I am blown away by the EXCELLENT quality of the live video stream of the Communications meeting at the National Board meeting. Looks like they have finally figured out to do this. hopefully it will carry over to the main meeting.
BRAVO!!!
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Do you have a link to this excellent video?
http://www.capmembers.com/live/2011_comm_meeting.cfm
Ironically the stream is now down.....
Quote from: cap235629 on August 17, 2011, 08:47:32 PMIronically the stream is now down.....
Also, the main page for the event actually does not have the link to it. It says "LIVE STREAM" but no link anywhere.
http://www.capmembers.com/events/cap_annual_conference/index.cfm
The video feed for the Communicators Meeting was going strong until it suddenly stopped. It's been down for a while now.
Incidentally, the ICUT sample videos they showed were pretty good. :)
Anyone at the conference have info on the ICUT release?
We beta tested the ICUT on ICSS staff and students at NESA this year. Current ACUT and BCUT users will only have to take part 1. Everyone else will need to take part 1 and 2. There is also a video for part 3, being worked on.
Quote from: Tubacap on August 18, 2011, 01:26:09 AM
Anyone at the conference have info on the ICUT release?
From DC email discussions concurrent with the video:
"...the videos are done, beta testing of the online system will begin immediately after NB. Full public release (including materials for local presentation) will occur within 60-90 days."
During the video there was some discussion about reshooting a few video clips to update some procedures.
Waiting for live stream to start today currently 0834 local no feed.
0928 NO FEED
Business meeting started early. Streaming up now.
I'm surprised there isn't the usual play by play yet.
Taking a break after recognizing incoming/outgoing NB/NEC members and hearing an update on the Congressional Gold Medal. Also, after 17 years, there is an updated CAP commanders guide. Now in recess for 30 minutes, recess called using a small Louisville Slugger.
And finally, I'm LOVING the quality and consistency of the feed this year.
1036 No Feed
Did they do away with Live Coverage this year?
Can someone post a good link to click on to get to the Live Streaming video coverage of the meeting?
Thanks!
I clicked the link on the CAP homepage. The streaming video is working well.
http://www.capmembers.com/live/streaming/
Working fine on my Xoom, only issue is the audio is too low.
Can someone please keep those of us who must slave away at work up to date on here? :-\
Currently discussing agenda item 4 Floor Nomination Transparency. Audio still too low for most mics, but way too high for one mic next to someone clapping.
If 4 passes and a nomination comes from the floor today, elections would be postponed until tomorrow.
Video is great, but the audio engineer is obviously a rookie... My volume is all the way up and I can make out a single word about every 10 seconds... Video is worthless without the audio...
Same - I have the volume cranked on my Xoom and had to plug in external speakers to be able to hear.
Quote from: jeders on August 18, 2011, 03:09:41 PM
Currently discussing agenda item 4 Floor Nomination Transparency. Audio still too low for most mics, but way too high for one mic next to someone clapping.
If 4 passes and a nomination comes from the floor today, elections would be postponed until tomorrow.
Proposed amendment to strike 12 hour delay on voting, amendment fails for lack of a second.
Motion to table (didn't catch the persons name) because changing rules at the last minute isn't fair for those 4 who filed 90 days in advance. Pass or fail though, floor nominations are still allowed, this item adds scrutiny to floor nominations. Strong opposition in debate to tabling. Motion to table fails in vote.
Vote on motion as written passes.
Item 4: Aye
Audio for me is good, although the engineer/technician should turn down the high EQ to take the ping out of it.
Here we go...
Agenda item 4 passed as written
No floor nominations for CC
No nominations from the floor for Nat CC, Col. Weiss is first to speak.
FW Done. Would have liked to hear more specifics about Day 1, but that is probably not a good idea for a conservative body like this.
Gen. Carr seems to have spent some time reading the threads here...
5 mins for endorsements and ques.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2011, 03:40:22 PM
FW Done. Would have liked to hear more specifics about Day 1, but that is probably not a good idea for a conservative body like this.
Actually I'm kinda glad he didn't, no quicker way to sink your campaign than to start laying out the details of a thousand and one changes. That said, once the
coup election is done, I'm sure we'll hear more details on his plans.
I did very much like that Col Weiss made cadets so prominent, Gen Carr seems to be more primarily focused on ops.
FW asked about posting on governance here, based on an accusation he violated an NDA.
Said he was not in that meeting, and only commenting on information already made public.
Now asked about .BCCing people during the discussions.
Said he is for open communications.
Now some question about a old finance issue (zzzzz).
Seems like people are reaching for "gotcha" stuff, rather than what he'd do going forward. People watch too much TMZ and Fox News.
Col. Karton comment, again about CAPTalk.
He has a printout of the CT discussion, which match the points exactly from the board discussion.
Five minutes expired before he could respond.
Voting time.
.
.
.
(Counting in progress) Amending motion to table on item 4 to motion to postpone (parliamentary rules).
.
.
.
48-18 Gen Carr wins, sorry Col Weiss.
Gen. Carr up.
#1 endorsement.
#2 "Col. Carr has demonstrated his commitment to Gen. Courter."
#3 Col. Fagan - endorsement
#4 Endorsement
Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2011, 03:47:54 PM
Seems like people are reaching for "gotcha" stuff, rather than what he'd do going forward.
That just seems to be the way politics in general are shifting in this country. It's all about who is the least evil. Why should CAP politics be any different?
My guess: Carr: 60%, Weiss: 40%
((*sigh*)) Hopefully the "table / postpone" issue doesn't become the "hanging chad" of this election.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2011, 03:52:10 PM
Gen. Carr up.
#1 endorsement.
#2 "Col. Carr has demonstrated his commitment to Gen. Courter."
#3 Col. Fagan - endorsement
#4 Endorsement
Why are we talking about commitment to the outgoing commander....should it not be about the future????
Quote from: JeffDG on August 18, 2011, 03:56:08 PM
My guess: Carr: 60%, Weiss: 40%
I say dead even and light sabers at dawn to decide.
Quote from: NCRblues on August 18, 2011, 03:56:54 PMWhy are we talking about commitment to the outgoing commander....should it not be about the future?
I guess if you like things "as is", then that works.
I think I see where this is going. Watch what you post on CAPTalk. Could come back to bite you
Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2011, 03:56:42 PM
((*sigh*)) Hopefully the "table / postpone" issue doesn't become the "hanging chad" of this election.
And they were wrong about tabling...tabling is not just for the same meeting, a motion to table is indefinite in nature and can be reversed at any time by a motion to take from the table.
I thought so. Chuck Carr Wins
Quote from: NCRblues on August 18, 2011, 03:56:54 PM
Why are we talking about commitment to the outgoing commander....should it not be about the future????
Agreed. Electing someone because of their commitment to a predecessor takes away from that candidate. It almost hints that they would merely be a puppet for someone else instead of having their own distinct time in command.
Vice CC elections after lunch. $9.95 for soup and a half sandwich, no thanks.
Also, does anyone know what the red and white flag to the immediate left of the podium is, I can't place it.
I am shocked and stunned....
Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2011, 03:49:32 PM
Col. Karton comment, again about CAPTalk.
He has a printout of the CT discussion, which match the points exactly from the board discussion.
Five minutes expired before he could respond.
I really don't care very much on any level (seriously) however,
Col Karton does realize, right, that by verifying that the post on captalk WAS the contents of the closed board meeting, *HE* has violated the NDA...
So he has (on the record) violated the NDA in the process of accusing someone else of violating the NDA
*HEADEXPLODE*
Congrats to Gen Carr.
Quote from: jeders on August 18, 2011, 04:02:02 PM
Vice CC elections after lunch. $9.95 for soup and a half sandwich, no thanks.
Also, does anyone know what the red and white flag to the immediate left of the podium is, I can't place it.
Not sure why it's there, but it's the national flag of the Dominion of Canada.
Quote from: coudano on August 18, 2011, 04:02:29 PM
Col Karton does realize, right, that by verifying that the post on captalk WAS the contents of the closed board meeting, *HE* has violated the NDA...
So he has (on the record) violated the NDA in the process of accusing someone else of violating the NDA
*HEADEXPLODE*
Interesting if someone were to refer that for an IG investigation... >:D
Quote from: JeffDG on August 18, 2011, 04:03:17 PM
Quote from: jeders on August 18, 2011, 04:02:02 PM
Vice CC elections after lunch. $9.95 for soup and a half sandwich, no thanks.
Also, does anyone know what the red and white flag to the immediate left of the podium is, I can't place it.
Not sure why it's there, but it's the national flag of the Dominion of Canada.
That's what I thought it looked like, but it's draped around, so I'm not sure. Maybe there are some Canadian Air Cadet emissaries at the conference?
If this is the way CAP is going to be I am not even renewing . I just dont like how the politics have been played in the last ten years. I am a firm believer if you dont like how things are going "leave". This whole election just seems like a lot of back room deals where made. Just my opinion.
You all realize that the COL, who asked Fred about the NDA confirmed that it was what was presented to the board right??
Even though members on here tired to say it was not, and even a member of the BOG denied it, we all, and myself just got lied to by our leaders. Or, should i say your leaders...I'm not sure i want to stay in anymore...
anyone have a link to the post FW made that got so many people upset?
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=12415.0
one the first page
I don't think sour grapes serves anyone, whether in CAP, or in National elections - we see where that gets us. Day-to-day, who the National CC is has much less effect on the membership than who the Wing Admin is.
I have no specific issue with Gen. Carr, I just don't think he will be the instrument of disruptive change that FW was purporting, and that is what CAP needs, disruptive change. I perceive that things will be status quo, for all that means.
And some of you guys wondered why I left CAP?????????
Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2011, 04:18:31 PM
I don't think sour grapes serves anyone, whether in CAP, or in National elections - we see where that gets us. Day-to-day, who the National CC is has much less effect on the membership than who the Wing Admin is.
I have no specific issue with Gen. Carr, I just don't think he will be the instrument of disruptive change that FW was purporting, and that is what CAP needs, disruptive change. I perceive that things will be status quo, for all that means.
+1
Even back in the Pineda days.....there was almost zero inpact at the squadron level.
Unless you were in FLWG!!!!!!!!!! Trust me there was impact
The Head of the Canadian Air Cadet League is sitting at the head table. Thus the flag of canada.
