Forwarded email from TP

[mikeylikey]

I would be the last person to further the TP mess.  However, not only did a good friend of mine here forward an email to me from TP written on Friday, but I also received it from 2 different people at NHQ and my former Wing Commander. 

Here it is, if you want the proof that it is real, PM me, and I will send it to you with all the addresses that TP sent it to.  I think every WING Commander got this, this past weekend.  Someone else here should ahve it as well from looking at the addresses that it was sent to.  NOTE to MODS......every other TP thread was locked.  It also says in the email to forward it out to the membership!


HERE GOES (rather long)

Sent: Friday, October 5, 2007 9:22:01 AM
Subject: Please pass to other members.


 
Dear members.

The last two months was a horrible time not being able to communicate with all of you. For that I have to apologize but as you know it was beyond my control.

There is always two sides of a story.  Now in a short summary I want to share mine with you. Earlier you received the letter to congress that I sent, it describes some of the issues.

First I need for all of you to know that I will never compromised my integrity over anything and I will never place CAP in jeopardy.

The BOG not only took me off command but also terminated my membership and I have no right to appeal to anyone because there is no body and I was told that the BOG can do what ever they want without following any regulations. 

Up to this date the only thing that I was told it was because of the Hayden issue.  This issue was resolved and the BOG was told that it was not sustained by Col Linker our IG.  He told them this at the BOG meeting in June of 07 in Atlanta.

Col Linker also advised Gen Bowling in an email (below) that all of the complaints were not sustained.

Kuddes, et al.

Investigation is complete.  The write up is first on my agenda after finishing a few pending complaint  items and return from IG travel next week.   The report will show that 

(1)     There is nothing to suggest that the resignations of Starr, Glass and Moseley were not freely given by these officers at the time they offered them.   

(2)     Kuddes removal was within the scope and authority of the national commander.

There is more to it, but these are the facts it boils down to.

Hayden v. Pineda

This was held up by an effort to get course records from USAF-Air University re. the tests in question.  AUʼs registrar was understanding and forthcoming, but the reports were blocked by USAF-JAG, requiring a FOIA request, which was itself blocked. This became an extended issue.  In the end (late last week), nothing useful was received. 


Lacking any forensic information, this remains a case, on one hand, of the word of an apparently troubled former member who admitted committing widespread and repeated course testing improprieties as Testing Officer, and has demonstrated violent behavior at CAP, and the National Commander, on the other.  Investigation into the lie-detector test taken by the complainant raises many questions and concerns in its administration.   The transcript of the 3-hr recorded testimony of the complainant is strong and convincing testimony to his state of mind and motivation. The preponderance of evidence does not sustain the claim of cheating.   

Re: Col. Levitch and wife taking the ECI-13 course un-proctored.  Facts are that Hayden admits to allowing this routinely, Levitch claims he was newly rejoined in CAP, didnʼt know the testing rules, event happened a few years ago, USAF-AU did not give us the information necessary to discern how many and who may also have done this.   Iʼll report the facts and leave action to the judgment of the BoG, unless a recommendation is requested.

General Bowling indicated he wanted an executive summary of the cases.  I will provide these before the next BOG, even if fully assembling the considerable documentation into a proper package may take a little longer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have a major problem that if it is not stop will continue to grow where no one will be able to stop it.  The BOG should only be an oversight board not a Governing Board.  Most of the BOG members are not CAP members and dont even know our regulations and Constitution and By Laws. CAP needs to be governed by the National Board as it use to be not by outsiders that have no regards for the needs of the membership and who don't have the pride that we all have in our organization. I may not be a member of CAP anymore but I still care very much for this organization and all of you.  I will send you another email over the weekend.  I don't want to over burn you guys and ladies with this.                                                                                                                                                                                                           
Thanks.  Tony       

[afgeo4]

My personal opinion of Pineda not withstanding, there is a real concern raised here.

I feel that the actions of the BoG are odd. Any body controlling CAP has to have clear and concise reasons for their actions. Substituting one poor authority for another is not a solution. If our superiors believed that the Major General overstepped his authority or was involved in activities unbecoming of the office they should have had formal hearings and at that point voiced their dissatisfactions. Such hearings should not have been voiced to the general membership aside from perhaps making the findings public, but... a due process HAS to exist. This is the United States and a body of its government. This organization and its members are subject to US law and not the USMJ and thus have all rights granted by the constitution and laws of the land. It would also be simply GOOD POLICY and would assure the members of CAP that yes, things do make sense and yes, the actions taken were proper.

