Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 22, 2019, 02:20:46 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: 2009 National Board Agenda
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Send this topic Print
Author Topic: 2009 National Board Agenda  (Read 9780 times)
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,680

« Reply #40 on: August 17, 2009, 12:31:16 AM »

Agenda Item---my comment
1a--No problem
1b--No problem, let wing and region to freeze out specific units who are not doing their job.
1c--No problem
1d--What is ORMS....it that another name for CATS?
2--No problem.
3--HELL NO!  We got enough problems with politics with the National CC and Vice CC being elected....now they want region and wing CC's being elected! We still wont fix the problem when the encumbant is allowed to choose the electorate!  I want my leaders focused on getting the mission done...not getting re-elected!
4--I guess not problem as no specific recommendations where made....just a recolution to look into the "problem" with out specifing what the problem is.
5--Do we really need NB level action for this!??!  We have been keeping the cell phones out of the testing room since forever!
6--Again do we need NB level action on this.  CAP should not be involved in cadet medication at all! 
7--Right....the wing commander can't even spell cadet program and he is going to make promotion decision on someone he has never observed in action? 
8--No, no,no,no!  Suck it up...it takes two month to promote live with it!  We tried to use the older cadets can absorbe the information faster argument a couple of years ago with the "challenge" option and it got shot down.
9--No..if a cadet can't impress his peers enough in the first years to get elected to the CAC staff then maybe squadrons should be choosing bettter representation.
10--No problem
11--Anytime you have to read 3 pages of background and a seperate attachment before you find out what is being proposed......you know it is a BAD thing!  NO, NO, NO!  Just more stupid time wasting BS! 
12--I agree with the principle of the proposal.  Let's get the info out to the field so we can avoid similar problems.....but I agree with CAP-USAF that we don't need to send out the raw reports.
13--I don't quite know what they are trying to do here.....there is not health services speicalty track.
14--Just do your reports!
15--I agree with this......Nevada CAP 123 makes a lot more sense the Silver State 123.
16--No problem...but I'm not a pilot type.
17--Makes sense.....but it still seems to be putting the cart before the horse....what are the duties of CAP command Cheifs, What are the duteis of CAP NCO's?
18a--Makes sense.  I would not make any of the general ranks a permenant rank (except national CC).
18b--Won't go anywhere no way to enforce.  Bottom line is if you don't want something to become common knowleldge don't tell anyone.
18c--Who cares.
18d--Makes sense....if someone submits a write up in his safety survey someone (Wing SE) should help track and ensure these problems are fixed.
18e--Disagree....22 years of weekly safety breifings in the USAF did not make me any more safer.  Bottom line is the only safety training that makes any difference is to teach people of the specific hazards of their current task and watching them to make sure they follow throught. 
18f--makes sense.
18g--Do we really need national level action on this....if it is cold outside I am wearing the appropriate coat no matter what uniform I am wearing.
18h--Should not the BoG determine if theire is a problem getting a quorum?
20--Reports are good!
21--New buisness is good as well!

Okay....flame away
Report to moderator   Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Pacific Region
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,653

« Reply #41 on: August 17, 2009, 12:39:34 AM »

Campaigning for Wing Commander?  Probably would generally consist of posting resumes and their goals and objectives.  It would be a big positive if candidates actually went out and visited squadrons in their Wing as part of the campaign so they actually have an idea of what is going on elsewhere.  Wing Commanders are supposed to do that sort of thing while in office, but rarely do.

When, exactly, would you like these campaign stops to occur and who is going to pay for the travel?
My Wing has between 36 & 40 units depending on the humidity, some are 6+ hours away by car. If you assume one hand-shake visit a week, that's nearly a year of glad-handing.  We should expect someone to spend hundreds, perhaps thousands of dollars of either own, or worse, CAP money to beg for one of the worst jobs in CAP?

And presumably they already have a significant Group-level or higher position somewhere in the Wing, when will they have time for "real" CAP work?  Or should we just turn our Wing CC's into career politicians?

Candidates for state-level government generally are already regional politicians with means and coffers to pull from, not to mention the campaign funds.

Further, if its a popularity contest, a candidate could all but ignore smaller squadrons.  We've already got that problem as it is because of geographic realities.  If the population density is centralized in a given wing, where is a Wing CC going to concentrate on garnering love?  The small unit 6 hours away that desperately needs his attention, or the three units in his immediate zip code with 50% of the membership?

In a perfect world, the larger units would respect the candidate more for helping the struggling unit, but sadly we all know that far too many CAP commanders have no interest in anything outside their home-unit's experience.

All in all, I'd rather have a Wing Governor than a Wing King.
A statement made by someone who does not live in NY, South Carolina, or Illinois. 

Just because it may work in the CGAux, doesn't even mean its the right answer for them, let alone CAP.
Do fire, police, the Red Cross, or other military services, elect their leaders?  No.

Having to be sustained by a Congressional vote or board election is hardly the same as trying to win a popular election.  I don't recall actually voting for General Powell, Justice Sotomayor, or even General Courter.

I know a lot of CAP members who are very popular and personable, and in their minds would make the perfect commanders.  Why?  Because they'd simply do whatever made the membership happy, never do anything which required an uncomfortable conversation, and hand out decorations, ratings, and grade like they were "free".  Given the opportunity they would also tend towards the social aspects of the organization to the detriment of the operational and cadet-performance side because having cook outs and parties is a lot more fun than training and drill.

Command is not a popularity contest.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2009, 12:44:14 AM by Eclipse » Report to moderator   Logged


Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,653

« Reply #42 on: August 17, 2009, 12:41:53 AM »

1d--What is ORMS....it that another name for CATS?

The new combined property system which will include equipment traditionally "owned" by both
Logistics (stuff, buildings, and Vehicles) and Comms (radio equipment).

Should be in a theater near you around October of this year.
Report to moderator   Logged


NCRblues
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,478
Unit: lostiguess

« Reply #43 on: August 17, 2009, 01:12:03 AM »

Wow, a 3 star.... so um when do we start asking for that 4th one? What does it matter if they wear a bird or star, they are still in charge!! This is bling hunting as big as it comes. Jesus.
Report to moderator   Logged
In god we trust, all others we run through NCIC
Short Field
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,003

« Reply #44 on: August 17, 2009, 01:24:28 AM »

I agree with Lordmonar wrote but with a few exceptions and some supporting comments.
3—Agree with HELL NO!  However, it would be nice if Region Commanders would get more into the weeds to see how the Wing really operates and not just what the Wing King and staff tells him.  There are a few too many people who “shine up and dump down”.    There are too many programs and actions that are ineffective due to poor management and execution but look great when reported upwards.  This starts at the squadron level as well. 
4—No problem as the end product should eliminate confusion as to the role and responsibility of the BOG. 
5—Some people need a regulation to support common sense in keeping electronic crib sheets out of the testing room.
6—No problem.  It reads more like making clear CAP is not responsible for ensuring a cadet takes his medication.   
11—Agree with more stupid time wasting BS!   Too much of safety is concentrated on boring and meaningless briefings and reports without actually teaching us what to do to be safer. 
12—Get the accident reports out to everyone in the field, not just the pilots.  Agree with cleaning up the raw reports as long as the details on what caused the accident are provided. 
15—Changing call signs is a non-issue.  If the Wing wants to do so, they can request it now from the Air Force. 
16--No problem...but I would like to see more training of check pilots to make sure they are qualified to conduct a Fm91 checkride.  The NESA standard is NOT the CAP standard in the field.
17—Chiefs already have the equivalent course.  This seems a backdoor effort to establish a NCO Corp with built in progression. 
18a—We need more and higher ranked GOs? I think not!
18d—Make safety more than a paperwork drill.
18h—No problem with the proposal.  It keeps the quorum number down but forces representation from all groups.
Report to moderator   Logged
SAR/DR MP, ARCHOP, AOBD, GTM1, GBD, LSC, FASC, LO, PIO, MSO(T), & IC2
Wilson #2640
BillB
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,987

« Reply #45 on: August 17, 2009, 01:25:09 AM »

On number 9.  Maybe it would be a good idea to read the regulation. The word "elected" was dropped in the current version of 52-16 and now all CAC Representatives are "appointed". While the cadets may elect a CAC Rep, he is then appointed by the CC, who doesn't have to follow the election results. From the original, I believe it was 50-12 to 50-16 to 52-16 the CAC was elected by cadets, but the current version changed that.
Report to moderator   Logged
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104
Smokey
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 501

« Reply #46 on: August 17, 2009, 01:30:25 AM »

Note that the rank change was postponed from March 2001 to this meeting.  They are required since it was set for this meeting to address the proposal.  At the time the Natl CC was  1 star Brig Gen and the Vice Commander a Col.   

After the incidents of 9/11 the AIR FORCE changed the Natl commander to Major Gen and the Vice to a 1 star.  I recall it was to recognize the importance of CAP and the job we do.

The change proposed is in many ways similiar to AF alignment.  Maj Commands are usually headed by 3 or 4 stars.  The numbered Air Forces equate somewhat to our regions.  Numbered Air Forces consist of several wings.  They are often headed up by Brig Gen or higher.
Report to moderator   Logged
If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything.
To err is human, to blame someone else shows good management skills.
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #47 on: August 17, 2009, 02:22:01 AM »

Incidentally, I never said that the current proposal would have members elect squadron commanders.  That is what I said we should start with. 

You know, get a kick out of CAP people who get mad at me for introducing concepts and ideas that work in CG Aux as something that might benefit CAP while at the same time I get grief from Auxies about bringing some CAP concepts to them.

Broadly speaking, there are good ideas everywhere and we should always be on the lookout for them, no matter where they come from.  A mindset that resists change only because we've always done things that way is not good for any organization.

I suspect Sparky will change his mind about how our leaders are selected after he gets fired a few times due to the whims of his commander for issues having nothing to do with what I suspect is the outstanding job he does for his unit. 

Incidentally, the quickest way to get yourself fired is to advocate for some kind of innovation or change in how we do business.  New ideas are not welcomed in CAP.  That isn't unique to CAP, but no organization really ever wants to change.  People like the status quo even if it makes no sense and has no real justification.
Report to moderator   Logged
heliodoc
Suspended

Posts: 945

« Reply #48 on: August 17, 2009, 03:13:55 AM »

18d

Make sure Wing CAP Safety Officers and their Sqdn counterparts ATTEND a 2 week Army or AF Safety School TAUGHT by the REAL thing.  Make NHQ and the Wing PAY for it!!!

With ALLLLL the personal responsibility issues being thrown around this forum...then it is time CAP OWES up to itself and sends the "Safety Leadership" to a properly accredited military or civilian school on NHQ or Wing dime

The ORM and Safety online culture has to be reigned by PROPER and REAL ACCREDITATION... 

The CAP 'leadership" ought to know this already......
Report to moderator   Logged
Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,214

« Reply #49 on: August 17, 2009, 03:39:43 AM »

   I think voting should be limited to senior members and not be open to cadets.

Cuz, they are not really members, right?

They don't pay dues?

Hmmm, since cadets subsidize the rest of the corporation (and not the other way around), maybe the seniors are the ones who should be denied the franchise.

Not a single one of the abuses at the national level in the last 15 years have involved cadets. 


No wonder some would deny their rights.

Ned Lee

[edit -spelling]
« Last Edit: August 17, 2009, 03:49:06 AM by Ned » Report to moderator   Logged
heliodoc
Suspended

Posts: 945

« Reply #50 on: August 17, 2009, 03:46:41 AM »

Cadets through some of their parents can vote with their dinero

Some in CAP, once again, think its some fraternal organization open to the few...

Got news for a few of you...Cadets are the future of CAP although no right away, some do come back to this dysfunctional program rife with wanna be 39-1 uniform nazi operators and online computer literate and some time not practical thinking folks who think the Natl Board can go  ahead and plod ahead without thinking of the ENTIRE CAP

Cadets are the future of CAP and hopefully the ones that read this forum remember this and start looking at the future of CAP when they can vote. 
Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #51 on: August 17, 2009, 03:49:12 AM »

Just like kids under 18 are citizens but are not allowed to vote. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,214

« Reply #52 on: August 17, 2009, 03:51:35 AM »

Just like kids under 18 are citizens but are not allowed to vote.

Oddly enough, this is not a governmental issue.  Members of a corporation get to vote on corporate issues.  Minors who own stock get to vote on corporate issues.

"No taxation without representation."

Ring a bell?

It's not that hard.

Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #53 on: August 17, 2009, 03:57:56 AM »

You're right, its not that hard.  We prohibit cadets from doing an awful lot in CAP solely because of their age and the level of maturity that generally goes along with it.  So, I wouldn't have a problem restricting them from this activity as well. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,214

« Reply #54 on: August 17, 2009, 04:18:09 AM »

You're right, its not that hard.  We prohibit cadets from doing an awful lot in CAP solely because of their age and the level of maturity that generally goes along with it.  So, I wouldn't have a problem restricting them from this activity as well.

Really?

We have cadet Mission pilots and GTLs.

We have cadets that supervise hundreds of other members and are responsible for budgets and planning.

Hmmmm.

What is it that they cannot do, except serve on the NB?



And what would be your reasoning for denying the vote the cadets over the age of 18?




Well, it's nice that you "wouldn't have a problem restricting them from this activity as well."

Perhaps they will return the favor, and restrict  you from all that responsiblity.   :D

Remember, NOTHING in the agenda proposal talks about restricting cadets from the vote.  If it passes as written, the cadets will take substantial responsibility for corporate governance.
Report to moderator   Logged
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,680

« Reply #55 on: August 17, 2009, 04:19:51 AM »

Why not just have appointed officers who are not required to make anyone below them "happy".  Maybe we can hire leaders who follow the regulations.   One of the main complaints everyone has about CAP politics is that there is too much retaliation.  Because the National CC has to control his wing and region appointees to insure that his platform and goals are reached.

If in stead we had a BoG that gave us our goals and platform and hired someone who can get it done.  Abolish the NB and allow national HQ to write regulations that make sense and issue them out in a timely manner.

90% of the stuff on this agenda should be covered in a staff meeting where the National CC tasks his staff officers to come up with a recommendation. He reviews it and then signs the changes to the reguation.  They then post the changes and it gets done.

Instead we get to argue about it in the NB something may or may not get decided then we have to wait six months for the minutes to be approved then maybe someon will write the appropriate regulation...it goes out for comments and then it is back to NB for final pproval.

This is one of the problems of leadership by commmittee.

I haveno problem with having "no voice" in my organisation.  I work with my leadership who may or may not listen to my opinion and we work together to get the job done.

Electing our wing CC's by the general membership will only turn the us vs them mentality most states already have into a major political issue.  Then when the wrong guy gets elected We will have squadrons and members activelly working against the "current adminstartation" to make their side look better in the next election.


Then we add the little gem where important wing postions are given to political supporters instead of competant officers.

Does anyone really want this?  I mean we have had such good luck with national commanders lately we should just use the same model all the way down to our squadrons and heck flight and element leaders.

This in not a slight on the CGAUX but just because it works for them does not mean it will work everywhere.  And I have been on some of those CGAUX boards and there are a lot of people who don't like the way they select their leaders.

There are lots of models we can choose from.  One of them is the USAF model where our leaders are suggested by the USAF and confirmed by congress.  Well let the national CC/region/wing submit a list of names to the BoG and there you go.   Let the BoG selct people based on skills and not political reliabilty.
Report to moderator   Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Pacific Region
ZigZag911
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,987

« Reply #56 on: August 17, 2009, 09:00:13 PM »

You do all recognize that CAP is already thouroughly politicized at all echelons, down into the cadet ranks, where the 'burning issue' tends to become who Will be flight sergeant?

I'm not sure elections are the answer, but our "corporate model" is not working all that well in many instances.

Perhaps some sort of screening process similar to RM promotion  boards would be the ticket. Have some involvement by AF reservists, region liaison, CAP-USAF (depending on level of command involved) to introduce a note of professionalism and objectivity -- along with CAP members on these review boards, of course.

The board could present the appointing commander with a "short list" of those eligible for the job. Recently the NER CC job drew about 8 applicants; using this as a hypothetical example, the board could have presented Gen Courter with top three, from whom she would have made her final selection.

This might describe the process used....I'd simply like to see it more transparent, involve AF personnel, and more representation of the grass roots members on these boards.

Report to moderator   Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,978

« Reply #57 on: August 17, 2009, 10:25:53 PM »

Quote
Perhaps some sort of screening process similar to RM promotion  boards would be the ticket. Have some involvement by AF reservists, region liaison, CAP-USAF (depending on level of command involved) to introduce a note of professionalism and objectivity -- along with CAP members on these review boards, of course.

Personally, I wouldn't object to a hard core model along those lines but only if also linked a regular evaluation process in which folks would lose their jobs for non-performance on critical issues.  We're starting to have the sort of tools that would make some objective evaluations possible, but aren't there yet.

But I think it even less likely to occur that some form of democratic process.  As I said earlier, it takes an awful lot for a commander to get fired in CAP.  That being the case quality does not rise to the top since good folks don't always get the chance to perform due to a mediocre commander above them who does just enough to keep the job. 
Report to moderator   Logged
DG
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 502

« Reply #58 on: August 17, 2009, 10:42:08 PM »

Here is the agenda.  Courtesy of your friendly national finance officer :)

Thank you, Colonel.
Report to moderator   Logged
AirDX
Seasoned Member

Posts: 483
Unit: PCR-WI-049

« Reply #59 on: August 18, 2009, 02:05:35 AM »

Ummm Yeah, 18a will never fly with MaBlue....

And thank God for that.  I hope the NB unanimously votes this one back into the murk from which it came.
Report to moderator   Logged

Believe in fate, but lean forward where fate can see you.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: 2009 National Board Agenda
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.067 seconds with 26 queries.
click here to email me