Eaker Cadet
There is still a STRONG Pineda influence in Florida Wing.
Quote from: BillB on August 18, 2011, 04:39:01 PM
The Head of the Canadian Air Cadet League is sitting at the head table. Thus the flag of canada.
That explains that then.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 18, 2011, 04:24:45 PM
...
Even back in the Pineda days.....there was almost zero inpact at the squadron level.
That's the problem as I see it.
Clearly, its time to add a third thing to that old joke about the "two things you should never watch being made."
It was "Sausage and the law."
Now it should be "Sausage, the law, and National Commanders of CAP"
NIN:
+100 :clap: :clap: :clap:
Quote from: BillB on August 18, 2011, 04:39:01 PM
The Head of the Canadian Air Cadet League is sitting at the head table. Thus the flag of canada.
Ahhh...I thought it was just for me... ;D
Quote from: eaker.cadet on August 18, 2011, 04:06:02 PM
This whole election just seems like a lot of back room deals where made. Just my opinion.
OK, not commenting on the merits of either candidate here...really, I just don't know enough to do so intelligently...but what do you expect?
CAP currently operates on a closed-loop governance system. Col. Weiss campaigned for the position, but did so with people who had no vote, and to top that off, those who did have a vote are not, in any way, accountable to those who he was campaigning with.
It's a closed-loop system because the appointment goes:
CAP/CC->Region/CC->Wing-CC->CAP/CC...lather, rinse and repeat. The governance model is not designed for change, it is designed to maintain the status quo. Until such time as an outside force is applied to the loop, it will continue to operate as it has in the past.
For a historical reference, the only thing I can think of that had such a closed-loop governance model was the Soviet Union (note, this is not a Godwin's Llaw type of reference, simply a pointer to an analogous model used elsewhere):
General Secretary->Central Committee->Politburo->General Secretary
I know it is owing to our corporate nature, but I'd prefer the CC and CV be appointed by CAP-USAF, and perhaps the major staff postions like CS would have to be approved by them.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2011, 05:36:06 PM
I know it is owing to our corporate nature, but I'd prefer the CC and CV be appointed by CAP-USAF, and perhaps the major staff postions like CS would have to be approved by them.
That would be the better option!!!!!
Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2011, 05:36:06 PM
I know it is owing to our corporate nature, but I'd prefer the CC and CV be appointed by CAP-USAF, and perhaps the major staff postions like CS would have to be approved by them.
I have to agree 100% on this one.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2011, 05:36:06 PM
I know it is owing to our corporate nature, but I'd prefer the CC and CV be appointed by CAP-USAF, and perhaps the major staff postions like CS would have to be approved by them.
My personal opinion, membership on the NB should be separated from Wing Command.
Any time someone proposes electing NB members, the complaint always comes back that you shouldn't elect your boss (even though that's what the NB just did in elected a new CAP/CC). And that has a lot of merit from a chain-of-command perspective.
But, why does the job of NB member and Wing/CC have to go together? Why couldn't each Wing elect a NB member. The NB members from each region could select from among themselves a representative for the NEC. Then the NB would appoint the CAP/CC, who would appoint the Region/CCs and the Wing/CCs. The NB members would have no special role in the chain-of-command, however, Wing/CCs would be wise to seek and accept their counsel I'm sure.
Now, the membership has a meaningful input into the process (electing their NB reps), and the chain-of-command is not polluted with selecting your own boss. The NB/NEC sets policy, the chain of command carries out that policy.
Quote from: BillB on August 18, 2011, 04:39:01 PM
The Head of the Canadian Air Cadet League is sitting at the head table. Thus the flag of canada.
I was wondering about that myself
The afternoon session has started. Time to elect the National Vice Commander
Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2011, 04:18:31 PM
I don't think sour grapes serves anyone, whether in CAP, or in National elections - we see where that gets us. Day-to-day, who the National CC is has much less effect on the membership than who the Wing Admin is.
I have no specific issue with Gen. Carr, I just don't think he will be the instrument of disruptive change that FW was purporting, and that is what CAP needs, disruptive change. I perceive that things will be status quo, for all that means.
I agree with this too. It really doesnt matter who the National Commander is. As long as we hlp our community at thelocal level. Thats what is important.
Did Vasquez just claim, with great pride, credit for the most ridiculous rewrite of a CAP reg in recent memory? Since that rewrite, CAPR 60-1 is next to useless.
Do have to say one thing though.. at least they know CT exists .. their [Filter Subversion] is going to get scrutinized..
Quote from: JeffDG on August 18, 2011, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2011, 05:36:06 PM
I know it is owing to our corporate nature, but I'd prefer the CC and CV be appointed by CAP-USAF, and perhaps the major staff postions like CS would have to be approved by them.
My personal opinion, membership on the NB should be separated from Wing Command.
Any time someone proposes electing NB members, the complaint always comes back that you shouldn't elect your boss (even though that's what the NB just did in elected a new CAP/CC). And that has a lot of merit from a chain-of-command perspective.
But, why does the job of NB member and Wing/CC have to go together? Why couldn't each Wing elect a NB member. The NB members from each region could select from among themselves a representative for the NEC. Then the NB would appoint the CAP/CC, who would appoint the Region/CCs and the Wing/CCs. The NB members would have no special role in the chain-of-command, however, Wing/CCs would be wise to seek and accept their counsel I'm sure.
Now, the membership has a meaningful input into the process (electing their NB reps), and the chain-of-command is not polluted with selecting your own boss. The NB/NEC sets policy, the chain of command carries out that policy.
That's another way to skin a cat. Though I have a feeling that it would end up where the vast majority of the NB nominees would come from the Wing CC and those close to him/her. That would just bring that cycle back, though admittedly not as bad.
My personal opinion is that if Nat CC/VC were chosen by some outside force, either the BoG or CAP-USAF, and then Region/Wing CCs were appointed, then we would permanently end the electing your boss cycle.
Quote from: JeffDG on August 18, 2011, 05:01:37 PM
...
Col. Weiss campaigned for the position, but did so with people who had no vote, and to top that off, those who did have a vote are not, in any way, accountable to those who he was campaigning with.
...
That is incorrect. If you are not a National Board member, then you did not see the campaigning with the National Board members.
National Board members were targeted through SEVERAL means (mail, e-mail, telephone, etc.). The campaign simply
INCLUDED the entire membership
for the purpose of involving the membership in their organization's future. Do you know what's sad? A new National Commander gets elected and people are relieved that they historically have had little impact on the local level.
38-28, Col Vasquez wins.
Item 7, confirmation of officers postponed until tomorrow, moving to item 8, name change of PR Wing.
PR Wing name change recommendation for BoG approved.
Quote from: JC004 on August 18, 2011, 06:12:55 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on August 18, 2011, 05:01:37 PM
...
Col. Weiss campaigned for the position, but did so with people who had no vote, and to top that off, those who did have a vote are not, in any way, accountable to those who he was campaigning with.
...
That is incorrect. If you are not a National Board member, then you did not see the campaigning with the National Board members.
Very well, I withdraw that portion of my comments.
Item 9, Safety Ed, split into two.
WSA permissions for safety entry passes.
90 day interval on safety ed tabled until later in the meeting to allow more discussion with CAP-USAF
On to item 10. Item 10 passes without discussion.
anyone else lose audio?
no.
Why on earth would they need to move discussion of qualifications for those charged with investigation of senior leaders to executive session? Boo on that.
That is exactly what I wondered.
I was in and out for a bit so I didn't here what the final word was on item 11-13. Did anyone else catch those?
All of it was tabled.
11 - 12: Gliders were tabled for one year pending cost analysis by NHQ. NHQ will pick up the tab up to $100K.
13: Senior Investigating Officer was tabled to Executive Session
what happened with 9?
9 was tabled
Quote from: lordmonar on August 18, 2011, 07:24:08 PM
what happened with 9?
Quote from: jeders on August 18, 2011, 06:35:31 PM
Item 9, Safety Ed, split into two.
WSA permissions for safety entry passes.
90 day interval on safety ed tabled until later in the meeting to allow more discussion with CAP-USAF
Quote from: JeffDG on August 18, 2011, 04:03:17 PM
Quote from: jeders on August 18, 2011, 04:02:02 PM
Vice CC elections after lunch. $9.95 for soup and a half sandwich, no thanks.
Also, does anyone know what the red and white flag to the immediate left of the podium is, I can't place it.
Not sure why it's there, but it's the national flag of the Dominion of Canada.
It;s because the Commander of the Air Cadet League of Canada is represented at the head table
Item 14, Uniform Committee Report, I think that the committee has done some good work, but they still have a lot of work ahead of them. Also I think it makes fairly clear that the AF wanted the CSU gone and gone quick.
Is there a way we can get a copy of the slideshow from the uniform committee report?
I don't know, but I'd like to get a copy if for no other reason than to find out the SWR rep.
Item 7 was put off to later. Does anybody know the names on the list?
Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2011, 03:52:10 PM
Gen. Carr up.
#1 endorsement.
#2 "Col. Carr has demonstrated his commitment to Gen. Courter."
#3 Col. Fagan - endorsement
#4 Endorsement
"Endorsement" by #3 certainly does
not bolster Gen. Carr's credibility. That's all I'll say about that.
On the Patron status and training issue, why has no one brought up the option of doing the training in person and then being brought back to active status? Easy to accomplish, no new programming required. Oh wait, that would make too much sense.
Did she just say Item 9, safety compliance interval, will now be in executive session tomorrow?? That is crap. TRANSPARENCY, PEOPLE!!!
Quote from: Mustang on August 18, 2011, 08:56:29 PM
Did she just say Item 9, safety compliance interval, will now be in executive session tomorrow?? That is crap. TRANSPARENCY, PEOPLE!!!
Yes she did. That's a change from what I thought I heard earlier though.
Quote from: JeffDG on August 18, 2011, 06:19:43 PM
Quote from: JC004 on August 18, 2011, 06:12:55 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on August 18, 2011, 05:01:37 PM
...
Col. Weiss campaigned for the position, but did so with people who had no vote, and to top that off, those who did have a vote are not, in any way, accountable to those who he was campaigning with.
...
That is incorrect. If you are not a National Board member, then you did not see the campaigning with the National Board members.
