CAP Talk

If I recall correctly, the last Air Force officer to hold the position of CAP National Commander was in the mid-1970's.  Obviously, this was way before my time, so I cannot speak on the matter of what would be better for the organization: a USAF commander, or CAP commander.  Does anyone have any opinions on which was better for the organization?  I know it would definitely cut out the politics associated with the position, but I'm speaking beyond this issue.  Were there any benefits to having a USAF officer in direct command of CAP?

The title of National Commander was changed to "Commander USAF-CAP, and the Chairman of the Board of CAP was given the additional title of "National Commander". This more properly gave  the responsibility for the everyday running of CAP to the CAP (Executive Director), rather than the Air Force which is charged with the support of CAP missions and not the everyday running of the various programs. 

The benefits were that an AF general commanded us, and we were looked upon as an integral part of the USAF.

I miss those days.

There were also NO uniform issues.  We changed when the AF changed.

What was the reason behind merging from direct-AF control to a CAP commander?

To answer your question; I don't think so.   The times before 1980 were quite different from today.  However, if you look at what we have now vs. then, we are better off as an organization with modern aircraft, a workable fleet of vehicles and, communications equipment second to none.

That being said, CAP was basically totally controlled by the Air Force until 1994 as, all employees at NHQ worked for the AF; even the executive director.  And, we all now understand the Liason system before the change, which was transitioned to the current program around 2000.  As I remember it, the change to a CAP volunteer commander had to do with politics.  All the other changes were due to Air Force budget shortfalls.

CAP missions are ever evolving and, have no real corelation to our governance. Oversight of our funding has not changed at all (except for the mechanics).   We don't have as many reserve man days available for reservists to help at encampments; nor do we have airlift.  This is because of the war time commitments more than a shift of governance.

The more I think of it, the more I think it is the ever improving professionalism of the membership that is more important and beneficial to CAP.

Here's a pretty historic document about the changes that occurred in CAP
http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/ns00136.pdf
RM 

Whether their would be benefits to having AF officers in direct command of CAP either at the National, Regional, Wing, or Squadron levels is mostly irrelevant at a time when the AF is cutting officers from the service. 

If we're looking at more direct AF involvement at minimal cost, I would suggest that CAP-USAF State Directors be the final approving authority over all ES qualifications and that they would have the authority to yank qualifications if they felt it necessary.  This would be part of their duty of oversight of how CAP conducts AFAMs. 

SDs should also be the final approving authority for all adverse membership actions against CAP members (terminations, demotions, etc.).   This would address CAP's continual problems in this area. 

SDs should also have the authority to recommend CAP members to receive AF awards available to civilians when such an award would be appropriate and regardless of whether or not CAP has already recognized the action in question. 

Unless the law is changed, SD's will stay out of member ops qualifications and member adverse actions.  Besides they are overworked as is. 

IMHO, there would be no benefit to the members if there were more direct Air Force governance (read command and control) of CAP.   Funding would not change, missions would not change, uniform controversy would not change, politics would not change (although emphasis may). 

The one major change I see is increased discussion on CT relating to our "big brother"  >:D

Oh, I don't know about that.  The CG basically has total control over CG Aux and most recently the Aux leadership only even tried to make 4 changes to Aux regulations and the CG squashed several of them.  CAP makes that many changes before the first snack break at the NB.  More AF control would most likely slow down and probably eliminate a bunch of minor changes that probably weren't worth making in the first place. 

FYI, I assume that for the purposes of this thread we are assuming that current federal law regarding CAP governance would change to allow more AF control. 

For all of its warts the current structure/manning of CAP is much better than the old USAF run CAP.

Under the AF a large portion of the AF staff, including the National Commander, at NHQ were there on a sunset tour and were ROAD.  They were often less than responsive to the needs of the CAP members.  I mean what were we, CAP, going to do to them.  This was also true for many of the Wing LOs

Most of the corporate vehicles were junk.  They were screened from DRMO so the military had already trashed them when we got them.  Individual units were responsible for all maint and insurance costs.

Communications equipment was screened from DRMO, once again junk for the most part, or was privately purchased

When I first joined, early 60's, we were still flying fabric covered L-16s, PA-18s that were declared surplus from the AF and Army  We later got the O-1s and T-34 that had been declared surplus so many of them were pretty tired also with little to no help from NHQ for maint.

So, when all things are considered I prefer the current arrangement

In a "perfect" CAP, the Board of Governors would be giving more direct guidelines for CAP's volunteer leadersip to work with. Maybe there will be some changes after the board meets on Weds.

Many of our regulations are still dated from the 1990's or earlier.
After 10 years, we still have no idea about the relationship between the National Commander, National Vice Commander and the BoG or, with each other.   The relationship between the Executive Director and the National Commander needs clarification.
The MARB's authority is in question.
The relationship of the National Board in the leadership structure is in question.

These governance issues however, IMHO, are not effecting us in any significant way. We will still do what is asked; no matter how CAP is structured at the "National Level".   

And, FYI, we can forget about any change of statute for a while.  We are very small potatoes in the scheme of things.  Congress, in giving CAP a Board of Governors, has spoken.  We, as is, must figure things out for our own mutual benefit; with the resources at hand.

PA Guy.  My experiences with te Commanders of CAP-USAF were just the reverse. ALL were interested in the membership and the needs of CAP. Sure CAP was flying L-16's T-34, but USAF did most of the maintenance on CAP aircraft, at least in Florida at Holmstead AFB,Tyndall AFB and MacDill AFB. And your comment that CAP now does the maintenance, where do you think the money comes from? Your dues! Granted most of the vehicles were DRMO surplus, but many of the vehilces were in good shape. The local Squadron got a 2 1/2 ton Comm truck (4x6) in great shape when the AF Reserve unit was disbanded. Many of the buses were in fair shape. And don't forget that USAF supplied airlift for cadets to many activities. When was the last time a cadet in New York, Texas or Georgia visited the Air Force Museum? In the 60's airlift was available for such tours. Florida scheduled two per year theough the Wing CAP-USAF Liaison Officer.

I was a member then and if I remember correctly, the change was because the CAP leader at the time wanted the title of National Commander and also to be a two-star general officer. It's not who you think and that national commander is now dead, so why muddy his name.

The change was dramatic even though it happened progressively over time. The CAP before the change was more an integral part of the Air Force. Afterward, we started using terms such as clients and we searched for missions.

One thing, though, the commander of CAP-USAF is still the ranking officer. From the Air Force perspective, his other title is Program Manger. What would be great is if he were a general officer again.

Quote from: BillB on December 06, 2010, 01:30:57 PM
PA Guy.  My experiences with te Commanders of CAP-USAF were just the reverse. ALL were interested in the membership and the needs of CAP. Sure CAP was flying L-16's T-34, but USAF did most of the maintenance on CAP aircraft, at least in Florida at Holmstead AFB,Tyndall AFB and MacDill AFB. And your comment that CAP now does the maintenance, where do you think the money comes from? Your dues! Granted most of the vehicles were DRMO surplus, but many of the vehilces were in good shape. The local Squadron got a 2 1/2 ton Comm truck (4x6) in great shape when the AF Reserve unit was disbanded. Many of the buses were in fair shape. And don't forget that USAF supplied airlift for cadets to many activities. When was the last time a cadet in New York, Texas or Georgia visited the Air Force Museum? In the 60's airlift was available for such tours. Florida scheduled two per year theough the Wing CAP-USAF Liaison Officer.

FLWG was fortunate then.  During this period I was a member of 3 different wings in 3 different regions and didn't see it.  For most of that period I was in a wing that had 8 Air Force bases back then.  I don't remember any of them doing maint. on corp. A/C.  That wing received a small appropriation from the state that was earmarked for A/C maint. only.  It doesn't bother me that part of my dues goes for A/C maint.  I see that as a positive thing.

I still stand by my statement that most of the vehicles sub standard.  Through the efforts of the members and their money most of them far exceeded their service life.

As for airlift, that had more to do with availability than anything else.  Back then their were large AFRES units with old C-119s, C123s and C124s looking for missions to justify their existence.  And it was much the same with on-base facilities .  There were more bases and many still had WW II barracks available and other facilities that were available to CAP.  All of this was more a function of availability than anything NHQ or the wing L/O did.

Just goes to show that even back then the CAP "experience" could vary widely from wing to wing and region to region.   :)

Actually, having the Air Force due the aircraft maintenance is a little older. It was a time when CAP actually flew Air Force-marked aircraft.

As far as more Air Force support, I'm not sure if a lot of the current state of Air Force support doesn't have more to do with the most recent federal legislation. I think the real solution here is to lobby our federal representatives and have that legislation re-visited and/or amended. Perhaps it also would be appropriate to have an Air Force officer returned to the organization's helm.

Thanks for the insight, everyone -- much appreciated!

I came into CAP around the time that a lot of the disconnect from the AF was happening (1993).

CAP was in "thank you sir may I have another?" mode with the AF following the shenanigans of a few bad actors, and they know who they are/were.

I remember during my Level I six months initiation education as a nonentity SMWOG being told repeatedly about not being entitled to salutes and not to expect them...which wasn't an issue for me anyway.

My colleagues at that time lamented the loss of things like being overseen by a USAF officer, being an integral part of the AF and of friendly relations with AF personnel on base.  At that time, my experience with the AF ranged from indifference, to a friendly greeting, to an occasional salute, to overhearing grumbling about "those CAP wannabes playing officer."

And, of course, there were uniforms.  We'd just got the awful berry boards but we still had some blue CAP epaulettes and hard rank in squadron stores...most of those became collectors' items.

I remember having one LO and LSNCO before the SD thing kicked in.

Of course, we almost augered in at the hands of John McCain in 1995.

During the years I have been in CAP, it seems that we have become more and more "corporate," thanks in part to AF manpower cuts but also through the influence of people at the top levels of CAP who wanted to have their cake and eat it too: do whatever we want, get away from the AF uniforms but still be on the AF gravy train for reimbursement of their flying club socialising flying hours.

I for one would like to see CAP moved from AETC/AU to AFRC, given that the Deputy AF Secretary for Reserve Affairs already has a connection with us (as stated in Radioman's document link).

I would like to see the CAP CC be a USAF Reserve MGen, with a CAP BGen as deputy, and the return of AFRC/ANG LO's/LSNCO's, who, as RiverAux stated, would have approval/recommending authority for personnel actions.

However, pigs might fly out of...

A USAF controlled Civil Air Patrol in modern times presents certain challenges from the top down.  It has been pointed out at various places here at CAPTALK that service in the USAF is vastly different that than in the Civil Air Patrol and that command styles, expectations and motivational techniques are radically different.  This matter comes up anytime professional development reform is mentioned and has one rationale that rings true.  Commanders in CAP have to understand its structures, cultures and limitations when exercising command.

Thus, some General from the USAF, who learned about CAP in a multi-media presentation years ago who is assigned to National Command my have a built in disconnect (unless this person was or had been at some time an active CAP member)

Also, solving the matter of USAF control in the Wings, Groups and Squadrons in a new USAF structure would present a logistical matter to be solved.  From where would be get the manpower to insure unit visits?  Some Wings struggle to get their units inspected yet alone field L/O personnel to administer USAF policy at any respectable level.  If they require, as a mitigating factor, CAP "Self-evaluation" how does that differ from what we do now?

Quote from: CyBorg on December 07, 2010, 06:21:23 AMI for one would like to see CAP moved from AETC/AU to AFRC, given that the Deputy AF Secretary for Reserve Affairs already has a connection with us (as stated in Radioman's document link).

We would a much better fit being under the National Guard Bureau. Since we do have a "Federal" (Air Force) and a "State" (Corperate) mission.

But like you said, when pigs fly....

Quote from: PHall on December 07, 2010, 07:26:37 AM
Since we do have a "Federal" (Air Force) and a "State" (Corperate) mission.

State does not equal Corporate. 

I'm pretty sure the Board of Governors will be addressing governance issues for CAP at it's December meeting (tomorrow).  Who knows where that will lead however, we may have that AF general commanding us yet.... >:D

Quote from: RiverAux on December 07, 2010, 01:02:24 PM

Quote from: PHall on December 07, 2010, 07:26:37 AM
Since we do have a "Federal" (Air Force) and a "State" (Corperate) mission.

State does not equal Corporate.

Okay, how about "Missions other then Air Force Assigned Missions"? Wordy enough for ya?

Just a little info for you all. The UK, Air Training Corps is commanded by a serving Officer with the rank of Air Commadore. Regional Commanders are all retired Reserve Officers. The highest someone can get coming from civy street is Wing Commander.
That said the Royal Air Force provides uniforms for all senior members and cadets. Aircraft are also provided. That said to fly the Grob Tutor (used to fly cadet orientation flights) you have to have been trained as a military pilot as they are allowed to do aerobatics. ATC members however can train to become glider pilots.
Squadron vehicles have to be purchased by the squadron and maintained by them. that said every squadron has to have a civilian committee who are responsible for fund raising. The Squadron Commander runs the squadron.
Buildings are maintained and provided by the MOD.
Hope that gives you an idea on how things could be.

Is it true that the cadets and officers of the UK Air Training Corps are paid?  I think I heard that and that the Canadians are also paid.  It could get much better..

Quote from: AirAux on December 07, 2010, 08:05:59 PM
Is it true that the cadets and officers of the UK Air Training Corps are paid?  I think I heard that and that the Canadians are also paid.  It could get much better..

Being paid could also be much worse.

Many companies out there have policies for volunteer service by employees, including time off (often with pay) for people to volunteer in worthy organizations.  I know I have clearance to pick up and respond to an ES or DR issue should it occur.  If I were to be paid, that would, in essence, become a second job, and for me to pick up and leave in the event of an event, would be a violation of my employment contract.

Cadets in the Royal Canadian Air Cadets are not paid, however; the RCAF will pay for them to get their pilots' licence.

Their instructors (Cadet Instructor Cadre) are paid for duty time since they are appointed as Reserve officers in whatever branch they serve (RCAirC, RCAC, RCSCC).  The only differences uniform-wise are a special cap badge and "CIC" instead of "CANADA" on their rank epaulettes.  They also must take a Basic Officer Training course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadet_Instructors_Cadre

In the UK officers of the ATC are appointed as serving officers of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve (Training) and are paid for duty time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Training_Corps

It is much the same for other Commonwealth organisations; i.e., the New Zealand Air Training Corps and Australian Air Force Cadets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Air_Training_Corps

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Air_Force_Cadets

Also, unlike us, their officers rate a salute from regular military personnel.

Quote from: JeffDG on December 07, 2010, 08:15:32 PM
Being paid could also be much worse.

Many companies out there have policies for volunteer service by employees, including time off (often with pay) for people to volunteer in worthy organizations.  I know I have clearance to pick up and respond to an ES or DR issue should it occur.  If I were to be paid, that would, in essence, become a second job, and for me to pick up and leave in the event of an event, would be a violation of my employment contract.

I imagine that if we were in the same situation as the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand we would be regarded as "volunteer reservists" and subject to the same legal protections as Guard/Reserve/SDF.

Reference ATC members being paid. the answer is senior members only are but only for certain activities such as annual camp. Officers and NCO's (Senior members can claim up to 28 days pay a year, the higher you go the amount of days is reduced). For weekly squadron meetings you are not paid. They are also required to a minimum amount of squadron meetings if they don't they will loose their status.

Quote from: CyBorg on December 07, 2010, 08:22:12 PM
Also, unlike us, their officers rate a salute from regular military personnel.

And they wouldn't look at me funny when I say "leftenant"

Quote from: CyBorg on December 07, 2010, 08:24:57 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on December 07, 2010, 08:15:32 PM
Being paid could also be much worse.

Many companies out there have policies for volunteer service by employees, including time off (often with pay) for people to volunteer in worthy organizations.  I know I have clearance to pick up and respond to an ES or DR issue should it occur.  If I were to be paid, that would, in essence, become a second job, and for me to pick up and leave in the event of an event, would be a violation of my employment contract.

