Squadron CC assigned to other duty positions.

[Shotgun]

Recently, I've run across a practice that I'm personally having difficulty reconciling. I'm hoping to get some additional views on the matter to either validate or change my current opinion.

In the past year and a half I've been involved with various units where the unit CC also officially holds another duty position within that unit.
For example, a Squadron Commander is also assigned the duty position of Transportation Officer.

My thinking is that a Squadron Commander should NOT hold any other position within that unit.

Here's my reasoning.

Having a CC serve in another position would lead to some conflicts in the chain of command and make for an interesting Organization Chart.
How can a Squadron Commander report to himself? Or even worse, report to someone who then reports back to him as the CC?
(Example - Squadron CC serving as Transportation Officer would report to Logistics Officer who then reports back to the Squadron CC.)

The person serving as CC is ultimately responsible for making sure that the duties and responsibilities of that position are fulfilled. And in most cases would actually perform those duties. But actually assigning himself to that position may discourage or deny another person the opportunity to take on that role or be forced to serve in the Assistant capacity.

I have no qualms with a Squadron CC serving in another position at a different echelon (ie Squadron CC serving as Assistant Director of Cadet Program at the wing level). I also have no issue with a person holding more than one duty position.
But for some reason I have issues with a Commander being officially being assigned to another position within his/her unit.

As the unit commander he/she should be looking for a way to get any open position filled.

I know that there is no official regulation prohibiting such a practice with the exception of Finance and Safety, but I don't think many members think about the implications of the practice.

Thoughts?  Other opinions? Has anyone else run across this?  Am I silly to think this is an issue, and it's not really that big of deal?

[lordmonar]

A.  By default....a squadron CC IS all those other positions.   Ultimately he is responsible for them.
B.  How can their be a chain of command issue?  The CC is top dog.....an assistant trans officer works for the trans officer, who works for the DCS who works for the CC.   
C.  Practical consideration, E-service releases restricted application by duty position.....and interestingly some of those applications are not released to the CC.   So the only way to get access to them is to be assigned to the duty position.
D.  Practical consideration 2,  a notional squadron has something like 10+ major jobs (Logistics, Transportation, Cadet Programs, ES, Personnel, Finance, Safety, Professional Development, Public Affairs, etc).  And yet the average size for most squadrons is only 20 people.  We all know that at least 1/3 of them empty shirts of one sort or another.  The jobs have to get done and someone has to do it.   Maybe the CC is the round peg for the round hole.

Yes....a squadron commander should be looking to man, train and equip his squadron to perform assigned missions......but what do you do when you don't have the manning or training to fill the position?   Leave it empty......in which case it is the commander who has to do the job anyways.

[Eclipse]

I personally believe that a commander at any echelon should be restricted from any other duty position, regardless of echelon.

Unit CC is a full-time CAP job, not to mention the circular reporting relationships which are created when they have postings at multiple levels.

Sadly, between improper manning and CAP tradition, this isn't likely to stop any time soon.

There's also the "CAP law of unintended consequences".  For years the official rule was "In absence of an appointment, the unit CC
is responsible for the respective duty."  The increasing number of "unfunded personnel mandates" has lead to the practice
of triple-booking just to check the box on an SUI, etc.

[Storm Chaser]

I agree than in an ideal world, the commander should not have other positions within the squadron. Unfortunately, because many units are not adequately manned, the commander ends up assuming additional duties. This could be because of the requirement in certain regulations that an officer be appointed in writing or because of the statement in CAPR 20-1 that "in smaller units, one person may fill more than one position; however, someone should be responsible for each task outlined in each position description so the entire unit is aware of who is responsible for which duties." The only way to correct this issue, as Eclipse always says, is to recruit more members.

[JeffDG]

It's actually required by some regulations.

For example:

c. In the absence of an assigned PAO, the unit commander is responsible for the duties of the PAO. If the unit commander acts as the unit's PAO for 6 months, he/she will be assigned as the PAO according to current personnel procedures in CAPR 35-1 and is encouraged to enroll in the Public Affairs Officer specialty track.

Many other regulations require the appointment of an officer for the job (Communications & Supply for example), so if the commander doesn't appoint someone, then he should appoint himself.

[Private Investigator]

Thoughts?  Other opinions? Has anyone else run across this?  Am I silly to think this is an issue, and it's not really that big of deal?

Yes, yes, yes, yes and maybe.

Look at this. A new person been in the Squadron a year and has earned a Tech rating in Logistics as the Squadron Supply Officer. He ends up the Squadron Commander for four years. So for the next four years he can not advance in the Logistics or any other speciality track? (the Command track is rather new)

Or how about going from Squadron Commander to Group Deputy Commander to Group Commander, 12 years in Command and just a working knowledge of the other speciality tracks? Looks great on the resume for Wing Commander   

[Private Investigator]

It's actually required by some regulations.

