CAP Public Trust Task Force

[stratoflyer]

Should be interesting to see how all this turns out.

[FlexCoder]

Agreed RiverAux!  As long as they keep the communication lines open & the actions of the task force are conducted in fairness, we will continue to see change as a catalyst rather than a curse. 

[wingnut55]

We may have some serious problems

1. Do we have a response time issue when AFRCC calls for help?
2. Do we actually need or use the 350 aircraft nation wide?
3. Has multimillion dollar programs been funded by Congress and the outcomes
    been questionable, or a failure?
4. What is the actual percentages of every dollar given by Congress used for
    Administration versus the field.
5.What are the Actual percentages of saves versus cost.

I know some of you will blast me, too bad!! I have not touched some real issues that I am aware of.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I am not sure what to make of this.

As far as "Corporate" types, are there any CAP members working as executives at AIG?  My point being, I am not sure that private corporations are in a position to tell anyone anything about "Public trust."

CAP seems to be fascinated with being a "Corporation," and enamored with the "Corporate mystique."  Frankly, I'm not sure how many of us volunteer our time for the honor of being unpaid employees of a non-profit corporation.

Maybe, in the interest of "Public trust," we should get back to our roots as a paramilitary organization, quit talking like Wall Street executives, and be proud of being the auxiliary of the finest air force in the world.  An air force, by the way, which engenders WAY more public trust than any corporation in history.

[Timbo]

^ Well put Major K. 

Lets not forget, Corporate types are employed to grow a business and make money for said business.  Are we needing to be like them?  Yes and no.  We do need to grow, and that takes each of us, getting out there and actively recruiting.  No, in that our mission is not to make money.  The only shareholders we need to make happy are the USAF, and our Congressional types that award us our money.  We have both of those groups taken care of.  We have a Corporate Office in DC, which is supposed to be engaging with lawmakers, and we have a HQ filled with Staffers that should be interfacing with the AF.

I see no point in creating yet another group to address things that seem to be getting addressed.

Maybe I took a totally different view of this, but there really was not much to go on to form a definitive opinion.

[PHall]

We may have some serious problems

1. Do we have a response time issue when AFRCC calls for help?
2. Do we actually need or use the 350 aircraft nation wide?
3. Has multimillion dollar programs been funded by Congress and the outcomes
    been questionable, or a failure?
4. What is the actual percentages of every dollar given by Congress used for
    Administration versus the field.
5.What are the Actual percentages of saves versus cost.

I know some of you will blast me, too bad!! I have not touched some real issues that I am aware of.

Blast you for what?  Those are all perfectally good questions. One's that if the OMB has not asked them, they should.

[James Shaw]

I personally see this as another effort to foster the Transparent Organization. I am intriqued by it and believe I will apply. I have been involved and effected by both sides of the CAP public trust issue.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I personally see this as another effort to foster the Transparent Organization. I am intriqued by it and believe I will apply. I have been involved and effected by both sides of the CAP public trust issue.

Jim:

I would like to agree with you, but I can't quite figure out of this "Transparency" is an open window or window dressing.

I just don't know what "Corporate" types would have to offer in the way of enhancing public trust.  Frankly, corporations have not been good stewards of the public trust, and looking to them for guidance is a like having the Governor of Illinois give a Moral Leadership class.

[RiverAux]

Members with experience in corporate governance, corporate law or service as corporate board members are preferred

I just don't get why some of you are getting so hung up over the phrase above.  CAP is a corporation, with a corporate structure so having someone familiar with how such organizations work would seem to be a benefit.  After all, there is nothing preventing the local hospital janitor from being the National Commander. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

River:

If you don't get why I am confused by the idea of corporate types telling us how to improve our public trust, then you must not have been paying attention to the news.

Try asking 10 random people if American corporations are trusted by the American people. 

[Timbo]

Try asking 10 random people if American corporations are trusted by the American people. 

