Congratulations! The National Board has logged on to Captalk, read your posts and unanimously voted YOU the next National Commander of CAP. Everyone on Captalk is breathlessly awaiting your "vision" and the details of how you intend to attain it.
Before you buy a pearl handled revolver, a pit bull terrier and commission a portrait artist (ala Patton) remember General that your power stems from the BoG, NB, NEC and the membership who you must keep happy...and they can turn on you without a moments notice.
Now what are you going to do. Give us your vision, your plan. And please spare us the personal attacks and diatribe about how you'd fire this one, demote that one, etc. That's no plan...thats venting and sour grapes. Give us something positive...give us your vision
Funny ... I don't look like Amy Courter ... :D
Seriously, I don't know right off what I'd do. Let me stew on it a while.
Jack
Ahem... General Patton is spinning in his grave - they're ivory-handled pistols; only a New Orleans pimp would be sporting pearl-handled pistols. ;D
1st- Stop making new uniforms
2nd- Get closer to USAF
3rd- Rewrite the regs so they are much easier to interpret- no 50,000 and 1 different interpretations.
4th- Work with Wings to get better relationships with their State Governments.
5th- Promote more AE, especially External- no more "best kept secret of the AF"
6th- Get the AF style uniforms more in line with AF.
7th- Cut back # of Corporate uniforms- Cut the Aviator shirt/gray pants combo, weight/grooming standards are all the same- over CAP standards for AF uniforms & Beards
Not sure on how I would do this, but it is what I'd do.
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on July 15, 2007, 03:16:17 PM
Ahem... General Patton is spinning in his grave - they're ivory-handled pistols; only a New Orleans pimp would be sporting pearl-handled pistols. ;D
It's nice to share space with a maven of history.
On to the question. My first act would be to rescind the black flags at National and allow all those pariahs who offended previous Napoleons to return. I would particularly invite Rex Glasgow. Just because you don't get along with someone does not mean that you can't be an effective leader. (By the way, I don't particularly like Rex, but he did a H--- of a job at New Orleans.) Then I would present a proposal to the National Board to amend the Constitution and bylaws so that Wing Commanders were elected by their respective Wing, Region Commanders were elected by their subordinate Wing Commanders, and the National Commander and National Vice were elected by the National Board. Once elected, no leader Wing Commander or above could be replaced prior to the expiration of their term except by impeachment by those who elected them.
In all seriousness,
There are patterns and templates I would like to implement drawing from lessons learned from organizations like the US Coast Guard Auxlilary, the State Guard Association, our own organization, police/sheriff reserve programs, and Cadetting programs (CAP, ACA (just a little), USNSCC, even BSA explorers).
My focus on the cadet program would reset all ranks to an enlisted program, E-1 through E-9 using the same curiculum. Spaatz cadets would earn E-9 with one or two exceptional cadets able to earn "Chief Master Sergeant of the Cadet Corps". Recognition would come from medals / ribbons. Rank insignia optionally (or not) sewn onto uniforms. Along that line, I would like to increase the operational capability of cadets over 18 years old.
No need to fire seniors. I would like to reel in the outlandish types and try to refocus their volunteer energy into the actual missions of CAP (only then consider firing as he/she/they prove to be a security risk). Next, increase the available missions with strong MOU's with USAF, Homeland Security (including all subcatagories), DoD, DHHS, DOC...in other words, all federal and state agencies who show interest. If no interest shown...I'll become a better salesman!
Uniforms. Yes, uniforms. Oh boy, I gotta sit and have a heart to heart with SECAF and SECDEF. I would fight wholeheartedly for what we all want, 'nuff threads on that already.
Just an overall synopsys. Any takers? Vote for me!
/r
LT
PS "Goooooooooood Moooooornningggg Viet Nammmm!"
This message brought to you from the USS Peleliu anchored in the port of Da Nang!
Liberty incidents day 1: A few angry words and bottles thrown...at sailors. ::)
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on July 15, 2007, 03:16:17 PM
Ahem... General Patton is spinning in his grave - they're ivory-handled pistols; only a New Orleans pimp would be sporting pearl-handled pistols. ;D
Which is exactly what he said when asked about the guns by a reporter.
sandman sayethQuoteThis message brought to you from the USS Peleliu anchored in the port of Da Nang!
Can you see Monkey Mountain from your vantage point? If you can, take a stroll to the fantail and render a salute to Marine Captain Bill Tebow, who bought a little patch of it in 1965.
Nostalgia aside, your ideas are good. There are other reasons for termination than security breaches, but your basic instincts are good. I think my suggestions would fix the underlying rot, your suggestions seem like a priority for after we get it fixed. I don't know that I would mess with cadet commissions to the point of eliminating them. I was a Second Lieutenant when they invented Spaatz, and it seems to me that it has had an overall positive impact.
Sandman...The original 1942 cadet program had only enlisted grades up to C/Msgt One problem was that CAP cadets and seniors wore the same enlisted insignia. The stripes were supposed to be on a red background, only a small shade different than the Marine Corp NCO stripes. But most CAP members wore the Army style. Ever see a 17 year old Master Sgt? The Cadet officer grades were added (up to C/Capt) in the mid 1940's and C/Major added in very late 1940's. In fact there was a Cadet BGen authorized, for one week until USAF JROTC and ROTC complained saying they didn't have /Gen grades.
There are to many achievements and milestones in the cadet program to drop back to NCO grades only. One of the 1960's National Cadet Advisory Council suggested CAP drop cadet officer grades, but since all JROTC activities included cadet officers, it was never brought up at the National Board. So basically CAP cadets have to maintain the same grade structure as AFJROTC and AFROTC.
Good comments so far. Keep this in mind:
1. You have no power on your own...only what you get from the BoG, NEC, NB and ultimately the membership. You must bring them on board or history has shown that they will quickly turn on you.
2. Post only YOUR ideas; don't critique others. We'll get everyone's ideas on the table then we'll evaluate them against the following criteria: 1) Acceptability...will the BoG,NEC,NB and membership accept them; 2) Feasibility....is the vision/plan feasible within our present legal structure; 3) Capability...does the vision/plan make CAP more capable in its three missions: ES,AE&CP, 4) Economics: is the vision/plan economically responsible.
NC
First off I'd look in the yellow pages to find a shrink to help me figure out why I thought I could take on this job with my current salary and leave restrictions....
Quote from: RiverAux on July 15, 2007, 05:04:04 PM
First off I'd look in the yellow pages to find a shrink to help me figure out why I thought I could take on this job with my current salary and leave restrictions....
That's the single best post I've read on Captalk.
First off, I wouldnt take that job for all the tea in China. I would immediately step down and appoint Major Carrales (even though he would slap me with a glove and say "Oh no you dont!")
Second, even though no one wants to hear it, the grey/whites and blue/blues go away. All members wear blue and whites as service uniform. Eliminating the blue/blues eliminates the I am better than you are because you are fat and I can wear a blue shirt with Air Force Approved on the tag. Also I saw a picture last night of about 5 or 6 officers, some wearing blue/whites, some grey/whites and some blue/blues. Most of the blue/blues had their shirts covered up anyway with jackets of varying styles. The folks in the greys, looked hideous, not because they were overweight or had facial hair, but because the greys for the most part looked like grey dickey work trousers bought at the Farm and Fleet. Terrible. And would someone please start telling folks that when you have your pants hemmed there is to be no break in the pant leg where it meets the shoe. They look like a bunch of 5th graders waiting to grow into their pants.
Also, as I have made previously know, I would make EMTs and Medics able to do what they are trained to do with liability coverage and medical direction instead of being advanced first aiders passing out iodine and bandaides. Also, on scenes where care is needed, and there is a Physician officer and an EMT or Medic on scene, the physician officer answers questions and supervises if he is not an emergency physician and leaves the field medicine to those trained to do it. Basically a complete overhaul of the HS. I would also institute a emergency field medicine training program for the medically inclined above and beyond the great work already done by HMRS. Its useless to have technician, senior and master ratings for EMS folks among us when those designations essentially mean nothing. I would institute a true, working Health Service that helps to monitor the health of our members, steps up as part of ES during emergencies and DR and actually has some "teeth" to it. When we have another incident like Katrina of 9/11, the country should be able to count on CAP to be able to dig through rubble and also to perform trauma functions once they have found a victim.
I would institute a NCO corps that consisted of more than just former or current AD NCOs along with an "NCO College." Sergeants have been the back bone of the military since time in memoriam and no reason why they shouldnt be now. Its a little silly to have an entire squadron of Lts running around when Sgts of various grades could be worth a whole lot more.
Grade would mean something. If you are going to be appointed the head of a Squadron, etc, then you need to be able to meet the higher qualifications commensurate with such a position. Though perhaps they should, people dont always respect the position when the Squadron commander is a 1st Lt and the supply officer is a Captain. You work your way up by time in grade plus appropriate "test passing" and other criteria. Then if you are qualified AND have the grade or are qualified to be promoted to the grade, then you become a commander and not before.
Military courtesy would be mandatory. Nuff Said?
A use us or lose us mentality with Mama Blue. Its like we're the girlfriend most of the time but not good enough to take to the prom. This would also involve us beginning to act as if we deserved this respect. Again, training, military courtesy, etc.
A page from USCGAUX...if you are working toward a certain achievement (or at least say you are) you have a fixed period of time to get it done or you are "counselled" on the idea that there may be something better for you to do and if you are not making sufficient progress "up the qualifications chain" in a given period of time, you are counselled that perhaps another organization might be more suitable for you. The long timers are valuable because of their experience, but for those who have gotten all the ribbons and bling they want and then dont attend meetings or so and grouse about how things are being done, a letter is issued suggesting they move to a Triple Zero Squadron or become Patrons and wear the blazer. You've done your thing, but youre not doing it anymore, maybe its time to step aside. None of this needs to be done with a lack of respect for the 30 years the member may have put in and the huge contributions he/she may have made, but as has been said by many officers with much more experience than I, at a certain point, long time members who are paying dues and doing nothing else become dead weight.
Find a way not to drain members pocket books so they can serve. Having 24 and 72 packs minus food available for rapid deployment and stowed under the supervision of the Supply Officer. Some stocking caps, extreme cold weather gear, gloves, etc available for use at a moments notice. And whats wrong with having standardized 24 packs ready for all members who will be going out. They report to the rendezvous point, perhaps the units "headquarters", pick up their packs which they can be assured by having a tag on them have been inspected and are good to go, a radio rack, flashlights, etc. If little tiny EMS and SAR agencies can do it, so can we. Also things like boot/shoe polish, extra buttons for various field gear, ponchos for wet weather operations...we want to be seen more as military, lets start acting like it by providing a system where Officers can draw equipment in the middle of the night. Not only would it make sure that the officers were properly equipped, it would speed up the process for those officers who dont always have their go-gear sitting by the front door.
Some physical fitness standards for officers and not just cadets. Not at all because they may look sloppy (hey until recently I did) but for safety reasons. If we have a 300 pound ground team member who collapses of an acute MI in the field in the middle of the night, the mission is over because it has become about med-evacking that officer. If the officer seems border line, he/she gets a vital signs check by the units EMT or other medical or health officer...above certain parameters and you sit this one out. I have recently gotten my blood pressure down after a battle with my weight. When I was doing exercises with the local FD for extrication, mass casuality, etc, a triage officer would see me huffing and puffing, take a set of vitals, give me some O2 and then make the decision as to whether to medical me out for the duration and keep me listed as medically incapable until a physician of competant authority says I am good to get back in the game. That does not mean that members whose health numbers excede parameters dont do CAP missions, it means they sit and do comms or other mission base ops until they are healthy enough to return to the field. Im certainly not suggesting kicking anyone out because they have health concerns. But does anyone here really want their beloved Captain dropping dead of an MI or CVA during a field op. Probably not and I bet his family would appreciate it too. This isnt a punishment, its us looking out for our own.
Esprit d'Corps Measures- each Squadron has a flag (unit colors) that meet AF heraldry standards, a Latin motto and all Sqdrns have patches which would also meet heraldry regs but would include a rocket at top or bottom specifying that members operational, specialty, ie SAR, Comms, Missions Base, medical, etc. One of the EMS outfits I worked with in the Southwest had something like this. Each member wore a rocker on their patch that indicated their area of specialty, ie cardiac care, acute care, trauma, shock/trauma, etc. As tired as I know everyone is about hearing me compare EMS with CAP, the best organized EMS agencies have systems that work. Ive also seen services that have rockers or patches that say things like "Command EMT" or "Command Medic."
I know alot of the things I have suggested seem surface, but they do seep into the cracks, and fill those cracks and the sense of pride and cohesiveness these little measures can bring about really does increase the operational ability and confidence of a group.
ICS, ICS, ICS, ICS! We need to have this pounded into every member, cadet or officer. It is what the world of Emergency services is coming to and it doesnt just need to be used for ES. It can be used for DR, Counter Narcotics, HLS, DOD, DEA assists as well. We are doing a good job at implementing ICS/NIMS but we need to do more. Constant refreshers, the insistance on the use of plain English, commonly used when transmitting in the clear.
So, maybe all of these things do is reflect the lack of experience to date of a SMWOG. But uniformity, esprit d'corps, etc will make us what we all want to be, a force to be reckoned with an one that can competantly stand next to our brothers and sisters in the Armed Forces with both us and them knowing that we have a standard or training which is not deviated from, skirted around, etc. I also think that more contact with NG, ANG, etc would help this. We can learn alot from them and they can learn how we operate so as to better utilize us, thus increasing our taskings. I also think drilling, though not necessary for all of our specialties, builds cohesiveness. Not just color guard drilling but marching, rifle work, etc. Having commanded a ceremonial parade company under the auspices of the Canadian/UK goverment, I can tell you that drilling brings a unit closer together like nothing else. It works its way out into every aspect of what we do.
Thats my two cents. I love being involved with CAP. CAP and EMS are my two passions in life. I only want to see us get better and grow as we move into the 21st century. Maybe alot of what I have suggested seems trivial or inexperienced, but my experience with other organizations, including as a supervisor, says it works.
I look forward to comments on what I have said, but if you are getting out the flame thrower, please do it in PM. One thing that I am going to work on myself is that blasting fellow officers in public destroys the very cohesiveness we are trying to build. Thanks for giving this newbie the microphone for a time.
Semper Vi!
PS- Springfield sidearms for the officers.
Quote from: SARMedTech on July 15, 2007, 05:46:51 PM
PS- Springfield sidearms for the officers.
YESSSSS! And Springfield M1911 Enhanced Micro Pistols (EMP) for the cadets? >:D Got to train them early and right...might as well give them mini-1911's. ;)
Quote from: Nick Critelli, Lt Col CAP on July 15, 2007, 02:42:34 PM
...Before you buy a pearl handled revolver...
"They're ivory! Only a pimp from a cheap New Orleans whore house would carry a pearl-handled revolver."
Quote from: ColonelJack on July 15, 2007, 02:57:21 PM
Funny ... I don't look like Amy Courter ... :D
Seriously, I don't know right off what I'd do. Let me stew on it a while.
Jack
I'd seriously listen to
Steal the Ideas of My Vice Commander................ the Lady Jack dont look like ;)
http://www.capsfuture.com/Action.html (http://www.capsfuture.com/Action.html)
I would lobby Congress for an exemption to the Posse Comitatus Act ( although we are only questionably subject to the PCA anyway) so that we can expand the scope of our mission, AND reissue our Charter to allow Combatant missions ( someone has to sink those Al Quaida submarines.....)
This would allow us to carry out real homeland security missions, counter-narcotics missions, border security, kidnap surveillance, etc. without having to writhe around some very legalistic limitations. Our current SAR mission is on the ropes, and we need to grow or die! We don't have falling memberships because people want more powerpoint presentations. We are falling apart because we are directionless and impotent.
If they don't want us, or won't let us do real world missions in support of America, we should just focus on using all those airplanes and other assets to do the only thing CAP is really good for: Cadet Programs! There is no more vibrant, worthwhile, and enthusiastic group of people in CAP than CP people.
Oh, and of course as the new commander, I would create dozens of new uniforms all the time, including Kilts, and lobby members to obtain CCW permits. Of course, we would have to have a Power Point Officer at every echelon of command, naturally...
Capt. Lord
If I were National Commander, I'd make membership termination boards mandatory. No more 2b'ing people without their knowledge.
Nick asked a serious question, he rates a serious answer!
1. Eliminate the term "Senior Member." I haven't quite figured out a replacement term yet, but there is no way a new 19-year old member should be called "Senior." Plus, why do we take the most junior officers in our organization, and make them "Senior Members" as soon as they join?
2. Form task groups to study options to improve CAP. Get the best and the brightest guys to work together via the internet. Work on developing options for me to present to the NB.
These task groups:
a) Operations and Technology. What CAN we do, and how can we do it? What do we need in the way of aircraft, electronics, commo, support equipment, etc.
b) Uniforms and Insignia. One team, one uniform. AF is preferred, since we are a part of the AF and we earned the right to wear the USAF uniform in combat. But the age of our officer force is such that I suspect a majority cannot meet the arbitrary weight standard imposed on us. (I'm cheating right now, myself, but I'm too cheap to replace all the uniforms I bought when I wasn't cheating.)
c) Awards and Decorations. Bring our bling-bling in line with the AF bling-bling. This will probably mean reducing the number of badges, and consolidating specialty tracks under a single badge. (Admin, pers, finance, PD could all be under an "Admin Support" badge, for example). Also, our awards should mirror the Air Force's awards.
d) Organization. What AF command should we report to? 1st AF? ANG? What should our internal command structure look like? Are the exisiting types of squadrons meeting CAP's needs in the 21st Century?
e) Mission Focus. Congress has given us three missions. But within that framework there is a LOT we can do, and we need to find out what we can do and DO IT! We have to realize that we can't be all things to all people, but we can be a helluvan asset to the USAF. We need to demonstrate excellence, and carry out some real missions, now that SAR will someday be going away. If this is Law Enforcement, Border Patrols, Flying UAV's, Augmentation on AF bases, whatever, lets git-r-done. If we need changes to law, that's why we have a Legislative Squadron.
That should irritate enough people for the first two years. I'll come up with more if MG Pineda gets the "Commander-For-Life regulation change in!
Quote from: 12211985 on July 15, 2007, 08:37:01 PM
If I were National Commander, I'd make membership termination boards mandatory. No more 2b'ing people without their knowledge.
How do you 2b someone without their knowledge? Put them on "Double-Secret Probation" first?
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on July 15, 2007, 08:40:46 PMHow do you 2b someone without their knowledge? Put them on "Double-Secret Probation" first?
Right now, CAP does not require people who are 2b'd to know their membership has been terminated. Probation is optional, as is a membership termination board. There was a thread about this very thing. Topic: Mandatory 2b Hearings? A possible end to potential Abuse? (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2279.0)
Tags - MIKE
QuoteHow do you 2b someone without their knowledge? Put them on "Double-Secret Probation" first?
It is actually pretty easy if you are only looking at the effect and not the legality. You send a note to National that says "Dpn't let this guy renew because I object to him, and oh, by the way, don't tell him about it, just round file his application." Legal? Of course not. Effective? Extremely. Some of you guys up around the Gold Coast go get Ray Hayden to put in an application and see what happens to it.
Non-renewals were abolished years ago. You can 2B someone without their knowledge I suppose, if you can't find them. ( No-call, no-show, etc) but I have not heard of anyone other than skips being 2b'd In absentia.
The 2B can be initiated without the member becoming aware, but I don't see how you could 2B a memeber without theur becoing aware of it and having the chance to appeal ( The which all members are entitled)
Kach, you 've almost got my vote for NC, but where do you stand on Kilts?
Capt. Lord
make Cap Part Of the U.S Air Force like the CGAUX
People should keep in mind that the National Commander can only do so much within the current structure. They can politic and urge that people vote for various changes, but there is a limit to what they can do on their own. Some of you have been answering the question as if you would prefer that they have dictatorial powers.
Seriously, I would take a very close look at the CAP budget (which should be posted on the national web page) and headquarters structure. I would find a way to totally redeisgn the NHQ web site to make it more user friendly. I would ensure that all official meeting agendas are made available to everyone in CAP well before a meeting. I would authorize any CAP member to contact any CAP corporate officer directly with their concerns about new proposals or existing regulations (would probably require a regulation change to make official, so I'd have to campaign for that). I would sit down with appropriate AF officials and discuss how CAP can help them in regards to ES as well as potential uses of CAP for AF augmentation and I would instruct all Wing commanders to do the same with AF bases and any other AF units in their states.
Now, all of the above are fairly small-scale changes that could be done without a lot of trouble. Almost everything else I'd like to do would involve changing CAP or AF regs or both or federal laws. Frankly, the list would have to be narrowed down quite a bit as you can only get so much done.
QuoteNon-renewals were abolished years ago. You can 2B someone without their knowledge I suppose, if you can't find them.
