Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 24, 2017, 08:07:53 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Cadet Programs  |  Encampments & NCSAs  |  Topic: Unit Encampment Report?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2]  All Print
Author Topic: Unit Encampment Report?  (Read 1244 times)
Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 560
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #20 on: November 09, 2016, 12:19:37 AM »

And where do the local cadets get their chance?  I am just going to have to assume you haven't
had to deal with the "road show".

In >all< cases where there's a tie, the local cadet should always get precedence, and when there
is a question, local development should trump "best".

Any idea that CAP is a "national program" in this respect, denies or ignores the fact that most cadets get a single
shot at a respective staff position because of their own timing / age issues, and any time a cadet from another wing
is given an out of state job, that's a local cadet who lost out, and may never have another chance.

CAP is decidedly local and unlike the military or other similar situations, cadre cadets aren't expected to come in the door
fully baked and autonomous, the seniors are there to insure things run properly, catch them when they fall, and
guide them when they struggle.

Encampment CC's who bring in a bunch of road show ringers so things go "perfect" are missing the point entirely.

You have, as you commonly do when it suits you, assumed incorrectly. But, you know what they say about people who assume. On second thought, I think your assumptions are in conflict with such knowledge. Further, lest I fall into the "assume trap" myself, I'll simply encourage you to delve into it further and refrain from further engagement in same.

And, as you also commonly do when it suits you, you are replying to my comments by taking them out of context and are offering a response based on your erroneous contextual interpretation. Note carefully, if you will, that my post was in reply to Post #15 in this thread, which contains absolutely no reference to, and therefore no contextual construction of, the hypothetical situation which you conjuredwhich contains a non-referenced and therefore non-existent "tie."

Feel free to draw your straw men from within any Wing of your choosing, sir, but I must insist on not being misquoted.

Meanwhile, I eagerly await reading any regulatory citations which you might provide that support your positions on...well,...anything... which you have claimed in this thread and which prohibit what I said.  (By regulatory citations, I mean something that actually supports your stance, not simply "Here's a regulation, and I think it means...")
Logged
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 9,688
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #21 on: November 09, 2016, 02:48:36 AM »

Eclipse following your thought process which is logical and reasonable how about this. 

Osan Cadet Sq, Kadena Cadet Sq, Ramstein Cadet Sq and the Spangdhalem Cadet Sq all decide to do a collective overseas encampment. 

Osan host's  but doesn't have enough bodies for staffing so every one else fills in the voids.  You would rather have a C/SSgt from Osan be the the C/CC instead of say a C/Maj from Ramstein because of locality?

Having been a direct participant in that circus, I gotta say that it is a total outlier to the stateside situations concerning road show cadets. Also, a joint event among those four units would be logistically difficult at best, trending toward impossible. The first two, plus Misawa and Yokota if they are still active, or the last two, might work out. There are significant travel issues involved, even within Japan for those three units.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Ozzy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 240
Unit: NY

« Reply #22 on: November 09, 2016, 10:55:16 AM »

(Snip)

Meanwhile, I eagerly await reading any regulatory citations which you might provide that support your positions on...well,...anything... which you have claimed in this thread and which prohibit what I said.  (By regulatory citations, I mean something that actually supports your stance, not simply "Here's a regulation, and I think it means...")

CAPR 52-24  9-2b refers to CAPP 52-24 for the encampment program guidance. For the encampment program goals, go look at Chapter 1.
Logged
Ozyilmaz, SSgt, CAP
C/Lt. Colonel (Ret.)
SGT, ARNG (Out!)

NYWG Encampment 07, 08, 09, 10
CTWG Encampment 09, 11, 16
NER Cadet Leadership School 10
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 27,078

« Reply #23 on: November 09, 2016, 10:58:51 AM »

And where do the local cadets get their chance?  I am just going to have to assume you haven't
had to deal with the "road show".

In >all< cases where there's a tie, the local cadet should always get precedence, and when there
is a question, local development should trump "best".

Any idea that CAP is a "national program" in this respect, denies or ignores the fact that most cadets get a single
shot at a respective staff position because of their own timing / age issues, and any time a cadet from another wing
is given an out of state job, that's a local cadet who lost out, and may never have another chance.

CAP is decidedly local and unlike the military or other similar situations, cadre cadets aren't expected to come in the door
fully baked and autonomous, the seniors are there to insure things run properly, catch them when they fall, and
guide them when they struggle.

Encampment CC's who bring in a bunch of road show ringers so things go "perfect" are missing the point entirely.

You have, as you commonly do when it suits you, assumed incorrectly. But, you know what they say about people who assume. On second thought, I think your assumptions are in conflict with such knowledge. Further, lest I fall into the "assume trap" myself, I'll simply encourage you to delve into it further and refrain from further engagement in same.

And, as you also commonly do when it suits you, you are replying to my comments by taking them out of context and are offering a response based on your erroneous contextual interpretation. Note carefully, if you will, that my post was in reply to Post #15 in this thread, which contains absolutely no reference to, and therefore no contextual construction of, the hypothetical situation which you conjuredwhich contains a non-referenced and therefore non-existent "tie."

Feel free to draw your straw men from within any Wing of your choosing, sir, but I must insist on not being misquoted.

Meanwhile, I eagerly await reading any regulatory citations which you might provide that support your positions on...well,...anything... which you have claimed in this thread and which prohibit what I said.  (By regulatory citations, I mean something that actually supports your stance, not simply "Here's a regulation, and I think it means...")


The majority of my assertions come from the common sense mandates of the authority under which a respective
encampment is executed (the wing), coupled with my personal experience in both the negative and positive of this sitaution,
however to support that I offer the below:

CAPP 52-24, Page 2:
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/Encampment_Manual_June_2014_1F6A5D093CD05.pdf

"And finally, the encampment is the centerpiece of the wing-level Cadet Program, providing the wing with an
opportunity to boost the capabilities of its hometown cadet and composite squadrons and to standardize cadet
training within the wing, so the encampment program pursues goals for the wing’s overall Cadet Program."


(In regards to this being a "p" vs. an "r" bear in mind it was written and referred to specifically
by 52-16 as the non-optional mandated guidance document.  This was before the most recent inexplicable change to CAPR 1-2 (5-4)
which revoked the SOP of having regs refer to pamphlets for detailed guidance. )

A given wing is not charged with developing membership from a different wing or region. In point of fact, NHQ already
has a strong program for that purpose - the NCSAs, which specifically solicit participation nationally.

it also can be noted that there are currently no National, nor Regional encampments (the tri-wing not withstanding because it's another special case),
again because the encampment program is specifically intended to support a wing's cadet program in a way which empathizes local participation.

Citing anecdotal success, or special cases where a wing is unable to support its own activities doesn't change the
clear intent of the program.

(Ozzy beat me to it while I was confirming the citations.)
Logged

"Effort" does not equal "results".
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2017 by eclipse. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Spaceman3750
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,531

« Reply #24 on: November 09, 2016, 12:49:16 PM »

Cadets are not a means by which we accomplish our missions. They are a mission. While we have cadet staff at a variety of levels - including encampment, and part (or most) of that staff job includes serving their followers, that service is designed to provide the cadet leader with hands-on leadership experience, not help CAP execute the cadet program.

What does this mean in this context? The argument of the "more qualified out of state cadet" doesn't work, because these staff jobs aren't looking to find the most qualified cadet to help CAP execute its mission - they look to find the most qualified cadet to be afforded a new hands-on leadership opportunity. Since each wing is responsible for the growth of their own cadets, it makes sense that preference would go to the home team.

I don't think anyone is arguing that poor local candidates should be appointed to cadet staff spots ahead of highly qualified non-local candidates - that's just a recipe for a poor student experience all around. A poor candidate is still a poor candidate. However, in cases where there is not a significant qualification disparity between a local and non-local candidate, preference should go to the cadet the wing is primarily responsible for serving.

And, just to be clear, I think that there is nothing wrong with cadets participating in out-of-wing encampments. Good on them for wanting to participate and learn more. But, there's only so many jobs to go around and if there's a similarly qualified local candidate, they shouldn't be taking opportunities away from the locals.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2016, 12:57:35 PM by Spaceman3750 » Logged
"I always wondered why somebody doesn't do something about that. Then I realized I was somebody." - Lily Tomlin
"I'm sorry sir, which tab were we on?"

The moment any commander or staff member considers themselves a gatekeeper, instead of a facilitator, they have failed at their job.
I can't fix all of CAP's problems, but I can lead from the bottom by building my squadron as a center of excellence to serve as an example of what every unit can be.
Pages: 1 [2]  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  Cadet Programs  |  Encampments & NCSAs  |  Topic: Unit Encampment Report?
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.238 seconds with 20 queries.
click here to email me