CAPR 35-7, Para. 3

[RayHayden]

CAPR 35-7, Para. 3 located here:

http://level2.cap.gov/documents/u_082203095351.pdf

A very short regulation, but one that has not been followed yet to date. The 45 days is far past due and no one got to vote at the National Meeting, despite the BoG asking for the report from Col Shupe.

Col Shupe told me about the BoG request himself, on the phone during the meeting.

Oh, it seems that the defensive shield was well established before the BoG convened. To paraphrase the Emperor in EP VI.

[Galahad]

"You don't understand the power of the DARK SIDE.  I must obey my master."   

[JohnKachenmeister]

45 days is not a reasonable time frame to conduct an investigation.  An investigation by an IG of this scope will take 6-9 months to do properly.

[JohnKachenmeister]

You know, I've never read this regulation before.  It never before (and does not now) pertain to me.  But one thing sort of jumps out at me.

There is NO provision for a hearing. 

If I follow the regulation, the National Legal Officer is notified that the Natl. CC has committed a bad act.  The NLO then has 45 days to investigate and determine

1.  If probable cause exists to believe that such bad acts occured and that the Ntl CC did them.

2.  That the acts are of such gravity as to warrant removal, and

3.  That there are "Some facts" to support the allegation.

Now where and when does the Natl. CC have the right to confront witnesses, to present a defense, and to call witnesses in his favor?  Who represents the Natl CC, and where in this regulation does it say he is entitled to representation?

It looks like this regulation may not be fully in keeping with the letter and spirit of the protections offered by the 14th Amendment.

[Mrs. Lisa Hayden]

45 days is not a reasonable time frame to conduct an investigation.  An investigation by an IG of this scope will take 6-9 months to do properly.

From the locked thread CAWG CC Fired:

"NHQ gave Col Nelson a deadline to get things done and that process was underway. TP called her today, before the deadline, and fired her."

I guess TP can be too strict with some deadlines and loose with others.  I don't disagree that 45 days is very quick to investigate any accusation, especially when dealing with volunteers who are taking unpaid time out of their lives to conduct it, but wasn't the CAWG CC a volunteer also?

It seems that 6-9 months is plenty of time for TP to stack the deck in his favor if voting ever takes place.

[DNall]

I got legitimate complaints with that system... This is a probable cause investigtion that the reg refers to that would then proceed to the "trial phase" before the NB. However, it's a poorly considered possibility that doesn't seem to allow time for the full investigation between those points & which leaves far too much authority with the legal officer who is under the command of the Nat/CC. Plus it requires immedately informing the charged CC or VC where they just voted down the idea that members should be informed when they are under investigation.

Now for reality... I don't know if you filed a formal complaint, did so correctly, and had standing to do so when you did it. We'll assum ethat was correct though & invoked this reg.

My understanding is an investigation did begin. You stated from the begining that you had no evidence - physical, circumstantial, or corroberating - with which a formal charge could proceed. It would be difficult for a prosecutor to establish sufficient probably cause to proceed on those grounds.

What none of us know is what has happened behind the scenes. Maybe the legal officer determined insufficent evidence exists, then emailed NB members asking if they wanted to call a special session to consider the matter or if they'd simply like an update at the regular meeting, which needent have been formally done in open session, and in fact would not have been in open session. The board at either of those poitns could have decided to table the matter for further investigation.

My further understanding is that the AF is investigating, and that puts the CAP process on hold it not set aside pending the outcome. You can't have CAP digging around & interfereing with the AF investigation.

All of these details have developed since the last BoG meeting, and oh by the way the BoG doesn't have direct jurisdiction in this matter (only secondary), CAP-USAF has lead on a matter regarding control of an AFIADL test. BoG could only excercise oversight of the CAP proceedure independent of the facts of the case.

On the whole, I'd say for about the fifth time now, you have no business discussing an ongoing investigation in public, or frankly in private either. You can maintain contact with the investigators, and/or proceed with legal counsel, but you are continually harming your own case every time you pop your head up out of the hole. I'd advise you again in the strongest terms to drop it around here & let the system work for better or worse. I don't personally care to see your personal politics against individuals play out on a stage that's harmful to CAP & the AF.

[ADCAPer]

45 days is not a reasonable time frame to conduct an investigation. 

As much as it pains me to say this, I believe that this is an instance of a regulation that probably isn't worth the electronic paper it's printed on.

Article XV of the Constitution addresses "Corporate Officer Suspension and Removal", and it has no time frame listed.

[RayHayden]

CAPR 35-7 basically states:

The event is brought to the National Legal Officer, Done in 2006!

National Legal Officer, within 45 days (time has long expired), gives the evidence or lack of to the National Board.

If the National Legal Officer thinks there IS CAUSE, they suspend the National CC and the issue is decided by the National Board.

If the National Legal Officer thinks there IS NO CAUSE, they STILL HAVE to report to the National Board in way of providing ballots to the National Board who will in fact decide whether or not to get together and vote to remove the National CC anyway, see – it matters not at this point, the ballots MUST go out to the National Board – they must return them within 5 days, and if 50% of the Board votes to get together, then 45 days later, they do so and then it still takes 2/3's of them to vote out the National CC...

OK, the layman terms of the regulation are above, but lets recall WHO the National Board is, by Regulation,

a)   National CC
b)   Senior Air Force Advisor (CAP-USAF/CC)
c)   National Vice CC
d)   National CoS
e)   National Legal Officer
f)   National Finance Officer
g)   National Controller
h)   Region CC's
i)   Wing CC's


Now, that ought to be about an automatic 7 votes towards TP's favor, as he directly appointed 5 of these folks and has influence over the 6th, and buddies up as much as possible to the 7th.

With Eight Region CC's, that ought to give TP another eight votes in his favor, or he truly appointed the WRONG people into his playground.

If he successfully manipulated the eight Region CC's as he should have, he should have nearly 100% of the Wing CC's votes in his favor too.

Perhaps NOW some folks might start to see the light about just how near impossible it is to remove the National CC.

That does not make what he has done right; abuse of power is a significant problem that is well publicized.

If I was one to try and stack a deck, and I had been voted down from my first attempt to move on to National Vice Commander, how might I proceed?

The fact is that the wholesale terminations and voluntary resignations along with the not so voluntary reassignments of the past two years can be directly tracked to those being put in position to protect TP rather than vote against him in such an action... for this, we can thank Col. Albano who signed this regulation into being, now, I can only wonder why.

[LtCol White]

You know, I've never read this regulation before.  It never before (and does not now) pertain to me.  But one thing sort of jumps out at me.

There is NO provision for a hearing. 

If I follow the regulation, the National Legal Officer is notified that the Natl. CC has committed a bad act.  The NLO then has 45 days to investigate and determine

1.  If probable cause exists to believe that such bad acts occured and that the Ntl CC did them.

2.  That the acts are of such gravity as to warrant removal, and

3.  That there are "Some facts" to support the allegation.

Now where and when does the Natl. CC have the right to confront witnesses, to present a defense, and to call witnesses in his favor?  Who represents the Natl CC, and where in this regulation does it say he is entitled to representation?

It looks like this regulation may not be fully in keeping with the letter and spirit of the protections offered by the 14th Amendment.

Und now u zee how za prozess verks

[DNall]

There's virtually no reason a Nat/CC should be removed before ther term expires. I don't care if you hate them, if they're the most immoral person in CAP, and they are taking the org in a direction that screws us for a decade or more. They got elected, the people voting at the time knew (or should have) what they were getting into, and the game should play out till the term is over. If that CC is too extreme then the next one will likly be both a reactionary choice in the other direction & super weak. That's the process. Work within the system or be quiet & get out! Respectfully.

[BillB]

DNall.....Obviously you have not been involved in the "back room" politics that occur in the Hospitality rooms at the National Board meetings. If you had, you would have seen the politics at work. Keep in mind the "people" you're talking about doing the electing, are usually the same people appointed by someone trying to win the National CC election.
I've been involved in one job or another in three campaigns of someone running for National Commander, one in the 1960's, one in the 70's and one in the 2000's. When I say campaign, I really mean a campaign to win nomination and election. This may include promises made, and usually involves the spending of lots of personal funds for food drinks small gifts etc.
The only thing missing is input from the field. But the way CAP operates, this would be counter productive to let members vote for the various corporate officer positions. While the system we have may not be perfect, it's as good as can be expected in an organization as diverse as CAP nationally.
Back to your viewpoint, if a Squadron Commander can be removed for violating a regulation or policy, why can't any member of the National Board including National Commander be removed. But there has to be evidence that the regulation was broken or the policy vilated intentionaly and the Commander should have the same rights to a hearing as any other member of CAP regardless of 35-7.

[DNall]

Oh I know exactly how it works, but that's no excuse. The people that voted him in had the responsiblity to ensure quality of command & we (via core values) have to respect that decision for better or worse. I very well know that people push others out of the way to get what they want, and that's BS, but you can't delegate the blame cause it's expedient.

Theoretically the way it works is you get all that back room wrangling & compromise, but the acceptable choices you're fighting between are still within the range of what they wanted. If a NB member did not believe that at the time, then they voted on some seriously immoral principles. Core values requires that we give them the benefit of the doubt that such was not the case.

You want to talk about how it SHOULD be, well I don't think anyone should be elected. I think the Nat CC should be nominated by BoG w/ concurrance of CAP-USAF, & confirmed by SAF... linear chain of command. I don't think member input is necessary. I don't want leaders that will pander to short sighted member demands rather than the long-term trajectory of the org. That's not to say member input is a bad thing, but it should be thru a member elected advisor to those governing bodies (1Sgt/CAC like system), otherwise this gets out of control fast.

[RayHayden]

Oh I know exactly how it works,

Oh, do you? Honestly, do you? I was there, where you? If so, that's odd that I did not see you there.

we (via core values) have to respect that decision for better or worse.

