CAP-Agency vs CAP-Club - the real issue in Iowa

[IACAPphotog]

Thank you, Sir. 

[Major Carrales]

 i am proud to be a part of "The New CAP" 

Uh...that phrase sounds a little...(insert GODWIN HERE) 



But, Seriously, all this talk of "OLD CAP" versus "NEW CAP" seems to fly against the reality of the situation that ALL CAP is local.  It is made of local people who will be supporting local SAR, servicing LOCAL cadets and offering Aerospace Education to LOCAL schools/public et al.

There were lots of things introduced in IOWA what have promise.  But, as I have said many times before, these would not work for all STATEs.  Imagine the IOWA model in TEXAS where many GROUPS are georgaphically larger than IOWA.  Where $100,000, if divided, wouldn't buy RANK insignia for the Cadet Airmen of the whole wing.

Removing the Field Officers to WING HQ or parking those that would not would destroy the effectiveness of the TEXAS WING.  It would take mission pilots and aircrews from the squadrons where they work.

Already, I suspect, hundreds of cadets don't go to encampments because of their distance from them.  What an expense it is for Cadets from Brownsville and El Paso to attend an encampment in Paris, Texas.  But some do, why is that?

If all SARexs were centralized, I doubt it would be well attended by anyone who lived "out of the center."  Some die hards would go, but, if there is not hope of training nearer to them, how many would that be?

The situation is not so, however, because of solid GROUP and SQUADRON structures.  My Brother and Sister Airmen in Brownsville sometimes seem, to me in any case, to be the most isolated unit in CAP....yet they survive and prosper.  Why is that?

Our unit, Corpus Christi, is also somewhat isolated with Victoria and Brownsville as our nearest units and our Group Headquarters in SAN Antonio and WING Headquarters in WACO.  Some 90 percent of my members have never met the Group Commander nor been to BROOKS CITY BASE. MUCH LESS WING, which to many of us might as well be NATIONAL HQ.  Yet we prosper.  Why is that?

The answer is becasue these people believe in what CAP can do for their communities.  The cadets I have had go to the Encampment have either had their parents pay, or have been offered "scholarship" monies from unit members or even community persons who are "friends of the unit."  However, GROUP and neighboring squadron ALS activities and other "field exercises" designed for cadets serve as a substitute until which time these cadets can go.

The Distributive SARex concept also allows training locally and shores up relationships with local agencies.  Training in the field.

Wings of this size that do not build locally, will fail or triple their "mobilization inertia" when they are needed.

Lastly, this "AGENCY" versus "CLUB" thing is crazy.  It is both and neither.  Emergency Services are AGENCIES and CADET PROGRAMS are CLUBS and we are both by Congressional mandate.  I find the "CAP BOY SCOUT" moniker insulting to 60 years of CAP officers and cadets as well as to the BOY SCOUTS.  I find it so because it is being used to take people like myself who are WHOLE CAP people and lump us DOWN into some sort of PROBLEM.

I find it insulting because it is INSULTING.

[CadetProgramGuy]

Major - Lets go point by point......

But, Seriously, all this talk of "OLD CAP" versus "NEW CAP" seems to fly against the reality of the situation that ALL CAP is local.

Only partially true, while CAP is a local entity, it is supported by the wings and groups. The New CAP we talk about is somthing frankly you have not experienced because your wing does not have the luxuries that we have.  In Iowa we need the centralized leadership.  The Government does not deal with 7 squadrons, they deal with 1 wing.

Removing the Field Officers to WING HQ or parking those that would not would destroy the effectiveness of the TEXAS WING.  It would take mission pilots and aircrews from the squadrons where they work.

Common misconception....The Field grades would take on Wing or Group staffing jobs, but there is nothing said that they cannot be advisors to the local squadrons.  They just cannot hold command or command critical jobs.  They can still be mission pilots and aircrews for the squadron, they can also attend the local squadron meetings, just not command or have command critical jobs.

The answer is becasue these people believe in what CAP can do for their communities. 

So all you want to do is help your community?  Great, but what about the rest of your wing?

Lastly, this "AGENCY" versus "CLUB" thing is crazy. 

