May 2012 NEC agenda

[badger bob]

Is there any information out there when the BOG is going to release the governance report?

The BoG is holding a special meeting this weekend to discuss governance.  I suspect we all know more on Monday or Tuesday.

Changing the corporate structure is not as quick and easy as some posters on this blog seem to suggest. Even if there is a consensus amongst the BOG as to a change in direction- The Pentagon will have inputs and some potential changes could require congressional approval. If the recommended changes are within the BOG's existing authority there could be minor changes in a relatively short order.

If proposed changes require Pentagon approval, change will come much slower. If the changes require congressional approval, we could be looking at a very long process. The question may be is the process broken enough to require a congressional change. Congressional funding=Congressional oversight.

[JeffDG]

Is there any information out there when the BOG is going to release the governance report?

The BoG is holding a special meeting this weekend to discuss governance.  I suspect we all know more on Monday or Tuesday.

As I said, once a decision has been made, the minions will be able to see the report...not like any of the minions might want to comment on it before the decision's made or anything.

[Ned]

As I said, once a decision has been made, the minions will be able to see the report...not like any of the minions might want to comment on it before the decision's made or anything.

Jeff,

A couple of responses:

First, as I mentioned several months ago, literally half of the Boardsource report consists of comments from the general membership who were given full opportunity to comment.  And literally every comment made was included in the report.  And I read every one of them.

Second, the BoG remains committed to a full and transparent process to discuss possible governance change.  And we mean it.  What is scheduled this weekend is the receipt of a briefing / report from our own governance subcommittee who have been working closely with members of the NB's own governance committee.  And as I mentioned before, one of the items we will be considering is the release of the BoardSource report.

Third, you may consider your self a mere "minion" but no one - and I mean no one - on the BoG does.  I have never heard a single perjorative reference to the general membership in any formal or informal session of the BoG, or in discussion with any of the BoG members.  Most of whom are very distinguished non-members (mostly active and retired AF general officers and SES civilians) who are all volunteering their time and efforts to help run this vital and unique organization with 60,000 members and over 200 million dollars in assets.  Please treat them with respect and do not put words in their mouths.

Ned Lee
Member at Large, BoG

[JeffDG]

Sir,

For myself, I consider actions to speak louder than words.  While you claim that the BoG is committed to releasing the report, it's actions speak to the contrary. 

Absent confidential information that could be redacted in short order, what has prevented the immediate and complete release of the report?  Sorry, but I just don't understand why it needs to be kept under wraps.  One logical explanation is that negotiations are occurring behind the scenes to present a fait acompli set of changes, and to spin how the report supports those changes.  Effectively keeping the report under wraps to provide an information-advantage to those privy to it, and limiting the amount of time that those opposed to the proposed changes have to review and comment on the validity of such recommendations.  If there is a better explanation, I would be happy to hear it.

In terms of the "minions" comment, you're right, that was not justified.  But again, if there was a true feeling of respect for the general membership, who incidentally are also volunteers, then why not give those members access to the same information such that a diverse and wide ranging group of professionals from all walks of life, could provide meaningful input before decisions are made.  So, to an extent, actions speak louder than words.

[NCRblues]

Second, the BoG remains committed to a full and transparent process to discuss possible governance change.  And we mean it.  What is scheduled this weekend is the receipt of a briefing / report from our own governance subcommittee who have been working closely with members of the NB's own governance committee.  And as I mentioned before, one of the items we will be considering is the release of the BoardSource report.

Ned, I have been very quiet on this subject for quite a while. But, IMHO many of the members who pay attention (maybe not post here, but pay attention to all levels of cap) are at a lost over this whole situation.

The BOG received the boardsource report on Dec. 7th - 8th officially. You even said that the members of the BOG where given advanced copies so they could see what was in it correct? (If I am wrong on that than I apologize, I just seem to remember you saying something along those lines)

Even members on this forum who supported the BOG in NOT releasing the study right away (I was not one of them) said that the Feb-Mar time frame was long enough for you all to get what you need done. Now it's Mid-April and we still have nothing from the BOG. What is taking 4 months time to read over? Why can't we (the average cap member who keeps this organization going) not read it yet? What is so secret that it must be protected at all times? Have the NB or NEC been allowed to see it? What about the NHQ staff?

I understand that you are all working hard on making changes, but at least let us see the report. It would be so simple to have someone censure names (if any are used) and post it to eServices with a disclaimer saying "this is not regulations, nor orders, this is simply a report on possible changes to the way we do business. If you have questions or more comments please refer them up your chain of command."

[Ned]

Sir,

For myself, I consider actions to speak louder than words.  While you claim that the BoG is committed to releasing the report, it's actions speak to the contrary.

Well, I guess thats a respectful way to call me a liar.   

Nice.

(On a side note, the fact that the report has not been released less than six months after it was presented does not seem logically inconsistent with the BoG being "committed to its release.")

Absent confidential information that could be redacted in short order, what has prevented the immediate and complete release of the report? 

I didn't see any confidential information in the report, so redaction is not an issue AFAIK.

And as I have said before in several different threads, potential governance change is a serious and delicate matter.  This is particularly true in an organization that has had more than its fair share of Drama and hyper-politicised situations involving governance discussions in the past.

And while I agree wholeheartedly that sunshine and air are the best antidotes to hyper-politics, the BoG (along with any other deliberative body, including the NB and Congress itself) benefits from being able to meet quietly and deliberately in drafting the initial proposal (if any), without hundreds of people trying to influence and spin the proposal before it is even drafted.

