Organizational Excellence specialty track

[swamprat86]

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/forms_publications__regulations/publications_for_comment.cfm

Has anyone had a chance to look this over?  I am still going through it but I am curious as to what others think.

Once I have finished it and processed the info I will post my thoughts.  Might be a while, reading govt docs before 8 am and coffee takes a little longer to work through.

[Capt_Redfox30]

Yah I noticed that last night, I went through it, not quite sure what it all is.  What I am getting from it is that you are the "Jack Of All Trades" of the program.  Knowledgeable in every aspect of all parts of the program.   

[dwb]

This looks like a great track to groom future commanders.  You need to understand safety and finance, participate in the core missions, and complete senior member PD.  Sounds like a commander training track to me.

It's not for everybody, but this looks like a really good idea for "straight shooters with upper management written all over them".

[jimmydeanno]

I read through it and the sad thing is (other than the horrible flow and organization) it doesn't say what the track is for.  That should be the first line.

Is it to groom future commanders?  I don't know, because there isn't any definition of what an "Organizational Excellence Officer" is.

I like that there is focus on mentoring and it provides a framework for guidance and collaboration.

The requirements are a little weird to me - they're essentially "be a CAP expert in everything."  So in addition to completing requirements for this rating you also have to acquire [master] ratings in multiple other specialty tracks and it's required that you complete level V.

I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with the statement "few will earn the executive rating."  The draft pamphlet requirements (with exception of writing papers) would place more than a few at meeting the requirements for the Master rating right out of the gate.

I wonder what the ribbon will look like 

[cnitas]

I read through the pamphlet.
It looks like an interesting idea to identify, like dwb said;"straight shooters with upper management written all over them". My second impression was that it will codify the GOB system.

You need wing approval just to enroll in the track.

Just my random initial thoughts after reading the document.

[davedove]

I will agree with what others said.  What is this track for?

Just reading through it, it seems it's not really for any particular job, but rather to track those who pursue a variety of CAP disciplines.  This looks more like a checklist of things one might look at to choose an upper level commander rather than a specialty track.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

The rest of our tracks are about doing a job. There was a commander's track that had no requirements I could ever find. We've got CAPPs that refer to regulations a decade out of date and this is a priority?

The requirement for a rating in a mission area (AE, CP, ES) are particularly odd and discriminatory. So an IT officer who is an IC and spends a week every year at encampment is not contributing to Organizational Excellence? All speciality tracks are equal but some more than others?

[jimmydeanno]

Phil,

I don't think that was the intent at all - the point isn't to discriminate or make specialties more or less than another.  However, it is important to recognize that there are support fields - which something like IT would qualify as.

I don't think that you can argue that the IT specialty is on par with that of an actual mission. 

But, I agree with you that the other tracks are about doing a specific job, specializing in a specific area (specialty track, that's the point right?) - this one is broad and focuses on specializing in almost everything.

You example above meets the concept of organizational excellence, but since we don't know what an OEO's purpose is...

[jeders]

All I have to say is, Organizational Exellence Officer, WTF???

Do they actually have monkeys at type writers trying to write Shakespeare and ythis is the first draft? I get that it's meant as a commander's specialty track, I think I recall a NB or NEC meeting talking about that. But they could at least title it something like Command Specialty Track or Executive Specialty track or something that gives you some idea of what it is. And what's with the 4 levels?

[Duke Dillio]

And what's with the 4 levels?

Just a guess but I would say maybe squadron, group, wing, and region?

[MIKE]

Notice how it's CAPP 223.  I'd say it's 222 in disguise.

Hey, wait a minute... CAPP 223 is the Historian track.

[James Shaw]

I see this as a vetting process on paper. I have heard about this and think it is a great idea. This to me is a Commanders Track, someone who wants to be in command and is willing to do the work for it. It also helps to keep a balance on those who may be "magically" promoted from Captain to Wing Commander without the proper preperation or training.

I like the multi participation requirements for all areas of CAP missions. I have always felt that a commander should have experience to some level in all three.

[tarheel gumby]

I see this as a vetting process on paper. I have heard about this and think it is a great idea. This to me is a Commanders Track, someone who wants to be in command and is willing to do the work for it. It also helps to keep a balance on those who may be "magically" promoted from Captain to Wing Commander without the proper preperation or training.

I like the multi participation requirements for all areas of CAP missions. I have always felt that a commander should have experience to some level in all three.

Ditto

[NC Hokie]

I'll echo the previous two posters with one caveat.  If this is intended to be a commanders track, why confuse the issue with a name like Organizational Excellence Officer?  That doesn't say future commander to me.  Use one of jeders' suggested names; if you don't like those, I'll suggest Command Officer Specialty Track.

[lordmonar]

Because Command Officer Track is a little presumpusous for a lowly 1st Lt. 

It is a great tool for grooming your up and comming officers.

I kind of like it.....but I have got to read it more in depth for a final verdict.

