Should the NEC be abolished or its powers cut back?

[RiverAux]

According to the CAP Constitution the National Excecutive Committee has full authority to do almost everything the National Board can do whenever the NB is not in session.  Presumably this was set up so that actions could be taken in urgent situations without having to gather the 60+ people on the NB. 

While I cannot think of an example of this happening, it does set up the potential for either the NB reversing an NEC decision or the NEC reversing a NB decision since neither is "superior" to the other.  Of course the Board of Governors can overrule both of them. 

But, I question the need for the NEC in today's world.  Through the use of email and other forms of electronic communication as well as conference calls it certainly is possible for the entire NB to discuss and vote on really urgent issues without the need to meet in person. 

That being the case, should we entirely dissolve the NEC as a governing body? 

Or, since there may be some value in keeping this particular group of leaders in place, perhaps we keep it, but make it only an advisory board with no governing powers.

Another alternative would be to let it keep some power to act for the NB, but only in emergency issues relating to safety or operations.

Of course, we could stay the same. 

[jimmydeanno]

In all honesty, I would be more in favor of the elimination of the National Board than the NEC.

I can not think of another corporation that has 60+ members of its governing body.  I work for a for-profit, private company, that has ~30K employees and only has 12 board members/corporate officers.

I see the value in creating the NEC as a smaller, more manageable governing body, but think that our current organization of governance is bloated and redundant.  We have a 60+ member governing body that has the same authorities as the smaller NEC, but both of whom are trumped by the BoG.  Either of the bodies can overturn each other's decisions at will.  To me it creates an atmosphere of indecision and miscommunication. 

I think that the NB, because of its size and representation, ends up spending a lot of time in the minutia of our organization - ribbons, badges, uniform issues, t-shirts, etc and ignores  (puts significantly less emphasis on) more important issues like creating a brand for our organization, marketing, financial stability of the corporate revenue stream, etc.  Pretty much all those things that a corporate officer is supposed to be responsible for....

So, as it stands, I would be in favor of the following:

Board of Governors as it currently exists.
National Executive Committee renamed to be the National Board
Current National Board members (corporate officers) not on the NEC become part of their respective NEC representatives advisory board/committee.

[MIGCAP]

NEC should only come into play when NB cannot be conviened in person, electronically (email or dedicated secure web site), or via telecon. NEC members should be elected by their region wing and region commanders, (1 per region) with National CC, or Vice.
NEC should only be empowered to make emergency changes based on a very real need. All decisions of the NEC would only stand until the next Ntional Board meeting, and then would have to be voted on by the full board.

[FW]

Since the Board of Governors is the governing body of CAP, I really don't have an opinion on this however, if we consider the NB to be a board of "delegates" as, in most national professional organizations; to raise issues and form policies for membership practices, I say, keep the NB.

If we contain the NEC to deal with budgetary and affairs/issues dealing more broad based; ie. asset allocation, I say keep the NEC.  I even would approve of dealing with other issues which may come up that doesn't require the forming of the entire NB. (it better be time critical and important)

[c172drv]

I'd agree that there probably needs to be a more streamlined body to make decisions.  Having watch a few NB meetings there is a lot lossed.  I would be in favor of putting most things in the hands of a smaller group but large items bringing in the full group for a directive vote.

[lordmonar]

I would eliminate both the NEC and the NB and put the power in the BoG.  Wing and regional commanders should still meet periodically to discuss issues and carry out the will of the BoG.

[JoeTomasone]

NEC remade to consist of CAP/CC & CV + Region Commanders; essentially an advisory committee, forwarding proposals to BoG and carrying out BoG decisions.  However, they would have the authority to act in large-scale emergency/crisis/safety situations (this provision to be refined if/when I decide on language I prefer).     Essentially, they provide strategic input and have general tactical powers, plus overseeing day-to-day operations.

BoG makes the decisions from a long-term, strategic point of view -- uniforms, changes to the organizational structure, etc, with input and advice from the NEC.

[FW]

The BoG already has the "power" to do anything it wishes regarding governance of CAP.  However, the board is not set up to manage the membership on a day to day basis. 

They have already decided to deal with certain issues and delegate the rest to the NEC/NB.  I seriously doubt if they want to take the time to plunge into the daily management of the membership.  Remember they only meet 2x yearly and then, only for a few hours.

[FW]

I brought this up in another thread; section 14.8 of the CAP Bylaws gives the National Board the authority to limit what the NEC may "bring to the table" for business.   Since the NB has this authority, certain decisions it makes should stand as "final" and, be noted as such.  The question is; does the NB have the will to act?  It is important to repeat; when the National Board is in session, they act as a body of equals.

[Cecil DP]

The NEC is essentially a subcommitee of the National Board, as such it should only be meeting to consider immediate issues that are reserved to the NEC. But as has been noted previously, the NEC members appoint the National Board members so we have a conflict of complaining about NEC actions can result in a removal from office (it's happened often). 

[FW]

A tenured wing commander ( one who has made it past the probationary year) can not be successfully removed for voting on an issue.  Since 2000, no member of the NB has;  thanks to the MARB.

[High Speed Low Drag]

I will admit that when I came back to CAP, it was very confusing to understand the leadership structure.  As I have mentioned before, I was in CAP for 7 years during the '80s and still remember the structure then.  So with that experience, listening to people talk, and seeing thing done, I offer this.

Eliminate the NEC as a regularly meeting body.  Leave it as an emergency body that could be activated by 51% vote of NB (done electronically) to deal with specific events that, if action was not taken immediately, could adversely affect CAP.  With today's electronic communications, there is no reason that most things could not be handled by the NB remotely.  Issue comes up?  Notify all NB members to sign into to the secure web server and vote (using a password system) on an issue.  (It doesn't even have to be done at the same time - 24 or 48 hour window)  If this was done, I don't see why we could not even cut back the NB meetings to once a year.  But at the least, the NEC is a body that is no longer needed except in extreme cases.

[Major Carrales]

Let's see if we can enter some "political science" into this...

As you know there are three functions of governance, Legislative (those that make policy), Executive (those that enforce policy) and Judicial (those that serve as arbitrators of that policy)

Our structure does not specifically adhere to that in the most plain since.

Once might argue that the National Board is our Legislative Body (where policy is made in an organized fashion), the National Executive Committee would be an "Executive body" exercising some "executive powers" to make emergency actions when the larger body cannot be convened.

So where exists the judicial powers?  I submit that those powers, based on the current model exist as small functionality of both the NEC and NB (thus the power to cancel out each other actions), in the Board of Governors (to override all actions) or NOT AT ALL.

The Office of National Commander seems to be more like a "Speaker of the House" with a few extraordinary powers as a volunteer, National Board members, then are our Representatives championing the needs of their various Wings and Regions as well as being stewards of the "Greater CAP."

The National Executive Committee fills the role of the "Executive,"  save acting more like the "three man committee" that was popular during the drafting of the Federal Constitution in 1787. 

Complicating the issue further is CAP-USAF.  Their function seems to be to remind us that we are not an "independent" organization, but rather a part of a larger force.  Thus, our autonomy, is for internal CAP use only and, when that comes in conflict with the USAF paradigm, then the USAF is the Supreme Law of the Land.

[flyguy06]

I have never read the CAP Constitution or By laws nor has anyone in my squadron. Way above my pay level. I went to a National Board meeting once and it reminded me of a session of Congress. I dont really get into CAP at that high of level. I guess I should since I am moving up in the organization. Right now I am just having fun doing activities.

[ZigZag911]

Get rid of the National Board as it exists -- too big, too ponderous, too prone to micromanage, and inherently conflicted (members elect Nat'l CC!)

Keep NEC as main volunteer 'board'.

Have BOG choose Nat'l officers from a list of USAF vetted eligibles.

[Major Carrales]

Get rid of the National Board as it exists -- too big, too ponderous, too prone to micromanage, and inherently conflicted (members elect Nat'l CC!)

Keep NEC as main volunteer 'board'.

Have BOG choose Nat'l officers from a list of USAF vetted eligibles.

The Nature of the National Board should not be that of Micromanagement by definition.  They should have a fixed agenda (proposed and tweaked by staff until the legislative session) with issues related to CAP Policy the same way that the US Congress or a State Legislature would make policy for its membership.

the National Executive Committee should exist to "veto" issues or take action when the National Board is not in session.

I do not like the idea of some Board of Governors making policy and appointments with little firsthand knowledge of the daily running of CAP.  The National Board, made up of Wing and Region Commanders, have their hands on the pulse of CAP in their area. 

As for electing the National Commander, how does this differ from the Congress selecting the Speaker of the House?  The National Board operates as a legislative body and the National Commander is their choice.  What I would propose to remedy the situation you mention is a parliamentary action known as a VOTE of NO CONFIDENCE.  This would eliminate the issue that I believe clouds your judgment on the National Board. 

You work from the idea that the National Commander can replace members of the National Board to maintain power, and thus they are equal to "yes men" to retain their positions.  If you want that checked, give the National Board a Vote of No Confidence that would place the National Commander in a position to be objective and kept in line via that option.  If the situation is obvious, then the vote can be called and a simple majority can dispel or uphold the notion.

That, however, will not stop the political infighting or petty acts of vengeance and spite that are possible.   

[RiverAux]

I brought this up in another thread; section 14.8 of the CAP Bylaws gives the National Board the authority to limit what the NEC may "bring to the table" for business.   Since the NB has this authority, certain decisions it makes should stand as "final" and, be noted as such.  The question is; does the NB have the will to act?  It is important to repeat; when the National Board is in session, they act as a body of equals.

Thanks to FW for noting this bit of CAP constitutional law, which to some extent makes the question I asked at the beginning of the thread somewhat misplaced.  However, even with that added caveat it leaves open the possibility for potential turmoil between the NB and NEC even if the NB more or less has the final say in the matter. 

So, I'm sticking to my original position that the NEC's powers to change CAP regulations should be explicitly limited to only emergency and safety situations. 

[lordmonar]

I would like to see both the the NB and NEC abolished. 

The BoG should doing the bulk of the governing.  From there the give their guidance to NHQ who makes it happens.

What we call NB/NEC meetings should be just command staff meetings where differnt working groups are created and report to take care of specific projectst.

No voting!

[Major Carrales]

No voting!

You know, a while back people were asking for some sort of democracy in CAP.  I opposed and continue to oppose the open election of Wing/Region Commanders.  That woudl amplify the politics to crippling levels.

In this thread I have been working from the position of "political science," attempting to try to provide an understanding that would prevent NB and NEC rivalry in the context of CHECKS and BALANCES.

However, how would it be if we had a total military like command structure where the National Commander, elected by and from the Wing and Region Commander, answered only to the USAF? 

That would require the end of the "Corporation," which I suspect the NB and NEC are the result of. 

[NC Hokie]

As for electing the National Commander, how does this differ from the Congress selecting the Speaker of the House?

The Speaker of the House does not appoint (or dismiss) the same Members of Congress that have the responsibility for selecting him or her.