Was this maneuver appropriate?

[foo]

Our squadron has no cadet officers at this time, so we have kept the C/CC position vacant. We have flight sergeants and a first sergeant, and it's been working out well. Our program is strong; there are a lot of cadets working hard on their achievements, and we won't be bottom-heavy forever. We are following the recommendations in 52-15.

The other night the next echelon authority blew into our squadron meeting unannounced and declared "as your [insert next echelon title here] I'm telling you this is going to change." The reason given was that a particular senior NCO cadet deserved to be C/CC, and that we should not be "denying him the opportunity."

Oh, and this was done while our squadron commander was away for a work commitment. Classy stuff to say the least.

[NC Hokie]

There are too many variables that none of us know the answers to, so any opinions offered here are sure to be flawed. That said, your squadron commander needs to have a discussion with his boss and, perhaps, his boss's boss.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

I agree with NC Hokie on the variables. However, I do have a few comments.

Unless [insert next echelon title here] = Commander or Deputy / Vice Commander he/she has no command authority to order that. Higher echelon staff are there to support the lower echelon. If he/she has an issue with how a squadron is running its Cadet Program then they need to discuss it with their command.

If it was the Commander or Deputy / Vice Commander that is a discussion that should be held privately with the squadron commander.

[JeffDG]

I agree with NC Hokie on the variables. However, I do have a few comments.

Unless [insert next echelon title here] = Commander or Deputy / Vice Commander he/she has no command authority to order that. Higher echelon staff are there to support the lower echelon. If he/she has an issue with how a squadron is running its Cadet Program then they need to discuss it with their command.

If it was the Commander or Deputy / Vice Commander that is a discussion that should be held privately with the squadron commander.

1000% concur.

Staff advises.  They don't direct...ever.  (OK, one exception...if I as a Wing Staffer am visiting a squadron and see something that is unsafe, I can direct that it be ceased, but the Knock it Off directive is about the only exception)

[vorteks]

There are too many variables that none of us know the answers to, so any opinions offered here are sure to be flawed. [...]

I don't think there can be that many variables. Under what circumstances is it OK for a commander's boss to publicly undermine his/her authority?

[vorteks]

(OK, one exception...if I as a Wing Staffer am visiting a squadron and see something that is unsafe, I can direct that it be ceased, but the Knock it Off directive is about the only exception)

Yeah, and anyone can do that.

[Al Sayre]

There are too many variables that none of us know the answers to, so any opinions offered here are sure to be flawed. [...]

I don't think there can be that many variables. Under what circumstances is it OK for a commander's boss to publicly undermine his/her authority?

When he/she relieves them for cause...

[NC Hokie]

There are too many variables that none of us know the answers to, so any opinions offered here are sure to be flawed. [...]

I don't think there can be that many variables. Under what circumstances is it OK for a commander's boss to publicly undermine his/her authority?

You illustrate my point by assuming that [insert next echelon title here] = next echelon commander.  We don't know that to be the case, and any reasoned response to the OP requires that information as the starting point.

[vorteks]

There are too many variables that none of us know the answers to, so any opinions offered here are sure to be flawed. [...]

I don't think there can be that many variables. Under what circumstances is it OK for a commander's boss to publicly undermine his/her authority?

You illustrate my point by assuming that [insert next echelon title here] = next echelon commander.  We don't know that to be the case, and any reasoned response to the OP requires that information as the starting point.

True, I was making that assumption. I thought you were, too, but I apparently misunderstood the last sentence of your post.

[Storm Chaser]

Unless you're doing something unsafe, immoral or illegal or are violating a regulation, supplement, instruction or policy, no one from a higher echelon (group, wing, etc.) should be telling your squadron to change your staff assignments or organizational structure. This is especially true when it comes to staff officers, who don't have any command authority.

Without having all the details, what you described is in compliance with CAPP 52-15. I recommend your squadron commander talk to the group commander or wing commander if your wing doesn't have groups. They should be able to clarify this quickly.

[foo]

As a matter of fact it was the group commander.

[Storm Chaser]

This is still not appropriate, not even for the group commander. Squadron assignments, especially regarding cadets, is the responsibility of the squadron commander. I suggest the squadron commander talks to the group commander directly to discuss this issue. If the squadron commander and group commander can't come up with acceptable resolution, then the squadron commander can contact the wing commander.

[MSG Mac]

A higher echelon Commander CANNOT order personnel changes within another unit.

[Storm Chaser]

I think SHOULD NOT is more appropriate. That said, it's definitely NOT a good practice since it undermines the authority of the lower echelon commander. I would certainly consider any suggestions made by my wing commander, but would not make personnel changes within my command unless I agree with the changes.

