"Corporate Uniform" Gone!!

[Eclipse]

Not wrong, where do you think the double breasted coat came from?

Wrong.

It comes from Vanguard, exclusively.  It is a custom-made jacket from a company called Warren Sewell Clothing.  It is not a mil-spec item and has no direct connection to the CG or any other service.

[Major Carrales]

Well, when you refuse to accept an official communication from a region commander or a powerpoint originating from NHQ as "official", how are we supposed to counter your point that no offiicial reasoning has been provided? 

I suppose that in a few months the minutes of this meeting will be posted and I'm fairly sure that like with most proposals, reasons will be given for it and they will include "AF concerns" as one of them.  Will that be enough?  Because we never get much more than that in terms of an explanation for any change in CAP regulation, nor is any required.

I have already posted that I will accept "official" postings and communiques; what I will not accept are people's postings here that are based more on fantasy than fact.  And misinformation presented as real because it was repeated so many times that "it had to be true."

The fact is that most of us on here, unless tethered to an inside source, know nothing meaningful on the matters and supply/accept speculation, assumption and popular belief in the stead of said information.  Many times, these are done to further lies and taint the opinion of worthy persons on this board.  Some border on the ridiculous as the hyperbole below will demonstrate.

Some of these include the hearsay that brings us...
1) We WILL, for sure, have ABUs in 2012
2) There is a conspiracy in CAP working against the USAF
3) Citizen Pineda's minions wait in hiding in KEY units to strike to establish a NEW ORDER over the Civil Air Patrol. (ooooh...scary stuff)
4) Major General Courter is an invading alien from the future sent here to assist Agent Gary Seven and Roberta Lincoln to prevent the rise of Khan Noonien Singh, thus prevent the destructive Eugenics wars of Colonel Green during the mid the 21st Century.

All I want is for opinion and speculation to have their place...as a belief, not a FACT!!!

[Eclipse]

4) Major General Courter is an invading alien from the future sent here to assist Agent Gary Seven and Roberta Lincoln prevent the rise of Khan Noonien Singh, thus prevent the destructive Eugenics wars of Colonel Green of the 21st Century.

heh - that'd be sweet...

[FW]

Wow, 31 pages of comments on this thread and, over 9000 views.  Who would have thought this would be such a popular topic here on CT.

Ned, very well said.  However, I don't think anyone is advocating a refusal to obey any ICL or future directive.

I will note though, there is a major perception problem.  Our national leaders have pledged an "openness and transparency" when it comes to governance.  We should expect full disclosure on certain major decisions thru the chain of command.  It looks like this would be an excellent time to disclose fully the "who and why" which caused a need to make this decision not 2 months after the summer NB meeting; wherein this topic was tabled for at least one year.

There seems to be some conflicts.  I would think it best for the membership to get a full disclosure of the processes which led to this vote; for the sake of the whole membership. 

"Openness and Transparency"....  are they just words?

[Ned]

Ned, very well said.  However, I don't think anyone is advocating a refusal to obey any ICL or future directive.

Well, at this point there isn't even an ICL to obey or not.

But I think any fair interpretation of the 29 pages of this thread is that a fair number of CAP officers are not displaying "faith in the system", but rather actively and publicly griping, whining, and criticising the senior leadership because they (presumeably in good faith) either

a) personally disagree with the decision,
b) feel as if their personal needs were not adequately considered, or
c) feel as if the explanations offered by the NEC are somehow "inadequate."

And it just seems to me that public griping, whining, and personal crtiicism of our leadership is not helpful (in the sense that it is unlikely to change the decision in question), and seems inconsistent with some of our Core Values.

Especially on the part of CAP officers.

Ned Lee

[ColonelJack]

All of the services have specific rules on which items can be worn with civilian clothes. Since the trousers were specified as the AF item, The AF is well within regulation to deny their usage as a part of a CAP uniform.

Then ... why didn't they when the CSU was first proposed?

