Was this maneuver appropriate?

[foo]

While the group commander's comment may have been inappropriate, this is something the squadron commander will have to discuss with him or her. Once the squadron commander explains the reasons for the current cadet structure, the group commander may desist of wanting to make changes. The squadron commander may respectfully refer to the regulations and pamphlet quoted.

At the end of the day, none of our opinions regarding this issue really matter. This if something they both have to resolve through dialog and privately. And if that doesn't work, then through the chain of command.

A few of us present at the meeting (cadets were not in the room) attempted to discuss the Cadet Staff Handbook. The impression I got was that he was not very familiar with it and not interested in following its recommendations on this subject. Period.

Anyway, you're right about everything of course. It's just deeply frustrating.

[Spam]

He didn't appoint anyone, just said the fact we don't have a C/CC is going to change by his authority. We're a cadet squadron, so no DCC. I'm one of the SLOs.

What is a "SLO", please? I'm unfamiliar with that acronym. 

Pig's got a great point about having a Deputy Commander present to cover for the CC if missing. If you're a cadet squadron, you do have a Deputy Commander billet, in fact (see CAPR 20-1 2 JANUARY 2013, Fig. 17, page 23, at
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/R020_001_73F1BA70FD9EB.pdf. If you had that position filled, and as the duties for that job include to act in the absence of and to represent the direction of the unit commander, you might have coverage if and when higher command drops in in his absence like this.


FYI, I'm on my fourth Squadron-level command tour now (second one at a Cadet Squadron) and I've run into Group/CCs before who have a tendency to micromanage and/or bluster and/or try to cultivate a cult of personality through making statements and meddling like this. My personal opinion (especially now that I've served as a Group/CC over nine hundred people and a dozen units) is that a certain type of command personality can get to miss the experience of direct hands on leadership, and on occasion just cant resist the urge to tinker.

This is a very understandable human failing, and knowing your regs (see above link with duties and responsibilities) is your best defense to take what he's said publicly, but to then follow up privately, armed with those regs to have that quiet discussion (and another with your Wing Commander, if necessary).  I get with my rising cadet staff to review their CAPM 20-1 org chart and position descriptions twice a year as part of our training "battle rhythm", when we execute our normal cadet change of command rotation and duty assignment shifts, and you'd be surprised how much that can reduce the confusion factor for all hands.


Addendum - be prepped to forgive your leaders for their failings, if they are apologetic! (grin)


V/R,
Spam

[Brad]

What is a "SLO", please? I'm unfamiliar with that acronym.

Squadron Leadership Officer, it's a Senior Member duty position (no specialty track, can fall under Cadet Programs) where the SM serves as an adviser to Cadets (and Seniors) on proper drill & ceremonies, uniform wear, etc.

[JC004]

Now they call it Leadership Education Officer (that's a change).  Not a bad one, I guess.  But not groundbreaking either. 

[SarDragon]

A LEO.

Gee, that can get confusing.

[Spam]

Thanks, guys.

I just went back and checked the obsolete 29MAY00 20-1, and the old org charts and text simply refer to Leadership Officer, the "Squadron" part referring to the assignment level. Hence, I'd never seen anyone use "SLO". Interesting. Learn something every day.

"LEO" to me means low earth orbit (grin) or Law Enforcement Officer.

V/R,
Spam

[SarDragon]

Or Colonel Burke from MIWG. 

[NIN]

Or Colonel Burke from MIWG. 

please don't give him any ideas

[foo]

Now they call it Leadership Education Officer (that's a change).  Not a bad one, I guess.  But not groundbreaking either.

Interesting. That seems to be a little-known fact in my neck of the woods, though it's indeed spelled out in 20-1 and 52-16. Not surprisingly it still says "Squadron Leadership Officer" under my duty positions in eServices.

[arajca]

Now they call it Leadership Education Officer (that's a change).  Not a bad one, I guess.  But not groundbreaking either.

