Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 15, 2017, 09:12:29 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: CAP "Separation" from Air Force
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2]  All Print
Author Topic: CAP "Separation" from Air Force  (Read 3165 times)
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,145

« Reply #20 on: July 25, 2017, 10:29:58 AM »

It would seem to me that the Air Force's request to take over CAP in 1999 should of been granted. All those people "lobbying" would of been removed. If the Air Force had true control over CAP, CAP would be more integrated to the Air Force. The Air Force was (is) right.

Who would you rather serve, an Air Force general or a CAP board?

Coast Guard auxiliarists are recognized as being part of the Coast Guard and are permitted to serve with active duty Coast Guard on Coast Guard ships. All the CAP members I know would prefer a relationship to the Air Force like that.

An auxiliary to the military should not be self-governing, the Air Force was correct.

Quote
Air Force officials said they negotiated with CAP for tighter oversight. When CAP leadership rebuffed them, the Air Force asked the Senate to include language in the Defense Authorization Bill that would turn control of CAP to the Air Force. CAP responded with a lobbying campaign that eventually resulted in negotiations mediated http://auxbeacon.org/cap-national-headquarters-raided-by-fbi/

Nevermind those pesky laws and US Code that didn't allow for it (good or bad).  I mean, if thats what the AF needed, then Congress should have provided in the law. But prior to 1999, either it wasn't clearly needed, there wasn't sufficient Congressional support (from either the CAP side or the AF side) or things were "working OK" (note I said "OK" and not "awesome." I'm sure, like Jello, there was room for improvement..) or at least "OK enough to not require intervention from Congress."

And then, in 1999/2000, it was not working OK enough.

Congress felt compelled enough to change the law in 1999 to form the BoG. It could have made CAP into a full fledged AF controlled entity, but for a few reasons, did not.  The BoG took 13 years to give full form to our governance structure.  IMHO, I haven't seen any improvement.  What has the Board accomplished?  Have we a more stable and growing funding stream?  Is the interface between the membership and it's leadership been improved?  Has retention of members improved?  Has any of our stated missions become easier to prosecute?

Having been a member for 40 years, I can only say it seems rearranging the chairs has not done much for us in the cheap seats.  I'm just thankful those at the squadron level don't think about it, and are able to survive (and maybe thrive) no matter what.
Logged
Robert Hartigan
Forum Regular

Posts: 182
Unit: each

« Reply #21 on: July 25, 2017, 11:41:44 AM »

Here is an interesting read and one from "The More Things Change the More They Stay the Same" file.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2017, 05:04:59 PM by Robert Hartigan » Logged
<><><>#996
 GRW   #2717
NIN
VIP

Posts: 4,684
Unit: of issue

« Reply #22 on: July 25, 2017, 12:52:32 PM »

Here is an interesting read and one from "The More Things Change the More They Stay the Same" file.

you do realize you just uploaded "nothing," right?

Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 5,883

« Reply #23 on: July 25, 2017, 07:20:24 PM »

It would seem to me that the Air Force's request to take over CAP in 1999 should of been granted. All those people "lobbying" would of been removed. If the Air Force had true control over CAP, CAP would be more integrated to the Air Force. The Air Force was (is) right.

Who would you rather serve, an Air Force general or a CAP board?

Coast Guard auxiliarists are recognized as being part of the Coast Guard and are permitted to serve with active duty Coast Guard on Coast Guard ships. All the CAP members I know would prefer a relationship to the Air Force like that.

An auxiliary to the military should not be self-governing, the Air Force was correct.

Quote
Air Force officials said they negotiated with CAP for tighter oversight. When CAP leadership rebuffed them, the Air Force asked the Senate to include language in the Defense Authorization Bill that would turn control of CAP to the Air Force. CAP responded with a lobbying campaign that eventually resulted in negotiations mediated http://auxbeacon.org/cap-national-headquarters-raided-by-fbi/

Nevermind those pesky laws and US Code that didn't allow for it (good or bad).  I mean, if thats what the AF needed, then Congress should have provided in the law. But prior to 1999, either it wasn't clearly needed, there wasn't sufficient Congressional support (from either the CAP side or the AF side) or things were "working OK" (note I said "OK" and not "awesome." I'm sure, like Jello, there was room for improvement..) or at least "OK enough to not require intervention from Congress."

And then, in 1999/2000, it was not working OK enough.

Congress felt compelled enough to change the law in 1999 to form the BoG. It could have made CAP into a full fledged AF controlled entity, but for a few reasons, did not.  The BoG took 13 years to give full form to our governance structure.  IMHO, I haven't seen any improvement.  What has the Board accomplished?  Have we a more stable and growing funding stream?  Is the interface between the membership and it's leadership been improved?  Has retention of members improved?  Has any of our stated missions become easier to prosecute?

Having been a member for 40 years, I can only say it seems rearranging the chairs has not done much for us in the cheap seats.  I'm just thankful those at the squadron level don't think about it, and are able to survive (and maybe thrive) no matter what.

The change in how the National Commander is selected is a welcome change.
Logged
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,145

« Reply #24 on: July 25, 2017, 10:43:53 PM »

The change in how the National Commander is selected is a welcome change.

It does beat the "old way", however it has not fixed the core "problems" facing us; probably making them worse.  That said, there is much potential.  A strong CAP/CC-CEO has the ability to guide the organization along a positive path.  With the judicial use of the office's appointing authority, regulatory authority, and leadership, the commander can transform CAP.  That, to date, has not happened. I'm hopeful our new CEO will be different...
Logged
Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 693
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #25 on: July 26, 2017, 02:54:20 AM »

Quote from: zippy link=topic=22310.msg405184#msg405184
date=1500937480

When CAP was CAP during WW2 it was commanded by an Army general.

Not exactly. General J. F. Curry, USAAF, only commanded CAP for the first four months of WWII. For most of WWII, CAP was commanded by Earl L. Johnson. He started as a CAP officer, was direct-commissioned as a USAAF captain, eventually rose to colonel. He was promoted to brigadier general posthumously following an aircraft crash after WWII and some two years after he left command of CAP.

Quote from: zippy link=topic=22310.msg405184#msg405184
date=1500937480

Every person that I ever heard of said CAP was best during WW2.

EVERY person? I find that hard to believe. For one thing, I doubt that you have ever actually talked to people who knew CAP from the inside at any high levels during WWII who also know how CAP operates today.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2017, 02:59:09 AM by Mitchell 1969 » Logged
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.
CyBorgII
Member

Posts: 56
Unit: USCG AUX

« Reply #26 on: July 26, 2017, 11:09:47 AM »

My first unit had a member (now sadly deceased) who was a CAP enlisted man during WWII.

He said he was actually paid.
Logged
Whaddaya mean I ain't kind?  I'm just not YOUR kind!

Ex-CAP Captain, now CG Auxiliary, but still feel a great deal of affection for the many good people in CAP.
LSThiker
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,711
Unit: Earth

« Reply #27 on: July 26, 2017, 11:39:25 AM »

My first unit had a member (now sadly deceased) who was a CAP enlisted man during WWII.

He said he was actually paid.

Yes to some extent, some of the members were paid for their services.  It was not a full time job though.  Heck, it was not even a part-time job.  The pay went to members staffing the CAP coastal patrol bases, with pilots getting paid more than ground support (radio, logistics, etc). According to some accounts, the pay was overdue the majority of the time. The other members were not paid though.
Logged
G+10
Recruit

Posts: 49

« Reply #28 on: July 26, 2017, 11:58:33 AM »

At one time....the Commander of CAP was and AD USAF general. 

Wasn't there a time when the wing commanders we're also staffed by CAP-USAF personnel, usually reservists?

John


I don't remember that happening, and I've been in CAP since 1969... ???

Dave, do you remember anything about this?

It was probably the liason position I was thinking of.
Logged
N Harmon
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 776
Unit: GLR-MI-063

Monroe Composite Squadron
« Reply #29 on: July 27, 2017, 09:19:43 AM »

Hey Zippy, the Aux Beacon is not exactly an unbiased source. So I would not put a lot of trust in what you read there...

Is the Zippy here the same Zippy who posted this comment to that Aux Beacon story?


Ziggy ... not Zippy.  Little details matter ;)

Oh good catch! Okay, is Zippy also the Ziggy who posted that comment to the Aux Beacon story?
Logged
NATHAN A. HARMON, Capt, CAP
Monroe Composite Squadron
Storm Chaser
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,678

« Reply #30 on: July 27, 2017, 01:23:33 PM »

As an organization, CAP is always the United States Air Force Auxiliary, not just when performing Air Force Assigned Missions. The distinction between auxiliary status during AFAMs and corporate status during non-AFAMs refers to the benefit coverage to the member based on those statuses.

It's not much different from National Guard personnel who can be activated under Title 32 under their state jurisdiction or Title 10 under federal jurisdiction. Regardless of their status, the National Guard is both part of the state militia/defense forces and a reserve component of the U.S. Armed Forces.

The same applies to CAP. We may not always be in auxiliary status, but we're always the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary and part of the Air Force Total Force.

* Corrected for grammar.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2017, 04:11:10 PM by Storm Chaser » Logged
vorteks
Seasoned Member

Posts: 227

« Reply #31 on: July 27, 2017, 02:04:58 PM »

As an organization, CAP is always the United States Air Force Auxiliary, not just when performing Air Force Assigned Missions. The distinction between auxiliary status during AFAMs and corporate status during non-AFAMs refers to the benefit coverage to the member based on those those statuses.

It's not much different from National Guard personnel who can be activated under Title 32 under their state jurisdiction or Title 10 under federal jurisdiction. Regardless of their status, the National Guard is both part of the state militia/defense forces and a reserve component of the US Armed Forces.

The same applies to CAP. We may not always be in auxiliary status, but we're always the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary and part of the Air Force Total Force.

Well said. Thanks for that!
Logged
ZigZag911
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,973

« Reply #32 on: August 11, 2017, 06:00:05 PM »

Concur with Ned for the most part.

I do, however, miss the LOs/LNCOs (who were active duty) and State Directors/Assistants (same job as the LOs, but retired AF), most of them were very helpful and supportive to their wings.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: CAP "Separation" from Air Force
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.415 seconds with 20 queries.