At this point in time, I'm not sure what's going on or why. The only thing I know is that actions like this make it seem like it's ok to just fire whoever for whatever reasons. That due process doesn't matter. That making accusations is just fine as long as you have support of others. That this organization is built on kings and paupers.

I am very dissapointed. Not so much in the result, but in the process.

Having said that... I would like to extend my congratulations to BrigGen Courter for having been chosen the acting National Commander and hope that she is chosen to lead us in the future.

[BigMojo]

I'm too new to have an opinion on the subject but shouldn't our (ousted) National Commander at least be able to write cognitive sentences in the English language? The letter sounds like it was written by a fifth grader.

[Cadet Tillett]

I'm too new to have an opinion on the subject but shouldn't our (ousted) National Commander at least be able to write cognitive sentences in the English language? The letter sounds like it was written by a fifth grader.

Yah I was thinking the same thing.  I've seen better spelling/grammar in a text message.

[Walkman]

I'm too new to have an opinion on the subject but shouldn't our (ousted) National Commander at least be able to write cognitive sentences in the English language? The letter sounds like it was written by a fifth grader.

I'm new as well, but from what I understand, Pineda came to the US as a teen from somewhere south of the border (Cuba?) I don't remember the details, and I'm too lazy to search. I'm sure someone else knows and will post them.

[Nomex Maximus]

Let's get  past the spelling and grammar and deal with the issues.

[Chappy]

You are forgetting that an investigation has been going on for over a year on the testing issue.

When ever you have a problem with a member he or she is suspended until the investigation is conducted.  Pineda was NOT suspended but continued to act as the National Commander until the evidence was presented to the NEC during the national boards.

After there is a suspension and investigation, a decision is made concerning the person's membership.  If their membership is terminated, they then have a right to contest it, which Pineda can still do as well, if he chooses or he can file a law suit.

There have been many who have followed this process.  Even if criminal acts are found, very little is pursued through the criminal courts.

Our mission in Civil Air Patrol is not to conduct investigations and file charges but to do emergency services, cadet programs, and aerospace education.

[BlackKnight]

As I understand it, the Board of Governors (BOG) operates outside of CAP regulations.  The BOG is charged by Congress via Federal law with the responsibility of managing the CAP so that we can accomplish our Congressionally mandated missions.  Our internal regulations, constitution, and by-laws apply to the CAP membership, the CAP national board, and even the national commander much the same as the procedures in the company you work for apply to you as an employee.  Federal law trumps corporate procedures and internal regulations. Thus the BOG may follow CAP regulations if they wish (and they usually do), but they are not obligated to do so.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Relief of a commander, especially a commanding general, should never be undertaken for trivial reasons or taken lightly.  I have had to relieve one officer from command, and it was for very good reasons.  It should always be done in consultation with your own next higher commander.

That being said, there are two questions that need to be answered:

1.  Was the relief of General Pineda justified?  And...

2.  Was the process of his relief something we can live with in the future?

As to question #1.  There does not need to be solid criminal-type evidence to relieve a commander.  If you have evidence of misbehavior, that makes the decision much easier, but it is not required.  All that is needed to relieve a commander is the decision that his leadership of the unit is ineffective.  In that context, the fact (And I believe this to be the fact) that there was no proof of misconduct is immaterial.  Apparently the BoG, acting under its authority as the executive agent of the Secretary of the Air Force, decided that "Where there's smoke, there's fire." and decided that CAP would be better off with a new commander.

But, question #2 is not so easy.  We have a procedure for relief of the National Commander.  Unfortunately, it was written before the BoG existed.  I do not doubt that the Congressional authority of the BoG, considering the circumstances that brought it into being, includes the authority to relieve the National Commander.  it basically can do anything it wants in the name of the Secretary of the Air Force.  But to summarily relieve a commander, AND remove him from the organization without any appeal or recourse, is just a bit scary.  I don't think I have an answer for this question yet.

Let me think about this for a while.

[BillB]

Pineda was NOT suspended but continued to act as the National Commander until the evidence was presented to the NEC during the national boards.
Incorrect, he was suspended by the Board of Governors PRIOR to the National Board and NEC meeting.
Correct in that Pineda came from Cuba
Terminated members can only appeal to the National Membership Board. Which appears unable to overrule the BoG.
If the CAP IG found the charges to be unsustained, how does the BoG justify the removal from office and termination. The only charges were the "testinggate" and they could not be proved.

