Should CAP-USAF State Directors Be Given More Authority/Power over CAP?

[RiverAux]

EVery once in a while we get people pining for the good old days when the Air Force supposedly had more control over CAP.  I think they often vastly overestimate how much control the AF actually had over day-to-day operations back then, but I get where they're coming from.

The most common contact CAP actually has with the Air Force is through the paid CAP-USAF civilian State Directors that are present in every Wing.  They do have a fair amount of say in CAP operations right now, particularly in regards to SAREX approval and logistics (If there are other examples of real authority SD have over CAP right now, I'd be interested in hearing of them).

However, I think there are some areas where it could potentially be beneficial both to CAP and the AF for SDs to have a little more authority.  Granted, there would need to be a lot of paperwork changes (possible including changes to federal law) to do any of this, but it could be done.   

The most important area where I would like to see SDs involved is membership termination.  I would like to see them have to concur with any termination action before it becomes final.  While our current system has been slightly improved in this area by the creation of the MARB, I think the addition of an impartial observer could have a dampening effect on those who might go to termination without a really good reason. 

Secondly, I think that it might not be a bad idea to involve SDs in the ES qualification process.  I'm not sure that we need to have them approving quals, but I think it would be a good idea to give them some authority to at least temporarily yank qualifications or prohibit participation in AFAMs of those who they see acting improperly, unsafely, or who just don't know what they're doing. 

I'm a little hesitant to suggest this given my loud opinions on their knowledge of ground SAR work and training in particular, but I think if they had more of a stake in that issue, many would learn what they need to really judge folks.  Again, it is the fact that they can act as impartial observers outside our system that might put a little check on the tendency to all-out pencilwhip quals or more commonly, only sort of try to meet the standards. 

There may be some other areas where SDs might be helpful as well. 

[Eclipse]

The cable's completely out, then?

[RiverAux]

The mind is always churning...

[lordmonar]

Who says the SD's are impartial?

In my experince they can be just as involved in wing politics as the volunteer leadership.

[Rotorhead]

The cable's completely out, then?

These posts remind me of NASCAR talk radio. Every other caller has a "great idea" about a rule change that would greatly improve the sport, if only the sanctioning body would just listen...

[Spike]

Let me ask......when was the last time you saw (anyone saw) a State Director.  Years ago we had Liaisons in EACH Wing, who actually did have a say in daily operations.  Today there are some SD's who cover two wings.  PA and New Jersey come to mind (talking about PA Wing in another thread with FW), both wings being fairly larger than most other wings, and a greater square mileage mass than some wings who only have one SD.

The whole system needs redone, not just the SD, but the Air Force actually creating a vision and mission for CAP in the future. 

We seem to be in some sort of weird limbo, where no one really knows what, how, where and when CAP should be doing things.  We are Aux ON/OFF, A Cadet program that has multiple simultaneous cadet programs each with different needs running (SEP, etc) and nothing from either the AF or CAP NHQ stating where they would like to see the organization in the next year, 10 years and 25 years.

We are now at the edge and need some guidance from someone, anyone to show us where to move to.

I feel (personally) we can get rid of State Directors all together and just use the CAP-USAF Region personell for our needs.  That would save tax dollars, and eliminate one USAF level CAP needs to go through before getting approval from CAP-USAF Region Commanders.

Maybe I am just to tired right now to think straight, but I met my SD about 5 years ago, never saw him since, and wonder how he has kept the same job for over 7 years, after serving 30 in the AD Air Force and retiring as a Lt Col.  Is he not past retirement age for FED Service??

Instead of giving SD more power, lets let the AF decide what to do with their civilian workforce.  I forsee a budget cut(s) that actually may result in the elimination of a fairly large amount of CAP-USAF staff in the future anyway.

[Eclipse]

Let me ask......when was the last time you saw (anyone saw) a State Director.

We share an office, and speak 2-3 times a week.

He presented an Eaker to one of my cadets last Wednesday.  He is very active in my wing as well as the region, and the same goes for other SD's in my region. 

The SD's are an important part of our operations.  There's no way to give them more authority without fairly significant changes to the structure of the program, but I would say most of us would be better off if we took some advice and guidance from them more often.

[Cecil DP]

The most important area where I would like to see SDs involved is membership termination.  I would like to see them have to concur with any termination action before it becomes final.  While our current system has been slightly improved in this area by the creation of the MARB, I think the addition of an impartial observer could have a dampening effect on those who might go to termination without a really good reason. 

The concurrance and appeal authority on membership terminations is at the Wing and Region level. Let's not invent a new wheel. The SD's job is to see that the Wing gets Air Force Support and utiliizes Government assets in accordance to regulation. Getting involeved with the Corporate side, when generally the SD's are usually not members of CAP, (It's a conflict of interest), is not an appropriate use of his time, or abilities and again it crosses the line between CAP and CAP-USAF, which are two seperate entities. 

[Al Sayre]

I'm sure it varies from Wing to Wing, but I see our State Director fairly frequently and talk to him almost daily on the phone.  I don't think they want or need the extra workload proposed, and also believe they provide a necessary link between the Wing/Squadrons and the USAF that could not be done at the Region lLevel simply because of the number of individuals involved below them.

[FW]

State Directors will not get involved in volunteer affairs (officially).  Their function is, as CecilDP has said, oversight and assistance in obtaining AF services/assets for the wing and its units.  Membership affairs will always be left to the members with oversight by the BoG (MARB). 

I seriously doubt this is going to change in any major form for a long, long time.

However, I would love to see SDs have more authority from the AF to coordinate airlift, assets and reserve mandays for wings.  Wouldn't it be great to have transportation to NB meetings, encampments and NCSAs, like back in the "good old days" 

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Too bad we can't get those 52 LOs and 52 LNCOs back. It's also too bad we can't expand the Air Force presence at NHQ again.

It's also too bad we're the flip-a-switch auxiliary. I tend to think that was a self-inflicted injury.

CAP can be so much more, if some necessary reforms are made, whether it's making the organization more politics-proof, bringing the Air Force presence back to 1980s levels, whatever.

[brasda91]

Let me ask......when was the last time you saw (anyone saw) a State Director.

Just about anytime I go to Wing HQ for training.  Not to mention the weekly visit by one of our AF Reserve guys who lives here in town.  He's just as much a part of our squadron as our regular members.  He's on my e-mail list.  Every e-mail that goes out to the squadron, he gets the e-mail too.

[RiverAux]

I fully understand that major changes would need to be made to give SDs more authority (as I stated in the original post).  But the fact that such changes would be difficult, doesn't necessarily preclude them from being made. 

I really am surprised that PA and NJ share a SD.  If one person is adequately covering two such large wings right now, we could probably cut our number of SDs in half since the workload in many states is likely to be much less.  (Assuming we stay with our current system). 

[FW]

As time goes by, we will probably see a decrease in the number of SDs because of the great job we do in Finance (WIMRS and CMX)and, soon, in logistics (ORM).  Oversite of these 2 items constitute the bulk of their duties.  CAP-USAF now just reviews the finance part and, after a few years of breaking in the ORM program, will use it to review logistics complience. 

It's hard to believe we've come this far.  It was only about 10 years ago things were soooo bad the FBI and OSI swooped down on us and....

[bosshawk]

Since you are talking about SDs being shared by two states, how about Oregon and Washington, they have one SD between the two of them.  There are times when a state the size of CA could use two SDs.

[Mustang]

It's also too bad we're the flip-a-switch auxiliary. I tend to think that was a self-inflicted injury.

Tend to think?  It was entirely self-inflicted!  And we have Jay Bobick to thank! 

[FW]

^OK, I would love to hear an explanation of that statement.
From what I remember, it wasn't Jay's fault the events leading to the total reorganization of CAP came to pass.  It started with a "white paper" in the pentagon......  

Of course we are now going off topic 

[RiverAux]

Not entirely.  A lot of what SDs are doing now relating to property management oversight can be traced back to those late 1990s issue.  However, the Aux On/Aux Off thing wasn't what caused the problems. 

[FW]

Actually, the transistion from LO's to SD's had to do with AF budgetary issues.  For a short time, SD's were corporate employees reporting to the CAP-USAF/CC.  That did not work too well and the present system was put in place. 

In either case however, the responsibility of the wing LO and the SD are basicly the same; oversite of property management and assets, as well as AF support to the wing.  The difference is the civilian status and personell stability in the position.

[JCJ]

The Air Force Leadership (at least through the CAP-USAF level) doesn't want to be involved in our membership & other issues.  It is outside the mainstream of their role and frankly they are so strapped for resources right now that adding those tasks would adversely impact other ways in which they are very helpful to us (such as arranging military support for our activities, etc).  The laiison regions used to have three AD officers assigned, they now have two due to budget cuts.  As AD Air Force units, they participate in augmentation deployment schedue for OIF & OEF just like the rest of big blue.  At least one AD CAP-USAF Liaison Region officer is currently deployed (teaching student pilots of the host nation's air force to fly).

The current CAP-USAF leadership has been very supportive of our taking over more duties that they traditionally have done, as long as it is allowable and they can maintain oversight for their own accountability.  An example is logistics and logistics freezes.  The traditional approach is that the CAP-USAF Region did survey audits, imposed and removed logistics freezes and the like.  They have approved a program for CAP to take over those functions provided that they maintain oversight and retain the authority to act if we don't act in the way we need to.  In summary, they don't seem to want to take over more of our role, they seem to want us to do more of it but ensure that we do it right (at least at the leadership level - individual opinions of SD's may differ, but I think the individual SD's in my region are personally in agreement with this philosophy as well.

My understanding of the airlift issue is that they are so committed to real world missions (particularly OIF & OEF) that the resources just aren't there to support us right now.  I am told that if you have an ANG airlift unit that they may have some flexibility to fly training missions that just happen to coincide with your airlift needs if you coordinate far enough in advance.  Many SD's are retired from bases near where they currently work & often still have the connections to work these issues which I think is an advantage of our current SD program.