Starting Anew -- How Should CAP Be Governed?

[isuhawkeye]

The IAWG had a change of command.  Gen Courter countermanded the Region Commander's pick for the wing commander.

The looser got upset.....burned CAP with the National Guard and the State.....CAP lost a bunch of funding and credibility.

This is completley incorrect. 

First, The region commander made the selection.  THen he announced his pick, then they schedueled a change of command.  Then the Colonel changed his mind and chose the other candidate.  General Courter stood behind the decisions of her region commander.

Second, The CAP appropriation was pulled durring the legislative session before the wing commander selection was announced.  Its not the role of former members to champion CAP in thestate legislature. 

Third, Credibility has nothing to do with particular members leaving.  No bridges were burned by people leaving.  Relationships were tarnighsed by the professionalism of the organization, its processes, and its leadership. 

CAP still has a seat in the SEOC, and on several committees.  The Wing participates with state agencies in a number of roles. 

[billford1]

Our Squadron Commander has been around for a long time. No one else would step up and pour that much time into what he does for CAP. Our membership feel like if it isn't broke don't fix it. I've seen other squadrons where the Commander was stretched to thin to have enough time to attend. The Squadrons like that often fold.

[FW]

"There is NO checks and balance.  The NB can do what ever they want no matter how stupid or misguided.  The national command can't make changes because of old guard hold outs from previous adminstations.  The national command does not even get to pick his/her command team...but is forced to accept a vice that is often a political rival and has no desire in seeing the current commander succeed ..."


The above statement is just not true. There are no "old guard holdouts". The current commander has been in office for well over 2 years now.  Almost every member of the NEC has been appointed by her and, about half of the wing commanders were appointed under her tenure. By the time her term ends, she will have selected virtually every member of the NB.  The national commander has selected every member of the "command" team. Yes, the NB has veto power however, that has never been exersised.  The Vice Commander is the only other member of the "team" elected by the NB.  And, thank god for that.  If the vice was "appointed", we would have Dan Levitch as our National Commander now....  Also, the Vice Commander has NO authority other than serving as a member of the BoG, NEC and, NB.  As such, the CV has just as much "power" as any other member of those bodies.  The role of the CV is to get elected 3 times by making friends, helping the subordinate commanders and assisting the National Commander in inforcing the regulations, decisons and policies of the BoG, CAP/CC, NEC and NB.  I really don't care about the personal relationship between the CC and CV. And, what goes on behind closed doors is none of our business. As long as CAP moves forward, I'm happy. 

As for the "unchecked" power of the NB, I will remind our readers that the Board of Governors has ultimate authority to change any and all regulations and policies.  If the NB were to make a decison which would adversly effect the CAP, the BoG would most deffinately intervine. 

As I've stated before; the idea of a National Commander selecting the Vice Commander would be a BIG mistake.  If we want positive change, I would think there should be BoG confirmation of both positions.  I don't think public law would allow for anything else (the BoG can not appoint members to itself).

[Майор Хаткевич]

If the vice was "appointed", we would have Dan Levitch as our National Commander now....

This Dan Levitch?

[FW]

you betcha! 

[Nolan Teel]

huh?

[RiverAux]

I agree that that is a problem, but it is irrelevant to 99% of members.

So then, this democratic nonsense you propose is moot?

No. That particular sentence is saying that 99% of our members don't really care about the inherent conflict of interests in the current part of our system that has some democracy since they have absolutely no way to influence it. 

[High Speed Low Drag]

Starting anew – what a concept.

The CG Commadant, in 2006, stated: "Every commander, commanding officer, officer-in-charge, and program manager shall work closely with their Auxiliary counterparts to fully leverage the resources, skills, qualifications, and profound dedication that reside within the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Such focused collaboration is essential to our unwavering commitment to mission excellence in serving and protecting the public trust."

Wouldn't it be nice to have CSAF issue a similar statement about CAP?  How can we work towards developing CAP to the point the AF feels this way about us?  By being professional.

I have done some straw investigation into other non-profits and other cadet organizations.  I have also decided that this would be a great subject on which to write a thesis paper on.  However, so as to not put CAPTalkers to sleep at their computers, here is a brief synopsis of my thoughts, at least at this point & based on the investigation done. 
*** I do realize that CAP's Constitution and Bylaws, as well as 10 USC 9447 would have to be changed.  I am taking Ned's mandate and running along those lines.

   1.  Maintain BoG as is, however have the Chairman always be the highest ranking SECAF appointee & the Vice Chairman will always be the CAP National Commander.
   2.  Maintain the NB in current form, except to add the Chief of Chaplains as a voting member.
   3.  Eliminate the NEC's current functions.  The NEC will only be used when the NB authorizes (by electronic vote) its use for an emergency situation that requires an immediate response.
   4.  The National Commander and Vice-Commander will be selected by the BoG from a pool of 4 candidates selected by the NB.  The BoG members (minus the incumbent N/CC, N/CV) will then select one of the four for CC and one of the four for VC.  The initial term of office will be two years for both, with the BoG renewing their term (individually) of office every two years for up to eight years.  The N/CC will carry the temporary grade of Major General for the initial two year appointment, and if renewed, will have the permanent grade of Major General.  The Vice Commander will have the temporary grade of Brigadier General for the first two years, if they are renewed, they will have the permanent grade of Brigadier General.   After eight years, the person will be required to vacate the position.  The CV may serve the maximum years for that position and still be eligible for CC and length of office.
    5.  The N/CC and N/CV will be full-time, paid positions.  The N/CC will be the liaison point with CAP-USAF CC and will interact with CAP-USAF CC for the good of CAP. 
   6.  The N/CC has full regulatory authority and may enact such regulations as deemed necessary.  The NB could overturn those regulations with a 2/3 vote and may enact any regulations as they see fit.  Uniforms, insignia, logos, and equipment appearance are solely within the venue of the NB.  The N/CC or N/CV may not implement, remove, add, or subtract any of these items. 
  By majority vote, NB will be able to authorize an independent commitee, made up of 1/2 NB members and 1/2 Regional IG officers to investigate the N/CC or N/VC upon an accusation of misconduct.  The NB will review the findings of the committee and have the option of voting "No Confidence" in either the N/CC, N/CV, or both.    In that case, the BoG will imedialy convene an emergency meeting where the NB representives will present the evidence; the person(s) under no confidence preceedings may present evidence on their behalf.  The BoG will determine what, if any, sanctions to take up to and possibly including termination of the person(s).  A person being terminated by the BoG under these circumstances will be stripped of rank and terminated from CAP membership.
   7.  Region Commanders will be appointed by the N/CC and approved by the BoG at the next BoG meeting.  If a Region Commander is appointed, but later not approved by the BoG, the N/CC will provide an alternate name for approval to the BoG.  Region Commanders will be full-time positions with a ten (five if non-paid) year term of office.  Region Commanders may also be involuntarily removed by the N/CC with approval from the BoG at the next scheduled BoG meeting.  If the BoG does not approve of the removal, the Region Commander will be re-instated.  The position of Region Commander will carry with it the temporary grade of Brigadier General.  Upon completion of term, or if the person steps down, they will revert to their permanent grade of Colonel.
   8.  Wing Commanders will be recommended by the Region Commander and approved by the National Commander.  Wing Commanders will be full-time positions for a tenure of ten years (seven if non-paid).  The position of Wing Commander will carry the temporary grade of Colonel for the first two years.  After two years, the rank of Colonel will be considered permanent.  A wing Commander may be removed involuntarily at the recommendation of the Region Commander by the N/CC with approval from the BoG at the next scheduled BoG meeting.  If the BoG does not approve of the removal, the Wing Commander will be re-instated.
 
I put in the full-time part because I think that these positions should be full-time.  However, you can take-out the full time and this would still work.

Now that you are all tired of reading, I have put on my asbestos suit and am ready for responses.  BTW – remember if you come looking for me personally, I am always armed and very paranoid (it's a job requirement).

[lordmonar]

Wouldn't it be nice to have CSAF issue a similar statement about CAP?  How can we work towards developing CAP to the point the AF feels this way about us?  By being professional.

First.....it does not always work that way.  The CG/CGAUX interface has a lot more overlap in mission and capability than USAF/CAP.

The CG is primarily a SAR and law enforcement agency....the USAF is primarily a combat agency.  That right there creates a barrier where the local commander can't use us for his mission.

[lordmonar]

1.  I can live with that....remember that this would make the chairman position a "president for life" type deal.
2.  Why?  The chaplains have not command responsibilty...why should they get a vote?  If you add them why not the Chief CP guy or the Chief PAO, Chief, AE, Cheif Dishwasher?
3.  The purpose of the NEC is to stream line operations.  Getting the entire NB together would just slow things up too much and cost a lot more.
4.  If the jobs are to be full time paid postions....why the recommendation and the term limits?  Just hire the two best candidates and be done with it.
5.  !00% agree with!
6.  70% agree with.  Give the N/CC full regulatory authority but the BoG not the NB should have veto power and it should be simple majority.  The IG should work for the BoG. 
7.  Agree...but no term limits.
8.  Agree...but no term limits and just make them a colonel and be done with it.

The whole "such and such can be removed..." is just too complicated.  Hire them to do the job....if they don't fire them.     

[flyguy06]

So, what if  ihave a great civilan job (lets say airline pilot for a major airline). That means that I can never hold the position of Wing Commander. I am limited to what I can do in CAP. 

[lordmonar]

So, what if  ihave a great civilan job (lets say airline pilot for a major airline). That means that I can never hold the position of Wing Commander. I am limited to what I can do in CAP.

Yep.

[flyguy06]

well, thats not fair. What if I aspire to be the national commander someday? I have to quit my job? CAP has run fine with volunteer commanders in the past. why change it?

[lordmonar]

well, that's not fair. What if I aspire to be the national commander someday? I have to quit my job? CAP has run fine with volunteer commanders in the past. why change it?

To make it better.

While I agree CAP has run fine with volunteer commanders....and would probably continue to do so.  By making our top leaders full time professionals would help in so many ways.

One....we could get leaders who are actually competent to do the job....and not the Best of a field of volunteers who have the time and inclination.

Two...by paying the commanders we control their adherence to the rules.....no more "I'm a volunteer....I don't have to follow the rules".

Three...If the top dog's pay check is dependant on his volunteers following the rules, he is more likely to enforce those standards instead of allowing them to slack off.

Four...If we had full time commanders they will not have divided loyalties.  Their job would be to run CAP.  We can expand their responsibilities to include fostering better relations with our ES partners.  They can become full time fund raisers.  Spending time glad handing with state and city corporations to increase local funding for activities, missions and facilities.

Five...a full time paid wing king looks more "professional" to outside agencies, is able to meet with them on a business schedule and gives us more credibility.

[flyguy06]

Sooooo, the Commander should work for us? the membership? Then how can he command?

[Major Carrales]

Paying Wing Commanders!?!  With what money?  How much?  As full time or part time?

Too many questions arise from this.  With the money that would go to Wing Commanders (remember each Wing Already has paid staff at headquarters) we could have countless SARex's.  ...or better yet, with that money buy grade insignia for every cadet that gets promoted and send a ribbon for every award.  Outfit several needy units with radios or drop dues down a few dollars.

Sorry, I cannot support the idea.  It sure sounds wonderful, but I don't think it is worth it.  Keep them CAP Volunteers.

[Ned]

Question for the "compensated national commander" model?

How is that different than our current paid executive director?

Could we simply combine the two positions?