I would respectfully disagree with your first point. The paragraph
2D was abolished years ago. You remember, that was the one where the wing commander or above could de-member someone without hearing or appeal. But it has survived in the National Commander and certain members of the National Board's ability to direct the actions of the membership staff and "lose" or reject certain applications. I appealed just such an action to the
MARB and I have a written response from former National Legal Officer Scott Hamilton that such appeals are the privilege of membership, and since my membership was terminated, I am not entitled to appeal.
As far as the 2B without knowledge of the member; you simply don't notify him. Solves a couple of problems, including the one of hearing a timely appeal.
Quote from: sandman on July 15, 2007, 04:26:11 PM
My focus on the cadet program would reset all ranks to an enlisted program, E-1 through E-9 using the same curiculum. Spaatz cadets would earn E-9 with one or two exceptional cadets able to earn "Chief Master Sergeant of the Cadet Corps". Recognition would come from medals / ribbons. Rank insignia optionally (or not) sewn onto uniforms. Along that line, I would like to increase the operational capability of cadets over 18 years old.
And if we did that, how would we have cadet commanders and leders at cadet encampments? the whole purpose of the cadet program is to prepare cadets to be officers. So, they need officer training.
Quote from: Nick Critelli, Lt Col CAP on July 15, 2007, 05:00:25 PM
Good comments so far. Keep this in mind:
1. You have no power on your own...only what you get from the BoG, NEC, NB and ultimately the membership. You must bring them on board or history has shown that they will quickly turn on you.
2. Post only YOUR ideas; don't critique others. We'll get everyone's ideas on the table then we'll evaluate them against the following criteria: 1) Acceptability...will the BoG,NEC,NB and membership accept them; 2) Feasibility....is the vision/plan feasible within our present legal structure; 3) Capability...does the vision/plan make CAP more capable in its three missions: ES,AE&CP, 4) Economics: is the vision/plan economically responsible.
NC
Bump
You guys seem to be missing the point that the National Commander is answerable to No One except people he appoints and holds dominion over. It has worked in the past because we had National Commanders with too much integrity to eavesdrop on Region Conference calls testing for loyalty. The accession to office paradigm is what must be changed.
Quote from: CaptLord on July 15, 2007, 08:09:34 PM
I would lobby Congress for an exemption to the Posse Comitatus Act ( although we are only questionably subject to the PCA anyway) so that we can expand the scope of our mission, AND reissue our Charter to allow Combatant missions ( someone has to sink those Al Quaida submarines.....)
This would allow us to carry out real homeland security missions, counter-narcotics missions, border security, kidnap surveillance, etc. without having to writhe around some very legalistic limitations. Our current SAR mission is on the ropes, and we need to grow or die! We don't have falling memberships because people want more powerpoint presentations. We are falling apart because we are directionless and impotent.
If they don't want us, or won't let us do real world missions in support of America, we should just focus on using all those airplanes and other assets to do the only thing CAP is really good for: Cadet Programs! There is no more vibrant, worthwhile, and enthusiastic group of people in CAP than CP people.
Oh, and of course as the new commander, I would create dozens of new uniforms all the time, including Kilts, and lobby members to obtain CCW permits. Of course, we would have to have a Power Point Officer at every echelon of command, naturally...
Capt. Lord
I do mean this as a serious response to your post. First off, how are you going to make sure that all members have FOID cards, that is, if their state requires them? What will be the requirement to be able to be armed and how often will members have to qualify and re-qualify? Who decides who shoots "well-enough" to qualify to be an armed member performing the tasks that you mention? With the fact that border patrol agents have been charged with shooting people in the back and they do that job full time with the appropriate training, how are you going to send a bunch of trigger happy CAP members out to patrol the Mexican border (ok Canadian too, so as not to be prejudice)? What firearm is standard issue? What is the force continuum? I regularly compete in long distance (in excess of 500 yards) target competitions with a .50 cal and a Springfield .45-70 Trapdoor. Do I qualify for the CAP Sniper Badge? Im hoping that I just misread your tone and that you were being sarcastic. If not, could we get the experimental 4.46 armor piercing round pushed through so as to be able to shoot through engine blocks and knock the props off planes? I mean if we are going to do this, lets do it right. ;) Also, what type of ballistic vests will we be wearing and do those of us who are CAP snipers have to wear the ghillie suits and if so, will there be an AF and a CAP distinctive fat and fuzzy version? Oh wait, if we are out there shooting at people, that would me a field operation and we might be able to get the AF to let us wear boonies...WOW! this could be great. Ooh and tanks, can we get tanks?!? And maybe the ground fleet could include armored hum-v's.
Actually, I am not totally opposed to arming CAP members to allow, say GT members, to assist the US Border Patrol, though I think the qualifications and security clearances would have to be pretty high and then we would also have to institute drug testing. Do we do any drug testing now? With the pilots?
Quote from: Skyray on July 15, 2007, 09:28:26 PM
QuoteNon-renewals were abolished years ago. You can 2B someone without their knowledge I suppose, if you can't find them.
I would respectfully disagree with your first point. The paragraph 2D was abolished years ago. You remember, that was the one where the wing commander or above could de-member someone without hearing or appeal. But it has survived in the National Commander and certain members of the National Board's ability to direct the actions of the membership staff and "lose" or reject certain applications. I appealed just such an action to the MARB and I have a written response from former National Legal Officer Scott Hamilton that such appeals are the privilege of membership, and since my membership was terminated, I am not entitled to appeal.
As far as the 2B without knowledge of the member; you simply don't notify him. Solves a couple of problems, including the one of hearing a timely appeal.
Ahhh, I take your point. Non-renewals of course would only apply to members. It sounds like in your case your membership lapsed, and you lost the right of the MARB process? I think it is well within the purview of CAP to discriminate ( perhaps that is the wrong word...) in allowing applicants entry ( in fact, they should choose to exercise a little discrimination more often in my opinion) If you were denied acceptance based on belonging to a protected class, ( Race, creed, color, gender, lifestyle, etc) you would have legal recourse. If they simply don't like you because you are a sharp stick in their eye, I would not think you would have options. Just keep applying until they cash your check....
Capt. Lord
Quote from: Skyray on July 15, 2007, 09:37:12 PM
You guys seem to be missing the point that the National Commander is answerable to No One except people he appoints and holds dominion over. It has worked in the past because we had National Commanders with too much integrity to eavesdrop on Region Conference calls testing for loyalty. The accession to office paradigm is what must be changed.
Arent those sorts of things generally dealt by use of the time honored tradition of coup d'tat.
Quote from: SARMedTech on July 15, 2007, 09:46:44 PM
Quote from: CaptLord on July 15, 2007, 08:09:34 PM
I would lobby Congress for an exemption to the Posse Comitatus Act ( although we are only questionably subject to the PCA anyway) so that we can expand the scope of our mission, AND reissue our Charter to allow Combatant missions ( someone has to sink those Al Quaida submarines.....)
This would allow us to carry out real homeland security missions, counter-narcotics missions, border security, kidnap surveillance, etc. without having to writhe around some very legalistic limitations. Our current SAR mission is on the ropes, and we need to grow or die! We don't have falling memberships because people want more powerpoint presentations. We are falling apart because we are directionless and impotent.
If they don't want us, or won't let us do real world missions in support of America, we should just focus on using all those airplanes and other assets to do the only thing CAP is really good for: Cadet Programs! There is no more vibrant, worthwhile, and enthusiastic group of people in CAP than CP people.
Oh, and of course as the new commander, I would create dozens of new uniforms all the time, including Kilts, and lobby members to obtain CCW permits. Of course, we would have to have a Power Point Officer at every echelon of command, naturally...
Capt. Lord
I do mean this as a serious response to your post. First off, how are you going to make sure that all members have FOID cards, that is, if their state requires them? What will be the requirement to be able to be armed and how often will members have to qualify and re-qualify? Who decides who shoots "well-enough" to qualify to be an armed member performing the tasks that you mention? With the fact that border patrol agents have been charged with shooting people in the back and they do that job full time with the appropriate training, how are you going to send a bunch of trigger happy CAP members out to patrol the Mexican border (ok Canadian too, so as not to be prejudice)? What firearm is standard issue? What is the force continuum? I regularly compete in long distance (in excess of 500 yards) target competitions with a .50 cal and a Springfield .45-70 Trapdoor. Do I qualify for the CAP Sniper Badge? Im hoping that I just misread your tone and that you were being sarcastic. If not, could we get the experimental 4.46 armor piercing round pushed through so as to be able to shoot through engine blocks and knock the props off planes? I mean if we are going to do this, lets do it right. ;) Also, what type of ballistic vests will we be wearing and do those of us who are CAP snipers have to wear the ghillie suits and if so, will there be an AF and a CAP distinctive fat and fuzzy version? Oh wait, if we are out there shooting at people, that would me a field operation and we might be able to get the AF to let us wear boonies...WOW! this could be great. Ooh and tanks, can we get tanks?!? And maybe the ground fleet could include armored hum-v's.
Actually, I am not totally opposed to arming CAP members to allow, say GT members, to assist the US Border Patrol, though I think the qualifications and security clearances would have to be pretty high and then we would also have to institute drug testing. Do we do any drug testing now? With the pilots?
Hopefully, despite our harsh last words, you recognized my last paragraph as being tongue-in-cheek. That being said, a clarification of the Posse Comitatus Act would open the door to allowing members who may be otherwise lawfully armed ( that would be everyone in Florida and about 9 of us in California) to carry firearms on GT and Air missions. Ghillie suits of course would have to be Aquamarine to distinguish us from the little- known Lichtensteinian Civil Air patrol Sniper Corp....
In all seriousness, firearms on CAP activities is not the hill I choose to die on. I am as serious as a heart attack when I suggest widening our mission by eliminating the constraints of the Posse Comitatus Act. The U.S. Coast Guard and their Auxiliary might serve as a good model ( Well, except for being squids, cleaning bilges and such)
Capt. Lord
Quote from: SARMedTech on July 15, 2007, 09:48:44 PM
Quote from: Skyray on July 15, 2007, 09:37:12 PM
You guys seem to be missing the point that the National Commander is answerable to No One except people he appoints and holds dominion over. It has worked in the past because we had National Commanders with too much integrity to eavesdrop on Region Conference calls testing for loyalty. The accession to office paradigm is what must be changed.
Arent those sorts of things generally dealt by use of the time honored tradition of coup d'tat.
W, Why do you think the guy always carries a gun and if rumour is to be believed is lately accompanied by up to six bodyguards?
Quote from: CaptLord on July 15, 2007, 09:58:13 PM
Quote from: SARMedTech on July 15, 2007, 09:46:44 PM
Quote from: CaptLord on July 15, 2007, 08:09:34 PM
I would lobby Congress for an exemption to the Posse Comitatus Act ( although we are only questionably subject to the PCA anyway) so that we can expand the scope of our mission, AND reissue our Charter to allow Combatant missions ( someone has to sink those Al Quaida submarines.....)
This would allow us to carry out real homeland security missions, counter-narcotics missions, border security, kidnap surveillance, etc. without having to writhe around some very legalistic limitations. Our current SAR mission is on the ropes, and we need to grow or die! We don't have falling memberships because people want more powerpoint presentations. We are falling apart because we are directionless and impotent.
If they don't want us, or won't let us do real world missions in support of America, we should just focus on using all those airplanes and other assets to do the only thing CAP is really good for: Cadet Programs! There is no more vibrant, worthwhile, and enthusiastic group of people in CAP than CP people.
Oh, and of course as the new commander, I would create dozens of new uniforms all the time, including Kilts, and lobby members to obtain CCW permits. Of course, we would have to have a Power Point Officer at every echelon of command, naturally...
Capt. Lord
I do mean this as a serious response to your post. First off, how are you going to make sure that all members have FOID cards, that is, if their state requires them? What will be the requirement to be able to be armed and how often will members have to qualify and re-qualify? Who decides who shoots "well-enough" to qualify to be an armed member performing the tasks that you mention? With the fact that border patrol agents have been charged with shooting people in the back and they do that job full time with the appropriate training, how are you going to send a bunch of trigger happy CAP members out to patrol the Mexican border (ok Canadian too, so as not to be prejudice)? What firearm is standard issue? What is the force continuum? I regularly compete in long distance (in excess of 500 yards) target competitions with a .50 cal and a Springfield .45-70 Trapdoor. Do I qualify for the CAP Sniper Badge? Im hoping that I just misread your tone and that you were being sarcastic. If not, could we get the experimental 4.46 armor piercing round pushed through so as to be able to shoot through engine blocks and knock the props off planes? I mean if we are going to do this, lets do it right. ;) Also, what type of ballistic vests will we be wearing and do those of us who are CAP snipers have to wear the ghillie suits and if so, will there be an AF and a CAP distinctive fat and fuzzy version? Oh wait, if we are out there shooting at people, that would me a field operation and we might be able to get the AF to let us wear boonies...WOW! this could be great. Ooh and tanks, can we get tanks?!? And maybe the ground fleet could include armored hum-v's.
Actually, I am not totally opposed to arming CAP members to allow, say GT members, to assist the US Border Patrol, though I think the qualifications and security clearances would have to be pretty high and then we would also have to institute drug testing. Do we do any drug testing now? With the pilots?
Hopefully, despite our harsh last words, you recognized my last paragraph as being tongue-in-cheek. That being said, a clarification of the Posse Comitatus Act would open the door to allowing members who may be otherwise lawfully armed ( that would be everyone in Florida and about 9 of us in California) to carry firearms on GT and Air missions. Ghillie suits of course would have to be Aquamarine to distinguish us from the little- known Lichtensteinian Civil Air patrol Sniper Corp....
In all seriousness, firearms on CAP activities is not the hill I choose to die on. I am as serious as a heart attack when I suggest widening our mission by eliminating the constraints of the Posse Comitatus Act. The U.S. Coast Guard and their Auxiliary might serve as a good model ( Well, except for being squids, cleaning bilges and such)
Capt. Lord
Absolutely Capt. Bygones are indeed bygones. I am curious what you mean about the USCGAUX serving as a model for eliminating the constraints of Posse Comitatus. They are not allowed to participate in any law enforcement activities as far as I know, except perhaps for container or fishing vessel inspections boardings where the Gold Side Coasties are not armed. Could you clarify, sir?
It took me alot of time and hemp rope to make my ghillie suit and I will not paint it ultramarine for anyone. Blaze orange, perhaps, but not ultramarine. (Throws the good Capt a wink and a salute). Would the tape on my suit say US Civil Air Patrol or just Civil Air Patrol and do you think my .45-70 Springfield would be adequate for CAP sniping, other than the fact that the muzzle blast can be seen for a mile in any direction? ("You want me on that wall...You NEED me on that wall!")
Quote from: RogueLeader on July 15, 2007, 09:31:15 PM
Quote from: Nick Critelli, Lt Col CAP on July 15, 2007, 05:00:25 PM
Good comments so far. Keep this in mind:
1. You have no power on your own...only what you get from the BoG, NEC, NB and ultimately the membership. You must bring them on board or history has shown that they will quickly turn on you.
2. Post only YOUR ideas; don't critique others. We'll get everyone's ideas on the table then we'll evaluate them against the following criteria: 1) Acceptability...will the BoG,NEC,NB and membership accept them; 2) Feasibility....is the vision/plan feasible within our present legal structure; 3) Capability...does the vision/plan make CAP more capable in its three missions: ES,AE&CP, 4) Economics: is the vision/plan economically responsible.
NC
Bump
Please follow the guidelines for this thread.
Quote from: RogueLeader on July 15, 2007, 10:18:06 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on July 15, 2007, 09:31:15 PM
Quote from: Nick Critelli, Lt Col CAP on July 15, 2007, 05:00:25 PM
Good comments so far. Keep this in mind:
1. You have no power on your own...only what you get from the BoG, NEC, NB and ultimately the membership. You must bring them on board or history has shown that they will quickly turn on you.
2. Post only YOUR ideas; don't critique others. We'll get everyone's ideas on the table then we'll evaluate them against the following criteria: 1) Acceptability...will the BoG,NEC,NB and membership accept them; 2) Feasibility....is the vision/plan feasible within our present legal structure; 3) Capability...does the vision/plan make CAP more capable in its three missions: ES,AE&CP, 4) Economics: is the vision/plan economically responsible.
NC
Bump
Please follow the guidelines for this thread.
Given this admonition, if I were to be appointed Supreme Leader, I would work like the dickens to strengthen our ES program. I would argue that while it has the greatest potential, it is the one of our three stated missions that lives up to its goals the least. We have the potential to be one of the most prestigious and sought after ES agencies in the country, but I think we have to start taking ourselves seriously. There are so many areas that we could expand into within the realm of ES that is boggles the mind and alot of them could be accomplished with the training courses we already have in place and a few expansions here and there. Lets start looking at statistics about what the needs are in ES around the country and start training our personnel to meet those needs, BETTER than anyone else can. Why can we not modify our "tasking" by the USAF so that it is a foregone conclusion that when something like Katrina or 9/11 happens that we automatically begin to assemble and muster so that we can deploy in the service of our country and know that the phone will ring from the AF because they know that we can do the job as well or better than anyone else. Why did it take FEMA so long to get DR supplies to the Gulf Coast when we have what amounts to a small air force and a fleet of ground vehicles capable of loading up with supplies and heading down there. Could it be that one of the reasons that we are not more greatly tasked by the AF is that they are waiting for us to step up. What would happen if we had a Major General who met with the head of the AF and said, here is what we can do, here is what we can be trained to do, we are your auxiliary, so lets put our heads together and do this thing right if we are going to do it at all. Besides immediately giving the job to Major Carrales, that is what I would do.
:) Keep on topic everyone. AT THIS TIME his is about YOUR vision/plan ONLY we'll get to critique later.
Quote from: CaptLord on July 15, 2007, 09:01:39 PM
Non-renewals were abolished years ago. You can 2B someone without their knowledge I suppose, if you can't find them. ( No-call, no-show, etc) but I have not heard of anyone other than skips being 2b'd In absentia.
The 2B can be initiated without the member becoming aware, but I don't see how you could 2B a memeber without theur becoing aware of it and having the chance to appeal ( The which all members are entitled)
Kach, you 've almost got my vote for NC, but where do you stand on Kilts?
Capt. Lord
Kilt policy?
Same as the Air Force's!
(Don't ask, don't tell)
Quote from: lilred36781 on July 15, 2007, 09:03:39 PM
make Cap Part Of the U.S Air Force like the CGAUX
You mean make CAP the
full-time Air Force Auxiliary? ???
SARMedTech,
Not to run too far afield, and in respect for the iniatiator of this threads' stated desire to limit the scope, I will amplify on my views about the squids, er, strike that, Coast Guard's, role and contrast that to ours. The CG is a full fledged member of the Homeland Security team, while its auxiliary is a junior member. They have quasi-law enforcement powers. The CG went from Department of Transporation, to the DOD, to Homeland Security. Our genesis is the reverse; We started moghty and progressed to flighty. I would attempt to reverse the process and bring us into the Homeland Security family.
Capt. Lord
Quote from: CaptLord on July 15, 2007, 11:42:58 PM
SARMedTech,
Not to run too far afield, and in respect for the iniatiator of this threads' stated desire to limit the scope, I will amplify on my views about the squids, er, strike that, Coast Guard's, role and contrast that to ours. The CG is a full fledged member of the Homeland Security team, while its auxiliary is a junior member. They have quasi-law enforcement powers. The CG went from Department of Transporation, to the DOD, to Homeland Security. Our genesis is the reverse; We started moghty and progressed to flighty. I would attempt to reverse the process and bring us into the Homeland Security family.
Capt. Lord
On that, we see eye to eye as I would like to get us more into HLS, Border Patrol, etc and I think there are many ways we could do that, but would have one heck of a fight on our hands trying, unless one of us could get a meeting with Secretary Chertoff and pitch to him what we could do for him and HLS and that it is already being paid for. I also think we could get more funding if we asserted ourselves in a HLS role since there seems to be no end to the desire to throw more money at it and the further I get into my MS degree on topics like biosecurity, counter-terrorism and terrorism response the more money I think we need to throw at it. CAP is here to serve the nation. We did so in WWII. The wars of the future will be fought at the borders and out of suitcases with little clocks in them and jars full of white spores thrown off the Empire State Building. There is so much we could do and if we could also be brought under the umbrella of DHLS, I think you would see us with a far greater number and variety of taskings and find far fewer members saying they sit around with nothing to do. There is a reason that the USCGAUX is begging for Arabic translators and a reason I am learning the language and its not because i like middle eastern food, which I do. Would be happy to continue this in PM.
The absolute first thing I would do is go to confession and start looking for 4 big dudes on horses riding over the horizon :o
My action plan would contain:
1) Moratorium on all uniform changes unless initiated by the Air Force.
a) Bring all programs that encourage "elitism" back into line under national standards.
2) Work to build closer ties to the Air Force.
a) Work to obtain closer oversight by the Air Force making them a bigger stakeholder in the organization.
b) Work to find more programs where CAP could fill in like the chaplains are doing.
3) Open government, open finances. Attempt to get an "Open Meeting" regulation in place.
4) Encourage people who are "Cadet only" members to participate more in other operations, and Operations only to do more for the cadet side. Encourage "whole membership."
