CAP Talk

General Discussion => The Lobby => Topic started by: luscioman on March 26, 2012, 04:53:19 PM

Title: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: luscioman on March 26, 2012, 04:53:19 PM
Does anyone know what the status with this is at the national level? The rumor is that it will be 3 years for both positions but i have not heard much else on it. I know that Florida Wing has already started this since 2011. It appears that some squadrons are having a hard time dealing with this situation. Below is the link for the FLorida Wing posting on it.



http://www.flwg.us/cap-resources/publications/oi.aspx (http://www.flwg.us/cap-resources/publications/oi.aspx)
FLWGOI 11-04 | Term Limits for Group and Squadron Commanders | Effective: 29 SEP 2011
Download | Details | Category: Uncategorized
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Eclipse on March 26, 2012, 05:11:24 PM
There's no national standard, but the trend is growing.

My region has been a three year term with a 1 year extension, for nearly 10 years.
When the limits were originally imposed we had CC's who had been in place for anywhere from 17-30 years.

Any unit that cannot find a replacement commander is not fulfilling its mission of senior progression and recruiting.
No unit should be at risk for disappearing overnight because the commander leaves CAP or finds a different job within the organization, nor
should any commander feel locked into the job.

It stifles change, reduces the opportunities for others, and propagates the GOBC.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: luscioman on March 26, 2012, 05:32:30 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 26, 2012, 05:11:24 PM
There's no national standard, but the trend is growing.

My region has been a three year term with a 1 year extension, for nearly 10 years.
When the limits were originally imposed we had CC's who had been in place for anywhere from 17-30 years.

Any unit that cannot find a replacement commander is not fulfilling its mission of senior progression and recruiting.
No unit should be at risk for disappearing overnight because the commander leaves CAP or finds a different job within the organization, nor
should any commander feel locked into the job.

It stifles change, reduces the opportunities for others, and propagates the GOBC.

I have noticed that many seniors in general just dont want to be the CC which is fine also. I agree in some cases that some need to change in other cases the commander is doing a great job and should be left to stay. It can be hard to develop or move a squadron in 2 or 3 years. The unit i am in has over a 115 members and has increased 20% in the past year.

I took a look at the former group commanders for the past 12 years of my group and this is the result of them.

1. 1998-2000 Went to another Wing to be Wing CC then was forced to step down. Not active now
2. 2000-2002 Went on to a wing position and is not active now
3. 2002-2004 Is a patron member
4. 2004-2005 Is a patron member
5. 2005-2006 Is not a member of CAP
6. 2006-2008 Is not a member of CAP
7. 2008-2010 Is a patron member
8. 2010-2012 Current commander
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Spaceman3750 on March 26, 2012, 05:36:11 PM
Personally I can't imagine being a commander for longer than 3 years. There's way too many responsibilities with that role (I know squadron and group commanders who sometimes spend 20-30 hours a week on CAP things). I could keep it up for a couple of years, but not 20!
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Extremepredjudice on March 26, 2012, 06:04:37 PM
Quote from: luscioman on March 26, 2012, 05:32:30 PM
The unit i am in has over a 115 members and has increased 20% in the past year.
:o :o :o

That is a lot of people.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Grumpy on March 26, 2012, 06:26:24 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 26, 2012, 05:11:24 PM
There's no national standard, but the trend is growing.

My region has been a three year term with a 1 year extension, for nearly 10 years.
When the limits were originally imposed we had CC's who had been in place for anywhere from 17-30 years.

Any unit that cannot find a replacement commander is not fulfilling its mission of senior progression and recruiting.
No unit should be at risk for disappearing overnight because the commander leaves CAP or finds a different job within the organization, nor
should any commander feel locked into the job.

It stifles change, reduces the opportunities for others, and propagates the GOBC.

Heck, we already have one of those in our wing.  I thought everybody did.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: lordmonar on March 26, 2012, 06:49:58 PM
As a rule of thumb I like it.....but it is a little stupid as a real hard and fast rule.

Bottom line.....if a wing/group commander thinks that a squadron commander is not being effective....he has the power to make the change.
Why make a change just because the clock ticked over at three years?

Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Extremepredjudice on March 26, 2012, 06:56:11 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 26, 2012, 06:49:58 PM

Why make a change just because the clock ticked over at three years?
it gives someone else a chance to be a CC. If all the positions are locked up, how do you gain leadership experience?
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: bosshawk on March 26, 2012, 06:57:41 PM
On another hand, if there is a three year policy and you know it going in, you work towards having a trained and qualified replacement at the three year point.  When I was in CAP, I constantly saw absolutely no effort at training and selecting replacements for any CAP command or staff position.  It seemed far more likely to be an "oh crap" situation when a commander or key staff officer moved on.

Yes, there are situations whereby a person can effectively remain in a position for more than three years: those should be exceptions rather than the rule.  There is entirely too much of "winging it" exercised by those in responsible positions.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: lordmonar on March 26, 2012, 07:11:39 PM
Quote from: Extremepredjudice on March 26, 2012, 06:56:11 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 26, 2012, 06:49:58 PM

Why make a change just because the clock ticked over at three years?
it gives someone else a chance to be a CC. If all the positions are locked up, how do you gain leadership experience?
Okay I'll buy that....but this is just splitting hairs.....what is there is no one ready/willing/able to take the position?

That is my point....as a rule of thumb it is a good idea....spreads the wealth, shares the pain, prevents burn out, gets in new blood, breaks up the cult of personality...etc, et al.   But we can do all that with out a "you can only serve a three year tour" rule.

Lt Col Oldguy has been commander for two years or ten years......if you have an up and commer who needs command time....you talk to oldguy and make the change.  Oldguy is doing well....don't make any changes.  If you think he is stagnating....make the changes.....but simply because it has been XX years you got to go is just too clerkish to me.

YMMV
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: davedove on March 26, 2012, 07:57:52 PM
Most people seem to be fixated on the Squadron King problem.  I have no doubt some of these exist, but what about the other side of this issue?  Many may be reluctant to take the job because they fear getting stuck in it.

Captain Sam Somebody is the current commander.  Senior member Joe Blow would like to try his hand at command.  However, he sees that many commanders have been in the position of umpteen years because no one else has volunteered to take command.  Because of this, Joe is reluctant to take command because he fears getting stuck in the same situation.  Since Joe doesn't volunteer, the Sam is stuck with no one to take his place until he burns out, maybe quits CAP, and CAP is forced to find another commander in a short time frame.

I don't know that official term limits are the solution, but they would be a way to address both sides of the problem.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Eclipse on March 26, 2012, 08:09:36 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 26, 2012, 07:11:39 PM...what is there is no one ready/willing/able to take the position?

Then the entire chain has failed, since progression and transition is one of the tenants of the senior program - either your people aren't progressing, or you're having them do work for nothing.  Either is a failure.

If there's only one person on the roster willing or able to be the commander, then it's time to start recruiting or working on PD.
Commander's should have the option for an occasional week off, or to stand down and continue to serve in other capacities without the
unit collapsing or even feeling guilty.

Further, the good commanders should have the opportunity to expand their scope and bring their experience to a broader audience, and the bad CC's should know that the clock is ticking, whether they succeed or not.

Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: lordmonar on March 26, 2012, 08:23:55 PM
I think you definition of good and bad are all off kilter.

Bad commanders should know that they clock is always ticking.....no one should be waiting for a 3 year mark to start doing their job.

Having said all that.....again......if no one is ready or willing to take over.......firiing the effictive commander is not the answer.

And again.....like I said before......as a rule of thumb it is a good idea.....let's not tire our hands with just more regulations for regulations sake.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: RiverAux on March 26, 2012, 08:37:45 PM
We definitely need it.   One year terms with the chance for a one year extension works really well in CG Aux.  However, having run both CAP squadrons and Aux flotillas, leading a CAP unit is much more complex and it takes longer to get up to speed, so a 3 year term limit would be just about right. 

The term limit will actually make it much more likely for someone to accept that position since they know there is a deadline and that they're not getting themselves sucked into a 5+ year commitment. 
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Eclipse on March 26, 2012, 08:37:48 PM
It's not just for "regulations sake" - how much really gets done in CAP that isn't absolutely mandated by regs?

In most cases, the ineffective commanders are running the least visible unit, which means that absent "badness", they fly under
the radar of the wing, and maybe even the Group CC, and just limp along for years and years with no one really noticing.

At least a mandatory change of command every "x" forces some attention.

The relevantly recent change to the way Lt. Cols are handled is a good example of this.  They changed the rules to make the grade provisional the first year - the debate over the how's and why's is irrelevant, for the first couple years, this was basically ignored, since there was no systemic mandate to do a review.  Now there is, and I can promise you that this has the attention of those who value their silver oaks.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: manfredvonrichthofen on March 26, 2012, 10:57:35 PM
I wouldn't say x number of years and you have to pass the flag, but there should be something in addition to the UIs just for the CC, where maybe four of the squadron members are interviewed at random by the Group CC asking about the commander and how things are getting along in the squadron. Also taking into account the progression of all the members of the unit, seniors and cadets as applicable. If the unit as a whole is moving foreward, and there are no major issues, then the squadron CC stays where he is and the unit is allowed to keep their CC. If there are enough major issues, then someone new can take the reigns.

I know if our CC were to come up on a x number of years and now you are out, we would lose a great CC that should be able to keep his position, because our unit is doing great and is moving foreward very steadily.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: lordmonar on March 26, 2012, 11:56:58 PM
I still have not seen any really compelling evidence that a term limit must be implemented.

As a rule of thumb....yes....it all makes sense....and I agree with it.

But I ask.....how many squadrons/groups have commanders that have gone over the 3 year mark?
Of those.....how many are ineffective...how many other potential commanders have gotten their professional development stunted because of it?
IF THERE IS A PROBLEM.....then by all means wing and group commanders need to step in and take care of it.
But making a manditory 3 year mark.....is just another adminstrative point that will get visibility during the CI and then be ignored the rest of the time.

