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

 
 

[FW]

Let's agree that "corruption" in this instance means "broken" or not working as intended.
In CAP, the CEO is not the CoB (Board of Governors).  It was decided it would be a conflict of interest.
The 3 member of the BoG who are "joint appointees", to date, have not followed either "faction"and, serve 4 year terms so... they do not have "allegiance" to any one. (General Courter's term is up in 10 months, the "joint appointees" are done in  40).
The region commanders are not necessarily all appointed by the current national commander. (4 year term vs. 3 year term).  The wing commanders are appointed by region commanders who may have not been appointed by the current region commander.  Soooo, we can argue the governance model is not that "circular".

As to separating the National Board functions from the commanders.... Sounds nice however, doesn't really mean much in CAP as the Board of Governors decides broad policy anyway.  And, Commanders need to have a say in how that policy is to be constructed for day to day practice.   Reason:  Commanders are the responsible party.  And, responsibility with out authority leads to chaos....

That being said, the BoG is thinking about bringing in an outside source to study our current governance system and to recommend  (if any) changes to be made. 

[JeffDG]

I used the term "corruptible" to indicate that the system could be corrupted.  I've not been around anywhere near long enough to say that it is corrupted in any way, and have not seen any evidence that it has been.

The CAP/cc term being 3 years vs. Region/Wing commanders being 4 years isn't as much protection as it seems.  The first of the 4 years is probationary, and the Region/Wing CC can be dismissed without cause in that term.  Even absent that, 3/4 of the Regional/Wing CCs will turn over during a CAP/CC term, which while it may not be complete control, is certainly effective control.

The current CAP Constitution splits responsibility for Policy (BoG and NB responsible) from regulation (CAP/CC responsible).  Setting policy should be done on the governance side of the house.  The "command" side certainly should set the appropriate regulations to carry out that policy.  They don't need to be intermingled in order for that to occur.

[Ned]

I've been doing a fair amount of governance research lately.

CAP, Inc's., governance structure may well be unique among all 501c3 charitable corporations; it is certainly unique among Federally-chartered 501c3s.

But CAP itself is a fairly unusual corporation.  Only a very few corporations ever have federal instrumentality status (mostly just us and the ARC with a few other theoretical exceptions).  And or current governance structure is largely a result of historical forces at play with a few contemporary fixes.  Our wings and regions were orignially set up when we were part of the federal government during WWII.  After the war, we were spun off into a corporation closely controlled by the USAF.  Later, the AF spun us off again when they got out of our governance structure.  And then the BoG was developed and added to the mix in 2001 or so.

And it is worth remembering that CAP has been remarkably effective in many ways under our current governance structure; saving hundreds of lives and developing thousands of dynamic American aerospace leaders.

And we are not the first major 501c3 to look at our governance structure for possible improvements.  The Red Cross, after some major operational concerns that attracted Congressional attention decided to work with outside experts to significantly simply and modify their own governance.  Governance wonks should look at the Red Cross report on how they did it.

The BoG is aware of the issues involved, and is actively studying and working the issue.  Forgive me for not being more descriptive, but this is one of those things that the BoG needs to work on quietly.  Any speculation/discussion on how or when governance may be reformed by the BoG will tend to result in interesting organizational resistance to change.  That's just human nature, of course, but sometimes this kind of inertia can actively undermine the ability of the BoG to effect any necessary changes.

The BoG has at least 10 amazingly talented members.  All of whom have expertise to bring to the table in this regard. 

Give the national leadership your support and recommendations as they address governance issues.

Ned Lee

[flyboy53]

I don't think trolling the Internet (CAP Talk) is a good way for NHQ to uncover and resolve problems, unless of course, it is operational and a threat to someone's safety.

We do have a chain of command where problems are supposed to be presented and addressed at the lowest level possible. Probably the last level that is the most personal is at group. Then as you move up the chain of command, the function becomes more management of broad organizational issues and less about personal problems.

