Who are, in your opinion, the enemies of CAP?

Started by Major Carrales, November 01, 2006, 06:43:20 PM

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Major Carrales

In a recent post I made about airing CAP issues in front of the WHOLE WORLD WIDE WEB, I used the phrase "the enemies of CAP."

This got me thinking...who exactally are they.  I am sure they exist, but it might be a good exercise to name those that are dedicated to the destruction or decimation of CAP.

Definition:

An enemy of CAP: any entity, individuals or parts of an entity that seek to and work to destroy or diminish the Civil Air Patrol.

As sure as I can tell based on posts...

1) Angry former members that feel slighted
2) People looking for places to cut budgets
3) Current members looking to radically change the ORGANIZATION, so much so they wouldn't mind its current form imploding


If I am off base, let me know...or agree and elaborate.
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

CAP428

Overzealous people who wish they were more hardcore than they are, so they feel they must prove how cool and  tough they are at CAP.

Al Sayre

Lawyers and bureaucrats who are more worried about not being sued than accomplishing the mission.
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787

lordmonar

Why would you characterize current members who wish to radically change CAP as enemies?

I think that word is too strong.

Enemies sound like people who want to destroy CAP....radicals still want it CAP around they just see a need for major change.

Radicals may not be the enemies of CAP but the enemies of CAP Conservatives or moderates but not necessarily to CAP itself.

By labeling radicals as enemies, we run the risk of stifling any change...because how do you define "radical" change?

I remember on some board where I suggested lowering the maximum age of cadets to 18.  There were some who said that was too radical and would destroy the program.   Am I an enemy of CAP then?

On another tangent,

Why did you not list competing agencies, both ES and Cadet?

There are many wings out there that do not do much ES because there are other agencies (both government and civilian) that do the same thing.

There are plethora of cadet and youth organizations that are cometing with us for recruits, donations, and local support.

Are these not enemies of CAP?

-----before you flame me------

I am not charactrising any other organization as trying to do CAP in....but their very existence can cause us harm in recruiting and money.

Another enemy of CAP is CAP itself.

Units that do not receive the training they need to run a good program, units with obviously rogue leadership that upper echelons do not rein in.  Internal politics that tear up the organization.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

lordmonar

Quote from: Al Sayre on November 01, 2006, 07:32:04 PM
Lawyers and bureaucrats who are more worried about not being sued than accomplishing the mission.

Sorry...can't say they are enemies....they are just doing the job they were hired to do.  You might as well say that Safety, finance and supply are our enemies too, because they are worried about their piece of the mission and prevent us in the field from "doing what needs to be done" to accomplish the mission.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

ande.boyer

Quote from: lordmonar on November 01, 2006, 07:41:26 PM
Why would you characterize current members who wish to radically change CAP as enemies?


I don't think it's fair to quote that without including "...so much so they wouldn't mind its current form imploding."  It could accurately be said that those who pushed through the IAWG reform wanted radical changes...but I don't believe Maj Carralles would call them enemies.

ande.boyer

Quote from: lordmonar on November 01, 2006, 07:41:26 PM
Why would you characterize current members who wish to radically change CAP as enemies?


I don't think it's fair to quote that without including "...so much so they wouldn't mind its current form imploding."  It could accurately be said that those who pushed through the IAWG reform wanted radical changes...but I don't believe Maj Carralles would call them enemies.  I've been fortunate in my many years in CAP not to have seen any of these "internal" enemies.  All the folks I've served with, to my knowledge, has CAP's best interests at heart.  The only evidence of this kind of enemy I've seen has been on forums like this one.

I think the biggest enemy of CAP is "corporate inertia."  We're chugging along much as we have the last 20 years but I think there are very different waters ahead.  The nature of our ES missions are changing and if we don't figure out how to adapt to new missions and new ways of doing old missions we'll find ourselves out of a job.  I'm glad to see organziations like the National Technology Center and HQ's embracing of concepts like Archer and SDIS; but two new systems which 90% of the membership will never lay hands on aren't going to cut it.  Good direction, let's just make sure everyone is on for the ride on the same path.

