Virginia Council of Chapters

Military Officers Association of America

Home VCOC

Membership VCOC

VCOC Schedule

ByLaws VCOC

30 STARS ExcellenceAwards

VCOC Photos

State Legislative

JLC

Storm State Capitol 2008

STORM State Capital prior

Summary State Priorities

S1 Dept Vet Services

S2 Virginia National Gd

S3 Wounded Mental Health

HB 475 & 477 January 2008

S4 Virginia War Memorial

S5 Tax Relief 100% Disabl

S6 Tax Relief Citizen Sol

S7 Freeze Credit Files

Legislator of Year 2006

NATIONAL Legislative

2008 Congressional Lunch

Concurrent Receipt

Force Structure

SBP-DIC Offset

TRICARE cost shifting

Council Leaders Storm DC

2007 Congressional Lunch

2006 Congressional Lunch

Visit Home Office Aug2006

MOAA Hosts President Bush

GIVE TEN

Forms Give Ten

Southside Virginia Succes

Virginia Wins Early 2007

20% More 2007

Virginia Wins 2006 Give10

Meetings Quarterly VCOC

July 2008 VCOC Meeting

March 2008 VCOC Meeting

JAN 2008 VCOC Mtg Ft Lee

April 2007 VCOC Meeting

July 2007 Lexington

OCT BI-ANNUAL peninsula

Homecoming From Iraq

NEWSLETTERS - Crier

2008 MARCH Council Crier

DEC 2007 Council Crier

SEP 2007 Council Crier

JUNE 2007 Council Crier

MARCH 2007 Council Crier

CHAPTERS

Contacts

Related Links

Chapter Links

Web Input

SUPPORT VIRGINIA NATIONAL GUARD - 2008 State Legislative Priority #2

1.  ISSUE:  To protect the Virginia National Guard (VaNG) requested budget, to keep the Guard tuition assistance program fully funded, to fund needed O&M projects, and to protect the custodial rights of mobilized service members.

2.  BACKGROUND:

·        The state faces an estimated revenue shortfall of $300 million

·        A common practice is for every state agency to take its proportional share of the shortfall (i.e. a “salami-slice” approach)

·        The tuition assistance program is a vital component of VaNG recruiting/retention efforts.  In 2006 there was a shortfall requiring the Governor to use emergency funds

·        The VaNG biennial budget request will include needed O & M projects

·        Recent news reports have highlighted the plight of Guardsmen and Reservists who lost permanent custody of their children after being called into active federal service.  In these cases, the service member’s ex-spouse used the occasion of the service member’s mobilization to seek permanent modification of the child custody arrangement.  Active duty service members are also dealing with this issue, especially when deployed overseas

3.  DISCUSSION:

    • VaNG Budget:  All items requested are vitally needed to ensure that the VaNG remains fully prepared to meet statewide emergencies, both natural and man-made, to include prevention/response to terrorist attacks within the Commonwealth.  Also, it must remain prepared to meet its national responsibilities when called to active Federal service.  Its budget must not be decremented

·        Tuition Assistance:  This program has proven to be a key initiative for recruiting/retention.  Fully funding this program is imperative to keep our Guard strong and effective

·        Capital - Maintenance Reserve: The armories have not been funded at a level to meet minimum maintenance standards for a decade. Adequate funds must be provided to maintain and improve the armories such as submitting Capital Maintenance Reserve projects into the Virginia Public Building Authority. 

·        Custodial Rights of Mobilized Service Members:  Guardsmen and Reservists called into the service of their country should have the assurance that their military service will not cause them to lose permanent custody of their children.  Similar protection should be extended to members of the Active Duty military

4.  RECOMMENDATION:  That the Governor and General Assembly approve the requested biennium budget of the Virginia National Guard, and that the Governor and General Assembly pass legislation to protect the custodial rights of mobilized service members

 /28 Aug 2007

To Print a Word Document of the above position paper, click on the document at right. 

Document
2008 State Legislative Priority # 2 NATIONAL GUARD		  


2007 ISSUE:
MILITARY FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS

1. ISSUE:
How best to support the families of Virginia’s citizen soldiers during deployments.

2. BACKGROUND:

  • Currently there are two competing approaches to support military families. One is the Joint Forces Headquarters Family Assistance Centers (FAC) overseen by the National Guard and to be executed by military contractors. The other is a Military Family Support Center (MSFC) with an operational center recently moved from Roanoke to Salem, Va. It is run by a non-profit (501(c) 3) organization titled the Military Family Support Center, Inc. It has existed entirely on private donations and is seeking some state funding in order to expand its operation to serve more families..
  • The FAC is asking for $750,000 in state funding annually (a recurring requirement).
  • The MFSC is asking for $450,000 in state funding. It will raise $550,000 in private funding. This will create and operate 3 new centers plus one mobile facility.

3. DISCUSSION:

  •  On the surface, it appears that two organizations, with the same goal of helping military families, are competing for the same state resources.
  • Actually, both programs have unique capabilities and services for military families.
  • FACs primary services are: information, referral, outreach, assistance with TRICARE, financial and legal assistance. There are 8 FACs in Va.
  • One MFSC has been operational in Roanoke for over a year operating on donated funds alone. It provides services similar to FACs; however, it can also solicit private funds, advertise, and it has 120 volunteers. Many very practical needs of families are obtained at no cost.
  • Community involvement is a very positive aspect of MFSCs. This responds to Secetary Rumsfeld’s key issue #1 outlined in his letter to Gov. Kaine of “connecting… state government, community resources and employers into a multi-disciplinary team to extend support opportunities”.
  • FACs appear to be oriented primarily toward support of national guard families although their mission statement is to include families of reservists also. Families of reservists are generally not aware of them. The MFSC does advertise and supports all military families equally.
4. CONCULISIONS: 
  • Both approaches are good and offer their own unique capabilities.
  • There should not be an atmosphere of competition nor of “turf guarding”.
  • A combined and unified military/civilian approach is best. This approach would leverage state dollars and volunteerism, thereby, increasing support for families, and improving soldier morale.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS: 

  • That the efforts of both FACs and MFSCs be encouraged and resourced.
  • That FACs and MFSCs be encouraged to collaborate –not compete- and where practicable, MFSCs and FACs should be co-located.
  • That the Citizen Soldier Support Council be funded and authorized to oversee the operation and disburse state funds. That  $1.2  million be authorized to resource this combined effort. (Future/recurring requests to be determined.)
/  Sep 2006 document
Virginia Council of Chapters (VCOC)
Military Officers Association of America (MOAA)