[swamprat86]

Along with the other items mentioned, I have noticed that some of the requirements for the various levels are the same requirements for complete some of the PD levels, things such as staff experience, public presentations.

I think that we may be better served integrating parts of this into the existing PD levels, minus the command specific portions.

[Trung Si Ma]

I consider the title a red herring.  This is the command track, but with a different name during the comment and vetting periods.

My question is are they going to count prior execution of the safety briefs, presentations, school instructor tasks or are they going to only count the ones that you do once you are approved for the track?  I'd like to see them only count them if they are done after you are enrolled in one of the levels of the track.

Additionally, are we now going to see "executive" levels produced in the existing tracks?  Some way to get us grey beards involved in keeping out skills up to date?  An example is that my CP Master Rating was completed in 1977 and it is no longer relative.

[James Shaw]

I consider the title a red herring.  This is the command track, but with a different name during the comment and vetting periods.

My question is are they going to count prior execution of the safety briefs, presentations, school instructor tasks or are they going to only count the ones that you do once you are approved for the track?  I'd like to see them only count them if they are done after you are enrolled in one of the levels of the track.

Additionally, are we now going to see "executive" levels produced in the existing tracks?  Some way to get us grey beards involved in keeping out skills up to date?  An example is that my CP Master Rating was completed in 1977 and it is no longer relative.

I do believe it said something about it being retroactive in the main 25 page description.

[lordmonar]

How do you mean "we may be better served"?

I think the point to this specialty track is to broaden the horizons of our command officers and those who may seek command.

Notice how it makes you get tech levels in all three mission sets, notice how it makes you learn about safety, finance, and public affairs.

And it does this on a volunteer basis.

If you like being an just a Cadet Programs guy....you can....no need to learn all that other stuff.  But if you have been tapped for future command you now have a plan on how to get up to speed and be ready to take command and continue to approve getting you ready for higher command.

I don't think there is any cabal ...or that they are trying to sneak anything past us....it is just a generic name for those who want to help the organisation improve and it opens it up for everyone...not just those people in command.

[Trung Si Ma]

This is what I sent my wing commander for inclusion in the Wing's official comments:

Comments on Draft CAPP 223 Organizational Excellence Specialty Track Study Guide.

Overall, an interesting concept and I intend to submit my application as soon as it is finalized.

Somewhere in this document, "grandfathering" needs to be addressed.  You have to grandfather the AEPSM and the completion of the PD levels since they can only be completed once, but something must be done about those of us with ancient specialty track completion dates.  Some sort of requirement for me to update my 1970's and 1980's Cadet Programs, Aerospace Education, and Emergency Services Master Ratings is needed.  One possibility is to require persons with existing core mission ratings to "re-qualify" if the master rating is more than five years old while recognizing that they have already met the "time-in-service" requirements.  Without this consideration, I am eligible for the Senior Rating as soon as I take a UCC and I don't believe that that is in accordance with the spirit of the proposed specialty track.

I am not going to discuss the Executive Rating since all of its requirements are subjective rather than objective, but I will ask if there are plans for Executive ratings in all of the other specialty tracks?

1.  There is already a CAPP 223, so this one will have to be renumbered.  I believe that this is actually going to end up being the Commander Specialty Track, so it will probably be renumbered to CAPP 222.

2.  Page 8, paragraph numbered 1 discusses that the wing commander will appoint an Organizational Excellence Committee (OEC) and farther down the page, it talks about appointing mentors.  I believe that the proper way to do this is to appoint six people with command experience who have completed level V to the OEC and as mentors.  A quorum would be the five members who are not the individual's mentor.  I would require a "super majority" of 80% for a recommendation to go forward to you.  The member with the NAY vote should be forced to provide a written statement for attachment to the CAPF 40 so that you would see why they disapproved.

3.  Page 14, the first Knowledge, Training and Performance Requirement is that the member "Demonstrate to the assigned mentor the knowledge of CAP customs, courtesies, and proper wear of the CAP uniform." This is a Level I requirement and should be eliminated.  If the desire is to increase the awareness of proper uniform standards, then this requirement should be changed to "Present a class on CAP Customs and Courtesies at a wing or region conference" as one requirement and a second one saying basically the same thing about a class on proper uniform wear.

4.  Page 14, the sixth requirement under Knowledge, Training and Performance Requirements specifically mentions the completion of the CAP Senior Officer Correspondence Course.  Does this mean that anyone who completed Level II without taking ECI-13 will have to take it now?  I did mine in 1975 as ECI-7C but many of our members have had the course waived by attending other military courses.  Are we "grandfathered"?

5.  Page 15, the first requirement under Service Requirements states:  "One year effective staff service at the squadron, group, wing, region, or National level, as documented by the student's mentor on the CAPF 40, and with a letter of recommendation from the student's immediate commander. If serving at the wing, region or National level, the letter of recommendation must be counter-signed by the appropriate Chief of Staff."  This should be modified to require that this service requirement happen after enrollment in the OE specialty track.

