A new pamphlet was just published for the Cadet Programs Specialty Track (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P216_A3EECB272DFF7.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P216_A3EECB272DFF7.pdf))
WTH!!! This has just set me back for my senior rating..... Who decided these additional requirements?
Oh well, so much for that master rating. I was just waiting for time to roll out before submitting for it.
When they did away with the DDR Specialty track they rolled many DDR based requirements into CP
I wonder if there's a window of opportunity to have it against the prior publication.
I've pinged NHQ on this. And if there is no recourse then I'll be engaging my Sq CC and Area CC about it. IMO those enrolled in this track should be grandfathered with the old curriculum.
Seconded. It's not a good retention tool to have a member inches away from a senior or master rating in one of the core missions, and then be told that there is more to be done. A lot more. When did DDR become such a huge part of this, and why?
Quote from: abdsp51 on January 23, 2014, 07:43:23 PM
I've pinged NHQ on this. And if there is no recourse then I'll be engaging my Sq CC and Area CC about it. IMO those enrolled in this track should be grandfathered with the old curriculum.
Quote from: THRAWN on January 23, 2014, 07:54:07 PMWhen did DDR become such a huge part of this, and why?
DDR has been all but ignored in many wings for years, I suppose this is a way to force the issue by more tightly weaving it into the CP.
Personally, I think it's reasonable to be able to use the old pamphlet for a set period of time, but not for more then one click up.
On the whole, this is a much more cadet-centric spin on the specialty track, the old rev was focused mainly on the administraivia of
the CP, this requires actual interaction.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 23, 2014, 08:31:08 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on January 23, 2014, 07:54:07 PMWhen did DDR become such a huge part of this, and why?
DDR has been all but ignored in many wings for years, I suppose this is a way to force the issue by more tightly weaving it into the CP.
Personally, I think it's reasonable to be able to use the old pamphlet for a set period of time, but not for more then one click up.
On the whole, this is a much more cadet-centric spin on the specialty track, the old rev was focused mainly on the administraivia of
the CP, this requires actual interaction.
Nothing wrong with that until you screw people over who are close to fulfilling the requirements. According to NHQ this was prematurely publushed...
Quote from: abdsp51 on January 23, 2014, 08:43:24 PMNothing wrong with that until you screw people over who are close to fulfilling the requirements. According to NHQ this was prematurely publushed...
That's why I said 1-click. Anyone reasonably close can get it done, then move into the new expectations for the next level, back-filling
anything not done.
Programs change, and the tracks have to reflect that. We complain all the time that the curriculum isn't keeping up, well, this is the other side of that.
No matter where you make the cut off there's always someone who is "this close".
There really should be a phase-in, though. We all know there's probably a fair number of members who have completed a given level and just haven't
gotten around to entering things.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 23, 2014, 08:49:05 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on January 23, 2014, 08:43:24 PMNothing wrong with that until you screw people over who are close to fulfilling the requirements. According to NHQ this was prematurely publushed...
That's why I said 1-click. Anyone reasonably close can get it done, then move into the new expectations for the next level, back-filling
anything not done.
Programs change, and the tracks have to reflect that. We complain all the time that the curriculum isn't keeping up, well, this is the other side of that.
No matter where you make the cut off there's always someone who is "this close".
There really should be a phase-in, though. We all know there's probably a fair number of members who have completed a given level and just haven't
gotten around to entering things.
Yup, but how about members who need items that are out of their control?
The pamphlet references online DDR exams that don't exist yet (or didn't when I was looking for them yesterday).
If you're well in to meeting the specialty track requirements under the old pamphlet, I would continue to work towards those. Nearly everything else related to CP has overlap times, where you can complete your work under the "old system" if you're already in progress. I expect you'll hear something similar with this.
No E-mail blast to the DCPs yet, but I don't think it'll be long before we get an update. Methinks a little patience will go a long way on this one.
Prematurely published?
Someone had to put the date on it, press the button, add the file to the stupid SiteVis CMS, and publish it. That takes a lot of positive intent.
On top of all that, a draft-level graphic on the cover. ;)
I have the email traffic stating such. And what I have says further guideance next week will be out.
Hope so...just a Great Start away from my senior rating...
Hopefully they'll grandfather those pursuing the specialty track before yesterday.
Quote from: dwb on January 23, 2014, 08:59:52 PM
The pamphlet references online DDR exams that don't exist yet (or didn't when I was looking for them yesterday).
I remember when the June 2003 CAPP 216 was released. It referenced having to take TLC, but it was not until sometime in 2004 or 2005 when the curriculum was released.
Its a great way to to stonewall progression.
I thought it was interesting how the Master level references advantages/disadvantages of chartering with BSA units. Is there even a unit in CAP today that does that?
Quote from: HGjunkie on January 24, 2014, 01:07:19 AM
I thought it was interesting how the Master level references advantages/disadvantages of chartering with BSA units. Is there even a unit in CAP today that does that?
Yes, a number of them. The issue is that unless the local BSA unit has a resource CAP needs access to, there's really not much point and
a lot of pitfalls and downside.
Quote from: abdsp51 on January 24, 2014, 12:44:32 AM
Its a great way to to stonewall progression.
No TLC = go directly to GO, collect $200.
I wouldn't delay the progression of a member for anything required but not released.
I know at least locally, CAP can access some of the Scout Reservations (Sand Hill for example) without having to deal with a BSA unit. And otherwise, we avoid each other like the plague.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 24, 2014, 01:09:36 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on January 24, 2014, 12:44:32 AM
Its a great way to to stonewall progression.
No TLC = go directly to GO, collect $200.
I wouldn't delay the progression of a member for anything required but not released.
Essentially that is what happened. You were exempt from the requirement, similar to how you are exempt for the ECI course for ES specialty.
Quote from: HGjunkie on January 24, 2014, 01:11:57 AM
I know at least locally, CAP can access some of the Scout Reservations (Sand Hill for example) without having to deal with a BSA unit. And otherwise, we avoid each other like the plague.
Depending on where you are, it may hurt you in the political realm. The BSA has had a lot of negative news in the past. However, having a partnership may help you as well. Since the BSA is located in TX and has a strong history with TX, the local community may (not necessarily) look favorably on that relationship. So you have to judge the community that you live in and determine what is in the best interests for the squadron physically and politically.
As for me, I stayed away as it did not help my squadron.
I was in a unit previously that was jointly chartered with the BSA. Benefits included being able to use scout camps for activities without any additional paperwork/insurance/cost. We also took some of our cadets to Florida and went sailing for a week. Doesn't count as an AE activity but still they learned some map/navigation skills (and it was a lot of fun).
We are looking at having a joint Scout/CAP event later this year - teaching Search and Rescue Merit Badge and a good recruiting opportunity. I also teach Aviation Merit Badge every year - another recruiting opportunity. But you don't need to be dual-chartered to do those things.
We were dual chartered for a few years, and eventually just dropped it.
The few times we did look into BSA facilities, they were not available calendar wise, during planning.
Many of them were even more run down than beat to death by Marines, facilities on base.
Anytime cadets heard "BSA" they freaked out. ;)
We just dropped it. Less administrative hassle.
Another advantage is recruiting cadets. You may have more access to youth and if any previous Scouts join a dual-chartered Squadron, they can continue advancing toward BSA ranks as Venturers. It's just another tool in the toolbox.
Quote from: Ed Bos on January 26, 2014, 10:39:23 PM
Another advantage is recruiting cadets. You may have more access to youth and if any previous Scouts join a dual-chartered Squadron, they can continue advancing toward BSA ranks as Venturers. It's just another tool in the toolbox.
It's been my experience that the kids who do well doing the Scouting thing usually don't do well in CAP.
We seem to be "too structured" for them.
Has anyone heard anything more on this?
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 28, 2014, 04:12:11 AM
Has anyone heard anything more on this?
Besides a lot of pissed off members who were literally within a checkbox or two away after years of working on it? Nope. Meet the new boss! Same as the old boss, but more demanding!
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 28, 2014, 04:12:11 AM
Has anyone heard anything more on this?
A little birdie told me they're making revisions to the revisions, and we can expect to see something soon (i.e., first half of 2014).
I've been advising members to just follow the old pamphlet, at least until the new exams come online. That's probably not the ideal advice, but it's the best for the situation, IMO.
Quote from: dwb on March 29, 2014, 02:34:04 PM
A little birdie told me they're making revisions to the revisions, and we can expect to see something soon (i.e., first half of 2014).
I've been advising members to just follow the old pamphlet, at least until the new exams come online. That's probably not the ideal advice, but it's the best for the situation, IMO.
Considering the old pamphlet became obsolete when they published the new one how is that even remotely possible?