Don't want to answer for anyone else, but according to a recent CNN/Washington Post poll.....70 percent of Americans don't trust ANYONE working for a Corporation.

Anyway.  This is just a waste of time, resources and money.  We can spend all three on better issues.  Who are we really trying to win over here??  Congress....they give us the money already.  America populace....most don't even know what CAP is.  The new President.....probably not.  The new Air Force Leadership.....most likely.  They may see CAP as a waste of $$ they could be spending on building a new jet. 

Just my stupid opinion. 

[James Shaw]

Jim:

I would like to agree with you, but I can't quite figure out of this "Transparency" is an open window or window dressing.

I just don't know what "Corporate" types would have to offer in the way of enhancing public trust.  Frankly, corporations have not been good stewards of the public trust, and looking to them for guidance is a like having the Governor of Illinois give a Moral Leadership class.
[/quote]

John,

I have been a member of the National Commanders Squadron during the most recent, former National Commander and the current National Commander. I can only speak for myself but this is my take. The demeanor and approach of the prior NC was very secretive and there was always a hint or feeling that something was going on in the background that just didnt seem right. This went beyond what I would consider business operations that non board members such as myself would be involved in. In everything I have been involved in with MGen Courter she has been 100% open and honest in both things that have applied direclty to me and those that did not. I have asked direct questions and received direct answers. I have not had the feeling that I needed some level of justification from her because I just dont feel that she has anything to hide. She has National Commander business that is none of my concern so I dont even attempt to cross that line. I personally speak with her every couple of weeks about many things and she has to be one of the most approachable and intriquing people I have dealt with in CAP.

I see this as a tie in to the public trust because of these reasons. My educational background is Human Resources Management. As a professional in the HR field I know a few specific things about how any organization is run. One of the most important aspects of any business or team is the leadership. A group of people large or small that has a leader is known and gains a reputation that is associated with the leadership it has. If the person is open and honest than the group is generally known to be the same. If the individual is secretive and closed minded than the group is going to be seen as the same. We are known by the company we keep and are led by. We as participants have a tendancy to take on the personality of those we are around and become closed minded when we feel that is in our best interest because of the secretive nature of the group and when we have an open and transparent organization we do the same.

If the people we deal with in the publics eye and under the microscope get the same feeling about our leadership as we take on than they are going to have the same distrusting feeling about us as a group. I see the Public Trust Task Force as a way to try and rebuild that bridge of trust between the public and the Civil Air Patrol as a whole. I stated in my post earlier that I have seen the result of both sides of this trust issue.

When I received my Silver Medal of Valor I was elated to find out. Though for the most part it was not expected it was still one of the highlights of my time in CAP. The basic requirements includes a minimum of two witnesses for the action. When my paperwork was submitted I had 12 with names and contact information including a detailed report from a third party so there would be no questions. Even with all of the supporting paperwork I was still critiqued by members and outside people alike because of a recent recipient who had been in the news and had stained the image of the group and the award itself. I was having to defend a person, a group, and myself for something I had no direct involvement in and that I have proudly talked about to coworkers and others I know.  Even on this forum we have people who demean others because they associate us with our past troubles.  Even our own members have biases. They question my worth because of someone elses actions. They dont look at the other work we have done. I even had someone make a comment to me at work in the breakroom about the news article in the Atlanta Journal constitution and our recent troubles with them.This person did not mention the hundreds of missions we flew or hundreds of people we saved they only saw what one person made this group look like.