I imagine that if we were in the same situation as the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand we would be regarded as "volunteer reservists" and subject to the same legal protections as Guard/Reserve/SDF.

Don't bet on that...in Canada, reserves do not have the right to maintain their job if called up and deploy...their call-up is voluntary (ie. they can refuse the call), and employers are not required to maintain their jobs for them like in the US.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 07, 2010, 01:02:24 PM

Quote from: PHall on December 07, 2010, 07:26:37 AM
Since we do have a "Federal" (Air Force) and a "State" (Corperate) mission.

State does not equal Corporate.

My thinking exactly, which is why my suggestion was for AFRES and not ANG. 

Putting us under ANG control would likely involve Title 10 USC issues.  A State Governor has no formal command authority over us, unlike ANG/ARNG/SDF/Naval Militias.

JeffDG: I'd forgot about the Canadian employment code for reservists.  I live relatively close to the border and go across a fair bit, though  not as much as I used to since 9/11 (easy going into Canada, PITA coming back).

Sometimes I use "lef-tenant" as well, much to the consternation of my squadron colleagues. >:D

Putting us in with the ANG might be a positive, if it gets us more support and funding.

Personally, if you put an Air Force General in charge of CAP it will make zero difference in our situation. It is a sun set job, and the Air Force General will not want to make waves or do anything that involves change or risk to himself.

The thing that is being avoided by everyone in the current hierarchy is, we have no plan or Strategic Vision.

We have no viable relationship with the holders of the purse strings, the "Congress", and we dont know what to ask for, if we did have the relationship.

As long as that is the case, we are at status quo.

I thought having an AF National Commander was good, but we lost it when Congress reduced the number of general/admiral slots in the military, and the AF had to make some decisions.  We are not likely to get that slot back.

The current situation is virtually unsustainable... the National Commander, a CAP general, does not command the FT staff of CAP.  The Natl Cdr is elected by... the very people supervised by the Natl Cdr.  The Ex Dir of CAP reports to the BoG, not the Natl Cdr.  Try putting this into a nice neat line diagram for the new folks... you can't.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 21, 2010, 02:09:05 AM
The current situation is virtually unsustainable... the National Commander, a CAP general, does not command the FT staff of CAP.  The Natl Cdr is elected by... the very people supervised by the Natl Cdr.  The Ex Dir of CAP reports to the BoG, not the Natl Cdr.  Try putting this into a nice neat line diagram for the new folks... you can't.

Wait. MY BRAIN! IT HURTS!

Many brains are aching right now.....

There seems to be some need for clarification on who "commands" CAP.    And, it seems no one really can figure it out. 

The way I see it, (and who cares what I think :) ) , The National Commander leads the volunteers, the EX is the top supervisor of the corporate paid staff and, the BoG provides governance over all.

Sooooo?  Any one have aspirin?  Tylenol?  Percoset?  An idea?..... ::)

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 21, 2010, 02:09:05 AM
The current situation is virtually unsustainable... the National Commander, a CAP general, does not command the FT staff of CAP.  The Natl Cdr is elected by... the very people supervised by the Natl Cdr.  The Ex Dir of CAP reports to the BoG, not the Natl Cdr.  Try putting this into a nice neat line diagram for the new folks... you can't.

To be fair, we have somehow made this . . . "unique" . . . governance model work for a lot of years   We've managed to save hundreds of lives, trained thousands of cadets, and aerospace-educated countless numbers of folks.  Sure, we have endured some pretty impressive drama along the way, but even when national-level events are at their most distracting, missions are flown and Tuesday night meetings go on as they always have.

But I am one of the firmest advocates for a thorough and careful review of our corporate governance.  And I have every reason to believe that that is exactly what is going to happen, in an open and transparent process with complete input from CAP leaders, the membership, and our external stakeholders.

"Stay tuned."

And FWIW, CAP-USAF commander is not considered a sunset tour.  Any O6 command slot is a coveted position in the AF.  Indeed, our current CAP-USAF commander was just selected for a prestigious follow-on command assignment as an operations group commander.

Quote from: FW on December 21, 2010, 03:25:05 AM
Many brains are aching right now.....

There seems to be some need for clarification on who "commands" CAP.    And, it seems no one really can figure it out. 

The way I see it, (and who cares what I think :) ) , The National Commander leads the volunteers, the EX is the top supervisor of the corporate paid staff and, the BoG provides governance over all.

Sooooo?  Any one have aspirin?  Tylenol?  Percoset?  An idea?..... ::)

What we have is more like a (National Commander in CAP is a) Committee Chairman. And we have the care taker staff at National HQ of paid people. And yes we have no real commander.

First, please keep in mind that the commander of CAP-USAF is still in the Air Force's eyes, the commander because his other title is "program manager." I think the full "command" title should be shifted back regardless of his rank. Otherwise, having the CAP shift under a state adjutant general would be problematic because that would mean protection of assets, state-unique policies, and perhaps even a lessing of the mission for the sake of the ANG.

If not the Air Force officer, consider this. Our second National Commander, Brig. Gen. Earle Johnson, started as a CAP Officer and ended up being a real Army Air Forces general, complete with service pilot wings. I don't understand why the same procedure/policy isn't in place today. Wouldn't that be something if it was, considering that our Chaplain Program is the only CAP Program that currently achieves Air Force Standard.

Second, after all the issues with HWSRN, I was surprised to find out that our current National Commander wasn't paid, only reimbursed for her expenses, and my hat goes off to her for that type of dedication. During the O9 NSC, she was at Maxwell twice in one week, in between obligations at different wings or regions. She's a volunteer, too.

However, third, that means that many of the day-to-day decisions are made by an executive director. So, CAP has its own level of bureaucracy, which should be stream-lined as a cost-saving measure.

Ned:

Yes, the system we have works... I just can't figure out how.

What we have is analgous to electro-shock therapy back in the day.  Psychiatrists used to say "We know it works, but we don't know why."

My simple-minded solution:  Combine the position of Natl. Commander and Executive Director.  That would give us a full-time Nat. Cdr. appointed by the BoG, and give the Nat Cdr command of both the volunteers and full time staff.  Have the NB send a recommendation to the BoG for Nat. Cdr. rather than full appointment authority.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 21, 2010, 01:16:41 PM
My simple-minded solution:  Combine the position of Natl. Commander and Executive Director.  That would give us a full-time Nat. Cdr. appointed by the BoG, and give the Nat Cdr command of both the volunteers and full time staff.  Have the NB send a recommendation to the BoG for Nat. Cdr. rather than full appointment authority.

Interesting...

Let the NB continue to appoint the CV, and the CV becomes the de facto leader of the "volunteer" side of the house, while the CC coordinates between the volunteers (lead by the CV) and the paid staff (lead by the EX)...that would mean keeping the EX role.

It solves the "circular governance" issue (ie. CC appoints the NEC and indirectly the NB, the NB selects the CC, rather, rinse, repeat) by having the CC appointed by the BoG, and establishes a unity of command in a single "CEO"

Quote from: JeffDG on December 21, 2010, 03:02:42 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 21, 2010, 01:16:41 PM
My simple-minded solution:  Combine the position of Natl. Commander and Executive Director.  That would give us a full-time Nat. Cdr. appointed by the BoG, and give the Nat Cdr command of both the volunteers and full time staff.  Have the NB send a recommendation to the BoG for Nat. Cdr. rather than full appointment authority.

Interesting...

Let the NB continue to appoint the CV, and the CV becomes the de facto leader of the "volunteer" side of the house, while the CC coordinates between the volunteers (lead by the CV) and the paid staff (lead by the EX)...that would mean keeping the EX role.

It solves the "circular governance" issue (ie. CC appoints the NEC and indirectly the NB, the NB selects the CC, rather, rinse, repeat) by having the CC appointed by the BoG, and establishes a unity of command in a single "CEO"

And there you have what sort of traditionally happens at an Air Force MAJCOM, where the CV is the one actually running things.

^And, if the BoG appointed (hired) CC was also the chairman of the BoG, it may be workable.  Possible food for thought to those who are dealing with the issue... :D

Kach's suggestion is intriguing.

What would be the eligibility criteria for the National CC under this pattern? Would that officer need to be current/retired USAF officer? Flag grade?

Kach's idea seems workable. And the National CC should be retired USAF Flag grade. The problem with that, the NB has no idea where to find a retired USAF General.

Quote from: BillB on December 21, 2010, 06:49:35 PM
Kach's idea seems workable. And the National CC should be retired USAF Flag grade. The problem with that, the NB has no idea where to find a retired USAF General.

It would not be the NB finding one, it would be the BoG.

And why would a retired general be a better selection than someone with executive level non-profit management experience?  Everyone seems quick to want someone with military experience, forgetting that our organization is larger than it's been in years, flies more, has more cadets, more programs, more resources, more activities, and more impact under the leadership of someone without military experience.

Quote from: jimmydeanno on December 21, 2010, 06:56:04 PM
And why would a retired general be a better selection than someone with executive level non-profit management experience?  Everyone seems quick to want someone with military experience, forgetting that our organization is larger than it's been in years, flies more, has more cadets, more programs, more resources, more activities, and more impact under the leadership of someone without military experience.

Fair point.  Personally, I'd have no problem with a volunteer working their way up the chain either to take over in such a scenario, but think that if the choice were up to the BoG, there should be few restrictions on their exercising their best judgement.

^If any "restrictions" would be put on the BoG, it would come from congress or the Air Force.  As far as "exercising their best judgement" is concerned.... :angel:
Yes, I would hope so. ;D

Quote from: FW on December 21, 2010, 08:08:05 PM
^If any "restrictions" would be put on the BoG, it would come from congress or the Air Force.  As far as "exercising their best judgement" is concerned.... :angel:
Yes, I would hope so. ;D

Historically, although not a member at the time, it looks to me that the BOG came about primarily because the USAF felt that the NEC/NB was disfunctional in overseeing anything properly and since the vast majority of funding is from the USAF, CAP  HAD TO accept the BOG option.

Also as far as an executive director goes, that's pretty typical in non profit organizations (some call them Chief Executive Officers), that manages the staff that supports the volunteer organization.   Here again we see that the BOG is the supervisor of that position, likely to ensure again the NEC/NB doesn't go astray.   The Executive director really is ensuring CAP complies with the cooperative agreement that gets us most of our funding (82%? of total revenue).         

As far as the AF role of grant management/supervision, looking at their web page http://www.au.af.mil/au/holmcenter/CAPUSAF/index.asp gives a fairly good explanation of what they do.  Per their web page, gee I didn't think they had 350 active military & civil servants overseeing CAP ???   

RM   

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on December 21, 2010, 08:41:01 PM
Per their web page, gee I didn't think they had 350 active military & civil servants overseeing CAP ???

Lets see. You have CAP-RAP (??). You have the State Directors (~50). You have the Liaison Region staff (~24-30). You have the CAP-USAF HQ staff (??). I don't know if they're counting the Wing Administrators (52?).

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 21, 2010, 01:16:41 PMMy simple-minded solution:  Combine the position of Natl. Commander and Executive Director.  That would give us a full-time Nat. Cdr. appointed by the BoG, and give the Nat Cdr command of both the volunteers and full time staff.  Have the NB send a recommendation to the BoG for Nat. Cdr. rather than full appointment authority.

Off the top of my head:


Advantages:

1.  Provides unity of command between volunteer and corporate staff.

2.  Eliminates the often-crushing burden placed on volunteer national commanders in terms of unreimbursed costs, time away from business and family, etc.
 



Disadvantages:

1.  As a practical matter, no volunteer can ever become national commander unless they quit their job (or retire) and move to Alabama.  This will most likely result in a succession of "outsiders" commanding our volunteer members.  One of the things a volunteer leader brings to the table is an intimate knowledge of the organization and the senior leadership.  Often literally decades of experience with this rather unusual organization.

2.  We would likely have to eliminate term limits on the national commander, and the "new model" national commander could serve for multiple decades.

3.  It is not immediately clear what a "NB recommendation" adds to the job search, since it is unlikely that a volunteer member can be national commander.


Definately worth considering.

Other options would include allowing the volunteer National Commander to hire & fire the ED.  This would also allow unity of command.  Historically, conflicts between the ED and CC have created problems for CAP. 

Or having the BoG select both the National Commander and the ED, letting each be responsibile for their own parts of the organization.

Or having the ED select the volunteer National Commander. 


And I'm sure there are a lot of good models out there that we simply haven't thought of yet.

Lots of good possiblities.  What we need now is a careful comparison of each of the possible governance models, and a move towards implementation of the best fit.

Move us from AETC/AU to the Air Force Reserve Command.

The Deputy Secretary for Reserve Affairs already has some degree of oversight over us.  Have the National CC report to the BOG, and the BOG report to DSRA.

Notice I didn't say the Air National Guard.  There would probably be Title 10 issues with that.

The National Commander already "reports" to the BoG.  And, as we have seen before, can remove them at "will".  The BoG reports to congress.  CAP-USAF deals with our appropriated funding/logistics and mission readiness issues through our grants administrator and LO staff.  And, the independant auditor keeps an eye on all our expenses. 

Whether CAP-USAF falls under AETC/AU or the AF Reserve Command, IMO, will not change anything with our governance.  The BoG rules.  How we end up clarifying things from there will be important.  The reason why we are discussing this issue at all is due to the confusion we have between the various leadership bodies in CAP.   Thanks to a great dedicated membership, we get the job done and, we do it well.  It would be great however, to have an organization that knows who the "boss" is.  It would be great if everyone in a leadership position really knew "their place" in the pecking order.  And, it would be great for our leadership to really speak with one voice when it comes to policy. 

Quote from: Ned on December 21, 2010, 09:09:04 PM
Disadvantages:

1.  As a practical matter, no volunteer can ever become national commander unless they quit their job (or retire) and move to Alabama.  This will most likely result in a succession of "outsiders" commanding our volunteer members.  One of the things a volunteer leader brings to the table is an intimate knowledge of the organization and the senior leadership.  Often literally decades of experience with this rather unusual organization.

I'll let others weigh in on your other points, but this can be easily addressed by keeping the national vice commander a volunteer position.

Certainly when I joined CAP as a cadet back in the 60s, the CAP was then under the Continental Air Command, which jointly managed CAP, AFRES and ANG, but the Air Force's command struture changed, and I'm not sure that moving the CAP out from under the AETC is viable.

In reality, the membership is actually seeing where CAP fits in the grand scheme of things. When I was on the Air Force side, I used to enjoy reading the Air Force Fact Sheet on the CAP and the fact that it usually listed the cadet program as first in the ranking of the three major missions. Besides, as long as we're at Maxwell AFB, you can bet that we'll be part of some AETC or AU-gained function.

I realize we're all volunteers, but I wonder sometimes if the real solution is not so much if we're moved from one command function or an other, or if we have a AF Officer as a commander. Rather, I wonder what would happenb if we as an organization were to achieve an Air Force standard in another part of our program. We're already at that level with Chaplains.

Quote from: flyboy1 on December 21, 2010, 11:56:43 PMRather, I wonder what would happenb if we as an organization were to achieve an Air Force standard in another part of our program. We're already at that level with Chaplains.

Well, since there are very, very few direct equivalencies between AF and CAP officers in terms of actual job duties, either administrative or mission-oriented, I don't see this as achievable.  Chaplain is one of the few CAP positions where this is even possible. 

I don't see why the National CC would have to move.  Quit or retire from his civilian position and spend a LOT of time in Alabama, fer sher, y'all, but that ain't a bad thing, y'know.

NB sets the standards for Natl CC applicants... Level 5, successful Wing or Region command, military command experience at senior level preferred but not required, etc.

NB reviews applicants for CC, and makes a recommendation.  Sends ALL qualified applicants to BoG for review.

