Squadron Commander Term Limits

[blinky]

Obviously I'm late to the discussion - but I'm a parent of two CAP cadets and the new rule regarding squadron commander term limits concerns me very much.  Some people want you to "shut up" and not voice your opinion.  Some people want you to use the chain of command.  But let's face it - the chain of command isn't going to work on this topic and more parents need a voice.  So I saw this out there and figured I would share.  It is self explanatory and my understanding is that National is aware of this petition going around.  This decision was forced on CAP by the National Commander and the de-powered board of governors does not concur.  Your opinion can make a difference - these people do not operate in a vacuum.    The bottom line is the decision to move squadron commanders out after 4 years is better done at the wing and group level - not from remote people in high places making arbitrary rules.

http://tinyurl.com/capregpetition

[Eclipse]

the new rule regarding squadron commander term limits concerns me very much.  Some people want you to "shut up" and not voice your opinion. 

Why?

[Ned]

This decision was forced on CAP by the National Commander and the de-powered board of governors does not concur.  http://tinyurl.com/capregpetition

I'm not sure I understand this part.  Could you explain?

[Eclipse]

the new rule regarding squadron commander term limits concerns me very much.  Some people want you to "shut up" and not voice your opinion. 

Why?

This decision was forced on CAP by the National Commander and the de-powered board of governors does not concur.

Your evidence of this is? ("Depowered" BOG? Seriously?)

The bottom line is the decision to move squadron commanders out after 4 years is better done at the wing and group level - not from remote people in high places making arbitrary rules.

"Remote People" making decisions is the definition of a paramilitary organization.  All rules are "arbitrary", especially when you don't agree.
It never ceases to amaze how people want the trappings and benefits of a paramilitary organization, but still want it to function as a democracy.

And just to take my guess - your unit has a "beloved" unit CC who will be effected by this, and can't "possibly replaced", even with an additional 4 years to train the replacement up and with no requirement that he/she leave the unit.  Close?

Stagnation serves no one.

[JeffDG]

And just to take my guess - your unit has a "beloved" unit CC who will be effected by this, and can't "possibly replaced", even with an additional 4 years to train the replacement up and with no requirement that he/she leave the unit.  Close?

As I read the reg, a long-term commander does not have "an additional 4 years" to train the replacement, but must be replaced immediately.

[Eclipse]

And just to take my guess - your unit has a "beloved" unit CC who will be effected by this, and can't "possibly replaced", even with an additional 4 years to train the replacement up and with no requirement that he/she leave the unit.  Close?

As I read the reg, a long-term commander does not have "an additional 4 years" to train the replacement, but must be replaced immediately.

Yeah, you're right. even better.

I was thinking about the limits in my Region which, when originally instituted a decade ago, basically reset the clock and the CC had an additional 3 years (no more then 4) to serve.

[blinky]

the new rule regarding squadron commander term limits concerns me very much.  Some people want you to "shut up" and not voice your opinion. 

Why?

This decision was forced on CAP by the National Commander and the de-powered board of governors does not concur.

Your evidence of this is? ("Depowered" BOG? Seriously?)

The bottom line is the decision to move squadron commanders out after 4 years is better done at the wing and group level - not from remote people in high places making arbitrary rules.

"Remote People" making decisions is the definition of a paramilitary organization.  All rules are "arbitrary", especially when you don't agree.
It never ceases to amaze how people want the trappings and benefits of a paramilitary organization, but still want it to function as a democracy.

And just to take my guess - your unit has a "beloved" unit CC who will be effected by this, and can't "possibly replaced", even with an additional 4 years to train the replacement up and with no requirement that he/she leave the unit.  Close?

Stagnation serves no one.

You do know that the BOG does not concur with Gen Carr on this right?  And yes we like our SC (cc?) just fine.  The primary problem is that have 90 days to replace with no replacement - a story that I am hearing all over unfortunately.

[blinky]

And just to take my guess - your unit has a "beloved" unit CC who will be effected by this, and can't "possibly replaced", even with an additional 4 years to train the replacement up and with no requirement that he/she leave the unit.  Close?

As I read the reg, a long-term commander does not have "an additional 4 years" to train the replacement, but must be replaced immediately.

Yeah, you're right. even better.

I was thinking about the limits in my Region which, when originally instituted a decade ago, basically reset the clock and the CC had an additional 3 years (no more then 4) to serve.

Dude - don't just be ignorant - this does NOT impact CC's.

[Eclipse]

You do know that the BOG does not concur with Gen Carr on this right?  And yes we like our SC (cc?) just fine. 

Again, evidence of this?  They have the full power to dictate a change if that is true.

The primary problem is that have 90 days to replace with no replacement - a story that I am hearing all over unfortunately.

Then they have literally failed.  Transition and change is reality.  Units with no transition plan are not only denying their people opportunities,
but also risk disappearing overnight - I've seen that more then once.  People get busy, sick, and yes, die.  And with no plan, the
"successful" unit dies overnight.

Any unit that cannot replace a CC in 90 days is either too small for its own good, or has been essentially a one-man show, neither is appropriate.

[Eclipse]

Dude - don't just be ignorant - this does NOT impact CC's.

CC is the office symbol for Commander.

Dude.

[blinky]

Dude - don't just be ignorant - this does NOT impact CC's.

CC is the office symbol for Commander.

Dude.

I'll repost this since you are in both threads too.  So - being that CAP is primarily a youth organization with a small cadre of planes and pilots - I think a comparison to BSA is pretty apt here.  BSA has 3.7 million members and CAP has 60k.  Just to put that in terms you might understand Eclipse - if CAP and BSA were both cadet squadrons - the CAP squadron would have 10 cadets and the BSA squadron would have 500 cadets.  So - since you are satisfied being from a squadron with 10 cadets - then more power to ya son.  You probably weren't born then - but back in the 70's BSA and CAP were considered on par with each other and there was healthy competition between them for youth.  Over the last 40 years BSA pretty much blew CAP out of the water in terms of growth and programs while CAP has stagnated.  BSA didn't bother to create this great new rule that throws out scout masters every 4 years.  You know why?  Because only an idiot would make that rule in an all volunteer organization.

[Eclipse]

being that CAP is primarily a youth organization with a small cadre of planes and pilots

Again showing you have no idea what you are talking about.

National Cadet Count: 26384 (as of 31 Dec 2012)
National Senior Count: 34463 (as of 31 Dec 2012)

Anything else?

[blinky]

being that CAP is primarily a youth organization with a small cadre of planes and pilots

Again showing you have no idea what you are talking about.

National Cadet Count: 26384 (as of 31 Dec 2012)
National Senior Count: 34463 (as of 31 Dec 2012)

Anything else?

Oh not 60,000 - 60,847.  Yipee.  Good grief - 26k cadets?  That is a massive failure and what you seem blind to is that this decision is just one more nail in the coffin of CAP.  Membership in CAP is on a downward spiral and CAP will eventually cease to exist because of people with organizational tunnel vision.  Good luck with that.  Meanwhile people like me who care about the future of CAP are not going to sit idly by and watch.

[Eclipse]

Membership in CAP is on a downward spiral

Evidence?

CAP's membership has been essentially static in the last decade, while the BSA has lost nearly 2 million members in that
same time period.

They are completely different organizations with different goals, demographics, and even membership pool.  Both have challenges
both have struggled, but comparing them they way you are indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of both organizations.

BSA leadership is cyclical by design, because with no adult program, the majority of the Troop leadership is parents who
tend to move on when their Scouts do, so the need for term limits is much less prevalent.

CAP is much less cyclical because many, if not most, of the unit leaders are adults who joined to be part of the Senior program
and for whom command was either an evolution or a matter of circumstances.  We have far less cadet parents who are unit
leaders, and it is also not uncommon for parents to remain in the organization far beyond the involvement of their cadets.


I think we'll be OK.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Blinky needs reading comprehension. We have more SMs than cadets. We are NOT a cadet organization. BSA and CAP were never equals, nor are we supposed to be. Also, eclipse may not be old, but he's certainly not a noob or my age, and has enough CAP 'street cred' to make itclear you ddon't know your audience. At all.

[Critical AOA]

Blinky,

I have a question for you as I missed it in your posts. I know you are a parent of two cadets but are you a member yourself?  If not, I'd encourage you to join as the best way to effect change is within an organization, not from the outside.   There is always a need for dedicated Senior members in Cadet Programs and as that seems to be your major interest in CAP, you might want to channel your energies in a positive direction to the betterment of the organization.   

However if you think that the BSA is superior to CAP then you should move your kids to that organization.  Why stick them with a lesser organization?

As to membership numbers, CAP attracts a narrower slice of the youth pie.  CAP attracts those who are interested in either aviation or the military or both.  BSA attracts a larger and maybe different variety of kids.  Nothing wrong with either but comparing them is a proverbial apples and oranges debate.  I will state that CAP could do a better job in regards to marketing and recruiting but that is a different argument for a different thread, which there have been many of.

[blinky]

Blinky,

I have a question for you as I missed it in your posts. I know you are a parent of two cadets but are you a member yourself?  If not, I'd encourage you to join as the best way to effect change is within an organization, not from the outside.   There is always a need for dedicated Senior members in Cadet Programs and as that seems to be your major interest in CAP, you might want to channel your energies in a positive direction to the betterment of the organization.   

However if you think that the BSA is superior to CAP then you should move your kids to that organization.  Why stick them with a lesser organization?

As to membership numbers, CAP attracts a narrower slice of the youth pie.  CAP attracts those who are interested in either aviation or the military or both.  BSA attracts a larger and maybe different variety of kids.  Nothing wrong with either but comparing them is a proverbial apples and oranges debate.  I will state that CAP could do a better job in regards to marketing and recruiting but that is a different argument for a different thread, which there have been many of.

