After much deliberation and soul searching...
The Problem in Iowa: Is it to be "CAP-Club" or "CAP-Agency". The future of CAP hangs in the balance.
Presently high intrigue and heated controversy rages on in Iowa. On the surface the question would appear to be which of two qualified people, should have been chosen as Wing Commander. It is unfortunate that the focus has been on the men as individuals. Doing so causes the real issue to be blurred. The real issue is not about the who, but about the what, what they represent. Both men are good and what they represent is good, but they are 180 degree opposite. The dispute is not limited to the Iowa Wing; it is a dispute of nationwide proportions the ramifications from which will be felt for an indeterminate time into the future and could possibly affect every wing in the country.
The dispute revolves around vision. One vision is the status quo in all Wings but Iowa. It views CAP as a group of members organized for their shared and mutual interest focusing heavily on flying and cadet activities. In this regard CAP is considered a club and has often been referred to by its detractors as a "flying club." Nonetheless it fits the classic definition of a club and this traditional view is appropriately called the CAP-Club.
An opposing philosophy regarding Civil Air Patrol exists as well. It stems from the early history of CAP as recorded by Robert E. Neprud in his book, "Flying Minute Men, The Story of Civil Air Patrol." I've found knowledge in this book when I first joined CAP and now during our time of change. That history revolves around the service that CAP provided to the nation during its early years. Service in this context concerned operational service to the country during a time of war and service regarding the aviation training of cadets for military service. Proponents of this philosophy focus on the relevancy of Civil Air Patrol, not only to its members but more importantly to the community and country. You are familiar with its mantra: Relevancy to our customers, Reliability in our mission and Accountability to our members. Proponents of this philosophy focus on a Wing's external relationship both with federal and state government. Based upon this relationship CAP becomes a stakeholder in providing emergency services. In this regard CAP is operating not like a club but more like an agency. Consequently this philosophy can appropriately be called CAP-Agency.
The present problem involves a clash of philosophies: CAP-Club versus CAP-Agency. Simply put, Ron Scheitzach represents the best of CAP-Club and Nick Critelli that of CAP-Agency.
The Relevancy of the Dispute to CAP Nationally:
Like the presidential primaries, sometimes what happens to Iowa is relevant to the nation. While having its roots at the beginning of CAP as CAP-Agency, as the organization evolved in the post war years up unto 2001 it had transformed to a CAP-Club model. Then the nation was attacked and we went to war. As it was in 1941 state resources were strained and government looked to the CAP to shoulder the load. Unfortunately CAP was viewed by some in Iowa government to be a flying club and not a reliable one at that (a problem with CAP-Club).
In 2003 the Iowa Wing was experiencing a marked decrease in AFRCC ELT missions. Worse yet the last state-wide emergency service of note was a decade earlier during the floods of 1993. Furthermore it had received no state funding for over several years. To some prior cadets and younger members of the Wing, the no missions, no money scenario was a sign of their Wing in crisis. To others, mainly our older senior members the status quo was acceptable. Both however recognized that funding would be a benefit. In the late summer of 2003 Nick Critelli was approached by the then Wing Commander and a members who were dissatisfied with the status quo and asked if it were possible to get funding and missions from the state. After a due diligence period of three months involving research into Civil Air Patrol's national and state history, its present capabilities, its future potential all as related to the emerging homeland security presidential directives 5 and 8 from the National Response Plan and the Incident Command System and associated federal obligations placed on the states, a strategy was formed.
Working closely with then Governor Tom Vilsack's chief of staff, Steve Gleason, who had just returned from the Clinton White House and supported by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin's positive view of Civil Air Patrol, Critelli and his working team consisting of myself and several others we were able to create a strategy where Civil Air Patrol could again become relevant to the emergency service needs of Iowa as they were developing in view of the Department of Homeland Security's emerging Presidential Directives 5 and 8. However there would be a price to pay. CAP must be a stable and reliable entity for this to happen. Mr. Gleason's due diligence on the organization was not flattering and mostly consisted of the view that CAP was a "good old boy's flying club with cub scouts that fly." This view was shared by the Chief of Staff of the Iowa National Guard. After a series of briefings Gleason changed his mind. The then Guard's Chief of Staff never did. Fortunately his replacement and the Deputy Adjutant General, BG Mark Zirkelbach were to become dedicated Iowa Wing advocates and supporters.
In an October 17, 2003 briefing to the Wing's leadership, staff and squadron leaders Critelli confirmed that a viable legislative strategy could be developed which would place CAP in a position to receive and prosecute missions and obtain adequate funding in the ballpark of $125,000, however it would come at a price to the Organization. The price would require standardized high quality training and a unified Wing organization. Iowa Wing at this time was a loose confederation of squadrons. Wing HQ consisted of a closet at the Iowa City airport and a PO Box that moved with every change of command. It had no telephone or physical address. As we learned, government does not relate to clubs, it relates to agencies. If the Wing were to go in this direction CAP in Iowa would have to become an agency; a Wing-centric organization. It was determined that Iowa Wing would adopt the CAP-Agency operating philosophy. The rest is history. Since then the Wing has become deeply embedded in state operations, a partner with the Iowa National Guard in its training operations, involved in policy-making at the highest governmental levels and has been more than adequately maintained and funded and has been the beneficiary of many favorable laws including a mandatory employment leave of absence law for CAP members who are called to missions. Many have referred to it as the "Golden years of CAP" in Iowa. But it was not without its share of costs.
The new relationships and method of operation were greatly opposed by those who held the CAP-Club philosophy. The Iowa Wing now was Wing- focused. It held a monthly, but non-mandatory Wing Training Assembly, it changed from senior member to "officer," standardized wing level training, squadrons were no longer autonomous but accountable to the Wing for performance and member satisfaction. In other words, it operated and trained as a professional agency and interacted with other governmental units at that level both in its operations and training.
A change from status quo does not come without stress, but with the passage of time almost all have grown to accept the new operating philosophy. However there remain a few who cannot make the transition. This simply was not the CAP they joined. CAP-Agency, as you would expect requires accountability. Each member is accountable to every other member for the success or failure of the mission. This makes club people uncomfortable, it gives security to the government that the job will be well done. AAR's (After Action Reviews) become the norm, not the occasional.
As planned, the transition program was a two phased eight year program. We are now in the second year of the second phase. We as a Wing have made our share of mistakes, all of which are publicly debated on various blogs, and we have learned the value of being flexible.
To those who are skeptical we simply ask that they come, see and experience this first hand. One such skeptic was CAP-USAF Commander Colonel Russ Hodgkins. He came to Iowa, he saw, he experienced and it is reported that he was extremely impressed. As word of our success and failures has spread across the country much interest and some criticism has been generated. It seems that each Wing has a core of CAP-Agency proponents. These people tend to be prior cadets and newer/and younger members most of whom are not yet in the inner circles of Wing leadership. It appears that we have empowered them and they sometimes clash with CAP-Club supporters who are in Wing authority positions.
But regardless of how one views it or labels it, the CAP-Agency philosophy is spreading across the country. Is there room for compromise? Sure. Will the Iowa Wing structure work in all CAP Wings? Absolutely not. The issue is not structure or personalities, it's about philosophy. Are we a Club or do we return to our foundation Agency roots?
The defining decision regarding CAP-Club versus CAP-Agency philosophy for CAP will be made regarding the leadership of the Iowa Wing. Nick Critelli has withdrawn and refuses to be considered again for command and Ron Scheitzach has limited support in the Wing and in the government. The future of CAP and the direction of CAP will be judged by this decision. I urge our leadership to seriously consider their decision to allow this change of command to proceed. What you do will define your leadership and the future of our CAP.
Just one question, and two comments. If Iowa does not grant IAWG the $120,000 like the past two years, will it make a difference in who is in command? With no money CAP Agency can't survive, even if Nick Critteli were in charge. I hope for all the members of IAWG that the funding continues, and I hope that Col. Scheitzach sees what good it does.
Ok, you have to bring me up to speed. I thought Nick was already confirmed to be the next IAWG Commander
No offense, but after reading some of this, I wasn't sure whether I should be amazed at the naïveté displayed in the gross oversimplification as illustrated, or outraged at that same oversimplification.
Mind you, I'm not an IA Wing member (nah, I'm 1500-2000 miles away, in the state all the @#$% politicians ran to AFTER they got done trampling the crops in Iowa..), but I am a long time member, former cadet, and have been on the periphery of two wings HQ elements off and on over the years. IOW, I "get" the "agency"-type concept.
I think the "Club" concept paints most of our missions/units with far too broad of a brush, and the "Agency" idea gives a substantial amount of our membership short shrift (not because it excludes them from the idea that their participation is of "agency-level activity", but rather, because I think there are far more people who participate in other aspects of Civil Air Patrol who are still participating on that level, and just because they, say, work with cadets doesn't mean they don't take what they're doing as seriously as the dude flying the plane...).
While I realize the OP has supplied what amounts to a massive simplification for the purposes of enlightening us poor hayseeds outside of Iowa to the issues at hand, it leaves me wondering if some folks from Iowa Wing are in the same organization I am.
That the question that need to be asked, old vs. new school.
I have friends in the NG at Camp Dodge, and they have watched us grow from "the flying boyscouts" to professional members of their day to day team.
They count on us.
They will not do that if we did not display and deliver the kind of professional results the US Military demands.
That has only happened in the last few years.
So I am very proud to be part of the "New" CAP, not the "boyscouts" of old.
Quote from: NIN on January 13, 2008, 02:35:44 AM
While I realize the OP has supplied what amounts to a massive simplification for the purposes of enlightening us poor hayseeds outside of Iowa to the issues at hand, it leaves me wondering if some folks from Iowa Wing are in the same organization I am.
Therein is the problem. As implemented today, IAWG is more the IANG/Aux than CAP, even to the point of pushing NCO's and receiving NG awards.
This is not a culture clash or lack of vision. This is a small part of the organization attempting to make radical, outside-the-boundaries changes from the bottom up and then being surprised when everyone else doesn't fall in line.
Despite the rhetoric of success, it now appears that a large number of IAWG members, including unit CC's, simply refused to be a part of this "experiment", and either stood down, resigned, or continued to execute their own local programs...locally.
I myself am a vocal proponent of weeding the empty shirts and professionalizing the organization, but when you start looking at attrition rates that approach 1/2 your membership (as has been alleged), that's not streamlining, that's suicide. Couple that with the publicly acknowledged reduction in recruiting to "rightsize" the force, and you have the seeds of real problems in a few years.
Not to mention the fact that many of us continue to contend that this is a house of cards dependant on a few motivated actors on both sides. As we are now seeing one or two command changes from either group and things start dissolving fast. Why? Because the program as a whole does not support the operations.
If nothing else, I am reasonably certain that if I could be allowed to force 1-200 of the highest speed, most flexible and motivated members of my wing to do all their training and participation in one central location, move all the experienced officers out of local units to the wing, focus the resources of the entire state on those members and their activities, and ignore the needs and concerns of the rest of the membership while I'm doing it, I'd have one flap-happy bunch of guys meeting every month and playing with all the toys and doing all the cool work.
For a year or two...
Let us also not forget that the point of CAP is not to build a centrally-billeted force to augment paid professionals in lieu of properly-funded agencies.
CAP's purpose is to provide an outlet for members to serve their country, and respond to disaster, locally.
Group and Wing consolidation of activities is a response to shrinking membership and resources. While its incumbent upon us to take the steps necessary to remain operational, regardless of the personnel challenges, we need to start focusing our efforts on rebuilding the status, size, and abilities of the local units, so that consolidated operations are not necessary, and a small percentage of a given wing is not forced to carry the constant burden of performance.
How do you support your community if your agency has proven itself to be unreliable, and unprofessional. Only by building and maintaining our relationships have wee been able to do the missions that serve our community
Eclipse, you are a club guy, and I get that. Yu have worked with, and built an excellent organization that has found its niche. Congratulations. now how will your club ensure the professionalism and reliability of your group, then wing
Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that the Wing Commander Selection Board "overwhelmingly" voted for Lt Col Scheitzach.
The issue here is not Club vs Agency, but rather rules or no rules.
Regulations are changed by the National Board, not by someone, who shows up one day and says, "I have a better idea!" Later telling us that CAP has been "doing it wrong for 50 years".
Most of the whining is coming from people, who haven't been in CAP long enough to know anything, but the "Iowa Experiment".
While Emergency Services is a critically important mission, it is only one of three missions mandated by Congress.
As for customers, our most important customers are the people of America. It is their tax dollars that buy our aircraft and fund many of our programs.
The relationship with the State and the National Guard is a great thing, but when we totally change, who we are and how we do business on a state by state basis, then we've stopped being the Auxiliary of the USAF and have, instead, become unpaid members of the National Guard.
Personally I have been anxiously awaiting some actual results of this experiment. The three main achievements are state funding, a permanent Wing headquartes, and NG support for overnight training on a monthly basis. Those are great, but funding and a hq are things that many, many other wings achieved a long time ago without having done any of the things Iowa has.
The NG overnight support is very important and actually I think that any Wing that managed that would probably see an increase in quality without making any other changes.
But, the thing is that no matter what you do CAP is a volunteer club and not a state agency. Now, just because you're in a club doesn't mean that you don't take committments you make to that club seriously and that you shouldn't expect consequences if you fail to live up to them. Will there be some members who just want to be members or don't want to spend every waking minute on CAP? Sure, and there is little harm in that.
Iowa has been showing a lot of internal activity and that is always good for an organization. When you're doing something you're usually happier than you are if you aren't doing something.
I joined CAP about 6 months after Lt Col Scheitzach. I have worked for four wing commanders, and have mentored under such commanders as Col. Waldorf, and BG Glasgow. Most recently I have been asked to stay in my current wing staff position under both Critelli, and Scheitzach. Even with these experiences under my belt I have been involved in CAP for about half as long as Cyclone.
The problems I see are a result of the instability of our organization. As I build relationships with customers I keep getting barraged by the fact that CAP is not stable. Our leadership eats itself, we have no focus, direction, and up until the past few years we have had no missions. I joined CAP to serve my community, and under the "old" or "Club" mentality I didn't get the chance. My first real emergency response was when a CAP aircraft went down and My CFI was killed. Within the past few years I feel that I have truly made a difference. Our current level of involvement would not be possible as a few isolated squadrons working individually.
Jersey made note of the American Tax payer. From a reality stand point is it a good or bad investment to fund an AF training budget of 30,000 for 6 AFRCC missions a year. Not very cost effective. Under the current model we are maximizing the impact of both the state and federal funding.
Now lets address the rules. we have worked incredibly hard to ensure that every activity has been conducted by the rules. Many people have questioned that. Iowa has undergone a SAV, a CI, a review by a national commander, and a visit from the Commander of CAP/USAF. Non of them found anything that was questionable.
River, many wings are successful, and several receive funding, support, and facilities. Iowa has never really been one of those wings. In fact dollar per mission without the current relationship I have a tough time even justifying the wings existance
This is not ES vs. CP.
It isn't CAP vs IANGAux.
Everything Iowa Wing did is within CAP regulations; much of it responded actively to mandates by the NB for training, professional development, quality control, outreach to state & local communities.
As for the selection board "vote", that was merely a recommendation....the decision was the region commander's, as the CAP reg on region/wing commander selection makes clear.
It is a poor regulation, worded to concentrate total authority in a single individual's hands, with sparse avenue of appeal, oversight, or accountability....but it is the existing regulation.
Even Col. Fagan's reversal of his own decision is entirely within regulations.
The issue here is not who did what to whom (which is important, but under discussion on a different thread) but an issue of philosophy: are we going to bring CAP into the 21st century or not?
If we're going to survive as a national organization, let alone have any relevance, we must choose the agency model.
