June BoG meeting

[JC004]

You mentioned governance issues being "in the mix."  Did anything come of that?  It is certainly not something that is going to be wrapped up in a meeting or even a handful of meetings (most likely), but I think a lot of us would like to know if there is forward movement in that area.

How the organization is governed is central to everything moving forward, so I most certainly hope we are addressing this insane structure as it is now.  This is clearly the BoG's area legally (although it would certainly help if the other bodies were moving in this area).  Only the BoG can modify the Constitution and Bylaws, right?  (I haven't looked at them in a while)

[Ned]

You're correct that only the BoG can change the C&Bl.

And I think it is safe to say that the consensus (at least here on CT) is that we need to do something about it.  The CAP electoral culture has tended towards  . . . (looking for some good words here) . . . cliqueish, personal, and negative over the last couple of decades.

The first thing any of our bodies needs to do is carefully look at alternative governance models, evaluate them carefully, and if change is warranted, then manage the transition.  Not an easy task for an organization with 60,000 members and an annual budget in the tens of millions.

At this point everybody (and I mean seemingly everybody) has their own idea of exactly "what's wrong" and how to "fix it."  And a lot of the ideas I have heard sound reasonable to my lawyer brain.  But we need to be as sure as we can be before making any changes to the current model.  (Which, I think most people will agree that even if it is flawed, has still allowed the corporation to accomplish our missions.) 

The NB has two fairly high-level committees actively working the issues.  And many of our senior leaders are highly experienced in corporate governance issues themselves, and have their own experience and wisdom to share.

So, I guess this is the long way of saying that a whole lot of good folks are working the governance issue.  Ultimately, if I had to guess, I suspect we will see some sort of change sooner than later.  But nothing will happen until it has been thoroughly vetted and reviewed by the BoG.

And - I suspect - endlessly and vigorously debated here.   

[BillB]

Earhart 1971

You are incorrect on the number of cadets in 1968 in Florida Wing. But only off by about 100. There were 3890 cadets in 68. But enough that it required two summer encampments from 64 to 69.

[bosshawk]

Ned: thanks for your reporting on the recent BoG meeting.  It seems to me that it is the first time in my 18 years that anyone on the Board has bothered to tell the trench soldiers what went on at the meeting.  My real sense is that the Board, the NB, NEC and those at Region have long adopted a mantra of "keep it secret, then they can't complain".

There is no doubt in my semi-military mind that running an organization as large and as diverse as CAP is no walk in the park.  However, open and frank communications go a long way toward heading off complaints.

[lordmonar]

Another meeting where the volunteering, dues paying, general membership was not told of the agenda or of the "reports" that were to be made, and even after the meeting is over, still do not know what happened, or is happening. Nothing like a semi closed door, "open meeting" to make us lowlife volunteers that do the work in this organization Happy about the way it is run. Great job leadership, cant wait till the next one!  (sarcasm)

No different then the BSA, Girl Scouts or the Red Cross and may other volunteer dues paying organisation.

Also no different then may other corporations and definatly not any different then the U.S. Military.

[NCRblues]

^ good thing we are not any of those organizations, but Lordmonar, i know for a fact, those organizations want open discussions, and push their general memberhip to submit ideas.

Now you will give me this line " if you have ideas send them up your chain of command", and lets be honest with each other here shall we? That wont get those ideas anywhere important.

I realize were not the military, i served on AD, open and frank discussion dose not work well with national defense and homeland security, but CAP cant post the BOG meeting agenda beforehand? give me a break 

*i feel my secret squirrel ring pulsing with energy*

[Ned]

  My real sense is that the Board, the NB, NEC and those at Region have long adopted a mantra of "keep it secret, then they can't complain".

Well, we do stream the NB and NEC meetings.  You really can't get much more public than that.

But there is certainly some truth in what you say.  Sometimes, a leader publicly discussing the topic can change the process and perhaps the outcome in a negative way.

Example:  You are not going to hear me discuss any specific governance proposals that we discuss in executive session.  The reason is fairly simple.  Essentially by definition, anytime you change the governance model, somebody is going to perceive the change as a "loss" and someone is going to see it as a "win."  And folks who think they are going to lose something - even just prestige or a badge or whatever - are going to being "politicking" against any such proposed change, even if it was only mentioned in passing as a possiblity.

Particularly in this organization. 

And those kinds of spin and politics can change the discussion dramatically, and not necessarily in a good way.

So while I think the default should always be toward openness and transparency, there is a time and place for candid discussions not in the public forum.

Good leaders should be able to distinguish between the situations that call for openness and the rare situations that call for privacy and candor.  Hopefully the membership will understand and approve.

We'll see.

[bosshawk]

Ned: I certainly concur that there is a time and a place for all discussions: some in confidence and some in the open.  My perception has been for some time that there is a decided preference for those in leadership positions in CAP to keep things secret, regardless of the subject.  Note that I said "leadership positions", as I perceive very few in those positions who actually possess leadership qualities.

Lets see how things go.

[FW]

That nothing dramatic occurred is a good thing these days.  Of course, though, it seems like the BoG agrees with the "fact" our governance structure needs to be looked at.  Luckily, the performance of our missions has little to do with how CAP is governed (up until now).  Dedicated members at the squadron level don't hold "governance" to be an important part of flying a mission, holding a model rocketry class or, tromping through the mud looking for a lost person.
Governance has more to do with creating the atmosphere to motivate members to get up at 2am consistently, keeping the members members, and, keeping the resources available for the members to do the mission safely and competently; without the corruption that has plagued many other non profits in the past (including CAP).

[a2capt]

BoG ... GoB... Hmm... LOL.

[Earhart1971]

Earhart 1971

You are incorrect on the number of cadets in 1968 in Florida Wing. But only off by about 100. There were 3890 cadets in 68. But enough that it required two summer encampments from 64 to 69.

Figure that Florida now has a population that is way more than 1968 and our Cadet Numbers around around 1600.

We had double encampments in 1970, 70-1 and 70-2. At a weekend Type B Encampment (Turkey Point, FL) we had 700 Cadets on the Ground (was it 1969 or 70?)

[BillB]

Turkey Point Type B was in 70. Col Bob Owen attneded and was the new Wing Com,mander

[Earhart1971]

Turkey Point and MacDill Type Bs that were HUGE! At Turkey Point, they had a guy from NHQ that announced the New Self Paced Cadet Program.

We could get to 4000 again, but it would take the School Program and funding to do it. That's one of my complaints with the Powers that Be. School Program operates on AIR, no money. Dependent on School Districts funding it.

[BillB]

It would help if there was an active Wing Recruiting program.  There hasn't been one since the 1990's. Meaning no direction or support from Wing. No program to provide guidence from National also.

[Earhart1971]

It would help if there was an active Wing Recruiting program.  There hasn't been one since the 1990's. Meaning no direction or support from Wing. No program to provide guidence from National also.

Recruiting is tough. Been to 1200 kid middle schools, we might get 2 or 3. If an elective like Civil Air Patrol is advertised at the same school we get 120 kids that want in, immediately, some with parents that own airplanes.

[Ned]

We could get to 4000 again, but it would take the School Program and funding to do it. That's one of my complaints with the Powers that Be.

Non-concur.  The last time I ran the numbers, comparing Florida's cadet population against US Census figures for the age 10-19 cohort (admittededly an imprecise comparison, but that's the way the census figures break down) showed that something like between .02 and .04% of that age group were cadets.

If you returned to the 4,000 figure, you would still only have about 1%.

That seems achievable.  One out of a hundred in CAP.

Have at it, gentlemen.

[BillB]

Ned

We'll wait for the BoG to give some direction to National Staff.

[lordmonar]

Now you will give me this line " if you have ideas send them up your chain of command", and lets be honest with each other here shall we? That wont get those ideas anywhere important.

I have to say it worked for me.  So it does work....maybe not well but it does.

I realize were not the military, i served on AD, open and frank discussion dose not work well with national defense and homeland security, but CAP cant post the BOG meeting agenda beforehand? give me a break 

*i feel my secret squirrel ring pulsing with energy*

I agree that the BOG, NEC and NB should post their agenda and their minutes in a timely manner.....just to foster open communications.....but that they don't does not necessarily mean that they are trying to be secret squirls....or trying something unethical.....it just means they don't post their agendas.

Heck...I am having a staff meeting with my cadet staff this Saturday and I have not posted an agenda.  Does that make me secret squir?  No...it just means I am too busy and/or lazy to get one out.

Same with the wing staff meetings I have attended.  Posting early helps...but let's keep things in perspective.

[Earhart1971]

Ned what are you Non Concuring about?

I am sure the NB, NHQ and the Committees, can all come up with ideas. What are they?

[davidsinn]

Now you will give me this line " if you have ideas send them up your chain of command", and lets be honest with each other here shall we? That wont get those ideas anywhere important.

I have to say it worked for me.  So it does work....maybe not well but it does.

I realize were not the military, i served on AD, open and frank discussion dose not work well with national defense and homeland security, but CAP cant post the BOG meeting agenda beforehand? give me a break 

*i feel my secret squirrel ring pulsing with energy*

I agree that the BOG, NEC and NB should post their agenda and their minutes in a timely manner.....just to foster open communications.....but that they don't does not necessarily mean that they are trying to be secret squirls....or trying something unethical.....it just means they don't post their agendas.

Heck...I am having a staff meeting with my cadet staff this Saturday and I have not posted an agenda.  Does that make me secret squir?  No...it just means I am too busy and/or lazy to get one out.

Same with the wing staff meetings I have attended.  Posting early helps...but let's keep things in perspective.

We have a paid NHQ staff paid for with tax dollars and members dues. They are not allowed to be lazy. There is no excuse in the 21st century that minutes and agendas can not be posted with in days of a meeting. NHQ expects us to have all of our reports in on time yet they can't do their jobs in a timely manner? Inexcusable.