5) Build inter agency ties on the local , state, and national level.
a) Encourage wings, groups and squadrons to have "open house days" to show the communities who we are and what we do.
b) Encourage National, Regions, and Wings to attend non CAP ES conferences in uniform to get PR.
c) Get vendor booths at non CAP ES conferences to market our services and recruit high quality members rather than warm bodies.
6) Employ a full time lobbyist to advocate for us in congress.
7) Restart the Military Music Academy.
Quote from: AlphaSigOU on July 15, 2007, 03:16:17 PM
Ahem... General Patton is spinning in his grave - they're ivory-handled pistols; only a New Orleans pimp would be sporting pearl-handled pistols. ;D
Hey! Watch it or I'll do voodoo on you and have you appointed to NHQ !!
In addition to many of the good ideas already mentioned, I would embark on a major marketing campaign to educate everyone about CAP and what it does. Its time we were no longer the USAF's best kept secret. Hell, even 1/2 of USAF has never heard of CAP. This is a HUGE issue.
Quote from: Skyray on July 15, 2007, 04:43:27 PM
sandman sayeth
QuoteThis message brought to you from the USS Peleliu anchored in the port of Da Nang!
Can you see Monkey Mountain from your vantage point? If you can, take a stroll to the fantail and render a salute to Marine Captain Bill Tebow, who bought a little patch of it in 1965.
Nostalgia aside, your ideas are good. There are other reasons for termination than security breaches, but your basic instincts are good. I think my suggestions would fix the underlying rot, your suggestions seem like a priority for after we get it fixed. I don't know that I would mess with cadet commissions to the point of eliminating them. I was a Second Lieutenant when they invented Spaatz, and it seems to me that it has had an overall positive impact.
Consider salute rendered! And one for all of the other fine men and women of the US armed forces who bought a patch of land here!
As far as cadetting goes, I feel it would be best in this day and age to go ahead and eliminate the officer ranks. Don't cling to history and "that's the way it's always been done" type of mentality.
The reason why I would lobby hard for such a change is first to bring a real sense of pride and ownership to having earned those stripes; second to align mentorship with real NCO's; third, along with a sense of pride, to not run through the NCO stripes so quickly...after all, the NCO is the "backbone" of the service. The stripes shouldn't be a quick stepping stone to officership. Also, if the cadet applies him- or herself to the program and then enlists, well they may advance to E-3, not a commission. Lastly, it would align fairly with other cadetting programs allowing a greater interoperability without awkwardness.
Oh, and make picture ID cards the only ID cards ;)
Quote from: BillB on July 15, 2007, 04:58:59 PM
Sandman...The original 1942 cadet program had only enlisted grades up to C/Msgt One problem was that CAP cadets and seniors wore the same enlisted insignia. The stripes were supposed to be on a red background, only a small shade different than the Marine Corp NCO stripes. But most CAP members wore the Army style. Ever see a 17 year old Master Sgt? The Cadet officer grades were added (up to C/Capt) in the mid 1940's and C/Major added in very late 1940's. In fact there was a Cadet BGen authorized, for one week until USAF JROTC and ROTC complained saying they didn't have /Gen grades.
There are to many achievements and milestones in the cadet program to drop back to NCO grades only. One of the 1960's National Cadet Advisory Council suggested CAP drop cadet officer grades, but since all JROTC activities included cadet officers, it was never brought up at the National Board. So basically CAP cadets have to maintain the same grade structure as AFJROTC and AFROTC.
I understand your point but I disagree. Yes, there are many achievements and milestones. But those achievements and milestones can be better recognized with a well made certificate and appurtences on a ribbon. In reducing ribbons and substituting stars, oakleafs, etc on just a few ribbons will probably prove to be economically advantageous for CAP and the cadet. Add a few real medals that can be earned following in similarity to the real military (but not obviously as hard to earn) and I think cadets would feel adequately rewarded.
Doesn't JROTC have fluidic promotions basically for the position occupied by the cadet? One week you're a major, the next you're the company sergeant major. If so, It would make better sense to field promote a cadet to a temporary rank for a position in order to participate in a JROTC / ROTC exercise. Mark and record the cadets participation and award a ribbon/medal for time served.
Ideally, the cadets would appreciate the NCO corps as the backbone of the military that it is. Real military NCO's could appreciate mentoring these cadets much more than a cadet "officer".
Quote from: BillB on July 15, 2007, 04:58:59 PM
One problem was that CAP cadets and seniors wore the same enlisted insignia. The stripes were supposed to be on a red background, only a small shade different than the Marine Corp NCO stripes.
Not a problem anymore in this day and age though!
I would suggest again not to hold to "tradition" but to develop a more sensible cadet program...
Quote from: CaptLord on July 15, 2007, 11:42:58 PM
SARMedTech,
Not to run too far afield, and in respect for the iniatiator of this threads' stated desire to limit the scope, I will amplify on my views about the squids, er, strike that, Coast Guard's, role and contrast that to ours. The CG is a full fledged member of the Homeland Security team, while its auxiliary is a junior member. They have quasi-law enforcement powers. The CG went from Department of Transporation, to the DOD, to Homeland Security. Our genesis is the reverse; We started moghty and progressed to flighty. I would attempt to reverse the process and bring us into the Homeland Security family.
Capt. Lord
I concur. When an auxiliary facility is tasked to marshall a bunch of recreational boaters to stay clear of an area such as a floating parade or race etc and a boater becomes beligerant or non-compliant with the suggestions (not orders mind you) of the auxiliarist and the auxiliarist calls for CG assist...the CG is right there like stink on excrement reinforcing the suggestions until they become orders to comply.
Uniquely, the USAF does not have such an enforcement cabability within CONUS (except maybe NG). How could we have big blue back us up or vice-versa? Would you want to deploy for a few weeks to some desert area to backfill some AF position in need (yea, some of you certainly would enthusiastically with weapon of choice in hand ;) ;D ).
So, helping the AF in the way we currently do with SAR and cadetting could be beefed up for sure. Along that line we should certainly reach out a helping hand to DHS and other agencies, not reach out a hand for a "hand out" but allow ourselves to become proficient and professional volunteers. I have onboard today here in the 'Nam a variety of people, civilian volunteers from Project Hope and others.
Would it be possible for a civilian volunteer to participate in a real military program? You betcha! The key is standardized proficiency and a real sense of professionalism, along with a healthy dose of reality...a person may be able to spend a week or two out of their summer vacation to participate...maybe the health care professionals in CAP can get together a flight to send on a mission such as the Peleliu Pacific Partnership ;)
/r
LT
Quote from: sandman on July 16, 2007, 02:34:57 AM
Quote from: CaptLord on July 15, 2007, 11:42:58 PM
SARMedTech,
Not to run too far afield, and in respect for the iniatiator of this threads' stated desire to limit the scope, I will amplify on my views about the squids, er, strike that, Coast Guard's, role and contrast that to ours. The CG is a full fledged member of the Homeland Security team, while its auxiliary is a junior member. They have quasi-law enforcement powers. The CG went from Department of Transporation, to the DOD, to Homeland Security. Our genesis is the reverse; We started moghty and progressed to flighty. I would attempt to reverse the process and bring us into the Homeland Security family.
Capt. Lord
I concur. When an auxiliary facility is tasked to marshall a bunch of recreational boaters to stay clear of an area such as a floating parade or race etc and a boater becomes beligerant or non-compliant with the suggestions (not orders mind you) of the auxiliarist and the auxiliarist calls for CG assist...the CG is right there like stink on excrement reinforcing the suggestions until they become orders to comply.
Uniquely, the USAF does not have such an enforcement cabability within CONUS (except maybe NG). How could we have big blue back us up or vice-versa? Would you want to deploy for a few weeks to some desert area to backfill some AF position in need (yea, some of you certainly would enthusiastically with weapon of choice in hand ;) ;D ).
So, helping the AF in the way we currently do with SAR and cadetting could be beefed up for sure. Along that line we should certainly reach out a helping hand to DHS and other agencies, not reach out a hand for a "hand out" but allow ourselves to become proficient and professional volunteers. I have onboard today here in the 'Nam a variety of people, civilian volunteers from Project Hope and others.
Would it be possible for a civilian volunteer to participate in a real military program? You betcha! The key is standardized proficiency and a real sense of professionalism, along with a healthy dose of reality...a person may be able to spend a week or two out of their summer vacation to participate...maybe the health care professionals in CAP can get together a flight to send on a mission such as the Peleliu Pacific Partnership ;)
/r
LT
I'd tell you some folks to look up in DaNang, since I spent MANY days there (some of them even happy ones) but I'm afraid that the current government of Vietnam has probably already killed everyone who either worked with us or was treated by us as patients.
And I don't want to call attention to anybody who has managed to hide for this long.
But to all the kids I treated (Who would now be in their 40's) I hope you are all well and happy.
(Pass that along to anybody who might remember bak-si Kack from the USS Repose in 1969 to 1970!)
John,
Wish I had time to look up some people for you! The VM gov't is tightly controlling our leave ashore. Of the 1100+ people on board, only a small percentage is allowed ashore for liberty and tours per day. We're allowing leave in shifts essentially. I have two days of liberty and two days of MEDCAP's out of the ten days were in port.
I've been taking photos of the flag (from the fantail) flying over the city of Da Nang. I've been waiting for the fantail to swing about so that I can get a shot of the flag flying over monkey mountain!
Best to ya.
/r
LT
P.S.
So, watching planes fly out of Da Nang airport, I was thinking; as the newly appointed national commander, I would approach the VM gov't with the CAP model and try to sell them on the idea that it might be helpful for their kids!
Hmmm, on second thought, the cadets and seniors probably would carry real firearms....
Congratulations...you guys really can come up with some good ideas. Keep them coming or another week and compile them when I return to the states. Then we can see if a potential vision emerges.
Quote from: sandman on July 17, 2007, 01:13:29 AM
John,
Wish I had time to look up some people for you! The VM gov't is tightly controlling our leave ashore. Of the 1100+ people on board, only a small percentage is allowed ashore for liberty and tours per day. We're allowing leave in shifts essentially. I have two days of liberty and two days of MEDCAP's out of the ten days were in port.
I've been taking photos of the flag (from the fantail) flying over the city of Da Nang. I've been waiting for the fantail to swing about so that I can get a shot of the flag flying over monkey mountain!
Best to ya.
/r
LT
P.S.
So, watching planes fly out of Da Nang airport, I was thinking; as the newly appointed national commander, I would approach the VM gov't with the CAP model and try to sell them on the idea that it might be helpful for their kids!
Hmmm, on second thought, the cadets and seniors probably would carry real firearms....
The last time I did MEDCAP's there I carried a real firearm!
Didn't have to use it in DaNang, though. Got shot at near Cua Viet and couldn't use it there either since there were Marines between me and the NVA. A corpsman shooting Marines is generally considered to be a conflict of interest!
But... you bring up an interesting point that someone brought up a week ago in an SLS class I taught...
Could CAP set up youth cadet programs in other (Developing) countries?
Nothing, interestingly, in our Congressional mandate requires that we serve only in the United States, only that we conduct "Noncombat missions and programs for the Air Force." As long as the mission is noncombat, there is no reason why we could not serve overseas. This (If I were Natl. Commander, to keep the discussion on track) would apply to chaplains and medical personnel (If we develop a health services track), and others if the AF considers nation-building and building up the resources of friendly-nation air forces to be a mission.
Further thought on the issue brings to the forefront that one of our major problems is rank. If I were appointed supreme commander, I would try to induce the powers that be to eliminate all but duty performance promotions because it is my opinion that some of our most grievous problems are caused by "rank skipping." I know one member who skipped from Second Lieutenant to Major to full Colonel without hitting any of the in-betweens, and he is a disaster! Military equivalence and other promotions would get a short time to backfill themselves to the proper training level. No one would be eligible to be wing commander until they had been promoted to Lieutenant Colonel by duty performace and finished Level Five. That should cut down a little bit on the cronyism that we have been seeing in the past few years.
Quote from: Skyray on July 17, 2007, 02:17:15 PM
No one would be eligible to be wing commander until they had been promoted to Lieutenant Colonel by duty performace and finished Level Five.
I understand that concept, and don't disagree with it. I think there ought to be qualifications before assuming command at any level. A problem arises when you don't have anyone meeting the qualifications, or those that do don't want the position. What do you do in that case, leave the position vacant?
Certainly a consideration, but I think Wing Commander is far enough up the line that you should have sufficient applicants. The only ones I know that didn't want the position were back in the days before AJP showed that you don't have to pay your own way.
1) set up web-based "task forces" to study and develop recommendations for some
of our 'hot button' issues (professional development, rank/grade system for seniors, uniforms, ES training and so forth). Task forces chaired by and composed principally of squadron & group personnel. Part of their mandate would be to solicit input throughout the nation, at all CAP levels (including state directors, CAPRAP, and other USAF advice). Interim reports in 90 days, recommendations in 180 days
2) develop and implement reasonable, consistent criteria and methods for selection of wing and region commanders
3) institute a CAP ombudsman program, preferably in concert with CAP chaplain service and CAP NCO corps to encourage non-adversarial solution of problems and resolution of disputes
4) institute a CAP IG service at National & Region level answering only to BOG
5) conduct live or web-based "town meetings" in each region, in which membership can offer ideas & raise general concerns with national & region command personnel
Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 18, 2007, 04:17:20 AM
1) set up web-based "task forces" to study and develop recommendations for some
of our 'hot button' issues (professional development, rank/grade system for seniors, uniforms, ES training and so forth). Task forces chaired by and composed principally of squadron & group personnel. Part of their mandate would be to solicit input throughout the nation, at all CAP levels (including state directors, CAPRAP, and other USAF advice). Interim reports in 90 days, recommendations in 180 days
2) develop and implement reasonable, consistent criteria and methods for selection of wing and region commanders
3) institute a CAP ombudsman program, preferably in concert with CAP chaplain service and CAP NCO corps to encourage non-adversarial solution of problems and resolution of disputes
4) institute a CAP IG service at National & Region level answering only to BOG
5) conduct live or web-based "town meetings" in each region, in which membership can offer ideas & raise general concerns with national & region command personnel
I would add a meeting once a month where the members of the community in which each Squadron is located could attend, learn about CAP, ask questions, perhaps network with things CAP could do for the community, etc. Might also serve as a good recruiting tool.
Quote from: 12211985 on July 15, 2007, 08:47:08 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on July 15, 2007, 08:40:46 PMHow do you 2b someone without their knowledge? Put them on "Double-Secret Probation" first?
Right now, CAP does not require people who are 2b'd to know their membership has been terminated. Probation is optional, as is a membership termination board. There was a thread about this very thing. Topic: Mandatory 2b Hearings? A possible end to potential Abuse? (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2279.0)
Tags - MIKE
Try that one again.....
Hearings are manditory....if the member requestions one.
QuoteTry that one again.....
Hearings are mandatory....if the member requestions one.
I would agree, if the filing authority follows the regulations and notifies the terminated member. But you are all postulating a leadership cadre who follows the regulations.
Another subtle point to this is that the hearing is an
Appeal and without one being requested by the terminated member, the 2B takes effect.
Quote from: Nick Critelli, Lt Col CAP on July 15, 2007, 02:42:34 PMBefore you buy a pearl handled revolver, a pit bull terrier and commission a portrait artist (ala Patton) remember General that your power stems from the BoG, NB, NEC and the membership who you must keep happy...and they can turn on you without a moments notice.
Nick,
Actually, I was thinking a Smith and Wesson Terrier .32 snubbie they made many years back, easily hidden in the TPU jacket pocket...
Just kidding1. Fence mending. For whatever reason there is a disconnect between NHQ and Joe Member that needs fixed. I've been in and out of this group since 1986 and that part of CAP has never changed.
2. Peer review of CAP's 3 core missions. What is NASAR and the other SAR groups doing that we can improve upon? What are we doing that they'd like to learn?
Why do the Scouts, groups like the Young Marines and others able to do activities CAP would never allow under regulations?
What do teacher's groups think of our AE program and how do we make it better?
3. Increased focus on philanthropic support at NHQ level for the direct benefit of the subordinate units. Imagine what a 10 million dollar cash grant from Bill Gates equally spread across 8 Regions and 52 wings could do?
4. Expand CAP support to the individual states. Imagine all 52 Wings doing similar programs like IAWG, directly supporting Army and Air Guard in state service while not needed for USAF assigned missions?
Cleaned up quote. Don't need space before and after tags - MIKE
Quote from: Skyray on July 17, 2007, 02:17:15 PM
Further thought on the issue brings to the forefront that one of our major problems is rank. If I were appointed supreme commander, I would try to induce the powers that be to eliminate all but duty performance promotions because it is my opinion that some of our most grievous problems are caused by "rank skipping." I know one member who skipped from Second Lieutenant to Major to full Colonel without hitting any of the in-betweens, and he is a disaster! Military equivalence and other promotions would get a short time to backfill themselves to the proper training level. No one would be eligible to be wing commander until they had been promoted to Lieutenant Colonel by duty performace and finished Level Five. That should cut down a little bit on the cronyism that we have been seeing in the past few years.
I agree Skyray! In my administration I would add that those members who have put in twenty years of service should be able to be promoted to full colonel. It doesn't matter to me that the colonel rank is supposed to be for "corporate" members, remember "rank" is a function of position, grade should be a function of recognized service. A "corporate" colonel will almost always "outrank" a colonel promoted through time in service (severly limited fitness reports from commanders could play a role in promotability too).
I would also allow direct appointments for honorably retired military officers to wear their same grade in CAP. That includes every general officer grade! So what if the national commander is only two stars, heck, give him (her) three to align with CG Aux! "Rank" is positional!
Hypothetical situation:
The national commander, two or three stars, "outranks" a retired real military four star general by position alone. Granted though, the retired four star may have greater "pull" in helping or hinder the advancement of CAP...depnds on who's in the driver's seat at NHQ...an idiot national commander could feasibly "piss off" a retired four star and cause some damage to the CAP program. On the other hand, the great contribution by these retired general officers is immense! Okay, so what if some local squadron has a four star general in CAP uniform (with four stars on a grey background, imagine that). That first lieutenant squadron commander in still in charge by position alone. The general officer may not want the position as a squadron commander, but imagine the mentorship opportunity that first lieutenant squadron commander, and the cadets, will have! Imagine the leadership training. I would like to be that squadron commander.
Let those who have earned it wear it. Also I would add a provision for members who have served CAP for thirty or fourty years have the opportunity for a promotion to O-7 or O-8. Why not?
Colonel (O-6) for 20 or even 25 year members, with the provision that they have completed the senior professional development program (Level V....I'm only through IV myself) would indeed be a motivator for some to stay active and work on PD....also, since there is a badge for National Board members, the 'corporate colonels' would be easily identifiable.
50 year members should get O-6 regardless of prior grade or PD level, just for perseverance!
There are an awful lot of 30 year plus members, I'm not so sure about handing out general officer rank for longevity...though I am entirely in favor of retired military officers receiving the grade equivalent to their active duty rank, even if general officer.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 24, 2007, 05:53:13 AM
Colonel (O-6) for 20 or even 25 year members, with the provision that they have completed the senior professional development program (Level V....I'm only through IV myself) would indeed be a motivator for some to stay active and work on PD....also, since there is a badge for National Board members, the 'corporate colonels' would be easily identifiable.
50 year members should get O-6 regardless of prior grade or PD level, just for perseverance!
There are an awful lot of 30 year plus members, I'm not so sure about handing out general officer rank for longevity...though I am entirely in favor of retired military officers receiving the grade equivalent to their active duty rank, even if general officer.
Sounds good. I understand what you mean with the 30+ year members. Maybe break out a percentage of them to receive the advanced grade based on history of assignments, education level, professional development, personal awards received, and a severly limited officer evaluation report (fitness report). There are several ways to recognize a small percentage...maybe thirty five or fourty years for colonel regardless and brig. general for 50 years regardless!
Sandman-
Would you eliminate the "professional appointments" of MD, RNs, EMT/Medics, Lawyers, etc? Im still a SMWOG but the Squadron Commander has informed that we will put me in for 2d Lt sometime in the next month or so. Since basically all the professional appointment does is eliminate the 6 month "time in" period but not any other qualification for that first bump, would you eliminate it? Do you feel that its unfair, etc. When I was interested in joint the USCGR, the recruiter stated that, after finishing recruit training, I would be eligible for their direct Petty Officer appointment. I mean, great to be a PO, but I didnt know how I felt about not having military experience past boot when I "made the grade." I wondered if other folks who perhaps had been in longer would be offended, resent it or what their reaction would be. Ultimately, I didnt join because the billet I was interested in (Health Services) was not available (ie all HS billets filled) and what they kept pushing for was Port Security. When I indicated I was interested in the PS billet, the stopped returning calls. Id like to hear some thoughts on CAPs professional appointments.
If I were made the Commander I would do the following:
get rid of all the uniforom combinations except the Air Force style uniforms and the blue shirt/grey pants combo and blazor for formal wear.
I would strengthen our relationship withthe AIr Froce and get away from our relationship with the DHS.
