Structural Change

[Nick Critelli]

It’s time for a Structural Change.

Get used to controversy.  With CAP' current (post 2000) organizational structure you will always have it.  It will come in two forms: nonfeasance or malfeasance. The source of the attack will be disgruntled electors. Why? The nature of the current organization creates what is known as  a conflict conundrum. 52 electors chose a leader, the leader has the power to appoint the electors, the electors have the power to chose the leader, and so it goes.  A weak leader will do nothing (nonfeasance) for fear of alienating the adverse camp. A leader who acts boldly will almost always draw the fire of malfeasance from the opposition.  Both, but mostly the bold leader, will be criticized for stacking in regards to their appointments.  The result? The organization will either stagnate under the weak leader or constantly be under fire at the helm of the bold. Ultimately the controversy will mount to such a level that there will be calls for a reorganization.  I've seen this happen in many organizations and associations and CAP is no exception. 

The current structure is a prescription for failure.  CAP is run by the BOG and they are chosen (SECAF and CAP/CC), not elected. The National Board is ultimately picked by  CAP/CC by appointing  R/CC who appoints W/CC who elects CAP/CC and back around again.  Note the disconnect between the BOG and NB. The situation is even made worse by the fact that the second in command is also elected but not for the same term. Almost guaranteed to provide a divided house.  Not a good way to run a business. 

Look into Title 36 (where all the federal corporations are listed) and you fill find no other structure like this. 

There are two solutions: An appointment or an electoral system.  If you want more USAF control you chose the appointment system whereby the  BOG chooses CAP/CC and CAP/CC chooses the R/CC who in turn chose the W/CC with the BOG being chosen as it now is. Staff reports to CAP/CC who reports to BOG. . On the other hand, if you prefer less USAF involvement, go  for an electoral or corporate system modeled after the other Title 36 federal corporations: Membership elects all or part of BOG who chose CAP/CC who chooses R/CC who appoints W/CC.  Again Staff reports to CAP/CC who reports to the BOG.  Either systems will break
the conflict conundrum because the chief operating officer (CAP/CC) does not appoint his electors.

Given the culture and nature of CAP no one person will be able to bring peace to the organization and make it progressive at the same time. 

If offered the job of CAP/CC under the present system, think real hard and then run away real fast.   It's time for a structural change.

[NOTE: These are my personal views and not the position of the IAWG or any other organization with which I am associated.].

[BillB]

You are forgetting the third option, namely CC CAP-USAF takes back the pre-1990's CAP structure. It's a given that the majority of CAP members want more USAF involvement. But it's not a CAP decision. It would have to come from the Sec of the Air Force. It would require a General grade officer as CC CAP-USAF to be effective. And it even should go down to active duty USAF personnel at Wing level., previosuly called USAF Wing Liaison Officer. Another change would have to be the Sec of the Air Force select the entire Board of Governors from CAP, retired or active USAF General grade officers, and the aviation industry.
As you mention, the big problem is what amounts to the Good-Old-Boy system currently in place where the CAP CC selects the members of the NEC, and thus to a degree is instrumental in selecting the Wing CC's. One answer that appeared on another CAP web page was that members of the Wing elect their Wing Commanders' and the Wing Commanders elect their Regional CC.
Personally I consider MGen Pineda a stong leader. The only problem I see is the lack of communication from the CAP CC to the membership on HIS goals for the organization.

[ZigZag911]

You are forgetting the third option, namely CC CAP-USAF takes back the pre-1990's CAP structure. It's a given that the majority of CAP members want more USAF involvement. But it's not a CAP decision. It would have to come from the Sec of the Air Force. It would require a General grade officer as CC CAP-USAF to be effective. And it even should go down to active duty USAF personnel at Wing level., previosuly called USAF Wing Liaison Officer. Another change would have to be the Sec of the Air Force select the entire Board of Governors from CAP, retired or active USAF General grade officers, and the aviation industry.
As you mention, the big problem is what amounts to the Good-Old-Boy system currently in place where the CAP CC selects the members of the NEC, and thus to a degree is instrumental in selecting the Wing CC's. One answer that appeared on another CAP web page was that members of the Wing elect their Wing Commanders' and the Wing Commanders elect their Regional CC.
Personally I consider MGen Pineda a stong leader. The only problem I see is the lack of communication from the CAP CC to the membership on HIS goals for the organization.

Having served in CAP in the days when LO/LNCO were active duty, I suggest that we don't want that system back.....these posts tended to be 'sunset tours' for individuals awaiting retirement -- some were fine officers/NCOs....unfortunately, just as many(if not more than half) were marking time till they got out....we're better off with the retirees at that level.

Elected Wing CCs? I don't know, how happy is Coast Guard Aux with that system?

How about this:

1) return to USAF general officer as National CC, only retired rather than active AF general

2) top volunteer post is Chair of BOG, elected by NB (mirroring CAP of 60s-70s, when top volunteer was Chair of NB), subject to confirmation by BOG.

3) National volunteer staff & region CCs appointed by National CC, confirmed by BOG

4) Wing CCs (who would be corporate officers, but NOT members of NB) to be chosen by Region CC, confirmed by Nat. CC

5) Wing NB representative chosen by wing CC from a list of 3 names submitted by an internal wing board....confirmed by BOG Chair

To work, this would require IRONCLAD standards for commander and board posts....no waivers....certain CAP accomplishments, time in CAP, time in grade.

[AlphaSigOU]

Unless Pineda gives himself a third star, then... Back to the purple epaulets!

I think it'll be lime green epaulets, orange flight suits, and severely modified USAF service dress uniform. Short sleeve blue shirt with blue shorts and red socks up to the knees. With khaki colored shoes.

^ next corporate uniform combo

Oh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! 

[DNall]

Can I bring in option 4? The structure written by the house armed service cmte, prior to it being trashed on the floor the the 2000 law hastily thrown together to replace it, said SECAF will appoint ALL Wg/Reg CCs & Nat CC/VCC.

I highly oppose an elctive system for commanders, because it results natuarally in poiltics for one. Also, it means the guy that's easy on members when maybe he needs to be strict is going to get votes - conflict of interest. What I prefer is an adult version of CAC, call it a 1Sgt system, that's elected by members to speak for us in the same way CAC does for cadets, but not in command.

I think there's still a place in that for CAP to have a voice in its own leadership as well. I think that can come with recommending a list of officers from which AF selects, or perhaps some of those appointments can be made by CAP subject to BoG/AF confirmation.

In any case, I whole heartedly agree with LtCol Critelli that what we got is broken & just stages us for worse to come. I'd really like to see AF take firm control, at least for a few years to set things straight.

[lordmonar]

Any system that has the government appointing all of our leadership will not work.

1.  It completely destroys the whole private organization thing.

2.  Who is going to pay for it?

The Air Force is trying to down size right now...and now we are going to ask them to shake loose 60+ officers to run the official civilian axillary?!

Just not going to happen.

I don't like the idea of them appointing non CAP members to lead us.  Yes any col or gen worth his salt has the leadership skills but if is not part of the program can he effectively lead us?

I mean we don't see Army col's getting put in charge of Navy ships....so why would we want a USAF Col leading a CAP wing?

Also...in the big picture from the USAF side...the only col's we would get would be the 3rd stringers...those guys who were not good enough to get real jobs so they gave them ours so they can collect their 2.5% increase in retirement pay.

I think the system we have now, as clunky as it is, is the best solution for our situation.  Is it prone to abuse?  Sure...but it works more than it does not.

[MIKE]

This discussion is headed for a split guys.

[Earhart1971]

My advice, for CAP Commanders and CAP members, do not ask people to resign, and do not resign, if you have a need for a DAY IN COURT, have your day in Court in front of a CAP Review Board and not the Miami Herald.

Instead, Commanders should file a termination action. Assume the Termination will go to a Board. Assume any dirty laundry will come to light.

