"Corporate Uniform" Gone!!

[Ned]

Ned –

I agree with you that insulting the leadership on a personal basis is wrong.  Pointing out errors by the leadership is not.  Having faith in the system is a value – as long as the system can have faith in it.  It is an inherent American Core Value to question our leaders, even in the military.  It is that very questioning that allows us to have faith in a system – because it withstands the questioning that is directed at it.

It sounds like we agree on more than we disagree, but in this context semantics are important.

I agree that mere "pointing out of errors by leadership" is not inherently improper, but context and setting can be critical here.

Example:  If you and I are sitting in a lounge enjoying a Guinness, there is certainly nothing improper about your sharing a perceived error by your wing commander with me.  (Although it would certainly be more effective if you shared your perceptions with the wing commander her/himself.)

Example:  You are standing in front of a squadron formation and announce "the Wing Commander is in error and this is why . . . .".  This is problematic.

The reason is that you have a duty as an officer and subordinate leader to publicly support your superiors and their decisions, even when you personally feel they are in error. 

Similarly, I cannot agree that it is always an inherent American right to question our leaders.  Sometimes we forego that right as a condition of government service or membership in an organization.

Example:  A reporter at a press conference, or an individual at a town hall meeting (or simply among friends) are both free to question their leaders, even pointedly.

Example:  A junior State Department employee is not free to publicly question the actions and decisions of the Secretary of State and/or the President unless and until she/he resigns.

Officers and leaders in CAP have the very real duty to express their disagreements with their superiors, but it should done privately and through approprate channels.

And it sounds like we agree that many of the comments I excerpted were innapropriate and potentially in violation of one or more of our Core Values.

[billford1]

Or we could embrace the ideals of the EOT training and simply do away with the notion that anyone who volunteers their time in
service to their country is "non-compliant", and then rework the program from there...

Agreed Eclipse...

I am overweight again.  I am bone on bone with my knees so I am limited in running, walking, bending, lifting, etc.... Until I get my knees replaced there is not a lot I can do... I also choose to have a neatly trimmed goatee that covers a scar.

CAP does need to embrace EOT training ideals...

Get an elyptical exercise machine. You'll like it and so will your knees.

[Major Carrales]

Officers and leaders in CAP have the very real duty to express their disagreements with their superiors, but it should done privately and through appropriate channels.

And it sounds like we agree that many of the comments I excerpted were inappropriate and potentially in violation of one or more of our Core Values.

Wow...will you hold everyone to this, or just people who "side" with you?  I can recall several dozen times where I have pointed out such issues and your "silence" the matter was "deafening."  Such as when the tag line "More than Meets the Skies" was presented and people were far more vitriolic than have been on this issue making much more "fun" of that than was possible.  And yes, I was at the 2007 PAO academy where it was unveiled by "professionals," and (YES AGAIN) Maj General Courter had a presented "plan" for CAP branding and marketing.   

I have been trying to uphold standards of civility on here and have called for tempered judgment based on facts going back to the dark days of 2007.

To show the core value Integrity I will stand by my statements which you have pulled out of context, these are after all opinions on policy and the day when such opinions aren't allowed to be spoken in CAP arrives we will have lost something truly "American" in the CAP.

      Arbitrary changes in Uniform Policy MUST be AVOIDED at all COSTS. (which began with a "thus," deleting the context of what this was the aimed at)  Deleting the CSU caused a "waste" of member funds,  was "fraud" in that no warning was given in over 2 years of compliance, and any waste of membership finance is "abuse" of member funds better applied to other things.  To have done so with out official explanation, creating a culture of speculative association does us no service.

    Arbitrary means thing were done for the sake of "because."  The "schmucks" I am referring to are people that fail to take membership expenditure into account.  Such expenditure is the life blood of CAP.  When we "pony up" money for things, contribute to a unit property or buy uniforms (which are mandatory in most CAP missions) that is what make CAP function at the squadron level.  People's desire to "see this that way in terms of 'bling'" or "I think we need to authorize this because the USAF, or name your agency here, has it" is unthinking of the overall expense.  Removal of a uniform because it "bothers" a person (and the cheering that began this thread) are uncalled for.

I will say this for my over all point on the matter, most that say that they will "walk" because of this likely would not do so if they had a statement from National or CAP-USAF that said the USAF objected.  Right now the "hodge-podge" of speculation and hearsay does not inspire a reversal of the a fore mentioned sentiments, which reinforces the idea that..."If you screw with the membership in this manner, then how can one expect loyalty?"

   Removing the "ground floor" from members, many of whom had waited a significant time before purchase and (note: I asked CAP-USAF officials, and other did as well, if this uniform was objectionable or slated for removal) asked leadership if the CSU was a "keeper" and were either met with silence or "its up to you." That remains a horrible precedent becoming common in many CAP circles. 

Last minute additions of pet projects and changes effecting the entire CAP, little visible planning.  There was even a Uniform Committee that seems to have fizzled into CAP history... What was that? "opium for the masses?"  To make us think we, CAP as an organization, had some control?  CAP "Student Council?"  It would have been glorious and demonstrated that some degree of PLANNING had taken place.

These are real issues that CAP needs to address and I would be remiss on the Core Value of Excellence of I failed to point them out.

[tarheel gumby]

Just my opinion, for what it is worth, reading the applicable AFI's I have come to the conclusion that the CSU must go away. It is too close to the Army Service Uniform to avoid conflict with AF Instructions...... Now as to why this has been handled in the way was, who knows what is going on. I just don't see any dark or nefarious plots in the shadows. I am also disgusted by all of the venom that I have seen expended on this issue. There issues with the Grey and White uniform combination, we can fix it if we work with the AF and other interested parties.

[FW]

It is very easy to criticize members who "vent" on CT.  I've noticed that we tend to get more upset when we are treated poorly or worse; ignored.  It is a point that should be made and taken seriously. Behaviorists have studied this issue over and over.  The consensus is unanimous.  Ignore them and, they will leave; usually mad and, at many times, verbal.  Make them feel wanted and, they will stay, be happy and productive.  It's a pretty basic principle.

[JC004]

...
    Arbitrary means thing were done for the sake of "because."  The "schmucks" I am referring to are people that fail to take membership expenditure into account.  Such expenditure is the life blood of CAP.  When we "pony up" money for things, contribute to a unit property or buy uniforms (which are mandatory in most CAP missions) that is what make CAP function at the squadron level.  People's desire to "see this that way in terms of 'bling'" or "I think we need to authorize this because the USAF, or name your agency here, has it" is unthinking of the overall expense.  Removal of a uniform because it "bothers" a person (and the cheering that began this thread) are uncalled for.
...

Maybe in addition to the "Estimated Funding Impact" item on the agendas, they should have
"Estimated Cost to Members" or some such thing.

[Ned]

^^^^ That's a great idea!

[JC004]

I've said it before and I'll say it again 'til I see it on the agenda.   

This has to become part of the culture on the Board.  They must consider the impact their decisions have on volunteers who are paying A LOT of money to volunteer.  I dare say that'd have an impact on retention.

[High Speed Low Drag]

I've said it before and I'll say it again 'til I see it on the agenda.   

This has to become part of the culture on the Board.  They must consider the impact their decisions have on volunteers who are paying A LOT of money to volunteer.  I dare say that'd have an impact on retention.

Amen   :clap:    Retention is a huge deal and that is one thing that we have not addressed before on this thread regarding uniforms.  Good thought.  A friend of mine just got back from NSC and according to what he learned there, we loose a member for every member we get.  Why?  Could this lack of focus, lack of a leadership system be contributory?

[ColonelJack]

+1 JC004!!

From everything I have read and/or heard on the issue, the only thing that is clear is ... NOTHING about the decision to end the CSU is clear.

Now realize, I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who shelled out some serious coin to make that uniform a part of my kit, because -- when I first considered rejoining CAP -- there was no way I could have worn the AF uniform.  That no longer applies; I am now well within both CAP and AF guidelines for uniform wear.

