Dec 2011 BoG Meeting

[a2capt]

..and another frustrating thing with this whole organization has always been the "send it up the chain" thing.

Yes, it's the right way to do it.

It's a 3-4 year round trip sometimes. Most of the time it's a black hole. 

Someone in line sees it, doesn't agree, and tosses it. Done. No reply. If you have a suggestion for the national level, is it really the Group commander's prerogative to throw it out?

The $120K to be used for training ... I guess training includes a place to train your needs...  why does all this money have to 1, 2 .. 3 programs that the greater majority of the organization never realize. The Hawk's Head is something 200 people out of 65,000 will ever step into.  Yet we all paid for it.  I'm not against that every time, but how about spreading that training money around. Buy some printers and laptops, some Kinko's cards, (okay, there's a lot better places to get copies done .. but as an example..) Let people put in for white boards and projectors for mission bases, unit meeting places, panel quiz push button boxes, color guard and drill team equipment and accessories. If you can lump building a restroom under training, surely the rest of this can be training too.

That's all training too. Stuff people need, stuff that could make a difference from all directions. Dumping it all into NER and GLR doesn't do this. 

How about a 50/50 split. You put your charter number on VG orders and your unit gets a piece of that kickback. Or maybe at least your Wing/Group. Something.  Something to show the money gets spread a little more than 3 places.  Even at 50/50 - NHQ seemed happy with $60K, this example was double. 

[jimmydeanno]

And I wasn't at the most recent NEC meeting, so I can't speak to whether some money got diverted from VG (or anywhere else) to cover volunteer travel.  Let me check and see what I can find out.  As I said, the original VG policy was to fence the money for training and I don't think that has changed, so there must be a disconnect if your information is accurate.

I hope that my information wasn't accurate, honestly.  However, if it is, it seems a bit disingenuous to be in a budget situation that doesn't allow the shipping of new member materials and then authorize more money for corporate executive travel (different money pots, I know).  I think we've noted here a few times that with the current agendas coming out of the NB, there isn't anything that would prevent meetings remotely for a vote on which new patch to authorize.

I'm not saying that the NEC or NB are acting unscrupulously, or that they're looking for a way to give themselves bonuses, but it seems to be in poor taste.  Right now, the membership questions why the money consistently goes to the same three facilities in which only a few hundred members per year can utilize.  I'm sure that the same view could be taken on padding the expense accounts of an even more select group of people based on raising prices for our uniform costs.

However, my understanding is that the last NEC meeting, they voted to remove the restrictions on that royalty income (about 6% or Vanguard sales) so that they may be used for any purpose when authorized by the finance committee and NEC, with an earmark that 25K of it be used to fund "national-level volunteer staff travel."

[Eclipse]

How about a 50/50 split. You put your charter number on VG orders and your unit gets a piece of that kickback. Or maybe at least your Wing/Group. Something.  Something to show the money gets spread a little more than 3 places.  Even at 50/50 - NHQ seemed happy with $60K, this example was double.

Sending 500 units $200 towards a structured training activity would have a deeper impact on the organization and also go a long way to have those units feel the VG arrangement is to their benefit.

Also, why does "training" = "ES"?   How about using te money to open regional cadet leadership schools or senior professional development centers?
How about funding SLS/CLC/TLC, or scholarships for RSC, NSC, etc?

[lordmonar]

..and another frustrating thing with this whole organization has always been the "send it up the chain" thing.

Yes, it's the right way to do it.

It's a 3-4 year round trip sometimes. Most of the time it's a black hole. 

Someone in line sees it, doesn't agree, and tosses it. Done. No reply. If you have a suggestion for the national level, is it really the Group commander's prerogative to throw it out?

a) At least it is system.  The alternitive is 65000 people all calling the National Commander with their ideas.
b) If you can't convince your group commander that you idea is "good" then maybe it is not "good".
c) There is always the option of "if you want to get involved in higher level decision making.....take a higher level job"....everyone can volunteer for national level jobs and even more at wing and regional level.

The $120K to be used for training ... I guess training includes a place to train your needs...  why does all this money have to 1, 2 .. 3 programs that the greater majority of the organization never realize. The Hawk's Head is something 200 people out of 65,000 will ever step into.  Yet we all paid for it.  I'm not against that every time, but how about spreading that training money around. Buy some printers and laptops, some Kinko's cards, (okay, there's a lot better places to get copies done .. but as an example..) Let people put in for white boards and projectors for mission bases, unit meeting places, panel quiz push button boxes, color guard and drill team equipment and accessories. If you can lump building a restroom under training, surely the rest of this can be training too.