This does not mean the marginalization of cadet programs, the glorification of ES, or the radicalization of CAP.
It means an organization whose members actively contribute to their units & wings (in their own specific field of interest), who train continually for their participation, and who work together with other members and with the community as a whole.
If we don't we can forget funding, military or legislative support, or indeed interest outside our own little tribe.
Quote from: IACAPphotog on January 13, 2008, 02:51:43 AM
That the question that need to be asked, old vs. new school.
I have friends in the NG at Camp Dodge, and they have watched us grow from "the flying boyscouts" to professional members of their day to day team.
They count on us.
They will not do that if we did not display and deliver the kind of professional results the US Military demands.
That has only happened in the last few years.
So I am very proud to be part of the "New" CAP, not the "boyscouts" of old.
Now, whoa, hold on a minute there, Sparky. (with apologies to "Sparky" Carrrales for hijacking his nickname)
My wing does not have an NG supplied wing HQ, mucho funding from the state (we do have a bit) nor NG-subsidized overnight training events at a centralized location.
Yet we still get and respond to NG taskings as needed.
Example: Our wing chaplain is HEAVILY involved in the homecoming process for National Guard soldiers at the state HQ. Not as "some chaplain they found in the gutter" but rather as a full-fledged member of the chaplaincy working side-by-side, cheek-to-jowl with his NG and active duty counterparts. Hell, he's so involved, AND COUNTED UPON, that they.. (wait for it.... steady.... wait for it...) actually have him doing the same things that the military chaplains are doing, right down to being able to be the "chaplain of record" for one of these reintegration or homecoming events. As far as they're concerned, he's a "one of theirs."
Another Example: My unit has helped out with some of the *other* homecoming and reintegration ceremonies at a couple of the armories in our area. We're to the point where the folks from the NG call up and we have a pre-set process we follow to schedule, communicate, plan and execute one of these events. The National Guard as been pretty effusive in their praise of us for helping out with these activities. (Most are actually "family" activities for the "pre-re-deployment") The bulk of our support thus far has been of the "crowd control/traffic control" variety (with some extra manpower to help carry stuff into / out of the places they hold these events), but the Guard still says "Thanks, CAP, we couldn't have done that without your support.."
We've delivered professional results without reorganizing our wing and (from what I've read here) alienating 50% of our membership.
And I bristle at your generalization that those who are not down with the "Iowa Experiment" are just "flying boyscouts" and not "members of the team."
I don't know your experience, Lieutenant, but I am immediately distrustful of a 2Lt who says "So I am very proud to be part of the 'New' CAP, not the 'boyscouts' of old." Unless you're a former member who rejoined after a break in service or a cadet who transferred to senior status, there is a good chance I have flight suits that have more time in CAP that you do, and have seen more "real CAP' than you.
(I'm not trying to be a condescending prick, BTW. I'm just saying, attempting to seemingly lecture some of us about 'the boyscouts of old' is mighty presumptuous from what seems to be a newbie 2Lt. I'm 41 years old, been in CAP 26 years in 2 wings in 2 different regions. I know things can be different between wings, but don't paint me with your "boyscout" brush just because I'm a composite squadron commander in with 60+ cadets and 30+ seniors on my books..)It may have been "boyscouts" in your neck of the woods, but it sure ain't in mine.
Im a Decade veteran of CAP who has served in multiple squadrons, as staff under multiple wing commanders, and at activities across the country. i am proud to be a part of "The New CAP"
The other thing that keeps coming up is the visibility to the customer of the organizations instability.
None of that should be visible.
They call, we come. That's it.
If its the same guys, great...nice to see you...if not, and the new guys execute, no one will care or notice.
At the customer level we are just another service organization, and no one complains about all the new "cable guys" until the most recent one who loses your HBO.
Didn't mean to raise your BP NIN, but notice the quotation marks. Those are the words of soldiers we work around every day, not mine. They have noticed a great change (for the better) in the IAWG and the are very vocal about it.
You are not wrong, I am new CAP (14 months) and my flight suit is brand new. But my boots are old, from my time on active duty in the Army. And I am proud to hear fellow soldiers tell me that we are meeting up to their expectations.
My grandfather was in the CAP of "old", a pilot in the late 40's. And thats what brought me to CAP, not the promise of a mini-National Guard, or the "new" CAP. Just wanted to serve my country again and follow in my grandfathers footsteps.
But now I am here, and see first hand what we are doing, and compare it to the stories of old (both CAP and NG), I do not want what we have started to reverse itself.
Quote from: NIN on January 13, 2008, 04:29:43 AM
It may have been "boyscouts" in your neck of the woods, but it sure ain't in mine.
Ditto.
In the last calendar year we have done real-world,
agency requested missions for the NTSB, ARC, CPD, and NOAA, not to mention the umpteen ELTs, and at least one missing a/c that included a fatality.
No reorg, local training, people deployed from their active home units.
In my short time in (post 6 months OTS), I have been on 2 missing person searches, 1 NOAA, and 2 IA DNR missions.
One of our missions, I had to use the Mandatory Leave Act (part of our association with the NG) so I could do the mission I made a commitment to do with out the fear of losing my job.
I am sure that what the CAP does outside the borders of Iowa works, but the "Iowa Experiment" is what is working here.
Change is a difficult, sometimes a violent act, but change is necessary to keep up and evolve with the times we live in.
We do have to give you guys props on the Leave Act - that's sweet...
Quote from: IACAPphotog on January 13, 2008, 05:01:08 AM
Didn't mean to raise your BP NIN, but notice the quotation marks. Those are the words of soldiers we work around every day, not mine. They have noticed a great change (for the better) in the IAWG and the are very vocal about it.
Nah, blood pressure remained *mostly* in the "normal" range.
:)
Believe me, I seriously don't have a beef with you guys. I have been sitting here, hearing about the "Iowa Experiment" and hoping, PRAYING, that it works in a way to bring us closer to our parent service and give us tighter/better/more fluid integration with our other "hometown military," the National Guard.
I mean, crikey, I've been trying for SEVEN YEARS to get my cadets on the UH-60s over here at the AASF, and darn it, even though they're flying
CrashBlackhawks, I'd give my eyeteeth to get my cadets all hooah'd up and on 'em. After seven years of trying, thru official channels, using my Army Aviation secret handshake and decoder ring, smooching serious butt at the Armory, it took this recent help with the reintegration programs to get the Army NG to say "oh, you want to fly on the UH-60s? Oh, we can totally do that. Why didn't you ask?" *Sigh*
But when I hear references to "boyscouts" in terms of the way IA Wing used to do things (and by extension, the way the rest of us
still do things, since we're all still doing them the same way we did it before the "Iowa Experiment"), I tend to get my hackles up a little. Again, its not you (as in you personally) but that general attitude. I don't think you guys are even consciously aware of how that kind of terminology plays across the river in Illinois or over in Nebraska... or out here in the N-E-R...:)
I hope this plays out well for IA Wing. I really do.
Thank you, Sir. ;D
Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 13, 2008, 04:40:18 AM
i am proud to be a part of "The New CAP"
Uh...that phrase sounds a little...(insert GODWIN HERE) ;)
But, Seriously, all this talk of "OLD CAP" versus "NEW CAP" seems to fly against the reality of the situation that ALL CAP is local. It is made of local people who will be supporting local SAR, servicing LOCAL cadets and offering Aerospace Education to LOCAL schools/public
et al.
There were lots of things introduced in IOWA what have promise. But, as I have said many times before, these would not work for all STATEs. Imagine the IOWA model in TEXAS where many GROUPS are georgaphically larger than IOWA. Where $100,000, if divided, wouldn't buy RANK insignia for the Cadet Airmen of the whole wing.
Removing the Field Officers to WING HQ or parking those that would not would destroy the effectiveness of the TEXAS WING. It would take mission pilots and aircrews from the squadrons where they work.
Already, I suspect, hundreds of cadets don't go to encampments because of their distance from them. What an expense it is for Cadets from Brownsville and El Paso to attend an encampment in Paris, Texas. But some do, why is that?
If all SARexs were centralized, I doubt it would be well attended by anyone who lived "out of the center." Some die hards would go, but, if there is not hope of training nearer to them, how many would that be?
The situation is not so, however, because of solid GROUP and SQUADRON structures. My Brother and Sister Airmen in Brownsville sometimes seem, to me in any case, to be the most isolated unit in CAP....yet they survive and prosper. Why is that?
Our unit, Corpus Christi, is also somewhat isolated with Victoria and Brownsville as our nearest units and our Group Headquarters in SAN Antonio and WING Headquarters in WACO. Some 90 percent of my members have never met the Group Commander nor been to BROOKS CITY BASE. MUCH LESS WING, which to many of us might as well be NATIONAL HQ. Yet we prosper. Why is that?
The answer is becasue these people believe in what CAP can do for their communities. The cadets I have had go to the Encampment have either had their parents pay, or have been offered "scholarship" monies from unit members or even community persons who are "friends of the unit." However, GROUP and neighboring squadron ALS activities and other "field exercises" designed for cadets serve as a substitute until which time these cadets can go.
The Distributive SARex concept also allows training locally and shores up relationships with local agencies. Training in the field.
Wings of this size that do not build locally, will fail or triple their "mobilization inertia" when they are needed.
Lastly, this "AGENCY" versus "CLUB" thing is crazy. It is both and neither. Emergency Services are AGENCIES and CADET PROGRAMS are CLUBS and we are both by Congressional mandate. I find the "CAP BOY SCOUT" moniker insulting to 60 years of CAP officers and cadets as well as to the BOY SCOUTS. I find it so because it is being used to take people like myself who are WHOLE CAP people and lump us DOWN into some sort of PROBLEM.
I find it insulting because it is INSULTING.
Major - Lets go point by point......
QuoteBut, Seriously, all this talk of "OLD CAP" versus "NEW CAP" seems to fly against the reality of the situation that ALL CAP is local.
Only partially true, while CAP is a local entity, it is supported by the wings and groups. The New CAP we talk about is somthing frankly you have not experienced because your wing does not have the luxuries that we have. In Iowa we need the centralized leadership. The Government does not deal with 7 squadrons, they deal with 1 wing.
QuoteRemoving the Field Officers to WING HQ or parking those that would not would destroy the effectiveness of the TEXAS WING. It would take mission pilots and aircrews from the squadrons where they work.
Common misconception....The Field grades would take on Wing or Group staffing jobs, but there is nothing said that they cannot be advisors to the local squadrons. They just cannot hold command or command critical jobs. They can still be mission pilots and aircrews for the squadron, they can also attend the local squadron meetings, just not command or have command critical jobs.
QuoteThe answer is becasue these people believe in what CAP can do for their communities.
So all you want to do is help your community? Great, but what about the rest of your wing?
QuoteLastly, this "AGENCY" versus "CLUB" thing is crazy.
Is it? by your own words you are playing the club card. The Status quo, but then again your wing don't have the luxuries that we have either because of the status quo many are eager to protect
Quote from: cyclone on January 13, 2008, 02:15:18 AM
The defining decision regarding CAP-Club versus CAP-Agency philosophy for CAP will be made regarding the leadership of the Iowa Wing. Nick Critelli has withdrawn and refuses to be considered again for command and Ron Scheitzach has limited support in the Wing and in the government. The future of CAP and the direction of CAP will be judged by this decision. I urge our leadership to seriously consider their decision to allow this change of command to proceed. What you do will define your leadership and the future of our CAP.
I find this comment interesting to say the least. You state that Scheitzach has limited support in the government. Why is that? How is the state government unsupportive of him? At the same rate, you say that Scheitzach has limited support from the wing membership. From what I read, was not it the membership, or at least part of it, unpleased of Critelli's acceptance? So would that not also make Critelli having limited support in the wing?
You state that "the future of CAP and direction of CAP will be judged by this decision". You make it sound as though, again, the whole wing rides on the success of Critelli. As though any person, but Critelli, would mean failure throughout the wing. The success of a wing is not solely on the Wing Commander, but it is also on the membership of the wing or organization. After all, without them, the wing cannot go anywhere anyway.
At the same rate, you make it sound as though Critelli will only allow the "CAP-Agency" and Scheitzach "CAP-club" as though there is no middle ground. Since no one here has prevented an unbias opinion of Scheitzach, I find it difficult to make an argument either way. To those who are merely reading these posts, they only know what is presented of Scheitzach let alone of any person that is talked about on any internet website.
In the military, a number of units come with this decision. The old commander is one way and the new commander is another way. They do not support the new command because the command philosophy is different from the old commander and blah blah blah. However, they get through by literally hoping that the new commander is a good person and that their opinions (given through the NCO support channel and chain of command) are presented to the commander and accepted.
Instead of "urging your leadership to seriously consider their decision to allow this change of command to proceed", I would urge your to support the new commander, whether it be Critelli, Scheitzach, or TimBuck II. Who takes over the wing is not a decision of the state membership, rather a decision of the Chain of Command of CAP.
I do not think you see it. The way you present this "real issue" is bias. You obviously have personal relations with Critelli and would rather see your friend placed into the position of Wing Commander instead of being given it and then being ripped away from it.
Personally, regarding the Agency vs Club method, let us be frank. In a volunteer organization, the selection of the staff is a club method. As a commander, the staff is selected based on the people you feel are best for the position. Are you really going to put in a person that is best tactically and technically in a staff that you do not like personally? I do not think so. So to say that the "Agency" method is free of the "Club" method is a bit ignorant.
So I suppose this "mess" makes some wonder what the crap is going on in Iowa, and if this is what will happen in other Wings if they were to implement the "Iowa Plan".
I think 3 weeks ago, I made a prediction that the true nature will show itself with how easily or how difficult this Change of Command will be. I guess I was right. :o
Hum,
Lots of 1 and 2 post people coming out of the wood work.
This is not about people.
Critelli will not be the wing commander. No one should expect. No one is demanding an overturn of the decision. No E-mail campaign with anonymous posts coming form anonymous hot mail accounts has been called for. The Iowa wing will "Soldier on"
the issue here is CAP culture. Could Ron be a CAP Agency supporter? Possibly. He has never felt that way in the past, so I would be surprised if he has changed his mind.
Like others I think its great that Iowa has developed some state missions to take up for the fact that there aren't many AFRCC generated missions coming down the pike. A lot of small, interior states are in the same situation in that they can't depend on ELTs/EPIRBs to keep them busy.
However, the key thing that Iowa did was actually put in the effort to approach the state and advertise their capabilities. States that do that get state missions and if they are half-way competent and don't totally muck things up, they will get more based on their performance. No need for any of the Iowa experiments to make that happen as many other states have demonstrated. You can't really count on state missions to fall out of the sky unless you build the relationships with the actual agency folks.
I think cyclones post is some of the finest writing I've seen here. He is spot on. The whole "club/agency" issue is indeed a national one and the direction we eventually take will determine the ultimate survival of CAP, I believe.
What many here don't really understand ( I suspect because of the nature of so much of the discussion) is that there are, at the national level, several projects of a most interesting nature which OPSEC prohibits from further illumination. There is huge potential for development in these areas BUT! Guess what stands in the way, to a large degree, of any significant and widespread development?
If you chose *General large scale instability and massive differences in sophistication and reliability of personnel, training and abilities and no real central command or accountability mechanisms* Have a cookie, you are correct.
The various 3 and 4 letter agencies of the state and federal governments, as the IAWG folks have tried to make clear, are simply NOT going to do business with an organization which can present (with equal facility) a gap-tooth fool stuffed into some semblance of a uniform barely able to utter a coherent thought above a sixth grade level, and someone of the caliber of a Col. Palermo or Lt Col.s Critelli or Wolf or any number of others you could name. It is my understanding (and I think confirmed by cyclones comment) that our own CAP-USAF commander is one of the chief critics and roadblocks in the widespread development of some of these projects.
