From the front page of the CAP Website.
"The Civil Air Patrol Board of Governors has contracted with BoardSource, an external consultant, to help identify and develop opportunities to strengthen our governance and improve our overall performance. In order to achieve this, BoardSource has created an online survey tool for you, a stakeholder in our organization, to provide input as to the strengths and weaknesses of Civil Air Patrol's governance structure. All survey responses will go directly to BoardSource where your input will be kept confidential. The survey should take no longer than 15 minutes for you to complete. If you are interested in participating in this survey please contact Gary Schneider at gschneider@capnhq.gov. He will arrange for you to receive the survey. The survey will be available to you until 16 October 2011. We appreciate your willingness to participate and welcome your candid input. "
Ned Lee
Email sent, waiting on a reply. Cant wait to do this!
Thanks for coming through Ned!
Just sent my email, I'm looking forward to completing the survey.
Email sent. It'll be interesting to see what's on the survey, and what is done with the data collected.
They might have thought of a better way to set things up. Ideally that poor guy will be getting thousands of requests to participate in his email box which might get a little unwieldy....
Good point. If they can blast every member's email with announcements about the Fall NB meeting/conference. why not blast this out with a sign up link?
Quote from: arajca on October 07, 2011, 12:47:08 AM
Good point. If they can blast every member's email with announcements about the Fall NB meeting/conference. why not blast this out with a sign up link?
It hit the eservices RSS tonight.
Another e-mail sent.
Good point though about the poor guy being inundated.
I got a reply stating that I would be contacted shortly for the survey. :)
Pre-thinking one guy being inundated with 60,000 emails is probably not nhq's strong suit on things like this
lol
I don't think their mailserver could even handle an event like that.
(not counting non-members and former-members who want to ask if they can participate)(they can't, btw)
If only 5,000 members email asking to participate,
and it takes only 30 seconds to forward their info to the survey
and shoot them a quick reply,
that's 2500 minutes which is... let's see... 41 hours
I guess that's a good way to burn every single waking minute of a whole work week :)
It's also possible that the email address is a robot which will scrape the "from" off any message it is sent and generate a unique link to the survey system.
BoardSource has done this once or twice before.
OK, maybe it isn't. I am at a loss as to why these would be sent directly to a real email address.
Quote from: edmo1 on October 07, 2011, 02:40:06 PM
I got a reply stating that I would be contacted shortly for the survey. :)
So did I... did anyone get a link to the actual survey yet?
Quote from: NCRblues on October 07, 2011, 08:19:26 PM
Quote from: edmo1 on October 07, 2011, 02:40:06 PM
I got a reply stating that I would be contacted shortly for the survey. :)
So did I... did anyone get a link to the actual survey yet?
All I've gotten so far is a reply saying my info had been forwarded.
Quote from: coudano on October 07, 2011, 02:45:01 PM
Pre-thinking one guy being inundated with 60,000 emails is probably not nhq's strong suit on things like this
Well, we were at a loss trying to estimate the number of members who would want to participate. My WAG was that relatively few rank and file members at the squadron level would want to, but that a higher percentage of Wing and higher folks would.
And it goes without saying that nearly everyone on CAPTalk will want to. 8)
We'll just have to see. The good news about on-line surveys is that they are relatively scalable, and it should be fairly easy to accomodate pretty much anyone who wants to play.
Ned Lee
An email blast (not just an RSS feed) with a link to sign up would probably get more participation. Or even a link to the survey. I'm sure that CAP could validate members appropriately when they sign up.
Ok, since CAPNHQ is paying Boardsource to do this, why don't they make BoardSource handle the distribution?
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on October 07, 2011, 11:46:51 PM
Ok, since CAPNHQ is paying Boardsource to do this, why don't they make BoardSource handle the distribution?
As I mentioned in the other thread, we spent a lot of time and effort coming up with the mechanics for member input. It turned out to be one of those "devil is in the details" things with the need to ensure that only members (as stakeholders) would have input, and then only once, while at the same time trying to assure the member that the input was confidential to Boardsource.
The system we came up with is not perfect, but will get the job done. So far, it appears that everyone who has sent Gary and email has received a fairly prompt response.
I hope that everyone who wants to will share their thoughts with the contractor.
Ned Lee
Member at Large,
BoG
Any idea on when the survey will be available?
Any enterprising CAPTalkers interested in searching out and posting links to the "best" CAPTalk threads on this issue?
Whoever it is is doing some validation.
My response saying I would receive the survey shortly referred to me by grade...which I had neglected to mention in my mail...so he looked up my e-mail address and found out who I was.
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on October 07, 2011, 11:46:51 PM
Ok, since CAPNHQ is paying Boardsource to do this, why don't they make BoardSource handle the distribution?
Because they're consultants...
And as someone who's spent some time in the consulting world, they will charge you the same $250/hr* whether they're thinking or doing grunt work. May as well pay someone on staff $30/hr to do as much of the initial grunt work as you can!
* Just a figure out of thin air...no idea what BoardSource is charging
Quote from: JeffDG on October 09, 2011, 01:20:16 AMWhoever it is is doing some validation.
When I requested it, I included my CAPID and Charter # just to be complete, though the former gets you more than the latter. I figured I'd make it easy, and that they would be doing some validation, and was replied to by grade as well.
Quote from: Ned on October 08, 2011, 12:01:35 AM
The system we came up with is not perfect, but will get the job done. So far, it appears that everyone who has sent Gary and email has received a fairly prompt response.
I haven't gotten any response to the email I sent.
Quote from: Rowan on October 09, 2011, 09:10:03 AM
Quote from: Ned on October 08, 2011, 12:01:35 AM
The system we came up with is not perfect, but will get the job done. So far, it appears that everyone who has sent Gary and email has received a fairly prompt response.
I haven't gotten any response to the email I sent.
did you send your email after about 4pm on friday?
Quote from: coudano on October 09, 2011, 12:19:48 PM
Quote from: Rowan on October 09, 2011, 09:10:03 AM
Quote from: Ned on October 08, 2011, 12:01:35 AM
The system we came up with is not perfect, but will get the job done. So far, it appears that everyone who has sent Gary and email has received a fairly prompt response.
I haven't gotten any response to the email I sent.
did you send your email after about 4pm on friday?
Yes, later that evening, I believe.
What he was getting at is that you sent it after the work day, and week, was over.
Anyone get the invite yet at all?
I received my response from Mr. Schneider, but no link yet.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 11, 2011, 07:54:36 PM
I received my response from Mr. Schneider, but no link yet.
Same here.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 11, 2011, 07:54:36 PM
I received my response from Mr. Schneider, but no link yet.
Expect it next Monday morning.
Has anyone actually received this survey...the one that's due to be returned in 3 days?
I was joking about receiving it Monday, but that might just be what happens.
Now they have an online registration.
http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/bog_survey.cfm (http://www.capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/bog_survey.cfm)
"The survey will be available to you until October 16th". Really?
It's the 13th now. Sure, it only takes "15" minutes, they say - but it really takes a little longer, I'd appreciate being able to put some thought into it, not being given it at the last minute, jammed up against a deadline. Ah well.
Since in just about 24 hours I shove luggage in a car to go to the airport, the free time I have will be highly regulated by CAP for the next week...
This kinda makes me wonder, if this is proving so "weird" to do, with a company that should be well experienced in this kind of thing, why such a hack method? Is it hard so they don't get many responses? Do they really *not* want them, just have to do it to placate and say "we did"?
If they had put that form inside of eServices, considering that practically any active member needs to have access to eServices, it would have darn near automated the authentication process.
Instead what we have here is one level up from the corny "CAP CARES" graphic, attempt-wise.
Quote from: a2capt on October 13, 2011, 02:44:16 PM
"The survey will be available to you until October 16th". Really?
It's the 13th now. Sure, it only takes "15" minutes, they say - but it really takes a little longer, I'd appreciate being able to put some thought into it, not being given it at the last minute, jammed up against a deadline. Ah well.
Since in just about 24 hours I shove luggage in a car to go to the airport, the free time I have will be highly regulated by CAP for the next week...
This kinda makes me wonder, if this is proving so "weird" to do, with a company that should be well experienced in this kind of thing, why such a hack method? Is it hard so they don't get many responses? Do they really *not* want them, just have to do it to placate and say "we did"?
If they had put that form inside of eServices, considering that practically any active member needs to have access to eServices, it would have darn near automated the authentication process.
Instead what we have here is one level up from the corny "CAP CARES" graphic, attempt-wise.
Well...and update. I pinged the NHQ guy about the timeline, and he said that the 16th is the deadline to
request the survey, not
complete the survey. He said Boardsource will send the surveys out once they have a complete listing.
Quote from: a2capt on October 13, 2011, 02:44:16 PM
"The survey will be available to you until October 16th". Really?
It's the 13th now. Sure, it only takes "15" minutes, they say - but it really takes a little longer, I'd appreciate being able to put some thought into it, not being given it at the last minute, jammed up against a deadline. Ah well.
Since in just about 24 hours I shove luggage in a car to go to the airport, the free time I have will be highly regulated by CAP for the next week...
This kinda makes me wonder, if this is proving so "weird" to do, with a company that should be well experienced in this kind of thing, why such a hack method? Is it hard so they don't get many responses? Do they really *not* want them, just have to do it to placate and say "we did"?
If they had put that form inside of eServices, considering that practically any active member needs to have access to eServices, it would have darn near automated the authentication process.
Instead what we have here is one level up from the corny "CAP CARES" graphic, attempt-wise.
Just got this back:
QuoteDavid,
16 October was the cutoff for submitting requests to participate in the survey. Once the list of participants is complete BoardSource will send out the survey, via email. I would expect it to go out early next week.
Best regards
Gary
just sent link to all Wing members through wing list server...
Quote from: KyCAP on October 16, 2011, 08:26:42 PM
just sent link to all Wing members through wing list server...
we spammed senior members with level 3 and at least 5 years
Quote from: coudano on October 16, 2011, 11:06:52 PM
Quote from: KyCAP on October 16, 2011, 08:26:42 PM
just sent link to all Wing members through wing list server...
we spammed senior members with level 3 and at least 5 years
That's an excellent way to ensure a "selection bias" for "status quo"
Quote from: JeffDG on October 16, 2011, 11:27:29 PM
Quote from: coudano on October 16, 2011, 11:06:52 PM
Quote from: KyCAP on October 16, 2011, 08:26:42 PM
just sent link to all Wing members through wing list server...
we spammed senior members with level 3 and at least 5 years
That's an excellent way to ensure a "selection bias" for "status quo"
In this particular LVL3/5 year member's case I'm against the status quo.
Quote from: coudano on October 16, 2011, 11:06:52 PM
we spammed senior members with level 3 and at least 5 years
Why wouldn't you just hit the "ALL"?
Especially since NHQ was specifically seeking everybody's input.
Well, I see it this way:
1. generally speaking, the folks who have been around a little longer and done something other than just gotten railroad tracks for being a CFI, PROBABLY have a little more interest and stake in the question than, for example, my brand new SMWOG, who has been in for 5 months, hasn't seen ANY of CAP outside of a local Tuesday meeting, and has their plate more than full just trying to get oriented and get their arms around the job they have taken.
2. the email push was sent to those indicated, but it specifically said that "any member is allowed to participate" and to forward it freely to interested parties. in no way shape or form are we discouraging people from participating here.
Naturally, we aren't giving any indication whatsoever to anyone, about WHAT input to give, or which way to slant feedback. Merely making them aware of the opportunity.
Quote from: davidsinn on October 16, 2011, 11:51:39 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on October 16, 2011, 11:27:29 PM
Quote from: coudano on October 16, 2011, 11:06:52 PM
Quote from: KyCAP on October 16, 2011, 08:26:42 PM
just sent link to all Wing members through wing list server...
we spammed senior members with level 3 and at least 5 years
That's an excellent way to ensure a "selection bias" for "status quo"
In this particular LVL3/5 year member's case I'm against the status quo.
I don't normally put a lot of stock in n=1 sample sizes. Someone who's invested the time and effort to get to level 3 and put five years of their life in has invested in the SQ, and is less likely (not impossible, but less likely) to want to see significant change.
Quote from: coudano on October 17, 2011, 01:50:40 AM
Well, I see it this way:
1. generally speaking, the folks who have been around a little longer and done something other than just gotten railroad tracks for being a CFI, PROBABLY have a little more interest and stake in the question than, for example, my brand new SMWOG, who has been in for 5 months, hasn't seen ANY of CAP outside of a local Tuesday meeting, and has their plate more than full just trying to get oriented and get their arms around the job they have taken.
2. the email push was sent to those indicated, but it specifically said that "any member is allowed to participate" and to forward it freely to interested parties. in no way shape or form are we discouraging people from participating here.
