Does your squadron have a Booster Club?

[Private Investigator]

Seen it, more than once.  Also seen wing take away the "cool toys" donated to the squadron.  Once they're in ORMS, they are property of CAP, not the local squadron.

Wing might say one single squadron doesn't need 50+ laptops, a pile of comms gear and dozens of DF'ing equipment.  And they might be right.  But if the local squadron has done all the work to get the stuff, then as far as I'm concerned, it's theirs.

One real simple way to do this is for the property to be owned by a 3rd party organization, and leased/loaned to the local squadron.  Prevents a pile of paperwork and heartache.

If we had 50 laptops they would all have a label on them, "Property of John Smith". Everyone is happy and why bother putting it on ORMS?

[Private Investigator]

I have PERSONALLY seen a squadron lose a major donation (5 figures) because of wing intervention.  Not exactly that the wing took the money, but wing made so many conditions and issues above and beyond what the donor and potential squadron had agreed on, such as stating there could not be a stipulation that the money stay local, that the donor pretty much said screw you and took his money elsewhere. 

I HAVE seen donated equipment, and equipment purchased with donated funds, be "reassigned."  That's the same as taking money if you ask me.

More to 'the' story? Because I hear stories all the time. 

[FW]

If one "loans" property to CAP, CAP funds can not be used to maintain or repair such property unless a corporate officer agrees to it.  If one "leases" property to a unit, the agreement must be approved (fat chance) by a corporate officer. So, why would a booster club "lend" equipment to a squadron? Why would a squadron commander wish a FWA complaint made if CAP funds were used to maintain or repair such property? It is easier just to donate it to a squadron.  I've never heard of a wing reasigning property to another unit unless it was not being used.  And, I've heard much over the years.

I know of quite a few very large donations to squadrons.  I know of a few squadrons which have assets which are greater than some wings.  The WBP prevents wings from taking funds from a squadron unless it is dechartered. A wing commander can NOT accept a donation larger than $5000. Region commanders can only accept donations up to $10k.  Those 5 figure donations must go thru NHQ.  I do not know of anyone losing a major donation of funds because of a wing's "conditions".  It is not only against regulations, IMHO, it is against our core values...

[The Infamous Meerkat]

I appreciate all your input gents, I have come to the conclusion that my personal thoughts of our booster club are a common viewpoint here. To be honest, I'm not even sure if our group has done any of the paperwork for becoming an 'official' booster club, and their concepts for earning money are way off the mark both legally and ethically.

Their most recent violation came from the "president's" idea to take a local donation of wreaths for Wreaths Across America and resell them so we could buy more wreaths. Profitable? Definitely. Productive? Sure! Ethical and legal? .... No.

I'm working on my gathering of ammunition to get them disbanded, because so far they have yet to adhere to some of their simplest bylaws (They're not supposed to "associate" themselves with our squadron, as if that isn't hokey enough, but frequently hold fundraisers at ANG functions with banners and polos proudly emblazoned with "Friends of Boise 073" on them)....

I'm irritated with them, if you couldn't tell. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

Well, you have your unit in your name, so maybe someone from higher up already took notice...

[NIN]

Personally? No.  But I know a guy (who is really reputable) who has a friend who is a wing finance officer who knew someone who helped write the WBP regs, who knew somebody that had a friend who was in CAP who told them that they had their money taken away.

I think I know that guy, too! or the friend. I got a little bumfuzzled with all the pronouns.

[Devil Doc]

Im not exactly sure how the boosters club works. I can give an Example. Most of the Cadets due performs NON CAP Activies, meaning that they are not covered by CAP nor representing CAP, but are doing an activity. Example? White Water Rafting, per se, if CAP dosnt approve it, cadets go using booster club money. CAP is not Liable, nor represented, and the booster club take repsonsibility. I think thats how ours work. Maybe im wrong?

[FW]

Im not exactly sure how the boosters club works. I can give an Example. Most of the Cadets due performs NON CAP Activies, meaning that they are not covered by CAP nor representing CAP, but are doing an activity. Example? White Water Rafting, per se, if CAP dosnt approve it, cadets go using booster club money. CAP is not Liable, nor represented, and the booster club take repsonsibility. I think thats how ours work. Maybe im wrong?

Nope; doesn't work that way either.  If a CAP squadron goes "white water rafting"; it goes as a CAP squadron.  It makes no difference who takes them or, who pays for it.  As I've been told on numerous occasions, CAP can be held liable...

[The Infamous Meerkat]

Precisely ^, The only reason a booster club exists is to generate unauthorized funds for unauthorized things. If it looks and smells like a CAP group activity in any way... well, I know what I would classify it as...

USAFaux2004, I can only hope thats the case, but there aren't too many guys from IDWG here, and i think even less that outrank me.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Readers don't need to be registered. NHQ Also has people on here. Etc.

[JeffDG]

The Booster Club issue has come before the NEC/CSAG...last proposal (I think in committee now) was to bar any CAP member from belonging to a Booster Club, and requiring Wing/CC approval for use of the squadron name.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

Exxxxxcellent!!! 

Any action at all would be very much appreciated, we don't get too much voice...   

[peter rabbit]

The Booster Club issue has come before the NEC/CSAG...last proposal (I think in committee now) was to bar any CAP member from belonging to a Booster Club, and requiring Wing/CC approval for use of the squadron name

While I don't agree with his position, I understand NHQ General Counsel has a problem barring all members from being a member of a booster club (freedom of association, etc). Right now, only command staff can't hold a position of authority in the booster club. However, if it looks like a goose......

As for taking money designated for Wreaths Across America, that is a big no-no and can land anyone involved in jail.

