Main Menu

Dec 2011 BoG Meeting

Started by Ned, December 09, 2011, 01:04:36 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ned

I've just returned from the meeting, and here's the update:

The Board of Governors met on 6-7 December for a regularly-scheduled meeting in Washington DC.  All of the members were present, with the single exception of Maj Gen (Ret) Susan Pamerleau who had a conflict.  The new members - Brig Gen (ret) Leon Johnson, Mr. William Davidson, and Lt Gen Sid Clarke - are terrific additions to the Board.  They are active and engaged and bring a great deal of experience and wisdom to the table.  Also present for his first boG meeting was Brig Gen Joseph Vazquez, our own National Vice Commander.

(I must say it is pretty easy for me as a mere Lt Col to remember everybody's first name - "General.")

The Audit Committee met first, starting at four on Tuesday.  The agenda was unremarkable, consisting primarily of receiving briefings from our outside auditors (Wilson, Price) on the conduct of the FY 2011 audit and a briefing from CAP's chief financial officer.  The FY 2011 audit appears to be progressing normally, with the final results due in April.  The CPA firm audits both appropriated and corporate funds.  Our CFO briefed us on open audit items from last year, the separate audit of the NHQ employees' 401k funds, and the wings' financial assessments.  While there are some wings that need some TLC from the Wing Financial Assistants (mostly better record keeping and Finance Committee processes), there is nothing to suggest any issues such as fraud or significant mismanagment.  Mostly good news.  We took action to establish a separate depreciation schedule  for refurbished aircraft (10 years, versus 20 for a new aircraft.)  We also had private meetings with CAP-USAF, the CAP IG, the external auditors, and the CAP EXDIR and CFO where they could share any concerns or issues.  No significant issues were raised.

The full BoG meet starting a little after six.  We did the routine stuff like approving the minutes of the June meeting, setting the dates for the next meetings, and approving the legislative agenda for 2012.

We were extensively briefed on the FY 13 Appropriated Funds financial plan, and approved it.

We were asked to approve a COLA adjustment for the NHQ employees, and took action.  (I'm being a little vague here because I don't know if it has been announced to our employees yet, and that news should come from the EXDIR.)

We appointed a Governance Committee as a standing committee of the BoG.  It will have a member from each BoG "group".  Generals Carr, Speigel (Chair), and Schiltt will serve.  The normal duties of a corporate governance committee include things like setting/reviewing executive compensation, developing a BoG code of ethics, defining the roles & responsibilities of BoG members, and developing a conflict of interest policy for BoG members.  Additionally, the Governance Committee has been tasked with the initial work following receipt of the BoardSource governance report.

The EXDIR also briefed us on the status of the 2011 Business Plan as well as setting the 2012 Business Plan goals.

In executive session, we discussed and completed the appraisal form for the EXDIR.

We adjourned for the evening at about 2230 hours.

We started promptly at 0730 on Wednesday morning.  The majority of the day was spent in executive session during which we received an extensive briefing from our consultants on their Governance Report and Recommendations.  We had received the report as a "read-ahead" document, but the briefing allowed us to go into great detail on the recommendations and ask a whole lot of questions of the experts.  The report itself is nearly 50 pages (and, BTW, contains the complete text of the comments made by every single on of the nearly 340 CAP members who completed the governance survey.)

Before you ask, I am not permitted to release the report or comment in any detail on the contents.  We have resolved to release it within a reasonable period of time, but first the BoG wants to begin the process of carefully considering the document and asking for additional input from our principal stakeholders, including the SECAF and senior CAP leaders.  We are aware that a combination of corporate and appropriated dollars were expended to produce the report and that every CAP member and stakeholder has a legitimate interest in the contents.  We just need some time to finalize the process (exactly how and when the report will be shared, and the process for receiving the necessary input and advice from everyone involved - the membership, CAP senior leaders, and the AF).  I ask for your continued patience until then.  The BoG Governance Committee will be meeting in a matter of weeks to begin finalizing the process.  We are also acutely aware that timing is important.  The summer National Board meeting is "only" 9 months or so away.  If (and I repeat IF) any changes are made that would affect processes that normally occur on or before the NB meeting, the meeting date is an important consideration.

Allow me to emphasize that the only thing that has happened at this point is that we have received a report and recommendations from our consultants.  No decisions of any kind have been made.  It may be that no changes at all will be made.  And if changes are to be made, it will not occur until an open and orderly process occurs that allows everyone concerned - inlcuding the membership - to review any proposals and provide meaningful input.  Then and only then will change occur.

(Parenthetically, let me note for you that each of the BoG members commented on the wisdom and passion expressed in the comments of individual members who responded to the survey.  As you might expect, there was not exactly a consensus expressed on what to do, but each of you has been heard.  (And in true CT tradition, over a dozen comments to the Governance Survey focused on uniforms.   8) ))

We also heard in executive session from our lawyer about pending litigation - which was good news.  We are not involved in signifiant litigation at this time. The IG briefed us on the status of the IG system and significant complaints.  We have a new software system to track complaints that should allow us to see if they are being closed in a timely manner, but not all wings are participating yet.  We asked the IG to place some emphasis in that area and to place emphasis on closing out all complaints over the regulatory timelines.

Back in public session, we were briefed on the continuing federal budget process and the impact on us.  Based the budget passed by the Senate and the current bills in the House, it looks good for our 2012 funds.  The handwriting on the wall for 2013, however, is less rosy.  We will prudently plan for reductions in 2013 and also begin increasing significantly our reserves.  We recognize the obvious risk in reliance on appropriated funds for roughly 85% of our budget.  We have a new Development officer slots on the national staff, and will focus increased efforts in identifying funding streams outside of appropriated O & M funds.

We received routine updates on our investments, line of credit, safety, and the new MARB strucure.  We also learned that Vanguard had returned over $120,000 to CAP to be spent on Hawk, NESA, and the Oshkosh facilities.  We also received an update on the Congressional Gold Medal efforts.  If we cannot improve our efforts in this area, we risk failing to recognize the heroic service of our WWII members.  I personally urge each of you to contact your rep and senator and ask them to support the bill (HR 719 and SB 418).  Sadly, we learned of the loss of another of our sub-chasers just last week.  We need to make this happen.

And that was pretty much it.  We adjourned just before 1600.


Let me know if you have questions.

Ned Lee
CAP Member-at-Large

arajca

Ned,
   thank you for the update. It's always nice when those in charge (yes, you) take time to pass good information on the those not in charge (the vast majority of CT members). It shows a great deal of respect, which is not often found nowadays.

LC

Awesome! Now hopefully the 120k from Vanguard gets put to good use before the summers activities start in 2012!

disamuel

Thank you for the update Ned. It's nice of you to summarize the meetings for us. It really helps make the process more transparent.

NCRblues

Ned,

Thank you for your report. I know sometimes you and I disagree on many things, but I really do appreciate your update on this.

A quick couple things.

#1. In earnest, 9 months until the NB meeting is very short time in the grand time line. Not to be a PITA, but why could the report not be released out right? It will take most members a little while to read and comprehend what is being proposed by the study, then it will take even longer to sit down with the wing king/queen and tell them our thoughts to take up the chain. (because we cant jump it, remember) I feel that the study should be released before the end of the year. That gives the members, who make this organization run, time to read/reflect/react. Please do not get me wrong, I am VERY pleased the BOG wants to release it, I just feel that we (the members) are being treated with kid gloves. (or the real reason, BOG/CAP fear of a past member turned blogger spreading disinformation)

#2. The 120,000. Can you get us a breakdown of what activities are getting what % of  the funds?

In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

RiverAux

While I'm always in favor of CAP spending a little bit of time thinking hard about what we do and how we do it, I don't see any particular reason to rush getting out a report like this.  This report just represents a little analysis of the situation not much different, except in size and cost, than what BoG members would likely see here. 

It would probably also pay to take a little time for the BoG to write up some sort of accompanying document explaining the context of the report and what they may or may not do with it.  Just dropping it on the web could prove to be problematic as without guidance a lot of folks would take it for gospel as to what will be done. 

QuoteWe are aware that a combination of corporate and appropriated dollars were expended to produce the report
How much, by the way?

jimmydeanno

Re: 120k

Didn't the NEC just authorize 25k of that money to be used for "volunteer travel?"  Is there any particular reason that our uniform purchases are subsidizing executive travel?  Isn't this how all the horror stories on wall street begin?
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

NCRblues

Quote from: RiverAux on December 09, 2011, 04:22:27 AM
While I'm always in favor of CAP spending a little bit of time thinking hard about what we do and how we do it, I don't see any particular reason to rush getting out a report like this.  This report just represents a little analysis of the situation not much different, except in size and cost, than what BoG members would likely see here. 

It would probably also pay to take a little time for the BoG to write up some sort of accompanying document explaining the context of the report and what they may or may not do with it.  Just dropping it on the web could prove to be problematic as without guidance a lot of folks would take it for gospel as to what will be done. 

QuoteWe are aware that a combination of corporate and appropriated dollars were expended to produce the report
How much, by the way?

I know how to solve the "folks take it for gospel" problem.

Make the full report available only through eServices, but, put a big red disclaimer on it that says something along the lines of....

