The agenda for the May meeting of the CAP Senior Advisory Group is available here. (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/CSAG_2013_05_Agenda_D16D58F15C2A8.pdf)
Some interesting stuff...
Proposal to require GES for Phase 1 (cadets).
Redoing the senior grade structure.
Reference to CAP NCO program and its expected approval by the AF.
Plus more!
I agree completely with the sentiment on revamping the SM grade structure, particularly with making OBC a Level I requirement. Moreover, while I certainly understand the efficiency and availability arguments for the online OBC -- and I think it should continue to be offered that way -- I also believe it should be supplemented with day and a half or two day seminars, a la SLS.
These OBC indoc classes would allow some degree of hands-on modeling of the behaviors we want to see, such as proper C&C, bearing and uniform wear. It would also give members the opportunity to network outside their squadron, which could be crucial in retaining a new member if the home squadron tilts more "goober" than grownup. Lastly, it allows us to set a visible standard at the outset for everyone.
I love the one about booster clubs.
Typical of NHQ types to use six paragraphs to say "there can't be any booster clubs".
I hope they can that grade restructure. Looks like it will drive away people.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 12, 2013, 11:47:16 PM
I hope they can that grade restructure. Looks like it will drive away people.
True, but maybe it will drive away the right people.
I'm one of those people who believe that grade in CAP is sometimes kind of a gimme. I've been around long enough now since coming back in in 2011 to have been exposed to some really fantastic leaders. I've also been involved in situations that mixed AD and CAP officers for long periods of time, and while in some cases it was okay, in others the CAP guys did some things that were truly cringeworthy.
The grade structure proposed in the Agenda may or may not be precisely the right one, but I remain concerned about the professionalism and bearing I've seen displayed by some CAP officers, including those at Major and above.
If you don't use changes in the grade structure to raise the bar on professionalism, what other tool do we have?
Quote from: ProdigalJim on April 12, 2013, 11:58:47 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 12, 2013, 11:47:16 PM
I hope they can that grade restructure. Looks like it will drive away people.
True, but maybe it will drive away the right people.
The grade structure proposed in the Agenda may or may not be precisely the right one, but I remain concerned about the professionalism and bearing I've seen displayed by some CAP officers, including those at Major and above.
If you don't use changes in the grade structure to raise the bar on professionalism, what other tool do we have?
I agree on the behaivor aspect and I think our requirements are pretty good but could be tweaked. I do not agree with havingeveryone start as a FO. We already have a board requirement persay with some promotions having to goto the Wg. I know when I go for Capt it will goto the Wg after I have met with the promotion board at the unit level.
Someone needs to point out that Captain is NOT Field Grade.... It's Company Grade.
And of course this was written by someone who will NOT be affected by this "new" program.
I would applaud a movement toward a tougher series of requirements for rank. When I first joined, I was full-on MOTO for training and when I finished L1, I was a little underwhelmed. After I took the OBC, my first thought was "I wish I had done this as a SMWOG".
I wouldn't go as far to agree that ALL of our officer grades are "gimme's", but certainly the LT grades could fall into that category. O-3 to a lesser extent, but it's not a major challenge.
Quote from: ProdigalJim on April 12, 2013, 11:58:47 PM
True, but maybe it will drive away the right people.
I honestly agree with that statement. I don't want to come off as elitist or discriminatory, but I think that there's should be a certain level of maturity, intelligence and ability to become a member. I have no clue how to measure that kind of thing, but that's why there's supposed to be membership committees.
You could argue that some (if not most) of the image issues we face as an organization come from people whose level of maturity, intelligence and ability wasn't high enough.
The Grade restructuring is just another half measure.
Instead of getting rid of the advanced promotions, instead of holding commanders to a standard and stop the promotions for promotions sake, instead of putting real meat into the promtoion system in the first place.
the just stick on the Flight Officer grades in front of the Lt's and hope that that fixes everything.
Want to fix the CAP rank thing.....tie rank into postions....i.e. Want to be Major....serve as a Squadron Commander or wing Vice Commander, want to be Lt Col serve as a Group commander. The highest rank you can be with out being a commander is Capt.
:)
Quote from: arajca on April 12, 2013, 10:49:12 PM
The agenda for the May meeting of the CAP Senior Advisory Group is available here. (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/CSAG_2013_05_Agenda_D16D58F15C2A8.pdf)
Some interesting stuff...
Proposal to require GES for Phase 1 (cadets).
If the CSAG ends up requiring GES for cadets, I hope they do the right thing and require it for Senior Members as well.
Quote from: NC Hokie on April 13, 2013, 02:32:20 PM
Quote from: arajca on April 12, 2013, 10:49:12 PM
The agenda for the May meeting of the CAP Senior Advisory Group is available here. (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/CSAG_2013_05_Agenda_D16D58F15C2A8.pdf)
Some interesting stuff...
Proposal to require GES for Phase 1 (cadets).
If the CSAG ends up requiring GES for cadets, I hope they do the right thing and require it for Senior Members as well.
Really let's hope not because not every SM has the desire to do ES. And not every cadet will want to do ES as well.
FECA, FTCA? 12 year old cadets? Nit picky details about ground teams being sent out with how many people?
Not all of them are going to get that, all you're going to do is prove they can search/replace and it actually may be a barrier more than anything.
Let them get used to the system before cramming all that stuff on them. Right now, between EO, OPSEC, Intro to Safety.. what's another couple forays into the bowels of the testing system.
The grade restructure needs to go. I appreciate the sentiment, but master rating for SFO? Seriously? I think that they may be overshooting a bit here, and shoving FO grades in before the Lt's will only serve to prop up prior-cadet and prior-military folks onto a pedestal they don't necessarily belong on. There are already advanced grade options to recognize that their prior service puts them ahead.
Quote from: PHall on April 13, 2013, 01:35:49 AM
And of course this was written by someone who will NOT be affected by this "new" program.
Could not agree more... It is the one up mentality.
Hell the requirements currently for Maj alone is a potential stonewall for some.
Regarding the promotions thing which I can see is a hot potato...
It was deferred to a working group. Let the working group do its work and come back to the CC with a recommendation. The original proposal was one thought on how to increase professionalism and the like in the senior member ranks. :) There are certainly many other possibilities as well.
Too bad the CSAG won't take up the issue of documentation of awards and decs for military folks (to prevent the kind of tomfoolery we're seeing over the last several days)
On the Rank Restructure......the opening line of the proposal says it all.
QuoteCAP members are achieving rank far too quickly and automatically.
Fix.....slow down promotions and make it less automatic.
Adding promotions to front of the promotion system is of itself not a fix.
I would how ever would look at a system where the Flight Officer Ranks were a part of the normal/natural progression of any CAP officer.
Keep the 3-6-12 progression of FO to SFO.........but then 12 months as sf to 2d Lt.....and on from there. Require Command experince for Major and above.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 13, 2013, 05:29:56 PM
Hell the requirements currently for Maj alone is a potential stonewall for some.
Especially for those who
do qualify and yet are told they cannot be promoted. >:(
I might also suggest front-loading the training requirements a little more.
I went to Region Staff College and they were putting out stuff that should be seen by Company Grade officers. Teaching majors how to march and do inspections is NOT what Field Grade officers should be doing in preparation for more senior-level leadership in the organization.
I honestly think that SLS should have an encampment-like aspect to it. It should be more "hands-on leadership/officership" and RSC can be more on the "staff work"
Quote from: CyBorg on April 13, 2013, 07:49:37 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 13, 2013, 05:29:56 PM
Hell the requirements currently for Maj alone is a potential stonewall for some.
Especially for those who do qualify and yet are told they cannot be promoted. >:(
That sucks. I have everything done through Capt and I have stumbling blocks already for Level III. IMO I don't see a need to revamp the grade structure or make it more difficult. They already added a board as a requirement to promote and as I recall the flight officer grades were there to allow SM who transitioned form cadets to SM at 18 or joined as a SM @ 18. I will agree that OBC should be part of Level I and all SMs should know basic drill.
One of the problems is that most SMs do not want to be really bothered with doing D & C or really wearing the uniform right.
Quote from: CyBorg on April 13, 2013, 07:49:37 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 13, 2013, 05:29:56 PM
Hell the requirements currently for Maj alone is a potential stonewall for some.
Especially for those who do qualify and yet are told they cannot be promoted. >:(
Why exactly, do you need to be promoted? Are you in a position of greater responcibility?
Just because you meet the
minimums for TIG and PME doesn't really cut it.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 13, 2013, 02:54:12 PM
Really let's hope not because not every SM has the desire to do ES. And not every cadet will want to do ES as well.
That is true and I can respect your point. I'm a little biased as an ESO, but I think it's not a bad thing to get cadets at least UDF & MSA trained. That way, every cadet can fully participate in all three mission of CAP, and at the UDF/MSA level it gives them enough of a taste of ES to really know if they want to go further. Many cadets don't love drill & have no desire to be on color guard or drill teams, but basic drill is a decent part of the program and if they want to progress they'll do some drill.
I feel the same way for SMs. At the very least, get MSA done. We found this last year in our SAREVAL and helping with the Hurricane Sandy mission that there is a lack of mission base staff in the wing. The Wing CC commented during Wing Conference that they are going to focus the rest of the year on building the Wing's mission base staff. Those that don't want to work in the field or the air would be very valuable at mission base.
What drives my opinion on this is the feeling that all members should be somewhat active in all of our missions. We'll all have our areas of focus and that's fine. But if everyone gets in and we all really work together in all three areas, how much more could we accomplish? Synergy can have an exponential effect on the work.
There are SMs I know that have no desire to work with cadets. This line of thinking applies to them too. I'm not saying they should all be CDCs, but they can lend a hand here and there as needed.
Personally, I don't do much in AE. We've had two outstanding AEOs in my unit (one just left for Army BCT), even got the AEX award. Applying the same yardstick to myself, I need to see if I can lend a hand during one of the AE sessions or work as the R&RO to see if I can augment the staff and capabilities with fresh blood.
