New CAP governance structure to be unveiled

[Eclipse]

"Do this because someone on high said so" only goes so far dealing with volunteers.

You have hit on the key challenge in CAP, for all that the above sentence means, and for all it says about people who
raise their hand to abide by something, then feel empowered not to, whether through action or inaction.

[Ned]

IMHO, this is where our larger problems are stemming from. Are we a paramilitary organization or a corporation?

We are clearly a 501c3 membership corporation chartered by the US Congress.  I honestly think there is no real confusion on that issue amongst the volunteer leadership.

Every corporation - whether it is for-profit, non-profit, membership, non-membership, etc -- has a governance process.  The way that the organization is operated, regulated, and controlled.  And all corporations should review their governance structure from time to time as circumstances change.

Which is what we did. 

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

I can't think of any reason why it would "hurt", but ultimately the decision on what to release and when belongs to the BoG as a whole.  We will be discussing that very issue next Wednesday.  It is my intention to tell them that the CAP on-line community favors release.

Side note - the BoardSource report exists as a discrete, stand-alone document. A big book, if you will.  The BoG Governance Committee's report is not in that kind of format.  It was and is in the form of a briefing with some accompanying notes.  The NB is scheduled to receive the briefing during their business meeting next week.  The format may affect "releaseability" for practical reasons.

[NCRblues]

IMHO, this is where our larger problems are stemming from. Are we a paramilitary organization or a corporation?

We are clearly a 501c3 membership corporation chartered by the US Congress.  I honestly think there is no real confusion on that issue amongst the volunteer leadership.

Every corporation - whether it is for-profit, non-profit, membership, non-membership, etc -- has a governance process.  The way that the organization is operated, regulated, and controlled.  And all corporations should review their governance structure from time to time as circumstances change.

Which is what we did. 

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

I can't think of any reason why it would "hurt", but ultimately the decision on what to release and when belongs to the BoG as a whole.  We will be discussing that very issue next Wednesday.  It is my intention to tell them that the CAP on-line community favors release.

Side note - the BoardSource report exists as a discrete, stand-alone document. A big book, if you will.  The BoG Governance Committee's report is not in that kind of format.  It was and is in the form of a briefing with some accompanying notes.  The NB is scheduled to receive the briefing during their business meeting next week.  The format may affect "releaseability" for practical reasons.

I am not saying we (CAP) didn't need to update how we do things. In fact, I believe very strongly that we drastically did. I simply hoped it would have been a little more open and transparent than it was. But, decisions have been made and we will find out what they are in a short period of time. I hope they work out well for cap.

[RiverAux]

[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.

These guys probably haven't worried about the details of a specific document in decades.  That is what they hire lackeys for.  Keep in mind that I'm talking about looking for mistakes made as part of the development process -- not just complaints about what was proposed.  These guys are human.  Haven't we all come across instances where some stupid mistake gets put into regulation, policy, or law that some sharp-eyed geek might have spotted? 

[Eclipse]

[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.

These guys probably haven't worried about the details of a specific document in decades.  That is what they hire lackeys for.  Keep in mind that I'm talking about looking for mistakes made as part of the development process -- not just complaints about what was proposed.  These guys are human.  Haven't we all come across instances where some stupid mistake gets put into regulation, policy, or law that some sharp-eyed geek might have spotted?

I agree, but I think we're all past the point where we think documents have to be wet cement before they can be published.  In this case, since it's
already been held that the BOG has basically carte-blanche power over CAP, anything that needs to be fixed can be, easily.

[AirDX]

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

+1 Whatever it is, accept, move on.

+1 to the +1