May 2012 NEC agenda

[wuzafuzz]

The need for a friendlier logo in educational settings bugs me...  I envision a watered down CAP school squadron compared to the Junior ROTC program my boys enjoyed in high school.  The high school was initially resistant to J-ROTC, until the Army instructors clearly explained it is a citizenship program.  Once the administrators understood the program wasn't a breeding ground for killers they embraced J-ROTC and eventually declared it one of the best success stories in the school district.  Effective leadership can work wonders.  CAP leadership could do the same if they desired.

[CAP_Marine]

I find it amusing that the "free" cadet uniform is the one proposed for cadets to satisfy the obtaining a uniform clause to end their probationary period. Shipping times seem spotty at best, are we really hanging the expiration of a probationary period and/ or potential dismissal from CAP on a supply system that is somewhat rocky and subject to potential annual funding restrictions? I might just be reading into it too much, but it gave me a grin.

[JayT]

On another topic from the Agenda...did anyone notice the $1,000 fee for the dreaded Triangle Thingy?

That, plus the hint that the Command Patch could eventually find itself Triangle Thingied? 

And the type of civilians that can't distinguish a uniform by branch isn't someone I am very concerned about displaying myself to.

You're also a civilian.

Personally there should be some requirement to be an American citizen, be it a test or military service including CAP.

CAP is not a military service. You're not in the military.  Just because people don't share your interests in the military does not make them un American.

There are too many American citizens that Don't know enough about America. I don't mean to sound harsh, but when you watch tv you can see some things on certain channels that show American citizens being asked questions about who presidents are and what is the declaration of independence and some will just have a blank Starr, I am sure that is the same general population that can't tell one branch from another by what their uniform says boldly on their chest... Civil Air Patrol Right across the chest should at least brig about... Hey I have never heard of that branch... What is it? Well it's not really a branch, we are an auxiliary... The triangle thingy is not a very good branding logo to market CAP, and the only reason the star logo has worked for the army is because the army has been around since 1775, and is very strong in public image and mind. So strong that the logo they adopted isn't even what people recognize, it is the wording underneath it... U.S. Army. Our command patch is distinct enough and recognizable enough that it should be able to be used as our branding logo.

Again, just because someone does not have interest in the military does not make them unAmerican.

[Extremepredjudice]

I find it amusing that the "free" cadet uniform is the one proposed for cadets to satisfy the obtaining a uniform clause to end their probationary period. Shipping times seem spotty at best, are we really hanging the expiration of a probationary period and/ or potential dismissal from CAP on a supply system that is somewhat rocky and subject to potential annual funding restrictions? I might just be reading into it too much, but it gave me a grin.

The cadet SHOULD acquire BDUs by 6 months...

[CAP_Marine]

I agree 100% that they should have BDU's within that timeframe, however, the minimum required uniform is blues for cadets. My point was more the variables in shipping time and availability of funding regarding the "free" cadet uniform becoming a potential conflict with the regulation as proposed. Not a major problem, but just funny to me.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

On another topic from the Agenda...did anyone notice the $1,000 fee for the dreaded Triangle Thingy?

That, plus the hint that the Command Patch could eventually find itself Triangle Thingied? 

And the type of civilians that can't distinguish a uniform by branch isn't someone I am very concerned about displaying myself to.

You're also a civilian.

Personally there should be some requirement to be an American citizen, be it a test or military service including CAP.

CAP is not a military service. You're not in the military.  Just because people don't share your interests in the military does not make them un American.

There are too many American citizens that Don't know enough about America. I don't mean to sound harsh, but when you watch tv you can see some things on certain channels that show American citizens being asked questions about who presidents are and what is the declaration of independence and some will just have a blank Starr, I am sure that is the same general population that can't tell one branch from another by what their uniform says boldly on their chest... Civil Air Patrol Right across the chest should at least brig about... Hey I have never heard of that branch... What is it? Well it's not really a branch, we are an auxiliary... The triangle thingy is not a very good branding logo to market CAP, and the only reason the star logo has worked for the army is because the army has been around since 1775, and is very strong in public image and mind. So strong that the logo they adopted isn't even what people recognize, it is the wording underneath it... U.S. Army. Our command patch is distinct enough and recognizable enough that it should be able to be used as our branding logo.