They either fudge the new requirements (because they include a non-existent test), go by the old requirements, or no one progresses at all. None of those are great outcomes.
I wasn't happy with the new pamphlet either, so I've decided not to complete the Master Rating in CP.
Quote from: dwb on March 29, 2014, 04:07:12 PM
They either fudge the new requirements (because they include a non-existent test), go by the old requirements, or no one progresses at all. None of those are great outcomes.
o
Which is the right way on this? Anyway I have already told my cc this is ne reason for my potentially not renewing my membership next year.
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 29, 2014, 09:38:33 PM
Quote from: dwb on March 29, 2014, 04:07:12 PM
They either fudge the new requirements (because they include a non-existent test), go by the old requirements, or no one progresses at all. None of those are great outcomes.
o
Which is the right way on this? Anyway I have already told my cc this is ne reason for my potentially not renewing my membership next year.
You would really leave CAP because of this?
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 29, 2014, 10:40:52 PM
You would really leave CAP because of this?
I said one reason. There are plenty others I have but when you poorly execute new requirements on folks inches away from progressing and half of the material isn't even available, then that says something.
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 29, 2014, 10:58:10 PMbut when you poorly execute new requirements on folks inches away from progressing and half of the material isn't even available, then that says something.
It says that no one is perfect. The NHQ Cadet Team goes to great lengths to cultivate a good relationship with CP folks in the wings and squadrons. The Proving Grounds section of the web site is evidence of this. They want member input, they don't want to alienate the people they know are their customers.
That said, it appears this one pamphlet was pushed out the door before the supporting materials were completed. I wouldn't draw negative conclusions from this one gaffe.
Quote from: dwb on March 30, 2014, 12:10:51 AM
It says that no one is perfect. The NHQ Cadet Team goes to great lengths to cultivate a good relationship with CP folks in the wings and squadrons. The Proving Grounds section of the web site is evidence of this. They want member input, they don't want to alienate the people they know are their customers.
That said, it appears this one pamphlet was pushed out the door before the supporting materials were completed. I wouldn't draw negative conclusions from this one gaffe.
I don't expect perfection from anyone. But both my commander and I have been ignored on this matter completely, by the NHQ staff other than my commander saying it's being worked. Sorry but this is crap, prematurely published or not little has been done on the matter and basically they don't care that members have been screwed and progression halted. My last contact with the NHQ staff was on 10 Feb and there has been nothing else since then. I don't view that as cultivating a good relationship nor a response of "it's being worked on" is one either.
I have busted my keyster to stay on top of my own PD and take care of cadets and this is the thanks given. Oh here you go more requirements for you to do for your rating and oh wait the stuff hasn't been built and there is no recourse for you sorry.
^ I hear you pain and understand your frustration. However, I feel that what you've described here in not a good enough reason to leave CAP; but that's just me. While progression is part of this organization, it's not the purpose of it's existence. We have three primary missions and, while progression and professional development are important, they're not one of them. You can certainly continue to work with cadets and help develop our youth into tomorrow's leaders regardless of your specialty track rating. Things need to improve in CAP, but the way to do that is not by quitting. Those who leave CAP can't effect change within the organization; only those who stay can.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 30, 2014, 03:09:35 AM
^ I hear you pain and understand your frustration. However, I feel that what you've described here in not a good enough reason to leave CAP; but that's just me. While progression is part of this organization, it's not the purpose of it's existence. We have three primary missions and, while progression and professional development are important, they're not one of them. You can certainly continue to work with cadets and help develop our youth into tomorrow's leaders regardless of your specialty track rating. Things need to improve in CAP, but the way to do that is not by quitting. Those who leave CAP can't effect change within the organization; only those who stay can.
Sir, while you may feel it's not a good reason, it would be one reason and it's one of the major reasons. This is not a means to retain membership at all. Change I get but to kick something out that is not fully developed and requiring more from members in the process is a piss poor leadership move period. And the silence that has followed does not help the issue to ease anything. And the only way things are going to improve is by thought out methods of planning and execution and in some places a cleaning house. This was poorly thought out and executed and there is nothing being provided to membership at all. It's basically been crammed down our throats with the expectation of "Thank you Sir, may I have another."
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 30, 2014, 02:31:16 AM
Quote from: dwb on March 30, 2014, 12:10:51 AM
It says that no one is perfect. The NHQ Cadet Team goes to great lengths to cultivate a good relationship with CP folks in the wings and squadrons. The Proving Grounds section of the web site is evidence of this. They want member input, they don't want to alienate the people they know are their customers.
That said, it appears this one pamphlet was pushed out the door before the supporting materials were completed. I wouldn't draw negative conclusions from this one gaffe.
I don't expect perfection from anyone. But both my commander and I have been ignored on this matter completely, by the NHQ staff other than my commander saying it's being worked. Sorry but this is crap, prematurely published or not little has been done on the matter and basically they don't care that members have been screwed and progression halted. My last contact with the NHQ staff was on 10 Feb and there has been nothing else since then. I don't view that as cultivating a good relationship nor a response of "it's being worked on" is one either.
I have busted my keyster to stay on top of my own PD and take care of cadets and this is the thanks given. Oh here you go more requirements for you to do for your rating and oh wait the stuff hasn't been built and there is no recourse for you sorry.
I totally understand your frustration, and you have good reason to be upset. No one likes to have the goalposts moved on them, and it's even worse when the new goalposts are unreachable!
That's why I have advised people who started under the old requirements to finish under them. It's hardly an optimal solution, but I think it's the least bad one until we get better guidance on the transition.
Keep in mind that NHQ/CP is basically two people (well, they just added a third), and they've also been finalizing the new CPP and encampment curriculum. I'm not making excuses for the 216, but as a DCP I've tried to encourage patience. I'm sitting in the middle of it and I can see both points of view: squadrons and groups are upset because the requirements changed abruptly (I'm upset too, the new 216 is a disappointment), and NHQ is trying to make things right with the thousand other "priority 1" items on their plate.
I'm hoping for a speedy resolution on this at least as much as you are. I hope you reconsider your decision to leave, I'd hate to have an administrative gaffe be the proverbial last straw.
Quote from: dwb on March 30, 2014, 12:56:51 PM
I totally understand your frustration, and you have good reason to be upset. No one likes to have the goalposts moved on them, and it's even worse when the new goalposts are unreachable!
That's why I have advised people who started under the old requirements to finish under them. It's hardly an optimal solution, but I think it's the least bad one until we get better guidance on the transition.
Keep in mind that NHQ/CP is basically two people (well, they just added a third), and they've also been finalizing the new CPP and encampment curriculum. I'm not making excuses for the 216, but as a DCP I've tried to encourage patience. I'm sitting in the middle of it and I can see both points of view: squadrons and groups are upset because the requirements changed abruptly (I'm upset too, the new 216 is a disappointment), and NHQ is trying to make things right with the thousand other "priority 1" items on their plate.
I'm hoping for a speedy resolution on this at least as much as you are. I hope you reconsider your decision to leave, I'd hate to have an administrative gaffe be the proverbial last straw.
That's the thing, you can't have folks finish under the old pamphlet as it is now obsolete with the publication of the new one. An administrative gaffe maybe but the blatant silence and basically it is what it is up yours is unacceptable. It's been two months and nothing more from NHQ but it's being worked, that is unacceptable. Why should I be patient when my own development now has to stagnant because someone got button happy and there is no reprieve or recourse but to just take it? That is not a way to treat membership in any regards from any organization.
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 30, 2014, 02:46:32 PM
That's the thing, you can't have folks finish under the old pamphlet as it is now obsolete with the publication of the new one.
Interesting enough, CAPR 5-4 states that "
"Pamphlets" are nondirective, informative, "how-to" type publications that may include suggested methods and techniques for implementing CAP policies."
The more I think about it, the more I agree with you. If you're fed up with CAP, then maybe you should find something else to do. Staying in CAP while you're unhappy with the organization doesn't help anyone, especially the cadets you work with. Good luck and thank you for your service to CAP.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 30, 2014, 03:04:02 PMInteresting enough, CAPR 5-4 states that ""Pamphlets" are nondirective, informative, "how-to" type publications that may include suggested methods and techniques for implementing CAP policies."
And to that end, and within reason and integrity, it is the subjective call of the approving CC as to when the rating is complete.
Subjective.
There is no requirement of paperwork to be kept, or record of required reading or summary conversations.
It's 100% up to the Commander with the button.
I always held to a pretty tight line on this, and did require paperwork to back things up, but I know more then a few
approvers who took the tack of "Hey, you've been doing cadet stuff for a while..." ((*click*)).
Etc., etc.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 30, 2014, 03:04:02 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 30, 2014, 02:46:32 PM
That's the thing, you can't have folks finish under the old pamphlet as it is now obsolete with the publication of the new one.
Interesting enough, CAPR 5-4 states that ""Pamphlets" are nondirective, informative, "how-to" type publications that may include suggested methods and techniques for implementing CAP policies."
However, when referenced by a reg, they change from informative to regulatory.
I don't disagree. In fact, I've always made it a point to document everything and present such documentation to the evaluator/OJT supervisor and/or commander. It's a matter of integrity, IMHO. I do the same when I'm training/mentoring other senior members.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on March 30, 2014, 03:04:02 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 30, 2014, 02:46:32 PM
That's the thing, you can't have folks finish under the old pamphlet as it is now obsolete with the publication of the new one.
Interesting enough, CAPR 5-4 states that ""Pamphlets" are nondirective, informative, "how-to" type publications that may include suggested methods and techniques for implementing CAP policies."
The more I think about it, the more I agree with you. If you're fed up with CAP, then maybe you should find something else to do. Staying in CAP while you're unhappy with the organization doesn't help anyone, especially the cadets you work with. Good luck and thank you for your service to CAP.
That may be so but when they are tied into professional development then they are regulatory and when new ones are published the older ones are then obsolete.
Fed up, yep I am fed up that the powers to be can do this and not have a plan in place to deal with the backlash or some type of recourse. And it shows just how much integrity they have, since they can't be bothered to provide anything to membership besides "it's being worked" You can't tell me that's not a cop out answer, and I know I am not the only fed up with this move.
^ As I said before, I understand your decision and wish you the best.
To be fair, it literally probably didn't occur to those making the decision that it would affect anyone like this.
Agreed it's a cop-out and the typical response when someone is found to have made a big mistake.
The proper response is "Oh, man, our bad. Here's the sundown..."
However "meh" is easier.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 30, 2014, 03:32:53 PM
To be fair, it literally probably didn't occur to those making the decision that it would affect anyone like this.
Agreed it's a cop-out and the typical response when someone is found to have made a big mistake.
The proper response is "Oh, man, our bad. Here's the sundown..."
However "meh" is easier.
Har har har. "New requirements!" Everyone must be at zero right now anyway, right?
If that's how they run their process, no wonder we're such a mess.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on March 30, 2014, 06:16:36 PM
Har har har. "New requirements!" Everyone must be at zero right now anyway, right?
If that's how they run their process, no wonder we're such a mess.
We're a mess because people kick things outs before everything is set up and there is no recourse for membership.
Sorry to be late to this thread.
I've pinged the CP crew and there will be indeed a grandfather provision that will allow members to complete the requirements they began under the old system.
Obviously that was not communicated effectively, and that will be corrected.
Watch for an update within the next day or two on the CP page.
Ned Lee
Cadet Program Enthusiast.
Quote from: Ned on March 31, 2014, 12:39:13 AM
Sorry to be late to this thread.
I've pinged the CP crew and there will be indeed a grandfather provision that will allow members to complete the requirements they began under the old system.
Obviously that was not communicated effectively, and that will be corrected.
Watch for an update within the next day or two on the CP page.
Ned Lee
Cadet Program Enthusiast.
Sir, I have been pinging them off and on and have gotten the silent treatment completely. My own CC two weeks ago was told things are in the works. What assurance do we the membership have that this will occurr?
The nerves of those evil people at NHQ/CP... Just kidding! :D Thanks, Ned!
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 31, 2014, 12:47:22 AM
What assurance do we the membership have that this will occurr?
Quote from: Ned on March 31, 2014, 12:39:13 AM
Watch for an update within the next day or two on the CP page.
Ned Lee
Cadet Program Enthusiast.
I think you got your answer.
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 31, 2014, 12:47:22 AM
Quote from: Ned on March 31, 2014, 12:39:13 AM
Sorry to be late to this thread.
I've pinged the CP crew and there will be indeed a grandfather provision that will allow members to complete the requirements they began under the old system.
Obviously that was not communicated effectively, and that will be corrected.
Watch for an update within the next day or two on the CP page.
Ned Lee
Cadet Program Enthusiast.
Sir, I have been pinging them off and on and have gotten the silent treatment completely. My own CC two weeks ago was told things are in the works. What assurance do we the membership have that this will occurr?
That's because Ned's pings are
PINGS while your pings are
pings. Comprende'? >:D
Quote from: PHall on March 31, 2014, 01:25:23 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on March 31, 2014, 12:47:22 AM
Quote from: Ned on March 31, 2014, 12:39:13 AM
Sorry to be late to this thread.
I've pinged the CP crew and there will be indeed a grandfather provision that will allow members to complete the requirements they began under the old system.
Obviously that was not communicated effectively, and that will be corrected.
Watch for an update within the next day or two on the CP page.
Ned Lee
Cadet Program Enthusiast.
Sir, I have been pinging them off and on and have gotten the silent treatment completely. My own CC two weeks ago was told things are in the works. What assurance do we the membership have that this will occurr?
That's because Ned's pings are PINGS while your pings are pings. Comprende'? >:D
Still it should not have taken a member of the BoG and a prominent member asking for something to flow.
..and the whole bit about "prematurely being published". Using the CMS takes a distinct intent to put a document out. It means that the left was not talking to the right.
Well unless you were pursuing a master rating in CP or DDR you are hosed in any regards to your ratings. Thank you NHQ for screwing people over.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Train_wreck_at_Montparnasse_1895.jpg)
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P216_A3EECB272DFF7.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P216_A3EECB272DFF7.pdf)
Page 18:
"Those enrolled and actively pursuing a Master Rating in Cadet Programs before April 1, 2014 can complete their rating using the standards from CAPP 216, dated April 2011 by October 1, 2015."
(http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/gailcarriger/13852475/71645/71645_original.jpg)
Though to be fair, I doubt the issue would have gotten the speed of response without
the visibility here.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 01, 2014, 03:57:04 PM
Well unless you were pursuing a master rating in CP or DDR you are hosed in any regards to your ratings. Thank you NHQ for screwing people over.
My sense is that you were a little upset when you wrote that.
Every specialty track upgrades from time to time, and CP is no exception. It looks like you have been working in the CP specialty track for about two years now. The old requirements and the new requirements overlap about 90%, so although there may be a slight delay for you in a worst case scenario, it seems a little over the top to talk about being "hosed" or the hardworking paid corporate CP staff (all three of them) "screwing people over."
Such an exageration when referring to other CAP members and staffers does not appear to represent a solid committement to our Core Value of Respect.
Thank you for your service with our cadets. You are shaping our nation's future.
Ned Lee
Quote from: Ned on April 01, 2014, 06:42:42 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 01, 2014, 03:57:04 PM
Well unless you were pursuing a master rating in CP or DDR you are hosed in any regards to your ratings. Thank you NHQ for screwing people over.
My sense is that you were a little upset when you wrote that.
Every specialty track upgrades from time to time, and CP is no exception. It looks like you have been working in the CP specialty track for about two years now. The old requirements and the new requirements overlap about 90%, so although there may be a slight delay for you in a worst case scenario, it seems a little over the top to talk about being "hosed" or the hardworking paid corporate CP staff (all three of them) "screwing people over."
Such an exageration when referring to other CAP members and staffers does not appear to represent a solid committement to our Core Value of Respect.
Thank you for your service with our cadets. You are shaping our nation's future.
Ned Lee
A little upset is an understatement sir. I was hosed as I had one requirement left and under this had more added including programs not even built. You want to talk about respect where's the respect to membership who have strived and busted their keyster and we get a slap in the face. If they couldn't grandfather everyone then no one should be grandfathered. This basiaclly says thanks for your work but its not good enough you have more to do. And I doubt I am the only one who feels this way just the only one whos saying something. So much for doing whats right and loyalty.
These links would be helpful because someone posted links to the old document.
CP Specialty Track Home Page
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cadet_programs/library/cp-specialty-track/ (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cadet_programs/library/cp-specialty-track/)
CAPP 216, April 2014
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/CAPP_216__April_2014_495142F8A32A7.pdf (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/CAPP_216__April_2014_495142F8A32A7.pdf)
Contrary to popular opinion, people who have been working on a rating are not "screwed over." There's a grandfather clause, and the training requirements are 90% the same as they were in the 2011 edition.
Quote from: johnnyb47 on April 01, 2014, 06:11:34 PM
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P216_A3EECB272DFF7.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P216_A3EECB272DFF7.pdf)
Page 18:
"Those enrolled and actively pursuing a Master Rating in Cadet Programs before April 1, 2014 can complete their rating using the standards from CAPP 216, dated April 2011 by October 1, 2015."
