Take Back the CAF

[RyanShort1]

Very good points from Lynn, and Ober's remarks are remarkably serious and well thought out.
There ARE guys here who are future possible CAF members and the way this plays out DOES make a difference.

Ryan

[odessatx]

I have seen similar fusses in other orginizations. I have been a part of some and simply witnessed others. I am not trying to take sides here.

In my experience, most of the time the participants are working on a totaly emotional level, where logic no longer applies. Most participants in a fuss would deny that fact.

A philosopher would lean back in his chair and mutter to himself, "Ah, but what is truth?". Both sides feel that they have it. Or could it be, that if everybody is right, then everybody is wrong?

My fear is that emotions ruling will be the case on Friday. If that is the case, people will show up, exchange words, and basicly say to one another, 'Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up!'. If that happens, there will be only loosers. No one will win. The end result is negative, for individuals and for the orginization to some level.

My prayer is that everyone involved with this dispute will remember the golden rule, then talk to one another with open hearts and open minds.

God's Peace be with you all.

Mark

[John Beyl]

First off, thanks for the response on the separate corporations and how they're affected under Texas law. Again, not being a lawyer, simple explanations are appreciated.

Second, I want to thank Bill (Old Shep) for weighing in. His comments on how the new CEO has improved the business performance of the CAF are interesting and well-taken. I would humbly submit, however, personality does indeed matter- most specifically because the CAF is by and large a volunteer organization. People pay money to join the CAF, they are not under any obligation to do so, and they are within their rights to expect a certain level of business performance from the organization to which they belong, as well as expecting to be treated with a certain amount of respect... they are not "employees" in the traditional sense, after all.

Taking Bill's statements regarding the business performance of the CAF under the new CEO at face value, it sounds as though Mr. Brown is certainly meeting his fiduciary responsibility to ensure the long-term viability of the organization. That is good, and suggests that Mr. Brown is well grounded in corporate business practices. But what also seems clear is that Mr. Brown may not fully appreciate the significant cultural differences between a traditional corporate hierarchy and a volunteer organization. People are far more personally vested in the latter, and both cannot and should not be treated as disposable assets, as they might be within a corporate structure. Call it personality or what have you, but that cultural difference is significant and a failure to understand and work within that structure will have lasting, long-term ramifications for the business... because people do not want to invest themselves personally in an organization where their contributions (economic or otherwise) are regarded as disposable or otherwise unnecessary on any level.

Lastly, I want to make it clear that far from seeing this as an airing of dirty laundry, I see this as a necessary and healthy exchange of ideas, because the members of this board are exactly the group of people upon whom the CAF must depend to ensure it's long-term viability. It is warbird and history enthusiasts who founded the CAF and have made it so successful, and the CAF must continue to cultivate that enthusiasm and draw from it in order to survive. There will be passionate debate about how best to accomplish that goal- as there should be. But the end goal of all parties must be the same, and that is the long-term survival of the CAF and it's mission... if all parties can agree upon that, then a workable solution can surely be found.

Once again, I appreciate the information, and look forward to hearing more about this over the next few days.

Lynn

Lynn,

While it's true that every individual in any organization, whether it's volunteer or for hire, be treated with all respect due them. That cannot be stated clearly enough or often enough. But what of those who have intentionally (and with a great deal of forethought) broken the laws of an organization? Should they be treated as though they have done nothing wrong and let go on their merry way? There is a cost associated with everything we do as human beings. Sometimes we end up winners and sometimes we end up in a place we had not considered and it's not a place as good as the one we gambled ourself out of. It's easy to cast stones at a corporation, at members of the administrative blob or generally at somebody else, and much more difficult to look in the mirror and say, "I did wrong. I made my bed and now have to lay in it." Ownership in ones mistakes is one of the primary differences between being an adult and an adolecent. Sometimes we don't remind ourselves of that often enough.

John

[CAPFlyer]

Lynn,

I would suggest you do a bit more research on Mr. Brown's experience before you make statements like you have. In short, Mr. Brown knows what the CAF is and how to work with members. He's done everything he can to reach out to those whom have questions. If you want an example of Mr. Brown understanding how valuable members are, he called me, personally, when my membership lapsed last year. He called me not just because my membership had lapsed, but because of the circumstances surrounding me becoming "inactive". Although I wasn't able to call him back, I made sure that he was aware that my reason for lapsing was simply due to changes in financial priorities for the short-term and nothing else. He was under no pressure from anyone to call me (probably the opposite actually), but he still did. That is something a person who is concerned for an volunteer organization's health does.

[dfenner]

June 4th meeting report: dfenner@leaco.net

It is a true privilege to sit on the side of these men and women of honor and principle, the resigned board of the American Airpower Heritage Museum.

For the public record, they are Gordon Stevenson, Joe Cowan, Graham Robertson, Floyd Houdashell, Hal Fenner, Barbara Davis, Luann Morgan, Andy Shafer, and the founding and 20 year Director, Ms. Tami O’Bannion.

Diane Fenner

[TonyM]

The link does not work to get to the report; the link leads to an e-mail program.

So what happened at the meeting?

TM
CAF Colonel

[dfenner]

Correct, not a link. It is my e-mail address.

[ZRX61]

So basically we had dozens of people all talking about what was going to happen.. & then the day of the meeting everyone promptly shut up & have nothing to say?

[Alan Brooks]

I have long wanted to post but have deferred as I too have valued friends that were on both sides of the fence and yes I DO have an opinion........... strangely enough it was one of the guys on the other side of the fence (museum indepedence side) that provided insight as to why....... IMHO the museum could not/must not separate. One item that I pulled, and will comment on from Mrs Fenner speaking about the shows down in Harlingen.

Dave, That is exactly right. And for many guys who either couldn't afford to play the big game, or couldn't get their medical, or whatever, it was just a really cool way for everybody to be the same.

"Everybody to be the same"......... ok, ONE CAF.... Period! The following links are provided from the CAF website.......
http://commemorativeairforce.org/?page= ... _page=1267
and http://m.oaoa.com/Odessa/db_15573/conte ... hN&src=cat
alan brooks

Last edited by Alan Brooks on Sun Jun 06, 2010 11:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[warbird1]

http://m.oaoa.com/Odessa/db_15573/conte ... ue#display

Wow, what a contentious meeting! I hope the veiled threat of violence at the meeting was said in jest, as violence is NEVER a solution - EVER!

It sounds like it was a somewhat productive meeting. Hopefully, the CAF can unite and go back to what they do best.

[Alan Brooks]

Knowing Bill Coombes (Old Shep), I would say that it was in jest....... It's time to move on....... You know there is beauty of a B-29 just about ready to fly..................................................... Go DAVE!
alan

[k5083]

Wow, what a contentious meeting! I hope the veiled threat of violence at the meeting was said in jest, as violence is NEVER a solution - EVER!

Heh ... "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here -- this is a WAR musem!"

August (with apologies to Kubrick)

[Mudge]

Wow, what a contentious meeting! I hope the veiled threat of violence at the meeting was said in jest, as violence is NEVER a solution - EVER!

Heh ... "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here -- this is a WAR musem!"

August (with apologies to Kubrick)

The exact thing came to mind when I read that line.

But, as we all know, sometimes violence is the ONLY answer.

Mudge the amused

[Mark_Pilkington]

.
I have great admiration for the efforts and achievements of the CAF, in some ways they are who made the current Warbird movement what it is today, and while like any volunteer organisation they have their ups and downs, I hope they continue to be successful.

I have watched this thread develop with some concern, however I must applaud the CAF in making its response so transparant and measured.

Although I have my views of who seems to be in the right here, that is only as seen through the eyes and reporting of others and therefore I am not going to comment from the other side of the world on the substance of the argument.

However the current outcome appears to offer the possibility of re-conciliation for a number of the opposing members, and despite some complaints by some about how it may have been handled initially, the CAF management team deserve congratulations for their resolution of the issue and particularly the open information meeting.

regards

Mark Pilkington

[warbird1]

Wow, what a contentious meeting! I hope the veiled threat of violence at the meeting was said in jest, as violence is NEVER a solution - EVER!

Heh ... "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here -- this is a WAR musem!"

August (with apologies to Kubrick)

The exact thing came to mind when I read that line.

But, as we all know, sometimes violence is the ONLY answer.

Mudge the amused

I meant violence in that particular context between differing personalities is not a solution. It would be silly to settle a dispute with fights between CAF members. A war involving countries is something entirely different and is sometimes necessary as a last resort. But, that is pretty funny, though!