Historic National Winter Board Session

[lordmonar]

Technically, we're free to go up the chain to the National Commander at any time. However, one must follow protocol.

I'd be interested in seeing where this process is laid out in the regs.  I don't recall coming across that before.  I do know that every time they put out a regulation for comment that it says that comments have to go through chain of command.  If there is a way to shortcut that, I'd like to know it.

Standard miltary protocol.

YOU:  Major I got a beef with the NB  SQ/CC:  I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Lt Col I got a beef with the the NB   GP/CC:  I don't want to hear it!
YOU:  Col I got a beef with the NB  WG/CC" I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Col I got a beef with the NB  RG/CC: I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Gen I got a beef with the NB  NAT/CC: I don't want to hear it!
YOU:  Gen I got a beef with the NB  BoG/Chair: Well you are at the end of the line now!

Chain of command.

If you don't get satisfaction at the lowest level you may move up it.  How is it you don't know this?

[FW]

^Perfect, Patrick. Thank you! :clap:

[JeffDG]

Technically, we're free to go up the chain to the National Commander at any time. However, one must follow protocol.

I'd be interested in seeing where this process is laid out in the regs.  I don't recall coming across that before.  I do know that every time they put out a regulation for comment that it says that comments have to go through chain of command.  If there is a way to shortcut that, I'd like to know it.

Standard miltary protocol.

YOU:  Major I got a beef with the NB  SQ/CC:  I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Lt Col I got a beef with the the NB   GP/CC:  I don't want to hear it!
YOU:  Col I got a beef with the NB  WG/CC" I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Col I got a beef with the NB  RG/CC: I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Gen I got a beef with the NB  NAT/CC: I don't want to hear it!
YOU:  Gen I got a beef with the NB  BoG/Chair: Well you are at the end of the line now!

Chain of command.

If you don't get satisfaction at the lowest level you may move up it.  How is it you don't know this?

YOU:  Senator, I've got a beef...

[Al Sayre]

Technically, we're free to go up the chain to the National Commander at any time. However, one must follow protocol.

I'd be interested in seeing where this process is laid out in the regs.  I don't recall coming across that before.  I do know that every time they put out a regulation for comment that it says that comments have to go through chain of command.  If there is a way to shortcut that, I'd like to know it.

Standard miltary protocol.

YOU:  Major I got a beef with the NB  SQ/CC:  I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Lt Col I got a beef with the the NB   GP/CC:  I don't want to hear it!
YOU:  Col I got a beef with the NB  WG/CC" I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Col I got a beef with the NB  RG/CC: I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Gen I got a beef with the NB  NAT/CC: I don't want to hear it!
YOU:  Gen I got a beef with the NB  BoG/Chair: Well you are at the end of the line now!

Chain of command.

If you don't get satisfaction at the lowest level you may move up it.  How is it you don't know this?

YOU:  Senator, I've got a beef...

YOU (now a disgruntled former member): "Internet Blog World I'm a disgruntled former member and I've got a beef with CAP..." 

[Spaceman3750]

Technically, we're free to go up the chain to the National Commander at any time. However, one must follow protocol.

I'd be interested in seeing where this process is laid out in the regs.  I don't recall coming across that before.  I do know that every time they put out a regulation for comment that it says that comments have to go through chain of command.  If there is a way to shortcut that, I'd like to know it.

Standard miltary protocol.

YOU:  Major I got a beef with the NB  SQ/CC:  I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Lt Col I got a beef with the the NB   GP/CC:  I don't want to hear it!
YOU:  Col I got a beef with the NB  WG/CC" I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Col I got a beef with the NB  RG/CC: I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Gen I got a beef with the NB  NAT/CC: I don't want to hear it!
YOU:  Gen I got a beef with the NB  BoG/Chair: Well you are at the end of the line now!

Chain of command.

If you don't get satisfaction at the lowest level you may move up it.  How is it you don't know this?

Problem is that some CCs will interpret it like this:

YOU: Major I got a beef with the NB  SQ/CC: Nobody cares now go sit down.
End of chain.

[NIN]

YOU:  Senator, I've got a beef...