Jack

[a2capt]

But I think any fair interpretation of the 29 pages of this thread i

I've seen several posts referencing some huge number of pages, and views, and at some point back I too remember this thing being at like 15 pages, and it sure seems like it was even locked.  Then I  looked one day and it was not locked anymore, and the page count was back to near 10. 

This is what I see now:

"Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13]"

Where are these 29, 31, etc, pages?

..and on topic, I recall several Wing Conferences ago, talking to someone with VG and they were saying how the whole thing with stocking uniform items was something they as a company never wanted to deal with in the past, but that it was part of the deal with NHQ and they had to get used to it, work it out, etc.  So the whole double breasted coat thing must be leaving them stinging. At least the AF trousers can be sold still, and the aviators shirt is the same as we used. Everything else they already sell.

[davidsinn]

But I think any fair interpretation of the 29 pages of this thread i

I've seen several posts referencing some huge number of pages, and views, and at some point back I too remember this thing being at like 15 pages, and it sure seems like it was even locked.  Then I  looked one day and it was not locked anymore, and the page count was back to near 10. 

This is what I see now:

"Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13]"

Where are these 29, 31, etc, pages?

..and on topic, I recall several Wing Conferences ago, talking to someone with VG and they were saying how the whole thing with stocking uniform items was something they as a company never wanted to deal with in the past, but that it was part of the deal with NHQ and they had to get used to it, work it out, etc.  So the whole double breasted coat thing must be leaving them stinging. At least the AF trousers can be sold still, and the aviators shirt is the same as we used. Everything else they already sell.

You can change the amount of posts per page viewed. If they have that set at half the amount you have it set at they would have twice as many pages. I have mine set all the way up and it's only page 13 for me.

[PhotogPilot]

Ned, very well said.  However, I don't think anyone is advocating a refusal to obey any ICL or future directive.

Well, at this point there isn't even an ICL to obey or not.

But I think any fair interpretation of the 29 pages of this thread is that a fair number of CAP officers are not displaying "faith in the system", but rather actively and publicly griping, whining, and criticising the senior leadership because they (presumeably in good faith) either

a) personally disagree with the decision,
b) feel as if their personal needs were not adequately considered, or
c) feel as if the explanations offered by the NEC are somehow "inadequate."

And it just seems to me that public griping, whining, and personal crtiicism of our leadership is not helpful (in the sense that it is unlikely to change the decision in question), and seems inconsistent with some of our Core Values.

Especially on the part of CAP officers.

Ned Lee

I don't believe people are complaingin because their "needs" haven't been adequately met, but rather because It seems like NHQ is ignoring their own processes. E-mails, postings on a message board and powerpoint slideshows of unknown origin are not substitutes for ICLs and official communications.

This link: http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/member_services/uniform_information/ is still working on the NHQ website as of 2037 local on Sunday night. How hard would it be for the webmaster to take the page down?

How hard would it be to issue an ICL? It seems to me NHQ is trying to lead by floating trail baloons. "I got this email from a Region Commander" "This powerpoint is from Amy Courter herself" does not constitute orders. And the ppt was offensive and insulting to a lot of people, myself included.

As far as refusing to follow orders, no one here has suggested that. I would put on a Noriega shirt if the order came on MG Courter's letterhead.  Instead, we get backchannel chatter and speculation as official communicaiton, and NHQ has allowed this to continue for over a week. Thanksgiving break is over kids, time to put out something OFFICIAL.

[FW]

Jack, the Air Force did make known their displeasure when the uniform was first "proposed".

Ned, I agree with you however, if there is a growing perception the leadership has been less than honest with the membership. this needs to be corrected and, corrected fast; with complete openness.  The many comments already posted seem to show a growing dissatisfying approach to the issue.  If this "infection" spreads, we may be in for a tough future.

For now, the uniform is allowed to be worn until Jan, 2011.  Everyone will be expected to follow the decision.  No one however, needs to be satisfied with it.  No one expects anything written on CT will change the course of events. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

BTW; it all started out so innocently back in 1998.....

