Cadet staff positions - does anyone in charge care?

[foo]

This has been discussed in connection with another topic, but the larger issue remains and deserves its own thread.

CAPR 20-1 states under PART IV-CADET POSITION DESCRIPTIONS (pg. 47):

"Unit commanders should keep cadet positions vacant until such time as the
cadets obtain appropriate grade and maturity. Please refer to CAPP 52-15
for more detailed position descriptions and common cadet staff
organizational structures."

Apparently our entire wing chooses to ignore (if not directly override) the above guidance, and I've heard no valid arguments for doing so. Please don't point out the use of the word "should" as opposed to "shall" in the regulation. That's disingenuous. The issue isn't so much about adhering to the letter of the law as it is about implementing CP as designed (and intended?) by National. If you want to say "it's tradition," that's a hard sell since we teach cadets that an appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy that tends to discredit leaders. If you look at the org charts in 52-15 you can see that the above directive wasn't just some afterthought. Or was it?

Let's get everyone on the same page here! If National stands by its guidance on this subject, please proactively educate and strongly encourage the folks running things down the chains of command to do the right thing.

I have learned from and appreciate how Col Lee has chimed in on these forums many times before, and I would love to hear from him now on this topic. Seems to me it could hardly be more relevant to his AOR.

Thank you.

[MSG Mac]

You're absolutely right that cadets should not be given positions that they are not qualified and/or trained for. The E-Services Duty Position function will not allow this to happen, so the positions given are locally done on a 2a. If you have aC/TSgt who is the de facto commander you can get by with the title of Flight Sergeant or even First Sergeant, until he/she completes the Mitchell Award.

[kwe1009]

What good does it do to appoint a C/TSgt as the cadet commander for example?  This is likely a very small squadron and there is obviously not a lot of rank there.  This cadet would be better served with the role of Flight Sergeant.  All line staff positions infer a certain amount of maturity, experience, and leadership ability and that is why it is important to only fill them with qualified cadets. 

Also, giving the position of cadet commander to someone who is not an officer means that you are giving someone a position that they haven't done the minimum amount of work required to deserve that position (earn the Mitchell award).  That actually harms the prestige of the position as well.  CAPP 52-15 shows many examples of organization charts for different sized squadrons and I wish more commanders would look at it instead of making a C/TSgt the "cadet commander" and a C/SSgt the "first sergeant."

This is really very simple, if you don't have the cadets who meet the rank requirement then don't give them the position.  You are not doing them any favors.  Also, with this fictional C/TSgt who is now the cadet commander, what positions do you give him/her in the future?  You have given them the highest cadet office  after being in the program for less than a year.  If that cadet has been in much longer than that then they haven't been promoting on schedule and why would you want to reward that by giving them the title of "cadet commander."  I understand there could be good reason why a cadet has been in the program for more than a year and is still only a C/TSgt but again, is it enough to justify giving them this title?

[Stonewall]

For a very long time I have had to stand my ground when others have said "just make them cadet commander since we don't have one", but um, yeah, he's a C/SSgt!

Another argument is when you have a squadron full of staff sergeants and every thinks they should be an element leader, so you've got 7 element leaders and no element members.  Just silly from where I sit.

In CAPP 52-15 Appendix 2, it has samples (not mandated) of cadet organizational charts for units who fall into certain categories like small, bottom heavy.

There is no need for a cadet commander when your senior cadet is a SSgt and you've got 11 or 12 other cadets.  Simply make him the flight sergeant until things start falling into place.

[vorteks]

For a very long time I have had to stand my ground when others have said "just make them cadet commander since we don't have one", but um, yeah, he's a C/SSgt!

Another argument is when you have a squadron full of staff sergeants and every thinks they should be an element leader, so you've got 7 element leaders and no element members.  Just silly from where I sit.

In CAPP 52-15 Appendix 2, it has samples (not mandated) of cadet organizational charts for units who fall into certain categories like small, bottom heavy.

There is no need for a cadet commander when your senior cadet is a SSgt and you've got 11 or 12 other cadets.  Simply make him the flight sergeant until things start falling into place.

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=20224.msg374892#msg374892 (Reply #49)

Pretty hard to stand your ground under those circumstances.

[Stonewall]

For a very long time I have had to stand my ground when others have said "just make them cadet commander since we don't have one", but um, yeah, he's a C/SSgt!

Another argument is when you have a squadron full of staff sergeants and every thinks they should be an element leader, so you've got 7 element leaders and no element members.  Just silly from where I sit.

In CAPP 52-15 Appendix 2, it has samples (not mandated) of cadet organizational charts for units who fall into certain categories like small, bottom heavy.

There is no need for a cadet commander when your senior cadet is a SSgt and you've got 11 or 12 other cadets.  Simply make him the flight sergeant until things start falling into place.

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=20224.msg374892#msg374892 (Reply #49)

Pretty hard to stand your ground under those circumstances.

Not my ground.  I've never had a group or wing commander tell me how to run my squadron.

[Ned]

This has been discussed in connection with another topic, but the larger issue remains and deserves its own thread.

CAPR 20-1 states under PART IV-CADET POSITION DESCRIPTIONS (pg. 47):

"Unit commanders should keep cadet positions vacant until such time as the
cadets obtain appropriate grade and maturity. Please refer to CAPP 52-15
for more detailed position descriptions and common cadet staff
organizational structures."

Apparently our entire wing chooses to ignore (if not directly override) the above guidance, and I've heard no valid arguments for doing so. Please don't point out the use of the word "should" as opposed to "shall" in the regulation. That's disingenuous. The issue isn't so much about adhering to the letter of the law as it is about implementing CP as designed (and intended?) by National. If you want to say "it's tradition," that's a hard sell since we teach cadets that an appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy that tends to discredit leaders. If you look at the org charts in 52-15 you can see that the above directive wasn't just some afterthought. Or was it?

Let's get everyone on the same page here! If National stands by its guidance on this subject, please proactively educate and strongly encourage the folks running things down the chains of command to do the right thing.

I have learned from and appreciate how Col Lee has chimed in on these forums many times before, and I would love to hear from him now on this topic. Seems to me it could hardly be more relevant to his AOR.

Thank you.

Well, I'm not exactly sure what you are hoping to hear from me here.

As a national staff guy, one of my jobs is to develop doctrine and put it into appropriate regulations and other guidance that allows the volunteers in the field to understand and successfully implement our terrific cadet program.  As you have correctly cited, our guidance is to provide flexibility in how smaller units manage their cadet staff positions, with some specific suggestions about leaving some positions vacant until there are sufficient cadets and perhaps more importantly, until there are one or more cadets qualified for the particular position.  From this and the other thread, it sounds like that is what your unit commander has been doing.

It also sounds like other commanders have provided additional guidance to your unit and that you either disagree with the guidance, or perhaps do not fully see the rationale behind it. 

Whenever a member has a question about a commander's (or staffer's) guidance, I normally suggest that you discuss it directly with the persons who can answer the question.  Which is normally the person who provided the guidance, or perhaps an intermediate in the chain of command with the knowledge to respond. Often there is some information known to the decision-maker that is not apparent to others.  Sometimes it is just a reasonable difference of opinion on the best way to proceed.  Sometimes mistakes have been made that can be corrected.

One of the jobs of every staff officer is to support the boss when the boss is exercising their discretion, even if the staffer might have made a different decision.  Because CAP - just like the military and most businesses -- allows leaders to make decisions within the limits of the regulations and other guidance.  Often I brief my boss something like this "Hey, Boss, the regs say you can do A, B, or C here.  My recommendation is that you do A, because of Reason 1, Reason 2, and Reason 3.  Here are the downsides to B and/or C.  [Blah, blah, blah].  What are your questions?  What is your decision, Ma'am / Sir?"  And if they select B or C, my job is to help implement that decision to the best of my ability.

A final note.  If I understand the situation correctly (and I may well not), it sounds like the guidance from higher headquarters came while the unit commander was temporarily unavailable.  That sometimes happens, of course, given that our unit commanders are often successful folks with their own lives, businesses, or military obligations.  But it sounds like it may well be the local commander's role to seek any clarification that came from her / his boss during the absence, and deal with the relationship / leadership issues that flow from it.

I guess the bottom line is that we generally leave local leadership issues to the local leadership, within the limits of the regulations and other guidance.  And if there is a problem, there are normally at least two and sometimes three levels of intermediate leaders than can correct any issues before NHQ can or should become involved.

I don't mean to suggest that I am not vitally interested in the health and success of every single unit with cadets.  Because I am.  Like every other staffer, I spend many hours each week trying to craft and perfect our program to make sure our cadets have fun on their way to learning leadership, character, and aerospace knowledge.

Let me know what else I can do.


Ned Lee
Col, CAP
National Cadet Program Manager

[foo]

Thanks for your response, sir.

It also sounds like other commanders have provided additional guidance to your unit and that you either disagree with the guidance, or perhaps do not fully see the rationale behind it.

The fact that upper echelon commanders are unprofessionally undermining the unit commander (it's not "guidance") is a separate issue, which is why I started a new thread.

Whenever a member has a question about a commander's (or staffer's) guidance, I normally suggest that you discuss it directly with the persons who can answer the question.

We tried that, of course. The responses were "do you think they can't handle it?" (said rhetorically) and "tradition!"

A final note.  If I understand the situation correctly (and I may well not), it sounds like the guidance from higher headquarters came while the unit commander was temporarily unavailable.  That sometimes happens, of course, given that our unit commanders are often successful folks with their own lives, businesses, or military obligations.  But it sounds like it may well be the local commander's role to seek any clarification that came from her / his boss during the absence, and deal with the relationship / leadership issues that flow from it.

Again, that's a separate issue, but our DC was present (and rudely ignored) and there was no need for immediate intervention. Our CC is always available by phone and e-mail and is highly responsive to both even when not able to attend a specific meeting night.

Well, I'm not exactly sure what you are hoping to hear from me here.

Just this:  How about wholeheartedly promoting the idea that, as a rule, commanders should be following the excellent guidance laid out in this regulation, irrespective of the number of cadets in a squadron? And if there are going to be exceptions, what is the justification for it? In my wing implementing that particular guidance seems to be the exception and not the rule (if indeed it's even allowed anywhere).

[Airplane girl]

I agree with neummy that someone in charge should be making it clearer that C/NCOs shouldn't be made cadet commander when a cadet commander is not necessary. It is a national problem. At least 3 people over the past year (me, neummy, and 1st Sgt. Allen) have mentioned C/NCO cadet commanders on CAPTalk, and only a small percentage of CAP members post on here. I don't know where neummy is from, but I know 1st Sgt. Allen is from Ohio Wing, which isn't even in my region. At least 1st Sgt. Allen's squadron managed to put him in a position appropriate to his grade.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Welcome to CAP. I've got it on good authority that the largest units IN CAP don't know what they are doing. Supposedly they also have the staff to know, but...don't. I wouldn't expect a unit struggling to survive to be on the up and up as well.

[Storm Chaser]

I agree with neummy that someone in charge should be making it clearer that C/NCOs shouldn't be made cadet commander when a cadet commander is not necessary. It is a national problem.

NHQ has already made this clear through CAPR 20-1, CAPR 52-16, and CAPP 52-15. Ultimately, every unit and cadet is different and it's up to the commander or designee to decide how to best structure the cadet staff to meet particular needs.

[foo]

... it's up to the commander or designee to decide how to best structure the cadet staff to meet particular needs.

Sounds good. If only it were true...

[TheSkyHornet]

Yes, we in the Cadet Programs Specialty Track, especially those of us in duty positions overseeing a squadron Cadet Program, really do care about this subject. But we don't always have the support, or experience, from other leadership personnel who may hold higher authority on the matter. Squadron Commanders might not be the best person suitable to manage and assign cadet duty positions, which is why they have Cadet Programs staff to assist. This is why there are training courses to cover these exact topics.

When I entered into the CP Specialty, this was one of the first things I learned---how to assign cadet duties and who should be put where based on experience/skill as well as maturity. This was strongly reinforced at the Training Leaders of Cadet course I just took over the weekend with the Ohio Wing, and it even more so reinforced my beliefs/ideas and my confidence in Wing and NHQ when it comes to trying to maintain a structured, discipline CAP Cadet Program.

I would say one of the biggest responsibilities on the cadet side is for the cadets to know where they should be in the cadet program, and stop being immature and power hungry to step into positions they aren't ready for. I don't know if this is something covered in cadet training or not, but a Cadet Master Sergeant should have it burned into his brain that he is not ready to be a Cadet Commander, and he has that responsibility to tell the squadron commander or outgoing Cadet Commander "Nobody of this grade should be assigned to this position."

The cadet structure can be tailored to each individual squadron, and it is emphasized that this is exactly what should be done by squadrons when they have cadets who should not fill certain roles. We even did a practical exercise in TLC to build a cadet structure based on the cadet grades we had on paper and assign duty positions based on level of experience rather than necessity. You saw some very interesting, but realistic scenarios, and some very interesting ideas that might not come straight from CAPR 20-1.

As most of the regulars on here know, as do my colleagues in TLC, my own squadron has had a major problem with this very subject because the people running the show at one point were not trained on this issue.

... it's up to the commander or designee to decide how to best structure the cadet staff to meet particular needs.

Sounds good. If only it were true...

It is true. It may not be practiced often, but that's exactly how it's expected to be under CAP regulations.

[foo]

Nope, it's not true. Not in my wing. They don't agree with what you described and don't respect my commander enough to let him run the program the way it's designed and written. The wing CC personally ordered us to appoint a C/CC by X date and the group CC was there on X date to make sure it happened. We're running with it, and it will be fine, but it's not right. Nothing about the situation is right.

[TheSkyHornet]

Whether they agree or not, National is above Wing. You may want to report this to Region if this is a persistent problem. There is a process for such issues.

I would have personally said that I would not be appointing someone to the role of Cadet Commander if I didn't have someone capable of filling that position based on NHQ's recommendations. Had I gotten any further negativity in the response, I would take it a step higher. But that's the commander's responsibility, not mine or yours as it sounds.

May I ask what your position in the squadron is currently?

[foo]

That would be a serious battle to wage and I don't think it would be worth the trouble it would cause for us. I was hoping to raise awareness here and maybe get National to start promoting the importance of this aspect of the program down the line, but judging by Col Lee's response I doubt anyone at the top sees it as an issue (thus the answer to the question in the subject of this thread).

[Storm Chaser]

Nope, it's not true. Not in my wing. They don't agree with what you described and don't respect my commander enough to let him run the program the way it's designed and written.

While at first glance it may seem improper for the wing commander to interfere with the implementation of the Cadet Programs at a local unit, especially when run according to regulations, there may be reasons we're not aware of for his actions. That said, if the squadron commander feels this is not right, he has several venues to address that. The first would be talking directly to the group and wing commanders. If he can't get a resolution, he can always follow the chain of command and go to the region commander.

The wing CC personally ordered us to appoint a C/CC by X date and the group CC was there on X date to make sure it happened. We're running with it, and it will be fine, but it's not right. Nothing about the situation is right.

Complying with the order is always an option, but not the only one. That doesn't make our statements regarding the commander's authority and discretion on this matter any less true. But just like you and your other squadron members have a commander, so does he. This is something that needs to be dealt with by him and him alone.

Whether they agree or not, National is above Wing. You may want to report this to Region if this is a persistent problem. There is a process for such issues.

Negative. The chain of command is clear. This is a squadron commander's issue. If the squadron commander can't resolve this with the group or wing commander, then it's up to him whether to go to the region commander or not. This is not the member's fight.

[lordmonar]

That would be a serious battle to wage and I don't think it would be worth the trouble it would cause for us. I was hoping to raise awareness here and maybe get National to start promoting the importance of this aspect of the program down the line, but judging by Col Lee's response I doubt anyone at the top sees it as an issue (thus the answer to the question in the subject of this thread).

if it not worth your effort to follow up on what you think is wrong........why should any one else?

Not wanting to slam you too hard....you are right it is frustrating to be micromanaged and forced to do something you don't think is right.   But if you don't have the fortitude to stand up for what you think is right.......why should expect anyone else to?

[vorteks]

They didn't say "not worth the effort," they said "not worth the trouble it would cause for us."

Big difference.

[lordmonar]

They didn't say "not worth the effort," they said "not worth the trouble it would cause for us."

Big difference.

Not to my eyes.   Again if you don't have the fortitude to stand up for what is right (and pay what ever price it takes) then why should you expect anyone to?