May 2012 NEC agenda

[CS]

CAP has always jumped at finding money for something that exists, rather than first evaluating the need. Almost every US corporation utilizes tele/video conferencing for internal meetings.  Based on the majority of the meetings held they can be done that way without compromising any of the activities of CAP.  One face to face meeting Annually should be sufficient for all boards and committees and done at the same event.  One trip is certainly less expensive than the current number.  Regarding Vanguard...well thats another whole story.  Never should have been done in the first place and never should have had a non-CAP friendly contract.  Running a non-profit and collecting the 'kick back' from the very volunteers that make CAP what it is a travesty at best, and heartbreaking at worst.  So NO, any kickbacks should not be taken away from the cadet program.

[ZigZag911]

CS makes a lot of sense; all this travel, at the general memberships' expense, is excessive in the age of instant communications.

[lordmonar]

CS makes a lot of sense; all this travel, at the general memberships' expense, is excessive in the age of instant communications.

I don't know where it is at "the general memberships' expense".  I am getting everything I was promised from my dues.

Now having said that.......Those complaining about all the travel expenses......how would us the money instead?

Like I said before.....I don't use NBB, NESA or HMRS.....so I don't directly see any of that Vanguard money. 

So diverting if from one area to another is a non-issue for me.

IF.....if NBB, NESA and HMRS don't need all that money.....then I don't see a problem with using it for national level leaders to travel.
It would be nice to see the National CP guy down in my neck of the woods sometimes so I can talk to him and he can see what we do.

I don't really care is PAWG, INWG or WIWG gets the money or NHQ gets the money.....I know that PCR-NV-069 ain't getting any of the money.

[RiverAux]

In the grand scheme of things its a pittance.  That being said, I expect them to be smart about how often and where they have these meetings so that they cost as little as possible. 

[jimmydeanno]

Also what training is really provided to any of our board members on how to fund raise

Personally, I think that our board members should be hired based on their qualifications to do the job they're hired to do.  Fundraising skills being one of them.  The military mindset of "we'll hire you for the job and expect you to get the skills later" doesn't fly in private industry or non-profits.  Non-profits need board members that bring executive level leadership experience to the table.  I would expect/demand that skillset before hiring someone. 

We can't home-grow all of our skillsets, especially with volunteer leadership.  We need volunteers that bring that experience and ability from their outside experiences and have the credentials to back it up.  I would also expect that someone at that level that knew they were lacking in certain areas would seek out the education they need, not fail and say "well, you didn't provide the training."

[jimmydeanno]

Now having said that.......Those complaining about all the travel expenses......how would us the money instead?

Like I said before.....I don't use NBB, NESA or HMRS.....so I don't directly see any of that Vanguard money. 

So diverting if from one area to another is a non-issue for me.

IF.....if NBB, NESA and HMRS don't need all that money.....then I don't see a problem with using it for national level leaders to travel.
It would be nice to see the National CP guy down in my neck of the woods sometimes so I can talk to him and he can see what we do.

I don't really care is PAWG, INWG or WIWG gets the money or NHQ gets the money.....I know that PCR-NV-069 ain't getting any of the money.

I have no problems with the Vanguard contract, other than the prices for stuff being different (higher) every time I log on to buy the same things (every week).  With that said, CAP getting a kickback on the markup of the items is fine by me.  However, if I were one of our national level leaders, I would look at that money as something we could use to expand our missions. 

If we get 100K plus from the Vanguard kickbacks, I'd look at things like:

1) Getting about 20 professionally made "airshow booths" that could be "ordered" by a wing to be set up at an airshow/big public event.  It would come with banner displays, tables, tent(s), and all the recruiting materials and CAP swag you'd need to successfully recruit at an airshow or large public event.  When done, you stick the return labels on them and ship them back.

This would help expand our missions by providing a professional looking, consistent, presence at what is most likely our best recruiting arenas and it's something that all of the membership would benefit from.

2) Reduce cadet membership dues:  Although relatively cheap to begin with, our membership fees/renewal fees still put CAP out of reach for many kids.  Financial accessibility is a serious concern to most units.  I could have at least 30 new cadets if I were able to afford to pay for all their membership dues because we have numerous kids who want the opportunity but can't afford it because their family only makes $200/wk.

3) Hire grant writers:  Grant writers are typically expected to pay their salary (not literally) plus gain "X" amount of money for the organization they are hired by.  So, the initial startup funds (vanguard money) would be gained back and then some after some time.

4) Targeted advertising campaigns.  Find an area that seems to be underserved, or not at capacity (i.e. NYC only having 100 cadets while Podunk Montana has 400).  An advertising campaign in NYC might help to boost visibility and expand membership in that area.

Those are just some ideas.  But notice that none of them include "pad my travel budget" or "have an executive meeting."  I think that using the money for travel is short-sighted and will have practically no return on investment.  I suppose when you're in the "use it or lose it" federal budget mentality, looking past the next year would be difficult, though (Not directed at you Pat)...   

[RRLE]

There is another militray auxiliary, the USCG Auxiliary, that faces the same issues that you have been discussing. The USCG Aux received funding directly from the USCG. It also self-funds, mostly thru membership dues and public boating courses (PE). The rights to the PE course material and most Aux logoed 'stuff' belongs to the Coast Guard Auxiliary Association Inc (CGAuxAssInc). The CGAuxAssInc is supposed to support the non-USCG supported Aux programs. The CGAuxAssInc runs both the national member store and supports the district stores. The intent and purpose is the same as the CAP/Vanguard relationship - fund the oranization by charging the members for overpriced goods. The CGAuxAssInc just released it latest Exempt Organization (2010) Income Tax Form. The 2010 is the latest given the Aux's fiscal year.

From that you can discover the following:

1. Revenue was down $235,819
2. Expenses were down $92,276
3. Travel was $289,672
4. Dues comprise 82.1% of revenue
5. There were only 2 large donations: CG Founation $40,377 and JP Morgan $25,000. The report does not state if either donation was restricted or not.

At its most recent meeting, the CGAuxAssInc elected a new director. He is also a director and immediate past Chairman of the Board of the CG Foundation (among other things).

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Personally, I think that our board members should be hired based on their qualifications to do the job they're hired to do.

So obviously true, yet such an elusive bill to fill.

[abdsp51]

Or some of those kickbacks could be used to help fund scholarships for cadets to attend activities that other wise are not able to go.  Or putting that into existing scholarships to expand on. 

Or these kickbacks could also be used to help units with their AE programs buy allocating funds for model rocketry and the like.  Or how about being able to have units procure ES gear or update their obsolete equipment. 

I have to agree with some members here that in this age of technology there are other efficient means of conducting meetings than traveling all over.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I have to agree with some members here that in this age of technology there are other efficient means of conducting meetings than traveling all over.

Especially with the price of petrol/avgas/jet fuel.

[Ned]

Just a couple of notes:

1.  Since I have been on the BoG, we have met on conference call for about half of our meetings.  Usually we conference call special meetings with just one or two agenda items.  (The NEC does the same thing for their special meetings.)  Trying to do a full-day (or more) confernce call  for a regular meeting is a bit of a logistical issue.

2. Similarly, even it the age of Skype and the various meeting facilitation products like GoToMeeting and such, it is simply not yet viable to do an electronic meeting with nearly a hundred participants like the NB.  I have done some pretty high-speed VTCs for Uncle Sam, but we have never had anything more than a dozen folks.  It just gets unmanagable. Perhaps if the NB were smaller, they could efficiently meet electronically.  (But then they would be the NEC.)

3.  When the BoG meets in DC, it is actually relatively inexpensive because the majority of the BoG lives in the DC metro area.  As the only  Left Coast guy, I'm pretty much the only one spending a full day traveling in each direction.  And of course, when the BoG meets at NHQ, we have government quarters which certainly conserves resources.

