Question about the politics in CAP

[MIGCAP]

"I guess as I get older and more involved in CAP, I am seeing a different side of it. A side I don't necessarily like. I mean everyone keeps talking about politics. These are not politicians. They are volunteers. But I can kind of understand what you guys are saying. I am a member of a national Fraternity and I see similar fights for power and leaders with big egos. I hope I never get like that."

So don't get like that.  CAP is a wonderful organization not because of its leadership but because of its members. We are a volunteer organization who will get up at three in the morning to find an ELT just because someone might be in trouble. Even when we fully realize that the odds are 99.99 to 1 that it's a non-distress signal. There are folks who care about and even cherish the MISSION and that's what matters. Whether it's the Cadet Program, ES, or Aerospace Education. Don't matter, just once in your life hear the "We have survivors" call, of have a cadet come back and say "Thank You Sir, I never would have thought of going to college if you had not shown me a way to do it"; or look into the face of a kid who just finished an O Flight or a military Helo ride. That's where it's at.

Leadership is a necessary evil in all organizations, sometimes good or sometimes bad, but always there. The problem comes about when those in charge forget the real reason we are here and start to think they have something besides a rank that really isn't real outside of CAP. As soon as their interests turn to what we look like, how we are perceived, what we ought to be asked to do, there is a problem. When we allow our leaders to get off the heading, without issuing an immediate course correction we are at fault. When we tolerate leadership that appears to have interests outside of the mission we have failed. When we permit a system to exist that allows the boss to fire those who vote for or against him/her, we are compromising the mission and inviting corruption. Then we deserve the leaders we get.

Don't go into leadership, become the best at the part of the mission you love, stay out of the politics, cherish the rewards of a job well done, but.....and this is the big "but"....do not tolerate or permit those who are not passionate about the mission to lead.  You do that by not following, a famous Navy Seal once said that if you lead from the front, where you should be, you have to realize you are standing in front of a bunch of guys who have guns and know how to use them.

[isuhawkeye]

Large turn overs happen in CAP every few years. 

As I recall When General Anderson became the National commander he systematically replaced all but 2 (?) region commanders before his first board was over. 

[jkmassey]

A LONG one.........

OK, as to the why and how this kind of thing happens in CAP in particular, you must first recognize that the upper level management of this organization is very incestuous.

a)   To become a Wing Commander (WC), you must have the backing of a Region Commander, who makes the appointment.  There are no requirements for a Wing Commander other than being a current member, being asked by the Region Commander, and saying "yes." (C&B, Article XIII)

b)   To become a Region Commander (RC), you must have the support of the National Commander, who makes the appointment.  There are no requirements for a Wing Commander other than being a current member, being asked asked by the National Commander, and saying "yes." (C&B, Article XIII)

c)   To become a National Commander, you must have sufficient support among the entire National Board.  This is important because the posts of National Commander and National Vice Commander are elected from the National Board, by the National Board.  Prior or current membership on the National Board is the only requirement. (C&B, Article XIII)

Once elected, the National Commander may then appoint 12 of the 14 voting members of the National Executive Committee subject only to being confirmed by vote of the National Board.  Since the Region Commanders are appointed by the National Commander, you can see how easy it is to stack the National Executive Committee once you become National Commander.  That means the National Commander gets to choose (with some attrition time accounted for) 14 of the 17 members. This gives the National Commander a potential 88% control of any action coming out of the National Executive Committee.

As the average region contains 6 wings, it is easy to  allow that the National Commander can have a significant influence on the voting within the National Board by simply having full allegiance of 4 or five Region Commanders (who will be appointing those Wing Commanders).  Over time, that can account for 24-30 additional members of the National Board with allegiance to the National Commander.  The longer a person or conspiracy of persons can maintain control, then the longer simple attrition will allow the board to be stacked for a VERY difficult change of control or climate.

So, the National board consists of 66 voting members (14 NEC + 52 Wing Commanders).  Given that the National Commander may have significant control over 13 of the NEC (including himself) and control of another 24-30 Wing Commanders, that can give the National Commander an automatic 56%-65% majority on any vote.  That is why the proposal to extend the term length for the National Commander kept coming out of the NEC under TP even though it was narrowly voted down each time.  (The single 3-yr term for the National Commander was written into the revised constitution for this very specific reason, but does not address a multi-person conspiracy which may extend the influence over multiple terms.)

As each Region and Wing Commander also has the right to appoint or relieve any member of their staff without any other reason than they simply want to, an ambitious person will make certain that they use all the trappings and pomp available to assure they have a staff that is always "all right."  If the commander also happens to be charismatic and able to draw in competent people to serve on his staff then this system works OK even if the commander himself is otherwise incompetent.  Mostly the "law of the mean" and the constitutional term limits keeps the system balanced with some good and some bad commands distributed about the organization over time.

However, if a particular person or group of persons are VERY ambitious (IE: egocentric with low self esteem as in Maslow above) then a conspiracy of control can arise where the mean state of the organization is skewed away from "average competency" to "high allegiance".  I feel this has been the case for the past 15 years or so and describes why so many "good men have fallen needlessly" (a phrase, and not meant in any way to demean the service or suffering of our women in membership).

I was a reviewer and commenter on the organizational restructuring of CAP in the early 90's that led to the creation of the Board of Governors.  The history of that is a long involved one going back into the 80's and I don't want to open that can right now.  But basically it was recognized that perhaps the USAF shouldn't meddle too much in the existing organizational structure that had been in place for almost 50 years (though specific term limits of most corporate officer positions were added).  To provide an INDEPENDENT management oversight, the Board of Governors was created.  As I recall, originally the board was supposed to consist of 2 appointees by SecAF, the CAP National Commander and Vice, 2 members at large (to be selected from senior members with demonstrated ability who are not currently nor have been recently (within the prior three years) members of the National Board or any other Corporate Officer position (paid or otherwise)), and 3 members chosen from aviation or aerospace industry leaders.  There was a bit of contention between a National Commander and the SecAF that resulted in a compromise providing 4 appointees for the SecAF and reducing the industry representation to one.  As part of that compromise, the requirement that the members-at-large NOT be current or recent members of the National Board was dropped.  As soon as the Board was formed, this resulted in the National Commander immediately appointing two members of the NEC to the board in place of what was supposed to be the representatives of the membership at large and assuring that there would be at least three members on the Board with allegiance to the National Commander.  I feel this one situation (the member-at large appointments) has most seriously compromised the board's ability to provide quality oversight to the organization.   Simply stated, there is no one on the board or above the Group Commander level who is present to represent the membership at large as opposed to the interest of this otherwise incestuous upper management organization.

There are many other important issues affecting WHY CAP is both bloated and bleeding membership.  These are associated with training, the need for an independent IG structure, administrative gargantism, mission schizophrenia, and more but each requires too much time and space to discuss here.

Soooooo, that's how it happened, why it isn't over, and why it is going to happen again and again unless the underlying causes are addressed.

Ken Massey

[ZigZag911]

I don't see a point in having Group Commanders because all they seem to do is interfere with unit operations, which has a tendancy to cause the unit commander to complain to the Wing Commander.

Group Commanders exist because otherwise the span of control for most wing commanders would be far too large.

Group CCs command their group -- HQ unit and all subordinate units and unit commanders.

In other words, they have authority within the group derived from, and very similar to, that held by the wing CC.

It has been my experience as a group CC that squadron commanders resent a competent group commander & group staff even more than an incompetent one.

This is principally because some (by no means all, or even most) squadron commanders view themselves as latter day Horatio Hornblowers or Jack Aubreys, running an independent, virtually autonomous unit with little reference to any broader organizational considerations.

This may even have worked once upon a time...though my cadet service was in the early 70s, and, as best I recall, squadrons worked together when the occasion arose, under the direction of the group.

In the best of circumstances group commanders and group staff officers have significant squadron experience, including commander or deputy commander service. They have the background to guide squadron commanders who, today, often have 3 years or less CAP background, no prior military service, and little clear idea of what they ought to be doing (otherwise why develop a Unit Commander Course?).

But on one point you are absolutely correct....sometimes squadron commanders do violate the chain of command and complain to their wing CC buddies when they don't always get their own way!

[lordmonar]

How do we eliminate politics...and the abuse of power we saw under TP?   Eliminate the NB and the NEC!  The National Commander should be selected by the BoG and he should then lead the organization.

All this leadership by consent of the NB is why we have national commanders and regional commanders canning people so he can stack the vote.

Eliminate the vote!

Let the BoG provide direction and vision and then the National CC and his staff implements and executes that vision.

I know this sounds radical in the face of the abuse we all just went through.  But if someone wants to be National CC...instead of worming his way into a regional slot and then making personnel chances to improve his odds at the NB.....an officer would become very good at leading his unit, get recognized by the upper management and moved up.  Because the only way a regional commander could then make National CC is to impress the BoG that he has what it takes to be the man.