Well that's nice. Those of us who were close to a Senior rating are still SOL.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on April 01, 2014, 06:58:37 PM
These links would be helpful because someone posted links to the old document.
CP Specialty Track Home Page
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cadet_programs/library/cp-specialty-track/ (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/cadet_programs/library/cp-specialty-track/)
CAPP 216, April 2014
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/CAPP_216__April_2014_495142F8A32A7.pdf (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/CAPP_216__April_2014_495142F8A32A7.pdf)
Contrary to popular opinion, people who have been working on a rating are not "screwed over." There's a grandfather clause, and the training requirements are 90% the same as they were in the 2011 edition.
Ok, lets take a look. I'll use myself as the example:Old requirements:Quote
6.3 KNOWLEDGE REQUIREMENTS
Emphasis Items
1. Identify the procedures used to update cadets' records and approve cadet promotions using the
online Cadet Promotions Application. Done.
2. Describe the unit commander's role in ensuring compliance with the Cadet Protection Policy;
identify the procedures to be followed if cadet abuse is alleged. Done.
3. Describe the unit commander's role in deciding to promote or retain a cadet in grade; identify
counseling requirements and the form used to evaluate cadet performance. Done.
4. Identify the eligibility requirements to participate in the cadet orientation flight program and
how cadet flying is reported. Done.
5. Identify senior member's obligations to cadets' parents, including what parents expect during
initial orientation and what they expect during cadet activities throughout the year. Done.
Supervision & Safety
6. Describe the role of senior members in ensuring cadet safety during activities; outline the
procedures for reporting a mishap. Done.
Administration & Membership
7. Outline the procedures used to request the Gen Carl A Spaatz Award Exam. Done.
8. Identify the procedures used when cadets wish to take advantage of the Cadet Uniform Program. Done.
9. Describe how the cadet physical fitness test is administered; identify how each event is scored. Done.
10. Outline the procedures cadets follow to apply for a National Cadet Special Activity; state the
role of the unit commander in the NCSA application process. Done.
11. Identify the eligibility requirements and nomination procedures for the Cadet of the Year award
(nationally, and locally if applicable); identify the eligibility requirements to earn related cadet
awards sponsored by the Air Force Association, Air Force Sergeants' Association, and Veterans
of Foreign Wars. Done.
12. Identify the requirements for JROTC cadets to be eligible to advance in the Cadet Program at an
accelerated rate. Done.
13. Identify the minimum eligibility requirements for CAP scholarships; outline the basic application
procedures. Done.
14. Identify the eligibility requirements for the Community Service Ribbon. Done.
15. Identify the eligibility requirements and the role of cadet sponsor members. Done.
Activities & Curriculum
16. Discuss the TLC course's recommended planning cycle when using cadets as instructors during
weekly squadron meetings. Done.
17. Discuss the TLC course's recommended planning cycle for generating a weekly squadron
meeting schedule. Done.
18. Summarize the goals and activities involved in the Model Rocketry, AEX, and Satellite Tool Kit
programs; identify the steps involved in obtaining the course materials and completing those
programs. Done.
19. Describe the major goals of the CAP Drug Demand Reduction program. Done.
20. Describe the goals of the Congressional Award; outline the procedures used by cadets who want
to participate. Done.
21. Describe the goals of the Staff Duty Analysis program; explain the role seniors play in this
program; identify how commanders and leadership officers evaluate SDA reports and staff
service. Done.
22. Summarize the overall goals of cadet encampments and identify some highlights of your wing's
encampment program. Done.
23. Describe the overall goals of cadet competition; identify the drill team and color guard
competition events. Done.
24. Describe opportunities cadets have to participate in CAP emergency services training and
missions; outline the basic procedures cadets follow to become eligible to participate. Done.
6.4 SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
1. Actively serve for one year as a technician-rated Cadet Programs staff officer, performing duties
with minimal supervision. Suggested positions include leadership officer, aerospace education
officer, activities officer, and testing officer. Done.
2. Complete Level II of the Senior Member Professional Development program. Done.
3. Demonstrate how to update a cadet's record and process a promotion using the Cadet
Promotions Application in E-Services. Done.
4. Participate as a senior member advisor during at least 3 leadership feedback meetings for
promotion-eligible cadets; complete a CAPF 50 for each cadet, or review CAPF 50's prepared by
cadet officers. Done.
5. Mentor a cadet officer or NCO leading a class or training activity (20 minutes or longer in
duration), following the planning cycle recommended in Seminar M4 of the TLC course. Done.
6. Serve as a staff officer responsible for planning or conducting a significant portion of three cadet
activities beyond routine weekly squadron meetings, since earning the technician rating. Done.
7. Serve as a senior member staff officer / advisor in the Cadet Great Start program. NEEDED
8. Contact at least two cadets who allowed their memberships to lapse during the previous 12
months and inquire about their reasons for leaving CAP. Share your findings with your trainer
and/or commander (and of course, invite the cadets to return to CAP). NEEDED
9. Complete a "Self Assessment for Cadet Units" and share your findings with your trainer and/or
commander. Done.
10. Complete the Training Leaders of Cadets course. Done.
11. Successfully complete the open-book, un-timed Cadet Programs Officer Senior Rating Test with
a grade of 80% or higher, corrected to 100%. Done.
24+11 = 35 total items 33/35 completedNew requirements:[I started looking and they changed these? The Jan 2014 version had significantly different goals. What gives, NHQ?]What jumps out at me now: Correctly describe in detail the proper DDR program implementation strategies at the unit and wing level. Mentor a cadet officer or NCO leading a class or training activity of 20 minutes or longer in duration on Drug Awareness and Prevention, or lead an activity from the Drug Demand Reduction Excellence guide.Prior to this change, what stuck out were multiple DDR service requirements, planning and executing an O-flight day, attending a 40 hour cadet activity (read: encampment), Not describing, but actually sending AFA Award packets, and a few other items. I was at least 6-7 items away from where I was under the old program. So what gives? This is a drastically different product from January.
Yup. More work for everyone and who cares how it impacts membership especially in one of the three main missions. Validates just how important those in CP really are.
It seems that having better trained CP officers is more beneficial to the CP.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on April 02, 2014, 01:53:16 AM
It seems that having better trained CP officers is more beneficial to the CP.
And hose membership in the process. I bet if they changed the requirements for ES and to be a pilot they'd have a better timeline for execution.
Try being in ES, where ESOs are basically winging it because our specialty track sucks.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 02, 2014, 02:16:32 AM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on April 02, 2014, 01:53:16 AM
It seems that having better trained CP officers is more beneficial to the CP.
And hose membership in the process. I bet if they changed the requirements for ES and to be a pilot they'd have a better timeline for execution.
Perhaps you should try meditation. Even a few minutes a day can help relieve anxiety and tension.
In all seriousness, though, if I were king of the world, our specialty track ratings would expire and need continuing training to maintain currency.
Once, WIWAC, they decided to revamp the entire promotion system on us. They made C/Sgt into C/SrA, added a few more Cadet NCO grades at the top, eliminated C/FO, and created ribbons that I'd never be able to earn because I had already passed them. When I got my Mitchell, me and 4 other cadets in my unit got them at the same time and were promoted to C/FO. I kept working and got promoted to C/2d Lt just as the phaseout of C/FO happened, so all my peers who had done nothing also got promoted. Imagine that, I worked so hard to get myself promoted and that darn NHQ just went and promoted all those slackers.
So then, I became a Senior Member and started working on the 216 specialty track. I got my technician rating, and was working towards senior and WHAM! A new course comes out called TLC, and to get my senior rating, I have to attend it. How dare they demand that I get more training to be proficient at my job while I'm right in the middle of a level!
Change happens. Sometimes a few people get hung up in it. It's not the end of the world, and if you're going to have a heart attack about it, pick one of the specialties that nobody has updated since 1997, like Administration. I think you're making this a way bigger deal than it is.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on April 02, 2014, 02:39:37 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 02, 2014, 02:16:32 AM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on April 02, 2014, 01:53:16 AM
It seems that having better trained CP officers is more beneficial to the CP.
And hose membership in the process. I bet if they changed the requirements for ES and to be a pilot they'd have a better timeline for execution.
Perhaps you should try meditation. Even a few minutes a day can help relieve anxiety and tension.
In all seriousness, though, if I were king of the world, our specialty track ratings would expire and need continuing training to maintain currency.
Once, WIWAC, they decided to revamp the entire promotion system on us. They made C/Sgt into C/SrA, added a few more Cadet NCO grades at the top, eliminated C/FO, and created ribbons that I'd never be able to earn because I had already passed them. When I got my Mitchell, me and 4 other cadets in my unit got them at the same time and were promoted to C/FO. I kept working and got promoted to C/2d Lt just as the phaseout of C/FO happened, so all my peers who had done nothing also got promoted. Imagine that, I worked so hard to get myself promoted and that darn NHQ just went and promoted all those slackers.
