November 2012 CSAG Meeting Draft Agenda

[Cool Mace]

Some just don't have the man power to do that. No matter how bad squadrons would love to have enough people for this to not be a problem, it is.

Then its time to mandate growth - hammer real recruiting efforts until the "we don't have enough people" argument is no longer a factor.
In my time in CAP there's never been anything close to a legitimate national recruiting campaign, and most wings do literally nothing, ever.
The vast majority of recruiting is random coincidence coupled with the occasional 1/2-hearted table at an airshow, maybe once a year
for 30-40% of the units.

The rest just hope for new people and complain they can't get anything done because they are so short staffed.

A significant number of CAP's baseline issues, including those around legitimacy as an organization and response capabilities will never be solved until
we pay attention to recruiting at the same level that we do everything else, and that includes having coherent programs ready for the FNGs when they show up to the first meeting.

You may say that squadrons only do a half hearted effort all you want. Though, it may be true is some cases. But  many squadron who do full on recruiting still might only get one new member from any given recruiting event. We all wish it wasn't this way, but that's how life is.

[Eclipse]

Then its time to mandate growth - hammer real recruiting efforts until the "we don't have enough people" argument is no longer a factor.

So, then in the spirit of One-Size-Fits-All, all squadrons should be required to grow by 50% next year.  Doesn't matter if they have a healthy number of members right now or not, a Mandate It Shall Be.

Define "healthy numbers", and then we can talk about the mandates.  The number of units in this country that would be considered "healthy", by any reasonable definition, would be very small.

And any unit not growing, is shrinking.

[NIN]

During my initial CAP years I pursued various grades because I felt it gave me a little street cred within CAP.  Call it the "been there done that" factor.  Over time I realized even that isn't a reliable indicator of worth, whether the grade is CAP-grown or obtained in military service. 

Now I find the constant obsessing about grade and what other people think of it to be amusing.  An NCO corps will confuse matters even more.  There's nothing wrong with making CAP grade reasonably meaningful, but we don't need to go crazy with it.  CAP grade is never going to be the equivalent of military grade, we need to get over it. 

I wear a polo shirt most of the time; my oak leaves spend a lot of time impressing the other clothes in my closet.

+1, especially the bold.

I think the implementation of an NCO corps (on a broader, more formal basis than CAP presently has, of course) would require a pretty substantial culture shift among the "officer corps".  Let me explain:

Right now, in CAP, tasks and functions that are really "junior enlisted"-level activities are accomplished by company grade officers (2nd Lts, 1st Lts & Captains). 

Let me use "Personnel" for an example: Processing a member's award is the job for an A1C personnel clerk, not a 1st Lt, but here we have the "Personnel Officer" in a CAP unit who is the "personnel clerk" (creates paperwork, acts as the processor), "personnel NCO" (supervisor of the task, since there are seldom multiple "personnel clerk"-types in the unit ) and "Personnel Officer" (the "legal authority" for signatures and "for the commander" actions). (ETA: "Holy cradle-to-grave tasking, Batman!")

CAP has been, pretty much throughout its "modern" history (the period that comprises the bulk of the "Time in CAP" for most of its current members, say back thru the 1980s) nearly 100% "officer oriented."  Your average CAP officer (NPS, 2nd Lt thru Capt) really does not have a body of experience of working with NCOs/enlisted troops in a CAP context.  Its going to take a lot of doing to create & build any kind of a "professional NCO corps" that does not consist almost universally of prior-service NCOs who have the training and NCO experience to operate as legit NCOs, especially when the bulk of your "officers" won't have a lot of experience with how their duties, roles & responsibilities will change when there are "enlisted troops".

I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of "CAP NCOs" that I've met, and all were of course prior-service NCOs.  There is a somewhat lesser number of that who were actually able to be effective, and not because they were bad NCOs, but because CAP just had no clue how to use an NCO effectively.  I've seen CAP 1st Lts with no prior service treat a CAP-RAP TSgt like their personal coffee boys.

