MEMBERSHIP ACTION REVIEW BOARD Revised Regulation

[a2capt]

Maybe it has to do with the uniqueness of our organization, and the appropriated funds that allow most of what we do to happen?

Just sayin'..

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Volunteers train until they get it right, professionals train until they can't get it wrong.

I as well as most all of the unit I am in STRIVE to be professionals.

That assumes that vlunteers can't be professionals?

No, you stop being a "volunteer" when you pick up the mentality of a professional, and present yourself as one too. You are still volunteering your time, but it is on a professional level. JMHO

[SamFranklin]

In fairness to the OP, whom I usually disagree with, the MARB publication matter is one where two different "goods" are in competition with one another in a zero-sum scenario.

It would be good for volunteers to be able to pursue every last avenue of our internal grievance programs without their name hitting Google and the general unpleasantness going public.

It would be good for a volunteer organization to pursue the virtue of transparency such that the sunlight of full disclosure keeps the organization honest, especially if that organization is often criticized for having an incestuous governance system.

Given the choice between an individual's desire for personal privacy while pursuing (in most cases) a second or third appeal, and the organization's duty to demonstrate that it is not covering up its own bad actions, I vote for transparency.

But give RM some slack, it is a dilemma, though, IMO, he's on the wrong side.

[lordmonar]

Hey, it is quite simple, yes remove the individuals name and unit of assignment, and ID unit only by the region of assignment.   Also I would restrict this to the members only access area and not in any way give total public access to this.  Again notice that now any cadet appeals will not be placed in the public domain, so the policy makers have a wide latitude in what they choose to publish.

Once again what is the compelling reason for public access to an appeal decision on an adverse action??? Can an appealing member restrict this public access/disclosure Up until that appeal EVERYTHING else related to the adverse action was a private matter between the individual CAP member and CAP's internal chain of command.    So now the organization decides to disclose this appeal in the public domain with complete identifying information  -- Frankly this looks to me like retaliation against the individual for submitting an appeal  

I'm not trolling, and really this is just good public relations policy NOT to be releasing this kind of negative information to the public at large.  Listing it in "Volunteer Now" on the internet gives everyone access to this negativity.   Most members would want to resolve this privately not for it to be disclosed in the public domain (or course unless they give specific authorization to do this)   Seriously, no one including the BOG can figure that one out  
RM 

It is not retaliation.....it is vindificaiton or resolution.
As for a good reason for it to be public?  The entire MARB concept is so that individuals can't be shut off into the dark somewhere due to politics or retaliation.  Go look at the MARB reports already published.....most of them are about reports or retaliation.  So.....the MARB report is the final once and for all....everybody get's his name in the paper on this one....action.....so everyone needs to make sure that they got their ducks in a row and they really want to go down that route.

Pubilishing the information with out the names......is useless in the form of keeping the organisation honest.  A) Everyone who knows.....know who you are taking about.  Takes about 30 seconds to figure it out.  B) A wing commander or 2b appeal board needs to keep in mind that their name may appear in the paper one day over this....so they need to do their job right.

[RiverAux]

Quite frankly, the only thing that makes most of those who appeal up to the MARB look bad is the fact that so many of them lose because they weren't smart enough to get the paperwork in on time.  Those who follow the proper procedures seem to have a decent chance of getting the original adverse action reversed. 

[RADIOMAN015]

It is not retaliation.....it is vindificaiton or resolution.
As for a good reason for it to be public?  The entire MARB concept is so that individuals can't be shut off into the dark somewhere due to politics or retaliation.  Go look at the MARB reports already published.....most of them are about reports or retaliation.  So.....the MARB report is the final once and for all....everybody get's his name in the paper on this one....action.....so everyone needs to make sure that they got their ducks in a row and they really want to go down that route.

Pubilishing the information with out the names......is useless in the form of keeping the organisation honest.  A) Everyone who knows.....know who you are taking about.  Takes about 30 seconds to figure it out.  B) A wing commander or 2b appeal board needs to keep in mind that their name may appear in the paper one day over this....so they need to do their job right.

Well IF the member who is appealing authorizes the release of the results to the general public than so be it.  Otherwise this is personal sensitive information that needs to be protected from unauthorized disclosure.  That should be part of an election the member can make at the time he/she submits the appeal package.  IF they don't want public release, than the results aren't released to the public.  As you see in the new regulation, cadet appeals will no longer be published.

"CAP Volunteer Now" is primarily for external audiences of CAP.  It should NOT be utilized to publish adverse action appeal results. Personally, I really don't think the general public has a compelling interest to have access to this negative sensitive personal appeal information. Also Mr. Google and other search engines are going to find and keep this forever.  Any member appealing needs to be aware of this and the potential adverse effect this may have on them many years later, and having nothing to do with CAP.  CAP has a members only website called CAP E Services, and IF anything is going to be published it should be on that "protected" site, and specifically annotated with some sort of protection statement, since it is likely that at least some of the membership might have an interest in these results.   Personally, I have little interest in looking at any of this adverse action appeals, since it has NO effect on me.     

Also I question why information from January 2007 is still on the website when a new action is just posted to that same sheet in pdf format.  That's over 5 years ago, why does this information remain on the website for so many years   What is the retention policy for posting this adverse personal sensitive information to the website
RM

[PA Guy]

  As you see in the new regulation, cadet appeals will no longer be published.

I think it says cadet names will no longer be published.

[PHall]

And once again RADIOMAN015 we ask, why are you still a member? You never, ever have anything good to say about CAP.
Of course how you can associate with a bunch of wannabes is beyond me. And have said in the past that CAP is nothing but a bunch of wannabes.

[abdsp51]

It is not retaliation.....it is vindificaiton or resolution.
As for a good reason for it to be public?  The entire MARB concept is so that individuals can't be shut off into the dark somewhere due to politics or retaliation.  Go look at the MARB reports already published.....most of them are about reports or retaliation.  So.....the MARB report is the final once and for all....everybody get's his name in the paper on this one....action.....so everyone needs to make sure that they got their ducks in a row and they really want to go down that route.

Pubilishing the information with out the names......is useless in the form of keeping the organisation honest.  A) Everyone who knows.....know who you are taking about.  Takes about 30 seconds to figure it out.  B) A wing commander or 2b appeal board needs to keep in mind that their name may appear in the paper one day over this....so they need to do their job right.

Well IF the member who is appealing authorizes the release of the results to the general public than so be it.  Otherwise this is personal sensitive information that needs to be protected from unauthorized disclosure.  That should be part of an election the member can make at the time he/she submits the appeal package.  IF they don't want public release, than the results aren't released to the public.  As you see in the new regulation, cadet appeals will no longer be published.

"CAP Volunteer Now" is primarily for external audiences of CAP.  It should NOT be utilized to publish adverse action appeal results. Personally, I really don't think the general public has a compelling interest to have access to this negative sensitive personal appeal information. Also Mr. Google and other search engines are going to find and keep this forever.  Any member appealing needs to be aware of this and the potential adverse effect this may have on them many years later, and having nothing to do with CAP.  CAP has a members only website called CAP E Services, and IF anything is going to be published it should be on that "protected" site, and specifically annotated with some sort of protection statement, since it is likely that at least some of the membership might have an interest in these results.   Personally, I have little interest in looking at any of this adverse action appeals, since it has NO effect on me.     

Also I question why information from January 2007 is still on the website when a new action is just posted to that same sheet in pdf format.  That's over 5 years ago, why does this information remain on the website for so many years   What is the retention policy for posting this adverse personal sensitive information to the website
RM

Again the only information given out is the members name, unit and wing and basics on the action and decision nothing else is put out that can even be considered PII or FOUO so where is your legitimate issue with it?  This is the same as a news story printing a suspects name and basic information on their alleged crime and you do not see the suspect having a choice if its printed or not. 

[NIN]

The door swings both ways, anyway.

I know of a member who was a Captain, got demoted to 1st Lt and removed from his wing staff position at the same time because he filed a legitimate FWA complaint and the wing commander was told "Hey, Captain X filed an FWA complaint against you."

He asked me "What do I do?" Since it was clear the demotion was retaliatory in nature (trust me, it was), I pointed him at the MARB and he filed a MARB appeal.  The MARB saw that the demotion was retaliatory in nature, as well.  They restore him to Captain and published in the CAP News (the Volunteer wasn't around yet) that he'd been restored in rank.  The entry in CAP News was quite clear about the restoration, and it named the wing commander who demoted him.

A) If the action is MARB'able, and you're the appellant, and you've done nothing wrong (ie. you have a good case), then what do you care if your name gets published or not?
B) If the action is MARB'able, and you're the appellant, and you're appealing because you clearly screwed but you want to see if the MARB will get you off on a technicality, well, hey, you screwed up, Jack.  Nobody's fault but yours. Take your lumps.
C) If the action is MARB'able and you're the appellant, and you lose, what exactly do you care?

I tend to lean toward more transparency rather than less.

[ßτε]

  As you see in the new regulation, cadet appeals will no longer be published.

I think it says cadet names will no longer be published.

As far as I know, cadet names never been published. This is not a new regulation. The only real changes deal with the makeup of the board and who may vote on particular appeals. The "change" posted in the OP is only a change in nomenclature. It is not anything new that results of MARB decisions have been published. I have no idea why we are discussing this as if it were something new.

[JeffDG]

  As you see in the new regulation, cadet appeals will no longer be published.

I think it says cadet names will no longer be published.

As far as I know, cadet names never been published. This is not a new regulation. The only real changes deal with the makeup of the board and who may vote on particular appeals. The "change" posted in the OP is only a change in nomenclature. It is not anything new that results of MARB decisions have been published. I have no idea why we are discussing this as if it were something new.

That's the point I've been making.

The only change to this portion of the reguation was changing "CAP Online News" to "VolunteerNow".

NOTHING ELSE CHANGED.  Names have been published for some times.  This revised regulation makes no changes to the publication of names.

[EMT-83]

Cadet names are released. I was aware of the CTWG incident, but didn't know the cadet's name until I saw it in the MARB report.