News of the Force, whatever you may think of it, has sources in many aspects of the Civil Air Patrol apparently including the Board of Governors. They published this article:
QuoteSources tell News of the Force that the Civil Air Patrol's Board of Governors (BoG) is divided over what to do about suspended national commander CAP Maj. Gen. Tony Pineda.
Options being considered, the sources say, are either to remove Pineda permanently from his position as national commander and as a member of the CAP, or to reinstate him as national commander until his term ends in August 2008, but with the provision that he would have no authority and could make no decisions.
The sources say that the first option -- membership termination -- is distasteful to some BoG members because the CAP has never before terminated the membership of a sitting national commander. But, the sources added -- and all of them agreed -- that Pineda's history shows that he is unlikely to accept the other option -- reinstatement with no authority.
So, the BoG is in a quandary, the sources say. But whatever decision is made, a major announcement from the BoG on this matter is expected by Sunday, the sources all said.
The Civil Air Patrol is the volunteer, civilian Auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force.
I think under the options given, they have no choice but to remove him at the earliest moment.
Since when does any government agency make a non emergency announcement on a Sunday?
I'll believe it when I see it.
Quote from: flyerthom on September 27, 2007, 09:16:41 PM
Since when does any government agency make a non emergency announcement on a Sunday?
I'll believe it when I see it.
Probably a decent point, but it is not a government agency but a collection of volunteers who do their best work on week ends. What bothers me most is that it seems like a whitewash. Remember that this is the guy that offered to resign if they would let him keep his stars. Why would he
NOT take an offer that keeps both the stars and the positional bling? And a goodly number of the Board oif Governors owe their positions to his patronage. Reinstate him and I will almost guarantee that he will be back full force before next August.
^^^ Agreed
I think the BoG will go for the reinstatement, but with no authority. The only way I see TP getting 2b'ed is by arguing the fact that he being is the position of National/CC has no meaning since he can't make decisions. This will definitely be interesting to see the final ruling.
If this is indeed the case (and NOTF is not always 100% accurate!) several thoughts occur to me:
1) why would anyone want to accept an empty 'reinstatement'?
2) if the Nat'l CC actually offered to resign if he could keep his rank, then why would the BOG not go for that option rather than this empty gesture?
3) suppose Gen. Pineda accepts their offer, then decides to test their legal authority by asserting his own....what can the BOG do then? And how long will it take them to do it?
It seems to me that the BOG has an obligation to reach a decision in this case, in justice to all those concerned.
If the National Commander is innocent, he deserves to have his record & reputation cleared.
If he is guilty, he does not belong at the helm of CAP....allowing him to step aside "for the good of the service", in other words to retire quietly, would be a generous resolution indeed.
Why would WE want a leader who CAN'T LEAD? Does that make sense? Just dump him as soon as possible! Lets not embarrass everyone more by letting him stay at his post, but defer to his Deputy for all decisions.
If they do decide to get rid of him.......his stars should be removed as well.
1) why would anyone want to accept an empty 'reinstatement'?
Would you willingly give up the grade of Major General in CAP?
2) if the Nat'l CC actually offered to resign if he could keep his rank, then why would the BOG not go for that option rather than this empty gesture?
It would appear to me that they never considered this. But then again, why let someone hold a rank that they disgraced if he is guilty?
3) suppose Gen. Pineda accepts their offer, then decides to test their legal authority by asserting his own....what can the BOG do then? And how long will it take them to do it?
Conduct of becoming of a CAP member, Insubordination. I would hope that given his track record (again only if he is guilty) that there would be expulsion from the program. Just my opinion however.
I hope that whatever decision is made by the BoG will be beneficial to CAP, and not just to save their own butts from ridicule.
I have checked both the constitution and by-laws, CAPR 35-7, and CAPR123-2 of CAP. Nowhere does the BoG have the authority to remove the national commander. The National Board has to vote two-thirds of theits members to remove that commander. He should be allowed to retire from CAP with no option to reutrn to active status or hold any position within the organization.
Quote from: flyerthom on September 27, 2007, 09:16:41 PM
Since when does any government agency make a non emergency announcement on a Sunday?
I'll believe it when I see it.
Even FDR waited until Monday to ask for a declaration of war after Pearl Harbor!
Quote from: USCAP_truth on September 27, 2007, 11:01:24 PM
I have checked both the constitution and by-laws, CAPR 35-7, and CAPR123-2 of CAP. Nowhere does the BoG have the authority to remove the national commander. The National Board has to vote two-thirds of theits members to remove that commander. He should be allowed to retire from CAP with no option to reutrn to active status or hold any position within the organization.
The BoG derives its power for the USC, in addition to the Constitution and Bylaws. The BoG has more power than most realize, or it generally uses, but they do have far-reaching power over the organization. The folks who said he cannot be suspended by the BoG are incorrect...the USC, Constitution and Bylaws, etc. grant to them the power to basically anything to carry on the business of the organization. Maybe they can remove, maybe they cannot, but they can also
change the Constitution an Bylaws...
Quote from: USCAP_truth on September 27, 2007, 11:01:24 PM
I have checked both the constitution and by-laws, CAPR 35-7, and CAPR123-2 of CAP. Nowhere does the BoG have the authority to remove the national commander. The National Board has to vote two-thirds of theits members to remove that commander. He should be allowed to retire from CAP with no option to return to active status or hold any position within the organization.
The Board of Governors are governed by AF Instruction AFI 10-2702 and in paragragph 2 of that document outlines their authority:
2. Principal Tasks. The Board of Governors is responsible for the operation of CAP as a Federally chartered
non-profit organization. As described in the CAP Constitution and Bylaws and related governing
documents, as its principal tasks, the Board of Governors:
2.1. Reviews and determines long-range plans and programs for CAP.
2.2. Directs improvements in CAP programs, financial positions, legislative relations (consistent with
the Anti-lobbying Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1913), asset allocations, and membership development, among
other things. The Board may also consider current and projected policies relating to the effectiveness
of CAP support to the Air Force, the nation, and the overall financial and volunteer wellbeing of CAP
as authorized under public law and this instruction.
2.3. Serves as a pool of expert advisors, either individually or in groups, to various CAP activities.
The individual Board members provide this service at their convenience and subject to their availability.
2.4. Appoints the CAP Executive Director.
2.5. Oversees the CAP Inspector General Program.
2.6. Oversees the activities of the CAP Adverse Action Review Board.
2.7. Oversees and may assign action items to the CAP Committee structure.
2.8. Revises the CAP Constitution and By-laws in accordance with section 1.1.1. of this instruction.
2.9. Inquires into any and all aspects of the CAP volunteer and CAP Corporate activities as it sees fit
as authorized under public law.
I believe articles 2.6, 2.8 and 2.9 would fit the bill regarding TP
Quote from: USCAP_truth on September 27, 2007, 11:01:24 PM
I have checked both the constitution and by-laws, CAPR 35-7, and CAPR123-2 of CAP. Nowhere does the BoG have the authority to remove the national commander. The National Board has to vote two-thirds of theits members to remove that commander. He should be allowed to retire from CAP with no option to reutrn to active status or hold any position within the organization.
Welcome to CAPTalk. This topic was already beat to death in several other threads. The BoG does have the implied authority in their vested powers by Congress to carry out any action in the best interest of the organization. CAP Regulations do not bind the BoG; their authority derives from the Air Force and Congress, who's authority created the organization and can dissolve the entire organization. The full arguments can be read by searching CAPTalk for the appropriate discussion topic on that particular subject.
Second, I don't believe the aforementioned post from NotF. The BoG would not consider an option to reinstate someone to the position but with no powers. What good would that do the organization? The BoG is looking out for the good of Civil Air Patrol, and in that context could care less about the career of any one particular CAP volunteer. The two likely options would be either to find the accused innocent of the accusations and thus return him to full power, position and authority; or if he is guilty of accusations to remove him from the position, so a replacement could get into place and help move the organization forward.
No supervisor would let a guilty party keep their position and title, but make them to sit there and do nothing. It would stunt the progress of the organization and ability of CAP to move forward. That's why I don't buy it.
Not to mention that we are only closing on 90 days, not 180. Unless there was an announcement that I missed from NHQ.
Quote from: mikeylikey on September 27, 2007, 10:55:38 PM
Why would WE want a leader who CAN'T LEAD?
Why does England keep their royal family, King or Queen. A figurehead, someone who represents the ideals of the nation.
Now, unfortunately, as you point out, we don't really want a "figurehead," especially one that doesn't represent the ideals of the organization.
Quote: The sources say that the first option -- membership termination -- is distasteful to some BoG members because the CAP has never before terminated the membership of a sitting national commander. But, the sources added -- and all of them agreed -- that Pineda's history shows that he is unlikely to accept the other option -- reinstatement with no authority.
If the BOG finds membership termination distasteful....here is a third option -- provided that he is guilty of the allegations of cheating on the exam and abuse of power (et. al.):
Removal from the position National Commander; demote him to Lt. Col. and allow him to retain his membership with the provision that he could never assume another command position at any level of CAP.
Just my $.002
Quote from: Chappie on September 28, 2007, 02:50:13 AM
Removal from the position National Commander; demote him to Lt. Col. and allow him to retain his membership with the provision that he could never assume another command position at any level of CAP.
Umm......I think he only reached Major, before becoming a Colonel. So Demotion to Major would be appropriate!
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 28, 2007, 02:00:06 AM
Not to mention that we are only closing on 90 days, not 180. Unless there was an announcement that I missed from NHQ.
Actaully we're more than a week
short of the
60 day point in the suspension. It began (well, at least announced publicly to CAP) on 06AUG07 ...
Maybe those at News of the Farce should do a little fact checking.
Perhap they had someone take their elementary school arithmetic tests for them ... ???
Quote from: jimmydeanno on September 28, 2007, 02:04:42 AM
Why does England keep their royal family, King or Queen. A figurehead, someone who represents the ideals of the nation.
Now, unfortunately, as you point out, we don't really want a "figurehead," especially one that doesn't represent the ideals of the organization.
More importantly, the gov't of England operates independent of the monarchy. Its not like they have to wait on the Queen to make a decision.
The Queen is the nominal head of state. She is not, however, the chief executive.
Or something like that (I took British History in high school.. That was a long time ago!)
Quote from: Chappie on September 28, 2007, 02:50:13 AMRemoval from the position National Commander; demote him to Lt. Col. and allow him to retain his membership with the provision that he could never assume another command position at any level of CAP.
Wow, that would do a lot of justice for those who were unfairly 2b'd by Pineda. ::) Let the man enjoy his membership while better folks than he remain unable to participate in CAP? No, I think full membership termination is in order.
Let him get a taste of his own medicine. >:D
Quote from: Skyray on September 27, 2007, 09:24:08 PM
And a goodly number of the Board oif Governors owe their positions to his patronage.
I also missed this the first read-through. Doug, the Board of Governors is
not the National Board. The BoG has Air Force members, community members, and only several CAP members sitting on it.
http://level2.cap.gov/visitors/organization/cap_structure/board_of_governors_list.cfm
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 28, 2007, 02:00:06 AM
Not to mention that we are only closing on 90 days, not 180. Unless there was an announcement that I missed from NHQ.
The suspension was for 180 days,
OR until the matter was investigated. Those who are questioning why the B of G would make the announcement by Sunday It' s because the B of G meets over the weekend. Therefore the decision would be finalized at that meeting.
Couple things.
First off, by suspending Pineda, the BoG has already found probable cause to remove him, and already made the decision to wade into this mess. They could've done nothing and waited for his term to run out, but they didn't.
Second, if there was sufficient cause to remove him as national commander, there's sufficient cause to terminate his membership, period. He should absolutely not be permitted to remain a member, regardless of lack of precedent. (No sitting national commander has ever been found to have cheated on USAF exams before, either. No sympathy for self-inflicted wounds.)
Third, the BoG's authority is derived solely and exclusively from Title 10 of the United States Code, Sec. 9447; thus, the BoG's authority over all aspects of the Civil Air Patrol is total and absolute. Neither the CAP Constitution & Bylaws nor AFI 10-2702 are binding upon the BoG. (The AFI may be binding upon the BoG's USAF appointees, but not on the other members.) In fact, the BoG is free to amend or abolish the CAP Constitution & Bylaws with a simple majority vote.
Lastly, when Congress instituted the BoG, it most certainly wasn't at CAP's request; it effectively revoked ALL power from the National Commander, National Executive Committee and National Board and placed it with the BoG. Whatever authority those parties continue to exercise is done so solely at the BoG's discretion.
^^ I don't know that the Constitution & Bylaws aren't binding on them. They can certainly change them, but they have to act within them, as the governing body of any corporation...
Quote from: Chaplaindon on September 28, 2007, 02:56:53 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on September 28, 2007, 02:00:06 AM
Not to mention that we are only closing on 90 days, not 180. Unless there was an announcement that I missed from NHQ.
Actaully we're more than a week short of the 60 day point in the suspension. It began (well, at least announced publicly to CAP) on 06AUG07 ...
Maybe those at News of the Farce should do a little fact checking.
Perhap they had someone take their elementary school arithmetic tests for them ... ???
lol!!!!! Sarcasm... I LOVE it! :D
Quote from: JC004 on September 28, 2007, 01:47:36 PM
^^ I don't know that the Constitution & Bylaws aren't binding on them. They can certainly change them, but they have to act within them, as the governing body of any corporation...
JC and Mustang:
The BoG, in spite of its name, is not the governing body of CAP. The National Board still is. The BoG is the executive agent of the Secretary of the Air Force with respect to CAP. They exist, literally, to keep the NB, the NEC, the National Commander, and the paid staff honest.
Just because they usually keep their swords in their scabbards, do not conclude that they are not sharp!
Also, and I HATE to sound like a lawyer, but I think that one observation is in order.
The allegations against TP are said to have occurred BEFORE he was the Natl Cdr. Relieving him of command, but keeping him as an officer in the CAP, for an action that took place before he accepted command is not appropriate. If it is a serious problem, one that you cannot trust him in command anymore, you have to separate him from the organization.
First of all, Bac Si Kach, I want to thank you for bringing the NOTF cheating on its Math exams to my attention. I missed it the first time through.
Your point about the dereliction occurring before he was National Commander is valid, except that it was a part of the pattern and practice that took him to National Commander, and it is not the only charge. Supposedly there are forty more. And remember, he came back from disgrace for using his office for personal revenge before with the help of Rick Bowling, who is still on the BoG. Of course, the guy who canned him, General Bergman, is on the BoG too. I wonder if they will cancel out?
Kach, I was confused on this too until I did all the searching when the suspension came down.
Quote
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle D - Air Force
PART III - TRAINING
CHAPTER 909 - CIVIL AIR PATROL
-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.
I can't see USAF seeing anything but termination as appropriate since he violated not only CAP policy but USAF as well. If the article from NOTF is true, and we all know they have been way wrong before, those who favor removal should email Don Rowland, Col. John Tilton, and Rick Bowling to express their concerns. If BOG is on the fence, and they get flooded with email from the membership, this could help tip the balance.
Just my .02
I guess that being excluded from the CAP database for the terrible sin of telling Tony that he lacked integrity, I am a little confused. Kieloch gave me a URL for Board membership which seems out of date. I found another one that includes Amy Courter, but neither of them includes Rex Glasgow. And does the Executive Director have a vote, or just a voice? Inquiring minds want to know.
The aphorism that CAP has never terminated a sitting National Commander sounds like a desperate effort by Rick Bowling to salvage his protege so he can be resurrected after the storm blows over. I would ask if we have ever had a National Commander who blatantly cheated on a major Air Force credential?
Maybe I missed it. Did they ever prove any of the allegations?
Quote from: Flying Pig on September 28, 2007, 04:23:58 PM
Maybe I missed it. Did they ever prove any of the allegations?
Never announced. And the article in NOTF would tend to imply that a conclusion has been reached, but there are two problems with that; first do you believe NOTF, and two, if the article is accurate, could the BoG find that the charges were not proved, but the mere appearance of impropriety was worth punishing.
I have my own opinion which is probably familiar to most of the readers here. Remember, I am the guy who investigated the allegations that he was wearing pilot's wings to which he was not entitled back in 1991. He seems to have an affinity for bling whether he has earned it or not.
And does the Executive Director have a vote, or just a voice? Inquiring minds want to know.
The Executive Director is a CAP employee who is appointed by and reports directly to the Board of Governors
I guess I was less than perspicacious. I know who he is since we had Paul Albano. And I know he has a voice, at least insofar as reporting. My question was: does he report and shut up, or does he get to participate in the ensuing debate, and when it comes time to vote does he get one of those?
Quote from: Skyray on September 28, 2007, 05:05:04 PM
I guess I was less than perspicacious. I know who he is since we had Paul Albano. And I know he has a voice, at least insofar as reporting. My question was: does he report and shut up, or does he get to participate in the ensuing debate, and when it comes time to vote does he get one of those?
He doesn't have a vote, but since he reports directly to the BOG, I would suspect his input would be solicited.