All applicable regulations support the commander's authority and responsibility to make duty assignments within his or her command.

[Commanders] are authorized a staff to assist in the accomplishment of the various assigned tasks and should delegate appropriate authority to staff members in discharging the unit's mission. Commanders retain full responsibility for the actions of their staff.

A unit commander is authorized to assign personnel to specific duties and positions within his/her unit; remove personnel from specific duties and positions within his/her unit; and reassign personnel from one duty position to another within his/her unit.

The unit commander assigns ranking cadets to the unit's cadet staff so they may put into practice the abstract leadership concepts they study in their textbooks.

Unit commanders should select the organizational structure best suited for their unit, or even customize one of the orga- nizational charts suggested in this handbook.

And to readdress the OP initial post, CAPP 52-15 states the following:

When selecting cadets to serve on the cadet staff, senior members should try to tie-together three things: the cadet's leadership skill, their rank, and their job.

...For example, if the ranking cadet is an airman, their position still should be limited to element leader because we want to match them with a job that is appropriate for their leadership skill and rank – it would be premature to appoint that cadet as cadet commander. If the ranking cadet is a master sergeant, that cadet could serve as flight sergeant or first sergeant, but higher positions like flight commander and cadet commander should remain vacant. (emphasis mine)

By assigning cadets to positions that match their rank and skill, we ensure each cadet has a leadership challenge that is appropriate. Further, by keeping high positions vacant until cadets achieve rank commensurate with the positions, we give the ranking cadet(s) additional challenges to strive towards and a reason to pursue promotions. As the cadets advance in CAP and mature as leaders, they can gradually be promoted into higher positions on the cadet staff.

[Spam]

Well said, Chaser.

Tell your CC to stick to his guns, OP. Y'all are doing it right.

V/R,
Spam

[Flying Pig]

The fact that the Group Commander stepped in to appoint a Cadet Commander at a local Squadron is micromanaging and well outside the scope of what a Group CC needs to be concerned about.  There were many levels within the structure to address this.   Is there no Deputy Commander for Cadets at this unit?

Given all of this input though, is any of this within your control?  If not my suggestion would be to just continue on in your pay grade and not overly concern yourself with obvious internal command politics.  Chances are since you are a cadet, your input on this is zero to none.  There is a lot to be said for just staying in your own lane in this particular case.  (and please don't cite turning a blind eye to illegal activity...evil prevails when good men do nothing... blah blah blah)

[JeffDG]

A higher echelon Commander CANNOT order personnel changes within another unit.

I would say "should not".  Cannot is a bit of a stretch.

[Mitchell 1969]

A higher echelon Commander CANNOT order personnel changes within another unit.

I would say "should not".  Cannot is a bit of a stretch.

I think it's a bit more than "should not," but less than "cannot."

Maybe..."extra should not?" Or..."very should not?"

(Super should not?)

[foo]

The fact that the Group Commander stepped in to appoint a Cadet Commander at a local Squadron is micromanaging and well outside the scope of what a Group CC needs to be concerned about.  There were many levels within the structure to address this.   Is there no Deputy Commander for Cadets at this unit?

Given all of this input though, is any of this within your control?  If not my suggestion would be to just continue on in your pay grade and not overly concern yourself with obvious internal command politics.  Chances are since you are a cadet, your input on this is zero to none.  There is a lot to be said for just staying in your own lane in this particular case.  (and please don't cite turning a blind eye to illegal activity...evil prevails when good men do nothing... blah blah blah)

He didn't appoint anyone, just said the fact we don't have a C/CC is going to change by his authority. We're a cadet squadron, so no DCC. I'm one of the SLOs.

[Storm Chaser]

While the group commander's comment may have been inappropriate, this is something the squadron commander will have to discuss with him or her. Once the squadron commander explains the reasons for the current cadet structure, the group commander may desist of wanting to make changes. The squadron commander may respectfully refer to the regulations and pamphlet quoted.

At the end of the day, none of our opinions regarding this issue really matter. This if something they both have to resolve through dialog and privately. And if that doesn't work, then through the chain of command.

[foo]

While the group commander's comment may have been inappropriate, this is something the squadron commander will have to discuss with him or her. Once the squadron commander explains the reasons for the current cadet structure, the group commander may desist of wanting to make changes. The squadron commander may respectfully refer to the regulations and pamphlet quoted.

At the end of the day, none of our opinions regarding this issue really matter. This if something they both have to resolve through dialog and privately. And if that doesn't work, then through the chain of command.

A few of us present at the meeting (cadets were not in the room) attempted to discuss the Cadet Staff Handbook. The impression I got was that he was not very familiar with it and not interested in following its recommendations on this subject. Period.

