CAP Members' Input Sought on Corporate Governance

[Eclipse]

In this world, how is the National Commander selected?  Who would be selecting the members of the NEC? 
I don't see how further concentrating power in CAP is going to help us any.

There's no reason the election process could not be the same, just that Wing CC's concentrate on issue in their states and leave things with a broader scope to the region CC's or just the national bodies.

[RiverAux]

So, actual authority would be entirely concentrated in the hands of the National Commander (since they would still be appointing the members of the NEC, I assume) and the only check on them would be the BOG?  Sorry, not interested. 

Much harder for crazy or stupid ideas to be rammed through the NB than the NEC.  We need that check (even though it isn't 100% effective).

[NCRblues]

Here is a question that I have often wondered about.

What is the one thing in the governance model, which if changed, would make you walk away from cap? (If anything)

For example (and just an example) "if they did away with the NB entirely, I would walk away". <- Just an example

[cap235629]

My primary comment was to eliminate the equality of the NB and NEC.  NEC should only be allowed to make decisions that would further implement policies or regulations approved by the NB or BOG.  We don't need to get into another situation where the NEC approves something and then the NB rejects it (and presumably the issue could continue ping ponging back and forth forever).

I concur.

The NB should be setting policy at a high level, and letting committees (including the NEC) work out the nitty-gritty details.

In reality, with the prevalence of electronic comms right now, I don't see many situations that would come up between NB meetings where a special meeting could not be pulled together where the NB could at least obtain a quorum.  And the power of the NEC to act on behalf of the NB between meetings thus becomes moot.

Yes, the NB is large and unwieldy for discussing detailed issues...that's a feature, not a bug.  They shouldn't be getting that deep into details.  They should be empowering committees to deal with the details.  If debate arises on the details back at the NB, then it needs to be recommitted to the appropriate committee.

My comments were similar however I proposed eliminating the NEC completely.  Let the NB appont committees on an as needed basis. 

I concur about the modern comms and the ability to call a quorum if needed.  The NEC / NB ping pong game MUST END!!!

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Here is a question that I have often wondered about.

What is the one thing in the governance model, which if changed, would make you walk away from cap? (If anything)

For example (and just an example) "if they did away with the NB entirely, I would walk away". <- Just an example

If the Air Force element were tossed out, or (example) if CAP-USAF's function were watered down to the point of irrelevance and the AF decided, "alright, no more connection with us means no more anything from us...you fly your own airplanes, you put your own fuel in them, and you find your own airfields to fly them out of.  No more access to our bases, no more cadet O-rides, no more of our uniforms and no more Auxiliary status.  You're on your own.  Period.  Goodbye."

Barring that, it would be if CAP itself did what too many CAP members seem to want: ES, fly, ES, fly, ES, fly, ES and the strictly supporting elements of that: GT, comms, etc.

[MSG Mac]

My view is to change the way the NB and NEC interact. The NEC is a sub-committee of the NB, but because they appoint the NB members there is a clear example of the tale wagging the dog. Many things have been approved by the NB and disappeared when the NEC met at a later date and removed them.   

[Ned]

Many things have been approved by the NB and disappeared when the NEC met at a later date and removed them.

Others have said that, too.

But I'm having trouble remembering this happening.  Can you or others provide some examples?

[a2capt]

Thats the part I don't get. The difference between the NB and NEC is .. remove 52 Wing Commanders. So a subset of them govern the corporation 50 weeks a year, and the other two weeks, the Wing Commanders get some input.

So the NB has a huge agenda because 52 Wing Commanders have the opportunity to introduce items to it, and then the rest of the time, the sub-committee can just work on what really seems important (to them) be it due to personal interest, or other means of it being a popular item.

The only thing that comes to mind right now to me, in the regards of bouncing between NB and NEC is the CSU and the whole 39-1 and mess of ICLs that have never been published properly, as in it's way past 180 days and we still work off the ICL rather than an update or amendment.

[FW]

With the current state of affairs, the only "exclusive powers" of the NB are; to elect the National Commander, Vice Commander and, to determine the dues structure. The NEC can do everything else.  The NEC can even (and does) change election rules without NB approval. 

The CSU is but the most glaring example of the NEC changing the NB's wishes.  However, what is more disturbing, is the lack of transparency in major decision making by, not publishing important issues(agenda items) before NB or NEC meetings.  How can the membership (or our leaders) make good decisions or, provide input, without knowing what the issues are?

[RiverAux]

Thats the part I don't get. The difference between the NB and NEC is .. remove 52 Wing Commanders. So a subset of them govern the corporation 50 weeks a year, and the other two weeks, the Wing Commanders get some input.

The NEC meets just as often as the NB.

[BillB]

Doesn't the NECD meets quarterly and the NB twice a year?

[ZigZag911]

The NEC is the executive committee of the NB, not a mere sub-committee or task force.

I still think we don't need the NB, too much politicking.

Let's find a less self-destructive manner to maintain 'checks & balances' on national leadership.

[Larry Mangum]

Thats the part I don't get. The difference between the NB and NEC is .. remove 52 Wing Commanders. So a subset of them govern the corporation 50 weeks a year, and the other two weeks, the Wing Commanders get some input.

The NEC meets just as often as the NB.

NEC meets twice a year as part of national boards, and then two mores times a year. So yes they meet once every quarter.

[NCRblues]

The NEC is the executive committee of the NB, not a mere sub-committee or task force.

I still think we don't need the NB, too much politicking.

Let's find a less self-destructive manner to maintain 'checks & balances' on national leadership.

So here is my question to you...

When we cut the NB, you don't think the politicking will skyrocket to get into one of those 7 region commander slots?

