CAP Public Trust Task Force

[RiverAux]

This announcement has been on CAP News Online and was also distributed through the chain of command (at least I got one copy that way):

Col. Russell E. Chazell, Civil Air Patrol national chief of staff, has issued the following call for volunteers:

As an organization that receives support from both public and private sources, Civil Air Patrol must maintain the highest standards of public trust and accountability. High public trust standards must encompass all aspects of Civil Air Patrol's organizational business practices and procedures.

To that end, the national commander has directed me to establish a "Public Trust Task Force." This task force will consider issues of organizational accountability, organizational transparency and review of organizational processes that bear upon public trust issues.

From the national commander, the task force will be assigned issues of importance to the concept of public trust and, after thoughtful research,
review and consideration, will make recommendations to the commander for
possible consideration by the policy makers of Civil Air Patrol — the National Board, the National Executive Committee or the Board of Governors, as appropriate.

The Public Trust Task Force will be comprised of CAP members selected by the
national commander. A chairperson will also be selected by the national
commander. The task force will work with the commander, through the national
chief of staff, on relevant public trust issues assigned to it.

Those CAP members in good standing wishing to participate as members of the
Public Trust Task Force may self-nominate by sending a letter of intent, CAP resume and professional resume to Susie Parker at sparker@capnhq.gov. '
Members with experience in corporate governance, corporate law or service as corporate board members are preferred, but any member is welcome to apply.

Applications are due by Jan. 31.

What do you think about this?

[Timbo]

^ We all ready have this "task force".  Public law mandates a Board of Governors.....for this same purpose??

So we need civilian corporate fat cats advising the CAP Commander how to run the business better.  I am curious to see what characteristics they are looking for in those selected to be on this task force.  Do they need to be successfull business owners that make over 5 million a year?  Can they be the shift manager at a McDonald's. 

This and the Organizational Excellence track make me wonder what could be going on.  Perhaps the AF or Law Makers paid our Commander a visit and told her to "clean up" the mess left by Pineda??!?! 

[arajca]

Given these two items, and a couple seemingly minor things, I think it is clean-up time. The source of the clean-up initiative, however, I'm not sure is external (i.e. AF or congress-critters). Given all the reports I've heard about the CAP/CC, she may be driving this herself to prevent the AF or Congress from getting involved.

This next NB will be interesting. I foresee much discussion about the direction of CAP and how it operates. I'm also counting on the CAPTalk standard play-by-play coverage, since I have that work thingie going on during the NB, and won't be able to listen in to the whole thing. 

[RiverAux]

So we need civilian corporate fat cats advising the CAP Commander how to run the business better.

Only CAP members are apparently eligible for membership.

[Timbo]

So we need civilian corporate fat cats advising the CAP Commander how to run the business better.

Only CAP members are apparently eligible for membership.

But....when I really read this

Members with experience in corporate governance, corporate law or service as corporate board members are preferred, but any member is welcome to apply.

It makes me think she will only select Business professionals, just like in the OE specialty track, where you get credit for being a corporate dog. 

[Senior]

My first impression is that all members are eligible, BUT you will be more
eligible if you are high up in a corporation.  I see the reason for their preference.
Can you imagine all the blah blah going on in that first meeting--seeing who is going to be the alpha male and all that.
It sounds like CAP may have a problem that hasn't or won't get out to the
public.  CAP is going to start a board to covers all the bases regarding the
publice trust (where is the money going?).
I say this because most legitimate Christian organizations now are
members of the Evangelical Council of Financial Accountability, ECFA.
These Christian organizations had to create a 3rd party as an oversite
to cover themselves from the fallout from the Bakers in the '80's.
This is just my first impression

[FlexCoder]

Members narcing on other members, how does that create trust, Sounds like a Witch Hunt! 

[Major Carrales]

Members narcing on other members, how does that create trust, Sounds like a Witch Hunt!

Naw, I don' t think it is that.  If I'm readling this right (my interp) it is an attempt to gather a group of interested CAP Officers to really "get the word out" about CAP as being an organization worthy of the Public Trust.

[FlexCoder]

I hope your right Major Carrales.  According to the FBI definition, Public Trust Task Force's are usually designed to aggressively investigate and successfully prosecute allegations of public corruption within an organization that has betrayed the publics trust.  If that is the case, a third unbiased party should be appointed or members investigating other members will result in utter chaos!

[Timbo]

............  If that is the case, a third unbiased party should be appointed or members investigating other members will result in utter chaos!

How about the GAO......Government Accountability Office.  We use money appropriated through Congress.  Maybe we need the FED taking a more active role in accounting for where the money actually goes.

That is what this is about.  Making it known where our money from the tax payers is going. 

Maybe I am being too simple minded, but I don't think a new task force, or group needs to be created.  We got along fine without a group like this for 65+ years?!?!?!?

[arajca]

It's also not uncommon for a corporation to run its own public trust task force to find issues before they become matters for the Feds to investigate. IIRC, there were alot of these run following the Enron collapse.

[FW]

............  If that is the case, a third unbiased party should be appointed or members investigating other members will result in utter chaos!

How about the GAO......Government Accountability Office.  We use money appropriated through Congress.  Maybe we need the FED taking a more active role in accounting for where the money actually goes.

That is what this is about.  Making it known where our money from the tax payers is going. 

Maybe I am being too simple minded, but I don't think a new task force, or group needs to be created.  We got along fine without a group like this for 65+ years?!?!?!?

