CAP Public Trust Task Force

[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!