Excellent quality of video feed at NB / National Board Aug '11

[a2capt]

Besides, RM uses that red .... a lot.

[JC004]

Besides, RM uses that red .... a lot.

Radioman is trying to send a subliminal message about what CAP nametapes and shoulder marks should look like.

[Ned]

Dear Ned,

You did lie to me... So did my wing commander and so did my region commander.

Sigh.

So much smug certainty; so little effort to read carefully and consider the logical possibilities.

For a guy who actually has been espousing civility and our Core Values on this board for several years, it seems so . . . uncharacteristic . . . of you to start accusing your wing and region commanders of "lying" to you simply because you are having trouble reconciling some apparent inconsistencies in a series of statements.

So, let's try to look at this simply and compare the statements in question:

I heard that the NB was considering some interesting items

• Point 1
  
• Point 2
  
• Point 3
  
• Point 4
  
• Point 5
  
• Point 6
  
• Point 7
  
• Point 8
  
• Point 9
  
• Point 10
  
• Point 11
  
  I think that about covers it.
  

And then

Nope.  Absolutely not.  I am looking at the Committee's recommendations right here in my hand, and there is nothing - absolutely nothing - about Point 6.

Nada.  Zilch.  Zip. Goose egg. Null.

And finally

Person #1 summarized the NB "BULLET POINT STYLE" and "basically word for word".....

So, taking Col Karton at his word (usually a good idea), we "know" that FW's summary of multiple hour meeting was all of 11 bullet points comprising about 134 words.  Summaries and condensations by their very nature cannot be fully accurate.

And this one was not.

Among other things, it contained the incorrect assertion that the NB considered anything about a salaried national commander.  Which is simply not true.

(I don't think it is a violation of the NDA for me to say what the NB did not discuss or consider.  It would be a violation for me or any other signatory to say what was discussed.)

And, as I'm sure you recall, that particular allegation was drawing a lot of negative comments and vitriol.

So I pointed out that FW's summary was not accurate because the point about a salaried national commander was not discussed.

Because it wasn't.  Not even indirectly. 

I'm not aware that anyone in the room during the closed session has denied that a report was considered.  Of course, some may choose not to say what was discussed one way or another.


As much as you would like to uncover the black helicopters and expose the Trilateral Commission agents in our midst, there just isn't anything here unless you squint so hard that you cannot see what is plainly before you.

There are simply no lies here. 

I want answers.

Then ask questions.

Simple, straightforward questions designed to elicit information.

Not "gotcha" questions that express a point of view rather than seek information.

You may be surprised at what you get.

Of course, human nature being what it is, it might be better if you didn't improperly blast fellow officers as "liars" while believing that you are anonymous.

As always feel free to ask your corporate officer.  I cannot speak for him/her.

(I'd leave out the part where you called her/him a liar on CT.  That might upset them.)[/list]

[Майор Хаткевич]

Ok, what about the talk that FW was accused of leaking the info from the meeting? How can someone leak something he wasn't part of?

[NCRblues]

Ned, the Colonel (whoever he was) CLEARLY stated, it was almost word for word on the points made during the closed door session. Someone is not telling the truth.....

This stuff was already posted on less trustworthy web sites before FW posted on here at all. So that Colonel, lied and accused FW of something he did not do. Ethics code violation? Core values?

So, i will ask a question, If no "salaried national commander" was spoke about, why did the Colonel not blast fred on making false statements? He didn't, he blasted fred for posting "bullet points, almost word for word".... That's an admission in almost any realm.

Next question... Why is the governance model "suggestions" behind close doors anyway? Is it a personell action? Nope. Payroll or adverse action? Nope.... It needs to be done, in the open. If you want the rumors to end, there is a simple way. Allow everyone to see what happens. Just because I'm not on the NB (yet) does not me that i am not interested, or directly affected by EVERYTHING you all do behind closed doors. Just like the safety thing from this meeting, again, why was it closed door?

