CAP Members' Input Sought on Corporate Governance

[RRLE]

Is there a link to the News of the Force article, or how can we get access?

NOTF Exclusive: The AF IG's Report on the Civil Air Patrol - Page 1

NOTF Exclusive: The AF IG's Report on the Civil Air Patrol - Page 2

[RiverAux]

I just can't help but compare this report of what is happening in CAP to how the CG Aux works.  The report highlights the silliness of a commander selecting those that will end up voting on them and/or their favorite successor.  CG Aux, which depends on those below electing their leaders all the way up the chain has no such problem.  Sure, there are probably some "politics" going on at the very high electoral level, but it certainly doesn't seem to get to the toxic levels seen in CAP due to our structure. 

[jimmydeanno]

Not to sound crass, but reading that was painful, and I'm not sure that it is coherent enough as to explain anything, much less for me to draw any conclusions from it.

[NCRblues]

Not to sound crass, but reading that was painful, and I'm not sure that it is coherent enough as to explain anything, much less for me to draw any conclusions from it.

I think it has answered the age old question (at least here on captalk) about what the AF thinks of CAP. The AF loves the volunteers who get the missions done....and the AF hates the top leadership because of the political crap....

I do find it funny that the AF blasts CAP leadership over not fixing things, than later on in the report asks the leadership to fix things. If they didn't do it the first decade, what makes you think they will do it now?

(sarcasm warning) -> Plus our leadership has way more important things to worried about for instance our 2 year (or 3 or 4 depending on who you ask and how long you have paid attention) moratorium on uniform changes!

[RiverAux]

I think the complaints about not updating the regs to reflect the BoG are pretty darn petty.  Whether or not the BoG gets mentioned in a CAP regulation is pretty meaningless to CAP life.  They can pretty much do what they darn well please no matter what any regulation says.  Sure, it would be a good idea to update them as applicable, but certainly not worth highlighting in a report like this.

[Ned]

(sarcasm warning) -> Plus our leadership has way more important things to worried about for instance our 2 year (or 3 or 4 depending on who you ask and how long you have paid attention) moratorium on uniform changes!

Kinda misses both as sarcasm and as satire.

By definition a moratorium on uniform changes means they are not spending time on uniform changes.  And by all accounts the leadership has spent a great deal of time working governance issues recently, driven in large part by the very problems the IG report highlights.

There really isn't anything particularly new in the IG report - it is all stuff that was discussed at great length here on CT.  Without exception, everyone acknowledges the issues highlighted here - that Congress grafted the BoG onto an existing governance structure and not all of the supporting documents (C & BL, regs, etc.) have been harmonized.  That omission, in turn, has led to some confusion and overlapping roles between the various governing structures.  Aggravating that situation is the problem with the "circular selection process" represented by our current method of electing the national commander.

It bears repeating that updating governance is something that all large organizations need to do from time to time.  Just as the American Red Cross did after Katrina.  They used outside experts to audit their governance and suggest best practices for their corporation.  We are going down the same road.  We have hired consultants who gave us the benefit of their wisdom.  The BoG has a special meeting next month as part of the deliberate, open process for change.  Thev NEC meets in May, and of course the NB will meet in August.  All will be dealing with their part in governance reform.

So, despite you attempt at sarcasm, it sounds like the leadership is doing what they need to do.  All of us would like it to move more quickly, or course, but it is an important process for a unique corporation with several hundred million dollars in assets and over 60,000 members.  We should not be hasty in our changes.  We are going to do it right.

[NCRblues]

(sarcasm warning) -> Plus our leadership has way more important things to worried about for instance our 2 year (or 3 or 4 depending on who you ask and how long you have paid attention) moratorium on uniform changes!

Kinda misses both as sarcasm and as satire.

By definition a moratorium on uniform changes means they are not spending time on uniform changes.  And by all accounts the leadership has spent a great deal of time working governance issues recently, driven in large part by the very problems the IG report highlights.

There really isn't anything particularly new in the IG report - it is all stuff that was discussed at great length here on CT.  Without exception, everyone acknowledges the issues highlighted here - that Congress grafted the BoG onto an existing governance structure and not all of the supporting documents (C & BL, regs, etc.) have been harmonized.  That omission, in turn, has led to some confusion and overlapping roles between the various governing structures.  Aggravating that situation is the problem with the "circular selection process" represented by our current method of electing the national commander.

It bears repeating that updating governance is something that all large organizations need to do from time to time.  Just as the American Red Cross did after Katrina.  They used outside experts to audit their governance and suggest best practices for their corporation.  We are going down the same road.  We have hired consultants who gave us the benefit of their wisdom.  The BoG has a special meeting next month as part of the deliberate, open process for change.  Thev NEC meets in May, and of course the NB will meet in August.  All will be dealing with their part in governance reform.

So, despite you attempt at sarcasm, it sounds like the leadership is doing what they need to do.  All of us would like it to move more quickly, or course, but it is an important process for a unique corporation with several hundred million dollars in assets and over 60,000 members.  We should not be hasty in our changes.  We are going to do it right.

Ned, I think you read it different than I wanted it to come across... dangers of the interwebs I guess.

I meant it as more of a joking and fun poking at captalk and our seemingly unhinged obsession with uniforms and regulations that deal with uniforms.

If you notice, I have been very silent on the governance issue lately, as I have been reassured by someone that my fears where not going to come to pass. Work away on the reform of our governance good sir, I just hope to see more openness soon.

[FW]

The CAP Board of Governors were supposed to have met yesterday for their semi annual session.  I'm just wondering if the SECAF sent his ideas back on CAP governance yet... :angel:

[abdsp51]

I'm behind the curve a little bit but wouldn't it make more sense to have one governing body made up of CAP, USAF and corp members and have say maybe the AETC CC have final say on things?   

[NCRblues]

I'm behind the curve a little bit but wouldn't it make more sense to have one governing body made up of CAP, USAF and corp members and have say maybe the AETC CC have final say on things?

The AF has said that will not happen ever again (having an AD 0-7 or above) calling the shots. They have no money for it. Would be nice, but we will never see that one go down.

[bflynn]

I'm behind the curve a little bit but wouldn't it make more sense to have one governing body made up of CAP, USAF and corp members and have say maybe the AETC CC have final say on things?

Maybe, but as noted it isn't going to happen.

Ultimately political infighting issues are a reflection of the citizens and to some extent, reflections of the country at large.  Self-control is the answer to a lot of issues, but what is the fallback when self-control is not exercised?

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

The AF has said that will not happen ever again (having an AD 0-7 or above) calling the shots. They have no money for it. Would be nice, but we will never see that one go down.

What about someone from the Air Force Reserve?

I'm not sure about an Air National Guard officer because that could potentially get into Title 10 and who does s/he work for; his/her State or DoD?

[ZigZag911]

How about a retired USAF/USAFR/USAirNG general officer?

[lordmonar]

How about a retired USAF/USAFR/USAirNG general officer?

That's what we have on the BoG now.

[Eclipse]

Anyone who is "ex-military" is essentially what we have today, and its not a given that they will be any more successful then someone
from the private sector.

Leading volunteers, especially a group which includes a vocal minority who for some reason don't appreciate CAP's paramilitary culture,
is not the same as leading people who have sworn to follow orders to their deaths.  Time and again I have seen accomplished military
people struggle to lead in CAP because they say "jump" and members say "why", or "I'd love to jump, and don't get me wrong, if this was
the 'big leap', I'd be there, but right now I'm pretty busy..."

Having us >in< the military chain is a different discussion, and it doesn't appear to be one that's on the table.

[lordmonar]

Eclipes.....just to pick nits......we did not swear to follow order to our deaths.  We swear to support and defend the consitituion of the United States.

But.....yes.....leading volunteers is a differnt type of leadership....and many ex-military types have trouble making that transition.

[NIN]

But.....yes.....leading volunteers is a differnt type of leadership....and many ex-military types have trouble making that transition.

Oddly, I never really had that problem (and being ex-military and all). 

My former commander used to emphasize "Accomplish the mission, welfare of the troops." And of course he was right, for one of our military services.

But for CAP purposes, I flipped that around: "Welfare of the troops, accomplish the mission."  That put people in a totally different leadership mindset for the priorities.

[ol'fido]

Anyone who is "ex-military" is essentially what we have today, and its not a given that they will be any more successful then someone
from the private sector.

Leading volunteers, especially a group which includes a vocal minority who for some reason don't appreciate CAP's paramilitary culture,
is not the same as leading people who have sworn to follow orders to their deaths.  Time and again I have seen accomplished military
people struggle to lead in CAP because they say "jump" and members say "why", or "I'd love to jump, and don't get me wrong, if this was
the 'big leap', I'd be there, but right now I'm pretty busy..."

Having us >in< the military chain is a different discussion, and it doesn't appear to be one that's on the table.

And on the flip side, you have those people without military experience who try to lead in the corporate fashion. i.e. Memos, e mails, death by power point, meeting purgatory, "do as I say, not as I do" types. Leadership is leadership. Good leaders will modify their message and style to fit their audience. Plus, being a military officer does not make anyone a automatic "good" leader. I know two people who are senior officers on AD right now with the AF. One I would follow anywhere and the other I would be hard pressed to spit(or anything else) on if he was on fire. If you know what you are doing, treat people with compassion and respect, have a clear sense of purpose, and say "Follow Me" 99 times out of 100 you will get  positive results. That one guy that won't get it will probably be gone pretty fast anyway.

[bflynn]

who try to lead in the corporate fashion. i.e. Memos, e mails, death by power point, meeting purgatory, "do as I say, not as I do" types.

Argh!

"Leadership" of the worst type...

[PHall]

who try to lead in the corporate fashion. i.e. Memos, e mails, death by power point, meeting purgatory, "do as I say, not as I do" types.

Argh!

"Leadership" of the worst type...

But that's not Leadership, it's Managing. Which is why they're called Managers and not Leaders.