CAP is better off having more board actions, than people leaving, and then digging out the dirty laundry later in the National Press or on Blogs.

As a CAP member do not resign, if you think you will need a DAY IN COURT, to satisfy your need for justice, do not resign.

A review board is  the equivalent to a pressure relief value on a boiler.

[Major_Chuck]

Personally I consider MGen Pineda a stong leader. The only problem I see is the lack of communication from the CAP CC to the membership on HIS goals for the organization.

I have to strongly disagree.  He may be a strong 'manager' but he is far from a strong 'leader'.   A good leader would communicate their vision for CAP (or any organization).   He's displayed his strong arm management skills in the sacking of many CAP Officers.  Given the amount of time he has sat at the top he has done nothing to stem the growing tide of membership decline in the past five years, nor has he communicated to us what the blazes "Performing Missions for America" are.

[mikeylikey]

Any system that has the government appointing all of our leadership will not work.

1.  It completely destroys the whole private organization thing.

2.  Who is going to pay for it?

The Air Force is trying to down size right now...and now we are going to ask them to shake loose 60+ officers to run the official civilian axillary?!

Just not going to happen.

I don't like the idea of them appointing non CAP members to lead us.  Yes any col or gen worth his salt has the leadership skills but if is not part of the program can he effectively lead us?

I mean we don't see Army col's getting put in charge of Navy ships....so why would we want a USAF Col leading a CAP wing?

Also...in the big picture from the USAF side...the only col's we would get would be the 3rd stringers...those guys who were not good enough to get real jobs so they gave them ours so they can collect their 2.5% increase in retirement pay.

I think the system we have now, as clunky as it is, is the best solution for our situation.  Is it prone to abuse?  Sure...but it works more than it does not.

We could take the LO's we have now, and repalce them with AD Officers that the AF has assigned.  The LO's are paid more than the 0-6's that would come in. 

The system of military appointed Officers running CAP seemed to work for twenty years.  It would work again. 

I seriously doubt we would get third stringers from the AF.  No Colonel is a third stringer.  They have proven themselves to be the best of the best.  CAP needs a new change in culture and AF control would be a good thing for the organization.  We would still have our volunteer reps at every level, except decisions would be made quicker.  If you read the NEC minutes from NOV, it appears the AF wants CAP to adopt some AF practices to make the organization run  smoother (writing regs). 

I support a change.   

[Earhart1971]

The leadership for CAP needs to come from within not the Air Force, there are people with vision in CAP.

[DNall]

Any system that has the government appointing all of our leadership will not work.

1.  It completely destroys the whole private organization thing.

Good!

2.  Who is going to pay for it?

Who pays for it now?? Oh right, the AF.

The Air Force is trying to down size right now...and now we are going to ask them to shake loose 60+ officers to run the official civilian axillary?!

Just not going to happen.

I don't like the idea of them appointing non CAP members to lead us.  Yes any col or gen worth his salt has the leadership skills but if is not part of the program can he effectively lead us?

I mean we don't see Army col's getting put in charge of Navy ships....so why would we want a USAF Col leading a CAP wing?

Also...in the big picture from the USAF side...the only col's we would get would be the 3rd stringers...those guys who were not good enough to get real jobs so they gave them ours so they can collect their 2.5% increase in retirement pay.

I think the system we have now, as clunky as it is, is the best solution for our situation.  Is it prone to abuse?  Sure...but it works more than it does not.

Oh come on, you know it'd be more like a naval officer commanding a coast guard cutter... I'd like to keep disagreeing with you, but really that's not what anyone said. A few options were listed... One said, AD LO/LNCO staff in the state director job. I believe that's funding neutral since they are paid w/ appropriated funds now. Another (created by AF && HASC discussion) said AF appoints postitions from CAP officers. Another said RETIRED officers should be appointed. Another said the CAP-USAF CC should assume command. None of those said AF officers rule the world.

The leadership for CAP needs to come from within not the Air Force, there are people with vision in CAP.

