Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 16, 2018, 01:36:24 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: NEC Meeting, Air Force Control..
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] 2 3  All Print
Author Topic: NEC Meeting, Air Force Control..  (Read 15272 times)
abysmal
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 520

« on: May 24, 2005, 09:00:29 PM »

Copied from...
http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/2005/05/from_the_recent.html#more

The National Executive Committee met recently (13 & 14 May) in Cincinnati, OH. 

Out of this, a few nuggets have emerged from the minutes that I thought were interesting and informative about the inner workings of Civil Air Patrol and our national governance structure.  Its sometimes difficult for our newer members to understand how our organization is organized and run at the echelons above reality.

(Note: these are not the official minutes, but gleaned from notes taken during the meeting. There was more, but these are some of the more interesting points...)

The Air Force

"The National Staff & NHQ are in a dialog with the Office of the Secretary of Defense regarding an opinion by the Air Force JAG regarding how much control the Air Force should exercise over CAP's corporate missions.   CAP does not agree with AF/JA's interpretation of the law.   This affects the pending re-write of the Air Force Policy Directives and Air Force Instructions that regulate CAP from the Air Force's perspective."

[...]

"The National Commander has formally asked the Acting Secretary of the Air Force to declare that the glider program is an integral part of the CAP mission.   If this declaration is made, our glider program can be funded with Air Force money like the powered flight cadet orientation ride program."

:: OK, woah!! Wait a minute. Is this the old "We are, but we aren't" thing rearing its ugly head again?   I've seen this a lot since 1994: The dueling positions of "We're a private corporation!" and "We're part of the Air Force!" used when it suits the Corporation's needs.  The Air Force attempts to exercise control over CAP, CAP counters with "We're a private non-profit corporation!"   The Air Force says "OK, Mr. Private Non-Profit Corporation, now we're going to regard this (gliders, non-AF directed SAR flying, etc. Pick one) as 'corporate missions,' so you guys are on your own here." and CAP comes back with "But we're part of the Air Force!!"

Folks, its going to be tough to have this one both ways. Either we're independent, or we're the Air Force Auxiliary. Which one is it? There can't be much grey area here, and if there is, we're cutting off our collective noses to spite our faces.

Frankly, I'm on the "More Air Force" side of the house, but hey, YMMV.  I've seen the "Less Air Force" option, and I think the proof is in the pudding: the membership has been in a general decline since the early 1990s, as we began to distance ourselves from our parent service. What gives?
Logged
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona
Major_Chuck
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 557

« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2005, 11:27:55 PM »

I too favor more of the Air Force side of the house and would gladly scrap a lot of the 'corporate' trappings if I could.  The whole 'corporate' image and restraints prevents CAP from being used as effectively as we could.  The Coast Guard Auxiliary doesn't have this problem.
Logged
Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard
abysmal
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 520

« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2005, 11:50:16 PM »

I too favor more of the Air Force side of the house and would gladly scrap a lot of the 'corporate' trappings if I could.  The whole 'corporate' image and restraints prevents CAP from being used as effectively as we could.  The Coast Guard Auxiliary doesn't have this problem.

Can anyone fill in some of the blanks on what went on with CAP vs. The USAF while I was out of CAP in the 90's and early 2000??

When I was active from the late 80's through the mid 90's we seemed to have a pretty good relationship. But that obviously changed at some point.

While at SLS some of this came up during the uniform sessions and why CAP was "punished" with the maroon rank ensignia for senior members..
Logged
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona
Major_Chuck
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 557

« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2005, 03:16:49 PM »

There were several major rifts. 

1.  We had a National Commander that promoted himself to Major General even though the position was not authorized or approved by the USAF.

2.  CAP could not account for millions of dollars and fought AF oversight when they asked for an accounting.

Logged
Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard
Major_Chuck
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 557

« Reply #4 on: May 25, 2005, 03:17:48 PM »

Then there was wear of the uniform issues, CAP officers attempting to assert their rank over active duty personnel.  In general, abuse by CAP.
Logged
Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard
abysmal
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 520

« Reply #5 on: May 25, 2005, 03:27:36 PM »

There were several major rifts. 

1.  We had a National Commander that promoted himself to Major General even though the position was not authorized or approved by the USAF.

2.  CAP could not account for millions of dollars and fought AF oversight when they asked for an accounting.

Amazing.
Power corrupts I suppose.
Were there any criminal repercussions over the "missing" money?
Logged
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona
abysmal
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 520

« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2005, 03:32:55 PM »

Then there was wear of the uniform issues, CAP officers attempting to assert their rank over active duty personnel.  In general, abuse by CAP.

This one came up in SLS, and it was a pretty HOT TOPIC of discussion.

It was really quite interesting.
One the first day of the SLS many of the senior's came in wearing the corporate blue shirt.
The Lt. Col that was instructing then referred to them as the "CAP Bowling Shirts".
The next day nearly all of those same senior members came in wearing the White shirt and Grey Trouser combination.
It was a markedly noticable improvement in attire.

Has CAP ever considered a two track senior rank program.
One for leadership positions that REQUIRES them to meet USAF standards, and a whole different structure for those who CHOOSE not to meet standards?

Still seemed wrong to me to be looking at a 300lb man wearing Lt. Col rank on his shoulders.
Just seems insulting to the whole military image.
Logged
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona
arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,295

« Reply #7 on: May 25, 2005, 04:40:12 PM »

Then there was wear of the uniform issues, CAP officers attempting to assert their rank over active duty personnel.  In general, abuse by CAP.

This one came up in SLS, and it was a pretty HOT TOPIC of discussion.

It was really quite interesting.
One the first day of the SLS many of the senior's came in wearing the corporate blue shirt.
The Lt. Col that was instructing then referred to them as the "CAP Bowling Shirts".
The next day nearly all of those same senior members came in wearing the White shirt and Grey Trouser combination.
It was a markedly noticable improvement in attire.
If that happend with the folks I went to SLS with, the whole class would have shown up in 'bowling shirts'.

Quote
Has CAP ever considered a two track senior rank program.
One for leadership positions that REQUIRES them to meet USAF standards, and a whole different structure for those who CHOOSE not to meet standards?

Still seemed wrong to me to be looking at a 300lb man wearing Lt. Col rank on his shoulders.
Just seems insulting to the whole military image.

So, you'd advocate enforcing military weights standards on volunteers who are willing to take charge of units and lead them, right?

If you are going to go down that route, just require all members to meet those standards, because that is what will happen. Not officially, but realistically. Also, as a side effect, you'd lose alot of pilots - which CAP seems to need to have.  You'd also have the effect to those member who do not aspire to leadership positions being treated as second class members. You also run into ADA problems. There are some folks who cannot meet the AF standards for due to medical conditions. 
Logged
abysmal
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 520

« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2005, 05:50:36 PM »

So, you'd advocate enforcing military weights standards on volunteers who are willing to take charge of units and lead them, right?

If you are going to go down that route, just require all members to meet those standards, because that is what will happen. Not officially, but realistically. Also, as a side effect, you'd lose alot of pilots - which CAP seems to need to have.  You'd also have the effect to those member who do not aspire to leadership positions being treated as second class members. You also run into ADA problems. There are some folks who cannot meet the AF standards for due to medical conditions. 

I am "Advocating" nothing at all.
I am ASKING if this has ever been considered.

While I was on active duty in the US Army we had a DUAL TRACK rank system.
Because I was a medic, I was a "Specialist", Not a corporal. A Spec 5, not a sergeant, etc..
Never thought of myself as a 2nd class anything. I freely choose to join the medical Corps and that was part and parcel to that decission.

Somehow, it seems to me, some people have forgotten that it is a "Privilage" to wear the USAF Uniform and its accompanying rank.
This privilage is bestowed upon us by the USAF, and it is their's and their's alone to set the requirements for us to meet in order to be able to wear it.