Quote from: Skyray on September 28, 2007, 04:34:25 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on September 28, 2007, 04:23:58 PM
Maybe I missed it. Did they ever prove any of the allegations?
Never announced. And the article in NOTF would tend to imply that a conclusion has been reached, but there are two problems with that; first do you believe NOTF, and two, if the article is accurate, could the BoG find that the charges were not proved, but the mere appearance of impropriety was worth punishing.
I have my own opinion which is probably familiar to most of the readers here. Remember, I am the guy who investigated the allegations that he was wearing pilot's wings to which he was not entitled back in 1991. He seems to have an affinity for bling whether he has earned it or not.
I don't remember the "Pilot wings" thing... Was that TP? I don't think I ever heard about it. Probably because in 1991 I was getting ready to go to Kuwait, but the war ended after Saddam Hussein heard a disturbing rumor about my pending arrival. (I believe he took note of the fact that I was on the DMZ when Ho Chi Minh died, and he didn't think that was just coincidence!)
Anyway, fill me in. What was it about the pilot wings?
Well.....I did stop on my way home from my CAP meeting last night and help on a Traffic Accident. ::)
I even got my shoes dirty.
Quote from: JC004 on September 28, 2007, 01:47:36 PM
^^ I don't know that the Constitution & Bylaws aren't binding on them. They can certainly change them, but they have to act within them, as the governing body of any corporation...
Yes..but if someone were to challange the BoG's action as being against the Constitution & Bylaws....all the BoG would have to do is change the the C&B's and make it retro active.....ergo....defacto....the C&B's do not apply to the BoG.
QuoteAnyway, fill me in. What was it about the pilot wings?
John, you are just determined to get Tedda an excuse to stomp my instep. Here are some facts, I'll send you the rest of it via PM, although it has been discussed previously on line.
Check his FAA certificates on the FAA database. He has a Third Class Medical in about June of 1991, and a PPL issued in 2004.
nice...
The Board of Governors cannot just arbitrarily make management decisions regarding how CAP is run. What they can do is change the Constitution and Bylaws with a majority vote. For example, they don't have the authority to select Region Commanders. If they wanted to select a region commander they would first need to change the Constitution to give themselves that authority, and then they could do it. It is a small distinction, but an important one in this case.
The Board of Governors cannot as you say appoint Cooperate Officers, But they do have the responsibility and ability to remove one see the previous response about AFI 10-2702 gives them that authority. They are not appointing a new National Commander, they may be removing one for cause after review by the MARB. In which case the elected Vice Commander will assume the duties pending the next National Board meeting.
That AF regulation has absolutely no bearing on BoG activities. They are not bound by it in any way. It just merely restates what is in federal law -- which they do have to follow. Heck, just read the first paragraph in it and you will see that it just explains what CAP is and explains how the AF works with CAP -- it does not actually apply to CAP itself.
In the case at hand, the CAP Constitution does not grant authority to the BoG to dismiss a National Commander. Now, they could change the Const. to allow it if they wanted, but they could not do it as things stand now.
I am more interested in who is on the board. I vaguely remembered that General Bergman's term was up, and that he was being replaced by Dwight Wheless. Went back and researched my sources, and it turns out I am right, General Bergman's term on the board ran out in June. That brings up several questions. Why was Wheless replaced by a Southeast Region retread? Is it because he is not part of the Pineda/Bowling Posse? And why can't National keep the information up to date? By the way, Ken Massey, one of those exemplary Florida Wing members that Tedda chewed me out about, wrote a brilliant essay on integrity that got published in NOTF. So did Marie Gorgans, a former Southeast Region IG staffer. It is interesting reading. You should read it, no matter what you think of NOTF. Massey is a Spaatzen IIRC.
You can't go by the FAA dates for PPL. Mine says it was first issued in 1964, actually it was issued in 1947 or 48, don't remember which since I can't find the log book that far back. Probably was 1948 since my CAP Pilot certificate (yeah I still have one of those antiques) is dated 1948. The PPL was active from then to 1982 when I let the medical lapse.
Here is an essay from Ken Massey, who posted it to the Florida list and opined that he would like to have wider coverage since he was unable to ascertain the addresses of the BoG.
Ken Massey, LtCol. CAP (ret.)
Open Letter to the Civil Air Patrol Board of Governors
SUBJECT: It's about a crisis of INTEGRITY
Dear Sirs:
In a recent article posted in News of The Force, it
was indicated that there is a strong division of the
members regarding actions to be taken in the case of
Maj. Gen. Antonio J. Pineda. It appears the principal
objection to removing him from office and membership
in the organization is simply that such action has
never been taken before. Let us be clear about what
failure to take action means to the organization.
Any CAP member who violated testing integrity,
falsified awards and decoration applications, used his
position to lie and obstruct investigations into
misconduct, or treated other members unfairly due to
bigotry or for personal gain would surely be removed
from the program. If a common member would be demoted
and expunged from the Civil Air Patrol for any of the
offenses Gen. Pineda has committed then the Board of
Governors CANNOT allow him (or any who have supported
or covered up his offenses) to remain. Why is there
even any discussion of anything short of removal?
It will not be he leniency they proffer to the office
of National Commander that will divorce it from the
humiliation Gen. Pineda has brought upon it. Only the
decisive removal of the cause of that humiliation will
begin the healing process. In short, the decision
reached by the Board of Governors will reflect forever
their view of INTEGRITY as it applies to the Civil Air
Patrol.
James K. Massey, LtCol, CAP (ret.)
So......for those of us who are just a little bit "slower" than the rest of you, QUESTION.....Who can remove the National Commander? QUESTION.....who decides what to do when the MARB makes a decision? QUESTION.....Why are people citing AFI, then saying they have no impact on CAP? QUESTION.....Who gives a crap? The guy should be man enough to step down (as in resign, retire whatever). He would keep his stars. We have the AF accepting Courter as the National Commander, Magazines already refer to her at the Commander. It is time to MOVE ON. For crying out loud......since she has been acting as Commander, NOTHING NEW has come down from that Office. The only thing that came down had TP's signature on it, WHICH was a violation of his suspension BTW. I mean, if he does come back to Office, what kind of HUGE backlash is their going to be. I would assume mass firings, and many more appointments of his Friends so the next round he can bring back up term extensions......then we will never get rid of him.
In his marvelously satiracle novel Animal Farm, author George Orwell opined that there is a duplicity in the world where politics is concerned. This duplicity is best seen in the closing pages of the novel where the animal's own (self-written) bill of rights is edited to reflect the evolving political realities in their society. Initally it read, "all animals are equal" later this was revised, "all animals are equal though some are more equal than others."
It seems to me --in true Orwellian fashion-- that CAP has a duplicitous system relavant to membership actions and discipline. One for ordinary "animals" ... non-NEC, or (at least) non-general officers and one for the "more equal than others" leadership.
I recall counselling a 13 y/o cadets who was being sent home from an emcampment/ground team school for cheating. I recall clearly his embarassment and dismay. But rules are rules and he was "gone." No great NB/NEC/BoG soul-searching, no attempts to find a better "way out" and so forth. He was gone (and deservedly so); end of story.
If a regular member, whether 13 or 70 commits violates integrity there should be no Orwellian rationalizating. They should be gone.
I feel certain that if I were caught cheating on an USAF examination (a test for a school CAP members are privileged to attend through the good graces of the Air Staff, no less), I --like that 13 y/o cadet-- would be gone. Again, no BoG soul-searching, no great "investigation" and so forth. I'd be as gone as [name withheld to protect my breakfast] who admitted to taking the ACSC exams fraudulently, in the first place. Again, rightly so.
No one in our nation or in CAP should be seen as "more equal than others" (or, more accurately put, BETTER than anyone else).
As a clergyperson, a chaplain, and one intrusted to lead the morals education of our cadets and adults in CAP (and as a taxpayer) I say to the NB/NEC/BoG (and USAF Air Staff, too) ...
If any member of CAP (or its governing bodies/institutions) accepts (or utilizes) this "more equal than others" approach to excuse that which is unexcusable, they --they themselves-- are a disgrace to their uniform (whether CAP of military) and stand opposite to all our nation and --hopefully, too-- CAP stands for ... equality, "liberty and justice" for all.
We cannot have 2 opposing standards of conduct and integrity in CAP. As Lincoln stated, "a house divided ... cannot stand."
We MUST stand for integrity.
Sir,
Kudos on your use of Orwell this occasion. Be his politics a strange matter to many here, his approaches in 1984 and Animal Farm are archetypal.
Cadets should be exposed to certain literature to understand governance, amid those items are the US Constitution, Declaration of Independence and working knowledge of other founding documents (Magna Carta, Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, English Bill of Rights)
Lets not forget that our main goal is to make these cadets into solid and strong Citizens.
As one who has bought into to the Core Values of the USAF and it's CAP adaptation, I believe that those on the BoG should rely on those values in making their decision -- no matter how painful -- regarding the suspended National Commander. If there is any violation of those values in the allegations that have lodged against the suspended commander, there should not be any question as to what action should be taken.
All I can say to ChaplainDon's previous comment is a hearty "Amen". I too, have counseled with commanders at Squadron, Group and Wing levels regarding similar incidents as described by ChaplainDon (been there - done that at Encampment as well). It was painful...but in the long run beneficial to the unit.
Yes...Integrity is integral...but so is pursuing Excellence in what we do because it will impact our Service. And Respect is seen when the same rules/principles that are applied to the 13 year old Cadet cheating at Encampment to a National Commander (should those charges be true).
"Kudos on your use of Orwell this occasion. Be his politics a strange matter to many here, his approaches in 1984 and Animal Farm are archetypal."
Thank for the kudos!
Major Carrales, the late Mr. Orwell may have espoused some "strange" archetypical paradigms in his fiction, but, (sadly) his dated words seem to "hit home" (in reality) more often than not --even in spite of such great documents as you listed.
Maybe the realities of the 21st Century are, "stranger than fiction."
Quote from: Chaplaindon on September 29, 2007, 04:00:44 PM
"Kudos on your use of Orwell this occasion. Be his politics a strange matter to many here, his approaches in 1984 and Animal Farm are archetypal."
Thank for the kudos!
Major Carrales, the late Mr. Orwell may have espoused some "strange" archetypal paradigms in his fiction, but, (sadly) his dated words seem to "hit home" (in reality) more often than not --even in spite of such great documents as you listed.
Maybe the realities of the 21st Century are, "stranger than fiction."
Eric Blair, aka George Orwell, unlocked what I have described as the corruption of the institutions of Man toward inhumanity. This comes from the fact that Orwell was a socialist...likely communist...that was totally disallusioned by what the Soviet Union was evolving into. Anyone who thinks that the Soviet Union was pure communism is daft.
He also commented on ignorant masses, institutionalised rethroic and the altering of history. These are often utilized today by nations and entities to motivate much of what we see in the news.
There is some truth in Goldstein's book, however, I suspect Orwell itnended it to be a "wake up call" or "call" to general awareness more than the description of some future dystopia.
Quote from: Skyray on September 29, 2007, 12:12:13 AM
QuoteAnyway, fill me in. What was it about the pilot wings?
John, you are just determined to get Tedda an excuse to stomp my instep. Here are some facts, I'll send you the rest of it via PM, although it has been discussed previously on line.
Check his FAA certificates on the FAA database. He has a Third Class Medical in about June of 1991, and a PPL issued in 2004.
The dates of medical and/or airman certificate issuance in the FAA database have no bearing on each other, or on whether or not TP had a Form 5 at some point in the past.
I personally know someone who, according to the FAA database, had their most recent medical certificate issued in 1982, but who had a date of issue on their FAA commercial certificate in 2005. When the FAA started issuing plastic certificates, and replacing the SSN with an unrelated certificate number, many people began exchanging for the new certificates. Any new certificate bears a new DOI, and you need not hold a current medical to get a reissued card (since non-CFI airman certificates don't expire). I know a number of pilots who exchanged simply to remove their SSN from the card.
While there was never an issue with my medical being expired, when I went from paper to plastic my DOI changed from 23 Nov 02 to 9 Feb 04.
While I agree with a lot of the static analysis put forth, for instance my own certificate got a new date every time I added a type rating, the medical data is relied upon by FAA inspectors, and an out of date medical will cause you to flunk a ramp check if for some reason you can't show a current one or if you have to replace one that is lost.
But let's go to the dynamic analysis. No entry in 1990. Medical entered in June of 1991 after I confronted him about not having a pilots license. No subsequent entry for thirteen years until once again the issue of the CAP pilots wings comes up and he has CFIs working for him and doing his bidding. Then a PPL is entered without a corresponding update to the medical. And my wing commander set me on this trail because there was no wing record of a form five. All he had to do was show me the paperwork and I would have gone away and left him alone. But he gave me some BS about being exempt from the FAA database because he was a law enforcement officer. Kind of like he claimed that he was exempt from the Wing Commander's direct order not to carry a weapon while in (CAP) uniform because he was a law enforcement officer. My rules; my way. It finally came home to roost.
Guys, lets be careful here...we've finally got a somewhat decent discussion of this issue going again without getting locked right away.
By the way, in regards to the length of the suspension & NOTF's math skills....there is nothing preventing the BoG from meeting and coming to a decision about this prior to the end of the suspension period that was previously announced. Supposedly they were "investigating" during this period and they could conclude their "investigation" early and make a decision one way or another.
One way or another, we should know tomorrow.
NOTF may be correct, there may be a decision issued by the BOG tomorrow.
It is just as possible nothing happens...at all...ever.....when we get near the 180 day point, the BOG determines it "needs more time for deliberation", extends suspension indefinitely, and lets the clock run out on the current national commander's term of office.
Not an ideal solution, on many levels, perhaps most of all moral.
Maybe the recent changes in the national board has to do with Article XV of the CAP constitution dated 6-June-2007 at the last BoG meeting. If you look at the national board minutes only 5 members vote to extend the term of office for the national commander. Maybe someone is trying to get their ducks in a roll for a board vote.
Quote from: USCAP_truth on September 30, 2007, 02:53:08 PM
Maybe the recent changes in the national board has to do with Article XV of the CAP constitution dated 6-June-2007 at the last BoG meeting. If you look at the national board minutes only 5 members vote to extend the term of office for the national commander. Maybe someone is trying to get their ducks in a roll for a board vote.
That you, Ray?
No I am not a member if the FlWg or even the SER. But if you look at the current NEC members only 1 was not appointed by the current national commander.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on September 30, 2007, 02:56:20 PM
Quote from: USCAP_truth on September 30, 2007, 02:53:08 PM
Maybe the recent changes in the national board has to do with Article XV of the CAP constitution dated 6-June-2007 at the last BoG meeting. If you look at the national board minutes only 5 members vote to extend the term of office for the national commander. Maybe someone is trying to get their ducks in a roll for a board vote.
That you, Ray?
I was thinking another Blansett sockpuppet, perhaps.
This is never gonna end, is it? That will, in my opinion, do us a very bad turn.
The "outside world" may begin to see us as an organization of pickering political shills and agendists...when, in fact, the average CAP Officer (as mostly all CAP Cadets) care very little about the political events of CAPNHQ. Yeah, someone will post in reply to this something like... "It's very important becasue it WILL effect us all!!!" However, most don't care.
Frankly, most of the CAP Officers in my unit are more concerned with Group and Wing Policy than anything from Maxwell, and most cadets are interested in building the unit, promoting to the next rank and when the next SARex is going to be.
This has got to end...let's take this thread in a new direction.
WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO END THIS?
WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO END THIS?
How about a decision by the Board of Governors?
Does anyone know when the decision is suppose to come out?
Quote from: BillB on September 30, 2007, 04:15:02 PM
WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO END THIS?
How about a decision by the Board of Governors?
Naw, I doubt that would do it. That would merely be some sort of "victory" for one side or the other. Then the mudslinging will get really bad.
Power vacuums are really strong, they end up taking people with them. Then there is that "residual innuendo" that keeps the fires burning long after the bar-be-cue's been cooked. You, power vacuums suck!
If TP us outed, what guarantee have we that it wil really end? What if he is voted to remain?
When will an end come of this?
Quote from: Major Carrales on September 30, 2007, 04:22:12 PM
If TP us outed, what guarantee have we that it wil really end? What if he is voted to remain?
Maybe the BoG would try to make an example of TP.
Quote from: BillB on September 30, 2007, 04:15:02 PM
WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO END THIS?
How about a decision by the Board of Governors?
Hit the nail right on the head, Col. Breeze. When it comes to CAP politics far above my paygrade (which is 000.00, and not expected to grow any richer) and it does not affect me directly, my typical - and somewhat vulgar - response is:
DILLIGAFF! (Does It Look Like I Give A Flying [censored]).
Lord knows, I see enough reenactments of the prelude to the Night of the Long Knives at group level or higher. Thankfully, it doesn't happen very often within my squadron. It doesn't take very long for the jungle telegraph - ahem, rumor mill - to spread the news.
Will someone call the Board of Governors and tell them we're waiting for a decision. At least they haven't called me to ask if I wanted to be National CC.
QuoteAt least they haven't called me to ask if I wanted to be National CC.
Funny, they haven't called me either. Do you suppose that you have to be a member?
Quote from: Skyray on September 30, 2007, 07:51:44 PM
QuoteAt least they haven't called me to ask if I wanted to be National CC.
Funny, they haven't called me either. Do you suppose that you have to be a member?
They've made their decision and I'm driving to Montgomery now!!
Look in your rear view mirror while driving to Montgomery. Is that a black van behind you?
Has the annoucement come out yet? Where would one find out?
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on September 30, 2007, 08:43:29 PM
Has the annoucement come out yet? Where would one find out?
Don't hold yer breath...
OK, I should have asked a more reasonable question. Has anyone confirmed that the BoG was really going to meet today to reach a decision?
Nope, just the word of that always reliable "media" outlet --- NOTF.
I typed in "News Of The Force" into google. When I clicked on the link it said, "warning: this site may hurt your computer". Is there any particular reason why? Or does anyone have a link for NOTF?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewsoftheForce/
Quote from: Bayhawk21 on September 30, 2007, 09:01:39 PM
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewsoftheForce/
Funny, I never would have imagined that it was a Yahoo group.
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on September 30, 2007, 09:06:27 PM
Quote from: Bayhawk21 on September 30, 2007, 09:01:39 PM
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewsoftheForce/
Funny, I never would have imagined that it was a Yahoo group.
Another funny thing about it is the number of positive articles about CAP. Of course, you have to read it to find that out.
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on September 30, 2007, 09:06:27 PM
Quote from: Bayhawk21 on September 30, 2007, 09:01:39 PM
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewsoftheForce/
Funny, I never would have imagined that it was a Yahoo group.
It's not exactly. It uses Yahoo and Google and other message groups to send out regular emails.
The link to the actual site is http://newsoftheforce.org/ (http://newsoftheforce.org/)
IT'S FIVE O'CLOCK. I'M *WAITING* !!!
Quote from: Skyray on September 30, 2007, 09:10:15 PM
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on September 30, 2007, 09:06:27 PM
Quote from: Bayhawk21 on September 30, 2007, 09:01:39 PM
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewsoftheForce/
Funny, I never would have imagined that it was a Yahoo group.
Another funny thing about it is the number of positive articles about CAP. Of course, you have to read it to find that out.
The one article up today supposedly about the NTC folks definitely isn't positive. I would think they would at least try to do some checking of whether it's true before putting that out.
Quote from: Bayhawk21 on September 30, 2007, 09:21:02 PM
The one article up today supposedly about the NTC folks definitely isn't positive. I would think they would at least try to do some checking of whether it's true before putting that out.
That would require some form of journalistic integrity
QuoteThe one article up today supposedly about the NTC folks definitely isn't positive. I would think they would at least try to do some checking of whether it's true before putting that out.
I don't know that it is
negative either. They did put a disclaimer on it that they hadn't checked it out, and it also appeared with a byline of one of their editorial writers. All that aside, your objection is noted. I said there was a good percentage of positive stories; I didn't say they were
all positive.
I think we're gonna have to wait until tomorrow to find anything out.
When you're a fake news service that copies all your actual news from legitimate sources there aren't too many good outlets for your product.
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on September 30, 2007, 10:21:53 PM
I think we're gonna have to wait until tomorrow to find anything out.
You assume that there was even a meeting today. Even that "fact" has not been verified by anybody.
So I wouldn't get too antsy about it. We could be waiting for another 90 days for something to happen.
Quote from: PHall on September 30, 2007, 10:49:10 PM
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on September 30, 2007, 10:21:53 PM
I think we're gonna have to wait until tomorrow to find anything out.
You assume that there was even a meeting today. Even that "fact" has not been verified by anybody.
So I wouldn't get too antsy about it. We could be waiting for another 90 days for something to happen.
So, this could be an elaborate HOAX! >:(
Quote from: PHall on September 30, 2007, 10:49:10 PM
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on September 30, 2007, 10:21:53 PM
I think we're gonna have to wait until tomorrow to find anything out.
You assume that there was even a meeting today. Even that "fact" has not been verified by anybody.
So I wouldn't get too antsy about it. We could be waiting for another 90 days for something to happen.
I thought it be best to give my fellow CAPTalk members the benefit of the doubt. If you read above this post you quoted, I did ask if what was published by NOTF was even confirmed. Regardless of whether of not there was a meeting today, it'll be interesting to see what the outcome is.
Quote from: Skyray on September 30, 2007, 09:50:38 PM
QuoteThe one article up today supposedly about the NTC folks definitely isn't positive. I would think they would at least try to do some checking of whether it's true before putting that out.
I don't know that it is negative either. They did put a disclaimer on it that they hadn't checked it out, and it also appeared with a byline of one of their editorial writers. All that aside, your objection is noted. I said there was a good percentage of positive stories; I didn't say they were all positive.
So... print anything you want, as long as you put a disclaimer in?
"Tony Pineda Proved To Be A Space Alien" (but we haven't checked this out yet)
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on September 30, 2007, 11:00:35 PM
Quote from: PHall on September 30, 2007, 10:49:10 PM
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on September 30, 2007, 10:21:53 PM
I think we're gonna have to wait until tomorrow to find anything out.
You assume that there was even a meeting today. Even that "fact" has not been verified by anybody.
So I wouldn't get too antsy about it. We could be waiting for another 90 days for something to happen.
I thought it be best to give my fellow CAPTalk members the benefit of the doubt. If you read above this post you quoted, I did ask if what was published by NOTF was even confirmed. Regardless of whether of not there was a meeting today, it'll be interesting to see what the outcome is.
NoTF...would they deliberately cause chaos? :o
The jungle telegraph, latrine-o-gram, RUMINT is hard at work again! I've learned long ago that it ain't official until the announcement is made. So don't hold yer breath waiting for your face to turn shades of TPU blue. ;D
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on September 30, 2007, 11:06:03 PMSo... print anything you want, as long as you put a disclaimer in?
"Tony Pineda Proved To Be A Space Alien" (but we haven't checked this out yet)
Unfortunately, the mouthpiece for space alien/vampire baby stories at the checkout counter of your local supermarket, the
Weekly World News ceased hard-copy publication a couple of months ago. ;D
WHAT!!!!!
How am I to know about the continuing adventures of Bat-Boy?
Oh, wait... News Of The Force, of course!
"Bat-Boy To Take Command Of CAP" (but we haven't checked this out either)
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on September 30, 2007, 11:17:51 PM
WHAT!!!!!
How am I to know about the continuing adventures of Bat-Boy?
Oh, wait... News Of The Force, of course!
"Bat-Boy To Take Command Of CAP" (but we haven't checked this out either)
They just stopped printing that fine magazine that bat boy was so beautifully portrayed in.
BTW....it is almost Monday.........Where are our ANSWERES??
I'm telling you, this is going to be "resolved" about 10 minutes before the August 2009 National Board meeting begins!
OK. It is Monday morning, October 1, 2007, and so the outcome was what? ???
I had frankenberry cereal and coffee for breakfast, took my son to school, now lauging at this thread and reading the paper.
...s'bout it.
Quote from: tedda on October 01, 2007, 12:34:50 PM
I had frankenberry cereal and coffee for breakfast...
I had Special K, Fruit & Yogurt variety and a Starbucks Non-Fat White Chocolate Mocha Latte with no whip.
Quote from: Pylon on October 01, 2007, 02:17:46 PM
Quote from: tedda on October 01, 2007, 12:34:50 PM
I had frankenberry cereal and coffee for breakfast...
I had Special K, Fruit & Yogurt variety and a Starbucks Non-Fat White Chocolate Mocha Latte with no whip.
I had a quater of a pop-tart and an 8 ounce bottle of expired 2% milk. :o
I didn't think the Board of Governors met until December
I had my Jenny Craig Sunshine Sandwich. She and I've been an item since June. ;D
anyone know where I can get my hands on some Boo-Berry cereal? (sorry, more important to me than the fate of MajGen Pineda
Quote from: afgeo4 on October 01, 2007, 02:41:20 PM
anyone know where I can get my hands on some Boo-Berry cereal? (sorry, more important to me than the fate of MajGen Pineda
Your local grocery store. Good cereal.
Quote from: Pylon on October 01, 2007, 02:17:46 PMStarbucks Non-Fat White Chocolate Mocha Latte with no whip.
You do realize that this more than negated your attempt at eating a healthy cereal...?
Cut Starbucks out of your diet, and you won't have to keep selling uniform pants. ;D
I had a western omelette...loaded with veggies, so it shouldn't be too bad for me....and plain black coffee.
Talking about negating, how about this for lunch: Triple-decker 3/4lb bacon cheeseburger with extra mayo, batter-fried potato logs, and a deep-fried apple pie.
Oh yeah, and a Diet Coke.
^ Heart attack lately?
I'm impressed. Only 6 pages to go "off thread."
Doc watches the Thread Police close in.
Oh, I had two Ding Dongs...while reading all six pages of this thread and wondering why, with all the intelligent life in CAP Talk, would any of you actually believe something posted on NOTF without it being verified?
Heh.. and I have not had anything yet, but deciding based on the items presented..
..and yes, this time of year tends to be when you can find Count Chocula, Boo-Berry and Frankenberry cerials.
Quote from: mikeylikey on October 01, 2007, 03:38:40 PM
^ Heart attack lately?
If you think I am really going to eat that, we need to talk...but that would be an excellent recipe for a major coronary. Between the fats in the food and the chemicals in the Diet Coke, none of it sounds too good to me.
You forgot the nitrates in the bacon. Eat enough of that, and you will be so preserved that you won't need to be embalmed when you pass away.
Quote from: justin_bailey on October 01, 2007, 03:15:44 PM
Quote from: Pylon on October 01, 2007, 02:17:46 PMStarbucks Non-Fat White Chocolate Mocha Latte with no whip.
You do realize that this more than negated your attempt at eating a healthy cereal...?
Cut Starbucks out of your diet, and you won't have to keep selling uniform pants. ;D
Heh, not only is it an espresso bar drink from Starbucks, it's a white mocha at that.......the drink with more calories than any other beverage on the menu. Black Coffee and teas (unsweetened) are the best way to go there. I stopped going to starbucks for a couple months after I stopped working there and had to start selling uniform items, but it was because they were too big. My wallet on the other hand magically started growing.
As for the TP issue, doesn't the BOG know that inquiring minds want to know?
So far a half a can of Monster and a bottle of water, that's the poor college student form of breakfast.
A couple of cups of black coffee, and a dose of Fox and Friends.
Quote from: afgeo4 on October 01, 2007, 02:41:20 PM
anyone know where I can get my hands on some Boo-Berry cereal? (sorry, more important to me than the fate of MajGen Pineda
Count Chocula is better!!!
What's for lunch?
It's lunch time and still no word....how surprising :)
^^ I had left over roast from last night's dinner. And some Diet Mt. Dew.
Lets see......Bed at midnight....Up at 0300 for first job had chicken tenders and Dt. Pepsi....Home at 0900 sleep again until 1100 had 2 hambugers & fries for lunch (all the toppings please), played with my 8 month old daughter back to work at 1400 on till 2300, start over tomorrow...
Oh and somthing about Maj Gen Pineda.....
For breakfast I had a four egg omlet with bacon cheese and sausage.
A bowl of grits with maple syrup, coffee, and a quart of chocolate milk.
Lunch was two double bacon cheese burgers with everything, two orders of hashbrowns and more coffee.
Ive already had two arbys beef and cheedars as 'snacks' along with several cokes and about a gallon of water.
Dinner will be lasagna with salad, soup, and a fine wine.
Back to topic,
Regardless of what happens to Pineda, will AFOSI or our own IG team release a report to us vollunteers when all is said and done?
OR, will this info be kept close within the BoG and related parties?
Someone who should know just informed me back channel that the Board of Governors meeting scheduled for yesterday did not take place.
Looks like Zig Zag is right; ten minutes before the August 2008 National Board Meeting, there will be an announcement.
Meanwhile, on 8 January 2008 when the suspension runs out, the National Commander will be reinstated with full privileges and benefits and promoted to Lieutenant General.
They'll probably announce a decision after the Dec BoG meeting. Probably something like:
"Maj Gen Pineda, CAP, has retired from Civil Air Patrol, effective 1 Jan 2008. Brig Gen Courter will continue to serve as the Activing Commander until the National Board meeting in Aug 2008."
Quote from: Skyray on October 01, 2007, 10:15:29 PM
Someone who should know just informed me back channel that the Board of Governors meeting scheduled for yesterday did not take place.
Looks like Zig Zag is right; ten minutes before the August 2008 National Board Meeting, there will be an announcement.
Meanwhile, on 8 January 2008 when the suspension runs out, the National Commander will be reinstated with full privileges and benefits and promoted to Lieutenant General.
In an offhanded and perverse sort of way, I'm just thrilled that this serves to further discredit "Snooze of the Farce" and their rumor-mongering compadres at a certain Blog in FL.
Speaking personally (and as a long-time CAP member), I am willing to allow time for adequate due process in the matter. Just because we
want to know NOW and/or have personal/professional issues with Pineda (and
if he cheated on an examination, let alone an ACSC exam ... I will have problems with him too).
Having said that, this ostensible slowness/thoroughness of action sets a useful precedent. Now
all members SHOULD expect the
same rights to thorough due process in their membership actions. Such rights prevent tyranny, not unlike some alleged to have been committed by Gen. Pineda.
I will have the same problem with leaders who treat certain members different because of their wearing eagles or stars (or whatnot) on their epaulets. That, too, is a form of tyranny.
Let me be clear,
if the exam-cheating allegations against MG Pineda are substantiated by
evidence, he should be gone ... end of story.
Sadly, the whistle-blower in this matter is not IMHO terribly credible either (and YES, I listened
ad nauseum to the "stump-the-chumps" interview with the IG using the online recordings) . If [he who shan't be named here] is the primary/only substance behind the exam-cheating charges against the general, this could be a evidentiary "house of cards." That has to be posing some problems for investigators and the BoG and demanding time.
No one (from the newest Cadet Basic to the highest general officer) deserves to be fired over a lie. Or the singular and uncorroborated allegations of someone who self-admits to acting dishonestly and then later (when it suits his personal situation) vindictively implicates another. That's tyranny too.
The preponderance of credible evidence (presuming any exists) must prevail, which ever way it leads.
CAP can ill-afford to face a civil lawsuit and waste precious dollars defending/losing it because leaders acted without discretion, patience, and justice. This could well be a matter of some real difficulty.
At the same time, allowing someone to stay because of their grade/clout/bluster etc. (in spite of substantial, objectively corroborated, and credible
evidence of misconduct,
especially integrity-based misconduct) would itself be a form of cheating and likewise intolerable.
Finally, if the BoG or NB/NEC, whomever allows themselves to be "pressured" into too-prompt action (insufficient due process) --in this or
ANY membership action-- by the whims of the membership, or the rhetoric and/or rumors (and even invective ... you know who and where) of the CAP blogosphere ... that too would be cheating the system.
Let's slow down and let the system try to work. Perhaps the BoG had some foresight when they suspended the general for 180 days. Perhaps they suspected what a thorough investigation would require in terms of time.
Let's all relax and grant them some time. For one thing, it'll annoy the heck out of NOTF.
Well said, Chaplain Don.
Am I the only one who thinks that general Pineda's suspension happened not because of the ACSC testing scandal, but because he pushed general Bowling the wrong way? I'm telling you, he did something to make Bowling mad and when it came time to do something about it the BOG concluded, "Let's just say it was because of the testing scandal. Yep. People will believe that."
What you are saying, Chaplin Don, is that he should be afforded the due process that he never granted to others. The history between he and Skip Munger is that he fired Munger as wing administrator over trumped up charges of theft of a surplus automobile that were never proved. George Metz was terminated for bringing to the front misappropriation of property. Metz was later vindicated and reinstated, right before he died. The investigation that vindicated him is still classified CAP secret--to protect the wrong doing of high ranking CAP officers. As vocal as I am, why do you suppose he has never sued me? Because, quite simply, the next sound he would hear would be the service of my subpoena for his deposition--truth is an absolute defense to defamation. I represented a cadet who was given a 2B for no greater sin than claiming that cadet achievement tests were being compromised. No investigation of the compromise of the tests was ever done, and I ended up non-renewed for talking about it. There are a lot of other sins here than cheating on one air force course, and they have been going on for years. He has such a strangle hold on Florida Wing that everyone down here is afraid to move; afraid that he will come back and wreak vengence upon them. There is a one hundred and fifty page outline of specifications of wrong doing that has been presented to the board of governors; believe me, cheating on the air force is among the lesser of them.
"What you are saying, Chaplin Don, is that he should be afforded the due process that he never granted to others."
Whether or not MG Pineda extended due process to others is functionally immaterial; justice is to be extended to ALL even when it may seem undeserved.
It often separates due process from a lynching.
Two (or more) wrongs do not make a right.
FYI ...
Just down the pike ...
