Dec 2011 BoG Meeting

[RiverAux]

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.

We already have a full-time paid national staff that has failed to update the uniform manual in a timely basis.  They have made progress on getting other regs updated when they needed to, but not this.  I don't see how a full-time paid CAP leader who has authority over NHQ as well as the volunteers would make this happen quicker. 

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.

Also take into account that they're potentially dealing with a guy/gal in charge who has no inkling of what CAP does or how it works.  The hired gun CEO usually is a failure. 

[NCRblues]

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.

#2. Hiring the National CC is such a bad move. Talk about politics for that job being bad now...wait till there is a hefty paycheck to go along with it. (a corporation of 65k members is going to have to pay someone at least 6 figures to do even a half chance at a decent job. Where will the money come from?) Also, I believe that something like hiring someone full time to oversee staff AND volunteers are going to require congress action to change the C&B.

#3. Taking the membership completely out of the loop will do more damage than anything I can imagine. Its flat out dangerous to have one person in control of everything. Wing commanders still need a say. What works great in Alabama may not work well in Alaska. Someone (wing king/queen) needs to be able to attend meetings and vote and voice an opinion for Alaska, not have Alabama shove policy down 52 wings throats. You do have a say in what your drivers license looks like. Don't like it? Recall the governor, vote out the assemblymen. Cant do that if its the BOG running everything, or a CEO that is not answerable to shareholders (we don't have shares so....)

#4. Wing and Region commanders' descend into obscurity because they are no better informed than the average squadron commander if the NEC/NB are done away with. Why talk to your wing king when you can just call the CEO's office who would not be an "officer" so would not be "chain of command"?

#5. Negative effects would be the same as today. Bringing in a CEO is not going to solve the problems we are having with uniform issues, or with missions. The paid staff we have struggles to maintain or slowly update regs. Bringing in one more person is not going to affect it. Rules made "very clear" from on high are fine, until the rules become oppressive and the members at wing and below suddenly realize NCIS is on Tuesday nights and that is way more interesting than volunteering in an organization where they have no say and is run by one person in Alabama.

#6. Some political members will be upset yes. Even more members who like to control what they can, to make the local program outstanding, will be even more upset that they no longer have a little wiggle room. Many members (like myself) want to get those wing king/region king seats not for the perks or to "command" but to make our little slice of CAP (wing/region) the best and brightest it can be. Take away the opportunity to make a difference and you will end up losing many good members who dedicate their life's to cap (like myself).


I hope that company CAP hired, did not just turn out the standard "oh, hire a CEO and fire everyone else who has a say, and your problems will be fixed" square peg round hole solution....large hammer. CAP is vastly different than a normal company/501c3. I believe it is vitally important we keep the leadership with all volunteers.

P.S. Spell check and grammar check not working ATM. Sorry if it offends the mark I eyeballs

[Ned]

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 heard back from the Finance shop at NHQ and it appears that you were correct and the NEC voted at their last meeting to remove the restriction that fenced the VG money to support the regional training facilities. 

They are checking the draft minutes and looking to see where the money is supposed to go at this point.

More when I get it.

[Eclipse]

^....
....

...must...

.............find........

...........................something.....

..................................................else....

...............................................................to....

........................................................................whine...complain...

......................................................take...issue...with....

.........................

........................

........................

I got nothin.

[NCRblues]

eclipse, are you speaking about me?

If so, I am not looking for things to disagree with or argue about, I am passionate about this and have very strong feelings on it. After all, captalk is nothing BUT people's opinions on CAP issues.

[lordmonar]

How would hiring the National CC be political?  The BoG asks for resumes from inside and out side CAP and picks the best candidate.
It would be no more political than any other job.  The key here is that we no longer have wing and regional commander selected for how they will vote at the next election...but on how well they would run their wings and regions.

Just because we have a full time executive...does not mean he has absolute power.  The BoG would be giving him his goals and objectives and they would have the power to let him go if he abuses his power or fails to meet his objects and goals.


"Taking membership competely out of the loop".....were are we in the loop now?  2d Lt Joe Newguy has no say on national policy. It is by the volunteer members at each eschelon doing their job and informing the commander on what works and does not work that the memebers have any input to the actual workings of CAP.   Simply hiring the big boss will not change any of that.  What it will change is that our subordinate leaders will be selected based on their ability to do the job.  By eliminating the NB as a policy making body and having them focus on their program areas (their wing) they will be more efficant at doing the job.  Sure What works in AKWG may not work in PRWG.....but as it stands now...that is one of the problems.  It is next to impossible to write and pass a regulation when one wing can start a lobby to block a new regluation because they don't like one aspect of it.  But With national seeing the need for a regulation...they would staff it (with CAP volunteers) who will write it and it get approved and published in a timely manner.  If PRWG has a problem the simply write a supplment that gets approved by the National CC and we are golden.

Why do suppose that wing and regional commanders become obsolete?  They will still have to run their wings, the will still be asked to staff various working groups, they will still be engaged with the national commander doing their jobs.  The only difference is that they will not be politicing for their pet project, jokeying for positions to get a better chance at the next election, back stabbing the regional commander/wing/national commander because their guy did not get elected.  They can focus on doing their job....manning, training and equiping their wing to perform assigned missions.

Negetive issues can be dealt with if the BoG hires/selects the national CC.
a)  The national commander would not be spending time currying favor from his subordinates in order to establish a poltical base to push through his ideas on how to get the job done.
b)  This would allow him to hire and fire wing and regional commanders based on ability instead of poltiical reliabiilty.
c)  Pushing through regulations would be easier and faster because we would not be tied into an artifical time line (Suggested at one NB....report on the next.....sent back to committee to fix the issues....report at next NB....maybe voted on.....maybe not.  In stead the national CC would tell Staff Officer X......get 39-1 updated and on my desk by next month...we'll put it out for comments for 30 day...make the changes and then publish it. 
d) All rules come from on high.....what happens now is that if Wing Commander X does not like the rule...he ignores it.  But he is popular in his region and if I fire him....9000 people will scream politics and we will just be bogged down again.

How will changing the nature of national politics affect the local level?  Tony P at his worst hardly affected the local level at all (unless you were one of the individuals who he was gunning for).  Changing the national politics will benifit the local level because your wing commander and regional commander will be able to focus more of their time on local issues instead of national poltics.

As for where does the money come from?  Well I hate to say this....but all you have to do is consolidate some of the wing adminstrator jobs, may shave off some of the staffers at NHQ....maybe divert some money from VG.  Getting the money is not that hard in the long run.  Add to that that fund raising will become one of the jobs of the BoG and maybe a duty of the full time National CC he would raise the money as part of his job.  It would not be the first job in a "volunteer" organisation where one of the duties of the paid staff is to raise the money for their own pay checks.

[cap235629]

As for where does the money come from?

Since the National Commander has a "rank" of Major General why not use the Vanguard money to pay him/her under this new governance.  An O-8 over 2 is paid 10k a month

[Spaceman3750]

Not sure I'm in favor of someone outside of the organization being the national CC.

[RiverAux]

Although this is essentially an exercise in useless tea-leave reading, but another Board Source document that may have some bearing:
http://www.boardsource.org/dl.asp?document_id=884

They indicate that there is a "sweet spot" of board size of 15-22 members that CEOs seem to think is most efficient.  Average size is 16.   

To translate that to CAP world, the NB is too big to be effective, but the BoG is too small to really act as a governing board. 

[Eclipse]

How would hiring the National CC be political?  The BoG asks for resumes from inside and out side CAP and picks the best candidate.

You're done right there. 

No one from outside is going to "get" CAP, and taking the lineage from our parent service, CSAF's aren't hired from "outside".

Besides, who, of any real value, is going to stake their career on an organization where no one under him really has to do anything he says?
Frankly, that's part of the problem - CAP volunteers have no real "risk" in regards to their non-performance of staff duties, etc.  They can attain
fairly high office, have hundreds of thousands of dollars of assets and thousands of members under their authority, and if they just warm the seat and
quit, no one (who counts) will even know they were a member.

Any model that puts compensated members in the chain of command has to dial-down a lot lower then just the top spot - it needs to come all the way down to the Wing level, and maybe even the group, because otherwise, you can fill all the whiteboards you want with plans, and no one really has to even pay you any mind.

[NCRblues]

Lordmonar, like I said, we will just have to agree to disagree.

IMHO, I do not like Nat/CC as a paid position.

What are the rules on hiring a Nat/CC? Must have a degree? Masters? PHD? Salary? Span of control? Reason for removal (if BOG needs to)? Will the AF even let that happen (doubt it)?

Who speaks for ANYONE in the organization then if the NB is disbanded? Your line of "at least it is a system" comes into play here. It may be broken, but at least your voice COULD be heard. If they take apart the NB, who will you speak to then? Your wing king will shrug and say "sorry, not my job, I am just here to focus on wing XXXX"

Leadership of the ALL volunteer AF Aux. needs to stay all volunteer. More corporation side is not the answer. Has anyone thought of this....if we need help this bad to HIRE someone outside cap (or even god forbid hire the Nat/CC or former Nat/CC) why not go hat in hand to the AF and say "hey, we need help, please come help us right the ship"....

[lordmonar]

Although this is essentially an exercise in useless tea-leave reading, but another Board Source document that may have some bearing:
http://www.boardsource.org/dl.asp?document_id=884

They indicate that there is a "sweet spot" of board size of 15-22 members that CEOs seem to think is most efficient.  Average size is 16.   

To translate that to CAP world, the NB is too big to be effective, but the BoG is too small to really act as a governing board.

Bump it up.

6 members from USAF and 8 (one from each region) and two intested outside parties.

[Eclipse]

I'd say the actual fix is moving back to a top-down, paramilitary structure that emulates other similar organizations, puts the power back in the hands of the national commander and the actual chain of command, but requires they in turn report to the USAF.

[NCRblues]

I'd say the actual fix is moving back to a top-down, paramilitary structure that emulates other similar organizations, puts the power back in the hands of the national commander and the actual chain of command, but requires they in turn report to the USAF.

think I love you..... not in you know...a weird way or anything...

[FW]

I'll give you a realistic scenario; The BoG makes the EX the CEO of CAP.  This is really a no brainer as, the EX already has the authority to run the corporation.  The National Commander stays a volunteer however, becoming the COO of the corporation.  The National Commander leads the volunteers in accomplishing the goals set forth by the BoG.  Subordinate commanders are tasked to accomplish the goals in their region/wing accordingly.  The Commander is selected by the BoG.  The Commander appoints the region commanders who, in turn appoints the wing commanders, etc.  No more "self licking ice cream cone". No more confusion of current "multi governing boards" and, a clear line of responsibility and authority. 

The only issue I wonder about is the Makeup of the CAP members of the BoG.  Should the CC and CV be members or advisors?  Or, should there be 4 (or more) at large members to represent the membership of CAP? 

I find it amazing we continue to reinvent the wheel with no benifical results.  Who knows, maybe this time "they" will get it right

[Fubar]

but requires they in turn report to the USAF.

Does anyone think the USAF wants this responsibility? If we answer directly to the military, would our corporation have to be dissolved since we would no longer be independent?

[lordmonar]

Lordmonar, like I said, we will just have to agree to disagree.

IMHO, I do not like Nat/CC as a paid position.

What are the rules on hiring a Nat/CC? Must have a degree? Masters? PHD? Salary? Span of control? Reason for removal (if BOG needs to)? Will the AF even let that happen (doubt it)?

Who speaks for ANYONE in the organization then if the NB is disbanded? Your line of "at least it is a system" comes into play here. It may be broken, but at least your voice COULD be heard. If they take apart the NB, who will you speak to then? Your wing king will shrug and say "sorry, not my job, I am just here to focus on wing XXXX"

Leadership of the ALL volunteer AF Aux. needs to stay all volunteer. More corporation side is not the answer. Has anyone thought of this....if we need help this bad to HIRE someone outside cap (or even god forbid hire the Nat/CC or former Nat/CC) why not go hat in hand to the AF and say "hey, we need help, please come help us right the ship"....

