NB approval %

[lordmonar]

The State Directors are not ours to get rid of.

As the chief method of CAP oversight I don't see Ma Blue  going for that idea.

I understand....but again being a contractor for Ma Blue I also know that there are other/cheaper methods of ensuring we are doing it right.  The funds that Ma Blue is already been paying for the SD's could be paid to CAP for wing commanders.

With full time paid wing commanders.....Ma Blue may not see the need for SD's anymore.

[Eclipse]

CAP is all volunteer and needs to stay that way.

No one in the chain of command should be a paid employee as that then changes the entire dynamic of the situation in a number of ways,
not the least of which is the reality of who in their right mind, with any real skill to offer CAP, would want to place their professional
career in the hands of people they have to ask nicely just to show up.

[SarDragon]

Adding two regions is not a trivial effort.

Just the administrative effort of changing regs, forms, letterheads, etc. will likely cost the equivalent of a couple of those annual salaries you are talking about. Then there's setting up two additional headquarters.

[lordmonar]

CAP is all volunteer and needs to stay that way.

No one in the chain of command should be a paid employee as that then changes the entire dynamic of the situation in a number of ways,
not the least of which is the reality of who in their right mind, with any real skill to offer CAP, would want to place their professional
career in the hands of people they have to ask nicely just to show up.

1)  CAP is not an all volunteer force.  We got SD's, wing admins, and whole bunch of paid professionals with "command" authority already.

2) Boy Scouts and Red Cross and many other "all volunteer" organisations do it all the time.

[RiverAux]

Adding two regions is not a trivial effort.

Just the administrative effort of changing regs, forms, letterheads, etc. will likely cost the equivalent of a couple of those annual salaries you are talking about. Then there's setting up two additional headquarters.

Not commenting in favor of the idea you're responding to, but all of thaf that stuff is electronic and except for a little bit of manpower costs nothing. 

[Ned]

1)  CAP is not an all volunteer force.  We got SD's, wing admins, and whole bunch of paid professionals with "command" authority already.

SDs, wing admins, and the paid professionals are not members and none exercise command authority.

Not a single voting member of the command structure is paid.  Neither are the members of the NB, NEC, or BoG.

Sounds kinda volunteer to me.  This is reflected in our Core Values which value "Volunteer Service."

2) Boy Scouts and Red Cross and many other "all volunteer" organisations do it all the time.

You are certainly correct that both the BSA and ARC have paid employees down to the council/county level.  And their paid employees exercise the command authority within those organizations.  IOW, the volunteers have little or no power.

Obviously a substantially different business and governance model.  Clearly both can be successful, and presumeably other types of organizations exist out there, including some sort of a blend where both volunteers and paid professionals share responsibilities.

Our outside consultants are in the final stages of preparing their governance recommendations for the NB under the contract.  We specifically asked them to look at the ARC and the BSA and compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of the different systems.

Their report is due at the December BoG meeting.  We will see what they have to say.

[NCRblues]

1)  CAP is not an all volunteer force.  We got SD's, wing admins, and whole bunch of paid professionals with "command" authority already.

SDs, wing admins, and the paid professionals are not members and none exercise command authority.

Not a single voting member of the command structure is paid.  Neither are the members of the NB, NEC, or BoG.

Sounds kinda volunteer to me.  This is reflected in our Core Values which value "Volunteer Service."

2) Boy Scouts and Red Cross and many other "all volunteer" organisations do it all the time.

You are certainly correct that both the BSA and ARC have paid employees down to the council/county level.  And their paid employees exercise the command authority within those organizations.  IOW, the volunteers have little or no power.

Obviously a substantially different business and governance model.  Clearly both can be successful, and presumeably other types of organizations exist out there, including some sort of a blend where both volunteers and paid professionals share responsibilities.

Our outside consultants are in the final stages of preparing their governance recommendations for the NB under the contract.  We specifically asked them to look at the ARC and the BSA and compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of the different systems.

Their report is due at the December BoG meeting.  We will see what they have to say.

Will we get to see the report Ned?

[lordmonar]

I hear what you are saying Ned.....and I understand and agree with most of it.

But we do have paid members with "command" authority.

Please note the quotation marks.

There are a lot of staffers at NHQ that have a lot more power to veto operations then your average wing commander.
As do the wing SD's.

I know that our "on paper" command structure is all volunteer....but there has always been some friction between the paid NHQ staffers and the volunteer NHQ officers.

Not saying that anyone is stepping outside of their bounds or doing it wrong....just saying that you can't really call CAP and all volunteer force.

And as I said in my vote.....I think for the most part CAP is working......and I really hope to see what the governance report comes out with.

[Spaceman3750]

just saying that you can't really call CAP and all volunteer force.

Since it's the volunteer members that are actually performing the three missions, sure you can. The paid staffers are simply administering the program.

That's different from, say, ARC, whose paid staff both performs the missions and manages the program with volunteers augmenting them.

[Eclipse]

I know that our "on paper" command structure is all volunteer....but there has always been some friction between the paid NHQ staffers and the volunteer NHQ officers.

You can't equate people exerting influence outside their authority with "command" or actual authority.  In most cases the
paid staff step in when the volunteer staff fail to act in a timely manner. 

You also can't suggest we only hire wing CC's and then equate us with the BSA, ARC or anyone similar, as they have entire
cadres of paid staff all the way down to the field operator level.

There's also the reality that you'd never be able to get competent professionals for an SD's salary.  The SD's are GS-12's, that's mid-80's(ish).  A nice salary for someone considering the fairly narrow scope of responsibilities, but a professional administrator with experience to justify the appointment of state-level responsibility would want at least twice that, plus travel, and benefits.  Further, where's the career path in a 4-year term with no succession?

The "fix" for CAP is a reboot that includes more people, better qualified people in the proper jobs, and a 10-fold increase in expectations, which come with them the ramifications, and rewards commensurate with the high responsibility people are charged with.

[NCRblues]

And as I said in my vote.....I think for the most part CAP is working......and I really hope to see what the governance report comes out with.

I just hope we get to SEE the report, and it is not hidden away from the membership and only read behind closed door BOG meetings...

Hope and FOR change

[lordmonar]

I know that our "on paper" command structure is all volunteer....but there has always been some friction between the paid NHQ staffers and the volunteer NHQ officers.

You can't equate people exerting influence outside their authority with "command" or actual authority.  In most cases the
paid staff step in when the volunteer staff fail to act in a timely manner. 

You also can't suggest we only hire wing CC's and then equate us with the BSA, ARC or anyone similar, as they have entire
cadres of paid staff all the way down to the field operator level.

There's also the reality that you'd never be able to get competent professionals for an SD's salary.  The SD's are GS-12's, that's mid-80's(ish).  A nice salary for someone considering the fairly narrow scope of responsibilities, but a professional administrator with experience to justify the appointment of state-level responsibility would want at least twice that, plus travel, and benefits.  Further, where's the career path in a 4-year term with no succession?

The "fix" for CAP is a reboot that includes more people, better qualified people in the proper jobs, and a 10-fold increase in expectations, which come with them the ramifications, and rewards commensurate with the high responsibility people are charged with.

You can't get them for 80K but you think we can get them for free?

As for authority........I sat through a long NCO Academy course back in 2001 where we talked all about the different kinds of authority.
Having had to deal with NHQ over the last couple of years with the the SP program......and listening to some of the feldercarb that floats around the National Conference.....the leadership dynamic at NHQ is a little more complicated then just paid staff stepping in when the "volunteers" fail to perform. 

[Eclipse]

You can't get them for 80K but you think we can get them for free?

Sometimes, yes.  Because we're only capturing a "small" amount of their time.  And part of the "idea" is that you capture small amounts of time
of a lot of competent people, and st the end of the day you equal or better similar paid professionals.

That's the idea, anyway...

[Extremepredjudice]

How about get rid of the SDs(I.E. transfer them, fire them, bury them in a shallow grave somewhere... ) and hire 2 guys at 40k each...

Or, hire 2 guys (part-time) at 20k each. That leaves you with 40k to do whatever, pay for O-flights, membership cards, a new car, a new house, a one-way ticket to Columbia, with a satchel of cash(of course).

 
See what I did there?

[lordmonar]

You can't get them for 80K but you think we can get them for free?

Sometimes, yes.  Because we're only capturing a "small" amount of their time.  And part of the "idea" is that you capture small amounts of time
of a lot of competent people, and st the end of the day you equal or better similar paid professionals.

That's the idea, anyway...

Okay.....but I would rather have someone full time at 80K.....even if they are not some A Number One Hot shot.

Also....I think that if you look at the retired military field....you could get a lot of people for 80K......you also get the added benifit of not having to change them every 2-3 years.  You can also move them around where they are best needed.

And you can fire them for not performing....and hire their replacement.  In this economy  $80K is a lot of money.....they would have a lot of applicants for the job.

[Spaceman3750]

In this economy  $80K is a lot of money.....they would have a lot of applicants for the job.

$80K in ANY economy is a lot of money.

[jimmydeanno]

Perhaps "command" isn't the word you are looking for.  Perhaps "power" is.  There are different types of power, as pointed out in the cadet leadership books.  While NHQ employees may not have Positional Power, but may be exercising their expert power, based on their knowledge of what the end result will be of a certain action.

If a member calls up and asks the Cadet Programs shop if they can slap their cadets around, and the NHQ employee says, "No, you can't do that."  They aren't exercising positional power.  It's not a decision they make, but an understanding of the regulations based on their experiences.  "No, you can't do that because the regulations say you can't."

If you submit reimbursement for a mission that wasn't approved, it's not the NHQ employee deciding that you can't get reimbursed, but they're the ones that have to tell you "No, you won't be reimbursed for this because the rules in place prohibit it."

If you want to argue that they're exercising some sort of command over our members because of their knowledge of how the situation works, so be it. 

[jimmydeanno]

In this economy  $80K is a lot of money.....they would have a lot of applicants for the job.

I don't know that you'd get the caliber person that we'd need, though.  If we're looking for someone who can fundraise AND run a state level operation, we're well into the 6 figures. 

Most serious fundraising jobs have a quota the person has to meet for their salary range.  If you pay them 80K, I'd expect 500K in return.  That's without any operational obligations of running a wing.  For that 80K, I think you'd get what we have now, with significantly less money.

It costs money to make money.  If you spend money on fundraising, you'll get money in return.

[Eclipse]

There's another weakness - hiring someone to raise funds is not the same as hiring someone to run a large paramilitary organization.  They aren't remotely
the same skillset and you won't get a good one of either for $80k.

Just because $80k seems like a lot of money, and a lot of people might apply, doesn't mean you'll get the caliber you're looking for.  If anything, corporations are hanging on to their best people these days with a tight fist.

[lordmonar]

In this economy  $80K is a lot of money.....they would have a lot of applicants for the job.

I don't know that you'd get the caliber person that we'd need, though.  If we're looking for someone who can fundraise AND run a state level operation, we're well into the 6 figures. 

Most serious fundraising jobs have a quota the person has to meet for their salary range.  If you pay them 80K, I'd expect 500K in return.  That's without any operational obligations of running a wing.  For that 80K, I think you'd get what we have now, with significantly less money.

It costs money to make money.  If you spend money on fundraising, you'll get money in return.

But the alternitive is asking someone to do it for free.......and we get what we get.   I'm not a fund raiser...but my father was one after he retired from the AF.  He worked as a proffessional Boy Scout District Exec for a few years.  He did not get a lot of money from the BSA....but he was supposed to run a "group level" organisation, coordinate training for the volunteer leaders, supervise creation of new units and recruitment goals.....AND meet his fund raising quotas.   I know how hard it can be.....not saying it will be easy......but as the old saying goes...you got to spend money to make money.

Wing needs a $500K budget......then hire a guy for 80K to do it.....start small....hire the National Commander and Vice.....give them both $500K quotas in the first year.  With that $1M you can hire 12 guys the next year (regional commanders?)...give them each a $500K quota...thats $6M...(plus the 1 Million from the National CC and Vice for a total of 7$)...the third year you can hire 87 full time fundraisers and leaders..for a total of 101 full time fund raisers/leaders.....crack their quotas down to $200K and now they have the time to pay for themselves, do the work of managing their wing and still make CAP $120K per year.....($12.12M about half of what the USAF pays us each year).

So....for an initial investiment of $160K.....and getting the right guys......within four years we could have fully paid commanders and vice commanders at all levels of CAP.  That is not even touching the SD's or Wing Admins.  Continue the investment a couple of more years and we could add full time wing level fundriser to allow the commander and his vice to focus more on the mission.

Throw in a little stream lineing of what we consider a "wing" (i.e. combine some of the smaller ones and split up some of the bigger ones) and we would be rolling in cash....have full time professional staff all the way down to the wing level....and eliminate a lot of the political BS.

Squadrons could focus on doing the missions and move on.

Volunteer leadership at each level of the organisation can be acheived.....the BSA does something like this at each level with a sort of BoG....that has a lot to say about how the BSA program is run.

Now...I am not saying the BSA model is the 100% for us.  I don't know if there may be an even better model out there.  I am only throwing out the idea that just because we hire the boss at wing level.....does not automatically mean that "WE" the peons at the squdron level will loose control over CAP.  I am saying that we can focus on the mission and let managment.....manage...and fund raise....so we can focus on what we do best.