Is it? by your own words you are playing the club card.  The Status quo, but then again your wing don't have the luxuries that we have either because of the status quo many are eager to protect

[Whocares]

The defining decision regarding CAP-Club versus CAP-Agency philosophy for CAP will be made regarding the leadership of the Iowa Wing. Nick Critelli has withdrawn and refuses to be considered again for command and Ron Scheitzach has limited support in the Wing and in the government. The future of CAP and the direction of CAP will be judged by this decision. I urge our leadership to seriously consider their decision to allow this change of command to proceed. What you do will define your leadership and the future of our CAP.

I find this comment interesting to say the least.  You state that Scheitzach has limited support in the government.  Why is that?  How is the state government unsupportive of him?  At the same rate, you say that Scheitzach has limited support from the wing membership.  From what I read, was not it the membership, or at least part of it, unpleased of Critelli's acceptance?  So would that not also make Critelli having limited support in the wing?

You state that "the future of CAP and direction of CAP will be judged by this decision".  You make it sound as though, again, the whole wing rides on the success of Critelli.  As though any person, but Critelli, would mean failure throughout the wing.  The success of a wing is not solely on the Wing Commander, but it is also on the membership of the wing or organization.  After all, without them, the wing cannot go anywhere anyway. 

At the same rate, you make it sound as though Critelli will only allow the "CAP-Agency" and Scheitzach "CAP-club" as though there is no middle ground.  Since no one here has prevented an unbias opinion of Scheitzach, I find it difficult to make an argument either way.  To those who are merely reading these posts, they only know what is presented of Scheitzach let alone of any person that is talked about on any internet website. 

In the military, a number of units come with this decision.  The old commander is one way and the new commander is another way.  They do not support the new command because the command philosophy is different from the old commander and blah blah blah.  However, they get through by literally hoping that the new commander is a good person and that their opinions (given through the NCO support channel and chain of command) are presented to the commander and accepted.

Instead of "urging your leadership to seriously consider their decision to allow this change of command to proceed", I would urge your to support the new commander, whether it be Critelli, Scheitzach, or TimBuck II.  Who takes over the wing is not a decision of the state membership, rather a decision of the Chain of Command of CAP. 

I do not think you see it.  The way you present this "real issue" is bias.  You obviously have personal relations with Critelli and would rather see your friend placed into the position of Wing Commander instead of being given it and then being ripped away from it. 

Personally, regarding the Agency vs Club method, let us be frank.  In a volunteer organization, the selection of the staff is a club method.  As a commander, the staff is selected based on the people you feel are best for the position.  Are you really going to put in a person that is best tactically and technically in a staff that you do not like personally?  I do not think so.  So to say that the "Agency" method is free of the "Club" method is a bit ignorant.     

[mikeylikey]

So I suppose this "mess" makes some wonder what the crap is going on in Iowa, and if this is what will happen in other Wings if they were to implement the "Iowa Plan". 

I think 3 weeks ago, I made a prediction that the true nature will show itself with how easily or how difficult this Change of Command will be.  I guess I was right.   

[isuhawkeye]

Hum,

Lots of 1 and 2 post people coming out of the wood work.

This is not about people.  

Critelli will not be the wing commander.  No one should expect.  No one is demanding an overturn of the decision. No E-mail campaign with anonymous posts coming form anonymous hot mail accounts has been called for.  The Iowa wing will "Soldier on"

the issue here is CAP culture.  Could Ron be a CAP Agency supporter?  Possibly.  He has never felt that way in the past, so I would be surprised if he has changed his mind.

[RiverAux]

Like others I think its great that Iowa has developed some state missions to take up for the fact that there aren't many AFRCC generated missions coming down the pike.  A lot of small, interior states are in the same situation in that they can't depend on ELTs/EPIRBs to keep them busy. 

However, the key thing that Iowa did was actually put in the effort to approach the state and advertise their capabilities.  States that do that get state missions and if they are half-way competent and don't totally muck things up, they will get more based on their performance.  No need for any of the Iowa experiments to make that happen as many other states have demonstrated.  You can't really count on state missions to fall out of the sky unless you build the relationships with the actual agency folks. 

   

[aveighter]

I think cyclones post is some of the finest writing I've seen here.  He is spot on.  The whole "club/agency" issue is indeed a national one and the direction we eventually take will determine the ultimate survival of CAP, I believe.

What many here don't really understand ( I suspect because of the nature of so much of the discussion) is that there are, at the national level, several projects of a most interesting nature which OPSEC prohibits from further illumination.  There is huge potential for development in these areas BUT!  Guess what stands in the way, to a large degree, of any significant and widespread development? 

If you chose *General large scale instability and massive differences in sophistication and reliability of personnel, training and abilities and no real central command or accountability mechanisms*  Have a cookie, you are correct.

The various 3 and 4 letter agencies of the state and federal governments, as the IAWG folks have tried to make clear, are simply NOT going to do business with an organization which can present (with equal facility) a gap-tooth fool stuffed into some semblance of a uniform barely able to utter a coherent thought above a sixth grade level, and someone of the caliber of a Col. Palermo or Lt Col.s Critelli or Wolf or any number of others you could name.  It is my understanding (and I think confirmed by cyclones comment) that our own CAP-USAF commander is one of the chief critics and roadblocks in the widespread development of some of these projects.

I have attended many local, state and national functions over the years.  We have some of the finest people in CAP uniforms who, by virtue of their experience and training (some military some civilian some both) and education and occupation are tremendous.  They are here, they are there but because of the nature of our organization, they are not everywhere in leadership, decision making and direction setting positions.  For CAP, I believe, this is a war-stopper.

We have entered the 21st century.  If we can't evolve and refine the organization it is my belief that our days are numbered.  Many here, such as Dnall and Major K, have suggested mechanisms to address some of these issues directed at improving our officer quality and capability but look at the wail and howl that arises from the presentation of the most minimal standards and methods of creating accountability.  That is a mindset that insures we will NEVER have a seat at the table with the big boys in any consistent manner to perform anything of substance for our nation and its citizens.

It is clear that the EXACT IAWG model will not fit every wing but the underlying philosophy does.  Create a professional mindset, a standard to meet and maintain and a mechanism to get there.  Throw in expectations of accountability and  BINGO, you get the prize.  An organization that can sit at the table with any four star, agency head or chief executive and do something by God worthwhile for America.  On a grand scale.  We have the potential.

[mikeylikey]

^ Iowa is NOT the only Wing sitting at an AG's table.  Iowa Wing is not the only Wing "playing with the big boys".  Iowa Wing is not the only Wing that presents a professional face for the organization.

Where the crap did Iowa Wing come from anyway.  They re-invented CAP out there to fit Cornfields and haystacks, it will not work everywhere. 

It also seems that you are "an insider" with all this talk about upcoming projects.  You may know more than the rest of us, but any great idea form the top has a way of becoming Crap once it is presented to the bottom. 

[Major Carrales]

Let's continue "point by point..."

Only partially true, while CAP is a local entity, it is supported by the wings and groups. The New CAP we talk about is somthing frankly you have not experienced because your wing does not have the luxuries that we have.  In Iowa we need the centralized leadership.  The Government does not deal with 7 squadrons, they deal with 1 wing.

Yes, supported by Wings and Squadrons, these units exist for the benefit of the squadron by making policy and administering the CAP programs to them.  The squadron is where things should happen, like training.  GROUPS and WING come in when we are dealing with situations that require "reinforcements."    

For example, if Jim Wells County Texas needs an aircrew to take photos of the Alice City Water System...they should contact the NOC and the NOC should be able to dispatch LOCAL aircrews to the scene our of either Corpus Christi or Victoria.  Those aircrews should be made and trained locally.  Not at some activity that woudl happen HUNDREDS of MILES away in a different REGION of TEXAS.

Now, if COMAL Co, Needs FIRE WATCH ACTIVITIES, where several crews would be needed, then the WING should administer the activity.

Common misconception....The Field grades would take on Wing or Group staffing jobs, but there is nothing said that they cannot be advisors to the local squadrons.  They just cannot hold command or command critical jobs.  They can still be mission pilots and aircrews for the squadron, they can also attend the local squadron meetings, just not command or have command critical jobs.

HELLO, we need experienced people in "command or command critical jobs" at the local level.

Maybe in IOWA, but in TEXAS taking the most experienced people out of the positions they need to be in in isolated area will create a brain drain.  Squadrons will falter from inexperienced leaders and will resent "WING SPIES" who have no local accountability.