Naturally, we aren't giving any indication whatsoever to anyone, about WHAT input to give, or which way to slant feedback. Merely making them aware of the opportunity.
But that brand new SMWOG is far less likely to have been "captured by the system" and have an ingrained stake in the current system. He/she may well have excellent ideas, and by selecting for not including them, you're making it less likely that they will participate. You discouraged simply by the act of not inviting.
Quote from: JeffDG on October 17, 2011, 02:50:58 AM
I don't normally put a lot of stock in n=1 sample sizes. Someone who's invested the time and effort to get to level 3 and put five years of their life in has invested in the SQ, and is less likely (not impossible, but less likely) to want to see significant change.
See and it's *EXACTLY* the folks who have (actually) invested themselves in a local squadron for a while,
that I /REALLY WANT/ to strongly encourage to give input to this survey (not to /exclude/ anyone else)
These are the folks who have had to deal with the administrative, regulatory, and political stupidity of our beloved corporation on high, in the face of doing their week to week squadron job. Many of them have or are probably in the command section of a local unit. These are the folks who probably have developed, from experience rather than hearsay, legitimate gripes that they may express in the after-meeting-meeting in the parking lot... Rather than those just listening to such gripes.
And less so, per se, someone who just paid their dues and sat inactive on the roles, or has just started, without a lot of exposure to the echelons above reality.
Level 3 complete is probably a Captain or a Major. Not exactly (in most cases) people who are tied up in the national level of the corporate machine... In 5 years someone probably has had time to look around and get an idea what is going on, rather than taking shots in the dark, or trying to fix something that they probably don't yet fully understand (very possibly making things worse in the meantime). --not that there isn't valuable input from those who have been around less long, or who may have ideas from outside CAP that are good ideas (like I said, i'm not /discouraging/ anyone from participating).
Sample size for the spam blast in my wing was 109/660. If all 52 wings do that, that's 5668. Not a terrible N out of a corporation with 34939 senior members. (16% of population, if only half of THOSE participate, you have more than doubled the sample size needed for a high confidence low interval result)
There are parts of CAP that I would like to burn to the ground and start over with (and some that I wouldn't even start over with, but just bury.) I've been in CAP for 21 years and i'm a Lt Col. How 'captured and ingrained' by the system do you think I am?
You do understand that this governance survey is related to the national level of CAP right,
it's potential impact on the local squadron is pretty low, and if at all, pretty far in the future.
Has anyone received the survey yet?
Quote from: JeffDG on October 17, 2011, 02:50:58 AM
I don't normally put a lot of stock in n=1 sample sizes. Someone who's invested the time and effort to get to level 3 and put five years of their life in has invested in the SQ, and is less likely (not impossible, but less likely) to want to see significant change.
They are probably the ones who are the most interested in change to eliminate their frustrations in dealing with the current system.
In a typical corporate work environment I can tell you that in MY experience many employees are their most creative within the first year of their employment. Why? because they are still carying around with them the methods they used at their last job, good and bad and they haven't yet integrated the methods of their new employer into their tool set.
That said I've been a member for just now a year an a half so if your survey questions weren't VERY leading, perhaps basic questions.... well I wouldn't really be much help to you. I wonder if anyone has given any thought to targeting new membership with a survey like that. For all I know it's probably been done many times. If it hasn't someone should consider it.
It might generate some interesting results.
Quote from: LC on October 19, 2011, 05:27:05 AM
Has anyone received the survey yet?
I'm going to take a wild stab here and say no... Probably not...
Maybe we are closer to the military than we all think.... you know... "hurry up and wait"
Nothing yet.
Here either...
nothing yet here as well
Link received, survey completed.
Disappointed, there are no questions relating to satisfaction with the method of selection of NB/NEC members, so there's nothing really there to break the Closed Loop Governance Model.
Quote from: JeffDG on October 20, 2011, 06:22:43 PM
Link received, survey completed.
Disappointed, there are no questions relating to satisfaction with the method of selection of NB/NEC members, so there's nothing really there to break the Closed Loop Governance Model.
Is there not a section allowing you to type further concerns? Usually I've seen these.
There is...and I did avail myself of it.
However, as someone who has done the back-end processing of such surveys...a lot more attention is paid to the numbers, because they can be instantly aggregated and summarized. Free-text comments are hard to work with, and as such receive little attention.
Just filled it out. Mentioned the Bass-acward relationship of the NEC and NB. and the selection of Corporate Officers and Commanders. Also gave my intake on retention and costs of meembership.
Just responded to it.
Some of the questions were interesting.
Typed up a 6 page word document and dropped it in the other concerns section.
We shall see what comes of this....
Quote from: NCRblues on October 20, 2011, 07:53:11 PM
We shall see what comes of this....
If I were a cynic, I would make a prediction... >:D
Oh wait, I am:
Frogs and crickets at night (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VI6E2iv0hQ#)
The Survey was flawed. The scale was slanted to result in more favorable results. I also focused on retention specifically membership benefits or incentives to participate.
Quote from: SARDOC on October 20, 2011, 08:10:18 PM
The Survey was flawed. The scale was slanted to result in more favorable results. I also focused on retention specifically membership benefits or incentives to participate.
I am usually the first one to cry foul on something like this, but want to explain your point of view?
P.S. Did anyone else notice that "wing staff" was not one of the options under your job in CAP? It went from region commander to wing commander to squadron and group staff.... wing staff members (arguable) are very important people. They keep the wheel going in the wing
Quote from: NCRblues on October 20, 2011, 08:14:30 PM
I am usually the first one to cry foul on something like this, but want to explain your point of view?
Sure on the scale for selecting the scale there was no Neutral category. There were 6 Choices.
1. Strongly Disagree
2. --
3. Agree
4. --
5. Strongly Agree
6. No Opinion
2 and 4 are assumed to fall in between the Printed Choices. Making the Scale look more like this
1. Strongly Disagree
2.
(Disagree)3. Agree
4.
(Mostly Agree)5. Strongly Agree
6. No Opinion
This gives the respondent three selections for agree but only two for disagree. This allows the surveyors a better chance to have a favorable chance to say that Most respondents "Agree" even though they may have been neutral not being a choice. It's just bad form.
AH....gotcha
I did not really think of it like that until you pointed it out, but it does make sense.
I'm not overly concerned about not asking about the "closed loop system." One would assume that a professional study on governance would notice that as one of the obvious results. The membership inquiry was an add-on to the initial study, remember? They aren't relying on the membership to tell them the election systems, criteria for corporate officer selection, who reports to who, etc.
FWIW, I was at NHQ today and was briefed that over 500 members asked to take part in the survey. Hopefully everyone will follow through and complete the survey.
Ned Lee
Member, BoG
Quote from: Ned on October 20, 2011, 11:37:33 PM
FWIW, I was at NHQ today and was briefed that over 500 members asked to take part in the survey. Hopefully everyone will follow through and complete the survey.
I was hoping the sample group was going to be smaller...it would have made my ridiculous rants become relevant to the study instead of just being dismissed as statistically indifferent. >:D
Quote from: Ned on October 20, 2011, 11:37:33 PM
FWIW, I was at NHQ today and was briefed that over 500 members asked to take part in the survey. Hopefully everyone will follow through and complete the survey.
Ned Lee
Member, BoG
Ned,
Any idea why the Wing Staff level of participation was omitted? Oversight I presume.
Quote from: JeffDG on October 21, 2011, 12:18:25 AM
Any idea why the Wing Staff level of participation was omitted? Oversight I presume.
I know I'm not Ned...but I'm guessing that it's because they outsourced the survey to an organization who isn't completely familiar with the structure and that the CAP Program Manager didn't review the survey well enough to catch it before they authorized the vendor to ship it. Just a SWAG with the work I've done with surveys in the past. Human error. Shouldn't have an overall impact of the outcome of the study unless they weight certain people different. With a Sample pool as small as ours I would hope they wouldn't do that.
So when do we get the survey link? I signed up before the deadline, got the email reply saying I was signed up, but I haven't seen the link.
I am checking my spam filters and junk mail folders already.
Quote from: SARDOC on October 21, 2011, 12:08:12 AM
Quote from: Ned on October 20, 2011, 11:37:33 PM
FWIW, I was at NHQ today and was briefed that over 500 members asked to take part in the survey. Hopefully everyone will follow through and complete the survey.
I was hoping the sample group was going to be smaller...it would have made my ridiculous rants become relevant to the study instead of just being dismissed as statistically indifferent. >:D
You did register multiple times, using the CAPIDs of all the apathetic members of your squadron, right? >:D
Quote from: arajca on October 21, 2011, 12:35:04 AM
So when do we get the survey link? I signed up before the deadline, got the email reply saying I was signed up, but I haven't seen the link.
I am checking my spam filters and junk mail folders already.
Here's the "From" headers from mine for your spam search:
from ccarr@cap.gov CAPsurvey@boardsource.org
reply-to CAPsurvey@boardsource.org
mine came in an email from MG Carr
Quote from: cap235629 on October 21, 2011, 12:44:21 AM
mine came in an email from MG Carr
Well the display name was MG Carr
but the actual email address was boardsource
Quote from: JeffDG on October 21, 2011, 12:35:40 AM
[You did register multiple times, using the CAPIDs of all the apathetic members of your squadron, right? >:D
It depends on whose asking...not going to discuss it in a public forum. I'm not sure what I'm going to with over 50 gmail addresses though :)
Quote from: JeffDG on October 21, 2011, 12:18:25 AM
Ned,
Any idea why the Wing Staff level of participation was omitted? Oversight I presume.
It is an oversight, probably as much mine as anyone's. But as i understand it, the answers are not weighted by echelon of assignment, so it should not make a difference in the results.
Ned
Quote from: Ned on October 21, 2011, 03:05:49 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on October 21, 2011, 12:18:25 AM
Ned,
Any idea why the Wing Staff level of participation was omitted? Oversight I presume.
It is an oversight, probably as much mine as anyone's. But as i understand it, the answers are not weighted by echelon of assignment, so it should not make a difference in the results.
Ned
Ned = true overlord of cap >:D
Quote from: NCRblues on October 21, 2011, 03:22:36 AM
Ned = true overlord of cap >:D
It's just nice to know we have someone as dedicated as he is up there. Thanks Ned.
Quote from: SARDOC on October 21, 2011, 04:14:34 AM
Quote from: NCRblues on October 21, 2011, 03:22:36 AM
Ned = true overlord of cap >:D
It's just nice to know we have someone as dedicated as he is up there. Thanks Ned.
:D :D 8) :D :D :clap:
Received link yesterday from Gen. Carr. Took survey, took more than 15 minutes to answer questions.
Still nothing.
Quote from: arajca on October 22, 2011, 02:36:03 AM
Still nothing.
Same here, I'm wondering if certain ISP's (that have a lot of CAP members on it) see it as a spam attack and reject the emails completely without even passing it on. ??? :(
Based upon comments made, about the survey it appears that there's no drastic changes in the leadership organization proposed anyways.
RM
How can you presume what the changes being proposed are before the study is even complete? It's a study on CAP governance. I'm sure they can look at the org chart and figure out the areas that could be made more efficient. Just because the survey doesn't say, "Do you agree with the current structure enabling the NB to overturn NEC decisions and visa-versa?" doesn't mean that they haven't identified it. It also doesn't mean that when the study results are delivered to the BoG that they aren't going to present something that suggests that radical changes are needed.
Mine arrived late Thursday or early Friday, can't recall which....pretty straightforward. I answered it, as they anticipated, in about 15 minutes, perhaps a bit less.
From the questions asked, I think much of the focus is going to be on the relationships & roles of BOG, NEC, NB.
I got mine and completed it during the past week.
I first went "huh?" at the "blank" choices between "strongly agree" and "strongly disagree" but figured out what others have...that it's just "agree" or "disagree" or some nebulous area in-between.
Some of the terminology went over my head, having only been an undistinguished worker bee at the Squadron level (including a stint as a deputy CC) but it wasn't bad overall.
I did vent my spleen a little (tactfully) in the "comments" box about the bog-awful way uniform issues have been handled, particularly the CSU, with emphasis on little to no input from the membership (not that it'll make a fig of difference, but anyway...).
Do I think input from a lowly Captain (coming up on Major in a couple of months - I hope) is really going to result in any kind of sea change? No, but the brass asked my opinion (a dangerous thing to do! >:D) and I gave it.
NED FOR NATIONAL CC!
I also addressed wing/region CC selection, and the problem of elected national officers needing to curry favor with subordinates to get elected!
Perhaps a trend is surfacing...I've felt for a long time that wing CCs should focus on their wings alone; national governance, assuming it requires input and representation from every wing, ought to be vested in others: either elected reps, or past wing CCs (give 'em something to look forward to after their term!)