So then, I became a Senior Member and started working on the 216 specialty track. I got my technician rating, and was working towards senior and WHAM! A new course comes out called TLC, and to get my senior rating, I have to attend it. How dare they demand that I get more training to be proficient at my job while I'm right in the middle of a level!
Change happens. Sometimes a few people get hung up in it. It's not the end of the world, and if you're going to have a heart attack about it, pick one of the specialties that nobody has updated since 1997, like Administration. I think you're making this a way bigger deal than it is.
And perhaps you fail to see that to some it is a big deal especially when you where right at the finish line and it's moved on you. Change poorly executed as this has been is piss poor leadership. Hell lets make it to where to be a pilot you need a commercial license, multi engine rating, cfi and 800hrs just to start and you need 1500 just to fly cadets on top of the others. You have your rating so who cares, who cares that this has screwed people on theirs and pushed it back. Shoot lets just say that to be ground team you need the sheriffs blessingbon top of ours, oh wait that won't happen because its more important than CP.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 02, 2014, 02:56:13 AM
And perhaps you fail to see that to some it is a big deal especially when you where right at the finish line and it's moved on you. Change poorly executed as this has been is piss poor leadership. Hell lets make it to where to be a pilot you need a commercial license, multi engine rating, cfi and 800hrs just to start and you need 1500 just to fly cadets on top of the others. You have your rating so who cares, who cares that this has screwed people on theirs and pushed it back. Shoot lets just say that to be ground team you need the sheriffs blessingbon top of ours, oh wait that won't happen because its more important than CP.
Calm down. You are making illogical arguments. Does it suck? Sure, but I would not say NHQ does not care about the cadet program. This has happened to me on a number of occasions both inside and outside of CAP. The only you can do is drive on and carry out the mission.
Quote from: LSThiker on April 02, 2014, 03:35:53 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 02, 2014, 02:56:13 AM
And perhaps you fail to see that to some it is a big deal especially when you where right at the finish line and it's moved on you. Change poorly executed as this has been is piss poor leadership. Hell lets make it to where to be a pilot you need a commercial license, multi engine rating, cfi and 800hrs just to start and you need 1500 just to fly cadets on top of the others. You have your rating so who cares, who cares that this has screwed people on theirs and pushed it back. Shoot lets just say that to be ground team you need the sheriffs blessingbon top of ours, oh wait that won't happen because its more important than CP.
Calm down. You are making illogical arguments. Does it suck? Sure, but I would not say NHQ does not care about the cadet program. This has happened to me on a number of occasions both inside and outside of CAP. The only you can do is drive on and carry out the mission.
Of course it's no big deal to those it doesn't impact, but I bet if it impacted your ratings and progression you'd feel otherwise. NHQ doesn't care about the impact this has had on membership involved and that is clear. If they did care everyone would have been grandfathered, and this wouldn't have been "prematurely published". Piss poor leadership at higher levels with no regard how it impacts those in the system.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 02, 2014, 03:59:08 AM
Quote from: LSThiker on April 02, 2014, 03:35:53 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 02, 2014, 02:56:13 AM
And perhaps you fail to see that to some it is a big deal especially when you where right at the finish line and it's moved on you. Change poorly executed as this has been is piss poor leadership. Hell lets make it to where to be a pilot you need a commercial license, multi engine rating, cfi and 800hrs just to start and you need 1500 just to fly cadets on top of the others. You have your rating so who cares, who cares that this has screwed people on theirs and pushed it back. Shoot lets just say that to be ground team you need the sheriffs blessingbon top of ours, oh wait that won't happen because its more important than CP.
Calm down. You are making illogical arguments. Does it suck? Sure, but I would not say NHQ does not care about the cadet program. This has happened to me on a number of occasions both inside and outside of CAP. The only you can do is drive on and carry out the mission.
Of course it's no big deal to those it doesn't impact, but I bet if it impacted your ratings and progression you'd feel otherwise. NHQ doesn't care about the impact this has had on membership involved and that is clear. If they did care everyone would have been grandfathered, and this wouldn't have been "prematurely published". Piss poor leadership at higher levels with no regard how it impacts those in the system.
You know, Cadet Programs is about the cadets, not the senior members running it. You seem to care more about the rating than anything else. Let it go. Either complete the new requirements, pursue a different specialty track, or just leave CAP as you said you would in the beginning of this thread.
And by the way, this change affected me too. It's not the first time something like this happens. Heck, it's happened to me in the Air Force too. Just move on.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 02, 2014, 02:56:13 AM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on April 02, 2014, 02:39:37 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 02, 2014, 02:16:32 AM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on April 02, 2014, 01:53:16 AM
It seems that having better trained CP officers is more beneficial to the CP.
And hose membership in the process. I bet if they changed the requirements for ES and to be a pilot they'd have a better timeline for execution.
Perhaps you should try meditation. Even a few minutes a day can help relieve anxiety and tension.
In all seriousness, though, if I were king of the world, our specialty track ratings would expire and need continuing training to maintain currency.
Once, WIWAC, they decided to revamp the entire promotion system on us. They made C/Sgt into C/SrA, added a few more Cadet NCO grades at the top, eliminated C/FO, and created ribbons that I'd never be able to earn because I had already passed them. When I got my Mitchell, me and 4 other cadets in my unit got them at the same time and were promoted to C/FO. I kept working and got promoted to C/2d Lt just as the phaseout of C/FO happened, so all my peers who had done nothing also got promoted. Imagine that, I worked so hard to get myself promoted and that darn NHQ just went and promoted all those slackers.
So then, I became a Senior Member and started working on the 216 specialty track. I got my technician rating, and was working towards senior and WHAM! A new course comes out called TLC, and to get my senior rating, I have to attend it. How dare they demand that I get more training to be proficient at my job while I'm right in the middle of a level!
Change happens. Sometimes a few people get hung up in it. It's not the end of the world, and if you're going to have a heart attack about it, pick one of the specialties that nobody has updated since 1997, like Administration. I think you're making this a way bigger deal than it is.
And perhaps you fail to see that to some it is a big deal especially when you where right at the finish line and it's moved on you. Change poorly executed as this has been is piss poor leadership. Hell lets make it to where to be a pilot you need a commercial license, multi engine rating, cfi and 800hrs just to start and you need 1500 just to fly cadets on top of the others. You have your rating so who cares, who cares that this has screwed people on theirs and pushed it back. Shoot lets just say that to be ground team you need the sheriffs blessingbon top of ours, oh wait that won't happen because its more important than CP.
I've been sitting idle on this for long enough.
We have discussed this back in Jan to ensure that your timeline for completion of the senior rating is not as severely impacted.
After a review of both the 2011 and 2014 (April) pamphlets, it seems a grand total of 4 requirements (2 knowledge, 2 service) have been added to your senior rating. Of the knowledge requirements, we've already discussed them and I have no problem as your OJT supervisor and commander saying they are complete. For the service requirements, the first you are already working on and could argue is actually already complete. You are scheduled for TLC at the end of this month, something that people are bending over backwards to have happen. Just give me two ideas for improvement of our cadet program that you learned in the course and you're good, bam you have your senior rating. You could easily have this accomplished NLT the first weekend in May.
Seriously, it is NOT worth it to get so worked up over this. There are bigger fish to fry and bigger pots to stir. I'd rather not lose an otherwise stellar officer, mentor and friend, I know the cadets wouldn't either.
To be fair, Jan version had a significant amount of extra requirements that would be at best, a lengthy few months. Seems they have removed those.
I'm still not really sure what the problem is?
Okay....sure it is a disappointment to find out you now have to more stuff to get your badge.......just like everyone after you.
Are we not supposed to set the bar where we think it needs to be?
Are we supposed to not make changes because of people already in the pipeline?
If we grandfathered people in....how is that fair to you....but unfair to the guy who is only a few days away from completing his tech rating?
Someone has got to get screwed.....it just happens to be you this time.
Move on press on.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 02, 2014, 03:59:08 AM
Of course it's no big deal to those it doesn't impact, but I bet if it impacted your ratings and progression you'd feel otherwise.
If you re-read my post, you will notice I already answered your assertion to the contrary:
QuoteThis has happened to me on a number of occasions both inside and outside of CAP. The only [thing] you can do is drive on and carry out the mission.
QuoteNHQ doesn't care about the impact this has had on membership involved and that is clear. If they did care everyone would have been grandfathered, and this wouldn't have been "prematurely published". Piss poor leadership at higher levels with no regard how it impacts those in the system.
And frankly, your ranting is making it pretty clear that you do not care about the mission or the program, just your rating. I think the drastic changes seen over the last decade to the CP provide clear evidence that those CP members do care about the program. Did this pamphlet get prematurely published? I do not know for sure, but if that is the case, well someone made a mistake. I just we are just that: human.
Everyone who thinks I don't care about the mission I'd be more than happy to provide references otherwise. And you fail to see that without the people (aka screwed membership) that mission is going to fail period. PD gets beaten to death on this board but from what I see here it's obviously no big deal, if membership is screwed in the process.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 02, 2014, 12:16:25 PM
Everyone who thinks I don't care about the mission I'd be more than happy to provide references otherwise. And you fail to see that without the people (aka screwed membership) that mission is going to fail period. PD gets beaten to death on this board but from what I see here it's obviously no big deal, if membership is screwed in the process.
Okay.....we have used the word "screwed" here......but really how are they screwed?
"Sorry you can't complete your Tech/Senior/Master rating yet.....because we added the following tasks."
Yes....sometimes that might set someone back a year.....maybe....but so what?
Yes it is not "fair" but anytime you make rule changes someone get "screwed" whether it is the new guy who now has harder hoops to jump through or it is the old guy who had to jump through fire before the watered down the requirements.
The only question is do you agree with the rule changes or not? Not how they were implemented but XYZ is either a good idea or not.
Whether I agree or disagree is not the issue. You and I both know that if the executon is poor its bad business, and this bad business all the way around. The only ones I see countering everything are those not impacted by it.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 02, 2014, 01:02:35 PM
Whether I agree or disagree is not the issue. You and I both know that if the executon is poor its bad business, and this bad business all the way around. The only ones I see countering everything are those not impacted by it.
Except everyone who has said its not a big deal has provided examples of how they were impacted in similar situations previously and that we just rolled with it. Its not that we "fail to see" ( since you're so enlightened and we aren't) it's that we are able to see past the end of our own noses and realize that the big picture of this is not that big of a deal, and while unfortunate that some people had their goal post moved, due to no fault of their own, the impact overall is negligible and not unrealistic in it's expectations.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 02, 2014, 01:02:35 PM
Whether I agree or disagree is not the issue. You and I both know that if the executon is poor its bad business, and this bad business all the way around. The only ones I see countering everything are those not impacted by it.
Just because we are not affected by this decision, does not mean we have not been affected by other changes. I am sure nearly all of us have been in those shoes at one point in time or another. Back when I was in college, my graduation requirements changed when I was starting my 4th year and getting ready to graduate. There was no "grandfather" clause. I had to spend one additional semester in college. So instead of graduating in May, I graduated in December. So there I had to pay a few thousand dollars more. When the National Guard switched from 2 years as a 2LT to 18 months as a 2LT, I wonder how many 1LTs got screwed out of money and time-in-grade? Like can suck sometimes, move on.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 02, 2014, 01:02:35 PM
Whether I agree or disagree is not the issue. You and I both know that if the executon is poor its bad business, and this bad business all the way around. The only ones I see countering everything are those not impacted by it.
And?
The powers that be say "this is what you need to be a tech/senior/master in CP". It is different from what it used to be. So how are people getting screwed?
Sure Member X using the old CAPP has to do some more things......how is that him getting screwed?
I found this post from our "friend" on the Cadet Programs section of capmembers.com:
QuoteThis is a crock, as my requirements for my senior rating have increased and nothing has changed. Either grandfather everyone who was pursuing a rating above tech or grandfather no one this is a crock and undervalues and demeans membership who have bent over backwards to advance in their chosen tracks.
And the response from NHQ/CP:
QuoteThank you for your feedback. It was not our intent to make the new requirements an undue burden on members who have been working diligently to advance in the Cadet Programs specialty track. Members who are currently technician rated and pursuing their senior rating under the new regulations have two new additional knowledge requirements. However, it should be noted that they are no longer responsible for knowing another 10 items from the 2011 checklist. There should be very little disruption to personal training timelines. -Joanna
It seems to me that NHQ/CP is doing everything they can to help those members who were affected by the change. That tells me that they do care about the members and are not trying to "screw" anyone, as was suggested earlier.
What are the two sticking in your craw?
I can't wade the chaff to see what the big deal is.
I think NHQ showed that they're willing to work with members to get issues resolved. To me that's a big deal and says a lot about the people working there. It's easy to criticize when they make a mistake, but they should also be praised when they work hard to correct it.
The new CP track has all the DDR requirments added.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 03, 2014, 03:36:40 AM
The new CP track has all the DDR requirments added.
Ah! Bach. Yes, now I remember.
Absent dropping DDR altogether, and fairness to those caught mid-stream, forcing DDR into the
CP track was really the only way it wasn't going to die, since as it is today, it's near impossible
for many (most?) wings to reach for what little funding there is, and I don't really know anyone
who thinks it's doing much good but checking a box for the USAF.
CAP membership >is< DDR in and of itself, beyond that, it's just Ad-Council background noise.
That's all that is left, but there were some substantial additions removed.
"CAP membership >is< DDR in and of itself, beyond that, it's just Ad-Council background noise."
Truer words were never spoken. Up with people....
That was a canned response by NHQ and alot of tap dancing. They were selective in who they are grandfathering and demeaned the rest. It was a piss poor move on their part and no acceptance of responsibilty for the fall out.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 03, 2014, 12:22:57 PM
That was a canned response by NHQ and alot of tap dancing. They were selective in who they are grandfathering and demeaned the rest. It was a piss poor move on their part and no acceptance of responsibilty for the fall out.
You really do need to get over this. Go Patron, take a sabbatical but you need to move on from this. Your anger just isn't in proportion to the perceived issue. Who said life was fair? Has your AF career been 100? fair and on the money? You are refusing to listen to anyone or accept any explanation except your own. It is time to move on.
Quote from: PA Guy on April 03, 2014, 01:10:43 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 03, 2014, 12:22:57 PM
That was a canned response by NHQ and alot of tap dancing. They were selective in who they are grandfathering and demeaned the rest. It was a piss poor move on their part and no acceptance of responsibilty for the fall out.
You really do need to get over this. Go Patron, take a sabbatical but you need to move on from this. Your anger just isn't in proportion to the perceived issue. Who said life was fair? Has your AF career been 100? fair and on the money? You are refusing to listen to anyone or accept any explanation except your own. It is time to move on.
Really? Has my career been spot on, for the most part yes it has. But I can tell you that when training requirements change they allow (grandfather) those already in a program to finish. If they changed my cdcs now I wouldn't have to stop and take the new set. My anger is proportinate and when explanations are canned and placating I do not have to accept it. This was a snub to people involved and even bigger one that only those pursuing their masters will be grandfathered. This could have and should have been executed better.
^^^^^^^
Point proven. You don't want anyone's help or advice so I will let it go .Good Luck and I sincerely mean that.
Get over it is not advice nor help.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 03, 2014, 01:47:36 PM
Get over it is not advice nor help.
Actually it is advice, the same with move on. It just is not the advice you want to hear. So with that, I am taking my own advice and moving on. But one last little thing, posting messages to NHQ for the purpose of snubbing the cadet programs staff is not going to change anything.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 03, 2014, 01:47:36 PM
Get over it is not advice nor help.
Sorry if I offended you. Proving once again no good deed goes unpunished.
Out here.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 03, 2014, 01:47:36 PM
Get over it is not advice nor help.
You're right, it's not either. Now I don't necessarily have a dog in this fight, but it does raise some issues with how the PD program is run, and how officers working within the CP specialty are viewed. PD is broken. That is a fairly well established fact. One of the reasons that it's broken is because of random and for the sake of change changes like this. I get the rationale. DDR had to go somewhere to justify its lack of a viable program. That being said, changing the rules in the middle of the game and being told "oops, no biggie, we cut out other stuff when we added this..." just doesn't cut it. When new programs in the Cadet Program are introduced, there is a phase in period and people already on task are allowed to complete the program that they are already in. It should be that way for the PD specialties as well. This is why we lose members. People give a lot of time and treasure, and make many personal sacrifices to contribute to the program, and to make progress within it. Which brings me to the next point of how officers in the CP are perceived. A few posts back made mention of "you should be more concerned with raising cadets than your own progress in the program." I call foul on this. If the person who is running the program isn't progressing, how can that person be effective in motivating cadets to progress? Face it, Mother Teresa isn't running the CP, and service before self is a nice notion but it only goes so far. People who do the job expect to be able to look at a checklist, do the tasks and get the carrot at the end of that stick. Making a longer stick just causes the mules to kick more.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 03, 2014, 01:30:26 PM
But I can tell you that when training requirements change they allow (grandfather) those already in a program to finish. If they changed my cdcs now I wouldn't have to stop and take the new set.
