Col Tilton wins....again!

[Westernslope]

I was so pleased to learn that Col John Tilton's membership has been reinstated and he was cleared of all charges. Recognizing his contributions to CAP, MSWG wasted no time in appointing him to Wing staff.

Sometimes the fight to clear your name is worth it.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Who?

[Eclipse]

Who?

Exactly.  Of relevance and interest only to him and those that know him.
Not something that should be discussed publicly unless one is looking to stir a pot.
Personnel actions should be left private.

[RiverAux]

Personnel actions should be left private.

Generally yes, but we're talking about one of the highest leaders in CAP not a squadron personnel officer.  This is akin to a supreme court justice being impeached by Congress. 

[FW]

I would agree with Eclipse's statement; especially when we have no official idea of what happend. However, Col Tilton is an active member of Civil Air Patrol.  He was a former Wing Commander, Region Commander, National Safety Officer and, an At Large member of the Board of Governors. 
His removal from the BoG was very public.  His suspension of membership pending his termination was also reported by various websites and, his reinstatement has also been reported (which is accurate). 

I'm just happy this "ordeal" is over for a distinguished member as Col Tilton.  I hope he will serve CAP for many, many years to come.

[RiverAux]

The fact that we don't know the facts of this case shows a major weakness in our system.  At this level of CAP governance if a move is made to remove someone from their position it should be made entirely in view of the "public" meaning us.  If one of the absolute top leaders of CAP is to be canned we SHOULD know why and that person should have a chance to defend themselves right up front to their "jury".

Incidentally, the MARB results on e-services haven't been updated for a very long time. 

[FW]

At this point, all I know is that CAPR35-3 was changed at the direction of the BoG because of this case.  I think this is the first time a regulation was modified by the BoG. 
I don't think there is a weakness in the system in that "we" don't get to hear the details however, there may be a weakness in the system if we find it was abused (IMHO).
I'm sure there will be some review of the details of the case.  And, if there is something we need to know about, we will...

MARB reports are given to the BoG at every meeting.  NHQ publishes them with about the same frequency.  Things may change after today if the BoG decided to reorganize the MARB (they met today).

[jimmydeanno]

Whatever issues went down with this, I had no idea.  I'm a VERY active member and have been for 15 years.  I like to think that I'm pretty informed about what goes on in the organization.  Whatever happened had absolutely no effect on me, and I can pretty much assume that 64,900 of our 65,000 members couldn't even tell you who the man is or was, nevermind whatever conspiracy theorists or the MARB said or did.

From this thread I know that a former BoG member was removed.  Whatever happens in the political arena 5-levels above me is bound to have little effect on the general membership.  I wouldn't exactly call whatever this is, something that shook the organization to its core, by any means.

[NCRblues]

The fact that we don't know the facts of this case shows a major weakness in our system.  At this level of CAP governance if a move is made to remove someone from their position it should be made entirely in view of the "public" meaning us.  If one of the absolute top leaders of CAP is to be canned we SHOULD know why and that person should have a chance to defend themselves right up front to their "jury".

Incidentally, the MARB results on e-services haven't been updated for a very long time.

I asked NED about the MARB reports being updated some time ago, and he said he would work on it...i never expected to hear much back, and i see that it has not been updated....

[Ned]

On my way back from the BoG meeting.  The MARB update was briefed and will be released shortly.

[FW]

From this thread I know that a former BoG member was removed.  Whatever happens in the political arena 5-levels above me is bound to have little effect on the general membership.  I wouldn't exactly call whatever this is, something that shook the organization to its core, by any means.

Interesting however, IMO, this is not a good take on events which happen "5-levels above me". 

From this case, we all know the "system" works.  We have a series of checks which show a member has a chance to successfully defend themselves from accusations and adverse membership actions.

Also, we see that the BoG will act when it sees a problem with the regulations. 

All in all, I think this is important for all the members.

[John Tilton]

I have spent over 20 months trying to work within the system to correct this injustice.  Maybe there is some hope for that approach.
For those who care, the charges on my 2B were basically the same as those to remove me from the BoG. The MARB ruled the proper  removal process was not followed and there was not enough evidence to support the charges. This was discounted by the BoG because the removal was not an "adverse personnel action".  They did not concern themselves with the improper removal process.  Both the MARB and the Membership Termination Appeal Board ruled the charges were not sustained.
I am looking forward to continued participation in the Civil Air Patrol. 

[AirDX]

Who?

Exactly.  Of relevance and interest only to him and those that know him.
Not something that should be discussed publicly unless one is looking to stir a pot.
Personnel actions should be left private.

Wrong.  Chicanery in high places is of interest and relevance to every single member of CAP.  Your head-in-the-sand attitude is what leads to these things being allowed to get out of hand.

[Eclipse]

Wrong.  Chicanery in high places is of interest and relevance to every single member of CAP.  Your head-in-the-sand attitude is what leads to these things being allowed to get out of hand.

No, I, and I would hazard the majority of those who are aware, are simply tired of the TMZ'ing of the Civil Air Patrol.

[RiverAux]

Any one in authority that feels strongly enough about removing an individual from a position at this level in CAP should be more than willing to present their case in a public fashion before any change is made.  This will help raise the bar to help keep cases from being sent to the MARB in the first place.  If they know that they will have to make their case in public they won't be as willing to can someone for baseless reasons. 