For example:

c. In the absence of an assigned PAO, the unit commander is responsible for the duties of the PAO. If the unit commander acts as the unit's PAO for 6 months, he/she will be assigned as the PAO according to current personnel procedures in CAPR 35-1 and is encouraged to enroll in the Public Affairs Officer specialty track.

Many other regulations require the appointment of an officer for the job (Communications & Supply for example), so if the commander doesn't appoint someone, then he should appoint himself.

Exactly. It took me 2 years to find a PAO but it was an interested staff job. Actually nobody wanted it until I was on TV and in the newspaper, three times.   

[RiverAux]

I don't think there are many squadron commanders out there who wouldn't be thrilled to turn over one of these additional duties if they could find someone willing to take it.

I do think that we're approaching the point, if we haven't already passed it, where more folks are going to avoid wanting to be squadron commander because they know for a fact that it will come along with the duties of several other positions that should be full-time jobs. 

Now, we all know that there are CAP jobs and then there are REAL CAP jobs.  The REAL ones are those that involve a substantial amount of work outside of CAP meeting nights.  Unfortunately, CAP has become so complex that the number of REAL jobs has been increasing at the same time that our membership has been basically static. 

There are only two solutions to this issue:

1.  Reduce the number of REAL jobs that we expect squadrons to perform.  Push some of this stuff up the chain of command so that the squadrons can focus on their primary activities. 
2. Recruit more people.

While I think #2 is certainly feasible and we all know stories of squadrons that went from 15 to 40 almost overnight when they got a real hard charger heading up recruiting activities, but it isn't the norm.  Most squadrons are either stable or very slowly increasing or decreasing. 

So, #1 seems the best option. 

As to what jobs should be taken away from the squadron I'm pretty open to ideas. 

[ZigZag911]

All of which leads back to the reality that many CAP squadrons are insufficiently staffed to function as true squadrons...often because of limits caused by small local population size and related demographic issues, such as economics.

Given that an AF squadron is a unit comparable to an Army or Marine battalion (all three are lieutenant colonel's commands, Army & Marines at least have subordinate reporting units), perhaps the local level CAP unit should be a flight rather than a squadron...focused on training, response to community needs, more "tactical" in nature...administrative requirements should be addressed at a centralized, geographically regional echelon, designated either a squadron or group.

This would take a lot of the paper pushing details off the local, community uit commander's back.

[Eclipse]

All of which leads back to the reality that many CAP squadrons are insufficiently staffed to function as true squadrons...often because of limits caused by small local population size and related demographic issues, such as economics.

I agree with the former but not the latter.

If that's truly the case then the unit doesn't belong there, otherwise, the only reason units are undermanned is the lack of command imperative to do meaningful recruiting.

[Shotgun]

Thoughts?  Other opinions? Has anyone else run across this?  Am I silly to think this is an issue, and it's not really that big of deal?

Look at this. A new person been in the Squadron a year and has earned a Tech rating in Logistics as the Squadron Supply Officer. He ends up the Squadron Commander for four years. So for the next four years he can not advance in the Logistics or any other speciality track? (the Command track is rather new)

Or how about going from Squadron Commander to Group Deputy Commander to Group Commander, 12 years in Command and just a working knowledge of the other speciality tracks? Looks great on the resume for Wing Commander   

As a former Squadron Commander the "working knowledge" i gained was of great benefit to making a better leader. Having to review the requirements of each specialty track and making sure all the members meet the qualifications definitely gave me a level of knowledge and experience I would have never gotten without being a commander.

During the time I was a Squadron commander I did not have anyone for Personnel Officer. The position was vacant for nearly two years, but as CC I assumed the responsibilities. During an SUI the inspector (who was also the Wing Commander) suggested I enroll in the Personnel specialty track. By the time I resigned and moved up to wing staff I had met the requirement for a tech rating.  I served as personnel officer, but was never assigned to the position. It was officially labeled as "OPEN" on our org chart.

In addition, a person who moves from Squadron Commander to Group Deputy Commander, to Group Commander would still be able to advance in grade via a Special Appointment promotion - whether they advanced in a specialty track or not.

[Eclipse]

Why can't you earn a specialty track while you're a CC?

If anything, PD is important as an example - if the unit CC doesn't care about PD, why should the members?

[Shotgun]

Just to clarify my position on the matter -

My opinion is that a unit CC should not be officially assigned to a another duty position within the same unit. That doesn't preclude him form serving in the position if it is vacant.

As commander they would be responsible for the duties of the open position and serve as the acting *insert duty position* officer without being actually assigned to that position.

Another (extreme) example - Deputy Commander for Cadets steps down and no senior member is willing or able to take over.
Can the Squadron Commander be his own Deputy?  No, but he can certainly step up and take on the responsibilities until one can be found.

