CAP Talk

Several major changes in the governance of CAP (developed by the "Governance Committee") were finally proposed to the Board yesterday afternoon.

In a dramatic (some would say historic) session, the National Board voted not to adopt the Governance Committee's report.  :clap:

Amy Bradford was right. I'll say no more.

Quote from: Kipper on March 06, 2011, 09:38:54 PM
Amy Bradford was right. I'll say no more.

Who is Amy Bradford?

Quote from: NIN on March 06, 2011, 10:12:02 PM

Quote from: Kipper on March 06, 2011, 09:38:54 PM
Amy Bradford was right. I'll say no more.

Who is Amy Bradford?

I will second this....who is Amy Bradford?

Amy Bradford is a very gutsy gal (a former cadet and current cadet mom, I'm told) who wrote an open letter to the NB in January on current command issues. The letter has gotten around since then, and one of the other CAP blogs has picked it up.  It's still on the page of that blog if you scroll down far enough.

How's that for a cautious reply?  ::)

It was historic.....but I won't tell you about it?!?! :(  Not cool dude.

Oh, I'll tell you all right. Someone tried to "pull a Pineda." And the NB said no.

I'm treading cautiously here to avoid the thread getting pulled for excessive controversy.

Quote from: Kipper on March 06, 2011, 10:36:53 PM

Oh, I'll tell you all right. Someone tried to "pull a Pineda." And the NB said no.

I'm treading cautiously here to avoid the thread getting pulled for excessive controversy.

Oh, you're way past that point.  Just the thread title was enough to get some people going.

So be it.

There are two other widely-read CAP blogs. Call them "for" and "against"

The ever-faithful "for" blog has no coverage of the closed Saturday session. The "against" blog has plenty to say about it.

Even after one boils away all the usual invective of the "against" blog, there's a lot of truth there.

It is common knowledge that Pineda tried to orchestrate a permanent takeover in early 2007. What we have here is another failed attempt to amend the C&B to allow expanded powers and indefinite term. The Board saw right though the smoke screen. Hopefully, this nonsense wiull end now, and elections will take place at the Aummer Boards.

It's no secret what the committee report was about.  The NB rejected it's recommendations however, the report/reccommendations are going to the BoG for consideration at it's June meeting.
Some interesting items:

The Executive Director will report to the National Commander; not the BoG.
The Commander will be selected by 2/3 majority of the BoG
Vice commander will be appointed by commander with confirmation of the BoG
The Vice Commander will not serve on the BoG.  A third "at large" member will be elected by the NEC.
Commander will serve a 3 year renewable term (as many terms as the BoG allows).
Commander will be "compensated"
The Commander will have sole authority to change the regulations, constitution and bylaws of CAP.
The National Legal Officer will be the principal attorney to the corporation and, the General Legal Counsel to CAP will report to the NLO.
NB will have no governance role what so ever.
The current commander will be "allowed" to step into the new role.

I think that about covers it.

Let's just say that Pineda would have been proud to present these recommendations to the BoG.
I am proud the NB acted, in what they feel, is in the best interests of CAP.  Good work!

Wow, asking to have sole authority to change the CAP Constitution?  Yeah, I don't see that one ever happening. 

Okay, good, it's out there now. I'm not the old CAPTalk hand that Fred is, hence my cautious pussyfootin' around.

I have some questions of my own now.

1. How could the BoG even consider this power play seriously after the Board has rejected it?

2. Wouldn't such a "coronation" require blessing from Big USAF? And Congress as well?

3. I'd also be curious to hear what the vote margin was.  ;)

The BoG can do what it wishes regarding the delegation of it's powers.  However, I was informed there would be a conflict with our "Statement of Work" and "Cooperative Agreement" with the OMB and the Air Force.  It would take a change of public law to change the makeup of the BoG. 

What bothers me is that the BoG has already authorized a 3rd party study of our governance.  I think it prudent we wait for a totally independent report that gathers data from all the stakeholders of CAP.  Even though I have some ideas on why this is happening, I don't think it is right to bring it up in a public forum. 

Since a change in the law would be needed and, the possibility our annual grant may be at issue, it may be wise to contact your Representatives in congress to voice your opinions.  Maybe Sen. Harkin would be interested in these events?  He is an active member.....

Gee, doesn't anyone remember 1999?

No matter what the vote margin was; it did send a message the BoG will listen too. 

Excellent idea! The CAPTalk viewership should know just what is afoot here, and (if they oppose this coup d'CAP as we do) they should contact their local Congressional representatives!

If I may, I believe that something of this gravity would certainly merit its own thread.

Quote from: FW on March 06, 2011, 11:57:20 PM
The BoG can do what it wishes regarding the delegation of it's powers.  However, I was informed there would be a conflict with our "Statement of Work" and "Cooperative Agreement" with the OMB and the Air Force.  It would take a change of public law to change the makeup of the BoG. 

What bothers me is that the BoG has already authorized a 3rd party study of our governance.  I think it prudent we wait for a totally independent report that gathers data from all the stakeholders of CAP.  Even though I have some ideas on why this is happening, I don't think it is right to bring it up in a public forum. 

Since a change in the law would be needed and, the possibility our annual grant may be at issue, it may be wise to contact your Representatives in congress to voice your opinions.  Maybe Sen. Harkin would be interested in these events?  He is an active member.....

Gee, doesn't anyone remember 1999?

No matter what the vote margin was; it did send a message the BoG will listen too.

Quote from: FW on March 06, 2011, 11:57:20 PM
<snip>
What bothers me is that the BoG has already authorized a 3rd party study of our governance.  I think it prudent we wait for a totally independent report that gathers data from all the stakeholders of CAP.  Even though I have some ideas on why this is happening, I don't think it is right to bring it up in a public forum. 
<snip>

Wait, I guess I was assuming (yeah, I know...) that this WAS the output of that external governance review that Ned mentioned. Now I see that that hasn't even fully started, but is in the startup and bid process.

WHY would we propose to undertake such a massive shift in our governance structure right BEFORE we get an unbiased, hopefully expert, outside review completed?

Am I missing something here???


Thom

Quote from: Thom on March 07, 2011, 12:21:31 AM

Quote from: FW on March 06, 2011, 11:57:20 PM
<snip>
What bothers me is that the BoG has already authorized a 3rd party study of our governance.  I think it prudent we wait for a totally independent report that gathers data from all the stakeholders of CAP.  Even though I have some ideas on why this is happening, I don't think it is right to bring it up in a public forum. 
<snip>

Wait, I guess I was assuming (yeah, I know...) that this WAS the output of that external governance review that Ned mentioned. Now I see that that hasn't even fully started, but is in the startup and bid process.

WHY would we propose to undertake such a massive shift in our governance structure right BEFORE we get an unbiased, hopefully expert, outside review completed?

Am I missing something here???


Thom

an act of desperation by people who know what is coming?

You're not missing anything - but She Who Should Be Blamed is running short on time.  So, she reasoned, let's package this power play in pretty code talk and legalese, and run this by an obedient, and gullible Board.  Except there wasn't such a Board, was there?   :clap:

Quote from: RiverAux on March 06, 2011, 11:13:47 PM
Wow, asking to have sole authority to change the CAP Constitution?  Yeah, I don't see that one ever happening.

Seriously...to misuse a common refrain, that's takes some serious stones to ask for.

Quote from: FW on March 06, 2011, 11:57:20 PMIt would take a change of public law to change the makeup of the BoG. 

I don't think so...IIRC, it says CAP gets 4 members on the BoG, but doesn't specify who or how they're selected.  To remove the CV from the BoG and add another At-Large member would not take a Congressional changes.  To add a 5th CAP member would, however, require that.

It is shocking to see that this was even considered/proposed. It appears to eliminate all checks and balances in the governing process and gives the Natl Commander total control of the organization. Perhaps the BOG would have some authority but who owns the BOG? Under this proposal, would the Natl Board be disbanned? Also, I am curious where the money to compensate the Natl CC would from?

The problem with secret meetings is that it leaves room for speculation only. IMO, the days of "trust me I am working on your behalf" have been gone for from CAP a number of years.

Since the Wing Commanders signed nondisclosure agreements, even they cannot tell their members. I applaud them for making the right choice on this one and hope the BOG will do the same.

Quote from: JeffDG on March 07, 2011, 01:45:18 AM

Quote from: FW on March 06, 2011, 11:57:20 PMIt would take a change of public law to change the makeup of the BoG. 

I don't think so...IIRC, it says CAP gets 4 members on the BoG, but doesn't specify who or how they're selected.  To remove the CV from the BoG and add another At-Large member would not take a Congressional changes.  To add a 5th CAP member would, however, require that.

Thanks for the correction Jeff, you are correct here.  The BoG can change the composition of the 4 CAP Representatives to the BoG with a simple bylaws change.  The Bog can not change OMB rules nor the Statement of Work/Cooperative Agreement without changes to public law or agreement with the Air Force.  From what I know about these things, it would be extremely difficult to make such changes; as they would effect any entity which gets such funds from the government.  But, then, again.... :o

I don't think it is a coincidence that the NDA's were voted on and signed right before they went into the closed session where the "governance committee" presented there ideas.

In fact, i believe this proposal is almost word for word from what pineda proposed back in 07.....

Power corrupts. Plain and simple.

I would like to know who was on this "governance committee" so i can have some names to place in my letter to my congressmen.

Not that I don't value and trust FW's acumen and understanding, but do we have any of these specific proposals verified by other parties who have seen/heard the actual proposal?

Is it possible there are some 'misunderstandings' or 'misinterpretations' at work here? I have to hope that the version of the proposal we are seeing in this thread is NOT the one that was actually presented.

Because, if this really is what was proposed...   :(



Thom

Quote from: Thom on March 07, 2011, 02:09:22 AM
Not that I don't value and trust FW's acumen and understanding, but do we have any of these specific proposals verified by other parties who have seen/heard the actual proposal?

Is it possible there are some 'misunderstandings' or 'misinterpretations' at work here? I have to hope that the version of the proposal we are seeing in this thread is NOT the one that was actually presented.

Because, if this really is what was proposed...   :(



Thom

Its real, my wing cos confirmed it at our meeting with the states TAG. The TAG called us to the capitol building and wanted to know what was going on. I had very little to say.

(because I'm sure someone will ask, the state gives our wing a massive building and Wing HQ, with beds to sleep hundreds at no cost.  They also give us funds for training for state missions and disaster relief efforts, so the TAG has a vested interest in CAP)

The Actual report is confidential (imagine that).  However, that the NB rejected the recommendations of the report is not. 

That the report will go to the BoG with the recommendations unaltered is problematic; we'll just have to wait and see.  Go to the June BoG meeting if you wish to find out for sure; it's not a closed meeting (for the most part).

I would love for this to be wrong however, as Ned says, stay tuned.....

Was your COS in the executive session or have an original document?  Or is their information second hand from the WG/CC?

Quote from: PA Guy on March 07, 2011, 02:26:49 AM
Was your COS in the executive session or have an original document?  Or is their information second hand from the WG/CC?

I am truly not sure, but since the TAG is a Major General, that feeds us loads of cash, and keeps the COS in a position of power, i don't think he would flat out lie to him.

Quote from: Kipper on March 06, 2011, 10:32:02 PM
Amy Bradford is a very gutsy gal (a former cadet and current cadet mom, I'm told) who wrote an open letter to the NB in January on current command issues. The letter has gotten around since then, and one of the other CAP blogs has picked it up.  It's still on the page of that blog if you scroll down far enough.

How's that for a cautious reply?  ::)

I will again, ask: "Who is Amy Bradford?"

I haven't seen this letter.

But being a cadet's parent, and a former cadet, hardly conveys "expert authority" on the subject of corporate governance.

Quote from: Kipper on March 07, 2011, 12:46:38 AM
You're not missing anything - but She Who Should Be Blamed is running short on time. So, she reasoned, let's package this power play in pretty code talk and legalese, and run this by an obedient, and gullible Board.  Except there wasn't such a Board, was there?   :clap:

And you know this.. how?

I guess what I'm saying is "You're a guy with a dozen posts on this forum, the majority of which are in this particular thread.  Whats your stake in this? Where are you getting your information from? What makes you an authority on this subject?"

I'm too curious of Kipper's true identity and intentions, but Col. Weiss isn't a troll. I wouldn't shoot the messenger yet. Things like this spring leaks eventually.

Respectfully,

Quote from: NIN on March 07, 2011, 02:33:25 AM

Quote from: Kipper on March 06, 2011, 10:32:02 PM
Amy Bradford is a very gutsy gal (a former cadet and current cadet mom, I'm told) who wrote an open letter to the NB in January on current command issues. The letter has gotten around since then, and one of the other CAP blogs has picked it up.  It's still on the page of that blog if you scroll down far enough.

How's that for a cautious reply?  ::)

I will again, ask: "Who is Amy Bradford?"

