Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 23, 2019, 06:41:52 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: Historic National Winter Board Session
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 Send this topic Print
Author Topic: Historic National Winter Board Session  (Read 22954 times)
NCRblues
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,478
Unit: lostiguess

« Reply #20 on: March 07, 2011, 02:07:55 AM »

I don't think it is a coincidence that the NDA's were voted on and signed right before they went into the closed session where the "governance committee" presented there ideas.

In fact, i believe this proposal is almost word for word from what pineda proposed back in 07.....

Power corrupts. Plain and simple.

I would like to know who was on this "governance committee" so i can have some names to place in my letter to my congressmen.
Report to moderator   Logged
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC
Thom
Seasoned Member

Posts: 255
Unit: SWR-LA-010

Louisiana Wing Website
« Reply #21 on: March 07, 2011, 02:09:22 AM »

Not that I don't value and trust FW's acumen and understanding, but do we have any of these specific proposals verified by other parties who have seen/heard the actual proposal?

Is it possible there are some 'misunderstandings' or 'misinterpretations' at work here? I have to hope that the version of the proposal we are seeing in this thread is NOT the one that was actually presented.

Because, if this really is what was proposed...   :(



Thom
Report to moderator   Logged
NCRblues
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,478
Unit: lostiguess

« Reply #22 on: March 07, 2011, 02:12:43 AM »

Not that I don't value and trust FW's acumen and understanding, but do we have any of these specific proposals verified by other parties who have seen/heard the actual proposal?

Is it possible there are some 'misunderstandings' or 'misinterpretations' at work here? I have to hope that the version of the proposal we are seeing in this thread is NOT the one that was actually presented.

Because, if this really is what was proposed...   :(



Thom

Its real, my wing cos confirmed it at our meeting with the states TAG. The TAG called us to the capitol building and wanted to know what was going on. I had very little to say.

(because I'm sure someone will ask, the state gives our wing a massive building and Wing HQ, with beds to sleep hundreds at no cost.  They also give us funds for training for state missions and disaster relief efforts, so the TAG has a vested interest in CAP)
Report to moderator   Logged
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,188

« Reply #23 on: March 07, 2011, 02:26:05 AM »

The Actual report is confidential (imagine that).  However, that the NB rejected the recommendations of the report is not. 

That the report will go to the BoG with the recommendations unaltered is problematic; we'll just have to wait and see.  Go to the June BoG meeting if you wish to find out for sure; it's not a closed meeting (for the most part).

I would love for this to be wrong however, as Ned says, stay tuned.....
Report to moderator   Logged
PA Guy
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 730

« Reply #24 on: March 07, 2011, 02:26:49 AM »

Was your COS in the executive session or have an original document?  Or is their information second hand from the WG/CC?
Report to moderator   Logged
NCRblues
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,478
Unit: lostiguess

« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2011, 02:30:11 AM »

Was your COS in the executive session or have an original document?  Or is their information second hand from the WG/CC?

I am truly not sure, but since the TAG is a Major General, that feeds us loads of cash, and keeps the COS in a position of power, i don't think he would flat out lie to him.
Report to moderator   Logged
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC
NIN
Administrator

Posts: 5,212
Unit: of issue

« Reply #26 on: March 07, 2011, 02:33:25 AM »

Amy Bradford is a very gutsy gal (a former cadet and current cadet mom, I'm told) who wrote an open letter to the NB in January on current command issues. The letter has gotten around since then, and one of the other CAP blogs has picked it up.  It's still on the page of that blog if you scroll down far enough.

How's that for a cautious reply?  ::)

I will again, ask: "Who is Amy Bradford?"

I haven't seen this letter.

But being a cadet's parent, and a former cadet, hardly conveys "expert authority" on the subject of corporate governance.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2011, 03:49:34 AM by MIKE » Report to moderator   Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2019 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
NIN
Administrator

Posts: 5,212
Unit: of issue

« Reply #27 on: March 07, 2011, 02:39:01 AM »

You're not missing anything - but She Who Should Be Blamed is running short on time. So, she reasoned, let's package this power play in pretty code talk and legalese, and run this by an obedient, and gullible Board.  Except there wasn't such a Board, was there?   :clap:

And you know this.. how?

I guess what I'm saying is "You're a guy with a dozen posts on this forum, the majority of which are in this particular thread.  Whats your stake in this? Where are you getting your information from? What makes you an authority on this subject?"
« Last Edit: March 07, 2011, 03:49:14 AM by MIKE » Report to moderator   Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2019 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
FARRIER
Seasoned Member

Posts: 429

Commercial Tech Imagery
« Reply #28 on: March 07, 2011, 03:22:33 AM »

I'm too curious of Kipper's true identity and intentions, but Col. Weiss isn't a troll. I wouldn't shoot the messenger yet. Things like this spring leaks eventually.

Respectfully,
Report to moderator   Logged
Photographer/Photojournalist
IT Professional
Licensed Aircraft Dispatcher

http://www.commercialtechimagery.com/stem-and-aerospace
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,188

« Reply #29 on: March 07, 2011, 03:23:31 AM »

Amy Bradford is a very gutsy gal (a former cadet and current cadet mom, I'm told) who wrote an open letter to the NB in January on current command issues. The letter has gotten around since then, and one of the other CAP blogs has picked it up.  It's still on the page of that blog if you scroll down far enough.

How's that for a cautious reply?  ::)

I will again, ask: "Who is Amy Bradford?"

I haven't seen this letter.

But being a cadet's parent, and a former cadet, hardly conveys "expert authority" on the subject of corporate governance.

This was an email sent out to the members of the National Board late last year.  I've seen numerous copies before it was published by "CAP Insights"
 
 I will not comment on the letter however, I don't think this nor the OP's colorful commentary should be the focus of this thread. I have no intention of controlling the conversation though.... :angel:
Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #30 on: March 07, 2011, 04:04:45 AM »

I sort of doubt the BoG would go along with it, so I'm not too worried about it.

That being said, with the exception of the part about total control over the CAP constitution, the rest of it isn't entirely unreasonable.  It wouldn't be how I would choose to do things, but its not totally whacko either. 

For example, one of the issues we've complained about is how the NB elects the commander who they are ultimately beholden to for their position and how this is a bad conflict of interest.  Having the commander elected by the BoG would solve that problem. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Pylon
Administrator

Posts: 5,138
Unit: NER-NH-038

Michael Kieloch, Marketing Communications & PR Leadership
« Reply #31 on: March 07, 2011, 04:12:31 AM »

Besides the power to change the CAP constitution, I see the proposed changes as a huge step forward for Civil Air Patrol.  They bring the organization in line with real organizational structures seen in other major national organizations, shifts the CAP/CC seat from being a political game with elections and a closed pool of self-selecting nominations (the self-licking ice cream cone, if you will) to being an informed "hire" by a balanced and fairly impartial board of directors with very little personal stake in the matter.   


A board of directors hiring and firing a chief executive of a non-profit is pretty much the normal structure in every other non-profit in the U.S., from the American Red Cross to the Boy Scouts.  And in most non-profits, the chief executive is given enough power to run the organization without needing approval from the board on relatively minor actions (approving regulation changes, publication updates, uniform modifications, etc.).   You don't really think that the Board of Directors of the American Red Cross ever even has to think about uniforms for its volunteers, disaster workers, blood drive workers, etc.?   No.  I bet they never have, because that's administrivia.  And I'm sure they've made changes to their threads over time, too.   Their chief executives are empowered to deal with stuff like that.  But if their chief executive does something atrocious, his/her boss (the board) will call them on it.   So it's not an unlimited power by any means.


Frankly, the National Board fiefdom/election/voting structure is pretty messed up and also unique to CAP (as in, not exactly an industry best practice).  Very few, if any, organizations would structure themselves to allow regional managers to elect the national boss from amongst themselves, and then require their boss to come to back them for their vote of approval or disapproval on any changes to company policy. 


This policy is overdue and a welcome change by me.  I hope the BoG reviews the recommendations seriously, reviews the structure of similar non-profit organizations, and acts accordingly in the best interest of the future of the organization -- not the best interest of Wing and Region Commanders wishing to retain their ability to elect their boss from among themselves and make their boss beholden to them to get anything done.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2011, 04:16:37 AM by Pylon » Report to moderator   Logged
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP
Concord Composite Squadron, NH       
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #32 on: March 07, 2011, 04:18:01 AM »

However, the question would be how the members on the BoG that are representing CAP are selected by CAP.  If they are still going to be selected by the NEC, which in turn is selected by the National Commander then we really aren't making any progress in removing conflicts of interest. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Pylon
Administrator

Posts: 5,138
Unit: NER-NH-038

Michael Kieloch, Marketing Communications & PR Leadership
« Reply #33 on: March 07, 2011, 04:36:35 AM »

However, the question would be how the members on the BoG that are representing CAP are selected by CAP.  If they are still going to be selected by the NEC, which in turn is selected by the National Commander then we really aren't making any progress in removing conflicts of interest.


Most major non-profit board of directors have a committee for doing this.  The board itself has a committee (usually consisting of board members, but sometimes of board members and other individuals with appropriate expertise) that reviews applicants or nominees.  The committee reviews merits of each applicant or nominee, makes a report to the whole board, and the board votes on bringing in future members.
Report to moderator   Logged
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP
Concord Composite Squadron, NH       
NIN
Administrator

Posts: 5,212
Unit: of issue

« Reply #34 on: March 07, 2011, 04:43:05 AM »

I'm too curious of Kipper's true identity and intentions, but Col. Weiss isn't a troll. I wouldn't shoot the messenger yet. Things like this spring leaks eventually.

Oh, no, Colonel Weiss is no troll (well, he might resemble one, I dunno. Never met the man!). 

Report to moderator   Logged
Darin Ninness, Lt Col, CAP
Sq Bubba, Wing Dude, National Guy
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2019 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.
NCRblues
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,478
Unit: lostiguess

« Reply #35 on: March 07, 2011, 04:45:32 AM »

Ok, maybe this will be on odd question but, uh, why do we need to be like other non-profits?

If we as the members did not allow corruption to grow, our system would work fine...but most members don't know what happens at the  group level let alone on the national scale of politics....

None of this is a step forword for cap. This is a power grab. Unacceptable IMHO.

Our system works, maybe not well, but it does.

Amy Courter or anyone who wins the election should serve one term and move on. Let new blood come in and new ideas flow. Asking to stay on permanent with a salary is INSAINE. If this was any other person on any other level in cap you all would call them crazy at asking for power and a paycheck.

Most of you said you did not support unlimited amount of time in the position of squadron commander, why would the national commander be any different?
Report to moderator   Logged
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC
PA Guy
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 730

« Reply #36 on: March 07, 2011, 05:34:59 AM »

Ok, maybe this will be on odd question but, uh, why do we need to be like other non-profits?

Maybe that's because they have discovered better ways to do business?
Report to moderator   Logged
Pylon
Administrator

Posts: 5,138
Unit: NER-NH-038

Michael Kieloch, Marketing Communications & PR Leadership
« Reply #37 on: March 07, 2011, 06:09:29 AM »

@NCRBlues, true.  We don't really have to realize our full potential. 


Well, actually, we can't because CAP doesn't behave like a national non-profit or even for-profit, and it shows. 

We have no fundraising to speak of... we've never done a capital campaign, we don't do direct mail and online fundraising, awareness and fundraising special events like marathons and galas, nor do we encourage many of our tens of thousands of dedicated volunteers to consider planned giving.   The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, for example, raise millions every year through these very avenues.  As do thousands of flourishing non-profits.

We have no endowment -- pretty much unusual in any non-profit.  So we have no backup funding if our congressional funding gets reduced, and we have very little leeway in our operational funding to buy special items, fund one-time expenses, expand or improve certain things we'd like to do (special projects), etc.

We have very little national public awareness compared to other national organizations of similar size, scope, and age including the Boy Scouts or Venturing, American Red Cross, Big Brother/Big Sister, et cetera.

We have very few permanent facilities built for CAP over the years, uncovering an almost comical lack of long-range strategic planning and follow-through in the past few decades.  Even smaller fraternal organizations with less missions and less funding have permanent facilities in most cities: the Elks, Knights of Columbus, American Legions, et cetera.   Meanwhile, CAP units are on their own to beg, borrow, and make do with meeting in whatever they can scrounge up: church basements, school gyms, old dusty and rusty airport hangars, offices where they have no desk or storage space of their own, etc. 

We never keep in touch with our cadet alumni nor do we track them.  Just about any non-profit from private schools to Boy Scouts to universities keep in active touch with their "alumni" as they become successful in various careers from the military to the business world. The non-profits leverage those contacts for everything from political influence and corporate sales deals to fundraising and planned giving. We don't bother and never have.

We have a governing board with a massive size and high turnover, that has repeatedly reversed itself (and on occasion, reversed its reversals) and made dozens of decisions without researching the scope, impact, cost, pros/cons, and related information.  That's how we ended up with railroaded uniform creations that after being fully voted into existence, we realized "whoops... we forgot about females..." and then "Whoops... we forgot we had NCOs" and then "Whoops, we forgot we needed Air Force permission to use some of these items...", as just one example.

We have squadrons, encampments, NCSAs, etc. all over the country which waste tens of thousands (yes) of our precious dollars every year because they've never put out their purchases to bid.  Encampments which overspend on anything from printing to custom t-shirts because "Well, we've always used local vendor XYZ, or Capt Joe's friend owns a T-shirt shop so we just use him".  Meanwhile, a simple RFQ would find products of equal quality at better prices.   This is standard (and usually mandated) good practice in every non-profit I've worked at and interacted with, but CAP doesn't even suggest it to the organization let alone require it.

Our NHQ has amassed at least 8 different logos and 5 or 6 different taglines for the organization, our board has put 4 different patches on our flight suit (yeah, four!) in the last 8 years alone, we've changed our aircraft decals and even our organization's name several times back and forth --- but we can't find the time to provide basic marketing materials, or template websites, or software tools to our operating units the squadrons.  Heck, we haven't even been able to go digital with our paperwork and record keeping or give all of our members company email addresses yet.

So I dunno NCRBlues, maybe CAP is doing just fine with our current modus operandi and our current way of doing business.  Our fellow non-profit organizations that are far smaller and far younger who have raised tens of millions, build substantial endowments, are a known name in the public lexicon, and enjoy the certitude of perpetuity regardless of the future of federal and state funding are no better off than we, right?   We don't need to follow their examples.  They're probably not on to something at all....
« Last Edit: March 07, 2011, 06:14:37 AM by Pylon » Report to moderator   Logged
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP
Concord Composite Squadron, NH       
Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,217

« Reply #38 on: March 07, 2011, 06:38:23 AM »

I hope that everyone realizes that any governance suggestions made by the NB are just that - suggestions - to the BoG who has sole authority over the CAP Constitution and Bylaws.

All of this fuss and bother over suggestions that might have been made by the NB, but to judge by the posts here, were not made.

Let's recap. 

1.  People on CAPTalk have been complaining about CAP governance for years.  The consensus here has always been that it needs reforming, but there is no consensus on CT about what it should look like.

2.  The NB formed a committee to study governance over a year ago.  The BoG was briefed as far back as last June on some of the initial findings of that committee.

3.  Concurrently with any study done by the NB, the BoG is commissioning an outside governance study by experts in the field.

4.  No changes in the C & BL will be made by the BoG until they have heard from the NB, the outside experts, and the membership. 

5.  In any event, there following the election at the Summer Boards, CAP will have a new national commander.  (IOW, there is no possiblility of any governance changes before then.)

Ned Lee

Report to moderator   Logged
NCRblues
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,478
Unit: lostiguess

« Reply #39 on: March 07, 2011, 06:43:32 AM »

Well, thank you for speaking to me like a 2 year old, very condescending, i like it...

So your telling me I should go along with the idea of letting Amy Courter (or any Nat/CC for that matter) stay on forever and pay them?

Most of those things you listed could have been changed under any of the past national commanders, or the current one, but where they? Nope...

What makes you think they would suddenly change with placing the Nat/CC on the payroll?

You really think it would be better to take away ANY say from the wing and region commanders and let ALL of CAP be run from one office in Alabama?

Where would the paychecks come from? Like you said we have no fundraising. If congress and the AF decided tomorrow they no longer needed us, do you really think CAP would survive on our own? No way in heck.

Do things need to change? By god yes they do. Is this the way to do it? No i don't think so, and apparently the majority of the NB did not think so either...

Report to moderator   Logged
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6 Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: Historic National Winter Board Session
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.09 seconds with 26 queries.
click here to email me