And quite frankly, if someone at this level has actually done something very wrong and really deserves to get canned, then they deserve to get shamed before all of CAP by having these charges made public. 

This is why we don't have trials in secret in the United States.  It keeps everyone honest. 

Assuming we don't make such changes, at a minimum I would like to see some negative consequences against anyone in CAP that has made an adverse personnel decision or termination decision and then loses that case before the MARB.  While it is great that the MARB will make whole the person charged, the people that instigated the situation need to be punished themselves.  Otherwise, they have no incentive not to keep doing the same thing in the future. 

[jimmydeanno]

Membership actions shouldn't be public.  We don't need to be in the business of degrading people's reputations and character.

Would you want your employer publishing a news article after they fired you?  As a future employer, when you call a person's previous place of employment, most are unwilling to say what terms you left on.  They'll confirm dates of employment, salaries (sometimes), and other generic, but usually won't say, "we fired him because he was stealing money from petty cash."

How about having any employee that you work with being able to wander down to personnel to see your personnel file?  Or the personnel department spreading around the reasons you were terminated to everyone that you worked with?

Our members aren't public officials, our corporate officer removals shouldn't be made public except for a "Col Soandso was replaced by Col Soandso on XXJUN11."

More public membership terminations like pedophiles, etc aren't the same as the "we had personality conflicts" terminations. 

Our membership actions aren't a matter of public record and I don't think that we need to be in the business of openly justifying every decision that is made to every member of our organization. 

This isn't the court system.  CAP isn't a "right to volunteer" organization.  We don't conduct adverse membership actions in public hearing, so why would we make the results and justification of those hearings public? 

[Eclipse]

Riveraux:  No secret trials?  Which country are you from?  There are plenty of sealed records, gag orders, sealed settlements, and
mountains of military tribunals, Courts Martial, and classified court and Congressional actions.

There is no way anyone not personally involved can possibly make an informed opinion regarding what happened, so unless
Col. Tilton, Maj. Gen Courter, the members of the MARB, and anyone else directly involved in whatever caused the initial issue(s) sits
for a Frontline piece, it will always be he-said / she-said.

For goodness sake there are still debates about the causes of WWI & WWII, which is fine because all the players in those situations
are long dead and buried, but even with a mountain of what people believe to be "facts", there is still debate.  In this case the "players"
are all volunteers giving of their time and treasure to try and make things a little better in their part of the universe.  No one on
any side of the table should be getting grief or public scrutiny for doing the best they can with few resources.

Riveraux: you want to start holding people responsible for improper personnel actions?  How about we work on getting some consistency
of message, regulation, and across the board training before you start holding people responsible when they guess wrong.  Half the commanders
in this organization are wearing the badge because no one else wanted to, and trying their darndest to get things right under a moountain
of adminitrative nonsense and a roomful of people who "know better".  At the national level? Everyone "knows better", and has no
reluctance to let everyone else know how much they "know better".

Further, in most of the cases I know of first-hand, and/or have read in the various MARB briefings and other documents, in almost all cases these are
"you can't tell me what to do..."  "Oh, yes I can..." situations between adults acting like 6th graders.  Then somebody loses.

A personnel action reversed by the MARB doesn't mean the original issues weren't valid, any more than a sustained action necessarily means
the person wasn't railroaded.   I'm sure everyone reading this knows of at least one or the other situation, and many of us know of both.

The other issue is that thanks to the drama-rich universe that is social media, blogs, and mass media in general, it isn't enough any more
just to disagree with a person's ideas, people need to demonize the other side as "opposition", which brings with it more agnst and more
animosity.  Rinse Repeat.

Absent the verifiable details of all sides, these discussions only fuel the above, and make it harder to get any real work done.
Those of you who perpetuate this nonsense don't need to look any further when you want to know why baseline things like regulation deconfliction and updates and program evolution aren't happening, because by the time everyone is done putting out their personal fire, they don't
have the time or energy to address anything related to the actual program.

That'swhy the doors should stay closed, the conversations private, and these things handled expediently and with a respect for the
NDAs.

All sides deserve that respect.

[RiverAux]

There is no way anyone not personally involved can possibly make an informed opinion regarding what happened, so unless
Col. Tilton, Maj. Gen Courter, the members of the MARB, and anyone else directly involved in whatever caused the initial issue(s) sits
for a Frontline piece, it will always be he-said / she-said.

Of course we can't make any informed decisions when no one is forced to make their case in a public forum.  And he said/she said cases are brought into court all the time so that certainly isn't any disqualification. 

How about we work on getting some consistency of message, regulation, and across the board training before you start holding people responsible when they guess wrong. 

I've got no problem with that at all. 

A personnel action reversed by the MARB doesn't mean the original issues weren't valid, any more than a sustained action necessarily means the person wasn't railroaded.

Very true.  I certainly wasn't advocating for taking action against people whose actions get reversed without taking into consideration the entire situation.  If an honest mistake was made, no big deal - MARB fixed it. 

But, in those very, very rare cases where they are found to have really done something wrong and the MARB rules against the action they had taken, then they should face some consequences.   And you are right that there are probably people that got railroaded but lost the MARB appeal, usually because of procedural errors on their part (which seems to be why most people lose MARB appeals). 

[ColonelJack]

Well, if no one else will say it, I will ...

Welcome to CAPTalk, Colonel Tilton.

Jack