Very well, I withdraw that portion of my comments.
Your closed loop analysis is correct and unfortunately so. Governance needs to change. CAP needs fundamental change to stay up with the times. This doesn't even have to mean "This person is corrupt, that person sucks." That doesn't matter so much because even if and with whom it would be true, with good governance, it would just get washed out. My point is that CAP needs to move forward, taking the example of many other national volunteer organizations that have modernized far beyond CAP.
CAP has serious challenges - like the fact that it MUST RUN on VERY LIMITED paid professional staff. Organizations like the Red Cross or whatever would have a full professional staff at a local level while CAP has an administrator in each state and a limited NHQ. HUGE DIFFERENCE. It doesn't mean the paid people are BETTER, but people have lives and need to SURVIVE.
It means that CAP needs the infrastructure to compensate for its limited resources that are far surpassed by other national volunteer organizations. (this infrastructure issue, by the way, is largely why the membership in general was involved in the targeting for this campaign)
If they fail to implement that infrastructure, CAP will bleed and have persistent problems - not the least of which is retention.
The sentiments expressed here an in the "former members" thread are repeated OVER and OVER and OVER in the national member exit surveys by those who quit CAP. If they don't fix it now, CAP is out of luck.
This is the most angry i have ever been at CAP...
This election made me physical sick....
A member of the NB, in such a hurry to slap FW down, confirms that the governance model that many said was not true, to be in fact....EXCATLY WHAT WAS SAID IN CLOSED SESSION. We were lied to...all of us...all of you, how can you tolerate that??
Not a single question to Carr? Not a single one? And Carr says he wants to serve courter some more? WHAT?? She is leaving!!!
The endorsements made me sick. Members of the national board WHO ARE CLEARLY OVER THE WIEGHT LIMIT WEARING AF DRESS BLUES. A member of the NB, who said "now is not the time to take risks".... RISKS ON WHAT?? Making ourselves better???
So now, they want to take items to "executive session"?? Really?? Why? Violation of the open meetings act i would have to say....
Sickening....
3 more years of same ol same ol....
Quote from: NCRblues on August 18, 2011, 09:04:19 PM
...
A member of the NB, in such a hurry to slap FW down, confirms that the governance model that many said was not true, to be in fact....EXCATLY WHAT WAS SAID IN CLOSED SESSION. We were lied to...all of us...all of you, how can you tolerate that??
...
I didn't pay much attention to this issue, but
now that they have brought it up (and some are saying violated the NDA themselves by doing it? wow.), I would like to know why. I've got people asking
me why we were told different that what
THEY THEMSELVES just said from the floor today and I HAVE NO IDEA. I'm really very confused since, as I said, I didn't follow this issue much.
Quote from: JC004 on August 18, 2011, 09:22:01 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on August 18, 2011, 09:04:19 PM
...
A member of the NB, in such a hurry to slap FW down, confirms that the governance model that many said was not true, to be in fact....EXCATLY WHAT WAS SAID IN CLOSED SESSION. We were lied to...all of us...all of you, how can you tolerate that??
...
I didn't pay much attention to this issue, but now that they have brought it up (and some are saying violated the NDA themselves by doing it? wow.), I would like to know why. I've got people asking me why we were told different that what THEY THEMSELVES just said from the floor today and I HAVE NO IDEA. I'm really very confused since, as I said, I didn't follow this issue much.
The reason, flat out, is they didn't want us worker peons to know...plain and simple.... i have no faith in ANY of the CAP "leadership"...i cant wait for Ned to weigh in....lets see if we get another round of BS....
Quote from: NCRblues on August 18, 2011, 09:24:22 PM
Quote from: JC004 on August 18, 2011, 09:22:01 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on August 18, 2011, 09:04:19 PM
...
A member of the NB, in such a hurry to slap FW down, confirms that the governance model that many said was not true, to be in fact....EXCATLY WHAT WAS SAID IN CLOSED SESSION. We were lied to...all of us...all of you, how can you tolerate that??
...
I didn't pay much attention to this issue, but now that they have brought it up (and some are saying violated the NDA themselves by doing it? wow.), I would like to know why. I've got people asking me why we were told different that what THEY THEMSELVES just said from the floor today and I HAVE NO IDEA. I'm really very confused since, as I said, I didn't follow this issue much.
The reason, flat out, is they didn't want us worker peons to know...plain and simple.... i have no faith in ANY of the CAP "leadership"...i cant wait for Ned to weigh in....lets see if we get another round of BS....
I'm not understanding what this is all about. Can someone give me a cliffs notes version of the argument?
Quote from: davidsinn on August 18, 2011, 09:42:42 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on August 18, 2011, 09:24:22 PM
Quote from: JC004 on August 18, 2011, 09:22:01 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on August 18, 2011, 09:04:19 PM
...
A member of the NB, in such a hurry to slap FW down, confirms that the governance model that many said was not true, to be in fact....EXCATLY WHAT WAS SAID IN CLOSED SESSION. We were lied to...all of us...all of you, how can you tolerate that??
...
I didn't pay much attention to this issue, but now that they have brought it up (and some are saying violated the NDA themselves by doing it? wow.), I would like to know why. I've got people asking me why we were told different that what THEY THEMSELVES just said from the floor today and I HAVE NO IDEA. I'm really very confused since, as I said, I didn't follow this issue much.
The reason, flat out, is they didn't want us worker peons to know...plain and simple.... i have no faith in ANY of the CAP "leadership"...i cant wait for Ned to weigh in....lets see if we get another round of BS....
I'm not understanding what this is all about. Can someone give me a cliffs notes version of the argument?
Last NB meeting, they voted on and passed NDA's. The NB went into closed door session right away, where a "governance study" was presented to the NB. FW posted what he thought was said during the meeting. Members of the NB,NEC and BOG all said his version was not true at all....
Then today, during the Q @ A for FW, a colonel (don't know his name) jumps up and confirms that what FW posted was true, and asked how FW found out. FW said he was just speculating. The Colonel asking the question goes on to say "its in bullet form, and exactly what was said in session"....
SO....the members of the NB, NEC and BOG who said "FW version is just wild rumors and speculating" lied to all of us..... LIED LIED LIED.
Maintain some perspective, folks. There's still a job to be done. If you want to take your ball and go home, have at it. But for me, I have a meeting tonight (and safety ed part to do), meeting on Friday night to do monthly safety ed at another squadron, O-rides on Saturday, and a Cope Spade on the horizon to think about. I'm going to work on all that, and let this all wash over me.
Question- does Gen. Carr have a platform posted somewhere (like Col. Weiss) that is accessible to the membership?
Quote from: davidsinn on August 18, 2011, 09:42:42 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on August 18, 2011, 09:24:22 PM
Quote from: JC004 on August 18, 2011, 09:22:01 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on August 18, 2011, 09:04:19 PM
...
A member of the NB, in such a hurry to slap FW down, confirms that the governance model that many said was not true, to be in fact....EXCATLY WHAT WAS SAID IN CLOSED SESSION. We were lied to...all of us...all of you, how can you tolerate that??
...
I didn't pay much attention to this issue, but now that they have brought it up (and some are saying violated the NDA themselves by doing it? wow.), I would like to know why. I've got people asking me why we were told different that what THEY THEMSELVES just said from the floor today and I HAVE NO IDEA. I'm really very confused since, as I said, I didn't follow this issue much.
The reason, flat out, is they didn't want us worker peons to know...plain and simple.... i have no faith in ANY of the CAP "leadership"...i cant wait for Ned to weigh in....lets see if we get another round of BS....
I'm not understanding what this is all about. Can someone give me a cliffs notes version of the argument?
What they basically accused him of leaking wasn't leaked by him. He wasn't a party to the meeting. It was already going around on e-mail (I know, I saw it!), phone, and all over. I'm not even someone who seeks out that kind of info and I saw it and heard it! Some people DO seek out that gossip. FW posted what was in those e-mails, phone conversations, and from what I understand,
already posted elsewhere on the internet.The furthest back on the FWD on the e-mails
that I remember was a WING COMMANDER.Again, I'm a bit confused because I didn't follow this stuff from start to finish. I saw the e-mails, saw the thread, and just assumed it'd be written off by the BoG - therefore making it IRRELEVANT to me. Now that this has come up at the board meeting and people are seeking me out for information, I don't like this very much.
Thought the video quality was great but the audio was a bit low. Had to crank it up to "11' on my computer.
Quote from: HGjunkie on August 18, 2011, 10:02:56 PM
Question- does Gen. Carr have a platform posted somewhere (like Col. Weiss) that is accessible to the membership?
Nope...
Quote from: NCRblues on August 18, 2011, 10:40:11 PM
Quote from: HGjunkie on August 18, 2011, 10:02:56 PM
Question- does Gen. Carr have a platform posted somewhere (like Col. Weiss) that is accessible to the membership?
Nope...
Correct. NO OTHER candidates for either office released a written plan. Gen Carr released two letters (the intent letter required) and a letter e-mailed to the National Board (http://www.ourcap.org/wp-content/uploads/Board-Members.pdf and attached to this post). Neither had a plan in them. I didn't see much from the Vice Commander candidates, but no written plan like Colonel Weiss's was released.
The Weiss plan (http://www.ourcap.org/wp-content/uploads/Solutions_for_CAP.pdf) was e-mailed, posted on the website, and mailed to the National Board directly before members of the NB received phone calls from Col Weiss.
As a result, we don't really know the exact direction that they want to take CAP, what kind of things they will ask of the National Board, what their goals will be, if they will communicate with us in the field, what kind of technology they'd use (since they've decided to mention it in speeches but had no plan like Colonel Weiss's technology plan), or anything like that. In addition, they are not really held accountable to their words because they aren't out there for us to see
(which was Col Weiss's intent in releasing the plan to EVERYONE).
Quote from: NCRblues on August 18, 2011, 09:51:14 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on August 18, 2011, 09:42:42 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on August 18, 2011, 09:24:22 PM
Quote from: JC004 on August 18, 2011, 09:22:01 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on August 18, 2011, 09:04:19 PM
...
A member of the NB, in such a hurry to slap FW down, confirms that the governance model that many said was not true, to be in fact....EXCATLY WHAT WAS SAID IN CLOSED SESSION. We were lied to...all of us...all of you, how can you tolerate that??
