Structural Change

[Nick Critelli]

Recognizing that form serves mission and our mission is weighted heavily on the side of state and local as compared to national,   does CAP need a strategic military partner to allow it to better serve its mission OR can it go it alone like the Red Cross or even some other entities under the Dept. of Defense? 

Anyone in favor of going it alone? If so, why? 

(As the sultry raven-haired beauty pours the exhausted CAP officer a cuppa coffee she casts a glance at the ES qualification patch on his BUD's and says "....")

[ELTHunter]

Frankly, if I had my druthers we would elect all our leaders (squadrons elect squadron commanders, squadron commanders elect Group/Wing Commanders, etc.).  As to where to place CAP in the military structure, that is a different issue, but I would probably lean more towards DNall.   

IF the commanders are to be elected, I prefer that they be elected by the membership at large so the leadership is accountable to the rank and file.  HOWEVER, I really don't see how electing the leadership can produce effective leaders.  Didn't the state militias do that during the Civil War and often it put incompetant leaders in command of units?

[ELTHunter]

Recognizing that form serves mission and our mission is weighted heavily on the side of state and local as compared to national,   does CAP need a strategic military partner to allow it to better serve its mission OR can it go it alone like the Red Cross or even some other entities under the Dept. of Defense? 

Anyone in favor of going it alone? If so, why? 

(As the sultry raven-haired beauty pours the exhausted CAP officer a cuppa coffee she casts a glance at the ES qualification patch on his BUD's and says "....")

My vote is absolutely NO on going it alone.  CAP doesn't have nearly the name recognition that organizations like the Red Cross have.  The RC doesn't have 550 aircraft, and however thousands of vehicles, radios and other toys to purchase and maintain.  Also, the RC mission usually puts it in direct connection with "consumers" in large quantities.  By that, I mean that the RC feeds, clothes, houses and helps large quantities of citizens needing assistance.  As a result, they have a large name recognition, and everybody knows what they do and the service they perform.  While CAP certainly helps people, it is either in small groups, like in a aircraft search, or more behind the scenes in DR.  I don't see how CAP could raise the kind of funding we need without a agency suger daddy.

[ELTHunter]

Is it just me, or has something happened to the spell check?  I apologize in advance for any mispellings.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Recognizing that form serves mission and our mission is weighted heavily on the side of state and local as compared to national,   does CAP need a strategic military partner to allow it to better serve its mission OR can it go it alone like the Red Cross or even some other entities under the Dept. of Defense? 

Anyone in favor of going it alone? If so, why? 

(As the sultry raven-haired beauty pours the exhausted CAP officer a cuppa coffee she casts a glance at the ES qualification patch on his BUD's and says "....")

I would oppose the "Go it alone" route.  Historically, we have always been the air arm of a larger organization, initially Civil Defense, then the Army Air Corps/USAF.  After more than six decades, the Air Force is a part of our heritage, and we are a part of theirs.

How else can the Air Force claim that volunteer light plane pilots literally drove an enemy away from our shores?

("His looks just like yours, Dreamboat, but yours looks better under those pretty wings.  When do you want me to fly away with you?" she said, breathlessly.)

[ELTHunter]

You already know what I'd like to see on officer training, development, & progression. I don't want to digress into that seperate conversation. Let me just merely say that we need a foundation, a pool from which we can draw outstanding homegrown leaders to take these command billets. That requires a fair & impartial merit based promotion system that rewards & retains our best people, while discouraging incompent & incapable folks from moving up. The only way that system remains clean is to have an AF voice in it & standards/rates tied to the AF. Short version is we ramp up to something like a federal SDF for the AF.

The other part is how & who selects command billets. Elections cannot work. That would just be a hyper version of what we have now. Members may get more of what they want on the surface, but that may be bad for CAP as a whole. It's a military style orgainzation, and cannot function with leaders worried about members liking them. I think the AF deserves a major voice in this process. That may be directly selecting the commanders (at Wg & above) from CAP officers (as AF recommened to congress in 99/00), it may be AF selecting from a list provided by CAP or vice versa, or it may be CAP selecting & AF or BoG confirming. Firings need to go in front of BoG as well, or it may be still some other system, just so its a lot different than what we have now.

If regulations called for minimum grade for each echelon, with time-in-grade requirements for grades were actually enforce, that would go along way toward getting good experienced people in billets.