Not every cadet, especially a very young cadet, can even participate in most aspects of ES in some wings.
What is more motivating: training someone for the big game and then never letting them play, or allowing them to select a particular avenue, when it is open for them, with a more well informed decision?
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 13, 2013, 08:19:37 PM
IMO I don't see a need to revamp the grade structure or make it more difficult. They already added a board as a requirement to promote and as I recall the flight officer grades were there to allow SM who transitioned form cadets to SM at 18 or joined as a SM @ 18. I will agree that OBC should be part of Level I and all SMs should know basic drill.
I don't know that we need a complete overhaul, but I really would have loved some more
required training at the beginning. I was clueless but excited and was ready to move 100mph. I did L1 within a week of getting my CAPID. Front-loading the early requirements and training for at least the O1, O2 levels would go a long way to fulfilling the desire for a more professional and able Officer corps.
Really that's the goal here. Not to make things harder to just to make things harder, but to add whatever elements of work and training needed to elevate the level of our SMs in a real way. I would have done any amount of training, seminars, courses etc they asked when I joined.
Quote from: NIN on April 13, 2013, 08:32:58 PM
Not every cadet, especially a very young cadet, can even participate in most aspects of ES in some wings.
What is more motivating: training someone for the big game and then never letting them play, or allowing them to select a particular avenue, when it is open for them, with a more well informed decision?
Point taken. That thought opens a whole new can o' worms about standardizing our ES work across the country. But thats a book in and of itself.
Quote from: Walkman on April 13, 2013, 08:35:41 PM
Quote from: NIN on April 13, 2013, 08:32:58 PM
Not every cadet, especially a very young cadet, can even participate in most aspects of ES in some wings.
What is more motivating: training someone for the big game and then never letting them play, or allowing them to select a particular avenue, when it is open for them, with a more well informed decision?
Point taken. That thought opens a whole new can o' worms about standardizing our ES work across the country. But thats a book in and of itself.
Please standardize all state laws pertaining to ES across the country. Ready? GO!
While you are standardizing laws regarding ES operations across the country, tackle the environment as well. Make all climate similar plus or minus 10 degrees. Make all areas semi-urban. Make all towns and cities look more open, less concrete-like, more trees, less mountainous, less forest-like...
Flyer
Quote from: Walkman on April 13, 2013, 08:27:04 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 13, 2013, 02:54:12 PM
Really let's hope not because not every SM has the desire to do ES. And not every cadet will want to do ES as well.
That is true and I can respect your point. I'm a little biased as an ESO, but I think it's not a bad thing to get cadets at least UDF & MSA trained. That way, every cadet can fully participate in all three mission of CAP, and at the UDF/MSA level it gives them enough of a taste of ES to really know if they want to go further. Many cadets don't love drill & have no desire to be on color guard or drill teams, but basic drill is a decent part of the program and if they want to progress they'll do some drill.
I feel the same way for SMs. At the very least, get MSA done. We found this last year in our SAREVAL and helping with the Hurricane Sandy mission that there is a lack of mission base staff in the wing. The Wing CC commented during Wing Conference that they are going to focus the rest of the year on building the Wing's mission base staff. Those that don't want to work in the field or the air would be very valuable at mission base.
What drives my opinion on this is the feeling that all members should be somewhat active in all of our missions. We'll all have our areas of focus and that's fine. But if everyone gets in and we all really work together in all three areas, how much more could we accomplish? Synergy can have an exponential effect on the work.
There are SMs I know that have no desire to work with cadets. This line of thinking applies to them too. I'm not saying they should all be CDCs, but they can lend a hand here and there as needed.
Personally, I don't do much in AE. We've had two outstanding AEOs in my unit (one just left for Army BCT), even got the AEX award. Applying the same yardstick to myself, I need to see if I can lend a hand during one of the AE sessions or work as the R&RO to see if I can augment the staff and capabilities with fresh blood.
I can agree with alot of what you have said. And I am by no means trying to downplay ES at all in any aspect. Personally I have no desire to participate at all in ES and I have made that know. Now I will support it through teaching some aspects of it and arranging for use of training areas etc, but that is about it. I think that trying to make it a requirement to get out of phase one is going to turn off alot of cadets who have no desire to do that sort of thing. I held a GES many years ago and never got called once, and I was even considering getting either an observer or scanner rating as well, but had a huge falling out with the unit at the time. I get asked all the time if I want to do ES and the answer is always no and I state my reasons for it.
While I think making ES a requirment for cadet progresssion is a good thing......I diagree with somewhere in Phase I.
IMHO I think cadets need to focus on the basics until at least SSgt.
This may also help get more cadets past Phase I.
As for requring it for Seniors......I don't agree with that.
Being ES qualified does not make you a better Admin/legal/chaplain/CP officer.
Forcing people to become ES qualifed will only mean that we have to dirvert more ES training resources to officers who are only filling a block....not because there is a need for more ES qualified officers or that they have a desire to fill those positons.
If you want to "force" more members to become ES qualified......we need to task squadrons with a hard number of qualified members....i.e. SM squadron with 20 members, no aircraft, no vehicle....would be tasked to provide say 5 MSAs, 2 FLMs, 2 MROs, 1 CSL.....no double billeting (i.e. one person wh is MSA, FLM, MRO and CSL filling more then one spot).
On the cadet ES side......we need to give cadets more to do in ES. GT is not for everyone.....but CERT, shelter management assitants, sandbagging, and other DR jobs would be something that they could do....even on real world missions.....and it is something that we may actually get called out on.
I don't know that I like the idea of having Lvl V as a requirement for Lt Col. I've got a CLC (next week!) and 16 mos left until I hit Maj. Right about the time they'll be implementing this, myself, and others in the same position (I'm sure I'm not the only one) will be hit with two PD levels at once to make my next grade.
That's if I'm lucky and it doesn't end up being implemented between now and next Aug, requiring me to attempt to pull Lvl IV out of my six in order to make grade. I've been a unit staff officer since 2008, and CDC for two and a half years. I've met the requirements for Lvl III and 3 of the 5 for Lvl IV, but I can see RSC being a sticking point between now and then.
I know my promotion isn't automatic, but this has the potential to wreak havoc on my advancement.
Quote from: PHall on April 13, 2013, 08:25:22 PM
Why exactly, do you need to be promoted? Are you in a position of greater responcibility?
Just because you meet the minimums for TIG and PME doesn't really cut it.
It's naught to do with minimums. I have
exceeded those in many ways. It has everything to do, in my case, with not following proper procedures through the chain for promotions and, yes, adding additional "requirements" not mentioned in any of the regs that are not achievable for me due to health issues.
You should know as well as any CAP member that they only way we really get "paid" is through grade advancement/awards.
However, based on our past exchanges, I doubt I could get through to you on this issue, so I will not try to.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 13, 2013, 08:19:37 PM
That sucks. I have everything done through Capt and I have stumbling blocks already for Level III.
It may be totally different for you, based on where you are, who is ahead of you in the chain and what prejudices they may or may not hold.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 13, 2013, 08:19:37 PM
One of the problems is that most SMs do not want to be really bothered with doing D & C or really wearing the uniform right.
That is one thing I
do know how to do.
Quote from: CyBorg on April 13, 2013, 09:29:07 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 13, 2013, 08:19:37 PM
That sucks. I have everything done through Capt and I have stumbling blocks already for Level III.
It may be totally different for you, based on where you are, who is ahead of you in the chain and what prejudices they may or may not hold.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 13, 2013, 08:19:37 PM
One of the problems is that most SMs do not want to be really bothered with doing D & C or really wearing the uniform right.
That is one thing I do know how to do.
And that is something sir. My case is trying to get TLC done. And I wont dive into the politics and such of my Wg here.
As a former squadron ESO I feel that both cadets and seniors should be mandated to take ES classes.
I also feel that mandated to take classes does not equate mandated to participate in ES missions.
My former squadron commander shifted the focus of the squadron from the vision of the commander before him, from mandated ES classes once a month to one extra meeting a month for ES classes, on a volunteer basis. And cancelled the first training day we were to have since he put a requirement that there had to be at least ten of our cadets present to hold the class. If you do that shift, then go with whatever amount of cadets show up.
If you do not mandate training, you will not get quorum to hold a class. Plain and simple. Sometimes you do need numbers to get through a lesson, simulate different roles, etc.
On the other hand, not everyone will want to get out in a storm, walk or drive the necessary miles, talk to people the way that is needed in an emergency. Some do not want to deal with the stress and pain of those affected in a real mission. And that is understandable.
Flyer
Quote from: NIN on April 13, 2013, 08:12:31 PM
I might also suggest front-loading the training requirements a little more.
I went to Region Staff College and they were putting out stuff that should be seen by Company Grade officers. Teaching majors how to march and do inspections is NOT what Field Grade officers should be doing in preparation for more senior-level leadership in the organization.
I honestly think that SLS should have an encampment-like aspect to it. It should be more "hands-on leadership/officership" and RSC can be more on the "staff work"
I have always thought about having some sort of SM "Encampment", I have run into to many problem of having ex-military folks trying to correct drill mistakes from cadets and they do them "there" way, which is the specific branches way. They weren't really major issues, just some thinks like the branch says this command different or your preparatory command is said this way. That is fine but this is the Air Force Auxiliary so the drill and ceremonies needs to be the Air Forces way.
Also when I went to RSC ,and you can ask Eclipse about this, it was a waste of time, one of the classes was how to write and give a speech. That should be basic stuff since most of the class had a bachelors, several masters, and two or three doctorate's and one of those was an MD. I'm sure that at some-point that person has had to write and make a speech.
Quote from: flyer333555 on April 13, 2013, 09:41:56 PM
As a former squadron ESO I feel that both cadets and seniors should be mandated to take ES classes.
I also feel that mandated to take classes does not equate mandated to participate in ES missions.