Odd how they asked entirely different questions about how the BoG and NB are doing.
They probably should have taken this chance to ask members questions about their views of how squadrons and Wings are dealing with some of these important issues.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 24, 2011, 02:45:19 AM
Odd how they asked entirely different questions about how the BoG and NB are doing.
Perhaps because they have entirely different roles?
Well, I'm not entirely sure how different their roles are in practice as each seem to talk about the same sort of issues at their meetings, but leaving that aside, a lot of the questions they asked about the BOG applied equally well to the NB.
Is the survey one that once you open it, you have to finish it? I'd like some time to think about it, particularly the last option, of adding anything else, that I don't see covered point and shoot questions.
Quote from: a2capt on October 24, 2011, 03:43:19 PM
Is the survey one that once you open it, you have to finish it? I'd like some time to think about it, particularly the last option, of adding anything else, that I don't see covered point and shoot questions.
No. You can save your responses and finish it later.
but there is a deadline to finish it,
i forget maybe the 30th (??)
Deadline isn't a problem, I'm aware of that - I just want to formulate a reply for the last entry that is well thought out, but want to get the rest out of the way. Who knows, maybe they read this stuff, maybe enough of it may say the same or similar things that it might make a bit of good... better than the alternative.
I still haven't received it. :(
Did mine today. Tried to offer a gentle poke at the College of Cardinals way we choose CAP's top leadership...I think maybe mil-style promotion boards, which then result in a pool of qualified candidates upon which the NEC can vote. A screened slate, as it were.
Quote from: ProdigalJim on October 25, 2011, 09:21:50 PM
Did mine today. Tried to offer a gentle poke at the College of Cardinals way we choose CAP's top leadership...I think maybe mil-style promotion boards, which then result in a pool of qualified candidates upon which the NEC can vote. A screened slate, as it were.
My comments regarded the circular governance model. My solution is to divorce the role of Wing Commander from National Board, and make the NB member elected by the members of the Wing. NB selects a subset of itself to act as NEC. NB elects Nat/CC. Nat/CC appoints Region/CCs and Region/CCs appoint Wing/CCs
The NB is concerned with setting policy, the Wing/CC is concerned solely with executing policy.
My primary comment was to eliminate the equality of the NB and NEC. NEC should only be allowed to make decisions that would further implement policies or regulations approved by the NB or BOG. We don't need to get into another situation where the NEC approves something and then the NB rejects it (and presumably the issue could continue ping ponging back and forth forever).
Quote from: RiverAux on October 25, 2011, 11:59:43 PM
My primary comment was to eliminate the equality of the NB and NEC. NEC should only be allowed to make decisions that would further implement policies or regulations approved by the NB or BOG. We don't need to get into another situation where the NEC approves something and then the NB rejects it (and presumably the issue could continue ping ponging back and forth forever).
I concur.
The NB should be setting policy at a high level, and letting committees (including the NEC) work out the nitty-gritty details.
In reality, with the prevalence of electronic comms right now, I don't see many situations that would come up between NB meetings where a special meeting could not be pulled together where the NB could at least obtain a quorum. And the power of the NEC to act on behalf of the NB between meetings thus becomes moot.
Yes, the NB is large and unwieldy for discussing detailed issues...that's a feature, not a bug. They shouldn't be getting that deep into details. They should be empowering committees to deal with the details. If debate arises on the details back at the NB, then it needs to be recommitted to the appropriate committee.
Quote from: JeffDG on October 26, 2011, 12:07:40 AM
The NB should be setting policy at a high level, and letting committees (including the NEC) work out the nitty-gritty details.
Its not really clear to me what high level policy the BOG should be working on and what the NB should be working on.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 25, 2011, 11:59:43 PM
My primary comment was to eliminate the equality of the NB and NEC. NEC should only be allowed to make decisions that would further implement policies or regulations approved by the NB or BOG. We don't need to get into another situation where the NEC approves something and then the NB rejects it (and presumably the issue could continue ping ponging back and forth forever).
I have a much cleaner solution. Eliminate the NB. Too many bodies, all with their own agenda.
The NEC and the BoG is all we need to do the job.
Quote from: PHall on October 26, 2011, 12:39:53 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 25, 2011, 11:59:43 PM
My primary comment was to eliminate the equality of the NB and NEC. NEC should only be allowed to make decisions that would further implement policies or regulations approved by the NB or BOG. We don't need to get into another situation where the NEC approves something and then the NB rejects it (and presumably the issue could continue ping ponging back and forth forever).
I have a much cleaner solution. Eliminate the NB. Too many bodies, all with their own agenda.
The NEC and the BoG is all we need to do the job.
In this world, how is the National Commander selected? Who would be selecting the members of the NEC?
I don't see how further concentrating power in CAP is going to help us any.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 26, 2011, 01:08:49 AMIn this world, how is the National Commander selected? Who would be selecting the members of the NEC?
I don't see how further concentrating power in CAP is going to help us any.
There's no reason the election process could not be the same, just that Wing CC's concentrate on issue in their states and leave things with a broader scope to the region CC's or just the national bodies.
So, actual authority would be entirely concentrated in the hands of the National Commander (since they would still be appointing the members of the NEC, I assume) and the only check on them would be the BOG? Sorry, not interested.
Much harder for crazy or stupid ideas to be rammed through the NB than the NEC. We need that check (even though it isn't 100% effective).
Here is a question that I have often wondered about.
What is the one thing in the governance model, which if changed, would make you walk away from cap? (If anything)
For example (and just an example) "if they did away with the NB entirely, I would walk away". <- Just an example
Quote from: JeffDG on October 26, 2011, 12:07:40 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 25, 2011, 11:59:43 PM
My primary comment was to eliminate the equality of the NB and NEC. NEC should only be allowed to make decisions that would further implement policies or regulations approved by the NB or BOG. We don't need to get into another situation where the NEC approves something and then the NB rejects it (and presumably the issue could continue ping ponging back and forth forever).
I concur.
The NB should be setting policy at a high level, and letting committees (including the NEC) work out the nitty-gritty details.
In reality, with the prevalence of electronic comms right now, I don't see many situations that would come up between NB meetings where a special meeting could not be pulled together where the NB could at least obtain a quorum. And the power of the NEC to act on behalf of the NB between meetings thus becomes moot.
Yes, the NB is large and unwieldy for discussing detailed issues...that's a feature, not a bug. They shouldn't be getting that deep into details. They should be empowering committees to deal with the details. If debate arises on the details back at the NB, then it needs to be recommitted to the appropriate committee.
My comments were similar however I proposed eliminating the NEC completely. Let the NB appont committees on an as needed basis.
I concur about the modern comms and the ability to call a quorum if needed. The NEC / NB ping pong game MUST END!!!
Quote from: NCRblues on October 26, 2011, 02:57:58 AM
Here is a question that I have often wondered about.
What is the one thing in the governance model, which if changed, would make you walk away from cap? (If anything)
For example (and just an example) "if they did away with the NB entirely, I would walk away". <- Just an example
If the Air Force element were tossed out, or (example) if CAP-USAF's function were watered down to the point of irrelevance and the AF decided, "alright, no more connection with us means no more
anything from us...you fly your own airplanes, you put your own fuel in them, and you find your own airfields to fly them out of. No more access to our bases, no more cadet O-rides, no more of
our uniforms and no more Auxiliary status. You're on your own. Period. Goodbye."
Barring that, it would be if CAP itself did what too many CAP members seem to want: ES, fly, ES, fly, ES, fly, ES and the strictly supporting elements of that: GT, comms, etc.
My view is to change the way the NB and NEC interact. The NEC is a sub-committee of the NB, but because they appoint the NB members there is a clear example of the tale wagging the dog. Many things have been approved by the NB and disappeared when the NEC met at a later date and removed them.
Quote from: MSG Mac on October 26, 2011, 04:22:51 PM
Many things have been approved by the NB and disappeared when the NEC met at a later date and removed them.
Others have said that, too.
But I'm having trouble remembering this happening. Can you or others provide some examples?
Thats the part I don't get. The difference between the NB and NEC is .. remove 52 Wing Commanders. So a subset of them govern the corporation 50 weeks a year, and the other two weeks, the Wing Commanders get some input.
So the NB has a huge agenda because 52 Wing Commanders have the opportunity to introduce items to it, and then the rest of the time, the sub-committee can just work on what really seems important (to them) be it due to personal interest, or other means of it being a popular item.
The only thing that comes to mind right now to me, in the regards of bouncing between NB and NEC is the CSU and the whole 39-1 and mess of ICLs that have never been published properly, as in it's way past 180 days and we still work off the ICL rather than an update or amendment.
With the current state of affairs, the only "exclusive powers" of the NB are; to elect the National Commander, Vice Commander and, to determine the dues structure. The NEC can do everything else. The NEC can even (and does) change election rules without NB approval.
The CSU is but the most glaring example of the NEC changing the NB's wishes. However, what is more disturbing, is the lack of transparency in major decision making by, not publishing important issues(agenda items) before NB or NEC meetings. How can the membership (or our leaders) make good decisions or, provide input, without knowing what the issues are?
Quote from: a2capt on October 26, 2011, 07:00:39 PM
Thats the part I don't get. The difference between the NB and NEC is .. remove 52 Wing Commanders. So a subset of them govern the corporation 50 weeks a year, and the other two weeks, the Wing Commanders get some input.
The NEC meets just as often as the NB.
Doesn't the NECD meets quarterly and the NB twice a year?
The NEC is the executive committee of the NB, not a mere sub-committee or task force.
I still think we don't need the NB, too much politicking.
Let's find a less self-destructive manner to maintain 'checks & balances' on national leadership.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 26, 2011, 08:18:24 PM
Quote from: a2capt on October 26, 2011, 07:00:39 PM
Thats the part I don't get. The difference between the NB and NEC is .. remove 52 Wing Commanders. So a subset of them govern the corporation 50 weeks a year, and the other two weeks, the Wing Commanders get some input.
The NEC meets just as often as the NB.
NEC meets twice a year as part of national boards, and then two mores times a year. So yes they meet once every quarter.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on October 26, 2011, 08:51:17 PM
The NEC is the executive committee of the NB, not a mere sub-committee or task force.
I still think we don't need the NB, too much politicking.
Let's find a less self-destructive manner to maintain 'checks & balances' on national leadership.
So here is my question to you...
When we cut the NB, you don't think the politicking will skyrocket to get into one of those 7 region commander slots?
Quote from: Larry Mangum on October 26, 2011, 08:54:26 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 26, 2011, 08:18:24 PM
Quote from: a2capt on October 26, 2011, 07:00:39 PM
Thats the part I don't get. The difference between the NB and NEC is .. remove 52 Wing Commanders. So a subset of them govern the corporation 50 weeks a year, and the other two weeks, the Wing Commanders get some input.
The NEC meets just as often as the NB.
NEC meets twice a year as part of national boards, and then two mores times a year. So yes they meet once every quarter.
NEC meets only twice a year. Says so right in their minutes.
Quote from: NCRblues on October 26, 2011, 09:05:49 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on October 26, 2011, 08:51:17 PM
The NEC is the executive committee of the NB, not a mere sub-committee or task force.
I still think we don't need the NB, too much politicking.
Let's find a less self-destructive manner to maintain 'checks & balances' on national leadership.
So here is my question to you...
When we cut the NB, you don't think the politicking will skyrocket to get into one of those 7 region commander slots?
Cut the NEC too.
Let the BoG do the governing and the commanders at all level do the planning and execution of the BoG's policies.
Commanders by definition should not be answering to their subordinates.
If we want this to be democracy......fine....then we have to change the entire culture that CAP is based on.
So we want these folks, many of whom have no actual experience in implementing CAP programs (hey, they may never have even met a CAP member before being appointed to the BOG) and have no "skin in the game" making all the decisions? CAP Wing Commanders have to actually consider whether or not they could make proposed regulations work in the real world.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 26, 2011, 10:08:34 PM
So we want these folks, many of whom have no actual experience in implementing CAP programs (hey, they may never have even met a CAP member before being appointed to the BOG) and have no "skin in the game" making all the decisions? CAP Wing Commanders have to actually consider whether or not they could make proposed regulations work in the real world.
So we adjust the BoG.
Think outside the box. The BoG was a compromise between CAP and USAF. We can always change it to allow for "member representation". The question would be how big should it be. One or two members from each wing? A rep for ever 1000 members in a "district"? How do we share power between the USAF appointees and the CAP representitives?
My suggestion has always been.....each squadron elects a rep (not the commander) who represent the members at the wing, who elects a member to represent the wing at region. The region levels elects a member to sit on the BoG.
More like a union forman structure then what we have now.
