The NCAC is looking at changing the term-limits for cadets serving on CACs.
Proposed Changes (https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BzBsC7FGeXhkZjJhMGQyM2UtOGE0Ni00ZTc2LWJjYmQtOTc0OTEzNjQ2ODBk&hl=en)
I like this, personally. Rare is the CAC that actually accomplishes, well, anything. Allowing cadets to serve longer, but effectively forcing them to move up or out at the same time may help that by allowing experienced cadets to assume the leadership roles in the councils, and allowing them more time to carry out their agendas.
I disagree with the proposed mandate that bars the Chair of one echelon from serving as a Primary Rep to the next highest level. IMHO it makes sense to have someone who is both completely aware of what their echelon is doing, and is an experienced CAC representative. That seems to me like nothing more than an attempt to get more cadets involved. Not a bad thing per se, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me in this case.
Hm...the memorandum spends a lot of time "correcting" all of the instances in 52-16 of "Chairperson" or "Chairman" to "Chair", because as the memo points out, "Chair" is the preferred term of the National Association of Parliamentarians.....Then he signs the cover memo as "Chairman" ::)
But seriously was this 8 pages to say "we'd like to see longer term limits because we feel the current set-up is limiting"? is that a new record?
I'm really glad to see that "The Seal of..." was added to the CAC logo. I wouldn't have known it was a seal otherwise.
I think that the NCAC should set an example of leadership by not allowing this to benefit them personally and allowing it to come into being after they are done. Otherwise, they are proposing that the National Board extend their own terms.
3-1 d.
Disagree....the CAC is NOT an conduit of offical information. Should not be considered as part of any chain of command.
Offical information MUST come down from above through the unit commanders and not back door them through the CAC.
3-2 a.
Disagree...if the commander does not feel that any cadets are ready to accept the added responsibilities of CAC then he should not be forced to appoint a rep.
3-2 b.
If we do it via E-sevices (which I think is a good idea) there is no need for a paper 2a at all.
3-2 c 4.
Disagree....the chair at one level should be the rep at the next level.
3-2 d.
Makes sense.
3-3 c.
Disagree...either NCAC establishes they by laws (and add them to 52-16) or lets the wing cc to make up their own rules. One or the other not both.
3-4 a.
Disagree...one of the main points of CAC is to allow cadets the opportunty to serve on a committee. Term limits allow more cadets to share in the experince and keep new blood in the CAC. Contitunity is not a major concern.
3-6.
Really?
3-7.
I'll buy that.
3-8.
Okay.
So after nearly one year this is the only tangible acitivty from the NCAC?
Quote from: lordmonar on April 01, 2010, 06:20:28 AM
3-1 d.
Disagree....the CAC is NOT an conduit of offical information. Should not be considered as part of any chain of command.
Offical information MUST come down from above through the unit commanders and back door them through the CAC.
Agree. It's not part of the chain of command. That's part of the point.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 01, 2010, 06:20:28 AM
3-2 a.
Disagree...if the commander does not feel that any cadets are ready to accept the added responsibilities of CAC then he should not be forced to appoint a rep.
Agree totally. "100%" compliance that they envision here is unlikely anyway. Do we have 100% compliance on even critical Cadet Programs elements?
Quote from: lordmonar on April 01, 2010, 06:20:28 AM
3-2 c 4.
Disagree....the chair at one level should be the rep at the next level.
Agree. This is odd. Previously, all the whining I heard about this issue was by cadets who wanted to wear the next level's shoulder cord color.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 01, 2010, 06:20:28 AM
3-4 a.
Disagree...one of the main points of CAC is to allow cadets the opportunty to serve on a committee. Term limits allow more cadets to share in the experince and keep new blood in the CAC. Contitunity is not a major concern.
Yup. Continuity in what, anyway? These sort of proposals don't need serious continuity planning. They just need to have the framework in place so the cadets don't have to spend time creating that.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 01, 2010, 06:20:28 AM
So after nearly one year this is the only tangible acitivty from the NCAC?
Clearly, no. They proposed something or other on the CPPT. Also, there was something about an idea for changes to the timing of drill in the NCC. Also, there are a couple cool pictures on Facebook, including one at the White House fence and another at a conference table with everyone looking like someone said "look busy" before the shot was taken.
They published a thing cautioning people about what they do on social media sites:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3779793&id=159922788540
There was the "State of the Council Address" video that disappeared after it was posted here and people laughed at the fake applause and the laugh track.
There is also this Annual Report: http://www.cac.cap.gov/Annual%20Report%20-%20February%202010.pdf
The NCAC web site doesn't have much on it, but there is that report, some pictures, and a message from the Chairman with his leadership philosophy:
Quote"When it comes to leadership, you cannot skirt around confrontation or avoid challenges, you have to 'D.E.A.L. With It!' "
"Dissect - Examine - Aspire - Lead!"
- King Leadership Philosophy
Developed at Cadet Officer School 2006
It also lists the committees, but that's about it.
Maybe the NCAC should read CAPR 5-4 before trying to write a proposal. As it's been said before, the NB and NEC set policy and NHQ writes the regulations. A proposal that bypasses NHQ to rewrite a reg seems to be stepping on peoples' toes.
Also, I thought that the NCAC sent a memo to the winter NB session that said that they would present their final thoughts to the summer board. I know that the NB is expecting an update at the summer meeting, so why is this addressed to the NEC for their May meeting?
Quote from: lordmonar on April 01, 2010, 06:20:28 AM3-2 c 4.
Disagree....the chair at one level should be the rep at the next level.
The chair of one echelon
is the rep to the next...
Quote from: Eclipse on April 01, 2010, 01:56:21 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 01, 2010, 06:20:28 AM3-2 c 4.
Disagree....the chair at one level should be the rep at the next level.
The chair of one echelon is the rep to the next...
Not necessarily. The commander is free to appoint one cadet as chair and another as the representative to the next echelon.
Quote from: bte on April 01, 2010, 03:10:43 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 01, 2010, 01:56:21 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 01, 2010, 06:20:28 AM3-2 c 4.
Disagree....the chair at one level should be the rep at the next level.
The chair of one echelon is the rep to the next...
Not necessarily. The commander is free to appoint one cadet as chair and another as the representative to the next echelon.
OK, granted, but that begs the question of why you would not want your theoretically strongest CAC rep to represent you at the next echelon. There is also the issue of not having all that many cadets interested in CAC to begin with due to its overall lack of mission and
direction (at least in my parts).
Quote from: Eclipse on April 01, 2010, 03:27:02 PM
Quote from: bte on April 01, 2010, 03:10:43 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 01, 2010, 01:56:21 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 01, 2010, 06:20:28 AM3-2 c 4.
Disagree....the chair at one level should be the rep at the next level.
The chair of one echelon is the rep to the next...
Not necessarily. The commander is free to appoint one cadet as chair and another as the representative to the next echelon.
OK, granted, but that begs the question of why you would not want your theoretically strongest CAC rep to represent you at the next echelon. There is also the issue of not having all that many cadets interested in CAC to begin with due to its overall lack of mission and
direction (at least in my parts).
Exactly....that is what Cadet King is suggesting. He is trying to make it impossible for the chair at on leve to be the primary at the next.
Which means that they add a new person the CAC at each level.
You will have the chair, the group/squdron reps their alternates and then you have the Wing Rep to the regional CAC as an observer. Will this individual have any voice in the WING CAC?
No....makes it too complicated.
Where are the senior-member advisors who should be guiding the NCAC to some sort of meaningful mission instead of these trivial, background noise issues?
Chairman King has and continues to grab power for the CAC that is just not there.
Seriously.......the National CAC advisor needs to reign in on CAC and forward anything coming from King through themself to the National Commander.
Let me ask.....Cadets oversee the Cadet Program??
Quote from: Spike on April 01, 2010, 04:46:59 PM
Chairman King has and continues to grab power for the CAC that is just not there.
Seriously.......the National CAC advisor needs to reign in on CAC and forward anything coming from King through themself to the National Commander.
Let me ask.....Cadets oversee the Cadet Program??
Wouldn't that be our own Col. Ned Lee?
I think I heard that their next proposal was to have the NCAC chair automatically become the National Commander when their term is over and they turn Senior Member.
Quote from: bte on April 01, 2010, 05:26:17 PM
I think I heard that their next proposal was to have the NCAC chair automatically become the National Commander when their term is over and they turn Senior Member.
That would make sense in the world of CAP
Quote from: Spike on April 01, 2010, 08:38:10 PM
Quote from: bte on April 01, 2010, 05:26:17 PM
I think I heard that their next proposal was to have the NCAC chair automatically become the National Commander when their term is over and they turn Senior Member.
That would make sense in the world of CAP
Not any less sense than killing the limits. The number of positions in CAC is very limited. You can be a primary for your unit, alternate for your unit, Recorder, Vice, or Chair (although a cadet told me that NCAC added some weird positions or something...I don't know about that). If the cadets stay forever, then nobody else gets in. It is hard to allow for the mentoring that they mention here because the slots aren't really there.
It is also possible that the NCAC severely overestimates the effectiveness of committees.