CAWG CC Fired

[RiverAux]

Financially, we can't get an "Unqualified" audit. 

That isn't because we are a troubled organization.  It was due to how we kept track of our finances at all levels (not that there have not been a few financial problems here and there).  Part of the reason for the Wing Banker program is so that we can get an unqualified audit. 

[BlackKnight]

Interestingly enough, I heard that at least one wing received an "unqualified audit report" for FY 2006 even though they had not transitioned to the Wing Banker Program during the audit period. By definition that shouldn't have been possible if one accepts the rationale presented for the WBP.

[DNall]

Financially, we can't get an "Unqualified" audit. 

That isn't because we are a troubled organization.  It was due to how we kept track of our finances at all levels (not that there have not been a few financial problems here and there).  Part of the reason for the Wing Banker program is so that we can get an unqualified audit. 

Not at all necessary... short version is local funds need not be accounted for as corporate property & therefore need not be part of the audit. Works just fine on a MUCH larger scale than CAP will ever be using. But that's another subject. My view of that issue is that it's more related to rash actions not thought thru, and power grabbing.

[Eclipse]

Part of the reason for the Wing Banker program is so that we can get an unqualified audit. 

And that, plus $1.50 will get yo a ride on the bus.

I've heard the rhetoric about all the funding opportunities we're losing with a UQA, anyone ever actually seen real evidence of this?

We could get a UQA if we all just filed the darn forms on time and then the Wing CC's did something with them. And if a unit CC doesn't, out the door...

[lordmonar]

Part of the reason for the Wing Banker program is so that we can get an unqualified audit. 

And that, plus $1.50 will get yo a ride on the bus.

I've heard the rhetoric about all the funding opportunities we're losing with a UQA, anyone ever actually seen real evidence of this?

CAP is NOT part of the combined federal campaign (CFC) because we cannot produce a UQA.  Other national level organistions that give out funds (such as the United Way) won't touch us with out a UQA.

We could get a UQA if we all just filed the darn forms on time and then the Wing CC's did something with them. And if a unit CC doesn't, out the door...

That is true...but they have been yelling at squadrons for a long time now about this and nothing ever happend.  So someone (Virgina Wing IIRC) came up with the wing banking plan and forced the issue.

[Major Lord]

The Wing Banking Plan scares the bejesuus out of me. As a Squadron that is pretty good at raising and keeping money, I am afraid they are going to "nationalize" our bank account. Considering the incredibly poor financial decisions of national ( Lets invest in NASCAR!) I think we are better suited to handle our parental donations and community support than Wing or Alabama!

Capt. Lord

[lordmonar]

Flyguy....you may be sitting pretty and holding on to your CAP membership wallowing in your "whistle blower" protection.....but let's remember the chain of events here.  You did not blow the whistle until after you got fired!  CAP may have backed off just to avoid a lawsuit...but let's not kid anyone here.  IF YOUR ACCUSATIONS are true, by you own account you are just a guilty as anyone else and I would not let you within 10 feet of any activity I was running.

And any thing you say about the National Commander automatically goes through my BS filter.  You are definitely not an un bias observer on anything General Pineda does.  

Finally I am in no way shape or form a "Pineda Puppy", I don't know the guy at all except through his PR releases.  I am definitely a LEADER and a FOLLOWER and someone who runs a Professional Development Course should know what those mean.

I would be supporting anyone who occupied that job and give him the benefits of his rank and position my total support....just as I would expect any of my subordinates.

Sir, you may be think that you somehow won because of your whistle blower status....but you are not a paragon of virtue, and you certainly should not be part of any Professional Development Program.

[Monty]

The Wing Banking Plan scares the bejesuus out of me. As a Squadron that is pretty good at raising and keeping money, I am afraid they are going to "nationalize" our bank account. Considering the incredibly poor financial decisions of national ( Lets invest in NASCAR!) I think we are better suited to handle our parental donations and community support than Wing or Alabama!

Capt. Lord

Let's not malign the good name of "Alabama" with "HQ CAP", alrighty?

Tis a personal request....

