174-1 Change 1 review (Assessments)

[Spike]

Link

I am surprised that the CAP/NC has final say on assessments.  Are members going to be afforded a CAP Legal Officer for advice?  What happens if Members being assessed just stop doing all things CAP.  How can assessments be enforced?  Will the Government collect from CAP members? Is CAP going to take members to court? Why is there no "review board"?

[Eclipse]

Beyond internal disciplinary action, the only recourse CAP Inc. would have would be a civil suit.

[NC Hokie]

How can assessments be enforced?

I'd like to know how they're going to enforce an assessment against a unit.  Most units barely have enough cash to pay the bills as it is.  Would NHQ shut down a unit that can't pay it's assessment?

[Eclipse]

How can assessments be enforced?

I'd like to know how they're going to enforce an assessment against a unit.  Most units barely have enough cash to pay the bills as it is.  Would NHQ shut down a unit that can't pay it's assessment?

Why not?  You could certainly freeze all monies and property, it already belongs to the corp, anyway, unless its been properly restricted, and few units do that sort of thing, anyway.  You break it, you bought it.

But I don't think we should assume Armageddon for every scenario.  Stuff breaks, bends, and is lost as part of normal usage.  These are assessments for negligence only, and in those cases people should be cleaning up after themselves.

[Cecil DP]

How can assessments be enforced?

I'd like to know how they're going to enforce an assessment against a unit.  Most units barely have enough cash to pay the bills as it is.  Would NHQ shut down a unit that can't pay it's assessment?

One of the lesser benefits of the Wing Banker Program. They can refuse to renew a member who owes money to CAP

[Eclipse]

How can assessments be enforced?

I'd like to know how they're going to enforce an assessment against a unit.  Most units barely have enough cash to pay the bills as it is.  Would NHQ shut down a unit that can't pay it's assessment?

One of the lesser benefits of the Wing Banker Program. They can refuse to renew a member who owes money to CAP

Couldn't they always do that?  I know in years past we've suspended members for repeatedly bouncing checks or refusing to
make payment for flights, etc.

[rroberts]

Interesting.  I don't think it is all that different than before though...  I just finished OBC and it was pretty clear that if and I paraphrase "you break the $10,000 archer cable because you were checking it out and were not trained or authorized to touch it then congratulations, you just bought a $10,000 archer cable".

Would be interesting to see when they would sue a member in civil court for damages.  They can't touch our credit without a judgement right...?...

Flying on Sunday, will make sure I put it down real nice and easy  :angel:

Robert J. Roberts
Aerospace Education Officer
Rochester Composite Squadron
NER--NY-273rd, Civil Air Patrol

[FW]

Beyond internal disciplinary action, the only recourse CAP Inc. would have would be a civil suit.

Up until now, CAP has never sued or used a collection agency on a member or former member in collecting an assessment.  However, the possibility is always there.  When you are assigned equipment, you take responsibility for its safe return.  Losing it or breaking it will probably result in an assessment and, you are expected to pay for repair or replacement.  If federal funds were used in buying the equipment, the Air Force will demand reimbursement from CAP's corporate account.  NHQ pays the bill because, it would jeopardize our funding if we didn't.  CAP has every right to try and recoup the expense. 
If it were up to me, I would do everything possible to collect; especially if negligence was involved.

[Pylon]

Beyond internal disciplinary action, the only recourse CAP Inc. would have would be a civil suit.

Up until now, CAP has never sued or used a collection agency on a member or former member in collecting an assessment.  However, the possibility is always there.  When you are assigned equipment, you take responsibility for its safe return.  Losing it or breaking it will probably result in an assessment and, you are expected to pay for repair or replacement.  If federal funds were used in buying the equipment, the Air Force will demand reimbursement from CAP's corporate account.  NHQ pays the bill because, it would jeopardize our funding if we didn't.  CAP has every right to try and recoup the expense. 
If it were up to me, I would do everything possible to collect; especially if negligence was involved.

So if a military pilot damages an aircraft he or she is operating, and is found to have done so through some form of negligence (skipping a checklist item, for example), does the Air Force also expect them to reimburse the government?   What about when the damage reaches into the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars?

[Ned]

Don't know much about the Air Force, but the Army certainly expects you to pay for any equipment that you lose or damage negligently.  As a company commander I signed for several million dollars of equipment (including 43 Hummers), and had to go through detailed physical inventories.  If I could not account for a canteen or mechanic's tool kit, I was personally on the hook to Uncle Sam.

Later as a battalion logistics officer, I processed reports of surveys that held commanders personally liable for thousands of dollars of lost gear.

So, yeah, Uncle Sam is very serious about what happens when you lose his stuff.

