Sheriff Dept Sponsored CAP Squadron

[Earhart1971]

24 Million is the operating budget for National Headquarters, you would be surprised how much money you can go through when you are paying about 100 to 125 people salaries.

Don't forget that this is money that AF has budgeted for us out of their funds.  We do have monies coming in from our individual contributions (dues) plus contributions from business and industry.  On the state level governments may contribute some out of state budgets to wings.  Again this is the principle advantage to also being non-profit corporation.

4 mil is still a huge hit when you look at it, just means a little more belt tightening.  Perhaps in the non-essential stuff and not in what matters.  You fill in the blank here.

Major Chuck,

I thought I might run this by you and others on this forum.

What if there was a local Sheriff Race, and one of the Candidates was an Ex CAP Cadet?  No its not me, its one of my Fellow Cadets from the 70s.

This Sheriff Candidate wants to IF ELECTED, set up a SHERIFF DEPT sponsored Squadron.

Allow CAP Personnel to fly the Sheriff Fixed Wing Aircraft (for Searches and other appropriate CAP Missions).  Also, operate with CAP Ground Teams and Sheriff Helicopters on regular exercises, and on real ground searches, searches for lost kids, and missing persons.

I am not talking about turning off ELTs in Hangars and that kind of stuff, I'm talking about searches from the old days, the kind of stuff we as cadets were called out of school for.

The Sheriff would have a budget for CAP Operations, plus apply for Grants for the Squadron.

Have Cadets co enrolled in the Sheriff Explorer and CAP Cadet Program.

Have Sheriff Deputies co enrolled as Senior Members.

In other words create a Sponsorship and relationship where the Sheriff Dept has a Trained internal Volunteer Force of CAP members who can do Searches, and do joint training, deploy for disaster relief, and most important, have money and resources coming out of the Sheriff Budget, plus vehicles and everything needed to perform any mission required.

Lets face it, most CAP members want to spend ZERO TIME raising funds to operate a Squadron.

CAP volunteers will gravitate to a Squadron WITH ASSETS, great support, and a Mission.

We could probably have a budget at squadron level of $20,000 to 50,000 per year, PLus vehicles, aircraft, and other assets that CAP Members can use and not have to pay maintenance on.

I can see a Squadron of 300 Members, with the kind of money and assets this Sheriff Dept has and can afford.

I think it would be the perfect marriage of an excellent Program (CAP) to available money and resources.

My question to all of you, would the general national membership of CAP support such a Candidate with private donations?

The reason I ask, if this works at one Sheriff Dept in the Country it will work in them all, it just takes one Sheriff to do it Successfully then others will follow.

It makes sense on every level, including our new role in Homeland Security.

Comments? By the way if you are really excited, email me: richmond45@yahoo.com

[thefischNX01]

 :clap: :clap:

The only thing I don't like is "Have Sherrif Deputies co-enrolled as Senior Members".  Unless I'm wrong, that's against CAP regs.  CAP Members cannot be deputized

[pixelwonk]

:clap: :clap:

The only thing I don't like is "Have Sherrif Deputies co-enrolled as Senior Members".  Unless I'm wrong, that's against CAP regs.  CAP Members cannot be deputized

You are right that CAP members cannot be deputized while acting in a CAP role, because CAP prohibits direct law enforcement.  it does not, however, bar LEOs from becoming CAP members.  There are several law enforcement officers as CAP members, up to and including MG Pineda, National Commander.

[Becks]

Correct, LEO can join, but they have to decide what they want to be in the event of an emergency; a CAP member or a police officer, you cannot act as both.

[Earhart1971]

I was commander of a squadron with 3 Sheriff Deputies in my Squadron, there was never a problem.

But if I needed a Deputy, on a team, he would be in Sheriff fatigues and not CAP.

And in CAP uniform, they are just another CAP member.



But, what about the rest of the idea?

[groundpounder]

The idea has merit but......

You will have to be vary careful how you sell this. If anyone thinks that the cops will be running the CAP show, I can see a lot of folks getting their shorts all in a bunch.

The CAP folks flying the cops plane could be an insurance snafu and could kill the deal completely.

I would start off with the concept of the cops funding the squadron with their budget $ and buying the assets that you spoke of. The question of who owns them would have to be worked out.

Then I would enroll the members as CAP members with no mention of a cross between the two. If you go too far then the PC act starts to get blurred and it all goes to heck pretty quickly.

It has to be sold as a way for CAP to help the cops with SAR / DR, not with any cop work.

Great idea, just needs a marketing plan.

Good luck.

[Nick]

Go with the idea... if it's training and education, do it under the auspices of CAP.  If it's sheriff's department-operational, do it under the auspices of the police explorer program.  If it's AF/state-assigned-operational, you're back to CAP.  Dual-chartered CAP squadron/explorer posts deal with this two-hat thing all the time.

[Eclipse]

Things to consider.

Dual-chartered units require that CAP be the sponsor / controller of the unit, not the other way around.

No matter who sponsors what, where or how much money there is, etc., this will not change CAP's authorized missions, Posse-COm status, or liability coverage issues when operating under a CAP flag.

At a minimum I would directly involve your state's CAP-USAF Director as well as others in the chain. 

This sounds like one of those ideas that ends in "Seemed like a good idea at the time."

[flyguy06]

AGain, Everyone here is assuming that ES is the primary mission for CAP. Its not so Having a relationship with the Sheriff Dept would not help my unit with its Flying mission

[Eclipse]

Well,  on paper, its 1/3rd of the mission, and in practice its 1/2 (with most Senior Aerospace educaion being lipservice, and cadet AE wrapped into the CP).

So I would be curious what your "flying mission" is that does not include ES.

[Earhart1971]

The idea has merit but......

