May 2012 NEC agenda

[flyboy53]

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.....

[FW]

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?

[flyboy53]

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.

[RiverAux]

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. 

[keystone102]

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.

[Larry Mangum]

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.

[A.Member]

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.

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; 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.

[Nolan Teel]

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.

[badger bob]

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?

[keystone102]

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.

[A.Member]

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. 

[bflynn]

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?

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.

[FW]

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.

[jimmydeanno]

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.)

[A.Member]

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. 

[RiverAux]

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. 

[JeffDG]

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.

[A.Member]

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? 

[Spaceman3750]

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

[Larry Mangum]

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.