Does anyone have the link to or a copy of the agenda for the 2009 National Board? Thanks.
Chappie: the CAWG Wing Commander sent out the agenda about a week ago for comment, but I think that is was only sent to Commanders and Wing Staff.
I deleted it once I read it and made some comments, so I am no help.
I still have mine. I'll send it on.
Chappie - pls PM me your current email. I'm not sure I have it.
Why not post a link here so we can all enjoy it?
Quote from: DrJbdm on August 15, 2009, 08:52:07 PM
Why not post a link here so we can all enjoy it?
Because if this was posted too soon, CAP members might actually have time to read and understand it and maybe even make comments on it through their chain of command.
They obviously need to keep us in the dark as long as possible so as to get through what they want.
They used to be pretty good about posting agendas well before the meetings, but not lately.
Quote from: DrJbdm on August 15, 2009, 08:52:07 PM
Why not post a link here so we can all enjoy it?
I don't have it as a link, I have it as an email attachment, from my Wing CC. I will email it to whoever asks, but don't consider it within my AOR to put it up on the 'Net.
YMMV.
Quote from: SarDragon on August 15, 2009, 10:21:06 PM
I don't have it as a link, I have it as an email attachment, from my Wing CC. I will email it to whoever asks, but don't consider it within my AOR to put it up on the 'Net.
YMMV.
So, you will email it to whoever asks but won't attach it here? What?!?!
Please Attach it in a PM to me (possible to do??) and I will post it here. Seriously, it should be out there for EVERYONE to see.
National Headquarters can send me three separate Emails about "famous people" attending the Conference, and sign up sheets, but can't send me an attachment containing the agenda items so I can read over it and make suggestions to my Commanders.
Umm......I thought we were all about that whole "transparency thing" now??
Thats transperency of government, not CAP
What ANOTHER what is your need to know from CAP
These guys REALLY impress me with their secret squirrel stuff.
When the time comes for DHS HLS and grant funding...CAP won't have its own happy little way
There will be reporting processes that they HAVE to get used to and that time is now
NHQ and all their supporters think this stuff is "Corporate"" When it come to HLS missions and AAR's and other reporting points.... they are not going to be "choosy" about what is REQUIRED for all disemination (sp)
There will be requirements and if CAP thinks there won't be......too bad for them when someone asks to see what training documents, records, compliance checks etc
IT is about time CAP gets transparent.... they want Gov money, gov uniforms etc
Time for them to start publishing what membership is spent on
Transparency in CAP? RIGHT reading that NHQ?
??
I don't know of any reason national MUST send the NB to each and every CAP member.
Last I checked we were not a democracy.
If a NB member cares to share it then that is good. If an NB member asks for comments from his comman...that is good.
But neither is required.
On that note....don't ascribe to evil what can be attributed to stupid or lazy.
Agenda Item 18a. Interesting.
Yes it is. It is also an old item (from 2001) that CAP-USAF non-concurs with. Don't see it happening.
Quote from: arajca on August 16, 2009, 04:20:33 PM
Yes it is. It is also an old item (from 2001) that CAP-USAF non-concurs with. Don't see it happening.
Yeah, I noticed it. The discussion on that will be interesting, though likely brief. NHQ doesn't seem to enthused about it anymore, and CAP-USAF has made their position quite clear.
Quote from: DC on August 16, 2009, 02:54:15 PM
Agenda Item 18a. Interesting.
Quote from: DC on August 16, 2009, 05:21:08 PM
Quote from: arajca on August 16, 2009, 04:20:33 PM
Yes it is. It is also an old item (from 2001) that CAP-USAF non-concurs with. Don't see it happening.
Yeah, I noticed it. The discussion on that will be interesting, though likely brief. NHQ doesn't seem to enthused about it anymore, and CAP-USAF has made their position quite clear.
If you guys are going to discuss it, either post the agenda or discuss by PM.
Here is the agenda. Courtesy of your friendly national finance officer :)
Quote from: DC on August 16, 2009, 05:21:08 PM
Quote from: arajca on August 16, 2009, 04:20:33 PM
Yes it is. It is also an old item (from 2001) that CAP-USAF non-concurs with. Don't see it happening.
Yeah, I noticed it. The discussion on that will be interesting, though likely brief. NHQ doesn't seem to enthused about it anymore, and CAP-USAF has made their position quite clear.
Don't be like that
Quote from: DC on August 16, 2009, 05:21:08 PM
Quote from: arajca on August 16, 2009, 04:20:33 PM
Yes it is. It is also an old item (from 2001) that CAP-USAF non-concurs with. Don't see it happening.
Yeah, I noticed it. The discussion on that will be interesting, though likely brief. NHQ doesn't seem to enthused about it anymore, and CAP-USAF has made their position quite clear.
Don't be like that
Quote from: Hawk200 on August 16, 2009, 05:31:28 PM
Quote from: DC on August 16, 2009, 02:54:15 PM
Agenda Item 18a. Interesting.
Quote from: DC on August 16, 2009, 05:21:08 PM
Quote from: arajca on August 16, 2009, 04:20:33 PM
Yes it is. It is also an old item (from 2001) that CAP-USAF non-concurs with. Don't see it happening.
Yeah, I noticed it. The discussion on that will be interesting, though likely brief. NHQ doesn't seem to enthused about it anymore, and CAP-USAF has made their position quite clear.
If you guys are going to discuss it, either post the agenda or discuss by PM.
Thank you, I agree with you!
Quote from: FW on August 16, 2009, 05:32:38 PM
Here is the agenda. Courtesy of your friendly national finance officer :)
Thank you! I appreciate your help. You are now my favorite Colonel.
Let me ask.....was it that hard to post?? You got it done in what....5 seconds??
Quote from: lordmonar on August 16, 2009, 04:39:05 AM
??
I don't know of any reason national MUST send the NB to each and every CAP member.
Last I checked we were not a democracy.
If a NB member cares to share it then that is good. If an NB member asks for comments from his comman...that is good.
But neither is required.
On that note....don't ascribe to evil what can be attributed to stupid or lazy.
I agree with the lazy part. They are not stupid though. They wait until the last minute so the rank and file have no chance to pass comments up the "chain of command".
Quote from: FW on August 16, 2009, 05:32:38 PM
Here is the agenda. Courtesy of your friendly national finance officer :)
Thank you. It's annoying to be in the dark.
HOLY MOLY!
Agenda item 3: Region commanders elected by the Wing Commanders.
Wing Commanders elected by the members of their Wing.
Squadron/Group commanders still chosen by Wing CC.
CAP-USAF and National LO non-concurs.
This would be absolutely wonderful. As I've said before, I've seen this system work fairly well in the CG Aux, another paramilitary style organization. And it is the way almost every club or other private organization in the country works. Sure, there will be problems, but there are problems now.
However, I think it would have been better to start introducing elections at the squadron level (with maybe allowing a veto by the Wing CC). Once we get used to that, then start moving the electoral system upward.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 16, 2009, 05:48:54 PM
HOLY MOLY!
Agenda item 3: Region commanders elected by the Wing Commanders.
Wing Commanders elected by the members of their Wing.
Squadron/Group commanders still chosen by Wing CC.
CAP-USAF and National LO non-concurs.
This would be absolutely wonderful. As I've said before, I've seen this system work fairly well in the CG Aux, another paramilitary style organization. And it is the way almost every club or other private organization in the country works. Sure, there will be problems, but there are problems now.
However, I think it would have been better to start introducing elections at the squadron level (with maybe allowing a veto by the Wing CC). Once we get used to that, then start moving the electoral system upward.
I was just thinking about commenting on this one. I understand where they're going with the proposal, and the >:D in me wouldn't mind seeing such a power shift. But I'm not sure elections for more levels of leadership is the right answer.
Our higher-ups spend enough time politicking and electioneering as it is. This would make it even worse, IMHO. Besides, it's doubtful the board would ever go for this as it strips too much power away from most of them.
Seems like a lot of folks want General stars. That's a few too many for our organization. A Major General in Command, a Brigadier for Vice, and Brigadiers for each region I can see; but they're asking a lot.
BTW, who's been typing up these things? I'm not sure if there's mispellings or if I'm just missing something. On that note, what is a "National Controller"? Misspelling or is that a job I'm not familiar with?
Quote from: RiverAux on August 16, 2009, 05:48:54 PM
This would be absolutely wonderful. As I've said before, I've seen this system work fairly well in the CG Aux, another paramilitary style organization. And it is the way almost every club or other private organization in the country works. Sure, there will be problems, but there are problems now.
Last time I checked CAP was not a democracy, nor should it be. Ever try to get anything done at a condo association board where there's a few naysayers?
Its bad enough I have to herd cats in a lot of cases just to get anything done, if my position as a commander was subject to the whim of the membership, we're done.
The strength of our program is the objective nature of the progression, ES taskings, and evaluations, which includes unpopular things like SUI's - so as an elected commander I'd have to worry that my objective, negative evaluation of a unit would result in my losing the next election?
Also, comparing the CGAux to CAP simply doesn't work - they are a different animal, with a much more limited mission, and a different relationship to their parent service (note I didn't say "better", I said "different"). You might as well compare us to the ACA or the CIC - just because an organization has a paramilitary structure doesn't mean they are an appropriate comparison.
I understand why some are scared of introducing democracy in our organization, but there is nothing unique about CAP or its members that wouldn't be able to make this work. It is always better to have the politics out in the sunshine rather than hidden in the shadows as it is now. And when it comes down to it, having elections will actually reduce the type of politics that people hate (backstabbing, sucking-up) since they people that use those tactics won't be able to use them anymore. They'll have to concentrate on doing such a good job that a majority thinks they are worthy of promotion.
We've got several other threads on electing CAP officials, so I won't go any deeper on this particular issue.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 16, 2009, 07:27:59 PMAnd when it comes down to it, having elections will actually reduce the type of politics that people hate (backstabbing, sucking-up) since they people that use those tactics won't be able to use them anymore. They'll have to concentrate on doing such a good job that a majority thinks they are worthy of promotion.
You kidding, right?
Right now a commander (generally) serves at the pleasure of his next higher echelon, with no specific requirement to bow to pressure from his subordinates, and in that environment people on this board purport that CAP has serious issues with nepotism, pencil-whipping, and prejudicial treatment of people not on the "A" list.
You think that gets
better when the commander has to depend on his subordinates to maintain his job?
Quote from: Eclipse on August 16, 2009, 08:05:31 PM
You think that gets better when the commander has to depend on his subordinates to maintain his job?
That is just that. There are term limits on serving in a Corporate capacity in CAP isn't there?
If so, then nothing to worry about "commanders having to depend on his subordinates". MAYBE they should start working for their subordinates.......that would be a positive change!!
QuoteYou think that gets better when the commander has to depend on his subordinates to maintain his job?
Its better to be accountable to many than to one. You can be the worst squadron commander in the world and not do one thing for any of your members, but as long as your group/wing commander likes you, you keep your job.
Our biggest problems have always been related to not taking care of our folks, not breaking the rules to help them out.
Again you guys are missing the point, and since this is never going to happen, theres no reason for this discussion.
QuoteLast time I checked CAP was not a democracy, nor should it be. Ever try to get anything done at a condo association board where there's a few naysayers?
A board is not the same as electing someone with authority to act. The proposal is not to govern by committee, but to choose our leaders.
As we've discussed before, from the CP perspective, electing the wing commanders would a wonderful thing.
The proposal states that the wing commanders will be elected by the membership of the wing. And since, statistically, the majority of members are either cadets or CP-supporting seniors, think of the positive changes that this process will produce on CP budgets and support! ;)
Having said that, this particular proposal has some fuzzy areas that are a little troubling.
For instance, while wing commanders are elected by the wing membership, it notes that region commanders would "have command authority" over the members in their regions and "exercise authority" as the "senior corporate officers" in their region.
There is nothing in the proposal that would prevent a region commander in the exercise of her/his "command authority" and / or their authority as the senior corporate officer from simply firing the wing commander elected by the members. Or terminating the wing commander's membership. Indeed, it is implied in 13 b that the Region Commander can do so by "notifying the wing commanders concerned (both the new commander and the commander being replaced.)"
Kinda defeats the whole exercise of democracy in the first place.
Equally mysterious is why the author believes that - particularly in large wings - the average member will have significant knowledge about wing commander candidates in order to intelligently cast their votes. How would a wing commander campaign be run? Who pays for that? Some argue that we already have a problem with only "people of means" being able to be a wing commander as it is.
13 d. says that chaplains cannot be wing commanders. I guess I understand why that might be, but does that mean that other professionals could be? Like doctors and lawyers? In the RM, such specialists can only command medical and legal units. What's the difference? Why pick on the chaplains as being uniquely "un-command worthy?" Strange.
I predict either a very long or a very short floor debate on this one.
Ned Lee
Being able to cast a vote doesn't mean there is anyone you want to vote for. In a lot of cases there are only two or three people in an entire wing, at any given time, even capable of being a Wing CC.
Funny, All the Corporate Officers move up to BG, But we who have 40+ years as members, 20+ yeasr as LtCol's are still not able to make Colonel. The Wilson Award should count for something.