[RiverAux]

perhaps the local level CAP unit should be a flight rather than a squadron...focused on training, response to community needs, more "tactical" in nature...administrative requirements should be addressed at a centralized, geographically regional echelon, designated either a squadron or group.

I think we're on the same page as far as what we think should be done, but I don't think what we call the unit has anything to do with it.  Its the same group of people either way.  In comparison to the AF, a CAP unit is no more a "flight" than it is a "squadron".  I don't see any reason to change the name -- change the responsibilities. 

[Al Sayre]

If you're the Squadron CC AND doing all the functions of another staff position you should put yourself in the specialty track and get credit for the work you do.  As others have said, ideally you wouldn't need to take on multiple functions, but you should get the credit where credit is due. 

You also may find that as a commander it's advantageous to assign yourself as assistant x,y,z officer so you can do things in eServices, OpsQuals, and ORMS that only have dynamically assigned permissions, or else you may find yourself scrambling when nobody else is around to enter the van usage report, issue or accept a radio etc.

[Shotgun]

If you're the Squadron CC AND doing all the functions of another staff position you should put yourself in the specialty track and get credit for the work you do.  As others have said, ideally you wouldn't need to take on multiple functions, but you should get the credit where credit is due. 

You also may find that as a commander it's advantageous to assign yourself as assistant x,y,z officer so you can do things in eServices, OpsQuals, and ORMS that only have dynamically assigned permissions, or else you may find yourself scrambling when nobody else is around to enter the van usage report, issue or accept a radio etc.

Hey Al! Long time no (virtually) see ....  er chat....  How are things down South?

Doesn't the CC get the needed eServices permissions when they are appointed as commander?
Unless things have changed, in the last year or two I thought CC got OpsQuals, and ORMS,  Safety, etc. in eServices?

[ol'fido]

1. Having been in units with limited senior personnel, I can say that everyone will probably be wearing multiple hats. Should the commander be one of those with multiple hats? I am not going to tell someone that they have to fill x-number of staff positions, but since I am the commander, that is all I will be doing. I realize that command involves a lot of work, but I also don't believe in asking someone else to do what I am not willing to.

2. I have also seen units where although there may be several seniors on the rolls, there are one or two who show up to do the work. We can say that there needs to be recruitment or there needs to be conversations with the inactive seniors. WELL, DUH! That's all well and good but until you can convince the inactives to become active or get the recruits up to speed and trained, those one or two will be doing all the work. "Hey, I am the commander and you, you're the other 25 staff officers we need." I don't see that happening unless instead of two or three, you just want to have a one man band command staff.

3. Where it is feasible, change the charter from composite to cadet squadron. Less staff positions to fill and less that is inspected. Our wing commander made this suggestion at the last commander's call.

[jimmydeanno]

perhaps the local level CAP unit should be a flight rather than a squadron...focused on training, response to community needs, more "tactical" in nature...administrative requirements should be addressed at a centralized, geographically regional echelon, designated either a squadron or group.

I think we're on the same page as far as what we think should be done, but I don't think what we call the unit has anything to do with it.  Its the same group of people either way.  In comparison to the AF, a CAP unit is no more a "flight" than it is a "squadron".  I don't see any reason to change the name -- change the responsibilities.

The title, in this place, I think is just a differentiation using familiar terminology. 

I think it is really a good idea, regardless of what you call the local unit.  Our requirements to be a "Squadron" are pretty low, and I'm not sure that you can even fill the majority of the staff positions with the minimum number of volunteers required to be one.  What centralization would require is a look at the absolutely essential functions at a local unit - the ones that need someone there to do, and the rest get pushed up to a centralized squadron.

At this point, most of our units would be flights, with a flight commander and say 10 seniors who do the mission, whether it be running a cadet program or whatever.  The flight reports to a Squadron, which could be a local unit that is significantly larger in size and capable of handling the majority of the administrative positions, or something similar to our current "Group" that is a more nebulous entity and doesn't perform the actual mission, but rather facilitates it.

So, the two models could be:

1) Squadron One:  Lt Col Squadron Commander has 85 senior members at a large unit in an urban center.  Within an hour's drive there are three different flights with 8 senior members each.  Each flight has a Captain Flight Commander and the remaining seniors are in essential positions matched to the mission of the flight (senior/cadet/composite, whatever).  The flights communicate their needs, events, etc., to the squadron's administrative staff (transportation maintenance, mileage, PAO, etc.,).

2) Squadron Two: Lt Col Squadron Commander has 25 senior members assigned to the Squadron Headquarters Staff in a geographical area without a large urban center.  There are 10 flights under the Squadron Commander.  These seniors facilitate the administrative needs of the flights below them.

Then the rest of the model changes a little, too.  If you want to operate on Geographical boundaries, areas like RIWG, become a group under a Wing that might comprise RI, CT, and MA. 

As for reporting, we could go to an activity reporting model, so that a single person could just enter some data into an e-services module after an activity and it would propagate to the respective officer at the squadron.  Once a month, a different report does the stuff like van mileage, upcoming events, etc.

I think it could work with some more detail, but it would require that CAP shift its model a little.

[jimmydeanno]

You also may find that as a commander it's advantageous to assign yourself as assistant x,y,z officer so you can do things in eServices, OpsQuals, and ORMS that only have dynamically assigned permissions, or else you may find yourself scrambling when nobody else is around to enter the van usage report, issue or accept a radio etc.

Maybe it's changed since I used the feature, but can't you just find a WSA and have them assign you the appropriate modules?  WIWACC, I had to enter some data here and there when a particular officer was on vacation or something, so I had the WSA assign the module.  I didn't need to sign myself up for 20 different specialty tracks when I was just using the module sporadically for some inputs or to get some of the reporting functions.

[Eclipse]

3. Where it is feasible, change the charter from composite to cadet squadron. Less staff positions to fill and less that is inspected. Our wing commander made this suggestion at the last commander's call.

That's essentially admitting defeat and giving up.

How about instead of allowing a failed squadron to continue to fail, make changes and fix the manning?

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Then the rest of the model changes a little, too.  If you want to operate on Geographical boundaries, areas like RIWG, become a group under a Wing that might comprise RI, CT, and MA. 

Using RI as a unit of measure again!?

"RIWG, if we weren't a state, we'd be a group." If it would fit on a wing patch...

[RiverAux]

I don't think I'm on board with the idea of having squadrons provide administrative oversight for "flights" in other areas.  I just haven't seen that work well in practice with in CAP or the equivalent situation in CG Aux.  A free-standing squadron's incentives are to be taking care of their own folks and members scattered hundreds of miles away are going to be a low priority. 

I think that whatever administrative functions can be pushed up to Group or Wing level should be pushed up that high whether your squadron has 15 members or 50, but with there being an option for squadrons to do some of them IF they have the members willing to do it.  However, that would be the exception, not the rule. 

Heck, this might even be a great job for the "ghost" squadrons, officially known as "Headquarters Squadrons" in many Wings.  Actually staff them up with real people whose only purpose is to provide administrative support for undermanned squadrons. 

[lordmonar]

Why can't you earn a specialty track while you're a CC?

If anything, PD is important as an example - if the unit CC doesn't care about PD, why should the members?

If you are not assigned to the duty position you don't get credit for doing your staff duty time.    Erego.....if you buy into the OP's suggestion that CC's should not be assigned to any other duty positions the only PD track you can progress in is the Command Track.

[lordmonar]

Just to clarify my position on the matter -

My opinion is that a unit CC should not be officially assigned to a another duty position within the same unit. That doesn't preclude him form serving in the position if it is vacant.

As commander they would be responsible for the duties of the open position and serve as the acting *insert duty position* officer without being actually assigned to that position.

Another (extreme) example - Deputy Commander for Cadets steps down and no senior member is willing or able to take over.
Can the Squadron Commander be his own Deputy?  No, but he can certainly step up and take on the responsibilities until one can be found.

So.....they can do the job.....in fact they have to do the job......just can't get credit for it.   Also he can't use E-services to track who in-fact is doing what job in his squadron.....just a bunch of holes.

This is really a solution looking for a problem.

If a commander can't be his own deputy.....then he needs to up his schizophrenia meds. 
If there is anyone willing/able to take the job.....I don't see any CC who would not jump at the chance to take off another hat.
Renaming squadrons.....as flights will do nothing.....the job still needs to be done.
Maybe....removing the "need" to do the job would be helpful......but CAP empire builders won't let that happen.

[jimmydeanno]

Then the rest of the model changes a little, too.  If you want to operate on Geographical boundaries, areas like RIWG, become a group under a Wing that might comprise RI, CT, and MA. 

Using RI as a unit of measure again!?

"RIWG, if we weren't a state, we'd be a group." If it would fit on a wing patch...

No disrespect intended.  I only use it because I was born there. 

[SarDragon]

Just to clarify my position on the matter -

My opinion is that a unit CC should not be officially assigned to a another duty position within the same unit. That doesn't preclude him form serving in the position if it is vacant.

As stated above:

C.  Practical consideration, E-service releases restricted application by duty position.....and interestingly some of those applications are not released to the CC.   So the only way to get access to them is to be assigned to the duty position.

If someone is doing the job, they need to be able to access the tools.

[AirDX]

Maybe it's changed since I used the feature, but can't you just find a WSA and have them assign you the appropriate modules?  WIWACC, I had to enter some data here and there when a particular officer was on vacation or something, so I had the WSA assign the module.  I didn't need to sign myself up for 20 different specialty tracks when I was just using the module sporadically for some inputs or to get some of the reporting functions.

That's how it should work but it doesn't.  Within the last week or so, the wing commander assigned me every last permission he could give in e-services.  Still, to get to one function I and a couple of others need in ORMS, the only way we could get it to light up is assigning us as assistance directors of logistics.  Same thing seems to happen in WMIRS, which is why I'm also an assistant director of operations, as least as in e-services.

[AirDX]

I don't think I'm on board with the idea of having squadrons provide administrative oversight for "flights" in other areas.  I just haven't seen that work well in practice with in CAP or the equivalent situation in CG Aux.  A free-standing squadron's incentives are to be taking care of their own folks and members scattered hundreds of miles away are going to be a low priority. 

I think that whatever administrative functions can be pushed up to Group or Wing level should be pushed up that high whether your squadron has 15 members or 50, but with there being an option for squadrons to do some of them IF they have the members willing to do it.  However, that would be the exception, not the rule. 

Heck, this might even be a great job for the "ghost" squadrons, officially known as "Headquarters Squadrons" in many Wings.  Actually staff them up with real people whose only purpose is to provide administrative support for undermanned squadrons.

You're assuming the wing is laden with people sitting on their thumbs with nothing to do.  I'm groping to fill positions at wing level with qualified people.  We have empty billets and people wearing multiple hats here too.  Some of them hold wing staff positions, and are unit commanders, besides.  That's just wrong.  That's one of the first things I'm working on, cutting unit CCs loose to just be CCs.

The problem becomes, where do you get good people from to fill wing positions?  Answer: steal them from squadrons.  But that sucks from the squadron perspective.  So what do we do?  Recruit and bring more people in from the bottom is the only answer.     

[Al Sayre]

If you're the Squadron CC AND doing all the functions of another staff position you should put yourself in the specialty track and get credit for the work you do.  As others have said, ideally you wouldn't need to take on multiple functions, but you should get the credit where credit is due. 

You also may find that as a commander it's advantageous to assign yourself as assistant x,y,z officer so you can do things in eServices, OpsQuals, and ORMS that only have dynamically assigned permissions, or else you may find yourself scrambling when nobody else is around to enter the van usage report, issue or accept a radio etc.

Hey Al! Long time no (virtually) see ....  er chat....  How are things down South?

Doesn't the CC get the needed eServices permissions when they are appointed as commander?
Unless things have changed, in the last year or two I thought CC got OpsQuals, and ORMS,  Safety, etc. in eServices?

Hi Paul, all is going pretty well - looks like we dodged a bullet with TS Karen.  Mal is the WG/CC now, keeping us all busy...

As CC, you get a lot of permissions, but some permissions are only dynamically assigned, ie. you have to be in a specific duty assignment to get them, I'm a Wing CS & WSA, and even I can't assign those permissions to anyone (including myself).  Off the top of my head, there are some in Ops Quals, ORMS, WIMRS, and the new Certificates module.  See the news brief on the certificates module in eServices.

[RiverAux]

I don't think I'm on board with the idea of having squadrons provide administrative oversight for "flights" in other areas.  I just haven't seen that work well in practice with in CAP or the equivalent situation in CG Aux.  A free-standing squadron's incentives are to be taking care of their own folks and members scattered hundreds of miles away are going to be a low priority. 

I think that whatever administrative functions can be pushed up to Group or Wing level should be pushed up that high whether your squadron has 15 members or 50, but with there being an option for squadrons to do some of them IF they have the members willing to do it.  However, that would be the exception, not the rule. 

Heck, this might even be a great job for the "ghost" squadrons, officially known as "Headquarters Squadrons" in many Wings.  Actually staff them up with real people whose only purpose is to provide administrative support for undermanned squadrons.

You're assuming the wing is laden with people sitting on their thumbs with nothing to do.  I'm groping to fill positions at wing level with qualified people.  We have empty billets and people wearing multiple hats here too.  Some of them hold wing staff positions, and are unit commanders, besides.  That's just wrong.  That's one of the first things I'm working on, cutting unit CCs loose to just be CCs.

The problem becomes, where do you get good people from to fill wing positions?  Answer: steal them from squadrons.  But that sucks from the squadron perspective.  So what do we do?  Recruit and bring more people in from the bottom is the only answer.     

You've got a much better chance of finding someone to do it if your talent pool consists of the entire wing than you do if it is your 15-person squadron that has most likely already failed to find someone to do it. 

Depending on exactly which positions were "up-sourced" (TM pending) to Group or Wing, we might only be talking about finding 5-10 people.  That seems do-able. 

[ol'fido]

3. Where it is feasible, change the charter from composite to cadet squadron. Less staff positions to fill and less that is inspected. Our wing commander made this suggestion at the last commander's call.

That's essentially admitting defeat and giving up.

How about instead of allowing a failed squadron to continue to fail, make changes and fix the manning?

See #2.

[Eclipse]

See #2.

2. I have also seen units where although there may be several seniors on the rolls, there are one or two who show up to do the work. We can say that there needs to be recruitment or there needs to be conversations with the inactive seniors. WELL, DUH! That's all well and good but until you can convince the inactives to become active or get the recruits up to speed and trained, those one or two will be doing all the work. "Hey, I am the commander and you, you're the other 25 staff officers we need." I don't see that happening unless instead of two or three, you just want to have a one man band command staff.

The you do an ALL STOP and concentrate on recruiting and basic CAP training until you have the number to accomplish the mission.
6 months of nothing but recruiting every weekend, and processing and training the FNGs.  The entire unit is focused, no one is over worked,
and when you're done, you have the ability to get real work done.

Also, "convincing the inactives" is a waste of time.  If they were truly interested they'd already be around.  Sure, send them a
note, but the ROI on that is going to be close to zero.  If anything, you're better off waiting until your 6 month Kaizon is done
and then you can sell the inactives a new situation from the one they had where the quit in the first place.

[lordmonar]

You don't stop the mission to recruit and train.

You do the mission to the best of your abilities AND recruit and train.

[Майор Хаткевич]

You don't stop the mission to recruit and train.

You do the mission to the best of your abilities AND recruit and train.

What mission? Some of these units struggle to open a meeting.

[Eclipse]

You don't stop the mission to recruit and train.

Of course you do, happens all the time in business and the military.  Commands routinely
stand down because of safety issues, and companies reorganize and retool.

You do the mission to the best of your abilities AND recruit and train.

Sounds good on paper, doesn't work in reality.  The above is what most failing, undermanned units are doing today,
and accomplishing neither.

Also this.

What mission? Some of these units struggle to open a meeting.

[Private Investigator]

Thoughts?  Other opinions? Has anyone else run across this?  Am I silly to think this is an issue, and it's not really that big of deal?

Look at this. A new person been in the Squadron a year and has earned a Tech rating in Logistics as the Squadron Supply Officer. He ends up the Squadron Commander for four years. So for the next four years he can not advance in the Logistics or any other speciality track? (the Command track is rather new)

Or how about going from Squadron Commander to Group Deputy Commander to Group Commander, 12 years in Command and just a working knowledge of the other speciality tracks? Looks great on the resume for Wing Commander   

As a former Squadron Commander the "working knowledge" i gained was of great benefit to making a better leader. Having to review the requirements of each specialty track and making sure all the members meet the qualifications definitely gave me a level of knowledge and experience I would have never gotten without being a commander.

During the time I was a Squadron commander I did not have anyone for Personnel Officer. The position was vacant for nearly two years, but as CC I assumed the responsibilities. During an SUI the inspector (who was also the Wing Commander) suggested I enroll in the Personnel specialty track. By the time I resigned and moved up to wing staff I had met the requirement for a tech rating.  I served as personnel officer, but was never assigned to the position. It was officially labeled as "OPEN" on our org chart.

In addition, a person who moves from Squadron Commander to Group Deputy Commander, to Group Commander would still be able to advance in grade via a Special Appointment promotion - whether they advanced in a specialty track or not.

That is true. But then you might be stuck at Major forever. Since you need a Master rating in something for Lt Col.

[ol'fido]

See #2.

2. I have also seen units where although there may be several seniors on the rolls, there are one or two who show up to do the work. We can say that there needs to be recruitment or there needs to be conversations with the inactive seniors. WELL, DUH! That's all well and good but until you can convince the inactives to become active or get the recruits up to speed and trained, those one or two will be doing all the work. "Hey, I am the commander and you, you're the other 25 staff officers we need." I don't see that happening unless instead of two or three, you just want to have a one man band command staff.

The you do an ALL STOP and concentrate on recruiting and basic CAP training until you have the number to accomplish the mission.
6 months of nothing but recruiting every weekend, and processing and training the FNGs.  The entire unit is focused, no one is over worked,
and when you're done, you have the ability to get real work done.

Also, "convincing the inactives" is a waste of time.  If they were truly interested they'd already be around.  Sure, send them a
note, but the ROI on that is going to be close to zero.  If anything, you're better off waiting until your 6 month Kaizon is done
and then you can sell the inactives a new situation from the one they had where the quit in the first place.

While this sometimes happens at units in or contiguous to large metropolitan areas, it is the everyday reality in units in rural areas. If chartering as a cadet squadron until you can build a cadre to the point where you can recharter as a composite squadron is an option, why is that bad? How is that giving up? You're using the tools in the tool box to your advantage. The units that do this aren't giving up. They are using  a mechanism that the regulations provide in order to avoid having the regulatory requirements of a composite squadron overwhelm them when they are low in personnel who are active and trained. Stopping and doing nothing else for six months or longer just to put "composite" in your unit title isn't an answer for many units.

[lordmonar]

You don't stop the mission to recruit and train.

Of course you do, happens all the time in business and the military.  Commands routinely
stand down because of safety issues, and companies reorganize and retool.

No.....they don't.  22 years active services and six years working for them as a contractor.......been many "Safety Down Days" or "Sexual Harassment down days"....the mission still got done.  Someone was still doing their job.

You do the mission to the best of your abilities AND recruit and train.

Sounds good on paper, doesn't work in reality.  The above is what most failing, undermanned units are doing today,
and accomplishing neither.

Okay.....then we should just quit.   If you close down a unit to "rebuild" it will not be rebuilt it will just close.

Also this.

What mission? Some of these units struggle to open a meeting.

Yep.....they are doing the mission as best as they can.   That's my point.   Unit struggling?  Where is group/wing?   Answer me that, Batman.

[Private Investigator]

Why can't you earn a specialty track while you're a CC?

If anything, PD is important as an example - if the unit CC doesn't care about PD, why should the members?

I know Squadron Commanders who have awarded themselves speciality tracks they did not earn. (as an IG sometimes you want to ask one less question) Actually some Units have quite a laissez-faire approach to awarding ratings. Like a CC after a SUI gave himself a IG - Tech as well as a FM - Tech for being on the Finance Committee and SE - Tech because 'we' are all safety officers.

Actually I have seen that too. PD is considered a roadblock to promotions. Some people are very creative instead of just following the Regs and common sense.     

[Private Investigator]

You don't stop the mission to recruit and train.

You do the mission to the best of your abilities AND recruit and train.

Exactly the way it should be and no excuses.   :clap:

[Eclipse]

While this sometimes happens at units in or contiguous to large metropolitan areas, it is the everyday reality in units in rural areas.

If the area the unit is in can't sustain it, then move it.  Get publicly available demographic info and see if there's any
reason to bother.  If not, move the unit and put it where it belongs, not where it fell by the chance of facility or
commander.  In most cases, however, even rural communities are starved for meaningful, patriotic extracurricular activities,
what they don't have time for is anything that wastes their time.  A kid who had to beg dad to let him go to the meeting and
walks into "drill night" (i.e. "I prepared nothing so let's drill), and 2 tired seniors in the corner waiting for the "cadets to finish",
they probably won't be back.

If chartering as a cadet squadron until you can build a cadre to the point where you can recharter as a composite squadron is an option, why is that bad? How is that giving up?

But that's not what's happening in the example you gave, nor in most of the country, and that also presupposes some larger plan, which rarely, if ever, exists.

You're using the tools in the tool box to your advantage. The units that do this aren't giving up. They are using  a mechanism that the regulations provide in order to avoid having the regulatory requirements of a composite squadron overwhelm them when they are low in personnel who are active and trained.

Another fallacy - the regulatory requirements are not different enough between a cadet and composite unit to be meaningful in this context.
There maybe a few pages here and there in the SUI guide thta maybe allowed to be viewed as "optional", but the overall program is the same.

Stopping and doing nothing else for six months or longer just to put "composite" in your unit title isn't an answer for many units.

You missed the point, you're not "doing nothing", in fact your doing more, and in a more focused way, then the years that brought you to that point.
Focused, meaningful recruitment, processing the new guys, and then getting them into staff jobs and trained so they can be useful.  On the other side
you have a fully-functional, operating unit with the ability to scale even further from there.

[JeffDG]

You don't stop the mission to recruit and train.

Of course you do, happens all the time in business and the military.  Commands routinely
stand down because of safety issues, and companies reorganize and retool.

Really?  Where do you find businesses that stop operations to reorganize?

I've never seen a company stop operations and ever resume them.

[Eclipse]

Really?  Where do you find businesses that stop operations to reorganize?

The whole business?  No.  Divisions and operational entities?  Happens everyday - retool, strategic
reductions, reorganizations, mergers, safety recalls, etc. 

But we're not talking about anything that grandiose, we're talking about units that are struggling to the point that
they think reclassifying the charter is a "fix" - that's step one to shutdown.

There's only one fix - get the people in the room to actually do something worth the time.

Put plainly, no unit that is struggling at charter minimums with no plan to change that is meeting their mandate
or accomplishing their mission.  They are going through the motions, nothing more, because at that point,
the organization itself does not have the critical mass to be able to do anything but less then the bare minimum
check boxes.  The focus becomes "just keeping Group or Wing off their back...", which in turn degrades into
being disgruntled about all how "CAP is administering us to death."   Then one key person quits and the
charter folds (sometimes it coughs one last time with another CC).  Before you know it you're folding what's left
of those failed units into increasingly geographically larger groups, and then one day you look around and realize your
wing has lost dozens of units without anyone really taking any notice.

Any "success" in those bare-minimum units will be purely by the individual, not through any programmatic momentum,
and they might as well be in 000.

"Showing up" and doing, you know "stuff", is not accomplishing the mission.

[lordmonar]

I'm out...this has drifted too far....and I'm getting mad at Eclipse again.

To the OP......I don't see anything wrong with a Commander holding down other jobs.   It is not ideal.....but the reality of the situation is that it has to be filled with someone and we don't have the personnel or time to do all thing things we should be doing.

[Storm Chaser]

While it's acceptable and common (although not ideal) for commanders to have other duty positions, I actually understand Eclipse' point. We sometimes use the word "mission" very loosely in CAP. A unit that is struggling to survive is not accomplishing ANY mission. If you can't recruit new members and retain the one's you have, then what good is it to do anything else? What can you really do of value? All missions within CAP required enough trained personnel to be successful.

What I understand Eclipse is saying here is that sometimes we want to do too much and accomplish nothing. We need people and we need them trained. If your unit can support recruiting and training while performing other missions, then perhaps it's not in as bad of a shape as other units in CAP are. But there are units out there that struggle to even have a meeting; units where 3-4 senior members have 5 duty positions each and are stretched too thin to be effective in any of them. And worst, there's no one to train to take over; you lose one of them and you lose 25-30% of your work force.

We're so used to doing things like this, that we can't stand someone telling us there's a better way. But we know better (or at least should). The turnover in CAP is ridiculous. And it's not uncommon for our "star players" to get burned out or disappointed with CAP at some point or another (just read the many posts in CAP Talk). And while we know there's a problem, no one does anything about it because we're too busy doing the "mission". The question is: what mission? Running a robust Cadet Programs require a good number of cadets and cadet leaders. It requires resources and trained personnel. The same goes for Emergency Services. You need qualified individuals with the proper training, equipment and availability. And Aerospace Education... what can I say about AE? I believe the reason this mission tends to take a backseat to the Cadet Programs is because we don't have enough trained members dedicated to executing this mission, internally and externally.

We can argue with Eclipse all we want, but all he's saying is that when it gets to the point where a unit can't accomplish the mission effectively anymore, it's probably better to stop and focus on fixing these problems, to include recruiting and training new members. To do otherwise could lead the unit to face extinction. It happens all the time...

[Walkman]

A mentor once gave me this analogy:

You're traveling for work and you need to be there right on time, but you've left late. The place you need to be is further than the amount of gas in your car will take you. So not only have you left late, but you'll have to make a stop that will add to your tardiness. But if you don't make that stop and get gas, you won't get there at all.

I don't think a unit would have to forego all its normal activities in order to run a recruitment program. Out of your two hour weekly meeting, 20 minutes could be dedicated to planning a "pipeline recruiting" event each week. Much of the work for this can also take place outside the meeting. It takes many weeks to get one of those events going, so 20 minutes a week to get coordinated and go over assignments leaves plenty of time to keep a cadet program hitting all its reqs. Even once you start training the new cadets, their training still falls within the cadet program anyway, so no one's missing out. New SM training can occur outside running the CP anyway, as the cadets should be running it mostly on their own.

Getting back to the OP's original thought, if the CC is holding too many jobs because there's not enough people to run the program, then I would say thats a failure in leadership. I understand that there will be times that stuff happens and sometimes you have to take on extra work. But, that should be only temporary and the CC should lead by getting the people needed to run things well.

[Eclipse]

I don't think a unit would have to forego all its normal activities in order to run a recruitment program. Out of your two hour weekly meeting, 20 minutes could be dedicated to planning a "pipeline recruiting" event each week. Much of the work for this can also take place outside the meeting. It takes many weeks to get one of those events going, so 20 minutes a week to get coordinated and go over assignments leaves plenty of time to keep a cadet program hitting all its reqs. Even once you start training the new cadets, their training still falls within the cadet program anyway, so no one's missing out. New SM training can occur outside running the CP anyway, as the cadets should be running it mostly on their own.

There are any number of ways this could be accomplished, and it's already supposed to be getting done as a matter of course, higher HQ can be a big help as well.
However, if the commander and staff had the wherewithall to be able to manage their time, not to mention the manpower to get things done, they wouldn't be in that situation to start.

The "ALL STOP" is also to draw attention to the situation and insure everyone is focused.  It will also tend to draw out the real members from the empty shirts.

If CAP had 1/4 of the effort from the "members" who like to show up to staff meetings and other "non-work" situations and who either announce they would "love to help" and/or
have all sorts of "ideas but no time", we'd not be in this situation.  Heck, just the cost of the paper from all the checks people with no authority or involvement write in someone else's
name would fund the program for a year.

To borrow from the above analogy, these charter-minimum, life-support squadrons are akin to driving with a flat tire. Everything is slower, less productive, and ultimately if it isn't fixed,
the situation will get worse, not better.  Sadly, in a lot of cases the only things that gets them attention from higher HQ is the shower of sparks when the tire breaks down to the rim.

[ZigZag911]

A simple solution might be to tie maintaining one's grade to contributing ongoing staff service.