Sheriff Dept Sponsored CAP Squadron

Started by Earhart1971, March 30, 2006, 09:20:24 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Pylon

Quote from: shorning on March 31, 2006, 10:16:40 PM
Quote from: Pylon link=topic=699.msg7632#msg7632Well... some wings happen to have two or more corporate officers... if they've got a Region Commander, National Commander, National Vice, or other members of the NEC and NB residing in their Wing.

Your wing only has one.  The others just live there.  So there may be access to other corporate officers.  But they are still outside your wing.  

Besides, shouldn't we be handling issues at the lowest level possible?

The second section of my post clearly indicates that, yes, things go through the proper channels and just because there are corporate officers around doesn't mean you can just go right to them.  I was merely making an observation that there are corporate officers all around us.
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP

shorning

Quote from: Pylon on March 31, 2006, 11:03:08 PM
I was merely making an observation that there are corporate officers all around us.

You are correct...unfortunateyly (they are all around us).

Nick

Lowest level possible... yeah, I seem to remember reading that somewhere. :)

But yes, corporate officers are all around us... our wing commander even works on my base, but as much as I'd like to call him for stuff, that whole 'lowest level' tihng always puts a damper on it.
Nicholas McLarty, Lt Col, CAP
Texas Wing Staff Guy
National Cadet Team Guy Emeritus

Earhart1971

My little experiment exposes a few characteristics of typical behavior of some CAP members.

I asked you all if you would support such a project.

Most of you have answers that are concerned with whether some regulations would be violated and / or NO it should not be done at all.

Your thoughts were not even focused on how this might be accomplished or how you could support it and help it happen.

Instead you look for ways to PICK IT APART.

This is the kind of stuff that keeps CAP small and insignificant.

You guys have any ideas yourself on how to get a Squadron 50,000 dollars in support and financing each year?


arajca

#24
Overall, I think it's a great idea, as, I'm sure, do many of the members here. If we didn't, we wouldn't spend the time to give you the information. It's just that many proponents of ideas like this fail to take an in-depth look as to what pitfalls and restrictions exist.

Quote from: Earhart1971 on March 30, 2006, 09:20:24 AM
Major Chuck,

I thought I might run this by you and others on this forum.

What if there was a local Sheriff Race, and one of the Candidates was an Ex CAP Cadet?  No its not me, its one of my Fellow Cadets from the 70s.

This Sheriff Candidate wants to IF ELECTED, set up a SHERIFF DEPT sponsored Squadron.

Allow CAP Personnel to fly the Sheriff Fixed Wing Aircraft (for Searches and other appropriate CAP Missions).  Also, operate with CAP Ground Teams and Sheriff Helicopters on regular exercises, and on real ground searches, searches for lost kids, and missing persons.
To allow the flying activites you mention, you'll need an MOU listed who is responsible for what (fuel, maint, insurance).

QuoteI am not talking about turning off ELTs in Hangars and that kind of stuff, I'm talking about searches from the old days, the kind of stuff we as cadets were called out of school for.
Don't know about the getting called out of school, but this would excite many people - mostly in a positive way.

QuoteThe Sheriff would have a budget for CAP Operations, plus apply for Grants for the Squadron.

Have Cadets co enrolled in the Sheriff Explorer and CAP Cadet Program.

Have Sheriff Deputies co enrolled as Senior Members.

In other words create a Sponsorship and relationship where the Sheriff Dept has a Trained internal Volunteer Force of CAP members who can do Searches, and do joint training, deploy for disaster relief, and most important, have money and resources coming out of the Sheriff Budget, plus vehicles and everything needed to perform any mission required.
Before attempting this, get the lawyers involved on CAP's side, because you know the county will get theirs involved.

QuoteLets face it, most CAP members want to spend ZERO TIME raising funds to operate a Squadron.

CAP volunteers will gravitate to a Squadron WITH ASSETS, great support, and a Mission.
Amen, Brother, Amen!