Nah.  Our money from the "taxpayer fund" is well accounted and we have multiple layers of oversight and, no one on the volunteer side has any real means to cause a major "FWA" problem.  However, with the "membership fund".  There could be a real problem with FWA issues.  However, I don't think it is just the money which is driving this "task force".  I think it is more of a "governance" issue.  IMHO, the leadership of CAP, at all levels, needs to understand how to work within the "public trust".  Having a committee to work on this can be very beneficial.

[Timbo]

...It's also not uncommon for a corporation to run its own public trust task force to find issues before they become matters for the Feds to investigate....

Yes.....but how many corporations are directly funded by Federal Tax Dollars??

[CAPLAW]

What a joke!    What the #!%@ are our core values for if we need this kind of garbage.

[CAP_truth]

The Public Trust Task Force will be comprised of CAP members selected by the
national commander. A chairperson will also be selected by the national
commander. The task force will work with the commander, through the national
chief of staff, on relevant public trust issues assigned to it.

For those that apply notice that selections are made by national cc, chairperson selected by national cc and works with national cc

[Pylon]

...It's also not uncommon for a corporation to run its own public trust task force to find issues before they become matters for the Feds to investigate....

Yes.....but how many corporations are directly funded by Federal Tax Dollars??

Private corporations and non-profits?   Uh... thousands. 

[PHall]

...It's also not uncommon for a corporation to run its own public trust task force to find issues before they become matters for the Feds to investigate....

Yes.....but how many corporations are directly funded by Federal Tax Dollars??

Private corporations and non-profits?   Uh... thousands. 

After the financial services bailout from Congress, about half of Wall Street!

[RiverAux]

Is it a good idea to have a group within CAP whose sole purpose is to ask the question "Is this a good use of public funds?" a good idea?  Yes. 

However, the difficult part is that the group is going to need to have extraordinary access to all sorts of documents that are normally not really available to the SM Snuffy Smith such as detailed financial records.  I would assume that such access would be granted.

Perhaps this group would be the one asking some of the tough questions that have been discussed here recently such as:
1.  Is the DDR program actually making a difference in how many kids and CAP cadets are using drugs?

2.  Do we have some tangible statistics showing that the cadet program is meeting both the formal goals set for it? 

3.  What is CAP's plan for meeting one of the goals of our organization set by Congress that is ignored by CAP --- fostering civil aviation in our local communities

4.  Demanding rigorous evaluation of test programs such as whatever the Junior Cadet program is called now, including publishing reports documenting these evaluations. 

To me, the tough part is going to be the relationship between this group and the CAP Inspector Generals. 

[Timbo]

1.  Is the DDR program actually making a difference in how many kids and CAP cadets are using drugs?

Not apparent unless we start drug testing our Cadets?? 

2.  Do we have some tangible statistics showing that the cadet program is meeting both the formal goals set for it? 

What goals??  Those in the Cadet Program Manual?  I have a Doctorate and can't even differentiate between some of them!  How many Spaatz cadets we have?  The turnover rate?  How many go one to college??  What is the goal.......build better citizens?  How are we supposed to monitor that?  See how many previous Cadets wind up in jail?

3.  What is Cap's plan for meeting one of the goals of our organization set by Congress that is ignored by CAP --- fostering civil aviation in our local communities

hmmm.......not apparent either.  I have flown for 15 years and never once saw anything aerospace related coming from CAP in my community.   

4.  Demanding rigorous evaluation of test programs such as whatever the Junior Cadet program is called now, including publishing reports documenting these evaluations. 

Last report on the School Initiative was in 2006.  PAWG shut down some Initiative school programs, and they were a strong leader in the field, so probably not going well. 

There is no way to see how well the CAP program is running.  Do we base it on membership numbers?  I can't see any way to do it.  Everything is subjective anyway.  Some units are better off financially than others, that is a big factor!  Some meet in a rural airport while some meet on an Air Force Base that supports the heck out of them. 

I think this task force is only going to be used by our Commander to say "hey AF/ Congress, look we have an internal audit group and they say everything is fine".  It is seemingly a ploy to get more Federal Funds, and there is nothing wrong with that.......

[RiverAux]

Well, thanks for going into more depth on the issues I raised that might be appropriate for the task force to look at. 

Probably the most important thing is that it needs to be TOTALLY transparent.  If they keep things hidden behind the curtain like the IG system does, then it will not be trusted.  The minutes of all their meetings need to be made public as well as any reports that they write.  And by "public", I mean posted on the public portion of the web site and available to everybody and not just CAP members. 

[stratoflyer]

Should be interesting to see how all this turns out.

[FlexCoder]

Agreed RiverAux!  As long as they keep the communication lines open & the actions of the task force are conducted in fairness, we will continue to see change as a catalyst rather than a curse. 

[wingnut55]

We may have some serious problems

1. Do we have a response time issue when AFRCC calls for help?
2. Do we actually need or use the 350 aircraft nation wide?
3. Has multimillion dollar programs been funded by Congress and the outcomes
    been questionable, or a failure?
4. What is the actual percentages of every dollar given by Congress used for
    Administration versus the field.
5.What are the Actual percentages of saves versus cost.

I know some of you will blast me, too bad!! I have not touched some real issues that I am aware of.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I am not sure what to make of this.

As far as "Corporate" types, are there any CAP members working as executives at AIG?  My point being, I am not sure that private corporations are in a position to tell anyone anything about "Public trust."

CAP seems to be fascinated with being a "Corporation," and enamored with the "Corporate mystique."  Frankly, I'm not sure how many of us volunteer our time for the honor of being unpaid employees of a non-profit corporation.

