May 2012 NEC agenda

[FW]

Actually, the NEC meets twice a year.  However, the NEC has all the powers of the NB when it (the NB) is not in session.  So, the NEC can "delibierate" everyday except, for the four days the NB is in session.

The powers of the NEC and NB come from the C&BL of CAP.  These documents are written by the BoG.  The BoG is the governing body of CAP and, decides what the rules are. It is the BoG which allows the NEC and NB to do what they do....

After the BoG makes sense of the BoardSource study and CAP's governance committee's report, they will decide how we play in the sandbox.  And, after reading the NEC's agenda, I think the BoG has a big job ahead of them.

[ZigZag911]

The size of the NB is absurd: 60 plus people are a legislature, not a committee!

Furthermore, wing CCs ought to focus more on their wings, less on national policies and politics.

[NCRblues]

Furthermore, wing CCs ought to focus more on their wings, less on national policies and politics.

Oh, you mean the rules and regulations that directly affect every wing group and squadron in the nation? So a Region commander who is charged with a whole region of wings should focus on the politics and rules?

Every wing needs a voice. Not just the 8 region good ol boys... I mean commanders.

[keystone102]

I would prefer the National Board be our policy making body following the BOG guidelines There is less chance of 1 person dominating the NB. We have seen conflicts in policy between the NEC and the National Board. For example in the upcoming NEC meeting agenda the item taking money earmarked for the Training Centers so the NEC members can travel. In these tough economic times maybe they can make sacrifices along with the rest of us.

[RADIOMAN015]

Reprogramming of Vanguard funds for travel -- Very bad idea   (this should be a concerted effort to reduce travel by using electronic means for meetings/presentations- of any sort --- I'm not sure what we really get from any National staffer attending a wing conference just giving us the standard briefing already on the web page -- electronically this could be hooked up with the presentation made (with the National HQ or volunteer leadership member right at their home or a close CAP facility) and than a question and answer period (electronically) could be held).  Also as far as training centers go, most wings have to support themselves for training facilities.   I've seen Sportsmen club facilities utilized for ES training in the past.  Anytime you start owning facilities, the upkeep costs become a fixed cost that can strain your budget (and as seen at least historically "regional" training centers (for each region) never became a reality).  Technically also with depreciation/improvements funds,  it should be like a condo association, where a fee or money is raised every year to go into a fund so that if the roof needs repairs, there's money available. The Board could also designate the money be held in reserve.

Additionally, why not for a few years look at the potential of funding some projects down to the squadron level .  I think something as simple as a few rf/ir controlled (micro size) helicopters for use in aerospace education "fun" activities and perhaps even a simple indoor competition (which we discussed at our wing's aerospace education meeting at this year's conference).  With a large purchase made I would think cost per unit could be significantly reduced .  Also why couldn't CAP do a matching program, so the unit would pay part & CAP national the other . 
RM       

[ColonelJack]

I would prefer the National Board be our policy making body following the BOG guidelines There is less chance of 1 person dominating the NB. We have seen conflicts in policy between the NEC and the National Board. For example in the upcoming NEC meeting agenda the item taking money earmarked for the Training Centers so the NEC members can travel. In these tough economic times maybe they can make sacrifices along with the rest of us.

Remember, it was the NEC - not the National board - that killed the CSU.

Jack

[lordmonar]

I would prefer the National Board be our policy making body following the BOG guidelines There is less chance of 1 person dominating the NB. We have seen conflicts in policy between the NEC and the National Board. For example in the upcoming NEC meeting agenda the item taking money earmarked for the Training Centers so the NEC members can travel. In these tough economic times maybe they can make sacrifices along with the rest of us.

Remember, it was the NEC - not the National board - that killed the CSU.

Jack

Yeah...but it was the NEC who was railroaded into creating it in the first place.
I would rather that the BOG be the policy making body....and let the people who form the NEC and NB focus on implementing that policy.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Remember, it was the NEC - not the National board - that killed the CSU.

Jack

Yes, sir, that is correct...and in so doing, without giving any concrete reason, demonstrated that the wishes of the membership are very low down the pecking order for them.

[FW]

Yeah...but it was the NEC who was railroaded into creating it in the first place.
I would rather that the BOG be the policy making body....and let the people who form the NEC and NB focus on implementing that policy.

