Well, there has been much speculation going on that this was coming next week, but the when & where has now been confirmed:
http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?new_cap_governance_structure_to_be_unveiled_during_annual_conference&show=news&newsID=14170 (http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?new_cap_governance_structure_to_be_unveiled_during_annual_conference&show=news&newsID=14170)
:clap:
I trust in BoardSource as an outstanding, extremely-on-point resource; they know their stuff when it comes to the best practices of national non-profit organizations. I can't wait to see what positive changes are in store for Civil Air Patrol with this long-awaited improvement.
^ I second that!! The Secretary of the AF, CAP-USAF Commander and the CAP Corporate side have apparently liked the reccomendations as well!!
Should be interesting!
I wonder, after it has been implemented, are we are going to actually get to see the internal governance committee report and the boardsource report?
I don't really see the need to read the reports now. The decisions have been made and, will be implimented. Does it matter why the decisions were made at this point? We must be able to move forward and deal with the new "situation".
And, if the "rumors" are true with what is going down; I'd be more concerned with the future makeup of the BoG than of any other CAP body.
Quote from: FW on August 15, 2012, 06:32:51 PM
I don't really see the need to read the reports now.
+1 Whatever it is, accept, move on.
Quote from: NCRblues on August 15, 2012, 06:13:27 PM
I wonder, after it has been implemented, are we are going to actually get to see the internal governance committee report and the boardsource report?
RMR/CC said that it would be*.
*At an informal Q&A session at RMRSC, so I don't have that in hard copy. ;)
I got my CAPID about a week before Pineda was removed. When I asked "what did I just get into" here on CT about it, a majority of the replies centered around the idea that nothing that was happening at NHQ would change much of the day-to-day work at the local unit level. And I found that to be true. I hope that we'll come out of this with more effective leadership at the upper levels, but next Tuesday is PT night/MS training for SMs and that's where the rubber meets the road.
Yep.
This is likely a positive for CAP as a whole, but the kinds of things it will influence will not likely be visible to the rank and file, certainly not for a year or two in the least.
I remember when they did the survey, and people said "The membership will be be given information and consulted before any decisions are made."
I said then that the decision would be made, and it would be a fait acompli before any information was ever released. So, I'm shocked, shocked I say that all the decisions are made before any release of information.
The membership was consulted for their opinions regarding governance. Any information anyone needed is available by reading the Constitution and bylaws.
I still believe that members should have been given a chance to review the proposal itself. Why we get to review a relatively unimportant regulation on forms maintenance (or any reg) but not a major change in how CAP is organized just doesn't make any sense.
So I'm fairly confident that some very silly mistake has made it through since only a few people actually took a look at it. Crowdsourcing makes sense at times.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 15, 2012, 08:47:38 PM
I still believe that members should have been given a chance to review the proposal itself. Why we get to review a relatively unimportant regulation on forms maintenance (or any reg) but not a major change in how CAP is organized just doesn't make any sense.
So I'm fairly confident that some very silly mistake has made it through since only a few people actually took a look at it. Crowdsourcing makes sense at times.
CAP has to pass it before you can read it.
/nancy pelosi
Quote from: Garibaldi on August 15, 2012, 09:25:26 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 15, 2012, 08:47:38 PM
I still believe that members should have been given a chance to review the proposal itself. Why we get to review a relatively unimportant regulation on forms maintenance (or any reg) but not a major change in how CAP is organized just doesn't make any sense.
So I'm fairly confident that some very silly mistake has made it through since only a few people actually took a look at it. Crowdsourcing makes sense at times.
CAP has to pass it before you can read it.
/nancy pelosi
That statement by Pelosi is one of my favorite ones ever made by a political leader. It even trumps "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" by Slick Willy.
And by favorite I mean statements that make you go "WTF!".
I must admit though that Biden's recent "put y'all back in chains" was [darn] fine as well.
Why would anyone join a paramilitary organization and then expect it to be a governed in a participatory manner, or
in anything remotely resembling a democracy?
Quote from: RiverAux on August 15, 2012, 08:47:38 PMSo I'm fairly confident that some very silly mistake has made it through since only a few people actually took a look at it. Crowdsourcing makes sense at times.
Except there are relatively few, if any, members who are experts (outside of Civil Air Patrol experience) at organizational behavior, management structures, and governance of national-scope large organizations.
You could ask me for feedback all you want on how CAP should better extend the flight envelope or range or weight distribution of CAP aircraft and nothing I suggest or say is really going to help because I don't know what I'm talking about — even if I'm sorta-kinda-famiiar with the topic because I read Wikipedia. You'd be better at talking to experts who do that kind of strategy for other national aircraft fleets.
Crowd sourcing does
not always make sense.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 15, 2012, 10:20:35 PM
Why would anyone join a paramilitary organization and then expect it to be a governed in a participatory manner, or
in anything remotely resembling a democracy?
IMHO, this is where our larger problems are stemming from. Are we a paramilitary organization or a corporation? Corporations are run differently and they handle "workers" differently. In the same breath, we are all volunteers in a paramilitary organization. "Do this because someone on high said so" only goes so far dealing with volunteers.
So, here is my question, what would it hurt for the rank and file to read both reports?
Quote from: Pylon on August 15, 2012, 10:34:56 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on August 15, 2012, 08:47:38 PMSo I'm fairly confident that some very silly mistake has made it through since only a few people actually took a look at it. Crowdsourcing makes sense at times.
Except there are relatively few, if any, members who are experts (outside of Civil Air Patrol experience) at organizational behavior, management structures, and governance of national-scope large organizations.
I'd say that there are plenty of members with just as much experience at this as any given Wing, Region, National Commander or member of the BOG.
Quote from: RiverAux on August 15, 2012, 11:03:40 PM
I'd say that there are plenty of members with just as much experience at this as any given Wing, Region, National Commander or member of the BOG.
1) I don't think Wing, Region, and the National Commander were a part of this process (at least by virtue of those positions)
2) The BoG has very-high-level (C-Suite type) industry executives and USAF general officers. I'd give them more governance and organizational management experience than 99% of CAP members.
3) BoardSource was a major external source for analysis and recommendations. They
are experts at this stuff, if not
the experts.
Quote from: NCRblues on August 15, 2012, 10:43:03 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on August 15, 2012, 10:20:35 PM
Why would anyone join a paramilitary organization and then expect it to be a governed in a participatory manner, or
in anything remotely resembling a democracy?
IMHO, this is where our larger problems are stemming from. Are we a paramilitary organization or a corporation? Corporations are run differently and they handle "workers" differently. In the same breath, we are all volunteers in a paramilitary organization. "Do this because someone on high said so" only goes so far dealing with volunteers.
Rank and file employees have no more say in corporate governance then the average airman has in the USAF or the average
unit-level CAP 1st Lt. The only people who get a say are the owners (literally in a private company), and the "owners" (virtually in a public company). The equation for the rank and file is exactly the same in either case "Is my personal ROI high enough to continue the relationship?"
Whether it's the objective return of a paycheck, or the subjective return of service before self, when the quotient is too low, people vote with their feet - which is the only vote anyone really has.
Quote from: NCRblues on August 15, 2012, 10:43:03 PM
So, here is my question, what would it hurt for the rank and file to read both reports?
My answer is another question "What purpose would it serve?"
Everyone with the authority to have an actionable opinion has already read it and weighed-in. Decisions have been made, and
we'll know in a few days what those decisions were / are.
We all know what the current governance is, why open CAP up to more unfettered criticism?
And like it or not, it'll likely be either "leaked", or FOIA'ed eventually, anyway.
Quote from: NCRblues on August 15, 2012, 10:43:03 PM
"Do this because someone on high said so" only goes so far dealing with volunteers.
You have hit on the key challenge in CAP, for all that the above sentence means, and for all it says about people who
raise their hand to abide by something, then feel empowered not to, whether through action or inaction.
Quote from: NCRblues on August 15, 2012, 10:43:03 PM
IMHO, this is where our larger problems are stemming from. Are we a paramilitary organization or a corporation?
We are clearly a 501c3 membership corporation chartered by the US Congress. I honestly think there is no real confusion on that issue amongst the volunteer leadership.
Every corporation - whether it is for-profit, non-profit, membership, non-membership, etc -- has a governance process. The way that the organization is operated, regulated, and controlled. And all corporations should review their governance structure from time to time as circumstances change.
Which is what we did.
QuoteSo, here is my question, what would it hurt for the rank and file to read both reports?
I can't think of any reason why it would "hurt", but ultimately the decision on what to release and when belongs to the BoG as a whole. We will be discussing that very issue next Wednesday. It is my intention to tell them that the CAP on-line community favors release.
Side note - the BoardSource report exists as a discrete, stand-alone document. A big book, if you will. The BoG Governance Committee's report is not in that kind of format. It was and is in the form of a briefing with some accompanying notes. The NB is scheduled to receive the briefing during their business meeting next week. The format may affect "releaseability" for practical reasons.
Quote from: Ned on August 15, 2012, 11:14:50 PM
Quote from: NCRblues on August 15, 2012, 10:43:03 PM
IMHO, this is where our larger problems are stemming from. Are we a paramilitary organization or a corporation?
We are clearly a 501c3 membership corporation chartered by the US Congress. I honestly think there is no real confusion on that issue amongst the volunteer leadership.
Every corporation - whether it is for-profit, non-profit, membership, non-membership, etc -- has a governance process. The way that the organization is operated, regulated, and controlled. And all corporations should review their governance structure from time to time as circumstances change.
Which is what we did.
QuoteSo, here is my question, what would it hurt for the rank and file to read both reports?
I can't think of any reason why it would "hurt", but ultimately the decision on what to release and when belongs to the BoG as a whole. We will be discussing that very issue next Wednesday. It is my intention to tell them that the CAP on-line community favors release.
Side note - the BoardSource report exists as a discrete, stand-alone document. A big book, if you will. The BoG Governance Committee's report is not in that kind of format. It was and is in the form of a briefing with some accompanying notes. The NB is scheduled to receive the briefing during their business meeting next week. The format may affect "releaseability" for practical reasons.
I am not saying we (CAP) didn't need to update how we do things. In fact, I believe very strongly that we drastically did. I simply hoped it would have been a little more open and transparent than it was. But, decisions have been made and we will find out what they are in a short period of time. I hope they work out well for cap.
Quote from: Pylon on August 15, 2012, 11:06:30 PM
[2) The BoG has very-high-level (C-Suite type) industry executives and USAF general officers. I'd give them more governance and organizational management experience than 99% of CAP members.
These guys probably haven't worried about the details of a specific document in decades. That is what they hire lackeys for. Keep in mind that I'm talking about looking for mistakes made as part of the development process -- not just complaints about what was proposed. These guys are human. Haven't we all come across instances where some stupid mistake gets put into regulation, policy, or law that some sharp-eyed geek might have spotted?
Quote from: RiverAux on August 16, 2012, 02:49:55 AM
Quote from: Pylon on August 15, 2012, 11:06:30 PM
[2) The BoG has very-high-level (C-Suite type) industry executives and USAF general officers. I'd give them more governance and organizational management experience than 99% of CAP members.
These guys probably haven't worried about the details of a specific document in decades. That is what they hire lackeys for. Keep in mind that I'm talking about looking for mistakes made as part of the development process -- not just complaints about what was proposed. These guys are human. Haven't we all come across instances where some stupid mistake gets put into regulation, policy, or law that some sharp-eyed geek might have spotted?
I agree, but I think we're all past the point where we think documents have to be wet cement before they can be published. In this case, since it's
already been held that the BOG has basically carte-blanche power over CAP, anything that needs to be fixed can be, easily.
Quote from: Eclipse on August 15, 2012, 06:43:44 PM
Quote from: FW on August 15, 2012, 06:32:51 PM
I don't really see the need to read the reports now.
+1 Whatever it is, accept, move on.
+1 to the +1