You will have to be vary careful how you sell this. If anyone thinks that the cops will be running the CAP show, I can see a lot of folks getting their shorts all in a bunch.

Actually, its more like former CAP Cadets running the Sheriff Show, LOL!

CAP has untapped power and resources, and influence, that can be brought to the table.

[Earhart1971]

AGain, Everyone here is assuming that ES is the primary mission for CAP. Its not so Having a relationship with the Sheriff Dept would not help my unit with its Flying mission

It would be a Composite Squadron with full Mission on the scale of a small military academy.

1. Cadet Program and Seniors (most my Seniors will be former Cadets)

2. Emergency Services - and how many times do you see the police or a sheriff calling for volunteers, - out of the blue, untrained people to go out in the woods and search for somebody?

3 Aerospace Education


4. Leadership Training - and I think for Cadets and Seniors  CAP has the best leadership Courses, Staff College and all are the best Corp Leadership Training around.

But the important thing that is missing from most squadrons, Facilities, equipment (usually expensive to maintain), Computers, Money, and space for Classrooms, all are there for CAP use.

And a Sheriff that can point to this Organization and say, this is what I have done - at a National Conference of other Sheriffs - if it works others will follow.

[Eclipse]

2. Emergency Services - and how many times do you see the police or a sheriff calling for volunteers, - out of the blue, untrained people to go out in the woods and search for somebody?

Unless they call the NOC first, and get approval, those shiny new cadets will still be on the sidelines.  And the duty still has to fall within CAP's regulations.

CAP cannot be a part of a Law Enforcement agency, they can meet in the same building, maybe share some resources, and even accept donations.  The rest has to be run through the system.

Why not forgo the CAP side and just ramp up a local Police Explorer academy and forget about the regs from NHQ?

Then the liability, funding, and missions are all on the shoulders of the local city council and PD /FD chiefs.


CAP has a different mission than law enforcement, by design.  There are occasions when we can work together, but in most cases beyond the occasional woooded hard-target search, we're in different spaces.

[Earhart1971]

CAP cannot be a part of a Law Enforcement agency, they can meet in the same building, maybe share some resources, and even accept donations.  The rest has to be run through the system.

[/quote]

CAP can be supported by a Law Enforcement agency, it happens all the time on an informal basis, Squadrons meet at facilities, my old squadron did for years at the local Sheriff Training Center.

We can take money and support from anybody, and its clear to me and anybody else that we cannot be Law Enforcement Officers within CAP in CAP uniform.

No, I never "ran anything throught the "system" as far as getting a place to meet, or money or anything relative to starting a squadron.

But who knows my 33 years of CAP knowledge may be lacking.

What regulation governs getting permission to receive support from a Government agency?

Cite the Regulation that states required NOC approval.

If CAP cannot be sponsored by a SHERIFF cite the reg.

As long as the Squadron functions within CAP regulations, we can live anywhere, at a Sheriff Department, at a Firestation.

And if another Organization wants to sponsor CAP, thats OK too.


Quote: Reg, Chapter Para, and paste it here.

[Eclipse]

You have to seperate sponsorship from operational tasking.

It is not uncommon for local municipalities, states, PD/FD, etc., to provide facilities, money, and other resources.

But if that same agency wants CAP support in terms of mission activity, every instance must be approved by the State Director or the NOC.

[shorning]

You have to seperate sponsorship from operational tasking.

It is not uncommon for local municipalities, states, PD/FD, etc., to provide facilities, money, and other resources.

But if that same agency wants CAP support in terms of mission activity, every instance must be approved by the State Director or the NOC.

Not to mention that any agreement that obligates CAP to something (funds, work, etc), needs to be signed by a corporate officer.  That doesn't mean any ole S'Member.

[Eclipse]

A huge, salient point.

There is only one in each Wing - the Wing CC.    :clap:

[Pylon]

A huge, salient point.

There is only one in each Wing - the Wing CC.    :clap:

Well... some wings happen to have two or more corporate officers... if they've got a Region Commander, National Commander, National Vice, or other members of the NEC and NB residing in their Wing.

Of course, approvals would still go up the chain to the Wing King first... but some states do have several active corporate officers kicking 'round their parts.

[Eclipse]

But that is really a problem, not an advantage.

The chain should go up, not all around.  If the Region CC happens to live in a respectve state, he should still be waiting for the Wing CC to request approval.

Not saying a Region CC doesn't have the authority, etc., but...

[shorning]

[quote author=Pylon link=topic=699.msg7632#msg7632 Well... some wings happen to have two or more corporate officers... if they've got a Region Commander, National Commander, National Vice, or other members of the NEC and NB residing in their Wing.[/quote]

Your wing only has one.  The others just live there.  So there may be access to other corporate officers.  But they are still outside your wing.  

Besides, shouldn't we be handling issues at the lowest level possible?

[Pylon]

Well... some wings happen to have two or more corporate officers... if they've got a Region Commander, National Commander, National Vice, or other members of the NEC and NB residing in their Wing.

Your wing only has one.  The others just live there.  So there may be access to other corporate officers.  But they are still outside your wing.  

Besides, shouldn't we be handling issues at the lowest level possible?

The second section of my post clearly indicates that, yes, things go through the proper channels and just because there are corporate officers around doesn't mean you can just go right to them.  I was merely making an observation that there are corporate officers all around us.

[shorning]

I was merely making an observation that there are corporate officers all around us.

You are correct...unfortunateyly (they are all around us).

[Nick]

Lowest level possible... yeah, I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

But yes, corporate officers are all around us... our wing commander even works on my base, but as much as I'd like to call him for stuff, that whole 'lowest level' tihng always puts a damper on it.

[Earhart1971]

My little experiment exposes a few characteristics of typical behavior of some CAP members.

I asked you all if you would support such a project.