Anyway, you're right about everything of course. It's just deeply frustrating.

[Spam]

He didn't appoint anyone, just said the fact we don't have a C/CC is going to change by his authority. We're a cadet squadron, so no DCC. I'm one of the SLOs.

What is a "SLO", please? I'm unfamiliar with that acronym. 

Pig's got a great point about having a Deputy Commander present to cover for the CC if missing. If you're a cadet squadron, you do have a Deputy Commander billet, in fact (see CAPR 20-1 2 JANUARY 2013, Fig. 17, page 23, at
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/R020_001_73F1BA70FD9EB.pdf. If you had that position filled, and as the duties for that job include to act in the absence of and to represent the direction of the unit commander, you might have coverage if and when higher command drops in in his absence like this.


FYI, I'm on my fourth Squadron-level command tour now (second one at a Cadet Squadron) and I've run into Group/CCs before who have a tendency to micromanage and/or bluster and/or try to cultivate a cult of personality through making statements and meddling like this. My personal opinion (especially now that I've served as a Group/CC over nine hundred people and a dozen units) is that a certain type of command personality can get to miss the experience of direct hands on leadership, and on occasion just cant resist the urge to tinker.

This is a very understandable human failing, and knowing your regs (see above link with duties and responsibilities) is your best defense to take what he's said publicly, but to then follow up privately, armed with those regs to have that quiet discussion (and another with your Wing Commander, if necessary).  I get with my rising cadet staff to review their CAPM 20-1 org chart and position descriptions twice a year as part of our training "battle rhythm", when we execute our normal cadet change of command rotation and duty assignment shifts, and you'd be surprised how much that can reduce the confusion factor for all hands.


Addendum - be prepped to forgive your leaders for their failings, if they are apologetic! (grin)


V/R,
Spam

[Brad]

What is a "SLO", please? I'm unfamiliar with that acronym.

Squadron Leadership Officer, it's a Senior Member duty position (no specialty track, can fall under Cadet Programs) where the SM serves as an adviser to Cadets (and Seniors) on proper drill & ceremonies, uniform wear, etc.

[JC004]

Now they call it Leadership Education Officer (that's a change).  Not a bad one, I guess.  But not groundbreaking either. 

[SarDragon]

A LEO.

Gee, that can get confusing.

[Spam]

Thanks, guys.

I just went back and checked the obsolete 29MAY00 20-1, and the old org charts and text simply refer to Leadership Officer, the "Squadron" part referring to the assignment level. Hence, I'd never seen anyone use "SLO". Interesting. Learn something every day.

"LEO" to me means low earth orbit (grin) or Law Enforcement Officer.

V/R,
Spam

[SarDragon]

Or Colonel Burke from MIWG. 

[NIN]

Or Colonel Burke from MIWG. 

please don't give him any ideas

[foo]

Now they call it Leadership Education Officer (that's a change).  Not a bad one, I guess.  But not groundbreaking either.

Interesting. That seems to be a little-known fact in my neck of the woods, though it's indeed spelled out in 20-1 and 52-16. Not surprisingly it still says "Squadron Leadership Officer" under my duty positions in eServices.

[arajca]

Now they call it Leadership Education Officer (that's a change).  Not a bad one, I guess.  But not groundbreaking either.

Interesting. That seems to be a little-known fact in my neck of the woods, though it's indeed spelled out in 20-1 and 52-16. Not surprisingly it still says "Squadron Leadership Officer" under my duty positions in eServices.

That's what happens when they make changes to the regs and don't bother to tell anyone.

[foo]

Now they call it Leadership Education Officer (that's a change).  Not a bad one, I guess.  But not groundbreaking either.

Interesting. That seems to be a little-known fact in my neck of the woods, though it's indeed spelled out in 20-1 and 52-16. Not surprisingly it still says "Squadron Leadership Officer" under my duty positions in eServices.

That's what happens when they make changes to the regs and don't bother to tell anyone.

True, although I've made enough trips to 52-16 while working on my CP technician rating that I probably should've picked up on it by now.

[JC004]

Heck, someone who's scanning it and already expects to see it a certain way could miss it.

The process behind regulations, forms, etc. is disjointed and could use a coordinating strategy.

Someone could submit a ticket/knowledgebase request for them to update e-Services to reflect the change in terminology. 

[THRAWN]

While the group commander's comment may have been inappropriate, this is something the squadron commander will have to discuss with him or her. Once the squadron commander explains the reasons for the current cadet structure, the group commander may desist of wanting to make changes. The squadron commander may respectfully refer to the regulations and pamphlet quoted.