BoG reviews applicants and can concur with NB recommendation, OR select another qualified applicant.

ED position is eliminated, and Natl CC fulfills both functions... commands ALL of CAP, reporting to the BoG, and leading the Wing and Region Commanders.

National CV serves as Chairman of NB.  National CC retains a voting membership on NB.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 22, 2010, 02:05:39 AM
I don't see why the National CC would have to move.  Quit or retire from his civilian position and spend a LOT of time in Alabama, fer sher, y'all, but that ain't a bad thing, y'know.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought you were proposing rolling the National Commander position/function into the Executive Director function.  I'm not sure how adding the responsibilities of the National Commander to the existing ED postion could be anything but full time. 
The  ED currently is a full-time position at NHQ, supervising something like 150 corporate employees and working with his CAP-USAF counterpart.  We pay our ED a six-figure salary for full time work.

What am I missing?

Quote
NB sets the standards for Natl CC applicants... Level 5, successful Wing or Region command, military command experience at senior level preferred but not required, etc.

Not bad qualifications, of course, but not many folks who can work full time and move to Alabama are going to qualify.  That's why the majority of our EDs have been non-members.

QuoteNB reviews applicants for CC, and makes a recommendation.  Sends ALL qualified applicants to BoG for review.

BoG reviews applicants and can concur with NB recommendation, OR select another qualified applicant.

It would be interesting to see if the 68-member NB could set up an effective review system.  It would involve a lot of committee work and would undoubtedly also involve a lot of inherent conflicts of interest since many if not most of the NB would apply if they could swing it financially.

Probably better to retain some sort of executive search firm to recruit and vet applicants for the NB and/or BoG.

QuoteED position is eliminated, and Natl CC fulfills both functions... commands ALL of CAP, reporting to the BoG, and leading the Wing and Region Commanders.

National CV serves as Chairman of NB.  National CC retains a voting membership on NB.

Again, since by definition the ED position is a full time, salaried postion and the National CC is a volunteer gig, it sounds like you are really eliminating the Natl CC gig and rolling it into the ED, not the other way around.  But we could just be talking semantics at this point.  The key is that the "combined CC/ED thing" will certainly have to be full time; and based at Maxwell.

The rest could work.

Out of curiosity, why would you put the CV as the NB chair?  Why not the CC?

I would anticipate that the National CC would serve a three-year term, like any other command tour.  Personally, I think that we need to have a full-time CC.  Where that person chooses to live during his 3 year tenure is up to him, but even the volunteer CC spends lots of time in the Heart of Dixie.  I am sure a flexible time arrangement would have to be made, and substantial travel is necessary.

The only reason I placed the CV as chair of the NB is tradition... the last time we had a full time CC he was an AD USAF officer, and the top CAP officer was the Chairman of the NB.  The CC could chair the NB as well.

I don't see any essential difference in the NB reviewing candidates for CC to make a recommendation than I do in the current process where they review them to appoint a CC.

Yes, availability would be an issue.  Bringing in someone totally from the outside would be a mistake.  My ideal candidate would be a retired USAF or other military officer with substantial CAP experience.  But, experience in any large organization at the executive level coupled with a long CAP history would work.

If we keep doing the same things over and over, we will get the same result.

Our obsession with an Air Force Officer retired or active as a National Commander, that will make everything all better for us, is the same old road we have been down. Air Force Officers are not used to working in organizations that have no budget or a very tiny budget for operations with lots of unpaid volunteers.

Curtis LeMay would not work as a CAP National Commander.

A Curtis LeMay would have zero interest in talking to Congress about money.

We probably need to draw from someone that is a promoter and a very good fund raiser, and someone that can persuade the NB to come up with a strategic plan. 

I have to agree.  Having a USAF General Officer in charge of CAP is not a "savior's solution."  We often fall into the idea that someone from the "outside" will save us.  Fact is, it is up to us to save ourselves.

If you being in a USAF Officer with no prior CAP experience they will likely expect certain things to be in place that can never be.  Shifting it all over the county would likely create chaos.  Once they find out that CAP units are meeting in old abandoned hangars, schools and all sorts of places that CAP and USAF have no authority over...there will be a large disconnect.  That most CAP infrastructure is through mutual aid.

Imagine such an officer making mandates of units  that have little resources to work with.  Yes, they accomplish the mission, but rely on only local and member funding to make things work.  It is one thing to pitch in for the good of the unit, it is another to be forced to do it.

In reality, having a USAF Officer in direct control on CAP will not be as many here think it would be.  Likely it will be a nightmare of unforeseen issues.

If the National Commander and Executive Director slots were merged, I think it would be prudent to have the National Vice Commander as National Board Chairman.  First, the Vice Commander would now assume the top volunteer leadership position in CAP.  Second, the CV would be the "voice" of the BoG to the volunteers at the NEC and NB level.  The CV could be the responsible leader to insure volunteer member compliance and, bring member concerns to the BoG. 
Also, because the National Commander slot would be a salaried position, and be supervised by the BoG, it would be prudent for the National Commander to take the "Executive Secretary" position and, lose voting status.  A third "at large" CAP slot would be created to fill the gap.

Just a thought...

I prefer to believe a general officer (retired or active) is educated and flexible enough to adapt to CAP leadership while allowing us to benefit from his or her Air Force experience.  Haven't plenty of generals and admirals transitioned to, and excelled in, private industry and non-profits?  There are pros and cons to evaluate, but it need not be a nightmare scenario. 

Quote from: wuzafuzz on December 23, 2010, 05:35:10 PM
I prefer to believe a general officer (retired or active) is educated and flexible enough to adapt to CAP leadership while allowing us to benefit from his or her Air Force experience.  Haven't plenty of generals and admirals transitioned to, and excelled in, private industry and non-profits?  There are pros and cons to evaluate, but it need not be a nightmare scenario.

My concern en re this issue is all the "pipe dreaming" that is being done in this thread about how such an officer would "save us!!!"  In that lies the nightmare.  Anytime people start to build up false impressions (many times repeated so many times to be thought of as truth) without adherence to realities as if their "fantasy frame work" were ordained future the potential for disappointment, catastrophic disappointment (were even faith in the organization is shaken), increases geometrically.

I can point to countless topics here where some one is ousted and an expectation for the successor is made into a grandiose "mandate of heaven" and then that person (doing a fine job) cannot live up to all that (and people's fantasy frameworks) resulting in a worse impression than before.

Beware finding "perfection," that only exists in one's mind and seldom, if ever, exists in the real world.   Don't march blindly toward a presumed light blinded to the pratfalls and obstacles.

This conversation harkens back to our founding. JF Curry, Wright Vermilya, Gens. Emmons, Olds, Metts, Arnold, Spaatz, and Stratemayer represented the Army's view: "We are organized - ready - lets go." AND the LaGuardia, Wilson, Gannett, and Loening view - Let's keep this a bit more Civil, folks. These were noble debates made by thinking and honest contenders.

Ever since the opening debates about how best to organize CAP - we have suffered from the internal politics of the civilian world and the external identification confusion and dysfunction that is the military's, particularly in peace time.

Frankly, I believe and have the supporting history to state. This is a completely inefficient and completely effective way to run this organization. The tug and pull between Military and Civilian identities is in our DNA. In this way it is like stress. Exercise Stress is good for your muscles and bones but Mental Stress is bad for your brain and sleep. SO, whicha gonna do?

Quote from: FW on December 23, 2010, 01:43:06 PM
If the National Commander and Executive Director slots were merged, I think it would be prudent to have the National Vice Commander as National Board Chairman.  First, the Vice Commander would now assume the top volunteer leadership position in CAP.  Second, the CV would be the "voice" of the BoG to the volunteers at the NEC and NB level.  The CV could be the responsible leader to insure volunteer member compliance and, bring member concerns to the BoG. 
Also, because the National Commander slot would be a salaried position, and be supervised by the BoG, it would be prudent for the National Commander to take the "Executive Secretary" position and, lose voting status.  A third "at large" CAP slot would be created to fill the gap.

Just a thought...

Ok I am on board with the idea, if you are talking about the Executive Director as in the position that is filled by Don Rowland now.

If you are filling a Salaried position (Executive Director and National Commander) the perfect person for that position, might be someone who has EXTENSIVE Lobbying experience in Washington, and has had dealings with the Congress on getting funding for successful programs.

And someone with a GREAT VISION for CAP. I dont think the vision could come from the BOG or the NB, it would have to be an individual that comes up with plan that the BOG and the NB jumps on board with.

Some areas that could demand more funding. A Jack Sorenson personality, that can perform in all areas of CAP.

More funds for Operational Training

An Expanded Cadet Program with better support of the Cadet Program, and possibly a partnership with AFROTC. Cost sharing. Salaried Instructors, School Program funding.

I respectfully submit that we leave things alone. 

Inspire through effective leadership the professionalism we know our personnel are capable of.

Watch the "trickle UP" effect take place in the process.

Yes, I know I'm an idealist...but then again, people are powerful motivators of one another.

We've got a great head of steam built up with the USAF, at least we do here in Ohio, and I'd like to
think that it counts for something.  Let's parlay our creative energies into making our people our greates asset and work out our changes from the bottom up. 

Quote from: Earhart1971 on December 31, 2010, 07:18:57 PM
If you are filling a Salaried position (Executive Director and National Commander) the perfect person for that position, might be someone who has EXTENSIVE Lobbying experience in Washington, and has had dealings with the Congress on getting funding for successful programs.

And someone with a GREAT VISION for CAP. I dont think the vision could come from the BOG or the NB, it would have to be an individual that comes up with plan that the BOG and the NB jumps on board with.

Some areas that could demand more funding. A Jack Sorenson personality, that can perform in all areas of CAP.

More funds for Operational Training

An Expanded Cadet Program with better support of the Cadet Program, and possibly a partnership with AFROTC. Cost sharing. Salaried Instructors, School Program funding.

I believe our National Commander is a volunteer.

That is a correct belief.

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on January 13, 2011, 05:15:34 AM
I believe our National Commander is a volunteer.

Presently, yes.  However, it may not be so in the future.  That is what this discussion is about. ::)

A National Commander on salary would have to be carefully chosen. I am afraid all that are on salary now at National are mostly in fear of losing their job if they make waves.

That said, a paid National Commander that has a vision and a plan to execute, might improve CAP. Let the NB and BOG overwatch, but the National Commander Commands.

Lets not forget that CAP did have a retired 4 star General as Chairman of the National Board. Gen. Carl Spaatz served as chairman when CAP was made a permanent auxiliary of The USAF. We are a federally charter corporate organization by act of congress, and in order to change that we would need another act of congress.

Quote from: CAP_truth on January 18, 2011, 12:00:28 AM
Lets not forget that CAP did have a retired 4 star General as Chairman of the National Board. Gen. Carl Spaatz served as chairman when CAP was made a permanent auxiliary of The USAF. We are a federally charter corporate organization by act of congress, and in order to change that we would need another act of congress.

::) because congress has never ever changed there minds before..... ::)

Quote from: NCRblues on January 18, 2011, 12:05:04 AM
::) because congress has never ever changed there minds before..... ::)

"Gentlemen, how are we going to solve this 1.3 trillion dollar budget shortfall and the 65 trillion dollars in unfunded financial obligations?"

"You know, we have better things to talk about Congressman, we need to fix CAP."

Quote from: jimmydeanno on January 18, 2011, 05:54:55 AM

Quote from: NCRblues on January 18, 2011, 12:05:04 AM
::) because congress has never ever changed there minds before..... ::)

"Gentlemen, how are we going to solve this 1.3 trillion dollar budget shortfall and the 65 trillion dollars in unfunded financial obligations?"

"You know, we have better things to talk about Congressman, we need to fix CAP."

What if Congress wanted CAP to play a bigger role to off sent the budget?  Do you think that a local CAP unit could effectively man a recruting posts or expand that one program where CAP members augmented USAF installations?  I think if we went that direction...more USAF oversight in terms of National Command would be reasonable.

I think it could be made to work...but we would have to be ready.

Quote from: jimmydeanno on January 18, 2011, 05:54:55 AM

Quote from: NCRblues on January 18, 2011, 12:05:04 AM
::) because congress has never ever changed there minds before..... ::)

"Gentlemen, how are we going to solve this 1.3 trillion dollar budget shortfall and the 65 trillion dollars in unfunded financial obligations?"

"You know, we have better things to talk about Congressman, we need to fix CAP."

Didn't McCain want to cut us from the budget in the past?

IIRC, Senator McCain wanted to transfer CAP to first the Department of Transportation (back in the '90s) and then sometime after 9/11 to the Department of Homeland Security.  In other words, sever our relationship with AF.

I always wondered what his major malfunction with CAP is, anyway ...

Jack

Quote from: ColonelJack on January 18, 2011, 10:08:19 AM
I always wondered what his major malfunction with CAP is, anyway ...

Jack

He said he doesn't want "non combatant" organizations to be "part of the military" (gee, how ironic given my response to another thread  ;D  )
However, for a more personal answer, you may want to speak with Ms. McCain.  She was a former member and mission pilot who had, from what I heard, a bad experience during a mission... >:D

Quote from: FW on January 18, 2011, 04:13:38 PM

Quote from: ColonelJack on January 18, 2011, 10:08:19 AM
I always wondered what his major malfunction with CAP is, anyway ...

Jack

He said he doesn't want "non combatant" organizations to be "part of the military" (gee, how ironic given my response to another thread  ;D  )
However, for a more personal answer, you may want to speak with Ms. McCain.  She was a former member and mission pilot who had, from what I heard, a bad experience during a mission... >:D

Hmmm...that "evil" smiley shouldn't alleviate your duty to provide details with a teaser like that!

CAP was on one of McCain's pork lists at one point.  Can still find that online if you look. 

There is a mind set to where we are right now. Take CAN NOT out of our vocabulary.

There are a million reasons that we can conceive to not move forward. Wipe those reasons out.

1. Budget: National Budget shortfall is billions: OK, my answer to that is that, what we have in the US House of Representatives RIGHT NOW is the will to restructure and improve the existing spending. Cut bad unproductive programs and enhance programs that work. Funds Transfer to successful programs.

2. What is our CAP Vision and Strategy to fit in with that new scenario?

Billions goes towards Education from the US Congress, that is where I would orient our solutions to money now being spent on programs that do no work relative to Technical Education and Youth Programs.

My recommendation for the short term: CAP Gains a Lobbyist and puts together a vision document relative to enhancement of techinical education.

Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 18, 2011, 10:39:38 PMMy recommendation for the short term: CAP Gains a Lobbyist and puts together a vision document relative to enhancement of techinical education.

Unless he's pro bono, I don't think we should be spending tax payer money to get more tax payer money.  Further, we are not educators, and moving into a new space, without being a proven commodity in your existing space is never a good idea.

We already have infrastructure in place to be successful, we own the planes and vehicles, have a strong program on paper, and all we need is some gas money. 

The key to CAP's future success is to stop whining about NHQ/Region/Wing/Group and start executing at the unit level, which were the real value has always been, and where the only actual "execution" ever happens.

The job of lobbyist can be combined with something else in the salary hierarchy at National.

We are simply re - arranging DECK CHAIRS.

There are no more economies that can be made. They are no improvements and extra effort from volunteers that can be extracted. We are maxed with overtasking and have many underfunded mandates.

We are going to start running out of Baby Boomer volunteers (pilots too)  to rely on.

We are (with this current economy) going to run out of follow on 25 to 45 year olds to volunteer.
Yes, give me your retired and rich, who want to spend 30 to 40 hours a week, LOL! We cannot depend on that type of member forever.

But that is my point - we're running out because we aren't doing what we are supposed to be.  The fact that you emphasize
losing pilots is a significant factor in our sustainability is an issue.  Pilots are a part of CAP, they aren't the whole, or even a significant
percentage of membership on the whole.  The majority of CAP operations, including a significant part of ES, does not in any way include
aircraft or pilots.  That might even be part of the overall issue, but doesn't change the equation as it exists today.