I would build the Cadet Program and encourage more young people to seek Air Force Officer careers especially in the area of aviation.
I would put more units in inner city and urban areas and promote CAP and aviation in these communities.
I would encourage a stronger command relationship with Group Commanders because at least in my Wing, i dont seee their purpose.
I would give Squadron Commanders more authority and decision making ability.
Quote from: SARMedTech on July 24, 2007, 07:09:29 AM
Would you eliminate the "professional appointments" of MD, RNs, EMT/Medics, Lawyers, etc?
Good question! My answer is no. I would follow the initial appointment system of the US Public Health Service: MD's / PHD's would come in with initial grade of O-3; RN's and other health care members with BS degrees in their specialties and masters prepared educators and social workers start as O-2. RN's with ADN or diploma and health care technicians with AS degree or less start as O-1. Otherwise everyone else starts as SMWOG.
Quote from: SARMedTech on July 24, 2007, 07:09:29 AM
Im still a SMWOG but the Squadron Commander has informed that we will put me in for 2d Lt sometime in the next month or so. Since basically all the professional appointment does is eliminate the 6 month "time in" period but not any other qualification for that first bump, would you eliminate it?
No...but allow time for individuals to backfill certain requirements before advancing grade.
An example:
A medical doctor has an advanced grade to O-3 initially and with only time in service may advance to O-4, this is standard practice within the uniformed services....why should we make it any harder for this professional to advance? Advancement to O-5 would require time in service and a few CAP professional development courses.
At the same time a BSN prepared nurse starts as O-2 but may take four years to advance to O-3. Again this parallels the USPHS.
An EMT with national certification and only an AS degree should be advanced to O-1 but may have to wait two years to continue advancing.
A masters prepared educator should advance to O-2 but will have to wait the standard two years to advance to O-3.
Quote from: SARMedTech on July 24, 2007, 07:09:29 AM
Do you feel that its unfair, etc.
In all sincerity, no.
It fairly parallels the uniformed services and allows the rank to have "gravitas" within CAP. Such a structure could potentially build actual respect for the rank within CAP. Requiring a professional degree for an advanced appointment is appropriate. A person without a degree, such as an EMT basic, etc. should have to matriculate through the normal promotion process.
Quote from: SARMedTech on July 24, 2007, 07:09:29 AM
When I was interested in joint the USCGR, the recruiter stated that, after finishing recruit training, I would be eligible for their direct Petty Officer appointment. I mean, great to be a PO, but I didnt know how I felt about not having military experience past boot when I "made the grade." I wondered if other folks who perhaps had been in longer would be offended, resent it or what their reaction would be.
Sorry you missed the boat on that one (pardon the pun). You would have been wise to take the advanced grade! Never mind how others felt...your fellow PO's and chief's would have taught you what was needed...that's their job. When I went to Officer Indoctrination School one of my classmates was a radiologist with several years of civilian practice. She was directly appointed to commander (O-5) and she had no prior service. Those of us who had prior service but were lowly O-1's took the time to help her out! Advanced appointments are common practice.
Quote from: SARMedTech on July 24, 2007, 07:09:29 AM
Ultimately, I didnt join because the billet I was interested in (Health Services) was not available (ie all HS billets filled) and what they kept pushing for was Port Security. When I indicated I was interested in the PS billet, the stopped returning calls.
I don't know what happened there, maybe the window of opportunity closed for you as you hesitated too long. On the other hand, you could have waited them out for a HS billet but you might not have been offered the advanced grade. Is this recent? Are you still eligible to apply?
Quote from: SARMedTech on July 24, 2007, 07:09:29 AM
Id like to hear some thoughts on CAPs professional appointments.
Just my musings...anybody else?
/r
LT
Quote from: SARMedTech on July 24, 2007, 07:09:29 AM
Do you feel that its unfair, etc.
In all sincerity, no.
It fairly parallels the uniformed services and allows the rank to have "gravitas" within CAP. Such a structure could potentially build actual respect for the rank within CAP. Requiring a professional degree for an advanced appointment is appropriate. A person without a degree, such as an EMT basic, etc. should have to matriculate through the normal promotion process.
Just because the military and Public Health organizations do it that way doesnt make it fair. People IN the military already dont think its fair thata person gets more rank just because they have a degree. To do it in a volunteer organization you would loose a lot of people. I believe.
Quote spacing - MIKE
Quote from: flyguy06 on July 24, 2007, 07:37:22 PM
Just because the military and Public Health organizations do it that way doesnt make it fair. People IN the military already dont think its fair thata person gets more rank just because they have a degree. To do it in a volunteer organization you would loose a lot of people. I believe.
I am addressing only a specific population; professionals in healthcare, law, and education.
I don't advocate "fairness". I suppose we could use the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet model where anyone applying to be an officer, irregardles of prior service, flight qualifications, or professional training starts as an "instructor" then advances to O-1 through whatever terminal rank is determined with time in service and professional development as the only means to advance.
Can you cite a specific example where
Quote from: flyguy06 on July 24, 2007, 07:37:22 PMPeople IN the military already dont think its fair thata person gets more rank just because they have a degree.
?
I doubt that is true to the extent that you're alluding to, but I'm willing to hear the arguement.
/r
LT
Talk to an Infantry soldier and ask him what he thinks about the young 22 year old West Point LT leading him?
Quote from: flyguy06 on July 25, 2007, 01:43:21 AM
Talk to an Infantry soldier and ask him what he thinks about the young 22 year old West Point LT leading him?
I have. I was the 17 year old soldier. I would counsel your infantry soldier to to what he does best and counsel his young lieutenant to learn how to be a leader. Secondly I would counsel the infantry soldier to apply to West Point he he's so disgrunteled.
/r
LT
I was that soldier as well. I took solice in the fact that, though the 2Lt was the "Platoon Leader", the Platoon Sergeant ran the show. The CO supported it and any LT that went toe to toe with the "Platoon Daddy" would find himself in the front leaning rest, feet on the CO's desk, learning a lesson in leadership and title (with the door closed, of course).
We accept rank as it is presented to us. We salute it, we show it honor. We respect the man that wears it if he has earned it.
The same question could be asked of me.... Why do I, a veteran, NCO, and proven leader, render salute to some guy off the street with a brand new set of "Butter Bars", that couldn't find his ass with both hands, and not a clue about leadership? Because that is what I do. I'll follow his instructions to the limit of safety and good judgement. When he crosses the line, the CC finds out. If the CC is worth more than a bag of manure, he'll teach his junior officers to listen to their NCO's, as they own the t-shirt.
If it all fails, I take my ball and go play elsewhere.
Quote from: Sgt. Savage on July 25, 2007, 01:42:08 PM
I was that soldier as well. I took solice in the fact that, though the 2Lt was the "Platoon Leader", the Platoon Sergeant ran the show. The CO supported it and any LT that went toe to toe with the "Platoon Daddy" would find himself in the front leaning rest, feet on the CO's desk, learning a lesson in leadership and title (with the door closed, of course).
We accept rank as it is presented to us. We salute it, we show it honor. We respect the man that wears it if he has earned it.
The same question could be asked of me.... Why do I, a veteran, NCO, and proven leader, render salute to some guy off the street with a brand new set of "Butter Bars", that couldn't find his ass with both hands, and not a clue about leadership? Because that is what I do. I'll follow his instructions to the limit of safety and good judgement. When he crosses the line, the CC finds out. If the CC is worth more than a bag of manure, he'll teach his junior officers to listen to their NCO's, as they own the t-shirt.
If it all fails, I take my ball and go play elsewhere.
My point exactly.
Id ditch the smurf suits then retire :P
Well I guess you should retire now, the smurf suits have been ditched... :-\
First off, I want to make it clear that in the first year or more I would take the time to absorb the blinding amount of information thrust upon me. And just attempt to keep my head above water as I learn to swim in the "big boy pool" that is working with the AF, DHS, and 60,000 screaming members that are all worried about what at the time will seem like minor complaints.
Then after I figured out the secret handshakes, and found out who REALLY runs the show, I would attempt to affect change. Again, the MG wears the grade and has a lot of weight but at the end of the day he like the president doesn't amount to a hill of beans if not for the support of the NB, NEC, and BOG.
I would want to re-design e-services to make it more user friendly and eliminate the need for links to other pages. In my mind you should be able to long onto e-services, see the personnel files (at the appropriate level), do ES, Take tests, process paperwork (all of it), access your personal CAP Email, and the list goes on.
I would request that any time a uniform change is requested that there be a wear test, Polling of the membership, and other such activities.
I would end the elite status that vanguard currently holds on CAP uniform items and make it a free market, the only stipulation being that manufacturers but comply with the specifications set forth for each individual item.
The main focus of my term of office would be to decrease the hardships on the members and build partnerships with organizations that could benefit from our abilities, and that we could benefit from as well.
Just when I thought you guys couldn't keep focused, mfd1506 brings us back to topic.
Anyone else have any comments on what you would do if you were suddenly appointed National Commander?
NC
National Commander...
1) Commission a complete rewrite, consolidate and/or reorganize the CAP Regulations. From CAPM 39-1 to CAPR 60-1. It will occur in one year, six months to idenfity problems and six months to deliver a REG book that is clear and addresses all the problems we have with current regulations.
This would not be a "policy" reboot, but one that consolidates all that is good, elimates all that is bad and clears up all that is unclear.
This would occur during my last year...and would be something the next few leaders will run with because they will have had a say in it.
2) Uniforms would be consolidated to 1 USAF style and 1 CAP Distinctive style. They would parallel each other. Cadets would be bound to USAF Style and Seniors could choose...
USAF STYLE CAP DISTINCTIVE
MESS DRESS Standard Clack TUX w/ CAP Regalia and Minimedals
FORMAL SERVICE DRESS CAP SERVICE DRESS (USAF Style grey epaulets)
SEMI-FORMAL SERVICE DRESS While Shirt, CAP Should Marks, blue pants, Blue Tie
Minimum Basic SERVICE DRESS Short Sleeve White Shirt, blue pants
Field Dress (BDU, ACU) Blue BDUs
USAF Flight SUIT CAP Flight Suit
What's more, there would be defined times to wear. Meetings would be in Minimum Basic Service Dress (temperature and weather specific) or Semi- Formal (tie version). SARex would be Fligth suit and/or BDUs for operational people and missions base staff in Minimum Basic Service Dress.
No golf shirts...if you can put on a pair of pants and a pull over shirt you can put on a pair of pants and a shirt that buttons in the front.
3) USAF Relationship- Strong. Work with USAF and gear the Cadet Program to a closer relationship. The foucs will still be building strong citizens, but it will be through USAF methods. Corportate CAP will still exist, taking missions from other agencies, but it would be under USAF guidance.
CAP will serve to augment the USAF to a great degree than today. Helping recruiting stations and at militayr installations.
4) Professional Development will be strict and likely redesigned. A CAP Major will be trained to the level that such an officer could handle the responsibilities of a USAF Staff Officer. The idea is, not to have CAP Officers replace or fill in for acice USAF, but rather to develop those skills to benefit CAP.
This will require reexamining how promotions work in CAP. Several models exist presented by Kach and others. Current officers will be grandfathered into their rank and continue up to their next level once they have met the criteria.
Rank should exist as followed:
1) Professional Development promotions up through Captain.
2) Squadron Commanders (and former) appointed to Major
3) Group Commanders (and former) appointed to Lt Col.
4) Wing Commanders (and former) Colonels
5) Region Commanders (and former) Brig General
6) Vice Commander (and former) Brig General
7) National Commander (and former) Major Generals
Persons cannot be appointed the rank of command who have not met the requirements for Captain. They can serve as the commander for a full year without said criteria (with permission and supervision) until they will warrant the rank of that office.
This limits the number of "high ranking officers" to commanders and former commander and allows Captains in CAP who wish to focus on their local unit the option to do so.
5) Consolidation of CAP operations at the unit level- Wings with Groups will use the Group Structure to insure that squadrons do not exist in isolation. Group Level SARexs under the Direction of WING. Units will be made to work with other units. Sister and Satelitte Squadrons where the training can continue despite unit limitiation drawing on the strengths of neighboring units and the GROUP/WING.
6) CAP National Standards for encampments. Each encampment in every Wing should be some similar style and quality. Thus, the various elements that cause unusual issues to arise in one encampment can be mitigated.
7) CAP Officer Advisory Councils, the CAC for CAP Officers that serve as advisory bodies to Groups, Wing and Region. The place to lobby through democratic practice. The place to gauge reactions on wear tests, policy flag balloons and to better address suggestions.
While not part of the Chain of Command, it allows the voice to the people in the trenches to have a say...a meaningful say. Current Commanders are forbidden membership, encourage "Joe Everyday CAP OFFICER" to join.
The National Version of this Body has a place to make suggestions at the National Board and can issue a "report card." While it has no force of law, it demonstrates the importance of MEMBER VOICE.
I've got lots more and should have chosen words more carefully, but this is a pipe dream and for disussion. Every one of these suggestions needs work and is both workable and un workable in this state.
I'm hoping some of you can take some of this and refine it. I'm tempted to start some threads on some of these.
A lot of great ideas, Sparky, you've got my vote!
The only thing I'd question is limiting field grade to commanders....I agree that it should be a bit more demanding to earn than now....but I do see a need for staff officers at wings, regions, even groups that have a senior rank -- and former commanders just aren't enough of a pool to fill all those slots.
I'm talking at group level about deputies, IG, ops officer in particular.
:o whats a e BoG, NB, NEC ???
Next I will be elected president ;)
Quote from: James on September 04, 2007, 08:08:20 PM
:o whats a e BoG, NB, NEC ???
Next I will be elected president ;)
Thread resurrection... apparently.
Quote from: James on September 04, 2007, 08:08:20 PM
:o whats a e BoG, NB, NEC ???
Next I will be elected president ;)
BOG = Board of Governors
NB = National Board
NEC = National Executive Commitee (I think)
I will have to look up the details on who sits on what though......
Eliminate Corporate Officer blacklists that don't require a hearing or due process.
No matter what the process, I think it's safe to say that the loser will believe it was "undue."
Quote from: Dragoon on September 05, 2007, 06:00:47 PM
No matter what the process, I think it's safe to say that the loser will believe it was "undue."
That, in fact, is likely to be a truism. There are, however certain standards for
due process which are generally accepted. Those are notice, and an opportunity to be heard on the issue, with an impartial adjudicator and no command interference. Many of the flags filed with National, the first notice to the flagee was when Susie Parker returned their renewal (too late to appeal) with the Notation "Xxxxx Wing Objects." Quite an unpleasant surprise to someone who has never even received notice of charges being filed.
Has anyone said "get rid of the US in US Civil Air Patrol"? If not.....I do! If someone already did....I second it!
Reduce Burdens on the MembershipWith the overall objectives of reducing costs and unnecessary time spent on non-mission items, I will:
- Immediately stop all changes to CAP uniforms. Uniforms are expensive and required changes, especially senseless changes are a burden on our membership and create confusion. I will establish a committee to study the existing uniforms and recommend changes that will simplify the array of uniforms available. They will establish clear standards and recommend changes based on member input. Only one meeting during my term will cover the subject of uniforms unless an immediate and pressing concern, such as safety exists. If a room full of Colonels finds it necessary to make an arbitrary uniform change, let them establish a collection bin to pay for the new uniform item for each member required to wear it.
- National buying power – reestablish CAP Supply Depot in some form to offer affordable operations gear and equipment.
- Identify and eliminate any wasteful spending.
- Continuously evaluate ways to simplify standards and establish clear processes across the board. Confusing standards and systems create poor morale.
- Eliminate any unnecessary administrative procedures
- Examine ways for wings to provide maximum assistance to local units, thus alleviating many burdens on units with limited personnel. Local units should be free to focus on mission accomplishment as much as possible.
- Establish the comprehensive review of existing CAP regulations and, with proper input, update them to provide more clear guidance and resolve conflicts between regulations.
National Unity, Local StrengthIt is important to promote the concept of one national organization, rather than 52 (or more) organizations, while recognizing the collective power of encouraging local innovation. To do this, I will:
- Recognizing that not all states are the same, evaluate ways for CAP to effectively accomplish its missions and cater to (or seek the change of, in the case of legal structures such as state SAR responsible agencies) cultural structures in various states
- While striving for national standards, we need to recognize the ability for wings and subordinate units to develop unique and innovative solutions. Grant waivers to test new programs as necessary.
Clear CommunicationCommunicating the commander's intent is important to the morale and development of the organization. I will, in cooperation with the membership and their representatives on the National Board, establish a clear strategic plan with short- and long-term goals for the organization. This will be developed in close collaboration with HQ-USAF, and made available for all members to see and use as a guide. In addition, regular reports to the membership will be provided, outlining progress, developments, and changes. Local "town hall" meetings at wing and region conferences will be held with National staff. Other opportunities for "town hall" meetings could be made available by the web, or by other means, in order to facilitate maximum two-way communication between the membership and leadership.
Increase Operational CapabilitiesWorking closely with the Air Force and other responsible federal agencies, I will seek the development of CAP's operational capabilities by:
- Finding new ways for CAP to better use its resources and accomplish its Congressionally-chartered missions
- Working closely with stakeholders (federal and state agencies, and organizations such as NASAR) to bring CAP closer to national standards in emergency services
Member Retention
- Increase the offerings of National Cadet Special Activities and various activities for senior members
- Study membership retention patterns on both the micro and macro levels
- Conduct comprehensive surveys of the membership to determine areas of weakness in member satisfaction, morale, and involvement. This will include comprehensive exit surveys.
Innovative and Cohesive Use of TechnologyTechnology, such as various web-based systems offers CAP more opportunities than ever before to reduce volunteer workload, improve consistency in data collection and management, disseminate information, and educate our members. To seize these opportunities, I will:
- Encourage the development of meaningful, effective web-based training courses covering all possible areas of mission accomplishment, mission support, and member development
- Direct the development of a comprehensive national member portal that includes official CAP e-mail addresses for all members, a customizable interface, administrative tools, personnel record information, e-mail groups for all units, a comprehensive national calendar with easy localization, etc.
- Establish additional web-based means of reporting and general administration, including logistics. This includes current reports on important information such as membership numbers, member trends, training, and other items to aid staff in accomplishing their jobs.
- Dedicated CAP recruiting site similar to those used by the USAF and its ROTC (as well as other branches of the military)
A Closer Working Relationship with the U.S. Air ForceI will work to build a closer working relationship with the Air Force in all areas – Cadet Programs, Aerospace Education, and Emergency Services.
Effective Member Training and Development
- Revise outdated specialty tracks
- Develop additional member training materials and opportunities
- Offer intensive leadership courses
- Provide standards-based, comprehensive online member training
Further Aerospace EducationWe will examine and execute additional ways to further our Aerospace Education mission.
Use of Volunteer Developments and InputWe have countless members nationwide with unique and relevant experience. I will make it a special priority to see out member-developed best practices, materials, and experience to enhance the organization.
A Comprehensive and Solid Marketing PlanI will lead the development of a comprehensive, professional marketing plan for CAP that includes new television/radio spots, signage, van decals, printed materials, a standard national recruiting web site, a market-research-based message, an effective tagline, standard templates for local-level use, web marketing campaigns, valuable member public affairs training, a robust toolkit for local Public Affairs Officers, and a brand identity policy that includes standards for all CAP marketing materials. I will involve CAP at more conferences and shows related to CAP's missions. Also, we will conduct numerous national-level recruiting campaigns with intensive involvement from the local units.
No Term Extensions for National CommandersLeaders of large organizations, no matter how capable, need to rotate regularly to provide fresh ideas and prospective. I expect no term extensions. If asked, I will not run; if reelected, I will not serve.
ContinuityNo National Commander could be expected to complete all of these items during his or her term. In addition, all is lost if the next National Commander neglects the changes. I will ensure continuity planning from the very beginning.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One nice thing is that I will seize power through my coup and we won't need any silly National Board elections. ;)
You have my vote/support. That is one one of the best thought out policies/ ideas so far.
I like them, Jim. The only thing I would amend is your reliance on Wing to support local units. I think that establishing teams of units based on groups would provide for a more flexible organization. In most cases, Group is simply an administrative HQ that moves stuff between Wing and Squadron. Creating units within groups that specialize in the mission areas, ES, CP, and AE, then mutually support each other under Group command would create a more dynamic organization.
Plus, unless Wing would be configured differently than the current wing staff model, they are not set up for broad-spectrum support.
1. End cronyism in promotions/awards.
a. No "exceptional" promotion waivers. We don't need waivers for anything except predetermined qualifications (pilots, educators, medical personnel, etc.). The Air Force works that way in its line officer appointments. The Air Force Chief of Staff doesn't sign waivers to commission some non-prior service guy as a lieutenant colonel in the line of the Air Force. Surely we can do the same. The present waiver system allows a favored few to skip up the chain.
b. No commander's limbo. If you meet the regulatory criteria, you should get the promotion/award...or the commander has to clearly document why not. During my first membership in CAP, my commander (1st Lt) declined to sign off on my promotion to the exalted grade of flight officer. Why? I still don't know. I met the criteria, except for commander's recommendation. I asked why she wouldn't sign off. No reason given. I asked when that would change. No time given. I resigned on the spot. Service is fine and good, but don't make people subject to arbitrary whim.
c. Stop the bottlenecks! I don't care if the person is getting the SMV or a membership ribbon, or whether the promotion is to lieutenant or lieutenant colonel -- if the unit commander signs off, it should go straight to National. Furthermore, the date of rank/date of award should be the date the commander approves it...not the date National processes it. If some commander is sending slop to National, deal with him. Otherwise, let's empower our unit commanders. They can read; I'm sure of it. Our folks not only have to achieve the right time in grade, but they have to wait out the added delays while stuff ages on group, wing, and region personnel officers' or commanders' desks.
