November NEC Meeting -Cadet on NB?

[RiverAux]

The agenda for the November NEC meeting is available floating around at http://flyingminutemen.net/, but I don't see it on eservices.... 

Some issues they'll be looking at:

1.  Making various changes so that folks in the Region and Wing "ghost" squadrons (XX-000) can only participate in the same CAP activities as patron members and restricting their access to some online materials. 

2.  Making Regional Chaplains full Colonels (evidently a return to an old practice).  One of their justifications for this is to more closely match the CAP grade of these Chaplains with that expected of an AF Chaplain in a similar position which is supposedly necessary due to greater interaction between CAP and AF Chaplains at that level.  Boy, if we start use that line of reasoning, prepare for a massive shift upwards in CAP grade structure for everybody. 

3.  Various professional development benefits for former cadets who are now seniors. 

4.  Changes the Moral Leadership program to a Character Development program.

5.  Having a cadet as a non-voting member of the National Board. 

6.  Hey, they're coming up with a plan for how to use Archer!  About time.

8.  Approval of the concept of allowing CAP NCOs a way to promote within an NCO system.  Also consider allowing non-prior military service to enter as NCOs.  The next step would be to begin working on a plan to implement these changes. 

topic name edit. - TA

[mikeylikey]

#5......I would never support such a thing.  Why do that??

[RiverAux]

There were some interesting non-concurrences from CAP-USAF and CAP NHQ on some of these issues, including this one.  Whether they are a voting member or not, I don't think its a good idea for someone potentially under 18 to be a corporate officer. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Mikey:

I don't see a lot of difference between a cadet "advisor" to the NB and a service-wide senior NCO.  What exactly is your objection?

[RiverAux]

An advisor is one thing, but actually making them part of the corporate structure is another.  One of the objections to the cadet idea in particular was that there already was a structure in place for advising leaders on cadet issues. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

I'll keep my mind open to this idea.  I'm neither strongly in favor nor strongly opposed.

[mikeylikey]

Mikey:

I don't see a lot of difference between a cadet "advisor" to the NB and a service-wide senior NCO.  What exactly is your objection?

Children are children.  Do we want a child giving input on matters that they may or may not be around to suffer OR benefit from?  It is elevating Cadets equal to Senior Members.  They have a CAC......now if they used it better......

The thing is like whether you want an 18 year old on a jury.  

How can a Cadet be involved with making decisions that legally they can not make in a Corporation.  Last I checked, the FED says you have to be 18 to be a Corporate Officer, UNLESS you have a proxy.  That is the reason a 17 year old who "just inherited" his grandfathers S-Corp can not be listed as a Corporate figure in the minutes.  He has to have a legal guardian sign everything, and the profits actually go to that legal guardian.

I should have been a corporate lawyer!

KACH... I don't understand what you mean "service-wide senior NCO"??

[Ned]

An advisor is one thing, but actually making them part of the corporate structure is another.  One of the objections to the cadet idea in particular was that there already was a structure in place for advising leaders on cadet issues. 

The point is to give the actual decision makers (the voting members) the advantage of cadet input at or during the decision cycle.  To make sure that the NB members have to look a cadet in the eye when voting on decisions that impact CP.  To ensure that the NB members actually have to listen to cadet input.  Cadets comprise some 40% of the membership of the corporation and yet do not yet have single representative on the nearly 70-member NB.

The Chief of the Chaplain service, the IG, and the CC, CAP-USAF are already non-voting members.



Reasons why the CAC is not a substitute for actual representation on the board:

1.  The NCAC currently serves as an advisor to the National CC (only) and not the deciding body -- the NB.  As currently configured, the National CC could choose not to share the NCAC's input with the rest of the board.  While I can only imagine that happening if the National CC was an overly political and manipulative sort of person, it is best to be prepared if that should ever occur.   

2.  While each of the current NB members already has a CAC advisor in the form of their wing CAC's, the focus of the wing CAC is wing business, naturally enough.  A cadet on the NB would have have national scope.

3.  Recently I watched as the NB chose not to let the NCAC Chair address the board while it was in session.  The NB was considering an CP-related item that was raised from the floor. (Meaning that it could not have been the subject of advice by any CAC before the NB meeting.)  IOW, the NB deliberately chose not to even hear from the NCAC on an important CP item in the midst of a hasty decision.  A cadet member of the NB would have the same right to be heard on an agenda item as any other member of the NB and could not be summarily refused.  This would be a Good Thing and an important check on the ability of the NB to decide important CP items without any input from cadets.

4.  The NCAC, for logistical or other reasons, is often not able to effectively review and provide input on NB and NEC agendas that are published just a few weeks before a meeting.  (Kinda like this one.)  I'm not suggesting that anyone is trying to pull a fast one, but it is difficult for cadets to receive the information, analyze it, and formulate feedback on such short notice.  A cadet NB rep would receive the information at the same time as the other NB members and have the advantage of receiving the supporting materials.

It is kinda hard to see a downside to a single non-voting cadet representative on the NB.

To respond to some of the comments in this thread, some cadets are indeed minors, but many are over the age of 18 (including the large majority of the NCAC).

But even if the NCAC selected a mnor, I am not familiar with any law that would prevent a minor from serving as a non-voting member of the NB.

This is an item long overdue.

Ned Lee
CP Enthusiast

[SAR-EMT1]

I am wholly in agreement with Mr Lee here. TO assauge any ruffled feathers how about these stipulations:
Cadet be at least 18 years old.
Cadet Colonel
Have been a Cadet Commander. (Senior cadink at Sq. level, for a leadership perspective)

[James Shaw]

#2 Regional Chaplains have never been full Colonels. The idea was bounced around a few years ago but they have never been full Colonels. I have talked to several CAP members who have been in for 50 years plus and have been at National Level for the past 10 and this was recently thought of.

[DogCollar]

I see nothing wrong with having a cadet as a member of the NEC.  There are many other structures in the non-profit world that intentionally and successfully use youth on their boards (many even are given the right to vote.)  I look at it as another way to recognize and develop a new generation of leaders.

From the time when I was a pastor of a congregation (I'm now a hospital chaplain), I always had a youth member on the board.  Frankly, they were better than most, if not all, of my so called adult members who could argue for hours about the color of paint or carpet.  I remember one particular long night in which there was a heated arguement about roof repairs.  Finally, the youth member said, "what exactly does this have to do with our mission?"  The arguing ceased.  A decison was made and we went on to more important things.  I think a cadet might and should bring a much needed perspective to the NEC.  Must my opinion.

[jimmydeanno]

#3 Professional development benefits for former cadets...oy vey.  I am a former cadet and when I turned senior thought to myself...this is going to be easy;  SLS-what a joke, CLC-same thing.  But one thing I didn't know was how to be an adult member of CAP.  In the last 5 years I've realized that cadets are "shielded" (rightfully so) from many of the things that CAP does on the adult side. 

While a cadet may have reached the Earhart, Eaker or Spaatz, their reality is set in the cadet world.  Yes, they can drill and salute but the ability to deal with the "real" issues in CAP is something that they are usually aren't "up to speed" on. 

Providing "benefits" such as not having to complete levels 1-3 for a Spaatz recipient robs them of many interactions with experienced adult leadership and forces them to possibly learn something they didn't know before.  The cadet program training is only equivalent to senior training I'd say for level 1.  The CP materials themselves are written for 12-14 year olds, so realistically, the cadets/former cadets perspective on those leadership issues that they "learned as a cadet" is going to be limited and put them in situations that they are not prepared to handle.


#5 Again, I am a former cadet and I do not advocate having a cadet as a member of the NB.  It isn't about making the NB listen to 40% of the membership because there are plenty of people on the NB that already go to bat for cadet "issues."

IMSHO, placing a cadet on the NB far exceeds the responsibility level and purpose of the cadet program.  I am definitely an advocate for CP, but I think that we need to remember that the cadets are not "equals" to the adult membership of the program.  While I believe that they should be treated with dignity and respect and human beings, their "place" in the program is that of a student and teacher. 

Don't you think that the role as a NB member is a little much for a cadet?  Is the purpose of the CP to have a cadet operate soley as a NB member, or is it to develop leadership skills and build an interest in aerospace at a local level? 

The cadets can keep CAC and if they want a stronger voice, perhaps they should come up with proposals that hold water and make sense and act as the advisors to their echelon commanders as they are supposed to already. 

I hope this idea gets shot down...hard (although I have a sneaky suspicion that most of the discussion generated will be about whether or not this rep would be allowed to wear the NB Badge... )

[JC004]

#5......I would never support such a thing.  Why do that??

Wing CACs come up with some jacked up stuff...strange uniform changes and the like, but the NCAC is generally pretty level-headed.  Besides, this is non-voting, so it doesn't bother me either way.  Given the National Board's behavior and direction recently, it's almost a better idea to give the voting rights to a group of cadet airmen who want swords for all cadets. 

Case in point: NCAC asked for an Eaker mini medal.  The National Board inflicted changes totaling thousands and thousands of dollars on members nationwide.  You don't see the NCAC asking for the constant changing of a uniform at the price of members' already strained wallets. 

Let the cadets issue sharp, pointy swords to everyone and maybe things will improve, either because we aren't focused on silly changes, or by lethal force.  Either way, could be entertaining...   

[JohnKachenmeister]

Mikey:

I don't see a lot of difference between a cadet "advisor" to the NB and a service-wide senior NCO.  What exactly is your objection?

Children are children.  Do we want a child giving input on matters that they may or may not be around to suffer OR benefit from?  It is elevating Cadets equal to Senior Members.  They have a CAC......now if they used it better......

The thing is like whether you want an 18 year old on a jury.  

How can a Cadet be involved with making decisions that legally they can not make in a Corporation.  Last I checked, the FED says you have to be 18 to be a Corporate Officer, UNLESS you have a proxy.  That is the reason a 17 year old who "just inherited" his grandfathers S-Corp can not be listed as a Corporate figure in the minutes.  He has to have a legal guardian sign everything, and the profits actually go to that legal guardian.

I should have been a corporate lawyer!

KACH... I don't understand what you mean "service-wide senior NCO"??

Command Sergeant Major of the Army, Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, etc.

Not all cadets are under 18.  A person may, at his own option, remain a cadet until 21.

Back in the day the Selective Service Commission took that choice away from us.

[Pylon]

I think you are confusing a few things about the NB proposal here.  The idea is not to make the cadet a corporate officer, complete with ability to obligate the corporation, tell senior members what to do, or even to vote on NB matters.
 
As it stands, the NCAC chair already attends the NB meetings.  Pretty much by my understanding, the only thing this proposal would change is to allow a cadet representative the right to speak during the meetings without needing to be recognized.  That's it.  No NB badge, no corporate officer status, no right to vote, no crazy superiority over other cadets or senior members - just giving a voice to a cadet serving in an advisory capacity to the NB.

Ned's post sums up the reasons why this is important much better than I could state it.  If you still have questions why this is needed, go back and re-read Ned's post.

[JayT]

#5......I would never support such a thing.  Why do that??

Because there's more to CAP then adults going out to find ELTs.

[jimmydeanno]

I think you are confusing a few things about the NB proposal here.  The idea is not to make the cadet a corporate officer, complete with ability to obligate the corporation, tell senior members what to do, or even to vote on NB matters.
 
As it stands, the NCAC chair already attends the NB meetings.  Pretty much by my understanding, the only thing this proposal would change is to allow a cadet representative the right to speak during the meetings without needing to be recognized.  That's it.  No NB badge, no corporate officer status, no right to vote, no crazy superiority over other cadets or senior members - just giving a voice to a cadet serving in an advisory capacity to the NB.

Ned's post sums up the reasons why this is important much better than I could state it.  If you still have questions why this is needed, go back and re-read Ned's post.

Again, it comes down to the level of responsibility that you are expecting to give to a cadet.  Take some of the latest "issues" in CAP.  Would you really want to have/let a cadet get their hands dirty in these issues?  Is it something that you want to expose the cadet corps of CAP to?  This comes back to the amount of "shielding" that is done by seniors for cadets.

Although they would be a "non-voting" member, they would still be a member and certain information would be made available to them which, IMO, isn't appropriate for cadets - at any level.

Just make it so the NCAC chair can address the NB without needing to be recognized, but not a member of the NB.  At least that way they can be "dismissed" for the more adult "discussions."

The ability for cadets to bring their concerns and comments to the national level is already in place, it just isn't utilized the way it should be.

[Ned]

Again, it comes down to the level of responsibility that you are expecting to give to a cadet.  Take some of the latest "issues" in CAP.  Would you really want to have/let a cadet get their hands dirty in these issues?  Is it something that you want to expose the cadet corps of CAP to?  This comes back to the amount of "shielding" that is done by seniors for cadets.


Although they would be a "non-voting" member, they would still be a member and certain information would be made available to them which, IMO, isn't appropriate for cadets - at any level.

Forgive me, but this sounds rather patronizing.

What could be so horrible that a 19 year old senior could hear, but would damage the delicate psyche of a 20 year old cadet?

Remember, cadets are just as much members of this corporation as you or I.

No more, no less.

And maybe, just maybe, if there were to be a cadet present, we might well have fewer "issues" at the NB level.

Just make it so the NCAC chair can address the NB without needing to be recognized, but not a member of the NB.  At least that way they can be "dismissed" for the more adult "discussions."

The ability for cadets to bring their concerns and comments to the national level is already in place, it just isn't utilized the way it should be.

Part of the problem is that the NCAC is usually meeting at the same time as the NB, both of which are conducting their normal business.  It is difficult or impossible for the NCAC chair to do her/his job -- leading the NCAC -- while at the same time attending and contributing to the NB meeting.

And to the extent that the "ability for cadets to bring their concerns and comments to the national level is already in place, it just isn't utilized the way it should be," it isn't the fault of the cadets.  That's why this proposal will help ensure the NB has be benefit of cadet input.

[jimmydeanno]

Forgive me, but this sounds rather patronizing

What could be so horrible that a 19 year old senior could hear, but would damage the delicate psyche of a 20 year old cadet?

It isn't about damaging the psyche of the cadet, it is about what is appropriate to expose our cadets to.  When you have a membership termination board at the region, wing whatever level, why don't you have a cadet on those boards?  What if a 14 year old becomes this NB member?

It isn't about what discussions occur during those closed sessions - I'm sure they've heard more at the movie theatre, but why would you want to involve any cadet in that.  Is that the purpose of our cadet program?  The NCAC is perfect, it gives the cadets a chance to experience some "high level" leadership stuff and bring proposals to each echelon while not putting them in those situations.

Remember, cadets are just as much members of this corporation as you or I.

No more, no less.

If that is the case my dues should be $20 per year lower.  I suppose I could make an argument that because I pay more I have more say, just as a stock holder with more shares has more say.

If every member is an equal member in the organization why don't you or I have access to what goes on behind "closed doors" during the NB meetings?  Because it isn't appropriate for every member of the organization to have that information.  If a cadet can be a NB member, then why not a squadron commander? 

Part of the problem is that the NCAC is usually meeting at the same time as the NB, both of which are conducting their normal business.  It is difficult or impossible for the NCAC chair to do her/his job -- leading the NCAC -- while at the same time attending and contributing to the NB meeting.

That sounds like a pretty easy fix to me - change the schedule.  Unless the new NB member wasn't a member of the NCAC, that "problem" wouldn't be resolved anyway.

Just put a stipulation that the NCAC chair has the opportunity to comment on cadet related items to the NB and send them the agenda at the same time the NB gets them. Done.

[JohnKachenmeister]

The likelihood of a 14 year old cadet snuffy on the NB is about the same as a 2ndLt SM on that same august body.  Neither of them know enough to be there.

[jeders]

Remember, cadets are just as much members of this corporation as you or I.

No more, no less.

If that is the case my dues should be $20 per year lower.  I suppose I could make an argument that because I pay more I have more say, just as a stock holder with more shares has more say.

Wow. If we're gonna use that reasoning, then half of American citizens will have virtually no access to government because they pay such a low percentage of federal taxes while a very small portion of citizens pay the vast majority of taxes.

I can say as a former cadet that joined at 16, I knew then about much of the politics going on and was glad that everyone was more concerned about developing me into a good leader and a functioning member of society than shielding me from the politics of the organization. Now I agree that we should protect the 12 through 14 year old cadets from some of the nastier politics going on because they likely lack maturity, but we shouldn't be shielding 17+ year old cadets, who are the ones likely to serve on NB should this go through.

As far as a 14 year old cadet taking this post, I doubt that would happen simply because they would likely have to have experience on NCAC first which takes time to get to that point. If they're considered mature enough to serve on NCAC, then I think that they're mature enough to tell a room full of old men and women what the cadets think about a topic. Just my 2 cents, YMMV.

[JayT]

If that is the case my dues should be $20 per year lower.  I suppose I could make an argument that because I pay more I have more say, just as a stock holder with more shares has more say.

That is without a doubt, the most patronizing and one of the most insulting posts I've ever read as a cadet. How dare you suggest that myself, and my fellow cadets contributions are less important then your because we spend less money on yearly dues.

If you wanna play that game, lets figure out how much you and I spend on uniforms, equipment, gas, squadron dues, donations, food for activities, etc etc etc each year. Infact, lets pick our National Commander from the person who spends the most money on CAP each year. Promotions and staff position should also be based on that.

[Ned]

If that is the case my dues should be $20 per year lower.  I suppose I could make an argument that because I pay more I have more say, just as a stock holder with more shares has more say.

There is nothing to suggest that the amount of dues a member pays equates to any sort of special privileges.  Otherwise, only the members of the unit with the highest local dues in the wing with the highest wing dues, in the region with the highest region dues would be the "real" members.  Everyone else (including you and me, I suspect) would have to be some sort of lesser member.

If every member is an equal member in the organization why don't you or I have access to what goes on behind "closed doors" during the NB meetings?  Because it isn't appropriate for every member of the organization to have that information. 

Interesting question.  As it turns out there is nothing in our Constitution or Bylaws that provides any authority to allow CAP, Inc., a federally chartered charitable corporation to hold "closed sessions" of the BoG, NEC, or NB to conduct the business of the corporation.

[Concerning the schedule conflict between the NB abd NCAC.]
That sounds like a pretty easy fix to me - change the schedule.  Unless the new NB member wasn't a member of the NCAC, that "problem" wouldn't be resolved anyway.

Neither body can really reschedule.  Both hold essentially full-day meetings during the same weekend, and the same weekend is used for several reasons including the logistics of transportation and housing and allowing at least limited contact between the NB and NCAC.

Remember, the combined travel budget for all of the NB members is hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly.  The travel budget for the NCAC had been "zero'd out" several times in recent years.

And finally, under the current proposal, the cadet rep to the NB need not be the NCAC chair -- it merely requires that the NCAC "selects" the rep.  As a practical matter, the rep is unlikely to be the NCAC chair for reasons I've described.

[jimmydeanno]

That is without a doubt, the most patronizing and one of the most insulting posts I've ever read as a cadet. How dare you suggest that myself, and my fellow cadets contributions are less important then your because we spend less money on yearly dues.

Take it as you will. 

However, that is my point - cadets and officers are NOT equals in this organization.  However, that doesn't mean that cadets are second class citizens, our purposes in the program are different.  The ADULT leadership is here to run the organization and administer the cadet program, cadets are here to participate in the cadet program.

I am not saying that the contributions of the cadets are any better or worse than that of officers, simply...different. Without cadets our cadet program would be a failure.

[alice]

Ned:  Your earlier comment above about the NB freezing out any cadet input on a cadet issue and your gentlemanly reminder about there being no CAP Constitution & Bylaws bits allowing "closed sessions" just goes to show what the recent NB and NEC leadership really cares about when faced with decisions to be made.

The CAP I joined was an organization intended by Congress to use general aviation for local and national emergencies, and to run an aviation youth program.  Given my local composite squadron is next door to a huge NASA faciltiy complete with a very active public aviation education office, my local squadron "let's them do the AE mission" locally most often.  ; )

So.... I've seen lots and lots of NB meetings.  Several BoG meetings, too.  Almost two decades worth of cadets growing up.... including out at my local squadron this past weekend during a SAREx where I did IC-t duty.

If any NEC members read this thread who are not still active with a local squadron with cadets, I wish I could tell you how important it is to get a CAP cadet a real voice on our NB.  If you think it's not "right", too complicated "legally", or have any other excuses, quibbles, or qualms, I dare you to face in person any of our CAP cadet LtCols and tell that to their faces while trying to say at the same time that CAP has  a program to develop Youth Leaders for America.

Alice

[Ned]

Ned:  Your earlier comment above about the NB freezing out any cadet input on a cadet issue and your gentlemanly reminder about there being no CAP Constitution & Bylaws bits allowing "closed sessions" just goes to show what the recent NB and NEC leadership really cares about when faced with decisions to be made.

Alice,

My comments were not meant to be critical of our current leadership.  The rules concerning who may address the NB and the practice of closing meetings have been in place far longer than most of the individuals currently serving as our volunteer leaders.



Indeed, I think that the BoG, NEC, and NB probably should be able to meet in closed session for certain limited purposes, like discussing pending litigation or personnel matters that involve the evaluation, hiring, or firing of senior corporate employees.

But they need to pass some rules that clearly lay out the limited purposes for which they can close sessions so the membership and/or the other stakeholders can be assured of the propriety of the actions taken behind closed doors.  Sunlight and air are some of the best ways to avoid some of the recent issues we have all experienced.

Without such rules, I think it may well be improper to close any portion of the meeting to members or the general public, but perhaps more importantly we can never know if what they are discussing must truly be private for legitimate reasons like preserving attorney-client privilege or if they simply want to keep some embarrassing material out of sight.

[BillB]

To often in the past, the National Board has changed regulations or policies affecting the cadet program with no input from cadets. Often the changes are recommended by National Headquarters Staff who have had litlle or no contact with cadet Squadrons. The current 52-16 is a good example. The original concept of the CAC was to have cadets elect their representatives and approved by the Commander at each level. Now all CAC representatives are appointed. Often the appointed representative is afraid to bring problems or suggestions to the Commander in fear he'll be replaced or often was appointed because he's the Commanders "pet" cadet.
A voice from cadets at the National Board would seem to be a welcome avenue of communication. And what is discussed at the National Board that a cadet shouldn't hear. This idea of "protecting the children" does more to harm the cadet program due to the extremes in members attitudes of what is acceptable for cadets and the cadet program.

[Cecil DP]

I  see no reason that an Ad-hoc member to represent the cadets and ask or answer questions regarding the Cadet Program. The other Ad-hoc members (Chaplain, Legal, Medical, and IG) don't seem to be hampering the running of the NB. why would a cadet who is of legal age not be able to give his input when asked?

[ddelaney103]

I  see no reason that an Ad-hoc member to represent the cadets and ask or answer questions regarding the Cadet Program. The other Ad-hoc members (Chaplain, Legal, Medical, and IG) don't seem to be hampering the running of the NB. why would a cadet who is of legal age not be able to give his input when asked?

The important thing is that s/he would be able to give his/her opinion w/o being asked.  Only an NB member has the right to speak at a meeting - a member can ask that an outsider be allowed to speak, but the Board can say no.

[Tim Medeiros]

Personally, I like the idea, when I was a cadet seeing various items coming down from the NB affecting the cadet program I was more often than not thinking to myself "What the ...".  Yes, the cadet would be able to voice their opinion on any topic as a member of the board, but most Phase 4 cadets I know also know when to keep their trap shut, especially if they know they are on the board to offer opinions on items that would affect the cadet program.

[ZigZag911]

Most universities have student representatives on boards of trustees, search committees for presidents and deans, and so forth....voting members, I might add. 

College students, ordinarily, range between 17 & 23 years of age.

I can see setting some age & rank requirements for selection as cadet rep to NB; my view offhand is minimum 16 years old with and Earhart.

Under no circumstances should the cadet rep sit in on 'executive sessions' where the hiring, firing, and promotion of NHQ personnel may arise....just doesn't seem appropriate.

But for the rest of it, it's past time we listened to cadet officers....sometimes they are over the top, but just as often they make more sense than the brass!

[Major Carrales]

Our Cadet Program is supposed to be training future leaders and outstanding citizens.  A Cadet Field Grade Officer sitting on that panel should, if our cadet program works, be able to handle that task.  I have seen Wing CACs work more effectively than many local school boards and other governmental bodies.

I have no problem with giving a CADET VOICE to the program that will directly effect them.  I only ask that said cadet be up to the task and a contributor, not merely a warm body.

Have faith in the cadets...if not, what good is our program in the grand scheme of things.

Again, I have no objection.

[Psicorp]

Just make it so the NCAC chair can address the NB without needing to be recognized, but not a member of the NB.  At least that way they can be "dismissed" for the more adult "discussions."

Part of the problem is that the NCAC is usually meeting at the same time as the NB, both of which are conducting their normal business.  It is difficult or impossible for the NCAC chair to do her/his job -- leading the NCAC -- while at the same time attending and contributing to the NB meeting.

And to the extent that the "ability for cadets to bring their concerns and comments to the national level is already in place, it just isn't utilized the way it should be," it isn't the fault of the cadets.  That's why this proposal will help ensure the NB has be benefit of cadet input.

The CAC has never lived up to its potential, at least not that I ever saw.   The NB and the NEC has their own committies and subcommitties to look at questions and issues, why shouldn't the NB and NEC pass along items to the NCAC for them to look at and then seriously take into consideration their opinion before a vote is taken?

I've always said that the Cadet Program is the Cadets' program. 

[flyguy06]

You guys forget, a "cadet" is someone in training. A cadet is a trainee. Training to be a Senior member someday. His/her whole purpose is to learn, not to regulate or make decisions effecting the corporation. Their job is to learn o be a leader.

[ZigZag911]

The maturity issue aside, the average Spaatz or Eaker cadet has as much (in some cases far more!) CAP experience as many of our corporate officers of recent vintage!

[jeders]

You guys forget, a "cadet" is someone in training. A cadet is a trainee. Training to be a Senior member someday. His/her whole purpose is to learn, not to regulate or make decisions effecting the corporation. Their job is to learn o be a leader.

I've always said it and always will say it, you can't learn unless you do.

[pixelwonk]

The NCO conversation was split from the "cadet on NB" discussion. 
...as you were. :unlock:

[Ford73Diesel]

I don't see a problem with it, although a lot of SM's I know would get all bent out of shape.

[RiverAux]

#2 Regional Chaplains have never been full Colonels. The idea was bounced around a few years ago but they have never been full Colonels. I have talked to several CAP members who have been in for 50 years plus and have been at National Level for the past 10 and this was recently thought of.

Someone better tell the NEC, because that is what the proposal they're looking at says. 

[Falshrmjgr]

Is there an argument here against, that doesn't degenerate to an ad hominem comment on Cadets?  Good lord, let's be honest, this would be the most competitive position a cadet could aspire to.  It would the best of the best.  One of the brightest in our pool of fantastic youth.

"Yeah, but he's still just a kid"

Give me a youthful view on the world full of idealism any day over the cynicism that I see everywhere else. 


Let's see what would this Cadet probably look like?

Spaatz Winner, 4.0+ GPA, 1300+ SAT, accepted to multiple Ivy League schools, as well as potentially accepted to a  Service Academy.  Yeah, no one should hear an opinion from THAT.

[a2capt]

1.  Making various changes so that folks in the Region and Wing "ghost" squadrons (XX-000) can only participate in the same CAP activities as patron members and restricting their access to some online materials. 

4.  Changes the Moral Leadership program to a Character Development program.

1. I've often wondered - if you are in xx-000, it's probably for a reason.

4. History repeats itself. MLO, CDO, back to MLO, ... and now.. back to CDO.

Someone has issues with the concept of morals.

Euphemisms. Phooey.

[Brad]

As I've taken the time to pick through the various thoughts here, and also look through the NEC Agenda itself, I would like to add my two cents.

The Cadet Representative should have full privileges as a non-voting
member of the National Board, except that he/she may be excused from closed session
meetings by the National Commander or presiding officer at the request of a board
member if the topic to be discussed so requires. Legal coordination will also be
required to ensure that the Cadet, and the Cadet's parents or guardians (if the Cadet is
a minor) will enjoy insurance protection and indemnification in the event of suit in their
capacity as a National Board member.

Emphasis added on my part. There was many a point raised about the idea of the cadet being present on sensitive matters with the NB. It seems to me that that contingency has been accounted for with regards to the dismissal clause.

As far as the idea of a minor being a Corporate Officer, it stands to reason that the second emphasized clause would prevent that from coming to pass in terms of legality.

My own opinion is that I think it is a great idea. Granted I may be new to CAP, but I did pull four years as a NJROTC cadet, so I certainly know what it feels like to have a voice...and not have one. The cadet member is a very logical choice because if the matters concern the cadet program, then the cadets need an assurance that their voice will be heard outright, not just a hopeful chance riding on the whim of the NB to let the NCAC Chair speak.

"Well what about the cadet being exposed to the 'politics' of the Senior-side?" Again, look at my first point on the dismissal clause. If there is one brain cell between the NB (some may disagree  ) then they will take all efforts needed to minimize the cadet's exposure to that element, so that he/she may concentrate on the reason he/she is there; for the cadets.

Ok I'm done.

[jb512]

Mikey:

I don't see a lot of difference between a cadet "advisor" to the NB and a service-wide senior NCO.  What exactly is your objection?

Children are children.  Do we want a child giving input on matters that they may or may not be around to suffer OR benefit from?  It is elevating Cadets equal to Senior Members.  They have a CAC......now if they used it better......

Children?  I've seen a few cadet officers who are more mature than some senior officers that I know.  Hell, I've seen 14 year old cadet NCOs who were more mature than some 30 year olds.

You take a well-rounded select C/Col and put him or her in that position and you'll not only influence that cadet, but just think of the perspective they could provide when it comes to cadet programs.  I'm all for it.