For those volunteer members that are either Unable or Unwilling to meet those standards we have the bowling shirts and a host of other "Alternative" uniforms. Since we have Alternative Uniforms, why don't we have matching Alternative Ranks to go with them.??

edit: fixed quote tags
« Last Edit: May 28, 2005, 04:46:19 PM by whatevah » Logged
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona
arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,295

« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2005, 06:43:14 PM »

I am "Advocating" nothing at all.
I am ASKING if this has ever been considered.
OK, my mistake. I don't think it has been considered from reading the minutes of the NB and NEC available online.
Quote
Somehow, it seems to me, some people have forgotten that it is a "Privilage" to wear the USAF Uniform and its accompanying rank.
This privilage is bestowed upon us by the USAF, and it is their's and their's alone to set the requirements for us to meet in order to be able to wear it.

For those volunteer members that are either Unable or Unwilling to meet those standards we have the bowling shirts and a host of other "Alternative" uniforms. Since we have Alternative Uniforms, why don't we have matching Alternative Ranks to go with them.??
CAP wears the Air Force uniform with Distinctive CAP insignia as required by law and DoD regs. Our grade insignia, while similar to the AF, is not the same. The only insignia/devices that are the same as the AF are the silver nameplate for the service dress coat and NCO insignia.

If you have alternate grades, how do they relate? Do all AF type grades trump all CAP type grades?
Logged
pixelwonk
Alt-F4 pilot
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,108

« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2005, 06:58:25 PM »

I too favor more of the Air Force side of the house and would gladly scrap a lot of the 'corporate' trappings if I could.  The whole 'corporate' image and restraints prevents CAP from being used as effectively as we could.  The Coast Guard Auxiliary doesn't have this problem.

No, they have their own problems that are just as unique.

Like losing over seven thousand members in a matter of a few months.
Logged
Major_Chuck
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 557

« Reply #11 on: May 25, 2005, 07:00:27 PM »

There were several major rifts. 

1.  We had a National Commander that promoted himself to Major General even though the position was not authorized or approved by the USAF.

2.  CAP could not account for millions of dollars and fought AF oversight when they asked for an accounting.

Amazing.
Power corrupts I suppose.
Were there any criminal repercussions over the "missing" money?


Yes, however I don't know the full details because it is not 'talked' about that much.  From what I've been able to piece together from various higher-ups a Wing Finance Officer out west embezzeled $100g plus and now is in jail.

A larger problem was in the accounting system that was used.  The problem was a lack of accountability in both money management and equipment from the squadron level all the way to the top.  

To deal with this National now has on staff paid Wing Finance Specialists (title may be wrong) that audit Wings and Squadrons as needed.  CAP and the AF also changed the way accounting  is done.

-cc
Logged
Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard
Major_Chuck
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 557

« Reply #12 on: May 25, 2005, 07:01:57 PM »

I too favor more of the Air Force side of the house and would gladly scrap a lot of the 'corporate' trappings if I could.  The whole 'corporate' image and restraints prevents CAP from being used as effectively as we could.  The Coast Guard Auxiliary doesn't have this problem.

No, they have their own problems that are just as unique.

Like losing over seven thousand members in a matter of a few months.

Interesting.  I did not know that.  Not being a member of the CG Auxiliary I can't speak to their recruiting and retention practices.

-CC
Logged
Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard
pixelwonk
Alt-F4 pilot
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,108

« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2005, 07:07:47 PM »

Because the controversial security background checks (AKA: SF86) added substantially to the usual attrition, the Aux lost that many members.  About 20%.
Logged
abysmal
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 520

« Reply #14 on: May 25, 2005, 07:16:39 PM »

CAP wears the Air Force uniform with Distinctive CAP insignia as required by law and DoD regs. Our grade insignia, while similar to the AF, is not the same. The only insignia/devices that are the same as the AF are the silver nameplate for the service dress coat and NCO insignia.

If you have alternate grades, how do they relate? Do all AF type grades trump all CAP type grades?


OK.
From the perspective of the person looking at someone in CAP who is NOT a member of the armed forces.
What does the average "Joe" on the street think when he sees someone in Air Force Blues with Capt, Maj, Col on their shoulder.??
Does he think, Oh, thats a volunteer of a civilian corporation, or thats a member of the US Military??

From that first presentation to the unitiated, everything else follows about first impressions.

I am not sure if I follow your question or not.
But if I am reading it correctly, yes, ALL Military grades would trump all CAP grades.

But think of it this way.
WHEN does Rank REALLY have a direct impact on members in CAP??

In the military your told to do something, and if you don't do it, your under the UCMJ, and your butt is in a sling.
In CAP, generally speaking, your asked to do something, and if you don't do it, the ABSOLUTE worst thing that can happen to you is that you get a 2B and your out of CAP. The level of accountability is Vasty Different, as is the need for real rank..
Logged
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona
abysmal
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 520

« Reply #15 on: May 25, 2005, 07:24:43 PM »

Because the controversial security background checks (AKA: SF86) added substantially to the usual attrition, the Aux lost that many members.  About 20%.

I wonder how many of them woudn't have passed???
Logged
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona
abysmal
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 520

« Reply #16 on: May 25, 2005, 07:26:57 PM »


Yes, however I don't know the full details because it is not 'talked' about that much.  From what I've been able to piece together from various higher-ups a Wing Finance Officer out west embezzeled $100g plus and now is in jail.

A larger problem was in the accounting system that was used.  The problem was a lack of accountability in both money management and equipment from the squadron level all the way to the top.  

To deal with this National now has on staff paid Wing Finance Specialists (title may be wrong) that audit Wings and Squadrons as needed.  CAP and the AF also changed the way accounting  is done.

I can see why the USAF would NOT be happy about that.
And I am glad to hear that there WERE criminal charges brought against that guy for taking that kind of money.
I would be very dissapointed if he had been allowed to walk away.

Though we are not subject to the UCMJ, we are still criminally lible for our actions.
Logged
2LT Christopher M. Parrett
Deputy Commander of Cadets, Cadet Programs Officer
London Bridge Composite Squadron 501
SWR-AZ-112,  Lake Havasu City, Arizona
Major_Chuck
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 557

« Reply #17 on: May 25, 2005, 07:31:51 PM »

It should be noted that our CAP rank confers no rank or privledge however many organizations will respect the rank and position of the wearer out of courtesy and customs.

When the National Commander is performing duties in his capacity his 'rank' as a Major General (granted by the Chief of Staff, USAF) allows him to move and operate on that particular level.  His rank indicates that he is the 'top dog' in our organization.  

Several years ago I was at an activity that involved CAP cadets and cadets of a military school.  They (the cadets and the instructors) recognized my rank and rendered the customs and courtesies associated with it.  In turn, the senior officers and cadets did the same towards the staff of the military school and their cadet corps.

Our rank is nothing but a custom.  It would be nice if I was 'commissioned' but I am 'appointed' to my current rank and content with that.  

Logged
Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard
Major_Chuck
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 557

« Reply #18 on: May 25, 2005, 07:34:40 PM »


Yes, however I don't know the full details because it is not 'talked' about that much.  From what I've been able to piece together from various higher-ups a Wing Finance Officer out west embezzeled $100g plus and now is in jail.

A larger problem was in the accounting system that was used.  The problem was a lack of accountability in both money management and equipment from the squadron level all the way to the top.  

To deal with this National now has on staff paid Wing Finance Specialists (title may be wrong) that audit Wings and Squadrons as needed.  CAP and the AF also changed the way accounting  is done.

I can see why the USAF would NOT be happy about that.
And I am glad to hear that there WERE criminal charges brought against that guy for taking that kind of money.
I would be very dissapointed if he had been allowed to walk away.

Though we are not subject to the UCMJ, we are still criminally lible for our actions.

Again it brings up the whole CAP Corporation versus USAF Auxiliary.  As a Corporation we can take legal action to go after those who steal from us.  I am sure that as the AF Auxiliary there are ways as well but easier to do it as a non-profit corporation.

-CC
Logged
Chuck Cranford
SGT, TNCO VA OCS
Virginia Army National Guard
pixelwonk
Alt-F4 pilot
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,108

« Reply #19 on: May 25, 2005, 07:38:40 PM »

Because the controversial security background checks (AKA: SF86) added substantially to the usual attrition, the Aux lost that many members.  About 20%.

I wonder how many of them woudn't have passed???

not passed because of a criminal background?  not many at all. 

But when you take a look at what the SF86 delves into... you have to wonder if being a volunteer and paying your own way is worth it.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: NEC Meeting, Air Force Control..
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.081 seconds with 25 queries.