Is a Air NG/AF type of relationship possible for CAP?

[RiverAux]

Okay, very few of us like the fact that CAP is only considered the AF Auxiliary while on AFAMs.  While the AF was just fine having us 100% of the time for 50+ years, ever since their lawyers got it in their heads that they didn't want to be responsible if a cadet stubbed his toe during a meeting, we're stuck with it. 

One of the alternative ideas for a CAP-USAF relationship is to have something similar to the Air NG/AF relationship in which CAP is considered part of the state government most of the time and the AF Aux while on AFAMs.  Most of the talk on the board has focused on where CAP headquarters would fit, but we've never really got into the nitty-gritty of how this would work. 

First, massive changes would have to be made in all the federal laws relating to CAP.  Some of these are extremely problematic.

1.  Can Congress mandate that a state "absorb" CAP and its structure, purposes, etc.?  In essence they would be demanding that each state set up a CAP agency within its state government that is actually quite subject to control by the Air Force.  I'm not sure they could do this without making CAP part of the militia which Congress can regulate.  A similar example might be if Congress demanded that each state have a "Litter Patrol" office within its highway police department that would be subject to the federal highway admistration's direct control under certain situations.  And, if you start brining in the militia powers, then that causes issue with our current civilian, non-military role.  Its not an insurmountable problem in that they COULD make us a part of the organized militia under this scenario, but just not pay us or provide the other benefits received by NG members.  Quite unlikely, but I'm not sure there is another way to force the states to accept this relationship. 

2.  Money.  Obviously some sort of situation would be demanded where the feds funnel most of the funding required to run CAP through the states like they do with the NG.  Since 75% of states already fund CAP to some extent this might not be an issue.  However, if we're put more directly under state control then its a whole different ballgame than merely giving the CAP Wing a grant. 

3.  Organizational structure.  Obviously the whole corporate structure would need to be revamped and this would open up opportunities to make a host of changes that could go in a variety of directions.   However, if we were to have a strong state link, then some form of organizational control by the state government would be necessary.  Perhaps by giving the Governor or Adjutant General authority to appoint Wing Commanders. 

4.  State resistence.  There are probably more than a few states that would not want to be linked this way with CAP and who would not want to take on these additional responsibilities.  Of course with the independent corporate structure eliminated and with the state having some significant control over CAP there would be more of an incentive.  But, they would still be taking on potential liability, workmen's comp and other responsibilities.

5.  State Defense Forces.  About half the states have them now and very few of them provide much support or use them much.  This tells me that my problem #4 would be real.  Additionally, existing SDFs would probably be pretty upset if CAP moved into the military department getting more funding and actual missions than they do.  In Virginia and Alaska they've got existing SDF air wings flying missions now and CAP would be duplicative of those forces.  Granted, I think CAP is much superior to them and would probably win out in any analysis of which to keep, but political problems would arise nevertheless.   

6.  Lets assume that all the federal laws are changed to provide for this change.  Laws in all 50 states and Puerto Rico and DC would also need to be changed to allow for whatever specific structure was arrived at.  This would be a massive project and would require a lot of effort on the part of many people in and out of CAP and would probably take more than a few years to get done.  So, some sort of transition period would exist where the federal laws have changed but they hadn't in some states.  How would liability, command and control issues, etc. be handled then?  What if a state never did pass legislation implementing these changes?  Some stick would have to be held over their heads.  Usually that is funding (change you speed limit or lose your highway money), but in this case the feds have been sending money to an independent nonprofit organization (CAP) not the state, so its no skin off their nose if the feds cut off that funding. 

Given all these issues, I just don't see a NG-like relationship with the AF being developed.  The only real options I see are continuing as is or the federal law being changed to give the AF total control over CAP like the CG has over the CG Aux.  The result of the latter move, assuming the AF lawyers don't remove the stick from their hindquarters, is that we would probably stop all non-AF missions (The CG Aux does almost nothing for anybody other than the CG for this reason).  Not sure we would want that as we would probably lose our state funding if we were no longer easily available for their use. 

[Major Carrales]

This violates the doctrine of Federalism.  Since we are volunteer, non-combatants, CAP as a FEDERAL entity, wouldn't being outfitted by the State and controlled by the FEDERAL ELEMENTS blur the line?

National Guard units differ in that they are "oragnized militia" that can be truely federalized.  It would also create old issues involving STATE's RIGHTS.

What we would end up with is a CONFEDERATION of State LEVEL CAP Units with limited national direction.  States would also "take ownership" of their units and they would grow to be more and more independent.  Some, based on how it works now, would "fold."

The International RED CROSS is an example, some nations use the RED CROSS to administer hospitals as their main mission, the AMERICAN RED CROSS does lots of disaster relief.

I was told to me, in one of their trainings, that each nation's organizations operated very differently.

That is what I see "STATE" CAP becoming. 

[RiverAux]

I think you get my point about how tricky it would be to try to copy the NG relationship with the feds. 

I just can't think of any non-military example of a state organization with dual state-federal status.   

[JohnKachenmeister]

I don't think it would be tricky at all, and I don't think it violates Federalism.

Some wings already do exactly what you propose, and it works well.

In fact, I think that making CAP a unit within the Air NG structure is the best organizational fit for our missions.

[Nick Critelli]

RiverAux

You're letting your anti-lawyer bias show through.  The reason for the October 2000 statutory change by Congress wasn't some idea conceived by lawyers to protect the USA from liability. It was a reaction to the poor behavior, unprofessional conduct and in some cases criminal conduct by the CAP senior members. 

It was our predecessor's refusal to get out of the hanger club mentality and embrace the professional training and discipline required to do the job that caused the problem.  CAP had, and in some situations still has a club mentality.  You can tell it right here on CapTalk. Some are more concerned about wardrobe than training; others are more concerned about their perceived rights as a "volunteer" than their obligation as an officer.

RiverAux, it wasn't the AF lawyers who pulled the plug it was our predecessors and they pulled it on us. 

Is a NG relationship possible with CAP. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR. IAWG has a relationship with the NG.  In order to keep the benefits of the relationship (money, missions, perks, collegiality, training, etc.,) they demand that we be disciplined in our manner and   professional in our actions....and they are there to see us ALL THE TIME. Unlike the monitoring from AF, our monitoring by the NG is constant because we are folded into their operation.

I confess that at times like today when I am trying to plan the WTA's for the rest of the year I think that there was something nice about being a hanger club. No obligations, no stress, no duties just put  on the fancy cloths and play.  But then reality sets in:  it "ain't" no club. CAP people die in the line of duty and people needlessly die without CAP.