I'm a SM - and I've served in several roles.  I'm not saying BSA is superior to CAP - in fact I feel quite the opposite.  CAP teaches things BSA could never hope to teach.  I also agree it's a smaller slice.  I've only been a SM for 5 years - but in my short stint it has become clear that CAP is loosing it's mission and it's clout.  So - it breaks my heart to see moves like this that (like so much other crap coming down the pipe) seem bent on driving cadets away.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Can I suggest you step up and command?

[Eclipse]

I'd still like you to either support or recant your assertion about the BOG.

[blinky]

Can I suggest you step up and command?

Considering it to be sure, but the SC is a time consuming job that needs devotion to be done correctly.  I unfortunately am not in a position to devote that time.  Wish I was.  Which makes it even more of a shame because our SC does and he is good.

[blinky]

I'd still like you to either support or recant your assertion about the BOG.

Get to know the group/wing staff from a state that hadn't implemented this rule previously.

[blinky]

I'd still like you to either support or recant your assertion about the BOG.

Get to know the group/wing staff from a state that hadn't implemented this rule previously.

So - just to set this straight - all "non-strategic" decision making is shifted to the full control of the national commander and is now out of the BOG hands.  The BOG reviews but can no longer overrule the National Commanders "non-strategic" policy making - which includes the changes to 20-1.  They reviewed the decision and the response from BOG was "We do not concur" with that section and the national commander did it anyway.  That's the new relationship between the BOG and the National Commander with the governance change.

[TCMajor]

Blinky,

No one is so good that they should stay in a position of command more than 4-years.  I actually think it should only be 3-years.  It creates stagnation in the unit.  I would consider my self a reasonably good commander.  However, I fully plan on being out of my position before I hit the 4-year mark.  I am coming up on two years March, and my squadron has seen measurable growth (took over at 90 now at 131 heading to 150 and beyond). I started talking about leaving command when I hit the one year mark, letting everyone know that I would be replaced at the 4-year mark or before.  I have trained several folks through that time.  I now have at least three or four folks who could step in and continue the squadron if I get hit by a bus tonight.  Every commander needs to understand the words "I am nobody special and I can and must be replaceable" the important people are the ones standing in front of me.

  As far as being a "youth" organization.  Well, while important, Cadet Programs is only one of our three missions.  The Boy Scouts (yes I am a leader who is wood badge) only has one. 

  The sad part here is that it took a regulation to make leaders do what they should have been doing all along...ensuring the existence of their unit beyond there exit. That is what leaders do.

[Eclipse]

I'd still like you to either support or recant your assertion about the BOG.

Get to know the group/wing staff from a state that hadn't implemented this rule previously.

That's not an answer to the question posted, and what you have provided is not evidence, either. 

That would be board minutes, committee discussions or similar.

Citing people from other wings who you say aren't happy isn't evidence of the BOG not being happy, either.
That's evidence of people not being happy, probably those who didn't like the idea.

[blinky]

TCMajor - thanks for the measured response.  I totally agree with everything you said.  I wish we had a squadron as large as yours to work with but we do not.  My concern here is that this is a one size fits all solution that - while it may work for your squadron which has a ton of resources - it is going to decimate our tiny squadron.  Many of the wings do not agree with this but it is being forced on them and for small squadrons (which is most squadrons in our region) this is sadly going to do lasting harm.  Time will tell and I honestly hope everyone here with their crass insults are right.  But I don't agree with it and I'm on board with this petition because the chain of command will not service the youth in our squadron.

[Eclipse]

Time will tell and I honestly hope everyone here with their crass insults are right.

Cite please.

[SamFranklin]

Blinky, you're confusing the BoG, empowered by Congress to lead as it deems best, with the now defunct National Board, perhaps?

That you're confused on that point ought to signal to you that the issues you are so opinionated about are more complex that you suspect. Have some faith that top leaders, including non-CAP types / AF general officers on our BoG, are pretty pleased with CAP's performance in recent years.

[blinky]

I'd still like you to either support or recant your assertion about the BOG.

Get to know the group/wing staff from a state that hadn't implemented this rule previously.

That's not an answer to the question posted, and what you have provided is not evidence, either. 

That would be board minutes, committee discussions or similar.

Citing people from other wings who you say aren't happy isn't evidence of the BOG not being happy, either.
That's evidence of people not being happy, probably those who didn't like the idea.

Look dude - you are happy with this - then be happy.  This isn't a right or wrong discussion and I am not going to sit here and try to prove something that won't make a hill of beans difference to you.  It is not right for us and many squadrons feel the same way.  You can argue till the cows come home but that isn't going to bring back the cadets we lose over this.  I am so happy for you that you have it all together and you are doing it right and you know best for you.  But you don't know best for everybody and frankly your opinion is just like your arm pitt - we both have two but yours stinks.  Get it?  I am right in the domain of influence that I have control over and you are wrong.

[abdsp51]

So Blinky, let me get this straight. You would rather have a guy establish his own little world and run things outside of the regulations established because he is good?  You do not support term limits because it will harm your tiny squadron and this whole thing is harmful to cadets?  The National Commander cannot dictate policy?  Hmmm are you aware you serve in your duty position at the discretion of the commander just like every other SM here and myself?  You have obviously never been a member of an overseas unit at all which changes squadron commanders anywhere from 1 year to 3 years give or take.

You claim the BoG does not agree with the decision for term limits yet you have not provided anything solid to substantiate it.  What type of example do you believe this is setting for cadets?  That you can challenge anything in the program you do not like via petition?  That anything you don't like is evil and not in someone or their best interests? 

As our more senior posters here have asked please provide proof and solid proof at that  the BoG did not and does not agree with this decision something other than talk to someone.  Without that you are lacking the credibility for your case and it is all just speculation.

If you do not like how things are going then either leave or advance and be elected as the National Commander or the BoG and SAG and change the policy.  You also claim we are going to lose cadets please provide concrete proof of this outside your speculation. 

[ßτε]

I'd still like you to either support or recant your assertion about the BOG.

Get to know the group/wing staff from a state that hadn't implemented this rule previously.

That's not an answer to the question posted, and what you have provided is not evidence, either. 

That would be board minutes, committee discussions or similar.

Citing people from other wings who you say aren't happy isn't evidence of the BOG not being happy, either.
That's evidence of people not being happy, probably those who didn't like the idea.

Look dude - you are happy with this - then be happy.  This isn't a right or wrong discussion and I am not going to sit here and try to prove something that won't make a hill of beans difference to you.  It is not right for us and many squadrons feel the same way.  You can argue till the cows come home but that isn't going to bring back the cadets we lose over this.  I am so happy for you that you have it all together and you are doing it right and you know best for you.  But you don't know best for everybody and frankly your opinion is just like your arm pitt - we both have two but yours stinks.  Get it?  I am right in the domain of influence that I have control over and you are wrong.  Period - so suck it up and go home.

Any credibility you may have had has been totally eradicated by that post. There in absolutely no reason to take any of your points seriously.

[RiverAux]

Uh, if the BOG isn't happy with something the National Commander does, they would just fire him and wouldn't think twice about it. 

And just because a beloved, irreplacable squadron commander no longer holds that position doesn't mean that they can't stay and help the new person do the job and be just as active in the unit as they had been.  Its not like they get kicked out of CAP. 

[Eclipse]

Home?

You wandered in here, violated the TOS with your first post, and then started making assertions and veiled accusations regarding the
national leadership and governance structure.

Not to mention that just about every "fact" or statistic you've cited in support of your opinions has literally been incorrect.

Any good commander puts the continuity of the unit above their own presence, and will also be there during the transition
and probably long after to help the new guy keep things running.  Good plans far outlive personalities and stand on their own,
regardless of who is wearing the badge.

Unit too small to have people progressing in their own development and interested in the job?  Failure of command.

No real plan for continuity, or the program is so personality-specific that it dissolves overnight when the commander can't be there?  Failure of command.

[blinky]

What I find very interesting in all this is how one sided the opinions of everyone on this forum (at least on this thread), and how totally opposite that is from the reaction of all the squadrons in our area.  Parents especially are comlaining loudly.  Does the membership of this forum have lopsided representation from a certain region?  I see a lot of mid west/southwest/west distribution here.  Anyone from the southeast region here?

[brian.bauer]

My squadron is currently in a predicament; both for the new term limits and because our SQ/CC (Squadron Commander) is no longer interested in having the position and wants to take it easy for a bit.

We're a very small squadron (~10 Cadets / ~ 7 SMs per mtg). We're having to figure it out. It's actually looking like I'm going to be the pick - and I'm an active duty AF Officer with a very busy j.o.b. If you care and have passion, you'll figure out how to make it work. Otherwise you let a very good thing dry up, be bitter for bitter's sake, and perhaps deny a great opportunity for someone who either needs or deserves it.

Keep plugging along and make the best of it. It may take some extra effort, but in the end your work will pay off.

Thanks for your time.

(Sorry I don't have a cool little graphic of my quals / ribbons yet) 

[blinky]

My squadron is currently in a predicament; both for the new term limits and because our SQ/CC (Squadron Commander) is no longer interested in having the position and wants to take it easy for a bit.

We're a very small squadron (~10 Cadets / ~ 7 SMs per mtg). We're having to figure it out. It's actually looking like I'm going to be the pick - and I'm an active duty AF Officer with a very busy j.o.b. If you care and have passion, you'll figure out how to make it work. Otherwise you let a very good thing dry up, be bitter for bitter's sake, and perhaps deny a great opportunity for someone who either needs or deserves it.

Keep plugging along and make the best of it. It may take some extra effort, but in the end your work will pay off.

