File #1312: "National Board Minutes_2011_03.pdf"

National Board Minutes_2011_03.pdf

PDF Text

Text

Civil Air Patrol
National Board
Minutes

4-5 March 2011
Washington DC

4-5 March 2011
Contents
OPEN SESSION
Reports
1.

Advisor, Executive, Staff and Committee Reports........................ Col Chazell....... 6

Action Agenda Items
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Approval of the September 2010 National Board Minutes ........... Col Chazell....... 7
Changes to the MARB.................................................................... Col Herrin....... 8
Conflict of Interest Policy ...................................................... Maj Gen Courter..... 10
Non-Disclosure Agreements ........................................................ Col Charles..... 16
Wreaths Across America ................................................................ Col Leclair..... 23
Non-CAP Passenger Approvals .................................................. Col Cahalen..... 27
Enhancement of eServices Capabilities ....................................... Col Sumner..... 30
Acute and Chronic Health Conditions .......................................... Col Chazell..... 33
Temporary Inactive Membership Status ...................................... Col Knowles..... 35
Reserve Membership ........................................... Col Moersch/Col Robinson..... 38

Old Business
12. A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.

Clarification of Training Regulation for the Wing At-Large Units ................. 42
Standardize Procedures through the use of Supplements
and Operating Procedures ........................................................................... 43
Suspension of Membership .......................................................................... 47
CAP Chaplain Qualifications ........................................................................ 51
Extension of Professional Appointments and Promotions to Include
Homeland Security and Emergency Management Professionals................. 55
High Performance Aircraft Checkout Requirements..................................... 58
Program Representation during Compliance Inspections ............................ 64
Governance Committee Report……. ........................................................... 67

New Business
13.
A.
B.
C.
D.

Commander’s Guide for Performance Improvement ........... Col Rushing..... 69
Governance Committee recommendation to BoG................ Col Sumner..... 69
Revisions to CAPR 900-5....................................................... Col Herrin..... 69
Air Force Sergeants Association Outstanding National
Cadet NCO of the Year Award ......................................... Brig Gen Carr..... 70

2

ATTEST:

OFFICIAL:

Barry S. Herrin
Colonel, CAP
National Legal Officer

Amy S. Courter
Major General, CAP
National Commander

3

CIVIL AIR PATROL
NATIONAL BOARD MEETING MINUTES
4-5 March 2011
Washington DC

OPEN SESSION
CALL TO ORDER ..................................................... Maj Gen Amy S. Courter, CAP
INVOCATION ............................................................ Ch, Col Whitson B. Woodard, CAP
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ...................................... CMSgt Lou Walpus, CAP
WELCOME................................................................ Maj Gen Amy S. Courter, CAP
ROLL CALL ............................................................... Mr. Don R. Rowland, HQ CAP/EX
INTRODUCTIONS .................................................... Maj Gen Amy S. Courter, CAP
SAFETY BRIEFING .................................................. Col Robert Diduch, CAP
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REMARKS........................ Mr. Don R. Rowland, HQ CAP/EX
CAP-USAF COMMANDER REMARKS..................... Col William R. Ward, USAF
NATIONAL COMMANDER REMARKS ..................... Maj Gen Amy S. Courter, CAP
SPECIAL GUEST REMARKS ................................... Maj Gen Amy S. Courter, CAP

NATIONAL BOARD
(As of 16 February 2011)

The National Board is comprised of the National Commander, National Vice Commander,
National Chief of Staff, National Finance Officer, National Legal Officer, National
Controller, National Inspector General, National Chief of Chaplains Corps, Commander,
CAP-USAF, the 8 region commanders, and 52 wing commanders.
NATIONAL OFFICERS
*Maj Gen Amy S. Courter, CAP
*Brig Gen Charles L. Carr, Jr., CAP
**Col William R. Ward, USAF
*Col Russell E. Chazell, CAP
*Col C. Warren Vest, CAP
*Col Barry S. Herrin, CAP
*Col William S. Charles, II, CAP
**Col Merle V. Starr, CAP
**Ch, Col Whitson B Woodard, CAP

Nat’l Commander
Nat’l Vice Commander
CAP-USAF Commander
Nat'l Chief of Staff
Nat'l Finance Officer
Nat'l Legal Officer
Nat'l Controller
Nat'l Inspector General
Chief Chap. Corps

MIDDLE EAST REGION
*Col Joseph R. Vazquez, CAP
Col Eugene L. Egry, III, CAP
Col John M. Knowles, CAP
Col Richard J. Cooper Jr., CAP
Col Roy W. Douglass, CAP
Col Hubbard J. Lindler Jr., CAP
Col David A. Carter, CAP
Col Dennis D. Barron, CAP

NORTHEAST REGION
*Col, Christopher J. Hayden CAP
Col Cassandra B. Hutchko, CAP
Col Daniel M. Leclair, CAP
Col William H. Meskill, CAP
Col William J. Moran, CAP
Col David L. Mull, CAP
Col Jack J. Ozer, CAP
Col Mark A. Lee, CAP
Col Bryan W. Cooper, CAP (Acting)
Col Thomas P. Benckert Jr., CAP

Region Commander
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont

Region Commander
Delaware
Maryland
National Capital
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia
West Virginia

GREAT LAKES REGION
*Col Robert M. Karton, CAP
Col Gordon A. Larson, CAP
Col Richard L. Griffith, CAP
Col Robert J. Koob, CAP
Col Leo J. Burke, CAP
Col David M. Winters, CAP
Col Clarence A. Peters, CAP

4

Region Commander
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Michigan
Ohio
Wisconsin

SOUTHEAST REGION
*Col James M. Rushing, CAP
Col Lisa C. Robinson, CAP
Col Christian F. Moersch, III, CAP
Col Tonya R. Boylan, CAP
Col Carlton R. Sumner, Jr., CAP
Col Rafael C. Roman, CAP
Col George B. Melton, CAP

ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION

Region Commander
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Mississippi
Puerto Rico
Tennessee

*Col Donald G. Cortum, CAP
Col Edward D. Phelka, CAP
Col David A. Guzman, CAP
Col Herbert C. Cahalen, CAP
Col Jerry E. Wellman, CAP
Col John E. Mitchell, CAP

NORTH CENTRAL REGION
*Col Sean P. Fagan, CAP
Col Ronald J. Scheitzach, CAP
Col Regena M. Aye, CAP
Col Thomas B. Theis, CAP
Col Erica R. Williams, CAP
Col David E. Plum, CAP
Col Dean F. Reiter, CAP
Col Teresa L. Schimelfening, CAP

Region Commander
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Utah
Wyoming

PACIFIC REGION

Region Commander
Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota

*Col Larry F. Myrick, CAP
Col Charles R. Palmer, CAP
Col Kenneth W. Parris, CAP
Col Roger M. Caires, CAP
Col Ralph L. Miller, CAP
Col Brian L. Bishop, CAP
Col David G. Lehman, CAP

Region Commander
Alaska
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Oregon
Washington

SOUTHWEST REGION
*Col Joseph C. Jensen, CAP
Col John M. Eggen, CAP
Col Lewis D. Alexander, CAP
Col Cecil A. Scarbrough, CAP
Col Richard F. Himebrook, CAP
Col Robert H. Castle, CAP
Col Joe R. Smith, CAP

Region Commander
Arizona
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas

*Voting Members of National Executive Committee - 14
** Nonvoting members of NEC and National Board - 3

CORPORATE TEAM
Mr. Don R. Rowland
Mr. John A. Salvador
Mr. Johnny Dean
Mr. John Desmarais
Ms. Susan Easter
Mr. Larry Kauffman
Mr. Jim Mallett
Mr. Rafael Robles
Mr. Gary Schneider

Executive Director
Assistant Executive Director
Director, Operations
Deputy Director, Operations
Chief Financial Officer
Assistant to Executive Director for Fleet Management
Director, Educational Programs
General Counsel
Director, Logistics & Mission Resources

5

March 2011 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 1

REPORTS

SUBJECT: Advisor, Executive, Staff and Committee Reports
CAP/CS – Col Chazell

Perfunctory Reports:
1.

(Staff) CAP National Safety Officer

Col Diduch

2.

(Executive) Finance Committee Report

Col Vest

3.

(Executive) Chaplain Corps Report

Ch, Col Woodard

4.

(Executive) National Legal Officer’s Report

Col Herrin

5.

(Executive) Inspector General

Col Starr

6.

(Executive) National Controller

Col Charles

7.

(Advisor) Senior Advisor, Support

Col Guimond

8.

(Advisor) Senior Advisor, Operations

Col Murrell

9.

(NHQ) Regulations Update Report

Mr. Rowland

Additional Reports, time permitting:
10. (Advisor) National Advisory Council

Brig Gen du Pont

11. (Advisor) National Cadet Advisory Council

C/Col Coogan

12. (Staff) Historian Report

Col Blascovich

13. (Staff) National Health Services Officer

Col McLaughlin

14. (Committee) Hall of Honor

Maj Gen Wheless

15. (Committee) Constitution and Bylaws

Col Herrin

16. (Committee) Public Trust

Col Kavich

17. (Committee) Organizational Excellence

Col Pearson

18. (Staff) VSAF

SMSgt Gregory

6

March 2011 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 2

EX

Action

SUBJECT: Approval of the September 2010 National Board Minutes
CAP/CS – Col Chazell
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
The minutes of the September 2010 National Board meeting were distributed in draft
form. This allowed the National Board members a chance to review the minutes for any
discrepancies.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve the September 2010 National Board Meeting minutes.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
None.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
None.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
None.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
None.
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL VERRETT/CS PROXY MOVED and COL PARRIS/CA seconded the
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED with abstentions by Col Karton/GLR and other
commanders who were not present at the September 2010 meeting.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Remove the word “DRAFT” from the September 2010 National
Board Minutes.

7

March 2011 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 3
Author: C&B Cmte

GC

Action

SUBJECT: Changes to the MARB
CAP/NLO – Col Herrin
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:

The Fall 2010 National Executive Committee approved a proposal to change Article XVI
of the Constitution concerning the Membership Action Review (MARB) as follows:
The Membership Action Review Board (MARB) shall consist of nine members, one from
each region and the NLO, or his designee, who shall be a non-voting ex officio member
of the MARB. Membership is limited to those members serving in the grade of Colonel
or higher and not currently serving as a commander or vice commander at any level.
Each Region Commander will nominate a slate of candidates for the MARB and the
National Commander will select one from each region for appointment. The members
of the MARB must be confirmed by the Board of Governors and will serve a term of 4
years. The terms shall be staggered and a member shall not be eligible for
reappointment. Two new members shall be appointed per year. The Chair of the
MARB will be the National Legal Officer or designee. A MARB member shall not
consider a review from an applicant from the region he/she represents. Five voting
members shall constitute a quorum.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
The Constitution and Bylaws Committee recommends the National Board approve
forwarding this proposal to the Board of Governors with the following additions:
(1) If the individual appealing to the MARB is assigned at the National level, all
eight voting members of the MARB will participate in the appeal.
(2) In the event of a tie vote on any appeal action, the MARB will automatically
sustain the commander’s action.
(3) Region Commanders may only nominate members assigned to units within
their Region. When this change becomes effective all eight members of the
MARB will be selected. The selected Region representatives will then draw
lots to determine the length of their initial term. Two regions representatives
will serve one year, two will serve two years, two will serve three years and
two will serve four years. This will enable the following 4 year terms to be
completed on a staggered basis. If a MARB member is removed or resigns
prior to the end of his term, a new representative will be selected to complete
the original term in order to preserve the staggered terms.
(4) For the initial selection of the 8 members, individuals who have previously
served as members of the MARB may be considered, provided they meet the
other criteria for selection. Once the new 8 member Board has been
instituted no other member may serve more than one term.

8

March 2011 National Board Minutes
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Item submitted by the Constitution & Bylaws Committee.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAP Constitution and Bylaws, CAPR 35-8, Membership Action Review Board
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL VERRETT/CS PROXY MOVED and COL MYRICK/PCR seconded the
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
In response to a question, Col Herrin explained that this action was brought forward at
the recommendation of the Governance Committee. The proposed rotating term of
office instead of members serving indefinitely is an opportunity to improve the process.

THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Forward the proposed change to Article XVI of the Constitution
to the BoG for consideration. Include in the June 2011 BoG agenda.

9

March 2011 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 4

GC

Action

SUBJECT: Conflict of Interest Policy
Author: Public Trust Cmte
CAP/CC – Maj Gen Courter
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
Civil Air Patrol has taken pride in strengthening its fiscal responsibility over the past few
years. The result of its efforts has been an unqualified audit for the last two years. This
shows that CAP is serious about the trust it seeks from its members and the American
people. Another area that CAP can improve it trust is by establishing a conflict of
interest policy that applies to all executive leaders of CAP. The attached conflict of
interest policy is patterned after an IRS policy that is applicable to non-profit
organizations. It should apply to all leaders of CAP from National Board members to the
Board of Governors and would be further proof of CAP’s desire to continue to enjoy the
trust of its members and tax payers who support CAP. It ensures that all senior leaders
have agreed to abide by a common conflict of interest policy and it establishes a
mechanism for recording any future conflict of interest discussions.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board adopt the attached Conflict of Interest Policy for all CAP
corporate officers and that the National Board forward it to the Civil Air Patrol Board of
Governors with the recommendation that they adopt it as their policy.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
There will be minimal cost to CAP.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Recommend the Governance Committee review this after consulting with the vendor
that is chosen for the Governance Study.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur. This is a policy already in wide use today. Adopting it now would strengthen
public trust and provide proper boundaries for CAP’s senior leaders.
After adoption, it should still be within the scope of review for the Governance Study and
should be included. Further, while under review, recommend consideration for defining
or providing guidance to analyze "detrimental to the Corporation" as used in, "a conflict
of interest that is detrimental to the Corporation." Also consider extending the conflict of
interest policy to include transacting or negotiating with any former corporate officer,
member of the Board of Governors, or member of a committee with the National Board,
National Executive Committee, or Board of Governors within the last X years.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
None.
10

March 2011 National Board Minutes
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
None.
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
MAJ GEN COURTER/CC MOVED and COL JENSEN/SWR seconded that the
National Board adopt the attached Conflict of Interest Policy for all CAP corporate
officers and that the National Board forward it to the Civil Air Patrol Board of
Governors with the recommendation that they adopt it as their policy. And
further to request the Board of Governors to include the Conflict of Interest in its
governance review, including the comments that are provided at this meeting to
this proposed action.
COL COOPER/RI MOVED TO AMEND and COL BISHOP/OR seconded an
amendment to Article I. Purpose of the CAP CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY,
line three, after the word “benefit” to add the words “or disadvantage.”
Following discussion, the amendment was withdrawn by Col Cooper with concurrence
of Col Bishop.

