2011 CAP Annual Conference and Winter National Board---NEWS

[ltcmark]

I am getting an early jump on news thread from the Winter Boards.

Here is the link to video stream

http://www.capmembers.com/live/040311_wnb/

[FW]

It's the "2011 CAP Legislative Day and Winter National Board".  Seems there is a typo.  No big deal though; if you wish to go/watch the stream to the "CAP Annual Conference and NB meeting", you need to wait until August.

[NCRblues]

I so wish i could go, but alas i will watch it on my computer while at work...

[Eclipse]

It's the "2011 CAP Legislative Day and Winter National Board".  Seems there is a typo.  No big deal though; if you wish to go/watch the stream to the "CAP Annual Conference and NB meeting", you need to wait until August.

In his defense, that is the subject line of the message NHQ sent out this afternoon, even though the name inside the message was correct.

[ltcmark]

I just re-posted what was sent out.  The information is only as good as what was disseminated by NHQ

[FW]

I know Mark. I'm just having a little fun.  Of all the things we need to worry about in CAP this is the least important....

Thanks for posting the link.

[BillB]

So where is the video of the National Board which was supposed to have started 5 minutes ago?

[CAP Producer]

So where is the video of the National Board which was supposed to have started 5 minutes ago?

Its on now.

[Fubar]

I've seen bits and pieces and here are some random thoughts:

• Col Ward is an excellent speaker.
• Col Ward admitted he had no idea what the Civil Air Patrol was when he was given the CAP-USAF command.
• Col Lee gets mentioned by pretty much every speaker at some point.
• The USAF invited CAP-USAF and CAP commanders to participate in some sort of command level discussion (I missed the particulars - I understood it to be important)
• Maj Gen Courter stated SAR flight hours are way down because we're more efficient in finding aircraft/people. There was no mention of the fact 121.5 isn't monitored by satellite anymore.
• The USAF provided funds out of their budget to purchase new vehicles. This tripled the number of vehicles CAP was able to purchase.
• Brig Gen Carr didn't get the script ahead of time and almost presented himself with an award.

[Spaceman3750]

I've seen bits and pieces and here are some random thoughts:

• Brig Gen Carr didn't get the script ahead of time and almost presented himself with an award.

Given that he's probably in the running for CAP/CC it's not surprising that he would have talked himself up a bit (or a lot). I didn't see it personally but that's what it sounds like.

[Fubar]

Given that he's probably in the running for CAP/CC it's not surprising that he would have talked himself up a bit (or a lot). I didn't see it personally but that's what it sounds like.

Actually he was reading the script given to him. Maj Gen Courter was presenting awards while Brig Gen Carr was reading from a script detailing why the people were getting the awards. Apparently he was unaware he was getting an award himself. The look on his face when he realized his own name was coming up in the script was amusing.

[researchdoc]

While watching this.. Safety presentation was given.. they stated that those watching online could get credit for watching it online....
FOR WHAT?
Which brings up a point.. since I am watching this online, is there any other credit that can be obtained from this?

[davidsinn]

Anybody else having issues streaming it? It is very choppy and loads about every 5-8 seconds so I can't follow what is being said.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

While watching this.. Safety presentation was given.. they stated that those watching online could get credit for watching it online....
FOR WHAT?
Which brings up a point.. since I am watching this online, is there any other credit that can be obtained from this?

Level III requires attendance at a Wing / Region / National Conference. My best guess.

[EMT-83]

Good luck with that!

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

My guess was that was what was implied by the statement. I would not count video peeking as attendance

[NCRblues]

So, they are back from (lunch?) and i have no audio...anyone else with no sound?

[Spaceman3750]

So, they are back from (lunch?) and i have no audio...anyone else with no sound?

Ditto.

[NCRblues]

this is the worst connection i have ever seen in my life.... i have tried different computers, work internet and home internet...

Why does CAP struggle with this every meeting?

[Eclipse]

Having tried to do this myself, I would be willing to guess it is more an issue of the poor / shared internet connection at the convention
center than anything CAP is doing. If they are just plugging into the hotel's system I'm surprised it works at all. Th upchannel on most
of those systems is usually 500k or less and the upstream is what video needs.