Thanks for your time.

(Sorry I don't have a cool little graphic of my quals / ribbons yet) 

Thank you very much Brian.

[Critical AOA]

Blinky,

I understand that you and your squadron have a great commander and hate to see him replaced.  May I ask about his potential replacement?  Do you have some negative feelings about him or her that is helping to form your opinion on this subject? 

Is there even a potential well trained candidate ready to step in?

If so, then you should look forward to the next chapter in your squadron's history and be ready to lend him or her the same level of support you lent the current commander.  I am sure it would be greatly appreciated by all. 

If there is not a ready candidate, what does that say about your commander?  A good commander is always involved in succession planning just in case. 

These are just questions from a curious bystander.

[LGM30GMCC]

but in my short stint it has become clear that CAP is loosing it's mission and it's clout

I'm afraid you have been exposed to a very small view of CAP if this is your impression. Over the last decade CAP has been building its operational relationship with the USAF including carrying out operations that have a very high profile. Additionally the CAP/CC has met with the Chief of Staff of the Air Force on several occasions, the CSAF also has visited  numerous generals have attended CAP functions throughout the country. I would say that is a pretty high level of clout. Senior leaders from the USAF continue to serve on our BoG as well.

It is true SAR missions have decreased to a certain extent, however overall mission hours are up. Disaster Relief and Homeland Security type missions are increasing in frequency. CAP support of Katrina and the Deep Water Horizon are two very high profile missions that CAP has recently been involved in.

Get to know the group/wing staff from a state that hadn't implemented this rule previously.

I have been a squadron commander, wing staff, and region staff prior to this rule being added. I have seen both good squadrons and poor squadrons with long-term squadron commanders, however I still support this rule. It definitely encourages continued shifting of personnel every few years. In many ways on this subject I (brace yourselves) agree with Eclipse. No squadron should have a single point of failure in its leadership and it is vitally important to continue to develop our senior members in leadership and management skills. Unfortunately far too many units see PD as merely an 'optional' program with limited value.

There are many possible sources of Sq/CCs, especially in the geographically smaller wings. Wing staffers could move back down to command units and be back filled by other members. Former squadron commanders can continue to serve in their squadrons as assistants. However I believe it is better for CAP, and the individual units if they move up perhaps to Region staff positions and the like. Another option would be to transfer staff members from one squadron to take command of another unit. This would be most feasible in areas where there are other units within a one hour commute or so.

So - just to set this straight - all "non-strategic" decision making is shifted to the full control of the national commander and is now out of the BOG hands.  The BOG reviews but can no longer overrule the National Commanders "non-strategic" policy making - which includes the changes to 20-1.

While there may be some reservations this is certainly within the realm of a commander. As has been pointed out, CAP is no longer a democracy for operational purposes. In many ways this brings us back to our fundamental beginnings though I think it will be a serious shock to the system for people used to command by committee. If, however, the CAP/CC is going too far, or doing something the BoG absolutely will not tolerate, the CAP/CC can be removed. If however, it's tried for the term of a CAP/CC and it is causing some horrific doom-gloom problems the next CAP/CC can rescind that guidance.

I think in many ways one of the greatest weaknesses of our organization is the number of members that are tunnel visioned on their little corner of the organization. I highly recommend you seek opportunities to work at group or wing levels, and to attend activities such as RCLS, NSC, and national conferences. It really can give you a different perspective on the organization as a whole and even your small slice of it.

A number of people here with quite a bit of experience have explained many of the reasons behind the change. If so many of our units are incapable of finding new, high quality, squadron commanders, we have some very serious problems that need to be addressed. Problems that it is clear current commanders are not addressing.

Finally, if a squadron absolutely cannot find a new commander in 90 days, a wing commander can put up an approval to have an Sq/CC in place serve another 4 years. It will just require Region/CC approval. At this point it should shine some very serious light on the unit and get some assistance to it.

I'm not going to get dragged down into the personal attacks no matter how tempting it really is.

[NIN]

Any good commander puts the continuity of the unit above their own presence, and will also be there during the transition
and probably long after to help the new guy keep things running.  Good plans far outlive personalities and stand on their own,
regardless of who is wearing the badge.

^^This

[SamFranklin]

What I find very interesting in all this is how one sided the opinions of everyone on this forum (at least on this thread), and how totally opposite that is from the reaction of all the squadrons in our area.  Parents especially are comlaining loudly.

I happen to agree with you that term limits is not something that should be mandated nationally, though I agree with the people who've said long-term commanders indicate poor unit health. Plus, I think a lot of us current and former CCs react to the new policy by saying, "Great, I've been waiting for a replacement but never found anyone, maybe Gen Carr has someone in mind?"

But it's difficult to get to the substance of your point mostly because so much of what you've said has been factually incorrect (BoG stuff, parity size-wise with BSA "back in the day"), representative of only your particular corner of CAP (PCR has no problems with it), and presumes certain things about CAP that not many people agree with (CAP is mostly cadets and this term limit policy is cadet-driven).

