young high ranking Senior members

[John Bryan]

For the record, I was 31 when I was appointed (also 31 when I was fired)....I was not the youngest wing commander but one of the younger ones.  As for the Lt Col, I reverted back to Lt Col after being fired. Thats a long story that I won't go into but the 11 months I served in 2006 speak for themselves:

* We reorganized the wing into 5 groups.

* Chartered 11 new squadrons.

* Had a 9% growth rate from 2/06 to 12/06 (largest growth rate in GLR).

* Established a CAP School Program. The only school program in the GLR.

* Earned credit from the Indiana Dept of Education for CAP cadet program and aerospace education materials to be used in public schools. This was a major project to link our material to the state standards.

* Earned the first successful rating for an LG Survey Audit in 10 years. Reorganized
the entire INWG Logistics Program.

* Increased the amount of training for mission base staff. Added 2 new mission IC's.

* Conducted Wing level training for CISM. Increased the number of CISM trained members in INWG.

* We increased the number of SDIS trained aircrew members and made SDIS a major operations training focus.

* Located over $4.8 million worth of illegal drugs.

* Located 2 missing aircraft...sadly no saves.

* Increased ES training and refocused ES training into a year round training program.

* Signed an MOU with the Indiana State Police, which allows them to support our
CAP communications needs.

* Started an Indiana Wing glider program (1st time we have had glider ops since
around 1984).

* Increased the amount of CAP Officer training such as SLS , CLC, UCC and held our
first ever Training Leaders of Cadets Course.

* Hired our 1st ever Wing Administrator


Things that were started in 2006 which were finished in 2007:

* Work with the Indiana House and Senate to see SB 166 become law and thus give  job protections to CAP members who miss work for missions. These are protections Indiana law already gives to volunteer firefighters and EMTs. (Senate Bill 166 was introduced in Dec 2006)....also worked on a bill which became law giving excused absences to CAP cadet who miss school for missions or NCSAs.

* Continue to train mission base staff and add 2 new IC's.

* Expand glider operations to reach more members.

* Host IACE cadets....This was the 1st time we had hosted in over 25 years.


As for age limits for group and wing CC, I will pass on that debate.  :angel:

[RiverAux]

John Brian (on Captalk), Lt Col, Former INWG/CC

I know a 22 year old Group commander pretty well 

If he was a wing CC, how come he's only lt col?

Personally I feel under 30 is kind of young for group CC, and under 35 too young for wing CC...fresh ideas and energy is great, but the jobs call for a certain level of maturity and experience as well.

I think you can find any number of jobs in the civilian and military worlds that are much, much more complicated and require a lot of maturity to handle that are routinely performed by those in their 20s and 30s.  Heck, you only need to be 25 to be a Congressman and 35 to be President for petes sake.  As long as you've got a fair amount of experience within CAP (how much has been argued in other threads), age isn't a precluding factor in my book. 

[MIKE]

Heck, we could be like the ATC and make all the uniformed old farts retire, or become SMs without grade at 55. 

[flyguy06]

Wing Commander and higher is pretty much a full time job. I dont see where they find the time

[DG]

Wing Commander and higher is pretty much a full time job. I dont see where they find the time

Mike, I agree with you and believe you are exactly right.

But these young guys are not listening.

[AlphaSigOU]

If he was a wing CC, how come he's only lt col?

'Wing kings' (and 'queens') don't keep their 'chicken colonel' promotion unless they successfully complete their term of office and the promotion to full colonel is published in NHQ CAP personnel authorizations.

In days of old, newly-minted wing commanders remained at Lt Col for 6 months (maybe a year; racking the cobwebs in the deepest recesses of my Mark I, Mod I computer) before getting the promotion to full colonel. Get relieved from the job, you go back to 'telephone colonel'. It's very rare for a wing CC who resigns from office to keep their eagles, unless they were on the national commander's good graces, who can convince the NB to vote to let the guy or gal keep their chickens.

Same deal extends to brig general and major general... you don't keep the stars if you don't finish your term.

[RiverAux]

Same deal extends to brig general and major general... you don't keep the stars if you don't finish your term.

NB voted to revise procedures for this recently.  It won't be automatic.  They won't get to keep the stars unless the NEC specifically votes to let them. 

[John Bryan]

From CAPR 35-1

"Colonel. The grade of colonel is reserved for members of the National Board, region vice commanders, the Chief of the Chaplain Service, CAP Inspector General, National Safety Officer, National Historian, and the Chief of the CAP Health Program. The National Executive Committee (NEC) is the only agency authorized to otherwise promote senior members to the grade of colonel. Such promotions are announced in personnel actions published by National Headquarters. All colonel promotions are temporary. The permanent grade of colonel is contingent upon the satisfactory completion of assignment and must be recommended by the commander of the individual concerned."

So when you are a Wing Commander  and you leave office, it is up to your Region Commander to recommend you be made a permanent Col or revert to Lt Col. National CC normally goes with whatever your Region CC decides.  There is no definition of "satisfactory completion of assignment" in the regulation, so it is kind of subjective.

As for the NEC, it is rare for them to promoted others to Col...an examples is
Mary Feik.

Also from CAPR 35-1:

"Region vice commanders, who have not served as corporate officers, will revert to the grade of lieutenant colonel (regardless of grade prior to appointment) upon completion of assignment as vice commander, unless approved by the National Executive Committee."

[ZigZag911]

Col. Bryan,

From your description of your 11 month tenure in command, it certainly sounds successful. It is unfortunate that an officer like yourself was removed from commanding a wing when you were clearly doing a good job.

They say what goes around comes around --perhaps you'll get another opportunity to command a wing or region in the future (assuming you'd want it again!).

As a general note, I'm not proposing a regulation setting age limits (upper or lower) for wing or region CCs -- but I am saying that it seems to me that the job calls for a person with a reasonable amount of "real life" experience.

I would also say, as I've commented before on this board, that our methodology for choosing (or removing) wing and region CCs leaves a lot to be desired.

It ought to be a decision reached by more than one person (next ecehlon CC), and there ought to be some input from the membership (not elections, but what about recommendations or nominations?); further, there should be a screening process with USAF involvement.

[afgeo4]

I can now rest easy knowing that the Historian is a Colonel while the Wing Commander is a LtCol.

Aren't grades in CAP wonderful?

No offense to the National Historian personally is meant. It's a comment on the promotion of the office, not personal achievements.

[John Bryan]

Col. Bryan,

From your description of your 11 month tenure in command, it certainly sounds successful. It is unfortunate that an officer like yourself was removed from commanding a wing when you were clearly doing a good job.

They say what goes around comes around --perhaps you'll get another opportunity to command a wing or region in the future (assuming you'd want it again!).

As a general note, I'm not proposing a regulation setting age limits (upper or lower) for wing or region CCs -- but I am saying that it seems to me that the job calls for a person with a reasonable amount of "real life" experience.

I would also say, as I've commented before on this board, that our methodology for choosing (or removing) wing and region CCs leaves a lot to be desired.

It ought to be a decision reached by more than one person (next ecehlon CC), and there ought to be some input from the membership (not elections, but what about recommendations or nominations?); further, there should be a screening process with USAF involvement.

Thanks for the kind words....now all I have to do is get you appoint Region Commander and I am set 

You are correct about the time and requirements for Wing Commander. To be honest, Wing Commander was the best "job" and the worst "job" I have had in CAP. As for doing it again.....I would never say never, but it is not on my current "things to do list".

One thing not said so far is the need for family support. Anyone wanting to be a Wing Commander, make sure your wife (husband) is willing to support you....it takes a lot of time away from family and fun/free time.

[flyguy06]

Col. Bryan,

From your description of your 11 month tenure in command, it certainly sounds successful. It is unfortunate that an officer like yourself was removed from commanding a wing when you were clearly doing a good job.

They say what goes around comes around --perhaps you'll get another opportunity to command a wing or region in the future (assuming you'd want it again!).

As a general note, I'm not proposing a regulation setting age limits (upper or lower) for wing or region CCs -- but I am saying that it seems to me that the job calls for a person with a reasonable amount of "real life" experience.

I would also say, as I've commented before on this board, that our methodology for choosing (or removing) wing and region CCs leaves a lot to be desired.

It ought to be a decision reached by more than one person (next ecehlon CC), and there ought to be some input from the membership (not elections, but what about recommendations or nominations?); further, there should be a screening process with USAF involvement.

I dont know about that one. I mean there is a thing called span of control and unity of Command. A Region Commander has to be allowed to command.

[John Bryan]

Col. Bryan,

From your description of your 11 month tenure in command, it certainly sounds successful. It is unfortunate that an officer like yourself was removed from commanding a wing when you were clearly doing a good job.

They say what goes around comes around --perhaps you'll get another opportunity to command a wing or region in the future (assuming you'd want it again!).

As a general note, I'm not proposing a regulation setting age limits (upper or lower) for wing or region CCs -- but I am saying that it seems to me that the job calls for a person with a reasonable amount of "real life" experience.

I would also say, as I've commented before on this board, that our methodology for choosing (or removing) wing and region CCs leaves a lot to be desired.

It ought to be a decision reached by more than one person (next ecehlon CC), and there ought to be some input from the membership (not elections, but what about recommendations or nominations?); further, there should be a screening process with USAF involvement.

I dont know about that one. I mean there is a thing called span of control and unity of Command. A Region Commander has to be allowed to command.

You have a good point about Region Commanders having the need to be allowed to command.....2 points:

1. Region CC is required to get the National CC's consent to appoint but not fire a Wing Commander. Why?

2.  As it stands now a Region Commander can fire without cause up to day 364 of a first year Wing Commanders term without appeal or review.....thats not only unfair but promotes the closed door political actions so many have spoken against on this forum. 

[Ned]

You have a good point about Region Commanders having the need to be allowed to command.....2 points:

1. Region CC is required to get the National CC's consent to appoint but not fire a Wing Commander. Why?

2.  As it stands now a Region Commander can fire without cause up to day 364 of a first year Wing Commanders term without appeal or review.....thats not only unfair but promotes the closed door political actions so many have spoken against on this forum. 

I think the point of a "probationary" first year is to make it fairly easy to make the change if it isn't going well early on in the term. 

It is always going be a challenge to find the balance between providing some protections for the wing commander and allowing a region or wing commander to make a needed change relatively quickly and easily.

You are certainly right that leaving total discretion to a region commander during the first year could reinforce "closed door political actions."  But the "system" such as it is, has two counterveilling protections.  First, the probationary period is only a year.  The remainder of a wing commander's term requires good cause for removal.  Second, region commanders that make improper removal decisions themselves face review by the national commander.  And this particular national commander appears to be committed to fair and equitable treatment of all of our members, including commanders at all levels.


Finally, it is only commanders who are also NB members (wing and region) that have this kind of protection in the first place.  Flight, squadron, and group commanders can be relieved in the discretion of the wing commander.  Similarly, directors of things like NCSAs, staff colleges, etc. (some of which are larger and more complex than some wings) can likewise be relieved without cause.

I have served a probationary period in most of my civilian jobs (e.g., police officer) and of course in my military career, my assignments were always totally within the discretion of my commander, even my unit command tours.

While there is always the possibility of abuse in any situation involving the exercise of a commanders' discretion, we try to design systems to minimize the problem and support commanders in their roles.

Ned Lee

[FW]

Finally, it is only commanders who are also NB members (wing and region) that have this kind of protection in the first place.  Flight, squadron, and group commanders can be relieved in the discretion of the wing commander.  Similarly, directors of things like NCSAs, staff colleges, etc. (some of which are larger and more complex than some wings) can likewise be relieved without cause.

While there is always the possibility of abuse in any situation involving the exercise of a commanders' discretion, we try to design systems to minimize the problem and support commanders in their role.

The MARB serves as the "system" to minimize the abuse of authority of any commander at any level.  It is able to review any claim of "abuse" and if found substantiated can give relief; even reinstatement.  

Good governance in CAP means holding to our regs and guidelines, our ethics and our core values.  It means having those checks and balances in place to let all members do their "job" without recrimination (recrimination does not mean accountability).

Next step;  giving finance committees some "independence" from the whims of the commander.   I think we will be seeing some major steps toward a more transparent and fear free CAP than in the past.  However, these changes will bring added responsibility and accountability to us all.

[John Bryan]

The MARB is like an appeals court....it does not try and find what is fair or right. It's job is to make sure the regs were followed. So if a Region CC fires a first year Wing CC "without cause" then it follows the reg and would be upheld. The Region CC would not have to prove that he/she did not fire the Wing CC for political reasons, in fact even if the Wing CC could prove he/she was fired for political reasons I doubt it would be over turned. Now, Wing CC who make it to day 366 and beyond have more protection.

My point is I do not think it is too much to ask that the firing of Wing CC (Corperate Officers/National Board Members) be done with a supportable reason. Subject to review from NHQ. Even in the first year, there should have to be cause to fire a Wing CC.

[Ned]

My point is I do not think it is too much to ask that the firing of Wing CC (Corperate Officers/National Board Members) be done with a supportable reason. Subject to review from NHQ. Even in the first year, there should have to be cause to fire a Wing CC.

John,

That is certainly a reasonable position, probably held by many folks.

(Especially first year wing commanders. )



Making that change would require a change to the CAP Constitution; which can only be changed by the BoG.



Ned Lee
Former Legal Officer

[FW]

^I agree.  There should be a reasonable cause to remove a 1st year wing/cc however,  no matter what the reason, there should be concurrence from the CAP/CC before it is done.  

The MARB has reviewed 1st year Wing/CCs removal and has the authority to reinstate IF it has found the removal was due to reasons like undue influence, retaliation or, discrimination.  

More importantly, the MARB will review and, if necessary reinstate any unit/cc who has been found to be removed for like cause, as well as failure of due process. Appointing/removing authority has a wide berth however, and the appellant has to prove the point.  The MARB does not rehear the case.

[MIKE]

I'd split this, but I don't know where to start.

[John Bryan]

I'd split this, but I don't know where to start.

True.....Maybe the topic should 1st year wing commanders have more protections from unfair or political firings.

Anyway ...sorry for going off topic....more to follow :angel: