Benefits of a USAF Officer CAP/CC

[JeffDG]

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

Interesting...

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

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

[flyboy53]

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

Interesting...

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

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

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

[FW]

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

[ZigZag911]

Kach's suggestion is intriguing.

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

[BillB]

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

[JeffDG]

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

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

[jimmydeanno]

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

[JeffDG]

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

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

[FW]

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

[RADIOMAN015]

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

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

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

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

RM   

[arajca]

Per their web page, gee I didn't think they had 350 active military & civil servants overseeing CAP

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

[Ned]

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

Off the top of my head:


Advantages:

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

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



Disadvantages:

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

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

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


Definately worth considering.

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

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

Or having the ED select the volunteer National Commander. 


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

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

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

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

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

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

[FW]

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

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

[NC Hokie]

Disadvantages:

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

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

[flyboy53]

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

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

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

[RiverAux]

Rather, I wonder what would happenb if we as an organization were to achieve an Air Force standard in another part of our program. We're already at that level with Chaplains.

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

[JohnKachenmeister]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ned]

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

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

What am I missing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rest could work.

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

[JohnKachenmeister]

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

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

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

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