CAP Talk

Here is the link to the NEC agenda. What do you think of our Legal Officer's proposal for changing the age limit for cadets on page 29.

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/NEC_2012_05_agenda_C5083B47C3324.pdf (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/NEC_2012_05_agenda_C5083B47C3324.pdf)

I think the comments are spot-on and that changes of this nature should be coming from the CP directorate, not the Legal Directorate.

QuoteNon-concur with the proposal in the strongest possible terms.

When I first read it I couldn't understand where anyone would come up with this asinine idea, then I saw that it was from the NLO.

Quote from: Eclipse on April 12, 2012, 01:24:54 PM
I think the comments are spot-on and that changes of this nature should be coming from the CP directorate, not the Legal Directorate.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

I was going to write my own response, but you nailed it.

I am surprised that Herrin did not get the opinions of the folks who commented on this BEFORE submitting it to the agenda.

It is interesting to note that the CP people seem to have first heard of this proposal when it hit the agenda. That is not good staff work, if that is the case.

AI 3 is interesting. If passed, it should make the meetings more productive and prevent some members, those who actually review the agendas, from being blind sided and allow those members to comment, through the chain, to the appropriate NEC/NB member on AIs.

I'm a little surprised at them downplaying the legal risks of mixing 11-17 year olds with 18-21 year olds with regards to fraternization and child protection laws.  If there was ever an issue, I would think this document and those statements would be evidence to show the CAP disregarded the risk and that would probably increase their liablility in a criminal or civil case. 

But overall, it's not a huge issue.  I hope.

$25,000 for (volunteer)National Staff travel from Vangard money.... Oh, yeah take cash from member purchases for National Staff travel.  Good idea...(not). 

The Vangard funds were set up for cadet program/regional training centers.  It was never intended for senior member "perks"; no matter how you spin this.  $25,000 would be better spent to help develop our mission focus, our cadet/school programs, scholarships, cadet o'flights, AE, etc.

Quote from: FW on April 12, 2012, 03:23:36 PM
$25,000 for (volunteer)National Staff travel from Vangard money.... Oh, yeah take cash from member purchases for National Staff travel.  Good idea...(not). 

The Vangard funds were set up for cadet program/regional training centers.  It was never intended for senior member "perks"; no matter how you spin this.  $25,000 would be better spent to help develop our mission focus, our cadet/school programs, scholarships, cadet o'flights, AE, etc.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Quote from: bflynn on April 12, 2012, 02:28:28 PM
I'm a little surprised at them downplaying the legal risks of mixing 11-17 year olds with 18-21 year olds with regards to fraternization and child protection laws.  If there was ever an issue, I would think this document and those statements would be evidence to show the CAP disregarded the risk and that would probably increase their liablility in a criminal or civil case. 

But overall, it's not a huge issue.  I hope.

Which legal risks would those be? How are they different than a church that has the high school and middle school youth groups together in the same room?

Quote from: bflynn on April 12, 2012, 02:28:28 PM
I'm a little surprised at them downplaying the legal risks of mixing 11-17 year olds with 18-21 year olds with regards to fraternization and child protection laws.  If there was ever an issue, I would think this document and those statements would be evidence to show the CAP disregarded the risk and that would probably increase their liablility in a criminal or civil case. 

But overall, it's not a huge issue.  I hope.

I'm honestly not surprised at all by this post. But let me ask you an honest question, how is mixing 21 year old cadets with 12 (not 11) year old cadets any different from mixing 21 year old seniors with 12 year old cadets?

Quote from: jeders on April 12, 2012, 04:52:38 PM

Quote from: bflynn on April 12, 2012, 02:28:28 PM
I'm a little surprised at them downplaying the legal risks of mixing 11-17 year olds with 18-21 year olds with regards to fraternization and child protection laws.  If there was ever an issue, I would think this document and those statements would be evidence to show the CAP disregarded the risk and that would probably increase their liablility in a criminal or civil case. 

But overall, it's not a huge issue.  I hope.

I'm honestly not surprised at all by this post. But let me ask you an honest question, how is mixing 21 year old cadets with 12 (not 11) year old cadets any different from mixing 21 year old seniors with 12 year old cadets?

When a 21 year old transitions from Cadet to Senior member NHQ flips a switch in eServices that makes 12 year olds no longer seem interesting to fraternize with.

Quote from: jeders on April 12, 2012, 04:52:38 PMBut let me ask you an honest question, how is mixing 21 year old cadets with 12 (not 11) year old cadets any different from mixing 21 year old seniors with 12 year old cadets?

I don't know that there is a difference.  Fraternization between adult members and cadets is prohibited.  I presume that is intended to cover prohibiting an 18 year old adult cadet member from dating a 17 year old minor cadet member, but it's not obvious.  Fraternization between cadets is not explicitly prohibited except as it pertains to the chain of command.

But that wasn't my point - it was that IF there is ever a problem, the logic used in the NEC comments could be harmful to CAP.  If you believe otherwise, please direct your focus to the NEC statements.

Quote from: bflynn on April 12, 2012, 05:26:21 PM

Quote from: jeders on April 12, 2012, 04:52:38 PMBut let me ask you an honest question, how is mixing 21 year old cadets with 12 (not 11) year old cadets any different from mixing 21 year old seniors with 12 year old cadets?

I don't know that there is a difference.  Fraternization between adult members and cadets is prohibited.  I presume that is intended to cover prohibiting an 18 year old adult cadet member from dating a 17 year old minor cadet member, but it's not obvious.  Fraternization between cadets is not explicitly prohibited except as it pertains to the chain of command.

But that wasn't my point - it was that IF there is ever a problem, the logic used in the NEC comments could be harmful to CAP.  If you believe otherwise, please direct your focus to the NEC statements.

CAPR 52-10
Para 1.a

If it is illegal then it falls into this category no matter if the 18-21 year old is a cadet or a senior member.

Quote from: bflynn on April 12, 2012, 05:26:21 PM
Fraternization between adult members and cadets is prohibited. 

You really need to read the regulations before writing things like this.

Dating and intimate romantic relationships are strictly prohibited between seniors and cadets at any time, regardless of the circumstances.  The age of majority in the local jurisdiction has little, if anything, to do with it. See CAPR 52-16, para 2-3 (b).

Just try to remember that the concepts of "cadethood" and "adulthood" are different things - apples and oranges.  There are 17 year-old seniors who are minors and 18-20 year-old cadets who are adults in their states.  And just to complicate matters, the age of majority is not 18 in all of our wings.

The USAF has cadets ranging from roughly 12 to over 30.  They treat their cadets with respect while subjecting them to necessary discipline and training.  So should we.

Quote from: Ned on April 12, 2012, 05:59:25 PM

Quote from: bflynn on April 12, 2012, 05:26:21 PM
Fraternization between adult members and cadets is prohibited. 

You really need to read the regulations before writing things like this.

Dating and intimate romantic relationships are strictly prohibited between seniors and cadets at any time, regardless of the circumstances.  The age of majority in the local jurisdiction has little, if anything, to do with it. See CAPR 52-16, para 2-3 (b).

Actually, my source was the Cadet Protection Training program student guide - if it is not correct, there's a different problem.  The words were my own, which is why there might be inprecision introduced into them.

And if you're suggesting that age of majority laws have little to do with CAP regulations between adults and minor cadets, then you've hit on exactly my concern with the NEC comments. 

Quote from: bflynn on April 12, 2012, 06:23:57 PM

Quote from: Ned on April 12, 2012, 05:59:25 PM

Quote from: bflynn on April 12, 2012, 05:26:21 PM
Fraternization between adult members and cadets is prohibited. 

You really need to read the regulations before writing things like this.

Dating and intimate romantic relationships are strictly prohibited between seniors and cadets at any time, regardless of the circumstances.  The age of majority in the local jurisdiction has little, if anything, to do with it. See CAPR 52-16, para 2-3 (b).

Actually, my source was the Cadet Protection Training program student guide - if it is not correct, there's a different problem.  The words were my own, which is why there might be inprecision introduced into them.

And if you're suggesting that age of majority laws have little to do with CAP regulations between adults and minor cadets, then you've hit on exactly my concern with the NEC comments.

Read it again. Specifically the third paragraph on page 10.

QuoteBecause adults have intrinsic supervisory authority over cadets, adult members will not date or have intimate romantic relationships with cadets at any time, regardless of the circumstances.

Quote from: bflynn on April 12, 2012, 06:23:57 PM

Quote from: Ned on April 12, 2012, 05:59:25 PM

Quote from: bflynn on April 12, 2012, 05:26:21 PM
Fraternization between adult members and cadets is prohibited. 

You really need to read the regulations before writing things like this.

Dating and intimate romantic relationships are strictly prohibited between seniors and cadets at any time, regardless of the circumstances.  The age of majority in the local jurisdiction has little, if anything, to do with it. See CAPR 52-16, para 2-3 (b).

Actually, my source was the Cadet Protection Training program student guide - if it is not correct, there's a different problem. 

Good catch.  The wording in the CAPP 50-3 does indeed differ from the regulation.  It appears that it was simply copied incorrectly.  We'll get that fixed.  In the meantime, we should remember that regulations should serve as our primary guidance in the event of a conflict.



So, what exactly are your "concerns with the NEC comments?"

Why does it say that the youngest cadet is 11yrs?

My biggest concern is the new member probation period of six months, with the ability To terminate without cause. This would greatly discourage new members. It could also be construed by the new member that they may be terminated due to a disability or other protected factor. And yes, I understand that it may not be expressed that they an be terminated without cause.

Quote from: Ned on April 12, 2012, 06:46:14 PM
So, what exactly are your "concerns with the NEC comments?"

CAP mixes adult cadets and minor cadets as participants in the same program and the NEC comments were supporting and/or endorsing such an arrangement. 

At some future date, if there is an issue with an adult cadet fraternizing with a minor cadet, CAP could be found to be complicit.  I obviously am too deeply involved in looking at Risk Management at work. 

This is an issue that I think as been beat to death.  It was meant as an off-hand comment, not a deep discussion.

Ref: 11 vs 12 - my mistake.

The lack of transferring in the "probationary" period, too.

There are times when a unit just doesn't match. Making it harder isn't the solution. They find a different one nearby that meets on another night, or that has a different focus, whatever. Don't make it harder.

This is more overreach looking for a problem. The problem members have not been the new ones, it's been the ingrained, clique-headed, GoB's.

The only place this is going to go is down a road paved with a lot of former 2-month members who were booted without cause because of some minor personality conflict or some other petty issue. There's too many problem commanders out there (you know, the ones that "know better" and like to run things the way they think it should be run, the way "they did it in the Army", or the way it was BITD instead of the way it's written) for this to work.

Quote from: Eclipse on April 12, 2012, 01:24:54 PM
I think the comments are spot-on and that changes of this nature should be coming from the CP directorate, not the Legal Directorate.

I agree with that, and chuckled when I saw that this comes (clearly) mainly from  perceived "liability' side of things. What I would REALLY like to know, is how many cadets stay active after 18. I know I would have loved to, but my college situation prevented me from actively participating. Some are lucky and have a University unit, or a nearby unit that is accessible. But really, out of the 12% who are over 18, what is the actual weekly-active count?

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on April 12, 2012, 07:42:22 PM
Why does it say that the youngest cadet is 11yrs?

My biggest concern is the new member probation period of six months, with the ability To terminate without cause. This would greatly discourage new members. It could also be construed by the new member that they may be terminated due to a disability or other protected factor. And yes, I understand that it may not be expressed that they an be terminated without cause.

A non-issue. This is prohibited by CAPR 36-1.

Item 8:
NESA, Hawk, and NBB are "regional training centers"?  Just what sort of regional level training is taking place at these sites other than the national special activities?  While I know there are some physical facilities at Hawk requiring upkeep, what is being spent on the other two places?  What is the plan for expanding their use to true regional facilities? 

Item 11:  creation of a sixth month probationary period for new members during which they can be kicked out without cause.  Like the commenters on the agenda, I sort of like the idea -- especially the uniform purchase requirement, though I would modify it to say that they must purchase the minimum service uniform in the regulation not just ANY uniform combo.  Do agree it needs some more work.

Item 12 -- cadet age limits.
This makes a lot of sense to me:

QuoteAny cadet member who has not achieved the Earhart Award by the time he/she turns
eighteen (18) years old will be required to become a senior member.

If you're under 18 and haven't gotten that far, its very unlikely you're going to make it to Spaatz anyway.  There is no rational reason to allow over 18 to stay cadets while not allowing someone over 18 to join as a cadet.  If, as NHQ says that it isn't to give them time to progress in the cadet program and that any time spent in the program over 18 is worth it in and of itself, we should be letting 18-21 year olds join as cadets. 

I don't buy the comment about it damaging recruitment of 16-17 year olds -- unless there are some statistics out there that I haven't seen, we really don't get a lot that join at that age. 

Find it interesting that the average age that the Eagle Scout is earned is 17 whereas the average age of a CAP Spaatz cadet is 17-20.  Why are our cadets such slackers?  (jokingly asking a serious question).  Actually, that sort of helps the proposal in that since Boy Scouts have to earn Eagle by 18, they tend to do it while ours know they've got a lot of years of potential and don't really push as hard as they could.  They may think they're going to stay in CAP after high school and still work on it, but they don't seem to really do it much. 

Item 18.  Aircrew Professionalism Program.  Great, another mandatory program on the way. 

Item 16 Triangle thingy adoption.  --- Hadn't realized they were going to spend some money to come up with something to replace the trinagle thingy.  Great, I'm sure they came up with something even worse.

Quote from: RiverAux on April 12, 2012, 11:42:48 PM
Item 8:
NESA, Hawk, and NBB are "regional training centers"?  Just what sort of regional level training is taking place at these sites other than the national special activities?  While I know there are some physical facilities at Hawk requiring upkeep, what is being spent on the other two places?  What is the plan for expanding their use to true regional facilities? 

The NESA facilities are used year-round for all sorts of training and related CAP activities.

Quote from: RiverAux on April 12, 2012, 11:42:48 PM

Item 12 -- cadet age limits.
This makes a lot of sense to me:

QuoteAny cadet member who has not achieved the Earhart Award by the time he/she turns
eighteen (18) years old will be required to become a senior member.

If you're under 18 and haven't gotten that far, its very unlikely you're going to make it to Spaatz anyway.  There is no rational reason to allow over 18 to stay cadets while not allowing someone over 18 to join as a cadet.  If, as NHQ says that it isn't to give them time to progress in the cadet program and that any time spent in the program over 18 is worth it in and of itself, we should be letting 18-21 year olds join as cadets. 

I don't buy the comment about it damaging recruitment of 16-17 year olds -- unless there are some statistics out there that I haven't seen, we really don't get a lot that join at that age. 

Find it interesting that the average age that the Eagle Scout is earned is 17 whereas the average age of a CAP Spaatz cadet is 17-20.  Why are our cadets such slackers?  (jokingly asking a serious question).  Actually, that sort of helps the proposal in that since Boy Scouts have to earn Eagle by 18, they tend to do it while ours know they've got a lot of years of potential and don't really push as hard as they could.  They may think they're going to stay in CAP after high school and still work on it, but they don't seem to really do it much. 

I think Mitchell by 18 would have made more sense. 38 months for the program, 18 months for Mitchell, leaves 36 months to complete 20 months of program. That said, I have run into 16-17 year olds who have joined CAP. Most however figure college will pull them away, and they turn down the opportunity. For others, the thought of starting with 12/13 year olds is the issue. The last group isn't the one I'd want in my ranks anyway.

Quote from: RiverAux on April 12, 2012, 11:42:48 PM
Item 8:
NESA, Hawk, and NBB are "regional training centers"?  Just what sort of regional level training is taking place at these sites other than the national special activities?  While I know there are some physical facilities at Hawk requiring upkeep, what is being spent on the other two places?  What is the plan for expanding their use to true regional facilities? 

The Oshkosh facility is a large permanent barracks, command building and dining facility/meeting area. It has a large upkeep bill because of the amount of use and age.