I have attended many local, state and national functions over the years. We have some of the finest people in CAP uniforms who, by virtue of their experience and training (some military some civilian some both) and education and occupation are tremendous. They are here, they are there but because of the nature of our organization, they are not everywhere in leadership, decision making and direction setting positions. For CAP, I believe, this is a war-stopper.
We have entered the 21st century. If we can't evolve and refine the organization it is my belief that our days are numbered. Many here, such as Dnall and Major K, have suggested mechanisms to address some of these issues directed at improving our officer quality and capability but look at the wail and howl that arises from the presentation of the most minimal standards and methods of creating accountability. That is a mindset that insures we will NEVER have a seat at the table with the big boys in any consistent manner to perform anything of substance for our nation and its citizens.
It is clear that the EXACT IAWG model will not fit every wing but the underlying philosophy does. Create a professional mindset, a standard to meet and maintain and a mechanism to get there. Throw in expectations of accountability and BINGO, you get the prize. An organization that can sit at the table with any four star, agency head or chief executive and do something by God worthwhile for America. On a grand scale. We have the potential.
^ Iowa is NOT the only Wing sitting at an AG's table. Iowa Wing is not the only Wing "playing with the big boys". Iowa Wing is not the only Wing that presents a professional face for the organization.
Where the crap did Iowa Wing come from anyway. They re-invented CAP out there to fit Cornfields and haystacks, it will not work everywhere.
It also seems that you are "an insider" with all this talk about upcoming projects. You may know more than the rest of us, but any great idea form the top has a way of becoming Crap once it is presented to the bottom.
Let's continue "point by point..."
QuoteOnly partially true, while CAP is a local entity, it is supported by the wings and groups. The New CAP we talk about is somthing frankly you have not experienced because your wing does not have the luxuries that we have. In Iowa we need the centralized leadership. The Government does not deal with 7 squadrons, they deal with 1 wing.
Yes,
supported by Wings and Squadrons, these units exist for the benefit of the squadron by making policy and administering the CAP programs to them. The squadron is where things should happen, like training. GROUPS and WING come in when we are dealing with situations that require "reinforcements."
For example, if Jim Wells County Texas needs an aircrew to take photos of the Alice City Water System...they should contact the NOC and the NOC should be able to dispatch LOCAL aircrews to the scene our of either Corpus Christi or Victoria. Those aircrews should be made and trained locally. Not at some activity that woudl happen HUNDREDS of MILES away in a different REGION of TEXAS.
Now, if COMAL Co, Needs FIRE WATCH ACTIVITIES, where several crews would be needed, then the WING should administer the activity.
QuoteCommon misconception....The Field grades would take on Wing or Group staffing jobs, but there is nothing said that they cannot be advisors to the local squadrons. They just cannot hold command or command critical jobs. They can still be mission pilots and aircrews for the squadron, they can also attend the local squadron meetings, just not command or have command critical jobs.
HELLO, we need experienced people in "command or command critical jobs" at the local level.
Maybe in IOWA, but in TEXAS taking the most experienced people out of the positions they need to be in in isolated area will create a brain drain. Squadrons will falter from inexperienced leaders and will resent "WING SPIES" who have no local accountability.
QuoteSo all you want to do is help your community? Great, but what about the rest of your wing?
They are serviced by people in their localities and we augment them when they need more CAP resources. TEXAS is not IOWA, you can just take a 2 hour drive to WING HQ from most places. If we don't develop CAP resources in the FIELD, the FIELD is a LOGISTICAL NIGHTMARE. SOUTH TEXAS needs it own resources ay SAN ANTONIO, and in that the COASTAL BEND (CORPUS CHRISTI, ALICE & KINGSVILLE) and the RIO GRANDE VALLEY (BROWNSVILLE, McAllen and Harlingen).
Basically, we are "on our own, togehter." Down here. This creates the situation where Centralization is FOLLY.
QuoteIs it? by your own words you are playing the club card. The Status quo, but then again your wing don't have the luxuries that we have either because of the status quo many are eager to protect
Sound like you have been BRAINWASHED. Our WING does not have the LUXURIES IOWA has because it is HUGE. The State of Texas would have to pump MILLIONS of DOLLARS into TEXAS WING to work the IOWA model or something like that. Then, there woudl be so much area to cover it would prove fruitless without LOCAL considerations like training.
It is obvious that yu have never been in the Texas Wing...
(http://www.txwgcap.org/wing_hq_gp/images/groups_map.gif)
Now, see GROUP 1...that's Iowa...TIMES TWO!!!
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 13, 2008, 05:24:04 PM
^ Iowa is NOT the only Wing sitting at an AG's table. Iowa Wing is not the only Wing "playing with the big boys". Iowa Wing is not the only Wing that presents a professional face for the organization.
Where the crap did Iowa Wing come from anyway. They re-invented CAP out there to fit Cornfields and haystacks, it will not work everywhere.
It also seems that you are "an insider" with all this talk about upcoming projects. You may know more than the rest of us, but any great idea form the top has a way of becoming Crap once it is presented to the bottom.
Interestingly, your sophomoric analysis is partially correct. It is clear they are not the only wing to do these things. What they have done, however, is to create a model that formalizes the professionalizing process and makes an ADAPTABLE (not carbon copy in all aspects) method for the rest of the organization.
I am not an insider, quite the opposite. I have had the opportunity to interact with some who are actively involved in making this organization live up to its potential with projects and missions that are not "upcoming". They are real and now. But, doing some of these things on a large scale under the current structure and mindset is simply not possible.
But Iowa has not shown that any of these reforms have actually made a tangible difference.
Incidentally, Iowa is tied for 9th place in terms of state funding (with Louisiana, and Virginia). Since state funding is probably based more on political support than actual capabilities or performance, I'm not sure it is a good measure of anything.
Yup, I'm a do-er. I convinced my husband we should join CAP to DO something, to give back. And yes, this was over two years ago, so apparently it was in the "new Iowa". I have no first hand experience of what the "old Iowa" was like in CAP. But I have been involved with enough 'clubs' that ended up being so filled with infighting and personal interest that I didn't need the drama or personal attacks anymore. And whenever you have two people (or more) there will be differences of opinion, but when there is no specific goal, it degrades.
And yes, I came with one portion of the stated CAP mission as the drawing interest. (I am definitely an ES person.) My husband had totally different interests (fancy that!). But we both have been stretched way beyond what we expected, done so much more than we both signed on for. It has been an awesome growth experience.
I guess from the descriptions, I'm an 'agency' person. Again, been in enough clubs, don't want that. Others do – not a problem, they have every right to do so. Each person is different. It 'seemed' that there was room in the Iowa CAP I was involved in for both. But the other agencies want the teamwork, the ability, the dependability and reliability. Those members that want a club often are 'too busy', or its 'too far' or 'too hard', or 'why did Lt. Xyz get to go and I didn't?'. The people relying on us don't care about that, they want to know that we will respond. Period.
Even when I started a few years ago, it was interesting to have so many 'trained' persons coming together from the various squadrons that all seemed to have different understandings of what their qualifications meant. The idea of 'basic training as a Wing, practice as a Squadron' sure made sense here.
No matter. I joined CAP to do a mission for the people of Iowa in teamwork with the other agencies who wanted to serve the people of Iowa. (In Texas, I suspect it would be Groups, or by the looks of it, maybe counties!!! You guys have a LOT of ground to cover!!!) If our Iowa CAP decides it doesn't want to do that, so be it, I will still do the missions for the people of Iowa in whatever capacity I can. MY mission remains the same, my convictions remain the same. I am here to serve PEOPLE, period. I thought I was doing it with people in CAP with the same purpose. I did not join CAP to just serve CAP. Sorry.
I admire your zeal, CAPPrider. That is the engine that drives CAP. However, this most recent false division between AGENCY and CLUB is an artificial one.
I have said it before, our organization has to be both.
I suspect each WING, as a corporate level, will have to make their own "deals" that adapt their resources and people based on the geography, needs and STATE mandate. I'm sure there are some WINGs that would love to have CAP as a force multiplier...I'm sure there are some that would love to give STATE FUNDING.
Iowa hit it big, but it can't work that way systemwide because 52 WING face at least 52 different sets of circumstances.
Avieigther is correct on adapting. COOKIE CUTTERs shaped like Iowa, however, will not fit everyone.
I, myself, also believe that it must be a synergy between both Agency and Club. Agency gets the work done and Club has the fun.
I was a Cadet in the 1980's in the "old" IAWG when it was 100% Club. The Squadrons trained by themselves in a vacuum with the prime focus of beating each other at the annual Wing SARCOMP. Missions were very scarce (2 for me in 8 years as a Cadet) and cooperative interaction between Squadrons happened just about as often. As far as inter-squadron politics and rivalries it was an "East vs. Rest" atmosphere.
I rejoined CAP just over 2 years ago in the "new" IAWG and initially was a bit bewildered with the model. But once I began to see the value of training as a Wing while continuing to practice at the Squadron, with all three of our Core Missions, for Iowa this is a perfect fit. Through standardized basic training via the Officers Training School, ES Academy, and the Iowa Civil Air Patrol Academy for Cadets, the Wing has strives to spread the wealth of knowledge to all. Where before there were just a few strong Squadrons, both in numbers and mission readiness, we now are a better trained and balanced Wing. Squadrons that were not able to support themselves in one mission area or another are now guaranteed the training and support they need, both from the Wing and from the other Squadrons. We have become more balanced and reliable. The atmosphere is now, like the name of NCR-IA-091, "All Iowa".
And because of this the State and local counties have started to rely and count on us. It feels dang good when your working at the State Emergency Operations Center during the Blizzard of '07 and the Governor and AG come up to you to personally thank you. Oh yea, the AG, Maj Gen Dardis, also says thanks for being part of his team. :)
Was the Iowa Plan built for all, heck no. I absolutely agree that this would not work for a California or a Texas (perhaps bits and pieces at the Wing, Group, or mini-Group level), and am not an advocate of it being all or nothing. But we have proved that the concept works (for Iowa), has and continues to be tweaked for improvement, and has made the Iowa Wing a partner to the State of Iowa
Absolutely agree with that! There is no cookie cutter shape (Iowa, Texas, New Hampshire, etc.) that will fit the unique needs of all 52 states. And Avieighter's 'pick and choose' that parts of the 'cookie' that do fit the needs is a good way to check things out. ("Hmmm, that one worked...will this one?" - or "Well, that one didn't work for us, I wonder if this other one will?") And even better might be "hey this one could be even better if we did this part too....I wonder if Iowa/Texas/Missouri, etc. thought of that?" Wow, that might be teamwork and working within to adapt ideas so we could all benefit. And think of all the people that would learn from that and be helped by it.
And maintaining Air Force Auxilliary identity in the midst of the desires of the agencies who would like to work with us is something that is always foremost also. It has been gratifying to have something unique to offer to help with the need. And each state and Wing would definitely have different agency needs. But it is wonderful to learn how to 'fit' CAP into the puzzle and work to fulfill the whole picture.
Okay, you're right, I have been always accused of being a high energy enthusiastic sort. (Maybe I can keep up with my grandson that way?) But I do try to keep my focus on the goal. Makes all the work worthwhile and fun (Yes, I have also been told I am weird...'Work and fun in the same phrase?') My original goal has been adjusted due to what I have learned from others in CAP, and I have become much better for it. I love to help others learn the same things that fuel my 'zeal'.
And what a wonderful way to help those that need us.
A few of you folks need a reality check...
1. The "flying club with the boy scout program" is a very real interpretation that many professional agencies have of CAP. Better start dealing with that fact because it's been created by some really dumb stunts by CAP members.
2. Yes, CAP has three congressionally mandated missions. However the USAF is only paying for one of those missions in earnest. Take a look at your Tables of Allowances for Communications, vehicles and Logistics. Most everything is based on #'s of members doing ES. Look at each Wing's training budget, based on #'s qualified doing ES.
3. ARCHER, SDIS, and the new glass cockpit planes are here for ES, not for a flying club.
4. Take a look at the Katrina mission, the Fossett mission and the air missions over SE Kansas this spring. Lots of members had to get up from their local units and drive/fly to work in an area not in their own Wing.
5. There are too many Seniors and cadets who simply want to look pretty in a uniform and pretend they're RealMilitary.
6. Too many units train for Operations in their local area and won't respond anywhere else. "Balkanization" is a really good term for it.
7. Information from command to the member SUCKS. Most Wing staffers have no clue who their contemporaries are in the subordinate units or if information is getting to them, specifically if this information has to go through a unit CC.
Bottom Line:
1. Operations/ES is the bread and butter.
2. We'd better start acting like professionals, not like a bunch of hangar commandoes telling lies to cadets and drinking coffee at the local meetings.
3. The money we're getting is for ES Operations and it's based on people doing ES. If your members aren't actively training/qualified in at least one specialty they're quickly becoming a hindrance.
4. ALL members need to realize that their skills may be needed somewhere else than locally.
5. The Agency concept is the only one that works now.
6. The club concept is BS. Many with the "flying club" mentality aren't flying or supporting any mission.
7. The WTA experiment may be much for a monthly schedule, but a bimonthly or quarterly activity is very viable and likely going to be necessary for most small wings.
QuoteMost Wing staffers have no clue who their contemporaries are in the subordinate units
Technically, that is a failure of the squadrons to properly inform Wing staff of the assignment of those officers. It isn't the Wing Staff's job to go hunting for them, though they often have to because of the failure of the squadrons.
You a bit of a reality check, Dear Johnny.
The stregth of any organization like CAP is in local training, "balkanization" indeed. I woudl much rather my unit's officers save their travel money for REDCAPS than centralized training 500 miles away.
Failure to evenly develop a CAP WING by making local areas capable of training their CAP Officers and Cadets will result in a loss of mobilization. CAP is a volunteer organization, many have families and jobs. Picking up a unit and moving 700 miles away to train in TEXAS will result in expending member funds. I would rather that personal money be spent when a REDCAP comes along.
Our unit gets no funding from any State source, 90 percent of the expense is from member wallets because they believe in what they are doing. They want to ambitiously organize local training, this keeps them active.
Bottom line is, when the time comes to "come together" on a massive scale, we will be there. We will also be well trained in that we have been training and have the trainers in our units.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 13, 2008, 04:59:33 AM
The other thing that keeps coming up is the visibility to the customer of the organizations instability.
None of that should be visible.
They call, we come. That's it.
If its the same guys, great...nice to see you...if not, and the new guys execute, no one will care or notice.
At the customer level we are just another service organization, and no one complains about all the new "cable guys" until the most recent one who loses your HBO.
There is going to be a point of contact -- an interface, if you will, between us and 'customers'.
In a wing, this is normally legislative liaison, wing command element, and sometimes DO/DOS.
In this instance, the POC person between the state of Iowa & Iowa Wing was, initially, appointed Wing CC.
"Customers" (governor, adjutant general, state legislative leaders, etc), as a matter of courtesy (since they were providing the hall and the funding!) were invited to change of command.
Since they knew the incoming and outgoing commanders, a number of state VIPs accepted.
Now you might still say that these individuals should not have been told of altered plans within CAP, but this would only have postponed the inevitable: they would have arrived for the change of command, realized that the new commander was not the person they had been led to expect, and
then the questions would have started!
By the way, none of you seems to have made the connection that the commander (or perhaps former commander) of the Congressional Squadron, Sen. Tom Harkin, is from Iowa.
^^^And there in lies the rub
Wonder why I have been so concerned about this debacle
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 14, 2008, 04:06:38 AM
You a bit of a reality check, Dear Johnny.