[JeffDG]

While I don't agree with his position, I understand NHQ General Counsel has a problem barring all members from being a member of a booster club (freedom of association, etc). Right now, only command staff can't hold a position of authority in the booster club. However, if it looks like a goose......

We're a private organization, and we're free to associate with whom we choose.

To use an extreme example, we could deny membership to someone who is a member of the Nazi Party. 

CAP has freedom of association too, and the freedom to not associate as well, provided we don't deny membership on a prohibited ground.

[Devil Doc]

Last time I looked, Boosters Clubs are Allowed. Saying a CAP Cadet cant go with his other CAP Friends white water rafting, because they belong to the same association? Thats like not allowing me to go canoeing with the boyscouts, who also they same group happens to be in CAP, cant go? Does that sound right?

[FlyTiger77]

Last time I looked, Boosters Clubs are Allowed. Saying a CAP Cadet cant go with his other CAP Friends white water rafting, because they belong to the same association? Thats like not allowing me to go canoeing with the boyscouts, who also they same group happens to be in CAP, cant go? Does that sound right?

I think the point being made was that a squadron shouldn't put together an outing and then claim it is an outing under a different organization and try to  disavow any CAP liability. I don't think there is anyone suggesting that a group of people who happen to also be fellow CAP members can't associate outside of CAP.

As with most legal matters, the devil is in the details.


Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor do I even play one on TV. Please do not misconstrue anything I say as legal advice, even though I do regularly stay in a Holiday Inn Express.

[JeffDG]

Last time I looked, Boosters Clubs are Allowed. Saying a CAP Cadet cant go with his other CAP Friends white water rafting, because they belong to the same association? Thats like not allowing me to go canoeing with the boyscouts, who also they same group happens to be in CAP, cant go? Does that sound right?

I think the point being made was that a squadron shouldn't put together an outing and then claim it is an outing under a different organization and try to  disavow any CAP liability. I don't think there is anyone suggesting that a group of people who happen to also be fellow CAP members can't associate outside of CAP.

As with most legal matters, the devil is in the details.


Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor do I even play one on TV. Please do not misconstrue anything I say as legal advice, even though I do regularly stay in a Holiday Inn Express.

Let me repeat the above disclaimer, except the Holiday Inn part...my company has a corporate discount with the Hilton chain...

The best advice a lawyer ever gave me about such things was the "duck test".  If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

So, if all of the members of a CAP squadron go whitewater rafting, let's see...looks an awful lot like this:

[MajorM]

I would think barring a booster club would prove problematic and you'd lose more than you'd gain.  On the problematic side is that a well run booster club shouldn't be that much different than a well run non-profit or foundation.  How do you discern the two?  One booster club was a foundation and netted more than $50k a year.  They certainly supported the squadron but also supported other squadrons, wing, and random youth groups, cancer benefits, exchange students, etc.  Blanket rules tend to have the effect of stifling creativity and resourcefulness.

My experience has also been that those engaged in a legitimate supportive non profit are the same members highly involved in the life of the squadron.   It smacks of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

Finally, I would view the "booster club problem" as a symptom.  Why do they exist?  Where did they come from?  They exist because NHQ has historically done a terrible job at development.  I've been around for 29 years and seen the host of bad ideas trotted out.  An organization of this age and size should have a robust, supportive foundation of its own.  We do not.  So members have stepped into the breach where leadership has failed. 

I do understand General Counsel's dilemma.  I try hard to get other members of our "booster club" (I hate that term btw) to understand the view as well.  If $10,000 goes missing from our non-profit the newspaper article will talk about how $10k went missing from the CAP squadron.  It didn't, they're separate, but the facts don't always get in the way of a juicy story.

I'd prefer to see NHQ harness the energy.  Provide training or support.  Create a national foundation and franchise it.  Allow 70% of locally raised funds to stay and send 30% onward.  Or, allow non-profits to pay a membership fee to the foundation and in return get services to keep them on the right side of 501c3 law.  Those fees pay for foundation staff who go raise more money.  Both are established non-profit models.

And it is possible.  Take a look at the National Guard Youth Challenge Foundation as an example of what can be accomplished.

[RiverAux]

Can't prohibit the club from existing, but you can certainly not accept their donations or give them any sort of support.  A booster club for an organization that doesn't want to be "boosted" won't last long. 

Can't see any real justification for having one and I know I wouldn't have wanted to have to deal with one WIWSC.  There is enough red tape to deal with in CAP much less adding to the burden by dealing with another organization. 

[FW]

I can't comment on current discussions by the BoG (who would be deciding on such matters now) however, I did write the 2008 regulation on Booster Clubs.  That regulation stated that any member of CAP could be a member of a booster club however, CAP commanders could only serve in an advisory capacity.  The Booster Club must be totally independent from CAP.

Booster clubs can be a valuable asset to CAP units at any level.  The (National) CAP Foundation, I understand, is finally getting its wings and will begin supporting CAP programs according to its bylaws. 

I agree with MajM on his thoughts about the "booster club problem" as a symptom of incomplete corporate planning and development.  While we now have a "Director of Development", I fear he will be as unsuccessful as his predecessors.  The CAP Foundation should be doing the "development".  The Foundation can raise funds much more creativly than CAP.  Local booster clubs can do the same however, having the proper talent to run them is really problematic.  It is why the GC's head aches when he must deal with them. 

I'm not a fan of "franchising" the CAP Foundation.  I am, though, in favor of wing "representitives" on the foundation responsible for fund raising at the state and local level.  Maybe it's just semantics but, I like a central flow where money is concerned.  And, although I'm not an accontant or lawyer, I've stayed at Holiday Inn Express and Hilton Hotels...