Group CC and Squadron CC term limits

[JeffDG]

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.

Why not just, you know, trust a commander's discretion to appoint squadron and group commanders when and where needed?  Why do you need some policy to demand that Wing commanders exercise their already existing authority.

[Eclipse]

Because, like most evolved situations in CAP and similar organizations, in a lot of cases those Group and Unit CC's are not exercising that authority, and
units, but more importantly members, are left to languish with a poor commander.

We have a lot of confrontation-averse people in CAP.  A lot of commanders believe being "liked" (ala Micheal Scott) equals leadership.  Term limits at least give them a "not my call" avenue to make the change needed.  Hardly the correct way to do it, but when you can't legislate leadership and common sense, you have to look to the places you can put mandates in place.

I can't argue this is a command failing, that doesn't change the situation.  1/2 the regs we have are because at some point people weren't doing the right thing and had to be forced to do it.

[bflynn]

Because, like most evolved situations in CAP and similar organizations, in a lot of cases those Group and Unit CC's are not exercising that authority, and
units, but more importantly members, are left to languish with a poor commander.

Wow, maybe we need term limits for group and wing commanders...

Wait, have we had this discussion before?   

[lordmonar]

If you have poor leadeship at Wing and Group......who are not monitoring the health of their squadrons in the first place.....a regulation that suggest or even forces them to make command changes is NOT going to work.

It will only mean that come the CI wing will be scrambeling to fix all those things that they have neglected.....just like they do with all of the other things they have neglected.

So...while I agree with you that as a rule of thumb it's a good idea.....I don't see it really improving anything because the real problem is lack of good leadership in the first place.....and regs don't fix that.

[A.Member]

If I were King, the rule would be something like this:

"No member will serve at Region, Wing, or Group level for more than 6 consecutive years.  At the conclusion of 6 years service, the member must return to the squadron level and serve there for 3 years prior to taking another appointment at the Group, Wing, or Region level." 

Based on my experience, there are far to many "lifers" at the Wing and Region levels.   They may play musical chairs as far as roles are concerned but they remain at those levels.  Many have not been involved in an actual squadron for many, many years - even decades.  As a result, they lose perspective on the program and seem to forget this important fact:  the Group/Wing/Region is there to support the Squadron, not the other way around.

[RiverAux]

Well, part of that comes from a tendency to draw on those that live near Wing HQ for staff slots.   Not quite as important in today's world given that very little paperwork needs signing these days, but it still sort of keeps people in place for a while. 

[Eclipse]

If I were King, the rule would be something like this:

"No member will serve at Region, Wing, or Group level for more than 6 consecutive years.  At the conclusion of 6 years service, the member must return to the squadron level and serve there for 3 years prior to taking another appointment at the Group, Wing, or Region level." 

Based on my experience, there are far to many "lifers" at the Wing and Region levels.   They may play musical chairs as far as roles are concerned but they remain at those levels.  Many have not been involved in an actual squadron for many, many years - even decades.  As a result, they lose perspective on the program and seem to forget this important fact:  the Group/Wing/Region is there to support the Squadron, not the other way around.

Please Yahweh, where do I sign?

The requirement to spin back to the units would potentially reinvigorate those units as very-experience staffers return to help at the most important level, and it might force some attitude adjustment if you know you're going to need a home soon.

My wing is going through some very radical change, and a number of long-term staffers are lost because their old job has a new guy, and they can't conceive of going back to a squadron.

In this plan, considering a typical CAP active career, you'd be able to cycle at least twice, and by then probably be looking to retire.

[lordmonar]

It could also rob region or national of valuable exerince.

So you go Squadron, group, squadron, wing squadron, region, squadron, national.

That's 15 years befor you get on national staff....and your regional experince is three years out of date.

I disagree that spending time at higher eschelons makes you dis engage........it should not...because you should be working with your counterparts at the lower level.....and you wing/regional/national job should be working with the same issues as the staffer at the squadron level.

[Eclipse]

OK, how about 6 years and then "other" - up,down, or sideways?

And no more of this "quadruple billeting" - you're only allowed to serve at one echelon, outside activities like encampments and SAREx's being the
typical exceptions.

Managing downstream where yo have no command authority is not the same as being the the unit-level wrench turner.  It's easy to establish plans for someone else to execute.

[lordmonar]

OK, how about 6 years and then "other" - up,down, or sideways?

And no more of this "quadruple billeting" - you're only allowed to serve at one echelon, outside activities like encampments and SAREx's being the
typical exceptions.

??  Now you are really robbing the squadrons/wings.

Sometimes the jobs are higher levels are not full time jobs....someone has to do them but they are not an every week sort of job.....so why not be a squadron deputy commander for cadets AND the group Cadet Programs officer?  If you have the man power for it....then my all means someone take the job.....but as we all know sometimes it is either double billet or it does not get done.
And also did you just not complain about not being engaged at the lower levels by these life time staffers?  Double billetting is a gread way for you to stay engaged with the lower levels....the Regional CP guy, is also you Wing CP guy who has to work with his group and squadron CP guys on a regular basis.....sounds like a good recipe to mean.

