May 2012 NEC agenda

[ßτε]

Fraternization between adult members and cadets is prohibited. 

You really need to read the regulations before writing things like this.

Dating and intimate romantic relationships are strictly prohibited between seniors and cadets at any time, regardless of the circumstances.  The age of majority in the local jurisdiction has little, if anything, to do with it. See CAPR 52-16, para 2-3 (b).

Actually, my source was the Cadet Protection Training program student guide - if it is not correct, there's a different problem. 

Good catch.  The wording in the CAPP 50-3 does indeed differ from the regulation.  It appears that it was simply copied incorrectly.  We'll get that fixed.  In the meantime, we should remember that regulations should serve as our primary guidance in the event of a conflict.

That was fast. http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P050_003_3760F45B217E7.pdf

[Eclipse]

That was fast. http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P050_003_3760F45B217E7.pdf

"Includes Change 1, 19 April 2012."

Wow!  That's how it should be done, just fix it on the fly and re-upload!

[FlyTiger77]

That was fast. http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P050_003_3760F45B217E7.pdf

"Includes Change 1, 19 April 2012."

Wow!  That's how it should be done, just fix it on the fly and re-upload!

I don't know. It took Ned a week! Slacker. Geez. (I am joking, by the way)

[Ned]

I don't know. It took Ned a week! Slacker. Geez. (I am joking, by the way)

Actually it is a nice nod to the power of CAPTalk to identify errors and get them to the attention of NHQ.

If only the 39-1 problem was so simple . . .

[A.Member]

I don't know. It took Ned a week! Slacker. Geez. (I am joking, by the way)

Actually it is a nice nod to the power of CAPTalk to identify errors and get them to the attention of NHQ.

If only the 39-1 problem was so simple . . .

Careful, Ned, you're getting pretty close to setting -- what do you guys call it in the legal world -- a precedent, I think?!      People will start having expectations...

[arajca]

I don't know. It took Ned a week! Slacker. Geez. (I am joking, by the way)

Actually it is a nice nod to the power of CAPTalk to identify errors and get them to the attention of NHQ.

If only the 39-1 problem was so simple . . .

It's a simple problem to fix, but they just won't listen to us.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

It's a simple problem to fix, but they just won't listen to us.

It is simple and complicated.

It's complicated:

"We want to look more like the Air Force."

"No, we don't...polos, grey/white, etc are all we need."

Two simple points of view, diametrically opposed.

[lordmonar]

No...those are the complicated changes.

The simple fixes are the ones where you correct the language, photos, clarify the exisiting rules, make sure the exisiting rules cover everything.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

The simple fixes are the ones where you correct the language, photos, clarify the exisiting rules, make sure the exisiting rules cover everything.

Do you call that simple?  Getting a bunch of grand poobahs to agree on the language, photos and rules?

[lordmonar]

The simple fixes are the ones where you correct the language, photos, clarify the exisiting rules, make sure the exisiting rules cover everything.

Do you call that simple?  Getting a bunch of grand poobahs to agree on the language, photos and rules?

I mean that the existing rules are already in place......but that there is sometimes vague or even contradictry language in the 39-1.
For example....tie tack/tie bars.....are they manditory?
Flight suits.....are they for aircrew at anytime a utility uniform if appropriate....or are they only for aircrew during flight activities?
CAP NCO's.......can they wear stripes on their gray and whites....or must it be the rank sleeve?
Why can you only wear three badges on the blues shirt (one wing, one GT/EMS badge over the pocket/ribbons and one specialty badge ON the pocket) but you can wear four (another specilaty badge on the right pocket) on the gray and whites.

A lot of the photos are in accurate or just plain bad.

All the things the uniform committee are doing is good.....but I would have started with them "fixing" 39-1 before they started looking at modifications to the uniforms.....(but I want them to do that too).

[arajca]

The simple fixes are the ones where you correct the language, photos, clarify the exisiting rules, make sure the exisiting rules cover everything.

Do you call that simple?  Getting a bunch of grand poobahs to agree on the language, photos and rules?

I mean that the existing rules are already in place......but that there is sometimes vague or even contradictry language in the 39-1.
For example....tie tack/tie bars.....are they manditory?
Flight suits.....are they for aircrew at anytime a utility uniform if appropriate....or are they only for aircrew during flight activities?
CAP NCO's.......can they wear stripes on their gray and whites....or must it be the rank sleeve?
Why can you only wear three badges on the blues shirt (one wing, one GT/EMS badge over the pocket/ribbons and one specialty badge ON the pocket) but you can wear four (another specilaty badge on the right pocket) on the gray and whites.

A lot of the photos are in accurate or just plain bad.

All the things the uniform committee are doing is good.....but I would have started with them "fixing" 39-1 before they started looking at modifications to the uniforms.....(but I want them to do that too).

Correction on grey/whites and badges: you can wear ONE badge and ONE wing OR just one badge either above pocket/ribbons or on left pocket. Ref. CAPM 39-1, Chapt 4, pg 75, item 11:

Only the CAP aviation badge and one additional CAP badge are authorized on this uniform.

[jimmydeanno]

Goodness.  The NEC has a proposal that will divert vanguard funding to pad their own travel budgets, eliminate a significant amount of our cadet program, and we're worried about the new 39-1? 