As for the election of Commanders, A more reasonable alternative is that a short list is selected by nomination from the Wing membership, and than a choice made by the Region Commander
So, does this "democracy" thing mean than people can be elected willy-nilly? So because "Lt Col U. Betcha" is popular, but is a schmuck who lacks the ability, knowledge and may or may not meet the criteria, they can be elected? While "Lt Col U. Ima Capofficer," who is an able administrator, but is from some "backwater" part of the Wing doesn't stand a chance because they are not from a locale deemed "cosmopolitan" enough.
Those of you pushing for this are asking to open CAP up to things so political and agendistic, with people forming factions and infighting to a point that very well may threaten the future of the organization. To think otherwise is to be naive; just the history of the last five years is evidence enough of what is possible in a closed system, much less in one where the cesspool of political hucksterism will be perfumed by the veneer of "democracy."
There are forces at work with such machinations in motion as it stands now that regularly try to unseat sitting CAP Officials for what the Declaration of Independence would call "light and transient causes" that, in a system where there were an election process, we would see an amplification of said machinations that would shatter this organization. What's more, it would interfere with Mission readiness.
Mark my words, in an organization like CAP movements and ideas need to be grassroot and work their way up, but authority, direction and command must flow down the chain.
If we were an actual military organization with a great leadership development system perhaps our current system would make sense. As it is we are a paramilitary organization where instant obedience to orders isn't a part of the job. That being the case, there is no reason our organization could not have an element of democracy to it.
Heck, we already have democracy in CAP, but it only involves a few dozen people.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 16, 2009, 10:25:06 PM
If we were an actual military organization with a great leadership development system perhaps our current system would make sense. As it is we are a paramilitary organization where instant obedience to orders isn't a part of the job. That being the case, there is no reason our organization could not have an element of democracy to it.
Heck, we already have democracy in CAP, but it only involves a few dozen people.
Our current system is fine. Representative Democracy is fine. Please, RIVERAUX, heed Eclipses' advise to refrain from trying to turn CAP into the Coast Guard Aux, they are two different organizations developed from two different models.
There is no need for the type of system you seek, all it would do is give people a chance to question the person who are elected and promote "I didn't vote for him, why should I listen." I already see this in our national election system.
What will exist are various factions that will spend half the time trying to get their people elected and the other half trying to sabotage their opponent's administration so facilitate the first objective.
Last thing we need are people campaigning for Office in CAP instead of devoting that time to Mission Readiness. I can see it now, people passing around "vote for me" cards at SAR missions and Wing Conventions turning into nominating conventions complete with buttons, signs and boater hats. Think about what that would do for our image.
Sparky; (Sorry this post was made while the two previous posts came on board. SO, it is slightly redundant)
The Pope and the Supreme Court Justices are elected and so was Gen. Courter... or at least voted on by the BOG. Every General Officer in the military is voted on by Congress too.
The size of the elective body is the actual topic. Not if election or democracy is part of the equation. As far as I know, all other things being equal, most everyone has some elective body/authority/constituency that they report to and know that this body can take action against them or remove them too. In its way democracy is less about garnering of power and more the distribution of impotency. Everybody has someone (or thing they owe) everyone has something that has power over them. For lack of a better term it's called "the system."
Quote from: Smithsonia on August 16, 2009, 10:34:02 PM
Sparky;
The Pope and the Supreme Court Justices are elected and so was Gen. Courter... or at least voted on by the BOG. Every General Officer in the military is voted on by Congress too.
The size of the elective body is the actual topic. Not if election or democracy is part of the equation. As far as I know, all other things being equal, most everyone has some elective body/authority/constituency that they report to and know that this body can take action against them or be removed by. In its way democracy is less about garnering of power and more the distribution of impotency. Everybody has someone (or thing they owe) everyone has something that has power over them. For lack of a better term it's called "the system."
I am member of fraternal organizations, been on a Building Association, participated in Teacher Site Based Management committees and a number of other such places for the "common good" where this sort of political "system" is in place. It does not solve the "back stabbing" and the like, it only promotes the divisions I mention. So much so that people will betray friendships, destroy opponents and wreck the overall course of the organization to where it nearly collapses.
I cannot...I will not... support the idea of introducing this sort of thing to the Greater Civil Air Patrol. I'll say it again, I cannot allow a Civil Air Patrol where the one where the cesspool of political hucksterism will be perfumed by the veneer of "democracy."
Opinion: I would say that I can identify a number of former and serving Wing Commanders who would shudder at the thought of having to be elected by the members of their respective wings. They simply know that they would not have been elected to their current positions, given the choice of their wing members. There are also likely some Wing Kings who are very popular and could get elected to any office that they chose to seek.
As for Region Commanders, the politics that exist in CAP will not likely allow this proposal to happen.
In my opinion, this proposal will get absolutely nowhere.
Ummm Yeah, 18a will never fly with MaBlue....
QuoteOur current system is fine. Representative Democracy is fine. Please, RIVERAUX, heed Eclipses' advise to refrain from trying to turn CAP into the Coast Guard Aux, they are two different organizations developed from two different models.
As I am someone with experience in both organizations you might try listening when someone tells you that it could work in CAP. I might just know what I'm talking about.
Please state why democracy works in CG Aux (and almost every other voluntary organization out there), but would fail in CAP. The people are exactly the same. The sorts of activities undertaken by the organizations are quite similar. Both are accountable for property given to them by a military service. Both are paramilitary organizations.
What makes CAP so special that it can ONLY be run by a person elected by a committee who then gets to choose replacements for those very same committee members and wherein the committee members have nearly unchecked power within their home groups? Why is it better for Wing or Squadron leaders to be selected by outsiders who may not know the person they are choosing at all?
If we were in a business or in the military where leaders are actually held accountable for most of what they do, maybe this would work for CAP. But we all know that there are only two ways to lose your command in CAP: 1) Fail to get along with your superior (whether your fault or his) or 2) Make a MASSIVE mistake.
CAP leaders don't get relieved of their jobs for non-performance. If you're a squadron commander who has poor meetings, horrible retention, and no one getting qualified for ES you're probably going to stay in that job until you decide to quit as long as you're not making waves and are turning in your paperwork more or less on time. And if you're in that squadron there is nothing you can do about it except to start a backstabbing campaign to make the Group/Wing Commander lose confidence in the squadron commander or you can quit. Most decide to quit.
Thats no way to run an organization.
Are there going to be problems with more democracy in CAP. Sure. But they will be a lesser evil than the problems we've got now.
Campaigning for Wing Commander? Probably would generally consist of posting resumes and their goals and objectives. It would be a big positive if candidates actually went out and visited squadrons in their Wing as part of the campaign so they actually have an idea of what is going on elsewhere. Wing Commanders are supposed to do that sort of thing while in office, but rarely do.
All in all, I'd rather have a Wing Governor than a Wing King.
That being said, I think I'm not going to be able to support this proposal as written. I think voting should be limited to senior members and not be open to cadets.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 16, 2009, 11:31:21 PM
As I am someone with experience in both organizations you might try listening when someone tells you that it could work in CAP. I might just know what I'm talking about.
