Congratulations, your're the new National Commander...now what.

[Dragoon]

Sorry, but cadets are just as much a member of the corporation as you or I.

The fact that some of them might not vote in a way you think is appropriate is not a reason to deprive them of the basic rights of membership.

Cadets and cadet-program related seniors combined are over half the membership in this corporation and pay a substantial percentage of the dues --  far more than is returned to CP from corporate and appropriated dollars.

Cadets have been subsidizing the seniors for many years, and depriving them of the vote while taking their money is downright un-American.

Ned - do you have a spreadsheet to support that assertion?  My guess is that you do, and it would be fun to pick over those numbers.

[Eclipse]

Cadets have been subsidizing the seniors for many years, and depriving them of the vote while taking their money is downright un-American.

First, I don't believe the numbers support this, considering that cadets pay less dues, in many states there are less of them, and they receive at least an initial uniform from the USAF.

But second, assuming it was true, this would be at least partially due to the fact that without seniors their is no cadet program, no planes, no ES, no meetings, nothing.

An attitude that cadets are somehow holding up more than their share of the weight is simply incorrect. And I have no idea how you would determine who is a "CP-related" senior and who isn't, since most of us are doing at least double-duty, which is the whole point to start with.

[Ned]

Not to derail the thread, but a few responses:

I don't have the latest numbers here at work, but let's work from the 2005 data.  I don't think 2006 was very different.

Cadets number about 22,000; seniors have about 29,000.  Or about 40% and 50 %, respectively.  (The others are CSMs and AEMs, mostly)

Cadets do indeed pay lower dues, on average, than seniors.

In 2005, the total corporate funds budget was $2,176, 802.

Senior dues accounted for $1,135,000 of that, or just over 50%.

Cadet dues accounted for $614,000 of that, or just over 28%.

(The rest was income from investments, etc.)

On the expenditure side of the corporate dollar budget, the cadets who contributed 28% of budget only get 20% of the expenditures back to cadet programs.

And on the appropriated dollar side, it's even worse.  In 2005, Congress generously appropriated some $26.5 million for CAP.  And we certainly thank them for that.


But the Cadets, who comprise 40% of the membership, received less than 5% of the appropriated funds, some $1,372,500, and that was almost entirely for the Free Cadet Uniform program.  The rest of the money was spent elsewhere.

Now don't get me wrong.  We are grateful for the money, both corporate and appropriated, that is spent on CP.  I hope we have served as faithful guardians of the funds and put them to good use.

But my point was cadets receive less in dedicated funds to CP than they pay collectively in dues. 

I could continue and point out that there are currently exactly three employees at NHQ that work exclusively or primarily on CP.  Three out of the entire hard-working Corporate Team of roughly 80 employees.

And we are very grateful to have them.  They are terrific, hard-working folks.

Directly serving the 22,000 dues-paying cadet members of CAP.


I'm not here to engage in a "who's more important; seniors or cadets" debate.

No one could ever "win" such a argument.  All three missions of this organization are important; none is "more" equal than the others.

My posts were merely an attempt to point out that it is unfair and unwise to fail to consider our cadets (and the CP-related seniors who support them) as equal stakeholders with the seniors when it comes to determining the future of CAP.

[Ned]

Cadets have been subsidizing the seniors for many years, and depriving them of the vote while taking their money is downright un-American.

First, I don't believe the numbers support this, considering that cadets pay less dues, in many states there are less of them, and they receive at least an initial uniform from the USAF.

OK, Bob,  how about this one:

As I mentioned, the entire CP budget from corporate dollars in 2005 was $426 k, or a little less than $20 per cadet.

For the same year, the travel and adminsitration budget for the NEC (all 17 of them) was $298,000 or a little more than $17,000 per head, (actually more since the CC, CAP-USAF has his own travel budget.)

Just on their travel and administration.

If you add in 52 wing commanders, it is not hard to imagine that just the travel budget for the NB and NEC is larger than all of the corporate funding provided to CP.



Now I don't begrudge the NEC their travel.  I'd hate to pay for my own travel to NB and NEC meetings.

(I do, of course, but at least I get to choose.)

But second, assuming it was true, this would be at least partially due to the fact that without seniors their is no cadet program, no planes, no ES, no meetings, nothing.

Kinda a non-sequitor there, sir. 

I certainly grant that we need our dedicated seniors like yourself to support the cadet program, but that seems logically unrelated to whether or not cadet dues should be spent on various senior programs.

If anything, one would think it would be the reverse.

An attitude that cadets are somehow holding up more than their share of the weight is simply incorrect. And I have no idea how you would determine who is a "CP-related" senior and who isn't, since most of us are doing at least double-duty, which is the whole point to start with.

I hope I have not created an impression that anyone in CP has such an attitude.  It was certainly not my intent.

But now that you mention it, it does seem odd that the NCAC had their travel budget eliminated in the last two years while the NB & NEC were able to spend an estimated half million on their travel and administration expenses.

If I were cynical, I would say something about the Golden Rule -- "they who have the Gold, make the Rules."

Which is why we need to have cadet representation on the NB and/or the NEC.  But that's another thread.




And as a group commander, I shouldn't think it would be all that hard for you to figure out who are the CP-related seniors in your group.  As you point out, thankfully a lot of folks do both CP and ES.  God bless 'em.


But let's try, for the sake of argument:


We could start by counting all the cadets in your group.  Now add in all the CSMs and seniors who are members of cadet units as well as the seniors who directly support the cadets in composite units (DCCs, AE, and Leadership Officers, etc).  Don't forget to count your group CP staff.

Optional -- add in all the CP-rated seniors.  (But some will have more than one specialty and could really be supporting ES full-time, so this one is a little "iffy.)

Now count all the seniors, and subtract the above mentioned CSMs, and seniors assigned to cadet units and those seniors at composite units who work primarily with cadets.

To be fair, you should also subtract the Group HQ folks who support both CP and the other missions equally (they do, don't they?)

What do the numbers look like?



If we do the same sort of thought experiment on a national basis, we start with:

22,000 cadets.  Let's add in the roughly 3,000 CSMs, and we have a subtotal of 25,000 folks.

Now we need to estimate the number of seniors who work "primarily" in CP.

Let's try a conservative guess and say only about 10% of seniors primarily work in CP.

(I think that's low, but I don't have the hard numbers to back me up at the moment.)

So, 10% of 29,000 seniors is 2,900 bodies.  We need to add them to the CP subtotal and subtract them from the remaining seniors.

CP=(22,000 + 3,000) + 2,900 = 27,900.

Non-CP = (29,000 - 2, 900) = 26,100.

CP > Non-CP.



And that was the basis for my statement.

[RiverAux]

Your figures for NHQ cadet spending are way wrong.  The FYO6 annual report has $2.94 million for cadet and senior member activities (combined).  I think you were looking at the figure for Drug Demand Reduction programs which was $417K. 

I feel pretty safe in saying that the majority of that 2.94 million was actually spent on cadet activities as there just aren't very many senior activities and they don't involve anywhere near as many people as involved in the regional and national cadet activities.

Of course you left out AF money spent on cadet o-rides and a share of the national AE budget as well. 

[Ned]

Your figures for NHQ cadet spending are way wrong.  The FYO6 annual report has $2.94 million for cadet and senior member activities (combined).  I think you were looking at the figure for Drug Demand Reduction programs which was $417K. 

I feel pretty safe in saying that the majority of that 2.94 million was actually spent on cadet activities as there just aren't very many senior activities and they don't involve anywhere near as many people as involved in the regional and national cadet activities.

Of course you left out AF money spent on cadet o-rides and a share of the national AE budget as well. 

While I appreciate your helpful criticism, each of the numbers I quoted is correct and directly from materials provided by NHQ.  I was not looking at the DDR budget, nor did I include the AE figures since they are their own thing (and their numbers are so miniscule that they look enviously at the CP budget.)

Look, we can argue about numbers for days (and I'm OK with that), but let's keep our eye on the ball here.

Cadets pay dues that amount to 28% of the corporate dollars budget.  Only 20% of corporate dollars are returned directly to CP.

Cadets are 40% of the membership, and even if we allocate all of the appropriated dollars for activities to the exculsive use of the cadets (which isn't true) they still get less than 10% of the appropriated budget.

Go ahead and add in O-ride money and anything else you can think of.  Let me know when you get close to $10.5 million dollars (40% of the $26 million in appropriated funds).


But remember, my point all along has been that cadets do not have an effective voice in how their dues are set, or CP money is allocated and spent.  We quite literally do not have a seat at the table.

And any discussions about the future of CAP simply must recognize that cadets -- each and every one of them -- are just as much a member of CAP as any senior. 

And with the same stake in the future of the organization.

Ned Lee
CP Guy

[Dragoon]

Cadets pay dues that amount to 28% of the corporate dollars budget.  Only 20% of corporate dollars are returned directly to CP.

But it's not like cadets don't benefit from some of that other 80%, right?

I'm sure with access to the details, I can easily find that other 8% you're looking for within the remaining corporate dollars.  For example, even with nothing but a cadet program, the CAP leaders would still need to travel to support CAP.  Ditto funds for admin overhead, office staff, etc.  It's not fair to require that every dollar cadets submit to go back to them directly while "somebody else" handles all the necessary overhead.

You mention that only 3 of the national staff are dedicated to CP.  Okay.  But you are assuming that the cadet program gets zero benefit from the corporate staff handling membership, logistics, finance, etc.  Which is probably not the case.

Even if we were only a CAP outfit, you'd still have a bunch of that overhead.

Cadets are 40% of the membership, and even if we allocate all of the appropriated dollars for activities to the exclusive use of the cadets (which isn't true) they still get less than 10% of the appropriated budget.

Okay.   I'll take that as true.  But I'm not sure that matters. 

1.  Appropriated funds aren't handed out based on membership.  They're based on priority of mission.  I think you're making the mistake of assuming that USAF considers the CP to be worth 40% of the dollars they give us.  It's entirely possible, even likely, that they understand how much an air fleet (and other parts of CAP) costs, and if those things weren't around they'd cut our funding substantially, leaving no net profit to the cadet program.

2.  Dues has no bearing on appropriated funds.  It's not like each member is buying shares of USAF.

3.  Just like with corporate funds, you have to look at the indirect CP money.  Vans for example.  Radios used by cadets.  You'd still need to have some planes around.

4.  Don't forget that cadets do ES.  So it's not really fair to not figure some ES fund stuff into the "cadet program benefit" line. 

But remember, my point all along has been that cadets do not have an effective voice in how their dues are set, or CP money is allocated and spent. 

True.  Of course, given that the cadet program is a mission of CAP, a "product" of the corporation, if you will, the cadet as a consumer has the right to take his money elsewhere.  Currently, a large number of consumers think our product is worth the dues money.

The cadet has as much say in how his money is spent as I have in how McDonald's spends the money I pay them.

It's a different view of course, but I think one with some validity.  Seniors are here to make CAP work. Part of that work includes supporting cadets.  Cadets, on the other hand, don't have a charter to support seniors, or indeed large sections of CAP operations.  They are students, as you've pointed out elsewhere.  Few students in today's world get to pick their school principal.

We quite literally do not have a seat at the table.

Allowing cadets to vote wouldn't change the "we" part.  You're not a cadet anymore. :-)

[Ned]

But remember, my point all along has been that cadets do not have an effective voice in how their dues are set, or CP money is allocated and spent. 

True.  Of course, given that the cadet program is a mission of CAP, a "product" of the corporation, if you will, the cadet as a consumer has the right to take his money elsewhere.  Currently, a large number of consumers think our product is worth the dues money.

The cadet has as much say in how his money is spent as I have in how McDonald's spends the money I pay them.

BINGO!

Thank you for making my point so eloquently.

Under our current set-up, based on its perceived value, over 99.9% of the young people of America have "taken their money elsewhere."

(Really.  Based on US Census figures, CAP cadets constitute less than one tenth of one per cent of the youth between 12 and 20 living in the US.)

If McDonald's realized that their market share was less than .1% of the market, I bet they'd make a few changes, too.



Now if we want to get serious and grow our cadet numbers, maybe it's time to take a look at some of these asset allocation issues and procedures.