...
I didn't pay much attention to this issue, but now that they have brought it up (and some are saying violated the NDA themselves by doing it? wow.), I would like to know why. I've got people asking me why we were told different that what THEY THEMSELVES just said from the floor today and I HAVE NO IDEA. I'm really very confused since, as I said, I didn't follow this issue much.
The reason, flat out, is they didn't want us worker peons to know...plain and simple.... i have no faith in ANY of the CAP "leadership"...i cant wait for Ned to weigh in....lets see if we get another round of BS....
I'm not understanding what this is all about. Can someone give me a cliffs notes version of the argument?
Last NB meeting, they voted on and passed NDA's. The NB went into closed door session right away, where a "governance study" was presented to the NB. FW posted what he thought was said during the meeting. Members of the NB,NEC and BOG all said his version was not true at all....
Then today, during the Q @ A for FW, a colonel (don't know his name) jumps up and confirms that what FW posted was true, and asked how FW found out. FW said he was just speculating. The Colonel asking the question goes on to say "its in bullet form, and exactly what was said in session"....
SO....the members of the NB, NEC and BOG who said "FW version is just wild rumors and speculating" lied to all of us..... LIED LIED LIED.
OK, that's what I thought was going on. Where were we told that FW's info was bad? That other thread is a bit chaotic.
This whole election seems like a huge mess. Was it really that politically complicated?
Quote from: HGjunkie on August 19, 2011, 02:53:32 AM
This whole election seems like a huge mess. Was it really that politically complicated?
Paid attention to national politics? Our little argument is nothing compared to that.
Quote from: davidsinn on August 19, 2011, 02:56:21 AM
Quote from: HGjunkie on August 19, 2011, 02:53:32 AM
This whole election seems like a huge mess. Was it really that politically complicated?
Paid attention to national politics? Our little argument is nothing compared to that.
For the Presidential elections? Crikey, I can barely watch the TV without wanting to throw something at it. :-X
Quote from: NCRblues on August 18, 2011, 09:24:22 PM
I cant wait for Ned to weigh in....lets see if we get another round of BS....
You rang?
Quote from: NCRblues on August 18, 2011, 09:04:19 PM
This is the most angry i have ever been at CAP...
This election made me physical sick....
You do indeed appear to have done some posting while sick and angry. I hope you feel better now.
QuoteWe were lied to...all of us...all of you, how can you tolerate that??
Excuse me?
QuoteSO....the members of the NB, NEC and BOG who said "FW version is just wild rumors and speculating" lied to all of us..... LIED LIED LIED.
Ummm, Fred himself said he was "just speculating" and relying on things he saw on the internet.
Look, I hear your anger and unhapiness. I'm just not sure what you are mad about, except that the NB has chosen to talk about possible governance changes in private so that they can exchange their views candidly and passionately about this sensitive subject.
I appreciate your work with our cadets and the dedication you have shown. I really do.
But this kind of blather posted for the world to see is not helpful. Either to your particular concern, nor to CAP as a whole.
We can and should use CAPTalk as a forum to exchange views and information for the betterment of CAP and ourselves, and while employing our Core Value of Respect.
What words of wisdom can I find to better express my reguest for a more civil discourse?
Oh, wait, I think I found someone you might respect:
Quote from: NCRblues on September 14, 2009, 01:45:06 AM
My god, that got nasty fast did it not? :o Come on folks lets be civil to each other, i guess the core values dont apply here. Its a discussion board not a slander board. we are supposed to be officers, set the example, and we wonder why cadets sometimes act like they do ::)
I think that about sums it up.
Again, thank you for your service.
(Can you all see me typing this?)
On a different note, I was moved during the Memorial Service to see Al Pabon's rank listed as Lt Col. Brig Gen Paul Bergman was bestowed the DSM. CAP does get things right at times.
Quote from: Chappie on August 19, 2011, 02:00:25 PM
On a different note, I was moved during the Memorial Service to see Al Pabon's rank listed as Lt Col. Brig Gen Paul Bergman was bestowed the DSM. CAP does get things right at times.
That a good deal.......That was very honorable promoting him to Lt.Colonel.
Quote from: Chappie on August 19, 2011, 02:00:25 PM
On a different note, I was moved during the Memorial Service to see Al Pabon's rank listed as Lt Col. Brig Gen Paul Bergman was bestowed the DSM. CAP does get things right at times.
I didn't like/agree with Gen Bergman much, but I always thought he got sort of a raw deal.
Were any other awards/actions taken today?
Quote from: Chappie on August 19, 2011, 02:00:25 PM
On a different note, I was moved during the Memorial Service to see Al Pabon's rank listed as Lt Col. Brig Gen Paul Bergman was bestowed the DSM. CAP does get things right at times.
I saw this on Al's Facebook page earlier in the week. It's excellent. :clap:
Alright,
So I missed the feeds but have been reading the play by play and what not. Seems to me that we moved a lot of things to executive session that have no real need to be there. I don't know, but this is seriously getting irritating. I fail to see how often we perform safety education is private...
Whatever.
Medic-
Dear Ned,
You did lie to me... So did my wing commander and so did my region commander.
This is the post that caused so much stir during FW's Q @ A time...
From FW...
QuoteIt's no secret what the committee report was about. The NB rejected it's recommendations however, the report/reccommendations are going to the BoG for consideration at it's June meeting.
Some interesting items:
The Executive Director will report to the National Commander; not the BoG.
The Commander will be selected by 2/3 majority of the BoG
Vice commander will be appointed by commander with confirmation of the BoG
The Vice Commander will not serve on the BoG. A third "at large" member will be elected by the NEC.
Commander will serve a 3 year renewable term (as many terms as the BoG allows).
Commander will be "compensated"
The Commander will have sole authority to change the regulations, constitution and bylaws of CAP.
The National Legal Officer will be the principal attorney to the corporation and, the General Legal Counsel to CAP will report to the NLO.
NB will have no governance role what so ever.
The current commander will be "allowed" to step into the new role.
I think that about covers it.
Let's just say that Pineda would have been proud to present these recommendations to the BoG.
I am proud the NB acted, in what they feel, is in the best interests of CAP. Good work!"
So, several pages on the other thread passed and me and you talked back and forth about it...you then posted this
By Ned...
QuoteNope. Absolutely not. I am looking at the Committee's recommendations right here in my hand, and there is nothing - absolutely nothing - about a salaried National Commander.
Nada. Zilch. Zip. Goose egg. Null.
Indeed, a lot of recommendations that suggest the opposite. (All the discussion about the Executive Director including who she/he reports to,etc., all strongly suggest that the EXDIR will remain to supervise the professionals at NHQ, and the National Commander will be the "head volunteer."
So, during FW's Q & A time, a Colonel and NB member, jumped up and asked FW why he posted the governace study BULLET POINT STYLE on captalk. The Colonel asking FW the question went on to say it was "basically word for word".....
SO, if you did not lie to me, than we had a member of the national board violate the ethics code in front of the WHOLE NB to influence the election. So the election is void then...Lie's Ned....someone lied to the members. You? Amy Courter? The whole NB?
I want answers.
Quote from: NCRblues on August 19, 2011, 07:08:09 PM
SO, if you did not lie to me, than we had a member of the national board violate the ethics code in front of the WHOLE NB to influence the election. So the election is void then...Lie's Ned....someone lied to the members. You? Amy Courter? The whole NB?
I want answers.
All of your questions were answered...in executive session.
(http://milspecmonkey.com/store/components/com_virtuemart/shop_image/product/e19d297fc386c8cc1750f7b9ab6365bc.jpg)
Quote from: MICT1362 on August 19, 2011, 07:07:28 PM
Alright,
So I missed the feeds but have been reading the play by play and what not. Seems to me that we moved a lot of things to executive session that have no real need to be there. I don't know, but this is seriously getting irritating. I fail to see how often we perform safety education is private...
Whatever.
Medic-
I really don't understand this either. They keep talking about transparency and I don't see what's so secretive about these agenda items. I am rather confused by these people.
Just what the heck are they all doing and thinking? Where is the organization going, exactly?
No big changes to safety. My Wing/CC sent me this today:
Quote
As you know I am now attending the annual Summer National Board Meeting in Louisville, Kentucky. This is the latest update on safety compliance for active CAP members. Please forward this email to all active participants,
The 30 day (monthly) interval for mandatory safety compliance for active members will remain in place for at least the next year before any changes are made.
Active members must be safety current in order to participate in CAP activities. To be safety current requires a face to face safety briefing or complete the on line safety quiz every 30 days (monthly).
The face to face briefings should not exceed 15 minutes and be to the point.
If a pilot is not safety current, the pilot's data will be shown as not current in eservices. Pilots must be safety current before inputting an on line flight release request.
Let me know if you have any questions.
..and in good old fashioned mud slinging campaigning, if this is all they had .. A post on a web forum..
What were they scared of, change? Did the web site's transparent direction scare the crap out of people in that the status quo was going to be no-go anymore?
Quote from: AirDX on August 19, 2011, 07:52:40 PM
No big changes to safety. My Wing/CC sent me this today:
Quote
As you know I am now attending the annual Summer National Board Meeting in Louisville, Kentucky. This is the latest update on safety compliance for active CAP members. Please forward this email to all active participants,
The 30 day (monthly) interval for mandatory safety compliance for active members will remain in place for at least the next year before any changes are made.
Active members must be safety current in order to participate in CAP activities. To be safety current requires a face to face safety briefing or complete the on line safety quiz every 30 days (monthly).
The face to face briefings should not exceed 15 minutes and be to the point.
If a pilot is not safety current, the pilot’s data will be shown as not current in eservices. Pilots must be safety current before inputting an on line flight release request.
Let me know if you have any questions.
If your WG/CC was in the closed door session and found this out, wouldn't that be a violation of a NDA... Not that I care, because that shouldn't have been hidden, but in all reality...
This is just all jacked up in one way or another.
Medic-
Quote from: MICT1362 on August 19, 2011, 08:18:59 PM
If your WG/CC was in the closed door session and found this out, wouldn't that be a violation of a NDA... Not that I care, because that shouldn't have been hidden, but in all reality...
This is just all jacked up in one way or another.
Medic-
Guess if he ever pisses off the other clan members, they will use it against him.
