CAP Board Of Governors New Appointments, Change in Strategic Direction?

[RADIOMAN015]

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

[PHall]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Patterson]

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!! 

[JC004]

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.     I'm still learning not to accept a billion Board of Directors and similar appointments myself...doh.

[Eclipse]

From first glance, it may also appear to be cash driven appointments.

Please, enlighten us as to how unpaid BOG appointments are somehow "cash driven".

[Ned]

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!)

[MSG Mac]

Interesting to note that BG Schlitt is a Reservist and former ANG Officer

[Patterson]

From 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. 

[FW]

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.

[RADIOMAN015]

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     

[SJFedor]

^--- 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.

[Ned]

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.

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  

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?

[vmstan]

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    

^--- 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.

[Short Field]

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?

[SJFedor]

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.

[FW]

^--- 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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Short Field]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.