[RiverAux]

FY06 Annual Report to Congress  --- These are the official (and I hope correct) buget numbers (rounded slightly):
Operations & Maintenance=35.5 million
Within O&M:
Air Force Missions: 9 million
Other missions: 312K
Comm: 10.8 million
Aerospace Education: 1.8 million
Cadet & Senior Member Activities: 2.9 million
DDR: 417K
Liability Insurance: 1.8 million
Liasion Expenses: 30K
Wing Administrators:1.3 million
Vehicle Equipment/Maintenance: 427K
Aircraft Maintenance: 3.5 million

Procurement Funds: 7.3 million consisting of 6.4 million for aircraft and 810K for vehiciles.

Nothing to argue about -- these are the facts.

[Ned]

.

Nothing to argue about -- these are the facts.

And your point is?

The figures you cited are indeed the appropriated funds for the year 2006. 

As I said in my earlier post, I was using 2005 figures, and mostly talking about corporate funds.

The 2006 figures you found in the Report To Congress do not include either the state appropriations (listed on the opposite page in the Report ) nor the coprorate dollar figures (income from dues and investments, etc).

Federal Appropriated funds, state appropriated funds, and corporate dollars are each separate and distinct "pots of money" that have different rules and restrictions.


We can quibble about numbers and statistics till the cows come home, but my point remains that cadets should be valued as much as any senior when we consider the future of CAP.

No more and no less.

[RiverAux]

If you're getting your figures from some other place than the report to Congress, please tell us where and provide the link.  You can't start throwing out numbers to support your argument and then say we shouldn't quibble about them. 

[SDF_Specialist]

What's next you ask? An evaluation of weak points in the program. I ask for suggestions from Region and Wing Commanders as to what they think the problem is, and what can be done to solve problem. A close look at the most reasonable answers. Legitimate policies written to better the program with a closer effective date.

A National Commander's call to evaluate progress on those weak points. Acknowledge feed back, and support the Region and Wing Commanders as they enforce policies.

Most importantly, no new uniforms

[Conical]

Two things:

1.  As of Nov 2005 the Wing Commanders did not receive a travel budget from NHQ.  Their's come from their state allocations, their own pockets or from the good graces of their Region Commanders.

2.  The budget is discussed at length by the finance/budget committee before it is presented for ratification to the NB.  If you want more money for CP, tell your wing commander so he/she can contact the finance committee and let them know they need to move some money to the CP funding block.

[Cecil DP]

I would expect anyone considering becoming National Commander  (or any other corporate officer) to have a long range plan to encompass his 3 year tenure, and publish upon assumption of command.

Mine would be:

1. Establish a full working relationship with the USAF, with the Commander USAF-CAP at the Air Staff and not under the Air University.

2. On Air Force assigned missions, have provisions for compensation for meals and lodging to be reimbursed.

3. Have all Wing Commander's complete at least Phase IV prior to appointment. Region and NEC members complete Level V.

4. Allow that relative few who do complete Level V to advance to the grade of Colonel.

5. In order to maintain retention allow for paid life memberships and allow for a reduction in membership fees where there are more than two members of a family in CAP.

6. Cut the costs of membership overall. Some Wings charge as high as $86 (CA) for Seniors and $44 for cadet to join (FL). This does not include any squadron or group dues.
One cost nationally for membership whether you're in California or New Hampshire.

7. Have a well orchestrated publicity campaign which does not have $6,000,000 NASCAR connections.

8. Put CAP on a paying basis. If we don't have the money, we don't spend it. Also include reimbursements on a man hour basis for all AF or government missions. The Air Force, and sheriffs all get paid-even the Salvation Army sends a bill for all those stale donuts and coffee. If we can't charge for the efforts at least send a letter requesting a donation from the persons who cause spurious ELT missions

9. Recruit, Recruit, Recruit

[Ned]

Two things:

1.  As of Nov 2005 the Wing Commanders did not receive a travel budget from NHQ.  Their's come from their state allocations, their own pockets or from the good graces of their Region Commanders.

2.  The budget is discussed at length by the finance/budget committee before it is presented for ratification to the NB.  If you want more money for CP, tell your wing commander so he/she can contact the finance committee and let them know they need to move some money to the CP funding block.

1.  You are correct, and no one has said otherwise.  Of course, the wing funds  that support wing comander travel come from . . . . corporate dollars (dues mostly) and state appropriations (if any).  Cadets pay wing dues just like everyone else.  (And yes, I suspect every wing commander spends far more in personal funds than they ever recover from travel reimbursements.  It is a thankless, difficult job.  And I don't begrudge them getting reimbursed for as much of their official travel as they can.  I also think they should restore the far smaller travel budget for the NCAC.)