It was my experience (not me personally, but people I knew) that the "straight to my Congressman" routine, if you have a savvy Congressman, doesn't work that well.   They "get" that there is a chain of command, and if you didn't seek a remedy at the lowest level you could before going to them, they'd punt it back to the military (in my case, I was in the Army).  The only time I ever saw my battalion commander in AIT, apart from him being a picture on the wall and a name I had to remember,  was when he showed up to interview my roommate. Seems that he'd gotten a "Congressional" from above, and him, the Bn CSM, our company commander, the first shirt, and our platoon sergeant all appeared in the barracks on a Monday morning.  It was ugly, I ran for my life, I didn't want any part of that.

Same thing goes with CAP, Tom Harkin included: He knows the drill as a CAP member.  First question will be "has your chain of command been given the opportunity to address your issues?"  When the answer is "No" then you're more than likely going to hear "Well, come see me when that happens.."

[lordmonar]

Technically, we're free to go up the chain to the National Commander at any time. However, one must follow protocol.

I'd be interested in seeing where this process is laid out in the regs.  I don't recall coming across that before.  I do know that every time they put out a regulation for comment that it says that comments have to go through chain of command.  If there is a way to shortcut that, I'd like to know it.

Standard miltary protocol.

YOU:  Major I got a beef with the NB  SQ/CC:  I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Lt Col I got a beef with the the NB   GP/CC:  I don't want to hear it!
YOU:  Col I got a beef with the NB  WG/CC" I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Col I got a beef with the NB  RG/CC: I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Gen I got a beef with the NB  NAT/CC: I don't want to hear it!
YOU:  Gen I got a beef with the NB  BoG/Chair: Well you are at the end of the line now!

Chain of command.

If you don't get satisfaction at the lowest level you may move up it.  How is it you don't know this?

Problem is that some CCs will interpret it like this:

YOU: Major I got a beef with the NB  SQ/CC: Nobody cares now go sit down.
End of chain.

Well you know the cool thing is that it is not up to the SQ/CC to determine where the chain stops.  It is an illegal order to tell a subordinate he may not use his chain of command.

[NC Hokie]

Technically, we're free to go up the chain to the National Commander at any time. However, one must follow protocol.

I'd be interested in seeing where this process is laid out in the regs.  I don't recall coming across that before.  I do know that every time they put out a regulation for comment that it says that comments have to go through chain of command.  If there is a way to shortcut that, I'd like to know it.

Standard miltary protocol.

YOU:  Major I got a beef with the NB  SQ/CC:  I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Lt Col I got a beef with the the NB   GP/CC:  I don't want to hear it!
YOU:  Col I got a beef with the NB  WG/CC" I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Col I got a beef with the NB  RG/CC: I don't want to hear it!
YOU: Gen I got a beef with the NB  NAT/CC: I don't want to hear it!
YOU:  Gen I got a beef with the NB  BoG/Chair: Well you are at the end of the line now!

Chain of command.

If you don't get satisfaction at the lowest level you may move up it.  How is it you don't know this?

Problem is that some CCs will interpret it like this:

YOU: Major I got a beef with the NB  SQ/CC: Nobody cares now go sit down.
End of chain.

IMHO, I think that this is a more likely scenario...

YOU: Major I got a beef with the NB.  SQ/CC: Tell me about it.
TIME PASSES
YOU: Major, what did the higher-ups say?  SQ/CC: Oh, I forgot.
End of chain, as it's too late for your concern to be addressed now.

[Major Carrales]

YOU: Major I got a beef with the NB.  SQ/CC: Tell me about it.
TIME PASSES
YOU: Major, what did the higher-ups say?  SQ/CC: Oh, I forgot.
End of chain, as it's too late for your concern to be addressed now.

The "fail" in that is that it has no documentation.  Send an official letter or other correspondence, that way there is more than a "I told the commander after the meeting and he did nothing" scenario.

I have commanded a busy Composite Squadron and I can tell you that, at times, there were dozens of things to do at once.  Prioritizing became a reality and if it is between an aircraft maintenance issue, admin paperwork for an upcoming inspection, a cadet issue, an up coming SARex, Wing Policy mandates for the squadron, new member questions from the prospective member, Hurricane Deployment situation and someones idea about CAP National governance guess which things get the "front" and "back" burner. 