We have senior squadrons all over who won't even consider dealing with cadets, "composite" squadrons with no senior program to speak of, and cadet squadrons that are little more than weekly drill clinics.

People stay in CAP because it provides them an opportunity to do something "different", but "do" is the key word.  We are so bogging down our membership with needless adminstrivia that they have little time to actually "do" anything that they joined for.  A good portion of our membership still treats CAP like a hobby, disdains people telling them what to do, and would quit tomorrow if their pet "thing"
was reduced or eliminated.

Our members are not overburdened with mission-related work, they are overburdened with a constant stream of useless mandates, made all the more demoralizing by the fact that once the effort to check the box is made, no one cares beyond the form.  Plans of Action, Safety Surveys, SUI findings, pick one, blah, blah, background noise.

More money isn't going to fix that.  This is a "No Christmas this year, kids, play with the toys you have." Situation.

Quote from: Eclipse on January 18, 2011, 11:01:11 PM
But that is my point - we're running out because we aren't doing what we are supposed to be.  The fact that you emphasize
losing pilots is a significant factor in our sustainability is an issue.  Pilots are a part of CAP, they aren't the whole, or even a significant
percentage of membership on the whole.  The majority of CAP operations, including a significant part of ES, does not in any way include
aircraft or pilots.  That might even be part of the overall issue, but doesn't change the equation as it exists today.

We have senior squadrons all over who won't even consider dealing with cadets, "composite" squadrons with no senior program to speak of, and cadet squadrons that are little more than weekly drill clinics.

People stay in CAP because it provides them an opportunity to do something "different", but "do" is the key word.  We are so bogging down our membership with needless adminstrivia that they have little time to actually "do" anything that they joined for.  A good portion of our membership still treats CAP like a hobby, disdains people telling them what to do, and would quit tomorrow if their pet "thing"
was reduced or eliminated.

Our members are not overburdened with mission-related work, they are overburdened with a constant stream of useless mandates, mad all the more demoralizing by the fact that once the effort to check the box is made, no one cares beyond the form.  Plans of Action, Safety Surveys, SUI findings, pick one, blah, blah, background noise.

More money isn't going to fix that.  This is a "No Christmas this year, kids, play with the toys you have." Situation.

My god...eclipse...you said...everything i wanted to. This is a joyous day, we agree on something!!!

Quote from: Eclipse on January 18, 2011, 11:01:11 PM
But that is my point - we're running out because we aren't doing what we are supposed to be.  The fact that you emphasize
losing pilots is a significant factor in our sustainability is an issue.  Pilots are a part of CAP, they aren't the whole, or even a significant
percentage of membership on the whole.  The majority of CAP operations, including a significant part of ES, does not in any way include
aircraft or pilots.  That might even be part of the overall issue, but doesn't change the equation as it exists today.

We have senior squadrons all over who won't even consider dealing with cadets, "composite" squadrons with no senior program to speak of, and cadet squadrons that are little more than weekly drill clinics.

People stay in CAP because it provides them an opportunity to do something "different", but "do" is the key word.  We are so bogging down our membership with needless adminstrivia that they have little time to actually "do" anything that they joined for.  A good portion of our membership still treats CAP like a hobby, disdains people telling them what to do, and would quit tomorrow if their pet "thing"
was reduced or eliminated.

Our members are not overburdened with mission-related work, they are overburdened with a constant stream of useless mandates, made all the more demoralizing by the fact that once the effort to check the box is made, no one cares beyond the form.  Plans of Action, Safety Surveys, SUI findings, pick one, blah, blah, background noise.

More money isn't going to fix that.  This is a "No Christmas this year, kids, play with the toys you have." Situation.

I agree with a lot of what you say. However, its tiring to me, that CAP members like you want to keep the status quo and stay in the pit of the budget we are in. its just not necessary! We have more to offer especially with youth education and technolodgy.

Quote from: Earhart1971 on January 19, 2011, 01:16:04 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on January 18, 2011, 11:01:11 PM
But that is my point - we're running out because we aren't doing what we are supposed to be.  The fact that you emphasize
losing pilots is a significant factor in our sustainability is an issue.  Pilots are a part of CAP, they aren't the whole, or even a significant
percentage of membership on the whole.  The majority of CAP operations, including a significant part of ES, does not in any way include
aircraft or pilots.  That might even be part of the overall issue, but doesn't change the equation as it exists today.

We have senior squadrons all over who won't even consider dealing with cadets, "composite" squadrons with no senior program to speak of, and cadet squadrons that are little more than weekly drill clinics.

People stay in CAP because it provides them an opportunity to do something "different", but "do" is the key word.  We are so bogging down our membership with needless adminstrivia that they have little time to actually "do" anything that they joined for.  A good portion of our membership still treats CAP like a hobby, disdains people telling them what to do, and would quit tomorrow if their pet "thing"
was reduced or eliminated.

Our members are not overburdened with mission-related work, they are overburdened with a constant stream of useless mandates, made all the more demoralizing by the fact that once the effort to check the box is made, no one cares beyond the form.  Plans of Action, Safety Surveys, SUI findings, pick one, blah, blah, background noise.

More money isn't going to fix that.  This is a "No Christmas this year, kids, play with the toys you have." Situation.

We have more to offer especially with youth education and technolodgy.

OK, here's the deal...

Youth Education - The idea of CAP providing true education, be it youth or aerospace, is a pretty big misnomer in my opinion. An educator is a certified/licensed professional who creates curriculum, plans classes, provides assessment, and is constantly adapting to changing conditions inside the classroom and out. Save those few CAP members that are certified teachers and apply their skills in that way, our members don't do any of this. For the most part, we take materials, plans, an assessments that educators at the national level have developed and pushed down, and regurgitate them at the local level. That makes us trainers or instructors, not educators. And since the end recipient of the information to be had is at the squadron level, that's where it counts.

Technology - This one is pretty funny, actually. I can only assume you mean information technology, which makes it even funnier. Many squadrons don't have a computer or reliable internet access, let alone people who know how to do anything that doesn't involve Word or Internet Explorer 5. Nationally, we are behind even the smallest of local agencies in terms of communication capabilities and resources. This is sometimes a good thing - our VHF radios still work after hurricanes and tornadoes take down towers, and our highbirds and suitcase repeaters can provide flexible repeater coverage anywhere at any time. But the fact still remains that if we're struggling with the logistics of encryption - which many other agencies already have figured out and are way beyond - and have a core membership who can barely turn on a computer, we can't exactly say we're leading the way in technology research, education, or even use.

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on January 19, 2011, 10:35:15 PM
An educator is a certified/licensed professional who creates curriculum, plans classes, provides assessment, and is constantly adapting to changing conditions inside the classroom and out.

I don't know what dreamworld school you have near you, but with various national standards to meet many teachers have very little leeway in what information they teach the students.  They might have some wiggle room in how they get that information to them, but thats about it.  No teacher is creating curriculum today. 

Heck, even to get into a classroom to give a talk there have been situations where people I know have had to dig into the state standards and be able to convince the principal that the topic they'd like speak about would help them meet some particular standard. 

IMHO, the technology problem is a problem in the way CAP looks at younger SM's.

Lets be honest here, older people are the ones running CAP. Most of the time generations only feel comfortable with the technology they are used to. I know several members in my wing that go even to the point of ignoring the young members for the simple fact they are young. These older members ignore very sound advice because "he is only (insert age here) and doesn't understand cap yet".

Let some of the younger members have a crack at the IT, or comms area's. Don't just blow them off because they are flight officers or 2nd LT. That flight officer may be going to school or work at a day job that does the IT or Comms end of the spectrum.

At wing HQ, the national guard gives us internet (hard line and wifi). For the wifi they wanted us to have it PW protected. We said no problem, but our chief of staff could not figure out how to implement a working PW. So for almost a year it went with out the password until an 18 year old flight officer did it in about two minutes....

Youth is not always a bad thing.... >:D

Ok, you guys missed my point. Youth Education as a sector for opportunity for CAP. Example:  Embry Riddle University charges $300,000 per year to add an Adjunct Aerospace Course to a High School as an elective. Ok, they give college credit, that might make it worth it to a High School maybe.  All ER does is give the course and pay an instructor to teach it. They have several schools across the country that pay it, to have the course.

I have been involved with the CAP School Program, for $300,000 I could finance and run a complete core curriculum, and also have Aersopace Education and Leadership for a Cadet Program. Not going to do that.

My point is if CAP had $100,000 per school, we could have a great Aerospace and Leadership Program for a School. Complete with Airplanes and O ride support. For years we have had a School Program, but nobody at National is focused on the funding.

We could take that money from a failed program that does not work. IF we had people that could deal with Congress and sell what we can do.

Quote from: Ned on December 21, 2010, 03:34:12 AM
Indeed, our current CAP-USAF commander was just selected for a prestigious follow-on command assignment as an operations group commander.

Thank you, Jesus!  Can I help him pack?

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 22, 2010, 04:46:20 AM
  My ideal candidate would be a retired USAF or other military officer with substantial CAP experience.

Um, some of the worst CCs and EXs have come from this mold. Albano, Bobick to name two.

Quote from: ColonelJack on January 18, 2011, 10:08:19 AM
IIRC, Senator McCain wanted to transfer CAP to first the Department of Transportation (back in the '90s) and then sometime after 9/11 to the Department of Homeland Security.  In other words, sever our relationship with AF.

I always wondered what his major malfunction with CAP is, anyway ...

Jack

It was in the mid-'90s, 1995, I think.

He basically wanted to cut us loose from any association with the Air Force, scrap the cadets (fold them into JROTC) and, at best, merge us with the Coast Guard Auxiliary (CG was under DOT then), and, at worst, leave us to die on the vine.

He's always seemed to have a bee in his bonnet about CAP, maybe because he's a Navy man and he views us as competition for NSCC? >:D Seriously, I don't know.

I remember that it was the only time in CAP (in my fallible memory) we were actually authorised and encouraged to write our elected officials on the issue. 

I did and received the following replies:

Senator A, Republican: I'm not on the Armed Services Committee (translation: It's not my job).

Senator B, Republican: DOD is having to make painful choices on cuts (translation: I'm with McCain).

Representative X, Democrat: Wrote me a three-page letter showing he'd done his homework on CAP, commended us (and me personally) for our service, and said he supported CAP unequivocally.

But from what I understand, some CAP members wrote letters directly to Senator McCain that were a bit less than cordial.

What if the national commander and executive director were the same person? Dual-hatted, one foot in the volunteer realm, the other paid.

In the paid role, the person would be the executive director and oversee HQ CAP. In the volunteer role, the person would be the national commander, and, well, oversee the volunteers.

The person would have the oversight of the Board of Governors, and would de-silo HQ CAP and the volunteer ranks. One person would have concentrated authority and responsibility, it appears, but it's important that the person has a boss (the governors) and can't go rogue.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on February 03, 2011, 06:32:43 AM
What if the national commander and executive director were the same person? Dual-hatted, one foot in the volunteer realm, the other paid.

It is certainly a reasonable and logical idea, and one that I am sure will be considered during the upcoming outside governance study.

I agree with your take on the advantages.  The idea has a lot to recommend it.

Among the downsides, it would mean that as a practical matter the National Commander / EXDIR is very unlikely to come from the volunteer ranks, and thus will have little or no experience at the squadron or wing level.  Simply because realtively few volunteers with the necessary qualifications will be able to quit their jobs and move their families to Alabama.  Their might be a few retired folks who could do so, but the pool will not be very large.

That in turn suggests that our National Commander will be an "outsider," albeit an outsider with good qualifications.  Outsiders are likely to have difficulty adjusting to leading volunteers, who comprise 99% of CAP.

Quote from: Ned on February 03, 2011, 05:06:11 PM

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on February 03, 2011, 06:32:43 AM
What if the national commander and executive director were the same person? Dual-hatted, one foot in the volunteer realm, the other paid.

It is certainly a reasonable and logical idea, and one that I am sure will be considered during the upcoming outside governance study.

I agree with your take on the advantages.  The idea has a lot to recommend it.

Among the downsides, it would mean that as a practical matter the National Commander / EXDIR is very unlikely to come from the volunteer ranks, and thus will have little or no experience at the squadron or wing level.  Simply because realtively few volunteers with the necessary qualifications will be able to quit their jobs and move their families to Alabama.  Their might be a few retired folks who could do so, but the pool will not be very large.

That in turn suggests that our National Commander will be an "outsider," albeit an outsider with good qualifications.  Outsiders are likely to have difficulty adjusting to leading volunteers, who comprise 99% of CAP.

As an alternative, have the Executive Director report to the National Commander would achieve unity of command, provide a professional paid staff director, and relieve the national commander of the downsides you spoke of.

Quote from: JeffDG on February 03, 2011, 05:42:31 PM
As an alternative, have the Executive Director report to the National Commander would achieve unity of command, provide a professional paid staff director, and relieve the national commander of the downsides you spoke of.

Also an inherently logical and reasonable idea.  Indeed, we used to do it that way.

Unfortunately, this is one of those "written in blood" lessons, because we have historically experienced highly dramatic "personality clashes" between elected National Commanders and the appointed EXDIRs that made it difficult or impossible for them to work together.  The result was scandal, intrigue, and forced "resignations" by both National Commanders and EXDIRS.

There is absolutely no logical reason why the "EXDIR reports to the National Commander" system should not work well, but it has failed catastrophically for us on several occasions.

"If there were an easy answer, we'd have found it by now."

And again, we will be looking specifically at this relationship as part of the governance study.

Stay tuned.

Quote from: Ned on February 03, 2011, 06:02:49 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on February 03, 2011, 05:42:31 PM
As an alternative, have the Executive Director report to the National Commander would achieve unity of command, provide a professional paid staff director, and relieve the national commander of the downsides you spoke of.

Also an inherently logical and reasonable idea.  Indeed, we used to do it that way.

Unfortunately, this is one of those "written in blood" lessons, because we have historically experienced highly dramatic "personality clashes" between elected National Commanders and the appointed EXDIRs that made it difficult or impossible for them to work together.  The result was scandal, intrigue, and forced "resignations" by both National Commanders and EXDIRS.

There is absolutely no logical reason why the "EXDIR reports to the National Commander" system should not work well, but it has failed catastrophically for us on several occasions.

"If there were an easy answer, we'd have found it by now."

And again, we will be looking specifically at this relationship as part of the governance study.

Stay tuned.

I agree with Ned on this one.  Our past is littered with the Bodies of former commanders and their appointed executive directors who have clashed.

Remember, it is the BoG which controls both "sides" of CAP.  The National Commander is responsible for the volunteers and, the Executive Director is responsible for the paid staff. 

There are governance issues in CAP however, the questions our leadership have relate to how they get along.  After 11 years of this system, it looks like things are in need of a tune up. 

Quote from: Ned on February 03, 2011, 06:02:49 PM"If there were an easy answer, we'd have found it by now."

And again, we will be looking specifically at this relationship as part of the governance study.

Stay tuned.

No kidding...there doesn't seem to be a formal place to contribute to the governance study, so I'll continue commenting here!

Quote from: JeffDG on February 03, 2011, 06:25:02 PM

Quote from: Ned on February 03, 2011, 06:02:49 PM"If there were an easy answer, we'd have found it by now."

And again, we will be looking specifically at this relationship as part of the governance study.

Stay tuned.

No kidding...there doesn't seem to be a formal place to contribute to the governance study, so I'll continue commenting here!

That's because its an outside study. We are spending 100k on an outside study of our governance model...

A panel of volunteer officers to study would have cost less...or asking the members to submit ideas via email would have cost less....

100k = lots o money...

It may be interesting to remember in 1996, the NEC (pre BoG) authorized an outside study of our governance.  It basically called for a small governing board to institute policy. When presented to the NB, they overwhelmingly shot it down.

