New Iowa Wing commander Announced

[Eclipse]

Over the course of the last two weeks I have read about one of CAP's most progressive cutting edge WINGS suddenly shatter.  This concerns we greatly.

(speak for yourself)   

[FW]

I've seen this kind of event happen to quite a few wings over the last 15 years and I'm sure it has happened for a long time before that.  Wings lose and regain funding.  Members get mad, leave and some return.  Wing/CC's are appointed then get changed at the last minute.   Some get relieved, some quit, some stay, some get extended, some come back after a few years.   State Legislatures like then dislike then like CAP.  SEMA's like then dislike then like CAP.  Such is the way of the world.

IAWG will survive this hiccup.  It's OK to be mad or upset about events which don't go as expected.  However, I humbly suggest we stay "proffesional" and stay focused on our missions and move ahead.  

[Major Carrales]

Over the course of the last two weeks I have read about one of CAP's most progressive cutting edge WINGS suddenly shatter.  This concerns we greatly.

(speak for yourself)   

Ooops, slip of the fingers.

Tags -DCP

[Major Carrales]

I've seen this kind of event happen to quite a few wings over the last 15 years and I'm sure it has happened for a long time before that.  Wings lose and regain funding.  Members get mad, leave and some return.  Wing/CC's are appointed then get changed at the last minute.   Some get relieved, some quit, some stay, some get extended, some come back after a few years.   State Legislatures like then dislike then like CAP.  SEMA's like then dislike then like CAP.  Such is the way of the world.

IAWG will survive this hiccup.  It's OK to be mad or upset about events which don't go as expected.  However, I humbly suggest we stay "proffesional" and stay focused on our missions and move ahead.  

Well said!

[ZigZag911]

The Iowa Wing Experiment may fade away, sadly, in Iowa, but it is an idea whose time has come.

We need to turn initial senior training into something more substantial than online orientation.

We need to pool our talents and resources within CAP, to rise above parochialism, whether that be inter-squadron rivalry, up to and including lack of coooperation between regions....this cannot, must not continue.

We need to lose the wannabe mentality.

We need to take a long, hard look at our procedures and bring them into the 21st century.

We need to take an equally long, hard look at our constitution, bylaws, methods of self-governance, and processes for selecting senior commanders. Our aim should be to eliminate, as much as possible, cronyism, favoritism, and conflicts of interest.. To my mind , this would include ending the election of the National Commander by those she (or he!) commands and/or appoints (respectively wing and region CCs).

We need to recognize that the instances where CAP will be 'lead agency' on a large mission (e.g., the Fossett search in Sept 2007), will be few and far between....if we do not partner with  federal, state and local governmental agencies, as well as volunteer organizations, we're going to be left outside looking int.

We need to care about more than our own squadron, our own promotion, our own back yard. The comments made here about a small wing like Iowa not mattering are unconscionable. Every CAP member matters.

We need to show more patience to one another, more respect for differing views, more willingness to consider the possibility that another perspective may be as valid -- or perhaps even more valid! -- than our own.

We need to quit sniping at one another like spoiled brats, and grow up.

[NIN]

Are you kidding me? All this fuss over 319 people? FLWG has Groups bigger than that. I am not trying to make light out of it because we need all the "good, motivated" help we can get but I was under the imprsession that IAWG was some super 3,000 member Wing or something

Not kidding you at all.

Like I posted in the other thread, I'm looking at a wing that's 5 times larger than mine in area, with about 3 times the population, and its got 1/3 the membership.

While in and of itself that data may not mean alot, in light of other circumstances, it may serve to point out other problems.

[sparks]

The "Iowa wing experiment" isn't going to completely die. The naysayers think it is but I bet the the best of it will be retained within the funding restraints that just popped up. Ironically, the Iowa WTA's had elements of "wannabe" in it. Some like playing Army others don't. It's isn't a problem as long as it isn't the goal.

Local issues trump Wing and National concerns every time. Yes, we should be aware of whats going on outside our communities but we'll get the most impact by keeping local EMA's, fire chiefs and mayors satisfied.

Some issues mentioned can't be solved or even "experimented with" within a wing. The constitution, by-laws, region and wing commander selection etc. are National issues. There's only one corporate officer in each state, the wing commander, so the rest of the wing doesn't vote. the NEC has to tackle those problems.

I don't think CAP will ever be the lead in a large search. We have limited tools whereas state agencies who are paid to do the job can bring much more to the table.

[BillB]

Back in the 1990's an idea surfaced on the NEC that the National Commander of CAP would be appointed by the Commander, CAP-USAF from a list supplied by the National Board. Region Commanders would be appointed by the Region LO from a list submitted by Wing Commanders. The idea never made it to an agenda item. In a sense the Board of Governors should probably appoint the National Commander. The problem is the CAP Corporation has to many CAP top command positions and not enough SecAF voices. Members of the NEC I've talked to say the entire process is to political in electing the National, Region and Wing Commanders. Iowa's change of command  may be an example of this. What's needed is to remove the politics in top leadership positions. How this could be done would require a change in the CAP Constitution. But this will never happen since the leadership doesn't want to lose the power they have currently.

[FW]

"I don't think CAP will ever be the lead in a large search. We have limited tools whereas state agencies who are paid to do the job can bring much more to the table"


As far as I remember, CAP took a lead in at least 2 multi-state sar d/r missions.  The first one was during the Mississippi River floods about 10 years ago.  We actually controlled the airspace during that period.  The 2nd, of course was the Fossitt search.  I think we do pretty good with what we have.

[isuhawkeye]

THe Iowa wing is not going away.  There will continue to be squadrons doing good work.  They will do what they are capable of

[mikeylikey]

Back in the 1990's an idea surfaced on the NEC that the National Commander of CAP would be appointed by the Commander, CAP-USAF from a list supplied by the National Board. Region Commanders would be appointed by the Region LO from a list submitted by Wing Commanders. The idea never made it to an agenda item. In a sense the Board of Governors should probably appoint the National Commander. The problem is the CAP Corporation has to many CAP top command positions and not enough SecAF voices. Members of the NEC I've talked to say the entire process is to political in electing the National, Region and Wing Commanders. Iowa's change of command  may be an example of this. What's needed is to remove the politics in top leadership positions. How this could be done would require a change in the CAP Constitution. But this will never happen since the leadership doesn't want to lose the power they have currently.

Does anyone remember when CAP was Commanded by an Air Force Officer?  Does anyone remember when the Air Force pretty much ran the day to day operations of CAP.  Then the Corporate side WANTED all power and we are here today in the state we are in because of it. 

[BillB]

Mikey, the period you are talking about was when each Wing had an active duty Liaison staff, Officer, field grade, NCO and secretary. Each Region LO had a USAF aircraft assigned, C-47, Convair or similiar aircraft used to transport staff and cadets to activities, such as AF Museum trips, cadet exchanges among Wings in the Region.
It's doubtful USAF would staff NHQ, Regions and the Wings as the periood you mentioned. And without that staffing, and the Commander CAP-USAF being a General grade Officer, the corporate structure will remain.

[sparks]

The days of having an Air Force staff working with each state must have been great. 

Times have changed such that the government contracts out a lot of services that were once government only. CAP could be considered a contractor to the the Air Force but much cheaper than Blackwater or Halliburton. Too bad we can't get some of that money!

[MIGCAP]

We cannot command respect, funding, or "real" status until a couple of fundamental issues are resolved.

1. Customers and potential customers see us as a political oriented rather than a mission oriented organization.  Changing horses in the middle of every stream without explanations or published rationale. Sure, every organization on earth has to change horses in mid-stream sometimes, but doing so without discussing it with your important customers is dumb and makes you look bush league. Note: by discussion I do not mean permission but if your company has one important customer without whom you could not survive, you would not treat that customer the way we do ours.

2. Our National HQ is unable to negotiate, interact, or deal with customers on a National Level. The wings are told, go find funding on your own, make agreements, implement programs. Until our "Missions for America" are negotiated at a National Level and then only executed at a state/local level we are doomed to fail.  If you had a company with 52 field offices, who all did business in a different way, you would not last long as a company. The key is top-down structure and bottom up implementation, were stuck with bottom up structure and top down interference.

3. Our National leadership is elected by politically connected, self serving, folks. We actually campaign for positions. We must have leadership (National, Region, and Wing) who are selected by somebody besides our own, and are selected based on experience, ability, and demonstrated performance that can stand up to evaluation by our customers.  

4. We simply don't look good to customers, military and civilian, because of these issues. If we want to play with the big boys we have to act like them.  We must be professional, consistant, above politics, and have solid audit trails which can be explained to customers of why things happen in our organization.  Until we do that we remain forever camp followers.

[sparks]

The question has been asked many times on the site, "what is Cap's mission?"  We all know the three bladed propeller represents the basic mission of ES Cadet programs and Aerospace Education. The mission question primarily concerns ES. NHQ could negotiate MOU's with each state but I suspect they don't want the added work and responsibility. Therefore each wing is tasked to do that and submit each MOU for approval. That means every wing has a different arrangements with their state. Some seem to easily get money and tasking while others struggle to even get acknowledges by their EMA offices.

NHQ could help standardize this but do you want HQ to get bigger than it already is?

[RogueLeader]

THe Iowa wing is not going away.  There will continue to be squadrons doing good work.  They will do what they are capable of

Glad to hear.  I expected no less from all the members of IAWG.  It is not a nice thing that happened, the Nuke Option, but it happened and I'm glad people are carrying on.

[FW]

NHQ does standardize MOU's to some extent.  And, it is the final approval for all wing MOU's.  However, I think the wing is still the best unit when dealing with its respective state.  That is why the wing/cc is a "corporate officer" with the authority to obligate (sign for) the corporation.  

It is for this reason a wing commander must be selected carefully and mentored and guided during his/her tenure.  Trust me, the wing commander is nothing like any other position in CAP.  For what its worth, I think the current guidelines for wing/regioncommander selection are good.  It would be better however, if it were followed on a regular basis.

Customers and potential customers could care less about our "politics".  They care about the ability to provide the service requested in an economical and efficient and successful way. Action and results rule this venue.  Some wings do very well, others less.  That's is why a healthy exchange of ideas (like on CAP-TALK) is a great thing.

[mikeylikey]

^ That is why I think there is a whole lot more to the funding dilemma and the State of Iowa's stepping back from CAP there. 

Only time will tell, and since I don't live there, and know no one there, I can only go on what others are posting. 

[NIN]

Does anyone remember when CAP was Commanded by an Air Force Officer?  Does anyone remember when the Air Force pretty much ran the day to day operations of CAP.  Then the Corporate side WANTED all power and we are here today in the state we are in because of it.

To be fair to the Air Force, there was FAR more to it than that.

There were a lot of legalities, especially surrounding the old "dual-hatted" role of the Commander CAP-USAF as the "Executive Director, Civil Air Patrol."

[flyguy06]

Why did they get rid of the CAP-USAF staff that ran national HQ? I heard it happened in the mid 90's when CAP and the USAF had some major disagreements the USAF was thinking about putting us in the Coast Guard.