Summer 2011 National Board Agenda

[JC004]

This is very strange.  People did not jump the the uniform-related topics.  Is everyone feeling ok?

[flyboy53]

Col. W.

If it were not too late, I would suggest the following related to uniform changes.

There needs to be a fiscal impact considered of the membership and more specifically what the individual member would bear in terms of cost if the uniform change were implemented. That figure needs to be included with any NHQ-prescribed uniform change. Wing and local commanders take that into consideration during those types of special events by offering a t-shirt or baseball cap, explaining the cost, and giving the member the option of voluntarily purchasing the item.

In regard to the CSU, too often on these pages, the most common argument as to why the uniform needed to be retained was due to the cost incurred by the member. In my own experience, assorted senior wing/region/NHQ leadership would show up at wing or region conferences and push the uniforms almost to the point of intimidation.

When the command patch changed four times in just as many years, and there were changes to name tapes twice on the BDU or utility uniforms, nobody ever factored the cost incurred on the individual member. Those costs should include the cost of the badge or uniform item and/or the cost of replacement of a uniform item damaged by the previous patch's removal. These days when wing/national dues are increasing to a point close to $100 a year, these small costs add up and create a burden on the membership that has a direct bearing on whether they renew or not.

I would also suggest that NHQ develop a form, complete with routing/approval process, so that the individual member could recommend a change or design a badge or patch.

And, although not part of the agenda items, I suggest that CAP formally adopt the Air Force's healdry standards and procedures for FUTURE changes to things like wing patches.

[JC004]

I didn't mean for people to start...

The current process he is tossing about is an online solution for what you are saying.  Individual member costs would be factored in that as well as in all NB proposals, as it is being discussed.

The problem we may have, as I see it, is that if we make leaps to standardize the uniform and get things in order for a BIG fix, it could be that there might be higher costs.  That can be reduced a bit by allowing a decent transition period, but the thing we have going on here is OUT OF CONTROL.  We have a CRAP LOAD of versions of just the golf shirt!  And that's the simplest uniform!

[RiverAux]

The thing is that most of the uniform changes are so minor that the member cost is insignificant.  For example, changing a patch is not going to cost enough to really be a factor. 

Now, if we're talking about a major change (eliminating CSU or changing BDUs) then the cost is probably enough to be worth mentioning.  But, even then cost is going to be a relative factor.  To some members, spending $200 on a new dress uniform isn't a big deal while to others it just isn't worth it.  There is no way to objectively look at cost given those different perspectives. 

[Ned]

If it is helpful, every single session of the National Uniform Committee I have attended have included discussions about costs (or savings) to members when considering changes.

Ned Lee
Member, National Uniform Committee

[zonaman]

This is very strange.  People did not jump the the uniform-related topics.  Is everyone feeling ok?

HA! I was waiting for someone to notice, but, this IS "the lobby". We would have to start yet a nother thread in the uniforms and awards area . . . .

I agree with JC0004. A lengthy phase in/out period would help with member costs. Buying one item here and there spaced out over time is a lot more budget friendly than spending $200.00 at once. Just look at the AF and how long there phase in/out period is.

[NCRblues]

If it is helpful, every single session of the National Uniform Committee I have attended have included discussions about costs (or savings) to members when considering changes.

Ned Lee
Member, National Uniform Committee

Man Ned, your on every committee... how do us worker peons get put on committees?

That is something i would like to see, committees made up of rank and file members. No commanders, no NEC or NB members, no BOG members. Just your average CAP officer for real input and real feedback.....

[JC004]

That is something i would like to see, committees made up of rank and file members.
...

[DakRadz]

That is something i would like to see, committees made up of rank and file members.
...

Anyone going to point out he put an "f" instead of a "v"?

(JC004, am I on the right track?)

[NCRblues]

That is something i would like to see, committees made up of rank and file members.
...

Anyone going to point out he put an "f" instead of a "v"?

(JC004, am I on the right track?)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rank+and+file

?

[DakRadz]

That is something i would like to see, committees made up of rank and file members.
...

Anyone going to point out he put an "f" instead of a "v"?

(JC004, am I on the right track?)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rank+and+file

?

Sorry, I was kidding around. Understood what you meant, sir.

Upon further reflection, I have no idea what JC is aiming his smiley at.