Can anybody confirm who the new Chief of Chaplains will be? Thanks
Quote from: NCRblues on August 19, 2011, 07:08:09 PM
Dear Ned,
You did lie to me... So did my wing commander and so did my region commander.
<snip>
SO, if you did not lie to me, than we had a member of the national board violate the ethics code in front of the WHOLE NB to influence the election. So the election is void then...Lie's Ned....someone lied to the members. You? Amy Courter? The whole NB?
I want answers.
I think you seriously need a valium and a beer. Really. Step back from the keyboard for a little while.
If you have to post in red text, and you're getting that wrapped around the axle, maybe its time for a break, from either CAP-Talk or CAP.
Quote from: NIN on August 20, 2011, 01:25:01 AM
Quote from: NCRblues on August 19, 2011, 07:08:09 PM
Dear Ned,
You did lie to me... So did my wing commander and so did my region commander.
<snip>
SO, if you did not lie to me, than we had a member of the national board violate the ethics code in front of the WHOLE NB to influence the election. So the election is void then...Lie's Ned....someone lied to the members. You? Amy Courter? The whole NB?
I want answers.
I think you seriously need a valium and a beer. Really. Step back from the keyboard for a little while.
If you have to post in red text, and you're getting that wrapped around the axle, maybe its time for a break, from either CAP-Talk or CAP.
The red text is the quotes from another thread... it has nothing to do with how "wrapped around the axle" i am...
Quote from: NCRblues on August 20, 2011, 01:48:06 AM
The red text is the quotes from another thread... it has nothing to do with how "wrapped around the axle" i am...
There is a quote function for that. I took the red text to be emphasis, not quoting.
If you're quoting, either use the software's quoting feature, or put quotes around the text, or set the text off using something other than differently coloured text.
All I could see from the red text was (from what it appeared) that you were *really* emphatic about something.
And we all know that in the communication process (*which this represents a great model of*), if the receiver mis-understands the intent of the sender's message, its likely because the sender did not send the correct message. (all that "concrete language" and "sender-message-receiver-feedback" stuff that I teach at cadet leadership schools does come in handy occasionally)
Quote from: NIN on August 20, 2011, 02:05:57 AM
Quote from: NCRblues on August 20, 2011, 01:48:06 AM
The red text is the quotes from another thread... it has nothing to do with how "wrapped around the axle" i am...
There is a quote function for that. I took the red text to be emphasis, not quoting.
If you're quoting, either use the software's quoting feature, or put quotes around the text, or set the text off using something other than differently coloured text.
All I could see from the red text was (from what it appeared) that you were *really* emphatic about something.
And we all know that in the communication process (*which this represents a great model of*), if the receiver mis-understands the intent of the sender's message, its likely because the sender did not send the correct message. (all that "concrete language" and "sender-message-receiver-feedback" stuff that I teach at cadet leadership schools does come in handy occasionally)
So, how do you quote from another thread that is months old?
[quote]Using quote tags is not as difficult as it's made out to be. Copy, paste, tag.[/quote]
Quote from: NCRblues on August 20, 2011, 02:12:48 AM
So, how do you quote from another thread that is months old?
Since people are having trouble with this recently, two ways:
1. Above the smilies is a quote button. It's above the >:D
2. Click quote on the post, cut it, close the reply box, then go paste it where you want to use it
Since i cant get the quote thing to work on this laptop, can some caring and loving mod fix it for me?
I shall be in your debt if you do. Thank you.
I can fix the quote. Of course we shouldn't really imply as they did that he was the leak, but hopefully people will read.
and yes, you can also do as HGjunkie says - just make [quote] in the beginning and [/quote] at the end.
Besides, RM uses that red .... a lot.
Quote from: a2capt on August 20, 2011, 02:50:35 AM
Besides, RM uses that red .... a lot.
Radioman is trying to send a subliminal message about what CAP nametapes and shoulder marks should look like.
Quote from: NCRblues on August 19, 2011, 07:08:09 PM
Dear Ned,
You did lie to me... So did my wing commander and so did my region commander.
Sigh.
So much smug certainty; so little effort to read carefully and consider the logical possibilities.
For a guy who actually has been espousing civility and our Core Values on this board for several years, it seems so . . . uncharacteristic . . . of you to start accusing your wing and region commanders of "lying" to you simply because you are having trouble reconciling some apparent inconsistencies in a series of statements.
So, let's try to look at this simply and compare the statements in question:
Quote from: Person 1I heard that the NB was considering some interesting items
- Point 1
- Point 2
- Point 3
- Point 4
- Point 5
- Point 6
- Point 7
- Point 8
- Point 9
- Point 10
- Point 11
I think that about covers it.
And then
Quote from: Person 2Nope. Absolutely not. I am looking at the Committee's recommendations right here in my hand, and there is nothing - absolutely nothing - about Point 6.
Nada. Zilch. Zip. Goose egg. Null.
And finally
Quote from: Person 3
Person #1 summarized the NB "BULLET POINT STYLE" and "basically word for word".....
So, taking Col Karton at his word (usually a good idea), we "know" that FW's summary of multiple hour meeting was all of 11 bullet points comprising about 134 words. Summaries and condensations by their very nature cannot be fully accurate.
And this one was not.
Among other things, it contained the incorrect assertion that the NB considered anything about a salaried national commander. Which is simply not true.
(I don't think it is a violation of the NDA for me to say what the NB did
not discuss or consider. It would be a violation for me or any other signatory to say what
was discussed.)
And, as I'm sure you recall, that particular allegation was drawing a lot of negative comments and vitriol.
So I pointed out that FW's summary was not accurate because the point about a salaried national commander was not discussed.
Because it wasn't. Not even indirectly.
I'm not aware that anyone in the room during the closed session has denied that a report was considered. Of course, some may choose not to say what was discussed one way or another.
As much as you would like to uncover the black helicopters and expose the Trilateral Commission agents in our midst, there just isn't anything here unless you squint so hard that you cannot see what is plainly before you.
There are simply no lies here.
Quote
I want answers.
Then ask questions.
Simple, straightforward questions designed to elicit information.
Not "gotcha" questions that express a point of view rather than seek information.
You may be surprised at what you get.
Of course, human nature being what it is, it might be better if you didn't improperly blast fellow officers as "liars" while believing that you are anonymous.
As always feel free to ask your corporate officer. I cannot speak for him/her.
(I'd leave out the part where you called her/him a liar on CT. That might upset them.)[/list]
Ok, what about the talk that FW was accused of leaking the info from the meeting? How can someone leak something he wasn't part of?
Ned, the Colonel (whoever he was) CLEARLY stated, it was almost word for word on the points made during the closed door session. Someone is not telling the truth.....
This stuff was already posted on less trustworthy web sites before FW posted on here at all. So that Colonel, lied and accused FW of something he did not do. Ethics code violation? Core values?
So, i will ask a question, If no "salaried national commander" was spoke about, why did the Colonel not blast fred on making false statements? He didn't, he blasted fred for posting "bullet points, almost word for word".... That's an admission in almost any realm.
Next question... Why is the governance model "suggestions" behind close doors anyway? Is it a personell action? Nope. Payroll or adverse action? Nope.... It needs to be done, in the open. If you want the rumors to end, there is a simple way. Allow everyone to see what happens. Just because I'm not on the NB (yet) does not me that i am not interested, or directly affected by EVERYTHING you all do behind closed doors. Just like the safety thing from this meeting, again, why was it closed door?
I believe you did not tell me the truth Ned. I believe that colonel, in his rush to jump all over FW, let a little to much slip. The room was pretty silent after that one...a little to much.
Do i believe in black vans and mass conspiracy's? No, but i do believe that the members WHO MAKE THIS ORGINAZTION RUN, are not being told the truth. I have already told my wing commander that he lied to me. He just shrugged and mumbled about NDA's. Those NDA's were the worst idea someone ( i think i know who, but i wont speculate) had...ever.
So, either that colonel let a little to much slip, or you did, or we have not got anything near the truth.
Oh, BTW, those MARB reports you said you would look into....are still not updated since 2010.... its aug 2011....
Quote from: revchas on August 19, 2011, 09:16:23 PM
Can anybody confirm who the new Chief of Chaplains will be? Thanks
The new Chief of Chaplains will be Ch, Col (select) Delano Ellis (GLR HC) who will assume duties and responsibilities tomorrow evening following the change of command.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 20, 2011, 03:28:30 AM
Ok, what about the talk that FW was accused of leaking the info from the meeting? How can someone leak something he wasn't part of?
He was actually asked who his source was.....not that he himself leaked anything.
His answer was that he read it on the internet IIRC.
Quote from: NCRblues on August 20, 2011, 03:28:51 AM
Ned, the Colonel (whoever he was) CLEARLY stated, it was almost word for word on the points made during the closed door session. Someone is not telling the truth.....
"Almost" is not the same thing as "completely accurate."
And at least one of the eleven bullet points was simply wrong.
The statements are consistent. And true.
QuoteThis stuff was already posted on less trustworthy web sites before FW posted on here at all. So that Colonel, lied and accused FW of something he did not do. Ethics code violation? Core values?
You are still having some issues with asking rhetorical questions designed to make a point rather than seek information. That may well be part of the reason you are still a bit confused.
Col Karton knows that FW could not have been the original "leaker" because everyone acknowledges that FW was not in the room during the discussion. I suspect that is why Col Karlton asked FW about the "source" of the information.
QuoteSo, i will ask a question, If no "salaried national commander" was spoke about, why did the Colonel not blast fred on making false statements? He didn't, he blasted fred for posting "bullet points, almost word for word".... That's an admission in almost any realm.
I can't speak for Col Karlton, of course, but I would note that asking him about the source of his post concerning the contents of the meeting is not any way inconsistent with at least some of it being inaccurate.
IOW, logically it could have been both an impoper leak from a NB member
and inaccurate. And I know something about "admissions", and that is not an admission in any realm.
QuoteNext question... Why is the governance model "suggestions" behind close doors anyway? Is it a personell action? Nope. Payroll or adverse action? Nope.... It needs to be done, in the open. If you want the rumors to end, there is a simple way. Allow everyone to see what happens. Just because I'm not on the NB (yet) does not me that i am not interested, or directly affected by EVERYTHING you all do behind closed doors. Just like the safety thing from this meeting, again, why was it closed door?