2. Elect Wing and higher level CVs, ending the "it's who you know" perception. It seems to me that at certain levels, there is more politicking going on in CAP than among our Air Force counterparts. This blows me away, because USAF officers at least get paid when they advance. We just get titles, bling, and eligibility for higher levels of training.
a. National CAP/CC and CV should be elected by popular vote of all senior members.
b. All region CCs/CVs should be elected by popular vote of all senior members in that region.
c. All wing CCs/CVs should be elected by popular vote of all senior members in that wing.
3. Strengthen relations with HQ USAF.
a. Our tone with the USAF needs to be "this is what we can give to you," not "here's what we want you to do for us." Sometimes they're going to have other priorities. Pity, but we'll suck it up and drive on. Educate them, put our best foot forward, etc. Appreciate what we get, and make sure they know how we put it to good use.
b. The Air Force style uniform should be worn by those who meet Air Force weight standards. Use their weight table, not ours. No 15-pound exception. If we want to dress like our active duty counterparts, we should look like them when we have the blues on. The public doesn't know the difference, and we shouldn't make our active duty counterparts look bad.
c. Get rid of the TPU. The Air Force doesn't want us to so closely resemble Air Force commissioned officers. We won't get hard rank back. Pushing for it just makes us look like Wannabes instead of Here-to-serves(TM).
d. Make uniforms uniform! There needs to be one standard array of non-USAF style uniforms for CAP, just like there is one standard array of USAF-style uniforms. They call them uniforms because they look alike, after all. The array of "uniforms" is almost as wide as the array of civilian clothes my flight wore on our first day of Air Force basic military training.
e. Get our house in order and clearly keep it that way. The Air Force's jurisdiction over us is just like LCDR Galloway's over LT Kaffee's in A Few Good Men -- pretty much in our faces. Financial oversight, especially of appropriated funds, should be strict. Wrongdoing which adversely affects our relationships (AFIADL improprieties, financial wrongdoing, Salute Me Airman Or Else martinets walking around USAF bases) should be severely dealt with. If we're dealing with this stuff promptly and appropriately, Big Blue won't have to deal with it for us.
4. Online or correspondence versions of SLS, CLC, RSC and NSC. If we're going to tie these to advancement, let's remember that some of our folks have lives and are unable to get to the once-a-year (in some wings) offerings of these courses. There is really no reason that these courses couldn't be made online/correspondence.
5. A huge, huge, huge lifetime pension for former National Commanders. Hey, you said I'm the commander. I'm human.
Bill Johnson, Major, CAP
Quote from: topsecret on September 06, 2007, 01:54:44 PM
2. Elect Wing and higher level CVs, ending the "it's who you know" perception.
a. National CAP/CC and CV should be elected by popular vote of all senior members.
b. All region CCs/CVs should be elected by popular vote of all senior members in that region.
c. All wing CCs/CVs should be elected by popular vote of all senior members in that wing.
Bill Johnson, Major, CAP
Bill,
I support the exercise of democracy as much as the next guy. Heck, people fight wars over these very issues.
But as long as we are implementing democracy in CAP, what earthly reason could you have to disenfranchise thousands of dues-paying members?
Wing+CCs/CVs make decisions that affect
all members, not just seniors.
Wing+CCs/CVs set the dues rates for
all members, not just seniors.
Wing+ CCs/CVs spend the dues money paid by
all members, not just seniors.
I'm pretty sure some perfectly good tea was thrown overboard in Boston over just these sorts of issues . . .
Unless you are suggesting that King George and his Parliment were correct with the whole "taxation without representation" thing.
Ned Lee
Cadet Programs Enthusiast
I'm not convinced that a popularity contest -- that is, elections -- would necessarily improve the quality of corporate officers and subordinate commanders.
Of course, it probably could not make things much worse, either!
Quote from: Ned on September 06, 2007, 11:44:10 PM
Quote from: topsecret on September 06, 2007, 01:54:44 PM
2. Elect Wing and higher level CVs, ending the "it's who you know" perception.
a. National CAP/CC and CV should be elected by popular vote of all senior members.
b. All region CCs/CVs should be elected by popular vote of all senior members in that region.
c. All wing CCs/CVs should be elected by popular vote of all senior members in that wing.
Bill Johnson, Major, CAP
Unless you are suggesting that King George and his Parliment were correct with the whole "taxation without representation" thing.
I don't think my proposal merited quite that level of sarcastic response, and I don't believe I've treated any of you in that manner during my brief tenure here. Why not just ask "
why not let cadets vote?" Five words get the point across, and you don't even have to misspell "Parliament" to get there.
Okay,
that was sarcastic. Even steven.
To answer you: No, but even the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave doesn't let minors vote. In recognition of our cadets who are over age 18, I hereby adjust my (
never to be approved anyway) proposal to "adult members" instead of "senior members."
I think adding cadets to the mix would be overkill. Some of the more impressionable younger cadets might be subject to pressure or "encouragement" by seniors. Some might vote for a candidate just because an officer they admired supported that candidate.
Hopefully adults would resist such pressure and really think about their votes.
While the present system has given us some good folks, we've also had our share of less-than-stellar senior officers. I think that by and large, the rank and file can tell the difference between our feather merchants and our genuine articles. I'm not saying it's a cure-all...but I think that an educated electorate could have stood betwen some of our feather merchants and certain positions of power.
Sorry, but cadets are just as much a member of the corporation as you or I.
The fact that some of them might not vote in a way you think is appropriate is not a reason to deprive them of the basic rights of membership.
Cadets and cadet-program related seniors combined are over half the membership in this corporation and pay a substantial percentage of the dues -- far more than is returned to CP from corporate and appropriated dollars.
Cadets have been subsidizing the seniors for many years, and depriving them of the vote while taking their money is downright un-American.
Quote from: topsecret on September 06, 2007, 01:54:44 PM5. A huge, huge, huge lifetime pension for former National Commanders.
Do you
really think that all former National Commanders deserve a huge lifetime pension? If TP is acquitted of all the charges against him and is allowed to resign, do you really think
he would be deserving of a lifetime pension?
You may want to rethink that, Major Johnson.
Quote from: Ned on September 07, 2007, 06:02:38 AM
Cadets have been subsidizing the seniors for many years, and depriving them of the vote while taking their money is downright un-American.
Eh, I don't know that you could accurately call my (
never to be implemented) proposal un-American. America does withhold the right to vote from all minors, no matter what they pay in taxes.
Your objection is noted: One "
no" for that portion of my answer to a question whose circumstances (my becoming CAP/CC) have about as much chance of occurring as my winning the Powerball while being simultaneously hit on by Jessica Alba and Angelina Jolie.
Happy?
Quote from: ♠ on September 07, 2007, 06:07:39 AM
Quote from: topsecret on September 06, 2007, 01:54:44 PM5. A huge, huge, huge lifetime pension for former National Commanders.
Do you really think that all former National Commanders deserve a huge lifetime pension?
Three huges, not just one.
In the interest of fiscal discipline, I amend my original proposal so it only applies former national commanders named William D. Johnson.
Good catch, though.
QuoteIn the interest of fiscal discipline, I amend my original proposal so it only applies former national commanders named William D. Johnson.
If the "D" stands for Douglas, I am totally freaking out.
I can't see enfranchising anyone to vote for CAP commanders....but in point of fact, I can't see letting ALL the cadets vote.
Here's a suggestion.....only members with two years (or more) service in CAP and one of the following should be given a vote (in elections I still don't think we should have!):
1) completion of Level II in senior program
OR
2) earned Mitchell Award
This guarantees the voters will have some experience of and commitment to CAP.
It also prevents electoral mischief ("recruiting" a bunch of people at election time....mom, dad, grandma, etc....to vote the 'right' way, but do nothing for CAP)
Quote from: Skyray on September 07, 2007, 02:07:28 PM
QuoteIn the interest of fiscal discipline, I amend my original proposal so it only applies former national commanders named William D. Johnson.
If the "D" stands for Douglas, I am totally freaking out.
It does. We should run on a joint ticket. If we get the top two jobs, it'll make the cadets' task in memorizing the chain of command way easier.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on September 07, 2007, 05:50:06 PM
I can't see enfranchising anyone to vote for CAP commanders....but in point of fact, I can't see letting ALL the cadets vote.
Here's a suggestion.....only members with two years (or more) service in CAP and one of the following should be given a vote (in elections I still don't think we should have!):
1) completion of Level II in senior program
OR
2) earned Mitchell Award
This guarantees the voters will have some experience of and commitment to CAP.
It also prevents electoral mischief ("recruiting" a bunch of people at election time....mom, dad, grandma, etc....to vote the 'right' way, but do nothing for CAP)
I think that's a neat concept - while I'm not really in favor of electing officials in a supposedlly "military" organization (the popularity contest for National Commander has already turned my stomach on several occasions) the idea of requiring a certain degreee of tenure or "buy in" before helping decide such issues seems like a good idea.
Quote from: Ned on September 07, 2007, 06:02:38 AM
Sorry, but cadets are just as much a member of the corporation as you or I.
The fact that some of them might not vote in a way you think is appropriate is not a reason to deprive them of the basic rights of membership.
Cadets and cadet-program related seniors combined are over half the membership in this corporation and pay a substantial percentage of the dues -- far more than is returned to CP from corporate and appropriated dollars.
Cadets have been subsidizing the seniors for many years, and depriving them of the vote while taking their money is downright un-American.
Ned - do you have a spreadsheet to support that assertion? My guess is that you do, and it would be fun to pick over those numbers.
Quote from: Ned on September 07, 2007, 06:02:38 AM
Cadets have been subsidizing the seniors for many years, and depriving them of the vote while taking their money is downright un-American.
First, I don't believe the numbers support this, considering that cadets pay less dues, in many states there are less of them, and they receive at least an initial uniform from the USAF.
But second, assuming it was true, this would be at least partially due to the fact that without seniors their is no cadet program, no planes, no ES, no meetings, nothing.
An attitude that cadets are somehow holding up more than their share of the weight is simply incorrect. And I have no idea how you would determine who is a "CP-related" senior and who isn't, since most of us are doing at least double-duty, which is the whole point to start with.
Not to derail the thread, but a few responses:
I don't have the latest numbers here at work, but let's work from the 2005 data. I don't think 2006 was very different.
Cadets number about 22,000; seniors have about 29,000. Or about 40% and 50 %, respectively. (The others are CSMs and AEMs, mostly)
Cadets do indeed pay lower dues, on average, than seniors.
In 2005, the total corporate funds budget was $2,176, 802.
Senior dues accounted for $1,135,000 of that, or just over 50%.
Cadet dues accounted for $614,000 of that, or just over 28%.
(The rest was income from investments, etc.)
On the expenditure side of the corporate dollar budget, the cadets who contributed 28% of budget only get 20% of the expenditures back to cadet programs.
And on the appropriated dollar side, it's even worse. In 2005, Congress generously appropriated some $26.5 million for CAP. And we certainly thank them for that.
But the Cadets, who comprise 40% of the membership, received less than 5% of the appropriated funds, some $1,372,500, and that was almost entirely for the Free Cadet Uniform program. The rest of the money was spent elsewhere.
Now don't get me wrong. We are grateful for the money, both corporate and appropriated, that is spent on CP. I hope we have served as faithful guardians of the funds and put them to good use.
But my point was cadets receive less in dedicated funds to CP than they pay collectively in dues.
I could continue and point out that there are currently exactly three employees at NHQ that work exclusively or primarily on CP. Three out of the entire hard-working Corporate Team of roughly 80 employees.
And we are very grateful to have them. They are terrific, hard-working folks.
Directly serving the 22,000 dues-paying cadet members of CAP.
I'm not here to engage in a "who's more important; seniors or cadets" debate.
No one could ever "win" such a argument. All three missions of this organization are important; none is "more" equal than the others.
My posts were merely an attempt to point out that it is unfair and unwise to fail to consider our cadets (and the CP-related seniors who support them) as equal stakeholders with the seniors when it comes to determining the future of CAP.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 10, 2007, 06:23:07 PM
Quote from: Ned on September 07, 2007, 06:02:38 AM
Cadets have been subsidizing the seniors for many years, and depriving them of the vote while taking their money is downright un-American.
First, I don't believe the numbers support this, considering that cadets pay less dues, in many states there are less of them, and they receive at least an initial uniform from the USAF.
OK, Bob, how about this one:
As I mentioned, the entire CP budget from corporate dollars in 2005 was $426 k, or a little less than
$20 per cadet.
For the same year, the travel and adminsitration budget for the NEC (all 17 of them) was $298,000 or a little more than
$17,000 per head, (actually more since the CC, CAP-USAF has his own travel budget.)
Just on their travel and administration.
If you add in 52 wing commanders, it is not hard to imagine that just the travel budget for the NB and NEC is larger than all of the corporate funding provided to CP.
Now I don't begrudge the NEC their travel. I'd hate to pay for my own travel to NB and NEC meetings.
(I do, of course, but at least I get to choose.)
Quote
But second, assuming it was true, this would be at least partially due to the fact that without seniors their is no cadet program, no planes, no ES, no meetings, nothing.
Kinda a non-sequitor there, sir.
I certainly grant that we need our dedicated seniors like yourself to support the cadet program, but that seems logically unrelated to whether or not cadet dues should be spent on various senior programs.
If anything, one would think it would be the reverse.
Quote
An attitude that cadets are somehow holding up more than their share of the weight is simply incorrect. And I have no idea how you would determine who is a "CP-related" senior and who isn't, since most of us are doing at least double-duty, which is the whole point to start with.
I hope I have not created an impression that anyone in CP has such an attitude. It was certainly not my intent.
But now that you mention it, it does seem odd that the NCAC had their travel budget eliminated in the last two years while the NB & NEC were able to spend an estimated half million on their travel and administration expenses.
If I were cynical, I would say something about the Golden Rule -- "they who have the Gold, make the Rules."
Which is why we need to have cadet representation on the NB and/or the NEC. But that's another thread. ;D
And as a group commander, I shouldn't think it would be all that hard for you to figure out who are the CP-related seniors in your group. As you point out, thankfully a lot of folks do both CP and ES. God bless 'em.
But let's try, for the sake of argument:
We could start by counting all the cadets in your group. Now add in all the CSMs and seniors who are members of cadet units as well as the seniors who directly support the cadets in composite units (DCCs, AE, and Leadership Officers, etc). Don't forget to count your group CP staff.
Optional -- add in all the CP-rated seniors. (But some will have more than one specialty and could really be supporting ES full-time, so this one is a little "iffy.)
Now count all the seniors, and subtract the above mentioned CSMs, and seniors assigned to cadet units and those seniors at composite units who work primarily with cadets.
To be fair, you should also subtract the Group HQ folks who support both CP and the other missions equally (they do, don't they?)
What do the numbers look like?
If we do the same sort of thought experiment on a national basis, we start with:
22,000 cadets. Let's add in the roughly 3,000 CSMs, and we have a subtotal of 25,000 folks.
Now we need to estimate the number of seniors who work "primarily" in CP.
Let's try a conservative guess and say only about 10% of seniors primarily work in CP.
(I think that's low, but I don't have the hard numbers to back me up at the moment.)
So, 10% of 29,000 seniors is 2,900 bodies. We need to add them to the CP subtotal and subtract them from the remaining seniors.
CP=(22,000 + 3,000) + 2,900 = 27,900.
Non-CP = (29,000 - 2, 900) = 26,100.
CP > Non-CP.
And that was the basis for my statement.
Your figures for NHQ cadet spending are way wrong. The FYO6 annual report has $2.94 million for cadet and senior member activities (combined). I think you were looking at the figure for Drug Demand Reduction programs which was $417K.
I feel pretty safe in saying that the majority of that 2.94 million was actually spent on cadet activities as there just aren't very many senior activities and they don't involve anywhere near as many people as involved in the regional and national cadet activities.
Of course you left out AF money spent on cadet o-rides and a share of the national AE budget as well.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 11, 2007, 05:17:59 AM
Your figures for NHQ cadet spending are way wrong. The FYO6 annual report has $2.94 million for cadet and senior member activities (combined). I think you were looking at the figure for Drug Demand Reduction programs which was $417K.
I feel pretty safe in saying that the majority of that 2.94 million was actually spent on cadet activities as there just aren't very many senior activities and they don't involve anywhere near as many people as involved in the regional and national cadet activities.
Of course you left out AF money spent on cadet o-rides and a share of the national AE budget as well.
While I appreciate your helpful criticism, each of the numbers I quoted is correct and directly from materials provided by NHQ. I was not looking at the DDR budget, nor did I include the AE figures since they are their own thing (and their numbers are so miniscule that they look enviously at the CP budget.)
Look, we can argue about numbers for days (and I'm OK with that), but let's keep our eye on the ball here.
Cadets pay dues that amount to 28% of the corporate dollars budget. Only 20% of corporate dollars are returned directly to CP.
Cadets are 40% of the membership, and even if we allocate all of the appropriated dollars for activities to the exculsive use of the cadets (which isn't true) they still get less than 10% of the appropriated budget.
Go ahead and add in O-ride money and anything else you can think of. Let me know when you get close to $10.5 million dollars (40% of the $26 million in appropriated funds).
But remember, my point all along has been that cadets do not have an effective voice in how their dues are set, or CP money is allocated and spent. We quite literally do not have a seat at the table.
And any discussions about the future of CAP simply must recognize that cadets -- each and every one of them -- are just as much a member of CAP as any senior.
And with the same stake in the future of the organization.
Ned Lee
CP Guy
Quote from: Ned on September 11, 2007, 05:43:34 AM
Cadets pay dues that amount to 28% of the corporate dollars budget. Only 20% of corporate dollars are returned directly to CP.
But it's not like cadets don't benefit from some of that other 80%, right?
I'm sure with access to the details, I can easily find that other 8% you're looking for within the remaining corporate dollars. For example, even with nothing but a cadet program, the CAP leaders would still need to travel to support CAP. Ditto funds for admin overhead, office staff, etc. It's not fair to require that every dollar cadets submit to go back to them directly while "somebody else" handles all the necessary overhead.
You mention that only 3 of the national staff are dedicated to CP. Okay. But you are assuming that the cadet program gets zero benefit from the corporate staff handling membership, logistics, finance, etc. Which is probably not the case.
Even if we were only a CAP outfit, you'd still have a bunch of that overhead.
Quote from: Ned on September 11, 2007, 05:43:34 AM
Cadets are 40% of the membership, and even if we allocate all of the appropriated dollars for activities to the exclusive use of the cadets (which isn't true) they still get less than 10% of the appropriated budget.
Okay. I'll take that as true. But I'm not sure that matters.
1. Appropriated funds aren't handed out based on membership. They're based on priority of mission. I think you're making the mistake of assuming that USAF considers the CP to be worth 40% of the dollars they give us. It's entirely possible, even likely, that they understand how much an air fleet (and other parts of CAP) costs, and if those things weren't around they'd cut our funding substantially, leaving no net profit to the cadet program.
2. Dues has no bearing on appropriated funds. It's not like each member is buying shares of USAF.
3. Just like with corporate funds, you have to look at the indirect CP money. Vans for example. Radios used by cadets. You'd still need to have some planes around.
4. Don't forget that cadets do ES. So it's not really fair to not figure some ES fund stuff into the "cadet program benefit" line.
Quote from: Ned on September 11, 2007, 05:43:34 AM
But remember, my point all along has been that cadets do not have an effective voice in how their dues are set, or CP money is allocated and spent.
True. Of course, given that the cadet program is a mission of CAP, a "product" of the corporation, if you will, the cadet as a consumer has the right to take his money elsewhere. Currently, a large number of consumers think our product is worth the dues money.
The cadet has as much say in how his money is spent as I have in how McDonald's spends the money I pay them.
It's a different view of course, but I think one with some validity. Seniors are here to make CAP work. Part of that work includes supporting cadets. Cadets, on the other hand, don't have a charter to support seniors, or indeed large sections of CAP operations. They are students, as you've pointed out elsewhere. Few students in today's world get to pick their school principal.
Quote from: Ned on September 11, 2007, 05:43:34 AM
We quite literally do not have a seat at the table.
Allowing cadets to vote wouldn't change the "we" part. You're not a cadet anymore. :-)
Quote from: Dragoon on September 11, 2007, 05:41:03 PM
Quote from: Ned on September 11, 2007, 05:43:34 AM
But remember, my point all along has been that cadets do not have an effective voice in how their dues are set, or CP money is allocated and spent.
