Squadron CC assigned to other duty positions.

[Shotgun]

Recently, I've run across a practice that I'm personally having difficulty reconciling. I'm hoping to get some additional views on the matter to either validate or change my current opinion.

In the past year and a half I've been involved with various units where the unit CC also officially holds another duty position within that unit.
For example, a Squadron Commander is also assigned the duty position of Transportation Officer.

My thinking is that a Squadron Commander should NOT hold any other position within that unit.

Here's my reasoning.

Having a CC serve in another position would lead to some conflicts in the chain of command and make for an interesting Organization Chart.
How can a Squadron Commander report to himself? Or even worse, report to someone who then reports back to him as the CC?
(Example - Squadron CC serving as Transportation Officer would report to Logistics Officer who then reports back to the Squadron CC.)

The person serving as CC is ultimately responsible for making sure that the duties and responsibilities of that position are fulfilled. And in most cases would actually perform those duties. But actually assigning himself to that position may discourage or deny another person the opportunity to take on that role or be forced to serve in the Assistant capacity.

I have no qualms with a Squadron CC serving in another position at a different echelon (ie Squadron CC serving as Assistant Director of Cadet Program at the wing level). I also have no issue with a person holding more than one duty position.
But for some reason I have issues with a Commander being officially being assigned to another position within his/her unit.

As the unit commander he/she should be looking for a way to get any open position filled.

I know that there is no official regulation prohibiting such a practice with the exception of Finance and Safety, but I don't think many members think about the implications of the practice.

Thoughts?  Other opinions? Has anyone else run across this?  Am I silly to think this is an issue, and it's not really that big of deal?

[lordmonar]

A.  By default....a squadron CC IS all those other positions.   Ultimately he is responsible for them.
B.  How can their be a chain of command issue?  The CC is top dog.....an assistant trans officer works for the trans officer, who works for the DCS who works for the CC.   
C.  Practical consideration, E-service releases restricted application by duty position.....and interestingly some of those applications are not released to the CC.   So the only way to get access to them is to be assigned to the duty position.
D.  Practical consideration 2,  a notional squadron has something like 10+ major jobs (Logistics, Transportation, Cadet Programs, ES, Personnel, Finance, Safety, Professional Development, Public Affairs, etc).  And yet the average size for most squadrons is only 20 people.  We all know that at least 1/3 of them empty shirts of one sort or another.  The jobs have to get done and someone has to do it.   Maybe the CC is the round peg for the round hole.

Yes....a squadron commander should be looking to man, train and equip his squadron to perform assigned missions......but what do you do when you don't have the manning or training to fill the position?   Leave it empty......in which case it is the commander who has to do the job anyways.

[Eclipse]

I personally believe that a commander at any echelon should be restricted from any other duty position, regardless of echelon.

Unit CC is a full-time CAP job, not to mention the circular reporting relationships which are created when they have postings at multiple levels.

Sadly, between improper manning and CAP tradition, this isn't likely to stop any time soon.

There's also the "CAP law of unintended consequences".  For years the official rule was "In absence of an appointment, the unit CC
is responsible for the respective duty."  The increasing number of "unfunded personnel mandates" has lead to the practice
of triple-booking just to check the box on an SUI, etc.

[Storm Chaser]

I agree than in an ideal world, the commander should not have other positions within the squadron. Unfortunately, because many units are not adequately manned, the commander ends up assuming additional duties. This could be because of the requirement in certain regulations that an officer be appointed in writing or because of the statement in CAPR 20-1 that "in smaller units, one person may fill more than one position; however, someone should be responsible for each task outlined in each position description so the entire unit is aware of who is responsible for which duties." The only way to correct this issue, as Eclipse always says, is to recruit more members.

[JeffDG]

It's actually required by some regulations.

For example:

c. In the absence of an assigned PAO, the unit commander is responsible for the duties of the PAO. If the unit commander acts as the unit's PAO for 6 months, he/she will be assigned as the PAO according to current personnel procedures in CAPR 35-1 and is encouraged to enroll in the Public Affairs Officer specialty track.