That's all training too. Stuff people need, stuff that could make a difference from all directions. Dumping it all into NER and GLR doesn't do this.

That is true for just about every national level program.  COS, NCC, IACE, you name it.  There is a balance between high dollar items and "sharing the costs arounds"......$120K would do great things for Hawk Mountain, NBB and NESA facilities that would make those programs even better.  Sharing it around to all th eunits will mean that (assumeing ther are 1000 units in the nation) a gift card for $100.  Now I would not sneer at $100 for training.....it just does not do a whole lot for me.

How about a 50/50 split. You put your charter number on VG orders and your unit gets a piece of that kickback. Or maybe at least your Wing/Group. Something.  Something to show the money gets spread a little more than 3 places.  Even at 50/50 - NHQ seemed happy with $60K, this example was double.

Again....sounds nice...an alternitive would be to get more of your members to use the faclities that get the money.  You can also start the leg work and intitial investment to get a facility and a program in your neck of the woods and to get your fair share of the VG money.

[NCRblues]

a) At least it is system. 

I could not help but laugh out loud on this one.... sounds like something the soviet government would have said....that statement followed by "be happy we even allow you to have a system comrade".

[lordmonar]

a) At least it is system. 

I could not help but laugh out loud on this one.... sounds like something the soviet government would have said....that statement followed by "be happy we even allow you to have a system comrade".

Maybe it is just my 22 years in the military......no one ever asked my opinion on how HQ was set up.  The Soviets were not the only ones to own the "shut up and color" card.   

Listen....bottom line is that I agree with you that getting it out sooner is better.  But I also agree with the idea that the policy makers need some time to digest the report, form some initial opinions, make some initial decisions before they have to face the wrath of the masses....including some of our leaders.

[davidsinn]

But I also agree with the idea that the policy makers need some time to digest the report, form some initial opinions, make some initial decisions before they have to face the wrath of the masses....including some of our leaders.

The previous speaker of the house used that logic in the not too distant past and look where it got us...

[lordmonar]

But I also agree with the idea that the policy makers need some time to digest the report, form some initial opinions, make some initial decisions before they have to face the wrath of the masses....including some of our leaders.

The previous speaker of the house used that logic in the not too distant past and look where it got us...

Well....isn't that one of the reasons for this whole exercersize?  Looking if there is a better way of doing things?

IMHO...the BoG has not really stepped up to the line of leadership that they are supposed to have.....they are beggining to do that now.  Major changes need to be taken at an appropriate pace....I think the BoG is doing this right so far.  They have asked an outside agency with no stake in the organisation to take a look and make recommendations.  Now we have some new people on the BoG and some old hands who need time to look at the report.  Once that is done and they get an idea of what they want to do....they can send out the report along with their initial ideas of how they want to proceed.  Then the NB and the rest of CAP can look at report and the BoG's intent and that way we are not wasteing our time grousing over items that they don't like themselves.

Bottom line though...is that the BoG can do pretty much anything they want to (within the scope of current law)...with out any input from the rank and file.  They are not doing that.....as far as I can tell.....so like I said....let's give them the time to make informed decisions and do this right.

[Smithsonia]

CAP isn't the military. We have thousands of members with advanced degrees. Thousands of members who've been leaders in their communities, businesses, fields, families, churches, and other volunteer organizations. We have members with more experiences in a thousand endeavors than any one can imagine. To take advantage of some of that free knowledge is worth the little risk of listening.

Think of the governance question as a giant suggestion box. Pick the best ideas. Leave the other good ideas for later. Blow off those that don't apply or work. Be dynamic. Move forward. Lead.

The BOG has some great people. But those people should have the ability to listen also.

[Eclipse]

CAP isn't the military. We have thousands of members with advanced degrees. Thousands of members who've been leaders in their communities, businesses, fields, families, churches, and other volunteer organizations. We have members with more experiences in a thousand endeavors than any one can imagine. To take advantage of some of that free knowledge is worth the little risk of listening.

Yep - and in far too many cases, when these "leaders of their communities" are asked to do the real work of CAP, they say they are "too busy being leaders in their community".  In a lot of cases these "leaders in their community" are happy to add CAP to their resumes, but not always willing to
empty trash cans.

I'm about done hearing about the brain and energy trust we supposedly have in our ranks, because I've seen the same people doing the same things
for the last ten years, while our recruiting efforts are revolving doors of premature bling followed by "this isn't for me".

CAP is too unique an animal for the average "leader in the community" to wander in and start "fixing", likewise, those who have spent their CAP careers
marching in the same groove, checking the boxes and accumulating accolades really have nothing to offer either.  The people to consult are the mid-pointers with actual demonstrable success over and above the minimum, who still have the energy to implement disruptive change.