Major_Chuck

Enemies of CAP

At times I would say we are our own worst enemy in some of the things our National Leadership does.

Okay....

1.  Former disgruntled members who for one reason or another didn't get the promotion or job assingment they felt they deserved.

2.  News of the Force.  It's "Editor" fits into item number "1".

Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard

Major Carrales

Quote from: lordmonar on November 01, 2006, 07:41:26 PM
Why would you characterize current members who wish to radically change CAP as enemies?

I think that word is too strong.


I said much more than just people seeking radical change...quote me not out of context.

Now, change is good.  Even "radical change," which meets resistance from the various CAP curmudgeons (be they who they might be), I have no problem with. 

The people of whom I speak are "enemies" of CAP because they seek the "destruction" of the organization for some agendistic purpose.

By that I mean when the "Agenda" itself grows more important than the service CAP is supposed to provide.  I'm speaking in general terms here.

The internal enemies of CAP often times are unwitting hapless accomplices that...ironically out the desire to do good for CAP (by way of a radical "self-imagined" paradigm about what CAP should be) hammer away publically at long standing CAP institutions hoping to topple them.  They then hope to replace that CAP with their imagined image.

Thus, destruction of the orgination as a means to an ends rather than through reform of the existing system.  Saddly, REVOLUTION where REFORM was needed causes the organization to suffer.

I will not flame you...because I think you are quite correct.  "Enemy" is too strong a word for the Commander of a Wing or Group that wants to change things up and meets resistance from CAP ELDERS who resist anything that seems new.  Many of the people you seek are vital parts of the CAP puzzle.  I call them "CAP Innovators" since they want new ways to improve.

This thread is designed to find the true enemies of CAP, be they people, practices or concepts...internal or external, and mitigate their influence.

A bold move I assure you, but a worthy one.

"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

Major Carrales

Quote from: ande.boyer on November 01, 2006, 08:26:20 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on November 01, 2006, 07:41:26 PM
Why would you characterize current members who wish to radically change CAP as enemies?


I don't think it's fair to quote that without including "...so much so they wouldn't mind its current form imploding."  It could accurately be said that those who pushed through the IAWG reform wanted radical changes...but I don't believe Maj Carralles would call them enemies.

Thank you...I think of Iowa as the prototype for CAP.  It, however, needs to run a bit more of its course to see if we can implement such innovation CAP wide.  Iowa is a medioum sized state...lets spend the next few years analyzing the IOWA APPROACH and learn the greater lessons for implementation.

"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

DNall

Sorry this'll be a touch long, but please give it a quick read as it really defines a lot of where I am on CAP issues.

Enemy is strong word, I'd be careful with that. The only people I see trying to destroy CAP are a few disgruntled morons (NOTF) who want to take it down for personal reasons rather than psychologically deal with their own problems. The other cases you mention should NEVER be described as enemies – NEVER. CAP is just about universally accepted as a good thing, and the people you're talking about have nothing but good intentions.

Budget Cutters:
They are looking for what's best for the whole country at this point. If the mighty Strategic Air Command can be dismantled, how is CAP above reproach?

I don't want to get rid of CAP, let me be VERY clear about that, but a congressman up there needing to bring home results his voters care about has to make a judgment call on what is or is not absolutely vital to the survival & safety of the country. They have to rank one thing against another, and consider what voters think about each item as they go.

Now, let's be realistic... We talk about how much money we save compared to C130s doing those missions, but what would happen if the govt provided light aircraft & SaR training to state police who could do those missions on the state's dime. The AF's obligation really is limited to AFRCC & assisting when/where state/locals are not able. There are many times more kids in JROTC units than our cadet program, & the AF doesn't have to provide a whole lot of support to them. Right now we're in the process of turning over NCASE, & AFA/EAA do a great job at AE w/o our help.