Most of you have answers that are concerned with whether some regulations would be violated and / or NO it should not be done at all.

Your thoughts were not even focused on how this might be accomplished or how you could support it and help it happen.

Instead you look for ways to PICK IT APART.

This is the kind of stuff that keeps CAP small and insignificant.

You guys have any ideas yourself on how to get a Squadron 50,000 dollars in support and financing each year?

[arajca]

Overall, I think it's a great idea, as, I'm sure, do many of the members here. If we didn't, we wouldn't spend the time to give you the information. It's just that many proponents of ideas like this fail to take an in-depth look as to what pitfalls and restrictions exist.

Major Chuck,

I thought I might run this by you and others on this forum.

What if there was a local Sheriff Race, and one of the Candidates was an Ex CAP Cadet?  No its not me, its one of my Fellow Cadets from the 70s.

This Sheriff Candidate wants to IF ELECTED, set up a SHERIFF DEPT sponsored Squadron.

Allow CAP Personnel to fly the Sheriff Fixed Wing Aircraft (for Searches and other appropriate CAP Missions).  Also, operate with CAP Ground Teams and Sheriff Helicopters on regular exercises, and on real ground searches, searches for lost kids, and missing persons.

To allow the flying activites you mention, you'll need an MOU listed who is responsible for what (fuel, maint, insurance).

I am not talking about turning off ELTs in Hangars and that kind of stuff, I'm talking about searches from the old days, the kind of stuff we as cadets were called out of school for.

Don't know about the getting called out of school, but this would excite many people - mostly in a positive way.

The Sheriff would have a budget for CAP Operations, plus apply for Grants for the Squadron.

Have Cadets co enrolled in the Sheriff Explorer and CAP Cadet Program.

Have Sheriff Deputies co enrolled as Senior Members.

In other words create a Sponsorship and relationship where the Sheriff Dept has a Trained internal Volunteer Force of CAP members who can do Searches, and do joint training, deploy for disaster relief, and most important, have money and resources coming out of the Sheriff Budget, plus vehicles and everything needed to perform any mission required.

Before attempting this, get the lawyers involved on CAP's side, because you know the county will get theirs involved.

Lets face it, most CAP members want to spend ZERO TIME raising funds to operate a Squadron.

CAP volunteers will gravitate to a Squadron WITH ASSETS, great support, and a Mission.

Amen, Brother, Amen!

We could probably have a budget at squadron level of $20,000 to 50,000 per year, PLus vehicles, aircraft, and other assets that CAP Members can use and not have to pay maintenance on.

I can see a Squadron of 300 Members, with the kind of money and assets this Sheriff Dept has and can afford.

Drool.

I think it would be the perfect marriage of an excellent Program (CAP) to available money and resources.

It has the potential to be. The devil is in the details.

My question to all of you, would the general national membership of CAP support such a Candidate with private donations?

That's the million dollar question.

The reason I ask, if this works at one Sheriff Dept in the Country it will work in them all, it just takes one Sheriff to do it Successfully then others will follow.

Not necessarily. You'd need to check with the various laws, not just at the state level, but at the county level as well. What works in one county may not in another.

It makes sense on every level, including our new role in Homeland Security.

You said the magic words as to why it won't work - it makes sense.

[pixelwonk]

actually, you originally posed this question:

My question to all of you, would the general national membership of CAP support such a Candidate with private donations?

If the above is all you really want to know, then, well I guess I wouldn't financially contribute to a campaign of a Sheriff candidate in another county in a state outside my own.  Heck, I don't contribute to anybody's political campaign anyway. I get out and vote on the day for voting and wait to see where the chips fall.

You mentioned that the responses seem typical of some CAP members.  Well... duh, sir.  That's how it's gonna be for some.  After all, we are but sheep, and the regs are safe.  safe is good.  Now, the problem is that you're sniffing around the wrong tree for support and info, and getting upset when you find your nose in a pile of poo.  

On the other hand, I love the idea of so much CAP support and what you're proposing sounds like a remarkable idea.  WIWG got a wicked-cool mobile command center because it asked for one with the support from local law enforcement. (no flames people... it's here, but it's not mine, so lets move on).  It has helped to establish relationships with Emergency management, LE and the like.

Please, bring this issue up your chain and see how it can be implemented.  You need the support from your higher -ups!  

  All the best...

[Eclipse]

My little experiment exposes a few characteristics of typical behavior of some CAP members.

I asked you all if you would support such a project.

Most of you have answers that are concerned with whether some regulations would be violated and / or NO it should not be done at all.

Your thoughts were not even focused on how this might be accomplished or how you could support it and help it happen.

Instead you look for ways to PICK IT APART.

This is the kind of stuff that keeps CAP small and insignificant.

You guys have any ideas yourself on how to get a Squadron 50,000 dollars in support and financing each year?

As leaders we have a responsibility to see the WHOLE picture - not just the parts that fit the "neat idea of the week".

Too many of our members join because of what they THINK CAP is, and when they find out what its really about, and what we can or can't do,  expend a lot of time gnashing teeth about inertia and roadblocks.

Make no mistake.

What you are proposing puts us square into a space which is forbidden by our charter, law enforcement.  The nuance of where LEA's begin and end in SAR ops is gray and a place for the lawyers to make money.  But its a big problem for this idea.

You are not proposing using meeting space and begging for money, which is what CAP 's normal cooperation level with LEA is.  They buy off on the whole apple pie/Chevrolet idea of building leaders and keeping bored seniors off their streets, and the community is better off for it. 

If, on the off-chance, CAP provides help at a pancake breakfast, or in some kind of disaster scenario, awesome.

What you are proposing, however, is an integration with LEA which is likely a charter violation, but even if its not, its problematic.

What you are talking about would be to leverage the curriculum, training, and agency authorization of two disconnected entities, while discarding regs and prohibitions which get in the way of your idea.