2.  You again correct -- the finances of the corporation are set by our volunteer leaders.  The whole point of this thread is what would we (as a new national commander) do differently.  If the reasons the CP is underfunded is structural (i.e., the existing finance committee and NB/NEC system) then one of the things we might do differently is change the asset allocation system.  One possible way of doing that is giving the CP a representative -- a chance to be heard during the process.  As it stands now, each person with decision making power over the budget has a conflict of interest in how the funds are divided.  The overwhelming number of wing and region commanders -- the only folks with a vote over dues and asset allocation are from an operational rather than CP background.  The largest proportion of the NHQ professional staff supports operations, not CP.

It is not really very surprising that the funding decisions reflect this reality.  It's not a conspiracy or anything -- it's just the "way it's always been."

If you're getting your figures from some other place than the report to Congress, please tell us where and provide the link.  You can't start throwing out numbers to support your argument and then say we shouldn't quibble about them.

As I said, I got the figures directly from NHQ in materials they provided.  AFAIK there is no electronic link to any corporate dollars budget information..

And we don't need to quibble unless you disagree with the notion that cadets should be valued and respected as much as any other member of the corporation.

You don't disagree with that, do you?

[Dragoon]

.

Nothing to argue about -- these are the facts.

And your point is?

The figures you cited are indeed the appropriated funds for the year 2006. 

As I said in my earlier post, I was using 2005 figures, and mostly talking about corporate funds.

The 2006 figures you found in the Report To Congress do not include either the state appropriations (listed on the opposite page in the Report ) nor the coprorate dollar figures (income from dues and investments, etc).

Federal Appropriated funds, state appropriated funds, and corporate dollars are each separate and distinct "pots of money" that have different rules and restrictions.


We can quibble about numbers and statistics till the cows come home, but my point remains that cadets should be valued as much as any senior when we consider the future of CAP.

No more and no less.

I'd say one point is that a HUGE amount of the money not in the CP line is still required to run CP (state liaisons, liability insurance, wing administrators, perhaps some comms, certainly the vans, some of the aircraft).

Since most USAF mission money isn't there to benefit CAP, but rather to benefit the victims, you can take that off the table.

When it's all said and done, cadets are getting their fair share.  The cadet program is may be underfunded, but then so is everything in CAP.

[Dragoon]

But remember, my point all along has been that cadets do not have an effective voice in how their dues are set, or CP money is allocated and spent. 

True.  Of course, given that the cadet program is a mission of CAP, a "product" of the corporation, if you will, the cadet as a consumer has the right to take his money elsewhere.  Currently, a large number of consumers think our product is worth the dues money.

The cadet has as much say in how his money is spent as I have in how McDonald's spends the money I pay them.

BINGO!

Thank you for making my point so eloquently.

Under our current set-up, based on its perceived value, over 99.9% of the young people of America have "taken their money elsewhere."

(Really.  Based on US Census figures, CAP cadets constitute less than one tenth of one per cent of the youth between 12 and 20 living in the US.)

If McDonald's realized that their market share was less than .1% of the market, I bet they'd make a few changes, too.



Now if we want to get serious and grow our cadet numbers, maybe it's time to take a look at some of these asset allocation issues and procedures.

Of course, it's a zero sum game.  If we move assets away from other things, those missions suffer as well.

If our mission from USAF was "Priority #1, recruit every teenager into CAP", it would be obvious that our spending should be done differently.

But that's not the priority.

I think we DO want to grow our cadet numbers, but we also want to grow our operational side and be more relevant in our public service role.  It's a balance.  As a dedicated CP guy (do you do any ES?) you want a larger slice of the pie.  Fair enough.  But so does everyone.

The Wing CCs have oversight over all the missions and have decided on the allocation.  USAF isn't beating us up because of our substandard cadet program.  Where's the impetus to rob Incident Commander Peter in order to pay Cadet Paul?

I really don't think letting customers of CAP vote on the internal workings will make things that much better.  If NCAC is any indication, most of the money would be spent on new shiny badges....  :-)

But seriously, while there's no doubt we can do more in CP, we can do more in EVERY arena.  Which sacred cows do you wanna slaughter to beef up CP funding? 