So all you want to do is help your community?  Great, but what about the rest of your wing?

They are serviced by people in their localities and we augment them when they need more CAP resources.  TEXAS is not IOWA, you can just take a 2 hour drive to WING HQ from most places.  If we don't develop CAP resources in the FIELD, the FIELD is a LOGISTICAL NIGHTMARE.  SOUTH TEXAS needs it own resources ay SAN ANTONIO, and in that the COASTAL BEND (CORPUS CHRISTI, ALICE & KINGSVILLE) and the RIO GRANDE VALLEY (BROWNSVILLE, McAllen and Harlingen).

Basically, we are "on our own, togehter."  Down here.  This creates the situation where Centralization is FOLLY.  

Is it? by your own words you are playing the club card.  The Status quo, but then again your wing don't have the luxuries that we have either because of the status quo many are eager to protect

Sound like you have been BRAINWASHED.    Our WING does not have the LUXURIES IOWA has because it is HUGE.  The State of Texas would have to pump MILLIONS of DOLLARS into TEXAS WING to work the IOWA model or something like that.  Then, there woudl be so much area to cover it would prove fruitless without LOCAL considerations like training.

It is obvious that yu have never been in the Texas Wing...



Now, see GROUP 1...that's Iowa...TIMES TWO!!!

[aveighter]

^ Iowa is NOT the only Wing sitting at an AG's table.  Iowa Wing is not the only Wing "playing with the big boys".  Iowa Wing is not the only Wing that presents a professional face for the organization.
Where the crap did Iowa Wing come from anyway.  They re-invented CAP out there to fit Cornfields and haystacks, it will not work everywhere. 
It also seems that you are "an insider" with all this talk about upcoming projects.  You may know more than the rest of us, but any great idea form the top has a way of becoming Crap once it is presented to the bottom. 

Interestingly, your sophomoric analysis is partially correct.  It is clear they are not the only wing to do these things.  What they have done, however, is to create a model that formalizes the professionalizing process and makes an ADAPTABLE (not carbon copy in all aspects) method for the rest of the organization.

I am not an insider, quite the opposite.  I have had the opportunity to interact with some who are actively involved in making this organization live up to its potential with projects and missions that are not "upcoming".  They are real and now. But, doing some of these things on a large scale under the current structure and mindset is simply not possible.

[RiverAux]

But Iowa has not shown that any of these reforms have actually made a tangible difference.

Incidentally, Iowa is tied for 9th place in terms of state funding (with Louisiana, and Virginia).  Since state funding is probably based more on political support than actual capabilities or performance, I'm not sure it is a good measure of anything. 

[CAPrider]

Yup, I'm a do-er. I convinced my husband we should join CAP to DO something, to give back. And yes, this was over two years ago, so apparently it was in the "new Iowa". I have no first hand experience of what the "old Iowa" was like in CAP. But I have been involved with enough 'clubs' that ended up being so filled with infighting and personal interest that I didn't need the drama or personal attacks anymore. And whenever you have two people (or more) there will be differences of opinion, but when there is no specific goal, it degrades.

And yes, I came with one portion of the stated CAP mission as the drawing interest. (I am definitely an ES person.) My husband had totally different interests (fancy that!). But we both have been stretched way beyond what we expected, done so much more than we both signed on for. It has been an awesome growth experience.

I guess from the descriptions, I'm an 'agency' person. Again, been in enough clubs, don't want that. Others do – not a problem, they have every right to do so. Each person is different.  It 'seemed' that there was room in the Iowa CAP I was involved in for both. But the other agencies want the teamwork, the ability, the dependability and reliability. Those members that want a club often are 'too busy', or its 'too far' or 'too hard', or 'why did Lt. Xyz get to go and I didn't?'. The people relying on us don't care about that, they want to know that we will respond. Period.

Even when I started a few years ago, it was interesting to have so many 'trained' persons coming together from the various squadrons that all seemed to have different understandings of what their qualifications meant. The idea of 'basic training as a Wing, practice as a Squadron' sure made sense here.