NC

[RiverAux]

Not anti-lawyer bias, but anti AF lawyer bias.  The 2000 changes related to the BoG are certainly related to other problems in the CAP-AF relationship, but the loss of full-time AF Aux status is a different ballgame, but thats a topic for another thread.

Kach, the proposal that others have made would go far beyond anything currently set up in any state and is not actually possible under existing federal laws. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

River:

Don't let Nick intimidate you.  Everybody has an anti-lawyer bias!   

I want to make sure that we are talking about the same thing, because I do not see any statutory prohibition against that which I have seen proposed (And proposed myself... Nick?  Have you proofed that paper yet? )

Right now, CAP has a dual-role, established by Congress.  We serve as the Auxiliary of the US Air Force and perform Federal missions under Title 10.  We also are authorized to perform missions for State Governments, Local Governments, and Non-Governmental Organizations under Title 36, with the using agency paying the freight.

Under the current organizational doctrine, we fly missions for OTF (Other than Feds) by executing a Memorandum of Understanding with the using agency.

IF National HQ, CAP were to be transfered from the Air University and placed under the Air National Guard, the next step would be to place each wing under the Operational Control of the State Adjutant General for Air of each state.  This is an organizational issue, and not prohibited by law. 

Under that arrangement, the Governor could call out CAP assets, assuming that the state pays the bill, under the same conditions that he can call out any National Guard unit.    The US Government can still, directly or through the Adjutant General, call out CAP for a Federal mission, just as the Federal govt. can mobilize a NG unit.

This WAS considered by the Air Staff a few years ago.  Some AG's non-concurred, primarily because they did not want to be saddled with the Cadet Program.  I proposed managing the Cadet Program out of National, so that state AG's would have no role in it, other than to welcome new recruits from the Cadet Program when they join the National Guard.

Is there some other proposal out there that I'm not aware of?

[RiverAux]

CAP's dual role is that of AF Auxiliary and as a corporation, not as an instrument of state government.  The CAP corporation can chose to do certain activities in support of state and local governments and can chose to ask them to pay for it, and can even lobby for state liability and workers comp protections while doing them.  In some states we even have that. 

But, there is no authority in current federal statutes to allow for specific state control over any CAP activity.  You can have requests for CAP assistance run through any office of state government you want, but they're not going to be in control over CAP.  No matter where you make CAP's federal "home", each state is going to treat us according to our own needs.  Just because the CAP-USAF boys are moved over to the NGB doesn't make any difference to whether requests for CAP missions go through the state emergency management agency or the Adjutant General.  They can do what they want. 

Governors can already request CAP help now, so your idea of "operational control" by the state must be different in some way from that, but I'm just not seeing it.  Please explain. 

As it is, I don't see any way for states to have any real control over CAP without taking the steps I mentioned earlier.

[Eclipse]

Is a(n) Air NG/AF type of relationship possible for CAP?

No.

[Eagle400]

In fact, I think that making CAP a unit within the Air NG structure is the best organizational fit for our missions.

I agree, Kach. 

The Air National Guard is certainly more likely to allow CAP personnel to augment them than the active duty Air Force is.  CAP members could help fill the voids created by National Guard airmen deploying overseas.  I hope we see this sometime in the near future.       

[JohnKachenmeister]

CAP's dual role is that of AF Auxiliary and as a corporation, not as an instrument of state government.  The CAP corporation can chose to do certain activities in support of state and local governments and can chose to ask them to pay for it, and can even lobby for state liability and workers comp protections while doing them.  In some states we even have that. 

But, there is no authority in current federal statutes to allow for specific state control over any CAP activity.  You can have requests for CAP assistance run through any office of state government you want, but they're not going to be in control over CAP.  No matter where you make CAP's federal "home", each state is going to treat us according to our own needs.  Just because the CAP-USAF boys are moved over to the NGB doesn't make any difference to whether requests for CAP missions go through the state emergency management agency or the Adjutant General.  They can do what they want. 

Governors can already request CAP help now, so your idea of "operational control" by the state must be different in some way from that, but I'm just not seeing it.  Please explain. 

As it is, I don't see any way for states to have any real control over CAP without taking the steps I mentioned earlier.

Actually, your argument points out the very valid reasons for maintaining the staus quo, or transferring CAP to 1st Air Force.  Then, you point out that some states do exactly what is proposed, and apparently do it legally.  I guess I don't understand what you are saying.

I know of nothing in the nature of the implementing legislation that would prevent the US Air Force from assigning CAP under any AF command it has.  That is dependent on the AF, and where they see us as able to do the most for them.  We used to be under the "Continental Air Command" at one point.  So we could be assigned under ANG.  NGB is the next higher (and DoD) HQ of ANG, so assignment to NGB would actually take CAP out of the Air Force chain, so that is unlikely.

ANG has lots of units.  Fighters, Transports, Refuelers, etc.  The units remain ANG assets, under I think, a 3-star commander of ANG.  Unless they are called up for a federal mission, these units are under the operational control of the state Adjutant General.  He can deploy them on any mission he can pay for with state funds.

If CAP were under the ANG, each wing would be similarly OPCON'ed to the AG.  Then, the governor ould not ASK for CAP support for a disaster, he would direct the CAP to respond as a state force.  We can do that now through an MOU, so it is not illegal.  This would simplify and speed up the process of employing CAP in DR, and keep CAP under military command when responding to disasters. 

The AF could always use any CAP asset under Title 10 for any Federal mission, just as they can call up any ANG unit.  Federal calls get priority.

[Hoser]

Why not just leave well enough alone? After all we joined CAP as it is. It sounds like you're trying to make it something it's not nor was intended to be, a military organization.

Hoser

[ZigZag911]

How about this:

1) we remain largely as we are, a federally chartered, national organization

2) we ask Congress & USAF to make us full time AF Auxiliary again

3) as part of the legislation authorizing that, we ask Congres (with USAF concurrence) to authorize each state or territory to accept its CAP wing as the air component of the State Defense Force, under operational control of State Adjutant General/ANG for state missions.....this would no doubt require establishing parameters/requirements for state support....but it would also vastly simplify activation/utilization of CAP for appropriate state missions.

By the way, Nick, my JAG when I had the Group despises lawyers!

[RiverAux]

Kach, you misunderstand.  I am not saying there is anything preventing the entire CAP-USAF apparatus, including state directors, from being turned over the the NGB at the federal level.  We've been moved around many times and such a change would not require any changes in federal legislation. 

My point is that no matter where you put CAP-USAF and CAP in the federal government, it will not automatically give any Governor or state National Guard any authority over CAP.  Just because CAP is under the NGB doesn't mean that the Governor of Michigan can order Michgian Wing to do anything.  That Governor can ask Michigan Wing to do something under the existing MOU, but thats it.  CAP would still exist as an independent corporate entity that can do, or not do, missions at the REQUEST of a state. 