Again, just because someone does not have interest in the military does not make them unAmerican.

First I am a civilian by force, I am a disabled veteran, I couldn't bear to think that I am an american citizen without prior service. And the reason that I threw CAP as an option for military service is for those who are not able to join the military, for medical reasons.

The issue that I have with the lack of knowledge isn't that they don't share my interest but that they don't know enough about America.

[Eclipse]

I agree 100% that they should have BDU's within that timeframe, however, the minimum required uniform is blues for cadets. My point was more the variables in shipping time and availability of funding regarding the "free" cadet uniform becoming a potential conflict with the regulation as proposed. Not a major problem, but just funny to me.

The FCU program was offered as one source of the compliance.  As it stands today, a pretty significant portion of new cadets simply buy their uniforms like everyone else, and the FCU becomes a second set, assuming they ever receive it.

This requirement already exists for both seniors and cadets.

Simply enforceing the exisitng uniform regulation as part of level 1 would go a long way towards our appearance.  Whites and blues are the required minimum, anything else, including the golf shirt, is optional.  This gets back to my point about just working the program as it already exisits, rather than a need to make new regs that basically say "you really will do this thing that's always been required".

[A.Member]

Complaints the CAP emblem is "dated" and the assertion we need a "friendly type" logo are laughable.  This apparent wringing of hands and embarrassment of our identity and history are disappointing.  I sincerely wish our leadership would stop apologizing for our relationship with the Air Force. 

Couldn't agree more.   

That "dated" logo has tradition and meaning behind it.  The CAP emblem is distinctive and simple - two qualities of a great logo.  We must embrace the qualities that separate our organization from others.   It's those qualities that have made us great.  Our relationship with the Air Force is one to be proud of, it lends credibility, it's an asset, and a selling point.  That doesn't mean being all things to all people.

The entire argument presented for a new logo is completely without any supporting facts.  It's implied that not having a "new" logo is somehow harming the organization or in some way holding it back.  As such, the argument presented is that a new logo is needed to effectively represent the organization.  Based on what evidence?! 

What's more, the fact that one person thinks the emblem looks dated does not mean that it is.  More importantly, it doesn't mean the logo/emblem is not effective.  In other words, old does not equal bad.   It seems quite probable that this person may not understand branding.   Here's a few examples of some other "dated" logos (also clearly struggling from brand recognition):









Hugely popular and among the leaders in licensed merchandise:


Among the top sales in all sports merchandise:


Among the top selling in NFL team merchandise:


Among top selling in college merchandise:


You might recognize this old thing too:



As Eclipse pointed out earlier, our emblem differentiates us from many other organizations.  The real irony is that the TTT does exactly the opposite of it's stated objective.  It has absolutely no presence!

The TTT logo is incredibly amateurish, unimaginative, and indistinguishable from numerous other similar logos.   To offer just one example, it's very, very similar to mt-proppeller's logo (perhaps more than just inspired by?...):


The fact is, there is no demonstrated need to create a new logo (and I have a bit of an idea about this kind of stuff).   In addition, the fact that they paid $500 - 1000 for the design should be a red flag.   

If NHQ truly feels compelled to do something, a couple better alternatives to pursue are:

1.  Enforce correct use of current CAP emblem:  Legal seems to have time on their hands to deal out C&Ds, add our own (Regions, Wings, Groups, Squadrons) to the mix.  Ensure CAP is not represented with anything other the 3 approved branding items.

2.  Refresh the current CAP emblem:  This would involve only very minor revisions to the current emblem, such as illumination, gradiant, etc. 

[Eclipse]

Regardless of your personal feeling about the image itself, we should not be paying anyone consulting fees for anything, until the volunteer members
have had the opportunity to fill the need - that's part of the point and ROI on CAP.

Whether it's the website, a logo, or changes to programs, there are literally thousands of members who have the expertise, and hundreds who would be willing to help pro bono, assuming the were asked.

[Spaceman3750]

Regardless of your personal feeling about the image itself, we should not be paying anyone consulting fees for anything, until the volunteer members
have had the opportunity to fill the need - that's part of the point and ROI on CAP.

Whether it's the website, a logo, or changes to programs, there are literally thousands of members who have the expertise, and hundreds who would be willing to help pro bono, assuming the were asked.