The facility is not only used by NBB but another NCSA and used by WI wing and GLR for training activities as well as some local squadrons.

Good to hear.  Thought NESA was at a military facility.

Quote from: RiverAux on April 13, 2012, 01:09:42 AM
Good to hear.  Thought NESA was at a military facility.

It's at Camp Atterbury Joint Maneuver Training Center, but they have a lot of their own buildings and billeting now.

It's also a nice facility. I like having it pretty much in my back yard.

HMRS hosts at least 1 training weekend, usually 2 most every month from about Feb thru June, then usually 1 each thru Nov.  Participation is usually PA specific, however I have seen representation from most of the wings in the region and many of the weekends.

mk

On another topic from the Agenda...did anyone notice the $1,000 fee for the dreaded Triangle Thingy?

That, plus the hint that the Command Patch could eventually find itself Triangle Thingied?  :o

Quote from: ProdigalJim on April 13, 2012, 06:10:45 AM
On another topic from the Agenda...did anyone notice the $1,000 fee for the dreaded Triangle Thingy?

That, plus the hint that the Command Patch could eventually find itself Triangle Thingied?  :o

I would never wear the flight suit again if the command patch got triangle thingy'd. I think the command patch is an awesome logo. It shows a nice tie to USAF, and it does show distinguish ability because it is full color, if you can't tell the difference between a full color patch and a subdued patch, the. That is your fault for not paying any sort of attention to your military, civilian or not. And the type of civilians that can't distinguish a uniform by branch isn't someone I am very concerned about displaying myself to. Personally there should be some requirement to be an American citizen, be it a test or military service including CAP. There are too many American citizens that Don't know enough about America. I don't mean to sound harsh, but when you watch tv you can see some things on certain channels that show American citizens being asked questions about who presidents are and what is the declaration of independence and some will just have a blank Starr, I am sure that is the same general population that can't tell one branch from another by what their uniform says boldly on their chest... Civil Air Patrol Right across the chest should at least brig about... Hey I have never heard of that branch... What is it? Well it's not really a branch, we are an auxiliary... The triangle thingy is not a very good branding logo to market CAP, and the only reason the star logo has worked for the army is because the army has been around since 1775, and is very strong in public image and mind. So strong that the logo they adopted isn't even what people recognize, it is the wording underneath it... U.S. Army. Our command patch is distinct enough and recognizable enough that it should be able to be used as our branding logo.

Quote from: ProdigalJim on April 13, 2012, 06:10:45 AM
On another topic from the Agenda...did anyone notice the $1,000 fee for the dreaded Triangle Thingy?

That, plus the hint that the Command Patch could eventually find itself Triangle Thingied?  :o

As I read it, it's not for the ttt per say, but to come up with a corporate branding logo. Which may or may not be the ttt.

Hopefully not.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on April 12, 2012, 07:42:22 PM
My biggest concern is the new member probation period of six months, with the ability To terminate without cause. This would greatly discourage new members. It could also be construed by the new member that they may be terminated due to a disability or other protected factor. And yes, I understand that it may not be expressed that they an be terminated without cause.

I read that and came to the same conclusion.  This is a potential minefield, especially in our litigious society.

Quote from: a2capt on April 12, 2012, 08:05:27 PM
The problem members have not been the new ones, it's been the ingrained, clique-headed, GoB's.

Hear ye, hear ye!  :clap:

Most new people don't know enough about CAP to learn what is/isn't prohibited.  If someone is just being a jerk, the chances are that they'll be in need of command intervention as it is.

Unfortunately, the types a2capt mentioned have learnt to navigate round the system to (usually) keep their conduct from being a basis for termination.

As for TTT, it was silly to change the command patch.  Ain't no way I'm wearin' TTT.  I'd much rather wear the logo branded as "dated."

If nothing else, make the "Overseas" patch a universal option throughout CAP.  It already exists, it's tied up with our history and it doesn't stink.

(http://www.vanguardmil.com/images/medium/000000CAP0638Z_MED.jpg)

The idea we would want to separate ourselves from our auxiliary nature seems somewhat misguided and "of the world" for lack of a better term.

If anything we should embrace it and use it as something which distinguishes us from the masses.

It won't help retention any more to have us looking like the EAA to then have the cadet show up and be told to fall into formation.
They are likely to never come back in the same way a pilot who sees a glass 182 on a ramp at an airshow leaves when he finds
out at his first meeting that the only unit for 200 miles has no pilot or airplane.

We are, what we are, and watering that down, trying to artificially change the image, or market our way to member numbers won't work.

The best thing we can do for marketing, retention, and the health of the program is to start reading the regs, work the actual
program, and let people vote with their feet.  members having fun and contributing to the greater good are the only marketing tool we need.

I've said for years that we need a campaign that stress' the "what did you do this weekend" aspect of CAP.

"I got 1 billion on space munchies".

"I caught up on reruns".

" I learned to fly a plane!"

"I helped a bunch of people after a tornado."

"I met Chuck Yeager!"

Etc, etc.

Quote from: Eclipse on April 13, 2012, 02:12:45 PM
I've said for years that we need a campaign that stress' the "what did you do this weekend" aspect of CAP.

"I got 1 billion on space munchies".

"I caught up on reruns".

" I learned to fly a plane!"

"I helped a bunch of people after a tornado."

"I met Chuck Yeager!"

That's going to the PA/CP staff at my squadron... :)

Complaints the CAP emblem is "dated" and the assertion we need a "friendly type" logo are laughable.  This apparent wringing of hands and embarrassment of our identity and history are disappointing.  I sincerely wish our leadership would stop apologizing for our relationship with the Air Force.  If we feel the need for a unique logo in education settings, why not create a logo for that program and leave everything else alone?

As for the CAP emblem being dated, I suspect the American Red Cross has no issues with the long history of their logo.  Many organizations have updated their logo because they felt some need for change.  My own employer recently discarded one of the most recognizable logos in favor of a replacement that looks like a pile of rabbit droppings.  We paid a lot of money for that laughing stock.  Even if CAP pays a professional design firm there is no guarantee of a quality product.  In the end a design firm will create ideas for our leaders to choose from.  If the decision makers are those who love the idea of a sissy logo for CAP the result will be disappointing.  An intense desire for change sometimes leads us in bizarre directions.

Don't get me wrong, it's not the thought of change that bothers me.  It's possible we could wind up with a logo that suits all our programs without apologizing for our true identity.  Unfortunately I'm left with little faith after reading the agenda.

The need for a friendlier logo in educational settings bugs me...  I envision a watered down CAP school squadron compared to the Junior ROTC program my boys enjoyed in high school.  The high school was initially resistant to J-ROTC, until the Army instructors clearly explained it is a citizenship program.  Once the administrators understood the program wasn't a breeding ground for killers they embraced J-ROTC and eventually declared it one of the best success stories in the school district.  Effective leadership can work wonders.  CAP leadership could do the same if they desired.

I find it amusing that the "free" cadet uniform is the one proposed for cadets to satisfy the obtaining a uniform clause to end their probationary period. Shipping times seem spotty at best, are we really hanging the expiration of a probationary period and/ or potential dismissal from CAP on a supply system that is somewhat rocky and subject to potential annual funding restrictions? I might just be reading into it too much, but it gave me a grin.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on April 13, 2012, 12:41:57 PM

Quote from: ProdigalJim on April 13, 2012, 06:10:45 AM
On another topic from the Agenda...did anyone notice the $1,000 fee for the dreaded Triangle Thingy?

That, plus the hint that the Command Patch could eventually find itself Triangle Thingied?  :o

QuoteAnd the type of civilians that can't distinguish a uniform by branch isn't someone I am very concerned about displaying myself to.

You're also a civilian.

QuotePersonally there should be some requirement to be an American citizen, be it a test or military service including CAP.

CAP is not a military service. You're not in the military.  Just because people don't share your interests in the military does not make them un American.

QuoteThere are too many American citizens that Don't know enough about America. I don't mean to sound harsh, but when you watch tv you can see some things on certain channels that show American citizens being asked questions about who presidents are and what is the declaration of independence and some will just have a blank Starr, I am sure that is the same general population that can't tell one branch from another by what their uniform says boldly on their chest... Civil Air Patrol Right across the chest should at least brig about... Hey I have never heard of that branch... What is it? Well it's not really a branch, we are an auxiliary... The triangle thingy is not a very good branding logo to market CAP, and the only reason the star logo has worked for the army is because the army has been around since 1775, and is very strong in public image and mind. So strong that the logo they adopted isn't even what people recognize, it is the wording underneath it... U.S. Army. Our command patch is distinct enough and recognizable enough that it should be able to be used as our branding logo.

Again, just because someone does not have interest in the military does not make them unAmerican.

Quote from: CAP_Marine on April 13, 2012, 03:30:54 PM
I find it amusing that the "free" cadet uniform is the one proposed for cadets to satisfy the obtaining a uniform clause to end their probationary period. Shipping times seem spotty at best, are we really hanging the expiration of a probationary period and/ or potential dismissal from CAP on a supply system that is somewhat rocky and subject to potential annual funding restrictions? I might just be reading into it too much, but it gave me a grin.

The cadet SHOULD acquire BDUs by 6 months...

I agree 100% that they should have BDU's within that timeframe, however, the minimum required uniform is blues for cadets. My point was more the variables in shipping time and availability of funding regarding the "free" cadet uniform becoming a potential conflict with the regulation as proposed. Not a major problem, but just funny to me.

Quote from: JThemann on April 13, 2012, 03:33:21 PM

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on April 13, 2012, 12:41:57 PM

Quote from: ProdigalJim on April 13, 2012, 06:10:45 AM
On another topic from the Agenda...did anyone notice the $1,000 fee for the dreaded Triangle Thingy?

That, plus the hint that the Command Patch could eventually find itself Triangle Thingied?  :o

QuoteAnd the type of civilians that can't distinguish a uniform by branch isn't someone I am very concerned about displaying myself to.

You're also a civilian.

QuotePersonally there should be some requirement to be an American citizen, be it a test or military service including CAP.

CAP is not a military service. You're not in the military.  Just because people don't share your interests in the military does not make them un American.

QuoteThere are too many American citizens that Don't know enough about America. I don't mean to sound harsh, but when you watch tv you can see some things on certain channels that show American citizens being asked questions about who presidents are and what is the declaration of independence and some will just have a blank Starr, I am sure that is the same general population that can't tell one branch from another by what their uniform says boldly on their chest... Civil Air Patrol Right across the chest should at least brig about... Hey I have never heard of that branch... What is it? Well it's not really a branch, we are an auxiliary... The triangle thingy is not a very good branding logo to market CAP, and the only reason the star logo has worked for the army is because the army has been around since 1775, and is very strong in public image and mind. So strong that the logo they adopted isn't even what people recognize, it is the wording underneath it... U.S. Army. Our command patch is distinct enough and recognizable enough that it should be able to be used as our branding logo.

Again, just because someone does not have interest in the military does not make them unAmerican.

First I am a civilian by force, I am a disabled veteran, I couldn't bear to think that I am an american citizen without prior service. And the reason that I threw CAP as an option for military service is for those who are not able to join the military, for medical reasons.

The issue that I have with the lack of knowledge isn't that they don't share my interest but that they don't know enough about America.

Quote from: CAP_Marine on April 13, 2012, 04:13:50 PM
I agree 100% that they should have BDU's within that timeframe, however, the minimum required uniform is blues for cadets. My point was more the variables in shipping time and availability of funding regarding the "free" cadet uniform becoming a potential conflict with the regulation as proposed. Not a major problem, but just funny to me.

The FCU program was offered as one source of the compliance.  As it stands today, a pretty significant portion of new cadets simply buy their uniforms like everyone else, and the FCU becomes a second set, assuming they ever receive it.

This requirement already exists for both seniors and cadets.

Simply enforceing the exisitng uniform regulation as part of level 1 would go a long way towards our appearance.  Whites and blues are the required minimum, anything else, including the golf shirt, is optional.  This gets back to my point about just working the program as it already exisits, rather than a need to make new regs that basically say "you really will do this thing that's always been required".

Quote from: wuzafuzz on April 13, 2012, 02:45:55 PM
Complaints the CAP emblem is "dated" and the assertion we need a "friendly type" logo are laughable.  This apparent wringing of hands and embarrassment of our identity and history are disappointing.  I sincerely wish our leadership would stop apologizing for our relationship with the Air Force. 

Couldn't agree more.   

That "dated" logo has tradition and meaning behind it.  The CAP emblem is distinctive and simple - two qualities of a great logo.  We must embrace the qualities that separate our organization from others.   It's those qualities that have made us great.  Our relationship with the Air Force is one to be proud of, it lends credibility, it's an asset, and a selling point.  That doesn't mean being all things to all people.

The entire argument presented for a new logo is completely without any supporting facts.  It's implied that not having a "new" logo is somehow harming the organization or in some way holding it back.  As such, the argument presented is that a new logo is needed to effectively represent the organization.  Based on what evidence?! 

What's more, the fact that one person thinks the emblem looks dated does not mean that it is.  More importantly, it doesn't mean the logo/emblem is not effective.  In other words, old does not equal bad.   It seems quite probable that this person may not understand branding.   Here's a few examples of some other "dated" logos (also clearly struggling from brand recognition):

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/Coca-Cola_logo.svg/300px-Coca-Cola_logo.svg.png)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/48/Mercedes-Benz_logo.svg/178px-Mercedes-Benz_logo.svg.png)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f9/BMW_Logo.svg/180px-BMW_Logo.svg.png)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/General_Electric_logo.svg/240px-General_Electric_logo.svg.png)

Hugely popular and among the leaders in licensed merchandise:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b2/Harley-Davidson.svg/250px-Harley-Davidson.svg.png)

Among the top sales in all sports merchandise:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/25/NewYorkYankees_PrimaryLogo.svg/300px-NewYorkYankees_PrimaryLogo.svg.png)

Among the top selling in NFL team merchandise:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/AaronRodgersGBPackers.svg/301px-AaronRodgersGBPackers.svg.png)

Among top selling in college merchandise:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a8/Texas_Longhorn_logo.svg/175px-Texas_Longhorn_logo.svg.png)

You might recognize this old thing too:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b1/Olympic_Rings.svg/300px-Olympic_Rings.svg.png)


As Eclipse pointed out earlier, our emblem differentiates us from many other organizations.  The real irony is that the TTT does exactly the opposite of it's stated objective.  It has absolutely no presence!

The TTT logo is incredibly amateurish, unimaginative, and indistinguishable from numerous other similar logos.   To offer just one example, it's very, very similar to mt-proppeller's logo (perhaps more than just inspired by?...):
(http://www.canadianpropeller.com/images/mtlogo1a.jpg)

The fact is, there is no demonstrated need to create a new logo (and I have a bit of an idea about this kind of stuff).   In addition, the fact that they paid $500 - 1000 for the design should be a red flag.   

If NHQ truly feels compelled to do something, a couple better alternatives to pursue are:

1.  Enforce correct use of current CAP emblem:  Legal seems to have time on their hands to deal out C&Ds, add our own (Regions, Wings, Groups, Squadrons) to the mix.  Ensure CAP is not represented with anything other the 3 approved branding items.

2.  Refresh the current CAP emblem:  This would involve only very minor revisions to the current emblem, such as illumination, gradiant, etc. 

Regardless of your personal feeling about the image itself, we should not be paying anyone consulting fees for anything, until the volunteer members
have had the opportunity to fill the need - that's part of the point and ROI on CAP.

Whether it's the website, a logo, or changes to programs, there are literally thousands of members who have the expertise, and hundreds who would be willing to help pro bono, assuming the were asked.

Quote from: Eclipse on April 13, 2012, 04:38:39 PM
Regardless of your personal feeling about the image itself, we should not be paying anyone consulting fees for anything, until the volunteer members
have had the opportunity to fill the need - that's part of the point and ROI on CAP.

Whether it's the website, a logo, or changes to programs, there are literally thousands of members who have the expertise, and hundreds who would be willing to help pro bono, assuming the were asked.

