Main Menu

CSAG May Meeting Agenda

Started by arajca, April 12, 2013, 10:49:12 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lordmonar

Quote from: NC Hokie on April 20, 2013, 02:39:34 PM
Quote from: BillB on April 20, 2013, 10:25:17 AM
The existing system for termination is valuable to both the member and the organization, but needs to be followed exactly as provided in the regulation, which often is not the case.

IMHO, the problem with this is that the system only provides relief to those who were wronged, with no requirement to actually punish those who abuse the system. Kicking a wing commander (for example) out of CAP after an overturned attempt to railroad another member would send a powerful message that these shenanigans will no longer be tolerated.
That would be true if we could proved that the railroading was malicious....as it was sometimes.....but as we know....we are still in a new era of CAP.  The old paradigm is gone.  The National Commander no longer has to curry favor from his regional and wing commanders to affect the changes he/she wants.  He no longer has to get their consent to do what is right for the organisation.  Regional and wing commanders can't work they system to their own political ends.

Which was part and parcel of why the old system was so corrupt.

In the last few years it seems to me, that the 2b system is working more or less like it is supposed to.   Yes it still needs some work....but it is getting better and will continue to get better as we continue to challend our leaders to do what is right and follow the regs.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Private Investigator

Quote from: BillB on April 20, 2013, 10:25:17 AM
On the subject of 2B I agree with both Ned and Patrick. With Ptrick in that the 2B is not used enough to weed out the undesirables or used where other methods of corecting behavior fail.

The majority of the 2B types should have never got beyond the Unit Membership Board. Junior may be a good Cadet but do we really need their parents as Senior Members where it is obvious they have some issues? I see lots of parents get into CAP for the same reason they want to be involved in Little League. If your a coach or the team mom, Junior will not seat on the bench. They think CAP is the same thing. 


FW

Quote from: lordmonar on April 20, 2013, 04:04:28 PM
Quote from: NC Hokie on April 20, 2013, 02:39:34 PM
Quote from: BillB on April 20, 2013, 10:25:17 AM
The existing system for termination is valuable to both the member and the organization, but needs to be followed exactly as provided in the regulation, which often is not the case.

IMHO, the problem with this is that the system only provides relief to those who were wronged, with no requirement to actually punish those who abuse the system. Kicking a wing commander (for example) out of CAP after an overturned attempt to railroad another member would send a powerful message that these shenanigans will no longer be tolerated.
That would be true if we could proved that the railroading was malicious....as it was sometimes.....but as we know....we are still in a new era of CAP.  The old paradigm is gone.  The National Commander no longer has to curry favor from his regional and wing commanders to affect the changes he/she wants.  He no longer has to get their consent to do what is right for the organisation.  Regional and wing commanders can't work they system to their own political ends.

Which was part and parcel of why the old system was so corrupt.

In the last few years it seems to me, that the 2b system is working more or less like it is supposed to.   Yes it still needs some work....but it is getting better and will continue to get better as we continue to challend our leaders to do what is right and follow the regs.


I agree. The current governance gives the MARP a level of independence not seen under the old system.  The MARB was supposed to be independent however, as seen, could be manipulated out of existence when a ruling or two went against the National Commander and/or a region commander. 


This "manipulation" can no longer happen.  And, if the BoG accepts the idea of further MARP authority when conducting appeals, will give greater protection to the membership and CAP's credibility. Membership termination procedures now can be followed through for the benefit of all concerned.

The CyBorg is destroyed

#163
Perhaps I should have not used such strong language to describe the 2B and I do apologise to Colonel Ned Lee.

When I first joined CAP, 2B was presented to me as something along the line of the Sword of Damocles, or the Tantalus Field in one of my favourite Star Trek episodes, "Mirror Mirror."

http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Tantalus_field

The saying was "2B or not 2B," and it was described to me as something that anyone up the food chain from you could use at any time, for any reason (kind of like the concept of "employment-at-will"), to make you disappear from CAP and put a permanent black mark on your record to keep you from ever rejoining.

A CAP Chaplain told me that it was once attempted against him by a squadron CC who didn't like something he said and if not for a Wing Commander who valued this Chaplain rescinding it, he would have been gone from CAP.

However, there is one thing I have often wondered:

If you were confronted with a patently, clearly unjust 2B, would you fight it or would you just see that as a signal to leave before being kicked out?
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

JeffDG

Quote from: NC Hokie on April 20, 2013, 02:39:34 PM
Quote from: BillB on April 20, 2013, 10:25:17 AM
The existing system for termination is valuable to both the member and the organization, but needs to be followed exactly as provided in the regulation, which often is not the case.

IMHO, the problem with this is that the system only provides relief to those who were wronged, with no requirement to actually punish those who abuse the system. Kicking a wing commander (for example) out of CAP after an overturned attempt to railroad another member would send a powerful message that these shenanigans will no longer be tolerated.
Or, and this is just an example, a Region Commander for multiple attempts to run out a Wing Commander being overturned...nah, something like that would never happen in the real world.