You'd generally have to bring in your own high-speed circuit for something like this to work well, and that is $$$

The better solution would be hosting the video on a service that has monster pipes and only needs a "decent" connection, but even then
you need a good upchannel.

[NCRblues]

uh...my feed just clicked in for a few seconds, and they were on item 6....WAA..... how did they get there?

Can anyone with a working feed let us know please?

[MSG Mac]

They seem to be giving Unit Citations for selling Wreaths

[NCRblues]

Now it says..... " The live stream of the 2011 Winter National Board has concluded. 
Thank you for joining us!"

What a joke.... I'm sorry, but its only 4:20pm on the east coast, they could not get anything else done at all today??

And they need to get the stream working properly, i think i seen maybe 30 seconds of it that was not interupted by loading or a complete stop of the stream...

P.S. are they going to *try* and stream tomorrow or not?

[Eclipse]

They seem to be giving Unit Citations for selling Wreaths

Seriously?

[RiverAux]

Did they do any agenda items? 

[NCRblues]

Did they do any agenda items?

I'm not 100% sure, but i think they only did item #6... but i could not see 90% of it, so....

[Smithsonia]

I enjoyed the feed after a while. I treated it like a non sequential bit of Dadaism. People were talking - then there was buffering - and poof - the previous speaker disappeared and a new one materialized. Then there was a question period. Suddenly - POOF - came another officer seemingly to answer the posed question with their name. As in; "when will this new qualification be announced?" - poof - ""Col. Bob Smith - I'm here to present..." If you just let it roll over you - It's a little like the Woody Allen movie - What's Up Tiger Lilly. The lips weren't synced, the answers were scrambled, point of view erratic, the plot interrupted, and fun ensued.

[bosshawk]

Sort of reminds me of an old Army saying:  "Nothing is too good for the troops"  And that is what the troops got:  nothing.

[NCRblues]

I enjoyed the feed after a while. I treated it like a non sequential bit of Dadaism. People were talking - then there was buffering - and poof - the previous speaker disappeared and a new one materialized. Then there was a question period. Suddenly - POOF - came another officer seemingly to answer the posed question with their name. As in; "when will this new qualification be announced?" - poof - ""Col. Bob Smith - I'm here to present..." If you just let it roll over you - It's a little like the Woody Allen movie - What's Up Tiger Lilly. The lips weren't synced, the answers were scrambled, point of view erratic, the plot interrupted, and fun ensued.

You know, i was really looking forword to watching this. I woke up earlyer than normal, clicked on the link, and got progressively more angry ever time it started buffering.

Maybe someone who is a captalker and who is attending *cough* Ned *cough* could let someone know that the feed was a fail of epic proportions....

[a2capt]

Glad to see it wasn't just me. I gave up on it.  But having been on both ends of this kind of setup I concur. The upstream/provided connection is usually to blame.  These hotels spend the least amount of money for anything and charge the maximum premium.

[Spaceman3750]

Maybe next time around 4G will be a bit more prevalent...

[Eclipse]

Maybe next time around 4G will be a bit more prevalent...

Mobile Broadband is not generally a viable option - I know, I use it all the time.

1) as you mention, it is not even remotely ubiquitous - I got 8+ Mbs last Fall in Denver, I was lucky to get .5 last month in Vegas.

b.. most convention centers wreck havoc on cellular signals in general  - high, metal ceilings, and many times in the outskirts of
urban areas make for "no bars".

3) Even 4G has a slow upstream - generally under a Mb, regardless of the downstream pipe, by design.

d. Using your own broadband or internet is more times than not a violation of the convention center or hotel's service agreement(s)
and a lot of them charge uber $$$ for a drop (like $1000+).  Its one thing to tether a phone or use it in your hotel room, and
another to replace their service with a "bring your own".

Not saying it is cricket, just saying it "is".

