Group/Squadron/Flight Commander Term Limits

[Tim Medeiros]

It seems with the new 20-1 Group/Squadron/Flight Commander Term Limits are a nation-wide thing now.

The wing commander appoints group, squadron, and flight commanders. These commanders serve a four-year term of office. Upon completion of the initial term, the Commander may be appointed to subsequent four-year terms with the approval of the Wing and Region commander.

I have bolded the changed text in that paragraph (14.c for those interested)

[a2capt]

Now if they had only covered the special instances where there is one in place already who's been there for the last 19 years.  You still got 4-8 more years of Fiefdom Central.

[JeffDG]

Why only 4 or 8...there's no restriction on subsequent terms

[a2capt]

Heh, missed that plurality. Then, really, how is this different? Since the the lower echelon commander serves at the will of the higher HQ. It gives them a once every 4 years of absolutely no reason to re-appoint, but since they can, what's the point?

[JeffDG]

Heh, missed that plurality. Then, really, how is this different? Since the the lower echelon commander serves at the will of the higher HQ. It gives them a once every 4 years of absolutely no reason to re-appoint, but since they can, what's the point?

The Region/CC must approve reappointment, so the Wing/CC must go up the chain to reappoint.

What it DOES do is give Squadron/CCs a term of office.  This could well be interpreted that a Squadron/CC is not an "at-will" job, and can only be relieved (except at the term end) for cause.

[arajca]

It could also get more members willing to serve as commander since it's no longer an open-ended commitment. I think it would be difficult to extend the term of a commander who doesn't want it extended.

[docbiochem33]

This is a good thing.  I have seen commanders who refused to give up a position for years and it was because of a variety of reasons. One didn't want to give up his position because he wanted to make sure his kids could at least get to the Spaatz exam.

One group commander used to use the comment, "No one wants to take over," but there were about 5 people standing there waiting.  One quit the program eventually and the others have drifted into the barely alive status in CAP.

[Eclipse]

About time.

As always it should have gone further, but anything is better then nothing.

This has been the policy, unevenly enforced, in my Region for nearly a decade.  The vast majority of the changes were positive.

[JeffDG]

This is a good thing.  I have seen commanders who refused to give up a position for years and it was because of a variety of reasons. One didn't want to give up his position because he wanted to make sure his kids could at least get to the Spaatz exam.

Until this, they served at the pleasure of the Wing/CC, so if the Wing/CC said "You are relieved", then "refusal" was not relevant.

[Eclipse]

The fact that commanders "refuse" to step down, believe they have anything more then a suggestion of their successor, or that the new guy has to come from within the unit indicates those CC's really have no idea how this is supposed to work.

It's not a game, it's not a popularity contest, and you haven't "earned the right".  You're either qualified and have a plan or you aren't.

[docbiochem33]

The unit was one where no one really paid attention.  The commander was replaced eventually because of a comment he made about getting too busy for all the stuff he was doing and that is when Wing finally acted.  They found about 3 replacements in the unit that wanted to take over and were qualified.

The group commander I knew of had those at wing thinking that there was no one that wanted it until they had a former Group Commander from another wing move to the area.  When they started asking questions, they found out that people wanted a change and that people were asking to give her job a try.  They did give it to the newer member to the wing since he had experience and they thought it would end any type of favoritism.

It worked and people were happy, but it still took at least 12 years of one person in a position.

[dwb]

This is actually a really interesting change. And it just sort of flew in under the radar (under my radar, anyway).

I know some Regions and Wings were instituting term limits, much to the dismay of some long-standing unit commanders. Ultimately, I think it's the right thing to do, even if it has to be phased in over a year or two to allow Group/Wing commanders to find suitable replacements.

Also, this change stymies the "just take the squadron for a year and we'll see how it goes" deals (which I have, unfortunately, been a part of). Now it's codified that squadron commander is a term of office.

Methinks this is a change that will be met with some resistance. The next few years should be interesting as all of the "forever commanders" are replaced.

[RogueLeader]

Here in Wyoming, Squadron Commanders are hard to replace, relatively speaking, due to lower numbers.  This is excepting Cheyenne Composite Squadron, where the last Squadron Commanders have been AD Air Force, to where they were only here for a couple years, three at best.  We found out that our current CC will be leaving somewhere between April and September.  It looks like I might get the job.

[PHall]

CAWG started doing Commander Term Limits about 10 years ago.
Haven't noticed any difference in getting people to be a Squadron Commander, it's still a pain.
One thing we have seen is that two or three people in some units will rotate the squadron commander job among themselves.
So we still have the problem of "Empires"... and the GOBN still running things.

[NIN]

I'm not a fan of specific term limits but I darn sure think that someone being a squadron commander for like 12 or 16 years is "way too darn long!"  You know that the wing & group commanders (if they have groups) have changed in that timeframe.  Were the new commanders unwilling to do any boat-rocking?

My longest command term was 5 years, and that was "about on the high side of just about right."  I could have done 4 years (and had I known that I would have had 4 years, I would have probably been a little more aggressive about some things) without it being a big deal.  I commanded that squadron twice, for a total of 7 years (there were two commanders between my two terms).

The thing that worries me about these long-time commanders is that many of them have "been doing it so long" that they're really not keeping up with the program as it evolves and changes.  They're still doing things based on their knowledge of the regs in 1995.  Well, thats great, but this is a CAP squadron, not your personal appreciation society.

[ELTHunter]

Also, this change stymies the "just take the squadron for a year and we'll see how it goes" deals (which I have, unfortunately, been a part of). Now it's codified that squadron commander is a term of office.

Methinks this is a change that will be met with some resistance. The next few years should be interesting as all of the "forever commanders" are replaced.

Nowhere does it say a CC cannot step down inside of 4 years. An appointment isn't a prison sentence. CC's can step down if they just can't fulfill their term.

[dwb]

Obviously, CAP is a volunteer organization. If someone loses their job, moves, decides they don't want it anymore, etc. we can't compel them to keep their command.

That said, the new language in the reg does set a much stronger expectation that the person will serve four years. The "just do the job until we can train up someone else" instances will likely decrease.

[RiverAux]

This seems reasonable.  It does allow for extensions, but I assume that the Wing commander is going to have to make a really strong case to the Region CC to get them to approve it.  And, its not going to look very good for a Wing Commander to ask for that extension since it essentially says that they are failing to find and develop new leaders within their Wing. 

[lordmonar]

This seems reasonable.  It does allow for extensions, but I assume that the Wing commander is going to have to make a really strong case to the Region CC to get them to approve it.  And, its not going to look very good for a Wing Commander to ask for that extension since it essentially says that they are failing to find and develop new leaders within their Wing.

That's an assumption that may or may not be supported by relaity.

If wing and regional commanders were doing thier jobs in the first place there would be no problems with commanders sitting for years in their post.  This new rule only codified what we have already had.

If Squadron Commander X has been doing his job for 10+ years.....and is doing well.....why should he be removed?
If squadron commander X has been doing his job for only 1 year and is struggeling....he should be helped to improve or removed.
It is that simple.

I have always arguened against term limits because for the most part I don't see a need for them.

[Eclipse]

The simple idea that you have a limited time to accomplish your goals as a CC is more then we have now.

On a 4-year cycle a unit CC has essentially 1-2 years of actual command where he's not "new" or "lame duck".

If you come into the job with out a plans or goals, you shouldn't have the job to start with.