May NEC Live Web Stream

[RiverAux]

The NEC meeting will be live on CAP Channel tomorrow and Saturday:
http://www.capchannel.com/

The agenda is available on eservices: http://level2.cap.gov/documents/2008_May_NEC_Agenda.pdf

[Eagle400]

Now this is just funny.

In August 2006 the National Board approved a motion to authorize members attending Blue Beret and Hawk Mountain to wear any awarded uniform items or headgear with the BDUs or CAP field uniform. Since that time, there has been some confusion over which items are actually "earned" and what was actually intended by this action.  The issue has been further complicated by the fact that badges and devices worn on Air Force-style uniforms, including the woodland green BDUs, must be approved by the Air Force.

And this is some sort of revelation?

Hawk and NBB grads have been wearing their bling for years on AF uniforms without Air Staff approval, even in the presence of the National Commander.

So this is just an attempt to "legitimize" the bling and make all the wannabe rangers happy.

Want to be a military ranger?  Fine.  Join the Army.     

[Pylon]

Now this is just funny.

And this is some sort of revelation?

Hawk and NBB grads have been wearing their bling for years on AF uniforms without Air Staff approval, even in the presence of the National Commander.

So this is just an attempt to "legitimize" the bling and make all the wannabe rangers happy.

Want to be a military ranger?  Fine.  Join the Army.     

Already a full-on discussion on that NEC item on CAPTalk.

[MIKE]

Actually... I think I killed it. 

[Pylon]

Okay, for those of you watching the Spring National Executive Committee on the live stream?

So far:
Last minutes approved.
Agenda Items 1a, 1b, 1c, 1e approved unanimously.
Item 1d approved with discussion and clarification.

[Pylon]

Agenda Item 2: 50 Year Membership.  Some discussion and clarification on plaques and free memberships and how it works currently.  Motion passed unanimously as proposed.

[DrJbdm]

the feed looks pretty good then in years before. it's pretty clear.

[Pylon]

Agenda Item 3:  Seconded by Col Pierson.

Amended to clarify the award starts with the 2009 award season.

Col Weiss asked a question (inaudible on my end), motion passed unanimously.


Agenda Item 4: Add CAP AEO of the Year award to the current slate of the "of the year" awards.  Col Carr motion, Col Rushing second.

Question on the selection process: who will sit on the committee?  Volunteers? Staff?   Gen Courter clarifies that it's usually a mix (i think?)

Col Glass got confirmation that the national committee would select from one per region (8 candidates).

Discussion... question by Col Chitwood... didn't hear it all.

Unanimously passed.

[Pylon]

Agenda Item 5: Col Chitwood proposing motion. Explains background of proposal on the table to allow the ranger and beret bling.  Asking NEC to codify these and ask the AF for approval to wear this stuff.

Gen Courter clarifies which items are actually covered by this proposal.

Col Carr seconds. 

Clarification that these were not for wear just at activity, but anywhere uniform is worn.

Question: if approved, these items could be worn on CAP distinctives?  Amended to read, wear would be immediate on CAP distinctive uniforms.  AF approval would be needed for AF-style.

Question about dress or field uniforms?  Moved to amend that these items be allowed for immediate wear on CAP distinctive field uniforms.

Col Cuddes seconded amendment.  No discussion on amendment.  Amendment carries.

No further discussion.  PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.  wtf?

[MIKE]

I went ahead and merged this with RiverAux's thread from yesterday.  I hope you don't mind.  I figured it fits since his has a link to the stream and agenda.

[isuhawkeye]

Ranger/Beret Bling approved......

Very interesting

[MIKE]

No further discussion.  PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.  wtf?

Because the AF (for the most part) doesn't give a [mess] about the CAP distinctive uniforms.

[Pylon]

Ranger/Beret Bling approved......

Very interesting

Well, approved for corporate field uniforms effective right now.  The NEC approved to submit these to the AF for wear on AF-style too, but wear of any of these items still needs that AF approval before they can be worn on the AF-style uniforms.

[Pylon]

Agenda Item 6:

An amendment was proposed:
Legislative liasons will receive temporary Lt Col grade.  For all temporary Lt Col promotions, including legislative liasons, region commanders will receive an email near the end of one year since the person's original temporary promotion to Lt Col.  Unless the region commander approves the Lt Col grade as permanent, the person reverts to their previously earned grade.

I think the item was tabled... did I miss something?


Agenda Item 7:

New CAPF 12 with Oath of Application.  Effective 1 Oct 2008.  Col Chazell seconded, but then motions to amend.

Add checkbox to online membership renewal forcing members to re-agree to oath when renewing membership.  Susan Parker clarifies that it's in proposed action.  Chazell withdraws amendment, but Courter takes that as guidance that it will be done as was stated above.

Question about how to ensure if member is familiar with the policies and regulations they are agreeing to uphold, and specifically mentions ethics regs.  Somebody mentions something about commanders responsibility to brief all members.

Passes unanimously. Motion carries.

[Pylon]

Agenda 6 is sort of coming back... but there's a side motion first...

Side item:
Motion (or Second?) by Col Glass.  Clarified that promoting authority would need to specifically approve all Lt Col's as permanent after one year, otherwise member loses grade of Lt Col.  Clarified that these only changes the mechanism by which Lt Col promotions are administered, since all Lt Col promotions are already defined as temporary for the first year.  Effective date of 1 Oct 2008 proposed.

Passed unanimously; motion carries.


Item 6 has fully come back:

Col Diduch makes the motion for NEC to adopt agenda item 6 as written.  Second by Pierson.

Discussion:  Col Hodgkins wants to know the intent of making your legislative liaisons Lt Col's.  Appears to be so liaisons have more "weight" when at the bargaining table with politicians.  Points out my earlier argument that it "looks bad" if your legislative liaison all of a sudden is demoted to a Lt or Capt or something.  He suggests that the person stay a Lt Col while serving as legislative liaison, but reverts to earned grade when done with the position.

Col Chazell speaks in opposition of this agenda item.  Says we offer advanced grade for former military officers, educators, pilots, doctors and lawyers and says there is no requirement for them to pursue further professional development to keep grade.  Says it puts "legislative liaison professionals" at a disadvantage to these people who hold other skills useful for CAP.

Suzie Parker asks for clarification that the agenda item as proposed indicates that all legislative liaisons will be reviewed for their grade every year, while all other Lt Col promotions will be reviewed at the end of one year only before being permanent.

Somebody notes that these people need more of a knowledge of CAP culture and the organization than Level I to act as effective legislative legislative liaisons.

Col Weiss basically proposed Col Hodgkins idea of keeping Lt Col while serving, but reverting to earned grade when done.

Col Jensen said something about being brought in as a medical officer... then something about being in a leadership position... there is a provision that members can be reduced in grade if they don't perform at a level commensurate.

...missed a minute...

Col Carr questions why we'd make different requirements to keep Lt Col grade for legislative liaisons and retired Armed Forces Lt Col's.  He says we don't ask former Armed Forces Lt Col's to do more than Level I to keep grade.

Motion to postpone, seconded... unanimously moved to postpone.  Col Kuddes added guiding comments that we need to look at how we deal with all special promotions.  Gen Courter adds her belief is that this is different because we're promoting someone all the way from the bottom (potentially) all the way to the top (Lt Col); since someone may not continue on in the position, they retain the grade and that's why there is special consideration for this item and not other special promotions. 

[Pylon]

Gen Courter indicates that 9,500 people from 47 states are watching the live NEC stream.  900 people looked at a safety video and Gen Courter asks the rest of us to watch the safety video.

Moves to recess the meeting.  Feed cuts to "On break" splash screen at 2:53pm.

[JC004]

...
Col Weiss asked a question (inaudible on my end), motion passed unanimously.
...

Did he motion to have the CAPTalk thread on PAWG shutting down reopened?

   

[MIKE]

He can start a new thread which eventually will devolve into the same arguement and get locked just like the other ones... just like everyone else.

Back to topic.

[JC004]

...
Gen Courter clarifies which items are actually covered by this proposal.
...

What was included in that?

...
Back to topic.

Before we do that, can we have an argument over the definition of "ranger," talk about orange hats and somehow bring nazis into it?   

[MIKE]

No, for the last time... back to topic.

[lawmax]

Is there a link to the Safety movie the National CC mentioned?

[Pylon]

Is there a link to the Safety movie the National CC mentioned?

I'm trying to track that down right now.  Not sure what safety video she meant, but apparently 900+ people have already viewed it.

Edit to add:  I wonder if it's the 3/6/2008 "Safety Video.wmv" that's posted here (linked to from the CAP Video's page on CAPChannel.com)? 
ftp://video:download@ftp.iqstorage.com/Safety%20Video.wmv

(This is further proof we have too many websites)

Edit to add again:  Can't get it to load the video.

[chiles]

Is it just me, or is there an inordinate amount of coughing, sniffling, sneezing, and other such sounds of sickness among our senior leaders?

[RiseAbove]

Agenda Item 9a (Motion to create wing and region committees to evaluate modifications to travel trailers) Passed

Agenda Item 9b (Motion to create a formaldehyde testing process) passed unanimously

Agenda Item 10 (UAV Chase Flights with ANG) was put off to a later NEC

Agenda Item 11 (Comm. Curriculum) passed unanimously

Agenda Item 12 (National Repeater Charter) passed unanimously

[Tubacap]

Safety briefing is on www.capchannel.com.

[CAP Producer]

Is there a link to the Safety movie the National CC mentioned?

I'm trying to track that down right now.  Not sure what safety video she meant, but apparently 900+ people have already viewed it.

Edit to add:  I wonder if it's the 3/6/2008 "Safety Video.wmv" that's posted here (linked to from the CAP Video's page on CAPChannel.com)? 
ftp://video:download@ftp.iqstorage.com/Safety%20Video.wmv

(This is further proof we have too many websites)

Edit to add again:  Can't get it to load the video.

That is exactly it Mike.

[flyerthom]

Is it just me, or is there an inordinate amount of coughing, sniffling, sneezing, and other such sounds of sickness among our senior leaders?

It's a CBNRE attack from some of Colgan's Orange hatted Nazi Rangers 

[JC004]

Is it just me, or is there an inordinate amount of coughing, sniffling, sneezing, and other such sounds of sickness among our senior leaders?

It's a CBNRE attack from some of Colgan's Orange hatted Nazi Rangers 

'cuse me!!! My special forces for my coup don't wear orange.

On another note, can anyone clarify what Gen Courter gave for the specifics of the bling up for approval?

[Eagle400]

Well, approved for corporate field uniforms effective right now.  The NEC approved to submit these to the AF for wear on AF-style too, but wear of any of these items still needs that AF approval before they can be worn on the AF-style uniforms.

Ha ha ha ha ha!   

Do you actually believe this is going to stop the rampant abuse of the Air Force uniform by the Hawk Mountain people?

I'm sorry, but it's going to take a visit to Hawk Mountain by Col Hodgkins, a member of the Air Staff, or combination thereof to finally light a fire under the PAWG leadership and solve this problem.

I mean, think about it: do you really want people who don't even care about uniform regulations searching for you in the event you become a victim?  This is an indication of a dangerous mindset.  That is the underlying issue here.    

[DNall]

Well, approved for corporate field uniforms effective right now.  The NEC approved to submit these to the AF for wear on AF-style too, but wear of any of these items still needs that AF approval before they can be worn on the AF-style uniforms.

Do you actually believe this is going to stop the rampant abuse of the Air Force uniform by the Hawk Mountain people?

That's why it's been disapproved in the past, at least with regard to blue beret.


River should be happy hearing that discussion of PD versus advanced promotions. I'm interested in seeing the results of that further study - as if there will be any.

Was there any discussion on the UAV item? I'm interested in where they stand on the issue, not just that it was tabled.

[KyCAP]

Anyone know why these LIVE streams aren't recorded and then STREAMed recorded so that the rest of us who work during the day can watch the pieces we want to?

[DNall]

^ 2nd.

long as we're putting suggestions out there... the breaks might be better served by airing stuff like that safety video, marketing material, & other stuff from CAP Channel. Better than looking at nothing.

[RiverAux]

Someone reported that they tabled the UAV discussion. 

[DNall]

Yeah, it's mentioned above, what was the discussion prior to tabling?

[ßτε]

^There really was no discussion other than the sponsor saying that he does not want to bring it up at this time. I think that he said more details needed to be worked out first.

[♠SARKID♠]

Anyone know why these LIVE streams aren't recorded and then STREAMed recorded so that the rest of us who work during the day can watch the pieces we want to?

I asked that during the national board stream.  Apparently it would cost too much money to host a stream llike that...I don't buy it.

[RiverAux]

Nothing today?

[LtCol White]

Anyone know what the new business items were?

[mikeylikey]

Anyone know what the new business items were?

Anyone......??  Anyone at all??  I missed the stream.......and can't wait for the official document! 

[FW]

the "bling" is in.  Approved as written in agenda item .  Good to go for BBDU, AF approval needed for BDU.

Working group formed to study options for grades/training, etc. to include special promotions.

NEW BUSINESS  (this is a summary only)

ED   Alternative Uniforms for mission field activities.
ACTION:  Approved.  Customer needs to request in writing.  Region Commander concurrence required.

IG   Compliance Inspection changes.  (streamlined process)
ACTION:  Approved.

LG   15 Passenger Vans.  Rear seat to be removed and cargo nets required and installed.
   ACTION:  Approved.

SE   CAPF 48 changes.  Receive certificate for "Safety Compliant" or "Accident Free".
   ACTION:  Approved

FM   Vanguard Funds.  Expand use of funds to include using for unfunded programs if no training centers require them.
   ACTION:  Approved

[mikeylikey]

^ thank you Sir. 

I am surprised by the last item though.  I knew it would not be long before the "real" reasons we are stuck with Vanguard came about.  We are told "regional training centers....blah blah blah......now we will use the money on whatever.  Thanks for being shady with us NHQ. 

Question.....what would be an unfunded program?  A Wing Commanders Pet project?  The School Initiative?  Just asking as a curious member forced to do business with a  bad Business (Vanguard) under misrepresented notions. 

[FW]

Mikey, don't be upset with NHQ.  The NB/NEC determines where the Vanguard money goes. 

Vanguard gives CAP a percentage of every dollar spent by a CAP member.  This money goes only to programs which will benefit the general membership.  No "pet" projects,  no travel funds for the commander, no late night parties, etc.
The first priority is to fund "regional training facilities" like NESA, HMRS, BB, or establishing new sites.  Second priority will be to fund other programs like, the SEP, or AE programs the "appropriated" grant doesn't cover or corporate unfunded mandates.

An "unfunded" program is an approved program we don't have money for.   There are quite a few.  Anyone want to donate to the cause?  :angel:
 

[sjtrupp]

Did anyone hear the update about the "Booster Clubs"?

[FW]

^ the new CAPR 173-4 will be published soon.  Booster Clubs are described in Sec. 15.  

Summary of changes:  
         No CAP uniforms while fundraising for a booster club.
         No CAP command staff allowed to hold an "influential position" in club.
         "CAP" can not be in the name of the booster club.  Name of squadron may.
         Any booster club not meeting these requirements must change by end of
         FY or unit will not be allowed to engage in business with booster club.
         All funds/property donated to unit must go thru wing as per WBP. and
         Logistics regs.
Exception granted to the "CAP Foundation"

[mikeylikey]

^ the new CAPR 173-4 will be published soon. booster Clubs are described in Sec. 15.  

Summary of changes:  
         No CAP uniforms while fundraising for a booster club.
         No CAP command staff allowed to hold an "influential position" in club.
         "CAP" can not be in the name of the booster club.  Name of squadron may.
         Any booster club not meeting these requirements must change by end of
         FY or unit will not be allowed to engage in business with booster club.
         All funds/property donated to unit must go thru wing as per WBP. and
         Logistics regs.
Exception granted to the "CAP Foundation"

So.....I get a mom (of a Cadet) to open up a personal checking account, and the SQD raises money in the name of the SQD, then because Mom and I (SQD CC) are close I say "Hey Jane write a check for this DF equipment, and checks for these Cadets to buy boots".  Etc.  Aren't these booster clubs a legal maneuver around the WBP??

[FW]

^ Good question.

If a squadron raises funds, it goes to wing for processing under WBP.
If the money goes to "Mom", it becomes a FWA issue.

Booster Clubs are independent entities.  They can do anything they want.  It's not CAP's business.  But, if funds/property are donated to CAP, the donation becomes "ours".  It goes thru the system; either finance or logistics.  Money/property can not be transfered from CAP to a Booster Club for any reason.

What "Mom" does with her personal checking account is not our business.  If she wants to donate a DF unit or uniforms to the squadron, that's great.  It still needs to be entered into the system as per logistics regs.

[CAPSGT]

I'm curious about the 15 passenger van item.  Is this a mandatory, permanant removal of the back seats from all 15 passenger vans?

[FW]

^ Yes.  Just don't lose the rear seat.  Money for cargo net purchase/installation will come from national.  Detailed information will come from official sources when everything is worked out.

[DrJbdm]

it makes you wonder why they went thru the expense of getting 15 passenger vans in the first place. Wouldn't 12 passenger vans have been cheaper and safer? (i'm guessing the rear seat is coming out for safety reasons)

But then when has CAP ever done anything that made sense in the first place.

[cuselead]

The issue is not a simple as what everyone is saying. 

I've had to work with this same issue with my civilian employer - the bottom line issue is insurance! 

Most if not all insurance companies are having a hard time justifying insuring the 15pax vehicles. 

It's all about mitigating the risks, 15 pax injured or 12 or 7? 

However, I do agree that at this point that it makes sense to do a study to see if buying a smaller vehicle is the right way to go ?  Gas, total cost etc... however, it's good to have a large space to store gear. 

[FW]

All new 15 pass. van purchases will have 11 passenger seating with extra cargo space.  It would be nice if they came with stability and anti rollover systems.

[Eagle400]

Well, approved for corporate field uniforms effective right now.  The NEC approved to submit these to the AF for wear on AF-style too, but wear of any of these items still needs that AF approval before they can be worn on the AF-style uniforms.

Do you actually believe this is going to stop the rampant abuse of the Air Force uniform by the Hawk Mountain people?

That's why it's been disapproved in the past, at least with regard to blue beret.

Wait, so you're implying that the Air Force is concerned about the willful defiance of uniform regulations by the Blue Beret people and not the Hawk Mountain people?   I find that hard to believe.

The Blue Beret bling actually looks quite military, while the Hawk Mountain bling looks like... well... fashion-oriented uniform items designed by someone with a fetish for orange and a wannabe "SAR God" attitude.

[Capt Rivera]

Why dosent CAP make completion of Defensive Drivers Course mandatory? RedCross does.

Redross members pay $15 upfront to take the online course and they are reimbursed upon successful completion.

Speculating on this:

• he Redcross probably spends less by reimbursing membership then by paying full insurance costs.
• It is also a added benefit to members because members typically save 10% at LEAST on their personal vehicular insurance.

[arajca]

Actually, if you're between 24 and 65 (IIRC), and have a clean driving record, DDC doesn't do anything for you, insurance cost wise. Found that out after my DDC instructor swore that everyone completing DDC (National Safety Council version) would receive a discount on insurance rates.

[PHall]

Been going to Defensive Driving courses for years. AT&T is big on that stuff.
Have NEVER received any kind of discount on my insurance for it. (Yes I told them about it.)

I do get an Exemplary Driver discount, but that's for not getting a ticket for over 5 years...

This was with Auto Club Insurance, State Farm and USAA.

[isuhawkeye]

Also,

CAP is self insured, so there is no one to get a discount from.

CAP approached Lloyds of London a few years ago, and they wouldn't touch CAP

[jimmydeanno]

CAP approached Lloyds of London a few years ago, and they wouldn't touch CAP

Col Chavez (former National Legal Officer) at RSC a few months ago said that we are indeed insured through Lloyds of London.

[isuhawkeye]

AH,

Times they do change.  good to know

[sjtrupp]

CAP approached Lloyds of London a few years ago, and they wouldn't touch CAP

Col Chavez (former National Legal Officer) at RSC a few months ago said that we are indeed insured through Lloyds of London.

Could this be a Vehicle versus Aircraft issue?  Maybe we are insured for one, but are self insured for the other?

[DNall]

Vans versus aircraft versus general liability. We're self-insured for general liability (lawsuits), I think the rest stuff is actually covered. Lloyds is a great by the way. They've covered some big events for me relatively cheaply.

[RiverAux]

Been going to Defensive Driving courses for years. AT&T is big on that stuff.
Have NEVER received any kind of discount on my insurance for it. (Yes I told them about it.)

I do get an Exemplary Driver discount, but that's for not getting a ticket for over 5 years...

This was with Auto Club Insurance, State Farm and USAA.

I think it is that the organization would get a discount on its insurance for having its members/employees take the course, not that individual members get a discount on their personal insurance (the org wouldn't care a bit about that). 

[Capt Rivera]

Geico gives 10% off across the board, no matter what your level of insurance or age according to their reps...  All you do is allow them to have a copy of your certificate... [discount lasts 3 yrs]

NHQ should care about added benefits for members... I will probably never purchase airplane parts or use that credit card or many of the other "benefits" given to members... but saving an additional 10% no matter what my other discounts or driving record is... well nice....

Thanks to the redcross i wont even have to pay for the cost of the course.

[PHall]

Been going to Defensive Driving courses for years. AT&T is big on that stuff.
Have NEVER received any kind of discount on my insurance for it. (Yes I told them about it.)

I do get an Exemplary Driver discount, but that's for not getting a ticket for over 5 years...

This was with Auto Club Insurance, State Farm and USAA.

I think it is that the organization would get a discount on its insurance for having its members/employees take the course, not that individual members get a discount on their personal insurance (the org wouldn't care a bit about that). 

AT&T don't care, they're self-insured.