Anyone know? The NHQ web page still says "details coming soon"
The Winter NB meeting is 25-27 Feb in Washington D.C. at the Crystal City Marriott. The Winter NB meeting is always held on the last weekend in February in D.C. to coincide with Legislative Day at the Capitol.
FW, I know you're not old enough to remember when that part of VA was DC! :P
Yeah, the last time I checked, Crystal City was south/west of the river.
Quote from: JC004 on January 24, 2010, 07:01:45 AM
FW, I know you're not old enough to remember when that part of VA was DC! :P
It reverted to VA when the Confederacy seceded.
The Colonel is right.
When the U.S. Patent Office was in Crystal City (circa 1960-2000), the address was Washington, DC, 20231.
And, it is considered Washington, DC in the larger sense.
Except by disruptive nit-pickers.
CAP and CAPTalk never had any of those before.
From the local's perspective:
Yes, Crystal City is technically Virgnia. Phones there (including government offices) have a 703 (Northern VA) area code. However, it is so close to the line that it may as well be part of Southwest DC. The Pentagon, National Airport, and Arlington National Cemetery are also technically in Virginia, but it is all part of the greater Washington D.C. area.
However, I do need to clarify one thing that FW said. Is it the Crystal City Marriott, or the Crystal Gateway Marriott? Historically the board has always gone to the Crystal Gateway Marriott. The 2 hotels cause a lot of confusion, especially since they are only across the street from each other and both can be accessed by the underground mall from the Metro.
If you also look at the original "square" layout of D.C. proper, you'll see that both sides ceded territory to the new capitol. 100 square miles, through retrocession the VA side was returned to VA in 1847, removing 31 square miles, or about 1/3rd of the territory.
However.. as you know how suburbs work.. the D.C. action spilled over to the other side of the river. ;-)
Sort of like living in CA but having an Oregon post office box, to get stuff mailed to you tax free.. ..
There is an important distinction for the DC statehood people...the people in Arlington County are not subject to:
(http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2008/12/30/1230695536_5116/539w.jpg)
Quote from: CAPSGT on January 24, 2010, 07:29:07 PM
However, I do need to clarify one thing that FW said. Is it the Crystal City Marriott, or the Crystal Gateway Marriott? Historically the board has always gone to the Crystal Gateway Marriott. The 2 hotels cause a lot of confusion, especially since they are only across the street from each other and both can be accessed by the underground mall from the Metro.
It's the Crystal City Marriott. The other hotel is getting too expensive.
Oh, yes.... It is Crystal City, VA..... :P
Legistlative day is in D.C.
Any other nits I must pick off? :D
Odd, I thought the Crystal City Marriott was usually the more expensive of the two.
Quote from: CAPSGT on January 27, 2010, 03:13:30 PM
Odd, I thought the Crystal City Marriott was usually the more expensive of the two.
Oh no.
Crystal Gateway more expensive.
Any one got a bootleg copy of the agenda yet?
OK, here is the agenda for the NB meeting....
Oh man, it sure seems the air force wasn't happy with the csu. Item agenda 3b kinda spells that out huh? >:D
"2) CAP-USAF concurs with the recommendations of the previously established uniform process action team as referred to in Item 2a above. The goal of replacing the recently disapproved "new corporate uniform" is problematic. CAP already has an AF-style uniform and a corporate uniform. The "new corporate uniform" appears to have been to attempt to devise an AF-style uniform but title it "corporate" as a method to bypass the requirement to meet AF weight and appearance standards. Redesigning the gray/white corporate uniform is fine, but any attempts to provide another AF-like uniform will be disapproved."
Pretty strong warning from the organization that was ok with it huh? ::)
The opinion of the current CAP-USAF/CC is different from his predecessor. However, from reading the agenda items, it looks like there is a great variance of opinionions. I wonder how it will all work out?
FW it looks like their will be a ton of infighting.... *sigh* I worried about this when the csu debacle first started.
Quote from: FW on February 03, 2010, 09:34:07 PM
The opinion of the current CAP-USAF/CC is different from his predecessor. However, from reading the agenda items, it looks like there is a great variance of opinionions. I wonder how it will all work out?
Bad for CAP as usual.
A fair number of uniform issues, but a lot of meat on the agenda too.
Item 3a - uniform change process -- I find it hilarious that apparently the Uniform Committee is blaming the general membership for the "out of control" (their quote) uniform changes and that they feel the need to reinforce the ability of any commander to stop any change proposed by someone under their command. ITS THE COLONELS WHO HAVE BEEN INSTIGATING THIS STUFF. Still think it is a horrible idea to put the National Commander in total control of this process.
Item 3b -- CSU -- apparently we're now saying the CSU was never actually approved the right way.
Item 3c -- proposal that they come up with a single service dress uniform for ALL members. The AF seems to be open to the idea of CAP having a single "military style" uniform, but doesn't indicate that they would support loosening our grooming/height/weight standards to let all CAP members wear the AF style. So, we might be looking at a non-AF style service uniform. Presumably this would lead us to a single non-AF style BDU/flight suit, and everything else.
Item 5g - proposal to restrict powers of NEC -- extensive discussion on this in another thread.
Item 6b: "Quality Cadet Unit Award" -- Lets give everybody an streamer every year! Biased against small units since you need at least 25 cadets to win. Guess you're not quality unless you're big.
Item 7b - A single document for all your quals -- ES, drivers, radio, first aid, etc. Great idea!
Item 7c -- Limit CAP pilots to max 79 years old. O-ride pilots not to exceed 69 years old. There are 270 cadet orientation pilots age 70+ (of 2,240 total nationwide – 12%) that would be affected by this policy. There are 34 CAPF 5 pilots age 80+ (of 3,270 total nationwide – 1%) that would be affected by this policy.
Item 8b -- election of Wing commanders. CAP-USAF doesn't like. Still alive, I guess.
Air Patrol ribbon -- on the agenda. committee reported back on criteria.
The Air Force side seems to be making some strong comments that many CAP members may not like. I am so glad they are nonvoting members!
They should call this the National Uniform Change Meeting.
National Board: The answer is simple. Just STOP.
Quote from: JC004 on February 04, 2010, 01:45:00 AM
They should call this the National Uniform Change Meeting.
National Board: The answer is simple. Just STOP.
Are you kidding. They can't stop. If they stopped, it may actually help improve CAP.
The uniform situation is a freaking joke. They should all be embarrassed on the number of uniform issues written in the agenda. Maybe if they focused more on recruiting, retention and professional development instead of inventing uniforms, destroying uniforms and fighting with each other over uniforms they would be taken seriously.
Quote from: RiverAux on February 04, 2010, 12:54:11 AM
A fair number of uniform issues, but a lot of meat on the agenda too.
Item 3a - uniform change process -- I find it hilarious that apparently the Uniform Committee is blaming the general membership for the "out of control" (their quote) uniform changes and that they feel the need to reinforce the ability of any commander to stop any change proposed by someone under their command. ITS THE COLONELS WHO HAVE BEEN INSTIGATING THIS STUFF. Still think it is a horrible idea to put the National Commander in total control of this process.
Item 3b -- CSU -- apparently we're now saying the CSU was never actually approved the right way.
Item 3c -- proposal that they come up with a single service dress uniform for ALL members. The AF seems to be open to the idea of CAP having a single "military style" uniform, but doesn't indicate that they would support loosening our grooming/height/weight standards to let all CAP members wear the AF style. So, we might be looking at a non-AF style service uniform. Presumably this would lead us to a single non-AF style BDU/flight suit, and everything else.
Item 5g - proposal to restrict powers of NEC -- extensive discussion on this in another thread.
Item 6b: "Quality Cadet Unit Award" -- Lets give everybody an streamer every year! Biased against small units since you need at least 25 cadets to win. Guess you're not quality unless you're big.
Item 7b - A single document for all your quals -- ES, drivers, radio, first aid, etc. Great idea!
Item 7c -- Limit CAP pilots to max 79 years old. O-ride pilots not to exceed 69 years old. There are 270 cadet orientation pilots age 70+ (of 2,240 total nationwide – 12%) that would be affected by this policy. There are 34 CAPF 5 pilots age 80+ (of 3,270 total nationwide – 1%) that would be affected by this policy.
Item 8b -- election of Wing commanders. CAP-USAF doesn't like. Still alive, I guess.
Air Patrol ribbon -- on the agenda. committee reported back on criteria.
Can someone post the agenda?
^ First page
SIGH - I have to admit that I am happy. I am very scared about some of the things on the agenda, but I am still happy. WHY? Because it proves that the leadership is listening to the membership. In a *large* number of those proposals, we were talked about. Also, a lot of those issues, particularly the NEC and uniform issues, have been talked about here and a lot of what was said on the boards WAS PUT IN THE AGENDA ITEMS!! I think that it reinforces that while every single CAP member may not be on CAPTalk and CadetStuff, in our own way, we represent (unintentionally, but still represent nonetheless) a large part of CAP Members, particularly senior members.
Thank you to you NB members & NHQ staff that participate actively or lurk on the boards for listening to us. And an even bigger thank you for the willingness to step up to the plate and actually advance our thoughts.
Thank you,
Thank you,
Thank you! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
I agree that it looks like CAP-USAF is anti-membership. But I strongly suspect that he may be reflecting the views of a “bunch of” generals and probably the current USAF COS. But, at least we will have tried.
And Spike - I know you are tired of unifroms and wold be perfectly happy to see us "fat/fuzzies" go away, but obvioulsy this is an item that is very important to the membership as a whole. Just because you are tired of it does not make it any less important if the majority wants to talk about it.
FW, since you're probably our most "plugged in" active board member, do you think CAPTalk has helped push up some of these agenda items as High Speed suggests?
Quote from: Spike on February 04, 2010, 01:36:50 AM
The Air Force side seems to be making some strong comments that many CAP members may not like. I am so glad they are nonvoting members!
They're non-voting members, but they do control the uniforms, mission money, and quite a few other things.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on February 04, 2010, 03:55:34 AM
And Spike - I know you are tired of unifroms and wold be perfectly happy to see us "fat/fuzzies" go away, but obvioulsy this is an item that is very important to the membership as a whole. Just because you are tired of it does not make it any less important if the majority wants to talk about it.
You have never read my other posts then. I am for the CSU, and wear it too.
