letter of non endorsement for New FL Wing Commander

[SARJunkie]

So I am in the process of filing a letter of non endorsement for one of the new Florida Wing Commander candidates.   Has anyone else done the same? This 'Candidate' has done great harm to the Wing.  No telling hat will happen if he gets the Wing Commander slot!

So far he has managed to run off many 'professional' ES responders in the wing, and countless others.  He will demaen you , talk down to you, and make false accusations against you to ruin your reputation.  As long as he comes out looking good, he will squash anyone he has to!

Are we going to allow this corrupt individual ruin our Wing?

[Persona non grata]

Who is it? or do we have to speculate?     

[davidsinn]

Who is it? or do we have to speculate?      

Posting a name is a very good way to get the thread nuked.

[Persona non grata]

He could have stated that he needed a sample letter of non-endorsement instead of going on about how horrible the person is.      Just saying.......

[a2capt]

If you have issues, and you have fact, and it's documentable ... write it up and submit it.

But be warned, cronyism and GoB networks go hand in hand. Unless it's particularly damming, or you're the only one voicing anything it's probably going to go nowhere.  But since you said in another thread you "told them to go pound sand", I have to imagine that this letter would not be without bias.

It would be good to get several others to sign on.

[Major Carrales]

This is one of those things that erks we about CAPTALK...using it as a place to fall people. 

[NCRblues]

So I am in the process of filing a letter of non endorsement for one of the new Florida Wing Commander candidates.   Has anyone else done the same? This 'Candidate' has done great harm to the Wing.  No telling hat will happen if he gets the Wing Commander slot!

So far he has managed to run off many 'professional' ES responders in the wing, and countless others.  He will demaen you , talk down to you, and make false accusations against you to ruin your reputation.  As long as he comes out looking good, he will squash anyone he has to!

Are we going to allow this corrupt individual ruin our Wing?

I have seen several of these type of letters sent out.

At the best they are ignored, because if someone truly did have [darn]ing evidence then they would go to the IG.

At the worst, i have seen these letters used as fodder to end the senders time with CAP....sometimes even force them out...

[Major Carrales]

So I am in the process of filing a letter of non endorsement for one of the new Florida Wing Commander candidates.   Has anyone else done the same? This 'Candidate' has done great harm to the Wing.  No telling hat will happen if he gets the Wing Commander slot!

So far he has managed to run off many 'professional' ES responders in the wing, and countless others.  He will demean you , talk down to you, and make false accusations against you to ruin your reputation.  As long as he comes out looking good, he will squash anyone he has to!

Are we going to allow this corrupt individual ruin our Wing?

I have seen several of these type of letters sent out.

At the best they are ignored, because if someone truly did have [darn]ing evidence then they would go to the IG.

At the worst, i have seen these letters used as fodder to end the senders time with CAP....sometimes even force them out...

In all honesty sending such a letter or distributing them without substantial evidence is, in my opinion, an action unbecoming a CAP Officer.  If there is true evidence then it is a matter for the system.  We don't operate via the "court of public opinion" in the Civil Air Patrol.  This is why I reject the idea that we should elect our leadership.  Imagine the hoopla and chicanery in that system.  At least in our current system such postings and rumors are just that and false statements have no direct effect on our governance...if we elected our leadership this would become a farce. 

[N Harmon]

Not to divert the topic, but what is the purpose of comment periods for command candidates if members can not speak frankly? Why send out the e-mails soliciting opinions? Are they for positive opinions only; pure votes of confidence?

I can think of plenty of reasons why a particular person would be a poor fit to be a commander yet is not grounds for an IG inquiry...

