Here is my forecast of what will be happening in the Iowa Wing. NOTE: this is my personal belief. There are no official plans or desires of Wing staff to do what I believe that they might try to do (as far as I know.)
After the cadets are moved to one or two cadet squadrons- with local detachments; testing will be required to be taken at the Cadet Squadron HQ. Then, consolidation of the Senior Squadrons into a single squadron with local detachments.
Therefore the whole program can be commanded by a very few people. This does make for a very effective control over the wing as concerned with ES, CP and PD. This further integrates into the "One CAP" mentality- with the wing banker solution. Please note that this would happen over five to ten years.
As discussed on the other Iowa thread, all Maj's and LTC's have been forcibly moved to wing(either move or we put you in the reserve squadron), now it looks like the cadets will be "restructured" into one maybe two centrally located squadrons with local detachments. Does anybody else see a pattern here, or is it just me?
What Iowa has done has done much to reinvigorate IAWG, it has gotten better retention, more state funding-$320,000 in 3 years, support from the NG, TAG. All of which are good things. But where does it end??? If the Wing leadership thinks that that is the way it should be done. Fine, tell us. Don't do it one piece at a time, give us your ideas for the wing, then get us to buy-in into the idea. Forcing on the wing only creates chasms between the ranks and the leadership.
I think what's mostly missing here with the discussion of IAWG is what I've seen only pointed out once in this thread: what IAWG has done is great -- for Iowa Wing -- but won't necessarily play anywhere else. The "turnkey" comment made earlier is most accurate. Folks looking for a "one-size-fits-all" solution to the problems of membership and training should not look at the IAWG model as the be-all and end-all.
We have the same problem in my "real-world" job, education. Somebody somewhere comes up with a pretty good idea to make test scores, etc., go up, and out of the clear blue you find school systems all over the nation trying to make it work in their systems too. And -- 99.9% of the time -- it doesn't. These people try to find "turnkey" solutions to local problems and either don't realize or don't care that what works in one place won't work in another. The demographics are different ... the size of the area is different ... the motivations are different. And trying to force a "one-size" mentality on your membership -- in education and in CAP -- is doomed to failure before it even gets started.
Jack
So... Granted, Jack, but...
What IS the best solution for CAP? Iowa is right in its approach, CAP "Squadrons" are not units in the sense that the military uses units. The first thing we divest ourselves of in a mission is unit integrity. We create a "Task Force" under an Incident Commander out of individuals and elements of local units.
Our units really are more akin to the Navy Reserve's "Training Centers." Members go, train in individual tasks, but their collective tasks can only be done on their annual cruises when they are assigned to the fleet. And then they are assigned as individuals to different vessels, depending on the ability of the fleet to support training in their ratings.
What is the best plan for us?
John, you're on the right track.
For all non-CP stuff, squadrons aren't operational entities. They are force providers. Whenever we DO anything, we mix and match people from lots of squadrons to build the response.
It makes a lot of sense for squadrons to be training centers, assuming we can get over the problem that many squadrons don't have resident experts on hand to do the training.
Possible solutions include squadron specialization (i.e. a "comms squadron" or a "ground team" squadron), so you don't have to train everything, or perhaps more self explanatory training materials, eliminating the need for as many experts.
Now on the CP side, things are a bit different - cadets can live their whole life in a single squadron. For them it is an operational entity.
I don't think centralization of CP will work well in very large Wings.
Somewhat off center.....but.......I was once a member of a SQD that had a weekly meeting and a mandatory monthly Training Assembly. We were co-located at an AF Reserve station so our monthly training was in conjunction with the UTA (<----correct terminology I think). We (the Officers) attended the morning formations both Saturday and Sunday.....we attended various workships and programs and were part of the AF team during that weekend UTA. On the Cadet side they were rotated each month to a different function (i.e. Security, OPPS, even the financial management SQD). It was perfect......we were billeted and fed by the AF RES.
Heck....even our Chaplains took turns to give the sermons on Sunday.
Most states have an Air Guard and Some have Air Reserve units right? Why can't we take what I was part of and make it into something on a national scale? You attend your weekly meetings......but there is an absolutely mandatory UTA at the nearest Reserve/Guard station. If you miss the Training....you have to make the time up sometime before the next months training.
Lets get more "in bed" with the AF. We are more like that Reserve forces than Active Duty......why not act like them. They offer a whole lot CAP members can take advantage of.
While I am glad to see that people are still curious about the IAWG, the only silver bullet or take away from our experience is NOT the end result but that a due diligence process or some other form of qualitative analysis should be used at the Wing level.
We used four forms of qualitative analysis:
1. OODA Loops (Observe, Orient, Decide and Act)
2. Improvement Cycling
3. SWOT (Strength, Weakness Opportunities and Threats)and
4 Option/Criteria weighing.
All program are subject to OODA looping and improvement cycle analysis. This has resulted in incremental modifications to our core programs, e.g. OTS, ICAPA, Squadron leadership succession, etc.
It has also brought to our attention the concept of the specialty squadron. In October 2003 we identified two areas where specialization could benefit our mission response: Flying units and communication units. Reading value in the old saw that "birds of a feather flock together" we have started a OODA loop on the concept. We have experience with flying squadrons that is positive. A year ago we opened a Virtual HQ for the communications people in the Wing. It too has proved workable as they begin to think and work as a unit. Frankly I like the concept but whether it will past SWOT and Option/Criteria analysis is an entirely different matter. I am always amazed at how many good ideas fall by the wayside when subjected to this analysis.
The title of the thread is FORECAST OF IOWA WING. Our forecast is simple: IAWG will forever be in an qualitative analysis mode, our existing programs will change and there will be new and different programs to fit existing and future problems.
In the movie Annie Hall, Woody Allen is lamenting the fact that his relationship with Ms. Hall is fading. He explains the issue by saying that relationships are like a shark. .. "It has to constantly move forward or it dies. And I think what we got on our hands is a dead shark." CAP is no different...it must continuously keep moving, adjusting, modifying and creating...or it will die. Given the need for and demands made upon IAWG at the time, our Wing leadership did an excellent job of keeping us, moving, alive and well. But then was then and now is now. New demands create the need for us to keep moving. Were we to do nothing we would have been dead in the water and dishonored our prior leaders who kept the Wing in good shape.
I have received several requests to address Wing Conferences and Squadron meetings to talk about our experiences and process. While I'm happy to do so, all requests must come from your Wing CC to my Wing CC.
NC
It is apparent that IAWG Leadership has plans to change the organization at the wing and lower levels. Do you think that it would be better to have goals that everyone in the wing knows about, and can have the opportunity to contribute? Now I know that everyone will not agree, nor can you put it to a vote; but you could say is:
'Here are our long term goals:
Move all Field Grade Officers to Wing
Centralize Cadet Programs- with localized Detachments
Wing-centric operational command
Standardized Training to ensure quality.
The reasons are . . . . .
If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please contact . . . ."
If that approach was used, I believe that many people- including myself- would be more accepting of the proposals, as they came down the line.
I come from a Wing where many of our Groups are Larger than Iowa, I think Texas would have to take another track.
I'm a field grade officer quite dedicated to in growth of my unit and other in the area, my Wing HQ is Four hours away...how will this add to my CAP experience?
That is the same situation that I was in-except for grade- while I was in Iowa. The concept of what Iowa is doing- it works. It does not, however, work for other Wings. I honestly believe that it could functionally work at the Group level. The vision for it though, needs to come from wing. Send a proposal through the chain of command suggesting steps to take and how to get there. Get the State Director on-board. Lets stop just talking about it and DO something to MAKE IT HAPPEN.
Here is my forecast for the Iowa Wing. ;)
http://www.weather.com/weather/tenday/USIA0424?from=month_topnav_undeclared
Looks to be hot for the upcoming WTA!
Quote from: TDHenderson on June 20, 2007, 09:20:09 PM
Here is my forecast for the Iowa Wing. ;)
http://www.weather.com/weather/tenday/USIA0424?from=month_topnav_undeclared
Looks to be hot for the upcoming WTA!
It ain't so cool here in OK either. Stay safe, and as always have fun. ;)
Quote from: mikeylikey on June 20, 2007, 06:11:50 PM
Somewhat off center.....but.......I was once a member of a SQD that had a weekly meeting and a mandatory monthly Training Assembly. We were co-located at an AF Reserve station so our monthly training was in conjunction with the UTA (<----correct terminology I think). We (the Officers) attended the morning formations both Saturday and Sunday.....we attended various workships and programs and were part of the AF team during that weekend UTA. On the Cadet side they were rotated each month to a different function (i.e. Security, OPPS, even the financial management SQD). It was perfect......we were billeted and fed by the AF RES.
Heck....even our Chaplains took turns to give the sermons on Sunday.
Most states have an Air Guard and Some have Air Reserve units right? Why can't we take what I was part of and make it into something on a national scale? You attend your weekly meetings......but there is an absolutely mandatory UTA at the nearest Reserve/Guard station. If you miss the Training....you have to make the time up sometime before the next months training.
Lets get more "in bed" with the AF. We are more like that Reserve forces than Active Duty......why not act like them. They offer a whole lot CAP members can take advantage of.
I kind of like this idea. It would be nice to work with them hand in hand. I wouldn't make it mandatory, there are enough folks here that don't like the idea of being more like AF officers, I imagine they would shudder at the thought of actually working with them. As long as it didn't conflict with my current Guard schedule, I would enjoy something like this.
Most CAP squadrons have too few senior members on staff, each trying to do too many jobs.
The reason for this is that, in terms of numbers, relatively few of our squadrons actually approach USAF squadron level numbers -- yet they are expected function as if they, in fact, had that many members.
Iowa did not need to invent CAP 'detachments' (this is simply an observation, not a criticism)....we already have an ideal sized unit to be the community based "tactical" unit: the CAP flight.
Probably what we need to do is raise the requirement of number of seniors to charter a squadron to something like 15 or even 20.
Flights could either be assigned under a Group HQ, or several could be components of a training squadron, as mentioned by John Kach, that would give administrative and logistic support: PAO, personnel, finance (below Wing banker level), Ops, safety program, aerospace, chaplain -- pretty much the whole 'staff' shooting match.
The seniors in the flights would be filling either cadet leadership officer roles, or ES filed roles (aircrew, GTL/GTM), or both.
For the Record, I do like what the Iowa Wing is doing to be more relevant. I do not, however, like the way it is being presented and actuated. I honestly believe that had Wing leadership put their proposal together under a system as outlined above, I think there would have been less resistance.
Quote from: mikeylikey on June 20, 2007, 06:11:50 PM
Most states have an Air Guard and Some have Air Reserve units right? Why can't we take what I was part of and make it into something on a national scale? You attend your weekly meetings......but there is an absolutely mandatory UTA at the nearest Reserve/Guard station. If you miss the Training....you have to make the time up sometime before the next months training.
Yeah, I'm going to drive 4-5 hours to Scott AFB once a month, for training I can get (better) at home.
Let's all remember something.
The word "mandatory" is hollow in CAP. What are you going to do? Fire me? Seems a little self-defeating.
Hold me back for promotion? (nope, regs say you can't add anything to the requirements already included in the regs).
At last check, the whole of IAWG was as big as my group. By hook, crook, or luck, they seem to have found something that works FOR THEM.
It is a house of cards dependant on the benevolence of a number of people, none of whom are immortal or elected for life.
5-10 years? Looks around you. How many of today's CAP leaders were even in the organization 10 years ago? How many who were leaders then, are still even >in< CAP, let alone still in a position of influence and/or authority?
The wrong thing said to the wrong person in Iowa government, and it collapses.
A Governor who can't spell CAP? Or wants to cut costs? Flat.
New Wing CC who believes the REAL program, versus a mini-state guard is more important? Gone.
New Region CC or CAPFLT001 with different ideas? Bye.
When you work THE program, you can be reasonably sure that the majority of your operations won't just disappear overnight. When you make up your own rules and depend on outside resources or organizations, you run the risk of all your work being for nothing.
It also needs to be said that people join for their own reasons, and you can't force them to do anything.
We do not have billets, duty assignments, or "stations".
You can't force field grade officers to wing staff, what if they don't want to do a staff job? What if they are productive aircrew, who enjoys the camaraderie of his unit and just wants to fly? You can't hold back his promotion, and you can't MAKE him serve at wing.
So you transfer him and hack him off.
What's the point of that?
You also can't have "Comm Squadrons" and "Ground Squadrons", etc. for the same reason.
CAP is supposed to be about providing people the chance to serve in uniform, locally, in ways which leverage their existing aptitudes and experience in order to build a force of people who are good citizens, stewards of their community, and ready to respond to emergencies.
It is not about augmenting the military, shoring up weak state guard budgets, or building a mini-defense force.
By design, training, and operational ability, we are 2nd and 3rd responders, in place to assist and relieve
the 1st responders. In the chess game of life (and especially emergency services) this is as important a piece as the 1st wave.
Its the members frustrated about that >FACT< that are pushing us into areas we do not belong, and operational models which will not work.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 21, 2007, 03:57:10 AM
By design, training, and operational ability, we are 2nd and 3rd responders, in place to assist and relieve
the 1st responders. In the chess game of life (and especially emergency services) this is as important a piece as the 1st wave.
I have to disagree that that is not the case! It is apparent just by reading the newspaper articles CAPNHQ throws up on the website that CAP search teams are called in by Law Enforcement usually as a first responder. Members are called by the AF to go find ELT's to right? We worked Katrina supporting no one except the residents down there. Granted there are times when we will assist and relieve some first responders......but don't sell our organization short!
Quote from: Eclipse on June 21, 2007, 03:57:10 AM
It also needs to be said that people join for their own reasons, and you can't force them to do anything.
We do not have billets, duty assignments, or "stations".
You can't force field grade officers to wing staff, what if they don't want to do a staff job? What if they are productive aircrew, who enjoys the camaraderie of his unit and just wants to fly? You can't hold back his promotion, and you can't MAKE him serve at wing.
So you transfer him and hack him off.
What's the point of that?
You also can't have "Comm Squadrons" and "Ground Squadrons", etc. for the same reason.
CAP is supposed to be about providing people the chance to serve in uniform, locally, in ways which leverage their existing aptitudes and experience in order to build a force of people who are good citizens, stewards of their community, and ready to respond to emergencies.
It is not about augmenting the military, shoring up weak state guard budgets, or building a mini-defense force.
By design, training, and operational ability, we are 2nd and 3rd responders, in place to assist and relieve
the 1st responders. In the chess game of life (and especially emergency services) this is as important a piece as the 1st wave.
Its the members frustrated about that >FACT< that are pushing us into areas we do not belong, and operational models which will not work.
Eclipse:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
Follow me for a minute.
We have 3 missions. AE, Cadet, and ES. Why not have three distinct types of squadrons?