That's not true. Back when I was enlisted and working on my 5-Level (Journeyman), I had 4 CDCs and one test. As I was getting closer to complete my requirements, they were changed to consolidate three shops. My new requirements were now 12 CDCs and 4 tests. What did I do? I worked hard to complete the new requirements and earn my 5-Level.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 03, 2014, 01:30:26 PM
My anger is proportinate [sic]
No, it's not.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 03, 2014, 01:30:26 PM
and when explanations are canned and placating I do not have to accept it.
Yes, you do... Membership in CAP is voluntary, but it's also a privilege, not a right. Remember the CAP Oath you signed when you became a member?
Quote from: CAP Membership Oath
I understand membership in the Civil Air Patrol is a privilege, not a right...
I voluntarily subscribe to the objectives and purposes of the Civil Air Patrol and agree to be guided by CAP Core Values, Ethics Policies, Constitution & Bylaws, Regulations and all applicable Federal, State, and Local Laws...
I agree to abide by the decisions of those in authority of the Civil Air Patrol...
Quote from: abdsp51 on Today at 09:30:26 AM
and when explanations are canned and placating I do not have to accept it.
Yes, you do... Membership in CAP is voluntary, but it's also a privilege, not a right. Remember the CAP Oath you signed when you became a member?
Nope. "Thank you, may I have another" is seldom a valid course of action. Unless you're married....Just because you signed an oath, doesn't mean that you have to accept somebody at a higher echelon doing something that is clearly wrong.
Quote from: THRAWN on April 03, 2014, 02:50:21 PM
doesn't mean that you have to accept somebody at a higher echelon doing something that is clearly wrong.
Depends on the definition of two words in your sentence: accept and wrong.
Does wrong mean "illegal or against the regulation" or "something I believe is not the correct course of action"?
Does accept mean "agree with" or "follow"?
Storm chaser you're wrong. When I came in in 99 cops who were in their cdcs were allowed to finish them with no change. Those who graduated from tech from a certain point on were enrolled in the new sets. It's the same with course 14 now if you were enrolled before they went to course 15 they are allowed to finish in course 14.
The oath may say abide by, bit sorry it doesn't say agree with or take it in the rear. This was the wrong move to make.
Quote from: LSThiker on April 03, 2014, 03:01:06 PM
Quote from: THRAWN on April 03, 2014, 02:50:21 PM
doesn't mean that you have to accept somebody at a higher echelon doing something that is clearly wrong.
Depends on the definition of two words in your sentence: accept and wrong.
Does wrong mean "illegal or against the regulation" or "something I believe is not the correct course of action"?
Does accept mean "agree with" or "follow"?
Wrong: I'll give you a third option: a norm that deviates from all previously accepted practice.
Accept: in this case its more of a resign your self to....
Sice you're looking for a semantic debate, allow me to make me position clear: Somebody at NHQ screwed up (for the record, I don't really care how many people work in the shop, or that they try really really hard...) and people who are already in process with this specialty are getting screwed. Taking away tasks that can be done independently and adding requirements that must be done in class, and are difficult at best to obtain, doesn't balance the scales.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 03, 2014, 03:03:22 PM
Storm chaser you're wrong. When I came in in 99 cops who were in their cdcs were allowed to finish them with no change. Those who graduated from tech from a certain point on were enrolled in the new sets. It's the same with course 14 now if you were enrolled before they went to course 15 they are allowed to finish in course 14.
The oath may say abide by, bit sorry it doesn't say agree with or take it in the rear. This was the wrong move to make.
How am I wrong? I told you how it was done in my career field back in the mid to late 90s. Or are you saying that I'm lying? Maybe they grandfathered those members in your case, but that doesn't mean that that's the way it always happens.
I never said you had to agree or even like the change. But your attitude in this thread is out of proportion with the issue at hand. You may not agree with me, but many others in CT, including your commander, have expressed similar sentiments. Are we all wrong but you? Hardly.
Consider this my last post on this thread. Good luck.
When the Comm track was updated, after many years of complaining by Comm folks, I, as wing DCT, had a number folks wanting to complete their Tech rating under the old program because they were almost there and only had one item left. I checked all of the requests myself and found those wanting to keep to the old program were missing one or more of the following: Technician test, net check-ins (most had never checked into a radio net), comm service at ES exercises or missions (most were not even trainees in a position that would use a radio and several did not even have GES), or attending a Comm meeting.
Now, because they enrolled in the track at the last second (literally, many enrolled the same day the new pamphlet came out), should they be allowed to complete their tech rating under the old program?
Not saying this is the case with the folks here, but I wouldn't be surprised if some wing CP folks have the same issues.
Quote from: arajca on April 03, 2014, 03:20:58 PM
When the Comm track was updated, after many years of complaining by Comm folks, I, as wing DCT, had a number folks wanting to complete their Tech rating under the old program because they were almost there and only had one item left. I checked all of the requests myself and found those wanting to keep to the old program were missing one or more of the following: Technician test, net check-ins (most had never checked into a radio net), comm service at ES exercises or missions (most were not even trainees in a position that would use a radio and several did not even have GES), or attending a Comm meeting.
Now, because they enrolled in the track at the last second (literally, many enrolled the same day the new pamphlet came out), should they be allowed to complete their tech rating under the old program?
Not saying this is the case with the folks here, but I wouldn't be surprised if some wing CP folks have the same issues.
Yes, they should. Let me counter with an example. CP comes out with a new program (New Leader) that goes into effect on 1OCT and replaces the year old but somehow dated Old Leader. New Leader has 10 added performance tasks. Cadet Tenthumbs joins on 30Sept and is enrolled in Old Leader. Cadet Leftfeet joins on 2 October and is enrolled in New Leader. Should Cadet Tenthumbs have been enrolled in New Leader? Nope, because it did not exist from a regulations point of view.
^ So?
Are the tasks and expectations deemed "important" by NHQ somehow "different" because of the calendar?
"We took a look at things and experienced leaders realized it was detrimental to all involved to allow members
to pretend they were doing 'required reading' while at the same time ignoring DDR. We fixed that."
Etc., etc.
When ES tasks are added, everyone has to do them, no exceptions.
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on April 02, 2014, 04:12:19 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 02, 2014, 02:56:13 AM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on April 02, 2014, 02:39:37 AM
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 02, 2014, 02:16:32 AM
Quote from: jimmydeanno on April 02, 2014, 01:53:16 AM
It seems that having better trained CP officers is more beneficial to the CP.
And hose membership in the process. I bet if they changed the requirements for ES and to be a pilot they'd have a better timeline for execution.
Perhaps you should try meditation. Even a few minutes a day can help relieve anxiety and tension.
In all seriousness, though, if I were king of the world, our specialty track ratings would expire and need continuing training to maintain currency.
Once, WIWAC, they decided to revamp the entire promotion system on us. They made C/Sgt into C/SrA, added a few more Cadet NCO grades at the top, eliminated C/FO, and created ribbons that I'd never be able to earn because I had already passed them. When I got my Mitchell, me and 4 other cadets in my unit got them at the same time and were promoted to C/FO. I kept working and got promoted to C/2d Lt just as the phaseout of C/FO happened, so all my peers who had done nothing also got promoted. Imagine that, I worked so hard to get myself promoted and that darn NHQ just went and promoted all those slackers.
So then, I became a Senior Member and started working on the 216 specialty track. I got my technician rating, and was working towards senior and WHAM! A new course comes out called TLC, and to get my senior rating, I have to attend it. How dare they demand that I get more training to be proficient at my job while I'm right in the middle of a level!
Change happens. Sometimes a few people get hung up in it. It's not the end of the world, and if you're going to have a heart attack about it, pick one of the specialties that nobody has updated since 1997, like Administration. I think you're making this a way bigger deal than it is.
And perhaps you fail to see that to some it is a big deal especially when you where right at the finish line and it's moved on you. Change poorly executed as this has been is piss poor leadership. Hell lets make it to where to be a pilot you need a commercial license, multi engine rating, cfi and 800hrs just to start and you need 1500 just to fly cadets on top of the others. You have your rating so who cares, who cares that this has screwed people on theirs and pushed it back. Shoot lets just say that to be ground team you need the sheriffs blessingbon top of ours, oh wait that won't happen because its more important than CP.
I've been sitting idle on this for long enough.
We have discussed this back in Jan to ensure that your timeline for completion of the senior rating is not as severely impacted.