Maybe, in the interest of "Public trust," we should get back to our roots as a paramilitary organization, quit talking like Wall Street executives, and be proud of being the auxiliary of the finest air force in the world.  An air force, by the way, which engenders WAY more public trust than any corporation in history.

[Timbo]

^ Well put Major K. 

Lets not forget, Corporate types are employed to grow a business and make money for said business.  Are we needing to be like them?  Yes and no.  We do need to grow, and that takes each of us, getting out there and actively recruiting.  No, in that our mission is not to make money.  The only shareholders we need to make happy are the USAF, and our Congressional types that award us our money.  We have both of those groups taken care of.  We have a Corporate Office in DC, which is supposed to be engaging with lawmakers, and we have a HQ filled with Staffers that should be interfacing with the AF.

I see no point in creating yet another group to address things that seem to be getting addressed.

Maybe I took a totally different view of this, but there really was not much to go on to form a definitive opinion.

[PHall]

We may have some serious problems

1. Do we have a response time issue when AFRCC calls for help?
2. Do we actually need or use the 350 aircraft nation wide?
3. Has multimillion dollar programs been funded by Congress and the outcomes
    been questionable, or a failure?
4. What is the actual percentages of every dollar given by Congress used for
    Administration versus the field.
5.What are the Actual percentages of saves versus cost.

I know some of you will blast me, too bad!! I have not touched some real issues that I am aware of.

Blast you for what?  Those are all perfectally good questions. One's that if the OMB has not asked them, they should.

[James Shaw]

I personally see this as another effort to foster the Transparent Organization. I am intriqued by it and believe I will apply. I have been involved and effected by both sides of the CAP public trust issue.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I personally see this as another effort to foster the Transparent Organization. I am intriqued by it and believe I will apply. I have been involved and effected by both sides of the CAP public trust issue.

Jim:

I would like to agree with you, but I can't quite figure out of this "Transparency" is an open window or window dressing.

I just don't know what "Corporate" types would have to offer in the way of enhancing public trust.  Frankly, corporations have not been good stewards of the public trust, and looking to them for guidance is a like having the Governor of Illinois give a Moral Leadership class.

[RiverAux]

Members with experience in corporate governance, corporate law or service as corporate board members are preferred

I just don't get why some of you are getting so hung up over the phrase above.  CAP is a corporation, with a corporate structure so having someone familiar with how such organizations work would seem to be a benefit.  After all, there is nothing preventing the local hospital janitor from being the National Commander. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

River:

If you don't get why I am confused by the idea of corporate types telling us how to improve our public trust, then you must not have been paying attention to the news.

Try asking 10 random people if American corporations are trusted by the American people. 

[Timbo]

Try asking 10 random people if American corporations are trusted by the American people. 

Don't want to answer for anyone else, but according to a recent CNN/Washington Post poll.....70 percent of Americans don't trust ANYONE working for a Corporation.

Anyway.  This is just a waste of time, resources and money.  We can spend all three on better issues.  Who are we really trying to win over here??  Congress....they give us the money already.  America populace....most don't even know what CAP is.  The new President.....probably not.  The new Air Force Leadership.....most likely.  They may see CAP as a waste of $$ they could be spending on building a new jet. 

Just my stupid opinion. 

[James Shaw]

Jim:

I would like to agree with you, but I can't quite figure out of this "Transparency" is an open window or window dressing.

I just don't know what "Corporate" types would have to offer in the way of enhancing public trust.  Frankly, corporations have not been good stewards of the public trust, and looking to them for guidance is a like having the Governor of Illinois give a Moral Leadership class.
[/quote]

John,

I have been a member of the National Commanders Squadron during the most recent, former National Commander and the current National Commander. I can only speak for myself but this is my take. The demeanor and approach of the prior NC was very secretive and there was always a hint or feeling that something was going on in the background that just didnt seem right. This went beyond what I would consider business operations that non board members such as myself would be involved in. In everything I have been involved in with MGen Courter she has been 100% open and honest in both things that have applied direclty to me and those that did not. I have asked direct questions and received direct answers. I have not had the feeling that I needed some level of justification from her because I just dont feel that she has anything to hide. She has National Commander business that is none of my concern so I dont even attempt to cross that line. I personally speak with her every couple of weeks about many things and she has to be one of the most approachable and intriquing people I have dealt with in CAP.

I see this as a tie in to the public trust because of these reasons. My educational background is Human Resources Management. As a professional in the HR field I know a few specific things about how any organization is run. One of the most important aspects of any business or team is the leadership. A group of people large or small that has a leader is known and gains a reputation that is associated with the leadership it has. If the person is open and honest than the group is generally known to be the same. If the individual is secretive and closed minded than the group is going to be seen as the same. We are known by the company we keep and are led by. We as participants have a tendancy to take on the personality of those we are around and become closed minded when we feel that is in our best interest because of the secretive nature of the group and when we have an open and transparent organization we do the same.

If the people we deal with in the publics eye and under the microscope get the same feeling about our leadership as we take on than they are going to have the same distrusting feeling about us as a group. I see the Public Trust Task Force as a way to try and rebuild that bridge of trust between the public and the Civil Air Patrol as a whole. I stated in my post earlier that I have seen the result of both sides of this trust issue.

