Is the Limited Air Force Jurisdiction over CAP the Best Thing for CAP?

[Guardrail]

I have been wondering... is the limited Air Force jurisdiction over CAP the best thing for CAP?  I understand that, according to Public Law 557, CAP is only the Air Force Auxiliary when performing Air Force-assigned missions.  Because of this, the Air Force only has oversight over CAP when it is performing those missions.  At all other times, CAP is on its own to police itself. 

Is this the best thing for CAP? 

[lordmonar]

What is the alternative?

If the USAF has jurisdiction over us....how do they enforce their rules?  We are not government civilians, we are not the military nor are we contractors.

We are closest to being DoD Contractors.  As such the USAF only has limited jurisdiction over them as well.  They can write into the contract that we will follow such and such regulations and directives....but they have to spell out each and everyone.

Even then...the over sight of government contractors is a very convoluted and involved process that basically allows the contractor do as they please so long as the provide the service they have contracted for.

[RiverAux]

The CG has complete control over the CG Aux at all times.  CG Aux regulations are actually real CG regulations and many other CG regulations include the Aux where applicable.  This system has worked well for longer than CAP has been around.  Sure, most day-to-day operations are run by Auxies bu the CG, in the form of what would be their version of the Regional CAP-USAF office is the ultimate authority on almost everything (For example they approve mission qualifications). 

[lordmonar]

Cool...I don't know enough about the CG AUX...but I think I would like to see how they do buisness.

But I also assume that the CG does not say you are only CGAUX when it is convient for the CG.

[A.Member]

I understand that, according to Public Law 557, CAP is only the Air Force Auxiliary when performing Air Force-assigned missions.  Because of this, the Air Force only has oversight over CAP when it is performing those missions. 

Actually, I just posted the following in reference to Title 10 in another thread (my emphasis added):

(a) Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary. - The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.
     
(b) Use by Air Force. - (1) The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of the Civil Air Patrol to fulfill the noncombat programs and missions of the Department of the Air Force.
(2) The Civil Air Patrol shall be deemed to be an instrumentality of the United States with respect to any act or omission of the Civil Air Patrol, including any member of the Civil Air Patrol, in carrying out a mission assigned by the Secretary of the Air Force.

I'm not trying to be a fancy wordsmith here but based simply on what's stated above, it appears clear that, whether the USAF pays the bill or not, if we are performing missions for any Federal Government agency, we are the USAF Aux.

[MIKE]

But I also assume that the CG does not say you are only CGAUX when it is convient for the CG.

This is but one thing that makes the CGAUX very different than CAP.  The CGAUX is always the CGAUX.

[Earhart1971]

I have been wondering... is the limited Air Force jurisdiction over CAP the best thing for CAP?  I understand that, according to Public Law 557, CAP is only the Air Force Auxiliary when performing Air Force-assigned missions.  Because of this, the Air Force only has oversight over CAP when it is performing those missions.  At all other times, CAP is on its own to police itself. 

Is this the best thing for CAP? 

CAP could be in control of its own destiny, we have all the tools, but unfortunately, we have none of the vision where it counts.

Or, if we have a Commander with vision, he has no authority to execute the vision, because its commitee rule.

CAP uses none of its political power, and there is a lot fear that if we do exercise our power the Air Force will take offense.

In the alternative: We cannot surrender to the Air Force, because of our Corporate status, since the Air Force is not in control, they see to it we are underfunded until they have more control.

I think CAP will have a tough time the next 5 years, if we don't find a direction.

[lordmonar]

(2) Except as provided in section 9442(b)(2) of this title, the Civil Air Patrol is not an instrumentality of the Federal Government for any purpose.

That right there states that we ae only a insrumentality of the Gederal Government while operating as the USAF AUX.

And since we are only USAF AUX on AF Assigned Missions...we only fall under USAF regulations at that time.

[A.Member]

(2) Except as provided in section 9442(b)(2) of this title, the Civil Air Patrol is not an instrumentality of the Federal Government for any purpose.

That right there states that we ae only a insrumentality of the Gederal Government while operating as the USAF AUX.

And since we are only USAF AUX on AF Assigned Missions...we only fall under USAF regulations at that time.

That statement is in reference to our status as a federally chartered corporation.  As stated, 9442(b) clarifies this (9442(b) is the section I posted earlier).

And based on additional statements under 9444 ("Activities performed as auxiliary of the Air Force"):

(10) provide funds for the lease or purchase of items of equipment that the Secretary determines necessary for the Civil Air Patrol;
(11) support the Civil Air Patrol cadet program by furnishing -
    (A) articles of the Air Force uniform to cadets without cost;
    and
    (B) any other support that the Secretary of the Air Force determines is consistent with Air Force missions and objectives; and

(12) provide support, including appropriated funds, for the Civil Air Patrol aerospace education program to the extent that the Secretary of the Air Force determines appropriate for furthering the fulfillment of Air Force missions and objectives.

It could possibly be argued that the entire Cadet Program always falls under the USAF Aux. umbrella, and potentially some amount of AE.  We may be USAF Aux. much more often than one might believe, whether we're reimbursed by USAF or not.
 

[ZigZag911]

All Air Force, all the time....they make me crazed sometimes, but, darn it, this is our heritage, let's stick to it!

[DNall]

But I also assume that the CG does not say you are only CGAUX when it is convient for the CG.

This is but one thing that makes the CGAUX very different than CAP.  The CGAUX is always the CGAUX.

WEll yeah, but the temp AFAux status is a very new thing. For 60 years we were the perm Aux of the AF & for a third of that we've also had this dual corporate identity. The difference is CGAux began as the CG Reserve before teh modern reserve was established, & is NOT established as a seperate legal entity (corporation) capable of doing anything. As an organization, they ARE the CG. The members are volunteer part-time members in an Auxiliary status, but there's no doubt at all that the geneva convention applies to them for instance. You have to argue that fact w/ CAP members & the AF as to the civilian/combatant status of members under military orders.

Good or bad? That's a conversation beyond me. They might well decide they don't need us anymore & start cutting or changing with a lack of strategic vision that CG shows with their Auxiliary. On the whole, I favor CAP having some kind of safeguard to protect the long-term concept of the organizaiton, but AF should have ADCON & OPCON. CAP deserves a seat at thta table in making the decisions, but ultimately it should be a CAP structure reporting to the AF structure. I tend to think teh corporation should be abolished, but the BoG should be preserved as an independent oversight & advisory panel to Congress on CAP & our needs (primarily getting & executing the budget).

[RiverAux]

Uhh, CAP has been a corporation for almost all of its history as well.....not just a third.  You are right though in saying that the corporation was also the AF Aux at all times through most of that history. 

The reason I brought up the CG Aux was to show that it was possible to have an Aux that was under the complete control of their parent service and that this has worked well. 

Although the CAP corporation may serve as a nice safety guard for the organization if the AF lets us go, as has been pointed out many times, if the AF cuts us out the corporation would be unable to survive on its own for very long anyway.  I say eliminate CAP corporation entirely (even if it does cost us a few missions). 

[Guardrail]

Although the CAP corporation may serve as a nice safety guard for the organization if the AF lets us go...

How would the CAP corporation serve as a nice safety guard for CAP (if the AF lets CAP go), when the goal of the corporation is to protect the corporation and not the organization or its people?

...if the AF cuts us out the corporation it would be unable to survive on its own for very long anyway.

If the AF cuts out the corporation, it wouldn't have the opportunity to survive on its own.

I say eliminate CAP corporation entirely (even if it does cost us a few missions).

I'm with you there, RiverAux. 

[RiverAux]

Some people have said (and I'm not one of them) that one alternative to our weird status is to totally separate ourselves from the AF.  CAP could theoretically continue on as a non-profit corporation just as do the majority of SAR and disaster relief organizations if we lost any AF Aux status.  Like I said, I don't think we'd last very long, espcially as an aviation organization without that significant AF dollars supporting AF purchase and use. 

[JAFO78]

What is the alternative?

How about we start a "NEW" CAP, go to congress for funding and we could call ourself s the

US AIR PATROL  Auxiliary of the Air National Guard or

AIR GUARD PATROL  Auxiliary of the Air National Guard

[Guardrail]

What is the alternative?

