As it stands now, to progress in the senior member PD program you need to have a certain amount of time in a command or staff slot, with the amount of such time increasing the higher you go.
In the interest of making our higher level grades more meaningful as well as providing an incentive to take on some of the more challenging roles in CAP, what do you think of changing the requirement to complete Level III (to be eligible for promotion to Major) from two years of command or staff assignment to two years of command?
With this as a PD requirement, those that are interested in participating in the PD program would have a strong incentive to step up and be a squadron commander (a very hard job to fill) rather than hiding out their whole career in staff jobs. And lets face it, the experience you get in some staff jobs is minimal when compared to other staff jobs -- someone who did all their PD in the historian track is not going to have nearly the same set of skills as someone who did the ES or Cadet Programs track.
This would assist in creating a little bit of turnover in the squadron CC job as it would make it more likely that in each squadron there are one or two people who want to be Majors who now would have a real reason to take on this job.
Drawbacks -- you could end up in a squadron where the current commander likes the job and has every intention of dying there. I don't think there are many of those out there -- after a year or two almost every one I've ever talked to is interested in finding a replacement so that they can take a break. Also, I think the Wing/Group Commander would have some incentives to replace such holdouts (since they would basically be blocking promotions within their unit) rather than taking the easy way and just letting them stay in command for years.
Under this proposal, I would retain the current command or staff options for Levels IV and V. The reasoning being that most people are going to get their command experience as a squadron commander and with those who stay in the organization most are probably going to move up to group or wing staff and as many states don't even use groups, this would leave no way to get command experience except by staying as squadron commander and "clogging" up the system preventing others from getting their command opportunity. And really, after a few years in command you've probably learned most of what you're likely to learn in that position so requiring you to do the same thing for longer to earn IV or V isn't really going to be helpful to you or the organization (same reason the military moves commanders out after a few years).
Bad idea. There are member who are outstanding staff members who would make terrible commanders. There are also those who don't have the time to be commanders - it's easily a full-time job without pay.
Quote from: arajca on November 08, 2009, 03:29:40 PM
Bad idea. There are member who are outstanding staff members who would make terrible commanders. There are also those who don't have the time to be commanders - it's easily a full-time job without pay.
Amen. And I have a Deputy who does 90% of the work. (OK Rick, 92% but I look a lot better in uniform)
Any staff officer at Major or Lt. Col. should be a great leader and if they're serving at group or wing they better be since most of their job consists of leading folks in the squadrons to do their job. If you're really a great staff officer you should have the ability to command a squadron.
The Military doesn't have a command requirement for promotion to O-4.
The military doesn't require SLS or CLC either.
I think you would freeze members out of advancement. I joined at about the same time as several other members, and we've been working our way though the PD program. If we each need 2 years of command, do we draw straws to see who gets left behind?
Quote from: RiverAux on November 08, 2009, 05:13:51 PM
The military doesn't require SLS or CLC either.
They do require MOS/AFSC expertise for advancement to 1LT and Captain. In the Army and MArines the first command experience comes as a company commander (O-3). In the Air Force the first command level is the Squadron which is normally a LtCol. In the Navy, the first command is usually at LtCdr (O-4).
Quote from: arajca on November 08, 2009, 03:29:40 PM
There are member who are outstanding staff members who would make terrible commanders.
That's the point.
What's the reasoning, or value in making someone who has never left their unit a Lt. Col. based solely them being asst. transport officer for ten years? It just means their commanders, who are likely putting in twice the time and have less time in service, have to salute a subordinate, which frankly, is silly.
I have no issue with this whatsoever, but the politics of special, and "mission skill" appointments makes it impossible to implement.
QuoteI have no issue with this whatsoever, but the politics of special, and "mission skill" appointments makes it impossible to implement.
I actually wouldn't have a problem making this a requirement for level IV rather than Level III since it would avoid the few special promotions to Major available without going through the PD system. This isn't quite as big a problem at the Lt. Col. level. However, moving it up that high would cut down on some of the benefits associated with this proposal since right now very few people make Lt. Col. anyway.
Quote from: Cecil DP on November 08, 2009, 06:24:23 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on November 08, 2009, 05:13:51 PM
The military doesn't require SLS or CLC either.
They do require MOS/AFSC expertise for advancement to 1LT and Captain. In the Army and MArines the first command experience comes as a company commander (O-3). In the Air Force the first command level is the Squadron which is normally a LtCol. In the Navy, the first command is usually at LtCdr (O-4).
My point was that we are CAP, not the military and have our own system of promoting people. Yes, our system does somewhat mirror what the military does, but theirs is much more based on merit than ours (Unlike the military every CAP Captain can become a CAP Major if they want it). Since most people on CAPTalk at least don't want a merit-based system, or don't think it could be made to work in CAP, I'm putting this out there as an alternative.
This is a solution in search of a problem.
The underlying problem I think you're trying to solve is preventing people from earning field grade that can't lead their way out of a paper bag.
If that's the case, then making people run a squadron into the ground for two years before promoting them isn't going to help.
So any squadron can expect to allow ONE person the opportunity to advance to Level III every two to four years? That also means you would have ONE person starting work toward Level IV every two to four years and ONE person starting work toward Level V every two to four years. That would sure improve our professional development program.
Quote from: Short Field on November 08, 2009, 07:34:21 PM
So any squadron can expect to allow ONE person the opportunity to advance to Level III every two to four years? That also means you would have ONE person starting work toward Level IV every two to four years and ONE person starting work toward Level V every two to four years. That would sure improve our professional development program.
No, it would separate professional development from the grade structure.
Just make it so you can attain the PD levels independent of grade, and make grade requirements command+PD.
Everybody gets their ribbons, and the grade structure is significantly suppressed, making it mean something.
This proposal doesn't mean much, however, without an up and/or out mentality, because after a few year seven those who progressed organically wold still be spooling back around to the squadrons.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 08, 2009, 07:43:27 PM
This proposal doesn't mean much, however, without an up and/or out mentality, because after a few year seven those who progressed organically wold still be spooling back around to the squadrons.
That is really what we need - a up or out mentality. And just which members do you think are available at a moment's notice to work five days during the week on a SAR?
Up or out? In CAP? WTH? I probably can see it in the RM. But folks here at CAPTalk are tough talkers...up or BS on that. Eliminating more MRE handing out manpower?? Maybe the other VOAD's could replace us as we go up or out....Might have to call NASAR or CERT teams to backfill CAP when the tough times get going 'cuz we are worried about a up or out program.
Some Squadrons let alone Wing can hardly get out the door in two hours and I agree with Short Field...other than a TRUE major disaster..... 5 days on a SAR? Usually the pros are on this long after we (CAP) gets sent home
Helio, I thought you were going to quit...
I'm so tired of your nonsense and insults about CAP, fix it, ignore it, or quit, but save the BS.
Remember, officers and GENTLEMEN. ^^^
Quote from: heliodoc on November 08, 2009, 08:21:28 PM
Up or out? In CAP? WTH? I probably can see it in the RM. But folks here at CAPTalk are tough talkers...up or BS on that. Eliminating more MRE handing out manpower?? Maybe the other VOAD's could replace us as we go up or out....Might have to call NASAR or CERT teams to backfill CAP when the tough times get going 'cuz we are worried about a up or out program.
Some Squadrons let alone Wing can hardly get out the door in two hours and I agree with Short Field...other than a TRUE major disaster..... 5 days on a SAR? Usually the pros are on this long after we (CAP) gets sent home
I don't believe anyone ever said "up or out." I believe the proposal is that rank should, in some way, be tied to command responsibility.
When I first read the idea, my first instinct was "Heck No!" I'm a staff officer, and what if I never find myself in a command position?
Then I thought about it for a second before typing a reply (a routine I might recommend to some others), and I thought, "how many times have I met someone who is unprofessional, has no idea what is going on around them and they are wearing clusters?"
What about people who make terrible leaders but are awesome staffers? Are we doing wrong by them in "holding them back" at the grade of Captain?
I think not.
Look, as it stands, when you walk into a room and see clusters on a person's collar, you can generally only make one assumption:
"That person has been around longer and shows up to stuff."
Is that really the criteria we want for clusters?
Does that maybe send the wrong message to cadets? If you sit around long enough, you're ENTITLED to promotion.
If that means I never make major because I choose to remain a staff member, then I will proudly wear my railroad tracks and carry on about my duties.
Frankly, I see this as a sort of compromise between those who generally like our check the boxes and get promoted system and those who favor some sort of quota system whereby you don't get promoted unless your unit needs someone in a particular rank.
For those who say the military doesn't do things this way, am I wrong that promotion is often slowed in National Guard units because open positions in a unit don't come around very often? Unlike the active military, you don't really have the option of going to an open slot anywhere in the world.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 09, 2009, 02:14:23 AM
Frankly, I see this as a sort of compromise between those who generally like our check the boxes and get promoted system and those who favor some sort of quota system whereby you don't get promoted unless your unit needs someone in a particular rank.
For those who say the military doesn't do things this way, am I wrong that promotion is often slowed in National Guard units because open positions in a unit don't come around very often? Unlike the active military, you don't really have the option of going to an open slot anywhere in the world.
You are correct, sir.
My best friend was a specialist in the National Guard for 10 years before he made sergeant. He did so because the sergeant was retiring and "arranged" for him to take over.
Promotion is not, and should never been considered an entitlement in a non-profit, a for-profit or a government service.
Quote from: Ollie on November 09, 2009, 02:18:53 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on November 09, 2009, 02:14:23 AM
Frankly, I see this as a sort of compromise between those who generally like our check the boxes and get promoted system and those who favor some sort of quota system whereby you don't get promoted unless your unit needs someone in a particular rank.
For those who say the military doesn't do things this way, am I wrong that promotion is often slowed in National Guard units because open positions in a unit don't come around very often? Unlike the active military, you don't really have the option of going to an open slot anywhere in the world.
You are correct, sir.
My best friend was a specialist in the National Guard for 10 years before he made sergeant. He did so because the sergeant was retiring and "arranged" for him to take over.
Promotion is not, and should never been considered an entitlement in a non-profit, a for-profit or a government service.
More like your friend was stuck in an E-4 slot and got the E-5 slot when the other guy retired and opened up the slot.
Happens all the time in the Guard/Reserve.
Quote from: PHall on November 09, 2009, 02:22:19 AM
Quote from: Ollie on November 09, 2009, 02:18:53 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on November 09, 2009, 02:14:23 AM
Frankly, I see this as a sort of compromise between those who generally like our check the boxes and get promoted system and those who favor some sort of quota system whereby you don't get promoted unless your unit needs someone in a particular rank.
For those who say the military doesn't do things this way, am I wrong that promotion is often slowed in National Guard units because open positions in a unit don't come around very often? Unlike the active military, you don't really have the option of going to an open slot anywhere in the world.
You are correct, sir.
My best friend was a specialist in the National Guard for 10 years before he made sergeant. He did so because the sergeant was retiring and "arranged" for him to take over.
Promotion is not, and should never been considered an entitlement in a non-profit, a for-profit or a government service.
More like your friend was stuck in an E-4 slot and got the E-5 slot when the other guy retired and opened up the slot.
Happens all the time in the Guard/Reserve.
Absolutely. Now, if the Guard/Reserve had a check box promotion system like we do, I imagine every unit would have no officers below the grade of Captain and no enlisted below the grade of Staff Sergeant.
You take a person who is an awesome communications officer. They want to play with radios all day long. Tell them from the start that they'll advance to Captain (say they came in as 1LT with an FCC license), but after that, they need to step up and take the reigns if they want to make Major. If they don't, maybe they are happy doing what they do. Maybe they are content with Captain and are willing to leave the clusters to those who are in command.
I would support it in a heartbeat.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 09, 2009, 02:14:23 AMFor those who say the military doesn't do things this way, am I wrong that promotion is often slowed in National Guard units because open positions in a unit don't come around very often? Unlike the active military, you don't really have the option of going to an open slot anywhere in the world.
One very critical difference: You can only remain a member of the Guard for so long. You can be a Lt Col in CAP until you're 90, does that mean you rob an entire generation of Majors from receiving a promotion?
I don't support the manning document idea. The active military is the way it is because that's what suits the mission. Ditto for the Reserve and Guard. Also, in the armed forces, rank goes along with pay grade, so in addition to customs/history, the chain of command, and division of labor, there are financial reasons for the rank structure.
CAP as an entity has its own requirements and culture, and the rank and professional development should reflect that. It's okay to look to analogous organizations to see how they handle their concept of rank, but the armed forces aren't always the most similar model.
(Edit: woo hoo! 900th post!)
Quote from: dwb on November 09, 2009, 02:43:18 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on November 09, 2009, 02:14:23 AMFor those who say the military doesn't do things this way, am I wrong that promotion is often slowed in National Guard units because open positions in a unit don't come around very often? Unlike the active military, you don't really have the option of going to an open slot anywhere in the world.
One very critical difference: You can only remain a member of the Guard for so long. You can be a Lt Col in CAP until you're 90, does that mean you rob an entire generation of Majors from receiving a promotion?
I don't support the manning document idea. The active military is the way it is because that's what suits the mission. Ditto for the Reserve and Guard. Also, in the armed forces, rank goes along with pay grade, so in addition to customs/history, the chain of command, and division of labor, there are financial reasons for the rank structure.
CAP as an entity has its own requirements and culture, and the rank and professional development should reflect that. It's okay to look to analogous organizations to see how they handle their concept of rank, but the armed forces aren't always the most similar model.
(Edit: woo hoo! 900th post!)
OK fine....the Red Cross doesn't make you a Director because you sat around long enough.
Your statement would be fine if CAP made NO connection whatsoever between rank and responsibility. But we do. That's the reason why if you become a Squadron Commander, you can be promoted to First Lieutenant. If you become a Group Commander, you can be promoted to Major.
CAP has drawn the parallel. You have no business putting on clusters if you have no desire to ever be a leader. Period. Fortunately, there are Groups and Squadrons that are getting that and not advancing individuals (who are eligible) but cannot or will not accept greater responsibility.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 09, 2009, 02:14:23 AM
Frankly, I see this as a sort of compromise between those who generally like our check the boxes and get promoted system and those who favor some sort of quota system whereby you don't get promoted unless your unit needs someone in a particular rank.
For those who say the military doesn't do things this way, am I wrong that promotion is often slowed in National Guard units because open positions in a unit don't come around very often? Unlike the active military, you don't really have the option of going to an open slot anywhere in the world.
You forget about the third group...who think we should do away with uniforms and ranks all together.
It would simplify quite a bit.
I ran into someone the other day who thinks we should get rid of uniforms and rank and cut the cadets loose.
I think at a certain point, you need to consider joining another organization. But that is a discussion for another day....
Quote from: Ollie on November 09, 2009, 02:18:53 AMPromotion is not, and should never been considered an entitlement in a non-profit, a for-profit or a government service.
They are not an entitlement......the organisation says do A, B, C and you will be promoted. So Member does A, B, C and he should get promoted.
What people are really mad about is that they think A, B, and C should be "harder" so that the rank they are already wearing will "mean" something.
Well.....okay....we go a proposal to make the A,B, and C harder.
But here's the rub....what's harder....being a wing staff officer for say CAWG or being a squadron commander for a 20 person cadet squadron?
Requiring "Command Experince" to complete your level III sounds good on paper but what it will do is to choke off all progression in PD. No one will bother to move up because of the bottle neck at Level III. I will not make out Majors any better because there is no garentee that they will actually learn anything at their command position. We may also get a boat "commanders by name" who hold the position for the required time but in actualuality their is a deputy commander running things but allowing his buddy to ride the job to get the rank (think Deptuty Region Commanders).
The real solution for the "problem" is to just eliminate rank. If you must have rank then you tie it to your command position. Anyone not holding a command position will be a flight officer equal to their PD level i.e. FO-1, FO-2, FO-3. When you step down from your command position you revert back to you FO "rank".
Some Wings already limit promotion to Major for Commanders or Group Staff. Lt Col for Wing Staff, or something along those lines.
Maybe that has changed, but I know/ knew of three that had such a policy.
The idea has some merit. I would say you have to be a little more flexible with the command service. If it were truly on the table I would say:
- Consider changing it to Level IV
- Opening the requirement for DCC or DCS positions. As mentioned earlier, they essentially have command within their respective cadet or senior arena.
- Changing the timeframe to 1 year in the CC, DCC, or DCS positions.
This could allow enough flexibility and give enough opportunities for members to leave in some capacity.
I know CAP isn't the Army or the Air Force, and from what I have heard is rapidly becoming more corporate than Air Force, but as a newbie to CAP Talk, I will weigh in probably because I don't know better yet. I served both active duty in the Army and in the Air Force, as well as NROTC in college.
Army officers have to become "Branch Qualified" which means lieutenants are required to rotate among core jobs in the company and has required professional military leadership and development activities. Core jobs included finance, supply, transportation, and operations. By time we successfully completed and rotating between the jobs, we were considered "Branch Qualified" to become a Captain. Captains required a different set of core jobs which required rotating between them to develop a higher level of competency, which included serving as a company commander. The same with Majors for branch qualification.
In the Air Force I saw limited qualifying of officers for command unless an officer held an administrative position to be the "Section Commander" in charge of the dormitories and functioned as the Squadron's admin and personnel processing point before sending documents to the CBPO or Finance. Command usually didn't come until an officer was a Lt Col and that was far an few since most Lt Cols I met never had a command, they were functional or technical experts in their AFS.
My limited CAP exposure and observations shows that CAP has a hybrid of the Army and the Air Force. but if a person wants to be a Squadron Commander, there is nothing that qualifies a person other than volunteering for the position. CAP follows the Air Force command structure that "most" command positions are at the squadron level with Lt Col as a commander. I know there are exceptions based upon the size of the squadron, and in CAP the highest ranking may be a Captain or a Major willing to be the Squadron Commander. I know of two squadrons that have Lt Cols in them, but they have never held a command position and one has a Major and the other a Captain as the Squadron Commanders.
What am I getting at? Since it appears that CAP is marketing the organization away from a U.S. Air Force Auxiliary to a nonprofit organization, an opportunity exists to restructure professional development, staff positions, and command requirements.
Some may disagree and think I am off base on this, or may think it is a great idea. The choice is yours. My thoughts on this are based upon hearing the frustrations and most often motivated new senior members who would like to get something better out of CAP but seemed stifled by conflicting or unequal professional development policies.
I read where a poster said that some Squadron Commanders would die out of the position. You must be in my squadron, because ours has been the in the position for 15 years now and doesn't every plan to give it up.
The Organisational Excellance Specialty Track is supposed to fix the problem of not having qualified commanders. If they ever get it off the ground.
^^^^
What? More online tests to make one a leader in CAP,,,Is that what organizational excellence is all about?
Quote from: Michael M on November 09, 2009, 03:53:08 AM
My limited CAP exposure and observations shows that CAP has a hybrid of the Army and the Air Force. but if a person wants to be a Squadron Commander, there is nothing that qualifies a person other than volunteering for the position.
That's where the whole command paradigm and grade structure breakdown.
Quote from: Michael M on November 09, 2009, 03:53:08 AM
CAP follows the Air Force command structure that "most" command positions are at the squadron level with Lt Col as a commander. I know there are exceptions based upon the size of the squadron, and in CAP the highest ranking may be a Captain or a Major willing to be the Squadron Commander. I know of two squadrons that have Lt Cols in them, but they have never held a command position and one has a Major and the other a Captain as the Squadron Commanders.
Lt. Col's as unit CC's was not uncommon a decade ago, but far less so today. Many wings and even Regions have enacted term limits which has done away with the lifetime unit cc's.
In a volunteer paradigm where members are allowed to basically do what ever job they want, raising the bar on PD generally just makes it harder for those already doing a good job, while shrinking the already too small pool.
Until you can incentivize membership beyond free time and altruism, its hard to turn the carrier. On this board you can find discussions regarding the CIC which grants reserve military grade, some financial renumeration, and military benefits to its members. The trade off is higher expectations.
Many on this board would move to that model without pause.
Perhaps a hybrid of the model would work, with CC's and some staff fitting the reserve commission route, or perhaps flight-officer-style grades, while the general membership would be left as volunteers.
That seems to work fairly well for the ARC.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 09, 2009, 06:07:53 AM
On this board yo can find discussions regarding the CIC which grants reserver military grade, some financial renumeration, and military benefits to its members. The trade off is higher expectations.
What is CIC? I searched on "CIC" and got no hits.
Quote from: Short Field on November 09, 2009, 06:26:52 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on November 09, 2009, 06:07:53 AM
On this board yo can find discussions regarding the CIC which grants reserver military grade, some financial renumeration, and military benefits to its members. The trade off is higher expectations.
What is CIC? I searched on "CIC" and got no hits.
Sorry, the Cadet Instructor Cadre in Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Cadet_Instructors_Cadre
http://www.cadets.forces.gc.ca/support/intro_e.asp
http://cadets.ca/about-nous/instr/instr_e.asp
Its basically a combination of CAP, the ACA, and the Sea cadets. It has no operational mission, and few airplanes, but much higher expectations of its leaders and staff.
We received a very thorough briefing at RSC. Its not all roses and sunshine, but has some ideas that would work well in CAP.
Quote from: heliodoc on November 09, 2009, 05:34:18 AM
^^^^
What? More online tests to make one a leader in CAP,,,Is that what organizational excellence is all about?
No...actually it is a pretty well thought out program to take a new potential commander through prepatory training and mentoring.
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P229_E7F67784B89EF.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P229_E7F67784B89EF.pdf)
Quote from: lordmonar on November 09, 2009, 07:05:38 AM
Quote from: heliodoc on November 09, 2009, 05:34:18 AM
^^^^
What? More online tests to make one a leader in CAP,,,Is that what organizational excellence is all about?
No...actually it is a pretty well thought out program to take a new potential commander through prepatory training and mentoring.
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P229_E7F67784B89EF.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P229_E7F67784B89EF.pdf)
The challenge is that it's not required for command, so I see a lot of sitting and recent CC's considering it because they've already checked a lot of the boxes, while the up and comers don't know about it or think its important (assuming they are even identified).
Quote from: Eclipse on November 09, 2009, 07:17:24 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on November 09, 2009, 07:05:38 AM
Quote from: heliodoc on November 09, 2009, 05:34:18 AM
^^^^
What? More online tests to make one a leader in CAP,,,Is that what organizational excellence is all about?
No...actually it is a pretty well thought out program to take a new potential commander through prepatory training and mentoring.
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P229_E7F67784B89EF.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P229_E7F67784B89EF.pdf)
The challenge is that it's not required for command, so I see a lot of sitting and recent CC's considering it because they've already checked a lot of the boxes, while the up and comers don't know about it or think its important (assuming they are even identified).
As the program has not even be launched I agree with you....but it is an attempt to put some meat into our command program.
Once it is launched....we can then look at requiring it as a prereq for command.
I could launch into this one
Prep Training? Regional or Wing level
Is is going to have the SAME MEAT is US Armed Forces NCO, Officer, ROTC, Academy prep type courses
Until CAP can meet those STANDARDS in both resident and non resident course, then it just another CAP RSC or Mational Staff college with A LOT of sitting around shooting the CAP bulll
This (OE) I gotta see. Welll thought out let the educators and former miltary folks who ad to endure all those leadership courses be the judge of that!! CAP's mentoring of Squadron commanders and the reqs with CLC, SLS, and UCC BARELY make the grade.
AND there were a lot of excellent teachers teaching those classes. Thinking that those course were foundation in leadership..........yeah let's see how much meat and potatoes this so called OE has got and the one getting "grandfathered" so to speak ought to be invited back for refresher training........AT CAP's expense!!
We will see how "organizational Excellence " stands up. Like the CSU...hopefully it won't be another flash in the pan operation CAP likes to hammer together as "a new idea."
While the original idea seems good. I think a better idea would be to allow substitution of Command in place of attending RSC for level IV.
Non-concur. Too few commands, first of all...and there are some outstanding staff officers who would not be good commanders.
Quote from: Ollie on November 09, 2009, 02:48:10 AMYou have no business putting on clusters if you have no desire to ever be a leader. Period.
Desire is not sufficient. There's a good old boy system still out there that can easily hamstring anyone wanting a command position. If certain people don't like you, you won't get it.
Second, considering how many members there are out there, there's no way every one of them could be afforded the opportunity to command for two years. And to be completely fair, it would have to be available to anyone who did desire it.
The current system of command
or staff requires someone to contribute to their unit in some manner. You don't don't contribute, you don't advance past a certain point. I've seen a couple members that had no desire to contribute in a staff position (or even advance in a specialty track), and left when they couldn't get past first lieutenant.
I'm kind of torn on this issue. While I think it would be a good idea to require some command experience, the wait time would be enormous. You'd have a member join in let's say 2009, complete the Level III requirements in mid to late 2011, then have to wait for who knows how many years if there are others waiting for a turn. That would hold the PD program up. Besides serving time in a staff position, why not create the positions of assistant to the Commander (Not a deputy), assistant to the Deputy Commander of Seniors and assistant to Deputy Commander of Cadets. This way everyone would get an idea of what's required of all the command positions. One member serves six months to a year as the Commander's assistant. The same time requirements could apply to the deputies assistants. Whenever the DCS's assistant moves to the position of the commander's assistant, the DCC's assistant moves to the being the assistant of the DCS, and a new candidate comes in as the DCC's assistant. It sounds confusing, but think about it. Three to six command candidates could be trained per year.
I non-concure as well....but to play devil's advocate.....would your plan just be the same thing as we got now?
If command time were important to Level III...then an "assistant to" job would not fit the bill.
As it has been stated before.....it would just bottle neck the PD process for no good reason. A pefectly good CP officer looking to get credentials to move up to wing or region would have to wait his turn for his unit CC position to open up.
You guys are acting as if all CAP members are going to get to Level III. This is something that is achieved by a relatively small percentage of CAP members, so its not like all 30K CAP members are looking for one of about 1K command slots.
No....but in theory we should be encouraging all our members...especailly those in wing level staff possitions to have completed Level III.
A stint at squadron command is excellent preparation for being on wing staff.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 28, 2009, 02:00:21 AMYou guys are acting as if all CAP members are going to get to Level III. This is something that is achieved by a relatively small percentage of CAP members, so its not like all 30K CAP members are looking for one of about 1K command slots.
So it's OK to deny the opportunities to some "because they're never going to do it anyway" ? That's throwaway logic. Just because not everyone is going to do it, doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to.
Just out of curiousity, how many years of command time do you have?
Quote from: RiverAux on November 28, 2009, 03:18:36 AMA stint at squadron command is excellent preparation for being on wing staff.
So's a stint at squadron or group staff.
And there has been a case or three of former squadron commanders that had problems becoming staff again. Not common, but it does happen.
Quote from: Hawk200 on November 28, 2009, 04:13:50 AM
So it's OK to deny the opportunities to some "because they're never going to do it anyway" ? That's throwaway logic. Just because not everyone is going to do it, doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to.
My point is that there would be plenty of opportunities for those that would like to move ahead over the course of their CAP career.
"Just out of curiousity, how many years of command time do you have?"
About two years, and it has greatly influenced how I've worked as a member of wing staff in various positions. Having been on the receiving end of demands coming down from wing staff members as a squadron commander taught me a lot about how not to do things (by the way, those demands almost always came from folks with no experience trying to lead a squadron with minimal staff support).
Quote from: RiverAux on November 28, 2009, 03:18:36 AM
A stint at squadron command is excellent preparation for being on wing staff.
Not saying it isn't....but most cities only have one unit they can be commander of. If we assume a standard tour of duty is two years....how many Level III will most wings produce in a years time?
Nevada will only produce 10. There are more then 10 staff positions at wing. Do the math....how long before we no longer have qualified personnel to fill wing staff positions?
Quote from: RiverAux on November 28, 2009, 04:32:43 AMMy point is that there would be plenty of opportunities for those that would like to move ahead over the course of their CAP career.
You have no supporting evidence for your point. Even with only five people in a unit that desire to command it, it would be ten years before they could all accomplish this. And who chooses the order? By the time that the opportunity rolls around, the third person may not want it, or have life changes that don't permit it.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 28, 2009, 04:32:43 AMAbout two years, and it has greatly influenced how I've worked as a member of wing staff in various positions. Having been on the receiving end of demands coming down from wing staff members as a squadron commander taught me a lot about how not to do things (by the way, those demands almost always came from folks with no experience trying to lead a squadron with minimal staff support).
The time you have doesn't surprise me. Many of the suggestions you have made in the past were things you were almost or already eligible for. It reminds me of a government job announcement I once read for a GS-9 position that required a doctorate. A requirement completely unnecessary to actually perform the job.
Second, just because the demands coming to you are unreasonable doesn't mean every single one of them came from someone who hasn't held a command. I think that's what you believe because you want to. I doubt you can prove it.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 28, 2009, 04:32:43 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on November 28, 2009, 04:13:50 AM
So it's OK to deny the opportunities to some "because they're never going to do it anyway" ? That's throwaway logic. Just because not everyone is going to do it, doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to.
My point is that there would be plenty of opportunities for those that would like to move ahead over the course of their CAP career.
"Just out of curiousity, how many years of command time do you have?"
About two years, and it has greatly influenced how I've worked as a member of wing staff in various positions. Having been on the receiving end of demands coming down from wing staff members as a squadron commander taught me a lot about how not to do things (by the way, those demands almost always came from folks with no experience trying to lead a squadron with minimal staff support).
I have four years of command. The problem was that the staff officers around me (when I was a staff officer) didn't have any and thought that they actually had authority outside what the commander gave them and that they were the only game in town: their program was the center of the universe. If these officers had command experience, they would have known that their programs were an integral portion of a larger effort. Commanders only have so much training time to use and each staff section was vying for all of it.
Quote from: Hawk200 on November 28, 2009, 05:28:24 AM
Second, just because the demands coming to you are unreasonable doesn't mean every single one of them came from someone who hasn't held a command. I think that's what you believe because you want to. I doubt you can prove it.
I was there, you weren't. I'm right.
"but most cities only have one unit they can becommander of. If we assume a standard tour of duty is two years....howmany Level III will most wings produce in a years time?" Look at how many are being produced now. Very few. If we kick my proposal up to level 4 (which I wouldn't have a problem with), it is even less. So, its not like there would be a huge bottleneck of folks seriously trying to complete this level that would be stuck by lack of a command slot.
" Many of the suggestions you have made in the past were things you were almost or already eligible for."
Well, when you make as many suggestions as I do, thats bound to happen.
I have seen some of these "unreasonable" requests. I have made some. These were called "unreasonable" or 'overly burdensome' by commanders and unit staff. The vast majority of these requests were based on one out of two items:
CAP Regulations
SUI results
For example, I had to have the wing commander put a unit on freeze to get their annual S-8 report and I got it the day before I was planning to go there to repo all their comm gear. As required by regulation. I took a hit on my Compliance Inspection for the units not having turned in their S-8 reports on time.
I know of one case were the requiement was not based thusly and a comment to the wing commander took care of that.
Units are notoriously bad about providing helpful info to make all our jobs easier, but if you try to stick to the regs and require something thay they should be doing and are not, Heaven help you. I tried to help units avoid an SUI hit for having incomplete information on their S-8, but only two took me up on it.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 28, 2009, 02:34:21 PMI was there, you weren't. I'm right.
There's a way to prove it. Each person that was the staff member would have to be identified, and their command experience would have to be documented. You may be right, but without proof of it, no one will believe it.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 28, 2009, 02:34:21 PM" Many of the suggestions you have made in the past were things you were almost or already eligible for."
Well, when you make as many suggestions as I do, thats bound to happen.
When it seems to happen almost every time, it's self serving. That's not the point of command, and it's unethical. It gives the appearance that you're attempting to either lock others out of opportunities by making them unique to your own skillset, or else you're still trying to come up with something to make a name for yourself. Neither of which is beneficial to serving others. And as a commander, that's not what you're here for.
"There's a way to prove it. Each person that was the staff member would have to be identified, and their command experience would have to be documented. You may be right, but without proof of it, no one will believe it."
I've worked with essentially the same group of people for 10+ years and I know their backgrounds and frankly, I don't care if you don't believe it.
[quote author=RiverAux link=topic=9278.msg169785#msg169785 When it seems to happen almost every time, it's self serving. That's not the point of command, and it's unethical. It gives the appearance that you're attempting to either lock others out of opportunities by making them unique to your own skillset, or else you're still trying to come up with something to make a name for yourself. Neither of which is beneficial to serving others. And as a commander, that's not what you're here for.
[/quote]How is it self serving? I'm neither helped nor hurt by this requirement. It doesn't "hurt" me if someone gets Level III, so its not like I've got a personal reason to keep such folks down. Now, if we had some sort of "up or out" rule in CAP, that would be a different story. But, thanks for impugning my motives anyway. [/quote]
Quote from: Gunner C on November 28, 2009, 10:58:26 AMI have four years of command. The problem was that the staff officers around me (when I was a staff officer) didn't have any and thought that they actually had authority outside what the commander gave them and that they were the only game in town: their program was the center of the universe. If these officers had command experience, they would have known that their programs were an integral portion of a larger effort. Commanders only have so much training time to use and each staff section was vying for all of it.
Sounds like a lack of training. You mentioned that you knew when you were a staff officer, but your peers did not. Did you have command experience (in CAP) when you were a staff officer?
Most of our "homegrown" CAP officers don't have an idea as to what they're really expected to do, what the chain of command really is, or a view of the big picture. We need something far more than the cumulative week or so of information that most CAP officers up to captain or major have.
Command experience may have experience in that, but it's a disservice to only provide that training to commanders. I know most people won't like the point, but the military trains people to cover more than just their current position and grade. As the saying went: "Training for levels up, and experience in levels down". We should be doing the same for our personnel. When a drop in replacement isn't available because no one has the knowledge, we have a problem. A commander should never be indispensable.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 28, 2009, 04:25:56 PMI've worked with essentially the same group of people for 10+ years and I know their backgrounds and frankly, I don't care if you don't believe it.
Your choice. The thing is that it doesn't matter if you care about my belief or not, you have to prove it to people to make your idea fly. Without indisputable proof that this requirement would improve things, it's a brick.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 28, 2009, 04:25:56 PMHow is it self serving? I'm neither helped nor hurt by this requirement. It doesn't "hurt" me if someone gets Level III, so its not like I've got a personal reason to keep such folks down.
Self serving in the manner that it denies someone else an opportunity by implementing a skillset that you have. It's the same as writing a job description that only uses your background. When this happens a large majority of the time, it looks like you're trying to advance yourself by impeding others.
Hawk, judging by your last post, I think we agree on this issue overall. This particular suggestion is a way of trying to work within our current system to do a little bit to improve the quality of the upper level of our rank structure by broadening their experience.
If we had a more robust officer training program as you suggest, that would be great and I wouldn't see much need for this particular proposal. But, quite frankly, I see my proposal as being the more likely to get implemented in comparison to increasing training requirements (and realistically, the need for military-level leadership training isn't there).
And again, thanks for the personal attacks.
You are all forgetting one very important concept. CAP is a volunteer organization.
If you make a volunteer organization controversial, burdensome, or seemingly unfair to its members, suddenly you are short on volunteers.
Grade is a reward of sorts for hard work, dedication, and study; the studies are intended to greater prepare the member to be of service, no matter what form that service comes in.
I certainly could never be a Commander with my normal job/travel schedule (this little sojurn to Iraq notwithstanding). To tell me that I will be forced to top out as Captain despite busting my butt as a staff member simply because I cannot devote the proper time to being a Commander is akin to telling me that my contributions are not valuable -- or certainly not as valuable as someone with a "normal" 9-5 job and plenty of time to command. That's the kind of attitude that seriously limits the appeal of volunteering with a given organization.
Yes, we are a volunteer organization, but we are already pretty unique in having a set of personal ranks for our members that are relatively independent of a person's place in the organization's structure. Not many do it that way. And there will always be conflict between those who take the PD program seriously and those that just don't give a fig. Given that more than 75% of the senior members who join CAP will never achieve Level III anyway (and an even smaller member will achieve Level IV), I don't see this as a major impediment to the average member.
Right now we are all prevented from achieving the rank of Colonel unless we take on the Wing Commander's job (yes, there are a few exceptions), so this suggestion isn't entirely out of the mainstream and is a variation on that theme.
And by imposing any requirements at all to obtain something, we are thereby limiting the number of CAP members who are likely to achieve it. So, we're really just discussing the level of difficulty there should be in obtaining Level III (or Lev IV if you'd like) and the benefits that would/should/hopefully acrue by making it harder.
This being a subjective thing, I wouldn't expect everyone to agree - heck we don't all agree on the current requirements.
All your proposal does is ensure that newbie Squadron Commanders will have at most Level II. Level II only requires the CAP Senior Officers Course, SLS, and a tech rating in something.
The CAP Senior Officer Course seems to be the major roadblock for most people. Hopefully, the on-line version will make it easier to take the CAP Senior Officer and significantly increase the number of folks completing it. A bunch of small modules that you can take and pass sequentially tends to be easier than a long course with a big test at the end.
^ Won't make any difference until we start consistently stressing how important PD is for everyone.
You're right that this change from ECI-13 to the SOC might lead more people to participate in the upper levels of the PD program than there are now. However, anyone that was being "held back" by unwillingness to dedicate the time necessary to complete eci-13 is probably not going to want to go to RSC/NSC or do the AF correspondence courses so will probably top out at level 3 anyway.
Nevertheless, the uncertaintity associated with this may be a good reason to put this requirement on level 4 rather than 3.
I haven't heard from anyone who was unwilling to dedicate the time necessary to complete ECI-13, but know of several members (including myself) unwilling to dedicate that time to what has been described as a horribly outdated program.
It should be interesting to see what effect the new SOC will have on the number of members moving past Level I in the near future.
Quote from: EMT-83 on November 29, 2009, 01:50:18 PM
I haven't heard from anyone who was unwilling to dedicate the time necessary to complete ECI-13, but know of several members (including myself) unwilling to dedicate that time to what has been described as a horribly outdated program.
to-may-toe, to-ma-toe, the point being that it wasn't a tough course, but for whatever reason it has been a good barrier keeping those that aren't terribly motivated from moving up in rank.
There has also been an issue in getting the materials and tests in a timely manner. It took three months between the time I ordered my test (using the AFIADL Help Desk method) until the test came in. I also had to wait for one of the volumes that had run out of stock for a month.
Quote from: arajca on November 29, 2009, 03:19:53 PM
I also had to wait for one of the volumes that had run out of stock for a month.
You could have borrowed a copy or found it online.
QuoteAnd by imposing any requirements at all to obtain something, we are thereby limiting the number of CAP members who are likely to achieve it. So, we're really just discussing the level of difficulty there should be in obtaining Level III (or Lev IV if you'd like) and the benefits that would/should/hopefully acrue by making it harder.
Level III seems to be the appropriate level for someone to have passed IOT serve as a commander:
QuoteCAPR 50-17
5-1. Management. CAP designed professional development at this level for senior members serving as squadron, group, or wing commanders and for staff officers.
This is where an officer would have been trained enough in the way CAP works to really do their best job as a CC.
Command, even in CAP, is NOT an easy job, and is not for everyone: some folks find their niche on staff and are happy/effective in their position.
Futhermore, you don't want unit command to become a 'ticket punch.'
Facts are facts, many Squadrons are understaffed and a good many of Squadron Commanders must take on the positions and duties of Staffers when there simply are no people to fill those roles. Some squadron commanders are 2d Lts by "situation" and some commanders are Lt Cols for the same reason.
Many Wings are staffed to a high percentage because of the sheer number of people to pool. In know that some folks at one level "moonlight" at other levels. Wing Officers might be commanding a unit somewhere.
Many of us approach these questions as if every level of CAP was fully staffed.
Level III is better defined, in my opinion, by filling a staff position. Command is sometimes hard to come by and I would hate to have a commander who is serving only to rise to a higher position creating a motivation of PERSONAL ADVANCEMENT than true SERVICE to the UNIT.
I command my unit because I want to and I want to build a good squadron so that someday I can pass it on to someone else and have a meeting to go to that is functioning as the result of a culture I help to bring forth. I would hate for anyone to even assume I was commanding a unit to simply make LEVEL III at which time I would step down willy-nilly.
This would actually be an incentive for folks to take on the squadron commander position, which is one of, if not the hardest, position to fill in CAP.
Just because people may receive a tangible benefit from doing something, doesn't mean that they're ONLY doing it for that reason. I get paid for my job, but thats not the only reason I do it. People take staff jobs not only because they feel they can help the unit/wing, but because they get a benefit out of it in terms of meeting one of the other PD requirements. This would be no different.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 01, 2009, 01:42:35 AM
This would actually be an incentive for folks to take on the squadron commander position, which is one of, if not the hardest, position to fill in CAP.
Just because people may receive a tangible benefit from doing something, doesn't mean that they're ONLY doing it for that reason. People take staff jobs not only because they feel they can help the unit/wing, but because they get a benefit out of it in terms of meeting one of the other PD requirements. This would be no different.
No, I still think people need to take a position because they want to, not because it is a requirement. Most CAP officers in my area are more interested in their service, efficiency in the duty position and getting the job done than in what rank they are.
We need to keep our focus on service, performance on the job and how we appear to our community. Commanding a squadron to earn a ribbon is, in my opinion, doing it for the wrong reason.
So, you're really saying that our entire PD and rank system is counterproductive as it is a series of rewards based on performing specific actions that CAP deems beneficial to the organization? Thats fine if you believe that - I know others on this board are also of that opinion. Heck, I estimate that 20-30% of all CAP members don't care about the PD program at all and don't really participate past Level 1, so its not that far out of the mainstream.
But, requiring that a person spend time at squadron command to achieve a particular level is absolutely no different than requiring someone to serve time in a staff job to achieve some other level, which is integral to our PD program. It wouldn't distract any more from our missions than anything else in that program.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 01, 2009, 03:25:26 AM
So, you're really saying that our entire PD and rank system is counterproductive as it is a series of rewards based on performing specific actions that CAP deems beneficial to the organization? Thats fine if you believe that - I know others on this board are also of that opinion. Heck, I estimate that 20-30% of all CAP members don't care about the PD program at all and don't really participate past Level 1, so its not that far out of the mainstream.
But, requiring that a person spend time at squadron command to achieve a particular level is absolutely no different than requiring someone to serve time in a staff job to achieve some other level, which is integral to our PD program. It wouldn't distract any more from our missions than anything else in that program.
Command is very different that taking a staff job. Staff jobs do not have the "all encompassing" aspect of Command. A Safety Officer, for example, implements their portion of the program over the unit; the commander coordinates the staffers and their programs. A Staff position should be held by everyone...if you don't have a specialty track...what do you do in CAP?
I am a Public Affairs Officer by specialty track, I command a Unit (going on 4 years); I can testify that the STAFF position and COMMAND are totally different animals.
For the most part people who come to my unit come to participate in a unique form of communitarian service. They want to use their pilot and ground abilities for the greater good of "community, State and Nation." Since we have to travel over 2-5 hours for SLS and CLC and take lots of time out for RSC or the like; it seems that situational truths remain that being a good Maintenance Officer can be done by a 1st Lt as well as a Lt Col. Level III is the top of the totem pole for most, Level II is where most remain at. I came up the ranks from 2d Lt, Level III is my area for NOW.
RiverAux....the problem is that you have not sold the idea of requiring COMMAND experience for level III.
Pros....it makes those who Level III more expeinced as they move up the chain and take on more responsiblity.
Cons:
It bottle necks those who want to move up but can't because there are no command slots.
It would reduced the number of people availble to take wing staff positions (assuming you would want a wing staffer to be at least Level III).
It would make your squadron commadners(one of the hardest jobs in CAP) only be Level II which should be your unit staffer PD level.
Those who no desire to progress through squadron command would have no incentive to improve their PD level beyond Level II.
While you state a lot of status que issues.....that is actually a different argument....why are not trying to encourage our members to progress in their PD levels....even if they are happy as a unit level staffer.
I feel that I've adequately addressed your first two "cons" (though obviously you don't, but oh well)...
QuoteIt would make your squadron commadners(one of the hardest jobs in CAP)only be Level II which should be your unit staffer PD level.
Keep in mind that there is absolutely no requirement to be a squadron commander other than that you can breath and have done level 1. How many squadrons are being run by those with only Level II right now? Quite a few. This would just encourage those with Level II to become squadron commanders when right now there is no incentive for them to even think about it. Also, depending on the squadron there may not be anyone with Level II interested in moving up so the crusty old Lt. Cols might end up staying in command for a while too.
QuoteThose who no desire to progress through squadron command would have no incentive to improve their PD level beyond Level II.
Thats true, but I think most squadron commanders had to be semi-browbeat into the position anyway, so they may not have the desire to do it, but will do it for the good of the unit. Really not much different than the current situation, especially in smaller units.
QuoteWhile you state a lot of status que issues.....that is actually adifferent argument....why are not trying to encourage our members toprogress in their PD levels....even if they are happy as a unit levelstaffer.
Not sure I understand this one.
The status quo is that members don't generally progress in their PD levels. That no one really holds anyone to any sort of standard as it relates to PD to determine who gets what job.
But requiring command experience for level III does not solve this problem. The only "problem" it will solve is that there are people with level III/IV/V with no command experince.
Is this really a problem?
By making command experince required for Level III you put a stop to almost all PD advancement beyond Level II. So the problem gets worse because now you cut off the PD system for those people who want to progress in the PD system and move up to higher staff jobs but can't or don't want to hold command.
So you will be gutting the PD for the bulk of your group/wing/region/national staff.
This would cut out any possiblity of trying to require particular PD levels for higher level staff jobs because there are simply not enough people who have been given the opportunity to hold command positions.
Just because there is no requirment for this at this time does not mean there should not be.
If I were god I would require all squadron commanders to be Level III before they got the job. I would allow for those curcumstances where there is no Level III member able/willing to take the position.
Your proposal does not solve any problems IMHO but creates more problems to those who want to progress in the PD system but can't or don't want to hold command positions.
Instead of requiring Command experience for PD levels, why not require PD levels for Command positions? We have Wing CCs (well, at least one) that have not progressed past Level 1.
Quote from: Westernslope on December 01, 2009, 10:21:20 PM
Instead of requiring Command experience for PD levels, why not require PD levels for Command positions? We have Wing CCs (well, at least one) that have not progressed past Level 1.
Sounds good... What would you/anyone propose for reasonable minimums?
New Squadron: CC = Level 1 +
Existing Squadron CC = Level 2 +
Group CC = Level 3 +
Wing CC = Level 4 +
Region CC = Level 5
No i didn't think the above out... just thought I should provide something since I asked ;)
Quote from: RiveraJ on December 02, 2009, 06:23:09 PM
Quote from: Westernslope on December 01, 2009, 10:21:20 PM
Instead of requiring Command experience for PD levels, why not require PD levels for Command positions? We have Wing CCs (well, at least one) that have not progressed past Level 1.
Sounds good... What would you/anyone propose for reasonable minimums?
New Squadron: CC = Level 1 +
Existing Squadron CC = Level 2 +
Group CC = Level 3 +
Wing CC = Level 4 +
Region CC = Level 5
No i didn't think the above out... just thought I should provide something since I asked ;)
Actually, I was just thinking the same scheme, with one exception. I would start the PD requirement at Group and leave the squadron level as is.
Quote from: RiveraJ on December 02, 2009, 06:23:09 PM
Sounds good... What would you/anyone propose for reasonable minimums?
New Squadron: CC = Level 1 +
Existing Squadron CC = Level 2 +
Group CC = Level 3 +
Wing CC = Level 4 +
Region CC = Level 5
Minimum requirements or "suggested guidelines" for wing commanders state that they hold the grade of major and should complete Level IV. Ref: CAPR35-9 Section B para 3 and 4. So - the question - do they
have to have Level IV completed?
Quote from: Camas on December 02, 2009, 07:51:17 PM
Minimum requirements or "suggested guidelines" for wing commanders state that they hold the grade of major and should complete Level IV. Ref: CAPR35-9 Section B para 3 and 4. So - the question - do they have to have Level IV completed?
No.