But you know what?  I, too, think the CSU was a sharp-looking uniform.  Could it have been handled better?  Yes.  While I like the hard rank, I also don't have any issue with wearing gray epaulet sleeves on the CSU coat.  And we never should have infringed on AF rank slides ... why was it so difficult to just put the gray slides on the aviator shirt for the CSU, as we do for the gray slacks?

All that aside, I'm not upset about the CSU being yanked because of the money I spent on it.  I've spent a lot more on things that didn't get anywhere near the use, and I don't regret any of those, either.  No, what upsets me is that the decision appears, as Sparky has said, totally arbitrary.

From here, it looks like someone on the NEC didn't like the uniform and saw the latest meeting as their chance to make a move.  Add to that the current AF advisor (or whatever Col. Ward's title is) not liking the CSU as well, and it didn't matter that perhaps thousands of members had bought the outfit or that the current National CC wears it from time to time -- it had to go.

If that's the case, just say so.  I still won't like the decision ... but I'll have a heck of a lot more respect for the "process" that made it.  Just say that the uniform hacked you off and you wanted to get rid of it and found the right time ... don't give me any claptrap about "AF didn't like it" or "it was causing issues".  Just say that you hated it and wanted it gone and had the power to make it so.

(I really shouldn't try to post when I'm on 2 1/2 hours of sleep.  If any of this made sense to you, please explain it to me ...)

Jack

[NCRblues]

Ok simple question, does everyone believe that the emails from region cc's (and I believe there was one from a wing king but can't seem to find it) and the power point from cap/cc just a lie about the air force applying pressure? And if you think so can you explain your reasoning?

[Major Carrales]

Ok simple question, does everyone believe that the emails from region cc’s (and I believe there was one from a wing king but can’t seem to find it) and the power point from cap/cc just a lie about the air force applying pressure? And if you think so can you explain your reasoning?

Considering you don't even know the names of the sources and don't seem to know the exact content of the documents in question, I find your post most "unusual."  Such a post requires research this occasion.

Show me these letters please that I might view them by your hand...

All it would take the end this is for CAP-USAF or the National Commander to make those statements and it all ends.

[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.

2200 Monday and NHQ website still has this page up. Just sayin'.

[NCRblues]

oh major, you make me laugh
The power point was posted on response #617 as well as #504. Response #296 from Ohio wing king, response #246 for glr/cc

My question still stands, are they lies?

[Major Carrales]

oh major, you make me laugh
The power point was posted on response #617 as well as #504. Response #296 from Ohio wing king, response #246 for glr/cc

Glad I could oblige...
Just making sure you're keeping up your end.   

[High Speed Low Drag]

Ok simple question, does everyone believe that the emails from region cc’s (and I believe there was one from a wing king but can’t seem to find it) and the power point from cap/cc just a lie about the air force applying pressure? And if you think so can you explain your reasoning?

I didn’t see the Region CC’s email, so I can’t comment.  As far as the slides from CAP/CC, I’m not sure that I believe that it came from her.  From what I have seen, MG Courter seems to be a professional and interested in us all working together.  The wording in the slides, especially with some of the key issues, makes it seem to me that someone prepared it and (at best) went out over her signature.  Also, the briefing seems to be past tense as to what happened, as well as there were a lot of points included that were being very hotly debated on CT at the time.  Honestly, just not enough evidence either way, but my 17 years of people not being truthful with me is making my neck hairs tingle.

I would not be at all surprised if it was manufactured to “prove” a point, but at the same time I am not saying that it was manufactured.  If it did come from National, then it just tells me that HQ classifies me as a second-class member b/c I am not worthy of wearing a nice uniform and that my opinion (and most everyone else’s) means diddly to them.

Either scenario is bad.  But – all this is pure speculation.  Until HQ puts something out (which we are all desperately waiting for), we just have speculation.  That is why there are groups actively working on proposals - to get this uniform stuff behind us once and for all.

PS - In the time it took to me to write this and eat a sandwhich, 4 posts.  It is hard to keep up

[Major Carrales]

The multimedia presentation (which I had not analyzed in full until now) by Major General Courter (if they are genuine, Major General Courter is usually more "professional" in the generation of her multimedia) I would consider an official source, however, I must point out the most disturbing elements of this whole matter. Assuming this is real and not some clever chicanery)

March-Aug 2006, the uniform was approved by various actions of the NB and NEC including several changes after the "horse was out of the gate," i.e. the 1 line nameplate replaced with the 2 line.  Jackets went into production.  That is the first instance of "wasted member funds."  The "US" lapel pins were replaced by CAP ones, (second waste of money) By November 2006 (three years ago) its protocols/customs/procedure was codified.