Dear Members of the CAP National Board:
I have received many emails and calls from our Civil Air Patrol members thinking that there had been a CAP Board of Governors conference call Sunday night to discuss the suspension of Maj Gen Pineda. As you may know from receipt of similar emails and blogs being forwarded to you, there is much speculation on what the BoG is or is not going to do. All of this is adding to the impatience – and that is not good for our members and our missions. Further, it concerns me that people would think that the BoG is shrinking away from the situation and has cancelled meetings. Nothing should be read into the rescheduling of a call.
Let me set the record straight. The BoG did not conduct a conference call meeting 30 September – once this date was checked with the BoG members, it was discarded due to schedule conflicts. Instead, a conference call is scheduled for Tuesday, 2 October, on this matter. There have not been calls cancelled – the scheduling of the call has been attempted more than once to ensure that there could be maximum participation on such important matters to the CAP.
Further, there may be additional calls necessary before a conclusion is reached. As these meetings are private, I will not speculate on their content, nor will I be in a position to give you call-by-call progress checks. What I do promise is a statement once all proceedings are completed and a decision has been rendered.
I ask for everyone's patience during this time and that board members seek accurate, up-to-the-minute information from me or Mr. Don Rowland.
I will be meeting via conference call with the members of the NEC this week, and the members of the National Board next week. I look forward to talking with each of you then. Thank you to each of you for your leadership of our organization. Be safe.
Very Respectfully,
Brig. Gen. Amy S. Courter, Acting National Commander
I agree with your aphorisms, Chaplin Don. It's just that you obviously don't know what you are talking about. The enemity between Skip Munger and Pineda came when Pineda tried to get Munger to forge documents in the Statutory Rape of [redacted] by one of the officers in her squadron, and Munger had too much integrity to do it. How do I know this? Well, I represented [redacted] and I was pretty instrumental in keeping her from suing CAP. I should have let her sue.
Edit: keep names involved in such issues out of the forum -TA
I must applaud Chaplain Don for his words above about letting the full formal due process take place on *any* personnel issue. I don't recall offhand what the standard is in CAP regs for the time to appeal a suspension and/or a duty assignment kick nor how long are the appeal procedures in the special reg for removal of a National CC or CV but I'm very glad the BoG is following the norms I've seen as a CAP legal officer for dealing with Average Joe Member under CAP's adverse personnel regs; that is the 30/60/90 days procedures. BoG has the power to ignore totally any CAP reg, so seeing them trying to follow the regs as closely as possible is a good sign.
And, I also must applaud our Acting National CC for her very straight talk letter which was bounced to everyone in California Wing today. Very pleased to know we will all get a timely report whatever decisions are made on this issue. And, am equally glad the BoG deliberations will remain "private" until a decision is made. Every CAP member facing an adverse personnel action deserves the same discretion and courtesy.
Quote from: Chaplaindon on October 01, 2007, 11:57:54 PMTwo (or more) wrongs do not make a right.
I agree that two wrongs do not make a right. However, if there is anyone who knows about general Pineda's lack of due process for members he 2b'd, it is Doug Johnson.
Why don't you give him credit where it is due, Chaplaindon. Those who know the full story behind the situation in Florida know that Doug is a credible and trustworthy person who should still be afforded the privilige of service in CAP.
Thanks for the support Ace of Spades, but Chaplain Don and Alice have convinced me that I was advocating precipitous action, and we should let the process run its course. I place great trust in BG Courter, and she thinks the BoG is right up there. Therefore, I think the BoG is right up there. I think they have all the information they need, Lord knows I have submitted enough reports on it.
Quote from: Skyray on October 02, 2007, 02:03:26 AM
Thanks for the support Ace of Spades, but Chaplain Don and Alice have convinced me that I was advocating precipitous action, and we should let the process run its course. I place great trust in BG Courter, and she thinks the BoG is right up there. Therefore, I think the BoG is right up there. I think they have all the information they need, Lord knows I have submitted enough reports on it.
Agreed. I, too place great trust in Brig Gen Courter. I won't speculate on what decision the BoG could make, but I hope it comes soon.
Quote from: Skyray on October 02, 2007, 02:03:26 AM
Thanks for the support Ace of Spades, but Chaplain Don and Alice have convinced me that I was advocating precipitous action, and we should let the process run its course. I place great trust in BG Courter, and she thinks the BoG is right up there. Therefore, I think the BoG is right up there. I think they have all the information they need, Lord knows I have submitted enough reports on it.
Kudos Doug, I have advocated for "due process" a long time now. We are a "Nation of LAWS," not of RULERS or PRECEIVED TRUTHS. CAP, by extention is the same.
Once this is over, if we place our trust in due process, it will be ended and we can move on. I too have met and am greatly impressed by the Brigadier General, I trust her judgement. Let's let this pass into history.
Quote from: ♠1 on October 02, 2007, 01:56:47 AM
Quote from: Chaplaindon on October 01, 2007, 11:57:54 PMTwo (or more) wrongs do not make a right.
I agree that two wrongs do not make a right. However, if there is anyone who knows about general Pineda's lack of due process for members he 2b'd, it is Doug Johnson.
Why don't you give him credit where it is due, Chaplaindon. Those who know the full story behind the situation in Florida know that Doug is a credible and trustworthy person who should still be afforded the privilege of service in CAP.
I would never deny the credibility of Skyray nor his
bona fides and value as a former (hopefully a future CAP member, again). Furthermore, it may well be that General Pineda is guilty of all the allegations I've read here (and even more that I haven't) ... that's not the point.
My point is that CAP should rise ABOVE the pettiness and misconduct we rightfully decry in others. We need to claim the "high" moral ground.
This should be a chance for us to demonstrate professionalism worthy of our uniforms.
If the evidence is there, I am confident that the BoG will act accordingly and in due time.
But I decry the actions of NOTF (regardless of its owner/editor's past history with CAP or the general) for stirring up the membership NEEDLESSLY over an ostensibly false story about a BoG meeting and pending action. The information was obviously errant. The result was unnecessary angst (pro and contra) throughout the CAP membership (or at least blogosphere).
I did not realize that there was a 150 page document containing specifications alleged against Maj Gen Pineda.
Since that is so, it makes a bit more sense that this investigation seems to be taking a long time.
Of course, unless someone has been involved in one of these affairs (which I have as investigator, complainant, and convening commander, of course each on a different occasion) you can not begin to appreciate how complicated it can be just getting hold of the people you need to interview to get the needed information!
Brig Gen Courter has demonstrated yet again why she is a class act!
However this turns out, I hope that she is elected National CC next August.
Quote from: Chaplaindon on October 02, 2007, 02:11:56 AM
Quote from: ♠1 on October 02, 2007, 01:56:47 AM
Quote from: Chaplaindon on October 01, 2007, 11:57:54 PMTwo (or more) wrongs do not make a right.
I agree that two wrongs do not make a right. However, if there is anyone who knows about general Pineda's lack of due process for members he 2b'd, it is Doug Johnson.
Why don't you give him credit where it is due, Chaplaindon. Those who know the full story behind the situation in Florida know that Doug is a credible and trustworthy person who should still be afforded the privilege of service in CAP.
I would never deny the credibility of Skyray nor his bona fides and value as a former (hopefully a future CAP member, again). Furthermore, it may well be that General Pineda is guilty of all the allegations I've read here (and even more that I haven't) ... that's not the point.
My point is that CAP should rise ABOVE the pettiness and misconduct we rightfully decry in others. We need to claim the "high" moral ground.
This should be a chance for us to demonstrate professionalism worthy of our uniforms.
If the evidence is there, I am confident that the BoG will act accordingly and in due time.
But I decry the actions of NOTF (regardless of its owner/editor's past history with CAP or the general) for stirring up the membership NEEDLESSLY over an ostensibly false story about a BoG meeting and pending action. The information was obviously errant. The result was unnecessary angst (pro and contra) throughout the CAP membership (or at least blogosphere).
I have a little different take, Don.
Apparently, there WAS a conference call scheduled for Sunday wherein the BoG was to discuss the General. This information was communicated to NOTF by someone, presumably someone on the BoG. Also, someone appartently communicated to NOTF the anticipated outcome of the conference call.
Regardless of the reasons why the conference call was postponed, it appears that there is a big leak in the BoG's marble bag.
"Regardless of the reasons why the conference call was postponed, it appears that there is a big leak in the BoG's marble bag."
Kach,
You could be right and I wouldn't be surprised in the least. There have been other noteworthy leaks as well (e.g. the 3-hour-long IG interview with you-know-who recently posted online). That shouldn't have happened.
It may well be that there is a prospective effort to discredit the "verdict" of the BoG.
That's, thankfully, quixotic (IMHO).
Looking at whose on the BoG (CAP and non), I remain confident of a credible and just outcome, one way or another.
Or we could all stop the speculation, since that's all we have - pure speculation - short of the information which has been passed on to us by official sources. I have full confidence that Brig Gen Courter will keep the membership appraised, when appropriate, with the truth.
Quoteso seeing them trying to follow the regs as closely as possible is a good sign.
They aren't even close to following the regulation. The regulation (35-7) says the following:
Quote1. Policy. The National Commander or National Vice Commander may be removed from office only by a vote of two-thirds of the authorized positions of the National Board at a duly constituted regular or special meeting of the Board. The vote of the required number of National Board members shall be obtained by votes in person or by proxy at such duly constituted meeting. Mail or fax ballots may not be used to vote on removal of the National Commander or National Vice Commander. The action of the National Board is final.
Please note that removal of the National Commander is left to the National Board NOT the Board of Governors.
We are not following our own regulations in any way, shape, or form in regards to this case. Heck, we're not even following the approved Constitution, which also make this a decision of the National Board in which the BoG is not involved in any way.
Rather than following what is established procedure the BoG is making it up as they go along. Why they are doing it rather than following the Consitition and CAP regulation is the question we should be asking.
First of all, River, I think Alice was speaking of the regulations on adverse personnel actions. The "Removal of National Commander" regulations are a self serving construct that were deliberately crafted to make such removal impossible. Remember, the BoG has the power to change those rules with the stroke of a pen.
The other thing that is on my mind, is that there apparently is a big leak in the BoG's bag of marbles. Don't forget that Skip Munger was a paid wing administrator. I remember when we voted on changing the rules so that he could take the job. He has friends all over the organization, and it is probably safe to say that not all of them are Pineda fans. His information about the scheduling of the call was accurate, it just subsequently changed. The posting of the "Interview" was a different thing and I am going to make Mike a little happy and not speculate any more------tonight.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 02, 2007, 03:09:08 AM
Quoteso seeing them trying to follow the regs as closely as possible is a good sign.
They aren't even close to following the regulation. The regulation (35-7) says the following:
Quote1. Policy. The National Commander or National Vice Commander may be removed from office only by a vote of two-thirds of the authorized positions of the National Board at a duly constituted regular or special meeting of the Board. The vote of the required number of National Board members shall be obtained by votes in person or by proxy at such duly constituted meeting. Mail or fax ballots may not be used to vote on removal of the National Commander or National Vice Commander. The action of the National Board is final.
Please note that removal of the National Commander is left to the National Board NOT the Board of Governors.
We are not following our own regulations in any way, shape, or form in regards to this case. Heck, we're not even following the approved Constitution, which also make this a decision of the National Board in which the BoG is not involved in any way.
Rather than following what is established procedure the BoG is making it up as they go along. Why they are doing it rather than following the Consitition and CAP regulation is the question we should be asking.
Well, what are you going to do if the BoG does can him? File a complaint against them?
What's going to happen is what's going to happen.
Does all of this affect what's going to happen at my squadron meeting tomorrow night? Nope.
From Today's NOTF Headlines
Sources: CAP's Board of Governors to meet tonight
An expected meeting of the Civil Air Patrol's Board of Governors (BoG) apparently scheduled for Sunday didn't happen.
The meeting was to determine the fate of suspended Civil Air Patrol national commander Maj. Gen. Tony Pineda.
Sources told NOTF late yesterday that the BoG will meet sometime this evening.
When asked if the BoG was having the later meeting in order to negotiate with Pineda, one source close to situation said, "I don't think [the BoG] has any interest in negotiating."
The Civil Air Patrol is the non-profit, civilian Auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force.
Topics merged. How many separate NOTF threads do we really need?
Quote from: MIKE on October 02, 2007, 01:09:10 PM
Topics merged. How many NOTF separate threads do we really need?
Sorry Captain. Bad sense of judgement.
I thought it has been clearly established that the actions of the BOG are governed by U.S. Code (Congressional legislation), not AFIs or CAP regs.
And yes, Pylon, we could stop all the speculation, but it's not likely to happen -- it would be too contrary to human nature!
Quote from: ZigZag911 on October 02, 2007, 01:30:21 PM
And yes, Pylon, we could stop all the speculation, but it's not likely to happen -- it would be too contrary to human nature!
Besides, I need some drama and speculation to liven up my day. ;D
By now, I assume that most of the folks on this blog have seen Brig Gen Courter's email on this subject. The Sunday meeting didn't happen, but one is scheduled for today.
I think that some of the "guardhouse lawyers" on this blog are forgeting that the BoG has the authority to suspend or terminate any members'' membership: not their position in the organization. At least, that is how I understand the rules. Not being an attorney(nor wanting to be one), my reading of the tea leaves.
Quote from: bosshawk on October 02, 2007, 03:51:28 PM
By now, I assume that most of the folks on this blog have seen Brig Gen Courter's email on this subject. The Sunday meeting didn't happen, but one is scheduled for today.
I think that some of the "guardhouse lawyers" on this blog are forgeting that the BoG has the authority to suspend or terminate any members'' membership: not their position in the organization. At least, that is how I understand the rules. Not being an attorney(nor wanting to be one), my reading of the tea leaves.
I think we're all guardhouse lawyers at this point. Since we don't know what actually was put to vote in the BoG meetings, since none of us were there, and those of us weighing in on the discussion are not CAP Legal Officers nor do we possess our J.D.'s, it's difficult to even speculate - again, another reason why it's best to wait to see what the official outcome will be. We all don't understand the complexity of the BoG, it's authority, and we certainly don't get minutes of their closed session meetings or their consultations with lawyers (I am sure they consulted with legal officers and lawyers before proceeding on this current path). Therefore, we have little basis from which to speculate.
Mike: I certainly concur with you.
Well, my simple thoughts on the matter forget testgate. When the suspension was handed down TP violated the terms of his suspension and for that should be subject to some form of punishment.
Perhaps we should organize...
"The Guardhouse, Barracks, and Sea Bar Association" The GBSBA!
Or...
The "Guardhouse Attorneys and Sealawyer's Bar Association Group" (GASBAG)
If we joined GASBAG would we get an ID card just like the Admirals from Nebraska?
I've heard plenty of Admirals who were GASBAGS...
Phall and Sky....I was just responding to the statement that regulations were being followed. They are not. Yes, the BoG has the power to change them, but they have not done so. If they do decide to take some action, I hope they at least change the regulations to say that the BoG has the power to remove the National Commander at will. I don't actually have a problem with that, its just not the way the regs read right now.
So if there was actually a BoG meeting today, when can we expect to hear anything about what was discussed?
"When it's done." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patience)
;D
huh?
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on October 03, 2007, 12:28:27 AM
So if there was actually a BoG meeting today, when can we expect to hear anything about what was discussed?
When they have made a decision and they decide to release it to the membership.
As for hearing about what was discussed. They're talking about an active IG Investigation.
That stuff is usually kept on a need to know basis because of privacy concerns.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 03, 2007, 01:06:42 AM
"When it's done." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patience)
;D
Very creative. I like it.
News just came in via email. Pineda is gone. Courter is in.
QuoteMAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, Ala. – The Civil Air Patrol's Board of Governors, in a teleconference Tuesday night, voted to remove Maj. Gen. Antonio J. Pineda from his position as CAP national commander.
The board's action comes two months after the chairman of the Board of Governors, Maj. Gen. Richard Bowling, announced the 11-member board had suspended the CAP national commander for a period of up to 180 days. The suspension occurred after the board convened a special Aug. 5 meeting to receive the initial CAP Inspector General's Report of Investigation concerning allegations that a CAP Florida Wing member took U.S. Air Force Air Command and Staff College tests for Pineda in 2002 and 2003.
"This action was taken after careful review of the facts and circumstances and after numerous discussions of the report of the investigation against Gen. Pineda," said Bowling.
Vice Commander Brig. Gen. Amy S. Courter, who has served as acting national commander since Pineda was suspended by the Board of Governors on Aug. 5, now takes leadership of the Civil Air Patrol as interim commander as prescribed in the CAP Constitution and Bylaws. She will hold the position until the August 2008 CAP board meeting, where members will vote to select a new commander. Courter is eligible to run for the position.
OK, so when will the cap.gov webpage change? Within the hour? A day? A week? Who's taking bets?
Don't know.
cap.gov webpage is changed to reflect that Pineda is out..that is all..
I'm curious, it just says that he has been removed from the position. It does not address the status of his membership in the organization.
