NB approval %

[NCRblues]

Many times on Captalk, we have seen the "if I was in charge" line used. I started to look at congress approval polls, and wondered what a small poll of captalkers would turn out for our version of congress (the NB and NEC).

You can base your answer on any criteria you want, and please feel free to share why you voted the way you did. (If you are so inclined).

I really look forward to seeing how this goes. Please vote!!

[NCRblues]

To answer a couple PM's I have got...

No, I am not the owner of one of the blogs that talks about CAP all the time, nor do I contribute to said blog.

Now back to the poll, thank you.

[jimmydeanno]

I think that the NB and NEC are too focused on tactical level issues, constantly.  New uniform items, award proposals, minor program changes like what the requirements for the Eaker Award should be, etc.

I think that they need to be more focused on the strategic level issues that our organization faces.  Year after year we worry about losing our funding.  Year after year we have no concrete marketing plan. 

The new Nat Cmdr has already told people that he is working on all sorts of low level tactical programs, and that he's just going to "tweak" a few things.  "Tweak" sounds like "in the weeds" to me.

Our national level leaders, seem to lack strategic vision for the organization and are not adhering to their fiduciary responsibility to ensure that this  corporation is financially solvent.  We have no endowment fund, we have the "CAP foundation" that has made little to no progress in raising funds since it's inception.

We have an unqualified audit for three years running and no grant money coming in, no "big donors."

We lack leaders who think that it is a good idea to actively pursue expanding our membership.

We have corporate officers (which in most non-profits are the primary fundraising body) who cost the organization more than they bring in each year. 

Membership is growing, but I don't think that it is a result of national level leadership, instead it's a result of local leaders doing a better job.

[lordmonar]

I agree....but that's not their fault....it is the way the rules are written.

I also think that they should not be focused on the stratigic level either.

I "appoved" of the NB and NEC's performance....because for a bunch of part time volunteers they are doing a good job. 

Jimmydeanno points out a lot of things that have not happened....and again...he is right.

Here is the rub......we have written our rules in such a way that we try to have our cake and eat it too.

We got a national commander who on one hand has a lot of power.....but on the other hand has no power.
We have wing commanders who are selected on the basics of 1) availability.  2) their ability to perform their missions and 3) politicals/GOB/likeability. 

The fix is really simple.

1)  The BoG take on their job (Governance).
2)  The BoG hires a proffessional (that is full time paid) national command staff.
3)  The National Command staff.......COMMANDS
4)  Wing Commanders focus on training, manning and equiping their units to accomplish assigned missions.

The BoG does the stratigic planning and setting broad policy outlines.  The National Commander and his staff writes the regulations, procedures and managment systesm to accomplish those policies.

NO NB.
NO NEC.

A Commander selected by the BoG, answerable to the BoG and only the BoG.

Top Down Leadership.

In a really ideal world eliminate regional commanders and staffs.....and hire full time wing commanders.

Then we can add the additional duty of fund raising to their duties.

[Walkman]

I agree....but that's not their fault....it is the way the rules are written.

I also think that they should not be focused on the stratigic level either.

I "appoved" of the NB and NEC's performance....because for a bunch of part time volunteers they are doing a good job. 

Jimmydeanno points out a lot of things that have not happened....and again...he is right.

Here is the rub......we have written our rules in such a way that we try to have our cake and eat it too.

We got a national commander who on one hand has a lot of power.....but on the other hand has no power.
We have wing commanders who are selected on the basics of 1) availability.  2) their ability to perform their missions and 3) politicals/GOB/likeability. 

The fix is really simple.

1)  The BoG take on their job (Governance).
2)  The BoG hires a proffessional (that is full time paid) national command staff.
3)  The National Command staff.......COMMANDS
4)  Wing Commanders focus on training, manning and equiping their units to accomplish assigned missions.

The BoG does the stratigic planning and setting broad policy outlines.  The National Commander and his staff writes the regulations, procedures and managment systesm to accomplish those policies.

NO NB.
NO NEC.

A Commander selected by the BoG, answerable to the BoG and only the BoG.

Top Down Leadership.

In a really ideal world eliminate regional commanders and staffs.....and hire full time wing commanders.

