Benefits of a USAF Officer CAP/CC

[RiverAux]

Are you saying, then, that the appointment of Military leaders for command is "back room dealings?"  Appointments of judges and other municipal staffers in major cities are backroom deals?

We are not the military.  If we were, a military system would make sense since they actually choose the most qualified people to do the job or more likely the immediate commander actually isn't involved in the selection of their subordinates leaders hardly at all and the great Personnel Dept in the Sky is telling them who they're getting. 

There is absolutely nothing unique about CAP that requires that local and state leaders be appointed by some representative from outside their area.   There is absolutely zero difference between us and just about any other volunteer organization in the country that requires this particular system that we've developed. 

If anything, the reason that the democracy that we do have in CAP doesn't work is the fact that it isn't true democracy since the National Commander basically gets to choose their electorate.  I know of no other organization or government that works that way because they see the folly in it. 

The idea of having NB members be elected by wing membership but have them not be the actual Wing commanders actually seems like an achievable compromise.  After all there is no particular reason that the Wing Commander needs to be the corporate officer.   

[Major Carrales]

River....see Eclipse's post.

[JeffDG]

But why does "election" mean "subordinates selecting commanders"

Why can't NB membership be separated from Wing Command?

Members select the NB, which selects the NEC.  The NB selects the CAP/CC.  CAP/CC appoints Region/CC.  Region/CC appoints Wing/CC.

Members do not select their commander.  The only reason Wing Commander = National Board Member is because that's the way it is currently.  Companies do not require all of their VPs to be members of the Board of Directors.

Once you split the role of Wing/CC and National Board Representative, you suddenly have significant flexibility in how things are done.

[Major Carrales]

But why does "election" mean "subordinates selecting commanders"

Why can't NB membership be separated from Wing Command?

Members select the NB, which selects the NEC.  The NB selects the CAP/CC.  CAP/CC appoints Region/CC.  Region/CC appoints Wing/CC.

Members do not select their commander.  The only reason Wing Commander = National Board Member is because that's the way it is currently.  Companies do not require all of their VPs to be members of the Board of Directors.

Once you split the role of Wing/CC and National Board Representative, you suddenly have significant flexibility in how things are done.

Because Wing Commanders are corporate officers administering the corporation/program over a large geographic/administrative area.  I don't think regional managers at WAL*MART, EXXON-MOBILE or MICROSOFT are elected to their position.

[Mustang]

..but the concept of separating wing command from board membership is brilliant

Agree.  All too frequently, wing cc appointees just don't have the expertise to be making decisions for their own wings, much less all of CAP.  They're rarely subject matter experts.

[RiverAux]

Because Wing Commanders are corporate officers administering the corporation/program over a large geographic/administrative area.  I don't think regional managers at WAL*MART, EXXON-MOBILE or MICROSOFT are elected to their position.

Yeah, and those regional managers aren't corporate officers either. 

[Major Carrales]

..but the concept of separating wing command from board membership is brilliant

Agree.  All too frequently, wing cc appointees just don't have the expertise to be making decisions for their own wings, much less all of CAP.  They're rarely subject matter experts.

What?  Wing CC Appointees?  How does that relate? How would electing the leadership change that?

[Major Carrales]

Because Wing Commanders are corporate officers administering the corporation/program over a large geographic/administrative area.  I don't think regional managers at WAL*MART, EXXON-MOBILE or MICROSOFT are elected to their position.

Yeah, and those regional managers aren't corporate officers either.

They are here.

And you fail to address the fact that their corporate officers are not elected by the employees. 

[RiverAux]

Because Wing Commanders are corporate officers administering the corporation/program over a large geographic/administrative area.  I don't think regional managers at WAL*MART, EXXON-MOBILE or MICROSOFT are elected to their position.

Yeah, and those regional managers aren't corporate officers either.

They are here.

And you fail to address the fact that their corporate officers are not elected by the employees.

Maybe in some sense they are but certainly not in the manner that CAP Wing Commanders have a role in setting company policy.  Our NB is basically the board of Board of Directors of a corporation.  Regional Wal Mart managers aren't even close to having that level of policy making ability.

And CAP is not a business any more than it is the military.  If we were a business commanders and members would be getting paid for their actions and they would have a much, much greater incentive to act for the good of the company since their financial future depends on it.  The worst thing that can happen to a CAP commander that appoints dumb people to subordinate positions is that they get fired from that position or maybe get kicked out of the organization, which if anything would be a net financial plus for them.

You guys just have to admit that we are a volunteer organization that has been trying to force a leadership organization on volunteers that just does not work very well.  Sure, we've managed to get along for quite a while, but that doesn't mean that what we're doing is the best possible thing that we could be doing.  The fact that no other volunteer organization does things this way should tell you something. 

[Eclipse]

You guys just have to admit that we are a volunteer organization that has been trying to force a leadership organization on volunteers that just does not work very well. 

No, the problem is a lack of intestinal fortitude and allowing members to feed from the trough (whichever one they "feel like") without an expectation that
the feeding comes at a cost.

That is the point where we fail as an organization - it means we write checks we can't always cash.

Want to look for a successful volunteer model?  Look at the ARC?  When you join they set the expectation and stick to it - succeed in your training, show up when called, live up to commitments, you'll excel and so will the ARC, don't do as directed and expected?

There's the door...

[JeffDG]

But why does "election" mean "subordinates selecting commanders"

Why can't NB membership be separated from Wing Command?

Members select the NB, which selects the NEC.  The NB selects the CAP/CC.  CAP/CC appoints Region/CC.  Region/CC appoints Wing/CC.

Members do not select their commander.  The only reason Wing Commander = National Board Member is because that's the way it is currently.  Companies do not require all of their VPs to be members of the Board of Directors.

Once you split the role of Wing/CC and National Board Representative, you suddenly have significant flexibility in how things are done.

Because Wing Commanders are corporate officers administering the corporation/program over a large geographic/administrative area.  I don't think regional managers at WAL*MART, EXXON-MOBILE or MICROSOFT are elected to their position.

What does that have to do with anything?  I still think Wing/CCs should be appointed by the chain of command.

The Board of WAL*MART, Exxon-Mobile and MS are certainly elected by their shareholders.

Board members are not responsible for the day-to-day operation of a company.  They are responsible for setting policies, the corporate officers (in Wal Mart, like a VP) are not elected by anyone, they are appointed by their supperiors.  The CEO reports to the Board, and the Board is elected by the shareholders.

[Major Carrales]

appointed by their supperiors.  The CEO reports to the Board, and the Board is elected by the shareholders.

Shareholders...not employees.

[Eclipse]

^ An excellent point.

I doubt you will find too many successful companies that elect their managers, however for excellent examples of failed volunteer
bodies that elect their leaders, one only needs to look at many condo boards, PTAs, and the like.

In this case the "majority shareholders" could arguably be the Congress or the USAF or a combination of both.  Even if you tried to make the argument
that member dues are essentially buying shares, the amount of money spent by members annually would still make them minority shareholders at best.

[FW]

First of all, we are not employees, we are dues paying members.  Secondly, we are not shareholders however, we are "stakeholders" (forget about the cows with guns thread...) And, finally, we are a non profit.  Our "bottom line" is successfully prosecuted missions and a solid, well trained, motivated membership. 

I am amused with how this discussion is going.  Election vs. Appointments, separation of duties between NB members and Wing Commanders, etc. 

In the over 8 years I was on the NB, I've not been convinced that the appointment of all corporate officers by, basically 1 individual, is a good thing.

If you look at the way the ARC is about to handle this matter; it seems they (the governing body of the ARC) will be forming nomination boards to give candidates to the regional chapters for election.  The nominees will be pre screened prior to the process.  Those elected to the board will not be subject to recall by the membership.  Their "IG" system will be truly independent from the chain of command.   There will be a clear separation between the CEO and  "principal officer".  The board will be half the size it was.  A true difference from past practice.

The more I think about it, the more I kind of like the idea of separating the Commanders from the NB.  Their current "duel hatted role" makes for confusion and discontent on many occasions.  Commanders should be free to lead.  They could form a "commanders board" to bring suggestions on policy to the governing board.  The governing board should be more involved in national policy/funding issues than the current BoG.  IF we structure the governing board as the ARC, we can elect our members to it and the SECAF can appoint his/her members.  Wing commanders can be elected by the members in the wing, wing commanders can elect the region commander in their region and, the whole commanders board can elect their chairman or national commander.  All commanders sign a contract specifying their duties for the term.  Only the governing board would be able to remove a sitting commander. 

The duties of all commanders at all levels will be to lead their members and enforce corporate policy.  The duty of the governing board is to provide corporate oversight, make policy and, interface with congress to insure our success as an organization. 

Politics can never be eliminated however, it can be controlled by proper oversight, well defined roles and, well qualified leadership. 

It's just a shame we have our egos which keep getting in the way.  Hence, as Ned says, the reason for an independent study on governance.

[Major Carrales]

Col, Sir, with all do respect, I believe that course of action will result in chaos and, unlike your prediction that the politics will be "controlled," I see nothing in past CAP, or other organizations, that suggest that will be so.  in fact, it is my opinion that it will be very much otherwise.

I must respectfully disagree.

[Eclipse]

If you look at the way the ARC is about to handle this matter; it seems they (the governing body of the ARC) will be forming nomination boards to give candidates to the regional chapters for election.  The nominees will be pre screened prior to the process.  Those elected to the board will not be subject to recall by the membership.  Their "IG" system will be truly independent from the chain of command.   There will be a clear separation between the CEO and  "principal officer".  The board will be half the size it was.  A true difference from past practice.

I actually have no issue with the idea, but the practical is something else. 

The ARC can and does hire lots and lots of outside people to manage their business - the volunteers are primarily the tip of the spear.

In CAP's current model, everyone in the audit part of the conversation also has a vested interest in the people being inspected - rare is the IG, Commander, or even staffer that wears only one hat.

I know a lot of people have advocated a higher level of paid staff to allow the business of CAP to be run separate from the operations of CAP.

I know for me, personally, had the unit commander who recruited me at that air show in 1999 told me how much of my time as a member, and then later as a commander, would be wasted checking someone's box versus serving my community, I would have likely shook his hand, went and bought a snow cone and went home.

Just as most people don't join the military to process Tri-Care paperwork, few people join CAP to fill out RPS reports and SUI responses, but we tolerate it because of the occasional "wins" where the stars align and our efforts actually pay off.

[NCRblues]

I know this is going to be unpopular, but maybe we should keep things as they are.

I just finished a class (going back to school for another degree ) on ethics ideals in America. The main topic of this class was basically "corruption starts small, grows rapidly, and attracts other corruption", while " moral and ethical ideas start small, grows small, but attracts others that are like minded".

Now, i believe the system we have can work, in fact HAS worked before, it just has fallen to "corruption".

I wont point fingers or play the blame game, but if those of us that are really here for the program as a whole can stick it out, help clear out corruption, than the system can work. If we, I will say "good guys", can stick together than why cant the current system flourish?

Do we need to tweak it maybe? Sure. But A vast redistribution of power? I'm not sure that will work out well.

I have an idea that will tweak it a little, and I will put some thought into it and put it up on here later, but maybe..... we don't need a whole new system, just tweak the one we have.

I love CAP, I love the cadet program the most, but i love CAP overall. It really hurts me to see the infighting and back room antics that are occurring, and have been for years.

But, for those of you that know me, i have big ideas and big plans that i want to try and bring to the table. Right now i am ignored because i am young, but we young folks have great ideas. Some that might be amazing for the program if we could just get someone to listen to us....

more to come, just need to sit and think about it a little....

[FW]

Sparky, I hear you however, our current system is failing.  It must change.  The only reason why CAP is still functioning is, IMHO, the members still feel the need to work hard and, for CAP. Commanders (other than the squadron/cc) are just not really in the equation (ok there are wing/region/national staffers that may care about them    )

Near chaos already exists at the national level.  Wing commanders really don't have all the information to make real policy decisions or recommendations (they never did).  Region commanders are hand picked by the national commander with no oversight.  Selection committees rarely see the number 1 choice appointed.  Qualifications are just recommendations and have little or no baring on the selection process. And, to top it all off, the relationship between the National Commander and the BoG is in question.  This must be changed.  (This is NOT how it's done in the military)

As we all know, leadership is an art.  Good leaders get good results.  Most service organizations elect their leadership.  They work out just fine. Yes, the ARC has a large paid employed staff however, they are mainly used for blood processing.

The object, IMHO, is to ensure we have the best leaders possible.  As volunteers, we need to know our leaders have our collective interests at heart.  If we just let our commanders lead, I think we would be in a much better position. 

But, we are just discussing things here.  Who knows how the story will end.....

Time will tell....

[Major Carrales]

Sir,
I just don't feel that an elections process would be best for CAP.

1) Who will have suffrage?  If we say "active CAP members," what is the definition of an "active CAP member?"  One who pays dues?  Holds a Staff Position?   What about cadets?  Cadet Sponsors?  And a whole host of others?

2) WING CONFERENCE ELECTIONEERING-  I don't like the idea of people politicking at CAP activities.  Having people trying to win votes from me in AMERICAN POLITICAL ELECTIONS is annoying...much less people hitting me up for votes at a SARex or WING CONFERENCE.  Electing Squadron Commanders would be a fiasco, electing WING Commanders would be a disaster.

3) REPRISALS- Suppose I make an enemy (like that could happen) of one of the candidates for WING COMMANDER, or if I ran and lost.  Suppose the election was divisive and I had supporters throughout the Wing and the other fellow did as well.  Suppose I lose and now have to "fight" the administration for basics?  What would be done about the fact that there are now factions...backed up by the system.

4) Politically Driven Investigation-  How would we deal with the fact that even minor mishaps suddenly become FRONT PAGE news for the sole purpose of fall some CAP official?  I would much rather have investigations be conducted in the name of improving safety, preventing disaster or good ole integrity than politically driven witch hunts.

Just a few issues that can occur...and do in other organizations of which I am a part.     

[RADIOMAN015]

You guys just have to admit that we are a volunteer organization that has been trying to force a leadership organization on volunteers that just does not work very well. 

Want to look for a successful volunteer model?  Look at the ARC?  When you join they set the expectation and stick to it - succeed in your training, show up when called, live up to commitments, you'll excel and so will the ARC, don't do as directed and expected?

There's the door...

When local ARC responds to local disasters/emergencies, there usually are paid employees supplemented by volunteer staff.    Local ARC is always looking for volunteers, my guess is they've also found that unpaid volunteer commitments can change over time and they need more people for staffing, especially in the no notice emergency response type activity (e.g. middle of the night apartment building fires).  It also is more likely that ARC would get more volunteers than CAP because they require less administrative "mumbo jumbo" than CAP and the unpaid volunteer can be contributing quicker in emergencies than with lots of CAP ES training that is useless and wastes adult members valuable time.
RM