[Ned]

That is something i would like to see, committees made up of rank and file members. No commanders, no NEC or NB members, no BOG members. Just your average CAP officer for real input and real feedback.....

Actually, I fully agree with you.  (Although I still think of myself as a worker bee.)

The Uniform Committee is mostly current and former wing commanders and would benefit from having a few "uniform wonks."

And most of the other National Committees tend to be mostly corporate officers as well.

[RiverAux]

Well, you'd expect that most national-level committees would primarily be made up of those that have worked in CAP at the national level and that is mostly going to be your Colonels.  However, I think its pretty clear that most active Colonels have a lot of stuff on their plate and when you are talking about getting into the nitty-gritty of regulation sausage making you need some staff involved.  Its not like Senators and Congressmen actually write our laws.  In our case NHQ paid staff do most of the writing, but it would make sense to have some folks involved who are actually normal CAP members who would be impacted by those regs. 

[NCRblues]

That is something i would like to see, committees made up of rank and file members. No commanders, no NEC or NB members, no BOG members. Just your average CAP officer for real input and real feedback.....

Actually, I fully agree with you.  (Although I still think of myself as a worker bee.)

The Uniform Committee is mostly current and former wing commanders and would benefit from having a few "uniform wonks."

And most of the other National Committees tend to be mostly corporate officers as well.

I know someone who would love to be on the uniform committee.... me

[JC004]

...
Upon further reflection, I have no idea what JC is aiming his smiley at.

Why not?  Anyone who has been around for a while should know I am all about tapping all this potential that we have in the field but goes only slightly used.

[Eclipse]

Committees made up of corporate officers miss the whole point of a committee.

Someone at the wing CC level should not be turning the wrench on where insignia should be placed, or which shade of blue the pants should be.  They should be finding an appointing competent people with proven experience to consider the questions and then submit a recommendation.  Obviously they can inject their opinions, but they should not be the ones sitting in a room with swatches and badges.

These are the kinds of things CAC's are supposed to do as well - not plan cadet picnics, but wrench-turn issues and questions submitted to them by CC.

[NCRblues]

Committees made up of corporate officers miss the whole point of a committee.

Someone at the wing CC level should not be turning the wrench on where insignia should be placed, or which shade of blue the pants should be.  They should be finding an appointing competent people with proven experience to consider the questions and then submit a recommendation.  Obviously they can inject their opinions, but they should not be the ones sitting in a room with swatches and badges.

These are the kinds of things CAC's are supposed to do as well - not plan cadet picnics, but wrench-turn issues and questions submitted to them by CC.

My god, a snowball was just made in hell....  :clap:

AGREE 100%

[Smokey]

A commitee made up of colonels to decide uniform wear....OMG.......

WTF were they thinking......after observing the NB & NEC at their meetings (both in person and on the web) and the disfunctional nature at times....we will probably end up with polka dot pants, striped shirts ( and big floppy shoes) so as to be distinctive enuf for the AF!!!!!!!!!!

But then again Radioman would be thrilled.............

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

With all due respect to the hard work of Ned Lee and his colleagues, and I am not trying to be sarcastic, I do not see the point of making uniform suggestions.

Why?

Because it seems to me, and to others I have spoken to, that, especially in the aftermath of the CSU, NB doesn't care what the membership thinks regarding uniforms.  If they did, they wouldn't have axed the popular CSU out of nowhere the way they did, with seemingly no explanation other than the "distinctiveness" cliche, which really has no meaning in hard-and-fast terms.

The way that came down was "you can't have it, and if you can't fit into the AF uniform, you have to make do with the colourless grey/white and wear a blazer that makes you look very un-aviator, and forget about any of your decorations on it."

If the AIR FORCE would have done it that way, the Tony McPeak uniform would be the standard AF service dress today.  Don't like those Navy/Airline Pilot sleeve piston rings?  TOUGH.  WEAR IT.

At one time I had several uniform ideas to send up the chain, but what's the point?

I am sorry if this sounds overly bitter, but honesty is my only excuse.

[RiverAux]

Committees made up of corporate officers miss the whole point of a committee.

Technically, these are committees of the National Board.  Sort of like how Congress has comittees made up of Senators and Congressmen.  Staff and/or the general public aren't on the committees.

HOWEVER, the committees do have dedicated staff personnel who actually do most of the work.  That is what we need here, but I still would think you'd need corporate officers to be the official committee and decide what gets passed on to the NB.