Benefits of a USAF Officer CAP/CC

[JeffDG]

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

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

Stay tuned.

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

[NCRblues]

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

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

Stay tuned.

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

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

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

100k = lots o money...

[FW]

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

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

[MICT1362]

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

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

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

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

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

-Paramedic

[JeffDG]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ned]

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

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

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

100k = lots o money...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like I said, stay tuned.

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

[bosshawk]

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

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

[Eclipse]

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

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

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

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

[FW]

As has been mentioned, the biggest hurdle to overcome will be the "colonel-centricity" of the NB in deciding what to do after the study is complete.

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

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

They possibly could but, it wouldn't be free

[JeffDG]

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

Sometimes, you get what you pay for.

[Ned]

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

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

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

[FW]

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

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

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

100k = lots o money...

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

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

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

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

[ZigZag911]

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

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

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

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

[Major Carrales]

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

[JeffDG]

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

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

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

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

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

[RiverAux]

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

[Major Carrales]

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

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

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

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


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

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

[RiverAux]

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

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

[Major Carrales]

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

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

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

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

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

[Eclipse]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need JJ Abrahms.