I'm as guilty of this as the next guy, and I'm a prior service guy, too. 

The USAC/ACA's culture was one of "Cadet Enlisted, Adult Officer" (more or less).  Pretty much ALL of the NCOs in the USAC/ACA, with the exception of the "senior enlisted" (usually a SGM/CSM) were Cadet NCOs.  Sure, they filled NCO roles like Squad Leader, Platoon Sergeant & First Sergeant, but they were still cadets, so the officers did a lot of the "NCO business".   

In 2008, we had our Annual Training at Fort A.P. Hill and had a number of USAR drill sergeants come and help out with BCT duties.  Notably, we had 2-3 SSGs who were fairly experienced NCOs and had no problems stepping into the NCO / Drill Sergeant role with the recruits & cadets.

However, since our officers had previously filled a lot of "NCO Business" roles, or at least picked up the slack between the Cadet NCO's capabilities & the officer corps, there was some overlap that took us a little bit to sort out.  We had officers stumbling into NCO's lane, so to speak, and there was a little friction for the first few days as the NCOs were like "What the hell are these @#$% officers doing executing our business?" and we all sort of had to adjust to our stations in life.

We also had to make the NCOs aware, since they were "RealArmy™," of some of the cultural norms and expectations of our officer corps. It wasn't that our officers didn't trust the NCOs (quite to the contrary), but since we'd always had to sort of "over-supervise" the cadets in that role, we just kept right on going when there was someone else in that role.

I had a situation one day where two or three Cadet NCOs (corporals thru SFCs) were horsing around in their end of the barracks, which happened to be on the opposite end of the same floor that my Officer Candidates were on.  I heard this, walked down to that end and performed an "on the spot correction."  This was a potential safety issue and something that could, if allowed to continue, constitute hazing (it was "locker room-level horseplay".. nothing serious or systemic, but something that needed to be corrected).   I basically smoked these cadets for a couple minutes until I had their undivided attention, made sure they knew that what they were doing was not permissible, and drove on.   I saw the SSG drill sergeant who was riding herd on their program of instruction later on in the orderly room, and I said "Hey, drill sergeant, just wanted to let you know that I saw this situation up in the barracks and performed an on-the-spot correction."  He got all bent out of shape that I would perform an on-the-spot correction on his troops and that I was in the middle of "NCO business."  I had to tell him "I appreciate your concern, I really do, and I am not here to step on your toes. If it had been something more benign, I probably would have just noted it and let you know later so you can do your thing.  But this was a safety & cadet protection issue that needed to be addressed immediately. I won't have 3-4 cadets playing nut-tap in the barracks, and I definitely don't want them horsing around on a hard concrete barracks floor like that.  I've worked with cadets for the better part of 25 years, and I'm going to tell you that you don't want to have the conversation with mom & dad about why you let their little angel get hurt, so stuff like this you nip in the bud."  He persisted that I was out of my lane, and I finally had to say "Look, if this is such a big deal about 'NCO business,' then explain to me why your cadets were goofing off in the barracks, without NCO supervision, to the point where an officer had to correct them."  He changed his tune quick. 

 
The tl:dr version is basically "CAP officers need to make a serious culture shift as to how they do their business to allow an NCO corps to exist and flourish."

[Eclipse]

But  many squadron who do full on recruiting still might only get one new member from any given recruiting event. We all wish it wasn't this way, but that's how life is.

Then you do one a month instead of one a year.

[Cool Mace]

But  many squadron who do full on recruiting still might only get one new member from any given recruiting event. We all wish it wasn't this way, but that's how life is.

Then you do one a month instead of one a year.

I might add that the new member could be a cadet, not a senior.

Also? And I'm just using my squadron as an example. We have a strong four or so seniors in our squadron that participate actively (they give all the time they can to the program). Now when we have at least one wing activity per month, and one to two CP activities, that leaves us with one weekend a month to focus on senior recruiting. Yes, we may drop one of the CP activities to focus on this, but why should the cadets suffer because we want two weekends to ourselves instead of helping them progress?