The BoG "hires" the National CC and his Vice....they select regional commanders who select the wing commander who select the group/squadron commanders.
Nice, easy, minimises the amount of politicing. Terms would be 2 years. Allows the BoG to hire professional people that can focus on the job of getting the mission done....instead of having to worry about long term political agendas.
Allows for the general membership to directly affect policy through the politica process with out having to mix that up with the command/mission responsibilities.
Less "Wing Commander X got fired because Regional Commander Y is loading the deck for his bid to National CC" and more "Wing Commander X got fired because the national commander lost faith in his ability to perform his job."
[/rant]
Quote from: lordmonar on October 26, 2011, 10:33:25 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 26, 2011, 10:08:34 PM
So we want these folks, many of whom have no actual experience in implementing CAP programs (hey, they may never have even met a CAP member before being appointed to the BOG) and have no "skin in the game" making all the decisions? CAP Wing Commanders have to actually consider whether or not they could make proposed regulations work in the real world.
So we adjust the BoG.
Think outside the box. The BoG was a compromise between CAP and USAF. We can always change it to allow for "member representation". The question would be how big should it be. One or two members from each wing? A rep for ever 1000 members in a "district"? How do we share power between the USAF appointees and the CAP representitives?
My suggestion has always been.....each squadron elects a rep (not the commander) who represent the members at the wing, who elects a member to represent the wing at region. The region levels elects a member to sit on the BoG.
More like a union forman structure then what we have now.
The BoG "hires" the National CC and his Vice....they select regional commanders who select the wing commander who select the group/squadron commanders.
Nice, easy, minimises the amount of politicing. Terms would be 2 years. Allows the BoG to hire professional people that can focus on the job of getting the mission done....instead of having to worry about long term political agendas.
Allows for the general membership to directly affect policy through the politica process with out having to mix that up with the command/mission responsibilities.
Less "Wing Commander X got fired because Regional Commander Y is loading the deck for his bid to National CC" and more "Wing Commander X got fired because the national commander lost faith in his ability to perform his job."
[/rant]
Wow.... I like it!
Quote from: lordmonar on October 26, 2011, 10:33:25 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 26, 2011, 10:08:34 PM
So we want these folks, many of whom have no actual experience in implementing CAP programs (hey, they may never have even met a CAP member before being appointed to the BOG) and have no "skin in the game" making all the decisions? CAP Wing Commanders have to actually consider whether or not they could make proposed regulations work in the real world.
So we adjust the BoG.
Think outside the box. The BoG was a compromise between CAP and USAF. We can always change it to allow for "member representation". The question would be how big should it be. One or two members from each wing? A rep for ever 1000 members in a "district"? How do we share power between the USAF appointees and the CAP representitives?
My suggestion has always been.....each squadron elects a rep (not the commander) who represent the members at the wing, who elects a member to represent the wing at region. The region levels elects a member to sit on the BoG.
More like a union forman structure then what we have now.
The BoG "hires" the National CC and his Vice....they select regional commanders who select the wing commander who select the group/squadron commanders.
Nice, easy, minimises the amount of politicing. Terms would be 2 years. Allows the BoG to hire professional people that can focus on the job of getting the mission done....instead of having to worry about long term political agendas.
Allows for the general membership to directly affect policy through the politica process with out having to mix that up with the command/mission responsibilities.
Less "Wing Commander X got fired because Regional Commander Y is loading the deck for his bid to National CC" and more "Wing Commander X got fired because the national commander lost faith in his ability to perform his job."
[/rant]
That's kinda like what I said, except you're doing it with the BoG, I'm doing the NB...and I have everyone in the wing select the Wing rep, without the squadron layer...fundamentally not too different, and certainly not a hill I would die upon.
Isn't the composition of the BoG (or at least its size) set by Congress?
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on October 26, 2011, 10:50:37 PM
Isn't the composition of the BoG (or at least its size) set by Congress?
Yes.....but we can always ask congress to amend the law to make the BoG work better.
Quote from: lordmonar on October 26, 2011, 11:00:43 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on October 26, 2011, 10:50:37 PM
Isn't the composition of the BoG (or at least its size) set by Congress?
Yes.....but we can always ask congress to amend the law to make the BoG work better.
And Congress is soooooooo responsive to making such changes to law...
Quote from: JeffDG on October 26, 2011, 11:04:29 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 26, 2011, 11:00:43 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on October 26, 2011, 10:50:37 PM
Isn't the composition of the BoG (or at least its size) set by Congress?
Yes.....but we can always ask congress to amend the law to make the BoG work better.
And Congress is soooooooo responsive to making such changes to law...
Why not? Nothing to debate, won't cost anything, we just get one of our legistlative wing members to add it to the next Defense Authorisation Bill.....it get's lost in the arguments about F-22/F-35/BRAC funding and we get the leadership we need.
They changed it back in 2000 and no one knew about it but CAP and the USAF.
Quote from: lordmonar on October 27, 2011, 12:19:37 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on October 26, 2011, 11:04:29 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 26, 2011, 11:00:43 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on October 26, 2011, 10:50:37 PM
Isn't the composition of the BoG (or at least its size) set by Congress?
Yes.....but we can always ask congress to amend the law to make the BoG work better.
And Congress is soooooooo responsive to making such changes to law...
Why not? Nothing to debate, won't cost anything, we just get one of our legistlative wing members to add it to the next Defense Authorisation Bill.....it get's lost in the arguments about F-22/F-35/BRAC funding and we get the leadership we need.
They changed it back in 2000 and no one knew about it but CAP and the USAF.
How's that worked out with the Congressional Gold Medal bill?
Quote from: lordmonar on October 27, 2011, 12:19:37 AM
They changed it back in 2000 and no one knew about it but CAP and the USAF.
The funny part is that according to the 2000 Defense Authorization Act, it was changed after a governance study by the GAO...
Quote from: JeffDG on October 27, 2011, 04:52:35 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 27, 2011, 12:19:37 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on October 26, 2011, 11:04:29 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 26, 2011, 11:00:43 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on October 26, 2011, 10:50:37 PM
Isn't the composition of the BoG (or at least its size) set by Congress?
Yes.....but we can always ask congress to amend the law to make the BoG work better.
And Congress is soooooooo responsive to making such changes to law...
Why not? Nothing to debate, won't cost anything, we just get one of our legistlative wing members to add it to the next Defense Authorisation Bill.....it get's lost in the arguments about F-22/F-35/BRAC funding and we get the leadership we need.
They changed it back in 2000 and no one knew about it but CAP and the USAF.
How's that worked out with the Congressional Gold Medal bill?
Don't know.....anyone know the status of the gold medal bill? What bill did it get attached to?
To answere my own question....the Gold Medal bills (HR 719 and S 418 are both in committee0 HR 719 has 101 co-sponsors and S 418 has 48 cosponsors) so they are looking pretty good at this point.
Nothing is easy in congress. Everything takes time.....you must learn patience. ;D
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on October 27, 2011, 01:00:17 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 27, 2011, 12:19:37 AM
They changed it back in 2000 and no one knew about it but CAP and the USAF.
The funny part is that according to the 2000 Defense Authorization Act, it was changed after a governance study by the GAO...
Actually, there was a large outpouring of discontent back then; with governance, the relationship between CAP and the AF and, the members. We got plenty of bad press in those days. The GAO study was just the tip of a very large, deep iceburg which culminated in what we have now.
Quote from: FW on October 27, 2011, 02:29:09 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on October 27, 2011, 01:00:17 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 27, 2011, 12:19:37 AM
They changed it back in 2000 and no one knew about it but CAP and the USAF.
The funny part is that according to the 2000 Defense Authorization Act, it was changed after a governance study by the GAO...
Actually, there was a large outpouring of discontent back then; with governance, the relationship between CAP and the AF and, the members. We got plenty of bad press in those days. The GAO study was just the tip of a very large, deep iceburg which culminated in what we have now.
What did we have before that everyone was so up in arms about?
The NEC and NB.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on October 27, 2011, 02:37:39 PM
Quote from: FW on October 27, 2011, 02:29:09 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on October 27, 2011, 01:00:17 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 27, 2011, 12:19:37 AM
They changed it back in 2000 and no one knew about it but CAP and the USAF.
The funny part is that according to the 2000 Defense Authorization Act, it was changed after a governance study by the GAO...
Actually, there was a large outpouring of discontent back then; with governance, the relationship between CAP and the AF and, the members. We got plenty of bad press in those days. The GAO study was just the tip of a very large, deep iceburg which culminated in what we have now.
What did we have before that everyone was so up in arms about?
We can trace our current status to 1994. That is when NHQ went from AF employees to Corporate employees. This "evolution" changed our status from "goverment entity" to contractor status in the eyes of the GAO. Also, this change in personel created a situation where the NB/NEC controlled the status of the EX. This basically gave the National Commander unlimited authority; save what CAP-USAF (having its own problems at the time) prohibited.
To sumarize the very complex chain of events; a series of complaints, studies and white papers were authored ending in investigations, raids, negotiations and, a new CAP governance and funding structure.
Today (IMHO), to a much less extent, we have a series of "problems" which, need to be addressed, to move ahead. It will be the BoG's responsibility to deal with the study and, make any needed changes.
Biggest challenge facing CAP right now, and it has nothing to do with governance (or maybe it does):
Diversifying funding streams, so that we don't have to rely on appropriated funds so drastically. We've had an unqualified audit for three years now, and it was sold under the premise that it would bring more cash into the organization. Three years have passed and we're still chasing the government teat. We're laying off employees, suspending flying, postponing programs, etc because we've done nothing to increase external funding sources.
Where are the grant writers? Where are the outside investors? Where are the fundraising programs? From the outside it appears that CAP's leadership is more than comfortable operating under the status quo of begging Congress for it's money each year. Right now our primary income streams are federally appropriated funds and membership dues.
I belong to another organization that charges me $10/year to be a member. For their expenses, they raise money externally. A luncheon, for example, gets sponsors to the tune of about $20k every other month (table advertisements). At the annual banquet they give away hundreds of thousands of dollars in scholarship monies. It's just a local chapter. I can raise money locally for my unit, and do. But the fact that we're relying on our membership dues for our "corporate expenses" is just plain irresponsible.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on October 27, 2011, 03:35:19 PM
We've had an unqualified audit for three years now, and it was sold under the premise that it would bring more cash into the organization.
Yeah, i've got a bridge you may be interested in...
On the other hand it has been a giant pain in the @$$ for the membership to comply with.
Quote from: coudano on October 27, 2011, 03:44:21 PM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on October 27, 2011, 03:35:19 PM
We've had an unqualified audit for three years now, and it was sold under the premise that it would bring more cash into the organization.
Yeah, i've got a bridge you may be interested in...
On the other hand it has been a giant pain in the @$$ for the membership to comply with.
How so?
Wing Banker has made it easier at the squadron level IMHO. Sure the individual member may have to wait a week or two to get paid. Now we may have to take our personal money to buy something we need right now and wait for a check to be cut. But we have better control of our money and less of it will be walking away.
Quote from: lordmonar on October 27, 2011, 04:24:13 PM
How so?
Wing Banker has made it easier at the squadron level IMHO. Sure the individual member may have to wait a week or two to get paid. Now we may have to take our personal money to buy something we need right now and wait for a check to be cut. But we have better control of our money and less of it will be walking away.
Don't run a lot of squadron operations that require in and out transactions of money, do you?
..and even those, we send a form in, a check shows up in the mailbox. It's actually about as quick, and sometimes quicker than the unit finance committee alone, since the arrangements can be made via cc'ed emails, and the form cut the same way, to Wing.
The biggest change is, Wing is a Bank, instead of there being 92 bank accounts in one Wing.
Quote from: coudano on October 27, 2011, 04:47:27 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 27, 2011, 04:24:13 PM
How so?
Wing Banker has made it easier at the squadron level IMHO. Sure the individual member may have to wait a week or two to get paid. Now we may have to take our personal money to buy something we need right now and wait for a check to be cut. But we have better control of our money and less of it will be walking away.
Don't run a lot of squadron operations that require in and out transactions of money, do you?
Such as?
Maybe our governance structure is messed up because every time we start talking about strategic level issues, the next questions is "Well, what form would we use to keep track of it..."
Quote from: jimmydeanno on October 27, 2011, 05:47:16 PM
Maybe our governance structure is messed up because every time we start talking about strategic level issues, the next questions is "Well, what form would we use to keep track of it..."
:clap: :clap:
Quote from: Eclipse on October 27, 2011, 05:36:38 PM
Quote from: coudano on October 27, 2011, 04:47:27 PM
Don't run a lot of squadron operations that require in and out transactions of money, do you?
Such as?