[PHall]

You need something like a dedicated T-1 circuit to be able to to stream something like this.
They were probably piggybacking on the T-1 that also serves the Hotel's Guest Business Center.
I'm sure if National wanted to drop some serious coin to Verizon they could have gotten their own private T-1 circuit for the weekend.
And there would have been complaints here on CAPTalk about National wasting our dues money...

[NCRblues]

You need something like a dedicated T-1 circuit to be able to to stream something like this.
They were probably piggybacking on the T-1 that also serves the Hotel's Guest Business Center.
I'm sure if National wanted to drop some serious coin to Verizon they could have gotten their own private T-1 circuit for the weekend.
And there would have been complaints here on CAPTalk about National wasting our dues money...

No there would not have been complaints about that... in fact i am more upset that we could not see the majority of the days material, and i was just informed they will not be streaming tomorrows events. I have already look at the capmemebers web site and they have removed the link to the streaming video...

Anyone got any idea why they would not be streaming the remainder of the NB meeting??

[cap235629]

You need something like a dedicated T-1 circuit to be able to to stream something like this.
They were probably piggybacking on the T-1 that also serves the Hotel's Guest Business Center.
I'm sure if National wanted to drop some serious coin to Verizon they could have gotten their own private T-1 circuit for the weekend.
And there would have been complaints here on CAPTalk about National wasting our dues money...

No there would not have been complaints about that... in fact i am more upset that we could not see the majority of the days material, and i was just informed they will not be streaming tomorrows events. I have already look at the capmemebers web site and they have removed the link to the streaming video...

Anyone got any idea why they would not be streaming the remainder of the NB meeting??

maybe because it wasn't working?

[Ned]

   Maybe someone who is a captalker and who is attending *cough* Ned *cough* could let someone know that the feed was a fail of epic proportions....

Well, I did, of course.  Early this morning after the first few "bad feed" comments were posted.  They checked and rechecked, and everything seemed good at this end.  They even called some of their colleagues at NHQ, who reported that feed looked OK (not perfect, but still very good) off the net in Montgomery.

I'm no net guru, so that's as far as I can take it.

But I'm sure you all remember that if it were up to me, I wouldn't stream the meetings at all - as long as it costs significant amounts of money for the employees, equipment and bandwidth at hotel prices.  I just don't think we get much value for the thousands of dollars it costs to stream it.  We don't have the "viewership numbers" here, but my WAG is that we are talking at most something like 200-300 viewers.  At a cost of $10-30 dollars per viewer.

Money we could have spent on cadet scholarships, NCSAs, o-flights, & training materials.

(Or, to be fair, race cars.    )

I won't be able to post my usual AAR, since I am spending only a few minutes at the meeting each hour.  I am primarily responsible for the NCAC which is meeting in a different room.

Thanks for watching.

[Eclipse]

I'd just as soon as see a nicely edited version posted on the web afterward, or just not bother.

It isn't like seeing the discussions will change anything.

[davidsinn]

I'd just as soon as see a nicely edited version posted on the web afterward, or just not bother.

It isn't like seeing the discussions will change anything.

Yes. One person records it and then edit in the slides after the fact and post to the website within a week. Cheap and works better than the mess we have now.

[RiverAux]

[We don't have the "viewership numbers" here, but my WAG is that we are talking at most something like 200-300 viewers. 

I seem to recall hearing statements made (while watching previous livestreams of course ) that "thousands" of people were watching the feed.  For some reason a figure of 15-16,000 comes to mind, though I am not at all sure of that. 

I'm not sure I'd recommend going down the road to looking at cost per watcher as the cost per actual participant in these events isn't cheap either.  I seem to recall our wing spending 1K+ to send the wing commander to one not that long ago.

[a2capt]

Well, the statistics may show that there are not that many that watch it .. perhaps because it's somewhat of a challenge to watch. So they.. don't.

"Statistics show that this roadway has a high ratio of flat tire occurrences along it". They don't tell you that the road is traveled heavily by construction demolition trucks that drop stuff. One way past the "hotel" issue is to run a reflector server somewhere else and that can even be a static setup that never changes.  Then from the remote/event site the stream only goes there and thats it. Perhaps this is what they are doing now, I've not snooped around past the URL at all.