[RiverAux]

Thats the part I don't get. The difference between the NB and NEC is .. remove 52 Wing Commanders. So a subset of them govern the corporation 50 weeks a year, and the other two weeks, the Wing Commanders get some input.

The NEC meets just as often as the NB.

NEC meets twice a year as part of national boards, and then two mores times a year. So yes they meet once every quarter.

NEC meets only twice a year.  Says so right in their minutes.

[lordmonar]

The NEC is the executive committee of the NB, not a mere sub-committee or task force.

I still think we don't need the NB, too much politicking.

Let's find a less self-destructive manner to maintain 'checks & balances' on national leadership.

So here is my question to you...

When we cut the NB, you don't think the politicking will skyrocket to get into one of those 7 region commander slots?

Cut the NEC too.

Let the BoG do the governing and the commanders at all level do the planning and execution of the BoG's policies.
Commanders by definition should not be answering to their subordinates.
If we want this to be democracy......fine....then we have to change the entire culture that CAP is based on.

[RiverAux]

So we want these folks, many of whom have no actual experience in implementing CAP programs (hey, they may never have even met a CAP member before being appointed to the BOG) and have no "skin in the game" making all the decisions?  CAP Wing Commanders have to actually consider whether or not they could make proposed regulations work in the real world. 

[lordmonar]

So we want these folks, many of whom have no actual experience in implementing CAP programs (hey, they may never have even met a CAP member before being appointed to the BOG) and have no "skin in the game" making all the decisions?  CAP Wing Commanders have to actually consider whether or not they could make proposed regulations work in the real world.

So we adjust the BoG.

Think outside the box.  The BoG was a compromise between CAP and USAF.  We can always change it to allow for "member representation".  The question would be how big should it be.  One or two members from each wing?  A rep for ever 1000 members in a "district"?  How do we share power between the USAF appointees and the CAP representitives? 

My suggestion has always been.....each squadron elects a rep (not the commander) who represent the members at the wing, who elects a member to represent the wing at region.  The region levels elects a member to sit on the BoG.

More like a union forman structure then what we have now.

The BoG "hires" the National CC and his Vice....they select regional commanders who select the wing commander who select the group/squadron commanders.

Nice, easy, minimises the amount of politicing.  Terms would be 2 years.  Allows the BoG to hire professional people that can focus on the job of getting the mission done....instead of having to worry about long term political agendas.

Allows for the general membership to directly affect policy through the politica process with out having to mix that up with the command/mission responsibilities.

Less "Wing Commander X got fired because Regional Commander Y is loading the deck for his bid to National CC" and more "Wing Commander X got fired because the national commander lost faith in his ability to perform his job."

[/rant]

[NCRblues]

So we want these folks, many of whom have no actual experience in implementing CAP programs (hey, they may never have even met a CAP member before being appointed to the BOG) and have no "skin in the game" making all the decisions?  CAP Wing Commanders have to actually consider whether or not they could make proposed regulations work in the real world.

So we adjust the BoG.

Think outside the box.  The BoG was a compromise between CAP and USAF.  We can always change it to allow for "member representation".  The question would be how big should it be.  One or two members from each wing?  A rep for ever 1000 members in a "district"?  How do we share power between the USAF appointees and the CAP representitives? 

My suggestion has always been.....each squadron elects a rep (not the commander) who represent the members at the wing, who elects a member to represent the wing at region.  The region levels elects a member to sit on the BoG.

More like a union forman structure then what we have now.

The BoG "hires" the National CC and his Vice....they select regional commanders who select the wing commander who select the group/squadron commanders.

Nice, easy, minimises the amount of politicing.  Terms would be 2 years.  Allows the BoG to hire professional people that can focus on the job of getting the mission done....instead of having to worry about long term political agendas.

Allows for the general membership to directly affect policy through the politica process with out having to mix that up with the command/mission responsibilities.

Less "Wing Commander X got fired because Regional Commander Y is loading the deck for his bid to National CC" and more "Wing Commander X got fired because the national commander lost faith in his ability to perform his job."

[/rant]

Wow.... I like it!

[JeffDG]

So we want these folks, many of whom have no actual experience in implementing CAP programs (hey, they may never have even met a CAP member before being appointed to the BOG) and have no "skin in the game" making all the decisions?  CAP Wing Commanders have to actually consider whether or not they could make proposed regulations work in the real world.

So we adjust the BoG.

Think outside the box.  The BoG was a compromise between CAP and USAF.  We can always change it to allow for "member representation".  The question would be how big should it be.  One or two members from each wing?  A rep for ever 1000 members in a "district"?  How do we share power between the USAF appointees and the CAP representitives? 

My suggestion has always been.....each squadron elects a rep (not the commander) who represent the members at the wing, who elects a member to represent the wing at region.  The region levels elects a member to sit on the BoG.

More like a union forman structure then what we have now.

The BoG "hires" the National CC and his Vice....they select regional commanders who select the wing commander who select the group/squadron commanders.

Nice, easy, minimises the amount of politicing.  Terms would be 2 years.  Allows the BoG to hire professional people that can focus on the job of getting the mission done....instead of having to worry about long term political agendas.

Allows for the general membership to directly affect policy through the politica process with out having to mix that up with the command/mission responsibilities.

Less "Wing Commander X got fired because Regional Commander Y is loading the deck for his bid to National CC" and more "Wing Commander X got fired because the national commander lost faith in his ability to perform his job."

[/rant]

That's kinda like what I said, except you're doing it with the BoG, I'm doing the NB...and I have everyone in the wing select the Wing rep, without the squadron layer...fundamentally not too different, and certainly not a hill I would die upon.