In a system that does an extremely poor job developing leaders from within, that supresses visionary ideas & people that may upset the status quo, and divides the power of the few that emerge so that they can accomplish little in their few opportunities... all the while driving away our best people. The leadership of CAP should come from within CAP. It should be the right leadership selected by our parent to carry out the tasks delegated by them, and with a helping hand from them to make us capable of standing on our own two feet.

This discussion is headed for a split guys.

You mean you disapprove of bending this topic away from where it started? Cause I'm not sure there's any more value down that road.


Oh, and far as a third stringer... CAP, now after a big retention hit, is the size of a numbered AF. It has a huge numebr of planes & vehicles, a huge numebr of subordinate units. It has the unique situation where you have to make peopel want to follow your orders cause you can't really force them. It's a great big joint operating enviro. It has a mix of civilian-military mgmt aspects. It's a place where you learn to stretch a budget further than anywhere else... Are you telling me that's not a wonderful place to put a rising star Col or Brig Gen, who may have commanded a Wing before & is on track to command a MAJCOM or NAF down the road? As important as CAP is to the AF, I think the person you'd see assigned to a top level job would be far from 3rd string. LOs there to monitor inspections & help CAP get military assistance, yeah that's more of a sunset job. Switch that to a command slot & dif people get picked. Hell, you pitch this plan to AF as a training/development opportunity for their senior officers looking at command bilelts & I think you'd get some traction. It'd just ocme down to money & if you can show them close to funding neutral you're in business.

[MIKE]

This discussion is headed for a split guys.

You mean you disapprove of bending this topic away from where it started? Cause I'm not sure there's any more value down that road.

All the more reason for the split... Let the other one die. 

[RiverAux]

It is possible to have elected leaders and actually have a closer relationship with the parent organization having more control --- that is the very definition of the CG Aux. 

In fact, I would say that this system has allowed the CG and the CG Aux to be much closer than CAP has ever been to the AF. 

However, for that relationship to work you would have to do away with the CAP corporation and place the AF in total control of all CAP regulations. 

I've got no problem with that. 

Having an election system puts the politics out in the open (for the most part) rather than hidden behind the scenes as it is now in CAP.  And that is better for everybody. 

The other factor that makes things work so well in CG Aux is that only the CG can kick somebody out of the CG Aux.  It is basically like making it so only a CAP-USAF State Director could disenroll somebody.  Yes, there are still controversies and personality conflicts but everybody sees the CG as a much more impartial observer than people would see the same situation in CAP.  Granted, I'm not sure the CG really appreciates getting caught up in the middle of it when it happens though.

Face it, the AF is cutting back on their own people right now.  They are not going to be dedicating personnel to CAP anyime soon.  And I'm not really sure that would help anything. 

[ZigZag911]

[/quote]

We could take the LO's we have now, and repalce them with AD Officers that the AF has assigned.  The LO's are paid more than the 0-6's that would come in. 

The system of military appointed Officers running CAP seemed to work for twenty years.  It would work again. 

I seriously doubt we would get third stringers from the AF.  No Colonel is a third stringer.  They have proven themselves to be the best of the best.  CAP needs a new change in culture and AF control would be a good thing for the organization.  We would still have our volunteer reps at every level, except decisions would be made quicker.  If you read the NEC minutes from NOV, it appears the AF wants CAP to adopt some AF practices to make the organization run  smoother (writing regs). 

I support a change.   
[/quote]

I'm for change too....something with more accountability, transparency, and representation.

However, I doubt you'll get active duty USAF/USAFR colonels as wing/region CCs OR LOs.

Current AD region LOs are lt colonels....not sure if they are 'sunset tour' folks (like AD LOs  & LNCOs in wings used to be) or not....