After a review of both the 2011 and 2014 (April) pamphlets, it seems a grand total of 4 requirements (2 knowledge, 2 service) have been added to your senior rating. Of the knowledge requirements, we've already discussed them and I have no problem as your OJT supervisor and commander saying they are complete. For the service requirements, the first you are already working on and could argue is actually already complete. You are scheduled for TLC at the end of this month, something that people are bending over backwards to have happen. Just give me two ideas for improvement of our cadet program that you learned in the course and you're good, bam you have your senior rating. You could easily have this accomplished NLT the first weekend in May.
Seriously, it is NOT worth it to get so worked up over this. There are bigger fish to fry and bigger pots to stir. I'd rather not lose an otherwise stellar officer, mentor and friend, I know the cadets wouldn't either.
Chris,
From the response above, it appears that Tim has a handle on this and you should have your senior rating in a month. He regards you as a positive to CAP and as a friend and would not like to lose that over this. Is it really a war that you want to declare? Things in life are always fluid, constantly changing, some for better others not so much. It is how you deal with the set backs that define you as seen by others. Yes, you are entitled to your frustration over it, but when that frustration develops venom, it poisons not only you but how you are perceived by others around you. Breathe, finish what you started and Tim is helping you with, take a break if needed, but please get back on an even keel for your own sake and especially your blood pressure. Just being a long distance Mom. Good luck.
Quote from: Tim Medeiros on April 02, 2014, 04:12:19 AMFor the service requirements, the first you are already working on and could argue is actually already complete. You are scheduled for TLC at the end of this month, something that people are bending over backwards to have happen. Just give me two ideas for improvement of our cadet program that you learned in the course and you're good, bam you have your senior rating. You could easily have this accomplished NLT the first weekend in May.
OK, now I am confused again, and admittedly not paying 100% attention.
TLC has been required for Senior CP since like 2009 or 10? Is this one of the "new" things being made an issue here?
Quote from: Eclipse on April 03, 2014, 04:25:15 PM
OK, now I am confused again, and admittedly not paying 100% attention.
TLC has been required for Senior CP since like 2009 or 10? Is this one of the "new" things being made an issue here?
TLC has been required for CP since 2004. The program was not made until late 2004-early 2005.
Quote from: LSThiker on April 03, 2014, 04:39:39 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 03, 2014, 04:25:15 PM
OK, now I am confused again, and admittedly not paying 100% attention.
TLC has been required for Senior CP since like 2009 or 10? Is this one of the "new" things being made an issue here?
TLC has been required for CP since 2004. The program was not made until late 2004-early 2005.
Right, but it wasn't required for CP Senior until about 2009, or "Strongly suggested" for unit staff until
a few years ago (which might no longer be the case when they re-do the SUIs).
But in either case the requirement isn't "recent".
Quote from: Eclipse on April 03, 2014, 04:25:15 PM
OK, now I am confused again, and admittedly not paying 100% attention.
TLC has been required for Senior CP since like 2009 or 10? Is this one of the "new" things being made an issue here?
Sort of. Completing TLC used to be the requirement, but they added that you should "use the knowledge you obtained to make two recommendations to your unit commander on how the unit’s cadet program can be improved."
I did an item by item comparision of the senior rating requirements of the Apr 14 and Apr 09* editions of CAPP 216 and concur with Tim Medeiros' assessment that there are only four additions to the previous list (including the additional clause re: TLC). IMHO, none of them are particularly onerous. Here they are:
Correctly describe in detail the CAP policies regarding respect for others
and fraternization / dating, as described in CAPR 52-16.
Correctly describe in detail the proper DDR program implementation
strategies at the unit and wing level.
Mentor a cadet officer or NCO leading a class or training activity of 20
minutes or longer in duration on Drug Awareness and Prevention, or lead
an activity from the Drug Demand Reduction Excellence guide.
Complete the Training Leaders of Cadets course, and use the knowledge
you obtained to make two recommendations to your unit commander on
how the unit’s cadet program can be improved.
Yes, the goalposts were moved, but the new requirements shouldn't take much more than a week or two to complete.
* The Apr 09 edition is the only old edition I have on my handy-dandy thumb drive, but the CP shop stated that there were, "[n]o substantive changes," in the Apr 11 edition when it came out (see http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/?updates_for_april_15&show=entry&blogID=341 (http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/?updates_for_april_15&show=entry&blogID=341)).
Quote from: NC Hokie on April 03, 2014, 05:08:55 PM
Correctly describe in detail the CAP policies regarding respect for others
and fraternization / dating, as described in CAPR 52-16.
Don't.
Quote from: NC Hokie on April 03, 2014, 05:08:55 PM
Correctly describe in detail the proper DDR program implementation
strategies at the unit and wing level.
Drugs are bad, we're not close enough to a USAF base to get money, drugs are bad.
Quote from: NC Hokie on April 03, 2014, 05:08:55 PM
Mentor a cadet officer or NCO leading a class or training activity of 20
minutes or longer in duration on Drug Awareness and Prevention, or lead
an activity from the Drug Demand Reduction Excellence guide.
That should take about, hm...20 minutes.
Quote from: NC Hokie on April 03, 2014, 05:08:55 PM
Complete the Training Leaders of Cadets course, and use the knowledge
you obtained to make two recommendations to your unit commander on
how the unit's cadet program can be improved.
Anyone who knows the CP well enough to deserve a Senior rating can do that in 1 minute, including stopping for coffee along the way.
Example:
1 - "Did you know PT is
required?"
2 - "Apparently there are some sorts of tests required for each promotion."
So the issue isn't that you object to the training itself, because well trained CP officers are beneficial to the success of the program. The issue is that now it'll take a bit longer for you to be able to wear a bronze star on your CP badge. Because that is the only thing that is going to be affected.
What a sword to fall on.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 03, 2014, 04:50:16 PM
Quote from: LSThiker on April 03, 2014, 04:39:39 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 03, 2014, 04:25:15 PM
OK, now I am confused again, and admittedly not paying 100% attention.
TLC has been required for Senior CP since like 2009 or 10? Is this one of the "new" things being made an issue here?
TLC has been required for CP since 2004. The program was not made until late 2004-early 2005.
Right, but it wasn't required for CP Senior until about 2009, or "Strongly suggested" for unit staff until
a few years ago (which might no longer be the case when they re-do the SUIs).
But in either case the requirement isn't "recent".
No. It was 2003 requirement for senior rating. My apologies for the date error.
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/u_082503085038.pdf (http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/u_082503085038.pdf)
But yes not recent.
Wow - didn't realize it went that far back - I remember taking one of the first sessions in my Region, if not the
country after it was rolled out.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 03, 2014, 06:07:52 PM
Wow - didn't realize it went that far back - I remember taking one of the first sessions in my Region, if not the
country after it was rolled out.
The only reason I remember that is because I was on the wing cadet programs staff at the time and got plenty of questions and complaints about the course. Complaints very similar to the one described above.
OK, so please help my feeble mind.
Was the requirement put in place in 2003, but there was no curriculum until 2005/06?
I went back and looked and I took my first one in Nov 2006, I did another one at encampment in 2007.
At the time I did mine, I recall there was a lot of buzz about this being "new", and because of that
they were waiving the requirements for instructors to have also attended since they were few and far between.
The POC was a newly minted Region DCP who had just attended one herself.
Was this just new in my Region? Or am I hallucinating?
I recall that we were the first to do it in CAWG, hosting the course, that is- because we had several members in our unit that needed it, and there was quite a backlog demand wise, for people to advance, and the Wing had not done it yet, nor was it on the calendar. So some members stepped up and said "what will it take.. we'll do it for you, and offer it to the masses.." and we even had Curt LaFond come because I want to say it was one of, if not the first time, the curriculum had been offered. The roster was filled within a couple weeks of the announcement and the draw was the members from as far as 500 miles, and most traveled several hours. This was in early 2005. Many of the photos in the first publications since have been from that session.
Quote from: a2capt on April 04, 2014, 02:14:53 AM
This was in early 2005. Many of the photos in the first publications since have been from that session.
Correct. Even though the requirement was released in 2003, the curriculum did not come out official until early 2005.
IIRC the requirement was for you to teach a TLC to get your CP master rating.....but there was not requirement to attend it to get tech or senior.
Then they added the requirement to the SUI to have 2 TLC trained members, then expanded it to be part of the quality unit program.
The requirement to attend TLC for the Senior rating is not new- at least not since 2006. I'm pretty sure they did add the verbage about "recommend two changes to the squadron commander based on the class," as I don't remember having to do that for my senior.
And teaching at TLC was definitely a requirement for Master rating, as it was pretty much my sole motivating factor for being a course director for TLC. However, once I put on one course, I enjoyed it so much I directed a few more. Great times, and made a lot of good contacts throughout the wing.
Giving up a weekend is hard, I know, but done right this course is definitely worth it!