What do members think we should be?

[Hawk200]

It's a question of what people think CAP should be, I'm curious as the answer. I get the impression that some people want the benefits, without the responsibilities.

Option 1: A corporate organization with it's own uniforms, directives, and missions with no accounting to the Air Force. No need to consult on any changes for CAP operations with any higher level of command, but also no funding from them.

or

Option 2: An Auxiliary with the oversight, a chain of command, and uniforms related  to (or approved by) the Air Force as the mother branch. Changes to operations, regulations, etc. would require coordination, but would also include funding.

Mixing and matching isn't an option. The Air Force wouldn't have any reason to fund an organization that doesn't answer to them, hence the options as put forth. A corporate organization would probably be responsible for it's own funding and upkeep. There is also the possibility that some missions might not be practical for one option or the other.

Which one would you choose?

The poll is set for seven days, should be enough time for everyone to have their say.

[Major Carrales]

Hawk, I can't say I would pick either based on the realities of our current situations, although I would lean more over the USAF Aux proper...WWII type Auxiliaries where we are under the AIR FORCE as a part of their "Chain of Command" will never fly in our times.  Unless there was the sort of threat facing the National that would rival WWII.

We could exist as a Corporation, but that would be opening the organization to all sorts to missions of the sort that we would likely not want to entertain or would simply have to.

As a government organization (should people entertain a 3rd option), an extension of Homeland Security, we would exist only until the era ends.  Thus, some future administration would say...why do we need this?  And off into the history books we go.

While many have issue with how things are going.  I would like to say my belief on this matter:

CAP exists as its does now, as a sort of hodge-podge quasi-auxiliary, because over the years the viability of CAP has come into question and those in charge have moved to adapt the mission of CAP to provide that validity.

Thus, in the 1940s when we are facing a "crossroads" of history (Republican Government or Fascism) so plain that it did not even then need hindsight to see.  CAP, along with other Civil Defense, was an extension of the WAR effort.  The end of the war brought with it a change in focus to SAR and Cadets.  By the 1960s and 1970s the mission again evolved and continues to do so to keep CAP "in the mod."

Thus, then new missions and project present themselves and people complain that they are out of the scope of what CAP does, remember that each such "jewel" in our crown insures we are not set aside.

That is why CAP is as it is today...to adapt is to survive.
 

[FW]

Even though this has been discussed, in some form or another, on CT before, I don't mind "playing this mind game for awhile.

Option 1:
To be a totally independant corporation contracting with any agency/body for our services would be an ideal way to go HOWEVER, we would need a whole new infrastructure and organization to run things.  This means a source of income we don't have and have no current possiblity of getting.  Unless someone is going to donate $150 million or so, this idea is DOA.  BTW, just think of the liabilty issues we would face and, with no protection under FICA/ FECA.  (The rent we would have to pay for our NHQ alone would bankrupt us after a while.)

Option 2:
Believe it or not, we already exist in this environment; at least for the last 30 or so years now.  This "aux off -aux on"  stuff is really a semantics exercise to confuse the real issue, IMHO.  And that issue is, how much the Air Force wants to fund our programs. 


We have been a non profit corporation since 1947.  We have been the official auxiliary of the US Air Force for the same amount of time.  The Air Force supports all three of our stated missions to varying degrees. For example; cadet  uniforms, vehicles, aircraft, facilities, and other support depending on available funding.  Their only concern is our handling of taxpayers' money and the way we look and act while wearing the "AF style uniform".   Nothing really has changed much since I was a cadet in the 60's..... Except for the uniforms, the vans and, the nice aircraft which have been given to us by the US taxpayer.

Gee, option 2 seems to be a better idea after all. 

[Strick]

Make us part of DHS

[Nick]

Ask yourself: What is it about the Coast Guard Auxiliary that makes them successful?  If they were modeled in a similar fashion to how CAP is now, would it make them less or more effective as a force multiplier to the Coast Guard?

Then ask yourself: What are the differences, organizationally, operationally, administratively, and financially, between CAP and the CGA?  And if we were to change those differences to bring us more in line with the CGA, would that make us less or more effective as a force multiplier to the Air Force?

Those answers may help to support option 2.

[Strick]

The CG likes its auxiliary thats the diffrence

[RiverAux]

Although I think the old school Aux option represents some sort of myth that has developed about the "good old days", I'll play along and vote for it of the two options presented (though I notice, "stay the same" wasn't allowed).  Of those options, the Aux option is really the only one that is viable. 

While there are many things that CAP can learn from CG Aux (and vice versa), the control that the CG has over their Aux has very little to do with how successful the overall relationship is.  Quite frankly, the CG needs its Aux more than the AF does and while both could get along without their auxiliaries, it would be a bit tougher on the CG.  All that goes back to the fact that almost all CG missions are done in the US and there are greater opportunities for the CG Aux to participate in them.  There are only very limited things CAP can do for the AF since most AF work is overseas. 

[Short Field]

This or that?  Frying Pan or the Fire?   Not much in the way of options - especially for a poll.  How about a third, choice - "Leave it alone".  The way it is works.  Not the best way all the time and it can be improved.  But it is still a better option than the two you gave us.

[NCRblues]

I have to say this, because it worries me when I continually see this posted on here. The United States Air Force does not fund civil air patrol. We are not a line number on the Air Force budget. The United States congress appropriates funds for CAP.

[Nick]

Sure about that?

   (a) Air Force Support for Activities. - The Secretary of the Air
    Force may furnish to the Civil Air Patrol in accordance with this
    section any equipment, supplies, and other resources that the
    Secretary determines necessary to enable the Civil Air Patrol to
    fulfill the missions assigned by the Secretary to the Civil Air
    Patrol as an auxiliary of the Air Force.
      (b) Forms of Air Force Support. - The Secretary of the Air Force
    may, under subsection (a) -
[snip]
        (7) authorize the payment of travel expenses and allowances, at
      rates not to exceed those paid to employees of the United States
      under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, to members of the
      Civil Air Patrol while the members are carrying out programs or
      missions specifically assigned by the Air Force;
        (8 ) provide funds for the national headquarters of the Civil
      Air Patrol, including -
          (A) funds for the payment of staff compensation and benefits,
        administrative expenses, travel, per diem and allowances, rent,
        utilities, other operational expenses of the national
        headquarters; and
          (B) to the extent considered necessary by the Secretary of
        the Air Force to fulfill Air Force requirements, funds for the
        payment of compensation and benefits for key staff at regional,
        State, or territorial headquarters;

        (9) authorize the payment of expenses of placing into
      serviceable condition, improving, and maintaining equipment
      (including aircraft, motor vehicles, computers, and
      communications equipment) owned or leased by the Civil Air
      Patrol;
        (10) provide funds for the lease or purchase of items of
      equipment that the Secretary determines necessary for the Civil
      Air Patrol;
        (11) support the Civil Air Patrol cadet program by furnishing -
     
          (A) articles of the Air Force uniform to cadets without cost;
        and
          (B) any other support that the Secretary of the Air Force
        determines is consistent with Air Force missions and
        objectives; and

        (12) provide support, including appropriated funds, for the
      Civil Air Patrol aerospace education program to the extent that
      the Secretary of the Air Force determines appropriate for
      furthering the fulfillment of Air Force missions and objectives.

[billford1]

I've seen a lot lately about the rulings that flow down from the CAP NEC and BOG the way they do every year.  When I see CAP along side the USAF it makes me wonder what it is we do for the USAF on a national scale. It makes me curious about what drove the decision to separate CAP and the USAF from what they were back in the 70s and 80s.  People who have been around for a long time tell me that the AF had people assigned to CAP locally as L.O.  At some point in the 90's everything changed into what we are today. The Wing in a neighboring state is much bigger and well funded than ours, and I'm told they've developed a good relationship with the ANG.  If our leadership knows us better they can know what they've got to work with.  Does anyone know who at the NOC or AFRCC tracks us as individuals when a mission is activated?  If CAP were managed by the ANG I wonder if that wouldn't work better than what we have now because I can't see any mission for CAP in the future where we could be federalized?

[NCRblues]

Well I am man enough to say when I am wrong, but I looked all through the air force budget for this fiscal year and the last, and not a mention of cap.... So either they just don't put it in their congressional mandated public budget or were one of those top secret entities that don't exist.

[Nick]

Well I am man enough to say when I am wrong, but I looked all through the air force budget for this fiscal year and the last, and not a mention of cap…. So either they just don’t put it in their congressional mandated public budget or were one of those top secret entities that don’t exist.

The money could very well be tagged by Congress -- especially aerospace education and other non-AFAM funds -- but I do believe the Air Force signs the checks (yeah, the Treasury signs the checks, I know -- you get my meaning).

Edit #1: Disregard -- found it: Page 554 of http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090511-057.pdf. 

And aircraft budget is on page 151 at http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090511-090.pdf.

[NCRblues]

page 550 is service wide activitys... dont see any mention of cap their...?

P.S. not trying to be rude just want to find it.

[Hawk200]

"stay the same" wasn't an option because I wanted to know if faced with one or the other, which would people choose.

I've noticed a few different mindsets on this board that, in my view, boil down the folowing:

One seems to want a closer relationship to the Air Force, even integration and operations alongside Air Force members in a one force type of concept. The same kind of side by side relationship that the CG Auxiliary allegedly has with its mother branch.

Another seems to want autonomy, no answering to the Air Force, not even an appearance of association. However, they seem to be willing to accept locations, coordination, and funding from the Air Force.

The third seems to feel that there should be no ties whatsoever. Completely independent organization with nothing associated with the Air Force, any military branch, or the government. The concept of funding doesn't seem to be mentioned, but such an oraganization would require its own means of pursuing funding.

My poll is a simple either/or question. I'm not accomodating those who feel that we should be funded by someone, but not answerable to them. The concept to me is unethical.

So, if faced with a hard choice, which would you choose?

[Nick]

page 550 is service wide activitys... dont see any mention of cap their...?

P.S. not trying to be rude just want to find it.

Eh, printed page 550 -- it's PDF page 554.

[NCRblues]

Found it, thank you. I was wrong.

[Nick]

The third seems to feel that there should be no ties whatsoever. Completely independent organization with nothing associated with the Air Force, any military branch, or the government. The concept of funding doesn't seem to be mentioned, but such an oraganization would require its own means of pursuing funding.

I think that's very dangerous.  If we intend to remain in the SAR game, we would then become contractors that provided air and ground civil search and rescue as a private organization.  We would have to farm ourselves out to the states or counties as a volunteer SAR asset.

[Hawk200]

The third seems to feel that there should be no ties whatsoever. Completely independent organization with nothing associated with the Air Force, any military branch, or the government. The concept of funding doesn't seem to be mentioned, but such an oraganization would require its own means of pursuing funding.

I think that's very dangerous.  If we intend to remain in the SAR game, we would then become contractors that provided air and ground civil search and rescue as a private organization.  We would have to farm ourselves out to the states or counties as a volunteer SAR asset.

I agree. But for what I read on the boards, this is one of the mindsets I see.

[Nick]

Found it, thank you. I was wrong.

Don't even worry about it sir ... I just want to make sure credit's given where it's due.  In this case, the Air Force is giving us the money, we need to recognize them.

[billford1]

Looking at the original question I would go with the AF AUX the way we were. We could grow as an organization particularly if we could get their assistance with Professional Development.

[RiverAux]

I don't recall many, if any, people seriously advocating that CAP should just be an entirely independent corporation.  I also don't recall many people seriously advocating us having more autonomy than we do (which is a lot).  The only aspect of CAP where this is even slightly touched upon is uniforms, but I believe that most of those who advocate for going to corporate only uniforms do so only because the AF won't let us all wear their uniforms and they seek more uniformity.  I bet 90% of them would be just fine if the weight and grooming standards were relaxed somewhat so that no corporate uniforms would be necessary (though there probably is a percentage that would still like the golf shirt option available). 

There have been a few people that have put forward proposals to move us to other federal agencies as well as some for different relationships for CAP within the Air Force or National Guard structure. 

[Short Field]

People who have been around for a long time tell me that the AF had people assigned to CAP locally as L.O.  At some point in the 90's everything changed into what we are today.

Might have had more to do with the major drawdown in USAF manning that begin in the early 1990s.  Brutal times for the active and reserve forces.  Most of the Lt Col reservists I worked with were "retired".  They were moved to the inactive reserve and not allowed any additional training days or tours.  This froze them at their current grade and  the reserve points they had already earned for retirement.  Not all of them had even met a O6 promotion board.

[FW]

Found it, thank you. I was wrong.

Don't even worry about it sir ... I just want to make sure credit's given where it's due.  In this case, the Air Force is giving us the money, we need to recognize them.

Don't worry about it guys.  Actually, you're both kind of correct.....

Congress appropriates CAP a "grant" every year.  The grant is administered by the USAF through a "grants officer" as specified in CAP's "cooperative agreement" and "statement of work".  CAP-USAF is responisble for the oversight in spending of the grant.

Every year (until this one) congress has taken about $4M from the AF budget and transferred it to CAP's O&M budget (Usually from AETC). 

All the money (~$28M) is highly controlled by the AF.  CAP is on a very short leash with the cash because after all, we are "part of the team".....