amendments to cadet contracts

[Lt Buzzbear]

I was just wondering what the general consensus is about a SQDN commander of a composite sqdn making amendments to the already in use cadet promotion contracts?  I am aware of one commander that is attempting to put into place that the cadets have all sorts of other requirements to complete before they can be promoted.  (not knowing the full extent of the amendments, here are some examples...)

cadets have to complete the A/C handling, wing runner, and having to attend SAREX's before they are  eligible to promote to Wright Brothers, (different additions for each promotion level.

And if this is not acceptable to whom, and how would opne go about basically getting this commanders posterior kicked back into the program that is approved.

[davidsinn]

That doesn't sound right to me but I can't seem to find the cite confirming it. I'll keep working on it.

[coudano]

First of all, there is no promotion 'contract'.  52-16 stipulates the minimum requirements for each promotion, but nobody is 'entitled' to receive a promotion based on making 'performance minimums', in the contract sense of the word.

Second of all, commanders are neither authorized to, nor forbidden from, requiring things addition to what is listed,
nor using rank as a lever to motivate compliance out of their people.

Technically if the squadron commander orders cadet snuffy to complete AGH, and cadet snuffy fails to comply, the commander has grounds to discipline snuffy for insubordination, including retaining snuffy in grade.


FWIW I require things of my cadets in addition to the printed program requirements, including
A) NCO's have responsibilities to rate and maintain contact with their assigned airmen
B) Officers have responsibilities to plan and execute a squadorn activity every achievement
C) I make my cadets do writing and speaking assignments beyond the minimum requirements as they progress

Those are all very arguably applicable to the cadet program.
As are AGH and wingrunner (in terms of cadet o-rides) --btw, you have gliders at or near your unit??  jealous!!!

I do basically disagree with forcing cadets to do anything related to ES, however.
Cadets should not be required to do ES any more than Senior members should be required to work in CP.  They are each extra-curricular and optional to each-other.

[IceNine]

It's nice to want things...

Cadet's that are deserving of the grade should not be retained for nonsense requirements. 

The requirements are clear, no one should be making it harder for the cadets to progress.  Expecting them to perform at grade level is appropriate.

[FARRIER]

In this particualr example, not knowing anything else, I disagree. My solution, ask him/her where in the regulations does it state that he/she can add that particular requirement. Again, not knowing anything else, the person could be well intentioned, but, misguided.

Respectfully,

[FARRIER]

This is the only place I could see where one could consider adding that requirement:

CAPR 52-16 5-9f

Activities. Cadets must participate actively in unit activities during this phase. See paragraph 4-4a.

Its open ended and the squadron being a composite squadron, ES is a unit activity. I'm CP rated but no longer active in that track, so if I'm reading this wrong, I'm open for correction.

Respectfully,

[CAPSGT]

Cadet promotion "contracts" are a local thing, but at one point were advocated by CAP NHQ as a "best practice."  Since there is no standard contract, they can be anything the commander wants it to be.  It could be as simple as "I will test monthly until I pass the tests for my next promotion" or "if I have not completed the requirements for promotion in 2 months, I will seek out a mentor."  It could also clearly spell out what constitutes things like "active participation" or specific objectives the commander wants to see to demonstrate in a quantifiable way that a cadet demonstrates the maturity and ability to accept the responsibilities of their new rank.

[Al Sayre]

He can do it by saying that these are the requirements for "active participation" in ABC Squadron.  That will work until XYZ Squadron down the street says "just meet the minimums", at which time he will likely see a mass exodus.  Forcing people to jump through no-existant hoops doesn't benefit anyone for very long...

[NC Hokie]

I'll give a slightly diferent take on this...

Without getting into the "legality" of these contracts with respect to CAP regulations, it is generally considered to be bad form to arbitrarily change an already signed contract (the cadets DO sign these, right?).

[CAPSGT]

Al Sayre: You'd be surprised.  At my squadron we are constantly defining ambiguities and holding people to standards.  Our cadets take it as a matter of pride and it certainly hasn't hurt our numbers even with 5 other squadrons within a 30 minute drive (one of which is only about a 10 minute drive away).

NC Hokie:  I wasn't reading what the OP said as changing an already signed contract.  I was reading it as changing what a standard contract template says.  I could be wrong though.  Of course, it could be both.

[Tim Medeiros]

Are these the contracts your talking about?

http://www.capmembers.com/cap_university/best_practices_exchange.cfm/performance_contracts?show=entry&blogID=245

[Nathan]

I would tread kind of lightly on using the "participating actively" clause to justify adding solid requirements for promotion.

I can see both arguments. If a commander decided to require the 101 card to promote to C/SSgt, then he might justify it by saying any cadet who fails/chooses not to get the qualification to not be participating actively in the program he is running.

However, I would make the opposite argument that the clause should be interpreted as "participating actively" in the cadet program already outlined by CAPR 52-16. IE, as long as they are participating actively in cadet activities, then upon completion of standard prerequisites, they will promote. A commander may choose to have additional aspects to his/her program, even "requiring" cadets to do something like get the 101 card under threat of disciplinary action. But because the criteria for promotion are already spelled out, it seems inappropriate to interpret "participating actively" as "obtaining possibly arbitrary requirements set by the commander". A cadet can participate actively and still fail to get a 101 card.

