Requiring COMMAND experience for Level III completion

[SoCalCAPOfficer]

While the original idea seems good.  I think a better idea would be to allow substitution of Command in place of attending RSC for level IV.

[ZigZag911]

Non-concur. Too few commands, first of all...and there are some outstanding staff officers who would not be good commanders.

[Hawk200]

You have no business putting on clusters if you have no desire to ever be a leader. Period.

Desire is not sufficient. There's a good old boy system still out there that can easily hamstring anyone wanting a command position. If certain people don't like you, you won't get it.

Second, considering how many members there are out there, there's no way every one of them could be afforded the opportunity to command for two years. And to be completely fair, it would have to be available to anyone who did desire it.

The current system of command or staff requires someone to contribute to their unit in some manner. You don't don't contribute, you don't advance past a certain point. I've seen a couple members that had no desire to contribute in a staff position (or even advance in a specialty track), and left when they couldn't get past first lieutenant.

[SDF_Specialist]

I'm kind of torn on this issue. While I think it would be a good idea to require some command experience, the wait time would be enormous. You'd have a member join in let's say 2009, complete the Level III requirements in mid to late 2011, then have to wait for who knows how many years if there are others waiting for a turn. That would hold the PD program up. Besides serving time in a staff position, why not create the positions of assistant to the Commander (Not a deputy), assistant to the Deputy Commander of Seniors and assistant to Deputy Commander of Cadets. This way everyone would get an idea of what's required of all the command positions. One member serves six months to a year as the Commander's assistant. The same time requirements could apply to the deputies assistants. Whenever the DCS's assistant moves to the position of the commander's assistant, the DCC's assistant moves to the being the assistant of the DCS, and a new candidate comes in as the DCC's assistant. It sounds confusing, but think about it. Three to six command candidates could be trained per year.

[lordmonar]

I non-concure as well....but to play devil's advocate.....would your plan just be the same thing as we got now?

If command time were important to Level III...then an "assistant to" job would not fit the bill.

As it has been stated before.....it would just bottle neck the PD process for no good reason.  A pefectly good CP officer looking to get credentials to move up to wing or region would have to wait his turn for his unit CC position to open up.

[RiverAux]

You guys are acting as if all CAP members are going to get to Level III.  This is something that is achieved by a relatively small percentage of CAP members, so its not like all 30K CAP members are looking for one of about 1K command slots. 

[lordmonar]

No....but in theory we should be encouraging all our members...especailly those in wing level staff possitions to have completed Level III.

[RiverAux]

A stint at squadron command is excellent preparation for being on wing staff. 

[Hawk200]

You guys are acting as if all CAP members are going to get to Level III.  This is something that is achieved by a relatively small percentage of CAP members, so its not like all 30K CAP members are looking for one of about 1K command slots.

So it's OK to deny the opportunities to some "because they're never going to do it anyway" ? That's throwaway logic. Just because not everyone is going to do it, doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to.

Just out of curiousity, how many years of command time do you have?

[Hawk200]

A stint at squadron command is excellent preparation for being on wing staff.

So's a stint at squadron or group staff.

And there has been a case or three of former squadron commanders that had problems becoming staff again. Not common, but it does happen.

[RiverAux]

So it's OK to deny the opportunities to some "because they're never going to do it anyway" ? That's throwaway logic. Just because not everyone is going to do it, doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to.

My point is that there would be plenty of opportunities for those that would like to move ahead over the course of their CAP career. 

"Just out of curiousity, how many years of command time do you have?"
About two years, and it has greatly influenced how I've worked as a member of wing staff in various positions.  Having been on the receiving end of demands coming down from wing staff members as a squadron commander taught me a lot about how not to do things (by the way, those demands almost always came from folks with no experience trying to lead a squadron with minimal staff support). 

[lordmonar]

A stint at squadron command is excellent preparation for being on wing staff.

Not saying it isn't....but most cities only have one unit they can be commander of.  If we assume a standard tour of duty is two years....how many Level III will most wings produce in a years time?

Nevada will only produce 10.  There are more then 10 staff positions at wing.  Do the math....how long before we no longer have qualified personnel to fill wing staff positions?

[Hawk200]

My point is that there would be plenty of opportunities for those that would like to move ahead over the course of their CAP career.

You have no supporting evidence for your point. Even with only five people in a unit that desire to command it, it would be ten years before they could all accomplish this. And who chooses the order? By the time that the opportunity rolls around, the third person may not want it, or have life changes that don't permit it.

About two years, and it has greatly influenced how I've worked as a member of wing staff in various positions.  Having been on the receiving end of demands coming down from wing staff members as a squadron commander taught me a lot about how not to do things (by the way, those demands almost always came from folks with no experience trying to lead a squadron with minimal staff support).

The time you have doesn't surprise me. Many of the suggestions you have made in the past were things you were almost or already eligible for. It reminds me of a government job announcement I once read for a GS-9 position that required a doctorate. A requirement completely unnecessary to actually perform the job.

Second, just because the demands coming to you are unreasonable doesn't mean every single one of them came from someone who hasn't held a command. I think that's what you believe because you want to. I doubt you can prove it.

[Gunner C]

So it's OK to deny the opportunities to some "because they're never going to do it anyway" ? That's throwaway logic. Just because not everyone is going to do it, doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to.

My point is that there would be plenty of opportunities for those that would like to move ahead over the course of their CAP career. 

"Just out of curiousity, how many years of command time do you have?"
About two years, and it has greatly influenced how I've worked as a member of wing staff in various positions.  Having been on the receiving end of demands coming down from wing staff members as a squadron commander taught me a lot about how not to do things (by the way, those demands almost always came from folks with no experience trying to lead a squadron with minimal staff support).

I have four years of command.  The problem was that the staff officers around me (when I was a staff officer) didn't have any and thought that they actually had authority outside what the commander gave them and that they were the only game in town:  their program was the center of the universe.  If these officers had command experience, they would have known that their programs were an integral portion of a larger effort.  Commanders only have so much training time to use and each staff section was vying for all of it.

[RiverAux]

Second, just because the demands coming to you are unreasonable doesn't mean every single one of them came from someone who hasn't held a command. I think that's what you believe because you want to. I doubt you can prove it.

I was there, you weren't.  I'm right. 

"but most cities only have one unit they can becommander of.  If we assume a standard tour of duty is two years....howmany Level III will most wings produce in a years time?"  Look at how many are being produced now.  Very few.  If we kick my proposal up to level 4 (which I wouldn't have a problem with), it is even less.  So, its not like there would be a huge bottleneck of folks seriously trying to complete this level that would be stuck by lack of a command slot. 

" Many of the suggestions you have made in the past were things you were almost or already eligible for."
Well, when you make as many suggestions as I do, thats bound to happen.

[arajca]

I have seen some of these "unreasonable" requests. I have made some. These were called "unreasonable" or 'overly burdensome' by commanders and unit staff. The vast majority of these requests were based on one out of two items:
CAP Regulations
SUI results

For example, I had to have the wing commander put a unit on freeze to get their annual S-8 report and I got it the day before I was planning to go there to repo all their comm gear. As required by regulation. I took a hit on my Compliance Inspection for the units not having turned in their S-8 reports on time.

I know of one case were the requiement was not based thusly and a comment to the wing commander took care of that.

Units are notoriously bad about providing helpful info to make all our jobs easier, but if you try to stick to the regs and require something thay they should be doing and are not, Heaven help you. I tried to help units avoid an SUI hit for having incomplete information on their S-8, but only two took me up on it.

[Hawk200]

I was there, you weren't.  I'm right.

There's a way to prove it. Each person that was the staff member would have to be identified, and their command experience would have to be documented. You may be right, but without proof of it, no one will believe it.

" Many of the suggestions you have made in the past were things you were almost or already eligible for."
Well, when you make as many suggestions as I do, thats bound to happen.

When it seems to happen almost every time, it's self serving. That's not the point of command, and it's unethical. It gives the appearance that you're attempting to either lock others out of opportunities by making them unique to your own skillset, or else you're still trying to come up with something to make a name for yourself. Neither of which is beneficial to serving others. And as a commander, that's not what you're here for.

[RiverAux]

"There's a way to prove it. Each person that was the staff member would have to be identified, and their command experience would have to be documented. You may be right, but without proof of it, no one will believe it."
I've worked with essentially the same group of people for 10+ years and I know their backgrounds and frankly, I don't care if you don't believe it. 

[quote author=RiverAux link=topic=9278.msg169785#msg169785 When it seems to happen almost every time, it's self serving. That's not the point of command, and it's unethical. It gives the appearance that you're attempting to either lock others out of opportunities by making them unique to your own skillset, or else you're still trying to come up with something to make a name for yourself. Neither of which is beneficial to serving others. And as a commander, that's not what you're here for.
[/quote]How is it self serving? I'm neither helped nor hurt by this requirement.  It doesn't "hurt" me if someone gets Level III, so its not like I've got a personal reason to keep such folks down.  Now, if we had some sort of "up or out" rule in CAP, that would be a different story.  But, thanks for impugning my motives anyway.  [/quote]

[Hawk200]

I have four years of command.  The problem was that the staff officers around me (when I was a staff officer) didn't have any and thought that they actually had authority outside what the commander gave them and that they were the only game in town:  their program was the center of the universe.  If these officers had command experience, they would have known that their programs were an integral portion of a larger effort.  Commanders only have so much training time to use and each staff section was vying for all of it.

Sounds like a lack of training. You mentioned that you knew when you were a staff officer, but your peers did not. Did you have command experience (in CAP) when you were a staff officer?

Most of our "homegrown" CAP officers don't have an idea as to what they're really expected to do, what the chain of command really is, or a view of the big picture. We need something far more than the cumulative week or so of information that most CAP officers up to captain or major have.

Command experience may have experience in that, but it's a disservice to only provide that training to commanders. I know most people won't like the point, but the military trains people to cover more than just their current position and grade. As the saying went: "Training for levels up, and experience in levels down". We should be doing the same for our personnel. When a drop in replacement isn't available because no one has the knowledge, we have a problem. A commander should never be indispensable.

[Hawk200]

I've worked with essentially the same group of people for 10+ years and I know their backgrounds and frankly, I don't care if you don't believe it. 

Your choice. The thing is that it doesn't matter if you care about my belief or not, you have to prove it to people to make your idea fly. Without indisputable proof that this requirement would improve things, it's a brick.

How is it self serving? I'm neither helped nor hurt by this requirement.  It doesn't "hurt" me if someone gets Level III, so its not like I've got a personal reason to keep such folks down. 

Self serving in the manner that it denies someone else an opportunity by implementing a skillset that you have. It's the same as writing a job description that only uses your background. When this happens a large majority of the time, it looks like you're trying to advance yourself by impeding others.