"Dear Capt Snickersnorker, I am writing you in regards to the recent candidate list for Flight Commander. I have found Lieutenant Smith a difficult person to work with and his leadership style to be non-conducive to teamwork. For example, while participating with Lieutenant Smith on a committee to develop a flight roster, Lieutenant Smith would not listen to any other committee members' ideas and instead took it upon himself to dictate how the project would turn out. This caused a number of members to disassociate with the project, and resulted in the final product taking twice as long to develop. I have concerns that similar things will happen on a broader level if Lieutenant Smith exhibits the same behavior as Flight Commander. In considering all of the candidates for this position, please pay close attention to the leadership styles and personalities that each exhibit. Thank you for considering my comment.  -- C/SSgt Stuffy"

Obviously there are good ways of getting your point across, and bad ways as well. And if you can't put your reasoning into a professional form, then perhaps you are better off staying silent.

[Larry Mangum]

"Dear Capt Snickersnorker, I am writing you in regards to the recent candidate list for Flight Commander. I have found Lieutenant Smith a difficult person to work with and his leadership style to be non-conducive to teamwork. For example, while participating with Lieutenant Smith on a committee to develop a flight roster, Lieutenant Smith would not listen to any other committee members' ideas and instead took it upon himself to dictate how the project would turn out. This caused a number of members to disassociate with the project, and resulted in the final product taking twice as long to develop. I have concerns that similar things will happen on a broader level if Lieutenant Smith exhibits the same behavior as Flight Commander. In considering all of the candidates for this position, please pay close attention to the leadership styles and personalities that each exhibit. Thank you for considering my comment.  -- C/SSgt Stuffy"

Your example is a good example of how one should probably be written, versus how the original poster commented.

[Major Lord]

I am glad that you have enough confidence in the system to believe that a strongly worded letter will have an effect on what is probably a foregone conclusion! If your misgivings are warranted, at least you will have powerful  "told-you-so" rights.....Besides your home-grown Florida boy, Lord Voldemort, (HWSRN) there have been quite a number of serious errors in selecting leadership at the Corporate level. If you are convinced that you are right, write a strongly worded but polite non-concurrence letter using simple declarative sentences. Avoid ad hominem attacks, emotional invectives, and crepuscular obfuscation; These will leave your letter on the floor of a bird cage. I believe that one of the failings of CAP in command appointments is not just that CAP may or may not have conducted a proper due-diligence investigation, but that the candidates personal attributes were not made known to the membership at large before the appointment. ( Think how wonderful it would be to find that you have a communist or an Amway salesman in your chain of command)

Major Lord

[BillB]

Florida Wing members have no knowledge of the candidates "personal attributes". The reason, the names have not been released. So members may know negative or positive attributes of someone, but not know they are a cadidate for Wing Commander. A lack of transparency.

[Major Lord]

Well, apparently SARjunkie knows the identity of an applicant, so perhaps its not all that airtight.....I agree that there is a tremendous lack of transparency.

Major Lord

[NCRblues]

Florida Wing members have no knowledge of the candidates "personal attributes". The reason, the names have not been released. So members may know negative or positive attributes of someone, but not know they are a cadidate for Wing Commander. A lack of transparency.

The CAP process for selection of wing commanders should be the dictionary's definition of "lack of transparency".

No one is told who the candidates are. They (sometimes) have a selection board, but it's recommendations hold no weight and if fact i have seen the boards recommendations be ignored on multiple occasions.

Announcements are made on wing websites (again sometimes) that are not updated on a regular basis (at least in my little section of the world) and many people in the wing don't even know there is a new wing king/queen until the change of command.

Change needs to come...sooner rather than later I'm afraid...

[Major Lord]

Sparky "OK" Carrales is right in my opinion that just electing Wing Commanders would be a bad idea. ( Although at one point in American history Officers were selected precisely so) I think that what would be more useful is a "Recall" option, allowing members to put a stop to what may be a slow-motion train wreck. Of course, I believe that democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner......Personally, I like Constitutional Republicanism.....it keeps the mob from running away with your system. A bit more of that in CAP might be just the thing.

Major Lord

[SARJunkie]

Well when the Wing 'Top 3' staffers blatantly put  down one of their own staff members  in a public forum it is a big  problem!