[lordmonar]

The Wing Banking Plan scares the bejesuus out of me. As a Squadron that is pretty good at raising and keeping money, I am afraid they are going to "nationalize" our bank account. Considering the incredibly poor financial decisions of national ( Lets invest in NASCAR!) I think we are better suited to handle our parental donations and community support than Wing or Alabama!

Read the regulation...the money already belongs to national, always has!  The problem is that across the board squadrons have proved that they are not best suited to handle their money.  There has been huge black wholes of funding.  Money going into commander's pockets, national funds being redirected into other areas of funding.  CP funds used to fly missions, mission funds used to by radios, comm funds used to pay for electric bills.  While all this is going on National can't produce a UQA.  Which hampers fund raising on their end.

The wing banking plan does not say the squadron can't handle their own money.  It just means that wing is accounting for that money to make sure you are using it right.  Sure in theory they can divert your squadrons fund raising activities to another area....but let's give them the benefit of the doubt at this time that is not going to happen.  They certainly won't be sponsoring a NASCAR driver.  

[ZigZag911]

So the moral of the story is...don't screw up....and use the appropriate channels to voice your dissatisfaction.  Open dissent only sets you up for the ax when next it comes....and open disloyalty IS CAUSE FOR DISMISSAL.  I would fire you if you worked for me and you were telling everyone and their brother that I was out of control.  As you would if one of your subordinates was undermining your authority within your unit.

Please do not refer to me as 'ghost rider'. Thank you.

As for the rest, you are entitled to your opinion, but it seems that you are either suggesting blind obedience (and as we all know, "I was just following orders" is no longer an acceptable defense") or subversive activity (since you emphasized the word 'open'  in discussing dissent and disloyalty).

The position of national commander CAP, and the person occupying that post, is entitled to obedience, respect and cooperation from subordinates.

The individual officer, whoever it is and whenever we are concerned,
as a human being needs to earn loyalty and respect as a person.

Furthermore, there is a difference between disagreeing with a course of action , policy or plan and undermining the organization.

The tragedy of the 20th century was blind, unreasoning obedience to leaders. While this instance in CAP certainly does not rise to the epic proportions of those historic events, morally it bears some similarity...go along, get along, whether it's right or wrong.

[RayHayden]

Not worth it

[ZigZag911]

Consider that TP just MAY be wanting to reshape CAP into a better organization, and to do so, he intentionally targets the "Old-Boy" network (and old girl, in the case of CA) and replaces them with people who are not connected, have no axes to grind, and who owe no one favors.

These are people who are perceived to have not "Paid their dues" in the trenches, but those who have paid those dues are now part of the problem, not part of the solution.  At least from the perspective of TP.

Whether you agree or not doesn't matter.

He's the general.  Generals can do whatever they want to shape, mold, and direct an organization.  If you don't like it, become a general yourself and fix it.

John,

This is still America.

He is a CAP general, but CAP generals, like all American generals, answer to higher authority.

It is high time that higher authority started asking questions, and providing some answers to the membership.

The National CC may indeed, as you say, have ideal motives and a brilliant plan for fixing CAP. That's for the BOG and SECAF to determine.

If this is so, if everything is proceeding toward CAP's benefit,  it would really help, as others have noted, to have his Vision Statement, as most commanders provide at the start of their term of office.

From where I sit, things get progressively more broken because we're having the CAP equivalent of 'amateur hour' on wing and region staffs....because the blind bring in their fellow newbies to 'help' them 'manage' the 'corporation'.

[LtCol White]

The Wing Banking Plan scares the bejesuus out of me. As a Squadron that is pretty good at raising and keeping money, I am afraid they are going to "nationalize" our bank account. Considering the incredibly poor financial decisions of national ( Lets invest in NASCAR!) I think we are better suited to handle our parental donations and community support than Wing or Alabama!

Capt. Lord

Let's not malign the good name of "Alabama" with "HQ CAP", alrighty?

Tis a personal request....

Alabama has a good name?

Sorry. Just kidding. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

The Wing Banking Plan scares the bejesuus out of me. As a Squadron that is pretty good at raising and keeping money, I am afraid they are going to "nationalize" our bank account. Considering the incredibly poor financial decisions of national ( Lets invest in NASCAR!) I think we are better suited to handle our parental donations and community support than Wing or Alabama!