I haven't seen this letter.

But being a cadet's parent, and a former cadet, hardly conveys "expert authority" on the subject of corporate governance.

This was an email sent out to the members of the National Board late last year.  I've seen numerous copies before it was published by "CAP Insights"

I will not comment on the letter however, I don't think this nor the OP's colorful commentary should be the focus of this thread. I have no intention of controlling the conversation though.... :angel:

I sort of doubt the BoG would go along with it, so I'm not too worried about it.

That being said, with the exception of the part about total control over the CAP constitution, the rest of it isn't entirely unreasonable.  It wouldn't be how I would choose to do things, but its not totally whacko either. 

For example, one of the issues we've complained about is how the NB elects the commander who they are ultimately beholden to for their position and how this is a bad conflict of interest.  Having the commander elected by the BoG would solve that problem. 

Besides the power to change the CAP constitution, I see the proposed changes as a huge step forward for Civil Air Patrol.  They bring the organization in line with real organizational structures seen in other major national organizations, shifts the CAP/CC seat from being a political game with elections and a closed pool of self-selecting nominations (the self-licking ice cream cone, if you will) to being an informed "hire" by a balanced and fairly impartial board of directors with very little personal stake in the matter.   


A board of directors hiring and firing a chief executive of a non-profit is pretty much the normal structure in every other non-profit in the U.S., from the American Red Cross to the Boy Scouts.  And in most non-profits, the chief executive is given enough power to run the organization without needing approval from the board on relatively minor actions (approving regulation changes, publication updates, uniform modifications, etc.).   You don't really think that the Board of Directors of the American Red Cross ever even has to think about uniforms for its volunteers, disaster workers, blood drive workers, etc.?   No.  I bet they never have, because that's administrivia.  And I'm sure they've made changes to their threads over time, too.   Their chief executives are empowered to deal with stuff like that.  But if their chief executive does something atrocious, his/her boss (the board) will call them on it.   So it's not an unlimited power by any means.


Frankly, the National Board fiefdom/election/voting structure is pretty messed up and also unique to CAP (as in, not exactly an industry best practice).  Very few, if any, organizations would structure themselves to allow regional managers to elect the national boss from amongst themselves, and then require their boss to come to back them for their vote of approval or disapproval on any changes to company policy. 


This policy is overdue and a welcome change by me.  I hope the BoG reviews the recommendations seriously, reviews the structure of similar non-profit organizations, and acts accordingly in the best interest of the future of the organization -- not the best interest of Wing and Region Commanders wishing to retain their ability to elect their boss from among themselves and make their boss beholden to them to get anything done.

However, the question would be how the members on the BoG that are representing CAP are selected by CAP.  If they are still going to be selected by the NEC, which in turn is selected by the National Commander then we really aren't making any progress in removing conflicts of interest. 

Quote from: RiverAux on March 07, 2011, 04:18:01 AM
However, the question would be how the members on the BoG that are representing CAP are selected by CAP.  If they are still going to be selected by the NEC, which in turn is selected by the National Commander then we really aren't making any progress in removing conflicts of interest.

Most major non-profit board of directors have a committee for doing this.  The board itself has a committee (usually consisting of board members, but sometimes of board members and other individuals with appropriate expertise) that reviews applicants or nominees.  The committee reviews merits of each applicant or nominee, makes a report to the whole board, and the board votes on bringing in future members.

Quote from: FARRIER on March 07, 2011, 03:22:33 AM
I'm too curious of Kipper's true identity and intentions, but Col. Weiss isn't a troll. I wouldn't shoot the messenger yet. Things like this spring leaks eventually.

Oh, no, Colonel Weiss is no troll (well, he might resemble one, I dunno. Never met the man!). 

Ok, maybe this will be on odd question but, uh, why do we need to be like other non-profits?

If we as the members did not allow corruption to grow, our system would work fine...but most members don't know what happens at the  group level let alone on the national scale of politics....

None of this is a step forword for cap. This is a power grab. Unacceptable IMHO.

Our system works, maybe not well, but it does.

Amy Courter or anyone who wins the election should serve one term and move on. Let new blood come in and new ideas flow. Asking to stay on permanent with a salary is INSAINE. If this was any other person on any other level in cap you all would call them crazy at asking for power and a paycheck.

Most of you said you did not support unlimited amount of time in the position of squadron commander, why would the national commander be any different?

Quote from: NCRblues on March 07, 2011, 04:45:32 AM
Ok, maybe this will be on odd question but, uh, why do we need to be like other non-profits?

Maybe that's because they have discovered better ways to do business?

@NCRBlues, true.  We don't really have to realize our full potential. 


Well, actually, we can't because CAP doesn't behave like a national non-profit or even for-profit, and it shows. 

We have no fundraising to speak of... we've never done a capital campaign, we don't do direct mail and online fundraising, awareness and fundraising special events like marathons and galas, nor do we encourage many of our tens of thousands of dedicated volunteers to consider planned giving.   The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, for example, raise millions every year through these very avenues.  As do thousands of flourishing non-profits.

We have no endowment -- pretty much unusual in any non-profit.  So we have no backup funding if our congressional funding gets reduced, and we have very little leeway in our operational funding to buy special items, fund one-time expenses, expand or improve certain things we'd like to do (special projects), etc.

We have very little national public awareness compared to other national organizations of similar size, scope, and age including the Boy Scouts or Venturing, American Red Cross, Big Brother/Big Sister, et cetera.

We have very few permanent facilities built for CAP over the years, uncovering an almost comical lack of long-range strategic planning and follow-through in the past few decades.  Even smaller fraternal organizations with less missions and less funding have permanent facilities in most cities: the Elks, Knights of Columbus, American Legions, et cetera.   Meanwhile, CAP units are on their own to beg, borrow, and make do with meeting in whatever they can scrounge up: church basements, school gyms, old dusty and rusty airport hangars, offices where they have no desk or storage space of their own, etc. 

We never keep in touch with our cadet alumni nor do we track them.  Just about any non-profit from private schools to Boy Scouts to universities keep in active touch with their "alumni" as they become successful in various careers from the military to the business world. The non-profits leverage those contacts for everything from political influence and corporate sales deals to fundraising and planned giving. We don't bother and never have.

We have a governing board with a massive size and high turnover, that has repeatedly reversed itself (and on occasion, reversed its reversals) and made dozens of decisions without researching the scope, impact, cost, pros/cons, and related information.  That's how we ended up with railroaded uniform creations that after being fully voted into existence, we realized "whoops... we forgot about females..." and then "Whoops... we forgot we had NCOs" and then "Whoops, we forgot we needed Air Force permission to use some of these items...", as just one example.

We have squadrons, encampments, NCSAs, etc. all over the country which waste tens of thousands (yes) of our precious dollars every year because they've never put out their purchases to bid.  Encampments which overspend on anything from printing to custom t-shirts because "Well, we've always used local vendor XYZ, or Capt Joe's friend owns a T-shirt shop so we just use him".  Meanwhile, a simple RFQ would find products of equal quality at better prices.   This is standard (and usually mandated) good practice in every non-profit I've worked at and interacted with, but CAP doesn't even suggest it to the organization let alone require it.

Our NHQ has amassed at least 8 different logos and 5 or 6 different taglines for the organization, our board has put 4 different patches on our flight suit (yeah, four!) in the last 8 years alone, we've changed our aircraft decals and even our organization's name several times back and forth --- but we can't find the time to provide basic marketing materials, or template websites, or software tools to our operating units the squadrons.  Heck, we haven't even been able to go digital with our paperwork and record keeping or give all of our members company email addresses yet.

So I dunno NCRBlues, maybe CAP is doing just fine with our current modus operandi and our current way of doing business.  Our fellow non-profit organizations that are far smaller and far younger who have raised tens of millions, build substantial endowments, are a known name in the public lexicon, and enjoy the certitude of perpetuity regardless of the future of federal and state funding are no better off than we, right?   We don't need to follow their examples.  They're probably not on to something at all....

I hope that everyone realizes that any governance suggestions made by the NB are just that - suggestions - to the BoG who has sole authority over the CAP Constitution and Bylaws.

All of this fuss and bother over suggestions that might have been made by the NB, but to judge by the posts here, were not made.

Let's recap. 

1.  People on CAPTalk have been complaining about CAP governance for years.  The consensus here has always been that it needs reforming, but there is no consensus on CT about what it should look like.

2.  The NB formed a committee to study governance over a year ago.  The BoG was briefed as far back as last June on some of the initial findings of that committee.

3.  Concurrently with any study done by the NB, the BoG is commissioning an outside governance study by experts in the field.

4.  No changes in the C & BL will be made by the BoG until they have heard from the NB, the outside experts, and the membership. 

5.  In any event, there following the election at the Summer Boards, CAP will have a new national commander.  (IOW, there is no possiblility of any governance changes before then.)

Ned Lee

Well, thank you for speaking to me like a 2 year old, very condescending, i like it...

So your telling me I should go along with the idea of letting Amy Courter (or any Nat/CC for that matter) stay on forever and pay them?

Most of those things you listed could have been changed under any of the past national commanders, or the current one, but where they? Nope...

What makes you think they would suddenly change with placing the Nat/CC on the payroll?

You really think it would be better to take away ANY say from the wing and region commanders and let ALL of CAP be run from one office in Alabama?

Where would the paychecks come from? Like you said we have no fundraising. If congress and the AF decided tomorrow they no longer needed us, do you really think CAP would survive on our own? No way in heck.

Do things need to change? By god yes they do. Is this the way to do it? No i don't think so, and apparently the majority of the NB did not think so either...

Quote from: NCRblues on March 07, 2011, 06:43:32 AM

So your telling me I should go along with the idea of (. . .)

You are free to agree or disagree with any suggestion (real or otherwise) that you see here on CT.  Have at it.

I am suggesting that all of the angst and outrage being expressing on this thread is wildly premature, at best.

There are no imminent changes to CAP governance.

None.

The BoG is not scheduled to meet until June.  There isn't even an agenda yet.

But if you want to tilt against windmills (in this case against governance suggestions that may or may not be made by the NB), knock yourself out.

A new national commander will be elected this summer.

In the meantime, the various governing bodies of CAP will continue to study governance and necessary changes will be made after that process is complete.

Ned Lee

Wow...three pages in one day. so much speculation on what the BoG may or may not do. Eevryone agrees that governence needs change. But the best course is wait till the BoG completes the outside consultents review and recommendation and let the BoG take the action required.

I hope this doesn't result in a slew of early departures from NB Members who voted against the proposal.

Quote from: NIN on March 07, 2011, 04:43:05 AM

Quote from: FARRIER on March 07, 2011, 03:22:33 AM
I'm too curious of Kipper's true identity and intentions, but Col. Weiss isn't a troll. I wouldn't shoot the messenger yet. Things like this spring leaks eventually.

Oh, no, Colonel Weiss is no troll (well, he might resemble one, I dunno. Never met the man!).

Darin, you don't remember our times together at the NHWG conferences?  Gee, I didn't realize I was so memorable... :D

Guys, I think "wild speculation" is good therapy.  We should enjoy our angst and embrace it.

At least CAPTalk gives us a vent.  It also gives us a sounding board which is obviously heard. 

I believe We are on a long road  to positive change.  I believe the National Board has signed on to making this change.  And, I believe Ned's statements nothing will happen until all stakeholders are counted in. 

Pylon has made some excellent points.  In our various threads relating to governance, some of the committee's recommendations are similar.  Some are not.  My thoughts, if any are interested, are on another thread. 

What bothers me, is this report is not agreed to by the NB and was sent forward to the BoG anyway.  Wasn't this committee set up by the NB?  Wasn't this committee supposed to report to the NB?  Wasn't the report controlled by the NB?   To me, this just isn't clicking correctly.  Something doesn't feel right.  Of course it could be food poisoning.... >:D

Quote from: FW on March 06, 2011, 11:05:10 PM
It's no secret what the committee report was about.  The NB rejected it's recommendations however, the report/reccommendations are going to the BoG for consideration at it's June meeting.
Some interesting items:

The Executive Director will report to the National Commander; not the BoG.
The Commander will be selected by 2/3 majority of the BoG
Vice commander will be appointed by commander with confirmation of the BoG
The Vice Commander will not serve on the BoG.  A third "at large" member will be elected by the NEC.
Commander will serve a 3 year renewable term (as many terms as the BoG allows).
Commander will be "compensated"
The Commander will have sole authority to change the regulations, constitution and bylaws of CAP.
The National Legal Officer will be the principal attorney to the corporation and, the General Legal Counsel to CAP will report to the NLO.
NB will have no governance role what so ever.
The current commander will be "allowed" to step into the new role.

I think that about covers it.

Let's just say that Pineda would have been proud to present these recommendations to the BoG.
I am proud the NB acted, in what they feel, is in the best interests of CAP.  Good work!