The stregth of any organization like CAP is in local training, "balkanization" indeed. I woudl much rather my unit's officers save their travel money for REDCAPS than centralized training 500 miles away.
There's USAF money for training. All it takes is a Form 10 approved. Besides, a Wing like IAWG gets funding to reimburse for travel to and from WTA's, so the money issue's moot.
The problem isn't in local training, it's the fact they won't respond or train anywhere else. I know of units who will not attend Wing SAREXes or actual missions unless they're held in their area, even when the funding's there.
Other units are putting 3-5K on their vehicles in some months picking up the slack.
This is the observation of one wing, but from conversations with other wings this isn't unusual.
QuoteFailure to evenly develop a CAP WING by making local areas capable of training their CAP Officers and Cadets will result in a loss of mobilization. CAP is a volunteer organization, many have families and jobs. Picking up a unit and moving 700 miles away to train in TEXAS will result in expending member funds. I would rather that personal money be spent when a REDCAP comes along.
My Wing has a huge hole in the Western third of the state with perhaps 100,000 people to recruit from in an area of 300,000 square miles. Yes, there are members out there but so spread out they're having to organize flights attached to larger units to the East because they cannot get chartered.
An approved form 10 gets you funding for travel.
QuoteOur unit gets no funding from any State source, 90 percent of the expense is from member wallets because they believe in what they are doing. They want to ambitiously organize local training, this keeps them active.
Again, an approved CAPF 10 gets you funding to go anywhere in or out of your Wing to train with all sorts of other people.
QuoteBottom line is, when the time comes to "come together" on a massive scale, we will be there. We will also be well trained in that we have been training and have the trainers in our units.
Quotec. USAF-Assigned Training and Evaluation Mission Requesting Procedures. For required evaluations the liaison region commander will coordinate with the wing commander to establish an appropriate date(s) for the evaluation. For evaluations, and training missions the wing/region commander will plan and estimate the cost of the mission and, in each case will complete a copy of CAPF 10. A Sample CAPF 10 can be found in CAPR 60-4, Volume II.
CAPR 60-3 26 MAY 2004 19
1) The CAP wing/region commander prepares a CAPF 10 to include a detailed training scenario and forwards it to the wing liaison office. After approval by the wing liaison office, the request is forwarded to the CAP-USAF liaison region. The CAPF 10 must arrive at the CAP-USAF liaison region at least 30 days prior to the activity date.
2) If approved, the CAP-USAF liaison region will complete the appropriate blocks and return a copy of the form to the wing liaison office. This mission authorization includes a mission number and a fund cite for the estimated reimbursement authorized for the mission. Claimed expenditures will not be reimbursed above the estimated amount specified in block 2 on the CAPF 10 without specific approval of the CAP-USAF liaison region.
3) After completion of the mission, claimed reimbursement should be summarized on the CAPF 10 by the wing liaison office and returned to the CAP-USAF liaison region.
CAPF 10s and CAP108s are for mission reimbursement for the flying and driving during a mission, not for members driving to the mission. If this was so, the $8000 given by the USAF would be used up by paying for personal transport to the mission base or staging areas.
Members can file a form 108 for their POV
Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 14, 2008, 01:22:10 PM
Members can file a form 108 for their POV
Yup...it is done in Georgia for exercises outside of your "area'.
BTW...I am STRONGLY in the Agency camp. If I wanted a club I would join one, I want a professional organization and am glad to see it heading more in that direction.
Ditto on 108's for transport to/from.
That's the norm, those running the training just have to budget it for it,
Quote from: Eclipse on January 14, 2008, 05:46:22 PM
Ditto on 108's for transport to/from.
That's the norm, those running the training just have to budget it for it,
POV transport....however they do not pay for POA (Personally Owned Aircraft) travel dangit! LOL
they certainly can. however most wings place a restriction on that, but if all wing aircraft are in useyou could certainly justify funding a private aircraft
Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 14, 2008, 09:11:39 PM
they certainly can. however most wings place a restriction on that, but if all wing aircraft are in useyou could certainly justify funding a private aircraft
Oh I am sure they can, but it is usually not done due to the expense.
I prefer to fly my aircraft to the SAREX's if possible, just because a plane needs to fly and not sit.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 14, 2008, 05:01:15 AM
Quotec. USAF-Assigned Training and Evaluation Mission Requesting Procedures. For required evaluations the liaison region commander will coordinate with the wing commander to establish an appropriate date(s) for the evaluation. For evaluations, and training missions the wing/region commander will plan and estimate the cost of the mission and, in each case will complete a copy of CAPF 10. A Sample CAPF 10 can be found in CAPR 60-4, Volume II.
CAPR 60-3 26 MAY 2004 19
1) The CAP wing/region commander prepares a CAPF 10 to include a detailed training scenario and forwards it to the wing liaison office. After approval by the wing liaison office, the request is forwarded to the CAP-USAF liaison region. The CAPF 10 must arrive at the CAP-USAF liaison region at least 30 days prior to the activity date.
2) If approved, the CAP-USAF liaison region will complete the appropriate blocks and return a copy of the form to the wing liaison office. This mission authorization includes a mission number and a fund cite for the estimated reimbursement authorized for the mission. Claimed expenditures will not be reimbursed above the estimated amount specified in block 2 on the CAPF 10 without specific approval of the CAP-USAF liaison region.
3) After completion of the mission, claimed reimbursement should be summarized on the CAPF 10 by the wing liaison office and returned to the CAP-USAF liaison region.
CAPF 10s and CAP108s are for mission reimbursement for the flying and driving during a mission, not for members driving to the mission. If this was so, the $8000 given by the USAF would be used up by paying for personal transport to the mission base or staging areas.
I'd say you TXWG folks have been taking it in the shorts for awhile now. If budgeted for travel to and from SAREXes is covered.
you probably don't know that oil can be purchased as well as communications expenses (itemized cell phone bills count for mission calls)
Having said that wings often put restrictions on funding. If a corporate asset is available the wing usually wont pay POV expenses.
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 15, 2008, 12:23:13 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 14, 2008, 05:01:15 AM
Quotec. USAF-Assigned Training and Evaluation Mission Requesting Procedures. For required evaluations the liaison region commander will coordinate with the wing commander to establish an appropriate date(s) for the evaluation. For evaluations, and training missions the wing/region commander will plan and estimate the cost of the mission and, in each case will complete a copy of CAPF 10. A Sample CAPF 10 can be found in CAPR 60-4, Volume II.
CAPR 60-3 26 MAY 2004 19
1) The CAP wing/region commander prepares a CAPF 10 to include a detailed training scenario and forwards it to the wing liaison office. After approval by the wing liaison office, the request is forwarded to the CAP-USAF liaison region. The CAPF 10 must arrive at the CAP-USAF liaison region at least 30 days prior to the activity date.
2) If approved, the CAP-USAF liaison region will complete the appropriate blocks and return a copy of the form to the wing liaison office. This mission authorization includes a mission number and a fund cite for the estimated reimbursement authorized for the mission. Claimed expenditures will not be reimbursed above the estimated amount specified in block 2 on the CAPF 10 without specific approval of the CAP-USAF liaison region.
3) After completion of the mission, claimed reimbursement should be summarized on the CAPF 10 by the wing liaison office and returned to the CAP-USAF liaison region.
CAPF 10s and CAP108s are for mission reimbursement for the flying and driving during a mission, not for members driving to the mission. If this was so, the $8000 given by the USAF would be used up by paying for personal transport to the mission base or staging areas.
I'd say you TXWG folks have been taking it in the shorts for awhile now. If budgeted for travel to and from SAREXes is covered.
How much are you going to budget for Texas WingMembers to tavel from across the WING to a centralized area for a SARex? $5,000? $10,000? Per SARex?
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 15, 2008, 01:22:47 AM
How much are you going to budget for Texas WingMembers to tavel from across the WING to a centralized area for a SARex? $5,000? $10,000?
As much as you need.
I wouldn't suggest that every individual member should be encouraged to drive their POV, but if you're going to expect people to drive 6 hours to participate as a volunteer, the least you can do is front their fuel (considering the USAF doesn't generally cover hotels, meals, and personel equipment), especially for key players such as GTL's, branch directors and comm guys who usually come with enough specialized gear that expecting them to ride with a group is not practical.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 15, 2008, 01:50:44 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 15, 2008, 01:22:47 AM
How much are you going to budget for Texas WingMembers to tavel from across the WING to a centralized area for a SARex? $5,000? $10,000?
As much as you need.
I wouldn't suggest that every individual member should be encouraged to drive their POV, but if you're going to expect people to drive 6 hours to participate as a volunteer, the least you can do is front their fuel (considering the USAF doesn't generally cover hotels, meals, and personel equipment), especially for key players such as GTL's, branch directors and comm guys who usually come with enough specialized gear that expecting them to ride with a group is not practical.
This is why we do Distributive SARex activities where training occurs WING WIDE. I can drive down to Brownsville or up to Victoria or SAN ANTONIO. This allows needed training to occur without "crossing the continent" to do it.
As it ihas work
en re my "neck of the woods," CAPF 108s are only reimbursed for actually taking your vehicle on a CAP Mission. Thus, you get to the staging area or Mission Base and the time starts when you log into the mission.
I am amazed how "starstruck" everyone seems to be with Iowa that they cannot entertain logical training for logistical benefit.
this all started because many (Not all) units were not capable of putting together viable local training
Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 15, 2008, 03:17:44 AM
this all started because many (Not all) units were not capable of putting together viable local training
In Texas, the power seems to be in the GROUPS that work in tandem as the WING. If that is not done, it is clear that the logistical challenges of the situation will overwhelm any effort the WING puts forth.
Deploying well maintained units from "key areas," like East and Cental Texas would over tax even the current most robust CAP budget. Thus, the FIVE groups have to insure that they can answer locally...then call in reinforcements.
regions are an excellent structure for CAP. Dont forget that Iowa does not have groups
Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 15, 2008, 03:31:56 AM
regions are an excellent structure for CAP. Dont forget that Iowa does not have groups
Also, don't forget that in TEXAS; Iowa is a GROUP. ;)
By that, I do not mean to be insulting or TEXAS-CENTRIC, but pure reality based on the sheer size.
(http://www.txwgcap.org/wing_hq_gp/images/groups_map.gif)
Can anyone tell me how many members are in Iowa Wing. Out of them, how many are active, how many are Cadets. Where on the NHQ site can I find this info?
dont you read the internet. Iowa has lost 70% of its members, and none of those who are active are above 2nd Lt
Since at one point in time we had 400 that means that we have less than 200 members.
from e-services
Org Statistics
Seniors in this Unit: 26 Seniors in this Wing: 216
Cadets in this Unit: 0 Cadets in this Wing: 103
All Members in this Unit: 26
^ Thanks. Just curious. I will leave now.
No reason to leave. It is always interesting to see how people review the numbers. Certainly not high or impressive.
I'm sure everyone will take sides and fight it out shortly
Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 15, 2008, 03:58:01 AM
from e-services
Org Statistics
Seniors in this Unit: 26 Seniors in this Wing: 216
Cadets in this Unit: 0 Cadets in this Wing: 103
All Members in this Unit: 26
Are those really the numbers for Iowa wing?
Yes
Just to back up what Joe was saying (ie get this back to constructive)... my group in Texas (that's GpIV, the small one down there around houston) covers roughly the same geographic size as Iowa, with I think 17 Sqs & about 1,000 members last I checked.
It's not that the Iowa plan is not a workable solution here, just that it needs to be centralized at the Group level rather than statewide. The distributed sarex solution is very far from perfect, but it gets training done. Instead of hauling everyone to one place, you haul the key leaders from Gp staff together & then send them back with commanders intent & instructions to carry out locally. Logistically, that works. Realistically, i don't like it that much. I'd rather see centralized SaRExs in each Gp where quality standardized training can occur on a more consistent basis.
We still do some things at centralized locations. We run cadet competion, 2x CTEPs, & 2x encampments that way on the cadet side. We do a couple ground team competitions at centralized lcoations. Probably a few other things, but really the command level you're thinking of occurs at our Groups, and isn't possible on a wing scale.
Quote from: DNall on January 15, 2008, 05:03:37 AM
Just to back up what Joe was saying (ie get this back to constructive)... my group in Texas (that's GpIV, the small one down there around houston) covers roughly the same geographic size as Iowa, with I think 17 Sqs & about 1,000 members last I checked.
That is also one of Texas Wings most active areas where some of the best units can be found. Same could be said of GROUP III. San Antonio is very active and there as been a resurgance of CAP activity down in Southern Group V.
QuoteIt's not that the Iowa plan is not a workable solution here, just that it needs to be centralized at the Group level rather than statewide. The distributed sarex solution is very far from perfect, but it gets training done. Instead of hauling everyone to one place, you haul the key leaders from Gp staff together & then send them back with commanders intent & instructions to carry out locally. Logistically, that works. Realistically, i don't like it that much. I'd rather see centralized SaRExs in each Gp where quality standardized training can occur on a more consistent basis.
The DSAR model works great and I think the best combination of it would be two DSARs with the GROUP SARex model you speak of. While you were away, we have seen that. This stresses my point of more locality.
QuoteWe still do some things at centralized locations. We run cadet competion, 2x CTEPs, & 2x encampments that way on the cadet side. We do a couple ground team competitions at centralized lcoations. Probably a few other things, but really the command level you're thinking of occurs at our Groups, and isn't possible on a wing scale.
Well, said.
Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 15, 2008, 04:15:14 AM
No reason to leave. It is always interesting to see how people review the numbers. Certainly not high or impressive.
I'm sure everyone will take sides and fight it out shortly
What's scares me is that it appears that my wing is apparently sold on the Iowa centralized command and control model. We have ~900 seniors and ~800 cadets, multiple groups, and it takes nearly 7 hours to drive across the state. Distributed command control at Group level (TXWG style) is really the only model that works for us. I believe we're already seeing "functional attrition" in ES participation and training that parallels the Iowa data- although the participation statistics are being closely held by wing staff. No AARs are being publicized. We returned ~1/3 of our ES training money allocation last year because the decision to fund only "wing level" training removed training access and incentive to most of our members interested in ES training. It was announced that the only approved training would be conducted by wing. "Amateurs should not be training amateurs." Qualifications earned at NESA were initially rejected by wing until it was suggested that perhaps NHQ might have something to say about the issue. No training was to occur at squadron or group levels. To be honest, the wing training wasn't really that good compared to what we had done before at the squadron/group level. So people quit coming. Effective training did occur, but it was unpublicised and self-funded at squadron level and thus off-the-books per the training budget. Training mission numbers were hard to come by. Some squadrons even found themselves traveling outside the wing to stay sharp on SAREX training.
Unfortunately, people at the top LIKE centralized command and control. Once they get that bit in their teeth it's almost impossible to hold them back. They become married to this operational model and they ignore statistics and facts that clearly show it's not working. It takes someone at Region or NHQ, or an outside agency such as the state EMA to look at the performance data and ask "What the heck did you think you were accomplishing with this?"
I disagree that for CAP as a whole this is a simplistic "CAP Agency vs Club" issue. Most wings seem to have moved past this discussion. We're actually both. When we need to act like an agency (ES operations) we act like an agency. When we need to be a club (cadet programs field trips and AE) we act like a disciplined club. People conveniently forget that we have multiple missions, and a
good team can quickly morph themselves into the operational structure needed to support the mission. Play when it's time to play and work when it's time to work. I have a foot in both ES and Cadet Programs and we constantly perform this transformation, sometimes almost immediately when an ES alert comes in during the middle of another activity. It's what we've trained to do and it's no big deal.
Whatever happened to the concept, and I believe it was enumerated in 20-1, that the "squadron is the basic operational unit" in Civil Air Patrol?
Not the group, not the wing.
The "local unit." The squadron.