"This is a report of study done by an outside agency CAP hired. This is only a study and recommendations. This holds neither regulatory weight nor command directive. Feel free to review this and pass along your ideas about this study to your corporate officer"

Boom, done.

P.S 900th post....woot!
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

lordmonar

NCRblues,

The issue is that the BoG needs time to work on this....before they have every Tom, Dick and NCRblues screaming at them with their ideas about what should done.

This is important for a few reasons.

1)  The BoG through Boardsource has already soliticed adviced and comments from the general membership.
2)  The BoG MAY....MAY.....I SAY AGAIN.....MAY make their own decisions without any advice or comment from the rank and file.  I don't think they are going to do that.....but It's in their job discription.
3)  The BoG just like all the rest of us....needs time to read and digest the report before they get slammed by every one.

If in the end the BoG decides to elect a Presidente For Life and change our name to the Little blue Guys at the Airport.....with out discussing it with us...no one is holding a gun to your head....you can always go join the CGAUX or the Boy Scouts  or the Red Cross or you local SAR team.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Ned

Let me see if I can hit everything so far:

I spent some time staring at the spreadsheets, but don't see anything that tells me the breakdown of how the $120k in Vangard funds is distributed between the regional training facilities.  I know that by NB policy the money is fenced to training, but I can't trace the dollars based on the documents I have.

And I wasn't at the most recent NEC meeting, so I can't speak to whether some money got diverted from VG (or anywhere else) to cover volunteer travel.  Let me check and see what I can find out.  As I said, the original VG policy was to fence the money for training and I don't think that has changed, so there must be a disconnect if your information is accurate.

Having said that, most of the travel money goes for wing commanders who get reimbursed for some - but not all - of their travel.  Being a wing commander is always a money-losing proposition.  If we had the money, I would reimburse more of their travel in order to allow a more diverse pool of applicants, but that's just me.  Reasonable minds differ as to how much volunteer travel should be reimbursed.

(For the record, I get reimbursed for BoG meetings, but paid my own way to COS and NSC this year.)

The Governance Study was put out to competative bid according to our own contracting rules.  The AF could not do it for free for us due to the rules that prevent them from competing with private industry.  BoardSource was the winning bidder, and the contract was for about $200,000 if I recall correctly, mostly paid with appropriated funds.

Finally, there was a spirited discussion on the BoG about when and how to release the report.  Some of us initially thought that releasing the report now would be appropriate, some thought we should wait until the Governance sub-committee should answer that question after fully assessing what negative effects such a release might have on the process.  With the understanding that the report WILL be released at some point, we unanimously decided that we should allow the committee to think it through carefully before recommending a release schedule.  Part of that reasoning was that it would be difficult to "unring the bell" if the committee could identify solid reasons to delay the release.

Thank you for your kind thoughts.  I noticed that nobody had was critical that the agenda was not publicly released before the meeting.  It should have been, and was posted on the part of eservices only accessible to BoG members and senior staffers; nobody noticed that it had not been posted in the area accessible by members.  Please do not hesitate to mention that sort of thing in the future.  If we have missed something, we will fix it as soon as possible.

NCRblues

#10
Quote from: lordmonar on December 09, 2011, 06:25:25 AM
NCRblues,

The issue is that the BoG needs time to work on this....before they have every Tom, Dick and NCRblues screaming at them with their ideas about what should done.

This is important for a few reasons.

1)  The BoG through Boardsource has already soliticed adviced and comments from the general membership.
2)  The BoG MAY....MAY.....I SAY AGAIN.....MAY make their own decisions without any advice or comment from the rank and file.  I don't think they are going to do that.....but It's in their job discription.
3)  The BoG just like all the rest of us....needs time to read and digest the report before they get slammed by every one.

If in the end the BoG decides to elect a Presidente For Life and change our name to the Little blue Guys at the Airport.....with out discussing it with us...no one is holding a gun to your head....you can always go join the CGAUX or the Boy Scouts  or the Red Cross or you local SAR team.

Well, I guess we will just have to disagree. I believe it is the job of the BOG/NEC/NB to listen to every "tom, dick, and NCRblues" because that's what they volunteered to do. No one held a gun to THEIR head and forced them to serve in those positions.

#1. Come on, we both know that not everyone in CAP got that chance to add their impute. Some of our best and brightest (and oldest) members do not even know how to turn on a computer, let alone send emails and take surveys. The faster this gets out to the general membership, the better and more diverse the response from members can be.
#2. I hope they wont, but I have very little faith if we are going simply by past actions of our so called "leaders".
#3. Ned said they got the report before the briefing. In my last post I said before the end of the year. They "officially" got the report on the 7th, so the end of the year will give them 3 weeks and 1 day, then post it out with the warning I put on the other post.

Oh I know and understand no one is forcing me to stay. But I have half my life in this organization with thousands and thousands of dollars put into it(so much so that I was audited by the IRS last tax season because they did not believe i was spending that much on cap... I was, they apologized). CAP is my life. I live in 24/7/365. Is it a crime for me to want more openness? I think not.
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

lordmonar

#11
The BoG is not answerable to membership.  Sorry that's not their job.
Four members are answerable to the SECAF....I.e. he can tell them how to vote.
Three members are not answerable to anyone....once selected by the SECAF and CAP CC it does not appear that they can be removed
CAP gets the National CC and Vice CC....answerable to the NEC/NB and two at-large members answerable to the NEC.

Nope.....it is not their job to represent us.....it is their job to do what is best for CAP as an organisation.

1) If our best and brightest can't operate a computer.....by definition they are not our best.  ;D
2) You don't have faith in our leaders (NB/NEC) or our leaders the BoG?
3) To what end?

I understand your frustration.....and dedication to CAP.....but attacking the only guy giving us any information about what is going on.....is not really helping your position. 
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

NCRblues

Quote from: lordmonar on December 09, 2011, 07:41:20 AM
The BoG is not answerable to membership.  Sorry that's not their job.
Four members are answerable to the SECAF....I.e. he can tell them how to vote.
Three members are not answerable to anyone....once selected by the SECAF and CAP CC it does not appear that they can be removed
CAP gets the National CC and Vice CC....answerable to the NEC/NB and two at-large members answerable to the NEC.

Nope.....it is not their job to represent us.....it is their job to do what is best for CAP as an organisation.

1) If our best and brightest can operate a computer.....by definition they are not our best.  ;D
2) You don't have faith in our leaders (NB/NEC) or our leaders the BoG?
3) To what end?

I understand your frustration.....and dedication to CAP.....but attacking the only guy giving us any information about what is going on.....is not really helping your position.

The Membership as a whole knows what is best for CAP IMHO. In fact, many members on here push for some form of elections for our leaders...I.E. they believe the membership will know best overall. That is what this nation is all about, but its ok, we can disagree like I said.

#1. Members who have been in 30/40/50 years and are the ones that keep this organization running and in good standing with "clients" other than 1st AF are worthless because they grew up outside the computer generation and find them hard to use? I do not believe that at all, nor do I really believe you do.
#2. I have little faith in ALL of the leaders. NB/NEC/BOG Nat/cc Nat/vc.... It seems to me, they want to play games while CAP struggles as a whole ( I.E. Missions, funding...ext ext...). Not to say that every single one of them is bad, but overall, less than impressed.
#3. Not sure I understand what you mean by "to what end". If you are asking me why I believe this needs to be released sooner rather than letter, well.... We the members have the most at risk IMHO. I think it is our right to see it. In fact, anyway you look at it....we paid for it. (membership dues, and taxes for the appropriated funds).

I am in no way attacking Ned. In fact, if my spider sense is correct, I believe Ned was one of the members who pushed for the report to be released to us right away. I may disagree with some of the things Ned has said, but I am not attacking him. In fact I am very well pleased with him. (this time  >:D )
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

FW

Quote from: lordmonar on December 09, 2011, 07:41:20 AM
The BoG is not answerable to membership.  Sorry that's not their job.
Four members are answerable to the SECAF....I.e. he can tell them how to vote.
Three members are not answerable to anyone....once selected by the SECAF and CAP CC it does not appear that they can be removed
CAP gets the National CC and Vice CC....answerable to the NEC/NB and two at-large members answerable to the NEC.

Nope.....it is not their job to represent us.....it is their job to do what is best for CAP as an organisation.


All true.  However, because of the above, they often do what is best for, IMO, their perspective constituencies; not what is necessarily the best for CAP.  We forget that the sucess of our organization depends on the proper motivation and engagement of the members.  If our leaders fail to keep this in mind, we will continue to flounder; both in membership and mission. 

Our future will be brighter only if the BoG understands (and, I'm sure they do) the larger picture.  We need a governance structure which will successfully identify and secure alternative funding streams, find us missions of a substantive nature and, find better ways of keeping the best of what CAP is all about; our cadets.

RiverAux

Quote from: Ned on December 09, 2011, 07:01:07 AM
I noticed that nobody had was critical that the agenda was not publicly released before the meeting. 
As one who usually complains about such things, I just wasn't paying enough attention to notice that it was missing or I assure you, it would have been noted.  >:D

Frankly, prior complaints about this issue haven't seemed to have prompted NHQ to get any better about posting agendas or minutes very promptly. 

