Main Menu

NEC Meeting

Started by CAP_truth, May 04, 2012, 08:19:22 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CAP_truth

What no streaming video again for NEC meeting either?
Cadet CoP
Wilson

Ned

The meeting is not being streamed.

There are about 30 of us sitting in the NHQ conference room working through the agenda.

The staff briefings presented earlier were videod, and I'm told they will be placed online.

Ned Lee-

NCRblues

Ok so, why not stream it then?

Are we going with the "save money" tag line again?
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

lordmonar

Quote from: NCRblues on May 04, 2012, 10:18:20 PM
Ok so, why not stream it then?

Are we going with the "save money" tag line again?
I guess that is as good as "We forgot".
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

PHall

I guess even when they try to save the membership some of their dues money they still get slammed. ::)

I guess there's no satisfying some people...

Extremepredjudice

A smartphone can stream, sir.

Doesn't anyone in the NEC own a smartphone? I hope one or two does.
I love the moderators here. <3

Hanlon's Razor
Occam's Razor
"Flight make chant; I good leader"

PHall

How good is the connectivity from that conference room?
Kinda hard to stream if you can only get one bar.

NCRblues

Quote from: PHall on May 05, 2012, 12:10:37 AM
I guess even when they try to save the membership some of their dues money they still get slammed. ::)

I guess there's no satisfying some people...

No I am not satisfied. Open and fair governance is needed. We can save money somewhere else. Spend the money and let us watch it. Cut down on "travel budgets" and stop sending NHQ people to give the stock briefing at EVERY wing and region conference.
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

AirDX

Quote from: CAP_truth on May 04, 2012, 08:19:22 PM
What no streaming video again for NEC meeting either?

C'mon, you know this is the meeting where they're discussing the black helicopter squadrons and how to keep tinfoil hats out of 39-1.   
Believe in fate, but lean forward where fate can see you.

a2capt

With all the fur flying behind the scenes.. they probably don't want to stream it ;-)

NCRblues

Quote from: a2capt on May 05, 2012, 04:39:40 AM
With all the fur flying behind the scenes.. they probably don't want to stream it ;-)

LMAO...what fur? I am sure there are smiles and handshakes all around. I think that because IMHO the NEC will get briefed on the upcoming governance changes, and with (presumably) the NB loosing its power or going away completely, the NEC wants to have smiles and fun without the peons seeing it. MHO only of course....
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

Ned

Quote from: NCRblues on May 05, 2012, 02:39:07 AM
No I am not satisfied. Open and fair governance is needed.

Sir,

Your CAP volunteer leaders remain committed to open and fair governance.  But I'm not sure expensive internet streaming is remotely necessary to the goal.  And the overwhelming percentage of your fellow members apparently agree.

Here is the NHQ announcement where we posted all of the briefings from the March Boards in video and written format on line for the public and the members to review.  And where we explained that less than one percent of the membership participated in live streaming.  Heck, we even posted the agenda and draft minutes.  It's all there for you and the other members to review at your leisure.  But streaming is simply not cost-effective in reaching the membership.

For the NEC meeting, we will be doing the same.  The agenda is already posted, of course.  And just like the winter boards, we will post the videos and written slides from the briefings, and the draft minutes when they become available.

I'm pretty proud of the efforts our staff has gone through to make the contents of the meeting as open and accessible as possible.

I can't think of any other corporation of our size that does more to promote transparency for our various meetings.  Of course, if you would like to attend in person, you are welcome to do so.  We had several visitors today.

If you had been here, you would have seen the senior leadership engage in orderly and professional discussions on the agenda items.  No angst, no drama.  Just the corporate staff and volunteer leaders getting the job done for our members.  (And no governance briefing, BTW.  It is simply not on the agenda.)

Thank you for your service to Kansas and Missouri wings.  Your efforts are truly appreciated.

Ned Lee
BoG Member at Large

Extremepredjudice

Sir, with the upmost respect: Streaming is free. Youtube, livestream, ustream and many others offer FREE streaming. If the hotel wants to charge you, use tethering on a phone. Heck, you can stream from a phone.

Most hotels (at least the ones I've seen) offer free wifi. Use it.

Even if the quality isn't the best, you at least put somethig out there.

Any streaming is better than no streaming. If I had the money to attend the meetings, I'd stream it myself.

Or you could delay stream. Record the whole thing, then stream it once you are able to access better internet. A lot of companies do this...
I love the moderators here. <3

Hanlon's Razor
Occam's Razor
"Flight make chant; I good leader"

NCRblues

Quote from: Ned on May 05, 2012, 04:54:39 AM
  But I'm not sure expensive internet streaming is remotely necessary to the goal.  And the overwhelming percentage of your fellow members apparently agree.


Well, I am not sure how we can use the "save money" tag line at all. Are you not at NHQ? Does NHQ not have internet? Is NHQ charging the NEC to use the internet that I am SURE they have? Heck, you're on an AFB, go to the BX and use the free wifi and upload the recorded meeting after each day. Go to the base library and use their internet! I know they have it and its free!!!!!

Plain and simple #1. Someone forgot to record/stream it, or #2. the NEC did not want it broadcast.
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

Extremepredjudice

Quote from: NCRblues on May 05, 2012, 05:22:40 AM
Quote from: Ned on May 05, 2012, 04:54:39 AM
  But I'm not sure expensive internet streaming is remotely necessary to the goal.  And the overwhelming percentage of your fellow members apparently agree.


Well, I am not sure how we can use the "save money" tag line at all. Are you not at NHQ? Does NHQ not have internet? Is NHQ charging the NEC to use the internet that I am SURE they have? Heck, you're on an AFB, go to the BX and use the free wifi and upload the recorded meeting after each day. Go to the base library and use their internet! I know they have it and its free!!!!!

Plain and simple #1. Someone forgot to record/stream it, or #2. the NEC did not want it broadcast.
I thought they were at a hotel...?
I love the moderators here. <3

Hanlon's Razor
Occam's Razor
"Flight make chant; I good leader"

NCRblues

Apparently not



Quote from: Ned on May 04, 2012, 10:01:05 PM

There are about 30 of us sitting in the NHQ conference room working through the agenda.

Ned Lee-

In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

Extremepredjudice

Quote from: NCRblues on May 05, 2012, 05:33:04 AM
Apparently not



Quote from: Ned on May 04, 2012, 10:01:05 PM

There are about 30 of us sitting in the NHQ conference room working through the agenda.

Ned Lee-
Well then they definitly should be able to livestream.

Tinfoil hats aside, what is going on that we can't see?

Who exactly is saying it isn't cost effective to stream? I really want to know.
I love the moderators here. <3

Hanlon's Razor
Occam's Razor
"Flight make chant; I good leader"

Ned

Quote from: NCRblues on May 05, 2012, 05:22:40 AM
Plain and simple #1. Someone forgot to record/stream it, or #2. the NEC did not want it broadcast.

Take a moment and re-read the NHQ announcement.

Laying aside the issue of whether we could put out a stream of sufficient quality "for free" or not (because we are indeed at NHQ and the cost would have been far less than if we had been at some hotel), the point of transparency is to openly and effectively communicate the governance of CAP to as many of the members and stakeholders as possible.

So we tried streaming the meetings.  And even with professionals managing the stream, there were quality issues.  Heck, you surely remembver that almost half the entries on the threads here were complaints about quality (dropped stream, poor audio quality, shots of empty podia, etc).  And apparently we can track the number of users watching the stream.  Whether it was lack of novelty, quality issues, or some combination of those and other factors, viewership declined to the point where less than 1% of the membership bothered to watch.