I don't make experts out of people just because they have "stepped in two puddles made of two different liquids" and seen no difference. Such logic would mean that I could join the USCGAux next week and make the same assertion.
The fact is that the USCGAux and CAP differ far more than they share similarities.
QuotePlease state why democracy works in CG Aux (and almost every other voluntary organization out there), but would fail in CAP. The people are exactly the same. The sorts of activities undertaken by the organizations are quite similar. Both are accountable for property given to them by a military service. Both are paramilitary organizations.
I don't have to state anything based on the hypothetical, however, if you want to walk down the disingenuous path then the USAF should be run democratically. The people in it are all human as we are, they have similar activities, they fly aircraft and they are accountable for property given to them for military service from the US Congress and by default, taxpayers.
No, River...it is not the same. I have made the point for 5 years here and at the Civil Air Portal that you cannot merely "graft" the policies and procedures of another organization on CAP as if you were putting dough in a mold.
QuoteWhat makes CAP so special that it can ONLY be run by a person elected by a committee who then gets to choose replacements for those very same committee members and wherein the committee members have nearly unchecked power within their home groups? Why is it better for Wing or Squadron leaders to be selected by outsiders who may not know the person they are choosing at all?
I'll tell you what makes it so special...it is my CIVIL AIR PATROL, the organization that I joined and that has worked for quite a while. I will not allow people to try to change its nature just because a "sister" auxiliary runs in another matter. I will not turn the helm of the Civil Air Patrol over to people who would turn it into a continuing contest for Col's eagles and shoulder stars instead of working to get the missions going.
And you need to read all the facts. Squadron Commanders will not be elected by the squadron members, they will continue to be appointed by the Wing Commander. So, I imagine, if some Wing Commander is elected to which I have been vocal in my criticism or if I supported his opponent I can expect to be relieved of command if that Wing Commander proves to be a better political HACK than my candidate. Really...
QuoteIf we were in a business or in the military where leaders are actually held accountable for most of what they do, maybe this would work for CAP. But we all know that there are only two ways to lose your command in CAP: 1) Fail to get along with your superior (whether your fault or his) or 2) Make a MASSIVE mistake.
So, you are saying the the "CAP officers in the field" are in a position to make informed judgments on those matters...because information is simply so clear and present that even a guy unconnected to the internet can vote in accordance with the facts? Ridiculous.
I will tell you what will happen, the rumor mill that is ever at work here will become a forth blade on the tri-prop as countless CAP Officers with some petty spite or grudge will make an attempt to "actually held accountable for most of what they do." It will be Salem Village 1692 and the McCarthy Hearings every election cycle.
In the business world, that you are holding up as a model here and the military if you fail to "get along" with superiors and work against them then you are gone...in the former you are looking at classified ads and in the latter you are sitting in a cell in Levenworth.
QuoteCAP leaders don't get relieved of their jobs for non-performance. If you're a squadron commander who has poor meetings, horrible retention, and no one getting qualified for ES you're probably going to stay in that job until you decide to quit as long as you're not making waves and are turning in your paperwork more or less on time. And if you're in that squadron there is nothing you can do about it except to start a backstabbing campaign to make the Group/Wing Commander lose confidence in the squadron commander or you can quit. Most decide to quit.
Again, Squadron Commanders are not going to be elected, they will continue to be appointed. Inform yourself please.
Quote
Are there going to be problems with more democracy in CAP. Sure. But they will be a lesser evil than the problems we've got now.
Says who...you? Because you are a Auxie? I'm not willing to take that risk. I'm not willing to play with the structure of the organization because on National Commander may or may not have committed some malfeasance. Nor will I toy around with if because of the countless "issues" that people bring up here, real and imagined.
The number of assertions posted up here that are based on sheer speculation, everybody knows" statements, unwarranted/unchecked facts, leaks from sources unidentified that may also be real and imagined...lead those trained in debate and administration dumbfounded.
What is needed is a better application of the current system, not a design that will open a Dandora's Box of taking the worst of the Status Quo (political machinations) and amplifying them system wide.
Agenda Item---my comment
1a--No problem
1b--No problem, let wing and region to freeze out specific units who are not doing their job.
1c--No problem
1d--What is ORMS....it that another name for CATS?
2--No problem.
3--HELL NO! We got enough problems with politics with the National CC and Vice CC being elected....now they want region and wing CC's being elected! We still wont fix the problem when the encumbant is allowed to choose the electorate! I want my leaders focused on getting the mission done...not getting re-elected!
4--I guess not problem as no specific recommendations where made....just a recolution to look into the "problem" with out specifing what the problem is.
5--Do we really need NB level action for this!??! We have been keeping the cell phones out of the testing room since forever!
6--Again do we need NB level action on this. CAP should not be involved in cadet medication at all!
7--Right....the wing commander can't even spell cadet program and he is going to make promotion decision on someone he has never observed in action?
8--No, no,no,no! Suck it up...it takes two month to promote live with it! We tried to use the older cadets can absorbe the information faster argument a couple of years ago with the "challenge" option and it got shot down.
9--No..if a cadet can't impress his peers enough in the first years to get elected to the CAC staff then maybe squadrons should be choosing bettter representation.
10--No problem
11--Anytime you have to read 3 pages of background and a seperate attachment before you find out what is being proposed......you know it is a BAD thing! NO, NO, NO! Just more stupid time wasting BS!
12--I agree with the principle of the proposal. Let's get the info out to the field so we can avoid similar problems.....but I agree with CAP-USAF that we don't need to send out the raw reports.
13--I don't quite know what they are trying to do here.....there is not health services speicalty track.
14--Just do your reports!
15--I agree with this......Nevada CAP 123 makes a lot more sense the Silver State 123.
16--No problem...but I'm not a pilot type.
17--Makes sense.....but it still seems to be putting the cart before the horse....what are the duties of CAP command Cheifs, What are the duteis of CAP NCO's?
18a--Makes sense. I would not make any of the general ranks a permenant rank (except national CC).
18b--Won't go anywhere no way to enforce. Bottom line is if you don't want something to become common knowleldge don't tell anyone.
18c--Who cares.
18d--Makes sense....if someone submits a write up in his safety survey someone (Wing SE) should help track and ensure these problems are fixed.
18e--Disagree....22 years of weekly safety breifings in the USAF did not make me any more safer. Bottom line is the only safety training that makes any difference is to teach people of the specific hazards of their current task and watching them to make sure they follow throught.
18f--makes sense.
18g--Do we really need national level action on this....if it is cold outside I am wearing the appropriate coat no matter what uniform I am wearing.
18h--Should not the BoG determine if theire is a problem getting a quorum?
20--Reports are good!
21--New buisness is good as well!
Okay....flame away
Quote from: RiverAux on August 16, 2009, 11:48:28 PM
Campaigning for Wing Commander? Probably would generally consist of posting resumes and their goals and objectives. It would be a big positive if candidates actually went out and visited squadrons in their Wing as part of the campaign so they actually have an idea of what is going on elsewhere. Wing Commanders are supposed to do that sort of thing while in office, but rarely do.
When, exactly, would you like these campaign stops to occur and who is going to pay for the travel?
My Wing has between 36 & 40 units depending on the humidity, some are 6+ hours away by car. If you assume one hand-shake visit a week, that's nearly a year of glad-handing. We should expect someone to spend hundreds, perhaps thousands of dollars of either own, or worse, CAP money to beg for one of the worst jobs in CAP?
And presumably they already have a significant Group-level or higher position somewhere in the Wing, when will they have time for "real" CAP work? Or should we just turn our Wing CC's into career politicians?
Candidates for state-level government generally are already regional politicians with means and coffers to pull from, not to mention the campaign funds.
Further, if its a popularity contest, a candidate could all but ignore smaller squadrons. We've already got that problem as it is because of geographic realities. If the population density is centralized in a given wing, where is a Wing CC going to concentrate on garnering love? The small unit 6 hours away that desperately needs his attention, or the three units in his immediate zip code with 50% of the membership?
In a perfect world, the larger units would respect the candidate more for helping the struggling unit, but sadly we all know that far too many CAP commanders have no interest in anything outside their home-unit's experience.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 16, 2009, 11:48:28 PM
All in all, I'd rather have a Wing Governor than a Wing King.
A statement made by someone who does not live in NY, South Carolina, or Illinois.
Just because it may work in the CGAux, doesn't even mean its the right answer for them, let alone CAP.
Do fire, police, the Red Cross, or other military services,
elect their leaders? No.
Having to be sustained by a Congressional vote or board election is hardly the same as trying to win a popular election. I don't recall actually voting for General Powell, Justice Sotomayor, or even General Courter.
I know a lot of CAP members who are very popular and personable, and in their minds would make the perfect commanders. Why? Because they'd simply do whatever made the membership happy, never do anything which required an uncomfortable conversation, and hand out decorations, ratings, and grade like they were "free". Given the opportunity they would also tend towards the social aspects of the organization to the detriment of the operational and cadet-performance side because having cook outs and parties is a lot more fun than training and drill.
Command is not a popularity contest.
Quote from: lordmonar on August 17, 2009, 12:31:16 AM
1d--What is ORMS....it that another name for CATS?
The new combined property system which will include equipment traditionally "owned" by both
Logistics (stuff, buildings, and Vehicles) and Comms (radio equipment).
Should be in a theater near you around October of this year.
Wow, a 3 star.... so um when do we start asking for that 4th one? What does it matter if they wear a bird or star, they are still in charge!! This is bling hunting as big as it comes. Jesus.
I agree with Lordmonar wrote but with a few exceptions and some supporting comments.
3—Agree with HELL NO! However, it would be nice if Region Commanders would get more into the weeds to see how the Wing really operates and not just what the Wing King and staff tells him. There are a few too many people who "shine up and dump down". There are too many programs and actions that are ineffective due to poor management and execution but look great when reported upwards. This starts at the squadron level as well.
4—No problem as the end product should eliminate confusion as to the role and responsibility of the BOG.
5—Some people need a regulation to support common sense in keeping electronic crib sheets out of the testing room.
6—No problem. It reads more like making clear CAP is not responsible for ensuring a cadet takes his medication.
11—Agree with more stupid time wasting BS! Too much of safety is concentrated on boring and meaningless briefings and reports without actually teaching us what to do to be safer.
12—Get the accident reports out to everyone in the field, not just the pilots. Agree with cleaning up the raw reports as long as the details on what caused the accident are provided.
15—Changing call signs is a non-issue. If the Wing wants to do so, they can request it now from the Air Force.
16--No problem...but I would like to see more training of check pilots to make sure they are qualified to conduct a Fm91 checkride. The NESA standard is NOT the CAP standard in the field.
17—Chiefs already have the equivalent course. This seems a backdoor effort to establish a NCO Corp with built in progression.
18a—We need more and higher ranked GOs? I think not!
18d—Make safety more than a paperwork drill.
18h—No problem with the proposal. It keeps the quorum number down but forces representation from all groups.
On number 9. Maybe it would be a good idea to read the regulation. The word "elected" was dropped in the current version of 52-16 and now all CAC Representatives are "appointed". While the cadets may elect a CAC Rep, he is then appointed by the CC, who doesn't have to follow the election results. From the original, I believe it was 50-12 to 50-16 to 52-16 the CAC was elected by cadets, but the current version changed that.
Note that the rank change was postponed from March 2001 to this meeting. They are required since it was set for this meeting to address the proposal. At the time the Natl CC was 1 star Brig Gen and the Vice Commander a Col.
After the incidents of 9/11 the AIR FORCE changed the Natl commander to Major Gen and the Vice to a 1 star. I recall it was to recognize the importance of CAP and the job we do.
The change proposed is in many ways similiar to AF alignment. Maj Commands are usually headed by 3 or 4 stars. The numbered Air Forces equate somewhat to our regions. Numbered Air Forces consist of several wings. They are often headed up by Brig Gen or higher.
Incidentally, I never said that the current proposal would have members elect squadron commanders. That is what I said we should start with.
You know, get a kick out of CAP people who get mad at me for introducing concepts and ideas that work in CG Aux as something that might benefit CAP while at the same time I get grief from Auxies about bringing some CAP concepts to them.
Broadly speaking, there are good ideas everywhere and we should always be on the lookout for them, no matter where they come from. A mindset that resists change only because we've always done things that way is not good for any organization.
I suspect Sparky will change his mind about how our leaders are selected after he gets fired a few times due to the whims of his commander for issues having nothing to do with what I suspect is the outstanding job he does for his unit.
Incidentally, the quickest way to get yourself fired is to advocate for some kind of innovation or change in how we do business. New ideas are not welcomed in CAP. That isn't unique to CAP, but no organization really ever wants to change. People like the status quo even if it makes no sense and has no real justification.
18d
Make sure Wing CAP Safety Officers and their Sqdn counterparts ATTEND a 2 week Army or AF Safety School TAUGHT by the REAL thing. Make NHQ and the Wing PAY for it!!!
With ALLLLL the personal responsibility issues being thrown around this forum...then it is time CAP OWES up to itself and sends the "Safety Leadership" to a properly accredited military or civilian school on NHQ or Wing dime
The ORM and Safety online culture has to be reigned by PROPER and REAL ACCREDITATION...
The CAP 'leadership" ought to know this already......
Quote from: RiverAux on August 16, 2009, 11:48:28 PMI think voting should be limited to senior members and not be open to cadets.
Cuz, they are not really members, right?
They don't pay dues?
Hmmm, since cadets subsidize the rest of the corporation (and not the other way around), maybe the seniors are the ones who should be denied the franchise.
Not a single one of the abuses at the national level in the last 15 years have involved cadets.
No wonder some would deny their rights.
Ned Lee
[edit -spelling]
Cadets through some of their parents can vote with their dinero
Some in CAP, once again, think its some fraternal organization open to the few...
Got news for a few of you...Cadets are the future of CAP although no right away, some do come back to this dysfunctional program rife with wanna be 39-1 uniform nazi operators and online computer literate and some time not practical thinking folks who think the Natl Board can go ahead and plod ahead without thinking of the ENTIRE CAP
Cadets are the future of CAP and hopefully the ones that read this forum remember this and start looking at the future of CAP when they can vote.
Just like kids under 18 are citizens but are not allowed to vote.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 17, 2009, 03:49:12 AM
Just like kids under 18 are citizens but are not allowed to vote.
Oddly enough, this is not a governmental issue. Members of a corporation get to vote on corporate issues. Minors who own stock get to vote on corporate issues.
"No taxation without representation."
Ring a bell?
It's not that hard.
You're right, its not that hard. We prohibit cadets from doing an awful lot in CAP solely because of their age and the level of maturity that generally goes along with it. So, I wouldn't have a problem restricting them from this activity as well.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 17, 2009, 03:57:56 AM
You're right, its not that hard. We prohibit cadets from doing an awful lot in CAP solely because of their age and the level of maturity that generally goes along with it. So, I wouldn't have a problem restricting them from this activity as well.
Really?
We have cadet Mission pilots and GTLs.
We have cadets that supervise hundreds of other members and are responsible for budgets and planning.
Hmmmm.
What is it that they cannot do, except serve on the NB?
And what would be your reasoning for denying the vote the cadets over the age of 18?
Well, it's nice that you "wouldn't have a problem restricting them from this activity as well."
Perhaps they will return the favor, and restrict
you from all that responsiblity. :D
Remember, NOTHING in the agenda proposal talks about restricting cadets from the vote. If it passes as written, the cadets will take substantial responsibility for corporate governance.
Why not just have appointed officers who are not required to make anyone below them "happy". Maybe we can hire leaders who follow the regulations. One of the main complaints everyone has about CAP politics is that there is too much retaliation. Because the National CC has to control his wing and region appointees to insure that his platform and goals are reached.
If in stead we had a BoG that gave us our goals and platform and hired someone who can get it done. Abolish the NB and allow national HQ to write regulations that make sense and issue them out in a timely manner.
90% of the stuff on this agenda should be covered in a staff meeting where the National CC tasks his staff officers to come up with a recommendation. He reviews it and then signs the changes to the reguation. They then post the changes and it gets done.
Instead we get to argue about it in the NB something may or may not get decided then we have to wait six months for the minutes to be approved then maybe someon will write the appropriate regulation...it goes out for comments and then it is back to NB for final pproval.
This is one of the problems of leadership by commmittee.
I haveno problem with having "no voice" in my organisation. I work with my leadership who may or may not listen to my opinion and we work together to get the job done.
Electing our wing CC's by the general membership will only turn the us vs them mentality most states already have into a major political issue. Then when the wrong guy gets elected We will have squadrons and members activelly working against the "current adminstartation" to make their side look better in the next election.
Then we add the little gem where important wing postions are given to political supporters instead of competant officers.
Does anyone really want this? I mean we have had such good luck with national commanders lately we should just use the same model all the way down to our squadrons and heck flight and element leaders.
This in not a slight on the CGAUX but just because it works for them does not mean it will work everywhere. And I have been on some of those CGAUX boards and there are a lot of people who don't like the way they select their leaders.
There are lots of models we can choose from. One of them is the USAF model where our leaders are suggested by the USAF and confirmed by congress. Well let the national CC/region/wing submit a list of names to the BoG and there you go. Let the BoG selct people based on skills and not political reliabilty.
You do all recognize that CAP is already thouroughly politicized at all echelons, down into the cadet ranks, where the 'burning issue' tends to become who Will be flight sergeant?
I'm not sure elections are the answer, but our "corporate model" is not working all that well in many instances.
Perhaps some sort of screening process similar to RM promotion boards would be the ticket. Have some involvement by AF reservists, region liaison, CAP-USAF (depending on level of command involved) to introduce a note of professionalism and objectivity -- along with CAP members on these review boards, of course.
The board could present the appointing commander with a "short list" of those eligible for the job. Recently the NER CC job drew about 8 applicants; using this as a hypothetical example, the board could have presented Gen Courter with top three, from whom she would have made her final selection.
This might describe the process used....I'd simply like to see it more transparent, involve AF personnel, and more representation of the grass roots members on these boards.
QuotePerhaps some sort of screening process similar to RM promotion boards would be the ticket. Have some involvement by AF reservists, region liaison, CAP-USAF (depending on level of command involved) to introduce a note of professionalism and objectivity -- along with CAP members on these review boards, of course.
Personally, I wouldn't object to a hard core model along those lines but only if also linked a regular evaluation process in which folks would lose their jobs for non-performance on critical issues. We're starting to have the sort of tools that would make some objective evaluations possible, but aren't there yet.
But I think it even less likely to occur that some form of democratic process. As I said earlier, it takes an awful lot for a commander to get fired in CAP. That being the case quality does not rise to the top since good folks don't always get the chance to perform due to a mediocre commander above them who does just enough to keep the job.
Quote from: FW on August 16, 2009, 05:32:38 PM
Here is the agenda. Courtesy of your friendly national finance officer :)
Thank you, Colonel.
Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on August 16, 2009, 11:30:42 PM
Ummm Yeah, 18a will never fly with MaBlue....
And thank God for that. I hope the NB unanimously votes this one back into the murk from which it came.
Quote from: FW on August 16, 2009, 05:32:38 PM
Here is the agenda. Courtesy of your friendly national finance officer :)
Thanks for taking the time to post the link. I looks like they are going to have a busy agenda.
Wondering why we are assuming that it actually does work for the Aux just because one anonymous person has a favorable opinion of it.
Having been in both organizations concurrently at one time or another, I guess I can declare myself of having an equal authority on the matter then. FWIW, I've spent time in Flotilla, Division, National and direct CG augmentation billets.
I'd say that it doesn't work any better than what we've got right here, right now. In some areas it's
worse, with a lot of wasted administrative time being spent on rotating local commanders in and out of their positions because there has to be an election every year and nobody wants it. It's the higher levels where we see those who love all the politics and are just aching for a command or an appointment by their elected buddies into the high-silver GOB network.
