To install this webapp, tap share then Add to Home Screen.


To install this webapp, please open in Safari.

NGAUS Minutes July 22, 2023

NGAUS Report

The NGAUS board of directors gathered in Reno, Nevada, site of the 145th General Conference & Exhibition, for its second meeting of 2023. Maj. Gen. Janson “Durr” Boyles, the board chairman, called the meeting to order.

MG Janson “Durr” Boyles
Maj Gen (Ret) Michael McGuire
MG Jimmie Cole
Maj Gen Ondra Berry
MG (Ret) Joanne Sheridan
Brig Gen (Ret) Ken Ross
Maj Gen Gary Keefe (absent)
MG Frank McGinn (remote)
Col (Ret) Steve Greco
MG William “Bill” Crane (absent)
COL Brian Borakove
Lt Col Jody Schweickart
MG Sheryl Gordon
MG Randall Simmons
Lt Col John Fesler
MG Keith Waddell
BG Joe Hargett
Lt Col Keith Marshall
MG Paul Rogers
BG (Ret) Mike Oster (absent)
Brig Gen (Ret) Sandy Best (absent)
MG Miguel Aguilar
Lt Col (Ret)Andrew Sanchez
MG (Ret) Max Haston
Brig Gen (Ret) Bobbi Doorenbos
CPT Rasheedah Bilal
Maj J.D. Watson
CW5 Bob Nicholson

Non-Voting Members1:
1 The Chairman invited the non-voting Board members to attend the July 2023 Board Meeting in Reno, NV.

BG (Ret) Roy Robinson
CSM (Ret) Bob Sweeney, NGEDA President (remote)
Mr. Bruce VanSkiver, CAP Chair (absent)
MSgt (Ret) Dan Reilly, EANGUS President (absent)
MG John Harris, AGAUS President (remote)

Resolutions Chairs:
Col (Ret) Mike Morgan
COL (Ret) Lance Englet
Brig Gen (Ret) Harold “Cec” Reed

Gen Boyles called the meeting to order at 0830.

Gen Boyles led the pledge of allegiance and offered the invocation.

Gen Sheridan called the roll and reported a quorum is present.

Gen Boyles entertained a motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting. Gen Hargett so moved. Gen Berry seconded. Motion carried.

Chairman’s Remarks – Gen Boyles

Gen Boyles thanked everyone for attending the meeting.

Gen Boyles stated that the Board had decided about two years ago to get back into doing an in-person summer meeting for the following purposes:

1. It allowed the Board to review the resolutions prior to the annual meeting while understanding that there is no action required of this Board on the resolutions. The Board will receive the report and be briefed on the resolutions so that if there are any questions from the area states and from the constituents that are represented, then the Board would be better prepared to answer those questions either before or at the annual convention.

2. It allowed the Board to hear the report on the annual convention.

Gen Boyles stated that he heard that the General Conference Committee had a good meeting yesterday and that he is looking forward to the report on the General Convention by Gen Cole.

Gen Boyles stated that at that time, the Board would get an update on how the annual convention was going.

Gen Boyles discussed a couple of events including the SPP event that was just completed this week with NGB in which NGAUS sponsored the reception between the Monday and Tuesday meetings that were held at the Gaylord Hotel.

Gen Boyles stated that the event and the reception were outstanding in that all the different countries that we work with had a chance to see each other and what other relationships look like, which he thought was very healthy for the organization.

Gen Boyles further stated that the reception allowed a lot of interaction between those countries, the states, and our industry partners who also participated in the reception.

Gen Boyles then thanked Gen Robinson and the team at NGAUS for their efforts in putting the event together.

Gen Boyles also commended Company Grade Directors CPT Rasheedah Bilal and Maj J.D. Watson for briefing the TAGs at the AGAUS Conference.

Gen Boyles stated that the briefing was well-received and informative and was a great reference point for the TAGs to invest more into their Company Grade Officers.

Gen Boyles also stated that he is looking forward to the resolutions report and the legislative report including the status of the NDAA.

Gen Boyles thanked Gen Berry for hosting the Board in Reno, NV for the meeting and for Nevada’s commitment in hosting this year’s conference.

Gen Boyles then turned the meeting over to Gen Cole for the Vice Chair Army Report.

Vice Chair Army Report - Gen Cole

Gen Cole stated that he would limit his comments on the Army side and would defer most of his comments for the Conference Update and Mike’s Legislative Update scheduled later during the meeting.

Gen Cole stated that since Mike, the Resolutions Team, and the Task Force team would discuss the priorities that have been established that will be proposed and the way forward, he would just state that the reality that we are living in today and the disputes that are ongoing between elements of Congress and the Department are not just affecting the Army piece, but all services and components as it is having an impact on not only nominations and potential future nominations but our potential future budget as well.

Gen Cole stated that the Task Force priorities would be covered and that there were no surprises on what would be seen from the Army Task Force Army side of the House, although still focused around modernization and personnel.

Gen Cole discussed personnel as a huge priority on the Army Aviation side.

Gen Cole mentioned that they have seen some dramatic impacts this year with some mishaps that have taken place in the lives of many of our aviators across many of our states.

Gen Cole stated that if you talk to the aviation community, a lot of it leans back to the manning levels that we have and the ability to achieve all the technical requirements that are required to accomplish missions.

Gen Cole added that this ducktails into what they have been trying to do for many years which is increase full-time manning across the board.

Gen Cole stated that he would have additional updates for the Board during the Conference Update and mentioned that he did attend the ROC Drill yesterday and thought that everything went extremely well and was going as planned.

Gen Cole concluded by stating that he believed that everyone would have a great time in Reno, NV next month at the annual conference.

Following no questions or comments, Gen Boyles turned the meeting over to Gen Berry for the Vice Chair Air Report.

Vice Chair Air Report - Gen Berry

Gen Berry began by welcoming everyone to Northern Nevada and mentioned that while it is a bit slower than Las Vegas, he preferred the slower pace in Northern Nevada better.

Gen Berry then touched on some points captured during his discussions with the Director of the Air National Guard, Lt Gen Mike Loh.

Gen Berry stated that Air Defender was mentioned as an important issue as well as how well our ANG are working with allies and partners and how they deliver air power.

Gen Berry stated that he and Gen Loh also discussed some of the following stats: 818 missions, over 5000 flight hours, over 100 aircraft, 2600 airmen showing hydro combat support, etc.

Gen Berry mentioned Gen Loh also discussing the over 25 nations, including NATO, with over 10,000 personnel and how they demonstrated their ability to come together in a short amount of time to deliver air power.

With respect to the annual conference, Gen Berry announced that the head of the German Air Force (Lt Gen Ingo Gerhartz) would be attending this year’s annual conference and that “He has $100M in his budget that he is prepared to spend, with 60% going towards modernization”.

Gen Berry noted that one of the goals was for the head of the German Air Force to visit Industry while he was attending the event, including the TAG Reception, and find what is available to better equip the German Army.

Gen Berry also discussed the following topics:

• Fighter Recap: The big issue is concurrent and proportionate recapitalization.

• Space National Guard: Great advocacy on the House side, but OMB has not been a great partner for us. Not feeling that it is going to happen this year. On the Senate side, they just do not think that the language will be there. Discussions were held about using a model similar to the Australians, putting everything under one component. The belief is that it is not good for the National Guard if we do that.

• C-130s: Right now, marked for four C-130s this year. Over the last NDAAs, we have gotten 16 and we are not out of the woods yet but that is what it looks like in the NDAA.

• Air National Guard Recruiting: Looking good. 15% Increase over year 2022.

• Air National Guard Retention: Also, pretty good. Gen Berry thanked the states for their efforts in keeping our airmen in the Guard right now.

• Gen Berry concluded by stating that those were the biggest things discussed because most of them tie into our legislative report.


Gen Boyles asked, with respect to recruiting and retention, whether we were going to finish with over 100% on the air side.

Gen Berry responded that he knew that the Army side would be good but that he was not ready to say that they would be at 100% on the air side.

Gen Cole added that the Army side was approaching 100% but that he was not sure overall whether they would reach 100%.

Following no further questions or comments, Gen Boyles turned the meeting over to Gen Ross for the Treasurer’s Report.

Treasurer’s Report - Gen Ross

Gen Ross stated to the Board that a review of the Budget took place at the recent Finance Committee Meeting and that all was well with the organizations this year.

Gen Ross stated that there was not much financial work done at the summer meeting as there were no budgets to work on and no contracts to discuss.

Gen Ross stated that the year looked good as we are at or above average for yearly results at this point in the year.

Gen Ross stated that the Insurance program looked good, and that the conference looked very good.

Gen Ross stated that the building was okay with the only problem being the vacancy on one floor. Gen Ross stated that one floor of the building being vacant was not a problem with the market being the way that it is.

Gen Ross stated that overall, we look to have a good operational result for this year with no real financial challenges.

With respect to reserves, Gen Ross stated that we are back up somewhat with us being about 10% below where our peak was.

Gen Ross further stated that we peaked at about $27M in reserves, and that everything was on track to being fully reserved when it needed to be.

Gen Ross stated that we are on track to having enough money on our next business cycle to be able to re-lease the building if we need to.

Gen Ross stated that the Educational Foundation was doing well and although it is not back up to its $10M where we had it, the foundation is doing well to make sure that their debt to NGAUS does not grow.

Gen Ross stated that the Educational Foundation program is still healthy with the reserves building back up with over $8.0M in that account.

Gen Ross stated that overall, with what the country has gone through and with what the market has done in the last couple of years we are in really good shape with preserving our market position and our investments.

Gen Ross concluded by commending Gen Robinson and staff for keeping our basic income programs healthy and sound and stated that we just need to keep doing what we have been doing and everything would be fine.


Gen Berry asked from last year to this year where were in terms of recovery.

Gen Ross responded that we were more than halfway recovered from the debt that we took and the drops in the market.

Gen Ross added that we were down about $2.4M or so, which was a lower amount than the previous $5.0M.

