Changing Civil Air Patrol to U.S. Civil Air Patrol

[A.Member]

I think the real reason most people are upset is that it is an arbitrary change and no one has really explained the reasoning behind it.

That's kind of the camp that I fall into (with this and a number of other relatively recent changes). 

Of all the potential changes to nametapes that I've ever heard, this was not one of them.   I've heard USAF Aux. (and all it's variants) discussed numerous times but never "U.S. Civil Air Patrol". 

So, how did it come about (again, this question could be asked about numerous changes, including the TPU)?   Was there some outcry from the membership or some other factor that I missed?

[DNall]

And I think that's a bad thing, personally. Location going to come out in conversation, eventually, but it's a lot easier when you have some idea ahead of time. Interaction has different boundaries, depending on the area og the country you are in. Talkng to Texans is very different from talking to Maineiacs. Discussions are facilitated, based on the level of prior knowledge.

I think the geographical references are a part of our organizational culture that we shouldn't get rid of. And I certainly don't like the blurring you spoke of.

You have to understand part of this is leadership at the top trying to consolodate more power to the top....

However, I do think there's a tad too much sectarianism in our thinking. What makes a Wg CC think they can wear orange shirts & hats w/ BDUs, or another one on the other coast think they can create whole seperate GT uniform, and all of them thinking they can have different cords & rules... and uniforms isn't that big a deal, it's just obvious. If you're  apilot though & current on a 172 in your state you aren't allowed to fly a 172 in another state cause thier check pilot didn't clear you? That's crazy! Look how much trouble we had at multi-state SaR in Katrina, or even right now in West TX/S NM. Don't tell me we can function in ICS, we can't even function seemlessly across state lines within CAP. That's a big problem. I understand & sympathize with efforts to strengthen the national image of CAP & in doing so to take down a few nothces the identification with states. That's completely reasonable.

Again if you just do this with states & leave Sqs alone, what's the big deal?

What does this have to do with U.S Civil Air Patrol again?

Assumption "US" is added to enhance national nature of org. Stated that's a bad method, look how much more effective it would be to call Wings by number rathr than state name.

[fyrfitrmedic]

Well since we have drifted of the CAP vs USCAP and started talking about nameing

Why not just get rid of cadet/composite/sr squadorn designators as well?

We can just go with XX CAP SQ (ARWG) and be done with it.

[nodding in agreement]

Anything that goes to the media in any shape or form would include the 'home' of the unit(s) mentioned. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed that when AD/Reserve/Guard units get media mention; after all, isn't that part of the PAO's job?

[JohnKachenmeister]

Or...

Since we really do not deploy as units on missions...

Why have squadrons at all?  Why not charter local units and call them what they are... Training stations.

"The Homer J. Simpson Memorial CAP Station."

"CAP Station Springfield"

[BillB]

Some say that CAP items are railroaded through the National Board. So nameing units as stations makes sense. Whoever heard of a railroad without railroad stations. Squadron Commanders become Station Masters. and the National Commander becomes the National Conductor. (guess that means CAP members are just passengers....have your tickets ready)

[lordmonar]

Some say that CAP items are railroaded through the National Board. So nameing units as stations makes sense. Whoever heard of a railroad without railroad stations. Squadron Commanders become Station Masters. and the National Commander becomes the National Conductor. (guess that means CAP members are just passengers....have your tickets ready)

As much as it seems that this statement is true.  If I had my druthers...the National Commander would be more like a real military commander.  That is he would not need the advice and consent of the NB to make new regulations.  Nor would he be elected by said body.  He would be selected by the BoG from sitting Regional/Wing Commanders or a Senior Officer on the NHQ staff.  And only the BoG would have veto power.

If we want to remove the politics from CAP we have to remove the politics.  Sure there will still be some back room politicking going on...but there will not be any more accusations about conflict of interest and vote stacking by appointing GOBs to the NB.

Sorry this is way off topic but I just had a rant moment there.

[ZigZag911]

To me....I could care less.  It means nothing one way or the other....
I think the real reason most people are upset is that it is an arbitrary change and no one has really explained the reasoning behind it.  Hence the "Vanguard Conspircy" theorists.

As an observation, not a criticism, I would note that you are ambivalent about a lot of this stuff.

Does anything (in CAP) get you upset?

Just curious.

I think you are correct that the lack of forewarning and absence of explanation gets many worked up.

[lordmonar]

To me....I could care less.  It means nothing one way or the other....
I think the real reason most people are upset is that it is an arbitrary change and no one has really explained the reasoning behind it.  Hence the "Vanguard Conspiracy" theorists.

As an observation, not a criticism, I would note that you are ambivalent about a lot of this stuff.