We've talked about this before, of course. I am not part of the NB and can't speak for it, but assuming that governance recommenadations were discussed in a closed session, there are a lot of reasons to do so. Governance matters - particularly in CAP - are sensitive matters about which many reasonable members have strong and varying opinions. Ultimately to make any recommendations to the BoG, NB members are going to need to have frank and candid discussions amongst themselves, and ultimately negotiate and compromise. Such discussions tend to be passionate and emphatic. (in some ways, not unlike CAPTalk.) And the NB may reasonably have decided that they can do that most effectively if they are in a private session. Just like any other deliberative body.
And it is worth remembering that if and when the NB chooses to make recommendations to the BoG concerning governance, that those recommendations will be public and recorded in minutes and other documents transparent to all members. Just like every other decision of the NB.
And as I have said before, the BoG will not make any governance changes unless it is appropriate to do so, and only after hearing from all the stakeholders, including the membership.
QuoteI have already told my wing commander that he lied to me. He just shrugged and mumbled about NDA's. Those NDA's were the worst idea someone ( i think i know who, but i wont speculate) had...ever.
It bears repeating that every large corporation, charity, and NGO uses NDAs to protect sensitive information that could be detrimental to the organization or the members if released improperly. Whether you think so or not, it is the mainstream practice.
Oh Ned, come on...
This is ridiculous. The governance model should be discussed, and debated openly. If the members want to be left alone, turn off the cell phones and laptops. (btw, I'm sure all those NB members are passionately engrossed on cap bussines while on Facebook , or looking at ESPN news right?) ::)
Ned, the closed door meetings make no sense at all. It needs to be open. Even if this whole thing is a big misunderstanding (and i doubt it is) the easyest way to get rid of all the rumors and backlash is to hold everything up to the light. Nothing in CAP is so important it can not be discussed during a normal NB meeting.
NDA's "protect sensitive information that could be detrimental to the organization or the members if released improperly"... OK, so tell me how could a proposed governance shake up be "detrimental" to the organization?
Why was the safety agenda item moved to closed session? Or was the safety's agenda item "detrimental" to the organization?
So, this outside governance study, why have we not seen an official news release about it? Why have i not been contacted to put my input into it? Why has NO ONE from my wing been contacted to put the input in?
It seems to me, that CAP has become more closed off than ever. Why, as a serving active member of this organization, do i have to guess, speculate, and wonder on what is going on at the national level? Why, when i ask questions, am i pushed aside as if the members do not matter? I would go to each and every NB,NEC and BOG meeting, but whats the point Ned, half of it I'm not privileged enough to hear.
It amazes me, that we have members (like myself, and even you Ned i believe) that served this nation in its armed forces, paid (and is still paying) the taxes i owe, was trusted with national level defense planning and carrying out....but the "leadership" on the NB does not trust me enough to handle governance issues...or safety issues....its very sad Ned. It seems those members of the NB are worried about having to answer some questions. Well, no one made them take those positions, and if they feel like they cant handle a few tough questions about why this is good for the organization, I'm sure i can find some VERY well qualified members who are more than willing to take those NB jobs...me included.
CAP has lost many of its very best and brightest members over stupid things like this. Several members of this very forum used to be VERY active in cap...but the political game that is played has driven them out. Why even allow these bloggers and fake news sites to continue to guess and sow panic among members. Just open up the DANG meetings Ned....simple....sooo very head banging simple.
Let's not blow this thing about what was said by CAPTalk members in this past thread too out of proportion. I do not want to lock this thread.
There are several issues here - not the least of which was that this news about the governance proposal was being sent around by FWD on e-mail. As WE ALL KNOW, things get added in e-mails. IIRC, the e-mail that I got FWD'd to me contained the "paid national commander" thing (for the record, I did NOT receive it from FW, I received it from a CAPTalk member and it came from a long chain of members).
When it comes down to it and we cut all this down, we're getting hung up on that one line. That's silly. The FACTS are that FW posted what was going around by e-mail, private messages, Facebook, telephone, etc. and BEGAN WITH saying that it wasn't a secret (because it was already out). It doesn't seem to me from that post that he even thought the contents hadn't been put out in brief.
Col Weiss was ambushed over this thread and that is crap.
Regardless, there are SEVERAL possibilities over what happened in the thread in question by NCRblues, Ned, and everyone else - not the least of which is that someone didn't make a complete statement or that something got mis-read.
Perhaps this line was added. Who cares? We can't know this by having a fight in this thread.
Let's try to be reasonable.
NDAs are in fact a reality and all over. I've signed a couple CRAZY ones from organizations you all probably respect. I feel like they are putting too much in Executive Session based on what I was seeing in the video yesterday. THAT should be the question.
As for having closed-door sessions about the governance issue: I'd probably do it this way if I were in charge - I'd maybe have an initial closed-door meeting where people can just go crazy, argue, scream, whatever. That way they'd feel comfortable being crazy people before A REAL PROPOSAL WAS PUT TOGETHER. THEN, they'd have the different factions that arise compile SEVERAL proposals and they would all need to be available to anyone who wanted to see them. That gives people the chance to be nuts and get their initial thoughts formed, then people get to see several concrete concepts for how things should be done. FOR THE RECORD, this is basically how the U.S. Constitution was done. The initial meetings were closed. I know one of the world's foremost experts in the founding of the United States if anyone would like to ask him.
I feel like the method I described above would allow people to go nuts at first AND STILL HAVE AN OPEN PROCESS as we moved to governance changes.
My thing, basically: have some things in executive session to hash out at first, then move to an open process when there are real proposals.
I would like some answers on why so many things are being put into Executive Session, though. It seems like a lot of it doesn't need to be there. I kinda like the idea of having your initial crazy hash-out, then having an OPEN PROCESS before things get approved (once concrete things are put forth). Can you shed some light on what was happening at this NB meeting with throwing things into Executive Sesssion, Ned?
I don't understand exactly what you are upset about.
You seem to be upset that the guys you have no input in getting appointed to their position don't let you sit quietly in the corner while they discuss something you have no voice in.
If you want to get upset about how CAP does business......you seem to have focused on some really obscure point.
It is a courtesy that the NB webstreams their meeting.
It is a courtesy that the NB publishes the agenda before hand.
You should not have brought up the military model.
We don't invite the Airman to the staff meetings......we don't even tell them what we are talking about in the staff meetings. We might brief them on what went on in the staff meeting....but by no means was I obligated to do so.
Now I am not saying that transparency is not a good thing....or that the NB should not be more open. But bottom line, end of the day.....it is simply an illusion that they are including us in the actual process.
I don't know how you can say that CAP is more closed off. If you wanted to see the NB in action you had to go the meeting....now they stream it. Before the internet they never published the agenda to the general membership before the meetings.
Do I think we need to fix CAP governace? Sure thing. Do I want the NB to consider the opinions of the general membership? Absolutely. But I am not going to rail against the NB because they don't let me listen to their arguments. I don't jump up and down about "getting lied" to about something that is not and never has been my business.
People who get tied up about politics......need to remember.....it just CAP. Its about the mission, the cadets and having fun. I love a good argument (as you did not notice)....but dude.....you need to crank it back before you hurt yourself.
The BoG is looking into governance.....and they were smart about it....they hired experts who have no stake in CAP. The cool thing about the BoG....is that it is easier to get a small group to decide on something then it is to get the NB to figure out how often we have to safety training and what we are going to do with those who don't/won't do that training.
Well, ill go ahead and step away from this before it gets locked...
Yes, i am strongly opinionated on this subject, and care deeply about CAP. Its more than just about "having fun" to me major.
I am very upset and angry over this whole situation, and judging by the reactions of the people i know and trust in CAP, I'm not the only one.
It seems to me, and others, that just because we are not on the NB, or flunky's of those on the NB, we are treated with disdain, or completely forgot about. We may be younger than some of you, but don't underestimate the young members. CAP makes it or breaks it on the young generations back pretty soon....
We just need to keep things in perspective. When people post on a forum, sometimes they leave something out, misspeak, whatever. There are a lot of possibilities concerning this thread but we do have facts that are rather...not cool. Ned is a level-headed distinguished officer who cares deeply for CAP's program - in particular the cadet program. I do not see and would not imagine that he would intend to lie to anyone. I have spent time with him in person (a week, actually), read the parts of the tread in question, and I do not see any evil intent on the part of Ned.
If commanders lied to you, they didn't do that here and I know nothing of that or those people.
I am very disappointed that the National Board chose the course that they did rather than a clear, written plan released to the membership to hold the prospective commander accountable to all, and that they chose not to go for ACTION that has been rolling along, working to make CAP the best possible experience for everyone we can. A lot of great programs and initiatives now come to a screeching halt. Great efforts at bringing CAP into the military's modernization died on Thursday. POOF. It's a real shame.
Anyone who downloaded and read "Solutions for Civil Air Patrol" should know what I'm talking about.
What gets me is that it was only the tip of the iceberg and the extraordinary ACTION that was taking place behind the scenes in preparation is now gone. My hope, though, is as I mentioned on the following thread...that we can still make at least some of those changes a reality. http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13633.msg246816#msg246816
Quote from: lordmonar on August 20, 2011, 05:28:23 AM
You should not have brought up the military model.
We don't invite the Airman to the staff meetings......we don't even tell them what we are talking about in the staff meetings. We might brief them on what went on in the staff meeting....but by no means was I obligated to do so.
The USAF does not depend on the benevolence of its Airmen to execute its mission.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2011, 06:53:41 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on August 20, 2011, 05:28:23 AM
You should not have brought up the military model.
We don't invite the Airman to the staff meetings......we don't even tell them what we are talking about in the staff meetings. We might brief them on what went on in the staff meeting....but by no means was I obligated to do so.
The USAF does not depend on the benevolence of its Airmen to execute its mission.
In the big picture, it does. There's no draft. We have an all volunteer force. Nobody made that Airman enlist. There was no mandatory A or B choice involved.
Quote from: SarDragon on August 20, 2011, 08:08:03 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 20, 2011, 06:53:41 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on August 20, 2011, 05:28:23 AM
You should not have brought up the military model.