The cadet squadrons would run CP, and the AE squadrons would be the education experts. The ES experts would be in ES squadrons. Each squadron would simply allocate time for training on all three missions, and the specialty squadrons would provide contact training teams within their area.
For example: I command the Wrongway Corrigan Memorial Cadet Squadron. I and my officers run the cadet program, testing, PT, drill, inspections, activities, etc. I want ES training for my cadets to get them ready to assist in CAP's ES missions. I set aside the 3rd week of each month as "ES Day," and arrange for the commander of the Pancho Barnes Memorial Senior Squadron, which is the ES unit in my area, to send trainers over, establish a curriculum, and train my cadets and officers in GT, Flight Line, Commo, or whatever specialty is needed by the team. The Barnes Squadron keeps the ES records, and updates the 101 cards.
I also task the Manfred von Richtoffen Squadron (AE) to conduct the AE program on the 2nd week of each month. Von Richtoffen's officers are also trained in ES by a crew from Barnes. Von Richtoffen also sends AE teams to Barnes to manage the senior AE program there, and conducts all external AE in the assigned geographical area.
All cadets are mine. Barnes and von Richtoffen are officer-only squadrons.
What would be wrong with THIS plan?
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 21, 2007, 05:09:48 AM
[What would be wrong with THIS plan?
Nothing -- provided the Barnes and von Richtofen squadrons were within a reasonable distance for travel to your unit. If they are a 4 - 5 hour drive away, or require flying in more than two or three people, you've got a problem if the individuals involved have "real-life" conflicts with your training schedule. In fact, Kach, that's a pretty good set-up. But how many other wings or groups have similar arrangements (or are even in a position to make similar arrangements)?
I think I see what Eclipse is trying to say here, though. IAWG has found something that works well --
for them -- for now. While we all are justifiably proud of their set-up and wish it the greatest success, it must be noted that it could all fall apart as soon as someone new is introduced into a leadeship position -- someone who doesn't share the vision but has the authority to change things, be it in CAP, the military, or the Iowa state government. And all the "signed accords" in the world won't stop a new governor or state legislator who's trying to make a political name for him/herself from chopping the whole thing off if it makes him/her look like they're trying to save state money.
Just food for thought.
Jack
Quote from: ColonelJack on June 21, 2007, 09:50:41 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 21, 2007, 05:09:48 AM
[What would be wrong with THIS plan?
Nothing -- provided the Barnes and von Richtofen squadrons were within a reasonable distance for travel to your unit. If they are a 4 - 5 hour drive away, or require flying in more than two or three people, you've got a problem if the individuals involved have "real-life" conflicts with your training schedule. In fact, Kach, that's a pretty good set-up. But how many other wings or groups have similar arrangements (or are even in a position to make similar arrangements)?
I think I see what Eclipse is trying to say here, though. IAWG has found something that works well -- for them -- for now. While we all are justifiably proud of their set-up and wish it the greatest success, it must be noted that it could all fall apart as soon as someone new is introduced into a leadeship position -- someone who doesn't share the vision but has the authority to change things, be it in CAP, the military, or the Iowa state government. And all the "signed accords" in the world won't stop a new governor or state legislator who's trying to make a political name for him/herself from chopping the whole thing off if it makes him/her look like they're trying to save state money.
Just food for thought.
Jack
Jack:
You are right. Organizing regionally would work where there are units within a reasonable commute.
Or... You could have "Super-units," for example. If distance is a problem, you assign local folks to Barnes and von Richtoffen who live near Corrigan. They actually serve at Corrigan, although assigned 500 miles away where their home squadrons are based. The home unit commanders set up mandatory training sessions to maintain currency 2-3 times per year where the outlying folks have to come in for a weekend of updating their training and proficiency.
Just about any problem can be solved. Well, except for the Arab-Israeli conflct, the pacification of Baghdad, and the "Tastes great-less filling" controversy.
Or you could assign local folks who live near Corrigan to Corrigan as their home units and have them travel to Barnes and von Richtofen 2-3 times a year for mandatory training to maintain their currency..Oh yeah, that is the way the program is set-up now. And we call the training places group or wing. And their local unit at Corrigan maintains their paperwork and allows them to participate in unit activities instead of just being super specialist in one area and losing perspective of the entire program and their role in it and their own personal development in CAP. The program actually works as designed and tried and true for 50 years. Not all units in the world want to play with the Army or the Army NG. And not all of CAP is about ES. I think the Iowa idea is interesting and am glad it appears to be working for them. I don't think it will last over time and I surely hope that some powers that be don't decide to make changes to the program based on a limited perhaps temporary success. JMHO, as usual
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 21, 2007, 11:54:16 AM
Just about any problem can be solved. Well, except for the Arab-Israeli conflct, the pacification of Baghdad, and the "Tastes great-less filling" controversy.
Well, I don't know much about solving the first two, but I'm always willing to volunteer to help solve the third one. Who's buying?
Jack
"You do not have to change...Survival is not mandatory."
W.E. Demming
One of the common threads here is the temporary nature of what has been demonstrated by IOWA. And that is pretty true. Most of it is based around a current group of leaders and how they choose to work.
The key to instituting any success they are having is in changing things like regs, laws, etc. Those take a lot longer to undo, and are less subject to changing at the whim of the new guy. For example, the state law protecting CAP members when doing missions.
But since CAP can't affect state law very well from a National Level, the question for big CAP is "what parts of this success CAN be instituted Nationally?"
The two that come to mind for me are
Changing the promotions regs to field grade officers to do field grade work (i.e. move up the organization as you promote)
Work a closer relationship between CAP and the National Guard Bureau at the Federal Level. Perhaps even consider moving CAP from AETC to NGB....
Well, number one you are considering changing CAP's total mission to one of ES when you align more with the Guard and attempt to get the State to utilize you more. That is not what CAP is really all about. Number two, so you think 60 year old 1st Lt's at squadron level are th way to go, or do you want to get rid of your wizened experienced guys by moving them away from the squadron and into Group (which is notorious for not doing anything) or into Wing (which is driven by a handful of LtC's already and they don't need more) or just throw them away?? Who do you contemplate starts new squadrons? Some young Lt. that has a dream and no experience in CAP? Not a good idea. At the least, give the young guy the experience and protection of a few of the old guys to guide him on a daily basis. Part of the problem is that we get too many young guys that are one directional. (Not a condemnation, just the facts). For example an ES young guy thinks all squadrons should be ES, an EMT young guy thinks all ES people should be mountain and wilderness trained front line medics, and of course, all pilots think that CAP should be about flying and nothing else. Therefore, I propose that all squadrons have at least one old fart with darts and farts on his hat to maintain some semblance of what CAP is about and to rein in the horse's a-ses once in a while. Just a thought of course..
Quote from: Dragoon on June 21, 2007, 02:43:09 PM
Changing the promotions regs to field grade officers to do field grade work (i.e. move up the organization as you promote)
With that, you dramatically limit the number of people who move up in the organization -- and, by definition, leave it after a while due to frustration at the lack of possible advancement. By your reasoning, since the highest position I've ever held is squadron command (company level work), I should still be a captain, rather than having had the privilege of rising to (and retiring at) lieutenant colonel. We don't tie grade to position for just that reason.
Let's be frank -- there are many members of CAP who join for the military structure. That means grade, and that means promotion. If you tell a member that he/she can only go as high as captain at the local level, then he/she will do one of two things -- work toward the narrow number of group/wing/region jobs that may or may not come open, or stay where they are as long as they need to. For the first group, frustration will set in as it becomes apparent that the number of field grade officers needed at group/wing/region is relatively small, and many aren't in a position to work at that level anyway due to geographic locations, work responsibilities, etc. Why limit them? Why take away one of the two things CAP has to pay its people (the other being uniform bling)?
For the second group, these are the dedicated, hard-core, unit-level people who may not even give a hoot about grade. This idea is fine for them. But it also helps create an "us-them" mentality, those who work their careers at the local level vs. those who (for their own reasons) want to advance through the organization.
Some folks don't join CAP just to work the local level units. There are those who seek higher opportunities. (Ask anyone on the National Board.) You're limiting people rather than empowering them to do their best.
My opinion, of course. YMMV. :)
Jack
The concept is good, however, I believe all CAP should be local. 'Tis the squadron level where the the rubber meets the road.
Pulling the best and brightest from developing the local resources in favor of Wing centered operation will be problematic.
As I have maintained for many years; the Squadron needs to be the main focus. I could see having two "sister units," ONE CADET and one CAP OFFICER that fill each other's gaps. Groups need to provide support for their units by organizing the trainings and activities that utilize multi-unit resources, as well as attract the FIELD GRADE officers to serve as mentors. Wing's job is to support the Groups and units as the corporate level.
We can ill afford to have a WING Centered CAP. I mean really...you think you have fiedoms now?!
Also, CAP units might to be like USAF ones in mechanics and, maybe they shouldn't be. We are talking apples and oranges here. Military unit and CAP units differ in almost every way.
This element of the IOWA model will not work for CAP in the larger Wings.
Like I said in my original post, the IAWG concept can not work in Larger wings. I stated that it might be feasible at the Group Level. It would work even better at a sub-Group Level. Take 3 or for Squadrons, and make them inter-dependent on each other. Not so dependent that they would fall apart if one collapses; but to where they support each other to the point of where they all grow. What I am trying to do, is to take what Iowa has done, and make it useable to the entire orginization. this is not an easy task, but I do believe that it is workable-if people are willing to try.
The leadership in Iowa knows that the program could be shut down at any time- they would have to be fools in order not to realize that fact. Still, they press on, making the Wing more and more useful to the State. The State has realized that CAP has value that they can't always get from other places. For example, we flew State reps around disaster areas so they could see for themselves what was going on. That is hard to do from a C-130 or a F-15. They realize that CAP can do a lot for them, and even though money is tight, they see that IAWG is SO valuable, the gave IAWG an EXTRA 20 thousand over the previous year. The state funding did not come over night, it took tons of work by Col. Tomlinson, LTC. Critelli, Maj. Janson; as well as from all the members who volunteered the time to prove to the State that the decision to give us money- that it was the right one.
The leadership of IAWG didn't deny the fact that there were some issues with trying to get the problem to work. The thing is that they didn't give up on it though. They made some choices that did not go over well with many people, but that does not mean that what they decided was wrong or ineffectual. It just means that some people realized that it wouldn't work for them, so they left.
Quote from: Nick Critelli, Lt Col CAP on June 21, 2007, 01:25:34 PM
"You do not have to change...Survival is not mandatory."
W.E. Demming
"change for change's sake usually sucks."
-Swad Jan 22 2006, 11:46 PM
Look, I believe in what y'all are doing in Iowa; but, inventing "cookie cutter" solutions for all of CAP should not be the approach. I often refer to thsi as the "Iowa Model," something to be looked at by other Wings and take all or in part. Trying to fit an elephant into a man's suit is precarious at best and a waste at worst; however, looking at how to clothe and elephant by looking at how one can clothe a man is doable.
Texas can ill afford to transfer Field Grade officers to Wing...there would be hundreds or thousands of such people at Wing. Wings in a large States like California, Texas, Pennsylvania or the like are more like a driver than an engine. This is where group level comes in.
Rougue's idea about groups and/or subgroups is workable; but shifting the focus to Wing when the squadrons implement CAP missions locally...especially when the nearest unit is 200 miles away...is folley!!!
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 21, 2007, 05:09:48 AM
We have 3 missions. AE, Cadet, and ES. Why not have three distinct types of squadrons?
>snip<
What would be wrong with THIS plan?
A: We don't have the membership numbers to support operations like this.
B: It depends on having members near the respective unit who want to do what that unit wants.
C: It doesn't allow for cross-platform members who wish to be involved in the CP and ES, and those members, for the most part, are the core of CAP.
My unit got 100% of my CAP time, which, because it was a composite unit, ment I got what I wanted, too.
Having to divide my time between units would only reduce my participation, slow my progress, and possibly lose me as a member.
Quote from: ColonelJack on June 21, 2007, 03:13:40 PM
With that, you dramatically limit the number of people who move up in the organization -- and, by definition, leave it after a while due to frustration at the lack of possible advancement.
Except they don't move up. They stay right where they are, but get to wear more rank.
Meanwhile, Wing and Group suffer from a lack of good people, because no one sees any reason to leave the squadron. After all, squadrons are more fun, and you can still get to be a Colonel while doing Lieutenant level work. That's a great deal - I wish I could get that in my real job.
Are we in CAP for the title, or for the job?
Do volunteer fire departments let every experienced member call themselves "Captain" or "Chief" without actually doing a job at that level?
This has been discussed on many other threads.
Sure, we need to reward longevity and experience at the local level - but is insignia of grade the correct tool?
Quote from: capchiro on June 21, 2007, 12:32:48 PM
Or you could assign local folks who live near Corrigan to Corrigan as their home units and have them travel to Barnes and von Richtofen 2-3 times a year for mandatory training to maintain their currency..Oh yeah, that is the way the program is set-up now. And we call the training places group or wing. And their local unit at Corrigan maintains their paperwork and allows them to participate in unit activities instead of just being super specialist in one area and losing perspective of the entire program and their role in it and their own personal development in CAP.
Squadrons are the echelon where training is supposed to happen, not Groups and Wings.
Large-scale SARExs put on at the Group and Wing level should be execution environments, not "intro to GT3" days.
Will yo learn things, of course, should you show up to a large exercise with a damp ID card and start asking the IC "how can I help?", no.
That's the unit CC's responsibility, and if he can't provide the resources locally to get it done, its his job to find them and / or coordinate those opportunities at other units.
Quote from: Dragoon on June 21, 2007, 06:01:05 PM
Quote from: ColonelJack on June 21, 2007, 03:13:40 PM
With that, you dramatically limit the number of people who move up in the organization -- and, by definition, leave it after a while due to frustration at the lack of possible advancement.
Except they don't move up. They stay right where they are, but get to wear more rank.
Meanwhile, Wing and Group suffer from a lack of good people, because no one sees any reason to leave the squadron. After all, squadrons are more fun, and you can still get to be a Colonel while doing Lieutenant level work. That's a great deal - I wish I could get that in my real job.
Are we in CAP for the title, or for the job?
Do volunteer fire departments let every experienced member call themselves "Captain" or "Chief" without actually doing a job at that level?
This has been discussed on many other threads.
Sure, we need to reward longevity and experience at the local level - but is insignia of grade the correct tool?
And I would further this to say that the number of people in the organization who really care about advancement or command authority is very small.
What members want is to spend their time well, make legitimate and significant contributions to the missions, and enjoy what they are doing.
Bling, eh. An occasional "THANK YOU!", or a little good press, much more important.
PD is important for members from a knowledge and operational ability standpoint, but until it means more pay, better retirement, or a nicer duty station, the CAP bling is all but meaningless.
Quote from: capchiro on June 21, 2007, 03:11:17 PM
Well, number one you are considering changing CAP's total mission to one of ES when you align more with the Guard and attempt to get the State to utilize you more. That is not what CAP is really all about.
Umm. No. If CAP goes to NGB, then CAP's MISSION goes to NGB. Meaning the Air Guard becomes the guys tasked to support the cadet program. No change.
CAP is by nature a local organization, serving the local community. By coincidence, so is the Guard. Works out rather nicely. Connection to the federal level USAF for funding, but with a state level focus allowing us to work our missions in the local community with more local community support.
Keep an eye on Iowa and see if their relationship with the guard results in the death of the cadet program, and a complete focus on ES. I don't think that will happen.
Truth is, CAP is an even better recruiting tool for the local Air Guard than for the active air force. Round these parts we put more cadets in the Guard than we do in the Active USAF.
Quote from: Dragoon on June 21, 2007, 02:43:09 PM
But since CAP can't affect state law very well from a National Level, the question for big CAP is "what parts of this success CAN be instituted Nationally?"
Ditch the bling - or at least all the attention its paid, can the GOBs, and melt the golden pens.
Work OUR program, and hold every member, from C/AB through Maj. Gen. responsible for performance.
Accept the attrition, and next year start selling a 30,000 member professional force of volunteers.
Quote from: Dragoon on June 21, 2007, 06:06:39 PM
Truth is, CAP is an even better recruiting tool for the local Air Guard than for the active air force. Round these parts we put more cadets in the Guard than we do in the Active USAF.
I hear this all the time. Please.
On the cadet side, we're a factor, but mostly in support of young people already so inclined. We help, sure, but we're not a gateway.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 21, 2007, 06:05:47 PMBling, eh. An occasional "THANK YOU!", or a little good press, much more important.
PD is important for members from a knowledge and operational ability standpoint, but until it means more pay, better retirement, or a nicer duty station, the CAP bling is all but meaningless.
Bling is very good - builds morale. The question is - what kind of bling is best for what situation?
Ribbons, skill badges and various "I've been there" patches work well to document the qualifications and contributions of the member. Hard working experienced folks should be showered in this stuff.
Rank normally works best as a symbol of leadership - authority and responsibility.
I'm not aware of any other organization that mis-uses grade the way we do. And even we realize that as a coporation - else we'd allow everyone to become Colonels and Generals without leaving the squadron!
The plus side of having full composite squadrons that are linked into a super unit is to help maintain connections, availability of help, and learn to work with others than your unit.
For example: There are 3 squadrons- A, B, and C. All three are composite. Squadron A is 1hr from B, and 1.5 hr From C. B is 1.25 hr from C. They are not joined, and all three are having problems with getting some training. Unit A has a strong AE, but a weak CP. Unit B has strong CP but a weak ES. Unit C has a strong ES but weak AE. The commanders are getting uneasy due to the fact that people are leaving due to fulfillment. Now, the 3 commanders get together, along with their staffs, and form a joint venture. They are able to have a couple members travel to the other squadrons once every other month to give training. Then they can start reaching out to other units to see what is going on with those squadrons. If help is needed, the opportunity arises to help out other units. Distance is a problem if the time is much longer than that, but it still should be considered.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 21, 2007, 06:10:49 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on June 21, 2007, 06:06:39 PM
Truth is, CAP is an even better recruiting tool for the local Air Guard than for the active air force. Round these parts we put more cadets in the Guard than we do in the Active USAF.
I hear this all the time. Please.
On the cadet side, we're a factor, but mostly in support of young people already so inclined. We help, sure, but we're not a gateway.
I don't follow you here. If you're intimating that CAP is useless as a USAF recruiting tool, I sure hope USAF doesn't figure that out - Iall platitudes aside, I can't imagine they'd support our program if it didn't help their bottom line.
My point was that it seems whatever value our cadet program has as an active duty recruiting tool, it seems to work even better as an Air Guard recruiting tool. Making the argument that "going Guard" wouldn't reduce CAP to ES only.
Back to topic PLEASE.
Quote from: RogueLeader on June 21, 2007, 06:13:10 PM
The plus side of having full composite squadrons that are linked into a super unit is to help maintain connections, availability of help, and learn to work with others than your unit.
For example: There are 3 squadrons- A, B, and C. All three are composite. Squadron A is 1hr from B, and 1.5 hr From C. B is 1.25 hr from C. They are not joined, and all three are having problems with getting some training. Unit A has a strong AE, but a weak CP. Unit B has strong CP but a weak ES. Unit C has a strong ES but weak AE. The commanders are getting uneasy due to the fact that people are leaving due to fulfillment. Now, the 3 commanders get together, along with their staffs, and form a joint venture. They are able to have a couple members travel to the other squadrons once every other month to give training. Then they can start reaching out to other units to see what is going on with those squadrons. If help is needed, the opportunity arises to help out other units. Distance is a problem if the time is much longer than that, but it still should be considered.
We can talk all day about squadrons being where training occurs, but it doesn't really seem to work that way. Because to train, you need qualified trainers.
CAP is too broad, it has too many areas to train in for most units to have qualified instructors in everything. So what normally ends up happening is that the training occurs outside the squadron - the people go to where the trainers are. Group schools. Wing SAREXs. Region Academies. Wherever.
But.
If a squadron only support a couple of missions/specialties, it would stand a much better chance of being able to provide all the training neccessary. You'd only need a few qualified experts.
And, with a laser like focus on training those core things, you could get really good. And you could probably do so with fewer meetings.
Members who want to "do it all" would simply participate with multiple units, same as now. But each squadron would have a more reasonable (and achievable) focus.
Quote from: RogueLeader on June 21, 2007, 06:17:24 PM
Back to topic PLEASE.
Okey dokey - you were talking about centralization. You don't like it. Got it. :D
Right, like I said this is about what we can do to make ourselves more relevant to our communities. Iowa has become relevant to Iowa, and we need to do the same.
Quote from: Dragoon on June 21, 2007, 06:22:41 PM
Quote from: RogueLeader on June 21, 2007, 06:17:24 PM
Back to topic PLEASE.
Okey dokey - you were talking about centralization. You don't like it. Got it. :D
Not quite true. It all has to do with the organization and the presentation of what the changes are, and how they are being implemented.
Quote from: RogueLeader on June 21, 2007, 06:23:46 PM
Right, like I said this is about what we can do to make ourselves more relevant to our communities. Iowa has become relevant to Iowa, and we need to do the same.
...we need to become relevant to Iowa? ;D
Jack
Quote from: Eclipse on June 21, 2007, 03:46:53 AM
When you work THE program, you can be reasonably sure that the majority of your operations won't just disappear overnight. When you make up your own rules and depend on outside resources or organizations, you run the risk of all your work being for nothing.
You frequently mention "THE Program" as if it were some monolithic force with the constancy of Newton's Laws....I would simply ask you to consider that the way the CAP programs (we have 3 main ones with lots of offshoots) develop is precisely through the kind of innovation and creativity that Iowa Wing is exercising.
Will it work for every wing? Certainly not!
Is it going to last forever? No, but then little does in this life, does it?!?
I guess the questions is are we one USCAP, or 52 (2 letter state abbreviation)CAP's?
There has to be adaptation for each local situation, AKWG being the old extreme example, but IAWG is way out there without being "private pilots+scary wilderness land."
Is there any limit a Wing King can do to their wing?
Quote from: ddelaney103 on June 21, 2007, 08:07:44 PM
I guess the questions is are we one USCAP, or 52 (2 letter state abbreviation)CAP's?
There has to be adaptation for each local situation, AKWG being the old extreme example, but IAWG is way out there without being "private pilots+scary wilderness land."
Is there any limit a Wing King can do to their wing?
The old CAP was very much about "each Wing doing whatever works." But with more centralized oversight and funding (both have been building since the 80s), plus more multi Wing missions, it ain't the future.
So when we look at Iowa, or any Wing, just saying "glad it worked for you - but we're different" requires a little more thought. Exactly WHY are we different? If it works for them, then WHY won't it work for us?
Because we need to spread the good ideas.
The Iowa folks pretty much admit they are in the prototype stage. Some of their stuff won't work. Some only works because of their unique situation (size, state funding, etc).
But some of it will. And not just the "have lots of energy and try to improve" part - some specific business practices.
If we find out that centralizing functions above the squadron helps, we should not be afraid to try it on a larger scale.
If we find that the key is NG support, we shouldn't be afraid to arrange for that at the National Level.
And yes, if we find out that tying promotion, however loosely, to higher levels of responsiblity works for them, then we might seriously consider mandating that as well.
Or having lots of senior member NCOs.
Or whatever.
Of course, the key will be the metrics. And I think the one thing Iowa needs to do, as a test case, is establish the quality metrics NOW. Before they get too far into it. Decide now how they will measure "betterness." Make those metrics publich. Then use them to determine what works and what doesn't.
There will always be individual diferences as long as we operate under different state laws and in different climates. But to the extent possible, we need to standardize into one USCAP.
The real factor that comes into play if other wings were to "adopt" the Iowa plan would be size. SIZE in regards to the number of members, the geographic, money, squadrons...... etc. The individual wings will be larger or smaller in size to Iowa. I think some things from Iowa may work.....but not all.
Quote from: RogueLeader on June 21, 2007, 06:23:46 PM
Right, like I said this is about what we can do to make ourselves more relevant to our communities. Iowa has become relevant to Iowa, and we need to do the same.
IAWG has become >visible< to the state government and the guard.
My guess is they are even less relevant in their local communities because of their centralized participation.
IMHO, this runs contrary to the whole point of CAP.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 21, 2007, 07:33:25 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on June 21, 2007, 03:46:53 AM
When you work THE program, you can be reasonably sure that the majority of your operations won't just disappear overnight. When you make up your own rules and depend on outside resources or organizations, you run the risk of all your work being for nothing.
You frequently mention "THE Program" as if it were some monolithic force with the constancy of Newton's Laws....I would simply ask you to consider that the way the CAP programs (we have 3 main ones with lots of offshoots) develop is precisely through the kind of innovation and creativity that Iowa Wing is exercising.
Will it work for every wing? Certainly not!
Is it going to last forever? No, but then little does in this life, does it?!?
I do this because too many members, and outsiders, think the way to "fix" CAP is to change the program, when in fact, the way to fix it is to work it.
If you change our missions, operational structure, or other significant parts of CAP, changes to local operations and procedures may be warranted, but I can assure success is possible, and likely, if yo pick up the book and follow what it tells you to do.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 21, 2007, 09:25:47 PM
IAWG has become >visible< to the state government and the guard.
My guess is they are even less relevant in their local communities because of their centralized participation. IMHO, this runs contrary to the whole point of CAP.
Wrong O. Remember the underlying ES operational theory: All emergencies are local...the state only provides resources to the locals. Consequently CAP has to become extremely relevant to local government. This is done in concert with state government.
I have been watching the Iowa threads for some time now. I wanted to address some issues and concerns.
First of all we discuss the wing centric, vs the squadron centric model. Many CAP people explain that the squadron is where the rubber meets the road, and that the squadron is where the program is delivered. I agree with these statements completely. Unfortunately with out a strong centralization of structure, and command you run into problems. Below is a look at a few of those concerns.
Emergency services.
Under a squadron centric model you (in theory) build relationships with your local EMA, EMS, fire, LEA, and others. You get to know them, and work with them. Unfortunately in Iowa we only have squadrons in 12 counties. In a state made up of 99 counties you are not even scratching the surface. Of the 12 counties only three have had any form of relationship established. And god only knows what those counties expect from us.
Under the wing centric model we brief all county agencies to get a hold of the state. Under this model we have more than tripled the number of missions Iowa has been assigned to (I can produce stats later).
Training is another important factor. Under the squadron centric model each squadron trains its own response teams. Some were very good at ground team missions (hurrah 91st). Others were good at other ES specialties. Unfortunately you couldn't mix and match teams, and you never knew what level of training or experience you could expect.
In Iowa (before the change) we held about 7 large scale wing wide exercises. All training was being done at the wing level any way. Why not formalize things.
Cadet Programs.
Cadet programs are the meet of CAP. And strong squadrons are a thing of beauty. Unfortunately those squadrons are very dependant upon strong dynamic leadership, and under my experience the only consistant way to keep cadets in a program is to
1. get them in an airplane,
2. get them to encampment.
Interestingly enough encampments are run at wing and region level, and local squadrons had a bad record of conducting O flights and wing CP had to forxce them to happen.
Again wing driving the buss.
Being called to dinner. More later.
Quote from: Nick Critelli, Lt Col CAP on June 21, 2007, 11:35:01 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on June 21, 2007, 09:25:47 PM
IAWG has become >visible< to the state government and the guard.
My guess is they are even less relevant in their local communities because of their centralized participation. IMHO, this runs contrary to the whole point of CAP.
Wrong O. Remember the underlying ES operational theory: All emergencies are local...the state only provides resources to the locals. Consequently CAP has to become extremely relevant to local government. This is done in concert with state government.
Believe it or not, I really have to agree with Nick. Even after going to the Wing Centric operational view, the Squadrons have still been as "visible" to the local area. When I was in Dubuque IA, we actually got involved with a couple Boy Scout troops across the border into WI. It was specifically due to the training that was furnished at Wing HQ.As of the time that I left, we had an operation for flight activity, that was to open to area students-IIRC. I also had some contacts within some of the Dubuque area boy scouts so we could offer our support to them as well- teach SAR techniques as well as communicate w/ aircraft. I can not say what happened with the other Iowa Squadrons, but that what IA-043 was doing.
That just goes to say that if/when a Wing goes to a more centralized system, that does not mean that the local presence is lost.
Personally, I think that any Wing or group that offered a day of structured training every month would see similar benefits even if there weren't accomodations for overnight lodging. That in and of itself can lead to major improvements. The other stuff Iowa is doing may help a little, but I don't think is quite as important.
Well dinner was good. Ill keep going with my rant.
Several questions have been asked referencing the stability of the Iowa wing. Having been a part of this wing through six wing commanders I have watched as some of them have been exceptionally good while others have been amazingly bad. Of those wing commanders only 1 has served out a full term, and that CC has been Colonel Ralph Tomlinson (the current commander)
Recent National Level politics and the rapid change over in commanders in nearly every wing has led me to assume that CAP has a stability problem nation wide.
Under the traditional CAP model the wing commander and his staff are usually friends who have come up through the system together. The head quarters moves to that city, and all information and decision making is isolated to that environment. I personally watched the wing head quarters move from Des Moines, to Cedar Rapids, to Iowa City, to Davenport, and now full circle back to Des Moines. During these moves every file and piece of historical record was lost, or destroyed. These moves made sense at the time, but with our new WTA concept all staff, commanders, and officers are in one place every month. Mail can be distributed, and staff meetings can take place. Currently Col. Tomlinson Lives in Humboldt IA, which is nearly 100 miles from the Head Quarters.
Clearly a new commander would have the power to move the HQ away from its current location, but I would hope that the benefits would outweigh the desire to move.
Some have expressed concern over the future commanders of the Iowa wing. Iowa has always looked to the existing leadership for the next CC. Some times it is a successful squadron commander, or an accomplished staff officer, but there was never any fore thought, or planning geared towards long term growth and development options. The foundation set forth in the OTS has allowed senior leadership to identify talent, and place that talent where it can be most appropriately utilized by the wing. No one is picking a wing commander out of an OTS class, but it is exciting to see, and identify strong dynamic leaders, and to assist them to grow.
Finally there are concerns over changes in government, and changes within the Iowa national guard. Believe me we have been very concerned about this. What is probably not known to the public is the simple fact that every point of contact, and liaison we have established has changed over in the past three years. Some have been promoted, others have changed jobs, and others have left the service. Our state has even elected a new governor. With each change comes an opportunity for CAP to become more entrenched within the system. Our staff has even gone so far as to train and teach new officers about their new position.
Clearly I can not predict the future, and I can not guarantee that Iowa will have this relationship for ever, and as a friend once said "a years worth of attaboys can all be lost with one "expletive" up".
My goal is to turn this organization over to the next generation of officers better than I found it.
Well that's about all I have to say about that. <<Flame on.>>
We really need a mix of centralization & decentralization.
Until there is sufficient experienced personnel and trained leaders at squadron & group level (for all 3 missions), the smaller & mid-size wings need to keep a tight rein on operations.
Once you start having trained & experienced folks below wing level, you really need to decentralize, or your trained personnel are going to feel hemmed in and lose interest.
At that point wing becomes the site for setting & maintaining standards, offering advanced opportunities, and long range planning.
Speaking of which, does Iowa have long term plans?
Is the concentration of field grade officers at wing HQ, for instance, a temporary measure? Or are you viewing it as a permanent policy?
I love being a controversial agitator.
A few years ago, I would have agreed with capchiro and others. But for almost three years now, I've been an IG officer. I have no idea how a "Composite" squadron with less than 60 or so people is able to accomplish all 3 CAP missions. Normally, one finds:
1. Commanders at the local level have neither the time nor the expertise to do all the missions. Things get thrown out to lighten the load. Usually the first piece of jetsam is the external AE program.
2. Then the officer AE program gets ditched, because nobody's got the time.
3. There are Composite squadrons with less than 6 cadets. How much leadership training can go on with that kind of situation?
4. Unless a unit has pilots, and not all do of course, the cadet AE program gets weak. How can a non-pilot answer some of the questions cadets have?
5. Squadron commanders can choose to focus their effots as they see fit, which is some cases means that a cadet squadron gets real good at drill, but never sees an ES mission.
I'm sure somebody will chime in the "MY unit does this and that and all things with appropriate excellence... " and that's good. But understand any unit that is doing all three missions well is a rare bird indeed.
I suggest that it is time to think outside the "Box" and come up with new solutions to re-invigorate CAP and its missions. I'm not saying that the brief suggestions we post here are THE ultimate solution to all of CAP's problems, but they are solutions that need to be considered.
If things were going well at all units, we wouldn't be having this discussion. So one cannot define this as "Change for the sake of change."
Quote from: Dragoon on June 21, 2007, 06:20:50 PM
We can talk all day about squadrons being where training occurs, but it doesn't really seem to work that way. Because to train, you need qualified trainers.
A commander sets the goals and mission for his unit with regards to training and then makes it happen, that's his job.
Whether that means using internal qualified people, bringing resources in, or going to them, - that's just a logistical detail.
Besides to LEARN something requires nothing but reference material and an interested audience. Taken step by step, I have yet to see anything CAP does which cannot be self-taught. Its only the qualification sign-offs which need a "trainer", and if you're motivated, getting to an SET is not that big a deal.
Need a mission to complete your rating? Instead of whining about no activity, plan one yourself. No funding for flying? Split the gas, fly a canned 60-1 scenario usiing the Wing's monthly training number and get it done.
Quote from: Nick Critelli, Lt Col CAP on June 21, 2007, 11:35:01 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on June 21, 2007, 09:25:47 PM
IAWG has become >visible< to the state government and the guard.
My guess is they are even less relevant in their local communities because of their centralized participation. IMHO, this runs contrary to the whole point of CAP.
Wrong O. Remember the underlying ES operational theory: All emergencies are local...the state only provides resources to the locals. Consequently CAP has to become extremely relevant to local government. This is done in concert with state government.
Has to, yes. Has, I don't know. Feel free to cite examples where the state-based unit is being more effective with local response than any other state is using standard CAP practices.
In CAP our units do what they can with what they have. Taking resources away from local squadrons or overcentralization will do more harm than good if certain things are not considered.
The units of South Texas are basically, outposts. Yes, outposts. The better goals would be to concentrate training in that area...not at a wing level. Wing HQ is near 10 hours from Brownsville...7 hours from Corpus Christi and 5 hours from Victoria.
I am amazed at how it is the logic of CAP Officers at WINGS to try to uproot intire units and personnel, move them hundreds of miles away for training that should take place "in the field."
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 22, 2007, 03:51:02 AM
I love being a controversial agitator.
A few years ago, I would have agreed with capchiro and others. But for almost three years now, I've been an IG officer. I have no idea how a "Composite" squadron with less than 60 or so people is able to accomplish all 3 CAP missions. Normally, one finds:
1. Commanders at the local level have neither the time nor the expertise to do all the missions. Things get thrown out to lighten the load. Usually the first piece of jetsam is the external AE program.
2. Then the officer AE program gets ditched, because nobody's got the time.
3. There are Composite squadrons with less than 6 cadets. How much leadership training can go on with that kind of situation?
4. Unless a unit has pilots, and not all do of course, the cadet AE program gets weak. How can a non-pilot answer some of the questions cadets have?
5. Squadron commanders can choose to focus their effots as they see fit, which is some cases means that a cadet squadron gets real good at drill, but never sees an ES mission.
I'm sure somebody will chime in the "MY unit does this and that and all things with appropriate excellence... " and that's good. But understand any unit that is doing all three missions well is a rare bird indeed.
I suggest that it is time to think outside the "Box" and come up with new solutions to re-invigorate CAP and its missions. I'm not saying that the brief suggestions we post here are THE ultimate solution to all of CAP's problems, but they are solutions that need to be considered.
If things were going well at all units, we wouldn't be having this discussion. So one cannot define this as "Change for the sake of change."
You're right, but the issue isn't that the program doesn't work, its that unit cc's are not being required to work it in its entirety, there's is no central coordination or economies of scale, and in short, no management.
Most Wing CC's are operating on the "just keep the doors open" philosophy, while the house crumbles around them.
Require units mount a schedule which fufills the mission and this whole problem goes away. Pilots and airplanes can go to where ever they are needed, you generally just have to ask.
Too many unit CC's are cherry picking the "easy" or "fun" stuff and ignoring the rest.
Those should be the first to go.
Quote from: Major Carrales on June 22, 2007, 05:17:40 AM
In CAP our units do what they can with what they have. Taking resources away from local squadrons or overcentralization will do more harm than good if certain things are not considered.
The units of South Texas are basically, outposts. Yes, outposts. The better goals would be to concentrate training in that area...not at a wing level. Wing HQ is near 10 hours from Brownsville...7 hours from Corpus Christi and 5 hours from Victoria.
I am amazed at how it is the logic of CAP Officers at WINGS to try to uproot intire units and personnel, move them hundreds of miles away for training that should take place "in the field."
Yes, that is the reason that I said that it should be at region, or even sub-region, that works for the people training. The WTA works for Iowa because of size. The farthest drive is 3.5 to 4hrs. I would hope that you can cut that to no more the three.
Continuing previous post, was in class,
Particularly where you are very remote from WG HQ, the Super unit would probably work well for you. What you might do is contact other squadrons, and ask if there are any training needs that you need as well, or training that you could provide to them. If you both need training, and maybe a few other units as well, see if you could get somebody from wing or group to give it at a mutually agreed place. This way, it saves time and money over all. Group doesn't have to go to individual units, fewer trips, more standardized training, better connectivity. Do you think that is worth trying. I understand that you would have to travel from where your unit most likely is, but then you wouldn't be going to Wing or Group HQ either. Give and Take; there is no other good solution.
Quote from: Eclipse on June 22, 2007, 05:31:43 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 22, 2007, 03:51:02 AM
I love being a controversial agitator.
A few years ago, I would have agreed with capchiro and others. But for almost three years now, I've been an IG officer. I have no idea how a "Composite" squadron with less than 60 or so people is able to accomplish all 3 CAP missions. Normally, one finds:
1. Commanders at the local level have neither the time nor the expertise to do all the missions. Things get thrown out to lighten the load. Usually the first piece of jetsam is the external AE program.
2. Then the officer AE program gets ditched, because nobody's got the time.
3. There are Composite squadrons with less than 6 cadets. How much leadership training can go on with that kind of situation?
4. Unless a unit has pilots, and not all do of course, the cadet AE program gets weak. How can a non-pilot answer some of the questions cadets have?
5. Squadron commanders can choose to focus their effots as they see fit, which is some cases means that a cadet squadron gets real good at drill, but never sees an ES mission.
I'm sure somebody will chime in the "MY unit does this and that and all things with appropriate excellence... " and that's good. But understand any unit that is doing all three missions well is a rare bird indeed.
I suggest that it is time to think outside the "Box" and come up with new solutions to re-invigorate CAP and its missions. I'm not saying that the brief suggestions we post here are THE ultimate solution to all of CAP's problems, but they are solutions that need to be considered.
If things were going well at all units, we wouldn't be having this discussion. So one cannot define this as "Change for the sake of change."
You're right, but the issue isn't that the program doesn't work, its that unit cc's are not being required to work it in its entirety, there's is no central coordination or economies of scale, and in short, no management.
Most Wing CC's are operating on the "just keep the doors open" philosophy, while the house crumbles around them.
Require units mount a schedule which fufills the mission and this whole problem goes away. Pilots and airplanes can go to where ever they are needed, you generally just have to ask.
Too many unit CC's are cherry picking the "easy" or "fun" stuff and ignoring the rest.
Those should be the first to go.
I have seen "Composite" units with 2 cadets. How do they teach drill? (Roll call: "Smith!" "Here, Sir." "Good, all present and accounted for!") How does a unit with 2 cadets teach leadership? There are units that NEVER participate in ES. They have no interest among the officers. So, therefore the cadets are shorted out of one of the best and most satisfying aspects of CAP membership, as well as losing out on leadership opportunities.
If you are going to "Require" unit commanders to do all 3 missions, you will have to provide resources to accomplish those missions. Now we're back to Group or Wing providing "Contact Training Teams" from specialized units to provide trainers to units with officers lacking certain skills.
But maybe the answer isn't to make specialized units.
Maybe the answer is to collect our best folks in CP, AE, and ES, and form them into "Training Support Units." Put the experts in one unit to manage them, and send them out to units needing support.
Kach ... as someone else has pointed out, "requiring" someone to do things, or making them "mandatory," is rather hollow in CAP. There's no teeth behind it. What will HQ do? Fire the guy? Dock his pay?
I agree, though, that something needs to be done to make the program more relevant to all units. My old unit had at most 25 cadets, and we had an active AE and ES program then. There were times, though, when participation was at the 6 - 10 cadet level, and our officer corps was kind of skimpy as well ... I relied on Group staff for training in those situations and it worked out great.
It actually comes down to what a Wing or Group can provide, not necessarily what it should provide. In a perfect world, we'd all have everything we need and all the people needed to do the job. This not being the perfect world, as someone once said, we have to "do what we can with what we got."
Jack
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 22, 2007, 04:41:59 PMThere are units that NEVER participate in ES. They have no interest among the officers. So, therefore the cadets are shorted out of one of the best and most satisfying aspects of CAP membership, as well as losing out on leadership opportunities.
Whether the officers are "interested" or not is besides the point. The unit commander has a fiduciary responsibility to execute the 3 missions - the "nah, nah, I don't feel like it issue of CAP notwithstanding,
as it stands today, these CC's aren't even being presented a standard, let alone being held to one.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 22, 2007, 04:41:59 PM
If you are going to "Require" unit commanders to do all 3 missions, you will have to provide resources to accomplish those missions. Now we're back to Group or Wing providing "Contact Training Teams" from specialized units to provide trainers to units with officers lacking certain skills.
But maybe the answer isn't to make specialized units.
Maybe the answer is to collect our best folks in CP, AE, and ES, and form them into "Training Support Units." Put the experts in one unit to manage them, and send them out to units needing support.
THIS is an outstanding idea, and quite possibly the best thing we could do with cadets who reach the end of their careers in a given unit, or /cc's, etc., who have rise to a certain level then settle back into the program.
Most units just need s little push, or a little help, and then the interest that got people involved initially kicks in.
Rather than expect the cadre to come to Wing, Wing should be going to the cadre. Outstanding suggestion.
I agree with the traveling trainers concepet, and for a while a group of us tried to impliment the program. Unfortunaitly after traveling for several weekends in a row delivering the same program to fewer than 3-5 students a shot most of the instructors dropped out.
Quote from: isuhawkeye on June 23, 2007, 12:37:32 AM
I agree with the traveling trainers concepet, and for a while a group of us tried to impliment the program. Unfortunaitly after traveling for several weekends in a row delivering the same program to fewer than 3-5 students a shot most of the instructors dropped out.
That's the danger of this, or any similar program. You can quickly burn out your best folks.
Major Carrales, Texas qualifies (in my lexicon, at least!) as an Extra Large Wing, both geographically and, I believe, in terms of numbers....the only reasonable way for a wing like yours to offer coordinated training is on an area (or Group) basis....demanding travel to the wing HQ for ES or PD training for the entire wing would be unfair.....smaller wings like mine (NJ) can do it to some degree....although with our traffic & urban congestion, it can take 4-5 hours plus to travel the measly 160-170 miles from one end of the state to the other.
Colonel Jack, you are correct that we can't force people to do things....but Kach is correct that we need to provide strong motivation AND coordinate the human & logistics resources needed to accomplish the missions.
There has been some centralization in Texas in term of the DSARex (Distributive SARex), where one mission base coordiantes a State Wide nexwork of Staging Areas. But I agree, the Groups of Texas (larger than many Wings) are going to have to serve as Mini-Wings with active training and full staffs.
so some think our plan is doomed in claifornia and mexico. As I recall this thread was entitled "Forcast of Iowa Wing". Do you think we are doomed to fail as well?
Quote from: isuhawkeye on June 23, 2007, 04:27:38 AM
so some think our plan is doomed in claifornia and mexico. As I recall this thread was entitled "Forcast of Iowa Wing". Do you think we are doomed to fail as well?
No, I think your plan will be victorious in Iowa, however, I choose to look at it more as a "model" and "test bed." There are things in it that cannot function in large Wings like Texas. However, the
concepts are the nuggets.
I think the best energy would be to run Iowa with this approach for three years, develop a "what works, what doesn't" then apply those lessons to the large CAP. However, taking the "Iowa Model" and "grafting" it on to every wing willy-nilly might have more serious reprecussions there.
just a quick question.
Does anyone know how the national guard, or other state wide organisations function in Texas.
I'm sure that we arnt the only ones facing the problem of vast terrain.
what lessons can we learn form them?
Quote from: isuhawkeye on June 23, 2007, 04:40:31 AM
just a quick question.
Does anyone know how the national guard, or other state wide organisations function in Texas.
I'm sure that we arnt the only ones facing the problem of vast terrain.
what lessons can we learn form them?
Are you talking about the Texas State Guard? What is the purpose of this question?
Many people have chosen to discues the Iowa wing plan as a model for the rest of the country. Several of those members have commented that the Iowa plan will not work in larger states like Texas, and California.
As the Iowa plan was developed we interviewed, and looked at many outside organisations ranging from the National guard to the Boy/Girl scouts, and the red cross. Each of these groups approaches training and management of its staff differently.
My questions is weather anyone has done research to see how other organisations tackle the probelm of centralisation, or de-centralisation in large states?
Get the State Director to get you an audience with the TAG- or whatever the title is in your own state. Be very clear about what you can do. Giving the briefing in a Military way will go a long way in re/establishing credibility with the State Military. Also find a couple of State Reps who are at least neutral towards CAP, and convince them of how we can help THEM. When they see how good we are, and that their sponsorship saves them money in the long run, you would well be on your way to being much more visible and thus being used.
UM..... RL....
I don't wish to be rude, but we didn't get a meeting with the TAG until well into the process, and the LO didn't have anything to do with it.
Our first en rodes into the national guard were in the DOMS office. Once we proved ourselves with the OPS guys they helped us get into the administration.
We then briefed the staff, and the DAG (not the TAG) sat in on that briefing.
Ok, thanks, I wasn't sure of the route that was taken. Thank you for pointing it out to me.
Another point is to be able to back up what the Wing is promising to the State in the terms of capabilities. That, all would agree, is a surefire way to kill the program. Right?
Quote from: isuhawkeye on June 23, 2007, 05:17:04 AM
UM..... RL....
I don't wish to be rude, but we didn't get a meeting with the TAG until well into the process, and the LO didn't have anything to do with it.
Our first en rodes into the national guard were in the DOMS office. Once we proved ourselves with the OPS guys they helped us get into the administration.
We then briefed the staff, and the DAG (not the TAG) sat in on that briefing.
Uh...that might be me 2b'ed. Even to try to do some business with a local county we have had to go through the WING's contacts. That leaves me to believe that this movement will have to be lead from the top.
Here in MS, I've met a lot of the HLS & ES movers and shakers from the State and County EMA's by attending their ICS training sessions. They seem genuinely glad to have CAP participating. Take your Squadron business cards and hand them out freely, you'll be suprised how well that little bit of advertising comes back when CAP wants something from the State. It's all informal, and those are the people who are going to be pulling for or against CAP having a bigger role in State HLS & State ES when you get around to talking to the legislature. It's a good place to start.
QuoteEven to try to do some business with a local county we have had to go through the WING's contacts.
That doesn't make any sense to me since both squadron commanders and squadron ES officers are supposed to maintain relationships with local authorities.
Quote from: RiverAux on June 23, 2007, 02:40:29 PM
QuoteEven to try to do some business with a local county we have had to go through the WING's contacts.
That doesn't make any sense to me since both squadron commanders and squadron ES officers are supposed to maintain relationships with local authorities.
Showing up to cockail parties in service coats and standing for pictures after parades with local dignitaries is one thing, actually being able to provide them CAP services...like flying or real ES work...is quite another.
Quote from: Major Carrales on June 23, 2007, 05:07:02 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on June 23, 2007, 02:40:29 PM
QuoteEven to try to do some business with a local county we have had to go through the WING's contacts.
That doesn't make any sense to me since both squadron commanders and squadron ES officers are supposed to maintain relationships with local authorities.
Showing up to cocktail parties in service coats and standing for pictures after parades with local dignitaries is one thing, actually being able to provide them CAP services...like flying or real ES work...is quite another.
It does take both though. One to get you in the door, the other to prove that you were right. It would likely be beneficial to create a portfolio of your local capabilities. Current ES operational resources ie: 2- 4 member GT, 1 Aircrew, Comm, etc. A document w/ predicted response times.
This way they know what they can expect of you. When you have a significant change- up or down, make sure that your contacts know. If your squadron were to disband- God forbid- they would like to know so they don't waste time and be predisposed against you if you were to reappear. Likewise, if you get More GT's or another Plane, they might find more use for you. If they don't know what you have or can do, you won't be used.
Quote from: RogueLeader on June 26, 2007, 06:40:53 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on June 23, 2007, 05:07:02 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on June 23, 2007, 02:40:29 PM
QuoteEven to try to do some business with a local county we have had to go through the WING's contacts.
That doesn't make any sense to me since both squadron commanders and squadron ES officers are supposed to maintain relationships with local authorities.
Showing up to cocktail parties in service coats and standing for pictures after parades with local dignitaries is one thing, actually being able to provide them CAP services...like flying or real ES work...is quite another.
It does take both though. One to get you in the door, the other to prove that you were right. It would likely be beneficial to create a portfolio of your local capabilities. Current ES operational resources ie: 2- 4 member GT, 1 Aircrew, Comm, etc. A document w/ predicted response times.
This way they know what they can expect of you. When you have a significant change- up or down, make sure that your contacts know. If your squadron were to disband- God forbid- they would like to know so they don't waste time and be predisposed against you if you were to reappear. Likewise, if you get More GT's or another Plane, they might find more use for you. If they don't know what you have or can do, you won't be used.
Roger... ;D
If anybody wants help putting a portfolio together, I would be glad to help.
Quote from: ColonelJack on June 20, 2007, 05:00:37 PM
I think what's mostly missing here with the discussion of IAWG is what I've seen only pointed out once in this thread: what IAWG has done is great -- for Iowa Wing -- but won't necessarily play anywhere else. The "turnkey" comment made earlier is most accurate. Folks looking for a "one-size-fits-all" solution to the problems of membership and training should not look at the IAWG model as the be-all and end-all.
We have the same problem in my "real-world" job, education. Somebody somewhere comes up with a pretty good idea to make test scores, etc., go up, and out of the clear blue you find school systems all over the nation trying to make it work in their systems too. And -- 99.9% of the time -- it doesn't. These people try to find "turnkey" solutions to local problems and either don't realize or don't care that what works in one place won't work in another. The demographics are different ... the size of the area is different ... the motivations are different. And trying to force a "one-size" mentality on your membership -- in education and in CAP -- is doomed to failure before it even gets started.
Jack
So Colonel-
If we applied to education/IAWG analogy to all of CAP and forced people into the One -Size way of doing things would it be called "No Officer Left Behind?" ;)
Quote from: SARMedTech on June 28, 2007, 07:02:23 AM
If we applied to education/IAWG analogy to all of CAP and forced people into the One -Size way of doing things would it be called "No Officer Left Behind?" ;)
There would be quite a few majors and lieutenant colonels "left behind". ;)
Quote from: SARMedTech on June 28, 2007, 07:02:23 AM
So Colonel-
If we applied to education/IAWG analogy to all of CAP and forced people into the One -Size way of doing things would it be called "No Officer Left Behind?" ;)
After recovering from a bout of early-morning laughter that startled my dogs, I have to answer this way: Yes. But remember, most educators on the front-line (i.e., teachers) consider No Child Left Behind the single worst piece of education legislation ever conceived by the Federal Government. The farther one is removed from the classroom, the more approval of NCLB you'll find. Principals can tolerate it, Superintendents love it, and School Boards are ecstatic ... primarily because they don't have to DO it and they don't see how it stifles the classroom experience and ends up forcing teachers to "teach the test" so they can keep their jobs (bottom-lining it).
No Officer Left Behind would be a good (and awfully funny) analogy, but as Deputy Dog points out, a whole lot of field-grade officers are indeed "left behind." Sort of like the kids who won't measure up by 2014 no matter what we teachers do ... and it'll be our fault, according to the feds.
Jack
Actually the analogy is a good one and the only kids left behind are the achievers, the creative ones, the ones not reaching their maximum because they are being held behind to wait for the lower ones to catch up. Same way in this system, your achievers, your Majors and Colonels would be left behind so your younger officers can attempt to catch up. Any time you slow down the genius' to wait for the herd, you have lowered the gene pool.
Hijack
Please R-T-T
I am sorry, but I believe the discussion of removal of field grade officers is directly from your original post in this thread and is therefore right on topic. What are you looking for in this discussion?
Rogue Leader-
If you read all pages of the thread you will see that the recent posts follow it quite well and discussions among disparate individuals tend to meander and wend their way through points, counterpoints, alternatives and non-alternatives.
Quote from: capchiro on June 28, 2007, 10:43:52 AM
Actually the analogy is a good one and the only kids left behind are the achievers, the creative ones, the ones not reaching their maximum because they are being held behind to wait for the lower ones to catch up. Same way in this system, your achievers, your Majors and Colonels would be left behind so your younger officers can attempt to catch up. Any time you slow down the genius' to wait for the herd, you have lowered the gene pool.
My beloved mother was also a teacher until recently when her contract was not renewed for refusing to wait for the slow members of the herd. Seems she couldnt stomach the idea of social promotion and longer.
Quote from: capchiro on June 28, 2007, 01:10:37 PM
I am sorry, but I believe the discussion of removal of field grade officers is directly from your original post in this thread and is therefore right on topic.
Note this Picture below...
(http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p114/MajorCarrales/GroupVawards.jpg)
This is a pic of the Brownsville Comp Squadron Commander, The Group V Cadet Programs Officer, The Group V Commander and myself, the Corpus Christi Squadron Commander.
If all Field Grade Officers were ripped from their commands in South Texas...every bloke in this photo would be "parked" as a member of Wing. The persons in this photo...and other similar photos from the Texas Wing Conference, are the movers and sharkers of their SQUADRON activities that keep their programs alive and viable.
Point is, in Texas, most Squadron Commanders are Majors...most deputy Commanders and Group/Unit Staff are Majors and Lt Colonels.
Moving them all to WING is an action that needs serious thought. That is why I maintain that some things done in Iowa cannot be directly grafted onto other Wings.
I should also point out that those awards were holding are Wing level Ones.
As a general rule, field grade officers should be serving as squadron commanders or deputies, or on higher echelon staffs.
However, we must bear in mind that CAP does not use the military's "up or out" process. We have officers who serve many years as lieutenant colonels. As a practical matter, those people are not going to consistently have the time or energy to serve in higher level staff slots, particularly, in some cases, as their age advances.
For some, the Iowa alternative of a 'reserve squadron' is ideal; however others may prefer to serve as mentors, instructors, or simply squadron staff members in a local unit.
I'm not sure even Iowa intends the concentration of all field grade officers at Wing HQ as a permanent measure. It seems more likely it was a short term means of addressing a systemic problem. As their wing culture changes, the negative attitudes, hopefully, will evaporate as the newer senior officers advance in rank.
What of someone like me who may have aspirations of leadership (GTL, etc) but really have very little, or more accurately no interest in command. As long as I continue to advance myself in my chosen specialties and improve myself as an officer, will I be safe from being relegated to a Triple Zero Squadron. I dont mean that I would not like to serve as Health Services or Emergency Services officer in my squadron. Just that I dont really have a taste for the politics of wing level command.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 28, 2007, 05:36:33 PM
As a general rule, field grade officers should be serving as squadron commanders or deputies, or on higher echelon staffs.
That may be true in a military organization where there is an Ofifcer Corps and a large contingent of NCOs and Enlisted, however, all we have are CAP Officers. In CAP, rank is obtained by personal professional development. Therefore, one day even I may become a Lt Col based, not my my command ability, but on my ability to attend a Region Staff College, an Officer's Course and other National Level Activities.
Would then the modus operandi be for people to remian 1st Lt for life if they simply want to develop their local squadrons? What about special promotions? A major CFI or former military...should they not even bother to join a local unti where their expertise would enhance the Squadrons and Groups? Or do they best serve as Warm Bodies at Wing level?
Listen, if we let squadrons "rot on the vine" because we want centralization "AT ALL COSTS" I think we are killing our effectiveness.
To the arguement that State Gaurd and Reserve and other organizations work, let me remind you all that they get funding from ABOVE, not from below. In our unit some 85% of all things comes out of membership "pocket." Not because they have to, but because they believe in CAP and their local Squadron. It is foundational... All we have was locally developed. Now, a overly centralized model will eventually "cut people off" and always lack funds.
Again, once cannot graft the "Iowa Model" on to every WING. We should best be looking it concept by concept and taking the best.
QuoteIn our unit some 85% of all things comes out of membership "pocket."
Well, I'm not sure that is actually the case for "all things". It is probably very true of day-to-day expenses associated with running the unit and special fun-type events, but if you include money spent on fuel for the planes for missions, flight clinics, cadet o-rides, etc. and that would drop quite a bit. Your overall point is still generally correct though.
dont forget that iowa's budget coveres the majority of expenses,a nd the pass the hat mentality is no longer a requirment.
Are you sure about that? Is the state money paying for electric bills, phones, etc. at the squadron level?
1- I never said move all field grade officers to wing, that is what Iowa did- that is one thing I do not like.
2- I do not want FULL centralization- it works for Iowa- but really nowhere else. That is why I like the Multi-Squadron idea.
3- I know how the thread has moved- I do read my own topics. This thread went too far from where I wanted it to be- therefore, I made the decision to get it back in the direction that I wanted.
River,
Unless I am mistaken squadrons were asked on multiple occasions to submit a budget, and justification for expenses to operate a squadron.
Very few actually took advantage, but the offer was made.
Interesting...and well outside the norm for CAP. Anyone else know of a Wing that kicks money down to the squadrons to pay for squadron expenses on a regular basis?
When we first got the budget from the state, each squadron was given a "kitty" to play with.
One purchased new color guard equipment, the rest went into shock.....
We had to actually force people to spend money on their squadrons.....
Nowadays the money is still up for grabs, i just submitted the Cadet Programs Budget, it was kicked back with the memo, "spend more........."
Quote from: Major Carrales on June 28, 2007, 09:16:05 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 28, 2007, 05:36:33 PM
As a general rule, field grade officers should be serving as squadron commanders or deputies, or on higher echelon staffs.
That may be true in a military organization where there is an Ofifcer Corps and a large contingent of NCOs and Enlisted, however, all we have are CAP Officers. In CAP, rank is obtained by personal professional development.
Listen, if we let squadrons "rot on the vine" because we want centralization "AT ALL COSTS" I think we are killing our effectiveness.
Again, once cannot graft the "Iowa Model" on to every WING. We should best be looking it concept by concept and taking the best.
I agree completely....I do feel strongly that CAP field grade officers should be willing, when & where feasible, to give some time to leadership roles (whether command or staff)....however, my whole point was that because of the nature of CAP, an officer may hold field grade for decades -- and it simply is not reasonable to expect such an officer to serve as a squadron commander or higher echelon staff officer forever!
By the way, very nice picture! Thanks for sharing it with us.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 29, 2007, 05:31:28 AM
I agree completely....I do feel strongly that CAP field grade officers should be willing, when & where feasible, to give some time to leadership roles (whether command or staff)....however, my whole point was that because of the nature of CAP, an officer may hold field grade for decades -- and it simply is not reasonable to expect such an officer to serve as a squadron commander or higher echelon staff officer forever!
By the way, very nice picture! Thanks for sharing it with us.
Iowa does not require Field Grade Officers to serve as Wing Staff. They are brought to the Wing Headquarters unit (IA001). They can choose to serve on the Wing staff or can serve on committees to help guide the wing and advise. They can also work on special projects on their own time. They may also take leaves of absences like any other officer if they choose.
Quote from: cyclone on July 02, 2007, 08:47:43 PM
Iowa does not require Field Grade Officers to serve as Wing Staff. They are brought to the Wing Headquarters unit (IA001). They can choose to serve on the Wing staff or can serve on committees to help guide the wing and advise. They can also work on special projects on their own time. They may also take leaves of absences like any other officer if they choose.
So, if I were the commander of the Corpus Christi, Iowa Composite Squadron, I would be pulled away from my unit and assigned to staff replacing me with a field grade officer that may or may not want to do it or even be ready?
Is the idea to spur development in the field grade officers? Or is it some arbitrary convention designed to make us look more...military?
Please, I am truly interested in the rationale for this. Maybe it will assist in my understanding of it all. :P
Sparky, I believe the problem in Iowa was that the field grade personnel....or many of them....were not producing, not getting the missions accomplished -- and were not open to new approaches to conducting CAP training & business.
Whether the intent is that as anyone get promoted from captain to major they will go to wing HQ (not necessarily staff), I don't know, we'd need to hear from the Iowa folks what their plan might be.
As many of us -- including you -- have observed, the Iowa plan is not directly transferable to most other wings.
It does, however, have some features that I think are adaptable in many wings:
1) regionalized training for new seniors (I'd say right through Level 2), to give them a peer group from the beginning, access to broader expertise than is found on most squadron staffs (because of limited numbers), and the advantage of trainers with extensive CAP & subject background
2) engaging middle grade seniors (capt thru lt col) who have reached a 'plateau', by getting them involved with some of the training, planning, and decision making done on higher echelon staffs
I agree that relieving a successful squadron commander simply because he/she is promoted is not very logical!
ZZ
Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 02, 2007, 09:58:48 PM
Sparky, I believe the problem in Iowa was that the field grade personnel....or many of them....were not producing, not getting the missions accomplished -- and were not open to new approaches to conducting CAP training & business.
Whether the intent is that as anyone get promoted from captain to major they will go to wing HQ (not necessarily staff), I don't know, we'd need to hear from the Iowa folks what their plan might be.
As many of us -- including you -- have observed, the Iowa plan is not directly transferable to most other wings.
It does, however, have some features that I think are adaptable in many wings:
1) regionalized training for new seniors (I'd say right through Level 2), to give them a peer group from the beginning, access to broader expertise than is found on most squadron staffs (because of limited numbers), and the advantage of trainers with extensive CAP & subject background
2) engaging middle grade seniors (capt thru lt col) who have reached a 'plateau', by getting them involved with some of the training, planning, and decision making done on higher echelon staffs
I agree that relieving a successful squadron commander simply because he/she is promoted is not very logical!
ZZ
Would it not be better for a Squadron Commander, or Wing, to merely transfer these folks to Patron membership.
In Texas, the decision was made for all those not compliant with OPSEC to be transferred to a ghost squadron. This assured that most that were not active were not off the roles as patrons in another unit.
I believe Patron membership (or the 'reserve' squadron they've mentioned occasionally) is the planned destination for some.....I think, though, first approach is to try to get these experienced members actively engaged, even on a limited basis.
As for the number of field grade officers- there were 7 as I was told- see early pages of Iowa thread. Most of which were Squadron Commanders or other staff. For example, IA-043 had 3 Majs, 1 was WG/CV, another was Wing Safety. The two from wing stepped down as they did not want to serve at Wing, only at the local level- that is what I was told by those members. The third Maj was our DCC. None wanted to be reassigned- they were all active and productive. The WG/VC came back as our sq/cc, the WG/Safety came back as our Safety Officer.
Wonder if it is possible to request a voluntary demotion? LOL
Since when is grade tied to position???- grade is tied to training. So why demote when you earned it, now if grade was equal to position, then yes, could be demoted to lower grade for not taking a higher job. But, that is not how it is.
Quote from: floridacyclist on July 03, 2007, 05:03:56 PM
Wonder if it is possible to request a voluntary demotion? LOL
You laugh...
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=128.msg41574#msg41574
edited to add URL
Quote from: floridacyclist on July 03, 2007, 05:03:56 PM
Wonder if it is possible to request a voluntary demotion? LOL
Ok. Why don't you demote yourself to a 2lt for the fun of it?
"OK Col Klink, you need to move on up to wing"
"Ummmm...can I just bump back down to Capt and stay here with my kids?"
You can say it when you do it, until then or it changes- leave it.
I seriously believe that there are kernels of the Iowa plan that can be taken and applied to other wings. Is it easy? No. Will there be people who don't like it? Yes. Should we scrap a good plan that works for each Wing*, due to it may cost a few members? No. Should we work towards making CAP more relevant? YES!
*This would not be a carbon copy of the IAWG program. That cannot work in most Wings, nor should anybody want it to. This means setting up IAWG BASED programs in each Wings.
I will be willing to help anybody trying to do this. Whether it is help organizing "Super-Squadrons" or ES, CP, AE portfolio's; I will be more than willing to create. All I need is Information and your willingness to try.
Everyone:
The topic of this thread has given me a great deal of concern. After devoting over four years of my life (not to mention thousands of hours, personal chits with government officials, etc.) to the IAWG I have a huge vested interest in the future of the Wing.
Obviously I am not unbiased. I confess that initially I gave the topic only cursory and probably shallow thought. However as I read your posts the topic has continued to nag at me. The "forecast of [sic] the Iowa Wing" deserves more than flip reply.
In 2003 we embarked on a new, unique and some would say drastic experiment in CAP. You've all been bored to death about the details of our experiment; everyone has an opinion on it. At the very least we were successful in getting people to think and in some cases re-think who we are, what we do and how we do it. But what is the "forecast;" can we sustain the momentum, can we survive and if so why and how? Those are the questions that keep nagging me. Here are my answers.
1. I'll stand by my earlier statement that IAWG is experiencing what will be known in the future as the "golden years" of CAP. Years from now members of the Wing will talk about 'what was then.' Some will mourn the loss and constantly judge leadership by what we did in 2003-09; others will celebrate it's demise. None the less, it will all end.
2. The only hope we have in extending the "golden years" lies not in Emergency Services, MOU's or Legislative funding...but with our Cadet Program. Our future is in our Cadets; our hope is in our Cadets. We must do whatever is necessary to build a unified, strong and vibrant cadet corps. If we do that the forecast for the Iowa Wing is bright.
For the next two years we are focusing our energy and a significant amount of our resources to the cadet corps. If we waste the opportunity to bring the benefits of the CAP Cadet Corps to a significant number of Iowa youth we deserve to fade into history.
NICK CRITELLI, Lt Col CAP
Iowa Wing
I have to admit that when I started this thread, I heard some what I felt where disturbing things coming out of Iowa, and thus I was fairly enraged. This is when I should have walked away for a while and cool down. Since then, I have been working to take the concept of the IAWG model, and try to make the concept work around the US. I won't deny that there are many hurdles to making it work, but it takes time, effort, and the right timing.
The Iowa folks, if nothing else, have set an outstanding example:
1) considered the state of the wing
2) identified problem areas
3) developed a plan to address the problems
4) executed the plan
5) reviewed the outcomes and made needed corrections
In other words, they actually did something instead of moaning and whining about things....good for them!!
Their answer may not be every wing's answer....but they've blazed a trail we all need to follow!
Actually trying to make a major change in CAP operations is in itself unusual. CAP is generally pretty conservative, which is usually a good thing. Some of the stuff they're doing isn't really all that revolutionary and is, or should be, done everywhere (relationship developing), but it definetely set the stage for their later programs.
No takers on my offer to help? ???
Actually, I have been asked by my group commander to gather any and all info on IA wing, their schedules etc etc...since gp 2 is about the same size and population, it just makes sense to look at as much of your source material as possible before proceeding in any direction.
Any and all schedules and agendas are much appreciated.
Quote from: floridacyclist on August 04, 2007, 07:50:15 AM
Actually, I have been asked by my group commander to gather any and all info on IA wing, their schedules etc etc...since gp 2 is about the same size and population, it just makes sense to look at as much of your source material as possible before proceeding in any direction.
Any and all schedules and agendas are much appreciated.
Pardon, but you mean to say that your GROUP is the size of IOWA's entire WING? Gott Mit Uns ... I need to move South.
Almost the same size and population; 300 miles from one end to the other (Apalachicola to Daytona) and a couple hundred folks.
its not uncommon to have groups in many states that are larger than the membership of Iowa.
Lt. Col. Critelli, Cyclone, and myself are the best source of information. we can pass along material,a dn I know cyclone has forwarded many schedules.
Unfortunately until you see it in action you never grasp the scope of it.
To see the entire wing in formation. To sit in the wing wide briefings, to eat in our chow hall with guard units drooling in envy. Thats when you truly understand what we have been doing.
Ours is Group V...
(http://www.txwgcap.org/wing_hq_gp/images/groups_map.gif)
Texas provides lots of logistical issues with several GROUPS GEOGRAPHICALLY LARGER than some Wings.
The member count of CAWG Group 7 (@ 800) is larger than 16 or so wings. Geographically we're larger than less than that (5474 sq mi).
At its height (450-500) my group was bigger than about half the other wings here in NER!
Keep in mind, we intentionally keep our membership in check. On the officer side, the size of the Wing should be in relation to the need for CAP services. If all you are doing is four or five ELT's a year (as we were) you don't need to train up 400 officers.
Membership for membership sake is a bad idea. Your members quickly become frustrated, dissatisfied and will quit. You will enter a recruitment/ training conundrum. ..which means you are constantly trying to regenerate yourself.
You measure the health of a Wing by a combination of its retention and senior progression rates. Low retention rate and a high number of Level I's with red service ribbons is a prescription for disaster.
Granted, but not everyone joins for ES....there are other roles that are 'personnel intensive'.
Right, to all of the comments so far. I hope that LTC Critelli, Cyclone, Isuhawkeye, et al in IAWG Chain of Command have noticed that I am honestly trying to apply the concepts of the IAWG model and make them work- and that I am NOT trying to hurt IAWG, or make them look bad. It is true that I did post an attachment that IAWG was considering, for which I was not thinking the way I should have. I am also apologizing again for that inconsideration.
Again, I am opening the initiation to help create portfolios to distribute to local organizations about your ES, Cadet, and AE operations. I just need to be able to talk and work with those that want to.
:bump:
Still no takers?
Quote from: ZigZag911 on July 12, 2007, 05:45:06 AM
The Iowa folks, if nothing else, have set an outstanding example:
1) considered the state of the wing
2) identified problem areas
3) developed a plan to address the problems
4) executed the plan
5) reviewed the outcomes and made needed corrections
In other words, they actually did something instead of moaning and whining about things....good for them!!
Their answer may not be every wing's answer....but they've blazed a trail we all need to follow!
I certainly Hope and pray we follow the model for CAWG
So, has Iowa generated any recent reports on evaluating this experiment? I'd like to see some current stats if any are available.
For knowledge, Lt Col Critelli has been selected as the new IAWG CC.
Congrats to him!!
Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on December 23, 2007, 06:43:25 AM
For knowledge, Lt Col Critelli has been selected as the new IAWG CC.
Congrats to him!!
Sorry to hear that you weren't selected.
Quote from: RogueLeader on December 24, 2007, 03:05:59 AM
Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on December 23, 2007, 06:43:25 AM
For knowledge, Lt Col Critelli has been selected as the new IAWG CC.
Congrats to him!!
Sorry to hear that you weren't selected.
This gives me the chance to work under Col Critelli, learn the ropes and maybe in 4 years, We'll try again.
Thanks for the vote of confidence though!!
Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on December 25, 2007, 04:40:31 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on December 24, 2007, 03:05:59 AM
Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on December 23, 2007, 06:43:25 AM
For knowledge, Lt Col Critelli has been selected as the new IAWG CC.
Congrats to him!!
Sorry to hear that you weren't selected.
This gives me the chance to work under Col Critelli, learn the ropes and maybe in 4 years, We'll try again.
Thanks for the vote of confidence though!!
How long was he CS/CV?? A few years at least?
How long until you make Major? You should be about a year out right?
I know for a fact that I would really like to serve under your command.
Quote from: RogueLeader on December 25, 2007, 07:45:37 AM
Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on December 25, 2007, 04:40:31 AM
Quote from: RogueLeader on December 24, 2007, 03:05:59 AM
Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on December 23, 2007, 06:43:25 AM
For knowledge, Lt Col Critelli has been selected as the new IAWG CC.
Congrats to him!!
Sorry to hear that you weren't selected.
This gives me the chance to work under Col Critelli, learn the ropes and maybe in 4 years, We'll try again.
Thanks for the vote of confidence though!!
How long was he CS/CV?? A few years at least?
How long until you make Major? You should be about a year out right?
I know for a fact that I would really like to serve under your command.
CS/CV for at least 2.5-3 Years, Nov 2009 to TIG for Major, and thanks.
Now the fun begins. Ray Hayden's new target is Col Critelli. (Per a piece in NOTF. Dec 24, 2007, page 2, 2nd item)
Just when you thought that things couldn't get any weirder!
Not that I want to open a can of worms but how do I find NOTF?
Quote from: RobG on December 25, 2007, 07:46:06 PM
Not that I want to open a can of worms but how do I find NOTF?
It's a yahoo group. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewsoftheForce/?yguid=96952964 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewsoftheForce/?yguid=96952964)
Cheers!
What in blazes is NOTF's problem with Nick Critelli?
I read the piece and it offered no explanation as to why such severe action should be taken?
NOTF is part of the problem, not part of the solution.....while they have every right to disagree with Col. Critelli's policies or philosophies, rational discussion demands that some reasons be offered as to why. Logical thought also requires providing alternatives.
NONE of it calls for the kind of personal attack which seems common on NOTF when discussing CAP leadership.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on December 27, 2007, 03:21:25 AM
What in blazes is NOTF's problem with Nick Critelli?
I read the piece and it offered no explanation as to why such severe action should be taken?
NOTF is part of the problem, not part of the solution.....while they have every right to disagree with Col. Critelli's policies or philosophies, rational discussion demands that some reasons be offered as to why. Logical thought also requires providing alternatives.
NONE of it calls for the kind of personal attack which seems common on NOTF when discussing CAP leadership.
It has to do with TP, He was the Change Agent in IAWG for the WTA concept. TP noticed what was going on, and liked what he saw. NOTF sees Critelli as a GOB of TP and automatically reacts against.
That said, I know of some people who dislike both NOTF and Critelli. Professionally, I'm one of them. I have talked with him on numerous occasions, and while I definitely agree with his assessments of problems; I do NOT agree with some his ideas to deal with them. For example, there was not enough qualified Senior staff at wing, so he proposed to move all Field Grade Officers to wing Staff- whether they liked it or not. Then there was an instance of Cadet Testing compromise- the solution, all Testing HAD to be done at the WTA's. Well, Cadet progression stopped until it was revoked. I also didn't like his ideas to "help" the cadet program by realigning all the cadets to a single squadron, and having Detachments at the local units.
Personally, I have no grudges against him- definitely not what NOTF seems to be advocating.
We shall see how Iowa progresses through a leadership change. It will be interesting.
All leadership changes are unique, and challenging.
What issues would you like to see addressed, or clarified?
RogueLeader, you are an example of exactly what NOTF is not: your disagreements with Col. Critelli are professionally based, stated with civility and reason. You do not engage in personal invective or attack.
NOTF, from what you are saying, is engaging in 'guilt by association' -- if the former national commander approved of Nick's ideas, then Nick must be one of his disciples!
Is there a Pulitzer prize for twisted logic?
Oh, wait, NOTF would need to be an actual journalistic entity to be eligible...my bad!
Quote from: isuhawkeye on December 27, 2007, 06:36:54 PM
All leadership changes are unique, and challenging.
What issues would you like to see addressed, or clarified?
The Field Grade Transition:
Dump it: Find people who are willing to to work at Wing, and then train them to that level, or advance them to the desired grade- like what happened with Maj Divarco. He had all the Safety Training needed to do a good job. Lt Col Mauser, the former Saftey Officer had the job for a while, but got tired of it. He did his stint as IAWG SE. Why should he have to do it until he quites.
All testing at WTA:
Dropped by mass resentment, so no comment needed.
Only training authorized at WTA:
Not sure if changed since I left, but why can it not change every other year? Say, Spring ES Academy be at Camp Dodge, then Summer be at Davenport or Cedar Rapids. I know that the Cost and logistics would be more difficult, but it have increased participation from the Squadrons in Eastern Iowa.
OTS:
Good idea, just ensure that all OTS members are in an OTS Unit. When I was in 043, we had 8 or 9 SM in the Unit, but in OTS, unlike the rest of the OTS members. The concept, and execution of OTS is a great idea.
I think that what IAWG has done has made the Wing more viable, particularly to the people in Western Iowa where there few squadrons. The way it seems is that the east half is being sacrificed to help the west.
^ You will find that many wings hold training where it is convenient for the ruling group. In PA Wing, Most if not all training is held on the Eastern Side of the state, even though there are more members on the Western Side. The Group that has ruled the Wing for the past 20 years have been from the East, and all the schools are staffed by people from the East. I have been to other wings where this has been the same. I would imagine that Iowa is no different.
It is really a shame if you think about that, as some states are HUGE. With GAS going up, many members are foregoing training opportunities, or staffing activities when they have to drive 6 hours to get there.
With the IAWG program, the Wing pays for all the gas 8) Which is a definite plus, I assure you. I know that is how it usually works, but I'm trying to make the concept work for as many people as I can. I know that I am no longer there, but I feel that my knowledge of people in my unit, as well as some others, that I can act as an advocate for them in a small way. I've heard that parents would NOT let their children go four hours away for a weekend. an hour or an hour and a half would have been ok.
I think the only valid criticism that NOTF and Hayden have made is in regard to the new Colonel's total time in CAP. If what they say is accurate he has been in CAP for less than 5 years, has had no command experience and jumped from Lt to Lt. Col based on being the legislative liasion. They did not state and I do not know if he has completed all the professional development steps he skipped over.
Based on the various discussions we've had in other threads about Wing commander qualifications in general, he wouldn't meet the criteria suggested by most members here.
From what I have been able to determine, Lt. Col Critelli has been in for roughly 5 years- I have no exact date. He did make Lt. Col. by being Legislative Liaison. As such he served the wing well by getting us plenty of money. 320,000 in three years, IIRC. he has had some command experience as Wing/CV. and CoS, totaling about 2.5 years. I have no knowledge of his PD achievements.
Hayden claims he joined in March, 2003.
The positions you mention are staff positions and are by no means equivalent to command experience. I would never, ever, ever, select a Wing commander who had not spent any time as a squadron or group commander unless I was all out of candidates.
thanks for the input, but I am not in the position to format changes in policy. I am simply asking for topics, not position points. If you would like something specific changed I recommend you contact them directly.
Lt Col. Critelli is level IV complete, and (I believe) is only missing national staff school for level V.
Removed.
I refuse to get deeper into this discussion.
that wold put it close to the information that I have. I do know that there was a Squadron commander that put in an application for the job. He earned his Silver Oaks the hard way.
Removed.
I refuse to get deeper into this discussion.
I never said that EVERY squadron commander is cut out to be a Wing Commander, but I wouldn't want a Wing Commander who hadn't served in that role.
Why? If you've never been a squadron commander you just don't know what its like trying to build a unit, train them, etc. all the while dealing with crazy mandates coming down at you from Wing Staff and Wing Commander. You need to know what thats like before trying to be the one that sends down the crazy mandates -- hopefully it keeps you somewhat realistic.
Quote from: isuhawkeye on December 28, 2007, 04:15:09 AM
there were four applicants, two of them have served as squadron commanders
"The hard Way"
and what is that
Not by getting it by being appointed to Legislative Liaison. At the August 2006 WTA, Critelli specifically stated that he did not earn his rank, like us Company Grade Officers did. That said, he did complete the PD levels equating his rank after the fact, which does speak highly about his devotion to bettering himself.
Please note that while I do not really care for Col Critelli, I DO respect him for what he has done for the wing.
Wow,
So much hate. I finally sat down and read some of the recent blog articles running around about the Iowa wing.
I have been prepared to support any of the candidates for wing commander, and I am amazed at what is going around. I think I will take a little vacation from the forums before I get really wrapped up in this mess. Enjoy
:)
Quote from: RiverAux on December 28, 2007, 04:09:53 AM
Hayden claims he joined in March, 2003.
<snip>
Hayden is himself no longer a member of CAP (nor, given his behavior, should he be, IMHO). So why do we care about his opinions or what he claims?
As for what's going on in Iowa, I'd encourage anyone who cares about it to contact them directly and ask them all the questions you want. I did so about a year ago and found them all very accommodating (my first meeting with them lasted six hours and was a bit like drinking from a fire hose!) Don't rely on rumors, gossip, or second/thirdhand information; find out what's going on there direct from the source. Visit one of their WTAs if you can. I've been about three times now and it's been worth the trip every time.
Are there things they're doing in Iowa that I don't agree with? Yes. Will what they're doing work in every wing? No. But on the whole they're making huge strides in improving our organization. We should all take a serious look.
If you implement the kinds of change they are in Iowa, you are going to upset people. Some of the closed-mindedness I've encountered when discussing Iowa's system amazes me (or just leaves me shaking my head). Everything from the "NIH (not invented here)" kind of resistance to the kind of smears and personal attacks that we're seeing from Hayden presently. To take such a hardline opinion against what Iowa wing is doing is to turn a blind eye on some very good work that's been done by a very few hard working people. For the greater CAP, it's a crying shame more people won't look objectively at it and take from it what they can use for themselves.
Quote from: isuhawkeye on December 28, 2007, 04:42:13 AM
Wow,
So much hate. I finally sat down and read some of the recent blog articles running around about the Iowa wing.
I have been prepared to support any of the candidates for wing commander, and I am amazed at what is going around. I think I will take a little vacation from the forums before I get really wrapped up in this mess. Enjoy
Yeah, one has to do that from time to time. Good luck on the Mission Staff School.
Quote from: isuhawkeye on December 28, 2007, 04:42:13 AM
Wow,
So much hate. I finally sat down and read some of the recent blog articles running around about the Iowa wing.
I have been prepared to support any of the candidates for wing commander, and I am amazed at what is going around. I think I will take a little vacation from the forums before I get really wrapped up in this mess. Enjoy
I don't hate him, or even TP for that matter. That does not mean I agree with their policies. I didn't agree when Lt. Col Scheitzach was replaced, but I still supported his replacement. I'm not saying that I will not support Critelli as Wing CC. I would if I were there. As you can tell from my posts that I really do want to make things work in a better way. I am by no means a "Yes Man." Just because I do not like a man, that does not mean I can not- or will not- work with him to get the job done. That is all I'm saying.
Quote from: NEBoom on December 28, 2007, 04:45:50 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on December 28, 2007, 04:09:53 AM
Hayden claims he joined in March, 2003.
<snip>
Hayden is himself no longer a member of CAP (nor, given his behavior, should he be, IMHO). So why do we care about his opinions or what he claims?
As for what's going on in Iowa, I'd encourage anyone who cares about it to contact them directly and ask them all the questions you want. I did so about a year ago and found them all very accommodating (my first meeting with them lasted six hours and was a bit like drinking from a fire hose!) Don't rely on rumors, gossip, or second/thirdhand information; find out what's going on there direct from the source. Visit one of their WTAs if you can. I've been about three times now and it's been worth the trip every time.
Are there things they're doing in Iowa that I don't agree with? Yes. Will what they're doing work in every wing? No. But on the whole they're making huge strides in improving our organization. We should all take a serious look.
If you implement the kinds of change they are in Iowa, you are going to upset people. Some of the closed-mindedness I've encountered when discussing Iowa's system amazes me (or just leaves me shaking my head). Everything from the "NIH (not invented here)" kind of resistance to the kind of smears and personal attacks that we're seeing from Hayden presently. To take such a hardline opinion against what Iowa wing is doing is to turn a blind eye on some very good work that's been done by a very few hard working people. For the greater CAP, it's a crying shame more people won't look objectively at it and take from it what they can use for themselves.
Agreed. well spoken Col.
Without getting into the pros & cons of the general discussion at hand, I would take issue with the characterization of wing chief of staff or vice commander as 'staff' positions. The officers fulfilling these roles are the commander's immediate aides, and have authority delegated to them by regulation as well as by their commander.
While it does not substitute for the immediate grass roots experience of commanding a squadron, either position involves a broader degree of responsibility and complexity than command of even the largest, most active squadron.
Both jobs constitute command experience at a senior level.
^ Really? I would disagree. Perhaps I have only met individuals in those positions that are empty uniforms, your experience may be different than mine. Usually vice and CoS are the Wing Kings buddies. Only there to fulfill staff TIG, or at the least to be YES MEN or YES WOMEN.
Seriously the CoS does what? It is the Wing Staff that carries out the Wing Commanders wishes.
Commanding a Squadron or Group is much more involved than being Assistant to the Wing Commander.
Ray Hayden's status doesn't change the facts that many of his allegations have proven true. Whether you like him or not his sources have provided the "dirt" about CAP leadership which needed to be exposed. If his Blog can help bring pressure to bear on those that need to be removed I'm all for it.
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 29, 2007, 03:39:00 AM
Seriously the CoS does what? It is the Wing Staff that carries out the Wing Commanders wishes.
Part of the CoS's job is to find high quality people to fill Staff positions, as well as fulfill any need for Project Officers as needed. The CoS also helps screen out what really needs the CC's attention and what can be handled by a lower echelon.
I wouldn't say that the CoS position is unimportant but I've seen a Wing get along just fine without one and also get along without one who really did much of anything. Get a good person in there and there is some potential for useful activity, just like any staff job. Nevertheless, it is in no way comparable to squadron or group command, especially when the person has not been in CAP long enough to wear out their first uniform.
Quote from: sparks on December 29, 2007, 03:58:35 AM
Ray Hayden's status doesn't change the facts that many of his allegations have proven true. Whether you like him or not his sources have provided the "dirt" about CAP leadership which needed to be exposed. If his Blog can help bring pressure to bear on those that need to be removed I'm all for it.
For my experience and knowledge of Critelli, what he calls for is unnecessary. Are there things that I do not know about Critelli? Yes. Do I trust him to do well as IAWG/CC? Yes.
As far as RH goes, I'm sorry to hear what happened to him, but he has shown to be completely unprofessional- from his time in CAP and in his so-called "journalism." His very report of CAP activities causes doubt about his intentions. Most everybody here knows that if RH says Critelli is bad, then most know he is very good. The best bet is to ask the people who know him better. I am not an expert w/ Critelli, what I posted is what I have experienced with him.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 29, 2007, 04:06:44 AM
I wouldn't say that the CoS position is unimportant but I've seen a Wing get along just fine without one and also get along without one who really did much of anything. Get a good person in there and there is some potential for useful activity, just like any staff job.
Col. Critelli did a fine job of getting the right people into the right slots, and stuff started happening. I wish that all wings was as dedicated as he is to improving the wing.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 29, 2007, 04:06:44 AM
Nevertheless, it is in no way comparable to squadron or group command, especially when the person has not been in CAP long enough to wear out their first uniform.
Agreed, but it seems that the Region/CC thought otherwise.
Quote from: sparks on December 29, 2007, 03:58:35 AM
Ray Hayden's status doesn't change the facts that many of his allegations have proven true. Whether you like him or not his sources have provided the "dirt" about CAP leadership which needed to be exposed. If his Blog can help bring pressure to bear on those that need to be removed I'm all for it.
To what end?
Sorry, but I fail to follow the logic that says we should allow a non-member to continue to do damage to our organization. And at this point that's really all that's left. Persuing his own personal vengeance without regard to what it does to the organization as a whole. There comes a time when it just has to stop.
And exactly who is Ray Hayden to be arbitrarily determining who "needs to be removed" around here anyway? That kind of power drunk arrogance makes him no better than Pineda. You know, to me that's the irony of all these big National level battles in CAP. There are never any winners. Both sides end up guilty of the same kinds of bad behavior. Pity.
But I really hurt for CAP as a whole. There are a lot of us out here who are trying to make CAP the great organization it could be if not for our propensity to eat our own. We're the ones who ultimately pay the price. More often than not, those responsible for the damage to CAP end up gone (one way or another) and the rest of us are left to pick up the pieces (again!). That's the real pity... :'(
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 29, 2007, 03:39:00 AM
^ Really? I would disagree. Perhaps I have only met individuals in those positions that are empty uniforms, your experience may be different than mine. Usually vice and CoS are the Wing Kings buddies. Only there to fulfill staff TIG, or at the least to be YES MEN or YES WOMEN.
Seriously the CoS does what? It is the Wing Staff that carries out the Wing Commanders wishes.
Commanding a Squadron or Group is much more involved than being Assistant to the Wing Commander.
Well, as I understand it, 20-1 pretty much leaves it up to the Wing Commander to divvy out the duties between the Vice and the Chief of Staff. In my case, the Vice is responsible for the unit commanders (appointing, replacing, etc) and other unit issues. I am responsible for the Wing Staff and the operation of the HQ. At least in a perfect world that's how it would work.
As I'm still fairly new to the position (less than a year) I'm still getting a lot of help from the Commander and the Vice in some areas. But I am working toward handling the job completely as it should. It is still a work in progress.
I also am responsible for recruiting members for the Wing Staff. A difficult and thankless job if there ever was one.
I also have to endure people's ignorant attitudes about my position and relevance to the organization. Another wonderful aspect of the job.
Bottom line, I was a unit commander for 2.5 years in a previous CAP life. This is every bit as involved. If you want to find out, why don't you step up and help out? Oh, I know. It's much easier to stand back and accuse all of us of being yes-men.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go compliment the Commander on his golf swing (Nice shot, sir!).
Quote from: RogueLeader on December 29, 2007, 04:11:44 AMAs far as RH goes, I'm sorry to hear what happened to him,
What happened to him? He resigned. CAP did nothing to him....they may have tried to do something to him but RH did it all himself.
Since the moderators have been accused of locking too many topics recently, let me remind everyone on this thread of a few specific rules so there's no whining when this gets chopped up or locked entirely:
Quote from: Code of Conduct
- Members will not engage in libel, slander, name-calling, or personal attacks. Members will not post any hateful material about any person, unit, or organization. There is a line between leadership examples and scenarios, or having constructive discussions about problems without naming names, and attacking others outright. Personal threats are also strictly prohibited.
- All members will respect the opinion and dignity of other members, whether or not they may be present. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and certainly discourse on varying opinions is excellent. However, members will not attack others based on their opinions and beliefs, regardless of whether they agree or not.
- Members will only discuss matters on topic for the forum in which they are posting. Members will not make blatantly off-topic posts or attempt to derail legitimate discussions. All topics must relate and be of interest to CAP members in a professional aspect.
This thread was about the future of the Iowa Wing, not some former member's vendetta against CAP. If you all want to continue that discussion, take it to PM or start a new thread.
Careful with the discussion of the usefulness of high level positions (or really any position in CAP). This could easily be an appropriate and relevant discussion, but the way it's been framed here is borderline inappropriate because it's a direct insult those who serve in those positions. Just because your experience is negative doesn't negate that some wings and regions may use them appropriately and efficiently. This is becoming personal for many members (as already seen by Lt Col Kirwan's post). It's also derailing the original discussion. Again, PM or start a new thread.
Finally, RH and/or others like him have been banned from this board for a reason. We were doing so well and getting more relevant topics started and flourishing since their departure. Let's not lose sight of that by picking up the slack where they left off, please.
Quote from: NEBoom on December 29, 2007, 06:25:57 AM
Bottom line, I was a unit commander for 2.5 years in a previous CAP life. This is every bit as involved. If you want to find out, why don't you step up and help out? Oh, I know. It's much easier to stand back and accuse all of us of being yes-men.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go compliment the Commander on his golf swing (Nice shot, sir!).
I wish I could! I am a member in a wing that has been run by the same group of friends for nearly 16 years, and all the Wing Staff are residents of one city, namely Philadelphia.
As for stepping up, I have never heard of open calls for Vice Commander in a wing. Do you interview for that? Oh wait.....in most wings it is a political appointment.
Now.......back to Iowa, have membership numbers declined or increased since the change there?
Sorry Dan, ;D
As for Iowa...my guess is that they will continue to get the mission done.
If i spoke in a way that was insulting, I do apologize. I really do. From what I have observed, Col Critelli has done a very good job as CoS and CV. He has also done wonders with the State of Iowa. He has earned my respect. I just have a couple small issues about a couple of things he has done. Doesn't mean that they were bad, it just means I disagree.
Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2007, 06:00:58 PM
Sorry Dan, ;D
As for Iowa...my guess is that they will continue to get the mission done.
In a very efficient and timely manner.
You know if there was this much hate and anger for the most qualified person selected to run the Iowa Wing, I wonder how much of a mess would have been created if someone else (me) got the job instead?
In total support and defense of Col (select) Critelli. He is Level 4 Complete, got his grade due to professional reasons (dual Law Degrees, US and Great Britian).
He did not get the job because is is/was a Good ol Boy, a TPB, or by sucking up to someone. He got the job because is the best qualified for the job in the eyes of the Region Commander and the National Commander.
He is also the best qualified in the eyes of the Iowa Wing, IMHO.
Can there be a stronger endorsement for the new IA WG CC than that given by another candidate for the post, as CadetProgramGuy has just done?
Ordinarily I am skeptical about commanders with brief CAP tenure; however, Col. Critelli does bring prior cadet service to the table; more than that, he brings a unique perspective -- he was perfectly willing to let someone else have the post!
Nick needed some convincing that, at this time, if the programs started in Iowa over the past several years were to take root and flourish, he was the person best qualified to command the wing.
I'm one of the people who engaged in the convincing process, contrary to my personal philosophy on the generally desirable qualifications for command.
I did this because, on the basis of more than 35 years in CAP, and numerous stints as commander and deputy commander at various levels (including wing encampments), it seemed like the right thing to do!
To return to my main point -- this gentleman is not drooling over eagles, is not looking forward to the perks of office (whatever such might be!)....rather, he is beginning his command by reaching out and inviting his wing's entire senior membership to apply for wing staff positions, including Vice Commander and Chief of Staff!
Something like this may well have happened begore, somewhere....but if it did, I sure didn't hear about it! Wing CCs usually arrive with their command team pre-selected.....frankly, if such a horrible fate ever befell me, I'd probably hand select my vice & CS!
How much more convincing do people need that Col. Critelli has no secret agenda, no burning ambitions for glory, and is prepared to live up to the principles he preaches??
I don't think you should be a Wing CC without being a successful squadron CC. You need to deeply understand how things go in the trenches. Until you've been a Squadron CC, I don't think you can truly appreciate what goes on down there. I know I didn't - and that was after having served all the way to Wing Chief of Staff.
I'm sure he's a great guy, but I'll bet he could have worked the programs as vice under a more seasoned Wing CC equally well. Unless there's a serious lack of leadership talent in the wing, which is doubtful.
You know, I've known strong squadron commanders and weak ones, fair ones and martinets, geniuses and people who did not have the good sense to com in out of the rain......same for wing & group commanders....some had been very successful squadron commanders, some had been adequate at best...frankly, the really good squadron commanders are usually not all that great at higher levels: tend to micromanage, miss 'the troops', want to re-create all their wing's units after the image of the good old home unit!
They have a myopia regarding the 'big picture'; sometimes they show favoritism to their former command.
These things don't occur in every instance....but while squadron command is a good preparation for higher command, it is not essential....and it needs to be mixed with staff experience at group,wing or region.
On the other hand....being the wing chief of staff is no slouch job either.
Sure you may not know the weeds of running a squadron but you certainly get a birds eye view of how a WING is run.
We also forget that being volunteers we sometimes bring a lot of outside experience to the fight.
Saying you should be a squadron staffer before you take on a squadron CC job and squadron CC before you are a group CC and a group CC before you take a swing at wing is okay on the face of it....assuming that you have zero outside leadership experience.
I see no problem with someone walking off the street and taking over a wing....assuming he is a good leader and manager and has a good staff to help educate him.
We see this sort of thing all the time in the corporate world....CEO's jumping from one industry sector to another...because it is about management skill not necessarily CAP skills at the Wing level.
We see the same thing in the military as well. As a 22 year Comm Maintainer I have had lots of commanders who crossed over from some other skill set. They go to the basic comm officer course (if that) and then get shoved in the job. My officers know nothing about running a work center, fixing radios, ordering parts, writing EPRs or 95% of the things I do at my level.....but that is why I am there.
One of the best chief of maintenances I have ever worked for was an Intel Officer with a Mathmatic's degree. But she had great leadership skills and a great maintenance staff that educated her on the important things and she left the details to the us guys in the weeds.
So....I got no problem with what they are doing in Iowa.
I'm not sure I would use corporate america as a good example. I think you can easily find cases where somebody who was an outstanding leader in one field didn't know beans about another and failed miserably.
Follow that train of thought to its logical conclusion then the military should be bringing in civilians to lead its units, or at least allowing them to compete for these slots....after all if they're great leaders they should be able to lead a rifle company with a little remedial training....
^ Right on. Also, Military Officers are generalsits in nature. They should not know every aspect of their subordinates jobs, they should have a general idea though.
I once heard that the worst military Officer is still a better leader than those found in the corporate world. When asked why, the response was that the training they receive gives them the ability to use the tools around them and fall back on the skills learned before they were Commissioned.
I think that is why the fortune 500's are are always jumping at the chance to recruit Officers leaving the service.
I think the choice of Wing Commander seems to go hand in hand with the "IAWG plan."
IAWG/CC may not need sqdn experience because the sqdn isn't important. Almost all of the "moving and shaking" is done at the wing. The Commander attention isn't directed down in IAWG, but up and out.
Picking the guy who was the "political officer" makes a lot of sense since the IAWG runs on lots of state money and legislative support. WTA's, with their free transit, lodging and food, can only be continued as long as the funding holds out. Imagine if members were told "Oh, yeah...starting next month attending a WTA will cost you $75 out of pocket." I suspect attendance would plummet.
Likewise, TAG and the State House expect something in return for all the free corn and legal top cover. Keeping them happy (and generous) will be a full time job best suited to someone with friends in the system.
Just something to think about.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 04, 2008, 01:10:23 AM
I'm not sure I would use corporate america as a good example. I think you can easily find cases where somebody who was an outstanding leader in one field didn't know beans about another and failed miserably.
Follow that train of thought to its logical conclusion then the military should be bringing in civilians to lead its units, or at least allowing them to compete for these slots....after all if they're great leaders they should be able to lead a rifle company with a little remedial training....
Two things.....we (CAP) are not...I SAY AGAIN...NOT...the military. I say that because the leadership dynamic between AD units and CAP units is vastly different. Go see the little chat I had with the Command Chief for more details.
Second.....yes....any
great leader should be able to lead a fifle company with a little remedial training and a good support staff. Because leadership is leadership.
Whereas I would give my eyeteeth to simply be in the Service.... ::)
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 04, 2008, 04:27:34 AM
I once heard that the worst military Officer is still a better leader than those found in the corporate world.
Must be an urban myth - I have worked for and have had work for me officers that were challenged to pour yellow liquid from a boot with the instructions printed on the heel.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 04, 2008, 07:09:25 AM
any great leader should be able to lead a fifle company with a little remedial training and a good support staff.
We have been buying rifle platoon leaders off the street for a long time. And Col Joshua Chamberlain did a pretty good job for no military training.
Quote from: Short Field on January 04, 2008, 03:06:24 PM
And Col Joshua Chamberlain did a pretty good job for no military training.
That was 140 years ago. The world has changed just a bit since then.
Quote from: PHall on January 04, 2008, 04:45:23 PM
Quote from: Short Field on January 04, 2008, 03:06:24 PM
And Col Joshua Chamberlain did a pretty good job for no military training.
That was 140 years ago. The world has changed just a bit since then.
Heroes are ordinary people who do extraordinary things when it was much easier, and safer, to do nothing. Col Joshua Chamberlains, I pray, exist today. For if they don't, our world deserves the strife it gets.
Leaders motivate people to accomplish missions. Great leaders motivate people to go beyond their limits in accomplishing the mission. It is timeless.
OFF TOPIC:
Just thought I'd point out that Chamberlain ended the War as a BG with a Brevet rank in the "vollunteers" of MG
He commanded the Union Troops at the Surrender and was the last Civil War Veteran to die of a result of Combat wounds: early 1900's from complications to the wound that got him his first star.
Quote from: NEBoom on December 29, 2007, 06:09:13 AM
Quote from: sparks on December 29, 2007, 03:58:35 AM
Ray Hayden's status doesn't change the facts that many of his allegations have proven true. Whether you like him or not his sources have provided the "dirt" about CAP leadership which needed to be exposed. If his Blog can help bring pressure to bear on those that need to be removed I'm all for it.
To what end?
Sorry, but I fail to follow the logic that says we should allow a non-member to continue to do damage to our organization. And at this point that's really all that's left. Persuing his own personal vengeance without regard to what it does to the organization as a whole. There comes a time when it just has to stop.
And exactly who is Ray Hayden to be arbitrarily determining who "needs to be removed" around here anyway? That kind of power drunk arrogance makes him no better than Pineda. You know, to me that's the irony of all these big National level battles in CAP. There are never any winners. Both sides end up guilty of the same kinds of bad behavior. Pity.
But I really hurt for CAP as a whole. There are a lot of us out here who are trying to make CAP the great organization it could be if not for our propensity to eat our own. We're the ones who ultimately pay the price. More often than not, those responsible for the damage to CAP end up gone (one way or another) and the rest of us are left to pick up the pieces (again!). That's the real pity... :'(
Mr Hayden finally became aware of this post and made comment on it at capinsights.
Go there and see how many logical inconsistencies you can find in his arguments.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2008, 04:03:34 AM
Quote from: NEBoom on December 29, 2007, 06:09:13 AM
Quote from: sparks on December 29, 2007, 03:58:35 AM
Ray Hayden's status doesn't change the facts that many of his allegations have proven true. Whether you like him or not his sources have provided the "dirt" about CAP leadership which needed to be exposed. If his Blog can help bring pressure to bear on those that need to be removed I'm all for it.
To what end?
Sorry, but I fail to follow the logic that says we should allow a non-member to continue to do damage to our organization. And at this point that's really all that's left. Persuing his own personal vengeance without regard to what it does to the organization as a whole. There comes a time when it just has to stop.
And exactly who is Ray Hayden to be arbitrarily determining who "needs to be removed" around here anyway? That kind of power drunk arrogance makes him no better than Pineda. You know, to me that's the irony of all these big National level battles in CAP. There are never any winners. Both sides end up guilty of the same kinds of bad behavior. Pity.
But I really hurt for CAP as a whole. There are a lot of us out here who are trying to make CAP the great organization it could be if not for our propensity to eat our own. We're the ones who ultimately pay the price. More often than not, those responsible for the damage to CAP end up gone (one way or another) and the rest of us are left to pick up the pieces (again!). That's the real pity... :'(
Mr Hayden finally became aware of this post and made comment on it at capinsights.
Go there and see how many logical inconsistencies you can find in his arguments.
I'd really rather not....
:) :) :) :)