The point of my original post was that if you want the state AG or Governor to have actual control over any CAP activity, you're going to need to change both federal and state laws to make it happen. 

If CAP were under the ANG, each wing would be similarly OPCON'ed to the AG.  Then, the governor ould not ASK for CAP support for a disaster, he would direct the CAP to respond as a state force.  We can do that now through an MOU, so it is not illegal. 

wrong, wrong, wrong.  Please point out where in existing federal or state law where any state governor has the authority to ORDER CAP to do anything.  Existing MOUs do not give the state any authority over CAP, they just outline procedures by which states should make requests to CAP or the AF (depending on the mission).  If the Governor of Iowa needs a air photo flight, he can use that MOU to ASK Iowa Wing to do the mission, he can't order them to do it.  Putting CAP-USAF and CAP under NGB doesn't change that. 

Heck, you're forgetting that the AF can't order CAP to do a darn thing operationally.  All they can do is provide or withdraw funding.  What we do is entirely up to CAP.  If AFRCC decides to suspend a search, CAP can make the decision to keep looking under a corporate mission number and paid for with corporate or state funds (provided of course we don't get crosswise with the local authorities and what they're doing.  If AFRCC wants a search to continue and we want to stop for some reason, we can tell them to go stuff it and drive over to the bar.  Since this is the case with our current relationship with the AF, I just don't see how a move of the admin structure to NGB would suddenly give state governors authority to direct us to do anything.

[smj58501]

I just can't think of any non-military example of a state organization with dual state-federal status.   

Job Service I believe has a dual status identity, similar to the NG.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Kach, you misunderstand.  I am not saying there is anything preventing the entire CAP-USAF apparatus, including state directors, from being turned over the the NGB at the federal level.  We've been moved around many times and such a change would not require any changes in federal legislation. 

My point is that no matter where you put CAP-USAF and CAP in the federal government, it will not automatically give any Governor or state National Guard any authority over CAP.  Just because CAP is under the NGB doesn't mean that the Governor of Michigan can order Michgian Wing to do anything.  That Governor can ask Michigan Wing to do something under the existing MOU, but thats it.  CAP would still exist as an independent corporate entity that can do, or not do, missions at the REQUEST of a state. 

The point of my original post was that if you want the state AG or Governor to have actual control over any CAP activity, you're going to need to change both federal and state laws to make it happen. 

If CAP were under the ANG, each wing would be similarly OPCON'ed to the AG.  Then, the governor ould not ASK for CAP support for a disaster, he would direct the CAP to respond as a state force.  We can do that now through an MOU, so it is not illegal. 

wrong, wrong, wrong.  Please point out where in existing federal or state law where any state governor has the authority to ORDER CAP to do anything.  Existing MOUs do not give the state any authority over CAP, they just outline procedures by which states should make requests to CAP or the AF (depending on the mission).  If the Governor of Iowa needs a air photo flight, he can use that MOU to ASK Iowa Wing to do the mission, he can't order them to do it.  Putting CAP-USAF and CAP under NGB doesn't change that. 

Heck, you're forgetting that the AF can't order CAP to do a darn thing operationally.  All they can do is provide or withdraw funding.  What we do is entirely up to CAP.  If AFRCC decides to suspend a search, CAP can make the decision to keep looking under a corporate mission number and paid for with corporate or state funds (provided of course we don't get crosswise with the local authorities and what they're doing.  If AFRCC wants a search to continue and we want to stop for some reason, we can tell them to go stuff it and drive over to the bar.  Since this is the case with our current relationship with the AF, I just don't see how a move of the admin structure to NGB would suddenly give state governors authority to direct us to do anything.

OK, I understand your point now.

An MOU is a contract.  Depending on the wording of the contract, the parties can agree to an obligation to one another, or they can agree to mutual rights of refusal of any task under the MOU.

But the MOU is simply how we do things now.  The federal law establishing CAP does not require an MOU. It is worded in a vague fashion, and tasks CAP to provide services to states and local governments, among other things.  The method of accomplishing this support is left to be developed by CAP and the USAF.  The MOU has been the method up to now. 

IF CAP were to be transfered under the ANG, it would mean that an MOU with the state is not necessary.  The method of callups and the means to reimburse CAP for gas would be handled by orders from the ANG rather than a contract.

While this would be a major change in the way we do business, I don't see a need to change the federal law.   

[ZigZag911]

IF CAP were to be transfered under the ANG, it would mean that an MOU with the state is not necessary.  The method of callups and the means to reimburse CAP for gas would be handled by orders from the ANG rather than a contract.

While this would be a major change in the way we do business, I don't see a need to change the federal law.   

John, I agree that a re-structuring of some sort could, probably should, transform us into a state-level asset....hence my suggestion about us being 'adopted' by interested states as their Air SDF element. This would indeed eliminate the need for MOUs, and simplify our operations under state authority enormously.

However, I must agree with RiverAux that both federal & state legislation will be needed to make this possible. There are too many details and possible problems to leave it ambiguous.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Zig:

I don't see a SDF as an appropriate state "Home" for CAP.  State Defense Forces are completely different animals that have no federal function.

CAP would be a better fit with the Air National Guard.  The ANG is quite used to working under a dual chains of command, and their chain would parallel ours.

In other words, our wing commanders might have to respond to a state tasking to search for a missing child one day, and a federal tasking to respond to a missing aircraft search the next day.  Or, later the same day.  This is the ame as a commander of an Air Guard C-130 wing that might have a state mission to drop feed to cattle one day, and fly equipment to Iraq the next.  SDF's do not get federal taskings.

"Ambiguous" is the status of the current federal law.  Nothing in the current law requires MOU's, nor does anything prohibit the Air Force from reorganizing CAP to meet its statutory obligations through the Air National Guard and the state Adjutants General.

The disadvantage to this is that CAP wings would be unevenly supported and employed.  Some states would make good use of CAP assets, other states would let CAP "Die on the vine."

But... that is also pretty much the situation now, anyway.

[RiverAux]

IF CAP were to be transfered under the ANG, it would mean that an MOU with the state is not necessary.  The method of callups and the means to reimburse CAP for gas would be handled by orders from the ANG rather than a contract.

As long as CAP remains an independent corporation, an MOU or request for CAP service through NOC would still be necessary.  You're confusing the federal level National Guard Bureau with state military departments.  Even if CAP-USAF, which oversees CAP for the AF, were placed in the NGB (which it could), that doesn't change existing relationships with the states that CAP the corporation has developed.  You would need to dissolve the corporation and take many of the steps I outlined in my first post to change the situation to what you would like. 