IOW, it was simply not an effective way to communicate to the members.  And because the leadership genuinely cares about openess and transparency, we have gone in a different direction in order to effectively communicate what happens at the meetings to our members and stakeholders.

The briefings yesterday were recorded, and will be put on line,  Just like the Winter Boards.  The draft minutes will be put on line alongside the agenda.  As I mentioned last night, this puts us ahead of similary organizations in terms of transparency.  I am proud of the work the staff is doing to keep you and others informed.

But if you still want to come and watch a meeting, there is always a seat available.  Heck, it's only about 500 miles from Fallon to Montgomery.  A relatively short drive.  Or you could grab a Southwest hop from Kansas City to Birmingham for a little over a hundred dollars.  I'll meet you at the airport.

Or you can sit back and complain "anonymously" on the internet.

But we will continue to find the best way to keep the membership and stakeholders fully informed about what happens at our meetings.


RiverAux

I'm sure that only a tiny fraction of CAP membership reads the minutes of board meetings, but should they stop being posted as well?  I'd say that 1% viewership is probably a major win for the program.  I'd be surprised if CSPAN viewership was that high. 

SamFranklin

Quote from: Ned on May 05, 2012, 12:26:44 PM
IOW, it was simply not an effective way to communicate to the members.  And because the leadership genuinely cares about openess and transparency, we have gone in a different direction in order to effectively communicate what happens at the meetings to our members and stakeholders.

This makes sense to me. The goal is openness and transparency, not streaming for its own sake.

I think CAP has come a long, long way in this regard. I remember when the NB/NEC agendas were considered confidential documents (in many wings, ymmv), let alone the minutes. I remember CCs picked at the whim of the region commander, whereas now there's a search committee. And I remember when no one outside the old boy's club had any say into strategic-level affairs, whereas now we have 9 of 11 members on a Congressionally-empowered BoG who are not NEC types. There's no scandal here in the lack of streaming.

EMT-83

Well, the conspiracy theory is a lot more fun than the truth. Doesn't that count for anything?

NIN

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on May 05, 2012, 12:48:06 AM
A smartphone can stream, sir.

Doesn't anyone in the NEC own a smartphone? I hope one or two does.

You did not just legitimately suggest streaming a meeting with a smartphone, did you?

Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversationsâ„¢
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

RADIOMAN015

Quote from: Ned on May 05, 2012, 12:26:44 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on May 05, 2012, 05:22:40 AM
Plain and simple #1. Someone forgot to record/stream it, or #2. the NEC did not want it broadcast.

The briefings yesterday were recorded, and will be put on line,  Just like the Winter Boards.  The draft minutes will be put on line alongside the agenda.  As I mentioned last night, this puts us ahead of similary organizations in terms of transparency.  I am proud of the work the staff is doing to keep you and others informed.

I think it's a great idea to record, edit, & provide concise information on a timely basis about the meeting after its' conclusion.  Most of us don't really want to spend the time watching the entire meeting, it can get down right boring and there were problems with the feeds anyways. 
RM       

Nathan

Quote from: RiverAux on May 05, 2012, 12:32:13 PM
I'm sure that only a tiny fraction of CAP membership reads the minutes of board meetings, but should they stop being posted as well?  I'd say that 1% viewership is probably a major win for the program.  I'd be surprised if CSPAN viewership was that high.

Except, as has been made abundantly clear, posting a PDF online doesn't cost anything. Streaming does. This is simple math. When we do a cost/benefit ratio analysis, we could afford to post the minutes even if only ONE person reads them. But for the cost of quality streaming to be worth the outcome, there needs to be a little more interest in actually seeing these things happening in real-time.

And unsurprisingly, that interest simply isn't there. Would you like to volunteer to pick up the tab for streaming the service? That might be a viable alternative to the problem of cost.
Nathan Scalia

The post beneath this one is a lie.

NIN

Quote from: RiverAux on May 05, 2012, 12:32:13 PM
I'm sure that only a tiny fraction of CAP membership reads the minutes of board meetings, but should they stop being posted as well?  I'd say that 1% viewership is probably a major win for the program.  I'd be surprised if CSPAN viewership was that high.
(emphasis mine)

With several dozen times the budget.
Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversationsâ„¢
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

NIN

Quote from: Ned on May 05, 2012, 12:26:44 PM
But we will continue to find the best way to keep the membership and stakeholders fully informed about what happens at our meetings.

This reminds me of the whole "if a tree falls in the forest" thing, Ned.

If a motion occurs on a live stream while the good Captain is off getting his coffee, did it really occur? 
Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversationsâ„¢
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

FW

Quote from: SamFranklin on May 05, 2012, 01:17:33 PMAnd I remember when no one outside the old boy's club had any say into strategic-level affairs, whereas now we have 9 of 11 members on a Congressionally-empowered BoG who are not NEC types. There's no scandal here in the lack of streaming.

OK, but 7 of 11 BoG members are there due to the direct influence of the National Commander of Civil Air Patrol.  Not bad. 

Watching a NEC meeting is like watching grass grow.  Most decisions are made in committee. The meeting is to make the decisions "official".  There is no reason we can't wait a few days to hear what transpired.  It's not like we will have to change uniforms or anything... OH, Wait!.. >:D

A.Member

I like the idea of the meetings being recorded and posted for ad hoc viewing by the membership.   The real opportunity is in making the agenda known in advance and raising awareness as to where the agenda, minutes, and video will be stored.  Let's face it, the structure of our website does not making finding this info easy.   

Fact is, were it not for CAPtalk, I'd have no idea when such meetings are taking place nor would I know the agenda (hint to leadership:  the communication to membership on these items is not effective).  That perhaps explains in part the low viewship of past streams, not to mention the fact that they occur during the day when many are at work.  I'd bet the 1% is roughly equivalent to the percentage of members that even know such a meeting is taking place.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

caphornbuckle

I believe that regardless of what is decided at the NEC meeting, we are still obligated to obey what is decided let alone if we find out about it through some sort of streaming program, the national website, or though our chain of command.  The only reason I can figure out why it needs to be live-streamed is to nit-pick the uniforms, the way the members of the committee speak, or just to blast a certain member of the committee on here.

Issues like streaming is a moot point.  I don't believe there are "black ops" meetings in the back room.  Even if there were, they wouldn't stream them anyways.  I'm also sure that there are members down there who will keep CAPTalk up to date on the happenings anyways.

Just because we live in the age of technology doesn't mean it is affordable or even beneficial in everything we do!
Lt Col Samuel L. Hornbuckle, CAP

NIN

Before this magical thing called the Interwebz, you got your CAP info from Civil Air Patrol News or your chain of command.

Funny, CAP existed for like 60 years without the internet and streaming meetings and all that, and nobody in the rank-and-file had a problem with how meetings were conducted, what decisions were made, etc.

Heck, all I knew was that the NB was made up of 64 members (52 Wing Commanders, 8 region commanders, the national commander, the vice national commander and, uh, there were like 2 more) and they met like once a year and made important decisions.  (thank you, quiz bowl).  Beyond that, I am reasonably certain that the NB didn't really care whether or not I read about their meeting and decisions in Civil Air Patrol News (usually in October after the August meeting).