QuoteWe could probably have a budget at squadron level of $20,000 to 50,000 per year, PLus vehicles, aircraft, and other assets that CAP Members can use and not have to pay maintenance on.

I can see a Squadron of 300 Members, with the kind of money and assets this Sheriff Dept has and can afford.
Drool.

QuoteI think it would be the perfect marriage of an excellent Program (CAP) to available money and resources.
It has the potential to be. The devil is in the details.

QuoteMy question to all of you, would the general national membership of CAP support such a Candidate with private donations?
That's the million dollar question.

QuoteThe reason I ask, if this works at one Sheriff Dept in the Country it will work in them all, it just takes one Sheriff to do it Successfully then others will follow.
Not necessarily. You'd need to check with the various laws, not just at the state level, but at the county level as well. What works in one county may not in another.

QuoteIt makes sense on every level, including our new role in Homeland Security.
You said the magic words as to why it won't work - it makes sense. ;D

pixelwonk

actually, you originally posed this question:
Quote from: Earhart1971
My question to all of you, would the general national membership of CAP support such a Candidate with private donations?

If the above is all you really want to know, then, well I guess I wouldn't financially contribute to a campaign of a Sheriff candidate in another county in a state outside my own.  Heck, I don't contribute to anybody's political campaign anyway. I get out and vote on the day for voting and wait to see where the chips fall.

You mentioned that the responses seem typical of some CAP members.  Well... duh, sir.  That's how it's gonna be for some.  After all, we are but sheep, and the regs are safe.  safe is good.  Now, the problem is that you're sniffing around the wrong tree for support and info, and getting upset when you find your nose in a pile of poo.  ;)

On the other hand, I love the idea of so much CAP support and what you're proposing sounds like a remarkable idea.  WIWG got a wicked-cool mobile command center because it asked for one with the support from local law enforcement. (no flames people... it's here, but it's not mine, so lets move on).  It has helped to establish relationships with Emergency management, LE and the like.

Please, bring this issue up your chain and see how it can be implemented.  You need the support from your higher -ups!  

 :) All the best...

Eclipse

#26
Quote from: Earhart1971 on April 01, 2006, 03:08:56 PM
My little experiment exposes a few characteristics of typical behavior of some CAP members.

I asked you all if you would support such a project.

Most of you have answers that are concerned with whether some regulations would be violated and / or NO it should not be done at all.

Your thoughts were not even focused on how this might be accomplished or how you could support it and help it happen.

Instead you look for ways to PICK IT APART.

This is the kind of stuff that keeps CAP small and insignificant.

You guys have any ideas yourself on how to get a Squadron 50,000 dollars in support and financing each year?



As leaders we have a responsibility to see the WHOLE picture - not just the parts that fit the "neat idea of the week".

Too many of our members join because of what they THINK CAP is, and when they find out what its really about, and what we can or can't do,  expend a lot of time gnashing teeth about inertia and roadblocks.

Make no mistake.

What you are proposing puts us square into a space which is forbidden by our charter, law enforcement.  The nuance of where LEA's begin and end in SAR ops is gray and a place for the lawyers to make money.  But its a big problem for this idea.

You are not proposing using meeting space and begging for money, which is what CAP 's normal cooperation level with LEA is.  They buy off on the whole apple pie/Chevrolet idea of building leaders and keeping bored seniors off their streets, and the community is better off for it. 

If, on the off-chance, CAP provides help at a pancake breakfast, or in some kind of disaster scenario, awesome.

What you are proposing, however, is an integration with LEA which is likely a charter violation, but even if its not, its problematic.

What you are talking about would be to leverage the curriculum, training, and agency authorization of two disconnected entities, while discarding regs and prohibitions which get in the way of your idea.

Again, the idea of accessing resources of an LEA, and paying them back with service is what we are about.

