2011 CAP Annual Conference and Winter National Board---NEWS

[keystone102]

While I agree that our governing bodies (BOG, NEC, NB) has legitimate reasons to have closed sessions I don't believe that the issue of how our corporation is governed is one of them. It is a item of interest to all members and is not a personnel issue or attorney-client privilege. 

To me it looks like the Board is hiding a item of vital interest to all of its members. How a nonprofit is governed is something that the members should participate in, even if it is by watching the deliberations over the web so we can let our corporate officers know our opinions (through the chain of command).

[MICT1362]

I know that there are some complaints about what was or wasn't discussed behind closed doors.  But, just for some clarification, these are a few things that are allowed by most laws to be discussed behind closed doors.

(b) No subjects shall be discussed at any closed or executive meeting, except the
following:

(1.) Personnel matters of nonelected personnel;
(2.) consultation with an attorney for the body or agency which would be deemed privileged in the attorney-client relationship;
(3.) matters relating to employer-employee negotiations whether or not in consultation with the representative or representatives of the body or agency;
(4.) confidential data relating to financial affairs or trade secrets of corporations, partnerships, trusts, and individual proprietorships;
(5.) matters relating to actions adversely or favorably affecting a person as a student, patient or resident of a public institution, except that any such person shall have the right to a public hearing if requested by the person;
(6.) preliminary discussions relating to the acquisition of real property
(7.) matters required to be discussed in a closed or executive meeting pursuant to a tribal-state gaming compact; and
(8.) matters relating to the security of a public body or agency, public building or facility or the information system of a public body or agency, if the discussion of such matters at an open meeting would jeopardize the security of such public body, agency, building, facility or information system.

(c) No binding action shall be taken during closed or executive recesses, and such recesses shall not be used as a subterfuge to defeat the purposes of this act.

The bolded section is probably the most important.  Now, once the minutes come out, feel free to scrutinize them for foul play.

Do I agree that we should have spent an entire day in closed session, no.  But, on the same token, it wasn't my call.  For an organization that depends solely on its everyday volunteers to be anything of function, I would think that you wouldn't want to keep a whole lot from them, ever... Just my opinion though.

-Paramedic

[ßτε]

Just because they didn't video stream the rest of the meeting doesn't mean it was a closed session.

[Ned]

See, this is a pretty good example of why a deliberative body might want to meet in closed session to discuss sensitive issues.

Assuming for a moment that governance issues were discussed, you have already seen an interesting phenomena here on CT':  people attempting to spin and improperly manipulate the process right here.

We've has a couple of anonymous newbies come on and breathlessly tell us what was and wasn't discussed.  We have had accusations of "power grabs, "  cute new pejorative nicknames for our senior leaders, and other black helicopter stuff.

By definition, anytime a corporation changes its governance, the "power" will shift.  Indeed, that's kinda the point of a governance change.  And it is fairly predictable that whoever will no longer be exercising a particular "power" will dissemble, spin, and point out the "power grab" by whatever entity will now be exercising the power in question.  Unfortunately, that's just human nature.

So continue to be critical information consumers.  Evaluate the credibility of the posts; watch for ulterior motives, and keep that grain of salt handy.  You're gonna need it.

Ned Lee

[Wild Weasel]

For what it's worth, there's a quote in the SOS literature:

"....leadership is a bond of trust.  Officers must create that bond with subordinates by maintaining standards and, through courage, setting the example.  Troop loyalty is built on trust and respect of the leader; this loyalty is what will set your unit above others, discernable by both morale and motivation of your followers."

This issue might be an example of what can happen if bonds of trust, respect and loyalty are strained between leaders and subordinates.  I trust NHQ is no doubt full of outstanding individuals of highest character and dedication; I err on the side of believing in and supporting my leaders (not blindly, but always professionally).  I also fully understand the actions of some leaders past and present have harmed the bonds of trust & loyalty of some outstanding volunteers.  It will take clear actions, time & courage to reclaim that trust.  I admire those at NHQ trying to do just that. 

Point being, every one of us are leaders at the squadron level.  I'm re-learning how critical it is to maintain USAF/CAP standards in bearing, appearance, attitude and loyalty to superiors...and how my attitude towards leadership influences others.  Governance and power issues will play out.  To me, it's more interesting to learn something about leadership from this debate and apply lessons at my squadron.