Anything that requires a bunch of people to pay in to a pool,
Some of whom don't want to pay in cash, but write a check, to 'civil air patrol'
and then paying the group bills back out to any number of vendors.
vendors who don't invoice and take payment later.
vendors who are inconvenient or impossible to use without credit charge.
Food, Fuel, and Course Materials (exa: let's say rocket bulk packs and engines)
New member startup bulking
These things are all possible with wbp
but they are a colossal pain
The path of less resistance is for a member to assume all of the risk and liability of handling activity budgets out of personal pocket (which sometimes consist of several hundred or even thousands of dollars). Which is an unacceptable risk and in some cases an impossible burden. --and if the finance guys catch you doing that they will tell you not to.
The path of least resistance is for squadrons to just do fewer (or zero) activities.
WBP is GREAT for things like van maintenance fees.
It is horribly unagile for relatively short notice high volume consumer transactions like a squadron with a high 'squadron activity' opstempo.
Quote from: coudano on October 27, 2011, 04:47:27 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 27, 2011, 04:24:13 PM
How so?
Wing Banker has made it easier at the squadron level IMHO. Sure the individual member may have to wait a week or two to get paid. Now we may have to take our personal money to buy something we need right now and wait for a check to be cut. But we have better control of our money and less of it will be walking away.
Don't run a lot of squadron operations that require in and out transactions of money, do you?
sure we do.
We plan the operation ask for the funds need up front, get the check and pay for it and then send in money we take in.
Anyone who incures an expense fills out a check request, sends in the receipts and we get paid.
Wing does the book keeping and just have to do the cross checks. I have to say it is a lot less work then the old system.
Quote from: coudano on October 27, 2011, 06:07:14 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 27, 2011, 05:36:38 PM
Quote from: coudano on October 27, 2011, 04:47:27 PM
Don't run a lot of squadron operations that require in and out transactions of money, do you?
Such as?
Anything that requires a bunch of people to pay in to a pool,
Some of whom don't want to pay in cash, but write a check, to 'civil air patrol'
and then paying the group bills back out to any number of vendors.
vendors who don't invoice and take payment later.
vendors who are inconvenient or impossible to use without credit charge.
Food, Fuel, and Course Materials (exa: let's say rocket bulk packs and engines)
New member startup bulking
These things are all possible with wbp
but they are a colossal pain
The path of less resistance is for a member to assume all of the risk and liability of handling activity budgets out of personal pocket (which sometimes consist of several hundred or even thousands of dollars). Which is an unacceptable risk and in some cases an impossible burden. --and if the finance guys catch you doing that they will tell you not to.
The path of least resistance is for squadrons to just do fewer (or zero) activities.
WBP is GREAT for things like van maintenance fees.
It is horribly unagile for relatively short notice high volume transactions like a squadron with a high 'squadron activity' opstempo.
Get a squadron credit card. Some days I wish my squadron would get a credit card - it would make the logistics shop way easier, not to mention everything else, but last time I mentioned it in passing the response I got alluded to the fact that the previous CC (who is now the group CC) didn't want to get one because then they would have to answer one extra question on the SUI...
^ It's not just an extra question on an SUI, and the potential for misuse is high enough that it's not really worth the hassle.
WBP has made life easier and reduced risk for the majority of units, those that have special needs have options
for making their lives easier within that system.
I was an outspoken critic of the idea (actually got spanked for being "so" outspoken), and none of the doomsday predictions
have come true. Those wings running the program as written, without special local filters, should not be seeing many issues,
it's only when people start writing supplements and adding rules that there are problems.
As someone who has laid out thousands of dollars at a time for CAP activities, and never been stiffed a penny, my personal experience
is that the people who make the most noise about the "assumption of financial risk to the member" are generally people
who wouldn't consider doing that in any circumstances for anyone, while those of us in the consulting and freelance world
know it is just a part of the normal course of business.
Further to positive things in finance - I signed up to be a tester of the direct deposits for F108s. What a pleasure!
Upload the doc to WMIRS, get a "check". Can't ask for more than that.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 27, 2011, 07:04:07 PMFurther to positive things in finance - I signed up to be a tester of the direct deposits for F108s. What a pleasure!
Upload the doc to WMIRS, get a "check". Can't ask for more than that.
You mean we had a choice? They hounded me about 6 times before I remembered to send my DD form in! (not that I mind, I like not having to go to the bank)
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on October 27, 2011, 07:26:51 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 27, 2011, 07:04:07 PMFurther to positive things in finance - I signed up to be a tester of the direct deposits for F108s. What a pleasure!
Upload the doc to WMIRS, get a "check". Can't ask for more than that.
You mean we had a choice? They hounded me about 6 times before I remembered to send my DD form in! (not that I mind, I like not having to go to the bank)
I think DD will pretty much be "The Way" in the near future, but when I submitted the original form the message made it sound like the first couple tries would be a test run for all involved. I know it significantly increases the work the SD's have to do, but reduces what the wing staff does, and takes them out of the loop on the disbursements, so everything moves a lot faster.
Let's sit back now and count "you can't make me..." " I would never give out my banking info..." responses. For the record, I've worked for
several companies that required their employees to do payroll through DD, no exceptions, and more and more clients and vendors are moving to
direct payments as well.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 27, 2011, 07:32:39 PM
I think DD will pretty much be "The Way" in the near future
I agree, and I don't think it's a bad thing. The "I won't give them my bank account info no I won't" crowd don't quite get it... After all, you hand over that information every time you write a check.
Eclipse, it's awful nice of you (and me) to have thousands of dollars in the first place, to lay out.
If you and me go away, are there other people in your scope who are willing, or face it, able, to do the same? In mine, there aren't. $30 or $50 maybe. Over a hundred? forget it.
The system shouldn't be set up in such a way that it requires that in the first place.
That's ridiculous.
Even collecting $5.00 cash from everyone who shows up (say 20 people) and then paying the $97.00 bill and depositing the leftover $3 into the WBP account is "wrong". It works, and that's how we actually get it done quite a bit. But we are "supposed to" deposit all that cash in, itemizing the contributors, and then request a $97.00 check back out. Or deposit it all, someone pays the $97 on their own account and requests a reimbursement.
Like I acknowledged before, there are ways to get it done but they are certainly not convenient or expedient. Which is fine for some situations, but sometimes those things matter. Sometimes they make or break the difference in getting something done or not.
And if something does go wrong, or a mistake does get made, yes I have seen and heard "thanks for the donation" out of the corp (to the tune of hundreds of dollars), and yes I have seen peoples' money locked in the corporate account without a 'legitimate' way to get it back out.
On the "old way" as I recall it, we could cut a check for squadron banquet out of the squadron checkbook, to the caterer (who requires payment AT the time of service cash or check no credit) right there AT the banquet, for the exact amount charged (including deductions for no-shows and additions for late adds) and go on with life. Enough signers were there to legit sign the check and reconcile at the next finance committee meeting. Nobody paid anything out of pocket except the price of their own dinner ticket, nor had to transit several hundred dollars through their personal account, paying back leftovers or requesting reimbursement for over-run. Doesn't work that way in WBP.
Maybe with the credit card. I'm not sure my wing authorizes that, i'm quite sure we haven't asked.
I have never had a problem getting a mission reimbursement off a 108,
and I have no heartburn with direct deposit instead of a paper check, for the record.
However, a couple tanks of gas on a mission is a different story from a several hundred plus dollar weekend activity. I *HAVE* witnessed threats made to people by mission staff that they wouldn't get their fuel expenses reimbursed (rejected 108) on operational missions that involved more than 'a couple tanks of gas'.
No reason why you can't do the same.....have the finacial committee sign off on the upfront expense need. Have wing cut the check. send the receipt and any left over monies and new monies after the event.
Just like before.
Quote from: coudano on October 27, 2011, 08:21:33 PM
Eclipse, it's awful nice of you (and me) to have thousands of dollars in the first place, to lay out.
If you and me go away, are there other people in your scope who are willing, or face it, able, to do the same? In mine, there aren't. $30 or $50 maybe. Over a hundred? forget it.
I agree, but then in those cases, especially when we are talking hundreds (or more), it just requires better advanced planning, someting CAP is generally horrible at.
Quote from: coudano on October 27, 2011, 08:21:33 PM
And if something does go wrong, or a mistake does get made, yes I have seen and heard "thanks for the donation" out of the corp (to the tune of hundreds of dollars), and yes I have seen peoples' money locked in the corporate account without a 'legitimate' way to get it back out.
I've had to intervene in "mistakes" as well (how about bouncing the fuel expense because of a missing toll receipt, etc.), but we can't let mistakes shape the program, and in many cases part of the issue is members who can't be bothered to submit things in a timely fashion.
I've nevert had an issue that was properly documented and followed up on that went to the "forget about it bucket", though I have had a couple where the member wasn't interested in making the second phone call and just wrote it off, which isn't kosher, but when people don't want to pursue, you can't force the issue.
Quote from: coudano on October 27, 2011, 08:21:33 PM
On the "old way" as I recall it, we could cut a check for squadron banquet out of the squadron checkbook, to the caterer (who requires payment AT the time of service cash or check no credit) right there AT the banquet, for the exact amount charged (including deductions for no-shows and additions for late adds) and go on with life. Enough signers were there to legit sign the check and reconcile at the next finance committee meeting. Nobody paid anything out of pocket except the price of their own dinner ticket, nor had to transit several hundred dollars through their personal account, paying back leftovers or requesting reimbursement for over-run. Doesn't work that way in WBP.
Convieiinet, yes, but also in the "old way" who was signing the contract with the facility - the unit CC, against regs. We all did it, but the only person actually authorized to sign a contract is the Wing CC.
Quote from: coudano on October 27, 2011, 08:21:33 PM
However, a couple tanks of gas on a mission is a different story from a several hundred plus dollar weekend activity. I *HAVE* witnessed threats made to people by mission staff that they wouldn't get their fuel expenses reimbursed (rejected 108) on operational missions that involved more than 'a couple tanks of gas'.
what else would you expect? Except in the cases where there is lodging and per diem, all the USAF will reimbusre
anyone for is to/from gas and comm expense (i.e. batteries and phone calls).
Quote from: Eclipse on October 27, 2011, 08:45:32 PM
I agree, but then in those cases, especially when we are talking hundreds (or more), it just requires better advanced planning, someting CAP is generally horrible at.
In some cases more advanced planning isn't practical.
No matter what you do, you can't always reliably predict cadets' reliability to plan and pay in advance.
Another factor is the quantity of money in the bank account needs to be big enough in the first place to do an advance on funds. If you are running a squadron banquet (i.e.) with a $1,000 budget, and you can and will collect the money from members to offset that expense; but your squadron only runs a balance of, say $650, then you CANT get an advance of $1,000 and repay the cash collected and receipts afterward.
MOST squadrons carry low balances like this.
(granted, most squadrons aren't running $1,000 budget activities on a monthly or more often basis)
(but they SHOULD!!!, and the system should support it, rather than hinder it!)
QuoteConvenient, yes, but also in the "old way" who was signing the contract with the facility - the unit CC, against regs. We all did it, but the only person actually authorized to sign a contract is the Wing CC.
Well 'signing' a 'contract' isn't always an issue. We do a lot of stuff all the time without a paper contract signed. ANY purchase AT ALL creates an obligation to pay which is a contract in a sense. How pedantic do we want to be about that?
Quotewhat else would you expect? Except in the cases where there is lodging and per diem, all the USAF will reimbusre anyone for is to/from gas and comm expense (i.e. batteries and phone calls).
I was talking about multiple legit reimbursable expenses (lots of gas, multi day) but infact that is unrelated to WBP as well. Drifted off topic.
Well what would you have done under the old system? Pay out of pocket. So what has changed?
Yes....the WBP is not as "adgile" as the old system...i.e. you actually have to go through someone else to cut the check.
But really......what sort of operation are you running where you have a sudden need for large sums of cash?
Prior planning (if the cadet can't do it...that's what CP officers are for).
So that is a con to WBP.....I'll conceed that.
But on the plus side: We don't have any money simply walking away.
We don't have squadrons with hugh secret funds no one knows about.
We have a second set of eyes on squadron expenditures "what do you mean you need $2000 for a disco ball!".
We get the unqualified audit....that may help us in the future to get those grants and other funding streams.
It helps establish the real ideal that it is CAP's money and not the squadrons's or worse the squadron commander's.
Quote from: coudano on October 27, 2011, 09:07:33 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 27, 2011, 08:45:32 PM
I agree, but then in those cases, especially when we are talking hundreds (or more), it just requires better advanced planning, someting CAP is generally horrible at.
In some cases more advanced planning isn't practical.
No matter what you do, you can't always reliably predict cadets' reliability to plan and pay in advance.