Of these suggestions the only one I have a problem with is the National CC having the sole authority to change the Constitution and bylaws.

Other then that....what is the problem?

The BoG "hires" the National CC on a 3 year contract who then selects his/her team to run the organisation.  This is exactly like any other large corporation.
The NB should not have a say in governance except in an advisory capacity.   You don't see the Chief of Staff of the Air Force asking his MAJCOM commander permission to change a regulation or policy.  He may ask for advice or get feed back from the field....but he DIRECTS someone to write the regs and sets the policy for everyone under him.

He gets his marching orders from the SECAF/SECDEF and the President.

So the model is out there.

The model will eliminate a lot of the politics we currently see.  The body we call the NB can change its focus from arguing about regulation changes, uniform items, and political infighting to actually talking about how we do our missions and making CAP better.

Going to a "more Representative government" i.e. wings electing their own wing CC's and they in turn electing region and national commanders will only make the political infighting worse IMHO.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 07, 2011, 03:36:34 PM

Quote from: FW on March 06, 2011, 11:05:10 PM
It's no secret what the committee report was about.  The NB rejected it's recommendations however, the report/reccommendations are going to the BoG for consideration at it's June meeting.
Some interesting items:

The Executive Director will report to the National Commander; not the BoG.
The Commander will be selected by 2/3 majority of the BoG
Vice commander will be appointed by commander with confirmation of the BoG
The Vice Commander will not serve on the BoG.  A third "at large" member will be elected by the NEC.
Commander will serve a 3 year renewable term (as many terms as the BoG allows).
Commander will be "compensated"
The Commander will have sole authority to change the regulations, constitution and bylaws of CAP.
The National Legal Officer will be the principal attorney to the corporation and, the General Legal Counsel to CAP will report to the NLO.
NB will have no governance role what so ever.
The current commander will be "allowed" to step into the new role.

I think that about covers it.

Let's just say that Pineda would have been proud to present these recommendations to the BoG.
I am proud the NB acted, in what they feel, is in the best interests of CAP.  Good work!

Of these suggestions the only one I have a problem with is the National CC having the sole authority to change the Constitution and bylaws.

Other then that....what is the problem?

The BoG "hires" the National CC on a 3 year contract who then selects his/her team to run the organisation.  This is exactly like any other large corporation.
The NB should not have a say in governance except in an advisory capacity.   You don't see the Chief of Staff of the Air Force asking his MAJCOM commander permission to change a regulation or policy.  He may ask for advice or get feed back from the field....but he DIRECTS someone to write the regs and sets the policy for everyone under him.

He gets his marching orders from the SECAF/SECDEF and the President.

So the model is out there.

The model will eliminate a lot of the politics we currently see.  The body we call the NB can change its focus from arguing about regulation changes, uniform items, and political infighting to actually talking about how we do our missions and making CAP better.

Going to a "more Representative government" i.e. wings electing their own wing CC's and they in turn electing region and national commanders will only make the political infighting worse IMHO.

I agree completely with what you said here, especially taking the NB out of the governance cycle, which I imagine, not surprisingly, is why the NB voted it down. The only other part I would be unsure about is the General Counsel reporting to the NLO, simply because I'm not sure what the ramifications of that might be.

I am much relieved to read Ned's comments regarding just how quickly this proposal, or any other governance changes, will be considered and acted upon.

Here are my concerns:

1. Having the National Commander have the sole power to alter the Constitution and Bylaws is untenable. In any case, it seems this would require the BoG to delegate this power, and is unlikely to happen, so I'll rest a little easier.

2. No one, no matter how good at their job, should be allowed to continue in the CC post indefinitely. The organization needs, and deserves, fresh ideas and leadership. Personally I would think that 6 years is long enough for anyone. I'm not even sure why you would want the job any longer than that. As to being paid, as long as the net effect (due to their stewardship of the Corporation's resources and increased donations from new outreach programs) is cost-neutral, that would be fine.

3. I'm not too sure about the idea of having one person, no matter how well-intentioned, control all the Regulations of CAP. Just recently we have seen proposals to require medical screenings of our members, and some other intrusive ideas which would drive away members. With a single 'all-powerful' National Commander, we might wake up one day to find that, for instance, only Instrument Rated pilots can fly G1000 aircraft. Yes, it is silly, but it could happen. Or, if you want to work with Cadets, you must give the NLO access to all of your online accounts so CAP can verify that you are not a threat to children. Again, silly, but with no checks and balances, other than the BoG removing the CC, those are the kinds of things that could happen. Forget about the current National CC, think about the next person. Or, to think back, what would Pineda have done with that power? I'm not sure the current system is all that much better, with the NB gridlock, but there must be some middle ground between the two extremes.

OK, that's my two cents.


Thom

Quote from: lordmonar on March 07, 2011, 03:36:34 PM

Quote from: FW on March 06, 2011, 11:05:10 PM
It's no secret what the committee report was about.  The NB rejected it's recommendations however, the report/reccommendations are going to the BoG for consideration at it's June meeting.
Some interesting items:

The Executive Director will report to the National Commander; not the BoG.
The Commander will be selected by 2/3 majority of the BoG
Vice commander will be appointed by commander with confirmation of the BoG
The Vice Commander will not serve on the BoG.  A third "at large" member will be elected by the NEC.
Commander will serve a 3 year renewable term (as many terms as the BoG allows).
Commander will be "compensated"
The Commander will have sole authority to change the regulations, constitution and bylaws of CAP.
The National Legal Officer will be the principal attorney to the corporation and, the General Legal Counsel to CAP will report to the NLO.
NB will have no governance role what so ever.
The current commander will be "allowed" to step into the new role.

I think that about covers it.

Let's just say that Pineda would have been proud to present these recommendations to the BoG.
I am proud the NB acted, in what they feel, is in the best interests of CAP.  Good work!

Of these suggestions the only one I have a problem with is the National CC having the sole authority to change the Constitution and bylaws.

Other then that....what is the problem?

Here are my concerns/comments:

1) The 2/3 majority required to appoint the National CC might be a problem, as that is dangerously close to making the entire SECAF contingent irrelevant. The current makeup of the BoG is four SECAF appointees, four CAP members, and three others from interested organizations. If the BoG were to add another CAP or non-affiliated member, a 2/3 majority could be achieved with no consent from the Air Force. If that were to happen, I suspect that the fall out would be far worse than a slap on the wrist and the imposition of berry boards on the membership.

2) We need to know more about what the National CC's compensation will be and where it will come from before agreeing to it.

3) IMHO, no sitting National CC should be given a free pass to the new CC slot. If they are qualified, they deserve consideration, but I'd hope that a change such as this would be accompanied by an evaluation of any and all interested and qualified candidates.

I'm uncomfortable with a couple of points:

First, I believe in a need for a paid staff, with an Executive Director to Manage and lead it.
Second, I believe in a sound leadership structure for the volunteer membership with a say in how "our" CAP is run. 
Third, I believe in sound and effective governance of all by an effective Board of Governors.

How we put this together is what it's all about. To me, a National Commander that effectively controls the paid staff, NEC (which would select 3 at large BoG members), a say in the selection of 3 BoG members and, the wing commanders is, IMHO, to much central authority.  Especially, with the added bonus of changing the rules at will. In fact the Air Force study of 2006 expressly frowned upon the current authority of the National Commander as excessive.  The proposals brought forth would be totally unacceptable.

We have been groping around for the last 17 years figuring out a way to better conduct business. Let's hope we come up with a model which really works.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 07, 2011, 03:36:34 PM
Going to a "more Representative government" i.e. wings electing their own wing CC's and they in turn electing region and national commanders will only make the political infighting worse IMHO.

Yep.

Worst.

Idea.

Ever.

Generally elections are suggested by disgruntled people who disagree with those appointed in leadership positions, with the assumption that they know better, and that they have enough votes to get elected (or support someone who does).  It has nothing to do with proper governance, and everything to do with the 10-year-old mentality of occasionally being told what to do and being expected to do it.

About 1/2 the organization is in the adolescent age-range, and few of them have much clue about how CAP actually "works" - do they get a vote?  If so, for most it would come down to whether they actually heard of "x", or whether "y" had the Cadet Competition near them or far way, appointed them or their friends to CAC seats, etc.  Not, frankly, that it would be much different for the seniors.

Further, this idea pre-supposes a level of involvement, understanding, and G-A-S factor regarding things outside the unit that is simply not a factor for the vast majority of CAP members.

Thom,

I understand your concerns that the "All Powerful Oz" may start making life hard for the rank and file.......but on the other hand....the object is to get the mission done.

NHQ has the position to see the big picture.  If the big picture says MP's should all be Comercial Instrement Rated.......then one would have to assume that there are issues pushing this policy.

There are checks and balances.....if the volunteers can't or won't qualify for the job then they will not join and then the mission fails.  Your assumption seems to be that NHQ is/will just make rules up for the fun of it.

I just don't see that happening.  Some of the regs (such as the handeling of medications) seem silly from our perspective...but NHQ has legal and liablity issues that they have to cover.  That is the nature of a national multi juristictional organisation.  But they have the missions of CAP as their bottom line.

As for the indefinate tenure issue......I agree....no one should be given a free pass and be selected as President for Life.......but lets just say for a moment that we, for once, get a round peg for the round hole.............why not allow the BoG to continue to keep the right person in the right job?  If the National Commander position became a paid position......the BoG would and should select the best person for job and have the ability to retain that individual if they continue to be the best peson for the job at the end of their employment period.

As for the 2/3 thing......that is a good thing.  It acts a check and balance within the BoG.  The SECDEF can't dictate to us and we can't dictate to the SECDEF.  While I agree we would not want anger our primary customer.....we are an independant corporation.

As for if the sitting CC should have a shot at a second term......well now you are arguing personalities.  I don't see any language in the proposal that says the sitting CC MUST be selected to a second term only that she can be considered at the discresssion of the BoG.

But that is a moot point as there is almost no way the BoG is going to sign off on these proposals in time for the Summer NB.   So this August we will have a new National Commander.  If the BoG decides to adopt these changes then that individual may be considered for the National CC position (as well as any past commanders one would assume).

The one thing I don't want to see is the general membership electing its leaders.

There are several reasons for this........one it would make our leaders responsible/subject to the the general membership instead of to our customers!  If a leader wanted to stay in power he would bend/ignore/violate the rules and regulations because he had a mandate from "his people" instead of being concerned about what the USAF/NLO/NHQ wanted.  Leadership at higher levels will spend more time in bringing rogue wing commanders in to complaince with the printed regulations.  They would have no or little power to remove wing commanders (because they are elected by the wing) if they need to.

We would increase the amount of political infighting....not decrease it.   Regional and National Commanders (or those trying to reach those positions) would have to form political pacs and partys in order to get to position of leadership.  Instead of selecting staff leadership roles to the best person they would become poltical gifts to cronies who will help them get elected.

Quote from: FW on March 07, 2011, 04:44:00 PM
I'm uncomfortable with a couple of points:

First, I believe in a need for a paid staff, with an Executive Director to Manage and lead it.
Second, I believe in a sound leadership structure for the volunteer membership with a say in how "our" CAP is run. 
Third, I believe in sound and effective governance of all by an effective Board of Governors.

How we put this together is what it's all about. To me, a National Commander that effectively controls the paid staff, NEC (which would select 3 at large BoG members), a say in the selection of 3 BoG members and, the wing commanders is, IMHO, to much central authority.  Especially, with the added bonus of changing the rules at will. In fact the Air Force study of 2006 expressly frowned upon the current authority of the National Commander as excessive.  The proposals brought forth would be totally unacceptable.

We have been groping around for the last 17 years figuring out a way to better conduct business. Let's hope we come up with a model which really works.

I agree.......the National CC should be on the BoG but should not be appointing 1/3 of it.

I also would support a change to the BoG where representitives from the general membership could be elected by the general membership (say one from each region).

But like you say....our leadership should be top down....and not our current mobius loop.

Quote from: Pylon on March 07, 2011, 06:09:29 AM
@NCRBlues, true.  We don't really have to realize our full potential. 


Well, actually, we can't because CAP doesn't behave like a national non-profit or even for-profit, and it shows. 

We have no fundraising to speak of... we've never done a capital campaign, we don't do direct mail and online fundraising, awareness and fundraising special events like marathons and galas, nor do we encourage many of our tens of thousands of dedicated volunteers to consider planned giving.   The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, for example, raise millions every year through these very avenues.  As do thousands of flourishing non-profits.

We have no endowment -- pretty much unusual in any non-profit.  So we have no backup funding if our congressional funding gets reduced, and we have very little leeway in our operational funding to buy special items, fund one-time expenses, expand or improve certain things we'd like to do (special projects), etc.

We have very little national public awareness compared to other national organizations of similar size, scope, and age including the Boy Scouts or Venturing, American Red Cross, Big Brother/Big Sister, et cetera.