I don't personally have any real issues with the NEC or BOG, they are a product of the system they inhabit, the real rubber and road is below the wing level, and that's where we need the doers.

[tsrup]

CAP isn't the military. We have thousands of members with advanced degrees. Thousands of members who've been leaders in their communities, businesses, fields, families, churches, and other volunteer organizations. We have members with more experiences in a thousand endeavors than any one can imagine. To take advantage of some of that free knowledge is worth the little risk of listening.

Think of the governance question as a giant suggestion box. Pick the best ideas. Leave the other good ideas for later. Blow off those that don't apply or work. Be dynamic. Move forward. Lead.

The BOG has some great people. But those people should have the ability to listen also.

The military has thousands of members with advanced degrees.  Thousands of members who've been leaders in their units and communities, fields, families, churches, and other volunteer organizations.  They have officers and enlisted folks with more experiences in a thousand endeavors than any one can imagine.  They recognize that yet understand that it's hard to concentrate on policy when all of those said members are screaming in their ears their own idea of what should change and shouldn't.

[Smithsonia]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The military is set up to run, support, and reward 19 year olds in fights. Everything from the Generals orders to the washroom signs are designed for 19 years olds. CAP is different by a mile. We can change and have. Otherwise we'd still be bombing subs and training air raid wardens.

The US military has tens of thousands of consultants. The military pays billions of dollars every year for the expertise of the consultants and contractors. They pay because they can't afford to retain this expertise inside the military. We have military consultants, business consultants, and authorities from various resources who charge for their services providing the same service for free to CAP. I suggest we listen. We pay attention. We learn. We grow.

In the military the enemy will dictate changes in tactics and training. We learn from adversaries to be better fighters. In CAP we need to learn the same way. Take adversity and make it the basis for your solution.

[lordmonar]

Yep your right.

So is CAP the military or not?  In one post you say don't compare them...in the next you say let's do what they do.

Anyways.....I have not said that CAP should not listen to the BTDT rank and file, nor do I think that the BoG is currently not listening to us.

First off....they seem to realise that something needs to be fixed.....just like we have noted here on CT.
Secondly....the realised that we have to get outside advice.....because of the realities of the organisation makes it next to impossible to affect change from within....too many people have to much invested in the current system to objectively evaluate any possible changes.
Thirdly...the BoG made sure that rank and file members were given the opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns to the evaluation/recommendation process.

So....we are at the end of the gather information phase of the problem solving process.  Now they are entering the consider the options phase....let's give them a chance to do that with out too much shouting in their ears.

[NCRblues]

So....we are at the end of the gather information phase of the problem solving process.  Now they are entering the consider the options phase....let's give them a chance to do that with out too much shouting in their ears.

I'm sure by now everyone knows I believe that they should send it out asap...

But let me ask you this, how long should they take to "consider" things? When (in your opinion) is the time for them to send it out? How long do they need to avoid the "shouting"?

[Smithsonia]

LordMonar;
CAP is not the military. I sell advice to the military. I sell advice to media clients. I offer advice to CAP for free. Sometimes the advice is the same. Sometimes not depending on the problem to be resolved. CAP IS NOT THE MILITARY. Treat me like a 19 year old and I'll treat you worse. I haven't been a 19 year old for 40 years and I have learned a few things in that time. Not that you have to listen but I've already changed 10 things this month in CAP, my squadron, and the Wing that I could not have begun to work through when I was 19.

I have another suggestion that all members of the BOG/Command/and NEC should have at least one ES rating. It is amazing to me the difference in the way we work in ES and the way we work our other programs. ES instills some real world experiences with less talk more do.
That doesn't mean people shut up and toe the line. That means people sort through the best ideas and punch them to the top of the food chain fast then move the mission with expediency. I've got quals in both. I must say one informs the other in enriching ways.

[lordmonar]

So....we are at the end of the gather information phase of the problem solving process.  Now they are entering the consider the options phase....let's give them a chance to do that with out too much shouting in their ears.

I'm sure by now everyone knows I believe that they should send it out asap...

But let me ask you this, how long should they take to "consider" things? When (in your opinion) is the time for them to send it out? How long do they need to avoid the "shouting"?

I think a month or two would not be unresonable given the holiday season.

[NCRblues]

So....we are at the end of the gather information phase of the problem solving process.  Now they are entering the consider the options phase....let's give them a chance to do that with out too much shouting in their ears.

I'm sure by now everyone knows I believe that they should send it out asap...

But let me ask you this, how long should they take to "consider" things? When (in your opinion) is the time for them to send it out? How long do they need to avoid the "shouting"?

I think a month or two would not be unresonable given the holiday season.

I could see a month no problem. I think 2 is starting to push it. Two months would put a general release to the NB/NEC and membership to February. By that time we are talking 5-6 months to the summer NB meeting. Month...month and a half I think is a fair time for everyone on the BOG to re-read and re-think everything a couple times.

[jimmydeanno]

A message such as this needs leadership.  Putting the results out immediately, without any processing of the information or discussion among the leadership won't help the cause, if there is one to be made.

The BoG should process the information over a few weeks, or a month, then present to the national board members so that they are all on the same page.  After that briefing, the results should be released.  It's not about information protection, but providing a unified message at the national level.  This way, you don't have the XXWG Commander having to react to something he hasn't read himself or been briefed as to what the intent is going forward. 

[Ned]

I don't personally have any real issues with the NEC or BOG, they are a product of the system they inhabit, the real rubber and road is below the wing level, and that's where we need the doers.

Let me think about that for a moment to decide if I am offended.   

As it turns out, I agree that the squadron level is where we do whatever it is that we do, and we need our hardest and most productive workers at that level.

The good news is that every single one of the CAP members of the BoG has served extensively at the wing level and below.  Heck, all of them except me have been wing commanders.  (My membership was exclusively at the squadron level for the first 30 years.)

Obviously the AF and industry BoG members are not CAP members by definition, but each of them has worked extensively in the trenches of their respective organizations before coming onto the BoG.

[SamFranklin]

I'm curious about the report so I went to the Board Source site and after looking around a little bit, I'm 99% positive that we can guess which way their report leans. Good or bad, the fundamental principles their team advocates are clear-cut.

They teach that nonprofit boards are supposed to work big issues (fundraising, long term goals, accountability to America), and in turn, hire a full-time executive to manage a full-time staff that actually runs the company. Regardless of your own governance views, I think that point is beyond dispute. Read their FAQs and you'll agree.

So for me, here in the peanut gallery, I'm curious how this will play-out. Apply those Board Source principles to CAP and here's what you get, IMO:

1.  BoG finishes up its governance work in 2012 and then in 2013 turns to fundraising and long-term vision stuff.

2.  BoG "hires" a full time executive leader. Maybe that's the CAP/CC. Maybe the NHQ/EX. Maybe the job is for a pre-set term of 7 years or so, or maybe simply "good behavior." Surely the executive will be under contract. Will this person be a non-profit veteran, or a high ranking CAP officer? We'll have to wait and see. For the CAP colonel types, this is their #1 key question because it impacts their "political" future. For the BoG this is the most sensitive issue they'll deal with.

3.  That executive takes over at NHQ at Maxwell and with the full time staff there, runs the company for all intents and purposes. Want a new Hawk Mountain Ranger Tab? Get it thru the DP office there and signed by the executive (again, CAP/CC or CAP/EX, not sure....). Want a new ID card?  The DP Director or whoever comes up with a design, gives it to the boss, and done. Just like none of us have a say in what font our driver license is. Whether you like this or not, I think the "pro" is a faster, more responsive NHQ because they have authority to manage the company, but the "con" is less input from 52 colonels (that's not a slam), and there's a chance that the full time managers become prima donas or entrenched authority figures (see the J. Edgar movie, it's pretty good.)

4.   Wing and REgion commanders go back to running their organizations, and no longer work national-level issues. The NB/NEC go away because the BoG is the board, period.

5.    Rank and file CAP members, say Ltc and below the wing level, see absolutely no negative effects. If anything they like seeing Uniform Manuals published on time and rules and regs made very clear from on-high.

6.    "Political" members (not a slam), the colonels and region on up people really dislike the new system because it takes a lot of power away from them and puts it down in Alabama. They grumble a lot and make some good points, but the national-level power plays go away. However, with Wing CC being the only real perk-filled job (if you can call it that), politics for that job is more intense than ever.


(DRUMROLL)   The Ten Dollar Question:  If the Board Source report is as predicatable as I think it will be, and the NB/NEC colonels loudly decry it, will the BoG impose 90% of the Board Source solution over their objections? My hunch is that they will because Board Source will have amply demonstrated that every other nonprofit in the US runs along these lines, so there will be no rational argument to oppose the $200k expert opinion.


That's how I see this playing out. Your guess is as good as mine. But really, go to the Board Source website and I think you'll agree that their viewpoint is pretty obvious. Again, I'm not saying I support one system over another, I'm just saying I think I can see how this will play out.


Board Source's basic view on boards is here:
http://www.boardsource.org/Knowledge.asp?ID=3.383