However, as early as August 2006 

"HQ USAF/A3/5 General Officer wrote to BoG
• Concerned that the blue/white uniform “does not meet the “does not meet the
letter and intent” of policy guidance

• Concerned that it “is not significantly different from the U.S. Armed Forces uniforms to
avoid confusion”

• Directed that all future corporate uniforms to be vetted through USAF, too.
(to ensure distinctiveness)

And here is where I am made even more irate... Despite this being known, more and more developments to the uniform were added up to as late as September 2009 (two months before the "surprised" nixing of it all.

Why was this allowed to happen?  Were talking three years here!!!  I submit that there is the "appearance" that policies of the NB and NEC "misrepresented" the situation to the general membership and maybe even Vanguard and lead to a flagrant significant waste of member resources. In my eye that sort of goes against the Core Value of Excellence.  But that is, of course, opinion and speculation of the same sort I have been pointing out and will only entertain that as nothing more than blarney.

I am very very put out by this... I am throwing my support to all uniform proposals being put through a "member expense" caveat and research period and that all future proposals of the NB or NEC include research to determine the effects of these changes to members.  Maybe making this extra step will prevent sudden uniform changes, additions and amendments to CAP Uniform Policy and avoid such debacles in the future.

This is sick...I may be physically ill!!!  I hope much is learned from this and that a mitigation action be placed into effect to commence immediately.

[PA Guy]

If that's the case, just say so.  I still won't like the decision ... but I'll have a heck of a lot more respect for the "process" that made it.  Just say that the uniform hacked you off and you wanted to get rid of it and found the right time ... don't give me any claptrap about "AF didn't like it" or "it was causing issues".  Just say that you hated it and wanted it gone and had the power to make it so.

Isn't it possible, just possible, that someone high enough in the AF food chain came to the CAP/CC and said "I hate that uniform and it hacks me off, get rid of it"?  Just like with the berry boards, don't expect a specific AF name to be attached to the edict the world doesn't work that way.  This was an easy fix for the AF, I mean what possible pay back could there be for the AF?  The AF doesn't give a tinker's *#(^ about CAP recruiting/retention, morale or cost to members.  They can't fix their own uniform problems or effectively control their overweight personnel, been on a base lately or seen some of the ANG/Res folks walking around?  CAP is an easy fix, they say jump and we ask "how high" and with no paybacks.  It has always been that way, based on my 30+ yrs. membership, and I don't see it changing. I also don't require a detailed explanation from CAP/CC or the NEC.  Enough information has been leaked to make it pretty clear who was driving this decision.  But if you expect Col Ward or some other AF officer to take ownership for this decision it will be a long wait, why shoud they be the bad guy when they can dump it on the CAP/CC or NEC.  For those who have forgotten or weren't around this is the berry board debacle all over again.

By the way.  For all of those who have wanted increased AF control of CAP, well here you have it.  For what it's worth I haven't worn the AF style uniform for the last 10 yrs.

[NC Hokie]

The power point was posted on response #617 as well as #504. Response #296 from Ohio wing king, response #246 for glr/cc

My question still stands, are they lies?

Lies? Probably not, but they aren't exactly authoritative.  I think it's reasonable to expect an organization with a history of governing by ICL to do more than pass around a couple of memos and a set of briefing notes.

[Hawk200]

I think it's reasonable to expect an organization with a history of governing by ICL to do more than pass around a couple of memos and a set of briefing notes.

Why? Instead of supplementing pubs like they should have been, they've been using ICL's.  So many people here believe that NB/NEC meeting minutes are regulatory, so why shouldn't a powerpoint presentation be? Why bother with anything formal when people are gonna accept the first thing they see anyway?

If people think some type of official documentation is required, then this entire discussion is seriously jumping the gun.