Switching to a wing- (or even group-) centric operational model requires a massive paradigm and cultural shift, one that many members may not be willing to make as easily as you'd like to think.
Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 15, 2008, 03:58:01 AM
dont you read the internet. Iowa has lost 70% of its members, and none of those who are active are above 2nd Lt
Since at one point in time we had 400 that means that we have less than 200 members.
from e-services
Org Statistics
Seniors in this Unit: 26 Seniors in this Wing: 216
Cadets in this Unit: 0 Cadets in this Wing: 103
All Members in this Unit: 26
Ouch, 70% loss rate. What is the believed reason for such a great loss in membership?
Of course, what is the wings plan to regain members? What is the recruiting officer going to do to for recruiting? What is the DCP going to do about not having any Mitchell cadets or above? In essence, what is the wing's plan?
After all, what good is money and training when there are not any people to train. People are your most valuable assest.
with our "small" numbers CAP maintains about 90% of the SAR force in the state.
I know critelli had a strong marketing and recruiting campaign lined up with recruiters, and a major marketing pr campaign.
If you believe the internet Ron will simply bring all the disgruntled member back making Iowa bigger and stronger than ever
Actually, the wing is the operational "unit" in CAP. It is the Wing/CC who approves all subordinate units to support the wing. And, it is the wing which handles distribution of assets. and is the "responsible party" for logistics and maint. of "stuff".
Local squadron activities are great. It builds cohesion and helps the squadron grow and keep members. (I guess I'm stating the obvious here?)
Anyway, I am enjoying this discussion. I'm from a large wing with many, many, active members, a large funding base, and a plethora of training options, missions and ongoing ideas. The current wing/cc is a forward looking member who is not afraid to deligate his authority and responsibility (that's trust) to the members holding subordinate positions; either on staff or in command. And, for some reason, membership is going up again.
I know small wings have unique problems. 3-400 members in a wing the size of Iowa is a challenge. To man a wing staff takes finesse when there are so few around. I guess I would centralize training also, until I was satisfied the members were qualified to go out and spread the wealth. It is only then a small wing could grow, live long and prosper 8)
Quote from: BlackKnight on January 15, 2008, 06:55:18 AM
Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 15, 2008, 04:15:14 AM
No reason to leave. It is always interesting to see how people review the numbers. Certainly not high or impressive.
I'm sure everyone will take sides and fight it out shortly
What's scares me is that it appears that my wing is apparently sold on the Iowa centralized command and control model. We have ~900 seniors and ~800 cadets, multiple groups, and it takes nearly 7 hours to drive across the state. Distributed command control at Group level (TXWG style) is really the only model that works for us. I believe we're already seeing "functional attrition" in ES participation and training that parallels the Iowa data- although the participation statistics are being closely held by wing staff. No AARs are being publicized. We returned ~1/3 of our ES training money allocation last year because the decision to fund only "wing level" training removed training access and incentive to most of our members interested in ES training. It was announced that the only approved training would be conducted by wing. "Amateurs should not be training amateurs." Qualifications earned at NESA were initially rejected by wing until it was suggested that perhaps NHQ might have something to say about the issue. No training was to occur at squadron or group levels. To be honest, the wing training wasn't really that good compared to what we had done before at the squadron/group level. So people quit coming. Effective training did occur, but it was unpublicised and self-funded at squadron level and thus off-the-books per the training budget. Training mission numbers were hard to come by. Some squadrons even found themselves traveling outside the wing to stay sharp on SAREX training.
Unfortunately, people at the top LIKE centralized command and control. Once they get that bit in their teeth it's almost impossible to hold them back. They become married to this operational model and they ignore statistics and facts that clearly show it's not working. It takes someone at Region or NHQ, or an outside agency such as the state EMA to look at the performance data and ask "What the heck did you think you were accomplishing with this?"
You are not from Georgia are you? ;D
It seems we are FINALLY getting training money pushed back to the squadron level...and that is a GOOD thing.
Holy cow, guys. Your (Iowa) Wing is 1/3 the size of mine. Yikes.
(Minor comparison, I realize its not an entirely accurate comparison, but Iowa is 56,272 sq miles versus 9,350 sq miles here in NH, with a population just shy of 3 million, versus 1.2 million here.)
A number of years ago (2003 or 2004), in discussion with a friend who works at NHQ, he threw an interesting little statistic at me that IMHO served as a good generalization about CAP's membership penetration in a particular area.
At the time, CAP had about 60,000 members, and the 2000 US Census pegged the nationwide population at just about 281 million people. (give or take by 2003).
That led to a membership rate of something like .000213 (equalized across the country). (Mind you, this was about 4-5 years ago, so my memory of the precise numbers is a tad sketchy..)
So if you took your local population (my town is about 35,000) and multiplied it by this number, here is how big your unit should be compared to the "nationwide norm." In my case, it was something like 7 1/2 members or some ungodly tiny number like that. Then I realized that my true "recruiting area" was essentially the entire county, population 136,000. So that worked out to close to 30 members my unit *should* have to be "on" the national number based on population.
(I just found the original formula, and it was more like this:
60,000 x (expected normative wing population)
---------------- = -------------
300,000,000 1,200,000 (population of my state)
so that's 60,000 * 1,200,000 = 300,000,000x Crikey, I knew this 9th grade algebra crap would some day come in handy! Solving for x gives 240, the expected Civil Air Patrol membership in my wing if we're keeping to the national ratio of 60,000 members per 300,000,000 population. My wing's actual member population is closer to 600, so we're beating the National average by a fair margin. According to this formula, using my county's population of 136,000, my unit should have 27.5 members..)
At the time my unit had over 100 members (and we have about 98 members still). We were exceeding the membership ratio by a FACTOR OF THREE.
So to apply this to Iowa's figures, 60,000 * 2,900,000 = 300,000,000x and solve for x you're looking at 580. And Iowa has less than 200 members presently?
Yikes, folks. That's not a statistical anomaly. Thats not even accountable for the distance between units and how spread out Iowa is. No, folks, that's a PROBLEM.
(break it down by metropolitan or geographic area, if you want, to see if the numbers hold. Find some historical numbers of members in, say, Des Moines from 4-5 years ago, prior to the Iowa Experiment. Was there just one squadron there? How big is the area it logically recruits from? A county? Several counties? Count the entire population of the area covered by the unit and crank it into that formula. That's how big the unit should be / should have been. See how that number compares to the unit today to sort of "cross-check" the logic here. Even if there was more than one unit, you should be able to figure their combined geographical reach and the population under their "footprint" and then see if the expected number equals the total membership of the combined units..)
It would be interesting to see if the "Iowa of old" had numbers closer to the national ratio or if the numbers are not substantially different from what they are today. This would be far more telling as to whether the "Iowa Experiment" had that big of an effect on membership.
ok gang. add this to your equation. in the past 10 years (5 wing commanders) we have had 2 units west of ineterstate 35. neither sucesful. with traditionally no support.
also nebraska has 1 unit in Iowa (sioux falls). and 4 units in amaha which draw from council bluffs.
2 major metropolitine areas covered by different states (traditionally)
Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 15, 2008, 04:17:21 PM
also nebraska has 1 unit in Iowa (sioux falls).
Is that legal?!?
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 15, 2008, 07:20:00 PM
Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 15, 2008, 04:17:21 PM
also nebraska has 1 unit in Iowa (sioux falls).
Is that legal?!?
Apparently it is. We have the same deal in California Wing. The Truckee-Tahoe Composite Squadron is part of Nevada Wing.
But they're in a special situation. Top of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the closest "big" city is Reno Nevada. Otherwise they have to go 80 miles down I-80 to Sacramento California.
This deal was made about 20 plus years ago and everybody still seems happy.
A long time ago I did some stats and there is an incredibly strong correlation (statistically significant) between CAP Wing membership and state population size. I doubt it holds up quite as well at the squadron level due to a variety of factors.
Iowa Wing membership -according to annual reports
2000: 347
2001: 369
2002: 464
2003: 454
2004: 410
2005: 387
2006: 390
2007 (from CAPTalk): 319
So, looks sort of typical in that they saw a good membership bump after 9/11 which then dropped down back to where they were, more or less. However, the big drop this year (almost 20%) is something to be concerned about since it has happened since the new concept has become well established and is well beyond the membership loss seen by CAP as a whole.
I know everybody will say quality, not quantity, and there is some truth to that, but you need a minimum number of people just to make things viable and Iowa, especially given its relatively large size (not compared to TX Carrales :) ) might find itself in serious trouble.
I am strongly in the Agency Camp and am all for having a central wing HQ.
Right now its in Chicago which totally sucks. But then again, until a recent shift in the wing 'Group' structure, there were hardly any training programs set up South of Chicago. I cannot express how glad I am to be part of a group in which training is offered here in Central Illinois.
I further feel that if there is any possibility that the Wing, ANY WING, could offer monthly meetings similar to the WTA or any NG units "drill weekend" that it couldnt be better.
Iowa has it right ( and no I have not been there)
I can say this for the simple fact that they have: daily missions, travel reimnbursment for POVs, a central meeting location, a closer relationship to the military then any other wing I know of, and finally job protection.
Any step back to " the club" is a step to failure.
I joined the USAF Auxiliary, whose purpose I see as being an unpaid version of the USAF Reserve, I did NOT join CAP Inc.
I do want to mention, upon reflection, that any mass exoudus in membership is bad. No matter where you are.
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on January 15, 2008, 08:29:39 PM
I joined the USAF Auxiliary, whose purpose I see as being an unpaid version of the USAF Reserve, I did NOT join CAP Inc.
Yeah, but no matter what: You're still a member of Civil Air Patrol, Inc, the United States Air Force Auxiliary. And NOT an unpaid reservist.
And there is a difference.
Just a comment on the CAP member ship in the Des Moines Metro area. Three years ago (just before the "experiment") there was a Senior squadron with approximately 20 members, about half of whom would be considered "active". The Cadet Program had been dropped because of lack of interest.
Today the senior squadron has 17 members, and a new cadet squadron has formed with 11 seniors and 19 cadets, bring the total to 47, and most of those are active (inactive members get transfered to IA000).
Not bad results given the fairly short timeframe of a couple years. If the "experiment" continues, it will be interesting to see the states numbers in another year or two...
QuoteI further feel that if there is any possibility that the Wing, ANY WING, could offer monthly meetings similar to the WTA or any NG units "drill weekend" that it couldnt be better.
I don't think that anyone would disagree with that in general. I think people have a problem with doing the training in the same place each month and not really letting it be done at the local level.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 15, 2008, 07:58:14 PM
A long time ago I did some stats and there is an incredibly strong correlation (statistically significant) between CAP Wing membership and state population size. I doubt it holds up quite as well at the squadron level due to a variety of factors.
Iowa Wing membership -according to annual reports
2000: 347
2001: 369
2002: 464
2003: 454
2004: 410
2005: 387
2006: 390
2007 (from CAPTalk): 319
So, looks sort of typical in that they saw a good membership bump after 9/11 which then dropped down back to where they were, more or less. However, the big drop this year (almost 20%) is something to be concerned about since it has happened since the new concept has become well established and is well beyond the membership loss seen by CAP as a whole.
I know everybody will say quality, not quantity, and there is some truth to that, but you need a minimum number of people just to make things viable and Iowa, especially given its relatively large size (not compared to TX Carrales :) ) might find itself in serious trouble.
Ugh... I hate math and stat... However, here goes some concept....
Bloated numbers is exactly what is wrong with CAP (nationally). When CAP (NHQ) touts it numbers it throws everything at you (patron, AE, Legislative, whatever). Recently we have had about 60-70% participation in Iowa with 316 total members as compared to around 20-25% previously which is consistent with the national participation averages.
Also you have to judge our strength by the number of Officers as compared to cadets. Cadet numbers tend to fluctuate and are consistent with squadron's quality. When Scheitzach worked to scuttle ICAPA in the summer of 2006 he doomed the cadet program. We were just getting it built up.
If Iowa were going down the wrong path in weeding out its dead weight, why did the CAP-USAF CC think we were the way of the future? Cutting dead weight is a form of deceit. Dead weight bloats membership numbers and gives false measures and stats, which results in an inaccurate assessment of a Wing's capabilities. On the recruitment side, it also fosters extremely bad retention rates.
I've also never said that CAP-Agency requires training in just one place. In Iowa we did not have much to work with in the beginning so we could only support one training location. For Texas, California, or other big states it may work best for group-wide training to combine resources for better, more standardized training. The emphasis should be placed on the process to refining your organization, not the specific tactical method of implementing because that will very with geography and other factors.
Quote from: NIN on January 15, 2008, 08:44:25 PM
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on January 15, 2008, 08:29:39 PM
I joined the USAF Auxiliary, whose purpose I see as being an unpaid version of the USAF Reserve, I did NOT join CAP Inc.
Yeah, but no matter what: You're still a member of Civil Air Patrol, Inc, the United States Air Force Auxiliary. And NOT an unpaid reservist.
And there is a difference.
Spot on, and for the record, ILWG HQ is not in Chicago, its in a Western Suburb about 40 miles away, which I will grant you, for someone 5 hours away is functionally the same thing, but in terms of location, is >relatively< centrally located to in excess of 60-70% of the membership.
ILWG is the literal example of a state where the IAWG model would not work - our groups are larger than IAWG wing, and for the most part are already fully-operational and executing the mission locally.
Metro Chicago has more population than the whole state of Iowa, as well as a significantly larger professional ES presence in all the major cities and counties. CAP is a >part< of the solution, and a larger part in some areas than others, but neither we nor the ILNG is answering 911, nor would we expect to.
Our role as secondary and tertiary assets is exactly in line with CAP's mission and scope. The aerial survey mission we did for NOAA last week and the DA work we did for the ARC in Rockford are perfect examples.
Iowa Officer Members --- Cadets
2000 220 -- 127
2001 253 -- 116
2002 303 -- 161
2003 286 -- 168
2004 254 -- 156
2005 259 -- 128
2006 253 -- 137
2007 216 -- 103
So, what this tells me is that Iowa cadet numbers shot up in 2002 (before the new program), stayed strong until 2004 and then as the new program was implemented started to drop and it has only gotten worse. There are only a handful of states with fewer than 100 cadets and Iowa is about to join them. While this thread is mostly about ES-stuff, it is clear that the Iowa experiment has not been good for the cadet program.
Senior members stayed more or less stable through the first few years of the program, but still saw a big decrease from 2006-2007.
Our cadet program has been best characterized as mediocre at best since the days I joined.
The first phase of organization and improvement was prioritized on ES because it affected life and property and the gov't could relate to it. The Cadet Program and AE have been the focus the last half of 2007 and going forward trying to get it squared away.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 15, 2008, 11:30:12 PM
Iowa Officer Members --- Cadets
2000 220 -- 127
2001 253 -- 116
2002 303 -- 161
2003 286 -- 168
2004 254 -- 156
2005 259 -- 128
2006 253 -- 137
2007 216 -- 103
Recruiting numbers can easily paint any picture. Obviously this one is of some type of loss. I wonder what the RETENTION rate was. It is easy to persaude some 12 year old into joining, but it is not as easy as to keep that 12 year old in the program.
Quotere-selected an inferior and unqualified officer
From someone that acheived the rank of CMSgt and professed discipline and professionalism, I would have expected a little bit more respect out of him. Would he have said these same words if this were to occur in the Air Force?
Retaining cadets for more than 3-4 years is pretty hit or miss. Kids join lots of clubs and then change their minds about them later, or develop other interests. If a cadet doesn't renew after his first year, then you might have a problem with the program.
Senior members though...if you get them past the first 2-3 years, you've probably got them for a pretty long time.