Instead of coming in here and lobbing so many opinions, why not ask questions and then engage the answers?   Hey, I hear commanders have term limits. I'm concerned about that for these reasons. Does anyone else feel the same way, or if differently, tell me why so I can either reconfirm my opposition or get swayed to your way....."

But keep throwing bombs if you prefer. Maybe that'll work.

[blinky]

.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Some people want you to "shut up" and not voice your opinion.

I am curious.

Who are the people you believe who want you to "shut-up and not voice your opinion?"

[blinky]

Some people want you to "shut up" and not voice your opinion.

I am curious.

Who are the people you believe who want you to "shut-up and not voice your opinion?"

Everybody on this forum for starters.

[blinky]

And darn if I didn't try to nuke all my rants - and they all magically reappeared.  It seems that the cardinal rules of the forum aren't what eclipse tawt day wur.

[Eclipse]

And darn if I didn't try to nuke all my rants - and they all magically reappeared.  It seems that the cardinal rules of the forum aren't what eclipse tawt day wur.

Actually, that is precisely one of the "cardinal rules".

[abdsp51]

Blinky, if such a vast majority of the membership support your ideals and think the term limits are a bad idea then why are there only 50 signatures? 

Face it man, the majority apparently supports the term limits and for good reason.  This has been discussed at great lengths not only here but I am sure organization wide.   

[MSG Mac]

The CC may have to step down from his position if he has exceeded the term limit, but he can still be available in a different position to serve the squadron as either a Deputy Commander. An advisor, or at a higher echelon where his/her expertise can benefit more people. His replacement at the end of four years is in no way a banishment or exile.

[Pylon]

Let's try to keep this discussion civil, professional, and adult-like.  Thanks.

[Private Investigator]

The CC may have to step down from his position if he has exceeded the term limit, but he can still be available in a different position to serve the squadron as either a Deputy Commander. An advisor, or at a higher echelon where his/her expertise can benefit more people. His replacement at the end of four years is in no way a banishment or exile.

+1 roger that.

I see some Squadrons which have six or seven former Commanders, great strong Units. Then others for some reason have no former Commanders.

[Майор Хаткевич]

The CC may have to step down from his position if he has exceeded the term limit, but he can still be available in a different position to serve the squadron as either a Deputy Commander. An advisor, or at a higher echelon where his/her expertise can benefit more people. His replacement at the end of four years is in no way a banishment or exile.

+1 roger that.

I see some Squadrons which have six or seven former Commanders, great strong Units. Then others for some reason have no former Commanders.

People move up, move, quit, die, etc. A lot of commanders who get "stuck" with the job get burnout, and once they are out, they are OUT.

[Private Investigator]

The CC may have to step down from his position if he has exceeded the term limit, but he can still be available in a different position to serve the squadron as either a Deputy Commander. An advisor, or at a higher echelon where his/her expertise can benefit more people. His replacement at the end of four years is in no way a banishment or exile.

+1 roger that.

I see some Squadrons which have six or seven former Commanders, great strong Units. Then others for some reason have no former Commanders.

People move up, move, quit, die, etc. A lot of commanders who get "stuck" with the job get burnout, and once they are out, they are OUT.

Do not forget the Squadron Commanders who bullied members and when they term out they can not handle being told what to do by the new Commander, especially if he/her is not in their GOBN.

[Chappie]

Having term limits on Commanders (as well as Wing/Region/National chaplains) is advantegous to the organization:

1) it helps the individual from "burning out".   I termed out as a Wing Chaplain and will stepping down at the upcoming Change of Command (since the new Region Commander would have to name a new chaplain in the middle of their tenure should the new CC ask me to continue -- which would not be benefical to them) -- a full term of 6 years is a long time and it does wear one down after awhile. 

2) it does the individual/organization a disservice.  There is a Senior Member Professional Development training program which all members should be actively pursuing.  We ask/expect a member to pursue excellence by attaining levels 1-5.  If we do not provide the opportunity for them to advance in their service at higher levels of responsibility is a disservice.  The organization suffers by not benefiting from the input of a fresh set of eyes/hands.   Each member brings to the table a certain level of experience that we can benefit from. 

I have had the privilege of succeeding other chaplains (Wing and Region) and be able to build on their on their contributions/level that they took the group as well as contributing a few of my own.  Hopefully my successor will be able to move forward and take the region chaplain corps to a higher level.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Do not forget the Squadron Commanders who bullied members and when they term out they can not handle being told what to do by the new Commander, especially if he/her is not in their GOBN.

I've seen that, and confess to sometimes being quietly amused by it.

Like Aerosmith sang many years ago in "Dream On," all the things ya do...come back to you.

As my dad used to say, the people you kick when you're on your way up will be there to kick you on your way down.

[Private Investigator]

Do not forget the Squadron Commanders who bullied members and when they term out they can not handle being told what to do by the new Commander, especially if he/her is not in their GOBN.

I've seen that, and confess to sometimes being quietly amused by it.

Like Aerosmith sang many years ago in "Dream On," all the things ya do...come back to you.

As my dad used to say, the people you kick when you're on your way up will be there to kick you on your way down.

Roger that. I also like what your dad said, I plan on using that too. Thank you.

[tn485]

I signed the petition.

[SarDragon]

All in all, a wasted effort. There have been 67 signatures since it was started, and only 17 in the last 45 days.

I have been an active member of CAP for about 30 years, both as a cadet and a senior member. I have been both situations regarding commander terms - serve as long as you want, and term-limited. I've been in an overseas cadet squadron, with its own peculiarities. In my current unit, we've had two commanders term out, one die, and one leave two months after taking over due to family issues. We have managed to soldier on in spite of all that.

I firmly believe that term limits, and responsible training by commanders, is the best way to run the show. It brings new ideas into the units, and trains up folks to move up the command chain. New group and wing commanders have to come from somewhere.

[Private Investigator]

I concur 

[tn485]

I know it was a wasted effort, but I was willing to try.

I stood up for what I believe is right.  If at the end of the day, that's all I can say, then I will go home proud to be able to say I was firm in my beliefs and stood up for what I think is right.

[Eclipse]

Anonymously signing a petition no one will ever read isn't "standing up for what you believe", it's wasting valuable bandwidth.

Write a physical letter to the national commander, that's actually doing something.

One of these days people will understand that the attention paid to complaints is directly proportional to the effort made in presenting them. 

[tn485]

Valuable bandwidth...LOL.  90+ percent of internet usage is Netflix/Hulu/Other video streaming sites and my signing a petition is wasting valuable bandwidth? Not to mention that it wasn't anonymous.  The national commander could see exactly who I am if he cared to.

And don't think for a second that all I did was sign that petition and forget about it.  I've spent more time than you think on the phone, writing letters, and meeting in person with CAP staff and officials.  When it's all said and done, I may have nothing to show for it, but I tried.  And there's quite a few people who would back me up on that.

[Майор Хаткевич]

And don't think for a second that all I did was sign that petition and forget about it.  I've spent more time than you think on the phone, writing letters, and meeting in person with CAP staff and officials.  When it's all said and done, I may have nothing to show for it, but I tried.  And there's quite a few people who would back me up on that.

Call.

(This is where you show your hand).

[Private Investigator]

I stood up for what I believe is right.  If at the end of the day, that's all I can say, then I will go home proud to be able to say I was firm in my beliefs and stood up for what I think is right.

To keep it in perspective, racists, bigots and morons, to name a few, believe they are right too   

[tn485]

I stood up for what I believe is right.  If at the end of the day, that's all I can say, then I will go home proud to be able to say I was firm in my beliefs and stood up for what I think is right.

To keep it in perspective, racists, bigots and morons, to name a few, believe they are right too   

True...Just be sure you keep that in mind as well.

[spaatzmom]

Can I suggest you step up and command?

Considering it to be sure, but the SC is a time consuming job that needs devotion to be done correctly.  I unfortunately am not in a position to devote that time.  Wish I was.  Which makes it even more of a shame because our SC does and he is good.

What is a SC?  You say you have been a SM for 5 years but it seems you have little idea of the structure of CAP.  What type of SM are you, ie rank or patron?  If you are a patron member you have no say in anything and cannot hold any position in the organization.  If a rank type of member you need to progress in the professional development side of things so you can have a better understanding of the totality of CAP.  SC means nothing in CAP as it doesn't exist.  If you are referring to the squadron commander the proper abbreviation is CC.  This little insight into your relationship indicates that you have little grasp on CAP in general, especially since you keep repeating it.

So you don't like term limits, ok it is your opinion, but others have their own rights to their opinions also.  I have seen the effects of long term "fifedoms" in CAP and for the most part the effect is poor.  I personally know of a squadron that had a commander for over 25 years.  He was dearly loved by the squadron members but the effect of his command in the end was stagnation; of membership levels, activities outside the group as he did not think anything outside of group was important, innovation in teaching, recruiting and retention, fundraising and progression.  Once he left his position, the squadron had difficulty with its identity and direction for several years and is finally coming together after the last remnants of his ideology has ended.  Fresh ideas are always needed and often come from change.  Change can be difficult but it is needed unless you don't mind standing in the middle of stagnant mosquito ridden water.  Life is messy deal with it and more importantly teach your children how to live fully in it, not everything goes your way.

[Duke Dillio]

I think that a big part of this issue is that some commanders believe they are being punished after all of their "hard work and sacrifice."  They think that people will look at them differently now because they are no longer the commander.  This to me is just simple selfishness.  If you are a commander and you believe that noone in your squadron is capable of being in charge, there are two options:  recruit someone that can do the job or train someone to do the job competently and then stick around and help them.  If you think that you are the only one who can do the job, you need to put your ego aside and take a deep look at yourself.  There is always someone out there who can do a better job then you.  You should do your time and train your people correctly.  When it comes time, step aside and watch your hard work become your legacy. 

