Winter 2008 National Board Agenda

[JohnKachenmeister]

I like the idea of a group-commander awarded achievement medal.  ALL of the RM branches have one, and in the Army it was a very useful award to promptly reward excellent service.

I do NOT like the idea of withholding earned rank from RM folks coming in to our organization pending more PD classes.  These guys have already earned a rank, and making them jump through CAP hoops to get a rank they aalready held will needlessly impair our recruitment of these valuable folks.  We already require them to pick up that which they missed in order to get promoted, so what is the point of this change?

I like the idea of dumping the silver braid for the blue on the TPU, but not for the reasons cited.  Can't we just say that it's ugly?

The new patch is worse then the last one.  Can't we go back to the old one that said "US Air Force Auxiliary?"  I plan to wear mine as long as I can get away with it.  If the PAO in Nevada can show up on National TV with the old round patch on her flight suit, I can keep the old command patch until I lapse into senility.  That's only a few years away, anyhow.

[Psicorp]

Am I the only one who's getting tired of seeing how much new "stuff" people want added to our regulations as opposed to fixing/updating what we already have?

It's just....grr.

[bosshawk]

I know that the majority of the posters on this site don't care for the blue polo shirt, but it appears that somebody on the National Board heard the plaintive cries of folks like me for the long-sleeved blue polo.  I don't wear blues and only wear the white aviator shirt/gray slacks when absolutely driven to it, so my polo shirts get a good workout.  I will encourage my Wing CC to vote for that one.  Don't really care much about the braid and ribbons and the patch comes and goes with the flow of the wind(or so it seems).

[Bluelakes 13]

The new patch is worse then the last one.  Can't we go back to the old one that said "US Air Force Auxiliary?"  I plan to wear mine as long as I can get away with it.  If the PAO in Nevada can show up on National TV with the old round patch on her flight suit, I can keep the old command patch until I lapse into senility.  That's only a few years away, anyhow.

She also had gawdy large earingas the first day.  Are you going to wear those too?

[DNall]

[former mil officers]...have a greater investment in... a CAP officer corps more in tune with the CAP Corporation.

I'm really not sure I like the way that's worded. We bring these folks in at grade for a couple reasons. One of those is to draw the CAP culture closer to a professional military one where things like discipline & core values rule. The other is the massive leadership & mgmt experience they have that can never be matched at any level of CAP.

The justification used in this item talks about these folks missing out on networking opportunities, and being unfamiliar with leading volunteers versus under UCMJ.

It mentions waivers of training based on their military PME. I'm not sure I recall waivers in the reg. I recall a cross-walk of mil courses that exceed the trng provided at the CAP versions & are counted automatically (not at discression) as equiv. The mil courses by the way are far below the mil course level. RSC is taught by NCOA instructors using NCOA & ASBC material. That's 2Lt stuff, not field grade.

I'd note here that non-mil CAP members complete the lower quality distance learning versions of that same PME, bypassing those same networking opportunities, and no one is complaining there. As I recall, that has been long protected because not all members can afford to attend CAP specific courses. That argument doesn't hold any water at all.

I'd also note that there are several simliar & superb courses available from DoD & FEMA on managing & leading volunteers. It seems to me that course would be more helpful than providing a disincentive to membership for people we really need.

Out of respect for the substantial differences between CAP and USAF officers, and to minimize the chances of CAP officers being mistaken for very senior military officers, and in order to foster consistency ("uniformity") in appearance with our own Air Force-style...

I do support blue braid over silver on the alternate service coat, but that sentence makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!!!! In order to distinguish btwn AF officers we want to make the braid consistent w/ AF-style service dress. You gotta be kidding me.


I'm fine with or don't care about anything else in there. It's almost all trivial admin that should never have req'd NB action.

[jimmydeanno]

Just another thing, looking at the "Logging Pilot Hours" item.

It drives me crazy when uniform policy changes are put into other regulations.  If you only want one pair of wings worn, put it in 39-1.