[Spike]

^ So if a power surge goes through the laptop I signed for at the change of command, do I have to pay for it?  What if the surge was not caused by me, but by the Air Force outlet it is plugged into?? 

I thought inventories in the military were conducted to account for property, not necessarily if it is broken or nonoperational.  That is why in the DOD there are many types of "loss". 

[Ned]

^ So if a power surge goes through the laptop I signed for at the change of command, do I have to pay for it?  What if the surge was not caused by me, but by the Air Force outlet it is plugged into?? 

I thought inventories in the military were conducted to account for property, not necessarily if it is broken or nonoperational.  That is why in the DOD there are many types of "loss".

Uncle Sam normally won't make you pay if you weren't negligent; and if a power surge kills the laptop normally all you need to do is show the report of survey officer that it wasn't your fault and you are off the hook.

Stuff does break, and hard and realistic training breaks equipment whereas equipment that sits idle on the supply room shelf rarely breaks.   

As a unit commander, I inspected for functionality.  "Place it into operation and show me that it works" is a very practical way to make sure that all of the sub-assemblies, cables, and components are present and working.

It took three full days of inventorying to account for a comany's worth of gear - and that's with good help.  You have to account for everything at once, otherwise you might be shown the same item three or four times instead of correctly looking at all four at the same time.

[RADIOMAN015]

From my standpoint as a senior member, I would expect as a non paid volunteer member that CAP Inc would maintain adequate insurance for property damage and/or loss to protect corporate assets as well as us (unpaid volunteers) involved in the operation & or accountability for the equipment.  This entire assessment of members is subject to extreme diverse subjective opinions as to what level (the member) should be assessed at.  Every other non profit organization that I am aware of that utilizes unpaid volunteers has insurance to protect against losses, and is not going to asked the volunteer to pay anything.

ANY of us can have an accident or loose equipment.  The vast majority of people who volunteer in CAP are very good people who should not be penalized monetarily if a mistake (accident or equipment loss) occurs while performing authorized appropriate training, missions, or activities support. 

BTW what ever happend to the transparancy of public reporting that would show losses and assessments?

IMHO CAP stance on members' payment for "accidental" property damage & losses, shows their OVERALL LACK OF RESPECT FOR VOLUNTEERS.  Volunteers are unpaid CIVILIANS, not military personnel, NOT subject to military/quasi military regulation.   BTW IMHO it is very unlikely in any court case against the "volunteer, unpaid member" that CAP initiates will prevail, and if it gets to this level it will become a public relations nightmare for the organization.

It's time for the membership to start the pressure via their chain of command to get CAP HQ to budget and implement the purchase of property insurance versus the self funded (or should I say "unfortunate" member funded) method.  If it involves having less aircraft, vehicles, and other equipment, so be it!!!

BTW (via the rumor mill) I wouldn't be too surprised if some members of congress starting asking the same questions, regarding organizational purchased insurance versus member provided loss insurance.     
RM   
   

[Spike]

My ultimate goal here was to see how everyone felt about assessments in general.  One thing that the assessment findings will lead to is supporting evidence should a family/ person or entity personally sue a CAP member.  Lets say I am an Orientation Pilot.  Little Cadet Snuffles walks into the propeller and is now missing an arm.  CAP does the assessment investigation for the damage caused by Snuffles and finds that I allowed him to walk into the propeller causing damage to the plane because my back was turned.  Now, Snuffles family takes me to Court for everything I have.  They use the CAP report of assessment against me.

 

[Ned]

From my standpoint as a senior member, I would expect as a non paid volunteer member that CAP Inc would maintain adequate insurance for property damage and/or loss to protect corporate assets as well as us (unpaid volunteers) involved in the operation & or accountability for the equipment. 

CAP does in fact have insurance (or in some cases is "self-insured") to cover property and members.  But why should we encourage members to be negligent when entrusted with CAP property?

(Remember, if you weren't negligent, you won't be assessed.)

Why shouldn't we each be responsible for our own negligence? 

Another way to say that:  As  dues-paying member, why should I be responsbile for your negligence?

Q:And what sort of insurance policy would pay for a claim like "we loaned a thousand dollar radio to a member, but she said she lost it, so please pay us for the value of the radio."

A:  A very, very expensive one.   

Every other non profit organization that I am aware of that utilizes unpaid volunteers has insurance to protect against losses, and is not going to asked the volunteer to pay anything.

Really?  You could take a Red Cross vehicle and run into a parked truck while drunk driving and they wouldn't ask you to chip in or the repairs?

Coolness.

ANY of us can have an accident or loose equipment.  The vast majority of people who volunteer in CAP are very good people who should not be penalized monetarily if a mistake (accident or equipment loss) occurs while performing authorized appropriate training, missions, or activities support. 