At the end of the day, none of our opinions regarding this issue really matter. This if something they both have to resolve through dialog and privately. And if that doesn't work, then through the chain of command.

A few of us present at the meeting (cadets were not in the room) attempted to discuss the Cadet Staff Handbook. The impression I got was that he was not very familiar with it and not interested in following its recommendations on this subject. Period.

Anyway, you're right about everything of course. It's just deeply frustrating.

You identified an issue that keeps coming up: commanders who do not know the program. Ideally, a squadron commander should really have a working knowledge if not a tech level of the 3 main missions. Those qualifications should increase as the level of command increases. Getting the tech levels of ES, CP, and AE are not impossible to obtain and would eliminated issues like this. Far too often, commanders come from the "support" functions and have zero idea about how CAP works.

[JC004]

To operate effective in command functions, we also have to know a few other things well: Safety, Logistics, etc.  There's much required of a volunteer in command positions.  And the regulations change fairly regularly (and sometimes the small changes are the most confusing). 

I was recently deciding which regulations and forms we'd keep paper copies of, which to include in the mission kit, etc.  I've also been doing a comprehensive regulation review to aid a squadron that had declined.  The confusion of a different geographic area and all are enough, before the regulation stuff. 

I went to the SUI guide because in the past, I used it as a base to create a checklist to get things in compliance.  But the SUI guide changed SIGNIFICANTLY at the end of last year.  The Cadet Programs section, for example, now provides no effective measure of a unit cadet program.

My thought is that perhaps the national updates could be tweaked to provide easy at-a-glance overviews of changes that have happened.  This is more important now because new regulation changes are no longer an EVENT, tied to live streams of the [old] National Board meetings, etc.

I also think that since UCC isn't really required and may not be available for some time, perhaps a well-made online command function orientation and refresher course could be made available with the most current information.  Those, coupled with a good unit checklist and updated Commander's Guide (which the website notes as under revision and doesn't offer for download) could go a long way to helping commanders and deputies with a direction. 

I'd love to see an orientation for unit-level cadet programs staff (Leadership Education Officers, Activity Officers, etc.), which would give them not just a crash course, but would walk them through what cadets have to do from the CADETS' perspective.  In the past, I had such officers take a couple cadet tests and all to give them the experience from their perspective.  It'd help to let those people see the cadets' perspective of online test-taking, uniform ordering, etc. so they know first-hand.  Too many people are saying things like "I think that's in eServices somewhere...." because they can't even view the cadets' stuff.

Specialty tracks don't help much in these areas because if you've already been rated for years, you don't go through it again.  Getting a Master in something like CP is focused on Wing-level/higher echelon operations, not deeper or updated understanding of things.

[ZigZag911]

The group CC (or for that matter, any commander in the chain!) could order change in staffing or processes in a subordinate unit; if you consult CAPR 20-1, every commander position is described as commanding all subordinate units and personnel.

It happens, more than you'd think...wing or region CCs directing a staffing change...usually for good reason, after repeated discussions with subordinate commander, and quite possibly mentoring/counseling from higher echelon for staff officer in question.

In normal circumstances, however, for a group CC to interfere in the running of a squadron is, as someone else mentioned, micromanaging of the worst sort: it undermines the unit CC and is an inexcusable waste of the group commander's time, particularly in a case like this, where the unit seems to be functioning smoothly and harmoniously.

Rule #1 for senior commander (based on my 5+ years as group CC, as well as command staff service at higher echelons):

"If it ain't broke, DON'T fix it!!!"

[foo]

The group CC (or for that matter, any commander in the chain!) could order change in staffing or processes in a subordinate unit; if you consult CAPR 20-1, every commander position is described as commanding all subordinate units and personnel.

It happens, more than you'd think...wing or region CCs directing a staffing change...usually for good reason, after repeated discussions with subordinate commander, and quite possibly mentoring/counseling from higher echelon for staff officer in question.

In normal circumstances, however, for a group CC to interfere in the running of a squadron is, as someone else mentioned, micromanaging of the worst sort: it undermines the unit CC and is an inexcusable waste of the group commander's time, particularly in a case like this, where the unit seems to be functioning smoothly and harmoniously.

Rule #1 for senior commander (based on my 5+ years as group CC, as well as command staff service at higher echelons):

"If it ain't broke, DON'T fix it!!!"

One would expect the group CC to have a defensible reason for doing so, unlike in this case.

[foo]

I'd love to see an orientation for unit-level cadet programs staff (Leadership Education Officers, Activity Officers, etc.), which would give them not just a crash course, but would walk them through what cadets have to do from the CADETS' perspective.

+1

[Storm Chaser]

I'd love to see an orientation for unit-level cadet programs staff (Leadership Education Officers, Activity Officers, etc.), which would give them not just a crash course, but would walk them through what cadets have to do from the CADETS' perspective.

+1

It's call Training Leaders of Cadets (TLC). Perhaps we should focus on improving its curriculum and making sure the course is offered frequently enough to meet the units needs.

[winterg]

We just hosted TLC at my squadron. Packed house and it filled up quick. I shouldn't have hesitated to register.

[TheSkyHornet]

Now they call it Leadership Education Officer (that's a change).  Not a bad one, I guess.  But not groundbreaking either.

Interesting. That seems to be a little-known fact in my neck of the woods, though it's indeed spelled out in 20-1 and 52-16. Not surprisingly it still says "Squadron Leadership Officer" under my duty positions in eServices.

Aye. Still listed as Squadron Leadership Officer on my eServices account. It's annoying when things don't interface. Although, I'm sure by this point, everyone knows where I stand on that subject

I'd love to see an orientation for unit-level cadet programs staff (Leadership Education Officers, Activity Officers, etc.), which would give them not just a crash course, but would walk them through what cadets have to do from the CADETS' perspective.

Personally, I think any Senior Member moving into a cadet/composite squadron in a cadet programs role should have to go through a probationary period of working with the cadets hand-in-hand, sort of like an intern. You can't manage a program if you know nothing about it. It's relatively quick to figure out, but it's a great tool to get you some hands-on experience with what your cadets have to do on a regular basis. Perfect especially for Seniors Without Grade.

It's call Training Leaders of Cadets (TLC). Perhaps we should focus on improving its curriculum and making sure the course is offered frequently enough to meet the units needs.

Going to be going through this at OHWG PDO weekend in October. I'm psyched. Sounds like a great experience.



In regard to the OP, sounds like a typical case of SNAFU when it comes to someone stepping into an affair they don't normally show face at

[JC004]

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. 

[TheSkyHornet]

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

[Майор Хаткевич]

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.

[JC004]

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.

[TheSkyHornet]

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.

[LTC Don]

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.

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.

[TheSkyHornet]

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.

[Storm Chaser]

3.

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.

[arajca]

3.

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.

[foo]

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...

[Storm Chaser]

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.

[THRAWN]

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...

[JeffDG]

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.

[foo]

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.

[TheSkyHornet]

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.

[THRAWN]

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.

[foo]

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.

[TheSkyHornet]

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.

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?

[TheSkyHornet]

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

[foo]

Is it politics or improper management and utilization of resources?

Yes.

[TheSkyHornet]

Is it politics or improper management and utilization of resources?

Yes.

That was a multiple choice question:
a). Is it politics
b.) Is it the improper management and utilization of resources

There's a difference between an intent to be forceful and dictate squadron activities and operations versus the negligent oversight due to lack of applicable knowledge in supervising squadron activities

[LSThiker]

Is it politics or improper management and utilization of resources?

Yes.

That was a multiple choice question:
a). Is it politics
b.) Is it the improper management and utilization of resources

No that was a Boolean question and her response was a Boolean Logic

[vorteks]

Is it politics or improper management and utilization of resources?

Yes.

That was a multiple choice question:
a). Is it politics
b.) Is it the improper management and utilization of resources

There's a difference between an intent to be forceful and dictate squadron activities and operations versus the negligent oversight due to lack of applicable knowledge in supervising squadron activities

You forgot:

c.) All of the above

[TheSkyHornet]

Is it politics or improper management and utilization of resources?

Yes.

That was a multiple choice question:
a). Is it politics
b.) Is it the improper management and utilization of resources

No that was a Boolean question and her response was a Boolean Logic

Excuse me. I'll correct that---

Which of the following situations do you believe to be most accurate:
a.) The decisions made by the person of authority were done so based on bureaucratic practices, or
b.) The decisions made by the person of authority were done so due to insufficient or lacking expertise of subject matter and/or utilization of resources?

Is it politics or improper management and utilization of resources?

Yes.

That was a multiple choice question:
a). Is it politics
b.) Is it the improper management and utilization of resources

There's a difference between an intent to be forceful and dictate squadron activities and operations versus the negligent oversight due to lack of applicable knowledge in supervising squadron activities

You forgot:

c.) All of the above

Could be as well, I suppose. Many people lead based on what they perceive to be true, even if not accurate, and use their level of authority to make decisions for others. In fact, that's probably what happens in most of these kinds of cases.

"But so-and-so told us we had to."
"So-and-so is wrong."
"But they're in charge."
"That still makes them wrong. Now do what they say. They're in charge."