Hey everyone, it's been a while. I've got a question for y'all...
With the rise of virtual meetings, I've noticed that people are becoming much more comfortable and relaxed during squadron meetings. Understandable to an extent. However, as part of that, folks are finding it acceptable to show up to these meetings in everyday civilian clothing rather than uniforms, and because of the COVID-related "unique circumstances" it's being allowed by leadership at many levels – I've personally experienced it all the way up to Region.
Getting to the point... what is to be done if a member shows up to the Zoom meeting wearing a "Trump 2020" shirt? Or a "Black Lives Matter" shirt? Or a hammer and sickle design?
As far as I know, the only reg about being apolitical is 39-1, no politics while in uniform. If they're not in uniform, and that's temporarily acceptable (putting aside the regs on that discretion), is there any recourse?
Curious on everyone's thoughts and insights.
1 - Drop them from the call immediately.
2 - The CC should have a direct discussion immediately.
3 - Sounds like an excellent time to start requiring teleconferences be attended in uniform.
Regardless of what "folks are finding acceptable" this is still an official CAP meeting,
subject to all the same rules of decorum and behavior.
I know the meeting host can mute anyone's microphone. But can the host also leave them in the meeting but turn off their video?
What if they're in uniform, but in the back corner of their family room, you see a Biden 2020 poster. Might want to tell people to clean up their backgrounds. LOL
On another, but sorta similar note. What about the ones using the greenscreen background feature and putting beach video behind them making it look like they're on vacation? Thats distracting as well.
Quote from: etodd on September 02, 2020, 04:05:54 AMOn another, but sorta similar note. What about the ones using the greenscreen background feature and putting beach video behind them making it look like they're on vacation? Thats distracting as well.
Not in any way related to the issue being discussed, which is a serious one not only
in Zoom calls, but it's also becoming an issue in the hot mess that is "Social" Media.
With that said, a sunny beach is better then the disasters some people's homes are.
I have a variety of backgrounds that I use for my meetings, most being aircraft pictures. Tomorrow night will be special - a view of the treaty signing on USS Missouri 75 years ago.
Quote from: etodd on September 02, 2020, 04:05:54 AMWhat if they're in uniform, but in the back corner of their family room, you see a Biden 2020 poster.
Yeah, exactly. This whole situation has led to interesting questions that we haven't really had to deal with before.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 02, 2020, 03:54:57 AM3 - Sounds like an excellent time to start requiring teleconferences be attended in uniform.
If I were still Squadron CC, this is absolutely what I would do to ensure the problem is totally avoided. Alas, I am no longer.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 02, 2020, 03:54:57 AMRegardless of what "folks are finding acceptable" this is still an official CAP meeting,
subject to all the same rules of decorum and behavior.
This is where I'm struggling. I'd like to advise the CC that he needs to act on this, but would love to have some regulatory backup. If he's the CC, and CAPR 39-1 1.2.6.1 says (effectively) that he has discretion to allow Zoom meetings in civilian clothing, then I'm not sure I can convince him. If he's allowed it this long (and it's a routine occurrence), then I presume he's ideologically aligned and doesn't see the issue.
That
is presumptive of me, and I will approach him regardless and without any preconceptions, but I like to plan for the difficult and hope for the easy.
This isn't a 39-1 issue, it's a "good order and discipline" issue, and the divisiveness
this could engender has no place in CAP.
If anything, CAP should be a respite from it.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 02, 2020, 05:01:42 AMThis isn't a 39-1 issue, it's a "good order and discipline" issue, and the divisiveness
this could engender has no place in CAP.
Fully agree. I've gone ahead and just broached the subject with the CC, without any regulation citations. Thanks Eclipse, useful insight as always.
On a recent Squadron level cadet meeting a few months ago I noted the impressive bar lineup visible behind the presenter one evening. I sent him a quick text, and in fifteen seconds his hand shot out to move the cam pickup, and from then on it was a nonissue (flag backgrounds, etc.).
The Optics, as they say, send a message. While technically legal, some topics are inappropriate for a business meeting, which ours are.
Concur strongly with the advice given.
R/s
Spam
Quite simply, take the issue up privately with the member in question. 99% will have no problem with upholding basic decorum and maintaining a professional environment. Those that don't will get the continuum of counseling up to and including termination, though I doubt any would get to that point.
Quote from: Holding Pattern on September 02, 2020, 01:52:57 PMQuite simply, take the issue up privately with the member in question. 99% will have no problem with upholding basic decorum and maintaining a professional environment. Those that don't will get the continuum of counseling up to and including termination, though I doubt any would get to that point.
Indeed. Do remember the Kansas CC and the social media issue, we are not the military.
Many male cadets have not been able to get hair cuts during the pandemic. As they don't have any uniforms that don't require meeting the AF grooming standards they are not showing themselves.
Quote from: etodd on September 02, 2020, 04:05:54 AMWhat if they're in uniform, but in the back corner of their family room, you see a Biden 2020 poster. Might want to tell people to clean up their backgrounds. LOL
On another, but sorta similar note. What about the ones using the greenscreen background feature and putting beach video behind them making it look like they're on vacation? Thats distracting as well.
You can certainly tell people to "...clean up their backgrounds." But the backgrounds are often not theirs.
"Dad, they said I have to take your poster down."
"Over my dead body! My house, my computer, my poster, my rules!"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on September 03, 2020, 06:59:12 PMQuote from: etodd on September 02, 2020, 04:05:54 AMWhat if they're in uniform, but in the back corner of their family room, you see a Biden 2020 poster. Might want to tell people to clean up their backgrounds. LOL
On another, but sorta similar note. What about the ones using the greenscreen background feature and putting beach video behind them making it look like they're on vacation? Thats distracting as well.
You can certainly tell people to "...clean up their backgrounds." But the backgrounds are often not theirs.
"Dad, they said I have to take your poster down."
"Over my dead body! My house, my computer, my poster, my rules!"
Then they're best not turning their camera on.
If they have inappropriate content in the background, such as political posters, they should try to find a new location to sit. If they're on a desktop, and this is where the PC stays, then they need to not use their camera.
Quote from: GaryVC on September 03, 2020, 05:42:24 PMMany male cadets have not been able to get hair cuts during the pandemic. As they don't have any uniforms that don't require meeting the AF grooming standards they are not showing themselves.
A waiver letter was published in April which allows cadets to wear their uniforms while not meeting current Air Force grooming requirements:
https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/391_Grooming_Waiver_Corrected_V_4_EF5AE1B03E531.pdf
CAP meetings whether in person or via telecom is no place for any type of political attire. Now if a cadet is using a parent/s computer for it then maybe a reposition of the camera is in order. We cannot control what mom or dad have up in their homes and really is none of our business. A sanitized area is ideal but beyond our control. Maybe in this instance some type of localized alternate uniform would be ideal possibly along the same lines of and intro uniform that squadrons have done for years.
Politics and religion are taboo topics in most work centers and they should be taboo at CAP meetings as well. No place for it.
"Politics and religion are taboo topics in most work centers and they should be taboo at CAP meetings as well. No place for it."
See https://www.gctelegram.com/news/20170917/cap-officer-reinstated-after-controversial-statement
LTC Holder is back in CAP and active.
Quote from: JohhnyD on September 04, 2020, 04:33:28 AM"Politics and religion are taboo topics in most work centers and they should be taboo at CAP meetings as well. No place for it."
See https://www.gctelegram.com/news/20170917/cap-officer-reinstated-after-controversial-statement
LTC Holder is back in CAP and active.
Did he say this at a CAP event? If not then CAP had no business suspending and removing him. CAP events is not the place for any form of political rhetoric.
There's also that rule of "hold your thumb over the camera before you pop up on screen." A lot of cadets seem to call in on their phones, and while the PC lets you disable your camera before connecting, the phones don't always grant you that ability.
The number of times that people don't realize their cameras are even on...shirtless, bed hair, people in the background, friends over, eating...gaaah!
We make our instructors turn their cameras on (and they must be in uniform) so we can teach them how to set up your training environment (virtual or non-virtual) to have the best background (in the environment that you have) and to critique body language.
Every week, after our training call, we do a debrief with the instructors from that week. Last night, our First Sergeant told one of our instructors, "So when you're on camera, can you please not roll your eyes? It makes it look like you're annoyed at the people on the line who don't know the answer." She said, "Oh, my God! I had no idea I did that. My mom and my sister were off the camera dancing, and I was like 'Guys, I'm working here!'" Proud cadre moment.
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on September 04, 2020, 01:57:14 PMProud cadre moment.
So what you're saying is, model "C-A-D-R-E", not "C-A-R-D-I-B", right?
:o
Cheers,
Spam
Quote from: JohhnyD on September 04, 2020, 04:33:28 AM"Politics and religion are taboo topics in most work centers and they should be taboo at CAP meetings as well. No place for it."
See https://www.gctelegram.com/news/20170917/cap-officer-reinstated-after-controversial-statement
LTC Holder is back in CAP and active.
I saw this in the article:
"In Kansas, the Kansas adjutant general's office provides oversight of the organization."
With "the organization" being CAP.
Wha wha wha WHAT?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on September 05, 2020, 09:48:03 AMQuote from: JohhnyD on September 04, 2020, 04:33:28 AM"Politics and religion are taboo topics in most work centers and they should be taboo at CAP meetings as well. No place for it."
See https://www.gctelegram.com/news/20170917/cap-officer-reinstated-after-controversial-statement
LTC Holder is back in CAP and active.
I saw this in the article:
"In Kansas, the Kansas adjutant general's office provides oversight of the organization."
With "the organization" being CAP.
Wha wha wha WHAT?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://plainsguardian.dodlive.mil/files/2017/05/Annual-Report-2013-final-copy-12-24-13.pdf
"The Adjutant General's Department has the responsibility for the operations
of the Kansas Army and Air National Guard, the Kansas Division of Emergency
Management, Kansas Homeland Security and the administrative support of the
Kansas Wing of the Civil Air Patrol."
"The Kansas Wing of the Civil Air Patrol is part of a private, volunteer, nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation and by congressional charter is the auxiliary of the United States Air Force. The Kansas Volunteer Department of the Civil Air Patrol was created to administer state funds allocated to the Civil Air Patrol. The department was placed, by legislation, under the Kansas Adjutant General's Department in 1997 for administrative support and control of state resources and funding."Also see page 82.
The easiest way to discover how inaccurate news reporting tends to be is to read an article about a subject you know quite a bit about. Then remember that's how accurate the news is on most topics.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 05, 2020, 02:35:50 PMQuote from: Mitchell 1969 on September 05, 2020, 09:48:03 AMQuote from: JohhnyD on September 04, 2020, 04:33:28 AM"Politics and religion are taboo topics in most work centers and they should be taboo at CAP meetings as well. No place for it."
See https://www.gctelegram.com/news/20170917/cap-officer-reinstated-after-controversial-statement
LTC Holder is back in CAP and active.
I saw this in the article:
"In Kansas, the Kansas adjutant general's office provides oversight of the organization."
With "the organization" being CAP.
Wha wha wha WHAT?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://plainsguardian.dodlive.mil/files/2017/05/Annual-Report-2013-final-copy-12-24-13.pdf
"The Adjutant General's Department has the responsibility for the operations
of the Kansas Army and Air National Guard, the Kansas Division of Emergency
Management, Kansas Homeland Security and the administrative support of the
Kansas Wing of the Civil Air Patrol."
"The Kansas Wing of the Civil Air Patrol is part of a private, volunteer, nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation and by congressional charter is the auxiliary of the United States Air Force. The Kansas Volunteer Department of the Civil Air Patrol was created to administer state funds allocated to the Civil Air Patrol. The department was placed, by legislation, under the Kansas Adjutant General's Department in 1997 for administrative support and control of state resources and funding."
Also see page 82.
Well, how 'bout that!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And Colorado:
https://operations.colorado.gov/performance-management/department-performance-plans/military-veterans-affairs
Colorado's Department of Military and Veterans Affairs supports the Division of the Colorado National Guard (CONG) in delivering land, air, space, and cyber power in support of state and federal operations; enables the Division of Veterans Affairs (DVA) to deliver high quality service to the State's Veterans and their families; and oversees the operations of the Colorado Wing of the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) in delivering aerospace education and emergency services.
Sounds like some overreach of states.
Usually when you see this, it means the state is providing money and want to make sure it spent properly. It also helps with accessing other state resources.
Quote from: arajca on September 06, 2020, 06:24:39 PMUsually when you see this, it means the state is providing money and want to make sure it spent properly. It also helps with accessing other state resources.
Yeah, stuff like armories and training areas.
Quote from: PHall on September 06, 2020, 07:19:32 PMQuote from: arajca on September 06, 2020, 06:24:39 PMUsually when you see this, it means the state is providing money and want to make sure it spent properly. It also helps with accessing other state resources.
Yeah, stuff like armories and training areas.
I just wonder though, if NHQ and USAF are aware that Adjutants General of states are claiming that they have "oversight" of CAP. Those statements are poorly worded. If they want oversight of state monies, they should so state, clearly. The way they have phrased it leads to misunderstandings, in my opinion, as the wording implies more than oversight of funds.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on September 06, 2020, 08:55:05 PMI just wonder though, if NHQ and USAF are aware that Adjutants General of states are claiming that they have "oversight" of CAP. Those statements are poorly worded. If they want oversight of state monies, they should so state, clearly. The way they have phrased it leads to misunderstandings, in my opinion, as the wording implies more than oversight of funds.
They do. In some cases these State relationships are from WWII. In other cases they represent real funding from the state's involved.
In the case of Colorado, in 1943, the Coordinator of the Colorado State Defense Council, fearing the feds were going to take over, told the Legislature of "The vital necessity of maintaining an independently operated civil air patrol which was doing a work of great value. It would be of inestimable value in a serious military emergency."
In 1945 a law passed creating the Colorado Department of Civil Air Patrol and providing funding (except for uniforms which were specifically excluded). The Department of CAP was a separate department until 1973 when the Department of Military Affairs was created, and CAP was made a division within it. The Division continues to receive an appropriation to support the Wing. The COWG Commander is a member of TAG staff.
Yes, the use of "oversee" is a bit much and was not always the word used. As for NHQ and USAF being aware of it, the current National Vice Commander was a Colorado Wing Commander and up until three years ago, the CAP-USAF liaison office was in space provided by the State.
Mike
Quote from: JohhnyD on September 06, 2020, 09:02:33 PMQuote from: Mitchell 1969 on September 06, 2020, 08:55:05 PMI just wonder though, if NHQ and USAF are aware that Adjutants General of states are claiming that they have "oversight" of CAP. Those statements are poorly worded. If they want oversight of state monies, they should so state, clearly. The way they have phrased it leads to misunderstandings, in my opinion, as the wording implies more than oversight of funds.
They do. In some cases these State relationships are from WWII. In other cases they represent real funding from the state's involved.
But that doesn't mean they're in compliance with the
current laws and regulations that govern CAP today.
A review by the legal folks would be a really good idea.
The intent may be good but ya still gotta dot the i's and cross the t's.
Quote from: PHall on September 07, 2020, 12:03:45 AMQuote from: JohhnyD on September 06, 2020, 09:02:33 PMQuote from: Mitchell 1969 on September 06, 2020, 08:55:05 PMI just wonder though, if NHQ and USAF are aware that Adjutants General of states are claiming that they have "oversight" of CAP. Those statements are poorly worded. If they want oversight of state monies, they should so state, clearly. The way they have phrased it leads to misunderstandings, in my opinion, as the wording implies more than oversight of funds.
They do. In some cases these State relationships are from WWII. In other cases they represent real funding from the state's involved.
But that doesn't mean they're in compliance with the current laws and regulations that govern CAP today.
A review by the legal folks would be a really good idea.
The intent may be good but ya still gotta dot the i's and cross the t's.
Really? Maybe you should email BG Smith, I bet he never thought of that.
Quote from: JohhnyD on September 07, 2020, 12:34:17 AMQuote from: PHall on September 07, 2020, 12:03:45 AMQuote from: JohhnyD on September 06, 2020, 09:02:33 PMQuote from: Mitchell 1969 on September 06, 2020, 08:55:05 PMI just wonder though, if NHQ and USAF are aware that Adjutants General of states are claiming that they have "oversight" of CAP. Those statements are poorly worded. If they want oversight of state monies, they should so state, clearly. The way they have phrased it leads to misunderstandings, in my opinion, as the wording implies more than oversight of funds.
They do. In some cases these State relationships are from WWII. In other cases they represent real funding from the state's involved.
But that doesn't mean they're in compliance with the current laws and regulations that govern CAP today.
A review by the legal folks would be a really good idea.
The intent may be good but ya still gotta dot the i's and cross the t's.
Really? Maybe you should email BG Smith, I bet he never thought of that.
I don't know BG Smith. In fact, I don't even know who BG Smith even is. But, no matter. Those "oversight" claims are still poorly worded.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on September 07, 2020, 01:52:43 AMQuote from: JohhnyD on September 07, 2020, 12:34:17 AMQuote from: PHall on September 07, 2020, 12:03:45 AMQuote from: JohhnyD on September 06, 2020, 09:02:33 PMQuote from: Mitchell 1969 on September 06, 2020, 08:55:05 PMI just wonder though, if NHQ and USAF are aware that Adjutants General of states are claiming that they have "oversight" of CAP. Those statements are poorly worded. If they want oversight of state monies, they should so state, clearly. The way they have phrased it leads to misunderstandings, in my opinion, as the wording implies more than oversight of funds.
They do. In some cases these State relationships are from WWII. In other cases they represent real funding from the state's involved.
But that doesn't mean they're in compliance with the current laws and regulations that govern CAP today.
A review by the legal folks would be a really good idea.
The intent may be good but ya still gotta dot the i's and cross the t's.
Really? Maybe you should email BG Smith, I bet he never thought of that.
I don't know BG Smith. In fact, I don't even know who BG Smith even is. But, no matter. Those "oversight" claims are still poorly worded.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sorry MG Smith, you know, the guy at NHQ with two stars?
Quote from: JohhnyD on September 07, 2020, 09:56:59 AMSorry MG Maj Gen Smith, you know, the guy at NHQ with two stars?
FTFY (fixed that for you)... People tend to get really pedantic around this here part of the interwebs.
Quote from: baronet68 on September 07, 2020, 08:06:22 PMQuote from: JohhnyD on September 07, 2020, 09:56:59 AMSorry MG Maj Gen Smith, you know, the guy at NHQ with two stars?
FTFY (fixed that for you)... People tend to get really pedantic around this here part of the interwebs.
With "this here part" bring a discussion forum, with a simple "I wonder if..." leading to a challenge to go right to the top with that "I wonder if...". At any rate, the fact remains, those "oversight" phrases are poorly worded.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on September 08, 2020, 12:30:26 AMQuote from: baronet68 on September 07, 2020, 08:06:22 PMQuote from: JohhnyD on September 07, 2020, 09:56:59 AMSorry MG Maj Gen Smith, you know, the guy at NHQ with two stars?
FTFY (fixed that for you)... People tend to get really pedantic around this here part of the interwebs.
With "this here part" bring a discussion forum, with a simple "I wonder if..." leading to a challenge to go right to the top with that "I wonder if...". At any rate, the fact remains, those "oversight" phrases are poorly worded.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And yet the affected Wings seem to survive. Odd that.
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on September 08, 2020, 12:30:26 AMWith "this here part" bring a discussion forum, with a simple "I wonder if..." leading to a challenge to go right to the top with that "I wonder if...". At any rate, the fact remains, those "oversight" phrases are poorly worded.
Are they?
Kansas, at least according to their annual budget, has a 1/2 FTE's salary devoted to CAP,
along with whatever resources and appropriation they may provide. They don't have command authority
over CAP, per se, but they would certainly have "oversight" on whatever they provide to CAP, and an
opinion about operations, generally.
At least as characterized, this is no different then CAP-USAF.
I can tell you from direct experience that lack of oversight in a case like this is not a best practice.
With oversight comes an understanding of where the money is going and how the resources are being used,
making it much easier to justify during the annual "See-AY-Whonow?" conversations at budget time.
The alternative is a state providing resources and money with no idea why, and then one day it's just gone...
BTDT.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 08, 2020, 03:07:17 AMQuote from: Mitchell 1969 on September 08, 2020, 12:30:26 AMWith "this here part" bring a discussion forum, with a simple "I wonder if..." leading to a challenge to go right to the top with that "I wonder if...". At any rate, the fact remains, those "oversight" phrases are poorly worded.
Are they?
Kansas, at least according to their annual budget, has a 1/2 FTE's salary devoted to CAP,
along with whatever resources and appropriation they may provide. They don't have command authority
over CAP, per se, but they would certainly have "oversight" on whatever they provide to CAP, and an
opinion about operations, generally.
At least as characterized, this is no different then CAP-USAF.
I can tell you from direct experience that lack of oversight in a case like this is not a best practice.
With oversight comes an understanding of where the money is going and how the resources are being used,
making it much easier to justify during the annual "See-AY-Whonow?" conversations at budget time.
The alternative is a state providing resources and money with no idea why, and then one day it's just gone...
BTDT.
If they want to retain oversight of state money (which they should), then they should state that they retain oversight of state funds allocated to CAP purposes, and not state that they have oversight of CAP.
It's simple, really.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on September 09, 2020, 03:02:36 AMIf they want to retain oversight of state money (which they should), then they should state that they retain oversight of state funds allocated to CAP purposes, and not state that they have oversight of CAP.
It's simple, really.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Simple. You have any experience in crafting or passing legislation, especially funded appropriations?
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on September 09, 2020, 03:02:36 AMIt's simple, really.
Well, not really.
Quote from: JohhnyD on September 09, 2020, 03:07:09 AMQuote from: Mitchell 1969 on September 09, 2020, 03:02:36 AMIf they want to retain oversight of state money (which they should), then they should state that they retain oversight of state funds allocated to CAP purposes, and not state that they have oversight of CAP.
It's simple, really.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Simple. You have any experience in crafting or passing legislation, especially funded appropriations?
As a matter of fact, yes, I do.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OK, folks, let's lighten up here. This is starting to degenerate into a "measuring contest".
Quote from: SarDragon on September 09, 2020, 10:41:51 PMOK, folks, let's lighten up here. This is starting to degenerate into a "measuring contest".
Oh, this went beyond a "measuring contest" a long time ago.
Somewhere around page one.
Phil, we're still only on page one (my pages show 50 posts). We are, however, descending into the abyss. I am hoping to retard that progress a bit.