I gotta throw a flag here - they pay when you need them to or they don't attend. I spent 10 years running an encampment,
and people do what they need to when they understand there is no wiggle room on the deadline.
Units are supposed to put together detailed budgets for each fiscal year, and that certainly should include financial planning for activities.
But a lot of units fly by their seat and figure it out as they go. We're supposed to be bigger and better than that.
Quote from: coudano on October 27, 2011, 09:07:33 PM
Another factor is the quantity of money in the bank account needs to be big enough in the first place to do an advance on funds. If you are running a squadron banquet (i.e.) with a $1,000 budget, and you can and will collect the money from members to offset that expense; but your squadron only runs a balance of, say $650, then you CANT get an advance of $1,000 and repay the cash collected and receipts afterward.
MOST squadrons carry low balances like this.
(granted, most squadrons aren't running $1,000 budget activities on a monthly or more often basis)
(but they SHOULD!!!, and the system should support it, rather than hinder it!)
If the above becomes a legit hindrance, than guess what? More fundraising to create a surplus for this exact purpose.
Quote from: lordmonar on October 27, 2011, 09:29:11 PM
But on the plus side: We don't have any money simply walking away.
We don't have squadrons with hugh secret funds no one knows about.
This should not be discounted, especially the money growing mold in unit accounts. My wing had units that carried 5-figure balances
in their unit accounts and would simply not spend the money. You might as well just not have it then.
Quote from: lordmonar on October 27, 2011, 09:29:11 PM
Well what would you have done under the old system? Pay out of pocket. So what has changed?
Turn around time. Shorter turn around, on both the deposit and the check. Local bank, allowed us to go through the official account on a day's notice.
QuoteBut on the plus side: We don't have any money simply walking away.
I don't have any problem believing that this happened though I never saw it (in CAP).
I've seen it happen elsewhere.
QuoteWe don't have squadrons with hugh secret funds no one knows about.
We have a second set of eyes on squadron expenditures "what do you mean you need $2000 for a disco ball!".
Who cares if they want to spend $2,000 on a disco ball.
If a squadron wants to do that, then they oughtta do it.
Now if you're spending $2,000 on a $20 disco ball and pocketing the other $1800 that's an issue, but wing banker is no more likely to catch that then the previous system.
QuoteWe get the unqualified audit....that may help us in the future to get those grants and other funding streams.
Like the thing that started this whole thread,
yah we've heard about it, so let's see it.
QuoteIt helps establish the real ideal that it is CAP's money and not the squadrons's or worse the squadron commander's.
It's helping the supporters of my squadron establish a booster club, that will fund the squadron's operations. That money won't be CAP's property or concern, either.
With regards to making mistakes or filing on time, or using the right forms (which for a while there were changing and deprecating every few minutes). I already have to be an expert on 25 things and keep up with all the changes on all of those things. I'm maxed out. We can't all be experts, mistakes are going to happen, members are going to get hosed, irritated, apathetic, and then leave.
Should I quit my involvement in finance since I obviously can't keep up with it?
What will that do to opstempo and activities that I manage funding for?
Should I reduce my time and energy in some other area so I can keep on top of the finance mountain? What will that do to quality output in the other areas that I work in now?
Quote from: Eclipse on October 27, 2011, 09:39:25 PM
Units are supposed to put together detailed budgets for each fiscal year, and that certainly should include financial planning for activities.
Sure and as your expected planning adjusts over time you have to redo stuff.
Cancelled a big activity that you did budget for? Additional paperwork.
Added a big activity that you didn't forsee? Additional administrativa.
QuoteBut a lot of units fly by their seat and figure it out as they go. We're supposed to be bigger and better than that.
yeah, take a good look around CAP.
there's what we are supposed to be
and then there's what we are.
QuoteIf the above becomes a legit hindrance, than guess what? More fundraising to create a surplus for this exact purpose.
I'm glad you have the spare time and energy to do that, on top of everything else you do.
I don't. Got some time and energy to come on over and help my unit out?
How about the other 1500 units in CAP that have similar problems?
(or avoid problems by simply not doing anything, let alone spending any money)
Quote from: Eclipse on October 27, 2011, 09:41:14 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 27, 2011, 09:29:11 PM
But on the plus side: We don't have any money simply walking away.
We don't have squadrons with hugh secret funds no one knows about.
This should not be discounted, especially the money growing mold in unit accounts. My wing had units that carried 5-figure balances
in their unit accounts and would simply not spend the money. You might as well just not have it then.
This is the exactly wrong attitude to have, and one of the initial objections to WBP up front.
The squadron's money is the squadron's money.
If they want a $2,000 disco ball, and the squadron commander and finance committee approve it, and the money is in the account, then they get it.
If they have $10,000 in the bank, and they aren't spending it, then that's just fine.
The "you might as well just not have it" attitude, over a longer period of time turns into "well we could REALLY use it, so we're just going to take it".
And THAT is where the BS flag has to be thrown.
Now forseeing that eventuality over time, how do you suppose that affects a squadron's willingness and ability to build and carry a large balance like that? Or a donor's willingness to donate to the local program, knowing that the money may not, infact, stay local.
Well....I have seen it in CAP.
NVWG lost several $10,000 in cash....the guy got caught and went to jail....but the money is gone.
I heard a story that a unit in TXWG had a million dollar grant that simply disappeared one day.
You can't say that the buracracy of getting a check cut is all that bad.
I know here in NVWG it takes a simple form with the financial comittees signature and you get a check.
You turn in the receipt after the fact (that covers someone pocketing the $1800 for a $20 disco ball).
Is there really something going on in your squadron that a week or two is going to kill a program?
Remember the booster club is NOT supposed to paying for operational items. Pay for the X-mas party and maybe a scholorship to encampment or NCSA....but paying for a FTX, model rocketry, flying, ES should all be paid out of unit funds.
Quote from: coudano on October 27, 2011, 10:21:51 PMThis is the exactly wrong attitude to have, and one of the initial objections to WBP up front.
The squadron's money is the squadron's money.
No....it is not. It never has been. If the squadron folds....the money has always gone back to the corporation. Before wing banker we had no way to get any of that cash......see the TXWG with the $1M grant.
QuoteIf they want a $2,000 disco ball, and the squadron commander and finance committee approve it, and the money is in the account, then they get it.
To a point I agree with you.....but really? People gave that money to CAP so you can do your mission. Wasteing the funds on useless junk is just as bad as stealing it. I have no problem with wing keeping an eye out for frivolous expenditures. If you really need a disco-ball....the by all means get one. I am sure you can justify it to wing.
QuoteIf they have $10,000 in the bank, and they aren't spending it, then that's just fine.
To a point.....if Unit X has $10,000 in the bank and they don't use it.....Unit Y who just started could use some of that money to get on their feet. WBP makes that sort of transfer much easier. (not that I advocate any sort of hostile take over! Your squadron raised that money.....no one should be taking it away from you with our your permission....that's just good manners!)
QuoteThe "you might as well just not have it" attitude, over a longer period of time turns into "well we could REALLY use it, so we're just going to take it".
And THAT is where the BS flag has to be thrown.
That is a good point......but on the other hand sharing the wealth for the good of the larger program is not necessarily a bad idea either. There is a happy medium between hording every penny and getting robbed for all your cash.
QuoteNow forseeing that eventuality over time, how do you suppose that affects a squadron's willingness and ability to build and carry a large balance like that? Or a donor's willingness to donate to the local program, knowing that the money may not, infact, stay local.
If a local donor comes to you and you don't need the money.....why are you taking his money? Why not send him to someone who needs it? Why not suggest that they donate to the larger organisation at the group, wing. national level?
As of now....as far as I know....no unit has ever had monies forcefully pulled away. I don't think I have ever heard of a donor not donating to a CAP unit because the thought the money may be spend out of town/state. I think that argument is mostly just a straw man for the fear that wing may "steal" unit money.......even though it has always been the corporation's money.
I'm one of the guy's who signs checks for our wing. My wife is the Wing administrator. If you email the correct paperwork, she's telling me the same day that I need to go in and sign checks. One of the other check signers lives nearby and also comes in to sign checks as needed, so turnaround is usually less than 1 week. Anything urgent can be handled in one day if necessary.
Quote from: NCRblues on October 26, 2011, 09:05:49 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on October 26, 2011, 08:51:17 PM
The NEC is the executive committee of the NB, not a mere sub-committee or task force.
I still think we don't need the NB, too much politicking.
Let's find a less self-destructive manner to maintain 'checks & balances' on national leadership.
So here is my question to you...
When we cut the NB, you don't think the politicking will skyrocket to get into one of those 7 region commander slots?
There will still be politicking, of course, even for wing CC slots, even if not in capacity of NB member.
However, I truly feel that taking the power to elect National CC away from wing CCs
and region CCs will help reduce the "eat one's own young" approach that presently seems the hallmark of these elections.
Subordinates should not be voting for commanders; the CG Aux is a dubious basis for comparison, because the Aux leadership seems less "commanders" than directors/coordinators liaising with USCG officers (from an outsider's perspective).
If we keep the NB, each wing ought to have a representative chosen by some means other than appointment as wing CC (election by senior members leaps to mind, perhaps with Level 3 completion as a qualification for voting)...and NB members should be ineligible for region or wing command or National office for the term for which they were eligible to vote (i.e., later of these two: as long as one is an NB rep, or as long as national CC elected during their tenure on NB is in office).
Will it kill politics in CAP? Of course not; but it will make it awfully difficult!
Quote from: lordmonar on October 26, 2011, 10:33:25 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 26, 2011, 10:08:34 PM
So we want these folks, many of whom have no actual experience in implementing CAP programs (hey, they may never have even met a CAP member before being appointed to the BOG) and have no "skin in the game" making all the decisions? CAP Wing Commanders have to actually consider whether or not they could make proposed regulations work in the real world.
So we adjust the BoG.
Think outside the box. The BoG was a compromise between CAP and USAF. We can always change it to allow for "member representation". The question would be how big should it be. One or two members from each wing? A rep for ever 1000 members in a "district"? How do we share power between the USAF appointees and the CAP representitives?
My suggestion has always been.....each squadron elects a rep (not the commander) who represent the members at the wing, who elects a member to represent the wing at region. The region levels elects a member to sit on the BoG.
More like a union forman structure then what we have now.
The BoG "hires" the National CC and his Vice....they select regional commanders who select the wing commander who select the group/squadron commanders.
Nice, easy, minimises the amount of politicing. Terms would be 2 years. Allows the BoG to hire professional people that can focus on the job of getting the mission done....instead of having to worry about long term political agendas.
Allows for the general membership to directly affect policy through the politica process with out having to mix that up with the command/mission responsibilities.
Less "Wing Commander X got fired because Regional Commander Y is loading the deck for his bid to National CC" and more "Wing Commander X got fired because the national commander lost faith in his ability to perform his job."
[/rant]
I like it too; I do feel 2 years is a very short tenure in national CC role, but perhaps it could work.
Quote from: lordmonar on October 27, 2011, 10:40:37 PM
Quote from: coudano on October 27, 2011, 10:21:51 PMThis is the exactly wrong attitude to have, and one of the initial objections to WBP up front.
The squadron's money is the squadron's money.
No....it is not. It never has been. If the squadron folds....the money has always gone back to the corporation. Before wing banker we had no way to get any of that cash......see the TXWG with the $1M grant.
Of course I should have put "air quotes around that". Yes it is CAP's money,
but within CAP, the money that a squadron has raised should be that squadron's prerogative to control.
THAT is the most compelling case for WBP that there is.
Although maintaining external authorized signers or conditionals on the account are a valid option that most banks will provide that would alleviate that situation.
An this is exactly why:
Quoteif Unit X has $10,000 in the bank and they don't use it.....Unit Y who just started could use some of that money to get on their feet. WBP makes that sort of transfer much easier.
I mean sure if squadron X wants to GIVE a couple thousand dollars of its hard earned money to squadron Y, then fine. They can cut a check or even do a wire transfer just like WBP can.
However, when group or wing commander "orders" a squadron to give money to another squadron or simply takes it and puts it somewhere else, that 'ought to' be wrong somehow. Supposedly that is not the policy of WBP, and everyone constantly reassures that "that won't happen", and i'm not aware of any instance of it actually happening, yet. However, that I am aware of, there is no /actual/ protection against it. So from my cynical and jaded point of view, it's just a matter of time, if it hasn't happened already and we just don't know about it.
Quote(not that I advocate any sort of hostile take over! Your squadron raised that money.....no one should be taking it away from you with our your permission....that's just good manners!)
Manners have a tendency go out the window when you're talking about tens of thousands or more dollars. It's not just manners, it's also management. If my cadets go out and bust their humps and between fund raising and donations get a pile of $35,000 and a bunch of that pile gets taken and distributed elsewhere, what do you think that's going to do to the attitude and morale of my cadets? How hard do you think they are going to work at my next fundraiser?