Again, the idea of accessing resources of an LEA, and paying them back with service is what we are about.

Integrating CAP with their training and response plans on the level you suggest will generate indigestion to the NHQ level in the Legal Directorate.

I'm also hoping, for your sake, that you haven't run this fully up the Sheriff chain and gotten them all fired up, only to be potentially knocked back by your command chain, and then going back to the Sheriff's Dept and complain how this is "CAP's fault".

I can't tell you how many "cool points" we have burned around me doing this - come up with a 1/2-baked plan that isn't thought through to the unpleasant side of liability and responsibility, get everyone at the cooperative agency excited before anyone has checked if its even POSSIBLE, let alone AUTHORIZED, and then when they get knocked back its "Command's Fault", which is counterproductive to the more important far-reaching mission, because our credibility as a whole has been compromised needlessly.

And yes, you asked us if we would support this project.  We thought about it, and compared it to regs.  The answer was either "no", or ask "ask again later" (with more information).  And so now we are all roadblocks to progress. Nice.

EDIT:  Followup - What you didn't mention is that you are in Florida. Considering the high OPS Tempo of FLWG, and the fact that Maj. Gen. Pineada is from there and a member of a FLA LEA, I would think that if you could get this done anyplace it would be there.  I'm not saying its any less problematic as an idea, but you've got some good "IN's" to make it happen.

[Earhart1971]

Quote From Capt Bob Williams

"I can't tell you how many "cool points" we have burned around me doing this - come up with a 1/2-baked plan that isn't thought through to the unpleasant side of liability and responsibility, get everyone at the cooperative agency excited before anyone has checked if its even POSSIBLE, let alone AUTHORIZED, and then when they get knocked back its "Command's Fault", which is counterproductive to the more important far-reaching mission, because our credibility as a whole has been compromised needlessly."

To be frank, I really don't understand your point of view. You seem freaked out by a connection to Law Enforcement and Liability.

CAP right now is naked with Liability at the local level, I would rather have a sponsor take on that.

You have concluded this is bad, and you are basing it on Liability.

CAP at the local level is on LIFE SUPPORT.

CAP operates out of the members wallets.

We are not going to survive as an organization of 50,000 members, the Air Force will start chiseling away more at that budget of 20 million.

The budget supports National HQ and 130 employees.

Now, follow me on this, CAP has some untapped politicial resources.

CAP with Sponsorship can do a lot more, with money, assets, and facilities make all the difference.

READ this: NO MISSION CHANGE will take place, again THE CAP MISSION STAYS THE SAME.

The difference is if a disaster happens, or a major ground search happens, we activate the same way by the Air Force, and we roll with assets that are provided in coop with the sponsor.

It just so happens that a SHERIFF that was a former cadet, knows the program and wants to see it succeed as the EXISTING PROGRAM, and not change it.

In fact his command staff if he is elected will include some CAP members.

The Flag ship of this is the CADET PROGRAM and SENIORS that will support the CADET PROGRAM.

We will have Aircraft and Helicopters, and let me ask you this, which is better, again no mission change, being sponsored by a entity ON SITE with 150 Million Dollars in Liability INSURANCE or the backdrop of CAP with whatever the Liability that CAP Carries.

Now, I just don't see that huge liability that you do, if there is a lawsuit the Sheriff will be the one sued, because lawyers follow the entity with the most money.

The Lawyers have ruined CAP and it appears everybody is afraid of their own shadow these days.

Whats the last lawsuit that CAP paid?

If Liability is the issue, its a NON ISSUE.

And finally, my Ideas are not new or half baked, I talked about this AT MAXWELL AFB in 1986, in front of the National Commander and few others.

And you are assuming that I have not talked since then, believe me when I say this, I touch all the bases.

But I thought this forum might be a nice test of the concept, and it is, my mentor in CAP since 1960 predicted I would get responses like this.

And I can recall a lot of Group Commanders Calls, hearing the same stuff you are saying.

[Earhart1971]

actually, you originally posed this question:

My question to all of you, would the general national membership of CAP support such a Candidate with private donations?

If the above is all you really want to know, then, well I guess I wouldn't financially contribute to a campaign of a Sheriff candidate in another county in a state outside my own.  Heck, I don't contribute to anybody's political campaign anyway. I get out and vote on the day for voting and wait to see where the chips fall.

You mentioned that the responses seem typical of some CAP members.  Well... duh, sir.  That's how it's gonna be for some.  After all, we are but sheep, and the regs are safe.  safe is good.  Now, the problem is that you're sniffing around the wrong tree for support and info, and getting upset when you find your nose in a pile of poo.  

On the other hand, I love the idea of so much CAP support and what you're proposing sounds like a remarkable idea.  WIWG got a wicked-cool mobile command center because it asked for one with the support from local law enforcement. (no flames people... it's here, but it's not mine, so lets move on).  It has helped to establish relationships with Emergency management, LE and the like.

Please, bring this issue up your chain and see how it can be implemented.  You need the support from your higher -ups!  

  All the best...

First of I am not upset or surprised.

I am into reality, and to me IF we approach CAP membership with this possibility and this is the whole pitch. And I know there will be huge friction and I am not afraid of over coming rational thought and objections.

This is the Proposal:

We have a Candidate For Sheriff in Yada, Yada County.

We are going to institute a Sponsored CAP Squadron if elected.

The Sheriff has a budget for volunteers, we have money that can be granted from youth, and other programs, and we can apply for more money in Grants.

The Sheriff wants the volunteers to operate under CAP rules, Regs, and perform CAP Missions IAW AIR FORCE and CAP REGs.

Why is the Sheriff doing this? Because he is a former cadet and he believes in CAP and its Programs.