[md132]

It's very much possible.  Look at what Maryland did.  Maryland Military Department recently signed an MOU with MD Wing.  But MD Wing and MDANG has been working together for several years.  One thing that is done is the MDANG Shadow Program.  Where MD Wing cadets spends time with MDANG personnel doing various jobs at ANG bases.  Also MD Wing has served them during Guard weekends.  MDNG has lend MD Wing Camp Frettred for Encampments and other activities.  There is a story about it on CAP HQ website and MD Wing Website. 

[JAFO78]

It's very much possible.  Look at what Maryland did.  Maryland Military Department recently signed an MOU with MD Wing.  But MD Wing and MDANG has been working together for several years.  One thing that is done is the MDANG Shadow Program.  Where MD Wing cadets spends time with MDANG personnel doing various jobs at ANG bases.  Also MD Wing has served them during Guard weekends.  MDNG has lend MD Wing Camp Frettred for Encampments and other activities.  There is a story about it on CAP HQ website and MD Wing Website. 

How about a link to MD Wing?

[md132]

The link for MD Wing is as follows.

http://www.mdcap.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=article.display&articleID=313

Pictured are MD Wing Commander Col Weiss, MD TAG Maj Gen Bruce Tuxill, MDDF CG BG Courtney Wilson (My SDF Commander), Assistant Adjudant General of Air, Brig Gen Charles Morgan (Note he's wearing the new ABU's, and other MD Wing Personnel.

[JAFO78]

Thank You Sir.

[JohnKachenmeister]

IF CAP were to be transfered under the ANG, it would mean that an MOU with the state is not necessary.  The method of callups and the means to reimburse CAP for gas would be handled by orders from the ANG rather than a contract.

As long as CAP remains an independent corporation, an MOU or request for CAP service through NOC would still be necessary.  You're confusing the federal level National Guard Bureau with state military departments.  Even if CAP-USAF, which oversees CAP for the AF, were placed in the NGB (which it could), that doesn't change existing relationships with the states that CAP the corporation has developed.  You would need to dissolve the corporation and take many of the steps I outlined in my first post to change the situation to what you would like. 

I do not believe that Colorado's relationship with the State Military Dept. is via MOU, but if you look at their website, the Co. Wing of the CAP is a co-equal agency under the Adjutant General Dept.  I'm not sure about Iowa, but I recall one of Nick's posts that they did not work out the agreement via an MOU, but rather through a different relationship.  It has also worked out to their advantage.  Also, I think Kentucky is under the Air National Guard, and I'm not sure if that is by MOU or not, but CAP in there cases ends up being an integral part of the state's National Guard organization.

[JohnKachenmeister]

An MOU is one way of working out cooperative agreements.  It is not the only way. 

[RiverAux]

There are a couple of states with official CAP "departments" within their organizational structure, but those states don't have any more control over what their CAP wing does than anyone else.  If that state wants CAP they're still going to have to call NOC or AFRCC unless there is an MOU outlining other procedures. 

The point is that unless you drastically change federal and state laws you will not have any state-CAP relationship that is significantly different than what is possible now and you will NOT have any situation where the state governorn has any actual authority over CAP.

[JohnKachenmeister]

There must be either an MOU or some other mechanism to activate CAP.  And a state would not have to go through the Air Force if the funding was Title 36 money from the state.

What we would be talking about is creating an administrative substitute for the MOU, perhaps an ANG policy on CAP employment by AG's.  Call it a "National MOU" if you want, but it could be done within the framework of existing statutes.

[ZigZag911]

Kach,

My suggestion builds on yours....that the CAP wing function as the Air Component of the SDF, under the operational control (for state missions) of state adjutant general, reporting through & working with state ANG.

I'm not sure about the legal niceties, but I would suspect that, with the proper legislation at federal and state levels, this could be made to work -- after all, they already have the paradigm provided by the Guard itself!

[JohnKachenmeister]

It would function as an SDF under Title 36.  States would have to be aware that calls by the Air Force, just as with their own National Guard, would take priority.

I was going to do some legal research while I'm bored at work today.

The idea of aligning CAP as a National Guard asset has some benefits and some drawbacks.  We should be careful what we wish for.  Overall, I think it would be good for the country, but may make demands on the membership that some would find unacceptable.

[BillB]

John, and what do you do with states that don't have an SDF, like Florida?

[isuhawkeye]

2 pages, and no mention of the "Iowa Plan". 

If your interested in seeing how well CAP can function with the guard (without changing our structure only our culture)  stop bye for a drill weekend. 

[mikeylikey]

^ But what have you done for the Guard?  Other than welcome home ceremonies and flying high-bird radio relay (as most wings already do that)??

[isuhawkeye]

Staffed the State EOC at their request


Conducted training and briefings for officers learning how to interact with civilian responders

Conduct staff training for officers arriving in new staff assignments

Functioned as UAV's in a multi million dollar training exercise

Be their aerial platform.  When requests come in for National guard aircraft to support local authorities they redirect the mission to CAP

Provide Russian interperaters during a foreign dignitary visit

Conduct briefings and tours for Russian Military units

Attend Monthly Chief of staff briefings

Provide Search Management teams to look for and locate a missing National guard soldier.

Provide aerial, and ground transportation for the Governor and his staff (Prior to current restrictions)

Provide aerial reconnaissance, for the state's CST (Civil Support Team) before, and during several high profile events

Provide First aid care to tactical elements when no medic was available

Test accuracy of radar installations by flying established aggressor profile missions

Test, challenge, and demonstrate the abilities of an experimental VOIP system

Test and evaluate VOIP VHF gate way systems

Staff the National guard recruiting booth at the Iowa State Fair

I could go on, but I really don't have time.

Many of these missions ended up as A, and C missions, but they all were generated for us by the Iowa National Guard


And yes we do attend departure, welcome home ceremonies, funerals, and promotions, because they consider us part of their family

[mikeylikey]

^ OK Good enough for me.  Thanks!  Question......manning the NG recruiting booth?  Wouldn't you be better at manning the CAP recruiting booth? 

Also.... I have to say some wings already do what you wrote, and they have no "formal" agreement.  But like you said there was more, but you were done typing......I will make the assumption that you do WAY more. 

Cool Pics BTW.

[isuhawkeye]

CAP couldn't get a recruiting booth at the fair.  they are few and far between, plus they cost thousands of dollars.  After all any single booth space will come in contact with as many as 100,000 people a day. 

That list is limited, and it does not include the classic A missions like damage assessment, shelter ops, missing persons, etc.  The guard forwards many missions to CAP through A mission channels.

[JohnKachenmeister]

John, and what do you do with states that don't have an SDF, like Florida?

