May 2012 NEC agenda

[lordmonar]

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.

[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.

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.

[A.Member]

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.

Also.....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.

[A.Member]

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.

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.

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? 

[RiverAux]

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. 

[Eclipse]

So, 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.

[A.Member]

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?

[A.Member]

So, 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.

[RiverAux]

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. 

[A.Member]

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.

[FW]

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.

[JeffDG]

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

[NCRblues]

Well, recommendations are in...

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

[majdomke]

Well, recommendations are in...

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

[NCRblues]

Well, recommendations are in...

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?

[Spaceman3750]

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.

[NCRblues]

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.

[Ned]

Well, recommendations are in...

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?

[Ned]

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. 

[majdomke]

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.