Changing Civil Air Patrol to U.S. Civil Air Patrol

[LtCol White]

::sings:: this is the thread that never ends...

Ya think???

[RiverAux]

Okay, I guess I can't expect everyone to remember everything posted in a thread this long:

CAP Constitution:

ARTICLE II
NAME AND STATUS
The name of the Corporation shall be "Civil Air Patrol" and its status is that of the volunteer civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force. The Corporation may also be referred to as "Civil Air Patrol" or by such other titles as may be approved in the Bylaws.

Bylaws Section 2

2.1 The name of Civil Air Patrolmay be stated by any of the following:
a. "Civil Air Patrol"
b. "Civil Air Patrol, incorporated under Special Act of Congress approved July 1, 1946, Public Law 476, 79th Congress"

So, Article 2 gives the name of the organization and says that we may be referred to as the Civil Air Patrol or any other title approved in the bylaws.  The bylaws only approve 2 alternative names, though (not quoted here) it does grant permission to refer to our status as the USAF Auxiliary. 

So, since the CAP Constitution does not allow us to refer to ourselves as the US Civil Air Patrol, any use of such a name is in violation. 

[DNall]

You're getting overly techincal now... That states the legal name of the organization for the purpose of doing business. Basically they can be sued or sign letters of credit & the like in that name. That doesn't have anything to do with why it says AFAux on our nametags or why that was put on the planes or why they can put "US" on the front of our branch tapes. They are NOT legally changing the name of the organization. Not that it would be very hard for them to do so, but that is very clearly not the intent or the techinicality happening here. If you don't like the change itself then feel free to grumble, but you technicality isn't going to fly to stop this. If you press them on it they will formally change the name of the org, and that'd be a PITA to correct on everything else.

Look, all I'm going to say is Gen <McPeak came along & changed all kinds of stuff about AF uniforms & culture. Then he retired & within a couple years most all of it was dropped with a reactionary move back the other direction. MajGen Pineda has led the way on a lot of changes & been generally abrassive. He had his pick for Vice CC here six months ago & what he got with that supposedly stacked deck was the person he wanted least specifically to balance him. Don't you think the selection & actions of the next couple national commanders will move to reverse either the spirit or letter of most everything this guy has done? Just don;t worry so much about technical details that aren't very meaningful. Soldier thru & you'll find CAP, like most things, tends to balance itself pretty well over the long run.

[RiverAux]

Dnall, I'm surprised to see you take this view as you have been very adamant that we would need to change laws and all sorts of things to call ourselves the Air Force Auxiliary. 

The Constitutional provisions I cited do not give any such limitations as you mention.  It says what the name of the organization is and doesn't allow for any others to be used.  Is putting U.S. Civil Air Patrol on BDU nametapes "changing the name" of the organization.   Maybe not, but remember, I have been very reliably informed that MG Pineda has on at least one recent occassions ordered press releases to be sent out with "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" as the header and mentioned in the text of the releases. 

Yes, it is a very technical argument and I'm under no illusion that my bringing it up here will change the NB's mind. 

You're right...it would be very easy for them to change this and I would encourage them to do so.  Its always better to do things the right way.  I strongly suspect that given the no-notice nature of this decision placed in front of the NB that no one really thought about this aspect of what they're doing.  CAP Constitutional changes aren't all that hard to do so this should be an easy mistake to correct.

Granted, I still think its a mistake, but if they take the time to do things the right way, I'll go along queitly. 

[DNall]

Dnall, I'm surprised to see you take this view as you have been very adamant that we would need to change laws and all sorts of things to call ourselves the Air Force Auxiliary.

Yeah we would, but that's cause AF owns the rights to that name, not us. It would require congressional action to transfer those right to CAP (in the form of a dba), and would require making CAP fully subordinate to AF regs to make that functional.

The AF doesn't own the Civil Air Patrol, US Civil Air Patrol, or any other version.



Respectfully, take a step back and try to see this from another perspective, just stick with me for two minutes.

Check the workding of those rules again, go ahead take a look... got it? Okay, you see how it says "MAY be stated as any of the following" and "MAY be refered to." You notice also how it never has a list of things it "may not" be known as, nor does it say it "WILL ONLY be known as," it doesn't use the legal word SHALL, it specifically says MAY. That equals permission to do something, not restriction from doing things not listed.

You also notice some things not on that list? Things like any version of AFAux, or the abbreviation "CAP?" Yet we've used those extensively since the easliest days of the org. They are even used in legal MOUs (which may not be the best idea). See that's cause we ARE allowed to go by other names w/o formally changing the name of the org. You're reading something into the CnB that just isn't there

In my mind, "US Civil Air Patrol" is legally just another context of the legal name of the org, just the same as using CAP, or TXWG, or any other abbreviation.


NOTES:
1) There was an open notice a while back recommending use of "US Civil Air Patrol" in new releases. I got a cool looking letterhead & I ain't changing it for a recommendation.

2) I'm with ya 150% that the need to think things all the way thru in advance & document that they've done so before making decisions the right & responsible way. That's why I'm in this conversation at all. Frankly if he'd proposed this as a new name for the org it would have been shot down by a wide margin. If he intends to do such a thing, this would be the slippery slope manipulation to do so thru baby steps. It isn't going to fly though & as I said a good part of what he's don will be changed after he's out of office (another good reason not to rush out & buy stuff).

[mikeylikey1]

Now that the tapes have "U.S." in them, that means they can be produced by whomever right?  No more nasty letters from NHQ telling manufacturers to stop making tapes right??

[MIKE]

I think this thread has pretty much run it's course... If DNall and RiverAux want to continue the debate, they can take it to PM.