Do we? really, as VOLUNTEERS, in a volunteer corporation, do we really "have" to "respect" that?

I very well know that people push others out of the way to get what they want, and that's BS, but you can't delegate the blame cause it's expedient.

Did you read what you wrote?

Theoretically the way it works is you get all that back room wrangling & compromise, but the acceptable choices you're fighting between are still within the range of what they wanted. If a NB member did not believe that at the time, then they voted on some seriously immoral principles. Core values requires that we give them the benefit of the doubt that such was not the case.

Seriously, please - read what you wrote and seriously consider it again.

And for the record, my discussions are SOLELY about the "LEADERSHIP" from Wing level upwards... this level, CAP Corporate Officers, REALLY needs to be reworked. For the most part, most Groups and Units are fine - and the unit is where the rubber meets the road.

This subject is about how wonderfully difficult a former National Commander made it to remove himself and those who followed him. I do believe that if CAP-USAF had the stones, it would be a matter of him simply leaving quietly with no further problems - his cronies would leave with him. But the vacuum of "leadership" would have to be filled by someone in all those corrupted positions...

With the limitless terms that they just voted in for Wing and Region CC's, it will be that much tougher to remove anyone - unless, the CAP-USAF does what must be done... does not hesitate, shows mo mercy.

[DNall]

Grow up!!! And spend some time in those PD & PME courses reviewing what core values mean.

Joining this organization is volunteering to accept obligations greater than the general public. You are not then free to pick & choose when you'll live up to that obligation. You volunteer to join & you volunteer to leave, otherwise you are obligated, at least morally, to adhere at least to the stated meaning of the core values. Which is what i stated, paraphrased from the same material you are supposed to be an expert in. Your lack of understanding makes it suddenly so much more clear how such an lapse could have occurred, and that's troubling to think we allow people like that to rise in our organization, or that we even tolerate them in our midst.

When you get done with core values, I'd strongly encourage you to spend some time learning what the word professionalism means.

Let me again strongly encourage you to seek legal counsel, and follow that advice with regard to your traffic here & elsewhere. When you open your mouth like this it harms your case, it further entrenches the opposition, and it makes it ultimately more difficult to reform the organization. Cooperate with the investigators & go in peace. It's not that hard.

[ZigZag911]

While the system we have may not be perfect, it's as good as can be expected in an organization as diverse as CAP nationally.

I believe it could be improved by introducing some checks and balances into the system:

1) there is already a regulation 'suggesting' qualifications for Wing CCs....there ought to be an addition to this reg offering criteria for Region CC appointment, and also for service as National CC, CV, CS, or the other NEC National level posts....these should be minimum requirements to hold/run for the office, and should be observed strictly.

2) there ought to be some USAF/BOG input -- either vetting candidates prior to the election being held, or approving elections and appointments (right down to Wing CC level).

The current system needs to be made more transparent, and have some basis on objective merit and experience (here I'm referring to Wing CC appointments of the past year or two).

[SAR-EMT1]

I know nothing of the situation involving you Mr Hayden, and I mean no disrespect when I say I disdain infighting of any sort in any organization.
However I am a military sort who believes that when one volunteers for an organization such as ours, we promise to give up some things and adhere to others. - Same as any servicemember gives up civil liberties for the UCMJ.
Just my honest two cents.
- I will now attempt to leave this thread-

[RayHayden]

seek legal counsel

Are you practicing law without a license?

DNall, you are what we used to refer as "Smart like rock, quick like tree." I am sure your friends on the "short" bus miss you dearly.

[dwb]

DNall, you are what we used to refer as "Smart like rock, quick like tree." I am sure your friends on the "short" bus miss you dearly.

I see you're still the champion of the CAP Core Values... 

[RayHayden]

Newsflash - Hayden takes the bait when fools go fishing.

[Chaplaindon]

As a clergyperson I feel I must seek clarification here.

Mr. Hayden when you wrote to DNall, "I am sure your friends on the "short" bus miss you dearly," was that a reference/comparison of someone to mentally challenged children going to school to learn and to overcome? Are "challenged children" fodder for ridicule?

I pray not.

If it was intended as some sort of a lampooning of children with challenges or physical and/or emotional handicaps (and --again-- I pray that it was merely thoughtless typing) then it has no place being shared.

To my clergy mind such cruelty in words is the same as calling or referring to someone with a racial or religious epithet -- only worse-- as you were apparently applying such acrid derision to defenseless children.

The use of such DISGUSTING and DISTURBING rhetoric is --IMHO-- the most diabolical and dispicable extremity of the freedom of speech and expression. What's next the "N-Word"?

It is wrong. It is ignorant. It is hurtful. And it is conduct unbecoming a human being.

I demand an immediate and humble revocation (with apology) of that needless and thoughtless comment. No CAP political agenda-mongering or rabble-rousing warrants ridiculing children because of birth-defects.