My former squadron commander shifted the focus of the squadron from the vision of the commander before him, from mandated ES classes once a month to one extra meeting a month for ES classes, on a volunteer basis. And cancelled the first training day we were to have since he put a requirement that there had to be at least ten of our cadets present to hold the class. If you do that shift, then go with whatever amount of cadets show up.
If you do not mandate training, you will not get quorum to hold a class. Plain and simple. Sometimes you do need numbers to get through a lesson, simulate different roles, etc.
On the other hand, not everyone will want to get out in a storm, walk or drive the necessary miles, talk to people the way that is needed in an emergency. Some do not want to deal with the stress and pain of those affected in a real mission. And that is understandable.
Flyer
Sir, I disagree with you on mandating ES. I'll use myself for example, I have no desire to get out and pound pavement trek through the woods or any other environment. I have no desire to participate in ES, I will teach skills that can be used but I do not ever wish to participate. It would be a waste to mandate ES for those who have no desire to participate when that training can be given to those who want to participate.
abdsp51, you may have read my letter but you did not read it through to understand it. :-\
I said mandate ES classes.
I also said not mandate ES participation.
Classes can be made where you do not have to "get out, pound pavement, or trek through woods."
In fact, the reasons you stated are the reasons I posted to not mandate ES participation of everyone!
::)
Take space of those willing to take a class? That is not a problem, since most of the time space will be wanting.
Before you answer a post, I suggest you read it two or three times to make sure you understand what is meant.
Flyer
Quote from: flyer333555 on April 13, 2013, 10:09:14 PM
abdsp51, you may have read my letter but you did not read it through to understand it. :-\
I said mandate ES classes.
I also said not mandate ES participation.
You do not have to "get out, pound pavement, or trek through woods" to participate in a class.
In fact, the reasons you stated are the reasons I posted to not mandate ES participation of everyone!
::)
Take space of those willing to take a class? That is not a problem, since most of the time space will be wanting.
Before you answer a post, I suggest you read it two or three times to make sure you understand what is meant.
Flyer
Sir, I read the post and understood exactly that. You can mandate ES classes all day long and again mandating something will lead to resentment and bad attitudes. My logic is simple if I have no desire to participate in ES then I do not need mandated ES classes. If you are going to propose mandated training your best suited to target the audience it is meant for. I ran into this while doing training with the Army on a couple of occasions. This is something that I see on AD alot as well.
So why did you post "I have no desire to go out pound pavement etc." if you did understand what I meant? Posting it as an answer means you did not read it correctly! :(
If I post "not everyone will want to etc." is clear. So why did you state "I have no desire to participate in ES" contradicts that statement that "you read the letter." Because that is exactly my position! That "not everyone wants to participate!" >:(
And again, "taking classes" is completely different than "participating."
Flyer
Quote from: flyer333555 on April 13, 2013, 10:31:41 PM
So why did you post "I have no desire to go out pound pavement etc." if you did understand what I meant? Posting it as an answer means you did not read it correctly! :(
If I post "not everyone will want to etc." is clear. So why did you state "I have no desire to participate in ES" contradicts that statement that "you read the letter." Because that is exactly my position! That "not everyone wants to participate!" >:(
And again, "taking classes" is completely different than "participating."
Flyer
The answer of I have no desire is just that no desire, so therefore in my case it would be a wasted seat and training time especially for mandated ES classes. That is a seat that can be used for someone who has a bigger desire to participate in ES. Training that will not be used or applied is training wasted.
Quote from: Capt_Redfox30 on April 13, 2013, 09:55:37 PM
I have always thought about having some sort of SM "Encampment"
I have thought about this too, and I think if executed properly it could be a good retention tool. I've been looking into joining an SDF when I move to another state next month, and they have an introductory training that takes two weekends and gets everyone up to speed on what they need to know to fully participate. If I join, I will be interested to see what that's like.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 13, 2013, 02:54:12 PM
Quote from: NC Hokie on April 13, 2013, 02:32:20 PM
If the CSAG ends up requiring GES for cadets, I hope they do the right thing and require it for Senior Members as well.
Really let's hope not because not every SM has the desire to do ES. And not every cadet will want to do ES as well.
I didn't use my sarcasm font. I don't like ES as a requirement for anyone, but if they're going to go that route, fairness demands that they do the same for Senior Members.
Quote from: flyer333555 on April 13, 2013, 09:41:56 PM
As a former squadron ESO I feel that both cadets and seniors should be mandated to take ES classes.
I also feel that mandated to take classes does not equate mandated to participate in ES missions.
then why waste the time of your ES instructors?
Why hold training for the sake of training?
IIRC, cadets are supposed to get a fairly basic ES orientation (ie. "This is what ES is, what it comprises, etc") at encampment.
If they want to learn before that, fantastic. But it seems to me that a more "Whole CAP" thing would be to get cadets to encampment in their first year and to increase the emphasis on doing that (and thus potentially improving retention) where they can learn all about ES during those blocks of instruction.
Call me crazy.
There should be a basic intro about it but to have it as a requirement for advancing out of Phase I will compound the issue. We have a hard enough time getting cadets to do their Intro to safety, OPSEC, EO and sign up for the account to begin with.
Quote from: Capt_Redfox30 on April 13, 2013, 09:55:37 PM
Also when I went to RSC ,and you can ask Eclipse about this, it was a waste of time, one of the classes was how to write and give a speech. That should be basic stuff since most of the class had a bachelors, several masters, and two or three doctorate's and one of those was an MD. I'm sure that at some-point that person has had to write and make a speech.
Exactly. This is stuff your company-grade officers need, though, masters & doctorates notwithstanding.
Basic leadership. Yeah, thanks for the awesome "Team Building Exercise '99" there, guys. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, been teaching to to cadets for 15 years prior to going to RSC and its "Leadership 101"-level crap we're getting here. We should be at "Leadership 401" when you're a major striking for Lt Col.
Public Speaking. A Captain should be getting this. A guy who is a squadron commander or maybe going to be a group commander.
Orientations to the Staff Workings. Really? You're going to wait until a guy is a Major for this? That's what I need for Phase IV? I'd been a staff puke since 1989 and could have used a couple things I learned there (I did learn some things) 10 years before.
If you're going to be doing "wing & region level stuff," then standing in formation so someone can look at my whites & greys every morning and giving us 30+ minutes to practice marching around is just... not helpful at that level. You need training on joint operations, military decision making process, etc.
Not "marching 101."
Man, you guys are making me thanking I used PME credit for RSC.
I'm not so sure pushing cadets into MSA training is such a good idea. Here are the advanced tasks:
QuoteComplete Task L-0001 (Basic Communications Procedures for ES Operations)
Complete Task P-0101 Demonstrate the ability to keep a log
Complete Task P-2002 - Demonstrate the ability to escort dignitaries and visitors at mission sites
Complete Task P-2003 - Demonstrate the ability to process incoming resources for use on the mission
Complete Task P-2005 - Demonstrate collection and updating of incident status information
I know a lot of SMs who can't handle 2002 and 2003 very well. Making this mandatory for cadets seems like a setup for failure.
YMMV.
Which brings up the question...What is CAP's ES role? What ES training do you give cadets? Looking for ELTs? Disaster Relief? Mission Base operations (keeping in mind age requirements for various ES activity) Exactly what ES training are yu taling about?
IMHO, GES - not MSA, UDF, GTM#, MP, MO, MS, etc - shuld be part of Phase 1 & Level I. It provides a basic understanding of CAP's Emergency Services procedures.
We should be emphasizing and pushing more cross-mission involvement by all.
GES for all and probably UDF.
TLC or some other cadet-orientated training for all.
And probably stop treating AE as a separate mission in its own right and just absorb it into the other two, which it
for the most part already is.
We need to stop treating the missions like a menu and start raising expectations.
All of the missions and resources are interdependent, none can exist without the other. We need to accept and understand that and take the
necessary steps to get those who can't or won't to step up or step out.
Lord,
Training people that are not going to participate is not wasting training seats.
If you train only those that want to take the training, you are not going to fill out a requirement for topics that get demonstrated better with more people.
The example I stated.
My squadron CC said "Training in ES will be voluntary once a month. We need ten cadets, if there are not ten cadets, it will be cancelled." Only 4 cadets wanted to train, and three seniors. So the CC cancelled the training!
Another case.
A search line. It is not the same when training three cadets and seniors on a search line as when you have ten cadets and two seniors. You have to assign a recorder, point man, scribe. And the possible problems with controlling a search line of ten do not show up when you have three. Everyone participating thinks it is easier.
And carrying a stretcher? Good luck when you have three! One is the victim, that leaves two to load and lift the stretcher. How do you have them moving uphill or when encountering an obstacle, where the drill is that the stretcher bearers remain stationary, and you have relief bearers moving up to take the stretcher. Where are the relief bearers to come from, if you only have three people overall?
Flyer
On the ES topic, specifically, I can't tell you how many times we've gotten the "not interested" or "we never get missions" nonsense from members
when you start talking about doing ES training, especially the baseline "less exciting" stuff.
Then a mission >does< come up, one like DR where the more hands the better, and then you've got people clamoring to punch their tickets
at the last minute so they can participate. The result is either members with no business being there because they have barely a clue what
they are doing, or members with sour grapes because they are told they need to stay home and prepare for "next time".
A fundamental reason for CAP's continued existence, including the cadet program, and the reason why we have the airplanes, is ES.
If that is too difficult to grasp, or too much work to help support, we don't need you.
Also - CAP is about more then "what the members want to do".
It's also about what is good for the members and what is also good for the organization and the mission.
These are supposed to be in balance, but will not always be in equal portions every meeting or activity.
If we drop to "just what members want to do", we will wind up with a watered-down, online-only (mostly optional)
curriculum and professional development program with little meaning and unequal experience for all.
Hmmmm....now that you mention it...
Quote from: flyer333555 on April 14, 2013, 04:33:59 PM
Lord,
Training people that are not going to participate is not wasting training seats.