To this end, a "Apply for the National PA Working Group" application has appeared in eServices to those with PAO rights.

[ZigZag911]

NLO proposal regarding the cadet program is somewhat extreme; however, it is long past time to start a conversation about formal separation of cadets by age groups, much like one finds in Scouting.

Not sure how that would work, but I think it's something that needs to be discussed thoroughly and calmly, because what we have right now is a potential liability for legal action.

[Eclipse]

Not sure how that would work, but I think it's something that needs to be discussed thoroughly and calmly, because what we have right now is a potential liability for legal action.

I just don't see it, and certainly not in our context, with our training and emphasis on cadet protection, etc.

The 18-21 year old cadets have all sorts of issues in regards to their participation, but liability because of their status is the least of them.
As it stands today, two 18 year old cadets would not be allowed to take a group of other cadets anywhere without seniors present, but two 18
year old senior members could run overnight activities unsupervised.  Now you're talking about real risk, and that particular paradigm exists today.

Unless you bar their membership altogether, those who would be bad actors, will be bad actors, and what it says on their ID card won't make
any difference.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I sincerely wish our leadership would stop apologizing for our relationship with the Air Force.  nd up with a logo that suits all our programs without apologizing for our true identity. 

Me too.  It is incomprehensible to me why this has been increasingly so, at least since the mid-1990s.

Of course, on the Air Force side, there's little-to-no acknowledgement that we even exist (outside of CAP-USAF).

Unfortunately I'm left with little faith after reading the agenda.

Me too.

[NIN]

It is interesting to note that the CP people seem to have first heard of this proposal when it hit the agenda. That is not good staff work, if that is the case.

That was my first thought, too. Really great way to back door your colleagues.   

While I understand the NLO's overarching responsibilities to the organization (note I said "organization" and not "corporation"), pushing a proposal as such thru to the NEC without staffing it thru the affected section/directorate/OPR is really shoddy staff work. An important skillset for people.working at this level in any organization is knowing how to do this kind of thing without stepping on people's toes.

I really don't know how people wind up at the "echelons above reality" without knowing how to stay in their lane.

And its not the first time I've ever seen someone do this.

[keystone102]

After reading the agenda on two different occasions I saw nothing that could not wait for the National Board to consider. I know we are waiting to see the governance report but I see no need for the NEC to have all the powers of the NB. Technology will allow the NB to deliberate on any issue without the need for travel. The NEC as a deliberative body is no longer needed.

[NCRblues]

After reading the agenda on two different occasions I saw nothing that could not wait for the National Board to consider. I know we are waiting to see the governance report but I see no need for the NEC to have all the powers of the NB. Technology will allow the NB to deliberate on any issue without the need for travel. The NEC as a deliberative body is no longer needed.

Speaking of the NEC...

I really think that it is high time that CAP decides who gets to make the rules. NEC or NB. I vote for the NB but that is just MHO. I would love to see the governance study and in all honesty I fully expected it to be released by now.... but...

[PHall]

Speaking of the NEC...

I really think that it is high time that CAP decides who gets to make the rules. NEC or NB. I vote for the NB but that is just MHO. I would love to see the governance study and in all honesty I fully expected it to be released by now.... but...

Actually, I think the NB needs to go. 52 members is just way too many. Kinda like herding cats...

The NEC has a much more manageable number and could do the majority of their business via either a conference call or a net meeting.
No need for all of the expensive travel and such!

[RiverAux]

Yes, the NB is large, but at least it isn't under the direct thumb of the national commander as are the members of the NEC.  They've at least got a small measure of individual independence. 

[MSG Mac]

After reading the agenda on two different occasions I saw nothing that could not wait for the National Board to consider. I know we are waiting to see the governance report but I see no need for the NEC to have all the powers of the NB. Technology will allow the NB to deliberate on any issue without the need for travel. The NEC as a deliberative body is no longer needed.

The NEC is nothing more than a subcommittee of the National Board. The NEC should recognize that most of the things that most of the items they deliberate can wait for the NB.

[NIN]

The NEC is nothing more than a subcommittee of the National Board. The NEC should recognize that most of the things that most of the items they deliberate can wait for the NB.

Well, since they all sit on the NB as well, and meet more often, I would think that they're probably considered more of a "super-committee" of the NB.