Clarification for Professional Appointment

[NIN]

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. 

Unfortunately, what that tends to do is give the people who "don't do anything but" a serious leg up. My experience is that they're not the most well rounded individuals.  So you have a guy who is retired and can do pretty much nothing but knock out PME left & right, and he's a Captain immediately?

Years ago, I had a gent apply for TAC officer at encampment. We had a slot come open at the last minute due to an unexpected conflict. 

It was one of those situations where everybody I would have wanted was booked, and this guy was the only person who was *available*.  (retired, etc).

Yeah, it was a complete trainwreck. I would have been better off not filling the position.

[RiverAux]

I can't think of an idea that I like less than waiving TIG in CAP.  That would so open up the opportunities for more Good Old Boyism than just about anything I can think of.

If you have a really super high-performer working for you, how about making full use of the CAP award system?  In general, commanders don't come close to using this as much as they should. 

[Eclipse]

Fast burners and slow burners raise the same eyebrows, and I haven'r really met anyone in CAP, yet,
that was such a top performer that it would justify waiving TIG.

[Tim Day]

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.

I'd support that, actually. I'm a retired Navy Commander who just promoted to Lt Col based on my military rank. It took almost a year, during which I not only made progress on level II (SLS, OBC) but served as the Deputy Commander for Cadets. SLS and OBC didn't really cover much new ground for me, but I felt like they're appropriate for baselining our CAP professional knowledge. I just finished level II and am embarking on Level III.

There's enough review in the service-related promotion process to mitigate most of the risk of abuse. My promotion required CC recommendation and group/wing board approval.

There's also enough variation in how well CAP officers follow the standards they learn in CAP professional development that I don't believe PD / TIG really ensures quality service.

All that said, the CAP PD is useful enough without really being too time consuming that mandatory completion to avoid an automatic reduction in grade seems reasonable.

You could always throw a waiver process in so executive leadership could retain the people that demonstrate some kind of invaluable presence that we need to retain them.

[Eclipse]

You could always throw a waiver process in so executive leadership could retain the people that demonstrate some kind of invaluable presence that we need to retain them.

I'd be very curious to know what sort of skills are so invaluable that they warrant advanced promotion, while at the same time
the only reason we can get the member to stay is by giving them advanced grade.  Frankly, those things are pretty
much 180 opposed and would be more an indication the member doesn't really "get" CAP enough to warrant the grade in the first place.

As a note to your personal experience, good on your wing for pressing a higher standard, but the majority of current / former military officers
are promoted to match their grade before they qualify for their membership ribbon.

[Storm Chaser]

Fast burners and slow burners raise the same eyebrows, and I haven'r really met anyone in CAP, yet,
that was such a top performer that it would justify waiving TIG.

I have, but that was the exception not the rule. I think allowing commanders the option to waive TIG is a bad idea. I would instead support extending the TIG, and maybe providing a below-the-zone option for top performers, equivalent to what the current TIG is now.

[Bobble]

There's also enough variation in how well CAP officers follow the standards they learn in CAP professional development that I don't believe PD / TIG really ensures quality service.

All that said, the CAP PD is useful enough without really being too time consuming that mandatory completion to avoid an automatic reduction in grade seems reasonable.

I don't understand.  You don't believe that the current PD/TIG program ensures quality service on the part of Senior Member participants, and then you state that the CAP's PD program is useful, so useful in fact that you posit that Senior Members who have already received advance promotion but who don't progress satisfactorily (is there a maximum time limit/schedule between promotions I am not aware of?) in the standard PD program should receive a reduction in grade for failure to progress.  Did I read that correctly?  It seems contradictory, or did I miss something along the way?  Thanks.

[Storm Chaser]

I'd support that, actually. I'm a retired Navy Commander who just promoted to Lt Col based on my military rank. It took almost a year, during which I not only made progress on level II (SLS, OBC) but served as the Deputy Commander for Cadets. SLS and OBC didn't really cover much new ground for me, but I felt like they're appropriate for baselining our CAP professional knowledge. I just finished level II and am embarking on Level III.