It will be interesting to see what the new study will recommend.  Being that the BoG's responsibility will not change, I don't think this studies findings will be lost.

Quote from: Ned on February 03, 2011, 06:02:49 PM
"If there were an easy answer, we'd have found it by now."

No answer should ever be easy, as some significant thought should be put into every decision.  However, our organization, IMO, does a very poor job about looking to its non-corporate officers and above for answers.  There are thousands of bright young people in this organization that have amazing ideas.  But, because they aren't Wing or Region Commanders, nobody listens.  The problem lies in that, the people with ideas become a threat to those already in power and are squashed before they can shine.  Doesn't happen all the time, but probably more than most are willing to admit.

I would encourage our National leadership to look within our organization for the next great idea.  Trust me, they are out there.

Quote from: JeffDG on February 03, 2011, 06:25:02 PM
No kidding...there doesn't seem to be a formal place to contribute to the governance study, so I'll continue commenting here!

I agree JeffDG.  There is not a good way to contribute to our own governance model.

-Paramedic

Quote from: FW on February 03, 2011, 06:43:23 PM
It may be interesting to remember in 1996, the NEC (pre BoG) authorized an outside study of our governance.  It basically called for a small governing board to institute policy. When presented to the NB, they overwhelmingly shot it down.

It will be interesting to see what the new study will recommend.  Being that the BoG's responsibility will not change, I don't think this studies findings will be lost.

If the study is really radical, here's what it would say:  The members of CAP need to have some say in the governance of the organization.

Every time someone proposes that Wing Commanders/National Board members be elected by the membership, the Air Force shoots it down saying "You cannot have a commander selected by those who report to him.  It violates unity of command."

That's all well and good, and true.  But who ever said that the Wing Commander has to be on the National Board?  Why could a state not have a Wing Commander (duly appointed by the Region Commander) responsible for the day-to-day operations of the wing, and also elect a National Board member who would be responsible, with the remainder of the NB, to develop policy, and ultimately elect the National Commander from time to time?  This NB could then select from among themselves a National Executive Committee as well.

This would solve the circular governance issue (Nat/CC appoints Region/CC appoints Wing/CC who appoint Nat/CC), and give individual CAP members meaningful input into the governance of the organization.  It wold provide a check-and-balance, because the members of the NB/NEC would not be selected in any way by the National Commander.

Quote from: NCRblues on February 03, 2011, 06:30:28 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on February 03, 2011, 06:25:02 PM
No kidding...there doesn't seem to be a formal place to contribute to the governance study, so I'll continue commenting here!

That's because its an outside study. We are spending 100k on an outside study of our governance model...

A panel of volunteer officers to study would have cost less...or asking the members to submit ideas via email would have cost less....

100k = lots o money...

1.  It will be an outside study.  But we don't yet know what it will cost.  Because we haven't seen a single bid yet.  I suspect it will be far less than the figure you mentioned.  The 100k figure comes from a uninformed blogger  from an overactive imagination, not NHQ.  The point of seeking bids is to keep the cost at the absolute minimum.

2.  We have no shortage of volunteer officer studies on this very subject.  Indeed, the NB has a committee of dedicated officers working on it right now.  I have been briefed on their recommendations to date, and there is a great deal of merit to many of them.

But I have noticed that recommendations submitted by CAP colonels tend to offer "CAP colonel-centric solutions."  In that they tend to recommend that all decision-making revolve primarily around them.

When I have seen recommendations submitted by committees composed largely of members, oddly enough the solutions appear to be "member-centric" and involve a lot of voting.

(And to be fair, if you were to ask me, I'd probably reply that the BoG has the lion's share of responsibility for any changes.  8) )

The reasons we need an outside study are several - first, we need it to be neutral.  It is difficult for dedicated volunteers who have put decades into CAP to step back and take themselves out of the equation.  Frankly,  almost everytime a NB member buttonholes me to talk about governance, you can just feel the self-interest coming out.  It's just human nature, of course.  I'll wager that every power center in CAP (BoG, NEC, NB, N/CC, EXDIR) secretly feels that they could do a great job governing CAP if only the other power centers would stop interfering.  ;)

And the "spouse effect" comes into play here.  I can (and do) frequently tell my wife that she looks terrific and she responds the same way she has for over 30 years - with a routine"thanks, honey."  But let some random stranger on the street compliment her on her appearance and she will just light up and really pay attention.  Sometimes information just has to come from the outside to be heard above the chatter.

Second, there are very few - if any - volunteers out there with experience in non-profit governance in any organization other than CAP, let alone as an academic discipline.  We need folks who can compare and contrast us with other successful non-profits and make recommendations based on the current "best practices".  We just don't have enough qualified people to do the job.  We need expert advice.

Third, an outside governance study is in no way incompatible with extensive volunteer input.  The successful bidder will be conducting extensive interviews at all levels of the corporation from cadets to region commanders.  Even after the study is completed and submitted to the BoG, there will be extensive input from the membership,NB, and our USAF stakeholders in an open and transparent process before any changes are made.

The bottom line is that we are a very strange corporate animal.  Based on my preliminary research, we may well be unique among all American corporations - we are a Congressionally-chartered 501C3 membership organization that has occasional federal instrumentality status and that receives the majority of our funds from appropriated tax dollars. 

We may well require a unique governance model unlike anything we have tried so far.

Like I said, stay tuned.

[edited to correct the mis-attribution of the $100k mis-information.  RH was not the source.]

Let me chime in for just a moment.  This is one of the most intelligent discussions that I have seen anywhere in CAP in my 18 years in the organization.  Having Ned on board is a big help and he should be thanked for his insight and his willingness to provide a small part of the membership with the benefit of his thinking and knowledge.  I am sure that the planned individual contacts throughout the organization will be beneficial to the study.  As has been mentioned, the biggest hurdle to overcome will be the "colonel-centricity" of the NB in deciding what to do after the study is complete.

Good luck: I won't be around to see the results, since I am allowing my membership to expire in 25 days.

One of the primary benefits of using an outside provider on the study is negating cries of nepotism and self-service that using in-house talent would
invariably bring with it.  We should always look to our people first, before spending money on consultants and outside companies, but this is one case
where there should be a requirement that the company is 100% disconnected from CAP.  I would even go so far as to make it a requirements that the company providing the services insure there are no CAP members or family members involved in the study.

We want objective eyes - one only needs to look an Enron to know what happens when an organization self-audits.

I am in favor of this on many levels, but do not expect to see any significant impact on the organization for several years, such is the nature of anything transformative.

Couldn't the GAO do this for us for "free"?

Quote from: bosshawk on February 03, 2011, 07:34:09 PM
As has been mentioned, the biggest hurdle to overcome will be the "colonel-centricity" of the NB in deciding what to do after the study is complete.

That may be so.  The National Board will have some say in the matter however, they will not be the decision makers.  The BoG will have to make the hard decisions. I do plan to "stay tuned" and, will continue to opine when the (percieved) need arises.... 8)

Quote from: Eclipse on February 03, 2011, 07:42:36 PM
Couldn't the GAO do this for us for "free"?

They possibly could but, it wouldn't be free

Quote from: Eclipse on February 03, 2011, 07:42:36 PM

Couldn't the GAO do this for us for "free"?

Sometimes, you get what you pay for.

Quote from: Eclipse on February 03, 2011, 07:42:36 PM
Couldn't the GAO do this for us for "free"?

We tried several governmental sources, including the GAO and some AF agencies with the appropriate expertise but government contracting rules require that we put the matter out to bid.  We also tried to get several B schools to do it pro bono, but they could not.

That's one of the reasons it has taken as long as it has to get this thing out the door.

Quote from: Ned on February 03, 2011, 07:04:20 PM

Quote from: NCRblues on February 03, 2011, 06:30:28 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on February 03, 2011, 06:25:02 PM
No kidding...there doesn't seem to be a formal place to contribute to the governance study, so I'll continue commenting here!

That's because its an outside study. We are spending 100k on an outside study of our governance model...

A panel of volunteer officers to study would have cost less...or asking the members to submit ideas via email would have cost less....

100k = lots o money...

1.  It will be an outside study.  But we don't yet know what it will cost.  Because we haven't seen a single bid yet.  I suspect it will be far less than the figure you mentioned.  The 100k figure comes from a uninformed blogger  from an overactive imagination, not NHQ.  The point of seeking bids is to keep the cost at the absolute minimum.

[edited to correct the mis-attribution of the $100k mis-information.  RH was not the source.]

Yes, RH was not the source although, he did publish it. Since I referenced this figure in a previous post, I did make inquires at NHQ and, was informed the BoG authorized the spending of around $100,000 for the study.  I was also told that the study was strongly suggested or encouraged by the SECAF and, that all facets of our governance will be analysed.  Hopefully, the actual cost will be much less than the $100k or so authorized.  And, hopefully, we will be able to move forward afterwards.

(BTW; any vote taken by the BoG is public record and will be made available to the membership, in eservices, as soon as it is published.)

Quote from: JeffDG on February 03, 2011, 07:00:34 PM

Every time someone proposes that Wing Commanders/National Board members be elected by the membership, the Air Force shoots it down saying "You cannot have a commander selected by those who report to him.  It violates unity of command."

That's all well and good, and true.  But who ever said that the Wing Commander has to be on the National Board?  Why could a state not have a Wing Commander (duly appointed by the Region Commander) responsible for the day-to-day operations of the wing, and also elect a National Board member who would be responsible, with the remainder of the NB, to develop policy, and ultimately elect the National Commander from time to time?  This NB could then select from among themselves a National Executive Committee as well.

This would solve the circular governance issue (Nat/CC appoints Region/CC appoints Wing/CC who appoint Nat/CC), and give individual CAP members meaningful input into the governance of the organization.  It wold provide a check-and-balance, because the members of the NB/NEC would not be selected in any way by the National Commander.

Whether members directly electing board members, or some modified system (e.g., wing CC chooses from top 3 vote getters) is a matter for discussion...but the concept of separating wing command from board membership is brilliant -- partly because I've been advocating this myself for awhile, for much the same reasons the poster described.

Rumors becoming "facts" again on CAPTALK...let's substantiate the sources, shall we?

Quote from: ZigZag911 on February 04, 2011, 07:21:04 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on February 03, 2011, 07:00:34 PM

Every time someone proposes that Wing Commanders/National Board members be elected by the membership, the Air Force shoots it down saying "You cannot have a commander selected by those who report to him.  It violates unity of command."

That's all well and good, and true.  But who ever said that the Wing Commander has to be on the National Board?  Why could a state not have a Wing Commander (duly appointed by the Region Commander) responsible for the day-to-day operations of the wing, and also elect a National Board member who would be responsible, with the remainder of the NB, to develop policy, and ultimately elect the National Commander from time to time?  This NB could then select from among themselves a National Executive Committee as well.

This would solve the circular governance issue (Nat/CC appoints Region/CC appoints Wing/CC who appoint Nat/CC), and give individual CAP members meaningful input into the governance of the organization.  It wold provide a check-and-balance, because the members of the NB/NEC would not be selected in any way by the National Commander.

Whether members directly electing board members, or some modified system (e.g., wing CC chooses from top 3 vote getters) is a matter for discussion...but the concept of separating wing command from board membership is brilliant -- partly because I've been advocating this myself for awhile, for much the same reasons the poster described.

Great minds think alike (and we'll just stop right there, shall we?)

Seeing as we have a recent large thread in which just about everyone agrees that CAP is not military, I reflect with amusement the fact that anytime I have suggested use of democratic procedures in CAP I get shouted down because you supposedly can't run a uniformed organization such as ours that way.  Since we aren't military there is no good reason that we can't elect our leaders like every other nonprofit organization in the country.  Once elected, all leaders would still have to answer to their superior and would still have to follow CAP policies and procedures. 

Quote from: RiverAux on February 04, 2011, 08:17:10 PM
Seeing as we have a recent large thread in which just about everyone agrees that CAP is not military, I reflect with amusement the fact that anytime I have suggested use of democratic procedures in CAP I get shouted down because you supposedly can't run a uniformed organization such as ours that way.  Since we aren't military there is no good reason that we can't elect our leaders like every other nonprofit organization in the country.  Once elected, all leaders would still have to answer to their superior and would still have to follow CAP policies and procedures.

And once again I will tell you, old friend, that the minute we start with the "elections process" the focus will shift from "getting the job done" to "getting elected."  Take a look at what President Obama is going to be going through over the next couple of years.  The political infighting, the constant analysis of every move as being "politicizing"  and the ever present attack from the opponent which wants to "elect the other guy."

Now...imagine that in every WING, GROUP and SQUADRON of the CIVIL AIR PATROL.  I'd rather it stay in your mind, than my reality.

I don't want that non-sense filtering into CAP.  I mean, Hurricane Katrina was a natural disaster and its aftermath the results of years of not facing the realities of the situation (a city in a bowl with little in place to handle those that remained)...yet, it was looked at as some sort of "political" things.  Republicans blaming Democrats and vice versa.  Instead of trying to look into a fix...people looked for blame for political reasons (to win the next election cycle).


After your changes...every crash, accident or mishap will not be the fault of those that were involved, instead, it will be a point to unseat a Wing Commander.   We will see Wing "PORK" projects and all sorts of machinations that will do more harm than good.  Such a process also might make CAP leadership more about "popularity contests" than "the best one for the job."

You know, sometimes the unpopular "SOB" who is in charge is good at what they do...and is unpopular because they hold the line when they need to.

Seeing has how when CAP does advertise "job openings", there are very, very few who actually openly ask for the job (I'm talking about Wing Commander positions), I think this is much worry about something that isn't there.  No one is really fighting hard to become a commander in CAP -- if anything the opposite is true -- most have to be dragged kicking and screaming under a cloud of guilt into the job. 

In any case, I prefer my politics in the open rather than hidden in the backrooms under the good old boy system. 

Quote from: RiverAux on February 05, 2011, 01:09:30 AM
Seeing has how when CAP does advertise "job openings", there are very, very few who actually openly ask for the job (I'm talking about Wing Commander positions), I think this is much worry about something that isn't there.  No one is really fighting hard to become a commander in CAP -- if anything the opposite is true -- most have to be dragged kicking and screaming under a cloud of guilt into the job. 

In any case, I prefer my politics in the open rather than hidden in the backrooms under the good old boy system.

Where do you live?  Even now where it is an "appointed" system, there are those that already want the positions and make it known.  All that stops them is fact that "greasing palms, kissing babies and meandering around for votes" would do no good.

Are you saying, then, that the appointment of Military leaders for command is "back room dealings?"  Appointments of judges and other municipal staffers in major cities are backroom deals?

Considering that the "good ole boy" system is not "officially sanctioned" but, in your world, WING CONFERENCE ELECTIONEERING would be...I think I prefer the current system.  The "Good Ole Boy" system exists less and less with the change out of national commanders.  I know some people like to read controversy and conspiracy into everything up there...however, if we keep focused on the missions and make that our agenda...we all win. 

Read and heed fellow members, elections of commanders would be the end of CAP.

The level of responsibility and administrative nightmare that we expect of commanders these days is bad enough, but to also subject the unit to the whim of disgruntled members is not only unfair, but will result in nothing but a local popularity contest which will further degrade our readiness and effectiveness in favor of "making and keeping friends".

As a unit and group CC I was forced to make any number of unpopular decisions which hacked off enough of the current membership as to have the potential to "overthrow" me were that an option.  The fact, though, is that many of these same members needed to leave.  Allowing for an election would simply mean the job of CC would be passed around to the guy who would make the least changes and ask the least of the membership. Any commander forced to filter his decisions by whether it will be popular, ceases to become an effective commander.

Anyone who wants to improve CAP as a ready asset for disasters, or as a force for development of young people knows we need to increase expectations and accept a lot of initial attrition, not cow-tow to the lowest common denominator.  Doing that has gotten us where we are.