Yes you are.
QuoteIf you train only those that want to take the training, you are not going to fill out a requirement for topics that get demonstrated better with more people.
The example I stated.
My squadron CC said "Training in ES will be voluntary once a month. We need ten cadets, if there are not ten cadets, it will be cancelled." Only 4 cadets wanted to train, and three seniors. So the CC cancelled the training!
You are using an arbitrary rule to prove your point. I find that doing GT training the optimumn class size is 4-6 in the first place. I find that the optimumn class size for MS is 2. My point is that if the ONLY reason why the member is there is to fill some sort of block...we are wasteing his time and the trainer's time.
This also goes to Eclipse....I understand your point.....but I don't agree with it. Yes "we" should be doing all three missions.......ES, AE and CP.....but "we" in this case is CAP and the individual squadrons. Not individual members.
QuoteAnother case.
A search line. It is not the same when training three cadets and seniors on a search line as when you have ten cadets and two seniors. You have to assign a recorder, point man, scribe. And the possible problems with controlling a search line of ten do not show up when you have three. Everyone participating thinks it is easier.
You don't have to "do" any those things.....nor is the Line search all that important nor that affective. Yes if are going to train in it.....lots of people make it work....but again....making the entire squadron show up just so you can conduct the training is assinine....it wastes my time.
QuoteAnd carrying a stretcher? Good luck when you have three! One is the victim, that leaves two to load and lift the stretcher. How do you have them moving uphill or when encountering an obstacle, where the drill is that the stretcher bearers remain stationary, and you have relief bearers moving up to take the stretcher. Where are the relief bearers to come from, if you only have three people overall?
Adapt, over come, compensate. Again....making the entire squadron show up just so the 2 guys who need or want the training is assinine.
Also......think of you normal ground team 4-5 members.......train like you fight.
Eclipse-
Thank you very much for bringing up something that I should have remembered as well.
It has happened to me. People not bothering taking requisite online classes because they do not want to participate in ES, then want to be included in SAREX and emergencies at the last minute.
And when the S___ hits the fan, everyone may be called for.
Case in point.
Not naming the jurisdictions, as I do not want people identified.
I was urging members of my previous squadron to take the necessary online classes. One of our members kept stating "I will not do ES." We had a hurricane affect our jurisdiction. The Group Ops officer asked for all ES trained personnel. The Group CC countermanded him, asking for all personnel, trained or not. That guy who in our organization had said was not interested in ES ended up working at a County Ops Center, escorting VIPs and riding on vehicles.
Was he ready? No. Did he say things he should have not said? I do not know. I hope he did not.
Mandated training in what CAP ES is about. Mandated training to assist the squadron in training for ES, to assist those that want to participate.
But not mandating actual participation in ES. Leave the member to decide in participating in actual missions. Or not participating.
Flyer
^ This example happens ALL THE TIME, and in many cases we then hold these people's feet to the fire in this very forum.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 14, 2013, 05:11:21 PMAdapt, over come, compensate. Again....making the entire squadron show up just so the 2 guys who need or want the training is assinine "service before self".
No charge on the fix.
There are all kinds of restrictions on using cadets in ES, just depends on where you are.
For example, in California, per CalEMA, you have to be 16 to participate in ES missions. Since CalEMA is our customer, we follow their rules.
Requiring a 13 year old cadet to become GES qualified would be a waste of time and resources since they could not be used until they turn 16.
Quote from: PHall on April 14, 2013, 05:35:26 PM
There are all kinds of restrictions on using cadets in ES, just depends on where you are.
For example, in California, per CalEMA, you have to be 16 to participate in ES missions. Since CalEMA is our customer, we follow their rules.
Requiring a 13 year old cadet to become GES qualified would be a waste of time and resources since they could not be used until they turn 16.
In this case, the term you're looking for here is "excuse".
The BSA doesn't have any specific operational mandate whatsoever, yet they do first aid and related training all the time.
Further, CalEMA doesn't dictate CAP's actions, only what can be done in a small lane in one wing, and only for missions and activities it has a say in.
They don't dictate or control CAP's response to ELTs or other search's controlled by AFRCC, only ones they are the lead on.
Just because you can't go today, doesn't mean you won't be needed tomorrow, nor that you should start training only after you turn 16.
For the average non-NESA grad, it generally takes a year or two of active particiaption to get to GTM1 and / or GTL. So that's 13 or 14 to start,
not 16.
Further
ES ≠ GTM, and GTM ≠ cadets, even though for some reason people try to make that assumption & connection to the detriment of the mission and the organization's readiness.
PHALL-
What you are telling me is that if there is a need for a soup line you cannot use 13-year-olds to give food to victims?
Then again, what is wrong with getting a 13-year-old qualified as a GTM 3 or UDFT? When the certifications expire at the end of his 3rd year, he is 16 and ready to work according to California's example. Just in time for his renewals. By then, he will have attended several training exercises, being more practiced in ES.
Flyer
On the promotions, I would like to offer a modest proposal:
Replace TIG with Highest Level of Responsibility. Other PD requirements remain.
I'm going to start with "Commanders" here. Let's define that "Base" as the Wing Commander is a Colonel. For every level up or down from that, the Commander is eligible for one level up or down from Colonel in terms of grade, so that gives us:
National: MGen
Region: BGen
Wing: Col
Group: Lt. Col
Squadron: Maj
Flight: Capt
Staff:
3 Types of "Staff": Command, Senior and Junior
Command staff are eligible for one level below the commander at their echelon. Roles I see as "Command Staff" are Deputy Commander, Vice Commander, Chief of Staff.
Senior Staff: Those defined at a "Wing" level as "Director Of XXX", Operations, Emergency Services, Cadet Programs and the like. Eligible for up to 2 below the commander of their echelon
Junior Staff: Those not defined as "Director of " at the Wing level. Like "Emergency Services Training Officer", they are eligible for 3 below the commander at the echelon
Assistants: 1 below the role they are assisting
So, a Wing Chief of Staff: Eligible for Lt Col. Wing Director of Operations: Eligible for Major
Group Deputy Commander: Eligible for Major
Squadron Deputy Commander: Eligible for Capt
Squadron Assistant ES Training: SM! (Squadron/CC can be a Major, so Junior Staff is 2nd Lt, so asst is SMWOG
National Assistant ES Training: Maj
Again, this still requires the other PD requirements and only overrides the TIG requirements. I think it could replace the whole advance promotions system...if you recruit a CPA to be Wing Director of Finance, fine, he does some PD courses and is eligible for Major regardless of TIG.
You can keep the rank after a "successful" tour at the echelon based upon the commander's judgement of successful tour.
This way, if you see someone with Lt Col on their shoulder, you know that they have served at a senior position in CAP at some point in time...
Concerning the agenda item that would require cadets to complete CAPT 116 training, I see two different questions being discussed here:
The first is CP philosophy.
For the first time in over 50 years, the leadership is considering revising the mission of our successful cadet program to include mandatory ES training in addition to our traditional areas of Leadership, Aerospace Education, Character Development, and Physical Fitness. This is potentially a fundamental change and should be considered carefully. The background portion of the agenda item addresses the need to expose cadets to the other missions of CAP, and to expand the available ES resources of CAP by increasing the number of cadets that could participate in an emergency.
The first issue (exposure to other missions) is certainly worthwhile. But the leadership may not be aware that a comprehensive ES overview is already required of all cadets by way of the Staff Duty Analysis required for Achievement 14. Which requires, among other things, a cadet to do one of the following: become qualified as a GTM or mission staff assistant and plan and conduct an ES training exercise for the unit, research an outside SAR agency and write a report, or write a staff study discussing cadet contributions to ES and homeland security. Cadets also demonstrate knowledge of ORM techniques in the ES arena.
The second issue is one of practicality - whether requiring this particular training is the best way to expose cadets to the ES mission and expand the trained ES volunteer pool.
Initially, as others have noted, the agenda item calls specifically for CAPT 116 to be accomplished before the Wright Brothers milestone. The large majority of cadets in this cohort are in the 12-14 age group; roughly 7-9 grade. As all of you know, taking the 116 test requires a pretty close reading of both CAPR 60-3 and 173-3, and the test contains some fairly detailed questions about reimbursements rates on AFAM, the WMIRS an OPS Qual systems, and modification of advanced technology equipment. It is a tough test based on some fairly arcane reading material.
Indeed, running a simple Flesch readability test (the DoD standard used for manuals and regulations) on CAPRs 60-3 173-3 shows scores that require that the readers be high school juniors or seniors to comprehend the materials. This is a mismatch that is a potential show stopper for cadet progression. It may be unfair to require a seventh grader to pass a test on regulation that would hard for some college students to read. The most likely result to further slow or eliminate cadet promotions beyond senior airman.
I am also not yet convinced that requiring our 12 and 13 year olds to pass CAPT 116 will significantly increase CAP's ability to field trained volunteers in emergencies. It just seems unlikely that highly trained and motivated 12 and 13 year olds would be made available by their parents and units to serve in a Katrina or Deepwater Horizon type scenario, or that we would have suitable and useful work for them to do upon arrival.
So while cadet exposure to ES and increasing cadet involvement in ES are certainly laudable goals, I trust the leadership will find alternative ways to reach them. This particular agenda item seems more likely to hurt individual cadets that help CAP overall.
Ned Lee
CP Enthusiast
Quote from: Ned on April 14, 2013, 06:50:24 PM
So while cadet exposure to ES and increasing cadet involvement in ES are certainly laudable goals, I trust the leadership will find alternative ways to reach them. This particular agenda item seems more likely to hurt individual cadets that help CAP overall.
^^ This
Quote from: Ned on April 14, 2013, 06:50:24 PMI am also not yet convinced that requiring our 12 and 13 year olds to pass CAPT 116 will significantly increase CAP's ability to field trained volunteers in emergencies. It just seems unlikely that highly trained and motivated 12 and 13 year olds would be made available by their parents and units to serve in a Katrina or Deepwater Horizon type scenario, or that we would have suitable and useful work for them to do upon arrival.