Don't confuse the availability of information with some kind of a right to either know it or be involved in it.
Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversationsâ„¢
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

RiverAux

Any organization that depends on its membership to do anything should be very interested in keeping them informed of what is going on and in obtaining their support for decisions that are made.  Those that think otherwise may have some problems. 

lordmonar

Quote from: RiverAux on May 05, 2012, 09:33:51 PM
Any organization that depends on its membership to do anything should be very interested in keeping them informed of what is going on and in obtaining their support for decisions that are made.  Those that think otherwise may have some problems.
Yes.....and I don't think the NEC/NB or BoG is not intrested in keeping people informed.
But....just because we don't stream video or invite each and every member into the meeting room and ask each one their opinions on all subject.....does not mean anyone is trying to hid anything.

Keeping the good will of the volunteers in important.
Yet we are not the only large organisation where major dicisions are made with little or no input from the rank and file.
The ARC and BSA just to name a few.

Don't mistake transparancy with empowerment.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

RADIOMAN015

Quote from: lordmonar on May 05, 2012, 10:19:14 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on May 05, 2012, 09:33:51 PM
Any organization that depends on its membership to do anything should be very interested in keeping them informed of what is going on and in obtaining their support for decisions that are made.  Those that think otherwise may have some problems.
Yes.....and I don't think the NEC/NB or BoG is not intrested in keeping people informed.
snip..snip....
Keeping the good will of the volunteers in important.
Yet we are not the only large organisation where major dicisions are made with little or no input from the rank and file.
The ARC and BSA just to name a few.

Don't mistake transparancy with empowerment.


Every CAP member has empowerment.  They can choose when they want to participate or not participate in a meeting, function, training, or mission.    They can choose whether they will drive a CAP vehicle or not.  Same goes for aircraft.  They can choose not to sign for any CAP equipment.

CAP is very lucky as an organization that we have some pretty naive volunteer members, who subject themselves to financial liability that they wouldn't have with most other non profit organizations utilizing unpaid volunteers. 

BTW anybody know how many "active" senior members we have, utilizing the definition in the AF Statement of Work that CAP agreed to ??? :angel:
RM   

CAP4117

#33
Quote from: lordmonar on May 05, 2012, 10:19:14 PM
Keeping the good will of the volunteers in important.
Yet we are not the only large organisation where major dicisions are made with little or no input from the rank and file.
The ARC and BSA just to name a few.

Don't mistake transparancy with empowerment.
This whole discussion has made me think of the ARC, where I've been a volunteer for 6 years. At the level that most volunteers participate, very little is known about the decisions the higher-ups are making. I have never heard anyone complain about transparency, or even talk about it for that matter. Major decisions about operations are being made all the time, and (at least down on my level) we never hear about it. I'm not saying that's a good thing, because people inevitably disagree about the decisions that are made once they are passed down, but I have never known it to interfere with operations in a major way. For those of you who also volunteer with the Red Cross, YMMV. That's just been my experience locally.
That said, I really applaud CAP's efforts at transparency. It shows a great deal of respect for the members.

manfredvonrichthofen

It's good to know that I am naive. I don't think anyone puts themselves at any more risk legally Or financially than law enforcement or emergency medical personnel do.

RADIOMAN015

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 06, 2012, 02:11:31 AM
It's good to know that I am naive. I don't think anyone puts themselves at any more risk legally Or financially than law enforcement or emergency medical personnel do.
I don't know about cops or emt's --- this discussion is on Civil Air Patrol volunteer personnel, performing CAP authorized duties. 
RM

Extremepredjudice

Quote from: NIN on May 05, 2012, 02:09:14 PM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on May 05, 2012, 12:48:06 AM
A smartphone can stream, sir.

Doesn't anyone in the NEC own a smartphone? I hope one or two does.

You did not just legitimately suggest streaming a meeting with a smartphone, did you?
I did.

No stream < bad quality stream

The quality isn't actually that bad, at least when I tried it (6 months ago). The phone didn't even have a good camera, and it came out pretty good. Something with a 720/1080p camera would probably do even better.


OR you could tether a laptop to your phone. Probably be your best bet. Tethering would work perfectly. Just download a free/cheap app, connect to the hotspot and WAMMO you have internet. Then you just use a camera of some sort, attach to live stream.

So:
Acquire smartphone
Download tethering (or personal hotspot) app
Connect with laptop
Connect camera to livestream
Stream
#Profit
I love the moderators here. <3

Hanlon's Razor
Occam's Razor
"Flight make chant; I good leader"

RRLE

Quote from: RiverAux on May 05, 2012, 09:33:51 PM
Any organization that depends on its membership to do anything should be very interested in keeping them informed of what is going on and in obtaining their support for decisions that are made.  Those that think otherwise may have some problems.

Many of us know that you are also an active member of the USCG Auxiliary and a frequent, putting it mildly, poster on their board. The USCG Aux does not publish the agenda for any of its National Meetings. Until very recently it posted nothing, no minutes etc about the results of those meetings. Recently, the USCG, not the Aux, at least posted the 4 proposals the Aux made to the USCG and the USCG's actions on those - but still no detailed minutes from the Aux like CAP does.

Yet, you make no statements or complaints about the complete lack of transparency and communication in the USCG Aux and find fault with the much greater transparency of CAP. In the future, I am going to look forward to your comments on the Aux board regarding Auxie governance issues. It does appear you have different standards for two very similar organizations.

manfredvonrichthofen

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 06, 2012, 04:26:10 AM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on May 06, 2012, 02:11:31 AM
It's good to know that I am naive. I don't think anyone puts themselves at any more risk legally Or financially than law enforcement or emergency medical personnel do.
I don't know about cops or emt's --- this discussion is on Civil Air Patrol volunteer personnel, performing CAP authorized duties. 
RM
I know a bit about the risk they put themselves into, every single time you go on a call, you put yourself at risk to be sued or worse... All it takes is one little thing to go wrong and it just might be on you. It's up to the hospital and the city if they want to back you or not, you just might find yourself taking care of your own lawsuit.

CAP at least has the ability to use the good Samaritan clause, so long as your not a registered EMT or Paramedic. Other than that, I fail to see what risk you might be thinking of. And I also don't see how you got onto this train of thought through this thread.

RiverAux

Quote from: RRLE on May 06, 2012, 10:35:31 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on May 05, 2012, 09:33:51 PM
Any organization that depends on its membership to do anything should be very interested in keeping them informed of what is going on and in obtaining their support for decisions that are made.  Those that think otherwise may have some problems.

Many of us know that you are also an active member of the USCG Auxiliary and a frequent, putting it mildly, poster on their board. The USCG Aux does not publish the agenda for any of its National Meetings. Until very recently it posted nothing, no minutes etc about the results of those meetings. Recently, the USCG, not the Aux, at least posted the 4 proposals the Aux made to the USCG and the USCG's actions on those - but still no detailed minutes from the Aux like CAP does.

Yet, you make no statements or complaints about the complete lack of transparency and communication in the USCG Aux and find fault with the much greater transparency of CAP. In the future, I am going to look forward to your comments on the Aux board regarding Auxie governance issues. It does appear you have different standards for two very similar organizations.

1.  In comparison to CAP, the CG Auxiliary leadership has a remarkable degree of self-restraint in terms of what they propose.  While they may have a proposal every now and again that seems frivolous, it isn't the norm like it is with CAP.  They only proposed 4 things this year, which is probably only 10-20% of the proposals in front of CAP's leadership in any given year. 