By the same token, I would /never/ take money appropriated from some other squadron's hard work.
It's one thing in something like the military where unit funds come down from hq. They can pull it back and redistribute it all they want, and nobody has any problems with that, including me.
However when the money comes in from the bottom up, through the units, and directly from the personal pockets and hard work of the members, I have a HUGE problem with the corporation moving it around.
If the money never hits the wing banker system,
then it was never the corporation's money. meh.
QuoteThere is a happy medium between hording every penny and getting robbed for all your cash.
I disagree. If it's "yours", then it's "yours".
QuoteI think that argument is mostly just a straw man for the fear that wing may "steal" unit money.......even though it has always been the corporation's money.
I've seen donations made that were stipulated to be spent only on funding cadets from the local squadron to attend activities. Donors can stipulate things like that, and those stipulations have to be met.
That's why the boosters come up. They meet an actual need. The booster's money isn't CAP's, so CAP has no visibility or control on it. Simple.
QuoteQuoteIf they want a $2,000 disco ball, and the squadron commander and finance committee approve it, and the money is in the account, then they get it.
To a point I agree with you.....but really? People gave that money to CAP so you can do your mission. Wasteing the funds on useless junk is just as bad as stealing it. I have no problem with wing keeping an eye out for frivolous expenditures. If you really need a disco-ball....the by all means get one. I am sure you can justify it to wing.
Of course, when I say disco ball, I mean "anything" that someone might consider "frivilous".
Your squadron doesn't need a funded pizza party.
Your squadron doesn't need a MS flight sim setup with controls and stack.
Your squadron doesn't need (whatever).
You can always fire and/or prosecute members for buying stupid stuff.
That's the RIGHT thing to do.
Taking the money away from the unit isn't.
You know we have been doing WBP for quite a while now........any out there loose any money to the evil wing commander?
Anyone.....anyone?
As for haveing some wing level oversight for frivolous perchases......I absolutly don't see a problem with that.
If you can't justify it to wing as a valid requirment to your mission.....then you should not buy it.
The money was not given to the unit so they could have the coolest cadet lounge in the wing!
But again I will ask everyone.
Anyone out there ever been denied the permission to buy something that would really help CAP?
Anyone?
yah that REALLY wasnt my original objection in this thread anyway
but... :deadhorse:
Quote from: lordmonar on October 28, 2011, 01:21:38 AM
If you can't justify it to wing as a valid requirment to your mission.....then you should not buy it.
That's what the unit finance committee is for, to ensure that expenses are authorized. If a unit wants to upgrade their meeting location, so what? As long as they don't spend money they don't have, it should be no business of the wing what they spend it on. We buy meals all the time for cadets on SAREXs, lunch on Curry training days, etc. Mission essential? No, but it is something that we budget for and approved.
The last thing we need is some over zealous finance officer at wing telling us that they think an expense is frivolous and she isn't going to cut the check for something that the unit finance committee approved. Wing's only business into the expenses is that they unit doesn't overspend, cut checks, and provide a balance. When was the last time your bank told you that you couldn't buy something because they didn't approve of it?
Never....because we don't ask for frivilous things.
But I hope that someone, somewhere would say WTF Over when they see something that is down right stupid.
But...as they say YMMV.
Quote from: lordmonar on October 28, 2011, 01:55:37 AM
Never....because we don't ask for frivilous things.
But I hope that someone, somewhere would say WTF Over when they see something that is down right stupid.
But...as they say YMMV.
YMM REALLY V
when you and your squadron commaner and finance committee agree to fund something
and then YOU go out and shell out some hundred bucks for said thing
and submit for reimbursement
and THAT is the point where your friendly oversight doinks frivilous expense and apparently in your hypothetical world nay's the expense. leaving you hanging with the unreimbursed bill. thanks for the donation.
I've never seen that /actually happen/ either, but it's a very real situation that apparently you have no problem with... (???)
I've been watching this discussion with a smirk.
A couple of points:
1. Wing cannot "take" or "reallocate" monies belonging to subordinate units
Quote from: CAPR 173-1, sect. 11, para qExcept for unit deactivation, wings will not be permitted to co-mingle wing funds with subordinate unit funds nor use subordinate unit funds for any purpose not approved by the subordinate unit.
2. The level of review at wing finance re: $2000 disco ball is usually a. does the unit have the money and b. was it approved by the unit's finance committee.
3. There is a process to request funding prior to payment in most wings. If you are going to get that disco ball, you can usually get a quote - including shipping - from the vendor and attach that to the check request BEFORE purchase and get a check made out to the vendor.
Quote from: coudano on October 28, 2011, 02:10:30 AM
YMM REALLY V
when you and your squadron commaner and finance committee agree to fund something
and then YOU go out and shell out some hundred bucks for said thing
and submit for reimbursement
and THAT is the point where your friendly oversight doinks frivilous expense and apparently in your hypothetical world nay's the expense. leaving you hanging with the unreimbursed bill. thanks for the donation.
I've never seen that /actually happen/ either, but it's a very real situation that apparently you have no problem with... ( ??? )
You are not going to see this happen. It is against regulations and, could end up as a FWA issue. The WBP is set up to provide CAP with total accountability of funds; not control. Units may spend their funds anyway they want (according to CAPR 173-1 and CAPR 173-4).
Now, why are we discussing this instead of the survey? ::)
Quote from: FW on October 28, 2011, 03:11:00 AM
Now, why are we discussing this instead of the survey? ::)
Normal CAPTalk aimless wandering...
i actually asked for a split earlier today but the mods have either not gotten to it yet or decided not to do it
I still haven't received the survey yet. Does anybody know what's going on with this?
Quote from: Rowan on October 30, 2011, 03:26:40 PM
I still haven't received the survey yet. Does anybody know what's going on with this?
I understand the survey link was sent out to about 500 members, closing date for responses is today.
Check your spam or other filtered options for anything like this:
ccarr@cap.gov CAPsurvey@boardsource.org
reply-to CAPsurvey@boardsource.org
date Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 06:10
subject Civil Air Patrol Governance Study
Another similar notice was sent 26-Oct, as well.
I'd thought I'd give the thread a bump since NOTF published the Air Force IG report of (redacted's) complaint agianst the CAP Board of Governors. IMHO, the report is an accurate account of what is happening at the national leadership level of CAP. The confusion of the "pecking order" is obvious to most and, of course, needs to be addressed. The polarization of factions in CAP, like the rest of the country, will be more difficult to change.
However, it is my opinion the BoG must address these issues with this understanding; it is the volunteers who perform CAP's many missions. No matter how the governance of CAP works, there must be an effective interface between the dedicated members of CAP and the senior leadership and the Board of Governors.
The AF IG's report underlines the BoG's failure to govern appropriately. Even though it did not fail its fiduciary responsibilities, the board failed to change CAP's regulatory publications to bring sanity and reason to CAP governance after 10 years of existance. (redacted's) complaint was just another salvo in attempting to confuse the situation and, with the help of the NB's governance committee, make life more difficult for those trying to improve our organization.
It's time for Gen Anderson, BoG Chairman, to step up to the plate and remind the other members of the board why CAP has been successful for the last 70 years. Successful governance of a dedicated membership should not be that difficult... :angel:
Is there a link to the News of the Force article, or how can we get access?
+-Google on News of The Force and you should be able to find it. I read it and didn't find that the IG was very kind to the BoG.
The IG wasn't too kind to the BoG or to "Redacted". It's kind of easy to understand why, at least as far as regulations go - the regs haven't been updated in almost 10 years.
I'm gathering from the IG report that, while the AF loves CAP volunteers, they're not too thrilled with higher headquarters - on the BoG side and on the CAP side.
Jack
The whole system is scrod. The rank and filemembers were told that the National Board was the governing body of CAP, but there is a subcommitte aka The National Executive Committee which appoints the members of Board and meets seperately from them. Now we have a Board of Governors two thirds of which have no connection to CAP which is charged with the governance. You need a Doctorate in Theology to understand the governance as explained to the membership.
The one thing that was mentioned, brought up many times here, was the updating of regulations and manuals. Even though it referenced this particular investigation, members have found the same issue elsewhere.
Quote from: peter rabbit on March 24, 2012, 01:46:51 PM
Is there a link to the News of the Force article, or how can we get access?
NOTF Exclusive: The AF IG's Report on the Civil Air Patrol - Page 1 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewsoftheForce/message/9481)
NOTF Exclusive: The AF IG's Report on the Civil Air Patrol - Page 2 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewsoftheForce/message/9482)
I just can't help but compare this report of what is happening in CAP to how the CG Aux works. The report highlights the silliness of a commander selecting those that will end up voting on them and/or their favorite successor. CG Aux, which depends on those below electing their leaders all the way up the chain has no such problem. Sure, there are probably some "politics" going on at the very high electoral level, but it certainly doesn't seem to get to the toxic levels seen in CAP due to our structure.
Not to sound crass, but reading that was painful, and I'm not sure that it is coherent enough as to explain anything, much less for me to draw any conclusions from it.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on March 25, 2012, 09:45:12 PM
Not to sound crass, but reading that was painful, and I'm not sure that it is coherent enough as to explain anything, much less for me to draw any conclusions from it.
I think it has answered the age old question (at least here on captalk) about what the AF thinks of CAP. The AF loves the volunteers who get the missions done....and the AF hates the top leadership because of the political crap....
I do find it funny that the AF blasts CAP leadership over not fixing things, than later on in the report asks the leadership to fix things. If they didn't do it the first decade, what makes you think they will do it now?
(sarcasm warning) -> Plus our leadership has way more important things to worried about for instance our 2 year (or 3 or 4 depending on who you ask and how long you have paid attention) moratorium on uniform changes!
I think the complaints about not updating the regs to reflect the BoG are pretty darn petty. Whether or not the BoG gets mentioned in a CAP regulation is pretty meaningless to CAP life. They can pretty much do what they darn well please no matter what any regulation says. Sure, it would be a good idea to update them as applicable, but certainly not worth highlighting in a report like this.
Quote from: NCRblues on March 25, 2012, 09:51:30 PM
(sarcasm warning) -> Plus our leadership has way more important things to worried about for instance our 2 year (or 3 or 4 depending on who you ask and how long you have paid attention) moratorium on uniform changes!
Kinda misses both as sarcasm and as satire.
By definition a moratorium on uniform changes means they
are not spending time on uniform changes. And by all accounts the leadership has spent a great deal of time working governance issues recently, driven in large part by the very problems the IG report highlights.
There really isn't anything particularly new in the IG report - it is all stuff that was discussed at great length here on CT. Without exception, everyone acknowledges the issues highlighted here - that Congress grafted the BoG onto an existing governance structure and not all of the supporting documents (C & BL, regs, etc.) have been harmonized. That omission, in turn, has led to some confusion and overlapping roles between the various governing structures. Aggravating that situation is the problem with the "circular selection process" represented by our current method of electing the national commander.
It bears repeating that updating governance is something that all large organizations need to do from time to time. Just as the American Red Cross did after Katrina. They used outside experts to audit their governance and suggest best practices for their corporation. We are going down the same road. We have hired consultants who gave us the benefit of their wisdom. The BoG has a special meeting next month as part of the deliberate, open process for change. Thev NEC meets in May, and of course the NB will meet in August. All will be dealing with their part in governance reform.
So, despite you attempt at sarcasm, it sounds like the leadership is doing what they need to do. All of us would like it to move more quickly, or course, but it is an important process for a unique corporation with several hundred million dollars in assets and over 60,000 members. We should not be hasty in our changes. We are going to do it right.
Quote from: Ned on March 25, 2012, 10:24:01 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on March 25, 2012, 09:51:30 PM
(sarcasm warning) -> Plus our leadership has way more important things to worried about for instance our 2 year (or 3 or 4 depending on who you ask and how long you have paid attention) moratorium on uniform changes!
Kinda misses both as sarcasm and as satire.
By definition a moratorium on uniform changes means they are not spending time on uniform changes. And by all accounts the leadership has spent a great deal of time working governance issues recently, driven in large part by the very problems the IG report highlights.
There really isn't anything particularly new in the IG report - it is all stuff that was discussed at great length here on CT. Without exception, everyone acknowledges the issues highlighted here - that Congress grafted the BoG onto an existing governance structure and not all of the supporting documents (C & BL, regs, etc.) have been harmonized. That omission, in turn, has led to some confusion and overlapping roles between the various governing structures. Aggravating that situation is the problem with the "circular selection process" represented by our current method of electing the national commander.