True. Of course, given that the cadet program is a mission of CAP, a "product" of the corporation, if you will, the cadet as a consumer has the right to take his money elsewhere. Currently, a large number of consumers think our product is worth the dues money.
The cadet has as much say in how his money is spent as I have in how McDonald's spends the money I pay them.
BINGO!
Thank you for making my point so eloquently.
Under our current set-up, based on its perceived value, over 99.9% of the young people of America have "taken their money elsewhere."
(Really. Based on US Census figures, CAP cadets constitute less than one tenth of one per cent of the youth between 12 and 20 living in the US.)
If McDonald's realized that their market share was less than .1% of the market, I bet they'd make a few changes, too.
Now if we want to get serious and grow our cadet numbers, maybe it's time to take a look at some of these asset allocation issues and procedures.
FY06 Annual Report to Congress --- These are the official (and I hope correct) buget numbers (rounded slightly):
Operations & Maintenance=35.5 million
Within O&M:
Air Force Missions: 9 million
Other missions: 312K
Comm: 10.8 million
Aerospace Education: 1.8 million
Cadet & Senior Member Activities: 2.9 million
DDR: 417K
Liability Insurance: 1.8 million
Liasion Expenses: 30K
Wing Administrators:1.3 million
Vehicle Equipment/Maintenance: 427K
Aircraft Maintenance: 3.5 million
Procurement Funds: 7.3 million consisting of 6.4 million for aircraft and 810K for vehiciles.
Nothing to argue about -- these are the facts.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 11, 2007, 08:54:47 PM.
Nothing to argue about -- these are the facts.
And your point is?
The figures you cited are indeed the appropriated funds for the year 2006.
As I said in my earlier post, I was using 2005 figures, and mostly talking about corporate funds.
The 2006 figures you found in the Report To Congress do not include either the state appropriations (listed on the opposite page in the Report ) nor the coprorate dollar figures (income from dues and investments, etc).
Federal Appropriated funds, state appropriated funds, and corporate dollars are each separate and distinct "pots of money" that have different rules and restrictions.
We can quibble about numbers and statistics till the cows come home, but my point remains that cadets should be valued as much as any senior when we consider the future of CAP.
No more and no less.
If you're getting your figures from some other place than the report to Congress, please tell us where and provide the link. You can't start throwing out numbers to support your argument and then say we shouldn't quibble about them.
What's next you ask? An evaluation of weak points in the program. I ask for suggestions from Region and Wing Commanders as to what they think the problem is, and what can be done to solve problem. A close look at the most reasonable answers. Legitimate policies written to better the program with a closer effective date.
A National Commander's call to evaluate progress on those weak points. Acknowledge feed back, and support the Region and Wing Commanders as they enforce policies.
Most importantly, no new uniforms ;D
Two things:
1. As of Nov 2005 the Wing Commanders did not receive a travel budget from NHQ. Their's come from their state allocations, their own pockets or from the good graces of their Region Commanders.
2. The budget is discussed at length by the finance/budget committee before it is presented for ratification to the NB. If you want more money for CP, tell your wing commander so he/she can contact the finance committee and let them know they need to move some money to the CP funding block.
I would expect anyone considering becoming National Commander (or any other corporate officer) to have a long range plan to encompass his 3 year tenure, and publish upon assumption of command.
Mine would be:
1. Establish a full working relationship with the USAF, with the Commander USAF-CAP at the Air Staff and not under the Air University.
2. On Air Force assigned missions, have provisions for compensation for meals and lodging to be reimbursed.
3. Have all Wing Commander's complete at least Phase IV prior to appointment. Region and NEC members complete Level V.
4. Allow that relative few who do complete Level V to advance to the grade of Colonel.
5. In order to maintain retention allow for paid life memberships and allow for a reduction in membership fees where there are more than two members of a family in CAP.
6. Cut the costs of membership overall. Some Wings charge as high as $86 (CA) for Seniors and $44 for cadet to join (FL). This does not include any squadron or group dues.
One cost nationally for membership whether you're in California or New Hampshire.
7. Have a well orchestrated publicity campaign which does not have $6,000,000 NASCAR connections.
8. Put CAP on a paying basis. If we don't have the money, we don't spend it. Also include reimbursements on a man hour basis for all AF or government missions. The Air Force, and sheriffs all get paid-even the Salvation Army sends a bill for all those stale donuts and coffee. If we can't charge for the efforts at least send a letter requesting a donation from the persons who cause spurious ELT missions
9. Recruit, Recruit, Recruit
Quote from: conical on September 12, 2007, 03:38:18 AM
Two things:
1. As of Nov 2005 the Wing Commanders did not receive a travel budget from NHQ. Their's come from their state allocations, their own pockets or from the good graces of their Region Commanders.
2. The budget is discussed at length by the finance/budget committee before it is presented for ratification to the NB. If you want more money for CP, tell your wing commander so he/she can contact the finance committee and let them know they need to move some money to the CP funding block.
1. You are correct, and no one has said otherwise. Of course, the wing funds that support wing comander travel come from . . . . corporate dollars (dues mostly) and state appropriations (if any). Cadets pay wing dues just like everyone else. (And yes, I suspect every wing commander spends far more in personal funds than they ever recover from travel reimbursements. It is a thankless, difficult job. And I don't begrudge them getting reimbursed for as much of their official travel as they can. I also think they should restore the far smaller travel budget for the NCAC.)
2. You again correct -- the finances of the corporation are set by our volunteer leaders. The whole point of this thread is what would we (as a new national commander) do differently. If the reasons the CP is underfunded is structural (i.e., the existing finance committee and NB/NEC system) then one of the things we might do differently is change the asset allocation system. One possible way of doing that is giving the CP a representative -- a chance to be heard during the process. As it stands now, each person with decision making power over the budget has a conflict of interest in how the funds are divided. The overwhelming number of wing and region commanders -- the only folks with a vote over dues and asset allocation are from an operational rather than CP background. The largest proportion of the NHQ professional staff supports operations, not CP.
It is not really very surprising that the funding decisions reflect this reality. It's not a conspiracy or anything -- it's just the "way it's always been."
QuoteIf you're getting your figures from some other place than the report to Congress, please tell us where and provide the link. You can't start throwing out numbers to support your argument and then say we shouldn't quibble about them.
As I said, I got the figures directly from NHQ in materials they provided. AFAIK there is no electronic link to any corporate dollars budget information..
And we don't need to quibble unless you disagree with the notion that cadets should be valued and respected as much as any other member of the corporation.
You don't disagree with that, do you?
Quote from: Ned on September 12, 2007, 01:31:42 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on September 11, 2007, 08:54:47 PM.
Nothing to argue about -- these are the facts.
And your point is?
The figures you cited are indeed the appropriated funds for the year 2006.
As I said in my earlier post, I was using 2005 figures, and mostly talking about corporate funds.
The 2006 figures you found in the Report To Congress do not include either the state appropriations (listed on the opposite page in the Report ) nor the coprorate dollar figures (income from dues and investments, etc).
Federal Appropriated funds, state appropriated funds, and corporate dollars are each separate and distinct "pots of money" that have different rules and restrictions.
We can quibble about numbers and statistics till the cows come home, but my point remains that cadets should be valued as much as any senior when we consider the future of CAP.
No more and no less.
I'd say one point is that a HUGE amount of the money not in the CP line is still required to run CP (state liaisons, liability insurance, wing administrators, perhaps some comms, certainly the vans, some of the aircraft).
Since most USAF mission money isn't there to benefit CAP, but rather to benefit the victims, you can take that off the table.
When it's all said and done, cadets are getting their fair share. The cadet program is may be underfunded, but then so is everything in CAP.
Quote from: Ned on September 11, 2007, 08:36:18 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on September 11, 2007, 05:41:03 PM
Quote from: Ned on September 11, 2007, 05:43:34 AM
But remember, my point all along has been that cadets do not have an effective voice in how their dues are set, or CP money is allocated and spent.
True. Of course, given that the cadet program is a mission of CAP, a "product" of the corporation, if you will, the cadet as a consumer has the right to take his money elsewhere. Currently, a large number of consumers think our product is worth the dues money.
The cadet has as much say in how his money is spent as I have in how McDonald's spends the money I pay them.
BINGO!
Thank you for making my point so eloquently.
Under our current set-up, based on its perceived value, over 99.9% of the young people of America have "taken their money elsewhere."
(Really. Based on US Census figures, CAP cadets constitute less than one tenth of one per cent of the youth between 12 and 20 living in the US.)
If McDonald's realized that their market share was less than .1% of the market, I bet they'd make a few changes, too.
Now if we want to get serious and grow our cadet numbers, maybe it's time to take a look at some of these asset allocation issues and procedures.
Of course, it's a zero sum game. If we move assets away from other things, those missions suffer as well.
If our mission from USAF was "Priority #1, recruit every teenager into CAP", it would be obvious that our spending should be done differently.
But that's not the priority.
I think we DO want to grow our cadet numbers, but we also want to grow our operational side and be more relevant in our public service role. It's a balance. As a dedicated CP guy (do you do any ES?) you want a larger slice of the pie. Fair enough. But so does everyone.
The Wing CCs have oversight over all the missions and have decided on the allocation. USAF isn't beating us up because of our substandard cadet program. Where's the impetus to rob Incident Commander Peter in order to pay Cadet Paul?
I really don't think letting customers of CAP vote on the internal workings will make things that much better. If NCAC is any indication, most of the money would be spent on new shiny badges.... :-)
But seriously, while there's no doubt we can do more in CP, we can do more in EVERY arena. Which sacred cows do you wanna slaughter to beef up CP funding?
Quote from: Dragoon on September 12, 2007, 01:46:54 PM
Of course, it's a zero sum game. If we move assets away from other things, those missions suffer as well.
( . . .)
But seriously, while there's no doubt we can do more in CP, we can do more in EVERY arena. Which sacred cows do you wanna slaughter to beef up CP funding?
Colonel,
Absent some magical new source of funding, you are absolutely right that it is a zero sum game.
But I don't need to identify places to cut anymore than the other programs did when CP funding shrank.
That in essence is a strawman argument, and one very popular with elected officials when it comes to discussing taxes and budgets. "Sure, I'd like to give the teachers a raise, but we can't do that unless we cut the subsidy for the Orphan's home. You don't want us to toss orphans out into the street, do you?" >:D
Do recall that the whole purpose of this thread is seeking new ideas or suggestions as if we were the new National Commander. I've talked about systemic problems and ways to change funding choices and processes.
You have indicated that you don't think any change is necessary, so I'll mark that vote down for the status quo.
And please note that the world will not end if we maintain the status quo. I think we have a terrific cadet program and are conscientious guardians of the appropriated and coporate funds that our volunteer leaders provide.
But there are process issues that we could address, if we choose.
Thank you for your service as a CAP cadet and in the Army, as well as for your current service as a senior.
Actually, I'm not arguing for status quo - just arguing against the argument that CP is "underfunded" based on some percentage of cadet dues or membership. They may or may not be getting "enough" - lots of CAP is in that fix - but that would be a mission-based argument to make, not a percentage based one.
We can address changing process, but the process is still dealing with the same pie.
That guy claiming he can't give teachers a raise is wrong to claim he'd have to cut orphans funding - but he's not wrong that he'd have to cut something.
So I think the question is valid - what gets cut? That's what a National Commander would have to do - make the hard calls.
(Personally, I think we could kill external AE and never miss it - that mission was completed somewhere around 1964.)
Also, can you give some details on "when CP funding shrank?" Do you mean it used to be a bigger percentage of the pie? This is a new detail, and worth exploring. If CP used to a bigger slice of the pie, this could mean CAP has undergone a mission shift. New priorities. Those may have been internal - but they may also have been external. Perhaps CP isn't as valued by USAF as it once was? Seems counterintuitive to me, given the recruiting challenge.
Quote from: Dragoon on September 13, 2007, 02:49:23 PM
So I think the question is valid - what gets cut? That's what a National Commander would have to do - make the hard calls.
I don't disagree with your basic position that in any organization , funding should normally follow mission priorities. Part of the problem is that our "NCA" (CC + NEC + NB) have never directly sat down and formally prioritized the competing Congressionally-mandated missions. If they had done that, they would have had to go through the difficult process of saying things like "CP is fourth priority behind ES, CD, and HS, and therefore should receive x % of corporate funds, and our legislative program should strive to justify appropriations supporting CP of y dollars."
As a practical matter, of course, they set
de facto priorities every time they approve a budget. But without having to directly confront the competing missions, they have avoided the tough decisions.
And as long as we are talking about processes, I don't think any politcally elected CEO ever identifies specific programs with vocal constituencies for cuts.
(Other than the meaningless cliche to cut "fat and waste." ;D)
Politicians just sneak in "unfunded mandates" to implement their current priorities.
So, in the spirit of the thread, realistically the National CC could:
Work with the BoG to place one or more CP folks as non-voting members of the NB and NEC. Say the NCAC chair on the NB and the National Cadet Advisor on the NEC. This will allow CP to at least be heard during the budgeting process.
Restructure the NB and NEC selection process to allow outstanding seniors who work primarily in CP to compete on an equal footing with the operators. (IOW, it is highly unusual for even a highly successful cadet squadron commander to become a group or wing commander, but nobody blinks an eye when an experienced mission pilot/IC gets the job, even if she/he has never worked in CP.)
Track the time actually spent supporting CP by SDs and adminsitrators. Set goals that these corporate employees spend x per centage of their time supporting CP.
These are just some ideas that could help set a corporate culture supporting the notion that we value and respect our cadet members just as much as any other member of our corporation.
Quote from: Ned on September 13, 2007, 05:25:36 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on September 13, 2007, 02:49:23 PM
So I think the question is valid - what gets cut? That's what a National Commander would have to do - make the hard calls.
I don't disagree with your basic position that in any organization , funding should normally follow mission priorities. Part of the problem is that our "NCA" (CC + NEC + NB) have never directly sat down and formally prioritized the competing Congressionally-mandated missions. If they had done that, they would have had to go through the difficult process of saying things like "CP is fourth priority behind ES, CD, and HS, and therefore should receive x % of corporate funds, and our legislative program should strive to justify appropriations supporting CP of y dollars."
That is SOOOOO true! And if flows all the way down the Wing and Squadrons. You have the best cadet program in the wing and then get beat up because you your seniors don't have the Yeager.
Priorities are critical, and spelling them out, even if it torques some people off, is key to coming up with an achievable plan.
Quote from: Ned on September 13, 2007, 05:25:36 PM
As a practical matter, of course, they set de facto priorities every time they approve a budget. But without having to directly confront the competing missions, they have avoided the tough decisions.
Or to look at it another way, they make the decisions, but they don't spell 'em out. They just imply them with the budget numbers, and leave us to try to figure out what matters. Result - confusion.
Quote from: Ned on September 13, 2007, 05:25:36 PM
And as long as we are talking about processes, I don't think any politcally elected CEO ever identifies specific programs with vocal constituencies for cuts.
Which is why I'm not a big fan of electing the Commander by membership vote. We'll end up electing the guy who promises the most benefits to the member, whether or not (a) he can deliver or (b) we should be focusing on benefits to ourselves instead of benefits to our customers.
Quote from: Ned on September 13, 2007, 05:25:36 PM
These are just some ideas that could help set a corporate culture supporting the notion that we value and respect our cadet members just as much as any other member of our corporation.
Or more specifically, that we value the cadet program as much as we value the other missions. Assuming we do.
After all, cadets do ES, so ES stuff provides cadet value as well. As does some of the AE.
You hit the nail on the head with priorities - without those, it's hard to do restructuring to meet those goals.
It could be that the reason straight CP guys don't get to the corporate jobs is that, frankly, they don't need to. At least by the rules of today's game.
USAF has never decertified a wing because of a substandard cadet program. In fact, their oversight of the program is not that intense.
On the other hand, they crawl all over the ES and the flying side, and are quick to swat us down when we screw those things up.
If that's the world we live in, it's no wonder we want aviation minded operators running the show. We're only reacting to the rewards and punishments dolled out by our parent.
(and by the way, thanks for your service as well. I'm well aware of the great CP work you do out west. As a mentor of mind was fond of saying "men of goodwill can still disagree.")
OK, so a new National Commander election is coming. Perhaps it is time to revisit this topic. Anyone have anything they'd like to include?
Some things have changed, some things haven't changed. There is a lot that can be considered and done.
One of my main arguments remains the necessity of seizing on the collective power of the membership.
Fix WMIRS.
I think a serious re-evaluation of our ES program is in order given the drop-off in ELT missions. We need to pick a relatively small (5 or so) number of types of mission (Missing airplane SAR) for example and organize our program around being the absolute best resource to meet those missions and then actually put some real effort into making sure we are known for those capabilities. And I'd like to see the new national commander place a high priority on monitoring how Wings are trying to "sell" these services to their local and state agencies.
In particular we need to assess whether or not we are going to be serious about providing ground-based disaster relief services, and if so, come up with some real concept of operations. Also, we need to look at whether or not CAP, as an organization, really wants to get involved in ground SAR in missions that don't involve missing airplanes. Lost person SAR is really the only area of potential mission growth for CAP since there are many, many areas of the country where a CAP squadron is the closes thing available to a trained ground SAR unit. Sure, there are a few areas over-run with local SAR teams, but that isn't the norm.
Definitely agree with what RiverAux said. In some places, sheriff's departments don't like CAP interfering with ES missions. We need to work on that.
Also, get rid of the stupid questions on safety tests. If you doubt that, go take the new Intro to Safety test... Absolutely idiotic . If safety is so important, then make the quality of the tests reflect that.
First, admonish the National Board, CAP-USAF and all other associated entities for having the sheer lunacy to appoint me to such a position.
Introduce legislation to Congress making us the full-time, permanent, only Auxiliary of the United States Air Force. No more AUXON/AUXOFF Bravo Sierra.
Ask CSAF to move us from AU/AETC to AFRC. Precedent: Continental Air Command was in charge of the AFRES and CAP in days past.
Inform CSAF of desire of many CAP members to directly assist the USAF in augmentation capacity similar to USCG Aux and ask for implementation of plan to do so.
Stress to CSAF how little many AF members know of CAP, if at all, and ask for mandatory overview of CAP role and functions for BMT and OTS Military Training Instructors, as well as USAFA.
Institute plan for CAP members wishing to become pilots to do so at no or nominal cost, subject to both FAA and USAF regulations.
Streamline new member background check to discontinue ink fingerprint cards and allow law enforcement agencies to use their electronic methods (the police officer who did one of my background check prints said he couldn't believe CAP was still doing that).
Update background checks at least every two years.
Institute promotion system for CAP NCO's.
Reinstate CAP warrant officer grades (W-1 to CWO-5) as an option for members not qualifying for NCO grades who want to specialise in one speciality track only, including pilots who "only want to fly." Such members would not be permitted multiple speciality tracks.
Combine several CAP speciality tracks; i.e., Admin/Personnel/Finance, Recruiting and Retention/Professional Development.
Ask SECAF to allow award of Air Force civilian decorations to CAP personnel, and replace similar CAP awards with those.
http://militarywired.com/library/en/Air-Force-Civilian-Air-Medal
http://www.usamilitarymedals.com/force-civilian-achievement-award-medal-p-1000.html
http://www.usamilitarymedals.com/force-civilian-award-valor-medal-p-1001.html
http://www.usamilitarymedals.com/force-command-civilian-award-valor-medal-p-2560.html
http://www.usamilitarymedals.com/force-decoration-exceptional-civilian-service-p-1002.html
http://www.usamilitarymedals.com/force-exemplary-civilian-service-award-medal-p-1003.html
http://www.usamilitarymedals.com/force-meritorious-civilian-service-award-medal-p-1004.html
http://www.usamilitarymedals.com/force-outstanding-civilian-career-service-award-medal-p-1005.html
http://www.usamilitarymedals.com/civilian-aerial-achievement-medal-p-1015.html
Ask SECAF to allow noncombatant AF awards to be awarded to CAP, similar to USCG Auxiliary; i.e., unit commendations.
Rename "Observer" to "Navigator." Institute half-wing brevet for Mission Scanner.
Discontinue title of "Senior Member," replace with "Officer Candidate."
Require cadets who have achieved cadet officer rank at age 18 to transfer to adult member status (don't kill me!).
Discontinue grey nameplate and reinstitute blue nameplate for all ranks.
Replace AF brushed silver nameplate with similar "Civil Air Patrol" item worn with CSU.
Replace current CAP officer shoulder marks with AFROTC equivalents, worn with CAP cutout:
http://www.paradestore.com/detail.aspx?ID=220
Ask CSAF to review height/weight/grooming standards for wear of the USAF uniform.
Replace BDU's with BBDU's (phase in five-year period).
Replace white shirt of aviator uniform with light-blue equivalent (airline type).
Replace grey pants of aviator uniform with dark-blue or black (airline type).
Replace blazer with airline-cut service coat.
And then get ready to be run out of town on a rail.
Quote from: CyBorg on May 30, 2011, 04:21:10 AM..
What minor disagreements I might have with this are insignificant. Are you running for the position?
"And then get ready to be run out of town on a rail." .... except we'd have to outsource that, as we're not the Civil Rail Patrol, no matter what RM says we should be doing.
Why would you ask to be moved closer to the AF then abolish BDUs in favor of BBDUs?
Those are really good ideas, especially making CAP the full time AF auxiliary.
RVT: No, I'm not running. I'm a can short of a sixpack now and then, but not yet that insane.
Space: Simply due to logistics. BDU's are being phased out, and even one of our squadron members (dual CAP-ANG membership) agreed they're going to be harder and harder to find. There have been a million and one different stories about the future status of ABU's, MULTICAM, etc. so I don't know what to do with that. I would amend my statement to solid green BDU's, the shade of the old pickle suits.
Quote from: CyBorg on May 30, 2011, 05:00:36 AM
RVT: No, I'm not running. I'm a can short of a sixpack now and then, but not yet that insane.
Space: Simply due to logistics. BDU's are being phased out, and even one of our squadron members (dual CAP-ANG membership) agreed they're going to be harder and harder to find. There have been a million and one different stories about the future status of ABU's, MULTICAM, etc. so I don't know what to do with that. I would amend my statement to solid green BDU's, the shade of the old pickle suits.
Even though I have nothing against the Blue BDU's, solid green BDU's would be alright by me too. Cyborg could put in for Vice and drive Col. Weiss crazy :).
If I were the Generalissimo, I would change how we do aerospace education. Aviation and technology, moving hand in hand, is moving at a much quicker pace. We need to figure out how to keep up with it. Working in the aerospace industry since 2003, the little corner I'm in, I've seen massive changes in the application of technology and data. It would take help from the industry experts to make this happen. Only they know what they have in the pipeline, and only they could help nudge the AE program along without divulging proprietary information.
And now I turn this back over to BG Cyborg. :)
Quote from: CyBorg on May 30, 2011, 05:00:36 AM
RVT: No, I'm not running. I'm a can short of a sixpack now and then, but not yet that insane.
Space: Simply due to logistics. BDU's are being phased out, and even one of our squadron members (dual CAP-ANG membership) agreed they're going to be harder and harder to find. There have been a million and one different stories about the future status of ABU's, MULTICAM, etc. so I don't know what to do with that. I would amend my statement to solid green BDU's, the shade of the old pickle suits.
I don't get it - I haven't had any problem finding BDUs. BDU.com has had them every time I have looked. Vanguard has them, although I think their stock varies.
One of the problems I see being National Commander is the lack of information from the field. To often Wing Commanders as members of the National Board put a spin on the happenings in their Wings. IF FW became National Commander, he is aware of many of the problems in CAP through CAPTalk. But does MGen Courter get the same "uncensored" information from the corporate structure? Granted many of the CAPTalk posts don't apply to CAP in general, rather local issues or personal opeinions not based on facts. Overall many of the problems facing CAP are brought up in CAPTalk with a multitude of answers, few are realistic answers to the problems.
To many problems of Wings are hidden from the National Commander by the coirporate structure. When and if, the BoG completes the Governence Study answers may in part be resolved. For members that have been in CAP for 30+ years, they can compare CAP today with the CAP of the 1940's through 80's and see the major changes that have occured often for negative effects on the organization. Often these changes were not the fault of CAP but rather Congress or USAF. There needs to be more USAF oversight of CAP and it should be the full time Auxiliary of USAF.
If I become the National Commander, I think it will be an imperative for wing commanders to get the information from the field before getting together in making policy. One thing Gen Courter did was institute regular wing commander conference calls; I think with the intent to have a free exchange of information. My job will be to stress this exchange (if the intent was lost). There needs to be free and open lines of communications (this is transparency). IMHO, leadership in Civil Air Patrol requires a lot of hard and difficult work. However, the work will only succeed when everyone is on board.
We who have been in CAP for as many years as BillB (and me) know our history and have learned what can work and what can't. Ignoring the membership doesn't work. Ignoring the hard work and responsibility of our wing commanders doesn't work. And squabling over every decision the National Commander makes doesn't work. I understand this and will get this team firing on all cylinders.
No matter what the future holds for us, we will go through it together and, if I have anything to do with it, I will insure the members have a voice.
Oh, and maybe I'll get CyBorg to chair our Uniform Board... >:D
Quote from: CyBorg on May 30, 2011, 05:00:36 AMI would amend my statement to solid green BDU's, the shade of the old pickle suits.
I wouldn't have a problem with this either, except this uniform is not available surplus as nobody uses it. I want to use my BDU's because I am retired Army and I have them. I don't see a reason to buy something new that looks like it was surplus.
But again - if plain green BDU was a required part of yoru proposal package - I would take it in order to get the rest of what you said.
Especially since I'm in California and don't wear my BDU anywhere anyway.
It would seem to me that the steering of the National Commander would come from the CAP Constitution and Bylaws, but also certainly from:
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C909.txt
and
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/36C403.txt
With some specific text here:
-STATUTE-
The purposes of the corporation are as follows:
(1) To provide an organization to -
(A) encourage and aid citizens of the United States in
contributing their efforts, services, and resources in
developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy; and
(B) encourage and develop by example the voluntary
contribution of private citizens to the public welfare.
(2) To provide aviation education and training especially to
its senior and cadet members.
(3) To encourage and foster civil aviation in local
communities.
(4) To provide an organization of private citizens with
adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national
emergencies.
(5) To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its
noncombat programs and missions.
Do we (or the National Commander), as CAP need to take a hard look at what we have considered our 'missions' for so long and whether they even fit what we are supposed to be doing as directed by Congress? And if it is decided that our current paradigm of CP, ES, and AE need to be restructured or massively overhauled; how do we begin that process and what would the end game look like.
What we don't need is a movie that ends as Charlie Wilson's War did. :o
I'm particularly interested in number four, as DR guy for my wing. As I watch the news day after day surrounding the coverage of the recent tornadoes, as well as monitoring various other local news sites and our own national CAP news, I'm greatly concerned that CAP, besides the occasional aerial photog flight, hasn't had much activity responding to these multiple disasters of monstorous proportions. Given the scale of the flooding and tornadic activity so far this year, we should have literally thousands of CAP personnel participating in response and recovery efforts. If we don't in fact have this level of response to these disasters, then why not? This is our job, and it ain't getting done.
But, I fear that as everyone is so keen on pointing out; that recruiting and retention are important issues, no one has been able to develop a solid recruiting/retention program that works consistently.
"Opportunties to Serve"
Ned hit it pretty good earlier in this thread. With over 300 million citizens in the US, CAP can claim a whole 65,000 (or so) as members?
As DR guy in my wing, I have multiple programs under development. DR requires huge numbers of manpower to be versatile and usable to Fed/State/Local agencies. Unfortunately, we only have about 1,400 members in our wing to draw from, and this is a real problem. I feel we have truly hurt ourselves by thinking all these years of hunting down ELTs at 3AM was actually important, and we are feeling the actual by-product of that mindset.
I"m still trying to wrap my head around why a CAP member in my wing, a very active member, is responding to Joplin, MO with the American Red Cross, and not his CAP unit. Something just doesn't seem right, that other national-level organizations are still responding into these areas (even as flooding is still occurring, moving down-river towards the gulf), yet we aren't hearing about massive CAP movements of personnel and resources into the disaster areas.
So I guess, bottom line, after being on the soap-box a bit is: Just what is our job supposed to be? And, after defining that, is it meaningful enough to attract adult members willing to put in ridiculous volunteer hours, pay dues, and pay for equipment and uniforms over the long term?
Cheers,
If the uniforms are gonna be switched around, the cadets should be kept in military style uniforms.
Now, with that out of the way, CAP should try for extra funding so more local activities can happen for the units that don't have extra funds. I definetly agree that AE should be revamped and improved.
QuoteI'm greatly concerned that CAP, besides the occasional aerial photog flight, hasn't had much activity responding to these multiple disasters of monstorous proportions.
That speaks pretty well to one of my comments. Just what does CAP offer in these emergencies that some group of spontaneous volunteers can't provide? We certainly don't have any specialized equipment or resources other than our planes. We have no specialized training that could assist in these situations. When it comes down to it we can probably send a small group of a few adults and some teenagers that will have to receive pretty much the same degree of on-the-job training and oversight as anyone else.
We need to develop our own ground-based DR niche if we ever want to respond with more than a few random units getting asked to do some random things by their local officials. What that may be, I just don't know.
Quote from: CyBorg on May 30, 2011, 05:00:36 AM
RVT: No, I'm not running. I'm a can short of a sixpack now and then, but not yet that insane.
Space: Simply due to logistics. BDU's are being phased out, and even one of our squadron members (dual CAP-ANG membership) agreed they're going to be harder and harder to find. There have been a million and one different stories about the future status of ABU's, MULTICAM, etc. so I don't know what to do with that. I would amend my statement to solid green BDU's, the shade of the old pickle suits.
Couple weeks ago while I was inventorying my unit equipment I came across a LOT of old woodland equipment (Alice Packs, LBVs etc) I would like to have given to CAP. Found out from the E-7 (seems very squared away and on the up and up) running supply that it all had to go to DRMO because they had let contract to the private sector entities for it's disposal. Hated to see it go that way as it was just taking up valuable storage space for another month until it was actually shipped to DRMO.
I do have my old Woodland BDUs I converted to a CAP uniform.
That said maybe BBDUs will be the way to go in the future. Not the cheapest way to go but that may end up being best way
A 6-month all stop on anything that is not critical or not already paid for.
During that time:
All regulations, manuals, pamphlets, and other documentation are brought into compliance and agreement.
Baseline surveys are taken to ascertain the real state of the program, readiness, response abilities, and member engagement.
Unbiased calendar deconfliction is required of all wings with region guidance, to include all major activities, ES evals, and major training
activities. The same is done at the national level.
Going forward, the SUI's and CI's are treated as snapshots, not final exams, and all policies, regs, and procedures, including accepting the
attrition they will generate, are enforced as written.
Quote from: LTC Don on May 30, 2011, 03:12:00 PM
It would seem to me that the steering of the National Commander would come from the CAP Constitution and Bylaws, but also certainly from:
Do we (or the National Commander), as CAP need to take a hard look at what we have considered our 'missions' for so long and whether they even fit what we are supposed to be doing as directed by Congress? And if it is decided that our current paradigm of CP, ES, and AE need to be restructured or massively overhauled; how do we begin that process and what would the end game look like.
What we don't need is a movie that ends as Charlie Wilson's War did. :o
I'm particularly interested in number four, as DR guy for my wing. As I watch the news day after day surrounding the coverage of the recent tornadoes, as well as monitoring various other local news sites and our own national CAP news, I'm greatly concerned that CAP, besides the occasional aerial photog flight, hasn't had much activity responding to these multiple disasters of monstorous proportions. Given the scale of the flooding and tornadic activity so far this year, we should have literally thousands of CAP personnel participating in response and recovery efforts. If we don't in fact have this level of response to these disasters, then why not? This is our job, and it ain't getting done.
But, I fear that as everyone is so keen on pointing out; that recruiting and retention are important issues, no one has been able to develop a solid recruiting/retention program that works consistently.
"Opportunties to Serve"
Ned hit it pretty good earlier in this thread. With over 300 million citizens in the US, CAP can claim a whole 65,000 (or so) as members?
As DR guy in my wing, I have multiple programs under development. DR requires huge numbers of manpower to be versatile and usable to Fed/State/Local agencies. Unfortunately, we only have about 1,400 members in our wing to draw from, and this is a real problem. I feel we have truly hurt ourselves by thinking all these years of hunting down ELTs at 3AM was actually important, and we are feeling the actual by-product of that mindset.
I"m still trying to wrap my head around why a CAP member in my wing, a very active member, is responding to Joplin, MO with the American Red Cross, and not his CAP unit. Something just doesn't seem right, that other national-level organizations are still responding into these areas (even as flooding is still occurring, moving down-river towards the gulf), yet we aren't hearing about massive CAP movements of personnel and resources into the disaster areas.
So I guess, bottom line, after being on the soap-box a bit is: Just what is our job supposed to be? And, after defining that, is it meaningful enough to attract adult members willing to put in ridiculous volunteer hours, pay dues, and pay for equipment and uniforms over the long term?
Cheers,
Don, you raise some good points. I agree with each of them however, it's not "if" we're doing anything, It's "are" we doing anything. I would say Yes. but, for some reason, you're not getting the "PR" output from NHQ.
SAR/DR is as important now as it was pre "406MHz" however, we need to refocus our assest more to the "DR" portion. We are good at what we do in this aspect of ES. It is important and, it is worthwhile. And, I disagree with RiverAux's view we are not trained better than the "random group of spontaneous volunteers" that may show up. Our air and ground crews are well trained and, have the admiration of 1st AF and AFRCC. We also don't look to bad on CNN... However, we do need to do a better job of telling our story.
We need a better way to "proselytise" our nation's Aerospace Power and in contributing to the betterment of the aviation community. No argument here. It should not be to difficult since we do have an "in" with the Holme Center (ROTC programs). Of course, we still have a great untapped resource with our School Program.
The questions which need to be asked, IMHO, are; how do we make what we have more attractive to potential members? How can we stand out better? What do we do which no other organization does better? How do we attract contributors to better develop our programs and reach more people.
It not "if" we are living up to our mandates, it's how well a job we're doing? And, with a membership which has not seen any significant growth in the last 12 years or, has seen any real changes in funding, I think we have an answer...
Quote from: FW on May 30, 2011, 03:56:25 PM
And, I disagree with RiverAux's view we are not trained better than the "random group of spontaneous volunteers" that may show up. Our air and ground crews are well trained and, have the admiration of 1st AF and AFRCC.
I was speaking specifically of ground-based CAP resources in DR situations and in that context we essentially have no program or training. If our local GT shows up at the tornado site, just what do we bring to the table for that scenario that a local church group doesn't? What about during or after a flood? If anything we're probably somewhat less capable because we won't be bringing chainsaws, ATVs, etc. and other equipment that could help. Our single advantage (which is actually not to be sneezed at) is that we are an organized group with a command structure that can care for itself for a short time.
In ground SAR we have some assets and I'm satisfied with the training program itself (though implementation of the training and realistic testing of our capabilities at SAREVALs are still issue).
Quote from: blackrain on May 30, 2011, 03:33:11 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on May 30, 2011, 05:00:36 AM
RVT: No, I'm not running. I'm a can short of a sixpack now and then, but not yet that insane.
Space: Simply due to logistics. BDU's are being phased out, and even one of our squadron members (dual CAP-ANG membership) agreed they're going to be harder and harder to find. There have been a million and one different stories about the future status of ABU's, MULTICAM, etc. so I don't know what to do with that. I would amend my statement to solid green BDU's, the shade of the old pickle suits.
Couple weeks ago while I was inventorying my unit equipment I came across a LOT of old woodland equipment (Alice Packs, LBVs etc) I would like to have given to CAP. Found out from the E-7 (seems very squared away and on the up and up) running supply that it all had to go to DRMO because they had let contract to the private sector entities for it's disposal. Hated to see it go that way as it was just taking up valuable storage space for another month until it was actually shipped to DRMO.
I do have my old Woodland BDUs I converted to a CAP uniform.
That said maybe BBDUs will be the way to go in the future. Not the cheapest way to go but that may end up being best way
The equipment has to go to DMRO, but each wing has, or should have, at least one screener to get equipment out of DMRO. Find out who this person is and let them know about the equipment and when it's going. If they're squared away, they can be there when the equipment arrives and screen it out for CAP. The reason it goes to DMRO is not to let private contractors have it, it's to provide a documented record for disposal and a central point to make available equipment known to agencies.
Typically, the stuff that makes it to the bid stage has not been wanted by other DoD entities, law enforcement, state agencies (there are some provisions for this), CAP, or any of the myriad of entities authorized to draw from DMRO.
Antoher option, depending on how far away your unit is from DMRO, is to request local disposal in coordination with the CAP screener.
I dont want to hijack ths to far into an ES thread however, I'll start there:
I have to agree with RM here. Where the aviation assets that CAP brings to the SAR/DR arena are almost unmatched by any other civil agency the ground assets, specifically in the DR mission are lacking. The best that they have going for them is 72 hours of self suffeciency. There is no ground DR skill set; wilderness SAR and missing aircraft SAR skill sets dont really hit it (a better grouping than joe schmo off the street has but.....) If DR is an arena that CAP wants to be more than just a "water passer outer", develop a 101 qualification to meet the most common mission needs.
As far as the GSAR mission I think CAP is good, but not good enough. Civilian SAR units (for many areas that I have encountered) have passed CAP by when it comes to response time and equipment and to a certain aspect personnel (10 12-16 year olds and 2 40 year olds are not seen as useful assets by many Fire/EMS/LE/SAR agencies) One thing again that CAP uniquely brings to the table (again) is aviation assets. I think a more appropriate and/or useful resource for the ground side would be personnel that can manage that asset from the field side (similar to USAF combat control or TACP) they are good at comms, speack aircraft lingo, can navigate and can navigate aviation assets into target areas that ground units cant get to, yets also speak the lingo of the GSAR units and can move with them thru the terrain and conditions unique to that environment.
Cadet Programs. Cadets join for the Air Force experience. There isnt a whole lot that can be done from meeting night to meeting night, but I think more activities that expose cadets to USAF missions/jobs/military life. Particularly summer activities (looking at some of the things that the Sea Cadets and ACA do.......) Most wings seem to be limited to Encampment (barely 1 week) or encampment staff.... or a flight encampment (usually limited slots) NCSA's for the most part are very limited to the number of participants, and still barely 1 week, mayby 10 days at the most out of the entire summer.
What about school programs? Basically compete with JROTC...especially since there is a limit to the number of JROTC units out there; couldnt CAP (with maybe the USAF's help) push the CAP program to schools (especially if there are schools out there waiting for JROTC slots....sort of a "hey we dont have the funding to support your school request right now, but CAP can come in and provide all of the things you are looking for until the cash comes available, they are our official auxillary after all......"
Speaking of Auxillary status...... maybe I am just nostalgic here, but the whole AUX ON/AUX OFF is ridiculous......
VSAF-isnt that supposed to be the benefit of an auxillary; to support the parent organization. CAP is an untapped resource of personnel that the USAF and I am really thinking USAF Reserve actually, could benefit from; and it would be free (or nearly free). Reserve units are great, but other than presidental activation and the 2 week annual tour status you cant really be "ordered" to come in and do work, and many units need help, sometimes just managing admin functions from UTA to UTA; suprisingly funding is limited as well as personnel availabilit (my unit for example has ove 125 personnel; 1 full time and 1 intern to mange things the rest of the time...help copying & filing would be welcome) There are a number of areas that CAP personnel with their civilian proffesional qualificatons could be usefull to the USAF.....kind of like the CAP Chaplin program does....
mk
Great ideas guys however, it is not the job of the National Commander to directly change things. It is their job to create the environment for creative and positive change over the three years they are in office. And, with the ideas mentioned, those who will be tasked to deal with our intermediate and tactical objectives have good information to start with. Then when the best decisions are made, the commander can insure we go in the proper direction.
Here's what I would do:
1. Pre membership aptitude testing for senior members.
2. Develop a single utility type uniform that easily identifies personnel as being members of Civil Air Patrol.
3. All regulations/policies should be reviewed to determine the total time requirements to comply with by the membership. Time requirements should reduced IF possible.
4. Complete review of the Emergency Services Program, as to missions, training requirements, and use of emerging technology.
5. Implementation of a "suggestion program"/feed back program, where every member can comment on pending policy decisions.
6. Ensure a monthly formal financial report is given to the membership at each unit level that is self supported by the membership.
7. Ensure that CAP develops a comprehensive long & short term plans and that these plans are effectively communicated to the membership and are continually reviewed/updated/reported to the membership.
8. Reduction of corporate travel for strictly meeting purposes, with current technology available most meetings can be held electronically.
9. Tighten requirements on membership self paying for proficiency flying. IF a member doesn't participate in any flying activities that directly support either the cadet program or emergency services, they shouldn't be able to just fly around in a CAP aircraft.
10. Ensure aerospace education activities are "more hands on" type activities versus just bookwork both for cadets and senir members.
11. Reevaluate the cadet program time requirements in each program area.
12. Remember that we are the Civil Air Patrol and stay within the charter bounds of federal law & AF regulations.
RM
1. Pre membership aptitude testing for senior members.
.... why am I not surprised?
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 31, 2011, 03:51:22 AM
9. Tighten requirements on membership self paying for proficiency flying. IF a member doesn't participate in any flying activities that directly support either the cadet program or emergency services, they shouldn't be able to just fly around in a CAP aircraft.
With all due respect, Why?
Mark
Quote from: Mark_Wheeler on May 31, 2011, 06:46:41 AM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 31, 2011, 03:51:22 AM
9. Tighten requirements on membership self paying for proficiency flying. IF a member doesn't participate in any flying activities that directly support either the cadet program or emergency services, they shouldn't be able to just fly around in a CAP aircraft.
With all due respect, Why?