Interesting. That seems to be a little-known fact in my neck of the woods, though it's indeed spelled out in 20-1 and 52-16. Not surprisingly it still says "Squadron Leadership Officer" under my duty positions in eServices.

That's what happens when they make changes to the regs and don't bother to tell anyone.

[foo]

Now they call it Leadership Education Officer (that's a change).  Not a bad one, I guess.  But not groundbreaking either.

Interesting. That seems to be a little-known fact in my neck of the woods, though it's indeed spelled out in 20-1 and 52-16. Not surprisingly it still says "Squadron Leadership Officer" under my duty positions in eServices.

That's what happens when they make changes to the regs and don't bother to tell anyone.

True, although I've made enough trips to 52-16 while working on my CP technician rating that I probably should've picked up on it by now.

[JC004]

Heck, someone who's scanning it and already expects to see it a certain way could miss it.

The process behind regulations, forms, etc. is disjointed and could use a coordinating strategy.

Someone could submit a ticket/knowledgebase request for them to update e-Services to reflect the change in terminology. 

[THRAWN]

While the group commander's comment may have been inappropriate, this is something the squadron commander will have to discuss with him or her. Once the squadron commander explains the reasons for the current cadet structure, the group commander may desist of wanting to make changes. The squadron commander may respectfully refer to the regulations and pamphlet quoted.

At the end of the day, none of our opinions regarding this issue really matter. This if something they both have to resolve through dialog and privately. And if that doesn't work, then through the chain of command.

A few of us present at the meeting (cadets were not in the room) attempted to discuss the Cadet Staff Handbook. The impression I got was that he was not very familiar with it and not interested in following its recommendations on this subject. Period.

Anyway, you're right about everything of course. It's just deeply frustrating.

You identified an issue that keeps coming up: commanders who do not know the program. Ideally, a squadron commander should really have a working knowledge if not a tech level of the 3 main missions. Those qualifications should increase as the level of command increases. Getting the tech levels of ES, CP, and AE are not impossible to obtain and would eliminated issues like this. Far too often, commanders come from the "support" functions and have zero idea about how CAP works.

[JC004]

To operate effective in command functions, we also have to know a few other things well: Safety, Logistics, etc.  There's much required of a volunteer in command positions.  And the regulations change fairly regularly (and sometimes the small changes are the most confusing). 

I was recently deciding which regulations and forms we'd keep paper copies of, which to include in the mission kit, etc.  I've also been doing a comprehensive regulation review to aid a squadron that had declined.  The confusion of a different geographic area and all are enough, before the regulation stuff. 

I went to the SUI guide because in the past, I used it as a base to create a checklist to get things in compliance.  But the SUI guide changed SIGNIFICANTLY at the end of last year.  The Cadet Programs section, for example, now provides no effective measure of a unit cadet program.

My thought is that perhaps the national updates could be tweaked to provide easy at-a-glance overviews of changes that have happened.  This is more important now because new regulation changes are no longer an EVENT, tied to live streams of the [old] National Board meetings, etc.

I also think that since UCC isn't really required and may not be available for some time, perhaps a well-made online command function orientation and refresher course could be made available with the most current information.  Those, coupled with a good unit checklist and updated Commander's Guide (which the website notes as under revision and doesn't offer for download) could go a long way to helping commanders and deputies with a direction. 

I'd love to see an orientation for unit-level cadet programs staff (Leadership Education Officers, Activity Officers, etc.), which would give them not just a crash course, but would walk them through what cadets have to do from the CADETS' perspective.  In the past, I had such officers take a couple cadet tests and all to give them the experience from their perspective.  It'd help to let those people see the cadets' perspective of online test-taking, uniform ordering, etc. so they know first-hand.  Too many people are saying things like "I think that's in eServices somewhere...." because they can't even view the cadets' stuff.

Specialty tracks don't help much in these areas because if you've already been rated for years, you don't go through it again.  Getting a Master in something like CP is focused on Wing-level/higher echelon operations, not deeper or updated understanding of things.

[ZigZag911]

The group CC (or for that matter, any commander in the chain!) could order change in staffing or processes in a subordinate unit; if you consult CAPR 20-1, every commander position is described as commanding all subordinate units and personnel.

It happens, more than you'd think...wing or region CCs directing a staffing change...usually for good reason, after repeated discussions with subordinate commander, and quite possibly mentoring/counseling from higher echelon for staff officer in question.

In normal circumstances, however, for a group CC to interfere in the running of a squadron is, as someone else mentioned, micromanaging of the worst sort: it undermines the unit CC and is an inexcusable waste of the group commander's time, particularly in a case like this, where the unit seems to be functioning smoothly and harmoniously.

Rule #1 for senior commander (based on my 5+ years as group CC, as well as command staff service at higher echelons):

"If it ain't broke, DON'T fix it!!!"

[foo]

The group CC (or for that matter, any commander in the chain!) could order change in staffing or processes in a subordinate unit; if you consult CAPR 20-1, every commander position is described as commanding all subordinate units and personnel.

It happens, more than you'd think...wing or region CCs directing a staffing change...usually for good reason, after repeated discussions with subordinate commander, and quite possibly mentoring/counseling from higher echelon for staff officer in question.

In normal circumstances, however, for a group CC to interfere in the running of a squadron is, as someone else mentioned, micromanaging of the worst sort: it undermines the unit CC and is an inexcusable waste of the group commander's time, particularly in a case like this, where the unit seems to be functioning smoothly and harmoniously.

Rule #1 for senior commander (based on my 5+ years as group CC, as well as command staff service at higher echelons):

"If it ain't broke, DON'T fix it!!!"

One would expect the group CC to have a defensible reason for doing so, unlike in this case.

[foo]

I'd love to see an orientation for unit-level cadet programs staff (Leadership Education Officers, Activity Officers, etc.), which would give them not just a crash course, but would walk them through what cadets have to do from the CADETS' perspective.

+1

[Storm Chaser]

I'd love to see an orientation for unit-level cadet programs staff (Leadership Education Officers, Activity Officers, etc.), which would give them not just a crash course, but would walk them through what cadets have to do from the CADETS' perspective.

+1

It's call Training Leaders of Cadets (TLC). Perhaps we should focus on improving its curriculum and making sure the course is offered frequently enough to meet the units needs.

[winterg]

We just hosted TLC at my squadron. Packed house and it filled up quick. I shouldn't have hesitated to register.

[TheSkyHornet]

Now they call it Leadership Education Officer (that's a change).  Not a bad one, I guess.  But not groundbreaking either.

Interesting. That seems to be a little-known fact in my neck of the woods, though it's indeed spelled out in 20-1 and 52-16. Not surprisingly it still says "Squadron Leadership Officer" under my duty positions in eServices.

Aye. Still listed as Squadron Leadership Officer on my eServices account. It's annoying when things don't interface. Although, I'm sure by this point, everyone knows where I stand on that subject

I'd love to see an orientation for unit-level cadet programs staff (Leadership Education Officers, Activity Officers, etc.), which would give them not just a crash course, but would walk them through what cadets have to do from the CADETS' perspective.

Personally, I think any Senior Member moving into a cadet/composite squadron in a cadet programs role should have to go through a probationary period of working with the cadets hand-in-hand, sort of like an intern. You can't manage a program if you know nothing about it. It's relatively quick to figure out, but it's a great tool to get you some hands-on experience with what your cadets have to do on a regular basis. Perfect especially for Seniors Without Grade.

It's call Training Leaders of Cadets (TLC). Perhaps we should focus on improving its curriculum and making sure the course is offered frequently enough to meet the units needs.

Going to be going through this at OHWG PDO weekend in October. I'm psyched. Sounds like a great experience.



In regard to the OP, sounds like a typical case of SNAFU when it comes to someone stepping into an affair they don't normally show face at