CAP is a paramilitary non-democracy on purpose, and needs to stay that way.

The reason we are stumbling is because we have, for far too long, allowed our members to view compliance with command directives as "optional", which has, in turn, resulted in a loss of effective leadership for the simple reason that true leaders with real plans get tired of arguing about trivial minutia to the expense of real progress and just disengage.

The actual chain of command between a member and the national CC is, at most, 4 level deep.  In those levels we need knowledgeable and strong leaders who will chart a path and tell members to "lead, follow, or get out of the way..."

We need JJ Abrahms.

Quote from: Major Carrales on February 05, 2011, 01:15:49 AM
Are you saying, then, that the appointment of Military leaders for command is "back room dealings?"  Appointments of judges and other municipal staffers in major cities are backroom deals?

We are not the military.  If we were, a military system would make sense since they actually choose the most qualified people to do the job or more likely the immediate commander actually isn't involved in the selection of their subordinates leaders hardly at all and the great Personnel Dept in the Sky is telling them who they're getting. 

There is absolutely nothing unique about CAP that requires that local and state leaders be appointed by some representative from outside their area.   There is absolutely zero difference between us and just about any other volunteer organization in the country that requires this particular system that we've developed. 

If anything, the reason that the democracy that we do have in CAP doesn't work is the fact that it isn't true democracy since the National Commander basically gets to choose their electorate.  I know of no other organization or government that works that way because they see the folly in it. 

The idea of having NB members be elected by wing membership but have them not be the actual Wing commanders actually seems like an achievable compromise.  After all there is no particular reason that the Wing Commander needs to be the corporate officer.   

River....see Eclipse's post.

But why does "election" mean "subordinates selecting commanders"

Why can't NB membership be separated from Wing Command?

Members select the NB, which selects the NEC.  The NB selects the CAP/CC.  CAP/CC appoints Region/CC.  Region/CC appoints Wing/CC.

Members do not select their commander.  The only reason Wing Commander = National Board Member is because that's the way it is currently.  Companies do not require all of their VPs to be members of the Board of Directors.

Once you split the role of Wing/CC and National Board Representative, you suddenly have significant flexibility in how things are done.

Quote from: JeffDG on February 05, 2011, 02:10:57 AM
But why does "election" mean "subordinates selecting commanders"

Why can't NB membership be separated from Wing Command?

Members select the NB, which selects the NEC.  The NB selects the CAP/CC.  CAP/CC appoints Region/CC.  Region/CC appoints Wing/CC.

Members do not select their commander.  The only reason Wing Commander = National Board Member is because that's the way it is currently.  Companies do not require all of their VPs to be members of the Board of Directors.

Once you split the role of Wing/CC and National Board Representative, you suddenly have significant flexibility in how things are done.

Because Wing Commanders are corporate officers administering the corporation/program over a large geographic/administrative area.  I don't think regional managers at WAL*MART, EXXON-MOBILE or MICROSOFT are elected to their position.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on February 04, 2011, 07:21:04 PM
..but the concept of separating wing command from board membership is brilliant

Agree.  All too frequently, wing cc appointees just don't have the expertise to be making decisions for their own wings, much less all of CAP.  They're rarely subject matter experts.

Quote from: Major Carrales on February 05, 2011, 02:25:13 AM
Because Wing Commanders are corporate officers administering the corporation/program over a large geographic/administrative area.  I don't think regional managers at WAL*MART, EXXON-MOBILE or MICROSOFT are elected to their position.

Yeah, and those regional managers aren't corporate officers either. 

Quote from: Mustang on February 05, 2011, 02:31:20 AM

Quote from: ZigZag911 on February 04, 2011, 07:21:04 PM
..but the concept of separating wing command from board membership is brilliant

Agree.  All too frequently, wing cc appointees just don't have the expertise to be making decisions for their own wings, much less all of CAP.  They're rarely subject matter experts.

What?  Wing CC Appointees?  How does that relate? How would electing the leadership change that?

Quote from: RiverAux on February 05, 2011, 02:41:04 AM

Quote from: Major Carrales on February 05, 2011, 02:25:13 AM
Because Wing Commanders are corporate officers administering the corporation/program over a large geographic/administrative area.  I don't think regional managers at WAL*MART, EXXON-MOBILE or MICROSOFT are elected to their position.

Yeah, and those regional managers aren't corporate officers either.

They are here.

And you fail to address the fact that their corporate officers are not elected by the employees. 

Quote from: Major Carrales on February 05, 2011, 02:42:44 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on February 05, 2011, 02:41:04 AM

Quote from: Major Carrales on February 05, 2011, 02:25:13 AM
Because Wing Commanders are corporate officers administering the corporation/program over a large geographic/administrative area.  I don't think regional managers at WAL*MART, EXXON-MOBILE or MICROSOFT are elected to their position.

Yeah, and those regional managers aren't corporate officers either.

They are here.

And you fail to address the fact that their corporate officers are not elected by the employees.

Maybe in some sense they are but certainly not in the manner that CAP Wing Commanders have a role in setting company policy.  Our NB is basically the board of Board of Directors of a corporation.  Regional Wal Mart managers aren't even close to having that level of policy making ability.

And CAP is not a business any more than it is the military.  If we were a business commanders and members would be getting paid for their actions and they would have a much, much greater incentive to act for the good of the company since their financial future depends on it.  The worst thing that can happen to a CAP commander that appoints dumb people to subordinate positions is that they get fired from that position or maybe get kicked out of the organization, which if anything would be a net financial plus for them.

You guys just have to admit that we are a volunteer organization that has been trying to force a leadership organization on volunteers that just does not work very well.  Sure, we've managed to get along for quite a while, but that doesn't mean that what we're doing is the best possible thing that we could be doing.  The fact that no other volunteer organization does things this way should tell you something. 

Quote from: RiverAux on February 05, 2011, 02:57:39 AMYou guys just have to admit that we are a volunteer organization that has been trying to force a leadership organization on volunteers that just does not work very well. 

No, the problem is a lack of intestinal fortitude and allowing members to feed from the trough (whichever one they "feel like") without an expectation that
the feeding comes at a cost.

That is the point where we fail as an organization - it means we write checks we can't always cash.

Want to look for a successful volunteer model?  Look at the ARC?  When you join they set the expectation and stick to it - succeed in your training, show up when called, live up to commitments, you'll excel and so will the ARC, don't do as directed and expected?

There's the door...

Quote from: Major Carrales on February 05, 2011, 02:25:13 AM

Quote from: JeffDG on February 05, 2011, 02:10:57 AM
But why does "election" mean "subordinates selecting commanders"

Why can't NB membership be separated from Wing Command?

Members select the NB, which selects the NEC.  The NB selects the CAP/CC.  CAP/CC appoints Region/CC.  Region/CC appoints Wing/CC.

Members do not select their commander.  The only reason Wing Commander = National Board Member is because that's the way it is currently.  Companies do not require all of their VPs to be members of the Board of Directors.

Once you split the role of Wing/CC and National Board Representative, you suddenly have significant flexibility in how things are done.

Because Wing Commanders are corporate officers administering the corporation/program over a large geographic/administrative area.  I don't think regional managers at WAL*MART, EXXON-MOBILE or MICROSOFT are elected to their position.

What does that have to do with anything?  I still think Wing/CCs should be appointed by the chain of command.

The Board of WAL*MART, Exxon-Mobile and MS are certainly elected by their shareholders.

Board members are not responsible for the day-to-day operation of a company.  They are responsible for setting policies, the corporate officers (in Wal Mart, like a VP) are not elected by anyone, they are appointed by their supperiors.  The CEO reports to the Board, and the Board is elected by the shareholders.

Quote from: JeffDG on February 05, 2011, 03:19:05 AM
appointed by their supperiors.  The CEO reports to the Board, and the Board is elected by the shareholders.

Shareholders...not employees.

^ An excellent point.

I doubt you will find too many successful companies that elect their managers, however for excellent examples of failed volunteer
bodies that elect their leaders, one only needs to look at many condo boards, PTAs, and the like.

In this case the "majority shareholders" could arguably be the Congress or the USAF or a combination of both.  Even if you tried to make the argument
that member dues are essentially buying shares, the amount of money spent by members annually would still make them minority shareholders at best.

First of all, we are not employees, we are dues paying members.  Secondly, we are not shareholders however, we are "stakeholders" (forget about the cows with guns thread...) And, finally, we are a non profit.  Our "bottom line" is successfully prosecuted missions and a solid, well trained, motivated membership. 

I am amused with how this discussion is going.  Election vs. Appointments, separation of duties between NB members and Wing Commanders, etc. 

In the over 8 years I was on the NB, I've not been convinced that the appointment of all corporate officers by, basically 1 individual, is a good thing.

If you look at the way the ARC is about to handle this matter; it seems they (the governing body of the ARC) will be forming nomination boards to give candidates to the regional chapters for election.  The nominees will be pre screened prior to the process.  Those elected to the board will not be subject to recall by the membership.  Their "IG" system will be truly independent from the chain of command.   There will be a clear separation between the CEO and  "principal officer".  The board will be half the size it was.  A true difference from past practice.

The more I think about it, the more I kind of like the idea of separating the Commanders from the NB.  Their current "duel hatted role" makes for confusion and discontent on many occasions.  Commanders should be free to lead.  They could form a "commanders board" to bring suggestions on policy to the governing board.  The governing board should be more involved in national policy/funding issues than the current BoG.  IF we structure the governing board as the ARC, we can elect our members to it and the SECAF can appoint his/her members.  Wing commanders can be elected by the members in the wing, wing commanders can elect the region commander in their region and, the whole commanders board can elect their chairman or national commander.  All commanders sign a contract specifying their duties for the term.  Only the governing board would be able to remove a sitting commander. 

The duties of all commanders at all levels will be to lead their members and enforce corporate policy.  The duty of the governing board is to provide corporate oversight, make policy and, interface with congress to insure our success as an organization. 

Politics can never be eliminated however, it can be controlled by proper oversight, well defined roles and, well qualified leadership. 

It's just a shame we have our egos which keep getting in the way.  Hence, as Ned says, the reason for an independent study on governance.

Col, Sir, with all do respect, I believe that course of action will result in chaos and, unlike your prediction that the politics will be "controlled," I see nothing in past CAP, or other organizations, that suggest that will be so.  in fact, it is my opinion that it will be very much otherwise.

I must respectfully disagree.

Quote from: FW on February 05, 2011, 04:13:21 AMIf you look at the way the ARC is about to handle this matter; it seems they (the governing body of the ARC) will be forming nomination boards to give candidates to the regional chapters for election.  The nominees will be pre screened prior to the process.  Those elected to the board will not be subject to recall by the membership.  Their "IG" system will be truly independent from the chain of command.   There will be a clear separation between the CEO and  "principal officer".  The board will be half the size it was.  A true difference from past practice.

I actually have no issue with the idea, but the practical is something else. 

The ARC can and does hire lots and lots of outside people to manage their business - the volunteers are primarily the tip of the spear.

In CAP's current model, everyone in the audit part of the conversation also has a vested interest in the people being inspected - rare is the IG, Commander, or even staffer that wears only one hat.

I know a lot of people have advocated a higher level of paid staff to allow the business of CAP to be run separate from the operations of CAP.

I know for me, personally, had the unit commander who recruited me at that air show in 1999 told me how much of my time as a member, and then later as a commander, would be wasted checking someone's box versus serving my community, I would have likely shook his hand, went and bought a snow cone and went home.

Just as most people don't join the military to process Tri-Care paperwork, few people join CAP to fill out RPS reports and SUI responses, but we tolerate it because of the occasional "wins" where the stars align and our efforts actually pay off.

I know this is going to be unpopular, but maybe we should keep things as they are.

I just finished a class (going back to school for another degree :P) on ethics ideals in America. The main topic of this class was basically "corruption starts small, grows rapidly, and attracts other corruption", while " moral and ethical ideas start small, grows small, but attracts others that are like minded".

Now, i believe the system we have can work, in fact HAS worked before, it just has fallen to "corruption".

I wont point fingers or play the blame game, but if those of us that are really here for the program as a whole can stick it out, help clear out corruption, than the system can work. If we, I will say "good guys", can stick together than why cant the current system flourish?

Do we need to tweak it maybe? Sure. But A vast redistribution of power? I'm not sure that will work out well.

I have an idea that will tweak it a little, and I will put some thought into it and put it up on here later, but maybe..... we don't need a whole new system, just tweak the one we have.

I love CAP, I love the cadet program the most, but i love CAP overall. It really hurts me to see the infighting and back room antics that are occurring, and have been for years.

But, for those of you that know me, i have big ideas and big plans that i want to try and bring to the table. Right now i am ignored because i am young, but we young folks have great ideas. Some that might be amazing for the program if we could just get someone to listen to us....

more to come, just need to sit and think about it a little....

Sparky, I hear you however, our current system is failing.  It must change.  The only reason why CAP is still functioning is, IMHO, the members still feel the need to work hard and, for CAP. Commanders (other than the squadron/cc) are just not really in the equation (ok there are wing/region/national staffers that may care about them  :D  )

Near chaos already exists at the national level.  Wing commanders really don't have all the information to make real policy decisions or recommendations (they never did).  Region commanders are hand picked by the national commander with no oversight.  Selection committees rarely see the number 1 choice appointed.  Qualifications are just recommendations and have little or no baring on the selection process. And, to top it all off, the relationship between the National Commander and the BoG is in question.  This must be changed.  (This is NOT how it's done in the military)

As we all know, leadership is an art.  Good leaders get good results.  Most service organizations elect their leadership.  They work out just fine. Yes, the ARC has a large paid employed staff however, they are mainly used for blood processing.

The object, IMHO, is to ensure we have the best leaders possible.  As volunteers, we need to know our leaders have our collective interests at heart.  If we just let our commanders lead, I think we would be in a much better position. 

But, we are just discussing things here.  Who knows how the story will end.....

Time will tell....

Sir,
I just don't feel that an elections process would be best for CAP.

1) Who will have suffrage?  If we say "active CAP members," what is the definition of an "active CAP member?"  One who pays dues?  Holds a Staff Position?   What about cadets?  Cadet Sponsors?  And a whole host of others?

2) WING CONFERENCE ELECTIONEERING-  I don't like the idea of people politicking at CAP activities.  Having people trying to win votes from me in AMERICAN POLITICAL ELECTIONS is annoying...much less people hitting me up for votes at a SARex or WING CONFERENCE.  Electing Squadron Commanders would be a fiasco, electing WING Commanders would be a disaster.

3) REPRISALS- Suppose I make an enemy (like that could happen) of one of the candidates for WING COMMANDER, or if I ran and lost.  Suppose the election was divisive and I had supporters throughout the Wing and the other fellow did as well.  Suppose I lose and now have to "fight" the administration for basics?  What would be done about the fact that there are now factions...backed up by the system.

4) Politically Driven Investigation-  How would we deal with the fact that even minor mishaps suddenly become FRONT PAGE news for the sole purpose of fall some CAP official?  I would much rather have investigations be conducted in the name of improving safety, preventing disaster or good ole integrity than politically driven witch hunts.

Just a few issues that can occur...and do in other organizations of which I am a part.     

Quote from: Eclipse on February 05, 2011, 03:03:09 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on February 05, 2011, 02:57:39 AMYou guys just have to admit that we are a volunteer organization that has been trying to force a leadership organization on volunteers that just does not work very well. 

Want to look for a successful volunteer model?  Look at the ARC?  When you join they set the expectation and stick to it - succeed in your training, show up when called, live up to commitments, you'll excel and so will the ARC, don't do as directed and expected?

There's the door...