Congress & the AF aren't responsible for the CAP budget, CAP is. We have to EDUCATE & SELL enough people to get what we need – be that money or missions – and, I don't just mean congressmen, that's a start, but they tend to act on public opinion. They may be slick & somewhat sleazy, but they're mostly good intentioned. If you want to control them, control what's important to them. That's not an enemy, that's an opportunity, and its one CAP hasn't always done a great job with.

Reorganization:
I'd caution you on calling these folks enemies as well. Most of these folks are not only good intentioned, but frustrated with the political personal vendetta unprofessional BS we see at the top & the fact that we're highly limited in what we can do for the country. I'm probably counted in this category more times than not, and I'm not a truck driver with Colonel's epaulets trying to act important. My resume & the Army tend to make me feel just fine about my level of hardcore-ness & my frustration w/ CAP tend to center on it not exactly being the best it can be.

Let me be clear about what I advocate though before you misunderstand me. For most of CAP's history it has been under the direct administrative control of the AF, even commanded by an AF officer for much of that time. The law that changed our Auxiliary status came out of the Armed Services Cmte saying AF would appoint all Wg/Reg/Nat CCs. That got changed on the floor & not executed the way they wanted, resulting in more problems created & none solved. It may well change again in the next few years. I think the Cmte version goes a little too far, but there is no reason CAP leadership can defy the AF or AF IGs should not have authority to investigate issues when CAP violates our own or federal regs. I think clear transparent accountability needs to be created & a system that gets deserving unpaid professionals into leadership.

Out in the field, I see a bunch of volunteers who aren't looked on as being able to do the same things as a military officer. For instance, why should the govt spend millions to give us hi-tech gear to do complex secure missions, why should they trust the security & safety of the country & its citizens to a bunch of volunteers off the street? I don't think that's a fair assessment of our members, but I couldn't prove that with the least among us standing there as a visual aid. I think we need to up the standards. There should be a more serious review process to get in the door (something between CGAux's security check & ACA's selection procedure). Then there should be intense member training (I'm talking academic, not PT) designed in partnership w/ AU & using as much of their material as possible, to get members to an 80% of an ANG member of the same grade type standard. We talked about some details on the portal some time ago, and obviously if you put in stiff requirements for officers & start making the grade meaningful then you have to create an enlisted or warrant side of the house also. That's NOT aimed at self-importance, but at interoperability & professional standards as a foundation for growing trust in our members as individuals who can get critical missions vital to the country's well-being done w/ the full faith of the AF behind us. Throw a strong merit element into the promotions system & give state directors a voice as AF rep in the process so it is sustained up & down the chain.

Now, I understand such drastic change would cause a lot of members to quit & would bring in a whole new class of people formed around a strong core that would stay. I'm okay with that. We had 101% negative retention over just the last 3-4 years – that is we've had more people quit than are actually in CAP. We've always had terrible retention. If that's the way things are now, I really don't have any issue with changing course to meet the changed needs of the country.


fyrfitrmedic

Enemies of CAP?

Mediocrity and complacency and those willing to accept either or both.
MAJ Tony Rowley CAP
Lansdowne PA USA
"The passion of rescue reveals the highest dynamic of the human soul." -- Kurt Hahn

Jim Quinn, Longview, TX

I'm not sure about actual enemies, but I do think we must look within our own ranks.

1.  MIMS comes to mind first.  It's the biggest habberdashery of BS I've ever seen in any computer system, anywhere.  It's band-aid upon band-aid, and I must say that it's probably the number one reason that pilots don't renew memberships.  I think it should be thrown out completely, and an intelligently-designed system implemented from scratch should be put in its place; a system that has been THOROUGHLY TESTED by ALL USERS prior to being put online.  I can tell  you that I've not found a single person yet who thinks of MIMS in a positive light.  It's an embarrassment to this organization, a huge irritant for members, and generally unworkable and/or unreliable as a source to determine member qualifications.  God, what a pain!  Has anyone ever figured out how the [darn]ed thing works?  No, really!  I'm a former computer programmer/systems analyst and I'd have to say that I'm not the most illiterate computer guy out here, but MIMS is shameful.  It's cumbersome, clumsy, user unfriendly and generally a confusing (I hate to use the word) system.  (Or non-system!)

