Group CC and Squadron CC term limits

Started by luscioman, March 26, 2012, 04:53:19 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Private Investigator

Quote from: luscioman on March 29, 2012, 06:18:18 PM
So how would you evaluate this?

Good job.

Can I or anyone else ever have a chance to be Squadron Commander?

AND if I built a impressive resume can I keep it forever?

Eclipse

Quote from: luscioman on March 30, 2012, 04:54:18 AM
Eclipse you have a lot information on this topic and a lot of experience. So what benchmarks would you use to evaluate a strong unit and its commander?

Is the unit growing at a sustainable rate, in a susatainable fashion?

Are they participating in all three missions, or treating CAP like a cafeteria?

Are the CC and major staff too heavily involved in personal outside activities that they cannot give the attention the unit requires?

Are there enough staff to do the jobs in anything more than a "ticket-punch"?  Or are the majority of the jobs centralized in a few folks?

Is the unit perpetually at risk of losing its charter because of too few members?  Is the roster heavy with empty shirts?

Does the unit CC publish plans and programs in a structured way, or is everything last-minute and ad-hoc?

Are the senior members progressing and engaged?
     Or is it populated by career Captains?

Are the cadets progressing and engaged?
    Or is it populated by Chiefs with a "leadership corps" mentality.

Do they stress the importance of encampments, SAREx's, NCSA's and other outside activities?

Does the CC respect the chain of command, and work with staff at higher HQ in appropriate ways?

Are they complying with mandates and initiaitives as set forth by the next higher HQ?


Quote from: luscioman on March 30, 2012, 04:54:18 AM
Do you currently evaluate units in your wing as a group or wing officer?
I had commander on my business card at the unit and group level for about 7-1/2 years before moving on last Spring.
You could say I was a "victim" of term limits, because given the option I would not have moved on, and yet I still support them
whole-heartedly, because the reality is that 3-4 years is plenty of time to turn around any unit or echelon, and beyond that
the ruts start to get deep.  The "new guy" has continued on my thread, but done plenty on his own, which is how it is supposed to work.
I moved on to new challenges and like to think I'm using that experience to make a difference there.

Quote from: luscioman on March 30, 2012, 04:54:18 AM
Also please expand on why a unit receiving awards is a problem and how you would correct that if they were under your command.

A lot of CAP awards, especially the annual "of the year" calvacade, are as much excercises in "you have to play to win", as
any objective comparision of the entirety of the respective "group".

As an example, the Merit and Distinction awards are presented at the subjective opinion of the commander or designee, and they are
not roll-up awards - meaning that the Region Unit of Discticntion, may not actually be the Wing Unit of Merit.  How anyone can be
the "best unit in the region", but not the best unit in the respective wing escapes me.

You can't even compare them year-to-year.  I've seen some years where objective criteria was the only factor, and large units
with big numbers but who's cadets struggled to perform at grade level won over units with much tighter programs and very sharp cadets,
and other years where the objective numbers were seemingly ignored and a randomly higher-visibility unit won the award.

Having been a receipent myself, I know personally that while we made great strides the year we received it, the unit itself
was still not really firing on all cylinders, and there were a number of other units which could have arguably received it instead of
us.

Since the Merits and Distinctions do not factor in the total-unit at all, a commander who receives this may well feel it validates
his entire approach, even though he is essentially ignoring the senior members in his unit, and may not be involved in ES or AE at all.
This can especailly be an issue with head-strong commanders who may be fighting the next higher HQ already as it is - someone takes
the objective numbers, stirs it in their personal caldron, never asks the next higher CC his opinion, and now you've validated what
is actually considered to be a struggling program, making things worse instead of better.

Even the criteria itself is somewhat of an issue, because how it is weighted is up to the approver of the award.  The majority
of CAP units do not use a pipeline or other structured in-process and management of member careers, so most units are subject to the
ebbs and flows of the normal cycle of a cadet's life - school, personal interest, and family.  Through no fault of the CC, you will have
a unit become a Phase IV factory one year, and then all but shut down the next because the entire staff was parents, and when their diamonds left,
so did the parents.  That unit might well float to the top of "Quality Cadet" and "Merit" selection, and then have no one in the unit
to hang the streamer because they all quit.  The commander's lack of plan is "validated" by the award, even though he had little to
do with the success - it was mostly random chance of timing.

The "of the year" plaques are similar, as these have very little objective criteria whatsoever, and are solely dependent
on being submitted for the award - if only one person is submitted, then in the words of Judge Judy, "You win".  This explains
the high number of awards never presented in many wings, and why a lot of times they are won by people who are "around", but not
necessarially the top guy in the job. It just means he was the top guy submitted (maybe self-submitted).

