Ok, First I am NOT trying to reopen the Pineda issue. iwish it would go away. Secondly, i am not a big supporter of Pineda. I didnt agree wit a lot of his changes. Thisis aquestion in General about CAP and he just happens to be the focus. SO here it goes.......
Why do you suppose its so political at the upper levels of CAP? I mean these are all volunteers. In a way I think its wrong what they did to Pineda (Not that I ever agreede with the man in the first place) but he gave of his own time to travel around the country. He was probably 100 times more busier with CAP stuff than I ever was. And they treat him this way. Its wrong. Its not like he is some high leevl paid politician caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He is a volunteer for goodness sakes. he didnt have to do any of this stuff.
As long as you have a group of people, you will have politics. Period. Every organization I have been a part of has poltics invoved at some level. Do not presume politics in CAP is exclusive to the National level. Spend more time in Region or Wing staff. Oy vey!
I will not respond to the rest...
Those "in power" like to stay so, and those "out of power" want to remedy that. Those with "ideal visions" that want to do the right thing will be suspected by both sides...then dismissed as "hokey."
If I say, "I live to SERVE..." you'd think I was crazy.
I really have very IDEAL visions about what CAP should be...it sometimes runs up against the cynics here.
Thus, the struggle...the AGENDISM and the petty politics. Sometimes, like this occasion and in Salem Village in 1692, time when the "religion" becomes more important that the "GOD."
By that I mean, the politics outweighes the need to serve and accomplish the mission. Are there to be witchhunts? McCarthy-like hearing and the like over this?
And the beat goes on...my friend...the beat goes on.
After Tuesday, I will likely not even open threads on that subject.
It's not just the National Level. I don't know if you've ever been to a Wing or Region Staff meeting, but the politics there are enough to drive you crazy. A suggestion that works for me is to just ignore it if it doesn't pertain to you. You will save yourself a lot of headaches down the road by not getting involved. Attend the meetings, do your duty, and everything will be great.
I'm with Major Carrales on the second issue. Not touching that one.
Fluguy06, two points:
1) Ego....that's why there is so much back-stabbing and jockeying for "power" in CAP, generally beginning at wing level on up....petty people shoring up their minimal self-esteem by throwing their weight around and attempting to make others do their bidding!
2) Granted that the former national CC gave a loot of time to CAP, the simple fact of the matter is that the evidence suggested he violated both CAP & USAF regulations....integrity demanded that the BOG take appropriate action since no one is above the law.
It has been a seriously long time since I studied human psychology, and I might get this wrong. Maslow has a hierarchy of human needs, and in my day number four was approval by others. Number five was self actualization, where you marched to your own drum. Most of the climbers are in Level Four and they seek position power so that people will admire them. Your last National Commander was very much in Level Four in my opinion. I have known him personally for a very long time, and one day in his Wing Commander phase I made the mistake of calling him "Tony." He very quickly corrected me "That's Colonel Pineda." So the position power of Wing Commander was very important to him. I suggest to you that this need for approval was his ultimate undoing. There is absolutely no reason in the world that he needed a diploma from ACSC other than to impress people.
"Politics" in an organization that elects all of the senior leadership is not really very surprising.
It's a little like looking at Congress and being surprised that it is full of "politicians." 8)
Seriously, the intrigues and manuevering serve a genuine function: they tend to resolve differing interests and desires for control.
Obviously, any politcal body can suffer from "political overload" that becomes detrimental to the organization. It sounds like most folks here would agree that that has happened in CAP in recent years.
And we can all agree that politics should not be spiteful or petty.
Sunlight and air are the best remedy for such things.
But "politics" are necessary and even a good thing in every organization that elects the leadership.
Ned Lee
Recovering political scientist
Well said, Ned.
In the interest of trying to figure out how right I was in what I was talking about, I went to Wikipedia and found this on Maslow's Level Four:
Esteem needs
All humans have a need to be respected, to have self-esteem, self-respect, and to respect others. People need to engage themselves to gain recognition and have an activity or activities that give the person a sense of contribution,to feel accepted and self-valued, be it in a profession or hobby. Imbalances at this level can result in low self-esteem,inferiority complexes. People with low esteem need respect from others. They may seek fame or glory, which again are dependent on others. However confidence, competence and achievement only need one person and everyone else is inconsequential to one's own success. It may be noted, however, that many people with low self-esteem will not be able to improve their view of themselves simply by receiving fame, respect, and glory externally, but must first accept themselves internally. Psychological imbalances such as depression can also prevent one from obtaining self-esteem on both levels.
"Politics" is a Latin word, derived from "poly" meaning many, and "ticks" , meaning blood sucking leeches.
Major Lord
CAP is not alone in the political issues at a national level.
Any time an individual develops "An Unhealthy ownership in a public trust" problems arise.
This happens in organizations as large as CAP, or as small as teh local fire department
"Politics" seems to be the catchall phrase for "folks doing stuff for self serving reasons."
And yet it's not always so simple. Sometimes what looks like politics is really one guy trying his best to do the right thing.
For example.
"The Wing CC gave the job to his friend and not to me - he's just playing politics."
When the truth might be, the Wing CC knows his friend and trust him to support him. You on the other hand, are an unknown quantity at best. You're a risk, the other guy is a sure thing.
If you're a manager you engage in politics every day - each decision has to take into account other human beings, and their feelings.
There's perhaps more ofthis in CAP because, frankly, most members are here for reasons related to feelings. Some want the respect of a position or a title, some want to feel like they are a part of the military, some want to feel like heroes, some want to feel like wise old mentor/teachers, some want to live out fighter pilot fantasies (that would be me ;D), etc. etc.
The only thing that is certain - no one is here for the paycheck.
So.....working through the minefield of feelings - all of them different - is bound to upset at least people.
I truly do not believe that all, or even most of our Wing Commanders are petty people with low self esteem, just interested in self aggrandizement.
I think the vast majority of them are trying hard to do the right thing, but they make an above average number of mistakes. Some of them probably aren't cut out for the job (most of us aren't). Some get no staff support. Some can't make heads or tails out of which missions should take priority.
I'd say it Tony's problem wasn't that he played too much politics - but that he wasn't any GOOD at it. He pushed his agenda while upsetting way too many people. He didn't communicate or sell his vision. He didn't cut deals. He made enemies. In politics, that kills you. In the end, he stood alone. That's just bad politics.
Often folks who complain about politics are folks who aren't any good at it.
Quote from: isuhawkeye on October 04, 2007, 06:30:34 PM
CAP is not alone in the political issues at a national level.
Any time an individual develops "An Unhealthy ownership in a public trust" problems arise.
This happens in organizations as large as CAP, or as small as teh local fire department
Either way, it has a negative effect on the members. Some are worse than others.
Lots of information there, Dragoon. First, let me join you in the fighter pilot fantasy. Second, I think the vast majority of Wing Commanders and above are stellar people. Lots and lots of the problems I have seen are created by people who aspire to and never make Wing Commander and who either deliberately or incompetently mess up the pipeline. As for Wing Commanders, the ones I have seen come to grief have come to grief because of the Bill Clinton problem. Apparently the power of command is an aphodisiac, and that is enough said about that. I don't even believe that they make an above average number of mistakes. There is a balance that is very difficult to maintain. In my area there are an inordinate number of terminations, and a goodly number of the "mistakes" made by Wing Commanders are offending those higher up the food chain by relieving or terminating proteges of the more powerful.
Doug, you make some great points. Here's what I'm thinking though. Maybe there are too many commanders in CAP. Unit, Group, Wing, Region, National. There's bound to be a conflict of interest somewhere along the way. What is the point of some many commanders? I don't see a point in having Group Commanders because all they seem to do is interfere with unit operations, which has a tendancy to cause the unit commander to complain to the Wing Commander. Then you get the effective Region Commander who happens to actually know what's going on in the field, and he/she gets involved. By the end of the day, you have big Charlie Foxtrot all because of one thing said by a Group Commander. Maybe if there weren't so many echelons in the chain of commander, there'd be less drama, and things could run a bit more smoothly at all echelons. I commend the efforts of my unit, group, wing and region commanders because they all seem to have their heads on their shoulders rather than up a southern region of another member. But I just don't see the point of so many commanders.
Quote from: Skyray on October 04, 2007, 05:32:29 PM
It has been a seriously long time since I studied human psychology, and I might get this wrong. Maslow has a hierarchy of human needs, and in my day number four was approval by others. Number five was self actualization, where you marched to your own drum. Most of the climbers are in Level Four and they seek position power so that people will admire them.
L2K chapter 6 - Maslow takes up a couple of pages.
Maybe we should send everyone who aspires to wing command back to complete the cadet program.
Truth be told, some of the best wing commanders I have seen have been former cadets.
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on October 04, 2007, 07:14:15 PM
Doug, you make some great points. Here's what I'm thinking though. Maybe there are too many commanders in CAP. Unit, Group, Wing, Region, National. There's bound to be a conflict of interest somewhere along the way. What is the point of some many commanders? I don't see a point in having Group Commanders because all they seem to do is interfere with unit operations, which has a tendancy to cause the unit commander to complain to the Wing Commander. Then you get the effective Region Commander who happens to actually know what's going on in the field, and he/she gets involved. By the end of the day, you have big Charlie Foxtrot all because of one thing said by a Group Commander. Maybe if there weren't so many echelons in the chain of commander, there'd be less drama, and things could run a bit more smoothly at all echelons. I commend the efforts of my unit, group, wing and region commanders because they all seem to have their heads on their shoulders rather than up a southern region of another member. But I just don't see the point of so many commanders.
Hmm...Kinda' thinking out loud.
I'm not sure that I agree with you. Any organization (military, church, business) that spans a large geographic area and has a large number of members has to divide responsibilities into sections. The managers at the top focus on the overall direction and major decisions. They don't have time to run the daily details, so you divide the group into as many layers as needed, each successive layer down having a more direct impact on the day-to-day work.
I know that some wings don't have groups because they are compact enough not to need them. If the wing is big enough the layer is necessary.
I think instead is goes the idea of better trained and qualified leaders. The example you give could be fixed if both the Group CC & Unit CC work out the issue like adults and professionals. Group CC shouldn't be a power junky and the Unit CC should humble themselves to someone with greater authority.
Now, I know that there will be times where legitimate things happen and that should be the exception.
Unfortunately, real leadership and followership skills are hard to find and harder to teach.
Quote from: Walkman on October 04, 2007, 08:00:51 PM
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on October 04, 2007, 07:14:15 PM
Doug, you make some great points. Here's what I'm thinking though. Maybe there are too many commanders in CAP. Unit, Group, Wing, Region, National. There's bound to be a conflict of interest somewhere along the way. What is the point of some many commanders? I don't see a point in having Group Commanders because all they seem to do is interfere with unit operations, which has a tendancy to cause the unit commander to complain to the Wing Commander. Then you get the effective Region Commander who happens to actually know what's going on in the field, and he/she gets involved. By the end of the day, you have big Charlie Foxtrot all because of one thing said by a Group Commander. Maybe if there weren't so many echelons in the chain of commander, there'd be less drama, and things could run a bit more smoothly at all echelons. I commend the efforts of my unit, group, wing and region commanders because they all seem to have their heads on their shoulders rather than up a southern region of another member. But I just don't see the point of so many commanders.
Hmm...Kinda' thinking out loud.
I'm not sure that I agree with you. Any organization (military, church, business) that spans a large geographic area and has a large number of members has to divide responsibilities into sections. The managers at the top focus on the overall direction and major decisions. They don't have time to run the daily details, so you divide the group into as many layers as needed, each successive layer down having a more direct impact on the day-to-day work.
I know that some wings don't have groups because they are compact enough not to need them. If the wing is big enough the layer is necessary.
I think instead is goes the idea of better trained and qualified leaders. The example you give could be fixed if both the Group CC & Unit CC work out the issue like adults and professionals. Group CC shouldn't be a power junky and the Unit CC should humble themselves to someone with greater authority.
Now, I know that there will be times where legitimate things happen and that should be the exception.
Unfortunately, real leadership and followership skills are hard to find and harder to teach.
That's true to. But anymore, it seems like leaders just want to whine, complain, and be greedy. Where's the leadership crying to the Wing Commander that the Group Commander won't let him run his squadron the way it's been run for 10, 20, 50 years? My focus on the whole commander deal is that they are so wrapped up with competing with each other that they forgot what they are doing which is leading the organization one unit at a time. I do aspire to become a commander some day. I'm just taking everything I witness as a learning experience.
I gues I am having a hard time understanding becaus eI havent seen it at this level before in my CAP career. I mean when I was a cadet and a young Senior Member, I dont remember a large amount of Wing and region Commnaders being relieved or replaced. In fact I cant remember a one. In fact, my region Commander (SER) was in his position for 11 years. Thats the CAP I remember.
I guess as I get older and more invovlved in CAP, I am seeing a different side of it. A side I dont neccessarily like. I mean everyone keeps talking about politics. These are not politicians. They are volunteers. But I can kind of understand what you guys are saying. I am a member of a national Fraternity and I see similar fights for power and leaders with big egos. I hope I never get like that.
That Region Commander was my mentor. Some will tell you that he started this whole mess. He ran for National Vice and only got one vote. Assuming that he voted for himself, that means there were eight wing commanders who didn't vote for him. Very soon it was eight former Wing Commanders who didn't vote for him. And the region hasn't been completely well since.
"I guess as I get older and more involved in CAP, I am seeing a different side of it. A side I don't necessarily like. I mean everyone keeps talking about politics. These are not politicians. They are volunteers. But I can kind of understand what you guys are saying. I am a member of a national Fraternity and I see similar fights for power and leaders with big egos. I hope I never get like that."
So don't get like that. CAP is a wonderful organization not because of its leadership but because of its members. We are a volunteer organization who will get up at three in the morning to find an ELT just because someone might be in trouble. Even when we fully realize that the odds are 99.99 to 1 that it's a non-distress signal. There are folks who care about and even cherish the MISSION and that's what matters. Whether it's the Cadet Program, ES, or Aerospace Education. Don't matter, just once in your life hear the "We have survivors" call, of have a cadet come back and say "Thank You Sir, I never would have thought of going to college if you had not shown me a way to do it"; or look into the face of a kid who just finished an O Flight or a military Helo ride. That's where it's at.
Leadership is a necessary evil in all organizations, sometimes good or sometimes bad, but always there. The problem comes about when those in charge forget the real reason we are here and start to think they have something besides a rank that really isn't real outside of CAP. As soon as their interests turn to what we look like, how we are perceived, what we ought to be asked to do, there is a problem. When we allow our leaders to get off the heading, without issuing an immediate course correction we are at fault. When we tolerate leadership that appears to have interests outside of the mission we have failed. When we permit a system to exist that allows the boss to fire those who vote for or against him/her, we are compromising the mission and inviting corruption. Then we deserve the leaders we get.
Don't go into leadership, become the best at the part of the mission you love, stay out of the politics, cherish the rewards of a job well done, but.....and this is the big "but"....do not tolerate or permit those who are not passionate about the mission to lead. You do that by not following, a famous Navy Seal once said that if you lead from the front, where you should be, you have to realize you are standing in front of a bunch of guys who have guns and know how to use them.
Large turn overs happen in CAP every few years.
As I recall When General Anderson became the National commander he systematically replaced all but 2 (?) region commanders before his first board was over.
A LONG one.........
OK, as to the why and how this kind of thing happens in CAP in particular, you must first recognize that the upper level management of this organization is very incestuous.
a) To become a Wing Commander (WC), you must have the backing of a Region Commander, who makes the appointment. There are no requirements for a Wing Commander other than being a current member, being asked by the Region Commander, and saying "yes." (C&B, Article XIII)
b) To become a Region Commander (RC), you must have the support of the National Commander, who makes the appointment. There are no requirements for a Wing Commander other than being a current member, being asked asked by the National Commander, and saying "yes." (C&B, Article XIII)
c) To become a National Commander, you must have sufficient support among the entire National Board. This is important because the posts of National Commander and National Vice Commander are elected from the National Board, by the National Board. Prior or current membership on the National Board is the only requirement. (C&B, Article XIII)
Once elected, the National Commander may then appoint 12 of the 14 voting members of the National Executive Committee subject only to being confirmed by vote of the National Board. Since the Region Commanders are appointed by the National Commander, you can see how easy it is to stack the National Executive Committee once you become National Commander. That means the National Commander gets to choose (with some attrition time accounted for) 14 of the 17 members. This gives the National Commander a potential 88% control of any action coming out of the National Executive Committee.
As the average region contains 6 wings, it is easy to allow that the National Commander can have a significant influence on the voting within the National Board by simply having full allegiance of 4 or five Region Commanders (who will be appointing those Wing Commanders). Over time, that can account for 24-30 additional members of the National Board with allegiance to the National Commander. The longer a person or conspiracy of persons can maintain control, then the longer simple attrition will allow the board to be stacked for a VERY difficult change of control or climate.
So, the National board consists of 66 voting members (14 NEC + 52 Wing Commanders). Given that the National Commander may have significant control over 13 of the NEC (including himself) and control of another 24-30 Wing Commanders, that can give the National Commander an automatic 56%-65% majority on any vote. That is why the proposal to extend the term length for the National Commander kept coming out of the NEC under TP even though it was narrowly voted down each time. (The single 3-yr term for the National Commander was written into the revised constitution for this very specific reason, but does not address a multi-person conspiracy which may extend the influence over multiple terms.)
As each Region and Wing Commander also has the right to appoint or relieve any member of their staff without any other reason than they simply want to, an ambitious person will make certain that they use all the trappings and pomp available to assure they have a staff that is always "all right." If the commander also happens to be charismatic and able to draw in competent people to serve on his staff then this system works OK even if the commander himself is otherwise incompetent. Mostly the "law of the mean" and the constitutional term limits keeps the system balanced with some good and some bad commands distributed about the organization over time.
However, if a particular person or group of persons are VERY ambitious (IE: egocentric with low self esteem as in Maslow above) then a conspiracy of control can arise where the mean state of the organization is skewed away from "average competency" to "high allegiance". I feel this has been the case for the past 15 years or so and describes why so many "good men have fallen needlessly" (a phrase, and not meant in any way to demean the service or suffering of our women in membership).
I was a reviewer and commenter on the organizational restructuring of CAP in the early 90's that led to the creation of the Board of Governors. The history of that is a long involved one going back into the 80's and I don't want to open that can right now. But basically it was recognized that perhaps the USAF shouldn't meddle too much in the existing organizational structure that had been in place for almost 50 years (though specific term limits of most corporate officer positions were added). To provide an INDEPENDENT management oversight, the Board of Governors was created. As I recall, originally the board was supposed to consist of 2 appointees by SecAF, the CAP National Commander and Vice, 2 members at large (to be selected from senior members with demonstrated ability who are not currently nor have been recently (within the prior three years) members of the National Board or any other Corporate Officer position (paid or otherwise)), and 3 members chosen from aviation or aerospace industry leaders. There was a bit of contention between a National Commander and the SecAF that resulted in a compromise providing 4 appointees for the SecAF and reducing the industry representation to one. As part of that compromise, the requirement that the members-at-large NOT be current or recent members of the National Board was dropped. As soon as the Board was formed, this resulted in the National Commander immediately appointing two members of the NEC to the board in place of what was supposed to be the representatives of the membership at large and assuring that there would be at least three members on the Board with allegiance to the National Commander. I feel this one situation (the member-at large appointments) has most seriously compromised the board's ability to provide quality oversight to the organization. Simply stated, there is no one on the board or above the Group Commander level who is present to represent the membership at large as opposed to the interest of this otherwise incestuous upper management organization.
There are many other important issues affecting WHY CAP is both bloated and bleeding membership. These are associated with training, the need for an independent IG structure, administrative gargantism, mission schizophrenia, and more but each requires too much time and space to discuss here.
Soooooo, that's how it happened, why it isn't over, and why it is going to happen again and again unless the underlying causes are addressed.
Ken Massey
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on October 04, 2007, 07:14:15 PM
I don't see a point in having Group Commanders because all they seem to do is interfere with unit operations, which has a tendancy to cause the unit commander to complain to the Wing Commander.
Group Commanders exist because otherwise the span of control for most wing commanders would be far too large.
Group CCs command their group -- HQ unit and all subordinate units and unit commanders.
In other words, they have authority within the group derived from, and very similar to, that held by the wing CC.
It has been my experience as a group CC that squadron commanders resent a competent group commander & group staff even more than an incompetent one.
This is principally because some (by no means all, or even most) squadron commanders view themselves as latter day Horatio Hornblowers or Jack Aubreys, running an independent, virtually autonomous unit with little reference to any broader organizational considerations.
This may even have worked once upon a time...though my cadet service was in the early 70s, and, as best I recall, squadrons worked together when the occasion arose, under the direction of the group.
In the best of circumstances group commanders and group staff officers have significant squadron experience, including commander or deputy commander service. They have the background to guide squadron commanders who, today, often have 3 years or less CAP background, no prior military service, and little clear idea of what they ought to be doing (otherwise why develop a Unit Commander Course?).
But on one point you are absolutely correct....sometimes squadron commanders do violate the chain of command and complain to their wing CC buddies when they don't always get their own way!
How do we eliminate politics...and the abuse of power we saw under TP? Eliminate the NB and the NEC! The National Commander should be selected by the BoG and he should then lead the organization.
All this leadership by consent of the NB is why we have national commanders and regional commanders canning people so he can stack the vote.
Eliminate the vote!
Let the BoG provide direction and vision and then the National CC and his staff implements and executes that vision.
I know this sounds radical in the face of the abuse we all just went through. But if someone wants to be National CC...instead of worming his way into a regional slot and then making personnel chances to improve his odds at the NB.....an officer would become very good at leading his unit, get recognized by the upper management and moved up. Because the only way a regional commander could then make National CC is to impress the BoG that he has what it takes to be the man.
Quote from: lordmonar on October 05, 2007, 06:25:34 AM
How do we eliminate politics...and the abuse of power we saw under TP? Eliminate the NB and the NEC! The National Commander should be selected by the BoG and he should then lead the organization.
All this leadership by consent of the NB is why we have national commanders and regional commanders canning people so he can stack the vote.
Eliminate the vote!
Let the BoG provide direction and vision and then the National CC and his staff implements and executes that vision.
I know this sounds radical in the face of the abuse we all just went through. But if someone wants to be National CC...instead of worming his way into a regional slot and then making personnel chances to improve his odds at the NB.....an officer would become very good at leading his unit, get recognized by the upper management and moved up. Because the only way a regional commander could then make National CC is to impress the BoG that he has what it takes to be the man.
Who selects who the BoG is made up of, then?
Quote from: lordmonar on October 05, 2007, 06:25:34 AM
How do we eliminate politics...and the abuse of power we saw under TP? Eliminate the NB and the NEC! The National Commander should be selected by the BoG and he should then lead the organization.
All this leadership by consent of the NB is why we have national commanders and regional commanders canning people so he can stack the vote.
Eliminate the vote!
Let the BoG provide direction and vision and then the National CC and his staff implements and executes that vision.
I know this sounds radical in the face of the abuse we all just went through. But if someone wants to be National CC...instead of worming his way into a regional slot and then making personnel chances to improve his odds at the NB.....an officer would become very good at leading his unit, get recognized by the upper management and moved up. Because the only way a regional commander could then make National CC is to impress the BoG that he has what it takes to be the man.
I'm in favor of what you're suggesting. But I don't think it will eliminate politics, because "impressing the BoG" will be a very political thing. Some guys will go out of their way to step on subordinates in order to put on a show for BoG members. (incidentally, the same thing occurs today amongst real Colonels trying to be real Generals, and real Vice Presidents trying to become CEOs)
And once that guy is put in charge, he gets to pick everyone else. So...you're gonna end up with everyone kissing his butt to become Wing and Region CC's just like today.
But I like your suggestion because, frankly, I prefer my commander to be kissing USAF's butt rather than kissing all the Wing CC's butts trying to get votes. It's a bit more "military" that way.
The
Quote from: lordmonar on October 05, 2007, 06:25:34 AM
How do we eliminate politics...and the abuse of power we saw under TP? Eliminate the NB and the NEC! The National Commander should be selected by the BoG and he should then lead the organization.
All this leadership by consent of the NB is why we have national commanders and regional commanders canning people so he can stack the vote.
Eliminate the vote!
Let the BoG provide direction and vision and then the National CC and his staff implements and executes that vision.
I know this sounds radical in the face of the abuse we all just went through. But if someone wants to be National CC...instead of worming his way into a regional slot and then making personnel chances to improve his odds at the NB.....an officer would become very good at leading his unit, get recognized by the upper management and moved up. Because the only way a regional commander could then make National CC is to impress the BoG that he has what it takes to be the man.
The BoG being made up with other that CAP members give undue control to outside organizations. We need to keep the NB & the NEC. but separate the voting of the NB & NEC life the house and senate of congress. Make the national CC and national VC. confirmed by the BoG and per regulations their rank confirmed by the CoS USAF.
Quote from: USCAP_truth on October 05, 2007, 01:16:43 PM
The BoG being made up with other that CAP members give undue control to outside organizations. We need to keep the NB & the NEC. but separate the voting of the NB & NEC life the house and senate of congress. Make the national CC and national VC. confirmed by the BoG and per regulations their rank confirmed by the CoS USAF.
Most of the non-CAP BOG members are USAF general officers (active or retired) or Dept. of AF civilian executives, all appointed by SECAF.
The concept suggested by LordMonar, having the BOG choose National CC & CV, is intriguing.
One way it could work is like this:
1) NB members (wing CCs only) submit nomination petitions. A valid nomination requires requires a minimum of 5 wing commanders' endorsement, with no more than 2 from any single region. This would assure fairly broad based support...just under 10% of wing CCs, from at least 3 different regions (a bit more than 1/3).
Each of top 3 national positions (CC, CV, CS) would require separate nomination. An officer could only run for one position in any single election period.
Of course there would still be politicking, that's human nature, but this would make 'stacking the deck more difficult.
2) NEC would choose (by secret ballot) 3 former CAP national commanders to serve on a selection boardwith CC & CV CAP-USAF. (Former CAP national CVs who were not candidates for office could be chosen if sufficient ex-CCs were not available)
3) The selection board would submit top three choices to BOG, which would make the final appointment subject to USAF CS approval.
4) In the event that there were less than 3 candidates for any office, nominations would be solicited from the general membership. This process would need to be worked out carefully to avoid manipulation -- a certain number of signatures (50?), from a variety of units (possibly all in same wing). Officers should have completed Level II and cadets completed Phase II to be eligible to sign these nomination petitions.
All this would require extensive discussion and revision, as well as changes to CAP Constitution, Bylaws, and regulations.
One aspect of this ought to be
mandatory criteria for eligibility for candidacy; hopefully this would eventually lead to similar training and experience criteria for region and wing CCs.
No one should serve in an elected national office with less than 15 years CAP experience, and 2 years minimum command service at region or wing.
No one should serve as region or wing commander without 10 years CAP experience, and 3 years minimum squadron or group command service.
No one should serve as a group commander without 5 years CAP experience, and 2 years squadron commander or deputy.
No one should serve as a squadron commander without 2 years minimum CA{ service.
Under the current CAPR35-5 the rank of Brig. Gen. and Maj. Gen. must be confirmed by the USAF chief of staff.
As a practicing attorney who has had a number of charitable institutions for clients, I am not surprised with the politics in CAP. Some of the kindest and well meaning people end up in litigation against each other over politics in their particular charitable organization. I do not know what it is in volunteer organizations but it seems to bring out the worst in some people when they come to power. I have seen people who have worked for a charity for years be willing to destroy it in order to have their way. It is a sad commentary on human nature.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on October 05, 2007, 04:49:45 PM
Quote from: USCAP_truth on October 05, 2007, 01:16:43 PM
The BoG being made up with other that CAP members give undue control to outside organizations. We need to keep the NB & the NEC. but separate the voting of the NB & NEC life the house and senate of congress. Make the national CC and national VC. confirmed by the BoG and per regulations their rank confirmed by the CoS USAF.
Most of the non-CAP BOG members are USAF general officers (active or retired) or Dept. of AF civilian executives, all appointed by SECAF.
The concept suggested by LordMonar, having the BOG choose National CC & CV, is intriguing.
One way it could work is like this:
1) NB members (wing CCs only) submit nomination petitions. A valid nomination requires requires a minimum of 5 wing commanders' endorsement, with no more than 2 from any single region. This would assure fairly broad based support...just under 10% of wing CCs, from at least 3 different regions (a bit more than 1/3).
Each of top 3 national positions (CC, CV, CS) would require separate nomination. An officer could only run for one position in any single election period.
Of course there would still be politicking, that's human nature, but this would make 'stacking the deck more difficult.
2) NEC would choose (by secret ballot) 3 former CAP national commanders to serve on a selection boardwith CC & CV CAP-USAF. (Former CAP national CVs who were not candidates for office could be chosen if sufficient ex-CCs were not available)
3) The selection board would submit top three choices to BOG, which would make the final appointment subject to USAF CS approval.
4) In the event that there were less than 3 candidates for any office, nominations would be solicited from the general membership. This process would need to be worked out carefully to avoid manipulation -- a certain number of signatures (50?), from a variety of units (possibly all in same wing). Officers should have completed Level II and cadets completed Phase II to be eligible to sign these nomination petitions.
All this would require extensive discussion and revision, as well as changes to CAP Constitution, Bylaws, and regulations.
One aspect of this ought to be mandatory criteria for eligibility for candidacy; hopefully this would eventually lead to similar training and experience criteria for region and wing CCs.
No one should serve in an elected national office with less than 15 years CAP experience, and 2 years minimum command service at region or wing.
No one should serve as region or wing commander without 10 years CAP experience, and 3 years minimum squadron or group command service.
No one should serve as a group commander without 5 years CAP experience, and 2 years squadron commander or deputy.
No one should serve as a squadron commander without 2 years minimum CA{ service.
Or, the CAP members that sit on the BoG are the immediate past CC and CV, besides the 2 members at large. That way, those who are making the rules as the CC or CV don't have a pig in the race at the BoG level as well. Make CC and CV positions the same length in time (instead of CC for 3 years, CV yearly)
Quote from: SJFedor on October 05, 2007, 10:17:15 PM
Or, the CAP members that sit on the BoG are the immediate past CC and CV, besides the 2 members at large. That way, those who are making the rules as the CC or CV don't have a pig in the race at the BoG level as well. Make CC and CV positions the same length in time (instead of CC for 3 years, CV yearly)
Excellent points, glad you caught my oversights! Concur entirely.
Nice article in The Volunteer by the way.