6.  Page 15, the second requirement under Service Requirements states: "Effective participation at group, wing, region, or National level activities."  This is a subjective rather than an objective requirement.  Some sort of quantifiable measure needs to be derived and published.  If it is important, we should be able to measure it.

7.   Page 15, the fourth requirement under Service Requirements states: "Serve as an instructor, staff member, or director at one of the courses/activities listed in CAPR 50-17, Attachment 14, Instructor, Staff, Director Course/Activity Opportunities."  This should be modified to require that this service requirement happen after enrollment in the OE specialty track.

8.  Page 18, the last requirement under Service Requirements states: "Mentor a new CAP member to at least the Technician Level in one of CAP's specialty tracks."  This should be moved to the Technician Rating and the Master Rating requirement to "Mentor a candidate to completion of Senior Level in a Specialty Track." be substituted for this requirement.  This ensures that the OE Specialty Track candidates are current in the professional development program.

9.  Page 19, the fifth requirement under Knowledge, Training and Performance Requirements requires attendance at two National Board meetings.  Will there be a policy granting preferred seating in the NB meeting for non-NB members who are working on the OE Specialty Track?

10.  Page 20, the third requirement under Service Requirements states: "Effectively conduct a squadron, group or wing level safety seminar/briefing." without specifying how do determine the effectiveness of the seminar / briefing.  Since the same requirement on page 17 for the Senior Rating does not specify that the seminar / briefing be conducted "effectively" does it mean that an ineffective safety meeting / seminar is acceptable for the senior rating?

11.  There are no requirements for Inspections or Complaints in this program. 

a.  Recommend that the following be added to the Service Requirements for the Technician Level:

"Demonstrate to the mentor a thorough understanding of the CAP Complaints resolution process"

"Serve as a member of a Subordinate Unit Inspection Team since becoming enrolled in the Technician Level of the OE Specialty Track"

b.  Recommend that the following be added to the Service Requirements for the Senior Level:

"Serve as an Investigating Officer for a complaint since becoming enrolled in the OE Specialty Track."

"Serve as the leader of a Subordinate Unit Inspection Team since becoming enrolled in the Senior Level of the OE Specialty Track.  Attach the SUI Report to the CAPF 1A."

c.  Recommend that the following be added to the Service Requirements for the Master Level:

"Complete the Senior Level classroom instruction conducted by the National Inspector General Section."

[CAPOfficer]

This isn't the proposed CAPP 222 for commanders'; I have seen the working document for that area (pre-draft) and this isn't it.

[SJFedor]

It's alright I guess. Definitely not my cup of tea, but some may enjoy it.


But, is it just me, or does "organizational excellence officer" kinda make it sound like a corporate cheerleader?

[jeders]

But, is it just me, or does "organizational excellence officer" kinda make it sound like a corporate cheerleader?

Yes. Or maybe the pep squad made up of wannabe cheerleaders who weren't quite popular enough to be a cheerleader.

This isn't the proposed CAPP 222 for commanders'; I have seen the working document for that area (pre-draft) and this isn't it.

So if this isn't the commander's specialty track, then why? Do we really need, as Fedor put it, a cheerleader officer?

[BuckeyeDEJ]

"straight shooters with upper management written all over them".

I'm going to need you to work on Saturday, mmkay?

It's a good idea, but I'm not sure how practical it will be. I might think differently after a second reading of the specialty track study guide, but who knows?

This IS a volunteer organization. That's why I question all the hoops. Who has that kind of time unless they're full-time CAP members?

(scratching head)

[Gunner C]

"straight shooters with upper management written all over them".

I'm going to need you to work on Saturday, mmkay?

It's a good idea, but I'm not sure how practical it will be. I might think differently after a second reading of the specialty track study guide, but who knows?

This IS a volunteer organization. That's why I question all the hoops. Who has that kind of time unless they're full-time CAP members?

(scratching head)

Full time CAP member is usually called a commander. 

Gunner
Two-Time Loser (Best four years of my career)

[lordmonar]

"straight shooters with upper management written all over them".

I'm going to need you to work on Saturday, mmkay?

It's a good idea, but I'm not sure how practical it will be. I might think differently after a second reading of the specialty track study guide, but who knows?

This IS a volunteer organization. That's why I question all the hoops. Who has that kind of time unless they're full-time CAP members?

(scratching head)

You know....I've been in CAP for about 5 years now....and I got most of this stuff done already.  Granted not everyone has the same amount of time...but it is not really that hard to pick up a specialty rating or two as you go along.  Getting involved in the PD process (teaching SLS//CLC) is usualy as hard as picking up the phone and telling the course director you want to help.

And here is the real kicker....no one is required to take this specialty track...except maybe commanders and those how want to be commanders.  Those people are a special breed who should be active in all aspects of CAP....all this specialty track does is guide and direct them down the right path.

[RiverAux]

This isn't the new so-called commanders track?  For senior rating you have to have a year as squadron commander or above.  If its not that, I don't really see a reason to have it.  Seems to be a hodgepodge of requirements to have completed other specialty tracks and instructing courses and giving briefings.  Not impressed. 

[CAPOfficer]

My apologies to one and all, this does appear to be the new commander's track.  The actual document I seen was identified by the correct number (222) and had a title which also identified it as the command track.

Additionally, some of the terminology has been changed as well.

Again, my apologies.

[jeders]

My apologies to one and all, this does appear to be the new commander's track.  The actual document I seen was identified by the correct number (222) and had a title which also identified it as the command track.

Additionally, some of the terminology has been changed as well.

Again, my apologies.

Which begs the questions, why did they give it the wrong number and such a weird name?

Other than that though, I think it's good that they're finally making something to try and prepare commanders. Now we just have to see if the overall command quality in CAP actually goes up.

[Gunner C]

I see it in a bit of a different light - it's more of a line officer track.  We've needed something for years to develop leaders, a core of not just well trained officers, but well educated as well.  The military does this and it works.  Sure, there's lug nuts in any organization, but this is a pretty good - albeit not perfect - approach.

The other officers will be more on the order of limited duty officers (see Marine Corps and Navy) or warrant officers (see Army).  It works pretty well for them.

Gunner

[dwb]

Personally, I liked how they used the cover art from the old "Introduction to Civil Air Patrol" booklet.  Wasn't it CAPM 50-1 or something like that?  The one with the blue cover.

[FW]

"straight shooters with upper management written all over them".

I'm going to need you to work on Saturday, mmkay?

It's a good idea, but I'm not sure how practical it will be. I might think differently after a second reading of the specialty track study guide, but who knows?

This IS a volunteer organization. That's why I question all the hoops. Who has that kind of time unless they're full-time CAP members?

(scratching head)

You know....I've been in CAP for about 5 years now....and I got most of this stuff done already.  Granted not everyone has the same amount of time...but it is not really that hard to pick up a specialty rating or two as you go along.  Getting involved in the PD process (teaching SLS//CLC) is usualy as hard as picking up the phone and telling the course director you want to help.

And here is the real kicker....no one is required to take this specialty track...except maybe commanders and those how want to be commanders.  Those people are a special breed who should be active in all aspects of CAP....all this specialty track does is guide and direct them down the right path.

Exactly however, this track is not just for commanders.  This track is for members who desire to hold any position of authority or responsibility at any level above group.  The proposed guide will evolve into, IMHO, a great document for steering members in the proper direction to achieve "organizational excellence".  For all intents and purposes the "command track" is gone.

[NEBoom]

Good grief!  Another entire separate bureaucracy to handle this whole thing.  Aren't we busy enough without dealing with new forms, pamphlets, forming new committees, and the like?  I ask you, how well has this approach work with CISM?

The idea's not bad, but they're going about it all wrong.  Expecting Wing and Region HQ's to "manage" this program when we already have major issues getting existing routine things done is ridiculous.  The National leadership continues to insist we build the upper stories without an adequate foundation.

When all is running smooth, and things like awards and promotions are being processed through higher HQ's in a timely manner (fact is they're not right now in many cases) then maybe this would be worth exploring.  As it stands now this is just another example of the disconnect between our National leadership and reality on the ground in the Wings and Squadrons.

That said, another issue is that this is going to be largely irrelevant anyway.  People will still be eligible to hold command and/or higher headquarters staff positions without going through any of this (they'll have to be or we won't have enough people to run a higher HQ), and most of us are way too overloaded with CAP commitments anyway.  This will fall by the wayside with most people as they will just not have time to do it.  We have a hard enough time as it is getting people through Level V.

Again, I like the concept, but we'll have to come up with a better way to go about implementing it.  Something other than a new bureaucracy imposed on us from above without regard to the realities we face as an organization.

[lordmonar]

I thought this was the sort of thing we were looking for?

Sure it is a new committee....but it is one that should have exited for a long time.

Now we can effectively identify potential commanders and senior staff officers early and get them the training they need.

This is not the same as CISM....CISM was imposed on high...no one really know why we needed it or what is was supposed to do.

We really need a this specialty track.

While there will be no "need" to complete this speicalty track to hold command....it can be used as a tool to vette our potential candiadates and to train those who hold command.

Not a fix all....but definatly a good tool.

[RiverAux]

Now we can effectively identify potential commanders and senior staff officers early and get them the training they need.

I didn't really see anything in there that would meet those criteria.  What extra "training" are you talking about?  Existing specialty track qualifications?  Nebulous needs to understand some basics about CAP?  Additional reading that might get assigned to them?  I am all for additional training, but this isn't it. 

[davedove]

I applaud the effort to develop better commanders.  However, this is just a document.

Will a member be required to reach certain ratings to hold certain levels of authority?  If so, what happens if no one is qualified, or if the person qualified refuses the position.

If it's not required, what's to stop a higher level commander from picking his buddy to fill a position, even though the person isn't really qualified to hold it.

It's a step in the right direction, but there are still issues to be addressed.

[lordmonar]

Now we can effectively identify potential commanders and senior staff officers early and get them the training they need.

I didn't really see anything in there that would meet those criteria.  What extra "training" are you talking about?  Existing specialty track qualifications?  Nebulous needs to understand some basics about CAP?  Additional reading that might get assigned to them?  I am all for additional training, but this isn't it. 

Then you are not reading it.

It is not about extra training....it is about getting specific training in specific areas that a commander needs to know.

If you are an AE guy...you have zero need to learn about equipment accountability or finacial process...but the OE specialty track sends you there first thing.  Sure this is existing training...but you can have a Masters Level in just about any specialty track and NEVER have to deal with this stuff.

This specialty track is just a training plan to take a new nugget through a systematic processess to prepare them for command and senior leadership positions.  It will force those who choose this path to expand their knowledge of all three CAP's missions.

Currently we have nothing that prepares potential candidates for command positions.  Now we do.

[lordmonar]

I applaud the effort to develop better commanders.  However, this is just a document.

Will a member be required to reach certain ratings to hold certain levels of authority?  If so, what happens if no one is qualified, or if the person qualified refuses the position.

If it's not required, what's to stop a higher level commander from picking his buddy to fill a position, even though the person isn't really qualified to hold it.

It's a step in the right direction, but there are still issues to be addressed.

Nothing at all.  But it is one of those....if you build it they will come....sort of things. 

We build the specialty track...we get people enrolled and progressing...then we can start advertising position and requiring specific levels of accomplishments.   Will this solve the "no qualified volunteers" problem....of course not.  But will give those volunteers a road map on how to become qualified.  It gives commanders a clear definition of what "qualified" means.

I think in the long run...we will see that those who are seeking command positions will complete this course of study and that will benifit all of us.

It will give regional and national command selection comittees (if they have them) a tool to effectively evaluate candidates.  Sure...wing CC will still be able to appoint their buddies....but if you wanted command of squadron X and the wing king gave it to Joe Incompetant...you now have a tool to go to to region and say that you were the more qualified candidate.

Right now....what can you do?

[RiverAux]

but if you wanted command of squadron X and the wing king gave it to Joe Incompetant...you now have a tool to go to to region and say that you were the more qualified candidate.

Hmm, I missed that part of our regulations that said that the most qualified candidate has to be selected as squadron commander or that gives anyone the right to appeal the Wing Commander's decision on the matter. 

Unless they're going to make this a requirement for someone to obtain a command position, I don't anticipate it being used very often. 

[ZigZag911]

Unless they're going to make this a requirement for someone to obtain a command position, I don't anticipate it being used very often. 

And even if it is made a requirement (for the sake of argument, let's say for group command and up only), there will STILL be a "waiver" provision; organizationally we have an aversion to merit as a sole (or even main) criterion for appointment or promotion!

[RiverAux]

You know, before you can run for elective office in the CG Aux you have to pass a test on CG Aux administrative procedures.  I think this would be a wise thing for CAP to do as well for squadron commander on up.  A CAP version would probably be a bear because we have gazillions more regulations that apply to everyday life in the local unit than CG Aux. 

[Timbo]

I just read the CAPP 223 DRAFT  http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/P223_Draft_B81ED216607C0.pdf twice through.  I do not think I like it.  It seems to me that unless you are a part of this new OE group you can basically forget about achieving anything important in CAP.  Especially the Executive level of OE.  These people will get special opportunities and benefits.  It says so.  I also do not like that the Wing Commander and Region Commander will be assembling OE councils to oversee the program at the Wing and Region levels.  Most Wing and Region Commander are political appointees, and have never been through anything closely resembling organizational excellence themselves.

So this program seems more about awarding friends of Commanders than actually expanding the development of regular "Joe blow member".

What also caught my attention was the "suggestion" to join a organization outside of CAP at a members expense.  Although they said CAP may pay for the membership dues......two questions come to mind.  First, why should my (and your) tax dollars and membership dues go to help a group of people personally selected by the National Commander to join an organization that is not needed.  Second, who created this OE program, most likely a person who has an interest in this outside professional organization.

Finally, they need to rewrite the introduction on SPAATZ.  It is very long winded, and there is no link between him or the story and why it is included in the OE Track guide.  1 page on him and his CAP role should suffice.  IF you want you can introduce his military career, but only as an introduction.

I am very anxious to see exactly how this program is finally setup and who is "bumped" immediately to the last two levels of this program.  Just because you Command a SQD, Group or Wing does not mean you know anything about organizational excellence.  It most likely means you know the person who placed you in Command and (unfortunately) are friends with him or her.  Don't try to tell me nepotism does not run rampent in CAP.  We all know it does. 

My vote.  A big NO on this proposed program.  This is only a way to make those already standing out, shine brighter and feel better.  It adds very little substance.       

[Eclipse]

Just because you Command a SQD, Group or Wing does not mean you know anything about organizational excellence.  It most likely means you know the person who placed you in Command and (unfortunately) are friends with him or her.  Don't try to tell me nepotism does not run rampant in CAP.  We all know it does. 

Rampant or not, there are any number of people here that would take exception to an insulting statement like that, including me.

Do not make the mistake of assuming local perception is national reality in this regard...

[lordmonar]

Timbo,

I think the OE specialty track is an attempt to aleviate some of the issues you bring up.

TODAY we have group/wing/regional/national level commanders and staffers who never went through an OE program....because it never existed.

Once this program is instituted we can start growing quality leaders from within.   We can get OE officers on the commitees.  We can get OE officers into senior leadership positions.

The OE program is NOT for "Joe Blow Member"...it is for those who are being groomed for senior leadership. 

The wing commander is not primarily a political position....yes there is politics involved....but there has never been a check to that sort of thing.   I see the OE program as a way of mitigating this problem. 

We can use this program to make sure that the political appointee has the basic qualifications.

[James Shaw]

Timbo,

I think the OE specialty track is an attempt to aleviate some of the issues you bring up.

TODAY we have group/wing/regional/national level commanders and staffers who never went through an OE program....because it never existed.

Once this program is instituted we can start growing quality leaders from within.   We can get OE officers on the commitees.  We can get OE officers into senior leadership positions.

The OE program is NOT for "Joe Blow Member"...it is for those who are being groomed for senior leadership. 

The wing commander is not primarily a political position....yes there is politics involved....but there has never been a check to that sort of thing.   I see the OE program as a way of mitigating this problem. 

We can use this program to make sure that the political appointee has the basic qualifications.

I agree 100%. It is also a major part of the transparent organization that MGen Courter has established. This is a large step in the right direction for the hopeful elimiation of the Good Old Boy Network. No more formerly 2B'd members coming back in and being promoted to Colonel based on a friend.

I will participate in this if given the chance.

[jimmydeanno]

Wouldn't it be great if it didn't take three pages of discussion to figure out what the heck this thing is for?...

[lordmonar]

I figured it out is about 2 seconds.....Once you get past the strange name and really read the training requirements.....it is obvious they intend this program to prepare leaders to take on command and high staff positions.

[James Shaw]

Wouldn't it be great if it didn't take three pages of discussion to figure out what the heck this thing is for?...

In the past it was a Good Old Boy system. Promotions based on friends in the right spot and right time. Some people were put in jobs they were not qualified to do.

Secretive meetings and promotions and deals behind the doors and others paying the price for telling the truth.

Transparent organization based on Proven Qualifications and proven trackrecord.

This is the best move that MGen Courter has made in my humble opinion.

[jimmydeanno]

I figured it out is about 2 seconds.....Once you get past the strange name and really read the training requirements.....it is obvious they intend this program to prepare leaders to take on command and high staff positions.

My point was it would be nice if there was a, "The Organizational Excellence Officer is..." and "This specialty track is intended to..."  Instead of, "Check out this new draft pamphlet and new form and let us know what you think."

Instead we are speculating as to the actual intent of this program, we're up to three pages and don't have a concrete "this is" only conjectures.

[RiverAux]

What also caught my attention was the "suggestion" to join a organization outside of CAP at a members expense.  Although they said CAP may pay for the membership dues......two questions come to mind.  First, why should my (and your) tax dollars and membership dues go to help a group of people personally selected by the National Commander to join an organization that is not needed. 

I missed that.  If it actually suggests that CAP pays for a members dues in another organization, that is a major strike in my book.

[lordmonar]

4. Consider personal membership in the American Society of Association Executives (ASAE). This organization's purpose is to assist in the professional staff development of a nonprofit association. You may visit their website at http://www.asaecenter.org/. Members will need to be enrolled at the "Association Professional Staff" level. At the current time, annual dues are set at $265. Depending on the status of the CAP Corporate budget, some funds might be available to offset all or a portion of the dues

A quick check of their website....makes me think that this would be $265 well spent.

Of course.....this would mean we whould have to budget for it.

[RiverAux]

A quick check of their website....makes me think that this would be $265 well spent.

I belong to several professional societies, none of which have dues that are more than 40% of that cost.  I've got no problem if we want to suggest joining a group like this, but in now way is it worth the dues of 4-5 senior members to pay for a 1 year membership for a CAP poo-bah. 

[lordmonar]

A quick check of their website....makes me think that this would be $265 well spent.

I belong to several professional societies, none of which have dues that are more than 40% of that cost.  I've got no problem if we want to suggest joining a group like this, but in now way is it worth the dues of 4-5 senior members to pay for a 1 year membership for a CAP poo-bah. 

This is the argument I used against you on the concept of a CAP retirement fund. 

Is it because we are spending money....or is just that we are spending money on "Poo-bahs"?

I think that CAP would be willing to shell out money to fund something like this(and they have not yet) says that they are really serious about making our "executive" levels true professionals.  If this organisation can provide out leaders with training/networking/support I think that shelling out a little green would be a good thing.

4-5 senior members dues.....that sounds cheap to me, and we can raise this money my requiring every executive level trainee to recruit 5 new members. 

[RiverAux]

I don't believe it is a wise use of CAP funds to pay for our members to join another organization under any circumstances and for any personnel.  In this case, it seems blindingly obvious to me that the only persons likely to get funded are the poo-bahs rather than the guy down at the squadron level. 

That being said, I wouldn't complain about a person from NHQ joining the organization and gleaning what ideas and tips they could from it and then passing it along in some appropriate manner to everybody else.  But, I don't see it as being something that should be considered beyond that. 

[Pylon]

A quick check of their website....makes me think that this would be $265 well spent.

I belong to several professional societies, none of which have dues that are more than 40% of that cost.  I've got no problem if we want to suggest joining a group like this, but in now way is it worth the dues of 4-5 senior members to pay for a 1 year membership for a CAP poo-bah. 

I'm not sure what professional associations you belong to, but three of the four professional associations in which I am active have dues greater than $300/year: Public Relations Society of America, Association of Fundraising Professionals, Society of Publication Designers. 

PRSA and AFP, for me, have been particularly helpful to belong to.  My employer does pay all of my professional association dues each year, and in turn I get access to insider newsletters filled with great advice, forecasts, cutting edge stuff and ideas; I get local networking and professional development events on a regular basis; access to national conferences and regular webinars; and an extensive online research library from one of them to name a few tangible and useful benefits. 

So those types of fees are fairly standard; nothing unusual there.  And nothing unusual in the membership fees being paid by the professional's "parent organization".  I'd actually be suspicious of what you're getting by joining a professional association with dues that were substantially lower than that.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

I don't believe it is a wise use of CAP funds to pay for our members to join another organization under any circumstances and for any personnel.  In this case, it seems blindingly obvious to me that the only persons likely to get funded are the poo-bahs rather than the guy down at the squadron level. 

That being said, I wouldn't complain about a person from NHQ joining the organization and gleaning what ideas and tips they could from it and then passing it along in some appropriate manner to everybody else.  But, I don't see it as being something that should be considered beyond that. 

I agree that CAP, being a volunteer organization, should not pay for some of its members to maintain professional-association memberships. Individual members foot the bill for everything else, so let them do the same.

I'm a member of the Society for News Design (www.snd.org), and have been for some time, since I'm a professional journalist and visual editor. But should CAP pay my membership? I can't imagine that makes sense. (Of course, if CAP's going to pay for my professional associations, fine -- SND, NPPA and ASNE are fine by me.)

NHQ personnel who join professional organizations are another thing, though. I would think membership in professional organizations, paid for by CAP, are appropriate. Those people are paid staff members, unlike us grunts out in the field.

[Eclipse]

On the surface I don't like the idea, either, but depending on the level its done, a few bucks a year may bring thousands or millions in funding or mission work.

My Group, for example, has to pay annual dues to sit on local SAR councils.

[Pylon]

I'm a member of the Society for News Design (www.snd.org), and have been for some time, since I'm a professional journalist and visual editor. But should CAP pay my membership? I can't imagine that makes sense.

If you were designing the Volunteer, actually I'd hope CAP would pick up your SND membership.  But since you're not using those skills at an executive level in the organization, no it doesn't make sense.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

I'm a member of the Society for News Design (www.snd.org), and have been for some time, since I'm a professional journalist and visual editor. But should CAP pay my membership? I can't imagine that makes sense.

If you were designing the Volunteer, actually I'd hope CAP would pick up your SND membership.  But since you're not using those skills at an executive level in the organization, no it doesn't make sense.

Well, they haven't asked me to, but I'd do it, including all the editing, if approached....

[Major Carrales]

Yah I noticed that last night, I went through it, not quite sure what it all is.  What I am getting from it is that you are the "Jack Of All Trades" of the program.  Knowledgeable in every aspect of all parts of the program.   

A few years of Squadron Command easily produces that effect.

[James Shaw]

I have almost all of the qualifications for this except RSC and UCC. I did SOS instead but this requires in residence for RSC and UCC was just getting started when I was a Squadron CC. I will participate in this if it is formally offered.

[CPT Anderson]

As a member of the Organizational Excellence track team, It is NOT just intended for "future commanders," it is meant for those who have multidisciplinary skill sets in CAP who will be able to mentor those CAP members that need help from someone (because we all need help in some area for our squadrons).  It is not for the GOB or a GOB system either.  If you notice, it is the only specialty track with 4 levels.  I understand someone is upset with the wording of "few of you will make it to the Executive level," I'll pass that on.  Remember, this is just in the development phase, we still have a lot to work out, but as a cadre member, I would ask that you have patience as we figure this out, so your feedback is helpful, but the WTFs, etc aren't.

Thanks.

[arajca]

As a member of the Organizational Excellence track team, It is NOT just intended for "future commanders," it is meant for those who have multidisciplinary skill sets in CAP who will be able to mentor those CAP members that need help from someone (because we all need help in some area for our squadrons).  It is not for the GOB or a GOB system either.  If you notice, it is the only specialty track with 4 levels.  I understand someone is upset with the wording of "few of you will make it to the Executive level," I'll pass that on.  Remember, this is just in the development phase, we still have a lot to work out, but as a cadre member, I would ask that you have patience as we figure this out, so your feedback is helpful, but the WTFs, etc aren't.

Thanks.

If it's not a Commander's track, why is the first senior level service requirement

A mandatory 1 year of effective command at the squadron level or above.

?

Definitely makes it a Commander's Track, non-commanders cannot progress above the technician level.

I would like to see what the proposed specialty badge looks like.

[Stroke]

CPT Anderson,
I'm glad to see that people at the National Level know that people are discussing ideas like the Organizational Excellence Specialty Track at places like this.  I do hope that this track becomes active and that some of our inputs get through.  Could you give a little insight as to when this might be.  I know I am eager to begin.  Thank you for any information that you can provide. 

[ThorntonOL]

I have to agree after looking through the requirements it is primarily a commander's track,
who else has the qualifications to go anywhere with it?

[flyguy06]

So, is this the criterira they will be looking at in the future to be Wing and region Commanders? Only Squadron Commander is a requirement for this track. It didnt say anything abouthaving tobe a Wing or region Commander. But my question is will the highers that be be loking at this to choose future National Region and Wing commanders?

[FW]

I think having an OE track rating would only help a prospective group/wing commander.  However, like the Wilson award, it would probably be only 1 of many factors.  Since region/cc's have already been a wing/cc, it would probably be less of a factor in the selection process.

[NavLT]

I See this as yet another attempt to get a program going that works on grooming members to lead the program.  The problem is that no program works without the support and effort of the organizations leadership.  If the current specialty tracks and Phases of the program are being given to members who are not "Excellent" then how do we fix that?

I have seen little or no momentum in my wing to have anyone appointed, anyone encouraged to enroll and no discussion at all below wing about making it work.

Commanders need to ensure that members qualified and capable of training do so and that the training be quality and quantity to meet the needs of the organization.  If you run a PD report for the wing and look for Masters in specialties you find few and they are all in a couple 3-4 specialties which implies nobody is pursing the others.  That is the problem we need to fix. 

There is too much OJT, signed off by the commander due to a lack of a senior or master rated member.  We need to move to multiday academies or online training with exams.  Commanders could approve serving in positions and doing tasks like giving presentations etc....

V/R

[swamprat86]

I believe that the PCR CC just stepped down recently to head this program up at National, so hopefully we should see some movement on this soon.

I have submitted my paperowrk to be a mentor a while ago and I haven't heard anything back yet.  Has anyone else applied or gotten a response back?

[dwb]

I have seen little or no momentum in my wing to have anyone appointed, anyone encouraged to enroll and no discussion at all below wing about making it work.

Well, according to the original OE memo, Wings were given until Apr 1 to get an OE committee and mentors in place, so they could start accepting enrollment applications.

I'm hoping they announce something at the Wing Conference this year (I won't be there to hear it, though).  It wouldn't surprise me if it took them a couple more months before they could start enrolling students, just because it's tough to get a whole new program off the ground.

That's just for our Wing; I'm not sure if other Wings have already started accepting students.

[Smithsonia]

I have been confused by this track and waiting for clarification... which seems to be coming through, now. All tracks require some boiling down and definition before they are understood, even by those who propose it. That stated...

What has impressed me is the number of highly qualified CAP Senior Officers that see this track as very positive. We have former Wing Commanders, Region Commanders, Vice Commanders, etc. joining up, signing on, and mentoring. To have this higher officer level sign up is impressive. To be mentored by any them is a privilege.

The fact that they see virtue, leaves me wondering about my lack of initial vision
(on my part only) and makes me disposed to give it a try. I'm not command material, but I do want to help where needed.

[flyguy06]

I want to enroll in this specialty track.

[Ned]

Has anyone else applied or gotten a response back?

Yes, I recently received an email with a pdf attachment announcing the action.

It looks like they are rolling it out.  It is new, so I suspect they are going slowly.

Ned Lee

[swamprat86]

I emailed National about it and they said that the applications were forwarded to either the Region CC or Wing CC, depending on level for mentors.  It looks like I am going to have to ask our Wing admin if we got it back.  To be continued......