Wing and Group PD officers and commanders should be enganged with their subordinate unit leaders all the time.
Making BS regulations just to make them....will not make better group/wing officers....it will just make more problems at the squadron level.

Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: RiverAux on March 27, 2012, 12:13:54 AM
Well, that is evidence that would be impossible to collect without full-access to the membership database and some basic database query skills.  Not something that is going to be available to us here on CAPTalk. 
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: manfredvonrichthofen on March 27, 2012, 12:56:19 AM
My growth has been supported by my CC, and I know our squadron owes him a lot. If he were taken away from his position, our unit would suffer, just because of a technicality.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: SarDragon on March 27, 2012, 01:39:58 AM
But one of his responsibilities is to train a replacement. If he hasn't done that, then he has done the unit a disservice.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: manfredvonrichthofen on March 27, 2012, 01:43:26 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on March 27, 2012, 01:39:58 AM
But one of his responsibilities is to train a replacement. If he hasn't done that, then he has done the unit a disservice.
While I do see a lot of truth to that, I would think the best replacement would be someone who has taken the effort to try to learn his job Oslo that he can be the rellacement on his own... As in taking the initiative to learn from the CC and not the CC saying hey I want you to be my replacement... Shadow me and learn the job. Plus if it is a composite squadron, I would think the DCC would be the next replacement.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: bosshawk on March 27, 2012, 01:56:48 AM
And if he has helped you as much as you say, there is no reason why he can't continue to help you once he leaves the CC position: he isn't leaving the unit, is he?  I have mentored one of my friends for something like 15 years and he still asks me for my guidance or opinions on some things.

And I am not a CAP member any longer.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Private Investigator on March 27, 2012, 03:16:49 AM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on March 27, 2012, 12:56:19 AM
My growth has been supported by my CC, and I know our squadron owes him a lot. If he were taken away from his position, our unit would suffer, just because of a technicality.

That is ridiculous. If he/she was an exceptional Squadron Commander it will not be a problem. Remember it is an Civil Air Patrol Squadron not John Doe's Squadron. At the end of his term, give them an award, a plaque and a great change of command ceremony. 
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: manfredvonrichthofen on March 27, 2012, 03:20:12 AM
I believe it is a matter of dedication. He is more dedicated than anyone that I have seen to the squadron.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Private Investigator on March 27, 2012, 03:38:40 AM
Quote from: luscioman on March 26, 2012, 05:32:30 PMI took a look at the former group commanders for the past 12 years of my group and this is the result of them.

1. 1998-2000 Went to another Wing to be Wing CC then was forced to step down. Not active now
2. 2000-2002 Went on to a wing position and is not active now
3. 2002-2004 Is a patron member
4. 2004-2005 Is a patron member
5. 2005-2006 Is not a member of CAP
6. 2006-2008 Is not a member of CAP
7. 2008-2010 Is a patron member
8. 2010-2012 Current commander

That is the trend I expect. Most Wing Commanders have 23 months before they step down. Similar to Group Commanders. Now Squadron Commanders tend to last longer due to their kingdom mentality. I am for term limits.

Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Private Investigator on March 27, 2012, 03:46:10 AM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on March 27, 2012, 03:20:12 AM
I believe it is a matter of dedication. He is more dedicated than anyone that I have seen to the squadron.

Thats good. BUT it depends on how long you have been in CAP and how many other Squadrons you have been into. Some people think Petticoat Junction Composite Squadron (XX-012) is the greatest ever because they got a plane AND a van.

I am not downing anyone but don't you want to be a Squadron Commander one day? 
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: lordmonar on March 27, 2012, 04:25:49 AM
Quote from: bosshawk on March 27, 2012, 01:56:48 AM
And if he has helped you as much as you say, there is no reason why he can't continue to help you once he leaves the CC position: he isn't leaving the unit, is he?  I have mentored one of my friends for something like 15 years and he still asks me for my guidance or opinions on some things.

And I am not a CAP member any longer.
An old commander hanging around....especially one who did not want to quit but was forced out......is not some one you want hovering over your shoulder.  The temptation to just step in and run things anyway can be very strong.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: bosshawk on March 27, 2012, 06:21:35 AM
Pat: you completely missed the point of my post.  What you say is correct, it just doesn't fit the point which I was trying to make to the young Lt.  The guy doesn't have to be the CC to provide guidance.  In fact, senior members in any position can and should provide guidance to anyone who asks for it.  A former CC who hangs around trying to influence a unit is a problem: he should move on to other things, either in the unit or outside it.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Nathan on March 27, 2012, 01:36:37 PM
It doesn't force us to find a good commander every three years, it forces us to find ANY commander every three years. So let's break it down.

Good unit with limits: good commander is trained and takes over
Good unit without limits: good commander is trained and takes over, OR good commander stays in place
Bad unit with limits: bad commander doesn't train, inexperienced one takes over (and probably can't train)
Bad unit without limits: bad commander stays

So in a bad unit, chances seem high that we're going to end up with a bad commander, or at least one that is too inexperienced to train the replacement effectively. In a good unit, it doesn't matter what we do, either. Without term limits, though, even a unit with a poor commander in charge still allows the random intuitively good commander who eventually takes over to have enough time to gain experience AND train a suitable replacement. It could take more than three years to undo the damage a bad commander can cause, but it certainly doesn't take that long for a bad commander to ruin the squadron in the first place.

Term limits look reasonable superficially, but don't really seem to have any bite when you look at it this way. Seems better to me to just let the wing commanders retain the authority to move ineffective commanders out when they feel there is a suitable replacement, and not force them to do so when a replacement isn't available. Because we have absolutely no reason to believe that the deadline to replace a commander would result in an increased work ethic in training a replacement rather than simply a pressure to put anyone with a pulse in command, which doesn't solve our problem in the least.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: bflynn on March 27, 2012, 01:45:07 PM
Quote from: Nathan on March 27, 2012, 01:36:37 PMGood unit with limits: good commander is trained and takes over
Good unit without limits: good commander is trained and takes over, OR good commander stays in place
Bad unit with limits: bad commander doesn't train, inexperienced one takes over (and probably can't train)
Bad unit without limits: bad commander stays

I'm not sure that this makes any sense - you're stating that good commanders, good replacements and good units all go togther while bad commanders, bad units and bad replacements all go togther.

Isn't that self defining?  The unit and replacement are bad because the commander is bad.

I reject that the process is locked in a self sustaining cycle.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Eclipse on March 27, 2012, 02:09:09 PM
Nathan,

You're assuming the replacements will come from within the unit - that's not always the case, and if the unit's CC were that bad,
probably not a good idea.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: luscioman on March 27, 2012, 03:03:31 PM
I am aware of 2 or 3 units in the wing that will be shut down due to  not finding a replacement. There are qualified people that could take it they just choose not to due to personal issues such as work or family. I am not for term limits at all.

If everyone must "move up" and be given a chance to lead where do the former squadron cc's go? They cant all be a group commander at the same time.

I think that if a squadron is doing very well they commander should be given a chance to stay and do what they like to do.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Eclipse on March 27, 2012, 03:24:33 PM
Quote from: luscioman on March 27, 2012, 03:03:31 PM
I am aware of 2 or 3 units in the wing that will be shut down due to  not finding a replacement.
Which means they are a heartbeat or personal circumstance change of the CC from retirement - hardly a way to staff what is supposed to
be an ongoing ES response resource, or a comfort and stability to a cadet or other members.

You are outlining the problem, and one solved only by the "we need more people" issue. 

Quote from: luscioman on March 27, 2012, 03:03:31 PM
If everyone must "move up" and be given a chance to lead where do the former squadron cc's go? They cant all be a group commander at the same time.
There are plenty of other options beyond CC-to-CC transitions.  Every echelon needs qualified, experienced staffers, every wing has a multitude of
larger-scale activities, and few will not be desperate for qualified staff.  NESA, NCSA's, Group, Wing, Region, and national professional development activities.  And then there's the option of "just being a member for a while" and doing your bit for God and country and going home, while letting
someone else worry about the hots and cots.

Further, a good commander is fostering a sense of teamwork, and actually building a team, meaning that beyond the practical responsibility of
having to make the final decisions, there should not be an issue of stepping aside and working with/for someone you've personally trained and mentored.  My most recent successor is the perfect example, after being relieved, I did everything I could to support him and work with him
on endeavors which needed completion or that were team efforts we all wanted to complete.  I have moved on to new challenges, but
have worked with him a number of times, and look forward to working for him in he future, I only stepped back for a bit to insure there
was no confusion as to who was running the show.

That's how it's supposed to work.

Quote from: luscioman on March 27, 2012, 03:03:31 PM
I think that if a squadron is doing very well they commander should be given a chance to stay and do what they like to do.
Again, a squadron with only one person who is willing to run things is no "doing well".
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Nathan on March 27, 2012, 03:49:26 PM
Quote from: bflynn on March 27, 2012, 01:45:07 PM
Quote from: Nathan on March 27, 2012, 01:36:37 PMGood unit with limits: good commander is trained and takes over
Good unit without limits: good commander is trained and takes over, OR good commander stays in place
Bad unit with limits: bad commander doesn't train, inexperienced one takes over (and probably can't train)
Bad unit without limits: bad commander stays

I'm not sure that this makes any sense - you're stating that good commanders, good replacements and good units all go togther while bad commanders, bad units and bad replacements all go togther.

Isn't that self defining?  The unit and replacement are bad because the commander is bad.

I reject that the process is locked in a self sustaining cycle.

No, read it again.

Good commanders don't need to be told to look for and train replacements. That's part of being a good commander. If there isn't anyone around, then a good commander will go on commanding... goodly. If there is, then a good commander trains that person to take over. That's just the name of the game.

A bad commander doesn't do these things, or if he/she does, it is done poorly. These are the guys we're trying to throw out using term limits, but we have to realize that bad commanders haven't necessarily trained a replacement that makes switching him out a good idea. Even an eager, well-meaning replacement will have little experience from a bad commander, and so he/she will be spending the vast majority of the three years LEARNING THE JOB. That doesn't leave much time to adequately train a replacement, which just cycles the problem over again and again.

