Revoking Squadron Charters

[Hobbsh1]

Hmmm, yet only one Wing in the country has felt the need to threaten squadron deactivation for the failure of the squadron commander on this issue.  Seems to me that if the PA Wing commander is so poor a leader that this is the only way they can get compliance, then they need to be relieved right now.   Heck, I think he/she needs to be relieved for even suggesting such an (insert curseword combined with negative adjetive here) move. 

Well, from what I understand, this was the only Wing that was shut down in the last year for failing to do the required paperwork regarding Safety.  Poor leader or bad leader really makes no difference in this situation.  There were plenty of emails sent out about what Safety items were required to be done and when they were required to be done.  It was NOT a SECRET.  I would not be surprised if you asked any member in any unit who was shut down for safety reasons and the response be the PA Wing.

When we were put on probation last year, it was drummed into our heads that safety must be in the forfront of all we do, both CAP and personal.  There is no reason that anyone should not have known that this was needed.  Everyone from SM Bag"o"donuts to Col Patriotic, new member to 100yr member, with all cadets mixed into the middle should have been reminding the Commander and Safety Officer about safety (yes I know that sounds asinine).  The only thing that I have not been able to find.....YET.... in the regs is the requirement for the safety policy letter, but that's because I have not looked hard enough yet.  The requirements for the monthly safety training is located in CAPR62-1, as is the requirement for doing the online safety survey.

[RiverAux]

But the Bag o donuts guy can't do one single thing to make his commander turn in the paperwork so why should he be punished? 

Apparently, these particular requirements were never posted on PA Wing's web page (according to the webmaster), so I wouldn't be so sure that this was very widely known.  And even if they were, most CAP members are not going to be going up to their Squadron Commander and asking them whether they turned in all of the dozens of reports and other documents required by CAP.  When was the last time you asked your commander if they turned in the monthly vehicle report form? 

[Hobbsh1]

But the Bag o donuts guy can't do one single thing to make his commander turn in the paperwork so why should he be punished? 

Apparently, these particular requirements were never posted on PA Wing's web page (according to the webmaster), so I wouldn't be so sure that this was very widely known.  And even if they were, most CAP members are not going to be going up to their Squadron Commander and asking them whether they turned in all of the dozens of reports and other documents required by CAP.  When was the last time you asked your commander if they turned in the monthly vehicle report form? 

The only way that I see the average member being "punished" is that they may have to travel a little further to attend meetings, yeah I guess that's punishment.  The newer folks will be punished more for their timing of joining, but the other members, Commander and Safety Officer still should have given them the same head cramming of safety.  I have a member in my unit that was a little upset because something was cancelled due to inclement weather, but he still has to understand the safety aspect of what is going on in our Wing.  This situation has nothing to with AE reports, monthly vehicle reports, finacial statements, this is strictly Safety and only 3 items, 2 of which are in the regs.

Well fiddle, I guess the more I discuss and think about this, I guess the charter revocation is a bit steep but it is the Wing Commander's discretion when it comes to being in compliance and if it is his decision to take these steps.... well I don't know.

If any of those unit revocations happen close to our squadron, they are more than welcome to attend our unit meetings.

[Short Field]

It still comes down to the squadron leadership - and it has failled.  Fire the Safety Officer, the Commander, and the Deputy Commander.  Give their replacement's a month to show progress.  If it isn't there, then revoke the charter.   

I have seen very little that the "Bag o donuts guy" can do to make his squadron commander do anything.  Squadron Commander's serve at the pleasure of the Wing Commander - not the membership.

[tarheel gumby]

This comes down to some commanders not doing their jobs..... but All members should have the mindset that safety is the 1st and most aspect in everything that we do. While I agree that the PAWG action might be seen as adverse, it is more than likely necessary. As to wether or not it is punishment for rank and file members they should hold their higher ups feet to the fire and demand accountability from them. Just my opinion

Every squadron/ unit should have a sign at the door that says every body is a safety officer..... meaning that safety is everybodys job.

[RiverAux]

As to wether or not it is punishment for rank and file members they should hold their higher ups feet to the fire and demand accountability from them.

How?  There is absolutely no mechanism for individual CAP members to hold anyone accountable.  Remember, this isn't a democracy.  Members are only members at the whim of their superiors, not the other way around.

Every squadron/ unit should have a sign at the door that says every body is a safety officer..... meaning that safety is everybodys job.

A nice platitude, but Joe Average senior member can't submit his units safety meeting schedule or fill out the annual safety survey. 

[IceNine]

I hate to say it but I think River is right on this one.

The 2 units that I've had the displeasure of shutting down it was not an easy mental process.  I asked myself a few questions.

1) Does the commander deserve to be removed or can we fix the problems?
2) Is there someone who can and will replace the commander?
3) Is there ANY other option?

If the answer to all those was no THEN and only then would I deactivate the unit.

In this particular situation I would fire and demote the commander, demote the safety officer, and work on rebuilding.

Deactivating a unit should ALWAYS be the absolute last end of the line decision.

I'll admit it is much easier to deactivate a unit than it is to provide the manpower to rebuild it but at the end of the day if we deactivate units we are displacing members, and the reality of that as I know all to well is that you will lose probably 60+% of members that were previously in these units.

While pulling the trigger on your threats can be a valuable tool it is much better to start low and work your way up to threats like deactivation.

[tarheel gumby]

As to wether or not it is punishment for rank and file members they should hold their higher ups feet to the fire and demand accountability from them.

How?  There is absolutely no mechanism for individual CAP members to hold anyone accountable.  Remember, this isn't a democracy.  Members are only members at the whim of their superiors, not the other way around.

River I have to disagree with you on that one there is an IG complaint process, and safety is a very serious issue and would be an appropriate ave to follow if the commanders are not doing their jobs.

[RiverAux]

As to wether or not it is punishment for rank and file members they should hold their higher ups feet to the fire and demand accountability from them.

How?  There is absolutely no mechanism for individual CAP members to hold anyone accountable.  Remember, this isn't a democracy.  Members are only members at the whim of their superiors, not the other way around.

River I have to disagree with you on that one there is an IG complaint process, and safety is a very serious issue and would be an appropriate ave to follow if the commanders are not doing their jobs.

So, just how am I, a regular old member, supposed to know when my squadron commander is delinquent in sending in reports required of the squadron?  Unless the Wing Commander sends an email blast to the entire unit specifically saying that my squadron is not in compliance, how am I to know?  And, if the Wing would rather deactivate an entire squadron rather than punish a single member not doing their job (the squadron commander), just how far is an IG complaint going to go?  Heck, my squadron would have just been deactivated, so I'm supposed to file a complaint against a guy who isn't the commander anymore because the unit is gone?

[tarheel gumby]

Sorry, I was comming from the premise that most if not all squadrons have senior staff meetings where the business with the group and wing gets discussed and dealt with. I am just one of those pains in the butt that asks allot of questions

[Alpha]

 I totally disagree with River Aux on this one..

All this second guessing the Wing Commanders decision and alternate suggestions of how you would have handled the situation doesn't get the mission accomplished.

Col. Lee 's plan as painful as it is, brings the entire wing into 100% compliance on Feb 1.

All your suggestions ...fire the commanders, fire the safety officers, require 30 days to complete...etc...etc...still put PA Wing into non compliance on Feb 1 and there by subject to having violated probation and ,SHUT DOWN! 

Only Col Lee's plan assures the Wing is 100% compliant on February 1st.  That is what national mandated and that is what he is going to do.
To me that shows superior leadership.

That is exactly what leadership is all about. Making the tough decisions to get the job done.

He is looking at the big picture. Wing and the Groups have repetedly sent reminders and lists of required reports. There has been 10 months since the shut down and EVERYONE knows why we were shut down...sfety paperwork.

All the talk of firing commanders and safety officers may be right to do, but after the charter is suspendid. They are not in hot water until the end of January. I would bet there will be 100% compliance by then....which is all the Wing wants.

[RiverAux]

I keep going back to the fact that no other wing in the country is making such a threat to get this job done.  Hard to argue that the PA action is therefore not extremely out of the mainstream.

[Major Carrales]

WOW, World Peace through Mutually Assured Destruction...what a concept that would have been.

[Alpha]

I keep going back to the fact that no other wing in the country is making such a threat to get this job done.  Hard to argue that the PA action is therefore not extremely out of the mainstream.

No other Wing in the country has been totally shut down for lack of 100% paperwork either....now that is harsh!

Drastic times call for drastic measures.

[Hobbsh1]

OK, hopefully I can end this topic here and now.
1. I have come to agree with RiverAux about it being a harsh punishment.
2. I agree that it pretty much is going to punish SM Bag"o"donuts.
3. I still have NOT heard of any other Wing that has been shut down COMPLETELY due to lack of paperwork on safety.... mind you it was also a little bit more than just paperwork, e.g.  taillight out on a van, fire extinguisher not in the van but at the unit location (and it was the van's extinguisher, not the building) (/heresay) a sock stuffed in the vent of an aircraft to stop cold air from coming in (/endheresay).  It all added up for the shut down.... it was basically called COMPLACENCY!!!

But I would be willing to bet a CAP paycheck  (I'm talking some big CAP bucks here now )  that come Feb 1 there will be NO PAWING CAP unit charter revocation due to the fact that what is required to be completed will be completed.

To RiverAux specifically, I have to admit that you did make me think twice about my original reply to Timbo..... Good on ya.

[lordmonar]

Y'all need to just let the PAWG CC run his wing.

How many times have we lamented that no one in CAP is willing to hold their subordinated accountable.

Well here we have leadership in action.  Group accountablity.  We are not only holding the commanders accountable but now we are holding Average Joe accountable to get Joe Bagodoenuts off his forth point of contact.

Good job PAWG.....go get them!

[Nathan]

Really? Really?

We're really going to hold cadets and average joe SM's responsible for the duties of the Squadron CC? If so, then I deserve a BIG promotion, because if I could handle that job already, then I'm WAY below where I should be.

Honestly folks, achieving 100% compliance at the cost of tens, hundreds of members? Maybe some members will survive the shut-down and be able to transfer to other squadrons (or wings, mind you), but if you even lost ONE cadet airman to this, would it really be worth it? Do you really want to buck on the fact that the extra twenty, thirty, sixty minutes of travel time isn't really going to affect a cadet or cadet's parents, so long as the cadet REALLY wants to go? You really think that it's unlikely having to move to a different meeting night, a different squadron with different goals, with different people, is going to matter to the truly dedicated?

Really?

Don't forget what kind of role CAP plays in people's lives. We DO matter, we DO have a purpose, and shutting down a unit for the failure of one individual is a pithy scare-tactic designed to satisfy some bureaucratic necessity that, to be honest, doesn't affect most people in CAP. I'm a C/Col, and I've been around the program on both the cadet and senior side enough to consider myself quite knowledgeable, and I'm not particularly savvy on most safety requirements for a unit. That's stuff the C/CC and the Safety Officer need to know, not me. That's not my job in the unit. Do you have any idea how many emails I get that I don't even bother skimming? "The vehicle XXXXX's tires aren't properly inflated, so no missions." Right. I don't care.

Not only that, but the potential loss to CAP membership can be quite substantial. It's like a random 2bing of any member of the affected units. Is PAWG really going to risk losing so many members who can't make the adjustment, assuming that there is an adjustment to make? What if the squadron that a member WOULD transfer to ALSO gets shut down? That member is out of luck?

The entire thing is ridiculous. All I'm seeing is Wing leadership willing to sacrifice possibly hundreds of members in the wing in order to make themselves look better than they are. They screwed up, so they need to take responsibility for it and move on, not wipe out their own wing. The plan to make the wing safety compliant should NOT outweigh the overall objective of recruiting members, keeping members, and taking care of their members. If the member of PAWG can't trust their leadership to, you know, not shut down their squadron when a single member of it screws up, then where is the trust that any leadership requires?

Amputating an infected arm isn't fixing the problem, it's just eliminating it and leaving the victim sorely disabled...

YMMV

[lordmonar]

Strange that we have general call for house cleaning and adherence to regs and following orders....but when we have a lead who puts a little teething into that....we get a lot of teeth gnashing and knuckle biting.

Amputation of a diseased arm is sometimes the only way to save the victim.  It is not pretty and it is not the first course of treatment, but it is sometimes needed.

If they pull the charters of squadrons who fail to comply...then new squadrons can be formed at the same location.  Transfers of personnel are not automatic.

Again...this is the nuclear option....but let the guy in the driver's seat call the shots.  Armchair quarterbacking on the internet does not get the safety paperwork done.

[arajca]

I'll make a prediction - ONE unit gets revoked. 6 hours later, all other units are in 100% full compliance.

IMHO, most unit commanders think like many of us do here - threats will not be carried out due to the potential loss of members, so why bother complying. When the PAWG/CC follows through, they'll realize he IS SERIOUS and compliance will come quickly.

[RiverAux]

My last word on the matter is that were this to happen to my unit, I would probably not return to CAP.  Hold ME accountable for MY actions and I'm fine with that.  Hold me accountable for the failures of my subordinates.  But, don't hold me accountable for the failures of my superiors.