We don't invite the Airman to the staff meetings......we don't even tell them what we are talking about in the staff meetings. We might brief them on what went on in the staff meeting....but by no means was I obligated to do so.
The USAF does not depend on the benevolence of its Airmen to execute its mission.
In the big picture, it does. There's no draft. We have an all volunteer force. Nobody made that Airman enlist. There was no mandatory A or B choice involved.
There is once you join. One does not leave or say "no" without ramifications beyond additional free time.
Do your time. Get out. There's enough up front info available for someone to make an informed decision about joining the military, that there's no excuse for, "I didn't know what I was getting into."
The choice I was referring to was the choice between the Army (getting drafted) or any other service (drafted-induced enlistment), or going to jail. The result is the same - someone is forced into the military
Today's Airmen have not been in that position. They join because they want to, and that, IMHO, can be interpreted as benevolence towards one's country. Another way to describe patriotism, I suppose.
I see one eroor in this thread, namely painting Ned with the same brush as the National Board. Ned is NOT on the National Board. If Ned was at that closed door meeting last year, he would be covered by the same NDA as the members of the NB. The BoG has their own Governence study in progress. Lets see the results of that. It does appear that the NB does go into executive session on matters that should be more open. However that is the decision of the National Commander, or even National Legal Officer. Lets not second guess their motives. CAP-USAF has issues with the Safety issues. It is justified to be in Executive Session by the Board since it involves the parent organization.
Do not underestimate the BoG. They have the authority to remove the entire National Board (not that they would) and change the by-laws of CAP (which their Goverence Study may indicate if and when released)
For those that understand the politics of CAP, the "final" decision on who to vote for for National Commander was probably made the night before in the by invitation only hospitality rooms. I've been to many of those hospitality rooms (and yes I was invited) and members of the National Board are flooded with information on the candidates for National CC and VC. CAP politics at it's best. Does the average member of CAP have any input to their Wing Commander on who to vote for? Obviously not, but at the same time, the members of the Board often go into those hospitality rooms to hear about candidates they have never heard of, or know little about. It was obvious by the questions asked, or lack of, how the election for National CC outcome would be. What was it, 1/3 of the members of the NB were new? They learned of ther candidates at the Conference or have been flooded with emails over the past few months on the candidates. Pressure may or may not have been applied or deals made, but here again the politics are the nature of the CAP Corporate sutucture. Lets see what the BoG GHoverence Study reveals.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 20, 2011, 03:28:30 AM
Ok, what about the talk that FW was accused of leaking the info from the meeting? How can someone leak something he wasn't part of?
Col Karton asked me a question. And, it was answered. I only repeated what was posted in other forums and sites. What was accurate and what was not, I could not know. However, It was no secret there was a governance report.
His second statement was very troubling. He said "he was concerned" about my accuracy and found it difficult to believe my statement; I was just giving my take on what was already written. Basically, he was calling me a liar in open session. I find that to be disrespectful and quite wrong. The sad thing about the whole episode shows us the quality of our leaders needs to improve; especially where adherence to our core values comes into play. Respect means something. And, there was not much shown to this candidate.
Quote from: NCRblues on August 20, 2011, 04:55:20 AM
Ned, the closed door meetings make no sense at all. It needs to be open.
Actually, the NB largely agrees. The great majority of the NB meeting was open and streamed. Only a portion of yesterday morning's session was closed. And for good reason.
The overwhelming bulk of it was spent discussing sensitive personnel issues. Names were named and specific investigations about specific incidents and allegations were discussed frankly and openly as the NB looked for ways to improve protections for our members and leaders. I was there and it was a good, productive session. They NB actually handled as efficiently as possible under the circumstances, so they could return to open session as soon as possible. Just take a look at the agenda items and think about it a bit, and you will see why they had to do what they did.
QuoteNDA's "protect sensitive information that could be detrimental to the organization or the members if released improperly"... OK, so tell me how could a proposed governance shake up be "detrimental" to the organization?
First, there isn't anything that could yet be termed a "proposed governance shake up" because the NB has not yet agreed on what proposals, if any, to make to the BoG.
But if they were in the process of reaching a consensus on an issue that is near and dear to their hearts, (and if you think you are passionate about it, wait until you start talking to NB members about it), they believe it is important for them to do it without folks provding disinformation, spin, and Drama until they have decided whatever it is they decide.
You or I may have chosen to do it differently, but it is a reasonable decision and it is theirs to make.
They get to decide how to decide. And if they want to do it in a closed room without impassioned members and bloggers attempting to influence every comma and nuance, they should be able to do so.
QuoteWhy was the safety agenda item moved to closed session? Or was the safety's agenda item "detrimental" to the organization?
The agenda item speaks for itself, and as it turns out, they moved it to committee for action at a later meeting, I believe. In any event, no substantial discussions took place on that item during while I was present at the closed session.
QuoteSo, this outside governance study, why have we not seen an official news release about it?
I understand that you have no great faith in my word, but did you really doubt it when I told you and others about it here on CT? NHQ probably enters into a couple of hundred contracts a year. Some bigger, most smaller. It's just not a very newsworthy subject to say "We've hired some folks to do a study for us. They say they will have in done by the end of the year."
QuoteWhy have i not been contacted to put my input into it? Why has NO ONE from my wing been contacted to put the input in?
Hard to answer why anonymous folks in an unkown wing have or haven't been interviewed. The contractors are in the interview and information-gathering stage, however. They are starting with the major stakeholders, folks like the SECAF's representatives, National Commander, NLO, EXDIR, etc. I have emphasized to them during several confernce calls the importance of ensuring member input. I doubt they will be doing 60,000 interviews, but appear to be developing an e-solution to allow member input. More when I have it.
QuoteIt seems to me, that CAP has become more closed off than ever.
Remind me, how many years have you been in CAP?
It is just a matter of perspective, I guess. My take is that CAP is more open and transparent than ever. I attended my first NB as a cadet sometime in the 1970's. I found it boring, and - oddly enough - they had closed sessions and threw us out to wander the halls of the hotel.
Perhaps it is only because of the increased transparency and openess that you have begun to realize that some small fraction of CAP's business is confidential, just like every other large organization in the country.
QuoteI would go to each and every NB,NEC and BOG meeting, but whats the point Ned, half of it I'm not privileged enough to hear.
The great majority of the meetings are open to all, and streamed live on the net. As I said, they had a little over an hour's worth of closed meetings over the last two days. Feel free to come to DC for the winter boards or Baltimore next year and I'll buy you a beer.
Quote from: Chappie on August 20, 2011, 03:43:01 AM
Quote from: revchas on August 19, 2011, 09:16:23 PM
Can anybody confirm who the new Chief of Chaplains will be? Thanks
The new Chief of Chaplains will be Ch, Col (select) Delano Ellis (GLR HC) who will assume duties and responsibilities tomorrow evening following the change of command.
Has anyone heard who were confirmed to the other national staff positions? The only other one I have heard is that Col Ed Phelka will be the National Controller.
Having read *most* of this thread, and not having paid tremendous attention to the events leading up to the NB, I don't have the energy to sift thru countless pages of "he said, she said" and all the posturing and puffery and outright buffonery and disrespect in all the previous threads referenced here.
I don't know Fred Weiss (I swear, Fred, I don't think I ever met you at an NH Wing conference, and if I did and don't remember, I'm really sorry. I am terrible with names sometimes. I can tell you about a joke a buddy told me in Civics class in 9th grade, but I can't tell you what I had for dinner last night, so take it for what its worth!<GRIN>) and I only met Chuck Carr at Leo Burke's change of command last July in Flint, Michigan. Both of these gentlemen could be fantastic leaders for CAP, or complete duds, I have no earthly idea.
But watching the back and forth in this thread alone both amazes and disgusts me, and in a lot of ways reminds me why, when pressed to become a wing commander, I declined. The sheer amount of politics, backbiting, infighting, disrespect, character assassination, mudslinging and buffoonery I see occurring at the "echelons above reality" just make me think that to want to be on the NB/NEC, or become the National Commander, you either have to have tremendously thick skin, an incredibly strong commitment to CAP, or an undiagnosed mental disorder. :)
BTW, I have met Ned Lee and have, over the years, had a lot of very good conversations with the man. In the 28 years I spent in CAP, I don't think I ever met anybody who had a better grasp of the organization's strengths, shortcomings and foibles.
Some folks have said "Draft Ned as the National Commander!!," and just like those people who said to me "You should be a wing commander!," I say "What, don't you like the guy? Why would you wish that on Nedly?"
But as far as I'm concerned, the bottom line with Ned, to me, is that Ned is not going to lie to you. He may not tell you everything, for reasons of propriety or ethics or whatever, but he's not going to mislead and lie to you. If I'm presented with two differing bits of information on the same subject, one from Ned and one from an unknown source, I'm going to tend to believe Ned.
The whole NDA thing.
What was the purpose of the NDA as someone stated? "protect sensitive information that could be detrimental to the organization or the members if released improperly"
So follow my thread here:
1) Someone violated the NDA that they signed (a pretty unethcial thing to do) and supplied *mostly* accurate information to people who were not in the meeting, not party to the NDA, and likely shouldn't have had the information in the first place. So the info from an NDA-covered meeting was "released improperly."
2) Along the way, someone added some things that were *not* accurate (ie. the "paid national commander" bit) and probably interjected some personal bias into the info ("I bet this is an attempt by Courter to consolidate her reign.."). Wow. A game of telephone played via the Internet. Whoda thunk it?
(Mind you: This is how all these crazy Internet memes get going: They take something that is truthful (let me use a photo of Barack Obama walking onto Marine One as an example), then add their own personal spin ("You will notice he's not returning the salute of the Marine guard.."), and the next thing you know you're getting an email forwarded from your great aunt (the one who still has AOL) with about 500 forwarding lines that says "This is disgraceful, the President has no regard for the military! He should be impeached!" Never mind that the photo was taken a split second before or after he returned the Marine's salute.)
3) That information subsequently gets repeated (here) by an member who eventually becomes a candidate for National Commander. A long drawn out discussion about the factual and non-factual (ie. "inaccurate") things from that closed-door meeting ensues. And of course, since none of us were in the meeting, we can't confirm whether or not the information is completely accurate (what is that old saw about only believing 1/10th of what you read on the Internet?)