To this end, a "Apply for the National PA Working Group" application has appeared in eServices to those with PAO rights.

NLO proposal regarding the cadet program is somewhat extreme; however, it is long past time to start a conversation about formal separation of cadets by age groups, much like one finds in Scouting.

Not sure how that would work, but I think it's something that needs to be discussed thoroughly and calmly, because what we have right now is a potential liability for legal action.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 13, 2012, 04:51:44 PMNot sure how that would work, but I think it's something that needs to be discussed thoroughly and calmly, because what we have right now is a potential liability for legal action.

I just don't see it, and certainly not in our context, with our training and emphasis on cadet protection, etc.

The 18-21 year old cadets have all sorts of issues in regards to their participation, but liability because of their status is the least of them.
As it stands today, two 18 year old cadets would not be allowed to take a group of other cadets anywhere without seniors present, but two 18
year old senior members could run overnight activities unsupervised.  Now you're talking about real risk, and that particular paradigm exists today.

Unless you bar their membership altogether, those who would be bad actors, will be bad actors, and what it says on their ID card won't make
any difference.

Quote from: wuzafuzz on April 13, 2012, 02:45:55 PM
I sincerely wish our leadership would stop apologizing for our relationship with the Air Force.  nd up with a logo that suits all our programs without apologizing for our true identity. 

Me too.  It is incomprehensible to me why this has been increasingly so, at least since the mid-1990s.

Of course, on the Air Force side, there's little-to-no acknowledgement that we even exist (outside of CAP-USAF).

Quote from: wuzafuzz on April 13, 2012, 02:45:55 PM
Unfortunately I'm left with little faith after reading the agenda.

Me too.

Quote from: FlyTiger77 on April 12, 2012, 02:12:49 PM
It is interesting to note that the CP people seem to have first heard of this proposal when it hit the agenda. That is not good staff work, if that is the case.

That was my first thought, too. Really great way to back door your colleagues.   

While I understand the NLO's overarching responsibilities to the organization (note I said "organization" and not "corporation"), pushing a proposal as such thru to the NEC without staffing it thru the affected section/directorate/OPR is really shoddy staff work. An important skillset for people.working at this level in any organization is knowing how to do this kind of thing without stepping on people's toes.

I really don't know how people wind up at the "echelons above reality" without knowing how to stay in their lane.

And its not the first time I've ever seen someone do this.

After reading the agenda on two different occasions I saw nothing that could not wait for the National Board to consider. I know we are waiting to see the governance report but I see no need for the NEC to have all the powers of the NB. Technology will allow the NB to deliberate on any issue without the need for travel. The NEC as a deliberative body is no longer needed.

Quote from: keystone102 on April 14, 2012, 02:37:10 AM
After reading the agenda on two different occasions I saw nothing that could not wait for the National Board to consider. I know we are waiting to see the governance report but I see no need for the NEC to have all the powers of the NB. Technology will allow the NB to deliberate on any issue without the need for travel. The NEC as a deliberative body is no longer needed.

Speaking of the NEC...

I really think that it is high time that CAP decides who gets to make the rules. NEC or NB. I vote for the NB but that is just MHO. I would love to see the governance study and in all honesty I fully expected it to be released by now.... but...

Quote from: NCRblues on April 14, 2012, 02:43:42 AMSpeaking of the NEC...

I really think that it is high time that CAP decides who gets to make the rules. NEC or NB. I vote for the NB but that is just MHO. I would love to see the governance study and in all honesty I fully expected it to be released by now.... but...

Actually, I think the NB needs to go. 52 members is just way too many. Kinda like herding cats...

The NEC has a much more manageable number and could do the majority of their business via either a conference call or a net meeting.
No need for all of the expensive travel and such!

Yes, the NB is large, but at least it isn't under the direct thumb of the national commander as are the members of the NEC.  They've at least got a small measure of individual independence. 

Quote from: keystone102 on April 14, 2012, 02:37:10 AM
After reading the agenda on two different occasions I saw nothing that could not wait for the National Board to consider. I know we are waiting to see the governance report but I see no need for the NEC to have all the powers of the NB. Technology will allow the NB to deliberate on any issue without the need for travel. The NEC as a deliberative body is no longer needed.

The NEC is nothing more than a subcommittee of the National Board. The NEC should recognize that most of the things that most of the items they deliberate can wait for the NB.

Quote from: MSG Mac on April 14, 2012, 03:59:36 AM
The NEC is nothing more than a subcommittee of the National Board. The NEC should recognize that most of the things that most of the items they deliberate can wait for the NB.

Well, since they all sit on the NB as well, and meet more often, I would think that they're probably considered more of a "super-committee" of the NB.

Actually, the NEC meets twice a year.  However, the NEC has all the powers of the NB when it (the NB) is not in session.  So, the NEC can "delibierate" everyday except, for the four days the NB is in session.

The powers of the NEC and NB come from the C&BL of CAP.  These documents are written by the BoG.  The BoG is the governing body of CAP and, decides what the rules are. It is the BoG which allows the NEC and NB to do what they do....

After the BoG makes sense of the BoardSource study and CAP's governance committee's report, they will decide how we play in the sandbox.  And, after reading the NEC's agenda, I think the BoG has a big job ahead of them. ::)

The size of the NB is absurd: 60 plus people are a legislature, not a committee!

Furthermore, wing CCs ought to focus more on their wings, less on national policies and politics.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 14, 2012, 05:59:34 PM
Furthermore, wing CCs ought to focus more on their wings, less on national policies and politics.

Oh, you mean the rules and regulations that directly affect every wing group and squadron in the nation? So a Region commander who is charged with a whole region of wings should focus on the politics and rules?

Every wing needs a voice. Not just the 8 region good ol boys... I mean commanders.

I would prefer the National Board be our policy making body following the BOG guidelines There is less chance of 1 person dominating the NB. We have seen conflicts in policy between the NEC and the National Board. For example in the upcoming NEC meeting agenda the item taking money earmarked for the Training Centers so the NEC members can travel. In these tough economic times maybe they can make sacrifices along with the rest of us.

Reprogramming of Vanguard funds for travel -- Very bad idea :(  (this should be a concerted effort to reduce travel by using electronic means for meetings/presentations- of any sort --- I'm not sure what we really get from any National staffer attending a wing conference just giving us the standard briefing already on the web page -- electronically this could be hooked up with the presentation made (with the National HQ or volunteer leadership member right at their home or a close CAP facility) and than a question and answer period (electronically) could be held).  Also as far as training centers go, most wings have to support themselves for training facilities.   I've seen Sportsmen club facilities utilized for ES training in the past.  Anytime you start owning facilities, the upkeep costs become a fixed cost that can strain your budget (and as seen at least historically "regional" training centers (for each region) never became a reality).  Technically also with depreciation/improvements funds,  it should be like a condo association, where a fee or money is raised every year to go into a fund so that if the roof needs repairs, there's money available. The Board could also designate the money be held in reserve.

Additionally, why not for a few years look at the potential of funding some projects down to the squadron level ???.  I think something as simple as a few rf/ir controlled (micro size) helicopters for use in aerospace education "fun" activities and perhaps even a simple indoor competition (which we discussed at our wing's aerospace education meeting at this year's conference).  With a large purchase made I would think cost per unit could be significantly reduced :-\.  Also why couldn't CAP do a matching program, so the unit would pay part & CAP national the other ???. 
RM       

Quote from: keystone102 on April 14, 2012, 06:16:23 PM
I would prefer the National Board be our policy making body following the BOG guidelines There is less chance of 1 person dominating the NB. We have seen conflicts in policy between the NEC and the National Board. For example in the upcoming NEC meeting agenda the item taking money earmarked for the Training Centers so the NEC members can travel. In these tough economic times maybe they can make sacrifices along with the rest of us.

Remember, it was the NEC - not the National board - that killed the CSU.

Jack

Quote from: ColonelJack on April 14, 2012, 10:15:57 PM

Quote from: keystone102 on April 14, 2012, 06:16:23 PM
I would prefer the National Board be our policy making body following the BOG guidelines There is less chance of 1 person dominating the NB. We have seen conflicts in policy between the NEC and the National Board. For example in the upcoming NEC meeting agenda the item taking money earmarked for the Training Centers so the NEC members can travel. In these tough economic times maybe they can make sacrifices along with the rest of us.

Remember, it was the NEC - not the National board - that killed the CSU.

Jack

Yeah...but it was the NEC who was railroaded into creating it in the first place.
I would rather that the BOG be the policy making body....and let the people who form the NEC and NB focus on implementing that policy.

Quote from: ColonelJack on April 14, 2012, 10:15:57 PM
Remember, it was the NEC - not the National board - that killed the CSU.

Jack

Yes, sir, that is correct...and in so doing, without giving any concrete reason, demonstrated that the wishes of the membership are very low down the pecking order for them.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 14, 2012, 10:30:24 PM
Yeah...but it was the NEC who was railroaded into creating it in the first place.
I would rather that the BOG be the policy making body....and let the people who form the NEC and NB focus on implementing that policy.

Sorry Patrick, it was the NB which was "railroaded" into accepting the CSU in 2006.  I remember that meeting very well.  I also remember being strong armed into accepting it.  That being said, the NEC's decision to kill it had nothing to do with member concerns and, everything to do with perceived problems with the Air Force.  This is probably the most glaring example of why our governance system needs a complete overhall.

Quote from: FW on April 15, 2012, 03:54:31 AM
That being said, the NEC's decision to kill it had nothing to do with member concerns and, everything to do with perceived problems with the Air Force.  This is probably the most glaring example of why our governance system needs a complete overhall.

Colonel, you have hit on what is probably one of the biggest organisational dysfunctions of CAP (primarily but not limited to uniform issues): perceived, not actual, documented problems with the Air Force.  As is well known, the Air Force accepted the CSU after CAP made modifications to it that they wanted.  The mentality of the upper echelons (primarily but not limited to uniform issues) seems to be that we're always just a hairsbreadth away from ticking off the Air Force and being back to the days of the berry boards, or worse.

You are also right that it had nothing to do with member concerns.  Everyone I met in CAP, whether they wore it or not, thought it was an attractive uniform.

Quote from: CyBorg on April 15, 2012, 04:15:59 AM

Quote from: FW on April 15, 2012, 03:54:31 AM
That being said, the NEC's decision to kill it had nothing to do with member concerns and, everything to do with perceived problems with the Air Force.  This is probably the most glaring example of why our governance system needs a complete overhall.

Colonel, you have hit on what is probably one of the biggest organisational dysfunctions of CAP (primarily but not limited to uniform issues): perceived, not actual, documented problems with the Air Force.  As is well known, the Air Force accepted the CSU after CAP made modifications to it that they wanted.  The mentality of the upper echelons (primarily but not limited to uniform issues) seems to be that we're always just a hairsbreadth away from ticking off the Air Force and being back to the days of the berry boards, or worse.

You are also right that it had nothing to do with member concerns.  Everyone I met in CAP, whether they wore it or not, thought it was an attractive uniform.

Well, you've never met me and I didn't like the uniform at all.  A double breasted jacket on a "heavy" person???  It did nothing but make heavy people look heavier.

A smaller governing body will, of necessity, be more transparent...witness the BOG; I think we have a far clearer idea of what goes on there than in the NB.

As for wings needing individual voices in national governance, why? If you truly consider the region CCs "good ol' boys", let me remind you that all of them are former wing CCs.

Was it the transition from wing to region that magically made them a GOB???

Are you seriously suggesting that our current system --where the voters for National CC are also appointed by the National CC -- is not inherently steeped in conflict of interest?

Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 15, 2012, 04:43:46 PM
A smaller governing body will, of necessity, be more transparent...witness the BOG; I think we have a far clearer idea of what goes on there than in the NB.

As for wings needing individual voices in national governance, why? If you truly consider the region CCs "good ol' boys", let me remind you that all of them are former wing CCs.

Was it the transition from wing to region that magically made them a GOB???

Are you seriously suggesting that our current system --where the voters for National CC are also appointed by the National CC -- is not inherently steeped in conflict of interest?

Witness the BOG? The only reason we have ANY idea of what the BOG does is because of this website and Ned Lee postings. Witness the governance report...oh wait you can't. Transparent right? Witness the uniform committees recommendations...oh wait...

Transparency is a laughing stock in CAP. Everything is secret squirrel.

Every wing needs a voice. Every wing needs to be heard. What works in Montana might not work in the rest of the 49 states plus change. Just like every American citizen gets a voice through the House of reps. I am 100% sure we could get a budget passed with only having a Senate instead of the 2 house system... but power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have never seen someone try and control a small body before have we? Et tu brute....

Having the NB be the only board is a wise choice, simply because it is harder for one grand generalilismo to control the NB than the very tiny NEC. We have not seen that either have we? HWSRN...

Quote from: PHall on April 15, 2012, 04:34:50 AM
Well, you've never met me and I didn't like the uniform at all.  A double breasted jacket on a "heavy" person???  It did nothing but make heavy people look heavier.

How do you know we've never met?  I do get around... >:D

Quote from: NCRblues on April 15, 2012, 05:00:33 PM
Witness the BOG? The only reason we have ANY idea of what the BOG does is because of this website and Ned Lee postings.

If not for Ned, we'd have nada.

Quote from: NCRblues on April 15, 2012, 05:00:33 PM
Witness the governance report...oh wait you can't. Transparent right? Witness the uniform committees recommendations...oh wait...

Transparency is a laughing stock in CAP. Everything is secret squirrel.

Dunno.  It worked for the Politburo of the Supreme Soviet from 1917-1991, didn't it? >:D

Quote from: NCRblues on April 15, 2012, 05:00:33 PM
Just like every American citizen gets a voice through the House of reps. I am 100% sure we could get a budget passed with only having a Senate instead of the 2 house system... but power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have never seen someone try and control a small body before have we? Et tu brute....

Mmmm...don't get us started on the ungovernability of our current governance.

Unicameral CAP?  The Legislature of the great state of Nebraska, all of the provinces of the Dominion of Canada, and the Parliament of the Dominion of New Zealand somehow make it work.

Quote from: NCRblues on April 15, 2012, 05:00:33 PM
Having the NB be the only board is a wise choice, simply because it is harder for one grand generalilismo to control the NB than the very tiny NEC. We have not seen that either have we? HWSRN...

And as a "nuclear option" to prevent THAT from happening again, there could be a provision for CAP-USAF intervention.

Quote from: NCRblues on April 15, 2012, 05:00:33 PM
Having the NB be the only board is a wise choice, simply because it is harder for one grand generalilismo to control the NB than the very tiny NEC. We have not seen that either have we? HWSRN...

HWSRN was elected precisely because in a body as large as the NB, back room deals and pressure can be brought to bear ...I respectfully disagree that CAP needs a 2 house system, or that the NB is somehow the guarantor of the rights of the average member.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 17, 2012, 01:10:08 AM

Quote from: NCRblues on April 15, 2012, 05:00:33 PM
Having the NB be the only board is a wise choice, simply because it is harder for one grand generalilismo to control the NB than the very tiny NEC. We have not seen that either have we? HWSRN...

HWSRN was elected precisely because in a body as large as the NB, back room deals and pressure can be brought to bear ...I respectfully disagree that CAP needs a 2 house system, or that the NB is somehow the guarantor of the rights of the average member.

That is correct, back room deals and pressure can be brought to bear, but it is so much harder to do and keep secret with the large NB than the very tiny NEC.

If you would have read my post very careful I never advocated for CAP to have a 2 house system. In fact I advocated for the NB to the ONLY board and have the NEC done away with. No the NB is not the end all be all of right to the average member, but the track record shows that the NB (wing commanders) have a better idea of what the members want. The NEC nixed the CSU, the NEC is trying to pull funds for travel for THEMSELFS. The NB elected a bad leader in HWSRN, that I agree with but HWSRN did not start being (really) bad in till he was elected to the office of NAT/CC. The NB cant have a "do-over" if someone is elected and goes power crazy...

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely...

Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 17, 2012, 01:10:08 AM

Quote from: NCRblues on April 15, 2012, 05:00:33 PM
Having the NB be the only board is a wise choice, simply because it is harder for one grand generalilismo to control the NB than the very tiny NEC. We have not seen that either have we? HWSRN...

HWSRN was elected precisely because in a body as large as the NB, back room deals and pressure can be brought to bear ...I respectfully disagree that CAP needs a 2 house system, or that the NB is somehow the guarantor of the rights of the average member.

Tony Pineda was elected by acclimation to the position of National Vice Commander in 2003, after a close election between him and Gen. Wheless for National Commander. When Gen. Wheless resigned early in 2005, Pineda became the National Commander and, was elected at the next NB meeting in 2005. There were no other real candidates.
After he was "elected", the fun started.  His attempt to have his personal friend elected as National Vice Commander in 2006 failed by just 1 vote.  Gen Courter became the National Vice and became Commander 11 months later after Pineda was suspended from leadership.  Courter was elected the next year; after TP was wiped from the membership roles.  There was no opposition to her candidicy either.  She served as commander longer than any other (4 years).  Her influence is still felt today.  I would argue her tenure will have been the most significant since General Anderson's rewrite of the C&BL in 1994.  Whether that influence will be deamed positive remains to be seen...

One thing is certain to me; the NEC is more inclined to act uniformly than the NB.  The Board's numbers makes it very difficult to get it to work with one voice on most matters.  However, it is interesting, no matter how many times senior leadership has tried to reduce it's influence, the business of the NB has moved us forward for the last 60 or so years of it's existence...

Is there any information out there when the BOG is going to release the governance report?

Quote from: keystone102 on April 17, 2012, 12:36:28 PM
Is there any information out there when the BOG is going to release the governance report?

About the time it's a fait acompli.

Quote from: keystone102 on April 17, 2012, 12:36:28 PM
Is there any information out there when the BOG is going to release the governance report?

The BoG is holding a special meeting this weekend to discuss governance.  I suspect we all know more on Monday or Tuesday.

Quote from: Ned on April 17, 2012, 04:05:43 PM

Quote from: keystone102 on April 17, 2012, 12:36:28 PM
Is there any information out there when the BOG is going to release the governance report?

The BoG is holding a special meeting this weekend to discuss governance.  I suspect we all know more on Monday or Tuesday.

Changing the corporate structure is not as quick and easy as some posters on this blog seem to suggest. Even if there is a consensus amongst the BOG as to a change in direction- The Pentagon will have inputs and some potential changes could require congressional approval. If the recommended changes are within the BOG's existing authority there could be minor changes in a relatively short order.

If proposed changes require Pentagon approval, change will come much slower. If the changes require congressional approval, we could be looking at a very long process. The question may be is the process broken enough to require a congressional change. Congressional funding=Congressional oversight.

Quote from: Ned on April 17, 2012, 04:05:43 PM

Quote from: keystone102 on April 17, 2012, 12:36:28 PM
Is there any information out there when the BOG is going to release the governance report?

The BoG is holding a special meeting this weekend to discuss governance.  I suspect we all know more on Monday or Tuesday.

As I said, once a decision has been made, the minions will be able to see the report...not like any of the minions might want to comment on it before the decision's made or anything.

Quote from: JeffDG on April 17, 2012, 05:03:30 PM
As I said, once a decision has been made, the minions will be able to see the report...not like any of the minions might want to comment on it before the decision's made or anything.

Jeff,

A couple of responses:

First, as I mentioned several months ago, literally half of the Boardsource report consists of comments from the general membership who were given full opportunity to comment.  And literally every comment made was included in the report.  And I read every one of them.

Second, the BoG remains committed to a full and transparent process to discuss possible governance change.  And we mean it.  What is scheduled this weekend is the receipt of a briefing / report from our own governance subcommittee who have been working closely with members of the NB's own governance committee.  And as I mentioned before, one of the items we will be considering is the release of the BoardSource report.

Third, you may consider your self a mere "minion" but no one - and I mean no one - on the BoG does.  I have never heard a single perjorative reference to the general membership in any formal or informal session of the BoG, or in discussion with any of the BoG members.  Most of whom are very distinguished non-members (mostly active and retired AF general officers and SES civilians) who are all volunteering their time and efforts to help run this vital and unique organization with 60,000 members and over 200 million dollars in assets.  Please treat them with respect and do not put words in their mouths.

Ned Lee
Member at Large, BoG

Sir,

For myself, I consider actions to speak louder than words.  While you claim that the BoG is committed to releasing the report, it's actions speak to the contrary. 

Absent confidential information that could be redacted in short order, what has prevented the immediate and complete release of the report?  Sorry, but I just don't understand why it needs to be kept under wraps.  One logical explanation is that negotiations are occurring behind the scenes to present a fait acompli set of changes, and to spin how the report supports those changes.  Effectively keeping the report under wraps to provide an information-advantage to those privy to it, and limiting the amount of time that those opposed to the proposed changes have to review and comment on the validity of such recommendations.  If there is a better explanation, I would be happy to hear it.

In terms of the "minions" comment, you're right, that was not justified.  But again, if there was a true feeling of respect for the general membership, who incidentally are also volunteers, then why not give those members access to the same information such that a diverse and wide ranging group of professionals from all walks of life, could provide meaningful input before decisions are made.  So, to an extent, actions speak louder than words.

Quote from: Ned on April 17, 2012, 06:19:19 PM
Second, the BoG remains committed to a full and transparent process to discuss possible governance change.  And we mean it.  What is scheduled this weekend is the receipt of a briefing / report from our own governance subcommittee who have been working closely with members of the NB's own governance committee.  And as I mentioned before, one of the items we will be considering is the release of the BoardSource report.

Ned, I have been very quiet on this subject for quite a while. But, IMHO many of the members who pay attention (maybe not post here, but pay attention to all levels of cap) are at a lost over this whole situation.

The BOG received the boardsource report on Dec. 7th - 8th officially. You even said that the members of the BOG where given advanced copies so they could see what was in it correct? (If I am wrong on that than I apologize, I just seem to remember you saying something along those lines)

Even members on this forum who supported the BOG in NOT releasing the study right away (I was not one of them) said that the Feb-Mar time frame was long enough for you all to get what you need done. Now it's Mid-April and we still have nothing from the BOG. What is taking 4 months time to read over? Why can't we (the average cap member who keeps this organization going) not read it yet? What is so secret that it must be protected at all times? Have the NB or NEC been allowed to see it? What about the NHQ staff?

I understand that you are all working hard on making changes, but at least let us see the report. It would be so simple to have someone censure names (if any are used) and post it to eServices with a disclaimer saying "this is not regulations, nor orders, this is simply a report on possible changes to the way we do business. If you have questions or more comments please refer them up your chain of command."

Quote from: JeffDG on April 17, 2012, 06:31:39 PM
Sir,

For myself, I consider actions to speak louder than words.  While you claim that the BoG is committed to releasing the report, it's actions speak to the contrary.

Well, I guess thats a respectful way to call me a liar.   ::)

Nice.

(On a side note, the fact that the report has not been released less than six months after it was presented does not seem logically inconsistent with the BoG being "committed to its release.")

QuoteAbsent confidential information that could be redacted in short order, what has prevented the immediate and complete release of the report? 

I didn't see any confidential information in the report, so redaction is not an issue AFAIK.

And as I have said before in several different threads, potential governance change is a serious and delicate matter.  This is particularly true in an organization that has had more than its fair share of Drama and hyper-politicised situations involving governance discussions in the past.

And while I agree wholeheartedly that sunshine and air are the best antidotes to hyper-politics, the BoG (along with any other deliberative body, including the NB and Congress itself) benefits from being able to meet quietly and deliberately in drafting the initial proposal (if any), without hundreds of people trying to influence and spin the proposal before it is even drafted.

IOW, full input on any possible proposal will be welcomed, but at this point there simply isn't a proposal on the table.  It bears repeating that this is a careful and deliberative process involving a corporation with hundreds of millions dollars in assets and 60,000 members.   

QuoteSorry, but I just don't understand why it needs to be kept under wraps.  One logical explanation is that negotiations are occurring behind the scenes to present a fait acompli set of changes, and to spin how the report supports those changes.  Effectively keeping the report under wraps to provide an information-advantage to those privy to it, and limiting the amount of time that those opposed to the proposed changes have to review and comment on the validity of such recommendations.  If there is a better explanation, I would be happy to hear it.

Well, the "better explanation" does not involve conspiracys and Black Helicopters, so you may not be interested.

The simple truth is contained in the public statement made by Generals Anderson and Speigel (and published on our website): Link (http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?board_of_governors_governance_study_at_midway_point_national_board_told&show=news&newsID=12648).

Once a proposal is developed by the BoG governance subcommitee it will be presented to the full BoG (which is what I think we are doing this weekend), the SECAF, and other stakeholders for full discussion and input before any final decisions are made.

Quote from: Ned on April 17, 2012, 07:10:35 PM
Well, I guess thats a respectful way to call me a liar.   ::)

Well, crap...that's not what I meant.

I'm going to shut up now before I bury my other foot in my mouth up to the knee.

Oh, and my apologies for the implications referenced above.  And this isn't one of those politician apologies "if anyone was so stupid to misread what I said, I'm sorry they're such morons" apologies, what I said was out of line, straight up, and my sincere apologies are offered.

I would be surprised it the Board Source reccommendations are much different from the National Board's Governance Committee report; a confirmed summary of which can be found in one of my earlier posts (we can thank the NEC for confirming it...)

If the reports are similar, recommendations are that the National Commander will be selected by the BoG.  The vice and chief of staff may also be so selected in the same manner.  The National Board will be gone.  I would expect the wing commanders to meet once a year during the annual conference.  Region Commanders may meet with the national commander and staff for policy implimentation discussions on a more frequent basis. 

It will be interesting if Board Source (if they dealt with it at all) makes any comments on the makup of the Board of Governors.  If the BoG should select two of its CAP members.  Possible conflicts of interest if it does and so forth.  These types of disscussion should be held in closed sessions. Ned is quite correct. There is no need to make public what really hasn't been decided on yet.

Of course, I could be totally wrong... :angel: 

I think Ned and FW are confusing what some of us are asking for.

We don't want to see or read or know what proposals for change the BOG will come up with.

We want to see the outside boardsource report. That's it. Simple.

And "seeing it" you would do what, exactly?

Quote from: Eclipse on April 17, 2012, 08:04:25 PM
And "seeing it" you would do what, exactly?

Read it

Quote from: NCRblues on April 17, 2012, 08:06:38 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on April 17, 2012, 08:04:25 PM
And "seeing it" you would do what, exactly?

Read it

So....why do you want to read it NOW as opposed to say a year from now?

Quote from: lordmonar on April 17, 2012, 08:14:24 PM

Quote from: NCRblues on April 17, 2012, 08:06:38 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on April 17, 2012, 08:04:25 PM
And "seeing it" you would do what, exactly?

Read it

So....why do you want to read it NOW as opposed to say a year from now?

Because by everything the BOG says, they are informing ALL of the stakeholder....well except the one that makes CAP work...you know...US

Quote from: lordmonar on April 17, 2012, 08:14:24 PM

Quote from: NCRblues on April 17, 2012, 08:06:38 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on April 17, 2012, 08:04:25 PM
And "seeing it" you would do what, exactly?

Read it

So....why do you want to read it NOW as opposed to say a year from now?

Why not?  If there's nothing confidential in the report...

Quote from: NCRblues on April 17, 2012, 08:06:38 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on April 17, 2012, 08:04:25 PM
And "seeing it" you would do what, exactly?

Read it

Yes.  And then what?

Quote from: Eclipse on April 17, 2012, 08:27:13 PM

Quote from: NCRblues on April 17, 2012, 08:06:38 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on April 17, 2012, 08:04:25 PM
And "seeing it" you would do what, exactly?

Read it

Yes.  And then what?

Form a reasoned opinion and prepare to engage in a reasonable debate on the future of the organization.

Quote from: JeffDG on April 17, 2012, 08:28:35 PMForm a reasoned opinion and prepare to engage in a reasonable debate on the future of the organization.

A debate which is neither opened nor invited currently, thus...

Quote from: NCRblues on April 17, 2012, 08:17:02 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on April 17, 2012, 08:14:24 PM

Quote from: NCRblues on April 17, 2012, 08:06:38 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on April 17, 2012, 08:04:25 PM
And "seeing it" you would do what, exactly?

Read it

So....why do you want to read it NOW as opposed to say a year from now?

Because by everything the BOG says, they are informing ALL of the stakeholder....well except the one that makes CAP work...you know...US

Sure.....but again.....why must it be now....instead of later?

Listen....I too want to know what is in the Board Source Report.  But I know that I have had my chance to get my input into the report.  The decision belongs to the BoG.  They don't HAVE TO consult us.  But they did.  Your begining to act like a two year old.

Sorry to be so harsh....but really.  You and JeffDG go down this road.  CAP is not nor has it ever been a democracy.  Yes the powers that be should listen to the minions....yes they should include us in their decision making process.

But let's not pretend what is going on here.

I don't know...but I feel that there are those on the BoG who want to keep the report secret for now....so that they have chance to make a decision in peace.....with out 7000 people joggeling their arms and making a bunch of noise about what they think is the right way of doing things.

If you think I am wrong.....just look at the last three threads about updated regultions!  I mean chaning the name of CAP NEWS to The Volunteer generated 3-4 pages of outrage.

So.....my point.....is let the drivers drive.  They will ask us where we want to eat when the time is right.....we don't need to asking "are we there yet".

Quote from: Eclipse on April 17, 2012, 08:27:13 PM

Quote from: NCRblues on April 17, 2012, 08:06:38 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on April 17, 2012, 08:04:25 PM
And "seeing it" you would do what, exactly?

Read it

Yes.  And then what?

Think about the implications, form an opinion and speak to my corporate officer....you know, like we are supposed to.

Quote from: NCRblues on April 17, 2012, 08:44:07 PMThink about the implications, form an opinion and speak to my corporate officer....you know, like we are supposed to.

See above.  When your corporate officer is ready for opinions, he'll ask for them, until then, unsolicited, and perhaps improperly informed opinions will just make their job more difficult.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 17, 2012, 08:40:58 PM
I don't know...but I feel that there are those on the BoG who want to keep the report secret for now....so that they have chance to make a decision in peace.....with out 7000 people joggeling their arms and making a bunch of noise about what they think is the right way of doing things.

As I said, it will be released when the changes are a fait acompli.

That's fine, they have the right to proceed in that fashion.  But don't blow sunshine up my backside and say that the process will be open and transparent, then do the opposite.

Quote from: NCRblues on April 17, 2012, 08:44:07 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on April 17, 2012, 08:27:13 PM

Quote from: NCRblues on April 17, 2012, 08:06:38 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on April 17, 2012, 08:04:25 PM
And "seeing it" you would do what, exactly?

Read it

Yes.  And then what?

Think about the implications, form an opinion and speak to my corporate officer....you know, like we are supposed to.

The membrership and national board had their say already.  It's really now up to the Board of Governors to make the decisions.  How much more input from us is needed?  It took about 2 years of confidential discussion to end up with what we have now.  The membership (including the NB) was not "consulted" then.  This time, we have.  Now it's up to the BoG.  That they want a "transparent" process is nice however, they will be making decisions.  I can only hope they will have the best interests of all concerned when they decide...

Quote from: JeffDG on April 17, 2012, 08:51:58 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on April 17, 2012, 08:40:58 PM
I don't know...but I feel that there are those on the BoG who want to keep the report secret for now....so that they have chance to make a decision in peace.....with out 7000 people joggeling their arms and making a bunch of noise about what they think is the right way of doing things.

As I said, it will be released when the changes are a fait acompli.

That's fine, they have the right to proceed in that fashion.  But don't blow sunshine up my backside and say that the process will be open and transparent, then do the opposite.

Well....that as you say is only in the doing....you can't accuse the BoG of blowing sunshine up your backside until it is after the fact.  Who knows....may Ned is going to be at the next BoG meeting and get them to release it.....now then you look like the Buttocks......be patiant.