Add the Changes of Watch, new staff officer appointments, and oh yea... forms to go with everything. Yay forms!
I am relieved that the proposal would leave squadron and group commanders appointed, but if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for the rest of the higher ups. CAP-USAF already got to the core of the issue way better than I though:
QuoteNon-concur. The concept of unity of command would be significantly degraded if, for
instance, the wing commander was answerable only to the members of his wing. The
ability of the national commander or any region commander to implement national
policies and goals would be hindered if appointment/removal authority was removed
from their discretion. Wing and region commanders are not just corporate officers
representing their constituents at the national board. They are also commanders in a
military style hierarchy. As such, the organizational construct must also reinforce loyalty
up the chain toward the shared goals of the corporation.
emphasis, mine.
Then again, when there is no CG Aux chain of command, save for a bunch of "chains of leadership and management," I suppose election may work for you.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 17, 2009, 02:22:01 AM
You know, get a kick out of CAP people who get mad at me for introducing concepts and ideas that work in CG Aux as something that might benefit CAP while at the same time I get grief from Auxies about bringing some CAP concepts to them.
(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/funny-pictures-your-cat-is-a-backseat-driver.jpg)
;D
Kidding aside, I agree that we should always be on the lookout for good ideas. Radical changes of culture without
hard data to back up the reasoning for doing so wouldn't fare well in either organization.
Comparing CAP to the CG Aux is really like comparing apples to "International Oranges" and is kinda getting old.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 16, 2009, 05:48:54 PM
HOLY MOLY!
Agenda item 3: Region commanders elected by the Wing Commanders.
Wing Commanders elected by the members of their Wing.
Squadron/Group commanders still chosen by Wing CC.
CAP-USAF and National LO non-concurs.
This would be absolutely wonderful. As I've said before, I've seen this system work fairly well in the CG Aux, another paramilitary style organization. And it is the way almost every club or other private organization in the country works. Sure, there will be problems, but there are problems now.
However, I think it would have been better to start introducing elections at the squadron level (with maybe allowing a veto by the Wing CC). Once we get used to that, then start moving the electoral system upward.
I'm not sure how I personally feel about this one, I would say at the least the proposal is a little off base if we are trying to align with USAF command format.
In USAF from the information I can find is generally something like
Squadron Commander- 1Lt-Lt.Col
Group Commander- Col.
Wing Commander Brig. Gen
Numbered AF- Maj. Gen-Lt. Gen
Maj. Comm- Gen.
If we were to align with that I could definitely see the logic. If this were my proposal I would make it on the basis that CAP is much more like a numbered AF than a Maj. Com as some have asserted.
I can see both sides of this.
1) All this does is increase perceived authority but doesn't actually change anything.
2) Interface with local public service and military command <COULD> see increased interest if the wing commander wore a star. The public and non-affiliated officials attach a whole different subset of preconceived notions.
I'm not sure of the relative size of an Air Force vs a Major Command, but with nearly 60,000 people and 550+ aircraft we're pretty large and any sort of attempt to align us with AF would probably result in grade increases for high-up CAP leaders.
But, you can only take that process so far before you move into territory about what is the appropriate rank for squadron commanders and there you run into that wall where we can have a squadron commander of just about any rank.
Yes, while the organization itself is pretty large (about 56k members last I knew), the units within the organization can be quite small.
For that reason, direct AF comparisons don't always work. No Wing in the USAF is as small as Rhode Island Wing in CAP. But we still call it a Wing, and the Commander is still a Colonel.
I think our grade structure is adequate. The NB's time can be better spent looking at other issues, rather than wringing their hands thinking about how many stars the CAP/CC should have.
^ Exactly, Dan.
I was a wing/cc back then and remember well this agenda item when originally brought to the table. The 10 year postponement was more of a joke than a serious proposal but, here we are today rehashing this very old, musty and pungent piece of stupidity old business.
Other than for some giggles, the NB will most likely dispose of this quickly.
So why aren't we pushing for the grade of Colonel for those with the GRW award and a certain amount of time in grade? It could be an amendment to the proposed agenda item.
I don't really see the need to bump the National CC up to 3-star...but there is a logical argument that the regional commander's should be 1-stars.
When the NB and the USAF bumped up the National CC to 2-star they should have looked at making the change for the regional commanders.
Since CAP does the majority of its work for 1st AF and it is commanded by a 2 star, should CAP be commanded by a 3 star? Somehow I doubt it.
You could make the argument that CG Aux is led by a 3 star (whatever title they give it) and it is a smaller organization.
1st AF CC = Maj Gen is comparing apples & oranges; CAP-USAF CC is a colonel!
However, personally I think 2 stars is fine for CAP National CC...not so sure about 1 star rank for region CCs...eventually they'd want to make it permanent, then we'd have all these generals running around as former region commanders...
I agree, region CC's should be 1-stars. The deputy region CC is already a Colonel. it just makes sense.
I think the National CC should prob stay a 2-star, easier to sell to the AF. Of course none of those other postions mentioned need 1-star rank in my opinion.
I think the issue of making more GENRALS in CAP is a no go for the AF. :(
The 2008 edition of CAPR 35-5 says that the AF doesn't have to approve CAP Gen promotions, only that they have to approve the CAP General grade structure. SO if this is at the NB I would assume that it has already been vetted by the AF.
Yep
CAP really needs to be worrying about adding stars don't they?
Must be something better to do with the agenda, isn't there?
Quote from: Cecil DP on August 20, 2009, 04:54:14 PM
The 2008 edition of CAPR 35-5 says that the AF doesn't have to approve CAP Gen promotions, only that they have to approve the CAP General grade structure. SO if this is at the NB I would assume that it has already been vetted by the AF.
This is very old business, is not serious and, the CAP-USAF commander's comments are self evident.
Maroon Epalets anyone? >:D
Just what we need more freakin Generals. Lets ;D just make suadron commanders Colonels and Group Commanders Colonels. Also while we are at it , lets come up with more badges and special head gear. I also propose that we appoint a CAP advisor to the POTUS. Prehaps he can be put on the schedule to carry the football(nuke codes). Lets start to work on real issues like recruting and funding. :-[
When its all said and done the AF will make us wear golf shirts with those little stick on vistor name tags. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
If its so old what is the purpose of keeping it on the agenda? A vote takes just as long as a motion to table it...
It makes about as much sense as to make the region chaplain a full colonel and keeping the region chief of staff a lt colonel.
Keep CAP/CC a two-star; if a region CC needs to be a general, then do it on a case-by-case basis. BUT, if there's going to be any promoted, they'd better be cream of the crop, well schooled, and know how to be general officers. Heck, with that standard, we'd have darned few GOs.