Integrating CAP with their training and response plans on the level you suggest will generate indigestion to the NHQ level in the Legal Directorate.

I'm also hoping, for your sake, that you haven't run this fully up the Sheriff chain and gotten them all fired up, only to be potentially knocked back by your command chain, and then going back to the Sheriff's Dept and complain how this is "CAP's fault".

I can't tell you how many "cool points" we have burned around me doing this - come up with a 1/2-baked plan that isn't thought through to the unpleasant side of liability and responsibility, get everyone at the cooperative agency excited before anyone has checked if its even POSSIBLE, let alone AUTHORIZED, and then when they get knocked back its "Command's Fault", which is counterproductive to the more important far-reaching mission, because our credibility as a whole has been compromised needlessly.

And yes, you asked us if we would support this project.  We thought about it, and compared it to regs.  The answer was either "no", or ask "ask again later" (with more information).  And so now we are all roadblocks to progress. Nice.

EDIT:  Followup - What you didn't mention is that you are in Florida. Considering the high OPS Tempo of FLWG, and the fact that Maj. Gen. Pineada is from there and a member of a FLA LEA, I would think that if you could get this done anyplace it would be there.  I'm not saying its any less problematic as an idea, but you've got some good "IN's" to make it happen.

"That Others May Zoom"

Earhart1971

Quote From Capt Bob Williams

"I can't tell you how many "cool points" we have burned around me doing this - come up with a 1/2-baked plan that isn't thought through to the unpleasant side of liability and responsibility, get everyone at the cooperative agency excited before anyone has checked if its even POSSIBLE, let alone AUTHORIZED, and then when they get knocked back its "Command's Fault", which is counterproductive to the more important far-reaching mission, because our credibility as a whole has been compromised needlessly."

To be frank, I really don't understand your point of view. You seem freaked out by a connection to Law Enforcement and Liability.

CAP right now is naked with Liability at the local level, I would rather have a sponsor take on that.

You have concluded this is bad, and you are basing it on Liability.

CAP at the local level is on LIFE SUPPORT.

CAP operates out of the members wallets.

We are not going to survive as an organization of 50,000 members, the Air Force will start chiseling away more at that budget of 20 million.

The budget supports National HQ and 130 employees.

Now, follow me on this, CAP has some untapped politicial resources.

CAP with Sponsorship can do a lot more, with money, assets, and facilities make all the difference.

READ this: NO MISSION CHANGE will take place, again THE CAP MISSION STAYS THE SAME.

The difference is if a disaster happens, or a major ground search happens, we activate the same way by the Air Force, and we roll with assets that are provided in coop with the sponsor.

It just so happens that a SHERIFF that was a former cadet, knows the program and wants to see it succeed as the EXISTING PROGRAM, and not change it.

In fact his command staff if he is elected will include some CAP members.

The Flag ship of this is the CADET PROGRAM and SENIORS that will support the CADET PROGRAM.

We will have Aircraft and Helicopters, and let me ask you this, which is better, again no mission change, being sponsored by a entity ON SITE with 150 Million Dollars in Liability INSURANCE or the backdrop of CAP with whatever the Liability that CAP Carries.

Now, I just don't see that huge liability that you do, if there is a lawsuit the Sheriff will be the one sued, because lawyers follow the entity with the most money.

The Lawyers have ruined CAP and it appears everybody is afraid of their own shadow these days.

Whats the last lawsuit that CAP paid?

If Liability is the issue, its a NON ISSUE.

And finally, my Ideas are not new or half baked, I talked about this AT MAXWELL AFB in 1986, in front of the National Commander and few others.

And you are assuming that I have not talked since then, believe me when I say this, I touch all the bases.

But I thought this forum might be a nice test of the concept, and it is, my mentor in CAP since 1960 predicted I would get responses like this.

And I can recall a lot of Group Commanders Calls, hearing the same stuff you are saying.






Earhart1971

Quote from: tedda on April 01, 2006, 04:54:27 PM
actually, you originally posed this question:
Quote from: Earhart1971
My question to all of you, would the general national membership of CAP support such a Candidate with private donations?

If the above is all you really want to know, then, well I guess I wouldn't financially contribute to a campaign of a Sheriff candidate in another county in a state outside my own.  Heck, I don't contribute to anybody's political campaign anyway. I get out and vote on the day for voting and wait to see where the chips fall.

You mentioned that the responses seem typical of some CAP members.  Well... duh, sir.  That's how it's gonna be for some.  After all, we are but sheep, and the regs are safe.  safe is good.  Now, the problem is that you're sniffing around the wrong tree for support and info, and getting upset when you find your nose in a pile of poo.  ;)

On the other hand, I love the idea of so much CAP support and what you're proposing sounds like a remarkable idea.  WIWG got a wicked-cool mobile command center because it asked for one with the support from local law enforcement. (no flames people... it's here, but it's not mine, so lets move on).  It has helped to establish relationships with Emergency management, LE and the like.

Please, bring this issue up your chain and see how it can be implemented.  You need the support from your higher -ups!  

 :) All the best...

First of I am not upset or surprised.

I am into reality, and to me IF we approach CAP membership with this possibility and this is the whole pitch. And I know there will be huge friction and I am not afraid of over coming rational thought and objections.

This is the Proposal:

We have a Candidate For Sheriff in Yada, Yada County.

We are going to institute a Sponsored CAP Squadron if elected.

The Sheriff has a budget for volunteers, we have money that can be granted from youth, and other programs, and we can apply for more money in Grants.

The Sheriff wants the volunteers to operate under CAP rules, Regs, and perform CAP Missions IAW AIR FORCE and CAP REGs.

Why is the Sheriff doing this? Because he is a former cadet and he believes in CAP and its Programs.

If that were the stated platform, would you send $10 to support the Candidate, even though you are in MONTANA or elsewhere?

In a nutshell thats the question, by the way, I would not be wasting my time talking about this unless it would become reality shortly.

But I appreciate the views of this forum, because when I go on the road to sell this to other members I will know upfront what some may say.

And Legal Liability was not even on my radar before I posted here, so I am really pleased to get all of your comments.

But again, we are being sponsored AT THE SQUADRON level with a entity with a BUDGET 8 times the size of the National CAP Budget, it will be the SAFEST Squadron for a Senior Member to join as far a liability.

And I have every intention of touching base with everybody at Maxwell on this.










arajca

One more point - specifically dealing with election issues - check with the state and local laws about fundraising. Some areas have laws that prohibit direct out of state funding for political campaigns. You may have to establish a PAC to use these funds. Also, you'll need to make it 100% crystal clear (not merely obvious) that while CAP MEMBERS are supporting this candidate, CAP, INC, is not.

Eclipse

As a civilian volunteer, liability and protection of both myself, familiy and the organization is always the FIRST and most important concern when considering ANY activity.

CAP is not a LEA, and if I wanted to be an LEO, I'd join a Police Force.

And just because you may be having local issues and your program(s) are on life support, don't insinuate this is a problem nationwide.

I also have no time for people who pull out "credibility vouchers" half way through conversation. (i.e. I have already briefed the Nat Commanders).

You asked what we thought - it's a half-baked idea which is troublesome from a charter and liability standpoint.

If you don't want to hear that, don't ask.


"That Others May Zoom"

Earhart1971

#31
Quote from: Eclipse on April 01, 2006, 08:18:55 PM
As a civilian volunteer, liability and protection of both myself, familiy and the organization is always the FIRST and most important concern when considering ANY activity.

CAP is not a LEA, and if I wanted to be an LEO, I'd join a Police Force.

And just because you may be having local issues and your program(s) are on life support, don't insinuate this is a problem nationwide.

I also have no time for people who pull out "credibility vouchers" half way through conversation. (i.e. I have already briefed the Nat Commanders).

You asked what we thought - it's a half-baked idea which is troublesome from a charter and liability standpoint.

If you don't want to hear that, don't ask.



Bob,

I am thick skinned and I respect your position, but what exactly is the adversion to LAW ENFORCEMENT supporting CAP?

It cannot be Liability, since we would be safer under a larger better funded organization at the local level, with the backup of CAP National.

I disagree with it, and if you have an alternative, way of a CAP Squadron getting similar support, I will support you on it.

We all need to wake, and smell the coffee, CAP is a great program, without support or assets it will die on the vine.



Earhart1971

Quote from: arajca on April 01, 2006, 08:13:05 PM
One more point - specifically dealing with election issues - check with the state and local laws about fundraising. Some areas have laws that prohibit direct out of state funding for political campaigns. You may have to establish a PAC to use these funds. Also, you'll need to make it 100% crystal clear (not merely obvious) that while CAP MEMBERS are supporting this candidate, CAP, INC, is not.

Excellent question:

It cannot be Official CAP support, and only individuals can donate, no corporations.



To para phrase: The question is can anyone DONATE?

Answer: Any United States Citizen can Donate to the campaign, from out of state or any US Territory, and any US Citizen overseas.

We don't need a PAC.


arajca

It seems like some people are concerned that a Sheriff supported squadron may become a Sheriff's Posse type organization.

With the information put out here, it has potential, BUT, the details will determine how effective it is. Which is why you (or whomever is going to do this) need to get the CAP legal folks involved from the start. It may very well turn out as you say, but there is also a strong possibility that CAP may end up liable for equipment and/or personnel they have no control over. Seen it happen with other organizations. One of the first things that come up with any MOU is who handles the liability for what. Even between two similar organizations (Haz Mat teams), we dealt with the liability issues before even discussing what kind of support would be given.

You also need to look at what will happen when the Sheriff (if elected) leaves office. Will the unit dry up? Will a new Sheriff try to deputize the members? There are a host of other concerns that can be brought up.

Eclipse

Quote from: Earhart1971 on April 01, 2006, 08:30:18 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 01, 2006, 08:18:55 PM
As a civilian volunteer, liability and protection of both myself, familiy and the organization is always the FIRST and most important concern when considering ANY activity.

CAP is not a LEA, and if I wanted to be an LEO, I'd join a Police Force.

And just because you may be having local issues and your program(s) are on life support, don't insinuate this is a problem nationwide.

I also have no time for people who pull out "credibility vouchers" half way through conversation. (i.e. I have already briefed the Nat Commanders).

You asked what we thought - it's a half-baked idea which is troublesome from a charter and liability standpoint.

If you don't want to hear that, don't ask.



Bob,

I am thick skinned and I respect your position, but what exactly is the adversion to LAW ENFORCEMENT supporting CAP?

It cannot be Liability, since we would be safer under a larger better funded organization at the local level, with the backup of CAP National.

I disagree with it, and if you have an alternative, way of a CAP Squadron getting similar support, I will support you on it.

We all need to wake, and smell the coffee, CAP is a great program, without support or assets it will die on the vine.




I have no issue, with law enforcement support, and even encourage inter-agency cooperation.  Your original message indicated INTEGRATION, where the lines of membership, etc., are blurred at best.

If the Sheriff wants to DONATE money to CAP, great.  Have him call me, too.  Of course if it is over $5k, is has to be donated to Wing, not an individual unit, and any equipment must be donated to the Wing, not a unit.

Also, though I am sure it happens somewhere, getting authorization to use a Police aircraft for a CAP mission will be a HUGE PITA. Good Luck.


"That Others May Zoom"

Earhart1971

Quote from: arajca on April 01, 2006, 08:40:34 PM
It seems like some people are concerned that a Sheriff supported squadron may become a Sheriff's Posse type organization.

With the information put out here, it has potential, BUT, the details will determine how effective it is. Which is why you (or whomever is going to do this) need to get the CAP legal folks involved from the start. It may very well turn out as you say, but there is also a strong possibility that CAP may end up liable for equipment and/or personnel they have no control over. Seen it happen with other organizations. One of the first things that come up with any MOU is who handles the liability for what. Even between two similar organizations (Haz Mat teams), we dealt with the liability issues before even discussing what kind of support would be given.

You also need to look at what will happen when the Sheriff (if elected) leaves office. Will the unit dry up? Will a new Sheriff try to deputize the members? There are a host of other concerns that can be brought up.

OK, let me ask this question.

Is is legal for CAP to sponsored by anybody?

If a Sheriff wants to supply, assets, use of facilities, and money in value of $100,000 to CAP to fund CAP and its Mission would it be legal?

Thats a question for CAP Legal Officers.

Think of the Liability this way, the sponsor is 8 times the corporate budget of CAP.  CAP is not in danger of incuring more liability, other than normal increase in liability, caused by increased activity, and robust recruiting.

Or let me say this, the liability is, that a LARGER CAP membership in general does incur more possible law suits.

If I have a Squadron of 300 Cadets and Seniors, then yes, there is more liabilty based on size of the unit alone.

So to avoid that we just stay small, which to me is not an attractive concept.

So, yes if we grow larger, then the liability increases, but thats just the price of growth.


If there is any lawyer from here to National HQ that finds fault with this, send me a email.  richmond45@yahoo.com

Now, the other question what are the details.

The details are:

It will be run as a CAP Squadron, under CAP regs.

And no we cannot guarantee that a Sheriff will stay in office or that someone might come along after and de sponsor the unit.


The average Sheriff serves at LEAST 2 Terms unless, he loses support of the people in the County.  Thats 8 years.

But no, we cannot guarantee, just like you probably cannot guarantee that your unit will be able to meet at the same location 4 years from now.






Earhart1971

Quote from: Eclipse on April 01, 2006, 08:51:55 PM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on April 01, 2006, 08:30:18 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 01, 2006, 08:18:55 PM
As a civilian volunteer, liability and protection of both myself, familiy and the organization is always the FIRST and most important concern when considering ANY activity.

CAP is not a LEA, and if I wanted to be an LEO, I'd join a Police Force.

And just because you may be having local issues and your program(s) are on life support, don't insinuate this is a problem nationwide.

I also have no time for people who pull out "credibility vouchers" half way through conversation. (i.e. I have already briefed the Nat Commanders).

You asked what we thought - it's a half-baked idea which is troublesome from a charter and liability standpoint.

If you don't want to hear that, don't ask.



Bob,

I am thick skinned and I respect your position, but what exactly is the adversion to LAW ENFORCEMENT supporting CAP?

It cannot be Liability, since we would be safer under a larger better funded organization at the local level, with the backup of CAP National.

I disagree with it, and if you have an alternative, way of a CAP Squadron getting similar support, I will support you on it.

We all need to wake, and smell the coffee, CAP is a great program, without support or assets it will die on the vine.




I have no issue, with law enforcement support, and even encourage inter-agency cooperation.  Your original message indicated INTEGRATION, where the lines of membership, etc., are blurred at best.

If the Sheriff wants to DONATE money to CAP, great.  Have him call me, too.  Of course if it is over $5k, is has to be donated to Wing, not an individual unit, and any equipment must be donated to the Wing, not a unit.

Also, though I am sure it happens somewhere, getting authorization to use a Police aircraft for a CAP mission will be a HUGE PITA. Good Luck.



Bob,

Ok, I apoligize for the misunderstanding, but the PROGRAM, the CAP PROGRAM needs no amendment, its a stand alone as far as Program, Search and Rescue, and the Cadet Program.

Now the Airplane issue will be settled, my guess is that the Sheriff will OVER INSURE to the MAX, or self insure to the requirements of National HQ CAP. 

If this works, I will do one better, I will go to Chicago, or Palwaukee and explain the concept to your local Sheriff.

If this program works in one location, no reason it cannot work in other locations.

By the way did my nephew call you about his 2 boys, if he didn't, I will call him again, he's an ex Mitchell Award, and said he was interested for his boys, his youngest is 11 years old.

Eclipse

Come on up, I'll even buy lunch!

I never heard from anyone yet (or I forgot, which is certainly a possibility).

Can you PM the info again?

"That Others May Zoom"

arajca

Quote from: Earhart1971 on April 01, 2006, 08:58:34 PM
OK, let me ask this question.

Is is legal for CAP to sponsored by anybody?

If a Sheriff wants to supply, assets, use of facilities, and money in value of $100,000 to CAP to fund CAP and its Mission would it be legal?

Thats a question for CAP Legal Officers.
Which is what I've been saying.

QuoteThink of the Liability this way, the sponsor is 8 times the corporate budget of CAP.  CAP is not in danger of incuring more liability, other than normal increase in liability, caused by increased activity, and robust recruiting.

Or let me say this, the liability is, that a LARGER CAP membership in general does incur more possible law suits.

If I have a Squadron of 300 Cadets and Seniors, then yes, there is more liabilty based on size of the unit alone.

So to avoid that we just stay small, which to me is not an attractive concept.

So, yes if we grow larger, then the liability increases, but thats just the price of growth.
With maybe one or two exceptions, the members on this board are not qualified to give an official opinion on the liability potential of your idea. All we can do is give our guardhouse interpretations of liability.

QuoteIf there is any lawyer from here to National HQ that finds fault with this, send me a email.  richmond45@yahoo.com
Wrong logic. YOU need to send it to them for review. They have enough going on that they don't look for things to check out.

QuoteNow, the other question what are the details.

The details are:

It will be run as a CAP Squadron, under CAP regs.
That's the overview. Details will include who approves the commander, how much support is actually provided by the Sheriff, what are the county's requirements to operate county a/c and vehicles, etc. All the stuff that is included in an MOU.

QuoteAnd no we cannot guarantee that a Sheriff will stay in office or that someone might come along after and de sponsor the unit.


The average Sheriff serves at LEAST 2 Terms unless, he loses support of the people in the County.  Thats 8 years.

But no, we cannot guarantee, just like you probably cannot guarantee that your unit will be able to meet at the same location 4 years from now.
I wasn't suggesting any guarantees. Just that such things need to looked at and planned for. Many units get floored when the meeting place they've been using for XX years changes management and they are kicked out. Some don't recover. With the amount of support your plan receives from the Sheriff, it would be wise to plan for when he leaves office ahead of time.


Quote from: Eclipse
If the Sheriff wants to DONATE money to CAP, great.  Have him call me, too.  Of course if it is over $5k, is has to be donated to Wing, not an individual unit, and any equipment must be donated to the Wing, not a unit.
Where is that written? I read it as any donations over $5K need to be reported tot he wing financial analyst, not turned over to the wing. Although one wing is experimenting with total control over all CAP funds for all their units.




Earhart1971

Capt Bob Williams, email me at: richmond45@yahoo.com

And we can exchange contact information, last time you emailed me I gave Randy your contact number, and he said he would call, he and his kids are nuts about airplanes, I think I told you, everytime I go up there I rented a Cessna 172 at Service Aviation and flew them down the coast to Downtown, ask Randy to show the night Video he took of our flight past downtown and Meigs (don't get me talking about what happened at Meigs, my father in law in Chicago was sick about, and he wasn't a pilot).

Anyway the Chicago Skyline at night was Gorgeous, and crystal Clear, OMG!

And I will Call Randy tonight if he is not on vacation, I think they were taking the kids to Yosemite or something.