CAP Members' Input Sought on Corporate Governance

[Spaceman3750]

Isn't the composition of the BoG (or at least its size) set by Congress?

[lordmonar]

Isn't the composition of the BoG (or at least its size) set by Congress?

Yes.....but we can always ask congress to amend the law to make the BoG work better.

[JeffDG]

Isn't the composition of the BoG (or at least its size) set by Congress?

Yes.....but we can always ask congress to amend the law to make the BoG work better.

And Congress is soooooooo responsive to making such changes to law...

[lordmonar]

Isn't the composition of the BoG (or at least its size) set by Congress?

Yes.....but we can always ask congress to amend the law to make the BoG work better.

And Congress is soooooooo responsive to making such changes to law...

Why not?  Nothing to debate, won't cost anything, we just get one of our legistlative wing members to add it to the next Defense Authorisation Bill.....it get's lost in the arguments about F-22/F-35/BRAC funding and we get the leadership we need.

They changed it back in 2000 and no one knew about it but CAP and the USAF.

[JeffDG]

Isn't the composition of the BoG (or at least its size) set by Congress?

Yes.....but we can always ask congress to amend the law to make the BoG work better.

And Congress is soooooooo responsive to making such changes to law...

Why not?  Nothing to debate, won't cost anything, we just get one of our legistlative wing members to add it to the next Defense Authorisation Bill.....it get's lost in the arguments about F-22/F-35/BRAC funding and we get the leadership we need.

They changed it back in 2000 and no one knew about it but CAP and the USAF.

How's that worked out with the Congressional Gold Medal bill?

[Spaceman3750]

They changed it back in 2000 and no one knew about it but CAP and the USAF.

The funny part is that according to the 2000 Defense Authorization Act, it was changed after a governance study by the GAO...

[lordmonar]

Isn't the composition of the BoG (or at least its size) set by Congress?

Yes.....but we can always ask congress to amend the law to make the BoG work better.

And Congress is soooooooo responsive to making such changes to law...

Why not?  Nothing to debate, won't cost anything, we just get one of our legistlative wing members to add it to the next Defense Authorisation Bill.....it get's lost in the arguments about F-22/F-35/BRAC funding and we get the leadership we need.

They changed it back in 2000 and no one knew about it but CAP and the USAF.

How's that worked out with the Congressional Gold Medal bill?

Don't know.....anyone know the status of  the gold medal bill?  What bill did it get attached to?

To answere my own question....the Gold Medal bills (HR 719 and S 418 are both in committee0  HR 719 has 101 co-sponsors and S 418 has 48 cosponsors) so they are looking pretty good at this point.

Nothing is easy in congress.  Everything takes time.....you must learn patience.   

[FW]

They changed it back in 2000 and no one knew about it but CAP and the USAF.

The funny part is that according to the 2000 Defense Authorization Act, it was changed after a governance study by the GAO...

Actually, there was a large outpouring of discontent back then; with governance, the relationship between CAP and the AF and, the members.  We got plenty of bad press in those days.  The GAO study was just the tip of a very large, deep iceburg which culminated in what we have now. 

[Spaceman3750]

They changed it back in 2000 and no one knew about it but CAP and the USAF.

The funny part is that according to the 2000 Defense Authorization Act, it was changed after a governance study by the GAO...

Actually, there was a large outpouring of discontent back then; with governance, the relationship between CAP and the AF and, the members.  We got plenty of bad press in those days.  The GAO study was just the tip of a very large, deep iceburg which culminated in what we have now.

What did we have before that everyone was so up in arms about?

[lordmonar]

The NEC and NB.

[FW]

They changed it back in 2000 and no one knew about it but CAP and the USAF.

The funny part is that according to the 2000 Defense Authorization Act, it was changed after a governance study by the GAO...

Actually, there was a large outpouring of discontent back then; with governance, the relationship between CAP and the AF and, the members.  We got plenty of bad press in those days.  The GAO study was just the tip of a very large, deep iceburg which culminated in what we have now.

What did we have before that everyone was so up in arms about?

We can trace our current status to 1994.  That is when NHQ went from AF employees to Corporate employees.  This "evolution" changed our status from "goverment entity" to contractor status in the eyes of the GAO.  Also, this change in personel created a situation where the NB/NEC controlled the status of the EX.  This basically gave the National Commander unlimited authority; save what CAP-USAF (having its own problems at the time) prohibited.