2.  CG Aux's leaders are chosen in a democratic fashion in which I actually have a say, albeit someone limited given my current place on the Aux totem pole.  In CAP I have absolutely zero input into who my leaders are.  Being a fan of representative democracy, I do tend to have more trust in people that I've had some say in putting in place. 

3.  Finally, in the CG Aux I have as a final backstop the Coast Guard who can generally be trusted to do the right thing and to act as a check on any crazy ideas that might be put forward.  The AF only has a very limited degree of control over such things in CAP.  While I certainly didn't have a say in who those CG leaders are, I do trust them to do what is right for the Aux and the CG.  The AF hasn't shown a consistent ability to provide the same level of oversight to CAP (witness how the corporate service uniform fiasco played out).  I think the CG cares enough about the Aux to do the right thing -- I'm not even sure CAP-USAF really cares about what is good for CAP and the AF. 

All that being said, I do think the Aux leadership should vet their draft proposals to the membership for comment. 

NIN

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on May 06, 2012, 04:36:08 AM
Quote from: NIN on May 05, 2012, 02:09:14 PM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on May 05, 2012, 12:48:06 AM
A smartphone can stream, sir.

Doesn't anyone in the NEC own a smartphone? I hope one or two does.

You did not just legitimately suggest streaming a meeting with a smartphone, did you?
I did.

No stream < bad quality stream

The quality isn't actually that bad, at least when I tried it (6 months ago). The phone didn't even have a good camera, and it came out pretty good. Something with a 720/1080p camera would probably do even better.


OR you could tether a laptop to your phone. Probably be your best bet. Tethering would work perfectly. Just download a free/cheap app, connect to the hotspot and WAMMO you have internet. Then you just use a camera of some sort, attach to live stream.

So:
Acquire smartphone
Download tethering (or personal hotspot) app
Connect with laptop
Connect camera to livestream
Stream
#Profit

And you did this for 2-6 hrs with no interruption, quality loss, etc?

It had acceptable video at the other end?  Acceptable audio? 

I'm kind of thinking "not"

Streaming video from your phone for 10 minutes != live-streaming a meeting.
Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversationsâ„¢
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

RADIOMAN015

Quote from: RiverAux on May 06, 2012, 12:19:20 PM
Quote from: RRLE on May 06, 2012, 10:35:31 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on May 05, 2012, 09:33:51 PM
Any organization that depends on its membership to do anything should be very interested in keeping them informed of what is going on and in obtaining their support for decisions that are made.  Those that think otherwise may have some problems.

Many of us know that you are also an active member of the USCG Auxiliary and a frequent, putting it mildly, poster on their board. The USCG Aux does not publish the agenda for any of its National Meetings. Until very recently it posted nothing, no minutes etc about the results of those meetings. Recently, the USCG, not the Aux, at least posted the 4 proposals the Aux made to the USCG and the USCG's actions on those - but still no detailed minutes from the Aux like CAP does.

Yet, you make no statements or complaints about the complete lack of transparency and communication in the USCG Aux and find fault with the much greater transparency of CAP. In the future, I am going to look forward to your comments on the Aux board regarding Auxie governance issues. It does appear you have different standards for two very similar organizations.

..snip..snip..

3.  Finally, in the CG Aux I have as a final backstop the Coast Guard who can generally be trusted to do the right thing and to act as a check on any crazy ideas that might be put forward.  The AF only has a very limited degree of control over such things in CAP.  While I certainly didn't have a say in who those CG leaders are, I do trust them to do what is right for the Aux and the CG.  The AF hasn't shown a consistent ability to provide the same level of oversight to CAP (witness how the corporate service uniform fiasco played out).  I think the CG cares enough about the Aux to do the right thing -- I'm not even sure CAP-USAF really cares about what is good for CAP and the AF. 

I would agree with you that the Air Force (CAP-USAF), seems to carefully pick what they want to control with CAP, and AF Instruction (AFI) 10-2701, para 1-4 (1.4.3 Corporate Activities) seems to have some limitations, primarily oversight is on the use of government funds.    HOWEVER, the implementation of the Board of Governors structure AFI 10-2702, does control/oversee the corporate activities, and the USAF does have a strong presence on the board.

Lets face it CAP as an organization has to depend upon its'  "motivated" volunteers in units below wing level to get any mission accomplished.    With all the top level meetings and money being spent on this travel, I've yet to see a comprehensive long, medium, & short term goals established and communicated to the general membership.  Surely, we all want to be on the same page and work towards these goals.   From my standpoint it is very strange that this simple act of transparency can't be accomplished.

As far as the general membership having a voice/input, I would think something as simple as implementation of a formal suggestion program, administered at the wing level with appropriate Regions & National HQ level involvement, wouldn't require that much work or staffing.   The USAF has had such programs with different names for many years, and some great ideas have been implemented that saved money and or time.
RM

RRLE

Quote from: RiverAux on May 06, 2012, 12:19:20 PM
1.  In comparison to CAP, the CG Auxiliary leadership has a remarkable degree of self-restraint in terms of what they propose.  While they may have a proposal every now and again that seems frivolous, it isn't the norm like it is with CAP.  They only proposed 4 things this year, which is probably only 10-20% of the proposals in front of CAP's leadership in any given year.

They only proposed 4 things that made it to the USCG for further consideration. Since there is no published agenda nor published minutes, no one outside the select few who were there know how much stuff was on their plate. 

Quote from: RiverAux on May 06, 2012, 12:19:20 PM
2.  CG Aux's leaders are chosen in a democratic fashion in which I actually have a say,

Assuming you are not a higher elected officer, the only officers you have a direct say in are your local (flotilla) level officers. For those who don't know, the current sitting national and district officers elect the new national officers. Then the sitting district and division officers elected officers elect the next district officers. Then the sitting divison and flotilla officers elect the new division offiers. Only after all the incumbents are voted up or out (usually up), do you get to vote for the lowest guy on the totem pole. It will be at least a year before he gets to vote only for his superior officers. It may be a democracy of sorts but it is designed to thwart any innovation from and input from below.

Quote from: RiverAux on May 06, 2012, 12:19:20 PM
3.  Finally, in the CG Aux I have as a final backstop the Coast Guard who can generally be trusted to do the right thing and to act as a check on any crazy ideas that might be put forward.

Except for a very recent killing off of yet another ribbon, the USCG has largely rubber stamped whatever the Aux leadership handed them. It did not kill off the Aux request to create 2 awards higher then the Aux's highest bravery award. It did not stop the Aux (a few years ago) from changing the traditional colors and shapes of the national officers pennants and burgees etc.

And as has come up often on the other board, the USCG will almost always back the leadership against a member in any sort of disciplinary action.

Quote from: RiverAux on May 06, 2012, 12:19:20 PM

All that being said, I do think the Aux leadership should vet their draft proposals to the membership for comment.

We agree on that at least.

In theory at least, I think I would trade the Aux's fake democracy for CAP's openness any day of the week. A Bilge Mouse in either organization has very little say over who their national leaders are but at least CAP gets to know what they are up to.

An organization has a problem , when its management style, as the Aux's is,  is referred to either as Mushroom Management (keep them in the dark, feed them fecal matter and expect them to produce) and/or Black Hole Managment (suck everything in but let nothing out). And I didn't coin either of those expressions.

Eclipse

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 06, 2012, 01:53:15 PMLets face it CAP as an organization has to depend upon its'  "motivated" volunteers in units below wing level to get any mission accomplished. 

Thank you for that insight.

