New CAP governance structure to be unveiled

[CAPSGT]

Well, there has been much speculation going on that this was coming next week, but the when & where has now been confirmed:

http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?new_cap_governance_structure_to_be_unveiled_during_annual_conference&show=news&newsID=14170

[Pylon]

 :clap:

I trust in BoardSource as an outstanding, extremely-on-point resource; they know their stuff when it comes to the best practices of national non-profit organizations.  I can't wait to see what positive changes are in store for Civil Air Patrol with this long-awaited improvement.

[Patterson]

^ I second that!!  The Secretary of the AF, CAP-USAF Commander and the CAP Corporate side have apparently liked the reccomendations as well!!

Should be interesting!

[NCRblues]

I wonder, after it has been implemented, are we are going to actually get to see the internal governance committee report and the boardsource report?

[FW]

I don't really see the need to read the reports now. The decisions have been made and, will be implimented.  Does it matter why the decisions were made at this point?  We must be able to move forward and deal with the new "situation".

And, if the "rumors" are true with what is going down; I'd be more concerned with the future makeup of the BoG than of any other CAP body.

[Eclipse]

I don't really see the need to read the reports now.

+1 Whatever it is, accept, move on. 

[RogueLeader]

I wonder, after it has been implemented, are we are going to actually get to see the internal governance committee report and the boardsource report?

RMR/CC said that it would be*.


*At an informal Q&A session at RMRSC, so I don't have that in hard copy. 

[Walkman]

I got my CAPID about a week before Pineda was removed. When I asked "what did I just get into" here on CT about it, a majority of the replies centered around the idea that nothing that was happening at NHQ would change much of the day-to-day work at the local unit level. And I found that to be true. I hope that we'll come out of this with more effective leadership at the upper levels, but next Tuesday is PT night/MS training for SMs and that's where the rubber meets the road.

[Eclipse]

Yep.

This is likely a positive for CAP as a whole, but the kinds of things it will influence will not likely be visible to the rank and file, certainly not for a year or two in the least.

[JeffDG]

I remember when they did the survey, and people said "The membership will be be given information and consulted before any decisions are made."

I said then that the decision would be made, and it would be a fait acompli before any information was ever released.  So, I'm shocked, shocked I say that all the decisions are made before any release of information.

[Eclipse]

The membership was consulted for their opinions regarding governance.  Any information anyone needed is available by reading the Constitution and bylaws.

[RiverAux]

I still believe that members should have been given a chance to review the proposal itself.  Why we get to review a relatively unimportant regulation on forms maintenance (or any reg) but not a major change in how CAP is organized just doesn't make any sense. 

So I'm fairly confident that some very silly mistake has made it through since only a few people actually took a look at it.  Crowdsourcing makes sense at times.

[Garibaldi]

I still believe that members should have been given a chance to review the proposal itself.  Why we get to review a relatively unimportant regulation on forms maintenance (or any reg) but not a major change in how CAP is organized just doesn't make any sense. 

So I'm fairly confident that some very silly mistake has made it through since only a few people actually took a look at it.  Crowdsourcing makes sense at times.

CAP has to pass it before you can read it.

/nancy pelosi

[Critical AOA]

I still believe that members should have been given a chance to review the proposal itself.  Why we get to review a relatively unimportant regulation on forms maintenance (or any reg) but not a major change in how CAP is organized just doesn't make any sense. 

So I'm fairly confident that some very silly mistake has made it through since only a few people actually took a look at it.  Crowdsourcing makes sense at times.

CAP has to pass it before you can read it.

/nancy pelosi

That statement by Pelosi is one of my favorite ones ever made by a political leader.  It even trumps "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" by Slick Willy. 

And by favorite I mean statements that make you go "WTF!".   

I must admit though that Biden's recent "put y'all back in chains"  was [darn] fine as well.

[Eclipse]

Why would anyone join a paramilitary organization and then expect it to be a governed in a participatory manner, or
in anything remotely resembling a democracy?

[Pylon]

So I'm fairly confident that some very silly mistake has made it through since only a few people actually took a look at it.  Crowdsourcing makes sense at times.

Except there are relatively few, if any, members who are experts (outside of Civil Air Patrol experience) at organizational behavior, management structures, and governance of national-scope large organizations. 


You could ask me for feedback all you want on how CAP should better extend the flight envelope or range or weight distribution of CAP aircraft and nothing I suggest or say is really going to help because I don't know what I'm talking about — even if I'm sorta-kinda-famiiar with the topic because I read Wikipedia.  You'd be better at talking to experts who do that kind of strategy for other national aircraft fleets.


Crowd sourcing does not always make sense.

[NCRblues]

Why would anyone join a paramilitary organization and then expect it to be a governed in a participatory manner, or
in anything remotely resembling a democracy?

IMHO, this is where our larger problems are stemming from. Are we a paramilitary organization or a corporation? Corporations are run differently and they handle "workers" differently. In the same breath, we are all volunteers in a paramilitary organization. "Do this because someone on high said so" only goes so far dealing with volunteers.

So, here is my question, what would it hurt for the rank and file to read both reports?

[RiverAux]

So I'm fairly confident that some very silly mistake has made it through since only a few people actually took a look at it.  Crowdsourcing makes sense at times.

Except there are relatively few, if any, members who are experts (outside of Civil Air Patrol experience) at organizational behavior, management structures, and governance of national-scope large organizations. 

I'd say that there are plenty of members with just as much experience at this as any given Wing, Region, National Commander or member of the BOG. 

[Pylon]

I'd say that there are plenty of members with just as much experience at this as any given Wing, Region, National Commander or member of the BOG.

1) I don't think Wing, Region, and the National Commander were a part of this process (at least by virtue of those positions)


2) The BoG has very-high-level (C-Suite type) industry executives and USAF general officers.  I'd give them more governance and organizational management experience than 99% of CAP members.


3)  BoardSource was a major external source for analysis and recommendations.  They are experts at this stuff, if not the experts.

[Eclipse]

Why would anyone join a paramilitary organization and then expect it to be a governed in a participatory manner, or
in anything remotely resembling a democracy?

IMHO, this is where our larger problems are stemming from. Are we a paramilitary organization or a corporation? Corporations are run differently and they handle "workers" differently. In the same breath, we are all volunteers in a paramilitary organization. "Do this because someone on high said so" only goes so far dealing with volunteers.

Rank and file employees have no more say in corporate governance then the average airman has in the USAF or the average
unit-level CAP 1st Lt.  The only people who get a say are the owners (literally in a private company), and the "owners" (virtually in a public company).  The equation for the rank and file is exactly the same in either case "Is my personal ROI high enough to continue the relationship?"

Whether it's the objective return of a paycheck, or the subjective return of service before self, when the quotient is too low, people vote with their feet - which is the only vote anyone really has.

So, here is my question, what would it hurt for the rank and file to read both reports?

My answer is another question "What purpose would it serve?" 

Everyone with the authority to have an actionable opinion has already read it and weighed-in.  Decisions have been made, and
we'll know in a few days what those decisions were / are.

We all know what the current governance is, why open CAP up to more unfettered criticism?

And like it or not, it'll likely be either "leaked", or FOIA'ed eventually, anyway.