Gen Ross stated that we were more than halfway back to where we were and that we need to continue to be conservative.

Discussions were held regarding the Amtrak leasing matter.

Gen Ross stated that we have a lot of reliance on Amtrak already being the biggest tenant by far in the building and that there have been discussions about Amtrak expanding to take the last vacant floor.

Gen Ross added that there have also been discussions with Amtrak about some kind of way to capitalize their lease as it has been expressed to them that we are not interested in selling the building, which was an inquiry of theirs that we rejected.

Gen Ross stated that there was discussion on a capital lease or some form of where they prepay their lease ($80M-$100M) and they could treat it like a capital expense.

Gen Ross stated that Amtrak has kind of “cooled down” on having the discussions and that while they have not said “no”, there is no current discussion going on how we might structure that.

Gen Ross stated that we have told our real estate agent that we are interested in such a conversation and Amtrak has replied that they would get back to us.

Gen Ross noted that we have four more years left on the lease with time to work out the matter.

Gen Ross further noted that Amtrak currently has a fairly large amount of money for capitalization with no execution plan on what they plan to do with that money.

Gen Ross stated that those government grants have a time limit on them in which to execute with Amtrak maybe realizing one day that if they do not execute, they may lose that type of money.

Gen Ross stated that therefore, we should be prepared to negotiate with these people to find a way that they could spend their money with us where we get to keep ownership of our building but let us take the risk of leasing and re-leasing off the table in short terms.

Gen Ross stated that we have expressed through our real estate agent that we are willing to talk but that he could not report anything yet because there is nothing scheduled at the moment.

Gen Ross also stated that if the time comes, we will have to look at the offer to make sure that it makes sense to us but that, in his opinion, he does not get any sense that Amtrak is going anywhere, even if this deal is not structured.

Further discussions were held regarding the Amtrak matter.

Gen Ross stated that he would get some more parameters on what we think Amtrak would be interested in spending.

Gen Boyles asked, absent any committee to investigate this, whether the Finance Committee takes this under their wing.

Gen Ross responded that the Finance Committee has taken on the matter.

During further Amtrak leasing discussions, Maj Watson asked whether we had a plan in case Amtrak decides to leave and seek residence elsewhere due to all the capital that is about to be bank-owned in the DC area.

Gen Ross replied that NGAUS is the commercial real estate business with a broker that has been with us for a long time.

Gen Ross stated that we have had models before where we have had major tenant turnover in which we had to sign up new tenants and do all the buildout, etc., which, according to Gen Ross, is why we have the reserves that we do.

Gen Ross stated that we are prepared to go through another business cycle with the turning over of a major tenant.

Gen Ross added that we would have to go back out into the commercial market and find a tenant, offer them whatever the rate is at the time, and that we have the money built in our reserves to do that.

Gen Ross further stated that while that is not the preference, we would be prepared to do so with the hope that it doesn’t happen in a bad real estate market for renewals and rentals.

Gen Ross stated that we have reserves and no debt and added that he thinks that we could survive.

Further Q&A and discussions were held.

Gen Ross stated to the Board that in the worst-case scenario, with no money coming in from the building rental, we would have to start looking around and start trimming some programs and while that would not be pretty, that would be survivable.

Gen Ross stated that the best-case scenario is that we could be taking another couple of million dollars out of the building revenue that we are not taking.

Gen Ross stated that we have a lot of room before we hit our worst-case scenario.

Gen Doorenbos suggested that in a worst-case scenario, there can be an alternative where we look at converting commercial space into residential space because that is highly desirable in that area.

Gen Doorenbos stated that there would be some legalese to convert to such space, but that it could be an option for future thinking.

Gen Ros concurred and stated that right now, our building is restricted to non-residential space and is restricted to commercial space.

Gen Ross added that the government is going to have to be flexible too and be able to react when half of their real estate market is going under.

Gen Ross stated that while there is no telling what will happen, he is comfortable that we have reserved enough to see through this worst case scenario to whatever the potential outcome will be.

Following no further questions or comments, Gen Boyles entered a 10-min recess to take the morning break.


Following the recess, Gen Boyles turned the meeting over to Col Fesler for the Awards Update.

Awards Report – Lt Col Fesler

(Note: The awards presentation by Lt Col Fesler was not fully captured by the convention center A/V (microphones and recording equipment). The portions that were audible were included in the minutes.)

Lt Col Fesler began by giving kudos to the Awards Committee members as presented on the slide, to include Mr. Rich Arnold, who is present on the phone line.

• Lt Col John Fesler, Ret. Chair

• LTC Vince Tirri
• Lt Col Seana Eason
• MAJ Roye Locklear
• Maj. Paul Hauter

Lt Col Fesler also thanked Rich for putting all the award packets/binders together.

Topics for today’s presentation included the following:
• Process Timeline
• Historical Data
• Category Breakdown
• Committee Recommendations
• Discussion
• Vote

Lt Col Fesler then gave the Board an overview of the Awards Process Timeline:

• Feb – Call to states for nominations
• 15 May – Nominations due to NGAUS
• 1 June – Several states awarded extensions
• 13 July – Awards Committee meeting (teleconference)
• 16 July – BOD meeting / committee recommendations
• 19 July – Notify states once the list is approved

Lt Col Fesler stated that sometimes Rich allows for extensions to the deadlines for submission of names for awards.

Lt Col Fesler also discussed the Nominations/Award Comparisons over the years and provided a breakdown of the Award Categories/Recommendations as presented on the slides, including recommended upgrades and downgrades.

Slide 5: Nominations/Awards Comparison
Slide 6: Awards Categories/Recommendations
Slide 7: Awards Categories/Recommendations
Lt Col Fesler then discussed the following Awards Committee Recommendations below:

Harry S. Truman Award
• Gov. Lourdes A. Leon Guerrero, Guam
• U.S. Rep. Trent Kelly, Mississippi

G.V. “Sonny” Montgomery Medal
• Maj Gen Daryl L. Bohac, Nebraska
• USO Nevada

Charles Dick Medal of Merit
• State Sen. Ricky Hill, Arkansas
• Gov. Brian Kemp, Georgia
• State Sen. Briggs Hopson, Mississippi
• Gov. Joseph Lombardo, Nevada
• Senator Jacky Rosen, Nevada
• State Rep. Harry Garcia, New Mexico

Patrick Henry Award
• Benjamin Moore, Arkansas
• Nick Runkel, Arkansas
• Twinkle Patel, Florida
• Katie Sudhoff, Illinois
• Jake Johnsen, Kentucky
• Lindsay Knox, Nevada
• Bill Lerner, Nevada
• Lorri Mills, Nevada
• Larry Mosley, Nevada
• Kimberly Weingartner, Nevada
• Nikitha Rai, New Jersey
• State Sen. Roger L. Thompson, Oklahoma
• Charles Truxal, Texas
• Delegate Scott A. Wyatt, Virginia
• Patrick Farrell, Virgin Islands
• Lucy Perkins, Wisconsin
• Robin Grandpre, Wyoming

Distinguished Service Medal
• SSG Russell Betts, Arkansas
• COL Damon Cluck (Ret), Arkansas
• Fred Barton, Nevada
• BG Michael K. Hanifan (Ret), Nevada
• MAJ Karen-Nicole Randel, Nevada
• COL Eric Leckel, Wisconsin

Meritorious Service Award & Meritorious Service Certificate
• Lt Col Ronald J. Oestreich (Ret), Colorado
• LTC Bruce D. Kahl (Ret), Maryland
• LTC Dennis V. Pulket (Ret), Maryland LTC Gene L. Pulket (Ret), Maryland
• Chief Master Sgt Jason Farnsworth, Nevada
• Lt Col Andrew J. Sanchez, New Mexico
• COL J. Craig Nannos, Pennsylvania
• COL Jean Moving-Collins, Virgin Islands
• Tim Sheppard, Wyoming

Meritorious Service Certificate
• MAJ Alan J. Roehrich, North Dakota
• Maj Daniel J. Sly, North Dakota

Valley Forge Cross for Heroism
• COL Gary D. Lewis, Kentucky

Garde Nationale Trophy
• Warrant Officer Andrew Booker, Kentucky

Theodore Roosevelt Leadership Award for Company Grade Officers
• CPT Justin T. Rutledge, Alabama
• Capt Daniel P. Thomas, Alabama
• 1LT Nathan Kendrick, Arkansas
• Capt Michelle R. Smith, Arkansas
• CPT Charles M. Staats, Connecticut
• CPT Peter T. Sakisat, Guam
• Capt Jacob A. King, Kansas
• CPT Sewtana I. Nash, Kansas
• CPT Zachary D. Crick, Kentucky
• Capt Steven D. Paul, Kentucky
• CPT Alec Lynde, Massachusetts
• CPT Terrence J. Lynch, Mississippi
• Capt Vicenza L. Dall, Nevada
• CPT Jacob V. Sanford, Nevada
• 1LT Jacklyn Jablonski, New Mexico
• 2nd Lt Kathleen Kent, New Mexico
• CPT Jacob K. Gazaway, New York
• 1st Lt Cody L. Chick, North Dakota
• CPT Connor J. Kelley, North Dakota
• 1LT Terry J. Simpson, Oregon
• CPT Andrew E. Skretteberg, Wyoming
• Capt Elizabeth A. Tolin, Wyoming

Eagle Rising Award for Warrant Officers
• Chief Warrant Officer 2 Jennifer M. Abrams, Alabama
• Warrant Officer Jason W. Fritts, Arkansas
• Chief Warrant Officer 2 Emily Frost, Connecticut
• Chief Warrant Officer 3 Joseph E. Manglona, Guam
• Chief Warrant Officer 2 Daniel Putnam, Idaho
• Chief Warrant Officer 2 Justin L. Cartwright, Kansas
• Chief Warrant Officer 2 Travis E. Holt, Kentucky
• Chief Warrant Officer 2 Timothy Olander, Massachusetts
• Chief Warrant Officer 2 Charles A. Walls, Mississippi
• Chief Warrant Officer 3 Nicolas J. Allred, Nevada
• Chief Warrant Officer 2 Michael J. Mahon, North Dakota
• Chief Warrant Officer 2 Trey E. Wilhelm, Wyoming

During the presentation, Gen Boyles asked Lt Col Fesler whether he was socializing the upgrades and downgrades before the Board “firms them up”.

Gen Boyles gave an example that Mississippi had an award that had gone to the speaker of their house and the next year they gave a lower award to a young lady who manages his legislation, and the committee upgraded her, and she was worthy of the upgrade, but the state for political reasons would have probably left it at the lower level.

As a result, Gen Boyles asked Lt Col Fesler whether the committee was socializing with the states when determining the upgrades and downgrades.

Lt Col Fesler referred the question to Rich Arnold on the phone.

Rich responded that they let the states know the best that they can and that sometimes the states only want the higher award while most of the time they are receptive to getting any sort of recognition for their nominees, as he has seen in the past.

Lt Col Fesler (Inaudible)

Gen Boyles stated that from review of the briefing, Sen Briggs Hopson is from Mississippi and that he needs to check with Allen McDaniel (Executive Director of Mississippi) because he does not want to give Briggs Hobson who is the Appropriations Chairman in the Senate something higher than what the state gave the Appropriations Chairman in the House.

Gen Boyles then stated that he would get back to Lt Col Fesler and the committee on that one individual but that he was using that as an example that the committee might want to make sure that they are socializing with the states because that is an important step that is appropriate.

Lt Col Fesler responded, “Certainly...(Inaudible)

Rich stated that he is always in contact with the state Executive Directors Allen McDaniel or Greg Taylor from the Mississippi Association.

Rich added that they (the awards committee) have never received any complaints about any upgrade of an award but certainly for head’s up notice they will do so if that is something that the Chairman and/or the Board wants them to do.

Gen Boyles stated that he does not think that the award upgrade for Gen Daryl Bohac is an issue with anybody and that it is well-deserved.

During further discussions, Gen Boyles asked that the individual from his state (MS) remain at the Patrick Henry award level where he was put in for from the state.

Gen Berry stated to the committee that the state of Nevada recommended an individual for the Patrick Henry Award (Tim Robb) and wanted to know why that individual was not included in the committee’s recommendations.

Gen Boyles asked Gen Berry whether he wanted to have the award presented on his home court.

Gen Berry responded “Yes” and added that he did not want to take away from anyone else who was recommended for the award, but that the individual the state of Nevada recommended has done a great deal for the National Guard from a contribution standpoint than the others mentioned.

Rich responded, “OK Thanks.”

Lt Col Fesler (Inaudible)

Chief Nicholson noted that nominee Jennifer Abrams in Alabama was Warrant Officer of the Year.

Rich responded, “I got you. Thank you.”

Lt Col Fesler (Inaudible)

Lt Col Fesler later moved to socialize any upgrades or downgrades with the state Executive Directors and to accept the awards nominees as recommended by the awards committee, while keeping Briggs Hopson (MS) at the Patrick Henry award level adding Tim Robb (NV) the to the nominees for the Patrick Henry Award.

The motion was seconded by Chief Nicholson and passed by unanimous consent.

Further Q&A and discussions were held.

Gen Berry thanked the awards committee for their hard work and emphasized how the awards for groups such as the Company Grade Officers can impact their careers.

Gen Berry stated that John Brownell is the gold standard for putting awards together for the state of Nevada and that his efforts have led to their success over the years and what he has done for the state in recognizing those who so deserve it.

Gen Berry then asked whether there was anything that the Board could do to get more states engaged in the process of making nominations.

Lt Col Fesler (Inaudible)

Gen Boyles suggested whether we should have a 15-minute or 20-minute session on the awards process (writing, etc.) recorded and have it available through the NGAUS website as a resource for the states.

Gen Boyles then asked Lt Col Fesler whether that was something that they could do.

Lt Col Fesler concurred.

Discussions were held regarding having more states involved in the awards nomination process.

Rich Arnold stated that he was sent to the NGEDA Conference last year in Columbus, OH to give a presentation on the awards process and as a result, there were eight more states who participated in the program than the year prior.

During further discussions, Gen McGuire made a motion to have Lt Col Fesler travel to attend NGEDA and AGAUS to discuss the Awards program to get more states involved.

The motion was seconded by Gen Berry. Motion carried.

Following no further questions or discussions, Gen Boyles thanked Lt Col Fesler and the Awards Committee for their work and then turned the meeting over to Mike Hadley for the Legislative Update.

Legislative Update – Col (Ret) Mike Hadley

Mike stated to the Board that during his report, discussions would be broken up into two general areas:
• Congressional Cycle Update
• Resolutions and Task Force Update

Mike presented the slide that showed the updated Legislative team which consisted of some old members and new members.
• BG (Ret) Roy Robinson, NGAUS President
• Col (Ret) Mike Hadley, VP, Government Affairs
• Marcy Weldin, Legislative Affairs Manager, Army National Guard Programs
• Julian Plamann, Legislative Affairs Manager, Joint & Personnel Programs
• Russel Read, Legislative Affairs Manager, Air National Guard Programs
• Aubrey Powers, Legislative Analyst
• Alec Gonzalez, Legislative Assistant

Mike oriented the Board on where we were with respect to the Legislative cycle and stated that suffice it to say things were a little bit behind but not terribly behind.

Mike discussed the status of the Defense Bill and noted that the thing that has gotten the most attention and the most action recently has been with regard to the NDAA.

Mike referred the Board to the Legislative handout which noted some of the highlights.

Mike stated that the House has already passed the NDAA and that we are waiting on the bill to be taken up with the Senate.

Mike highlighted a couple of things that are currently being seen through the pipeline regarding the NDAA:
• The provision in the NDAA that allows for the elevation of the Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau to become a four-star position, which is included in both the House and the Senate versions of the bill.
• Seeing differences in the budget level from the President’s Budget, the House version of the NDAA, and the Senate version of the NDAA, with a lot of big gaps included. More to follow.
• Provisions with respect to Fighter Recap, which, according to Mike, will be a big one for us, not only this year but going forward as well.

Mike stated that there are two different amendments that have been put in specifically regarding fighter recap, which has led to a bit of confusion because the bills were introduced separately with one being introduced on the House side and the other one introduced on the Senate side.

With respect to the Legislative Handout, Mike noted that there was a typo on the backside (pg. 2) of the handout: Mike asked that the Board strike-through bill number “H.R.3392” noted on the handout, which is the incorrect bill number entailed. Mike stated that he and his team would put out more information online.

Mike then asked that the Board pay attention to the Legislative alerts as he and his team will be asking for some support on those pieces of legislation.

Mike also noted the provision included on the House side for a Space Guard and provisions for a dental bill as well as a health bill that was put in on the House side.

Mike stated that they are waiting to see what is going to end up on the Senate side, but to please stay tuned as they will be asking for some help along the way.

Mike stated that there were additional handouts that were provided to the Board, which included a full list of all the draft resolutions that have been put forward (8-pg. document) and an additional handout that talked specifically about the Task Force priorities.

Before turning the presentation over to the Resolutions Chairs, Mike wanted to recognize and commend Col (ret) Mike Morgan, Col (Ret) Lance Englet, and Brig Gen (ret) Harold “Cec” Reed who make up the Resolutions Committee and who do a tremendous job at our conference trying to work through the resolutions process and managing those things.

Mike then turned the meeting over to Col Morgan, Col Englet, and Gen Reed for the Resolutions Update.

Resolutions Update – Col (ret) Mike Morgan, Col (Ret) Lance Englet, and Brig Gen (ret) Harold “Cees” Reed

Col Morgan (Resolutions Chair from Oregon) began by introducing himself to the Board and stated that he has been working resolutions for the past 20+ years and doing the joint and the chair of it for the past dozen years or so.

Col Morgan thanked the Board for its focus on the resolutions process and trying to make that a better product and a continued improvement product for our units and for the Guard as a whole.

Col Morgan then introduced, to his left, retired Col Lance Englet, the Army Resolutions Chair from Oregon, and to Col Englet’s left, Brig Gen retired Cees Reed, the Air Resolutions Chair from Wyoming.

Col Morgan noted the following to the Board:
• Total Standing Resolutions: 548
• Total FY24 Draft/New Resolutions: 201

Col Morgan also highlighted the Task Force Entities and their respective Chairs as presented on Slide 16:

Col Morgan noted how these individuals do a lot of hard work in the field to get a good yardstick on where we are with these resolutions and how to best tackle them at the conference.

Col Morgan stated that the total Resolutions previously noted were a lot of resolutions and that the Resolutions chairs are considering further discussions with Mike and his team down the road on whether we have too much and whether we need to consider streamlining down the road.

Following no questions or comments, Col Morgan turned the presentation over to Col Englet for the Army Resolutions update.

Col Englet presented the following Army Resolutions update:

Total Standing Resolutions: 83
Total Draft Resolutions: 32
Army Aviation Task Force
Chair: Col. Gregory Fix (MN)
Standing Resolutions: 18
Draft Resolutions: 3
1. People: Seek full-time manning authorizations and incentives that fulfill 100% of ARNG requirements and guarantee compensation that is competitive with Compo 1 entitlements and civil market values.
• Achieve 90% MLR (AGR & TECH) per T10 US
• Incentive Pay Parity
• Special Salary Rate Table for T32 Federal Technicians
2. Modernization: Pursue modernization to ARNG Force Structure and Fleet Capabilities.
• Advance force modernization for Division Aviation to gain parity with COMPO1
• Concurrent and proportional fleet modernization through 2050
3. Assess the need for legislation to support the efficient execution of DOMOPS.
• Maximize incentives and protections for ISO servicemembers performing DSCA missions.
• Simplify and broaden TAG authorities ISO DSCA operations.
• Actively seek out technological solutions for equipment ISO firefighting and personnel rescue

No questions or comments by the Board.

Ground Combat Task Force
Chair: Brig. Gen. John Bowlin (TN)
Standing Resolutions: 8
Draft Resolutions: 3
1. M1 Abrams Modernization (5 BCTs)
2. M2 Bradley Modernization (5 BCTs)
3. M113 replacement with the AMPV (5 BCTs)
No questions or comments by the Board.
Engineer Task Force
Chair: Col. Andrew Stone (OH)
Standing Resolutions: 9
Draft Resolutions: 5
1. Support full divestiture of the M113 platform in engineer units and fielding in the same platform as the supported maneuver element (i.e. Armored/Infantry Force with BFVs/AMPVs/OMFVs, Stryker, and/or JLTVs.
2. One Joint Network Node (JNN), one Command Post Node (CPN), and two High-capacity Line of Sight (HCLOS) systems at the Army Engineer Brigade Headquarters level MTOE as well as one CPN and one HCLOS at the Army Engineer Battalion level MTOE as the solution for the Army Engineer Brigades and Battalions tactical communications problem.
3. Fully fund the replacement and modernization of the Army 22.5 Ton Heavy Dump Truck (HDT) fleet.

No questions or comments by the Board.
Army Sustainment Task Force
Chair: Col. Timothy Newman (IL)
Standing Resolutions: 25
Draft Resolutions: 15
1. High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) Modernization.
2. Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles (FHTV), Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT), Palletized Load System (PLS) trucks and trailers, Enhanced Container Handling Unit (ECHU), and modernize Heavy Equipment Transport System (HETS). Specifically focused on Modernization of Heavy Equipment Transport System (HETS).
3. Field power articulation hitches on selected heavy and medium wheeled vehicles to save Soldiers' lives, prevent injuries and equipment damage, and speed the execution of critical missions.
No questions or comments by the Board.
C4I Task Force
Chair: Brig. Gen. Tony Shepherd (AR)
Standing Resolutions: 5
Draft Resolutions: 2
1. Army Email and Collaboration Platform Modernization
2. Dismounted Assured Positioning, Navigation, and Timing System (DAPS)
3. Reduce stale/outdated resolutions by 60%

No questions or comments by the Board.
Fire Support Task Force
Chair: Brig. Gen. Dave Pritchett (WY)
Standing Resolutions: 18
Draft Resolutions: 4
1. Expedited decision on Next Generation Howitzer with concurrent planned fielding of Army National Guard and Active Component formations.
2. Army National Guard Air Defense Battalions modernize to Maneuver-Short Range Air Defense (M-SHORAD) concurrently with Active Component growth.
3. Army National Guard Rocket Battalion Fleet Expansion.

No questions or comments by the Board.

In conclusion, Col Englet stated to the Board that this was his tenth year as the Chair of the Army Resolutions and that there are so many successes that we have had as an association and the significant impact that these resolutions have.

Gen Boyles stated that he knew that we had some Army Task Force Chairs online and asked whether any of them had any questions or comments.

Col Englet added that he did not see anything that looked particularly challenging but that it really is about the 54 states and their representatives making the case and being heard.

Following no questions or comments from any of the Task Force Chairs online, Gen Boyles turned the presentation over to Gen Reed for the Air Resolutions Update.

Gen Reed presented the following Air Resolutions Update.

Total Standing Resolutions: 203
Total Draft Resolutions:115

Gen Reed noted that there are about 100 deletions or changes to resolutions that are coming through.

Mike concurred and stated that it is fair to say that we are not going to end with 200 resolutions at the end of the conference this year.

Gen Boyles clarified that some of those resolutions were to delete a standing resolution so that just reflects the activity and not necessarily the number of resolutions that are left.

Mike concurred.

Gen Reed continued with the Air Resolutions Update.

Combat Air Forces Task Force
Chair: Brig. Gen. Shannon Smith (DC)
Standing Resolutions: 83
Draft Resolutions: 75
1. “25 STRONG” ANG Fighter Recapitalization: 40 new fighters per year for 10 years to recapitalize 1:1 all 25 Fighter Squadrons in the ANG.
2. NDS-focused, NGREA-funded Modernization across the MDS’s (Lethality & Survivability per WEPTAC Critical List).
3. Weapon System Sustainment funding across the MDS’s throughout recapitalization transition

No questions or comments by the Board.
Mobility Air Forces Task Force
Chair: Col. Stephen Gwinn (CT)
Standing Resolutions: 85
Draft Resolutions: 21
1. Concurrent and proportional modernization/recapitalization.
2. Near peer weapons system upgrades funded through NGREA.
3. Preservation of ANG units as the primary unit equipped reserve component.
No questions or comments by the Board.
Combat Support/Mission Support Task Force
Chair: Col. Matt Eakins (WI)
Standing Resolutions: 32
Draft Resolutions: 19
1. Operational Training Infrastructure via ANG Resolution #25, “Relating to Modernization of the Combat Readiness Training Center Enterprise Infrastructure and Ranges.” The priority aligns with Secretary Kendall’s 7th Operational Imperative: Readiness of the Department of the Air Force to transition to a wartime posture against a peer competitor.
2. Tactical C2 via ANG Resolution #26, “Relating to Air Control Squadron Command and Control New Platform Conversion.” The priority aligns with Secretary Kendall’s 2nd Operational Imperative: Achieving Operationally Optimized Advanced Battle Management Systems (ABMS) / Air Force Joint All-Domain Command & Control (AF JADC2).
3. ANG Resolution #21, “Relating to Air and Space Operations Center (AOC).” This priority also aligns with Secretary Kendall’s 2nd Operational Imperative.

No questions or comments by the Board.

Space Task Force
Chair: Col. Michael Bruno (CO)
Standing Resolutions: 1
Draft Resolutions: 0
1. Establishing a Space National Guard as the primary combat reserve for the U.S. Space


No questions or comments by the Board.

Gen Boyles opened the floor for any questions or comments from our Air Task Force Chairs.

Following no questions or comments, Gen Reed turned the presentation back to Col Morgan for the Joint Task Forces Resolutions Update.

Col Morgan presented the following Joint Task Forces Resolutions Update:

Total Standing Resolutions: 265 Total Draft Resolutions: 54
Personnel-Medical Task Force
Chair: Maj. Nichole Yerbich-Inskeep (KS)
Standing Resolutions: 158
Draft Resolutions: 32
1. Clean up old, outdated, or completed standing resolutions.
2. Advise states and the Joint Resolutions Committee through the resolutions process.
3. Build a robust Task Force consisting of Air and Army members from each NGAUS Area.
No questions or comments by the Board.
Domestic Operations Task Force
Chair: Col. Derald Neugebauer (AR)
Standing Resolutions: 97
Draft Resolutions: 15
1. Reduce stale / outdated resolutions by 70%.
2. Develop / provide a NGAUS DOMOPS TF collaboration site for product and staffing products for future continuity.
3. Develop a mechanism / platform that Executive Directors can provide resolution inputs between Task Force meetings (add on to collaboration site above).

No questions or comments by the Board.

Cyber Task Force
Chair: Maj. Gen. Johanna Clyborne (MN)
Standing Resolutions: 10
Draft Resolutions: 6
1. Providing additional full-time staffing authorizations to build the Defensive Cyber Operations Element.
2. Cyber Pay/Incentives Parity.
3. National Guard Cyber Forces in the DOD Cyber Operations Force.
4. Modify 10 U.S. Code § 10541 and DOD 7000.14-R to allow National Guard Reserve Equipment Appropriation funding for software, which is not currently considered procurement.

Col Morgan noted that he didn’t see any emergency resolutions at this point.

Mike concurred and stated that the team doesn't anticipate any emergency resolutions and is not tracking any.

Task Forces Report Q&A by the Board:

Gen Doorenbos stated that some of the priorities felt internally facing for the committee to work on (i.e., cleaning up extraneous resolutions, etc.) and suggested whether we should list those as inward priorities for the Chair to maintain, thus leaving room for more priorities to hand to NGAUS.

Col Morgan concurred.

Mike also concurred and added that the group discussed the matter yesterday as it was something that they did not necessarily anticipate coming back from a task force as a priority.

Mike stated that there is a recognition that they are trying to clean these matters up and that he appreciates the emphasis that the Board has put on this process to bring the group back and get them grounded, to force them to look at this hard and do the right thing and make it more meaningful as we go forward.

Mike thanked Gen Doorenbos for her comments and stated that it is certainly something that he would use as a takeaway and work with the task forces on.

Mike commended the Task Force Chairs and their efforts in providing that subject matter expertise to keep us up-to-date with what is going on, what we need to do and how we need to talk about certain issues.

In response to Gen Joe Hargett’s observation, Mike replied that he thought that it was a great point.

Mike stated that if you look at the number of resolutions that they receive, those are some of the challenges that they face in trying to determine what is needed across the spectrum.

Mike stated that they are trying to come back to build more strategic priorities.

Gen Boyles clarified whether Gen Hargett’s idea was to take the cyber, joint committee and rename it as multi-domain so that it captures more than just cyber.

Gen Hargett concurred.

Gen Boyles asked whether Mike was okay with that.

Mike responded that they are good with whatever the Board wants to do.

Gen Robinson suggested that perhaps the Board should have the Resolutions Chairs look at it and come back to the Board and see if that is something that makes sense for the long term.

Col Morgan concurred.

Further discussions were held.

Col Sanchez noted that a lot of those resolutions are tied to corporate sponsors so cautions should be taken with respect to cleaning up the resolutions and/or renaming them.

The Resolutions Committee Chairs and Mike Hadley concurred and collectively stated that the goal is to go back, take a hard look, tell us what is relevant and what is not relevant, and whether they see fit, make recommendations for change through the resolutions process.

Col Marshall recommended to the Resolutions Committee Chairs that they look at the organizational structure of the Task Forces (i.e., the Personnel-Medical portfolio is enormous and what they’ve found is that some folks have expertise on one side and not the other). Col Marshall suggested that the Personnel-Medical Task Force be split into two separate Task Forces.

Col Morgan stated that he appreciated the feedback.

Gen Reed stated that the Resolutions Committee has some work to do in making sure that every person in the field is represented somehow here.
Discussions were also held re: H.R.5112/S.503 – Space National Guard Establishment Act
Establishes the Space National Guard as the Primary Combat Reserve of the USSF
With Respect to H.R. 5112, Gen McGuire clarified with Mike his statements that the House NDAA had that language but not the Senate (meaning S. 503 was not introduced).

Mike concurred.

Gen McGuire suggested that the association go back and take a look at what happened in 1947 and how long it took for the brand new Air Force to have hearings in front of Congress about whether or not there was common law lineage back to the Army.

Gen McGuire’s stated that his concern was that the space force matter will continue to be put on hold if we do not take action and seek an outside advocate and sponsors to discuss having some type of hearing.

Further discussions were held regarding the matter.

Mike concurred with Gen McGuire and stated that at the same time, we need to continue to keep the pressure on and amp up the noise level regarding the SASC
Committee and make sure that they are responsive to their members.

Gen Rogers stated his belief that there is a lot of opposition within the administration.

Gen Reed stated that he has literally sat in the Pentagon with the Under Secretary of Defense and that they are against Title 32.

Gen Reed added that the bigger issue is Title 32 vs. Title 10 and that yes, they do not want a Space Command, but the deeper thing is that they do not like Title 32.

Gen Doorenbos asked Gen McGuire whether there was a resolution around this from the Board as a body.

Gen McGuire responded that his only thought was that the professional staff at NGAUS go out and do the research and then come back and inform the Board about what it might take (i.e., using a historian, etc. ).

Gen McGuire asked Gen Robinson when was the last time that we forced a hearing on the matter.

Gen Robinson responded that the real stopgap is the National Security Commission and the administration.

Gen Robinson added that when you have the administration fighting you in the Senate, and you have other very powerful Senators who are not going to take a stand on a Space Guard, the problem is that there are a lot of AGs that do not have a real interest in a Space Guard.

Gen Robinson stated that we have some very powerful senators out there who are able to stay on the fence because we are giving them the room to do that.

Gen Robinson stated that we haven’t backed off of the matter, especially as a priority, but it has been a tough slug and that he was not confident, even with a hearing, that this will be turned around until there is an administration change.

Gen Robinson added that unless some states who do not have a space responsibility today decide that this is important enough for them to shoot silver bullets, then we are not going to win this fight.

Gen Robinson commended the leadership of the Bureau and stated that GEN Hokanson and Gen Loh have done a great job of publicly talking on their hearings on the Hill about a Space Guard, but the problem is that OSD is not going to roll over on this.

Gen Robinson stated that we have got to find some cracks in the administration and that there are some states out there that would cause some cracks in the administration if their delegations got involved.

Col Schweickart, who stated that both she and Maj Watson are on the Space Ops staff at NGB, mentioned that there is support in other states that do not have space missions right now and that their group works with other states in developing potential missions, so the interest is there just not across the 54.

Col Schweickart stated that the concern with legislators is that if we create this, they have to give a space mission to everyone, so her team hase made sure that they understand that is not the case.

Col Schweickart added that there are other TAGs that want to get involved and join that fight.

Gen Boyles confirmed with Mike whether he would get the resolutions approved at the annual conference in Reno and then publish a book of resolutions that goes to Capitol Hill which is what Industry and other participants use to reinforce conversations with the CODELs.

Mike concurred.

Gen Boyles added that in December, Mike’s team will start the process all over again to have the Task Force Chairs back in along with the Resolutions Committee during Industry Day.

Gen Boyles stated that the purpose was so that they could reconnect with Industry again, take a look at the TF Chairs to make sure that we have a vibrant group to start the process over in the spring and hopefully get after some of the backlog of resolutions that may need to be addressed.

Gen Boyles added that hopefully by this time next year, we will have spent two years really cleaning up the resolutions and doing some good work.

Mike concurred and concluded by stating that he would be around all day if anyone wished to have some side discussions on any specific provisions or anything along those lines.

Following no further discussions, Gen Boyles thanked the Resolutions Chairs for their Updates and their hard work and turned the meeting over to CPT Bilal and Maj Watson for the CGO Report.

Company Grade Report- CPT Rasheedah Bilal
(Note: The Company Grade presentation by CPT Bilal was inaudible on the convention center recording device. The portions that were audible were included in the minutes.)

Please refer to the CGO Presentation slides for an overview of the presentation.
• CGO Election Vacancies
• Recruiting

During the CGO presentation Gen Boyles mentioned to CPT Bilal that she spoke about replacing some vacancies on the Committee and then asked what the travel commitment was for being on the CGO Committee.

CPT Bilal responded that yes, there are three travel commitments. The National Convention and the November and March meetings at NGAUS.

Gen Boyles asked whether those two meetings were around the Capitol Summit.

CPT Bilal responded that they were..(remainder of response Inaudible)

Gen Robinson stated that the Capitol Summit meetings line up with the Board of Directors meetings.

Gen Boyles responded “Okay.”

CPT Bilal continued with the CGO Committee Report as presented on the PowerPoint Slides (Inaudible)

During the presentation, the Board asked CPT Bilal questions regarding the CGO responses to the surveys.

Later during the CGO presentation, Gen Doorenbos stated to CPT Bilal that she is always so impressed with the surveys presented by the group and the responses.
Gen Doorenbos then asked CPT Bilal where else they were out briefing the surveys because she believed that the information was important, not only for the Board but for the leadership within the Guard Bureau to understand.

CPT Bilal responded that during the November Board of Directors meeting, the group will try to get on the schedule of the CNGB and have that conversation with him, the DANG, and the DARNG.

CPT Bilal also stated that the group is working on building a website to post the surveys and do their write-ups.

CPT Bilal stated that one of the things that the group is pushing for is by the end of the conference, surveys with QR codes that lead to the data, to make that available to send out to all of the senior leaders.

Further Q&A by the Board.

Gen Rogers asked whether there was any data collected on the economic means of the respondents (i.e., how much of an income they have on the outside world, etc.).

CPT Bilal responded that the questions did ask the respondents about their MOS, whether they were full-time or M-Day, and what their civilian job was.

CPT Bilal added that there was no dollar amount, but the group could probably do some analysis on that.

Gen Rogers stated that when you talk about paid-for time and family care benefits, etc., there may be an economic trigger to whether it is worth staying.

CPT Bilal responded that the group could do such an analysis.

Maj Watson provided an example to the Board and stated that from experience, it is important that we keep these kinds of skilled professionals, because if we do not, then it would be very easy for contractors and our civilian counterparts to scoop those individuals up.

Gen Robinson stated to CPT Bilal that there is some legislation floating around on the Hill that specifically addresses equity among the components on family care benefits.
Gen Robinson stated that it is not very clear and that he was a little confused about what family care benefits mean to traditional soldiers.

CPT Bilal (Response Inaudible)

Gen Robinson stated that he is curious whether they mean childcare on weekends when they are on duty, or are they talking about something unique, etc.

Col Schweickart replied that she has heard that childcare on drill weekends is a problem especially because we have so many mil-to-mil couples and if they do not have any family that is local and that she knows that family programs at some units are trying to work on the matter, but that the resources are not always there.

CPT Bilal (Response Inaudible)

Gen Rogers stated that this is great work and that he always appreciates hearing it, but the details do matter, and understanding true correlation as opposed to anecdotes is pretty valuable.

Gen Rogers noted that the state of Wyoming just passed a law where they do reimburse for childcare on IDT weekends, so it will be interesting to see what impact that makes.

Gen Rogers added that you could have a family member watching the children and they are going to get compensated through the state bill.

Gen Rogers also noted that the state of Minnesota has a reenlistment bonus of $15,000 for their service members that is paid by the state.

Gen Rogers stated that you start looking at those incentives and see how that changes things, but in general, he thought that he was hearing from most TAGs that their reenlistment rate and retention rate are pretty high.

Gen Rogers stated that recruiting is where we are really suffering across the board so the question is what could help us recruit more while we work the retention.

Further discussions were held.

Gen Boyles stated to CPT Bilal that he thinks that he heard from the conversations with her and Gen Robinson that she was going to, in a future exercise, break out family care benefits into several different categories to see what is important to our soldiers and airmen in the different family care benefits.

Gen Robinson concurred and added that it may include some medical care benefits that we need to think about in terms of family care.

Gen Robinson stated that he did not want to limit it, but he would like a lot more information.

Gen Boyles concurred and stated to CPT Bilal that he would even expand that to education benefits and break that out as well, if possible, on a future survey.

CPT Bilal concluded by stating that we have the conference coming up and the group would like some assistance with encouraging people to attend the conference.

CPT Bilal stated that right now they have about 200 CGOs versus last year they had about 450.

Gen Boyles asked CPT Bilal to speak closer to the microphone.
(Note: CPT Bilal’s audio became much clearer on the recording when the microphone was adjusted).

CPT Bilal stated that right now they have about 200 CGOs versus last year when they had about 450, so they are currently very low on attendance.

CPT Bilal mentioned that the conference is one of their platforms where they do the greatest outreach to:
1. Educate the CGOs on what NGAUS does and give them an opportunity to participate, grow, and be a part of this community, and,
2. Getting CGOs to buy into the concept of yes, you have done a great job of filling out the surveys and telling us all your complaints, but now, be a part of the solution.

CPT Bilal stated that they do want to be able to have a platform where they can empower CGOs to come to the table and be a part of the solution because they are 47% of our membership but 100% of the future.

CPT Bilal discussed this year’s 2023 NGAUS Company Grade Officer Professional Development Symposium and their theme “Bridging the Gap” and how the group plans to do so by highlighting the following areas:
1. Strategic Mentorship
- Discussion and Q&A with CNGB, DARNG, and DANG.
- Legislative Session to reinforce understanding of NGAUS activities and procedures.

2. CGOx: a Peer-Lead Idea Lab
- Company Grade Officers take center stage.
- Short form presentations on various topics on ideas.
- Invitations to state and senior leaders to attend. Opportunity for states to showcase their best and brightest.

3. Professional Education (working with Indigo Ancor, a Management Consulting Firm)
- Evidence-Based Decision-Making for Leaders
- Interactive workshop. High-energy session packed with useful tools and ideas.
- Common pitfalls and four sources of evidence for better decision-making

Gen Boyles recommended that CPT Bilal present the CGO briefing at AGAUS and added that the briefing was well-received at the last TAG meeting as it generated great conversation.

Gen Ross asked whether anyone was looking at whether we could get the CGOs college credit for their professional education.

Gen Ross suggested that maybe the committee could look at whether some of the colleges might be able to valuate this for transferrable credit.

CPT Bilal responded that last year when the group worked with ASU, they did give the CGOs credit towards that endeavor and that the organization (mentioned) is going to give them a certificate, however, they are not a credentialing organization.

CPT Bilal stated that the intent is to work with universities and hopefully that is something that they could do in the future.

Gen Ross replied, “The broader the better.”

Gen Boyles stated to CPT Bilal that the next TAG meeting is in November and if she could get that survey on the two breakouts before that time, that would be enlightening and well-received.

Following no further questions or comments, Gen Boyles then turned the meeting over to Gen Berry for the Audit Report which would be followed by Gen Ross for an update on the Educational Foundation as it involves NGAUS.

Audit Report – Gen Berry

Gen Berry highlighted the Audit conducted by Thompson Greenspon and gave an overview of the following as presented on the PowerPoint slides:
Slide 2: Overall Audit
Financial Statements issued
NGAUS (membership association and building operations)
NGAUS Insurance Trust
National Guard Educational Foundation
Consolidated Financial (all entities)
Building operating expense audit
Audit opinion – emphasis of matter
Slide 3: Financial Statement Highlights
Excerpts from consolidated statement of activities 2022     2021     2020
Membership     $ 1,227,000     $ 1,297,000     $ 1,291,000
Contributions     511,000     434,000     656,000
Insurance     1,598,000     1,829,000     1,908,000
Advertising/Marketing/General     2,404,000     2,126,000     766,000
Investment (loss) income     (4,703,000)     3,177,000     4,423,000
PPP Loan forgiveness     -     444,000     -
Building, net     (556,000)     1,981,000     1,203,000
Total Expenses
Change in Net Assets
$ 3,782,000
$ 3,997,000
Slide 4: Financial Statement Highlights
Excerpts from consolidated statement of financial condition
$ 3,306,000
$ 3,758,000
$ 2,952,000
Accounts receivable
Property and equipment
Total Assets
Total Liabilities
Net Assets
$ 45,649,000
$ 53,757,000
$ 49,974,000
Slide 5: Required Communications
• Internal control letter
• Governance letter

Gen Berry concluded by stating that the bottom line was that there were no internal control issues in the internal control letter and in governance, it gave a clear clean audit with no red flags, and that the call with the auditors took about 20 minutes.

Gen Berry stated that the bottom line was that it was a very clean audit, that we were doing good as an organization, and that there were no concerns that we should be paying attention to.

Gen Ross stated that the Finance Committee did review the audit and concurred that it was a clean audit and referred that matter to the Audit Committee which now has to get the Board to approve it.

Gen Berry then moved to approve the Audit for the year ending 12/31/22.

The motion was seconded by Gen Cole. Motion carried.

Treasurer’s Report (NGEF) – Gen Ross

Gen Ross stated that the Educational Foundation does not typically meet when we are off-site like this, but that he wanted to provide an overview of what we do within the NGAUS family.

Gen Ross stated, for a little history, that NGAUS does not have any debt, but it is a big creditor, and the person that owes us the most money is the Educational Foundation.

Gen Ross stated that if you go back historically, the debt was accumulated from the Educational Foundation in two ways, a rent was set for them that accrues every year but until recently they have not been paying that.

Gen Ross stated that they also have been funding any shortfalls and operational funds between what they’ve raised and what they’ve spent.

Gen Ross stated that the debt has been going up over time and from a historical standpoint that debt had been growing fairly rapidly but has been growing a lot slower since we have put more emphasis in the Educational Foundation fundraising.

Gen Ross stated that the debt has just about quit growing with the exception of rent.

Gen Ross stated that the Educational Foundation has been doing better and that the purpose of this report is to remind the Board that we have been trying to get that endowment set up to get it to $10.0M, but we would start withdrawing from that endowment before it got to $10.M the amount of money that is required to keep the NGAUS debt the same.

Gen Ross stated that instead of the debt going up every year, by the amount of the rent which is about $150K per year, and the amount of the shortfall and its operational which might be a few tens of thousands of dollars, we are going to take money out of that foundation’s endowment and pay NGAUS those amounts of money.

Gen Ross stated that we did that last year and the amount of money that the Educational Foundation owes NGAUS has gone down a little bit.

Gen Ross stated that for the first time, since he has been treasurer, the debt due to NGAUS stopped going up and started going down.

Gen Ross stated that while the Foundation account has about $8.0M in it, we presume that we will have enough money to keep that frozen, the NGAUS debt will not go up and then at the point where we actually hit $10.0M in our endowment, we will be able to take out about $300K and that debt will go away in just several years.

Gen Ross stated that NGAUS will no longer, as of 2023, have to finance any NGAUS operations and we get a little positive cash flow out of rent.

Gen Ross stated that he wanted to make sure that the Boards of both organizations understood how things moved.

Gen Ross concluded by stating that NGAUS does not have to fund its Educational Foundation, it is doing just fine.

Following no further questions or comments, Gen Boyles thanked Gen Ross for his report and then recessed for lunch until 1:15 p.m. (PT).

(Lunch Recess)

Following the lunch recess, Gen Boyles then turned the meeting over to Jake for the Conference update.

2023 Conference Update – Gen Cole & LTC (Ret) Jake Jakubek

Gen Cole stated that he had a couple of remarks and then he would turn the presentation over to Jake who would then turn the meeting back over to him to close out with a proposal.

Gen Cole began by commending Jake and the entire team for their hard work in already surpassing two of their goals for this year’s conference.

Gen Cole then turned the presentation over to Jake for the Conference Update.
(Note: The Conference Update presentation by LTC Jake Jakubek was inaudible on the convention center recording device. The portions that were audible were included in the minutes.) Please refer to the Conference Update slides for an overview of the presentation.

Jake mentioned that the ROC Drill (Rehearsal of Concept) was held yesterday and consisted of the Host state team, select NGAUS staff and leadership, and various conference support teams.

Jake presented a Conference Snapshot Report and discussed some of the current statistics taken from the registration software and the various registration types (i.e., Distinguished Guests, Exhibiting, Non-Exhibiting Industry, and State Affiliate).

During the presentation, Gen Cole stated to Jake that he wanted him to share the good news that he had exceeded the revenue goals for the exhibit space for this year.

Jake responded (Inaudible)

Jake continued to discuss the status of this year’s upcoming conference as well as the status of how things were moving along with the 2024 conference scheduled to take place in Detroit, MI.

Gen Cole clarified with Jake that for the one room that EANGUS needs for their dinner, we do not have an issue with that one room with them using it that night because we do not need it until Saturday.

Jake concurred.

Gen Cole asked Jake whether he was still working on the other three rooms that were needed for Ops space, and if he did not get the rooms, whether he would have to set up originally in one location and then move.

Jake concurred.

Gen Cole stated that as far as our corporate partners are concerned, the only issue that has been expressed back to us is Conflict Kinetics, because they are setting up a range and they do not want to tear all of that down and relocate it.

Jake concurred.

Gen Cole stated that he was not sure whether that was something that the company needed to work out with the convention center to be able to stay in that space since NGAUS does not own that space.

Jake responded (Inaudible)

Gen Rogers asked Jake to correct him if he was wrong, but his understanding was that we have the entire facility, so it just comes down to how much do we need to use.

Gen Rogers stated that for them to stay downstairs it is their inconvenience for not being on the main traffic route at the NGAUS conference.

Gen Rogers then stated that he would validate that.

Gen Cole asked Jake whether we had access to the lower floor space on our contract.

Jake responded (Inaudible)

Gen Cole stated to Gen Rogers that there may need to be some point of clarification on whether he has arranged all of the space, that EANGUS has certain space under their contract, and that we had the other space under our contract.

Gen Cole stated that we just need to make sure that them staying there is not an issue since it is not under NGAUS’ contract.

Gen Ross added that if we have a space blocked and they stay in another space, the convention center may say that they are going to charge us for all of the space that we have already reserved and for the other space as well, so we need to work that out to avoid getting double-charged.

Jake continued with the conference update briefing.

Gen Cole commended Jake for his passion and for how he and his team approach all of this, going into minute detail to make sure that this works properly.

Gen Cole asked whether anyone had any questions for Jake in reference to this year’s conference in Reno, NV, or where we currently are with next year’s conference in Detroit, MI.

Following no questions or comments, Gen Cole mentioned to the Board that they have talked over the past year about several proposals that have come to the Conference Committee about making some changes and doing things differently.

Gen Cole stated that the committee is experimenting with some of those efforts in Nevada by switching the Governor’s Reception to a Governor’s Farewell with a concert and putting the States Dinner on Saturday night, adding the spouse’s event, etc., so there are a couple of things that are being incorporated.

Gen Cole thanked Gen Berry for their efforts in making the changes and that he believed that it was going to be a spectacular event.

Gen Cole discussed the proposal that was received from one of our larger corporate partners.

Gen Cole mentioned that AM General is going through a rebranding and they would like to have an event to announce their rebranding within the Exhibit Hall on Saturday from 1600 to 1700.

Gen Cole stated that what AM General is requesting, which needs to be approved by the Board, is to be allowed to have some hors d'oeuvres and beverages from that one window (1600-1700), which is the last hour of the exhibit hall hours of operation that Saturday.

Gen Cole stated that currently, he believes that the business session is scheduled to end at 1700 but that John was discussing potentially ending that earlier to potentially 1630.

Gen Cole stated that receptions start at 1830 that evening with the dinner scheduled at 2000 that evening.

Gen Cole stated that as a result, the proposed event by AM General should not conflict with those timeframes, but because it does involve them serving hors d'oeuvres and alcoholic beverages, it has to be approved by the Board.

Gen Cole stated that this has been done in the past and that AM General’s intent is to send out invitations to NGAUS key leadership, AGs, as well as some key VIP partners to their booth for light refreshments including wine, beer, soda, snacks, etc.

Gen Cole stated that AM General has already discussed the event with Aramark who is providing all of our food and beverage in Reno for the conference, and that they could support the request.

Gen Cole then moved to approve AM General to be able to have their proposed reception on Saturday, of which includes food and & beverage.

The motion was seconded by Gen Haston. Motion carried.

Gen Cole concluded his presentation by opening the floor for any Q&A.

Jake concluded by reminding the Board to please turn in the conference registration forms for this year’s upcoming conference to Lakeshia if they have not already done so.

Following no further questions or comments, Gen Boyles thanked Jake and Gen Cole for their presentations and then asked whether there was any old business or anything that needed to be brought to the Board’s attention that required action.

Gen Doorenbos asked whether they could go through the process of the election of a new president of the organization.

Gen Doorenbos stated that from an educational standpoint for the Board, she was just curious if they could just talk through what that process is and what the current status is.

Gen Boyles concurred and stated to the Board that Gen Berry was the Chair of the NGAUS Search Committee and then asked Gen Berry to share his thoughts.

Gen Berry thanked the Board for the opportunity to talk through the process to oversee the hiring of the President and CEO of NGAUS.

Gen Berry stated to the Board that they developed a committee which consisted of the following individuals:

Maj Gen Ondra Berry, Search Committee Chair
Col (Ret) Steve Greco,
MG Sheryl Gordon,
MG Paul Rogers,
CPT Rasheedah Bilal,
CW5 (Ret) Jim Simms

Gen Berry further stated that he put together some correspondence, and a timeline and sent it out to each of the members of the committee, working directly with the office.

Gen Berry stated that once the position description was put together, an announcement went out which closed on July 5th.

Gen Berry stated that tomorrow the committee would be meeting next door (in the convention center) for probably half a day just to go through the process and steps for how the interviews would go.

Gen Berry then stated that in September (in which the committee would have to determine a date) they would do interviews based off of how the committee has determined who goes forth for the process.

Gen Berry then stated that after the interviews in September (date TBD), the committee would make a recommendation for three names to come to the Board, by order of ranking.

Gen Berry stated that at the November meeting, there will be interviews held with the three finalists/applicants.

Gen Boyles added, “..by the full Board”.

Gen Berry concurred and stated, “..by the full Board.”

Gen Berry further stated that it was his understanding that after the Board meeting, there would be a recommendation of a name that would go forward to provide an offer to and to work with Roy at the job.

Gen Berry stated that once that person has been selected, there would basically be a right-left handoff working with Roy Robinson for a determined period of time that the Board came up with at the last meeting.

Gen Berry stated that what was just mentioned was the order and process.

Gen Doorenbos stated that she had a couple of quick extra questions.

Gen Doorenbos asked how the development of the Committee worked and whether there was any guidance in the bylaws that determined how the Selection Committee was developed.

Gen Boyles responded that he was charged with that and how that process worked was that Jimme (Gen Cole) and Ondra (Gen Berry) came up with a list of candidates and that those two candidates…the three of them came up with the conclusion that they voted, he guessed, on who those candidates should be.

Gen Doorenbos then asked whether there was a bylaw or something that the Board voted on that stated that there needs to be x” amount of people on the committee or how the committee is supposed to be set up, or whether that was self-determined by the Chairman.

Gen Boyles deferred to Gen Robinson.

Gen Robinson stated that basically what they did was they structured it like they have done in the past and that he did not think that it was even mentioned in the bylaws.

Gen Robinson added that the only change that they made was that in the past it hasn’t been all Board members that have been a part of the Selection Committee, but they have been appointed by the Chairman.

Gen Robinson stated that in this particular case, the Committee was nominated by the Vices to the Chairman, and they selected and agreed upon the people that would be on the list.

Gen Robinson also stated to Gen Doorenbos that if she recalled, he (the Chairman) brought it back to the Board when he announced that he had selected the selection committee.

Gen Robinson stated that really it is based on historical precedence, with the only change being that he (the Chairman) chose to use all Board members as opposed to having someone who was not on the Board on the Selection Committee.

Gen Robinson stated that once the Selection Committee goes through the criteria based on the way that it has been done in the past, then those three will come before the Board to do their presentation and then the full Board will vote.

Gen Doorenbos clarified whether there was no requirement that there be three coming back before the Board, that is just historically the way that it has been done before.

Gen Robinson concurred and stated that historically, the committee was not selected to make the decision, they were selected to pick the top three candidates to present to the Board, and then the Board would make the selection.

Gen Ross added that the Board of Directors is the one that is going to vote on the selection of the President, so the process is to get the word out, get the applications, and then bring them back to the Board.

Gen Ross stated that he believed that the only thing that the bylaws say about this process at all is that in any committee selection, committee members are recommended and then they are confirmed by the Board of Directors, for any committee appointments.

Gen Ross stated that afterward when those committees report, the Board of Directors will decide what it is going to do with the committee information.

Gen Ross stated that the Board could disregard anything recommended by the committee, or accept everything recommended by the committee, but eventually, there would be a vote in this body about who the next president will be.

Gen Boyles stated that was the way that they did it with Roy (Gen Robinson), it was done by the full board.

Gen Robinson stated that nobody on the full-time staff has been the driver of this, but he has turned it over to Cheryl Young, who is the Director of Finance and Human Resources.

Gen Robinson stated that Cheryl has been the one who has put together the packets received and applications and has put everything administratively into place.

Gen Robinson stated that just for clarity, Cheryl has applied the standard human resources ways that we do with the other parts of our full-time force.

Gen Boyles asked whether there were any other questions.

Gen Ross stated that the process that we are in right now is that after the committee’s meeting tomorrow, you know the number of applications based off the cutoff date, then they will be reviewed, and the recommendations will be made after that.

Gen Ross stated that we are past the cutoff, but before that, the committee has to consider who they want to recommend.

Gen Doorenbos stated that she had heard through the rumor mill that Gen Gus Hargett had been nominated to the selection committee.

Gen Doorenbos then stated that the reason that she asked about the process and the way that it was just described to her, it sounded like the two Vice Chairs made the recommendation to the Chairman.

Gen Doorenbos stated to Gen Robinson that he mentioned that in the past, that people outside of the Board were allowed to be on the committee.

Gen Doorenbos then asked who would be responsible for selecting those people.

Gen Robinson responded, “The Chairman” and added that the appointees to the Selection Committee were appointed by the Chairman.

Gen Robinson stated that if the Board wants him to, he would be happy to get into the conversation about Gus.

Gen Cole stated that Gus withdrew and that he met with Gen Hargett on Wednesday.

Gen Doorenbos stated that it all felt a little bit weird to her and that she thought that it was worth a discussion in this forum because it felt a little awkward.

Gen Doorenbos stated that she wanted to understand how Gus (Gen Hargett) came to be on the committee, particularly if nominated by the Chair who was apparently running for the position.

Gen Cole responded to Gen Doorenbos that he would go a little further in how they recommended people to be on the selection committee to the Chairman.

Gen Cole stated that they did so to try to get as diverse a group of folks as they could.

Gen Cole added that the committee is comprised of former Adjutants General, former Executive Director experience, Company Grade representation, Warrant Officer representation, and that both he and Gen Berry recommended Gen Hargett based off of his prior experience as the president of the association.

Gen Doorenbos asked whether that was common and done in the past.
(Response Inaudible)

Gen Doorenbos stated, “No?” “Ok alright.”, and then asked whether that was just a recommendation.

Gen Ross mentioned that he had been around for a long time and made the observation that there has not been a standard procedure and that he has seen it done differently every time.

Gen Ross stated that he could recall a time when all past presidents comprised the selection committee to recommend nominations.

Gen Ross stated that he did not think that there was a standard by which they did something different this time and that from the five that he was familiar with, every committee has been selected in a different way.

Gen Berry stated that the number one thing that they thought about was representation of the body in terms of what’s good for the organization and that they did not want any represented group not to have a voice.

Gen Rogers posed a question and stated that he had no idea of how many applicants we had but when they bring the top three recommendations to the Board, he suspects that they would have a discussion over all of the candidates and why they leaned toward those three as the top three.

Gen Rogers asked whether that was accurate.

Gen Berry stated that tomorrow the Selection committee would have a chance to look at all the packages and determine who they will interview in September.

Gen Berry then stated that after the interviews in September, they will determine the three candidates that they feel should come before this body in no ranking order.

Gen Rogers asked whether they would have an obligation to explain their reasoning and logic and why they got their result.

Gen Rogers also asked whether there was a process within the Board if they do not agree with the recommendation of the top three that they have discretion to add a fourth or...?

Gen Doorenbos stated that she would think that much like the awards where the Board has the discretion to say whether they should rethink nominations (i.e., upgrade or downgrade), they would have the same discretion in this matter.

Gen Rogers stated that the reason that he is unpacking that is that maybe there are people on the Board that are unsettled, so that they do not feel that they are “boxed in”, from what he is understanding in the process.

Gen Robinson concurred and stated that the Board has the discretion to basically do whatever they want to unilaterally and that if they are not satisfied with the outcome of the three candidates that the committee recommends it is strictly a recommendation and they can go back and do however they choose to pursue it.

Gen Aguilar stated that it goes without saying but he thought that they were having this discussion because when the committee comes back with their top three, and the Board goes into discussion, anybody who currently sits on the Board who happened to be in that three, if by chance that is the case, would not be a part of any of the discussions in the hiring process.

Members of the Board concurred.

Gen Aguilar added that the thought that the other piece of it is that as a Board, they could throw out the three, or add people to it, or say “Hey, we are just not satisfied with the quality of candidates, let’s redo”.

Gen Boyles asked Gen Robinson to correct him if he was wrong, but when this was done last time, each of the three candidates actually made a presentation to the Board and then they discussed the three candidates after the presentations were made.

Gen Robinson concurred.

Gen Ross stated that the only difference is that the three that are recommended are the only three that get to make a presentation, but that the Board could even change that if they wanted to.

Gen Ross stated that he believed that was the normal procedure though that the three get to present and the other people do not.

Gen Doorenbos stated to Gen Ross that his key words were “the normal procedure” and she just wondered if because of the past many times that they have done this there really hasn’t been a procedure, it has been a little bit different every time and she is just wondering whether it might be worth it for the Board to think about creating an SOP or a set of procedures that is carried from one iteration to the next, amendable, of course, but that gives specific guidance instead of what sounds like it’s been an iterative process without a formal blessing from the Board.

Gen Berry asked Gen Doorenbos based on the process that she had just heard whether they (the body) like the process or whether there needs to be an additional step or the elimination of a step.

Gen Berry stated that he would just like to hear what that would be.

Gen Doorenbos responded that she is happy to iterate on this but that she would like to understand what the process is if they are going to introduce people outside of the Board, then who decides that, particularly in an instance when the person who assigned the person is running for the position.

Gen Doorenbos further stated that to her, there is a little bit of a conflict there and maybe, more importantly, the process of coming back to the Board (i.e., Do you bring three, does the Board have discretion to change the three, if so, how? Do they do that before the three come? etc.,).

Gen Doorenbos stated that she was just trying to understand how the Board would weigh in if they were not quite happy or satisfied with the three that the selection committee brought.

Gen Doorenbos stated that there has been just enough talk but that it kind of creates just a bit of discomfort for her this time around because there just seems to have been some strange things happening.

Gen Doorenbos further stated that she was just trying to find a way for everyone to be informed and for them to have a say in how the process operates.

Gen Robinson responded that he has gotten phone calls obviously, but that he thinks that there are a lot of different ways that you could do it.

Gen Robinson stated that he would have to go back and read the bylaws, but if he remembered correctly, the reason that the charter is with the Chairman is because that is a part of his responsibility, to hire and retain a President and Chief Executive Officer.

Gen Robinson stated that is why the Chairman has some discretion on how he wants to set it up.

Gen Robinson stated that there are some folks out there who felt that current members of the Board should not have served, and that is their opinion.

Gen Robinson stated that he disagreed because he believed that it was a good decision and that having current Board members are the most valuable people that you could have in that type of selection.

Gen Robinson stated that they did not do that last time and that frankly, he believed that it was the right thing to do.

Gen Robinson stated that he knew exactly where Gen Doorenbos was headed and that he did not mind going into detail, but he thought that they should probably go into executive session if that particular issue needed to be discussed, so that there is no “fog or mist”.

Gen Boyles stated to the Board that they would continue with the business session, adjourn the meeting, and then and then move into executive session.

Gen Boyles asked Gen Doorenbos whether that was fine.

Gen Doorenbos concurred.

Gen Boyles then turned the meeting over to Gen Aguilar to discuss an item of business before the Board.

Gen Aguilar mentioned to the Board that COL Jerome Guerrero, NV had retired and has resigned from his position on the Board as the Area VI Army Representative, which has left the position currently vacant.

Gen Aguilar stated to the Board that CPT Rasheedah Bilal mentioned that she would like to take the Area VI Army position and that he agreed.

Gen Boyles stated that the process for replacing COL Guerrero following his resignation from the Board is for the Chairman to replace that individual for the remainder of that term.

Gen Boyles stated that if Gen Aguilar was recommending CPT Bilal, he thought that it would be a great fit and stated to CPT Bilal that she would be placed in the Area VI Army Rep position for the remainder of that term.

With respect to the Company Grade committee, Gen Boyles stated that CPT Bilal would have to handle backfilling her position on the Committee until after the conference, but he would leave it up to her.

Gen Boyles thanked Gen Aguilar for the recommendation and that he believed that everyone on the Biard would agree with the decision.

Gen Boyles then welcomed CPT Bilal to Area VI.

Jake asked the Chairman whether CPT Bilal would still be able to chair the CGO Elections at this year’s conference.

Gen Boyles stated that he would look at the bylaws and if he would have to wait until the end of the conference to appoint CPT Bilal to the Area VI position then he would do so.

Col Schweickart stated that she would be able to run the CGO Air Elections this year in Reno.

Following discussions by the board, the Board nominated CPT Ryan Peterson, MA as the new Amy CGO Director to fill the unexpired term of CPT Bilal.

Gen Boyles stated that he has been corrected in that it is his role to nominate the two reps, but that the Board still needs to confirm CPT Bilal and CPT Peterson.

Gen Boyles then entertained a motion to approve CPT Bilal as the new Area VI Army Rep and CPT Ryan Peterson as the new Army CGO Director.

So moved by Gen Ross. Col Schweickart seconded. Motion carried.

Gen Boyles congratulated CPT Bilal on her new position on the Board.

Gen Boyles asked whether there was any additional business to be brought before the Board.

Gen Doorenbos asked whether anyone had a copy of the agenda because she was not sure which election she volunteered to run during this year’s conference in Reno, NV, because she must leave right after the Retiree Luncheon so there may need to be a replacement to cover the elections.

Jake responded that the elections are run on Saturday.

Gen Doorenbos responded “Ok!” and then asked that they disregard.

Gen Boyles stated that all the elections are on Saturday morning, so it is just a matter of knowing where your area is meeting for the election that you are running.

Gen Boyles asked Jake whether he had names for every election.

Jake concurred.

With respect to the elections and the proctors who are running the elections, Gen Joe Hargett asked that we make sure that we get our credentialing straight and that the state delegates are approved prior to those caucus elections because we always have credentialing issues.

Gen Boyles stated that the following are those individuals who are overseeing the elections for this year’s conference in Reno.

Resolutions Committee:
Col. Michael Morgan (Ret.), Vermont, Chair (Joint) Col. Lance Englet (Ret.), Oregon (Army) Brig. Gen. Harold Reed (Ret.), Wyoming (Air)

Nominations Committee:
Brig. Gen. Mike Oster (Ret), South Dakota, Chair

Credentials & Rules Verification Committee:
Maj. Gen Frank McGinn (Ret), Massachusetts, Chair

Area II Elections:
MG Sheryl Gordon, Alabama, Chair

Area V Elections:
Brig Gen Bobbi Doorenbos, Arkansas, Chair

Retiree Elections: (for ARMY psn)
Brig. Gen. Bobbi Doorenbos (Ret.), Arkansas (Air) (Chair)

Company Grade Elections: (for AIR psn & COMMITTEE psn’s)
Lt Col Jody Schweickart, Ohio (Chair)

Warrant Officer Elections: (N/A, only COMMITTEE psn’s)
CW5 Robert Nicholson, Tennessee, (Chair)

Following no further questions or comments on the elections layout, Gen Boyles turned the meeting over to Luke to give a quick update on the technician program.

Update on No Cost Insurance Program – Mr. Luke Guthrie

Gen Boyles stated that the Board voted to begin the program where we are offering free, one-year for new technicians entering the program for disability coverage.

Gen Boyles stated that he knew that July 1 was the implementation date, and then asked Luke to provide a brief update to the Board.
(Note: The Update on the No Cost Program presented by Luke was inaudible on the convention center recording device. The portions that were audible were included in the minutes.)

Luke stated that they took the boldest step earlier this year, with a July 1 implementation date, to offer no-cost disability insurance for a period of 12 months.

Luke stated that after the 12-month period, the deduction would automatically begin.

Luke mentioned that it is an opt-out program, but what they did for the better part of the last two months was that they undertook a comprehensive campaign to let the states know that this was coming down the pike.

Luke also mentioned that the program was socialized by some of our general officers and that packets were electronically sent to let every HRO know that all needed need was to inform new hires of the program.

Following Luke’s briefing, Gen Boyles asked whether there were any questions with respect to the program.

Gen Boyles stated that the next step in the program was to check on the states to see who was doing right and who was not and at that point, they would reengage the TAGs.

Gen Robinson stated that Winke kind of sanctioned that plan and that they recognized again that it was a federal payroll deduction and that it was appointed by a new federal appointment.

Gen Robinson stated that they did a really good job with it when they sent out HROs and ESRs who actually do the inputs.

Gen Boyles stated that the J1 has been very supportive and has been doing a great job making sure that this was the right thing to do and that they appreciate her support.

Luke (Inaudible)

Gen Boyles thanked Luke for the briefing.

Gen Boyles then asked whether there was any new business before the group before they broke into executive session.

Following no additional new business, Gen Boyles then turned the meeting over to Gen Sheridan for the taskers update.

Taskers: Gen Sheridan

Previous Taskers:
• Legislative Affairs will provide a civic engagement proposal that includes budget, legal ethics review, and the effect on 501(c)(19) status to the legislative staff and the Finance Committee (ongoing).
• Gen Boyles will work with Gen Cole (Army) and Gen Berry (Air) regarding the Task Force matter (ongoing).

New Taskers:
• The Resolutions Committee will review and make recommendations regarding the multi-domain naming issue.
• The Awards Committee will create a video regarding how to write awards.
• Legislative Affairs will research how long it took to get the ANG statutorily included.

Following no further business before the Board, Gen Boyles asked that everyone be safe and that he looked forward to seeing everyone at this year’s upcoming conference.

Gen Boyles then entertained a motion to adjourn. Gen Ross so moved. Gen Hargett seconded.

Motion carried and the meeting was adjourned.

(Executive Session)

During the Executive Session, the board voted to reaffirm the members of the selection committee to select three candidates for the position of NGAUS President. The
Selection Committee members are:

Maj Gen Ondra Berry
MG Sheryl Gordon
MG Paul Rogers
Col (Ret) Steve Greco
CPT Rasheedah Bilal
CW5 (Ret) Jim Simms