[researchdoc]

Well... I didn't have any issues.  It was like watching TV actually.. but then again I was on a T1.  It appeared they were using HD cameras.. that is nice, however, it takes a bit more bandwidth.  I would drop the camera resolution a little.. it should help move it down the pipe faster. 
Could be that one of the reasons that the stream attendance is not real big, is that this is during work hours.  I watched it in my office, but still had to contend with phone calls, emails, lab formulations and folks coming in.  It was a good advertisement for folks that came in to see me.  All of them became very interested in what it was all about after seeing it on my screen. 
Another reason could be that a lot of folks are just not that net savvy.... which is a shame, cause Web 2.0 is a great thing!
Just my $.2 worth.

[FW]

We are informed that around 15000 (try) to watch the stream every meeting.  I think it is impressive that so many want to see the action....  even with all the flaws of transmission.

BTW; does anyone even care about what they are doing at the meeting?

[Al Sayre]

Spill it Fred, they ran us all out and went into closed session.

[FW]

Wait till you hear what they are discussing in closed session.  All I will say is that every governance issue we were warned about is true..... 

So far, they requested the BoG change the MARB, establish a conflict of interest policy, and required corporate officers to sign non disclosure agreements. 

Nothing of any consequence....

[NCRblues]

Wait till you hear what they are discussing in closed session.  All I will say is that every governance issue we were warned about is true..... 

So far, they requested the BoG change the MARB, establish a conflict of interest policy, and required corporate officers to sign non disclosure agreements. 

Nothing of any consequence....

Fred, some of us care very very deeply what they are doing at the meeting. I for one would like more information.

[Ned]

There isn't a deliberative body in the world that doesn't have closed sessions from time to time to discuss sensitive issues of internal governance, personnel matters, litigation, etc.

Legislatures, city councils, corporate boards, 501c3 boards, and even . . . our favorite 501c3, CAP.

Remember, if they take any official actinons, it must still be recorded in the minutes.

Nobody gets to pull a fast one.

There is literally nothing to see here.  Move along.

[NCRblues]

There isn't a deliberative body in the world that doesn't have closed sessions from time to time to discuss sensitive issues of internal governance, personnel matters, litigation, etc.

Legislatures, city councils, corporate boards, 501c3 boards, and even . . . our favorite 501c3, CAP.

Remember, if they take any official actinons, it must still be recorded in the minutes.

Nobody gets to pull a fast one.

There is literally nothing to see here.  Move along.

Every dictator in the world has also said the same thing...nothing to see here, move along. Are you going to post the official minutes right after Ned, or are we going to have to wait months like normal to see what they changed?

I have 12 years invested in CAP, the people that I also serve with have 20-30-40 or more years invested, not to mention the cold hard cash we shell out every year for this organization. We want to know whats going on. I don't think that is to much to ask for...

[Westernslope]

Things that have to be discussed behind closed doors and away from the eyes of the dues paying membership cannot be good.

You're right, there is nothing to see because most people in the organization are not being allowed see it.

[arajca]

Personnel issues, legal action report, real estate issues are normally discussed by governing bodies in closed sessions. Not all of these are bad.

Any actions discussed in closed sessions require recording in open sessions to become official.

[Ned]

There are sound legal reasons for closed meetings.  Things like attorney-client privilege require that our attorneys only speak with the cororate officers (and no one else) present when discussing current or potential litigation.

Things like personnel issues - investigations, evaluations and bonuses for our paid employees are private.

Again, there is nothing very new or exciting here.  The Microsoft Board has closed sessions.  So does the American Red Cross.  And, as I pointed out, so does you local city council and Library Board.

This is a mainstream practice literally done by every corporation in the US.

There are no black helicopters here, folks.

Just hard-working volunteer leaders who deserve your respect and the benefit of any doubt regarding their efforts on your behalf.

[NCRblues]

There are sound legal reasons for closed meetings.  Things like attorney-client privilege require that our attorneys only speak with the cororate officers (and no one else) present when discussing current or potential litigation.