Quote from: cyclone on January 15, 2008, 10:39:33 PM
If Iowa were going down the wrong path in weeding out its dead weight, why did the CAP-USAF CC think we were the way of the future?
Can you please cite where you got that?
Handing out awards and praising people for a job well done is not the same as insinuating its the "Way".
Quote from: PHall on January 15, 2008, 07:34:20 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 15, 2008, 07:20:00 PM
Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 15, 2008, 04:17:21 PM
also nebraska has 1 unit in Iowa (sioux falls).
Is that legal?!?
Apparently it is. We have the same deal in California Wing. The Truckee-Tahoe Composite Squadron is part of Nevada Wing.
But they're in a special situation. Top of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the closest "big" city is Reno Nevada. Otherwise they have to go 80 miles down I-80 to Sacramento California.
This deal was made about 20 plus years ago and everybody still seems happy.
Don't DEWG and MDWG have something similar?
when col hodgkins was present in Iowa he made a speech. SInce the speech was not recorded or transcribed I cannot site it.
The col. made it VERY clear that CAP has a bloat problem, and that Iowa was on the right track.
Believe it or not
Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 16, 2008, 12:22:20 AM
when col hodgkins was present in Iowa he made a speech. SInce the speech was not recorded or transcribed I cannot site it.
The col. made it VERY clear that CAP has a bloat problem, and that Iowa was on the right track.
Believe it or not
Yes, he commented at the last NEC that there is an issue with improperly reporting our membership numbers because patrons, empty shirts, and non-ES types are included in the reporting, not to mention the 1/3 of seniors who have never accessed eServices*, but that has nothing to do with validating the actual IAWG model, other than an indication that the idea of losing non-performers is a good idea.
There's a difference between moving legitimately non-active members to a status which is reported separately and making it so difficult, or impossible for some active members to participate that they just stand down or quit.
So far, in defense of how things are going in Iowa now, I have heard "the guard thought we were Boy Scouts and now they love us...", "...we do a ton of Iowa's SAR...", and "...we get a lot of money and a nice building from the state...". All good things for Iowa, none which required the WTA concept in exclusion of the actual CAP model that everyone else uses, at least not in the other states who can make the same statements.
*lack of eServices use, however, is not a pure indicator of ES participation because a number of larger states still use the WMU.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2008, 12:56:16 AM
Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 16, 2008, 12:22:20 AM
when col hodgkins was present in Iowa he made a speech. SInce the speech was not recorded or transcribed I cannot site it.
The col. made it VERY clear that CAP has a bloat problem, and that Iowa was on the right track.
Believe it or not
Yes, he commented at the last NEC that there is an issue with improperly reporting our membership numbers because patrons, empty shirts, and non-ES types are included in the reporting, not to mention the 1/3 of seniors who have never accessed eServices*, but that has nothing to do with validating the actual IAWG model, other than an indication that the idea of losing non-performers is a good idea.
There's a difference between moving legitimately non-active members to a status which is reported separately and making it so difficult, or impossible for some active members to participate that they just stand down or quit.
So far, in defense of how things are going in Iowa now, I have heard "the guard thought we were Boy Scouts and now they love us...", "...we do a ton of Iowa's SAR...", and "...we get a lot of money and a nice building from the state...". All good things for Iowa, none which required the WTA concept in exclusion of the actual CAP model that everyone else uses, at least not in the other states who can make the same statements.
*lack of eServices use, however, is not a pure indicator of ES participation because a number of larger states still use the WMU.
Again, I reiterate..
1. The USAF, our parent organization, is interested in what we can field for operations in ES.
2. If your members aren't training in ES, they're dead weight when it comes to getting your training money, vehicles, even uniforms from DRMO.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 15, 2008, 11:44:40 PM
Senior members though...if you get them past the first 2-3 years, you've probably got them for a pretty long time.
That was my intent, having been in CAP for about two and a half years. This newest mess has me wondering, though. I have to honestly say that the biggest hurdle I had this past few years was the inconsistency of the national organization. It seemed first that the biggest concern was how pretty the uniforms looked to the National Commander's eye...sheesh, we had one change after another. (Oh, yes, those are being reversed, too....or are they? oh, yes they are.....)
Then the black eye of the removal of the national commander under 'circumstances'.....
Now the unprofessionalism of this newest debacle....
I have been in clubs just like that. Went to what I hoped was a much better purpose, and was hugely excited to see the professionalism locally. (I am still a member of the other clubs, just am not pouring my time and effort into them like I had been...for 16 years each!) Do I need another club? nope.....
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 16, 2008, 02:50:01 AM
Again, I reiterate..
1. The USAF, our parent organization, is interested in what we can field for operations in ES.
No doubt. But they are also interested in what we do in cadet programs, where they also spend a lot of money for uniforms, training, mandays, etc.
Quote
2. If your members aren't training in ES, they're dead weight when it comes to getting your training money, vehicles, even uniforms from DRMO.
Hmmm. And yet cadet units get vehicles, DRMO uniforms (on occasion), and training money.
Look, this isn't a "CP is better than ES" kind of thing. But we are both in the same boat funding-wise, and it doesn't help to focus exclusively on one program or the other in these kinds of threads.
Together, we move forward.
Ned Lee
National CP Advisor
Quote from: Ned on January 16, 2008, 03:02:54 AM
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 16, 2008, 02:50:01 AM
Again, I reiterate..
1. The USAF, our parent organization, is interested in what we can field for operations in ES.
No doubt. But they are also interested in what we do in cadet programs, where they also spend a lot of money for uniforms, training, mandays, etc.
But they're not allocating the $$$ like they are ES.
Quote
2. If your members aren't training in ES, they're dead weight when it comes to getting your training money, vehicles, even uniforms from DRMO.
Hmmm. And yet cadet units get vehicles, DRMO uniforms (on occasion), and training money.[/quote]
CP does have access to vehicles, but if a vehicle that is taking 10 cadets to an airshow is needed for an ELT mission the cadets are walking.
DRMO holds are being screened by CAP-USAF based on people training for missions. Happened to our Wing a year or so ago.
I've yet to see any training money for CP like is spent on ES at the wing level.
QuoteLook, this isn't a "CP is better than ES" kind of thing. But we are both in the same boat funding-wise, and it doesn't help to focus exclusively on one program or the other in these kinds of threads.
Together, we move forward.
Ned Lee
National CP Advisor
Respectfully, I understand. You're talking to a former cadet, second generation CAP cadet at that. But the reality is that CP takes a backseat to ES.
Take a look at the Logistics TA. There isn't much there that speaks for use by CP.
CP and ES is 2/3 of the CAP mission, but if you can't see that the USAF's interests right now are primarily in ES you're blind.
Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on January 16, 2008, 12:17:42 AM
Quote from: PHall on January 15, 2008, 07:34:20 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 15, 2008, 07:20:00 PM
Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 15, 2008, 04:17:21 PM
also nebraska has 1 unit in Iowa (sioux falls).
Is that legal?!?
Apparently it is. We have the same deal in California Wing. The Truckee-Tahoe Composite Squadron is part of Nevada Wing.
But they're in a special situation. Top of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the closest "big" city is Reno Nevada. Otherwise they have to go 80 miles down I-80 to Sacramento California.
This deal was made about 20 plus years ago and everybody still seems happy.
Don't DEWG and MDWG have something similar?
I don't know about DEWG, but National Capitol Wing has squadrons that are actually in Maryland.
I think this whole Club v. Agency thing is a sympton of many smaller issues in CAP.
Let me state this clearly. Its a stupid discussion. CAP is both, and both 'sides' need to recongize that.
Obviously, CAP does many things. We have a cadet program that does all that marching and leadership stuff. We have an aerospace education program that does a variety of things. We have an ES program that does a variety of things, depending on the area, relationship with local government, local capabilities.
We have pilots who support all three things in one way or another. We have teachers, lawyers, firemen, bankers, students, policemen, etc etc. We have guys who are successful, we have guys who aren't so successful, and we have guys (like me) who are still trying to figure out how the heck we're gonna put food on our table in a few years.
Some people join CAP to help cadets, some join to fly, some join because they think they're gonna be stomping it out in the boonies every other weekend. Some join because of their own egos, some join to help the community.
But, like I said before, I believe that people should conform to the organization, then individualism comes later. Every CAP member should at least be farmilar with all three missions, even if they don't activity partcipate in all three.
Do you'll know how annoying and frustrating it is as a Cadet Officer to spend time teaching rank, customs, saluting, and respect, and then have some Senior Member come in next and say cadets can call him by his first name? Or call the Squadron CC by his first name?
Or, how annoying it is to have a SM say something like "I don't care about that ES crap, we don't do much of it" after discussion CAPs missions with a new member?
CAP isn't a club. Nore is it an agency. Its not a place for pilots to sit around and talk about flyin,' nore is it a place for a bunch of super ghung-ho SAR guys to pretend they're a technical rescue squad.
I think many of our members need to find a balance between all three missions, and realize how important each is.
CAPTALK members:
If you respect me personally and what we have done for the Iowa Wing,
then please end this debate. It is destructive to the one thing we all
loved: CAP. CAP leadership has spoken as is their right. I have
accepted their directive, sent a letter of congratulations to the new
commander and that should be the end of it. The new commander is
entitled to chart his course, gather his leadership and march on. What
was, was; what is, is and what will be, will be.
For those who do not respect me or what we have done, I ask you to
please stop the attack. You are now in control; you are leadership.
Lead, take it no further.
In closing, remember we are civilians in a civilian organization. An
organization has no reputation or credibility apart from that of its
members. To get respect from the USAF we must show by our example that
we deserve it.
Nick Critelli
^ Sir, I don't know you personally, but this letter most likely would have been better sent to your Wing after various emails were sent to Iowa State agencies.
Your fellow Iowa Members are in the wrong, not us here at CAPTALK.
(Maybe I can be the last poster on this thread before it gets locked??????)
Best of luck to you Lt Col Critelli.
Nick: I have kept some sort of track of this thread and I say "AMEN" to your comments. We have the usual platoon of guard-house lawyers on this site and it is time to simply set this aside and get on with useful stuff.
Col. Critelli:
Your wisdom here speaks volumes. All the best to you, a man I've come to respect in these forums.
Jack
Quote from: bosshawk on January 18, 2008, 02:23:05 AM
Nick: I have kept some sort of track of this thread and I say "AMEN" to your comments. We have the usual platoon of guard-house lawyers on this site and it is time to simply set this aside and get on with useful stuff.
OK Colonel, lets just stop all discussion on CAPTALK. Don't want to be thought of as a "Guard-House-Lawyer". (I don't even know what that means). Actually, I think you are right. Everyone here should watch what they type or they may get (will get) sued. It has happened here before, and most likely will happen again. I am off to delete some posts! See everyone at the next bash(ing)!
Telling us not to discuss something is like telling a 6-year-old to stop laughing when you are punishing them... :P
I believe Nick is attempting to get the members of Iowa Wing to stand down, support their new wing commander, and try to preserve CAP in their home state.
Stifling our 1st Amendment freedom to pontificate long and loud about whatever we please is no doubt the furthest thing from his mind.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 18, 2008, 05:11:16 AM
I believe Nick is attempting to get the members of Iowa Wing to stand down, support their new wing commander, and try to preserve CAP in their home state.
Stifling our 1st Amendment freedom to pontificate long and loud about whatever we please is no doubt the furthest thing from his mind.
I agree, he is honorably asking for cooler heads to prevail in favor of the reality that CAP must survive there.
I find the concept of "dead weight" rather interesting.
Are the volunteers, who give up their time to serve as squadron admin, personnel, finance, and moral leadreship officers "dead weight" just because they're not interested in or able to perform ES missions?
Are they taking up space that belongs to someone else. Is their desire to do some small service for their community, state, and nation an imposition?
Does everyone have to do ES? Has anyone looked at the US military's teeth to tail ratio lately? They too serve, who perform essential tasks, so that those that are willing and able can perform the ES missions.
Speaking only for myself, I define "dead weight" members as follows: a relatively healthy adult, unencumbered by severe fiscal, family, or career problems, who does nothing for his/her unit of membership, fulfills no staff role, neither participates in nor provides training, and, generally, doesn't do a blessed thing!
Hopefully this description makes it clear that the efforts of active members could (and should!) be in any of CAP's three principal missions, or in one of the many areas supporting the execution of those missions (i.e., they also serve well and honorably who function as admin, logistics, IG, PAO and so on and so forth!)
There are two types of "dead weight" members:
1) those that rarely or never attend; to all intents and purposes they are Patrons, and at least their dues help wing & national
2) those that do attend, don't actually contribute anything, but constantly criticize, belittle and berate those seniors who do!
The first category is infinitely preferable to the second!
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 18, 2008, 06:30:32 PM
Speaking only for myself, I define "dead weight" members as follows: a relatively healthy adult, unencumbered by severe fiscal, family, or career problems, who does nothing for his/her unit of membership, fulfills no staff role, neither participates in nor provides training, and, generally, doesn't do a blessed thing!
CAP is a volunteer organization. We do not have a "up or out" policy or a mandatory retirement age like the military. Members voluntarily contribute their time and money to help perform the mission. Long term members go through burn-out, just get tired, or just get bored. After a sabbatical, some become active in the squdron again. As some members age, it just gets too hard to attend most of the meetings or participate in the activities. Does that mean we should toss them out? A lot of them were key players in the squadron at one time - but that was probably years before most of the active members joined. Being part of CAP has become part of their identity. To just quit or go to patron status is like a pilot who quits flying due to age being forced to sell his airplane. Yes, they should probably do it, and they would save money in the process. But they don't want to close the door forever on that part of their live. So they don't. So what if they pay dues and don't participate - it doesn't hurt anyone. They deserve that much for the times when they did particpate. Of the ones who show up and complain - if they have a lot of experience in CAP, then maybe they see the current leadership just reinventing the wheel and don't like it.
JMHO
You quoted my post, but was it clear??
I did say "relatively healthy adult". I fully agree that, as our seniors become "seniors" chronologically, we ought to treat them respectfully, honoring the long years of service so many have given to CAP and country.
I also mentioned other legitimate reasons (family, work, school)
that could impede active membership for a time....been there myself.
I understand burnout and the need it brings for a "CAP vacation"....been there, done that, got the T-shirt! Though I probably should have gone to Patron status for several years...
I am not looking to mistreat anyone, or disrespect anyone....but there are those who do more harm than good, who cast a negative pall on the organization in spite of the best efforts of leaders to motivate them to participate and contribute insofar as they are able to do so!
The do-nothings, nay-sayers, rabble rousers we're better off without....not the retirees, not the ones worn to a frazzle by years of CAP service, not even those who have other priorities at the current stage of their lives....my experience, at least, has been that the folks who fit these categories are all too willing to pitch in and do what they can, even if it isn't making every mission or attending every squadron meeting.
QuoteCAP is a volunteer organization.
.......staffed by proffesionals. Please finish the sentance. At least that is the direction we are pushing in GA Wing, from HQ, through SLS, to the squadrons.
We need to get away from just the first half of that sentence. Look this is NOT the Boy Scouts. Being active, doing your job is IMPORTANT.
Be it training Cadets, and thus shaping young minds, to teaching, to possible finding and saving the life of a downed pilot (perhaps mine someday)....this is not some Sunday volunteer group to pickup trash or clean up the local playground.
I think THAT is what many here are trying to say. Lets get out of the "we are volunteers" only mode....add the qualifier, take this seriously because quite frankly, it is.
Tags - MIKE
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on January 19, 2008, 03:09:57 PM
QuoteCAP is a volunteer organization.
.......staffed by proffesionals. Please finish the sentance. At least that is the direction we are pushing in GA Wing, from HQ, through SLS, to the squadrons.
We need to get away from just the first half of that sentence. Look this is NOT the Boy Scouts. Being active, doing your job is IMPORTANT.