We even had a forum member demean another SMV recipient for their actions dealing with a burning plane that could have exploded. However they did not mention the fact that this same individual has over 400+ Search and Rescue missions and hundreds of finds. The problems went even further for others who deserve awards such as the SMV, BMV, DSM, and ESA. Our prior leadership seemed to hand these out in some respect to people that just did not seem to have "earned them" and those who did deserve them were turned down. This hurt the system overall because there are alot of people who really deserve to be recognized and now the "criteria factor" has caused people to have built in "bias protectors" against many awards. This hurts us from within which in turn can have an effect on our people and the work they do for the public. I honestly see this as a by product of the public trust. Others may see this as a yes man approach to the NC. I have had my disagreements with National and the results were not always good. I have put folks in for high level awards that involved alot of personal sacrifice of time, money, and effort and greatly impacted all of our members and others.  Due to our past NC they have been put in limbo. After talking with some folks I have a better sense of why now is not the time. To me all of this was the byproduct of a single person and perceived or real public trust.  My wife begged me to quit and now refuses to go to a CAP function and can not understand why I stay based on a single event. She knows the work and sacrifices the people made. I dont even tell her about citations I have earned since and has no idea about my GRW.

I dont see a problem with having corporate types as part of this task force. I would personally like to see a mix of people to get a balanced opinion so the information is not narrowed but wide enough to apply to everyone in CAP. If this is done and directed as described and led by MGen Courter I am sure it can only be a good thing for CAP and we as members.

I am a member of Civil Air Patrol and a person whom values trust in people and If I dont feel I can trust the group than how can I as a member of the Public trust them. It all relates to one another.

I am a member of CAP.
I am a member of the Public.
I wouldnt volunteer here if I didnt trust her.

We need to get the trust back and this is a good way to start.

They may not let me participate with the Task Force based on this posting.

No im not a lawyer but I do live close to a Holiday Inn!

[FW]

The actual costs to have another committee are negligible.   Committees come and go (except for constitutionally mandated ones) at the discretion of the commander.  All committees work to bring forward ideas, concerns, recommendations, etc; for the commander, BoG or NB/NEC to act on.  So, it is not the "committee" which will make CAP more "trustworthy" to the public; it will be the membership.

That being said, it shouldn't make any difference what kind of "structure" we operate by.  It does make a difference how "we" operate.  We need to blend high ethical principles with actual operating practices to bring the level of "trust" to "acceptable" levels.  How best to achieve this is a matter for discussion and, hence, the formation of a committee.  I'm sure there are other ways of doing this however, our CAP/CC has decided on this course.  

[JohnKachenmeister]

Jim:

I hear you.  You have correctly identified the problem.  I think we have some divergent thought on the solution.

George Washington once wrote:  "It is my fondest wish that this new American Army think of itself as a band of brothers."  Yes, I know he stole it from Shakespeare, but it was a sincere expression of his thoughts, and it didn't seem to hurt him in the subsequent election.

We in CAP should also consider ourselves to be a band of brothers.  Or, more politically-correct, siblings.  In the recent past we have not resembled a band of bothers, we were much closer to the Vatican during the middle ages.  Constant behind-the-scenes plotting, and good people being burned as witches and heretics.

My view is that a "Task force" made up of corporate types is simply not the way to go.  I agree that a more balanced task force may be of some benefit, but what has to be considered is that the public will see this as a superficial effort to APPEAR transparent, while conducting business as usual. 

I agree with you that MG Courter is an excellent commander.  You ask her a straight question, you get a straight answer.  Her leadership style will go a long way toward making real change as opposed to cosmetic change in CAP. 

But, I still think that packing the task force with corporate types is the wrong way to go.  It takes us in a direction that is not appropriate for us, in my opinion.  For me to come up with a move toward "Transparency," I would move away fro m the corporate world, and move closer to where I think we should be, the military.  If we adopt those values, if we accept that we are a "Band of brothers," we can move together to make CAP the great organization we once were.

Just because we are ORGANIZED and GOVERNED like a corporation, does not mean we should think, act, and accept the values of a corporation.

Am I making sense here, or should I try to quit the hard drugs again?