It bears repeating that updating governance is something that all large organizations need to do from time to time. Just as the American Red Cross did after Katrina. They used outside experts to audit their governance and suggest best practices for their corporation. We are going down the same road. We have hired consultants who gave us the benefit of their wisdom. The BoG has a special meeting next month as part of the deliberate, open process for change. Thev NEC meets in May, and of course the NB will meet in August. All will be dealing with their part in governance reform.
So, despite you attempt at sarcasm, it sounds like the leadership is doing what they need to do. All of us would like it to move more quickly, or course, but it is an important process for a unique corporation with several hundred million dollars in assets and over 60,000 members. We should not be hasty in our changes. We are going to do it right.
Ned, I think you read it different than I wanted it to come across... dangers of the interwebs I guess.
I meant it as more of a joking and fun poking at captalk and our seemingly unhinged obsession with uniforms and regulations that deal with uniforms.
If you notice, I have been very silent on the governance issue lately, as I have been reassured by
someone that my fears where not going to come to pass. Work away on the reform of our governance good sir, I just hope to see more openness soon.
The CAP Board of Governors were supposed to have met yesterday for their semi annual session. I'm just wondering if the SECAF sent his ideas back on CAP governance yet... :angel:
I'm behind the curve a little bit but wouldn't it make more sense to have one governing body made up of CAP, USAF and corp members and have say maybe the AETC CC have final say on things?
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 07, 2012, 03:04:37 PM
I'm behind the curve a little bit but wouldn't it make more sense to have one governing body made up of CAP, USAF and corp members and have say maybe the AETC CC have final say on things?
The AF has said that will not happen ever again (having an AD 0-7 or above) calling the shots. They have no money for it. Would be nice, but we will never see that one go down.
Quote from: abdsp51 on June 07, 2012, 03:04:37 PM
I'm behind the curve a little bit but wouldn't it make more sense to have one governing body made up of CAP, USAF and corp members and have say maybe the AETC CC have final say on things?
Maybe, but as noted it isn't going to happen.
Ultimately political infighting issues are a reflection of the citizens and to some extent, reflections of the country at large. Self-control is the answer to a lot of issues, but what is the fallback when self-control is not exercised?
Quote from: NCRblues on June 07, 2012, 04:27:27 PM
The AF has said that will not happen ever again (having an AD 0-7 or above) calling the shots. They have no money for it. Would be nice, but we will never see that one go down.
What about someone from the Air Force Reserve?
I'm not sure about an Air National Guard officer because that could potentially get into Title 10 and who does s/he work for; his/her State or DoD?
How about a retired USAF/USAFR/USAirNG general officer?
Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 08, 2012, 06:48:32 PM
How about a retired USAF/USAFR/USAirNG general officer?
That's what we have on the BoG now.
Anyone who is "ex-military" is essentially what we have today, and its not a given that they will be any more successful then someone
from the private sector.
Leading volunteers, especially a group which includes a vocal minority who for some reason don't appreciate CAP's paramilitary culture,
is not the same as leading people who have sworn to follow orders to their deaths. Time and again I have seen accomplished military
people struggle to lead in CAP because they say "jump" and members say "why", or "I'd love to jump, and don't get me wrong, if this was
the 'big leap', I'd be there, but right now I'm pretty busy..."
Having us >in< the military chain is a different discussion, and it doesn't appear to be one that's on the table.
Eclipes.....just to pick nits......we did not swear to follow order to our deaths. We swear to support and defend the consitituion of the United States.
But.....yes.....leading volunteers is a differnt type of leadership....and many ex-military types have trouble making that transition.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 09, 2012, 06:40:23 AM
But.....yes.....leading volunteers is a differnt type of leadership....and many ex-military types have trouble making that transition.
Oddly, I never really had that problem (and being ex-military and all).
My former commander used to emphasize "Accomplish the mission, welfare of the troops." And of course he was right, for one of our military services.
But for CAP purposes, I flipped that around: "Welfare of the troops, accomplish the mission." That put people in a totally different leadership mindset for the priorities.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 08, 2012, 07:43:04 PM
Anyone who is "ex-military" is essentially what we have today, and its not a given that they will be any more successful then someone
from the private sector.
Leading volunteers, especially a group which includes a vocal minority who for some reason don't appreciate CAP's paramilitary culture,
is not the same as leading people who have sworn to follow orders to their deaths. Time and again I have seen accomplished military
people struggle to lead in CAP because they say "jump" and members say "why", or "I'd love to jump, and don't get me wrong, if this was
the 'big leap', I'd be there, but right now I'm pretty busy..."
Having us >in< the military chain is a different discussion, and it doesn't appear to be one that's on the table.
And on the flip side, you have those people without military experience who try to lead in the corporate fashion. i.e. Memos, e mails, death by power point, meeting purgatory, "do as I say, not as I do" types. Leadership is leadership. Good leaders will modify their message and style to fit their audience. Plus, being a military officer does not make anyone a automatic "good" leader. I know two people who are senior officers on AD right now with the AF. One I would follow anywhere and the other I would be hard pressed to spit(or anything else) on if he was on fire. If you know what you are doing, treat people with compassion and respect, have a clear sense of purpose, and say "Follow Me" 99 times out of 100 you will get positive results. That one guy that won't get it will probably be gone pretty fast anyway.
Quote from: ol'fido on June 09, 2012, 02:52:33 PM
who try to lead in the corporate fashion. i.e. Memos, e mails, death by power point, meeting purgatory, "do as I say, not as I do" types.
Argh!
"Leadership" of the worst type...
Quote from: bflynn on June 10, 2012, 02:32:52 AM
Quote from: ol'fido on June 09, 2012, 02:52:33 PM
who try to lead in the corporate fashion. i.e. Memos, e mails, death by power point, meeting purgatory, "do as I say, not as I do" types.
Argh!
"Leadership" of the worst type...
But that's not
Leadership, it's
Managing. Which is why they're called Managers and not Leaders.
You lead people, you manage equipment and processes...
And confusion between the two is why a lot of so-called leaders, both corporate and military, fail.
Amen Al.
Quote from: ol'fido on June 10, 2012, 02:10:36 PM
And confusion between the two is why a lot of so-called leaders, both corporate and military, fail.
Which is a
BIG problem at the big corperation (AT&T) that I work at.
And it seems that the "managers" have the edge on the "leaders" because they know how to "manage" their numbers to look good for the big boss.
Quote from: ol'fido on June 10, 2012, 02:10:36 PM
And confusion between the two is why a lot of so-called leaders, both corporate and military, fail.
I told a guy once in a job interview "My management style? I prefer to manage by leadership than to lead by management."
He was like "wow, I never thought of it like that before."
LOL.
Quote from: PHall on June 10, 2012, 04:29:14 PM
Quote from: ol'fido on June 10, 2012, 02:10:36 PM
And confusion between the two is why a lot of so-called leaders, both corporate and military, fail.
Which is a BIG problem at the big corperation (AT&T) that I work at.
And it seems that the "managers" have the edge on the "leaders" because they know how to "manage" their numbers to look good for the big boss.
These kind of people are worried about themselves first, last, and always. They never get it through their heads that if they take care of their people, their people will accomplish the mission, and make them look even better. They all read the "Book of the Five Rings", the "Art of War for Managers", buy a set of Katana swords, use buzz words and the word "paradigm" a lot, and think they are samurai warrior leaders.
Quote from: ol'fido on June 10, 2012, 06:40:13 PM
Quote from: PHall on June 10, 2012, 04:29:14 PM
Quote from: ol'fido on June 10, 2012, 02:10:36 PM
And confusion between the two is why a lot of so-called leaders, both corporate and military, fail.
Which is a BIG problem at the big corperation (AT&T) that I work at.
And it seems that the "managers" have the edge on the "leaders" because they know how to "manage" their numbers to look good for the big boss.
These kind of people are worried about themselves first, last, and always. They never get it through their heads that if they take care of their people, their people will accomplish the mission, and make them look even better. They all read the "Book of the Five Rings", the "Art of War for Managers", buy a set of Katana swords, use buzz words and the word "paradigm" a lot, and think they are samurai warrior leaders.
Doesn't help that us "worker drones" are protected by the union (CWA) while the managers are "employed at will", i.e. your boss gets a wild hair, you're gone.
So yeah, there is a lot of CYA going on in the Management world. ::)
Quote from: ol'fido on June 10, 2012, 06:40:13 PM
Quote from: PHall on June 10, 2012, 04:29:14 PM
Quote from: ol'fido on June 10, 2012, 02:10:36 PM
And confusion between the two is why a lot of so-called leaders, both corporate and military, fail.
Which is a BIG problem at the big corperation (AT&T) that I work at.
And it seems that the "managers" have the edge on the "leaders" because they know how to "manage" their numbers to look good for the big boss.
These kind of people are worried about themselves first, last, and always. They never get it through their heads that if they take care of their people, their people will accomplish the mission, and make them look even better. They all read the "Book of the Five Rings", the "Art of War for Managers", buy a set of Katana swords, use buzz words and the word "paradigm" a lot, and think they are samurai warrior leaders.
I love the "manager" vs "leader" fights......and you know....you are both wrong.
Yep.
A leader who can't manage......is a failure.
A manager who can't lead is a failure.
The balance of the two is based on the situation.
It is called situational leadership.
In a lot of cases, "managers" are not hired to be "leaders" in the sense that the word is used here.
Managers are generally hire to herd the cats and work the processes provided by those who are actually hired to
be leaders. An entire corporation where everyone in the chain was expected to be a "leader" would be a cacophony
of noise with no direction.
That's part of the problem today - everyone is taught that their opinion is "equal", regardless of experience or their place in the
universe. You have to be a follower first to ever become a great leader, and sometimes your lot in life is follower, period.
Quote from: lordmonar on June 10, 2012, 07:26:08 PM
Quote from: ol'fido on June 10, 2012, 06:40:13 PM
Quote from: PHall on June 10, 2012, 04:29:14 PM
Quote from: ol'fido on June 10, 2012, 02:10:36 PM
And confusion between the two is why a lot of so-called leaders, both corporate and military, fail.
Which is a BIG problem at the big corperation (AT&T) that I work at.
And it seems that the "managers" have the edge on the "leaders" because they know how to "manage" their numbers to look good for the big boss.
These kind of people are worried about themselves first, last, and always. They never get it through their heads that if they take care of their people, their people will accomplish the mission, and make them look even better. They all read the "Book of the Five Rings", the "Art of War for Managers", buy a set of Katana swords, use buzz words and the word "paradigm" a lot, and think they are samurai warrior leaders.
I love the "manager" vs "leader" fights......and you know....you are both wrong.
Yep.
A leader who can't manage......is a failure.
A manager who can lead is a failure.
The balance of the two is based on the situation.
It is called situational leadership.
First off, edit your post. "A manager who can lead is a failure." ??? Second, I never said a leader didn't have to have managerial skills. That they do is obvious. What we are trying to point out is the trend of of many "managers"( you may insert any supervisory title you wish to here) to substitute managerial skills for leadership. As a matter of fact, most successful leaders are very detail oriented when it comes to the managerial side of things. But they also know when to put this down for the moment(s) in order to lead their people. A leader who can't manage time, organize, plan, and work the logistics is not going to get a chance to lead very often because he will be reacting not acting. On the other hand, many "managers" tend to treat their people as if they are a time punch card.
I disagree - history has shown that a lot of good leaders were "big picture" people who surrounded themselves
with good managers who worried about the details.
Steve Jobs, for instance, was a visionary and a great leader in that he could inspire people to his vision. He has a notorious
reputation as being a horrible boss and manager.
Leaders are strategic, managers are tactical. Rare is the person who can be both, consistently, and all plans fail without
both mentalities.
Maybe it is just me.......I think part of the problem is terminology.
Define: Leadership.....the art and science of getting a group of people to accomplish a mission/task/goal.
A leader....must have managment....the organisational, bean counting, stratigic vision.....skills.....AND motivaitonal....team building, reward finding, coachin....skills to be sucessful.
Leadership is leadership is leadership......no matter what level you are at.......because leadership is SITUATIONAL. How you use the tools of leadership will be different based on the situation.
Leading a two man fire team is differnt then leading a two man construction crew.....and both are these are differnt then running a corporation or a country.
But......they are all leaders.
Ned,
How soon will we hear about the June BOG meeting? I'm curious about any progress on the Corp. Goverance issue.
Quote from: keystone102 on June 10, 2012, 11:54:44 PM
Ned,
How soon will we hear about the June BOG meeting? I'm curious about any progress on the Corp. Goverance issue.
The BoG is not meeting this month (except for the Audit Committee which is meeting telephonically tomorrow). We moved our summer meeting to coincide with the NB meeting in Baltimore. Governance is on the front burner. Governance wonks should find it very interesting.
Thanks for replying. I guess I'm a wonk. :)