I understand that commanders have a pretty flexible authority, and proving that a cadet is being held back for failing to meet an outside requirement would be hard to prove one way or the other. But as an issue that goes behind the philosophy of commanding a cadet program, the requirements outlined by 52-16 are in place for a reason. No one who wrote the rules believed it to be necessary that a C/SSgt hold an ES requirement, and I can't think of any way how an ES card would make one C/SSgt a better cadet than a C/SSgt without a card.

[Lt Buzzbear]

Yes these are the contracts i am speaking of...
http://www.capmembers.com/cap_university/best_practices_exchange.cfm/performance_contracts?show=entry&blogID=245

and yes i realize that they are basically a cadets contract with themselves.  But to require an Arnold cadet to additionally complete:
aircraft handling, wing runner mentoring, CAP ES-116 FEMA 100, CAP-ES 117
just may be going too far.

or mentoring, selected duty position in the squadron, complete familiarization and prep training for one ES achievement, AND participate in a SAREX???

and require these or refuse to promote the cadet??  doesn't seem right to me!!!

Many of the kids that participate in CAP in our are CAN NOT afford the SAREX crap, they just barely get the uniforms required (BDU'S) because we are getting the old crap from the USAF and others to give out 2nd or 3rd hand to these kids.

it just don't seem right, and i am trying to find a way TO STOP THIS CRAP!!!!!!!!

[RiverAux]

I can only imagine the vehement opposition that a proposal to base senior member ranks on ES participation would cause on this board.  Oh no, I don't have to imagine it:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1425.0

[Nathan]

I can only imagine the vehement opposition that a proposal to base senior member ranks on ES participation would cause on this board.  Oh no, I don't have to imagine it:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1425.0

Okay... so... what? Are you just looking to spread the love from one of your flamewar threads to another one that has so far been civil? We aren't talking about the senior program. If we were, it would not only be in a different thread, but in a different forum altogether.

[RiverAux]

Well, I suppose you didn't actually read the other thread since your characterization of it was so inaccurate.  The point being that many here get freaked out by requiring ES participation.  There are also numerous threads decrying special local requirements on promotions that aren't supported by national regulations.   

[HGjunkie]

I actually had a couple of these completed (Wing runner, CAPT 116/117, ICS100) before or shortly after I was made a C/SSgt. Really, I think it was more me wanting to broaden my CAP educational range outside of Leadership and AE. If a cadet really really really wants to do these, encourage/mentor them to help them accomplish their goals (They're not really that hard IMO).

[Lt Buzzbear]

I actually had a couple of these completed (Wing runner, CAPT 116/117, ICS100) before or shortly after I was made a C/SSgt. Really, I think it was more me wanting to broaden my CAP educational range outside of Leadership and AE. If a cadet really really really wants to do these, encourage/mentor them to help them accomplish their goals (They're not really that hard IMO).

And you are right, i have had a few "uber-cadets" who have asked for the help to get all of these tackled, and we provided them the mentor for that...but to REQUIRE these before the cadet can promote is my issue.

[tsrup]

Yes these are the contracts i am speaking of...
http://www.capmembers.com/cap_university/best_practices_exchange.cfm/performance_contracts?show=entry&blogID=245

and yes i realize that they are basically a cadets contract with themselves.  But to require an Arnold cadet to additionally complete:
aircraft handling, wing runner mentoring, CAP ES-116 FEMA 100, CAP-ES 117
just may be going too far.

or mentoring, selected duty position in the squadron, complete familiarization and prep training for one ES achievement, AND participate in a SAREX???

and require these or refuse to promote the cadet??  doesn't seem right to me!!!

Many of the kids that participate in CAP in our are CAN NOT afford the SAREX crap, they just barely get the uniforms required (BDU'S) because we are getting the old crap from the USAF and others to give out 2nd or 3rd hand to these kids.

it just don't seem right, and i am trying to find a way TO STOP THIS CRAP!!!!!!!!

I don't see a cost issue.
If the "SAREX crap" you are referring to is the 24 hr gear, then you can put that to the way side. 
one does not need 24 or 72 hr gear to be qualified as MSA or MRO.  Even the UDF qualifications limit the amount of gear required.  There are ways to be active at a SAREX without being on ground team. 
And if it was a signed contract between the cadet and the squadron commander or DCC, then the Cadet was fully aware of what was expected of him/her.

We can argue till we're blue in the face on weather or not that falls in line with CAP regulations, but it was in fact an agreement that the cadet entered into.  And if it truly is a money issue instead of motivation, then there are ways to overcome and solve that.  Obtaining a 101 card is a lot simpler than some are making it out to be. 
Take a few online tests (which we facilitate for at our squadron, or the local university computer lab for those who don't have access at home) then print it off.  There is little to no monetary investment in becoming GES qualified.  CAPT 117, CAPT 116, and aircraft ground handling are simple tests that require very little time commitment.     

That being said, ES participation is completely voluntary at our squadron, however ES training is held as part of our curriculum.  Wether or not a cadet wants to apply that training at a SAREX or REDCAP is entirely his or her prerogative.  However, SAREX participation does fulfill our requirements for active participation.  I don't presume to say that what your squadron is doing is wrong strictly because it is different.   

If there is a legitimate complaint as to how your squadron operates, it would suit you best to take care of it within your chain of command, rather than air your obvious dissatisfaction and your squadrons dirty laundry on public forum.   

[ol'fido]

Has the squadron commander completed all these additional requirements? Have all the seniors in the squadron completed these additional requirements? IMHO, we should stick with the requirements in 52-16, but if they are going to add additional requirements, they need to lead by example.