Warbird Information Exchange

Dave, that's why I decided to share the announcement with everyone on WIX! I, too, hope that both sides will be there to answer questions and explain things, and that anyone who really cares or has a dog in the fight will be there too. Last call to hash it all out, call names, point fingers, pass the blame, and then LET'S PUT THIS BEHIND US AND GET BEHIND GETTING FIFI (and others) FLYING!!!!

_________________
Mike

The situation in the CAF is the culmination of events that I can best describe as the hostile takeover of the American Airpower Heritage Museum (Museum) by the current general staff and president Steve Brown. Hostile takeover is a term used many times by HQ about the museum board. I see it quite the opposite.

The Museum has stood as an independent corporation since 1989, and has evolved into a world class, fully accredited, museum thanks to the direction of Tami O’Bannion who has been at the helm since its creation. The Museum was created as an independent entity in 1989, and the CAF membership voted on this corporate reorganization on October 12, 1990, and the artifacts given to the American people (hence the name) as an irrevocable gift of the most complete collection of WWII memorabilia in existence.

There are many other reasons, other than liability protection, why the Museum is its own independent entity. It prevents the possibility of museum assets being used for any other purpose, other than for the Museum. The Museum tells the story of WWII by means of preservation - of the artifacts. The CAF tells the story by means of restoration-flying the aircraft. The two have an unavoidable conflict of interest, yet they are equally important. With the CAF and Mr. Brown over all, which hat will Mr. Brown wear? He cannot wear both hats at the same time. All these reasons are why accreditation stipulates an independent board of directors with a professional independent staff be present within the current framework. The corporate structure of independence protects the assets and the artifacts from misuse and neglect. The accreditation board has valid reasons for defining these protective rules. No one knows these rules better than Tami O’Bannion, and for all these reasons the museum board fought the fight against the termination of the museum’s independence. They were simply doing their job as prudent board members.

In the early years, the museum director reported to the CAF CEO. Bob Rice was Tami’s boss in the early days prior to accreditation. But when the Museum started going for accreditation in the mid-1990s, and reaccreditation in 2005, the Museum was forced to clarify some fuzzy areas about who Tami works for and how the museum board functions, all based on new standards published by the accreditation commission. Those new standards made it clear that they expected a clear line of authority from Tami to her governing authority and more precise processes for governing the museum. Clearly, Tami didn’t need a boss, as evidenced by the museum that stands today. Yet, Tami and the Board knew that they must work for good of the CAF, and satisfy accreditation standards. So the Museum Board made appropriate amendments to the Museum bylaws for accreditation, and Tami and Bob Rice entered into an operating agreement that honored each others roles and ensured cooperation going forward. They worked in such a seamless fashion of mutual respect for each other that one could not tell that they were two different entities. Their mission is the same, but with very different methods of achieving it. One of preservation of artifacts – One of restoring flyable aircraft. Both equally important to the common mission of preserving and teaching WWII history.

Since the arrival of Steve Brown, a quest has been put forth to take over the museum by changing the corporate structure, putting the CAF over all and thus making Steve Brown boss over the entire show, the museum, and Tami O’Bannion. The means to the end of this movement has been accomplished by what could be viewed as the leadership style of “you can control a people if you rewrite or erase their history.” It appears that CAF HQ is trying to rewrite the history of the Museum. The propaganda that has flowed over the last 2 years rivals the likes of Axis Sally during WWII as to the need for the corporate structure change that would dictate that Steve Brown needs to control the Museum and its assets. The fallacy of their logic is that their primary concern that the former museum board could steal or sell assets, and yet that is exactly the power they have given themselves. Do you trust CAF HQ to protect the non-flying assets? Or an independent museum board to protect non-flying assets?
Also thrown in the mix was a huge lawsuit slapped on the museum by the CAF for changing the museum bylaws to allow a former general staff member be considered for CAF representation. The CAF legal fees were free, (donated by a lawyer supporter on the general staff side who shortly after had a prop strike in the Stinson 105 assigned to two general staff member’s wing, The High Sky Wing) and legal fees for the museum side to defend themselves escalated to a fortune.

The museum board and two general staff members (Floyd Houdashel, and Graham Robertson who were also on the museum board) fought relentlessly to stop this corporate structure change and protect the museum artifacts and assets in the same fashion they have been protected for 20 years.

Floyd and Graham were kicked off the general staff for being resisters to the movement, and replaced with people who could then be on the museum board to vote for the takeover action/corporate restructure.

At the end of the day, the financially inevitable settlement demanded that the entire museum board resign since they refused to compromise the public trust.