Having NHQ resolve what may only be a local problem would only cause chaos and probably cause people to leave in droves.

Certainly, I have seen so many great ideas come out of CAP Talk, but I've also noticed that many of those ideas are filtered by the wing/unit/local of the member and may not apply elsewhere.

[JeffDG]

Well said, Ned.  (Hey, that rhymes!)

As I said, I'm fairly new here, and I've been speaking solely from a theoretical perspective of how governance structures can go bad. 

I agree that the current structure has worked to this point.  I do not have any beef with the current leadership of the organization.  But as Madison said in Federalist 51:  "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

There are problems in CAP.  There are problems in any imperfect organisation made up of imperfect human beings.

I have a great deal of issues with the way our governance has (d)evolved.  I also know the reasons why on some of the issues.  Those who have been members for a while will also remember how close CAP has come to non-existence over the years.  If John McCain had his way back in 1995, we would not exist, or at the very least we would have become a strictly ES/SAR volunteer government agency under DOT, much smaller than we are today, no cadets and no AF links (though, of course, some CAP members would really like that).

"Corruption" is not a word to be used lightly.  Any human being can be "corrupted," from a lieutenant "appropriating" funds out of the squadron kitty to the well-known escapades of some former National Commanders.

Usually these bad actors are found out.  However, the punishment varies.  Sometimes the bad actor gets turfed out of CAP.  Other times the whole organisation gets whacked for it; e.g. Harwell/berry boards.

I guess since I am by nature somewhat cynical, it doesn't really surprise me when bad behaviour raises its head in CAP, simply because it happens so much in the human race in general.

I don't have a solution...like Corporal Maxwell Q. Klinger once said, "if I had all the answers, I'd run for God."

[FW]

There are problems in CAP.  There are problems in any imperfect organisation made up of imperfect human beings.

Yes, I agree.  However, we should always figure out ways to improve the system and, make it ever more difficult for "corruption" in the system.  We should never be satisfied with the status quo.  However, as has been said many times, we should let those tasked with finding the solutions to our problems the latitude to complete their tasks successfully.

[JeffDG]

There are problems in CAP.  There are problems in any imperfect organisation made up of imperfect human beings.

Yes, I agree.  However, we should always figure out ways to improve the system and, make it ever more difficult for "corruption" in the system.  We should never be satisfied with the status quo.  However, as has been said many times, we should let those tasked with finding the solutions to our problems the latitude to complete their tasks successfully.

+1

[a2capt]

I hope "they", the bodies that have the oversight, have learned to identify the signs that got Generalissimo into the position in the first place because the path he took is as laid with destruction as the highway out of Kuwait was in 1991. Yet it happened.

No system is perfect, but this was majorly demotivating for a lot of the organization.

[N Harmon]

Some of you will never be happy. I don't think CAP has ever been as great as it is today. And I, by no means, think we've "peaked".

[GTCommando]

Some of you will never be happy. I don't think CAP has ever been as great as it is today. And I, by no means, think we've "peaked".

Amen!  :clap:

Like all organizations, CAP is made up of imperfect human beings, which results in an imperfect organization. However, I think CAP does pretty well for itself, considering none of us are getting paid, except for a few outside administrators/accountants at Wing level and higher.

Does CAP as an organization have issues? Yes. Will we ever be perfect? No. But will we continue to live up to our core value of excellence and try our best at everything we do? Absolutely.

It takes people to make an organization. I would never have gotten as far in CAP as I have so far without the selfless and determined volunteers at my squadron, who continually give up their personal time and, at times, even part of their paycheck to make sure that we cadets have the opportunity to be the best we can be, and I am eternally grateful for every one of them. It's up to every one of us to do what we can to make CAP the best organization of it's kind, and if we keep trying, we will succeed.

[FW]

I hope "they", the bodies that have the oversight, have learned to identify the signs that got Generalissimo into the position in the first place because the path he took is as laid with destruction as the highway out of Kuwait was in 1991. Yet it happened.

No system is perfect, but this was majorly demotivating for a lot of the organization.

The true strength of CAP lies in the tens of thousands of members dedicated to a strong vibrant CAP.  This is the main reason why we can go on in spite of the "demotivating" issues popping up from time to time.  It is why I refuse to worry (to much) about the BS.

We must stick to our core values and keep trying to solve problems which come our way in a sane manner.  We do have such mechanisms in place.  However, sometimes we need to supply some "grease" to get it moving...

[lordmonar]

+1

I have said this before....and will continue to say it.

In the 9 years I have been in CAP most of the politics that give us a bad name goes on almost completely invisibly to the rank and file in CAP.

We still do our training, we still do our missions, we still run the cadet program, encampments, NCSA's, IACE, et al.....most people don't even know about Testgate or the controvesy with the new Vice Commander, or the political removal of wing and regional commanders.

For the most part the average member has no interaction with these levels of command so the just press on and do their jobs.

"Problems" in CAP?  Sure there are.  But they are no worse nor no better then they were 60 years ago.

[Eclipse]

Gotta go w/ Lord on this.

[caphornbuckle]

This has turned into a very positive and motivating thread!  I'm impressed to see how so many members with different views on several subjects can work through all the issues from upstairs and still accomplish the mission!  :clap:

It's the dedicated volunteer that has kept CAP alive for almost 70 years and it will be the dedicated volunteer that keeps it alive for another 70+.

Even when the discussions get heated on here, we still go out and do the missions, build leadership, and continue to "sell" aviation.

I don't believe CAP is at its highest moments right now (kind of hard to compete with bombing subs!) but we are a successful, professional organization with the same expectations in its members.

[RADIOMAN015]

Gee maybe I missed something but all this "goverance" in CAP (BOG, NB, NEC) you would think that one of the groups (or collectively)would actually come up with a long term plan/goals for the organization and that would be duly communicate to the entire membership     Perhaps the "metrics" being used to evaluate wings is the long term goals in disguise

[FW]

I'm pretty sure the NB asked that a committee be formed to help figure out better ways to govern.
The BoG has not agreed to anything yet I can see (in past minutes) that would move a "long term plan/goals".  So, I don't see any reason for anyone to communicate to the membership at this time.
Of course, there will be an NEC meeting in a couple of weeks and a BoG meeting in December.  Maybe we'll hear of some advancement by year's end....

[Dad2-4]

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.

AMEN X 100!
Of all the problems that I've experienced in CAP, almost 100% can be attributed to that very thing, whether it be between SMs, between cadets, or between a cadet and a SM. And the issue is exacerbated when someone in a position of authority treats everything as a democracy instead of exercising authority.
Not everything needs to be discussed openly. Address problems on the level that they occur amongst those that need to be involved in the decision making.

[meganite]

I see that most of the debate within this thread has been settled. I'd just like to comment from my own (albeit limited) experience.

I'm new to CAP as of August, and I think it's probably one of the best run organizations that I've ever been a part of, volunteer or otherwise. This may be just a reflection of the organization I see on a local level, but I think it holds true overall. I don't know much about the higher-up structure, but for the average member, there is still training to do, things to learn, ways to get involved. Things may be a bit disorganized at times, but they are constantly improving.

While I can see how a forum might be a good place to express complaints about the authority, I know there are ways to send complaints up the chain that cause far less gossip and possibly get things resolved quicker. I'm glad to see that even the "complaints" expressed in this thread took the form of logical, structured arguments, because so often in other organizations I've seen things dissolve into gossip and backbiting. Complaints may bring the complainers together but they don't do much for the overall attitude.

So anyway, nobody's perfect, but I can see that most everyone in CAP is dedicated to excellence. I don't have much to add to the conversation other than that I'm proud to be a member of CAP