It won't.
But the test takes about 15 minutes in an online / open book fashion.
It's not an onerous requirement, there should be no gnashing of teeth about it, and frankly I'm a little surprised that you have an issue with it.
We should also be careful about trying to draw a line between large-scale, hazardous duty situations like Katrina and Deep Water and
an initiative that seeks to simply add familiarization to a cadet's universe, not to mention that the vast majority of potential growth for
CAP ES is in DR ops such as sandbagging, shelter ops, damage assessment and well-being checks, all of which cadets can be involved with
little drama.
Quote from: Ned on April 14, 2013, 06:50:24 PMThis particular agenda item seems more likely to hurt individual cadets that help CAP overall.
How an earth is this going to "hurt" anyone?
Quote from: flyer333555 on April 14, 2013, 05:49:19 PM
PHALL-
What you are telling me is that if there is a need for a soup line you cannot use 13-year-olds to give food to victims?
Then again, what is wrong with getting a 13-year-old qualified as a GTM 3 or UDFT? When the certifications expire at the end of his 3rd year, he is 16 and ready to work according to California's example. Just in time for his renewals. By then, he will have attended several training exercises, being more practiced in ES.
Flyer
That's right, if they are not Registered Emergency Services Workers, then they can't participate per CalEMA.
CalEMA calls the shots for all ES and DR activity in the State of California.
Getting a 13 year old's hopes up by training them in GTM and/or UDF and then not using them for up to three years just results in very frustrated cadets who usually end up being former members long before their 16th birthday.
Quote from: Ned on April 14, 2013, 06:50:24 PMAs all of you know, taking the 116 test requires a pretty close reading of both CAPR 60-3 and 173-3, and the test contains some fairly detailed questions about reimbursements rates on AFAM, the WMIRS an OPS Qual systems, and modification of advanced technology equipment. It is a tough test based on some fairly arcane reading material.
I might as well go ahead and take exception with this assertion, too.
116 doesn't require close reading of
anything, it's an online, open book test that touches superficially on ES concepts.
And it is one that hundred if not thousands of cadets already takes every year, with no issue and no drama.
Whether its the drill manual, uniform wear, other related regulations, or the apparently Ph.d-level 116 test, when cadets >want<
to do something, these things become "simple and easy", and when they don't, they are "hard".
The next thing we'll have here is an assertion that because not every cadet has a computer at home that this is an "onerous" requirement.We're talking about 15 minutes sometime in two years!
Quote from: Eclipse on April 14, 2013, 07:06:38 PM
It won't.
But the test takes about 15 minutes in an online / open book fashion.
It's not an onerous requirement, there should be no gnashing of teeth about it, and frankly I'm a little surprised that you have an issue with it.
We should also be careful about trying to draw a line between large-scale, hazardous duty situations like Katrina and Deep Water and
an initiative that seeks to simply add familiarization to a cadet's universe, not to mention that the vast majority of potential growth for
CAP ES is in DR ops such as sandbagging, shelter ops, damage assessment and well-being checks, all of which cadets can be involved with
little drama.
Quote from: Ned on April 14, 2013, 06:50:24 PMThis particular agenda item seems more likely to hurt individual cadets that help CAP overall.
How an earth is this going to "hurt" anyone?
There is a big difference between "get ES qualified to continue to progress" and "get familiarised with ES"
Familiarisation = "Hi, this is ES. This is what it looks like, this is what it does, this is how you can get involved in it. What are your questions?"
Qualification = "You have to jump thru these X additional hoops, sign offs, tests and additional training. Oh, and you gotta do it to get promoted."
If you're in CA, its superfluous for cadets in any event. Its "Get qualified to not be able to do anything anyway."
Wicked motivating, that. What was that about "not wasting volunteer's time?"
Quote from: PHall on April 14, 2013, 07:07:30 PM
Getting a 13 year old's hopes up by training them in GTM and/or UDF and then not using them for up to three years just results in very frustrated cadets who usually end up being former members long before their 16th birthday.
Hmmm. Tough one.
Oh Wait, no it's not. Then don't get their hopes up.
Train them with the information that this is general knowledge in preparation for when they can use it.
Oh, come on Bob. Really?
Under that kind of logic, we ought to have C/SSgts trained to be Finance Officers too, even though they can't be a finance officer as a cadet.
Because, you know, its training for when they could use it.
Quote from: NIN on April 14, 2013, 07:15:19 PMIf you're in CA, its superfluous for cadets in any event. Its "Get qualified to not be able to do anything anyway."
First. The other 47 wings (or whatever), really don't care what is "superfluous in CA", so let's not use that as the core of anything.
Seriously - in one breath they say they don't do ES at all, in the next they make up their own GT uniform. Set the standard and manage the exceptions.
Second, if Achievement 14 is too soon, make it for one where the curve is expected later, or, only in states with specific restrictions,
make it aged based (Ach 14 or 16 years of age, whichever comes later).
On the ES issue:
Phase 1 is probably too soon, but I think completion of Phase 2 should require GES, Phase 3 should require one ES specialty qualification.
For seniors, GES should be part of Level 1, the single ES qual should be in Level 2.
Senior grade re-structuring:
WIWAC we had warrant grades, most seniors started out there; as a result, generally took five or six years to become a captain, ensuring our higher ranking folks actually had some CAP experience.
Instituting FO grades for all new seniors would have the same effect.
While we're on the subject, let's lose ALL the special promotions, appointments,whatever, for everyone, in every job...period.
Bear in mind: I don't think that cadets shouldn't be trained in ES (barring state laws, etc). I did a lot of ES as a cadet. It was excellent. Loved it.
I think its a bad idea to tie it to cadet promotions.
Familiarisation? Sure. They're supposed to get that at encampment, anyway, and in my old unit, CBT included a short orientation to ES (this is what it is, this is what it does, this is what you need to do if you want to get involved...)
*Requiring* an ES qual for a cadet promotion around Phase I is, IMHO, an additional hoop to jump thru when CAP already has a major Phase I retention issue. CAP should be finding ways to eliminate barriers to those things that we *know* encourage retention (Encampment, O-flights), not finding additional requirements to heap on new cadets.
In many states (I think you'll find the number is a lot higher than you think), youth are barred from participation in field ES-type work. That leaves mission base ES work. Wow. Exciting!
Quote from: Eclipse on April 14, 2013, 05:19:35 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 14, 2013, 05:11:21 PMAdapt, over come, compensate. Again....making the entire squadron show up just so the 2 guys who need or want the training is assinine "service before self".
No charge on the fix.
Change it back...because you are wrong! It is SERVICE BEFORE self when I donate my 3 hours a week to the cadet program, taking care of the units records and those things i want to do......it is BULL [mess]! That you say I am not keeping to my core values of Volunteer Service because I don't want to spend yet another week end doing something I have no interest in or no ability in!
I resent your attitude and I call you out a not understanding how to manage and lead volunteers!
Sorry......but this really hits my button!
QuoteHmmm. Tough one.
Oh Wait, no it's not. Then don't get their hopes up.
Train them with the information that this is general knowledge in preparation for when they can use it.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Flyer
On the promotion issue:
This proposal isn't going to change the current culture of " I checked the boxes now promote me even though I never show up" problems.
In all honesty, this proposal will increase the good ol boy network. If it is passed and approved slots for RSC and the already limited NSC will be a highly political and competitive commodity. I mean honestly, NSC for Lt. Col is way overboard! I can not even afford to travel 3 states away for RSC let alone try and travel to NHQ for a week in May.
I can solve the problem, allow commanders to really command their wings/regions and increase the amount of "no, you will not be promoted at this time" without fear of IG complaint after IG complaint because " I earned that promotion". Force the commanders to document why the promotion is being denied and give it a timeline for an up or down vote by 30-60 days after the initial request. Stop promoting undeserving people to higher grade, and problem solved. Stop adding requirements to those of us with limited funds, but hard workers at whichever level they serve at.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 14, 2013, 07:36:51 PMI resent your attitude and I call you out a not understanding how to manage and lead volunteers!
"Leading" is not "doing what's popular or what people want".
It's doing what is best for your people and/or the organization.
Trying to make this personal, which is for some reason where people always go on this kind of thing, or asserting your "thing" should be enough,
misses the point entirely. If anything it makes my point even more.
Valid points by some, but I stand by my stance that mandated ES for all especially those with no interest or desire to do ES is a waste of resources period. And from what I have seen the organizations ES curriculum is a joke. And trying to force it on people is not good for people or the organization and face it we are at the whim of the state agency/agencies responsible for ES period. I can support ES by teaching those who want to learn it and do it skills that will help. I can also support it by placing standards and enforcing standards and discipline with out directly in any shape or form having any ES training what so ever. Therefore I can support the mission without participating in it and forcing it upon people which ultimately is best for people and resources.
If its "a joke", then why are we kidding ourselves? Why not simply discontinue it entirely?
Of course the aircraft, much of the military affiliation, and about 1/2 the senior membership are heavily invested in this "joke", so that
disappears with it.
Members are happy enough to utilize the resources, people, and positive affiliation that comes with ES, but once you start telling
people to actually "do" something, then we have pushback.