When local ARC responds to local disasters/emergencies, there usually are paid employees supplemented by volunteer staff.    Local ARC is always looking for volunteers, my guess is they've also found that unpaid volunteer commitments can change over time and they need more people for staffing, especially in the no notice emergency response type activity (e.g. middle of the night apartment building fires).  It also is more likely that ARC would get more volunteers than CAP because they require less administrative "mumbo jumbo" than CAP and the unpaid volunteer can be contributing quicker in emergencies than with lots of CAP ES training that is useless and wastes adult members valuable time.
RM       

Quote from: NCRblues on February 05, 2011, 04:36:44 AMNow, i believe the system we have can work, in fact HAS worked before, it just has fallen to "corruption".

By what measure has it "fallen to corruption"?

Quote from: FW on February 05, 2011, 04:13:21 AM

It's just a shame we have our egos which keep getting in the way.  Hence, as Ned says, the reason for an independent study on governance.

And I wonder how much money this study is going to cost the membership, and hopefully it won't be the American taxpayer that will be footing this bill!
RM

Quote from: Eclipse on February 05, 2011, 05:16:33 AM

Quote from: NCRblues on February 05, 2011, 04:36:44 AMNow, i believe the system we have can work, in fact HAS worked before, it just has fallen to "corruption".

By what measure has it "fallen to corruption"?

I have to ask the same?  While there have been issues up there...it is far from fact to say that the Civil Air Patrol is a  corrupt and morally bankrupt organization.  To make that statement is a bit of a slap in the face to the "squadron member" giving all for their "community, State and Nation."

Quote from: Major Carrales on February 05, 2011, 05:32:08 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on February 05, 2011, 05:16:33 AM

Quote from: NCRblues on February 05, 2011, 04:36:44 AMNow, i believe the system we have can work, in fact HAS worked before, it just has fallen to "corruption".

By what measure has it "fallen to corruption"?

I have to ask the same?  While there have been issues up there...it is far from fact to say that the Civil Air Patrol is a  corrupt and morally bankrupt organization.  To make that statement is a bit of a slap in the face to the "squadron member" giving all for their "community, State and Nation."

I should have said, SOME of it has fallen to corruption. Some members of the NB like the power, others like the travel to different city's every year for NB meetings. Not everyone on the NB is a saint like some on here tend to believe.

I get it, I am not "popular" on this board, and many out right hate me. But corruption is there, and has been there for a long time... no i cant cite a single thing like someone will ask, its all "rumors" or people telling me things. Many of you will not accept that, and i get it, but CAP is not a perfect organization. We have "bad guys" in cap, just like every place else....

Quote from: JeffDG on February 05, 2011, 02:10:57 AMMembers select the NB, which selects the NEC.  The NB selects the CAP/CC.  CAP/CC appoints Region/CC.  Region/CC appoints Wing/CC.

Well, the current plan doesn't work that way

The NB = 52 Wing Commanders + the 8 Region Commanders + some other folks.

The NEC = the NB minus the Wing Commanders.

How would the structure of the NEC change to allow what you are proposing?

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on February 05, 2011, 05:17:54 AM

Quote from: FW on February 05, 2011, 04:13:21 AM

It's just a shame we have our egos which keep getting in the way.  Hence, as Ned says, the reason for an independent study on governance.

And I wonder how much money this study is going to cost the membership, and hopefully it won't be the American taxpayer that will be footing this bill!
RM

They'll know how much it's going to cost when they accept the winning bid.
And it will be coming from your dues money, so make sure you renew. We need the bucks.

Quote from: NCRblues on February 05, 2011, 05:40:32 AM

Quote from: Major Carrales on February 05, 2011, 05:32:08 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on February 05, 2011, 05:16:33 AM

Quote from: NCRblues on February 05, 2011, 04:36:44 AMNow, i believe the system we have can work, in fact HAS worked before, it just has fallen to "corruption".

By what measure has it "fallen to corruption"?

I have to ask the same?  While there have been issues up there...it is far from fact to say that the Civil Air Patrol is a  corrupt and morally bankrupt organization.  To make that statement is a bit of a slap in the face to the "squadron member" giving all for their "community, State and Nation."

I should have said, SOME of it has fallen to corruption. Some members of the NB like the power, others like the travel to different city's every year for NB meetings. Not everyone on the NB is a saint like some on here tend to believe.

I get it, I am not "popular" on this board, and many out right hate me. But corruption is there, and has been there for a long time... no i cant cite a single thing like someone will ask, its all "rumors" or people telling me things. Many of you will not accept that, and i get it, but CAP is not a perfect organization. We have "bad guys" in cap, just like every place else....

No...in fact, I've grown quite fond of you ;D

You should know, if you follow my posts, that I don't go in for the speculations, rumors and groundless issues brought forth here.  I usually take the rumors with a grain of salt.  So many, especially here on CAPTALK, are quick to accept "wild" and "entertaining"  speculations, rumors and groundless issue as facts, unquestioned...and true, confirmable and substantial points (many times from sources of authority on the subject) with skepticism.

I don't want you to abandon your direction here, you've aksed for more time to develop your position and I am looking forward to reading it.  I just ask you to back up allegations of corruption...or, if its a suspicion, to say so (not present it is a given that CAP is corrupt.) I know what it's like to be the "hated one" and "outsider" here.   I'll not be a part to it.

So, i have thought a lot about this, and have even called and discussed this issue a lot with one of my great friends who also posts on here...


IMHO, our system is broken. It worked with the past generations but i don't know if it can continue to work now.

My idea would be this.

#1. make the NB just the wing commanders, and make it like the House of Representatives. Remove the region commanders and national vice and national commander.
#2 Have the region commanders stay on the NEC, with the rest that currently reside on the NEC, but remove the vice/cc and national/cc, the NEC would be something like the Senate.
#3 Make any rules, regulations, ICL's ext... be passed by both the NB and the NEC by simple majority vote.
#4 give the national/cc a veto power, but give the NB and NEC (with a 2/3rds vote) an override.
#5 maintain the BOG as a sort of Supream court with oversight and the ability to say "no bad boys and girls" to everyone.


The NB could act as the House of Representatives for the common cap member, with the NEC acting like the Senate for the corporation/AF side of the house.

The national commander should be the executive, enforce the rules and regs passed by the NB/NEC, and the nat/cc should be the champion of CAP.
they should travel the country, speak and sing our praises in every state capitol building in America. They should sing our praises and even beg the AF and congress
if necessary for more funding, more missions and more roles to take on. They should be the voice and the face of CAP.

Once a year, have every wing commander have a "town hall" style meeting that asks the general membership what can CAP do better, what do you need/want from the NB.
It can be held at wing conferences, the same could apply for region/cc's as well. Make it a requirement to hold these town hall meetings.

Have the NB and NEC minutes out and available for comment by the standard CAP member 30 days before the meeting (minimum) so as to insure an openness about out operations
at a higher level.

If the National/cc veto's something, have it published in eservices, and have them post a letter on why they did what they did.

The NB would still vote to elect the National/CC, and maybe we could even have the NEC vote for the vice, just so the running Field can stay separate.

I'm still working out details in my head, and i could post them later, but my basic idea.....feel free to rip it apart!

Quote from: SarDragon on February 05, 2011, 05:44:10 AM

Quote from: JeffDG on February 05, 2011, 02:10:57 AMMembers select the NB, which selects the NEC.  The NB selects the CAP/CC.  CAP/CC appoints Region/CC.  Region/CC appoints Wing/CC.

Well, the current plan doesn't work that way

The NB = 52 Wing Commanders + the 8 Region Commanders + some other folks.

The NEC = the NB minus the Wing Commanders.

How would the structure of the NEC change to allow what you are proposing?

I'm proposing completely decoupling "Command" from "Board".

The NB would be entirely separate from Wing Commanders.  The Board would then, from its own membership, select a smaller NEC that could operate between NB meetings.

There is no reason the Wing/CC = NB Member. 

One change that does need to be made in my opinion is the Appointment of Wing IG's by the Region IG. Currently the IG system is broken when the Wing CC appoints his IG and the IG is thus under the thumb of the Wing CC. The IF system needs to be totally independent of the politics in the Wings, and it isn't.
Now if an IG conducts an investigation and the results aren't what the Wing CC wants, chances are that IG is replaced. Let the Wing CC make all the staff appointments he/she wants, but put the IG system out of reach of the Wing Commanders.

Quote from: Major Carrales on February 05, 2011, 05:12:35 AM
Sir,
I just don't feel that an elections process would be best for CAP.

1) Who will have suffrage?  If we say "active CAP members," what is the definition of an "active CAP member?"  One who pays dues?  Holds a Staff Position?   What about cadets?  Cadet Sponsors?  And a whole host of others?

2) WING CONFERENCE ELECTIONEERING-  I don't like the idea of people politicking at CAP activities.  Having people trying to win votes from me in AMERICAN POLITICAL ELECTIONS is annoying...much less people hitting me up for votes at a SARex or WING CONFERENCE.  Electing Squadron Commanders would be a fiasco, electing WING Commanders would be a disaster.

3) REPRISALS- Suppose I make an enemy (like that could happen) of one of the candidates for WING COMMANDER, or if I ran and lost.  Suppose the election was divisive and I had supporters throughout the Wing and the other fellow did as well.  Suppose I lose and now have to "fight" the administration for basics?  What would be done about the fact that there are now factions...backed up by the system.

4) Politically Driven Investigation-  How would we deal with the fact that even minor mishaps suddenly become FRONT PAGE news for the sole purpose of fall some CAP official?  I would much rather have investigations be conducted in the name of improving safety, preventing disaster or good ole integrity than politically driven witch hunts.

Just a few issues that can occur...and do in other organizations of which I am a part.   

I don't think electing a squadron commander would serve any purpose.  That job is reserved for that special individual who is able (masochistic) enough to handle it.  I don't know of many squadrons who have members clamoring for the job.  I think we can agree here.

If all senior members vote for a slate of pre screened candidates placed in nomination by an approved and independent nominating board, it wouldn't matter who won; since all candidates would be qualified.
I doubt there would be "reprisals".  There could still be a MARB to correct those issues.  There is the matter of regional "turf" battles within larger wings.  That needs to addressed.

Our system today requires "candidates" to ingratiate themselves to the "gobn". We must show that we agree with all policies and requirements of the "leader" to garner favor and position. I think it may be better to get a larger selection pool; especially for wing commanders. If, as JefDG says, we have separation of command and governance, I don't think this will be bad.  If the IG system is part of the governing board, political investigations will be squashed. That is not what happens with our current system.  Just look at some web pages concerning CAP today if you wish clarification. I could give examples but, I'd have to shoot you... ;D  But, just look at what's been going on with our leadership in the last 6 years and get an idea that we have some major "logistical" problems with our governance and, it is effecting our leadership in way that is becoming more perceptible to the members each month.

In any event, we will be dipping into our piggy bank to finance this study.  I hope some real research will go into it. Interviews of the general membership, former and current leaders and BoG members must be extensive and unburdened by coercion or fear.

Quote from: Major Carrales on February 05, 2011, 03:51:00 AM

Quote from: JeffDG on February 05, 2011, 03:19:05 AM
appointed by their supperiors.  The CEO reports to the Board, and the Board is elected by the shareholders.

Shareholders...not employees.

CAP members are not employees...we're members.

Electing region, wing, group or squadron commanders would admittedly be a bad idea for CAP...it works OK, I guess, for Caost Guard Auxiliary, but we have a different culture and history.

My suggestion is to elect the wing representative to the National Board to a two year term, renewable only once.

I'll go further, and limit the franchise privilege to senior members who have completed both Level 2 and two years CAP service (Red Service Ribbon earned).
You want to vote? Fine, get some knowledge of and experience in CAP.

Yeah, there would be politicking, but there already is...this way there might be more transparency and accountability.

Two more points"

1) NCRblues -- interesting set up (NEC = senate, NB = house)....given the track record of the existing US Congress, why do you feel this would work any better?

2) Wing IGs can only be removed, I believe, with concurrence by National IG...CAP & USAF have worked diligently over the past 5 to 10 years to bring the CAP IG program more in line with that of the military...commanders receive reports and make the final decisions, but are expected to allow the IGs independence to do their jobs.

NCRBlues idea might be ok if all the members of his CAP legislature weren't handpicked by the leadership. 

Many of you are suggesting precariously compleicated systems of governance including "bi-cameral" legislative structures, parallel structures where there is a Wing Commander and a "Representative" almost a "Federal" system and structures where there will likely be grid lock.

How can we get unified National objectives down to the squadrons when the flow and current of governance is going in the opposite direction?

A so called "Federalist CAP/CAP Confederation," where Wings have some sort of autonomy (which will happen because the needs of one Wing alone is not the need of all Wings...the natural pull will be to retact into their regional needs), opens a complicated system which will likely be as plagued by corrpution as we have now.

Remember, the "simple" road is the best.  Objectives need to come from the top down...not the bottom up.  While I believe "grassroots" movements can exist and affect change in CAP, we have too many blades of grass with too many roots to make that anything less than chaos.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on February 05, 2011, 07:27:50 PM
Two more points"

1) NCRblues -- interesting set up (NEC = senate, NB = house)....given the track record of the existing US Congress, why do you feel this would work any better?

2) Wing IGs can only be removed, I believe, with concurrence by National IG...CAP & USAF have worked diligently over the past 5 to 10 years to bring the CAP IG program more in line with that of the military...commanders receive reports and make the final decisions, but are expected to allow the IGs independence to do their jobs.

I cant guarantee it will work better. In fact, no one here can guarantee ANY of this we are discussing will work.

BUT, but....i believe IMHO, that by having open vote's on the NB/NEC and an open veto process by the NAT/CC would allow the general membership to better understand the policy making process. Having open votes (on record) will allow people to see who is for or against item ABC123 ext....

If after a member on the NEC/NB votes for or against something, and the general membership See's it, they can then go to the NB/NEC members and have an informed and open discusion about the issue. How it affects them or their area of operation....

Quote from: Major Carrales on February 05, 2011, 05:12:35 AM
2) WING CONFERENCE ELECTIONEERING-  I don't like the idea of people politicking at CAP activities.  Having people trying to win votes from me in AMERICAN POLITICAL ELECTIONS is annoying...much less people hitting me up for votes at a SARex or WING CONFERENCE.  Electing Squadron Commanders would be a fiasco, electing WING Commanders would be a disaster.

Guessing you haven't been to a Summer National Board lately.  The shmoozing engaged in by candidates for CAP/CV in particular has risen to embarrassing levels. 


With one year remaining in Courter's term and the sitting CV being damaged goods, this year's elections promise to be a low point for CAP as the power- and prestige-hungry among the National Board jockey for position to be the next CAP/CC. According to my wing cc, the campaigning has already started.

Quote from: Mustang on February 06, 2011, 06:31:38 AM

Quote from: Major Carrales on February 05, 2011, 05:12:35 AM
2) WING CONFERENCE ELECTIONEERING-  I don't like the idea of people politicking at CAP activities.  Having people trying to win votes from me in AMERICAN POLITICAL ELECTIONS is annoying...much less people hitting me up for votes at a SARex or WING CONFERENCE.  Electing Squadron Commanders would be a fiasco, electing WING Commanders would be a disaster.

Guessing you haven't been to a Summer National Board lately.  The shmoozing engaged in by candidates for CAP/CV in particular has risen to embarrassing levels. 


With one year remaining in Courter's term and the sitting CV being damaged goods, this year's elections promise to be a low point for CAP as the power- and prestige-hungry among the National Board jockey for position to be the next CAP/CC. According to my wing cc, the campaigning has already started.

The "campaigning" started months ago, that not anything new to anyone with there ear to the ground. Also, i am shocked at the lack of responses to my idea.... did i kill the thread? ???  Did my idea blow your mind?  >:D

NCRblues; my mind is blown.... ;D

Gentlemen, there seems to be a slight disconnect with our current realities. 


First, the NB and NEC have deligated authority to make policies.  The BoG is the governing body and, may over rule or change the authority of the NB and NEC at will and, at any time. 