2.  Pineda.  What a politician!  (Need I say more?)

3.  Those of us in our own ranks who carry "the wannabe attitude" on their shoulders.  We're not real Air Force.  The Air Force seeks to put their tag on us when it suits them; the corporate tag when it does not.  Either way, I have to say that the bigshot attitude hurts us all.  Arrogance can be a morale killer, and it's a common attitude, unfortunately.  Yes, I have seen the enemy, and it is us.
Jim Quinn, Major, CAP
Unit Safety Officer
Tyler Composite Squadron "Roberts Raiders" TX-085

Becks

Quote from: jimquinndallas on November 01, 2006, 10:39:58 PM

2.  Pineda.  What a politician!  (Need I say more?)


I didnt want to be the first to say it.

BBATW

lordmonar

Quote from: jimquinndallas on November 01, 2006, 10:39:58 PM
1.  MIMS comes to mind first.  It's the biggest habberdashery of BS I've ever seen in any computer system, anywhere.  It's band-aid upon band-aid, and I must say that it's probably the number one reason that pilots don't renew memberships.  I think it should be thrown out completely, and an intelligently-designed system implemented from scratch should be put in its place; a system that has been THOROUGHLY TESTED by ALL USERS prior to being put online.  I can tell  you that I've not found a single person yet who thinks of MIMS in a positive light.  It's an embarrassment to this organization, a huge irritant for members, and generally unworkable and/or unreliable as a source to determine member qualifications.  God, what a pain!  Has anyone ever figured out how the [darn]ed thing works?  No, really!  I'm a former computer programmer/systems analyst and I'd have to say that I'm not the most illiterate computer guy out here, but MIMS is shameful.  It's cumbersome, clumsy, user unfriendly and generally a confusing (I hate to use the word) system.  (Or non-system!)

Are you willing to pony up the money and type it take to develop a new system?  By all means call up national.  I'm sure they would love to see your code and start running a beta on it.

I understand what you are saying....it is a patched together, clunkyly, user-unfriendly, system.....but it is 90000 times better than doing it with paper. 
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Major_Chuck

Quote from: Becks on November 01, 2006, 10:50:28 PM
Quote from: jimquinndallas on November 01, 2006, 10:39:58 PM

2.  Pineda.  What a politician!  (Need I say more?)


I didnt want to be the first to say it.


How about I second it then?
Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard

DNall

Quote from: Major_Chuck on November 02, 2006, 12:55:02 AM
Quote from: Becks on November 01, 2006, 10:50:28 PM
Quote from: jimquinndallas on November 01, 2006, 10:39:58 PM
2.  Pineda.  What a politician!  (Need I say more?)
I didnt want to be the first to say it.
How about I second it then?
What comes next in robert's rules of order? Oh right, move to vote... dang, guess we're screwed.


Now, if I can just juxtapose these two items...
Quote from: jimquinndallas on November 01, 2006, 10:39:58 PM
3.  Those of us in our own ranks who carry "the wannabe attitude" on their shoulders.  We're not real Air Force.  The Air Force seeks to put their tag on us when it suits them; the corporate tag when it does not.  Either way, I have to say that the bigshot attitude hurts us all.  Arrogance can be a morale killer, and it's a common attitude, unfortunately.  Yes, I have seen the enemy, and it is us.

-AND-

Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on November 01, 2006, 10:37:52 PM
Enemies of CAP?
Mediocrity and complacency and those willing to accept either or both.

