Complaints to National CC

[Senior]

I just received a rather cryptic message from MOWG CC about sending
complaints directly to the National CC.  What is going on in MOWG that
someone is not following the chain of command???

[Pylon]

Sometimes all it takes is one email.

[JC004]

Fools.  There is a better method.  We develop videos with subliminal messages that make them think whatever was their idea, and agree to do it.  I'm testing this now.

[Major Carrales]

Fools.  There is a better method.  We develop videos with subliminal messages that make them think whatever was their idea, and agree to do it.  I'm testing this now.

Colgan, to that I say...Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

However, on a more serious note...

While what we post here and discuss at Wing/Region/National Conferences in the presence of "BIG WIGS" may influence them and provide them with some insight, it is important to follow the chain of command when proposing policy change.

Occasionally, a PAO might solicit and "interview" or a PERSON of SIGNIFICANCE may "seek out" and opinion, but in the end...official channels are preferred.

[Frenchie]

Occasionally, a PAO might solicit and "interview" or a PERSON of SIGNIFICANCE may "seek out" and opinion, but in the end...official channels are preferred.

Preferred, yes.  However sometimes the "official channels" ARE the problem, and in those instances I hope higher levels are receptive to breaks in protocol.  Otherwise you may find yourself in a situation where various levels of command stick together and have self-serving motives rather than for the good of the organization as a whole.

All levels of command should have an open door policy to members seeking redress and such should be encouraged, although it should also be communicated in the same message that problems are generally best solved at the lowest possible level.

[cap801]

I wonder if General Courter is on these forums?  If she is, then who is she?!?!?!?!?!

[Eclipse]

NHQlurker-001   

[lordmonar]

I always like the crypic messages......

So.....company line.....use your chain of command....it allows them the best chance to solve the problem in house.

Having said that the IG and most commanders always seem to have an open door policy......so you are screwed either way. 

No one ever likes getting back-doored.....but let's face it if you are the problem they are complaining about who else are they going to complain to?

[RAZOR]

Since previous National Commander could not be trusted, maybe Gen Courter can? Even the I.G. system from National all the way down to Squadron level still have pockets of corruption.. CAPINSIGHTS has new information on latest corruption happening in CAP. :clap:

[FW]

Fools.  There is a better method.  We develop videos with subliminal messages that make them think whatever was their idea, and agree to do it.  I'm testing this now.

AaaHaaah!  It works....

My opinion:  It's best to go through the chain.  BTW, the "no" answer from your immediate "commander" is not a "no" answer to procede up to the next level.  If your complaint is valid, inform him/her of your intentions before you do it (in writing, if necessary).  Just insure it be done in a professional manner;   no sending out public emails bad mouthing every member who disagrees with you.

I know of one member who decided to quit his position by sending a resignation letter to the wing/cc.  The member called the the guy an incompetent fool only an infant would work with.  Unfortunately he decided to copy everyone from the CAP/CC to the entire ops staff in the wing and CAP-USAF.  Needless to say, the complaintant was the only one who was disciplined;  something about conduct unbecoming.  

I would only inform the IG if you were threatened with some retaliatory action for preceding or, your complaint is being ignored.  Otherwise, as CAPR 123-2 states, keep it local.

[RiverAux]

I would just be happy if we were officially encouraged to submit comments directly to NHQ about proposed regulation changes rather than having to try to route them throug the CoC. 

[Major Carrales]

I would just be happy if we were officially encouraged to submit comments directly to NHQ about proposed regulation changes rather than having to try to route them throug the CoC. 

I would support that, if there were a system in place that could handle that.  I mean even the Moderators of this forum have a hard time, at times, keeping up with posts.  Much less 50,000 plus members submitting thier fondest wishes for CAP.

How can we solve that, River?

[flyerthom]

I would just be happy if we were officially encouraged to submit comments directly to NHQ about proposed regulation changes rather than having to try to route them throug the CoC. 

Post them here. NHQ keeps an eye here even if they chose not to speak. Post it in a Directed Inquiry type format (answer; who, what, where, when, why, how and so what) that is professional and polite and they'll see it.  Post it in rant format and it won't be taken seriously. 

[RiverAux]

I'm talking about when they post a draft regulation "for comment" on e-services allowing members to comment on that.  Most of the time and for most of the regulations I strongly suspect that there would be a limited number of comments, primarily from CAP members experienced in the use of that regulation.  The exception to that would be any draft uniform regulation -- thats where you would see lots of comments.  However, the Air Force has figured out how to deal with that specific issue, so we should be able to as well. 

[Capt Rivera]

If the NHQ safety staff can handle "every member" submitting "one safety suggestion every month".... I don't see a issue with other areas being able to handle less. Something tells me there wont be 56k comments on any regulation [not even uniform]

modified: spelling 

[James Shaw]

Gen Courter has a transperant organization and truly wants to help all of its members. She believes that proper protocal should be followed when addressing issues but also strongly believes in going thorugh your chain of command. The biggest difference that you will see is the "appointment" and "selection process" for various levels. She truly believes in the qualifications and abilities of the members and those who can show they are capable. She doesnt promote or pick based on the "good old boy system". If there is a complaint I would try to address it at the local level and then work my way up if necessary.

[FW]

If the NHQ safety staff can handle "every member" submitting "one safety suggestion every month".... I don't see a issue with outher areas being able to handle less. Something tells me there wont be 56k comments on any regulation [not even uniform]

I think there is a difference between submitting safety suggestions and commenting on regulations or programs.  However, I've seen no trouble in the membership commenting directly to NHQ  about regs or programs.  The two most recent programs I can think of are the Wing Banker Program and Consolodated Maint. Program; with associated reg changes.
The members in the field are instrumental in fine tuning the programs to make them more relevant and "user friendly".  
Also, the continued development of "WIMRS" is in part, membership driven.
What is important, IMHO, is in being "professional" in attitude at all times.  It takes time to process the comments and the results might be different from what any 1 member may find acceptable.  Responsible individuals must make the final decisions and we all need to live with them.

[Capt Rivera]

If the NHQ safety staff can handle "every member" submitting "one safety suggestion every month".... I don't see a issue with outher areas being able to handle less. Something tells me there wont be 56k comments on any regulation [not even uniform]

I think there is a difference between submitting safety suggestions and commenting on regulations or programs.  However, I've seen no trouble in the membership commenting directly to NHQ  about regs or programs.  The two most recent programs I can think of are the Wing Banker Program and Consolodated Maint. Program; with associated reg changes.
The members in the field are instrumental in fine tuning the programs to make them more relevant and "user friendly".  
Also, the continued development of "WIMRS" is in part, membership driven.
What is important, IMHO, is in being "professional" in attitude at all times.  It takes time to process the comments and the results might be different from what any 1 member may find acceptable.  Responsible individuals must make the final decisions and we all need to live with them.

I was referring ONLY to comments on regulations. There are people who wont submit comments if they have to go through every level of CAP. It is that simple. Now they can by pass that request to go through the chain but who knows if what they have to say will be considered or not because of the bypass? [I don't]

Things that can and should be handled at a  lower level should be dealt with there and moved up only as necessary. Things that are really on the national level like so called open commenting on regs etc... should be handled at the national level.

Unfortunately we have a mix of people who want things to be a certain way for the betterment of CAP and we have people who want things to be another way for self serving purposes.... I trust that our National Commander has in place national level comities that care only about how things affect CAP and not how changing the wording of something will affect only them. These people should get my comments!  Not just anyone who happens to be in a position at a group, wing, & region level. I understand they SHOULD all be trustworthy etc... but we all know there are a few self serving individuals at every level in any organization.

modified: easier to read now... i hope

[FW]

^Josh, I understand your point.  And, Gen Courter understands this well.  Although there are no longer "committees" , there are senior advisers and directors who are responsible for advising and recomending improvements to policies and programs for us all.  She has selected the best possible for the tasks at hand and, IMO, has full faith in their abilities.  Comments from the field are transfered to the appropriate staffer  (either paid or volunteer) for vetting.  The NB has been grouped into "Affinity Groups" to discuss agenda items before business meetings to further go over concerns and comments from the membership/advisors before making decisions.  
I'm very excited about this transparency and, am looking forward to the next 3 years.

[dc.mowg]

   To begin, I am one of the several that created the stir and the resultant memorandum.  Unfortunately, the situation has resulted in my resignation as a Squadron Commander.  I sent an apology to our National Commander and do regret having copied her on several e-mails.  The situation that occurred while very serious in my opinion(a CPPT issue) was not viewed that away at the highest level.  I only copied her because she approached me in the halls with the issue at the National Board Meeting; assuring me that I was doing a great job and she would be assisting with a resolution to the problem. 

As a volunteer organization, we should have access to leadership.  Unfortunately, the military aspects of the "Chain of Command" seem to be the rule.

I will not comment further concerning this matter please do not speculate nor question.  I ask that this thread stop here!

Respectfully