How about we start a "NEW" CAP, go to congress for funding and we could call ourself s the

US AIR PATROL  Auxiliary of the Air National Guard or

AIR GUARD PATROL  Auxiliary of the Air National Guard

Problem is, Congress is probably not going to want give CAP any more money than it already has.  They're tied up right now with all the stuff going on in the military. 

But I agree that it would be nice if CAP went to the Air National Guard.  Major Kachenmeister has outlined in another topic some great reasons why command affiliation with the Air National Guard would be beneficial to CAP.

[lordmonar]

But I also assume that the CG does not say you are only CGAUX when it is convient for the CG.

This is but one thing that makes the CGAUX very different than CAP.  The CGAUX is always the CGAUX.

WEll yeah, but the temp AFAux status is a very new thing. For 60 years we were the perm Aux of the AF & for a third of that we've also had this dual corporate identity. The difference is CGAux began as the CG Reserve before teh modern reserve was established, & is NOT established as a seperate legal entity (corporation) capable of doing anything. As an organization, they ARE the CG. The members are volunteer part-time members in an Auxiliary status, but there's no doubt at all that the geneva convention applies to them for instance. You have to argue that fact w/ CAP members & the AF as to the civilian/combatant status of members under military orders.

Good or bad? That's a conversation beyond me. They might well decide they don't need us anymore & start cutting or changing with a lack of strategic vision that CG shows with their Auxiliary. On the whole, I favor CAP having some kind of safeguard to protect the long-term concept of the organizaiton, but AF should have ADCON & OPCON. CAP deserves a seat at thta table in making the decisions, but ultimately it should be a CAP structure reporting to the AF structure. I tend to think teh corporation should be abolished, but the BoG should be preserved as an independent oversight & advisory panel to Congress on CAP & our needs (primarily getting & executing the budget).

You won't beleive this....but I agree with most of this.  If the CAP corporation was abolished and we were reborn simply as the USAF AUX in the same way under the same laws that allow the CG to have one....I would not have a problem with that at all.

But...here's the rub....you are talking to the wrong people.  CAP can't make this change and it is not in CAP's intrest (as the stand now) to make this change.  The USAF will have to do it.

[RiverAux]

Technically, it would be Congress that would have to do it.  There would have to be some interesting paperwork hurdles to deal with.

[lordmonar]

Technically, it would be Congress that would have to do it.  There would have to be some interesting paperwork hurdles to deal with.

Yes...but congress would not push the issue unless the USAF wanted it.  If someone were to lobby congress and get it shoved down the USAF's throat...they would more than likely just drop us all together.

YMMV

[RiverAux]

No doubt, but then again thats why I said "technically".

[DNall]

Uhh, CAP has been a corporation for almost all of its history as well.....not just a third.  You are right though in saying that the corporation was also the AF Aux at all times through most of that history. 

CAP has been a corp since after WWII & just before the perm Aux status was added & the then obselete corp status maintained rather than removed. That's not what I said though. For most of CAP's history it has been a non-profit govt corp under the direct command of the AF. We've gone from an AF general officer appointed by the AF to command CAP, to a CAP member Nat/CC but CAP-USAF CC who also served as Executive director of the corp & with CAP reporting directly to CAP-USAF on all matters & on to the AF. As we've moved along Congress has cut the paid-AF positions for budget reasons, but not created a new regulatory process to replace that authority, so the concept of an independent corp has risen up - a thing that was never intended & is not wanted.

That said, an appropriate structure should be created that maintains enough independence to protect CAP (mostly in the budget) if AF gets pissed at us. It may well be that they have good reason for it, but that'll be a short-term situation that we don't want creating long-term damage when they zip back a chunck of our budget to knock us down a bit. That's what the corporation is supposed to be about, but it's been abused by pride & ego to create a bad thing.


The reason I brought up the CG Aux was to show that it was possible to have an Aux that was under the complete control of their parent service and that this has worked well. 

Although the CAP corporation may serve as a nice safety guard for the organization if the AF lets us go, as has been pointed out many times, if the AF cuts us out the corporation would be unable to survive on its own for very long anyway.  I say eliminate CAP corporation entirely (even if it does cost us a few missions). 
[/quote]