SamFranklin

Delaying the Board Source report a short while is probably a good idea. Were I to read the report right now, I'm sure I'd have some strong feelings about it (one way or another). What then? What would I do to contribute to the conversation? Some kind of structure would be needed to gather members' reactions, assuming the BoG is interested in member reactions (I think they are). This structure could be as simple as "see your wing commander," or "go to captalk" or something entirely different. Let's allow them to figure that out.

Second, when the report is released, I think we all should take a deep breath and consider the governance experts' point of view. No knee jerk reactions. No diving into the weeds. Just read it with an open mind and remember that Board Source is a group of disinterested specialists who know something about organizing non-profits for success. To do any less would be to waste $200k.

Thank you Lt Col Lee for the comprehensive update.

NIN

Quote from: SamFranklin on December 09, 2011, 02:00:11 PM
<snippage
Second, when the report is released, I think we all should take a deep breath and consider the governance experts' point of view. No knee jerk reactions. No diving into the weeds.
<snip>

Oh, how I admire your naïveté.  This is CAPTalk, man, where it should say in the header "the home of knee-jerk, weed-diving uniform discussions"

Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversationsâ„¢
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

NIN

Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversationsâ„¢
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

NIN

Quote from: jimmydeanno on December 09, 2011, 04:26:48 AM
Isn't this how all the horror stories on wall street begin?

No, not all of them. Just the boring ones. The really *good* horror stories have hookers & blow on corporate credit cards.

Thankfully, CAP does not have this problem (that we know of)
Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversationsâ„¢
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Eclipse

Quote from: NCRblues on December 09, 2011, 08:13:34 AM
#1. Members who have been in 30/40/50 years and are the ones that keep this organization running and in good standing with "clients" other than 1st AF are worthless because they grew up outside the computer generation and find them hard to use? I do not believe that at all, nor do I really believe you do.

Worthless?  No.  But there's a chasm between "worthless", and "relevant".  A patron member who hasn't attended a meeting in 10 years isn't
"worthless", but their opinion isn't likely "relevant", either.

Relevant?   Depends on who you are talking about.  The number of members with 50/40/30 years of service who are both, informed, and relevant, yet are incapable of using a computer to complete a survey is so small as to literally be zero.

Even as it stands the survey itself is statistically irrelevant considering it only encompassed ~0.005% of the membership with no science behind the sample.  Odds are that those who responded are among some of the more active, informed, and relevant members, and provided input that can be inferred as meaningful and representative of those in their areas, but it's kind of sad in this day and age that we could not have garnered more command imperative to participate.

Just as there are surely thousands of members who can't even name their Wing CC, there will be even more who will never even know this process
took place.

Ned - thanks for the info.


"That Others May Zoom"

a2capt

..and another frustrating thing with this whole organization has always been the "send it up the chain" thing.

Yes, it's the right way to do it.

It's a 3-4 year round trip sometimes. Most of the time it's a black hole. 

Someone in line sees it, doesn't agree, and tosses it. Done. No reply. If you have a suggestion for the national level, is it really the Group commander's prerogative to throw it out?

The $120K to be used for training ... I guess training includes a place to train your needs...  why does all this money have to 1, 2 .. 3 programs that the greater majority of the organization never realize. The Hawk's Head is something 200 people out of 65,000 will ever step into.  Yet we all paid for it.  I'm not against that every time, but how about spreading that training money around. Buy some printers and laptops, some Kinko's cards, (okay, there's a lot better places to get copies done .. but as an example..) Let people put in for white boards and projectors for mission bases, unit meeting places, panel quiz push button boxes, color guard and drill team equipment and accessories. If you can lump building a restroom under training, surely the rest of this can be training too.

That's all training too. Stuff people need, stuff that could make a difference from all directions. Dumping it all into NER and GLR doesn't do this. 

How about a 50/50 split. You put your charter number on VG orders and your unit gets a piece of that kickback. Or maybe at least your Wing/Group. Something.  Something to show the money gets spread a little more than 3 places.  Even at 50/50 - NHQ seemed happy with $60K, this example was double. 

jimmydeanno

Quote from: Ned on December 09, 2011, 07:01:07 AM
And I wasn't at the most recent NEC meeting, so I can't speak to whether some money got diverted from VG (or anywhere else) to cover volunteer travel.  Let me check and see what I can find out.  As I said, the original VG policy was to fence the money for training and I don't think that has changed, so there must be a disconnect if your information is accurate.

I hope that my information wasn't accurate, honestly.  However, if it is, it seems a bit disingenuous to be in a budget situation that doesn't allow the shipping of new member materials and then authorize more money for corporate executive travel (different money pots, I know).  I think we've noted here a few times that with the current agendas coming out of the NB, there isn't anything that would prevent meetings remotely for a vote on which new patch to authorize.

I'm not saying that the NEC or NB are acting unscrupulously, or that they're looking for a way to give themselves bonuses, but it seems to be in poor taste.  Right now, the membership questions why the money consistently goes to the same three facilities in which only a few hundred members per year can utilize.  I'm sure that the same view could be taken on padding the expense accounts of an even more select group of people based on raising prices for our uniform costs.

However, my understanding is that the last NEC meeting, they voted to remove the restrictions on that royalty income (about 6% or Vanguard sales) so that they may be used for any purpose when authorized by the finance committee and NEC, with an earmark that 25K of it be used to fund "national-level volunteer staff travel."

If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

Eclipse

Quote from: a2capt on December 09, 2011, 04:38:26 PMHow about a 50/50 split. You put your charter number on VG orders and your unit gets a piece of that kickback. Or maybe at least your Wing/Group. Something.  Something to show the money gets spread a little more than 3 places.  Even at 50/50 - NHQ seemed happy with $60K, this example was double.

Sending 500 units $200 towards a structured training activity would have a deeper impact on the organization and also go a long way to have those units feel the VG arrangement is to their benefit.

Also, why does "training" = "ES"?   How about using te money to open regional cadet leadership schools or senior professional development centers?
How about funding SLS/CLC/TLC, or scholarships for RSC, NSC, etc?

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

Quote from: a2capt on December 09, 2011, 04:38:26 PM
..and another frustrating thing with this whole organization has always been the "send it up the chain" thing.

Yes, it's the right way to do it.

It's a 3-4 year round trip sometimes. Most of the time it's a black hole. 

Someone in line sees it, doesn't agree, and tosses it. Done. No reply. If you have a suggestion for the national level, is it really the Group commander's prerogative to throw it out?

a) At least it is system.  The alternitive is 65000 people all calling the National Commander with their ideas.
b) If you can't convince your group commander that you idea is "good" then maybe it is not "good".
c) There is always the option of "if you want to get involved in higher level decision making.....take a higher level job"....everyone can volunteer for national level jobs and even more at wing and regional level.

QuoteThe $120K to be used for training ... I guess training includes a place to train your needs...  why does all this money have to 1, 2 .. 3 programs that the greater majority of the organization never realize. The Hawk's Head is something 200 people out of 65,000 will ever step into.  Yet we all paid for it.  I'm not against that every time, but how about spreading that training money around. Buy some printers and laptops, some Kinko's cards, (okay, there's a lot better places to get copies done .. but as an example..) Let people put in for white boards and projectors for mission bases, unit meeting places, panel quiz push button boxes, color guard and drill team equipment and accessories. If you can lump building a restroom under training, surely the rest of this can be training too.

That's all training too. Stuff people need, stuff that could make a difference from all directions. Dumping it all into NER and GLR doesn't do this.

That is true for just about every national level program.  COS, NCC, IACE, you name it.  There is a balance between high dollar items and "sharing the costs arounds"......$120K would do great things for Hawk Mountain, NBB and NESA facilities that would make those programs even better.  Sharing it around to all th eunits will mean that (assumeing ther are 1000 units in the nation) a gift card for $100.  Now I would not sneer at $100 for training.....it just does not do a whole lot for me.

QuoteHow about a 50/50 split. You put your charter number on VG orders and your unit gets a piece of that kickback. Or maybe at least your Wing/Group. Something.  Something to show the money gets spread a little more than 3 places.  Even at 50/50 - NHQ seemed happy with $60K, this example was double.

Again....sounds nice...an alternitive would be to get more of your members to use the faclities that get the money.  You can also start the leg work and intitial investment to get a facility and a program in your neck of the woods and to get your fair share of the VG money.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

NCRblues

Quote from: lordmonar on December 09, 2011, 05:02:26 PM

a) At least it is system. 

I could not help but laugh out loud on this one.... sounds like something the soviet government would have said....that statement followed by "be happy we even allow you to have a system comrade".
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

lordmonar

Quote from: NCRblues on December 09, 2011, 05:10:14 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on December 09, 2011, 05:02:26 PM

a) At least it is system. 

I could not help but laugh out loud on this one.... sounds like something the soviet government would have said....that statement followed by "be happy we even allow you to have a system comrade".
Maybe it is just my 22 years in the military......no one ever asked my opinion on how HQ was set up.  The Soviets were not the only ones to own the "shut up and color" card.   >:D

Listen....bottom line is that I agree with you that getting it out sooner is better.  But I also agree with the idea that the policy makers need some time to digest the report, form some initial opinions, make some initial decisions before they have to face the wrath of the masses....including some of our leaders.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

davidsinn

Quote from: lordmonar on December 09, 2011, 05:17:30 PM
But I also agree with the idea that the policy makers need some time to digest the report, form some initial opinions, make some initial decisions before they have to face the wrath of the masses....including some of our leaders.