[Ned]

Of course, it's a zero sum game.  If we move assets away from other things, those missions suffer as well.

( . . .)

But seriously, while there's no doubt we can do more in CP, we can do more in EVERY arena.  Which sacred cows do you wanna slaughter to beef up CP funding? 

Colonel,


Absent some magical new source of funding, you are absolutely right that it is a zero sum game.

But I don't need to identify places to cut anymore than the other programs did when CP funding shrank.

That in essence is a strawman argument, and one very popular with elected officials when it comes to discussing taxes and budgets.  "Sure, I'd like to give the teachers a raise, but we can't do that unless we cut the subsidy for the Orphan's home.  You don't want us to toss orphans out into the street, do you?" 



Do recall that the whole purpose of this thread is seeking new ideas or suggestions as if we were the new National Commander.  I've talked about systemic problems and ways to change funding choices and processes.



You have indicated that you don't think any change is necessary, so I'll mark that vote down for the status quo.

And please note that the world will not end if we maintain the status quo.  I think we have a terrific cadet program and are conscientious guardians of the appropriated and coporate funds that our volunteer leaders provide.

But there are process issues that we could address, if we choose.

Thank you for your service as a CAP cadet and in the Army, as well as for your current service as a senior.

[Dragoon]

Actually, I'm not arguing for status quo - just arguing against the argument that CP is "underfunded" based on some percentage of cadet dues or membership.  They may or may not be getting "enough" - lots of CAP is in that fix - but that would be a mission-based argument to make, not a percentage based one.

We can address changing process, but the process is still dealing with the same pie. 

That guy claiming he can't give teachers a raise is wrong to claim he'd have to cut orphans funding - but he's not wrong that he'd have to cut something. 

So I think the question is valid - what gets cut?  That's what a National Commander would have to do - make the hard calls.

(Personally, I think we could kill external AE and never miss it - that mission was completed somewhere around 1964.)

Also, can you give some details on "when CP funding shrank?"  Do you mean it used to be a bigger percentage of the pie?  This is a new detail, and worth exploring.  If CP used to a bigger slice of the pie, this could mean CAP has undergone a mission shift.   New priorities.  Those may have been internal - but they may also have been external.  Perhaps CP isn't as valued by USAF as it once was?   Seems counterintuitive to me, given the recruiting challenge.

[Ned]

So I think the question is valid - what gets cut?  That's what a National Commander would have to do - make the hard calls.

I don't disagree with your basic position that in any organization , funding should normally follow mission priorities.   Part of the problem is that our "NCA"  (CC + NEC + NB) have never directly sat down and formally prioritized the competing Congressionally-mandated missions.  If they had done that, they would have had to go through the difficult process of saying things like "CP is fourth priority behind ES, CD, and HS, and therefore should receive x % of corporate funds, and our legislative program should strive to justify appropriations supporting CP of y dollars."

As a practical matter, of course, they set de facto priorities  every time they approve a budget.  But without having to directly confront the competing missions, they have avoided the tough decisions. 



And as long as we are talking about processes, I don't think any politcally elected CEO ever identifies specific programs with vocal constituencies for cuts.

(Other than the meaningless cliche to cut "fat and waste."  )


Politicians just sneak in "unfunded mandates" to implement their current priorities. 



So, in the spirit of the thread, realistically the National CC could:

Work with the BoG to place one or more CP folks as non-voting members of the NB and NEC.  Say the NCAC chair on the NB and the National Cadet Advisor on the NEC.  This will allow CP to at least be heard during the budgeting process.

Restructure the NB and NEC selection process to allow outstanding seniors who work primarily in CP to compete on an equal footing with the operators.  (IOW, it is highly unusual for even a highly successful cadet squadron commander to become a group or wing commander, but nobody blinks an eye when an experienced mission pilot/IC gets the job, even if she/he has never worked in CP.)

Track the time actually spent supporting CP by SDs and adminsitrators.  Set goals that these corporate employees spend x per centage of their time supporting CP.

These are just some ideas that could help set a corporate culture supporting the notion that we value and respect our cadet members just as much as any other member of our corporation.