[ZigZag911]

Oh, and far as a third stringer... CAP, now after a big retention hit, is the size of a numbered AF. It has a huge numebr of planes & vehicles, a huge numebr of subordinate units. It has the unique situation where you have to make peopel want to follow your orders cause you can't really force them. It's a great big joint operating enviro. It has a mix of civilian-military mgmt aspects. It's a place where you learn to stretch a budget further than anywhere else... Are you telling me that's not a wonderful place to put a rising star Col or Brig Gen, who may have commanded a Wing before & is on track to command a MAJCOM or NAF down the road? As important as CAP is to the AF, I think the person you'd see assigned to a top level job would be far from 3rd string. LOs there to monitor inspections & help CAP get military assistance, yeah that's more of a sunset job. Switch that to a command slot & dif people get picked. Hell, you pitch this plan to AF as a training/development opportunity for their senior officers looking at command bilelts & I think you'd get some traction. It'd just ocme down to money & if you can show them close to funding neutral you're in business.
[/quote]

You may be correct....if this is the way the structure changes, I certainly hope you are correct.....but after several decades in CAP, watching how things transpire, i simply don't see someone headed for two/three/four stars becoming CAP national commander as an active duty USAF general officer....if it's an active duty officer, it's more likely to be someone that the folks at the top (DoD/Pentagon/Air Staff) want to reward with a star or two, but simply could not find a slot for this favored colonel.

I hope I'm wrong.....but I think if we have a USAF general running the show, we're better off with a retiree.

[ZigZag911]

It is possible to have elected leaders and actually have a closer relationship with the parent organization having more control --- that is the very definition of the CG Aux. 

In fact, I would say that this system has allowed the CG and the CG Aux to be much closer than CAP has ever been to the AF. 

However, for that relationship to work you would have to do away with the CAP corporation and place the AF in total control of all CAP regulations. 

I've got no problem with that. 

Having an election system puts the politics out in the open (for the most part) rather than hidden behind the scenes as it is now in CAP.  And that is better for everybody. 

The other factor that makes things work so well in CG Aux is that only the CG can kick somebody out of the CG Aux.  It is basically like making it so only a CAP-USAF State Director could disenroll somebody.  Yes, there are still controversies and personality conflicts but everybody sees the CG as a much more impartial observer than people would see the same situation in CAP.  Granted, I'm not sure the CG really appreciates getting caught up in the middle of it when it happens though.

Face it, the AF is cutting back on their own people right now.  They are not going to be dedicating personnel to CAP anyime soon.  And I'm not really sure that would help anything. 

Another big difference is that USCG really needs CG Aux as a 'force multiplier'.

No matter how useful we are to USAF, we virtually never fill any such role for them

[lordmonar]

We could take the LO's we have now, and replace them with AD Officers that the AF has assigned.  The LO's are paid more than the 0-6's that would come in. 

There are not AD officers to be had...the USAF is trying to eliminate as many of them as they can......

The system of military appointed Officers running CAP seemed to work for twenty years.  It would work again. 

Times change...and even if the old system worked...it cannot work to day because both of our organizations are different today.  The USAF is going through it's second draw down in 15 years!  They are killing 40K people to pay for new airplanes.  And you want to go to their personnel office and say..." need 52 AD LO's in the rank of Major to Col to support a non-profit organization"  I doubt you would make it out of AFPC alive!

I seriously doubt we would get third stringers from the AF.  No Colonel is a third stringer.  They have proven themselves to be the best of the best.

Sure....sure....there are no O-6 on active duty sitting at some desk in head quarters counting ceiling tiles because they can't be trusted to with anything sharper than safety scissors.

My point is all those proven cols you have met have been leaders of real units.  The way the USAF tells a particular officer that he has no future in the USAF is to "promote" him to a dead end job....these officers get their 20 years and then punch.  CAP LO would be a dead end job.  No significant supervision, no flying (or not much any way), no budget, not much of a mission (as compared to an AD unit).  No...any officer that got handed a CAP LO job would be looking to write his resume and finding a private sector job.  This is not to say that the particular officer is a dead beat or something...but just that he would be one with no future.

CAP needs a new change in culture and AF control would be a good thing for the organization.  We would still have our volunteer reps at every level, except decisions would be made quicker.  If you read the NEC minutes from NOV, it appears the AF wants CAP to adopt some AF practices to make the organization run  smoother (writing regs).

The USAF wants us to stream line our regs procedures...they don't want to take them over.  We may have "representation" at every level but what does that mean?  The USAF would be in charge.  We would not be a "volunteer" organization any more. 

I support a change.

Change for change's sake is not good.  If we can come up with meaningful changes to the process, organization, leadership, or any combination of these things...let's do it.  But sweeping changes in the hope for a better tommorrow is just dumb.  Lets analyze the real problems in the current system and correct them.

[Earhart1971]

I highly oppose an elctive system for commanders, because it results natuarally in poiltics for one.

I think there's still a place in that for CAP to have a voice in its own leadership as well. I think that can come with recommending a list of officers from which AF selects, or perhaps some of those appointments can be made by CAP subject to BoG/AF confirmation.

Its unrealistic to think you are going to get rid of politics.

Let's instead have a more democratic CAP. The general membership of CAP gets proxy votes to elect members to the board from each Wing. The elected board members then select the National Leadership.

This could be part of the annual Wing conferences, with stagering of terms, so there is constant flow of new board members.

And can you keep the Air Force out of "Selecting" people to run CAP. You have no idea how uninteresting CAP is to the Air Force.

Lets surprise the Air Force and raise CAP up from the ashes, of bad decision making.

Keep CAP in the hands of CAP Members, and make prospective CAP Board Members explain what their vision of CAP is, prior to their election to office.

Clean house.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I'm going to resurrect a proposal I made earlier, as long as we are engaging in "Erotic fantasies" about re-organizing CAP. 

Read this slowly, don't just scan it, since it is COMPLETELY different from other proposals.

1.  CAP NHQ becomes a subordinate unit under the National Guard Bureau.  It doesn't matter how the National CC is appointed/elected.  He reports to the Chief, NGB.  The BoG would be good as an appointing body.

2.  National Board continues to write CAP regs.  Chief, NGB reviews those with impact on the Air Force (i.e., uniforms).

3.  CAP NHQ assigns each wing under the operational control of the respective state AG.  This is OPERATIONAL CONTROL only.  The AG does not hire or fire the wing CC, that's NHQ's job, but letter input (good or bad) would be encouraged.

4.  OPCON does not extend to the cadet program, nor to the AE mission.  Wing CC's will have two masters:  The AG for ES, and NHQ/Region for AE and CP.

5.  SAR missions can be tasked directly to the wing by AFRCC.  DR missions would be tasked and coordinated through the state AG, with CAP responding as the light aviation asset of the Air National Guard.

6.  Regions would be operational commands, with the mission to coordinate multi-state SAR and DR missions, transferring CAP assets from state-to-state as needed, and maintaining liasion with all AG's/Asst AG's within their region.

A similar plan was rejected by the Air Force a few years ago, but I think it needs to be reconsidered.  A big reason for the rejection was the Cadet Program... the state AG's did not want responsibility to supervise that program.  That's why I kept that close-hold in CAP channels.

Some advantages:

1.  Posse Comitatus is a non-issue.  CAP would be National Guard troops.

2.  Use of state Armories would be as a matter of right, not hat-in-hand requests.

3.  CAP planes would be based at Guard bases, increasing our security.

4.  Our efforts would fall under the command and control of the officer responsible for state response to disaster, the AG.  We would be better cordinated and employed.

5.  Iowa has a good plan to do this, but running this on a state-to-state basis by MOU is a lot of spinning of wheels.  This organization plan puts the Iowa plan as the standard nationwide, and does it with the proper level of National support and coordination.

(The writer pauses a moment, savoring the cheers of the assembled crowd.  He picks up one of the hundreds of roses thrown at him by the adoring multitude, slowly smells it, drinking in its beauty.  He then gallantly hands it to a sulty, raven- haired girl in the front row...)