Many other regulations require the appointment of an officer for the job (Communications & Supply for example), so if the commander doesn't appoint someone, then he should appoint himself.

[Private Investigator]

Thoughts?  Other opinions? Has anyone else run across this?  Am I silly to think this is an issue, and it's not really that big of deal?

Yes, yes, yes, yes and maybe.

Look at this. A new person been in the Squadron a year and has earned a Tech rating in Logistics as the Squadron Supply Officer. He ends up the Squadron Commander for four years. So for the next four years he can not advance in the Logistics or any other speciality track? (the Command track is rather new)

Or how about going from Squadron Commander to Group Deputy Commander to Group Commander, 12 years in Command and just a working knowledge of the other speciality tracks? Looks great on the resume for Wing Commander   

[Private Investigator]

It's actually required by some regulations.

For example:

c. In the absence of an assigned PAO, the unit commander is responsible for the duties of the PAO. If the unit commander acts as the unit's PAO for 6 months, he/she will be assigned as the PAO according to current personnel procedures in CAPR 35-1 and is encouraged to enroll in the Public Affairs Officer specialty track.

Many other regulations require the appointment of an officer for the job (Communications & Supply for example), so if the commander doesn't appoint someone, then he should appoint himself.

Exactly. It took me 2 years to find a PAO but it was an interested staff job. Actually nobody wanted it until I was on TV and in the newspaper, three times.   

[RiverAux]

I don't think there are many squadron commanders out there who wouldn't be thrilled to turn over one of these additional duties if they could find someone willing to take it.

I do think that we're approaching the point, if we haven't already passed it, where more folks are going to avoid wanting to be squadron commander because they know for a fact that it will come along with the duties of several other positions that should be full-time jobs. 

Now, we all know that there are CAP jobs and then there are REAL CAP jobs.  The REAL ones are those that involve a substantial amount of work outside of CAP meeting nights.  Unfortunately, CAP has become so complex that the number of REAL jobs has been increasing at the same time that our membership has been basically static. 

There are only two solutions to this issue:

1.  Reduce the number of REAL jobs that we expect squadrons to perform.  Push some of this stuff up the chain of command so that the squadrons can focus on their primary activities. 
2. Recruit more people.

While I think #2 is certainly feasible and we all know stories of squadrons that went from 15 to 40 almost overnight when they got a real hard charger heading up recruiting activities, but it isn't the norm.  Most squadrons are either stable or very slowly increasing or decreasing. 

So, #1 seems the best option. 

As to what jobs should be taken away from the squadron I'm pretty open to ideas. 

[ZigZag911]

All of which leads back to the reality that many CAP squadrons are insufficiently staffed to function as true squadrons...often because of limits caused by small local population size and related demographic issues, such as economics.

Given that an AF squadron is a unit comparable to an Army or Marine battalion (all three are lieutenant colonel's commands, Army & Marines at least have subordinate reporting units), perhaps the local level CAP unit should be a flight rather than a squadron...focused on training, response to community needs, more "tactical" in nature...administrative requirements should be addressed at a centralized, geographically regional echelon, designated either a squadron or group.

This would take a lot of the paper pushing details off the local, community uit commander's back.

[Eclipse]

All of which leads back to the reality that many CAP squadrons are insufficiently staffed to function as true squadrons...often because of limits caused by small local population size and related demographic issues, such as economics.

I agree with the former but not the latter.

If that's truly the case then the unit doesn't belong there, otherwise, the only reason units are undermanned is the lack of command imperative to do meaningful recruiting.

[Shotgun]

Thoughts?  Other opinions? Has anyone else run across this?  Am I silly to think this is an issue, and it's not really that big of deal?