1.  Why don't you like it?  We have a lot of paid staffers now that have a ton of power.
2.  I would assume that the BoG would determine their requirments for the position based on industry standards.  Salary same deal. Span of Control?  I would assume he would have the same control as any CEO in any large organisation.  Removal?  Just like any othere employee....failure to meet goals, failure to follow company policies, failure to work well with others.  Nevada is a right to work state...so you can be fired and or let go for no reason at all....I would assume we would follow the same laws as any employer in the State of Alabama.  The point being we would not have to come up with convoluted rules to remove a bad national comander...because there is no self licking ice cream cone.  The BoG hires....the BoG fires.  As for would the USAF allow it.......I don't think they would have a say.  Not sure what the law says....but I think they would only have any input on the make up of the BoG.....who they have always thought should take on a more active role.  The USAF has stated several times that they don't think the NB should be making policy and voting on regulations.  It is inefficent use of their time.
3.  The volunteers speak for themselves.  Volunteers will still be on the NHQ staff.  Volunteers will still be on the regional and wing staffs.  Volunteers will be on the BoG.  Paying the boss does not mean you loose your voice.  You will still be able to communicate your opinions to your wing commander who should be sending them up the chain as any good supervisor should do.  22 years in the USAF...while no one ever asked my opinion I was still had a voice an could still affect change and policy within my scope.  My commanders came to me for advice on technical and procedural issues.....none of that would be lost simply because the wing commanders don't meet twice a year and vote on policy.  In fact I think that the average member's voice would more likely be shared in this enviorment because there would be not political BS going on during those meetings.  The commanders can voice their concerns about policy in an open and honest forum....instead of in a politically charged forum.
4. We are not an ALL volunteer organisation.  We have wing adminstrators, paid NHQ staffers that have a lot of real power in the organisation.  We can't go to the Air Force.  The Air Force cannot directly be in charge of us.  That is why we split from them way back in 40's IIRC.  If we were to hire our boss......then we benifit by having a full time guy who is answerable to the policy makers of the organisation.  We have guy who is hired to produce measurable objectives.  We have a guy who focuses on meeting those objectives and not an any political machine, not on any pet project he may have, not on setting up his freinds and cronies into positions of authority.

Compensating the boss allows him to focus on the job and not have to split his attention between his "real job" and the very important job of running CAP.

But as RiverAux said....this is all just tea leaf reading.  We both may just be getting spun up for no reason at all....until the report comes out...we'll just agree to disagree.  When the report does come out though.......I can't wait to hear the fire works then....you and I don't have any real stake in the National Politics.....but I can just image what the wing and region CC are going to do if the report recommends what I think and hope it does. 

[SarDragon]

but requires they in turn report to the USAF.

Does anyone think the USAF wants this responsibility? If we answer directly to the military, would our corporation have to be dissolved since we would no longer be independent?

Originally, we did answer directly to the AF. From 1941 until August 1975, the National Commander of CAP was an appointed active duty USAAF or USAF officer, typically a General Officer. They changed to the current structure in 1975, with additional governance changes when we became a part-time auxiliary a few years ago.

[NCRblues]

We will have to agree to disagree, and wait for the report... hopefully sooner rather than later.

I will say one last thing then I will sit back and watch. IMHO, you are WAY to trusting of a "CEO" hire/fire situation. Politics plays into EVERY CEO hire and fire in the world. It will not be any different in cap. (Unless the BOG places restrictions like term limits so forth and so on)

Now... I wait... and hope that all I have worked towards is not thrown away before I can even get to where I wanted to go.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

what CAP is all about; our cadets.

Sir, I have lost count of how many times I have heard that from AF personnel, including state directors: cadets are job 1, everyone else is there to support the cadets.

I have related the story of how one state director came to a former squadron to ostensibly give a "pep talk," and almost all of his talk was about cadets and how they needed to work harder to get their Mitchell at the very least.  We asked what his thoughts were for the senior members of the unit, and basically it was "motivate and mentor your cadets to get at least their Mitchell!"   This was a composite squadron, not a cadet squadron.

If all we are is to be a source of warm bodies through the gates of Lackland, in the eyes of the AF, then there is no logical reason for us to exist in our present form.