If I could rienforce that for well over 2/3rds of our history we did NOT function as a seperate corporation in any way but on paper. We all get that this isn't the real military, whcih zero to do a CAP Captain in a disaster zone being able to fill in for an ANG Captain at a joint mission base & actually be able to do work of that quality based on training we've given them. It also has nothing to do with earning a level of faith by our chief customer & parent org (AF) that causes them to believe ANY CAP officer is capable of operating complex gear on sensitive missions that actually matter in protecting the country just on the basis of being a CAP officer. I think we can agree we want to achieve those last two things, and now that ICS/NIMS has professionalized the people & standards around us, volunteers are not the same thing as a well-trained competent professional force. We have to become such a thing in more than our own oppinion or we die slowly, patting ourselves on the back all the way down. You can list the ways of getting there, but the best one is to follow the proven example of the AF & speak in their language.

By the way, the AF NEVER puts the corporate tag on us. CAP does that when they don't like what they're being told to do & AF says we're just CAP when we're acting like fools. Of the small percentage of people in the AF that know what CAP is, a very tiny number of them know there's such a thing as the corporate vs auxiliary status. All that mess is on the CAP side.

ELTHunter

Quote from: DNall on November 02, 2006, 01:16:42 AM

By the way, the AF NEVER puts the corporate tag on us. CAP does that when they don't like what they're being told to do & AF says we're just CAP when we're acting like fools. 

I think it runs both ways.  The USAF does put the Corporate tag on us when they want to limit their liability with no potential upside in return.  We put the Corporate tag on ourselves when we want to do something the USAF doesn't want us to do.....like wear metal rank on our uniforms or something.
Maj. Tim Waddell, CAP
SER-TN-170
Deputy Commander of Cadets
Emergency Services Officer

DNall

Quote from: ELThunter on November 02, 2006, 01:27:03 AM
Quote from: DNall on November 02, 2006, 01:16:42 AM

By the way, the AF NEVER puts the corporate tag on us. CAP does that when they don't like what they're being told to do & AF says we're just CAP when we're acting like fools. 

I think it runs both ways.  The USAF does put the Corporate tag on us when they want to limit their liability with no potential upside in return.  We put the Corporate tag on ourselves when we want to do something the USAF doesn't want us to do.....like wear metal rank on our uniforms or something.
That's true, but it's a legalistic technicality that the mainstream AF doesn't see, hear, or speak of (you caught that "see/hear/speak no evil" refrence right).

The change in 2000 to our auxiliary status was based on the AF demanding from congress the right to investigate & hold CAP accountable for the actions of our leadership. Ultimately the Senate said NO, but we'll do this to relieve you from liability if they screw up when not under your direct operational orders & we'll give you authority over this Board of Governors which has veto authority over & should take positive control of CAP leadership. Of course that hasn't worked out as planned, and that has a lot of people reconsidering. Now, again the alternative that originally came out of cmte was for AF to appoint all the Col & up slots. I personally think that's just a little too far, but if they were picking from a CAP recommended list or had veto authority over appointment/removals & IG authority to investigate major issues, I'd be very happy with that. I just don't like Congress having to step in cause it never fails they screw something up, trust me on this, they've never done ANYTHING just right.

ELTHunter

Quote from: DNall on November 02, 2006, 01:56:16 AM
The change in 2000 to our auxiliary status was based on the AF demanding from congress the right to investigate & hold CAP accountable for the actions of our leadership. Ultimately the Senate said NO, but we'll do this to relieve you from liability if they screw up when not under your direct operational orders & we'll give you authority over this Board of Governors which has veto authority over & should take positive control of CAP leadership. Of course that hasn't worked out as planned, and that has a lot of people reconsidering. Now, again the alternative that originally came out of cmte was for AF to appoint all the Col & up slots. I personally think that's just a little too far, but if they were picking from a CAP recommended list or had veto authority over appointment/removals & IG authority to investigate major issues, I'd be very happy with that. I just don't like Congress having to step in cause it never fails they screw something up, trust me on this, they've never done ANYTHING just right.

I agree whole heartedly agree with not wanting Congress to intervene.  I share your reservations.  But a change such as the original plan would be much preferred to what we currently have.  IMHO.
Maj. Tim Waddell, CAP
SER-TN-170
Deputy Commander of Cadets
Emergency Services Officer