Look at this. A new person been in the Squadron a year and has earned a Tech rating in Logistics as the Squadron Supply Officer. He ends up the Squadron Commander for four years. So for the next four years he can not advance in the Logistics or any other speciality track? (the Command track is rather new)

Or how about going from Squadron Commander to Group Deputy Commander to Group Commander, 12 years in Command and just a working knowledge of the other speciality tracks? Looks great on the resume for Wing Commander   

As a former Squadron Commander the "working knowledge" i gained was of great benefit to making a better leader. Having to review the requirements of each specialty track and making sure all the members meet the qualifications definitely gave me a level of knowledge and experience I would have never gotten without being a commander.

During the time I was a Squadron commander I did not have anyone for Personnel Officer. The position was vacant for nearly two years, but as CC I assumed the responsibilities. During an SUI the inspector (who was also the Wing Commander) suggested I enroll in the Personnel specialty track. By the time I resigned and moved up to wing staff I had met the requirement for a tech rating.  I served as personnel officer, but was never assigned to the position. It was officially labeled as "OPEN" on our org chart.

In addition, a person who moves from Squadron Commander to Group Deputy Commander, to Group Commander would still be able to advance in grade via a Special Appointment promotion - whether they advanced in a specialty track or not.

[Eclipse]

Why can't you earn a specialty track while you're a CC?

If anything, PD is important as an example - if the unit CC doesn't care about PD, why should the members?

[Shotgun]

Just to clarify my position on the matter -

My opinion is that a unit CC should not be officially assigned to a another duty position within the same unit. That doesn't preclude him form serving in the position if it is vacant.

As commander they would be responsible for the duties of the open position and serve as the acting *insert duty position* officer without being actually assigned to that position.

Another (extreme) example - Deputy Commander for Cadets steps down and no senior member is willing or able to take over.
Can the Squadron Commander be his own Deputy?  No, but he can certainly step up and take on the responsibilities until one can be found.

[RiverAux]

perhaps the local level CAP unit should be a flight rather than a squadron...focused on training, response to community needs, more "tactical" in nature...administrative requirements should be addressed at a centralized, geographically regional echelon, designated either a squadron or group.

I think we're on the same page as far as what we think should be done, but I don't think what we call the unit has anything to do with it.  Its the same group of people either way.  In comparison to the AF, a CAP unit is no more a "flight" than it is a "squadron".  I don't see any reason to change the name -- change the responsibilities. 

[Al Sayre]

If you're the Squadron CC AND doing all the functions of another staff position you should put yourself in the specialty track and get credit for the work you do.  As others have said, ideally you wouldn't need to take on multiple functions, but you should get the credit where credit is due. 

You also may find that as a commander it's advantageous to assign yourself as assistant x,y,z officer so you can do things in eServices, OpsQuals, and ORMS that only have dynamically assigned permissions, or else you may find yourself scrambling when nobody else is around to enter the van usage report, issue or accept a radio etc.

[Shotgun]

If you're the Squadron CC AND doing all the functions of another staff position you should put yourself in the specialty track and get credit for the work you do.  As others have said, ideally you wouldn't need to take on multiple functions, but you should get the credit where credit is due. 

You also may find that as a commander it's advantageous to assign yourself as assistant x,y,z officer so you can do things in eServices, OpsQuals, and ORMS that only have dynamically assigned permissions, or else you may find yourself scrambling when nobody else is around to enter the van usage report, issue or accept a radio etc.

Hey Al! Long time no (virtually) see ....  er chat....  How are things down South?

Doesn't the CC get the needed eServices permissions when they are appointed as commander?
Unless things have changed, in the last year or two I thought CC got OpsQuals, and ORMS,  Safety, etc. in eServices?

[ol'fido]

1. Having been in units with limited senior personnel, I can say that everyone will probably be wearing multiple hats. Should the commander be one of those with multiple hats? I am not going to tell someone that they have to fill x-number of staff positions, but since I am the commander, that is all I will be doing. I realize that command involves a lot of work, but I also don't believe in asking someone else to do what I am not willing to.

2. I have also seen units where although there may be several seniors on the rolls, there are one or two who show up to do the work. We can say that there needs to be recruitment or there needs to be conversations with the inactive seniors. WELL, DUH! That's all well and good but until you can convince the inactives to become active or get the recruits up to speed and trained, those one or two will be doing all the work. "Hey, I am the commander and you, you're the other 25 staff officers we need." I don't see that happening unless instead of two or three, you just want to have a one man band command staff.

3. Where it is feasible, change the charter from composite to cadet squadron. Less staff positions to fill and less that is inspected. Our wing commander made this suggestion at the last commander's call.

[jimmydeanno]

perhaps the local level CAP unit should be a flight rather than a squadron...focused on training, response to community needs, more "tactical" in nature...administrative requirements should be addressed at a centralized, geographically regional echelon, designated either a squadron or group.

I think we're on the same page as far as what we think should be done, but I don't think what we call the unit has anything to do with it.  Its the same group of people either way.  In comparison to the AF, a CAP unit is no more a "flight" than it is a "squadron".  I don't see any reason to change the name -- change the responsibilities.

The title, in this place, I think is just a differentiation using familiar terminology. 

I think it is really a good idea, regardless of what you call the local unit.  Our requirements to be a "Squadron" are pretty low, and I'm not sure that you can even fill the majority of the staff positions with the minimum number of volunteers required to be one.  What centralization would require is a look at the absolutely essential functions at a local unit - the ones that need someone there to do, and the rest get pushed up to a centralized squadron.

At this point, most of our units would be flights, with a flight commander and say 10 seniors who do the mission, whether it be running a cadet program or whatever.  The flight reports to a Squadron, which could be a local unit that is significantly larger in size and capable of handling the majority of the administrative positions, or something similar to our current "Group" that is a more nebulous entity and doesn't perform the actual mission, but rather facilitates it.

So, the two models could be:

1) Squadron One:  Lt Col Squadron Commander has 85 senior members at a large unit in an urban center.  Within an hour's drive there are three different flights with 8 senior members each.  Each flight has a Captain Flight Commander and the remaining seniors are in essential positions matched to the mission of the flight (senior/cadet/composite, whatever).  The flights communicate their needs, events, etc., to the squadron's administrative staff (transportation maintenance, mileage, PAO, etc.,).

2) Squadron Two: Lt Col Squadron Commander has 25 senior members assigned to the Squadron Headquarters Staff in a geographical area without a large urban center.  There are 10 flights under the Squadron Commander.  These seniors facilitate the administrative needs of the flights below them.

Then the rest of the model changes a little, too.  If you want to operate on Geographical boundaries, areas like RIWG, become a group under a Wing that might comprise RI, CT, and MA. 

As for reporting, we could go to an activity reporting model, so that a single person could just enter some data into an e-services module after an activity and it would propagate to the respective officer at the squadron.  Once a month, a different report does the stuff like van mileage, upcoming events, etc.

I think it could work with some more detail, but it would require that CAP shift its model a little.

[jimmydeanno]

You also may find that as a commander it's advantageous to assign yourself as assistant x,y,z officer so you can do things in eServices, OpsQuals, and ORMS that only have dynamically assigned permissions, or else you may find yourself scrambling when nobody else is around to enter the van usage report, issue or accept a radio etc.

Maybe it's changed since I used the feature, but can't you just find a WSA and have them assign you the appropriate modules?  WIWACC, I had to enter some data here and there when a particular officer was on vacation or something, so I had the WSA assign the module.  I didn't need to sign myself up for 20 different specialty tracks when I was just using the module sporadically for some inputs or to get some of the reporting functions.

[Eclipse]

3. Where it is feasible, change the charter from composite to cadet squadron. Less staff positions to fill and less that is inspected. Our wing commander made this suggestion at the last commander's call.

That's essentially admitting defeat and giving up.

How about instead of allowing a failed squadron to continue to fail, make changes and fix the manning?