National Board video stream

DC · September 04, 2009, 06:20:03 PM

1b passed as amended.
1d Also passes

DC · September 04, 2009, 06:23:13 PM

Anyone else lose the stream?

Never mind, got it back...

ßτε · September 04, 2009, 06:26:38 PM

7 fails
8 fails
9 referred NCAC

DC · September 04, 2009, 06:28:30 PM

9 was referred to NCAC.

C/MSgt Lunsford · September 04, 2009, 06:32:56 PM

New Inspector General...

C/MSgt Lunsford · September 04, 2009, 06:34:13 PM

"6 Part" Motion... Fails.

A.Member · September 04, 2009, 06:37:39 PM

I'm sometimes amazed at the information people sometimes throw out as fact. For example, "if a cadet earns a Spaatz there is a 99.9% chance they will be picked up by a service academy". Really?! I'd really like to see someone provide some real evidence to support claims before they are thrown around. Simply put, I think that is rather exaggerated, yet many it was still presented as fact.

desertengineer1 · September 04, 2009, 06:38:59 PM

Quote from: DC on September 04, 2009, 06:20:03 PM
1b passed as amended.
1d Also passes

I missed 1b. What was amended? (really hope this wasn't passed to include comm).

C/MSgt Lunsford · September 04, 2009, 06:55:10 PM

Got some opposing of the original decision...

C/MSgt Lunsford · September 04, 2009, 06:58:35 PM

Post-Lunch Confusion...

desertengineer1 · September 04, 2009, 06:58:50 PM

Quote from: Lunsford on September 04, 2009, 06:55:10 PM
Got some opposing of the original decision...

I'm rather shocked. Pretty much all of the comm directors were in opposition. I really hope a video is available afterwards.

Fubar · September 04, 2009, 06:59:07 PM

If I understand this correctly, there is disagreement over if a member should not be allowed to attend unit meetings if not "safety current" - HOWEVER local commanders have the discretion to override this regulation and allow the member to attend the meeting anyway.

RiverAux · September 04, 2009, 07:00:01 PM

Sure, if the commander wants to document the waiver....what a waste of time.

desertengineer1 · September 04, 2009, 07:00:59 PM

Quote from: Fubar on September 04, 2009, 06:59:07 PM
If I understand this correctly, there is disagreement over if a member should not be allowed to attend unit meetings if not "safety current" - HOWEVER local commanders have the discretion to override this regulation and allow the member to attend the meeting anyway.

I agree with the Col's words. Why tell someone they can't come to a meeting to get safety current if they missed a meeting.

Just make a differentiation between social activity / squadron meeting and CAP activity. Why is this so hard?

desertengineer1 · September 04, 2009, 07:01:35 PM

Yeah, the other guys was right in line by asking how is this to be inspected.

C/MSgt Lunsford · September 04, 2009, 07:03:17 PM

Motion as Amended...

C/MSgt Lunsford · September 04, 2009, 07:04:01 PM

...And the Motion Passes!

RiverAux · September 04, 2009, 07:04:54 PM

I guess the next item will be to change our name to the "Safety Patrol" as that is apparently more important than anything we might actually have joined to do.

Fubar · September 04, 2009, 07:06:18 PM

Granted this is all pretty dry stuff, but I do like how Maj. Gen. Courter runs a meeting.

desertengineer1 · September 04, 2009, 07:08:01 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on September 04, 2009, 07:04:54 PM
I guess the next item will be to change our name to the "Safety Patrol" as that is apparently more important than anything we might actually have joined to do.

I'm not against a strong safety program, but I am against piling further tracking requirements and totally rigid bans (yeah, like the squadron commander will really have a choice here) on member's showing up to a meeting - regardless if they are there to get current.

As a constantly deploying military member with others in the squadron in the same category - this is getting out of hand.

We don't even have the manpower to keep up with the tracking now. This will be a mess.