4) During the National Board meeting, the candidate for the National Commander is called out for repeating the (mostly accurate) information that was included in the email along with other (inaccurate) information. Partly due to the controversy surrounding the NDA, the accuracy of the information or whatever, the candidate is not elected to the National Commander.
Now, lads there ya go: "protect sensitive information that could be detrimental to the organization or the members if released improperly" (emphasis mine)
I don't know if Fred Weiss would have been the greatest National Commander since Johnnie Boyd or not. Maybe. Maybe not. (BTW, I just plucked Johnnie Boyd out of thin air. He was my first National Commander when I was a cadet. Since we didn't have the Internet or CAP-Talk, I have no idea whether he orchestrated a CAP equivalent of the "Night of the Long Knives" at two successive National Board meetings or if he really truly was an awesome National Commander. Think about that one for a minute)
But suppose for a minute (and I'm doing some rhetorical supposition here) Fred Weiss is really the guy who could have taken CAP to the next level in the 21st Century. (maybe he is, maybe he isn't, I don't know, I'm being rhetorical here)
But, Fred was not elected, in part because some dirtbag decided that his word wasn't worth the piece of paper the NDA was written on and leaked what eventually turned out to be the CAP equivalent of an Internet meme that Fred repeated on CAP-Talk.
Was the information covered by that NDA earth shattering? Probably not. But in the hands of individuals with purely selfish intentions toward CAP, it became a vehicle. A weapon. A speeding truck bomb of misinformation headed right toward downtown Louisville.
Like I said, I don't know if Fred was truly the next great thing for CAP. Maybe, maybe not.
But if he was, or any individual was, and this kind of drama, instigated by people who apparently don't hold the organization they belong to in high enough regard to follow through with the agreement they signed, managed to torpedo a golden opportunity to move the organization forward not by increments (which we seem to have been doing for a good many years), but by orders of magnititude, then don't you agree that the information leaked eventually was "detrimental to the organization or the members if released improperly"?
Call it the "CAP Butterfly Effect"
Quote from: NIN on August 20, 2011, 03:24:20 PM
Now, lads there ya go: "protect sensitive information that could be detrimental to the organization or the members if released improperly" (emphasis mine)
You made a lot of good points but I want to address this. The simplest solution would have been to not hide it in the first place. If it was released, none of this would have happened. Look at how much trouble has been cause by this secret squirrel crap.
Quote from: davidsinn on August 20, 2011, 03:37:25 PM
Quote from: NIN on August 20, 2011, 03:24:20 PM
Now, lads there ya go: "protect sensitive information that could be detrimental to the organization or the members if released improperly" (emphasis mine)
You made a lot of good points but I want to address this. The simplest solution would have been to not hide it in the first place. If it was released, none of this would have happened. Look at how much trouble has been cause by this secret squirrel crap.
I agree that most of what the NB/NEC does should be transparent. But there are plenty of things that demand closed session. I don't think it was out of line for the NB to go into a closed session on that subject (if, indeed, that was the subject discussed).
I belong to the US Parachute Association. Last summer, they held their "twice a year" board meeting about 1/2 mile from my office in Nashua, NH.
The organization had just gone thru a big proxy effort in advance of the meeting to allow the board to make a change to the bylaws to allow online voting (the USPA has a BOD and then there are regional directors.. All are "elected" by the membership every 2 years). The bylaws required at least 10% of the membership to vote by proxy to allow that change to the bylaws. I declined to present a proxy and instead attended the meeting (my first in 16 years in that organization, and only because it was literally in my backyard) and voted as part of the process.
Immediately after that bylaw change vote (which passed, BTW), the board motioned to move into a closed session for part of its business. We all jumped up and filed out of the room.
Why? Not because we felt the board was being nefarious, but because its the board's right to conduct some parts of its business in closed session, and the business at hand demanded a closed session.
It is the board's prerogative to do so. Any board of any organization, unless specifically prohibited by law, can and often should hold closed sessions.
No one is arguing against the concept of "closed sessions" (or, at least I hope not). However, there must be open knowledge of important issues (like governance). I also agree that the formulation of such solutions need to be done in closed sessions; um, that's why we have committies.... National Board meetings are to make decisions on recommendations; which should not be "classified".
I mean; who said the National Commander would be on salary? I didn't. You should read those "bullet points" again. It only says the National Commander should be "compensated".
One problem CAP has, IMHO, is understanding the difference between discussing vetted items in closed session and deciding on those issues; which should be done in the open.
It also holds for "new business" Do you all really think the CSU would be gone if the issue was properly placed in the agenda and vetted before voted on?
In any event, the National Board has made a clear and open decision on who will lead them. We go from here and, wish all the best.
Don't worry about not remembering me, NIN, it was back in 1996. Fifteen years is a long time to remember an introduction...
The election is what it is, and likely will have little impact at what we do at the squadron level anyways.
BTW anyone know who was selected as the consultant for the CAP organization/governing study ???
RM
Quote from: FW on August 20, 2011, 05:25:25 PM
Don't worry about not remembering me, NIN, it was back in 1996. Fifteen years is a long time to remember an introduction...
I think you might have me confused with "my other brother Darryl." I didn't move to NER until 1998. :)
(And I thought my memory was
really shot, which had me seriously considering a neurological exam for early onset Alzheimers)
Quote from: AirDX on August 18, 2011, 09:58:26 PM
Maintain some perspective, folks. There's still a job to be done. If you want to take your ball and go home, have at it. But for me, I have a meeting tonight (and safety ed part to do), meeting on Friday night to do monthly safety ed at another squadron, O-rides on Saturday, and a Cope Spade on the horizon to think about. I'm going to work on all that, and let this all wash over me.
This is easily one of the most important posts in this thread.
I think it bears rereading.
:clap: I second that!
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on August 20, 2011, 07:33:28 PM
The election is what it is, and likely will have little impact at what we do at the squadron level anyways.
BTW anyone know who was selected as the consultant for the CAP organization/governing study ???
RM
After a competative bidding process, Boardsource, Inc. (http://www.boardsource.org/?gclid=CMvlpOHF36oCFQ1b7Aod82tH6Q).
Ned Lee did a great job as the Master of Ceremonies at the 2011 CAP National Banquet last night. I liked the joke about the National Commander arresting his day care charges. Job well done!
Besides being a very strong judge in the city of San Jose, Ned has a second career of being the Master of Ceremonies at CAP banquets. He is very good at it, as I have attended six or eight of his banquet presentations.
I don't know why the election of one candidate over another means the person who was not elected cannot still affect change toward some of what they were looking for. They may not have as strong a voice as they did, but they still have one.
There's more to getting changes made than being 'your Wing/CC's flunky' as someone put it.
Go to events, get to know people. Chat with them. A lot of the staffers at NHQ and the NB are in fact real people. (The NB members who want to run screaming from some of the meetings are no doubt truly human!)
If your ideas have merit, and are presented in a logical, respectful, and coherent manner people will at least consider them. As soon as you give the idea, try to unwed yourself from it though. Don't demand 'THAT'S MY IDEA, I SHOULD GET CREDIT' (Not directed toward anyone specifically, it truly is just general advice.) I am amazed by how many people I actually know when I went to the NB. I met them through NSC, IACE, Wing Events, NCSAs, and the ever powerful 'snarky comment about how watching the NB decide things can make me want to gouge my eyes out of my skull' which leads to the 'sit and eat lunch, share stories and later have a beer' method.
Overall, the majority of folks on the NB as far as I can tell just want to do what they feel is best for the organization. You don't have to talk to just yours, just get out there and meet people. Someone is going to agree with you.
As for some of the 'private session stuff' Some of it may simply be a matter of time. 'Hey we aren't getting this done, let's move it to later in the day which happens to be a closed meeting, but lets keep moving on some agenda items in the open as much as possible.' That's a perfectly legitimate reason to table. If you were paying attention to the safety thing, General Courter was getting frustrated that the proposal and amendments and whatnot were not easily displayed so everyone can read them. One advantage of tabling it was it gave time to get stuff set up to make sure everything was clear.
If you really want to watch people hash that kind of detail work out, more power to you. On a number of things I couldn't care much less and if they want to work out the details at one point or another, great.
It rarely and barely works, and it feeds the highly prevalent us vs. them of the members who would rather have nothing to do with national.
Members always talk about submitting things and they disappear like there is some giant black hole or giant shredder dedicated to the purpose. People talk about it around units and activities, and people talk about it here.
Very little great things actually get up there - wherever there is. People just give up because that's the way it goes. CAP needs smart people and smart people don't waste resources like time and energy - they simply keep it local, it stays there, and it feeds us vs. them.
Is there a thread that shows whether the various agenda items were passed or voted down? In other words, what happened at NB other than the elections?
Quote from: LGM30GMCC on August 22, 2011, 07:11:17 AM
I don't know why the election of one candidate over another means the person who was not elected cannot still affect change toward some of what they were looking for.
You're from Australia or Canada, right?
Quote from: Eclipse on August 22, 2011, 02:01:01 PM
Quote from: LGM30GMCC on August 22, 2011, 07:11:17 AM
I don't know why the election of one candidate over another means the person who was not elected cannot still affect change toward some of what they were looking for.
You're from Australia or Canada, right?
He is from the land of CAP getting stuff done USA.
There may be nothing to this, but these are the National Commanders since I joined:
Maj. Gen. Richard L. Bowling, CAP, Aug 2001-Aug 2004
Maj. Gen. Dwight H. Wheless, CAP, Aug 2004-Jul 2005
Maj. Gen. [HWSRN], CAP, Jul 2005-Oct 2007
Brig. Gen. Amy S. Courter, CAP, Oct 2007-Aug 2008
Maj. Gen. Amy S. Courter, CAP, Aug 2008–Aug 2011
Maj. Gen. Charles L. "Chuck" Carr Jr., CAP Aug 2011- Present
The only time I EVER heard of General Bowling or Wheless was in the CAP Newspaper. There was some chatter at the end.
HWSRN caused a LOT of local chatter. Since his term, it seems people have been paying a lot of attention to CAP National ANYTHING
That pretty much sums it up for me, too. Same time frame of membership, too, though I will say that it started with Gen. Wheless in my case, because it seems like he was de-throned early due to possibly the next guy in line who caused the most chatter. :)