[NIN]

<snip>The sad part is that the ol' good old boys club designed a uniform that fit their egos and the result was a big WWF slap down and now the Air Force is going to control the uniform changes because we couldn't do it ourselves.

Newsflash: As it pertained to the USAF-style uniform, the AF always controlled the shots.  As far as corporate uniforms, yeah, they didn't control the shots, but if things got out of hand (as we could surmise happened), they certainly could exercise some control/direction.

Lets face it: If I were to postulate a uniform that looked suspiciously like the USAF uniform, claiming "Well, its our corporate uniform.. you don't have a say" when the AF came a'calling, you can bet big mother Blue still has the ability to say things like "Well, hmmm, maybe you don't need to wear the USAF uniform if your corporate uniforms suffice..."

[NCRblues]

I would have to take a wild guess and say, anyone outside the normal span of posting on here, would look at the evidence and conclude that there was at least some pressure from the air force on this issue. With the letter from the region cc, letters from wing kings saying so as well, and the slide show from cap/cc, it's pretty obvious there was some. With those things and the other "unsubstantiated" rumors (which I will include my own story in their to keep you "rumor only" guys happy) when you break it down, you have one set of people who conclude that air force pressure (whiter it be back door politics or not) more than likely forced the hand on this, then you have the others who say until the cap/cc says General so and so told me in this official letter to can the CSU, they won't believe the air force pressured cap. The evidence that has come to light so far shows that somewhere, somehow, the air force did not like the CSU. Flame away

P.S. Even though we may disagree on this issue i think no less of anyone at all. Sometimes our ideas leave through our fingers before we stop to think about the reactions.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Newsflash: As it pertained to the USAF-style uniform, the AF always controlled the shots.  As far as corporate uniforms, yeah, they didn't control the shots, but if things got out of hand (as we could surmise happened), they certainly could exercise some control/direction.

Which is what happened with the berry boards.

Lets face it: If I were to postulate a uniform that looked suspiciously like the USAF uniform, claiming "Well, its our corporate uniform.. you don't have a say" when the AF came a'calling, you can bet big mother Blue still has the ability to say things like "Well, hmmm, maybe you don't need to wear the USAF uniform if your corporate uniforms suffice..."

However, I still wonder about allowing the CSU service coat with grey rank slides with the white/greys.  I don't think it would look horrible, and people who have shelled out for the coat wouldn't be out the money.  Lose the Army outergarments and go to the A-2 jacket.

As far as headgear goes, I don't know.

[High Speed Low Drag]

WOW – I take my wife in to the hospital yesterday & she ends up having emergency surgery.  I get back on CT and there are over 100 new msgs. (Attempt at humor)  I am glad I didn’t have CT emailing me every new message; she would think for sure I was up to something   (Attempt at humor now complete)

There are some big-wigs on here, some very vocal.  Maj. Carrales, FW, NCRBlues, Ned, and other recognizables (as well as those of us that are not big-wigs) have all voiced thoughts.  After reading so many in so short a time, from an outside perspective, it looks like they are in the same book, and all have some similarities. 

Very nicely put FW regarding the openness and transparency.  I think that one thing everyone agrees on is that it is a huge leadership problem.  I’m not specifically talking about THE leadership, I’m talking about the very basic definition of leadership; we have not been motivated to accept the decision handed down.

I never took Maj Carrales comments to mean that he would refuse to follow orders.  I don’t think a single one of us would even consider doing that.  I think all he was saying is that he wanted to just know the reason why.  People do not learn from a mistake if they are told “NO” to something but are never told why.

Ned, I respect you highly – every comment I have ever seen posted and your personal messages to me oozed respect and dignity.  That’s why I was surprised to see your posts to Maj. Carrales.  I am also going to have to disagree with you to a point – the USAF Core Values and the CAP Core Values.