Well, we can now call it official. The full press release is on the NHQ website.
http://www.cap.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&nodeID=6192&newsID=3580&year=2007&month=10
Quote from: CAPSGT on October 03, 2007, 01:22:27 PM
Well, we can now call it official. The full press release is on the NHQ website.
http://www.cap.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&nodeID=6192&newsID=3580&year=2007&month=10
And there was joy throughout the land (or at least within CAP ;) )! :)
Here's to wishing Gen. Courter a successful and uneventful remainder of her term. Hopefully, she can make some progress in helping the organization get refocused.
Understood that he was removed from Command, but is he out completely?
Good Luck Brig. Gen. Courter while completeing what Tony Pineda couldn't do!!
Quote from: A.Member on October 03, 2007, 01:36:31 PM
Quote from: CAPSGT on October 03, 2007, 01:22:27 PM
Well, we can now call it official. The full press release is on the NHQ website.
http://www.cap.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&nodeID=6192&newsID=3580&year=2007&month=10
And there was joy! :)
Here's to wishing Gen. Courter a successful and uneventful remainder of her term. Hopefully, she can make some progress in helping the organization refocused.
Frankly, here's to hoping/praying that this
IS the end of the mess. That there's not to be subsequent lawsuits, depositions, divisive squabbling and triangulation, blog-warfare and so forth.
If this
is the FINAL resolution/ajudication of the matter following significant and objective deliberation by the BoG, excellent.
Maybe the "bleeding" (of members, of morale, of reputation/rapport with the USAF) will soon stop.
On the other hand, if this is just "round-1" in a to-be ongoing fight between our former National Commander and/or his allies in and out of CAP and the BOG/NEC/NB/NHQ, it will be a tragedy.
Hopefully, this is the end; a good, wise, and just end at that.
Quote from: Chaplaindon on October 03, 2007, 01:44:38 PM
Quote from: A.Member on October 03, 2007, 01:36:31 PM
Quote from: CAPSGT on October 03, 2007, 01:22:27 PM
Well, we can now call it official. The full press release is on the NHQ website.
http://www.cap.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&nodeID=6192&newsID=3580&year=2007&month=10
And there was joy! :)
Here's to wishing Gen. Courter a successful and uneventful remainder of her term. Hopefully, she can make some progress in helping the organization refocused.
Frankly, here's to hoping/praying that this IS the end of the mess. That there's not to be subsequent lawsuits, depositions, divisive squabbling and triangulation, blog-warfare and so forth.
If this is the FINAL resolution/ajudication of the matter following significant and objective deliberation by the BoG, excellent.
Maybe the "bleeding" (of members, of morale, of reputation/rapport with the USAF) will soon stop.
On the other hand, if this is just "round-1" in a to-be ongoing fight between our former National Commander and/or his allies in and out of CAP and the BOG/NEC/NB/NHQ, it will be a tragedy.
Hopefully, this is the end; a good, wise, and just end at that.
I really hope this is the end. We really need to move on and focus our energies on promoting the CAP to the Nation as an organization that can accomplish, to Quote Generla Richard Anderson, "Missions for America."
There are those, however, that I fear will not let this die.
"When will the website change" topic merged.
I'm listening and I hope to hear it...
The sound of a female voice, sweetly singing a long operatic aria...
And the singer being an overweight, buxom woman, wearing a Viking helmet.
Yes, it isn't over until the fat lady sings, but I'm hoping that this is the melody!
What about a bunch of little people singing, "Ding, dong the ..."
Sure sounds like the fat lady singing, Bac Si.
It has been previously discussed here that the BoG's marble bag seems to have a big hole in it, and it seems to dump right at Skip Munger's back door. The National website addresses the issue of command, but the individual notice I got this morning said command, rank and membership. I see a couple of possibilities. Once someone is no longer in the chain, their membership status is none of our business, along with their rank. So there is a good argument that would not be appropriate for posting on the web site. My dispatch may be correct. The other possibility is that the information is incorrect. Either way, following Ecclesiastes, it is time to rebuild.
"Singing GLORIOUS, VICTORIOUS, one keg of (ermmm... juice?) for the four of us!"
I was awoken at 0500 with this news, but I wasn't upset at all!
And glory be to God that there are no more of us,
'cause one of us could drink it all alone
Pass the juice
to the rear
of the squaaaadron
??? Something just doesn't sound right ???
Quote from: Skyray on October 03, 2007, 02:29:45 PM
Either way, following Ecclesiastes, it is time to rebuild.
OK, Doug, you and I have had pretty cordial conversations over the last 10+ years, often on this subject (Me being up in the Great White North, and later Great White Northeast, I only visit my colleagues in FL for vacational-type things, and thus don't ever have to "deal CAP" down in SER, so while I felt your pain, and that of your fellow members down there, it was always of a "man, I'm glad that's not happening to me [yet]" variety...).
So, now that Pineda is gone (and believe me, I'm one of the folks saying "The Dougs were right all along.."), do we have to keep having threads devolve into "I told you so about Pineda?"
Its getting to be quite the "in" joke amongst CAP-Talkers: "How many posts will it take Doug Johnson to bring up Pineda, Bowling, etc?"
So lets see how long into the rebuilding phase we can go without dipping into the "lets bash Tony" eh? Time to forge ahead.
My two cents:
Tony Pineda Fired
http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/2007/10/tony-pineda-fir.html (http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/2007/10/tony-pineda-fir.html)
Sorry about the cross-post.
- Midway Six
CAPblog
Always Vigilant - Never Boring.
Quote from: floridacyclist on October 03, 2007, 09:32:33 AM
News just came in via email. Pineda is gone. Courter is in.
QuoteMAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, Ala. – The Civil Air Patrol's Board of Governors, in a teleconference Tuesday night, voted to remove Maj. Gen. Antonio J. Pineda from his position as CAP national commander.
The board's action comes two months after the chairman of the Board of Governors, Maj. Gen. Richard Bowling, announced the 11-member board had suspended the CAP national commander for a period of up to 180 days. The suspension occurred after the board convened a special Aug. 5 meeting to receive the initial CAP Inspector General's Report of Investigation concerning allegations that a CAP Florida Wing member took U.S. Air Force Air Command and Staff College tests for Pineda in 2002 and 2003.
"This action was taken after careful review of the facts and circumstances and after numerous discussions of the report of the investigation against Gen. Pineda," said Bowling.
Vice Commander Brig. Gen. Amy S. Courter, who has served as acting national commander since Pineda was suspended by the Board of Governors on Aug. 5, now takes leadership of the Civil Air Patrol as interim commander as prescribed in the CAP Constitution and Bylaws. She will hold the position until the August 2008 CAP board meeting, where members will vote to select a new commander. Courter is eligible to run for the position.
Nice, I'm happy now!
Good luck Brig. Gen. Courter!
Ding Dong the Witch is D .. er, well, gone.
I hope it's not the end for TP, but for CAP at least.
Gen. Courter is a class act and down to earth.
..and we're so tired of changing unit SoPs.. ;)
Quote from: Skyray on October 03, 2007, 02:29:45 PM
Sure sounds like the fat lady singing, Bac Si.
It has been previously discussed here that the BoG's marble bag seems to have a big hole in it, and it seems to dump right at Skip Munger's back door. The National website addresses the issue of command, but the individual notice I got this morning said command, rank and membership. I see a couple of possibilities. Once someone is no longer in the chain, their membership status is none of our business, along with their rank. So there is a good argument that would not be appropriate for posting on the web site. My dispatch may be correct. The other possibility is that the information is incorrect. Either way, following Ecclesiastes, it is time to rebuild.
Command is a public matter - we all need to know who are leader(s) are.
Membership and grade are a personnel matter and frankly, none of our business - certainly not the kind of thing which should be discussed publicly.
Commanders, even at the national level, serve at the pleasure of their superiors, removing a commander is a much more subjective process than terminating a membership. As if my opinion mattered, I couldn't care less if he retains his stars or his membership. His influence on my part of CAP is over, and likely over regardless.
As to those "enjoying" the singing, take a moment to think about what a sad day this really is for CAP.
A >VOLUNTEER<, who has given thousands of hours of his own time, money, and sweat equity to this organization, is now being run out of town because (we think) he cheated on a test to attain status which is ultimately of little actual value. How badly did CAP fail to instill its core values in this man that he misunderstood what we are all about?
We're not talking about some West-Point grad who was born with a silver spoon, rose to power through connections and then squanders his legacy getting kick-backs from a defense contractor. He came up the same way we all do, and his annual salary is exactly the same as everyone else's. Worse still is that his involvement
with CAP cost him his credibility with FDLE (his REAL job), and likely 10's of thousands of dollars in unreimbursed expenses along the way.
The negative publicity and "cool points" this has cost us are immeasurable, not to mention the loss of confidence by the rank and file.
At the end of this (and we may only be at the mid-point), this is a failure of the entire system. Members behaved badly, and others in leadership positions did little to keep that behavior in check.
If Maj. Gen. Pineda really is 1/2 as bad as some people here would have us believe, then the fact that he could rise to national prominence is a [darn]ing statement against us. If he is simply a mis-guided man with his own plan who goose-stepped over people to get things done, then those who let it happen are still to blame.
In any case, this is hardly a happy day for CAP, or a song-worthy situation.
My personal hope is that he will be allowed to go quietly on his way, and we can all move on to some real problems...
I disagree that membership and grade are 'private' matters.
If TP arrived at my squadron meeting tonight wearing 2 stars, but he was actually a non-member...is that a problem?
How would we know if we should send him packing, or if we should allow him to ride along in our shiny new airplane?
Eclipse:
My reference to the "Fat lady singing" was to the fact that this long nightmare seems to be over. I take no joy in the result.
Others here do, however, and I can understand why based on some of the things they have described.
But, you are right. If Pineda was able to consolidate power and abuse others through our organization, then the entire nature of our organization, and its oversight, should come under review.
First we removed him from command.
Second we demote him to senior member.
Third we remove any awards given him.
And finally we 2b him out of CAP.
Quote from: cnitas on October 03, 2007, 05:22:21 PM
I disagree that membership and grade are 'private' matters.
If TP arrived at my squadron meeting tonight wearing 2 stars, but he was actually a non-member...is that a problem?
How would we know if we should send him packing, or if we should allow him to ride along in our shiny new airplane?
Ask to see his ID card, that's all any of us can do to substantiate membership.
Quote from: USCAP_truth on October 03, 2007, 05:27:20 PM
First we removed him from command.
Second we demote him to senior member.
Third we remove any awards given him.
And finally we 2b him out of CAP.
I vote for just letting it end. I know some of you were slighted by Pineda and have axes to grind, but let's remember the lessons from Captain Ahab.
The organization needs to heal, let's not continue to "pick at the scab." We cannot start rebuilding until this is over. If all these things you mention happen this week, so be it. If not, let him fade into CAP history. "'Tis a worse fate to be faded and subdued into oblivion, than to be made a maytr of.
Plus, we don't even know if he is guilty of any of the wrong doing (unless information has been released), for all we know he was removed for merely causing this "scandal."
Will we ever know the truth? Can we ever? Should we even ever know?
Let's end this...please. I feel like seeing the Brigadier General's tenure begin without all this "soot."
Like was said elsewhere, this is not time to be singing old songs, we need to be composing new ones.
Quote
And there was joy! :)
I take no joy in the fact that the organization I am passionate about now has a black eye.
My .02 cents says the BoG was right and due process was followed, and I am pleased of the outcome.
Just remember that the YEARS of "Atta Boy's" each one of us have worked for just went screaming out the window because of one members Massve "Oh Crap".....But them again that seems to be the trend in CAP whether it is on the local or national level.
Lets re-build CAP together, but please don't forget that what happens at the local level effects all of us across the entire nation.
Oh and by the way. Mr. Peneda is gone, move on.
Maj Gen (select) Courtier, I continue to serve CAP at your pleasure.
I'm glad I came in at the tail end of this. Whether or not Pineda is guilty of everything he's been accused of, I'll admit that it's been a concern in the back of mind since I joined. His suspension came down a couple of weeks after I sent in my papers. That moment caused some major concerns to pop up in mind about what kind of org I just signed up with.
With what everyone says about Gen Courtier, and the "let's move forward" attitude expressed here it, I came in at just the right time. I'm excited for the future.
Personally, I don't think this is a "dark day for CAP" or anything like that.
1. It shows the system works. Bad guys get taken down. Publically. The long term consequences of this are that CAP gains credibility points for showing that it can police itself.
2. The BOG actually exerted its power. IMHO, this is a good thing, and a good precedent. As an oversight board, they really have taken a hands off approach in the past. I think CAP has foundered because of it. Everyone needs a boss, or you just do whatever you want, whether it needs doing or not. The National Commander didn't really have a boss - it's not like he answered to USAF. So now we know - the BOG is watching...
3. It will put the fear of the Almighty into some folks who felt no one was watching. This could be a very good thing.
So overall, I'm pretty happy. Not specifically because Tony P got slammed, but because a highly connected powerful guy was still held accountable for his actions.
(and yeah, mebbe also because there's a chance at losing the U.S. "Army" flag on the BDUs now ;D)
Quote from: Dragoon on October 03, 2007, 06:02:45 PM
(and yeah, mebbe also because there's a chance at losing the U.S. "Army" flag on the BDUs now ;D)
Last time I looked, that was a United State Flag there. And I can also assume that Pineda has little to do unilaterally to get that one there.
I respect NIN from our long history of communicating together, and I value his friendship. In fact there are many in CAP, both still in and former members, whom I count as friends. I am saddened by the fact that my lack of tolerance for a demonstrated lack of integrity has deteriorated into a joke. In many ways, that is not an indictment of me, but of you. I agree with whoever it was, I think Eclipse, who said that the Machiavellian climb to power was an indictment of the members. Not the members, Eclipse, but the ones who have climbed into the incestuous board and permitted this rise to power for their own aggrandizement.
The first thing I did upon hearing the news was call up and try to apply for membership. I was told that I am not welcome. Apparently, standing up against corruption negates your value to the organization, even after that corruption is excised.
You guys that had numbers in the pool as to when I would Tourette, kiss your bets goodbye. I am not going to Tourette, just wander sadly on my way mourning the damage that has been done to my once great organization by merely one or two players.
Quote from: NIN on October 03, 2007, 03:57:35 PM
Quote from: Skyray on October 03, 2007, 02:29:45 PM
Either way, following Ecclesiastes, it is time to rebuild.
OK, Doug, you and I have had pretty cordial conversations over the last 10+ years, often on this subject (Me being up in the Great White North, and later Great White Northeast, I only visit my colleagues in FL for vacational-type things, and thus don't ever have to "deal CAP" down in SER, so while I felt your pain, and that of your fellow members down there, it was always of a "man, I'm glad that's not happening to me [yet]" variety...).
So, now that Pineda is gone (and believe me, I'm one of the folks saying "The Dougs were right all along.."), do we have to keep having threads devolve into "I told you so about Pineda?"
Its getting to be quite the "in" joke amongst CAP-Talkers: "How many posts will it take Doug Johnson to bring up Pineda, Bowling, etc?"
So lets see how long into the rebuilding phase we can go without dipping into the "lets bash Tony" eh? Time to forge ahead.
I agree. Its over and the issue is resolved. How about everyone devoting their time and energy in a positive direction that will help make CAP stronger and into the better organization we all want and know it can and should be.
Lets move on people. There are more important things to do here!
I only wished they had followed the regulations they had approved and left it to the National Board or failing that, change the regulations to give themselves the power. I don't think we want the BoG willy-nilly inserting itself into details of CAP business that it has delegated to other bodies.
Essentially this was the same thing as if the BoG had removed a squadron commander themselves rather than using the system they have approved for doing it.
Ignoring regulations in order to punish somebody for ignoring regulations and ethical standards was the wrong way to sovle this problem.
From the Air Force Times.....includes a comment by TP...
CAP commander ousted in test scandal
By Phillip Rawls - The Associated Press
Posted : Wednesday Oct 3, 2007 12:18:54 EDT
MONTGOMERY, Ala. — The national commander of the Civil Air Patrol, Maj. Gen. Antonio J. Pineda, was removed from his post following complaints that another patrol member took Air Force tests for him.
The patrol's Board of Governors took the action in a teleconference Tuesday night, spokeswoman Julie DeBardelaben said Wednesday.
The board suspended Pineda two months ago while investigating complaints by another CAP member that he took tests for Pineda at the U.S. Air Force Air Command and Staff College in 2002 and 2003.
"This action was taken after careful review of the facts and circumstances and after numerous discussions of the report of the investigation against General Pineda," said Maj. Gen. Richard Bowling, the board's chairman.
Pineda, a retired law enforcement officer from Plantation, Fla., said Wednesday no one took tests for him, but he never got to tell his side to the board.
"After being a volunteer in this organization for 20 years, this is how they pay me back," he said Wednesday.
Vice Commander Brig. Gen. Amy S. Courter, who has served as acting national commander since Pineda was suspended by the Board of Governors on Aug. 5, took over as interim commander.
