Problems in CAP

[BillB]

I wonder why nobody brings up problems they find with the organization or leadership in CAP. If as mentioned, the National leadership visits CAPTalk, they might find problems they don't knowm exists. Their is spin put on problems within Wings that I don't think Wing Commanders are even aware of. Granted this is a public forum, and exposing the dirty laundry in CAP may not be a good idea, but at the same time, there is a need to bring up problems that may find answers from other members or corporate officers. Is there a need to bring problems up for discussion? Is there a value to bring them up for review to find possible corrective action?

[Eclipse]

No - address it up the chain.

First, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, CAP functions pretty darn well considering 99.9% of the work is done by unpaid volunteers, many of whom put in almost full-time hours to keep things running.  Many of the "problems" are just differences of opinion between people who believe CAP is a Democracy and that everyone's opinion is "equal" because we are all volunteers.  That is not how it works and if we emphasized this more in the initial days of membership, we'd all have an easier time.

Second the only people here who have the entire picture of anything one might consider a "problem" are not at liberty because of confidentiality, common sense, and yes, courtesy and respect to other volunteers doing the best that they can.

There is an interesting phenomenon I have witnessed over the years in CAP which continues to this day and is made worse by boards like these - for some reason many people ascribe nefarious or conspiratorial intent, or compete incompetence to what are usually either simple mistakes, lack of planning, or just a lights-off moment.

Personal mistakes, lack of execution, poor planning, or apathy are chalked up to "Well, I'm just a volunteer...", yet that allowance seems to dissolve in direct proportion to the echelon at which one is posted, as if by virtue of being a corporate officer one somehow instantly receives all the training one needs and all the time to get things done, despite the fact that "yesterday" the wing CC was a staffer just like you who came up the same way you did.

In the professional corporate world and the military, the leaders are generally highly educated, highly compensated, and focused on their duties.  Taking a millionaire CEO or 4-star general to task for mistakes (or worse) is one thing - these people are paid to do what they do,
and that is all that they do.

CAP leaders are business people, teachers, and employees, all of who have "other things to do" besides CAP, yet still hold up more than their corner in an environment where many members exhibit a "you're lucky I showed up at all" attitude, and then complain about their leadership.

As a Wilson award recipient, you know very well that the challenges CAP faces are primarily caused by lack of resources, both monetary and personnel-wise, neither of which is likely to change any time soon.

Pick any one area, and we could all likely point to the exact "fix" that is needed, but when you start compounding all the little nooks and crannies, I don't frankly know why anyone would even consider the taking a corporate position, since the only payback is grief and posterior agony.

Making hay out of issues that we have only 1/2 the story on does no one any good and holds the CAP in a negative light to no end.

[RiverAux]

I wonder why nobody brings up problems they find with the organization or leadership in CAP.

We don't?  I thought that it was about 90% of what we talked about.

Now, if you're talking about very specific problems, such as within a squadron, I don't think it is really appropriate to bring up here most of the time.  If the squadron commander can't run a meeting to save his life, there isn't much that the collective wisdom of CAPTalk can do to fix it.

But, I think we do a pretty good job of exploring the macro-level issues and challenges facing CAP.  Judging by the content of most of the national level meetings that I've watched, we go much more in depth discussing these issues than any of our leaders do before making their decisions.  The "debates" on most issues at the NB aren't terribly useful for the most part. 

[MSG Mac]

I think problems between echelons should be brought to the next higher HQ. If we chalk it up to " Well, they always been slow to process paperwork" or "That's the way we've always done things" it resolves itself as normal rather than a matter which should be corrected.

[RADIOMAN015]

No - address it up the chain.

Many of the "problems" are just differences of opinion between people who believe CAP is a Democracy and that everyone's opinion is "equal" because we are all volunteers.  That is not how it works and if we emphasized this more in the initial days of membership, we'd all have an easier time.

There is an interesting phenomenon I have witnessed over the years in CAP which continues to this day and is made worse by boards like these - for some reason many people ascribe nefarious or conspiratorial intent, or compete incompetence to what are usually either simple mistakes, lack of planning, or just a lights-off moment.

Making hay out of issues that we have only 1/2 the story on does no one any good and holds the CAP in a negative light to no end.