[High Speed Low Drag]

1.  I can live with that....remember that this would make the chairman position a "president for life" type deal.
2.  Why?  The chaplains have not command responsibilty...why should they get a vote?  If you add them why not the Chief CP guy or the Chief PAO, Chief, AE, Cheif Dishwasher?
3.  The purpose of the NEC is to stream line operations.  Getting the entire NB together would just slow things up too much and cost a lot more.
4.  If the jobs are to be full time paid postions....why the recommendation and the term limits?  Just hire the two best candidates and be done with it.
5.  !00% agree with!
6.  70% agree with.  Give the N/CC full regulatory authority but the BoG not the NB should have veto power and it should be simple majority.  The IG should work for the BoG. 
7.  Agree...but no term limits.
8.  Agree...but no term limits and just make them a colonel and be done with it.

The whole "such and such can be removed..." is just too complicated.  Hire them to do the job....if they don't fire them.     

Lordmonar, thank you for these questions - I didn't want to triple the length of the previous post by providing explanations.
1.  I think the AF appointee should be president for life - but it is a voting body.
2.  Because CD/ML is an important aspect of the program and Chaplains bring a a unique perspective to the table.  Just a personal opinion.
3. NEC confuses things.  In the modern age with email / fax/ cell phones, the NEC is a redundancy that is not needed unless there is an emergency that requires a face-to-face meeting in less than 6 months.  As we have seen, NEC & NB can be competing entities.
4.  Because the head of an agency needs to be replaced after a while to prevent stagnation.
5. Thanks
6.  We need to have a mechanism that checks the N/CC & BoG.  The NB is to represent the members (think like legislature).  It is so we, the volunteers, have a voice.
7, 8 – The term limits again are to prevent staleness.  R/CC & W/CC can be moved around (if full-time employees) and meet the obligation.

Remember, nothing says that someone couldn’t do 10 years as a Wing CC, move up to Region CC, move up to N/CV, then to N/CC.  That would be a 36 year career – not counting the time it took to get to LTC to be eligible for a W/CC job.  And the whole removal mechanism is to ensure we don’t have a repeat of what happened a few years ago.  There is an oversight ability to make sure the N/CC is justified in removing a region or wing commander.

To flyguy06 – You would be eligible when you retire if you wanted a full-time slot.  I wouldn’t want someone to make CAP a right-out-of-college career.  One of the great things of a volunteer agency is the outside experience that our members bring us.  Let’s say that we have an AD person (enlisted at 18) that does 25, gets out at 43.  Been active in CAP and is a LTC.  He could very well get a W/CC slot, move up to R/CC in 5 years, and be nominated for National Command after another 5.  Say he gets N/CC, that’s 8 years, so he is now 61.  No reason he can’t go back to being a Region or Wing CC, with the temp grade of the position.  Or he can stay in CAP, but be a consultant (like oh so many others that retire from positions).

Maj. Carrales – the idea is that we would start with the top and phase-in the lower positions.  The BSA receives very little federal money, yet they employ hundreds of people across the nation.  The full-timers work very hard to raise funds for the organization.  If we had full timers, they can spend a lot of their time (say an average of 4 hours a week) working on fund-raising.  BSA takes in hundreds of millions of dollars through their efforts.  We don’t need that much, but we could do even more if we had people with the time to do it.

Ned - we most certainly could combine the two - as long as the ED position could be performed in addition to the command responsibility.  The N/CC first job is to command, not manage the day-to-day work performed by our NHQ staff.

[FW]

Adding the "Corporate Officers" as paid employees of CAP would add 6 -7 million or so bucks to our budget.  If we could come up with an income stream to pay for it; why not.  It would make it more attractive to the Air Force; as it would be a potential "post retirement" position for its members.  Second, it would motivate our members to train for leadership positions if they so desired to lead at that level and, Third, like the BSA, they would be motivated to secure an income stream necessary to keep their jobs and keep the organization viable. And, lastly, if our leadership positions are paid professionals, we can hold them to the highest levels of accountability.
The more I think of it, the better it sounds.

[flyguy06]

I am a member of several 501(c)3 organizations and they all have ful time Executive Directors that run the day to day operations of theorganization and volunteer Presidents (or heads or whatever you want to call them). That just makes since.

Nah, dont like the idea.