[Eclipse]

We'll never see eye-to-eye on this.

Double-billeting just takes the opportunity away from someone else.  Most wings have 1000+ members (and should have twice that), and yet with
all that manpower, we can't find a couple hundred to fully staff the echelons without having people do ADY jobs or quintuple billeting in the same echelon?

And this doesn't even account for all the places where circular reporting relationships create fifedoms.

[RiverAux]

Double-billeting just takes the opportunity away from someone else. 

Only if there actually is someone capable and willing to do it.  Seeing as how most squadrons don't even fill all their own staff jobs, I don't think this is an issue.  Any CAP member who really wants to serve on a higher level staff won't have a problem doing so once they gain a little experience. 

[A.Member]

The requirement to spin back to the units would potentially reinvigorate those units as very-experience staffers return to help at the most important level, and it might force some attitude adjustment if you know you're going to need a home soon.

This is exactly right.   It certainly trumps any concerns about robbing the other levels of experience.   Quite the opposite, it helps foster a culture where some of that knowledge is shared with those who need it while allowing new ideas and approaches to grow.

[Eclipse]

Double-billeting just takes the opportunity away from someone else. 

Only if there actually is someone capable and willing to do it.

Back to that "more people" conversation again.

We're having this exact conversation in my wing right now - we want to move a number of competent branch directors and section chiefs up the ladder to build more IC's, but part of the issue is finding their "replacements" in their existing respective jobs.

[lordmonar]

Okay an ideal squadron

Commander
Chaplain
Safety

Deputy for Senior
Admin
Personel
Finance
PAO
Recruiting
Historian
Legal
Medical
Logistics
-Transportation
-Supply
-Maintenance
communications
Aerospace Education
Professional Development
Operations
-Stand-Eval
-ES
--SAR
--Training
--DP

Deputy for Cadets
AEO
Leadership Officer
Activities

That's 29 senior members with out assitants and no worker bees!

Assuming that Group and Wing mirror this you quickly suck up personnel.

I don't see how a no double billeting could work.....nor do I see where an up and down action would really work.    It would be nice......sure wish we all had 100 member squadrons able to do all our missions in a meaningful way and enough overhead personnel to proper man each upper level of command......but there you go.

[A.Member]

Double-billeting just takes the opportunity away from someone else. 

Only if there actually is someone capable and willing to do it.

Back to that "more people" conversation again.

We're having this exact conversation in my wing right now - we want to move a number of competent branch directors and section chiefs up the ladder to build more IC's, but part of the issue is finding their "replacements" in their existing respective jobs.

Right or wrong, I know numerous people that are unwilling to serve in certain roles due to a "personality conflict" with someone they may be required to interact with.  When that someone is a lifer at the Group and Wing level, it becomes problematic. 

While being able to effectively deal with differing personalities is part of life, I'm guessing we all know one or two that are a bit more of the exception to this rule.  By breaking their tenure, we may actually find many of our existing members more willing to step up in certain roles. 

The other part of it is that I know very few people in CAP that have a "passion" for their particular jobs/assignments.  Most simply want to serve in a meaningful way, regardless of their duty assignment.   So, it's the leader's responsibility to ensure their role/duties are meaningful.

Similarly, it's just as problematic to put someone in a role when it's clear the individual is not a good match to the responsibilities of the position.  Yet, this happens very frequently.  The fact that "no one else wants the position" should never drive a decision to fill a position, especially if they aren't suited to the position.  Doing so will only lead to further frustation with the membership.   

[Eclipse]

I don't see how a no double billeting could work...

More people.

(I could also make the counter argument that a number of the positions listed are redundant, unnecessary in CAP's world, or both.)

[Private Investigator]

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...

Units do have a Deputy Commander? After being the #2 'person' its time to move up. Another pet peeve of mine. Why be a Deputy Commander if you will never command? But I have seen Units go thru Commanders but have the same Deputy Commander for ten years.   

[Private Investigator]

c) 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.

I do like the current SUI if done correctly. Back in the 1990s the ratings was based on 100%. So my Section got a 98%, John got a 94% and Buddy a 75%. Buddy nexts to work on it. 

[FlyTiger77]

That's 29 senior members without assistants and no worker bees!

Assuming that Group and Wing mirror this, you quickly suck up personnel.

Is there a way to leverage technology to flatten the organizational structure (eliminate Groups and have fewer Regions)? Do we have too much redundancy? With fewer organizations to fill, would that give us a deeper pool from which to pull in order to fill the remaining echelons?

Personally, I think term limits for squadron/group commanders gives us more regulation where we need better higher-echelon leadership instead. If a commander is a slug and needs replaced, the next-level commander needs to step up and make the change instead of adding a new regulation to replace everyone after a certain time period.