Phil Hirons, Jr.

Quote from: BillB on April 20, 2013, 10:25:17 AM
To an extent this refers back to what many in CAP have said, the "IG system is broken". When one Region goes 10 months without an IG assigned, or the IG has to fear being removed if he/she does not follow what a Wing Commander or higher wants, the system is broken.

It took 10 months to find a Region IG? Did the IG program suffer in the region? I'd guess all the Wing IGs were in place and neighboring region IGs could help.

Quote from: CAPR 123-1 para 6 d
"Inspectors general may be removed by the commander only with the concurrence of the next higher commander."

So in the case you state the Wing and Region Commander would need to agree on the removal. This is a good deal of protection for keeping the IGs independent once assigned. Is it perfect? No, human beings are involved, therefore it can not be.

The IG program has changed a lot in the last few years. Some of the people saying, "I'll never use IG system again." should reconsider.

There is a quote I use in my IG presentation to the squadrons in my wing. It paraphrases a quote from King Charles I in about 1629 .

Quote from: Former CAP / IG, Duddly Hargrove
"The IG must have a computer and  e-mail and some lawyers to help him and all the rest should cooperate and assist, or else the Civil Air Patrol will suffer.  For the IG is but one and must correct many, therefore, he PROBABLY WILL NOT be beloved ..."







Phil Hirons, Jr.

Quote from: JeffDG on April 20, 2013, 05:55:51 PM
Or, and this is just an example, a Region Commander for multiple attempts to run out a Wing Commander being overturned...nah, something like that would never happen in the real world.

That sounds somewhat familiar.  ;D ;D

lordmonar

Quote from: CyBorg on April 20, 2013, 05:26:21 PM
A CAP Chaplain told me that it was once attempted against him by a squadron CC who didn't like something he said and if not for a Wing Commander who valued this Chaplain rescinding it, he would have been gone from CAP.
So the system worked after a fashion.

QuoteHowever, there is one thing I have often wondered:

If you were confronted with a patently, clearly unjust 2B, would you fight it or would you just see that as a signal to leave before being kicked out?
Our core values are integrinty first, Excellance in all we do, Vounteer Service and Respect.

If I was offered a bogus 2B.....my answer would be....give it your best shot.   I would appeal to the wing CC as per my right and the regulations and if I failed there to go to the MARB.

As we have advised you about your promotion.....if you feel you truely deserve the promotion....fight for it.  They can't 2b you simply for following the chain of command to resolve a greivance,  They can't order you to drop it, they can't tell you to drop it, they can't tell you to shut up.

Follow the chain, be respectful, give each echelon a legetimate amount of time to respond to you......but fight it.

If the 2b you on some bogus charge......well that is just more ammo for you to win both the MARB and getting your promotion.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

flyboy53

#168
Quote from: lordmonar on April 20, 2013, 08:06:17 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on April 20, 2013, 05:26:21 PM
A CAP Chaplain told me that it was once attempted against him by a squadron CC who didn't like something he said and if not for a Wing Commander who valued this Chaplain rescinding it, he would have been gone from CAP.
So the system worked after a fashion.

QuoteHowever, there is one thing I have often wondered:

If you were confronted with a patently, clearly unjust 2B, would you fight it or would you just see that as a signal to leave before being kicked out?
Our core values are integrinty first, Excellance in all we do, Vounteer Service and Respect.

If I was offered a bogus 2B.....my answer would be....give it your best shot.   I would appeal to the wing CC as per my right and the regulations and if I failed there to go to the MARB.

As we have advised you about your promotion.....if you feel you truely deserve the promotion....fight for it.  They can't 2b you simply for following the chain of command to resolve a greivance,  They can't order you to drop it, they can't tell you to drop it, they can't tell you to shut up.

Follow the chain, be respectful, give each echelon a legetimate amount of time to respond to you......but fight it.

If the 2b you on some bogus charge......well that is just more ammo for you to win both the MARB and getting your promotion.

Remember that a 2B doesn't always mean that someone is booted out of CAP -- at least that was my experience as a group commander. In my first year, I dealt with three. None of them resulted in being booted from the organization. Two were senior members ultimately reduced in grade and one was a cadet who ended up being suspended long enough that it derailed ALL of his career options (milestone testing).

The cadet was the one that bugged me the most. He disrespected senior officers and when the investigation was completed, it was determined that most of his ES qualifications were fake -- talk about a train wreck leading other cadets. He actually transitioned to senior member status but could never be promoted commenserate with the cadet milestone awards he achieved. He stayed a SMWOG until his membership expired.

In all three incidents, none are now CAP members by their own choice.