Then we can add the additional duty of fund raising to their duties.

+1

[JeffDG]

In a really ideal world eliminate regional commanders and staffs.....and hire full time wing commanders.

That would make for an entirely ineffective span of control for the national commander.

[RiverAux]

Top Down Leadership.

Yes, because the top down leadership model CAP is currently using is so effective.   

[lordmonar]

Top Down Leadership.

Yes, because the top down leadership model CAP is currently using is so effective.   

We don't have it now....that's my point.

The BoG is not IMHO doing their job.

We have a sort of government by committee where the chairman can't enforce any rules (see PAWG and and their ranger bling).
We have a goverenment where the appointed middle mangement pick their own boss.

That's not top down leadership.

[lordmonar]

In a really ideal world eliminate regional commanders and staffs.....and hire full time wing commanders.

That would make for an entirely ineffective span of control for the national commander.

Not if he had a good staff.

Really what do regional commanders/staff do for us now?

[Major Lord]

I think that the NB and NEC are too focused on tactical level issues, constantly.  New uniform items, award proposals, minor program changes like what the requirements for the Eaker Award should be, etc.

I think that they need to be more focused on the strategic level issues that our organization faces.  Year after year we worry about losing our funding.  Year after year we have no concrete marketing plan. 

The new Nat Cmdr has already told people that he is working on all sorts of low level tactical programs, and that he's just going to "tweak" a few things.  "Tweak" sounds like "in the weeds" to me.

Our national level leaders, seem to lack strategic vision for the organization and are not adhering to their fiduciary responsibility to ensure that this  corporation is financially solvent.  We have no endowment fund, we have the "CAP foundation" that has made little to no progress in raising funds since it's inception.

We have an unqualified audit for three years running and no grant money coming in, no "big donors."

We lack leaders who think that it is a good idea to actively pursue expanding our membership.

We have corporate officers (which in most non-profits are the primary fundraising body) who cost the organization more than they bring in each year. 

Membership is growing, but I don't think that it is a result of national level leadership, instead it's a result of local leaders doing a better job.

Hey, you don't have to sugar-coat it for us! Go ahead and come right out with whats on your mind!

Major Lord

[JeffDG]

In a really ideal world eliminate regional commanders and staffs.....and hire full time wing commanders.

That would make for an entirely ineffective span of control for the national commander.

Not if he had a good staff.

Really what do regional commanders/staff do for us now?

Provide a division in the span of control.

So instead of a region commander, you will have someone else to whom the Wing commander will report in order to provide an effective span of control...and you would call that person what?  Let's see...they'd probably be arranged on a regional basis, just for convenience, and since commanders report to higher echelon commanders (not to staff), I know...Region Commander!

[jimmydeanno]

I think that the NB and NEC are too focused on tactical level issues, constantly.  New uniform items, award proposals, minor program changes like what the requirements for the Eaker Award should be, etc.

I think that they need to be more focused on the strategic level issues that our organization faces.  Year after year we worry about losing our funding.  Year after year we have no concrete marketing plan. 

The new Nat Cmdr has already told people that he is working on all sorts of low level tactical programs, and that he's just going to "tweak" a few things.  "Tweak" sounds like "in the weeds" to me.

Our national level leaders, seem to lack strategic vision for the organization and are not adhering to their fiduciary responsibility to ensure that this  corporation is financially solvent.  We have no endowment fund, we have the "CAP foundation" that has made little to no progress in raising funds since it's inception.

We have an unqualified audit for three years running and no grant money coming in, no "big donors."

We lack leaders who think that it is a good idea to actively pursue expanding our membership.

We have corporate officers (which in most non-profits are the primary fundraising body) who cost the organization more than they bring in each year. 

Membership is growing, but I don't think that it is a result of national level leadership, instead it's a result of local leaders doing a better job.

Hey, you don't have to sugar-coat it for us! Go ahead and come right out with whats on your mind!

Major Lord

I do what I can. 

[Spaceman3750]

In a really ideal world eliminate regional commanders and staffs.....and hire full time wing commanders.

That would make for an entirely ineffective span of control for the national commander.

Not if he had a good staff.

Really what do regional commanders/staff do for us now?

-Distribute vehicles/aircraft
-Region-wide cadet activities (RCLS, encampment, cadet competition, etc)
-Logistics accountability/auditing/Report of Survey/etc
-Divide the CAP-USAF/CC span of control
-Appoint wing commanders
-Serve on the NEC
-Decide who gets to wear shiny bottlecaps

Of course, that could all be pushed down to wing or pushed up to NHQ but I don't think you're going to find any commander or staffer who is willing to take on all of that plus everything that I can't think of right now.

[jimmydeanno]

One source suggests that a non-profit board does this:

The role of a non-profit board member is comprised of only three activities:

Fundraising (80 percent): Fundraising is the most important responsibility of a board member, yet many board members are reluctant to engage in this activity. Board members are expected use their connections to spur interest in and support of the organization they serve. Board fundraising activities may include major donor solicitations, sponsorship solicitations, membership recruitment, and efforts to boost event registrations.

Oversight of Programs (10 percent): The non-profit board is responsible for general oversight of the organization's programs. This role does not extend to the operations behind the programs, but does include fiduciary oversight.

Strategic Planning (10 percent): The board is the primary force behind the organization's strategic planning decisions. Board members create or update the strategic plan and evaluate the implementation plan presented by staff.

Our board doesn't do #1, except for the handout they're looking for from the gov't.

Our board jumps right into the operations behind the programs.

I couldn't even tell you what our strategic vision is, but with a board that changes half it's membership every few months, I can't foresee it being very steady.

Here's the rest of the article, which is a pretty good read and will leave you with the indication that our board of directors (national board) doesn't understand what their role should be.

http://www.idea.org/blog/2005/12/02/an-organization%E2%80%99s-board-of-directors/

[RiverAux]

Top Down Leadership.

Yes, because the top down leadership model CAP is currently using is so effective.   

We don't have it now....that's my point.

Gee, I guess I must have missed a whole bunch of meetings where regular members were having a say in what happens rather than being told what was going to happen by a squadron commander who was told what was going to happen by the wing commander, etc., etc..

[jimmydeanno]

Now let's look at the top fundraising methods of normal non-profits.  How many do we do?

1) Attracting individual support and donations.

2) Soliciting Gifts from Major Donors.

3) Holding a Capital Campaign.

4) Promoting Legacy and Planned Giving.

5) Raising Money from Business or Sales.

6) Applying for Foundation Grants.

7) Apply for Government Grants.

8) Requesting Corporate Gifts.

9) Special Fundraising Events.

[RiverAux]

7) Apply for Government Grants.

Actually the biggest single source of revenue for CAP. 

[jimmydeanno]

7) Apply for Government Grants.

Actually the biggest single source of revenue for CAP.

We used to use the grant channel for our funds, apparently the way we do this is changing this year.  However, I see that as a problem.  Our funding pie looks like a small mouthed pac-man.  So, if that one funding stream dries up, our organization is bankrupt.  Even a small decrease or lack of funding for a few weeks caused us to shut down operations, delay vehicle and aircraft maintenance, and stop performing our missions, to the point that we couldn't fund mailing members their membership packets.


A bit of diversity in that funding stream would allow for smoother operations.

Now we have the NEC pulling Vanguard "profit sharing" to pay for National Volunteer travel, to the tune of $25K.

[lordmonar]

I don't quite understand your point.

We are the USAF Auxillary.

So our primary funding source is going to be the USAF.....yes we have a bobble in the funding source....but so does the USAF.

In theory.....we could get full time fundraisers out there working the streets for more money.....but are you suggesting that all that money just sit in some pot waiting for USAF to have funding issues?

Now....don't get wrong.  I think we need to have paid wing commanders who would have the added job of fundraising from local donors....but I would also think that that money would be budgeted to expanded programs....so if in the future we have a funding issue from USAF something would still have to get cut to fund other budget items.

[Spaceman3750]

Since fundraising has to be approved by the wing CC, does a grant proposal submitted by a squadron have to be approved by the wing CC as well? (Walmart grant to buy new color guard equipment, etc).

(I know that a restricted grant with terms that are contractually agreed to will need a wing CC signature, but just for the initial application?)