The previous speaker of the house used that logic in the not too distant past and look where it got us...
Former CAP Captain
David Sinn

lordmonar

#27
Quote from: davidsinn on December 09, 2011, 05:58:24 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on December 09, 2011, 05:17:30 PM
But I also agree with the idea that the policy makers need some time to digest the report, form some initial opinions, make some initial decisions before they have to face the wrath of the masses....including some of our leaders.

The previous speaker of the house used that logic in the not too distant past and look where it got us...
Well....isn't that one of the reasons for this whole exercersize?  Looking if there is a better way of doing things?

IMHO...the BoG has not really stepped up to the line of leadership that they are supposed to have.....they are beggining to do that now.  Major changes need to be taken at an appropriate pace....I think the BoG is doing this right so far.  They have asked an outside agency with no stake in the organisation to take a look and make recommendations.  Now we have some new people on the BoG and some old hands who need time to look at the report.  Once that is done and they get an idea of what they want to do....they can send out the report along with their initial ideas of how they want to proceed.  Then the NB and the rest of CAP can look at report and the BoG's intent and that way we are not wasteing our time grousing over items that they don't like themselves.

Bottom line though...is that the BoG can do pretty much anything they want to (within the scope of current law)...with out any input from the rank and file.  They are not doing that.....as far as I can tell.....so like I said....let's give them the time to make informed decisions and do this right.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Smithsonia

CAP isn't the military. We have thousands of members with advanced degrees. Thousands of members who've been leaders in their communities, businesses, fields, families, churches, and other volunteer organizations. We have members with more experiences in a thousand endeavors than any one can imagine. To take advantage of some of that free knowledge is worth the little risk of listening.

Think of the governance question as a giant suggestion box. Pick the best ideas. Leave the other good ideas for later. Blow off those that don't apply or work. Be dynamic. Move forward. Lead.

The BOG has some great people. But those people should have the ability to listen also.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

Eclipse

#29
Quote from: Smithsonia on December 09, 2011, 08:28:54 PM
CAP isn't the military. We have thousands of members with advanced degrees. Thousands of members who've been leaders in their communities, businesses, fields, families, churches, and other volunteer organizations. We have members with more experiences in a thousand endeavors than any one can imagine. To take advantage of some of that free knowledge is worth the little risk of listening.

Yep - and in far too many cases, when these "leaders of their communities" are asked to do the real work of CAP, they say they are "too busy being leaders in their community".  In a lot of cases these "leaders in their community" are happy to add CAP to their resumes, but not always willing to
empty trash cans.

I'm about done hearing about the brain and energy trust we supposedly have in our ranks, because I've seen the same people doing the same things
for the last ten years, while our recruiting efforts are revolving doors of premature bling followed by "this isn't for me".

CAP is too unique an animal for the average "leader in the community" to wander in and start "fixing", likewise, those who have spent their CAP careers
marching in the same groove, checking the boxes and accumulating accolades really have nothing to offer either.  The people to consult are the mid-pointers with actual demonstrable success over and above the minimum, who still have the energy to implement disruptive change.

I don't personally have any real issues with the NEC or BOG, they are a product of the system they inhabit, the real rubber and road is below the wing level, and that's where we need the doers.

"That Others May Zoom"

tsrup

Quote from: Smithsonia on December 09, 2011, 08:28:54 PM
CAP isn't the military. We have thousands of members with advanced degrees. Thousands of members who've been leaders in their communities, businesses, fields, families, churches, and other volunteer organizations. We have members with more experiences in a thousand endeavors than any one can imagine. To take advantage of some of that free knowledge is worth the little risk of listening.

Think of the governance question as a giant suggestion box. Pick the best ideas. Leave the other good ideas for later. Blow off those that don't apply or work. Be dynamic. Move forward. Lead.

The BOG has some great people. But those people should have the ability to listen also.

The military has thousands of members with advanced degrees.  Thousands of members who've been leaders in their units and communities, fields, families, churches, and other volunteer organizations.  They have officers and enlisted folks with more experiences in a thousand endeavors than any one can imagine.  They recognize that yet understand that it's hard to concentrate on policy when all of those said members are screaming in their ears their own idea of what should change and shouldn't.

Paramedic
hang-around.

Smithsonia

#31
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The military is set up to run, support, and reward 19 year olds in fights. Everything from the Generals orders to the washroom signs are designed for 19 years olds. CAP is different by a mile. We can change and have. Otherwise we'd still be bombing subs and training air raid wardens.

The US military has tens of thousands of consultants. The military pays billions of dollars every year for the expertise of the consultants and contractors. They pay because they can't afford to retain this expertise inside the military. We have military consultants, business consultants, and authorities from various resources who charge for their services providing the same service for free to CAP. I suggest we listen. We pay attention. We learn. We grow.

In the military the enemy will dictate changes in tactics and training. We learn from adversaries to be better fighters. In CAP we need to learn the same way. Take adversity and make it the basis for your solution.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

lordmonar

Yep your right.

So is CAP the military or not?  In one post you say don't compare them...in the next you say let's do what they do.

Anyways.....I have not said that CAP should not listen to the BTDT rank and file, nor do I think that the BoG is currently not listening to us.

First off....they seem to realise that something needs to be fixed.....just like we have noted here on CT.
Secondly....the realised that we have to get outside advice.....because of the realities of the organisation makes it next to impossible to affect change from within....too many people have to much invested in the current system to objectively evaluate any possible changes.
Thirdly...the BoG made sure that rank and file members were given the opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns to the evaluation/recommendation process.

So....we are at the end of the gather information phase of the problem solving process.  Now they are entering the consider the options phase....let's give them a chance to do that with out too much shouting in their ears.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

NCRblues

Quote from: lordmonar on December 09, 2011, 10:04:53 PM
So....we are at the end of the gather information phase of the problem solving process.  Now they are entering the consider the options phase....let's give them a chance to do that with out too much shouting in their ears.

I'm sure by now everyone knows I believe that they should send it out asap...

But let me ask you this, how long should they take to "consider" things? When (in your opinion) is the time for them to send it out? How long do they need to avoid the "shouting"?
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

Smithsonia

LordMonar;
CAP is not the military. I sell advice to the military. I sell advice to media clients. I offer advice to CAP for free. Sometimes the advice is the same. Sometimes not depending on the problem to be resolved. CAP IS NOT THE MILITARY. Treat me like a 19 year old and I'll treat you worse. I haven't been a 19 year old for 40 years and I have learned a few things in that time. Not that you have to listen but I've already changed 10 things this month in CAP, my squadron, and the Wing that I could not have begun to work through when I was 19.

I have another suggestion that all members of the BOG/Command/and NEC should have at least one ES rating. It is amazing to me the difference in the way we work in ES and the way we work our other programs. ES instills some real world experiences with less talk more do.
That doesn't mean people shut up and toe the line. That means people sort through the best ideas and punch them to the top of the food chain fast then move the mission with expediency. I've got quals in both. I must say one informs the other in enriching ways.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

lordmonar

Quote from: NCRblues on December 09, 2011, 10:12:20 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on December 09, 2011, 10:04:53 PM
So....we are at the end of the gather information phase of the problem solving process.  Now they are entering the consider the options phase....let's give them a chance to do that with out too much shouting in their ears.

I'm sure by now everyone knows I believe that they should send it out asap...

But let me ask you this, how long should they take to "consider" things? When (in your opinion) is the time for them to send it out? How long do they need to avoid the "shouting"?
I think a month or two would not be unresonable given the holiday season.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

NCRblues

Quote from: lordmonar on December 09, 2011, 10:29:22 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on December 09, 2011, 10:12:20 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on December 09, 2011, 10:04:53 PM
So....we are at the end of the gather information phase of the problem solving process.  Now they are entering the consider the options phase....let's give them a chance to do that with out too much shouting in their ears.

I'm sure by now everyone knows I believe that they should send it out asap...

But let me ask you this, how long should they take to "consider" things? When (in your opinion) is the time for them to send it out? How long do they need to avoid the "shouting"?
I think a month or two would not be unresonable given the holiday season.

I could see a month no problem. I think 2 is starting to push it. Two months would put a general release to the NB/NEC and membership to February. By that time we are talking 5-6 months to the summer NB meeting. Month...month and a half I think is a fair time for everyone on the BOG to re-read and re-think everything a couple times.
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

jimmydeanno

A message such as this needs leadership.  Putting the results out immediately, without any processing of the information or discussion among the leadership won't help the cause, if there is one to be made.

The BoG should process the information over a few weeks, or a month, then present to the national board members so that they are all on the same page.  After that briefing, the results should be released.  It's not about information protection, but providing a unified message at the national level.  This way, you don't have the XXWG Commander having to react to something he hasn't read himself or been briefed as to what the intent is going forward. 
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

Ned

Quote from: Eclipse on December 09, 2011, 08:48:07 PMI don't personally have any real issues with the NEC or BOG, they are a product of the system they inhabit, the real rubber and road is below the wing level, and that's where we need the doers.

