Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 26, 2019, 06:26:37 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: Starting Anew -- How Should CAP Be Governed?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] Send this topic Print
Author Topic: Starting Anew -- How Should CAP Be Governed?  (Read 14195 times)
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,601
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #100 on: December 27, 2009, 01:52:10 AM »

I think manyof you guys are much more knowledgeable about the inner workings of CAP than I am. You guys get deep into the weeds. I am just a volunteer that wants to make a difference. Many of you have actually sat down and taken time out to read the CAP Constitution and By laws. My time just doesnt permit me to do that. Maybe when i am older and retired I could find the time.

That's interesting. I read them the first time as a cadet, and subsequently when turning SM, and upon reaffiliating after lapses in participation. They are a bit dry, but provide groundwork for everything else we do. Now that you be on wing staff, you should have an even better understanding of what's in there.

YMMV.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
flyguy06
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,195

« Reply #101 on: December 27, 2009, 02:36:05 AM »

When I say "they don't care", I dint mean it in a malass way. I mean that we have other priorities in our lives. For me anyway and for most in my squadron. CAP is something we do when we have the time to do it. Many members have families, jobs, and other commitments. Sure the enjoy CAP, but its not their life. If they have spouses and kids and a mortgage, CAP is probably down there on the list of priorities to worry about. We don't have time to worry about all the scandals happening at wing and national. We just want to enjoy the organization. It wasn't until I started coming here that I actually looked at the agenda for NB meetings. b4,I never really thought about it. There is only one other member in my squadron that actually looks at this stuff. Heck, my commander doesn't even know about most of this stuff. I guarantee my squadron commander does not know who the Region Commander is. He knows the wing and national commander though. I had to tell him when we got a new National Commander. he doesn't keep up with that stuff. and neither do most of our members. They dint keep up with when NB or NEC meetings are or whats on the agenda for said meetings. that's not really our lane. I mean to say it bluntly, we have other priorities in our lives. like feeding our kids and paying the mortgage and keeping our job.

Its not that we dint think these things are important but you have to put it in perspective. I probably spend $2000 a year doing CAP stuff. but its stuff that affect my immediate environment. I drive cadets to O rides and other activities. I drive to SARex's, I fly the CAP planes. These things I enjoy spending my time with because I see the end results right away. Worrying about whats agenda number 5 on the NB agenda isn't something I can effect. 

Sure,I have thought about holding a postion that would put me on the NB (maybe) but that is wayyyyyy in the future. I wouldn't even consider it unless my civilian life gave me the time. so right now I worry aboutwhat I can effect. And that is at the local level.
Report to moderator   Logged
Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,214

« Reply #102 on: December 27, 2009, 03:34:55 AM »

Guys,

Topic please.

Here's a question to help:

In a non-profit corporation of our size (<200 employees, 55, 000 members, $30 (?) million budget) how big should the board of directors be?

What is the optimum number for good governance?  Larger boards allow for more direct representation of members and stakeholders, additional input and outside life experience from board members, etc.  Smaller boards are more agile and efficient.

From the CAP context, the use of commanders plus a few HQ staffers as the NB is largely a historical accident.  After all, why should the NDWG commander have exactly the same power and influence as the CAWG commander? 

Just in terms of "best practices" in the nonprofit world, what is the ideal board size?
Report to moderator   Logged
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,681

« Reply #103 on: December 27, 2009, 03:45:43 AM »

I think the BoG should have 15 people on it.

The Chairman appointed by SAF
National CC as CEO--selected by the board
National Director as CFO--selcted by the board
8 Members representing the 8 regions
4 Member representing SAF
« Last Edit: December 27, 2009, 03:52:57 AM by MIKE » Report to moderator   Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Pacific Region
flyboy53
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 917

« Reply #104 on: December 27, 2009, 02:01:51 PM »

Agree. Do you realize that you've put an Air Force officer back at the helm (if appointed by the SAF)?  You do realize that from the Air Force's perspective, the comander of CAP-USAF, is the program manger? I wonder if the answer was to give him more power? I wonder if that would heal a lot of things.
Report to moderator   Logged
BillB
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,987

« Reply #105 on: December 27, 2009, 04:02:25 PM »

Also you have moved most of the NEC to the BoG.
Report to moderator   Logged
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,681

« Reply #106 on: December 27, 2009, 06:43:02 PM »

Also you have moved most of the NEC to the BoG.

I'm sorry I was not clear.

The BoG reps are eleceted by the members of the region.  The NB and NEC disappear and the return to being Regional and Wing Commanders.

Top down leadership.
Report to moderator   Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Pacific Region
ZigZag911
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,987

« Reply #107 on: December 27, 2009, 07:09:29 PM »

SECAF would not be required to appoint an active duty or retired USAF member as CAP BOG Chair...could be a former legislator, someone from education or aerospace community, even a distinguished CAP member (not serving as a commander or corporate officer simultaneously).

However: BOG's purpose, as I understand it, is oversight and policy in the broadest sense -- still need day to day senior level decision making.

I may have said this previously:

CAP operating board should be a modified version of NEC:

Nat'l CC, CV, CS
8 region CCs
CAP-USAF CC (advisor/non-voting)
CAP Exec Director (secretary/non-voting)

11 voting members, selected thus:
Nat'l CC: selected by BOG from list of 3 officers (present/former wing or region CCs) submitted  by CAP NB (new style); approved by SECAF

Nat'l CV & CS -- nominated by Nat'l CC, confirmed by BOG

Region CCs -- nominated by Nat'l CC, confirmed by BOG

*******************************************************
Wing CCs -- still corporate officers, not board members; nominated by region CC with concurrence of USAF region LR CC; confirmed by CAP Nat'l Board.
Report to moderator   Logged
Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,214

« Reply #108 on: December 27, 2009, 08:07:31 PM »

CAP operating board should be a modified version of NEC:

Nat'l CC, CV, CS
8 region CCs
CAP-USAF CC (advisor/non-voting)
CAP Exec Director (secretary/non-voting)

11 voting members,

Out of curiosity, why would the CV and CS have voting rights?  As the only two "non-commanders" on the board, they seem the "odd man out" so to speak.  Sure, they undoubtedly bring wisdom and experience to the board, but why these two?

Not criticizing, just trying to understand . . . .
Report to moderator   Logged
RADIOMAN015
Banned

Posts: 1,990

« Reply #109 on: December 27, 2009, 08:10:18 PM »

I think the BoG should have 15 people on it.

The Chairman appointed by SAF
National CC as CEO--selected by the board
National Director as CFO--selcted by the board
8 Members representing the 8 regions
4 Member representing SAF
One governing board only -- I think it is important to have at least the same number of "outside" board members as "insiders", to include the requirement of having some pure civilians (not high ranking retired military generals) also on the board with significant experience in the aerospace industry as well as non profit volunteer organization management.  The Commander CAP-USAF should also have a specific advisory role, as well as the Exceutive Director of CAP.  Oher corporate officers could also be utilized as functional expert advisors to the board
Additionally, Each region commander would have a separate regional advisory board, consisting of the wing commanders within each region, that would be asked to comment/vote on proposed policy changes and there regional commanders would be required to present the results of their voting within each region.
Having three boards right now, really slows down the process significantly.
RM
Report to moderator   Logged
Major Carrales
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,106

« Reply #110 on: December 27, 2009, 08:23:11 PM »

Not criticizing, just trying to understand . . . .

Feel free to criticize, that is where proposed programs are returned to the realm of reality.

This is also a reply to Major Harris' post of a few back.

Yes, these are "pipe dreams," but if they are to be of any use to us for any purpose, they must be tempered by Devil's Advocacy and "opposing view."  That is the true purpose of the "other side," not merely to behave as "democrats" and "republicans" holding up "agendas," but to run the proposal through the metaphorical wringer so we can have more than just a "pipe dream."

That is why I try to burst the "bubbles" y'all blow for us.  Because, when the time comes, there will be an un-burstable bubble that will work for all of us.  Until then, feel free to criticize, smash, logically berate and hammer these proposals until all there is left is the shatterproof.

I know the idea of actually running or implementing the programs y'all present is not as easy as walking the primrose path...is not the implementation of any of this the objective?  If not its a waste of time, as was once told to me about designing uniforms, better spent "organizing a shadow box."  (to quote someone who felt it necessary  to use that insulting reference to me)
Report to moderator   Logged
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454
ZigZag911
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,987

« Reply #111 on: December 28, 2009, 05:27:22 PM »

CAP operating board should be a modified version of NEC:

Nat'l CC, CV, CS
8 region CCs
CAP-USAF CC (advisor/non-voting)
CAP Exec Director (secretary/non-voting)

11 voting members,

Out of curiosity, why would the CV and CS have voting rights?  As the only two "non-commanders" on the board, they seem the "odd man out" so to speak.  Sure, they undoubtedly bring wisdom and experience to the board, but why these two?

Not criticizing, just trying to understand . . . .

Just what you said, 'wisdom & experience', since it's likely these officers would have served as region or at least wing CCs previously...to make sure that there is a core of board members whose job it is to look at the 'big picture'.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: Starting Anew -- How Should CAP Be Governed?
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.069 seconds with 26 queries.