If they announce "here are out changes.....oh and by the way here is the Board Source Report" then by all means you can be all bent out of shape.....but until then you are sounding like a kid.

Quote from: Eclipse on April 17, 2012, 08:50:54 PM

Quote from: NCRblues on April 17, 2012, 08:44:07 PMThink about the implications, form an opinion and speak to my corporate officer....you know, like we are supposed to.

See above.  When your corporate officer is ready for opinions, he'll ask for them, until then, unsolicited, and perhaps improperly informed opinions will just make their job more difficult.

Not how it works Eclipse. I have every right to go up my chain and state my opinions. I have to wait for no one to ask what I think. This is not the military; I retain my rights as a citizen to voice concern over the handling of public tax funds. (Remember, we used part tax money to fund the boardsource report)

Quote from: JeffDG on April 17, 2012, 08:51:58 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on April 17, 2012, 08:40:58 PM
I don't know...but I feel that there are those on the BoG who want to keep the report secret for now....so that they have chance to make a decision in peace.....with out 7000 people joggeling their arms and making a bunch of noise about what they think is the right way of doing things.

As I said, it will be released when the changes are a fait acompli.

That's fine, they have the right to proceed in that fashion.  But don't blow sunshine up my backside and say that the process will be open and transparent, then do the opposite.

shouldnt there be two C's in that phrase?
"fait accompli"
:)

Quote from: johnnyb47 on April 17, 2012, 09:04:29 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on April 17, 2012, 08:51:58 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on April 17, 2012, 08:40:58 PM
I don't know...but I feel that there are those on the BoG who want to keep the report secret for now....so that they have chance to make a decision in peace.....with out 7000 people joggeling their arms and making a bunch of noise about what they think is the right way of doing things.

As I said, it will be released when the changes are a fait acompli.

That's fine, they have the right to proceed in that fashion.  But don't blow sunshine up my backside and say that the process will be open and transparent, then do the opposite.

shouldnt there be two C's in that phrase?
"fait accompli"
:)

Oh, probably...my French really sucks!

Quote from: lordmonar on April 17, 2012, 08:14:24 PM

Quote from: NCRblues on April 17, 2012, 08:06:38 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on April 17, 2012, 08:04:25 PM
And "seeing it" you would do what, exactly?

Read it

So....why do you want to read it NOW as opposed to say a year from now?

I'm a little late to the party, but I'd like to say something: What makes you think it will be relevant a year or two down the road? Stuff changes.

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on April 17, 2012, 09:25:57 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on April 17, 2012, 08:14:24 PM

Quote from: NCRblues on April 17, 2012, 08:06:38 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on April 17, 2012, 08:04:25 PM
And "seeing it" you would do what, exactly?

Read it

So....why do you want to read it NOW as opposed to say a year from now?

I'm a little late to the party, but I'd like to say something: What makes you think it will be relevant a year or two down the road? Stuff changes.

In terms of corporate governance a year or two is a very short period of time.

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 17, 2012, 09:27:48 PM

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on April 17, 2012, 09:25:57 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on April 17, 2012, 08:14:24 PM

Quote from: NCRblues on April 17, 2012, 08:06:38 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on April 17, 2012, 08:04:25 PM
And "seeing it" you would do what, exactly?

Read it

So....why do you want to read it NOW as opposed to say a year from now?

I'm a little late to the party, but I'd like to say something: What makes you think it will be relevant a year or two down the road? Stuff changes.

In terms of corporate governance a year or two is a very short period of time.

And yet, in a year or two everything can change. In less than a year CAP went from having HWSRN as commander, to having an interim commander to having our first elected female commander. One day can make a huge difference. The argument goes both ways on this.

Quote from: JeffDG on April 17, 2012, 09:08:43 PM
Oh, probably...my French really sucks!

This from a native Canadian?!?!?!?!?! :P

Especially one who was going to join the Canadian Armed Forces/Forces armees canadiennes?

Just putting you on...the vast majority of my Canadian friends/relatives don't speak it very well either.

When it's all boiled down, we as members have 3 choices:

A.  Cheerfully accept whatever changes get made.

B.  Grumble, gripe and then carry on with our duties.

C.  Take our ball and go home.

If your final answer is A or B, then timing of the release really doesn't make any difference. 
If it's C, then the worst result is that you've spent some extra time serving your community, and everyone thanks you for your service.

JMHO

Quote from: NCRblues on April 17, 2012, 09:03:28 PM
Not how it works Eclipse. I have every right to go up my chain and state my opinions. I have to wait for no one to ask what I think. This is not the military; I retain my rights as a citizen to voice concern over the handling of public tax funds. (Remember, we used part tax money to fund the boardsource report)

Yes, feel free.

I think we all know how effective unsolicited opinions are in influencing people.

Having been involved in quite a few processes where some sort of document is being prepared and for which public input is solicited both at the beginning of the process and after a draft document has been produced, I've got to say that comments made coming in from out of the blue at the beginning of the process are generally not worth very much. 

What matters is the document and the ability of the public to comment on that document before it is accepted or finalized.  That is when public input is most valuable both in terms of finding mistakes and problems in that document as well as exposing areas that should have been included.

In the case of this report, it is going to have a much greater impact on potential actions than probably most of the pre-report comments received combined.  We should have been given an opportunity to comment on a draft of that report just as we should be able to comment on any proposed actions before they are taken. 

If CAP REALLY wanted our opinions there would be opportunities for everyone to comment directly through every single phase of the process. 

Quote from: CyBorg on April 17, 2012, 09:36:18 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on April 17, 2012, 09:08:43 PM
Oh, probably...my French really sucks!

This from a native Canadian?!?!?!?!?! :P

Especially one who was going to join the Canadian Armed Forces/Forces armees canadiennes?

Just putting you on...the vast majority of my Canadian friends/relatives don't speak it very well either.

A native Western Canadian...

And if I had been accepted into the CF Regular Officer Training Program, my summer between high school and Royal Military College would have been spent in Quebec in an intensive French Immersion program...officers are required to be bi-lingual.

The great advantage I have is with my in-laws.  My wife's mother's family is french-only speakers, so I have half my in-laws that I have no capability to communicate with...a huge plus!

Quote from: Al Sayre on April 17, 2012, 09:36:27 PM
When it's all boiled down, we as members have 3 choices:

A.  Cheerfully accept whatever changes get made.

B.  Grumble, gripe and then carry on with our duties.

C.  Take our ball and go home.

If your final answer is A or B, then timing of the release really doesn't make any difference. 
If it's C, then the worst result is that you've spent some extra time serving your community, and everyone thanks you for your service.

JMHO

You see, I posit an option D:  Provide thoughtful and reasonable input to make the system better for everyone.  But if denied information until all the decisions are made, you're pretty much stuck with those, but you've thrown away an opportunity to make things better.

Quote from: JeffDG on April 17, 2012, 10:51:18 PM

Quote from: Al Sayre on April 17, 2012, 09:36:27 PM
When it's all boiled down, we as members have 3 choices:

A.  Cheerfully accept whatever changes get made.

B.  Grumble, gripe and then carry on with our duties.

C.  Take our ball and go home.

If your final answer is A or B, then timing of the release really doesn't make any difference. 
If it's C, then the worst result is that you've spent some extra time serving your community, and everyone thanks you for your service.

JMHO

You see, I posit an option D:  Provide thoughtful and reasonable input to make the system better for everyone.  But if denied information until all the decisions are made, you're pretty much stuck with those, but you've thrown away an opportunity to make things better.

Well maybe that's the problem.  For 60 years (or at least the last 20+) CAP has been seeking thoughtful and reasonable input from their member through the NB.........I can't really say that that has work to everyone's satisfaction.

I guess what the real problem is that some people just don't trust our leadership at any level beyond the squadron.  (I am not one of these).

I am in the group that says "let's see what they do, with out jumping to conclusions and demanding that they "listen to me!"".  If the BoG screws the pooch on this.....I can always opt for Option B or Option C and go find somewhere else to go an play.

I have no problem with the delay.  The report was formed by looking at our C&BL, and our opinions.  You can probably come up with a few possibilities about what the report says on your own.  I bet a significant portion of it is just an analysis of how we currently do business, and then a comparison of that to how others do business (at least the model, without the organizations they belong to).

A report, without any accompanied information from the folks who would be looking at it is pretty much useless.  It only leaves the door open to speculation, and creates unneeded turmoil and rumor mills.  The processed report, with dialog from the BoG would be far more useful to see, and that I'm more interested in.

Without the dialog, how can we [the membership] offer opinion about the potential decision without knowing what direction the BoG would want to steer us in, in the first place?

You know what the problem is with "Transparency"? It is that the word means something different to each person based upon their experiences and level within the hierarchy.
Once upon a time I was a Chief of Staff for a rather large wing. As part of the command structure, we strived to practice transparency in everything that we were allowed to. But no matter how hard we tried there was always someone who complained that we were not.  We solicited input; held open meetings, and then made decisions based upon member input, the regulations and experience, but if we did not reach the conclusion they wanted then we were not transparent.
Since then I have served at the region level again, served on national committees, continue to teach at NESA and am currently serving as an active Squadron Commander in a different wing, and I still hear people complaining about transparency, even though the processes are in most cases as transparent as they can be made.

Quote from: JeffDG on April 17, 2012, 10:47:58 PM
And if I had been accepted into the CF Regular Officer Training Program, my summer between high school and Royal Military College would have been spent in Quebec in an intensive French Immersion program...officers are required to be bi-lingual.

The great advantage I have is with my in-laws.  My wife's mother's family is french-only speakers, so I have half my in-laws that I have no capability to communicate with...a huge plus!

Isn't full, functional bilingualism required for promotion to Colonel/Captain?  I think I read that somewhere. :-\

Imagine if something like that were required for CAP... :o

My relatives around Kitchener, Ontario are much more likely to speak German (think Oktoberfest) than French (or even English!).

At least the Canadian Armed Forces/Forces armees canadiennes were up-front with you about what you had to do...sometimes I wish CAP were more cut-and-dried about expectations; we'd have a lot less YMMV.

Quote from: CyBorg on April 18, 2012, 04:47:17 AM

Quote from: JeffDG on April 17, 2012, 10:47:58 PM
And if I had been accepted into the CF Regular Officer Training Program, my summer between high school and Royal Military College would have been spent in Quebec in an intensive French Immersion program...officers are required to be bi-lingual.

The great advantage I have is with my in-laws.  My wife's mother's family is french-only speakers, so I have half my in-laws that I have no capability to communicate with...a huge plus!

Isn't full, functional bilingualism required for promotion to Colonel/Captain?  I think I read that somewhere. :-\

Imagine if something like that were required for CAP... :o

My relatives around Kitchener, Ontario are much more likely to speak German (think Oktoberfest) than French (or even English!).

At least the Canadian Armed Forces/Forces armees canadiennes were up-front with you about what you had to do...sometimes I wish CAP were more cut-and-dried about expectations; we'd have a lot less YMMV.

No, it's required for commissioning.

Quote from: Ned on April 12, 2012, 06:46:14 PM

Quote from: bflynn on April 12, 2012, 06:23:57 PM

Quote from: Ned on April 12, 2012, 05:59:25 PM

Quote from: bflynn on April 12, 2012, 05:26:21 PM
Fraternization between adult members and cadets is prohibited. 

You really need to read the regulations before writing things like this.

Dating and intimate romantic relationships are strictly prohibited between seniors and cadets at any time, regardless of the circumstances.  The age of majority in the local jurisdiction has little, if anything, to do with it. See CAPR 52-16, para 2-3 (b).

Actually, my source was the Cadet Protection Training program student guide - if it is not correct, there's a different problem. 

Good catch.  The wording in the CAPP 50-3 does indeed differ from the regulation.  It appears that it was simply copied incorrectly.  We'll get that fixed.  In the meantime, we should remember that regulations should serve as our primary guidance in the event of a conflict.

That was fast. http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P050_003_3760F45B217E7.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P050_003_3760F45B217E7.pdf)

Quote from: ß τ ε on April 19, 2012, 03:44:35 PMThat was fast. http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P050_003_3760F45B217E7.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P050_003_3760F45B217E7.pdf)

"Includes Change 1, 19 April 2012."

Wow!  That's how it should be done, just fix it on the fly and re-upload!

Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2012, 04:19:48 PM

Quote from: ß τ ε on April 19, 2012, 03:44:35 PMThat was fast. http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P050_003_3760F45B217E7.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P050_003_3760F45B217E7.pdf)

"Includes Change 1, 19 April 2012."

Wow!  That's how it should be done, just fix it on the fly and re-upload!

I don't know. It took Ned a week! Slacker. Geez. (I am joking, by the way)

Quote from: FlyTiger77 on April 19, 2012, 04:21:53 PM
I don't know. It took Ned a week! Slacker. Geez. (I am joking, by the way)

Actually it is a nice nod to the power of CAPTalk to identify errors and get them to the attention of NHQ.

If only the 39-1 problem was so simple . . .

Quote from: Ned on April 19, 2012, 06:13:20 PM

Quote from: FlyTiger77 on April 19, 2012, 04:21:53 PM
I don't know. It took Ned a week! Slacker. Geez. (I am joking, by the way)

Actually it is a nice nod to the power of CAPTalk to identify errors and get them to the attention of NHQ.

If only the 39-1 problem was so simple . . .

Careful, Ned, you're getting pretty close to setting -- what do you guys call it in the legal world -- a precedent, I think?!  ;)    People will start having expectations... :)

Quote from: Ned on April 19, 2012, 06:13:20 PM

Quote from: FlyTiger77 on April 19, 2012, 04:21:53 PM
I don't know. It took Ned a week! Slacker. Geez. (I am joking, by the way)

Actually it is a nice nod to the power of CAPTalk to identify errors and get them to the attention of NHQ.

If only the 39-1 problem was so simple . . .

It's a simple problem to fix, but they just won't listen to us.

Quote from: arajca on April 19, 2012, 09:58:39 PM
It's a simple problem to fix, but they just won't listen to us.

It is simple and complicated.

It's complicated:

"We want to look more like the Air Force."

"No, we don't...polos, grey/white, etc are all we need."

Two simple points of view, diametrically opposed.

No...those are the complicated changes.

The simple fixes are the ones where you correct the language, photos, clarify the exisiting rules, make sure the exisiting rules cover everything.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 20, 2012, 12:04:51 AM
The simple fixes are the ones where you correct the language, photos, clarify the exisiting rules, make sure the exisiting rules cover everything.

Do you call that simple?  Getting a bunch of grand poobahs to agree on the language, photos and rules?

Quote from: CyBorg on April 20, 2012, 10:45:50 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on April 20, 2012, 12:04:51 AM
The simple fixes are the ones where you correct the language, photos, clarify the exisiting rules, make sure the exisiting rules cover everything.

Do you call that simple?  Getting a bunch of grand poobahs to agree on the language, photos and rules?

I mean that the existing rules are already in place......but that there is sometimes vague or even contradictry language in the 39-1.
For example....tie tack/tie bars.....are they manditory?
Flight suits.....are they for aircrew at anytime a utility uniform if appropriate....or are they only for aircrew during flight activities?
CAP NCO's.......can they wear stripes on their gray and whites....or must it be the rank sleeve?
Why can you only wear three badges on the blues shirt (one wing, one GT/EMS badge over the pocket/ribbons and one specialty badge ON the pocket) but you can wear four (another specilaty badge on the right pocket) on the gray and whites.

A lot of the photos are in accurate or just plain bad.

All the things the uniform committee are doing is good.....but I would have started with them "fixing" 39-1 before they started looking at modifications to the uniforms.....(but I want them to do that too).

Quote from: lordmonar on April 20, 2012, 11:40:22 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on April 20, 2012, 10:45:50 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on April 20, 2012, 12:04:51 AM
The simple fixes are the ones where you correct the language, photos, clarify the exisiting rules, make sure the exisiting rules cover everything.

Do you call that simple?  Getting a bunch of grand poobahs to agree on the language, photos and rules?

