2-Month Suspension

[Eclipse]

How does a 38 year veteran of CAP suddenly become unfit to serve at the whim of a 1LT new squadron commander?

For starters, being involved "on and off since 1974" does not make someone a "38 year veteran" and there's no specific way to know whether the CC has more or less actual experience and program knowledge than the poster.   There are thousands of members in this organization who have CAPID's in the 100xxx's simply because they have written a check.  Their total time participating might be months.

You're also assuming that the new CC had no input from anyone else on the history of this unit.  By the OP's own admission, he has "history", and stepped right back into "issues" just about from the get-go.  He also appears to be wearing irrelevant outside factors on his sleeve, which may be coloring every input from the commander in a way not intended.

On the general topic of leadership, I grade "setting a new tone" as a bad thing for a new leader to do.  I've been taught again and again through leadership courses that first three months as a new leader, you make no changes at all because you don't know all the facts.  Even after that, you make changes very carefuly for the next year.

What you're describing is the typical "status quo" mentality of a lot of commanders.  If you are not knowledgeable enough to make good decisions about course and speed, you should not be wearing the uniform.  A good commander sets the course and tone from day one,
adjusts as necessary, but expects their people to follow it.  Sacrificing the 3-6 months of "new guy shine" just to avoid making waves is
much of the reason people who cause issues in CAP stay on for decades - they run over the new commander and never look back.

A good commander assess the programs, puts the ones which are running successfully on the back burner, and addresses the failing parts immediately. 

[bflynn]

Eclipse, I go back to a previous statement - you need to learn a lot about dealing with people.

If you'd like some suggestions, PM me privately please.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

If you are indeed "without allies and in trouble," and I mean really on your own, it's time to pull the eject handle, one way or another.

I usually have a pretty good head for telling when I'm in a no-win situation, and I will not willingly remain in such a situation.

As others have advised, removing yourself from her chain of command, indeed interacting with her as little as possible, is probably a good idea.  If she really has you on her list, and is as immature and childish as you have presented her, then there is no way under the sun that you are going to change her.

There are people who place themselves in positions of authority who have unstable personalities and use that as a form of bullying.

There are also people whose personalities just do not mix and never will.

Getting on at Group or Wing may be a good idea.  In your position, I would, after trying to talk reasonably with her, depending on the outcome of that, distance myself from her as soon as it is feasible.  Why?  Speaking for myself, and myself only, I usually have a pretty long, slow-burn smoulder of a "fuze."  However, once it is burnt down...well, in your position I would likely end up calling it just like I saw it, which would not be good for anyone involved.

[lordmonar]

It isn't the Lt's decision who is fit to serve and who isn't.

Yes, it is.  In fact it is the specific responsibility of a commander to make those decisions.

It is?

I read through CAPR 20-1, but I didn't see it.  Where it it?

The commander is the first line of defense in keeping the organisation sound.

The commander is the one who signs the initial application, the commander is the one who signs the promotion, it the commander who initiates adverse actions.

We all have the right to challenge those decisions through the chain of command if we feel that are out of line.
But bottom line is....we have one side of the story here.  Not saying the OP is right or wrong....not saying the commander is right or wrong. 

I am saying is that we as leaders need to be loyal to the organisation and support the processes in place and support the leaders placed in command.

Yes...there is abuse.
Yes...there are incompetants.

We need to support the leader in the hot seat unless it is clear that something is wrong.

38 year veteran of CAP suddenly not desirable?

Maybe yes....maybe no......I have seen it go both ways.
Bottom line......the commander of the squadron is having problems with this senior member.  She used one of her tools to correct the problem.  If she is doing it wrong.....the place to make the complaint and the person to fix that problem is the group commander.

End of story.

[Private Investigator]

We need to support the leader in the hot seat unless it is clear that something is wrong.

38 year veteran of CAP suddenly not desirable?

Maybe yes....maybe no......I have seen it go both ways.
Bottom line......the commander of the squadron is having problems with this senior member.  She used one of her tools to correct the problem.  If she is doing it wrong.....the place to make the complaint and the person to fix that problem is the group commander.

End of story.

Good points sir. I knew a Captain who stopped participating but kept his dues up. After about six years of not doing anything he came back and told the Squadron Commander he was due for promotion to Major. I vetoed that promotion.

[bflynn]

We need to support the leader in the hot seat unless it is clear that something is wrong.

Is the leader on the hot seat or is the leader creating the hot seat?  I don't think we know, but I suspect the latter.

CAP - and that includes leaders at all levels - have to be careful not to run afoul of civil laws, of course.  Outside fo CAP, I've seen new leaders time and again run straight into EEOC laws without even realizing they're doing it. 

Therefore, I'd say that the leader needs to be supported unless the is issue is something dealing with race, age, national origin, religion, gender, sexual identity or orientation (etc, I think I missed a few).

Given that the OP doesnt' want to talk about it and that the new SC based her decision on gossip, some of it true, I'm suspicious of what can have changed..  Does the OP not meet CAP's standards or does he not meet the new squadron commander's standards?  It seems to me that if someone has been here for 40 years, their fitness to serve is probably already established. 

[EMT-83]

What the heck is an SC?

[bflynn]

squadron commander.

[Spaceman3750]

squadron commander.

The correct symbol, per regs, is CC .

[/nitpick]

[Eclipse]

CAP - and that includes leaders at all levels - have to be careful not to run afoul of civil laws, of course.  Outside fo CAP, I've seen new leaders time and again run straight into EEOC laws without even realizing they're doing it. 

EEOC does not apply to CAP, so what people do outside of CAP in that regard irrelevant.  Further, the OP has not asserted this is in any way related
to his being discriminated against based on a protected class.

[abdsp51]

Without all the facts it's hard to say who is right who is wrong.  To support one side over the other without the full story in imho is wrong.  Based off information given the OP has been given sound advice and the best course of action.

[lordmonar]

It seems to me that if someone has been here for 40 years, their fitness to serve is probably already established.

I would not necessarily agree with that statement.

Lots of old BTDT types don't know how or just don't want to change with the times.

A new commander sometimes has to put their foot down.....and it is possible this is just an old guy with lots of history and issues runnung into someone who is not willing to put up with the Old Guy BS.

Not saying this is true.....We don't have enough information no make a call one way or the other......hence the advice to go up the chain is the best and ONLY course of action that we can give.

We can all point out stories where someone got screwed over by a commander.....but we also have a lot of stories where a commander took appropriate action to correct substandard performance.

Bottom line....it is the squadron commander's unit.  They were appointed to run it and they are the guys on the ground.  As a leader I have always supported my subordinates' leadership decisions.....unless it was very very clear they were in the wrong.   In private we may have a discussion about their leadership decisions/critical analysis.....but by default I support them.

So......back to the OP.
If you think you are getting a raw deal......take it to the Group CC and get them to help.

[bflynn]

EEOC does not apply to CAP

I sincerely doubt this.  What is the basis of your assertion that CAP does not have to comply with Equal Opportunity laws?

[JeffDG]

EEOC does not apply to CAP

I sincerely doubt this.  What is the basis of your assertion that CAP does not have to comply with Equal Opportunity laws?

Well, CAP does in the fact that it employs some people, but such laws are not applicable to volunteers.

EEOC=Equal Employment Opportunities Commission

[lordmonar]

EEOC does not apply to CAP

I sincerely doubt this.  What is the basis of your assertion that CAP does not have to comply with Equal Opportunity laws?

EEOC does not apply because we are not employers (except the Corp Employees).....EEO standards apply because we receive funds from the USAF and so we have REGs that drive us.

It is a subtle but important distinction.

We can't get sued under EEOC....but the USAF would pull our funds.

But either way......EEOC is not the issue here.  The issue is command authority to correct (alleged) substandard behavior.

[Eclipse]

In fact, the regulations are pretty vehement that volunteer members are never employees, even during AFAM.

ADA didn't apply, either, except that we promised Congress we would abide by it voluntarily.

[bflynn]

State EEOC laws probably apply.  These frequently apply to volunteer organizations.

Additionally, there's been some recent cases where federal courts have held that if a member received significant fiscal benefit from the activity (such as flight time), then they can be considered an employee.  EEOC was designed to ensure equal access to financial opportunities and free flight time definately qualifies as a significant financial opportunity to me.

[Ned]

Are there any more lawyers here in the barracks?  Because I have this legal problem I need help with . . . ..   

Legal advice and information given by anonymous folks on the internet is worth exactly what you pay for it.  And frequently less.




Folks, if you have a CAP-related legal question, please ask your friendly, neighborood legal officer.  That is why we have them.   And they are dedicated, knowledgeable volunteers.

Just like you.

[abdsp51]

Are there any more lawyers here in the barracks?  Because I have this legal problem I need help with . . . ..   

Legal advice and information given by anonymous folks on the internet is worth exactly what you pay for it.  And frequently less.





Folks, if you have a CAP-related legal question, please ask your friendly, neighborood legal officer.  That is why we have them.   And they are dedicated, knowledgeable volunteers.

Just like you.

+1 sir.  I don't think we have hit a legal per say,  and without the full story it's hard to say. The bulk of the responses have been unaminous in going and talking to the Group CC.

[bflynn]

Ok, I did more reading on this and as I suspected, it's rather complicated.  In short, there are multiple avenues by which the various Equal Opportunity laws are brought unto us.  The confusion came because I labeled them "EEOC" - in the context I used them, I was refering to business leaders outside of CAP so EEOC was correct.  The responses would lead one to believe that CAP is not required to comply with Equal Oportunity laws, which is NOT correct.

Rather than regurgitate all the different rules and laws, I'll just refer to CAPR 36-1, which is the nondiscrimination program - http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R036_001_D6D80CB431788.pdf

The short answer is that CAP volunteers do have to abide by Equal Opportunity laws, which is what was applicable to the original context.  My sense is that the squadron commander may be stepping very close to the limits of various discriminations laws without knowing it.  I base that on my experience of seeing new leaders in business.