IOW, full input on any possible proposal will be welcomed, but at this point there simply isn't a proposal on the table.  It bears repeating that this is a careful and deliberative process involving a corporation with hundreds of millions dollars in assets and 60,000 members.   

Sorry, but I just don't understand why it needs to be kept under wraps.  One logical explanation is that negotiations are occurring behind the scenes to present a fait acompli set of changes, and to spin how the report supports those changes.  Effectively keeping the report under wraps to provide an information-advantage to those privy to it, and limiting the amount of time that those opposed to the proposed changes have to review and comment on the validity of such recommendations.  If there is a better explanation, I would be happy to hear it.

Well, the "better explanation" does not involve conspiracys and Black Helicopters, so you may not be interested.

The simple truth is contained in the public statement made by Generals Anderson and Speigel (and published on our website): Link.

Once a proposal is developed by the BoG governance subcommitee it will be presented to the full BoG (which is what I think we are doing this weekend), the SECAF, and other stakeholders for full discussion and input before any final decisions are made.

[JeffDG]

Well, I guess thats a respectful way to call me a liar.   

Well, crap...that's not what I meant.

I'm going to shut up now before I bury my other foot in my mouth up to the knee.

Oh, and my apologies for the implications referenced above.  And this isn't one of those politician apologies "if anyone was so stupid to misread what I said, I'm sorry they're such morons" apologies, what I said was out of line, straight up, and my sincere apologies are offered.

[FW]

I would be surprised it the Board Source reccommendations are much different from the National Board's Governance Committee report; a confirmed summary of which can be found in one of my earlier posts (we can thank the NEC for confirming it...)

If the reports are similar, recommendations are that the National Commander will be selected by the BoG.  The vice and chief of staff may also be so selected in the same manner.  The National Board will be gone.  I would expect the wing commanders to meet once a year during the annual conference.  Region Commanders may meet with the national commander and staff for policy implimentation discussions on a more frequent basis. 

It will be interesting if Board Source (if they dealt with it at all) makes any comments on the makup of the Board of Governors.  If the BoG should select two of its CAP members.  Possible conflicts of interest if it does and so forth.  These types of disscussion should be held in closed sessions. Ned is quite correct. There is no need to make public what really hasn't been decided on yet.

Of course, I could be totally wrong... :angel: 

[NCRblues]

I think Ned and FW are confusing what some of us are asking for.

We don't want to see or read or know what proposals for change the BOG will come up with.

We want to see the outside boardsource report. That's it. Simple.

[Eclipse]

And "seeing it" you would do what, exactly?

[NCRblues]

And "seeing it" you would do what, exactly?

Read it

[lordmonar]

And "seeing it" you would do what, exactly?

Read it

So....why do you want to read it NOW as opposed to say a year from now?

[NCRblues]

And "seeing it" you would do what, exactly?

Read it

So....why do you want to read it NOW as opposed to say a year from now?

Because by everything the BOG says, they are informing ALL of the stakeholder....well except the one that makes CAP work...you know...US

[JeffDG]

And "seeing it" you would do what, exactly?

Read it

So....why do you want to read it NOW as opposed to say a year from now?

Why not?  If there's nothing confidential in the report...

[Eclipse]

And "seeing it" you would do what, exactly?

Read it

Yes.  And then what?

[JeffDG]

And "seeing it" you would do what, exactly?

Read it

Yes.  And then what?

Form a reasoned opinion and prepare to engage in a reasonable debate on the future of the organization.

[Eclipse]

Form a reasoned opinion and prepare to engage in a reasonable debate on the future of the organization.

A debate which is neither opened nor invited currently, thus...

[lordmonar]

And "seeing it" you would do what, exactly?

Read it

So....why do you want to read it NOW as opposed to say a year from now?

Because by everything the BOG says, they are informing ALL of the stakeholder....well except the one that makes CAP work...you know...US

Sure.....but again.....why must it be now....instead of later?

Listen....I too want to know what is in the Board Source Report.  But I know that I have had my chance to get my input into the report.  The decision belongs to the BoG.  They don't HAVE TO consult us.  But they did.  Your begining to act like a two year old.

Sorry to be so harsh....but really.  You and JeffDG go down this road.  CAP is not nor has it ever been a democracy.  Yes the powers that be should listen to the minions....yes they should include us in their decision making process.

But let's not pretend what is going on here.

I don't know...but I feel that there are those on the BoG who want to keep the report secret for now....so that they have chance to make a decision in peace.....with out 7000 people joggeling their arms and making a bunch of noise about what they think is the right way of doing things.

If you think I am wrong.....just look at the last three threads about updated regultions!  I mean chaning the name of CAP NEWS to The Volunteer generated 3-4 pages of outrage.

So.....my point.....is let the drivers drive.  They will ask us where we want to eat when the time is right.....we don't need to asking "are we there yet".

[NCRblues]

And "seeing it" you would do what, exactly?

Read it

Yes.  And then what?

Think about the implications, form an opinion and speak to my corporate officer....you know, like we are supposed to.

[Eclipse]

Think about the implications, form an opinion and speak to my corporate officer....you know, like we are supposed to.

See above.  When your corporate officer is ready for opinions, he'll ask for them, until then, unsolicited, and perhaps improperly informed opinions will just make their job more difficult.