We have very few permanent facilities built for CAP over the years, uncovering an almost comical lack of long-range strategic planning and follow-through in the past few decades.  Even smaller fraternal organizations with less missions and less funding have permanent facilities in most cities: the Elks, Knights of Columbus, American Legions, et cetera.   Meanwhile, CAP units are on their own to beg, borrow, and make do with meeting in whatever they can scrounge up: church basements, school gyms, old dusty and rusty airport hangars, offices where they have no desk or storage space of their own, etc. 

We never keep in touch with our cadet alumni nor do we track them.  Just about any non-profit from private schools to Boy Scouts to universities keep in active touch with their "alumni" as they become successful in various careers from the military to the business world. The non-profits leverage those contacts for everything from political influence and corporate sales deals to fundraising and planned giving. We don't bother and never have.

We have a governing board with a massive size and high turnover, that has repeatedly reversed itself (and on occasion, reversed its reversals) and made dozens of decisions without researching the scope, impact, cost, pros/cons, and related information.  That's how we ended up with railroaded uniform creations that after being fully voted into existence, we realized "whoops... we forgot about females..." and then "Whoops... we forgot we had NCOs" and then "Whoops, we forgot we needed Air Force permission to use some of these items...", as just one example.

We have squadrons, encampments, NCSAs, etc. all over the country which waste tens of thousands (yes) of our precious dollars every year because they've never put out their purchases to bid.  Encampments which overspend on anything from printing to custom t-shirts because "Well, we've always used local vendor XYZ, or Capt Joe's friend owns a T-shirt shop so we just use him".  Meanwhile, a simple RFQ would find products of equal quality at better prices.   This is standard (and usually mandated) good practice in every non-profit I've worked at and interacted with, but CAP doesn't even suggest it to the organization let alone require it.

Our NHQ has amassed at least 8 different logos and 5 or 6 different taglines for the organization, our board has put 4 different patches on our flight suit (yeah, four!) in the last 8 years alone, we've changed our aircraft decals and even our organization's name several times back and forth --- but we can't find the time to provide basic marketing materials, or template websites, or software tools to our operating units the squadrons.  Heck, we haven't even been able to go digital with our paperwork and record keeping or give all of our members company email addresses yet.

So I dunno NCRBlues, maybe CAP is doing just fine with our current modus operandi and our current way of doing business.  Our fellow non-profit organizations that are far smaller and far younger who have raised tens of millions, build substantial endowments, are a known name in the public lexicon, and enjoy the certitude of perpetuity regardless of the future of federal and state funding are no better off than we, right?   We don't need to follow their examples.  They're probably not on to something at all....

I've been a member for about three years. I try to keep my focus on our local mission and my concerns not much higher than wing level. I really don't know the correct answer to these issues pf corporate governing. However, Pylon's description of the issues seems dead-on.

If it ever comes down to having an election for our leadership, I'm voting for Pylon.

For the most part I agree with Pylon & Eclipse.

One person as amender of constitution and by-laws is a poor idea.

Our current situation -- wing CCs as majority of NB -- has led to both poor governance and poor command.

Wing CCs should be focused on their wings.

IF we determine each individual wing needs a "representative" involved in National governance, that individual should be selected by other means from a pool of qualified officers (by which I mean those who have completed Levels 4 & 5, major or above).

A wing's senior members should have some means of input to this selection -- nominating letters, a web site for comment on candidates -- but not an election.

Most of the rest of it strikes me as positive change; NB rejection is a sign of the colonels protecting THEIR turf more than OUR interests, in my view.

You know, with all of the fun and games that have happened over the past 10 years, maybe that "threatened" Air Force "takeover" would have been a pretty good deal?
Would have put an end to a lot of the political crap that goes on.

Quote from: NCRblues on March 07, 2011, 06:43:32 AM
So your telling me I should go along with the idea of letting Amy Courter (or any Nat/CC for that matter) stay on forever and pay them?

I don't agree with unlimited terms, but I do agree with giving the BoG the power to hire the National Commander for a period of time and renew them to continue serving as they see fit.  I wouldn't oppose to an upper limit on their total service.  Somewhere in the 6 to 8 year range would probably be a good maximum, to ensure, as others said: fresh ideas and keeping the organization moving forward.

Quote from: NCRblues on March 07, 2011, 06:43:32 AMMost of those things you listed could have been changed under any of the past national commanders, or the current one, but where they? Nope...

You're right, many of these things could have been fixed for years and years.  These problems are not unknown, many are aware of them.  So the very fact that we've never been able to fix so many major issues makes my point for me: our governance structure doesn't work well for us.  If our system worked well, you might have one or two periods where things weren't as good as they could be.  But decades of underperformance when compared to our peers points to systemic issues, not individual leaders.

Quote from: NCRblues on March 07, 2011, 06:43:32 AMWhat makes you think they would suddenly change with placing the Nat/CC on the payroll?

I don't think that just giving the National Commander a paycheck fixes this.  I think a systemic restructuring and also a serious study of the best practices of similar, major non-profits (and the insistence by the BoG that we begin adopting such practices) is the key.


Paying a National Commander is just part of it.  How effective can someone be at leading our organization if they have to maintain another full-time job like most people?   And if we insist future National Commanders are either retired, independently wealthy, or leave their job to volunteer for us like Gen Courter has done, we severely limit ourselves and prevent a number of otherwise capable people from holding that post.  In a critical period where we need the best leadership possible, we don't want to be artificially limited ourselves to retired and/or wealthy people only.

Quote from: NCRblues on March 07, 2011, 06:43:32 AMYou really think it would be better to take away ANY say from the wing and region commanders and let ALL of CAP be run from one office in Alabama?

I think the organization would be better run by experienced experts from various fields, yes.  I think a group of development professionals, for example, with proven career track records of raising millions for national organizations and universities would better lead our fundraising and advancement than our wing commanders.   I think experienced public relations and marketing professionals with successful careers leading in similar sized non-profits or NGOs would do better making decisions on our external communications, recruiting, and brand than our wing commanders, yes.

Quote from: NCRblues on March 07, 2011, 06:43:32 AMWhere would the paychecks come from? Like you said we have no fundraising.

Well hopefully the fundraising issue changes.  That's the point, isn't it?  To fix these issues one-by-one, so we can move forward?

Quote from: NCRblues on March 07, 2011, 06:43:32 AMIf congress and the AF decided tomorrow they no longer needed us, do you really think CAP would survive on our own? No way in heck.

I completely and vehemently disagree.  Especially if CAP gets its non-profit act together.  After spending some years cultivating a loyal and engaged donor base, building an endowment, and fundraising and friendraising appropriately I think CAP's Cadet Program and Aerospace Education missions would survive on with flying colors.    We might have to streamline our headquarters and eventually give up many of our aircraft and many or all of our operational missions, but the organization would survive.

Quote from: FW on March 07, 2011, 12:55:25 PM
Guys, I think "wild speculation" is good therapy.  We should enjoy our angst and embrace it.

At least CAPTalk gives us a vent.  It also gives us a sounding board which is obviously heard. 

Col Sir,
I disagree...wild speculation creates misinformation.   Especially if it is coming from unoffical places.  I, for example, am a nobody in a "Frontier Squadron," yet I can post a speculation that is taken as fact and "run with" on here.  I think that is an odd situation.

Major, I was being facetious; at least with the first statement..... ::)
Oie vay ist mir, y'all!... ;D

Quote from: Major Carrales on March 07, 2011, 08:55:19 PM

Quote from: FW on March 07, 2011, 12:55:25 PM
Guys, I think "wild speculation" is good therapy.  We should enjoy our angst and embrace it.

At least CAPTalk gives us a vent.  It also gives us a sounding board which is obviously heard. 

Col Sir,
I disagree...wild speculation creates misinformation.   Especially if it is coming from unoffical places.  I, for example, am a nobody in a "Frontier Squadron," yet I can post a speculation that is taken as fact and "run with" on here.  I think that is an odd situation.

Well, when the NB considers issues such as corporate governance, that impact all members, in closed session, then they invite wild and rampant speculation about what happened.  Speculation will always fill an information vacuum.

Quote from: JeffDG on March 07, 2011, 09:23:27 PM

Quote from: Major Carrales on March 07, 2011, 08:55:19 PM

Quote from: FW on March 07, 2011, 12:55:25 PM
Guys, I think "wild speculation" is good therapy.  We should enjoy our angst and embrace it.

At least CAPTalk gives us a vent.  It also gives us a sounding board which is obviously heard. 

Col Sir,
I disagree...wild speculation creates misinformation.   Especially if it is coming from unoffical places.  I, for example, am a nobody in a "Frontier Squadron," yet I can post a speculation that is taken as fact and "run with" on here.  I think that is an odd situation.

Well, when the NB considers issues such as corporate governance, that impact all members, in closed session, then they invite wild and rampant speculation about what happened.  Speculation will always fill an information vacuum.

That is no excuse to "make stuff up," or outright lie (or except speculations as facts then they are not...misinformation is as damaging as an outright lie).  In this case, just wait until official facts are released via memo or regulation.  I can't count the number of times here that people have gone off "half- cocked" on things that were untrue and later NEVER CAME TO PASS.

The problem here is that speculation is not policy and even "informed" speculation is still questionable, yet many people here take it as gospel.

Pylon, i understand some of your points, but look at it from my perspective for a couple of seconds if you will.

First off i will say,  I do not have a lot of confidence in our leadership on many levels. That started with the pineda incident. Yes i know they removed pineda, but they left out one major problem. The leaders that be, left pinedas friends and cronies in place. Pineda did not get to where he was, or do what he did without help.

So anyway,

My perspective on this,

The NB has there normal meeting on Friday, and it is streamed (not very well but they try), they do little to no work and listen to the same briefings that everyone has heard 100 times over...yadda yadda yadda...and they dismiss very early.

The next day, CAP does not even attempt to stream the meeting, why, no one knows, and in fact SOME members of the NB were told it was being streamed, but that was a lie.

They vote on the NDA's, after they are passed the Nat/CC has them sign new ones and then goes into a closed door session. (odd how they come up right before huh? IMHO of course)

They go into the closed door session, where sweeping changes are presented to the NB. Many of the NB bring up the fact that the BOG is about to shell out a lot of our money to study this, why are they going to vote on a massive change now?

The rumor mill has it (and has been confirmed by many sources, but most of you wont believe me anyway) that Amy Courter wants to stay on permanent with a salary. (kinda crazy that this is the same thing pineda wanted, in almost the same wording) And low and behold, that is what the "committee" suggested....

The NB votes the proposal down, then a member of the BOG (Ned) comes on here and states that it does not matter what the NB does, only the BOG can change the governance. So that raises the question, why then even bring this up to the NB?

Is it a coincidence that the past national commander wanted this same thing, with him in place instead of Amy Courter? I'm not sure...

Maybe I believe in conspiracy to much, but, power corrupts....

That is true......but that is the beast we serve.

Not saying it is right or wrong.....not saying that more visibility would good or bad.....but bottom line we are not share holders.  We are not even the customers.  We are sort of, but not really, the employees,  and as such there is only so much that the Corporation has to tell us.

New NDAs.....followed by a closed session sound about the right way of doing things.  "don't talk about what happens in closed session"....everyone signs...."now let's go to closed session".

More transparency would be nice.....but just like the military....no one is REQUIRED to ask the solders and airman on the dirty end of the stick their opinion.

The NB is not required to stream any video.....but they try to.
That is a good thing.

I too don't have 100% faith in CAP leadership......but I got 90% faith in them.  That they are even considering any leadership/governance change is a good thing.  If the system was totally corrupt then we would just stick with the GOB network and never look at other options.

I am obviously not a blind follower......but truth be told....I don't really care about politics above the wing level.  It hardly ever effect me or my mission where I spend all my time and efforts.

If someone wants to be the God King For Life.........and they get a majority of the NB and BoG to go along with them......well so be it.  If it starts hurting me at the squadron level......well I just won't renew and go join the Volunteer Fire Fighters or something.

But if given the opportunity to state my opinion:

We should have some sort of general membership representation on the BoG.
The BoG should set the Vision and Policy of the CAP.
The BoG should be the governance body of CAP.
The BoG should hire its senior executive officers (CEO, CFO, CLO, etc).
The CEO (which we will call the National Commander) selects (with approval of the BoG) his vice and the rest of his staff.
The Nat CC selects his Reg CC's who in turn select their wing CC's who then select group and squadron CC's.

Top Down leadership.

The BoG makes policy and gives it to the Nat CC and his staff to implement in the form of regulations.  The only debate should be at by the BoG whether it implements their policy.

This would require a lot of changes to the C and B's.

The CEO, CFO, CLO should be on the BoG.
The rest of the BoG should be made up of appointees from our primary customers SECAF, SECDHL, etc and a representative body of the general membership (say 1 from each region).

