Training the Leaders of Cadets being required....

[Senior]

A little blurb from my Wing HQ stated that National HQ is going to
require cadet/composite sq. to have at least two TLC graduates.
Does this seem like overkill or just more rules to follow with diminishing returns?  I am thinking from a time spent away from family/more required training point of view also. 

[Eclipse]

I believe the word used is "should", not "will", which means it is a good idea but no regulatory ramifications
if no one is interested in doing it.

Properly done, the TLC is worth the time.

[jimmydeanno]

Why would requiring that a squadron that has cadets have highly-trained competent leadership be overkill?  In reality, I would argue that the majority of our cadet leaders don't really know what they're doing or why they do it.  We hear about squadrons that don't do the SDA program because they don't understand it, or do activities they shouldn't, etc.

When it comes down to it, the success of a cadet unit is dependent on the leadership there.  Certainly not a waste of time to ensure that every squadron with cadets have a few people with trained cadet programs staff.

[tsrup]

Why would requiring that a squadron that has cadets have highly-trained competent leadership be overkill?  In reality, I would argue that the majority of our cadet leaders don't really know what they're doing or why they do it.  We hear about squadrons that don't do the SDA program because they don't understand it, or do activities they shouldn't, etc.

When it comes down to it, the success of a cadet unit is dependent on the leadership there.  Certainly not a waste of time to ensure that every squadron with cadets have a few people with trained cadet programs staff.

Because in order for that to happen there needs to be a more aggressive training requirement for the Wings to conduct them.  AFIK there hasn't been a single TLC offered here in the last 2 years.  I guarantee you that as soon as there is one I will most certainly attend, but what would be the adverse action if the squadron didn't have the program?

Wanna make it mandatory?  Make it online.  That is the only way to make sure it gets done.

[SarDragon]

IMHO, TLC is one of those courses that derives great benefit from the "face time." An online course doesn't allow for the exchange of ideas and experience that is available in the classroom.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

IMHO, TLC is one of those courses that derives great benefit from the "face time." An online course doesn't allow for the exchange of ideas and experience that is available in the classroom.

What he said.

[tsrup]

IMHO, TLC is one of those courses that derives great benefit from the "face time." An online course doesn't allow for the exchange of ideas and experience that is available in the classroom.

Thats all great and everything, but if there is no classroom class offered, and it becomes mandatory, then less than ideal will have to suffice. 

In a perfect world It should be mandatory,   
but in this perfect world SLS, CLC, OBC, TLC courses are taught on a weekly basis no more than 30 minutes away from a person's home.


Otherwise there is nothing wrong with the way it's mandated now. 

[MIKE]

TLC is even better when Uncle Curt teaches it. 

[jimmydeanno]

Lets clarify.  Here's the sections being referred to in the "soon to be published" 52-16:

c. Standard of Training. Because no cadet unit can succeed without adult leadership, every cadet unit should have at least two graduates of the Training Leaders of Cadets course assigned (see paragraph 2-2a). If a unit does not meet this requirement, the commander must develop a plan for doing so.

So, it places the onus of providing training on the commander.  Training isn't a bad thing, is it?  Is it bad to have someone accountable for ensuring that it is provided?

a. Training Leaders of Cadets. The centerpiece of the Cadet Programs Officers' specialty track is the Training Leaders of Cadets (TLC) course. It prepares seniors to lead cadets at the squadron level. TLC is administered at the group level or higher and should be conducted at least once per year in each wing. The commander of the host echelon selects the course director, who should possess a master rating in the Cadet Programs Officer specialty track. To foster a learning environment that encourages open discussion among seniors, cadets are prohibited from participating in TLC. Students must complete 80% of the course to graduate. They receive credit for graduating when their course director submits a CAPF 11, Senior Member Professional Development Program Director's Report, to National Headquarters and their record is updated in eServices. For course materials, see capmembers.com/tlc.

So, it should be provided at least once per year, per wing.  That seems to be a "mandate" and places some accountability on the wings to provide the training.

