Group/Squadron/Flight Commander Term Limits

Started by Tim Medeiros, January 03, 2013, 03:08:10 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Eclipse

You know, the repetitive response on term limits, the uniform thread, and a constant comment from Ned is "If Commanders were doing their jobs, we wouldn't have these issues."

I agree 100%.

They aren't.

So that's it?  The great circle of life? 

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

No....my point is....forcing out some effective commander because he has termed out is as stupid as allowing some incompetant keep his job.

The answer is and always has been good leadership at all levels....not adminstrative BS with regs and policy.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Майор Хаткевич

Quote from: lordmonar on January 04, 2013, 06:25:20 AM
No....my point is....forcing out some effective commander because he has termed out is as stupid as allowing some incompetant keep his job.

The answer is and always has been good leadership at all levels....not adminstrative BS with regs and policy.

Good commander should have mentored a replacement or two, and can help them out when they start out, no?

Larry Mangum

It is not always that simple.  I was asked to take over the squadron I command, because no current members would step up and take command. It has been slightly over two years since that happened and it took me well over a year to recruit someone who had an interest in any type of command experience. That member started out as a sponsor member, was recruited to become a senior member and is now my CDC. But if I had to relied upon the members that existed in the unit when I took over, there still would not be anyone in the pipeline and there is also no guarantee that he will still be interested in command by the time I reach the 4 year mark, as his daughter has now left for college.

In short very few seniors are interested in command.
Larry Mangum, Lt Col CAP
DCS, Operations
SWR-SWR-001

Patterson

Wow!  No one brought up the fact that the National Vice Commander can serve for life (no term limit established, period).

Seriously, I doubt that there are even a handful of Squadron Commanders out there who have served in the same position for more than 15 years, yet that is everyones reasoning for term-limits. 

Look at the history of the organization and you will find Wing and Region Commanders who served upwards of 30 years in those positions.  Term-limits are good, but are useless unless a real Training Program for all these up and coming Commanders referenced within this and multiple other threads is implemented.

This is more of a "you suck, thus I fire you legally" change.  It allows the "no hard feelings", and "we can still be friends" relationships between Wing and Region Commanders and thier subordiante Commanders.  Nothing more than that!

RiverAux

With basically the same type of people involved in the organization, about the same number of local units, and about the same amount of membership, the CG Aux gets along swimmingly with commanders that have a 1 year term with an option for a 1-year renewal. 

If every 1-2 years my CG Aux unit can come up with a new commander, then my home CAP unit, which is about the same size should be able to every 4 years. 

Maybe now that CAP has term limits some of those people who have been afraid to raise their hand because they did not want to make an open-ended commitment to an incredibly time-intensive job will be willing to step up. 

dwb

Quote from: Patterson on January 04, 2013, 04:02:28 PMSeriously, I doubt that there are even a handful of Squadron Commanders out there who have served in the same position for more than 15 years, yet that is everyones reasoning for term-limits.

A quick glance at the Commanders file in today's CAPWATCH download shows 32 Commanders with 10+ years in the job, and 150 with 5+ years in. Longest-serving Commander is in TXWG and was appointed in Jan 1999.

Eclipse

Quote from: dwb on January 04, 2013, 06:48:19 PM
Quote from: Patterson on January 04, 2013, 04:02:28 PMSeriously, I doubt that there are even a handful of Squadron Commanders out there who have served in the same position for more than 15 years, yet that is everyones reasoning for term-limits.

A quick glance at the Commanders file in today's CAPWATCH download shows 32 Commanders with 10+ years in the job, and 150 with 5+ years in. Longest-serving Commander is in TXWG and was appointed in Jan 1999.

Nicely done, you beat me to it.  I was going to check that but had to run out.

Last I checked we had 1445 units.  I'm sure that's changed a bit, but not much.  I'm guessing No more then 1500, tops, and that charter lists
all echelons, so if you drop off Wings and Groups, we're looking at an excess of 10% of the units with commanders in excess of 5 years. 

I'd also hazard that a good percentage of those are in units that are struggling in general (assertions based on my wing's experience).  Add-in those
lazy-Susan areas where 2-3 people are just exchanging jobs every couple of years and the percentage gets worse.

My WAG would be that we have 20% of the units who have command issues related to stagnated commanders, probably more.

Add to this mix the bottom side as well.  At one point there at least ten units with SMWOG as CC and most of them had less then 6 months in CAP.

"That Others May Zoom"

docbiochem33

I agree with NIN about commanders being in positions for a long time and not staying up with the changes to the program.

I used to have to spend hours online looking up regs and manuals that had changed and send the information to a group commander.  Her comment was always, "How am I supposed to know, I can only go with what I have in writing." 

I would argue with her that this was a bad argument because she could email people a half dozen times a week about stuff at wing and region, but couldn't go online to look stuff up.  She had been there so long she got lazy. 

When there are changes even every 4 to 5 years it is easy to make sure changes happen.  I still remember the complaints about how CAP was putting things online.  I hated some of it, but it was so much easier when it came to making forms available.  With many of the older members they complained that this new way was horrible and in some ways I agree as some are too computer reliant, but it sure beats ordering forms and getting complaints when a form is out of date.

JeffDG

I just realized this...

If an outgoing Wing/CC wanted to screw with his successor, he could cycle all the Squadron/CCs just before heading out the door, then the new Wing/CC wouldn't be able to change any of them for almost his entire term, absent cause.

That's one of the consequences of this new reg...Squadron/CC is now a term position, not an at-will position.  If a squadron commander is appointed, he can keep his job regardless of the wishes of the wing commander unless he gives cause for removal.

Eclipse

I don't read that as providing a commander any less, or more, "at will" removal then before.

You had to have cause for commander removal before.

"Cause" isn't generally hard to find, since anything from insubordination (i.e. not doing what you are told), to
lack of mission execution (and I haven't ever seen a unit that was 100% successful, anywhere).

"That Others May Zoom"

NIN

Depending on the size of the wing, it would take some effort to cycle out commanders just to mess with the new guy.  And by "some effort" I mean "A nearly Herculean effort"

We have a hard time finding someone to take the reigns now even when its an expected thing.   
Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

The CyBorg is destroyed

The (third) commander of my first squadron was a great guy, we became good friends and I eventually became his Deputy CC.

We built the squadron up from almost-downgrading to a Flight to one, though we didn't have an aircraft, we forged a good partnership with a nearby squadron who did and we did a lot of training together.  I got my signoffs for Mission Scanner then.

He continued to lead the squadron after I moved and transferred to another squadron (we unfortunately lost contact)...I think eventually he led the squadron for better than 10 years and finally got so burnt out that he left CAP entirely.  That deprived the organisation of a dedicated volunteer.

I think that the term limits are a good thing, if only to keep someone from that kind of burnout.

After all, National CC's are term-limited.
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

Private Investigator

Quote from: CyBorg on January 14, 2013, 03:47:25 AM
I think that the term limits are a good thing, if only to keep someone from that kind of burnout.


I think it should have been three years and a fourth year for a exceptional Commander. When I was a Group Commander I knew who was burnt out, who was making progress and who needed to be relieved of duties. Most Squadron Commanders should not have a 4th, 5th, 6th year, etc, etc.

Cool Mace

CAP is what you make of it. If you don't put anything in to it, you won't get anything out of it.
Eaker #2250
C/Lt Col, Ret.
The cookies and donuts were a lie.

JeffDG

Quote from: Cool Mace on January 15, 2013, 03:07:53 PM
For those who haven't seen this yet.
For the love of...

OK, I make no secret that I'm not a fan of the term limits...IMHO, it's a crutch for Wing Commanders who don't want to clean out deadwood on their own, and will cost us some excellent commanders...but this whole petition craze is getting out of hand!

FlyTiger77

Quote from: JeffDG on January 15, 2013, 03:12:20 PM
Quote from: Cool Mace on January 15, 2013, 03:07:53 PM
For those who haven't seen this yet.
For the love of...

This seems to be a misguided method for fixing a non-problem. Using petitions instead of the chain of command presumably will not accomplish what the petittioner(s) are trying to accomplish and flight/squadron/group commanders can still serve forever--just in 4 year blocks approved by the wing and region commanders.
JACK E. MULLINAX II, Lt Col, CAP

Luis R. Ramos

Wow!

Now I only ask.

Will we now see petitions for...

...a CSU?

   ...an ABU?

      ...a return to wing patches in/on the Blues?

         ...to have "AF Auxiliary" on everything that those words were removed from vehicles, ACFT,
               and all else?

Seriously, how can that person think that all commanders are the very best for cadets?

Flyer
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer

The CyBorg is destroyed

Quote from: flyer333555 on January 15, 2013, 03:54:11 PM
Now I only ask.

Will we now see petitions for...

...a CSU?

There was one of those on Facebook ("Save The Corporate Service Uniform!").

Quote from: flyer333555 on January 15, 2013, 03:54:11 PM
...to have "AF Auxiliary" on everything that those words were removed from vehicles, ACFT,
               and all else?

An issue I support...but if it doesn't work through the existing CAP structure, it sure isn't going to work through a petition.
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

Cool Mace

For some reason people tend to forget what the CoC is. They think that if they start yelling wolf, then things will change.
They don't consider the time and effort national staff put in to changes. It's not just an overnight ordeal.
CAP is what you make of it. If you don't put anything in to it, you won't get anything out of it.
Eaker #2250
C/Lt Col, Ret.
The cookies and donuts were a lie.