The Civil Air Patrol, a federally funded auxiliary of the Air Force, is based at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery. It has more than 55,000 volunteer members nationwide and is best known for its search-and-rescue missions.
O.K. you guys. If I can't talk about Tony, then you shouldn't talk about Tony. I knew in 1996 that he lacked integrity; it took the BoG eleven years to find it out. Now he's claiming that he was denied due process. I am told backchannel by someone with IC access to the database that his name no longer appears there as a member. We have something in common. I wonder if he drinks beer--maybe we could get together and commiserate.
Since we derive some of our culture from the Military, consider this:
"The mark of a professional soldier is to be gracious in victory and not revel over the vanquished. . ."
To those of you wanting to fight beyond the "point of culmination" I ask: if you become a National Commander, what would you want to be remembered for?
Consider the legacy that TP is leaving punishment enough, and let's move on.....
OK that article does suprise me in one respect - Pineda claims he never got to tell his side of the story. If true, it hardly seems like the BOG did a complete job in investigating the case. I would have assumed during all of this that Pineda was asked for his side of the story. Am I missing something here?
Quote from: O-Rex on October 03, 2007, 08:28:45 PM
Since we derive some of our culture from the Military, consider this:
"The mark of a professional soldier is to be gracious in victory and not revel over the vanquished. . ."
To those of you wanting to fight beyond the "point of culmination" I ask: if you become a National Commander, what would you want to be remembered for?
Consider the legacy that TP is leaving punishment enough, and let's move on.....
Well said
O-Rex, and now let's get them to do it. There is a lot of rebuilding to be done. One of our Florida 61 year Been there; Done that members just hit me back channel with something that comes out like: Florida CAP is like Florida Weather. Don't like it? Wait a few minutes, it will change.
I don't believe for one second that TP never got to tell his side of the story. How professional would the BoG be if they made a decision of that degree without hearing TP's side? I don't think Gen. Courter would let something like that fly (since she is calling the shots for CAP). I don't think this is going to go to rest as fast as most of us would like it to go.
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on October 03, 2007, 08:37:21 PM
OK that article does suprise me in one respect - Pineda claims he never got to tell his side of the story. If true, it hardly seems like the BOG did a complete job in investigating the case. I would have assumed during all of this that Pineda was asked for his side of the story. Am I missing something here?
OK, Nomex, trying very hard to refrain from saying anything negative about the subject of the investigation, there were two or three hours each from the principle targets of the investigation of recorded interviews with Colonel Linker. I would assume at least one of the questions the IG asked was do you have any explanation or justification. The recordings of Hayden were posted to the net; the recordings of Pineda and Eileen never were.
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on October 03, 2007, 08:37:21 PM
OK that article does suprise me in one respect - Pineda claims he never got to tell his side of the story. If true, it hardly seems like the BOG did a complete job in investigating the case. I would have assumed during all of this that Pineda was asked for his side of the story. Am I missing something here?
I think it means that he feels he was basically "gaged" for the suspension while the "court of public opinion" has had a field day. That is the only thing that I can see that this looks like that that makes sense.
The world speculated, then that specualtion was quoted as facts then it was so.
I think that process needs to be examined.
In anycase, if Pineda was guilty...shame on him; if he was not...shame on us.
Really, I expect that reasonable discussion on this topic might best last until next Tuesday...after that, it is in the realm of OLD news and we should have begun the "recovery" by then.
Extending the 15 minutes of fame (flame) any longer is not justified.
OK fellow CAPTalkers, If I may call us that. The time has come to heal our battle wounds and move forward and get CAP back to the way it was. Back in step with big Daddy Blue.
We need to look to the future and get back to watching our Homeland.
Quote from: Major Carrales on October 03, 2007, 08:46:14 PMIn anycase, if Pineda was guilty...
You actually have doubt that the man was?
Quote from: ♠1 on October 03, 2007, 08:51:46 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on October 03, 2007, 08:46:14 PMIn anycase, if Pineda was guilty...
You actually have doubt that the man was?
You and I will never really know now? Will we? Unless you were "in on it."
Quote from: Major Carrales on October 03, 2007, 08:53:06 PM
Quote from: ♠1 on October 03, 2007, 08:51:46 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on October 03, 2007, 08:46:14 PMIn anycase, if Pineda was guilty...
You actually have doubt that the man was?
You and I will never really know now? Will we? Unless you were "in on it."
Can I speak for everyone when I ask that we please don't start the finger pointing? Can I ask for myself?
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on October 03, 2007, 08:54:11 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on October 03, 2007, 08:53:06 PM
Quote from: ♠1 on October 03, 2007, 08:51:46 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on October 03, 2007, 08:46:14 PMIn anycase, if Pineda was guilty...
You actually have doubt that the man was?
You and I will never really know now? Will we? Unless you were "in on it."
Can I speak for everyone when I ask that we please don't start the finger pointing? Can I ask for myself?
Who's fingerpointing? It is a statement of logic that unless a person assisted in the act, or committed the act, they will never really know all the facts.
Quote from: Skyray on October 03, 2007, 08:44:28 PM
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on October 03, 2007, 08:37:21 PM
OK that article does suprise me in one respect - Pineda claims he never got to tell his side of the story. If true, it hardly seems like the BOG did a complete job in investigating the case. I would have assumed during all of this that Pineda was asked for his side of the story. Am I missing something here?
OK, Nomex, trying very hard to refrain from saying anything negative about the subject of the investigation, there were two or three hours each from the principle targets of the investigation of recorded interviews with Colonel Linker. I would assume at least one of the questions the IG asked was do you have any explanation or justification. The recordings of Hayden were posted to the net; the recordings of Pineda and Eileen never were.
I am just saying that it would seem very odd if he never got a chance to explain himself, and if he did, then why does he claim to not have been given a chance to tell his side of things. Just seems like an very odd thing to read him as saying.
Who's fingerpointing? It is a statement of logic that unless a person assisted in the act, or committed the act, they will never really know all the facts.
After years of experience in forensic investigation, even those people frequently don't know. Lot's of good who dun it plots out there with confused perpetrators.
Ahh, logic. There's something we all have to get used to again.
Quote from: Skyray on October 03, 2007, 08:44:28 PM
.... The recordings of Hayden were posted to the net; the recordings of Pineda and Eileen never were.
Actually..
It was purported to have been posted at a url that since pointed toward Google, in possibly a twist that meant, "here, search for it", perhaps..
searches turned up nada.
Makes me wanna invest in RC flies. ;)
Quote from: ZigZag911 on September 27, 2007, 10:47:20 PM
If this is indeed the case (and NOTF is not always 100% accurate!) several thoughts occur to me:
What does NOTF stand for?
Tags - MIKE
Quote from: L Cid on October 03, 2007, 09:50:59 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on September 27, 2007, 10:47:20 PM
If this is indeed the case (and NOTF is not always 100% accurate!) several thoughts occur to me:
What does NOTF stand for?
News Of The Force
Tags - MIKE
Quote from: Major Carrales on October 03, 2007, 05:34:50 PM
Quote from: USCAP_truth on October 03, 2007, 05:27:20 PM
First we removed him from command.
Second we demote him to senior member.
Third we remove any awards given him.
And finally we 2b him out of CAP.
I vote for just letting it end. I know some of you were slighted by Pineda and have axes to grind, but let's remember the lessons from Captain Ahab.
The organization needs to heal, let's not continue to "pick at the scab." We cannot start rebuilding until this is over. If all these things you mention happen this week, so be it. If not, let him fade into CAP history. "'Tis a worse fate to be faded and subdued into oblivion, than to be made a maytr of.
Plus, we don't even know if he is guilty of any of the wrong doing (unless information has been released), for all we know he was removed for merely causing this "scandal."
Will we ever know the truth? Can we ever? Should we even ever know?
Let's end this...please. I feel like seeing the Brigadier General's tenure begin without all this "soot."
Like was said elsewhere, this is not time to be singing old songs, we need to be composing new ones.
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.
The Rubaiyat Quatrain LXXI
Omar Khayyam
It's time to close this book and begin writing the new one.
"Staring at the blank page before you
Open up the dirty window
Let the sun illuminate the words that you could not find
Reaching for something in the distance
So close you can almost taste it
Release your inhibitions
Feel the rain on your skin
No one else can feel it for you
Only you can let it in
No one else, no one else
Can speak the words on your lips
Drench yourself in words unspoken
Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins
The rest is still unwritten"
"Unwritten"
Natasha Benningfield
We can only go forward, we can not change what's behind, and recriminating only leads to more toxic reactions.
What is the Blue Berets say?
The Mission comes First
Quote from: Skyray on October 03, 2007, 06:59:16 PM
I respect NIN from our long history of communicating together, and I value his friendship. In fact there are many in CAP, both still in and former members, whom I count as friends. I am saddened by the fact that my lack of tolerance for a demonstrated lack of integrity has deteriorated into a joke. In many ways, that is not an indictment of me, but of you. I agree with whoever it was, I think Eclipse, who said that the Machiavellian climb to power was an indictment of the members. Not the members, Eclipse, but the ones who have climbed into the incestuous board and permitted this rise to power for their own aggrandizement.
Doug
Oh, I hope you do realize I was busting your chops in one of those "Squadron-mate in the Ready Room" kind of ways, mostly.
Like I said, I've been saying forever "The Dougs nailed it 10+ years ago.."
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, right? Or what was that I once read about "the desire to climb the tower should automatically disqualify..."?
I'm sorely disappointed in a couple things surrounding this over the last 12-15 years:
a) the processes in the organization were not sufficient to disallow someone who was known to people 10+ years ago to be a "problem" to ascend all the way to the top;
b) that structurally we've known that the organization's governance structure was susceptible to guile, graft, cronyism and other forms of influence from both above and below, yet until Congress stepped in and created the BoG, nothing much was ever done about it.
Doug Abruzzo coined the term "Self Licking Ice Cream Cone," as I recall. And it was rather apt.
Isn't it time to close this thread. Pineda has been removed, everyone has had their say, negative or positive. This horse in not only dead, it's on the menu at a French restaurant
Lordy, no, NIN. If I have become a ready room joke, for goodness sakes tell me about it. You might have forgotten, but Abruzzo was terminated for defending me. My memory is dim, but my recollection is that he appealed, and the board upheld the termination because he had complained about being wrongfully terminated after he was wrongfully terminated. Just like I was denied access to the MARB because the MARB is for members, and I was no longer a member after being terminated. Never mind that there have never been any charges brought against me. This is your self licking ice cream cone.
Quote from: Cecil DP on October 04, 2007, 12:58:45 AM
Isn't it time to close this thread. Pineda has been removed, everyone has had their say, negative or positive. This horse in not only dead, it's on the menu at a French restaurant
Pass the A1!
No, I don't think this topic has reached 'dead horse' status yet. The removal of a national commander is a black mark on the organization and it seems like the best thing the average member can do at this point is talk about how to move on despite Pineda's wrongdoings (and how to make the organization better).
And that includes holding Pineda's sycophants to the fire.
So, now that he is out of CAP, can he join the Coast Guard Aux?
I just found out about Pineda's removal. They sue wee quick to get his picture off the front of the CAP homepage and they were quick to add Courters pic and letter of welcome. I suspect they started all of this before today.
I agree that this is now a dead issue, and we should let it rest. I am sorry this played out in public and cadets were exposed to it. Now they are posting negative things about our former Commander which I dont think is healthy for their leadership development but thats just me. My cadets dont read this board so it really doesnt effect me or my folks.
Quote from: flyguy06 on October 04, 2007, 03:37:59 AM
I just found out about Pineda's removal. They sue wee quick to get his picture off the front of the CAP homepage and they were quick to add Courters pic and letter of welcome. I suspect they started all of this before today.
I agree that this is now a dead issue, and we should let it rest. I am sorry this played out in public and cadets were exposed to it. Now they are posting negative things about our former Commander which I dont think is healthy for their leadership development but thats just me. My cadets dont read this board so it really doesnt effect me or my folks.
I got a call from a Fellow Wing Member saying He saw it on the news scrawl on CNN. thats not the best of Publicity.
I've been staying clear of this whole mess for the most part, but now that it looks like things might be winding down, I have a question.
Why?
I've always been aware of the politics going on in the "echelons above reality" (and apt name, BTW). But since I returned to CAP 5 years ago I've seen it all much more "close up" (being from NCR, I saw the meteoric rise and fall of Rex Glasgow, and had to deal with some of the collateral damage afterword). What the heck is it that drives the people at this level? What the heck to they get out of it that makes it worth what they put themselves through? My wife is perplexed that I put so much effort into a job for which I don't get paid, but my time and effort expended is a drop in the bucket compared to the higher-ups I've seen.
Is it power? Popularity? Trappings of "high office?" Ego?
Or is it a true and loyal sense of service?
And why is it that so many of us in CAP are so quick to put our own selfish best interests ahead of the good of the organization? Can't we see that the potential of CAP as a whole is far greater whatever gratification we'd get from some hollow political victory over our "enemies?"
And to me the knife cuts both ways. At the risk of drawing the wrath of those of you with a dog in the fight, I have to say that I haven't been impressed by the behavior being displayed on either side of this conflict. I understand the emotions involved in being on the receiving end of a big-time "wronging," but I also know that one's behavior and deportment in times of trouble is a good indicator of one's "true colors." The failure of certain individuals to "rise above it" and behave in a respectable manner has not been helpful to their cause, IMO.
The thing that burns me the most about all this is (as mentioned in previous posts) the damage done to my beloved CAP. Someone much wiser than me once said, "A house divided cannot stand." And that's always been my darkest fear in all this. That we might emerge from this so divided as to permanently cripple CAP. Thankfully, it looks like the system worked (perhaps not perfectly, but hey, at this point I'll take it), and at the end of the day we're going to be OK.
So my point for discussion is this. Why did it happen? I already know parts of the answer. A system where a board elects a commander, who in turn appoints the board members is a part of it. But there's more to it. And if we don't learn from history, we're doomed to repeat it.
Have at it.
NEBoom,
I think we have had our fill of this sort of thing. Some want to go on, to drag it out...I think most of us will reject those efforts, or merely ignore them, in favor of building a new GREATER Civil Air Patrol.
Still, what happens to people who win their cause? What of the Abolitionist when slavery is illegal, the cancer research scientists once cancer is cured or of a true revolutionary when the revolution is over?
We need to be like George Washington, win the revolution...get back to the business of living...and help buid a new nation.
Like I said in an earlier post, I give it until next Tuesday...then we can move on. Everything that will ever be said on the matter will have been said. It should be out of our system by then...after that, we can get to the business of running CAP.
I don't know about you, but I plan to found a squadron. ;)
Quote from: Major Carrales on October 04, 2007, 04:34:11 AM
I don't know about you, but I plan to found a squadron. ;)
You're trying to found enough squadrons to create your own group, aren't you :P
[/topic drift]
I just realized why cap.gov looked so different...they took TP's picture off the home page. :)
*BEHOLD MY MASTERFUL POWERS OF OBSERVATION!* :P :P :P
An observation: the root problem will remain as long as the electors of the National Commander are also that individual's subordinate commanders.
It is a conflict of interest of unspeakable proportions.
We need to separate the position of National Board member representing a wing (which should be a past wing CC or some other suitable officer) and that of wing commander.
It won't eliminate all the funny business, but will render it much more difficult to pull off.
Quote from: MajorChuck on October 04, 2007, 03:42:59 AMI got a call from a Fellow Wing Member saying He saw it on the news scrawl on CNN. thats not the best of Publicity.
To heck with CNN, I want CAP's dirty laundry aired on the
O'Reilly Factor!
Quote from: ♠1 on October 04, 2007, 05:16:10 AM
Quote from: MajorChuck on October 04, 2007, 03:42:59 AMI got a call from a Fellow Wing Member saying He saw it on the news scrawl on CNN. thats not the best of Publicity.
To heck with CNN, I want CAP's dirty laundry aired on the O'Reilly Factor!
Easy now... :)
Quote from: ♠SARKID♠ on October 04, 2007, 05:19:21 AM
Quote from: ♠1 on October 04, 2007, 05:16:10 AM
Quote from: MajorChuck on October 04, 2007, 03:42:59 AMI got a call from a Fellow Wing Member saying He saw it on the news scrawl on CNN. thats not the best of Publicity.
To heck with CNN, I want CAP's dirty laundry aired on the O'Reilly Factor!
Easy now... :)
See how some poeple can't just let it end. Bill O'Reilly wouldn't give thsi story the time of day since it, for all intents and purposes, is RESOLVED!
Quote from: Major Carrales on October 04, 2007, 05:21:13 AM
Quote from: ♠SARKID♠ on October 04, 2007, 05:19:21 AM
Quote from: ♠1 on October 04, 2007, 05:16:10 AM
Quote from: MajorChuck on October 04, 2007, 03:42:59 AMI got a call from a Fellow Wing Member saying He saw it on the news scrawl on CNN. thats not the best of Publicity.
To heck with CNN, I want CAP's dirty laundry aired on the O'Reilly Factor!
Easy now... :)
See how some poeple can't just let it end. Bill O'Reilly wouldn't give thsi story the time of day since it, for all intents and purposes, is RESOLVED!
Uh, no. When CAP reaches the point where it is not possible to bring into command someone like Pineda, then I'll share that sentiment.
Quote from: ♠1 on October 04, 2007, 05:38:26 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on October 04, 2007, 05:21:13 AM
Quote from: ♠SARKID♠ on October 04, 2007, 05:19:21 AM
Quote from: ♠1 on October 04, 2007, 05:16:10 AM
Quote from: MajorChuck on October 04, 2007, 03:42:59 AMI got a call from a Fellow Wing Member saying He saw it on the news scrawl on CNN. thats not the best of Publicity.
To heck with CNN, I want CAP's dirty laundry aired on the O'Reilly Factor!
Easy now... :)
See how some poeple can't just let it end. Bill O'Reilly wouldn't give thsi story the time of day since it, for all intents and purposes, is RESOLVED!
Uh, no. When CAP reaches the point where it is not possible to bring into command someone like Pineda, then I'll share that sentiment.
I assume this means you have rejoined CAP?
We, here, plan to move on...to head toward a point where petty politics is relegated to the history books. You seem to want to wallow in this. Those that don't plan to move on have a problem.
Have it your way...but sorry, you are about to be obsolete.
Quote from: ♠1 on October 04, 2007, 05:38:26 AM
Uh, no. When CAP reaches the point where it is not possible to bring into command someone like Pineda, then I'll share that sentiment.
Sounds like an obsession to me.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on October 04, 2007, 05:03:28 AM
An observation: the root problem will remain as long as the electors of the National Commander are also that individual's subordinate commanders.
We need to separate the position of National Board member representing a wing (which should be a past wing CC or some other suitable officer) and that of wing commander.
It won't eliminate all the funny business, but will render it much more difficult to pull off.
But who would appoint the NB Representative?
Quote from: Cecil DP on October 04, 2007, 06:34:26 AM
But who would appoint the NB Representative?
Why not the Wing members themselves? Require NB representatives to hold the grade of at least Major, with at least 3 years of command or staff experience (either Squadron command or higher echelon staff), essentially the same requirements for apointment to the BoG Member at Large. And then, nominees submit their names for consideration, members of the Wing vote during, lets say, the wing conference, and they serve a term to be determined. My thought would be 2-3 years, and they could run for another term, however, they'd need a break in service of at least double the length of term that the NB officer serves. 2 year term? Not elligible for re-election until 4 years after your last term ended.
Appointment requires you resign any current command or staff position.
My idea is very flawed, since I've outlined a very basic idea, but to me, the rank and file member, it feels like I don't have much of an active voice, other then sending annoying emails to my Wing/CC. This could be a plan to put more of the power in the organization back to the members, and not to the elite few.
Believe me guys, I would like nothing better than to get down to business as usual. I have three master ratings, I have finished but not been awarded Level V, I am a mission pilot, and back in my day I was a mission coordinator. Moving toward qualifying as an IC, I have finished the Incident Command System courses through 800. When I left CAP I was working on my CFI for Stan/Eval which I needed for Master Operations. The first move I made upon hearing the news about Pineda was to attempt to rejoin. And I was told that I am not welcome.
Much as I hate to say it, only the first skirmish has been won. The self licking ice cream cone is alive and well. I think we should keep the National Board just as it is, with the representatives being the Wing Kings. We should just separate appointment of Wing Kings from the authority of appointment by those they elect. And Wing King should also have to prove the value of a termination to a truly independent adjudicator. With the present system, it is entirely too easy to eliminate competition with unjust and unfounded 2Bs.
And please, G-d, don't send that bustard to the Coast Guard Auxiliary. He has already done enough damage there by teaching them his paradigm.
This Pineda thread is starting to remind me of the coverage given to Brittney Spears and Lindsay Lohan.
In fact, doesn't Pineda live in the same area as O.J. Simpson? Coincidence? I think not!
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 04, 2007, 10:57:47 AM
This Pineda thread is starting to remind me of the coverage given to Brittney Spears and Lindsay Lohan.
In fact, doesn't Pineda live in the same area as O.J. Simpson? Coincidence? I think not!
Naw, O.J. lives way down by me. Pineda lives way up in Broward.
Lindsay and Brittany only party here.
Regardless of the actions before hand, IMO, the BoG had enough justification to do what they did when he sent out that insubordinate letter to the entire membership. Regardless of whether or not he is or isn't "innocent" of what he was accused of for the suspension in the first place, those actions, IMO, are what sealed his fate.
Talk about efficiency....
I just took the ITO Tech test (for fun dontchaknow!) The completion certificate for the test already shows Brig Gen Courter as Interim National Commander.
Spiffy!
Quote from: biZarre on October 04, 2007, 12:53:56 PM
Talk about efficiency....
I just took the ITO Tech test (for fun dontchaknow!) The completion certificate for the test already shows Brig Gen Courter as Interim National Commander.
Spiffy!
Yeah, it appears that NHQ made changes almost across the board. Certificates were changed. cap.gov homepage and about pages and welcome messages changed. NationalCommander.com website completely pulled down. CAPchannel.com site (http://capchannel.com/national_commander_update) changed. They moved quickly. :)
Quote from: Skyray on October 04, 2007, 11:16:50 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 04, 2007, 10:57:47 AM
This Pineda thread is starting to remind me of the coverage given to Brittney Spears and Lindsay Lohan.
In fact, doesn't Pineda live in the same area as O.J. Simpson? Coincidence? I think not!
Naw, O.J. lives way down by me. Pineda lives way up in Broward.
Lindsay and Brittany only party here.
I suppose if you live down there in "North Cuba" you are laboring under the delusion that Dade and Broward counties are two different places.
From this far off, it's ALL Miami
And we made AVWEB:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/CivilAirPatrolCommander_TonyPineda_Fired_196279-1.html
Another shot in the arm for our recruiting efforts!
It's also on Military.com
The story hit the Air Force Magazine daily report, except they spelled General Courter's name as "Coulter."
How come Air Force Magazine only uses CAP rank when we screw up?
For those of us who work closely with the cadets, I would want to encourage you to use this time to provide them with good, accurate information, explaining the processes CAP used in coming to this action, and offering assurance that the organization has good people in all levels of leadership (even if you don't fully believe it, I think it is the right thing to communicate to the cadets.)
I wonder what myths are going to grow up around this episode over the years? We still hear multiple versions of stories about why our epalets went to maroon and about various other issues involving former national commanders.
Well, here's the AF Times web site:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/10/ap_pineda_071003/
Quote from: Cecil DP on October 04, 2007, 06:34:26 AM
But who would appoint the NB Representative?
I can think of several ways:
1) election as previous poster suggested....not necessarily my preference, rather too much like CG Aux for my taste, but it might have some benefits (though politicking would become even more widespread!)
2) a selection board could be formed in each region to periodically 'rank' candidates or applicants from the various wings....when a term expired or opening otherwise occurred, sitting wing CC could select from top three on his wing's list
3) immediate past wing CC could automatically get the post on satisfactory completion of term of command (there would need to be provisions for alternate selection if this was the main method use).
I'm sure there are other sensible ways to accomplish this, just don't occur to me right now!
The major difference in the Coast Guard Auxiliary is not the elective process. High level politics is just as bad in the Auxiliary as it is here. The big difference is that no Auxiliarist can terminate another Auxiliarist. To get rid of someone, you have to convince a relatively high rank active duty Coast Guard officer that the cost benefit analysis weighs toward termination. The Coast Guard pretty much doesn't care if he is in the way of your ambition, as long as he is productive and not disruptive.
The elective process makes things work better at the local level for sure in the CG Aux. There is a better turnover of local leaders and they get chosen more or less for their abilities not how they are liked by someone higher up in the organization.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 04, 2007, 05:46:36 PM
The elective process makes things work better at the local level for sure in the CG Aux. There is a better turnover of local leaders and they get chosen more or less for their abilities not how they are liked by someone higher up in the organization.
Very good point. The one year term of office with the two term limit helps, too. The major problem with those qualities is that when you visit an older established flotilla, almost everyone you see (including me) is wearing past Flotilla Commander shoulder boards.
Got this off NOTF's myspace.
In an interview with Associated Press reporter Phillip Rawls, former CAP Maj. Gen. Tony Pineda, the Civil Air Patrol's ousted national commander, was quoted as saying: "I came to this country without even speaking English and I leave this place a major general. That's something no one can take from me."
And, in reply to a request for an interview from Phil Blansett, the News of the Force Nashville, Tenn., bureau chief, Pineda wrote: "Do not send me any more e-mails. This is the fifth time, you idiot!"
The Civil Air Patrol is the volunteer, civilian Auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force, but their officers are not commissioned officers of either the U.S. Air Force or the military. Pineda apparently doesn't understand that he was never a "real" major general.
The Civil Air Patrol has removed its national commander after investigating complaints that another patrol member took Air Force tests for him.
Pineda denied that anyone took tests for him, and said yesterday that he never got to tell his side to the CAP's Board of Governors. "After being a volunteer in this organization for 20 years, this is how they pay me back," he told The Associated Press in a phone interview.
Pineda was suspended two months ago after another CAP member said he took tests for Pineda for the U.S. Air Force's Air Command and Staff College in 2002 and 2003. The disputed tests were for six courses with topics including national security, strategy and war, and leadership and command.
Pineda was replaced by the volunteer organization's first female leader, Brig. Gen. Amy S. Courter, of South Lyon, Mich. Courter, a board member, said the CAP inspector general's findings about the tests prompted the decision Tuesday night to change leadership. Although Pineda did not appear before the board, his denials were included in the inspector general's report, she said.
Pineda is a retired law enforcement officer from Plantation, Fla, who was a special agent of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE).
The investigation began after Lt. Col. Raymond Hayden of Tamarac, Fla., complained in December 2006 to the Tampa, Fla.-based online military e-zine News of the Force that Pineda had assigned him to take the tests.
Hayden, who is no longer active in CAP, said he spent three hours with investigators and was not surprised by Pineda's removal because it wasn't a case of one person's word against another's. "There had been other people who knew," he said.
Courter, 45, will serve as interim commander until the CAP's National Board meets in August 2008 to select a commander. She said she plans to seek that position.
Immediately after News of the Force first broke the story of the firing of Pineda, the story was picked up and run by no less than 59 national news outlets.
NOTF MYSPACE?!?!?!
Ok, now you guys have hit rock bottom.
Why are people making a big deal about The new CAP CC being the first female Commander of Civil Air Patrol, but no one made a big deal about the former commander being the first minority Commander of Civil Air PAtrol.
Another question: They stripped him of his rank? What does that mean exactly? its not like he was getting paid as a Maj Gen. He can still wear his uniform if he bought it. What is CAP gonna do. Arrest him if they catch him wearing his stars?
My former Squadron Commander who left CAP in 1992 still wears that ugly smurf looking flight suit with his rank and other "CAP" paraphanelia. I cant just tell him to take it off. He paid for it. It wasnt issued to him.
I had a big "Scrolling" sign the first time I saw Eclipse's post.
On another subject, it is actually against the law to wear a CAP uniform if you are not in CAP. I never heard of anyone being busted on it, and if Tony wants to wear his TPU, I say let him.
Well now that makes me want to ask a question. What can CAP do if Pineda continues to wear the stars? I don't know if he's been completely kicked out of the organization, but what can be done if he is out of the program, and continues to claim to be a member?
"the Tampa, Fla.-based online military e-zine News of the Force that Pineda had assigned him to take the tests."
I think there might be some Hubris in that line.
I'm sorry, a CAP Major General is a "real" thing. CAP rank, be it not equal or comparaible to USAF RANK, however, it is real for what it is.
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on October 04, 2007, 08:38:25 PM
Well now that makes me want to ask a question. What can CAP do if Pineda continues to wear the stars? I don't know if he's been completely kicked out of the organization, but what can be done if he is out of the program, and continues to claim to be a member?
Nothing. You cant arrest him. and CAP cant sue him. Any joe blow off the street can call Vanguard and order whatever they want.
Quote from: Major Carrales on October 04, 2007, 08:39:32 PMI'm sorry, a CAP Major General is a "real" thing. CAP rank, be it not equal or comparaible to USAF RANK, however, it is real for what it is.
What, costume jewelery?
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on October 04, 2007, 08:38:25 PM
Well now that makes me want to ask a question. What can CAP do if Pineda continues to wear the stars? I don't know if he's been completely kicked out of the organization, but what can be done if he is out of the program, and continues to claim to be a member?
Claiming is one thing, wearing a uniform and attempting to attend CAP activities is another thing altogether. One he might be able to get away with, the other will generate more problems for him.
Nobody really cares about claims. There are loads of people that claimed to have been military, and Special Forces, or Recon, or a SEAL, or otherwise. Sooner or later they get busted on it. Besides, considering the Web nowadays, you can punch someones name in and get something about them fairly quickly. For Antonia Pineda, that will bite him in the tail rather quickly.
Now see, here's another problem. If CAP terminates a member, why isn't there a way to stop these members from trying to attend CAP activities?
Quote from: MIKE on October 04, 2007, 08:47:30 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on October 04, 2007, 08:39:32 PMI'm sorry, a CAP Major General is a "real" thing. CAP rank, be it not equal or comparaible to USAF RANK, however, it is real for what it is.
What, costume jewelery?
C'mon MIKE. You should no better than to mock this organization. If you can't take CAP seriously when it counts...I question your resolve.
missed the quote button... -TA
Quote from: MIKE on October 04, 2007, 08:47:30 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on October 04, 2007, 08:39:32 PMI'm sorry, a CAP Major General is a "real" thing. CAP rank, be it not equal or comparaible to USAF RANK, however, it is real for what it is.
What, costume jewelery?
Well, for Pineda at least!
Rank doesn't make the person, the person makes the rank. For example, Brig Gen Courter is a "real" general; Pineda never was (though he was in his own mind).
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on October 04, 2007, 08:51:52 PM
Now see, here's another problem. If CAP terminates a member, why isn't there a way to stop these members from trying to attend CAP activities?
You can call local law enforcement, and inform them that the individual is not welcome. In the case of anyplace that someone pays for the space they're using, it's not difficult. Might be a little harder when it comes to donated space. Then it would probably be a case of conferencing with the owner and explaining the problem.
Technically, it's trespassing if a person shows up someplace where they are not welcome, and have been informed of it. But they do have to told that they aren't welcome.
Quote from: Major Carrales on October 04, 2007, 08:52:59 PM
C'mon MIKE. You should no better than to mock this organization. If you can't take CAP seriously when it counts...I question your resolve.
A guy who doesn't take all the ancillary (your word) stuff too seriously is a guy I want on my side.
There is also a federal law prohibiting wear of the Air Force uniform and insignia, and the definition of "Air Force" includes CAP. The TPU, I do not know.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 04, 2007, 09:03:50 PM
There is also a federal law prohibiting wear of the Air Force uniform and insignia, and the definition of "Air Force" includes CAP. The TPU, I do not know.
Isn't there something in the US Code that talks about not wearing the uniform of the US military auxiliaries? Should cover it I imagine.
I think so, Hawk.
The trouble is, I never thought about it. Guys who are AUTHORIZED to wear the TPU hate doing so, I never thought someone would wear one who didn't have to.
Quote from: Hawk200 on October 04, 2007, 09:05:22 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 04, 2007, 09:03:50 PM
There is also a federal law prohibiting wear of the Air Force uniform and insignia, and the definition of "Air Force" includes CAP. The TPU, I do not know.
Isn't there something in the US Code that talks about not wearing the uniform of the US military auxiliaries? Should cover it I imagine.
There is, and it is somewhere in Title 10. I just dowloaded all 2132 pages of Title 10, and threw up my hands in despair because it is not that important to me. If he wants to claim that he is a Major General and that can't be taken away from him, I will try to stifle my mental image of
HMS Pinafore and refrain from laughter.
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on October 04, 2007, 08:51:52 PM
Now see, here's another problem. If CAP terminates a member, why isn't there a way to stop these members from trying to attend CAP activities?
Ask >Mr.< Pineda politely to leave. If he doesn't, its trespassing.
If he makes a scene, its disorderly conduct.
This is true for anyone not welcome at a CAP activity, member or not.
My separation of association with CAP came probably as rapidly as the gentleman under discussion and with a lot less warning. Consequently, I was stuck with between $600 and $800 worth of CAP distinctive uniforms (clearly identifiable as CAP). One of my net maven friends researched the matter, and came up with a federal law that it was illegal to wear them. I just don't happen to remember the cite, and his father just passed away in New York so he is not available to reproduce the research. But there is a law against it.
Does it really matter if he wears the uniform, says he a major general. He said in an interview he is glad to be rid of the patrol. He gone not even listed in the corporate telephone book, or can be looked up on the national members database. Lets start rebuilding an organization where we can not have a repeat of this again.
One of you guys said;
He said in an interview he is glad to be rid of the patrol.
Missed that one, I did. Where did you see it?
So ok. Is Pineda officially out of CAP, or just as National/CC?
You might have missed it. An Incident Commander ran his name on the National Membership database, and it came up no results. So he is out of the database, and presumably out of CAP.
Quote from: Skyray on October 04, 2007, 11:57:11 PM
You might have missed it. An Incident Commander ran his name on the National Membership database, and it came up no results. So he is out of the database, and presumably out of CAP.
Justice has been served.
Quote from: ♠1 on October 04, 2007, 08:56:29 PM
Quote from: MIKE on October 04, 2007, 08:47:30 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on October 04, 2007, 08:39:32 PMI'm sorry, a CAP Major General is a "real" thing. CAP rank, be it not equal or comparaible to USAF RANK, however, it is real for what it is.
What, costume jewelery?
Well, for Pineda at least!
Rank doesn't make the person, the person makes the rank. For example, Brig Gen Courter is a "real" general; Pineda never was (though he was in his own mind).
What makes Courter a "real" General? Because you happen to like her as opposed to Pineda? Pineda was duly elected by the proper procedures. he is an authentic CAP Maj gen. He can claim he was a Gen becaus ehe was. Regardless of wheather we lik ehim or not . he was a Maj Gen in the CAP history.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 04, 2007, 09:03:50 PM
There is also a federal law prohibiting wear of the Air Force uniform and insignia, and the definition of "Air Force" includes CAP. The TPU, I do not know.
Then I muct be breaking the law then. I am an Army 1lt and a CAP capt. Am I then impersonating an Air Force senior offocer? I dont think so.
There is no law prohibiting a regular joe to buy an air force style uniform. I have never seen that law. It is ileagal to impersonate an officer by trying to pan yourself off as one. But if you buy a CAP uniform and rank from vanguard. No police officer is going to come up to you and give you a ticket.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 04, 2007, 09:45:51 PM
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on October 04, 2007, 08:51:52 PM
Now see, here's another problem. If CAP terminates a member, why isn't there a way to stop these members from trying to attend CAP activities?
Ask >Mr.< Pineda politely to leave. If he doesn't, its trespassing.
If he makes a scene, its disorderly conduct.
This is true for anyone not welcome at a CAP activity, member or not.
thats true. But if Gen Pineda ever came to my squadron, I would invite him in and ask him to speak to my cadets. It would be good for them to see a Minority CAP officer that made it to the National CXCommander. I dont agree with a lot of things he did like the uniform, cahnging the term Senior Member to officer and the U.S. Civil Air Patrol thing. But he was a CAP CC and I have to honor that.
Everybody is all up in arms because he cheated on a test. I am sure he is not the only CAP Senior member to do something unethical. He just got called out because people didnt like him. i am sure that if some other members pissed the right people off, they would get called out as well. None of us are perfect. None of us can throw stones.
Quote from: flyguy06 on October 05, 2007, 12:10:30 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 04, 2007, 09:03:50 PM
There is also a federal law prohibiting wear of the Air Force uniform and insignia, and the definition of "Air Force" includes CAP. The TPU, I do not know.
Then I muct be breaking the law then. I am an Army 1lt and a CAP capt. Am I then impersonating an Air Force senior offocer? I dont think so.
There is no law prohibiting a regular joe to buy an air force style uniform. I have never seen that law. It is ileagal to impersonate an officer by trying to pan yourself off as one. But if you buy a CAP uniform and rank from vanguard. No police officer is going to come up to you and give you a ticket.
Actually, I think there IS a law prohibiting the unauthorized wear of military insignia. It is very rarely, if ever, enforced, but I think it is still on the books.
Also, I think you misunderstood my post. It is unlawful to impersonate a CAP officer as well as military officers.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 05, 2007, 12:24:38 AM
Quote from: flyguy06 on October 05, 2007, 12:10:30 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 04, 2007, 09:03:50 PM
There is also a federal law prohibiting wear of the Air Force uniform and insignia, and the definition of "Air Force" includes CAP. The TPU, I do not know.
Then I muct be breaking the law then. I am an Army 1lt and a CAP capt. Am I then impersonating an Air Force senior offocer? I dont think so.
There is no law prohibiting a regular joe to buy an air force style uniform. I have never seen that law. It is ileagal to impersonate an officer by trying to pan yourself off as one. But if you buy a CAP uniform and rank from vanguard. No police officer is going to come up to you and give you a ticket.
Actually, I think there IS a law prohibiting the unauthorized wear of military insignia. It is very rarely, if ever, enforced, but I think it is still on the books.
Also, I think you misunderstood my post. It is unlawful to impersonate a CAP officer as well as military officers.
Actually you both are partially correct. Once you are out, you cannot wear the AF uniform or the CAP uniform, but what is the AF and CAP uniform?
The only thing the AF owns "copyrighted" on their uniform is the buttons, since they have the AF wings. What does CAP own of their uniform? The epulattes ?
I have a boring job, but one with internet access.
Title 18 United States Code, Chapter 33, Sec. 702:
"Whoever, in any place within the jurisdiction of the United States or in the Canal Zone, without authority, wears the uniform OR A DISTINCTIVE PART THEREOF or ANYTHING SIMILAR to a distinctive part of the uniform of any of the armed forces of the United States, Public Health Service, or ANY AUXILIARY OF SUCH, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."
This appears to protect both the USAF uniform and the TPU.
^^^I'd like to, but can't argue.....
Kach, where did you get that info? I'd like to look over it.
Google for the section.
Title 18 USC, Chapter 33, Section 702.
If you read the whole chapter you can also go to jail for an illegal depiction of Smokey The Bear.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 05, 2007, 01:41:52 AM
Google for the section.
Title 18 USC, Chapter 33, Section 702.
If you read the whole chapter you can also go to jail for an illegal depiction of Smokey The Bear.
Because he's a federal copyrighted image, right?
Quote from: tedda on October 04, 2007, 09:02:52 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on October 04, 2007, 08:52:59 PM
C'mon MIKE. You should no better than to mock this organization. If you can't take CAP seriously when it counts...I question your resolve.
A guy who doesn't take all the ancillary (your word) stuff too seriously is a guy I want on my side.
Discussing the removal of Cadet Shoulder boards, or changing the color of CAP shoulder marks is ancillary, calling into question the validity of CAP rank is quite another. One is of "decor" the other is of "substance." If CAP Officers are not "real" CAP Officers, then we are not worthy...we are charlatans. Is that what MIKE meant?
CAP Rank is traditional, it shows professional development and it is modeled after our mother service.
A CAP General is a "general in the Civil Air Patrol," that's as real as eating an apple pie at a ballpark.
One must not come on a forum like this, in an organization with a general "inferiority complex" and make remarks that make it seem like we are posers and pretenders. General Courter is a "real general," as was Brig General Anderson or any other you could bring forth.
I don't intend, nor will I chose, to argue over this.
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of the cow you're having.
Thanks for not arguing though. The thread wasn't going in that direction.
Quote from: tedda on October 05, 2007, 02:26:09 AM
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of the cow you're having.
Thanks for not arguing though. The thread wasn't going in that direction.
Bupkes!
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on October 05, 2007, 01:46:31 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 05, 2007, 01:41:52 AM
Google for the section.
Title 18 USC, Chapter 33, Section 702.
If you read the whole chapter you can also go to jail for an illegal depiction of Smokey The Bear.
Because he's a federal copyrighted image, right?
Copyright law is one thing, but this falls under federal criminal law. It is also a crime to use or posess a fake police badge, or use any official seals of any federal department.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 05, 2007, 02:42:07 AM
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on October 05, 2007, 01:46:31 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 05, 2007, 01:41:52 AM
Google for the section.
Title 18 USC, Chapter 33, Section 702.
If you read the whole chapter you can also go to jail for an illegal depiction of Smokey The Bear.
Because he's a federal copyrighted image, right?
Copyright law is one thing, but this falls under federal criminal law. It is also a crime to use or posess a fake police badge, or use any official seals of any federal department.
Would it be illegal to have them posted as pictures on websites like Myspace? I mean in a sense of showing support because you want to someday belong to that organization. Like say I wanted to be a part of the CIA, and I had their logo in the many pictures of myspace (which I don't). Would that be illegal as long as you are not claiming to be a part of the CIA?
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 05, 2007, 01:01:29 AM
I have a boring job, but one with internet access.
Title 18 United States Code, Chapter 33, Sec. 702:
"Whoever, in any place within the jurisdiction of the United States or in the Canal Zone, without authority, wears the uniform OR A DISTINCTIVE PART THEREOF or ANYTHING SIMILAR to a distinctive part of the uniform of any of the armed forces of the United States, Public Health Service, or ANY AUXILIARY OF SUCH, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."
This appears to protect both the USAF uniform and the TPU.
So, people who go to the local Army Navy store and buy BDU pants and wear cut off BDUs or BDU shirts are breaking the law? that also means that JROTC cadets are breaking the law. They are not really in the service. they ar ein High School. I have seen entertainers wear them in videos. Are they criminals as well?
Quote from: flyguy06 on October 05, 2007, 03:17:54 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 05, 2007, 01:01:29 AM
I have a boring job, but one with internet access.
Title 18 United States Code, Chapter 33, Sec. 702:
"Whoever, in any place within the jurisdiction of the United States or in the Canal Zone, without authority, wears the uniform OR A DISTINCTIVE PART THEREOF or ANYTHING SIMILAR to a distinctive part of the uniform of any of the armed forces of the United States, Public Health Service, or ANY AUXILIARY OF SUCH, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."
This appears to protect both the USAF uniform and the TPU.
So, people who go to the local Army Navy store and buy BDU pants and wear cut off BDUs or BDU shirts are breaking the law? that also means that JROTC cadets are breaking the law. They are not really in the service. they ar ein High School. I have seen entertainers wear them in videos. Are they criminals as well?
But they don't wear anything that could be interpreted as military. Nothing to identify Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or any of the respective auxiliaries.
Quote from: tedda on October 05, 2007, 02:26:09 AM
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of the cow you're having.
(http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r296/mlcurtis69/ROFL.gif)
Quote from: Lancer on October 05, 2007, 03:20:57 AM
Quote from: tedda on October 05, 2007, 02:26:09 AM
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of the cow you're having.
(http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r296/mlcurtis69/ROFL.gif)
And here's Yiddish phrase for you...
GORNISHT!
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on October 05, 2007, 03:20:48 AM
Quote from: flyguy06 on October 05, 2007, 03:17:54 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 05, 2007, 01:01:29 AM
I have a boring job, but one with internet access.
Title 18 United States Code, Chapter 33, Sec. 702:
"Whoever, in any place within the jurisdiction of the United States or in the Canal Zone, without authority, wears the uniform OR A DISTINCTIVE PART THEREOF or ANYTHING SIMILAR to a distinctive part of the uniform of any of the armed forces of the United States, Public Health Service, or ANY AUXILIARY OF SUCH, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."
This appears to protect both the USAF uniform and the TPU.
So, people who go to the local Army Navy store and buy BDU pants and wear cut off BDUs or BDU shirts are breaking the law? that also means that JROTC cadets are breaking the law. They are not really in the service. they ar ein High School. I have seen entertainers wear them in videos. Are they criminals as well?
But they don't wear anything that could be interpreted as military. Nothing to identify Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or any of the respective auxiliaries.
In his definition, it said
wears the uniform OR A DISTINCTIVE PART THEREOF BDU pants are distinctive
Quote from: flyguy06 on October 05, 2007, 03:17:54 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 05, 2007, 01:01:29 AM
I have a boring job, but one with internet access.
Title 18 United States Code, Chapter 33, Sec. 702:
"Whoever, in any place within the jurisdiction of the United States or in the Canal Zone, without authority, wears the uniform OR A DISTINCTIVE PART THEREOF or ANYTHING SIMILAR to a distinctive part of the uniform of any of the armed forces of the United States, Public Health Service, or ANY AUXILIARY OF SUCH, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."
This appears to protect both the USAF uniform and the TPU.
So, people who go to the local Army Navy store and buy BDU pants and wear cut off BDUs or BDU shirts are breaking the law? that also means that JROTC cadets are breaking the law. They are not really in the service. they ar ein High School. I have seen entertainers wear them in videos. Are they criminals as well?
JROTC is specifically allowed to wear the uniforms, as is anyone so designated by the service secretaries.
Actors are also specifically exempt from this law.
But generally speaking...yes....all those Bubbas who buy and wear military uniforms and their distinctive parts are in fact breaking the law.
But that is just another one of those un-enforceable laws.
Quote from: flyguy06 on October 05, 2007, 04:48:54 AM
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on October 05, 2007, 03:20:48 AM
Quote from: flyguy06 on October 05, 2007, 03:17:54 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 05, 2007, 01:01:29 AM
I have a boring job, but one with internet access.
Title 18 United States Code, Chapter 33, Sec. 702:
"Whoever, in any place within the jurisdiction of the United States or in the Canal Zone, without authority, wears the uniform OR A DISTINCTIVE PART THEREOF or ANYTHING SIMILAR to a distinctive part of the uniform of any of the armed forces of the United States, Public Health Service, or ANY AUXILIARY OF SUCH, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."
This appears to protect both the USAF uniform and the TPU.
So, people who go to the local Army Navy store and buy BDU pants and wear cut off BDUs or BDU shirts are breaking the law? that also means that JROTC cadets are breaking the law. They are not really in the service. they ar ein High School. I have seen entertainers wear them in videos. Are they criminals as well?
But they don't wear anything that could be interpreted as military. Nothing to identify Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or any of the respective auxiliaries.
In his definition, it said wears the uniform OR A DISTINCTIVE PART THEREOF BDU pants are distinctive
No, BDU pants are not distinctive. The BDU shirt is not distinctive until you add CAP insignia. I've seen Air Force commissaries where the baggers wore the light blue USAF shirt. Unless they slap Air Force or CAP insignia on that shirt, they're fine.
We had a really dirtbag Air Force 2d Lt when I was active duty, who would remove his grade insignia and nametag from his blue shirt, slap on a ball cap and declare himself "in civilian clothes" because he no longer wore distinctive insignia. Correct, but a stunningly poor example for an officer to set. One of the few O-1's I ever saw who was declared not qualified for promotion to O-2, as well.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 05, 2007, 01:41:52 AM
Google for the section.
Title 18 USC, Chapter 33, Section 702.
If you read the whole chapter you can also go to jail for an illegal depiction of Smokey The Bear.
(sigh) it's "Smokey Bear", not "Smokey the Bear". You wouldn't say "Easter the Bunny" would you?
:-)
If we want why not start another tread about the who can and can not wear uniforms or any part of it. If you want discuss the wearing of uniforms with vets on the fourth of July, members of the VFW or Am. Leg. members who wear their uniform badges on their hats at fund raisers's or a MoH recipients who goes on TV wearing his medal. What TP wears or does not wear does not matter to us any more.
Quote from: flyguy06 on October 05, 2007, 03:17:54 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on October 05, 2007, 01:01:29 AM
I have a boring job, but one with internet access.
Title 18 United States Code, Chapter 33, Sec. 702:
"Whoever, in any place within the jurisdiction of the United States or in the Canal Zone, without authority, wears the uniform OR A DISTINCTIVE PART THEREOF or ANYTHING SIMILAR to a distinctive part of the uniform of any of the armed forces of the United States, Public Health Service, or ANY AUXILIARY OF SUCH, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."
This appears to protect both the USAF uniform and the TPU.
So, people who go to the local Army Navy store and buy BDU pants and wear cut off BDUs or BDU shirts are breaking the law? that also means that JROTC cadets are breaking the law. They are not really in the service. they ar ein High School. I have seen entertainers wear them in videos. Are they criminals as well?
I do not think a court would consider the BDU camouflage patter to be sufficiently "Distinctive" to fall under this law, provided that the wearer did not adorn the uniform with any military insignia.
JROTC cadets are authorized to wear the military uniform with special insignia. Just like us and just like our cadets.
There is an exception in the law later on, in a follow-on section, for theatrical performances.
Topic or lock.
Quote from: JCJ on October 05, 2007, 01:11:20 PM
(sigh) it's "Smokey Bear", not "Smokey the Bear". You wouldn't say "Easter the Bunny" would you?
:-)
but Smokey is the name of a bear and Easter is a
type of bunny :P
Quote from: USCAP_truth on October 05, 2007, 01:31:54 PM
If we want why not start another tread about the who can and can not wear uniforms or any part of it. If you want discuss the wearing of uniforms with vets on the fourth of July, members of the VFW or Am. Leg. members who wear their uniform badges on their hats at fund raisers's or a MoH recipients who goes on TV wearing his medal. What TP wears or does not wear does not matter to us any more.
"Members of military societies" can wear uniform insignia that they have earned. Medal of Honor recipients may wear the Medal in the shower if they want to.
What TP wears is, of course, no longer an issue unless something he does, says, or wears affects CAP.
There were questions about exactly what the law is with respect to military uniforms, and I myself did not know if the TPU came under the protections of that same federal law, so I looked it up.
Also, I had nothing else to do at work.