In the military, commanders are usually around for about three years and then they move on to bigger and better things.  There is a mindset that the guy two ranks below you should know the mission and be prepared to execute the mission should the chain of command disappear.  This allows every officer to a chance at command.  Every CAP officer should be given the opportunity to command a squadron (temporarily or otherwise.)  With people staying in command for 25 years, this doesn't happen.  This is also a major reason why we have retention problems.  Some officers aren't part of the GOBC and they hit the glass ceiling where they cannot go any further in the program.  They then have to decide whether to continue with CAP or get frustrated and quit.  A lot of times they get frustrated and quit.  The policy on term limits should resolve several issues that we have in CAP.  Instead of coming onto this forum complaining about a new policy (which by the way, we see every time there is a new policy because there is always someone that will hate it) and then attacking us when we express our opinion, why not try thinking about the reason for the policy in the first place and then asking us what we think.

[Patterson]

Seriously, is there an actual number someone can provide detailing exactly how many Squadrons had/ have a 20+ year Squadron Commander that never changed??

Moving into command positions past the Squadron level is something that needs our attention more than the handful of 25 year Squadron Commanders.

[Eclipse]

Define "handful" most states have less than 50 units.  A "handful" becomes a meaningful statistic in those cases.

My wing had about 5 when they started enforcing limits, not to mention a couple of musical chairs situations.

The lines between the low performers and everyone else were easy to draw between the "mom and pop shops" and the
ones who treated I'd more like a professional appointment.

That goes double for people in the same staff job for extended periods.  We need term limits there as well.

The rebuttals that center around specific people being "great" commanders actually prove the rule and are not exceptions.
Personality-based programs always fail.

[LGM30GMCC]

Another issue that can force wings (esp larger ones) to look at is 'in-breeding' of CCs. A new commander doesn't have to come from the unit itself. In some ways it is healthy if it doesn't. In places where there are multiple units within a moderate driving distance there is nothing wrong with injecting fresh blood.

Ex: There are 4-5 units within 45 minutes of area X. It makes good sense to look at any applicants for Sq/CC from any of those squadrons.

Additionally, this can be a way to move people up AND DOWN from wing/group structures. In my opinion Commanders should be commanders alone. They should not also hold staff jobs at the next higher echelon. I also believe that staffers at upper echelons should ideally not hold similar staff jobs in lower ones. (I realize this doesn't always work out, heck right now I am dual hatted but at the very specific request of the higher echelon commander.) Term limits can give wings/groups the chance to look at someone who is being a good staffer and moving them back down to command a subordinate unit and moving a good graduated commander up to staff at the next higher echelon.

Personally I also think doing that is ideal because it gives a staffer a chance to get back down in the trenches for a bit and reconnect with the tactical level a bit, and ensures commanders have had a bit of seeing the big picture. I think far too many commanders are so focused on, and have never been exposed to, the big picture that it affects how they run their unit and think everyone is out to get them.

[Eclipse]

In my opinion Commanders should be commanders alone. They should not also hold staff jobs at the next higher echelon. I also believe that staffers at upper echelons should ideally not hold similar staff jobs in lower ones.

Oh man do I agree with this.

[NCRblues]

In my opinion Commanders should be commanders alone. They should not also hold staff jobs at the next higher echelon. I also believe that staffers at upper echelons should ideally not hold similar staff jobs in lower ones.

Oh man do I agree with this.

You mean a squadron commander should not also be the wing chief of staff and director of admin as well?? Crazy thought   

[CDCTF]

What is this, the South Side Surf Shop? There are way too many "dudes" coming from one poster for my liking.

[Private Investigator]

I have seen the effects of long term "fifedoms" in CAP and for the most part the effect is poor.  I personally know of a squadron that had a commander for over 25 years.  He was dearly loved by the squadron members but the effect of his command in the end was stagnation; of membership levels, activities outside the group as he did not think anything outside of group was important, innovation in teaching, recruiting and retention, fundraising and progression.  Once he left his position, the squadron had difficulty with its identity and direction for several years and is finally coming together after the last remnants of his ideology has ended.  Fresh ideas are always needed and often come from change.  Change can be difficult but it is needed unless you don't mind standing in the middle of stagnant mosquito ridden water.  Life is messy deal with it and more importantly teach your children how to live fully in it, not everything goes your way.

For some people they like the ideal of somebody's personal kingdom. It is different when they are on the outs with that king. So do you do what is fair or do you go with the 'good ole boy network'?

I think what is another problem is lack of overall CAP knowledge. Some people who have only been in one unit, i.e. Petticoat Junction Cadet Squadron does not know that CAP has a lot of things going on at higher levels. Especially when a C/CMSgt is going to his first encampment.