Structural Change

[RiverAux]

They have to be posted on the web page to be considered official and he is the only one with the authority to author them. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

I don't know if I'd go that far with it, but I share some of those concerns... moving to an Army dominated command, reinforced fragmentation, 52 seperate standards. All bad. It was the right move for Iowa, but not the smae thing on a national scale. He's also right that many wings get tons of money from their states, & most have access to similiar facilities.

The logical "partner" on a national scale that gives you everything they are getting from the states while preserving the much more important roles we can be playing nationally; the place where all our missions converge.... that's 1AF.

I don't think you even need 52 seperate MOUs. What you need is ONE national MOU. 1AF takes resources from the states to run airspace monitoring, defense, HLS, counter-narc, etc & they have AFRCC too. What we need is an MOU that allows that flow to be reversed to address certain state needs. It'd spell out: the simple streamlined proceedures, range of resources & misisons that can be addressed, etc. 1AF is the coordinating  agency & resource provider. NGB sets national readiness standards to meet TAG needs, ensures support & interaction from TAGs, etc. TAGs are the requestor & merely need to affirm knowledge of this national agreement. I'd try to add that state participation in the agreement requires CAP members activated at state request to be covered by equiv employment & liability protections as NG members on state active duty.

I appreciate the NG centric perspective, but to me this broader simpler move is the best of both worlds. It is no small thing. It would be the same kind of thing you're seeing in Iowa, and states would have a high level of interaction & a lot to say about readiness standards for CAP in their state, but it keeps us federal first & focused on the big picture rather than the narrow mission set that the NG can hand us. I think we're shooting the same target though. How to get this done is a negotiation somewhere over our paygrade, unfortunately.

Good points.  I was, however, considering the effect of affiliating with the NG as a means of stepping out from under the restrictions of the Posse Comitatus Act.  The PCA does not affect Guard forces, and the proposed Homeland Defense/Homeland Security missions that we could do with light aircraft place us in possible conflict with the PCA.  Putting CAP under the Guard would eliminate that consideration.

That being said, if the MOU were structured correctly, and affirmatively placed deployed CAP assets under the command of TAG, would the fact that they started out as federal forces and are paid by the federal govt. impact the PCA status?  The alternative would be to deploy CAP on a Corporate mission to the state, with the state paying up front, and federal re-imbursement paid to the state.  This is a complex financial arrangement, and may be a war-stopper.

That, however, was precisely the arrangement when NG troops were sent to guard airports after 9/11.

An additional consideration is re-employment rights.  Guard troops' civlian jobs are protected on state missions by state laws.  Putting CAP under TAG would place us under the protection of those state laws.  The alternatives to changing the command relationship would include legislation at the state level to include CAP specifically under those laws.  This did happen in Iowa, and a few other states already.

And, as you mentioned, the entire process needs to be streamlined.  

Please give me a few hours to reconsider my proposal in the light of the cognitions you have provided.

(The raven-haired beauty watched as the Writer poured a glass of wine, and sat, pensively staring out over the ocean.  She then realized that he was not just drop-dead handsome and a great lover, but one of the truly great thinkers in the history of Western civilization.   Much more of a man than her slug husband, who could only splash ice water on him, and who was beaten by the crowd for his trouble.)  

[BillB]

::::::Noting the raven haired beauty is a CAP cadet and pouring the wine would be a violation of CPPT:::::  Tisk-Tisk

[RiverAux]

Since the applicability of PCA to CAP is questionable anyway (according to the Attorney General) making such a radical change just to avoid PCA for a few missions seems like a radical leap.  It would be simpler to just ammend PCA to exclude CAP (if its even necessary in the first place).  

An additional consideration is re-employment rights.  Guard troops' civlian jobs are protected on state missions by state laws.  Putting CAP under TAG would place us under the protection of those state laws.  The alternatives to changing the command relationship would include legislation at the state level to include CAP specifically under those laws.  This did happen in Iowa, and a few other states already.

