Noted today that we've got two new members appointed to the Board of Governors:
http://www.capvolunteernow.com/news.cfm/pamerleau_schlitt_appointed_to_cap_board_of_governors?show=news&newsID=8265
Both seem to have had more experience in the support side of the AF versus operational/flying type commands/experience.
Retired Maj. Gen. Susan L. Pamerleaui
http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=6678
Retired Brig. Gen. Sanford Schlitt
http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=11003
So are we going to see a shift in a more cohesive, communicated (to the membership), strategy, which these two new members?
Is there a specific reason the Secretary of the AF appointed these individual?
I guess we should stay tuned :angel:
RM
Two of the members that the Secratary of the Air Force appoints recently resigned. So he appointed some replacements.
Sounds like business as usual.
The two members from industry have reached the end of their terms so expect to see them replaced too.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 15, 2010, 01:38:40 AM
Is there a specific reason the Secretary of the AF appointed these individual(SIC)?
Yes - he's required to appoint someone and these people were willing.
It appears like both are knowledgeable of fund raising, charity work and volunteer organizations. From first glance, it may also appear to be cash driven appointments. Not to be a downer, but surely there was a motive for both appointments. AFA will get something out of it, as will CAP!!
Quote from: Eclipse on July 15, 2010, 01:53:03 AM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 15, 2010, 01:38:40 AM
Is there a specific reason the Secretary of the AF appointed these individual(SIC)?
Yes - he's required to appoint someone and these people were willing.
in other words...cuz the law says so and they were suckers for it. >:D I'm still learning not to accept a billion Board of Directors and similar appointments myself...doh.
Quote from: Patterson on July 15, 2010, 02:00:48 AMFrom first glance, it may also appear to be cash driven appointments.
Please, enlighten us as to how unpaid BOG appointments are somehow "cash driven".
Also please note that, by law, these new BoG members are joint appointments by SECAF and our own National Commander.
IOW, both of these distinguished personages had to agree to each appointment.
Both the two new appointees and the re-appointment of Mr. Graziani show a committment to bring a broad range of skills, abilities, and talents to the table.
We are very lucky indeed.
(And now I have some seniority!) :)
Interesting to note that BG Schlitt is a Reservist and former ANG Officer
Quote from: Eclipse on July 15, 2010, 02:06:51 AM
Quote from: Patterson on July 15, 2010, 02:00:48 AMFrom first glance, it may also appear to be cash driven appointments.
Please, enlighten us as to how unpaid BOG appointments are somehow "cash driven".
I guess you did not read what other organizations they currently are members of or where they work. Perhaps "cash driven" was not the right set of words to type. They obviously are and have been successful at getting money for their other volunteer organizations or employers. I believe that may be why they were selected, to bring in either cash or support from those places they are currently involved with.
I did not say PAID. Nor did I make any reference to payoffs, paydays, checks, dollars or CAP employment.
Quote from: PHall on July 15, 2010, 01:44:42 AM
Two of the members that the Secratary of the Air Force appoints recently resigned. So he appointed some replacements.
Sounds like business as usual.
The two members from industry have reached the end of their terms so expect to see them replaced too.
The two members who were appointed
are to replace the industry vacancies. I do not recall any recent Air Force representitives resigning or leaving.
BTW; Gen Schlitt is well known to NB members. He has been the CAP "face" of the AFA for the last couple of years.
Quote from: Ned on July 15, 2010, 04:51:21 AM
Also please note that, by law, these new BoG members are joint appointments by SECAF and our own National Commander.
Both the two new appointees and the re-appointment of Mr. Graziani show a committment to bring a broad range of skills, abilities, and talents to the table.
With the AF holding the purse strings over CAP, I would think that it would be very doubtful that the National Commander would non concur with SECAF's nominations to the board.
HOWEVER, I do think that the board has too many retired military officers on it at this point. We are the CIVIL Air Patrol. I'm also wondering if current board members are proactive in looking at more diversity to reflect the CIVIL aviation/aerospace education aspect of CAP :-\
What comes to my mind as potential board members would be:
Craig Fuller, CEO/President, Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (AOPA) (or maybe a former CEO/President of that association).
John Johnson, President Embry Riddle University (or a former President of this or a similiar very large aviation related educational institute).
It's likely that the Secretary of the AF isn't the guy personally pondering who will be on CAP's BOG, but likely a small staff, that may very well have a very narrow focus. Of course since it's an uncompensated board appoinment, maybe there's just a very limited number of people (perhaps primarily retired high ranking military personnel) that are willing to make this commitment :-\ :(
Also being in the program for about 3 years now, I've never seen (or even heard of) any AF appointed board members attending any CAP type field activities. Does CAP Hq send information to the board members about various events taking place where the board members reside (or generally travel to) so they would have the opportunity to observe directly CAP performing it's missions ???
RM
^--- We are the Civil Air Patrol, but don't forget, we're also the Auxiliary of the USAF. That "corporate" mindset is why we're slipping further and further away from mother blue.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 18, 2010, 03:44:28 PM
With the AF holding the purse strings over CAP, I would think that it would be very doubtful that the National Commander would non concur with SECAF's nominations to the board.
Your underlying assumption is that these are SECAF nominations simply presented to the National Commander is unwarranted. There was a lot of communication between the appointing authorities before final selection. It could just as easily have been the other way around.
QuoteAlso being in the program for about 3 years now, I've never seen (or even heard of) any AF appointed board members attending any CAP type field activities. Does CAP Hq send information to the board members about various events taking place where the board members reside (or generally travel to) so they would have the opportunity to observe directly CAP performing it's missions ???
All BoG members receive the monthly CAP staff reports which list upcoming activities and the locations thereof. A limited amount of travel money is available for official BoG travel, however such travel would require approval of the BoG itself. IOW, none of us get to decide on our own what we will see.
What in particular do you think our SECAF appointed and industry members should see?
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on July 18, 2010, 03:44:28 PM
HOWEVER, I do think that the board has too many retired military officers on it at this point. We are the CIVIL Air Patrol. I'm also wondering if current board members are proactive in looking at more diversity to reflect the CIVIL aviation/aerospace education aspect of CAP :-\
Quote from: SJFedor on July 18, 2010, 03:50:12 PM
^--- We are the Civil Air Patrol, but don't forget, we're also the Auxiliary of the USAF. That "corporate" mindset is why we're slipping further and further away from mother blue.
Agreed. We should be doing what we can to get ourselves back under that umbrella and a part of Team USAF.
Quote from: Marshalus on July 19, 2010, 02:01:26 AM
Agreed. We should be doing what we can to get ourselves back under that umbrella and a part of Team USAF.
Please tell us what you would have us do to get back under that umbrella and be a part of Team USAF? I see this continually repeated on this board and I do not see any concrete recommendations outside of people wanting to wear ABUs and USAF uniforms. What mission are you going to perform better for the USAF than what we are performing now and how are you going to do it?
Quote from: Short Field on July 19, 2010, 02:17:56 AM
Quote from: Marshalus on July 19, 2010, 02:01:26 AM
Agreed. We should be doing what we can to get ourselves back under that umbrella and a part of Team USAF.
Please tell us what you would have us do to get back under that umbrella and be a part of Team USAF? I see this continually repeated on this board and I do not see any concrete recommendations outside of people wanting to wear ABUs and USAF uniforms. What mission are you going to perform better for the USAF than what we are performing now and how are you going to do it?
I don't think it's so much that we need to change our missions or what we wear. I think it's all in the attitude. If we made a systematic shift to have the attitude of the "USAF Auxiliary" versus "Civil Air Patrol, Inc", I honestly think it would do an awful lot in their eyes.
But that's just my opinion.
Quote from: SJFedor on July 18, 2010, 03:50:12 PM
^--- We are the Civil Air Patrol, but don't forget, we're also the Auxiliary of the USAF. That "corporate" mindset is why we're slipping further and further away from mother blue.
Steven, I'm not following your line of thought here. Do you honestly think the SECAF and/or CSAF think anything less of CAP now than 10 years ago? Maybe 20 years ago? Do you know why we have a board of governors? Do you have any idea of the Pentagon office of "auxiliary affairs"? Our relationship with 1st AF? Why the National Commander wears 2 stars? Maybe your forget why we have "U.S." on our "AF Style" uniform. Sigh, I wish we had the bandwith to get a complete history of the last 17 years of CAP governance on CT. Reading it would boggle the mind.
Let's just say I disagree with your statement. I think the Air Force is more interested in CAP now than at any time in recent memory. Our "Corporate" leadership must think/work like a corporation; that is what we are structurally. It is the framework from which we as members of the "Official Auxiliary of the United States Air Force" can perform. It is the "how" we do things. This is reality, this is the way the Air Force wants it and, this is the way it will be unless the Air Force and Congress wish it different.
The corporate mindset could (and IMHO should) be left in the back room and on contracts it is a legal nuance of our
governance, not a justification for "you can make me", or "I'm just a volunteer."
100% of our operations could be performed while looking and (most importantly) acting like a military auxiliary.
Attitude is everything.
Charters and bylaws not withstanding, I guarantee you the USAF would have no issues with us performing
our "corporate" duties, in a professional, militarized manner.
Quote from: Eclipse on July 19, 2010, 04:03:56 AM
Attitude is everything.
Charters and bylaws not withstanding, I guarantee you the USAF would have no issues with us performing our "corporate" duties, in a professional, militarized manner.
So who's attitude are you saying is unprofessional and unmilitarized? If you are going to change anything, you need to be specific and have concrete proposals. The USAF has no issue with us the way we perform our "corporate" duties now.
The endemic "corporate" pops up in everything from the move to peel off "USAF Aux" all over the place to, though members who can't spell the word salute, and into the triangle thingy. It's with the far too many members forced to wear a different uniform, and in the way we deal with each other.
So, it bothers you but does it bother the USAF?
Quote from: Eclipse on July 19, 2010, 04:34:44 AM
The endemic "corporate" pops up in everything from the move to peel off "USAF Aux" all over the place to, though members who can't spell the word salute, and into the triangle thingy. It's with the far too many members forced to wear a different uniform, and in the way we deal with each other.
Wow, is this a record for changing this to uniform thread? >:D
On a more serious note; "we" peeled off the "USAF Aux" from our Aircraft for reasons the Air Force decided; not CAP.
We wear "CAP Distinctive" uniforms because the USAF refuses to compromise its standards more than 10% over its own.
You got me on the triangle thingy.
And, yes, we should do better in giving our senior members a better military C&D education; after all, that is our culture too.
The BoG's composition may or may not change any of the above however, for better or worse, it is the BoG which govern our affairs. It is up to the 4 CAP members of the BoG to effectively bring the concerns of the organization to them and, with the help of our "corporate staff" move CAP forward. The Air Force 4 can do their part by insisting we get the appropriate support and assistance from "big blue". The Industry 3 can bring corporate tools and ideas in to assist and bring support to those CAP programs which can not be supported by the Air Force.
Every thing else is up to the members.
YMMV ;D
Not to disagree with anyone, but the basic change in CAP governence occured when USAF had a drawdown years ago. The position of USAF-CAP Liasion Officer (and staff) was eliminated and the State Director program was started. This eliminated alot of USAF oversight of CAP. The change from the Commander CAP-USAF from a flag grade Officer to a Colonel position also lowered the USAF control of CAP.
I'm not saying that USAF needs to have more oversight of CAP with new positions, but rather the changes made years ago have lowered the interface with USAF and CAP. In these tight budget times, any chance of USAF increasing oversight of CAP, other than through the Board of Governors is not practable.
^For a complete history of CAP governance, I suggest we have Col Blaskovitch, our National Historian, to give us the real story. But, BillB, the answer to your comment is: "hogwash"
It is a common confusion to think of "oversight" as control and, as State Directors as having different authority than Wing LO's. That is not correct. Oversight of CAP is greater now than at any other time in our history. Our funding depends on this oversight. Any major deviation from accepted practice will jeopardize our grants. Which, would mean death to CAP as we know it.
Our Board of Governors has 4 members exclusively appointed by the SECAF and, we have an "auxiliary board" office at the pentagon. I would think our "interface" is greater now than at any time since we were under the watchful eyes of the Continental Air Command.
Just my opinion... ::)
Quote from: FW on July 19, 2010, 11:58:15 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on July 19, 2010, 04:34:44 AM
The endemic "corporate" pops up in everything from the move to peel off "USAF Aux" all over the place to, though members who can't spell the word salute, and into the triangle thingy. It's with the far too many members forced to wear a different uniform, and in the way we deal with each other.
Wow, is this a record for changing this to uniform thread? >:D
On a more serious note; "we" peeled off the "USAF Aux" from our Aircraft for reasons the Air Force decided; not CAP.
We wear "CAP Distinctive" uniforms because the USAF refuses to compromise its standards more than 10% over its own.
I actually didn't intend to go that route - I'm talking about the mentality, not the actual insignia.
As to what we can or cannot request or get compromise on, etc., organizations which undersell and over-perform in a quiet, professional, manner are in a much better position to ask for things than organizations which are mired in unnecessary drama and stocked with people who live by a "you're lucky I showed up at all..." mantra.
We need some house cleaning from end to end, including a lot of the empty shirts and naysayers, and then a year or two of quiet over-performance, at which time we can then go to the table with real value and ask for what we need.
Quote from: FW on July 19, 2010, 04:30:22 PMIt is a common confusion to think of "oversight" as control and, as State Directors as having different authority than Wing LO's. That is not correct. Oversight of CAP is greater now than at any other time in our history. Our funding depends on this oversight. Any major deviation from accepted practice will jeopardize our grants. Which, would mean death to CAP as we know it.
Oversight is not leadership.
I had a good conversation recently with an AF Lt Col. He told us that the National Guard had their eyes on us and wanted our participation for what we could contribute in the future. I think that probably many in the AF notice us too. If the BOG could look for something to focus on maybe it could be greater emphasis on Professional Development. Our Squadron has a PDO who has a strong focus on Military Bearing particularly where it applies to a uniform appearance and things like how to stand in formation for occasions when we are on a Military Base. I think that perhaps the AF would like to see more emphasis on the basic fundamentals of CAP Officer Leadership in CAP. I would hope they would not be so concerned with driving new processes and practices into our culture but instead looking for what have been good practices in the past.