"That Others May Zoom"

MSG Mac

The Term Limits seem to me to allow more people to attain command. I hate to use the RM vs Us example, but it is a fact that the RM does have term limits on all its Officers and SNCO's. They also have an up or out policy which mandates that you promote at a certain time or leave the service.
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
50 Year Member

SarDragon

Quote from: MSG Mac on April 02, 2012, 06:53:15 AM
The Term Limits seem to me to allow more people to attain command. I hate to use the RM vs Us example, but it is a fact that the RM does have term limits on all its Officers and SNCO's. They also have an up or out policy which mandates that you promote at a certain time or leave the service.

Up or out goes for everyone, E-1 thru O-10, with a few exceptions, based on position, and the needs of the service.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

Private Investigator

HYT = High Year of Tenure.

I am not sure when they adopted it but my father and grandfather, WWII and WWI era, recall 20 year career privates were not uncommon.

I concur with Eclipse, that was a great post.

MSG Mac

Quote from: Private Investigator on April 03, 2012, 12:14:24 AM
HYT = High Year of Tenure.

I am not sure when they adopted it but my father and grandfather, WWII and WWI era, recall 20 year career privates were not uncommon.

I concur with Eclipse, that was a great post.

Up until the end of WWII enlisted who changed units were subject to the Table of Organization of the new unit. A MSG could transfer from Company A into Company B and not have a slot so his grade was whatever the new Commander had open and was willing to accept him as. Officers had a slightly different problem. They advanced as someone senior to him left the service, retired , or died.
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
50 Year Member

SarDragon

HYT hit the military really hard in the late '70s, during the Vietnam drawdown. It got even worse in the early '80s.

When I retired from the Navy in '89, our rules were something like this:

E-3 and below, out at 4, unless a designated striker in specific ratings.
E-4, out at 8
E-5, out at 14 (maybe 16?)
E-6, out at 23
E-7, out at 26
E-8 and E-9, out at 30

By 2000, when My Sweetie retired, E-6 was out at 20, and E-7 was out at 24. Don't recall E-8 and E-9, but 30 is pretty much max for anyone, except for individual waivers.

I thik the limits are pretty much the same these days.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

a2capt

Meaning if you were nearing 8 years service and only E-4 with no promotion in sight, you were pretty much not going to re-up?

Up or out?

bflynn

#68
Yup, that's the way it works - if you don't have that next promotion, you're invited to not re-enlist.  20 years ago waivers were available if you were critical, but that was basically the CO's call.

I think the times are lower now.  It seems like in '93, E-5 was 12 years, E-6's limit was 18.  Basically, you had to make E-7 before you could retire with 20 years.  I never liked that because E-7 (in the navy) is a rank you're selected for and that means ...ummm... advertising ... all the great things you've done over your career.  Or making up the sea stories, because in the Navy telling a story and stretching the truth pretty much go hand in hand.  But it doesn't affect me and probably for the better...if I'd stayed in, I'd be retired, but old and (really, really) bitter.

BTW, this did not apply for E-9 or O-10...since they have no place to go.

bosshawk

Yes, and officers have similar rules.  I was commissioned under a law which specified that a LtCol had to retire at age 53 or 28 years of service, whichever came first.  A Colonel had to retire at age 55 or 30 years of service.  Majors and below were under similar rules.  The military has no place for those who stagnate at a given rank: at least among the officers.

That said, I can remember the day when it was not at all unusual for a Captain in the Army to have 10 years in grade. When I was commissioned, it was not at all unusual to retire at 20 as a Major.  Viet Nam changed all that.  I made Major at less than 10 years of total service, then transferred to the Reserves and spent 7 years as a Major and slightly less than 4 as a LtCol.

All of this has nothing of relevance to CAP: just old soldiers(and sailors) telling war stories.
Paul M. Reed
Col, USA(ret)
Former CAP Lt Col
Wilson #2777

FlyTiger77

Quote from: SarDragon on April 03, 2012, 09:48:02 AM
HYT hit the military really hard in the late '70s, during the Vietnam drawdown. It got even worse in the early '80s.

When I retired from the Navy in '89, our rules were something like this:

E-3 and below, out at 4, unless a designated striker in specific ratings.
E-4, out at 8
E-5, out at 14 (maybe 16?)
E-6, out at 23
E-7, out at 26
E-8 and E-9, out at 30

I thik the limits are pretty much the same these days.

Currently, the Army's are:

           PVT-PFC (E-1 through E-3)--5 years
           CPL/SPC (E-4)--8 years
           CPL/SPC (Promotable) (E-4(P))--12 years
           SGT (E-5)--13 years
           SGT (Promotable) (E-5(P))--15 years
           SSG  (E-6)--20 years
           SSG (Promotable) (E-6(P))--26 years
           SFC (E-7)--26 years
           SFC (Promotable) (E-7(P))--29 years
           1SG/MSG (E-8)--29 years
           1SG/MSG (Promotable) (E-8(P))--32 years
           CSM/SGM (E-9)--32 years

Age 62 for Regular Army and US Army Reserve is the maximum age. Age 60 is the maximum for the Army National Guard. I have no idea why the Guard is different (at least in this respect).

JACK E. MULLINAX II, Lt Col, CAP

bflynn

By way of curious trivia, the longest serving sailor on active duty was Torpedoman's Mate Chief Harry Morris, enlisted 1903 and retired in 1958, 55 years on active duty with 41 of it on sea duty.  He served in Teddy Roosevelt's Great White Fleet, WWI, WWII and saw the first nuclear powered ships launched, passing away in 1975.  Quite a career.

I can't find similar roles for the other services, does anyone know them?

SarDragon

Current USN:
E1-E2: 6
E-3: 6 (8, with specific circumstance)
E-4: 8
E-5: 14 (20; depends on entry date)
E-6: 20
E-7: 24
E-8: 26

There is a general 30 year limit, unless there are specific circumstances permitting further service.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

Private Investigator

Quote from: bosshawk on April 03, 2012, 05:31:19 PM
All of this has nothing of relevance to CAP: just old soldiers(and sailors) telling war stories.

We tend to do that.   8)

lordmonar

Quote from: MSG Mac on April 02, 2012, 06:53:15 AM
The Term Limits seem to me to allow more people to attain command. I hate to use the RM vs Us example, but it is a fact that the RM does have term limits on all its Officers and SNCO's. They also have an up or out policy which mandates that you promote at a certain time or leave the service.
MSG Mac....the RM does does not have term limits.  There is not regulation that says "you can only be in command for x years".   There is a policy that moves commanders around......but it is policy not a regulation.  Meaning that IF the USAF/ARMY/NAVY/USMC sees the need to move a commander early or keep a commander in place they have the flexibility to do so.

CAP needs term limits like we need a hole in our heads.

a) We don't have the benifit of being able to find the righ guy for the job and moving him to that position....i.e. you have to pull from a finite pool of people....i.e. members of the unit or if your luck nearby units.

b) A hard and fast rule means you have to move the commander even if there is no replacement.  So you back yourself into a corner with either violating a regulation (and taking the hit on the CI) or putting a known poor leader into command.

c) We still don't have a very good objective or even a subjective criteria of what is a good or bad squadron. 

d) We just don't have a big enough pool of good leaders ready and willing to take on the jobs.  CAP does not make them, CAP does not hire them, CAP does not move them to where they are needed.  This is the nature of our organisation....it could be better....but we are already talking about how much unnecessary training we require....any attempt to actually train and grow good leaders would require a lot more time and training.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

Quote from: lordmonar on April 04, 2012, 03:33:57 PMc) We still don't have a very good objective or even a subjective criteria of what is a good or bad squadron. 

We actually do - the SUI will give a clear indication of whether a unit is "good" or "bad".

Like everything else, it's possible to game the system and pull off a Successful by just checking the boxes, especially if the inspectors are poor,
but a good commander can see through that and can still judge a unit's quality and effectiveness with this process.

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

Quote from: Eclipse on April 04, 2012, 03:50:44 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 04, 2012, 03:33:57 PMc) We still don't have a very good objective or even a subjective criteria of what is a good or bad squadron. 

We actually do - the SUI will give a clear indication of whether a unit is "good" or "bad".

Like everything else, it's possible to game the system and pull off a Successful by just checking the boxes, especially if the inspectors are poor,
but a good commander can see through that and can still judge a unit's quality and effectiveness with this process.
No the SUI is a paperwork drill.  Which is good as far as it goes.

But we have not objective MISSION critera.

How many people do I need in my squadron?  What that is detemined by my mission.  What mission?  No one has ever tasked my squadron to provide XX trained ground team members, XX trained air crew, XX trained mission base staff.
No one has ever tasked my squadron to have XX number of cadets with XX% of reaching Spaats, Eaker, Earheart, Mitchel, Wright Brothers.
No one has ever tasked my squadron to conduct XX number of external and XX number of interal AE presentations.

Your shopping list of what is a good squadron is pretty good......I agree with most of them.  But they are very subjective.  The SUI cannot measure squadron effectiveness because we have no mission goals.

You can have a perfect SUI.....and only have 15 members in your unit.  None of them have to be ES qualified, none of them have to have anything else besides Level I.  So long as the "I"s are dotted and the "T"s crossed you will get an "effective" rateing on your SUI.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

It's difficult to disagree with this, but only because of the way CAP implements the response.

An SUI with the ES page "not graded", should be the catalyst of change, not a reason for a pizza party just because the CP page was "excellent".

I also agree with the fact that a big chunk of the problem is lack of full downstream goals and expectations.

That doesn't change the fact that in most cases "commander for life" has resulted in poor performance and/or stagnant units.

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

In a lot of ways I agree with you.

I have always agreed with your reasoning behind it being a good idea to move commanders around.  I disagree with a hard term limit because it eliminates flexibility.

Don't tie your hands unnecessirly because of the one or two "commander for life" units that may or may not be out there.....and may or may not be "effective."
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

Perhaps a "should" vs. a "will" - this would instill the idea that it's not a permanent job, and set the preference or regular transition, but not
force situations where there is no suitable replacement.

"That Others May Zoom"