For example, squadron commander had to hold 1st Lt grade, with minimum 1 year in a staff position, plus SLS, CLC and Unit Commanders course.  Group CC required minimum grade of Capt or Maj plus at least one year in a command position or at least one year as a staff member on group or wing staff.  Wing CC would require minimum grade of Lt. Col. plus one year group level command or wing staff.  Something along those lines all the way up to National CC.

I think a lot of the people that are more politically motivated would not stay around long enough to get command positions of they had to work at grade advancement and lower level command jobs for years before getting promoted to the upper levels of command.

[lordmonar]

I don't see how CAP could raise the kind of funding we need without a agency suger daddy.

We raise the funds by hiring professional fund raisers just like the Red Cross and Boy Scouts (and just about every other major non-proffit) does.

CAP has had such a great realtionship with the USAF that they have forgotten that we are supposed to be a stand alone organisation.

Here me all!  CAP is a stand alone organisation.  We do not need Congress' or the USAF permission to exist!

It is nice that the USAF and congress gives us a big chunk of change and allows us to use their facilities and get first pickings of the DRMO stuff.  But if we found an alternate source of funds (say selling 100M cookies or beggin on street corners) we could do the with out this source of funding.

I AM NOT ADVOCATING A BREAK WITH THE USAF !!!

I am only saying that there is nothing special about us that is preventing us from seeking other sources of funding.

[DeputyDog]

CAP has had such a great realtionship with the USAF that they have forgotten that we are supposed to be a stand alone organisation.

Here me all!  CAP is a stand alone organisation.  We do not need Congress' or the USAF permission to exist!

Considering that Congress passed the laws that allow the Civil Air Patrol to exist...I would say that we need their permission to exist. If we didn't need their permission to exist...would we be submitting annual reports to them?

[RiverAux]

That would just be a hyper version of what we have now. Members may get more of what they want on the surface, but that may be bad for CAP as a whole. It's a military style orgainzation, and cannot function with leaders worried about members liking them.

Again, it seems to work pretty well in the CG Aux.

I think you are dramatically overemphasizing the degree to which CAP members are anxious for higher office in the first place.  Even under our current structure it is often very difficult to get somebody to take over as squadron commander.   Wny?  Because it is basically an open-ended committment.  If they know up front that it will only last a limited period of time (2 years seems about right to me, with maybe an option for a year extra), some of your more talented people would be more likely to agree to do it.  The same goes for the higher offices.  

I think the best compromise would be to treat all squadron, group, region commander slots like job vacancies.  Set certain minimum requirements (time in CAP, ratings, etc.) and let anyone apply who meets the requirements when an opening occurs.  This does appear to happen at the Wing level and there isn't any reason it couldn't work for squadron commanders (except for what I mentioned earlier in that it is difficult to get people to do it, much less apply for it).

[Earhart1971]

I don't see how CAP could raise the kind of funding we need without a agency suger daddy.

We raise the funds by hiring professional fund raisers just like the Red Cross and Boy Scouts (and just about every other major non-proffit) does.

Fund raising does not work for CAP, National HQ has hired people before, they don't last long. I recall the CAP Stock Car Sponsorship. 

The Boy Scouts have been around more than 100 years, with a heavy alumni and sponsorship following, they own Real Estate, rich people donate land, money, and leave estates for the Boy Scouts.

Lets be realistic, we are associated with the Government, the perception is we get money from the Governement, which bars attempts at getting real huge National donations.

Congress has our money, if we had a leader with a vision, and a leader that can formulate a way to bring membership up to say 150,000.

Then we could probably get more money from Congress.

[lordmonar]

CAP has had such a great relationship with the USAF that they have forgotten that we are supposed to be a stand alone organization.

Here me all!  CAP is a stand alone organization.  We do not need Congress' or the USAF permission to exist!

Considering that Congress passed the laws that allow the Civil Air Patrol to exist...I would say that we need their permission to exist. If we didn't need their permission to exist...would we be submitting annual reports to them?

No congress passed a law to allow us special status...not for for us to exist.  

I can form a completely separate, completely private sector, non-profit, Air Bourne Search and Rescue organization tomorrow and I don't need anyone's permission.

It does not take a special license to install a DF receiver in a Cessna and offer your services to the local sherrif's department.  It does not take any special certification to form ground teams, train them and have them on stand by ready to support your local sheriff.

I can even make arrangements with AFRCC (through my local sherrif's department) to be the first one called if an ELT goes off in a particular area.  

