Clarification for Professional Appointment

[Eclipse]

And if we are not selecting the best qualified persons for the job, the problem is not related to officer appointments based on professional or mission-related skills.  Then it is just a garden-variety leadership failure to select the best qualified and available officer.

Sounds good on paper, unfortunately, the "only willing" generally trumps the ongoing search for "best qualified", since the former is far too often the only choice.

The fix, again, is more people.

Ned did say the Best Qualified and Available.

Yes, he did - but he's presumably using that in the pamphlet sense of the perfect CAP world, not the ground-level reality where "available" is all we have.
A unit with 3 seniors isn't going to have a lot of choice over "best" vs. "any". 

As he says, it's a leadership problem, but one which comes form much higher then the unit level.

[Storm Chaser]

A CAP captain promoted under standard duty performance has the following minimum training and experience:

• Officer Basic Course
• Squadron Leadership School
• Technician Rating on a CAP Specialty Track
• Experience in at least one CAP staff duty position
• Level II
• 3 years of CAP service

A CAP captain recently appointed under mission related skills will have one of the following qualifications in addition to Level I:

• CFI, or
• A&P with Inspection Authorization, or
  
• Instrument Instructor

While these are useful skills in CAP, they hardly translate to the type of experience and training expected of a CAP captain. CAP also provides such professional appointments for chaplains, legal officers, health professionals, educators, and finance officers. Again, all important professions and qualifications that can benefit CAP, but not necessarily representative of an experienced CAP officer. There are many other professionals that join CAP and contribute their skills and experience, yet do not receive accelerated promotions. Why do we make these exceptions? Is this meant as a recruiting tool?

The opportunity to provide meaningful volunteer service should be enough reward for those professionals. Rank should be used to recognize leadership and the potential for officers to assume greater responsibilities within CAP.

[lordmonar]

So....I am talking about reality.

And yes.....more people and more training and more assistance from wing and group is what all squadrons need.

Oh......wait......you said it is not Wing/Group's job to help squadrons....I keep forgetting that.

[lordmonar]

I have always thought that advanced promotions should always come with a time limit for the individual to make up the CAP training, even for former military officers.

Retire Lt Col.....(that's level IV) should have four years to catch up.....if he does not...then he is demoted to the appropriate rank.

CFI comes in as Capt.....(that's Level II and a Senior Rating) he has two years to catch up or he gets demoted.

So...we keep the recruiting benefit of advanced rank......and keep the integrity of the CAP rank system.....i.e. all CAP Majors are Level III or actively working on it.

YMMV.

[Eclipse]

...more people and more training and more assistance from wing and group is what all squadrons need.

Like what?

[Eclipse]

I have always thought that advanced promotions should always come with a time limit for the individual to make up the CAP training, even for former military officers.

Retire Lt Col.....(that's level IV) should have four years to catch up.....if he does not...then he is demoted to the appropriate rank.

CFI comes in as Capt.....(that's Level II and a Senior Rating) he has two years to catch up or he gets demoted.

So...we keep the recruiting benefit of advanced rank......and keep the integrity of the CAP rank system.....i.e. all CAP Majors are Level III or actively working on it.

YMMV.

On this we agree 100%, and the demotions should be system-level, automatic.  Do not pass go, no waivers.

[Storm Chaser]

I have always thought that advanced promotions should always come with a time limit for the individual to make up the CAP training, even for former military officers.

That would be reasonable. I have "benefited" from a special appointment as an officer of the Armed Forces, but I took it upon myself to complete all my professional development requirements. Unfortunately, not every military officer in CAP does that and the regulations don't require it. They should.

[lordmonar]

...more people and more training and more assistance from wing and group is what all squadrons need.

Like what?

First.....wing should be giving squadron clear guidance about what strength levels they should be maintaining.
They should be clearly identifiying ES qualifications that a composite or senior squadron should be maintaining.

Secondly.....as a squadron begins to fall below these levels they should be actively contacting these squadrons and assisting them with recruiting and training members to keep their levels up.

Thirdly.....they should be working with commanders to insure that there is a definite succession plan in place.   i.e. a squadron commander drops out for some reason (job, illness, burn out, incompetence) there is no scramble to find a replacement....and that replacement should have an identified go to person for assistance with anything they need.

Fourth......wing/group program officers should be required to make frequent Staff Assistance Visits.  To make sure that the squadron is on program, is following their recovery plan or is off the reservation.

A squadron with only three SM is not healthy.....and wing should know about it and be actively helping said squadron to recover.

[Storm Chaser]

A squadron with only three SM is not healthy.....and wing should know about it and be actively helping said squadron to recover.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but three senior members is the minimum requirement to start a cadet squadron. While not ideal, I'm not sure if I would go as far as to call such a squadron "not healthy", especially if all SMs in the unit are active.

[Eclipse]

A squadron with only three SM is not healthy.....and wing should know about it and be actively helping said squadron to recover.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but three senior members is the minimum requirement to start a cadet squadron. While not ideal, I'm not sure if I would go as far as to call such a squadron "not healthy", especially if all SMs in the unit are active.

I agree with Lord on pretty much his entire statement - a unit with only three seniors isn't healthy by any measure.  It can barely even make the bare minimum required appointments.

What's above is pretty much how I view a Wing / Group's responsibilities, the problem is that the practical ability to respond when a Unit simply refuses to comply are more then a
little limited, and wings and groups are just as hamstrung by our insufficient manning as everyone else - moreso where wings allow a lot of multi-echelon billeting.

The SAVs, frankly, are a minefield, because it opens the door to a lot of potential usurping of authority and autonomy.  In a perfect world, each echelon above would be better informed
and more experienced then the one below, and understand where the lines are, but in a world where members are allowed to join-in at the wing level and accept directorships
before their membership ribbon, that is not always the case, which circles around  to where we are today.

[lordmonar]

A squadron with only three SM is not healthy.....and wing should know about it and be actively helping said squadron to recover.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but three senior members is the minimum requirement to start a cadet squadron. While not ideal, I'm not sure if I would go as far as to call such a squadron "not healthy", especially if all SMs in the unit are active.

I understand where you are coming from....and yes 3 SM is the minimum to start a squadron.....but wing/group should be providing a lot of assistance to that unit....that unit should have clear goals on how to build to a sustainable level.

3 SM with 7 cadets (IIRC) is the minimum unit.  That unit should have been created not because 10 people just decided to create a unit...but because wing identified that community/neighbor hood as being able to support a unit.  That that unit should be XX size (with in a reasonable time frame).  That that unit should be supporting XX number of cadets or XX number of ground teams/aircrew/mission base staff.

That gives the commander clear guidance on how big his unit should be, what qualifications he should be training towards.....and it gives wing an instantaneous snap shot of how the squadron is doing.

We need clear guidance on what the "ideal" squadron should look like....(not the org chart from 20-1).

To use the BSA model as an example.

The BSA Idea troop has four patrols with eight boys in the patrol.  Four boys in the staff and four adult leaders working in the field with them.
Behind that there is a committee that does the admin/finance/logistics support made up of mostly parents who don't have to do any other boy scout stuff if they so choose.

Everything in BSA is built on that model.   Using the "patrol method" you can build and execute the program to produce an Eagle Scout.
They have a Quality Unit program that is aimed at troops reaching the ideal model.
They reward leaders and troops as they move to reaching the ideal model.
All their programs from their magazine to what they do at summer camp, district, council, and national activities are aimed at fulfilling these goals.   

CAP is kind of broken in that sense.

We don't have an idea squadron model.
We have a quality unit program (stolen whole cloth from the BSA) and is a step in the right direction.
We have an IDEAL of what a SPAATZ cadet should be able to do.....but it is not support by the rest of the program.
We complain that Cadet X is not really Spaatz material....but where can he get that experience if all he has to do is lead 7 cadets.
We complain that Cadet Y is put into the "command" spot too soon.....but with only 7 cadets.....what else is he going to do?

If I were god for a day.....I would break up all the composite squadrons and split CAP into ES squadrons and CP squadrons.
Cadets would be required to learn ES skills as part of their progression but could not activity participate in the ES program (including SAREXs).

I would accelerate the cadet program.  I would eliminate the sustained promotions for one and kill the Phase I and II AE books.
I would change the way we do encampments and when we recruit cadets.
I would restructure the cadet squadron where only 4-5 senior members are required to be in contact with cadets and everyone else is a behind the scenes support role....where uniforms, PD, Safety and all the rest of the BS are not required.

I would shift the SUI away from an I dotting T crossing exercise to covering only those areas that MUST be met to keep the USAF happy....i.e. money, and USAF supplied property.

......yep.....I got a lot of ideas.

YMMV. 

[Storm Chaser]

A squadron with only three SM is not healthy.....and wing should know about it and be actively helping said squadron to recover.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but three senior members is the minimum requirement to start a cadet squadron. While not ideal, I'm not sure if I would go as far as to call such a squadron "not healthy", especially if all SMs in the unit are active.

I agree with Lord on pretty much his entire statement - a unit with only three seniors isn't healthy by any measure.  It can barely even make the bare minimum required appointments.

I agree is not ideal, but if a cadet squadron can't function with 3 senior members, then why are we allowing this number as the minimum? By the way, I was part of a squadron like that both as a cadet and a senior member. We were able to managed by relying heavily on our cadet staff. Again, I'm not saying it's ideal.

[Eclipse]

You have to have some number in the reg, but there's simply no way a unit running on minimums for very long can be
successful in anything but slow-moving status quo.

Clearly they aren't growing, or have a high churn rate, and there will be limited opportunities internally for leadership roles
(for anyone), more importantly followership roles, and the unit's viability is in constant question, being dependent on
any one person to drop off, out, or dead.

Further, with everyone doing 4 jobs, that means they are either getting done at the lowest check-box level, or simply ignored
when not required.

[Storm Chaser]

^ Can't disagree with that.

[Cliff_Chambliss]

I have always thought that advanced promotions should always come with a time limit for the individual to make up the CAP training, even for former military officers.

Retire Lt Col.....(that's level IV) should have four years to catch up.....if he does not...then he is demoted to the appropriate rank.

CFI comes in as Capt.....(that's Level II and a Senior Rating) he has two years to catch up or he gets demoted.

So...we keep the recruiting benefit of advanced rank......and keep the integrity of the CAP rank system.....i.e. all CAP Majors are Level III or actively working on it.

YMMV.

On this we agree 100%, and the demotions should be system-level, automatic.  Do not pass go, no waivers.

+1

[RiverAux]

I have always thought that advanced promotions should always come with a time limit for the individual to make up the CAP training, even for former military officers.

I've always been a strong advocate of eliminating them, but this would be a compromise that I could live with. 

On the one hand it does give them a certain period of time to cause havoc before they figure things out, but on the other it gives them a strong incentive to get caught up on PD.  Even if they didn't join because of the advanced rank (which they didn't) they're not going to want to be demoted even if rank isn't something that they care a lot about.  It just looks bad to get demoted even for relatively benign reasons such as this. 

[JeffDG]

How about giving commanders the authority to waive time-in-grade for professional appointments?

Let's say you're a CFI...

Level 1:  2nd LT
Tech:  1st LT
Level 2:  Capt

All regardless of time in grade...you get to Capt quicker, but you've done SLS, OBC and that stuff before you slap on the bars.

Honestly, I think approving authorities should be able to waive TIG more generally for members who show initiative and take on higher levels of responsibility.  I would advocate giving commanders the authority to waive TIG up to one less than their approving authority...so Squadron/CCs could waive TIG for 2nd LT, Group/CCs for 1st LT, Wing Commanders for Captains, Region/CCs for Major, and CAP/CC for Lt Col.

[Storm Chaser]

How about giving commanders the authority to waive time-in-grade for professional appointments?
...
Honestly, I think approving authorities should be able to waive TIG more generally for members who show initiative and take on higher levels of responsibility...

I'm not crazy about that. While time-in-grade doesn't guarantee anything, the time spent in grade can provide additional experience needed for subsequent grades. CAP already has too many accelerated promotions and required time-in-grade is much less than in the Air Force. As an example, a CAP major requires 3 years time-in-grade as a captain. In the Air Force, the average major spends 7 years time-in-grade as a captain. I don't think we need to provide commanders with another option to promote officers faster.

[jimmydeanno]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but three senior members is the minimum requirement to start a cadet squadron.

In essence, it's a starting point.  You've found 10 people, 3 of which are adults, who are willing to give this "CAP thing" a go.  However, there is an expectation (albeit unwritten) that the unit will grow from its meager beginnings.  Those three seniors are the three that are going to build and grow the unit, not be the permanent level of the unit. 

[Storm Chaser]

In essence, it's a starting point.  You've found 10 people, 3 of which are adults, who are willing to give this "CAP thing" a go.  However, there is an expectation (albeit unwritten) that the unit will grow from its meager beginnings.  Those three seniors are the three that are going to build and grow the unit, not be the permanent level of the unit.

I understand and agree with this as a starting point for a new unit or turning an old one around. You have 3 (hopefully) active senior members that will build/rebuild the squadron and recruit more senior members in the process. As Eclipse said earlier, there are limitations and challenges when everyone is trying to do multiple jobs. I've been there and it's not ideal since you can't focus 100% of your time on each of them.

The conversation about the minimum 3 senior members required for a squadron started with a comment that Eclipse made and a response from Lordmonar.

Yes, he did - but he's presumably using that in the pamphlet sense of the perfect CAP world, not the ground-level reality where "available" is all we have.
A unit with 3 seniors isn't going to have a lot of choice over "best" vs. "any". 

A squadron with only three SM is not healthy.....and wing should know about it and be actively helping said squadron to recover.

I agree with Eclipse since we don't always have a lot of choice when it comes to experience, qualifications, aptitude, talents and capabilities. You may have a brand new captain who's a CFI having to assume command of a squadron because he's the ranking officer (I know rank is not the determining factor for command) since the other two are brand new senior members without rank. Obviously rank here is misleading since the captain in this scenario may know very little about CAP; he was promoted because he knows enough about aviation and is an instructor pilot.

I somewhat agree with Lordmonar on his comment about the health of a squadron. While I agree that a squadron with only 3 senior members will have some challenges moving forward, I'm hesitant to call such squadron "not healthy" as a generalization, without understanding its background and not knowing the experience, qualifications and leadership capabilities of its senior members.

Going back to the topic at hand, professional appointments may sometimes work, but they also allow for individuals that have no business having higher ranks to get promoted over more experienced and competent individuals. Personally, I would eliminate or at least limit them. A good compromise as mentioned by Lordmonar and a few other posters would be to make those officers receiving accelerated promotion complete the professional development requirements commensurable with their rank within a specific timeframe. Failure to complete these requirements may result in the officers being reverted to their previous rank.