Let me think about that for a moment to decide if I am offended.   ;)

As it turns out, I agree that the squadron level is where we do whatever it is that we do, and we need our hardest and most productive workers at that level.

The good news is that every single one of the CAP members of the BoG has served extensively at the wing level and below.  Heck, all of them except me have been wing commanders.  (My membership was exclusively at the squadron level for the first 30 years.)

Obviously the AF and industry BoG members are not CAP members by definition, but each of them has worked extensively in the trenches of their respective organizations before coming onto the BoG.

SamFranklin


I'm curious about the report so I went to the Board Source site and after looking around a little bit, I'm 99% positive that we can guess which way their report leans. Good or bad, the fundamental principles their team advocates are clear-cut.

They teach that nonprofit boards are supposed to work big issues (fundraising, long term goals, accountability to America), and in turn, hire a full-time executive to manage a full-time staff that actually runs the company. Regardless of your own governance views, I think that point is beyond dispute. Read their FAQs and you'll agree.

So for me, here in the peanut gallery, I'm curious how this will play-out. Apply those Board Source principles to CAP and here's what you get, IMO:

1.  BoG finishes up its governance work in 2012 and then in 2013 turns to fundraising and long-term vision stuff.

2.  BoG "hires" a full time executive leader. Maybe that's the CAP/CC. Maybe the NHQ/EX. Maybe the job is for a pre-set term of 7 years or so, or maybe simply "good behavior." Surely the executive will be under contract. Will this person be a non-profit veteran, or a high ranking CAP officer? We'll have to wait and see. For the CAP colonel types, this is their #1 key question because it impacts their "political" future. For the BoG this is the most sensitive issue they'll deal with.

3.  That executive takes over at NHQ at Maxwell and with the full time staff there, runs the company for all intents and purposes. Want a new Hawk Mountain Ranger Tab? Get it thru the DP office there and signed by the executive (again, CAP/CC or CAP/EX, not sure....). Want a new ID card?  The DP Director or whoever comes up with a design, gives it to the boss, and done. Just like none of us have a say in what font our driver license is. Whether you like this or not, I think the "pro" is a faster, more responsive NHQ because they have authority to manage the company, but the "con" is less input from 52 colonels (that's not a slam), and there's a chance that the full time managers become prima donas or entrenched authority figures (see the J. Edgar movie, it's pretty good.)

4.   Wing and REgion commanders go back to running their organizations, and no longer work national-level issues. The NB/NEC go away because the BoG is the board, period.

5.    Rank and file CAP members, say Ltc and below the wing level, see absolutely no negative effects. If anything they like seeing Uniform Manuals published on time and rules and regs made very clear from on-high.

6.    "Political" members (not a slam), the colonels and region on up people really dislike the new system because it takes a lot of power away from them and puts it down in Alabama. They grumble a lot and make some good points, but the national-level power plays go away. However, with Wing CC being the only real perk-filled job (if you can call it that), politics for that job is more intense than ever.


(DRUMROLL)   The Ten Dollar Question:  If the Board Source report is as predicatable as I think it will be, and the NB/NEC colonels loudly decry it, will the BoG impose 90% of the Board Source solution over their objections? My hunch is that they will because Board Source will have amply demonstrated that every other nonprofit in the US runs along these lines, so there will be no rational argument to oppose the $200k expert opinion.


That's how I see this playing out. Your guess is as good as mine. But really, go to the Board Source website and I think you'll agree that their viewpoint is pretty obvious. Again, I'm not saying I support one system over another, I'm just saying I think I can see how this will play out.


Board Source's basic view on boards is here:
http://www.boardsource.org/Knowledge.asp?ID=3.383

RiverAux

Quote from: SamFranklin on December 10, 2011, 01:19:31 AM
5.    Rank and file CAP members, say Ltc and below the wing level, see absolutely no negative effects. If anything they like seeing Uniform Manuals published on time and rules and regs made very clear from on-high.
We already have a full-time paid national staff that has failed to update the uniform manual in a timely basis.  They have made progress on getting other regs updated when they needed to, but not this.  I don't see how a full-time paid CAP leader who has authority over NHQ as well as the volunteers would make this happen quicker. 

Quote6.    "Political" members (not a slam), the colonels and region on up people really dislike the new system because it takes a lot of power away from them and puts it down in Alabama. They grumble a lot and make some good points, but the national-level power plays go away. However, with Wing CC being the only real perk-filled job (if you can call it that), politics for that job is more intense than ever.
Also take into account that they're potentially dealing with a guy/gal in charge who has no inkling of what CAP does or how it works.  The hired gun CEO usually is a failure. 

NCRblues

Quote from: SamFranklin on December 10, 2011, 01:19:31 AM

2.  BoG "hires" a full time executive leader. Maybe that's the CAP/CC. Maybe the NHQ/EX. Maybe the job is for a pre-set term of 7 years or so, or maybe simply "good behavior." Surely the executive will be under contract. Will this person be a non-profit veteran, or a high ranking CAP officer? We'll have to wait and see. For the CAP colonel types, this is their #1 key question because it impacts their "political" future. For the BoG this is the most sensitive issue they'll deal with.

3.  That executive takes over at NHQ at Maxwell and with the full time staff there, runs the company for all intents and purposes. Want a new Hawk Mountain Ranger Tab? Get it thru the DP office there and signed by the executive (again, CAP/CC or CAP/EX, not sure....). Want a new ID card?  The DP Director or whoever comes up with a design, gives it to the boss, and done. Just like none of us have a say in what font our driver license is. Whether you like this or not, I think the "pro" is a faster, more responsive NHQ because they have authority to manage the company, but the "con" is less input from 52 colonels (that's not a slam), and there's a chance that the full time managers become prima donas or entrenched authority figures (see the J. Edgar movie, it's pretty good.)

4.   Wing and REgion commanders go back to running their organizations, and no longer work national-level issues. The NB/NEC go away because the BoG is the board, period.

5.    Rank and file CAP members, say Ltc and below the wing level, see absolutely no negative effects. If anything they like seeing Uniform Manuals published on time and rules and regs made very clear from on-high.

6.    "Political" members (not a slam), the colonels and region on up people really dislike the new system because it takes a lot of power away from them and puts it down in Alabama. They grumble a lot and make some good points, but the national-level power plays go away. However, with Wing CC being the only real perk-filled job (if you can call it that), politics for that job is more intense than ever.


#2. Hiring the National CC is such a bad move. Talk about politics for that job being bad now...wait till there is a hefty paycheck to go along with it. (a corporation of 65k members is going to have to pay someone at least 6 figures to do even a half chance at a decent job. Where will the money come from?) Also, I believe that something like hiring someone full time to oversee staff AND volunteers are going to require congress action to change the C&B.

#3. Taking the membership completely out of the loop will do more damage than anything I can imagine. Its flat out dangerous to have one person in control of everything. Wing commanders still need a say. What works great in Alabama may not work well in Alaska. Someone (wing king/queen) needs to be able to attend meetings and vote and voice an opinion for Alaska, not have Alabama shove policy down 52 wings throats. You do have a say in what your drivers license looks like. Don't like it? Recall the governor, vote out the assemblymen. Cant do that if its the BOG running everything, or a CEO that is not answerable to shareholders (we don't have shares so....)

#4. Wing and Region commanders' descend into obscurity because they are no better informed than the average squadron commander if the NEC/NB are done away with. Why talk to your wing king when you can just call the CEO's office who would not be an "officer" so would not be "chain of command"?

#5. Negative effects would be the same as today. Bringing in a CEO is not going to solve the problems we are having with uniform issues, or with missions. The paid staff we have struggles to maintain or slowly update regs. Bringing in one more person is not going to affect it. Rules made "very clear" from on high are fine, until the rules become oppressive and the members at wing and below suddenly realize NCIS is on Tuesday nights and that is way more interesting than volunteering in an organization where they have no say and is run by one person in Alabama.

#6. Some political members will be upset yes. Even more members who like to control what they can, to make the local program outstanding, will be even more upset that they no longer have a little wiggle room. Many members (like myself) want to get those wing king/region king seats not for the perks or to "command" but to make our little slice of CAP (wing/region) the best and brightest it can be. Take away the opportunity to make a difference and you will end up losing many good members who dedicate their life's to cap (like myself).


I hope that company CAP hired, did not just turn out the standard "oh, hire a CEO and fire everyone else who has a say, and your problems will be fixed" square peg round hole solution....large hammer. CAP is vastly different than a normal company/501c3. I believe it is vitally important we keep the leadership with all volunteers.

P.S. Spell check and grammar check not working ATM. Sorry if it offends the mark I eyeballs
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

Ned

Quote from: Ned on December 09, 2011, 07:01:07 AM
And I wasn't at the most recent NEC meeting, so I can't speak to whether some money got diverted from VG (or anywhere else) to cover volunteer travel.  Let me check and see what I can find out.  As I said, the original VG policy was to fence the money for training and I don't think that has changed, so there must be a disconnect if your information is accurate.

