NOTF Exclusive:
The Air Force Inspector General's Report on the Civil
Air Patrol
By Skip Munger, News of the Force Tampa
As we've told our readers, News of
the Force has exclusively obtained a copy of the Report of Inquiry
(S6889P) Civil Air Patrol, as the report of an investigation by the
Inspector General of the Air Force. A copy of the report was obtained by
NOTF under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA).
To the credit of the Air Force, our
FOIA request was filed on Feb. 15, and the report was received by us less than a
month after it was requested.
The report covers the following areas:
Violation of the CAP's Constitution and By-Laws; Violation of Fiduciary Duties
to the CAP; Acting Without Authority; Violation of CAP Regulations; and the
Violation of Reasonable and Fair Treatment of CAP Members.
According to the report, "This inquiry
was directed by the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) in response to a
complaint filed by [redacted]. The crux of the complaint is that the CAP's
Board of Governors (BoG) violated their fiduciary duties, CAP's Constitution,
By-laws, and regulations, and treated [redacted] in an unfair manner, primarily
during the conduct and resolution of numerous CAP investigations into complaints
made against [redacted]." From what NOTF has already learned, and
reported on, the "redacted" information could only refer to former CAP National
Commander Maj. Gen. Amy S. Courter.
The report then goes on to detail
the governing bodies of the CAP and their responsibilities (the Board of
Governors, the National Executive Committee, and the National
Board).
"Witnesses discussed CAP's history of
turmoil at the senior ranks, describing how past senior leaders left their
positions or were somehow forced out via resignation or removal. Witnesses
said CAP's IG system has often been used as a political tool, prompting a
battery of complaints and counter-complaints against CAP senior leaders and BoG
members. Nearly every witness blamed the turmoil on CAP's acrimonious political
culture, stemming from the current governances system whereby CAP elects the CC
and CV via a popular vote of the NB, whose members are influenced either
directly or indirectly by the appointment powers of the CAP/CC." the report
states. "This created a patronage system which has driven CAP to a point where
there a de facto political parties, whereby a group currently out of power looks
for an advantage to regain power. Testimony from a majority of witnesses
described the system as akin yo "dirty politics" with partisan, acrimonious
attacks and resultant 'backbiting,' 'infighting' and 'mudslinging.' A number of
witnesses also felt CAP/CC has too much power since the commander has
appointment powers over NEC and NB members and has direct influence in selecting
7 of the 11 BoG members."
"CAP's political factionalism is
exacerbated by websites and bloggers that support the various camps [redacted].
Witnesses testified at length about the frustrations with the sites, decrying
the frequent nasty, malicious, and vitriolic attacks against senior leaders and
the distorted information the sites publish regarding CAP activities
and the decisions of CAP leaders, sometimes revealing non-public
information from protected sources such as CAP investigation files." A footnote
to this page reads "Witnesses referred to 'CAP Insights' as [redacted],
while 'News of the Force' is [redacted]." OF course, we'd like to know what the
"redacted" words are, but this once again goes to show that many CAP members who
do not read NOTF seem think that the CAP is all we report on.
CAP Insights does that, but CAP stories are actually less than 1%
of the news that NOTF provides, and 99% of those CAP stories that
NOTF does report are actually "good" stories about the CAP and its
activities.
The report goes into great
detail about the CAP's governing boards, and their structure and regulatory
authorities are quoted, but we will not go into all of that here. But one of the
main issues pointed out in the report is that the BoG has existed for more than
ten years, but most of the CAP's regulations still do not delineate the
BoG's actual make-up and authority.
Later, the report continues,
"[Redacted] asked CAP to send a cease and desist letter to the 'CAP Insights'
blogger who was writing defamatory comments about [redacted], including that
[redacted] was guilty of fraud, waste, and abuse. [Redacted] felt there was
precedence for such an action because CAP sent a cease and desist letter to
the same blogger a year earlier when [redacted] was removed as [redacted.]
[Redacted] and [redacted] testified the previous [redacted] did send a cease and
desist letter to the same blogger during [redacted]'s time as CAP/CC, and the
blogger then 'turned on' the CAP/GC, with the letter having a net negative
effect. [Redacted] and [redacted] also felt that since the blogger was attacking
[redacted]."
"[Redacted] brought up
a number of incidents in [redacted] complaint and testimony in which
[redacted] felt [redacted] was not treated fairly and in accordance with CAP's
past practice, and that every CAP member should be able to expect to be treated
fairly and in accordance with CAP regulations. While there is no official
standard for 'fairness,' Merriam-Webster's defines 'fair' in this sense as
'marked by impartiality and honesty: free from self interest, prejudice, or
favoritism.'"
The conclusion
"The evidence pints a picture of CAP
as an organization that is performing well operating as the civilian
auxiliary of the AF, which is a great tribute to its 60,000+ volunteer members,
volunteer leadership, small paid CAP NHQ staff, and CAP-USAF personnel," the
report concludes. "But it is also clear CAP has much work to do in the are of
governance reform. Witnesses invariably pointed to the same factors which
are hindering CAP. The first is that the CAP volunteer leadership structure is
over-politicized, a byproduct of the way CAP selects its leaders. Competing
factions have used CAP's IG system and have leaked internal CAP information to
vocal bloggers to gain political advantage over rivals. This has tarnished the
reputation of CAP's senior leaders and distracted the BoG from focusing on more
strategic matters. Second, the BoG construct was overlaid upon the existing CAP
governance system and has never been fully harmonized, resulting in continued
confusion over the roles and responsibilities of the BoG, the NB, and the NEC.
There are differences of opinion among CAP's leadership, including the top legal
counsels, regarding the extent of the powers of the BoG. CAP regulations have
not been updated to reflect the role of the BoG, with some key regulations
predating the BoG's existence. CAP is aware of these issues and is taking steps
to address them, but this will take time in an organization
primarily composed of volunteers."
"[Redacted] continues to feel
[redacted] has been undermined and [redacted]'s reputation unfairly damaged.
[Redacted] has lost opportunities in [redacted]'s personal life as a
business executive due to negative publicity promulgated through the blogs, and
[redacted] continues to disagree with the collective judgment of the BoG
regarding allegations sustained against [redacted], felling [redacted]'s actions
did not rise to the level of actual violations. The inquiry validated
[redacted]'s allegation that the BoG did not follow procedures outlined in CAP's
Constitution and Bylaws regarding the proper calling of BoG meetings and the
documentation of decisions via minutes. Evidence revealed a lack of
'corporate rigor' in the manner in which the BoG was conducting its
business. The inquiry also validated [redacted]'s allegation that CAP
regulations were not followed in the conduct of numerous investigation of IG
complaints against [redacted]. BoG members felt they had the authority to tailor
procedures to fit what they considered to be unique circumstances, and that
individuals involved in conducting and reviewing the investigations were using
due care and diligence. Even so, [redacted] did not receive the due process
defined in CAPR 123-2 in the conduct of investigations, most notably by not
having the opportunity yo know about or address one of the two allegations which
were sustained against [redacted]. Although it is unclear whether
a different result would have been obtained if the investigations had been
conducted appropriately, at the very least a more transparent process and
better communication would have provided [redacted] assurances [redacted]
was being dealt with properly."
Continued
on Page 2