Problems in CAP

[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