National Diversity Officer - Volunteer Wanted.

[Major Lord]

Oh great, a Harvard guy married to a lawyer......It sounds like a "two guys walk into a Bar" joke. Nothing in his Bio (other than his photo) suggests he has any special qualifications for the job. I will be waiting with 'bated breath for the spectacular results in accomplishing his mission. In fact, I think merely creating the position has saved or created over 20,000 new members, and I can prove it with these analysis I happen to have right here.....wait, it was around here somewhere, maybe under my "global warming proofs" or my "confirmed Yeti sighting" documentation....

Major Lord

[Ed Bos]

Nothing in his Bio (other than his photo) suggests he has any special qualifications for the job. I will be waiting with 'bated breath for the spectacular results in accomplishing his mission.

Well, that's probably because the bio that was posted online wasn't his application for the position, and you're not on the selection committee.

I know him and he's a very good choice for the position. I also know that he has several other special qualifications that weren't published as part of his bio, and the characteristics you're referring to in his photo have nothing to do with those qualifications. Remarks like yours are not in keeping with the Core Values, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

How do we become more diverse?  I know of no one I have met in CAP during two decades that would ever stop another person from joining based on factors other than those layed out as "Basic Qualifications".

There's more to diversity than race, and there's more to CAP's accessibility than having some individual, "stop another person from joining."

CAP is not a charity. 

Actually, CAP IS a charity. http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/TAXLTRNEW_28FEB2011_ABAEAB2E9C773.pdf

I'm sure you don't think this is a priority, but expanding our recruiting is always a priority, and making sure we're a relevant organization all across the country is important.

[Flying Pig]

Major Lord 
Your being short sighted.  Im waiting for the sliding scale for membership dues based on yearly income  Based on all of my pay cuts this year and my benefit cost increases I figure CAP will be paying me to rejoin!   Encampment cost for my kids will be more managable because Ill have my CAP EBT card that my kids will swip at the time they arrive at in processing.  In order for this "Diversity" officerto prove his worth there will need to be demographics data collected and there will need to be programs started and increases in the memberships of identified groups.  There has never been a problem with diversity in CAP.  The only barrier to membership I have ever seen in my 20 yrs in CAP is cost and location. Some people dont live near units OK, sorry.  Cant help that unless you start a unit.  Cost?  Well, we need to bring that down across the board.  Diversity isnt a factor in either.

[Ed Bos]

Major Lord 
Your being short sighted.  Im waiting for the sliding scale for membership dues based on yearly income  Based on all of my pay cuts this year and my benefit cost increases I figure CAP will be paying me to rejoin!   Encampment cost for my kids will be more managable because Ill have my CAP EBT card that my kids will swip at the time they arrive at in processing.  In order for this "Diversity" officerto prove his worth there will need to be demographics data collected and there will need to be programs started and increases in the memberships of identified groups.  There has never been a problem with diversity in CAP.  The only barrier to membership I have ever seen in my 20 yrs in CAP is cost and location. Some people dont live near units OK, sorry.  Cant help that unless you start a unit.  Cost?  Well, we need to bring that down across the board.  Diversity isnt a factor in either.

Why all the acid?

You don't see a need for ensuring CAP is representative of the communities it supports, that's your perspective.
I don't see the problem with 1) making sure we remain relevant as we move into the future, and 2) trusting that the leadership that identified this need and seeks to address it isn't pushing some nefarious agenda to waste your money and the organization's resources.

[Major Lord]

Nothing in his Bio (other than his photo) suggests he has any special qualifications for the job. I will be waiting with 'bated breath for the spectacular results in accomplishing his mission.

Well, that's probably because the bio that was posted online wasn't his application for the position, and you're not on the selection committee.