I agree.  "Accidents hapen" and sometimes equipment is damaged or lost through no fault of the volunteer.  In fact, relatively few CAP losses ever result in an assessment.  Assessments only happen when a member is clearly negligent and at fault.

Tell me again, why shouldn't we be responsible for our own actions?  Especially when the only other choice is to have other members (or the taxpayers) pay for the member's negligence?

Lets say I am an Orientation Pilot.  Little Cadet Snuffles walks into the propeller and is now missing an arm.  CAP does the assessment investigation for the damage caused by Snuffles and finds that I allowed him to walk into the propeller causing damage to the plane because my back was turned.  Now, Snuffles family takes me to Court for everything I have.  They use the CAP report of assessment against me.

I'm not seeing the problem.  In fact, this sounds like a good thing.  If you were negligent and caused serious injury to another, why shouldn't the injured family have access to the investigation?

Are you suggesting that CAP should hide any evidence of your negligence to avoid compensating the cadet for your wrongful actions.

That certainly sounds like good policy.   

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

[davidsinn]

Lets say I am an Orientation Pilot.  Little Cadet Snuffles walks into the propeller and is now missing an arm.  CAP does the assessment investigation for the damage caused by Snuffles and finds that I allowed him to walk into the propeller causing damage to the plane because my back was turned.  Now, Snuffles family takes me to Court for everything I have.  They use the CAP report of assessment against me.

I'm not seeing the problem.  In fact, this sounds like a good thing.  If you were negligent and caused serious injury to another, why shouldn't the injured family have access to the investigation?

Are you suggesting that CAP should hide any evidence of your negligence to avoid compensating the cadet for your wrongful actions.

That certainly sounds like good policy.   

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

At what point is the cadet responsible for walking where he shouldn't be?

[FW]

We, as an organization is able to take everyone "off the hook" when it comes to damages.  Of course our annual national dues would be about $100/year per member.  In 2008 we spent well over $1 million in losses in CAP; $600k in aircraft damages alone.  And, that figure does NOT include assesments.  If everyone paying the extra dues money; in addition to all the other expenses is OK with the membership, I see no reason why it couldn't be done.  It's just a matter of what we want to do....

[RADIOMAN015]

We, as an organization is able to take everyone "off the hook" when it comes to damages.  Of course our annual national dues would be about $100/year per member.  In 2008 we spent well over $1 million in losses in CAP; $600k in aircraft damages alone.  And, that figure does NOT include assesments.  If everyone paying the extra dues money; in addition to all the other expenses is OK with the membership, I see no reason why it couldn't be done.  It's just a matter of what we want to do....

Well again, other non profit organization, do in fact obtain adequate insurance (I confirmed with some Red Cross volunteers that they are covered for any accidents, but if any citations are issued, the volunteer has to paid that -- NO one from the local Red Cross chapter is going to investigate them or make them pay)  and are not running after their volunteers to pay for anything.
CAP is a non profit corporation isn't it?   

Maybe we need to reduce our assets (aircraft, vehicles, comm equipment, etc), so that the operating costs reductions will pay the premiums for adequate private insurance coverage ?  Maybe we aren't doing adequate screening, training, & reevaluation of personnel who drive vehicles and/or fly aircraft ?
Maybe the people drawn to CAP service are more accident prone than others in similiar non profit volunteer type organizations ?

Perhaps we need to have someone (other than the current paid staff at National) more skilled in non profit, "volunteer"  management take a look at CAP overall and make some recommendations on how to address these issues in a more realistic manner?

Lets face it most accidents anywhere are due to a level of negligence.   Unfortunately, there's always going to be accidents -- people are human and not robots!!!  So what we are really saying is if you are a CAP member who volunteers your time to drive or fly in support of CAP's missions, and have an "accident", expect to be paying at least $500.00 if you become one of the "unfortunate" ones, caught up in one of these assessment investigations.

I care very much about the organization (and I'm also accountable for radio equipment in excess of $10K (and I'm comfortable that we have excellent inventory control/security measures for our equipment) , but I am also being realistic.  So can anyone tell me that CAP "stick approach" to assessing the membership for damage really leading to less accidents or loss of equipment?  I doubt that it has, and if the member perceives that the assessment is unfair, they just won't pay it and will press on to volunteering their time & talent elsewhere.  So CAP will loose talented members as well as end up paying for the loss (that should have been covered by an adequate private insurance policy in the first place). 
RM

[Eclipse]

^ We're not discussing accidents, we're talking about negligence.  I am not aware of anyone in my wing who has ever coughed up
for damage or loss of equipment due to normal use with due care.

I have no issues with this at all,  If you can't be bothered to pay attention to detail and safety, then open your wallet.