I mean that the existing rules are already in place......but that there is sometimes vague or even contradictry language in the 39-1.
For example....tie tack/tie bars.....are they manditory?
Flight suits.....are they for aircrew at anytime a utility uniform if appropriate....or are they only for aircrew during flight activities?
CAP NCO's.......can they wear stripes on their gray and whites....or must it be the rank sleeve?
Why can you only wear three badges on the blues shirt (one wing, one GT/EMS badge over the pocket/ribbons and one specialty badge ON the pocket) but you can wear four (another specilaty badge on the right pocket) on the gray and whites.

A lot of the photos are in accurate or just plain bad.

All the things the uniform committee are doing is good.....but I would have started with them "fixing" 39-1 before they started looking at modifications to the uniforms.....(but I want them to do that too).

Correction on grey/whites and badges: you can wear ONE badge and ONE wing OR just one badge either above pocket/ribbons or on left pocket. Ref. CAPM 39-1, Chapt 4, pg 75, item 11:

QuoteOnly the CAP aviation badge and one additional CAP badge are authorized on this uniform.

Goodness.  The NEC has a proposal that will divert vanguard funding to pad their own travel budgets, eliminate a significant amount of our cadet program, and we're worried about the new 39-1? 

Every other non-profit I've ever seen, the board members are responsible for bringing money into the organization, not cost it money.  This proposal just goes to show that a significant amount of our national leadership has a hard time grasping what their actual responsibilities are and instead of focusing on raising money, they are again shouldering the burden onto the backs of it's own membership.

The NEC isn't equivalent to other organization's "boards".  That would be the Board of Governors.  Given the legally mandated way in which BoG members are chosen, its unlikely that many are actually going to "bring" money with them. 

Quote from: jimmydeanno on April 21, 2012, 02:33:24 AM
Goodness.  The NEC has a proposal that will divert vanguard funding to pad their own travel budgets, eliminate a significant amount of our cadet program, and we're worried about the new 39-1?

No. 

1)  I don't care what the Vanguard kick back is spent on.
2)  I don't see spending the kick back on travel is all that bad.
3)  NBB, NESA and HAWK MOUNTAIN survived before the kick back and will contiue to do so is some of that money is diverted.
4) I was not commenting at all on any of the NEC agenda items.....only making a comment on what I think the uniform committee should be doing.

QuoteEvery other non-profit I've ever seen, the board members are responsible for bringing money into the organization, not cost it money.  This proposal just goes to show that a significant amount of our national leadership has a hard time grasping what their actual responsibilities are and instead of focusing on raising money, they are again shouldering the burden onto the backs of it's own membership.

I agree to a point......In fact I specifically stated in the governance thread that I think that the National/regional/wing commander ought to be paid positions with one of their primary goals is fund raising.

As for this particular agenda item.....it is not going to cost us any more then we are currently spending....we just won't be spending all of it on NBB, NESA and HMRS.  They will be spending it on NHQ travel so that the National Level leaders can get out to the field to improve their areas of responsiblities.....Isn't that a good thing?  Haven't we complained that the national level guys are out of touch with the guys in the field.....well in order to get into touch...the National Leaders have got to get out to the field somehow.   

I've never seen a group of executives ask their "employees" to pay for their airline tickets.  The current model we have is:

1) See a demand for money > raise membership dues > expect the membership to pay out of pocket > raise prices at vanguard to increase kickback (only members buy uniform stuff).

Nowhere in that is "create partnership with Boeing/Lockheed/Northrop to bring in $500k."  Anothernon-profit I'm on the local board for just got a check from each of those companies to the tune of 50k for a local event and scholarship support.

Most non profit board members bring money with them, whether its personal or from existing contacts.  I can't think of a single nonprofit board member that would ever dream of costing their organization more than they bring in.

I accept paying higher Vanguard prices to help our cadets. I don't want it going to Corporate officers hotel rooms. How about our higher ups Skyping in to a conference instead of flying in? At least until we get out of this financial crisis. The pain should be shared by all not just the under Colonel crowd.

Quote from: jimmydeanno on April 21, 2012, 12:51:01 PM
I've never seen a group of executives ask their "employees" to pay for their airline tickets.

Most non profit board members bring money with them, whether its personal or from existing contacts.  I can't think of a single nonprofit board member that would ever dream of costing their organization more than they bring in.

When resource are limited there needs to be a through review of all expenditures and a revalidation of the use of those funds.  Just from an internal public relations standpoint this use of funds for travel is a very poor thing to do.  :angel:

Also what training is really provided to any of our board members on how to fund raise ??? :-\    Fund raising in my opinion is further complicated by the consolidation of expenses.   There should be a scheduled attached to that consolidated statement that shows CAP Inc (member provided & donations from non government) and how it is utilized.      There should be a specific discussion in that financial release if there's been in large donations and how the donation was utilized.   It might even be a good idea to discuss some nationwide project that are unfunded as supplement to those financial statements.

Maybe ??? :-\  with addition the addition of a Development Director at National Headquarters, maybe we will see some specific movement with a plan for developing other monetary donations sources.   OR perhaps basically what we will really just see is more administrative mumbo jumbo regulations on what one "will" have to do at lower levels in the organization, rather than in any tangible results :-\ :(   
RM   

Quote from: jimmydeanno on April 21, 2012, 12:51:01 PM
I've never seen a group of executives ask their "employees" to pay for their airline tickets.  The current model we have is:

1) See a demand for money > raise membership dues > expect the membership to pay out of pocket > raise prices at vanguard to increase kickback (only members buy uniform stuff).

Nowhere in that is "create partnership with Boeing/Lockheed/Northrop to bring in $500k."  Anothernon-profit I'm on the local board for just got a check from each of those companies to the tune of 50k for a local event and scholarship support.

Most non profit board members bring money with them, whether its personal or from existing contacts.  I can't think of a single nonprofit board member that would ever dream of costing their organization more than they bring in.

:clap:

The National Board and HQ staff made a pledge a long time ago that the Vangard funds would only be used to help our cadets and develop areas for training purposes. IMHO, it would be a shame to violate that pledge.

Fund raising, with our present leadership structure, is problematic.  The CAP Foundation has not been visible.  CAP has not been successful in fund raising because of the failure to differentiate our government funding from those programs which are outside its scope. 

What is needed; a stong Foundation Board which can solicit major contributors and, develop an endowment which can truly support CAP programs.  These Foundation Board members must be able to bring in the funds.  The BoG can't/won't do this; neither can the NB members or, our national volunteer leaders. 

I think its awfully hard to raise funds for CAP due to our Air Force link which puts us at a disadvantage -- if the Air Force doesn't think some specific program is valuable enough to fund (they think) why should I donate to it? 

CAP has always jumped at finding money for something that exists, rather than first evaluating the need. Almost every US corporation utilizes tele/video conferencing for internal meetings.  Based on the majority of the meetings held they can be done that way without compromising any of the activities of CAP.  One face to face meeting Annually should be sufficient for all boards and committees and done at the same event.  One trip is certainly less expensive than the current number.  Regarding Vanguard...well thats another whole story.  Never should have been done in the first place and never should have had a non-CAP friendly contract.  Running a non-profit and collecting the 'kick back' from the very volunteers that make CAP what it is a travesty at best, and heartbreaking at worst.  So NO, any kickbacks should not be taken away from the cadet program.

CS makes a lot of sense; all this travel, at the general memberships' expense, is excessive in the age of instant communications.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 21, 2012, 08:45:52 PM
CS makes a lot of sense; all this travel, at the general memberships' expense, is excessive in the age of instant communications.

I don't know where it is at "the general memberships' expense".  I am getting everything I was promised from my dues.

Now having said that.......Those complaining about all the travel expenses......how would us the money instead?

Like I said before.....I don't use NBB, NESA or HMRS.....so I don't directly see any of that Vanguard money. 

So diverting if from one area to another is a non-issue for me.

IF.....if NBB, NESA and HMRS don't need all that money.....then I don't see a problem with using it for national level leaders to travel.
It would be nice to see the National CP guy down in my neck of the woods sometimes so I can talk to him and he can see what we do.

I don't really care is PAWG, INWG or WIWG gets the money or NHQ gets the money.....I know that PCR-NV-069 ain't getting any of the money.

In the grand scheme of things its a pittance.  That being said, I expect them to be smart about how often and where they have these meetings so that they cost as little as possible. 

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on April 21, 2012, 02:05:21 PM
Also what training is really provided to any of our board members on how to fund raise ??? :-\

Personally, I think that our board members should be hired based on their qualifications to do the job they're hired to do.  Fundraising skills being one of them.  The military mindset of "we'll hire you for the job and expect you to get the skills later" doesn't fly in private industry or non-profits.  Non-profits need board members that bring executive level leadership experience to the table.  I would expect/demand that skillset before hiring someone. 

We can't home-grow all of our skillsets, especially with volunteer leadership.  We need volunteers that bring that experience and ability from their outside experiences and have the credentials to back it up.  I would also expect that someone at that level that knew they were lacking in certain areas would seek out the education they need, not fail and say "well, you didn't provide the training."

Quote from: lordmonar on April 21, 2012, 09:08:45 PM
Now having said that.......Those complaining about all the travel expenses......how would us the money instead?

Like I said before.....I don't use NBB, NESA or HMRS.....so I don't directly see any of that Vanguard money. 

So diverting if from one area to another is a non-issue for me.

IF.....if NBB, NESA and HMRS don't need all that money.....then I don't see a problem with using it for national level leaders to travel.
It would be nice to see the National CP guy down in my neck of the woods sometimes so I can talk to him and he can see what we do.

I don't really care is PAWG, INWG or WIWG gets the money or NHQ gets the money.....I know that PCR-NV-069 ain't getting any of the money.

I have no problems with the Vanguard contract, other than the prices for stuff being different (higher) every time I log on to buy the same things (every week).  With that said, CAP getting a kickback on the markup of the items is fine by me.  However, if I were one of our national level leaders, I would look at that money as something we could use to expand our missions. 

If we get 100K plus from the Vanguard kickbacks, I'd look at things like:

1) Getting about 20 professionally made "airshow booths" that could be "ordered" by a wing to be set up at an airshow/big public event.  It would come with banner displays, tables, tent(s), and all the recruiting materials and CAP swag you'd need to successfully recruit at an airshow or large public event.  When done, you stick the return labels on them and ship them back.

This would help expand our missions by providing a professional looking, consistent, presence at what is most likely our best recruiting arenas and it's something that all of the membership would benefit from.

2) Reduce cadet membership dues:  Although relatively cheap to begin with, our membership fees/renewal fees still put CAP out of reach for many kids.  Financial accessibility is a serious concern to most units.  I could have at least 30 new cadets if I were able to afford to pay for all their membership dues because we have numerous kids who want the opportunity but can't afford it because their family only makes $200/wk.

3) Hire grant writers:  Grant writers are typically expected to pay their salary (not literally) plus gain "X" amount of money for the organization they are hired by.  So, the initial startup funds (vanguard money) would be gained back and then some after some time.

4) Targeted advertising campaigns.  Find an area that seems to be underserved, or not at capacity (i.e. NYC only having 100 cadets while Podunk Montana has 400).  An advertising campaign in NYC might help to boost visibility and expand membership in that area.

Those are just some ideas.  But notice that none of them include "pad my travel budget" or "have an executive meeting."  I think that using the money for travel is short-sighted and will have practically no return on investment.  I suppose when you're in the "use it or lose it" federal budget mentality, looking past the next year would be difficult, though (Not directed at you Pat)...   >:D

There is another militray auxiliary, the USCG Auxiliary, that faces the same issues that you have been discussing. The USCG Aux received funding directly from the USCG. It also self-funds, mostly thru membership dues and public boating courses (PE). The rights to the PE course material and most Aux logoed 'stuff' belongs to the Coast Guard Auxiliary Association Inc (CGAuxAssInc). The CGAuxAssInc is supposed to support the non-USCG supported Aux programs. The CGAuxAssInc runs both the national member store and supports the district stores. The intent and purpose is the same as the CAP/Vanguard relationship - fund the oranization by charging the members for overpriced goods. The CGAuxAssInc just released it latest Exempt Organization (2010) Income Tax Form (http://cgauxa.org/media/990-2010-10-31-2011.pdf). The 2010 is the latest given the Aux's fiscal year.

From that you can discover the following:

1. Revenue was down $235,819
2. Expenses were down $92,276
3. Travel was $289,672
4. Dues comprise 82.1% of revenue
5. There were only 2 large donations: CG Founation $40,377 and JP Morgan $25,000. The report does not state if either donation was restricted or not.

At its most recent meeting, the CGAuxAssInc elected a new director. He is also a director and immediate past Chairman of the Board of the CG Foundation (among other things).

Quote from: jimmydeanno on April 21, 2012, 11:22:04 PM
Personally, I think that our board members should be hired based on their qualifications to do the job they're hired to do.

So obviously true, yet such an elusive bill to fill.

Or some of those kickbacks could be used to help fund scholarships for cadets to attend activities that other wise are not able to go.  Or putting that into existing scholarships to expand on. 

Or these kickbacks could also be used to help units with their AE programs buy allocating funds for model rocketry and the like.  Or how about being able to have units procure ES gear or update their obsolete equipment. 

I have to agree with some members here that in this age of technology there are other efficient means of conducting meetings than traveling all over.

Quote from: abdsp51 on April 22, 2012, 12:44:25 AM
I have to agree with some members here that in this age of technology there are other efficient means of conducting meetings than traveling all over.

Especially with the price of petrol/avgas/jet fuel.

Just a couple of notes:

1.  Since I have been on the BoG, we have met on conference call for about half of our meetings.  Usually we conference call special meetings with just one or two agenda items.  (The NEC does the same thing for their special meetings.)  Trying to do a full-day (or more) confernce call  for a regular meeting is a bit of a logistical issue.

2. Similarly, even it the age of Skype and the various meeting facilitation products like GoToMeeting and such, it is simply not yet viable to do an electronic meeting with nearly a hundred participants like the NB.  I have done some pretty high-speed VTCs for Uncle Sam, but we have never had anything more than a dozen folks.  It just gets unmanagable. Perhaps if the NB were smaller, they could efficiently meet electronically.  (But then they would be the NEC.)

3.  When the BoG meets in DC, it is actually relatively inexpensive because the majority of the BoG lives in the DC metro area.  As the only  Left Coast guy, I'm pretty much the only one spending a full day traveling in each direction.  And of course, when the BoG meets at NHQ, we have government quarters which certainly conserves resources.

4.  Each of the current "boards" (NB, NEC, BoG) meets twice a year, absent a special meeting.  Reasonable minds may certainly differ on how often meetings should occur.  But twice a year does not seem all that unusual from a governance perspective.  Perhaps a governance change may reduce the number of "boards" that have to meet in any event.

5.  It is worth remembering that the licensing fee paid by Vanguard for selling CAP-specific merchandise is pretty much the industry standard.  You can't buy Boy Scout merchandise from anyone other than an authorized vendor.  Who pay licensing fees to BSA.  Colleges collect licensing fees on their logowear.  And if we were to end the licensing fee arrangement tomorrow, there is no guaratee that VG would lower the prices for CAP merchandise in any event.  This is a classic "win-win" for the members and CAP.

I do value and appreciate the input I get from threads like this. I will share much of it with my fellow BoG members at our meeting starting tomorrow evening.

Ned Lee

Quote from: Ned on April 22, 2012, 02:05:35 AM

5.  It is worth remembering that the licensing fee paid by Vanguard for selling CAP-specific merchandise is pretty much the industry standard.  You can't buy Boy Scout merchandise from anyone other than an authorized vendor.  Who pay licensing fees to BSA.  Colleges collect licensing fees on their logowear.  And if we were to end the licensing fee arrangement tomorrow, there is no guaratee that VG would lower the prices for CAP merchandise in any event.  This is a classic "win-win" for the members and CAP.

Sir, you are the legal expert, but couldn't you require a drop in prices with the ending licensing agreement?

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on April 22, 2012, 02:15:35 AM

But couldn't you require a drop in prices with the ending licensing agreement?

That's the point.  If you end the agreement / contract, you have no control over what the other party does. 

Another practical point is that the licensing agreement with VG requires them to sell the entire line of current insignia, even the ones that sell so few items that they are bound to be unprofitable.  (I think the example we usually use here is the Master CDI badge.  I'd be surprised if they sell more than 30-40 a year of things like that.  But they still have to be produced to spec and available.)

The profit VG makes on selling popular items like ultramarine blue tapes and wing patches literally underwrites the costs for producing the proverbial master CDI badge, Spaatz ribbons, WWII target towing ribbons, etc.

If we let just anyone sell CAP merchandise, the "low density" items woud simply become unavailable and/or amazingly expensive.  Similarly, the quality of the items would nosedive as vendors competed in price by offshoring for the lowest possible price.

The VG agreement is really a "win-win."  Our leaders did a good thing for us.

I still think were about to see a huge change to CAP.  My money is on the NB going away.  Guess we will know more in the next 6-12 months.

I,ve been trying to procure a Borman Ribbon for a member of my unit Vanguard doesn't even list it on line

Quote from: Nolan Teel on April 22, 2012, 02:38:29 AM
I still think were about to see a huge change to CAP.  My money is on the NB going away. 

I agree that a major change is on the way, just wish it would be done a little more openly. Money is more than likely on the NB going away, but IMHO that is not the correct move. Oh well, im not in charge...

BTW Ned, any update on your BOG meeting this weekend yet?

Quote from: Ned on April 22, 2012, 02:05:35 AM
Similarly, even it the age of Skype and the various meeting facilitation products like GoToMeeting and such, it is simply not yet viable to do an electronic meeting with nearly a hundred participants like the NB. 

One more reason NB as currently constituted is ridiculous for an organization of 60K members...contrary to the opinions of some, there is no objective reason for 'representation for every wing'.

Like when the wing commanders from the desert states said that the idea of shorts as regular uniform items was ridiculous and unnecessary even though it was supposedly being put out there for their benefit? 

Quote from: RiverAux on April 22, 2012, 08:27:40 PM
Like when the wing commanders from the desert states said that the idea of shorts as regular uniform items was ridiculous and unnecessary even though it was supposedly being put out there for their benefit?

Ya...because the NEC has never done ANYTHING stupid....oh...wait ::)

Quote from: RiverAux on April 21, 2012, 10:55:30 PM
In the grand scheme of things its a pittance.  That being said, I expect them to be smart about how often and where they have these meetings so that they cost as little as possible.

So what's next, pay stipends to anyone serving in that capacity? We are the Civil Air Patrol, not some manufacturer or car company. We are supposed to be volunteers. The people who reach this pinicale in their CAP careers have done it based on their previous experience, yes, but also very politically and there are inherent financial responsiblities that go with that level of office. If the average member deducts CAP-related costs (mileage, conference fees and hotel expenses) on their income taxes, why can't the elected leadership. Why do they need to pad their pockets in an era of better conferencing capabilities.

We are, afterall, in an era of cutting costs.....

What bothers me is the NEC considering some "extra cash" and using it for reasons not remotely intended for.  The funds from Vangard are to be used for programs; not for staff travel or perks.  It's difficult to believe the national staff (which seems to get larger every month) needs to be paid to travel.
"Back in the day", all but the most senior of leadership were priviliged to be reimbursed for some of their travel expenses. Today, it seems everyone wants to get a piece of a shrinking pot; leaving the crumbs for program development.  If this precident is allowed to change, what will happen in the future?

Quote from: FW on April 23, 2012, 11:25:43 AM
What bothers me is the NEC considering some "extra cash" and using it for reasons not remotely intended for.  The funds from Vangard are to be used for programs; not for staff travel or perks.  It's difficult to believe the national staff (which seems to get larger every month) needs to be paid to travel.
"Back in the day", all but the most senior of leadership were priviliged to be reimbursed for some of their travel expenses. Today, it seems everyone wants to get a piece of a shrinking pot; leaving the crumbs for program development.  If this precident is allowed to change, what will happen in the future?

Exactly, the higher the rank, the higher the level of responsiblity and personal sacrifice. The NB should be considering what is best for the good of the organization and not their pockets.

Quote from: flyboy1 on April 23, 2012, 11:13:46 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on April 21, 2012, 10:55:30 PM
In the grand scheme of things its a pittance.  That being said, I expect them to be smart about how often and where they have these meetings so that they cost as little as possible.

So what's next, pay stipends to anyone serving in that capacity? We are the Civil Air Patrol, not some manufacturer or car company. We are supposed to be volunteers. The people who reach this pinicale in their CAP careers have done it based on their previous experience, yes, but also very politically and there are inherent financial responsiblities that go with that level of office. If the average member deducts CAP-related costs (mileage, conference fees and hotel expenses) on their income taxes, why can't the elected leadership. Why do they need to pad their pockets in an era of better conferencing capabilities.

We are, afterall, in an era of cutting costs.....

Getting reimbursed for actual expenditures is not "padding their pockets".  And if you've ever done your own taxes you should know that it only reduces your taxes by a fraction of the amount you spent, that is unless you can operate your car at only 14 cents a mile. 

And just where in the CAP regs does it say that you must be financially well off to hold some office?  While it often happens that way, I know that 75% of commanders I've served under in my current wing were not in a position to spend a ton of money on CAP.  And they did a darn fine job. 

I don't know about you but I have never been reimbursed for travel to conferences. If anyone is, then I consider that "padding their pocket" when compared to other volunteers.

Hey NEC! Stop taking money earmarked for member training for your travel.

For those of you gripping that you don't benefit, how about helping your region have a training center so you can benefit from the Vanguard money more directly.

In 2004 when I first applied to be a Wing Commander, I was asked by the selection board, it I could afford the 10 to 14K a year that I would be out of pocket, if selected.  As a wing Commander I would have been expected to pay all of my own costs for travel and lodging while carrying out my duties.  I cannot imagine what the cost would be today.   But it is definitely high enough that many wings have now adopted financial policies that reimburse the wing commander for travel and lodging.

Quote from: Ned on April 22, 2012, 02:05:35 AM
1.  Since I have been on the BoG, we have met on conference call for about half of our meetings.  Usually we conference call special meetings with just one or two agenda items.  (The NEC does the same thing for their special meetings.)  Trying to do a full-day (or more) confernce call  for a regular meeting is a bit of a logistical issue.

This is a regular occurence in my day job, Ned.  All large meetings, particularly those in person, present logistical challenges.   There is nothing unique about that.

Quote from: Ned on April 22, 2012, 02:05:35 AM
2. Similarly, even it the age of Skype and the various meeting facilitation products like GoToMeeting and such, it is simply not yet viable to do an electronic meeting with nearly a hundred participants like the NB.  I have done some pretty high-speed VTCs for Uncle Sam, but we have never had anything more than a dozen folks.  It just gets unmanagable. Perhaps if the NB were smaller, they could efficiently meet electronically.  (But then they would be the NEC.)

I disagree that virtual meetings cannot be effective with larger groups.  As stated above, this is done regularly in the "real world". 

Is video conferencing really needed for each meeting?  I doubt it.  I suspect that voice and on-line colloboration are that's really needed for most meetings.  There certainly are products available and designed specifcally to handle a large number of particpants simultaneously.  GoToMeeting is just one conferencing solution.   An example of a better tool is Infinite Conferencing (http://www.infiniteconferencing.com/index.php); designed and targeted for nonprofits.  A number of other true virtual meeting solutions for large groups also exist.   

With proper implementation and facilitation (key to any meeting but particularly important for virtual meetings), using these solutions is not an issue and much more cost effective than a weekend long face-to-face meeting. 

Bottom line:  I'm not opposed to an annual face-to-face get together, there is value in that.  However, done correctly, a virtual meeting can be just as effective and likely be held for less than a 1/4 of the cost.  This could allow for more frequent meetings or, perhaps better yet, simply savings to the organization.  Like every other business, this organization is going to have to figure out ways to conduct it's business in a more cost effective way.  That may mean limiting travel and capping (no pun intended) reimbursements.

Quote from: Larry Mangum on April 23, 2012, 01:01:10 PM
In 2004 when I first applied to be a Wing Commander, I was asked by the selection board, it I could afford the 10 to 14K a year that I would be out of pocket, if selected.  As a wing Commander I would have been expected to pay all of my own costs for travel and lodging while carrying out my duties.  I cannot imagine what the cost would be today.   But it is definitely high enough that many wings have now adopted financial policies that reimburse the wing commander for travel and lodging.

If it costs 10-14K for a member to be a Wing Commander there's a problem with how CAP is run.  I hear all to often that there's never enough qualified candidates for Wing Commander... Perhaps this is a problem... They also consider qualified to include $$$$.  I still say that if the Average joe working a 9-5 with two kids, wife, dog and a mini-van cant do CAP then its too complicated.  Just a comment, not trying to rock the boat.

Quote from: Nolan Teel on April 23, 2012, 02:09:31 PM

If it costs 10-14K for a member to be a Wing Commander there's a problem with how CAP is run.  I hear all to often that there's never enough qualified candidates for Wing Commander... Perhaps this is a problem... They also consider qualified to include $$$$.  I still say that if the Average joe working a 9-5 with two kids, wife, dog and a mini-van cant do CAP then its too complicated.  Just a comment, not trying to rock the boat.

Is it really unreasonable to pay travel expenses for Wing Commnaders that probably give up 25 weekends a year for Wing duties, Region Commanders that probably give up 30 weekends a year, or a National Commander that travels up to 50 weekends a year? Do we really want every candidate running CAP to be not the best possible candidates, but only those candidates that are retired and independently wealthy? I for one have given up most of my vacation time and many weekends to CAP as I try to work, keep my wife happy, support two kids in college, support my dog- but no minivan.

Should the requirement to volunteer for a National Committe emphasize ability to pay more than individuals knowledge and abilities.

I don't disagree that many non-profits use fund raising as a criterea for board positions, but do you really want the CAP command to be selected by the ability to buy their way on to the board?

I would hope that our higher ups would evaluate why they travel on corporate business before taking money earmarked for member training. Have a couple of teleconferences instead of the NEC meetings and the Winter National Boards. We all have to do more with less but the sacrifices must be shared by all.

Quote from: badger bob on April 23, 2012, 02:27:56 PM

Quote from: Nolan Teel on April 23, 2012, 02:09:31 PM

If it costs 10-14K for a member to be a Wing Commander there's a problem with how CAP is run.  I hear all to often that there's never enough qualified candidates for Wing Commander... Perhaps this is a problem... They also consider qualified to include $$$$.  I still say that if the Average joe working a 9-5 with two kids, wife, dog and a mini-van cant do CAP then its too complicated.  Just a comment, not trying to rock the boat.

Is it really unreasonable to pay travel expenses for Wing Commnaders that probably give up 25 weekends a year for Wing duties, Region Commanders that probably give up 30 weekends a year, or a National Commander that travels up to 50 weekends a year?

It could be.  The question needs to be asked and answered.   

Are we doing things efficiently or do we continue to operate as status quo simply because that's the way it's always been done?  In any case, reimbursement on travel certainly shouldn't be a blank check. 

As a member, I too have expenses.  Should I be reimbursed as well or do I just take the "tax deduction"?  Which expenses will be reimbursed?   For flying activities, reimbursement is well defined.   Provisions for reimbursement aren't nearly as defined anywhere else. 

Quote from: badger bob on April 23, 2012, 02:27:56 PMIs it really unreasonable to pay travel expenses for Wing Commnaders that probably give up 25 weekends a year for Wing duties, Region Commanders that probably give up 30 weekends a year, or a National Commander that travels up to 50 weekends a year?

My opinion is probably not, but that's just an opinion.

I think the answer is where to stop.  If we do it for a region commander, why not a wing commander?  Or a wing vice commander?  Perhaps we need it for a wing officer that travels a considerable distance from his home to wing HQ on a daily or weekly basis.

I suspect the real argument is that the criteria appears arbitrary.  There's nothing inherient about position A vs position B except seniority.

Wing and Region commanders already are reimbursed for travel.  This agenda item is for "National Staff".  I doubt if we really need to pay the recruiting and retention officer (just an example) to get to a National Board meeting.... Then again, maybe I should ask to be reimbursed for travel.  I can go as the National PITA officer. >:D

I don't expect that the folks assuming the positions are going to be personally wealthy, but would expect that the corporate officers be bringing in money to cover those expenses (i.e. a $2000.00 trip returns a $30,000.00 sponsorship, a new or renewed business arrangement, etc.)

Quote from: jimmydeanno on April 23, 2012, 05:01:55 PM
I don't expect that the folks assuming the positions are going to be personally wealthy, but would expect that the corporate officers be bringing in money to cover those expenses (i.e. a $2000.00 trip returns a $30,000.00 sponsorship, a new or renewed business arrangement, etc.)

^ As a general statement, that seems to be a reasonable expectation. 

Quote from: keystone102 on April 23, 2012, 12:51:08 PM
I don't know about you but I have never been reimbursed for travel to conferences. If anyone is, then I consider that "padding their pocket" when compared to other volunteers.

Yes, but you are not required to go to a conference as part of your CAP job, Wing Commanders are. 

Quote from: RiverAux on April 23, 2012, 06:49:59 PM

Quote from: keystone102 on April 23, 2012, 12:51:08 PM
I don't know about you but I have never been reimbursed for travel to conferences. If anyone is, then I consider that "padding their pocket" when compared to other volunteers.

Yes, but you are not required to go to a conference as part of your CAP job, Wing Commanders are.

Bingo!

If you're required to attend something at the request of the organization, then you should be reimbursed for your expenses for it.  I was asked to attend a course once at Maxwell, and my hotel and such were covered, and by God, I'm nowhere near being a Wing Commander.  The point is, the course was at the Wing's request, not mine.

Quote from: JeffDG on April 23, 2012, 06:55:53 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on April 23, 2012, 06:49:59 PM

Quote from: keystone102 on April 23, 2012, 12:51:08 PM
I don't know about you but I have never been reimbursed for travel to conferences. If anyone is, then I consider that "padding their pocket" when compared to other volunteers.

Yes, but you are not required to go to a conference as part of your CAP job, Wing Commanders are.

Bingo!

If you're required to attend something at the request of the organization, then you should be reimbursed for your expenses for it.  I was asked to attend a course once at Maxwell, and my hotel and such were covered, and by God, I'm nowhere near being a Wing Commander.  The point is, the course was at the Wing's request, not mine.

Let's be clear, theirs is no more a job than yours or mine - they are still volunteers; just like every other member. 

That said, if we want to play the "it's required for their job card", one of the requirements for Senior Member Level III is "d. Attend two wing, region, or national conferences."   Attendance may also be a requirement to attain certain specialty track ratings.  So, by the same logic, members should be reimbursed for attending those as well, right? 

Wings can already reimburse staff travel from corporate funds if the finance committee so chooses.

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 23, 2012, 07:49:34 PM
Wings can already reimburse staff travel from corporate funds if the finance committee so chooses.

And some due. Often it is a case of can the wing afford it and what does the wing FMP say about it.  Most now do so, but only if the wing is in good enough financial condition to be able to afford to; and not all wings are in good financial shape.

Quote from: A.Member on April 23, 2012, 07:46:43 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on April 23, 2012, 06:55:53 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on April 23, 2012, 06:49:59 PM

Quote from: keystone102 on April 23, 2012, 12:51:08 PM
I don't know about you but I have never been reimbursed for travel to conferences. If anyone is, then I consider that "padding their pocket" when compared to other volunteers.

Yes, but you are not required to go to a conference as part of your CAP job, Wing Commanders are.

Bingo!

If you're required to attend something at the request of the organization, then you should be reimbursed for your expenses for it.  I was asked to attend a course once at Maxwell, and my hotel and such were covered, and by God, I'm nowhere near being a Wing Commander.  The point is, the course was at the Wing's request, not mine.

Let's be clear, theirs is no more a job than yours or mine - they are still volunteers.   That said, if we want to play the "it's required for their job card", one of the requirements for Senior Member Level III is "d. Attend two wing, region, or national conferences."   It may also be a requirement to attain certain specialty track ratings.  So, should members be reimbursed for attending those?

No....because that requirment needs to be droped and getting Level III is something YOU want to do....not something YOU have to do.

Also.....Wing Commander is a LOT more job then just squadron staff member or even squadron commander.

Just look at the time requirments....
At least two NB week ends.
At least monthly Regional staff meetings...via telecon or in person
At least montly wing staff meetings
Wing conference, Regional conference.

Now add SAREX, encampment, visiting your squadrons once in a while....
Oh....and he should be meeting with his legilsators, EMS managers, National Guard, etc, etc. etc.

Same is true for the national volunteers.  No one is "padding" their wallets because CAP is paying for their travel.

Quote from: A.Member on April 23, 2012, 07:46:43 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on April 23, 2012, 06:55:53 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on April 23, 2012, 06:49:59 PM

Quote from: keystone102 on April 23, 2012, 12:51:08 PM
I don't know about you but I have never been reimbursed for travel to conferences. If anyone is, then I consider that "padding their pocket" when compared to other volunteers.

Yes, but you are not required to go to a conference as part of your CAP job, Wing Commanders are.

Bingo!

If you're required to attend something at the request of the organization, then you should be reimbursed for your expenses for it.  I was asked to attend a course once at Maxwell, and my hotel and such were covered, and by God, I'm nowhere near being a Wing Commander.  The point is, the course was at the Wing's request, not mine.

Let's be clear, theirs is no more a job than yours or mine - they are still volunteers; just like every other member. 

That said, if we want to play the "it's required for their job card", one of the requirements for Senior Member Level III is "d. Attend two wing, region, or national conferences."   Attendance may also be a requirement to attain certain specialty track ratings.  So, by the same logic, members should be reimbursed for attending those as well, right?

If the wing requires you to obtain your Level III, then yes.  I don't know of any who do.  That said, I would have no problem with Wing paying for transportation for those who are involved in giving presentations to a Wing Conference.  If the organization requests it, they should pay.

Wing Commanders are requested by the organization to attend NB meetings.  The organization should reimburse reasonable expenses incurred by the Wing Kings/Queens for such travel.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 23, 2012, 07:56:54 PM

Quote from: A.Member on April 23, 2012, 07:46:43 PM
Let's be clear, theirs is no more a job than yours or mine - they are still volunteers.   That said, if we want to play the "it's required for their job card", one of the requirements for Senior Member Level III is "d. Attend two wing, region, or national conferences."   It may also be a requirement to attain certain specialty track ratings.  So, should members be reimbursed for attending those?

No....because that requirment needs to be droped and getting Level III is something YOU want to do....not something YOU have to do.

Regardless of your feelings on the requirement, that is the requirement per CAPR 50-17.   

As for being optional, it's all optional.   They're just as much a volunteer as every other member.  The requirements for the position are well stated.   It's up to each individual to determine if they want to acheive the given level.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 23, 2012, 07:56:54 PMAlso.....Wing Commander is a LOT more job then just squadron staff member or even squadron commander.

Perhaps they have more responsibility but if they have an effective staff, the work need not be significantly greater.  Again, we all make choices.  It's a volunteer organization.

Quote from: JeffDG on April 23, 2012, 08:07:18 PM

Quote from: A.Member on April 23, 2012, 07:46:43 PM
Let's be clear, theirs is no more a job than yours or mine - they are still volunteers; just like every other member. 

That said, if we want to play the "it's required for their job card", one of the requirements for Senior Member Level III is "d. Attend two wing, region, or national conferences."   Attendance may also be a requirement to attain certain specialty track ratings.  So, by the same logic, members should be reimbursed for attending those as well, right?

If the wing requires you to obtain your Level III, then yes.  I don't know of any who do.

Again, they all should given that it's a requirement of CAPR 50-17.

Quote from: JeffDG on April 23, 2012, 08:07:18 PMThat said, I would have no problem with Wing paying for transportation for those who are involved in giving presentations to a Wing Conference.  If the organization requests it, they should pay.

Wing Commanders are requested by the organization to attend NB meetings.  The organization should reimburse reasonable expenses incurred by the Wing Kings/Queens for such travel.

So, if you're reimbursing people for expenses, what is the limit?  Where is your reimbursement policy?   Will you reimburse me for a $500 per night room in Washington D.C. or NYC? 

So, I guess our pilots need to start paying for the fuel for CAP airplanes out of their own pocket?  After all, they're volunteering to fly, no one is making them do it.

Oh and by the way there is a big difference between asking a regular CAP member to maybe travel to a couple of weekend events over the course of their CAP career in order to get promoted and asking people to fly (in many cases) across the country for multi-day stays in hotels several times a year for up to 4 years. 

Quote from: A.Member on April 23, 2012, 08:37:37 PMSo, if you're reimbursing people for expenses, are they still volunteers or are they now employees?

Expense reinstatement does not change your status in the volunteer vs. employee paradigm.

It might surprise you that per diem and RON are spelled out for missions and SAREx's as well.

Expense reimbursement basically keeps a person "whole" - they are neither enriched, nor made "less" financially for their assistance.

Quote from: RiverAux on April 23, 2012, 08:40:12 PM
So, I guess our pilots need to start paying for the fuel for CAP airplanes out of their own pocket?  After all, they're volunteering to fly, no one is making them do it.

Are you serious?  Outside of a funded mission, how do you think it works today?

Quote from: Eclipse on April 23, 2012, 08:47:03 PM

Quote from: A.Member on April 23, 2012, 08:37:37 PMSo, if you're reimbursing people for expenses, are they still volunteers or are they now employees?

Expense reinstatement does not change your status in the volunteer vs. employee paradigm.

Yeah, I retracted that statement prior to your response realizing that was how it may be taken.  That wasn't quite my intent.

Quote from: A.Member on April 23, 2012, 09:06:41 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on April 23, 2012, 08:40:12 PM
So, I guess our pilots need to start paying for the fuel for CAP airplanes out of their own pocket?  After all, they're volunteering to fly, no one is making them do it.

Are you serious?  Outside of a funded mission, how do you think it works today?

If they want to rent the airplane, thats up to them.  No one makes them do it. 

Quote from: RiverAux on April 23, 2012, 09:14:57 PM

Quote from: A.Member on April 23, 2012, 09:06:41 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on April 23, 2012, 08:40:12 PM
So, I guess our pilots need to start paying for the fuel for CAP airplanes out of their own pocket?  After all, they're volunteering to fly, no one is making them do it.

Are you serious?  Outside of a funded mission, how do you think it works today?

If they want to rent the airplane, thats up to them.  No one makes them do it.

Exactly.   They volunteer their time and money to maintain proficiency so that the organization can continue meeting it's mission objectives.

I have no problem for CAP financing the travel expenses for National Officers, Region Commanders and, at least to some extent, Wing Commanders (wing commanders have wing dues to exploit use for business expenses).  I do have a problem with reimbursing national staff to attend meetings when, they could easily give their reports to the appropriate national DCS for presentation.  Yes, on certain occasions they need to be at a meeting and, then, should be reimbursed.  CAP already budgets about $60,000 for staff travel.  It should be noted we already spend 4.5% of our corporate budget on travel for all national officers and staff. The $25,000 from Vangard would only raise the line item to 5%.  I don't think this should be the issue.

I think the issue is: should the NEC add to the travel budget from funds marked for programs when, there is no real need for "more" staff travel.  IMHO, no.

In my experience, people who think that business travel as a "perk" have never done much of it.

Well, recommendations are in...

http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?cap_board_of_governors_completes_review_of_governance_committee_recommendations&show=news&newsID=12936 (http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?cap_board_of_governors_completes_review_of_governance_committee_recommendations&show=news&newsID=12936)

Quote from: NCRblues on April 23, 2012, 10:26:06 PM

Well, recommendations are in...

http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?cap_board_of_governors_completes_review_of_governance_committee_recommendations&show=news&newsID=12936 (http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?cap_board_of_governors_completes_review_of_governance_committee_recommendations&show=news&newsID=12936)

Yes, but nothing lists what the recommendation were

Quote from: captdomke on April 23, 2012, 10:31:43 PM

Quote from: NCRblues on April 23, 2012, 10:26:06 PM

Well, recommendations are in...

http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?cap_board_of_governors_completes_review_of_governance_committee_recommendations&show=news&newsID=12936 (http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?cap_board_of_governors_completes_review_of_governance_committee_recommendations&show=news&newsID=12936)

Yes, but nothing lists what the recommendation were

I know, shocking right?

Let's put this into context for a second...

Let's say I want to have a fund raiser to buy widgets for the squadron. I would go to the squadron members and ask for their input. Then, I would take that input, formulate a plan, and forward it up my chain to the final approver. Only when has the wing commander signed off on it would I say to the squadron "OK, we're going to have X fundraiser on Y date." Why? Because for every person that has to sign off, plans can change and I don't want to jerk my people around.

It's not like you have any control over it at this point. Just let it go and see what happens.

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 23, 2012, 10:38:32 PM

It's not like you have any control over it at this point. Just let it go and see what happens.

That is all good and well, but if you promised to keep the squadron members in the loop and make your quest to buy widgets transparent and then told them nothing of what was going on would you not expect some backlash or raised eyebrows?

The BOG should not have promised something they could not, and knew they would never keep, transparency.

Quote from: NCRblues on April 23, 2012, 10:34:13 PM

Quote from: captdomke on April 23, 2012, 10:31:43 PM

Quote from: NCRblues on April 23, 2012, 10:26:06 PM

Well, recommendations are in...

http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?cap_board_of_governors_completes_review_of_governance_committee_recommendations&show=news&newsID=12936 (http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?cap_board_of_governors_completes_review_of_governance_committee_recommendations&show=news&newsID=12936)

Yes, but nothing lists what the recommendation were

Because we intend to brief the SECAF in the next month before further releasing our predecisional recommendations.

The Secretary should hear it from us before hearing it on the street.  We are anxious to hear any guidance the Secretary and the Air Staff may have on the recommendations.


To recap the sequence of events, for some time it has been apparent that there has been some confusion as to the relative roles and relatioships of the muliple CAP governing bodies and officers, specifically the BoB, NEC, NB, National Commander, and Executive Director.  There are a lot of historical and other reasons for this, but it has been a growing concern not only for us, but for our AF colleagues.

Over a year ago, the NB appointed a Governance Committee to address the issue and develop recommendations.  They did so and briefed the NB in an executive session at the winter 2011 boards.  I was present at the meeting and bound by confidentiality agreement (as was everyone else at the meeting), but it is safe to say that there was not a complete consensus on the recommendations amongst the NB.

Since I joined the BoG in May of 2010, there has been a growing concern over these same issues, and since the BoG has the ultimate responsiblity for the C&BL, after trying to find an agency or university to do it pro bono, we bid out and  hired an outside contractor to do a governance audit and recommend best practices for CAP governance.  As you may recall, the winning bidder,  BoardSource, actually sought out individual member comments and suggestions as part of their process.  They considered and incorporated every single comment into their report, which was delivered to the BoG about five months ago in December. 

At our December meeting, the BoG appointed a BoG Governance Committee to study the report and make recommendations to the full BoG.  The committee consisted of two retired AF general officers and Maj Gen Carr.  As part of their process, the BoG Governance Committee provided the Boardsource report to the NB Governance Committee and asked them (NB committee) to comment on the Boardsource recommendations.  After receiving detailed comments from the NB Committee, the BoG Governance Committee prepared a fairly comprehensive set of recommendations for the full BoG to consder.  Tracking the Boardsource recommendations, the BoG Committee recommended accepting some outright, modifying some a little, and modifying several significantly.

Then, yesterday and today, the full BoG went over the recommendations one by one.  Most were accepted, several were modified and at the end of the meeting we had accepted the committee report with modifications and adopted them as our predecisional recommendations going forward.  Now, just like the press release indicates, we are going to brief the SECAF and other senior AF officials and ask for their input.  We have done a little schedule pre-coordination and hope to get onto the Secretary's schedule within the next month.  But the Secretary is a busy guy.

If we have all done our homework correctly, with any luck the Secretary will have little additional guidance.  On the other hand, he may ask that we go back to the drawing board and address some issues of special concern to our AF colleagues.

So, after the recommendations have been reviewed by the AF, we will have a better sense of the schedule.

In terms of openess and trasparency, I honestly don't think we have been doing a bad job.  In reaching our recommendations, we have considered extensive input from senior CAP leaders (the original NB governance report, and the feedback by the senior CAP leadership on the Boardsource report which was released to them), our outside consultants (whose general corporate governance philosphy is available on their webpages), and hundreds of comments and suggestions from any member that chose to comment as part of the BoardSource process.

And as of today, the BoG finally has a set of recommendations.  We will now ask for input on these recommendations from the Secretary and his staff.  We are hopeful that will be given within the month, but there are no guarantees, of course.  As a professional courtesy to the Secretary, we are not releasing the recommendations (or the supporting materials) until he has had a chance to review them and provide any guidance he chooses to give.

We have made public statements and press releases at each stage of the proceedings (when we announced the contract, when we received the report, and today when we arrived at a set of recommendations).  We released the statements on our website, FaceBook, and Twitter accounts to reach as many members and stakeholders as we could.

And of course, you have had me to kick around here on CAPTalk.

Questions?

Quote from: A.Member on April 23, 2012, 01:39:54 PM

Quote from: Ned on April 22, 2012, 02:05:35 AM
1.  Since I have been on the BoG, we have met on conference call for about half of our meetings.  Usually we conference call special meetings with just one or two agenda items.  (The NEC does the same thing for their special meetings.)  Trying to do a full-day (or more) confernce call  for a regular meeting is a bit of a logistical issue.

On a timely note, since UAL cancelled my flight yesterday to this weekend's BoG meeting (and could not find me another seat on any other airline from any SF-area airport to DC!!!!), I just spent not quite 11 hours on the speakerphone in my den trying to create a successful future governance model for CAP. 

I didn't die, I suppose.  And CAP saved airfare and a hotel room to the tune of about $600 or so.  (Assuming United refunds my "non-refundable" advance fare.)

But it sure wasn't the same thing as being in the room. 

Thanks Ned for all the details... I know from me personally, I just wanted to know what the recommendations were. I'm guessing they will be released at a later date so we can all see. It would be nice if the news story would at least say something along those lines so people aren't left wondering.

Quote from: Ned on April 23, 2012, 11:34:54 PM
Questions?

Yes, and I am genuinely confused about this one.

Is the boardsource report going to be released to the membership before everything is done?

I was under the impression that we were waiting on the BOG to come up with recommendations and once you had, we would get to see the report. So, is it now that we will not get to see the report?

I am not interested in seeing the recommendations; I am interested in seeing what an outside corporation thought of our structure. Was this even talked about or is it going to be held back until everything is completed and we will get to read it after?

I am not truing to stir anything up, I just am confused at the lack of the report being released.

We spent a fair amount of time this morning discussing the timing of the release of various things, including the BoardSource report.  We understand that there are many members, from senior leaders down to and including hard-working folks at the squadron who are interested in the report.  Not to mention the original NB Governance Committee recommendations, and their specific comments on the Boardsource recommendations.

And now, of course, the "official" BoG recommendations that we arrived at earlier today.

But after hearing from the BoG members with experience at the highest levels of AF management, we came to a solid consensus that it would be discourteous and unwise to release our recommendations publicly before we briefed the Secretary and received his feedback.  And that includes the supporting materials and specifically the BoardSource report.

I have no problem with the BoG giving its reccomendatins to the SECAF before finalization.  It makes total sense.  However, Ned brings up some issues which, if you do your homework, may find the answers beforehand.  I suggest to those interested to read the SOW and Cooperative Agreement.  I would also suggest you read all AFI's regarding the relationship between the BoG, AF and, CAP.  I can't be certain, however, I think we're about to see some significant governance changes and, a well defined chain of authority between all the boards; along with the authority of the EX.