We need Congress' and USAF's permission to be the USAF-AUX...but not to be the Civil Air Patrol.  We can continue to provide SAR functions with out the USAF-AUX title.

As for cadet programs....is ACA federally recognized?  How about any military academy?  They all do cadet programs with out a law greatening them.

[ELTHunter]

CAP has had such a great relationship with the USAF that they have forgotten that we are supposed to be a stand alone organization.

Here me all!  CAP is a stand alone organization.  We do not need Congress' or the USAF permission to exist!

Considering that Congress passed the laws that allow the Civil Air Patrol to exist...I would say that we need their permission to exist. If we didn't need their permission to exist...would we be submitting annual reports to them?

No congress passed a law to allow us special status...not for for us to exist. 

I can form a completely separate, completely private sector, non-profit, Air Bourne Search and Rescue organization tomorrow and I don't need anyone's permission.

It does not take a special license to install a DF receiver in a Cessna and offer your services to the local sherrif's department.  It does not take any special certification to form ground teams, train them and have them on stand by ready to support your local sheriff.

I can even make arrangements with AFRCC (through my local sherrif's department) to be the first one called if an ELT goes off in a particular area. 

We need Congress' and USAF's permission to be the USAF-AUX...but not to be the Civil Air Patrol.  We can continue to provide SAR functions with out the USAF-AUX title.

As for cadet programs....is ACA federally recognized?  How about any military academy?  They all do cadet programs with out a law greatening them.

I think you are dreaming if you think CAP, with the assets we have, can exist as a stand alone organization.  There is now way the organization could sustain operating all of the planes and vehicles we have, and most of all, fund the insurance required to conduct our operations, through private funding.  Look at the millions of dollars that congress has appropriated for communications equipment, aircraft, vehicles, etc, etc.  The BSA and RC does not have that kind of burden to procure, maintain and replace.  Additionally, I don't know when the last time was you were associated with the Boy Scouts, but if you think it's expensive to be in CAP, try being in the Scouts.  I pay way more in dues, uniforms and various other fees for my son and I to be in Scouts, and we don't have to pay for radios, DF's, etc., etc.

[lordmonar]

I think you are dreaming if you think CAP, with the assets we have, can exist as a stand alone organization.  There is now way the organization could sustain operating all of the planes and vehicles we have, and most of all, fund the insurance required to conduct our operations, through private funding.  Look at the millions of dollars that congress has appropriated for communications equipment, aircraft, vehicles, etc, etc.  The BSA and RC does not have that kind of burden to procure, maintain and replace.  Additionally, I don't know when the last time was you were associated with the Boy Scouts, but if you think it's expensive to be in CAP, try being in the Scouts.  I pay way more in dues, uniforms and various other fees for my son and I to be in Scouts, and we don't have to pay for radios, DF's, etc., etc.

The BSA and ARC most certainly have this and more in the way of assets and operating budgets.  They have insurance problems as well.   I have worked for both the BSA and ARC at council and chapter level. 

Could CAP self fund?  Sure it could.  Could it do it tomorrow?  Now because we don't have the infrastructure yet.  It would take as a conservative guess about 10 years to transition to a full self funded organization.

But it could be done.  Congress had to give us all those millions because of a major upgrade in communications.  The Red Cross is facing the same problem right now with out congressional help. 

Would it be easy?  No.   We would have to make some real belt tightening actions to get it done.  But we could certainly be possible.  If you think that CAP's budget is too great...how much to do you think a BSA Jamboree costs?  The BSA has no troubles nor the Red Cross in raising the kind of money it would take to keep CAP flying.  They are able to do so...because they pay for it...they hire professionals to provide the services and raise the moneys their organization need.

I just checked the Red Cross' web site and checked out their 2005 tax returns....

The Red Cross raised....hold on tight.....$1.3B (that is B as in Billion) in contributions including $83M in government contributions. http://www.redcross.org/pubs/car05/990fy2005.pdf that would be line 1d on their return.


Ergo...it is possible to raise the paltry $20M we got in 2005 and it is possible to raise money AND receive government funding at the same time.  The CAP is small time operation compared to both the ARC and BSA.

[RiverAux]

Another argument against the NGB linkage is the fact that the Air National Guard is in the middle of a drawdown of about 14,000 people right now. 