If you supplement a "memo" or other document...even a well written, professionally formatted  email...it means it can be addressed later.  Otherwise, it could get lost in the nexus of activities.

[NC Hokie]

YOU: Major I got a beef with the NB.  SQ/CC: Tell me about it.
TIME PASSES
YOU: Major, what did the higher-ups say?  SQ/CC: Oh, I forgot.
End of chain, as it's too late for your concern to be addressed now.

The "fail" in that is that it has no documentation.  Send an official letter or other correspondence, that way there is more than a "I told the commander after the meeting and he did nothing" scenario.

I have commanded a busy Composite Squadron and I can tell you that, at times, there were dozens of things to do at once.  Prioritizing became a reality and if it is between an aircraft maintenance issue, admin paperwork for an upcoming inspection, a cadet issue, an up coming SARex, Wing Policy mandates for the squadron, new member questions from the prospective member, Hurricane Deployment situation and someones idea about CAP National governance guess which things get the "front" and "back" burner. 

If you supplement a "memo" or other document...even a well written, professionally formatted  email...it means it can be addressed later.  Otherwise, it could get lost in the nexus of activities.

I agree with everything you say and did not mean to imply that SQ/CC's are indifferent, incompetent, or act in collusion to prevent concerns from being heard.  They're just busy, and busy people forget things sometimes.

That said, this is still a weak link in our chain that might be worth looking into.  After all, it's easy to forgive an honest mistake, but the effects don't always go away when the words "I'm sorry," are spoken.

[FW]

I agree with everything you say and did not mean to imply that SQ/CC's are indifferent, incompetent, or act in collusion to prevent concerns from being heard.  They're just busy, and busy people forget things sometimes.

That said, this is still a weak link in our chain that might be worth looking into.  After all, it's easy to forgive an honest mistake, but the effects don't always go away when the words "I'm sorry," are spoken.

This is especially true when concerning major issues affecting most, if not all of us.  No organization can be truly successful if it's members are not able to be heard.  It is why "the chain" exists. And, it is the reason information must flow in both directions.

[RiverAux]

Anyone who thinks that there would not be repercussions from a CAP member contacting the National Commander or anyone not their immediate superior (outside of IG type stuff) without the specific encouragement of that superior and everyone above them has not been around this organization very long. 

[FW]

Hence, the need for governance studies.......

[lordmonar]

Anyone who thinks that there would not be repercussions from a CAP member contacting the National Commander or anyone not their immediate superior (outside of IG type stuff) without the specific encouragement of that superior and everyone above them has not been around this organization very long.

That's why we have an IG system and MARB.

[RiverAux]

Anyone who thinks that there would not be repercussions from a CAP member contacting the National Commander or anyone not their immediate superior (outside of IG type stuff) without the specific encouragement of that superior and everyone above them has not been around this organization very long.

That's why we have an IG system and MARB.

Oh, the system that generally supports commander actions or fails to find that some form of retaliation has taken place? 

I'd rather see it written someplace that CAP members are encouraged to contact their leaders directly at any level with suggestions for changes to CAP.  Until then it will always be seen as an attempt to go around your commander and you do so at your own risk. 

I'm a very pro-CAP person but even I recognize that it doesn't take much to get yourself run out of CAP either officially or unofficially.

[FW]

I've never observed a membership termination, demotion in grade or suspension due to a member using the chain of command to speak with any member in a leadership position "above" him or her.

If, say, a member in a squadron had a beef about a NB decision.  That member would ask the squadron commander to speak to the wing commander about it.  If the squadron commander said, "are you nuts?"; the member could declare he would go to the group commander or, wing commander directly (depending on the wing).  The squadron commander has only 1 option.  He must let the member contact the wing commander to air his "beef".  The wing commander was the corporate officer who participated in the NB action.  There is no need to go above the wing commander for any NB action.  However, if the member continues, there will no other response that will be given because, the wing commander already gave it.  No disciplinary action will be taken for this exercise unless the member does something that breaks the regulations.  Asking questions, respectfully, never does that.
 
Now, what was that term defining the expectation of a different response for doing the same thing over and over again??

[James Shaw]

Now, what was that term defining the expectation of a different response for doing the same thing over and over again??

:clap: :clap:

[NIN]

I've never observed a membership termination, demotion in grade or suspension due to a member using the chain of command to speak with any member in a leadership position "above" him or her.

This has been my experience as well. 

I saw two types of actions surrounding use/misuse of the chain of command:

1) An individual has an issue/problem/grievance at the unit level, either with HHQ, or the unit.  He or she airs this with the squadron commander.  Squadron commander, if he/she is doing his/her job right, either addresses the issue to the member's satisfaction (at which point there is likely no need to exercise the chain of command) or the member is not satisfied and requests to air this issue/problem/grievance with group or wing.  The individual then addresses this with the group or wing commander, and the group or wing commander attempts to fix whatever it is.   And so on and so forth, up the chain.

2) An individual has an issue/problem/grievance, doesn't give the unit commander the opportunity to address it or potentially even _know_ about it,  goes to group/wing/region/national without the required stops at the intervening levels, and winds up pissing everybody off.  (note: this of course does not contravene the IG process which is available to members, especially when there is a legitimate issue with the chain of command)

Situation 1: Like Col Weiss, I've never seen that result in disciplinary action if the member was dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's. 
Situation 2: I've seen that result in disciplinary action more times than I care to count.

Member: "I don't like the policy that our squadron commander has put in place about uniform wear at meetings. I'm gonna call wing!"
Me: (when I was just a staff officer, arms crossed, bored) "Jumping the chain. Don't do it. "
Member: "I know my rights!"
Member: (unintelligible rantings to wing/region without talking to the squadron or group commander)
[bad things happen here]
Me: "Well, I saw that one coming"
Former member: "I guess I should have listened to you."

I was a squadron commander multiple times for a sum total of about 10 years in the hot seat (holy cow, really? Let me count that again.. Six months.. 2 years, 5 years, 2 years.. Yeah, pretty close.. wow).  My personal policy was always to handle issues at the lowest possible level first, and bump things forward via the command channel on the member's behalf.

Now, if the member had a beef with me, he's still got the IG process at his disposal.

My experience has also been that the people that tend to "go right to the top" are the ones who seem to froth at the mouth and can't put together a rational argument anyway.  They get all bent that they don't get "instant gratification" on their issue from the first person they talk to (who may, or may not, have the power to address that issue fully), and then they start ranting and raving to all who might listen.

Most successful "driving an issue up the chain" things I've ever seen were done professionally, in writing, with the necessary stops the intervening command levels.  Sadly, the art of the well-crafted administrative correspondence has been lost to the "I want info/feedback NOW" world of email.

[JeffDG]

Most successful "driving an issue up the chain" things I've ever seen were done professionally, in writing, with the necessary stops the intervening command levels.  Sadly, the art of the well-crafted administrative correspondence has been lost to the "I want info/feedback NOW" world of email.

Going straight to the top eliminates a critical feedback loop that comes from the chain-of-command.  You Squadron/CC will kick back feedback that helps you refine your argument for the Group/CC, and again for the Wing/CC.  Go straight to the Wing King, and you're going with your weakest argument with nobody having had a chance to find the weaknesses for you to fix.

[a2capt]

My experience has also been that the people that tend to "go right to the top" are the ones who seem to froth at the mouth and can't put together a rational argument anyway.  They get all bent that they don't get "instant gratification" on their issue from the first person they talk to (who may, or may not, have the power to address that issue fully), and then they start ranting and raving to all who might listen.

If this were a shooting contest, that would have been the whole grouping through one hole, in the center.

Right on. Plus, putting the actual time-sinking resource wasting issue aside, it's quite funny to watch that person just "go stupid" while doing it, making utter fools of themselves. Spouting and flailing along the way, claiming that "the whole unit" is out to get "them" or the person they are doing this on behalf of. (when it's usually a parent thats lied to by their 'perfect' kid who can't seem to understand that they are not special, the only one in the world with their problem, and that the program has generally worked well for 65 years, I'd say thats stood the sands of time well.