I know him and he's a very good choice for the position. I also know that he has several other special qualifications that weren't published as part of his bio, and the characteristics you're referring to in his photo have nothing to do with those qualifications. Remarks like yours are not in keeping with the Core Values, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Not even remotely ashamed of myself! So he has "Special Qualifications" that they chose not to share in the press release? Don't you think that in the name of diversity, fair play, and full disclosure, that his actual qualifications for the job be included in the published selection criteria? You know, having undisclosed job selection criteria  takes us down that slippery slope towards "race" or other special interest based selection processes? I think that secret policies, especially as they relate to how we handle issues of "race", creed, etc, are an actual violation of Core Values, and have the taint of institutionalized bigotry about them. "race" policies are de facto "racist" policies. I will be happy to see how his functions improve our effectiveness in actually carrying out our missions, but his mission statements are sufficiently vague as to prevent the establishment of a baseline. My guess is that they will lead to "race" based quotas and recruiting goals. ( I place "race" in quotes because there is only one "race" of humans currently extant, and ethnicity is so murky as to be beyond practical hyphenate description; I am confident that his goal will not be to ensure we have sufficient numbers of Lutherans as opposed to Buddhists) You are quite right, I am not on the selection committee or any other committee, but if your goal is to suppress the opinions of the membership and their completely historically justified skepticism of NHQ and their many capricious and irresponsible actions by invoking any mention of sensitive issues, I suggest you examine your own values and core values. I submit that being too timid to discuss matters openly, even the large elephant in the room, disqualifies a persons viewpoints from consideration in any argument. What can be taboo in discussions of reality? Reality Exists!

Flying Pig: I hope your lungs are in tip-top condition; You will need that for the breath holding mastery required in your goal of a sliding scale!

Major Lord

[davidsinn]

You don't see a need for ensuring CAP is representative of the communities it supports, that's your perspective.

No one has ever explained why this is important. Why can't we just be who we are? I'm in CAP because it meshes with my values. If you change is significantly to mesh with someone else's values then it no longer has a draw to me and I'll leave. People and cultures are different. You can not appeal to everyone and it would be stupid to waste our limited time on something that distracts from the mission, which by the way is NOT diversity nor safety.

[Eclipse]

You don't see a need for ensuring CAP is representative of the communities it supports, that's your perspective.
I don't see the problem with 1) making sure we remain relevant as we move into the future, and 2) trusting that the leadership that identified this need and seeks to address it isn't pushing some nefarious agenda to waste your money and the organization's resources.

Who has quantified that we aren't?

The start of this conversation is the definition of diversity.

Ethnic?  Gender?  Cultural?  Financial?  Other? Once that is answered, does pursuing that definition help accomplish the mission?

[Ed Bos]

Not even remotely ashamed of myself! So he has "Special Qualifications" that they chose not to share in the press release?

Yes he does, you'll have to take my word on that, or query him yourself for additional information.

Don't you think that in the name of diversity, fair play, and full disclosure, that his actual qualifications for the job be included in the published selection criteria?

No, I think the choice to highlight a few of his qualifications and omit others in a 350 word press release has nothing to do with diversity, fair play, full disclosure, and the selection criteria used to fill this national staff position.

You know, having undisclosed job selection criteria takes us down that slippery slope towards "race" or other special interest based selection processes?

What criteria are you referring to? AFAIK, they chose the most capable individual for the job.

I think that secret policies, especially as they relate to how we handle issues of "race", creed, etc, are an actual violation of Core Values, and have the taint of institutionalized bigotry about them.

I think you're being reactionary and ridiculous here. There's no secret policies, and in fact, the CAP nondiscrimination program (ref: CAPR 36-1) specifically states that our policy is to prevent discrimination based on, "race, sex, age, color, religion, national origin, and disability."

The problem I have here is that you intimated that the only reason this volunteer (just like you and I) was chosen for this position was because of his photo... Which I am sure he did not include with his application for this position.

"race" policies are de facto "racist" policies. I will be happy to see how his functions improve our effectiveness in actually carrying out our missions, but his mission statements are sufficiently vague as to prevent the establishment of a baseline.

Cut the man a break, he was just hired a few days ago. If you were in his shoes I'm sure your "mission statements" would also be a little "vague" until you talked to your boss and got a handle on your new position.

My guess is that they will lead to "race" based quotas and recruiting goals. ( I place "race" in quotes because there is only one "race" of humans currently extant, and ethnicity is so murky as to be beyond practical hyphenate description; I am confident that his goal will not be to ensure we have sufficient numbers of Lutherans as opposed to Buddhists)

You're focusing on "race" and indicating that's what "THEY" want to focus on. Cut it out, realize that you're the one who keeps harping on race, and let's all get on with supporting a fellow volunteer with what's undoubtedly going to be a uniquely challenging position. For instance, what ideas do you have to recruit more women into CAP? That's certainly a diversity issue that's relevant and going to be something that needs to be addressed by Lt Col Cousins.

