GAWG Group Consolidation.

[FW]

WIWAWC, there were just 3 groups I dealt with (in PA).  Each group had between 20 and 25 squadrons. It worked because of dedicated staffers and group commanders who were allowed to deal with problems; as they saw fit.  Even dealing with SUI's were not problematic as, we could be flexible with inspection personell. 

Good communications, understanding the concept of deligating and, an engaged membership makes life much easier...

[RADIOMAN015]

WIWAWC, there were just 3 groups I dealt with (in PA).  Each group had between 20 and 25 squadrons. It worked because of dedicated staffers and group commanders who were allowed to deal with problems; as they saw fit.  Even dealing with SUI's were not problematic as, we could be flexible with inspection personell. 

Good communications, understanding the concept of deligating and, an engaged membership makes life much easier...

I think this whole issue boils down to the experienced personnel that are available and are willing to make the commitment to help out all the squadrons in their respective area. This could involve quite a bit of travel and time commitment -- many volunteers today are challenged to commit to large blocks of time on a continual basis.

The squadrons are really where anything worthwhile takes place in CAP and IF there's experienced personnel at the squadron level, it's unlikely that groups would be needed or the number of squadrons supervised by a group could be increased.
RM

[Fubar]

Say what? My wing has four groups. I bet there are less than 20(10 in my group alone) group level staffers in the entire wing. Of those, only four (the commanders themselves) are actually assigned to the group HQ. The rest are squadron staffers/commanders that are loaned to group. I serve at group in a position that mirrors one of my sqdn. duties.

Don't groups have to meet the same charter standards as a squadron? I don't see how a chartered unit would be allowed to exist with only one member. I can only imagine what the SUI is like...

[Spaceman3750]

Say what? My wing has four groups. I bet there are less than 20(10 in my group alone) group level staffers in the entire wing. Of those, only four (the commanders themselves) are actually assigned to the group HQ. The rest are squadron staffers/commanders that are loaned to group. I serve at group in a position that mirrors one of my sqdn. duties.

Don't groups have to meet the same charter standards as a squadron? I don't see how a chartered unit would be allowed to exist with only one member. I can only imagine what the SUI is like...

Nope. My group HQ only has 4 people assigned to it.

SUI time is fine, you have a bunch of members that are doing "ADY" (additional duty) to group while remaining with their squadron - the responsible members prepare their SUI responses just like at a squadron.

[Eclipse]

Don't groups have to meet the same charter standards as a squadron?

No.  Groups are a Headquarters Component, not an operational entity.

The SUI's are quick and painless because, just like a CI, they are related to the administration of the Group itself, not the Group's subordinate units.
There are a lot of pages which are simply "N/A".

[lordmonar]

Say what? My wing has four groups. I bet there are less than 20(10 in my group alone) group level staffers in the entire wing. Of those, only four (the commanders themselves) are actually assigned to the group HQ. The rest are squadron staffers/commanders that are loaned to group. I serve at group in a position that mirrors one of my sqdn. duties.

Don't groups have to meet the same charter standards as a squadron? I don't see how a chartered unit would be allowed to exist with only one member. I can only imagine what the SUI is like...

Nope. My group HQ only has 4 people assigned to it.

SUI time is fine, you have a bunch of members that are doing "ADY" (additional duty) to group while remaining with their squadron - the responsible members prepare their SUI responses just like at a squadron.

If you only got 4 people assigned to group....why have a group?

[Spaceman3750]

Say what? My wing has four groups. I bet there are less than 20(10 in my group alone) group level staffers in the entire wing. Of those, only four (the commanders themselves) are actually assigned to the group HQ. The rest are squadron staffers/commanders that are loaned to group. I serve at group in a position that mirrors one of my sqdn. duties.

Don't groups have to meet the same charter standards as a squadron? I don't see how a chartered unit would be allowed to exist with only one member. I can only imagine what the SUI is like...

Nope. My group HQ only has 4 people assigned to it.

SUI time is fine, you have a bunch of members that are doing "ADY" (additional duty) to group while remaining with their squadron - the responsible members prepare their SUI responses just like at a squadron.

If you only got 4 people assigned to group....why have a group?

Because, as I mentioned, we have people serving group while remaining assigned to their squadron. We have 4 assigned to the group HQ unit, and a few more doing additional duties. We're going to be expanding our ADY staff in a few months, but their unit of assignment will stay at their squadron. Why rob the individual units of expertise?

[BillB]

When I served as a Group Commander, I pulled people from Squadrons as ADY. Most Group duty assignments are advisory or coordination and does not add that much to a staff's work load. ES and Cadet Programs required additional staff to keep work load down, but all were additional duty from Squadrons. A Squadron PAO can serve as Group PAO with little added work load. An Assistant Group PAO can take up part of the load, and this applies to all Group duty assignments.

[Eclipse]

A Squadron PAO can serve as Group PAO with little added work load. An Assistant Group PAO can take up part of the load, and this applies to all Group duty assignments.

Exactly the circular reporting structure I alluded too earlier, and missing the point.

The unit with the double-posted member gets, by practical reality, more attention from the Group than any other and lacks real oversight, because the member is essentially auditing himself.

If there isn't enough to keep a group staffer busy on a full-time basis, it's because he's not doing it right.

[lordmonar]

Say what? My wing has four groups. I bet there are less than 20(10 in my group alone) group level staffers in the entire wing. Of those, only four (the commanders themselves) are actually assigned to the group HQ. The rest are squadron staffers/commanders that are loaned to group. I serve at group in a position that mirrors one of my sqdn. duties.

Don't groups have to meet the same charter standards as a squadron? I don't see how a chartered unit would be allowed to exist with only one member. I can only imagine what the SUI is like...

Nope. My group HQ only has 4 people assigned to it.

SUI time is fine, you have a bunch of members that are doing "ADY" (additional duty) to group while remaining with their squadron - the responsible members prepare their SUI responses just like at a squadron.

If you only got 4 people assigned to group....why have a group?

Because, as I mentioned, we have people serving group while remaining assigned to their squadron. We have 4 assigned to the group HQ unit, and a few more doing additional duties. We're going to be expanding our ADY staff in a few months, but their unit of assignment will stay at their squadron. Why rob the individual units of expertise?

Then you have a much larger group staff....you are just not doing the paper work right.

1) If the job needs to be done....then you recruit and train enough people to do it.
2) If these guys are so good that they can do their job and Group's job at the same time...you have to be careful you don't burn them out.
3) Just because I am "assigned" to group...does not mean I can't still be active with a squadron.

[DBlair]

^^^ Taking us off topic for a moment, I have spent several years as both a wing and region DCP, and the region CP shop unequivacly requires a minimum of three qualified folks to be successful.  And the region CP shop is not particularly paper-work driven.

At a minimum, the Region CP shop needs to:

* Conduct a successful CAC

* Plan and implement one or more Region Cadet Leadership Schools yearly (typically a week-long school for 15-30 students.)

* Conduct a yearly Region Cadet Competition (another signifcant activity with a hundred or so participants each year)

* Coordinate/mentor/coach the roughly six or so wing DCPs.

* Visit major wing activities such as conferences, encampments, competitions, etc to evaluate CP status and spread best practices.

* Participate in SAV/CIs as necessary.

* Analyze the agenda items for NB and NEC meetings from the CP perspective and write position papers for the boss.

* Plan and implement the CP portions of the Region Conference

* Work closely with the volunteer National Cadet Programs officer and corporate team to review and improve the CP.

To start. 

Notice that I haven't even mentioned the paperwork drills for things like screening and recommending the COY and Sorensen nominees for the Region, NCSA selection support, serving on the various Region committees like awards, Finance, etc.

It cannot possibly be done even poorly by one person.  Success requires a minimum of three highly qualified CP officers.

And the Wing level is even more intensive, what with SUIs for dozens of squadrons, encampments, various wing leadership schools, model rocketry programs, etc.


I agree that the squadron is where we do the essential work of the cadet program (and the other missions as well), and we need outstanding CP leaders there.  But we cannot succeed by stripping the essential personnel out of group, wing, and region to do it.

+1

[titanII]

It seems to me (somewhat of an outsider on the whole higher-than-squadron level) that what we've got here is a classic example of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. We need the skilled and experienced people in the higher (group/wing/region) echelons, where they can be very effective; yet we also need those same kind of people in the basic, real nitty-gritty-get-things-done level (squadron).

[CAP_truth]

Groups need to be the buffer between wing and squadrons. The should be the resource to small squadron who do not have the personnel to do all the jobs. But the group cc  should not be a blockage for the wing to conduct its duties either. Communication between wing staff and the group's staff should be open so information can be passed along without timely delays. The group cc should be copied but should allow the staff personnel to talk to each other. As a wing staff office I do need information from my counter parts at group and squadrons but I should contact them directly but cc the commanders, not send them to the commanders and have them pass the information along and wait to see if I get a reply.

[Eclipse]

^ I agree 100%, the problem is when people other than commanders start making policy decisions or otherwise circumvent
command authority because of the practical reality of having the keys to the system.

That's what usually shuts down the lines of communication.

There are also issues with staff at a higher echelon believing they have "force powers" simply because they happen to be
appointed at a higher echelon (not to mention people who don't even recognize their lane, let alone staying in it).

Then there's the "random show-up" where a wing or group staffer just waltzes into a meeting and pontificates on "whatever",
regardless of what might be scheduled for that night, etc.

[Spaceman3750]

The should be the resource to small squadron

I'm a newly-appointed Group ESO. I sent an email a few weeks back telling squadron CCs and ESOs that I am a resource, a means to an end if you will. I emphasized that I am not there to tell them what their ES goals will be - I am there to help them make their ES goals happen, whatever they may be. I am making a point of knowing what training resources are available at other squadrons in my group so that when a squadron comes to me and says "We want our cadets to get MRO" or "We want to put together an aircrew" I know who to put them in touch with.

[Eclipse]

"We want our cadets to get MRO" or "We want to put together an aircrew" I know who to put them in touch with.

You put them in touch with the regs and manuals and tell them to "git readin' ".  This "savior mentality" that CAP suffers from (i.e. that Joe Someone will save us, fix us, and train us) is one of the reason we can't get out of the deep, circular trench we're in.

[EMT-83]

"We want our cadets to get MRO" or "We want to put together an aircrew" I know who to put them in touch with.

You put them in touch with the regs and manuals and tell them to "git readin' ".  This "savior mentality" that CAP suffers from (i.e. that Joe Someone will save us, fix us, and train us) is one of the reason we can't get out of the deep, circular trench we're in.

Exactly how? A squadron without qualified personnel is going to obtain the qualifications by reading the regulations?

Working with neighboring units to share resources and expertise, with the Wing or Group ESO providing some coordination, sounds like a winner to me.

[Spaceman3750]

"We want our cadets to get MRO" or "We want to put together an aircrew" I know who to put them in touch with.

You put them in touch with the regs and manuals and tell them to "git readin' ".  This "savior mentality" that CAP suffers from (i.e. that Joe Someone will save us, fix us, and train us) is one of the reason we can't get out of the deep, circular trench we're in.

Exactly how? A squadron without qualified personnel is going to obtain the qualifications by reading the regulations?

Working with neighboring units to share resources and expertise, with the Wing or Group ESO providing some coordination, sounds like a winner to me.

Seconded. I'm not handing them anything, I'm just telling them where to look for information and putting them in touch with a SET.

[ZigZag911]

Then there's the "random show-up" where a wing or group staffer just waltzes into a meeting and pontificates on "whatever",
regardless of what might be scheduled for that night, etc.

WIW Gp CC, I required staff to give sqdn CCs advance notice of visits, and coordinate what they had to do to avoid disrupting sqdn activities.

Only exceptions were me, my deputy and my IG (groups still had IGs back then).

[Eclipse]

"We want our cadets to get MRO" or "We want to put together an aircrew" I know who to put them in touch with.

You put them in touch with the regs and manuals and tell them to "git readin' ".  This "savior mentality" that CAP suffers from (i.e. that Joe Someone will save us, fix us, and train us) is one of the reason we can't get out of the deep, circular trench we're in.

Exactly how? A squadron without qualified personnel is going to obtain the qualifications by reading the regulations?

Working with neighboring units to share resources and expertise, with the Wing or Group ESO providing some coordination, sounds like a winner to me.

There's nothing wrong with working with neighboring units, and coordinating that cooperation is part of the Group's job, however in a lot of cases unit CC's a so uninformed as to have no idea where to start, and spoon feeding them propagates that issue.  Many expect the Group or Wing to come and "fix" things, when in fact the Group or Wing should primarily be responding to specific requests for things not possible or difficult at the home unit.

Anyone who can read can get through the majority of the ES curriculum without much outside input, including aircrew tasks.  Proficiency comes with doing, but the baseline only requires initiative and interest, neither of which higher HQ can instill, and the lack of which is the primary reason for
units that fail in this regard.

Lots say the "want to 'do' ES", then stall when they see it actually requires work and follow-through.