In other "news", water is wet, fire is hot, and gravity is a downer...

"That Others May Zoom"

Eclipse

Quote from: NIN on May 06, 2012, 01:48:38 PM
Streaming video from your phone for 10 minutes != live-streaming a meeting.

Not to mention the economies of scale.

Most video conference systems like Skype, etc., depend on the originator's bandwidth and processor for the entirety of the stream, the math isn't quite exponential, but it is geometric, and generally kills the average consumer upstream by the 3rd or 4th user.

There's also no need for real-time monitoring.  Nothing they do is time-critical, nor of such importance to the general membership that their
decisions will precipitate immediate action downstream.

Just like with Congress, the normal activities of these types of bodies are hours of boredom punctuated by a few seconds of anything of interest.

"That Others May Zoom"

Nathan

This thread is kind of funny to me, because it reminds me of all the times as a cadet when I would get irritated that I wasn't being let in on something the higher-ups were doing. For instance, my first time as a flight sergeant, I would get irritated that staff meetings were still closed off to me (my flight commander went), since I considered myself entitled to be there.

The truth was that I just wanted to know what happened behind closed doors, and being on the wrong side of the closed door was frustrating. I didn't have any valuable input, nor would I have had any real part in planning the activities they were planning during their staff meetings. And it would become pretty apparent later on what they were planning, since they were doing squadron business. I would get notified by my chain of command of the information relevant to me. But the fact is that I just wanted to KNOW, because I was impatient and curious.

Just like a lot of the people in this thread are just impatient and curious. There is ZERO reason to believe there is anything sinister going on at a meeting of the higher-ups of a volunteer organization at this point in time. Yet, people try to make their natural curiosity seem more justified by accusing the lack of real-time communication with the general membership as evidence of some sort of cover-up. I highly doubt that most of the people making these arguments actually believe this. Like I was when I was a younger cadet, it's just a natural curiosity and hurt feelings at being left out of the grown-up table.
Nathan Scalia

The post beneath this one is a lie.

flyingscotsman

Livestream.com & USTREAM.com are inexpensive for accounts that allow restrictions on viewership, high quality, and support a variety of video capture methods. They are the ones delivering the video content to the viewers, requiring only just enough bandwidth at the site to get one stream up to the service, this makes it very scalable. Livestream.com even offers a new device that connects directly to an HD camcorder (even slides into the accessory shoe mount) and will upload either using WiFI or a USB 3G/4G modem. Expense and lack of quality aren't the challenge here, as there are many more services than the two I just mentioned. I get the impression that NHQ doesn't believe there is any real demand to watch this stuff.

Extremepredjudice

Quote from: NIN on May 06, 2012, 01:48:38 PM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on May 06, 2012, 04:36:08 AM
Quote from: NIN on May 05, 2012, 02:09:14 PM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on May 05, 2012, 12:48:06 AM
A smartphone can stream, sir.

Doesn't anyone in the NEC own a smartphone? I hope one or two does.

You did not just legitimately suggest streaming a meeting with a smartphone, did you?
I did.

No stream < bad quality stream

The quality isn't actually that bad, at least when I tried it (6 months ago). The phone didn't even have a good camera, and it came out pretty good. Something with a 720/1080p camera would probably do even better.


OR you could tether a laptop to your phone. Probably be your best bet. Tethering would work perfectly. Just download a free/cheap app, connect to the hotspot and WAMMO you have internet. Then you just use a camera of some sort, attach to live stream.

So:
Acquire smartphone
Download tethering (or personal hotspot) app
Connect with laptop
Connect camera to livestream
Stream
#Profit

And you did this for 2-6 hrs with no interruption, quality loss, etc?

It had acceptable video at the other end?  Acceptable audio? 

I'm kind of thinking "not"

Streaming video from your phone for 10 minutes != live-streaming a meeting.
I did it for an hour. The feed was of acceptable quality. Not the best, but ok.


Quote from: flyingscotsman on May 06, 2012, 10:49:48 PM
Livestream.com & USTREAM.com are inexpensive for accounts that allow restrictions on viewership, high quality, and support a variety of video capture methods. They are the ones delivering the video content to the viewers, requiring only just enough bandwidth at the site to get one stream up to the service, this makes it very scalable. Livestream.com even offers a new device that connects directly to an HD camcorder (even slides into the accessory shoe mount) and will upload either using WiFI or a USB 3G/4G modem. Expense and lack of quality aren't the challenge here, as there are many more services than the two I just mentioned. I get the impression that NHQ doesn't believe there is any real demand to watch this stuff.
This. You can use a phone, create a hotspot, and stream.


NHQ isn't interested in streaming, if they were, there are tons of ways they could.
I love the moderators here. <3

Hanlon's Razor
Occam's Razor
"Flight make chant; I good leader"

caphornbuckle

Quote from: Extremepredjudice on May 06, 2012, 11:10:27 PM
NHQ isn't interested in streaming, if they were, there are tons of ways they could.

Looking at how the viewership has been in the past, the majority of us aren't interested either.  I'm one of them.  I've got more important things to worry about.
Lt Col Samuel L. Hornbuckle, CAP

The CyBorg is destroyed

For one thing, I find meetings, of almost any sort, dead boring.  Even at my church I tend to think "oh, cripes, not again," when the pastor announces a voter's meeting.  He's retiring and we have to call a new one, and those meetings are going to be about as exciting (to me) as watching ice melt.

I come from the days when the only real organ of information was CAP News, and LO's/LNCO's.  Those are gone.

As a former IT guy, I also tend to get very impatient with hiccupping streaming video, whether the result of poor connection on the broadcaster's part or outmoded equipment on my part.

I guess what I'm saying is that I am not passionate one way or another about the NEC Meeting being streamed...but you can bloody well better believe I want to know the results, with the whys and wherefores of such results.

The only thing I can really interest myself in watching through streaming video is sessions of the Australian Parliament, very lively and sometimes quite profane! >:D

As a former CG Auxie, I can agree with almost all of RiverAux's commentary on how they do it v. how we do it.  One extremely important factor is that the Coast Guard is much more directly involved than the AF is with us.  The Chief Director Auxiliary is an active-duty, four-piston-ring Captain.

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg3/cg3pcx/cginfo/chdiraux.asp

Active Duty and Reserve Coasties are also much more familiar with their Auxiliary than the AF is with us...and I don't buy the argument that the reason for that is because the CG is a smaller service.

Quote from: RiverAux on May 06, 2012, 12:19:20 PM
The AF only has a very limited degree of control over such things in CAP.

Or interest.

Quote from: RiverAux on May 06, 2012, 12:19:20 PM
The AF hasn't shown a consistent ability to provide the same level of oversight to CAP (witness how the corporate service uniform fiasco played out).  I think the CG cares enough about the Aux to do the right thing -- I'm not even sure CAP-USAF really cares about what is good for CAP and the AF. 

My thoughts exactly, except that I would change "ability" to "interest."  They could show much greater oversight than they do, but they choose not to...again, the "benign neglect" syndrome.

I sometimes wonder what the reason is for having CAP-USAF to begin with...it seems we could do just as well reporting directly to AFRC, as has been mooted.
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

a2capt

I'd be happy with them just saving it, and posting it promptly. I don't need to see it when it's happening, it's not always convenient. But if they save it, and post it promptly that shows an earnest effort at transparency with a balance against frugality.