I heard back from the Finance shop at NHQ and it appears that you were correct and the NEC voted at their last meeting to remove the restriction that fenced the VG money to support the regional training facilities. 

They are checking the draft minutes and looking to see where the money is supposed to go at this point.

More when I get it.

Eclipse

#43
^....
....

...must...

.............find........

...........................something.....

..................................................else....

...............................................................to....

........................................................................whine...complain...

......................................................take...issue...with....

.........................

........................

........................

I got nothin.

"That Others May Zoom"

NCRblues

eclipse, are you speaking about me?

If so, I am not looking for things to disagree with or argue about, I am passionate about this and have very strong feelings on it. After all, captalk is nothing BUT people's opinions on CAP issues.
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

lordmonar

How would hiring the National CC be political?  The BoG asks for resumes from inside and out side CAP and picks the best candidate.
It would be no more political than any other job.  The key here is that we no longer have wing and regional commander selected for how they will vote at the next election...but on how well they would run their wings and regions.

Just because we have a full time executive...does not mean he has absolute power.  The BoG would be giving him his goals and objectives and they would have the power to let him go if he abuses his power or fails to meet his objects and goals.


"Taking membership competely out of the loop".....were are we in the loop now?  2d Lt Joe Newguy has no say on national policy. It is by the volunteer members at each eschelon doing their job and informing the commander on what works and does not work that the memebers have any input to the actual workings of CAP.   Simply hiring the big boss will not change any of that.  What it will change is that our subordinate leaders will be selected based on their ability to do the job.  By eliminating the NB as a policy making body and having them focus on their program areas (their wing) they will be more efficant at doing the job.  Sure What works in AKWG may not work in PRWG.....but as it stands now...that is one of the problems.  It is next to impossible to write and pass a regulation when one wing can start a lobby to block a new regluation because they don't like one aspect of it.  But With national seeing the need for a regulation...they would staff it (with CAP volunteers) who will write it and it get approved and published in a timely manner.  If PRWG has a problem the simply write a supplment that gets approved by the National CC and we are golden.

Why do suppose that wing and regional commanders become obsolete?  They will still have to run their wings, the will still be asked to staff various working groups, they will still be engaged with the national commander doing their jobs.  The only difference is that they will not be politicing for their pet project, jokeying for positions to get a better chance at the next election, back stabbing the regional commander/wing/national commander because their guy did not get elected.  They can focus on doing their job....manning, training and equiping their wing to perform assigned missions.

Negetive issues can be dealt with if the BoG hires/selects the national CC.
a)  The national commander would not be spending time currying favor from his subordinates in order to establish a poltical base to push through his ideas on how to get the job done.
b)  This would allow him to hire and fire wing and regional commanders based on ability instead of poltiical reliabiilty.
c)  Pushing through regulations would be easier and faster because we would not be tied into an artifical time line (Suggested at one NB....report on the next.....sent back to committee to fix the issues....report at next NB....maybe voted on.....maybe not.  In stead the national CC would tell Staff Officer X......get 39-1 updated and on my desk by next month...we'll put it out for comments for 30 day...make the changes and then publish it. 
d) All rules come from on high.....what happens now is that if Wing Commander X does not like the rule...he ignores it.  But he is popular in his region and if I fire him....9000 people will scream politics and we will just be bogged down again.

How will changing the nature of national politics affect the local level?  Tony P at his worst hardly affected the local level at all (unless you were one of the individuals who he was gunning for).  Changing the national politics will benifit the local level because your wing commander and regional commander will be able to focus more of their time on local issues instead of national poltics.

As for where does the money come from?  Well I hate to say this....but all you have to do is consolidate some of the wing adminstrator jobs, may shave off some of the staffers at NHQ....maybe divert some money from VG.  Getting the money is not that hard in the long run.  Add to that that fund raising will become one of the jobs of the BoG and maybe a duty of the full time National CC he would raise the money as part of his job.  It would not be the first job in a "volunteer" organisation where one of the duties of the paid staff is to raise the money for their own pay checks.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

cap235629

Quote from: lordmonar on December 10, 2011, 03:32:17 AM

As for where does the money come from?


Since the National Commander has a "rank" of Major General why not use the Vanguard money to pay him/her under this new governance.  An O-8 over 2 is paid 10k a month
Bill Hobbs, Major, CAP
Arkansas Certified Emergency Manager
Tabhair 'om póg, is Éireannach mé

Spaceman3750

Not sure I'm in favor of someone outside of the organization being the national CC.

RiverAux

Although this is essentially an exercise in useless tea-leave reading, but another Board Source document that may have some bearing:
http://www.boardsource.org/dl.asp?document_id=884

They indicate that there is a "sweet spot" of board size of 15-22 members that CEOs seem to think is most efficient.  Average size is 16.   

To translate that to CAP world, the NB is too big to be effective, but the BoG is too small to really act as a governing board. 

Eclipse

#49
Quote from: lordmonar on December 10, 2011, 03:32:17 AM
How would hiring the National CC be political?  The BoG asks for resumes from inside and out side CAP and picks the best candidate.

You're done right there. 

No one from outside is going to "get" CAP, and taking the lineage from our parent service, CSAF's aren't hired from "outside".

Besides, who, of any real value, is going to stake their career on an organization where no one under him really has to do anything he says?
Frankly, that's part of the problem - CAP volunteers have no real "risk" in regards to their non-performance of staff duties, etc.  They can attain
fairly high office, have hundreds of thousands of dollars of assets and thousands of members under their authority, and if they just warm the seat and
quit, no one (who counts) will even know they were a member.

Any model that puts compensated members in the chain of command has to dial-down a lot lower then just the top spot - it needs to come all the way down to the Wing level, and maybe even the group, because otherwise, you can fill all the whiteboards you want with plans, and no one really has to even pay you any mind.

"That Others May Zoom"

NCRblues

Lordmonar, like I said, we will just have to agree to disagree.

IMHO, I do not like Nat/CC as a paid position.

What are the rules on hiring a Nat/CC? Must have a degree? Masters? PHD? Salary? Span of control? Reason for removal (if BOG needs to)? Will the AF even let that happen (doubt it)?

Who speaks for ANYONE in the organization then if the NB is disbanded? Your line of "at least it is a system" comes into play here. It may be broken, but at least your voice COULD be heard. If they take apart the NB, who will you speak to then? Your wing king will shrug and say "sorry, not my job, I am just here to focus on wing XXXX"

Leadership of the ALL volunteer AF Aux. needs to stay all volunteer. More corporation side is not the answer. Has anyone thought of this....if we need help this bad to HIRE someone outside cap (or even god forbid hire the Nat/CC or former Nat/CC) why not go hat in hand to the AF and say "hey, we need help, please come help us right the ship"....
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

lordmonar

Quote from: RiverAux on December 10, 2011, 04:16:49 AM
Although this is essentially an exercise in useless tea-leave reading, but another Board Source document that may have some bearing:
http://www.boardsource.org/dl.asp?document_id=884

They indicate that there is a "sweet spot" of board size of 15-22 members that CEOs seem to think is most efficient.  Average size is 16.   

To translate that to CAP world, the NB is too big to be effective, but the BoG is too small to really act as a governing board.
Bump it up.

6 members from USAF and 8 (one from each region) and two intested outside parties.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

I'd say the actual fix is moving back to a top-down, paramilitary structure that emulates other similar organizations, puts the power back in the hands of the national commander and the actual chain of command, but requires they in turn report to the USAF.

"That Others May Zoom"

NCRblues

Quote from: Eclipse on December 10, 2011, 04:32:58 AM
I'd say the actual fix is moving back to a top-down, paramilitary structure that emulates other similar organizations, puts the power back in the hands of the national commander and the actual chain of command, but requires they in turn report to the USAF.

think I love you..... not in you know...a weird way or anything...
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

FW

I'll give you a realistic scenario; The BoG makes the EX the CEO of CAP.  This is really a no brainer as, the EX already has the authority to run the corporation.  The National Commander stays a volunteer however, becoming the COO of the corporation.  The National Commander leads the volunteers in accomplishing the goals set forth by the BoG.  Subordinate commanders are tasked to accomplish the goals in their region/wing accordingly.  The Commander is selected by the BoG.  The Commander appoints the region commanders who, in turn appoints the wing commanders, etc.  No more "self licking ice cream cone". No more confusion of current "multi governing boards" and, a clear line of responsibility and authority. 

The only issue I wonder about is the Makeup of the CAP members of the BoG.  Should the CC and CV be members or advisors?  Or, should there be 4 (or more) at large members to represent the membership of CAP? 

I find it amazing we continue to reinvent the wheel with no benifical results.  Who knows, maybe this time "they" will get it right

Fubar

Quote from: Eclipse on December 10, 2011, 04:32:58 AMbut requires they in turn report to the USAF.

Does anyone think the USAF wants this responsibility? If we answer directly to the military, would our corporation have to be dissolved since we would no longer be independent?

lordmonar

Quote from: NCRblues on December 10, 2011, 04:26:49 AM
Lordmonar, like I said, we will just have to agree to disagree.

IMHO, I do not like Nat/CC as a paid position.