You are quite right, I am not on the selection committee or any other committee, but if your goal is to suppress the opinions of the membership and their completely historically justified skepticism of NHQ and their many capricious and irresponsible actions by invoking any mention of sensitive issues, I suggest you examine your own values and core values.

No, my goal is no to suppress anything, my goal is to point out your baloney.

I submit that being too timid to discuss matters openly, even the large elephant in the room, disqualifies a persons viewpoints from consideration in any argument. What can be taboo in discussions of reality? Reality Exists!

Timid? I called you a bigot publicly, and pointed out that the issues that this position was created for aren't solely based on race. I'm not concerned with taboo, I'm concerned with your frank disregard for showing respect to another person because you think that he may have been hired based on race. Your version of reality is troubling, and the elephant in the room is that you (and others in this thread) are going on about what I believe you think amounts to reverse racial discrimination, when in fact there's nothing at all to support that.

[Ed Bos]

You don't see a need for ensuring CAP is representative of the communities it supports, that's your perspective.
I don't see the problem with 1) making sure we remain relevant as we move into the future, and 2) trusting that the leadership that identified this need and seeks to address it isn't pushing some nefarious agenda to waste your money and the organization's resources.

Who has quantified that we aren't?

The start of this conversation is the definition of diversity.

Ethnic?  Gender?  Cultural?  Financial?  Other? Once that is answered, does pursuing that definition help accomplish the mission?

Good point, I think CAPR 36-1 makes a great starting point for that sort of discussion, but I agree, financial status might make a great addition to thinking about diversity.

As far as who made the decision to pursue diversity? Our leadership. Does anyone have access to the minutes for the meetings where they created the position? That may have a few more answers for all of us.

[Major Lord]

I agree completely with the above post by David and Eclipse ( and how often does that happen?) The initial premise that we have a "problem" at all is the function of an unproven and nebulous political perspective. I reject the idea Ab Initio that "reflecting the community around us" is intrinsically a "good" or desirable thing. Isn't what holds us together as an organization the shared values we hold, not a need to homogenize the organization to accept any and all outside values? In other words, candidates should be coming to CAP because they share a common set of values with CAP, not because CAP needs external cultural influences to stay fresh. In every instance where Race-Based policies have been the law of the land, their existence deprived other individuals of equal opportunities. That is the very text-book definition of racism. In the worst case, these policies lead to genocide, and holocaust. Ask a Gypsy or a Jew how they feel about race-based policies.

Major Lord

[Ed Bos]

You don't see a need for ensuring CAP is representative of the communities it supports, that's your perspective.

No one has ever explained why this is important. Why can't we just be who we are? I'm in CAP because it meshes with my values. If you change is significantly to mesh with someone else's values then it no longer has a draw to me and I'll leave. People and cultures are different. You can not appeal to everyone and it would be stupid to waste our limited time on something that distracts from the mission, which by the way is NOT diversity nor safety.

I also didn't receive the email from the National Board, personally explaining to me why they chose to create this position. And CAP meshes with my values too. And I bet it meshes with a lot of people's values.

But (and I'm just spit-balling here) I bet someone thought that:
- increasing our membership,
- creating units in places that currently don't have units,
- training more cadets,
- training more ES responders,
- expanding Aerospace Education to audiences that don't receive it currently,

... are all part of our Mission. And maybe investigating and increasing diversity might be a way to help pursue those goals.

[Ed Bos]

And now the CAP leadership has been equated to Hitler. Well, I'm done. Thanks Godwin.

[NCRblues]

You don't see a need for ensuring CAP is representative of the communities it supports, that's your perspective.

No one has ever explained why this is important. Why can't we just be who we are? I'm in CAP because it meshes with my values. If you change is significantly to mesh with someone else's values then it no longer has a draw to me and I'll leave. People and cultures are different. You can not appeal to everyone and it would be stupid to waste our limited time on something that distracts from the mission, which by the way is NOT diversity nor safety.

I also didn't receive the email from the National Board, personally explaining to me why they chose to create this position. And CAP meshes with my values too. And I bet it meshes with a lot of people's values.

But (and I'm just spit-balling here) I bet someone thought that:
- increasing our membership,
- creating units in places that currently don't have units,
- training more cadets,
- training more ES responders,
- expanding Aerospace Education to audiences that don't receive it currently,

... are all part of our Mission. And maybe investigating and increasing diversity might be a way to help pursue those goals.

well, lets be frank and open here. We tend to dance around a situation. So, if that is what you bet someone in "leadership" (I hope I don't get into trouble with Ned again for my quotation marks around that word) said than lets break that one down, shall we?

#1. Increasing our membership - Well with the term "diversity officer" that would indicate to me and basically anyone else with a brain that functions that we will look to minorities. Not a bad thing in general, but can get out of hand if quotas and other forced recruitment policies are implemented.

#2. Creating units in places that currently don't have units- Looking at the lists of squadron's nation wide, it becomes very obvious that MANY of our nations large (and statistically dangerous) population centers do not have CAP squadrons. So, speaking open and honest and not dancing around the issue, we are talking about "inner cities". Plain and simple, this is not going to happen. Folks in BDUs or a blue uniform are not generally received well inside inner cities, and in fact several times during my time on AD we were told to not go into some of the large cities in uniform because of the threats of violence against uniformed members. Plus another problem with inner cities is the level of income. CAP is expensive, it's unfortunate, but very true.

#3.training more cadets- Maybe that's what they said out loud, but that's not what they were thinking. We are very politically correct, so what they were thinking is "training more minority cadets". Again, not necessarily bad things, as long as new forceful recruitment policies or quotas do not come into play.

#4.Training more ES responders- So, I guess these would come from the new squadrons in inner cities, other than that I am not sure why that would be on the diversity officers plate. I for one can not believe that would work. Again, the level of income has to come into play here. I hope this diversity mandate does not end up funneling money into the "inner city" squadrons. I for one would be very angry because we have cadets and SM's who already can no longer afford to play with CAP because of the rising cost of things.

#5.expanding Aerospace Education to audiences that don't receive it currently- Millions of people do not even know what CAP is, let alone know we "teach" A.E. So really what this says is "expanding A.E. to minority populations who generally are not part of the general aviation community, and show very little interest in becoming so for many reasons". Again, why? We already struggle to educate the members we already have due to lack of funds and lack of members who truly understand the A.E. program.

Overall, I am very leery of this "diversity officer". I just have a feeling that this will force more work on the already overburden squadrons/groups/wings. I hope that a quota system will not be instituted. Several of the wings are going to struggle with minority recruitment if that is the case. You can't recruit many minorities in PoDunk town (farm village) Missouri or Kansas or Nebraska or the Dakotas or Minnesota.

[Major Lord]

Ed,

Hitler is hardly the king of genocide. I would lean more towards Stalin as holding that title. Your arguments are compelling, lacking only facts and reason, but you make up for these with plenty of allusions to inside information, goals and benefits you assign to CAP that are not in evidence, and assurances of the good intentions of the people who are foisting the leftist ideological principals of "diversity". You allude to Godwin's so-called "law", which is in fact a tool used to avoid being compared to National Socialists, or Hitler, but these are inescapable comparisons, and generally trotted out by those with similar Utopian goals. If these philosophical shoes are too tight, I suggest you don't wear them. You have called me a "Bigot"; You are absolutely right, I am a bigot! If the definition of bigotry supposes the idea that some values and cultures are superior to to others, than I am in fact a "bigot". I believe for instance, that America is a bastion of freedom and justice, and that liberty is intrinsically good. I think that putting Jews in the gas chamber is bad, and that cutting the heads of opposing ball team players ( Aztec) is not the mark of a culture morally comparable to America.  I would not call you a "racist" since the newest definition of the term ( by Sociologists)  applies only to individuals or groups with power over others. I do characterize policies based on other than abilities as immoral and unjust, ( In the vein of M.L. King's Color Blind society) but that's another argument. I don't really care if your candidate for Political Leadership Officer is qualified, or chosen without regard to race, color, gender, sexual orientation or creed. The very fact that you would like to spend a million dollars of CAP members money so that some nebulous, politically correct and completely subjective goals are met is evidence of irrationality on the face of it. Like any CAP member, I can discuss anything I want anywhere I want ( unless the mods fear imminent public duals!) I won't take your wager on NHQ's motives, but if they are as you say, I am sure that we will see dramatic results (of one kind or another) soon. A child could find simpler remedies to low recruitment than introducing the thought-crime to CAP. Does anyone in their right mind actually believe that CAP's recruitment problem is primarily a problem of diversity? ( And only those in their right mind need address this) Are NASCAR, Rainbows, and Unicorns the best we can hope for from our leadership? ( that was a rhetorical question; quod erat demonstrandum)



Major Lord

[Flying Pig]

I laugh when I hear about diversity, and especially when people spout "strength through diversity".  Who ever came up with that lame idea never served a day in the infantry.  Which is by far the melting pot of diverse groups of people. We weren't a well oiled machine because we had some guy in a suit making sure that we all knew we were different.  True unity can only be created by making sure the cream rises to he top during shared experiences of adversity, shared history and tradition.
Race, creed, ethnicity are never mentioned.  True unity is not created by appointed volunteer. Yes, we all knew we were different.  So what?  How does that help insure I dont have to carry your load on a hump?

Politically Correct Diversity,  which is what this new CAP assignment is about,  thrives on pointing out everyones differences and then calling it "unity."  I prefer the method I used.  It was all inclusive regardless of where you came from.  I didn't need to point out that the top runner in the platoon was a black kid who was a freaking genetic mutation of male fitness.  I didn't need to point out that the best rifle shot was some southern Georgia white kid who always had a chew in his lip.  They let their actions speak.

Have you ever worked or been in a pre-school?  Kids don't know they are different until you start pointing it out.

I spent 8 years in the infantry.  Never once did I have any racial issues, have to mediate disputes between cultural backgrounds or ethnic backgrounds. Everyone was the same, held to the same standard and were promoted and progressed based on those standards.  If you did stack up, you didn't re-enlist, or we found a way for you to go hand out basketballs at the gym for your last year. 

We already have Recruiting and Retention Officers.  We already have Public Affairs Officers.  We already have laws and policies enforced by Commanders, Deputy Commanders and Legal Officers.  Why do we now need a "Diversity Officer"?  Ive been in full time, paid government service for 20years. 2 branches of the military and 3 law enforcement agencies.  The new CC now needs a "Diversity officer" because of an agenda that cant be accomplished by the other two jobs.  Don't know what it is, but thats why.  Id be happy to tell him to his face.  The guy has an agenda. 

People can be critical of recruiting officers and PAOs, and we all know they are critical of commanders when they try to implement things but NOBODY can be critical of the Diversity Officer without being called a racist or any other list of names.  Diversity Officers, by the very nature of their title have pretty much carte blanche to do whatever they want and nobody ever calls them on what they really are because they are promoting "acceptance".  Their job is to identify specific groups, identify why they are special and why they need certain considerations and how to get them those considerations based on how they are different.  It always ends up with the standards changing to include one group on the backs of another.  And all while yelling unity.

In my experience with diversity, I have only seen it bring division. Obviously some here have a different view of it.  But in all my experiences you are more than free to have your opinion about "diversity" unless it conflicts with what the diversity rep tells you.  Then, your closed minded, arrogant or a racist.  I just want you to come to work, do your job, do it well, and promote you based on your performance.  If you suck, I want you gone.   If you suck, I want you to man (or woman) up, accept your not cut out for whatever it is and fix it.  Not find ways through the backdoor.

One of my last drills in the Army Reserves was spent sitting in a seminar called "Harness the Rainbow and Celebrate Diversity"  It was taught by a black female Major and a male Asian Captain, telling the rest of us how they were different.  They started going around the room asking people their backgrounds. They got to my Plt Sgt, who was a black male, Special Forces tabbed, Ranger Qual'd MSgt.  He responded, "Im an American Soldier".  The Major went right on to the next person.  Those weren't the answers she was looking for.  It didn't fit her agenda. 
You know......really didnt give it much thought at all Major until you forced me to sit here and listen to you tell me how special you were.  I dont like you because your a back office paper pushing slug.  I said to myself. 

What do I want?  I want people/commanders to stop pointing out everyones differences to me like I am in pre-school learning my shapes and colors.  I want you to rest on YOUR past and what you bring to the table.  Not make me sit and listen to a history class about the Tuskegee Airmen like it will have any affect on how I view the black Soldier Sailor or Marine sitting next to me.  If your a Navajo Indian in the Marines, guess what?  I know all about the Wind Talkers.   Bring me a real one and Ill sit and listen all day long in sheer humble reverence because those guys were awesome.  But guess what else I know........I know the 19 yr old Marine sitting in class with me wasn't one of them!  Dont tell me the story like its going to change the view I have of someone who may be from the same cultural background.

