Changing Civil Air Patrol to U.S. Civil Air Patrol

[DNall]

t's a PITA that takes money away from my people that, granted is small individually, but adds up across the org.

Now that is a complete misrepresentation.  The phase in of this is long enough that none one has to go out and buy branch tapes just to switch out the ones on their uniform.  WHEN you get new BDUs or BBDUs you get then new branch tape...all new members get the new branch tape.  There is not additional costs to anyone.

The only's who may be out are any unit that has bought a stock of them.  And that is correct by just using up existing supplies as fast as possible.

You know the phase-in is what 3 years? You wear BDUs half the time to meetings, that's like 50-75 hrs, 25 washes, plus a weekend every six weeks or so. That'd take 10 years to wear out. Granted if you're extremely active you're probably a little rougher on them, and you probably also have 2-3 sets.

The larger point though is it's change for the sake of change, or rather people trying to establish some sense of legacy, and done over the backs of members with no measureable gain to the org. That's dumb. I don't really care if it has US on the front or not. I have no particular opinion on that being a good idea or not. It's just not a justified change.

It would have been much better for the org to just bump dues up a couple bucks & use the money for something that serves a purpose (shh... don't want to give them any ideas). You should never make a change unless you can justify why it MUST be changed & show in black & white that the gain exceeds the cost in a significant & meaningful way. This does none of that, which makes it irresponsible.

Let me just play devil's advocate here.....that MAY (please let me stress may) have been done.  But it was justified to the only people who count in this situation, the NB.  They don't have to justify any changes to the rank and file.  Granted good change management dictates that you get the rank and file to buy off on it so solve just this sort of belly aching....but it is not necessary and it is not irresponsible, just bad management.

Okay, that's true. We don't really know which way it went down. IF it was fully justified & not just whipped thru for the sake of legacy or shirt sighted flights of fancy then you're right, it's simply bad management, which I'd still describe as irresponsible, especially when dealing with volunteers. On the other hand if it was not justified, which would be my suspicion, then it was a leadership failure & even more irresponsible.

[LTC_Gadget]

The larger point though is it's change for the sake of change

Bingo!  The last time I recall big brother AF doing something seemingly this ill-advised was when Gen McPeak re-designed the service coat, and took the epaulets off.  Then just a couple of years after he left (if that long) they put 'em back.  Sooo, guys were having to go out and buy the 'retro-fit' kits, and pay the tailors to put the dang things back on.  The second-silliest idea in my recollection was the white ceremonial dress, that was almost never worn.  I knew guys with less than six months before separation that spent the several hundred dollars to get the thing, wore it once, or not at all, and then tried to recoup what they could via the base thrift shop before the thing got canned.

As someone pointed out, it's not just the dollars, it's the principle, the reason, or lack of it.  If you don't have a clear and definitive reason for making such a sweeping change, and can't identify and defend why it had to be done, or was the right thing to do, it's just not prudent to do it.  If Vanguard has shareholders, I wonder if anyone's checked the shareholder's list recently. (idle musing).

Decision-makers at the national level should *never* do anything without lots of analytical forethought, a consideration for the long-term effects, and a conscious effort not to be bitten in the derrière by the law of unintended consequences.  They *have* to think strategically. By the time you get to that level, you should *never* be caught dead doing anything obviously short-sighted, selfish, or dare I say st00pid.. Yep, JMO..

V/R,

brb.. Someones knocking at the fron.....

[lordmonar]

I'll go with the principle argument.

But that is as far as I'll go.  A 3 year phase in...even if you don't cycle your BDU's by then, is a whopping $2/year.  Let's not pretend that $2 bucks is going to kill anyone or prevent anyone from participating in CAP.

Let's also be careful with words like irresponsible.  That envisions that they knew the consequences of their actions but just don't care.  Bad management, misunderstood the desires of the field, just some individual's pet peeve to make us more like the USAF. (everyone else say U.S. why don't we?)

Everyone should go back and look at their little pet project and think.....if they ever got the chance to bring it up for a vote...would they refrain because it was change for changes sake?

[DNall]

LtCol Boyd... That's the gist of my position right there. And it extends beyond silly uniform changes.

A 3 year phase in...even if you don't cycle your BDU's by then, is a whopping $2/year.  Let's not pretend that $2 bucks is going to kill anyone or prevent anyone from participating in CAP.

No doubt, but 200 grand out of our member's pockets couldn't have found a better use?

Let's also be careful with words like irresponsible.  That envisions that they knew the consequences of their actions but just don't care.  Bad management, misunderstood the desires of the field, just some individual's pet peeve to make us more like the USAF. (everyone else say U.S. why don't we?)

I understand what you're saying, and that would be completely reasonable, except... you don't think on that level that they have a responsibility to think thru the consequences? It's not exactly rocket science.

Everyone should go back and look at their little pet project and think.....if they ever got the chance to bring it up for a vote...would they refrain because it was change for changes sake?

Fair enough. I expect to be held to that. I think the ideas I've talked about on here I've always made an effort to justify them pretty strongly. People haven't always bought into those justifications, and that's a sign the idea needs more work & shouldn't yet pass, I understand & agree with that completly.

I'm okay with change, I like change, I want to see lots of change, but it has to be with purpose & you HAVE to sell the troops or they are going to rebel every time, even when you are doing good things for them.

[RiverAux]

But that is as far as I'll go.  A 3 year phase in...even if you don't cycle your BDU's by then, is a whopping $2/year.  Let's not pretend that $2 bucks is going to kill anyone or prevent anyone from participating in CAP.