Mark
Cuts down the flying clubs?
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 31, 2011, 03:51:22 AM
2. Develop a single utility type uniform that easily identifies personnel as being members of Civil Air Patrol.
We already do.
(http://www.uniformnametape.com/ProductImages/lrgcap01.bmp)
Beyond that, if someone observing us cannot/chooses not to recognise who and what we are, who owns the problem?
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 31, 2011, 03:51:22 AM
5. Implementation of a "suggestion program"/feed back program, where every member can comment on pending policy decisions.
Oh, to avoid things like having the rug pulled out from under us like on the CSU fiasco and when asking why being told "don't ask?" All hail. :clap:
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 31, 2011, 03:51:22 AM
6. Ensure a monthly formal financial report is given to the membership at each unit level that is self supported by the membership.
As long as someone can interpret it for mathematical illiterates like me.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 31, 2011, 03:51:22 AM
7. Ensure that CAP develops a comprehensive long & short term plans and that these plans are effectively communicated to the membership and are continually reviewed/updated/reported to the membership.
With follow-up reports.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 31, 2011, 03:51:22 AM
8. Reduction of corporate travel for strictly meeting purposes, with current technology available most meetings can be held electronically.
Agreed. I have taken part in some of these "cyberconferences."
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 31, 2011, 03:51:22 AM
9. Tighten requirements on membership self paying for proficiency flying. IF a member doesn't participate in any flying activities that directly support either the cadet program or emergency services, they shouldn't be able to just fly around in a CAP aircraft.
If that would help put the kibosh on the "flying club" squadrons like the one I belonged to where the pilots signed up their significant others just to go joyriding in a CAP aircraft and didn't participate otherwise, I am all for it.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 31, 2011, 03:51:22 AM
10. Ensure aerospace education activities are "more hands on" type activities versus just bookwork both for cadets and senir members.
Noble intent, but as a former AEO I can tell you that is easier said than done. I have done AE for both young cadets with short attention spans who get bored quickly and for a roomful of pilots in a senior squadron who could have cared less about anything that didn't directly impact them and the bird they flew.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 31, 2011, 03:51:22 AM
12. Remember that we are the Civil Air Patrol and stay within the charter bounds of federal law & AF regulations.
RM
Again, I think you're flogging a dead horse that never existed in the first place. How are we
not staying within these bounds? By having BDU's, blue uniforms and shoulder marks that aren't scarlet red?
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on May 31, 2011, 12:48:31 PM
Cuts down the flying clubs?
That's how I interpreted it. Having been "right seat excess baggage" (observer) in one of those flying clubs it's not a good position to be in.
One year, as a student project in class while teaching the "foundations of government," I allowed the students to devise new class rules that would be adopted for one week pending my approval. It was generally agreed that the existing rules were too "strict" or otherwise somehow "flawed."
They would take a week to design a new government for the class via a legislative process with a due executive and even judicial functions.
What resulted in each of the six class periods were 6 of the most draconian and plainly tyrannical classroom rules that far out-shadowed the simple "Be Prompt, Be Respectful and Be Prepared" ones that existed prior.
When given the power to create policy...it seemed that those in power overtook the necessary level for good governance. Also, the idea that "something new is always good" obfuscated and subverted things that already worked. I see a bit of that in this thread.
The fact is...in relation to this subject...that many of you seem to think that the position of National Commander is one where one can dictate these changes though some sort of mandates, dictates and indicts. Am I crazy or are you of the same group that alleged that prior National Commanders were dictators? The group that clings to the Constitution and Bi-laws of CAP?
If so, how then can the very same propose all that I have read on this thread as if a National Commander could dictate CAP policy so?
i will like to:
- required more involvement of cadet on the emergency services
- promoted the CAP nation wide ( increase the recruiting effort)
- Avoid the double standard on how we keep the record (paper or electronic)
- get more funds for cadets encampments in order to put a cap on the summer encampments prices
- promoted our capabilities in order to help on the Border patrol effort, increase our drug enforcement and coastal surveillance.
- fix the uniform issues IOT simplify the whole issue with the Cooperate uniforms.
- create seminars with the wings, to provide better tools for the Squadron/Flight Commanders to have everything needed to succeed.
- work with the other services (USMC, Army, Navy, USCG) to promoted better relationship among us and not just the AF.
- recognized our great members publicly nationwide for those who goes above and beyond their responsibilities.
- request vanguard to drop their prices on some CAP articles and if not then we will avoid to do business with them.
- help subside some of the membership cost for those Wing witch members pay way to much on members fees.
- simplifies all the rules and regulation and clean all our manual by update them and trow away the ones have no purpose.
- feels every year we are so wrap up on the unnecessary more and more. I will get with as many members as possible to get their feedback on what work and what not.
- make emergency service qualification mandatory to all cadet after the age of 16. I hope this will promote th qualifications across the country. Also, on that line create a Ground Team competition nationwide. ( orienteering, search and rescue scenarios, PT, knowledge and testing)
Quote from: LATORRECA on June 01, 2011, 02:53:06 AM
- required more involvement of cadet on the emergency services
...
- make emergency service qualification mandatory to all cadet after the age of 16. I hope this will promote th qualifications across the country. Also, on that line create a Ground Team competition nationwide. ( orienteering, search and rescue scenarios, PT, knowledge and testing)
That's nice... what about the wings where the Emergency Services mission is non-existent or nearly so because it is handled by another state or county agency?
Quote from: MIKE on June 01, 2011, 03:01:50 AM
That's nice... what about the wings where the Emergency Services mission is non-existent or nearly so because it is handled by another state or county agency?
Like the State Police or County Sheriff, who usually don't like being interfered with?
Even the CGAUX defers on the water to sworn DNR/Conservation officers...at least we did...SOP for the Aux, Mike?
There is a lot of emphasis on ES, at least on CT, kind of to the detriment of our other missions. We are not only an ES agency.
Quote from: MIKE on June 01, 2011, 03:01:50 AM
Quote from: LATORRECA on June 01, 2011, 02:53:06 AM
- required more involvement of cadet on the emergency services
...
- make emergency service qualification mandatory to all cadet after the age of 16. I hope this will promote th qualifications across the country. Also, on that line create a Ground Team competition nationwide. ( orienteering, search and rescue scenarios, PT, knowledge and testing)
That's nice... what about the wings where the Emergency Services mission is non-existent or nearly so because it is handled by another state or county agency?
Most states are controlled by a state agency, assuming the state agency is involved.
We're federal and local, so when FEMA is involved, we should be as a matter of course, and for a lot of states, up to the point that the state agency is involved, we can be called direct. That leaves a lot of room and a lot of missions for people prepared to respond and willing to commit.
For the in-between, it is incumbent on local staff to foster the relationships with the legislature and local agencies to recognize our high-value and ROI.
Most states are broke or near to it and would jump at the chance for professionalized assistance at little to no cost.
The problem we have is that a lot of times CAP people come in with a head of steam and a set of requirements instead of sitting quietly at the table for a while and picking the entry point(s), and then being humble about the involvement until we prove ourselves.
Just so we are clear, I was being snarky.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 01, 2011, 09:05:00 PM
Quote from: MIKE on June 01, 2011, 03:01:50 AM
Quote from: LATORRECA on June 01, 2011, 02:53:06 AM
- required more involvement of cadet on the emergency services
...
- make emergency service qualification mandatory to all cadet after the age of 16. I hope this will promote th qualifications across the country. Also, on that line create a Ground Team competition nationwide. ( orienteering, search and rescue scenarios, PT, knowledge and testing)
That's nice... what about the wings where the Emergency Services mission is non-existent or nearly so because it is handled by another state or county agency?
Most states are controlled by a state agency, assuming the state agency is involved.
We're federal and local, so when FEMA is involved, we should be as a matter of course, and for a lot of states, up to the point that the state agency is involved, we can be called direct. That leaves a lot of room and a lot of missions for people prepared to respond and willing to commit.
For the in-between, it is incumbent on local staff to foster the relationships with the legislature and local agencies to recognize our high-value and ROI.
Most states are broke or near to it and would jump at the chance for professionalized assistance at little to no cost.
The problem we have is that a lot of times CAP people come in with a head of steam and a set of requirements instead of sitting quietly at the table for a while and picking the entry point(s), and then being humble about the involvement until we prove ourselves.
If anyone showed up at an emergency event occurring in my squadron area wearing a CAP uniform (or even a red cross polo) I would give 10-1 odds the Sheriff involved would have that person escorted out of the area immediately. The local Sheriffs Depts have such an iron fisted grip on SAR the local Fire Departments can't even play.
As to the original thread question:
Permanent status as US Air Force Auxiliary. Change all patches, paperwork etc to reflect this.
Allow for most patches for the BDU to be offered in a more professional Subdued version.
Push USAF to provide detailed CAP briefings to all in BMT, OCS, ROTC... AND give the same info during separation. (They already get info on the reserves and ANG...why not us?
Push to adopt a SQTR for Ground DR Focusing on three area: Command-Control/Comm, Shelter Ops, Total Force Strike Team (CAP Teams prepped to enter area and work directly alongside ANG/Reserves as force multiplier for period of 72-hours to one week, possibly in support role such as comm, field base security/logistics etc...)
Adopt Streamlined benchmarks for Regions and Wings to implement regarding resource availability and recruiting.
Create national task force to revisit and if needed rewrite all publications manuals etc for spelling errors and other problems.
Push for integration of TEAM concept with USAF / 1st AF regarding use of CAP in daily ops tempo within ConUS.
Bring CAP training material up to a higher standard. Current online training is a joke at worst and barely adequate at best.
An organization such as ours does not need "kid glove" standards.
Not the most important item, but what appears to be a relatively easy fix:
Encourage NHQ to add the equivalent of online SQTRs for the four Professional Development levels above Level One. How hard, how much time could this take versus the continued paperwork handling and delays?
Quote from: peter rabbit on June 02, 2011, 02:58:16 PM
Not the most important item, but what appears to be a relatively easy fix:
Encourage NHQ to add the equivalent of online SQTRs for the four Professional Development levels above Level One. How hard, how much time could this take versus the continued paperwork handling and delays?
It would be nice to do each of the PD tracks the same way too, so you could track your Technician, Senior and Master levels.
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on June 02, 2011, 06:57:50 AM
Permanent status as US Air Force Auxiliary. Change all patches, paperwork etc to reflect this.
Allow for most patches for the BDU to be offered in a more professional Subdued version.
I agree, but it will never happen. The "low-light/at-a-distance" lot would give birth to a Mk 82 Snakeye with fuse extender.
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on June 02, 2011, 06:57:50 AM
Push USAF to provide detailed CAP briefings to all in BMT, OCS, ROTC... AND give the same info during separation. (They already get info on the reserves and ANG...why not us?
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
This, I believe, would go
much further than any tinkering of uniforms and wringing of hands about "low-light/at-a-distance" and "looking distinctive."
It would take very, very little time away from another marathon session of folding underpants and tee shirts for an MTI to give, at the very least, an evening dayroom briefing on the basic facts about us.
- They are uniformed civilians who look like us with slightly different insignia
- You do not have to render their officers a salute, but they appreciate it if you do
- They have to render Armed Forces and CAP officers senior in grade a salute
- They give of their time, talent and treasure to support the USAF and receive no pay
- They have three functions: Emergency Services, Cadets and Aerospace Ed.
- Many of them are former Active, Reserve and Guard
- They won the first Air Medals of WWII
- They've been around longer than the independent Air Force!
I read on the "CAP Major trolling for salutes" thread where one Airman said that his/her MTI said "if you encounter CAP personnel, ignore them."
That is inexcusable and the MTI should be reprimanded for misinforming his/her recruits. I personally wouldn't mind a chat with said MTI myself (I've dealt with MTI's, DS's and a lot worse besides), not as a CAP Captain trying to pull rank, but as a CAP Captain expressing my own personal opinion of his/her pedagogical methods. Of course, s/he may tell me to get bent, but I've heard worse from better people.
The Communications CAPP was last updated in 1994. A few things have changed and it is in serious need of a few edits! For one thing, participation in nets is a LOT more difficult since we require the use of NTIA-compliant radios.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 31, 2011, 03:51:22 AM
...
12. Remember that we are the Civil Air Patrol and stay within the charter bounds of federal law & AF regulations.
RM
Why do you type things that don't make sense?
Quote from: jks19714 on June 02, 2011, 09:15:03 PM
The Communications CAPP was last updated in 1994. A few things have changed and it is in serious need of a few edits! For one thing, participation in nets is a LOT more difficult since we require the use of NTIA-compliant radios.
You mean the specialty track pamphlet? I think many, if not all of the specialty tracks should be revised in at least a minor way. Some in a major way.
------------------------------
In previous work, I became aware of these wonderful little gems - "@Google Talks."
Here's an example of a good one and some links to lists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ5k_Byd9Fs
http://www.youtube.com/user/GoogleTechTalks
http://www.youtube.com/user/AtGoogleTalks
As your new National Commander, I will be implementing a similar setup so that you can hear from members of the national staff (NHQ and volunteer), as well as other people who would help you do your jobs more effectively. Imagine having the ability to hear from leadership experts, Air Force folks, and others who could offer you practical advice on management, leadership, and skills - for instance, a marketing expert, a business leader, an astronaut like Eric Boe, etc.
My thought is that it would:
1. engage members (when done as live seminars on ustream or a similar service)
2. educate members about things like leadership, functional skills (marketing, ES-related items, volunteer management, communication, etc.), and what the National level is doing
3. open people's minds up as far as their attitudes toward NHQ and the direction of CAP. This begins changing hearts and minds away from the us vs. them attitude that many have towards higher headquarters (or simply that they want nothing to do with higher hq).
4. allow members to engage directly with National staff and other people of significance (in the case of the interactive seminars)
What say you people of this idea?
My first order of business would be to get the SECAF, CSAF and CMSgtAF together, preferably in person, but cyberconference if not, and ask them a few questions.
Prior to that, I would forward them a list of these questions so they're not blind-sided at the meeting itself.
- Mr/Madam Secretary, General, Chief, I came into CAP in the early '90s, after some major breakdown in the relationship between CAP and USAF. What really happened to let things get to the point they are now?
- What do you want and need from us?
- What would it take for us to become the full-time USAF Auxiliary again? I think most of us in CAP cherish our connection to the Air Force. I would not have joined if not for that essential link. The "AUXON/OFF" has been demoralising for not a few CAP members.
- Why are new Airmen coming out of Lackland AFB not given at least basic instruction as to who we are, given that they are very likely to encounter us at some point?
- We would be potentially useful to ANG and AFRC units undergoing mobilisation. Is there any way we could assist with that?
- Many of our pilots are former military pilots, and even those who are not have many hours of flight time, with CFI/CFII ratings. We could be a force multiplier in terms of our pilots helping with the Initial Flight Screening. Is that possible? Why or why not?
- Overall, how, if possible, can we get back to this sort of relationship? As National Commander of Civil Air Patrol, I give you my word that I will do everything within my power to re-engage this relationship.
(http://www.caphistory.org/images/museum_store/poster.jpg)
Respectfully submitted,
Cyrus Borg
Major General, CAP
Quote from: CyBorg on June 03, 2011, 11:02:05 PM
My first order of business would be to get the SECAF, CSAF and CMSgtAF together, preferably in person, but cyberconference if not, and ask them a few questions.
Prior to that, I would forward them a list of these questions so they're not blind-sided at the meeting itself.
- Mr/Madam Secretary, General, Chief, I came into CAP in the early '90s, after some major breakdown in the relationship between CAP and USAF. What really happened to let things get to the point they are now?
I think the chances that any of those individuals are going to have a clue as to what you are talking about are slim to none. I seriously doubt they even came close to being involved in any of those situations and its not like it was a big enough deal for the AF as a whole that the rumor mill got started on it. I doubt that even the SECAFs back then had much to do with it. [/list]
First, after consolidating my power base, I will launch a non-attributable, black ops "grass roots" campaign for legislation to DITCH THE AIR FORCE AND REALIGN CAP WITH THE ARMY! (or even the Navy, or perhaps even the Coast Guard..
This would result in either:
1. The USAF suddenly deciding "Hey, they are trying to steal OUR CAP! We need to really get serious about pumping up this valuable asset we have been ignoring, and get them some money, and some missions, and maybe a Reservist assigned to each CAP squadron as a Unit Administrator, and lots of other cool stuff!"
2. Or, USAF decides, "Hey, times have changed, and it's time to cut dead wood. All this stuff about Minute Men of the Air in little bug smashers is a bunch of romantic nonsense and totally irrelevant, especially since we decide to focus on UAVs and cyberwar. Besides, we really don't get our money's worth from the CAP cadet program anyway - more of them join the Army or other services than enlist in the Air Force. The little buggers all want to be Rambo, not sign up for "Corrosion Control Specialist", or to be the guy who fixes the airconditioner on the Drone Control Trailer. Let 'em go and good riddance!"
Either way, SOMETHING would get shaken up!
The SEC Army might very well say, "Hey, it's always good to have some more good folks on the team. We are so much bigger than the Air Force, and have such a diversity of missions, we can find a home and some worthwhile work for these guys. Love those cadets! Lets get the ROTC machine lashed up with them, and go to Congress for a few bucks. Hmm...didn't we used to own the Air Corps? The wheel has now turned...hey, Army Aviation Branch Chief! Guess what, you guys now have an Auxiliary! Yeah, yeah, we realize we don't know much about civilian fix-wing, but your mission is to figure it out and get up to speed with these Cessna geezers and we'll develop the concept from there. Hey, Guard and Army Reserve..figure out how to align efforts with CAP in your AO, and brief me in 6 months. Army, this a great opportunity to do something, not exactly sure just what yet, but we will figure it out. The important thing is we stole CAP from the USAF, and in this era of resource constraints, that's gotta be good!"
Of course, US Coast Guard might also be a good candidate to take over the whole shebang...someone who post here says to the Coasties really know how to appreciate their Aux!
But whatever - shake this thing up!
Even a real two-star does not just call and set up a sit-down with SECAF and CSAF. A little chain of command issue.
Might need to get buy-in from the 3-star that runs AU, and his boss, the 4-star that runs AETC.
^ Actually, for real "buy in" at that level, the BoG would need to agree (in closed session, of course) on the black ops. The members would only know about it when the uniform change came down from above or, Colgan would proclaim himself as our new leader and begin the new branding campaign... >:D
If I was elected National Commander by the National Board, my first duty would be to.....resign
Quote from: BillB on June 04, 2011, 11:40:04 AM
If I was elected National Commander by the National Board, my first duty would be to.....resign
Is this along the lines of.....
"Any club that would have me as a member, I wouldn't want to join?"
In addition to what a lot of the other guys here have said,
I'd amp up the Health Services program, make it so that qualified medical personnel could perform their duties properly. Come up with a specialty track guide that can get new HSOs into their duty position quicker and easier, and actually tell them what they should be doing.
I would do my best to ensure equality for all our members by removing the weight/grooming requirements. I believe that there would still need to be some sort of grooming standard for hair, however. Neatly trimmed facial hair and a conservative haircut sounds like a resonable compromise to me. We are civilians and there is no physical requirement to be a member, why are there physical requirements to wear uniforms?
If I could accomplish the above goal, I would then nix all the corporate uniforms other than the polo combo, which I would classify as casualwear for classrooms or other such environments.
Reinstitute an enlisted program for the senior side, without prior service as a requirement. SM? Now Airman Basic. Take the advanced promotions/occupational list and lower them all to 2d or 1 Lt. I don't have all the answers yet, but institute some sort of training/PD class with AF enlistedmen/NCOs, where our new members can learn to be good followers and leaders. These are basic skills we all need to be good members, and if we require our cadets to learn this, why don't we teach seniors as well? This could also bring us closer to the AF and possibly help heal old wounds.
Try to pass job protection legislation for QUALIFIED non-essential employees who are called up on CAP missions. Similar to many laws regarding Vol firefighters.
Just a few ideas... (don't throw me out.. please...)
Quote from: FW on June 04, 2011, 10:35:10 AM
^ Actually, for real "buy in" at that level, the BoG would need to agree (in closed session, of course) on the black ops. The members would only know about it when the uniform change came down from above or, Colgan would proclaim himself as our new leader and begin the new branding campaign... >:D
If this occurs, it's your own fault because I've been training hundreds of followers to carry this out for a decade. It began more or less with your signature. Now people will need to deal with the implementation of my platform (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=2426.msg55054#msg55054)
Quote from: BillB on June 04, 2011, 11:40:04 AM
If I was elected National Commander by the National Board, my first duty would be to.....resign
I'd initiate 2b's on every member of any Board that elected me...They'd obviously be completely incompetent to make serious an error in judgement.
Quote from: AirDX on June 04, 2011, 08:24:52 AM
Even a real two-star does not just call and set up a sit-down with SECAF and CSAF. A little chain of command issue.
Might need to get buy-in from the 3-star that runs AU, and his boss, the 4-star that runs AETC.
Understood.
Colonel (insert name) commanding CAP-USAF
Lieutenant General (insert name) commanding Air University
General (insert name) commanding Air Education and Training Command.