Maybe someone can explain just what was approved and passed for CAP?
I read one article that said that the whole $31M had been approved, then another message that it was only $28M (is that the sequestered $31M?), then recently it's only $22M and NHQ may need to RIF additional staff.
I can't seem to find a definitive number anywhere (maybe one doesn't exist? Is it still gray?)
I've been looking into this as well.
According to the library of congress " bill tracker", HR 933 was fully acccepted by both house and senate and sent to the desk of POTUS as written ( with 11 amendments, none of which limited CAP funding). It was enacted into law by POTUS signature on the 26th of March, with no line item or outright veto, making it law of the land.
My wing sent out an email saying NHQ was having to let some workers go, and that vehicle maintanence funds were on hold from NHQ/AF.
Now, we got our full funding according to US law, so why are we shuttering?
Because they are freaked out about the coming year?
.. is this "use it, or lose it" type funding?
Which that in and of itself is something I have not understood. "You can't save money, if you don't use it, we take it back". What lesson does that teach?
Well, I guess they don't want a ton of honey pots sitting at various organizations perhaps .. but .. why shed now then?
Tossing out knowledge and experience, some of which goes back quite a few years.. :(
The thing that always puzzled me was that back in the day, if one squadron had a lot of money due to its own fund raising efforts, and another squadron had just what was given to them, either Wing or National could simply take all that money from Rich Unit and either give it to Poor Unit or redistribute the money across the board, or keep it. Sounds like the worst form of _____ism there is to me, although I don't think that ______ism applies (fill in your own blanks) in the "corporate" world.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 10, 2013, 03:25:05 PMthen recently it's only $22M and NHQ may need to RIF additional staff.
NHQ has already laid off staff, late last week, between 20 & 30 personnel.
Areas that were hit at NHQ: SE, CP, AE(x2), LG(x3), NOC, Member services, Finance, Printing/Publications (x3) and Shipping. 14 less, and 4 vacant positions not to be filled. When I was there for NSC in 2011, it was evident that the workforce was slim then. What about now?
Quote from: Garibaldi on April 10, 2013, 05:21:59 PM
Sounds like the worst form of _____ism there is to me, although I don't think that ______ism applies (fill in your own blanks) in the "corporate" world.
You wanna bet. I deal with it every year. Dept A gets budget approved for all its operations. Dept B doesn't get full budget because of over-budgeting. VP X likes Dept B manager, so money gets moved from Dept A to Dept B without notice. Dept A finds out when they get over-budget notices with subsequent disciplinary action.
Quote from: Garibaldi on April 10, 2013, 05:21:59 PM
The thing that always puzzled me was that back in the day, if one squadron had a lot of money due to its own fund raising efforts, and another squadron had just what was given to them, either Wing or National could simply take all that money from Rich Unit and either give it to Poor Unit or redistribute the money across the board, or keep it. Sounds like the worst form of _____ism there is to me, although I don't think that ______ism applies (fill in your own blanks) in the "corporate" world.
Maj Estes,
This is a pretty good example of a "CAP Urban Legand" that is both misleading to the membership and actually does a significant disservice to CAP when placed in a public place (like CAPTalk) where it can be read by potential donors who may be discouraged from donating to local units.
Initially, of course, it sounds like we agree that there is only one CAP corporation which owns all corporate assets and also safeguards and spends appropriated dollars provided by the Congress and taxpayers for specific purposes. Local CAP members do not "legally own" the corporate funds in their care at the squadron. All CAP assets belong to CAP, Inc, a Congressionally-chartered non-profit corporation headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama.
But far more importantly, the fact the CAP
could move funds around in the manner you describe is logically unrelated to whether it has ever happened or is likely to happen in the future.
Because as a practical matter, it simply doesn't. There is no leader worth her salt that would take the actions you describe. Because there is no reason to do so, and a lot of very good reasons not to do so.
(Sure, if a unit goes inactive or is de-chartered, CAP will have to take control of the assets just like if a local JC Penny store closed, the district folks would make sure that everything JC Penny owns is accounted for and transferred elsewhere in the corporation.)
By way of comparison, commanders also have the power to transfer members (our most important asset) from unit to unit. But we don't spend a lot of time worrying about whether evil wing and region commanders will arbitrarily transfer everyone in your unit to some other unit 400 miles away on a whim. Because it simply doesn't happen. Mostly because there is no reason to do it and a lot of very good reasons not to do so.
But the most important thing is the effect of this kind of statement on potential donors. If a local unit is actively fundraising and has contacted a potential donor for a contribution, the donor is likely to do a little internet searching on us before giving us a significant donation.
And they may well come across your statement or something similar. And any reasonable donor is going to think twice before giving $500 to a local unit to help send cadets to encampment (or whatever) if they see that Evil National Headquarters is simply going to snatch the money away and waste it elsewhere.
If you have concerns that assets may be transferred inappropriately from one unit to another, I urge you to speak directly with the commanders involved. They need to hear about your concerns, and you need to hear their responses.
I'm confident you will be pleasently surprised.
Thank you for your generous donations of time and treasure to CAP. They are truly appreciated.
Really.
Ned Lee
Thanks, Ned - beat me to it.
Back on track.
How much did funding did CAP get approved?
What does that mean in real money?
Does that amount then get sequestered to 80% or whathaveyou?
Quote from: Eclipse on April 10, 2013, 06:45:26 PM
How much did funding did CAP get approved?
What does that mean in real money?
Does that amount then get sequestered to 80% or whathaveyou?
There have been a lot of memos flying back and forth in the last month or so describing the technical effects and procedures of the sequester and it's effect on the FY '13 and '14 budgets - both corporate and appropriated.
I doubt I can do any better in explaining it at this point than the background papers to the BoG agenda linked above.
Tomorrow night I will physically be in Atlanta hearing from the audit committee and should be able to formulate a better response.
Sounds like scuttlebutt, who knows even the folks in the know may not till the cash isn't there look at the Blue Angels they started their season as if they had funding now they are scrubbed, it happens it will happen, and it has happened in the past. We as CAP have been this route before and will again and we have and will survive. My question is why does Sen. McCain dislike(or at least seems to) CAP so much, it seems like anytime he gets a chance he tries to ding us, is this a Navy vs A.F. thing in his mind?
Quote from: jhsmith400 on April 10, 2013, 11:31:22 PM
Sounds like scuttlebutt, who knows even the folks in the know may not till the cash isn't there look at the Blue Angels they started their season as if they had funding now they are scrubbed, it happens it will happen, and it has happened in the past. We as CAP have been this route before and will again and we have and will survive. My question is why does Sen. McCain dislike(or at least seems to) CAP so much, it seems like anytime he gets a chance he tries to ding us, is this a Navy vs A.F. thing in his mind?
I don't think he dislikes CAP per se, it just seems that in his mind we would be better off with our budget coming out of a non-combatant organization. The Coast Guard is part of the Treasury Department and I guess it would seem to him that we perform much the same mission.
Quote from: Garibaldi on April 10, 2013, 11:51:27 PM
Quote from: jhsmith400 on April 10, 2013, 11:31:22 PM
Sounds like scuttlebutt, who knows even the folks in the know may not till the cash isn't there look at the Blue Angels they started their season as if they had funding now they are scrubbed, it happens it will happen, and it has happened in the past. We as CAP have been this route before and will again and we have and will survive. My question is why does Sen. McCain dislike(or at least seems to) CAP so much, it seems like anytime he gets a chance he tries to ding us, is this a Navy vs A.F. thing in his mind?
I don't think he dislikes CAP per se, it just seems that in his mind we would be better off with our budget coming out of a non-combatant organization. The Coast Guard is part of the Treasury Department and I guess it would seem to him that we perform much the same mission.
Yeah, that maybe it, I suppose it could also be that he looks at us as (is common with some ex, and current military folks)has been or wannna be adults playing Air Force with kids, and doesn't see why the gov. should pay for it. Either way it shows a sad miss-understanding of our niche in the world.
Quote from: Garibaldi on April 10, 2013, 11:51:27 PM
The Coast Guard is part of the Treasury Department and I guess it would seem to him that we perform much the same mission.
The USCG has no been part of the Treasury Department since 1967 when it was moved to the new Department of Transportation (DOT). Since 2002, the USCG has been part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Quote from: RRLE on April 11, 2013, 12:32:04 AM
Quote from: Garibaldi on April 10, 2013, 11:51:27 PM
The Coast Guard is part of the Treasury Department and I guess it would seem to him that we perform much the same mission.
The USCG has no been part of the Treasury Department since 1967 when it was moved to the new Department of Transportation (DOT). Since 2002, the USCG has been part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Brain slipped gears on me. Seriously, I wonder sometimes if I'm going senile. I meant DOT, not Treasury. I was thinking USSS I guess.
Quote from: Garibaldi on April 11, 2013, 05:46:47 PM
Quote from: RRLE on April 11, 2013, 12:32:04 AM
Quote from: Garibaldi on April 10, 2013, 11:51:27 PM
The Coast Guard is part of the Treasury Department and I guess it would seem to him that we perform much the same mission.
The USCG has no been part of the Treasury Department since 1967 when it was moved to the new Department of Transportation (DOT). Since 2002, the USCG has been part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Brain slipped gears on me. Seriously, I wonder sometimes if I'm going senile. I meant DOT, not Treasury. I was thinking USSS I guess.
USSS isn't in Treasury anymore either, they're part of DHS now.
Seriously... Has anyone submitted a Cadet or Senior membership application within the past three weeks?? I sent five applications in over the course of one week, THREE WEEKS AGO!! After calling down to Maxwell and being told only two had arrived I assumed it was the Postal delays that had caused the lag. However, it has been three days and those two applications I was told had arrived have yet to be processed.
I am in no way angry or upset, just disappointed that CAP has yet to publish an announcement detailing what the budget situation has caused them to do to save money!!
In a cost saving move, I suggest all business functions be examined by a volunteer group of CAP members who are not connected with or affiliated with National Headquarters or anyone Wing, Region or National Staff Officer. This group should be comprised of members that are small business owners and from different parts of the country. Face it, CAP IS A BUSINESS! Time to start treating it as such. Evaluate the processes involved from the time a prospective member submits an application to the time they leave the program.
For starters, why are we still mailing a paper application?!? A Squadron Commander accepts a prospective member, scans and uploads the paper application to a server, a clerk verifies all boxes are "checked" and pushes "membership approved button". For payment of membership fees, that system already exists in eServices. Guess what? The document upload feature already exists in eServices!! Granted this is an easy transition for Cadet applications, Senior applications will need the FBI fingerprint card smoothed out, but that seems like something that currently is not processed by the FBI until after membership has already been "conditionally" approved.
Those of us who must continuously think about costs and profits everyday see failings in the CAP business practices. Some here will disagree with my point of view and argue heatedly, but anyone who is against reviewing business practices is either afraid of change, too lazy to change, just doesn't care or benefits from current costly practices and does not want to give up what they have.
FWIW, here's how it was explained to me by a congressional staffer:
If the full budget wasn't passed, then it was a continuing resolution, basically an agreement to continue operating under the previous budget. The actual budget submitted has 3 different amounts, House bill, Senate bill, and Presidential submission until it gets passed as law as agreed upon by all 3. Under a continuing resolution, you get the lowest of the three numbers...
Quote from: Al Sayre on April 11, 2013, 07:31:29 PM
FWIW, here's how it was explained to me by a congressional staffer:
If the full budget wasn't passed, then it was a continuing resolution, basically an agreement to continue operating under the previous budget. The actual budget submitted has 3 different amounts, House bill, Senate bill, and Presidential submission until it gets passed as law as agreed upon by all 3. Under a continuing resolution, you get the lowest of the three numbers...
That said, what ended up passing was a CR for most of the Government, but an actual appropriations bill for Defense, VA, and one other that I don't recall off hand.
Quote from: Patterson on April 11, 2013, 06:55:09 PM
Seriously... Has anyone submitted a Cadet or Senior membership application within the past three weeks?? I sent five applications in over the course of one week, THREE WEEKS AGO!! After calling down to Maxwell and being told only two had arrived I assumed it was the Postal delays that had caused the lag. However, it has been three days and those two applications I was told had arrived have yet to be processed.
I am in no way angry or upset, just disappointed that CAP has yet to publish an announcement detailing what the budget situation has caused them to do to save money!!
In a cost saving move, I suggest all business functions be examined by a volunteer group of CAP members who are not connected with or affiliated with National Headquarters or anyone Wing, Region or National Staff Officer. This group should be comprised of members that are small business owners and from different parts of the country. Face it, CAP IS A BUSINESS! Time to start treating it as such. Evaluate the processes involved from the time a prospective member submits an application to the time they leave the program.
For starters, why are we still mailing a paper application?!? A Squadron Commander accepts a prospective member, scans and uploads the paper application to a server, a clerk verifies all boxes are "checked" and pushes "membership approved button". For payment of membership fees, that system already exists in eServices. Guess what? The document upload feature already exists in eServices!! Granted this is an easy transition for Cadet applications, Senior applications will need the FBI fingerprint card smoothed out, but that seems like something that currently is not processed by the FBI until after membership has already been "conditionally" approved.
Those of us who must continuously think about costs and profits everyday see failings in the CAP business practices. Some here will disagree with my point of view and argue heatedly, but anyone who is against reviewing business practices is either afraid of change, too lazy to change, just doesn't care or benefits from current costly practices and does not want to give up what they have.
Man, you rarely have anything positive to say about the organization. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not CAP is not a business. Now if you have a sound idea present it but keep your negativity and bias out of it. At the end of the you coming here and bashing a process does not fix any issues nor does complaining and presenting you ever present negativity. You don't like the process submit your suggestion for a change up the CoC and list the reasoning why this would be more efficient and worthwhile. If you can't do that or start the process you will always be part of the problem.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 11, 2013, 07:41:27 PMWhether you choose to acknowledge it or not CAP is not a business.
Um. Actually, it is.
Um no it has a non profit congressional charter, so therefore legally is not a business.
Quote from: JeffDG on April 11, 2013, 06:23:05 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on April 11, 2013, 05:46:47 PM
Quote from: RRLE on April 11, 2013, 12:32:04 AM
Quote from: Garibaldi on April 10, 2013, 11:51:27 PM
The Coast Guard is part of the Treasury Department and I guess it would seem to him that we perform much the same mission.
The USCG has no been part of the Treasury Department since 1967 when it was moved to the new Department of Transportation (DOT). Since 2002, the USCG has been part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Brain slipped gears on me. Seriously, I wonder sometimes if I'm going senile. I meant DOT, not Treasury. I was thinking USSS I guess.
USSS isn't in Treasury anymore either, they're part of DHS now.
Mother...of...GOD!!!! This is what I get for not paying attention. That, and my ADohlookasquirrel!
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 11, 2013, 07:47:30 PM
Um no it has a non profit congressional charter, so therefore legally is not a business.
Just because an organization is non-profit doesn't make it not a business.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 11, 2013, 07:47:30 PM
Um no it has a non profit congressional charter, so therefore legally is not a business.
+1 - It may have a Corporate structure, but that doesn't make it a business.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 11, 2013, 08:04:52 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 11, 2013, 07:47:30 PM
Um no it has a non profit congressional charter, so therefore legally is not a business.
+1 - It may have a Corporate structure, but that doesn't make it a business.
Concur. CAP isn't in the business of turning a profit. Unless you count the many people it's helped to further their own aspirations and careers either in the private sector, military or aerospace field.
^ OK, but you also don't have to be intent on a profit, per se, to be a legitimate business.
There are plenty of very profitable organizations which are chartered in the name of a charity (actual or as legally defined)
which are in a non-profit status as far as the IRS is concerned.
In CAP's case, they are not a "business" in any sense of the word.
More to the issue, well the apps issue at least, we don't mail apps anymore, not cadet ones at least.
We have the parents pay the squadron and then fax the application plus charge card info to NHQ. Then the card holder gets reimbursed from the squadron.
It used to take 3-4 weeks to process an application. Now it takes 48 hours, 72 at most. I fax it on Saturday and by Wednesday they're up in eServices. The cardholder (usually me) is reimbursed usually inside of a week.
But you do need to know the secret fax number for that process to work. Use the standard membership fax and it'll get lost.
Quote from: MajorM on April 12, 2013, 01:30:07 AM
More to the issue, well the apps issue at least, we don't mail apps anymore, not cadet ones at least.
Seniors still require the hardcopy app and the fingerprint card.
If we could get into some kind of online background system, or they could accept a high-res scan of the FP card, we could be paperless.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 11, 2013, 07:41:27 PM
Man, you rarely have anything positive to say about the organization. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not CAP is not a business. Now if you have a sound idea present it but keep your negativity and bias out of it. At the end of the you coming here and bashing a process does not fix any issues nor does complaining and presenting you ever present negativity. You don't like the process submit your suggestion for a change up the CoC and list the reasoning why this would be more efficient and worthwhile. If you can't do that or start the process you will always be part of the problem.
Wow. First, the CAP as chartered in public law is absolutely a business. It was designed as such, to both protect the individuals associated with it and to allow those individuals to divest finances as they see fit. I suggest you read the Constitution and Bylaws of the Corporation. If you still do not recognize this factual reality you may then proceed to go to the "statement of investment policy" found at capmembers.com under National Headquarters >>Financial Management page. CAP IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MAKING PROFIT (through investments, donations, grants, bequests, gifts etc).
Those that jumped and said "CAP is not a business", "its just a non-profit thingy etc" are individuals we do not want making decisions for the CAP as they have no idea what the organization fundamentally is!!
The IRS recognized CAP as a business in its determination to grant the 501(c)(03) status. Specifically CAP falls under 509(a)(2). This recognizes CAP as an "organization that receive their support from a combination of gifts, grants and contributions and fees for their exempt services". PLEASE NOTE: to the IRS the term "organization" means business.
Again, I will say; some here will disagree with me and decide to argue heatedly, but anyone who is against reviewing business practices is either afraid of change, too lazy to change, just doesn't care or benefits from current costly practices and does not want to give up what they have.
abdsp51, I presented my suggestion and your negativity and bias has prevented you from factually challenging my idea. You complain my "bashing a process does not fix any issues nor does complaining and presenting you ever present negativity". Seriously?? How do you think improvements are made? Nothing in life would ever change if we all just sat back and not said anything....right?!?
For those that may not accept the suggested idea that business practices within CAP need reviewed to determine cost savings on the basis of mere semantics, you are foolish and just out for a fight. How can you not agree that the review of current practices and procedures are beneficial?? Disagreeing with the idea of review is both detrimental and wasteful. I can accept disagreement with how reviews are done or who conducts the reviews, but disagreeing with the concept is a reason we are in the current financial situation.
abdsp51, please don't attack an individual personally if you don't like a post, especially if you have no alternative suggestions to a proposed idea presented. That only reiterates the fact you are ignorant of the topic.
Quote from: Patterson on April 12, 2013, 03:08:55 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 11, 2013, 07:41:27 PM
Man, you rarely have anything positive to say about the organization. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not CAP is not a business. Now if you have a sound idea present it but keep your negativity and bias out of it. At the end of the you coming here and bashing a process does not fix any issues nor does complaining and presenting you ever present negativity. You don't like the process submit your suggestion for a change up the CoC and list the reasoning why this would be more efficient and worthwhile. If you can't do that or start the process you will always be part of the problem.
Wow. First, the CAP as chartered in public law is absolutely a business. It was designed as such, to both protect the individuals associated with it and to allow those individuals to divest finances as they see fit. I suggest you read the Constitution and Bylaws of the Corporation. If you still do not recognize this factual reality you may then proceed to go to the "statement of investment policy" found at capmembers.com under National Headquarters >>Financial Management page. CAP IS IN THE BUSINESS OF MAKING PROFIT (through investments, donations, grants, bequests, gifts etc).
Those that jumped and said "CAP is not a business", "its just a non-profit thingy etc" are individuals we do not want making decisions for the CAP as they have no idea what the organization fundamentally is!!
The IRS recognized CAP as a business in its determination to grant the 501(c)(03) status. Specifically CAP falls under 509(a)(2). This recognizes CAP as an "organization that receive their support from a combination of gifts, grants and contributions and fees for their exempt services". PLEASE NOTE: to the IRS the term "organization" means business.
Again, I will say; some here will disagree with me and decide to argue heatedly, but anyone who is against reviewing business practices is either afraid of change, too lazy to change, just doesn't care or benefits from current costly practices and does not want to give up what they have.
abdsp51, I presented my suggestion and your negativity and bias has prevented you from factually challenging my idea. You complain my "bashing a process does not fix any issues nor does complaining and presenting you ever present negativity". Seriously?? How do you think improvements are made? Nothing in life would ever change if we all just sat back and not said anything....right?!?
For those that may not accept the suggested idea that business practices within CAP need reviewed to determine cost savings on the basis of mere semantics, you are foolish and just out for a fight. How can you not agree that the review of current practices and procedures are beneficial?? Disagreeing with the idea of review is both detrimental and wasteful. I can accept disagreement with how reviews are done or who conducts the reviews, but disagreeing with the concept is a reason we are in the current financial situation.
abdsp51, please don't attack an individual personally if you don't like a post, especially if you have no alternative suggestions to a proposed idea presented. That only reiterates the fact you are ignorant of the topic.
Your posts for the vast majority are negative and if you can't stand being called out on it then you got issues. And sorry CAP is not a business in any definition of the word. I suggest you look up the word in an actual dictionary. You can be an organization and not a business. We are an organization and a non-profit one at that and therefore not a business.
Patterson, you literally have no idea what you are talking about.
CAP is a Corporation charted by Congress and it falls into the definition of 501(c).
However, a Corporation is not necessarily a business.
It is commonly known that there are "Non-profit Corporations" vs. "Business Corporations".
What is so hard to understand? Really? >:D
Quote from: Eclipse on April 10, 2013, 03:25:05 PM
Maybe someone can explain just what was approved and passed for CAP?
I read one article that said that the whole $31M had been approved, then another message that it was only $28M (is that the sequestered $31M?), then recently it's only $22M and NHQ may need to RIF additional staff.
I can't seem to find a definitive number anywhere (maybe one doesn't exist? Is it still gray?)
I hate to interrupt a classic CT furball to return to the OP, but as others have posted, the actual amount of appropriated dollars (non-acquisition type) appears to be a hair over $22 million for FY 13, representing a reduction of just over 6 million from FY 12, and a million less than the roughly 23 million in the budget the BoG approved. And of course we are already half way through FY 13, so we have had to make some careful reductions, including a RIF at NHQ. No significant programs have been eliminated, which means among other things, that we should not have to do some of the things we had to do last year like ground airplanes for a period of time.
We are always reviewing our business practices, and I suspect the members will see some further economies in things like printing and corporate travel.
Our CAP-USAF partners are experiencing even more significant cuts to their operating and travel budgets.
The BoG is aggressively addressing the funding situation and fully understands the risks and lack of stability inherent in meeting mission in an organization dependent on appropriated dollars for the vast majority of our operating budget. We get that. We really, really do.
The good news is that we are still meeting every mission that is requested of us and that due to the prudent reductions, we are in relatively good shape when compared to other organizations. We have a good cash flow and money in the bank.
I will try to respond to questions as time permits, but our meeting went to 2200 and starts again at 0800.
You may return to arguing over semantics and offering the leadership advice on how to run the corporation.
I'm going to bed.
Ned Lee
Quote from: Ned on April 12, 2013, 04:29:22 AM
You may return to arguing over semantics and offering the leadership advice on how to run the corporation.
And with that, Ned just whistled up the Burn Unit at Brooke Army Medical Center.
Quote from: Ned on April 12, 2013, 04:29:22 AM
You may return to arguing over semantics and offering the leadership advice on how to run the corporation.
Hey Ned could you mind your own business so the rest of us can get down to business?