When I received my Silver Medal of Valor I was elated to find out. Though for the most part it was not expected it was still one of the highlights of my time in CAP. The basic requirements includes a minimum of two witnesses for the action. When my paperwork was submitted I had 12 with names and contact information including a detailed report from a third party so there would be no questions. Even with all of the supporting paperwork I was still critiqued by members and outside people alike because of a recent recipient who had been in the news and had stained the image of the group and the award itself. I was having to defend a person, a group, and myself for something I had no direct involvement in and that I have proudly talked about to coworkers and others I know.  Even on this forum we have people who demean others because they associate us with our past troubles.  Even our own members have biases. They question my worth because of someone elses actions. They dont look at the other work we have done. I even had someone make a comment to me at work in the breakroom about the news article in the Atlanta Journal constitution and our recent troubles with them.This person did not mention the hundreds of missions we flew or hundreds of people we saved they only saw what one person made this group look like.

We even had a forum member demean another SMV recipient for their actions dealing with a burning plane that could have exploded. However they did not mention the fact that this same individual has over 400+ Search and Rescue missions and hundreds of finds. The problems went even further for others who deserve awards such as the SMV, BMV, DSM, and ESA. Our prior leadership seemed to hand these out in some respect to people that just did not seem to have "earned them" and those who did deserve them were turned down. This hurt the system overall because there are alot of people who really deserve to be recognized and now the "criteria factor" has caused people to have built in "bias protectors" against many awards. This hurts us from within which in turn can have an effect on our people and the work they do for the public. I honestly see this as a by product of the public trust. Others may see this as a yes man approach to the NC. I have had my disagreements with National and the results were not always good. I have put folks in for high level awards that involved alot of personal sacrifice of time, money, and effort and greatly impacted all of our members and others.  Due to our past NC they have been put in limbo. After talking with some folks I have a better sense of why now is not the time. To me all of this was the byproduct of a single person and perceived or real public trust.  My wife begged me to quit and now refuses to go to a CAP function and can not understand why I stay based on a single event. She knows the work and sacrifices the people made. I dont even tell her about citations I have earned since and has no idea about my GRW.

I dont see a problem with having corporate types as part of this task force. I would personally like to see a mix of people to get a balanced opinion so the information is not narrowed but wide enough to apply to everyone in CAP. If this is done and directed as described and led by MGen Courter I am sure it can only be a good thing for CAP and we as members.

I am a member of Civil Air Patrol and a person whom values trust in people and If I dont feel I can trust the group than how can I as a member of the Public trust them. It all relates to one another.

I am a member of CAP.
I am a member of the Public.
I wouldnt volunteer here if I didnt trust her.

We need to get the trust back and this is a good way to start.

They may not let me participate with the Task Force based on this posting.

No im not a lawyer but I do live close to a Holiday Inn!

[FW]

The actual costs to have another committee are negligible.   Committees come and go (except for constitutionally mandated ones) at the discretion of the commander.  All committees work to bring forward ideas, concerns, recommendations, etc; for the commander, BoG or NB/NEC to act on.  So, it is not the "committee" which will make CAP more "trustworthy" to the public; it will be the membership.

That being said, it shouldn't make any difference what kind of "structure" we operate by.  It does make a difference how "we" operate.  We need to blend high ethical principles with actual operating practices to bring the level of "trust" to "acceptable" levels.  How best to achieve this is a matter for discussion and, hence, the formation of a committee.  I'm sure there are other ways of doing this however, our CAP/CC has decided on this course.  

[JohnKachenmeister]

Jim:

I hear you.  You have correctly identified the problem.  I think we have some divergent thought on the solution.

George Washington once wrote:  "It is my fondest wish that this new American Army think of itself as a band of brothers."  Yes, I know he stole it from Shakespeare, but it was a sincere expression of his thoughts, and it didn't seem to hurt him in the subsequent election.

We in CAP should also consider ourselves to be a band of brothers.  Or, more politically-correct, siblings.  In the recent past we have not resembled a band of bothers, we were much closer to the Vatican during the middle ages.  Constant behind-the-scenes plotting, and good people being burned as witches and heretics.

My view is that a "Task force" made up of corporate types is simply not the way to go.  I agree that a more balanced task force may be of some benefit, but what has to be considered is that the public will see this as a superficial effort to APPEAR transparent, while conducting business as usual. 

I agree with you that MG Courter is an excellent commander.  You ask her a straight question, you get a straight answer.  Her leadership style will go a long way toward making real change as opposed to cosmetic change in CAP. 

But, I still think that packing the task force with corporate types is the wrong way to go.  It takes us in a direction that is not appropriate for us, in my opinion.  For me to come up with a move toward "Transparency," I would move away fro m the corporate world, and move closer to where I think we should be, the military.  If we adopt those values, if we accept that we are a "Band of brothers," we can move together to make CAP the great organization we once were.

Just because we are ORGANIZED and GOVERNED like a corporation, does not mean we should think, act, and accept the values of a corporation.

Am I making sense here, or should I try to quit the hard drugs again?

[MIGCAP]

"The demeanor and approach of the prior NC was very secretive and there was always a hint or feeling that something was going on in the background that just didn't seem right. " 
Thats because there always was something going on in the background that wasn't quite right.
It's interesting that nowhere in the request for volunteers for this new board does it say specifically what they are expected to do. Just the usual fluff about mom, apple pie, and the flag.  Obviously this is an attempt at feel good titles, and organizations that are there for points on an evaluation or investigation, but not for any real purpose.
The fundamental problem that CAP has is that a corporation was created to make sure we could be tax exempt, and have some full time folks who could take the role of doing the repetitive chicken ___ work from the volunteers.  We have ended up with a corporation which rules the volunteers and actually makes the operational decisions (which most of them are not qualified to make) that bind the volunteers and send them into harms way.  We have a system where the volunteers really work for the corporation without pay.  If we want real "Transparency" we simply need to put the corporation back where it belongs, as "wing administrators" for the volunteers. They should not make any financial, operational, or logistical decisions; or establish any policy whatsoever.  That would be the first step. Nobody who gets a salary make any decisions involving money would be the first rule.  Instead of addressing the fundamental problems we are going to have a sounds good, feels good group to tell the GAO about.
As long as we have a corporation making financial decisions, setting operational policy, and ruling the volunteers, we are about as transparent as a brick.