(Under "Service Before Self")

   
• Rule Following. To serve is to do one's duty, and our duties are most commonly expressed through rules.  While it may be the case that professionals are expected to exercise judgment in the performance of their duties, good professionals understand that rules have a reason for being, and the default position must be to follow those rules unless there is a clear, operational for refusing to do so.
• Faith in the System. To lose faith in the system is to adopt the view that you know better than those above you in the chain of command what should or should not be done.  Leaders can very influential in this regard: if a leader resists the temptation to doubt "the system", then subordinates might follow suit. [/l][/l]

And it just seems to me that public griping, whining, and personal crtiicism of our leadership is not helpful (in the sense that it is unlikely to change the decision in question), and seems inconsistent with some of our Core Values.

CAP Core Values are Respect, Integrity, Excellence, and Volunteerism.  Nowhere did I see the USAF Core Value “Faith in the System” in there and I believe there is a reason why.  We are not strict military – we are not subject to UCMJ.  We are para-military.  And our leadership is no longer military, it is ‘para-military / para-corporate’ (we are a dysfunctional blend of the two completely different style of big bureaucracies).  While I have come to believe that is one of the reason our head leadership is having difficulties, it plays out here where the “public griping, whining, and personal crtiicism of our leadership” is not going against a CAP Core Value – this discussion actually is about us striving for Excellence.  We cannot achieve excellence if we don’t have a way to provide feedback (or if we don’t have a way to vent frustrations). 

What has been discussed on this thread, and more on others, is to become a unified organization.  But in order to do that, we have to know why this move was done so we can avoid making the same mistake in the future.   

NCRblues, I wish I could quote everything, but it would be really long, so here are some excerpts.

I am so sick of hearing “second class members who keep the organization running”. … If you are overweight, for whatever reason, than I am sorry, tough luck.
… but no one ever said life was fair. You also say Air Force poster child likes it a bad thing. My apologies for keeping myself in shape and wanting to provide cap with a good appearance when in uniform. …

Sir, I find your comments pretty offensive.  I know that you have read many other threads & also estimate that only 30% of SMs cannot wear AF-style uniform.  By your numbers, that would mean that affects 10,500 SMs.  Wouldn’t you say that is a pretty significant number (1/3 of our members).  It concerns me that the morale of 10,500 members is not important to you (as seems to be evidenced by your posts). other comment removed

(See also a post I made here: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=9298.100)

Like a good volunteer, I will follow orders.  But I do feel that the leadership is not adhereing to our core value of Respect:  Respecting the membership.

Now the question is how on earth can we make a para-military / para-corporation leadership model work with an all-volunteer organization?[/list]

[wuzafuzz]

It's true our leadership is handling this matter in a most inept fashion. It's also probable they were given marching orders and had no choice in the matter.  If that's the case one must wonder why they just don't say it.

Perhaps it's the Air Force who doesn't want our rounder and fuzzier folks running around in ANY military style uniform, corporate or otherwise.  If that's an accurate assessment then it's quite possible we can't do anything to the CSU to make them happy. 

They have made it quite clear they don't want "non-compliant" types wearing their uniform so it's not a stretch to think they want to prevent the same folks from looking "too military."  Further, I suspect they aren't worried about military folks mistaking our people for officers, rather they are worried about their public image.  After all, they don't seem too worried about our non-fat & non-fuzzy folks looking almost identical to AF officers.

At the end of the day, it seems the Air Force style variant will be the only approved military style service uniform.  It's most unfortunate for those who are unable to wear it and display much of their CAP blingage.  Remember though, many volunteer organizations have engaged members without using uniforms or gobs of awards.  Organizations with uniforms are almost always under the thumb of their parent organization.  They wear what they are allowed and they get the job done. 

I don't mean any disrespect to those who can't wear the AF variant, I just think we've been given our direction and no amount of negotiating will change our direction.  It's the disparity that is problematic here since we / they have created "haves and have-nots."  However, Mama Blue has spoken and they run the show.  Ultimately we are here for the mission, not uniform wear. 

[Spike]

With the letter from the region cc, letters from wing kings saying so as well, and the slide show from cap/cc, it's pretty obvious there was some.

What letters?  What slide show?  I am lost here.......

[Spike]

If the Air Force was truly behind this change, you would think that they would have gone through the CAP Commander, and she would have put out a letter? 