Apparently it wasn’t the end of the day. Then, to add frosting to the cake, the general staff and Mr. Brown decided to kick 3 museum board members (CAF life members) out of the CAF for life for “trying to illegally to change the museum bylaws and steal the museum away from the members”. These men were Gordon Stevenson, Joe Cowan, and Graham Robertson. For Hal Fenner and Floyd Houdashel (also CAF life members), the general staff barred them from holding any office. Floyd for life, Hal gets to hold an office again in 5 years - when he is 91 years old.

Several puzzling points: In 2008 the bylaws change was to have a past general staff member count as majority CAF representation on the museum board. This passed unanimously, including the votes of Mark Novak and Tom Rush. Just how is a vote of a sovereign board to change their bylaws illegal?

Also puzzling: There ended up 4 distinct categories of punishment for the same crime:
3 board members (Joe, Gordon, Graham) kicked out for life
2 board members (Floyd, Hal) banned from holding office
3 board members (Andy Shaffer, Luann Morgan, Barbara Davis) the citizen
representation, resigned from the board, but no sanctions.
2 board members (Mark Novak and Tom Rush) Mark is now Chief of Staff and Tom remain on the general staff.

This board had a fiduciary responsibility to protect the assets of the museum for all of us – CAF members and non members alike. (Hear that WIXers?!)

These men were, I assure you, doing the right thing in there responsibility as prudent museum board members. All you really have to do is look at who these men are. If any of you know any of them you will know what I mean. Their integrity is unquestionable.

The amazing set of actions that has taken place in order to “fix” something that wasn’t broken raises serious questions as to motive.

So,,,,as we stand in the CAF today, the integrity and the value base of the organization lies in the hands of the membership. We members can take a huge step in fixing this situation by voting out the 4 of the general staff members whose terms expire in October and replacing them with men who are not mesmerized by the present leadership and proven deplorable tactics, thus setting the CAF back on an honorable path.

All who are interested can obtain the details of the long saga at the June 4th meeting in Midland.

We are deeply saddened by all this. Hal and the CAF founder Lloyd Nolen created the independent museum concept together for this very reason; to protect the artifacts for all time, no matter who was in power over the CAF or what the politics of the time are. It was a brilliant idea that has worked wonderfully for 20 years.

Sorry this is so long for a blog sight but I simply can’t explain the situation any shorter. It is my understanding this sight has only a small number of CAF members so I thought this may be your only opportunity to know anything about the other side of the issue. We CAF members do appreciate your interest. Of course, please view http://takebackthecaf.com

Diane Fenner
Col # 11263
CAF member since 1984

So my question is "What is Mr. Brown's underlying motivation?" Alternately, what fears do the folks associated with the Museum have regarding this change in structure? Not knowing the entire situaion nor having read the bylaws of either organization, am I correct in guessing that the fear is that the General Staff will sacrifice (i.e. sell) non-flying assets (the museum) to keep the CAF's aircraft flying?

That sir is a 64 thousand dollar question. Especially in light of the fact that the museum offered to sign an operating agreement that Steve Brown that would establish the overall directions of all four organizations and as long as it did not violate legal, ethical, or museum best practices. This offer was rejected in its entirety. Total control of all museum assets was their only offer. You tell me, if you were on the museum board, what would you think?

You are partially correct, but more importantly a takeover of the museum by the CAF will violate the public trust and donors that would have supported the museum, nose art, and other, non-flying, assets will lose confidence that their moneys will go for their intended purposes and not to the aircraft. Furthermore, the State of Texas appropriates almost $1million every two years for the American Airpower Heritage Museum (a local Texas museum); will the State of Texas remain confident that their tax dollars will remain in the state or possibly seep out to support other CAF units in other states. Steve Brown is already talking about “airbases” in other locations across the nation.

Diane, I have stayed off of the forums for this subject. All of the Cols involved are friends of mine. I talked to them and told them that they were still friends, as far as I am concerned. But I disagree with their stand. I feel that Hal really didn't realise all that was going on and got caught up in all of this. ( I could be wrong). It is your right to spew out anything you want anywhere you want, but I feel you have crossed a line to go to a forum that you have never been a part of just to cause harm to the CAF. The "hostile take over" was averted by the General Staff. All you have said about accreditation is absolutely wrong. The board did what they had to do after many attempts to stop this. The Courts proved this. I don't want to go back and forth, you are welcome to call me any time and discuss, I wish you would. Leave this forum to the ones that have been on here for years. Stick with the forum you started and lets not air dirty laundry in the public. By the way, The CAF museum's accreditation was just extended 8 years. How could that be if what you say is true.

_________________

Blue Skies,
Doug

www.cavanaughflightmuseum.com

So are only members that joined on or before March 04, 2005 allowed to comment? If that's not the day, what is? I need to know at what point I'm allowed an opinion.

Chunks

_________________
Jack McDonnel

T-6/SNJ Hoarder

Chunks, I think the issue here is motivation. Diane's only motivation of signing up here was to post that.

Either way, the issue here is that there's a lot of the "old guard" who were against Steve Brown's hiring and what the General Staff wanted to do with his hiring. They (the old guard) saw it as a threat to their "Good 'Ole Boys" club that had established itself over the years to the detriment of the organization (to the tune of loosing 50%-100% more members per year than gaining) and to the detriment of the safety of the organization.

I won't comment further on that issue as it's a cultural issue within the organization and it's something that really needs to be handled directly within it and I know that there are more than a few who are.

Oddly, I see this same thing going on in the Civil Air Patrol right now as well. There is an "Old Guard" within CAP that was once headed by the now disgraced former National Commander. His "friends" that are still within the organization are doing everything they can to fight the current National Commander because she's not part of their group, not because she's "bad" for the organization, only for their continued ability to retain power within it. Again, it's an issue that has to be handled beyond my little area of interaction with the organization, but it is still kinda one of those things that isn't unique to the CAF, but it's something that really needs to be gone through to make a better organization in the end for both groups because both will fail if those in charge whom have the vision to save them can't do it.

Doug, I do not have to gain permission to participate on a forum.

Being that this is you, it makes me think of the perfect scenario as to why the museum’s protection lies in its independence. Your present employer (Cavanaugh Flight Museum) is doing a wonderful thing in the effort to get FiFi flying again. And I do not underestimate that. It would have been incredibly hard for the CAF (your past employer) to get FiFi back in the air without Jim Cavanaugh. The CAF is truly indebted to him. So let’s say someone wants to thank him in the form of artifacts. After all, that would be what he would value most, he has a museum. Surely to goodness that would never happen. Surely we would not trade artifacts for favors. But what I take issue with, and what the ousted men took issue with, is that the general staff has torn down the corporate structure to prevent that from happening. As I said, what hat is Steve going to wear – preservation or restoration – now that he is in control of it all? It is not fair to put Steve in that position, because his allegiance will be were the pressure is and the power is, and it is not fair to the museum to be constantly vulnerable to such actions. This scenario was not possible under the 4 separate corporation structure – therefore, the assets were safe. Now they are not, no matter who is running the CAF.

Oh yes, “the court’s proof”. I’m not getting into that here, that will be addressed at the June 4th meeting. But what I will say is that I have never seen any judge ruling that said the 3 most influential CAF members who could tell their side had to be kicked out of the CAF for life. That action came straight from the general staff’s hearts, or what heart they had left. They and Steve need to quit using that judge and live up to the intended reasons for those actions. I agree with you completely about friendship, the general staff were all my friends; they were, until their actions proved not friend worthy. And Hal loved them all, especially Neils.

As for Hal’s mental capacity, I assure you he knew what he was doing. He was being a prudent museum board member. Although insulting to him (happens a lot to 86 year olds), I have heard this concern about him from other general staff and their supporters. It does shine a glimmer of hope that the general staff does have at least a thread of conscience. But feeling guilty about Hal isn’t good enough. They should feel guilty about what they did to ALL the men and ladies.

As for the accreditation issues, that part is really annoying. When I want to ask accreditation questions, as a member I should be able to go straight to the horse’s mouth. But the general staff’s lawsuit clearly stipulates that Tami can not talk about accreditation. I would be verifying facts by other means anyway, as with everything I say. I wouldn’t simply take Tami’s word for it. But the fact that they forbid me to ask her – well, up runs another red flag up the pole. I can’t verify the story behind the 8 year extention – it’s the holiday weekend, so I won’t comment.

Enough said. Let’s all go to Midland on June 4th.

The more I read on this and on other sites the more confussed I become. I don't know which side is right, but I think we can all agree it was not handled right by either side. I have p.m. messages from several of the people involved and still don't see the "WHY" it has become so involved. Personally the first time someone yells "lawyer" I think it's time to just have a wrestling match and get it over with. The one thing I do see in all of this I have been told personally and on here several differing things in which one side or the other is lying to me. It will be interesting to see which one is telling the truth. In this instance I think the truth of the matter is more important than the subject itself.

I can certainly understand your "WHY" question. Why did it get so involved??? You should have been these 5 guys and Tami over the last 2 years. tough. That all has to do with the museum board fighting to keep the museum protection the way it was, and Steve and the general staff fighting to change it, and neither side giving up until money took control of the situation - as money always can do in a lawsuit. The truth is in the details. The members deserve the details, and not one sided details, so they can come to their own conclusions with equal education in possession. Doug is right, that is why I came to WIX, because I had heard you WIXers were discussing it. And I will use any mechanism I can. I thank you all for hearing me. I am also really glad I came, this is a wonderful website. I must find the L-5 forums, that is what I fly.

I have become passionately verbal out of principal. This is not normally how I am. Did Steve and the general staff actually think they could kick these guys out (please go to the takebackthecaf.com and read my second letter) and no one would care ????? And as a membership, how pitiful we would be if that were the case.

Contact me at will. I especially need e-mail addresses of CAF members for communication.

Diane Fenner
dfenner@leaco.net

First of all, to me, the people who had action taken against them are not "old guard", they are Johnny Come Latelys...except for Hal. I believe I believe I'm senior to all but Hal, who I have always looked up to, and continue to. I have probably dedicated a greater percentage of my life to the CAF than Hal even, but I don't know that for sure. I do know that I have been involved with the CAF for over 65% of my life so far.

The biggest thing to me is that I do not believe the majority of us would have voted to split the CAF as it was, had we known we would not maintain control of everything. It was pitched to us that we needed to do this to shelter our assets, that the CAF would be the umbrella and the three new corporations would be subordinate to the CAF corporation. We were told that as CAF members we would be members of all three new corporations as well.

Diane, I was at the Wing Staff Conference. I know you spoke up for the Museum. I can't understand why there was not anyone else defending the actions of the (then) Museum board. All I know now is that it is time to let this pass and get on with improving the CAF, the aircraft and museum we love and care about. I do not think you were right to suggest that Cavanaugh is going to be paid back in artifacts for his support of FIFI. I think the membership would take action were that to occur.

I am saddened by the removal of some members, and sanctions imposed upon others. I believe them all to be good men, and doing what they thought was best. I do think they were somewhat misguided though.

Personally, I would love to see the assets of the CAF united once again, not scattered into four corporations. I do agree with Doug though, you serve no purpose other than harming the CAF, which you no doubt love very much, by putting a "family" matter out in public. The only thing such negative statements can do, with people who do not belong to the CAF, is drive away support.

Please do give Hal my best and tell him I look forward to hearing more about his racing as co-driver with Shelby!

Mike Renck
Col #2681
CAF member since 1976 (because I had to wait until I was 18 to join!)
Gold Life Member
Aircraft Sponsor

_________________
Mike

Mike, let me be clear, I'm not talking about any specific person in the issue as being "old guard", I'm saying that the internal conflict is much larger than just the museum issue and the underlying current of "old guard" versus "new guard" (BTW, that's an attitude, not a years-of-service thing and it got edited out of my original statement by accident) is what's made what should have remained an internal matter an external one. The biggest evidence of this is that Steve is getting as much if not more of the "heat" over this issue when all of the actions taken were directed by the General Staff, not Steve.

OK...All this has done nothing for me except to convince me that I'm not gonna' join CAF. I really have no interest in becoming a member of something today and having it turn into something else tomorrow. From what I've gleaned from all these posts (pro and con), this doesn't seem to be much more than an "I'm the King! No you're not! I'm the King!" hissy fit.

ps. All due respect but all this "Colonel this and Colonel that seems a bit infantile. But...whatever makes ya' feel good

Mudge the independent

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

CAPflyer, You are absolutely right. Steve's actions are the ultimate responsibility of the general staff. As for all of Steve's actions, the general staff either actively supports them, simply accepts them, or does something about them. As for who's original idea it was to kick the guys out is anyone's guess. Steve has somewhat indicated in his communications that it was his idea, as he explained his reasons for removing other people's memberships. But that doesn't matter. The general staff made the motion and, "unanimously" as stated in the minutes, voted in favor of the action.

Mudge you make a valid point in your perception, "I'm the King" No your not "I'm the King". I truly believe there was a way the two could have moved forward - together- with the museum protected by its independence. I know the resigned museum director felt that way, she accomplished just that for 20 years. The uproar began with the arrival of Steve, with his insistence to be in total control over the museum, no compromise accepted, which Steve began immediately upon his arrival. Hence he gets the heat. But then again, everything he does, and everything that happens: the removal of the museum's protection, the very expensive lawsuit, the ousting of the guys, all are the ultimate responsibility of the general staff.

The funny part to me is when I think about the *real* old guard CAF guys like Lefty, they saw (and invented...) the whole "Colonel in the CAF" thing as the tongue-in-cheek joke it was intended to be.

At some point, people started to believe that actually meant something.

_________________