Things like personnel issues - investigations, evaluations and bonuses for our paid employees are private.

Again, there is nothing very new or exciting here.  The Microsoft Board has closed sessions.  So does the American Red Cross.  And, as I pointed out, so does you local city council and Library Board.

This is a mainstream practice literally done by every corporation in the US.

There are no black helicopters here, folks.

Just hard-working volunteer leaders who deserve your respect and the benefit of any doubt regarding their efforts on your behalf.

Just like the vast majority of CAP members gave pineda the "benefit of the doubt" Ned? 

If they are discussing governance issue, than it should be open, public and streamed to all of us who pay due's and play the games for those "hard working volunteer leaders"

[James Shaw]

Seems like some folks are looking for problems to exist before any actually happen. Board Meetings are private for certain reasons and speculating about trouble before it happens causes more trouble than its worth.

A solution looking for a problem.

[FW]

Closed sessions have a purpose; as stated by Ned and Jim.  We just need to wait until the NB makes a decision on what they are discussing for it to be public.  I have no idea what the outcome of their discussions will be.  We must be patient.

[NCRblues]

So, its 8pm on the east coast...any updates? Are they out of the closed door meeting? What happened? anyone....anything?

[RiverAux]

Jeez, there are always closed sessions.  Big deal.  Like was said, if it was anything directly affecting most members it would be in the regular open meeting. 

[FW]

I understand the Governance Committee report was rejected (either in total or, in part) by the National Board.  It will still go to the Board of Governors however, for consideration.   

[Mustang]

I understand the Governance Committee report was rejected (either in total or, in part) by the National Board.  It will still go to the Board of Governors however, for consideration.

Now see, THOSE deliberations would've been good to be able to watch.

[clubview1950]

I understand the Governance Committee report was rejected (either in total or, in part) by the National Board.  It will still go to the Board of Governors however, for consideration.

Now see, THOSE deliberations would've been good to be able to watch.

What happended to the big transparency movement.  Governance issues are not personnel issues.  They are issues that have a direct affect on the entire membership and the organization.  Does anyone think it's strange that members were told to sign a confidentiality and non disclosure letter just prior to the closed session.  Someone really wants to keep the working of the NB secret.  We had all better beware...total control behind closed doors is never good.

[a2capt]

It matters not what the intent is, but rather what impression it leaves.
Some might say they are leaving a bad impression with the order of events.
Others say it's SOP like any other organization.

Time will tell, and either way, some will say "I told you so".

[RADIOMAN015]

There are sound legal reasons for closed meetings.  Things like attorney-client privilege require that our attorneys only speak with the cororate officers (and no one else) present when discussing current or potential litigation.

Things like personnel issues - investigations, evaluations and bonuses for our paid employees are private.

Just hard-working volunteer leaders who deserve your respect and the benefit of any doubt regarding their efforts on your behalf.

I think many of us just wonder IF all of the items discussed in executive session really needs to be in a closed session   Especially the report on Governance that was rejected.  Furthermore, I would like to see that on EVERY vote a "recorded" vote of EACH board member be in the minutes, versus the show of hands type activity that now goes on.  Additionally, I would like to see ALL of the boards adopted a specific resolution that any agenda items NOT result in more costs (actual money OR time) to the unpaid volunteers.

Regarding 'deserving' respect -- I would think that subsequent events will determine the respect each will get as determined by each individual member that are entitled to their opinions -- Remember this isn't the military (although I'm guessing there's some on the boards that love to dress us and play make believe military commanders).  The issue really becomes when it is too far out of line what the membership is comfortable with and this is the challenge of any volunteer governing body.  Although realistically it is the Air Force that is going to call the shots on this via the Board of Governors since they are picking up the tab for most of the organization's activities.

I know our wing commander at a CLC presentation basically stated that it is impossible to please everyone (especially on resource allocations), and I do agree with him. 
RM

[keystone102]

While I agree that our governing bodies (BOG, NEC, NB) has legitimate reasons to have closed sessions I don't believe that the issue of how our corporation is governed is one of them. It is a item of interest to all members and is not a personnel issue or attorney-client privilege. 