By placing uniform rules in 35 different regs and pubs it can only lead to more confusion later on down the road.  Or when an update needs to be made you need to (according to current practices) get NB approval to change the wording in all those affected regs, rather than just fix 39-1.

To me, 35-6 should state the requirements to earn the badge.  39-1 should tell you how to wear it.  It shouldn't be 35-6 states requirements and how to wear it, 39-1 also states how to wear it.

[RiverAux]

Of course this agenda isn't even posted on eservices yet -- why let the members know what is going on after all.  Heck, they're still 2 national meetings behind in telling us what has already happened.....

From Agenda Item 3 (NIMS)

Staff officers and leaders at all levels have
reported that their units, wings, or regions either already are or will soon be NIMS
compliant.

What a crock of bull.  This makes it seem like we're pretty close when that surely isn't the case in most places.  

Ground Team of the Year award (Agenda item 14)

Ironically, almost half of Civil Air Patrol's emergency services missions in the
last several years did not involve flying operations.

Thats right, you Civil AIR Patrol snobs....

BDU Name tapes (item 18):

At the 2007 Winter National Board meeting, the NB approved the change of the "Civil Air Patrol" tape on the BDU and field jacket to "U.S. Civil Air Patrol". This change has caused problems with cadets of smaller stature, and would seem to be redundant, as CAP is not generally involved in international operations. It is also somewhat confusing as the official name of the organization is defined as "Civil Air Patrol" in Article II of the CAP Constitution.

Ah, sweet vindication for us valiant few who thought that the CAP Constitution should mean something....

[notaNCO forever]

Why can't they make choices that matter and are helpfull instead of just costing us money and boonie hats really just were sunblock.

[DNall]

From Agenda Item 3 (NIMS)

Staff officers and leaders at all levels have
reported that their units, wings, or regions either already are or will soon be NIMS
compliant.

What a crock of bull.  This makes it seem like we're pretty close when that surely isn't the case in most places.  

I notied that as well. If they're just talking 100-800, they're still full of it. Not even close to the credentialing standards that'll actually be necessary (ones we discussed at length last fall) to get on missions:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/sar_jobtitle_111806.pdf

Glad they're moving in the right direction though.

And what's up with 187k for a GT comp? Did I read they're actually considering that? That's a waste in a big way.

[0]

And what's up with 187k for a GT comp? Did I read they're actually considering that? That's a waste in a big way.

Why is a competition a big waste?  It gives us a chance to learn how other people are doing the job at the same time as we try and see who's the best.  A little competition never hurt anyone.

[notaNCO forever]

And what's up with 187k for a GT comp? Did I read they're actually considering that? That's a waste in a big way.

I find GT comp keeps GT's on their top game.

[CASH172]

And what's up with 187k for a GT comp? Did I read they're actually considering that? That's a waste in a big way.

Why is a competition a big waste?  It gives us a chance to learn how other people are doing the job at the same time as we try and see who's the best.  A little competition never hurt anyone.

I think a lot of CAP members feel that the money could be better spent elsewhere.  187K in CAP can go a long way, and many others would use the funds for other needs.

[mikeylikey]

And what's up with 187k for a GT comp? Did I read they're actually considering that? That's a waste in a big way.

Why is a competition a big waste?  It gives us a chance to learn how other people are doing the job at the same time as we try and see who's the best.  A little competition never hurt anyone.

I think a lot of CAP members feel that the money could be better spent elsewhere.  187K in CAP can go a long way, and many others would use the funds for other needs.

That is a HUGE amount of $$.  I just am so upset with most everything that is being proposed in the agenda.

[LittleIronPilot]

And what's up with 187k for a GT comp? Did I read they're actually considering that? That's a waste in a big way.

Why is a competition a big waste?  It gives us a chance to learn how other people are doing the job at the same time as we try and see who's the best.  A little competition never hurt anyone.

I think a lot of CAP members feel that the money could be better spent elsewhere.  187K in CAP can go a long way, and many others would use the funds for other needs.

Such as? I know there are a ton of worthy things...but one thing I have noticed is that Ground training is given a lot of short shrift.

I am a pilot, and am getting my Form 5 and working towards my MP status. However I am also a former ground pounder who sees how much MORE we can do with ground teams.

[sardak]

The proposed competition was incorrectly referred to as a "GT comp" earlier in the thread.  The proposal made to the NB was for a SARCOMP similar to what was held in the 1980s and into the early 90s.  The competion was three separate parts - GT, incident staff and aircrew.  Let's not mistakenly think this proposal is only for a GT competition.

Now, having been on two of those SARCOMPs in the 80s, once on a ground team and once on incident staff, I think they were of little value. 

The FY08 CAP Corporate Financial Plan shows the Ops budget at $85,250.  The estimated cost of the proposed national SARCOMP is $187,000, which, according to the  August NB minutes, could be paid from USAF appropriated funds.  I still give it a thumbs down.

I do like the idea of the proposed ground team and incident staff awards.  However, since the aircrew award is from 1st AF, I think some coordination will be required to make sure the award criteria and "stature" of the awards are more or less equal.

Mike

[SamFranklin]

The discussions above are interesting, but what disappoints me most is that once again 90% of the board's agenda deals with trivia. If you were king of CAP for a day, how many of these issues would you place in your Top 20 challenges?

Here's what one expert has to say about the role of non-profit boards. Do your own research and you'll find this guidance is representative of the industry standard.

---------------------------------------------------------------
"The role of a non-profit board member is comprised of only three activities:

    * Fundraising (80 percent): Fundraising is the most important responsibility of a board member, yet many board members are reluctant to engage in this activity. Board members are expected use their connections to spur interest in and support of the organization they serve. Board fundraising activities may include major donor solicitations, sponsorship solicitations, membership recruitment, and efforts to boost event registrations.

    * Oversight of Programs (10 percent): The non-profit board is responsible for general oversight of the organization's programs. This role does not extend to the operations behind the programs, but does include fiduciary oversight.

    * Strategic Planning (10 percent): The board is the primary force behind the organization's strategic planning decisions. Board members create or update the strategic plan and evaluate the implementation plan presented by staff."

(Source: http://www.idea.org/board.html)
------------------------------------------


We need a board that focuses on their core responsibilities! That said, Gen. Courter's bio shows she has considerable real-world board experience, so I'm rooting for her to transform CAP's way of thinking about the role of its boards.

And now back to the debate about boonie hats, US CAP tapes, and the like.

[RiverAux]

That description is probably more representative of what the Board of Governor's should be doing -- a small group of people at the top of the organization who are generally divorced from the day-to-day responsibilities of running it. 

The National Board is more like a committee of top-level executives within the organzation, each of which has an important role in routine operations. 

[SamFranklin]

^   I agree with you about the BoG. And I think your view of the NB/NEC is representative of the conventional wisdom.  But my larger point here is that CAP continues to struggle precisely because people see the 60+ member National Board as having "an important role in routine operations."  The issues on the agenda hardly qualify as operational concerns; they are about as far down into the weeds as one can get.

[DNall]

I think a best ranger style SaRComp would be absolutely great. However, I know you can run a massive amount of training for that amt of money. We run maybe one or two massive real world missions in that price range, and that's several weeks of constant flying plus GT/etc. I mean if you're going to do it, why is half the budget for lodging? Everything else in CAP is on you, but this is going to be free? And, there's no place in the country you can put those folks up? Give me a call, you can run that thing here & I got 300 cots & a big honkin armory drill hall.

It's just with all our many desperate needs & members going heavily into their pockets to cover so much, this is really a bad use of funds. That it'd be considered - to me - potentially demonstrates a disconnect I'm not happy with.

[RiverAux]

I've been involved in a regional aircrew SAR competition before and I think the competition didn't really teach me anything.  However, the multiple training sorties done prior to the competition were worthwhile. 

I see this as a luxury item and considering AF and resulting CAP budget issues, we just shouldn't be considering it at this time.