CAP Budget Funding Woes?

RADIOMAN015 · December 16, 2009, 10:27:53 PM

The BOG minutes of December 2008, showed that CAP was expecting a $4.4M cut in it's operating budget. It was also presented that the aircraft fleet would be reduced by more than 100 aircraft.

My understanding is that cadet orientation flights have been severely cut, but at squadron level, no one really knows that status of the AF support budget for CAP and how it will affect us.

Anyone have the latest news on where we are with AF funding?
RM

jimmydeanno · December 16, 2009, 10:33:03 PM

I think that we'll have a better picture when the defense budget for FY10 is approved. Until then it is just speculation.

That 4.4 million is what I have heard as well, but there's also news that we've some support on getting it restored.

Smokey · December 16, 2009, 10:40:04 PM

I heard on the radio today that the Senate is supposed to deal with the DOD budget before Christmas. Maybe (ha ha) they really will take a break from Obamacare and get down to important stuff like the Defense budget.

RiverAux · December 16, 2009, 11:11:02 PM

The Dec 2008??? meeting? Sort of old news, isn't it?

Short Field · December 17, 2009, 12:09:19 AM

Quote from: Smokey on December 16, 2009, 10:40:04 PM
I heard on the radio today that the Senate is supposed to deal with the DOD budget before Christmas. Maybe (ha ha) they really will take a break from Obamacare and get down to important stuff like the Defense budget.

The Defense budget is almost always the last budget bill passed since it is a "must pass" bill and affords lawmakers lots of opportunities to add their pet projects and charities to it.

Tubacap · December 17, 2009, 03:00:02 AM

Having actually read through some of the Defense Reauthorization Acts of recent years, it is very interesting what is in those bills. It almost doesn't look like it has much to do with DoD.

NCRblues · December 17, 2009, 03:37:37 AM

Discovered some pork barrel funds have you?

Phil Hirons, Jr. · December 17, 2009, 03:03:26 PM

Quote from: NCRblues on December 17, 2009, 03:37:37 AM
Discovered some pork barrel funds have you?

More like you have to discover the DOD spending.

RADIOMAN015 · December 21, 2009, 01:18:30 AM

Good news, just got a message sent to all wing members from our wing commander that CAP's funds as part of the DOD budget was reinstated by congress:

Sec. 8025. (a) Of the funds made available in this Act, not less than
$33,756,000 shall be available for the Civil Air Patrol Corporation, of
which--

(1) $26,433,000 shall be available from ``Operation and Maintenance, Air
Force'' to support Civil Air Patrol Corporation operation and maintenance,
readiness, counterdrug activities, and drug demand reduction activities
involving youth programs;

(2) $6,426,000 shall be available from ``Aircraft Procurement, Air
Force''; and

(3) $897,000 shall be available from ``Other Procurement, Air Force''
for vehicle procurement.

(b) The Secretary of the Air Force should waive reimbursement for any
funds used by the Civil Air Patrol for counter-drug activities in support of
Federal, State, and local government agencies.
RM

RiverAux · December 21, 2009, 02:34:16 AM

Does part b mean that the AF can't require local governments to reimburse the AF for the cost of CD flights? Didn't know that was something that had to be renewed annually.

FYI, this does represent a cut -- the CAP 2008 annual report had us with 35 million in Congressional funds. Don't know what we had in 09.

FW · December 21, 2009, 01:03:09 PM

In FY 2008, we received about $33 million from congress. In FY 2009 it was almost $37 million.
You figure out if we went up or down.....

RiverAux · December 21, 2009, 09:38:49 PM

hmm, no comm or vehicle procurement?

FW · December 21, 2009, 10:00:53 PM

^comm procurement is in the budget as a line item or end of year purchase. vehicles are included as stated above. However, how did the contract for the vehicles go to a member's employer? CAP and DoDgars prohibit a member from profiting. I'd love to get an answer to this.....

RiverAux · December 21, 2009, 10:04:13 PM

oops, missed that vehicle line.

Where does it say that the vehicle contact is going to anyone in particular?

FW · December 21, 2009, 10:30:13 PM

I know people who know people.....

This could be more than interesting...

davidsinn · December 22, 2009, 04:42:03 PM

Quote from: FW on December 21, 2009, 10:00:53 PM
^comm procurement is in the budget as a line item or end of year purchase. vehicles are included as stated above. However, how did the contract for the vehicles go to a member's employer? CAP and DoDgars prohibit a member from profiting. I'd love to get an answer to this.....

Was said member in a position to effect negotiations?

FW · December 22, 2009, 04:53:43 PM

^from what I know; yes. However, it should not matter. The regulations governing contracts and, bidding on them, are specific. NO MEMBER MAY PROFIT on any action. We are volunteers, do not get paid and, we are not to influence the bidding process (especially) when govt. funds are involved (we are talking about $900k). That is against the law (FWA). I think we have some very embarrassed NHQ employees right now, as they may have had the wool draped over their eyes.

davidsinn · December 22, 2009, 05:57:55 PM

Quote from: FW on December 22, 2009, 04:53:43 PM
^from what I know; yes. However, it should not matter. The regulations governing contracts and, bidding on them, are specific. NO MEMBER MAY PROFIT on any action. We are volunteers, do not get paid and, we are not to influence the bidding process (especially) when govt. funds are involved (we are talking about $900k). That is against the law (FWA). I think we have some very embarrassed NHQ employees right now, as they may have had the wool draped over their eyes.

I could see a difference if it was Capt. Smith of Podunk Cadet Sqdn. vs Col. Peacock National-(pick your position) officer.

The first in my opinion wouldn't be an issue as we are bound to have volunteers that work at all of the major manufacturers. The second should get the full force of law thrown at them.

FW · December 22, 2009, 06:17:47 PM

LT, you are correct; to a point. If Capt Smith brought the contract to national and, did not disclose he/she would profit by it, we have FWA. If "National Motors", where Capt Smith worked, made a bid for the contract, there would not be a problem; unless Capt Smith drew up the contract and a commision was paid to Capt Smith (FWA again). The contract regulations for CAP are very specific and do need special skill in interpreting. The only reason I bring this forward is because I do have some experience with the regs and, the information given me came from involved individuals.

Until the matter is fully investigated, I don't know what the outcome of this will be. It is unfortunate however, this is a matter for discussion.

davidsinn · December 22, 2009, 06:36:07 PM

Quote from: FW on December 22, 2009, 06:17:47 PM
LT, you are correct; to a point. If Capt Smith brought the contract to national and, did not disclose he/she would profit by it, we have FWA. If "National Motors", where Capt Smith worked, made a bid for the contract, there would not be a problem; unless Capt Smith drew up the contract and a commision was paid to Capt Smith (FWA again). The contract regulations for CAP are very specific and do need special skill in interpreting. The only reason I bring this forward is because I do have some experience with the regs and, the information given me came from involved individuals.

Until the matter is fully investigated, I don't know what the outcome of this will be. It is unfortunate however, this is a matter for discussion.

I didn't consider all of those angles. You bring up good points. I hope this is something that comes out into the public eye and that person, if found guilty of wrong doing, is punished.