segments of the population.

<snipped a bunch of Good Reasons to have a strong Diversity Policy/Committee/Program/etc.>

I don't think we have discriminatory policies, but we do have a lack of diversity.  Just looking at my unit, which has 50 members, we have 1 Black cadet, 1 Hispanic cadet, 5 Female cadets and 25 white male cadets.  All of our Seniors are white, upper-middle class, split 50/50 male/female.

The area we live in is actually 60% Black, 15% Hispanic, 5% Asian, and 20% White.  When I think of diversity, I would expect that our organizational breakdown would be representative of the community that we are servicing.  So, what are we, or aren't we doing that is discouraging more racial diversity, income diversity, etc?

I agree, almost completely, BUT I would caution you on your last statements. There is a serious sinkhole to be found when you try to make sure that any group's makeup EXACTLY matches that of the surrounding community.

There are numerous reasons that your group will never quite match the general populace, some socio-economic, some cultural, some merely the nature of limited outreach in communities larger than a tiny village.

So, while seeking Diversity is good, and knowing that you have a group that is very unrepresentative of the surrounding community is helpful, you cannot simply target a membership that perfectly mimics that community. You'll never get exactly there, and it is a waste of effort to try.

So, aim for what you can achieve, and don't stress over the exact numbers.

Diversity is an ongoing process, not a set of target numbers. (At least it should be...)

Thom

Thom,

I agree that a perfect match is unobtainable.  However, large disparities do make one question what is going on.  My real point is that people's perceptions of diversity initiatives revolve around quota systems, and programs that put people into positions only because they possess a particular trait (race, income, etc).  These perceptions put a negative light on diversity and the value that it can add to our organization.

Nevertheless, I will continue to support, well thought out, diversity initiatives that will improve the organization.

--------

General Comment:  I don't think that the "rejected" funding requests are a good barometer of the direction the organization is going.  Anyone can request money.  What would you come up with if someone said, "I need a projected cost to put all squadrons in a permanent meeting facility."  Of course the budget request would be $300 million, but it wouldn't get approved. 

Diversity initiatives could easily come up to $1 million.  Travel could include things like examining meeting locations of inner-city units, compared to suburban squadrons, cultural differences in different regions (Montana vs. Puerto Rico), hotel stays, food, etc.  Gathering real-life data isn't cheap. 

Additionally, I would suspect that future requests from the diversity committee would have similar large numbers.  Providing free membership for economically challenged groups isn't cheap.  Advertising isn't cheap.  And so on.

[Ned]

I find that the selection of reference benchmarks to be a interesting topic.

Surely the cadet program should probably mirror the unit's local community, but it is more difficult to identify referents for some senior specialties.

It seems likely that the CAP mission pilot community, for example, should be similar to the universe of 200+ hour civilian airmen; and not necessarily the local community (which is going to be 99% non-pilots.)  My Google-fu powers are weak this morning, but I suspect that the demographics of high hour civil airmen trends toward Caucasian males.

And because wing commanders are drawn primarily from the mission pilot community, this may tend to inevitably skew the demographics of the NB as a result.

Similarly, things like legal and medical officers will likely track the local lawyer and physician demographics, which again may not be representative of the community at large.

All of this, and much, much more is on the plate of the diversity committee as they study our organization and suggest ways to conduct better outreach, remove barriers, etc.

[a2capt]

Seeking out, removing barriers, etc., are all great.

Though I think they should revisit keeping existing members a bit more, first.

Think about it. Less traveling, less blown coin, and since they obviously got recruited in the first place, if they only stayed, those recruiting dollars would have been better spent.

[RiverAux]

The minutes for the June BOG meeting are on the members website.
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/BoG_2011_06_draft_0E43656D5EB4A.pdf

I would like to thank the BOG for getting these minutes out in a prompt fashion.  It wasn't long ago that they and our other governing bodies were incredibly slow about this stuff.  Keep it up guys.

[Major Lord]

I refute the presumption that the Cadet population is, or should be, a demographic reflection, or makeup, of the "community". First, Cadets must come from a family with the financial resources to support engagement in CAP activities, eliminating a substantial portion of the lower socioeconomic candidates. Second, CAP self-selects cadets, or if you wish, we tend to recruit "profiles";  High-performing,  patriotic, self-starters with a desire for consolidation into a larger organizations' Ethos. Looking at a Bell curve distribution of todays' "yoots" , I think you will find that a typical CAP cadet belongs to quite a narrow subset of the adolescent community, and that attempts to Broaden the Ethos" so as to merely improve our recruiting may help to temporarily boost our membership, but in the long run, it will continue the trend we have already seen in the cadet program. By watering it down to comply with some new set of politically correct standards, we are just going to produce a generation of counterfeit cadets. ( We won't last long as the new "rainbow Girls") It seems we create or enhance  committees to patch the real or perceived holes in our organization stemming from failures of leadership.