Be it training Cadets, and thus shaping young minds, to teaching, to possible finding and saving the life of a downed pilot (perhaps mine someday)....this is not some Sunday volunteer group to pickup trash or clean up the local playground.
I think THAT is what many here are trying to say. Lets get out of the "we are volunteers" only mode....add the qualifier, take this seriously because quite frankly, it is.
Tags - MIKE
Well said!!!!!
Col. Critelli, my respects Sir.
I think this is about talked out.
Mods can we get a lock?
Boy everyone's hankerin' for a lock these days
Lt Col Critelli has not been on this board for some time now.
Quote from: LittleIronPilot on January 19, 2008, 03:09:57 PM
Tags - MIKE
huh? Who is Mike and what are tags?
Just curious since I did not edit my own post! LOL
^It means that you messed up the quote tags or something in your post. So he (MIKE) edited it to fix them so your post didn't look like this:
Quote from: YOUR POST
Quote from: OTHER GUYS POST
THIS IS HIS POST
THIS IS YOUR POST
Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 22, 2008, 01:03:46 PM
Lt Col Critelli has not been on this board for some time now.
He posted 6 days ago on this thread...
as rapidly as my world has changed 6 days is some time.
Numbers of seniors don't mean nuthin'.
We need enough seniors to accomplish our missions. No more. The rest is bloat.
In most Wings, there are oodles of "empty shirts." They aren't helping, unless you count their dues.
The question to ask is not "does Iowa Wing have less seniors than it had before the changes?"
The question should be "does Iowa Wing have less (or more) active seniors who are helping the Wing accomplish its missions than it had before the changes."
I'm not sure how you quantify that easily, since CAP doesn't define "active membership."
But if what Iowa Wing is doing results in losing hundreds of dead members and picking up a few dozen ones who actually contribute to the Wing's missions - then it's a very good thing.
On the other hand, if Iowa Wing doesn't have enough people to get the job done - you've got a real problem.
Now cadets are different story - they aren't part of our workforce, they are one of our products. Less cadets should be a warning indicator that a mission is on the decline.
According to the CAP homeland security database Iowa currently has 16 mission pilots for 7 aircraft. I don't care how you cut it, but that is insufficient to ensure a quality response on a statewide level. With 50 Observers and 80 Scanners (probably some overlap), they probably have enough crewmembers for the planes assuming they can get a pilot. They've got 26 ground team leaders and 60 ground team members (probably some overlap between the two), which actually seems pretty good to me considering the size of their wing.
I've mentioned these stats before and the response from locals is that they've managed to meet the missions they've been tasked with with this number of pilots. That may be the case, but I think they've been extremely lucky.
I get your opinion - 2.3 MPs per plane is inadequate. It does sound a bit low.
But it might be just fine. CAP doesn't have a standard. It could be that 7 of their MPs are retired guys just sitting around ready to handle missions! Or it could be that all of their MPs are working 80 hour a week jobs and can't afford to take time off to do any CAP. Or anywhere in between.
Has Iowa dropped the ball on any mission tasking due to lake of folks? If not, seems like they're OK.
Barring some national standard, the best indicator of readiness is going to be performance - both on actual and evaluated practice missions.
CAP doesn't have a national standard, and really couldn't since they can't mandate how many people are in a unit. My personal rule of thumb is to have 3 people for every "slot" and I'll feel reasonably sure of being able to fill all slots when the time comes. For an almost 100% guarantee I think you need 5 people.
On its last Air Force EVAL in May 07, Iowa Wing was given an "Excellent" rating by the CAP-USAF evaluators. It then turned around in July and flew in an Air Force exercise for 2 weeks flying 1-2 sorties per day. It flew for a week with anywhere between 2-5 sorties per day for flooding in SW and then SE / E Iowa.
The then leadership of IAWG has admitted that it was low on qualified mission pilots. We were flying the hell out of several of our IP's trying to get some guys current enough to become mission pilots and then training up a few more who had all the pre-req's met.
Our pilot corps used to have a ton of dead weight bloat with guys that maybe flew 1 practice mission per year (or just their bi-annual CAPF 91 ride). It inflated our numbers and gave a false sense of capability. Our corps of active, qualified, and current mission pilots has traditionally hovered in the range of 20 pilots in recent history prior to the "Iowa Experiment." In FY 07 IAWG flew 1400+ hours on 7 planes. This was despite one of the 182's being out of wing for 4 mos for an engine change and some other excessive maintenance down times.
QuoteOur pilot corps used to have a ton of dead weight bloat with guys that maybe flew 1 practice mission per year (or just their bi-annual CAPF 91 ride). It inflated our numbers and gave a false sense of capability. Our corps of active, qualified, and current mission pilots has traditionally hovered in the range of 20 pilots in recent history prior to the "Iowa Experiment."
This, ladies and gents, is why the IAWG experiment worked and why so many were opposed.
The IAWG experiment exposed an ugly truth about CAP: No one could reconcile the number in MIMS with the numbers who would actually show.
IAWG took those who would be there for the Mission, made a core group and cut the dregs loose to the inactive bin.
Those who like pretending they had lots of 101 qualified members in their unit who knew they couldn't do anything with them hated the IAWG experiment.
^ The experiment worked? The last four weeks seem to show a different outcome.
Iowa may have "cut its dead weight", but I bet if push came to shove and those pilots that only flew one training mission per year were called on for an actual mission, they may show up.
they couldn't do it many times that I called for missions
^ It take back what I said then. That goes to show you, those that are not part of Iowa Wing (myself included) really don't know what is going there.
For the record, I take back (I know that means nothing to some) everything negative I said about Iowa Wing and it's experiment. At least you guys had the guts to try something new out there. Most of us may talk big about things we would do, but in reality, none of it will ever happen.
Why my change of opinion.......
Penna Wing members have not even heard once from the New Wing King since his appointment (four months ago). He has not issued any statements, and visions on where the wing is going, etc. We can't even get him to read proposals written and signed by thirty Officers for activities we would like to create.
Iowa seemed at the least to have a vision, mission and focus that most wings (mine included) lack.
Good luck to Iowa.......I will not comment any more on it.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 24, 2008, 05:53:28 PM
^ The experiment worked? The last four weeks seem to show a different outcome.
Iowa may have "cut its dead weight", but I bet if push came to shove and those pilots that only flew one training mission per year were called on for an actual mission, they may show up.
Further, based on our existing regulations, which cannot be circumvented or ignored without the approval of NHQ, those "once a year pilots" are every bit as qualified as those who fly once a week.
While I'm as vocal as anyone about presenting correct readiness numbers, any member who is maintaining enough participation to stay a current mission pilot is far from "inactive" - a mission pilot who only participates in "one mission a year" also has to do a Form 5 and a Form 91, plus whatever it takes to maintain his flight credentials and all the recurrency needed on the MP taskings themselves.
For some members, life intrudes at a point where participating at all becomes difficult, and the flexibility of
training opportunities at the local squadron becomes the only way they can maintain currency. That is the design and model of CAP, and the whole point of allowing members to serve their communities in uniform, locally.
Most wings have taken great pains to encourage units to step up and increase the training opportunities afforded to members to get away from the "do it now, or wait until next year" mentality that has plagued CAP for year.
There is a big difference between professionalizing your force and increasing expectations, and funneling everything into such a small jar that only those who are hyper-motivated can even participate.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 24, 2008, 06:33:52 PM
Further, based on our existing regulations, which cannot be circumvented or ignored without the approval of NHQ, those "once a year pilots" are every bit as qualified as those who fly once a week.
There is a big difference between being "qualified" and being "current." I've been up with the guys that do the min's and those that go beyond it. Sorry, I don't want to fly with the guy who just takes a CAPF 5 once a year and that's the only exposure to the CAP aircraft he gets.
No 101 quals were ever taken away from the MP's in Iowa. No CAPF 5's were rescinded. No CAPF 91's were negated. These guys who went inactive didn't do the minimum required to stay "qualified."
MP's were told to fly and stay current whenever the opportunity presents itself (and BTW the wing was paying for it, lock, stock, and barrel) or stop wasting everyone's time.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 24, 2008, 05:53:28 PM
^ The experiment worked? The last four weeks seem to show a different outcome.
Iowa may have "cut its dead weight", but I bet if push came to shove and those pilots that only flew one training mission per year were called on for an actual mission, they may show up.
They didn't respond when I called either. We had some "MP's" tell us that they would only fly day, VFR, and only if they felt like it and not to call them for emergencies. There were several times when we had MOWG, NEWG, or MNWG in a standby position to back us up when we had a major operation inbound or in progress just to make sure the mission got done. That was the nice thing about CAP, no boundaries.
Quote from: cyclone on January 24, 2008, 08:30:57 PM
MP's were told to fly and stay current whenever the opportunity presents itself (and BTW the wing was paying for it, lock, stock, and barrel) or stop wasting everyone's time.
Awesome, unless all the "opportunities" are 4 hours away on on specific weekends.
Opportunities for proficiency and currency were made available at the squadrons. Either in organized exercise or if the pilot setup a training plan for a sortie it could be at any time. Travelling 4 hours to stay current in the A/C was in no way required.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 24, 2008, 05:53:28 PM
^ The experiment worked? The last four weeks seem to show a different outcome.
Iowa may have "cut its dead weight", but I bet if push came to shove and those pilots that only flew one training mission per year were called on for an actual mission, they may show up.
They may indeed....and if I were IC, they would probably be the last pilots I assigned to an aircrew, because flying one mission annually would virtually guarantee that they were not our best mission pilots....too little practice to keep mission skills sharp.
AF Mission Evaluations do not really test the ability of a Wing to respond to a major mission. Every wing can get enough pilots to show up to put all their planes in the air for one day. The two other missions cited are what I would call medium-effort missions and I would have expected them to be able to handle those.
The gold standard I use is the ability of a unit (squadron, group, or wing) to fly at least 2 sorties a day per plane for a week. This will cover a typical lost airplane mission, which is our break and butter, and should receive our maximum effort. I seriously doubt Iowa as a whole could meet that standard. Of course, if you don't like my standard, thats fine.
I can't speak as to whether or not pilots no longer flying should still be there or not, but it does appear that some of the policies implemented by Iowa have negatively impacted pilot recruitment or retention (can't tell which as an outsider).
I have to comment that some of our posters here, for people who have made much of the fact that what happens in Iowa does not affect them, seem to be going to great lengths to jump all over those Hoosiers who supported the "Iowa Experiment".
If you want to back one position or the other, fine....then say so, and use reasoned arguments, instead of taking up the electronic equivalent of "sniper positions"!
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 24, 2008, 11:37:42 PM
I have to comment that some of our posters here, for people who have made much of the fact that what happens in Iowa does not affect them, seem to be going to great lengths to jump all over those Hoosiers who supported the "Iowa Experiment".
If you want to back one position or the other, fine....then say so, and use reasoned arguments, instead of taking up the electronic equivalent of "sniper positions"!
Hoosiers are from Indiana...
Sorry 'bout that, we tend to be geographically challenged out here in Joisey!
Be that as it may, my point stands.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 24, 2008, 05:53:28 PM
^ The experiment worked? The last four weeks seem to show a different outcome.
Iowa may have "cut its dead weight", but I bet if push came to shove and those pilots that only flew one training mission per year were called on for an actual mission, they may show up.
Respectfully, the only outcome of the last 4 weeks is that the NCR/CC is unable to make solid, responsible decisions.
This isn't a Scheitzach/Critelli thing, this was purely a Region CC whose decisions on Wing Commander were made without any idea or care about the results.
The Hangar Commandoes didn't show up to fly in IAWG before the experiment, they didn't after. What the hell makes you think they will now???
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 24, 2008, 11:51:18 PM
Respectfully, the only outcome of the last 4 weeks is that the NCR/CC is unable to make solid, responsible decisions.
This isn't a Scheitzach/Critelli thing, this was purely a Region CC whose decisions on Wing Commander were made without any idea or care about the results.
The Hangar Commandoes didn't show up to fly in IAWG before the experiment, they didn't after. What the hell makes you think they will now???
I doubt it will make much difference. Except lots of good talent leaving Iowa CAP and the 2b processer at NHQ going "that's odd, why all these from Iowa?" It's sad to think that the last 4 years of work is being flushed down the toilet so quickly.
The Change of Command ceremony is Saturday at 1100 hrs. I feel sorry for this poor guy. He is taking command of a wing where a lot of the people don't know who he is and he doesn't know them. He's not tuned into the agencies the wing has been playing with, nor does he have anyone left who really does. He's got a monstrous staff turnover to contend with. His funding is about to dry up (which means a big culture change to contend with). Everyone is wondering what to expect since there has been no communication to the masses. Speculation and rumor have become the norm in the last two weeks in the wing. The command selection / decision change has all your externals thinking that you are unstable and unreliable. Yeah, I can't imagine how he feels. However, on the plus side he is now a full bird. Bottoms up!
^ you guys are all under the assumption that this was the result of a dart thrown against a bulletin board with no consideration whatsoever as to the consequences.
The reality sandwich may be that Region or NHQ did / does not agree with the steps and measures taken in the "Iowa Experiment" and this is correcting it.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 25, 2008, 12:45:45 AM
^ you guys are all under the assumption that this was the result of a dart thrown against a bulletin board with no consideration whatsoever as to the consequences.
The reality sandwich may be that Region or NHQ did / does not agree with the steps and measures taken in the "Iowa Experiment" and this is correcting it.
I met and/or spoke with the leadership of the "Iowa experiment" several times over the last year. There was plenty of flexibility in both them and their approach to make any "corrections" that might have been necessary. The NCR/CC could (and should) have been paying closer attention to what was going on in Iowa Wing, and he could (and should) have been giving them guidance to correct any issues or concerns. I am very confident that any such guidance would have been happily received. Resorting to the organizational equivalent of theater nuclear weapons wasn't necessary.
Of course this is just my opinion.
If you're headed in the completely wrong direction, being flexible about lane choice isn't really going to matter much.
If this wing has been on a collision course for five years why wait until today to change things. Why not be in the mix, and asking the hard questions the moment these concerns were brought to your attention.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 25, 2008, 02:14:12 AM
If you're headed in the completely wrong direction, being flexible about lane choice isn't really going to matter much.
Most experienced senior people (wing & region leadership) with whom I have spoken see at least some valuable facets to the Iowa Experiment.
Evidently you are dead set against it.
How about explaining why?
Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 25, 2008, 03:22:17 AM
If this wing has been on a collision course for five years why wait until today to change things. Why not be in the mix, and asking the hard questions the moment these concerns were brought to your attention.
Because up until now, CAPFLT001 supported the changes.
This is the risk you take when you make sweeping changes without going through the process.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 25, 2008, 05:28:36 AM
Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 25, 2008, 03:22:17 AM
If this wing has been on a collision course for five years why wait until today to change things. Why not be in the mix, and asking the hard questions the moment these concerns were brought to your attention.
Because up until now, CAPFLT001 supported the changes.
This is the risk you take when you make sweeping changes without going through the process.
No, that just points up a major problem with CAP at the National level. We're all subject to abrupt changes when commanders change. Often without reason or warning (and Iowa's not the only place this sort of thing has happened, by the way).
Heck of a way to run a railroad...
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 25, 2008, 05:17:40 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 25, 2008, 02:14:12 AM
If you're headed in the completely wrong direction, being flexible about lane choice isn't really going to matter much.
Most experienced senior people (wing & region leadership) with whom I have spoken see at least some valuable facets to the Iowa Experiment.
Evidently you are dead set against it.
How about explaining why?
We have all picked apart the details on the plan, and spoken our piece, I'm not starting that again, use search and you'll find it.