[James Shaw]

Jim:

I hear you.  You have correctly identified the problem.  I think we have some divergent thought on the solution.

George Washington once wrote:  "It is my fondest wish that this new American Army think of itself as a band of brothers."  Yes, I know he stole it from Shakespeare, but it was a sincere expression of his thoughts, and it didn't seem to hurt him in the subsequent election.

We in CAP should also consider ourselves to be a band of brothers.  Or, more politically-correct, siblings.  In the recent past we have not resembled a band of bothers, we were much closer to the Vatican during the middle ages.  Constant behind-the-scenes plotting, and good people being burned as witches and heretics.

My view is that a "Task force" made up of corporate types is simply not the way to go.  I agree that a more balanced task force may be of some benefit, but what has to be considered is that the public will see this as a superficial effort to APPEAR transparent, while conducting business as usual. 

I agree with you that MG Courter is an excellent commander.  You ask her a straight question, you get a straight answer.  Her leadership style will go a long way toward making real change as opposed to cosmetic change in CAP. 

But, I still think that packing the task force with corporate types is the wrong way to go.  It takes us in a direction that is not appropriate for us, in my opinion.  For me to come up with a move toward "Transparency," I would move away fro m the corporate world, and move closer to where I think we should be, the military.  If we adopt those values, if we accept that we are a "Band of brothers," we can move together to make CAP the great organization we once were.

Just because we are ORGANIZED and GOVERNED like a corporation, does not mean we should think, act, and accept the values of a corporation.

Am I making sense here, or should I try to quit the hard drugs again?

Caught between a rock and a hard place for a corporation to be a quasi military group isnt it!

Whatever meds you are taking are working just fine.

[FW]

"The demeanor and approach of the prior NC was very secretive and there was always a hint or feeling that something was going on in the background that just didn't seem right. " 
Thats because there always was something going on in the background that wasn't quite right.
It's interesting that nowhere in the request for volunteers for this new board does it say specifically what they are expected to do. Just the usual fluff about mom, apple pie, and the flag.  Obviously this is an attempt at feel good titles, and organizations that are there for points on an evaluation or investigation, but not for any real purpose.
The fundamental problem that CAP has is that a corporation was created to make sure we could be tax exempt, and have some full time folks who could take the role of doing the repetitive chicken ___ work from the volunteers.  We have ended up with a corporation which rules the volunteers and actually makes the operational decisions (which most of them are not qualified to make) that bind the volunteers and send them into harms way.  We have a system where the volunteers really work for the corporation without pay.  If we want real "Transparency" we simply need to put the corporation back where it belongs, as "wing administrators" for the volunteers. They should not make any financial, operational, or logistical decisions; or establish any policy whatsoever.  That would be the first step. Nobody who gets a salary make any decisions involving money would be the first rule.  Instead of addressing the fundamental problems we are going to have a sounds good, feels good group to tell the GAO about.
As long as we have a corporation making financial decisions, setting operational policy, and ruling the volunteers, we are about as transparent as a brick.

Some interesting observations:
Civil Air Patrol has been a tax except corporation for decades and, was formed by congress for specific purposes since the original "supply bill".  This is just like the red cross and scouting.
Financial decisions are made by the Board of Governors with the advice/recommendation of the NEC.  The corporate employees are responsible for spending the money according to these directions.  Volunteer membership controls the spending and use of the membership contributions (dues) and investments.  Volunteer membership has the final say in all day to day budget changes and, except for restricted appropriated funds (which require Air Force approval to spend), the paid corporate staff has no independent authority to  spend our money.
This "task force" is not nor, will be another "board" of Civil Air Patrol.  
Transparency issues are much more than cash flow.  I would hope the task force can come up with some ideas to help with member concerns as well as the general public.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

CAP seems to be fascinated with being a "Corporation," and enamored with the "Corporate mystique."  Frankly, I'm not sure how many of us volunteer our time for the honor of being unpaid employees of a non-profit corporation.

Maybe, in the interest of "Public trust," we should get back to our roots as a paramilitary organization, quit talking like Wall Street executives, and be proud of being the auxiliary of the finest air force in the world.  An air force, by the way, which engenders WAY more public trust than any corporation in history.

Agreed, at least somewhat. We have to remember our history is not as a business or nonprofit concern, but as a military organization -- even as a warfighting organization, which we were until after World War II hostilities ended.

In 1984, I didn't join a corporation. I joined the Air Force's auxiliary. The Air Force has this whole "heritage to horizons" thing, and while they're fascinated with their history, we seem to forget ours. I think we need to think about what CAP's purposes really are.

So...
WE ARE THE AIR FORCE'S UNIFORMED CIVILIAN AUXILIARY.
And we're an organization with a proud history, formed and forged in the defense of the homeland during World War II, and continuing today. And we proudly wear Air Force Blue as part of the Total Force.

And -- shhhhh! -- we're a federally chartered 501(c)3 corporation.

All that said, we do have some things to clean up. We need to weed politics out of the appointment process, for instance. We need to have better oversight and to ensure more responsibility in every command billet and a more responsible ethic in every member.

