Political messages in meetings

[Spam]

Proud cadre moment.

So what you're saying is, model "C-A-D-R-E", not "C-A-R-D-I-B", right?



Cheers,
Spam

[Mitchell 1969]

"Politics and religion are taboo topics in most work centers and they should be taboo at CAP meetings as well.  No place for it."

See https://www.gctelegram.com/news/20170917/cap-officer-reinstated-after-controversial-statement

LTC Holder is back in CAP and active.

I saw this in the article:

"In Kansas, the Kansas adjutant general's office provides oversight of the organization."

With "the organization" being CAP.

Wha wha wha WHAT?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eclipse]

"Politics and religion are taboo topics in most work centers and they should be taboo at CAP meetings as well.  No place for it."

See https://www.gctelegram.com/news/20170917/cap-officer-reinstated-after-controversial-statement

LTC Holder is back in CAP and active.

I saw this in the article:

"In Kansas, the Kansas adjutant general's office provides oversight of the organization."

With "the organization" being CAP.

Wha wha wha WHAT?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://plainsguardian.dodlive.mil/files/2017/05/Annual-Report-2013-final-copy-12-24-13.pdf

"The Adjutant General's Department has the responsibility for the operations
of the Kansas Army and Air National Guard, the Kansas Division of Emergency
Management, Kansas Homeland Security and the administrative support of the
Kansas Wing of the Civil Air Patrol."

"The Kansas Wing of the Civil Air Patrol is part of a private, volunteer, nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation and by congressional charter is the auxiliary of the United States Air Force. The Kansas Volunteer Department of the Civil Air Patrol was created to administer state funds allocated to the Civil Air Patrol. The department was placed, by legislation, under the Kansas Adjutant General's Department in 1997 for administrative support and control of state resources and funding."

Also see page 82.

[Fubar]

The easiest way to discover how inaccurate news reporting tends to be is to read an article about a subject you know quite a bit about. Then remember that's how accurate the news is on most topics.

[Mitchell 1969]

"Politics and religion are taboo topics in most work centers and they should be taboo at CAP meetings as well.  No place for it."

See https://www.gctelegram.com/news/20170917/cap-officer-reinstated-after-controversial-statement

LTC Holder is back in CAP and active.

I saw this in the article:

"In Kansas, the Kansas adjutant general's office provides oversight of the organization."

With "the organization" being CAP.

Wha wha wha WHAT?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://plainsguardian.dodlive.mil/files/2017/05/Annual-Report-2013-final-copy-12-24-13.pdf

"The Adjutant General's Department has the responsibility for the operations
of the Kansas Army and Air National Guard, the Kansas Division of Emergency
Management, Kansas Homeland Security and the administrative support of the
Kansas Wing of the Civil Air Patrol."

"The Kansas Wing of the Civil Air Patrol is part of a private, volunteer, nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation and by congressional charter is the auxiliary of the United States Air Force. The Kansas Volunteer Department of the Civil Air Patrol was created to administer state funds allocated to the Civil Air Patrol. The department was placed, by legislation, under the Kansas Adjutant General's Department in 1997 for administrative support and control of state resources and funding."

Also see page 82.

Well, how 'bout that!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sardak]

And Colorado:

https://operations.colorado.gov/performance-management/department-performance-plans/military-veterans-affairs

Colorado's Department of Military and Veterans Affairs supports the Division of the Colorado National Guard (CONG) in delivering land, air, space, and cyber power in support of state and federal operations; enables the Division of Veterans Affairs (DVA) to deliver high quality service to the State's Veterans and their families; and oversees the operations of the Colorado Wing of the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) in delivering aerospace education and emergency services.

[abdsp51]

Sounds like some overreach of states.

[arajca]

Usually when you see this, it means the state is providing money and want to make sure it spent properly. It also helps with accessing other state resources.

[PHall]

Usually when you see this, it means the state is providing money and want to make sure it spent properly. It also helps with accessing other state resources.

Yeah, stuff like armories and training areas.

[Mitchell 1969]

Usually when you see this, it means the state is providing money and want to make sure it spent properly. It also helps with accessing other state resources.

Yeah, stuff like armories and training areas.

I just wonder though, if NHQ and USAF are aware that Adjutants General of states are claiming that they have "oversight" of CAP. Those statements are poorly worded. If they want oversight of state monies, they should so state, clearly. The way they have phrased it leads to misunderstandings, in my opinion, as the wording implies more than oversight of funds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohhnyD]

I just wonder though, if NHQ and USAF are aware that Adjutants General of states are claiming that they have "oversight" of CAP. Those statements are poorly worded. If they want oversight of state monies, they should so state, clearly. The way they have phrased it leads to misunderstandings, in my opinion, as the wording implies more than oversight of funds.

They do. In some cases these State relationships are from WWII. In other cases they represent real funding from the state's involved.

[sardak]

In the case of Colorado, in 1943, the Coordinator of the Colorado State Defense Council, fearing the feds were going to take over, told the Legislature of "The vital necessity of maintaining an independently operated civil air patrol which was doing a work of great value. It would be of inestimable value in a serious military emergency."

In 1945 a law passed creating the Colorado Department of Civil Air Patrol and providing funding (except for uniforms which were specifically excluded). The Department of CAP was a separate department until 1973 when the Department of Military Affairs was created, and CAP was made a division within it. The Division continues to receive an appropriation to support the Wing.  The COWG Commander is a member of TAG staff.

Yes, the use of "oversee" is a bit much and was not always the word used.  As for NHQ and USAF being aware of it, the current National Vice Commander was a Colorado Wing Commander and up until three years ago, the CAP-USAF liaison office was in space provided by the State.

Mike

[PHall]

I just wonder though, if NHQ and USAF are aware that Adjutants General of states are claiming that they have "oversight" of CAP. Those statements are poorly worded. If they want oversight of state monies, they should so state, clearly. The way they have phrased it leads to misunderstandings, in my opinion, as the wording implies more than oversight of funds.

They do. In some cases these State relationships are from WWII. In other cases they represent real funding from the state's involved.

But that doesn't mean they're in compliance with the current laws and regulations that govern CAP today.
A review by the legal folks would be a really good idea.
The intent may be good but ya still gotta dot the i's and cross the t's.

[JohhnyD]

I just wonder though, if NHQ and USAF are aware that Adjutants General of states are claiming that they have "oversight" of CAP. Those statements are poorly worded. If they want oversight of state monies, they should so state, clearly. The way they have phrased it leads to misunderstandings, in my opinion, as the wording implies more than oversight of funds.

They do. In some cases these State relationships are from WWII. In other cases they represent real funding from the state's involved.

But that doesn't mean they're in compliance with the current laws and regulations that govern CAP today.
A review by the legal folks would be a really good idea.
The intent may be good but ya still gotta dot the i's and cross the t's.

Really? Maybe you should email BG Smith, I bet he never thought of that.

[Mitchell 1969]

I just wonder though, if NHQ and USAF are aware that Adjutants General of states are claiming that they have "oversight" of CAP. Those statements are poorly worded. If they want oversight of state monies, they should so state, clearly. The way they have phrased it leads to misunderstandings, in my opinion, as the wording implies more than oversight of funds.

They do. In some cases these State relationships are from WWII. In other cases they represent real funding from the state's involved.

But that doesn't mean they're in compliance with the current laws and regulations that govern CAP today.
A review by the legal folks would be a really good idea.
The intent may be good but ya still gotta dot the i's and cross the t's.

Really? Maybe you should email BG Smith, I bet he never thought of that.

I don't know BG Smith. In fact, I don't even know who BG Smith even is. But, no matter. Those "oversight" claims are still poorly worded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohhnyD]

I just wonder though, if NHQ and USAF are aware that Adjutants General of states are claiming that they have "oversight" of CAP. Those statements are poorly worded. If they want oversight of state monies, they should so state, clearly. The way they have phrased it leads to misunderstandings, in my opinion, as the wording implies more than oversight of funds.

They do. In some cases these State relationships are from WWII. In other cases they represent real funding from the state's involved.

But that doesn't mean they're in compliance with the current laws and regulations that govern CAP today.
A review by the legal folks would be a really good idea.
The intent may be good but ya still gotta dot the i's and cross the t's.

Really? Maybe you should email BG Smith, I bet he never thought of that.

I don't know BG Smith. In fact, I don't even know who BG Smith even is. But, no matter. Those "oversight" claims are still poorly worded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry MG Smith, you know, the guy at NHQ with two stars?

[baronet68]

Sorry MG Maj Gen Smith, you know, the guy at NHQ with two stars?

FTFY (fixed that for you)... People tend to get really pedantic around this here part of the interwebs.

[Mitchell 1969]

Sorry MG Maj Gen Smith, you know, the guy at NHQ with two stars?

FTFY (fixed that for you)... People tend to get really pedantic around this here part of the interwebs.

With "this here part" bring a discussion forum, with a simple "I wonder if..." leading to a challenge to go right to the top with that "I wonder if...". At any rate, the fact remains, those "oversight" phrases are poorly worded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohhnyD]

Sorry MG Maj Gen Smith, you know, the guy at NHQ with two stars?

FTFY (fixed that for you)... People tend to get really pedantic around this here part of the interwebs.

With "this here part" bring a discussion forum, with a simple "I wonder if..." leading to a challenge to go right to the top with that "I wonder if...". At any rate, the fact remains, those "oversight" phrases are poorly worded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And yet the affected Wings seem to survive. Odd that.

[Eclipse]

With "this here part" bring a discussion forum, with a simple "I wonder if..." leading to a challenge to go right to the top with that "I wonder if...". At any rate, the fact remains, those "oversight" phrases are poorly worded.

Are they?

Kansas, at least according to their annual budget, has a 1/2 FTE's salary devoted to CAP,
along with whatever resources and appropriation they may provide.  They don't have command authority
over CAP, per se, but they would certainly have "oversight" on whatever they provide to CAP, and an
opinion about operations, generally.

At least as characterized, this is no different then CAP-USAF.

I can tell you from direct experience that lack of oversight in a case like this is not a best practice.

With oversight comes an understanding of where the money is going and how the resources are being used,
making it much easier to justify during the annual "See-AY-Whonow?" conversations at budget time.

The alternative is a state providing resources and money with no idea why, and then one day it's just gone...

BTDT.