Putting CAP in the state military department in itself would probably require changes to every state's law as well as federal law and you're also talking about changing state laws to include CAP in job protections.  I think that as a coordinated strategy for structural change it just isn't workable since I guarantee you that there will be many states that will not want any part of this at any level.

By the way, can someone from Iowa give me the citation in the Iowa laws requiring CAP members get leave for CAP duty?  I can't find it in the online version of the code.  Thanks.

[RiverAux]

Overall I think we need to use the KISS theory here.  What is the minimum amount of change required to acheive what we want? 

If the goal is to have closer relationships with the NG that can be achieved through MOUs.  In fact, there is nothing that is really keeping the NG from using CAP assets now when they want to for state missions they are willing to pay for.  All they need to do is request it and all we need to do is take the initiative in selling it to them, just like we're supposed to sell ourselves to other potential mission requestors. 

If the goal is to make it more likely for the AF to use us for homeland security missions, the easiest thing to do would be to move us over to 1st AF.  That doesn't require any changes in federal law at all.  While I'm not convinced it would make a big difference, I'm not opposed to it. 

[DNall]

I appreciate PCA concerns. What I can't tell you abou tthat is this... obviously CAP is covered while working for the feds, BUT there is some debate if it applies on corporate missions. There is a strong view that it wouldn't be illegal for CAP, but because that resource wouldn't exist w/o AF aquasition, maint, training, etc then AF is violating PCA by continuing to provide funding if we choose to fly those missions for states. The guard gets around that with a very complex funding arrangement that basically makes the states a percentage owner of peopl & things & able to use them within that scope. Merely moving command around isn't enough, they get what they pay for.

Pus, I'm not sure AF or I want us free from PCA. It does open up some missions, but it also opens up direct support of LE, which I'm nto sure I want to be involved in. Not that I have anything against LE, but you know that gets messy fast. I think that's what putting USAF Aux on the planes & the connected AFI was about, was AF gaining the ability to stop us from flying those sorts of missions because it was in doubt if it was legal or not.

[Major_Chuck]

Do we really want to go down the road of getting directly involved with law enforcement activities?  Do you want to be called into court and then have your
observations and activities picked apart by a defense attorney hell bent on clearing
his client of growing an acre of Mary Jane?

Can you afford to take time off from work to appear in court?  I know I can't.

Do I want to be shot at by some criminal because I am providing LE support?  Not really, especially if I can't shoot back.

Do I want to endanger a cadet who may get caught up in the LE support.  Absolutely not.

[RiverAux]

obviously CAP is covered while working for the feds,

No, it isn't obvious at all, which is why the Attorney General said that it wouldn't apply to DoD civilians. 

But, that is a different thread (and has already been beat to death). 

[Hawk200]

Overall I think we need to use the KISS theory here.  What is the minimum amount of change required to acheive what we want?

You know, I like the idea of aligning under the Guard, but this is an extremely compelling point. To make these major changes, are we making things more difficult for our existing members?

[DNall]

obviously CAP is covered while working for the feds,

No, it isn't obvious at all, which is why the Attorney General said that it wouldn't apply to DoD civilians. 

Not to digress, but that was a US Attorney, not THE Attorney General, nor would the Attorney General's opinion be binding. Also, the opinion regarded CAP while NOT operating on an AFAM (which covers all federal missions). Furthermore, that's not the question that needs answering. It doesn't matter if you as a CAP member, or CAP Corp are breaking the law. It matters if by you doing that mission the AF is by extention breaking the law by continuing to support you. The general consensus is that while it's a gray area, that if you are majority funded by the military, especially when the resource being used is only possible by that funding, then you have to stay within PCA or give up AF funds. The US Attorney is merely giving a legal opnion about their ability to successfully prosecute a case involving such a questionable action by CAP, not what the ramifications of that action would be outside the direct criminal matter.

[RiverAux]

For those of you who want to be put in with the Guard, this is a 2002 report http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2001-111.2.pdf on the ability of the CA National Guard to respond to state missions, especially aviation ones.  While obviously not all of the factors listed in the report would be relevant to this proposal, and I recognize it is a few years old it still maks for some interesting reading.  

[JohnKachenmeister]

DNall:

The thrust of the discussion illustrates my point.  Nobody seems to know, or have any real authorative opinions on exactly where we stand with regard to the PCA.  And with the border missions and additional HD/HS missions being considered, we need a clear standard.

I do not want to get involved in day-to-day police work.  Been there, done that, got the hat.  And cadets MUST NOT be involved in any such missions, except as mission base support.  But I also do not want to have to add a JAG officer to the flight crew to tell me what I can and can't do.  We're flyers, not lawyers.  I want a clear legal standard, and nobody can offer one.

Placing us under the Guard does away with all these concerns, and allows us to perform missions that could involve direct support to local or state police, when the situation is serious enough to literally, "Call out the militia."

[RiverAux]

I have even heard some not-so-random talk about the need to have CAP lawyers at mission bases for normal SAR missions.  Hopefully that will never catch on. 


By the way, that CA report offers some intersting information on the LE issue.  In a 3 year-period the CA Air NG only had 13 state missions related to law enforcement and their Army Guard only had 8.  And somewhere in the report it is claimed that CA has one of the highest numbers of state missions among the NG.  Again, this seems like a lot of trouble to be able to respond to a tiny handful of new missions.

[ZigZag911]

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.

With modifications, this is a good idea.

There should be a 'minimum time as CAP officer" requirement:

--two years for squadron commander

-- five years for group commander

--ten years for wing commander

Also, I would tend to extend your 'minimum staff experience' requirements by at least one year per echelon.

Granted that this would limit the pool of potential CCs....it would also eliminate most of the politicians and opportunists.

[ZigZag911]

Focus....the question is who is the BEST strategic governmental partner (DoD,FEMA, USN, USA, USMC,USCG,  USAF, NGB,  DHS, USCG-Aux) to oversee and assist us with our Title 36 mission.  I described the Title 36 tasking in an earlier post.  Refer back to it and you will see that we have two missions....one very broad (to assist the federal government i.e. Title 10) and the other specifically referencing local communities.)

It's about ES but it is also about civil aviation,  aviation education, etc. 

Let's vote on a strategic partner then we'll go to work on the relationship:  Rank the following from 1 to 10 with 10 being the hightest:  Keep in mind the sponsoring agency MUST facilitate both national and state relationships and missions.

1.  DoD (Like the FDIC and other federal corporations, CAP would be under the DoD with no operational sponsor)

2. FEMA

3.  US Navy

4, US Army

5. US Marine Corps

6. US Coast Guard

7.  US Air Force

8.  National Guard Bureau (Air/Army NG)

9,  Dept Homeland Security,  (CAP would be under the DHS with no operational sponsor)

10.  USCG-Aux  CAP and USCG-AUX would merge.

My first choice would be to remain under USAF.....the interesting thing here is that, if it were determined that the best supervisory ecehlon for CAP were the Air NGB, this could be done WITHIN the Air Force, I believe....simply a matter of moving us from Air University (or are we under AETC now? which is my point....we've been moved around before!)....doing it this way, all 3 Congressionally mandated missions could remain under a single umbrella of AF supervision  ( I suspect that an organization that has warfighting, disaster relief, and Drug Demand Reduction capabilities could quickly figure out how to support AE & cadet programs!)

If the consensus is that we need new sponsorship (and I'm not really sure why, our most serious problems seem to arise from internal politics rather than the Air Force), then I'd like to see us under Dept. of Homeland Security as an independent agency....while I realize they have not nearly got their act together over there, I think of the alternatives offered, they are best suited and most experienced at dealing with volunteers, auxiliaries, and the like.

[ZigZag911]

I'm also trying to wrap my head around exactly how the states are going to be forced to accept CAP into their National Guard structure.  I can understand how CAP, as a national organization can be placed under the command of the National Guard Bureau, but do not see how the feds will be able to mandate that each state set aside people and money to oversee CAP. 