Every other non-profit I've ever seen, the board members are responsible for bringing money into the organization, not cost it money.  This proposal just goes to show that a significant amount of our national leadership has a hard time grasping what their actual responsibilities are and instead of focusing on raising money, they are again shouldering the burden onto the backs of it's own membership.

[RiverAux]

The NEC isn't equivalent to other organization's "boards".  That would be the Board of Governors.  Given the legally mandated way in which BoG members are chosen, its unlikely that many are actually going to "bring" money with them. 

[lordmonar]

Goodness.  The NEC has a proposal that will divert vanguard funding to pad their own travel budgets, eliminate a significant amount of our cadet program, and we're worried about the new 39-1?

No. 

1)  I don't care what the Vanguard kick back is spent on.
2)  I don't see spending the kick back on travel is all that bad.
3)  NBB, NESA and HAWK MOUNTAIN survived before the kick back and will contiue to do so is some of that money is diverted.
4) I was not commenting at all on any of the NEC agenda items.....only making a comment on what I think the uniform committee should be doing.

Every other non-profit I've ever seen, the board members are responsible for bringing money into the organization, not cost it money.  This proposal just goes to show that a significant amount of our national leadership has a hard time grasping what their actual responsibilities are and instead of focusing on raising money, they are again shouldering the burden onto the backs of it's own membership.

I agree to a point......In fact I specifically stated in the governance thread that I think that the National/regional/wing commander ought to be paid positions with one of their primary goals is fund raising.

As for this particular agenda item.....it is not going to cost us any more then we are currently spending....we just won't be spending all of it on NBB, NESA and HMRS.  They will be spending it on NHQ travel so that the National Level leaders can get out to the field to improve their areas of responsiblities.....Isn't that a good thing?  Haven't we complained that the national level guys are out of touch with the guys in the field.....well in order to get into touch...the National Leaders have got to get out to the field somehow.   

[jimmydeanno]

I've never seen a group of executives ask their "employees" to pay for their airline tickets.  The current model we have is:

1) See a demand for money > raise membership dues > expect the membership to pay out of pocket > raise prices at vanguard to increase kickback (only members buy uniform stuff).

Nowhere in that is "create partnership with Boeing/Lockheed/Northrop to bring in $500k."  Anothernon-profit I'm on the local board for just got a check from each of those companies to the tune of 50k for a local event and scholarship support.

Most non profit board members bring money with them, whether its personal or from existing contacts.  I can't think of a single nonprofit board member that would ever dream of costing their organization more than they bring in.

[keystone102]

I accept paying higher Vanguard prices to help our cadets. I don't want it going to Corporate officers hotel rooms. How about our higher ups Skyping in to a conference instead of flying in? At least until we get out of this financial crisis. The pain should be shared by all not just the under Colonel crowd.

[RADIOMAN015]

I've never seen a group of executives ask their "employees" to pay for their airline tickets.

Most non profit board members bring money with them, whether its personal or from existing contacts.  I can't think of a single nonprofit board member that would ever dream of costing their organization more than they bring in.

When resource are limited there needs to be a through review of all expenditures and a revalidation of the use of those funds.  Just from an internal public relations standpoint this use of funds for travel is a very poor thing to do.  :angel:

Also what training is really provided to any of our board members on how to fund raise     Fund raising in my opinion is further complicated by the consolidation of expenses.   There should be a scheduled attached to that consolidated statement that shows CAP Inc (member provided & donations from non government) and how it is utilized.      There should be a specific discussion in that financial release if there's been in large donations and how the donation was utilized.   It might even be a good idea to discuss some nationwide project that are unfunded as supplement to those financial statements.

Maybe   with addition the addition of a Development Director at National Headquarters, maybe we will see some specific movement with a plan for developing other monetary donations sources.   OR perhaps basically what we will really just see is more administrative mumbo jumbo regulations on what one "will" have to do at lower levels in the organization, rather than in any tangible results    
RM   

[A.Member]

I've never seen a group of executives ask their "employees" to pay for their airline tickets.  The current model we have is:

1) See a demand for money > raise membership dues > expect the membership to pay out of pocket > raise prices at vanguard to increase kickback (only members buy uniform stuff).

Nowhere in that is "create partnership with Boeing/Lockheed/Northrop to bring in $500k."  Anothernon-profit I'm on the local board for just got a check from each of those companies to the tune of 50k for a local event and scholarship support.

Most non profit board members bring money with them, whether its personal or from existing contacts.  I can't think of a single nonprofit board member that would ever dream of costing their organization more than they bring in.

:clap:

[FW]

The National Board and HQ staff made a pledge a long time ago that the Vangard funds would only be used to help our cadets and develop areas for training purposes. IMHO, it would be a shame to violate that pledge.

Fund raising, with our present leadership structure, is problematic.  The CAP Foundation has not been visible.  CAP has not been successful in fund raising because of the failure to differentiate our government funding from those programs which are outside its scope. 

What is needed; a stong Foundation Board which can solicit major contributors and, develop an endowment which can truly support CAP programs.  These Foundation Board members must be able to bring in the funds.  The BoG can't/won't do this; neither can the NB members or, our national volunteer leaders. 

[RiverAux]

I think its awfully hard to raise funds for CAP due to our Air Force link which puts us at a disadvantage -- if the Air Force doesn't think some specific program is valuable enough to fund (they think) why should I donate to it?