Yes, in the grand scheme of things it wouldn't take many of their folks to take over current military slots involved in running CAP, or even under some of the proposals given here.  But, I don't believe they would see any advantage to them of having CAP under their control when they can use CAP now if they want to without having to deal with the overhead of being in charge. 

[Hammer]

Why is everyone her etrying to tie the National Guard in with CAP? The Chief NGB is an Army three star and probably has never heard of CAP.

I know,  THe NGB is the National Guard Bureau which is Joint AIR and ARMY National Guard.  I think that it wshould fall under the AIR National Guard.

[Nick Critelli]

OK, OK everyone...stay focused.  We're talking STRUCTURE.  

Discuss this:

No.1.  CAP BOG composed of 2 appointed by SECDEF (whose interests would be our Title 10 mission) , 2 appointed by President of NGB (whose interests would be our Title 36 mission) and 3 elected by membership of CAP.  BOG appoints the N/CC .

Think deeply about this before you reply. Then give us your best comments.  

[BillB]

The only problem I see is the 3 ELECTED by the membership of CAP.  Members in Maine have no idea who Col Doe from Texas might be. And the National Board would still be wrong area to elect those three members from due to politics of the Board and NEC.
Better idea would be interested people apply for the National CC or BoG positions and have the CAP-USAF staff evaluate them and make recommendations to the BoG who to appoint.

[RiverAux]

Your potential structure assumes there will be some sort of relationship with the NGB and that it further assumes they would adequately represent the interests of CAP's state "customers".  Since the NGB uses CAP for very little I don't see that they would be the best at oversight.  I would rather see people from state emergency management agencies since they are by far a much bigger "customer" (both now and in the future) than the national guard. 

[Hawk200]

The only problem I see is the 3 ELECTED by the membership of CAP.  Members in Maine have no idea who Col Doe from Texas might be. And the National Board would still be wrong area to elect those three members from due to politics of the Board and NEC.
Better idea would be interested people apply for the National CC or BoG positions and have the CAP-USAF staff evaluate them and make recommendations to the BoG who to appoint.

A good point. The idea of applying for a position sounds like a good one. The Guard already does that for technician and AGR jobs, it would be a simple matter of enacting a similar system. An AGR tour is a set period, where as technician are indefinite once you get past the first year (an annoying flaw in the system).

For CAP board positions, set a term. Re-announce the job position six months before the term is up. Specify the requirements for the job and if people don't meet them, offer them the chance to resign, terminate them if they refuse to and won't do the job.

[DNall]

I don't like going under the NGB because it's a n Army dominated org. As Nick can tell you, the ANG is not well equipped for & tends not to participate heavily in state missions. It's a big step down for CAP.

A lot of the state missions Iowa & others are involved in ar enice things - missing persons & such. They are state missions that should be on LE with Fire/EMS backing up. When those resources are not enough, which is common in less populated states like Iowa & virtually NEVER the case in a place like Texas, then the national guard can supplememnt. The argument here is that inside that chain then the Guard resources aren't enough then CAP will get a call. Okay that's fine, missions for state & local, but in no way does it benefit the AF. It isn't part of their mission & it doesn't make them more combat capable. The National Guard is focused on their title 32 (state) mission & step up to their title 10 (federal) mission every now & then. CAP is supposed to be focused on title 10 (federal), where we do direct federal missions & we do other stuff to save money/support/force multiply/etc for the big AF; we do any title 36 (corporate) missions in our spare time with our spare resources.

I understand Iowa is doing a lot for their state, and that's fine but it's not & cannot be the focus of our national organization or we won't long be funded by an AF that doesn't need us any more. The focus has to be on changing CAP into a new animal that can step to new & dif AF missions (that may or may not involve flying). I believe that requires us to change the requirements of our personnel to be comparable to military officers of the same grade - which in turn requires an enlisted side running more of our traditional PD program, I believe it requires a fair & impartial merit based promotions system that retains good people & stomps on petty foolishness while giving AF a voice on standards w/ a seat on the boards, and I believe the leadership structure built on that foundation has to become acountable in the AF chain just as though we were any other AF unit.

Overall, I don't believe our status as a seperate corporation is necessary. You don't see such a thing for the CG Aux. I belive the corporate status was obselete the moment the Auxiliary law was passed 60 years ago. I believe the 2000 law should be altered to abolish the coporate status & state that CAP is the perm Aux serving as a civil-military reserve component responsdible to the AF. An independent board selected by general membership will advise SECAF on the matter.