An underlying assumption in the idea that we should be a reflection of the community, ignores the obvious facts that not all cultures share the same values. Some subcultures find CAP ( if they are even aware we exist) as inimical to their culture. You won't see a lot of Hmong tribesman or Russian Immigrants in the Sacramento area Squadrons, even though Russian is one of the fastest growing cultures and languages within the Sacramento public schools. If the idea that a Diversity committee is to ensure that the leadership level is free from discrimination, this also represents a de facto vote of no-confidence in our existing leadership, and a consequently, a tacit admission that our I.G. system is incapable for reasons of competence or political influence, to act appropriately and independently.

Major Lord

[jimmydeanno]

I refute the presumption that the Cadet population is, or should be, a demographic reflection, or makeup, of the "community". First, Cadets must come from a family with the financial resources to support engagement in CAP activities, eliminating a substantial portion of the lower socioeconomic candidates. Second, CAP self-selects cadets, or if you wish, we tend to recruit "profiles";  High-performing,  patriotic, self-starters with a desire for consolidation into a larger organizations' Ethos.

High-performing, patriotic, self-starters come from all walks of life.  Your comment about cadets being required to come from a family "with the financial resources" is exactly the type of thing that a diversity committee could help to remedy.  There is no reason that all CAP cadets should come from middle-class families or greater.  Discounting the youth's motivation simply based on their socio-economic status is wrong.

The volunteer nature of CAP is always going to be a gateway that will help to avoid the recruiting of people who don't want to be in CAP.  I've never met a cadet who didn't want to be a cadet.  I've seen them quit because of the financial burdens and poor leadership found at local units.

Looking at a Bell curve distribution of todays' "yoots" , I think you will find that a typical CAP cadet belongs to quite a narrow subset of the adolescent community, and that attempts to Broaden the Ethos" so as to merely improve our recruiting may help to temporarily boost our membership, but in the long run, it will continue the trend we have already seen in the cadet program.

Do you think this narrow subset is a result of CAP's policies and the way we operate, or do you think it's because of the youth?  Are you advocating maintaining the status quo, or implementing positive change for the organization?  Afterall, you said that we already have eliminated "a substantial portion of the lower socio-economic candidates."  So, if encampment were free, uniforms were free, membership was $10 instead of $50, or we had a "free membership" option, wouldn't that help bring the "high-performing, patriotic, self-starters" from that demographic into our program?

If our mission is to "transforms youth into dynamic Americans and aerospace leaders," shouldn't we be targeting those youth who aren't that already?  It seems that the narrow segment we already have quite possibly may already be "dynamic Americans."

By watering it down to comply with some new set of politically correct standards, we are just going to produce a generation of counterfeit cadets. ( We won't last long as the new "rainbow Girls") It seems we create or enhance  committees to patch the real or perceived holes in our organization stemming from failures of leadership.

It has nothing to do with watering anything down. It's about removing artificial barriers from our organization so that we can expose as many people as possible to what we have to offer.  Financial burden has nothing to do with one's motivation or desire to learn what we offer. 

There are some thing we, as an organization, can't change.  However, with core values like Integrity and Respect, it seems to me that we should do everything in our power to help people become members. 

I didn't know that CAP was only supposed to be available to wealthy, white, upper-middle class, retirees...oh wait...

[Major Lord]

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.....

[SamFranklin]

Major Lord, you say "like draws like." You're right. Therefore, the organization should try to enlarge its reach. We have to work against the inertia that consistently produces a CAP peopled only by eskimos. This type of outreach is good (1) for the organization itself, by growing its numbers, (2) for individuals, as the organization serves more people who would like our programs but have not had a chance to participate, and (3) for society, as the organization becomes more inclusive and representative of America and it's noble aspiration, "E Pluribus Unum."  Notice that as the membership grows, no one is punished, no one loses their job, no negatives at all, despite your assertion that there's only one purpose in diversity programs.

I believe CAP is a single team, so the "me" and "you" aspect of your post is disappointing.  ("You are free to spend your money and recruit...") A diversity committee is about "us." Like it or not, our leaders have decided that we, as an organization, will explore ways to enlarge our reach. Personally, I'm skeptical about our ability to do that, but I'm giving the leaders a chance to prove me wrong. I hope they will.

BTW, your cheap shot against the Free Cadet Uniform program is not supported by the data, which shows that cadets who receive free uniforms are 30% more likely to renew than cadets who don't. But it's easier to just rail against hypothetical poor kids who don't appreciate your generosity. As a taxpayer, I say that's money well spent.

[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.

[Eclipse]

CAP is only a couple steps away from a big mess that could be started by a power struggle or something of that sort.

Even something minor like a disagreement over the taxation of trade routes...

[Larry Mangum]

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.

Sounds like CFC, anyone?

[lordmonar]

Sounds like CFC, anyone?

Been there, done that!

[PHall]

Sounds like CFC, anyone?

Been there, done that!

And AFAS and Red Cross and (pick your Wing Commander's favorite charity).

[Mustang]

Anyone know what happened with the Non-disclosure Agreements for BoG members? Were they approved?

Also curious to know what the leak referred to from the Oct 2010 BoG telecon was.

[Ned]

As promised, the survey is on-line and available to all members by contacting Gary Schneider at NHQ for a confidential link that goes directly to our contractor compiling the survey for the BoG.

There is a brief story and a link to Gary's email on the front page to the CAP website.

Note that the surveys have to be completed by 16 OCT.

Ned Lee