Capt. Lord

Let's not malign the good name of "Alabama" with "HQ CAP", alrighty?

Tis a personal request....

Alabama has a good name?

Sorry. Just kidding. 

OF COURSE they have a good name!

At least, now that they licked that hookworm problem!

[JohnKachenmeister]

Consider that TP just MAY be wanting to reshape CAP into a better organization, and to do so, he intentionally targets the "Old-Boy" network (and old girl, in the case of CA) and replaces them with people who are not connected, have no axes to grind, and who owe no one favors.

These are people who are perceived to have not "Paid their dues" in the trenches, but those who have paid those dues are now part of the problem, not part of the solution.  At least from the perspective of TP.

Whether you agree or not doesn't matter.

He's the general.  Generals can do whatever they want to shape, mold, and direct an organization.  If you don't like it, become a general yourself and fix it.

John,

This is still America.

He is a CAP general, but CAP generals, like all American generals, answer to higher authority.

It is high time that higher authority started asking questions, and providing some answers to the membership.

The National CC may indeed, as you say, have ideal motives and a brilliant plan for fixing CAP. That's for the BOG and SECAF to determine.

If this is so, if everything is proceeding toward CAP's benefit,  it would really help, as others have noted, to have his Vision Statement, as most commanders provide at the start of their term of office.

From where I sit, things get progressively more broken because we're having the CAP equivalent of 'amateur hour' on wing and region staffs....because the blind bring in their fellow newbies to 'help' them 'manage' the 'corporation'.

First of all, ZZ, I did NOT say that TP had altruistic motives.  I said he MIGHT have such motives.  We have to consider such benign motives, since the explanation that I offered would fit with the evidence we can see.

Unfortunately, the more sinister motives ALSO fit with the known evidence.

All I am suggesting is that we not get ourselves caught up in emotional contagion and speculating as to motives.

[ZigZag911]

First of all, ZZ, I did NOT say that TP had altruistic motives.  I said he MIGHT have such motives.  We have to consider such benign motives, since the explanation that I offered would fit with the evidence we can see.

Unfortunately, the more sinister motives ALSO fit with the known evidence.

All I am suggesting is that we not get ourselves caught up in emotional contagion and speculating as to motives.

John,

I do try to follow your example, and keep calm....I find, however, that after many years in this organization, I still get angry when members mistreat others for personal gain, or simply to make themselves feel important.

I get doubly angry when those in positions of authority, who are supposed to set a better example, use those positions for their own self-serving ends, rather than the benefit of CAP and its members.

Perhaps it is because I was a cadet officer, but I really expect the senior CAP officers (major and up) to behave like officers!!!

Unrealistic, idealistic, I know, but that's the way I am.

[lordmonar]

As for the rest, you are entitled to your opinion, but it seems that you are either suggesting blind obedience (and as we all know, "I was just following orders" is no longer an acceptable defense") or subversive activity (since you emphasized the word 'open'  in discussing dissent and disloyalty).

Negative " " again.  Showing loyalty to your commanders in NOT bling obedience or mindless robotism.  It is not being a yes man.  It is not "just following orders".  It is supporting the decisions of your commander in public and challenging them through channels.  This has nothing to do with breaking the law.  You don't ever do that.  Show me a policy or an order that has come from National Head Quarters that is in violation of the law.

Open discussion of dissent with your subordinates undermines the authority of your commanders and should be avoided.  Encouraging subordinates to ignore orders or to be less than excellent in their conduct is boarder line sedition.  You are free to discuss your feelings with your supervisors and to an extent to your peers.  But once you include your subordinates you begin to break up good order and discipline.

The position of national commander CAP, and the person occupying that post, is entitled to obedience, respect and cooperation from subordinates.

The individual officer, whoever it is and whenever we are concerned,
as a human being needs to earn loyalty and respect as a person.

Negative  again!  I did not vote for the President......but he is my Commander in Chief and has my loyalty.  His policies and orders are my policies and orders.  As a leader you can't play that game.  That is internally dishonest.  And it makes you a hypocrite to your subordinates.  How do you expect them to respect you and show you loyalty if you don't do the same for your superiors?