Pretty much the same way the feds compel anything else (seat belt laws, DUI standards, 55 mph speed limit)...tie it into "carrot & stick" of federal funding

[ZigZag911]

The logical "partner" on a national scale that gives you everything they are getting from the states while preserving the much more important roles we can be playing nationally; the place where all our missions converge.... that's 1AF.

I don't think you even need 52 seperate MOUs. What you need is ONE national MOU. 1AF takes resources from the states to run airspace monitoring, defense, HLS, counter-narc, etc & they have AFRCC too. What we need is an MOU that allows that flow to be reversed to address certain state needs. It'd spell out: the simple streamlined proceedures, range of resources & misisons that can be addressed, etc. 1AF is the coordinating  agency & resource provider. NGB sets national readiness standards to meet TAG needs, ensures support & interaction from TAGs, etc. TAGs are the requestor & merely need to affirm knowledge of this national agreement. I'd try to add that state participation in the agreement requires CAP members activated at state request to be covered by equiv employment & liability protections as NG members on state active duty.

This makes a lot of sense.

[ELTHunter]

It seems to me that most of the reorganization ideas revolve around the missions CAP currently perform for states and local agencies.  Perhaps we should be thinking about a total reevaluation what CAP's role ought to be in total.  In other words, CAP had one set of missions from 1941 - 1948.  Another set from 1948 - present.  Or something along those lines.  Do we restructure the organization around how the missions have been for the last few decades, or do we think outside the box and see how we need to evolve to meet new challenges and new missions that we are not doing.  Do we stay the USAF Aux and change or missions to better contribute to the USAF as a force multiplier, or do we stay the same and migrate to a state directed, NG aux?

Just thinking out loud.

[ZigZag911]

It seems to me that most of the reorganization ideas revolve around the missions CAP currently perform for states and local agencies.  Perhaps we should be thinking about a total reevaluation what CAP's role ought to be in total.  In other words, CAP had one set of missions from 1941 - 1948.  Another set from 1948 - present.  Or something along those lines.  Do we restructure the organization around how the missions have been for the last few decades, or do we think outside the box and see how we need to evolve to meet new challenges and new missions that we are not doing.  Do we stay the USAF Aux and change or missions to better contribute to the USAF as a force multiplier, or do we stay the same and migrate to a state directed, NG aux?

Just thinking out loud.

Perhaps because I've been a member, cadet & senior, for over thirty years, but my 'vote' is to stay where we are and fix what we have....if need be, re-imagine & re-define our role for the 21st century....but as part of the USAF family.....in whatever version CAP existed, that's our heritage, and where I feel we belong.

[Nick Critelli]

The discussion on Structural Change has produced some very interesting ideas  on a sponsoring  agency as well as CAP governance.

In order to come to conclusion, I think it would be wise for us to have a real in percon conference.  We can do this by a Webinar Teleconference  which  I'll will host.

I ask that DNall, RiverAux, JohnKachenmeister, El Thunder, ZigZag911, Hawk200, Lordmonar, and Bill B assist me as presenters. Please send me your personal e-mail addresses if you wish to do so and I'll explain how it works by return e-mail.   

I can  host up to 1000 attendees so any one on Captalk can call in and attend.    I am sure you are familiar with webinars.  It requires you to log on to a URL and call into a teleconference center.  The URL will contain a powerpoint presentatiion or other visual. 

I can facilitate up to ten presenters who will be able to hear and talk to each other and conduct what amounts to a round table teleconference.  We can handle up to 1000 attendees who can hear the teleconference but not talk to the presenters except by Internet text message which the presenters will hopefully address.

I'll handle the costs and your only cost would be the long distance telephone call to the teleconference center unless you happen to be in Ohio or use a cell phone with no long distance charges. 

The co-presenters and I will pick a date and time, work up the powerpoint presentation based upon your postings and comments and we'll set an agenda for the discussion which will last 30 to 60 minutes.  When this is set, I'll post the details.

NICKCRITELLI