Bill:

CAP would NOT function like an SDF.  It can't.  It has a federal role under Title 10, same as the "Real" National Guard.  That's why I think CAP would fit in well with NG organizations.  The NG has to respond to federal missions, under Title 10, and state missions under Title 32.  Our "Non-federal" missions come under Title 36, but it is basically the same.  We would respond to two masters, which is exactly what every National Guard commander in the country has to do as well.

SDF's are "Pure" state troops.  Titles 32 and 10 do not pertain to them, as they are completely state funded.  They cannot be called into federal service.

The principal advantage of placing CAP under the ANG is the Posse Commitatus Act would not apply to CAP when called out in a state role.  Also, the myriad "MOU" problem would be solved, since we would have ONLY two masters, the Air Force and the state AG.  Any local govt. or NGO that wanted CAP air support would go through the state AG with their request.  MOU's and reimbursement would be handled through the state, not the wing king.

The other advantage is that the cumbersome process of requesting a CAP mission would be seriously simplified, and in a disaster, the AG can coordinate ALL air assets under a central military command.  That's called "Unity of Command" and is seldom seen in actual disasters, which is why disaster operations frequently turn into "Charlie Foxtrots."

[RiverAux]

Without changing federal and state laws that there will be no essential change in how CAP can be called, activated, or controlled.  We will remain either the Air Force Auxiliary when performing federal missions or a non-profit corporation that may chose to do certain missions for local and state governments if we chose to do so.  Just because CAP-USAF is in the NGB, doesn't mean that CAP is a "National Gaurd asset" or that anything regarding actual control of CAP operations will be different than now.

Also, the myriad "MOU" problem would be solved, since we would have ONLY two masters, the Air Force and the state AG.

No, our two masters would still be the Air Force and the CAP corporation. 

[Any local govt. or NGO that wanted CAP air support would go through the state AG with their request.

Every Wing already has an MOU which usually forces requests for CAP assistance to go through a single state agency.  Putting CAP-USAF in the NGB is not going to change that.  How would that force a state to use the AG rather than their state emergency mgt agency to coordinate CAP requests?

[ZigZag911]

John, and what do you do with states that don't have an SDF, like Florida?

This is why I said maintain federal status & character of CAP, but create the potential for states to utilize CAP as air component of their SDF.

Some states with an SDF will choose not to do so.

States lacking an SDF will probably leave things alone.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Without changing federal and state laws that there will be no essential change in how CAP can be called, activated, or controlled.  We will remain either the Air Force Auxiliary when performing federal missions or a non-profit corporation that may chose to do certain missions for local and state governments if we chose to do so.  Just because CAP-USAF is in the NGB, doesn't mean that CAP is a "National Gaurd asset" or that anything regarding actual control of CAP operations will be different than now.

Also, the myriad "MOU" problem would be solved, since we would have ONLY two masters, the Air Force and the state AG.

No, our two masters would still be the Air Force and the CAP corporation. 

[Any local govt. or NGO that wanted CAP air support would go through the state AG with their request.

Every Wing already has an MOU which usually forces requests for CAP assistance to go through a single state agency.  Putting CAP-USAF in the NGB is not going to change that.  How would that force a state to use the AG rather than their state emergency mgt agency to coordinate CAP requests?

For some reason, we are not communicating well.  I'm talking macro, you're listening micro, or something.  This is an outside-the-box proposal, and your box-lid sems to be nailed down tighter than most.  Let me run this through from the beginning.

Under this plan:

CAP would transfer from the AU to the ANG.  (NOT the NGB, which is a DoD command).

CAP has two types of missions:

1.  Federal, under Title 10, USC.

2.  Corporate, under Title 36, USC.

Our Federal missions would be unchanged.  AFRCC could still call up such CAP assets as they need directly, as could 1AF.  This would be the same as NORAD calling up ANG interceptors.  We would remain an Aux. of the USAF anytime the USAF needed us. 

What would change is our corporate missions.  This arrangement would make the "MOU" obsolete.  We would perform corporate missions for the Adjutant General, exclusively.  If a local govt., NGO, or any state dept other than the AG wanted CAP assets, they would request them from the AG in the same manner that they would request any other National Guard support.  These regulations are already in place.

Instead of a wing commander negotiating MOU's with a state emergency preparedness dept and scores of county EOC's, there would be ONE set of rules nationally, placing the AG in command of the CAP wing for operational purposes (Operational Control).  Administrative Control would remain with NHQ, CAP.  The cadet program would fall under the administrative chain of command.

So the following scenarios would work like this:

1.  Missing aircraft.  No change.  AFRCC notifies the wing, the wing scrambles aircraft and ground search teams.

2.  Disaster.  Big change.  Local mayor or sheriff requests National Guard assistance.  Governor authorizes NG assistance, and the AG calls up such forces as are needed to assist in the disaster, which may or may not include CAP light aircraft.  They would, however, be at the call and on the dime of the state.

3.  Really Big Disaster.  Little change.  CAP and NG forces would probably be already called up as a 36/32 mission on the state's dime.  1AF may then, once the President declares it to be a national disaster, fund the mission as a Title 10, both for the NG forces and the CAP.   

4.  Local emergency.  Big change.  Local sheriff needs light aircraft for search.  AFRCC declines to fund the search, as it is a law enforcement mission.  Sheriff asks the AG for support, AG calls out CAP assets as a Title 36 mission, on the state's dime.  The state may or may not send the bill to the county depending on state law and local procedure.

5.  State govt. administrative request.  State Dept. of Highways wants aerial photos of all bridges, but has no airplanes.  Highway Dept asks AG to provide planes.  AG calls up CAP planes.  AG sends bill to Highway Dept.

Are you out of that box yet?

[isuhawkeye]

Is this the box you want to play in???