Its an even bigger issue when the Region IG snuffs it off, and tells you that they were probably blowing off steam, and not to worry about it!

This isn't the first time the Wing Command staff have told members point blank 'If you were to leave the organization today, it would benefit the Wing'  because they didn't see eye to eye with them.

  Over the past few years the membership has lost many professional responders, that have been told they are idiots.  So whats left now?  a bunch of incompetent 'good old boys' and friends of the commander who are running the Wing into the ground!  the IG system is supposed to protect its members, now they just look out for their buddy's in command positions.

It is extremely disheartening when the Wing used to have an amazing ES Team made up of FEMA IC's, Fire Service Battalion Chiefs, Professional Emergency Managers.  Only to have them run off so the Wing Commander can put his buddy's in charge.   

[Major Carrales]

Ex CAP guy? Curious?!?

[SARJunkie]

you read it right! 

[lordmonar]

So why do you care?

[SARJunkie]

Thats a [darn] good question...   

[RiverAux]

I know of at least one recent Wing commander selection process where comments about potential candidates were solicited by the region commander.  While making negative comments about anyone is always difficult to pull off, it can be done in a way that can be useful to those making the decision.  However, something like the original post of this thread would probably be ignored. 

[Cherokeepilot]

In all this questioning of the Wing CC selection process, we need to start to address one question.  "Who represents the dues paying members of the CAP?" 

This question has been very quietly addressed by some folks at Maxwell in the past.  And, this issue has no simple answer.  The lowest level corporate officer is the Wing CC who is appointed by the Regional CC who is appointed by the Nat CC, all of whom elect the Nat CC.  There is supposed to be adult supervision by the USAF with USAF officers, enlisted, employees who answer to various levels of the USAF and USAF Sec.  There is a paid support and supervision staff for CAP, a major percentage who are not mbrs of CAP.  Still the question remains as to who represents the dues paying members of CAP?

This is not a barn burner of an issue, but it is one which will have to be addressed someday in some open legal and/or political arena. 
73s

[JeffDG]

In all this questioning of the Wing CC selection process, we need to start to address one question.  "Who represents the dues paying members of the CAP?" 

This question has been very quietly addressed by some folks at Maxwell in the past.  And, this issue has no simple answer.  The lowest level corporate officer is the Wing CC who is appointed by the Regional CC who is appointed by the Nat CC, all of whom elect the Nat CC.  There is supposed to be adult supervision by the USAF with USAF officers, enlisted, employees who answer to various levels of the USAF and USAF Sec.  There is a paid support and supervision staff for CAP, a major percentage who are not mbrs of CAP.  Still the question remains as to who represents the dues paying members of CAP?

This is not a barn burner of an issue, but it is one which will have to be addressed someday in some open legal and/or political arena. 
73s

There's actually a somewhat active discussion of this very subject going on:

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=11808.100

[Ned]

Still the question remains as to who represents the dues paying members of CAP?

What do you mean here?

In one sense, of course, all commanders "represent" the membership because commanders are responsible for the welfare of the members in their units, and act on the members' behalf.

Our regulations serve to protect our members - by providing specific protections as well as fairly clear guidelines for conduct by the members and leadership.  We even have a whistle-blower protection regulation.

We also have an active and independent IG system that serves to protect members from abuses by commanders, as well as the independent MARB for the most serious cases involving membership terminations, etc.  The IG system appears to work very well, at least for matters not involving misconduct by corporate officers.

At the very top is the Board of Governors, charged with ensuring the well being of CAP and our relationships with our customers and stakeholders.  The Governors have acted - and will act in the future if necessary - to correct misbehavior by senior CAP officials.

We do not have any sort of "union - like" protections, nor an independent ombudsman program.  Perhaps these are ideas worth reviewing as part of the upcoming governance study.

What sort of "representation" or influence do you think is necessary for the membership beyond the existing protections?