It's pretty simple. We cannot expect that a bad commander is going to train someone to be an excellent commander replacement. And we cannot expect that an untrained commander taking over from a bad commander can fix a bad commander's unit within a limited three years while at the same time gaining enough experience to train a suitable replacement.

Without term limits, we can at least give the rookie commander inheriting a unit from a bad commander enough time to learn the game, gain experience, and THEN worry about training a competant replacement. Three years is simply not enough time. Hell, I wish I could have had three years as a CADET COMMANDER to do these things.

And Eclipse, you make a good point about bringing people in from the outside, but in my own experience, at least, this isn't necessarily a common practice. It is certainly not common enough to encompass all the units that could get stuck in an "amateur loop" due to term limits. Term limits are rarely going to have more benefits than they will create problems.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Eclipse on March 27, 2012, 04:31:33 PM
Quote from: Nathan on March 27, 2012, 03:49:26 PMAnd Eclipse, you make a good point about bringing people in from the outside, but in my own experience, at least, this isn't necessarily a common practice. It is certainly not common enough to encompass all the units that could get stuck in an "amateur loop" due to term limits. Term limits are rarely going to have more benefits than they will create problems.

Well, then we need to change the paradigm.

You'd be surprised the result that can occur when you hold a mandatory meeting of all the seniors and parents and say, "so and so's term is up in 6 months", we've got two choices, a lot more of you step up and start training up so we can implement a smooth transition, or there's a good chance the unit will not be here this time next year...".

Those that see value in the program will step up, and if they don't, then everyone is probably kidding themselves about why a handful show up on
a random Tuesday.

As to the "amateur loop", I agree it's a risk, but at least it's a different amateur, and instills the culture of change that CAP so desperately needs to start
recognizing.  We have hundreds of units who have been walking in the same circular rut for years, if not decades - bare-minimum performance (or worse), members just kind of shuffling in, out, and around, seeing others do "cool stuff" and never being able to reach for it themselves, and all the while not realizing that it is their beloved CC who is holding everyone back.

I'll grant that this is a higher HQ failing in letting units struggle, but admitting that doesn't change things.  The reality is that, just a unit are the heart of CAP, so is the initiative of those units' members - and if they are "happy" to just languish, how much mental attention are they going to get from a
group or wing CC who has 6-50 other units to worry about?  Especially in the all-too-common situation where help is provided, and then nothing is
done until the higher HQ guys come back again in 6 months.  BTDT.

If for no other reason than because we are a volunteer organization, we need to embrace this, because volunteers especially, with inconsistent training, divided attention, and no real press for performance beyond self-actualization, are inclined to fall into comfortable ruts that "feel good" and accomplish little.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: RiverAux on March 27, 2012, 06:11:49 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 27, 2012, 04:25:49 AM
Quote from: bosshawk on March 27, 2012, 01:56:48 AM
And if he has helped you as much as you say, there is no reason why he can't continue to help you once he leaves the CC position: he isn't leaving the unit, is he?  I have mentored one of my friends for something like 15 years and he still asks me for my guidance or opinions on some things.

And I am not a CAP member any longer.
An old commander hanging around....especially one who did not want to quit but was forced out......is not some one you want hovering over your shoulder.  The temptation to just step in and run things anyway can be very strong.
Who says?  My CG Aux unit has at least 6 former flotilla commanders in it, all of whom are still active.  Why, because they served their term with honor and kept with the organization.  You almost never see a former CAP squadron commander still active in the squadron because  they don't serve a term, they get fired by the group/wing commander for whatever reason or they quit after getting burnt out being stuck in a job with no relief in sight. 
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: FW on March 27, 2012, 06:57:06 PM
Being a former squadron commander and still active in the squadron is something of an oxymoron in CAP.  The difference between us and "them" is elections vs. selections.   I belong to a few orgainizations where I once was the president (elected) and now am a "past president" still active and participating.  I served a successful term and moved to other endevours.  In CAP, I was appointed to each command slot; moving up and out until there was no where else to go.  When I ask to help, I get "sure sir" and, they go to someone else; worried I'll just get in the way.  I've become the 900 lb gorilla in the room.  Go figure...
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: lordmonar on March 27, 2012, 07:04:57 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 27, 2012, 02:09:09 PM
Nathan,

You're assuming the replacements will come from within the unit - that's not always the case, and if the unit's CC were that bad,
probably not a good idea.
Where else would a replacement come from?   
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Eclipse on March 27, 2012, 07:13:42 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 27, 2012, 07:04:57 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 27, 2012, 02:09:09 PM
Nathan,

You're assuming the replacements will come from within the unit - that's not always the case, and if the unit's CC were that bad,
probably not a good idea.
Where else would a replacement come from?

Outside the unit.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: lordmonar on March 27, 2012, 07:18:33 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 27, 2012, 07:13:42 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 27, 2012, 07:04:57 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 27, 2012, 02:09:09 PM
Nathan,

You're assuming the replacements will come from within the unit - that's not always the case, and if the unit's CC were that bad,
probably not a good idea.
Where else would a replacement come from?

Outside the unit.
Where?  Are you suggesting someone drive 100 miles everyweek to take over a squadron? 
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Eclipse on March 27, 2012, 07:26:20 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 27, 2012, 07:18:33 PM
Where?  Are you suggesting someone drive 100 miles everyweek to take over a squadron?

No, I'm suggesting that it is common for members to already be driving longer then they have to, for various reasons (group staff, wing staff, work) and when an opportunity like that opens up, they might be interested in serving closer to home.

As a matter of fact, when I originally joined, it was closer to work than home, which was providence for my ultimate experience, but
there is a group and units in my back yard.  Just recently the group near me had an opening for a new commander, and an experienced
wing staffer will be assuming that job as it is also closer to his home than Wing HQ.

It's also not that common, really, at least in my wing, for people to drive an hour+ one-way for a meeting.  200 miles round trip would be more than
I'd do, but it's not unheard of for others, especially in the areas where there is more farm than people.

Etc., Etc.,

Just because someone isn't currently on the respective roster, doesn't mean they might be a good fit for the job, in a lot of cases it
might mean they are a better fit.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: JeffDG on March 27, 2012, 07:55:49 PM
The basic effect of term limits, whether they be here or in elections for office, is to eliminate a qualified candidate from doing the job.

Put more bluntly, they're a crutch for those who select the officeholder (voters or commanders) to avoid having to provide negative feedback to someone who is not performing, so they can just say "Sorry, Bob, but you know it's policy that it's 3 years and out." 

If someone is not performing, relieve them and put someone in who will.  If they are performing, you're creating change for change's sake, and while that sometimes provides positive results, often it just makes things worse.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: bflynn on March 27, 2012, 08:02:14 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on March 27, 2012, 07:55:49 PM
The basic effect of term limits, whether they be here or in elections for office, is to eliminate a qualified candidate from doing the job.

Actually, the purpose of them is to prevent one individual from accumulating power by virtue of being in an office for an extended time period.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: JeffDG on March 27, 2012, 08:18:01 PM
Quote from: bflynn on March 27, 2012, 08:02:14 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on March 27, 2012, 07:55:49 PM
The basic effect of term limits, whether they be here or in elections for office, is to eliminate a qualified candidate from doing the job.

Actually, the purpose of them is to prevent one individual from accumulating power by virtue of being in an office for an extended time period.
Their effect, however, is to simply remove qualified candidates from the pool of people for the office, leading to less competition and lower quality selectnees overall.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Nathan on March 27, 2012, 08:48:32 PM
The only reason that we can justify the concept of a "term limit" is if the wing commanders absolutely cannot be trusted to use their rightful authority to appoint and remove commanders responsibly. And, to be fair, there probably have been instances of such abuse or neglect of duty leading to bad commanders.

But seriously, you guys don't see the problem with this logic?

1) You tell a good commander that he has exactly three years to do everything he wants to do, which pretty severly limits the "big picture" outlook since you have no idea whether the guy who is replacing you has enough experience or ability to finish what you start. Good leaders train their replacements, sure, but no replacement is going to be able to hit the ground running on a job like this, and as is inevitable with any change of command, you're dooming squadrons to adjustment pains and slowdowns every three years, which last as long as it takes for the new squadron commander to get a feel for things.

2) You tell a bad commander that it literally doesn't matter how well he shapes up, because he's losing his job anyway at the end of his term. Doesn't seem to be a good way to encourage someone to step up and fix a flailing squadron.

3) If people honestly think that term limits are somehow going to reduce the number of petty political battles, then they need to check that their medications haven't expired. Telling every senior member in the group that the prime field job is up for grabs every three years has a pretty good chance of leading to even worse factionalism, in-fighting, and smooching-of-the-hindquarters than we see now. At least now, an obnoxious subordinate has to salute and execute, rather than undermine his squadron commander and try to set himself up for the job within the near future.

4) This isn't the cadet program, where the learning is the primary mission and everyone should get a turn. Commanding a CAP squadron doesn't carry the same sort of safety net that being the cadet commander has, and the consequences of screwing it up lead to real-life financial loss, legal problems, safety issues, and possibly the loss of the squadron itself. I frankly don't want any wing commander to be forced to replace a good commander with a poor one simply because there are only a few seniors in the struggling squadron and no one from the outside is willing to take the job.

I'm fine with periodic, mandatory reviews of a squadron commander's performance every three years, even one that is biased against the commander in which he/she must prove that they are doing well or risk getting replaced. But while term limits MAY be useful for the most extreme of cases, they're counterproductive for most units, and the fact is that even the extreme cases can be fixed through other, less encompassing means.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: bflynn on March 27, 2012, 08:50:27 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on March 27, 2012, 08:18:01 PM
Quote from: bflynn on March 27, 2012, 08:02:14 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on March 27, 2012, 07:55:49 PM
The basic effect of term limits, whether they be here or in elections for office, is to eliminate a qualified candidate from doing the job.