If we want to keep the body fairly small and balanced between our members, corporate and SECAF that would mean the body cannot be larger then 36 members (8 at member representatives, 8 SECAF/SECDHL appointees, 8 corporate members).

This balances the customer's power, corporates power and the member's power.

This plan would eliminate 90% of the bad political BS that we are scared of.  No longer will we have a Nat CC who is appointing Regional and Wing CC's for the sole purpose of the political reliability.

No longer will we be blocked from implementing good policy and regulations because one or more political block does not like the person who is suggesting it.

Regulations will be written by subject matter experts with advice from legal, safety, etc to implement policy set from the top.

We eliminate the cart and horse mismatch where we spend so much time wondering why so and so got fired and guess if there was a political element to the action.

We at all levels of the organisation can focus on getting the job we are assigned by our leaders done and stop worrying about politics.

We can shift the focus of the leaders of CAP away from political BS and more on the current mission and future growth of CAP.

IF I WERE GOD I would go even further and pay not only the National CC and his Vice but regional and Wing Commanders as well.

That way we can get professionals (in both senses of that word) who's sole focus is getting the job he is paid to do done.

I feel that this would increase the professionalism of the entire organisation.  The BoG could hire and fire at will (based on the nature of the contract and standard HR practices).  If a CC can't get his people to follow regulations then you find one who can.  If a CC can't get his finances in order, then you find one who can.  If a CC can't meet his aircraft usage rates, meet his training requirements, fails his Graded Eval then you find one who can.

CAP is at the mercy of volunteers who have the time to do the hard jobs......by hiring the right person who's sole job is to get our mission done we will be in a lot better position.

I understand the reluctance of some of you to this idea because you think in terms of Pineda and his type.  But we have seen what happens to the organisation when we fill positions with the only guy who volunteers.  When it comes to higher level we have the same problem plus the added excitement of a political machines that put people like pineda into power.

So......speculating on this questionable information......all in all I think this is a good move.  I feel confidant that BoG is not made up of total idiots.  They will accept and make make changes that make sense.

Then the leaders from the former National Board can focus on their wings and regions and get the mission done.

If not....I will go find somewhere else to play.

Quote from: NCRblues on March 07, 2011, 10:55:22 PM
First off i will say,  I do not have a lot of confidence in our leadership on many levels. That started with the pineda incident.

You are free to have or not have confidence in anyone or anything.  You don't even need a defensible reason to lack confidence in something.  Your feelings are entirely your own.

BUT, as long as you are a member you are bound by CAP Core Values, including the Core Value of respect.  And that includes respect for your fellow volunteers, including our volunteer leadership.

Reasonable minds can differ a little on this, but I would suggest that publicly and anonymously badmouthing our national commander -- when you admit that you are doing so based solely on rumors - is inconsistent with with the Core Value of Respect.

QuoteYes i know they removed pineda, but they left out one major problem. The leaders that be, left pinedas friends and cronies in place. Pineda did not get to where he was, or do what he did without help.

You are not seriously suggesting that we should have "purged CAP" of any and everyone who was friendly with Mr. Pineda, are you?  Guilt by association is not a good thing.  If anyone committed wrongdoing, let them be held accountable.  But tossing folks out simply because they knew someone does not seem helpful.

QuoteMy perspective on this,

The NB has there normal meeting on Friday, and it is streamed (not very well but they try), they do little to no work and listen to the same briefings that everyone has heard 100 times over...yadda yadda yadda...and they dismiss very early.

Actually, they worked pretty late.  I was there.  Don't confuse a lack of streaming with them heading off to dinner.

QuoteThe next day, CAP does not even attempt to stream the meeting, why, no one knows, and in fact SOME members of the NB were told it was being streamed, but that was a lie.

These statements seem a little unusual on their face.  Obviously somebody knows why they did not stream.  You and I don't know, but somebody does.  Perhaps saving the membership a couple of thousand dollars is sufficient reason.  But I don't know anymore than you do.

Secondly, calling that a "lie" seems a bit of a stretch.  It is hard to tell a deliberate falsehood with an intent to deceive about an event taking place in front of the NB's own eyes.  When you are in the room, it is easy to tell when they are streaming and when they are not.  There are at least a half-dozen monitors more or less in view of the NB members.  Plus, a significant percentage of the NB members amuse themselves by watching the stream on their iPads, Blackberries, and PCs.  "Not streaming" is neither hidden or easy to conceal from the folks located four steps away from the technicians.

QuoteThey vote on the NDA's, after they are passed the Nat/CC has them sign new ones and then goes into a closed door session. (odd how they come up right before huh? IMHO of course)

You are absolutely entitled to your own humble opinion, even if it is based on incorrect facts.  It is neither odd nor suspicious that the NDAs were signed before the closed session.  Indeed, it does little good to have them if you aren't going to use them before sensitive matters are discussed in closed session.

It only would have been "odd" if the NDAs were signed after the session to which they applied.

QuoteThey go into the closed door session, where sweeping changes are presented to the NB. Many of the NB bring up the fact that the BOG is about to shell out a lot of our money to study this, why are they going to vote on a massive change now?

You can't know what happened at the session, unless you were there or you heard something from someone who has violated their NDA.  How much credibility do you assign to someone who makes a sworn promise as a CAP officer and then immediately violates it?  It could happen, I suppose.  But probably only by someone who hopes to benefit from their improper actions.

When I was a prosecutor and had a witness in this situation, I would ask them "were you lying when you signed your NDA, or were you lying when you told someone what happened?"  Either way, they are not a very honorable or  creditable person.  Wouldn't you agree?

Quote

The rumor mill has it (and has been confirmed by many sources, but most of you wont believe me anyway)

Ahhh, well there you go.  The "rumor mill."  At least we know who we're dealing with here.

Quote. . . that Amy Courter wants to stay on permanent with a salary. (kinda crazy that this is the same thing pineda wanted, in almost the same wording) And low and behold, that is what the "committee" suggested....

Nope.  Absolutely not.  I am looking at the Committee's recommendations right here in my hand, and there is nothing - absolutely nothing - about a salaried National Commander.

Nada.  Zilch.  Zip. Goose egg. Null. 

Indeed, a lot of recommendations that suggest the opposite.  (All the discussion about the Executive Director including who she/he reports to,etc., all strongly suggest that the EXDIR will remain to supervise the professionals at NHQ, and the National Commander will be the "head volunteer."

QuoteThe NB votes the proposal down, then a member of the BOG (Ned) comes on here and states that it does not matter what the NB does, only the BOG can change the governance. So that raises the question, why then even bring this up to the NB?

Good question.

Reread my comments here and in other threads and you will see that the BoG will only change governance if it is appropriate to do so, and only after hearing from the NB, the outside experts, and the membership.

Obviously, we can't hear from the NB unless they choose to tell us something.

Perhaps by way of some suggested governance changes.

QuoteIs it a coincidence that the past national commander wanted this same thing, with him in place instead of Amy Courter? I'm not sure...

Maybe I believe in conspiracy too much, but, power corrupts....

It could only be a coincidence if there were two similar things or events to compare.

There are not.

And yes, maybe you do believe in conspiracy too much.  But you are certainly free to do so.

Thank you for your service.

Ned Lee

Ned, we are like two cats circling each other, both wanting to know what the other is thinking (if its true that you want input from the membership)

there is no reason that a committee report on what they think should happen, should be keep secret. We are not the military, we hold no classified data....

So Ned, if i am wrong, call up the Nat/cc or whoever you need to and get permission to post the committee report...post it ned, kill the rumors then...

As stated in another thread it looks like people have a solution looking for a problem to attach it to. I do not believe that Gen Courter wants to be the Commander for life as some have suggested. If she has, she has NEVER indicated that in any of her conversations or topics with any CAP group I can think of.

Just a simple question could be asked. How much do you really think CAP would be willing to pay a full time CAP National Commander. I would be willing to bet that it would be far less than what she could make doing her full time job full time. If I remember correctly she was a VP at a company called Valassis Communications. She has her own consulting group and I am pretty sure that she could make more money if she were concentrating 100% of her time on that than, 80% to 90% on CAP and the token contract with her company. If anything I would imagine she has lost business because of the crap she and others have been through. If the speculation were true about something like this I am sure it would have been known and out there long before this board.

It seems like there is a growing number of people that want to circumvent common courtesy for pure speculation. I wouldnt trust these so called "insiders" with my name and address any further than I could throw them. I believe they do it just to make themselves look better and score some points with those standing around looking through the trash.

I have been involved in dozens of NDA's and see no problem with that. That is part of corporate America and part of CAP and they need to deal with it. As Ned stated in his post "we as members are still affected by the core values", to me if you cant respect the core values than find another place to fuss.

An opinion is one thing, but when people start making accusations and supposibly having "insider: information that wrongly accuses someone of this type of thing they have gone to far. How much "integrity" is in that?

Quote from: NCRblues on March 08, 2011, 12:26:12 AM
Ned, we are like two cats circling each other, both wanting to know what the other is thinking (if its true that you want input from the membership)

Non-concur.  I'm pretty sure I know what you are thinking.  You have been kind enough to share it.

And if you want to know what I think, feel free to ask.  I think I have a pretty good record here on CT of speaking my mind.

Quotethere is no reason that a committee report on what they think should happen, should be keep secret. We are not the military, we hold no classified data....

Again, non-concur.  There is a whole lot of confidential information in any large corporation.  You don't get to attend a closed session of the Mircosoft board, even if you are a shareholder.  If the ARC board is having a closed session, you may not attend even if you are dedicated volunteer who "really, really" wants to know.

I have already pointed out several good reasons why the NB might want to keep any possible preliminary discussions of governance change quiet.  Because the NB gets to decide how to have their discussions and debates on sensitive issues.  Not you and not me - the NB gets to decide how to decide. 

Governance changes by definition involve changing the relationships between stakeholders and decision makers in an organization.

Finding common ground in such matters always requires tact, pursuasion, and ultimately compromise.  That is often best done in closed session where members can speak freely and passionately. 

And you have already seen attempts to improperly manipulate the process here - by anonymous members posting disinformation in an attempt to sway the discussion in one direction or another.  And of course there are several other forums, websites, and blogs attempting to do exactly the same thing.

Remember, ultimately whatever the NB decides to recommend - if anything - will be suggestions to the BoG who has sole authority over the C & BL. 

QuoteSo Ned, if i am wrong, call up the Nat/cc or whoever you need to and get permission to post the committee report...post it need, kill the rumors then...

I do believe you are wrong, but the solution is not to damage the process by posting committee reports and transcripts of debates.

The solution is to let the process play itself out as designed.  Let the NB make such recommendations, if any, that they choose to make.  The suggestions will be important data points for the BoG as we consider possible governance changes to be made in the years ahead.

And of course, if the NB is unable to come to a consensus about any changes, that would be an important data point as well.

I disagree Ned.

There is no reason the actual report from the committee should be secret. The debate, the vote on it, whatever. But the actual report should not be secret.

So basically your saying, thanks for dedicating a huge portion of your life, but were not going to let you know what we are going to do.

Like it or leave i guess huh?

Well...when push comes to shove.....yes.

No one held a gun to your head.

I don't rembmerer any regulation/by law/ or rule that says that the NB, NEC, Bog or any level of leadership MUST, MUST let its members be privy too.

As a squadron commander I made lots of decisions for the squadron on my own.  I did not consult anyone other then the regulations.

If a member had a problem with that....well there is a mechinism to make complaints.....but if they don't like it......they don't have to be here.

Don't want to be too brutal......but bottom line is bottom line.

Quote from: NCRblues on March 08, 2011, 12:53:52 AM
I disagree Ned.

There is no reason the actual report from the committee should be secret. The debate, the vote on it, whatever. But the actual report should not be secret.

Are we talking about the report that - if you believe the posts here - was NOT approved by the NB?

Why do you need to see a report that was not approved?

Wouldn't it be better to wait and see what, if anything, IS approved?

(See my previous comments about "wildy premature.")

QuoteSo basically your saying, thanks for dedicating a huge portion of your life, but were not going to let you know what we are going to do.

Or in this case "what we are NOT going to do"?  8)

Nobody has said that any final recommendations are secret.  Indeed, they will not be.  As others have noted, final actions by any body go into the minutes.  Even if they weren't in the minutes, they would appear as an attachment to the BoG agenda.  If they didn't appear in the BoG agenda, they would appear in the report issued by our outside experts (who will be tasked with reviewing the NB input).  Bottom line, you will each have an opportunity to review any NB suggestions and either comment or offer your own suggestions to the BoG.

But in any event there aren't any final recommendations at this point, just a preliminary committee report.  Which - if you believe the posts here - was not approved.

Are you really complaining that the debate about a report that was not approved somehow needs to be made public?

Come to think of it, what are you complaining about?