If that were the stated platform, would you send $10 to support the Candidate, even though you are in MONTANA or elsewhere?

In a nutshell thats the question, by the way, I would not be wasting my time talking about this unless it would become reality shortly.

But I appreciate the views of this forum, because when I go on the road to sell this to other members I will know upfront what some may say.

And Legal Liability was not even on my radar before I posted here, so I am really pleased to get all of your comments.

But again, we are being sponsored AT THE SQUADRON level with a entity with a BUDGET 8 times the size of the National CAP Budget, it will be the SAFEST Squadron for a Senior Member to join as far a liability.

And I have every intention of touching base with everybody at Maxwell on this.

[arajca]

One more point - specifically dealing with election issues - check with the state and local laws about fundraising. Some areas have laws that prohibit direct out of state funding for political campaigns. You may have to establish a PAC to use these funds. Also, you'll need to make it 100% crystal clear (not merely obvious) that while CAP MEMBERS are supporting this candidate, CAP, INC, is not.

[Eclipse]

As a civilian volunteer, liability and protection of both myself, familiy and the organization is always the FIRST and most important concern when considering ANY activity.

CAP is not a LEA, and if I wanted to be an LEO, I'd join a Police Force.

And just because you may be having local issues and your program(s) are on life support, don't insinuate this is a problem nationwide.

I also have no time for people who pull out "credibility vouchers" half way through conversation. (i.e. I have already briefed the Nat Commanders).

You asked what we thought - it's a half-baked idea which is troublesome from a charter and liability standpoint.

If you don't want to hear that, don't ask.

[Earhart1971]

As a civilian volunteer, liability and protection of both myself, familiy and the organization is always the FIRST and most important concern when considering ANY activity.

CAP is not a LEA, and if I wanted to be an LEO, I'd join a Police Force.

And just because you may be having local issues and your program(s) are on life support, don't insinuate this is a problem nationwide.

I also have no time for people who pull out "credibility vouchers" half way through conversation. (i.e. I have already briefed the Nat Commanders).

You asked what we thought - it's a half-baked idea which is troublesome from a charter and liability standpoint.

If you don't want to hear that, don't ask.

Bob,

I am thick skinned and I respect your position, but what exactly is the adversion to LAW ENFORCEMENT supporting CAP?

It cannot be Liability, since we would be safer under a larger better funded organization at the local level, with the backup of CAP National.

I disagree with it, and if you have an alternative, way of a CAP Squadron getting similar support, I will support you on it.

We all need to wake, and smell the coffee, CAP is a great program, without support or assets it will die on the vine.

[Earhart1971]

One more point - specifically dealing with election issues - check with the state and local laws about fundraising. Some areas have laws that prohibit direct out of state funding for political campaigns. You may have to establish a PAC to use these funds. Also, you'll need to make it 100% crystal clear (not merely obvious) that while CAP MEMBERS are supporting this candidate, CAP, INC, is not.

Excellent question:

It cannot be Official CAP support, and only individuals can donate, no corporations.



To para phrase: The question is can anyone DONATE?

Answer: Any United States Citizen can Donate to the campaign, from out of state or any US Territory, and any US Citizen overseas.

We don't need a PAC.

[arajca]

It seems like some people are concerned that a Sheriff supported squadron may become a Sheriff's Posse type organization.

With the information put out here, it has potential, BUT, the details will determine how effective it is. Which is why you (or whomever is going to do this) need to get the CAP legal folks involved from the start. It may very well turn out as you say, but there is also a strong possibility that CAP may end up liable for equipment and/or personnel they have no control over. Seen it happen with other organizations. One of the first things that come up with any MOU is who handles the liability for what. Even between two similar organizations (Haz Mat teams), we dealt with the liability issues before even discussing what kind of support would be given.

You also need to look at what will happen when the Sheriff (if elected) leaves office. Will the unit dry up? Will a new Sheriff try to deputize the members? There are a host of other concerns that can be brought up.

[Eclipse]

As a civilian volunteer, liability and protection of both myself, familiy and the organization is always the FIRST and most important concern when considering ANY activity.

CAP is not a LEA, and if I wanted to be an LEO, I'd join a Police Force.

And just because you may be having local issues and your program(s) are on life support, don't insinuate this is a problem nationwide.

I also have no time for people who pull out "credibility vouchers" half way through conversation. (i.e. I have already briefed the Nat Commanders).

You asked what we thought - it's a half-baked idea which is troublesome from a charter and liability standpoint.

If you don't want to hear that, don't ask.

Bob,

I am thick skinned and I respect your position, but what exactly is the adversion to LAW ENFORCEMENT supporting CAP?

It cannot be Liability, since we would be safer under a larger better funded organization at the local level, with the backup of CAP National.

I disagree with it, and if you have an alternative, way of a CAP Squadron getting similar support, I will support you on it.

We all need to wake, and smell the coffee, CAP is a great program, without support or assets it will die on the vine.

I have no issue, with law enforcement support, and even encourage inter-agency cooperation.  Your original message indicated INTEGRATION, where the lines of membership, etc., are blurred at best.

If the Sheriff wants to DONATE money to CAP, great.  Have him call me, too.  Of course if it is over $5k, is has to be donated to Wing, not an individual unit, and any equipment must be donated to the Wing, not a unit.

Also, though I am sure it happens somewhere, getting authorization to use a Police aircraft for a CAP mission will be a HUGE PITA. Good Luck.

[Earhart1971]

It seems like some people are concerned that a Sheriff supported squadron may become a Sheriff's Posse type organization.

With the information put out here, it has potential, BUT, the details will determine how effective it is. Which is why you (or whomever is going to do this) need to get the CAP legal folks involved from the start. It may very well turn out as you say, but there is also a strong possibility that CAP may end up liable for equipment and/or personnel they have no control over. Seen it happen with other organizations. One of the first things that come up with any MOU is who handles the liability for what. Even between two similar organizations (Haz Mat teams), we dealt with the liability issues before even discussing what kind of support would be given.