[lordmonar]

I don't think the purpose of looking for people with corporate experience for the Public Trust Task Force is an attempt to make CAP more like a corporation....but to use the experience we have to make CAP better.

As a corporation that receives federal appropriated funds we need to emulate how other corporations gain and keep a "public trust" image.   Military experience is worthless because the way the military manages money does not fit well with our system.  Also the military has a several full-time organisations that investigate and manage our finical dealings.

I don't think CAP is fascinated with being a corporation....it is a corporation and has been since '48 IRRC.

We have gotten a lot of black eyes over the last 10 years or so because of internal politics and poor management.  Any attempt to help identify and eliminate these problems is a good thing.

The U.S. Military (tm) maintains the public trust because of a robust investigation capability (OSI, NCID, DIA) and the authority of the UCMJ to fix problems.

CAP does not have that and can't use it.

As for maintaining the public trust, CAP should:

1) Publish the National, Regional and Wing budgets each year.
2) Publish a quarterly finical report to show what has been spent.
3) Do everything it can to eliminate/reduce the amount of politics in the appointment of commanders and senior leaders.
4) Publish sanitised versions of adverse personnel actions, to show CAP's willingness and effectiveness in policing its own ranks.

[RiverAux]

River:

If you don't get why I am confused by the idea of corporate types telling us how to improve our public trust, then you must not have been paying attention to the news.

Try asking 10 random people if American corporations are trusted by the American people. 

You seem to forget that they are looking for people WHO ARE ALREADY CAP MEMBERS, not random folks from the board of Enron.  If you don't trust them on this task force, I suppose that anyone who works for a corporation needs to get their 2b ASAP.

In my political life I am certainly not a fan of big business, but as we saw with Bernie Madoff, if you're running billions in dollars of money, you don't get a 2 person CPA shop to do your audits (if you're trustworthy).

[JohnKachenmeister]

I don't think the purpose of looking for people with corporate experience for the Public Trust Task Force is an attempt to make CAP more like a corporation....but to use the experience we have to make CAP better.

As a corporation that receives federal appropriated funds we need to emulate how other corporations gain and keep a "public trust" image.   Military experience is worthless because the way the military manages money does not fit well with our system.  Also the military has a several full-time organisations that investigate and manage our finical dealings.

I don't think CAP is fascinated with being a corporation....it is a corporation and has been since '48 IRRC.

We have gotten a lot of black eyes over the last 10 years or so because of internal politics and poor management.  Any attempt to help identify and eliminate these problems is a good thing.

The U.S. Military (tm) maintains the public trust because of a robust investigation capability (OSI, NCID, DIA) and the authority of the UCMJ to fix problems.

CAP does not have that and can't use it.

As for maintaining the public trust, CAP should:

1) Publish the National, Regional and Wing budgets each year.
2) Publish a quarterly finical report to show what has been spent.
3) Do everything it can to eliminate/reduce the amount of politics in the appointment of commanders and senior leaders.
4) Publish sanitised versions of adverse personnel actions, to show CAP's willingness and effectiveness in policing its own ranks.

Your points are well taken, Lord M.  But...

Although we do not have an OSI/CID/etc. investigative arm at this time, what, exactly, stops us from having one?  Certainly, the history of the past 20 years or so indicates the need for such an investigative arm.  And although we can't avail ourselves of the UCMJ, there are still some really neat state and federal laws against fraud, theft, hazing, assault, and anything else that you can think of that a CAP member might try.  IG's are OK, but their specialty is regulatory compliance.  They are not trained as criminal investigators.

Putting a commander who sold CAP assets for personal enrichment in prison will produce a lot more transparency than some kind of task force.

[lordmonar]

Oh I agree with that whole heartedly!

CAP in the past has been reluctant to forward criminal charges against its members.

We certainly need to have some legal eagles who work with local law enforcment organisations and take care of these lowlifes.

[Timbo]

Putting a commander who sold CAP assets for personal enrichment in prison will produce a lot more transparency than some kind of task force.

Unfortunately that never happens.  We tend to "clean ourselves" in CAP.  Am I mistaken or perhaps I read it wrong, but upon learning of a Senior Members Hazing/ Sexual Abuse the person should call the CAP IG/ Legal Counsel??

That right there may appear to be scandalous and similar to a cover up.

 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Never say never.  A few actually HAVE gone to prison.  Not enough, though.

Lordmonar and I were engaging in some flagrant "Outside the box" thinking.  He pointed out that the military has significant enforcement agents keeping people straight, and we do not.

I posed the rhetorical question... "Why not?"

Nobody has come up with a good reason why CAP could not establish an internal criminal investigative arm, so that has now become #546 on my "To do" list for when I become National Commander.

[Pylon]

Never say never.  A few actually HAVE gone to prison.  Not enough, though.

Lordmonar and I were engaging in some flagrant "Outside the box" thinking.  He pointed out that the military has significant enforcement agents keeping people straight, and we do not.

I posed the rhetorical question... "Why not?"

Nobody has come up with a good reason why CAP could not establish an internal criminal investigative arm, so that has now become #546 on my "To do" list for when I become National Commander.

This is the perfect example of a volunteer-driven idea that could be given to this new task force to more fully flesh out, research the potential and how it could be implemented, and potentially make a fully-researched recommendation to the national commander on the topic.  That's why these sort of committee's exist: to take raw ideas, research them thoroughly and present their findings and recommendations.

[RiverAux]

Nobody has come up with a good reason why CAP could not establish an internal criminal investigative arm

Aren't they the guys in the black vans?