"Civil air patrol" means the civilian
  1  4 auxiliary of the United States air force established by the
  1  5 United States Congress in 36 U.S.C. } 40301 et seq., and 10
  1  6 U.S.C. } 9441 et seq.
  1  7    Sec. 2.  NEW SECTION.  29A.3A  CIVIL AIR PATROL.
  1  8    1.  The civil air patrol may be used to support national
  1  9 guard missions in support of civil authorities as described in
  1 10 section 29C.5 or in support of noncombat national guard
  1 11 missions under section 29A.8 or 29A.8A.
  1 12    2.  Requests for activation of the civil air patrol shall
  1 13 be made to the commander of the Iowa wing of the civil air
  1 14 patrol.  Missions shall be in accordance with laws and
  1 15 regulations applicable to the United States air force and the
  1 16 civil air patrol.  Prior to activation of the civil air
  1 17 patrol, the adjutant general or the Iowa civil air patrol wing
  1 18 commander shall apply to the air force rescue coordination
  1 19 center, the air force national security emergency preparedness
  1 20 agency, or the civil air patrol national operations center for
  1 21 federal mission status and funding.
  1 22    3.  If an operation or mission of the civil air patrol is
  1 23 granted federal mission status and assigned an accompanying
  1 24 federal mission number, the following shall apply:
  1 25    a.  The operation or mission shall be funded by the federal
  1 26 government.
  1 27    b.  When training or operating pursuant to a federal
  1 28 mission number, members of the civil air patrol shall be
  1 29 considered federal employees for the purposes of tort claims
  1 30 arising from the performance of the mission or any actions
  1 31 incident to the performance of the mission.
  1 32    4.  If an operation or mission of the civil air patrol is
  1 33 not granted federal mission status and is not assigned an
  1 34 accompanying federal mission number, the following shall
  1 35 apply:
  2  1    a.  Operations and administration of the civil air patrol
  2  2 relating to missions not qualifying for federal mission status
  2  3 shall be funded by the statefrom moneys appropriated to the
  2  4 homeland security and emergency management division of the
  2  5 department of public defense for that purpose.
  2  6    b.  When performing a mission that does not qualify for
  2  7 federal mission status, members of the civil air patrol shall
  2  8 be considered state employees for purposes of the Iowa tort
  2  9 claims Act, as provided in chapter 669, and for purposes of
  2 10 workers' compensation, as provided in chapter 85.

[JohnKachenmeister]

That sounds like the right ball park.  Glad to see you are in there pitching!

[RiverAux]

I'm working at the macro level because if you think that a simple change in where CAP is administered at the federal level will have any effect on how CAP is handled in each state, you're wrong.  Some, if not all, of the steps I outlined in the first post would need to take place for it to happen. 

First, you said CAP (meaning the CAP-USAF employees) would be transferred to ANG.  Do you mean Air National Guard or Army National Guard (just want to be clear)?  I'm not very familiar with their command structure.  Could you elaborate exactly where the CAP-USAF guys would go, both at the federal level and the local (state directors and AF Reservists)? 

What would change is our corporate missions.  This arrangement would make the "MOU" obsolete.  We would perform corporate missions for the Adjutant General, exclusively.  If a local govt., NGO, or any state dept other than the AG wanted CAP assets, they would request them from the AG in the same manner that they would request any other National Guard support.  These regulations are already in place.

How?  As far as each state would be concerned, we would still be a non-profit corporation that sometimes serves as the AF Auxiliary and would not be considered an intrinsic part of their state government as are the National Guard.  The state law isuhawkee quoted does not negate the fact that somehwhere there is an MOU between the state of Iowa and CAP that lays out mission request procedures. 

Instead of a wing commander negotiating MOU's with a state emergency preparedness dept and scores of county EOC's, there would be ONE set of rules nationally, placing the AG in command of the CAP wing for operational purposes (Operational Control).  Administrative Control would remain with NHQ, CAP.  The cadet program would fall under the administrative chain of command.

How?  Again, you're just not understanding that no matter where you put the folks in command of CAP at the federal level that will not changee the fact that each state can chose how it deals with CAP call-outs.  Putting control of CAP in the hands of the Air National Guard at the federal level will not automatically put us under the "control" of the Air National Guard in any one state.  All existing MOUs would continue and if Delaware wants all requests for CAP to go through the state agriculture commission, they could chose to do so. 

All the examples you gave are perfectly reasonable ways of doing things and that is how the current CAP-state MOUs generally work.  If the state asks us to do something, the department doing the asking gets the bill from CAP. 

Now, if what you are really advocating is a state-by-state campaign to have requests for CAP services go through the Adjutant General as they evidently do in Iowa, that is fine and dandy.  Nothing stopping that from happening, though I'm not sure convinced that it would be a major improvement over having them go through the state emergency mgt department (which is usually the case now).  However, you would need to change the MOUs between CAP and the state, in each state, to make it happen. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

I'm working at the macro level because if you think that a simple change in where CAP is administered at the federal level will have any effect on how CAP is handled in each state, you're wrong.  Some, if not all, of the steps I outlined in the first post would need to take place for it to happen. 

First, you said CAP (meaning the CAP-USAF employees) would be transferred to ANG.  Do you mean Air National Guard or Army National Guard (just want to be clear)?  I'm not very familiar with their command structure.  Could you elaborate exactly where the CAP-USAF guys would go, both at the federal level and the local (state directors and AF Reservists)? 

What would change is our corporate missions.  This arrangement would make the "MOU" obsolete.  We would perform corporate missions for the Adjutant General, exclusively.  If a local govt., NGO, or any state dept other than the AG wanted CAP assets, they would request them from the AG in the same manner that they would request any other National Guard support.  These regulations are already in place.

How?  As far as each state would be concerned, we would still be a non-profit corporation that sometimes serves as the AF Auxiliary and would not be considered an intrinsic part of their state government as are the National Guard.  The state law isuhawkee quoted does not negate the fact that somehwhere there is an MOU between the state of Iowa and CAP that lays out mission request procedures. 

Instead of a wing commander negotiating MOU's with a state emergency preparedness dept and scores of county EOC's, there would be ONE set of rules nationally, placing the AG in command of the CAP wing for operational purposes (Operational Control).  Administrative Control would remain with NHQ, CAP.  The cadet program would fall under the administrative chain of command.

How?  Again, you're just not understanding that no matter where you put the folks in command of CAP at the federal level that will not changee the fact that each state can chose how it deals with CAP call-outs.  Putting control of CAP in the hands of the Air National Guard at the federal level will not automatically put us under the "control" of the Air National Guard in any one state.  All existing MOUs would continue and if Delaware wants all requests for CAP to go through the state agriculture commission, they could chose to do so. 

All the examples you gave are perfectly reasonable ways of doing things and that is how the current CAP-state MOUs generally work.  If the state asks us to do something, the department doing the asking gets the bill from CAP. 

Now, if what you are really advocating is a state-by-state campaign to have requests for CAP services go through the Adjutant General as they evidently do in Iowa, that is fine and dandy.  Nothing stopping that from happening, though I'm not sure convinced that it would be a major improvement over having them go through the state emergency mgt department (which is usually the case now).  However, you would need to change the MOUs between CAP and the state, in each state, to make it happen. 

I see one flaw in your understanding, at least.  CAP is more than just CAP-USAF.  CAP is an integral part of the USAF, and is currently under the command of the Air University, which is a part of the Air Training and Education Command.  The Air Universityy exercises command and control over the CAP in its Air Force role through CAP-USAF HQ.

Placing CAP under the AIR National Guard (I don't know how you figure the Army into any of this) would involve transferring CAP-USAF to act in its same role under a new command, the Air National Guard.  The Commander of the Air National Guard could, acting within his command authority, direct each of the 52 wings to operate under the operational command of the state Adjutant General.  NHQ, CAP would also be under ANG command, of course, and would continue to exercise administrative command, and control of all cadet programs.

The OPCON to the AG would be to provide the ANG a resource that it does not currently have, a light aircraft force to use in disaster relief missions.  This would keep all military assets under a single military commander, and specifically all air assets under a single air operations headquarters.  This would allow for greater flexibility and economy in response to disasters, and safer and more efficient use of airspace.  In the various officer training schools, they teach this as the principle of "Unity of Command." 

OPCON to the AG would not affect the ability of the 1st AF or AFRCC to directly task CAP assets to respond to a federal mission.  NORAD can directly task ANG fighter units in CONUS defense missions, and we would fall under the same principle.

This would negate the current MOU's with the civilian emergency management organizations.  If the EMA desired air support, the support request would go to the National Guard.  The NG air operations officer would evaluate the request and select the appropriate resource.  It may be CAP, it may be rotary-wing Army assets, or it may be a heavy-lift asset of the Air Force/ANG.  The call is made by the Air Boss and he issues the tasking.

I have worked both as a National Guard officer during disasters, and have seen this system operate. 

[RiverAux]

Yes, CAP is more than CAP-USAF, but those are the folks that matter in terms of performing AF oversight of CAP activities.  How would the State Directors and CAP-RAP program be handled under your scenario?

While you could certainly put CAP-USAF (and their oversight responsibilities) anywhere you want, including under someone in charge of the Air National Guard at the federal level, that does NOT change the fact that under federal law we are a non-profit corporation of civilian volunteers under the direction of the Board of Governors. 

Where I'm with you (sort of), is that the AF may be able to delegate some of its oversight responsibilities down to the state NG and it could probably even delegate AFAM operational control for approval and oversight of state and local missions to a state Adj. Gen rather than AFRCC.  But that would only give that Adj. Gen. some control over what CAP does as the AF Auxiliary (A and B missions).  In this case, the AG is acting as a rep of the AF, not of the state.

And what makes you think the AF wants to really even make it easier to get AFAM status for state missions?  Heck, was it Iowa that they made do a straight-up state homeland security exercise as a corporate mission that they refused even unfunded AFAM status for?

And if we do state and local missions as corporate missions (C14), what right would the AG have to control how those missions are conducted by a Wing just be virtue of delegated responsibility for AF Aux missions? 

I am curious as to whether there would be any complications with making the AG take his "federal" hat on and off in regards to CAP AFAMs.  Would he need to be put on federal orders to do this essentially federal job?  I'm not familiar enough with what restrictions are on them to say. 

[aveighter]

John, I really have to go with riveraux on this one.

Surely you realize by now that, Hey, nothing matters and what if it did?

I have it on good authority that the leadership at Iowa Wing has finally come to the correct conclusion that all of their accomplishments were not actually possible.  Having done what can't be done, they are at last returning to doing nothing secure in the knowledge that all will be right with the world once again.  A special session of the Iowa legislature is being convened to reverse the legislation regarding CAP that they now realize couldn't be done in the first place.

I have also been notified by the NAAHR&P (national association for the advancement of historical rights and possibilities) that existential and posthumous meetings are being held with Hap Arnold about that whole little airplane submarine bomb business.  As such a thing was certainly not possible the fact that they did it must be corrected.  I understand the uniform issue will be discussed also.

Hey River, I will be forwarding the contact information for Lawrence Livermore and Sandia national laboratories.  I hear disturbing reports that they have not picked up the new thinking regarding the futility of thinking.  There is tinkering with the laws of physics going on over there and I believe you need to have a look!

Also, in support of your crusade to stifle any hint of progress with an unending torrent of questions, objections and irrelevant minutiae, I have begun a survey of things around the house that couldn't possibly be.  Despite Mrs. aveighters vociferous objections and as she was unable to satisfactorily explain the operation of the microwave to me, I tossed it.  I've always been suspicious of the thing, always seemed so bloody improbable to me.  One more thing that couldn't possible work.

[RAZOR]

Actually I pitched this idea to my congressman and they are looking into the National Guard aspect. It would put total control of CAP under National Guard Control. The infrastructure is already in place to support it, Finance, Operations, Communications, and so on. The Air Force Dollars supplied to support CAP would be under the control of the local ANG Base Comptroller and State Director Jobs would be no more.

As for the Civilian pilots there would be an interview process by designated ANG  Personnel designated to run the program and interview potential Pilots to support the program from the pilot perspective to include Cadet O-Rides, ROTC and all SAR/DR. This is what the ANG does in the state mission, as for federal missions those would be handled on a case by case basis much like the NOC does now. You select from the pilot pool with appropriate QUALS to support that mission and you move forward.

It would eliminate the "CLUB" mentality and mandate core values and eliminate the corporate corruption that exists today.

[RiverAux]

I am not saying that such a relationship is a horrible idea.  It might even be an idea I could get behind if a specific plan was laid on the table. 

What I am saying is that it just can't be done without changing federal and state laws and this wonderful world just won't come about by changing who in the AF handles CAP issues. 

Such laws can be changed as Razor suggested and I laid out what some of those changes might have to be. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

State Directors would probably still exist under a different title, probably under the "Guard Technician" program.

CAP-RAP is easy.  Any officer can sign a point voucher, including NG officers.  I have signed AF personnel vouchers as an Army officer, and they still got points.

In the Army the form is a DA 1351-2, I forget what the AF form number is.

The BoG would still operate as an oversight body, but I think out of necessity would include more ANG officers.  That would be SECAF's call.  CAP structure would remain intact.

The state AG would run our Title 36 missions, and Title 10 missions as the agent of the USAF. 

The National Guard can be activated with a phone call to the governor. CAP should be activated under the same conditions.  Right now, a using agency has to jump through more hoops than a circus bear to get a CAP plane up.

[JayT]

But what happens if our guys don't come when called?

[Dustoff]

I'm not so sure about the CAP-RAP part of it.  As reservists, even though we're "assigned" to a particular wing, we are an asset for the entire region.  We can easily go to other regions, just have to get approval through the chain of command.  How would that function under the ANG?  For the Graded SAR-EVALS the current procedure is to utilize evaluators from other states in that region.  If I travel to another state, do I have to be put on Title 10 orders?  Who funds them?  AF or the states.  Which state?

Food for thought (from my view)

Jim

[isuhawkeye]

But what happens if our guys don't come when called?

If we cant do the jobs we claim to do, then what good are we in the first place?

[RiverAux]

But what happens if our guys don't come when called?