[MIGCAP]

"The demeanor and approach of the prior NC was very secretive and there was always a hint or feeling that something was going on in the background that just didn't seem right. " 
Thats because there always was something going on in the background that wasn't quite right.
It's interesting that nowhere in the request for volunteers for this new board does it say specifically what they are expected to do. Just the usual fluff about mom, apple pie, and the flag.  Obviously this is an attempt at feel good titles, and organizations that are there for points on an evaluation or investigation, but not for any real purpose.
The fundamental problem that CAP has is that a corporation was created to make sure we could be tax exempt, and have some full time folks who could take the role of doing the repetitive chicken ___ work from the volunteers.  We have ended up with a corporation which rules the volunteers and actually makes the operational decisions (which most of them are not qualified to make) that bind the volunteers and send them into harms way.  We have a system where the volunteers really work for the corporation without pay.  If we want real "Transparency" we simply need to put the corporation back where it belongs, as "wing administrators" for the volunteers. They should not make any financial, operational, or logistical decisions; or establish any policy whatsoever.  That would be the first step. Nobody who gets a salary make any decisions involving money would be the first rule.  Instead of addressing the fundamental problems we are going to have a sounds good, feels good group to tell the GAO about.
As long as we have a corporation making financial decisions, setting operational policy, and ruling the volunteers, we are about as transparent as a brick.

[James Shaw]

Jim:

I hear you.  You have correctly identified the problem.  I think we have some divergent thought on the solution.

George Washington once wrote:  "It is my fondest wish that this new American Army think of itself as a band of brothers."  Yes, I know he stole it from Shakespeare, but it was a sincere expression of his thoughts, and it didn't seem to hurt him in the subsequent election.

We in CAP should also consider ourselves to be a band of brothers.  Or, more politically-correct, siblings.  In the recent past we have not resembled a band of bothers, we were much closer to the Vatican during the middle ages.  Constant behind-the-scenes plotting, and good people being burned as witches and heretics.

My view is that a "Task force" made up of corporate types is simply not the way to go.  I agree that a more balanced task force may be of some benefit, but what has to be considered is that the public will see this as a superficial effort to APPEAR transparent, while conducting business as usual. 

I agree with you that MG Courter is an excellent commander.  You ask her a straight question, you get a straight answer.  Her leadership style will go a long way toward making real change as opposed to cosmetic change in CAP. 

But, I still think that packing the task force with corporate types is the wrong way to go.  It takes us in a direction that is not appropriate for us, in my opinion.  For me to come up with a move toward "Transparency," I would move away fro m the corporate world, and move closer to where I think we should be, the military.  If we adopt those values, if we accept that we are a "Band of brothers," we can move together to make CAP the great organization we once were.

Just because we are ORGANIZED and GOVERNED like a corporation, does not mean we should think, act, and accept the values of a corporation.

Am I making sense here, or should I try to quit the hard drugs again?

Caught between a rock and a hard place for a corporation to be a quasi military group isnt it!

Whatever meds you are taking are working just fine.

[FW]

"The demeanor and approach of the prior NC was very secretive and there was always a hint or feeling that something was going on in the background that just didn't seem right. " 
Thats because there always was something going on in the background that wasn't quite right.
It's interesting that nowhere in the request for volunteers for this new board does it say specifically what they are expected to do. Just the usual fluff about mom, apple pie, and the flag.  Obviously this is an attempt at feel good titles, and organizations that are there for points on an evaluation or investigation, but not for any real purpose.
The fundamental problem that CAP has is that a corporation was created to make sure we could be tax exempt, and have some full time folks who could take the role of doing the repetitive chicken ___ work from the volunteers.  We have ended up with a corporation which rules the volunteers and actually makes the operational decisions (which most of them are not qualified to make) that bind the volunteers and send them into harms way.  We have a system where the volunteers really work for the corporation without pay.  If we want real "Transparency" we simply need to put the corporation back where it belongs, as "wing administrators" for the volunteers. They should not make any financial, operational, or logistical decisions; or establish any policy whatsoever.  That would be the first step. Nobody who gets a salary make any decisions involving money would be the first rule.  Instead of addressing the fundamental problems we are going to have a sounds good, feels good group to tell the GAO about.
As long as we have a corporation making financial decisions, setting operational policy, and ruling the volunteers, we are about as transparent as a brick.