To sumarize the very complex chain of events; a series of complaints, studies and white papers were authored ending in investigations, raids, negotiations and, a new CAP governance and funding structure.

Today (IMHO), to a much less extent, we have a series of "problems" which, need to be addressed, to move ahead.  It will be the BoG's responsibility to deal with the study and, make any needed changes.

[jimmydeanno]

Biggest challenge facing CAP right now, and it has nothing to do with governance (or maybe it does):

Diversifying funding streams, so that we don't have to rely on appropriated funds so drastically.  We've had an unqualified audit for three years now, and it was sold under the premise that it would bring more cash into the organization.  Three years have passed and we're still chasing the government teat.  We're laying off employees, suspending flying, postponing programs, etc because we've done nothing to increase external funding sources.

Where are the grant writers?  Where are the outside investors?  Where are the fundraising programs?  From the outside it appears that CAP's leadership is more than comfortable operating under the status quo of begging Congress for it's money each year.  Right now our primary income streams are federally appropriated funds and membership dues. 

I belong to another organization that charges me $10/year to be a member.  For their expenses, they raise money externally.  A luncheon, for example, gets sponsors to the tune of about $20k every other month (table advertisements).  At the annual banquet they give away hundreds of thousands of dollars in scholarship monies.  It's just a local chapter.  I can raise money locally for my unit, and do.  But the fact that we're relying on our membership dues for our "corporate expenses" is just plain irresponsible.

[coudano]

We've had an unqualified audit for three years now, and it was sold under the premise that it would bring more cash into the organization. 

Yeah, i've got a bridge you may be interested in...



On the other hand it has been a giant pain in the @$$ for the membership to comply with.

[lordmonar]

We've had an unqualified audit for three years now, and it was sold under the premise that it would bring more cash into the organization. 

Yeah, i've got a bridge you may be interested in...



On the other hand it has been a giant pain in the @$$ for the membership to comply with.

How so?

Wing Banker has made it easier at the squadron level IMHO.  Sure the individual member may have to wait a week or two to get paid.  Now we may have to take our personal money to buy something we need right now and wait for a check to be cut.  But we have better control of our money and less of it will be walking away.

[coudano]

How so?

Wing Banker has made it easier at the squadron level IMHO.  Sure the individual member may have to wait a week or two to get paid.  Now we may have to take our personal money to buy something we need right now and wait for a check to be cut.  But we have better control of our money and less of it will be walking away.

Don't run a lot of squadron operations that require in and out transactions of money, do you?

[a2capt]

..and even those, we send a form in, a check shows up in the mailbox. It's actually about as quick, and sometimes quicker than the unit finance committee alone,  since the arrangements can be made via cc'ed emails, and the form cut the same way, to Wing.

The biggest change is, Wing is a Bank, instead of there being 92 bank accounts in one Wing.

[Eclipse]

How so?

Wing Banker has made it easier at the squadron level IMHO.  Sure the individual member may have to wait a week or two to get paid.  Now we may have to take our personal money to buy something we need right now and wait for a check to be cut.  But we have better control of our money and less of it will be walking away.

Don't run a lot of squadron operations that require in and out transactions of money, do you?

Such as?

[jimmydeanno]

Maybe our governance structure is messed up because every time we start talking about strategic level issues, the next questions is "Well, what form would we use to keep track of it..." 

[JeffDG]

Maybe our governance structure is messed up because every time we start talking about strategic level issues, the next questions is "Well, what form would we use to keep track of it..."

:clap: :clap:

[coudano]

Don't run a lot of squadron operations that require in and out transactions of money, do you?

Such as?

Anything that requires a bunch of people to pay in to a pool,
Some of whom don't want to pay in cash, but write a check, to 'civil air patrol'

and then paying the group bills back out to any number of vendors.
vendors who don't invoice and take payment later.
vendors who are inconvenient or impossible to use without credit charge.

Food, Fuel, and Course Materials (exa: let's say rocket bulk packs and engines)
New member startup bulking


These things are all possible with wbp
but they are a colossal pain

The path of less resistance is for a member to assume all of the risk and liability of handling activity budgets out of personal pocket (which sometimes consist of several hundred or even thousands of dollars).  Which is an unacceptable risk and in some cases an impossible burden.  --and if the finance guys catch you doing that they will tell you not to.

The path of least resistance is for squadrons to just do fewer (or zero) activities.



WBP is GREAT for things like van maintenance fees.

It is horribly unagile for relatively short notice high volume consumer transactions like a squadron with a high 'squadron activity' opstempo.