Spring 2011 NEC Agenda

[FW]

There is one very interesting agenda item here.  Who will be the first to comment....

[Eclipse]

I, for one, cannot get behind the idea of approving the last meeting's minutes...

[MSG Mac]

I assume were talking about the "Triangle" logo. It's funny they talk about how CAP needs an "identifiable" symbol, but why not use the one of the two others , Official seal and/or Emblem, that have been historically connected with CAP for over 70 years. They claim that the emblem is dated and that the US Army and Air Force, both have simple logo's that capture the eye. THIS IS THE KIND OF THINKING THAT RESULTED IN THE INFAMOUS $6,000,000+ RACE CAR.

[Pylon]

Item 8.  Approving the Triangle Thingy.  Interesting that they're seeking approval from the NEC to do what they've already been doing with the triangle thingy.  And one of the support comments mentions they are in favor of the proposed action because it will promote consistency, when in fact the proposed action simply adds the triangle thingy as yet another optional (up to 5 now), approved, current logo/seal/emblem without eliminating any of the other 4 still on the books.   


They use vague and fairly incorrect references to the Army and Air Force recruiting logos (conveniently without mentioning that those have restricted uses and are just one piece of an expensive, well-thought-out, and comprehensive brand system) as justification that CAP needs another emblem for general use along side all the others. 


And the proposed action fails to even proscribe when we should use our different logo/seal/emblems.  It's all optional if that passes.  Wanna use the seal on your squadron letterhead?  Sure.  The squadron in the next city over will be using the triangle thingy, and the Group HQ will be using the command shield.  That way we'll be sure to look like 3 different organizations to the public.


  I wish for once NHQ would consult outside industry experts when proposing things of this nature.

[Eclipse]

Triangle Thingy?  What is that?

[Pylon]

Triangle Thingy?  What is that?

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=10555.msg193405#msg193405

[RiverAux]

So, let me get this right... the solution to having too many logos such that none are easily identifiable is to start using a brand new one? 

I certainly concur with their statements that the seal and command patch are not ideal for "branding" purposes, but disagree that the emblem is not suitable for branding use. 

The only logical way to approach this issue is to put the same symbol on everything that is in front of the public.  Whether it is the emblem or the triangle, everything should be the same.  Its like "Highlander" -- only one can remain. 

This is basic branding 101 and by making this "optional" they are just making things worse.  Idiotic. 

However, since the NEC is a rubber stamp for the National Commander, we better get used to the triangle.

[Eclipse]

Triangle Thingy?  What is that?

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=10555.msg193405#msg193405

All I see is the new, official logo that was properly adopted via regulation and update of manuals and collateral sometime last year.

Everyone here seemed to like it well enough, what is the issue?

[jimmydeanno]

Is it me, or does the NLO seem to force his way into conversations that have absolutely nothing to do with legal?  It's quite obvious that he has absolutely no clue about the CAP cadet program when he adds comments to agenda items like, "Why not just let cadets take the Officer Basic Course for the Eaker award?"

It seems to me that he should stick to things that he's knowledgeable about and stop trying to provide input and legislation from his advisory role.

[Persona non grata]

CONCUR

[jimmydeanno]

And one more thing about the RCLS/COS equivalent.

We have ~2% of cadets that earn the Eaker.  When the AFIADL course was available, over nearly a decade, fewer than 50 cadets took it as the alternative for COS (remember that RCLS wasn't always available either).

Why are we, as an organization, going to invest the manpower to create a correspondence course that would apply to such a low percentage of the extremely low percentage of cadets that even make it that far in the first place?  I would assume it would be about 1% of the 2% that make it that far anyway.  A lot of effort for very little return.

What about encampment?  Some cadets can't afford to do that, either.  So, should we create a correspondence course for encampment?  After all, significantly more cadets get the Mitchell than they do the Eaker... certainly the ROI would be better, right? 

[Pylon]

And one more thing about the RCLS/COS equivalent.

We have ~2% of cadets that earn the Eaker.  When the AFIADL course was available, over nearly a decade, fewer than 50 cadets took it as the alternative for COS (remember that RCLS wasn't always available either).

Why are we, as an organization, going to invest the manpower to create a correspondence course that would apply to such a low percentage of the extremely low percentage of cadets that even make it that far in the first place?  I would assume it would be about 1% of the 2% that make it that far anyway.  A lot of effort for very little return.

Agreed. We will get far better return for our efforts if we just keep working to make Cadet Officer School/Cadet Leadership Academies more accessible.  And the cadets will get far more out any "in-residence" courses (even if they have to be offered in successive weekends or through other creative scheduling means) as a result of the ability to have interactions, team exercises, collaboration, etcetera than they could through any correspondence option however well developed. 


Plus, OBC has little to do with the Phase III and IV learning objectives.  It doesn't make sense.


But then again, when I ask my lawyer for legal advice on a speeding ticket, he doesn't try to give me advice on buying a car or where I should take future road trips.

[Eclipse]

Agree wholeheartedly.

Rather than diluting things with unrelated tests, we should be working towards making the RCLS / COS more available.

[RiverAux]

Everyone here seemed to like it well enough, what is the issue?

You got that out of a 12 page thread involving comments about how the triangle thingy is despised by most of those here?  And if the logo was made official last year why is the NEC actually proposing making it official now? 

[Al Sayre]

If you really hate the triangle thingy, then don't just gripe about it here, send a properly formatted memorandum or email  to your Wing or Region Commander THRU your chain of command detailing your opinion of why you don't like it.  See CAPR 10-1 Attachments 2 and 6, Brand dilution etc.  Like the preacher says "...speak now or forever hold your peace".

[NCRblues]

If you really hate the triangle thingy, then don't just gripe about it here, send a properly formatted memorandum or email  to your Wing or Region Commander THRU your chain of command detailing your opinion of why you don't like it.  See CAPR 10-1 Attachments 2 and 6, Brand dilution etc.  Like the preacher says "...speak now or forever hold your peace".

We both know that this will do nothing. Its going to pass because of the way it is worded. The NEC will vote yes because "optional" wont hurt anyone....right? 

Again, I'm going to say this, just like i said when we talked about the last NB meeting....there is really nothing more important to deal with than this junk?

[RVT]

There is one very interesting agenda item here.  Who will be the first to comment....

"The intricacies of the seal design make it difficult to replicate in all sizes and media."

Considering the Auditors from national have already showed up wearing polo shirts with TTT on them I have a sneaky feeling that the next time 39-1 gets revised the "new" polo shirts will have TTT on them instead of the seal.

So theres a reason to NOT be eager for a new 39-1 to come out.

[Spaceman3750]

There is one very interesting agenda item here.  Who will be the first to comment....

"The intricacies of the seal design make it difficult to replicate in all sizes and media."

Considering the Auditors from national have already showed up wearing polo shirts with TTT on them I have a sneaky feeling that the next time 39-1 gets revised the "new" polo shirts will have TTT on them instead of the seal.

So theres a reason to NOT be eager for a new 39-1 to come out.

I've seen them too but it's paid staff that's been wearing them - not members. I would be OK with this being something for NHQ staff, but definitely not for the corporate polo. As they say, if you don't like it, write your congressman (or your wing commander).

[Al Sayre]

If you really hate the triangle thingy, then don't just gripe about it here, send a properly formatted memorandum or email  to your Wing or Region Commander THRU your chain of command detailing your opinion of why you don't like it.  See CAPR 10-1 Attachments 2 and 6, Brand dilution etc.  Like the preacher says "...speak now or forever hold your peace".

We both know that this will do nothing. Its going to pass because of the way it is worded. The NEC will vote yes because "optional" wont hurt anyone....right? 

Again, I'm going to say this, just like i said when we talked about the last NB meeting....there is really nothing more important to deal with than this junk?

I look at it like voting:  I always vote, not because I believe that my single vote will make any difference, but rather if I'm not happy with the outcome, I at least have a valid reason to gripe about it.  If I don't vote, (or in this case speak up) then I just need to shut up because I had my opportunity and didn't use it.

[MSG Mac]

We both know that this will do nothing. Its going to pass because of the way it is worded. The NEC will vote yes because "optional" wont hurt anyone....right? 

The NEC also made the Wing Patch optional, but try to find a Wing that doesn't require the wear on BDU's