THE MOTION CARRIED (original motion)
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of CAP Conflict of Interest Policy. Also,
recommend adoption of the Conflict of Interest Policy by the Board of Governors and to
request the BoG to include the Conflict of Interest in its governance review, with
comments. Include in the June 2011 BoG agenda.

11

March 2011 National Board Minutes
CIVIL AIR PATROL
CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY
Article 1. Purpose
The purpose of this conflict of interest policy is to protect the interests of Civil Air Patrol
(Corporation) when it is contemplating entering into a transaction or arrangement that might
benefit the private interest of a corporate officer or Member of the Board of Governors of the
Corporation. This policy is intended to supplement, but not replace, any applicable state and
federal laws governing conflicts of interest applicable to nonprofit and charitable organizations.
Article 2. Definitions
Section 2.1
Interested person:
Any corporate officer of the Corporation as defined in Article XII of the Constitution or
Member of the Board of Governors or member of a committee with National Board, National
Executive Committee, or Board of Governors delegated powers, who has a financial interest, as
defined below, is an interested person.
Section 2.2
Financial interest:
A person has a financial interest if the person has, directly or indirectly, through business,
investment, or family member (spouse, descendant, ancestor, sibling, spouse of descendant or
sibling, or estate or trust benefiting these family members):
a. an ownership or investment interest in any entity with which the Corporation
has or is negotiating a transaction or arrangement,
b. a compensation arrangement with the Corporation or with any entity or
individual with which the Corporation has or is negotiating a transaction or arrangement,
or
c. a potential ownership or investment interest in, or compensation arrangement
with, any entity or individual with which the Corporation has or is negotiating a
transaction or arrangement.
Section 2.3
Compensation:
Direct and indirect remuneration of any kind, whether in cash or in kind, or a gift or favor
that is not insubstantial.
Section 2.4
Governing board:
Board of Governors, National Executive Committee, or National Board of the
Corporation, as applicable.
A financial interest is not necessarily a conflict of interest. Under Section 3.2, a person
who has a financial interest may have a conflict of interest only if the appropriate governing
board or committee decides that a conflict of interest exists that is detrimental to the Corporation.

12

March 2011 National Board Minutes
Article 3. Procedures
Section 3.1
Duty to Disclose:
In connection with any actual or potential conflict of interest, an interested person must
disclose the existence of the financial interest and be given the opportunity to disclose all
material facts to the members of the applicable governing board and members of committees
with governing board delegated powers considering the proposed transaction or arrangement.
Section 3.2
Determining Whether a Conflict of Interest Exists:
After disclosure of the financial interest and all material facts, and after any discussion
with the interested person, he or she shall recuse himself or herself from the governing board or
committee meeting while the determination of a conflict of interest is discussed and voted upon.
The remaining board or committee members shall decide if a conflict of interest exists that is
detrimental to the Corporation.
Section 3.3

Procedures for Addressing the Conflict of Interest:

a. An interested person may make a presentation at the governing board or
committee meeting, but after the presentation, he or she shall recuse himself or herself from the
meeting during the discussion of, and the vote on, the transaction or arrangement involving the
possible conflict of interest.
b. The chairperson of the governing board or committee shall, if appropriate in
the judgment of the governing board or committee, appoint a disinterested person or committee
to investigate alternatives to the proposed transaction or arrangement.
c. After exercising due diligence, the governing board or committee shall
determine whether the Corporation can obtain with reasonable efforts a more advantageous
transaction or arrangement from a person or entity that would not give rise to a conflict of
interest.
d. If a more advantageous transaction or arrangement is not reasonably possible
under circumstances not producing a conflict of interest, the governing board or committee shall
determine by a majority vote of its disinterested voting members (meaning those members with
no actual or potential conflict of interest) whether the transaction or arrangement is,
notwithstanding any actual or potential conflict of interest, in the Corporation’s best interest, for
its own benefit, and whether it is fair and reasonable. In conformity with the above
determination it shall make its decision as to whether to enter into the transaction or
arrangement.
Section 3.4

Violations of the Conflicts of Interest Policy:

a. If the governing board or committee has reasonable cause to believe a member
has failed to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest, it shall inform the member of the
basis for such belief and afford the member an opportunity to explain the alleged failure to
disclose.

13

March 2011 National Board Minutes
b. If, after hearing the member’s response and after making any further
investigation the governing board or committee determines in its discretion may be warranted by
the circumstances, the governing board or committee determines the member has failed to
disclose an actual or potential conflict of interest, it shall take appropriate disciplinary and
corrective action, up to and including a recommendation for termination of membership in the
Corporation.
Article 4. Records of Proceedings
The minutes of the governing board and all committees with governing board delegated powers
shall contain:
Section 4.1
The names of the persons who disclosed or otherwise were found to have a
financial interest in connection with an actual or potential conflict on interest, the nature of the
financial interest, any action taken to determine whether a conflict of interest was present, and
the governing board’s or committee’s decision as to whether a conflict of interest detrimental to
the Corporation in fact existed; and
Section 4.2
The names of the persons who were present for discussions and votes relating to
the transaction or arrangement, the content of the discussion, including any alternatives to the
proposed transaction or arrangement, and a record of any votes taken in connection with the
proceedings.
Article 5. Compensation
Section 5.1
A member of the governing board or committee with board delegated power who
receives compensation, directly or indirectly, from the Corporation for services is precluded from
voting on matters pertaining to that member’s compensation.
Section 5.2
A voting member of any committee whose jurisdiction includes compensation
matters and who receives compensation, directly or indirectly, from the Corporation for services
is precluded from voting on matters pertaining to that member’s compensation.
Section 5.3
No voting member of the governing board or any committee whose jurisdiction
includes compensation matters and who receives compensation, directly or indirectly, from the
Corporation, either individually or collectively, is prohibited from providing information to any
committee regarding compensation.
Section 5.4
If a voting member of any committee whose jurisdiction includes compensation
matters has a family member (as defined in Section 2.2) who receives compensation, directly or
indirectly, from the Corporation for services shall be treated as receiving the compensation
himself or herself for purposes of this policy.
Article 6. Annual Statements
Each interested person shall annually sign a statement in which he or she affirms that he or she:
a. has received a copy of the conflict of interest policy,
14

March 2011 National Board Minutes
b. has read and understands the policy,
c. agrees to comply with the policy, and
d. understands the Corporation is charitable and in order to maintain its federal
tax exemption, it must engage primarily in activities which accomplish one or more of its taxexempt purposes.
Article 7. Periodic Reviews
To ensure the Corporation operates in a manner consistent with charitable purposes and does not
engage in activities that could jeopardize its tax-exempt status, periodic reviews shall be
conducted. The periodic reviews shall, at a minimum, include the following subjects:
a. Whether compensation arrangements and benefits are reasonable, based on
competent survey information, and the result of arm’s length bargaining.
b. Whether partnerships, joint ventures, and arrangements with management
organizations conform to the Corporation’s written policies, are properly recorded, reflect
reasonable investment or payments for goods and services, further charitable purposes and do not
result in inurement, impermissible private benefit, or in an excess benefit transaction (all as
defined by the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations and interpretive guidance promulgated
pursuant thereto).
Article 8. Use of Outside Experts
When conducting the periodic reviews as provided for in Article 7, the Corporation may, but
need not, use outside experts. If outside experts are used, their use shall not relieve the
governing board of its responsibility for ensuring that the Corporation conducts periodic reviews.

15

March 2011 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 5

GC

Action

SUBJECT: Non-Disclosure Agreements
CAP/NC - Col Charles
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
CAP’s corporate officers, officials, and others possess information relating to CAP’s
business, including data, know-how, reports, records, specifications, proposals, studies,
business plans, strategy and analyses, research and development, concepts, members
or potential members, vendors or potential vendors, financial information and
projections, and personnel information.
CAP members have a duty to use such information only as appropriate to their position
in the corporation and they have a further duty to protect such information from
inappropriate use or improper disclosure.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board adopt as policy the protection of CAP Confidential Information
(“Confidential Information”) as defined in CAP’s Non-Disclosure Agreement (“NDA”) by:
1. The implementation of an NDA. The policy of NDA usage and Confidential
Information protection shall be included in appropriate series 35 and other
regulations, including a list by duty positions of those who would be required, by
office, to execute NDAs with CAP.
2. That each member of the National Board sign the attached NDA signifying
acknowledgement of the responsibility to preserve and protect Confidential
Information as required by their fiduciary duties to the Corporation (duty of care,
duty of obedience, duty of loyalty).
3. That, before appointment, every CAP corporate officer will execute an NDA,
and before disclosure of Confidential Information, Recipients of the Confidential
Information who have not already signed an NDA will execute an NDA.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur. This is essential for good governance

16

March 2011 National Board Minutes
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
None.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 35-10, Ethics Policy
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL CHARLES/NAT CON MOVED and COL RUSHING/SER seconded the
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.
COL HERRIN/NLO MOVED TO AMEND and COL JENSEN/SWR seconded to
reform Section 1 of the Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) to add language to
identify information that will be considered subject to the NDA.
There was further discussion on other suggested changes/revisions to the NDA.
COL PARRIS/CA MOVED TO TABLE and COL JENSEN/SWR seconded the motion
to table until Saturday

THE MOTION TO TABLE CARRIED.
NOTE: The suggested changes will be incorporated in a different version of the NDA to
bring back to the board on Saturday morning. There were volunteers to assist Col
Herrin with the rewrite.
ON SATURDAY MORNING, COL HERRIN read the revised definition, which was the
only substantive change, other than clarifying at the end that nothing that the members
sign at this meeting would interfere with their ability to make a complaint under the IG
process, as follows:
“CAP Confidential information,” when used in this Agreement, means (i) information
shared with the Recipient in an “executive” or “closed” session of a CAP board or
committee; (ii) information of a personal and sensitive nature concerning a CAP
member that is not contained in the member’s eServices database entry or disclosed on
official CAP forms in any format; (iii) information that is marked by a CAP corporate
officer or the CAP Executive Director as “CAP Confidential” or with a similar designation
indicating that the information is not to be shared generally either within or outside CAP;
(iv) any information the category of which is designated privileged, confidential, or with a
similar designation in any CAP regulation or governing document; (v) any information
designated by any government agency as not for public disclosure. CAP Confidential
Information does not include information or material that the Recipient can establish, by
clear and convincing evidence:
Also, a sentence in paragraph 3.3 was rearranged and the word “further” was added on
line 9.
17

March 2011 National Board Minutes
COL HERRIN/NLO MOVED TO BRING FROM THE TABLE with the changes
indicated and COL BISHOP/OR seconded the substitute NONDISCLOSURE
AGREEMENT.

THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy, notification to the field, and change to
CAPR 35-10, Ethics Policy.

