CAP Talk

See, here's the thing:

CAP is strange animal when it comes to governance.  There is simply nothing like it, even among the Congressionally chartered corporations.  AFAIK, only the Red Cross shares our "occasional instrumentality" status, and they have certainly had their own governance issues.  (Check out this report (http://www.redcross.org/www-files/Documents/Governance/BOGGovernanceReport.pdf) on their own reboot.)

I don't think anyone would dispute that our current governance structure is the primarily the result of historical forces leavened with a fair amount of compromise and sprinkled with the "fix" of the BoG added by our Congressional stakeholders. (Historically, we are a government agency spun off as an AF-governed corporation; later largely abandoned by the AF in terms of governance; and currently controlled by a mixture of internal boards (NB & NEC) ultimately responsible to the BoG (which itself is a compromise mixture of stakeholders and CAP).)

Similarly, there is widespread agreement that we have "governance issues."  Although descriptions of the nature of the problem tend to vary by the perspective of the observer.

Almost everyone has an idea that might very well help - members might elect some corporate officers / selection of corporate officers by outside selectors like our AF stakeholders / eliminate the NB allowing the NEC to run the show / eliminate the NEC and allow the NB to run the show / etc. etc. etc.

And it is certainly part of the problem that the very folks who would need to study and approve any significant changes are the very people who have benefitted from the current structure - our current corporate officers / colonels.  And human nature being what it is, these same experienced CAP officers are fairly sure that - at least as a group - they know what is best for CAP.  At least when evaluating suggestions from outside groups of members like, say, members of CAPTalk for instance.

And even we tend to look at the problem through the lens of our own experiences.  Which is why most of the discussions in other governance threads pretty much amounts to Titanic deck chair re-arranging.  (Relatively minor tweaks on our current structure about who gets to vote for whom.)

So here is my proposal for a CAPTalk experiment - let's "clean-slate" this and start with a clean sheet of paper.  There are academically recognized "best practices" when it comes to non-profit corporate governance.  As just one example, check out the  Hauser Center (http://www.hks.harvard.edu/hauser/index.html) at Harvard University.  Anybody know someone there?

So, Starting from scratch, how should CAP organize and govern itself?

Ned: outstanding explanation of how CAP is "governed".  I have a feeling that I don't have enough years left on earth to even consider tackling your challenge.  Like most other things that I have experienced in 16 years of CAP service, this is incredibly challenging.

Ned - Excellent idea.  I clicked your link to the Hauser Center and found this article, which I think sums up the angst of our problems.

http://www.nsba.org/sbot/toolkit/GovMgmt.html (http://www.nsba.org/sbot/toolkit/GovMgmt.html)

This may be one of those threads that will start slowly, but take off once everybody has a chance to write their thoughts.  I look forwad to participating.

A couple of little questions:  Does anybody know what training all AF Officers receive regarding CAP, both at the company grade and at the field grade?  What type of training do Wing Kings, Base CCs, get regarding CAP?  Feel free to PM me so we don't hi-jack the thread.

Ned,
I think the first thing to consider is whether or not CAP should be a nonprofit corporation semi-independent of the AF or an organization over which the AF ultimately has control (as is the case between CG and CG Aux).

I'm guessing that your assumption is that CAP will remain a semi-independent corporation....

How about electing 2 representatives from each wing to represent the higher officers.. (Col and above)

Then elect a certain number of regular members ( Lt Col and Down) based on the number of members in the wing. Minimum representation is one for the smaller wings.

They each do their job, and new rules and regs are voted on in their respective thingies, then the passed rules are reconciled and sent to the Elected Major General for signature or veto.

Simple

This is easy;

Go back to 1950.  Take out everything written into the CAP constitution and bylaws between January 1, 1950 and December 20, 2009.

Air Force controls its auxiliary.  Seemed to work out fine back then. 

Quote from: Spike on December 20, 2009, 09:50:37 PM
This is easy;

Go back to 1950.  Take out everything written into the CAP constitution and bylaws between January 1, 1950 and December 20, 2009.

Air Force controls its auxiliary.  Seemed to work out fine back then.

The only problem with this answer is the underlying supposition:  The Air Force WANTS its Auxiliary, AND has the time/money/manpower to invest in controlling it. 

These days, if we turned around and told the USAF that they suddenly had full control (AND RESPONSIBILITY!!!) for CAP, my gut instinct is they would either beg Congress to end CAP completely, or pigeonhole it with a completely inadequate staff in a deadend office at Minot.

Not that they 'hate' us, they simply don't have the time and energy to devote to us when we are so far removed from their core day-to-day warfighting responsibilities.

I'd be very pleased to be proven wrong in my assessment, but...

Thom

When I joined in the late 70s USAF controlled it. It had some drawbacks, but most went fine. No uniform bickering....no flying club mentality....today we seem have to much of the club thought....too much rebelism toward the system. Not to say all are that way....but it does exist. Then we all wore the USAF uniform and we wore it proudly and properly fopr the most part. Of course there were some violations here and there, but the AF didn't get upset until some idiot pushed to far. Like the General that tried to push his way around an AFB. Hence the maroon epaulets. We almost had that same situation with the last National Commander. For the most the AF would include us in their missions more. Now they stand off somewhat because we try to do our own thing too much. Back then they considered us part of the total force. It was stated by 4 AF Chief's of Staff during that period that CAP is an imprtant player in the AF mission and is part of the AF Total Force.

Quote from: Spike on December 20, 2009, 09:50:37 PM
This is easy;

Go back to 1950.  Take out everything written into the CAP constitution and bylaws between January 1, 1950 and December 20, 2009.

Air Force controls its auxiliary.  Seemed to work out fine back then.

I think you're right.  WIWAC, the national commander was an AF 2-star.  When Brig Gen Wilcox retired, the AF recalled Maj Gen Walter B. Putnam.  He was a fire cracker and was great for the organization.  The top CAP officer was the chairman of the national board who had recently been authorized a star.  We screwed up when we jettisoned the AF officer and supplied our own.  CAP had a stake in the AF and they had a stake in CAP.

Do we need a national board?  No.  There was coordination enough back then, even when most communication was done by telephone, HF radio, and snail mail.  The commander sets the mission, the subordinates ask for the resources to make it happen.  The commander gets the resources from higher.  When the resources aren't forthcoming, the subordinate (region/wing) tells the commander that the mission isn't possible.  Simple.  All of this political posturing, elections, deal making, and general baloney is just that.  We don't need a NB or NEC, we need leadership and sanity checks. YMMV 

Well said Gunner C. Somethings need to move forward....somethings need to go back to what works best. CAP is one of those. I even remember driving onto an AFB by showing ID card and Pic ID at gate. No jumping thru hoops   no State Director's approval....just show up and the SP's had you sign in and you were on your way. That is the kind of relationship we should have stuck to.

Guys, I think it's a good idea to remove those rose colored glasses when looking at the past.

I've been a member long enough to recall those days.  We were living strictly on govt. surplus, hand me downs and trash discarded by others.  Funding at the wing and lower levels were non existant.  Members knew what "come and pay" really meant back then.  Yes, the Air Force was "in control" BUT, wing commanders were fired on whims, there were no "resources" except for airlift (after all we were "part of" Continental Air Command back when).  Besides, as was said before, the Air Force no longer has the money, manpower nor will to go back.

If we want to start "clean" we need to look in a completely different direction.  First of all, I think we need a leadership structure which is really accountable to all stakeholders, including the dues paying membership.  Secondly, we need leaders who can make decisions without worrying about arbitrary dismissal.  Thirdly, we need true internal measures to hold all members accountable for their actions while performing CAP's missions.  After that, we need to really engage in a dialog  with the Air Force and Congress to determine if CAP's place in the universe needs to change. 

YMMV however, I think it is time to really think about our future.  Living in the past is no help and hoping for change gets us nowhere. 

"accountable to all" -  :clap:

What about instead of assigning active duty personnel (that we can all probably agree the AF doesn't have the resources to be tasking warfighters to these type of assignments nowadays), we roll back to the 70's when certain leadership positions were active duty AF officers, but steal a combination example from the liaison office model and AFJROTC instructors: active duty officers fixin' to retire apply for this duty assignment, retire into the position, and continue to be paid active duty pay by receiving their retirement pay with the difference paid for out of the CAP budget.  Plug them into CAP-USAF, and eliminate the "volunteer" National Headquarters.  You could probably free up a majority of the active duty CAP-USAF billets, putting active duty members back into their career fields.

I'd have to do some more research on the exact CAP/CAP-USAF organization of the day to see how it could work here, but it's an idea.

Quote from: C-150 on December 20, 2009, 10:37:03 PM
I even remember driving onto an AFB by showing ID card and Pic ID at gate. No jumping thru hoops   no State Director's approval....just show up and the SP's had you sign in and you were on your way. That is the kind of relationship we should have stuck to.

I just did that two days ago. I actually didn't even need to sign in. Just show ID and off I go.

I have heard of several bases doing that. Some are familiar with CAP as some units meet on bases. I would suppose it would depend on the Wing Commander and the SP on the gate at the time on individual access in other situations. I used to visit Pope with no problem at all....but Seymour Johnson had a few hoops to jump thru ..like the signing in. But then the bases have two completely different missions. Which with all of that in mind I think we still have a very good relationship with the AF. There is always of course room for improvement.

Quote from: davidsinn on December 21, 2009, 01:04:32 AM

Quote from: C-150 on December 20, 2009, 10:37:03 PM
I even remember driving onto an AFB by showing ID card and Pic ID at gate. No jumping thru hoops   no State Director's approval....just show up and the SP's had you sign in and you were on your way. That is the kind of relationship we should have stuck to.

I just did that two days ago. I actually didn't even need to sign in. Just show ID and off I go.

Yep, base access is covered under AFI's and reciprocal regulations from other services.  SD's only need get involved to grease the wheels
or setup MSA's for large activities that need housing, etc.

Some bases might require you go to a VC for a pass for your vehicle, show DL/Insurance/registration, but then likely that goes for everyone without a sticker.

Quote from: Eclipse on December 21, 2009, 03:43:59 AM

Quote from: davidsinn on December 21, 2009, 01:04:32 AM

Quote from: C-150 on December 20, 2009, 10:37:03 PM
I even remember driving onto an AFB by showing ID card and Pic ID at gate. No jumping thru hoops   no State Director's approval....just show up and the SP's had you sign in and you were on your way. That is the kind of relationship we should have stuck to.

I just did that two days ago. I actually didn't even need to sign in. Just show ID and off I go.

Yep, base access is covered under AFI's and reciprocal regulations from other services.  SD's only need get involved to grease the wheels
or setup MSA's for large activities that need housing, etc.

Some bases might require you go to a VC for a pass for your vehicle, show DL/Insurance/registration, but then likely that goes for everyone without a sticker.

The Air Force stopped issuing stickers about two years ago. If you have a military ID, you're good to go, otherwise it's the VC for you.

Quote from: Ned on December 20, 2009, 07:25:46 PM
- let's "clean-slate" this and start with a clean sheet of paper.  There

First.  Repeal the statute making Civil Air Patrol a private, not-for-profit.  :o

Second. Civil Air Patrol becomes a component just like the Air (or Army - may be more appropriate) National Guard: Commanded at the state level by a General, appointed by that state's governor.  OR, Civil Air Patrol becomes part of the Air National Guard, with a command structure developed under the Air National Guard chain of command.

>:D

Third. At the national level, an overhead steering or coordinating board appointed by the SECDEF (or SECAF) and DHS to oversee state-to-state coordination of resource response when resources are Federalized. (And when I say "Federalized", I mean activated under a USAF assigned mission, not what 'Federalized' normally means.)  Under this intended reorganization, membership is still all volunteer, but since coming under Air (or Army) National Guard Command, membership dues are no longer required.

More?


Starting from a clean-slate isn't always pretty to start with, but sometimes the finished product comes out much better until the demand for the next 'clean-slate' comes around  ;)


Cheers,

Quote from: LTC Don on December 21, 2009, 02:16:02 PM
First.  Repeal the statute making Civil Air Patrol a private, not-for-profit. 

This would have significant tax implications for our members.  Unless your other suggestions come with better expense compensation (i.e. uniform / equipment issue, per diem, etc.), that's an issue (though it could be accommodated in the new charter).

My guess, though, that with all the public emphasis about fund-raising, that would be a non-starter without at least double our current appropriation.

Here are my initial thoughts FWIW


Voting rights limited to SM's & voting via e-services login.  This should minimize any strong arm tactics at the wing level and below.

Requirement for all positions is completion of level 3 + 5 years of membership.  Grade is not a factor.  Appointed to Col upon election to NB or NEC.

1.  WG/CC's elected by wing SM's to 3 yr term, term limited to 2 consecutive terms.
          WG/CC sits on NB.  Can only be removed by:
          a.  Recall election by Wing Membership
          b.  For cause/misconduct  by Nat/CC with BOG Concurrence with reason/investigation presented to wing membership

2.  NEC nominated by NB, and elected by: Plurality of regional membership + Majority of NB members in Region to 5 yr Term,
     1 term only.
         Reg/CC sits on NEC but has no vote on NB  Can only be removed by:
          a.  Recall election by Electorate
          b.  For cause/misconduct by Nat/CC with BOG Concurrence with reason/investigation presented to Nat'l membership

3. Nat/CC & Nat/CV nominated  by NB elected by Plurality of Nat'l membership + Majority of NB to 4 Year term  1 term only. 
    Nat CC & CV sit on NEC and have no vote on NB.  Can only be removed by
          a.  Recall election by Electorate
          b.  For cause/misconduct by BOG with NB Concurrence with reason/investigation presented to Nat'l membership.
   
4.  BOG stays but CAP appointed membership is  3, 1 appointed by NB, 2 elected by Nat'l Membership.
     Up to two 3 year terms, removal same as for Nat/CC &CV

How about......

Expand the BOG to include 1 CAP rep from each region...elected by the members from that region.
Shift the BOG nominated members to SAF nominated (so he nominate 6).

The BoG hires the National CC as the CEO who hires the Wing and Regional CCs.

BOG term limit is up to 2 three year terms....SAF nominees are at the descression of the SAF.

Quote from: Gunner C on December 20, 2009, 10:20:52 PM

I think you're right.  WIWAC, the national commander was an AF 2-star.  When Brig Gen Wilcox retired, the AF recalled Maj Gen Walter B. Putnam.  He was a fire cracker and was great for the organization.  The top CAP officer was the chairman of the national board who had recently been authorized a star.  We screwed up when we jettisoned the AF officer and supplied our own.  CAP had a stake in the AF and they had a stake in CAP.

Do we need a national board?  No.  There was coordination enough back then, even when most communication was done by telephone, HF radio, and snail mail.  The commander sets the mission, the subordinates ask for the resources to make it happen.  The commander gets the resources from higher.  When the resources aren't forthcoming, the subordinate (region/wing) tells the commander that the mission isn't possible.  Simple.  All of this political posturing, elections, deal making, and general baloney is just that.  We don't need a NB or NEC, we need leadership and sanity checks. YMMV
[/quote]

Mostly agree...however, CAP did not jettison USAF officer as Nat'l CC...USAF cut position as a cost saving measure, I think back in the 1980s.

we defiantly need leadership over bureaucracy. CAP should be governed by the Commanders, and the NAtional Commander should report to the Commander Air University or whatever MajCom we fall under

The problem with that....and one of the reasons why they pulled the AD commanders is that if the CEO of the corporation was a member of the federal government it would screw up the corporate status.

While that may not be a bad thing......I don't think it is within the scope of this thread.

Going to a direct USAF oversight would basicly mean CAP as a corporation would disappear and everything would then belong to the government.

If you think wing banker and ORMS is a pain......you don't want to go into a direct federal control of our assets.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 21, 2009, 07:52:32 PM
The problem with that....and one of the reasons why they pulled the AD commanders is that if the CEO of the corporation was a member of the federal government it would screw up the corporate status.

While that may not be a bad thing......I don't think it is within the scope of this thread.

Going to a direct USAF oversight would basicly mean CAP as a corporation would disappear and everything would then belong to the government.

If you think wing banker and ORMS is a pain......you don't want to go into a direct federal control of our assets.

I didnt think that military was under the same umbrella as the federal Government. meaning as a military person, I am not a GS worker.

well, actually I think we should get rid of the corporate part of CAP and just be a AFaux. but if we have to have the corporate part of it lets havehave the National Commander report to the BoG. The whole NB electing the National Commader hs always sturck me as odd. How can Rregion and Wing Commanders elect their own commander? But I gues it works becaue I am very happy withthe current National Commander

Quote from: flyguy06 on December 21, 2009, 08:05:55 PM
The whole NB electing the National Commader hs always sturck me as odd. How can region and wing Commanders elect their own commander?

It leads to nepotism, favoritism, featherbedding and other abuses. Just ask anyone who lived through our last national commander from Florida.

Quote from: flyguy06 on December 21, 2009, 08:05:55 PMI didnt think that military was under the same umbrella as the federal Government. meaning as a military person, I am not a GS worker.

well, actually I think we should get rid of the corporate part of CAP and just be a AFaux. but if we have to have the corporate part of it lets havehave the National Commander report to the BoG. The whole NB electing the National Commader hs always sturck me as odd. How can Rregion and Wing Commanders elect their own commander? But I gues it works becaue I am very happy withthe current National Commander

I don't know if going to AFaux is necessarily the way to go......lots more paperwork.  But I do agree we need to have a single chain of command.  Start with the BoG and move down.  This NB to Nat CC circle jerk is just too unweildy in a quazi military organisation.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on December 21, 2009, 08:28:35 PM

Quote from: flyguy06 on December 21, 2009, 08:05:55 PM
The whole NB electing the National Commader hs always sturck me as odd. How can region and wing Commanders elect their own commander?

It leads to nepotism, favoritism, featherbedding and other abuses. Just ask anyone who lived through our last national commander from Florida.

Unfortunately it did not start nor end with him!

Quote from: Al Sayre on December 21, 2009, 03:14:06 PM
Here are my initial thoughts FWIW


Voting rights limited to SM's & voting via e-services login.  This should minimize any strong arm tactics at the wing level and below.

Requirement for all positions is completion of level 3 + 5 years of membership.  Grade is not a factor.  Appointed to Col upon election to NB or NEC.

1.  WG/CC's elected by wing SM's to 3 yr term, term limited to 2 consecutive terms.
          WG/CC sits on NB.  Can only be removed by:
          a.  Recall election by Wing Membership
          b.  For cause/misconduct  by Nat/CC with BOG Concurrence with reason/investigation presented to wing membership

2.  NEC nominated by NB, and elected by: Plurality of regional membership + Majority of NB members in Region to 5 yr Term,
     1 term only.
         Reg/CC sits on NEC but has no vote on NB  Can only be removed by:
          a.  Recall election by Electorate
          b.  For cause/misconduct by Nat/CC with BOG Concurrence with reason/investigation presented to Nat'l membership

3. Nat/CC & Nat/CV nominated  by NB elected by Plurality of Nat'l membership + Majority of NB to 4 Year term  1 term only. 
    Nat CC & CV sit on NEC and have no vote on NB.  Can only be removed by
          a.  Recall election by Electorate
          b.  For cause/misconduct by BOG with NB Concurrence with reason/investigation presented to Nat'l membership.
   
4.  BOG stays but CAP appointed membership is  3, 1 appointed by NB, 2 elected by Nat'l Membership.
     Up to two 3 year terms, removal same as for Nat/CC &CV

Sorry don't know how to snip for brevity but this is a great post! Being accountable to the folks you represent is an outstanding idea. Currently Wing CCs are accountable to Region/ Natl CCs.

Not to get off topic, but some of you guys are some regs hunting furus. Do you guys actually take the time and go look these things up and cut and paste or do youlike have them on your computer ready to go? I guess when I reply to a post,I post my thoughts andmove on, I dont usually do all the research I see a lot of folks do. i judt dont have the time. But wow, I am glad to see that folks are big on quoting regs and actually go and look them up and copy andpaste.  thats high speed.

For our sort of organizations I've always favored the locals electing their leaders, then that that level of leaders would elect the leaders above them, and so on.  Lets face it, the squadrons commanders are probably going to have a much better idea of who actually has the chops to run the wing than the general membership.  This is even more the case at the region or national levels.  I've been in organizations where we elect the national leaders and we have absolutely nothing to go on but a basic bio of the candidates.  I don't think anyone can make a good decision off of that. 

In "real life" you have real election campaigns and all sorts of ways to get to know the candidates even if you never meet them.  That just doesn't happen in volunteer organizations. 

Quote from: RiverAux on December 21, 2009, 10:21:02 PM
For our sort of organizations I've always favored the locals electing their leaders, then that that level of leaders would elect the leaders above them, and so on.  Lets face it, the squadrons commanders are probably going to have a much better idea of who actually has the chops to run the wing than the general membership.  This is even more the case at the region or national levels.  I've been in organizations where we elect the national leaders and we have absolutely nothing to go on but a basic bio of the candidates.  I don't think anyone can make a good decision off of that. 

In "real life" you have real election campaigns and all sorts of ways to get to know the candidates even if you never meet them.  That just doesn't happen in volunteer organizations.

Thats not neccessarily always true. I am not noasting but I am more active and I know more about Civil Air Patrol than my Squadron Commander.

Elections? At first glance I was totally against this idea, but the more I look at it,it may not be a bad idea.

QuoteThats not neccessarily always true. I am not noasting but I am moreactive and I know more about Civil Air Patrol than my Squadron Commander

But your squadron commander is much more likely to have worked with and personally know the candidates for Wing Commander than you and is going to be in a better position to judge their abilities and qualifications.  This won't always be the case, but is more likely, especially in larger Wings. 

Quote from: RiverAux on December 21, 2009, 10:31:32 PM

QuoteThats not neccessarily always true. I am not noasting but I am moreactive and I know more about Civil Air Patrol than my Squadron Commander

But your squadron commander is much more likely to have worked with and personally know the candidates for Wing Commander than you and is going to be in a better position to judge their abilities and qualifications.  This won't always be the case, but is more likely, especially in larger Wings.

LOL. Oh how I wish that were the case. i am ten times more active in CAP than my Squadron Commander. hehas probably seen the wing commander on passing at the few events outside of the squasdronhe goes to. I have the Wing commande on my speed dial.  But thats a whole nother issue. You are right that the squadron commander should be the most knowledgeble person about CAP related issues. but not always the case,

Quote from: RiverAux on December 21, 2009, 10:31:32 PM

QuoteThats not neccessarily always true. I am not noasting but I am moreactive and I know more about Civil Air Patrol than my Squadron Commander

But your squadron commander is much more likely to have worked with and personally know the candidates for Wing Commander than you and is going to be in a better position to judge their abilities and qualifications.  This won't always be the case, but is more likely, especially in larger Wings.

I am from one of the LARGER Wings and let met say this again, popular election of CAP officials, especially corporate officers, would result in an amplification of political electioneering in CAP that would distract greatly.  Already existing "factions" would not go away, only they would become WORSE.

People here and elsewhere continue to complain about the "political nature" of National.  Just open the Pandora's Box of popular elections and you will see a circus.

And don't give me that "It works for the Coast Guard Auxiliary" rebuttal.  CAP and the USCGAux are totally different in structure, purpose and culture.

Quote from: Westernslope on December 21, 2009, 10:04:33 PMSorry don't know how to snip for brevity but this is a great post! Being accountable to the folks you represent is an outstanding idea. Currently Wing CCs are accountable to Region/ Natl CCs.

To a point I agree.....but here is a different look at the issue.  If you can elect your leaders it can be argued you can ignore their orders.

It also puts an additonal burden of leadership on the commanders.  Not only does he have to do what is right...but he has to do things that make his people happy.

Adding more politics to the system is not the way to go IMHO.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 21, 2009, 10:58:18 PM

Quote from: Westernslope on December 21, 2009, 10:04:33 PMSorry don't know how to snip for brevity but this is a great post! Being accountable to the folks you represent is an outstanding idea. Currently Wing CCs are accountable to Region/ Natl CCs.

Adding more politics to the system is not the way to go IMHO.

I concur completely with this statement.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 21, 2009, 10:58:18 PM

Quote from: Westernslope on December 21, 2009, 10:04:33 PMSorry don't know how to snip for brevity but this is a great post! Being accountable to the folks you represent is an outstanding idea. Currently Wing CCs are accountable to Region/ Natl CCs.

To a point I agree.....but here is a different look at the issue.  If you can elect your leaders it can be argued you can ignore their orders.

It also puts an additonal burden of leadership on the commanders.  Not only does he have to do what is right...but he has to do things that make his people happy.

Adding more politics to the system is not the way to go IMHO.

I have to agree with this as well.

I found the comment interesting, about how some could feel that elected leadership could be ignored (I don't agree with it but...) so I did some research at the university library (I'm getting my degree in history).

I found that the majority of the nation's founding fathers had the same feelings about the American population during the time of the articles of confederation. So what was the answer? Checks and balances. The founding fathers thought that if someone had a problem with their elected leadership, they could always go to the other branches and have some form of political outlet in the checks and balances.

Now, how does this pertain to cap? Well, if local leadership is elected what will be the balances? Term limits? And for how long? Who will have the authority to remove officials? Who will verify the election results? How do we keep from election fraud?

What about the checks? Would someone have the right to override someone else? How do you keep the good old boy club out? I know in the wing I live in, politics is already rampant, as is the good old boy system. So if local elections were installed, how do we keep from plunging into chaos? Just some thoughts, try not to jump me.

Quote from: NCRblues on December 22, 2009, 12:08:14 AM
I found the comment interesting, about how some could feel that elected leadership could be ignored (I don't agree with it but...) so I did some research at the university library (I'm getting my degree in history).

I found that the majority of the nation's founding fathers had the same feelings about the American population during the time of the articles of confederation. So what was the answer? Checks and balances. The founding fathers thought that if someone had a problem with their elected leadership, they could always go to the other branches and have some form of political outlet in the checks and balances.

Now, how does this pertain to cap? Well, if local leadership is elected what will be the balances? Term limits? And for how long? Who will have the authority to remove officials? Who will verify the election results? How do we keep from election fraud?

What about the checks? Would someone have the right to override someone else? How do you keep the good old boy club out? I know in the wing I live in, politics is already rampant, as is the good old boy system. So if local elections were installed, how do we keep from plunging into chaos? Just some thoughts, try not to jump me.

Checks and Balances are supposed to be key to our system.  No one branch of government is to be able to accomplish anything without help from at least one of the other two.  At the time of the Framers, the main fear was that the government would get too strong and, thus, simply be "The Crown" in another form.  Thus, they used the ideas of separation of powers, checks and balances and limited government to prevent that.

It is worth of note that even the idea of having a President was feared (the idea was a three man executive committee).  Only the presence of George Washington as president of the Constitutional Convention steered us to an executive branch headed by a single person.

In the other thread on this subject I proposed that the National Board be our legislative apparatus with the National Executive Committee functioning as its namesake, an executive body that executed the policy of the NB as "CAP" law.  Also, the NEC should also have the option of Executive Powers to act extraordinarily if the situation demanded it.

Also, the Framers of the Constitution...as well as the bulk of the Founding Fathers themselves were against the direct election of the President.  Much as I am against the direct election of Wing and Region Commanders by the general membership or even by squadron commanders.

I just continue to be amazed by people's obliviousness to the fact that every organization has politics no matter how in the world it is organized.  We would still have backbiting politics in CAP if every single commander from National down to Squadron were an appointed AF officer. 

Elections put it out in the open for everyone to see where it can be done honestly and in as full view of the membership as possible (you can still have a secret vote, by the way).  Nothing is wrong with politics unless it is done in secret, which is how it works in CAP. 

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2009, 12:50:25 AM
I just continue to be amazed by people's obliviousness to the fact that every organization has politics no matter how in the world it is organized.  We would still have backbiting politics in CAP if every single commander from National down to Squadron were an appointed AF officer. 

Elections put it out in the open for everyone to see where it can be done honestly and in as full view of the membership as possible (you can still have a secret vote, by the way).  Nothing is wrong with politics unless it is done in secret, which is how it works in CAP.

When the airmen and officers of the USAF elect their colonels and general grade officers, I will entertain the notion for CAP. 

You see, every organization has politics no matter how in the world it is organized and there would still be backbiting politics in CAP if every single commander from National down to Squadron were an appointed AF officer; thus, why create the fiasco of an elections system to create a circus where people spend more time electioneering and posturing?

I've been in organizations ranging from Teacher Organizations to the Knights of Columbus and the hoop-la of elections, preoccupation with electioneering and real negative campaigning have almost ripped those apart.

Sparky,

It is in the highest tradition of the militia to elect the officers we serve under

Quote from: cap235629 on December 22, 2009, 01:07:00 AM
Sparky,

It is in the highest tradition of the militia to elect the officers we serve under

I will remember that when we are a militia.  As of now, we are an auxiliary of the USAF and the laws governing "a well regulated militia" to not readily apply.  As a fellow Southerner I am well aware of our traditions en re the militia.

The problems that arise in these matters happens most when we try to apply the methodology and procedures of other organizations to CAP.  CAP exists as it does based on its development and as the evolution of an WWII era Civil Defense program into an adaptable auxiliary force in modern contexts.

We are not strictly controlled by the USAF directly as in the past, nor are we the sort of organization that the Coast Guard Auxiliary is.  It should be pointed out that the USGCAux's primary concern is with boating and water based issues.  They do not operate a fleet of aircraft owned by the corporation or the Coast Guard as CAP does.  Nor do they operate a Cadet Program.

Applying the rules and practices of the Salvation Army, Boy Scouts of America, Coast Guard or even the USAF to CAP (while sounding like the greatest of ideas)...and in a manner that does and would not consider the chaos of any transition period to those systems...is short sightedness and fails to take into account the most tactile issues that would arise from lack of compatibility.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2009, 12:50:25 AM
I just continue to be amazed by people's obliviousness to the fact that every organization has politics no matter how in the world it is organized.  We would still have backbiting politics in CAP if every single commander from National down to Squadron were an appointed AF officer. 

Elections put it out in the open for everyone to see where it can be done honestly and in as full view of the membership as possible (you can still have a secret vote, by the way).  Nothing is wrong with politics unless it is done in secret, which is how it works in CAP.

That is true.....but some organisations work pefectly fine with little or no democratic process.

We see in CAP what happens when normal office politics mixes with the democratic politics.  Especially when the people doing the voting are also the ones who are selecting the electrorate.

The ideal CAP squadron works with everyone following the lead of the squadorn commander.  He dictates the focus of the squadronds efforts to accomplish the mission that is dictated by the group and wing and guided by the regualations.

It breaks down at the wing level where the wing CC is appointed by the Regional/National commander.  That wing commander now has a 1/53 (IIRC) vote in the policies and direction of the national organisation.  He also has a voice in the future leader of the organisation.

The supposed head of the organisation must have all his/her decisions ratified by the majority of the people he/she is supposed to in charge of. 

This has lead to all the funness we seen in national politics.

There is NO checks and balance.  The NB can do what ever they want no matter how stupid or misguided.  The national command can't make changes because of old guard hold outs from previous adminstations.  The national command does not even get to pick his/her command team...but is forced to accept a vice that is often a political rival and has no desire in seeing the current commander succeed.

By eliminateing these two major points.....the NB and voting for national commander......we eliminate the political ploy of removing wing and regional commanders based on political ideoligy.  We also eliminate the waste of time it takes to make change.

Let's take the new Comm Training program.   It gets suggested at the NB.....who vote it a good idea...send it to committee.  The committee work on it for six months then reports.....someone does not like something, they debate it....it goes back to committee.  This gets worked on and approved by the NEC three months later....it goes to the public for comment and the finally goes back to the NB for the final vote.  Then hopefully it gets implemented after a year in the political process.

If the National CC had the power to just make regulations.....then the Comm guys would write up a white paper.  She would read it....say its a good idea, let's staff it.  They would come up with a plan....send it out for comments from the field.  Write up the changes.  She would then sign the new regulation.  It would get published and implemented based on how fast the new system could come on line....and not wait months for the NB to come along.

The BoG would have veto power over anything if the National CC got out of line.

Steamlining the process all around.

That is just how it would work with mudane processes.

When you look at everything else.....a wing commander screws up.....the National CC or Region CC can fire him with or with out cause and no one will be jumping up and down yelling politics! 

Sure there is still going to be office politics.....there always is.  Who is in and who is out.  But there will be no process for that to be turned into revolution.

Voting for Wing Commander (and if you take this idea to its logical conclustion) qroup and squadron commanders only sets up a system where everyone is fighting for political postion instead of focusing on the mission.

Mission, mission, mission.

How much productivity do we loose because people are focused on national politics and not the mission?

Sparky all of our military traditions have roots in the militia.

Quote from: cap235629 on December 22, 2009, 01:30:42 AM
Sparky all of our military traditions have roots in the militia.

True, going back to Lexington and Concord...however, while those roots are firmly planted; the branches and leaves, which we see and that effect our lives, are of a standing Army.

I know what you are getting act, but it does not apply to how CAP operates today.  If CAP truly was "militia" centered, it would not be centralized as it is and it would be a local institution that self deployed based on local needs.

Quote from: cap235629 on December 22, 2009, 01:30:42 AM
Sparky all of our military traditions have roots in the militia.

I would have to disagree with the "all" part.

After early part of the war Washington brought/bought a lot of European expertise who shaped the majority of our military traditions.

While the spirit and traditions of the militia did creep in....you would have to say that Prussian traditions from General Von Stubin form the core our military identity.

Washington brought Von Stueben in to train the MILITIA as well as the Continental Army.

QuoteWe see in CAP what happens when normal office politics mixes with the democratic politics.  Especially when the people doing the voting are also the ones who are selecting the electrorate.

I agree that that is a problem, but it is irrelevant to 99% of members.

I don't know of a single "regular" squadron level CAP member who has quit because of political conflicts relating to the NB/Nat Cdr.  No one down at squadron level probably really cares much about who is elected by the NB to be National Commander. The problem is that they have no way to influence who their local squadron commander is and even less influence on who their wing commander is.  The politics that everyone complains about is at that level. 

I agree that the NB and NEC should be 2 bodies. The region cc should not be a member of the NB. The national cc and vc should be nominated by the NB and NEC voted by BoG and approved by the Sec AF or his designated official. I remember a time when we had a 2 star national cc and over 120,000 members. If we had that many members today maybe we would have a 2 star senior advisor.

It seems like CAP runs ok most of the time except for all of the problems we have. I heard that at one point the AF wanted to put CAP under the USDOT. Is that true? I know that in some states CAP works pretty close with the NG and ANG. Long timers I talk to remember fondly the days when CAP was like it was in the 1970s. I know that the AF has budget problems and a war to fight. Is there another reason why we're why we divorced from the AF in the 90's in such a way that the neither the U.S. Govt nor the AF could not see any merrit in reorganizing CAP back to where the AF had a bigger role with running CAP? I only ask because I have seen significant AF interest in what we do and their supervision is very helpful. If things keeps going like they are with Govt spending, the economy and inflation the U.S. Govt really should not expect CAP members to keep shelling out and showing up to serve as things get harder for the members to support themselves. There are a lot of big contributors in CAP that are showing up less and less because of how much it costs them to participate. CAP should be considered more worthy financial support than a lot of programs where discretionary Govt dollars go.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2009, 03:35:47 AM
I agree that that is a problem, but it is irrelevant to 99% of members.

So then, this democratic nonsense you propose is moot?

Quote from: cap235629 on December 22, 2009, 02:28:51 AM
Washington brought Von Stueben in to train the MILITIA as well as the Continental Army.

Yes...I believe that is what I said.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2009, 03:35:47 AM

QuoteWe see in CAP what happens when normal office politics mixes with the democratic politics.  Especially when the people doing the voting are also the ones who are selecting the electorate.

I agree that that is a problem, but it is irrelevant to 99% of members.

I don't know of a single "regular" squadron level CAP member who has quit because of political conflicts relating to the NB/Nat Cdr.  No one down at squadron level probably really cares much about who is elected by the NB to be National Commander. The problem is that they have no way to influence who their local squadron commander is and even less influence on who their wing commander is.  The politics that everyone complains about is at that level.

And voting for the wing and squadron commander will help that?

I would think that it would tear squadrons apart.  Imagine two members vising for the commander spot.  They both carry about half the squadron....One of them wins by 1 vote.   Of course the other candidate and his party just smiles, forgets their differences and bands together with the rest of the squadron for the greater good.  Because we see that happening all the time.

Need I point out what happened in Iowa?  Not only did the looser drop out of CAP...but he poisoned the state legislature and got the funding pulled.

Wait, what happened in Iowa? There were elections in Iowa? I must have lost something in translation, can you expand on it?

Quote from: NCRblues on December 22, 2009, 05:10:36 AM
Wait, what happened in Iowa? There were elections in Iowa? I must have lost something in translation, can you expand on it?

The IAWG had a change of command.  Gen Courter countermanded the Region Commander's pick for the wing commander.

The looser got upset.....burned CAP with the National Guard and the State.....CAP lost a bunch of funding and credibility.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 22, 2009, 05:47:24 AM

Quote from: NCRblues on December 22, 2009, 05:10:36 AM
Wait, what happened in Iowa? There were elections in Iowa? I must have lost something in translation, can you expand on it?

The IAWG had a change of command.  Gen Courter countermanded the Region Commander's pick for the wing commander.

The looser got upset.....burned CAP with the National Guard and the State.....CAP lost a bunch of funding and credibility.

How you are misguided, and very wrong.  CAP/HQ burned that bridge, not the member that left.

Quote from: billford1 on December 22, 2009, 03:51:01 AMI heard that at one point the AF wanted to put CAP under the USDOT. Is that true?

I remember hearing this back around 1993.

Voting for Squadron Commanders is not always a good thing in all units. take my unit. Youwould be hard pressed to find anyone that wants to do it. Plus as was said earlier. we are a small squadron. It would definantly create bad blood among the members.

Our Commanders usually stay in until they get tired of it then they decide toleave and ask who wants it. usually no one volunteers and he has to keep doing it.

QuoteThe IAWG had a change of command.  Gen Courter countermanded the Region Commander's pick for the wing commander.

The looser got upset.....burned CAP with the National Guard and the State.....CAP lost a bunch of funding and credibility.

This is completley incorrect. 

First, The region commander made the selection.  THen he announced his pick, then they schedueled a change of command.  Then the Colonel changed his mind and chose the other candidate.  General Courter stood behind the decisions of her region commander.

Second, The CAP appropriation was pulled durring the legislative session before the wing commander selection was announced.  Its not the role of former members to champion CAP in thestate legislature. 

Third, Credibility has nothing to do with particular members leaving.  No bridges were burned by people leaving.  Relationships were tarnighsed by the professionalism of the organization, its processes, and its leadership. 

CAP still has a seat in the SEOC, and on several committees.  The Wing participates with state agencies in a number of roles. 

Our Squadron Commander has been around for a long time. No one else would step up and pour that much time into what he does for CAP. Our membership feel like if it isn't broke don't fix it. I've seen other squadrons where the Commander was stretched to thin to have enough time to attend. The Squadrons like that often fold.

"There is NO checks and balance.  The NB can do what ever they want no matter how stupid or misguided.  The national command can't make changes because of old guard hold outs from previous adminstations.  The national command does not even get to pick his/her command team...but is forced to accept a vice that is often a political rival and has no desire in seeing the current commander succeed ..."


The above statement is just not true. There are no "old guard holdouts". The current commander has been in office for well over 2 years now.  Almost every member of the NEC has been appointed by her and, about half of the wing commanders were appointed under her tenure. By the time her term ends, she will have selected virtually every member of the NB.  The national commander has selected every member of the "command" team. Yes, the NB has veto power however, that has never been exersised.  The Vice Commander is the only other member of the "team" elected by the NB.  And, thank god for that.  If the vice was "appointed", we would have Dan Levitch as our National Commander now....  Also, the Vice Commander has NO authority other than serving as a member of the BoG, NEC and, NB.  As such, the CV has just as much "power" as any other member of those bodies.  The role of the CV is to get elected 3 times by making friends, helping the subordinate commanders and assisting the National Commander in inforcing the regulations, decisons and policies of the BoG, CAP/CC, NEC and NB.  I really don't care about the personal relationship between the CC and CV. And, what goes on behind closed doors is none of our business. As long as CAP moves forward, I'm happy. 

As for the "unchecked" power of the NB, I will remind our readers that the Board of Governors has ultimate authority to change any and all regulations and policies.  If the NB were to make a decison which would adversly effect the CAP, the BoG would most deffinately intervine. 

As I've stated before; the idea of a National Commander selecting the Vice Commander would be a BIG mistake.  If we want positive change, I would think there should be BoG confirmation of both positions.  I don't think public law would allow for anything else (the BoG can not appoint members to itself).

Quote from: FW on December 22, 2009, 04:25:24 PM
If the vice was "appointed", we would have Dan Levitch as our National Commander now....

This Dan Levitch? (http://old.flwg.us/html/dlevitch.html)

you betcha!  ;D

huh?

Quote from: Major Carrales on December 22, 2009, 03:52:16 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on December 22, 2009, 03:35:47 AM
I agree that that is a problem, but it is irrelevant to 99% of members.

So then, this democratic nonsense you propose is moot?

No. That particular sentence is saying that 99% of our members don't really care about the inherent conflict of interests in the current part of our system that has some democracy since they have absolutely no way to influence it. 

Starting anew – what a concept.

The CG Commadant, in 2006, stated: "Every commander, commanding officer, officer-in-charge, and program manager shall work closely with their Auxiliary counterparts to fully leverage the resources, skills, qualifications, and profound dedication that reside within the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Such focused collaboration is essential to our unwavering commitment to mission excellence in serving and protecting the public trust."

Wouldn't it be nice to have CSAF issue a similar statement about CAP?  How can we work towards developing CAP to the point the AF feels this way about us?  By being professional.

I have done some straw investigation into other non-profits and other cadet organizations.  I have also decided that this would be a great subject on which to write a thesis paper on.  However, so as to not put CAPTalkers to sleep at their computers, here is a brief synopsis of my thoughts, at least at this point & based on the investigation done. 
*** I do realize that CAP's Constitution and Bylaws, as well as 10 USC 9447 would have to be changed.  I am taking Ned's mandate and running along those lines.

   1.  Maintain BoG as is, however have the Chairman always be the highest ranking SECAF appointee & the Vice Chairman will always be the CAP National Commander.
   2.  Maintain the NB in current form, except to add the Chief of Chaplains as a voting member.
   3.  Eliminate the NEC's current functions.  The NEC will only be used when the NB authorizes (by electronic vote) its use for an emergency situation that requires an immediate response.
   4.  The National Commander and Vice-Commander will be selected by the BoG from a pool of 4 candidates selected by the NB.  The BoG members (minus the incumbent N/CC, N/CV) will then select one of the four for CC and one of the four for VC.  The initial term of office will be two years for both, with the BoG renewing their term (individually) of office every two years for up to eight years.  The N/CC will carry the temporary grade of Major General for the initial two year appointment, and if renewed, will have the permanent grade of Major General.  The Vice Commander will have the temporary grade of Brigadier General for the first two years, if they are renewed, they will have the permanent grade of Brigadier General.   After eight years, the person will be required to vacate the position.  The CV may serve the maximum years for that position and still be eligible for CC and length of office.
    5.  The N/CC and N/CV will be full-time, paid positions.  The N/CC will be the liaison point with CAP-USAF CC and will interact with CAP-USAF CC for the good of CAP. 
   6.  The N/CC has full regulatory authority and may enact such regulations as deemed necessary.  The NB could overturn those regulations with a 2/3 vote and may enact any regulations as they see fit.  Uniforms, insignia, logos, and equipment appearance are solely within the venue of the NB.  The N/CC or N/CV may not implement, remove, add, or subtract any of these items. 
  By majority vote, NB will be able to authorize an independent commitee, made up of 1/2 NB members and 1/2 Regional IG officers to investigate the N/CC or N/VC upon an accusation of misconduct.  The NB will review the findings of the committee and have the option of voting "No Confidence" in either the N/CC, N/CV, or both.    In that case, the BoG will imedialy convene an emergency meeting where the NB representives will present the evidence; the person(s) under no confidence preceedings may present evidence on their behalf.  The BoG will determine what, if any, sanctions to take up to and possibly including termination of the person(s).  A person being terminated by the BoG under these circumstances will be stripped of rank and terminated from CAP membership.
   7.  Region Commanders will be appointed by the N/CC and approved by the BoG at the next BoG meeting.  If a Region Commander is appointed, but later not approved by the BoG, the N/CC will provide an alternate name for approval to the BoG.  Region Commanders will be full-time positions with a ten (five if non-paid) year term of office.  Region Commanders may also be involuntarily removed by the N/CC with approval from the BoG at the next scheduled BoG meeting.  If the BoG does not approve of the removal, the Region Commander will be re-instated.  The position of Region Commander will carry with it the temporary grade of Brigadier General.  Upon completion of term, or if the person steps down, they will revert to their permanent grade of Colonel.
   8.  Wing Commanders will be recommended by the Region Commander and approved by the National Commander.  Wing Commanders will be full-time positions for a tenure of ten years (seven if non-paid).  The position of Wing Commander will carry the temporary grade of Colonel for the first two years.  After two years, the rank of Colonel will be considered permanent.  A wing Commander may be removed involuntarily at the recommendation of the Region Commander by the N/CC with approval from the BoG at the next scheduled BoG meeting.  If the BoG does not approve of the removal, the Wing Commander will be re-instated.
 
I put in the full-time part because I think that these positions should be full-time.  However, you can take-out the full time and this would still work.

Now that you are all tired of reading, I have put on my asbestos suit and am ready for responses.  BTW – remember if you come looking for me personally, I am always armed and very paranoid (it's a job requirement).

Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on December 24, 2009, 07:15:13 PM

Wouldn't it be nice to have CSAF issue a similar statement about CAP?  How can we work towards developing CAP to the point the AF feels this way about us?  By being professional.

First.....it does not always work that way.  The CG/CGAUX interface has a lot more overlap in mission and capability than USAF/CAP.

The CG is primarily a SAR and law enforcement agency....the USAF is primarily a combat agency.  That right there creates a barrier where the local commander can't use us for his mission.

1.  I can live with that....remember that this would make the chairman position a "president for life" type deal.
2.  Why?  The chaplains have not command responsibilty...why should they get a vote?  If you add them why not the Chief CP guy or the Chief PAO, Chief, AE, Cheif Dishwasher?
3.  The purpose of the NEC is to stream line operations.  Getting the entire NB together would just slow things up too much and cost a lot more.
4.  If the jobs are to be full time paid postions....why the recommendation and the term limits?  Just hire the two best candidates and be done with it.
5.  !00% agree with!
6.  70% agree with.  Give the N/CC full regulatory authority but the BoG not the NB should have veto power and it should be simple majority.  The IG should work for the BoG. 
7.  Agree...but no term limits.
8.  Agree...but no term limits and just make them a colonel and be done with it.

The whole "such and such can be removed..." is just too complicated.  Hire them to do the job....if they don't fire them.     

So, what if  ihave a great civilan job (lets say airline pilot for a major airline). That means that I can never hold the position of Wing Commander. I am limited to what I can do in CAP. 

Quote from: flyguy06 on December 24, 2009, 10:57:11 PM
So, what if  ihave a great civilan job (lets say airline pilot for a major airline). That means that I can never hold the position of Wing Commander. I am limited to what I can do in CAP.

Yep.

well, thats not fair. What if I aspire to be the national commander someday? I have to quit my job? CAP has run fine with volunteer commanders in the past. why change it?

Quote from: flyguy06 on December 25, 2009, 12:07:19 AM
well, that's not fair. What if I aspire to be the national commander someday? I have to quit my job? CAP has run fine with volunteer commanders in the past. why change it?

To make it better.

While I agree CAP has run fine with volunteer commanders....and would probably continue to do so.  By making our top leaders full time professionals would help in so many ways.

One....we could get leaders who are actually competent to do the job....and not the Best of a field of volunteers who have the time and inclination.

Two...by paying the commanders we control their adherence to the rules.....no more "I'm a volunteer....I don't have to follow the rules".

Three...If the top dog's pay check is dependant on his volunteers following the rules, he is more likely to enforce those standards instead of allowing them to slack off.

Four...If we had full time commanders they will not have divided loyalties.  Their job would be to run CAP.  We can expand their responsibilities to include fostering better relations with our ES partners.  They can become full time fund raisers.  Spending time glad handing with state and city corporations to increase local funding for activities, missions and facilities.

Five...a full time paid wing king looks more "professional" to outside agencies, is able to meet with them on a business schedule and gives us more credibility.

Sooooo, the Commander should work for us? the membership? Then how can he command?

Paying Wing Commanders!?!  With what money?  How much?  As full time or part time?

Too many questions arise from this.  With the money that would go to Wing Commanders (remember each Wing Already has paid staff at headquarters) we could have countless SARex's.  ...or better yet, with that money buy grade insignia for every cadet that gets promoted and send a ribbon for every award.  Outfit several needy units with radios or drop dues down a few dollars.

Sorry, I cannot support the idea.  It sure sounds wonderful, but I don't think it is worth it.  Keep them CAP Volunteers.

Question for the "compensated national commander" model?

How is that different than our current paid executive director?

Could we simply combine the two positions?

Quote from: lordmonar on December 24, 2009, 08:45:38 PM
1.  I can live with that....remember that this would make the chairman position a "president for life" type deal.
2.  Why?  The chaplains have not command responsibilty...why should they get a vote?  If you add them why not the Chief CP guy or the Chief PAO, Chief, AE, Cheif Dishwasher?
3.  The purpose of the NEC is to stream line operations.  Getting the entire NB together would just slow things up too much and cost a lot more.
4.  If the jobs are to be full time paid postions....why the recommendation and the term limits?  Just hire the two best candidates and be done with it.
5.  !00% agree with!
6.  70% agree with.  Give the N/CC full regulatory authority but the BoG not the NB should have veto power and it should be simple majority.  The IG should work for the BoG. 
7.  Agree...but no term limits.
8.  Agree...but no term limits and just make them a colonel and be done with it.

The whole "such and such can be removed..." is just too complicated.  Hire them to do the job....if they don't fire them.     

Lordmonar, thank you for these questions - I didn't want to triple the length of the previous post by providing explanations.
1.  I think the AF appointee should be president for life - but it is a voting body.
2.  Because CD/ML is an important aspect of the program and Chaplains bring a a unique perspective to the table.  Just a personal opinion.
3. NEC confuses things.  In the modern age with email / fax/ cell phones, the NEC is a redundancy that is not needed unless there is an emergency that requires a face-to-face meeting in less than 6 months.  As we have seen, NEC & NB can be competing entities.
4.  Because the head of an agency needs to be replaced after a while to prevent stagnation.
5. Thanks
6.  We need to have a mechanism that checks the N/CC & BoG.  The NB is to represent the members (think like legislature).  It is so we, the volunteers, have a voice.
7, 8 – The term limits again are to prevent staleness.  R/CC & W/CC can be moved around (if full-time employees) and meet the obligation.

Remember, nothing says that someone couldn’t do 10 years as a Wing CC, move up to Region CC, move up to N/CV, then to N/CC.  That would be a 36 year career – not counting the time it took to get to LTC to be eligible for a W/CC job.  And the whole removal mechanism is to ensure we don’t have a repeat of what happened a few years ago.  There is an oversight ability to make sure the N/CC is justified in removing a region or wing commander.

To flyguy06 – You would be eligible when you retire if you wanted a full-time slot.  I wouldn’t want someone to make CAP a right-out-of-college career.  One of the great things of a volunteer agency is the outside experience that our members bring us.  Let’s say that we have an AD person (enlisted at 18) that does 25, gets out at 43.  Been active in CAP and is a LTC.  He could very well get a W/CC slot, move up to R/CC in 5 years, and be nominated for National Command after another 5.  Say he gets N/CC, that’s 8 years, so he is now 61.  No reason he can’t go back to being a Region or Wing CC, with the temp grade of the position.  Or he can stay in CAP, but be a consultant (like oh so many others that retire from positions).

Maj. Carrales – the idea is that we would start with the top and phase-in the lower positions.  The BSA receives very little federal money, yet they employ hundreds of people across the nation.  The full-timers work very hard to raise funds for the organization.  If we had full timers, they can spend a lot of their time (say an average of 4 hours a week) working on fund-raising.  BSA takes in hundreds of millions of dollars through their efforts.  We don’t need that much, but we could do even more if we had people with the time to do it.

Ned - we most certainly could combine the two - as long as the ED position could be performed in addition to the command responsibility.  The N/CC first job is to command, not manage the day-to-day work performed by our NHQ staff.

Adding the "Corporate Officers" as paid employees of CAP would add 6 -7 million or so bucks to our budget.  If we could come up with an income stream to pay for it; why not.  It would make it more attractive to the Air Force; as it would be a potential "post retirement" position for its members.  Second, it would motivate our members to train for leadership positions if they so desired to lead at that level and, Third, like the BSA, they would be motivated to secure an income stream necessary to keep their jobs and keep the organization viable. And, lastly, if our leadership positions are paid professionals, we can hold them to the highest levels of accountability.
The more I think of it, the better it sounds.

I am a member of several 501(c)3 organizations and they all have ful time Executive Directors that run the day to day operations of theorganization and volunteer Presidents (or heads or whatever you want to call them). That just makes since.

Nah, dont like the idea.

Quote from: flyguy06 on December 25, 2009, 07:35:52 PM
I am a member of several 501(c)3 organizations and they all have ful time Executive Directors that run the day to day operations of theorganization and volunteer Presidents (or heads or whatever you want to call them). That just makes since.

Nah, dont like the idea.

That does not make sense for CAP based on our funding and structure. 

There is also an inherency issue at play here, we already have people being paid to run the day to day operations of Wings, Regions and National.

It would likely cost millions to pay all the Wing, Region and National volunteer staff.  Millions we don't have or, if we do, could better be spent elsewhere. 

Quote from: Ned on December 25, 2009, 03:27:05 PM
Question for the "compensated national commander" model?

How is that different than our current paid executive director?

Could we simply combine the two positions?

Why would we need two such people?  Would that not be the same as the woes we have seen with the NEC and NB?

It seems, that in trying to reinvent the wheel...at ALL COSTS...people are failing to remember the reasons for the reinvention.  You know, to streamline operations.  Thus calling into question the entire need for a change. 

Don't place the cart before the horse every time just because it seems to further your personal model for how CAP should work. 

The new employees would be tasked to RAISE FUNDS....that would pay for themselves.

Things would be stream lined...because all the politics would be eliminated.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 25, 2009, 08:55:13 PM
The new employees would be tasked to RAISE FUNDS....that would pay for themselves.

Things would be stream lined...because all the politics would be eliminated.

Really?  And unicorns and pixies will reach the purple sky at night.

Are you actually suggesting that your paid Wing Commanders would have to raise money for themselves?  That is akin to political "warchesting" at best and distracting lack of focus at best.  When are they supposed to raise this money?  When they are on "duty?"  And, since we are paying them to run a Wing, aren't they on duty 24/7...after all, aircraft crash at night too you know.  Do we also pay the Wing Vice-Commander, so he can fill in?  How about Group and Squadron Commanders? 

I can see it now...SUPPORT THE CIVIL AIR PATROL, USAF AUX bake sale.  HELP PAY OUR LEADERSHIP today...have a brownie!!!

Politics eliminated?  You actually think that inserting "money" into the mix would eliminate politics?

I am going to assume your last post was sarcasm.

The Boy Scouts, Salvation Army and Red Cross do this all the time.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 25, 2009, 09:30:37 PM
The Boy Scouts, Salvation Army and Red Cross do this all the time.

The Boy Scouts and the Salvation Army also have religious elements are part of their programs, "The Scout Oath: On my honor I will do my best, To do my duty to God and my country, and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight."  and who could forget that "a scout is reverent." Should we also apply that to CAP.  I can see it now... "I pledge to serve MY GOD and NATION, faithfully in the Civil Air Patrol cadet program and to attend meetings regularly, attend MY CHURCH attentively, participate in unit activities, obey my officers wear my uniform properly, and advance my education and training rapidly to be of service to my community, state, CHURCH and nation so that the LORD may BLESS and KEEP us."

The Salvation Army is an international movement with evangelical overtones and part of the "universal" Christian Church. It has a quasi-military structure and was founded in 1865 in Britain.

Shall we also adopt that because it works for them so well?

The fact I am illustrating above is that just because something works well for other organizations; be it religious, financial or the like, does not necessary make it "good for CAP."

In fact, to prove that that is a specious argument, let me reverse the tables. 

I would go as far as to say that our model should be imposed on them.  It would free up monies for use in other sectors.  How can the Salvation Army claim to be a Christian organization , for example, if some of them get paid?  Ananias and Sapphira were indeed struck down by God for "holding out," should not they?  Thus, unpaid staff, like the Civil Air Patrol model should be applied.  After all, it works for us...and will save them from the fires of [darn]ation.

As for the Scouts...since "a Scout is Thrifty," should not the organization be as well?

While we are at it...and since RiverAux loves to do this.  Shouldn't the Coast Guard Auxiliary have a rank structure like CAP?  After all, they are the Coast Guard Auxiliary and it gets confusing trying to see who is what.  They should also follow our Corporate Structure as an Auxiliary of one of the Uniformed Services.  They should be allowed only polo shirts, since who needs all that protocol and they might get mistaken for a Coast Guard...or worse yet...US Naval Officer from a Different time period....perhaps even...THE FUTURE!!!

The above, of course, is completely ridiculous (and I do not believe in it)...but that is how I see the constant "They do it better than we, because we are CAP" paradigm.

Obviously if CAP didn't invent it, it isn't worth considering. 

In all honesty there is no need for all this.  The status quo is not all that bad as you all make it out to be.

If people simply followed the established policies discussions like this one would be moot and unnecessary.

And, yes, I do get frustrated with this idea that "everyone else does it better because we are CAP and we suck." Ours works...only people keep diviating from the establsihed policies in everything from uniforms to the actions of leadership.

In all those such occasions they were wrong no matter the outcome, be it positive or negative.

Quote from: Major Carrales on December 25, 2009, 08:45:23 PM

Quote from: flyguy06 on December 25, 2009, 07:35:52 PM
I am a member of several 501(c)3 organizations and they all have ful time Executive Directors that run the day to day operations of theorganization and volunteer Presidents (or heads or whatever you want to call them). That just makes since.

Nah, dont like the idea.

That does not make sense for CAP based on our funding and structure. 

There is also an inherency issue at play here, we already have people being paid to run the day to day operations of Wings, Regions and National.

It would likely cost millions to pay all the Wing, Region and National volunteer staff.  Millions we don't have or, if we do, could better be spent elsewhere.

I said that I agree with you. I dont like the idea. I have been spending the day with my family ceebrating Christmas today.

Quote from: flyguy06 on December 26, 2009, 03:09:21 AM

Quote from: Major Carrales on December 25, 2009, 08:45:23 PM

Quote from: flyguy06 on December 25, 2009, 07:35:52 PM
I am a member of several 501(c)3 organizations and they all have ful time Executive Directors that run the day to day operations of theorganization and volunteer Presidents (or heads or whatever you want to call them). That just makes since.

Nah, dont like the idea.

That does not make sense for CAP based on our funding and structure. 

There is also an inherency issue at play here, we already have people being paid to run the day to day operations of Wings, Regions and National.

It would likely cost millions to pay all the Wing, Region and National volunteer staff.  Millions we don't have or, if we do, could better be spent elsewhere.

I said that I agree with you. I dont like the idea. I have been spending the day with my family ceebrating Christmas today.

Merry Christmas...I was merely "piggy backing" your post.

In some respects, I would rather see CAP adopt some of the Coast Guard Auxiliary model. I'd like to see the funding side (the corporation) split away as a not-for-profit fundraising type of foundation and the line side run more like a military organization. Volunteer fire departments run this way.

Politics are in everything and electing officers is a good thing, but politics have ruined this origainzation. There needs to be greater accountability (by the Air Force) placed on CAP leadership.

Therefore, I'm in favor of  commander's and staff officers being boarded for selected for an assignment based on their merits and not who they know. I believe the Board of Governors needs to take a more active role and I think there needs to be a better alignment between the CAP as the Air Force Auxiliary and its parent service.

The thread got de-railed for a moment about funding.  In my original proposal, I showed that funding was optional.  The changes I proposed - in accordance withh Ned's original post of throwing out the book and "How should CAP be governed?" could be implemented with funding as-is currently. 

Obviously, I do believe we should have full-time, paid commanders, but I also understand that it would take a lot of work to implement that.  I think the N/CC should absolutely be the first paid command position, and then work its' way from there.  Again, that doesn't change the basis of the ideas I presented.  I really like what Maj. Carrales had written in another thread (regarding checks & balances specifically), along with others, and threw in a little of my research and flavoring.  Lordmonar addressed each item point by point, which was very interesting and furthered the discussion.  I would love to hear what more have to say along those lines, along with Ned, as he was the original poster.  I'm sure that many others have thoughts and improvements.

Personal Note:  I know that I may appear to be an idealist on these boards, but in actuality I am merely an optimist.  I am always thinking of ways things can be improved upon, for nothing is ever perfect.  (Fortunately that outlook enabled me to obtain a patent and provide a lucrative side job).  I know that the NB is not going to stand up at the next meeting and vote for "St. Pierre's Law," but if I can get somebody that has the power to affect change thinking, well, I am happy.

I think manyof you guys are much more knowledgeable about the inner workings of CAP than I am. You guys get deep into the weeds. I am just a volunteer that wants to make a difference. Many of you have actually sat down and taken time out to read the CAP Constitution and By laws. My time just doesnt permit me to do that. Maybe when i am older and retired I could find the time.


I just enjoy reaing the bantor onthis forum. But wow. you guys get deep with it. The politics, the by laws, the whole nine yards. I can only tell you what goes on at my localmeetings. Now I will bemoving up to wing HQ on Jan 1. I have noticed that it does start getting political at that level. But I will always be a Squadron guy at heart.

Quote from: flyguy06 on December 26, 2009, 06:10:31 PM
I think manyof you guys are much more knowledgeable about the inner workings of CAP than I am. You guys get deep into the weeds. I am just a volunteer that wants to make a difference. Many of you have actually sat down and taken time out to read the CAP Constitution and By laws. My time just doesnt permit me to do that. Maybe when i am older and retired I could find the time.


I just enjoy reaing the bantor onthis forum. But wow. you guys get deep with it. The politics, the by laws, the whole nine yards. I can only tell you what goes on at my localmeetings. Now I will bemoving up to wing HQ on Jan 1. I have noticed that it does start getting political at that level. But I will always be a Squadron guy at heart.

Squadron is where the "rubber meets the road," during the Testingate scandal, I was the only one in my unit even aware of the "goings on" at National because I was actually in Atlanta.  The biggest issue in our unit at the time was preparing for an upcoming SARex.

When that whole affair was over, life went on and the only real difference was that we changed a photograph on the wall.

The point is, for all the hoop-la made here about scandals and big issues, the average CAP Officer, and much more so for cadets, are uninterested in that sort of thing.  The focus is on maintenance of aircraft, training, advancements and the like.  One might argue that that is where the focus should be anyway.

Quote from: Major Carrales on December 26, 2009, 06:16:37 PM

Quote from: flyguy06 on December 26, 2009, 06:10:31 PM
I think manyof you guys are much more knowledgeable about the inner workings of CAP than I am. You guys get deep into the weeds. I am just a volunteer that wants to make a difference. Many of you have actually sat down and taken time out to read the CAP Constitution and By laws. My time just doesnt permit me to do that. Maybe when i am older and retired I could find the time.


I just enjoy reaing the bantor onthis forum. But wow. you guys get deep with it. The politics, the by laws, the whole nine yards. I can only tell you what goes on at my localmeetings. Now I will bemoving up to wing HQ on Jan 1. I have noticed that it does start getting political at that level. But I will always be a Squadron guy at heart.

Squadron is where the "rubber meets the road," during the Testingate scandal, I was the only one in my unit even aware of the "goings on" at National because I was actually in Atlanta.  The biggest issue in our unit at the time was preparing for an upcoming SARex.

When that whole affair was over, life went on and the only real difference was that we changed a photograph on the wall.

The point is, for all the hoop-la made here about scandals and big issues, the average CAP Officer, and much more so for cadets, are uninterested in that sort of thing.  The focus is on maintenance of aircraft, training, advancements and the like.  One might argue that that is where the focus should be anyway.

I very much agree with you. the average member doesnt care about all the stuff up at National. Its what you said: the Sarex,the O rides, the encampments that is on their radar scope.

Quote from: flyguy06 on December 26, 2009, 06:22:21 PM
I very much agree with you. the average member doesnt care about all the stuff up at National. Its what you said: the Sarex,the O rides, the encampments that is on their radar scope.

Members not caring about all the stuff up at National just might be why we're in this mess (CSU, questionable vehicle purchase, etc.) in the first place.

Quote from: NC Hokie on December 26, 2009, 09:44:00 PM

Quote from: flyguy06 on December 26, 2009, 06:22:21 PM
I very much agree with you. the average member doesnt care about all the stuff up at National. Its what you said: the Sarex,the O rides, the encampments that is on their radar scope.

Members not caring about all the stuff up at National just might be why we're in this mess (CSU, questionable vehicle purchase, etc.) in the first place.

Which is why I have been maintaining that "radical" change of the type that has been proposed will not address the plethora issues that arise.

The fact is, the average CAP officer (or squadron commander for that matter) can only effect change and be affected by matters that occur at or near their sphere of influence.  Most units, unless somehow incurring the wrath of a Wing Commander, are never once visited by said officer nor have any dealings with said officer unless it is some unpopular policy move...to which the response is simply to vote with one's feet.

For some CAP Officers, the focus is on flying missions, organizing/facilitating Cadet Activities and filing required reports and might be hard pressed to name the Region or even National Commander. 

Not everyone is as connected as CAPTALK readers are...and, what's more, most do not wish to be with some citing CAPTALK as a larger threat than a rouge National Commander.  At least, they as  have told me, the National Commander can be fired...whereas the "rumor mills," producing as much "misinformation" and information, are endless.

Quote from: NC Hokie on December 26, 2009, 09:44:00 PM

Quote from: flyguy06 on December 26, 2009, 06:22:21 PM

Members not caring about all the stuff up at National just might be why we're in this mess (CSU, questionable vehicle purchase, etc.) in the first place.

I wouldn't blame the the guy or gal at the grassroots for the "TPU" or the problems with that National Commander, those are the ones who were the true victims in this mess. Most don't have a clue about the politics behind this origanization. At the same time, while this is a great forum for ideas and insight, the bottom line is that we are powerless to effect change.

I understand what you ar trying to say Major Carrales.....but the purpose of THIS thead is to come up with pipe dream ideas....not to solve any major isssues.

I think a the basic level...CAP does okay.....it could do better but it does okay.

By professionalizing (paying) wing/region/national commanders we could reap a lot of benifits.

We would eliminate the worst of the political BS that gives CAP a bad name.  We would have people working 5 days a week on CAP issues at the wing level.

The wing adminstrators and Executive Director have done a pretty good job....but they only handle the day to day paperwork.  They are not there to establish relationships with our ES partners.  They are not there to gland hand with sources of funding.  They are not there to visit subordniate units and make sure they are doing their jobs.

Sure it will cost a lot of money.
Sure it will not elminate all the political GOB BS.
Sure it would put a stop to some peoples dreams of being in charge.

But there will still be a lot of thing volunteers can do at wing/region/national level.
We will reap the benifit of full time local (state level) support for our opertions.
We can hire the best person for the job.....even if they are from out of state.....no more settleing for just who ever has time to do the job.

Quote from: flyboy1 on December 26, 2009, 10:22:22 PM

Quote from: NC Hokie on December 26, 2009, 09:44:00 PM

Quote from: flyguy06 on December 26, 2009, 06:22:21 PM

Members not caring about all the stuff up at National just might be why we're in this mess (CSU, questionable vehicle purchase, etc.) in the first place.

I wouldn't blame the the guy or gal at the grassroots for the "TPU" or the problems with that National Commander, those are the ones who were the true victims in this mess. Most don't have a clue about the politics behind this origanization. At the same time, while this is a great forum for ideas and insight, the bottom line is that we are powerless to effect change.

I didn't mean to imply that the guy at the meeting was the one at fault.  The current system fosters an "I don't care" attitude at the lowest levels due to a lack of accountability and the difficulty in getting our voices heard at anything above the next level (group, wing, etc.).  Until these factors change, the guy at the meeting has no incentive to care about anything BUT his local squadron.

Quote from: flyguy06 on December 26, 2009, 06:10:31 PM
I think manyof you guys are much more knowledgeable about the inner workings of CAP than I am. You guys get deep into the weeds. I am just a volunteer that wants to make a difference. Many of you have actually sat down and taken time out to read the CAP Constitution and By laws. My time just doesnt permit me to do that. Maybe when i am older and retired I could find the time.

That's interesting. I read them the first time as a cadet, and subsequently when turning SM, and upon reaffiliating after lapses in participation. They are a bit dry, but provide groundwork for everything else we do. Now that you be on wing staff, you should have an even better understanding of what's in there.

YMMV.

When I say "they don't care", I dint mean it in a malass way. I mean that we have other priorities in our lives. For me anyway and for most in my squadron. CAP is something we do when we have the time to do it. Many members have families, jobs, and other commitments. Sure the enjoy CAP, but its not their life. If they have spouses and kids and a mortgage, CAP is probably down there on the list of priorities to worry about. We don't have time to worry about all the scandals happening at wing and national. We just want to enjoy the organization. It wasn't until I started coming here that I actually looked at the agenda for NB meetings. b4,I never really thought about it. There is only one other member in my squadron that actually looks at this stuff. Heck, my commander doesn't even know about most of this stuff. I guarantee my squadron commander does not know who the Region Commander is. He knows the wing and national commander though. I had to tell him when we got a new National Commander. he doesn't keep up with that stuff. and neither do most of our members. They dint keep up with when NB or NEC meetings are or whats on the agenda for said meetings. that's not really our lane. I mean to say it bluntly, we have other priorities in our lives. like feeding our kids and paying the mortgage and keeping our job.

Its not that we dint think these things are important but you have to put it in perspective. I probably spend $2000 a year doing CAP stuff. but its stuff that affect my immediate environment. I drive cadets to O rides and other activities. I drive to SARex's, I fly the CAP planes. These things I enjoy spending my time with because I see the end results right away. Worrying about whats agenda number 5 on the NB agenda isn't something I can effect. 

Sure,I have thought about holding a postion that would put me on the NB (maybe) but that is wayyyyyy in the future. I wouldn't even consider it unless my civilian life gave me the time. so right now I worry aboutwhat I can effect. And that is at the local level.

Guys,

Topic please.

Here's a question to help:

In a non-profit corporation of our size (<200 employees, 55, 000 members, $30 (?) million budget) how big should the board of directors be?

What is the optimum number for good governance?  Larger boards allow for more direct representation of members and stakeholders, additional input and outside life experience from board members, etc.  Smaller boards are more agile and efficient.

From the CAP context, the use of commanders plus a few HQ staffers as the NB is largely a historical accident.  After all, why should the NDWG commander have exactly the same power and influence as the CAWG commander? 

Just in terms of "best practices" in the nonprofit world, what is the ideal board size?

I think the BoG should have 15 people on it.

The Chairman appointed by SAF
National CC as CEO--selected by the board
National Director as CFO--selcted by the board
8 Members representing the 8 regions
4 Member representing SAF

Agree. Do you realize that you've put an Air Force officer back at the helm (if appointed by the SAF)?  You do realize that from the Air Force's perspective, the comander of CAP-USAF, is the program manger? I wonder if the answer was to give him more power? I wonder if that would heal a lot of things.

Also you have moved most of the NEC to the BoG.

Quote from: BillB on December 27, 2009, 04:02:25 PM
Also you have moved most of the NEC to the BoG.

I'm sorry I was not clear.

The BoG reps are eleceted by the members of the region.  The NB and NEC disappear and the return to being Regional and Wing Commanders.

Top down leadership.

SECAF would not be required to appoint an active duty or retired USAF member as CAP BOG Chair...could be a former legislator, someone from education or aerospace community, even a distinguished CAP member (not serving as a commander or corporate officer simultaneously).

However: BOG's purpose, as I understand it, is oversight and policy in the broadest sense -- still need day to day senior level decision making.

I may have said this previously:

CAP operating board should be a modified version of NEC:

Nat'l CC, CV, CS
8 region CCs
CAP-USAF CC (advisor/non-voting)
CAP Exec Director (secretary/non-voting)

11 voting members, selected thus:
Nat'l CC: selected by BOG from list of 3 officers (present/former wing or region CCs) submitted  by CAP NB (new style); approved by SECAF

Nat'l CV & CS -- nominated by Nat'l CC, confirmed by BOG

Region CCs -- nominated by Nat'l CC, confirmed by BOG

*******************************************************
Wing CCs -- still corporate officers, not board members; nominated by region CC with concurrence of USAF region LR CC; confirmed by CAP Nat'l Board.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on December 27, 2009, 07:09:29 PM
CAP operating board should be a modified version of NEC:

Nat'l CC, CV, CS
8 region CCs
CAP-USAF CC (advisor/non-voting)
CAP Exec Director (secretary/non-voting)

11 voting members,

Out of curiosity, why would the CV and CS have voting rights?  As the only two "non-commanders" on the board, they seem the "odd man out" so to speak.  Sure, they undoubtedly bring wisdom and experience to the board, but why these two?

Not criticizing, just trying to understand . . . .

Quote from: lordmonar on December 27, 2009, 03:45:43 AM
I think the BoG should have 15 people on it.

The Chairman appointed by SAF
National CC as CEO--selected by the board
National Director as CFO--selcted by the board
8 Members representing the 8 regions
4 Member representing SAF

One governing board only -- I think it is important to have at least the same number of "outside" board members as "insiders", to include the requirement of having some pure civilians (not high ranking retired military generals) also on the board with significant experience in the aerospace industry as well as non profit volunteer organization management.  The Commander CAP-USAF should also have a specific advisory role, as well as the Exceutive Director of CAP.  Oher corporate officers could also be utilized as functional expert advisors to the board
Additionally, Each region commander would have a separate regional advisory board, consisting of the wing commanders within each region, that would be asked to comment/vote on proposed policy changes and there regional commanders would be required to present the results of their voting within each region.
Having three boards right now, really slows down the process significantly.
RM

Quote from: Ned on December 27, 2009, 08:07:31 PM
Not criticizing, just trying to understand . . . .

Feel free to criticize, that is where proposed programs are returned to the realm of reality.

This is also a reply to Major Harris' post of a few back.

Yes, these are "pipe dreams," but if they are to be of any use to us for any purpose, they must be tempered by Devil's Advocacy and "opposing view."  That is the true purpose of the "other side," not merely to behave as "democrats" and "republicans" holding up "agendas," but to run the proposal through the metaphorical wringer so we can have more than just a "pipe dream."

That is why I try to burst the "bubbles" y'all blow for us.  Because, when the time comes, there will be an un-burstable bubble that will work for all of us.  Until then, feel free to criticize, smash, logically berate and hammer these proposals until all there is left is the shatterproof.

I know the idea of actually running or implementing the programs y'all present is not as easy as walking the primrose path...is not the implementation of any of this the objective?  If not its a waste of time, as was once told to me about designing uniforms, better spent "organizing a shadow box."  (to quote someone who felt it necessary  to use that insulting reference to me)

Quote from: Ned on December 27, 2009, 08:07:31 PM

Quote from: ZigZag911 on December 27, 2009, 07:09:29 PM
CAP operating board should be a modified version of NEC:

Nat'l CC, CV, CS
8 region CCs
CAP-USAF CC (advisor/non-voting)
CAP Exec Director (secretary/non-voting)

11 voting members,

Out of curiosity, why would the CV and CS have voting rights?  As the only two "non-commanders" on the board, they seem the "odd man out" so to speak.  Sure, they undoubtedly bring wisdom and experience to the board, but why these two?

Not criticizing, just trying to understand . . . .

Just what you said, 'wisdom & experience', since it's likely these officers would have served as region or at least wing CCs previously...to make sure that there is a core of board members whose job it is to look at the 'big picture'.