SYou all say thast CAP-USAF is anti-membership? How is that so? And why are people on here anti- CAP-USAF? I havent really gotten that deep into what CAP-USAF says but I think if we are their auxillary we should probably listen to them.
Quote from: RiverAux on February 04, 2010, 04:08:41 AM
FW, since you're probably our most "plugged in" active board member, do you think CAPTalk has helped push up some of these agenda items as High Speed suggests?
By "board member" you do mean the CT board... ;)
Yes, I think CAPTalk has been a major force in advancing the agenda for the next NB meeting.
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 04, 2010, 01:05:42 PM
SYou all say thast CAP-USAF is anti-membership? How is that so? And why are people on here anti- CAP-USAF? I havent really gotten that deep into what CAP-USAF says but I think if we are their auxillary we should probably listen to them.
CAP-USAF is not "anti-membership". The commander has his opinions on the agenda items and, that is it. It is the duty of the National Board to do what it feels is in the best interests of CAP and, should take his opinionions seriously.
As I've said before, the "CSU" is not the issue. It is the process by which it was born; lived; and died. The process is broken, IMO, and must be fixed. Hopefully the NB will rise to the occasion and accomplish this.
Quote from: Spike on February 04, 2010, 12:39:29 PM
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on February 04, 2010, 03:55:34 AM
And Spike - I know you are tired of unifroms and wold be perfectly happy to see us "fat/fuzzies" go away, but obvioulsy this is an item that is very important to the membership as a whole. Just because you are tired of it does not make it any less important if the majority wants to talk about it.
You have never read my other posts then. I am for the CSU, and wear it too.
Sorry Spike, Got you confused with another board member. My bad.
Quote from: FW on February 04, 2010, 01:17:00 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 04, 2010, 01:05:42 PM
SYou all say thast CAP-USAF is anti-membership? How is that so? And why are people on here anti- CAP-USAF? I havent really gotten that deep into what CAP-USAF says but I think if we are their auxillary we should probably listen to them.
CAP-USAF is not "anti-membership". The commander has his opinions on the agenda items and, that is it. It is the duty of the National Board to do what it feels is in the best interests of CAP and, should take his opinionions seriously.
As I've said before, the "CSU" is not the issue. It is the process by which it was born; lived; and died. The process is broken, IMO, and must be fixed. Hopefully the NB will rise to the occasion and accomplish this.
As I read CAP-USAF's opinion, when he was talking about some issues, he was quick to say CAP is NOT military and does not follow the military model. However, on other issues, he said that the proposal does not follow miltary models. It seems to me that he wants CAP to follow military models when it advances his viewpoint. I also got that feeling that he is anti-membership becuase a lot of the issues that deal with grass-roots (membership) initiated stuff, he is against. Just MHO.
^ I read his comments the same way as well.
I disagree. Having been a military officer, I can see what's happening here. His boss (read: commander, air university after being counseled by the AF COS) has said "this is the AF position. Make it happen." He is not going to vary one bit from his instructions. He's a fine fellow and I'm sure a good officer. He's just not able to have his own opinion - it is supplied for him.
What chaps me is that the AF has declared itself the final arbiter of ANY uniform that may look military. In the end, there may need to be some gentle persuasion from our friends in the Congressional Squadron. Now some will say that this is going too far. But I'll remind you that one of the most powerful political organizations in the country is the National Guard Association. The Guard never blushes if it goes forward with political clout when necessary.
Another thought: I'd like to thank all of those members of the national board who heard our opinions and went forward with proposals. I read the agenda of the NB meeting and several things were nearly taken word for word from opinions that we expressed. I think the CC/CAP-USAF did the same, thus the unusually strident opinions from him.
CAP and USAF have come to an impasse. We may not be able to see that much of the streaming video. I expect there will be a great deal of blood on the lens.
Quote from: Gunner C on February 04, 2010, 10:08:34 PM
I disagree. Having been a military officer, I can see what's happening here. His boss (read: commander, air university after being counseled by the AF COS) has said "this is the AF position. Make it happen." He is not going to vary one bit from his instructions. He's a fine fellow and I'm sure a good officer. He's just not able to have his own opinion - it is supplied for him.
Thanks Gunner C - That's what I was trying (unsucessfully) to say earlier.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on February 05, 2010, 12:20:39 AM
Quote from: Gunner C on February 04, 2010, 10:08:34 PM
I disagree. Having been a military officer, I can see what's happening here. His boss (read: commander, air university after being counseled by the AF COS) has said "this is the AF position. Make it happen." He is not going to vary one bit from his instructions. He's a fine fellow and I'm sure a good officer. He's just not able to have his own opinion - it is supplied for him.
Thanks Gunner C - That's what I was trying (unsucessfully) to say earlier.
No extra charge. ;)
Just watch. He's going to defend that position like a bulldog. He's not going to back down and he'll never give up. There's going to be some real fireworks there.
I agree with you gunner 100%, this is not his opinion, he is being told what it will be and to not back down from "on high"
Now some of you will disagree with the next part, but oh well...
IMO, this hard line Air force response is what cap is going to experience for a wile thanks to our past National commander, and lets be honest here folks, you can only pee in so many morning coffees of 0-7's and above before you feel the pain.
I really wish i could be their, but ill be in turkey so maybe ill watch on-line and see some of those "fireworks" >:D
In addition to the comments that there is probably pressure from above, the current CAP-USAF/CC seems in general to be more outspoken than his predecessor.
^I'm not too sure about "pressure from above". My contacts on the BoG haven't made any reference to "pressure". But, they may not be talking about it. I'm glad I'll be watching from the cheap seats. It is going to be worth the train ride down to see what happens. ::)
The BOG holds no sway on CC/CAP-USAF. This is Hqs USAF stuff, I'm sure of it. As far as our former CC/CAP, you're probably right.
If this were 25 years ago when USAF actually ran CAP, there would be no discussion on these areas. I was under the impression that CAP uniforms, as long as kept distinctly different from AF uniforms was entirely under CAP control??
I see no other organizations getting this level of heat about wearing a military type uniform. Look a the US Army Cadet Corps. You can not tell the difference between one of their Officers and an Army Officer until you are within a foot of said individual.
Perhaps we need our Congressional members to write a letter to USAF, and tell them to ease up on CAP when it comes to uniforms.
We are all here to serve, yet some of us are prejudiced against and segregated by a Federal Agency that has policies on non-segregation.
Gunner, right now I'm not sure who has "sway" over who. As of this date, we have 3 retired 3 stars, 1 AD 3 star and 1 AD 2 star on the BoG. They may not have sway over CAP-USAF however, they may have some pull at the pentagon. In any event, the 10 current members seated; for better or worse, govern the affairs of CAP. And, they determine what the bottom line is in determining our future direction. The NB (and NEC when they are not in session) deals with figuring things out. CAP-USAF just makes sure we're following the SOW and CO. The senior AF adviser (also CAP-USAF/CC) serves as a non voting member of the NB and NEC. He has a say in our affairs however, he has no vote. HE USUALLY STAY'S NUTERAL IN CAP BUSINESS. That's why we always get an abstention on every NB/NEC vote. Officially, his comments are opinions based on what his JA officer perceives as reality. Until the NB meets, everything we say about this is just speculation. The NB will probably go into executive session to hear the "truth". We mortals may never know what that "truth" is but, we will live with the results, now won't we? :(
WARNING: Historical Content Follows!
In the 1950s and 60s Special Forces wore green berets in direct violation of regulations. Department of the Army had told them not to wear them in public.
JFK was paying a visit to Fort Bragg and BG Yarborough decided that he was going for broke - he wore his beret while briefing the president, risking being relieved of command and being court martialled . After that, JFK designated it as SF's official headgear, hacking off the entire chain of command.
Just as JFK did this for SF (army CoS can't get rid of it) we need congress to exert pressure on SECAF to allow us to design our own uniform. Of course this will never happen.
(I hope this makes sense - I'm on some pretty powerful pain killers right now. If I sounded like a blister-head above, disregard all after "Good Morning, Sir".) :)
I think it is appropriate to note that we are Chartered by the US Congress. This Charter is separate from the Air Force Charter under the National Defense Act of '47.
Our money ($44 mil roughly) is monitored by Air Force Finance and (I think this is right) we are currently a line item in the AF Budget. We are the Air Force Auxiliary in name mostly (and of course by mutual agreement.) So instead of "ma" blue, we can think ourselves as "ma" Congress/ "Big Brother" Air Force and separate ourselves to be less Air Force and more Congress and/or Homeland Security/FEMA. If this is seen as to be in CAPs best interest then we can/should/could/may (by mutual agreement between CAP and AF) go this route.
This is not a suggestion to this course of action, just a review of the current setup.
Given that we're closer to Congress and Homeland than the Air Force we might be considered a relative of TSA. They have gone through several uniform changes too.
Quote from: sparks on February 05, 2010, 08:28:22 PM
Given that we're closer to Congress and Homeland than the Air Force we might be considered a relative of TSA. They have gone through several uniform changes too.
Actually more like the Red Cross. A "corporation" with a federal type charter.
I understand the Air Force is at war, but they really do not use us to the extent they should be. We can truly be a force multiplier, yet we have to "compell" the Air Force to try us (VSAF). We all need to feel that our efforts are usefull and appreciated, but lately where has the appreciation been?
We are either entering a good time for CAP and the relationship with the Air Force will become stronger or we are looking down a road where we may eventually end up finding a new parent organization in a few years.
The comments from the USAF representative (CAP-USAF Commander) were contradicting in a few places and arrogant in others.
I will say that the Boy Scout uniform looks more military than the CAP Distinctive Uniform (grey and whites). The Air Force needs to make a decision and tell CAP "wear what you want or wear exactly this". We all do not have the luxury to waste money and time on uniforms that may not exist the day after we purchase them.
Perhaps when the CAP-USAF Commander speaks some questions will be answered. Now we wait.
So since FW seems to be the most "in the loop" member on here ill ask him...
Fw, how much of this are we, the "gen pop" going to be able to see? I want your opinion 25% 50%?
I will also ask you this, do you think its time to have open conversations about this? I never really agreed with closed door meetings, for some things i understand, but for uniform issues? really?
I've never been able to watch the live stream before now :)
From what I've been told, we'll probably be able to watch most of the open session. I think things will be shut down if the discussion gets a bit spicy. All the votes though should be on line. Since I'll be in the audience, I'll try to report any spicy tidbits that might not be streamed.
Closed door meetings should only be about personnel actions. IMO, Policy discussions should be open. Most "debate" should be at Region commander's calls anyway. I still can't believe how long the meetings have become. This one should be a doozy...
Quote from: Smithsonia on February 05, 2010, 07:30:57 PM
I think it is appropriate to note that we are Chartered by the US Congress. This Charter is separate from the Air Force Charter under the National Defense Act of '47.
Our money ($44 mil roughly) is monitored by Air Force Finance and (I think this is right) we are currently a line item in the AF Budget. We are the Air Force Auxiliary in name mostly (and of course by mutual agreement.) So instead of "ma" blue, we can think ourselves as "ma" Congress/ "Big Brother" Air Force and separate ourselves to be less Air Force and more Congress and/or Homeland Security/FEMA. If this is seen as to be in CAPs best interest then we can/should/could/may (by mutual agreement between CAP and AF) go this route.
This is not a suggestion to this course of action, just a review of the current setup.
So, how do we become more of the Aux of the Air Force? We did used to have a very close relationship withthe USAFwhen I was a cadet in the 80's. what happened?
Ido not profess to know a lot about the politics of CP. I just attend weekly meetings and help out when and where I can. But I wish we had a stronger relationship with the Air Force.
As for uniforms. someone saidthey wished CAP would stop chaning uniforms becaus it is costing members money. I guess I do not understand why it is costing so much money,. I have wornthe same style uniform for 25 years. Just because CAP comes out with a new uniform doesnt mean I "have" to purchase it. Stick with the one you been wearing.
I wear the AF Style unifrom and thats what I will always wear.
Ok, so I just read the agenda item in its entierty concerning the CAP distinctive uniform. Here is my question. Why do we need to start a committee to design a new CAP distinctive uniform? We already have the grey slack/white shirt. Why not just keep that one?
Because the folks that can't wear the AF-style service dress uniform don't have a coat to wear with the gray/whites on which they can put their ribbons and rank.
Do they nothave the Balzor anymore? What happened to it?
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 05, 2010, 11:03:21 PM
I wear the AF Style unifrom and thats what I will always wear.
Good for you. But let's say something happened and for some reason you no longer met the CAP MAW. And since CAP doesn't allow taping like AR 600-9 your only CAP uniform option was white/gray with
none of your military bling. What would you do? Quit or charge on feeling like a less than complete member?
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 05, 2010, 11:47:44 PM
Do they nothave the Balzor anymore? What happened to it?
Did you mean the Blazer?
Quote from: RiverAux on February 05, 2010, 11:33:42 PM
Because the folks that can't wear the AF-style service dress uniform don't have a coat to wear with the gray/whites on which they can put their ribbons and rank.
Can't wear your ribbons on the blazer and your rank is only a tiny little thing on the nameplate..
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 05, 2010, 11:03:21 PM
So, how do we become more of the Aux of the Air Force?
I have a much better idea.
Let's get rid of uniforms entirely. Once and for all.
Then work for the Air Force just like a civilian contractor.
^ hahahahahahahahahahahah!
If that happened, there would be nothing left to discuss on CAPTALK. ;D >:D ;)
Quote from: RiverAux on February 06, 2010, 12:09:24 AM
Can't wear your ribbons on the blazer and your rank is only a tiny little thing on the nameplate..
So? and? So this about people wanting to show off their bling?
Quote from: PA Guy on February 05, 2010, 11:59:52 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 05, 2010, 11:03:21 PM
I wear the AF Style unifrom and that's what I will always wear.
Good for you. But let's say something happened and for some reason you no longer met the CAP MAW. And since CAP doesn't allow taping like AR 600-9 your only CAP uniform option was white/gray with none of your military bling. What would you do? Quit or charge on feeling like a less than complete member?
If I were no longer able to meet the height and weight, i would wear the Gray pants, white aviator shirt. But I would also try very hard to get back to height and weight standards.
Brings me to a point I read on the agenda. the CAP-USAF CC alluded to the fact that he didn't care if CAP designed a AF style uniform. his main point was that members need to meet the H&W standards to wear any military style uniform. I concur. I am not saying we All have to be slim and Trim, I know plenty of high speed members that dont meet H&W but are excellent CAPers. Would never want to loose their knowledge and skill. And I think CAP makes provisions for them as well. There is a uniform for everybody.
But I also think that if CAP wants to make a distinctive "uniform" then do that and get rid of the grey slacks/white shirt combo. In otherwords, have one or the other, but we don't need both.
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 06, 2010, 01:50:17 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on February 06, 2010, 12:09:24 AM
Can't wear your ribbons on the blazer and your rank is only a tiny little thing on the nameplate..
So? and? So this about people wanting to show off their bling?
Well, that probably overstates it a little bit. One could say it was unfair that people who had earned ribbons and rank could not display them because the only uniform option available to them for formal situations requiring a coat did not allow them to be displayed.
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 06, 2010, 01:56:16 AM
If I were no longer able to meet the height and weight, i would wear the Gray pants, white aviator shirt. But I would also try very hard to get back to height and weight standards.
Brings me to a point I read on the agenda. the CAP-USAF CC alluded to the fact that he didn't care if CAP designed a AF style uniform. his main point was that members need to meet the H&W standards to wear any military style uniform. I concur. I am not saying we All have to be slim and Trim, I know plenty of high speed members that dont meet H&W but are excellent CAPers. Would never want to loose their knowledge and skill. And I think CAP makes provisions for them as well. There is a uniform for everybody.
But I also think that if CAP wants to make a distinctive "uniform" then do that and get rid of the grey slacks/white shirt combo. In otherwords, have one or the other, but we don't need both.
Easy to for you to say. Why don't you wear the white/gray combo a few times at major activities, especially one's involving cadets, then come back and tell us how you felt. Until then you are talking about something you have no experience with.
Like the person above suggested, I have proposed that CAP should do away with uniforms for seniors for yrs.
Quote from: RiverAux on February 06, 2010, 02:54:56 AM
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 06, 2010, 01:50:17 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on February 06, 2010, 12:09:24 AM
Can't wear your ribbons on the blazer and your rank is only a tiny little thing on the nameplate..
So? and? So this about people wanting to show off their bling?
Well, that probably overstates it a little bit. One could say it was unfair that people who had earned ribbons and rank could not display them because the only uniform option available to them for formal situations requiring a coat did not allow them to be displayed.
You want to show off your military bling? Build a shadow box.
Quote from: PA Guy on February 06, 2010, 04:16:47 AM
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 06, 2010, 01:56:16 AM
If I were no longer able to meet the height and weight, i would wear the Gray pants, white aviator shirt. But I would also try very hard to get back to height and weight standards.
Brings me to a point I read on the agenda. the CAP-USAF CC alluded to the fact that he didn't care if CAP designed a AF style uniform. his main point was that members need to meet the H&W standards to wear any military style uniform. I concur. I am not saying we All have to be slim and Trim, I know plenty of high speed members that dont meet H&W but are excellent CAPers. Would never want to loose their knowledge and skill. And I think CAP makes provisions for them as well. There is a uniform for everybody.
But I also think that if CAP wants to make a distinctive "uniform" then do that and get rid of the grey slacks/white shirt combo. In otherwords, have one or the other, but we don't need both.
Easy to for you to say. Why don't you wear the white/gray combo a few times at major activities, especially one's involving cadets, then come back and tell us how you felt. Until then you are talking about something you have no experience with.
Like the person above suggested, I have proposed that CAP should do away with uniforms for seniors for yrs.
I've done the gray & white rig for years and I just go with it. No problem if there are others wearing it too but no two are the same. I agree though that at an activity where everyone else is in a different uniform different than yours well it is like so many have said up to now for how it looks. It does have an impact on how you feel if you're working with a group of Cadets from different squadrons although 99% of them will do things right by you in spite of the uniform. I don't understand all the angst with those who are so concerned about a military style uniform that was once worn by everyone. Tell me if I'm wrong about that. If there's any value to CAP anymore I would consider how the changing economy could make CAP vanish. If I were the AF person who has the most influence I would ask what it takes to keep whatever it is they want from CAP which ultimately involves senior members of all shapes and sizes. Uniforms really are a big deal and the AF folks over us should consider that maybe things used to be done better than they are now.
Yes, then why doesnt CAP try to design a uniformthat looks "similar" to the Air Force style uniform? But then the AF says you must stil meet H&W. I understand their logic. The public doesnt know CAP from the AF. (heck, they see a uniform they think everyone is in the army.)
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 06, 2010, 01:50:17 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on February 06, 2010, 12:09:24 AM
Can't wear your ribbons on the blazer and your rank is only a tiny little thing on the nameplate..
So? and? So this about people wanting to show off their bling?
How many badges and ribbons are you allowed to wear on your service dress CAP uniform? How many of them do you actually wear? Are any of them from your time in the military?
Presuming the answer to each question is at least one, why can't I have a uniform where I can do the same thing? Currently I have no uniform equivalent to the service dress uniform. Tell me why I shouldn't be able to wear as much my CAP stuff as you wear.
And the divide between AF-Styly and Corporate crap uniform wearers is growing deeper and deeper.
Honestly, the Blue Pants with white shirt and Army Officer Jacket or Army All Weather Jacket looks really good.
Should we accomodate everybody? We have to have standards. I know we want to be "nice" to everyone but the truth is you cant please everybody.
I liked the CSU uniform. I wish we could keep it, but the USAF says no and we cant get pee'd off because of it. We just have to come up with something else.
DO NOT let CAP design it... Let the AF design the new uniform according to EMS and Fire standards of polo type or field unforms. I am sure there some reasonableness to the AF and working a way to a new CAP uniform. If it happens CAPers, then you will a whole new set of uniform issues to chirp about if PAPA AF says.... no more uniforms for you!
Let the AF TELL CAP what is up and if necessary, tell CAP they are on their own to find a vendor of unforms ands if th AF has the funds, then the AF funds it.
I can see the reasoning of the USAF. CAP ought just accept the current AF funding matrix and gets its own uniform once-n- for all. The USAF has other missions other than worrying about how CAP embarasses the AF on our wear.
I am all for a new change in CAP...COMPLETELY away from any military style uniform...WEEE are the CIVIL Air Patrol, by the way. If the AF says CAP ...go find your own..what is CAP going to do then?? :'( :'( :'( :'(
Yeah, having the same uniform that I had in the back of an ambulance. You bet. I'm inspired already.
Did not CAP uniforms had to "inspire." >:D :'(
But if it does..what to we inspire future EM's soldiers, airman.
With the big three... AE, CP, and ES guess we'll have to figure out what to inspire and what suit to be in ...to inspire!!
I cannot for the life of me find the meeting agenda for the meeting coming up. Cant find it on the CAP website... Help please!! Or am I just on the short bus today?
Quote from: Nolan Teel on February 06, 2010, 07:05:43 PM
I cannot for the life of me find the meeting agenda for the meeting coming up. Cant find it on the CAP website... Help please!! Or am I just on the short bus today?
Here ya go, brah... http://captalk.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9764.0;attach=4223
1. After reading the agenda, there isn't one single sloitary item on here that requires, during a recession and a time that our budget's being cut, requires NHQ to send almost 200 people to the East coast when all this could be handled over a couple days on Microsoft Livemeeting and an online election tally application.
2. CAP membership to NHQ, copy to CAP-USAF: We're Effing sick of the uniform issues! Yes, Fidel Pineda shoved the CSU uniform down the throats of both CAP-USAF and the membership but many did buy these and spent good money, again, during a recession, because we were told to wear these. Put together a committee, preferablly of real CAP members and not CAP,INC types, implement the suggested changes and LEAVE THE [darn] SUBJECT ALONE FOR A FEW YEARS!!!
3. Someone tell me why putting the radio card, 101, etc. on one document takes the approval of the NB? Just do it!!!
4. Maximum age for pilots in CAP? Great, another way to piss off members and watch them vote with their feet. You wanna check ride them more opften, I'm on board. Taking away the plane keys arbitrarily is going to have unintended consequences.
Thanks for the reasoned discussion. :o I'm sure Hqs CAP-USAF can use your points.
^ His points are valid though.
Some things should not even be before the board.
^^^ Yep
There is apparently a large number things that have time wasted over, especially those PESKY CAP unforms. Maybe the NB / NEC spend a little packing boxes for Haiti, huh?
With CAP's online prowess...how come this stuff is still done? Spending money on travel and hotel whether or not it comes out if the members pockets.
Thought CAP was all up on that teleconferencing ideas...stewards of the money???
^ CAP needs to take ideas from other companies and start cuting costs. It is a corporation after all. However thier shareholders are the taxpayers, and they need to show they can trim down expenses. This Board meeting (if held by AIG or Bank of America) would make front page news as a taxpayer waste.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wholeheartedly agree
CAP and trimming expenses...there's an oxymoron
Again LEADERSHIP is that is needed and in most cases CAP may need PAPA AF to come down in them a little harder
BUUT there are those here, while wearing the AF uniform will squeal...we are a Corporation!! We'll do what we want...after all, WEE are CAP!!
I am going to make two points I have made in other threads over the past couple of years:
1) the connection of contemporary CAP is tenuous at best; I've been a member since I was a cadet in the 70s, I truly cherish the historical heritage....but the plain, simple truth is that even WIWAC, CAP and USAF had been drifting in very different directions already for at least 20 years...I don't know where we belong, I was talking with a friend last evening (military retiree, 30 year plus senior NCO) who feels we ought to be federally chartered as an independent national non-profit -- like Scouting and the Red Cross.
I'm not proposing this, but I think we need to wake up and recognize facts; USAF is a very high tech, high performance, military branch of the US government.
CAP is mainly middle aged & older adults and teenagers interested in aviation and serving the nation and their local community.
CAP and USAF may share similar values but that is about all we share anymore.
We are a headache to them and they are an obstacle to us.
I'm not certain the core missions of the two organizations can possibly be integrated anymore.
2) Whatever one may think about #1, we need a common uniform in CAP -- or at most, two -- a dress uniform and a field/flying uniform.
One uniform for one CAP, available to all members, the only uniform for all members.
Yeah, I'm saying it -- let's scrap the USAF style uniforms to hold CAP together.
OK, folks, I'm ready: FLAME ON!
I agree - one uniform for dress; dump the AF uniform. Get everyone in the same one. No flame here.
(Deleted the CAP-USAF flames).
I read the agenda (thank you) and I've heard the sentiment about divorce from the AF. I would like to see the players slow down and do nothing. There are too many long time high Qual CAP members who are standing too close to the door because they don't want to be put in their place with a uniform decree. Why are members being blamed for pestering their Squadron Commanders who have driven too much uniform change? ;D I hope they'll leave things alone for a while rather than being too concerned about image protection.
Everyone can just start showing up to meetings naked!!
Seriously though, I like the RedCross model. It has worked for them for so many years. We can get our Federal Charter, give aid to the military (any branch) and still keep our Cadet Program. We can still meet on and in DOD property (just like Boy Scouts, if they chose to).
We would be free to design a uniform that looks just like an Air Force uniform, but with the changes mandated by AF regulations to make it distinctive. Groups do it all the time. They switch out a silver nametag for a Red Nametag, and call themselves state defense forces. No harm no foul, but yet, CAP (who is the only AF Auxiliary is relegated to sitting in the back of the pickup truck with a bag over our head.
I will inform everyone here and now, that I am very close to submitting my second revision of to Air Force Officers Guide. I appreciate those here that gave me help and reworded some sentences. As soon as it passes through editing and is approved, I have permission to post it here. It should only be a few day! In total it is 1 chapter, 23 pages (with pics of course.....approved by the General herself).
Quote from: heliodoc on February 06, 2010, 05:26:56 PM
DO NOT let CAP design it... Let the AF design the new uniform according to EMS and Fire standards of polo type or field unforms. I am sure there some reasonableness to the AF and working a way to a new CAP uniform. If it happens CAPers, then you will a whole new set of uniform issues to chirp about if PAPA AF says.... no more uniforms for you!
Let the AF TELL CAP what is up and if necessary, tell CAP they are on their own to find a vendor of unforms ands if th AF has the funds, then the AF funds it.
I can see the reasoning of the USAF. CAP ought just accept the current AF funding matrix and gets its own uniform once-n- for all. The USAF has other missions other than worrying about how CAP embarasses the AF on our wear.
I am all for a new change in CAP...COMPLETELY away from any military style uniform...WEEE are the CIVIL Air Patrol, by the way. If the AF says CAP ...go find your own..what is CAP going to do then?? :'( :'( :'( :'(
This is my proof that members want to become a vouluneer EMS organization or fire dept. There are many of us that love our affiliation withthe military and we want to wear military styl uniform. I have no desire to be a EMS organization. I could go through my entire CAP career and never get an ES qualifiaction and I would be fine. Thats not why I joied CAP. So if CAP did away with the AF style uniform you would loose a lot of good leaders. I would love to hear fromthe AF COS onhis view of CAP.
How does the on-line opinion voiced by one person with a serious chip on his shoulder prove or disprove anything?
I am almost sure there are many more that think like he does
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 07, 2010, 06:02:24 AM
I am almost sure there are many more that think like he does
I think there is also a segment that don't think cadets belong participating in SAR activities. I remember as a cadet 27 years ago the saying flight line was created to keep cadets busy.
Quote from: FARRIER on February 07, 2010, 07:20:32 AM
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 07, 2010, 06:02:24 AM
I am almost sure there are many more that think like he does
I think there is also a segment that don't think cadets belong participating in SAR activities. I remember as a cadet 27 years ago the saying flight line was created to keep cadets busy.
That must be state dependant. When I was a cadet in the mid 80's tothe mid 90's cadets were very active on ground teams. I was on a ground team at age 15 and we went out on real missions.
But you are right. There is a segment thay doesnt want cadets on ground teams.
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 07, 2010, 07:53:32 AM
Quote from: FARRIER on February 07, 2010, 07:20:32 AM
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 07, 2010, 06:02:24 AM
I am almost sure there are many more that think like he does
I think there is also a segment that don't think cadets belong participating in SAR activities. I remember as a cadet 27 years ago the saying flight line was created to keep cadets busy.
That must be state dependant. When I was a cadet in the mid 80's tothe mid 90's cadets were very active on ground teams. I was on a ground team at age 15 and we went out on real missions.
But you are right. There is a segment thay doesnt want cadets on ground teams.
No, it was a mindest that was prevallent, depending upon the mission coordinator.
Quote from: PHall on February 06, 2010, 04:18:53 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on February 06, 2010, 02:54:56 AM
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 06, 2010, 01:50:17 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on February 06, 2010, 12:09:24 AM
..
You want to show off your military bling? Build a shadow box.
I wish CAP and the USAF would follow the policy set forth by the Veterans Administration which allows and promotes the wear of military ribbons, badges and/or medals with civillian attire (CAP alternative uniforms?).
I wear 1 CAP Ribbon. I have 12, but only wear 1. I also have many military ribbons, but do not wear any. I would rather a person take interest in me (follow my lead) based on my actions, not on my dozens of ribbons.
Decorations and Ribbons are important, but it does not mean a person is a good leader.
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 07, 2010, 07:53:32 AM
Quote from: FARRIER on February 07, 2010, 07:20:32 AM
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 07, 2010, 06:02:24 AM
I am almost sure there are many more that think like he does
I think there is also a segment that don't think cadets belong participating in SAR activities. I remember as a cadet 27 years ago the saying flight line was created to keep cadets busy.
That must be state dependant. When I was a cadet in the mid 80's to the mid 90's cadets were very active on ground teams. I was on a ground team at age 15 and we went out on real missions.
But you are right. There is a segment that doesn't want cadets on ground teams.
Dedicated Cadets give strong effort to gaining their ES Quals. When they are qualified and on a mission they can be a big asset. In an event last summer we were at a non SAR activity where a civilian visitor sustained a serious gash in his leg. I was amazed and very proud of how skillfully and efficiently the Cadets with me attended to that individual and applied first aid and comfort to him before he was transported to his next destination. A few years ago I can recall an incident where another Cadet who while working at his non CAP summer job encountered a severely injured individual who was getting no help while his situation worsened. The Cadet immediately took the initiative and worked very hard to assess the situation while he communicated with EMS and Police personnel who hurried to the scene where they were directed by that Cadet. The rescuers thanked and congratulated the Cadet for his proactive efforts that may have saved that man's life. For me as a GTL if I have Cadets who are GTM3 qualified and are 16 I'm glad to bring them on a mission especially at times when senior ground team members are often unavailable.
Quote from: Spike on February 07, 2010, 04:27:50 PM
I wear 1 CAP Ribbon. I have 12, but only wear 1. I also have many military ribbons, but do not wear any. I would rather a person take interest in me (follow my lead) based on my actions, not on my dozens of ribbons.
Decorations and Ribbons are important, but it does not mean a person is a good leader.
Most of the time people dont even know what those ribbons and badges mean. I wore my jump wings at an encampment for a whole week. a few moths later a cadet joined the army and went to jump school. I contacted him to congradulate him. He told me he didnt know I was Airborne. Most CAP folks dont pay attenteion to the badges. I think we were them to impresss ourselves or make ourselves feel good.
^ I also believe that. Many people need to feel self-important and "show off" accomplishments.
Really, it is better to demonstrate what you can do, than what you did. I had an AF Pararescueman in my unit a few years ago. He wore all his bling, talked up some great stories, but when asked to demonstrate what he knew....he flaked out on us. Those are the people that take up time, and space.
I hate nothing more than members who come to BS for 3 hours each week, and never contribute. I have asked 2 or 3 in the past two years to "go away" before.
There are people who come out on a SAR event and are there because they want to help. The GT Badge is great to have but I wouldn't want to be the guy who has his chest puffed out who suddenly develops a lack of interest when he is asked to help out on a mission. Guys like that probably won't get asked again. If we go out to deactivate an ELT that someone should have turned off and that's anticipated I can sort of understand but there might be a serious situation there where our showing up will make a difference. My Sqn Commander showed up at a crash site where a guy had crawled out of a burning A/C and then crawled back in when the fire went out because if the extreme cold. When they got there the guy was nearly gone but was revived. When you can be a volunteer and save somebody's life the ceremonies or uniform additions won't matter. The memory of the saved person will matter always. That's especially true with the case in CO where I understand a number of people were rescued.
I mean dont misundersdtand. Medals and badges are nice. its our "pay" so to speak. Nothing wrong with being recognized. But I have an issue with people that want to flaunt it around "hey look at me, I have 5 saves" Let us be the ones to go oooo and ahhhhh not yoube the one to have to point it out to us.
Anyway, So whereis the summer board going to be held this year?
Point understood. Probably Vegas.
Quote from: billford1 on February 07, 2010, 11:41:07 PM
Point understood. Probably Vegas.
Nope, San Diego. The weekend before Labor Day.
You know, after reading all these threads
NOT nary a mention how the NEC or all the higher ups have been to the push for HR1178....The study to make CAP "do more" missions for HLS, DHS, FEMA
If I was an EM type reading this about all the uniform issues and NOT how we are improving ourselves to aim toward being more serious towards the FEMA and DHS, I would reallly begin to wonder about CAP folks and their uniform issues rather than REALLY CENTERING on the REAL issues that could ensure CAP survival in its quest for missions....
BUT NOOOOOOO CAP still has to piddle away time to talk about unis and bling..
Maybe these Natl Board meetings would have a quite a bit more meat than worrying about bling and uniforms.
CAPers ought to REALLLY think about that...cuz I would really begin to wonder about these CAP inhouse infighting issues that they can not solve in less than 1 year. Time to start looking towards the future, folks, 'cuz with reading the agenda...not a mention about how CAP is planning for the future in the DHS arena
The agenda might be important to the self important in CAP......but they are not really ready for the big world...not yet maybew in 10 to 15 yrs :'( :'( :'(
Prove to me that CAP is taking seriously the HLS missions on their agendas....other than what CAP does already...
Dealing with uniform issues and the continuing changes of policies; increasing reporting demands, safety requirements, etc. all the time does seem to be a bit short sighted and trivial however, that is what "they" do. That being said, our relationship with 1st AF is probably better now than at any other time. Of course, it would be great if there was no need to force HLS to study our "usefullness". But, we only have so much money to "lobby". Most missions though are "local". Wings have been doing AF approved missions for years. Recently, HQ has set up a support system for wings to become more engaged with their respective states. Again, money is an issue. We still do not have the income stream necessary to do things the way it should. And, ES is not the only area we could do better. Our school programs seem to have hit a brick wall. Our Aerosapce Eduacation outreach seems at a standstill too. Unfortunately, there seems to be no will to get the funding needed from outside contributors. Maybe in the near future, someone will take it upon themselves to get the job done. Until that happens; we have the status quo. "SSDD".
Maybe CAP could have an online lobbying course
Maybe it could skirt conflict of interests issues, too 'cuz CAPers could use avatars and fake internet names to make contact with their respective Congressional leaders >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D
Yep CAP is at a standstill with their program because of one thing......lack of person to person contact from many of the upper echelon to the lower units
I asked that very question in Citizen Corps Coordinator position...I asked what was the biggest problem? Their response? Not enough field contact from the office to place a face with a program...would you/ could you do this for us?
Whaddya think I said?? Same thing neeeeeeeeeeeeeding to be said about MANY A CAP program!! One can only sit for so long pontificating uniform and regulation regurgitating to the point that the other programs suffer an unnecessary death...
Quote from: FW on February 08, 2010, 04:40:50 AM
Our Aerosapce Eduacation outreach seems at a standstill too. Unfortunately, there seems to be no will to get the funding needed from outside contributors.
Hasn't anyone tried to contact Boeing, Rathyeon, and any of the other aerospace companies to contribute to this program since this is where their future workforce is being groomed?
Quote from: heliodoc on February 08, 2010, 04:11:03 AM
You know, after reading all these threads
NOT nary a mention how the NEC or all the higher ups have been to the push for HR1178....The study to make CAP "do more" missions for HLS, DHS, FEMA
If I was an EM type reading this about all the uniform issues and NOT how we are improving ourselves to aim toward being more serious towards the FEMA and DHS, I would reallly begin to wonder about CAP folks and their uniform issues rather than REALLY CENTERING on the REAL issues that could ensure CAP survival in its quest for missions....
BUT NOOOOOOO CAP still has to piddle away time to talk about unis and bling..
Maybe these Natl Board meetings would have a quite a bit more meat than worrying about bling and uniforms.
CAPers ought to REALLLY think about that...cuz I would really begin to wonder about these CAP inhouse infighting issues that they can not solve in less than 1 year. Time to start looking towards the future, folks, 'cuz with reading the agenda...not a mention about how CAP is planning for the future in the DHS arena
The agenda might be important to the self important in CAP......but they are not really ready for the big world...not yet maybew in 10 to 15 yrs :'( :'( :'(
Prove to me that CAP is taking seriously the HLS missions on their agendas....other than what CAP does already...
I know of at least 3 states where CAP has some kind of MOU in existence or in development which includes the ANG and Army NG wherein there would be coordinated Emergency Search and Rescue, Air Reconnaissance and disaster relief efforts where CAP has a role. Does this stuff get any airtime at these conferences? If the part about how they want to develop the CAP uniform comes to pass I hope I'll be able to stick with what I've got. I guess I'm ready for a new Golf Shirt.
Quote from: heliodoc on February 08, 2010, 04:11:03 AM
You know, after reading all these threads
NOT nary a mention how the NEC or all the higher ups have been to the push for HR1178....The study to make CAP "do more" missions for HLS, DHS, FEMA
If I was an EM type reading this about all the uniform issues and NOT how we are improving ourselves to aim toward being more serious towards the FEMA and DHS, I would reallly begin to wonder about CAP folks and their uniform issues rather than REALLY CENTERING on the REAL issues that could ensure CAP survival in its quest for missions....
BUT NOOOOOOO CAP still has to piddle away time to talk about unis and bling..
Maybe these Natl Board meetings would have a quite a bit more meat than worrying about bling and uniforms.
CAPers ought to REALLLY think about that...cuz I would really begin to wonder about these CAP inhouse infighting issues that they can not solve in less than 1 year. Time to start looking towards the future, folks, 'cuz with reading the agenda...not a mention about how CAP is planning for the future in the DHS arena
The agenda might be important to the self important in CAP......but they are not really ready for the big world...not yet maybew in 10 to 15 yrs :'( :'( :'(
Prove to me that CAP is taking seriously the HLS missions on their agendas....other than what CAP does already...
So, what are these missions with DHS that CAP is beginning to do?
Have you read the latest Volunteer? There's a nice article about just exactly that mission.
Quote from: heliodoc on February 08, 2010, 04:50:50 AM
Yep CAP is at a standstill with their program because of one thing......lack of person to person contact from many of the upper echelon to the lower units
Whaddya think I said?? Same thing neeeeeeeeeeeeeding to be said about MANY A CAP program!! One can only sit for so long pontificating uniform and regulation regurgitating to the point that the other programs suffer an unnecessary death...
Well, I do agree with you however, the problem is not with NB members "pontificating". It is the best way, IMO, to reallocate resources to best serve the needs of our missions. My first thought would be to form "action teams" to go out in the field to improve squadron programs and outreach.
They could be formed like "inspection teams". They would be recruited from the field for their expertise and ability to travel around. These volunteers would visit the wings to engage/educate and follow up on plans and programs needed to succeed in all the missions of CAP; not just ES.
Personal development and education are probably the 2 best ways we can provide the most good to the "outside" world. ES is just some icing on the cake. In any event, we need to do more to get more contributions from more supporters. And, worrying about uniforms is not going to accomplish this.
http://atom.smasher.org/pack/pack-square.jpg.php?l1=CAP+Nat%27l+Board+Mtg&l2=Please+ensure+&l3=correct+uniforming.&l4=
^ Hahahahahahahha :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
I was looking back over the thread here. I was wondering: if the AF wants to, will they be able to get rid of the blue CAP flight suit or restrict its use to H/W and grooming standards since it is a uniform with a military appearance?
- What constitutes a "military uniform" by the standard that CAP-USAF is using?
- Can they/would they try to further restrict CAP distinctive uniforms such as the flight suits?
It doesnt have a military appearance. Its blue.
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 10, 2010, 06:55:10 PM
It doesnt have a military appearance. Its blue.
Don't the Blue Angels wear it?
Guys, just read the minutes of the Nov. NEC meeting. It gives you all the reasoning behind the vote. Nothing is mentioned about the AF. The CAP-USAF notes to the agenda items are opinions based on AFI's and the CAP-USAF JA. Maybe we'll end up wearing pink pants with gray jackets. Let's just enjoy the show come the 26th. This should be better than "Idol".... >:D ;D
Quote from: davidsinn on February 10, 2010, 06:59:07 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 10, 2010, 06:55:10 PM
It doesnt have a military appearance. Its blue.
Don't the Blue Angels wear it?
Not exactly. It's a different cut, and slightly different color. I see only broad similarities between my blue flight suit and the ones the Blue Angels wear. They are both blue.
Quote from: SarDragon on February 10, 2010, 10:34:37 PM
Quote from: davidsinn on February 10, 2010, 06:59:07 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 10, 2010, 06:55:10 PM
It doesnt have a military appearance. Its blue.
Don't the Blue Angels wear it?
Not exactly. It's a different cut, and slightly different color. I see only broad similarities between my blue flight suit and the ones the Blue Angels wear. They are both blue.
I never looked too closely at it. This whole issues seems to be caused by the AF worrying more about image than about the mission. We save a tremendous amount of money because we do what we do. Pissing us off and making people go away is a detriment to the mission.
Quote from: FW on February 10, 2010, 07:19:18 PM
Guys, just read the minutes of the Nov. NEC meeting. It gives you all the reasoning behind the vote. Nothing is mentioned about the AF. The CAP-USAF notes to the agenda items are opinions based on AFI's and the CAP-USAF JA. Maybe we'll end up wearing pink pants with gray jackets. Let's just enjoy the show come the 26th. This should be better than "Idol".... >:D ;D
Yup.....brought up by a group that just "hated" the CSU. No mention of USAF guidance on elimination.
Quote from: davidsinn on February 10, 2010, 06:59:07 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 10, 2010, 06:55:10 PM
It doesnt have a military appearance. Its blue.
Don't the Blue Angels wear it?
Thats a specialized unit. Not the norm.
Actually, I had the Coast Guard in mind. Are they still wearing blue flight suits? Since they have designated themselves are the final OK for both AF and corporate style uniforms are out blue flight suits going to be a target at some point?
Astronauts wear the Dark Blue Flightsuit too. AND, golf shirts. I was watching the docking and link up between the space station and orbiter. Everybody has khaki pants, white socks, and buff colored golf shirts on.. with no shoes. It looked like cocktail hour at the club, if the club was in space.
Quote from: Gunner C on February 10, 2010, 04:44:16 PM
I was looking back over the thread here. I was wondering: if the AF wants to, will they be able to get rid of the blue CAP flight suit or restrict its use to H/W and grooming standards since it is a uniform with a military appearance?
- What constitutes a "military uniform" by the standard that CAP-USAF is using?
- Can they/would they try to further restrict CAP distinctive uniforms such as the flight suits?
It would almost seem that anything other than the grey/white/polo constitutes a "military uniform." As I've said elsewhere, in the CSU aftermath, many in CAP seem to be snakebitten about any potential uniform item being blue.
I believe the AF can disallow us from wearing the green flight suit, but not the blue one. Actually, it looks more like the coveralls worn by missile silo crew than it does the Blue Angels. I saw a set of the coveralls on Evilbay recently. If I were to wear them with relevant CAP insignia (which I don't and won't), one would have to really look close to see the difference.
On a completely non-uniform issue, if we were ever to sever/have severed our ties with the Air Force, then I would be gone. I am proud of our association with the world's greatest Air Force.
Many of us who still meet on and/or have training on AF facilities and interact with AF people who know and appreciate what we do are appreciative that the Air Force allows us to do so.
I respect police/fire/EMS services greatly (a childhood friend is now a county Sheriff's Detective) but we don't fall into that category, and, as has been said, there are still quite a few CAP wings/squadrons who help out the military side.
I've been in since '93, and in that time I've seen quite a few things that have distanced us from the AF that don't have anything to do with uniforms. Most of them have come from the CAP side, not the Air Force side, from higher-ups who want to push the "corporate" aspect so we can "do what we want" without the AF's approval.
This is highly unlikely, but I would like to see the AF take control of CAP 24/7/365 and put us directly under AETC. That would mean a lot of things would happen that the membership (myself included) probably wouldn't like, but I think we'd be a better CAP for it.
Quote from: Gunner C on February 11, 2010, 04:07:52 AM
Actually, I had the Coast Guard in mind. Are they still wearing blue flight suits? Since they have designated themselves are the final OK for both AF and corporate style uniforms are out blue flight suits going to be a target at some point?
I live within driving distance of a CGAS. Most that I see wear the green zoom bag.
I agree with CyBorg. WIWAC, CAP was totally under USAF control. We only had one set of uniforms (not counting the smurf suit) - AF-Style. But, you wore that style regardless of H/W. They considered the UMBlue patches on the pickle suit distinctive enough. We didn't do CD missions. If that is the reason we broke off on the "corporate" path, let's just not do CD.
I have said it before, I'll say it again. The ES landscape is changing. We need to change with it. I think we should gear up much, much, much more for DR missions. Even introduce a new specialty qual – Disaster Relief Team that specializes in house-to-house search for victims, shelter operations, disaster logistics, etc, (None of which are currently covered in GT training). THAT would be a very relevant mission training qualification and it would give us relevance. The days of us going out on SAR missions are dwindling. Some of the stuff in GT dates back to WWII stuff. Very few places in the US now face the same type of SAR issue as was prevalent, even back in the 80's (WIWAC) and 90's.
The Red Cross had to change their focus. It started to assist soldiers on the battlefield with injuries and establish protected medical areas. It changed into providing services for POWs, then into providing disaster relief, emergency medical training, and blood donations. Point is that they have had to refine their "mission" several times to keep up with the changing world. CAP ES needs to become relevant to the 21st century. And USAF needs to take us back, full-time.
Quote from: High Speed Low Drag on February 11, 2010, 04:54:52 PM
They considered the UMBlue patches on the pickle suit distinctive enough.
I agree with everything you said except this. The Ultramarine patches for name and branch were in fact Air Force. We wore the exact same utility uniform as the Air Force until they switched from UM Blue tapes to green, then to the BDU flavor.
Somehow we got left behind with the ultramarine blue, most likely due to mismanagement at CAP NHQ (wanting to keep a profit rolling into the bookstore).
Just a note of clarification. Somebody suggested that CD may have been instituted because it was a "corporate" mission. It isn't: it is an AF mission that we are charged with carrying out. The AF also has a CD mission, we just don't hear much about it. The AF, as well as all of the other services and the Coast Guard, are charged with assisting in the War Against Drugs. If CAP participation in CD was totally eliminated, CAP would still have the "corporate" vs "AF" problem.
Quote from: Smithsonia on February 11, 2010, 04:13:20 AM
Astronauts wear the Dark Blue Flightsuit too. AND, golf shirts. I was watching the docking and link up between the space station and orbiter. Everybody has khaki pants, white socks, and buff colored golf shirts on.. with no shoes. It looked like cocktail hour at the club, if the club was in space.
NASA is not a military service and the Coast Guard is not a part of the DOD
Quote from: bosshawk on February 11, 2010, 06:23:00 PM
Just a note of clarification. Somebody suggested that CD may have been instituted because it was a "corporate" mission. It isn't: it is an AF mission that we are charged with carrying out. The AF also has a CD mission, we just don't hear much about it. The AF, as well as all of the other services and the Coast Guard, are charged with assisting in the War Against Drugs. If CAP participation in CD was totally eliminated, CAP would still have the "corporate" vs "AF" problem.
You're going to need to cite something on that.
The CD missions are one of the reasons constantly cited by NHQ for having to remove the "USAF Aux" from the tails,
and its a constant source of the Posse Comitatus discussions because its really an LE support function.
The "War on Drugs" is a now defunct term for a Clinton-Era White House policy of enforcement and prevention which included a lot of foreign aid and
external military support. I don't believe any military agencies are publicly charged with enforcement inside CONUS.
The Obama administration officially dropped the term and changed policy in early 2009.
It funny being on the inside of this argument watching people talk like they have any idea about who and how the US fights drug trafficking. Not everything is found on Wikipedia or in CAP's 2010 National Board video stream. Im not talking about any crazy Clear and Present Danger nonsense, but I can assure you the US military is very much involved in the effort to fight illegal drugs.
Outside of CAP, what experience or knowledge do you have about how the War on Drugs is fought or who fights it or that because Obama changed the name meant it changed anything about how its dealt with.
Quote from: flyguy06 on February 11, 2010, 08:50:36 PM
NASA is not a military service and the Coast Guard is not a part of the DOD
You are partially incorrect.
NASA is a civilian space agency, though many of its aircrew come from the U.S. and foreign (Colonel Chris Hadfield of Canada among them) militaries.
The USCG is not a permanent part of the DOD. However, in time of war, and/or when the President directs, they are placed under the Department of the Navy. They are at all times a military service of the United States and subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and we must salute their commissioned and warrant officers. I think the main reason they do not come under DOD full-time is due to Posse Comitatus, which would affect their maritime law-enforcement role.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 11, 2010, 09:26:01 PM
Quote from: bosshawk on February 11, 2010, 06:23:00 PM
Just a note of clarification. Somebody suggested that CD may have been instituted because it was a "corporate" mission. It isn't: it is an AF mission that we are charged with carrying out. The AF also has a CD mission, we just don't hear much about it. The AF, as well as all of the other services and the Coast Guard, are charged with assisting in the War Against Drugs. If CAP participation in CD was totally eliminated, CAP would still have the "corporate" vs "AF" problem.
You're going to need to cite something on that.
The CD missions are one of the reasons constantly cited by NHQ for having to remove the "USAF Aux" from the tails,
and its a constant source of the Posse Comitatus discussions because its really an LE support function.
The "War on Drugs" is a now defunct term for a Clinton-Era White House policy of enforcement and prevention which included a lot of foreign aid and external military support. I don't believe any military agencies are publicly charged with enforcement inside CONUS.
The Obama administration officially dropped the term and changed policy in early 2009.
Bob, Bosshawk used to run the CAWG CD Program, he probably knows a lot more about this then you do.
Quote from: Flying Pig on February 11, 2010, 09:40:42 PM
It funny being on the inside of this argument watching people talk like they have any idea about who and how the US fights drug trafficking
Outside of CAP, what experience or knowledge do you have about how the War on Drugs is fought or who fights it or that because Obama changed the name meant it changed anything about how its dealt with.
A great deal actually. Am I currently involved.....no. Was I......yes. In a previous life I was a "book keeper" for the FED, and anyone who knows how the government is run will tell you, looking at ledgers and budget sheets, requisitions and GAO reports will give you a solid understanding of how well or how bad a program is going.
The Federal Program when I was involved was doing BAD. Tax Dollars were not accounted for, Executive Service Officers were using cash for "pet" projects, and the bosses kept asking the Government for more money.
To be honest with you, at the local level when you "fight drugs" you are using federally appropriated dollars and at one time that info passed through the office I worked in.
We as a Country are not in control of the illegal drug situation at all.
Well now; "News of the Force" has mentioned the agenda items and, attacked the NB members who authored some of them, as unsavory characters. Oh, the joy of the internet. I have responded to the article. I hope Mr. Munger publishes my response. I think this coming NB meeting is going to be the best one since 2000. Can't wait for the entertainment to begin ::) >:D
Quote from: PHall on February 12, 2010, 05:10:10 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 11, 2010, 09:26:01 PM
Quote from: bosshawk on February 11, 2010, 06:23:00 PM
Just a note of clarification. Somebody suggested that CD may have been instituted because it was a "corporate" mission. It isn't: it is an AF mission that we are charged with carrying out. The AF also has a CD mission, we just don't hear much about it. The AF, as well as all of the other services and the Coast Guard, are charged with assisting in the War Against Drugs. If CAP participation in CD was totally eliminated, CAP would still have the "corporate" vs "AF" problem.
You're going to need to cite something on that.
The CD missions are one of the reasons constantly cited by NHQ for having to remove the "USAF Aux" from the tails,
and its a constant source of the Posse Comitatus discussions because its really an LE support function.
The "War on Drugs" is a now defunct term for a Clinton-Era White House policy of enforcement and prevention which included a lot of foreign aid and external military support. I don't believe any military agencies are publicly charged with enforcement inside CONUS.
The Obama administration officially dropped the term and changed policy in early 2009.
Bob, Bosshawk used to run the CAWG CD Program, he probably knows a lot more about this then you do.
Maybe - he PM'ed me with some nonsense about how he wasn't going to discuss the CD program with someone who was anonymous -
I'm a lot of things, but anonymous isn't one of them, indicated for starters by everyone's use of my first name on this board.
Regardless, we're not talking about OPSEC issues, we're talking about basic discussion points about where CAP is allowed to provide assistance, the constant tug-of-war about Posse-Com, and the fact that the "WoD" was never a "War", nor was it a program focused internally.
It is also no longer a White House program at all - much like the "GWOT", it's yesterday's news (the fact that the problem still exists notwithstanding).
Quote from: Eclipse on February 13, 2010, 12:15:52 AM
Quote from: PHall on February 12, 2010, 05:10:10 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 11, 2010, 09:26:01 PM
Quote from: bosshawk on February 11, 2010, 06:23:00 PM
Just a note of clarification. Somebody suggested that CD may have been instituted because it was a "corporate" mission. It isn't: it is an AF mission that we are charged with carrying out. The AF also has a CD mission, we just don't hear much about it. The AF, as well as all of the other services and the Coast Guard, are charged with assisting in the War Against Drugs. If CAP participation in CD was totally eliminated, CAP would still have the "corporate" vs "AF" problem.
You're going to need to cite something on that.
The CD missions are one of the reasons constantly cited by NHQ for having to remove the "USAF Aux" from the tails,
and its a constant source of the Posse Comitatus discussions because its really an LE support function.
The "War on Drugs" is a now defunct term for a Clinton-Era White House policy of enforcement and prevention which included a lot of foreign aid and external military support. I don't believe any military agencies are publicly charged with enforcement inside CONUS.
The Obama administration officially dropped the term and changed policy in early 2009.
Bob, Bosshawk used to run the CAWG CD Program, he probably knows a lot more about this then you do.
Maybe - he PM'ed me with some nonsense about how he wasn't going to discuss the CD program with someone who was anonymous -
I'm a lot of things, but anonymous isn't one of them, indicated for starters by everyone's use of my first name on this board.
Regardless, we're not talking about OPSEC issues, we're talking about basic discussion points about where CAP is allowed to provide assistance, the constant tug-of-war about Posse-Com, and the fact that the "WoD" was never a "War", nor was it a program focused internally.
It is also no longer a White House program at all - much like the "GWOT", it's yesterday's news (the fact that the problem still exists notwithstanding).
Bob, the "customers" of the CD program are the ones who have restricted the amount of infomation released.
Bosshawk is being very wise in not upsetting them.
Quote from: PHall on February 13, 2010, 02:06:17 AM
Bob, the "customers" of the CD program are the ones who have restricted the amount of infomation released.
Bosshawk is being very wise in not upsetting them.
Yeah, ok.
I did CD three years ago. I did it for two months, and got real tired of it. Personally it is a waste of tax money. Flying over National Parks for hours and hours and hours in the hope that we (the FED) would see something through the trees (meth lab) was boring as all heck.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 11, 2010, 09:26:01 PM
Quote from: bosshawk on February 11, 2010, 06:23:00 PM
Just a note of clarification. Somebody suggested that CD may have been instituted because it was a "corporate" mission. It isn't: it is an AF mission that we are charged with carrying out. The AF also has a CD mission, we just don't hear much about it. The AF, as well as all of the other services and the Coast Guard, are charged with assisting in the War Against Drugs. If CAP participation in CD was totally eliminated, CAP would still have the "corporate" vs "AF" problem.
You're going to need to cite something on that.
You don't think that CD is an AF mission? You do know they revised the PC law back in the 80s to specifically allow the military to participate in CD work, which led to CAP participating in it, don't you?
Quote from: RiverAux on February 13, 2010, 03:25:50 AM
You don't think that CD is an AF mission? You do know they revised the PC law back in the 80s to specifically allow the military to participate in CD work, which led to CAP participating in it, don't you?
That I didn't know. When I got involved in CD about 10 years ago, at the training sessions the nonmilitary aspect was given pretty strong emphasis, along with the facts that we had no arrest/seizure, etc. powers.
As I understand it, the only Constitutional way the military can perform civilian law enforcement (which is what CD is, isn't it?) is under the following conditions:
The US Coast Guard (who can arrest you for OWI on the water, among other things)
The ARNG/ANG acting under
state (gubernatorial) authority
State Guards ordered to do so by their Governor[/li][/list]
What changed?
Quote from: Spike on February 13, 2010, 02:22:30 AM
I did CD three years ago. I did it for two months, and got real tired of it. Personally it is a waste of tax money. Flying over National Parks for hours and hours and hours in the hope that we (the FED) would see something through the trees (meth lab) was boring as all heck.
Similar to my experience and opinion. A National Guard Blackhawk is much better equipped than one of our birds, and, if they are shot at, they can shoot back...
Quote from: CyBorg on February 13, 2010, 05:22:21 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on February 13, 2010, 03:25:50 AM
You don't think that CD is an AF mission? You do know they revised the PC law back in the 80s to specifically allow the military to participate in CD work, which led to CAP participating in it, don't you?
That I didn't know. When I got involved in CD about 10 years ago, at the training sessions the nonmilitary aspect was given pretty strong emphasis, along with the facts that we had no arrest/seizure, etc. powers.
As I understand it, the only Constitutional way the military can perform civilian law enforcement (which is what CD is, isn't it?) is under the following conditions:
The US Coast Guard (who can arrest you for OWI on the water, among other things)
The ARNG/ANG acting under state (gubernatorial) authority
State Guards ordered to do so by their Governor[/li][/list]
What changed?
IIRC, it's not in the constitution, it's in the PC law passed by congress. This was a law after the Civil War keeping the government from enforcing the law within the country except for a narrow set of situations. I think the framers of the constitution foresaw the need to use the army and the militia within the US borders as they were in the Revolution and 1812. The congress saw that the military was rather heavy handed during reconstruction, so they decided not to let that happen again.
^ Or we are are a country where the military does not dictate laws to its citizens. The military is under civilian controll, not the other way around. You are correct about reconstruction etc. However it takes some deep reading to see it was anti-Lincoln members of Congress that pushed for PC, after he allowed the military to conduct mas arrests of Americans on both sides of the war.
CAP is unique (now) that unless on a AFAM we are not a federal agency or department or acting as such. We are just a corporation providing contracting services to local law enforcement. It is that simple, no need to read into it any further than that.
Yep the Writ of Habeas Corpus was turned into "Habeas Grabus". Lincoln suspended it and then the high jinks ensued. We're best off keeping out of that sort of stuff - law enforcement.
Quote from: CyBorg on February 13, 2010, 05:23:28 AM
Quote from: Spike on February 13, 2010, 02:22:30 AM
I did CD three years ago. I did it for two months, and got real tired of it. Personally it is a waste of tax money. Flying over National Parks for hours and hours and hours in the hope that we (the FED) would see something through the trees (meth lab) was boring as all heck.
Similar to my experience and opinion. A National Guard Blackhawk is much better equipped than one of our birds, and, if they are shot at, they can shoot back...
HAAAA....Sorry bud. They dont shoot back.
I just finished reading the "News of the Force" article about the upcoming NB meeting. By the time I was halfway done, I was offended. NOTF discussed the Pineda politics and how they shaped the board meeting. It implied that a lot of the ideas that I think are good ideas (although not all) are ideas of "The Pineda Conspiracy." (TPC)
I like to think of myself as a reasonable, average person. I have a college degree, am a member of an intellectual organization, have spent 18 years in law enforcement, 4 years in firefighting, and 7 years as a cadet. I am married, two children, and while not poor, I am just a couple of paychecks away from disaster. I am barely over 40, receding hairline, and a little more than barely overweight. I was not a member of CAP during the Pineda Affair; I came back in after a 20 year hiatus. The decisions I have reached, the platforms I have advanced are a result of MY background, not a TPC. How can they say that anyone who supports certain ideas are Pineda's henchmen?
And just who or what posts NOTF anyway? I never heard of them (not to say that I would have) before Eclipse's post, but where does he/she/they have the knowledge & authority to post opinion pieces on CAP? WTHeck?
^ Although I agree with you about NOTF, and other here hate NOTF, they seem to have the real story before any of us "regular folks" know about it.
This most likely is due to the fact that those in leadership positions in CAP, when hearing of "new or interesting" things from senior leadership want to tell someone, and they tell NOTF.
Of all the bashing NOTF gets from CAPTALK members, they really do have the resources we do not. Go back and read their archive and you will find many CAP stories that were "broken" by NOTF before CAP leadership made them known to the membership.
I think those haters of NOTF (sometimes me included) hate the fact that they have the story instead of us. have the connections we don't and get insider information we are not privy to.
I've been told their sources are at the very top of the leadership chain in CAP. However, their motives are to discredit anyone who differs in the "party line". I had a recent email dialog with Skip Munger. I have given him point by point rebuttals to the attacks he made on the 3 Wing Commanders mentioned in his article. He has decided not to have a public exchange of views on the subject due to "waste of time". Read NOTF with a sceptical eye. Objective reporting is not what it's all about when reporting on CAP. NOTF is good entertainment though. For real information about the politics of CAP, this forum seems to be more balanced.
In my opinion the agenda items discussed in NOTF are appropriate attempts to bring policies in line with membership desires, AF requirements and, Corporate governance.
It is the opinion of the sources of NOTF, these agenda items are direct attacks on the National Commnader.
To me, the allegations mentioned in NOTF are humorous and, in regard to the attacks on the 3 wing commanders, false and/or misleading. Such is life in the blogosphere.
I am too low on the totem pole to know what the party line is. I just go with my background and make my own decisions. So far, I have not seen anything, in my mind, to discredit Gen Courter. I think that she has been doing a good job. But the issues I spoke up about are the way I see them. How can I be discrediting her when I talk about policy and fact, not her.
Many years ago when I was a young sergeant, I had made some decisions about files that brought the Chief of Police's attention on me. He decided to "ride along" with me one day and talk with me. He flat out asked me what I thought of what he had been doing. I told him that I didn't agree with all of his policies or ways of doing things, but I thought that he was honestly trying to make a difference. He replied (and I still remember it) "I don't expect everyone to agree with me all the time. I do expect everyone to render an opinion when asked and to follow the policy in its final form." That made sense to me.
We don't have to dislike the leader just because we don't like some changes / policies / etc. The only question I have of a leader is "Are they trying to make this a better place to be?" If the answer is yes, then they are doing their job. If the answer is no (such as they are trying to play politics or increase a power base) then they are not doing their job.
There should not be open opposition to the decisions of the National Commander, NB, NEC, or BoG.
However, there is nothing wrong with discussing the ways in which CAP can be made a better organization. There are appropriate ways to do so. A national board meeting is one of those ways. Members of the National Board should be free to present their agenda items without fear of reprisal. Members should not be attacked for doing their job . Members should not be attacked and libeled. There are some boundaries. We have a code of conduct here. NOTF has no such standard. They print what they feel will attract readers. As long as we realize this, we can keep focused. Having a debate on how we think things should be is what makes CT a great forum.
I'm glad it's here. :clap:
Quote from: FW on February 03, 2010, 08:51:15 PM
OK, here is the agenda for the NB meeting....
How did you attach the document?
below the reply window is an "Additional Options:" button.
Quote from: FW on February 15, 2010, 03:57:41 PM
I've been told their sources are at the very top of the leadership chain in CAP. However, their motives are to discredit anyone who differs in the "party line". I had a recent email dialog with Skip Munger. I have given him point by point rebuttals to the attacks he made on the 3 Wing Commanders mentioned in his article. He has decided not to have a public exchange of views on the subject due to "waste of time". Read NOTF with a sceptical eye. Objective reporting is not what it's all about when reporting on CAP. NOTF is good entertainment though. For real information about the politics of CAP, this forum seems to be more balanced.
In my opinion the agenda items discussed in NOTF are appropriate attempts to bring policies in line with membership desires, AF requirements and, Corporate governance.
It is the opinion of the sources of NOTF, these agenda items are direct attacks on the National Commnader.
To me, the allegations mentioned in NOTF are humorous and, in regard to the attacks on the 3 wing commanders, false and/or misleading. Such is life in the blogosphere.
Well now, Mr. Munger has decided to publish my notes to him following the recent article referenced by High Speed Low Drag; with commentary.
I have responded and, have copied it here for your enjoyment. I hope he prints the rebuttal and engages in the "dialog which will do nothing to improve CAP". ::)
Gee, Skip, thanks for the "reply". I am amazed at how you infer my defense of the 3 wing commanders you attacked are somehow an attack on the National Commander. Now as to some continuing misinformation which needs to be corrected: I was the former National Finance Officer; not legal officer. I was appointed twice by Pineda and twice by Gen Courter. I was not appointed to a 5th term because it was "long enough". If you have other information, I never heard it except by you. If you or, anyone else wants to speculate on my handling of the investments, why don't you talk to our independent auditors, "Wilson Price", for their take. BTW; the National Finance Officer does not choose the broker. This is done by the CAP's Board of Governors. No one ever asked for my opinion about it. However, when Gen Courter decided to form an investment committee. I made sure it was done according to our Constitution and Bylaws; not by making things up as I went along. She was very grateful for my assistance. When she was accused, by some, she mishandled her travel budget, I defended her actions. Also, I understand the Board of Governors has decided to withhold any decision on this until it investigates further why a personal colleague of the chairman of the investment committee was the recommended choice for new broker. Our ethics policies and regulations governing contracts prohibits any member from profiting by our membership or creating even a perceived conflict of interest. I have only recently have had a financial relationship with CAP's current broker which, was made at the end of my final term as NFO. There is one other piece of information that needs to be told. LPL Financial, the current broker, has been instructed to handle all trades as they see fit. All statements go to the Executive Director. The Current National Finance officer, I was told, does not want to be involved with investment decisions; contrary to his fiduciary role as treasurer of the corporation. I think I can understand why. To answer your question about the MARB, they are appointed by the National Commander and confirmed by the BoG. They serve for an "indeterminate term" and, can only be removed by the BoG. I was appointed by Gen. Wheless. and confirmed by the BoG. And, yes, the decisions of the MARB are made public. You can find the reports in eservices on the CAP website. We are required by the Constitution of CAP to publish our proceedings That responsibility goes to the chair, the National Legal Officer. When it is published, you can just read the report of this decision. Col. Lee was returned to office because he was not "guilty" of the offence charged. The MARB was placed in an interesting dilemma however, because Col Diduch improperly "extended his probation". Col Diduch removed Col Lee without cause. When he was informed this could not be done, he found cause. The cause however, was shown to be unfounded. The MARB had no choice but to reinstate Col Lee. Politically, this was probably the most damaging decision of my CAP career because, since that decision, Gen Courter's opinion of me changed. I can live with that. Oh, and the second most damaging political decision I made in CAP was in supporting Gen Courter publicly over Pineda's choice for CAP vice commander, Dan Levitch. For that support I was "fired" as National finance Officer two weeks after my 2nd appointment. I was reinstated after he was told the MARB would look unkindly to this. Just think though; if Dan Levitch was elected (he lost by just 1 vote) He would have become the National Commander after Mr. Pineda was removed. This is the problem with electing "teams" in CAP. You say Gen Chitwood has done nothing but try to undermine her tenure. Could you give us any concrete examples. I know she has published the "Mr. Ed email" about him. Is there something he published? Is there something in the record which shows anything other than loyal service to CAP? Yes, what happens behind closed doors can be heated. However, I know of nothing he has said publicly to go against her personally. He has not publicly spoken against any of her initiatives or policies. Also, the National Board has elected him twice. I think they will best decide what will happen for the future of CAP's leadership. I agree with you on one point. The BoG should clarify procedures for election and removal to both offices. Col Egry did invite Pineda to his wedding. He was happy to have him there. They are friends. But, Col Egry is a dedicated CAP member and understands his fiduciary responsibilities as a corporate officer of CAP. He also understands his role as a wing commander. Is there anything you can state which is otherwise? Mrs. Egry, by the way, was never a cadet in CAP. I have known Col Marge Sambold for over 15 years and, have no doubt she is telling the truth about Col Davidson's appointment. However, it was the region commander who made the appointment. Ask him how and why he made it; if it is of concern to you. Col Davidson is more interested in proper procedure and the welfare of CAP than in to loyalty of any one individual. I have no idea how he handles those appointed to serve as squadron commanders. Yet, none have ever accused him of wrongful removal to the MARB. Gen Courter has made some great strides in CAP. She has started the
Organizational Excellence professional development track. She has added leadership forums before every board meeting. She instituted "affinity groups" so wing commanders with similar needs can get together. NO ONE has gone against her on these initiatives. As a former National Board member and NEC member, I will not speak about anything said in closed sessions I was present at. However, in the last 6 months, I've witnessed such nonsense from your "sources". Gen Chitwood is a fine man and, in my opinion has done nothing other than serve CAP to the best of his ability. Gen Courter's supporters have done nothing but spew venom against him. She would love to have Col. Chazell be the next National Commander. (he was also a Pineda appointee). In August, there will be another election. The National Board will decide. The efforts of individual national board members concern us only if they are acting against the rules and regulations of CAP. Are they? Is there anything being done by those you attacked going against them? What exactly are they doing to undermine the National Commander. If she is being accused of anything wrong by them, are they doing something outside the rules? I think these are questions which should be answered. Questions about loyalty to a former member, who rightly was removed from membership is not the issue, in my opinion. I think the issue is for National Board members to conduct their business properly and according to established rules. That is my point. Gen Courter's views on this can be brought up before the NB, NEC and BoG. She is a member of all 3 bodies. She has due authority from these bodies and, serves as the CEO of the CAP, Inc. I am but a spectator now and, will be there next week to enjoy the proceedings and meet with some good friends; including her. Skip, I would hope you print this rebuttal. I do enjoy your articles however, I hope you really do strive for accuracy.Thanks for the time.
FW
I read the NOTF article this morning. NOTF does a reasonable job of doing cut-and-paste publishing of military and auxiliary news but their original, editorial reporting is pretty weak (being very charitable here). I was reading the alleged facts as NOTF stated them thinking "this doesn't add up."
IMO, what NOTF is printing about some people is coming pretty close to libelous, if not there already. I hope they have a good lawyer.
Skip's pretty good at hiding behind his First Amendment rights. And he's not worth $250 a billable hour...