18

March 2011 National Board Minutes
Approved Version
NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
This Nondisclosure Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made this ___ day of
_______________, 2011 (the “Effective Date’’), by Civil Air Patrol, a nonprofit
organization chartered by Congress (“CAP”), and the undersigned (“Recipient”).
The undersigned hereby agrees that the following terms and conditions shall apply
whenever Recipient receives Confidential Information (as hereafter defined):
1. CAP, through its other corporate officers, officials and others, receive, use,
and disclose CAP Confidential Information. “CAP Confidential Information,”
when used in this Agreement, means (i) information shared with the Recipient
in an “executive” or “closed” session of a CAP board or committee, (ii)
information of a personal and sensitive nature concerning a CAP member that
is not contained in the member’s eServices database entry or disclosed on
official CAP forms in any format, (iii) information that is marked by a CAP
corporate officer or the CAP Executive Director as “CAP Confidential” or with
a similar designation indicating that the information is not to be shared
generally either within or outside CAP, (iv) any information the category of
which is designated privileged, confidential, or with a similar designation in
any CAP regulation or governing document; (v) any information designated by
any government agency as not for public disclosure. CAP Confidential
Information does not include information or material that the Recipient can
establish, by clear and convincing evidence:
(a) at the time of disclosure has been published, patented or is otherwise
publicly available; or
(b) after disclosure, becomes publicly available other than through a
breach of this Agreement; or
(c) is known by the Recipient prior to receipt from CAP; or
(d) becomes known to Recipient from a source that legally obtained such
information without an obligation of confidentiality or nondisclosure; or
(e) is disclosed pursuant to law, regulation or lawful order or process. In
the event Recipient is subject to such law, regulation, order or process,
Recipient will timely notify CAP (in the persons of the National
Commander and the Executive Director) of the disclosure requirement
in advance of the required disclosure, as described in paragraph 4 of
this Agreement, so as to permit CAP to oppose or limit such
disclosure.
2. From and after the Effective Date, CAP (through its other corporate officers,
officials, and others having CAP Confidential Information) may disclose CAP
Confidential Information to the Recipient for the purpose of the Recipient’s
performance of duties in accordance with his or her membership and
19

March 2011 National Board Minutes
assignments in CAP. Recipient is willing to receive CAP Confidential
Information from CAP and to hold, use and return CAP Confidential
Information in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth below.
3. When CAP (through its other corporate officers, officials and others having
Confidential Information) discloses CAP Confidential Information to the
Recipient in connection with or during the course of Recipient’s service within
CAP:
3.1. The Recipient shall not, except as allowed by this agreement,
disclose CAP Confidential Information to any Third Party and shall use
all reasonable means , which shall not be less than the care a
reasonable business person would use under similar circumstances, to
prevent disclosure of CAP Confidential Information by another person
to a Third Party. For purposes of this Agreement, “Third Party” is
defined as anyone not in the same control group. For example,
confidential information shared in the CAP Board of Governors is to
remain confidential to that body.
3.2. Except as provided in Section 3.3 below, for so long as the
Recipient is a member or Governor of CAP and for a period of two (2)
years after the Recipient ceases to be a member or Governor of CAP,
the Recipient will not disclose CAP Confidential Information to any
Third Party without first having obtained the express written consent of
the CAP National Commander and the CAP National Legal Officer.
3.3. The Recipient may disclose CAP Confidential Information to his or
her subordinates who are members or employees of CAP and whose
CAP duties or functions justify their need to know such CAP
Confidential Information, and who have been clearly informed of the
obligations of care, confidentiality, non-disclosure and non-use
contained in this Agreement.
The subordinate shall in this
circumstance sign a copy of this Agreement. However, the subordinate
shall not have the authority, under any circumstances other than with
the express written authority from the CAP National Commander and
the CAP National Legal Officer, to disclose further the CAP
Confidential Information to any other individual or entity. In addition, if
the subordinate becomes legally compelled to disclose any of the CAP
Confidential Information, the subordinate shall immediately inform CAP
(through either the individual who disclosed the information to the
subordinate or to the National Commander and the Executive Director)
so that CAP may seek a protective order or other appropriate remedy.
4. If the Recipient, or any person or entity to which the Recipient has transmitted
CAP Confidential Information becomes legally compelled to disclose any of
the CAP Confidential Information, the Recipient shall provide CAP (through
the National Commander and the Executive Director) with prompt notice of
20

March 2011 National Board Minutes
the request for the CAP Confidential Information so that CAP may seek a
protective order or other appropriate remedy. If such protective order or other
remedy is not obtained, or if CAP waives compliance with the foregoing
provision in writing, the Recipient will disclose only that portion of the CAP
Confidential Information that the Recipient is advised by opinion of counsel is
required to be so disclosed and the Recipient shall exercise its reasonable
efforts to procure confidential treatment of the CAP Confidential Information
so disclosed.
5.

All CAP Confidential Information shall remain CAP’s exclusive property.
Nothing in this Agreement, and no disclosure made hereunder, shall be
construed as granting the Recipient any rights by license or otherwise, either
express or implied, in the CAP Confidential Information, except as expressly
set forth in this Agreement, or in any trade secret or other intellectual property
right now or hereafter owned, obtained or licensable by CAP.

6. The Parties agree that any breach of this Agreement by the Recipient could
cause irreparable damage to CAP, that CAP’s legal remedies (such as
monetary damages) would be inadequate and that, in the event of such
breach, CAP (acting through its National Commander) shall have, in addition
to any and all remedies at law or in equity available to CAP in general
(including the ability to obtain an injunction), the right to take any action
against the Recipient permitted by the governing documents of CAP,
including but not limited to (a) terminate the Recipient as a corporate officer
and (b) terminate the membership of the Recipient. The Recipient shall notify
CAP (through the National Commander and the Executive Director) in writing
immediately upon the occurrence of any unauthorized disclosure of CAP
Confidential Information or other breach of which he or she is aware.
7. If any provision or term of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any
Party, shall for any reason be adjudged by any court or other legal authority of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or voidable, such judgment shall not
affect the remainder of this Agreement which shall continue in full force and
effect and the offending provision or term shall be severed or amended in
such manner as renders the remainder of this Agreement valid and
enforceable unless the whole commercial object to this Agreement is thereby
frustrated.
8. Failure of either Party at any time to require the performance of any provision
of this Agreement shall not affect the right of that Party to require full
performance thereafter and a waiver by either Party of a breach of any of the
provisions of this Agreement shall not be taken or held to be a waiver of any
further or similar breach or as nullifying the effectiveness of such provision.
9. The provisions of this Agreement do not apply to Recipient if Recipient is
(when receiving or disclosing CAP Confidential Information) acting in his or
her capacity as an attorney for CAP. CAP’s and Recipient’s obligations
regarding the use and/or disclosure of CAP Confidential Information are in
21

March 2011 National Board Minutes
those circumstances governed exclusively by the attorney-client relationship
and the attorney-client privilege.
10. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to impair the Recipient’s ability
to make a complaint to the CAP Inspector General under applicable CAP
regulations.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Recipient has executed this Agreement as of the day and
year first written above.

____________________________________
Name:______________________________
Title: _______________________________

22

March 2011 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 6

EX

Action

SUBJECT: Wreaths Across America
ME WG/CC – Col Leclair
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
For the past five years the Civil Air Patrol has been a partner of Wreaths Across
America (WAA). This organization has as its mission to “Remember our Veterans –
Honor those who serve & their families, and Teach our children the value of freedom.”
Each year, WAA collects sponsorships for wreaths to be placed on veterans graves at
over 500 cemeteries around the country and overseas, including Arlington National
Cemetery.
The Civil Air Patrol in partnership with WAA jointly carries out the following activities:
• Squadron wreath sponsorship
• Unit participation in wreath ceremonies at cemeteries, veteran memorials, and
the international bridge crossing with Cadets Canada
• Wreath escort week to Arlington
• WAA day at Arlington Cemetery (24,000 wreaths placed last year and 270,000
planned for 2011)
Civil Air Patrol hosts a reception for dignitaries at the Women’s Memorial in Arlington
National Cemetery. Last year it included the USAF Chief of Staff.
In 2010, we had an approximate 50% increase in the number of wreath sponsorships
obtained over 2009 which is a significant number in any sales endeavor. However, we
only see about 10-15% of our units participating. This year, we are seeking the support
of the National Board to increase the number of participating units and to increase our
public relations activities on behalf of our partnership with the Wreaths Across America.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
1. That the National Board adopt the attached Wreaths Across America resolution.
2. That the National Board aid in increasing activities by all Region, Wings, Groups,
and Squadrons for wreath fundraising and memorial activities.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
In 2010, WAA sponsorship activities provided $139,000 in funds mostly to squadrons.
An increase to the number of wreaths sponsored will also provide much needed
additional funding to our units, create goodwill within our communities through
Remember – Honor - Teach, and serve to create more awareness of the Civil Air Patrol.

23

March 2011 National Board Minutes
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
We hope CAP will continue to increase its participation in this important community
service project.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
We concur and applaud CAP’s valiant effort in supporting this worthy cause.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Senior Advisor Support – Concur.
Senior Advisor Operations – Concur.
This item was prepared with the assistance of the Advisor for Member Affairs who
concurs with the items presented, as will be shown in the briefing that will be conducted
when this item is presented for discussion.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
None.
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL LECLAIR/ME MOVED and COL HAYDEN/NER seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION, which includes adoption of the following Wreaths
Across America resolution:
“Proposed WAA Resolution (approved and amended version)
“WHEREAS, Civil Air Patrol is committed to honor the sacrifices of America’s military
veterans and their families; and
“WHEREAS, Civil Air Patrol, since 2006, has supported Wreaths Across America in its
mission to recognize veterans who paid the ultimate price by placing remembrance
wreaths on their graves annually during the month of December; and
“WHEREAS, Civil Air Patrol finds Wreaths Across America’s goals of ‘remember, honor,
teach’ conducive to and appropriate for its cadet program; and
“WHEREAS, Civil Air Patrol has committed to making Wreaths Across America a
primary community service project; and
“WHEREAS, Civil Air Patrol has steadily increased its wreaths sponsorships and
participation by supplying color and honor guards and leadership in support of Wreaths
Across America observances.

24

March 2011 National Board Minutes
“THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that Civil Air Patrol will recommit to its
efforts in advancing Wreaths Across America by increasing:
its outreach to secure wreath sponsorships,
the number of squadrons participating, and
its level of leadership in conducting observances and supplying color/honor guards,
in furtherance of Civil Air Patrol’s commitment to honor and respect America’s heroes
who have sacrificed in the service of their country.
“NOW, THEREFORE: I, Major General Amy S. Courter, National Commander of Civil
Air Patrol, make this pledge and encourage all Civil Air Patrol members to do likewise.”
COL PARRIS/CA MOVED TO AMEND and COL JENSEN/SWR seconded the
amendment to strike the word “sales” and add an “s” to the word “sponsorship”
in the first line of the fifth paragraph of the Proposed WAA Resolution

THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED
COL HIMEBROOK/NM MOVED TO AMEND and COL JENSEN/SWR seconded the
amendment to add a paragraph 3 to the PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION,
which would read: “That the National Board approve including Wreaths Across
America as an approved CAP funding activity.”

THE MOTION TO AMEND DID NOT PASS
THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTIONS (1) Signing of Resolution by National Commander, and (2)
CAP’s recommitment of efforts to support the WAA program as outlined in the
resolution.

25

March 2011 National Board Minutes
Proposed WAA Resolution
WHEREAS, Civil Air Patrol is committed to honor the sacrifices of America’s military veterans and their
families; and
WHEREAS, Civil Air Patrol, since 2006, has supported Wreaths Across America in its mission to
recognize veterans who paid the ultimate price by placing remembrance wreaths on their graves annually
during the month of December; and
WHEREAS, Civil Air Patrol finds Wreaths Across America’s goals of “remember, honor, teach” conducive
to and appropriate for its cadet program; and
WHEREAS, Civil Air Patrol has committed to making Wreaths Across America a primary community
service project; and
WHEREAS, Civil Air Patrol has steadily increased its wreaths sponsorship sales and participation by
supplying color and honor guards and leadership in support of Wreaths Across America observances:
THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that Civil Air Patrol will recommit to its efforts in advancing
Wreaths Across America by increasing:
its outreach to secure wreath sponsorships,
the number of squadrons participating, and
its level of leadership in conducting observances and supplying color and honor guards,
in furtherance of Civil Air Patrol’s commitment to honor and respect America’s heroes who have sacrificed
in the service of their country.
NOW, THEREFORE: I, Major General Amy S. Courter, national commander of Civil Air Patrol, make this
pledge and encourage all Civil Air Patrol members to do likewise with my signature this ____ day of
__________________, 2011.

[PERSON SIGNING WILL INSERT STANDARD SIGNATURE BLOCK AND SEAL HERE]

26

March 2011 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 7

DO

Action

SUBJECT: Non-CAP Passenger Approvals
MT WG/CC - Col Cahalen
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
Non-CAP passenger approval process is not standardized across the Civil Air Patrol or
within CAP-USAF.
Approval authority for non-CAP passengers on CAP-USAF
approved missions currently rests solely with the CAP-USAF/CC (CAP-USAFI 10-2701,
paragraph 3.5.2.7.2), yet overall mission approval authority for CAP training missions is
delegated to the CAP-USAF Liaison Region (CAP-USAFI 10-2701, paragraph 2.6.2).
Currently CAP-USAF instructions make separate and distinct the passenger approval
authority from the mission approval authority on training missions (A4, A5, A7, A99
SD/CAP-USAF access).
With this split in approval authority levels, it is entirely possible for a CAP training
mission to be approved by the Liaison Region while the approval authority for the nonCAP passengers is pending coordination with CAP-USAF/CC. To make matters worse,
it is also possible for a CAP wing to mistakenly think they have been approved to fly
non-CAP passengers when they have in fact not been granted that authority, even after
the mission has been approved.
WMIRS automatically sends out an e-mail when the wing submits a training request
stating that non-CAP passenger approval is separate from mission approval, but there
isn't anything automated within WMIRS to assist in the passenger approval process.
Nor is there anything automated to ensure that a mistake is not made regarding flying
non-CAP passengers.
There are just too many loopholes right now that could end up with possibly a
compromising situation where a non-CAP passenger is flown without specific Air Force
approval.
Currently, there is no guidance or standardization for how CAP wings should submit
names and information on non-CAP passenger requests. Some wings list their
passenger information in a separate e-mail to CAP-USAF, some submit it directly to the
National Operations Center, some write them in their Operations Plans and other wings
annotate the information directly into the Mission Scenario block of the WMIRS setup
page. There is no continuity across CAP or CAP-USAF and it appears CAP is spending
a lot of excess time reinventing the wheel every time CAP wants to fly a non-CAP
passenger.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
A. That the National Board recommend a change to CAP-USAFI 10-2701 to make the
approval authority for non-CAP passengers the same as the mission approval authority.
B. That the National Board direct HQ CAP/DO to automate passenger approval
process in WMIRS.
27

March 2011 National Board Minutes
a. WMIRS should include a field within the mission setup page that lists the minimum
required information on the non-CAP passengers. The information should include:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.

Passenger Name
Duty Position or Title
Organization
Contact Information (phone, e-mail)
Justification for flying

b. WMIRS should automatically send out e-mail notification to the CAP-USAF approval
authorities (State Director, LR/CC and CAP-USAF/CC) stating that a specific mission
request is awaiting approval for non-CAP passenger(s). A second e-mail should
automatically be generated to CAP-USAF and CAP authorities notifying them that the
passengers have been approved or disapproved to fly.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
To be determined.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
If CAP-USAF concurs with this proposal, automating the non-CAP process for CAP and
CAP-USAF within WMIRS is possible, but for missions requiring external approval like
AFNORTH, this would still be cumbersome.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Non-concur with change recommendation to CAP-USAFI 10-2701. The passenger
approval authority for CAP-USAF approved missions in CAP-USAFI 10-2701 is
appropriate and designed to be distinct from the mission approval authority due to
federal liability risks and for proper oversight and visibility. While the operational
aspects of the mission are appropriately delegated to the LR/SD level for approval, the
CAP-USAF/CC has legal counsel at the HHQ-level to assist in assessing the legal
implications of the non-CAP passenger request.
CAP-USAF supports any efforts by CAP to streamline and standardize the non-CAP
passenger approval process in WMIRS.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
NLO – Do not concur. I have no problem with streamlining a process to approve nonCAP passengers on training flights. However, in my view there is no real reason to
practice flying actual non-CAP passengers, and the ordinary approval process for VIPs
and others should suffice for non-AFAM flights.
Senior Advisor Support – The process should be more uniform, and the Support Section
will work with our NHQ partners to achieve this goal. We have no control over the

28

March 2011 National Board Minutes
USAF approval process; however, we can provide an electronic method of submission
and notification of approval within the scope of the AFI and customer requirements.
Senior Advisor Operations – No doubt there are reasons for flying non-CAP personnel
during a training mission and I agree the approval process should be more consistent;
however, this is a CAP-USAF decision.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 60-1, CAP Flight Management
CAPR 60-3, CAP Emergency Services Training and Operational Missions
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
Col Cahalen/MT withdrew this agenda item.

29

March 2011 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 8

XP

Action

SUBJECT: Enhancement of eServices Capabilities
MS WG/CC – Col Sumner
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
Although the CAP has made great strides towards electronic processing features
including online record keeping and online training courses, there are still several “paper
intensive” administrative items that could be incorporated into eServices. Currently
eServices has the ability to process and record: promotions; transfers; specialty tracks;
duty assignments; online training courses and most personal actions to name just a few.
In an effort to go “paperless” or at least to follow the lead of the government with their
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we should make every effort to fold all remaining
processing and record keeping functions into eServices. One example of this would be
to create a new eServices module which would have the capability to process and
maintain a record of all awards and decorations. Currently all CAPF 120 nominations
can be generated, processed and approved electronically [via email transmittals], yet a
hard copy still has to be maintained in a CAPF45. To go “paperless” in this example all
that would be needed is a simple module in eServices so that the applicable approving
authority could make a data entry in the member records section. The system would
also be required to accept and store an electronic upload of the approved CAPF 120
[e.g. in a pdf format]. Furthermore, for any other remaining personnel actions that
currently requires a CAP form in a hard copy [e.g. certain CAPF2 & CAPF2A requests],
either create a module(s) in eServices to accomplish and record those requests, and/or
– develop a way for eServices to accept and store an electronic upload of the
final/approved documents [similar to those files currently uploaded and stored in Ops
Quals]. This would create a 100% online personnel file - eradicating the need for a
CAPF 45 and CAPF 66 entirely.
Ultimately this will not only save trees in the long run, but will continue the positive
efforts and steps the corporation has made in making membership less arduous when it
comes to the paperwork aspect of being a member.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board recommend and support CAP/NHQ in developing the
enhancement of eServices to be able to process and record all personnel, operational
and administrative documents and actions.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Cost unknown. Time required for CAP/IT staff to create the various modules required in
eServices and acquisition of adequate online storage capacity.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Recommend approval. Easing volunteer workload, simplifying work processes and
increasing accountability are the central focus of eServices. Achieving an almost
completely paperless environment is a key milestone on the road to achieving a fully
30

March 2011 National Board Minutes
operational suite of online applications to support our members. We will continue to
work diligently to bring all personnel, operational and administrative actions online and
strongly support this measure.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur with NHQ comments.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Senior Advisor Support – Concur. The NHQ comments above clearly outline staff
goals. It will be important to remember, however, that our existing IT capabilities are
already stretched, and the overall goal will require substantial time to achieve.
Senior Advisor Operation – Concur with corporate staff and Senior Advisor Support.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 35-5, CAP Officer and NCO Appointments and Promotions
CAPR 39-2, CAP Officer and NCO Appointments and Promotions
CAPR 39-3, Award of CAP Medals, Ribbons, and Certificates
CAPR 50-17, CAP Senior Member Professional Development Program
CAPR 52-16, Cadet Program Management
CAPF 45, Senior Member Master Record
CAPF 66, Cadet Master Record
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL SUMNER/MS MOVED and COL VAZQUEZ/MER seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.
COL KARTON/GLR MOVED TO AMEND and COL VERRETT/CS PROXY seconded
the amendment to delete the word “recommend” and substitute with the word
“direct” in line one of the proposed action.

THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED
COL MILLER/NV MOVED TO AMEND and COL PARRIS/CA seconded the
amendment to delete the word “eServices” and substitute with “Computer
Systems” in line two of the proposed action.

THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED
COL MULL/NJ MOVED TO AMEND, for business continuity planning to add the
words “with appropriate back-up systems” after the words “Computer Systems.”
THE MOTION TO AMEND FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND
31

March 2011 National Board Minutes
There was clarification from National Headquarters that the policy direction in this
motion will provide the appropriate authority to proceed expeditiously with achieving
paperless processes within CAP.
NOTE: The amended motion reads:
“That the National Board direct and support CAP/NHQ in developing the
enhancement of Computer Systems to be able to process and record all
personnel, operational, and administrative documents and actions.”

THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy and change to the following listed
regulations and forms:
CAPR 35-5, CAP Officer and NCO Appointments and Promotions
CAPR 39-2, CAP Membership
CAPR 39-3, Award of CAP Medals, Ribbons, and Certificates
CAPR 50-17, CAP Senior Member Professional Development Program
CAPR 52-16, Cadet Program Management
CAPF 45, Senior Member Master Record
CAFP 66, Cadet Master Record

32

March 2011 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 9

SE

Action

SUBJECT: Acute and Chronic Health Conditions
Author: National Safety Team
CAP/CS – Col Chazell
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
In this past year, there have been mishap trends related to pre-existing conditions, both
chronic and acute.
In some cases, there was not an adequate way to communicate these conditions or
they were not communicated at all.
It is highly-recommended that a committee be assembled to be co-chaired by a member
of the National Safety Team and a member of the National Medical Officer’s team.
Recommend the committee include a minimum of the National Legal Officer or his
designee, a representative from CAP’s three mission areas, and NHQ Safety and
Health Services. The committee would review a method in which pre-existing
conditions can be shared, but that would not publicly identify or announce this condition.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve the assembly of a committee, as recommended, to
review and develop a method of communicating pre-existing medical conditions that is
non-invasive, but has a mandatory participation element to it. This proposal should be
approved by the National Safety Officer, the National Health Services Officer, the
National Legal Officer, and General Counsel before being presented back to the
summer national board of 2011.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
None at this time.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur. It is recommended that this committee focus on the process of implementation
of already established methods to ensure members at all CAP activities benefit.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
No comment.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
NLO – Do not concur, as this is reinventing a perfectly good wheel. There is currently a
CAP medical form that contains medical history information and that has already been
approved by the National Board in 2009 with the revision of CAPR 160-1 (which is still
in coordination), and a policy that permits activity commanders to request certain
medical information prior to member participation. Consequently, the wiser course
would be to accelerate implementation of the already approved policy. Should
33

March 2011 National Board Minutes
additional information be required, such policy could require members to have
mandatory physical exams at least every 3 years so that CAP has good data (rather
than self-reported data) on member medical conditions.
Senior Advisor Support and Member Affairs Advisor – We believe that the comments of
the NLO and NHQ closely parallel one another. Rather than direct the establishment of
new regulations we believe that the implementation of previously approved policy must
be expedited.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 160-1, The CAP Health Service Program
CAPR 62-1, CAP Safety Responsibilities and Procedures
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL LEE/PA MOVED and COL EGRY/DE seconded the PROPOSED NATIONAL
BOARD ACTION, EXCEPT with reference to the composition of the recommended
committee, a member of the National Safety Team would be a member—not a cochair—of the committee.
There was clarification that over 2 years ago a policy was developed and approved for a
new CAPR 160-1 and appropriate associated forms have been developed and are
currently in coordination to require the gathering of information on pre-existing medical
conditions, which should solve the problem.
COL JENSEN/SWR MOVED TO POSTPONE and COL SCARBROUGH/LA
seconded the movement to postpone indefinitely.
The motion to postpone indefinitely was withdrawn.

THE MOTION DID NOT PASS

34

March 2011 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 10

ED

Action

SUBJECT: Temporary Inactive Membership Status
Author: Maj Winter
MD WG/CC – Col Knowles
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
With the increase of ancillary training requirements to our members, subordinate wings,
groups, and units often are identified as non-compliant in meeting our required training.
Often times the members who continue to show up as non-compliant are those
members who have taken a leave of absence because of active duty military
training/deployments, senior cadets who have gone off to pursue higher education in a
full time status, and members who wish to take a temporary leave of absence. In all of
these cases our members enjoy the full membership benefits and prefer not to enter a
patron membership status.
During this membership status, our members will not be allowed to participate in CAP
activities.
When the member wishes to reenter the active membership category they must
complete all required ancillary training prior to final approval of full membership status.
In addition, if the members FBI screening expires (XX years) the member will be
required to completed a new member application, as is the case when a member allows
their membership to lapse.
As a safeguard to ensure that our members and their respective commanders do not
abuse this status and continue to participate as a full members or allow for 100 percent
compliance with training within the subordinate unit the approval authority and the
conditions under which a member may be granted inactive membership would be the
responsibility of the members Wing Commander and the individual member who may
request not to be placed in this membership status.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve a new membership category of temporary inactive
membership.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Minor technology enhancement/adjustments to create a toggle switch in e-Services
which will activate a temporary membership category.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Suggest this agenda item be considered as input or as an update to the "Old Business"
Action Item 12A which was refer it to a committee. This would be considered a change
of policy regarding the training requirement for inactive members.

35

March 2011 National Board Minutes
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Membership categories are primarily a corporate concern. While there are many
individual circumstances to be accommodated by these categories, there is definitely
risk involved in a membership structure that is too complicated and presents the
opportunity for abuse, particularly approaching a compliance inspection or other graded
activity.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
NLO – Do not concur. Such “hat-switching” will make it virtually impossible to determine
whether a member is permitted to undertake activities without resorting to running an eservices report for every CAP activity.
Senior Advisor Support & Member Affairs Advisor – This AI is one of several dealing
with membership status and training requirements. We agree with the sponsor of this
Item that problems have been identified which must be addressed. While reviewing this
item we have also identified other similar issues, several addressed by other AIs for this
NB, and we believe that it is very important to address all of these issues in a
comprehensive manner.
We therefore suggest that a National Commander’s
Committee be appointed to address all of these issues and develop recommendations
for the NB’s consideration. Members of the committee should include the AI presenters,
representatives from the volunteer staff (Ops and support), representative from NHQ,
representative for the National IG, and legal counsel.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 39-2, Civil Air Patrol Membership
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL KNOWLES/MO MOVED TO SUBSTITUTE and COL ROBINSON/AL seconded
the movement to combine Agenda Items 10, 11, and 12.a. into a single item and
that the National Board direct the creation of a committee to review the processes
involved in meeting the requirements for mandatory training for members. This
committee would include, as a minimum, a member of the support advisory team,
the National Headquarters staff, the IG, and chaired by a member of the National
Board. The committee would present an interim report to the May 2011 NEC
meeting and a final report to the Summer 2011 National Board meeting.
THE NATIONAL BOARD VOTED TO ACCEPT THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY COL
KNOWLES FOR CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE.
COL MILLER/NV MOVED TO SUBSTITUTE and COL CASTLE/OK seconded the
movement that the National Board would direct that all regulations requiring
members to complete training be consistently reworded to prohibit participation
in other than social events until such training is completed.

36

March 2011 National Board Minutes
THE NATIONAL BOARD VOTED NOT TO ACCEPT THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY
COL MILLER FOR CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE.
COL LEE/PA MOVED TO AMEND and COL JENSEN/SWR seconded the
amendment to include as a minimum “one wing commander from each region,”
as members of the committee

THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED
COL PARRIS/CA MOVED TO AMEND and COL KARTON/GLR seconded the
amendment to strike the IG as a member of the committee.

THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED
NOTE: The substitute motion, as amended twice, reads as follows:
“Combine Agenda Items 10, 11, and 12.a into a single item and that the National
Board direct the creation of a committee to review the processes involved in
meeting the requirements for mandatory training for members. This committee
would include, as a minimum, a member of the support advisory team, the
National Headquarters staff, one wing commander from each region, and chaired
by a member of the National Board. The committee would present an interim
report to the May 2011 NEC meeting and a final report to the Summer 2011
National Board meeting.”

THE AMENDED SUBSTITUTE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Naming of committee and guidance to the committee that the
policy directives they create are measurable by the IG and staff in a compliance
inspection.
The National Commander announced that the committee will be chaired by Col Knowles
(MER) and the other wing commander members are: Col Lee (NER), Col Burke (GLR),
Col Robinson (SER), Col Aye (NCR), Col Alexander (SWR), Col Cahalen (RMR), and
Col Miller (PCR), all of whom will serve as regional representatives whose input to the
committee will be representative of input from the region commander and other wing
commanders within each region. The National Commander also reminded that input
should be sought from Congressional Squadron members and consider how they are
impacted.

37

March 2011 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 11

ED

Action

SUBJECT: Reserve Membership
FL WG/CC – Col Moersch & AL WG/CC - Col Robinson
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
All wings are faced with how to properly handle members who wish to continue their
membership to provide financial support to CAP at the National, Region, Wing, and
local levels. However, these members do not actively participate and, many times, fail to
complete minimum required training such as OPSEC, CPPT, Safety, etc. Some wings
have begun to utilize the XX000 at-large units to place inactive members who have not
completed required training. These members are typically not allowed to participate in
any activities other than social events. However, regulations concerning minimum
required training do not currently exempt these members from these requirements.
Wings that are using the at-large units in this manner could conceivable be cited during
inspections for having members that have not completed required training.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve a change in policy and regulation to create a new
membership category for Reserve Members by adding the following to CAPR 39-2.
RESERVE MEMBERS
General. The Reserve membership category is established to allow active senior
members who are no longer able to participate on a regular basis to retain their
membership in the local squadron without the normal training and participation
requirements. Reserve members may participate as outlined below:
a. Reserve members will pay annual national membership dues in the same
manner as active senior member. The normal renewal procedures apply.
b. They will receive a specially annotated membership card.
c.

They will remain assigned to their home membership unit.

d. They may only attend unit social functions, wing, region or national conferences
and participate in local public relations activities, if requested by the commander
concerned. Reserve members may not participate in emergency services
missions, actual or training, aerospace education activities, cadet activities, or
professional development training. They may not ride in a corporate aircraft or
vehicle.
e. They may wear any of the CAP distinctive uniforms (blazer combination, white
aviator shirt and gray slacks, etc.) but will not wear the CAP Air Force-style
uniform.
f.

Reserve members will retain their last CAP grade earned but will not earn grade,
awards/decorations, or individual qualifications while in Reserve status. Any
38

March 2011 National Board Minutes
operational qualifications which may expire while the member is in reserve status
must be re-earned upon return to active status.
g. Reserve members are exempt from minimum training requirements.
Membership Eligibility. Senior Members wishing to transfer to reserve status must
have served as an active senior member, completed Level I training and the
membership screening process.
Application Procedures. Individuals wishing to be placed in reserve status must
request the change through their unit commander. The unit commander will make the
change through the appropriate eservices application.
Membership Year. The membership year remains the same as the individual’s active
membership and neither the date of service nor date of grade is affected by this
transition. The membership renewal policy outlined for senior members in Chapter 4 of
CAPR 39-2 also applies to Reserve members.
Operations Qualifications. OpsQuals will exclude any Reserve Member from entering
or renewing OpsQual data, and it will not allow a CAPF101 to be generated for that
individual. Furthermore, any Reserve Member will not show up on any OpsQuals
Reports.
Transfer to Active Membership. Reserve members may transfer back to active status
at any time with the approval of their unit commander. However, the member must
complete any training or participation requirements required of active senior members
prior to returning to leaving Reserve status. The commander will make the change in
status using the appropriate eServices application.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Minor technology enhancement/adjustments in eServices.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Suggest this agenda item be considered as input or as an update to the "Old Business"
Action Item 12A which was refer it to a committee. This would be considered a change
of policy regarding the training requirement for inactive members.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Membership categories are primarily a corporate concern. While there are many
individual circumstances to be accommodated by these categories, there is definitely
risk involved in a membership structure that is too complicated and presents the
opportunity for abuse, particularly approaching a compliance inspection or other graded
activity.

39

March 2011 National Board Minutes
Reserve members, as described above, don’t seem particularly distinct from Patron
members. If Patron member status needs to be adjusted and renamed to
accommodate the concerns raised here, that may be a cleaner option. If there is a need
for a status within active membership that acknowledges a temporary situation, that can
also be accommodated without creating an entirely new membership category. These
issues may best be resolved by a committee investigating all the various concerns
regarding membership circumstances.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
NLO – See comments below for my suggested changes:
d. They may only attend unit social functions and CAP wing, region or national
conferences. Reserve members may not participate in emergency services missions
(whether actual or training), aerospace education activities, cadet activities, professional
development training, or any other CAP activities other than the ones authorized above.
They may not ride in a corporate aircraft or vehicle at any time, even when properly
attending once of the activities authorized above.
e. only the CAP distinctive blazer combination or white aviator shirt and gray slacks
uniform combinations when attending authorized activities. Reserve members will not
wear any other type of CAP or military style uniform when participating in an activity as
a reserve member.
f. Reserve members will retain their last CAP grade earned but will not earn grade,
awards/decorations, time in service for purposes of fifty year membership or additional
clasps to the Red Service Ribbon, or individual qualifications while in Reserve status.
Any operational qualifications which may expire while the member is in reserve status
must be re-earned upon return to active status.
Transfer to Active Membership. Reserve members may transfer back to active status
at any time with the approval of their unit commander. However, the member must
thereafter complete any training or participation requirements required of active senior
members. The commander will make the change in status using the appropriate
eServices application.
Other Parameters. Members may only transfer to reserve status once and therefore
may only transfer to active membership from reserve status once.
Senior Advisor Support & Member Affairs Advisor – This AI is one of several dealing
with membership status and training requirements. We agree with the sponsor of this
Item that problems have been identified which must be addressed. While reviewing this
item we have also identified other similar issues, several addressed by other AIs for this
NB, and we believe that it is very important to address all of these issues in a
comprehensive manner.
We therefore suggest that a National Commander’s
Committee be appointed to address all of these issues and develop recommendations
for the NB’s consideration. Members of the committee should include the AI presenters,
40

March 2011 National Board Minutes
representatives from the volunteer staff (Ops and support), representative from NHQ,
representative for the National IG, and legal counsel.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 39-2, Civil Air Patrol Membership
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
See agenda item 10 for NB action.

41

March 2011 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 12

Old Business

Action

A. September 2010 National Board Meeting: Agenda Item
26C
Clarification of Training Regulation for the Wing At-Large Units

AL WG/CC – Col Robinson

COL ROBINSON/AL MOVED and COL MOERSCH/FL seconded that the National
Board approve a change in policy to allow members assigned to at-large (XX000)
units to be exempt from all minimum training requirements. Further that those
members assigned to that unit will not be allowed to participate in any activities,
including unit meetings, until required training has been completed and the
member transferred back the local unit. (This would not include social events
such as Christmas parties, etc.).
Following discussion on the possible impact of the proposed motion, the following
amendment was made:
COL ROBINSON/AL MOVED TO AMEND and COL PARRIS/CA seconded the
amendment to approve the creation of a 998 unit which, according to regulation
and policy, is for only inactive members that are non-participating and are not
required to complete training requirements.
COL WINTERS/OH MOVED and COL JENSEN/SWR seconded to refer to
committee.
THE MOTION TO REFER TO COMMITTEE CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Referral to committee, to include membership and IG.
______________________________________________________________________

ACTION
March 2011 National Board Meeting
See agenda item 10 NB action.

THIS ITEM IS CLOSED
42

March 2011 National Board Minutes

B. September 2010 National Board Meeting: Agenda Item 12
Standardize Procedures through the use of Supplements and Operating
Procedures

WY Wg/CC – Col Skrabut

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
In CAPR 5-4, Publications and Forms Management, there are specific procedures for
how and why to create and use supplements, operating instructions, and policy letters.
According to CAPR 5-4:




para 1g, “Operating Instructions” announce local policies or procedures, and
direct actions of a local nature within one unit (charter number) or office.
para 1m, “Supplements” are auxiliary publications that augment higher
headquarters directives and apply to all members of the issuing headquarters
and all subordinate units.
According to CAPR 5-4, para 4, interim change letters are a temporary measure
to be incorporated into a regulation or supplement within 90 days.

However, in CAPR 173-1, para 3 “Supplements and/or Operating Instructions.
Supplements and Operating Instructions are not authorized. Units at all levels may
issue specific Financial Management Procedures or Policies specific to their wing
dealing with fiscal matters pursuant to this regulation. Examples of Financial
Management Procedures may be found under the Financial Management section on the
NHQ website.”
This guidance in CAPR 173-1 is inconsistent with guidance provided in CAPR 5-4. The
organization is now creating another description for instruction. We should be looking to
consolidating and standardizing processes rather than creating new terms. Because
there are no instructions how to create a “procedure” in CAPR 5-4, this is creating
multiple variations on what was once a standardized process.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve that locally created instructions be prepared in
accordance with CAPR 5-4.

ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Time required by staff to make necessary adjustments to regulations.

43

March 2011 National Board Minutes
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Do not concur. Recommend day-to-day operations guidance for finance to continue to
be Financial Management Procedures.
Civil Air Patrol finance regulations (CAPR 173 series) provide the minimum level of
financial management and internal controls within a region, wing or unit in order to
safely guard financial resources at each level. Each region, wing and unit in Civil Air
Patrol is unique in the manner in which day-to-day management of financial procedures
is conducted. In standard accounting practice, businesses typically have a policy which
outlines how the business will conduct finance from paying bills, billing customers,
closing the general ledger, making entries, etc. To allow for the region, wing or unit to
individually conduct the finance function to suit their respective needs, Financial
Management Procedures (FMP) are written to advise the staff of the respective region,
wing or unit detailed procedures of how the regulation requirements will be met on a day
to day basis. At a minimum, FMPs are required to address areas that have been
financial weaknesses in the past: payment approvals, credit cards, recurring expenses,
bank transfers and travel. Because of frequent changes in banks, staff or personnel,
data processing, payment methods, activities, etc., each CAP organization needs an
expeditious manner in which to make changes to the day-to-day procedures and
methods of meeting the regulation minimum.
CAPR 5-4 paragraph 3a (1) requires “each supplement to be forwarded to the next
higher level of command for review immediately upon publication.” If local procedures
to manage finance are written in a regulation supplement, the wing will be required to
review and approve all of their subordinate unit financial procedures, as the regions will
be required to approve their subordinate wing financial procedures and NHQ will
approve the region financial procedures. The wing will be required to approve
numerous (one for each unit, flight or group) different methods of how each unit
conducts financial business. The Regions will approve 5-8 different methods of
conducting wing finance and NHQ will approve 8 different methods of conduction region
finance. Higher level offices are not familiar with the idiosyncrasies of the day to day
operations in each subordinate office. This would force the higher level approver to
make a decision on whether or not the supplement is the best manner for the
subordinate to conduct business. Not only would this be required at each anniversary
of the supplement, but also at each change the subordinate wishes to make which could
be as many as 6 per year.
Writing day-to-day operations as supplements would place an unnecessary burden on
the next level of command to approve a document of which they do not have the
knowledge resources to form an opinion as to the best manner to conduct financial
operations for that location. Subordinates will be forced to defer enacting changes to
their operations, which may be needed immediately in some cases, until the higher
approval is completed.
Within an organization as large as CAP, we need to provide flexibility for each CAP unit
to conduct the finance regulatory minimums, while maintaining consistency, timeliness
44

March 2011 National Board Minutes
and accuracy. Allowing each respective CAP unit the flexibility to quickly write
procedures in which to conduct the financial function at their location has greatly
contributed to the unqualified audit opinion of CAP’s financial statements. In fact, when
CAP regulations previously allowed supplements in the past, finance was not
successful. If we do not establish flexible working procedures for CAP units, our audit
could be at risk. The external auditors currently rely heavily on the finance regulations
and oversight while conducting our audit; furthermore, they sample the Financial
Management Procedures from each Wing as part of the national audit. To make a
change that will affect every CAP units could jeopardize finance at all levels, and have a
major impact on our audit.
CAPR 173-1 is intended to safeguard CAP’s financial assets and prepare reliable
financial reporting while complying with numerous laws, regulations, appropriated
funding and GAAP financial reporting requirements. We recommend the day-to-day
operations guidance for finance in each respective location remain Financial
Management Procedures.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur with NHQ comments.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Senior Advisor – Support: Concur with NHQ comments.
NFO: Concur with NHQ comments.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 5-4, Publications and Forms Management
CAPR 173-1, Financial Procedures and Accounting
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL SKRABUT/WY MOVED and COL LARSON/IL seconded that National Board
refer this item to committee for the purpose of providing proper financial
management instructions on how units are to provide guidance for the members,
to make sure the units are doing it correctly, and to ensure that there is proper
oversight.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Gen Courter stated that this would be referred possibly to the
National Finance Committee or some financial body. Col Skrabut concurred. Inclusion
in winter 2011 NB agenda.

45

March 2011 National Board Minutes
______________________________________________________________________

FEBRUARY 2011 NHQ RESPONSE:
After further discussion, we still do not concur with the suggestion that all Financial
Management Policies specified in 173-1 be required to be in the format of supplements
to the regulation. The intent of the FMP’s is to allow the Wings and Squadrons to have
maximum flexibility to manage financial resources and to update policies immediately
when personnel or situations change. The process to approve new regulation
supplements is too cumbersome to allow such changes to be implemented in a timely
manner. If, however, the Board votes to support the elimination of the FMP’s, we will try
to develop specific forms that can accomplish this.

ACTION
March 2011 National Board Meeting
A written report was submitted to the National Board from the National Finance
Committee, dated 21 February 2011. The National Board accepted the report.
There was clarification on the flexibility that wings have to establish the internal controls
that are necessary to manage finance and manage the fiduciary responsibility that all
commanders have toward the organization. The FMPs are simple instructions to the
wing, the wing finance committee, to NHQ, and to the auditors as to how the
commander manages finance within the wing. The difference between FMPs and OIs is
that regulation does not allow OIs at wing level.

THIS ITEM IS CLOSED

46

March 2011 National Board Minutes

C. September 2010 National Board Meeting: Agenda Item 14
Suspension of Membership

MA Wg/CC – Col Meskill

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
CAPR 123-2 (IG process) states in paragraph 8, “Investigations should be completed
within 180 days unless there is a justifiable reason for delay.” However CAPR 35-1
states in paragraph 2-2a that the maximum suspension is 60 days, with additional
extensions requiring next higher command level approval.
This disconnect causes three suspension actions to be required just to support the
normal 180 day IG investigation process. This causes additional work and monitoring of
suspensions which if missed will cause members to be reinstated in error. Additionally
it presents a false picture to the individual being suspended, who is informed in writing
that the suspension is for 60 days, when it will almost certainly be longer.
Time frames for IG investigations are well defined, and we have no control over civil
litigations.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board align these regulations by modification to CAPR 35-1, to permit
suspensions of membership, due to IG investigations or criminal litigation, to be made
by commanders for a term of up to 60 days, or the completion of the associated IG
investigation or Civil Litigation.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Minimal.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Do not concur. CAPR 35-1 currently allows for suspensions to be continued beyond the
60 day period in the event criminal actions are pending or further internal investigation is
required. It simply requires the commander to take a specific action to extend the
suspension beyond the initial 60 day period. The National Board approved this policy in
March 2008 stating that requiring extensions to be justified to higher headquarters
serves as a check in the system. The importance of timely resolution and of strong
justification was purposely emphasized by placing a ceiling at 180 days without
approval by NEC. The IG regulation states that investigations should be completed
within 180 days but they can be continued past that time. To allow an “open ended”
suspension could leave a member in limbo for some time. The requirement to take
47

March 2011 National Board Minutes
specific action to extend a 60 day suspension ensures that all involved are monitoring
the situation on a regular basis.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Non-concur. Current language in CAPR 35-1 meets the agenda item recommendation
and ensures periodic reviews by higher authorities at pre-determined intervals so a
suspended member doesn’t remain in a suspended status without justification.
CAPR 35-1 (18 Mar 09), para. 2-2a, does not specify a “maximum” suspension time but
rather allows a unit commander or higher to suspend a member for “up to” 60-days.
Furthermore, CAPR 35-1 provides an avenue to extend the suspension upon
appropriate review by the next higher authority.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
Senior Advisor Support and Member Affairs Advisor believe the wording in its present
state is too broad. CAPR 35-1 does require a review every 60 days to protect the rights
of the member involved. In all cases of a substantial nature the NHQ staff telephones
the commander affected prior to the expiration of the suspension to remind them of this
requirement. An open ended standard may well leave a member suspended for an
excessive period of time without proper review. We also suggest that the Legal Officer
and General Counsel review the applicability of civil litigation to the action since the
existing regulation does not address it.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 35-1, Assignment and Duty Status.
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL MESKILL/MA MOVED and COL LeCLAIR/ME seconded that the National
Board align these regulations by modification to CAPR 35-1, to permit
suspension of membership, due to IG investigations or pending criminal litigation
to be made by commanders for a term of up to 180 days for the completion of the
associated IG investigation or indefinitely for Criminal Litigation.
During discussion, there was a determination that the motion needed to be reviewed by
legal staff for accuracy of intent and brought back later in the meeting.
LATER IN THE MEETING, COL MESKILL/MA MOVED A SUBSTITUTE MOTION and
COL HERRIN/NLO seconded that the National Board approve modification of
CAPR 35-1, CAPR 35-8, and the Constitution and Bylaws be modified to permit
suspensions of membership due to Inspector General investigations or pending
criminal charges for up to 180 days. Suspension in excess of 180 days for
pending criminal charges may be approved by the commander of the next higher
echelon. Continuation of a suspension during an Inspector General investigation

48

March 2011 National Board Minutes
in excess of 180 days would require National Executive Committee approval as
currently required.
COL DAVIDSON/NH MOVED and COL PARRIS/CA SECONDED that this matter be
referred to the Constitution and Bylaws Committee because of the complexity of
this issue.
THE MOTION TO REFER CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Referral to the Constitution and Bylaws Committee. Include in
winter 2011 National Board agenda and June 2011 BoG agenda.

ACTION
March 2011 National Board Meeting
Interim Report from Col Herrin – Constitution and Bylaws Committee Chair.

COL HERRIN/Chairman of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee provided an Interim
Report, which included information on a proposed change to CAPR 35-1 that cannot be
implemented prior to a change to the Constitution and Bylaws. He proposed the
following motion:
COL HERRIN/NLO MOVED and COL SCARBOROUGH/LA seconded that the
National Board send to the Board of Governors a recommendation to approve a
change to ARTICLE XVI, of the CAP Constitution, which reads as follows:
“1. Members who have been subject to a final adverse membership action, and have
exhausted all administrative remedies, shall have a right to appeal the action to the
Membership Action Review Board. For purposes of this article, an adverse membership
action is defined as demotion in grade; removal from command of a region, wing, group,
squadron or flight; suspension of membership in excess of 60 days due to regulatory
infractions or misconduct not giving rise to a criminal investigation; or termination or
non-renewal of membership.”

THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Inclusion in the June 2011 BoG Agenda. If approved,
implementation of policy, notification to the field, Change to the CAP Constitution and to
CAPR 35-1, Membership Termination, paragraph 2-2a(3) which reads as follows and
would be self-executing:
49

March 2011 National Board Minutes
“(3) Suspected Cadet Abuse or Unfavorable Information. Any member may be
suspended for alleged or suspected cadet abuse, any time other information is received
which, if substantiated, would make the member subject to termination, or while an
internal investigation of such allegations is pending. The suspension is effective for up
to 60 days, shall be continued automatically beyond that time to the extent criminal
actions are pending, and may be continued beyond that time if further internal
investigation is required. Additional 60 day suspensions for internal investigations will
be approved (if at all) by the next higher authority with justification why the extension is
required. Suspensions pending an internal investigation may not exceed 180 days
without approval of the National Executive Committee.”

THIS ITEM IS CLOSED

50

March 2011 National Board Minutes

D. September 2010 National Board Meeting: Agenda Item 22
CAP Chaplain Qualifications

UT Wg/CC – Col Wellman

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
Is the goal of the CAP chaplain program to provide chaplains to the USAF or to provide
chaplains to members of the CAP?
Current qualifications for a CAP chaplain are at such a professional level that seems to
be counterproductive or beneficial to CAP members. Rather than holding CAP
chaplains to a USAF standard and issuing an exemption to the lesser qualified, let’s redefine the CAP chaplaincy to allow qualified and endorsed members of the ministry to
benefit CAP and then ENCOURAGE additional qualifications needed if a CAP chaplain
DESIRES to be of USAF service. Not every CAP chaplain desires or has the time to be
a fully qualified, but volunteer, military chaplain.
A CAP chaplain is a needed function to help guide members, especially our youth, in
value development. However, that same chaplain may not legally (in many states)
handle confessions, conduct marriages or do “normal” functions associated with
someone who is a military chaplain -- is this level of expectation required for CAP? If
our goal is to provide value guidance, let’s not place roadblocks and make it so difficult
to qualify a chaplain, local clergy simply say “no.”
Many religions allow endorsement in the ministry without requiring extensive theological
education. This is the case, for example, with Catholic and Baptist deacons. These
potential CAP chaplains will have both religious and value foundation to benefit CAP
members. These persons are currently accepted by their local community churches to
conduct services and are endorsed by their denominations, yet must meet significant
additional requirements to serve as a CAP chaplain. Many of these people are not in
the religious vocation and simply do not have the time or funding or desire to obtain
advance education in theology.
Are these advanced and somewhat stringent chaplaincy requirements beneficial to CAP
members?
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve a complete re-design of the requirements needed to
become a CAP chaplain with an eye to benefiting CAP members and allowing more
local clergy to serve. Our current policy is overly restrictive resulting in a lengthy and
cumbersome process that discourages an element of our community that would be of
great benefit to CAP.
51

March 2011 National Board Minutes
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Cost to be determined depending on what is developed in the re-design of
requirements.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur with the Chief of Chaplain Corps comments.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Non-concur. Chief of Chaplain Corps comments provide thorough background into the
rationale for current policy.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
NLO - I believe this is contrary to the current agreement between the CAP chaplain
corps and the USAF Chaplain corps. However, we already have a category for "mission
chaplain" that we could adapt to those chaplains meeting USAF requirements, and only
mission chaplains (as redefined) would be able to participate in AFAMs (including
assistance to active and reserve forces). That should make the chaplaincy available to
more faiths and not restrict our ability to provide assistance to the military services.
Chief of Chaplain Corps: The Chaplain Corps Advisory Council considered this
proposed action and unanimously expressed their opposition for the following reasons:
1. The qualifications for appointment as a CAP chaplain have been long established
from our inception and have become the model for other vocational chaplaincies. This
is one of the uniquely distinctive ways that Civil Air Patrol is known to be an exceptional
organization.
2. We already have a waiver provision in circumstances in which prospective chaplains
have documented significant and credible pastoral experience. These chaplains are
restricted only from direct support to the military, which is a very small percentage of our
overall chaplain ministry. Our primary mission continues to focus on cadet programs,
aerospace education and emergency services.
3. Lowering the current criteria could place some chaplains in legal jeopardy,
particularly in situations of confidentiality and counseling.
4. Utilization of chaplains who do not meet meaningful criteria places the CAP
Corporation in legal jeopardy if, for example, it is alleged that counseling is performed
by those who do not possess adequate ministerial credentials.
5. Lowering our current standards would result in a corresponding reduction in the
quality of our Chaplain Corps. We feel that our cadets and senior members are entitled
to professionally competent chaplain services.

52

March 2011 National Board Minutes
6. In our culture, it is possible for someone to purchase an ordination certificate online
that would allow them to perform marriages and etc. for about $35 dollars; and
purchase a bogus graduate degree for as little as $195, from unprincipled organizations
that have chartered themselves as a church or school. Lowering the accredited
educational requirements for chaplaincy would invite even more chaplain applicants
who lack either the education or experience to bring competent ministry to CAP
members.
7. We must have a concrete objective criterion for evaluation of chaplain candidates.
The lower the bar, the more subjective it becomes.
8. It is doubtful that a reconsideration of the qualifications for CAP chaplaincy would in
fact result in the recruitment of more chaplains. Competent ministers are often wary of
ministries that are known to have inadequate qualifications. In CAP, character
development instructors who meet only very limited and basic criteria were instituted to
facilitate moral leadership discussions, yet we have significantly more chaplains than
CDIs.
9. There are many aspects of ministry that are unique to chaplaincy and some ministers
are not suited for it. An important feature of chaplaincy is the ability to work together on
a team in a pluralistic setting. Not every clergy person is equipped for this kind of
ministry. Our long established chaplain criteria are essential to the effectiveness of our
chaplaincy.
10. The current criteria for appointment of a CAP chaplain have earned the respect of
the Air Force, resulting in specific inclusion of CAP chaplain support in the AFIs. The
Chaplain Corps is the only portion of CAP to enjoy this degree of collegial relationship
with the Air Force. Our Memorandum of Agreement with the Air Force Chaplain Corps
requires us to conform to the standards of DODI 1304.28, which prescribes the
educational criteria for chaplaincy.
Lowering the standards for chaplains in order to increase their number is somewhat
akin to meeting a need for more physicians by declaring that EMTs will be doctors.
Competent ministers are the result of years of study, training and proven commitment.
We might rather see the need to be even more careful in our selection of chaplains than
ever before. It is our conviction that the currently established standards for the
appointment of CAP chaplains should not be degraded in any way.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 265-1, The Civil Air Patrol Chaplain Corps.
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL WELLMAN/UT withdrew this item and asked that the National Commander
appoint a committee or task force to review the process involved in the chaplain
appointment process and that this committee be comprised of both chaplains
and board members, with a report back to the National Board.
53

March 2011 National Board Minutes
MAJ GEN COURTER stated that some changes are already in progress for the
chaplain appointment process, and noted that at National Headquarters the Chaplain
Corps has been moved into the Professional Development area.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION:
Naming of committee or task force by the National
Commander. Inclusion in the winter 2011 National Board agenda.

ACTION
March 2011 National Board Meeting

COL HAYDEN/Chairman of Ad Hoc Committee, stated that the committee is working
this issue; that an Interim Report will be given at the May 2011 NEC meeting and a
Final Report at the Summer 2011 National Board meeting.

54

March 2011 National Board Minutes

E. September 2010 National Board Meeting: Agenda Item 23
Extension of Professional Appointments and Promotions to Include Homeland
Security and Emergency Management Professionals

WY Wg/CC – Col Skrabut

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
From time to time, new academic disciplines may emerge having curriculum content
highly relevant to the Civil Air Patrol mission. It is beneficial to the organization to
periodically assess the Professional Appointment and Promotion procedures to consider
inclusion of newly arising fields of study, in order to encourage membership by
individuals trained and credentialed in such fields.
Individuals completing degrees in Emergency Management or Homeland Security will
have skills highly contributory to the organization.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Board approve the establishment of guidelines similar to those for
chaplains, character development instructors, health service personnel, legal officers,
aerospace education officers, and finance officers for appointments and promotions for
persons demonstrating experience and education in the fields of Homeland Security
and/or Emergency Management.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
No direct associated costs, other than administrative cost to change regulation.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Without specific criteria, it would be hard to make a judgment on the validity of this item.
NHQ suggests that this be referred to a volunteer committee to establish proposed
criteria and then resubmit the item to the November 2010 NEC meeting with
recommendations.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Agree with all CAP NHQ and National Staff comments. On the surface this proposal
appears prudent; however, recommend it be sent to committee to develop
recommendations for the next policy-making meeting.

55

March 2011 National Board Minutes
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
NLO – Understanding that rank and other uniform matters are surrogates for payroll in
CAP; I would concur with this proposal if the guidelines only permit credit for experience
and/or credentials that are compatible with CAP mission requirements. We should also
rethink whether persons with NASAR credentials (e.g., SARTEC I and II) should be
exempt from certain ground team leader/member training along these same lines.
Senior Advisor – Support and PD Advisor are concerned with the broad wording of this
AI. At present, there is no experience based criteria for professional development and
promotion in the CAP. The existing metrics require a degree or other professional
recognition such as an FAA pilot certificate or instructor certificate, advanced degree,
CPA certificate, etc. The HLS and Emergency Management fields are growing so
rapidly that we believe it would be impractical for local, Wing, Region, or even National
personnel officers to review an application without specific metrics for a specific field of
expertise.
Senior Advisor – Operations: If, indeed, there are elevating degrees in these disciplines
and those degrees can directly contribute to and support CAP’s missions in those
areas, I concur that this should be considered.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 35-5, CAP Officer and Noncommissioned Officer Appointments and Promotions.
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL SKRABUT/WY MOVED and COL LEE/PA seconded the PROPOSED
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.
COL BURKE/MI MOVED TO AMEND and COL LARSON/IL seconded the
amendment to identify professional certifications that are nationally recognized
and allow those to also automatically qualify for CAP emergency services roles.
COL MURRELL/CS PROXY MOVED TO REFER and COL CARR/GLR seconded
that this item be moved to committee in order to explore and develop appropriate
criteria.
THE MOTION TO MOVE TO COMMITTEE CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Referral to committee with guidance from Col Herrin/NLO to
consider all national emergency services qualifications that people currently hold to
develop some table of equivalencies or some idea whereby CAP doesn’t have to have
highly trained people repeat the same training just to check boxes on the forms. There
was additional guidance from Col Guimond that the committee needs to be comprised
of both operational and support people since this item involves promotion and
advancement as well as operational issues.

56

March 2011 National Board Minutes

ACTION
March 2011 National Board Meeting

COL BISHOP/Chairman of Ad Hoc Committee stated that the committee is working this
issue. The committee rewrote its tasking to make this a mission related skills
appointment as opposed to professional development appointment. The committee did
not look at ES qualifications, which was suggested, because that is a separate issue
and is being worked. He stated that it will be more difficult to identify the homeland
security professional or emergency management professional as opposed to what a
pilot certificate looks like or what a CPA certificate looks like. He added that at the
Summer 2011 National Board meeting, the committee will be looking for guidance in the
consistency of applying professional development as it relates to mission skills and
professional appointments. At the current time CAP inconsistently applies professional
development requirements (Levels I, II, III, and IV) for promotion depending on how a
person gets an advanced promotion.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: A Final Report will be given at the Summer 2011 National
Board meeting. Include in the Summer 2011 National Board agenda.

57

March 2011 National Board Minutes

F. October 2010 NEC Minutes: Item 5d
High Performance Aircraft Checkout Requirements

MER/CC - Col Vazquez

INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
At the August 2006 National Board, a New Business item was approved that tasked the
National Operations Committee to develop language removing the prohibition against
cadet primary flight instruction in Cessna 182s. A related agenda item was submitted to
the November 2006 NEC permitting cadet primary flight instruction in C-182s, which
resulted in the current rules in CAPR 60-1 exempting student pilots from the minimum
time requirements for that model aircraft.
The student pilot exemption was based on the policy at that time of purchasing only C182 aircraft to replace CAP’s fleet, impacting the availability of C-172s in the future. It
was felt that low time pilots could be trained to fly C-182s as easily as any other aircraft,
especially if this was the only aircraft type a student pilot would be flying.
In light of industry standards, recent changes in CAP fleet replacement, flight instructor
feedback and the characteristics of the C-182, CAP should reverse its decision to permit
primary student pilot flight instruction in high performance (C-182) aircraft. The list of
reasons includes the following:
1. Industry standards. A review of 7 flight schools selected at random nationwide
revealed that checkout standards ranged from a low of 100 hours total time with
5 hours make and model to a high of 200 hours total time with 5 hours make and
model to fly fixed gear non-turbo charged C-182s. At no point was student pilot
primary flight instruction found to be permitted in C-182s.
2. CAP recently started to refurbish older C-172 aircraft in lieu of purchasing new C182s. This should result in better availability of C-172s for future student pilot
training, without the need to commit to using C-182s for the task.
3. National Operations recently formed a committee of Region and Wing Stan/Eval
officers to provide feedback on whether or not student pilots should be trained in
C-182 aircraft. Out of 7 committee members, only one indicated approval for
continuing C-182 primary flight instruction.
4. Aircraft damage potential is high with C-182s, particularly due to bad landings.
As stated in the October 2010 issue of AOPA Pilot Magazine (page 82),
regarding C-182 aircraft:

58

March 2011 National Board Minutes
“The Skylane is, in fact, a nose-heavy airplane, and the careless can be timid in the
landing flare. The results show up in logbooks as bent engine mounts, buckled
firewalls, and cryptic log entries for propeller, engine, and nose gear replacements.”
Primary student pilots spend a predominate amount of training learning to land.
Training aircraft have to be forgiving of bad landing attempts, an attribute that is not true
of the C-182.
Lastly, it was reported that in 2010, all five National Flight Academies used C-172
aircraft only for cadet flight instruction. Elimination of the student pilot exemption for C182s in CAP will not impact this important cadet activity. It will improve the safety of
flight by providing a minimum standard all pilots operating this complicated aircraft
model should possess.
PROPOSED NEC ACTION:
That the National Executive Committee approve that the National Operations staff
revise CAPR 60-1 to eliminate the existing student pilot exemption and present that
revision to the Winter National Board for final approval.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
No funding impact is anticipated.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur.
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Non-concur with the proposal as written. Procedurally, the NEC and NB are charged to
make policy. The national staff then codes that policy into appropriate regulatory form.
It’s unnecessary to draft regulatory language in order to have it approved by a policy
making body.
On the substance of the amendment we agree with the concerns of both Senior
Advisors. Rather than prohibit (or allow) the use of C-182 aircraft in all circumstances,
the policy could acknowledge the added risk and state a general prohibition with a
described waiver procedure (approved at the wing commander level or higher) to
account for special circumstances.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
National Chief of Staff: While I appreciate the opinions of the author and the sponsor, I
do not see the need to change this regulation. There already exists a mechanism for
wing and region commanders to use their judgment regarding these issues. As the
RMR Commander, I co-sponsored the initial change to 60-1 which this proposal seeks
to reverse. The Senior Advisor for Operations and the current NEC at that time
59

March 2011 National Board Minutes
approved the changes.
Since the promulgation of the original change, the
circumstances have not changed for those regions – like RMR – that do not use C-172s
for operational missions. The need to train new pilots has not changed. FAA pilot
requirements for flying high-performance aircraft have not changed. Commanders
should be allowed to exercise that discretion. I believe now, as I believed then, that the
commander in the field, the check pilot, and the flight instructor in the cockpit are the
best judges of whether or not to approve flight training and Forms 5. We need to keep
the onus on those best able to make reasoned decisions in light of local conditions.
Again, I do not think this regulation requires a change. The flexibility to utilize the fleet
to best advantage should be retained.
Senior Advisor – Operations: I concur that C172s will provide for a better flight training
platform than the C182 for a number of reasons; including the fact the C182 was not
built to be a primary trainer. That being said, although I encourage the use of C172s
whenever possible, even with the planned retention of C172s in the fleet there may be
some regions of the country where a C172 may not be available. In an effort to retain a
cadet flight training opportunity, if a C172 cannot be available, I suggest consideration
of a waiver process that would give the Region Commanders the opportunity to approve
flight training and subsequent checkout in a C182 aircraft on an individual basis, as final
authority based on information presented up the chain-of-command.
Senior Advisor - Support: Concur with the concept of this proposal; however, we have
concerns that the complete elimination of the exemption will prevent some qualified and
deserving cadets from being able to participate in flight training. Suggest that a
provision be included in any new policy which would allow a Wing Commander to
request approval, through channels, to use a C-182 for cadet training based upon
documentation that a C-172 is not practically available for the mission.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 60-1, CAP Flight Management
NEC ACTION:
COL VAZQUEZ/MER MOVED and COL KARTON/GLR seconded that the NEC
direct the National Operations Staff to investigate hazards related to student pilot
instruction in High Performance Aircraft and develop a program to mitigate those
hazards. Staff to present the program to the winter 2011 National Board Meeting
for final approval.
THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: National Operations staff action. Include in the winter 2011
National Board agenda.

60

March 2011 National Board Minutes

FEBRUARY 2011 NHQ RESPONSE:
There are currently 3 cadets listed in Ops Qual, as qualified in C182’s. Two of them are
G1000 qualified.
The Safety department reports:
From FY07 – FY10 there were 11 Flight Training Mishaps. All 11 were in C-172’s.
Of 9,305 (C16) cadet training hours flown, 1,143 were in Cessna 182’s with zero
mishaps.
Approximately 12% of the total flight training was done in C182’s with no mishaps.

Safety Statistics – Cadet Flight Training
Data Analysis from FY07 – FY10
Total Flight Training Mishaps:
11
Total Cadets Involved:
15
Total Cadet Flight Training Mishaps – Aircraft Operations:
Total Cadet Flight Training Mishap – Mechanical:
Total Cadet Flight Training Mishaps – Ground Handling

Cadet Mishap Analysis by Aircraft Type:
C182: 0
C172: 11
C152: 0

61

6
1
4

March 2011 National Board Minutes

ACTION
March 2011 National Board Meeting
COL VAZQUEZ/Chairman of Ad Hoc Committee on High Performance Aircraft
provided a written Interim Report for inclusion in the agenda item. He also provided the
following Final Report, as follows: He stated that the committee considered the risk and
benefits of continuing solo and private pilots’ flight instruction using corporate Cessna
182 airplanes. The key findings were:
1. Benefits. There are many CAP cadets nationwide presently taking primary flight
instruction toward a solo or private pilot’s license using Cessna 182s. To
suddenly end access to these aircraft will negatively impact the ability of these
cadets to pursue further training, particularly in areas that do not have corporate
Cessna 172s. To date, there have been no reported accidents in a Cessna 182
by a CAP solo student. There is only one known incident during dual instruction
which was loss of control on take-off that was attributed to poor flight instruction
and resulted in only minor damage.
2. Risks. CAP is not following the standard practice of most flight schools or clubs.
The flight schools and clubs who perform student pilot instruction that were
examined do not permit solo student pilots to fly high performance aircraft (over
200 HP engines). The only exceptions were when the students owned the
training aircraft. There is also a greater chance of damaging corporate assets
with this type of flight instruction. A Cessna 182 is more likely and expensively
damaged with hard landings than in a Cessna 172. Of particular risk are the
firewalls in the Cessna 182 due to the greater weight and construction of the
aircraft. The risk could be limited with highly experienced flight instructors.
62

March 2011 National Board Minutes
The committee recommendations are included in the following motion:
COL VAZQUEZ/MER MOVED and COL RUSHING/SER seconded that the National
Board direct that CAPR 60-1 be modified to require that the combination of
instructor, student, and aircraft used for C-182 primary flight instruction be preapproved by the wing or region commander. Such an approval may be for all the
flights required to complete private pilot flight instruction, but any changes in
aircraft or instructor will require a new approval for that student to continue.

THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy, notification to the field, and change to
CAPR 60-1.

THIS ITEM IS CLOSED.

63

March 2011 National Board Minutes

G. October 2010 NEC Minutes: Item 6b
Program Representation during Compliance Inspections
CAP-USAF/CC - Col Ward
INFORMATION BACKGROUND:
CAPR 123-3 states in para. 7. b.2., “All wing program directors should be present for
wing inspections. Should a director be unavailable, someone knowledgeable in his/her
functional area must represent the absent director.” Many wings inspected during the
Cycle 3 round of compliance inspections do not have program directors showing up for
interviews or the designated representative is not able to showcase the entire program
to the inspectors. Recently, one wing did not have program directors available for 10 of
the 18 inspected programs.
Significant capital is invested by the CAP and the Air Force in terms of man-hours and
finances to comply with this Statement of Work inspection requirement. In addition,
assessments are vital to the CAP National Commander and CAP-USAF Commander in
providing an independent evaluation of organizational readiness, efficiency and
effectiveness. It is vital that Wing Commanders ensure knowledgeable program
representation is present for all compliance inspections.
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION:
That the National Executive Committee form a committee to study the impact of wing
program directors’ failure to attend the compliance inspection or prepare a
knowledgeable substitute to present the program in his/her absence. This study should
include guidance on how to assess programs which do not provide either functional
representation or the representative is not able to address all aspects of the program. It
should also recommend sanctions for wings that fail to adequately engage the
quadrennial requirement for inspection. This committee should include both CAP and
CAP-USAF members and will report back to the National Board no later than Feb 2011.
ESTIMATED FUNDING IMPACT:
Administrative costs for the committee to provide the study.
CAP NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Out of the 396 interviews thus far in cycle 3, 16 (4%) did not have the primary director
present. Nine of those interviews resulted in ratings of Successful, three resulted in
Marginals, and four resulted in Unsatisfactories.

64

March 2011 National Board Minutes
CAP-USAF HEADQUARTERS’ COMMENTS:
Concur. If this shortfall is not adequately addressed it may lead to Unsatisfactory
compliance inspection ratings.
ADVISOR / NATIONAL STAFF COMMENTS:
CAP-IG: Do not concur with the proposal as written. We do not view this as an
inspection problem, rather a manning/staffing problem. While we experience a
continuing problem both in inspecting unmanned positions and/or substitutes with no or
limited knowledge of the subject, we inspect programs rather than people. If the
program can show adequate supporting documentation and some semblance of
management, it is graded accordingly. The IG sees this whole problem as an
organization mired in a 1950s organizational structure with commander’s who are not
able to man some programs with experienced, capable people. I thank CAP-USAF for
bringing this issue forward for everyone to see a problem throughout the organization.
REGULATIONS AND FORMS AFFECTED:
CAPR 123-3, Civil Air Patrol Compliance Assessment Program
NATIONAL BOARD ACTION
COL WARD/CAP-USAF/CC MOVED and COL MYRICK/PCR seconded the
PROPOSED NATIONAL BOARD ACTION.
BRIG GEN CARR/CV MOVED TO AMEND and COL CHAZELL/CS seconded the
amendment to add the words: “request the National Commander” between the
words “Committee” and “form” on the first line.
THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED
THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: The National Commander name a committee including CAPUSAF personnel, the IG, a member of the NEC, at least one wing commander, a
member of Col Guimond’s team, and a representation of National Headquarters. There
was guidance to the committee to also consider the issue of leadership and in the
context of manning, organizational structure, and personnel as well as electronic
continuity books. Include in the winter 2011 National Board agenda.

65

March 2011 National Board Minutes

ACTION
March 2011 National Board Meeting
COL MESKILL/Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee provided the following Interim
Report: He provided some background statistical information and reported that the
committee feels that the stated problem is indicative of management and staffing
problems within a wing. The purpose of the inspection program as outlined in CAPR
123-3, CAP Compliance Assessment Program, is to inspect and report on the functions
and programs within a wing and not individuals assigned to those programs and
functions, except for their qualifications to perform the duties that they have been
assigned. CAP is a volunteer organization and while the presence of a director in a
functional area is certainly strongly desired for an inspection, the committee believes
that the program or function being inspected should stand on the basis of the evidence
of compliance presented to the inspection team and not the presenter. If the stand-in is
unable to present the program, then the scorer should reflect that, but the score should
be no different than if the primary person assigned did the presentation. Certainly a
wing that cannot field 10 of 18 directors for inspected programs has management and
motivational issues. And the fact that these people are absent should almost certainly
reflect on the wing commander and the chief of staff. If a wing can present a complete
and thorough program, which is compliant with the regulations, the inspection score
should stand alone on the basis of the presented program.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Include in the August 2011 NB agenda.

66

March 2011 National Board Minutes

H. February 2010 NB Minutes: Item 5
Governance
COL VERRETTE/PCR/VC & Legal Officer and Chairman of the CAP Governance
Review Committee, presented a slide briefing prior to the board’s consideration of those
items under Agenda 5.
COL CARR/GLR MOVED and COL VAZQUEZ/MER seconded that the National
Board refer all items under Agenda Item 5 (a., b., c., d., e., f., g., h. i., and j.) to the
Governance Review Committee (working with the Public Trust Committee and
Constitution and Bylaws Committee) for review and report back to the National
Board.
COL HERRIN/NLO MOVED TO AMEND and COL JENSEN/SWR seconded that
Items 5.c, 5.d, and 5.j. be deleted from referral to the Governance Review
Committee.

THE MOTION TO AMEND CARRIED
The amended motion reads: “That the National Board refers items 5.a., 5.b., 5.e.,
5.f., 5.g., 5.h., and 5.i. under Agenda Item 5 to the Governance Review Committee
(working with the Public Trust Committee and Constitution and Bylaws
Committee) for review and a report back to the National Board.

THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTIONS:
Referral to committee;
By request of committee chair, two other corporate officers to be named to committee;
By request, names of committee members provided to National Board;
Comments from National Board members will be sent to the committee chair (contact
information to be provided to board members);

ACTION
March 2011 National Board Meeting
The report of the Governance Committee was distributed to National Board members
prior to the lunch break with instructions for members to mark the report “Confidential,”
which will be discussed in Closed Session. This information will remain “Confidential”
67

March 2011 National Board Minutes
until a decision is made upon changes in governance at which time a communications
plan would be implemented to specifically communicate the changes that will be made
to the field versus the working product of the committee.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: To be determined.

68

March 2011 National Board Minutes

AGENDA ITEM 13

New Business

Action

Happy Birthday to Avia Ward
COL VEST/NFO MOVED and COL CHARLES/NAT CON seconded that the National
Board convey its best wishes for a Happy Birthday to Avia Ward and its thanks to
her for excusing her Daddy from attending her Birthday Party today and letting
him come to our meeting.

THE MOTION CARRIED
A. Commander’s Guide for Performance Improvement
COL RUSHING/Chair of the Adverse Action Committee provided an Interim Report. He
briefed actions taken by the committee and distributed a DRAFT of a proposed on-line
Commander’s Guide for Performance Improvement (to replace a 1990s handbook) on
dealing with issues of adverse action or membership termination. This guide is for
guidance only and does not take precedence over regulations.
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: A Final Report will be given to the Summer 2011National
Board meeting. Inclusion in the Summer 2011 National Board agenda with guidance for
the commanders to give input to the committee if they have recommended changes to
the pamphlet.

B. CLOSED SESSION ITEM: Governance Committee recommendation
to BoG
COL SUMNER/MS MOVED and COL MYRICK/PCR seconded that the National
Board approve sending to the Board of Governors the results of the straw poll
voting concerning the four Governance Committee recommendations.

THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Inclusion in the June 2011 BoG agenda.

C. Revisions to CAPR 900-5, Civil Air Patrol Insurance Benefits
Program
COL HERRIN/NLO presented an agenda item to change the insurance benefits
regulation to equalize out-of-pocket expenses for CAP members who have insurance
and for those who do not, particularly as it pertains to parents of CAP cadets who have
69

March 2011 National Board Minutes
been placed in CAP’s care who should not have to pay out of pocket for any medical
costs associated with a cadet’s participation that are not covered by the parents’ health
insurance.. He made the following motion:
COL HERRIN/NLO MOVED and COL PARRIS/CA seconded that the National
Board approve a change to CAPR 900-5, Section E, Paragraph 20, as follows: (b)
for senior members: that portion of the other policy coverage not paid such as
coinsurance deductible (not including standard deductibles), etc., up to $8,000.00
per occurrence; (c) for cadets: that portion of the other policy coverage not paid
for any reason up to $8,000.00 per occurrence. All medical expense benefits
payments to senior members are subject to the $50.00 per claim deductible.
National Headquarters, CAP-USAF, and National staff comments were solicited.
Mr. Robles/NHQ/GC stated that currently $15,000.00 is set aside for insurance issues
and the CAP Care Program which is a voluntary program at NHQ for contingencies of
this nature that a volunteer might have. To date, these funds have been adequate
because unreimbursed insurance expenses have not exceeded approximately$8,000.
He had no information that indicates an empirical need right now for something of the
proposed nature, which could become exorbitantly expensive, and the insurance
brokers and underwriters should be consulted. He also added that the earlier GC did
not concur with this motion.
CAP-USAF/CC stated that this is a corporate matter, but he had earlier advised CAP to
check with the underwriters to be sure of what it was signing up for beforehand, and the
same advice stands.
COL GUIMOND/National Staff had no recommendations. He stated that it is purely a
board decision, but obviously the financial commitment would be of concern.
THERE WAS A MOTION TO MOVE TO THE QUESTION WHICH RECEIVED A TWOTHIRDS MAJORITY VOTE.

THE MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy, notification to the field, and change to
CAPR 900-5, Civil Air Patrol Insurance Benefits Program.

D. Air Force Sergeants Association Outstanding National Cadet NCO
of the Year Award
BRIG GEN CARR/CV briefed that the Air Force Sergeants Association (AFSA) currently
sponsors an award for the Outstanding Cadet Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) of the
Year at the local unit level. Recently, AFSA has agreed to sponsor a National level
award to recognize the Outstanding National Cadet NCO of the Year to the cadet who
exhibits outstanding qualities in the areas of followership, leadership, self- discipline,
and aerospace education The award will be open to all cadets who have (1) Earned the
70

March 2011 National Board Minutes
Wright Brothers Award, but have not yet earned the Gen Billy Mitchell Award; (2)
Completed at least one encampment as a participant; and (3) Demonstrated by their
actions an outstanding level of followership, leadership, and self-discipline, as well as
personally advancing their aerospace knowledge and assisting with other members in
their unit.
BRIG GEN CARR/CV MOVED and COL GUZMAN/ID seconded that the National
Board approve the creation of the Air Force Sergeants Association Outstanding
National Cadet NCO of the year per the criteria listed above.
COL SCARBROUGH//LA MOVED TO AMEND and COL COOPER/NAT CAP
seconded the amendment that the stipend will be paid by the Air Force Sergeants
Association.

THE AMENDMENT CARRIED
COL KARTON/GLR MOVEDTO AMEND to strike the words “the Air Force
Sergeants Association” because CAP does not have the authority to create
another agency’s award.
The motion failed due to the lack of a second. There was note that other levels of
this award already exist.
COL GUZMAN/ID MOVED THE QUESTION and COL VAZQUEZ/MER seconded the
motion to call for the vote.
THE MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION CARRIED BY THE REQUIRED TWOTHIRDS MAJORITY VOTE.

THE AMENDED MOTION CARRIED
FOLLOW-ON ACTION: Implementation of policy, notification to the field, and change to
CAPR 39-3, Award of CAP Medals, Ribbons, and Certificates. Include in Summer 2012
National Board agenda for presentation based on CY 2011 selection.

CH, COL, WOODARD, provided the benediction.
THERE WAS A MOTION TO ADJOURN BY ACCLAMATION
THERE WAS A CLOSED SESSION OF THE NATIONAL BOARD ON SATURDAY
AFTERNOON.
THE NATIONAL BOARD ADJOURNED AT 5:00 PM SATURDAY, 5 MARCH 2011.

71

March 2011 National Board Minutes
ADMINISTRATIVE ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Update remarks and slide briefings were presented by Maj Gen Courter, National
Commander; Mr. Rowland, Executive Director; and Col Ward, USAF, CAP-USAF
Commander.
Brig Gen Carr/CV also briefed on a meeting held with the Air Force Sergeants
Association.
Distinguished members and guests were recognized including members of the head
table; other members of the NEC; Members of the Board of Governors, Brig Gen
Richard Anderson (also Col, USAF (Ret) (Chairman) and Lt Col Ned Lee; Mr. Brian
Arnold, Director of Air Force Auxiliary Programs and Assistant to the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force; and Commander of CAP-USAF, Col Ward, USAF.
Brig Gen Carr/CV announced the following named new commanders and Maj Gen
Courter presented their National Board badges:
NER
SER
NCR
SWR
RMR

Col William J. Moran, NH Wing
Col Carlton R. Sumner, Jr., MS Wing
Col Sean P. Fagan, Commander
Col Erica R. Williams, MO Wing
Col Lewis D. Alexander, AR Wing
Col John E. Mitchell, WY Wing

Brig Gen Carr/CV announced the following named departing National Board members
and expressed appreciation for their service:
GLR
SER

SWR

RMR

Col David M. Winters, OH Wing
Col James M. Rushing, Commander
Col Christian F. Moersch, III, FL Wing
Col George B. Melton, TN Wing
Col Joseph C. Jensen, Commander
Col Richard F. Himebrook, NM Wing
Col Robert H. Castle, OK Wing
Col Joe R. Smith, TX Wing
Col Edward D. Phelka, CO Wing
Col Herbert C. Guzman, MT Wing (Aug 2011)

CAP-USAF Col William R. Ward, USAF, Commander
Life Membership in Civil Air Patrol was awarded to Col William R. Ward, USAF, to
recognize his outstanding service to CAP during his tenure as both Vice Commander
and Commander of CAP-USAF.
General Carl A. Spaatz Award Number 1761 was presented by Maj Gen Courter and
Brig Gen Anderson to Cadet/Col Joshua Carr.

72

March 2011 National Board Minutes
Gill Robb Wilson Awards were presented to Col Carlton Sumner, Jr., Maj Mallory
Woodcock, and Maj Allen Sayer, all from the MS Wing; and to Lt Col Mark G. Smith,
New Mexico/CV.
A plaque commemorating 50 years of service in CAP was presented to Col Theodore A.
Chaves
A Distinguished Service Award was presented to Brig Gen Charles L. Carr, Jr. for
service as GLR Commander during the period 1 Mar 2007 to 4 Sep 2010.
Col Verrett/CS Proxy read a letter addressed to Brig Gen Carr from Maj Gen Courter,
expressing her appreciation for his exemplary service to Civil Air Patrol his first six
months as CAP’s National Vice Commander. Gen Courter presented a National
Commander coin to Brig Gen Carr for his excellence and dedication.
Col Verrett/CS Proxy also read a letter addressed to Col Ward from Maj Gen Courter,
expressing appreciation for all he did as CAP-USAF’s Commander and previously as
CAP-USAF’s Vice Commander to assist in Civil Air Patrol’s success and service to our
nation and to propel forward CAP’s partnership with the Air Force.
Maj Gen Courter announced a new CAP partnership with Armed Forces Benefit
Association (AFBA), which provides term life insurance with no aviation exclusions.
She introduced the Chairman and President of AFBA, General Ralph E. Eberhart,
USAF (Ret), who signed the Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of AFBA along
with Maj Gen Courter, National Commander, who signed on behalf of CAP.
With reference to the Gold Medal Bill, Maj Gen Courter announced that so far only 100
names have been identified as potential CAP adult members who served during World
War II; the number should be much higher. She reminded that volunteers will also be
needed to go out and meet with these people or their family members who will be
eligible to receive the proposed Gold Medal.
In recognition of their outstanding contribution for 2010 Wreaths Across America
program, Maj Gen Courter presented the Unit Citation Award to the five top selling units.
The wing commanders accepted the following awards on behalf of the units:
In fifth place for sales of 1,414 wreaths, Gwinnett Composite Sq, GA Wing;
In fourth place for sales of 1,521 wreaths, Obloo Composite Sq, CA Wing;
In third place for sales of 2,987 wreaths, Bismarck Composite Sq, ND Wing;
In second place for sales of 3, 201 wreaths, El Paso Composite Sq, TX Wing;
In first place for sales of 3,867 wreaths, Peachtree DeKalb Senior Sq, GA Wing,

73