Historic National Winter Board Session

[Major Carrales]

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.

[NCRblues]

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....

[lordmonar]

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.

[Ned]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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.

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?

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?

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.

. . . 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."

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?

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.

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 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

[NCRblues]

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...

[James Shaw]

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?

[Ned]

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.

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....

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. 

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 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.

[NCRblues]

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?

[lordmonar]

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.

[Ned]

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.")

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.

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

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?

[NCRblues]

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....

[Ned]

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]

[NIN]

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.

[NIN]

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...

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.

[RiverAux]

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. 

 

[FW]

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...

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.   

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...

[FW]

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. 

[RiverAux]

Technically, 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. 

[FW]

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. 

[NCRblues]

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...