TLC is great and all, but it's more of an in-depth, longer, in-person sort of deal.  Plus, courses like SLS, CLC, TLC...who takes them a bunch of times? 

We've been challenged by the older cadets having gone off to school and such, having new cadets coming in, and seniors not knowing precisely how to walk new cadets through things because we haven't seen them and can't even look at them (uniform ordering from the cadet end, for example).  It feels very unwelcoming to any new member that the process of getting started is a little fuzzy, and the best answer someone with years of experience can offer is "I think that's online...". 

It can be a little hard to keep track of some of the changes.  I looked online because there was a question about current cadet packets, but we had to ask a cadet to bring us a packet so we could actually look at it.  That makes us look clueless and them unwelcome.  We didn't realize, for example, that cadets were getting outdated information until one cadet showed up with a brown shirt.  agh.

The current reality of CAP is that many, many units are below the minimum even required to keep a squadron charter.  This presents a lot of challenges.  There isn't a priority put on DESIGN in terms of systems and processes.  But we need that efficiency and simplicity. 

If I recruit a bunch of SMs to do primary and assistant slots in cadet programs (Activities, Leadership Education, etc.), it'd be nice to bridge the gap between their introductory CAP training and TLC.  It'd be fantastic if they placed a priority on DESIGN and making our lives easier. 

It goes back to what I said about interfacing. It's horrible.

I work for a company where we are required by law to interface every document we have throughout the other documents in the company, and even still we can't always get it right. Move that over to a non-profit with such a wide range of operations and not a heck of a lot of internal evaluating, with limited resources, and you get a mix/match of really good with mediocre with awful.

The standardization seems to be the most difficult, especially when you get a case of "authority with the squadron commander," "authority with the group/wing commander," and nobody's on the same page.

Ergonomics doesn't appear to be a strong suit

Quote from: JC004 on August 26, 2015, 07:13:12 PM
TLC is great and all, but it's more of an in-depth, longer, in-person sort of deal.  Plus, courses like SLS, CLC, TLC...who takes them a bunch of times? 

We've been challenged by the older cadets having gone off to school and such, having new cadets coming in, and seniors not knowing precisely how to walk new cadets through things because we haven't seen them and can't even look at them (uniform ordering from the cadet end, for example).  It feels very unwelcoming to any new member that the process of getting started is a little fuzzy, and the best answer someone with years of experience can offer is "I think that's online...". 

It can be a little hard to keep track of some of the changes.  I looked online because there was a question about current cadet packets, but we had to ask a cadet to bring us a packet so we could actually look at it.  That makes us look clueless and them unwelcome.  We didn't realize, for example, that cadets were getting outdated information until one cadet showed up with a brown shirt.  agh.

The current reality of CAP is that many, many units are below the minimum even required to keep a squadron charter.  This presents a lot of challenges.  There isn't a priority put on DESIGN in terms of systems and processes.  But we need that efficiency and simplicity. 

If I recruit a bunch of SMs to do primary and assistant slots in cadet programs (Activities, Leadership Education, etc.), it'd be nice to bridge the gap between their introductory CAP training and TLC.  It'd be fantastic if they placed a priority on DESIGN and making our lives easier.

I've mentioned before, that it would be great if CP officers could get at least a "DEMO" cadet version of eservices. It's really hard to walk cadets through something I don't know.

Precisely.  I don't think they need to add in-depth trainings - just some familiarization stuff and if possible, a demo function (if that wouldn't cost a fortune to roll out). 

It makes us sound clueless, makes new members feel unwelcome, and leaves everyone confused.  E-services isn't exactly user friendly. 

I'd love to see a customized checklist for each new member, in their e-Services, which command/PD/CP staff can also see.  That walks people through each thing, puts it all on one screen, and makes it approachable. 

I built an intranet for volunteers elsewhere and that's precisely what I made.  Application, background check, child abuse clearance, orientation, hours tracking account set up, e-mail set up, etc. - an easy checklist that everyone involved could see and use to guide/mentor the new volunteers.  You'd be amazed how welcome they felt, and how much more organized everything seemed to them - just by creating that for them.  Heck, I even included a library for their own professional development, an easy place to view public transit to our offices (a huge help for students/interns), and a list of where to order or pick up food when they were volunteering.    Oh, and we even had a section with volunteer benefits (kind of like CAP, but more discounts, less affinity programs to make the organization money.  The students in particular liked the Brooks Brothers and local clothing store discounts so they could get nice clothes when they graduated and started work, school supply discounts, cell phone plan discount, and of course the food discounts).
 
Things WERE mostly well organized for volunteer onboarding before I built the intranet.  But they FELT it after we built that for them.  And that makes all the difference in MORALE.

As I said before as well, I would really like to see a probationary/internship period as part of the Level 1 training.

I guess a kink in that system would be the applicability to cadet/composite squadrons versus senior-only squadrons. Not all CAP senior members work with cadets.

That being said, as I've talked with Lt Col Ninness about this, I feel the recruiting and retention in some squadrons can be absolutely awful because there's a flood of senior-level information being thrown at newcomers who have no idea what they're being told (nor their parents for cadets). It's a problem for both new cadets and seniors alike. And a lot of that information isn't necessarily accurate.

Level 1 is a very basic introduction into the workings of CAP. Sometimes, as it seems to be commonly talked about on here, new members get thrown into important positions of responsibility with very little experience in CAP and the training you need to be put into one of those positions isn't necessarily adequate for that level of responsibility (i.e., Deputy Commander for Cadets, Squadron Commander). It really doesn't help if there isn't an assistant-type person to help guide you in your position either. NCOs really aren't all that common in a comparative sense. Imagine in the Air Fore if a brand-new Lieutenant fresh out of OCS was put in charge of a unit of Airmen with no E-7 to help provide any assistance. That's what we do with our squadrons sometimes. New LT is put in charge of cadets and is told "figure it out."

In my own experience, I've spent a lot of time just observing the cadets in our squadron before I got hands-on. I'm there for nearly every activity, and I always prefer to be outside with the cadets during drill, PT, whatever it may be, rather than inside listening to meetings, because my job is to work with these young men and women. I needed to learn from them and help them learn from me. I've spent a lot of time on my own reading other opinions on the cadet program, and doing numerous online training courses voluntarily. I go out to another squadron every week and talk with their CDC and get involved with their cadet program to learn how they do it, to see what I think I could implement into my leadership style and what I don't care to see.

Unfortunately, it's not a CAP-structured process of learning. The mere courses in running a cadet program, or even serving in a squadron working with cadets at various times in a non-cadet programs position, is very meager on the experience development side of training.

1. No, this 'maneuver' by the group commander was totally inappropriate, and could be considered conduct unbecoming.  If that had happened to me, either I'd been in a face to face with the wing commander in short order, and/or my membership card would be in the trash. You praise in public, and criticize in private.

2. Way back in the day, well before the Interwebs, as a Deputy Commander for Cadets, I ordered a Phase I/II packet from the bookstore.  I literally received a phone call from someone in the National CP directorate as to who did I think I was and having the nerve to personally place such an order. The tone of the call literally made me feel like a criminal when all I wanted to have was a clean copy of the textbooks that my cadets were receiving so I could improve content delivery. Twas not a good day for this lowly 2nd Lt. Never mind that no regulations had been broken whatsoever. I remember stammering out my reasoning, but I was literally shaking when I hung up the phone.  I still remember that incident quite clearly.  I did in fact receive the packet.

3.

Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on August 21, 2015, 04:23:11 PM
Higher echelon staff are there to support the lower echelon.

Given my experience over the years......sadly, this is not true. Squadrons do not have any sort of formal advocate.

Quote from: LTC Don on September 05, 2015, 02:42:22 PM
You praise in public, and criticize in private.

It's unfortunate that more people don't think about this before they open their mouths. It's even worse when they don't just criticize in front of everyone, but criticize that person behind their back.

Quote from: LTC Don on September 05, 2015, 02:42:22 PM
3.

Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on August 21, 2015, 04:23:11 PM
Higher echelon staff are there to support the lower echelon.

Given my experience over the years......sadly, this is not true. Squadrons do not have any sort of formal advocate.

The squadron advocate is the squadron commander. Squadron commanders have direct access to the group or wing commander and can bring up issues like this.

Quote from: LTC Don on September 05, 2015, 02:42:22 PM3.

Quote from: Phil Hirons, Jr. on August 21, 2015, 04:23:11 PM
Higher echelon staff are there to support the lower echelon.

Given my experience over the years......sadly, this is not true. Squadrons do not have any sort of formal advocate.

Supporting lower echelons does not equal advocating for lower echelons. As WG/LG, I provide information and assistance, but if a unit doesn't want to follow the rules, or decides to see how far they can bend them, I will provide corrective information or, if that fails, make a recommendation to the WG/CC for corrective action. I will not 'advocate' for the unit to buck the system.

Long story short, while on a visit to our unit the wing king personally ordered our CC to appoint a cadet commander within one week. Justification all the way up the chain has been "tradition." Absolutely no deference given to the regulations on this topic other than that it's a recommendation left to the commander's discretion. Well, so much for that...

As I see it, your squadron commander has two choices. He can comply with the order or he can refuse to comply. The wing commander could, of course, remove him from command at his discretion. If that happens, then the squadron commander can step down gracefully or file a complaint. He may have a case. Then again, CAPP 52-15 is a pamphlet, so your commander is not being ordered to disregard a regulation. Nevertheless, what your group and wing commanders are doing is micromanaging your squadron and that shows poor leadership on their part.

20-1 is a regulation and is directive. It states "Unit commanders should keep cadet positions vacant until such time as the cadets obtain appropriate grade and maturity." Don't have cadets with the grade? Don't fill the position. Wing commanders should leave the operation of their subordinate units to their commanders and keep their beaks out unless regs or laws are being broken...

Quote from: THRAWN on October 22, 2015, 02:33:26 PM
20-1 is a regulation and is directive. It states "Unit commanders should keep cadet positions vacant until such time as the cadets obtain appropriate grade and maturity." Don't have cadets with the grade? Don't fill the position. Wing commanders should leave the operation of their subordinate units to their commanders and keep their beaks out unless regs or laws are being broken...

However the "should" makes it a discretionary call, and higher echelon commanders can direct the exercise of discretion.

Quote from: JeffDG on October 22, 2015, 02:39:37 PM
However the "should" makes it a discretionary call, and higher echelon commanders can direct the exercise of discretion.

All leaders "should" do the right thing regardless of loopholes in the regs. I have lost respect for the leadership of this organization over this issue.  In any event we are complying with the order and moving on.

Quote from: THRAWN on October 22, 2015, 02:33:26 PM
20-1 is a regulation and is directive. It states "Unit commanders should keep cadet positions vacant until such time as the cadets obtain appropriate grade and maturity." Don't have cadets with the grade? Don't fill the position. Wing commanders should leave the operation of their subordinate units to their commanders and keep their beaks out unless regs or laws are being broken...

So far, this is the most common break away from the cadet programs recommendations I've encountered. Too many people who aren't mature enough or experienced enough to take on these positions are being placed into them. And it goes right up to the top of the squadron when the CC says "Yeah, but we do not this position filled." This is what happens when you have people in leadership positions who don't know what they're doing.

I also see too many times where Wing officials are "butting in" with a squadron's cadet program in regard to duty positions. It's outside the scope of Wing's role in overseeing their subordinate squadrons. But I always have this question---What did the squadron commander say to Wing that made them step in like this?

Most of the time, we as squadron members aren't present for the private conversations between a Squadron CC and Wing officials, so we really don't have a whole lot to base our opinions off of other than what we know at the squadron level from what we're told happened.

"Should" is not a mandate. "Shall" is a mandate. "Should" is a recommendation. Some recommendations I agree with, some I don't. People need to know the difference when it comes to following these rules.

Quote from: JeffDG on October 22, 2015, 02:39:37 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on October 22, 2015, 02:33:26 PM
20-1 is a regulation and is directive. It states "Unit commanders should keep cadet positions vacant until such time as the cadets obtain appropriate grade and maturity." Don't have cadets with the grade? Don't fill the position. Wing commanders should leave the operation of their subordinate units to their commanders and keep their beaks out unless regs or laws are being broken...

However the "should" makes it a discretionary call, and higher echelon commanders can direct the exercise of discretion.

I'm well aware of what "should" means. It also states that unit commanders are the agent of responsibility. For a higher echelon commander to "direct the exercise of discretion" demonstrates his lack of trust in his subordinate's judgement and his inability to allow the unit commander to effectively do his job.

All we've done is to appeal to the wisdom of the Civil Air Patrol regulations and other well thought-out and published guidance on this topic, and all we've heard in return are non-sequiturs and appeals to tradition. The wing CC was visiting our unit for unrelated reasons, but made his position on this subject quite clear before departing. The politics of this thing is disgusting and makes me question whether I could ever stomach being a CC down the road.

Quote from: THRAWN on October 22, 2015, 03:04:53 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on October 22, 2015, 02:39:37 PM

Quote from: THRAWN on October 22, 2015, 02:33:26 PM
20-1 is a regulation and is directive. It states "Unit commanders should keep cadet positions vacant until such time as the cadets obtain appropriate grade and maturity." Don't have cadets with the grade? Don't fill the position. Wing commanders should leave the operation of their subordinate units to their commanders and keep their beaks out unless regs or laws are being broken...

However the "should" makes it a discretionary call, and higher echelon commanders can direct the exercise of discretion.

I'm well aware of what "should" means. It also states that unit commanders are the agent of responsibility. For a higher echelon commander to "direct the exercise of discretion" demonstrates his lack of trust in his subordinate's judgement and his inability to allow the unit commander to effectively do his job.

Also adds to the commonality of micromanagement

So the question at hands is who is responsible for the micromanagement? Is an incompetent person holding the position of squadron commander, or is the Wing Commander/Deputy Commander doubtful of other's abilities to perform to par?

Too many people of inexperience are placed into positions requiring a lot of experience. Too many people of experience don't properly supervise and mentor their staff.

Quote from: neummy on October 22, 2015, 03:07:06 PM
All we've done is to appeal to the wisdom of the Civil Air Patrol regulations and other well thought-out and published guidance on this topic, and all we've heard in return are non-sequiturs and appeals to tradition. The wing CC was visiting our unit for unrelated reasons, but made his position on this subject quite clear before departing. The politics of this thing is disgusting and makes me question whether I could ever stomach being a CC down the road.

Is it politics or improper management and utilization of resources?

By the way, neummy, I completely agree that it's inappropriate to put an NCO into the role of C/CC, just as it would be inappropriate to put an NCO into the role of squadron CC

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on October 22, 2015, 03:09:49 PM
Is it politics or improper management and utilization of resources?

Yes.