How long before the National Diversity Officer appoints Region, Wing, Group and Squadron Diversity Officers?  Everyone kingdom builds.  I am seeing a new Specialty Track in the works.  No, Im not trying to be funny.  The issue Ed brought up about how does CAP attract more women?  I disagree.  Its not a "diversity issue".  Its a recruiting and a PAO issue.  Members join squadrons.  As the Squadron Commander, I will address the needs with my Recruiting Officer, who will then go to the PAO to make it happen.  I dont need a guy at National telling me to do it.   Any issue you point out to justify the D.O., I can point out that CAP has already addressed it.  Its typical bureaucratic redundancy.  We have recruiting and retention and public affairs, but "diversity" makes us all feel good.  Again, anything and everything can fall under diversity.  Next thing we will find ourselves researching Form 91 failures by race and gender.  Hey, its a diversity issue.  Because we are in the business of people ANYTHING can be labeled diversity.  Sorry.  Im not drinking the Kool-Aid.

If I ever become the boss, I am putting my creed above my office door:
Achieve unity by taking responsibility for your circumstances.  Dont rest on the laurels of those who came before you.  Dont look for exceptions based on your race, creed, sex, color or ethnicity.

It really is that simple.

[Major Lord]

"back office paper pushing slug" BOPPS....it has a ring to it! And less risky than REMF! Most excellent; it should be the on the CAP Form 101!

Major Lord

[jimmydeanno]

In many cases the groups not really represented in our membership comprise many groups that have been mentioned here rolled into one person.  In our area, the majority of my cadets are white, upper-middle class.  The majority of my seniors are white, upper-middle class.  As a squadron commander, it is my obligation to try to push the goals and objectives into the community that my unit serves. 

Considering that the local population is 70% black, it seems that I'm not reaching about 70% of the local population with CAP's message or influence.  To me, that is a failure of mine to accomplish the responsibility that I have to our organization.  A diversity officer, or even just someone with understanding of the local population, would be greatly beneficial to help develop programs that can enable me to reach those people I'm missing.

Most of the time, it comes down to money.  Membership dues and initial uniform costs are usually a show stopper for most of the black kids in my area, considering that for many of their families it would equate to an entire week's paycheck.  Food or CAP?  The choice seems pretty simple.  It's not that they don't want to do what CAP has to offer, it's that it's unobtainable.

There are numerous statistics that show that the opportunities that youth are presented with growing up directly affect their success as adults.   Locally, I'm am trying to raise money from local businesses to start a fund that would pay for every new cadets membership fees and initial uniform costs.

It has nothing to do with quotas, or putting people in positions that aren't capable of doing the job, but instead meeting our obligation and responsibility to serve the communities we are in - the entire community, not just the upper-middle class white community in the area.  We may not be a charity in the sense of the local food bank, but if two of our missions involve education, we aren't educating many people if we don't do something to reach those who need it.

[NCRblues]

A diversity officer, or even just someone with understanding of the local population, would be greatly beneficial to help develop programs that can enable me to reach those people I'm missing.

Quick question.

How can a NATIONAL diversity officer understand your local areas problems? I would venture to guess every "local area" has a different set of problems, sometimes unique and sometimes not.

And, if NHQ mandates that each squadron/group/wing have a diversity officer, lets be honest we all know how that will end. It will be given to the first sucker who walks into the door in the majority of cases. So, I am just not understanding how this will help at all.

[Eclipse]

The only thing that can really be done at the national level is to define the problem and sent the mandates, any action will have to happen at the units.

[A.Member]

The only thing that can really be done at the national level is to define the problem and sent the mandates, any action will have to happen at the units.

And I happen to think the entire role seems to be built on the unsupported belief that we need to increase membership numbers.  I ask, to what purpose?  Just so that we can say we have a larger organization?  We shouldn't try to be all things to all people but let's say we attract more members...what will they do?  Dangle the carrot and have them sit around, waiting for non-existent missions?  That is the reality right now.

I said it before and I'll say it again, NHQ is focusing on the wrong issues - and that is problematic.  How we will improve the missions we have - Cadet Programs and Aerospace Education?  What is our long term strategy for ES/Operations?  I'm not convinced bigger is better until they solve this root problem because even if one is successful at attracting more members, those members won't stick with the program very long unless they feel their time/effort is not providing value.