Seriously though, we have an Inspector General system that can look into things already.  If they find any potential illegal activity, it needs to be turned over promptly to the appropriate law enforcement agency.  We don't need any more than that.

[Rob Sherlin]

1. Do we need the new position (s), or do we just need to have our legal and PR officers to handle the situations better, so it doesn't lead HQ to believe we need such a thing ?

  "Public Trust"....Why is that such an issue in the first place?.....That's the main point of getting to the problem.......It differs from area to area, and it's rediculous to have it handled by one person who's not around to know what's going on.......It will only complicate things, and bring more red tape, when it can be taken care of by local CAP officials with a little more effort.

  Give me an example of why we need this!

[JohnKachenmeister]

Nobody has come up with a good reason why CAP could not establish an internal criminal investigative arm

Aren't they the guys in the black vans?

Seriously though, we have an Inspector General system that can look into things already.  If they find any potential illegal activity, it needs to be turned over promptly to the appropriate law enforcement agency.  We don't need any more than that.

I might have agreed with you a few years ago, before I became an IG myself.  IG training and the training to investigate criminal activity are two completely different things.  Right now, if an IG determines that there might be criminal liability, the IG must notify NHQ/Legal.  These are lawyers at NHQ that may or may not be familiar with state law in the area where the crime was committed.  To make things more complicated, some frauds in CAP would fall under both federal and state jurisdiction.

Local police forces would not be familiar enough with CAP procedures to conduct a proper investigation, and the FBI does not have the assets to investigate any but the most serious violations.

Having a specialized team of CAP criminal investigators MIGHT be enough to deter some of the misconduct that we have seen in the past.

Anyway, it was just a response to a comment from another poster who was pointing out the agencies around to keep track of misconduct by military people, and I suggested that if it works for them, it might work for us.

[RiverAux]

IG training and the training to investigate criminal activity are two completely different things. 

I bolded the important part of that statement.  No one in CAP needs to be investigating criminal activity for the simple reason that we are not a law enforcement agency and therefore can do nothing other than screw things up.  If there is a hint of illegal activity, the investigation needs to be done by those that are authorized to do so. 

[lordmonar]

1. Do we need the new position (s), or do we just need to have our legal and PR officers to handle the situations better, so it doesn't lead HQ to believe we need such a thing ?

  "Public Trust"....Why is that such an issue in the first place?.....That's the main point of getting to the problem.......It differs from area to area, and it's rediculous to have it handled by one person who's not around to know what's going on.......It will only complicate things, and bring more red tape, when it can be taken care of by local CAP officials with a little more effort.

  Give me an example of why we need this!

These are not really "positions" as in "Public Truct Officer".  This is a task force which (I assume) is to look into where we might need some help and ways to improve. 

Do we need this?

HELL YES!  Has anyone ever seen a detailed wing budget?  How about other appropriated funds?  I know of seveal instances where donated monies walked away with some smarmy Senior Member.  Add to that the accusations that politics  is more important than ability at every level of command.

[JohnKachenmeister]

IG training and the training to investigate criminal activity are two completely different things. 

I bolded the important part of that statement.  No one in CAP needs to be investigating criminal activity for the simple reason that we are not a law enforcement agency and therefore can do nothing other than screw things up.  If there is a hint of illegal activity, the investigation needs to be done by those that are authorized to do so. 

I disagree.

CAP, if such a program were instituted, would not be the only organization to have an internal investigative arm to look into misconduct of employees.  In fact, the reason that a separate investigative arm is used is to keep the investigation clear of any internal management influences.  There would have to be some training, but I don't see an absolute outcome of "We would screw things up."

[RiverAux]

There is a difference between misconduct and illegal activity.  Violating CAP regulations is misconduct, but in most cases isn't going to be illegal.  Our IGs and other internal processes can handle that.

This task force apparently isn't going in that direction.  Instead it seems to be aimed not at misconduct, but at making sure that CAP is using public money for its best purpose.   For example, buying better equipment rather than wasting it on boondoogle travel by the brass.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I agree with you.  Regulatory violations are, and should be, addressed by the IG. 

One poster a million or so posts back pointed out that the military branches have less issues with "Transparency and the public trust" than we do because they have CID/OSI/NCIS/ etc. agencies to investigate criminal conduct and the UCMJ to back their efforts up.

My comment was that an agency such as CID/OSI/NCIS could be created under CAP to investigate criminal conduct, as opposed to regulatory violations, and that such an organization MIGHT help. 

I have no idea what direction the "Task force" is going in and neither do you.  The fact is, neither does the task force, since it hasn't been appointed yet.

I'm also not sure if there is enough criminal conduct in CAP to justify such an organization.  But, if the criminal actions of members is causing a loss of public trust, an in-house investigative agency might be a solution worthy of consideration.

Apparently, you want to dismiss all considerations of this alternative out of hand.  I'm suggesting that keeping your mind open to all possibilities is probably a better way to address problems.

[RiverAux]

One poster a million or so posts back pointed out that the military branches have less issues with "Transparency and the public trust" than we do because they have CID/OSI/NCIS/ etc. agencies to investigate criminal conduct and the UCMJ to back their efforts up.

See, thats the difference....Those internal investigative agencies are working within the military legal system.  CAP doesn't have its own courts and jails.  In the military model, NCIS (and the others) are basically part of the police establishment, which makes sense.  A branch of CAP investigating illegal activity at some point would be in possession of information that a potentiallly illegal act has occurred and would probably have evidence of that act in their possession.  Since we're civilians, we're subject to civilian laws requiring that illegal activity be reported to the police.  Just where in the CAP investigation is that line?  What are the chances that the CAP members have missed some steps and have broken the chain of evidence needed for the real police and legal community to act on the case?  Just where do they cross the line into becoming complicit with the illegal activity by NOT reporting it? 