You also need to look at what will happen when the Sheriff (if elected) leaves office. Will the unit dry up? Will a new Sheriff try to deputize the members? There are a host of other concerns that can be brought up.

OK, let me ask this question.

Is is legal for CAP to sponsored by anybody?

If a Sheriff wants to supply, assets, use of facilities, and money in value of $100,000 to CAP to fund CAP and its Mission would it be legal?

Thats a question for CAP Legal Officers.

Think of the Liability this way, the sponsor is 8 times the corporate budget of CAP.  CAP is not in danger of incuring more liability, other than normal increase in liability, caused by increased activity, and robust recruiting.

Or let me say this, the liability is, that a LARGER CAP membership in general does incur more possible law suits.

If I have a Squadron of 300 Cadets and Seniors, then yes, there is more liabilty based on size of the unit alone.

So to avoid that we just stay small, which to me is not an attractive concept.

So, yes if we grow larger, then the liability increases, but thats just the price of growth.


If there is any lawyer from here to National HQ that finds fault with this, send me a email.  richmond45@yahoo.com

Now, the other question what are the details.

The details are:

It will be run as a CAP Squadron, under CAP regs.

And no we cannot guarantee that a Sheriff will stay in office or that someone might come along after and de sponsor the unit.


The average Sheriff serves at LEAST 2 Terms unless, he loses support of the people in the County.  Thats 8 years.

But no, we cannot guarantee, just like you probably cannot guarantee that your unit will be able to meet at the same location 4 years from now.

[Earhart1971]

As a civilian volunteer, liability and protection of both myself, familiy and the organization is always the FIRST and most important concern when considering ANY activity.

CAP is not a LEA, and if I wanted to be an LEO, I'd join a Police Force.

And just because you may be having local issues and your program(s) are on life support, don't insinuate this is a problem nationwide.

I also have no time for people who pull out "credibility vouchers" half way through conversation. (i.e. I have already briefed the Nat Commanders).

You asked what we thought - it's a half-baked idea which is troublesome from a charter and liability standpoint.

If you don't want to hear that, don't ask.

Bob,

I am thick skinned and I respect your position, but what exactly is the adversion to LAW ENFORCEMENT supporting CAP?

It cannot be Liability, since we would be safer under a larger better funded organization at the local level, with the backup of CAP National.

I disagree with it, and if you have an alternative, way of a CAP Squadron getting similar support, I will support you on it.

We all need to wake, and smell the coffee, CAP is a great program, without support or assets it will die on the vine.

I have no issue, with law enforcement support, and even encourage inter-agency cooperation.  Your original message indicated INTEGRATION, where the lines of membership, etc., are blurred at best.

If the Sheriff wants to DONATE money to CAP, great.  Have him call me, too.  Of course if it is over $5k, is has to be donated to Wing, not an individual unit, and any equipment must be donated to the Wing, not a unit.

Also, though I am sure it happens somewhere, getting authorization to use a Police aircraft for a CAP mission will be a HUGE PITA. Good Luck.

Bob,

Ok, I apoligize for the misunderstanding, but the PROGRAM, the CAP PROGRAM needs no amendment, its a stand alone as far as Program, Search and Rescue, and the Cadet Program.

Now the Airplane issue will be settled, my guess is that the Sheriff will OVER INSURE to the MAX, or self insure to the requirements of National HQ CAP. 

If this works, I will do one better, I will go to Chicago, or Palwaukee and explain the concept to your local Sheriff.

If this program works in one location, no reason it cannot work in other locations.

By the way did my nephew call you about his 2 boys, if he didn't, I will call him again, he's an ex Mitchell Award, and said he was interested for his boys, his youngest is 11 years old.

[Eclipse]

Come on up, I'll even buy lunch!

I never heard from anyone yet (or I forgot, which is certainly a possibility).

Can you PM the info again?

[arajca]

OK, let me ask this question.

Is is legal for CAP to sponsored by anybody?

If a Sheriff wants to supply, assets, use of facilities, and money in value of $100,000 to CAP to fund CAP and its Mission would it be legal?

Thats a question for CAP Legal Officers.

Which is what I've been saying.

Think of the Liability this way, the sponsor is 8 times the corporate budget of CAP.  CAP is not in danger of incuring more liability, other than normal increase in liability, caused by increased activity, and robust recruiting.

Or let me say this, the liability is, that a LARGER CAP membership in general does incur more possible law suits.

If I have a Squadron of 300 Cadets and Seniors, then yes, there is more liabilty based on size of the unit alone.

So to avoid that we just stay small, which to me is not an attractive concept.

So, yes if we grow larger, then the liability increases, but thats just the price of growth.

With maybe one or two exceptions, the members on this board are not qualified to give an official opinion on the liability potential of your idea. All we can do is give our guardhouse interpretations of liability.

If there is any lawyer from here to National HQ that finds fault with this, send me a email.  richmond45@yahoo.com

Wrong logic. YOU need to send it to them for review. They have enough going on that they don't look for things to check out.

Now, the other question what are the details.

The details are:

It will be run as a CAP Squadron, under CAP regs.

That's the overview. Details will include who approves the commander, how much support is actually provided by the Sheriff, what are the county's requirements to operate county a/c and vehicles, etc. All the stuff that is included in an MOU.

And no we cannot guarantee that a Sheriff will stay in office or that someone might come along after and de sponsor the unit.


The average Sheriff serves at LEAST 2 Terms unless, he loses support of the people in the County.  Thats 8 years.

But no, we cannot guarantee, just like you probably cannot guarantee that your unit will be able to meet at the same location 4 years from now.