I guess all the governance things will be like the heath care law "we have to pass it, so you can see whats in it" That seemed to work out well for some of our uh "leadership" that used to be on the hill right ?  ::)

I'm not trying to be a pain in the rear end, i just believe that any committee report should be made available to the membership BEFORE it is voted on, does not matter if it was approved or not. Make it to where i can call up my wing king and tell them what i like i don't like. Its really useless to post it after the vote, because then its the rules and its to late to do anything about it....

Feel free to share any and all of your thoughts on governance with your wing commander at any time.  You don't need to wait for some committee report.

On a separate note, let me point out that I am not on the NB governance committee.  Never attended a single meeting or teleconference.  Never approved or disapproved a single document.  I don't get advance copies or hints.

(The BoG was briefed on some initial findings last June, but that was early in the committee's process.)

Nobody asked, but let me repeat one of my earlier governance ramblings.  I would not favor a paid national commander or a combined CC/EXDIR position for the reasons I pointed out earlier:  it would mean that the national commander would be very unlikely to be a volunteer with experience in the trenches.

Because very few potential candidates would be able to quit their day jobs and move their families to Alabama.  There might be a few independently wealthy or perhaps some retired folks out there who could do it, but the pool of potential candidates would be too small.

That in turn means that our National Commander would almost certainly be an "outsider" with little or no experience in the organization, leading volunteers.  That's one of the reasons the EXDIR is so rarely a former member.

If it were up to me, I would hire an executive search firm to vet and rank-order self-nominated candidates to the BoG.

But I'm going to keep an open mind to see what our outside experts, the NB, and the membership suggest.

Ned Lee

{edit - spelling]

Quote from: NCRblues on March 08, 2011, 12:26:12 AM
Ned, we are like two cats circling each other, both wanting to know what the other is thinking (if its true that you want input from the membership)

there is no reason that a committee report on what they think should happen, should be keep secret. We are not the military, we hold no classified data....

So Ned, if i am wrong, call up the Nat/cc or whoever you need to and get permission to post the committee report...post it ned, kill the rumors then...

Two cats circling one another?

What I see is someone in possession of facts and information, and someone else who has rumors and supposition.

Sorry, but I've met Ned and I've known the man (online) for several years now: when Ned tells me "X is going to happen" I'm reasonably assured that he's in possession of facts or information that a) he's allowed to share; and b) that came from an official or mostly official source.  AFAIK, he's never lied to me, and he's a straight shooter with information, not rumors and innuendo.

YMMV, but it won't by much.

Quote from: FW on March 07, 2011, 12:28:32 PM

Quote from: NIN on March 07, 2011, 04:43:05 AM

Quote from: FARRIER on March 07, 2011, 03:22:33 AM
I'm too curious of Kipper's true identity and intentions, but Col. Weiss isn't a troll. I wouldn't shoot the messenger yet. Things like this spring leaks eventually.

Oh, no, Colonel Weiss is no troll (well, he might resemble one, I dunno. Never met the man!).

Darin, you don't remember our times together at the NHWG conferences?  Gee, I didn't realize I was so memorable... :D

Did you come up and visit us?  Gosh, sir, I apparently was asleep at the switch, or never connected the face with the (screen) name. :)

I am terrible like that.

Quote from: Ned on March 08, 2011, 01:55:21 AM
Feel free to share any and all of your thoughts on governance with your wing commander at any time. 

Technically, we're free to share them with our squadron commander who may or may not decide to share them with the group commander, etc., etc.

CAP members currently have no right to ensure that any opinion is heard by someone that actually has any authority to take it into consideration and act upon it.  We can talk to our superior in the chain of command and thats it.  Those at the upper levels tend to forget that the common CAP member has no direct access to a NB member like they do. 

 

Quote from: NIN on March 08, 2011, 02:51:51 AM

Quote from: FW on March 07, 2011, 12:28:32 PM

Quote from: NIN on March 07, 2011, 04:43:05 AM

Quote from: FARRIER on March 07, 2011, 03:22:33 AM
I'm too curious of Kipper's true identity and intentions, but Col. Weiss isn't a troll. I wouldn't shoot the messenger yet. Things like this spring leaks eventually.

Oh, no, Colonel Weiss is no troll (well, he might resemble one, I dunno. Never met the man!).

Darin, you don't remember our times together at the NHWG conferences?  Gee, I didn't realize I was so memorable... :D

Did you come up and visit us?  Gosh, sir, I apparently was asleep at the switch, or never connected the face with the (screen) name. :)

I am terrible like that.

Actually, I may have been to busy eating Col Sambold's cheesecakes to take the time and introduce myself.  It was back in the mid 90s when I was better known as the NER/CS.  Ah, those were the days.   ;D

Quote from: RiverAux on March 08, 2011, 03:13:21 AM

Quote from: Ned on March 08, 2011, 01:55:21 AM
Feel free to share any and all of your thoughts on governance with your wing commander at any time. 

Technically, we're free to share them with our squadron commander who may or may not decide to share them with the group commander, etc., etc.

CAP members currently have no right to ensure that any opinion is heard by someone that actually has any authority to take it into consideration and act upon it.  We can talk to our superior in the chain of command and that's it.  Those at the upper levels tend to forget that the common CAP member has no direct access to a NB member like they do. 

Technically, we're free to go up the chain to the National Commander at any time. However, one must follow protocol.  Of course, you have no right to be listened too... >:D

Quote from: FW on March 06, 2011, 11:05:10 PM
Commander will be "compensated"

I need to clarify this "item".  The report recommends the BoG form a "Selection and Compensation Board" to select and determine compensation for (I guess if any is needed) the National Commander.  As Ned says, there is no recommendation to pay the commander a salary. 

However, I have no problem with paying the national commander a stipend.  Many "volunteer" leaders are paid stipends.  Some are very generous.  The stipends are paid instead of reimbursement for travel expenses, office expenses, and per diem. 

QuoteTechnically, we're free to go up the chain to the National Commander at any time. However, one must follow protocol.

I'd be interested in seeing where this process is laid out in the regs.  I don't recall coming across that before.  I do know that every time they put out a regulation for comment that it says that comments have to go through chain of command.  If there is a way to shortcut that, I'd like to know it. 

There is no shortcut, RiverAux.  I said one needs to follow protocol.  This is basic military C&C. 
And, if we wish to remain "corporate", it's basic business practice.  >:D

Quote from: Ned on March 08, 2011, 01:55:21 AM
Feel free to share any and all of your thoughts on governance with your wing commander at any time.  You don't need to wait for some committee report.

On a separate note, let me point out that I am not on the NB governance committee.  Never attended a single meeting or teleconference.  Never approved or disapproved a single document.  I don't get advance copies or hints.

(The BoG was briefed on some initial findings last June, but that was early in the committee's process.)

Nobody asked, but let me repeat one of my earlier governance ramblings.  I would not favor a paid national commander or a combined CC/EXDIR position for the reasons I pointed out earlier:  it would mean that the national commander would be very unlikely to be a volunteer with experience in the trenches.

Because very few potential candidates would be able to quit their day jobs and move their families to Alabama.  There might be a few independently wealthy or perhaps some retired folks out there who could do it, but the pool of potential candidates would be too small.

That in turn means that our National Commander would almost certainly be an "outsider" with little or no experience in the organization, leading volunteers.  That's one of the reasons the EXDIR is so rarely a former member.

If it were up to me, I would hire an executive search firm to vet and rank-order self-nominated candidates to the BoG.

But I'm going to keep an open mind to see what our outside experts, the NB, and the membership suggest.

Ned Lee

{edit - spelling]

Thank you, this is what i wanted to hear, and makes me feel much better about the future of CAP....

I'm going to move on from this, since apparently most of you disagree with me, but we will just have to wait around and see what happens i guess. Hope its good for CAP, because i would like my (future) children to get to be a cadet like i was...

Quote from: RiverAux on March 08, 2011, 04:26:52 AM

QuoteTechnically, we're free to go up the chain to the National Commander at any time. However, one must follow protocol.

I'd be interested in seeing where this process is laid out in the regs.  I don't recall coming across that before.  I do know that every time they put out a regulation for comment that it says that comments have to go through chain of command.  If there is a way to shortcut that, I'd like to know it.

Standard miltary protocol.

YOU:  Major I got a beef with the NB  SQ/CC:  I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Lt Col I got a beef with the the NB   GP/CC:  I don't want to hear it!
YOU:  Col I got a beef with the NB  WG/CC" I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Col I got a beef with the NB  RG/CC: I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Gen I got a beef with the NB  NAT/CC: I don't want to hear it!
YOU:  Gen I got a beef with the NB  BoG/Chair: Well you are at the end of the line now!

Chain of command.

If you don't get satisfaction at the lowest level you may move up it.  How is it you don't know this? :(

^Perfect, Patrick. Thank you! :clap:

Quote from: lordmonar on March 08, 2011, 05:53:40 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on March 08, 2011, 04:26:52 AM

QuoteTechnically, we're free to go up the chain to the National Commander at any time. However, one must follow protocol.

I'd be interested in seeing where this process is laid out in the regs.  I don't recall coming across that before.  I do know that every time they put out a regulation for comment that it says that comments have to go through chain of command.  If there is a way to shortcut that, I'd like to know it.

Standard miltary protocol.

YOU:  Major I got a beef with the NB  SQ/CC:  I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Lt Col I got a beef with the the NB   GP/CC:  I don't want to hear it!
YOU:  Col I got a beef with the NB  WG/CC" I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Col I got a beef with the NB  RG/CC: I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Gen I got a beef with the NB  NAT/CC: I don't want to hear it!
YOU:  Gen I got a beef with the NB  BoG/Chair: Well you are at the end of the line now!

Chain of command.

If you don't get satisfaction at the lowest level you may move up it.  How is it you don't know this? :(

YOU:  Senator, I've got a beef...

Quote from: JeffDG on March 08, 2011, 12:40:51 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on March 08, 2011, 05:53:40 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on March 08, 2011, 04:26:52 AM

QuoteTechnically, we're free to go up the chain to the National Commander at any time. However, one must follow protocol.

I'd be interested in seeing where this process is laid out in the regs.  I don't recall coming across that before.  I do know that every time they put out a regulation for comment that it says that comments have to go through chain of command.  If there is a way to shortcut that, I'd like to know it.

Standard miltary protocol.

YOU:  Major I got a beef with the NB  SQ/CC:  I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Lt Col I got a beef with the the NB   GP/CC:  I don't want to hear it!
YOU:  Col I got a beef with the NB  WG/CC" I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Col I got a beef with the NB  RG/CC: I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Gen I got a beef with the NB  NAT/CC: I don't want to hear it!
YOU:  Gen I got a beef with the NB  BoG/Chair: Well you are at the end of the line now!

Chain of command.

If you don't get satisfaction at the lowest level you may move up it.  How is it you don't know this? :(

YOU:  Senator, I've got a beef...

YOU (now a disgruntled former member): "Internet Blog World I'm a disgruntled former member and I've got a beef with CAP..."  >:D

Quote from: lordmonar on March 08, 2011, 05:53:40 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on March 08, 2011, 04:26:52 AM

QuoteTechnically, we're free to go up the chain to the National Commander at any time. However, one must follow protocol.

I'd be interested in seeing where this process is laid out in the regs.  I don't recall coming across that before.  I do know that every time they put out a regulation for comment that it says that comments have to go through chain of command.  If there is a way to shortcut that, I'd like to know it.

Standard miltary protocol.

YOU:  Major I got a beef with the NB  SQ/CC:  I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Lt Col I got a beef with the the NB   GP/CC:  I don't want to hear it!
YOU:  Col I got a beef with the NB  WG/CC" I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Col I got a beef with the NB  RG/CC: I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Gen I got a beef with the NB  NAT/CC: I don't want to hear it!
YOU:  Gen I got a beef with the NB  BoG/Chair: Well you are at the end of the line now!

Chain of command.

If you don't get satisfaction at the lowest level you may move up it.  How is it you don't know this? :(

Problem is that some CCs will interpret it like this:

YOU: Major I got a beef with the NB  SQ/CC: Nobody cares now go sit down.
End of chain.

Quote from: JeffDG on March 08, 2011, 12:40:51 PM
YOU:  Senator, I've got a beef...

It was my experience (not me personally, but people I knew) that the "straight to my Congressman" routine, if you have a savvy Congressman, doesn't work that well.   They "get" that there is a chain of command, and if you didn't seek a remedy at the lowest level you could before going to them, they'd punt it back to the military (in my case, I was in the Army).  The only time I ever saw my battalion commander in AIT, apart from him being a picture on the wall and a name I had to remember,  was when he showed up to interview my roommate. Seems that he'd gotten a "Congressional" from above, and him, the Bn CSM, our company commander, the first shirt, and our platoon sergeant all appeared in the barracks on a Monday morning.  It was ugly, I ran for my life, I didn't want any part of that.

