March 07 National Board Meeting Live Web Stream

[DNall]

I guess I'm a little confused.  Does that mean members can, today, go ahead and order "US Civil Air Patrol" nametapes and begin wearing them?

Or does it have to go through more channels first?

It's a little ubcleaer. It would seem to require AF approval, but it wasn't presented as such at NB, but like everything else it was rushed thru.

[lordmonar]

>>I just started phasing out the CAP cutouts with my own troops.  Had a handful of cadet promotions last night -- just removed their CAP cutout and replaced with appropriate grade insignia.

Actually, everyone should wait until a policy letter or reg change is published before implementing any of the decisions made at the NB meeting. We've all seen things change after the fact and you need regulatory authority beforehand.

By regulation once the NB make the decision it is regulatory.

I guess I'm a little confused.  Does that mean members can, today, go ahead and order "US Civil Air Patrol" nametapes and begin wearing them?

Or does it have to go through more channels first?

In this case no...because all uniform decisions must be first blessed by the USAF.  So once USAF-CAP sends this item up to Air Staff and they sign off on it, NHQ should send out a policy letter changing 39-1 and give us instructions on when to were them.

So at this point....just stand by.

But on all other items not requiring either USAF or BoG action...once the NB votes it is in effect.

[RiverAux]

Nothing is official until it is in a policy letter or regulation. 

[DNall]

That's the old verbal versus written order thing. The policy is valid when approved by the NB. When you have it in writing you can't disobey anymore w/o penalty (theoretically). 

[A.Member]

sardak:

Do you know why there is little to no discussion around most of the items put forth for vote, particularly when some of those items do not appear to have been listed as agenda items (ex. nametapes)? 

In addition, why are all these uniform changes being presented for final vote without any prior feedback/input from the membership?

You know...I have searched and searched the rules and regs, and the Constition and By-Laws....and no where does it say anything has to have any feed back from the membership.  Are you under the impression that CAP is a democracy?

Nope, not under that impression at all.  But I do know it's a volunteer organization.  And I also know that when the greater membership is not happy, the organization will struggle.  That is the case today. 

National has noted concern over the recent and significant decline in membership.  If they're truly interested in addressing such concerns they'd be wise to listen to what the membership is saying.   That doesn't make it a democracy and it doesn't mean they're bound to all the membership's wishes.  I'm sure you'd agree that the "real" Air Force (or any of the services) are also not democracies.  Yet, even they do trial wears and solicit feedback on issues such as uniform changes, often times incorporating that feedback into their decisions.  It's simply what good leadership does! 

At the very least, they should reaise questions and discuss the changes amongst themselves, especially when topics didn't seem to appear on published agendas (this also did not seem to occur). 

So, really, your point is moot.

[Pumbaa]

A democracy is 2 wolfs and a lamb deciding what to eat for dinner...

A republic is 2 wolfs and an ARMED sheep deciding what to eat for dinner...

[Pylon]

The semi-official March 2007 National Board Executive Summary from the desk of a senior staffer at NHQ.  It's really nothing new, and it looks like someone may have already posted text from this, but here it is nonetheless.

To all:
Attached is an unofficial listing of agenda and other board actions that took place during the recent National Board meeting in DC. The official, detailed minutes are under development and will be sent out in draft copy soon. As is our practice, these draft minutes will be approved at the next meeting of the NB.

We hope you find this executive summary helpful.

WING ADMINISTRATORS:  Please make distribution throughout your Wing consistent with your Wing Commander's direction.

<<NB Mar 07 Executive Summary.doc>>
 

Mark H. Richardson, III
Senior Director
Hq CAP, Maxwell AFB, AL
334-953-5341
DSN 493-5341

[DNall]

You know...I have searched and searched the rules and regs, and the Constition and By-Laws....and no where does it say anything has to have any feed back from the membership.  Are you under the impression that CAP is a democracy?

Nope, not under that impression at all.  But I do know it's a volunteer organization.  And I also know that when the greater membership is not happy, the organization will struggle.  That is the case today. 

National has noted concern over the recent and significant decline in membership.  If they're truly interested in addressing such concerns they'd be wise to listen to what the membership is saying.   That doesn't make it a democracy and it doesn't mean they're bound to all the membership's wishes.  I'm sure you'd agree that the "real" Air Force (or any of the services) are also not democracies.  Yet, even they do trial wears and solicit feedback on issues such as uniform changes, often times incorporating that feedback into their decisions.  It's simply what good leadership does! 

At the very least, they should reaise questions and discuss the changes amongst themselves, especially when topics didn't seem to appear on published agendas (this also did not seem to occur). 

Most all these uniform changes have been prompted by member interest, or at least aimed at member morale. We're out here complaining about the volume & nature, when that's reflective of the extent of the membership problem they're admitting to.

The vehicle for member input are the national committees, including the uniform committee. Those people generally are quite responsive, at least early in the process. They probably will not discuss anything with you, but they will mostly acknowledge getting it. They'll then propose the better of those idea to the board... those are the ones we don't see any lead time on cause they were considered for some time in cmte, or may have been brought up to the cmte that wknd & argued out at length before proposed or not. NB moves fairly quickly on most of those because they've already been very well considered (in theory).

Now that said, certainly National should work to be seen listening to & caring about member input. That doesn't mean they need to let members run the org or care what they think. They just need to explain a user-friendly apolitical way to suggest ideas & feel like they've been heard. Then amongst 53k members there's almost always going to be a one or two with the same idea as you, just find that one, credit him with the suggestion, and make the proposal. Then write a story about how little nobody from nowhere with no connections followed this system & got it done at the top, cause we care - you know those 'how a bill becomes a law' things. It's not that difficult. I mean your congressman doesn't care what you think, but they got a constituent services staffer so it looks like they do.

[A.Member]

Most all these uniform changes have been prompted by member interest, or at least aimed at member morale. We're out here complaining about the volume & nature, when that's reflective of the extent of the membership problem they're admitting to.

Sorry, but I have to give you the b.s. flag on that one.  I've seen absolutely no evidence of such an outcry from the membership on most of these items - especially as it relates to the creation of the TPU, modification of the MAJCOM patch, and the modification of the nametapes...among others. 

The vehicle for member input are the national committees, including the uniform committee. Those people generally are quite responsive, at least early in the process. They probably will not discuss anything with you, but they will mostly acknowledge getting it. They'll then propose the better of those idea to the board... those are the ones we don't see any lead time on cause they were considered for some time in cmte, or may have been brought up to the cmte that wknd & argued out at length before proposed or not. NB moves fairly quickly on most of those because they've already been very well considered (in theory).

Ah, the infamous "uniform committee".  USAF has one.  CAP?  Well...do you know who sits on it?  Have you ever seen minutes from such a committee?  I have not.  The simple requirement for a change is that it be run up to National and approved by the the National Commander, National Board, and/or NHQ.   If you can find any minutes around such a committee or even discussions around these proposals prior to a vote, let me know.  I've looked in e-Services and can find no evidence of this.  As such, I'm obviously much more of a skeptic in this area.  I'm certainly open to being enlightENed though.  Nonetheless, it's irrellevant.  When have you ever seen feedback solicited from the membership?  That's the real point here. 

If I recall correctly, you're taking SOS.  On the topic of leadership and communication what do they say?   They'll tell you take of your people.  Find out what their requirements are and be sensitive to their needs.  They'll also tell you that information must flow continously through the organization and the communication is a two-way process.  You must listen to what your people have to say and always look for good ideas that can flow up the chain.   Feedback is critical.   When people are distracted by these other issues, they do not give their jobs full attention and as a result the mission suffers.  That is the point and I don't see that out of National these days.

[DNall]

Cmte meetings aren't public nor are cmte memberships, some of them are, but by no means all. There's a cmte for everything. That's the extent of member input. A cmte vote is meaningless other than it recommends or not something to the NB who makes up their minds anyway based on the executive summary. That's how all corporations & govt agencies everywhere work.

The TPU & tapes were pitched as part of an effort to solidify a national organization & come in close with AF... allow larger members to wear an AF looking uniform, more uniform with the blues than white/gray w/ blazer, etc... That doesn't mean I'm buying it, but they say they're trying to make everyone feel part of a committed national para-military org.

The majcom along with changing the tail markings was/is about dodging an AFI so as to push the limits of PCA to do LE missions w/o needing the consent of the AF first (who just does a legal check to ensure it's legit by PCA anyway, but apparently that takes too much off the table for some tastes).

[A.Member]

The TPU & tapes were pitched as part of an effort to solidify a national organization & come in close with AF... allow larger members to wear an AF looking uniform, more uniform with the blues than white/gray w/ blazer, etc... That doesn't mean I'm buying it, but they say they're trying to make everyone feel part of a committed national para-military org.

The majcom along with changing the tail markings was/is about dodging an AFI so as to push the limits of PCA to do LE missions w/o needing the consent of the AF first (who just does a legal check to ensure it's legit by PCA anyway, but apparently that takes too much off the table for some tastes).

At best, I'd say that's highly speculative on your part.  None of those changes has officially been explained that way.

[JohnKachenmeister]

The TPU & tapes were pitched as part of an effort to solidify a national organization & come in close with AF... allow larger members to wear an AF looking uniform, more uniform with the blues than white/gray w/ blazer, etc... That doesn't mean I'm buying it, but they say they're trying to make everyone feel part of a committed national para-military org.

The majcom along with changing the tail markings was/is about dodging an AFI so as to push the limits of PCA to do LE missions w/o needing the consent of the AF first (who just does a legal check to ensure it's legit by PCA anyway, but apparently that takes too much off the table for some tastes).

At best, I'd say that's highly speculative on your part.  None of those changes has officially been explained that way.

Hellz Bellz!  NOTHING is ever "Officially explained!"

[DNall]

That's the pitches that were given on the webstream in the cases I stated.

[A.Member]

Hellz Bellz!  NOTHING is ever "Officially explained!"

And there in is part of the problem (see previous post with comments in reference to communication being two way).  This becomes much more important in a volunteer organization.

Compare and contrast this with the approach of USAF (my emphasis added):

http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123025305

The members of the June RIE determined such a repository would facilitate managing the data that would be maintained and archived for future boards. Part of that system would allow uniform board members to log in to an automated "virtual board" to participate electronically. The virtual board also would allow Airmen in the field to provide input to the uniform board, without having to wait for major commands to ask for their input, and without having to go through the Innovative Development through Employee Awareness, or IDEA program.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123020472

Based on feedback received during visits with Airmen across the Air Force, the Air Force Uniform Board is reviewing several concepts that Airmen have suggested regarding the appearance of the service dress uniform....

...The Air Force began exploring these ideas by producing several prototypes that reflect a combination of ideas that have been gleaned from comments, suggestions and informal surveys conducted over the past several years.

A more formal survey soon will provide additional opportunities for Airmen to provide feedback and comments.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123023298

http://newsblaze.com/story/20070111094111tsop.nb/topstory.html

http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=36437&archive=true

After hearing a planeload of complaints about the "bus driver" look of the Air Force's dress blue uniform, Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley has launched a project to find out what airmen might like to wear instead...

...The Air Force has set up a special e-mail address for Stripes readers to comment on the new dress uniform prototypes: uniformfeedback@pentagon.af.mil

Air Force officials welcome all comments, but say they would particularly like to know the following:

1. Do you even want a change in the dress uniform, or should the service leave it as it is?

2. Please comment about each prototype (Hap Arnold and Billy Mitchell) in as much detail as possible. What do you like about each design, and what do you dislike?

3. Prototypes aside, what details or features would you like to see in a dress uniform that are not in today's version? (Examples might be a silver stripe on the pants leg, a kick pleat in the women's skirt, etc.)

4. Overall, what kind of Air Force dress uniform would you be proud to wear? One that reflects the service's heritage? Something futuristic? Something with a plain, simple, and streamlined appearance?

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=36609&archive=true

The Air Force is unveiling initial prototypes for airmen to critique, as well as circulating a detailed survey that should go out to selected airmen early this summer, according to Uniform Board members.

The board also plans to open a Web site for comments.

Meanwhile, the Air Force has an e-mail address for informal feedback on its new dress uniform: uniformfeedback@pentagon.af.mil.

Air Force officials have received more than 1,200 comments, spokeswoman Jennifer Bentley said.

Brig. Gen. Robert Allardice, deputy chief of staff for manpower and personnel and the general officer leading the project, "is very pleased" with the reaction, Bentley said.

"We hope they keep coming."

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123042938

The new service coat has gone through several prototypes, with officials recently deciding which version will be released for field testing.

"We talked extensively to Airmen, both in the field and through the Air Force Uniform Board process, and this is something they've repeatedly asked for," General Allardice said. "We want a service dress that clearly represents our pride as Airmen and history as a service, and we want to make sure we get it right. That's one of the reasons we're referring to the proposal as the Heritage Jacket...

Once feedback has been received from the Heritage Jacket wear test, Air Force leaders will make a final decision on the new coat...

Have you ever seen National ask for member feedback on anything?!  Some changes seem to speak more to someone's need for a personal legacy than it does an actual demand from membership.  It certainly helps explain organizational effectiveness.

Just my $.02.

[alamrcn]

Life Memberships for all Coastal Patrol Base members
      - Passed

Wasn't this redundant? Don't all 50-year members get made into life members now. Big stretch too, since there are only a handfull of these folks around - in or out of the program. How about something more drastic, like all Wing/Region Commanders get life membership?

Not to be biligerant, but is a certain Maj Gen coughing up $60 a year?  hmmm...

- Ace

[alamrcn]

Have you ever seen National ask for member feedback on anything?!  Some changes seem to speak more to someone's need for a personal legacy than it does an actual demand from membership.  It certainly helps explain organizational effectiveness.

Actually, there was a "comment coupon" of sorts published in CAP News (1992?) for members to mail back with input on the imminant change away from the Maroon epaulte sleeves / shoulder marks to another style or color (not blue). If they really did listen to the membership, then that is why we have the Grey colored sleeves. That's the only time in my recollection, other than a membership-wide design contest for the National Cadet Special Activity patches.

Otherwise, I absolutely agree on the "legacy" thing!!!!

- Ace

[BillB]

Fifty year members get membership with no annual dues. However it has to be fifty years of CONTINOUS membership. Take a break in membership and the fity years you were a dues paying member don't count. So many members take a break after burning out on projects or duty assignments and let membership drop. So if you were a member for firty years and dropped out for two years and come back for another ten years, only those ten years count towards the fifty. National Board says they will lose to much money by dropping the word continous from the regulation.

[CAPOfficer]

BillB, I have to ask; however, it has nothing to do with the topic of discussion.  Your signature block shows two Gill Robb Wilson Awards, do you actually have two or is one the old National Commander's Citation Award and the other the Gill Robb Wilson?  Either way, how did you acquire two?  Curiosity got the better of me.

[BillB]

I got the first (#19) which was a step to the National Commanders Citation under the late 1960's eaqrly 70's program. After I earned the National Commanders Commanders Citation. CAP changed the requirements for the Gil Robb Wilson. So I completed the new requirements and got the second Gil Robb Wilson (#124). According to National, there are or were five people in CAP that are eligible to wear BOTH the National Commanders Citation AND Gil Robb Wilson, meaning they earned a second Gil Robb Wilson award. Normally, if earned, the National Commanders Citation is worn in place of Gil Robb Wilson except for those five that earned under both different programs

[fyrfitrmedic]

Fifty year members get membership with no annual dues. However it has to be fifty years of CONTINOUS membership. Take a break in membership and the fity years you were a dues paying member don't count. So many members take a break after burning out on projects or duty assignments and let membership drop. So if you were a member for firty years and dropped out for two years and come back for another ten years, only those ten years count towards the fifty. National Board says they will lose to much money by dropping the word continous from the regulation.

That sounds like a cop-out on NHQ's part.

Seriously, how many people actually make it to 50 years' total service?