Watching it live ... it isn't like I can do anything if I disapprove anyway ;-) Short of being in the room and screaming like the British House of Commons... and all they would do is drag me out anyway. Not saying I'm gonna do that, but that's about as effective as anyone is going to be. So, why make a stink.

But the excuse "only 6 people looked at it" .. isn't right either. It's like voting. They need to provide enough ballots at each polling place for every registered voter plus spoils, walk ins, provisionals, etc- even though they know better than heck that if 19% show up they're doing darn good.

In this case, post the material, whatever it is, since they've decided to take the initiative at maintaining and fostering transparency.

Like the various committees locally here, sure - they post the agenda .. outside the city council chambers, the morning before the meeting. This is 2012. The Town Crier is Dead. We don't do things like that anymore. They're probably arrest the guy for disturbing the peace. You can't tell me that they didn't have these agendas done a few days before. Post them on the internet.

NHQ does a good job of making the agenda's available. Municipal governments could learn from them. OTOH, many municipal governments post their meetings within 24-48 hours. Save it to a drive, add the beginning text to it, start at the opening hammer, and thats it. There shouldn't need to be any editing. After all, you're posting the meeting. Not a show.  The difference here? Limited manpower, and many volunteers. A lot of stuff doesn't get done as fast necessarily. But I bet if they put out the word in the locality for someone to assist with cropping those raw files into meetings against notes/filenames that there would be a taker or two.

lordmonar

Quote from: a2capt on May 07, 2012, 04:52:00 AM
But the excuse "only 6 people looked at it" .. isn't right either. It's like voting. They need to provide enough ballots at each polling place for every registered voter plus spoils, walk ins, provisionals, etc- even though they know better than heck that if 19% show up they're doing darn good.

No....it is more like CSPAN.....no mandate to have and if it does not work/they can't pay for it/no one watches it....there is zero change in the way they do buisness.

Voting is your RIGHT!  So they have to provide you the opprotunity to do so.

It is NOT your right to sit in on the BoG, NEC, NB, Wing Staff meeting, Squadron Staff meeting.......so no one has to provide you with the ability to do so.

NOW.......everyone is encouraged to attend and watch......that is part of transparancy.....but that does not mean CAP has to do anything to facilitate it beyond providing the opportunity to come and watch.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

NIN

Quote from: caphornbuckle on May 06, 2012, 11:54:39 PM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on May 06, 2012, 11:10:27 PM
NHQ isn't interested in streaming, if they were, there are tons of ways they could.

Looking at how the viewership has been in the past, the majority of us aren't interested either.  I'm one of them.  I've got more important things to worry about.

Thats a fact: I watched the NB streamed a couple times.  A) I was at work; B) It was so boring that I kept texting a wing commander I knew just to watch him react on screen.  The next time a "streaming national CAP meeting" was announced, I said "Yeah, seen it. Bored to tears by it... Next!"

Seriously. Watching paint dry is positively "second-by-second action" compared to streaming a CAP meeting.


There may be some of you who can peel yourselves away from CSPAN and your scanners tuned to your local PD & Fire dispatch freqs to watch what amounts to a bunch of old guys sitting in a room in uniforms trying to look interested in a subject they could not care less about.  But that ain't me.  And judging by the numbers, 99% of the membership feels that way too.

Two things you should never watch being made: Sausage and the law.  CAP regulations and policy by an echelon above reality is a close third.




Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversationsâ„¢
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

NCRblues

Quote from: NIN on May 07, 2012, 06:28:57 AM
watch what amounts to a bunch of old guys sitting in a room in uniforms trying to look interested in a subject they could not care less about. 

Maybe that is one of the problems. A passionate debate on heartfelt issues is way more interesting to watch than 80 year old men arguing about the next ribbon color.


Maybe the NB/NEC needs some new blood, younger more energetic members who still have the passion for all things CAP...
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

Spaceman3750

Quote from: NCRblues on May 07, 2012, 06:37:11 AM
Maybe the NB/NEC needs some new blood, younger more energetic members who still have the passion for all things CAP...

That's great, but most young folks south of 60 are working professionals who can't take 9 weeks off a year for CAP. There are, of course, exceptions but as a general rule the young folks are busy putting food on the table and going to piano recitals.

NIN

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on May 07, 2012, 07:01:29 AM
Quote from: NCRblues on May 07, 2012, 06:37:11 AM
Maybe the NB/NEC needs some new blood, younger more energetic members who still have the passion for all things CAP...

That's great, but most young folks south of 60 are working professionals who can't take 9 weeks off a year for CAP. There are, of course, exceptions but as a general rule the young folks are busy putting food on the table and going to piano recitals.

Sadly, you are correct
Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversationsâ„¢
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

CAP_truth

Why can we just have it recorded and placed on CAPChannel as a mpeg or avi for download orviewing when members have time. Real time is good for members who are not employed or during time when they can watch due to time zones. I for one like to observe what is going on with our organization and what decisions are being made by higher headquarters. Waiting for the posted minutes of the meeting takes 2 to 3 months after the meeting.
Cadet CoP
Wilson

Ned

Quote from: CAP_truth on May 07, 2012, 03:49:00 PM
Waiting for the posted minutes of the meeting takes 2 to 3 months after the meeting.

True enough, which is why we have made a change to address the issue of timely notification of our members and stakeholders about what actually occured during the meeting.

Rather than waiting for draft or approved minutes, we are placing an "Executive Summary" of the meeting on line shortly after the meeting.  Of course, the official minutes are also posted (and maintained as corporate records), but as you point out, the official approval process does take time.

Here's the Executive Summary prepared for the Winter Board meetings.  The NEC Executive Summary should be posted this week.

Once again, I am proud of the efforts made by the staff and volunteer leadership to get the information out in a timely and effective manner.

manfredvonrichthofen

So does that meat here are no uniform changes?
If not... SWEET!!!

a2capt

The "auto correction fixes" are getting down right amusing. Almost as if it's being done on purpose.

fyrfitrmedic

Quote from: a2capt on May 07, 2012, 08:53:10 PM
The "auto correction fixes" are getting down right amusing. Almost as if it's being done on purpose.

I'm convinced that the authors of the autocorrect algorithms are epic trolls.
MAJ Tony Rowley CAP
Lansdowne PA USA
"The passion of rescue reveals the highest dynamic of the human soul." -- Kurt Hahn

EMT-83

There was the time I sent a message to my boss about the "thing" she wanted me to look at. I don't know what I typed, but it auto-corrected to the "thong" she wanted me to look at.

Ned

As promised, here is the Executive Summary for the NEC Meeting as posted on the NHQ website.

They are still working on the videos, but they should be posted shortly.

Ned Lee
Member at Large, BoG

arajca

Important note:

The TTT is dead! If I read the Executive Summary correctly. Item 16A. Page 2. Middle. (Ned, please advise if I am correct)

The Prop and Triangle - without the lettering band - was approved.

Other comments to follow...

NCRblues

Quote from: arajca on May 11, 2012, 05:16:48 PM
Important note:

The TTT is dead! If I read the Executive Summary correctly. Item 16A. Page 2. Middle. (Ned, please advise if I am correct)

The Prop and Triangle - without the lettering band - was approved.

Other comments to follow...

Nope. It was adopted straight out. Triangle thing is alive and OFFICALY WELL.
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

arajca

Looking at the graphic in the Executive Summary, it is NOT the TTT. If they Executive summary is accurate, then the TTT, as railed against here in many signature images, has been around for a LONG time, not merely a few years. The graphic presented is at the heart of the CAP seal, MajComm patch and Emblem and does not have the light blue band with lettering.