I am primarily opposed to this idea on principle.  However, your calculations leave out those of us who are "sewing challenged" and have to take time out to take the uniforms somewhere with a sewing machine to put these on in a professional manner.  $5 per tape where I go.   

So, this will cost me about $30, which is about the value of half my annual CAP dues.  Yes, in the whole scheme of things it isn't much, but it is a hidden tax on CAP members that doesn't help us beat down the "Come and Pay" nickname. 

[MIKE]

U.S. CIVIL AIR PATROL tapes

[JC004]

U.S. CIVIL AIR PATROL tapes

EW!  Now where the crap are the gore-tex parka tabs?!   

[mikeylikey1]

EW!  Now where the crap are the gore-tex parka tabs?!   

They will be available next year!  Had to get the "non-approved" items produced before the approved items.

[RogueLeader]

I won't wear US Civil Air patrol Tapes until there is no other option to, maybe not even then.

[lordmonar]

I won't wear US Civil Air patrol Tapes until there is no other option to, maybe not even then.

It is this attitude that I just don't understand.  I can understand the "not another change" attitude, the "I just got new BDUs" attitude.  But this?  Are you really saying that you will quit CAP over the branch tape of a uniform you don't even have to wear?

[RiverAux]

It is not the name of our organization and violates the CAP Constitution.  I agree with Rogue that I will not wear the tapes until forced and I may just quit wearing that uniform rather than switch.   

[flapsUP]

If you guys are crazy enough to quit over a name tape that was approved by the National Board...Good Bye.

[Eagle400]

It is not the name of our organization and violates the CAP Constitution.

Not only does the use of "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" violate the CAP Constitution, it also violates chapter 403 of Title 36 of the U.S. Code.   That is the chapter that deals with Civil Air Patrol, not the U.S. Civil Air Patrol.

The corporation has the exclusive right to use the name "Civil Air Patrol" and all insignia, copyrights, emblems, badges, descriptive or designating marks, words, and phrases the corporation adopts. This section does not affect any vested rights.

Notice how it says "Civil Air Patrol", not "U.S. Civil Air Patrol."

Chapter 909 of Title 10 is the chapter that deals with the Civil Air Patrol's (not U.S. Civil Air Patrol's) relationship with the USAF.

(a) Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary. - The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.

Neither of the two above excerpts mention anything about "U.S. Civil Air Patrol", only Civil Air Patrol.  Additionally, Air Force regs that deal with CAP also refer to CAP as "Civil Air Patrol", not "U.S. Civil Air Patrol."  They can be found here: http://level2.cap.gov/visitors/member_services/publications/other_publications.cfm

[RiverAux]

I didn't say I'd quit the organization, just quit wearing a uniform that doesn't accurately represent the organization I'm in. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

This is a silly annoyance, but its not worth going to the wall over.

[lordmonar]

I didn't say I'd quit the organization, just quit wearing a uniform that doesn't accurately represent the organization I'm in. 

River....if you follow through on this threat...then about 90% of all the stuff you have ever said about CAP officers needing to be more professional is just a load of bull hockey!

Lesson one of any leader.....support down, challenge up!

[LtCol White]

I have to agree with lordmonar.....Although we all agree that it wasn't a necessary uniform change, in the grand scheme of things, its really not worth getting all huffy about. What do you care more about? The fact that your name tape says US CAP instead of CAP or the purpose and good done by the organization.

Switch to the new tapes whenever you decide to (or the regs require) but get over it already. Unless USAF comes back and says "NO", its a done deal and just deal with it like an adult.

[DNall]

I have to agree with lordmonar.....Although we all agree that it wasn't a necessary uniform change, in the grand scheme of things, its really not worth getting all huffy about. What do you care more about? The fact that your name tape says US CAP instead of CAP or the purpose and good done by the organization.

Switch to the new tapes whenever you decide to (or the regs require) but get over it already. Unless USAF comes back and says "NO", its a done deal and just deal with it like an adult.

Certainly that's the practical response that'll actually be done here in the field. However, I do think the abstract argument over principle has some value in NB learning a lesson about how to do this process correctly so as not to piss off members, but rather to turn these actions into things that can boost morale & achieve objectives.

[lordmonar]

I have to agree with lordmonar.....Although we all agree that it wasn't a necessary uniform change, in the grand scheme of things, its really not worth getting all huffy about. What do you care more about? The fact that your name tape says US CAP instead of CAP or the purpose and good done by the organization.

Switch to the new tapes whenever you decide to (or the regs require) but get over it already. Unless USAF comes back and says "NO", its a done deal and just deal with it like an adult.

Certainly that's the practical response that'll actually be done here in the field. However, I do think the abstract argument over principle has some value in NB learning a lesson about how to do this process correctly so as not to piss off members, but rather to turn these actions into things that can boost morale & achieve objectives.

You assume that anyone on the NB really cares.  Let's face it.....there is NO real reason for anyone in the feild to object to this change....maybe a legal one, maybe the USAF may object....but rank and file?

If anyone tries to do some sort of passive resisitance they all need to be 2b'ed.  Support down, challeng up.

[RiverAux]

I didn't say I'd quit the organization, just quit wearing a uniform that doesn't accurately represent the organization I'm in. 

River....if you follow through on this threat...then about 90% of all the stuff you have ever said about CAP officers needing to be more professional is just a load of bull hockey!

Lesson one of any leader.....support down, challenge up!

I don't exactly see how that is the case.  If I chose not to wear the BDU with a nametape that violates the core document of the organization, how is that challenging authority any more than all the other CAP members who pick and chose what uniforms to wear? 

Do you personally own every single possible CAP uniform and wear them on a regular basis?  I don't. 

This will just be one less uniform to hang in the closet.