This brings up what politics were played by the BoG. It seems like the CAP members of the BoG hgad their own agenda and wouldn't let facts interfere with their decision to remove MGen Pineda. Does this mean that any action of the NEC or National Board can be overturned on a whim by the BoG??

[Skyray]

If you tell a lie big enough, often enough, and loud enough, sooner or later people are going to believe it.  Even if you have very poor command of the language you tell it in.

[Chappie]

<snip>
If the CAP IG found the charges to be unsustained, how does the BoG justify the removal from office and termination. The only charges were the "testinggate" and they could not be proved.

This brings up what politics were played by the BoG. It seems like the CAP members of the BoG hgad their own agenda and wouldn't let facts interfere with their decision to remove MGen Pineda. Does this mean that any action of the NEC or National Board can be overturned on a whim by the BoG??

Thought this was interesting....Lt Gen Nicholas Kehoe (USAF, Retired) is a member of the BOG.  Check out his last assignment with the USAF, according to his official USAF biography:

Lt. Gen. Nicholas B. Kehoe is the inspector general, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C. He oversees Air Force inspection policy; criminal investigations; counterintelligence operations; the complaints and fraud, waste and abuse programs; intelligence oversight and two field operating agencies, the Air Force Inspection Agency and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations.

The general entered the Air Force in 1966 after graduating from the U.S. Air Force Academy. He has commanded an Air Force flying wing and numbered air force, and served in numerous staff and operational assignments in training and fighter commands. He is a command pilot with more than 3,600 flying hours in trainer and fighter aircraft.

Source: http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=6009

IMHO...if indeed there were reasons for the removal of the National Commander, I am sure that a man with these credentials and prior experience would be in a position to recognize them.

[Smokey]

TP claims the allegations were not proven, but that is his word.  It sounded to me like the BOG made the decision on a founded investiation.   Also supposedly there were other complaints.   The release did not say anything about those.  It's possible the BOG took that into consideration.  The announcement did not lay out specifics.

[Mustang]

If the CAP IG found the charges to be unsustained, how does the BoG justify the removal from office and termination. The only charges were the "testinggate" and they could not be proved.

Fact: the CAP IG is a Pineda appointee.

Fact: the AFOSI are not Pineda appointees.  Their independent investigation upheld the cheating allegation.

It was the AFOSI's report that the BoG based its decision on, not the CAP IG's.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Mustang:

Where did you learn facts 2 and 3?

[floridacyclist]

You know, all we've really heard here is Pineda's side of the story. At the same time, unless I've missed something, all we've heard from the BoG is a simple announcement of what shall be done, not an explanation of the process that was taken to get there.

At this point, it's not even Pineda's word vs the BoG because one is talking about apples and the other is talking about oranges, so there's really no grounds for an argument.

[CS]

All of that doesn't really matter anyway.  The NEC and NB had over two months to convene a meeting and decide the fate of the National Commander, after the initial suspension.  They had many months before this to demonstrate their leadership and vote, up or down, on what direction they would proceed.  The failure of the NB to do this, left it to the BoG to act.  In my opinion, there should be a general recall of all NEC and NB members with a review of qualifications for the positions held and their postions re-posted.  I noted that one of the Region Commander's just received his Garber Award!  Since he has been a Region Commander over two years and a previous Wing Commander, I for one am not impressed with the selection process that essentially has placed people 'off the street' in key leadership positions.

[Mustang]

Mustang:

Where did you learn facts 2 and 3?

You really think I'm gonna give up my source? I don't even know you....

Suffice to say, you can take the info to the bank.

[Psicorp]

Mustang:

Where did you learn facts 2 and 3?

You really think I'm gonna give up my source? I don't even know you....

Suffice to say, you can take the info to the bank.

See? That is exactly what I'm learning to expect from those who play the CAP politics game.    We, sir, don't know you either and the only thing that truly matters is what comes down the official pipeline.   The BoG felt justified enough to take action (otherwise they wouldn't have).  That's good enough for me.   

[Chappie]

Mustang:

Where did you learn facts 2 and 3?

You really think I'm gonna give up my source? I don't even know you....

Suffice to say, you can take the info to the bank.

See? That is exactly what I'm learning to expect from those who play the CAP politics game.    We, sir, don't know you either and the only thing that truly matters is what comes down the official pipeline.   The BoG felt justified enough to take action (otherwise they wouldn't have).  That's good enough for me.   

For those who don't know a person...take whatever they say with a grain of salt.  For those who do know a person ... that's another story.    I usually judge what they have posted in light of my previous experiences/observations of that person  -- and if they have been right on the money in previous posts,  I will take it to the bank  .

But like Psicorp, I am confident that the BoG -- with all the information they were provided with -- acted in the best interests of CAP.   

[DrJbdm]

 Is there a copy of the letter TP wrote to congress?

[Hawk200]

Is there a copy of the letter TP wrote to congress?

CAPBlog has a copy: http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/2007/10/tony-pinedas-le.html#more

[Pericles]

Is there a copy of the letter TP wrote to congress?

CAPBlog has a copy: http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/2007/10/tony-pinedas-le.html#more

Looks like he is questioning and disputing the authority of the Board of Governors.  Going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

[a2capt]

Mustang:

Where did you learn facts 2 and 3?

You really think I'm gonna give up my source? I don't even know you....

Suffice to say, you can take the info to the bank.

Actions, and in this case, the actions of many, speak a lot louder than words. The fact that a high office warrants a suspension, the mere thought of it, that it was carried out and that many members of the BoG thought it was their duty and in the best interests of the organization to take these steps, says a lot more than denial from the accused, which I would actually expect no less from anyway.

There have been scandals related to the branches of the armed forces and their secretaries, and how about Nixon?

The Navy got over it, the Army got over it, and .. the nation got over it.

CAP will get over it too.

I'm just glad to see that the System still does work despite how blatantly corrupt the leadership had become, or was perceived to have become. As I said, actions speak louder than words. This comes from both ends. The actions of TP and the actions of the BoG, or re-actions.  None the less.

[Skyray]

All I have to say is that it is great to have the Board of Governors on my side.

I really don't think it was about the air force test.  I really think it was about abuse of power. YMMV

[Walkman]

YMMV

Quick swerve off-topic, but what does YMMV mean?

[jimmydeanno]

"Your Mileage May Vary"

[Walkman]

"Your Mileage May Vary"

Ah! That one was driving me nuts.

OK back on topic...

[West_Coast_Guy]

For those who are wondering where the BoG gets its authority, it's spelled out in Federal law, specifically 10 USC 9447, posted below. I'm not a lawyer, but it sure looks to me like (e)(3) says in effect that the BoG's authority cannot be limited by the CAP Constitution or Bylaws. This is probably behind Pineda's letter to Congress, since it would take new legislation, or a court declaration that it was unconstitutional, to change that.

-HEAD-
    Sec. 9447. Board of Governors

-STATUTE-
      (a) Governing Body. - The Board of Governors of the Civil Air
    Patrol is the governing body of the Civil Air Patrol.
      (b) Composition. - The Board of Governors is composed of 11
    members as follows:
        (1) Four members appointed by the Secretary of the Air Force,
      who may be active or retired officers of the Air Force (including
      reserve components of the Air Force), employees of the United
      States, or private citizens.
        (2) Four members of the Civil Air Patrol, selected in
      accordance with the constitution and bylaws of the Civil Air
      Patrol.
        (3) Three members appointed or selected as provided in
      subsection (c) from among personnel of any Federal Government
      agencies, public corporations, nonprofit associations, and other
      organizations that have an interest and expertise in civil
      aviation and the Civil Air Patrol mission.

      (c) Appointments From Interested Organizations. - (1) Subject to
    paragraph (2), the members of the Board of Governors referred to in
    subsection (b)(3) shall be appointed jointly by the Secretary of
    the Air Force and the National Commander of the Civil Air Patrol.
      (2) Any vacancy in the position of a member referred to in
    paragraph (1) that is not filled under that paragraph within 90
    days shall be filled by majority vote of the other members of the
    Board.
      (d) Chairman. - The Chairman of the Board of Governors shall be
    chosen by the members of the Board of Governors from among the
    members of the Board referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of
    subsection (b) and shall serve for a term of two years. The
    position of Chairman shall be held on a rotating basis between
    members of the Board appointed by the Secretary of the Air Force
    under paragraph (1) of subsection (b) and members of the Board
    selected under paragraph (2) of that subsection.
      (e) Powers. - (1) The Board of Governors shall, subject to
    paragraphs (2) and (3), exercise the powers granted to the Civil
    Air Patrol under section 40304 of title 36.
      (2) Any exercise by the Board of the power to amend the
    constitution or bylaws of the Civil Air Patrol or to adopt a new
    constitution or bylaws shall be subject to approval by a majority
    of the members of the Board.
      (3) Neither the Board of Governors nor any other component of the
    Civil Air Patrol may modify or terminate any requirement or
    authority set forth in this section.
      (f) Personal Liability for Breach of a Fiduciary Duty. - (1)
    Subject to paragraph (2), the Board of Governors may take such
    action as is necessary to limit the personal liability of a member
    of the Board of Governors to the Civil Air Patrol, or to any of its
    members, for monetary damages for a breach of fiduciary duty while
    serving as a member of the Board.
      (2) The Board may not limit the liability of a member of the
    Board of Governors to the Civil Air Patrol, or to any of its
    members, for monetary damages for any of the following:
        (A) A breach of the member's duty of loyalty to the Civil Air
      Patrol or its members.
        (B) Any act or omission that is not in good faith or that
      involves intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of law.
        (C) Participation in any transaction from which the member
      directly or indirectly derives an improper personal benefit.

      (3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as rendering
    section 207 or 208 of title 18 inapplicable in any respect to a
    member of the Board of Governors who is a member of the Air Force
    on active duty, an officer on a retired list of the Air Force, or
    an employee of the United States.
      (g) Personal Liability for Breach of a Fiduciary Duty. - (1)
    Except as provided in paragraph (2), no member of the Board of
    Governors or officer of the Civil Air Patrol shall be personally
    liable for damages for any injury or death or loss or damage of
    property resulting from a tortious act or omission of an employee
    or member of the Civil Air Patrol.
      (2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a member of the Board of
    Governors or officer of the Civil Air Patrol for a tortious act or
    omission in which the member or officer, as the case may be, was
    personally involved, whether in breach of a civil duty or in
    commission of a criminal offense.
      (3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to restrict the
    applicability of common law protections and rights that a member of
    the Board of Governors or officer of the Civil Air Patrol may have.
      (4) The protections provided under this subsection are in
    addition to the protections provided under subsection (f).

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C909.txt

[ELTHunter]

A lot of folks on this forum are always wanting CAP to be like the "real" military.  Am I wrong, or doesn't a commander in the real military serve at the pleasure of his/her commander?  Since it appears that the BoG is CAP's highest governing body, they are, in effect, the National CC's higher commander.  Based upon information that was provided to them in the course of these investigations, they evidently saw found something that displeased them, therefore they removed him from command.  Case closed, no further explanation required.

[Short Field]

In the RM, it seems like the most common official reason when a person is removed from command is that the commander's boss has "lost confidence in his/her ability to lead".  No charges, no specifics, no arguments and no appeals - just a new commander taking over the unit.

[SAR-EMT1]

I asked this in another thread but never got a reply:
What are the chances the BoG will release an After-Action to us Vollunteers?
Considering that TP used to always do things without telling us why, (ex: policy letters) or give us clear direction: (lack of vision statement)
I will be sorely disturbed if the BoG fails to inform us of the results of its investigations and conclusions. ( If only in brief)

I think that Mrs. Courter might think about putting together a Vision Statement.
For all that I hear her being high speed and a business exec, something like this ought to be easy.

[Eclipse]

What are the chances the BoG will release an After-Action to us Volunteers?

They did - Major General Anthony Pineda was relieved of duty as National Commander.

The rest I have not seen officially, nor do I expect to.  They are personnel matters and
should be kept behind closed doors, if for no other reason than they may be subject
to litigation regarding their action.

[ColonelJack]

At the risk of sounding like ... well, I don't know what, I doubt that the BoG will tell the membership too much about the reasons for the removal.  They certainly don't owe an explanation to anyone (except the AF and Congress, I presume) ... it would be nice, I agree, if we were made aware of their findings, but I rather doubt that they'll do that.

As for a vision statement, I believe General Courter is deeply involved in preparing such a thing at this time.  (No, I don't know her personally and have no way of knowing whether what I say is accurate, but from all I hear, she's not one to shoot from the hip.  She'll prepare and get ready what the organization will need.)

Aside ... I don't believe the general is married; no husband is mentioned in her biographies.  If you don't want to use her rank and aren't sure of her marital status, I'd say Ms. Courter would be appropriate.

Jack

[CadetProgramGuy]

If memory serves....Not married, no children, 'cept all of us in CAP now.