I wasn't suggesting any guarantees. Just that such things need to looked at and planned for. Many units get floored when the meeting place they've been using for XX years changes management and they are kicked out. Some don't recover. With the amount of support your plan receives from the Sheriff, it would be wise to plan for when he leaves office ahead of time.

If the Sheriff wants to DONATE money to CAP, great.  Have him call me, too.  Of course if it is over $5k, is has to be donated to Wing, not an individual unit, and any equipment must be donated to the Wing, not a unit.

Where is that written? I read it as any donations over $5K need to be reported tot he wing financial analyst, not turned over to the wing. Although one wing is experimenting with total control over all CAP funds for all their units.

[Earhart1971]

Capt Bob Williams, email me at: richmond45@yahoo.com

And we can exchange contact information, last time you emailed me I gave Randy your contact number, and he said he would call, he and his kids are nuts about airplanes, I think I told you, everytime I go up there I rented a Cessna 172 at Service Aviation and flew them down the coast to Downtown, ask Randy to show the night Video he took of our flight past downtown and Meigs (don't get me talking about what happened at Meigs, my father in law in Chicago was sick about, and he wasn't a pilot).

Anyway the Chicago Skyline at night was Gorgeous, and crystal Clear, OMG!

And I will Call Randy tonight if he is not on vacation, I think they were taking the kids to Yosemite or something.

[Earhart1971]

Reply to Andrew Rajca, Capt, CAP

1. Who picks the Commander?

Last time I formed a Squadron the guy who forms the squadron and recruits the personnel was the first Commander.  But not this time, I don't want to be the Commander, but I got two former Earhart Cadets that might be the candidates.

2. What are the details:

The details are again, same as before, I want to start a Squadron, I have money and sponsorship, send me a Charter number.

Thats how the last squadron I started got to be.

There are not any requirements for approval, unless what I have observed for many years has changed.

I am Forming a CAP Unit, I have former CAP Cadets as Seniors, I have the Sponsorship of the newly elected Sheriff.

The CAP Squadron will be run under the requirements of CAP Regs.

And lets face it thats how you start a squadron.

[arajca]

To make sure I got the issues straight:

1. You want to start a squadron.

2. You want this squadron to be operationally involved with the Sheriff's office.

No. 1. is as simple as you make it out to be.

No. 2. is where all the discussion revolves around. Whenever operations are involved, liability and authority issues come into play. This is where the legal folks need to be involved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you have a great idea. I also see several potential problems, which I have tried to point out. I am also in the process of attempting to start a squadron and I have run into a number of issues.

[Earhart1971]

To make sure I got the issues straight:

1. You want to start a squadron.

2. You want this squadron to be operationally involved with the Sheriff's office.

No. 1. is as simple as you make it out to be.

No. 2. is where all the discussion revolves around. Whenever operations are involved, liability and authority issues come into play. This is where the legal folks need to be involved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you have a great idea. I also see several potential problems, which I have tried to point out. I am also in the process of attempting to start a squadron and I have run into a number of issues.

In a nutshell:

"Operationally involved with the Sheriff" NOT unless it is an Air Force Authorized CAP MISSION.

The Sheriff can support good causes, a Sheriff is an elected official with total power of the spending of 200 million in Budget and he can get grants for good causes from the Dept of Homeland Security and other Branches of the Federal Government, he can also use seized assets to good causes.

He has total power to spend the money, no committees needed for approval of a Budget, not even the County Commission, its his money to spend by law.

Now, as far a liability, the Sheriff can afford more insurance or SELF INSURE to any amount of money, far more than the Ability of National Headquarters CAP to provide Insurance, this particular Sheriff would be Self Insured, because his is RICH in Budget, and Backed up by a County that is Billions in Budget.

The Sheriff's insurance probably exceeds any CAP Insurance Coverage by at LEAST a Factor of 10 or more.

So, if we are in vehicles loaned by the Sheriff we are safer, better insured, and CAP less at risk from outside lawsuits.

Same with Aircraft.

The other thing the Sheriff can get is excess Military Vehicles that are High Maintenance, and the Sherifff will maintain them, because he has a motorpool the size of a CAR DEALERSHIP!

So yeah, we can have any vehicle we want, ex Air Force Buses to haul troops, Vans, and we might have some SUVs too.  CAP has no risk of ownership, or insurance expense, or for that matter, maintenance or gas.

Liability is not ever going to be a problem, we're talking about a total risk absorption ability of several hundred million dollars.

But what is the real risk?  Whats the history of past actions against CAP.

What was the highest award?  It probably does not exceed 1 or 2 million.

A 2 million award would be a disaster for CAP National, but not for the Sheriff, it would be a speed bump, anuitized over 10 years or 20 years.

I know about insurance being in the Financial Industry with Morgan Stanley a few years back.

In my years in CAP I have heard of very few liability issues, I don't know one problem that occured in SE Region, if it happened, I missed the news.

[mikeylikey]

The best advice would come from the Corporate Legal bigwig at National.  Look his number up on-line and give him a call.

I commend your initiative, but I do think there are issues with the plan of action.  CAP can not provide direct support to law enforcement unless it goes through the NOC at National.  However, local law enforcement can donate surplus equipment to local units.  If you want money from a budget of a government agency, you have to have it approved by Wing King, National and MOST importantly the citizens of the locality in which the law enforcement agency operates.  That would be done through either a Mayor or elected governing board.  Don't forget the Sheriffs budget must be approved in advance of each fiscal year. 

[Earhart1971]

The best advice would come from the Corporate Legal bigwig at National.  Look his number up on-line and give him a call.

I commend your initiative, but I do think there are issues with the plan of action.  CAP can not provide direct support to law enforcement unless it goes through the NOC at National.  However, local law enforcement can donate surplus equipment to local units.  If you want money from a budget of a government agency, you have to have it approved by Wing King, National and MOST importantly the citizens of the locality in which the law enforcement agency operates.  That would be done through either a Mayor or elected governing board.  Don't forget the Sheriffs budget must be approved in advance of each fiscal year. 

Ok, lets get past legality, its contingent on a legal rulling from National.

Fine, if it were legal, would you support it with donations, or not?

And by the way, the Sheriff is an elected official and no approvals are needed on his side.

He spends his budget his way.

Rest assured the National entity will be informed, and yes they could shoot down the whole thing.

Worst case is we change the uniforms and press on without CAP, and use the Explorer program as a volunteer vehicle, but I do not want that to happen, the Boy Scouts have half a million members and a larger base, I still don't want to do it that way.

But If everything were approved, and legal, by NHQ CAP, would individuals support it?

That was my original question.

[Eclipse]

Would I support him if I lived in his county?  Probably.

From here, no.

[SKYKING607]

Here in So. California, one Sheriff's Department operates the largest Aero Squadron in the state.  The majority of the members are join CAP/Reserve Deputies. 

As a CAP member, the training the staff receives is in-valuable.  Mission Pilots and Scanners populate the Aero Squadron.  The staff participates in CAP missions whenever and where ever they can.  They do this as a uniformed CAP member!

Now...on election night, they fly as Reserve Sheriff's Deputies ferrying ballot boxes from out-lying parts of the county for tabulation.  They also fly local area missions for lost hikers and such as Reserve Sheriff Deputies.

You will NEVER see a uniformed CAP member fly in a Sheriff's aircraft (fixed or rotary wing).  If there is an OES mission underway, a CAP aircraft may be utilized to transport a dog handler and pup here-and-there.  It's done in our state.

Such an endeavor as a joint-use unit sounds great in concept....but the County Sheriff and the CAP organization must develop and enforce any MOU between them.  Each organization must learn and honor each other's limitations and adhere to them.

Such an endeavor could work and I applaud the effort to try it!

[Earhart1971]

You will NEVER see a uniformed CAP member fly in a Sheriff's aircraft (fixed or rotary wing).  If there is an OES mission underway, a CAP aircraft may be utilized to transport a dog handler and pup here-and-there.  It's done in our state.

Such an endeavor as a joint-use unit sounds great in concept....but the County Sheriff and the CAP organization must develop and enforce any MOU between them.  Each organization must learn and honor each other's limitations and adhere to them.

Such an endeavor could work and I applaud the effort to try it!

What is the reason CAP cannot fly in a LA Sheriff Helicopter?

CAP objections or Sheriff objections?

[Eclipse]

Who pays when it gets broke or you die?

[Earhart1971]

Who pays when it gets broke or you die?

The risk is there, if there were no risk, it would not be CAP!

The Sheriff carries 3 million Liability.

No Sheriff crashes in aviation in the last 10 years, in the tri county area, except stupid stuff like crushing the skids on a hard landing.

[Pylon]

Who pays when it gets broke or you die?

Who's liable in a member-furnished aircraft when operating under CAP auspices?  Is this a similar situation?  It would seem so:  CAP members, operating training or a mission for CAP, while in an aircraft owned and maintained by someone else.

Doesn't mean it's kosher by the regs or it isn't, one way or the other.  I'm merely pointing out that it seems like this is a pretty similar situation.

[Eclipse]

Who pays when it gets broke or you die?

The risk is there, if there were no risk, it would not be CAP!

The Sheriff carries 3 million Liability.

No Sheriff crashes in aviation in the last 10 years, in the tri county area, except stupid stuff like crushing the skids on a hard landing.

I suppose if the county is self-insured, as many local governement agencies are these days, it may play into the equation.  But insuring employees is different than insuring
civilian volunteers.

Whether there has ever been a crash before is a side discussion about rates, but won't have much bearing on whether CAP could operate county vehicles. Not to mention the fact that CAP as an org is not excited about using member-owned aircraft, let alone some other agencies.  Its just not necessary.

And you can forget about rotor craft.  Its not going to happen. You might be able to get CAP people into county helos as observers or assistive aircrew, but you're never going to see CAP pilots flying helos as CAP members.

[Earhart1971]

Who pays when it gets broke or you die?

The risk is there, if there were no risk, it would not be CAP!

The Sheriff carries 3 million Liability.

No Sheriff crashes in aviation in the last 10 years, in the tri county area, except stupid stuff like crushing the skids on a hard landing.

I suppose if the county is self-insured, as many local governement agencies are these days, it may play into the equation.  But insuring employees is different than insuring
civilian volunteers.

Whether there has ever been a crash before is a side discussion about rates, but won't have much bearing on whether CAP could operate county vehicles. Not to mention the fact that CAP as an org is not excited about using member-owned aircraft, let alone some other agencies.  Its just not necessary.

And you can forget about rotor craft.  Its not going to happen. You might be able to get CAP people into county helos as observers or assistive aircrew, but you're never going to see CAP pilots flying helos as CAP members.

Never say Never, with the parties involved, my Sheriff Candidate and CAP.

A whole new outlook is coming! Details soon.

Anybody that is interested in updates: richmond45@yahoo.com

If there are no Risks, there are no Rewards!

[Earhart1971]

Went to lunch with the National Commander and the Florida Wing Commander.

OMG, well I know Danny Levitch from my Cadet days, but the National Commander I just met.  The meeting on our subject went great!

Let me say this, we got ourselves a National Commander that takes no prisoners, and thats good!

For more info just email me, I don't want to broadcast the juicy stuff, but the National Commander has taken some Air Force people to the WOOD SHED, whereas, a lesser of a Commander would have laid down and taken it.

email: richmond45@yahoo.com