Volunteers have to "buy into" anything that an organization has as it's objectives or rules/regulations.    IF a volunteers has doubts it's likely they will take appropriate action (or inaction) to mitigate their exposure to anything they don't buy into.     e.g. Some won't drive CAP vehicles.  Some won't respond to ES mission at night/early morning hours.  Some will limit their exposure to cadets (e.g. no overnight supervision, no external (out of squadron area) trips).  Not sign for any CAP equipment, etc, etc.     

IF CAP leadership cannot adequately "sell" something to the membership, it really just won't get done or will get done at the minimal level to get the block checked off.  Unfortunately, there's a lot of "blocks checked off" in CAP.   

Surely the internet has en roached on those wanna bees who think they are military commanders of "military" CAP units, when in fact they have a much tougher job of trying to corral, lead/motivate the CIVIL Air Patrol (civilian) membership into achieving what is best for the local CAP organization (in the context of National & Wing policies), when of course individuals also look at what is best for them (what they have an interest in)  or at the very least to minimize their perceived risks.  The internet provides a forum of what others think about polices and what members have personally experienced or observed.  IF the leadership chooses to ignore what it said here, that's the way it is, but many posters have given thought to what they are posting and there might be a lot more people that think the same way that really aren't saying anything but lurking in the background OR at the very least will become a bit more skeptical

As far as lights off mistakes, the lonely member who finds themself in this circumstance e.g. "accident" likely will find themselves paying for it.   Has any corporate officer in CAP's history ever had to pay for any "lights out" mistakes?  I doubt that
RM
     

[Eclipse]

As far as lights off mistakes, the lonely member who finds themself in this circumstance e.g. "accident" likely will find themselves paying for it.   Has any corporate officer in CAP's history ever had to pay for any "lights out" mistakes?  I doubt that 

No surprise regarding the wannabe comments from you, but please cite any instance you have evidence of where a corporate officer was negligent and did not have to pay for it.

You can't make charged statements like that without backing it up.

[RADIOMAN015]

As far as lights off mistakes, the lonely member who finds themself in this circumstance e.g. "accident" likely will find themselves paying for it.   Has any corporate officer in CAP's history ever had to pay for any "lights out" mistakes?  I doubt that 

No surprise regarding the wannabe comments from you, but please cite any instance you have evidence of where a corporate officer was negligent and did not have to pay for it.

You can't make charged statements like that without backing it up.

As I said I don't recall every hearing/reading anything about a corporate officer having to pay CAP for any wrong doings.  However, as far as questionable things that cost money I would say the "race car thing" (before my time); that was subsequently corrected by another NB (unsure if it was the same personnel that authorized it in the first place); and the corporate "AF look alike" uniform that was not properly coordinated with the USAF and cost the volunteer members significant money to buy, only to become obsolete in a short time    Also I have to wonder what Vanguard did to make up for their loss in disposing of this obsolete inventory (perhaps added a bit to each future sales prices to CAP members)        No apology was offered to the membership by anyone, was there

I'm sure the 'wanna bees' that monitor this list would love to see the NB pass a resolution that would prohibit unpaid, civilian CAP volunteer members from posting anything negative about CAP to these type of public boards.   

We all have personal opinions and that's what America is all about, and I'm thankful that CAP Talk exists to not only discuss controversial matters but also to provide helpful information to members in their volunteer efforts :clap:

RM/a

[Eclipse]

As I said I don't recall every hearing/reading anything about a corporate officer having to pay CAP for any wrong doings.  However, as far as questionable things that cost money I would say the "race car thing" (before my time); that was subsequently corrected by another NB (unsure if it was the same personnel that authorized it in the first place);

Awesome, for starters this isn't even the same issue - the "race car thing" isn't what you insinuated earlier, which is being billed for negligent damage to property. Further, you don't even know yourself enough details to speak to who made the changes, yet you hold this up as an example.

and the corporate "AF look alike" uniform that was not properly coordinated with the USAF and cost the volunteer members significant money to buy, only to become obsolete in a short time. Also I have to wonder what Vanguard did to make up for their loss in disposing of this obsolete inventory (perhaps added a bit to each future sales prices to CAP members) No apology was offered to the membership by anyone, was there.

Again facts apparently are unnecessary in your arguments.  For starters, the CSU was approved by the USAF, as evidenced by their comments and directives to make changes.  Since then, no one can point to a single person in authority or influence within the USAF who could care an iota about the uniform (random stories about misinformed NCO's and base personnel don't count), yet people like yourself continue to make assertions that this combination is a target of the USAF combined with a conspiracy of Vanguard.

No "apology" is necessary, however if it makes you feel any better, the person who spearheaded that uniform was removed as commander.

[Eclipse]

I'm sure the 'wanna bees' that monitor this list would love to see the NB pass a resolution that would prohibit unpaid, civilian CAP volunteer members from posting anything negative about CAP to these type of public boards.

The First Amendment is what it is, that is not likely to change any time soon.  It is just too bad that some members (as well as outside parties with no personal interest in CAP) don't understand the disservice they are doing to the membership and the organization as a whole when the throw out unsubstantiated accusations and 1/2-truths as indictments of the entire system.

CAP has an internal system of grievances and complaints, and there are civil and even criminal laws to address things outside the scope of the IG system, however some people are too impatient to actually read the regulations and procedures they agreed to abide by when they joined, and since the internet gives people the illusion of equality of standing and of voice, it is much easier to just toss a troll cocktail and watch the fun.

All the while with no concern whatsoever about the internal and external collateral damage of this kind of "discussion".

[FW]

OK, I thought the "prime" purpose of CT was to complain about the problems in CAP...
Did I miss the memo here or what....

RM, I know of not one Corp. Officer of CAP who was allowed to break something and get away with it.  I know of, at least, four Corp. Officers (commanders) who were relieved of their duties for problems in their wings over "wrong doings".  I think that is a good way of "paying".   

Eclipse is right; I can't figure why anyone today would become a corporate officer.  It is a thankless job.  In fact the previous 2 national commanders left before their time.  The current NC has been hounded since day 365 (she was an interim for the 1st 364) and, the former NVC was voted out of office because of all the BS he couldn't keep up with... And, let's not even go into what the "new guy" is being grilled with.

I won't even get started with the rest of the National Board.  As far as I'm concerned, they are all saints.  With the lions ready to chomp them into kibble, I'm surprised they can do anything to move CAP along.

One thing for sure, we members must be able to buy into what the leadership wants.  But, thank G-d, we have enough to do at the squadron level to keep busy.  We have a professional staff at Maxwell to insure the members get what is needed to perform our missions.  And, we have Wing Commanders who are being "attacked" from above and below who, in spite of all the noise, give the members enough leadership to make it.

Then, again, we have the thousands of members who love being members and will do what is necessary to get the job done. 

However, the first amendment is a great thing to protect.  It's what helps keep us honest and, helps keep the system free from corruption.  Yes, it is a shame when "unsubstantiated" claims are made.  But, when the truth is written, that is something else. 

[JeffDG]

As a fairly new member, and someone who has experience in "governance" issues, that's the one thing that has struck me.

CAP has a circular governance model.  The NB selects the National Commander and Vice Commander.  The National Commander appoints the members of the NEC and NB.  There's no outside input into the top level, day to day governance structure. 

While I've seen no evidence for this to this point, this type of governance structure tends to breed corruption within itself, as a corrupt Commander can appoint people loyal to him/herself to the NEC and NB (through the appointment of members of the NEC), who then select the corrupt Commander's chosen replacement, and the cycle repeats itself. 

The only outside influences on the governance structure is from external organizations, and not from the membership itself.

Let me repeat for clarity...I'm not saying the system is corrupt.  What I'm saying is the system is corruptible, and were such to occur, the only way the general membership could influence the situation would be by "voting with their feet".

[FW]

Public Law makes the Board of Governors the ultimate authority in CAP matters.  The Board is the governing body of CAP; the National Commander is the CEO.  There currently seems to be "issues" surrounding this relationship.  This is a major problem now facing CAP. 

The "circular governance model" of the NB would not be so relevant if those in authority would take their jobs seriously and, Govern.

[JeffDG]

Public Law makes the Board of Governors the ultimate authority in CAP matters.  The Board is the governing body of CAP; the National Commander is the CEO.  There currently seems to be "issues" surrounding this relationship.  This is a major problem now facing CAP. 

The "circular governance model" of the NB would not be so relevant if those in authority would take their jobs seriously and, Govern.

That said, people need to understand the difference between day-to-day operations and governance.  A Board is not the right forum for detailed discussions of how things get done, they're the forum for setting the overarching policies.

For example, take uniforms...(sorry, we almost had a uniform free thread).

The Board should be in the business of saying "We need a standard, utility and dress uniform.  Each of these needs a Corporate and AF version".  They should not be saying "The Corporate utility uniform is a blue polo shirt and gray slacks".

[FW]

^good point.  However, we were talking about the potential of corruption in the NB.  The possibility of corrupting the present system would be much less if the BoG insured proper safeguards were in place to prevent it. 
This is what governing boards are supposed to do.

[JeffDG]

^good point.  However, we were talking about the potential of corruption in the NB.  The possibility of corrupting the present system would be much less if the BoG insured proper safeguards were in place to prevent it. 
This is what governing boards are supposed to do.

Even if you look at the BoG, it is part of the circular governance.

BoG membership, per 10USC9447 is:
4 members appointed by SecAF
4 members appointed by CAP
3 members from other interested parties

So, the 4 from CAP are:
National Commander
National Vice Commander
2 members at large appointed by the NEC (all of whom, as previously noted, are appointed by the National Commander)

3 other interested parties
Appointed by agreement between the SecAF and National Commander...

So, out of the 11 members of the BoG, CAP/CC has essentially the power to either select (directly or indirectly) or at a minimum veto 7 of them.

Again, I'm speaking in theoretical capacity to be corrupted, not based on evidence that it has been so corrupted.

[Eclipse]

I'd say that looks pretty typical of your average corpoation, where the CEO is commonly also the CoB.

We also need to be careful in the use of the term "corruption", which implies malfeasance for personal gain, generally monetary.
Leadership one disagrees with or even that is glacial in progress does not equal "corruption".

The volunteer nature of the "employees" and the quasi-governmental nature of CAP's charter makes the situation less than black and white, but at the end of the day, it is just a corporation that holds one of its roles as being the USAF/Aux.

CAP will never be a democracy, no similar organization is or could be (electing Flotilla CC's doesn't make the CGAUX a "democracy").  The choice is to become either more paramilitary, which would be an issue with many members who have challenges following directions, or more corporate, which might feel like more consensus, but ultimately would slow things even more.

We can also hold the charters in our hands and pretend that no one outside CAP has anything to say about operations, or accept the reality that both the law and practical reality gives CAP-USAF and any number of others a significant say in matters which are more important than insignia. 

People pay attention to the "small stuff", including our leadership, because the big stuff is hard to understand, and even harder to manage.

And before anyone suggests bringing a paid management team from outside CAP, bear in mind that anyone who is directly responsible for success, with personal career ramifications for failure, and who is actually competent, would make sweeping changes nationwide, streamline a lot of operations, and quite likely eliminate many of the "things" that keep people in CAP to start with.  You would most certainly lose the majority of local autonomy, and CAP would start looking a lot more like the ARC than the USAF.

That is not something I am remotely interested in, even if it would mean an end to the whining about 39-1 updates.

[JeffDG]

Actually, having someone as CEO and Chairman of the Board is considered by many to be a bad corporate governance practice.  Combining the role of CEO and President (who generally chairs shareholder meetings) is not as frowned upon.

In addition, in a corporation, the Board is nominally selected by shareholders, not by the CEO.  In practice, an existing BoD generally recommends candidates to the shareholders in the form of a slate, but the shareholders can reject these if they so choose.

I've been careful to separate governance theory (corruptible) from actual corruption.

[JeffDG]

Eclipse,

I don't support "electing" Wing CCs or anything like that.  I'm simply pointing out the circularity of the current governance model.

The only "easy" solution (by which I mean a solution that wouldn't completely upset how CAP works), would be to separate the role of Wing/Region CC and National Board member.  Then the members of each wing could elect their own representative to the NB, without having Wing CCs directly accountable to those under their command.  The governance structure (NB, NEC) would then be separate from the operational structure (CAP/CC, Region CCs, Wing CCs), and provide outside input into the governance loop.

[RiverAux]

CAP will never be a democracy, no similar organization is or could be (electing Flotilla CC's doesn't make the CGAUX a "democracy"). 

Flotilla members elect flotilla commanders, flotilla commanders elect the Division commanders, etc., etc.  Certainly it is more democratic than not.  And even within a flotilla almost every decision that my flotilla makes is voted on by the entire membership -- direct democracy. 

[RADIOMAN015]

Regarding my postings I'm not accusing anyone of wrong doings what I'm trying to illustrate is that everyone make mistakes even with their best efforts and best intentions.   So I really don't think  squadron members goes out on purpose and has a vehicle or aircraft accident, it is a human "mistake".
RM/a