Sorry Patrick, it was the NB which was "railroaded" into accepting the CSU in 2006.  I remember that meeting very well.  I also remember being strong armed into accepting it.  That being said, the NEC's decision to kill it had nothing to do with member concerns and, everything to do with perceived problems with the Air Force.  This is probably the most glaring example of why our governance system needs a complete overhall.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

That being said, the NEC's decision to kill it had nothing to do with member concerns and, everything to do with perceived problems with the Air Force.  This is probably the most glaring example of why our governance system needs a complete overhall.

Colonel, you have hit on what is probably one of the biggest organisational dysfunctions of CAP (primarily but not limited to uniform issues): perceived, not actual, documented problems with the Air Force.  As is well known, the Air Force accepted the CSU after CAP made modifications to it that they wanted.  The mentality of the upper echelons (primarily but not limited to uniform issues) seems to be that we're always just a hairsbreadth away from ticking off the Air Force and being back to the days of the berry boards, or worse.

You are also right that it had nothing to do with member concerns.  Everyone I met in CAP, whether they wore it or not, thought it was an attractive uniform.

[PHall]

That being said, the NEC's decision to kill it had nothing to do with member concerns and, everything to do with perceived problems with the Air Force.  This is probably the most glaring example of why our governance system needs a complete overhall.

Colonel, you have hit on what is probably one of the biggest organisational dysfunctions of CAP (primarily but not limited to uniform issues): perceived, not actual, documented problems with the Air Force.  As is well known, the Air Force accepted the CSU after CAP made modifications to it that they wanted.  The mentality of the upper echelons (primarily but not limited to uniform issues) seems to be that we're always just a hairsbreadth away from ticking off the Air Force and being back to the days of the berry boards, or worse.

You are also right that it had nothing to do with member concerns.  Everyone I met in CAP, whether they wore it or not, thought it was an attractive uniform.

Well, you've never met me and I didn't like the uniform at all.  A double breasted jacket on a "heavy" person???  It did nothing but make heavy people look heavier.

[ZigZag911]

A smaller governing body will, of necessity, be more transparent...witness the BOG; I think we have a far clearer idea of what goes on there than in the NB.

As for wings needing individual voices in national governance, why? If you truly consider the region CCs "good ol' boys", let me remind you that all of them are former wing CCs.

Was it the transition from wing to region that magically made them a GOB???

Are you seriously suggesting that our current system --where the voters for National CC are also appointed by the National CC -- is not inherently steeped in conflict of interest?

[NCRblues]

A smaller governing body will, of necessity, be more transparent...witness the BOG; I think we have a far clearer idea of what goes on there than in the NB.

As for wings needing individual voices in national governance, why? If you truly consider the region CCs "good ol' boys", let me remind you that all of them are former wing CCs.

Was it the transition from wing to region that magically made them a GOB???

Are you seriously suggesting that our current system --where the voters for National CC are also appointed by the National CC -- is not inherently steeped in conflict of interest?

Witness the BOG? The only reason we have ANY idea of what the BOG does is because of this website and Ned Lee postings. Witness the governance report...oh wait you can't. Transparent right? Witness the uniform committees recommendations...oh wait...

Transparency is a laughing stock in CAP. Everything is secret squirrel.

Every wing needs a voice. Every wing needs to be heard. What works in Montana might not work in the rest of the 49 states plus change. Just like every American citizen gets a voice through the House of reps. I am 100% sure we could get a budget passed with only having a Senate instead of the 2 house system... but power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have never seen someone try and control a small body before have we? Et tu brute....

Having the NB be the only board is a wise choice, simply because it is harder for one grand generalilismo to control the NB than the very tiny NEC. We have not seen that either have we? HWSRN...

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Well, you've never met me and I didn't like the uniform at all.  A double breasted jacket on a "heavy" person???  It did nothing but make heavy people look heavier.

How do you know we've never met?  I do get around...

Witness the BOG? The only reason we have ANY idea of what the BOG does is because of this website and Ned Lee postings.

If not for Ned, we'd have nada.

Witness the governance report...oh wait you can't. Transparent right? Witness the uniform committees recommendations...oh wait...

Transparency is a laughing stock in CAP. Everything is secret squirrel.

Dunno.  It worked for the Politburo of the Supreme Soviet from 1917-1991, didn't it?

Just like every American citizen gets a voice through the House of reps. I am 100% sure we could get a budget passed with only having a Senate instead of the 2 house system... but power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have never seen someone try and control a small body before have we? Et tu brute....

Mmmm...don't get us started on the ungovernability of our current governance.

Unicameral CAP?  The Legislature of the great state of Nebraska, all of the provinces of the Dominion of Canada, and the Parliament of the Dominion of New Zealand somehow make it work.

Having the NB be the only board is a wise choice, simply because it is harder for one grand generalilismo to control the NB than the very tiny NEC. We have not seen that either have we? HWSRN...

And as a "nuclear option" to prevent THAT from happening again, there could be a provision for CAP-USAF intervention.

[ZigZag911]

Having the NB be the only board is a wise choice, simply because it is harder for one grand generalilismo to control the NB than the very tiny NEC. We have not seen that either have we? HWSRN...

HWSRN was elected precisely because in a body as large as the NB, back room deals and pressure can be brought to bear ...I respectfully disagree that CAP needs a 2 house system, or that the NB is somehow the guarantor of the rights of the average member.

[NCRblues]

Having the NB be the only board is a wise choice, simply because it is harder for one grand generalilismo to control the NB than the very tiny NEC. We have not seen that either have we? HWSRN...

HWSRN was elected precisely because in a body as large as the NB, back room deals and pressure can be brought to bear ...I respectfully disagree that CAP needs a 2 house system, or that the NB is somehow the guarantor of the rights of the average member.

That is correct, back room deals and pressure can be brought to bear, but it is so much harder to do and keep secret with the large NB than the very tiny NEC.

If you would have read my post very careful I never advocated for CAP to have a 2 house system. In fact I advocated for the NB to the ONLY board and have the NEC done away with. No the NB is not the end all be all of right to the average member, but the track record shows that the NB (wing commanders) have a better idea of what the members want. The NEC nixed the CSU, the NEC is trying to pull funds for travel for THEMSELFS. The NB elected a bad leader in HWSRN, that I agree with but HWSRN did not start being (really) bad in till he was elected to the office of NAT/CC. The NB cant have a "do-over" if someone is elected and goes power crazy...

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely...

[FW]

Having the NB be the only board is a wise choice, simply because it is harder for one grand generalilismo to control the NB than the very tiny NEC. We have not seen that either have we? HWSRN...

HWSRN was elected precisely because in a body as large as the NB, back room deals and pressure can be brought to bear ...I respectfully disagree that CAP needs a 2 house system, or that the NB is somehow the guarantor of the rights of the average member.

Tony Pineda was elected by acclimation to the position of National Vice Commander in 2003, after a close election between him and Gen. Wheless for National Commander. When Gen. Wheless resigned early in 2005, Pineda became the National Commander and, was elected at the next NB meeting in 2005. There were no other real candidates.
After he was "elected", the fun started.  His attempt to have his personal friend elected as National Vice Commander in 2006 failed by just 1 vote.  Gen Courter became the National Vice and became Commander 11 months later after Pineda was suspended from leadership.  Courter was elected the next year; after TP was wiped from the membership roles.  There was no opposition to her candidicy either.  She served as commander longer than any other (4 years).  Her influence is still felt today.  I would argue her tenure will have been the most significant since General Anderson's rewrite of the C&BL in 1994.  Whether that influence will be deamed positive remains to be seen...

One thing is certain to me; the NEC is more inclined to act uniformly than the NB.  The Board's numbers makes it very difficult to get it to work with one voice on most matters.  However, it is interesting, no matter how many times senior leadership has tried to reduce it's influence, the business of the NB has moved us forward for the last 60 or so years of it's existence...

[keystone102]

Is there any information out there when the BOG is going to release the governance report?

[JeffDG]

Is there any information out there when the BOG is going to release the governance report?

About the time it's a fait acompli.

[Ned]

Is there any information out there when the BOG is going to release the governance report?

The BoG is holding a special meeting this weekend to discuss governance.  I suspect we all know more on Monday or Tuesday.