Same thing goes with CAP, Tom Harkin included: He knows the drill as a CAP member.  First question will be "has your chain of command been given the opportunity to address your issues?"  When the answer is "No" then you're more than likely going to hear "Well, come see me when that happens.."

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on March 08, 2011, 02:21:57 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on March 08, 2011, 05:53:40 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on March 08, 2011, 04:26:52 AM

QuoteTechnically, we're free to go up the chain to the National Commander at any time. However, one must follow protocol.

I'd be interested in seeing where this process is laid out in the regs.  I don't recall coming across that before.  I do know that every time they put out a regulation for comment that it says that comments have to go through chain of command.  If there is a way to shortcut that, I'd like to know it.

Standard miltary protocol.

YOU:  Major I got a beef with the NB  SQ/CC:  I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Lt Col I got a beef with the the NB   GP/CC:  I don't want to hear it!
YOU:  Col I got a beef with the NB  WG/CC" I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Col I got a beef with the NB  RG/CC: I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Gen I got a beef with the NB  NAT/CC: I don't want to hear it!
YOU:  Gen I got a beef with the NB  BoG/Chair: Well you are at the end of the line now!

Chain of command.

If you don't get satisfaction at the lowest level you may move up it.  How is it you don't know this? :(

Problem is that some CCs will interpret it like this:

YOU: Major I got a beef with the NB  SQ/CC: Nobody cares now go sit down.
End of chain.

Well you know the cool thing is that it is not up to the SQ/CC to determine where the chain stops.  It is an illegal order to tell a subordinate he may not use his chain of command.

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on March 08, 2011, 02:21:57 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on March 08, 2011, 05:53:40 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on March 08, 2011, 04:26:52 AM

QuoteTechnically, we're free to go up the chain to the National Commander at any time. However, one must follow protocol.

I'd be interested in seeing where this process is laid out in the regs.  I don't recall coming across that before.  I do know that every time they put out a regulation for comment that it says that comments have to go through chain of command.  If there is a way to shortcut that, I'd like to know it.

Standard miltary protocol.

YOU:  Major I got a beef with the NB  SQ/CC:  I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Lt Col I got a beef with the the NB   GP/CC:  I don't want to hear it!
YOU:  Col I got a beef with the NB  WG/CC" I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Col I got a beef with the NB  RG/CC: I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Gen I got a beef with the NB  NAT/CC: I don't want to hear it!
YOU:  Gen I got a beef with the NB  BoG/Chair: Well you are at the end of the line now!

Chain of command.

If you don't get satisfaction at the lowest level you may move up it.  How is it you don't know this? :(

Problem is that some CCs will interpret it like this:

YOU: Major I got a beef with the NB  SQ/CC: Nobody cares now go sit down.
End of chain.

IMHO, I think that this is a more likely scenario...

YOU: Major I got a beef with the NB.  SQ/CC: Tell me about it.
TIME PASSES
YOU: Major, what did the higher-ups say?  SQ/CC: Oh, I forgot.
End of chain, as it's too late for your concern to be addressed now.

Quote from: NC Hokie on March 08, 2011, 03:59:42 PM

YOU: Major I got a beef with the NB.  SQ/CC: Tell me about it.
TIME PASSES
YOU: Major, what did the higher-ups say?  SQ/CC: Oh, I forgot.
End of chain, as it's too late for your concern to be addressed now.

The "fail" in that is that it has no documentation.  Send an official letter or other correspondence, that way there is more than a "I told the commander after the meeting and he did nothing" scenario.

I have commanded a busy Composite Squadron and I can tell you that, at times, there were dozens of things to do at once.  Prioritizing became a reality and if it is between an aircraft maintenance issue, admin paperwork for an upcoming inspection, a cadet issue, an up coming SARex, Wing Policy mandates for the squadron, new member questions from the prospective member, Hurricane Deployment situation and someones idea about CAP National governance guess which things get the "front" and "back" burner. 

If you supplement a "memo" or other document...even a well written, professionally formatted  email...it means it can be addressed later.  Otherwise, it could get lost in the nexus of activities.

Quote from: Major Carrales on March 08, 2011, 04:51:41 PM

Quote from: NC Hokie on March 08, 2011, 03:59:42 PM

YOU: Major I got a beef with the NB.  SQ/CC: Tell me about it.
TIME PASSES
YOU: Major, what did the higher-ups say?  SQ/CC: Oh, I forgot.
End of chain, as it's too late for your concern to be addressed now.

The "fail" in that is that it has no documentation.  Send an official letter or other correspondence, that way there is more than a "I told the commander after the meeting and he did nothing" scenario.

I have commanded a busy Composite Squadron and I can tell you that, at times, there were dozens of things to do at once.  Prioritizing became a reality and if it is between an aircraft maintenance issue, admin paperwork for an upcoming inspection, a cadet issue, an up coming SARex, Wing Policy mandates for the squadron, new member questions from the prospective member, Hurricane Deployment situation and someones idea about CAP National governance guess which things get the "front" and "back" burner. 

If you supplement a "memo" or other document...even a well written, professionally formatted  email...it means it can be addressed later.  Otherwise, it could get lost in the nexus of activities.

I agree with everything you say and did not mean to imply that SQ/CC's are indifferent, incompetent, or act in collusion to prevent concerns from being heard.  They're just busy, and busy people forget things sometimes.

That said, this is still a weak link in our chain that might be worth looking into.  After all, it's easy to forgive an honest mistake, but the effects don't always go away when the words "I'm sorry," are spoken.

Quote from: NC Hokie on March 08, 2011, 05:21:25 PM

I agree with everything you say and did not mean to imply that SQ/CC's are indifferent, incompetent, or act in collusion to prevent concerns from being heard.  They're just busy, and busy people forget things sometimes.

That said, this is still a weak link in our chain that might be worth looking into.  After all, it's easy to forgive an honest mistake, but the effects don't always go away when the words "I'm sorry," are spoken.

This is especially true when concerning major issues affecting most, if not all of us.  No organization can be truly successful if it's members are not able to be heard.  It is why "the chain" exists. And, it is the reason information must flow in both directions.

Anyone who thinks that there would not be repercussions from a CAP member contacting the National Commander or anyone not their immediate superior (outside of IG type stuff) without the specific encouragement of that superior and everyone above them has not been around this organization very long. 

Hence, the need for governance studies....... >:D

Quote from: RiverAux on March 08, 2011, 08:30:17 PM
Anyone who thinks that there would not be repercussions from a CAP member contacting the National Commander or anyone not their immediate superior (outside of IG type stuff) without the specific encouragement of that superior and everyone above them has not been around this organization very long.

That's why we have an IG system and MARB. :)

Quote from: lordmonar on March 08, 2011, 08:50:31 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on March 08, 2011, 08:30:17 PM
Anyone who thinks that there would not be repercussions from a CAP member contacting the National Commander or anyone not their immediate superior (outside of IG type stuff) without the specific encouragement of that superior and everyone above them has not been around this organization very long.

That's why we have an IG system and MARB. :)

Oh, the system that generally supports commander actions or fails to find that some form of retaliation has taken place? 

I'd rather see it written someplace that CAP members are encouraged to contact their leaders directly at any level with suggestions for changes to CAP.  Until then it will always be seen as an attempt to go around your commander and you do so at your own risk. 

I'm a very pro-CAP person but even I recognize that it doesn't take much to get yourself run out of CAP either officially or unofficially.

I've never observed a membership termination, demotion in grade or suspension due to a member using the chain of command to speak with any member in a leadership position "above" him or her.

If, say, a member in a squadron had a beef about a NB decision.  That member would ask the squadron commander to speak to the wing commander about it.  If the squadron commander said, "are you nuts?"; the member could declare he would go to the group commander or, wing commander directly (depending on the wing).  The squadron commander has only 1 option.  He must let the member contact the wing commander to air his "beef".  The wing commander was the corporate officer who participated in the NB action.  There is no need to go above the wing commander for any NB action.  However, if the member continues, there will no other response that will be given because, the wing commander already gave it.  No disciplinary action will be taken for this exercise unless the member does something that breaks the regulations.  Asking questions, respectfully, never does that.
 
Now, what was that term defining the expectation of a different response for doing the same thing over and over again?? :D

Quote from: FW on March 10, 2011, 12:20:12 PM
Now, what was that term defining the expectation of a different response for doing the same thing over and over again?? :D

:clap: :D :clap: :D

Quote from: FW on March 10, 2011, 12:20:12 PM
I've never observed a membership termination, demotion in grade or suspension due to a member using the chain of command to speak with any member in a leadership position "above" him or her.

This has been my experience as well. 

I saw two types of actions surrounding use/misuse of the chain of command:

1) An individual has an issue/problem/grievance at the unit level, either with HHQ, or the unit.  He or she airs this with the squadron commander.  Squadron commander, if he/she is doing his/her job right, either addresses the issue to the member's satisfaction (at which point there is likely no need to exercise the chain of command) or the member is not satisfied and requests to air this issue/problem/grievance with group or wing.  The individual then addresses this with the group or wing commander, and the group or wing commander attempts to fix whatever it is.   And so on and so forth, up the chain.

2) An individual has an issue/problem/grievance, doesn't give the unit commander the opportunity to address it or potentially even _know_ about it,  goes to group/wing/region/national without the required stops at the intervening levels, and winds up pissing everybody off.  (note: this of course does not contravene the IG process which is available to members, especially when there is a legitimate issue with the chain of command)

Situation 1: Like Col Weiss, I've never seen that result in disciplinary action if the member was dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's. 
Situation 2: I've seen that result in disciplinary action more times than I care to count.

Member: "I don't like the policy that our squadron commander has put in place about uniform wear at meetings. I'm gonna call wing!"
Me: (when I was just a staff officer, arms crossed, bored) "Jumping the chain. Don't do it. "
Member: "I know my rights!"
Member: (unintelligible rantings to wing/region without talking to the squadron or group commander)
[bad things happen here]
Me: "Well, I saw that one coming"
Former member: "I guess I should have listened to you."

I was a squadron commander multiple times for a sum total of about 10 years in the hot seat (holy cow, really? Let me count that again.. Six months.. 2 years, 5 years, 2 years.. Yeah, pretty close.. wow).  My personal policy was always to handle issues at the lowest possible level first, and bump things forward via the command channel on the member's behalf.

Now, if the member had a beef with me, he's still got the IG process at his disposal.

My experience has also been that the people that tend to "go right to the top" are the ones who seem to froth at the mouth and can't put together a rational argument anyway.  They get all bent that they don't get "instant gratification" on their issue from the first person they talk to (who may, or may not, have the power to address that issue fully), and then they start ranting and raving to all who might listen.

Most successful "driving an issue up the chain" things I've ever seen were done professionally, in writing, with the necessary stops the intervening command levels.  Sadly, the art of the well-crafted administrative correspondence has been lost to the "I want info/feedback NOW" world of email.

Quote from: NIN on March 10, 2011, 02:23:59 PMMost successful "driving an issue up the chain" things I've ever seen were done professionally, in writing, with the necessary stops the intervening command levels.  Sadly, the art of the well-crafted administrative correspondence has been lost to the "I want info/feedback NOW" world of email.

Going straight to the top eliminates a critical feedback loop that comes from the chain-of-command.  You Squadron/CC will kick back feedback that helps you refine your argument for the Group/CC, and again for the Wing/CC.  Go straight to the Wing King, and you're going with your weakest argument with nobody having had a chance to find the weaknesses for you to fix.

Quote from: NIN on March 10, 2011, 02:23:59 PMMy experience has also been that the people that tend to "go right to the top" are the ones who seem to froth at the mouth and can't put together a rational argument anyway.  They get all bent that they don't get "instant gratification" on their issue from the first person they talk to (who may, or may not, have the power to address that issue fully), and then they start ranting and raving to all who might listen.

If this were a shooting contest, that would have been the whole grouping through one hole, in the center.

Right on. Plus, putting the actual time-sinking resource wasting issue aside, it's quite funny to watch that person just "go stupid" while doing it, making utter fools of themselves. Spouting and flailing along the way, claiming that "the whole unit" is out to get "them" or the person they are doing this on behalf of. (when it's usually a parent thats lied to by their 'perfect' kid who can't seem to understand that they are not special, the only one in the world with their problem, and that the program has generally worked well for 65 years, I'd say thats stood the sands of time well.

Just a comment here. Guess, I got a little side-tracked reading all this information and the left-base thing that went on.

Considering that I'm joe average member with no insight into the the activiites of the NB/NEC or NHQ -- only a real distain for all the politics -- I do realize that the goings on of a former national commader really rocked this organization to its core. And, I really don't feel that the comments on this string by a "suspended" blogger should have any real merit and only serves to stur things up a bit, as it has.