Good on you! I know an officer in a similar situation, except that after 3 years he hasn't even completed his technician rating. He's a good officer, but because he already has the maximum rank he can attain in CAP (without being appointed wing commander or higher), PD hasn't been a priority.

[Tim Day]

There's also enough variation in how well CAP officers follow the standards they learn in CAP professional development that I don't believe PD / TIG really ensures quality service.

All that said, the CAP PD is useful enough without really being too time consuming that mandatory completion to avoid an automatic reduction in grade seems reasonable.

I don't understand.  You don't believe that the current PD/TIG program ensures quality service on the part of Senior Member participants, and then you state that the CAP's PD program is useful, so useful in fact that you posit that Senior Members who have already received advance promotion but who don't progress satisfactorily (is there a maximum time limit/schedule between promotions I am not aware of?) in the standard PD program should receive a reduction in grade for failure to progress.  Did I read that correctly?  It seems contradictory, or did I miss something along the way?  Thanks.

In general, good training programs are no guarantee that the trainees will use their training. That doesn't negate the value of the training program. Does that clarify?

[Storm Chaser]

There's also enough variation in how well CAP officers follow the standards they learn in CAP professional development that I don't believe PD / TIG really ensures quality service.

All that said, the CAP PD is useful enough without really being too time consuming that mandatory completion to avoid an automatic reduction in grade seems reasonable.

I don't understand.  You don't believe that the current PD/TIG program ensures quality service on the part of Senior Member participants, and then you state that the CAP's PD program is useful, so useful in fact that you posit that Senior Members who have already received advance promotion but who don't progress satisfactorily (is there a maximum time limit/schedule between promotions I am not aware of?) in the standard PD program should receive a reduction in grade for failure to progress.  Did I read that correctly?  It seems contradictory, or did I miss something along the way?  Thanks.

I think that most of agree that our current PD requirements and courses are not perfect and that many who complete them still fail to meet standards and/or expected performance. But I think most of us also agree that we need to have a minimum set of training standards and that, in general, officers who complete PD levels equivalent to their rank progression, tend to have a better understanding and knowledge of CAP than those who have the rank, but haven't completed the appropriate PD levels.

[Tim Day]

I'd be very curious to know what sort of skills are so invaluable that they warrant advanced promotion, while at the same time
the only reason we can get the member to stay is by giving them advanced grade.  Frankly, those things are pretty
much 180 opposed and would be more an indication the member doesn't really "get" CAP enough to warrant the grade in the first place.

Leadership experience, emergency services experience, medical, law, aerospace education - there's 5. Not sure what you mean by "get" CAP. I've known plenty of CAP members who don't get all aspects of the CAP mission areas, including myself. I'm personally thankful for the diversity of people we have.

As a note to your personal experience, good on your wing for pressing a higher standard, but the majority of current / former military officers
are promoted to match their grade before they qualify for their membership ribbon.

Actually they're just following the CAPR 35-5. Region Commander (yeah, I said Wing - my mistake) appoints member to Lt Col via a one year temporary promotion. At the anniversary, the approval authority then reviews the promotion and either extends, revokes, or makes permanent the promotion.

[BillB]

One aspect to consider is comparing the cadet program to senior program as far as promotions go. In all cases the cadet has to complete training (achievements) for promotion. Seniors on the other hand can get initial appointments to officer positions. Seniors can also get what amounts to automatic promotions, suich as serving as Commander for one year. I know of one case a senior was promoted to Captain after only completing level 1 and servings as a commander for one year. Granted they did have technician level in two professional development areas. And what of the member who has completed level 5 and isn't promoted to LCol because Region doesn't want to appoint to many LCol's?

[Tim Day]

I think that most of agree that our current PD requirements and courses are not perfect and that many who complete them still fail to meet standards and/or expected performance. But I think most of us also agree that we need to have a minimum set of training standards and that, in general, officers who complete PD levels equivalent to their rank progression, tend to have a better understanding and knowledge of CAP than those who have the rank, but haven't completed the appropriate PD levels.

Adeptly summarized.

[Eclipse]

One aspect to consider is comparing the cadet program to senior program as far as promotions go. In all cases the cadet has to complete training (achievements) for promotion. Seniors on the other hand can get initial appointments to officer positions. Seniors can also get what amounts to automatic promotions, suich as serving as Commander for one year. I know of one case a senior was promoted to Captain after only completing level 1 and servings as a commander for one year. Granted they did have technician level in two professional development areas. And what of the member who has completed level 5 and isn't promoted to LCol because Region doesn't want to appoint to many LCol's?

This is drying up in many wings - mine won't consider it unless you've completed UCC.

As to the Lt Col issue, if you could prove it that would be grounds for a sustainable complaint as the promotion criteria is about the member, not how many there are.

[Bobble]

There's also enough variation in how well CAP officers follow the standards they learn in CAP professional development that I don't believe PD / TIG really ensures quality service.

All that said, the CAP PD is useful enough without really being too time consuming that mandatory completion to avoid an automatic reduction in grade seems reasonable.

I don't understand.  You don't believe that the current PD/TIG program ensures quality service on the part of Senior Member participants, and then you state that the CAP's PD program is useful, so useful in fact that you posit that Senior Members who have already received advance promotion but who don't progress satisfactorily (is there a maximum time limit/schedule between promotions I am not aware of?) in the standard PD program should receive a reduction in grade for failure to progress.  Did I read that correctly?  It seems contradictory, or did I miss something along the way?  Thanks.

In general, good training programs are no guarantee that the trainees will use their training. That doesn't negate the value of the training program. Does that clarify?

Got it, thanks.  I think that second part would be a fairly tough "row to hoe", telling SM's with advanced grade that resulted from a professional appointment that they'll be demoted if they fail to progress in the standard PD program, based on whatever schedule there might be.  JMHO.

[Tim Day]

Got it, thanks.  I think that second part would be a fairly tough "row to hoe", telling SM's with advanced grade that resulted from a professional appointment that they'll be demoted if they fail to progress in the standard PD program, based on whatever schedule there might be.  JMHO.

Agree, but the CAPR 35-5 already provides for this, the PD program isn't that hard, and military folks (and I assume those with civilian professional backgrounds) should be familiar with the concept.

I'm not really an advocate for changing the regs (since I think they already provide sufficient guidance). I'm just saying I could live with the practice (if implemented by the Region / Wing) of revoking the temporary promotion when the member opted not to pursue PD or otherwise contribute to the organization.

[Eclipse]

CAP needs to start hoeing these rows, tough or otherwise.

[arajca]

Got it, thanks.  I think that second part would be a fairly tough "row to hoe", telling SM's with advanced grade that resulted from a professional appointment that they'll be demoted if they fail to progress in the standard PD program, based on whatever schedule there might be.  JMHO.

It wouldn't be so tough if:
1. It was made clear to the member from the outset
2. It was automatic though eServices

Which means you'd need to grandfather current folks - or provide a rigid schedule. Also, eServices would need to track what type of promotion a member received. Finally, a successive duty performance promotion would need to cover the backfill requirement.

[lordmonar]

Got it, thanks.  I think that second part would be a fairly tough "row to hoe", telling SM's with advanced grade that resulted from a professional appointment that they'll be demoted if they fail to progress in the standard PD program, based on whatever schedule there might be.  JMHO.

It wouldn't be so tough if:
1. It was made clear to the member from the outset
2. It was automatic though eServices

Which means you'd need to grandfather current folks - or provide a rigid schedule. Also, eServices would need to track what type of promotion a member received. Finally, a successive duty performance promotion would need to cover the backfill requirement.

I don't know we would have to grandfather anyone.

If were to make the change......and Eservice automatically did the demotion.......It would just be a matter of when the clock starts.

Say....1 Jan 2014.   So.....all those Level I Lt Cols would have 4 years (1 Jan 2018) to catch up.    If they don't like it.....oh well.

[bflynn]

If they don't like it.....oh well.

I don't understand the "oh well" part.  There's lots of ways that can be taken.