National Commander's Suspension Coming to an end Sunday

[Pylon]

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.

[RiverAux]

so 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:

1. 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.  

[Skyray]

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.

[PHall]

so 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:

1. 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.

[SDF_Specialist]

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.

[MIKE]

Topics merged.  How many separate NOTF threads do we really need?

[SDF_Specialist]

Topics merged.  How many NOTF separate threads do we really need?

Sorry Captain. Bad sense of judgement.

[ZigZag911]

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!

[Walkman]

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. 

[bosshawk]

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.

[Pylon]

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.

[bosshawk]

Mike: I certainly concur with you.

[0]

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.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Perhaps we should organize...

"The Guardhouse, Barracks, and Sea Bar Association"  The GBSBA!

[JohnKachenmeister]

Or...

The "Guardhouse Attorneys and Sealawyer's Bar Association Group"  (GASBAG)

[MajorSER]

If we joined GASBAG would we get an ID card just like the Admirals from Nebraska?

[Al Sayre]

I've heard plenty of Admirals who were GASBAGS...

[RiverAux]

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. 

[SDF_Specialist]

So if there was actually a BoG meeting today, when can we expect to hear anything about what was discussed?

[Eclipse]

"When it's done."