I do know, however, all that the current national commander has been attacked serveral times while working very hard to repair the damage with the Air Force, our elected leadership, and the general membership....a schedule that has been amazing and all without pay. It has amused me that the current National Commander has always been a phone call away from the CSAF and Congressional offices. I would rather trust the leadership to be acting in a spirt of what's good for the organization and not for their own agenda.

Maybe all of these changes strengthens our role within the Air Force or the federal government. Maybe it changes the governance model enough to allow for other positive changes. I know, I for one, always believed that the National Commander should be board selected by the Air Force or the BoG. It makes it a very clean process. Let's just wait and see.

Quote from: flyboy1 on March 11, 2011, 11:34:53 AM
Considering that I'm joe average member with no insight into the the activities of the NB/NEC or NHQ -- only a real disdain for all the politics

This is the reason why "transparency and good governance" is key to a successful Civil Air Patrol.
The average member has absolutely no idea what goes on in the NB, NEC or BoG. While this is not necessarily a bad thing, the membership should, at least, have the opportunity to know what issues they are working on which effect us all.  Unfortunately, it seems only because of CAPTalk and postings of "the bloggers", do we get any idea at all. 

Do any really know why Pineda is gone?  NO!   It is a closed matter of the BoG.  We only assume what happened.  The knowledge we have is due to the "leaks" or other such outside reporting that may or may not be true. We trust our leadership acted in our best interests. But, we at least knew there was a problem coming. We saw major issues (many of which were open agenda items of the NB) which were throwing up red flags everywhere.  CAP has moved on. 

Today there are other issues which consume the leadership.  My observations give me the impression of less transparency than ever before.  There is absolutely no reason to keep the idea for improving our governance from the general membership.  Yes, I understand that the committee's work should be "closed" however, the finished report should not.  The members deserve a say.  And, because of the "grapevine", they have the opportunity.  Over time, the members will have a further chance to provide input through official channels. 

There is a place for closed sessions and non disclosure.  However there is no place to control the flow of information to the point of silliness.  IMHO, we are becoming paranoid with sharing ideas.  Sharing ideas with the membership; especially those ideas which have a general bearing on the organization is healthy.  It may take more energy to provide sunshine but, at least, it's healthy.

YMMV  ;D 

Quote from: flyboy1 on March 11, 2011, 11:34:53 AM
I do know, however, all that the current national commander has been attacked serveral times while working very hard to repair the damage with the Air Force, our elected leadership, and the general membership....a schedule that has been amazing and all without pay. It has amused me that the current National Commander has always been a phone call away from the CSAF and Congressional offices. I would rather trust the leadership to be acting in a spirt of what's good for the organization and not for their own agenda.

Nicely written, sir.

I know General Courter. She's a phone call away from me (a retired CAP member), not because she's the National Commander, but because she's in my phone book and Christmas card list as "Amy" >:)

But thats the way she's always been, as my group commander, or wing commander.

(Funny story: right after she was elected as the National Vice Commander, she came up here for our wing conference.  This was, uh, September of 2006 as I recall. I had been more or less inactive for awhile, just doing some minor squadron-level stuff, so I had been totally out of the "wing scene" for awhile.  I showed up on Friday night to the hospitality suite, knowing that the General would be there. I walk in, get some weird looks from wing staff folks, and Amy spots me from across the room, excuses herself from the conversation she's having and makes a beeline for me.  Big loud "haven't seen you in years" reunion, all the wing staff folks are like "Wait, how does he know the General?"  I even had the wing vice come up to me and demand to know why I thought I could act that way around the vice national commander. I suggested that there was some beach sand nearby that might find a home in his nether regions..<GRIN>)

I have to agree with NIN and flyboy 1.  While I do not know General Courter, the same way NIN, does, I have spoken to her multiple times in various locales and situations and always found her to be sincere, and approachable. 

She also inherited a major mess and has worked to clean it up. Does she always get it right, absolutely not, but show me someone who does.  I personally believe she always strives to steer CAP into doing the right thing and for the right reasons and that means that no matter what actions she takes or reviews, she is going to upset some of the members.

Instead of the back biting that often goes on here and in the wings, perhaps people need to step back, take a deep breath, and think about how we can be part of the improvement process. In short we can be part of the solution, part of the problem or simply walk away in frustration, but in any case, the choice is ours.

I choose to be part of the solution. 

Quote from: Larry Mangum on March 11, 2011, 03:49:34 PM
Instead of the back biting that often goes on here and in the wings, perhaps people need to step back, take a deep breath, and think about how we can be part of the improvement process. In short we can be part of the solution, part of the problem or simply walk away in frustration, but in any case, the choice is ours.

I choose to be part of the solution.

I don't have too much to add.

I just wanted to quote this because I think it's worth reading at least twice. :)

Quote from: flyboy1 on March 11, 2011, 11:34:53 AM
I know, I for one, always believed that the National Commander should be board selected by the Air Force or the BoG. It makes it a very clean process. Let's just wait and see.

Agreed.

The only National Commanders I have met are General Bergman and the current Commandant of the U.S. Ranger Corps.

I have never met General Courter, but virtually all accounts I have heard of those who have met her and some who know her personally click with what's been said here - that she is very personable and approachable.

I think she had a lot of moxie to wade into the hornets' nest left by her predecessor. 

All right, she's not perfect.  None of us are.

The only decision I profoundly disagree with was the termination of the CSU - and that wasn't her alone.

Nonetheless, because she is our National Commander and she's trying to do a decent job, I think she deserves respect.

Quote from: Briski on March 11, 2011, 03:54:18 PM

Quote from: Larry Mangum on March 11, 2011, 03:49:34 PM
Instead of the back biting that often goes on here and in the wings, perhaps people need to step back, take a deep breath, and think about how we can be part of the improvement process. In short we can be part of the solution, part of the problem or simply walk away in frustration, but in any case, the choice is ours.

I choose to be part of the solution.

I just wanted to quote this because I think it's worth reading at least twice. :)

It is a good quote.  Sort of like "I'm for safety".   >:D

No one (who wants the best for CAP) wants Gen Courter to fail or, wish her anything but success.  I don't think that is the issue.  The issue is, IMHO, how do we become "part of the solution" when we don't have any idea what is going on due to a complete lack of (official) information. 

I've worked with and known every National Commander since Gen Anderson.  I've been witness to every peak and valley of our governance since 1994. The difference between today and then is the complete control of information flowing to the membership. 

This is not a matter of "trust" it is a matter of being able to make reasonable decisions based on the need to know.  Even a cursory knowledge of what was going to happen with the "CSU' may have averted the huge outcry we ended up with.  Same with the governance committee report.  If the membership was prepared, we wouldn't be having this conversation.  This has nothing to do with confidentiality or "non disclosure".  It has to do with control. And, I think this need for control is getting a bit silly. 

This is my opinion and, from our continued conversation, seems valid.

How do we become part of the solution?

By doing our job and forcing our peers and subordinates to do their job.

If you want to make changes...the only way to do that is become part of the system and keeping to your core values.

Make it wing command and then you have power to affect change.

Even if we in the trenches know 100% of what was going on up at the HQ level....we have no power beyond using the chain of command.

If we want staight answers to our questions....again we use the chain of command.

Quote from: FW on March 11, 2011, 10:37:47 PM
This is not a matter of "trust" it is a matter of being able to make reasonable decisions based on the need to know.  Even a cursory knowledge of what was going to happen with the "CSU' may have averted the huge outcry we ended up with.  Same with the governance committee report.  If the membership was prepared, we wouldn't be having this conversation.  This has nothing to do with confidentiality or "non disclosure".  It has to do with control. And, I think this need for control is getting a bit silly. 

This is my opinion and, from our continued conversation, seems valid.

:clap:

The leadership cannot on one hand do things like "Governance" discussions behind closed doors with no information available to members, and at the same time complain that people are jumping to wild speculation. 

Look at it another way.  In 2008, the US House of Representatives held a closed session for the first time in decades.  They have the right to do so when they wish to do so.  This was with respect to legitimately sensitive information (Electronic Surveillance of Terror Suspects). 

What do you think would happen if the House of Representatives and Senate went into closed sessions and passed a Constitutional Amendment (ie. recommendations WRT "Governance")?  Do you think people would just say "Oh well, we know they've proposed some kind of amendment or other, but we don't really need to know what it is."?  Seriously?

I see the need for closed sessions.  They happen on all corporate boards and other governing bodies.  But governance issues are not a topic that should be discussed behind closed doors.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 11, 2011, 10:51:26 PM
Make it wing command and then you have power to affect change.

Apparently this would no longer be the case if  the proposal under discussion was what was reported here.

Quote from: JeffDG on March 12, 2011, 12:05:12 AM
What do you think would happen if the House of Representatives and Senate went into closed sessions and passed a Constitutional Amendment (ie. recommendations WRT "Governance")?  Do you think people would just say "Oh well, we know they've proposed some kind of amendment or other, but we don't really need to know what it is."?  Seriously?

Well, since a Constitutional Amendment has to be ratified by the states, I'd think the people would say  "Once they decide the _what_, we can decide on the 'yes' or 'no' part."  IOW, no matter the discussion that gets there, a Constitutional Amendment is not something that can be decided in secret.

(I think you picked a poor example, but I surely do take your meaning)

Quote from: FW on March 11, 2011, 10:37:47 PM
Even a cursory knowledge of what was going to happen with the "CSU' may have averted the huge outcry we ended up with.

In what respect?

The "outcry" from the Air Force (which seemed to be much greater in perception than reality, given that they gave directives for correcting it, which were followed), or the "outcry" from the membership from canning it?

I am harbouring some hope that the decision to do away with it will be at least partially reversed to keep it with the modifications General Courter has directed.

However, I'm not going to hold my breath, given that it seems like the last thing National wants to talk about right now is uniform issues (and, no, I'm not trying to turn this into a "uniform" thread).

Given the popularity of the CSU among rank-and-file CAP members, I think the real issue concerning that is that we were, by and large, not heard.  OK, that could invoke the military argument that the brass doesn't need our approval, like when the Army phased out the Ike jacket for the "greens" and later made the dress blues standard, or when the Coast Guard designed its own uniform rather than continuing with the modified Navy rig.

But then the "corporate" side of decision-making-by-board comes into it...and the schizoid nature of CAP shows itself again.

^An interesting supposition on my point.  However, the "outcry" from the membership is what extended the wear of the "CSU".  The membership was heard but, after the fact.  If the membership was notified (there was no reason the motion was withheld from the meeting agenda). There would have been proper vetting of the issue before the decision was made.

Because of our status as members of a civilian benevolent public service organization, we need to be part of the solution by being informed of those issues which we "need to know" about.  We trust our leadership to be forthcoming with the information when we need to have it. 

I suspect there may have been a "frank and open exchange of views" (i.e., some real disagreement and argument within the NB) about these governance proposals.

I can understand their desire to have such a discussion (debate?) in executive session.

A summary report to the general membership identifying the issues discussed, majority and minority opinions, could do a great deal to dispel the aura of conspiracy that some see in this closed meeting.

Personally, since the only worst kept secret than CAP's existence is a secret within CAP, I'm not particularly concerned: the whole story is bound to leak out in the next few months!

Quote from: FW on March 11, 2011, 01:09:49 PM

Quote from: flyboy1 on March 11, 2011, 11:34:53 AM
Considering that I'm joe average member with no insight into the the activities of the NB/NEC or NHQ -- only a real disdain for all the politics

This is the reason why "transparency and good governance" is key to a successful Civil Air Patrol.


Today there are other issues which consume the leadership.  My observations give me the impression of less transparency than ever before.  There is absolutely no reason to keep the idea for improving our governance from the general membership.  Yes, I understand that the committee's work should be "closed" however, the finished report should not.  The members deserve a say.  And, because of the "grapevine", they have the opportunity.  Over time, the members will have a further chance to provide input through official channels. 

There is a place for closed sessions and non disclosure.  However there is no place to control the flow of information to the point of silliness.  IMHO, we are becoming paranoid with sharing ideas.  Sharing ideas with the membership; especially those ideas which have a general bearing on the organization is healthy.  It may take more energy to provide sunshine but, at least, it's healthy.

YMMV  ;D

I've always wondered if there was a major issue involving the membership why at the wing level and below the membership couldn't at least get polled on what they think.  Surely the people we have on the boards have extensive experience and likely "most" have the best intentions for Civil Air Patrol but doesn't the general membership's opinion count ???.

I would agree that certain items should be secret (e.g. adverse personnel actions, contract negotiations, etc.) but on governance issues, yes a summary of the proposal would be in order as well as the actual vote by each members of the board.    Also on this "non disclosure" agreement is it really to broad and an attempt to muzzle information that should get out to the general membership ??? :(   

I think at least some in the membership need to remember that this is the CIVIL Air Patrol and reorient their fantasy thinking that this is the military -- It isn't!!!!, and IF you get too many members annoyed with foolishness they will just reduce their volunteer time availability or leave the program completely :(.
RM