Some interesting observations:
Civil Air Patrol has been a tax except corporation for decades and, was formed by congress for specific purposes since the original "supply bill".  This is just like the red cross and scouting.
Financial decisions are made by the Board of Governors with the advice/recommendation of the NEC.  The corporate employees are responsible for spending the money according to these directions.  Volunteer membership controls the spending and use of the membership contributions (dues) and investments.  Volunteer membership has the final say in all day to day budget changes and, except for restricted appropriated funds (which require Air Force approval to spend), the paid corporate staff has no independent authority to  spend our money.
This "task force" is not nor, will be another "board" of Civil Air Patrol.  
Transparency issues are much more than cash flow.  I would hope the task force can come up with some ideas to help with member concerns as well as the general public.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

CAP seems to be fascinated with being a "Corporation," and enamored with the "Corporate mystique."  Frankly, I'm not sure how many of us volunteer our time for the honor of being unpaid employees of a non-profit corporation.

Maybe, in the interest of "Public trust," we should get back to our roots as a paramilitary organization, quit talking like Wall Street executives, and be proud of being the auxiliary of the finest air force in the world.  An air force, by the way, which engenders WAY more public trust than any corporation in history.

Agreed, at least somewhat. We have to remember our history is not as a business or nonprofit concern, but as a military organization -- even as a warfighting organization, which we were until after World War II hostilities ended.

In 1984, I didn't join a corporation. I joined the Air Force's auxiliary. The Air Force has this whole "heritage to horizons" thing, and while they're fascinated with their history, we seem to forget ours. I think we need to think about what CAP's purposes really are.

So...
WE ARE THE AIR FORCE'S UNIFORMED CIVILIAN AUXILIARY.
And we're an organization with a proud history, formed and forged in the defense of the homeland during World War II, and continuing today. And we proudly wear Air Force Blue as part of the Total Force.

And -- shhhhh! -- we're a federally chartered 501(c)3 corporation.

All that said, we do have some things to clean up. We need to weed politics out of the appointment process, for instance. We need to have better oversight and to ensure more responsibility in every command billet and a more responsible ethic in every member.

[lordmonar]

I don't think the purpose of looking for people with corporate experience for the Public Trust Task Force is an attempt to make CAP more like a corporation....but to use the experience we have to make CAP better.

As a corporation that receives federal appropriated funds we need to emulate how other corporations gain and keep a "public trust" image.   Military experience is worthless because the way the military manages money does not fit well with our system.  Also the military has a several full-time organisations that investigate and manage our finical dealings.

I don't think CAP is fascinated with being a corporation....it is a corporation and has been since '48 IRRC.

We have gotten a lot of black eyes over the last 10 years or so because of internal politics and poor management.  Any attempt to help identify and eliminate these problems is a good thing.

The U.S. Military (tm) maintains the public trust because of a robust investigation capability (OSI, NCID, DIA) and the authority of the UCMJ to fix problems.

CAP does not have that and can't use it.

As for maintaining the public trust, CAP should:

1) Publish the National, Regional and Wing budgets each year.
2) Publish a quarterly finical report to show what has been spent.
3) Do everything it can to eliminate/reduce the amount of politics in the appointment of commanders and senior leaders.
4) Publish sanitised versions of adverse personnel actions, to show CAP's willingness and effectiveness in policing its own ranks.

[RiverAux]

River:

If you don't get why I am confused by the idea of corporate types telling us how to improve our public trust, then you must not have been paying attention to the news.

Try asking 10 random people if American corporations are trusted by the American people. 

You seem to forget that they are looking for people WHO ARE ALREADY CAP MEMBERS, not random folks from the board of Enron.  If you don't trust them on this task force, I suppose that anyone who works for a corporation needs to get their 2b ASAP.

In my political life I am certainly not a fan of big business, but as we saw with Bernie Madoff, if you're running billions in dollars of money, you don't get a 2 person CPA shop to do your audits (if you're trustworthy).