Being from the RM community, I really find this stuff about CAP and more staaaaaarz and Generalships to be rather humorous in today's economy and higher training standards. Makes CAP look more like bling hunters and ribbon rackers every day of the week reading some of these posts
Some CAPers may go on even to say...."We need stars and bling to keep from keeping "good leaders from leaving the organization" argument.
I have seen PLENTY of excellent Officers and Enlisted leave the military through either normal retirements and moving on.
Adding more stars to the CAP argument... "We need them" really is a time waster and for all theat planning on more stars is approximately another 365 days wasted in that arena, that no one will ever get back.....but whatever, its like playing card games on the computer......A TRUE time waster >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
maybe they are following the modle of the US RANGER CORPS. :clap: :clap:
It will end up being that the General will have 52,000 Lt. Col. under his or her command
Quote from: jimmydeanno on August 20, 2009, 05:52:24 PM
If its so old what is the purpose of keeping it on the agenda? A vote takes just as long as a motion to table it...
The times were a bit "touchy" back then. White papers, FBI and OSI investigations..... not the best time to broach the supject of more stars in the heavens. The 10 year postponement was actually "out of order" according to procedure however, it is what it is and, now it's back.
I'm going to amend the motion so the next NFO gets 4 stars ;D >:D (I'm kidding). My true belief is the motion will die for a lack of a second or, if none needed, will be witdrawn by the chair.
I hope you guys are reviewing the rest of the agenda with such zeal.... ;)
Quote from: FWI hope you guys are reviewing the rest of the agenda with such zeal.... ;)
I'm sure we are. Our CAC is almost done writing their opinions on the CP related items to pass along to the Wing CC, I've made my position known to him as well. I was just more interested to know when I'd get my star... >:D
It can be hard to read that agenda with great zeal because of the fact that some of these things get rehashed every year and every other year.
Such as General Stars
Sometimes scanning is less painless, and then getting on this forum is more amusing to get the < 52,000 different ideas on what uniform to wear
So reading the agenda, I can take it or leave because apparently it will be delivered late, in regs that are clearly unclear or some one on CAPTALK will tell you its so and/ or ICL's that seem never to expire. Same subjects yet get rehashed year after year on "new agendas" every year
"the beat goes on..... the beat goes on....."
I love that Sonny and Cher song.... ;D
For those that read the document, props to you! We have done more reading than most Senators and Representatives do with a new bill they have to vote on! So, think about that.........
Quote from: Spike on August 20, 2009, 10:07:43 PM
For those that read the document, props to you! We have done more reading than most Senators and Representatives do with a new bill they have to vote on! So, think about that.........
Ouch. Watch it....
A new version of the agenda seems to be out: http://www.natcapwg.cap.gov/abovethecapital/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Agenda-Sep-09-Final.pdf
There is at least one major change in regard to Agenda Item 3 relating to the proposal for election of Wing Commanders, etc.
It has now been changed to:
Quoteforce to research and propose options for garnering our Executive Officers in CAP. The
"Executive Officer Selection/Election Task Force" will report all progress back to each
NEC, NB, and BoG meeting, providing final recommendations at the 2011 Winter
National Board meeting. The Task Force should be comprised of a minimum of the
following personnel:
Chairman National Chief of Staff
National Legal Officer
National Human Resources
National Personnel & Member Actions
One National Executive Committee Member – Region Commander
One National Board Member – Wing Commander
One Squadron Commander – Level 4 – Level 5 Qualified
B. That the National Board direct the NHQ staff and Volunteer staff to write/update
detailed job descriptions and develop qualifications and selection process of positions
for the NEC members and Region and Wing Commanders.
So, a committee may look at the issue. Probably for the better since the earlier proposal had some problems even if it was going in the right direction (IMHO).
Agenda item 5 is a laugh. Of course test security must prohibit electronic copying devices. The fact that there has not been a scandal yet doesn't mean that with changing technology, one shouldn't prepare to avoid one in the future.
National staff objects to this item, in part, because individual CAP units do "not have the resources to provide the individual a nonprogrammable handheld calculator."
I had the same problem in the statistics class I teach. I only allow a five-function, non-programmable calculator to be used during exams. A programmable calculator can both bring in information and be used to carry out information.
A problem was that most students had only a programmable calculator. The solution by me: I went to the 99 Cent store and bought 25 five-function calculators for $25 for use during tests. That was a tough one.
Quote from: dogboy on August 25, 2009, 09:51:23 PM
Agenda item 5 is a laugh. Of course test security must prohibit electronic copying devices. The fact that there has not been a scandal yet doesn't mean that with changing technology, one shouldn't prepare to avoid one in the future.
To anyone listening - "Javascript that disables right-click" is not "test security".
If you can display it on the screen, especially in a browser, its going to be very hard to block copying.
Which is why I am strongly against unproctored online cadet testing.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 25, 2009, 10:04:23 PM
Quote from: dogboy on August 25, 2009, 09:51:23 PM
Agenda item 5 is a laugh. Of course test security must prohibit electronic copying devices. The fact that there has not been a scandal yet doesn't mean that with changing technology, one shouldn't prepare to avoid one in the future.
To anyone listening - "Javascript that disables right-click" is not "test security".
If you can display it on the screen, especially in a browser, its going to be very hard to block copying.
Which is why I am strongly against unproctored online cadet testing.
I think we can assume that there's not a Cadet out there that doesn't know how to
disable Javascript. This allows the copying of materials supposedly protected by the disabled Javascript right click.
So to get back to the question is anyone going to post the agenda????
http://www.natcapwg.cap.gov/abovethecapital/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Agenda-Sep-09-Final.pdf
Thanks!
Looks like Agenda item 3 was changed quite a bit.....
^ They should have just removed it all together.
Quote from: FW on August 28, 2009, 03:34:33 PM
Looks like Agenda item 3 was changed quite a bit.....
Anyone else spot any changes noteworthy enough to cause the need to re-read the applicable agenda item?
Quote from: RiveraJ on August 28, 2009, 07:04:24 PM
Quote from: FW on August 28, 2009, 03:34:33 PM
Looks like Agenda item 3 was changed quite a bit.....
Anyone else spot any changes noteworthy enough to cause the need to re-read the applicable agenda item?
No. The only major change was to change the proposal of electing wing and regional commanders to a proposal to appoint a committee to look into the idea.
Actually, if the agenda item passes, the committee will look into all aspects of "garnering our executive officer positions" in CAP. We're talking about the whole selection process now.... qualifications, how selected, etc. It is also interesting to note... the committee would finish it's report to the NB by the winter 2011 meeting. This would give the BOG time to change the bylaws and necessary regulations before the next National Commander election.
What bothers me about this agenda item is the committee will be filled with members who may have a pre made agenda dictated by the appointing authority. I would hope, the committee, if formed, will be objective and have no such presumptions before deliberations.
I hope they just nix the whole idea.