[jimmydeanno]

With the letter from the region cc, letters from wing kings saying so as well, and the slide show from cap/cc, it's pretty obvious there was some.

What letters?  What slide show?  I am lost here.......

SLIDE SHOW: http://captalk.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9272.0;attach=4189

[Earhart1971]

I have talked to some Squadron Commanders and they want to comment and discuss this.

The gist of the email appeared to request comments from Commanders and membership, although after the fact.

My point of the matter is: I don't think the Air Force should have a say in our Corporate Uniform Policy.  The orignal idea for the Uniform, was it was substantially different from the Air Force Uniform.  It is different, there is no way you can mistake white for light blue, even across a BX Parking lot.

I am not pleased with the decision, but will comply with it in 2011.

And I understand that it might come back for review, which I hope it does.

If the Air Force has complaints I want to hear the complaints. Nothing should be hidden.

Lets get the problem out in the open.  And stop the Ivory Tower stuff.

[CAPOfficer]

Okay, let's take a moment an actually look at the Air Force Directive or Air Force Instruction (AFI) that stipulates what our parent organizations authority is in regards to the uniform(s).  Excerpts of AFI AFI 10-2701, "ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTION OF THE CIVIL AIR PATROL" provides the following,

1.3. Status of CAP Personnel.  CAP is not a military service and its members are not subject to the UCMJ.  CAP members voluntarily perform Air Force-assigned missions.  CAP membership does not confer upon an individual any of the rights, privileges, prerogatives or benefits of military personnel, active, reserve, or retired.  While CAP is not a military service, it uses an Air Force-style grade structure and its members may wear Air Force-style uniforms when authorized.  Air Force protocol requirements do not apply to CAP members.

1.3.2. Uniform Wear and Personal Appearance.  CAP members are authorized to wear CAP or Air Force-style uniforms in accordance with CAP regulations (civilian clothing may be worn when specific missions dictate).  The Air Force controls the configuration of the Air Force-style uniform worn by CAP members.

1.3.3. Grooming Standards.  CAP members that choose to wear the Air Force-style uniform must maintain weight, appearance, and grooming standards comparable to the Air Force.  Variations in these standards are subject to Air Force approval.  CAP ensures that all members wearing Air Force-style uniforms adhere to these standards.  CAP senior members who do not meet these standards are restricted from wearing the Air Force-style uniform but are not barred from membership or active participation in CAP.  In these circumstances the senior members may only wear authorized CAP uniforms, or civilian attire as appropriate.

1.3.4. CAP Distinctive Uniforms and Insignia.  The emblems, insignia, and badges of the CAP Air Force-style uniform will clearly identify an individual as a CAP member at a distance and in low-light conditions.  The Air Force must approve changes to the CAP Air Force-style uniform.  CAP distinctive uniforms must be sufficiently different from U.S. Armed Forces uniforms so that confusion will not occur.

And then we have the Civil Air Patrol Constitution and Bylaws, which states,

ARTICLE XVIII - ADOPTION PROVISIONS

1.  The insignia, uniforms, copyrights, emblems and badges, descriptive or designating marks and words or phrases used by the Civil Air Patrol, on or before the date of this revision of the Constitution, are appropriated to the Corporation.

2.  Except as otherwise restricted by law, the Corporation may develop and adopt such insignia, uniforms, emblems and badges, descriptive and designating marks, and words and phrases for use by the members of the Civil Air Patrol as it may consider necessary or advisable in carrying out the objects and purposes of the Corporation.

Now, if someone will "please" show me where the Air Force derives its authority to control our CAP Distinctive uniforms, utilizing their directives, and where we relinquish our control of them in our own constitution, I will be happy to listen and learn.

Please do not say because the General says so; that does not change their regulations anymore than it would ours.  Arguing the phrase "sufficiently different" is not valid either; considering one could reasonably debate that the gray epaulets on the current Air Force style uniform does not make it sufficiently different; the CSU has more significant differences than what they have already approved (in my opinion).

Please do not forget to provide your source documentations.