I believe you did not tell me the truth Ned. I believe that colonel, in his rush to jump all over FW, let a little to much slip. The room was pretty silent after that one...a little to much.

Do i believe in black vans and mass conspiracy's? No, but i do believe that the members WHO MAKE THIS ORGINAZTION RUN, are not being told the truth. I have already told my wing commander that he lied to me. He just shrugged and mumbled about NDA's. Those NDA's were the worst idea someone ( i think i know who, but i wont speculate) had...ever.

So, either that colonel let a little to much slip, or you did, or we have not got anything near the truth.

Oh, BTW, those MARB reports you said you would look into....are still not updated since 2010.... its aug 2011....

[Chappie]

Can anybody confirm who the new  Chief of Chaplains will be? Thanks

The new Chief of Chaplains will be Ch, Col (select) Delano Ellis (GLR HC) who will assume duties and responsibilities tomorrow evening following the change of command.

[lordmonar]

Ok, what about the talk that FW was accused of leaking the info from the meeting? How can someone leak something he wasn't part of?

He was actually asked who his source was.....not that he himself leaked anything.

His answer was that he read it on the internet IIRC.

[Ned]

Ned, the Colonel (whoever he was) CLEARLY stated, it was almost word for word on the points made during the closed door session. Someone is not telling the truth.....

"Almost" is not the same thing as "completely accurate."

And at least one of the eleven bullet points was simply wrong.

The statements are consistent.  And true.

This stuff was already posted on less trustworthy web sites before FW posted on here at all. So that Colonel, lied and accused FW of something he did not do. Ethics code violation? Core values?

You are still having some issues with asking rhetorical questions designed to make a point rather than seek information.  That may well be part of the reason you are still a bit confused.

Col Karton knows that FW could not have been the original "leaker" because everyone acknowledges that FW was not in the room during the discussion.  I suspect that is why Col Karlton asked FW about the "source" of the information.

So, i will ask a question, If no "salaried national commander" was spoke about, why did the Colonel not blast fred on making false statements? He didn't, he blasted fred for posting "bullet points, almost word for word".... That's an admission in almost any realm.

I can't speak for Col Karlton, of course, but I would note that asking him about the source of his post concerning  the contents of the meeting is not any way inconsistent with at least some of it being inaccurate.

IOW, logically it could have been both an impoper leak from a NB member and inaccurate.  And I know something about "admissions", and that is not an admission in any realm.

Next question... Why is the governance model "suggestions" behind close doors anyway? Is it a personell action? Nope. Payroll or adverse action? Nope.... It needs to be done, in the open. If you want the rumors to end, there is a simple way. Allow everyone to see what happens. Just because I'm not on the NB (yet) does not me that i am not interested, or directly affected by EVERYTHING you all do behind closed doors. Just like the safety thing from this meeting, again, why was it closed door?

We've talked about this before, of course.  I am not part of the NB and can't speak for it, but assuming that governance recommenadations were discussed in a closed session, there are a lot of reasons to do so.  Governance matters - particularly in CAP - are sensitive matters about which many reasonable members have strong and varying opinions.  Ultimately to make any recommendations to the BoG, NB members are going to need to have frank and candid discussions amongst themselves, and ultimately negotiate and compromise.  Such discussions tend to be passionate and emphatic.  (in some ways, not unlike CAPTalk.)  And the NB may reasonably have decided that they can do that most effectively if they are in a private session.  Just like any other deliberative body.

And it is worth remembering that if and when the NB chooses to make recommendations to the BoG concerning governance, that those recommendations will be public and recorded in minutes and other documents transparent to all members.  Just like every other decision of the NB.

And as I have said before, the BoG will not make any governance changes unless it is appropriate to do so, and only after hearing from all the stakeholders, including the membership.

I have already told my wing commander that he lied to me. He just shrugged and mumbled about NDA's. Those NDA's were the worst idea someone ( i think i know who, but i wont speculate) had...ever.

It bears repeating that every large corporation, charity, and NGO uses NDAs to protect sensitive information that could be detrimental to the organization or the members if released improperly.  Whether you think so or not, it is the mainstream practice.

[NCRblues]

Oh Ned, come on...

This is ridiculous. The governance model should be discussed, and debated openly. If the members want to be left alone, turn off the cell phones and laptops. (btw, I'm sure all those NB members are passionately engrossed on cap bussines while on Facebook , or looking at ESPN news right?)

Ned, the closed door meetings make no sense at all. It needs to be open. Even if this whole thing is a big misunderstanding (and i doubt it is) the easyest way to get rid of all the rumors and backlash is to hold everything up to the light. Nothing in CAP is so important it can not be discussed during a normal NB meeting.

NDA's "protect sensitive information that could be detrimental to the organization or the members if released improperly"... OK, so tell me how could a proposed governance shake up be "detrimental" to the organization?

Why was the safety agenda item moved to closed session? Or was the safety's agenda item "detrimental" to the organization?

So, this outside governance study, why have we not seen an official news release about it? Why have i not been contacted to put my input into it? Why has NO ONE from my wing been contacted to put the input in?

It seems to me, that CAP has become more closed off than ever. Why, as a serving active member of this organization, do i have to guess, speculate, and wonder on what is going on at the national level? Why, when i ask questions, am i pushed aside as if the members do not matter? I would go to each and every NB,NEC and BOG meeting, but whats the point Ned, half of it I'm not privileged enough to hear.

It amazes me, that we have members (like myself, and even you Ned i believe) that served this nation in its armed forces, paid (and is still paying) the taxes i owe, was trusted with national level defense planning and carrying out....but the "leadership" on the NB does not trust me enough to handle governance issues...or safety issues....its very sad Ned. It seems those members of the NB are worried about having to answer some questions. Well, no one made them take those positions, and if they feel like they cant handle a few tough questions about why this is good for the organization, I'm sure i can find some VERY well qualified members who are more than willing to take those NB jobs...me included.

CAP has lost many of its very best and brightest members over stupid things like this. Several members of this very forum used to be VERY active in cap...but the political game that is played has driven them out. Why even allow these bloggers and fake news sites to continue to guess and sow panic among members. Just open up the DANG meetings Ned....simple....sooo very head banging simple.

[JC004]

Let's not blow this thing about what was said by CAPTalk members in this past thread too out of proportion.  I do not want to lock this thread.

There are several issues here - not the least of which was that this news about the governance proposal was being sent around by FWD on e-mail.  As WE ALL KNOW, things get added in e-mails.  IIRC, the e-mail that I got FWD'd to me contained the "paid national commander" thing (for the record, I did NOT receive it from FW, I received it from a CAPTalk member and it came from a long chain of members). 

When it comes down to it and we cut all this down, we're getting hung up on that one line.  That's silly.  The FACTS are that FW posted what was going around by e-mail, private messages, Facebook, telephone, etc. and BEGAN WITH saying that it wasn't a secret (because it was already out).  It doesn't seem to me from that post that he even thought the contents hadn't been put out in brief. 

Col Weiss was ambushed over this thread and that is crap. 

Regardless, there are SEVERAL possibilities over what happened in the thread in question by NCRblues, Ned, and everyone else - not the least of which is that someone didn't make a complete statement or that something got mis-read.

Perhaps this line was added.  Who cares?  We can't know this by having a fight in this thread. 

Let's try to be reasonable.

NDAs are in fact a reality and all over.  I've signed a couple CRAZY ones from organizations you all probably respect.  I feel like they are putting too much in Executive Session based on what I was seeing in the video yesterday.  THAT should be the question.

As for having closed-door sessions about the governance issue:  I'd probably do it this way if I were in charge - I'd maybe have an initial closed-door meeting where people can just go crazy, argue, scream, whatever.  That way they'd feel comfortable being crazy people before A REAL PROPOSAL WAS PUT TOGETHER.  THEN, they'd have the different factions that arise compile SEVERAL proposals and they would all need to be available to anyone who wanted to see them.  That gives people the chance to be nuts and get their initial thoughts formed, then people get to see several concrete concepts for how things should be done.  FOR THE RECORD, this is basically how the U.S. Constitution was done.  The initial meetings were closed.  I know one of the world's foremost experts in the founding of the United States if anyone would like to ask him. 

I feel like the method I described above would allow people to go nuts at first AND STILL HAVE AN OPEN PROCESS as we moved to governance changes.

My thing, basically: have some things in executive session to hash out at first, then move to an open process when there are real proposals.

I would like some answers on why so many things are being put into Executive Session, though. It seems like a lot of it doesn't need to be there.  I kinda like the idea of having your initial crazy hash-out, then having an OPEN PROCESS before things get approved (once concrete things are put forth).  Can you shed some light on what was happening at this NB meeting with throwing things into Executive Sesssion, Ned?

[lordmonar]

I don't understand exactly what you are upset about.

You seem to be upset that the guys you have no input in getting appointed to their position don't let you sit quietly in the corner while they discuss something you have no voice in.

If you want to get upset about how CAP does business......you seem to have focused on some really obscure point.

It is a courtesy that the NB webstreams their meeting.
It is a courtesy that the NB publishes the agenda before hand.

You should not have brought up the military model.

We don't invite the Airman to the staff meetings......we don't even tell them what we are talking about in the staff meetings.   We might brief them on what went on in the staff meeting....but by no means was I obligated to do so.

Now I am not saying that transparency is not a good thing....or that the NB should not be more open.  But bottom line, end of the day.....it is simply an illusion that they are including us in the actual process.

I don't know how you can say that CAP is more closed off.  If you wanted to see the NB in action you had to go the meeting....now they stream it.  Before the internet they never published the agenda to the general membership before the meetings.

Do I think we need to fix CAP governace?  Sure thing.  Do I want the NB to consider the opinions of the general membership?  Absolutely.  But I am not going to rail against the NB because they don't let me listen to their arguments.  I don't jump up and down about "getting lied" to about something that is not and never has been my business.

People who get tied up about politics......need to remember.....it just CAP.  Its about the mission, the cadets and having fun.  I love a good argument (as you did not notice)....but dude.....you need to crank it back before you hurt yourself. 

The BoG is looking into governance.....and they were smart about it....they hired experts who have no stake in CAP.  The cool thing about the BoG....is that it is easier to get a small group to decide on something then it is to get the NB to figure out how often we have to safety training and what we are going to do with those who don't/won't do that training.

[NCRblues]

Well, ill go ahead and step away from this before it gets locked...

Yes, i am strongly opinionated on this subject, and care deeply about CAP. Its more than just about "having fun" to me major.

I am very upset and angry over this whole situation, and judging by the reactions of the people i know and trust in CAP, I'm not the only one.

It seems to me, and others, that just because we are not on the NB, or flunky's of those on the NB, we are treated with disdain, or completely forgot about. We may be younger than some of you, but don't underestimate the young members. CAP makes it or breaks it on the young generations back pretty soon....

[JC004]

We just need to keep things in perspective.  When people post on a forum, sometimes they leave something out, misspeak, whatever.  There are a lot of possibilities concerning this thread but we do have facts that are rather...not cool.  Ned is a level-headed distinguished officer who cares deeply for CAP's program - in particular the cadet program.  I do not see and would not imagine that he would intend to lie to anyone.  I have spent time with him in person (a week, actually), read the parts of the tread in question, and I do not see any evil intent on the part of Ned.

If commanders lied to you, they didn't do that here and I know nothing of that or those people. 

I am very disappointed that the National Board chose the course that they did rather than a clear, written plan released to the membership to hold the prospective commander accountable to all, and that they chose not to go for ACTION that has been rolling along, working to make CAP the best possible experience for everyone we can.  A lot of great programs and initiatives now come to a screeching halt.  Great efforts at bringing CAP into the military's modernization died on Thursday.  POOF.  It's a real shame. 

Anyone who downloaded and read "Solutions for Civil Air Patrol" should know what I'm talking about. 

What gets me is that it was only the tip of the iceberg and the extraordinary ACTION that was taking place behind the scenes in preparation is now gone.  My hope, though, is as I mentioned on the following thread...that we can still make at least some of those changes a reality.  http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=13633.msg246816#msg246816

[Eclipse]

You should not have brought up the military model.

We don't invite the Airman to the staff meetings......we don't even tell them what we are talking about in the staff meetings.   We might brief them on what went on in the staff meeting....but by no means was I obligated to do so.

The USAF does not depend on the benevolence of its Airmen to execute its mission.

[SarDragon]

You should not have brought up the military model.

We don't invite the Airman to the staff meetings......we don't even tell them what we are talking about in the staff meetings.   We might brief them on what went on in the staff meeting....but by no means was I obligated to do so.

The USAF does not depend on the benevolence of its Airmen to execute its mission.

In the big picture, it does. There's no draft. We have an all volunteer force. Nobody made that Airman enlist. There was no mandatory A or B choice involved.

[Eclipse]

You should not have brought up the military model.

We don't invite the Airman to the staff meetings......we don't even tell them what we are talking about in the staff meetings.   We might brief them on what went on in the staff meeting....but by no means was I obligated to do so.

The USAF does not depend on the benevolence of its Airmen to execute its mission.

In the big picture, it does. There's no draft. We have an all volunteer force. Nobody made that Airman enlist. There was no mandatory A or B choice involved.

There is once you join.   One does not leave or say "no" without ramifications beyond additional free time.

[SarDragon]

Do your time. Get out. There's enough up front info available for someone to make an informed decision about joining the military, that there's no excuse for, "I didn't know what I was getting into."

The choice I was referring to was the choice between the Army (getting drafted) or any other service (drafted-induced enlistment), or going to jail. The result is the same - someone is forced into the military

Today's Airmen have not been in that position. They join because they want to, and that, IMHO, can be interpreted as benevolence towards one's country. Another way to describe patriotism, I suppose.

[BillB]

I see one eroor in this thread, namely painting Ned with the same brush as the National Board. Ned is NOT on the National Board. If Ned was at that closed door meeting last year, he would be covered by the same NDA as the members of the NB. The BoG has their own Governence study in progress. Lets see the results of that. It does appear that the NB does go into executive session on matters that should be more open. However that is the decision of the National Commander, or even National Legal Officer. Lets not second guess their motives. CAP-USAF has issues with the Safety issues. It is justified to be in Executive Session by the Board since it involves the parent organization.
Do not underestimate the BoG. They have the authority to remove the entire National Board (not that they would) and change the by-laws of CAP (which their Goverence Study may indicate if and when released)
For those that understand the politics of CAP, the "final" decision on who to vote for for National Commander was probably made the night before in the by invitation only hospitality rooms. I've been to many of those hospitality rooms (and yes I was invited) and members of the National Board are flooded with information on the candidates for National CC and VC. CAP politics at it's best. Does the average member of CAP have any input to their Wing Commander on who to vote for? Obviously not, but at the same time, the members of the Board often go into those hospitality rooms to hear about candidates they have never heard of, or know little about. It was obvious by the questions asked, or lack of, how the election for National CC outcome would be. What was it, 1/3 of the members of the NB were new? They learned of ther candidates at the Conference or have been flooded with emails over the past few months on the candidates. Pressure may or may not have been applied or deals made, but here again the politics are the nature of the CAP Corporate sutucture. Lets see what the BoG GHoverence Study reveals.

[FW]

Ok, what about the talk that FW was accused of leaking the info from the meeting? How can someone leak something he wasn't part of?

Col Karton asked me a question. And, it was answered.  I only repeated what was posted in other forums and sites.  What was accurate and what was not, I could not know.  However, It was no secret there was a governance report. 

His second statement was very troubling.  He said "he was concerned" about my accuracy and found it difficult to believe my statement; I was just giving my take on what was already written.  Basically, he was calling me a liar in open session.  I find that to be disrespectful and quite wrong. The sad thing about the whole episode shows us the quality of our leaders needs to improve; especially where adherence to our core values comes into play.  Respect means something. And, there was not much shown to this candidate.

[Ned]

Ned, the closed door meetings make no sense at all. It needs to be open.

Actually, the NB largely agrees.  The great majority of the NB meeting was open and streamed.  Only a portion of yesterday morning's session was closed.  And for good reason.

The overwhelming bulk of it was spent discussing sensitive personnel issues.  Names were named and specific investigations about specific incidents and allegations were discussed frankly and openly as the NB looked for ways to improve protections for our members and leaders.  I was there and it was a good, productive session.  They NB actually handled as efficiently as possible under the circumstances, so they could return to open session as soon as possible.  Just take a look at the agenda items and think about it a bit, and you will see why they had to do what they did.

NDA's "protect sensitive information that could be detrimental to the organization or the members if released improperly"... OK, so tell me how could a proposed governance shake up be "detrimental" to the organization?

First, there isn't anything that could yet be termed a "proposed governance shake up" because the NB has not yet agreed on what proposals, if any, to make to the BoG.

But if they were in the process of reaching a consensus on an issue that is near and dear to their hearts, (and if you think you are passionate about it, wait until you start talking to NB members about it), they believe it is important for them to do it without folks provding disinformation, spin, and Drama until they have decided whatever it is they decide.

You or I may have chosen to do it differently, but it is a reasonable decision and it is theirs to make.

They get to decide how to decide.  And if they want to do it in a closed room without impassioned members and bloggers attempting to influence every comma and nuance, they should be able to do so.

Why was the safety agenda item moved to closed session? Or was the safety's agenda item "detrimental" to the organization?

The agenda item speaks for itself, and as it turns out, they moved it to committee for action at a later meeting, I believe.  In any event, no substantial discussions took place on that item during while I was present at the closed session.

So, this outside governance study, why have we not seen an official news release about it?

I understand that you have no great faith in my word, but did you really doubt it when I told you and others about it here on CT?  NHQ probably enters into a couple of hundred contracts a year.  Some bigger, most smaller.  It's just not a very newsworthy subject to say "We've hired some folks to do a study for us.  They say they will have in done by the end of the year."

Why have i not been contacted to put my input into it? Why has NO ONE from my wing been contacted to put the input in?

Hard to answer why anonymous folks in an unkown wing have or haven't been interviewed.  The contractors are in the interview and information-gathering stage, however.  They are starting with the major stakeholders, folks like the SECAF's representatives, National Commander, NLO, EXDIR, etc.  I have emphasized to them during several confernce calls the importance of ensuring member input.  I doubt they will be doing 60,000 interviews, but appear to be developing an e-solution to allow member input.  More when I have it.

It seems to me, that CAP has become more closed off than ever.

Remind me, how many years have you been in CAP?

It is just a matter of perspective, I guess.  My take is that CAP is more open and transparent than ever.  I attended my first NB as a cadet sometime in the 1970's.  I found it boring, and - oddly enough - they had closed sessions and threw us out to wander the halls of the hotel.

Perhaps it is only because of the increased transparency and openess that you have begun to realize that some small fraction of CAP's business is confidential, just like every other large organization in the country.

I would go to each and every NB,NEC and BOG meeting, but whats the point Ned, half of it I'm not privileged enough to hear.

The great majority of the meetings are open to all, and streamed live on the net.  As I said, they had a little over an hour's worth of closed meetings over the last two days.  Feel free to come to DC for the winter boards or Baltimore next year and I'll buy you a beer.