What are the rules on hiring a Nat/CC? Must have a degree? Masters? PHD? Salary? Span of control? Reason for removal (if BOG needs to)? Will the AF even let that happen (doubt it)?

Who speaks for ANYONE in the organization then if the NB is disbanded? Your line of "at least it is a system" comes into play here. It may be broken, but at least your voice COULD be heard. If they take apart the NB, who will you speak to then? Your wing king will shrug and say "sorry, not my job, I am just here to focus on wing XXXX"

Leadership of the ALL volunteer AF Aux. needs to stay all volunteer. More corporation side is not the answer. Has anyone thought of this....if we need help this bad to HIRE someone outside cap (or even god forbid hire the Nat/CC or former Nat/CC) why not go hat in hand to the AF and say "hey, we need help, please come help us right the ship"....

1.  Why don't you like it?  We have a lot of paid staffers now that have a ton of power.
2.  I would assume that the BoG would determine their requirments for the position based on industry standards.  Salary same deal. Span of Control?  I would assume he would have the same control as any CEO in any large organisation.  Removal?  Just like any othere employee....failure to meet goals, failure to follow company policies, failure to work well with others.  Nevada is a right to work state...so you can be fired and or let go for no reason at all....I would assume we would follow the same laws as any employer in the State of Alabama.  The point being we would not have to come up with convoluted rules to remove a bad national comander...because there is no self licking ice cream cone.  The BoG hires....the BoG fires.  As for would the USAF allow it.......I don't think they would have a say.  Not sure what the law says....but I think they would only have any input on the make up of the BoG.....who they have always thought should take on a more active role.  The USAF has stated several times that they don't think the NB should be making policy and voting on regulations.  It is inefficent use of their time.
3.  The volunteers speak for themselves.  Volunteers will still be on the NHQ staff.  Volunteers will still be on the regional and wing staffs.  Volunteers will be on the BoG.  Paying the boss does not mean you loose your voice.  You will still be able to communicate your opinions to your wing commander who should be sending them up the chain as any good supervisor should do.  22 years in the USAF...while no one ever asked my opinion I was still had a voice an could still affect change and policy within my scope.  My commanders came to me for advice on technical and procedural issues.....none of that would be lost simply because the wing commanders don't meet twice a year and vote on policy.  In fact I think that the average member's voice would more likely be shared in this enviorment because there would be not political BS going on during those meetings.  The commanders can voice their concerns about policy in an open and honest forum....instead of in a politically charged forum.
4. We are not an ALL volunteer organisation.  We have wing adminstrators, paid NHQ staffers that have a lot of real power in the organisation.  We can't go to the Air Force.  The Air Force cannot directly be in charge of us.  That is why we split from them way back in 40's IIRC.  If we were to hire our boss......then we benifit by having a full time guy who is answerable to the policy makers of the organisation.  We have guy who is hired to produce measurable objectives.  We have a guy who focuses on meeting those objectives and not an any political machine, not on any pet project he may have, not on setting up his freinds and cronies into positions of authority.

Compensating the boss allows him to focus on the job and not have to split his attention between his "real job" and the very important job of running CAP.

But as RiverAux said....this is all just tea leaf reading.  We both may just be getting spun up for no reason at all....until the report comes out...we'll just agree to disagree.  When the report does come out though.......I can't wait to hear the fire works then....you and I don't have any real stake in the National Politics.....but I can just image what the wing and region CC are going to do if the report recommends what I think and hope it does.  ;D
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

SarDragon

Quote from: Fubar on December 10, 2011, 04:52:14 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on December 10, 2011, 04:32:58 AMbut requires they in turn report to the USAF.

Does anyone think the USAF wants this responsibility? If we answer directly to the military, would our corporation have to be dissolved since we would no longer be independent?

Originally, we did answer directly to the AF. From 1941 until August 1975, the National Commander of CAP was an appointed active duty USAAF or USAF officer, typically a General Officer. They changed to the current structure in 1975, with additional governance changes when we became a part-time auxiliary a few years ago.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

NCRblues

We will have to agree to disagree, and wait for the report... hopefully sooner rather than later.

I will say one last thing then I will sit back and watch. IMHO, you are WAY to trusting of a "CEO" hire/fire situation. Politics plays into EVERY CEO hire and fire in the world. It will not be any different in cap. (Unless the BOG places restrictions like term limits so forth and so on)

Now... I wait... and hope that all I have worked towards is not thrown away before I can even get to where I wanted to go.
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

The CyBorg is destroyed

Quote from: FW on December 09, 2011, 12:33:41 PM
what CAP is all about; our cadets.

Sir, I have lost count of how many times I have heard that from AF personnel, including state directors: cadets are job 1, everyone else is there to support the cadets.

I have related the story of how one state director came to a former squadron to ostensibly give a "pep talk," and almost all of his talk was about cadets and how they needed to work harder to get their Mitchell at the very least.  We asked what his thoughts were for the senior members of the unit, and basically it was "motivate and mentor your cadets to get at least their Mitchell!" ???  This was a composite squadron, not a cadet squadron.

If all we are is to be a source of warm bodies through the gates of Lackland, in the eyes of the AF, then there is no logical reason for us to exist in our present form.
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

FW

Cyborg, It is a responsibility of CAP to develop the nations' youth through our cadet programs.  It is not the responsibility of CAP to recruit "warm bodies through the gates of Lackand" however, if it helps the military with recruiting, I have no problem with it. 

We all know the stated purposes of Civil Air Patrol.  IMHO; for us to thrive not mearly survive, we need to get our collective heads screwed on correctly and, have the resources to make it happen.  The BoG must deal with this.  The members need to be on board with these policies and, be motivated to carry them out. 

The basic fact of life; we don't do anything unless we want to.  No one forces us to obey.  No one wishes to be "told to salute" if there is no reason to be part of the team.  CAP isn't an ant colony.  It is a benifical organization for the membership; as well as the communities we serve.

Eclipse

Quote from: FW on December 10, 2011, 03:50:05 PMNo one wishes to be "told to salute"

I'd love to be "told to salute", because it means someone is actually paying some attention to the details...

"That Others May Zoom"

The CyBorg is destroyed

Quote from: FW on December 10, 2011, 03:50:05 PM
Cyborg, It is a responsibility of CAP to develop the nations' youth through our cadet programs. 

It is a responsibility, sir, not the raison d'etre.

Quote from: FW on December 10, 2011, 03:50:05 PM
It is not the responsibility of CAP to recruit "warm bodies through the gates of Lackand" however, if it helps the military with recruiting, I have no problem with it. 

I don't have a problem with it either.  I passed through those gates long ago, though I was never a cadet.  But, as I have said, I have met so many AF people who only look at us as cadets, cadets, cadets.

Quote from: FW on December 10, 2011, 03:50:05 PM
We all know the stated purposes of Civil Air Patrol. 

Yes, sir, I do.

Aerospace Education
Emergency Services
Cadet Programmes

Some may disagree with this.  There are those on this board who would like us to be "all ES, all the time."  I haven't run into as many AE zealots.  I have run into both CAP and AF people who are "cadets only."  In fact, my first squadron CC staffing a CAP booth at an airshow I attended some 18 years ago told me as much.  Direct quote: "Our adult members are there mostly to serve as counsellors to our cadets."  It's a good thing I'm nosey, and even though I'm not from Missouri, you have to show me, else I probably wouldn't have bothered to go to a unit meeting.

There are organisations in other countries who are very much cadets-only:

Royal Canadian Air Cadets, http://www.cadets.ca/air/home-accueil.aspx
Australian Air Force Cadets, http://www.aafc.org.au/
UK Air Training Corps, http://www.raf.mod.uk/aircadets/
NZ Air Training Corps, http://www.airtrainingcorpsnz.org.nz/

All of which, incidentally, have much closer relations with their sponsoring Services (RCAF, RAAF, RAF, RNZAF) than we do, and whose "senior members" are a special class of paid reservists.

Quote from: FW on December 10, 2011, 03:50:05 PM
However, we are not them, as much as I admire what they do for their young people and their sponsoring Services.

IMHO; for us to thrive not mearly survive, we need to get our collective heads screwed on correctly and, have the resources to make it happen.  The BoG must deal with this.  The members need to be on board with these policies and, be motivated to carry them out. 

The basic fact of life; we don't do anything unless we want to.  No one forces us to obey.  No one wishes to be "told to salute" if there is no reason to be part of the team.  CAP isn't an ant colony.  It is a benifical organization for the membership; as well as the communities we serve.

If that's a roundabout way of saying that we need to be a cadets-only, or cadet-primary organisation with the other two functions being very much ancillary, then I respectfully disagree.
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

BillB

Seems like CAP is floundering without direction. To many ES people are still mired in the 121.5 ELT search mindset. I dfoubt there are very many Squadrons that have started Disaster Relief operations training which appears tobe the best use of CAP ES resources.
What can the average unit accomplish in external Aerospace Education? a very limited field. The largest part of AE is internal to the cadet program.
Since October 1942, the CAP cadet program has been an avenue to the military. That's what it was started as, and to this day continues to be. The major portion of USAF funding does not go to ES and flying. It goes to support the cadet program.
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104

davidsinn

Quote from: BillB on December 10, 2011, 05:25:08 PM
The major portion of USAF funding does not go to ES and flying. It goes to support the cadet program.

Not hardly. They pay for several new aircraft every year. The ES training budget is immense compared to anything that goes to CP.
Former CAP Captain
David Sinn

RiverAux

Quote from: BillB on December 10, 2011, 05:25:08 PM
I dfoubt there are very many Squadrons that have started Disaster Relief operations training which appears tobe the best use of CAP ES resources.
Possibly because CAP does not have any doctrine for what we should be doing following disasters other than airborne photography. 

Walkman

I've read through this whole thread. I'm not sure where I fall in on my opinion yet, I've never done anything above the small squadron level, so I'm not really familiar with the workings of the BoG, etc. I filled out the survey to the best of my ability and I'm holding out hope that will wnd up improving as a result.

However, I want to give a thumbs up to NCRBlues & lormonar. In the online world, having a logical, level-headed debate and "agreeing to disagree" is almost unheard of.

SARDOC

Quote from: BillB on December 10, 2011, 05:25:08 PMI dfoubt there are very many Squadrons that have started Disaster Relief operations training which appears tobe the best use of CAP ES resources.

I know a few squadrons here lately that have coordinated with their local Emergency Management Agency and created a CERT team...it's not the end all be all but it's a good start.

ZigZag911

Col. Weiss' approach makes a lot of sense; I would modify it slightly:

1) National CC = CEO (think college president)
2) Exec Dir = COO (like the dean)
3) BOG = board of trustees --they "own' the organization, in the sense of having final say, principal fiduciary responsibility...should be the ones to select national commander, perhaps from a list of candidates provided from CAP volunteers
4) NEC serves as commander's "cabinet"
5) NB goes away; wing commanders actually stay home and run their wings!

RADIOMAN015

#69
Well at least we can give credit to the BOG that they recognized their shortcomings and decided to get an independent external consulting firm to provide them with some additional alternatives :clap:

HOWEVER, I've got to admit that at least today while attending and supporting, as PAO, our local "Wreaths Across America" ceremony, watching our cadet color guard team & wreath presenters in service dress uniform was terrific and all these organization issues wasn't a topic on anyone's mind.   Hopefully anything that changes our organization will not have a negative affect on squadrons.  That is really where the relevant activities are taking place.  Everything above the squadron level needs to be geared at supporting those units and hopefully not adding more administrative mumbo jumbo.
RM           

FW

Quote from: CyBorg on December 10, 2011, 04:23:12 PM
Quote from: FW on December 10, 2011, 03:50:05 PM
IMHO; for us to thrive not mearly survive, we need to get our collective heads screwed on correctly and, have the resources to make it happen.  The BoG must deal with this.  The members need to be on board with these policies and, be motivated to carry them out. 

The basic fact of life; we don't do anything unless we want to.  No one forces us to obey.  No one wishes to be "told to salute" if there is no reason to be part of the team.  CAP isn't an ant colony.  It is a benifical organization for the membership; as well as the communities we serve.

If that's a roundabout way of saying that we need to be a cadets-only, or cadet-primary organisation with the other two functions being very much ancillary, then I respectfully disagree.

It is direct way of saying we need to be all on the same page.  However CAP governs itself, the membership must be engaged and motivated to perform or. we still end with the same results.

lordmonar

Quote from: Walkman on December 10, 2011, 05:39:01 PM
I've read through this whole thread. I'm not sure where I fall in on my opinion yet, I've never done anything above the small squadron level, so I'm not really familiar with the workings of the BoG, etc. I filled out the survey to the best of my ability and I'm holding out hope that will wnd up improving as a result.

However, I want to give a thumbs up to NCRBlues & lormonar. In the online world, having a logical, level-headed debate and "agreeing to disagree" is almost unheard of.

Well....I wanted to say "Jane you ignorant slut.." but someon already used that.  >:D
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

The CyBorg is destroyed

Quote from: FW on December 10, 2011, 09:35:53 PM
It is direct way of saying we need to be all on the same page.  However CAP governs itself, the membership must be engaged and motivated to perform or. we still end with the same results.

Sir, I must still be picking you up wrong.

Are you saying that "to be all on the same page," we must centre our motivation on CP?
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

FW

^Yep, you're not yet getting me. "To be on the same page" means for the leadership to be in sync with the needs and wants of the membership in creating a better Civil Air Patrol.  Cadet Programs is part of the equation however, it was not the focus of my thoughts. 

NCRblues

Oh Mr. Ned dear sir...

It has been over a month since the governance report was received. Has the BOG set a date to release the information and study yet? Just trying to stay on top of this...   :D
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

bosshawk

Probably right after the next BoG meeting: whenever that may be.  Might be advisable to sit tight and wait.
Paul M. Reed
Col, USA(ret)
Former CAP Lt Col
Wilson #2777

NCRblues

Quote from: bosshawk on January 12, 2012, 12:47:15 AM
Probably right after the next BoG meeting: whenever that may be.  Might be advisable to sit tight and wait.

Ned said that a committee was formed to look at when to send this information out. He even said the sooner the better with the NB meeting coming up. Sitting tight and waiting tends to let our "leaders" "forget" about the promise to be open with the people that REALLY matter...you know, us, the CAP members who make this thing tick.

So, my question still stands, have they set a date yet Ned?
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

PHall

Quote from: NCRblues on January 12, 2012, 02:06:15 AM
Quote from: bosshawk on January 12, 2012, 12:47:15 AM
Probably right after the next BoG meeting: whenever that may be.  Might be advisable to sit tight and wait.

Ned said that a committee was formed to look at when to send this information out. He even said the sooner the better with the NB meeting coming up. Sitting tight and waiting tends to let our "leaders" "forget" about the promise to be open with the people that REALLY matter...you know, us, the CAP members who make this thing tick.

So, my question still stands, have they set a date yet Ned?


So what exactly is your urgent need to see this report, right now? Are you a person who can make changes in how CAP is run at the National Level?
To put it simply, what is your "need to know" that can't wait a few months?

NCRblues

Quote from: PHall on January 12, 2012, 02:26:35 AM
Quote from: NCRblues on January 12, 2012, 02:06:15 AM
Quote from: bosshawk on January 12, 2012, 12:47:15 AM
Probably right after the next BoG meeting: whenever that may be.  Might be advisable to sit tight and wait.

Ned said that a committee was formed to look at when to send this information out. He even said the sooner the better with the NB meeting coming up. Sitting tight and waiting tends to let our "leaders" "forget" about the promise to be open with the people that REALLY matter...you know, us, the CAP members who make this thing tick.

So, my question still stands, have they set a date yet Ned?


So what exactly is your urgent need to see this report, right now? Are you a person who can make changes in how CAP is run at the National Level?
To put it simply, what is your "need to know" that can't wait a few months?

Even Ned says that the BOG needs to get it out asap to the members. Money from our dues and tax money was used for this. We, as members, have a right to know. This should not be hidden behind closed doors. It needs to be open and accountable. Kind of like Obama care... "we have to pass it to find out what's in it" <-- bad for the country...same thing...bad for CAP.
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

lordmonar

This is the broken record again.

Okay....we get it...you want to know....so do I.

But really.....berating Ned......the one guy on the BoG who actually gives us some information on this board.

You are beggining to sound like a six year old...you know that right?
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

NCRblues

Wow, all I said was

Quote from: NCRblues on January 11, 2012, 09:50:32 PM
Oh Mr. Ned dear sir...

It has been over a month since the governance report was received. Has the BOG set a date to release the information and study yet? Just trying to stay on top of this...   :D

So, I am not allowed to ask IF the BOG set a DATE yet? That is more than a fair question. I did not demand or barrette Ned because a month had gone by, I simply asked if a DATE had been agreed on.

Even you said a month was a good amount of time in this very thread. If Ned would have jumped on and said "Nope" or "im not sure yet", I would say ok.

It does not hurt to ask, and frankly, I don't care if I sounds like a child to you. No one is forcing you to read it.
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

Ned

Did some checking. The BoG Governance Committee (which I am not on) has already physically met and will need more time than they first estimated to complete their vetting and recommendations. 

So the Good News is that they jumped on it and, despite the holidays, were able to meet and move toward completing their tasking.  Not bad for general officers.  8)

The Bad News is that they are not done yet and will need at least another teleconference or two to finish up.

I know that they - like everyone on the BoG - is acutely aware of the timing of upcoming CAP NB/NEC meetings, and fully understand the significance of any unnecessary delay at this point.

As promised, more when I get it.

Ned Lee

NCRblues

Quote from: Ned on January 13, 2012, 09:49:07 PM
Did some checking. The BoG Governance Committee (which I am not on) has already physically met and will need more time than they first estimated to complete their vetting and recommendations. 

So the Good News is that they jumped on it and, despite the holidays, were able to meet and move toward completing their tasking.  Not bad for general officers.  8)

The Bad News is that they are not done yet and will need at least another teleconference or two to finish up.

I know that they - like everyone on the BoG - is acutely aware of the timing of upcoming CAP NB/NEC meetings, and fully understand the significance of any unnecessary delay at this point.

As promised, more when I get it.

Ned Lee

Thanks Ned!
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC