Starting Anew -- How Should CAP Be Governed?

[lordmonar]

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.

[ZigZag911]

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.

[flyguy06]

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

[lordmonar]

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.

[flyguy06]

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

[BuckeyeDEJ]

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.

[lordmonar]

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

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.

[Westernslope]

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!

[Westernslope]

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.

[flyguy06]

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.

[RiverAux]

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. 

[flyguy06]

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.

[RiverAux]

Thats 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. 

[flyguy06]

Thats 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,

[Major Carrales]

Thats 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.

[lordmonar]

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.

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.

[Major Carrales]

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.

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

I concur completely with this statement.

[flyguy06]

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.

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.

[NCRblues]

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.

[Major Carrales]

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.