To me it looks like the Board is hiding a item of vital interest to all of its members. How a nonprofit is governed is something that the members should participate in, even if it is by watching the deliberations over the web so we can let our corporate officers know our opinions (through the chain of command).

[MICT1362]

I know that there are some complaints about what was or wasn't discussed behind closed doors.  But, just for some clarification, these are a few things that are allowed by most laws to be discussed behind closed doors.

(b) No subjects shall be discussed at any closed or executive meeting, except the
following:

(1.) Personnel matters of nonelected personnel;
(2.) consultation with an attorney for the body or agency which would be deemed privileged in the attorney-client relationship;
(3.) matters relating to employer-employee negotiations whether or not in consultation with the representative or representatives of the body or agency;
(4.) confidential data relating to financial affairs or trade secrets of corporations, partnerships, trusts, and individual proprietorships;
(5.) matters relating to actions adversely or favorably affecting a person as a student, patient or resident of a public institution, except that any such person shall have the right to a public hearing if requested by the person;
(6.) preliminary discussions relating to the acquisition of real property
(7.) matters required to be discussed in a closed or executive meeting pursuant to a tribal-state gaming compact; and
(8.) matters relating to the security of a public body or agency, public building or facility or the information system of a public body or agency, if the discussion of such matters at an open meeting would jeopardize the security of such public body, agency, building, facility or information system.

(c) No binding action shall be taken during closed or executive recesses, and such recesses shall not be used as a subterfuge to defeat the purposes of this act.

The bolded section is probably the most important.  Now, once the minutes come out, feel free to scrutinize them for foul play.

Do I agree that we should have spent an entire day in closed session, no.  But, on the same token, it wasn't my call.  For an organization that depends solely on its everyday volunteers to be anything of function, I would think that you wouldn't want to keep a whole lot from them, ever... Just my opinion though.

-Paramedic

[ßτε]

Just because they didn't video stream the rest of the meeting doesn't mean it was a closed session.

[Ned]

See, this is a pretty good example of why a deliberative body might want to meet in closed session to discuss sensitive issues.

Assuming for a moment that governance issues were discussed, you have already seen an interesting phenomena here on CT':  people attempting to spin and improperly manipulate the process right here.

We've has a couple of anonymous newbies come on and breathlessly tell us what was and wasn't discussed.  We have had accusations of "power grabs, "  cute new pejorative nicknames for our senior leaders, and other black helicopter stuff.

By definition, anytime a corporation changes its governance, the "power" will shift.  Indeed, that's kinda the point of a governance change.  And it is fairly predictable that whoever will no longer be exercising a particular "power" will dissemble, spin, and point out the "power grab" by whatever entity will now be exercising the power in question.  Unfortunately, that's just human nature.

So continue to be critical information consumers.  Evaluate the credibility of the posts; watch for ulterior motives, and keep that grain of salt handy.  You're gonna need it.

Ned Lee

[Wild Weasel]

For what it's worth, there's a quote in the SOS literature:

"....leadership is a bond of trust.  Officers must create that bond with subordinates by maintaining standards and, through courage, setting the example.  Troop loyalty is built on trust and respect of the leader; this loyalty is what will set your unit above others, discernable by both morale and motivation of your followers."

This issue might be an example of what can happen if bonds of trust, respect and loyalty are strained between leaders and subordinates.  I trust NHQ is no doubt full of outstanding individuals of highest character and dedication; I err on the side of believing in and supporting my leaders (not blindly, but always professionally).  I also fully understand the actions of some leaders past and present have harmed the bonds of trust & loyalty of some outstanding volunteers.  It will take clear actions, time & courage to reclaim that trust.  I admire those at NHQ trying to do just that. 

Point being, every one of us are leaders at the squadron level.  I'm re-learning how critical it is to maintain USAF/CAP standards in bearing, appearance, attitude and loyalty to superiors...and how my attitude towards leadership influences others.  Governance and power issues will play out.  To me, it's more interesting to learn something about leadership from this debate and apply lessons at my squadron.