Does anything (in CAP) get you upset?

Just curious.

I think you are correct that the lack of forewarning and absence of explanation gets many worked up.

Sure lots of things get me worked up.  I see things going on in other squadrons/wings/regions that would not be the way I would do them....but it's OPP...Other Peoples Problems.

I like to argue about what I would do if I were God.  But beyond that....all I care about is how my squadron is affected.

U.S. added to the name tapes, TPU, Orange Triangles, Berets, Orange Hats, Testgate, all have zero impact on whether my squadron is going to be able to its mission.

Switching to DHS, DOI or the Boy Scouts....Aux-on/Aux-off...these are all non-issues.  I can talk about them and voice my opinion....but what is more important to me here in Las Vegas is that AFRCC calls Meto before they call us.  That is what I am focusing on.  I focus on conducting Level I training, coming up with a good internal AE program and I am the liaison to our sister cadet squadron, and working on resurrecting the GT here in Vegas.

The NB wants me to buy new branch tapes...okay I will.  If they piss me off...I'll quit.  You can lose a lot of sleep over dip [mess] stuff.  I have dealt with dip [mess] for the last 21 years in the USAF.....CAP dip [mess] is amateur night in comparison.

[DNall]

Some say that CAP items are railroaded through the National Board. So nameing units as stations makes sense. Whoever heard of a railroad without railroad stations. Squadron Commanders become Station Masters. and the National Commander becomes the National Conductor. (guess that means CAP members are just passengers....have your tickets ready)

As much as it seems that this statement is true.  If I had my druthers...the National Commander would be more like a real military commander.  That is he would not need the advice and consent of the NB to make new regulations.  Nor would he be elected by said body.  He would be selected by the BoG from sitting Regional/Wing Commanders or a Senior Officer on the NHQ staff.  And only the BoG would have veto power.

If we want to remove the politics from CAP we have to remove the politics.  Sure there will still be some back room politicking going on...but there will not be any more accusations about conflict of interest and vote stacking by appointing GOBs to the NB.

Sorry this is way off topic but I just had a rant moment there.

Again, while I agre with the theory here in a big way, it presuposes that there is some quality control process in place to ensure the Nat CC is a little closer to competently professional officer rather than egotistical 5th grader. Out such a process in place across the board & my complaining level goes down dramaticaly. Most people just want to be led, and respond like tigers when their boss doesn't tak eup the mantle, but purr pretty as hell when they do. Most aren't really capable of stepping into a leadership role. [/rant]

[lordmonar]

Some say that CAP items are railroaded through the National Board. So nameing units as stations makes sense. Whoever heard of a railroad without railroad stations. Squadron Commanders become Station Masters. and the National Commander becomes the National Conductor. (guess that means CAP members are just passengers....have your tickets ready)

As much as it seems that this statement is true.  If I had my druthers...the National Commander would be more like a real military commander.  That is he would not need the advice and consent of the NB to make new regulations.  Nor would he be elected by said body.  He would be selected by the BoG from sitting Regional/Wing Commanders or a Senior Officer on the NHQ staff.  And only the BoG would have veto power.

If we want to remove the politics from CAP we have to remove the politics.  Sure there will still be some back room politicking going on...but there will not be any more accusations about conflict of interest and vote stacking by appointing GOBs to the NB.

Sorry this is way off topic but I just had a rant moment there.

Again, while I agre with the theory here in a big way, it presuposes that there is some quality control process in place to ensure the Nat CC is a little closer to competently professional officer rather than egotistical 5th grader. Out such a process in place across the board & my complaining level goes down dramaticaly. Most people just want to be led, and respond like tigers when their boss doesn't tak eup the mantle, but purr pretty as hell when they do. Most aren't really capable of stepping into a leadership role. [/rant]

The BoG does the QC.  The problem with the NB electing and firing it's own boss is that the boss has enough good ole boy network going to stop any problems and is in a position to makesure he keeps it by appoint "his" people to key spots.

The BoG operations on the the appointment system.  There are only 11 (?) of them, half of them retire USAF Generals and other professionals with a concern with CAP.  If they can't QC a bad National Commander then who can?

My point would be to stop making leadership positions political offices.  If you got selected for a particular postion because you were good as opposed to how you will vote when your Regional Commander runs for National Commander, we will find we do in fact have professional leadership.


-----NOTE--------

This is in now way a comment about any CAP leader past or present.  I am only looking at it from a theoretical position.  Run the organisation more like a buisness or the military instead of a county election.

[ZigZag911]

You can lose a lot of sleep over dip [mess] stuff.  I have dealt with dip [mess] for the last 21 years in the USAF.....CAP dip [mess] is amateur night in comparison.

Point taken....I did convince myself long ago not to lose sleep, friends, or peace of mind over CAP!

[DNall]

The BoG does the QC. 

They don't now, nor does the SAF excercise that veto to ensure quality leadership in this "vital" program.

The problem with the NB electing and firing it's own boss is that the boss has enough good ole boy network going to stop any problems and is in a position to makesure he keeps it by appoint "his" people to key spots.

The NB selecting their boss & the boss selecting NB members (directly or via his appointed Reg CCs)... it is a conflict of interests, which in it's design flaw creates conflict, personal politics, & unethical behavior.

The BoG operations on the the appointment system.  There are only 11 (?) of them, half of them retire USAF Generals and other professionals with a concern with CAP.  If they can't QC a bad National Commander then who can?

My point would be to stop making leadership positions political offices.  If you got selected for a particular postion because you were good as opposed to how you will vote when your Regional Commander runs for National Commander, we will find we do in fact have professional leadership.

Agreed, but the BoG exists to do the exact same thing as CAP-USAF, which is NOT to run the organization, but to provide oversight (over all the things CAP-USAF doesn't have authority over). The intention certainly was for them to take control over the situation & fix the BS, but so far they have yet to grow a set.

[lordmonar]

Agreed, but the BoG exists to do the exact same thing as CAP-USAF, which is NOT to run the organization, but to provide oversight (over all the things CAP-USAF doesn't have authority over). The intention certainly was for them to take control over the situation & fix the BS, but so far they have yet to grow a set.

I don't think that the BoG should be running CAP...that is the job of the National Commander.   BoG should be doing oversight and selecting and confirming the National Commander and his regional officers. 

And once again we have reached the "should" argument vs the what happens argument. 

I just feel that if the National  Commander was appointed vs elected it would solve a lot of problems right then and there. 

[DNall]

Right I  would tend to agree with that, and in looking for what the problem is, I see that BoG hasn't been aggressive in excercising their authority over CAP thru that broad oversight  & confirmation role. I believe in order to fix this stuff, BoG should just put their foot down, change the rules to grant themselves those powers, spell out the powers if any of the NB or if it needs to exist as a governing body (versus an informational conference), and should just set about doing things right.

The one point of information I'd make... BoG was created rather than expand that authority to AF as they'd requested so they could fix it. It has always been assumed that at some point BoG would just ceed authority to AF & turn themselves into an independent advisory & watchdog group. Under that model, all these powers would revert to AF. Are you comfortable with that?

[CAP262]

I just want to add my opinion to this idea: It's not that I think it's a bad idea to make it U.S. Civil Air Patrol" on the nametapes, but it's close to not worth it... My reasoning is this: Just recently we made every one in CAP go out and get the flag to sew onto the side of the BDU's. And now, this. Would it be to much to ask to just leave the uniform the way it is for a few years. I don't see the point in having to change something or add something every year.

[DNall]

Uniforms get modified slightly over time, happens in the military too, that's part of the process. Everyone would agree the last year has been excessive, and everyone would agree that the change process should only consider changes onces every couple years anyway. However, leadership is freaked over how many people have left over the last five years & are grasping at straws to improve member morale.

[RiverAux]

However, leadership is freaked over how many people have left over the last five years & are grasping at straws to improve member morale.

That may be true, but it was not the stated reason for this or any of the other uniform changes discussed at the NB.  I think they know that uniform changes in general are more likely to cause some discontent rather than tamp it down. 

[MIKE]

Having to keep changing my uniform does not improve my morale.

[DNall]

However, leadership is freaked over how many people have left over the last five years & are grasping at straws to improve member morale.

That may be true, but it was not the stated reason for this or any of the other uniform changes discussed at the NB.  I think they know that uniform changes in general are more likely to cause some discontent rather than tamp it down. 

Having to keep changing my uniform does not improve my morale.

I didn't say they were smart.... you see membership  pissed off & you have ideas flowing in from membership to the uniform cmte... lots of stuff about "USAF Auxiliary" or subdued or at least dark blue tapes... so you look at what you can do with tapes & not cause too much stink, hey toss US on the front & talk about getting tight with the AF, as if they care. Makes you THINK you are doing what the members want you to do, not necessarily what a majority of a representative sample would want if presented with full information & a range of options, which includes leave it alone for a while.

[Jolt]

Personally, I really like the blue on white tapes because they allow me to figure out who and what you are before you get within two feet of me.

I also don't mind just wearing the uniform the way it is.

If they want to boost membership morale, they're taking the wrong route because 1) no one wants to change their uniforms every six months and 2) more uniforms don't unite people and bring them together to boost their morale.  Everyone on this site knows that weekly meetings are getting closer and closer to looking like fashion shows these days.