Absolutely nothing.  Because even if this idea were feasible, we would still be the same civilian volunteers that we are now.  You would not be anymore under the "command" of the Air National Guard than we are of the Air Force today.  As long as Kach thinks this can be done without changing federal law, then the existing federal law that says we are civilians will still stand. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

I'm not so sure about the CAP-RAP part of it.  As reservists, even though we're "assigned" to a particular wing, we are an asset for the entire region.  We can easily go to other regions, just have to get approval through the chain of command.  How would that function under the ANG?  For the Graded SAR-EVALS the current procedure is to utilize evaluators from other states in that region.  If I travel to another state, do I have to be put on Title 10 orders?  Who funds them?  AF or the states.  Which state?

Food for thought (from my view)

Jim

If it is an AF evaluated exercise, the funding is Title 10.  I don't see an issue here.

[JohnKachenmeister]

But what happens if our guys don't come when called?

You will never be called again.  They can't depend on you.

[JayT]

But what happens if our guys don't come when called?

You will never be called again.  They can't depend on you.

Okay, let me rephrase sir.

What if I get called, and I can't leave my midterm? What if I can't leave my job? What if I'm sick?

No matter who we 'work' for, ES wise, we're still civilian volunteers.

[jeders]

But what happens if our guys don't come when called?

You will never be called again.  They can't depend on you.

Okay, let me rephrase sir.

What if I get called, and I can't leave my midterm? What if I can't leave my job? What if I'm sick?

No matter who we 'work' for, ES wise, we're still civilian volunteers.

Like Kach said, you probably won't be called again.

There was a a squadron commander somewhere who got called late at night to activate his squadron. His wife picked up and told them not to call anymore. The next time that squadron had to be activated, the CC was the last to know.

[isuhawkeye]

Its this simple. 

1. Determine your mission
2. Determine a 3-5 deep staffing model
3. Recruit to staff that many personel in each position
4.  Establish a training program to ensure the deployment of standardised resources
5.  Run the missions

Re-evaluate consistantly

6.  Have a contingency plan utilizing mutual aid resources (surrounding CAP entities) to back fill during difficult times. 

[mikeylikey]

But what happens if our guys don't come when called?

You will never be called again.  They can't depend on you.

Okay, let me rephrase sir.

What if I get called, and I can't leave my midterm? What if I can't leave my job? What if I'm sick?

No matter who we 'work' for, ES wise, we're still civilian volunteers.

Like Kach said, you probably won't be called again.

There was a a squadron commander somewhere who got called late at night to activate his squadron. His wife picked up and told them not to call anymore. The next time that squadron had to be activated, the CC was the last to know.

So the spouse may make a mistake, and you punish the whole SQD.  (Not you, I know....I mean the alerting Officer).  That makes a lot of sense.   

[isuhawkeye]

As an alerting officer, and IC.

If it is difficult or challenging to get a hold of you I will stop calling. 

God only knows that I don't want to be up at 0 dark 30, and my wife has no sympathy for your wife. 

If you want to be "Just a Volunteer" I will treat you like one.  I will call you when I have envelopes that need to be licked for the PTA.


If you want to be a professional I will rely on you as though you were a professional (Paid or not).  That doesn't mean I expect you to be available all hours of every day.  I do however expect that you function as a part of a professional organization,

[JohnKachenmeister]

But what happens if our guys don't come when called?

You will never be called again.  They can't depend on you.

Okay, let me rephrase sir.

What if I get called, and I can't leave my midterm? What if I can't leave my job? What if I'm sick?

No matter who we 'work' for, ES wise, we're still civilian volunteers.

In spite of the generally argumentive tone that I pick up on from your posts, you have raised an interesting point.

Most states have laws similar to the federal veterans re-employment law protecting Guard troops called to state active duty.  I believe if we were assigned to the Guard and called up by the governor under Title 36, that we would fall under these laws.  Some states have already specifically included CAP as part of their Guard structure and have extended job protection to us.

[JayT]

But what happens if our guys don't come when called?

You will never be called again.  They can't depend on you.

Okay, let me rephrase sir.

What if I get called, and I can't leave my midterm? What if I can't leave my job? What if I'm sick?

No matter who we 'work' for, ES wise, we're still civilian volunteers.

In spite of the generally argumentive tone that I pick up on from your posts, you have raised an interesting point.

Most states have laws similar to the federal veterans re-employment law protecting Guard troops called to state active duty.  I believe if we were assigned to the Guard and called up by the governor under Title 36, that we would fall under these laws.  Some states have already specifically included CAP as part of their Guard structure and have extended job protection to us.

I would love to see a law on the books that would cover volunteer emegency workers, that would be awesome.

Sorry if my post came off as sarcastic.

[CAP_truth]

If we were to change to a state controlled organization we would have 50 political wing commanders being appointed by governors who has a friend who wants to run around with eagles on their shoulder. The system we currently using is the Air Force, FEMA, Homeland Security, U.S. Customs, state and local governments, etc. are clients for our services. We received federal funding and support from the Air Force for our programs. We should remain as we are now and first fix the problems we have internally before we try to change the structure of the organization. If we do away as an Air Force Auxiliary we loss wearing the AF uniforms, state directors, free uniforms for cadet, and even air lifts. My vote is that we stay the way we are.

[mikeylikey]

If we do away as an Air Force Auxiliary we loss wearing the AF uniforms, state directors, free uniforms for cadet, and even air lifts. My vote is that we stay the way we are.

Some of that MAY NOT BE A BAD THING! 

Also, Wing Kings are most already appointed by friends.....hell they move up to Vice Commander because of who they know most of the time, and even if they are an idiot, they are most likely going to be the Wing Commander after the current is gone.  Having a State Governor appoint the Wing Commander through each states Adjutant Generals Office could be a good thing.  Heck, if each Wing CC were appointed by the governors office, I think our relationships in each state would be solid.

[JohnKachenmeister]

The last I checked, the Air National Guard was a part of the US Air Force.  I think they still are, but with all the news about Britney and all, I might have missed the change.

If we are part of the Air Force under the Air University, why would we lose auxiliary status under the Air National Guard?

Sorry, CAPTruth, but I don't think I understand your point.

We would STILL, as a Guard asset, fly for Customs, DEA, AFRCC, 1st AF , and we would still do so as an auxiliary of the USAF.  Our "Corporate" missions, however, would all be as a state asset, under the Adjutant General.  That way, we wouldhave state protection of jobs, state benefits if injured, etc.  There are a LOT of benefits to this idea.

If a local EOC, the Red Cross, or any other entity wants CAP for a mission, they would call the Asst AG for Air with the request.  The AG would assign the mission to the wing, and re-imbursement would be from the state.  The state may or may not bill the using entity, that would be their call and based on the laws of the state.