Ned Lee

[BillB]

Ned I disagree. Send in a whistleblower complaint and it's ignored by Wing. In Florida the IG sysyem has been broken since a guy named Pineda was Wing King. Send in appeal to the MARB after the 60 days per reg and the Chair bounces it back even though he has the authority to waive the 60 day requirement. But if a corporate officer is involved at any point, CAP supports the corporate officer, right or wrong, rather than the members.

[Ned]

Ned I disagree. [ . . .] But if a corporate officer is involved at any point, CAP supports the corporate officer, right or wrong, rather than the members.

1.  I was mostly asking a question about "representation."

2.  I did point out that historically the system has not worked as well as it should for allegations of misconduct by corporate officers.  So, I'm not sure if we really disagree or not.

[Major Lord]

Ned,

I suggest establishment of a "recall", which would allow some pre-determined ratio of voting members to remove a Corporate Officer. The other option would be a simple petition, but I think that would be problematic.

Major Lord

[Ned]

Ned,

I suggest establishment of a "recall", which would allow some predetermined ratio of voting members to remove a Corporate Officer. The other option would be a simple petition, but I think that would be problematic.

Major Lord

I assume you mean a percentage of the rank-and-file members voting to recall, rather than a percentage of NB members voting to remove a fellow NB member.

While not a bad concept, the devil will be in the details and any vagueness or sloppiness in drafting could lead to no end of mischief.

As it is, our senior leadership is subject to literally dozens of IG complaints each year by disgruntled members.  Some are clearly frivolous, some appear to have merit.  It is hard to sort the wheat from the chaff, but that is exactly what we have a professional IG staff to do.  In the meantime, a significant percentage of our senior leaders' time is spent responding to IG and other complaints.  Time that could otherwise be spent on CAP business.

In most recall procedures in local governments, there is no requirement for any "reality check" of the complaint - as long as a certain number of signatures are attached, it goes on the ballot.  This has led to abuses in the past.

Once again, all of this is good input and definitely worth serious consideration as we look to rework our governance.

[lordmonar]

Maybe I've just spent too much time in the military.

No one ever asked directly my opinion of any of my commanders or supervisors.

We periodicaly had "climate surveys" where you could give feed back on your leaders.....but no one ever asked me....."we are thinking of putting Cols X, Y, Z in command of the squadron/group/wing....and would like comments from the field".

I think CAP has enough problems with just plain GOB politics........making our leadership positions all political would make the situaiton even worse....YMMV.

[Cherokeepilot]

Gentlemen..........
I'm not stating that Commander slots are a popularity contest.  However, CAP will have to develop a means of representing the dues paying members.  I've seen other Congressional Chartered Corporations which were slapped up the side of their heads and compelled to provide for their dues paying members by courts and Congressional committees. 

At present there is no one in either the charter of CAP nor the national corporate structure who represents the basic dues paying member.  CAP will have to figure it out or the structure along with the money machine from Congress will be changed.  And that change may or may not be beneficial to CAP and/or CAP Membership.

73s

[Ned]

Gentlemen..........
I'm not stating that Commander slots are a popularity contest.  However, CAP will have to develop a means of representing the dues paying members.  I've seen other Congressional Chartered Corporations which were slapped up the side of their heads and compelled to provide for their dues paying members by courts and Congressional committees. 

At present there is no one in either the charter of CAP nor the national corporate structure who represents the basic dues paying member.  CAP will have to figure it out or the structure along with the money machine from Congress will be changed.  And that change may or may not be beneficial to CAP and/or CAP Membership.

73s

May I gently repeat my request to help me understand by what you mean by "represent the members?"

Also,  I am genuinely interested in specifically which organizations you are refering to when you mentioned actions/investigations by Congress and the Courts.  I have been doing quite a bit of research into other Congressionally chartered corporations, and have not come across any litigation or records of Congressional hearings.  I would really, really like to find documents and reports related to this.

Ned Lee

[davidsinn]

May I gently repeat my request to help me understand by what you mean by "represent the members?"

I can only speak for myself when I say that the members, the actual boots on the ground, doing the job, paying money, giving time, members; Have little to no say in where the organization as a whole is headed. I know that I'm about fed up with the administrative BS that keeps getting shoved down our throats(annual reports that no one reads, Intro to safety that everyone needs to take, all the safety stand down crap) when all I want to do is make sure my unit works. Do we really need to spend $2m a year on new aircraft(why not refurb older ones?) when we have cadets that can't afford uniforms? This organization would be nothing without the 60k members doing the job everyday yet we have no say in how policy is set. I don't think we should elect our commanders at any level. I do think that the NB should instead be elected by the membership and they elect the Nat/CC who appoints the region CCs who appoint the wing CCs etc.

[Major Carrales]

Ned,

I suggest establishment of a "recall", which would allow some pre-determined ratio of voting members to remove a Corporate Officer. The other option would be a simple petition, but I think that would be problematic.

Major Lord

Can't agree...The whole thing would be problematic.  What body oversees the "recall?"  What stops vexatious types from calling for a "recall" for any reason?  What happens when a "recall" is successful?  If recalls, why not a "referendum" on unpopular regulations or "nullification" of regulations where Wings feel the regs "don't represent the membership?"

I can't understand what compels many here to try to add element to CAP that distract from the missions.  These ideas of elections and recalls and all the rest of these idea will create many more problems that I believe they will solve.

[Major Lord]

The beauty of a recall ballot ( and yes Ned, you understood correctly that I meant the general membership in the "jurisdiction") is that it first needs to be qualified by a petition of sufficient numbers to qualify. This would take quite a bit of time, and prevent rash action. It would also serve to provide notice to our National body as a de facto vote of "No confidence" and might get them to clean up their messes without having to go through the entire recall process. (note, see Pineda, Antony) As Ned also pointed out, it would be tricky to administer and operate, and the administration with control would have to be outside the jurisdiction where they would be subject to political retaliation ( See Glassgow, Rex) I suggest that only members in good standing would have the authority to initiate a recall petition, to avoid vexatious litigants. (see, Hayden, Ray) It could get ugly, but are we afraid to do the right thing because its too difficult? ( see, why did I have to ask that question?)

Major Lord

[bosshawk]

Major Lord: why do you insist on asking those retorical questions?

Previous poster: who do you think makes up the NB?  In my vague recollections, it is made up of the
Wing Commanders and Region Commanders.  They are, by and large, the major problem in this organization.  Someone will ask me to define "major problem".  Don't bother, because I won't define it.

[Major Lord]

Major Lord: why do you insist on asking those retorical questions?

Previous poster: who do you think makes up the NB?  In my vague recollections, it is made up of the
Wing Commanders and Region Commanders.  They are, by and large, the major problem in this organization.  Someone will ask me to define "major problem".  Don't bother, because I won't define it.

Dude! You asked me a rhetorical question! That's the cool thing about Irony; Its just so darn ironical!

Major Lord

[JeffDG]

Major Lord: why do you insist on asking those retorical questions?

Previous poster: who do you think makes up the NB?  In my vague recollections, it is made up of the
Wing Commanders and Region Commanders.  They are, by and large, the major problem in this organization.  Someone will ask me to define "major problem".  Don't bother, because I won't define it.

In the other thread I linked, I've asked the question:  Why does the NB have to be made up of Wing Commanders?  Nobody has yet given a reason for that.

IMHO, the NB could easily be translated into a an elected policy-making body for the volunteer side of the organization, with the BoG sitting over both them and the paid side.  Each Wing would select an NB member, separate and apart from their Wing Commander (in fact, I think prohibiting Wing Commander's election to the NB would be in order).  Ultimately, the NB would select the CAP/CC and CAP/CV, and the remainder of the Chain of Command would work as present, with CAP/CC appointing Region/CCs and Region CCs appointing Wing/CCs.

Wing and Region Commanders wold still be "Corporate Officers" and direct the day-to-day operations of the organization, much like corporate VPs run things day-to-day in most companies.  Companies don't insist on a Board of Directors consisting of Corporate VPs.  Policy setting should be separated from day-to-day ops.

[Persona non grata]

So we would end up having an executive body and a legislative body??   Yeah, I have seen how that one turned out before.

[JeffDG]

So we would end up having an executive body and a legislative body??   Yeah, I have seen how that one turned out before.

No, you would have a policy making body, accountable to the members of the organization, and then you would have people who run the day-to-day operations...it's how 99% of organizations operate.

Businesses have a Board of Directors, accountable to the shareholders of the company, that sets policy.  That Board selects the CEO and sometimes a few others.  Then the CEO selects the remainder of the executive team, etc.  The Board doesn't say to the CEO "You need to do this project!".  They say "Here are our priorities for the organization, now go make it happen."

[Major Carrales]

The beauty of a recall ballot ( and yes Ned, you understood correctly that I meant the general membership in the "jurisdiction") is that it first needs to be qualified by a petition of sufficient numbers to qualify. This would take quite a bit of time, and prevent rash action. It would also serve to provide notice to our National body as a de facto vote of "No confidence" and might get them to clean up their messes without having to go through the entire recall process. (note, see Pineda, Antony) As Ned also pointed out, it would be tricky to administer and operate, and the administration with control would have to be outside the jurisdiction where they would be subject to political retaliation ( See Glassgow, Rex) I suggest that only members in good standing would have the authority to initiate a recall petition, to avoid vexatious litigants. (see, Hayden, Ray) It could get ugly, but are we afraid to do the right thing because its too difficult? ( see, why did I have to ask that question?)

Major Lord

During the so-called "Pineda Affair," the only member of my unit who knew anything of what was going on was me, via CAPTALK and CAPBLOG.  No one else in my unit knew anything about it, nor cared.  Simply put, only the CAP "busy-bodies" (myself included) were in the know. 

Most "squadron level" people are concerned with getting their job done, maintaining the aircraft, mentoring cadets and maintaining those relationship that keep the unit in the facility.  The goings on in distance Wing and Regions and, even at Maxwell, were not of any priority.

How would these "recalls," "referendums" and "no confidence votes" come to matter to people?  I think it would be seen as I see it...political machinations.  I would not waste precious meeting time going over "rumor mills" and filling in unit members of the "agenda of the week."


Other questions:
What is a "member in good standing?" 

What "outside" agency is going to run and monitor these recalls?  (Committees of vigilance, CAP Gestapo, a "shadow" organization within CAP answerable to no one?)

It would be more than "ugly" it would be "putting the cart before the horse."  Ours is to do the work of out missions...not have to spend energy and resources furthering agenda after agenda.

I am glad none of this will come to pass.  And if it does, I will be there to say "I told you so" as people begin the next round of "HOW DO WE FIX THE FIXES!"

[Eclipse]

During the so-called "Pineda Affair," the only member of my unit who knew anything of what was going on was me, via CAPTALK and CAPBLOG.  No one else in my unit knew anything about it, nor cared.  Simply put, only the CAP "busy-bodies" (myself included) were in the know. 

Ditto.

Sadly the same can be said for our elected civil officials, with the electorate being so ill-informed that the order of names on the ballot can sometimes influence the outcome.

[Major Carrales]

During the so-called "Pineda Affair," the only member of my unit who knew anything of what was going on was me, via CAPTALK and CAPBLOG.  No one else in my unit knew anything about it, nor cared.  Simply put, only the CAP "busy-bodies" (myself included) were in the know. 

Ditto.

Sadly the same can be said for our elected civil officials, with the electorate being so ill-informed that the order of names on the ballot can sometimes influence the outcome.

Then you understand that what I am trying to say is that the ordinary CAP officer, those that go to meetings to take squadron staff positions, operate the aircraft, monitor/mentor the cadets and are there for the mission; cares little nor even knows about intrigues that go on at National...even those "big things" like changing out a National Commander.

Honestly, we just changed the photo on the wall and went on preparing for the next SARex.  Most people didn't even know, more precise to say didn't care, who the National Commander was other than a photo on the all an signature on documents. 

If most of us stayed dedicated to our jobs in our unit and stayed away from the political infighting that emerges from time to time (a main reason why I do not support these elections process, recalls, no confidence votes and other such that will turn CAP into a chaotic mess) we could, instead, further the missions we ACTUALLY DO HAVE.

[FW]

During the so-called "Pineda Affair," the only member of my unit who knew anything of what was going on was me, via CAPTALK and CAPBLOG.  No one else in my unit knew anything about it, nor cared.  Simply put, only the CAP "busy-bodies" (myself included) were in the know. 

Ditto.

Sadly the same can be said for our elected civil officials, with the electorate being so ill-informed that the order of names on the ballot can sometimes influence the outcome.

I agree. For the most part, politics at the national level belong to those most effected.  However, no matter how dedicated the general membership is to our missions, they must have some connection with more than "just the job". We all know most members stay in CAP when they feel their time is spent productively.  They also say they want to know their opinions are heard.  Almost all tell me, they are most satisfied when they feel accepted and a total part of the team.  This is true at all levels of CAP and, these "needs" should be addressed.

That being said, our governance model is most probably going to change in the not so distant future.  I think, no matter how we end up choosing our leadership, the general membership will need or, at least offered, to be part of the process. 

[MSG Mac]

So who are the applicants for the Florida Wing Command? Don't answer if the only name you know is the one you're protesting.

[BillB]

There is no confirmation on ANY candidates names. Wing has made no accouncements. All we hear are rumors. The entire procedure is closed to members view

[SARJunkie]

Mike Cook
Brent Cox
Scott Martin
Art Giles

There are a few more.  but i know these are confirmed...

[Ned]

One of the reasons supporting non-publicizing of applicants is that it may encourage more applicants; and a wider variety of applicants at that.

Sometimes a "long-shot" group commander applicant may not want her/his boss to know that they are applying, in case it doesn't work out.  Sometimes an "heir apparent" applicant may improperly apply pressure to other applicants to drop out of the process.  Sometimes applicants improperly spin and selectively release information about other applicants.  Sometimes applicants deliberately start rumor and whispering campaigns against other applicants.  They might even use places like CAPTalk to do such things in an effort to influence the selection process improperly. 

There are counter-arguments as well, of course.  But there are at least some good reasons to have a low profile application process.

Ned Lee

[SARJunkie]

what are they going to do?  2B me?

The application period is closed anyway...

[Thom]

Sometimes I wonder what life is like in these other Wings...

The last time we had a vacancy we had exactly two applicants...and one withdrew immediately upon finding out that the other candidate, who no one believed wanted the hassle of the job, had relented and applied. So, we had one person who succumbed to pressure from his peers and applied (and eventually got the job), and another who had only applied because he believed the desired candidate wouldn't take the job, and then stepped back once that happened. That 2nd candidate didn't really want the job either, but believed it would be bad form for the Wing to not send a single nomination to NHQ.

No fuss, no drama, the Wing staff and Group and Squadron Commanders would have been thrilled with either candidate, frankly. Oh, and the new CC didn't make any changes to the existing Wing Staff, except to fill his own vacated position.

How do the rest of you manage to get any work done with all this politicking?


Thom

[SARJunkie]

Most of the Wing Staff has quit or gone quiet.  Hopefully the 'good guys' will win the Wing Commander battle, and bring the Wing back to were it should be.

[Capination]

For what i've read this is common on most wings. No matter who is selected for the position, there will always be a group that disagree with the selectee's leadership style. I've been up in the Wing Staff, worked a lot, and helped a lot. I've been down at operations level, worked a lot and helped a lot. After all these years, my experience tells me that there is nothing better than working in a SAR or CD mission and do it professionaly, put in your grain of sand and return home without playing the politics game.