Your logic would work in a perfect world, and we all wish that could happen. But when you already have small numbers of active seniors, and two to three weekends already taken by CAP, it doesn't leave much time to get things done in your own life. I stress time management more than you might believe, but that doesn't mean I have time to give every weekend to CAP. (Although, most times I would really care  ).

[Eclipse]

why should the cadets suffer because we want two weekends to ourselves instead of helping them progress?

Why should those members who could benefit from CAP suffer because you chose not to recruit them?
This is, if not purely geometric, certainly a scale issue.
More people on the roster = less things for each to do collectively and more time to do the less "immediately urgent" things, like recruiting.

2-3 hours every weekend in front of the big-box store, Starbucks, or the local FBO might do more for your operations long-term then
the same amount of time drilling and launching rockets, which could be done by all those FNGs. 

For a lot of units, "recruiting" means a 2-year old flyer on a bulletin board at the village hall with bad contact info on it.  You simply can't get around the fact that we need more people, probably by 30-40%, or that any unit running at charter minimums can be in any way "successful", except in the most micro-personal way for a couple of individual members, which breaks the economies of scale CAP is supposed to present.

[RiverAux]

There is a big difference between adapting CAP regulations regarding flying and uniforms to different geographical situations and squadron commander term limits.  There are going to be very small squadrons with small pools of potential commanders in every wing in the country.  If it is bad for a squadron commander to serve 10 years in one wing it is going to be just as bad for another squadron commander to serve 10 years in another wing.

And speaking as a CG Auxie, we have term limits much more severe than what was proposed here and it works quite well even though we have the same small unit "problem" as folks are griping about here. 

The fact that your term IS limited makes people more willing to volunteer to take command in the Aux.  You know that you're committing to a maximum of two years and not potentially getting yourself stuck for a 10-15 years. 

[Eclipse]

The fact that your term IS limited makes people more willing to volunteer to take command in the Aux.  You know that you're committing to a maximum of two years and not potentially getting yourself stuck for a 10-15 years.

+1, not to mention lighting a fire knowing you have a finite amount of time to accomplish whatever yo want your name on.

An infinite amount of time to accomplish an undefined list of goals which are ultimately self-actualizing is how we got where we are today. 
Human nature, especially for volunteers, is to find a groove and ride in it.  CAP has a lot of people riding a circular groove worn 10-feet into
the ground, and then wondering why nothing ever changes.

If I had a nickel for every time I've heard a long-tenured unit CC with a roster of empty shirts complaining about how group / wing / NHQ, etc., never does anything for them, I could fund the entire program. Add another dime for the ones who wax poetic about the Spaatz they generated 10-years ago while trying to justify their continued existence with one senior and three cadets.

[Cool Mace]

No matter how bad we want something, it doesn't mean it will work.

Just because you have ten+ seniors that are active in a squadron, that doesn't mean they will or want to take over as CC. Some enjoy doing their job, and doing it well.

Granted, most CC's I know have stepped down within five years and we have had one member step up to the plate every time.

[JeffDG]

Eclipse,

Why do you have so little faith in Wing commanders that you don't think they have any ability to sort out what will work for their wings?  That your opinion of how to run the WYWG is better suited to the situation in Wyoming than the officer entrusted with running the Wing?  That's kind of arrogant of you.

[Eclipse]

Just because you have ten+ seniors that are active in a squadron, that doesn't mean they will or want to take over as CC. Some enjoy doing their job, and doing it well.

Great, but you've still got .......10 members, instead of 3 or 4.

Having less in the potential pool doesn't make it easier.

There's also this assumption that the new CC always has to come from the unit, which is not always the best idea, either.

[Eclipse]

Why do you have so little faith in Wing commanders that you don't think they have any ability to sort out what will work for their wings?  That your opinion of how to run the WYWG is better suited to the situation in Wyoming than the officer entrusted with running the Wing?  That's kind of arrogant of you.

First, historical precedent, at least nationally, would say differently.