[SJFedor]

How do we eliminate politics...and the abuse of power we saw under TP?   Eliminate the NB and the NEC!  The National Commander should be selected by the BoG and he should then lead the organization.

All this leadership by consent of the NB is why we have national commanders and regional commanders canning people so he can stack the vote.

Eliminate the vote!

Let the BoG provide direction and vision and then the National CC and his staff implements and executes that vision.

I know this sounds radical in the face of the abuse we all just went through.  But if someone wants to be National CC...instead of worming his way into a regional slot and then making personnel chances to improve his odds at the NB.....an officer would become very good at leading his unit, get recognized by the upper management and moved up.  Because the only way a regional commander could then make National CC is to impress the BoG that he has what it takes to be the man.

Who selects who the BoG is made up of, then?

[Dragoon]

How do we eliminate politics...and the abuse of power we saw under TP?   Eliminate the NB and the NEC!  The National Commander should be selected by the BoG and he should then lead the organization.

All this leadership by consent of the NB is why we have national commanders and regional commanders canning people so he can stack the vote.

Eliminate the vote!

Let the BoG provide direction and vision and then the National CC and his staff implements and executes that vision.

I know this sounds radical in the face of the abuse we all just went through.  But if someone wants to be National CC...instead of worming his way into a regional slot and then making personnel chances to improve his odds at the NB.....an officer would become very good at leading his unit, get recognized by the upper management and moved up.  Because the only way a regional commander could then make National CC is to impress the BoG that he has what it takes to be the man.

I'm in favor of what you're suggesting.  But I don't think it will eliminate politics, because "impressing the BoG" will be a very political thing.  Some guys will go out of their way to step on subordinates in order to put on a show for BoG members.  (incidentally, the same thing occurs today amongst real Colonels trying to be real Generals, and real Vice Presidents trying to become CEOs)

And once that guy is put in charge, he gets to pick everyone else.  So...you're gonna end up with everyone kissing his butt to become Wing and Region CC's just like today.

But I like your suggestion because, frankly, I prefer my commander to be kissing USAF's butt rather than kissing all the Wing CC's butts trying to get votes.  It's a bit more "military" that way.
The

[CAP_truth]

How do we eliminate politics...and the abuse of power we saw under TP?   Eliminate the NB and the NEC!  The National Commander should be selected by the BoG and he should then lead the organization.

All this leadership by consent of the NB is why we have national commanders and regional commanders canning people so he can stack the vote.

Eliminate the vote!

Let the BoG provide direction and vision and then the National CC and his staff implements and executes that vision.

I know this sounds radical in the face of the abuse we all just went through.  But if someone wants to be National CC...instead of worming his way into a regional slot and then making personnel chances to improve his odds at the NB.....an officer would become very good at leading his unit, get recognized by the upper management and moved up.  Because the only way a regional commander could then make National CC is to impress the BoG that he has what it takes to be the man.

The BoG being made up with other that CAP members give undue control to outside organizations. We need to keep the NB & the NEC.  but separate the voting of the NB & NEC life the house and senate of congress. Make the national CC and national VC. confirmed by the BoG and per regulations their rank confirmed by the CoS USAF.

[ZigZag911]

The BoG being made up with other that CAP members give undue control to outside organizations. We need to keep the NB & the NEC.  but separate the voting of the NB & NEC life the house and senate of congress. Make the national CC and national VC. confirmed by the BoG and per regulations their rank confirmed by the CoS USAF.

Most of the non-CAP BOG members are USAF general officers (active or retired) or Dept. of AF civilian executives, all appointed by SECAF.

The concept suggested by LordMonar, having the BOG choose National CC & CV, is intriguing.

One way it could work is like this:

1) NB members (wing CCs only) submit nomination petitions. A valid nomination requires requires a minimum of 5 wing commanders' endorsement, with no more than 2 from any single region. This would assure fairly broad based support...just under 10% of wing CCs, from at least 3 different regions (a bit more than 1/3).

Each of top 3 national positions (CC, CV, CS) would require separate nomination. An officer could only run for one position in any single election period.

Of course there would still be politicking, that's human nature, but this would make 'stacking the deck more difficult.

2) NEC would choose (by secret ballot) 3 former CAP national commanders to serve on a selection boardwith CC & CV CAP-USAF. (Former CAP national CVs who were not candidates for office could be chosen if sufficient ex-CCs were not available)

3) The selection board would submit top three choices to BOG, which would make the final appointment subject to USAF CS approval.

4) In the event that there were less than 3 candidates for any office, nominations would be solicited from the general membership. This process would need to be worked out carefully to avoid manipulation -- a certain number of signatures (50?), from a variety of units (possibly all in same wing). Officers should have completed Level II and cadets completed Phase II to be eligible to sign these nomination petitions.

All this would require extensive discussion and revision, as well as  changes to CAP Constitution, Bylaws, and regulations.

One aspect of this ought to be mandatory criteria for eligibility for candidacy; hopefully this would eventually lead to similar training and experience criteria for region and wing CCs.

No one should serve in an elected national office with less than 15 years CAP experience, and 2 years minimum command service at region or wing.

No one should serve as region or wing commander without 10 years CAP experience, and 3 years minimum squadron or group command service.

No one should serve as a group commander without 5 years CAP experience, and 2 years squadron commander or deputy.

No one should serve as a squadron commander without 2 years minimum CA{ service.

[CAP_truth]

Under the current CAPR35-5 the rank of Brig. Gen. and Maj. Gen. must be confirmed by the USAF chief of staff.

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

As a practicing attorney who has had a number of charitable institutions for clients, I am not surprised with the politics in CAP.   Some of the kindest and well meaning people end up in litigation against each other over politics in their particular charitable organization.   I do not know what it is in volunteer organizations but it seems to bring out the worst in some people when they come to power.  I have seen people who have worked for a charity for years be willing to destroy it in order to have their way.   It is a sad commentary on human nature.

[SJFedor]

The BoG being made up with other that CAP members give undue control to outside organizations. We need to keep the NB & the NEC.  but separate the voting of the NB & NEC life the house and senate of congress. Make the national CC and national VC. confirmed by the BoG and per regulations their rank confirmed by the CoS USAF.

Most of the non-CAP BOG members are USAF general officers (active or retired) or Dept. of AF civilian executives, all appointed by SECAF.

The concept suggested by LordMonar, having the BOG choose National CC & CV, is intriguing.

One way it could work is like this:

1) NB members (wing CCs only) submit nomination petitions. A valid nomination requires requires a minimum of 5 wing commanders' endorsement, with no more than 2 from any single region. This would assure fairly broad based support...just under 10% of wing CCs, from at least 3 different regions (a bit more than 1/3).

Each of top 3 national positions (CC, CV, CS) would require separate nomination. An officer could only run for one position in any single election period.

Of course there would still be politicking, that's human nature, but this would make 'stacking the deck more difficult.

2) NEC would choose (by secret ballot) 3 former CAP national commanders to serve on a selection boardwith CC & CV CAP-USAF. (Former CAP national CVs who were not candidates for office could be chosen if sufficient ex-CCs were not available)

3) The selection board would submit top three choices to BOG, which would make the final appointment subject to USAF CS approval.

4) In the event that there were less than 3 candidates for any office, nominations would be solicited from the general membership. This process would need to be worked out carefully to avoid manipulation -- a certain number of signatures (50?), from a variety of units (possibly all in same wing). Officers should have completed Level II and cadets completed Phase II to be eligible to sign these nomination petitions.

All this would require extensive discussion and revision, as well as  changes to CAP Constitution, Bylaws, and regulations.

One aspect of this ought to be mandatory criteria for eligibility for candidacy; hopefully this would eventually lead to similar training and experience criteria for region and wing CCs.

No one should serve in an elected national office with less than 15 years CAP experience, and 2 years minimum command service at region or wing.

No one should serve as region or wing commander without 10 years CAP experience, and 3 years minimum squadron or group command service.

No one should serve as a group commander without 5 years CAP experience, and 2 years squadron commander or deputy.

No one should serve as a squadron commander without 2 years minimum CA{ service.

Or, the CAP members that sit on the BoG are the immediate past CC and CV, besides the 2 members at large. That way, those who are making the rules as the CC or CV don't have a pig in the race at the BoG level as well. Make CC and CV positions the same length in time (instead of CC for 3 years, CV yearly)

[ZigZag911]

Or, the CAP members that sit on the BoG are the immediate past CC and CV, besides the 2 members at large. That way, those who are making the rules as the CC or CV don't have a pig in the race at the BoG level as well. Make CC and CV positions the same length in time (instead of CC for 3 years, CV yearly)

Excellent points, glad you caught my oversights! Concur entirely.

Nice article in The Volunteer by the way.