High Speed Low Drag

Having close knowledge of the 2B system, I think the changes brought in the past year are good, fair changes.
As far as the MARP, remember in this very CSAG agenda is a proposal to water down MARP's authority - the language used in the proposal is

"In recent actions the MARP seems to have acted as an advocate for the appellant by waiving the appellant’s requirement to file in a timely manner, yet holding the decision making body to strict compliance with CAP procedures as well as presuming the members of the deciding body were prejudicial."

The propsal wants to eliminate the MARP's ability to hold hearings as well as deleting the word adjudication.

So there is a proposal to tilt the balance of power away from the MARP and to the commanders, the very commanders that many have talked about on the board. Here is my take - if what the member did was so bad that they were 2b'd, why would any commander be afraid to have their actions looked at? What is right is right - so if their actions were right - why are should they be worried that the MARP looks at it from the member side as well as the command side? If their actions are borderline - well - our legal system is "innocent until proven guilty." Shouldn't our 2b system be the same way - "member until proven you should not be a member"?

The MARP should be member-sensitive (notice I did not say member-friendly). What the CSAG proposal is saying is “The MARP should rubber-stamp all 2Bs unless there is overwhelming evidence that the member is not guilty.” When it should be “The MAPR should objectively examine all evidence, be able to hold a hearing to clear up possible confusion and gain clarity of evidence, and reach a decision that is fair and just to CAP and the member.”

I also think an idea that was mentioned earlier has merit - if a 2B is overturned by the MARP, it should trigger a review of the commander initiating the 2B: a Region Commander for Squadron / Group Commanders and National Commander for Wing / Region Commanders.  That would hold the commanders accountable for their actions and help insure the integrity of the 2B process.  Again, if the commanders can justify their actions, they should not be afraid.  If they cannot justify their actions, they should not have instituted a 2B to begin with.  I am not saying remove the commander, but that ithe commander should be reviewed and perhaps given some training (this is how you can handle similar situations in the future), given a warning (this is not acceptable for a person in your position, if this happens again there may be action brought against you) etc.  Just as there should be a progression of discipline PRIOR to most 2Bs, there should be a progression with the commanders.

Which brings up something else - there should be training in the use, and type, of discipline with members.  There should be a codified (either regulation or pamphlet) means of progressive discipline.  This would help standardize discipline across CAP, as well as give members a more clearly defines set of expectations.  This would also be a partial answer to the CSAG proposal’s points - not strip the MARP of power, but to give commander a more airtight case when it goes to MARP.  If a commander can show that they followed the recommended progression of discipline and STILL have to 2B a person, chances are far more likely that the action will be upheld and will not be viewed as arbitrary and capricious.
G. St. Pierre                             

"WIWAC, we marched 5 miles every meeting, uphill both ways!!"

LGM30GMCC

To me the issue described in the paragraph you quoted is something different than a desire to 'rubber stamp' all 2Bs.

'waiving the appellant's requirement to file in a timely manner, yet holding...' To me the complaint is there is a double standard: That is, that members under review don't have to follow the letter of the regulation but initiating commanders do. This could create a situation where someone could 'get off' on a technicality. ('Well you did haze a cadet...but the commander didn't send the letter until X+1 days...so guess you're back in!' for commanders while members get a 'Oh, the mean commander 2b'd you but you were 5 days past the deadline to take it up the chain, that's ok. You must not have understood the process.') Whether this is true or not, I don't know. I don't pay attention to that level of personnel decisions.

I definitely agree with more training for commanders (part of UCC, and I think UCC should be mandatory...probably before assuming command, but hey. And I realize that opens an entirely different can of worms, not going there) and perhaps codified rising disciplinary actions. (At least LOC's, LOA's, LOR's etc. They do have their benefits and drawbacks.) That being said, a lot of disciplinary actions are blunt objects. They should be the last resorts a commander is falling back on. (While every order I give on active duty is backed up by the power of the UCMJ, you can bet I didn't give LOC's or more every time one of subordinates didn't do what I told them to do or something like that)

OldGuard

Quote from: LGM30GMCC on April 21, 2013, 04:07:58 PM
I think UCC should be mandatory.

California Wing supplement to CAPR 50-17 (10 APR 2013)

2-1.b.(11) Added. Unit Commanders Course. CAPR 50-17 indicates the availability of
training material online to support a Unit Commanders Course, but does not address any
requirement for course completion. California Wing has made this training mandatory for all
new unit commanders. Therefore, the following requirement is applicable to all members of
California Wing who aspire to assume unit command positions.

(a) It is the policy of California Wing that all subordinate unit commanders attend the Unit
Commanders Course during the first year after assuming command, unless previously
completed. A waiver may be requested by the group commander with approval of the wing
commander for an additional 12 months.

(b) Since trained squadron commanders are an asset to their Group, the Groups will pay all
course fees for incumbent commanders or those selected for appointment. Other senior members
may take the course at their own expense when space is available.
Eaker#000 Earhart #8175 Mitchell#21034