Second, you can't view a macro-problem on the micro level of "my wing's awesome, so there's no issue".

[JeffDG]

Why do you have so little faith in Wing commanders that you don't think they have any ability to sort out what will work for their wings?  That your opinion of how to run the WYWG is better suited to the situation in Wyoming than the officer entrusted with running the Wing?  That's kind of arrogant of you.

First, historical precedent, at least nationally, would say differently.

Second, you can't view a macro-problem on the micro level of "my wing's awesome, so there's no issue".

I can say "My wing is fine, so keep your nose out of it.  If you have a problem with your wing, fix your wing, but don't tell me how to run mine."

[Eclipse]

The idea that wings are islands and can "do their own thing" is regularly identified as a significant problem for CAP.

[Cool Mace]

But in the end, it was a non concur. No reason for any of us to get worked up over it. Yes, I know I'm on CAPTalk. 

To each his own. I shall bow out of this for the time being, and go back to lurking.

[JeffDG]

The idea that wings are islands and can "do their own thing" is regularly identified as a significant problem for CAP.

So why then do we have Wing/CCs?

I mean, we can just run the whole organization as a single book of regulations promulgated by NHQ.  No need for local flexibility at all then, is there?

[RiverAux]

The idea that wings are islands and can "do their own thing" is regularly identified as a significant problem for CAP.

So why then do we have Wing/CCs?

I mean, we can just run the whole organization as a single book of regulations promulgated by NHQ.  No need for local flexibility at all then, is there?

Just how much flexibility do you think wing commanders have?   Sure, there are a a few local situations where they need the ability to do things different than the organization as a whole, but in general they are there to implement the program as designed by national.   

In regards to squadron commanders the wing commanders would still have the ability to appoint who they want and remove anyone they want for any reason that they can come up with. 

[a2capt]

I just hope that whatever change they make, isn't retroactive. Those of us who have worked within the system, and met the requirements that were given to us, should be able to apply for what we're eligible for.

Not everyone can be the Wing level position of X, and even less can be the Region position.

Our rank structure is similar to the Air Force, but we are CAP. We are NOT the Air Force. Every time someone cites, "But the Air Force does it this way".. Yes, but the Air Force also has people that are supposed to move up, -OR- -OUT- ..

Does CAP want people to out if they don't move up? 

What if I'm perfectly happy working on the unit level with Color Guards, Cadets, AE related activities, Testing, Mentoring, IT topics in the unit, group and even wing level participation, etc. What if I'm just not interested in a command position past my unit commander's assistance?

Our program is our program. It's not the Air Force. In just a bit less than 8 months I can apply for Lt. Col. Personally, I've met more than the minimum. Already got Level V done as of a year ago, took them a while to process it, but I knew it was done last October the day I got the certificate from Gen. Carr at Maxwell.

Am I finished? No. Who knows what the future will hold.  I can go for Master Rating in AE, at least Senior Rating in CP, who knows? But in 10.5 years, I've climbed the ladder to couple steps below the top. They say don't step on the top step, you might fall off. ;-) But there's still one more to go.

... but I can oversee another ladder construction project from that high up, and continue on ...

[Eclipse]

What if I'm perfectly happy working on the unit level with Color Guards, Cadets, AE related activities, Testing, Mentoring, IT topics in the unit, group and even wing level participation, etc. What if I'm just not interested in a command position past my unit commander's assistance?

Then you should be a Captain or Major, no harm in that, and it emulates similar services.

There's no harm or shame in that, and it would encourage those interested in striving for higher HQ jobs.

The PD ratings are far more important then grade for people doing the real work in CAP.

[jimmydeanno]

Then its time to mandate growth - hammer real recruiting efforts until the "we don't have enough people" argument is no longer a factor.

So, then in the spirit of One-Size-Fits-All, all squadrons should be required to grow by 50% next year.  Doesn't matter if they have a healthy number of members right now or not, a Mandate It Shall Be.

For the average CAP unit, that would only require recruiting about 3 people.  I did that by accident last weekend.