Who are, in your opinion, the enemies of CAP?

Started by Major Carrales, November 01, 2006, 06:43:20 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Major Carrales

In a recent post I made about airing CAP issues in front of the WHOLE WORLD WIDE WEB, I used the phrase "the enemies of CAP."

This got me thinking...who exactally are they.  I am sure they exist, but it might be a good exercise to name those that are dedicated to the destruction or decimation of CAP.

Definition:

An enemy of CAP: any entity, individuals or parts of an entity that seek to and work to destroy or diminish the Civil Air Patrol.

As sure as I can tell based on posts...

1) Angry former members that feel slighted
2) People looking for places to cut budgets
3) Current members looking to radically change the ORGANIZATION, so much so they wouldn't mind its current form imploding


If I am off base, let me know...or agree and elaborate.
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

CAP428

Overzealous people who wish they were more hardcore than they are, so they feel they must prove how cool and  tough they are at CAP.

Al Sayre

Lawyers and bureaucrats who are more worried about not being sued than accomplishing the mission.
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787

lordmonar

Why would you characterize current members who wish to radically change CAP as enemies?

I think that word is too strong.

Enemies sound like people who want to destroy CAP....radicals still want it CAP around they just see a need for major change.

Radicals may not be the enemies of CAP but the enemies of CAP Conservatives or moderates but not necessarily to CAP itself.

By labeling radicals as enemies, we run the risk of stifling any change...because how do you define "radical" change?

I remember on some board where I suggested lowering the maximum age of cadets to 18.  There were some who said that was too radical and would destroy the program.   Am I an enemy of CAP then?

On another tangent,

Why did you not list competing agencies, both ES and Cadet?

There are many wings out there that do not do much ES because there are other agencies (both government and civilian) that do the same thing.

There are plethora of cadet and youth organizations that are cometing with us for recruits, donations, and local support.

Are these not enemies of CAP?

-----before you flame me------

I am not charactrising any other organization as trying to do CAP in....but their very existence can cause us harm in recruiting and money.

Another enemy of CAP is CAP itself.

Units that do not receive the training they need to run a good program, units with obviously rogue leadership that upper echelons do not rein in.  Internal politics that tear up the organization.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

lordmonar

Quote from: Al Sayre on November 01, 2006, 07:32:04 PM
Lawyers and bureaucrats who are more worried about not being sued than accomplishing the mission.

Sorry...can't say they are enemies....they are just doing the job they were hired to do.  You might as well say that Safety, finance and supply are our enemies too, because they are worried about their piece of the mission and prevent us in the field from "doing what needs to be done" to accomplish the mission.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

ande.boyer

Quote from: lordmonar on November 01, 2006, 07:41:26 PM
Why would you characterize current members who wish to radically change CAP as enemies?


I don't think it's fair to quote that without including "...so much so they wouldn't mind its current form imploding."  It could accurately be said that those who pushed through the IAWG reform wanted radical changes...but I don't believe Maj Carralles would call them enemies.

ande.boyer

Quote from: lordmonar on November 01, 2006, 07:41:26 PM
Why would you characterize current members who wish to radically change CAP as enemies?


I don't think it's fair to quote that without including "...so much so they wouldn't mind its current form imploding."  It could accurately be said that those who pushed through the IAWG reform wanted radical changes...but I don't believe Maj Carralles would call them enemies.  I've been fortunate in my many years in CAP not to have seen any of these "internal" enemies.  All the folks I've served with, to my knowledge, has CAP's best interests at heart.  The only evidence of this kind of enemy I've seen has been on forums like this one.

I think the biggest enemy of CAP is "corporate inertia."  We're chugging along much as we have the last 20 years but I think there are very different waters ahead.  The nature of our ES missions are changing and if we don't figure out how to adapt to new missions and new ways of doing old missions we'll find ourselves out of a job.  I'm glad to see organziations like the National Technology Center and HQ's embracing of concepts like Archer and SDIS; but two new systems which 90% of the membership will never lay hands on aren't going to cut it.  Good direction, let's just make sure everyone is on for the ride on the same path.

Major_Chuck

Enemies of CAP

At times I would say we are our own worst enemy in some of the things our National Leadership does.

Okay....

1.  Former disgruntled members who for one reason or another didn't get the promotion or job assingment they felt they deserved.

2.  News of the Force.  It's "Editor" fits into item number "1".

Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard

Major Carrales

Quote from: lordmonar on November 01, 2006, 07:41:26 PM
Why would you characterize current members who wish to radically change CAP as enemies?

I think that word is too strong.


I said much more than just people seeking radical change...quote me not out of context.

Now, change is good.  Even "radical change," which meets resistance from the various CAP curmudgeons (be they who they might be), I have no problem with. 

The people of whom I speak are "enemies" of CAP because they seek the "destruction" of the organization for some agendistic purpose.

By that I mean when the "Agenda" itself grows more important than the service CAP is supposed to provide.  I'm speaking in general terms here.

The internal enemies of CAP often times are unwitting hapless accomplices that...ironically out the desire to do good for CAP (by way of a radical "self-imagined" paradigm about what CAP should be) hammer away publically at long standing CAP institutions hoping to topple them.  They then hope to replace that CAP with their imagined image.

Thus, destruction of the orgination as a means to an ends rather than through reform of the existing system.  Saddly, REVOLUTION where REFORM was needed causes the organization to suffer.

I will not flame you...because I think you are quite correct.  "Enemy" is too strong a word for the Commander of a Wing or Group that wants to change things up and meets resistance from CAP ELDERS who resist anything that seems new.  Many of the people you seek are vital parts of the CAP puzzle.  I call them "CAP Innovators" since they want new ways to improve.

This thread is designed to find the true enemies of CAP, be they people, practices or concepts...internal or external, and mitigate their influence.

A bold move I assure you, but a worthy one.

"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

Major Carrales

Quote from: ande.boyer on November 01, 2006, 08:26:20 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on November 01, 2006, 07:41:26 PM
Why would you characterize current members who wish to radically change CAP as enemies?


I don't think it's fair to quote that without including "...so much so they wouldn't mind its current form imploding."  It could accurately be said that those who pushed through the IAWG reform wanted radical changes...but I don't believe Maj Carralles would call them enemies.

Thank you...I think of Iowa as the prototype for CAP.  It, however, needs to run a bit more of its course to see if we can implement such innovation CAP wide.  Iowa is a medioum sized state...lets spend the next few years analyzing the IOWA APPROACH and learn the greater lessons for implementation.

"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

DNall

Sorry this'll be a touch long, but please give it a quick read as it really defines a lot of where I am on CAP issues.

Enemy is strong word, I'd be careful with that. The only people I see trying to destroy CAP are a few disgruntled morons (NOTF) who want to take it down for personal reasons rather than psychologically deal with their own problems. The other cases you mention should NEVER be described as enemies – NEVER. CAP is just about universally accepted as a good thing, and the people you're talking about have nothing but good intentions.

Budget Cutters:
They are looking for what's best for the whole country at this point. If the mighty Strategic Air Command can be dismantled, how is CAP above reproach?

I don't want to get rid of CAP, let me be VERY clear about that, but a congressman up there needing to bring home results his voters care about has to make a judgment call on what is or is not absolutely vital to the survival & safety of the country. They have to rank one thing against another, and consider what voters think about each item as they go.

Now, let's be realistic... We talk about how much money we save compared to C130s doing those missions, but what would happen if the govt provided light aircraft & SaR training to state police who could do those missions on the state's dime. The AF's obligation really is limited to AFRCC & assisting when/where state/locals are not able. There are many times more kids in JROTC units than our cadet program, & the AF doesn't have to provide a whole lot of support to them. Right now we're in the process of turning over NCASE, & AFA/EAA do a great job at AE w/o our help.

Congress & the AF aren't responsible for the CAP budget, CAP is. We have to EDUCATE & SELL enough people to get what we need – be that money or missions – and, I don't just mean congressmen, that's a start, but they tend to act on public opinion. They may be slick & somewhat sleazy, but they're mostly good intentioned. If you want to control them, control what's important to them. That's not an enemy, that's an opportunity, and its one CAP hasn't always done a great job with.

Reorganization:
I'd caution you on calling these folks enemies as well. Most of these folks are not only good intentioned, but frustrated with the political personal vendetta unprofessional BS we see at the top & the fact that we're highly limited in what we can do for the country. I'm probably counted in this category more times than not, and I'm not a truck driver with Colonel's epaulets trying to act important. My resume & the Army tend to make me feel just fine about my level of hardcore-ness & my frustration w/ CAP tend to center on it not exactly being the best it can be.

Let me be clear about what I advocate though before you misunderstand me. For most of CAP's history it has been under the direct administrative control of the AF, even commanded by an AF officer for much of that time. The law that changed our Auxiliary status came out of the Armed Services Cmte saying AF would appoint all Wg/Reg/Nat CCs. That got changed on the floor & not executed the way they wanted, resulting in more problems created & none solved. It may well change again in the next few years. I think the Cmte version goes a little too far, but there is no reason CAP leadership can defy the AF or AF IGs should not have authority to investigate issues when CAP violates our own or federal regs. I think clear transparent accountability needs to be created & a system that gets deserving unpaid professionals into leadership.

Out in the field, I see a bunch of volunteers who aren't looked on as being able to do the same things as a military officer. For instance, why should the govt spend millions to give us hi-tech gear to do complex secure missions, why should they trust the security & safety of the country & its citizens to a bunch of volunteers off the street? I don't think that's a fair assessment of our members, but I couldn't prove that with the least among us standing there as a visual aid. I think we need to up the standards. There should be a more serious review process to get in the door (something between CGAux's security check & ACA's selection procedure). Then there should be intense member training (I'm talking academic, not PT) designed in partnership w/ AU & using as much of their material as possible, to get members to an 80% of an ANG member of the same grade type standard. We talked about some details on the portal some time ago, and obviously if you put in stiff requirements for officers & start making the grade meaningful then you have to create an enlisted or warrant side of the house also. That's NOT aimed at self-importance, but at interoperability & professional standards as a foundation for growing trust in our members as individuals who can get critical missions vital to the country's well-being done w/ the full faith of the AF behind us. Throw a strong merit element into the promotions system & give state directors a voice as AF rep in the process so it is sustained up & down the chain.

Now, I understand such drastic change would cause a lot of members to quit & would bring in a whole new class of people formed around a strong core that would stay. I'm okay with that. We had 101% negative retention over just the last 3-4 years – that is we've had more people quit than are actually in CAP. We've always had terrible retention. If that's the way things are now, I really don't have any issue with changing course to meet the changed needs of the country.


fyrfitrmedic

Enemies of CAP?

Mediocrity and complacency and those willing to accept either or both.
MAJ Tony Rowley CAP
Lansdowne PA USA
"The passion of rescue reveals the highest dynamic of the human soul." -- Kurt Hahn

Jim Quinn, Longview, TX

I'm not sure about actual enemies, but I do think we must look within our own ranks.

1.  MIMS comes to mind first.  It's the biggest habberdashery of BS I've ever seen in any computer system, anywhere.  It's band-aid upon band-aid, and I must say that it's probably the number one reason that pilots don't renew memberships.  I think it should be thrown out completely, and an intelligently-designed system implemented from scratch should be put in its place; a system that has been THOROUGHLY TESTED by ALL USERS prior to being put online.  I can tell  you that I've not found a single person yet who thinks of MIMS in a positive light.  It's an embarrassment to this organization, a huge irritant for members, and generally unworkable and/or unreliable as a source to determine member qualifications.  God, what a pain!  Has anyone ever figured out how the [darn]ed thing works?  No, really!  I'm a former computer programmer/systems analyst and I'd have to say that I'm not the most illiterate computer guy out here, but MIMS is shameful.  It's cumbersome, clumsy, user unfriendly and generally a confusing (I hate to use the word) system.  (Or non-system!)

2.  Pineda.  What a politician!  (Need I say more?)

3.  Those of us in our own ranks who carry "the wannabe attitude" on their shoulders.  We're not real Air Force.  The Air Force seeks to put their tag on us when it suits them; the corporate tag when it does not.  Either way, I have to say that the bigshot attitude hurts us all.  Arrogance can be a morale killer, and it's a common attitude, unfortunately.  Yes, I have seen the enemy, and it is us.
Jim Quinn, Major, CAP
Unit Safety Officer
Tyler Composite Squadron "Roberts Raiders" TX-085

Becks

Quote from: jimquinndallas on November 01, 2006, 10:39:58 PM

2.  Pineda.  What a politician!  (Need I say more?)


I didnt want to be the first to say it.

BBATW

lordmonar

Quote from: jimquinndallas on November 01, 2006, 10:39:58 PM
1.  MIMS comes to mind first.  It's the biggest habberdashery of BS I've ever seen in any computer system, anywhere.  It's band-aid upon band-aid, and I must say that it's probably the number one reason that pilots don't renew memberships.  I think it should be thrown out completely, and an intelligently-designed system implemented from scratch should be put in its place; a system that has been THOROUGHLY TESTED by ALL USERS prior to being put online.  I can tell  you that I've not found a single person yet who thinks of MIMS in a positive light.  It's an embarrassment to this organization, a huge irritant for members, and generally unworkable and/or unreliable as a source to determine member qualifications.  God, what a pain!  Has anyone ever figured out how the [darn]ed thing works?  No, really!  I'm a former computer programmer/systems analyst and I'd have to say that I'm not the most illiterate computer guy out here, but MIMS is shameful.  It's cumbersome, clumsy, user unfriendly and generally a confusing (I hate to use the word) system.  (Or non-system!)

Are you willing to pony up the money and type it take to develop a new system?  By all means call up national.  I'm sure they would love to see your code and start running a beta on it.

I understand what you are saying....it is a patched together, clunkyly, user-unfriendly, system.....but it is 90000 times better than doing it with paper. 
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Major_Chuck

Quote from: Becks on November 01, 2006, 10:50:28 PM
Quote from: jimquinndallas on November 01, 2006, 10:39:58 PM

2.  Pineda.  What a politician!  (Need I say more?)


I didnt want to be the first to say it.


How about I second it then?
Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard

DNall

Quote from: Major_Chuck on November 02, 2006, 12:55:02 AM
Quote from: Becks on November 01, 2006, 10:50:28 PM
Quote from: jimquinndallas on November 01, 2006, 10:39:58 PM
2.  Pineda.  What a politician!  (Need I say more?)
I didnt want to be the first to say it.
How about I second it then?
What comes next in robert's rules of order? Oh right, move to vote... dang, guess we're screwed.


Now, if I can just juxtapose these two items...
Quote from: jimquinndallas on November 01, 2006, 10:39:58 PM
3.  Those of us in our own ranks who carry "the wannabe attitude" on their shoulders.  We're not real Air Force.  The Air Force seeks to put their tag on us when it suits them; the corporate tag when it does not.  Either way, I have to say that the bigshot attitude hurts us all.  Arrogance can be a morale killer, and it's a common attitude, unfortunately.  Yes, I have seen the enemy, and it is us.

-AND-

Quote from: fyrfitrmedic on November 01, 2006, 10:37:52 PM
Enemies of CAP?
Mediocrity and complacency and those willing to accept either or both.

If I could rienforce that for well over 2/3rds of our history we did NOT function as a seperate corporation in any way but on paper. We all get that this isn't the real military, whcih zero to do a CAP Captain in a disaster zone being able to fill in for an ANG Captain at a joint mission base & actually be able to do work of that quality based on training we've given them. It also has nothing to do with earning a level of faith by our chief customer & parent org (AF) that causes them to believe ANY CAP officer is capable of operating complex gear on sensitive missions that actually matter in protecting the country just on the basis of being a CAP officer. I think we can agree we want to achieve those last two things, and now that ICS/NIMS has professionalized the people & standards around us, volunteers are not the same thing as a well-trained competent professional force. We have to become such a thing in more than our own oppinion or we die slowly, patting ourselves on the back all the way down. You can list the ways of getting there, but the best one is to follow the proven example of the AF & speak in their language.

By the way, the AF NEVER puts the corporate tag on us. CAP does that when they don't like what they're being told to do & AF says we're just CAP when we're acting like fools. Of the small percentage of people in the AF that know what CAP is, a very tiny number of them know there's such a thing as the corporate vs auxiliary status. All that mess is on the CAP side.

ELTHunter

Quote from: DNall on November 02, 2006, 01:16:42 AM

By the way, the AF NEVER puts the corporate tag on us. CAP does that when they don't like what they're being told to do & AF says we're just CAP when we're acting like fools. 

I think it runs both ways.  The USAF does put the Corporate tag on us when they want to limit their liability with no potential upside in return.  We put the Corporate tag on ourselves when we want to do something the USAF doesn't want us to do.....like wear metal rank on our uniforms or something.
Maj. Tim Waddell, CAP
SER-TN-170
Deputy Commander of Cadets
Emergency Services Officer

DNall

Quote from: ELThunter on November 02, 2006, 01:27:03 AM
Quote from: DNall on November 02, 2006, 01:16:42 AM

By the way, the AF NEVER puts the corporate tag on us. CAP does that when they don't like what they're being told to do & AF says we're just CAP when we're acting like fools. 

I think it runs both ways.  The USAF does put the Corporate tag on us when they want to limit their liability with no potential upside in return.  We put the Corporate tag on ourselves when we want to do something the USAF doesn't want us to do.....like wear metal rank on our uniforms or something.
That's true, but it's a legalistic technicality that the mainstream AF doesn't see, hear, or speak of (you caught that "see/hear/speak no evil" refrence right).

The change in 2000 to our auxiliary status was based on the AF demanding from congress the right to investigate & hold CAP accountable for the actions of our leadership. Ultimately the Senate said NO, but we'll do this to relieve you from liability if they screw up when not under your direct operational orders & we'll give you authority over this Board of Governors which has veto authority over & should take positive control of CAP leadership. Of course that hasn't worked out as planned, and that has a lot of people reconsidering. Now, again the alternative that originally came out of cmte was for AF to appoint all the Col & up slots. I personally think that's just a little too far, but if they were picking from a CAP recommended list or had veto authority over appointment/removals & IG authority to investigate major issues, I'd be very happy with that. I just don't like Congress having to step in cause it never fails they screw something up, trust me on this, they've never done ANYTHING just right.

ELTHunter

Quote from: DNall on November 02, 2006, 01:56:16 AM
The change in 2000 to our auxiliary status was based on the AF demanding from congress the right to investigate & hold CAP accountable for the actions of our leadership. Ultimately the Senate said NO, but we'll do this to relieve you from liability if they screw up when not under your direct operational orders & we'll give you authority over this Board of Governors which has veto authority over & should take positive control of CAP leadership. Of course that hasn't worked out as planned, and that has a lot of people reconsidering. Now, again the alternative that originally came out of cmte was for AF to appoint all the Col & up slots. I personally think that's just a little too far, but if they were picking from a CAP recommended list or had veto authority over appointment/removals & IG authority to investigate major issues, I'd be very happy with that. I just don't like Congress having to step in cause it never fails they screw something up, trust me on this, they've never done ANYTHING just right.

I agree whole heartedly agree with not wanting Congress to intervene.  I share your reservations.  But a change such as the original plan would be much preferred to what we currently have.  IMHO.
Maj. Tim Waddell, CAP
SER-TN-170
Deputy Commander of Cadets
Emergency Services Officer

DNall

I'm working on it, conspiracy takes time. I wouldn't want congress to design a plan & implement it from on high. I think that could be a disaster. What I'd like to see is an independent cmte from AF & CAP come together, be handed some out-of-the-box ideas to consider, told to ignore current legal restrictions, and asked to develop a hypothetical vision for the future, then submit it as a JOINT recommendation including what legal changes are needed to make it happen. Now, that can happen, and it can happen fast, but it has to be done very delicately. The process isn't that complicated, but the steps have to be just right.

ZigZag911

I believe it was that great American philosopher Pogo (a comic strip character, creation I think of a fellow named Walt Kelly) who said "We have met the enemy and they is Us!"

I've been around long enough to remember when we had no CAP national commander, it was an Air Force 1 or 2 star....the senior CAP person was "Chairman of the National Board".....needless to say, there was a very different working relationship between CAP & CAP-USAF!

Do we need to return to that? Perhaps not....but some objective approval of senior leadership appointments (by the BOG, or CAP-USAF, SOMEBODY) would be a bug start in the right direction.

Right now there are a lot of senior folks in it for the 'glory'...the rank, the power, and what they perceive as the prestige.

What we need is leaders who are in CAP for others, not themselves.....whose first concerns are always the mission and the members.

DNall

Quote from: ZigZag911 on November 02, 2006, 05:01:45 AM
What we need is leaders who are in CAP for others, not themselves.....whose first concerns are always the mission and the members.
I agree. What I see as the systemic problem is the process of getting there. If you don't have a merit based promotion system, the leadership posts aren't done on merit (not just WG & up, but everything), and there's so little accountability.... where are we creating a dynamic that causes the cream to naturally rise? There's politics in the military too, at all levels & especially at the top, but the underlying foundation ensures it's kept pretty well in check. On the other hand you can look at a corporate model with a profit motive (even non-profits have a profit motive) & stake holders to answer to, that also naturally seeks out the best. I think we're just so informal about it & confused as to who we are that we take the worst of both systems & get real scared of anything that might hold anyone back in favor of better options.

Johnny Yuma

What's with all the NOTF bashing? Most of what he posts about CAP is positive press regarding local unit human interest stories and operational missions. Whatever comes over the news wires marked CAP he gets.

Yeah, there's some negative CAP press there as well. He does editorialize over it too much at times but all in all is accurate. Everyone thought the Glasgow letter was BS until the Board agenda was posted. Gee, musta been coincidence.

do you really think one guy reposting a lot of AP newswire stuff is really doing more damage than the current leadership is????
"And Saint Attila raised the Holy Hand Grenade up on high saying, "Oh Lord, Bless us this Holy Hand Grenade, and with it smash our enemies to tiny bits. And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and stoats, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and lima bean-"

" Skip a bit, brother."

"And then the Lord spake, saying: "First, shalt thou take out the holy pin. Then shalt thou count to three. No more, no less. "Three" shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shall be three. "Four" shalt thou not count, and neither count thou two, execpting that thou then goest on to three. Five is RIGHT OUT. Once the number three, being the third number be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade to-wards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuffit. Amen."

Armaments Chapter One, verses nine through twenty-seven:

lordmonar

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 02, 2006, 06:48:48 AM
What's with all the NOTF bashing? Most of what he posts about CAP is positive press regarding local unit human interest stories and operational missions. Whatever comes over the news wires marked CAP he gets.

Yeah, there's some negative CAP press there as well. He does editorialize over it too much at times but all in all is accurate. Everyone thought the Glasgow letter was BS until the Board agenda was posted. Gee, musta been coincidence.

do you really think one guy reposting a lot of AP newswire stuff is really doing more damage than the current leadership is????

What he posts is plagiarized news snips from various press agencies.....all his original work is all ANTI CAP with out any substantiation.  He has on several occasions said some bad things but refused to provide any names so he could "protect his sources".

As far as getting involved in the current political roll....I just don't go there.  It does not effect me and I don't care.

If you do care....you need to get on your wing/regional staff and start making a difference.  Because you cannot affect any change griping on the boards.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Major_Chuck

The owner of NOTF (Skip Munger I believe) was a CAP member way back when Tony Pineda was running amok over Florida Wing.  The two personalities clashed and Munger was forced out.  Complaints he made to NHQ were dismissed and he began his crusade of slamming CAP Leadership at all levels through his email digest News of the Force.  He originially posted NOTF to the very first CAP Talk list server (Nothing compared to today's CAPTalk).  He will put out the copied news clips and articles about what the average common CAP'er is doing but if you watch his 'editorials' they all focus on CAP Leadership and Tony Pineda.   Munger at one point boasted about having some litigation in court against CAP and Pineda but I believe he lost and that is why he continues his anti-CAP tirade.
Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard

Major_Chuck

Quote from: lordmonar on November 02, 2006, 07:26:03 AM
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on November 02, 2006, 06:48:48 AM
What's with all the NOTF bashing? Most of what he posts about CAP is positive press regarding local unit human interest stories and operational missions. Whatever comes over the news wires marked CAP he gets.

Yeah, there's some negative CAP press there as well. He does editorialize over it too much at times but all in all is accurate. Everyone thought the Glasgow letter was BS until the Board agenda was posted. Gee, musta been coincidence.

do you really think one guy reposting a lot of AP newswire stuff is really doing more damage than the current leadership is????

What he posts is plagiarized news snips from various press agencies.....all his original work is all ANTI CAP with out any substantiation.  He has on several occasions said some bad things but refused to provide any names so he could "protect his sources".

As far as getting involved in the current political roll....I just don't go there.  It does not effect me and I don't care.

If you do care....you need to get on your wing/regional staff and start making a difference.  Because you cannot affect any change griping on the boards.

I have found if you want to make the strongest impact in CAP seek service on your Wing staffs, even if it is simply to assist in various projects.  You'll interact with more of your wing and get to see some of the bigger picture.
Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard

ZigZag911

Quote from: DNall on November 02, 2006, 05:23:30 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on November 02, 2006, 05:01:45 AM
What we need is leaders who are in CAP for others, not themselves.....whose first concerns are always the mission and the members.
I agree. What I see as the systemic problem is the process of getting there. If you don't have a merit based promotion system, the leadership posts aren't done on merit (not just WG & up, but everything), and there's so little accountability.... where are we creating a dynamic that causes the cream to naturally rise? There's politics in the military too, at all levels & especially at the top, but the underlying foundation ensures it's kept pretty well in check. On the other hand you can look at a corporate model with a profit motive (even non-profits have a profit motive) & stake holders to answer to, that also naturally seeks out the best. I think we're just so informal about it & confused as to who we are that we take the worst of both systems & get real scared of anything that might hold anyone back in favor of better options.

The problem is the folks at the top have taken some of their buddies (lieutenants and captains) and made them instant colonels, lieutenant colonels, or majors....given them groups, wings, even a region or two.

Unfortunately, the recipients of this largess are, for the most part, quite inexperienced (in some cases only 2 years or so in CAP), and lacking substantial outside experience, qualifications, or education that would prepare them for leadership at the upper levels.

Major Carrales

Quote from: ZigZag911 on November 02, 2006, 05:40:37 PM
Quote from: DNall on November 02, 2006, 05:23:30 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on November 02, 2006, 05:01:45 AM
What we need is leaders who are in CAP for others, not themselves.....whose first concerns are always the mission and the members.
I agree. What I see as the systemic problem is the process of getting there. If you don't have a merit based promotion system, the leadership posts aren't done on merit (not just WG & up, but everything), and there's so little accountability.... where are we creating a dynamic that causes the cream to naturally rise? There's politics in the military too, at all levels & especially at the top, but the underlying foundation ensures it's kept pretty well in check. On the other hand you can look at a corporate model with a profit motive (even non-profits have a profit motive) & stake holders to answer to, that also naturally seeks out the best. I think we're just so informal about it & confused as to who we are that we take the worst of both systems & get real scared of anything that might hold anyone back in favor of better options.

The problem is the folks at the top have taken some of their buddies (lieutenants and captains) and made them instant colonels, lieutenant colonels, or majors....given them groups, wings, even a region or two.

Unfortunately, the recipients of this largess are, for the most part, quite inexperienced (in some cases only 2 years or so in CAP), and lacking substantial outside experience, qualifications, or education that would prepare them for leadership at the upper levels.

Almost sounds like Medeval Times were in disucssion about here.  Feudalism?  That sort of thing might be regarded as an "Enemy" of CAP, it needn't be an individual or group that does us in...but, rather a methodology.
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

DNall

Quote from: ZigZag911 on November 02, 2006, 05:40:37 PM
Quote from: DNall on November 02, 2006, 05:23:30 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on November 02, 2006, 05:01:45 AM
What we need is leaders who are in CAP for others, not themselves.....whose first concerns are always the mission and the members.
I agree. What I see as the systemic problem is the process of getting there. If you don't have a merit based promotion system, the leadership posts aren't done on merit (not just WG & up, but everything), and there's so little accountability.... where are we creating a dynamic that causes the cream to naturally rise? There's politics in the military too, at all levels & especially at the top, but the underlying foundation ensures it's kept pretty well in check. On the other hand you can look at a corporate model with a profit motive (even non-profits have a profit motive) & stake holders to answer to, that also naturally seeks out the best. I think we're just so informal about it & confused as to who we are that we take the worst of both systems & get real scared of anything that might hold anyone back in favor of better options.

The problem is the folks at the top have taken some of their buddies (lieutenants and captains) and made them instant colonels, lieutenant colonels, or majors....given them groups, wings, even a region or two.

Unfortunately, the recipients of this largess are, for the most part, quite inexperienced (in some cases only 2 years or so in CAP), and lacking substantial outside experience, qualifications, or education that would prepare them for leadership at the upper levels.
Suire, but it's not just the NatCC. The same thing happens picking Gp or even Sq CCs, all the cooler staff & activity jobs. People tend to join/stay in CAP for one area, and leadership has the power to take that away from you if they want. Like I said, it's the worst of both worlds & degraded to personal politics. You could replace every leadership position w/ outstanding people, but if you don't change the system it'll just end up right back here again. The leaders we have now are a product of that system, and personally I'd don't want to see the successive models that roll off that assembly line. I want it fixed.

Now this would be one of those big crazy ideas that's too massive to do & requires remaking CAP, but in some way CAP needs remaking & in some ways there is no chance to do something incrementally. I know it requires big pressure from above, but I think some good things can happen in CAP if people are motivated & honest.

Johnny Yuma

News Flash: I am on my Wing's staff, live 2 blocks from one of my Region staffers (we were cadets together) and have served on a couple National committees. NOTF isn't the enemy here, folks. Does Skip have an axe to grind with Pineda? Probably, but he does't have to create bad press when our National Cc is fully capable of doing that himself.

What's killing CAP? Poor leadership and lack of accountability to the membership.
"And Saint Attila raised the Holy Hand Grenade up on high saying, "Oh Lord, Bless us this Holy Hand Grenade, and with it smash our enemies to tiny bits. And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and stoats, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and lima bean-"

" Skip a bit, brother."

"And then the Lord spake, saying: "First, shalt thou take out the holy pin. Then shalt thou count to three. No more, no less. "Three" shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shall be three. "Four" shalt thou not count, and neither count thou two, execpting that thou then goest on to three. Five is RIGHT OUT. Once the number three, being the third number be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade to-wards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuffit. Amen."

Armaments Chapter One, verses nine through twenty-seven:

ELTHunter

So, in your opinion, how do we encourage the national command, BOG's and NB to be accountable to the membership?
Maj. Tim Waddell, CAP
SER-TN-170
Deputy Commander of Cadets
Emergency Services Officer

Major_Chuck

Quote from: ELThunter on November 03, 2006, 01:36:03 AM
So, in your opinion, how do we encourage the national command, BOG's and NB to be accountable to the membership?

By becoming active. Attend the Commanders Call's and wing Conferences. Ask questions; get involved.
Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard

mawr

Quote from: Major_Chuck on November 03, 2006, 01:51:45 AM
By becoming active. Attend the Commanders Call's and wing Conferences. Ask questions; get involved.

Well said, Major_Chuck.
Rick Hasha, Lt Col CAP

ELTHunter

I am, very.  I do, I do, and I am.  However, I think the current system is stacked against the membership having any real influence over how the Boards vote on matters of national politics.  Even if you have a voice in your Wing, there are 52 other people that wield voting power on the National Board, and there really is no real member representation on the BOG.

I'll certainly continue to be active and contribute, but I think it's a little to naive to think that that's going to change things in any significant way.  The only real power to make significant changes in the strategic direction and management in CAP is to get elected/appointed to Wing CC or above, and I have no desire to play that political game.  That whole set up is at the root of CAP's political and leadership problems.

Unless/until either the USAF gets more control over the organization or the by-laws are changed to allow for greater leadership accountability to the membership. I do not believe the problems will go away.
Maj. Tim Waddell, CAP
SER-TN-170
Deputy Commander of Cadets
Emergency Services Officer

DNall

Quote from: ELThunter on November 03, 2006, 03:15:27 AM
I am, very.  I do, I do, and I am.  However, I think the current system is stacked against the membership having any real influence over how the Boards vote on matters of national politics.  Even if you have a voice in your Wing, there are 52 other people that wield voting power on the National Board, and there really is no real member representation on the BOG.

I'll certainly continue to be active and contribute, but I think it's a little to naive to think that that's going to change things in any significant way.  The only real power to make significant changes in the strategic direction and management in CAP is to get elected/appointed to Wing CC or above, and I have no desire to play that political game.  That whole set up is at the root of CAP's political and leadership problems.

Unless/until either the USAF gets more control over the organization or the by-laws are changed to allow for greater leadership accountability to the membership. I do not believe the problems will go away.
This the tale of two thread saying the same thing? Absolutely with the countable leadership. I wouldn't go for member elected corporate officers though. I know politics & it's not natural selection of the best people for the job, plus it gets awfully dirty under the best of circumstances. It's a core principle of leadership that you don't lead your people by virtue of being appointed over them, but by earning their respect & selling them on decisions (communication). That's the extent to which I think leadership needs to be accountable to us out here in the field. On the other hand, I think they need to be MASSIVELY more accountable to the AF, who should have the authority to keep them in the professional standard they (the AF) want out in the world representing them.

ZigZag911

Quote from: DNall on November 02, 2006, 09:32:16 PM
.
Suire, but it's not just the NatCC. The same thing happens picking Gp or even Sq CCs, all the cooler staff & activity jobs. People tend to join/stay in CAP for one area, and leadership has the power to take that away from you if they want. Like I said, it's the worst of both worlds & degraded to personal politics. You could replace every leadership position w/ outstanding people, but if you don't change the system it'll just end up right back here again. The leaders we have now are a product of that system, and personally I'd don't want to see the successive models that roll off that assembly line. I want it fixed.

Now this would be one of those big crazy ideas that's too massive to do & requires remaking CAP, but in some way CAP needs remaking & in some ways there is no chance to do something incrementally. I know it requires big pressure from above, but I think some good things can happen in CAP if people are motivated & honest.

Well, we need something...do you have anything specifically in mind?

ELTHunter

Quote from: DNall on November 03, 2006, 03:43:37 AM

On the other hand, I think they need to be MASSIVELY more accountable to the AF, who should have the authority to keep them in the professional standard they (the AF) want out in the world representing them.

I think we are in total agreement on this point.  I'd much prefer leaving the selection of leadership to the AF IF there was a strong pool of CAP talent to draw upon, or alternatively, have CAP-USAF officers appointed by the USAF at the National and Region CC level.  I know there is a good deal of politics that goes on in the upper levels of military command, but at least professional military officers have had real training and application of leadership principles.  Unlike CAP where a person with virtually no prior experience or education in leadership or management can rise to commanding a national organization.

We talk a lot about being "unpaid professionals" instead of "volunteers".  For the organization to truly be "professional", our leadership MUST reflect the same professionalism that we expect of the members in the field that are executing the missions.  The actions of each group (both field operators and top leadership) reflects upon the organization, and one goes hand in hand with the other.  If we are seen by outside agencies that we work with as amateur's, it hurts our image and ability to secure new missions.  If our leadership, the very people who represent us to congress and the USAF, are not seen as professional officers and managers, the efforts of the "unpaid professionals" in the field are diminished.

Some here may think my posts have been insubordinate or anti-CAP, but I hope that they are not taken in that vein.  I believe that if you asked anyone who works with me in CAP, they would tell you that I am the exact opposite of that in nature.  Like most folks here, it is much more in my nature to salute and carry out orders, than to question authority.  However, the current organization of the corporation is NOT military, as much as some wish it to be.  The Wing, Region and National CC's are supposed to be OUR Representatives to the NB, BOG and the USAF.  When they do not live up the standards of honesty and integrity that we expect, we have both a right and duty to speak out and demand otherwise.

I'm gonna give it a rest now, as I think we have covered this same territory before over at CivilAirPortal.  There are some good ideas out there as to how to "fix" the organization.  I just hope someone who is in a positon to carry them out is paying attention.
Maj. Tim Waddell, CAP
SER-TN-170
Deputy Commander of Cadets
Emergency Services Officer

DNall

I'll get back to you this afternoon, but yes I have quite a little plan we spent a lot of time talking about & refining on the protal - for those that think such a "what CAP could be some day" conversation is a waste of time... well, then don't participate for starters, but far as a reality check, the pressure from above effort I referred to previously is aimed at making much of this happen in the next few years. It is in fact an actionable item.

Major Carrales

#39
Listen, once we remember that we are here to accomplish missions for America and build our units up to met those needs, the better off we will be.  We have spend the last year building our unit...I'm over in South Texas.  It really matters little to those of us on the frontier "Who is National Commander" or "Who has he  fired," I'm too busy trying to get Form 5s and BFRs for our Aviators to meet our November Goals.  Also, to see what i can do to get our cadet program back on its feet.  To train our staff...

Now, why should I waste the energies and capital we are building in our community on this mishegas!!!
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

DNall

Quote from: Major Carrales on November 04, 2006, 06:08:16 AM
Listen, once we remember that we are here to accomplish missions for America and build our units up to met those needs, the better off we will be.  We have spend the last year building our unit...I'm over in South Texas.  It really matters little to those of us on the frontier "Who is National Commander" or "Who has he  fired," I'm too busy trying to get Form 5s and BFRs for our Aviators to meet our November Goals.  Also, to see what i can do to get our cadet program back on its feet.  To train our staff...

Now, why should I waste the energies and capital we are building in our community on this mishegas!!!
Well now I'll tell you exactly why. Who sets those Nov goals, or the ones for the next quarter or year? Who controls the relationship with the AF & hence the training dollars & equipment? Who controls the vision & direction of CAP & our relationship w/ customer agencies which in turn generates all the missions you're training those aviators to fly? Just cause you're out in teh middle of no where (which makes it hard to get directly invovled) doesn't mean the stuff at the top doesn't effect you, nor does it relieve you from the responsibility to confront behavior not in the best interest of CAP.

No one knows what the hell "missions for America" specifically means, nor do we see lots of new missions being generated despite massive opportunity sitting there for the taking. Of course we do you jobs locally. No one is saying we should be so concerned with the morons on top that we are unable to perform at Sq, I think we're all smart enough to be able to do both at the same time. To trudge along doing the very best we can to make the CAP around us better in the short-term, but also working strategically to make the big picture better for the future. No matter what you do locally, you aren't an NCO, you're an officer & strategic thinking & staffing action items is part of your job.

lordmonar

Quote from: Major Carrales on November 04, 2006, 06:08:16 AM
Listen, once we remember that we are here to accomplish missions for America and build our units up to met those needs, the better off we will be.  We have spend the last year building our unit...I'm over in South Texas.  It really matters little to those of us on the frontier "Who is National Commander" or "Who has he  fired," I'm too busy trying to get Form 5s and BFRs for our Aviators to meet our November Goals.  Also, to see what i can do to get our cadet program back on its feet.  To train our staff...

Now, why should I waste the energies and capital we are building in our community on this mishegas!!!


Hear! Hear!
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Major Carrales

#42
QuoteWho sets those Nov goals, or the ones for the next quarter or year?

My officers and I set those goals, we resolved to have that level of professional development in avaition within our unit.   The Squadron is where the "rubber meets the road." 

Quote...nor does it relieve you from the responsibility to confront behavior not in the best interest of CAP.

I do not care for the tenor of your post and respectfully ask that you retract that statement and all it implies.
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

DNall

Retract that you have a responsibility to confront behavior not in the best interest of CAP, be that in a cadet at your Sq or from the Nat CC? That IS the responsibility of every member. I know it's a popular thing to say that you should just plow on ahead locally & not worry about what happens in leadership, but it does effect us all & we all have a responsibility to confront & correct it. No one else is going to or even can fix it for us. CAP is only as good as we make it, and the fact is the quality of units & operations 'where the rubber meets the road' is greatly effected by the quality & actions of leadership from Gp to Wg to NHQ. You shouldn't let the duty to hold it accountable consume you, but you do have a responsibility to be concerned & demand action to fix it. Nothing there to retract my friend unless you misunderstood what I was saying, and if that's the case, my bad.

I'm glad to see you setting local goals & driving forward. Of course those are based on expectations & standards set from above & no matter how good you are it doesn't effect if state or federal agencies ask CAP for help. It sounds like you're doing a fine job down there & I commend you for it. We have to address the bigger picture though cause we're not judged as the sum of our parts, but by the worst among us & by our Wg/Reg/Nat officers. We have to take care of the small picture we control in our units, but we also have to fix the big picture right too or ultimately none of our local sacrifices mean much - at best they're transitory.

lordmonar

Quote from: DNall on November 04, 2006, 08:57:30 AM
Retract that you have a responsibility to confront behavior not in the best interest of CAP, be that in a cadet at your Sq or from the Nat CC? That IS the responsibility of every member.

Excuse me?  Capt's don't tell generals how to do their job.  Sure...if I see General Pineda walking around not saluting or smoking in a no smoking zone, I'll respectfully correct him.  But HE sets the direction of CAP not me, not you.  Last time I checked CAP is NOT a democracy.  We follow some democratic ideas, but I don't elect any of my commanders and they ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE TO ME for their conduct.  They are responsible to their commanders and the regulations.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

ZigZag911

Just a couple of points to try to calm these troubled waters.

First, it is true that the local squadron is where the CAP program, our missions for America, are executed.  As the good Major Carrales said, squadrons are indeed where the rubber meets the road.

That said, squadrons do not exist in a vacuum.....they are not the 21st century equivalent of the frigates of the Napleonic Wars (Horatio Hornblower, Jack Aubrey?),
independent commands travelling far from the influence of central authority!

In fact, leaving groups, wings and regions aside, the best squadrons in our more populous wings, where they are geographically close enough to do so, are interdependent and support each other!

Secondly, commanders are supposed to be leaders, not dictators.


DNall

Quote from: lordmonar on November 04, 2006, 05:23:14 PM
Excuse me?  Capt's don't tell generals how to do their job.  Sure...if I see General Pineda walking around not saluting or smoking in a no smoking zone, I'll respectfully correct him.  But HE sets the direction of CAP not me, not you.  Last time I checked CAP is NOT a democracy.  We follow some democratic ideas, but I don't elect any of my commanders and they ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE TO ME for their conduct.  They are responsible to their commanders and the regulations.
In fact they do. If you're a staff officer in the military & you see your boss doing something wrong it IS your job to say, "excuse me sir, but do you think it might be better if we tried it this way" or "I think this might be a problem with XYZ reg" etc. If he then tells you to shut the hell up & do what you're told, then you have to decide if it's legal or not & mostly do it, but if it's found later to be illegal & you knew that & did it anyway, you can go to jail in cases where the commander won't. If I wore my nametag on the wrong side to work I'd fully expect an NCO to tell me about it. If you see a cadet walking around with a glarring uniform mistake, it doesn't matter if he's from your Sq or not or if you're a cadet programs officer, you're still supposed to correct him. Uniforms & regs are obvious, but the same is true of core values. For instance, we only have as much integrity as we enforce on each other. That's the culture that's being refrenced. You have a responsibility to do what you can to make things better, but yes there is a point when you've made your case to leadership & they've refused your advice & order you to go forward with their plan. That's when you salute & execute, but you argue like hell right up to that point for what's best for the org. After that point, the responsibility transfers to whomever they are accountable to. In CAP, you can argue that the Nat CC is accountable to either the AF or to membership. The AF doesn't have the legal authority to hold them accoutnable & membership isn't allowed to have a voice, so both those situations need fixing.

In the military in a legal sense officers are responsible to the commissioning org via the officers appointed over them. In a more practical sense though they very much are responsible to thier subordinates. You're only a credible leader if your subordinates think you are & only have that power over them which they give you in exchange for meeting their expectations for good leadership principles, quality, & character.

I'm not trying to start trouble here, I'm just saying that the national situation is a problem, which we all agree it is, and you can't run away & escape that by focusing locally. The problem is there because they were empowered by us out here in the field & they remain empowered by the field as long as we're tolerant of their behavior. Now what to do about it is a more contentious debate, but I do think we each have a duty to help do something.

ELTHunter

Quote from: Major Carrales on November 04, 2006, 06:08:16 AM
Listen, once we remember that we are here to accomplish missions for America and build our units up to met those needs, the better off we will be.  We have spend the last year building our unit...I'm over in South Texas.  It really matters little to those of us on the frontier "Who is National Commander" or "Who has he  fired," I'm too busy trying to get Form 5s and BFRs for our Aviators to meet our November Goals.  Also, to see what i can do to get our cadet program back on its feet.  To train our staff...

Now, why should I waste the energies and capital we are building in our community on this mishegas!!!


I have felt the same as you for most of my time in CAP.  However, recently I have recognized two things. First, while folks like you and I are working our rear ends off at the squadron or group level to make our little area of CAP the best it can be, poor leadership can be undermining all that work by making CAP look like a bunch of amateurs where we are most visible to the people that hold the purse strings and the missions.  It won't do us a lot of good to have a crack squadron, group or wing if the leadership of the USAF, FEMA, etc. decide we are not worth the trouble to deal with or might be an embarrassment to them.  If we truly want to have a CAP we can be proud to be a part of, we need to look at it from top to bottom.

Secondly, how can we expect our cadets to really live our values if we do not hold ourselves and our leadership to the same standard?  By being apathetic to poor inappropriate conduct of the leadership that supposedly represent us, we are condoning the violation of our own core values.
Maj. Tim Waddell, CAP
SER-TN-170
Deputy Commander of Cadets
Emergency Services Officer

lordmonar

I am not talking about if some leader is violating the law.  I am talking about if i disagree with where a leader is taking the organization.

And that seems to be what most people are having a problem with.

As far as I know, General Pineda has not violated any laws.  He may or may not have bent some of the bylaws or the CAP Constitution and he is NOT subject to the regulations (being the top dog he writes them!).

So....has he abused his power?  Maybe.  Has he turned the organization on its ear?  Definitely.  Has he violated any laws?  Don't know, none that I know of.

But some don't like where he is taking us.  They don't see his vision or don't agree with his choice of paths to take us to that end state.

That is NOT for us to question.  It is for him to dictate.  The NEC and NB can question him on it, they can vote him out, but we can't.  We can voice our concerns up the chain of command and that is it.

So what do we have left?

Well, in theory the National Commander serves at the bequest of the NB...that is the the region and wing commanders.  He in-turn appoints those commanders.  Hence the one term rule....we don't want anyone loading the board in their favor.

So what can we do?  We can focus on our piece of the pie and ignore the rest.  We can get involved, by becoming a face at the wing level, getting the ear of your wing commander and persuading him to see your point of view.  We can become a staff member and step up to the plate and take on leadership roles and have a direct voice in the political process.

What we should not do is undermine the authority of our commanders.  We do this at our own peril.  Suggesting "strikes" or organizing people to ignore directives is the short path to getting a 2b.  Even if I agreed with your point of view, I would not tolerate that sort of person in my squadron.

The only way to reform is from with in.  If you can't work with the system then quit and form your own group.  This is not a love it or leave it option....it is a work with it or leave it option.

My new enemy of CAP is people who are frustrated with the system and want to tear it down instead of fixing it.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

DNall

Quote from: lordmonar on November 04, 2006, 07:57:26 PM
I am not talking about if some leader is violating the law.  I am talking about if i disagree with where a leader is taking the organization.

And that seems to be what most people are having a problem with.
I understand what you're saying, and yes you have a responsibility if they are taking you in the wrong direction also. The same one when the experienced platoon sgt says, "ahh, excuse me sir, but I think you're holding that map upside down," or "sir you're calling for fire on our position, please give me the radio now." Even if it's the Billy Mitchell style the org leadership doesn't get it & is going the wrong way, you do have an obligation to do what you can to set it right. Billy Mitchell's mistake was trying to do more than he could & embarassing the service in the process, and I think if he were alive today he'd go back & do it all over again & we'd each thank him for what he did for our country.

QuoteAs far as I know, General Pineda has not violated any laws.  He may or may not have bent some of the bylaws or the CAP Constitution and he is NOT subject to the regulations (being the top dog he writes them!).

So....has he abused his power?  Maybe.  Has he turned the organization on its ear?  Definitely.  Has he violated any laws?  Don't know, none that I know of.
That's not correct actually. He doesn't govern CAP. He's in a powerful position as chair of both the NEC & NB, & with a seat on the BoG, but the NB & NEC actually make policy, and frankly the BoG is legally the governing body & can do whatever it pleases w/o regard to there even being a NB or NEC, and I wish they'd do a lot more of that. I realize the Nat CC has great influence on the process & the power to write emergency policy letters, but he's not above the law, nor does he write it.

Congress is not entirely happy (I am qualified ot speak to that) & the few I've talked to in AF leadership positions aren't really either. There have been some questionable legal situations & clear disregard of CAP & AF regs in other situations. That's not a good thing.

QuoteBut some don't like where he is taking us.  They don't see his vision or don't agree with his choice of paths to take us to that end state.

That is NOT for us to question.  It is for him to dictate.  The NEC and NB can question him on it, they can vote him out, but we can't.  We can voice our concerns up the chain of command and that is it.

So what do we have left?

Well, in theory the National Commander serves at the bequest of the NB...that is the the region and wing commanders.  He in-turn appoints those commanders.  Hence the one term rule....we don't want anyone loading the board in their favor.
There might be more some of us can do, but I'm not formenting rebellion. You should do all that's in your power to hold your leaders accountable & make CAP better. If that just consists of forwarding complaints up th chain, then do that - I mean actually do that, not just talk about it. If everyone did so, the pressure on the NB would be pretty strong to make some changes.

QuoteSo what can we do?  We can focus on our piece of the pie and ignore the rest.  We can get involved, by becoming a face at the wing level, getting the ear of your wing commander and persuading him to see your point of view.  We can become a staff member and step up to the plate and take on leadership roles and have a direct voice in the political process.

What we should not do is undermine the authority of our commanders.  We do this at our own peril.  Suggesting "strikes" or organizing people to ignore directives is the short path to getting a 2b.  Even if I agreed with your point of view, I would not tolerate that sort of person in my squadron.

The only way to reform is from with in.  If you can't work with the system then quit and form your own group.  This is not a love it or leave it option....it is a work with it or leave it option.

My new enemy of CAP is people who are frustrated with the system and want to tear it down instead of fixing it.
Certainly strikes or undermining your command is very worthy of a 2b & not at all what I've suggested. Demanding accountability from your leaders is not undermining, it's supportive & drives the organization to greater success. I'd argue that the Nat CC does not single handedly determine the vision, direction, or methods of the organization, and even if he did & that was harmful to CAP it would be your place to stand up & be heard on the subject.

I do advocate getting involved & working from the inside out to influence the process. I'm in a little bit different situation where I have the ear of a couple people that make folks uncomfortable from the top down, but each in their own way with the resources they have available to them, and to the extent you're capable of.

I think you'll find I very much want to fix CAP, and want to see no harm come to it. Some of the things I'd do if given the chance would involve rather dramatic changes on a few points and any dramatic change would cause some members to leave & others to come in, but NEVER should you describe that as tearing down CAP. I'm not saying you were, just clarifying.

Psicorp

Quote from: lordmonar on November 04, 2006, 07:57:26 PM
I am not talking about if some leader is violating the law.  I am talking about if i disagree with where a leader is taking the organization.
And that seems to be what most people are having a problem with.
The only way to reform is from with in.  If you can't work with the system then quit and form your own group.  This is not a love it or leave it option....it is a work with it or leave it option.
My new enemy of CAP is people who are frustrated with the system and want to tear it down instead of fixing it.

I think that the greatest amount of frustration from members is the not knowing where our leadership is taking us.    I've never cared much for following blindly...it's not that I want to question the leadership abilities of my Officers, it's just that if I had a Vision that I could see, touch, and integrate, then I'd be much more likely to help push the cart rather than just follow behind it.

It could be that we are facing greater budget cutbacks and modifying our physical image is required in order to expand our CAPabilities and increase our funding in order to do even more, rather than a visual restructuring to drive a wedge between us and our Parental Organization.

You are absolutely right, sir...throwing tantrums and muttering words of mutiny are not the way to go about things.   I take solice in two things.  1) The new Commander's Column on the National website, it's a step forward in communication. 2)  Everything is subject to change, even the National CC isn't a lifetime position.

The "enemies" of CAP that have been listed in this thread are the same types of people who sow malcontentment in every organization.   We are supposed to be professional Officers and NCOs (and Cadets) whenever we are in uniform.  Some people may change their opinions in time, others never will.   
Jamie Kahler, Capt., CAP
(C/Lt Col, ret.)
CC
GLR-MI-257

Major Carrales

Feel like talkin' positive about CAP?

Wilkommen zu...http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=994.0

Between these two threads we can uncover the TRUTH about how we can improve CAP!!!
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

Jim Quinn, Longview, TX

In my previous post I slammed MIMS fairly hard and probably did some disservice to those folks at NHQ who have worked long and hard to try to make it more workable.

I would like to add that though I most certainly do think it is an irritant and fairly user-unfriendly, it is steadily getting easier to use and as one poster put it, it most definitely IS a huge improvement over the paper-based systems of yesteryear.

(Gripe Switch now off)
Jim Quinn, Major, CAP
Unit Safety Officer
Tyler Composite Squadron "Roberts Raiders" TX-085

DNall

Good or bad (excellence) is never measured against where we came from, only where we're trying to get to. I also don't think you can jusge it getting better by us as we get used to all the functions, but rather you have to look at it at each stage like the new person coming aboard trying to grasp the whole thing from scratch. It's still got a very long way to go on that front, and franly what we have now is just missing a lot of things that need to be there also (PD for instance).

I think if you hired a team of pros to create a user friendly for the semi-computer-illiterate program that covers every aspect of our personnel administration, then I'd bet it'd look & work a good bit differently. I appreciate what it is & how it came together over the years, but at some point the cobbled together system isn't good enough & needs to be overtaken by new software. Considering the degree to which this effects volunteer retention, I'd think that's sooner rather than later. Also, I'm not sure it should be required to have what amounts to a tech rating in MIMS to keep your record up to date. I tend to think most organizations would put those responsibilities in the hands of specialists (admin/personnel/ES-trng officers) and leave a less capable read-only & request system out there for the general membership. It's just too much for people.


lordmonar

Quote from: DNall on November 08, 2006, 09:56:10 PM
Good or bad (excellence) is never measured against where we came from, only where we're trying to get to. I also don't think you can jusge it getting better by us as we get used to all the functions, but rather you have to look at it at each stage like the new person coming aboard trying to grasp the whole thing from scratch. It's still got a very long way to go on that front, and franly what we have now is just missing a lot of things that need to be there also (PD for instance).

I partially agree with you here....but you have to accept that it is a work in progress and it is truly improving...we are not just getting used to its quirks.

I
Quote from: DNall on November 08, 2006, 09:56:10 PMthink if you hired a team of pros to create a user friendly for the semi-computer-illiterate program that covers every aspect of our personnel administration, then I'd bet it'd look & work a good bit differently. I appreciate what it is & how it came together over the years, but at some point the cobbled together system isn't good enough & needs to be overtaken by new software.

And how many flying hours are we going to sacrifice to pay for this?  Not saying it would be nice...but to say that "the cobbled together system isn't good enough" is not really true.  It is good enough...it gets the job done....just as paper did 5 years ago.  Is it perfect?  Heck no!  Can it be fixed?  I hope so.  Can we hire pros to do a better job?  Sure we can.  But it comes down to money.  How much does a professional computer programmer makes these days?  How many hours of coding are we talking about?

I for one, would like to keep flying and use MIMS as bad as it is.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

DNall

Quote from: lordmonar on November 09, 2006, 05:42:46 AM
I partially agree with you here....but you have to accept that it is a work in progress and it is truly improving...we are not just getting used to its quirks.
I understand. I'm not saying it's not, nor am I un-accepting of reality or un-grateful for progress. I'm certainly not looking for the gold standard of unobtainable perfection, or remotely close to it for that matter. I'm merely stating we must look always forward. You can't run half a race a great pace & stop there to pat yourself on the back about how well you've done so far. It's true you've done well & should be happy about that, but you must also soldier on to the end where the cold beer awaits.

Don't take me as overly negative on this or anything else. I'm not. We have a long way to go on many things. Some we're doing well on, some we're not, either way the goals in front & oress on always - that's what I take 'excellence in all we do' to mean.

QuoteAnd how many flying hours are we going to sacrifice to pay for this?  Not saying it would be nice...but to say that "the cobbled together system isn't good enough" is not really true.  It is good enough...it gets the job done....just as paper did 5 years ago.  Is it perfect?  Heck no!  Can it be fixed?  I hope so.  Can we hire pros to do a better job?  Sure we can.  But it comes down to money.  How much does a professional computer programmer makes these days?  How many hours of coding are we talking about?

I for one, would like to keep flying and use MIMS as bad as it is.
The context I said that in is that software goes obsolete & is no longer good enough. There's a point out front, closer rather than farther, where laying a new system in is better than strapping grandma on the roof to pile on this one. Is it worth a few flying hours? I certainly think so, and I'll tell you why...

How many members do we lose each year due to overall frustration? Even w/o counting their active participation, how many dollars is that dropping off the MML? Would fixing MIMS alone change that big number, no way, but I bet it'd keep a hundred out of the thousands we lose & try to replace each year. What's a hundred times $70 & how many flying hours is that? Let me ask you another one, how many members are delayed in getting mission qualified or frustrated enough to quit before they are because this clunky system is hard to use? You think our mission capable rate would increase at all if we streamlined some things? And one more thing. You know we can get help from AF, specifically from AU, but probably most anything we need, as long as we're willing to pay for it right? Now, that's pay the man days on Govt salary to use govt employees that do this kind of thing professionally, NOT the crazy outside contractor rate. I think there's probably a pretty good solution out there if we give it a little study.