The first graphic is what is in the summary. The second is the TTT.


RogueLeader

Quote from: NCRblues on May 11, 2012, 05:22:20 PM
Quote from: arajca on May 11, 2012, 05:16:48 PM
Important note:

The TTT is dead! If I read the Executive Summary correctly. Item 16A. Page 2. Middle. (Ned, please advise if I am correct)

The Prop and Triangle - without the lettering band - was approved.

Other comments to follow...

Nope. It was adopted straight out. Triangle thing is alive and OFFICALY WELL.

No lettering band, plus the triangle is blue, not silver with blue lettering.
WYWG DP

GRW 3340

FlyTiger77

Quote from: RogueLeader on May 11, 2012, 06:04:31 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on May 11, 2012, 05:22:20 PM
Quote from: arajca on May 11, 2012, 05:16:48 PM
Important note:

The TTT is dead! If I read the Executive Summary correctly. Item 16A. Page 2. Middle. (Ned, please advise if I am correct)

The Prop and Triangle - without the lettering band - was approved.

Other comments to follow...

Nope. It was adopted straight out. Triangle thing is alive and OFFICALY WELL.

No lettering band, plus the triangle is blue, not silver with blue lettering.

I wonder if the NEC realized that by that action they would kill a sizable percentage of the discussion here on CAP Talk? The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again!

JACK E. MULLINAX II, Lt Col, CAP

RogueLeader

No, we still have uniforms to discuss.
WYWG DP

GRW 3340

jks19714

Next up, paisley berets!  >:D
Diamond Flight 88
W3JKS/AAT3BF/AAM3EDE/AAA9SL
Assistant Wing Communications Engineer

RogueLeader

Quote from: jks19714 on May 11, 2012, 06:49:43 PM
Next up, paisley berets!  >:D

They would have to be sold exclusively by vanguard as they would be cap distinctive.
WYWG DP

GRW 3340

Larry Mangum

Well, we may have to see what happens to the permanent CAP facilities at NESA, now that the funds paying for the upgrades has been stripped and given to the regions.
Larry Mangum, Lt Col CAP
DCS, Operations
SWR-SWR-001

FlyTiger77

Quote from: jks19714 on May 11, 2012, 06:49:43 PM
Next up, paisley berets!  >:D

Rasberry berets and then Prince can perform at the National Conference.
JACK E. MULLINAX II, Lt Col, CAP

James Shaw

Quote from: FlyTiger77 on May 11, 2012, 07:03:09 PM
Quote from: jks19714 on May 11, 2012, 06:49:43 PM
Next up, paisley berets!  >:D

Rasberry berets and then Prince can perform at the National Conference.

The kind you buy in a second hand store?????
Jim Shaw
USN: 1987-1992
GANG: 1996-1998
CAP:2000 - Current
USCGA:2018 - Current
SGAUS: 2017 - Current

FlyTiger77

#74
Quote from: caphistorian on May 11, 2012, 07:29:11 PM
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on May 11, 2012, 07:03:09 PM
Quote from: jks19714 on May 11, 2012, 06:49:43 PM
Next up, paisley berets!  >:D

Rasberry berets and then Prince can perform at the National Conference.

The kind you buy in a second hand store?????

Exactly. And the 30 and under set have absolutely no idea what we are talking about. Of course, I am not sure I know what a Justin Beiber is, so I guess it evens out.

On a totally different subject, thanks, Ned, for posting the ExSum.
JACK E. MULLINAX II, Lt Col, CAP

Spaceman3750

Quote from: Larry Mangum on May 11, 2012, 06:54:08 PM
Well, we may have to see what happens to the permanent CAP facilities at NESA, now that the funds paying for the upgrades has been stripped and given to the regions.

Yeah, that's pretty worrisome.

lordmonar

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on May 11, 2012, 07:33:06 PM
Quote from: Larry Mangum on May 11, 2012, 06:54:08 PM
Well, we may have to see what happens to the permanent CAP facilities at NESA, now that the funds paying for the upgrades has been stripped and given to the regions.

Yeah, that's pretty worrisome.
Is $10K going to put that big of a crimp in the facilities.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Larry Mangum

It is not $10K but rather $10K times 8 regions ($80K).
Larry Mangum, Lt Col CAP
DCS, Operations
SWR-SWR-001

FW

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on May 11, 2012, 07:33:06 PM
Quote from: Larry Mangum on May 11, 2012, 06:54:08 PM
Well, we may have to see what happens to the permanent CAP facilities at NESA, now that the funds paying for the upgrades has been stripped and given to the regions.

Yeah, that's pretty worrisome.

I wouldn't worry about it.  Governance change is comming soon.  The "new" powers that be may change things by next year...

Ned

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on May 11, 2012, 07:33:06 PM
Quote from: Larry Mangum on May 11, 2012, 06:54:08 PM
Well, we may have to see what happens to the permanent CAP facilities at NESA, now that the funds paying for the upgrades has been stripped and given to the regions.

Yeah, that's pretty worrisome.

Actually, the requested funds for the regional training facility were indeed allocated and the $80,000 in payments to the regions was restricted to CP and represents monies above and beyond the needs of the regional training facilities.

Another way to look at it was that VG funding stream is larger than was originally expected, and could not reasonably be spent just on the regional training facilities.

Once again, this is the volunteer leadership doing the responsible thing and attempting to honor the original intent of the funding "fence" - supporting not only the regional training facilities, but also allocating significant "new" funding for CP.  And to their credit, it was passed down the chain and not simply spent at the NHQ level.

Win-win.

lordmonar

Quote from: Ned on May 11, 2012, 08:45:12 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on May 11, 2012, 07:33:06 PM
Quote from: Larry Mangum on May 11, 2012, 06:54:08 PM
Well, we may have to see what happens to the permanent CAP facilities at NESA, now that the funds paying for the upgrades has been stripped and given to the regions.

Yeah, that's pretty worrisome.

Actually, the requested funds for the regional training facility were indeed allocated and the $80,000 in payments to the regions was restricted to CP and represents monies above and beyond the needs of the regional training facilities.

Another way to look at it was that VG funding stream is larger than was originally expected, and could not reasonably be spent just on the regional training facilities.

Once again, this is the volunteer leadership doing the responsible thing and attempting to honor the original intent of the funding "fence" - supporting not only the regional training facilities, but also allocating significant "new" funding for CP.  And to their credit, it was passed down the chain and not simply spent at the NHQ level.

Win-win.
Oh come on Ned!  You expect us to beleive that those guys up at national actually think about the issues before the just go ahead and do things!   :D
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Spaceman3750

Quote from: Ned on May 11, 2012, 08:45:12 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on May 11, 2012, 07:33:06 PM
Quote from: Larry Mangum on May 11, 2012, 06:54:08 PM
Well, we may have to see what happens to the permanent CAP facilities at NESA, now that the funds paying for the upgrades has been stripped and given to the regions.

Yeah, that's pretty worrisome.

Actually, the requested funds for the regional training facility were indeed allocated and the $80,000 in payments to the regions was restricted to CP and represents monies above and beyond the needs of the regional training facilities.

Another way to look at it was that VG funding stream is larger than was originally expected, and could not reasonably be spent just on the regional training facilities.

Once again, this is the volunteer leadership doing the responsible thing and attempting to honor the original intent of the funding "fence" - supporting not only the regional training facilities, but also allocating significant "new" funding for CP.  And to their credit, it was passed down the chain and not simply spent at the NHQ level.