Actually, the purpose of them is to prevent one individual from accumulating power by virtue of being in an office for an extended time period.
Their effect, however, is to simply remove qualified candidates from the pool of people for the office, leading to less competition and lower quality selectnees overall.

It does both.  In some sense, someone who is otherwise excellent and has served for X years becomes unqualified because of accumulated power.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Nathan on March 27, 2012, 09:03:06 PM
Quote from: bflynn on March 27, 2012, 08:50:27 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on March 27, 2012, 08:18:01 PM
Quote from: bflynn on March 27, 2012, 08:02:14 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on March 27, 2012, 07:55:49 PM
The basic effect of term limits, whether they be here or in elections for office, is to eliminate a qualified candidate from doing the job.

Actually, the purpose of them is to prevent one individual from accumulating power by virtue of being in an office for an extended time period.
Their effect, however, is to simply remove qualified candidates from the pool of people for the office, leading to less competition and lower quality selectnees overall.

It does both.  In some sense, someone who is otherwise excellent and has served for X years becomes unqualified because of accumulated power.

Poppycock. People become better at their jobs the longer they do them. Ever hear of being promoted to the level of incompetence? That doesn't happen if you keep people at the level they can handle well. It DOES happen if you are compelled to promote someone up to the squadron commander level every three years (and probably promote some squadron commanders past their level of competence as a result).
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Eclipse on March 27, 2012, 09:06:40 PM
Quote from: Nathan on March 27, 2012, 08:48:32 PMBut seriously, you guys don't see the problem with this logic?

1) You tell a good commander that he has exactly three years to do everything he wants to do, which pretty severly limits the "big picture" outlook since you have no idea whether the guy who is replacing you has enough experience or ability to finish what you start. Good leaders train their replacements, sure, but no replacement is going to be able to hit the ground running on a job like this, and as is inevitable with any change of command, you're dooming squadrons to adjustment pains and slowdowns every three years, which last as long as it takes for the new squadron commander to get a feel for things.

Whether the "next guy" is qualified, isn't really the "current guy's problem".  Yes, they should be working on training a replacement, but trained or not, the clock is ticking.  Also, CAP is supposed to be a standardized environment, and at the unit level there is very little "big picture" to be concerned with - the goal at the unit level is managing and mentoring the day-to-day CAP needs of individual members, not large-scale planning, etc.  A unit is the working arm of the wing CC's goals and mandate, which in turn is supposed to be fulfilling the mission by supporting those units.

Assuming the person is reasonably qualified and current in CAP, there should be very little learning curve beyond "where are the light switches" to deal with.

Year 1 - Basic Transition tasks, staff reviews, and charting the course.

Year 2 - work the program with the new staff, adjust as necessary.

Year 3 - Begin training replacements and looking towards new personal goals.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: bflynn on March 27, 2012, 09:37:09 PM
Quote from: Nathan on March 27, 2012, 09:03:06 PM
Poppycock. People become better at their jobs the longer they do them. Ever hear of being promoted to the level of incompetence? That doesn't happen if you keep people at the level they can handle well. It DOES happen if you are compelled to promote someone up to the squadron commander level every three years (and probably promote some squadron commanders past their level of competence as a result).

It isn't poppycock, it's something that happens.  You've never seen someone who has been in a position of power for a long time and people are afraid to question them based on their seniority?  Col Holland?  FDR? 

You're talking about the peter principle, yes of course it happens.  But the real issue with the peter principle isn't that someone fails in a position they're promoted into, but that they're not removed from a position that they're clearly not qualified for.  And to be fair, few people fail outright, they're just not as good initially as the outgoing guy.  That's normal and a good thing, it's the power limiting factor of a change of command in action.

I wouldn't suggest three years, but certainly there is a point where someone has been in place too long and is considered "untouchable".
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: RiverAux on March 27, 2012, 09:53:59 PM
Keep in mind that having term limits doesn't remove a wing/group commander's ability to get rid of people before that term ends. 

And a good squadron commanders life doesn't end just because their term does.  They will then be well-positioned to move up in the CAP command/staff structure if they so desire.  Stagnation at the group/wing staff level is probably even worse than that seen at squadron commander level.  And, many former squadron commanders will be more than happy to stick around as a worker bee with limited responsibilities in their home squadron. 
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Nathan on March 27, 2012, 10:11:09 PM
Quote from: bflynn on March 27, 2012, 09:37:09 PM
Quote from: Nathan on March 27, 2012, 09:03:06 PM
Poppycock. People become better at their jobs the longer they do them. Ever hear of being promoted to the level of incompetence? That doesn't happen if you keep people at the level they can handle well. It DOES happen if you are compelled to promote someone up to the squadron commander level every three years (and probably promote some squadron commanders past their level of competence as a result).

It isn't poppycock, it's something that happens.  You've never seen someone who has been in a position of power for a long time and people are afraid to question them based on their seniority?  Col Holland?  FDR? 

You're talking about the peter principle, yes of course it happens.  But the real issue with the peter principle isn't that someone fails in a position they're promoted into, but that they're not removed from a position that they're clearly not qualified for.  And to be fair, few people fail outright, they're just not as good initially as the outgoing guy.  That's normal and a good thing, it's the power limiting factor of a change of command in action.

I wouldn't suggest three years, but certainly there is a point where someone has been in place too long and is considered "untouchable".

Not buying it. The Peter Principle has nothing to do with "not removing someone from a position they aren't qualified for."

And as long as the Wing Commander has the authority to remove squadron commander, there isn't such a thing as "being untouchable" by virtue of position alone. Political status is not so much based on position as it is on networking status, which definitely allows even a former commander to have significant influence on how things are run. If you're worried about the super-villains of CAP, then the goal is to prevent them from getting the position in the first place. Once they have the position, the damage is done already.

And, amusingly enough, the only way a lot of these nuisances are going to have the opportunity to serve as a squadron commander is if the wing commander is forced to appoint them in a smaller squadron with no other alternatives.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: MSG Mac on March 27, 2012, 11:35:46 PM
In my experience most Commanders (SQ, GP, and Wing) don't serve out thier full terms. In those rare instances where they do become Commander for Life, their staffs either stagnate, in the belief that Col so and so will take care of that or leave for other opportunites where they can advance.
As for Wing Commanders replacing non functioning Commanders I was once in a Squadron where the Commander let his membership lapse and it took three months and an email to the Wing King asking if he either knew or gave a [darn] that that particular unit had informed higher HQ (Gp and Wing) of the situation, filed a F27 to have a new commander appointed, and hadn't had any response. I did however receive several phone calls within two hours from the Vice Commander and Chief of Staff informing me that the WING/CC did give a [darn] about his units.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: jimmydeanno on March 28, 2012, 02:14:54 AM
I think the most compelling reason for term limits is the "breath of fresh air" that come with a new commander.  Many commanders that have been in a position for 10 years may be doing a "good enough" job, but that doesn't mean that with new leadership the squadron can't move out of the plateau that it has reached.

Considering that most CAP units are small, and barely known in the communities they support, it makes me wonder how many squadron commanders are even doing a "good enough" job, never mind being someone I'd want in the position indefinitely. 
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: luscioman on March 29, 2012, 06:18:18 PM
So how would you evaluate this?

Squadron X
Commander took over in 2002 as a Captain. Commander was a former cadet and was 28 at the time of taking over the unit. When he first started as commander unit strength was 42 members and it was a composite squadron. As of last month the squadron has 117 members in total and peaked in 2011 at 124 members. The unit supports most of the groups emergency services functions which include funded missions. The commander is the only IC in the unit and has about every other es speciality you can have. He also has a great deal cadet program knowledge. There is no other senior in his unit or group with the expierence or knowledge that he has. He also serves in wing in a staff position. When others were asked to take over aa cc nobody wanted to take on that responsiblity and the expectation the squadron needed to continue to be this succusesful. Eventually someone did take it due to the term limit. To make a statement that the commander or squadron is stagnent   

(Taken from his cap resume)
2003- Squadron of Distinction for wing
2003- Wing Squadron commander of the year
2003- Color Guard Team won wing, region and placed at national comp- Commander was escort
2004- Squadron of discting for wing
2004- Drill Team won wing comp- Commander was escort
2005- Commander was wing senior of the year
2005- Squadron of merit wing
2005- Commander was senior of the year for wing
2005- Commader was commander of the year for wing
2005- Color Guard won national competition- escort
2006- Squadron won drill team wing- escort
2007- Squadron was squadron of year wing
2008- Drill team won wing comp- Commander was escort
2010- Drill team won wing comp- Commander was escort
2011- Color Guard won wing, reg and went to national- Commander was escort
2011- Commander was es staff member of the year for wing

From 2002-2011 Unit was Composite squadron of the group every year


On the flip side
There is another unit in the group that has had the commnader for 11 years. The squadron has a total of 24 members 11 of which are cadets. They have only had 2 cadets renew from the last year. The cadet program is very weak and they have not had any cadet promotions in almost a year. They cannot find someone to take over the unit so i suspect it will close.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Eclipse on March 29, 2012, 06:30:37 PM
Quote from: luscioman on March 29, 2012, 06:18:18 PM
So how would you evaluate this?

With that level of experience, CAP would be better served with his having a broader role then as a unit CC, and further, he should be more than
capable of mentoring a replacement, probably several.  As a Group or Wing staffer, he'd be able to help the struggling units fix their programs.

His resume also has "issues" - "Distinction" is a Region award, Merit is the award at the wing level.  I'm sure his unit does a fine job, but the
Merit and distinction awards are cadet-focused, as is the rest of his resume.  If this is a composite squadron, that's actually somewhat of a problem,
and one I would address if he was under my command.  I can point to plenty of units that win these awards each year based on a subjective
decision by the approver, when in fact they are nothing special.  My unit won it in 2007, and while it went to me as CC, the credit and effort
was on the CDC's staff.   My only role was in setting the framework.

With 117 members, he's not a one-man show, and those CD's on his staff should be given the chance to run things their way, even if their way is a continuation of his way.

He also should not be serving on wing staff if he is a commander, this is a personal opinion and pet peeve of mine - we create these little inward spirals of chain of command, and then wonder why people not in the spiral are frustrated about cronyism. Commander is a full-time job.

Your picture paints a member with experience who is an asset to CAP, he gets a comm-comm and a job offer when his term is up.

Quote from: luscioman on March 29, 2012, 06:18:18 PM
There is another unit in the group that has had the commnader for 11 years. The squadron has a total of 24 members 11 of which are cadets. They have only had 2 cadets renew from the last year. The cadet program is very weak and they have not had any cadet promotions in almost a year. They cannot find someone to take over the unit so i suspect it will close.

Then it should close.

This picture is one where everyone involved found better ways to spend their time, and no one, including the cadets' parents saw enough value in CAP
to make the effort needed to keep things moving. 
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: luscioman on March 29, 2012, 06:48:19 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 29, 2012, 06:30:37 PM
Quote from: luscioman on March 29, 2012, 06:18:18 PM
So how would you evaluate this?

His resume also has "issues" - "Distinction" is a Region award, Merit is the award at the wing level.  I'm sure his unit does a fine job, but the
Merit and distinction awards are cadet-focused, as is the rest of his resume.  If this is a composite squadron, that's actually somewhat of a problem, 

I know the regs but I will find you several units that have won "wing squadron of disctinction."
http://www.plymouthcap.org/ (http://www.plymouthcap.org/)
http://www.northtampacadetsquadron.com/ (http://www.northtampacadetsquadron.com/)

Also how is winning an award "somewhat of a problem?" can you explain that? I put the awards he won and also put "he serves in a wing staff position." in the top. In addition he is a rated IC and has about every es speciality as I also put.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: jeders on March 29, 2012, 06:56:40 PM
Quote from: luscioman on March 29, 2012, 06:18:18 PM
So how would you evaluate this?
...
When others were asked to take over aa cc nobody wanted to take on that responsiblity and the expectation the squadron needed to continue to be this succusesful.

So in a world with no term limit expectations, instead of training a successor this hard charger gets burned out. Then half the squadron leaves over night because no one knows, or wants, to step up. With a hard limit in place he knows that there is a point when he will be relieved of command and he needs to make sure that someone is trained to take over.

I'm usually against term limits below wing, and I think 3 years with the option of one more is too short. But a 5 year term limit with no limit on the number of terms would help solve a lot of continuity issues. It would also allow commanders like the one quoted above to go on to help a greater number of members.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Major Carrales on March 29, 2012, 07:03:38 PM
The situation should not be that a Commander is shouldering the whole load.  There should be every attempt to staff the posts in the unit with people who can accomplish the task at hand.  If this is the case, the Commander is an "administrator" and "puppet master" who coordinates the staff.  If that is done a "rotation" of staff officers into Command would be very reasonable.

No commander is, or should be, an ISLAND....and if they choose to be they will end up bikini atoll.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Nathan on March 30, 2012, 01:43:48 AM
The longer the terms, and the less compulsory the replacement, then the more I would be okay with the concept.

As I said, I have no problem with evaluating commanders periodically to make sure they are doing their job (like parole, basically). But if there is EVER the possibility that a good commander would HAVE to be forced to switch out with a bad one, then the system is in a worse place than where we are now. We simply can't afford to lose the good guys when we have them.

The overall solution is, of course, better wing oversight of how their commanders are operating. I'm not entirely sure why we're sitting here trying to figure out ways to accommodate wings with bad oversight instead of fixing the fact that the bad oversight exists in the first place. If we could trust our wing commanders to appoint the best commander available for the job, then there is absolutely no point in term limits.

And if we give (some) of our wing commanders the benefit of the doubt, the fact that a bad leader is in command of a squadron isn't necessarily evidence that wing screwed up. It could be that there are simply no suitable replacements. I have no doubt in my mind that there are wings dropping the ball when it comes to appointing their squadron commanders, but if they're the problem, then we should be aiming our treatments at the wing itself. Otherwise, we're not doing much more than changing the problem. Instead of having bad commanders stick around too long, we have good commanders who never get enough time to actually fix the units before the next (possibly bad) commander takes over.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: luscioman on March 30, 2012, 04:54:18 AM
Eclipse you have a lot information on this topic and a lot of experience. So what benchmarks would you use to evaluate a strong unit and its commander? Do you currently evaluate units in your wing as a group or wing officer? Also please expand on why a unit receiving awards is a problem and how you would correct that if they were under your command. Thanks for your guidance on the topic.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Private Investigator on April 01, 2012, 08:15:39 PM
Quote from: luscioman on March 29, 2012, 06:18:18 PM
So how would you evaluate this?

Good job.

Can I or anyone else ever have a chance to be Squadron Commander?

AND if I built a impressive resume can I keep it forever?
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Eclipse on April 01, 2012, 09:09:47 PM
Quote from: luscioman on March 30, 2012, 04:54:18 AM
Eclipse you have a lot information on this topic and a lot of experience. So what benchmarks would you use to evaluate a strong unit and its commander?

Is the unit growing at a sustainable rate, in a susatainable fashion?

Are they participating in all three missions, or treating CAP like a cafeteria?

Are the CC and major staff too heavily involved in personal outside activities that they cannot give the attention the unit requires?

Are there enough staff to do the jobs in anything more than a "ticket-punch"?  Or are the majority of the jobs centralized in a few folks?

Is the unit perpetually at risk of losing its charter because of too few members?  Is the roster heavy with empty shirts?

Does the unit CC publish plans and programs in a structured way, or is everything last-minute and ad-hoc?

Are the senior members progressing and engaged?
     Or is it populated by career Captains?

Are the cadets progressing and engaged?
    Or is it populated by Chiefs with a "leadership corps" mentality.

Do they stress the importance of encampments, SAREx's, NCSA's and other outside activities?

Does the CC respect the chain of command, and work with staff at higher HQ in appropriate ways?

Are they complying with mandates and initiaitives as set forth by the next higher HQ?


Quote from: luscioman on March 30, 2012, 04:54:18 AM
Do you currently evaluate units in your wing as a group or wing officer?
I had commander on my business card at the unit and group level for about 7-1/2 years before moving on last Spring.
You could say I was a "victim" of term limits, because given the option I would not have moved on, and yet I still support them
whole-heartedly, because the reality is that 3-4 years is plenty of time to turn around any unit or echelon, and beyond that
the ruts start to get deep.  The "new guy" has continued on my thread, but done plenty on his own, which is how it is supposed to work.
I moved on to new challenges and like to think I'm using that experience to make a difference there.

Quote from: luscioman on March 30, 2012, 04:54:18 AM
Also please expand on why a unit receiving awards is a problem and how you would correct that if they were under your command.

A lot of CAP awards, especially the annual "of the year" calvacade, are as much excercises in "you have to play to win", as
any objective comparision of the entirety of the respective "group".

As an example, the Merit and Distinction awards are presented at the subjective opinion of the commander or designee, and they are
not roll-up awards - meaning that the Region Unit of Discticntion, may not actually be the Wing Unit of Merit.  How anyone can be
the "best unit in the region", but not the best unit in the respective wing escapes me.

You can't even compare them year-to-year.  I've seen some years where objective criteria was the only factor, and large units
with big numbers but who's cadets struggled to perform at grade level won over units with much tighter programs and very sharp cadets,
and other years where the objective numbers were seemingly ignored and a randomly higher-visibility unit won the award.

Having been a receipent myself, I know personally that while we made great strides the year we received it, the unit itself
was still not really firing on all cylinders, and there were a number of other units which could have arguably received it instead of
us.

Since the Merits and Distinctions do not factor in the total-unit at all, a commander who receives this may well feel it validates
his entire approach, even though he is essentially ignoring the senior members in his unit, and may not be involved in ES or AE at all.
This can especailly be an issue with head-strong commanders who may be fighting the next higher HQ already as it is - someone takes
the objective numbers, stirs it in their personal caldron, never asks the next higher CC his opinion, and now you've validated what
is actually considered to be a struggling program, making things worse instead of better.

Even the criteria itself is somewhat of an issue, because how it is weighted is up to the approver of the award.  The majority
of CAP units do not use a pipeline or other structured in-process and management of member careers, so most units are subject to the
ebbs and flows of the normal cycle of a cadet's life - school, personal interest, and family.  Through no fault of the CC, you will have
a unit become a Phase IV factory one year, and then all but shut down the next because the entire staff was parents, and when their diamonds left,
so did the parents.  That unit might well float to the top of "Quality Cadet" and "Merit" selection, and then have no one in the unit
to hang the streamer because they all quit.  The commander's lack of plan is "validated" by the award, even though he had little to
do with the success - it was mostly random chance of timing.

The "of the year" plaques are similar, as these have very little objective criteria whatsoever, and are solely dependent
on being submitted for the award - if only one person is submitted, then in the words of Judge Judy, "You win".  This explains
the high number of awards never presented in many wings, and why a lot of times they are won by people who are "around", but not
necessarially the top guy in the job. It just means he was the top guy submitted (maybe self-submitted).
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: MSG Mac on April 02, 2012, 06:53:15 AM
The Term Limits seem to me to allow more people to attain command. I hate to use the RM vs Us example, but it is a fact that the RM does have term limits on all its Officers and SNCO's. They also have an up or out policy which mandates that you promote at a certain time or leave the service.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: SarDragon on April 02, 2012, 09:55:03 AM
Quote from: MSG Mac on April 02, 2012, 06:53:15 AM
The Term Limits seem to me to allow more people to attain command. I hate to use the RM vs Us example, but it is a fact that the RM does have term limits on all its Officers and SNCO's. They also have an up or out policy which mandates that you promote at a certain time or leave the service.

Up or out goes for everyone, E-1 thru O-10, with a few exceptions, based on position, and the needs of the service.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Private Investigator on April 03, 2012, 12:14:24 AM
HYT = High Year of Tenure.

I am not sure when they adopted it but my father and grandfather, WWII and WWI era, recall 20 year career privates were not uncommon.

I concur with Eclipse, that was a great post.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: MSG Mac on April 03, 2012, 12:29:57 AM
Quote from: Private Investigator on April 03, 2012, 12:14:24 AM
HYT = High Year of Tenure.

I am not sure when they adopted it but my father and grandfather, WWII and WWI era, recall 20 year career privates were not uncommon.

I concur with Eclipse, that was a great post.

Up until the end of WWII enlisted who changed units were subject to the Table of Organization of the new unit. A MSG could transfer from Company A into Company B and not have a slot so his grade was whatever the new Commander had open and was willing to accept him as. Officers had a slightly different problem. They advanced as someone senior to him left the service, retired , or died.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: SarDragon on April 03, 2012, 09:48:02 AM
HYT hit the military really hard in the late '70s, during the Vietnam drawdown. It got even worse in the early '80s.

When I retired from the Navy in '89, our rules were something like this:

E-3 and below, out at 4, unless a designated striker in specific ratings.
E-4, out at 8
E-5, out at 14 (maybe 16?)
E-6, out at 23
E-7, out at 26
E-8 and E-9, out at 30

By 2000, when My Sweetie retired, E-6 was out at 20, and E-7 was out at 24. Don't recall E-8 and E-9, but 30 is pretty much max for anyone, except for individual waivers.

I thik the limits are pretty much the same these days.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: a2capt on April 03, 2012, 05:11:18 PM
Meaning if you were nearing 8 years service and only E-4 with no promotion in sight, you were pretty much not going to re-up?

Up or out?
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: bflynn on April 03, 2012, 05:23:37 PM
Yup, that's the way it works - if you don't have that next promotion, you're invited to not re-enlist.  20 years ago waivers were available if you were critical, but that was basically the CO's call.

I think the times are lower now.  It seems like in '93, E-5 was 12 years, E-6's limit was 18.  Basically, you had to make E-7 before you could retire with 20 years.  I never liked that because E-7 (in the navy) is a rank you're selected for and that means ...ummm... advertising ... all the great things you've done over your career.  Or making up the sea stories, because in the Navy telling a story and stretching the truth pretty much go hand in hand.  But it doesn't affect me and probably for the better...if I'd stayed in, I'd be retired, but old and (really, really) bitter.

BTW, this did not apply for E-9 or O-10...since they have no place to go.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: bosshawk on April 03, 2012, 05:31:19 PM
Yes, and officers have similar rules.  I was commissioned under a law which specified that a LtCol had to retire at age 53 or 28 years of service, whichever came first.  A Colonel had to retire at age 55 or 30 years of service.  Majors and below were under similar rules.  The military has no place for those who stagnate at a given rank: at least among the officers.

That said, I can remember the day when it was not at all unusual for a Captain in the Army to have 10 years in grade. When I was commissioned, it was not at all unusual to retire at 20 as a Major.  Viet Nam changed all that.  I made Major at less than 10 years of total service, then transferred to the Reserves and spent 7 years as a Major and slightly less than 4 as a LtCol.

All of this has nothing of relevance to CAP: just old soldiers(and sailors) telling war stories.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: FlyTiger77 on April 03, 2012, 05:39:49 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on April 03, 2012, 09:48:02 AM
HYT hit the military really hard in the late '70s, during the Vietnam drawdown. It got even worse in the early '80s.

When I retired from the Navy in '89, our rules were something like this:

E-3 and below, out at 4, unless a designated striker in specific ratings.
E-4, out at 8
E-5, out at 14 (maybe 16?)
E-6, out at 23
E-7, out at 26
E-8 and E-9, out at 30

I thik the limits are pretty much the same these days.

Currently, the Army's are:

           PVT-PFC (E-1 through E-3)--5 years
           CPL/SPC (E-4)--8 years
           CPL/SPC (Promotable) (E-4(P))--12 years
           SGT (E-5)--13 years
           SGT (Promotable) (E-5(P))--15 years
           SSG  (E-6)--20 years
           SSG (Promotable) (E-6(P))--26 years
           SFC (E-7)--26 years
           SFC (Promotable) (E-7(P))--29 years
           1SG/MSG (E-8)--29 years
           1SG/MSG (Promotable) (E-8(P))--32 years
           CSM/SGM (E-9)--32 years

Age 62 for Regular Army and US Army Reserve is the maximum age. Age 60 is the maximum for the Army National Guard. I have no idea why the Guard is different (at least in this respect).

Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: bflynn on April 03, 2012, 06:54:18 PM
By way of curious trivia, the longest serving sailor on active duty was Torpedoman's Mate Chief Harry Morris, enlisted 1903 and retired in 1958, 55 years on active duty with 41 of it on sea duty.  He served in Teddy Roosevelt's Great White Fleet, WWI, WWII and saw the first nuclear powered ships launched, passing away in 1975.  Quite a career.

I can't find similar roles for the other services, does anyone know them?
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: SarDragon on April 03, 2012, 08:12:46 PM
Current USN:
E1-E2: 6
E-3: 6 (8, with specific circumstance)
E-4: 8
E-5: 14 (20; depends on entry date)
E-6: 20
E-7: 24
E-8: 26

There is a general 30 year limit, unless there are specific circumstances permitting further service.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Private Investigator on April 04, 2012, 09:19:34 AM
Quote from: bosshawk on April 03, 2012, 05:31:19 PM
All of this has nothing of relevance to CAP: just old soldiers(and sailors) telling war stories.

We tend to do that.   8)
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: lordmonar on April 04, 2012, 03:33:57 PM
Quote from: MSG Mac on April 02, 2012, 06:53:15 AM
The Term Limits seem to me to allow more people to attain command. I hate to use the RM vs Us example, but it is a fact that the RM does have term limits on all its Officers and SNCO's. They also have an up or out policy which mandates that you promote at a certain time or leave the service.
MSG Mac....the RM does does not have term limits.  There is not regulation that says "you can only be in command for x years".   There is a policy that moves commanders around......but it is policy not a regulation.  Meaning that IF the USAF/ARMY/NAVY/USMC sees the need to move a commander early or keep a commander in place they have the flexibility to do so.

CAP needs term limits like we need a hole in our heads.

a) We don't have the benifit of being able to find the righ guy for the job and moving him to that position....i.e. you have to pull from a finite pool of people....i.e. members of the unit or if your luck nearby units.

b) A hard and fast rule means you have to move the commander even if there is no replacement.  So you back yourself into a corner with either violating a regulation (and taking the hit on the CI) or putting a known poor leader into command.

c) We still don't have a very good objective or even a subjective criteria of what is a good or bad squadron. 

d) We just don't have a big enough pool of good leaders ready and willing to take on the jobs.  CAP does not make them, CAP does not hire them, CAP does not move them to where they are needed.  This is the nature of our organisation....it could be better....but we are already talking about how much unnecessary training we require....any attempt to actually train and grow good leaders would require a lot more time and training.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Eclipse on April 04, 2012, 03:50:44 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 04, 2012, 03:33:57 PMc) We still don't have a very good objective or even a subjective criteria of what is a good or bad squadron. 

We actually do - the SUI will give a clear indication of whether a unit is "good" or "bad".

Like everything else, it's possible to game the system and pull off a Successful by just checking the boxes, especially if the inspectors are poor,
but a good commander can see through that and can still judge a unit's quality and effectiveness with this process.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: lordmonar on April 04, 2012, 04:01:01 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 04, 2012, 03:50:44 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 04, 2012, 03:33:57 PMc) We still don't have a very good objective or even a subjective criteria of what is a good or bad squadron. 

We actually do - the SUI will give a clear indication of whether a unit is "good" or "bad".

Like everything else, it's possible to game the system and pull off a Successful by just checking the boxes, especially if the inspectors are poor,
but a good commander can see through that and can still judge a unit's quality and effectiveness with this process.
No the SUI is a paperwork drill.  Which is good as far as it goes.

But we have not objective MISSION critera.

How many people do I need in my squadron?  What that is detemined by my mission.  What mission?  No one has ever tasked my squadron to provide XX trained ground team members, XX trained air crew, XX trained mission base staff.
No one has ever tasked my squadron to have XX number of cadets with XX% of reaching Spaats, Eaker, Earheart, Mitchel, Wright Brothers.
No one has ever tasked my squadron to conduct XX number of external and XX number of interal AE presentations.

Your shopping list of what is a good squadron is pretty good......I agree with most of them.  But they are very subjective.  The SUI cannot measure squadron effectiveness because we have no mission goals.

You can have a perfect SUI.....and only have 15 members in your unit.  None of them have to be ES qualified, none of them have to have anything else besides Level I.  So long as the "I"s are dotted and the "T"s crossed you will get an "effective" rateing on your SUI.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Eclipse on April 04, 2012, 04:08:57 PM
It's difficult to disagree with this, but only because of the way CAP implements the response.

An SUI with the ES page "not graded", should be the catalyst of change, not a reason for a pizza party just because the CP page was "excellent".

I also agree with the fact that a big chunk of the problem is lack of full downstream goals and expectations.

That doesn't change the fact that in most cases "commander for life" has resulted in poor performance and/or stagnant units.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: lordmonar on April 04, 2012, 04:14:12 PM
In a lot of ways I agree with you.

I have always agreed with your reasoning behind it being a good idea to move commanders around.  I disagree with a hard term limit because it eliminates flexibility.

Don't tie your hands unnecessirly because of the one or two "commander for life" units that may or may not be out there.....and may or may not be "effective."
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Eclipse on April 04, 2012, 04:45:50 PM
Perhaps a "should" vs. a "will" - this would instill the idea that it's not a permanent job, and set the preference or regular transition, but not
force situations where there is no suitable replacement.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: JeffDG on April 04, 2012, 05:52:19 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 04, 2012, 04:45:50 PM
Perhaps a "should" vs. a "will" - this would instill the idea that it's not a permanent job, and set the preference or regular transition, but not
force situations where there is no suitable replacement.
Why not just, you know, trust a commander's discretion to appoint squadron and group commanders when and where needed?  Why do you need some policy to demand that Wing commanders exercise their already existing authority.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Eclipse on April 04, 2012, 06:11:18 PM
Because, like most evolved situations in CAP and similar organizations, in a lot of cases those Group and Unit CC's are not exercising that authority, and
units, but more importantly members, are left to languish with a poor commander.

We have a lot of confrontation-averse people in CAP.  A lot of commanders believe being "liked" (ala Micheal Scott) equals leadership.  Term limits at least give them a "not my call" avenue to make the change needed.  Hardly the correct way to do it, but when you can't legislate leadership and common sense, you have to look to the places you can put mandates in place.

I can't argue this is a command failing, that doesn't change the situation.  1/2 the regs we have are because at some point people weren't doing the right thing and had to be forced to do it.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: bflynn on April 04, 2012, 06:35:47 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 04, 2012, 06:11:18 PM
Because, like most evolved situations in CAP and similar organizations, in a lot of cases those Group and Unit CC's are not exercising that authority, and
units, but more importantly members, are left to languish with a poor commander.

Wow, maybe we need term limits for group and wing commanders...

Wait, have we had this discussion before?   >:D
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: lordmonar on April 04, 2012, 06:44:06 PM
If you have poor leadeship at Wing and Group......who are not monitoring the health of their squadrons in the first place.....a regulation that suggest or even forces them to make command changes is NOT going to work.

It will only mean that come the CI wing will be scrambeling to fix all those things that they have neglected.....just like they do with all of the other things they have neglected.

So...while I agree with you that as a rule of thumb it's a good idea.....I don't see it really improving anything because the real problem is lack of good leadership in the first place.....and regs don't fix that.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: A.Member on April 04, 2012, 09:45:21 PM
If I were King, the rule would be something like this:

"No member will serve at Region, Wing, or Group level for more than 6 consecutive years.  At the conclusion of 6 years service, the member must return to the squadron level and serve there for 3 years prior to taking another appointment at the Group, Wing, or Region level.

Based on my experience, there are far to many "lifers" at the Wing and Region levels.   They may play musical chairs as far as roles are concerned but they remain at those levels.  Many have not been involved in an actual squadron for many, many years - even decades.  As a result, they lose perspective on the program and seem to forget this important fact:  the Group/Wing/Region is there to support the Squadron, not the other way around.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: RiverAux on April 04, 2012, 09:47:49 PM
Well, part of that comes from a tendency to draw on those that live near Wing HQ for staff slots.   Not quite as important in today's world given that very little paperwork needs signing these days, but it still sort of keeps people in place for a while. 
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Eclipse on April 04, 2012, 10:07:42 PM
Quote from: A.Member on April 04, 2012, 09:45:21 PM
If I were King, the rule would be something like this:

"No member will serve at Region, Wing, or Group level for more than 6 consecutive years.  At the conclusion of 6 years service, the member must return to the squadron level and serve there for 3 years prior to taking another appointment at the Group, Wing, or Region level.

Based on my experience, there are far to many "lifers" at the Wing and Region levels.   They may play musical chairs as far as roles are concerned but they remain at those levels.  Many have not been involved in an actual squadron for many, many years - even decades.  As a result, they lose perspective on the program and seem to forget this important fact:  the Group/Wing/Region is there to support the Squadron, not the other way around.

Please Yahweh, where do I sign?

The requirement to spin back to the units would potentially reinvigorate those units as very-experience staffers return to help at the most important level, and it might force some attitude adjustment if you know you're going to need a home soon.

My wing is going through some very radical change, and a number of long-term staffers are lost because their old job has a new guy, and they can't conceive of going back to a squadron.

In this plan, considering a typical CAP active career, you'd be able to cycle at least twice, and by then probably be looking to retire.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: lordmonar on April 04, 2012, 10:13:23 PM
It could also rob region or national of valuable exerince.

So you go Squadron, group, squadron, wing squadron, region, squadron, national.

That's 15 years befor you get on national staff....and your regional experince is three years out of date.

I disagree that spending time at higher eschelons makes you dis engage........it should not...because you should be working with your counterparts at the lower level.....and you wing/regional/national job should be working with the same issues as the staffer at the squadron level.

Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Eclipse on April 04, 2012, 10:20:50 PM
OK, how about 6 years and then "other" - up,down, or sideways?

And no more of this "quadruple billeting" - you're only allowed to serve at one echelon, outside activities like encampments and SAREx's being the
typical exceptions.

Managing downstream where yo have no command authority is not the same as being the the unit-level wrench turner.  It's easy to establish plans for someone else to execute.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: lordmonar on April 04, 2012, 10:25:23 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 04, 2012, 10:20:50 PM
OK, how about 6 years and then "other" - up,down, or sideways?

And no more of this "quadruple billeting" - you're only allowed to serve at one echelon, outside activities like encampments and SAREx's being the
typical exceptions.
??  Now you are really robbing the squadrons/wings.

Sometimes the jobs are higher levels are not full time jobs....someone has to do them but they are not an every week sort of job.....so why not be a squadron deputy commander for cadets AND the group Cadet Programs officer?  If you have the man power for it....then my all means someone take the job.....but as we all know sometimes it is either double billet or it does not get done.
And also did you just not complain about not being engaged at the lower levels by these life time staffers?  Double billetting is a gread way for you to stay engaged with the lower levels....the Regional CP guy, is also you Wing CP guy who has to work with his group and squadron CP guys on a regular basis.....sounds like a good recipe to mean.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Eclipse on April 04, 2012, 10:28:31 PM
We'll never see eye-to-eye on this.

Double-billeting just takes the opportunity away from someone else.  Most wings have 1000+ members (and should have twice that), and yet with
all that manpower, we can't find a couple hundred to fully staff the echelons without having people do ADY jobs or quintuple billeting in the same echelon?

And this doesn't even account for all the places where circular reporting relationships create fifedoms.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: RiverAux on April 04, 2012, 10:55:48 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 04, 2012, 10:28:31 PM
Double-billeting just takes the opportunity away from someone else. 
Only if there actually is someone capable and willing to do it.  Seeing as how most squadrons don't even fill all their own staff jobs, I don't think this is an issue.  Any CAP member who really wants to serve on a higher level staff won't have a problem doing so once they gain a little experience. 
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: A.Member on April 04, 2012, 11:12:29 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 04, 2012, 10:07:42 PM
The requirement to spin back to the units would potentially reinvigorate those units as very-experience staffers return to help at the most important level, and it might force some attitude adjustment if you know you're going to need a home soon.
This is exactly right.   It certainly trumps any concerns about robbing the other levels of experience.   Quite the opposite, it helps foster a culture where some of that knowledge is shared with those who need it while allowing new ideas and approaches to grow.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Eclipse on April 04, 2012, 11:17:49 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on April 04, 2012, 10:55:48 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 04, 2012, 10:28:31 PM
Double-billeting just takes the opportunity away from someone else. 
Only if there actually is someone capable and willing to do it.

Back to that "more people" conversation again.

We're having this exact conversation in my wing right now - we want to move a number of competent branch directors and section chiefs up the ladder to build more IC's, but part of the issue is finding their "replacements" in their existing respective jobs.

Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: lordmonar on April 04, 2012, 11:29:01 PM
Okay an ideal squadron

Commander
Chaplain
Safety

Deputy for Senior
Admin
Personel
Finance
PAO
Recruiting
Historian
Legal
Medical
Logistics
-Transportation
-Supply
-Maintenance
communications
Aerospace Education
Professional Development
Operations
-Stand-Eval
-ES
--SAR
--Training
--DP

Deputy for Cadets
AEO
Leadership Officer
Activities

That's 29 senior members with out assitants and no worker bees!

Assuming that Group and Wing mirror this you quickly suck up personnel.

I don't see how a no double billeting could work.....nor do I see where an up and down action would really work.    It would be nice......sure wish we all had 100 member squadrons able to do all our missions in a meaningful way and enough overhead personnel to proper man each upper level of command......but there you go.

Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: A.Member on April 04, 2012, 11:30:15 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 04, 2012, 11:17:49 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on April 04, 2012, 10:55:48 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 04, 2012, 10:28:31 PM
Double-billeting just takes the opportunity away from someone else. 
Only if there actually is someone capable and willing to do it.

Back to that "more people" conversation again.

We're having this exact conversation in my wing right now - we want to move a number of competent branch directors and section chiefs up the ladder to build more IC's, but part of the issue is finding their "replacements" in their existing respective jobs.
Right or wrong, I know numerous people that are unwilling to serve in certain roles due to a "personality conflict" with someone they may be required to interact with.  When that someone is a lifer at the Group and Wing level, it becomes problematic. 

While being able to effectively deal with differing personalities is part of life, I'm guessing we all know one or two that are a bit more of the exception to this rule.  By breaking their tenure, we may actually find many of our existing members more willing to step up in certain roles. 

The other part of it is that I know very few people in CAP that have a "passion" for their particular jobs/assignments.  Most simply want to serve in a meaningful way, regardless of their duty assignment.   So, it's the leader's responsibility to ensure their role/duties are meaningful.

Similarly, it's just as problematic to put someone in a role when it's clear the individual is not a good match to the responsibilities of the position.  Yet, this happens very frequently.  The fact that "no one else wants the position" should never drive a decision to fill a position, especially if they aren't suited to the position.  Doing so will only lead to further frustation with the membership.   
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Eclipse on April 04, 2012, 11:36:01 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 04, 2012, 11:29:01 PM
I don't see how a no double billeting could work...

More people.

(I could also make the counter argument that a number of the positions listed are redundant, unnecessary in CAP's world, or both.)
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Private Investigator on April 05, 2012, 08:29:12 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 04, 2012, 03:33:57 PM
CAP needs term limits like we need a hole in our heads.

a) We don't have the benifit of being able to find the righ guy for the job and moving him to that position...

Units do have a Deputy Commander? After being the #2 'person' its time to move up. Another pet peeve of mine. Why be a Deputy Commander if you will never command? But I have seen Units go thru Commanders but have the same Deputy Commander for ten years.   8)
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Private Investigator on April 05, 2012, 08:34:00 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 04, 2012, 03:50:44 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 04, 2012, 03:33:57 PMc) We still don't have a very good objective or even a subjective criteria of what is a good or bad squadron. 

We actually do - the SUI will give a clear indication of whether a unit is "good" or "bad".

Like everything else, it's possible to game the system and pull off a Successful by just checking the boxes, especially if the inspectors are poor,
but a good commander can see through that and can still judge a unit's quality and effectiveness with this process.

I do like the current SUI if done correctly. Back in the 1990s the ratings was based on 100%. So my Section got a 98%, John got a 94% and Buddy a 75%. Buddy nexts to work on it.  >:D
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: FlyTiger77 on April 07, 2012, 07:49:23 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 04, 2012, 11:29:01 PM
That's 29 senior members without assistants and no worker bees!

Assuming that Group and Wing mirror this, you quickly suck up personnel.

Is there a way to leverage technology to flatten the organizational structure (eliminate Groups and have fewer Regions)? Do we have too much redundancy? With fewer organizations to fill, would that give us a deeper pool from which to pull in order to fill the remaining echelons?

Personally, I think term limits for squadron/group commanders gives us more regulation where we need better higher-echelon leadership instead. If a commander is a slug and needs replaced, the next-level commander needs to step up and make the change instead of adding a new regulation to replace everyone after a certain time period.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: RiverAux on April 07, 2012, 09:50:59 AM
Well, I think most Wings don't have groups and for the most part the ones that do probably need them although I'm not sure Groups need to replicate ALL the available staff positions. 
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: jimmydeanno on April 07, 2012, 12:51:35 PM
We could certainly reduce the number of positions in units.  A normal unit doesn't need a logistics officer, supply officer, transportation officer. 

Most units have one van, a small closet for some supplies, and a few radios.

It doesn't make sense to break that out into 3 positions when one will suffice.  You just end up with some really bored volunteers.  At the wing, it makes sense to have separate personnel for the job because of the scope of what they're responsible for.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: RADIOMAN015 on April 07, 2012, 05:06:36 PM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on April 07, 2012, 12:51:35 PM
We could certainly reduce the number of positions in units.  A normal unit doesn't need a logistics officer, supply officer, transportation officer. 

Most units have one van, a small closet for some supplies, and a few radios.

It doesn't make sense to break that out into 3 positions when one will suffice.  You just end up with some really bored volunteers.  At the wing, it makes sense to have separate personnel for the job because of the scope of what they're responsible for.
I think you are missing the point.  Volunteers join and select functions/jobs that they think they would like to do -- no one should be forced to take on a job/function they don't want to do, it's just counterproductive to the organization.   So even though the individual might not have large dollar amounts/lots of equipment/supplies, it is still good training for them to learn and make that functional area operate effectively/efficiently.  When you start combining up positions, you start burdening the volunteers with more CAP administrative mumbo jumbo, and everyone has a point where it becomes an issue.   
RM   
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: jeders on April 07, 2012, 05:13:09 PM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on April 07, 2012, 12:51:35 PM
We could certainly reduce the number of positions in units.  A normal unit doesn't need a logistics officer, supply officer, transportation officer. 

Most units have one no van, a small closet for some supplies, and a few radios.

It doesn't make sense to break that out into 3 positions when one will suffice.  You just end up with some really bored volunteers.  At the wing, it makes sense to have separate personnel for the job because of the scope of what they're responsible for.

FTFY.

All of the logistics position can absolutely be combined into one person in the average squadron. Additionally so can most of the ES/Ops positions. Even at the group and region level most positions can be done by one person. It's only at the wing level that you really need multiple people for these various positions.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: lordmonar on April 07, 2012, 07:10:45 PM
You guys are only cutting down the number of positions a little.

Even if you cut the listed positions down to the bone...you are still looking at 20 or so positions/jobs that have to be done.

My squadorn has around 60 members, more then half of them cadets.  We don't have the man power to fill all the needed jobs and provide for adaquate assitants/depth with out double/tripple billeting.

My point was that the ideal that group/wing/regional/national staff should not be double billeted is not practical as well as being counter to the ideal that it is trying to solve.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: mrsbure on April 11, 2012, 01:11:46 PM
I am a squadron commander at the end of my term limit. I do not have someone to take over for me at this time. And don't even think of putting that back on me, I have tried to find a successor even from other units senior members that live in my area. I have actually been laughed at and asked if I am crazy. This is a volunteer organization and forcing someone to take a job that they don't want and removing someone that is doing a good job is counterproductive. Would I step aside for a willing, qualified candidate? Absolutely, but does it make sense to close a squadron that is doing well because the squadron commander has reached their term limit and there is no one willing to take over? I do not feel all mighty and powerful as some have insinuated that squadron commanders become. I'm just here to volunteer my time and do the best job that I can for my squadron and the organization. I have no aspirations to move up in the organization so my next position will be at local squadron filling it whatever position they need me to fill.

Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Eclipse on April 11, 2012, 02:51:27 PM
Your statement above is part of the reason term limits are important - your members only value their membership to the point that
"some other guy" does all the work.  Sometimes the threat of losing the unit is enough to spur people on, sometimes not, but I would personally
not want to be leading something that is at constant risk of shutdown if I get a cold.

Training your replacement is a commander's (and staffer's) job, but if you've done your best in that regard, the real responsibility is on the desk of the
next higher HQ.  A unit without the ability to transition smoothly is failing its mission, if for no other reason than it is clearly undermanned.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: mrsbure on April 11, 2012, 03:07:52 PM
Yes, I will agree that in my case I do most of the work but, if the squadron shuts down who really suffers? The cadets, who have no say. And being that I am from a cadet squadron, this will be the case. Shutting down a squadron because of a squadron commander having to leave do to a term limit is ridiculous. I could understand it if the squadron was not doing well but, this is not always the case.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Eclipse on April 11, 2012, 03:14:18 PM
Quote from: mrsbure on April 11, 2012, 03:07:52 PM
Yes, I will agree that in my case I do most of the work but, if the squadron shuts down who really suffers? The cadets, who have no say. And being that I am from a cadet squadron, this will be the case. Shutting down a squadron because of a squadron commander having to leave do to a term limit is ridiculous. I could understand it if the squadron was not doing well but, this is not always the case.

What happens if you get sick, die, take up golf, or just want to try something new?  A sudden unexpected death is no better than a controlled one.

Those cadets all have family who should be holding up a corner, and who are trained and capable to take over should you no longer be around,
voluntarily or otherwise.  The lack of the expectation of progression, as well as "the other guy's got it" is what causes whole wings to grind to
slow stops because of long-term attrition.  Units plod on and "do what they do" until they "don't", and then people look up one day and ask
why a wing that used to have 100 units now has 30, or 5, or none.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: mrsbure on April 11, 2012, 03:32:39 PM
I agree that the families should do more. I get a lot of drop offs and I try to change that every chance I get. In my opinion, there are bigger problems right now then having squadron commander term limits. If the purpose is to clean out the bad, the group commanders have that responsibility. If it is to give people a chance, I don't see that being an issue in my group. If it is to get new blood in the position, you have to have people that want to step up. I find most people don't have the time or don't want to take the time to make such a large committment. Is that right? Maybe not but it's a fact of life. Volunteerism only goes so far. This is not a paid promotion which should not make a difference but it does.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: A.Member on April 11, 2012, 10:54:04 PM
Quote from: mrsbure on April 11, 2012, 03:32:39 PM
... I find most people don't have the time or don't want to take the time to make such a large committment. Is that right? Maybe not but it's a fact of life. Volunteerism only goes so far. This is not a paid promotion which should not make a difference but it does.
Then perhaps CAP isn't a good for those people and they need to volunteer their efforts to an organization that doesn't need active participants - or just move them to patron status.  That too is a fact of life.  Volunteering is more than putting your name on a roster.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: MSG Mac on April 12, 2012, 12:03:04 AM
I have seen Wings and Groups actually send out job opening notices to all members stating that a Squadron or Group Commander position was opening and that applications were being solicited.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Eclipse on April 12, 2012, 12:42:20 AM
Quote from: MSG Mac on April 12, 2012, 12:03:04 AM
I have seen Wings and Groups actually send out job opening notices to all members stating that a Squadron or Group Commander position was opening and that applications were being solicited.

Mine has done that for 5-6+ years. Anyone in the wing can apply for a command slot, and not all commanders come from within the
respective unit's ranks.
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: Private Investigator on April 12, 2012, 09:33:52 AM
Quote from: mrsbure on April 11, 2012, 01:11:46 PM
I am a squadron commander at the end of my term limit. I do not have someone to take over for me at this time.

Do you have a Deputy Commander? #2 person suppose to take over from #1 person. That is why he/she is Deputy Commander.

A pet peeve when I was a Group Commander is the person who wants to be Deputy Commander forever but does not want to be responsible for a plane, equipment or finances. Tell your #2, "MAN UP." Problem solved ....
Title: Re: Group CC and Squadron CC term limits
Post by: davedove on April 12, 2012, 11:31:07 AM
Quote from: A.Member on April 11, 2012, 10:54:04 PM
Quote from: mrsbure on April 11, 2012, 03:32:39 PM
... I find most people don't have the time or don't want to take the time to make such a large committment. Is that right? Maybe not but it's a fact of life. Volunteerism only goes so far. This is not a paid promotion which should not make a difference but it does.
Then perhaps CAP isn't a good for those people and they need to volunteer their efforts to an organization that doesn't need active participants - or just move them to patron status.  That too is a fact of life.  Volunteering is more than putting your name on a roster.

There's a lot of different levels of participation between giving all your free time to CAP and just being a name on the roster.  Every member donates their time in their own way.  If CAP only took those members who can and will give their every non-employed moment to the organization, then we wouldn't have very many members.