It seems like you're just angry because your wing hasn't offered it.  The draft publication doesn't make some sort of unrealistic expectation or overwhelming training requirement.  What it does is ensure that our cadets have properly trained cadet leaders, which they deserve.

[tsrup]

Lets clarify.  Here's the sections being referred to in the "soon to be published" 52-16:

c. Standard of Training. Because no cadet unit can succeed without adult leadership, every cadet unit should have at least two graduates of the Training Leaders of Cadets course assigned (see paragraph 2-2a). If a unit does not meet this requirement, the commander must develop a plan for doing so.

So, it places the onus of providing training on the commander.  Training isn't a bad thing, is it?  Is it bad to have someone accountable for ensuring that it is provided?

a. Training Leaders of Cadets. The centerpiece of the Cadet Programs Officers' specialty track is the Training Leaders of Cadets (TLC) course. It prepares seniors to lead cadets at the squadron level. TLC is administered at the group level or higher and should be conducted at least once per year in each wing. The commander of the host echelon selects the course director, who should possess a master rating in the Cadet Programs Officer specialty track. To foster a learning environment that encourages open discussion among seniors, cadets are prohibited from participating in TLC. Students must complete 80% of the course to graduate. They receive credit for graduating when their course director submits a CAPF 11, Senior Member Professional Development Program Director's Report, to National Headquarters and their record is updated in eServices. For course materials, see capmembers.com/tlc.

So, it should be provided at least once per year, per wing.  That seems to be a "mandate" and places some accountability on the wings to provide the training.

It seems like you're just angry because your wing hasn't offered it.  The draft publication doesn't make some sort of unrealistic expectation or overwhelming training requirement.  What it does is ensure that our cadets have properly trained cadet leaders, which they deserve.

Wait does this even cover Composite squadrons?  Or just Cadet Units?
And 2 is the number no matter what the squadron's size is? 
from a squadron of 15 members to a squadron of 100+? 
That just doesn't make sense. 

Is it 2 active members or could we just keep 2 on the books? 
Do these two even have to be the people working with cadet programs within the squadron?
How would this be enforced? 
What is the grace period? 
What happens if the commander makes a "plan" to get it done and doesn't follow through? 

It seems like undue responsibility placed on the squadron commander, especially when it can just be a challenge in some areas to get members just to show up to weekly meetings.

I like the idea of this proposal, and It makes sense to want to have qualified people for the jobs they occupy, but an arbitrary "2 person" requirement and just the overall nature of a volunteer organization will make this hard to enforce.  Since it has no teeth, it will eventually just fall to the wayside and will be seldom kept up with.

Instead we should just give the people dedicated to making CP work the benefit of the doubt and hope that they attend a course because they just want to be the best that they do.

[SarDragon]

Since it says "cadet unit," in lower case, I would say all units having cadet members.

Having two graduates should be a minimum. They can pass on their knowledge to others. In a larger unit, more is better, but not necessary. They do need to be active members, for that reason. Otherwise, it's a waste of assets.

[lordmonar]

IMHO, TLC is one of those courses that derives great benefit from the "face time." An online course doesn't allow for the exchange of ideas and experience that is available in the classroom.

Thats all great and everything, but if there is no classroom class offered, and it becomes mandatory, then less than ideal will have to suffice. 

In a perfect world It should be mandatory,   
but in this perfect world SLS, CLC, OBC, TLC courses are taught on a weekly basis no more than 30 minutes away from a person's home.


Otherwise there is nothing wrong with the way it's mandated now.

The "requirment" is being driven by the proposed Quality Unit program.

When your cadet/composite squadrons decide that they would like to in fact earn the quality Unit award....then they are going to start pinging Wing to put on a TLC.

Just like SLS and CLC the demand will drive the frequency of the course.  CAWG/TXWG/FLWG could have one each quarter and still not meet up with demand.  NVWG could have one every two years and never fill the seats.

Having said that.....we hold them 2-3 times a year and do a lot of agressive recruiting to fill the seats.

If you want one......ask your Wing CP guy to help get it started......get all your seniors into the class and then you are golden.

[BillB]

In my opinion, the Squadron Commanders of Composite or Cadet Squadrons should be TLC graduates. To often I see Squadrons where the Commanders have no knowledge of CP, rather they leave the running of the cadet part of a unit up to the Dep. Commander for Cadets. Having at least two senior members that are TLC graduates is an absolute minimum for any Squadron that has cadet members. Obviously the two members should be the DCC and the CC

[lordmonar]

While I think it is a good idea for the DCC and CC to both be TLC graduates......I don't see a requirement for the CC to be a TLC graduate in a composite squaron.  The whole concept of the composite squadron is that they do a large specturm of operations.  The CC should be familure with what the CP is all about....but we have DCCs for the express purpose of manageing the CP.

The CC should be running the squadron...i.e managing the people running the various operations.  UCC is a must for them but they don't have to skilled in each and every aspect of all the operations that the squadron does.

Heck if we wanted to go there then the CC would also have to be an MLO, ES, AE, personnel, Adminstration, logistics, PAO, et al.

Each squadron should have enough TLC graduates to manage the Cadet Program....at a minimum two and leave it at that.

[EMT-83]

I think the wording of the proposed regulation is spot on. It states the desired goal of having TLC, without making it mandatory. The commander has to come up with a plan for people to attend TLC.

If that plan is for members to attend TLC if and when it is presented at a reasonable distance from the squadron, you've complied with the regulation.

[jeders]

Just like SLS and CLC the demand will drive the frequency of the course.  CAWG/TXWG/FLWG could have one each quarter and still not meet up with demand. 

Now if only TXWG would hold one once...period. I haven't seen a TLC on the calendar for quite some time, so I started pinging the Wing PDO. Now there's going to be a TLC at the Wing Conference next year. Is the wing holding a TLC because of me, probably not. Am I going to be at the next Wing Conference, you betcha.

But to get back to the original question, having TLC grads in the squadron is definitely not overkill. Right now I'm the assistant DCC and I have 10 years in CAP, half of which was as a cadet. The DCC, because I had to step way back for awhile after I stepped down as CC, has less than a year in CAP and 0 prior cadeting experience. He's learning, but having him go through a TLC would be great for him and the squadron.

[Offutteer]

Now if only TXWG would hold one once...period.

Texas Wing holds two TLCs a year and has for over 5 years now.  Also, national held one in San Antonio last year which was in addition to the ones that the Texas Cadet Programs hosts.  The last one was held at Camp Mabry, 24-26 Sept. 

[jeders]

Now if only TXWG would hold one once...period.

Texas Wing holds two TLCs a year and has for over 5 years now.  Also, national held one in San Antonio last year which was in addition to the ones that the Texas Cadet Programs hosts.  The last one was held at Camp Mabry, 24-26 Sept.

Well then they sure do a terrible job of advertising it (which isn't a big surprise), because I and a whole bunch of others out here in Group 1 have been waiting.

[Eclipse]

FYI - TLC is really supposed to be held at the Group level if your wing has them.

[jimmydeanno]

It seems like undue responsibility placed on the squadron commander

If responsibility of success doesn't lie in the hands of the commander, who does it lie with?  We can make excuses about why we can't do things all day long, or that "we're only volunteers," but in the end, every single one of our members volunteered to do the job they're doing.  As a leader, I expect those people to continue doing that job they volunteered to do until they "un-volunteer" themselves.

If a squadron commander doesn't see it in their scope of responsibility to work with the wing/group to hold training classes for their people, that is something that needs to be fixed.  If all we are doing is looking for the regulation loopholes to figure out if we really don't have to hold these because they say "should" and "may" I think it is a poor attitude to take.

The way things "should" be to me says it is the way things are intended to be.  Why we wouldn't want things to be the way they are intended to be?

Our cadets deserve a good leaders.  Those leaders deserve good training.  Someone needs to be responsible for ensuring that the leaders get training.  Those people are the commanders.  If a squadron commander doesn't think it's within their purview to put some pressure on their commanders to ensure training is held, they need to re-evaluate what their position actually is.

Commanders need to lead.  Commanders also need to be held accountable for the success of their units. 

[Eclipse]

It seems like undue responsibility placed on the squadron commander

If responsibility of success doesn't lie in the hands of the commander, who does it lie with?  We can make excuses about why we can't do things all day long, or that "we're only volunteers," but in the end, every single one of our members volunteered to do the job they're doing.  As a leader, I expect those people to continue doing that job they volunteered to do until they "un-volunteer" themselves.

If a squadron commander doesn't see it in their scope of responsibility to work with the wing/group to hold training classes for their people, that is something that needs to be fixed.  If all we are doing is looking for the regulation loopholes to figure out if we really don't have to hold these because they say "should" and "may" I think it is a poor attitude to take.

The way things "should" be to me says it is the way things are intended to be.  Why we wouldn't want things to be the way they are intended to be?

Our cadets deserve a good leaders.  Those leaders deserve good training.  Someone needs to be responsible for ensuring that the leaders get training.  Those people are the commanders.  If a squadron commander doesn't think it's within their purview to put some pressure on their commanders to ensure training is held, they need to re-evaluate what their position actually is.

Commanders need to lead.  Commanders also need to be held accountable for the success of their units.

Durn Tootin'!

We have a choice - we can be a hybrid neighborhood CERT Team and Rec Center, or we can aspire to something higher for
both ourselves and our membership.  Being a "professionalized" volunteer force requires training and effort.

Read this carefully...

If you believe the total effort required to execute the mission, and achieve goals, of CAP begins and ends with a 2-hour weekly meeting, you don't understand CAP.

Unbunch your shorts.

That doesn't mean that those who can only give that much time are not providing a valuable service to CAP and their country, they are.  But it does mean that they are a smaller part of the framework, and those who have accepted the mantle of command or related leadership positions need to understand that the commitment goes well beyond those weekly meetings, and Professional Development for these leaders should not be considered optional, because in fact it is critical to the fundamental understanding of how CAP works, and your piece in the puzzle.

[tsrup]

It seems like undue responsibility placed on the squadron commander

If responsibility of success doesn't lie in the hands of the commander, who does it lie with?  We can make excuses about why we can't do things all day long, or that "we're only volunteers," but in the end, every single one of our members volunteered to do the job they're doing.  As a leader, I expect those people to continue doing that job they volunteered to do until they "un-volunteer" themselves.

If a squadron commander doesn't see it in their scope of responsibility to work with the wing/group to hold training classes for their people, that is something that needs to be fixed.  If all we are doing is looking for the regulation loopholes to figure out if we really don't have to hold these because they say "should" and "may" I think it is a poor attitude to take.

The way things "should" be to me says it is the way things are intended to be.  Why we wouldn't want things to be the way they are intended to be?

Our cadets deserve a good leaders.  Those leaders deserve good training.  Someone needs to be responsible for ensuring that the leaders get training.  Those people are the commanders.  If a squadron commander doesn't think it's within their purview to put some pressure on their commanders to ensure training is held, they need to re-evaluate what their position actually is.

Commanders need to lead.  Commanders also need to be held accountable for the success of their units.

Durn Tootin'!

We have a choice - we can be a hybrid neighborhood CERT Team and Rec Center, or we can aspire to something higher for
both ourselves and our membership.  Being a "professionalized" volunteer force requires training and effort.

Read this carefully...

If you believe the total effort required to execute the mission, and achieve goals, of CAP begins and ends with a 2-hour weekly meeting, you don't understand CAP.

Unbunch your shorts.

That doesn't mean that those who can only give that much time are not providing a valuable service to CAP and their country, they are.  But it does mean that they are a smaller part of the framework, and those who have accepted the mantle of command or related leadership positions need to understand that the commitment goes well beyond those weekly meetings, and Professional Development for these leaders should not be considered optional, because in fact it is critical to the fundamental understanding of how CAP works, and your piece in the puzzle.

I have no qualms with the above statement, and my Squadron CC and I have no illusions about the effort needed to keep a squadron running outside of the weekly meeting.

What I am saying is that making the Squadron CC responsible when the Wing is what's responsible for the scheduling and conducting of a TLC is wrong.  We can tell wing that we want the class, but our squadron alone does not have enough active seniors to justify the cost of carrying out a course by ourselves. 

The current method of offering recognition for units that do meet this goal is the best (in my eyes) and believe me, achieving the quality unit award is something I as a DCC have at the top of my list for achieving. 
The carrot method seems to be the best course of action with this as opposed to the possibility of hurting the squadron.

[Senior]

If we are pursuing quality awards then it becomes a new program every quarter with buzzwords to match.  I see this "stuff" in the corporate world on a daily basis.  It becomes the goal to check all
the boxes for success, but do you really get a better product?  Sometimes you do and sometimes you don't, but always have more
paperwork or another seminar to attend. 
So, I agree totally that the cadets need quality leadership.  What does SLS and CLC do?  I also agree that the squadron commander
has the ultimate responsibility for the success of the unit.  If the cadets are not being abused, given some opportunity to grow and advance and help in the community then they are doing well.

[Eclipse]

What does SLS and CLC do?

If you are asking that question out loud, you either haven't completed them, haven't completed the new curriculum, or slept through the classes.  Executed correctly they are very valuable in teaching members what CAP is all about and their responsibilities as members, staff, and leaders.

My personal experience has been that it is "coincidently" the same members who are constantly complaining about procedures, administrivia, and regulations, who are also the least informed about the program, disdain PD as a waste of time, and are generally
just fine with others doing all the heavy-lifting of the program while they just "play" all the time in whatever their "thing" is.

If the cadets are not being abused, given some opportunity to grow and advance and help in the community then they are doing well.

That is the rec center mentality which causes a lot of issues in the program.   We're supposed to be a lot more than that.

[Eclipse]

What I am saying is that making the Squadron CC responsible when the Wing is what's responsible for the scheduling and conducting of a TLC is wrong.  We can tell wing that we want the class, but our squadron alone does not have enough active seniors to justify the cost of carrying out a course by ourselves. 

That is the problem, though - these classes are not the "wing's responsibility" - who, exactly is "the wing", anyway?  This idea that
"the wing" should be doing more, whatever "more" is, becomes self-defeating.  Most wing staffs are half members from local squadrons doing ADY.

The wing is not an operational entity, nor is the group, they are headquarters components that are supposed to be insuring that the units, where everything happens, have the resources to perform their mission, and audit that execution for compliance with regulations and command perogative, not...turn...the...wrench...   The "wing" needs to make sure the classes are happening, but that doesn't mean wing staffers have to be the ones running them.  In fact there is no specific certification or requirement to run a TLC, you don't even have to have attended one yourself (beyond the common sense that you should have), since the curriculum is primarily student-centric discussion, not lecture.

Need a TLC? Set the date, request permission, and send the emails.  Directly coordinate with the two nearest squadrons and you will
have "enough" seniors, and if you hit your wing's all list you'll have more than you can handle.

[jimmydeanno]

Blasphemy

[EMT-83]

Our squadron did SLS and TLC in-house this year. Both were outstanding courses, and both were filled with members from near and far.

[Bluelakes 13]

I'd like to ditto everything Bob has said.  In GLR we have 4-5 TLC a year, if not more (I know, I teach many of them!) 

TLC should not be a Powerpoint download, you can read the slides yourself.  It should be a  get-together with your peers where you discuss what each and every unit is doing successfully and the challenges they are having.  The host/instructor basically starts the conversation for each session and then lets the fun begin.  I often don't have enough time in each session for all the discussions.

You would be amazed how many CP folks don't know what AEX is, what activities they can run over the weekend, or don't have a structured schedule.  Talking about their challenges in an open and fun environment with people that have done these things successfully is what TLC should be abaout!

[tsrup]

  In fact there is no specific certification or requirement to run a TLC, you don't even have to have attended one yourself (beyond the common sense that you should have), since the curriculum is primarily student-centric discussion, not lecture.

So if you don't have to have had attended one of these courses in order to conduct one, then why is there so much heartburn to offer it online?

[Eclipse]

  In fact there is no specific certification or requirement to run a TLC, you don't even have to have attended one yourself (beyond the common sense that you should have), since the curriculum is primarily student-centric discussion, not lecture.

So if you don't have to have had attended one of these courses in order to conduct one, then why is there so much heartburn to offer it online?

Because the majority of the purpose is the discussion between members of all experience levels on their best-practices and challenges.

[Bluelakes 13]

Because the majority of the purpose is the discussion between members of all experience levels on their best-practices and challenges.

He beat me too it!

[Senior]

In reality the rec center approach is all some seniors and cadets have the time and money to put into the program. 
I didn't sleep through SLS.  I haven't been to CLC.  I do remember
teaching the other Senior members in the SLS I attended about how
to lead cadets, how to use them in the squadron, etc.  Best practices
and new ideas for CP could be on a blog, OH WAIT A MINUTE.......
"Coincidentally" Eclipse has summarized everything pretty well.

[Eclipse]

In reality the rec center approach is all some seniors and cadets have the time and money to put into the program. 

What is the point here?  That if you only have the time to do it "wrong", then that is OK?

We have units all over the country with cadets who don't progress and/or are just dropped off by parents who barely slow down
enough for them to get out of the car and have no idea what CAP is about.  The seniors are not properly trained, or are running
on fumes mixed with "that's how we always did it..."

"better than nothing" is an excuse not a mission statement.   

[tsrup]

  In fact there is no specific certification or requirement to run a TLC, you don't even have to have attended one yourself (beyond the common sense that you should have), since the curriculum is primarily student-centric discussion, not lecture.

So if you don't have to have had attended one of these courses in order to conduct one, then why is there so much heartburn to offer it online?

Because the majority of the purpose is the discussion between members of all experience levels on their best-practices and challenges.

And isn't that what we're doing here?.... online?

 

[Eclipse]

  In fact there is no specific certification or requirement to run a TLC, you don't even have to have attended one yourself (beyond the common sense that you should have), since the curriculum is primarily student-centric discussion, not lecture.

So if you don't have to have had attended one of these courses in order to conduct one, then why is there so much heartburn to offer it online?

Because the majority of the purpose is the discussion between members of all experience levels on their best-practices and challenges.

And isn't that what we're doing here?.... online?

One of the points of TLC, and one of the reasons it is a Group-level activity is to get members of nearby units working together.
Discussion forums have their place, but the dynamic online is not the same as in-face discussions.

CAP is not a correspondence course.

[tsrup]

  In fact there is no specific certification or requirement to run a TLC, you don't even have to have attended one yourself (beyond the common sense that you should have), since the curriculum is primarily student-centric discussion, not lecture.

So if you don't have to have had attended one of these courses in order to conduct one, then why is there so much heartburn to offer it online?

Because the majority of the purpose is the discussion between members of all experience levels on their best-practices and challenges.

And isn't that what we're doing here?.... online?

One of the points of TLC, and one of the reasons it is a Group-level activity is to get members of nearby units working together.
Discussion forums have their place, but the dynamic online is not the same as in-face discussions.

CAP is not a correspondence course.

No it's not, its a national organization which means that its membership faces challenges that are as diverse as the geography that it covers. 

some things that work for some places, don't work everywhere.  Obviously the logistics of getting members from one side of the state to the other are very different in Vermont as opposed to here.  Groups are the solution that most large states use, but frankly, ours doesn't have the membership base to justify it.  Most squadrons here are run by 2 or 3 dedicated members who wear multiple hats putting in long hours each week just to keep it going accomplishing all 3 missions.  We do what we can, but the fact is, as unpaid volunteers we have to say no to some things in the interest of feeding ourselves. 
If CAP were paid, putting in 40 hours a week would be no sweat.  But balancing it on a full time job, or school, or whatever can be difficult. 

Obviously there is value gained by face to face training when led by a qualified instructor, but sometimes in the interest of getting the training out some concessions have to be made. 

So tell me my OBC doesn't count because I did it online, but I'll tell you that I'm doing better than others here who just cant afford the 6-7 hours it takes to drive across state. 

[Senior]

Eclipse you used the term "rec center".  I am saying, like tsrup
that some of us don't have the time or energy or money to go to
another class or seminar.
I don't think any dedicated Senior member who is trying to do the best they can with limited resources is  "doing it wrong".  I stated that the cadets that are advancing and helping in the community are doing pretty good.  I for one think that CAP is a great place for cadets with parents who want to dump them off, at least they have a sense of belonging, increasing in knowledge and helping the community.
You don't need a seminar to understand that "positive" concept. 

[Eclipse]

Obviously there is value gained by face to face training when led by a qualified instructor, but sometimes in the interest of getting the training out some concessions have to be made. 

So tell me my OBC doesn't count because I did it online, but I'll tell you that I'm doing better than others here who just cant afford the 6-7 hours it takes to drive across state.

Missing the point entirely - the OBC is a personal academic exercise intended to provide specific facts about CAP and officership to one person, and frankly lost whatever "cred" it might have been intended to have when they rolled it out open-book and allowed members to challenge the tests directly without even pretending to click the slides.  It can be knocked down in a couple of hours.

But you're comparing apples and oranges because TLC and OBC are so different as to not even be compared in the same paragraph.  One is intended to be single-user, one is designed and intended to be a collaborative environment to provide information and energy to
leaders and staff working with cadets.

All the excuses about time, distance, logistics, your TIVO queue being full, etc., hold no weight here.  Either you can do it or you can't, if you can't, fine, but don't discount or try to water it down for those who can and will.

Creative people always find the time and resources to do what they want to do, and creative arguments for what they don't want to do.

[tsrup]

All the excuses about time, distance, logistics, your TIVO queue being full, etc., hold no weight here.  Either you can do it or you can't, if you can't, fine, but don't discount or try to water it down for those who can and will.

I'm not trying do discount the value of the course, just the idea that it should be mandatory or the idea that just because someone hasn't taken a specific course that they aren't dedicated. 

[Eclipse]

All the excuses about time, distance, logistics, your TIVO queue being full, etc., hold no weight here.  Either you can do it or you can't, if you can't, fine, but don't discount or try to water it down for those who can and will.

I'm not trying do discount the value of the course, just the idea that it should be mandatory or the idea that just because someone hasn't taken a specific course that they aren't dedicated.

It isn't mandatory, and no one is saying lack of it says anything about dedication.

[tsrup]

All the excuses about time, distance, logistics, your TIVO queue being full, etc., hold no weight here.  Either you can do it or you can't, if you can't, fine, but don't discount or try to water it down for those who can and will.

I'm not trying do discount the value of the course, just the idea that it should be mandatory or the idea that just because someone hasn't taken a specific course that they aren't dedicated.

It isn't mandatory, and no one is saying lack of it says anything about dedication.

And with that I refer to the second post of the topic.

I believe the word used is "should", not "will", which means it is a good idea but no regulatory ramifications
if no one is interested in doing it.

Properly done, the TLC is worth the time.

of which I am in agreement with. 

It only took to pages to get back to the second post of the topic, but hey, whats captalk for.

to the interested parties I have already just emailed my wing CPO about possibly getting one rolling here.  Figure if I do the requesting I can at least keep it on our side of the state.