Win-win.

In that case: nevermind.

Thanks Ned, I appreciate all you do :).

Fubar

I was surprised to see NBB get their own expenditure, outside of the region $80K outlay. I suspect that means they are out of the running when the region starts handing out funds.

I am glad to see the money is going to be used for its intended purpose and not travel expenses.

PA Guy

#83
Quote from: Fubar on May 11, 2012, 09:48:58 PM
I was surprised to see NBB get their own expenditure, outside of the region $80K outlay. I suspect that means they are out of the running when the region starts handing out funds.

I am glad to see the money is going to be used for its intended purpose and not travel expenses.

NBB will get their requested funds for training site improvment.

Each Region will be given 10K to use only for cadet programs, I see this money going for for cadet activity scholarships, cadet travel etc.  If NCR wanted to give NBB some of that money they would have to show it was solely for cadet benefit.  NCR is a big Region and 10K will not go far.

The CyBorg is destroyed

Quote from: PA Guy on May 11, 2012, 11:06:01 PM
NCR is a big Region and 10K will not go far.

It is indeed very large geographically, but how many CAP units are there?
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

a2capt

..and CAWG has more within some of it's Groups than whole Wings.  Heck, a couple squadrons probably could along be larger than some other whole wings, from CA, NY, FL, TX or PR, which seem to have some decent sized units. Right now we're sitting at 63 cadets with about a 95% attendance rate.

NCRblues

Quote from: PA Guy on May 11, 2012, 11:06:01 PM
Quote from: Fubar on May 11, 2012, 09:48:58 PM
I was surprised to see NBB get their own expenditure, outside of the region $80K outlay. I suspect that means they are out of the running when the region starts handing out funds.

I am glad to see the money is going to be used for its intended purpose and not travel expenses.

NBB will get their requested funds for training site improvment.

Each Region will be given 10K to use only for cadet programs, I see this money going for for cadet activity scholarships, cadet travel etc.  If NCR wanted to give NBB some of theat money they would have to show it was solely for cadet benefit.  NCR is a big Region and 10K will not go far.

Considering NBB compound is in GLR and not NCR....

the Oshkosh facility has needed massive repair and upgrades for some years now that the normal funds have not been able to touch. A new septic tank (the one from the 1970's is leaking) new A/C (when the cooks are making food the AC shuts down not sure why) so forth and so on. Massive flooding issues, along with building painting and repair. The Oshkosh facility is used WAY more than just for NBB.
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

PA Guy

NCR vs. GLR my bad.

PA Guy

#88
[quote author=NCRblues link=topic=15306.msg276903#msg276903 date=1336779169

the Oshkosh facility has needed massive repair and upgrades for some years now that the normal funds have not been able to touch. A new septic tank (the one from the 1970's is leaking) new A/C (when the cooks are making food the AC shuts down not sure why) so forth and so on. Massive flooding issues, along with building painting and repair. The Oshkosh facility is used WAY more than just for NBB.
[/quote]

So, are you suggesting that the 10K allocated to each region would be better spent at Oshkosh or that GLR should kick in some of its 10K to Oshkosh? Is there a charge for CAP units to use the Oshkosh facility outside of NBB?  How often is the facility used throughout the yr?  Oshkosh has been allocated $10,650 in the budget that was recently approved.

PA Guy

Quote from: CyBorg on May 11, 2012, 11:26:32 PM
Quote from: PA Guy on May 11, 2012, 11:06:01 PM
NCR is a big Region and 10K will not go far.

It is indeed very large geographically, but how many CAP units are there?

It consists of seven wings so that comes to a little over $1400/WG unless the Region keeps the money and doles it out on application.

FW

Quote from: PA Guy on May 11, 2012, 11:06:01 PM

Each Region will be given 10K to use only for cadet programs, I see this money going for for cadet activity scholarships, cadet travel etc. 

This is a good thing.  However, I'm not surprised the region commanders wanted to control a share of the money.  From what I've heard, they are continuing to ask for more control of "assets".  NHQ has a dedicated staff to allocate our money to CP.  $10k would go much further in NCR with about 1500 cadets than in SER with about 5000 cadets.... What's next?  Giving region/ccs all our dues money so they can give wings an allowance?...  Maybe it's me but, this doesn't seem right.

MSG Mac

Quote from: FW on May 12, 2012, 01:11:36 AM
Quote from: PA Guy on May 11, 2012, 11:06:01 PM

Each Region will be given 10K to use only for cadet programs, I see this money going for for cadet activity scholarships, cadet travel etc. 

This is a good thing.  However, I'm not surprised the region commanders wanted to control a share of the money.  From what I've heard, they are continuing to ask for more control of "assets".  NHQ has a dedicated staff to allocate our money to CP.  $10k would go much further in NCR with about 1500 cadets than in SER with about 5000 cadets.... What's next?  Giving region/ccs all our dues money so they can give wings an allowance?...  Maybe it's me but, this doesn't seem right.

The alternative is to allocate based on the number of cadets in the Region, rather than a flat 10K to each Region.
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
50 Year Member

NCRblues

Quote from: PA Guy on May 11, 2012, 11:47:10 PM
So, are you suggesting that the 10K allocated to each region would be better spent at Oshkosh or that GLR should kick in some of its 10K to Oshkosh? Is there a charge for CAP units to use the Oshkosh facility outside of NBB?  How often is the facility used throughout the yr?  Oshkosh has been allocated $10,650 in the budget that was recently approved.

I am not suggesting either of your questions. I am actually very VERY happy that the Oshkosh facility got the 10,650 USD. That should take care of most of its major problems.

The facility is used (to my knowledge...there could be more) for 2 NCSA's, by a local squadron every Tuesday, by WI wing for a large portion of their overnight activities and lots of other local and "regional" activities.
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC

FW

Quote from: MSG Mac on May 12, 2012, 02:15:29 AM
Quote from: FW on May 12, 2012, 01:11:36 AM
Quote from: PA Guy on May 11, 2012, 11:06:01 PM

Each Region will be given 10K to use only for cadet programs, I see this money going for for cadet activity scholarships, cadet travel etc. 

This is a good thing.  However, I'm not surprised the region commanders wanted to control a share of the money.  From what I've heard, they are continuing to ask for more control of "assets".  NHQ has a dedicated staff to allocate our money to CP.  $10k would go much further in NCR with about 1500 cadets than in SER with about 5000 cadets.... What's next?  Giving region/ccs all our dues money so they can give wings an allowance?...  Maybe it's me but, this doesn't seem right.

The alternative is to allocate based on the number of cadets in the Region, rather than a flat 10K to each Region.

That would have been better however, there would have been no need for the region commanders to control the money.  It will be interesting where the bulk of that 10 grand goes.  To the commander's home wing?? I'm just putting out the idea that NHQ would have been a better administrator.  The paid staff has no part in where it would be distributed.  Region Commander's have a political side that may favour one constituancy over another.  Are there safeguards?

FlyTiger77

Quote from: FW on May 12, 2012, 09:53:10 AM
...Are there safeguards?

Besides the Region Commander's integrity?
JACK E. MULLINAX II, Lt Col, CAP

Ned

Although it took longer than expected, here are the videos for the safety, operations, and support staff reports to the NEC.

Thank you for your patience.  I hope you are as impressed as I am with the work being done for and by CAP.  Our volunteers are the very essence of the organization.

Ned Lee

JeffDG