Benefits of a USAF Officer CAP/CC

[JeffDG]

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

Jack

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

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

[RiverAux]

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

[Earhart1971]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Eclipse]

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

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

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

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

[Earhart1971]

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

We are simply re - arranging DECK CHAIRS.

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

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

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

[Eclipse]

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

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

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

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

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

[NCRblues]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Earhart1971]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Spaceman3750]

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, here's the deal...

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

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

[RiverAux]

An educator is a certified/licensed professional who creates curriculum, plans classes, provides assessment, and is constantly adapting to changing conditions inside the classroom and out.

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

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

[NCRblues]

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

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

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

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

Youth is not always a bad thing....

[Earhart1971]

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

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

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

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

[Mustang]

Indeed, our current CAP-USAF commander was just selected for a prestigious follow-on command assignment as an operations group commander.

Thank you, Jesus!  Can I help him pack?

[Mustang]

  My ideal candidate would be a retired USAF or other military officer with substantial CAP experience.

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

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

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

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

Jack

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

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

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

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

I did and received the following replies:

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

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

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

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

[BuckeyeDEJ]

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

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

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

[Ned]

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

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

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

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

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

[JeffDG]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ned]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay tuned.

[FW]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay tuned.

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

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

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