I am far from "dead set against it" - as you say, some aspects such as professionalizing the corps and raising member expectations have value.
But when you stray that far from the real program, alieanate as many people as you embrace, and create an agency which is dependant on a few specific personalities or it collapses, what have you really accomplished but a few years of a good ride?
The "real program" as you call it is, in my admittedly limited field of observation, resulting in senior members that are inadequately prepared for the duties they take on....there is sparse sense of esprit de corps, little real unity, too much politicking, too much parochialism and isolationism, too much "us versus them" mentality, too little teamwork and cooperation, too much of a "what's in it for me" attitude.
I could go on, but we're all painfully familiar with the problems....it's just that some actually prefer to live like this, and others put on blinders, because heaven forfend AP change in any genuine way to meet contemporary needs!
Iowa may not have had a perfect solution, but from the outside looking in, it seems like it was a step in the right direction.
Certainly the processes used were not 'one size fits all wings' -- in fact, Iowa itself probably needed to make some adaptations or adjustments, which I suspect would have happened had there been more time -- but the philosophy, the vision underlying the Iowa Experiment, might well have transformed CAP into a real asset for America.
I'm not sure we can justifiably claim to be that right now.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 25, 2008, 06:57:21 PM
The "real program" as you call it is, in my admittedly limited field of observation, resulting in senior members that are inadequately prepared for the duties they take on....there is sparse sense of esprit de corps, little real unity, too much politicking, too much parochialism and isolationism, too much "us versus them" mentality, too little teamwork and cooperation, too much of a "what's in it for me" attitude.
I could go on, but we're all painfully familiar with the problems....it's just that some actually prefer to live like this, and others put on blinders, because heaven forfend AP change in any genuine way to meet contemporary needs!
Iowa may not have had a perfect solution, but from the outside looking in, it seems like it was a step in the right direction.
Certainly the processes used were not 'one size fits all wings' -- in fact, Iowa itself probably needed to make some adaptations or adjustments, which I suspect would have happened had there been more time -- but the philosophy, the vision underlying the Iowa Experiment, might well have transformed CAP into a real asset for America.
I'm not sure we can justifiably claim to be that right now.
Besides the 100 plus lives we save, the ELTs we find, the DR ribbons, the aerospace education, the leadership training we give young people.....etc etc.
I'm not saying the program is perfect, but just because you guys in Iowa don't get to play National Guardsmen anymore doesn't mean that the program is worth less.
Mr Themann, I am assuredly not dismissing the good CAP does as trivial or meaningless....but there are real, deep-seated problems.
And, by the way, in case I have not made it clear, I'm not an Iowan.....my home is in New Jersey!
So I have no personal stake in what they did or are doing in Iowa....but, I must say, I find it rather dismissive of you to characterize it as 'playing National Guardsman'.....CAP was a true partner in Iowa emergency services operations; whether that will continue under their new wing commander remains to be seen; it will be interesting to watch, as well as instructive, to see if their new CC finds any of the reforms worth keeping.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 26, 2008, 02:46:32 AM
Mr Themann, I am assuredly not dismissing the good CAP does as trivial or meaningless....but there are real, deep-seated problems.
And, by the way, in case I have not made it clear, I'm not an Iowan.....my home is in New Jersey!
So I have no personal stake in what they did or are doing in Iowa....but, I must say, I find it rather dismissive of you to characterize it as 'playing National Guardsman'.....CAP was a true partner in Iowa emergency services operations; whether that will continue under their new wing commander remains to be seen; it will be interesting to watch, as well as instructive, to see if their new CC finds any of the reforms worth keeping.
Then we agree sir. And I apologize if I came off as dismissive.
I just believe it was a mistake to undertake such a major reorganization of the program to do something we should already be doing. And, as a very recent former cadet, it looked like it was sometimes at the expense of the CP.
As I said previously, I believe this entire thread is off base.
ZigZag911,
To quote you from your post above, "CAP was a true partner in Iowa emergency services operations", you are absolutely correct. CAP WAS a true partner. That partnership is no more. CAP has lost it's seat in the State EOC thanks to the actions of CAP civilian leadership.
Sad days indeed.
Sad days indeed...
http://isuhawkeye.typepad.com/halbrook_associatescom/2008/01/cap-and-the-sta.html
Instead of grieving (or celebrating depending on your point of view), this whole situation should be a valuable gold mine of experience for the rest of CAP. Those involved should summarize what did and didn't work and summarize it for the benefit of everyone. If good things were done, let everyone know. Likewise, if something bad happened, let that be known as well.
Nothing is a complete failure as long as something is learned from it.
Quote from: TDHenderson on January 28, 2008, 05:34:03 PM
ZigZag911,
To quote you from your post above, "CAP was a true partner in Iowa emergency services operations", you are absolutely correct. CAP WAS a true partner. That partnership is no more. CAP has lost it's seat in the State EOC thanks to the actions of CAP civilian leadership.
Sad days indeed.
Civilian leadership? We're all civilians here, aren 't we? Are you talking about the Region Commander? Because I think he wears the same uniform as anyone.
Quote from: JThemann on January 28, 2008, 10:53:20 PM
Civilian leadership? We're all civilians here, aren 't we? Are you talking about the Region Commander? Because I think he wears the same uniform as anyone.
True. I guess my choice of words stems from my hope that something like this would not have happened when we were the Auxiliary and not the auxiliary like now.
Quote from: TDHenderson on January 29, 2008, 12:10:35 AM
True. I guess my choice of words stems from my hope that something like this would not have happened when we were the Auxiliary and not the auxiliary like now.
Trying to separate the Auxiliary from the auxiliary is what gets a lot of people in trouble.
They are one and the same, ever after.
This is the mystery of our service.
[Redacted at the request of the poster]
-DCP
The new wing leadership has offered a clean slate, and a request for me to name my assignment. I appreciate their willingness to pass along the olive branch that I was not able to offer them.
While I did consider their request, i did however ask to remain inactive for the time being while I complete class.
IOW....Wait and see.
Just from viewing the photos...
No one looked very happy, The Region CC looks like Nero watching Rome burn and the only halfway bright face was Courter.
just MHO, of course...
OK, Col Scheitzach was promoted, but in the pic, he was still wearing his silver oaks, just like Eric Snyder. Congrats to him btw- he was a Maj last I saw him. So what is going on?
Quote from: RogueLeader on January 30, 2008, 04:47:30 AM
OK, Col Scheitzach was promoted, but in the pic, he was still wearing his silver oaks, just like Eric Snyder. Congrats to him btw- he was a Maj last I saw him. So what is going on?
Col Scheitzach's promotion is tied to the Command. Now that he is the Wing CC, he will have the
Temporary Promotion for Colonel for 1 year, then the promotion becomes permanent after that.
However during his first year he is limited. I don't know the full extent of the limitations, but I do know they exist for all new Wing CC's.
dont worry RL shortly after the flag changed over past commander Col. Sheila Waldorf, and his wife placed his birds on his shoulder. I just couldn't get a good picture.
Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on January 30, 2008, 07:06:10 AM
Col Scheitzach's promotion is tied to the Command. Now that he is the Wing CC, he will have the Temporary Promotion for Colonel for 1 year, then the promotion becomes permanent after that.
However during his first year he is limited. I don't know the full extent of the limitations, but I do know they exist for all new Wing CC's.
Correct as far as the first year being "probationary", however as noted the Wing CC wears the eagles immediately.
There are no limitations I have ever heard of to a Wing CC's authority or power based on freshman-year status.
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 30, 2008, 03:28:08 AM
Just from viewing the photos...
No one looked very happy, The Region CC looks like Nero watching Rome burn and the only halfway bright face was Courter.
just MHO, of course...
You provided a very accurate observation.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 30, 2008, 01:30:01 PM
Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on January 30, 2008, 07:06:10 AM
Col Scheitzach's promotion is tied to the Command. Now that he is the Wing CC, he will have the Temporary Promotion for Colonel for 1 year, then the promotion becomes permanent after that.
However during his first year he is limited. I don't know the full extent of the limitations, but I do know they exist for all new Wing CC's.
Correct as far as the first year being "probationary", however as noted the Wing CC wears the eagles immediately.
There are no limitations I have ever heard of to a Wing CC's authority or power based on freshman-year status.
During the probationary year, a wing commander can be relieved without cause. The grade of Col. is temporary until successful completion of the assignment.
Quote from: FW on January 30, 2008, 02:45:49 PM
During the probationary year, a wing commander can be relieved without cause.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with limitations on authority.
Is there a link for this change of command photo?
Dr. Dave
They were earlier in the post and have now been removed...
Oops, sorry. Thanks.
Dr. Dave
Quote from: RogueLeader on January 30, 2008, 04:47:30 AM
OK, Col Scheitzach was promoted, but in the pic, he was still wearing his silver oaks, just like Eric Snyder. Congrats to him btw- he was a Maj last I saw him. So what is going on?
There you go RL, a photo with Scheitzach just for you.
(http://www.cap.gov/documents/IAscheitzachlojpg.jpg)
From CAP News Online:
Col. Ronald Scheitzach is the Iowa Wing's new commander after succeding Col. Ralph Tomlinson, who held the post for the last four years.
"I am honored that (North Central Region Commander) Col. (Sean) Fagan is giving me the opportunity to lead the Iowa Wing and be a part of this organization's great history," Scheitzach said.
"Col. Tomlinson leaves us with a terrific legacy and I am very grateful for his leadership and guidance."
Said Tomlinson, "I have had the good fortune to work with some of the finest people in the Civil Air Patrol. This is an exciting time for the Iowa Wing.
"I know that Col. Scheitzach will be an outstanding mentor and leader who will successfully guide the members of the Iowa Wing towards a successful future."
Brig. Gen. Amy Courter, interim national commander, presided over the change-of-command ceremony at Camp Dodge in front of Iowa Wing members.
"The Civil Air Patrol, and in particular the Iowa Wing, is fortunate to have leaders with the dedication, passion and integrity these gentlemen clearly demonstrate," Courter said.
Scheitzach brings a wealth of experience to his new assignment. He has served as a squadron commander, wing personnel officer and wing vice commander.
The change of command ceremony was held in a mess hall on Camp Dodge.
You know, in my admittedly limited experience (35 plus years) it is relatively rare for the national commander to preside personally over a wing change of command.....normally left to region CC, or even CV.
Interesting....
Personal opinion.
I believe tat she came down due to the huge mess that was made over everything.
Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on January 31, 2008, 04:50:38 AM
Personal opinion.
I believe tat she came down due to the huge mess that was made over everything.
That seems to be the conventional wisdom around here, too.
Are you suggesting it is a scandal that Brig Gen Courter attended this event? I say it is a mark of good leadership. Obviously Iowa is going through a rough time. Thankfully, the National Commander knows that and made a personal appearance to show she cares about the future of that wing.
Quote from: magoo on February 01, 2008, 04:13:05 AM
Are you suggesting it is a scandal that Brig Gen Courter attended this event? I say it is a mark of good leadership. Obviously Iowa is going through a rough time. Thankfully, the National Commander knows that and made a personal appearance to show she cares about the future of that wing.
And endorses the choice...
^ Excellent. Wing commanders need to know the boss supports them. The general membership needs to know likewise. Think of the alternative: "Yeah, that's our wing commander, but even the National Commander is against him." Further evidence that Brig Gen Courter is a mature, responsible leader. Maybe that's hard to recognize here on CAP-Talk.
^But I think what most of us here wanna know is if the Gen truly does support the new guy, or if the appearance was just an appearance.
Quote from: magoo on February 01, 2008, 04:13:05 AM
Are you suggesting it is a scandal that Brig Gen Courter attended this event?
No, I'm suggesting exactly what I said...that it is interesting that she chose to preside at this particular change of command.
Please don't put words in my mouth!
Quote from: CASH172 on February 01, 2008, 04:59:34 AM
^But I think what most of us here wanna know is if the Gen truly does support the new guy, or if the appearance was just an appearance.
From what I believe, it was some of this and some of that. We all know that Iowa has had a rough couple of months. I am firmly convinced that BG Courter is fully supportive of Col. Scheitzack, and that there are some- or were- rumors of Gross Negligence of the part of Col. Feggan (sp?) and that she was there to help calm things down. I am fully confident that BG Courter knows what is going on, and can deal with the situations that she needs to deal with. I also highly doubt that she would make an appearance- just for that sake alone.
Quote from: magoo on February 01, 2008, 04:13:05 AM
Are you suggesting it is a scandal that Brig Gen Courter attended this event? I say it is a mark of good leadership. Obviously Iowa is going through a rough time. Thankfully, the National Commander knows that and made a personal appearance to show she cares about the future of that wing.
No, what I was saying is that Courter's trying to put the best foot forward here. My issue was never who was selected, it was how it was done and the lousy way it was announced.
MG Courter's a former corporate executive. She has to know what kind of damage is done when a corporation leadership exhibits this kind of indecisiveness. In the corporate world it creates doubt in the leadership ability of the entire executive chain of command, loss of share value, loss of confidence by employees and sometimes inquiry by regulatory agencies.
Gee, kinda sounds familiar, don't it???
She had no choice but to attend. I do hope that she follows this up by doing whatever she can to fix the rift
her Region Commander created between IAWG and the IAARNG.
Quote from: magoo on February 01, 2008, 04:13:05 AM
Are you suggesting it is a scandal that Brig Gen Courter attended this event? I say it is a mark of good leadership. Obviously Iowa is going through a rough time. Thankfully, the National Commander knows that and made a personal appearance to show she cares about the future of that wing.
Sorry I have been off the 'net for a while.
Simple answer....NO. I don't feel that it is scandalous that BG Courtier came to Iowa. Personal Opinion says that She came to town to support her Regional CC's Decision. Nothing more.
Quote from: magoo on February 01, 2008, 04:13:05 AM
She had no choice but to attend. I do hope that she follows this up by doing whatever she can to fix the rift her Region Commander created between IAWG and the IAARNG.
There is much more to this than anyone can realize. The issues are much deeper than a 'fix'. I falsly believed that there could be a solution to mending the relationship between CAP and IAANG, but after looking at the facts and given counseling from higher ranking officials, I now realize that the relationship is over. It cannot be fixed. My one year old daughter has a better chance of seeing this fix that I do.
Oh such Drama...
Phrases like...
QuoteThere is much more to this than anyone can realize. The issues are much deeper than a 'fix'. I falsly believed that there could be a solution to mending the relationship between CAP and IAANG, but after looking at the facts and given counseling from higher ranking officials, I now realize that the relationship is over. It cannot be fixed. My one year old daughter has a better chance of seeing this fix that I do.
...serve no constructive purpose at this point.
I believe the consensus is that it is time to move beyond, rebuild and repair. You are going to need to create new relationships and put this behind you. The Iowa Experiment blazed new trails, those trails are not dead ends...unless you people insist on attitudes like
"My one year old daughter has a better chance of seeing this fix that I do."Dwelling on this serves no purpose. It is high time that these threads were closed in favor of a "Rebuilding Iowa" thread.
The Problem in Iowa isn't really "Is it to be "CAP-Club" or "CAP-Agency". The future of CAP hangs in the balance." But rather that it failed because there was no CAP Distinctive uniform for "CAP AGENCY"
Behold...
(http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p114/MajorCarrales/CAPAGENCY.jpg)
The CAP Agency Uniform!!!
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 31, 2008, 04:46:53 AM
You know, in my admittedly limited experience (35 plus years) it is relatively rare for the national commander to preside personally over a wing change of command.....normally left to region CC, or even CV.
Interesting....
She was at the California Wing Change of Command too. Are you suggesting that she needed to hand hold our Region Commander after he selected our new Wing Commander too?
I think that this, Like all of the rest of the Iowa threads have out lived their usefulness.
done and done.