Here is where CAP appears to be heading on this general issue based on CAPR52-10:

d. Reporting to State Agency. There may be a mandatory requirement to report certain types of physical, sexual or emotional abuse to a designated state agency. Requirements vary from state to state. Members having knowledge of abuse must follow reporting requirements under their state's laws. Your wing legal officer can help you to know what laws apply.

[JohnKachenmeister]

One poster a million or so posts back pointed out that the military branches have less issues with "Transparency and the public trust" than we do because they have CID/OSI/NCIS/ etc. agencies to investigate criminal conduct and the UCMJ to back their efforts up.

See, thats the difference....Those internal investigative agencies are working within the military legal system.  CAP doesn't have its own courts and jails.  In the military model, NCIS (and the others) are basically part of the police establishment, which makes sense.  A branch of CAP investigating illegal activity at some point would be in possession of information that a potentiallly illegal act has occurred and would probably have evidence of that act in their possession.  Since we're civilians, we're subject to civilian laws requiring that illegal activity be reported to the police.  Just where in the CAP investigation is that line?  What are the chances that the CAP members have missed some steps and have broken the chain of evidence needed for the real police and legal community to act on the case?  Just where do they cross the line into becoming complicit with the illegal activity by NOT reporting it? 

Here is where CAP appears to be heading on this general issue based on CAPR52-10:

d. Reporting to State Agency. There may be a mandatory requirement to report certain types of physical, sexual or emotional abuse to a designated state agency. Requirements vary from state to state. Members having knowledge of abuse must follow reporting requirements under their state's laws. Your wing legal officer can help you to know what laws apply.

All those are good, fair questions.  IF CAP were to try something like this, those questions would have to be answered.  Would it be a paid, full-time investigative agency?  Would legislative changes be needed?  How would one agency keep abreast of the changes in state law in 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico?  At what point would an internal investigation be turned over to a prosecutor?  Would it be turned over to a local police jurisdiction first, or would information be presented directly to a prosecutor for presentation to a grand jury?  What training would be required of these agents?

I can't answer these, because I haven't even reached the point of determining IF such an agency is indicated, given the current situation.  But IF a decision were to be reached along those lines, those questions would have to be answered.

[James Shaw]

I have put my money where my mouth is. I am sending my resume for this task force.  I hope they consider me!

[James Shaw]

I have submitted my request to NHQ to be part of this task force.

[FlexCoder]

I hope they consider you too, your the perfect candidate for "newly minted" narc squad!

[Cecil DP]

I agree with you.  Regulatory violations are, and should be, addressed by the IG. 

One poster a million or so posts back pointed out that the military branches have less issues with "Transparency and the public trust" than we do because they have CID/OSI/NCIS/ etc. agencies to investigate criminal conduct and the UCMJ to back their efforts up.

My comment was that an agency such as CID/OSI/NCIS could be created under CAP to investigate criminal conduct, as opposed to regulatory violations, and that such an organization MIGHT help. 

I have no idea what direction the "Task force" is going in and neither do you.  The fact is, neither does the task force, since it hasn't been appointed yet.

I'm also not sure if there is enough criminal conduct in CAP to justify such an organization.  But, if the criminal actions of members is causing a loss of public trust, an in-house investigative agency might be a solution worthy of consideration.

Apparently, you want to dismiss all considerations of this alternative out of hand.  I'm suggesting that keeping your mind open to all possibilities is probably a better way to address problems.

In truth about 10 years ago, National Headquarters and several Region and Wing Headquarters were investigated by the USAF OSI which was looking into finances and logistical irregularities. I think CAP is trying to avoid this ever happening again by establishing the Task Force.

[James Shaw]

I hope they consider you too, your the perfect candidate for "newly minted" narc squad!

That ia a sad way to approach what they are trying to do. A narc is someone who informs on other people behind there back. They do it deceitfully. This task force is meant to keep that from happening. I am no ones narc!

[tarheel gumby]

I think that the Public trust task force could also serve as a liaison between CAP and State/local and Federal law enforcement. As someone pointed out earlier Law enforcement may not have the necessary knowledge about CAP to investagate complaints or violations. This may help with transparency and make sure that we as an organization don't have situations that we are questioned about, without having the answers.
By the way good luck Maj.

I have submitted my request to NHQ to be part of this task force.

[FW]

In truth about 10 years ago, National Headquarters and several Region and Wing Headquarters were investigated by the USAF OSI which was looking into finances and logistical irregularities. I think CAP is trying to avoid this ever happening again by establishing the Task Force.

As a result of the tumult of 1999, we have new legislation, the Board of Governors and, a Cooperative Agreement and a Statement of work.  We also have an office in the Pentagon which keeps the CSAF informed of happenings with "The Auxiliary".  
The BoG and the Executive Director have a close relationship and, there is oversight between these offices as never before.  CAP follows "Sarbain Oxley" guidelines as a non profit which allows for "anonymous" whistle blower complaints, has appointed a compliance officer at NHQ and, enhanced the authority of the National Controller to review all fiduciary responsibilities of the organization.   Our Logistics and Financial systems are audited every year by independent auditors and, of course, AU.
I seriously doubt we will ever again deal with what happened  back then.  However, there is always a need to improve in all we do.  The "Task Force" will help the commander find ways to improve our standards and practices.