Second, the problems we have with governance, IMHO, do not stem from who is making the decisions.  The problems are due to the lack of understanding of "who is in charge" (see first sentence).  We, for all intents and purposes have a corporate structure superimposed on a military structure.  The superimposition is the perceived problem.  The question is; how do we improve this structure.  ZigZag911, JefDG and, NCRblues have made interesting reccommendations however, these ideas do not address the BoG and it's relationship with any body it deligates authority to.  It is the reason why I suggest a slightly expanded BoG (governing board) and a board of commanders who's sole purpose is to lead the volunteers and enforce governing policies. (This, of course will need approval from congress.)

There also needs to be a well defined interface between the two bodies allowing the exchange of ideas.  How this will work is above my pay grade.  However, I hope that we will deal with what ever changes are ahead for us.

So, in conclusion, if I am elected..... :-* ;D

I think most would agree that ONE of the problems is the "who is in charge?" issue.  The other is how the leaders of the organization are chosen which seems to be of much greater interest as it has more direct bearing on the average CAP member's life. 

Thank you, Col. Weiss, for clarifying your position...now that I understand where you're coming from, I see that it makes a great deal of sense!

It accomplishes exactly what several of us are advocating --separating wing command from corporate governance. At the same time, it does, in fact, simplify the national structure of CAP.

Part of our governance problem is because leading the organization is like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC77sWzUFFs).

This discussion and some of the events of recent years reminds me of this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6iIz3tl5Vw) as well.

Those are awesome videos - we also give the cats the illusion of an equal opinion, which is nor true, appropriate, nor productive.

Put a retired E9 in charge.

Quote from: Eclipse on February 06, 2011, 06:00:33 PM
Those are awesome videos - we also give the cats the illusion of an equal opinion, which is nor true, appropriate, nor productive.

That second video is standard issue whenever ICS is discussed in my AO. It makes the concept a little easier to understand.

Quote from: GMat on February 06, 2011, 06:02:21 PM
Put a retired E9 in charge.

And that would help, how?

Do you guys have no sense of humor at all?  Relax a little.

I clearly understand the remark about the retired E-9.  I would second the suggestion.  A retired E-8 would be my second choice, followed by a retired CWO-5.

Quote from: GMat on February 06, 2011, 06:19:13 PM
Do you guys have no sense of humor at all?  Relax a little.

It isn't about a sense of humor, this suggestion that high-ranking enlisted personnel would somehow "fix" CAP is made on a regular basis.

My personal experience has been Super-Chiefs are the backbone of the military and in most cases amazing leaders, in a military environment
with people duty-bound to serve them to the point of death.

Less-so in the all-volunteer, "you're lucky I showed up at all" mentality of the average CAP member.

Quote from: Eclipse on February 06, 2011, 06:41:38 PM

Quote from: GMat on February 06, 2011, 06:19:13 PM
Do you guys have no sense of humor at all?  Relax a little.

It isn't about a sense of humor, this suggestion that high-ranking enlisted personnel would somehow "fix" CAP is made on a regular basis.

My personal experience has been Super-Chiefs are the backbone of the military and in most cases amazing leaders, in a military environment
with people duty-bound to serve them to the point of death.

Less-so in the all-volunteer, "you're lucky I showed up at all" mentality of the average CAP member.

There is a items of truth in what you say Eclipse that needs to be made more clear.  When our Lt Col in San Antonio gives us an order or mandate, we go out of our way to comply within what is possible.  We comply...however, there is an element in CAP that does not reply to that well.

Any new commander to CAP, be it Squadron, Group, Wing, Region or National has to understand that every CAP Officer and Cadet lives a well balanced life.  The is Work, Family, Church (for some), finance and other duties born of those three that have to be taken into account.

One has to take into account, when making mandates, of how it will affect the membership.  How will mandating multiple week long trainings (over even weekend ones) affect/effect the employment and family duties of a given member.  I, for example, do a lot of CAP, but I have to go home sometime.

SARexs on Holidays (Holy Days) and Sabbath affects personnel, Commanders have to take that into account.

Then there are the financial concerns.  How does the policy effect the CAP officer's or Cadet pocket book?  Everyone wants their fantasy uniform item, however, making it mandatory effects membership via cost.  Week long training away from home seems like a good idea, but that's money we're talking about.

And yes, I know some people will say something about having to "pay the dues" or that "CAP is 'come and pay'" however, there is a drain on resources that will make some membership...good contributing membership...say "this isn't worth it.  I just dropped 300 dollars for said uniform item and now its discontinued.  They should have said it was not gonna last!  I'm gone!"

Much of what is written above is based on some past events even discussed here.

That is the challenge...new leaders from the USAF might not be "up on those" kind of factors and, in the adjusting process, they will lose credibility and then be looked at the same as those leaders here.  If we have the "elections process" mentioned here several times...it will be a turkey shoot of throwing out the wrong guys.

Quote from: GMat on February 06, 2011, 06:19:13 PM
Do you guys have no sense of humor at all?  Relax a little.

Humor doesn't translate well on the internets unless you give a clue.

Something like  ;) ;D 8) ::) >:D :clap:

Wow... you guys take this stuff entirely too seriously.  If the organization is that screwed up, then leave when your enlistment is up.  Then you can get a better paying contract elsewhere, like the Coast Guard Aux.    ;D

Quote from: GMat on February 06, 2011, 08:07:42 PM
Wow... you guys take this stuff entirely too seriously.  If the organization is that screwed up, then leave when your enlistment is up.  Then you can get a better paying contract elsewhere, like the Coast Guard Aux.    ;D

Don't worry about it.  I sometimes use a style of writing that often gets misinterpreted as pomposity, 'tis the curse of the forum.  We get so used to inflections and gestures that we, when are found in their absence, "imply them..." that, however, leads to all sorts of misunderstanding.

Don't take is so personal, tempers often flair on subjects like this...which is ironic, since nothing said here carries  any force of policy or anything.

Quote from: Major Carrales on February 06, 2011, 08:12:48 PM

Quote from: GMat on February 06, 2011, 08:07:42 PM
Wow... you guys take this stuff entirely too seriously.  If the organization is that screwed up, then leave when your enlistment is up.  Then you can get a better paying contract elsewhere, like the Coast Guard Aux.    ;D

Don't worry about it.  I sometimes use a style of writing that often gets misinterpreted as pomposity, 'tis the curse of the forum.  We get so used to inflections and gestures that we, when are found in their absence, "imply them..." that, however, leads to all sorts of misunderstanding.

Don't take is so personal, tempers often flair on subjects like this...which is ironic, since nothing said here carries  any force of policy or anything.

Wait, are you telling me, that by posting here, i am NOT part of the NB/NEC/Bog's national commander sponsored (national executive approved) committie on inter-cap governance relationships?? Well, now I'm upset....things to need to change on our governance mod.....oh wait >:D

(btw the above was a sarcastic attempt at humor)

Your "CAP Insightful" comments are being monitored and endorsed by the dishonored, discredited, and correctly "dis-membered"  Ray Hayden.  Perhaps Bernie Maddow will be next.   ;D

Quote from: Longshot on February 07, 2011, 12:17:50 AM
Your "CAP Insightful" comments are being monitored and endorsed by the dishonored, discredited, and correctly "dis-membered"  Ray Hayden.  Perhaps Bernie Maddow will be next.   ;D

Is he some kind of offspring of the jailed Ponzi Schemer and the MSNBC host?

Quote from: JeffDG on February 07, 2011, 12:28:45 AM

Quote from: Longshot on February 07, 2011, 12:17:50 AM
Your "CAP Insightful" comments are being monitored and endorsed by the dishonored, discredited, and correctly "dis-membered"  Ray Hayden.  Perhaps Bernie Maddow will be next.   ;D

Is he some kind of offspring of the jailed Ponzi Schemer and the MSNBC host?

Kind of...

Quote from: RiverAux on February 06, 2011, 02:54:25 PM
I think most would agree that ONE of the problems is the "who is in charge?" issue.

Not sure I agree with this assessment.  It's pretty clear that the CAP/CC is "in charge", but what some people are still struggling with is the notion that everybody answers to somebody, and that somebody in CAP/CC's case is the American people, via the BoG. 

All too often we hear people making claims of CAP being a private corporation that answers to no one, when the truth is, it is a public corporation owned by the American public, through Congress.  Congress could wave its collective hand and end CAP tomorrow, and some of our leaders, past and present, have forgotten that (if they ever were aware of it).

Personally, I am in favor of dissolving the National Board, or at least removing the wing commanders from it. Wing commanders are supposed to be experienced, knowledgeable CAP leaders, but in practice, not so much. I've been astonished by number of them with very limited CAP service in recent years. And unfortunately, some of these end up on the NEC.

Quote from: PHall on February 05, 2011, 06:21:49 AM

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on February 05, 2011, 05:17:54 AM

Quote from: FW on February 05, 2011, 04:13:21 AM

It's just a shame we have our egos which keep getting in the way.  Hence, as Ned says, the reason for an independent study on governance.

And I wonder how much money this study is going to cost the membership, and hopefully it won't be the American taxpayer that will be footing this bill!
RM

They'll know how much it's going to cost when they accept the winning bid.
And it will be coming from your dues money, so make sure you renew. We need the bucks.

"CAP Insight" is stating that the request for proposal/contract for the study is $100K >:(
Now wouldn't that be something IF it's going to cost that much and the BOG actually approved this :-\   
RM

Quote from: Mustang on February 07, 2011, 01:34:00 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on February 06, 2011, 02:54:25 PM
I think most would agree that ONE of the problems is the "who is in charge?" issue.

Not sure I agree with this assessment.  It's pretty clear that the CAP/CC is "in charge", but what some people are still struggling with is the notion that everybody answers to somebody, and that somebody in CAP/CC's case is the American people, via the BoG. 

It may seem clear to you however, there seems to be confusion where it matters most; between the commander and the BoG.  Ask Sen. Levin and the SECAF for details.  It's one of the reasons CAP is conducting the governance study...

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on February 07, 2011, 02:06:18 AM

Quote from: PHall on February 05, 2011, 06:21:49 AM

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on February 05, 2011, 05:17:54 AM

Quote from: FW on February 05, 2011, 04:13:21 AM

It's just a shame we have our egos which keep getting in the way.  Hence, as Ned says, the reason for an independent study on governance.

And I wonder how much money this study is going to cost the membership, and hopefully it won't be the American taxpayer that will be footing this bill!
RM

They'll know how much it's going to cost when they accept the winning bid.
And it will be coming from your dues money, so make sure you renew. We need the bucks.

"CAP Insight" is stating that the request for proposal/contract for the study is $100K >:(
Now wouldn't that be something IF it's going to cost that much and the BOG actually approved this :-\   
RM

From what I've been told, the amount the BoG is willing to spend for the study is "up to $100,000". The bid process will determine the actual cost.  However, what ever the cost is, it comes from our piggy bank.  But, we gave it willingly for CAP to use as "they see fit"; now didn't we.

Quote from: Longshot on February 07, 2011, 12:38:58 AM

Quote from: JeffDG on February 07, 2011, 12:28:45 AM

Quote from: Longshot on February 07, 2011, 12:17:50 AM
Your "CAP Insightful" comments are being monitored and endorsed by the dishonored, discredited, and correctly "dis-membered"  Ray Hayden.  Perhaps Bernie Maddow will be next.   ;D

Is he some kind of offspring of the jailed Ponzi Schemer and the MSNBC host?

Kind of...

Maybe we'll get commentary from Rachel Maddow someday for this however, RH has some credentials dealing with organizational dynamics.  And, his past is not that different from the other guy who comments on our goings on either.  So, how that relates to our discussion here is irrelevant.  As was said earlier on this thread; this is a great conversation and, maybe, something worthwhile will come from it.

Quote from: FW on February 07, 2011, 02:55:39 AMIt may seem clear to you however, there seems to be confusion where it matters most; between the commander and the BoG. 

Though this was unquestionably true of her predecessor, I've heard nothing--save for the usual internet RUMINT (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rumint)--that suggests the incumbent CAP/CC harbors similar delusions of grandeur.

To the contrary, in fact.

^  I'm saying there is confusion on "who is in charge between the CC and BoG".  How one reads in on that is their business.... >:D

Quote from: FW on February 07, 2011, 12:16:27 PM
^  I'm saying there is confusion on "who is in charge between the CC and BoG".  How one reads in on that is their business.... >:D

Colonel ... are you sure you're not in government somewhere?  You've got that "speak much but say nothing" down pat.   ;D

Jack

Quote from: FW on February 07, 2011, 03:06:45 AM

Quote from: Longshot on February 07, 2011, 12:38:58 AM

Quote from: JeffDG on February 07, 2011, 12:28:45 AM

Quote from: Longshot on February 07, 2011, 12:17:50 AM
Your "CAP Insightful" comments are being monitored and endorsed by the dishonored, discredited, and correctly "dis-membered"  Ray Hayden.  Perhaps Bernie Maddow will be next.   ;D

Is he some kind of offspring of the jailed Ponzi Schemer and the MSNBC host?

Kind of...

Maybe we'll get commentary from Rachel Maddow someday for this however, RH has some credentials dealing with organizational dynamics.  And, his past is not that different from the other guy who comments on our goings on either.  So, how that relates to our discussion here is irrelevant.  As was said earlier on this thread; this is a great conversation and, maybe, something worthwhile will come from it.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see the true identity of these posters! 

Quote from: Eclipse on February 06, 2011, 06:41:38 PM
My personal experience has been Super-Chiefs are the backbone of the military and in most cases amazing leaders, in a military environment
with people duty-bound to serve them to the point of death.

Less-so in the all-volunteer, "you're lucky I showed up at all" mentality of the average CAP member.

Try getting retired reserve E-9 or E-8; they are more used to dealing with "civilian" attitudes.

Quote from: ColonelJack on February 07, 2011, 01:29:44 PM

Quote from: FW on February 07, 2011, 12:16:27 PM
^  I'm saying there is confusion on "who is in charge between the CC and BoG".  How one reads in on that is their business.... >:D

Colonel ... are you sure you're not in government somewhere?  You've got that "speak much but say nothing" down pat.   ;D

Jack

After 35 years as a member, I've learned when to speak out and when to keep quiet.  This is one of those times.... 8)

However, it is obvious to almost everyone who cares, we need to change the way we care and feed our CAP.  No one can argue the last 13 years of our history has been tumultuous.  We need to find a better way handle our governance.  I've observed an exhaustion at the top I've not seen before.  The excitement and exuberance seems to have to diminished and, a feeling malaise and, a certain fatalism has crept in.  Our leaders must recapture the "can do " spirit; re learn to govern with a real positive force behind them.  So, if a study is authorized, I'm for it.  Hopefully, we will relight the afterburners zoom out and, find those clear skies which are ahead.

As Ned says, "stay tuned".

It could be said the change over the years from a "get the job done CAP" to a "protect the corporation CAP" has caused the changes in governence we see now. When the Commander of CAP-USAF was a general grade officer, he was the governing factor in CAP. The National Board and the NEC basically conducted the business of CAP and made recommendations to the Commander CAP-USAF who had the final say. CAP-USAF included active duty personnel in each Wing who advised the Wing Commanders. And the system worked. Can CAP go back to such an organization? Highly unlikely due to drawdowns in USAF.

^Yes, it is highly unlikely we will go back to a structure we had previous to 1994.  It's too costly for the Air Force and, unrealistic with our "ownership" of over $105 million worth of property, vehicles, aircraft and equipment; which is currently well handled at NHQ.   CAP-USAF is better suited as is; as our external auditors for operational readiness, logistics support and, interface with "Big Blue". 

We need a better ways for us to get things done.  Our leadership needs better defined roles and a better understanding of how to govern and lead.  I'm actually getting exited about what will be proposed after the study is concluded.  Of course, someone will have to be willing to conduct it... :angel: