Forecast of Iowa Wing.

[RiverAux]

Are you sure about that?  Is the state money paying for electric bills, phones, etc. at the squadron level? 

[RogueLeader]

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.

[isuhawkeye]

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.

[RiverAux]

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? 

[CadetProgramGuy]

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........."

[ZigZag911]

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.

[cyclone]

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.

[Major Carrales]

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.

[ZigZag911]

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

[Major Carrales]

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.

[ZigZag911]

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.

[RogueLeader]

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.

[floridacyclist]

Wonder if it is possible to request a voluntary demotion? LOL

[RogueLeader]

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.

[pixelwonk]

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

[RogueLeader]

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?

[floridacyclist]

"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?"

[RogueLeader]

You can say it when you do it, until then or it changes- leave it. 

[RogueLeader]

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.

[Nick Critelli]

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