Furthermore, there is a difference between disagreeing with a course of action , policy or plan and undermining the organization.

Are you talking about your actions or the National Commanders?

The tragedy of the 20th century was blind, unreasoning obedience to leaders. While this instance in CAP certainly does not rise to the epic proportions of those historic events, morally it bears some similarity...go along, get along, whether it's right or wrong.

Well first I have to question of where your evidence of immorality?  I just don't see where all you conspiracy theorists are going with this.  General Penida takes sole and undisputed control of CAP as National Commander For Life.  Why?  So that he can make it into a more powerful tool to help do the job the American People are paying us to do?  Now that sounds really morally bankrupt to me.  I have heard a lot of grousing out where and why CAP is being steered.....but in the end, we are a volunteer SAR, CP and AE organization.   

[lordmonar]

Not worth it

Please don't hold back on my account sir.  There is no way you can win.  By your own admission, if your story is true you are a cheat who tried and failed to blackmail your fellow cheat.  If your story is false you are a petty lier who only wanted smirch the name of our national commander.  I don't want you my organization.  I don't want you representing my organization and I certainly don't want you involved in anything that has to with molding the future professional development of my fellow CAP members.

[lordmonar]

He is a CAP general, but CAP generals, like all American generals, answer to higher authority.

It is high time that higher authority started asking questions, and providing some answers to the membership.

The National CC may indeed, as you say, have ideal motives and a brilliant plan for fixing CAP. That's for the BOG and SECAF to determine.

If this is so, if everything is proceeding toward CAP's benefit,  it would really help, as others have noted, to have his Vision Statement, as most commanders provide at the start of their term of office.

From where I sit, things get progressively more broken because we're having the CAP equivalent of 'amateur hour' on wing and region staffs....because the blind bring in their fellow newbies to 'help' them 'manage' the 'corporation'.

So when are you volunteering for wing staff?  As you say...the it is SECDEF's and BoG's job to steer us....maybe they are.....maybe the National Commander is taking us in the direction they want us to go?  Have you contacted anyone on the BoG?  In the mean time we need to be supporting the decisions of our appointed officers and not grousing about ever little thing they do...good or bad.

[DNall]

Open discussion of dissent with your subordinates undermines the authority of your commanders and should be avoided.  Encouraging subordinates to ignore orders or to be less than excellent in their conduct is boarder line sedition.  You are free to discuss your feelings with your supervisors and to an extent to your peers.  But once you include your subordinates you begin to break up good order and discipline.

Be careful how you word that. Open discussion of dissent WITH you subordinates is to be highly encouraged & fostered as part of the decision making process, and to an extent after the fact in providing relief where they've been screwed over.

Open discussion of dissent AMONG your subordinates fosters an attitude that leads your decisions to failure, is not helpful to good order & discipline, and should be avoided or even to an extent quashed.

A VERY big difference. A good leader understand you really can't control complaining outside your midst, but you can be as transparent as possible, keep people informed, and sell them on a vision so that it becomes shared goals even if they disagree with it to an extent. Those things aren't happening, so leadership can't complain when people aren't willing to follow them beyond the bear minimum requirements.


More generally, I'd applaud what you are saying. Certainly from a military & core values standpoitn you absolutely owe your leaders unquestioned loyalty, especially when you disagree or dislike them.

The problem in CAP is the governance system is set up so subordinates select their boss, and my Wg CC basically serves as my appointed rep to that process to speak for the members of my wing... it's almost democratic in that sense, but not quite. Add to that our historical track record on retention that makes leadership responsive to fleeting concerns they think members care about. What you get is a process where our voices can cause them to flip flop on issues & chase off in this direction or that. Plus the leadership from above is physically seperated from direct control, so there is virtually no continuity or strategic consistency. Or for that matter an iron fist to crush down on them & correct the course when it goes off, instead it is allowed to keep tracking off line for years as situations get more & more extreme till it's either too late or some drastic action has to be taken.

I would note though that the Nat CC is not in charge of CAP. He is an administrator ONLY. The path of the organization as defined by congress is controlled by BoG in some areas & SAF (as delegated to A3/SHA) in others - again screwed up & problematic division of labor.