No matter. I joined CAP to do a mission for the people of Iowa in teamwork with the other agencies who wanted to serve the people of Iowa. (In Texas, I suspect it would be Groups, or by the looks of it, maybe counties!!! You guys have a LOT of ground to cover!!!) If our Iowa CAP decides it doesn't want to do that, so be it, I will still do the missions for the people of Iowa in whatever capacity I can. MY mission remains the same, my convictions remain the same. I am here to serve PEOPLE, period. I thought I was doing it with people in CAP with the same purpose.  I did not join CAP to just serve CAP. Sorry.

[Major Carrales]

I admire your zeal, CAPPrider.  That is the engine that drives CAP.  However, this most recent false division between AGENCY and CLUB is an artificial one.

I have said it before, our organization has to be both.

I suspect each WING, as a corporate level, will have to make their own "deals" that adapt their resources and people based on the geography, needs and STATE mandate.  I'm  sure there are some WINGs that would love to have CAP as a force multiplier...I'm sure there are some that would love to give STATE FUNDING.

Iowa hit it big, but it can't work that way systemwide because 52 WING face at least 52 different sets of circumstances.

Avieigther is correct on adapting. COOKIE CUTTERs shaped like Iowa, however, will not fit everyone.   

[TDHenderson]

I, myself, also believe that it must be a synergy between both Agency and Club.  Agency gets the work done and Club has the fun.   

I was a Cadet in the 1980's in the "old" IAWG when it was 100% Club.  The Squadrons trained by themselves in a vacuum with the prime focus of beating each other at the annual Wing SARCOMP.  Missions were very scarce (2 for me in 8 years as a Cadet) and cooperative interaction between Squadrons happened just about as often.  As far as inter-squadron politics and rivalries it was an "East vs. Rest" atmosphere. 

I rejoined CAP just over 2 years ago in the "new" IAWG and initially was a bit bewildered with the model.  But once I began to see the value of training as a Wing while continuing to practice at the Squadron, with all three of our Core Missions, for Iowa this is a perfect fit.  Through standardized basic training via the Officers Training School, ES Academy, and the Iowa Civil Air Patrol Academy for Cadets, the Wing has strives to spread the wealth of knowledge to all.  Where before there were just a few strong Squadrons, both in numbers and mission readiness, we now are a better trained and balanced Wing.  Squadrons that were not able to support themselves in one mission area or another are now guaranteed the training and support they need, both from the Wing and from the other Squadrons.  We have become more balanced and reliable.  The atmosphere is now, like the name of NCR-IA-091, "All Iowa". 

And because of this the State and local counties have started to rely and count on us.  It feels dang good when your working at the State Emergency Operations Center during the Blizzard of '07 and the Governor and AG come up to you to personally thank you.  Oh yea, the AG, Maj Gen Dardis, also says thanks for being part of his team.   

Was the Iowa Plan built for all, heck no.  I absolutely agree that this would not work for a California or a Texas (perhaps bits and pieces at the Wing, Group, or mini-Group level), and am not an advocate of it being all or nothing.  But we have proved that the concept works (for Iowa), has and continues to be tweaked for improvement, and has made the Iowa Wing a partner to the State of Iowa

[CAPrider]

Absolutely agree with that! There is no cookie cutter shape (Iowa, Texas, New Hampshire, etc.) that will fit the unique needs of all 52 states. And Avieighter's 'pick and choose' that parts of the 'cookie' that do fit the needs is a good way to check things out. ("Hmmm, that one worked...will this one?" - or "Well, that one didn't work for us, I wonder if this other one will?") And even better might be "hey this one could be even better if we did this part too....I wonder if Iowa/Texas/Missouri, etc. thought of that?" Wow, that might be teamwork and working within to adapt ideas so we could all benefit. And think of all the people that would learn from that and be helped by it.

And maintaining Air Force Auxilliary identity in the midst of the desires of the agencies who would like to work with us is something that is always foremost also. It has been gratifying to have something unique to offer to help with the need. And each state and Wing would definitely have different agency needs. But it is wonderful to learn how to 'fit' CAP into the puzzle and work to fulfill the whole picture.

Okay, you're right, I have been always accused of being a high energy enthusiastic sort. (Maybe I can keep up with my grandson that way?) But I do try to keep my focus on the goal. Makes all the work worthwhile and fun (Yes, I have also been told I am weird...'Work and fun in the same phrase?') My original goal has been adjusted due to what I have learned from others in CAP, and I have become much better for it. I love to help others learn the same things that fuel my 'zeal'.

And what a wonderful way to help those that need us.

[Johnny Yuma]

A few of you folks need a reality check...

1. The "flying club with the boy scout program" is a very real interpretation that many professional agencies have of CAP. Better start dealing with that fact because it's been created by some really dumb stunts by CAP members.

2. Yes, CAP has three congressionally mandated missions. However the USAF is only paying for one of those missions in earnest. Take a look at your Tables of Allowances for Communications, vehicles and Logistics. Most everything is based on #'s of members doing ES. Look at each Wing's training budget, based on #'s qualified doing ES.


3. ARCHER, SDIS, and the new glass cockpit planes are here for ES, not for a flying club.

4. Take a look at the Katrina mission, the Fossett mission and the air missions over SE Kansas this spring. Lots of members had to get up from their local units and drive/fly  to work in an area not in their own Wing.

5. There are too many Seniors and cadets who simply want to look pretty in a uniform and pretend they're RealMilitary.

6. Too many units train for Operations in their local area and won't respond anywhere else. "Balkanization" is a really good term for it.

7. Information from command to the member SUCKS. Most Wing staffers have no clue who their contemporaries are in the subordinate units or if information is getting to them, specifically if this information has to go through a unit CC.
 
Bottom Line:

1. Operations/ES is the bread and butter.

2. We'd better start acting like professionals, not like a bunch of hangar commandoes telling lies to cadets and drinking coffee at the local meetings.

3. The money we're getting is for ES Operations and it's based on people doing ES. If your members aren't actively training/qualified  in at least one specialty they're quickly becoming a hindrance.

4. ALL members need to realize that their skills may be needed somewhere else than locally.

5. The Agency concept is the only one that works now.

6. The club concept is BS. Many with the "flying club" mentality aren't flying or supporting any mission.

7. The WTA experiment may be much for a monthly schedule, but a bimonthly or quarterly activity is very viable and likely going to be necessary for most small wings.

[RiverAux]

Most Wing staffers have no clue who their contemporaries are in the subordinate units

Technically, that is a failure of the squadrons to properly inform Wing staff of the assignment of those officers.  It isn't the Wing Staff's job to go hunting for them, though they often have to because of the failure of the squadrons. 

[Major Carrales]

You a bit of a reality check, Dear Johnny.

The stregth of any organization like CAP is in local training, "balkanization" indeed.  I woudl much rather my unit's officers save their travel money for REDCAPS than centralized training 500 miles away.

Failure to evenly develop a CAP WING by making local areas capable of training their CAP Officers and Cadets will result in a loss of mobilization.  CAP is a volunteer organization, many have families and jobs.  Picking up a unit and moving 700 miles away to train in TEXAS will result in expending member funds.  I would rather that personal money be spent when a REDCAP comes along.

Our unit gets no funding from any State source, 90 percent of the expense is from member wallets because they believe in what they are doing.  They want to ambitiously organize local training, this keeps them active.

Bottom line is, when the time comes to "come together" on a massive scale, we will be there.  We will also be well trained in that we have been training and have the trainers in our units.

[ZigZag911]

The other thing that keeps coming up is the visibility to the customer of the organizations instability.

None of that should be visible.

They call, we come.  That's it.

If its the same guys, great...nice to see you...if not, and the new guys execute, no one will care or notice.

At the customer level we are just another service organization, and no one complains about all the new "cable guys" until the most recent one who loses your HBO.

There is going to be a point of contact -- an interface, if you will, between us and 'customers'.

In a wing, this is normally legislative liaison, wing command element, and sometimes DO/DOS.

In this instance, the POC person  between the state of Iowa & Iowa Wing was, initially, appointed Wing CC.


"Customers" (governor, adjutant general, state legislative leaders, etc), as a matter of courtesy (since they were providing the hall and the funding!) were invited to change of command.

Since they knew the incoming and outgoing commanders, a number of state VIPs accepted.

Now you might still say that these individuals should not have been told of altered plans within CAP, but this would only have postponed the inevitable: they would have arrived for the change of command, realized that the new commander was not the person they had been led to expect, and then the questions would have started!

By the way, none of you seems to have made the connection that the commander (or perhaps former commander) of the Congressional Squadron, Sen. Tom Harkin, is from Iowa.