4.  Each of the current "boards" (NB, NEC, BoG) meets twice a year, absent a special meeting.  Reasonable minds may certainly differ on how often meetings should occur.  But twice a year does not seem all that unusual from a governance perspective.  Perhaps a governance change may reduce the number of "boards" that have to meet in any event.

5.  It is worth remembering that the licensing fee paid by Vanguard for selling CAP-specific merchandise is pretty much the industry standard.  You can't buy Boy Scout merchandise from anyone other than an authorized vendor.  Who pay licensing fees to BSA.  Colleges collect licensing fees on their logowear.  And if we were to end the licensing fee arrangement tomorrow, there is no guaratee that VG would lower the prices for CAP merchandise in any event.  This is a classic "win-win" for the members and CAP.

I do value and appreciate the input I get from threads like this. I will share much of it with my fellow BoG members at our meeting starting tomorrow evening.

Ned Lee

[Extremepredjudice]

5.  It is worth remembering that the licensing fee paid by Vanguard for selling CAP-specific merchandise is pretty much the industry standard.  You can't buy Boy Scout merchandise from anyone other than an authorized vendor.  Who pay licensing fees to BSA.  Colleges collect licensing fees on their logowear.  And if we were to end the licensing fee arrangement tomorrow, there is no guaratee that VG would lower the prices for CAP merchandise in any event.  This is a classic "win-win" for the members and CAP.

Sir, you are the legal expert, but couldn't you require a drop in prices with the ending licensing agreement?

[Ned]

But couldn't you require a drop in prices with the ending licensing agreement?

That's the point.  If you end the agreement / contract, you have no control over what the other party does. 

Another practical point is that the licensing agreement with VG requires them to sell the entire line of current insignia, even the ones that sell so few items that they are bound to be unprofitable.  (I think the example we usually use here is the Master CDI badge.  I'd be surprised if they sell more than 30-40 a year of things like that.  But they still have to be produced to spec and available.)

The profit VG makes on selling popular items like ultramarine blue tapes and wing patches literally underwrites the costs for producing the proverbial master CDI badge, Spaatz ribbons, WWII target towing ribbons, etc.

If we let just anyone sell CAP merchandise, the "low density" items woud simply become unavailable and/or amazingly expensive.  Similarly, the quality of the items would nosedive as vendors competed in price by offshoring for the lowest possible price.

The VG agreement is really a "win-win."  Our leaders did a good thing for us.

[Nolan Teel]

I still think were about to see a huge change to CAP.  My money is on the NB going away.  Guess we will know more in the next 6-12 months.

[MSG Mac]

I,ve been trying to procure a Borman Ribbon for a member of my unit Vanguard doesn't even list it on line

[NCRblues]

I still think were about to see a huge change to CAP.  My money is on the NB going away. 

I agree that a major change is on the way, just wish it would be done a little more openly. Money is more than likely on the NB going away, but IMHO that is not the correct move. Oh well, im not in charge...

[NCRblues]

BTW Ned, any update on your BOG meeting this weekend yet?

[ZigZag911]

Similarly, even it the age of Skype and the various meeting facilitation products like GoToMeeting and such, it is simply not yet viable to do an electronic meeting with nearly a hundred participants like the NB. 

One more reason NB as currently constituted is ridiculous for an organization of 60K members...contrary to the opinions of some, there is no objective reason for 'representation for every wing'.

[RiverAux]

Like when the wing commanders from the desert states said that the idea of shorts as regular uniform items was ridiculous and unnecessary even though it was supposedly being put out there for their benefit? 

[NCRblues]

Like when the wing commanders from the desert states said that the idea of shorts as regular uniform items was ridiculous and unnecessary even though it was supposedly being put out there for their benefit?

Ya...because the NEC has never done ANYTHING stupid....oh...wait