As a manager (cover 14 counties) for the American Red Cross in Disaster Services I can see a strong usage of both cadet and senior members in general to assist in the NGO realm of Disaster Relief as a support agency. I think that it needs as much (maybe more) emphasis as GT/UDF ( I was a GTL as a Cadet, wearing a GTM, Senior and ran numerous real GT missions in Alaska, loved it but I am realistic about the mission and where ES is most useful). I will not stir the NASAR vs CAP discussion but there are improvements that can be made all around and intergrating DR even more than before would be highly beneficial to the agency and useful real world.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 14, 2013, 08:42:12 PM
Valid points by some, but I stand by my stance that mandated ES for all especially those with no interest or desire to do ES is a waste of resources period. And from what I have seen the organizations ES curriculum is a joke. And trying to force it on people is not good for people or the organization and face it we are at the whim of the state agency/agencies responsible for ES period. I can support ES by teaching those who want to learn it and do it skills that will help. I can also support it by placing standards and enforcing standards and discipline with out directly in any shape or form having any ES training what so ever. Therefore I can support the mission without participating in it and forcing it upon people which ultimately is best for people and resources.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 14, 2013, 07:20:53 PM
WIWAC we had warrant grades, most seniors started out there; as a result, generally took five or six years to become a captain, ensuring our higher ranking folks actually had some CAP experience.
I would be very glad to go to, and remain, in a warrant officer grade.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 14, 2013, 07:20:53 PM
While we're on the subject, let's lose ALL the special promotions, appointments,whatever, for everyone, in every job...period.
Except for physicians, nurses and lawyers (those that are actually practicing, not just someone with a JD), I agree wholeheartedly.
Quote from: NCRblues on April 14, 2013, 07:43:13 PM
On the promotion issue:
This proposal isn't going to change the current culture of " I checked the boxes now promote me even though I never show up" problems.
I wish that
were my problem. :(
Quote from: NCRblues on April 14, 2013, 07:43:13 PM
Force the commanders to document why the promotion is being denied and give it a timeline for an up or down vote by 30-60 days after the initial request.
:clap: :clap: :clap:And really DOCUMENT, without just a water-weak reason of "s/he's not ready."
The 116 does not have to be a stop point, as others have pointed out the open-book/online nature makes it manageable. Though I would forward that if this comes to fruition it would be a good time to review the 116 for relevance. Do cadets need the same 116 as seniors? Especially when there are specific limits on what cadets can do.
In my unit all cadets are GenES and GTM3-T ready by the end of Phase I. It's just part of our indoctrination program. It arose out of my frustration with having to turn cadets away from SAREXs. Of course since we meet on Saturday mornings that has a double impact on us.
I think familiarization is good. Requiring it for promotion though seems a bit far. I cringe at putting the onus on a 13 year old. If its going to be done, put the onus on the adult leadership.
As a side note we also make having some ES rating, or at least significant progression towards one, a requirement for enrolling in our unit's Pilot Training Program. That can be MSA, MRO, FLM, GTM or other rating. They get to pick from what might interest them, but we do expect them to show well-roundedness.
Item 3:
The CSAG recommend to CAP/CC a regulatory change to CAPR 5-4 that allows Wing
Commanders to issue Operating Instructions that apply to the Wing as a whole.
Concur.
Item 4:
The CSAG recommend to CAP/CC that the format of the Command Council meetings be
restructured to accommodate an initial General Session, Working Group sessions, and a
closing General Session for Working Group out briefs.
No Opinion.
Item 5:
To enhance professionalism and security in CAP Internet Operations, that the CSAG
recommend to the CAP/CC the following regulatory changes to CAPR 110-1:
1) That CAP units starting a new CAP Internet operation do so on a secure server on
the CAP.GOV network or such other network as the CAP/CC or designee may
approve. With regard to CAP units that already have CAP Internet operations, that
those operations be transferred to a secure server on the CAP.GOV network, or
other network approved by the CAP/CC or designee within 6-months.
2) That any future use of any domain names other than CAP.GOV, CAPNHQ.GOV
and GOCIVILAIRPATROL.COM be approved by the CAP/CC or designee.
3) That the CAP/CC or designee approve of policies for security testing of domains
utilized in any CAP Internet operation.
Concur, with the caveat that services or more importantly functions not be disapproved if they
require the use of a non-CAP.GOV domain, and further, that the process for security review
be considered. The lasat time I had to do this dance, a technicality of one server module in the
the way it reported its version (even though it was updated and secure), blocked the use of the entire server.
Technical people need to be making these reviews and decisions.
Frankly, the entire organization would be better off if NHQ just lit up 60000 licenses for a Google apps domain, required everyone use that address for CAP use and required the retirement of all other domains and web services - no more "loveuhellokitty42@juno.com" emails sent to officials for
CAP-based correspondence.
Items 6:
The CSAG recommend to CAP/CC a regulatory change to CAPR 52-16 to require cadets
seeking to advance through Phase I to take the online CAPT 116, General Emergency
Services Questionnaire examination and to possess a general emergency services (GES)
card in order to receive their Wright Brothers Award.
Concur.
Item 7:
The CSAG recommend to CAP/CC that language in Paragraph 1. Policy of 35-8
referencing "adjudication" be deleted, and in Paragraph 7.f. General Case Procedures
delete any language suggesting the MARP may request a hearing to obtain additional
evidence, and rely on the submitted documentation.
No opinion.
Item 7:
The CSAG recommend to CAP/CC that the XP Specialty Track be deleted with a 6-month
phase-out period. Also recommend the retention of the Plans & Programs Officer duty
position but as an "Optional" position, that NHQ update CAPR 20-1 to reflect the position's
new optional status and provide a relevant, consistent position description for region and
wing XPs. Finally, recommend creation of relevant training products for XPs based on the
updated position description, if required.
Concur.
Item 8:
1. That, effective 1 January 2014, all special requirements in CAPR 50-17, Section 9-2 for
CAP legal officers be eliminated. CAP legal officers that have earned the Loening and
Garber awards under the prior special rules shall continue to be permitted to earn Level V
of the SMPDP as if they had progressed through Levels I through IV of the SMPDP under
the general rules applicable to all senior members.
2. That NLOC be treated as a training experience equivalent to CAP National Staff College
("NSC") for purposes of a CAP legal officer's completion of Level V of the SMPDP, with the
following limitations:
a. A CAP legal officer may use NLOC as a substitute for RSC for completion of Level
IV of the SMPDP; however, he or she may not then retake NLOC and use that
experience as a substitute for NSC as well. NLOC may substitute either for RSC or
for NSC, but not for both.
b. A CAP legal officer that has taken or that takes RSC (or an approved USAF course)
after taking NLOC may retroactively reallocate his or her training experiences so as May 2013 CSAG
25
to complete Level V of the SMPDP using NLOC as the substitute for NSC, and
substituting RSC (or the approved USAF course) for his or her prior completion of
Level IV. In other words, CAP legal officers who progressed through Level IV of the
SMPDP (Garber Award) under either the general or special rules scenarios using
NLOC as a substitute for RSC will have to take RSC or an approved USAF course
in order to qualify for completion of Level V under this new policy
Non-concur, strongly. Why do Legal Officer believe they are "special". Everyone should complete
the PD as prescribed in the regs. If RSC or NSC are that bad in comparision, fix those.
IC L1 & 2 SQTRs (Nov 2011 NEC).
Committee 'working the issue".
No idea why these proces take so long.
Booster Clubs (Aug 1012 NB)
A number of changes to remove points of conflict of interest.
Concur, mostly, but would prefer they just be disallowed.
IT Mission Qualification. (Aug 2012 NB)
That the National Board approve creation of a new Mission Support specialty qualification
and SQTR for Information Technology. Core skills need to cover basic computer
troubleshooting principles, software installation/configuration, and basic networking
principles sufficient to network computers together for information exchange.
Concur, but implementation is the key, and needs make sure it focus on operational and practical skills and demonstration tasks (as with other SQTRs), and not on certifications and other academic credentials that may have little to no ground-level value.
Also, the term "WMU" needs to be purged from any official mentions, lest members still think
we're supposed to use it.
To the DCS' comment. Paper should be abandoned in all operations except as a stone-age fallback, and acknowledged as such. All processes require contingency plans, but paper should no longer be the center of CAP's universe. That doesn't mean we eliminate documentation, it means we eliminate paper. There is a big difference. Paper is no longer required for ANYTHING in ES, as the entirety of all operations can be run on spreadsheets and local electronic versions of documents in the rare instance no internet is available. But even to that issues, we don't operate in austere environments, and the ICP isn't supposed to be there.
Revision of Promotion Requirements (Nov 2012 CSAG)
That the CSAG recommend to CAP/CC changes to the promotion criteria to include:
1. Make current Flight Officer grades and requirements applicable to all new senior
members with no military or cadet background, regardless of age.
2. Modify the minimum skill level/training and time-in-grade for duty performance
promotions as follows:
a. Raise the skill level and training requirement one level for each grade
b. Make the Officer Basic Course a requirement for 2Lt instead of being taken at any time in the program
c. Require a letter of justification for promotion to field grade. This letter should include documentation of the candidate's outstanding capabilities and
experience, as well his/her plans for future contributions to CAP.
Grade Min Skill Level/Trng Time-In-Grade In Addition
FO Level I 3 months as SM
TFO Technician Rating 6 months as FO
SFO Senior Rating 12 months as TFO
2 Lt OBC 6 months as SFO Wing Level Board
1 Lt Level II 12 months as 2 Lt
Capt Level III 18 months as 1 LT Justification letter
Maj Level IV 3 years as Capt Justification letter
Lt Col Level V 4 years as Maj Justification letter
Concur 100%. If our grade is ever to regain credibility, both internally and externally, even as only a gauge of knowledge and experience,
we need to suppress the grade level, with a recognition that the majority of members will never rise higher than Captain unless they
have clearly shown more then typical participation, knowledge, and responsibility. Promotions are not, and should nor ever, be considered
as "reward" for past performance, they are supposed to be acknowledgments of future responsibility. We already have plenty of ways
to reward our people outside promotion and need to learn to better use those means and stop treating promotions as some kind of payback.
That's what has broken the system we have. A roomful of Majors and Lt Cols, none of them in command or significant responsibility, is akin
to a corporation with a roomful of "managers". Likewise butter bars on Wing staff. Neither is generally a good idea.
Members wearing Field Grade should be the "Yodas" in the room, and if they aren't or can't, don't deserve to be wearing oaks, no matter
what color they are.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 14, 2013, 07:06:38 PM
It won't.
But the test takes about 15 minutes in an online / open book fashion.
Really?
When is the last time you took it?
I just re-took it and I thought it was a fairly nit-picky and overly technical for something that is an entry-level gate-keeping exam.
But far more importantly, why do you think the
average seventh grader could do it open book in 15 minutes?
Neither of us have seen age 12 for multiple decades, and have a fair amount of college and work experience under out belts, so perhaps before making this a
requirement for cadet promotion, we should actually field-test this by taking a bunch of Phase I cadets, plonking them in front of the computer and toss down a couple copies of the 60-3 and 171-3.
(Field testing new-concepts before enacting new requirements is an under-used paradigm in CAP. We should probably change that.)
I have terrific faith in our outstanding cadets, but asking them to take a test - even open book - on regulations that are written far beyond their academic level is to set them up for failure.
You might as well give them an calculus exam, stand back and say "hey, it's open book, you can do it!"
All of our aerospace education materials are written specifically for the intended grade-level audience, and some of our cadets still struggle with them. Same for our leadership texts and exams.
Quote
How an earth is this going to "hurt" anyone?
I apologize for not being more clear.
Essentially by definition a certain percentage of cadets will have difficulty with the exam and accordingly will be denied promotion. You and I may disagree about the approximate percentage, but it is only reasonable to assume that a significant number of seventh and eighth graders will have trouble with an exam based on materials written at a level that even the DoD would not allow to be used for their own regulations.
All policy changes have to be carefully examined by the leadership to make sure they are more helpful than damaging. Here, we can safely assume that at least some cadets will be delayed or even roadblocked by the CAPT116. And that should be weighed against the benefit of having more cadets "exposed to ES" and available to help in emergencies. As I indicated above, the cadet program
already requires an even more comprehensive exposure to ES, but does so in Phase IV rather than Phase I. Phase IV cadets are older, typically juniors or seniors in high school (or even college-aged), and are much more likely to be available to actually work in ES. (They are far more mobile, and have higher maturity levels to enable them to be effective on a search base.)
And finally, I would like to submit a basic fairness issue. Why is this being proposed only for cadets and not for seniors? Wouldn't make even more sense to ensure that seniors not already ES-rated "be exposed to ES and available to emergencies?" It just seems problematic to require this for 12 & 13 year-olds to be promoted, but somehow not 32 & 33 year-olds.
Would it make as much sense to require that every senior take and pass TLC before completing Level 1? Shouldn't all seniors be exposed to the CP mission and prepared to help out if needed in a CP situation? Do you think any non-CP officers might protest if their promotions were held up until they passed their CP exam?
I hope our leadership will find another way -- a non-punitive way -- to expose our cadets further to ES and potentially engage in ES when needed.
Ned Lee
CP Enthusiast
I agree it should be for all members.
If a 12 or 13 year old cadet has to take the GES test, the question is why? To many ES activities have a minimum age of 18. I can see possibly requiring it for the Mitchell, but even that may have age problems. What can a 13 year old do in ES that would even rquire taking CAPT116? Requiring the test for ALL Seniors regardless of specialty track makes more sense.
Quote from: BillB on April 15, 2013, 01:15:53 AMWhat can a 13 year old do in ES that would even rquire taking CAPT116?
They can do all the Ground / UDF work, MSA, and many base staff positions.
We need to leave state and local restrictions to separate conversations, as they do not have anything to do with CAP on a national basis, and
in most cases represent local politics, or failures by local leaders to get CAP included properly in response plans.
I've spent plenty of time doing training and actual missions with cadets in the 12-15 year old range. Are there issues of maturity in the younger
ranges, of course, but that goes across the board in the cadets ranks and is not specific to ES, and yes, there are some areas where younger
cadets may not belong, and the likely hood they can participate during school weeks adds another wrinkle, however...
If we take the view that those under 18 can never participate, then we should simply not allow participation in ES by cadets under 18 and
move on.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 14, 2013, 10:05:05 PM
Concur 100%. If our grade is ever to regain credibility, both internally and externally, even as only a gauge of knowledge and experience,
we need to suppress the grade level, with a recognition that the majority of members will never rise higher than Captain unless they
have clearly shown more then typical participation, knowledge, and responsibility. Promotions are not, and should nor ever, be considered
as "reward" for past performance, they are supposed to be acknowledgments of future responsibility. We already have plenty of ways
to reward our people outside promotion and need to learn to better use those means and stop treating promotions as some kind of payback.
Then new members should be
told that the chances are better than not that they will not rise above Captain.
This has about as much chance of passing muster as revival of Warrant Officer grades, but some military services
do have a rank of Senior Captain, or in the German Bundeswehr, Stabshauptmann.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabshauptmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabshauptmann)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senior_Captain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senior_Captain)
Quote from: Eclipse on April 14, 2013, 10:05:05 PM
A roomful of Majors and Lt Cols, none of them in command or significant responsibility, is akin to a corporation with a roomful of "managers".
A roomful of Captains, given my experience, tells me several things:
1. Direct appointments who have gone no further, through design or intent
2. Those who
have reached the rank and are content to remain there; like pilots who really don't care about anything except flying
3. Those, like me, who have worked to try to exceed the rank and are told that they very likely will not
4. Those who have sucked up to the "right" people in the GOBN
Quote from: Eclipse on April 14, 2013, 10:05:05 PM
Members wearing Field Grade should be the "Yodas" in the room, and if they aren't or can't, don't deserve to be wearing oaks, no matter
what color they are.
Interesting that you would put it that way. In my promotion denial I was told that my knowledge of regulations and the CAP in general was "impressive," and I was told face-to-face by another member just recently that I was "a fount of information."
If that's not a "Yoda," it should be at least a "Mace Windu."
Quotewith a recognition that the majority of members will never rise higher than Captain
mostly already the case under the current system.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 15, 2013, 02:41:39 AM
Quotewith a recognition that the majority of members will never rise higher than Captain
mostly already the case under the current system.
Everyone who was in my "class" from 99 and remained active and engaged - increasing responsibility, PD on a reasonable schedule,
etc., etc., has made it to Major, and a fair number are now, or will presumably soon be, Lt Cols. The only real gateway to Level IV
right now is RSC, which has held back a few because they choose to put their time in at NESA, encampments, etc. I'd agree that
should be addressed somehow, but I wouldn't agree that you can't expect to make at least Major in 7-10 years.
Those from my cadre who didn't make it, and probably won't, aren't interested in more responsibility, command, or serving outside
the squadron, which is fine, but then why should they expect advanced grade?
What other organization is going to promote people based solely on time-in with no education or technical training?
You didn't specify "the majority of members who stay active in CAP for X amount of time". The truth is that most people that join CAP don't make it past Captain.
Overall, CAP has a very pyramid-shaped rank structure with only a few near the tip.
Introducing required flight officer grades will probably prevent quite a few of those who were going to drop out in a year or two anyway the "privilege" of calling themselves CAP officers and will make it take a while longer for those who are going to stay in to reach higher rank.
I'm not sure its worth the effort unless they do away with all the advanced grade promotions. Those are usually the folks that are going to cause the most problems of one kind or another due to unfamiliarity with CAP.
If all we're doing is making those folks who work their way up the CAP system the hard way take even longer to do it while giving some CPA a big leg up, its going to do nothing other encourage the belief that CAP rank is not worth the effort.
If we want to mandate ES across the board then let's mandate that anyone working directly with cadets also have a Tech rating in CP irregardless of what type of unit they are assigned too. Cadets have plenty on their plate already to worry about without an additional requirement to promote between phases. Want to do a fam class sure why not but let's be really honest would you rather have someone who accomplishes it because they have to and it becomes a check the box type thing or someone who wants to because that's what they are into? Quality of people in ES vs quantity.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 15, 2013, 03:03:34 AM
You didn't specify "the majority of members who stay active in CAP for X amount of time". The truth is that most people that join CAP don't make it past Captain.
I didn't specify that because it's not true, nor was it my point. I said the majority in my class who accepted increasing responsibility, did reasonable PD, and worked outside the unit. There's plenty who couldn't be bothered, some not interested, a few with "life issues" that got in their way of serving, etc., etc. All valued members, many who have been frequently decorated and continue to serve in meaningful, enjoyable ways. Just not in a way deserving of advanced promotion.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 15, 2013, 03:03:34 AM
Overall, CAP has a very pyramid-shaped rank structure with only a few near the tip.
By design, as does any other similar organization, the military, successful corporations, and even your local condo board. All men may well have been
created equal, but they don't stay that way permanently. Those who choose to invest themselves at a higher level are expected to rise within the structure by design.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 15, 2013, 03:03:34 AM
Introducing required flight officer grades will probably prevent quite a few of those who were going to drop out in a year or two anyway the "privilege" of calling themselves CAP officers and will make it take a while longer for those who are going to stay in to reach higher rank.
Sounds like the right track to me.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 15, 2013, 03:03:34 AM
I'm not sure its worth the effort unless they do away with all the advanced grade promotions.
There are many who agree with you, and until grade is connected to authority, no one is required to play the game, though at least in my opinion,
within the current paradigm, there is something "suspect" about people who distance themselves from the core structure of a respective organization's
traditions and expectations and then disdain the majority who do, or expect the same level of respect and deference. The simple reality is that a member who chooses not to participate in PD can be an excellent technical asset, or single-threaded resource, but is not likely to be educated generally
about CAP and it's procedures and culture as someone who is. As in all things there are rare exceptions.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 15, 2013, 03:03:34 AM
Those are usually the folks that are going to cause the most problems of one kind or another due to unfamiliarity with CAP.
I would tend to agree with this. They tend to know only what they absolutely have to know to participate in their small lane, many times to their
own detriment or conflict with others. As in all things, there are rare exceptions.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 15, 2013, 03:03:34 AM
If all we're doing is making those folks who work their way up the CAP system the hard way take even longer to do it while giving some CPA a big leg up, its going to do nothing other encourage the belief that CAP rank is not worth the effort.
I think we agree here as well - I think all advanced promotions should be eliminated, including military equivalence. They serve very little
in CAP except to dilute the meaning of our grade structure. At a minimum, new members seeking advanced grade should be required to
demonstrate advanced knowledge of CAP before the grade is proffered, and perhaps it should be provisional on future service at a specific level.
Few people are much use to CAP in their first 6 months to one year while they learn what it means to be a member. The fact that we hang
a staff shingle on someone before their L1 clears is a significant problem in CAP related to lack of enough members.
I'm curious how a shift in the grade structure would shift milestone recipients.
Quote from: Ned on April 15, 2013, 12:11:46 AM
(Field testing new-concepts before enacting new requirements is an under-used paradigm in CAP. We should probably change that.)
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
I felt this needed to be repeated as a stand alone statement. If we don't do this we are just guessing what will make the program better.
I've just caught up on the 2.5 pages I missed over the weekend. Honestly many of those in opposition to the ES req for cadets are making me think about my first response. I see Ned's point about the 116 itself. My oldest son had trouble with it as a cadet his first go around and he was in HS at the time. Son #3 is a new cadet, is 12 and pretty smart, but as I really think about it, he might have some trouble with it as well, without some orientation of some sort.
So, the general principal of trying to make sure that all cadets get some exposure to the full three mission world of CAP is good. I'm sure some units have built their own ES orientation classes. Maybe a national standard class could be used. IDK, just throwing stuff out there...
Even with all the variations from state to state, I still think its not a bad idea to have a much higher percentage of our cadets and SMs qual'd at the UDF/MSA level.
Quote from: Ned on April 15, 2013, 12:11:46 AM
When is the last time you took it?
Just now - 4 Mins 33 seconds with a passing score of 76%. That score is partially due to the fact that at least two questions
from this 2009-era test are incorrect in regards to the current state of CAP regulations. I answered then "incorrectly" on
purpose mostly to see if the test had been updated.
Had I been more interested in the score then in simply passing or my time, the "false positives" notwithstanding, I would have been
able to easily find the answers to the questions using the search function within the PDFs of the documents cited.
While there were a couple that were more verbose, or which were inappropriate for >any< entry-level ES operator (I can't imagine why
a new MSA needs to even be
aware of the wing's annual training plan, let alone that one is required to be sent to region)
the vast majority of the questions were common-sense and would be / should be easily covered by even the 2004-era slides
still available on the website (along with broken web test links).
Now, obviously, NHQ does not intend for this to be a pencil-whip exercise in using the F3 key. The intention is clearly for the unit
to have some baseline Emergency Services orientations for all hands which cover the majority of this information. The Unit's ESO,
or one from another echelon could easily cover what is needed in one evening, probably in an hour or two, as is done regularly all over
the country. But for the cadets who will Twitter their friends during the presentation, or who are from units where the commanders
can't be bothered, either, this is not going to be more then a speed pimple to getting Wright Brothers.
This isn't
remotely calculus, and the analogy is not appropriate. Could the average slick-sleeve cadet sit down and pass this test
cold in 15 minutes? Probably not, but that's also not the intention. I'd put a Venti on the table that any cadet capable of making
Wright Brothers could do it in 45 or less, especially after being invested in CAP online test procedures and receiving the type of orientation
NHQ clearly intends for this situation.
In fact we already know this is true, because hundreds of cadets
already do it every year.
(Hopefully someone from NHQ will see this and address the false-positive questions before this requirement is pushed out).
If we want to mandate basic ES for all then IMO we mandated that all SMs who will directly come in contact with cadets as well as in SM in a cadet or composite sq be at least tech rated in CP.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 15, 2013, 03:29:35 PM
If we want to mandate basic ES for all then IMO we mandated that all SMs who will directly come in contact with cadets as well as in SM in a cadet or composite sq be at least tech rated in CP.
This isn't "mandating ES for all", this is mandating an orientation and one test. There is no requirement for participation of any kind beyond that.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 15, 2013, 03:29:35 PM
If we want to mandate basic ES for all then IMO we mandated that all SMs who will directly come in contact with cadets as well as in SM in a cadet or composite sq be at least tech rated in CP.
You got your Catch 22 going. You can't get a CP Tech rating without being in contact with cadets, but you can't be in contact with cadets until you have your CP Tech rating.
There is a HUGE difference between taking a short online test and completing a six month internship. Most folks are not advocating requiring an ES rating, nor does the proposal require that. Just complete GES, which consists of, for cadets, completing the Curry achievement and CAPT 116.
Quote from: arajca on April 15, 2013, 03:36:26 PM
You got your Catch 22 going. You can't get a CP Tech rating without being in contact with cadets, but you can't be in contact with cadets until you have your CP Tech rating.
No catch 22., You can not work directly with cadets until you have an approved status from the FBI background and completed CPPT per CAPR50-10 3.b. We already have a hard enough time trying to get them to sign up and into eservices and do the initial mandatory things. Having the GES to accomplish Phase I for the sake of having it is overkill a simple fam course would be better. For ES we need a quality vs quantity approach.
I can certainly understand what this proposal is trying to do, which is expose more cadet to ES. However, I think the way that the proposal goes about it is a little misguided, or rather misdirected. As both a former ESO and former DCC, it seems to me that it would be easier to change 52-16 to require some form of ES training or orientation at least once per quarter. This prevents the GES test from becoming even more of a pencil-whipping exercise while still exposing cadets to ES. Once the cadets are exposed to ES, I believe that the number of cadets who WANT to participate in ES will increase.
Just about everyone seems to say that this isn't about making every cadet ES trained, but exposing every cadet to ES, without undo roadblocking of promotions.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 15, 2013, 03:31:33 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 15, 2013, 03:29:35 PM
If we want to mandate basic ES for all then IMO we mandated that all SMs who will directly come in contact with cadets as well as in SM in a cadet or composite sq be at least tech rated in CP.
This isn't "mandating ES for all", this is mandating an orientation and one test. There is no requirement for participation of any kind beyond that.
To what point?
As it is now....if you want to participate in ES you have to do it. If you don't you don't. Don't we already have enough of BS training that for our members?
Mandateing GES for all members means that we at the squadorn level have to either make all our members do the on line option or hold a training class. At the rate we recruit new members that means at least one class every other month....if not more.
Yes I know you think these people are just not good people....but really.....about half of my squadron senior members are there to support their kids in the cadet program. And that is all. They don't care about ES or AE....just CP. They already give up a lot of their time and money to be part of our squadorn and are useful in the function that they do.
FORCEING them to do ES is just a waste of our time.
Back to the original proposal......I agree that ES should be a formal part of the cadet program (just like AE is)....I disagree with requiring if to complete Phase I. I would add GES as a requirement for C/TSgt, and MRO, FLM, MSA or GTM3 before Mitchell.
This allows them to focus on the basics while they are still basics....and gives them plenty of time to get their rateing before Mitchell.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 13, 2013, 06:46:29 AM
Want to fix the CAP rank thing.....tie rank into postions....i.e. Want to be Major....serve as a Squadron Commander or wing Vice Commander, want to be Lt Col serve as a Group commander. The highest rank you can be with out being a commander is Capt.
I concur. :clap:
Quote from: NIN on April 14, 2013, 01:00:03 AMIf you're going to be doing "wing & region level stuff," then standing in formation so someone can look at my whites & greys every morning and giving us 30+ minutes to practice marching around is just... not helpful at that level. You need training on joint operations, military decision making process, etc.
Not "marching 101."
That must be your RSC. The Pac Region RSC in 2009 did not have anything like that ::)
Quote from: Ned on April 15, 2013, 12:11:46 AM(Field testing new-concepts before enacting new requirements is an under-used paradigm in CAP. We should probably change that.)
I suspect the new encampment curriculum is going to greatly benefit from this approach. It's taking longer than folks probably would prefer, but the final product will be that much better.
Quote from: Private Investigator on April 16, 2013, 03:16:35 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 13, 2013, 06:46:29 AM
Want to fix the CAP rank thing.....tie rank into postions....i.e. Want to be Major....serve as a Squadron Commander or wing Vice Commander, want to be Lt Col serve as a Group commander. The highest rank you can be with out being a commander is Capt.
I concur. :clap:
Which is why a warrant officer track should be reinstituted...so that members who are not interested/not suited for command, for whatever reason, can still promote and not be stuck at O-3.
Quote from: CyBorg on April 17, 2013, 02:04:31 PM
Quote from: Private Investigator on April 16, 2013, 03:16:35 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 13, 2013, 06:46:29 AM
Want to fix the CAP rank thing.....tie rank into postions....i.e. Want to be Major....serve as a Squadron Commander or wing Vice Commander, want to be Lt Col serve as a Group commander. The highest rank you can be with out being a commander is Capt.
I concur. :clap:
Which is why a warrant officer track should be reinstituted...so that members who are not interested/not suited for command, for whatever reason, can still promote and not be stuck at O-3.
Oh I suggested that too!
Everyone is a Flight Officer...FO-1 through FO-2 based on your PD level, TIG, and other hoop jumping.
USAF rank goes like this.
National CC MGen
National CV BGen
Natioanl Staff Directors Col
National Staff Assitant Directors Lt Col
National Staff "worker bees" Major
Regional CC BGen
Regional CV Col
Regional Staff Directors Lt Col
Regional Staff Assitint Directors Maj
Regional Staff "worker bees" Capt
Wing CC Col
Wing CV Lt Col
Wing Staff Director Maj
Wing Staff Assitant Directors Capt
Wing Staff worker bees 1st LT
Group CC Lt col
Group CV Maj
Group Staff Director Capt
Group Staff Asstiants 1st Lt
Group Staff worker bees 2d Lt.
Squadron CC Maj
Squadron Deputy commanders Capt
Squadron Staff Directors 1st Lt
Squadron Staff assitants 2d Lt
Squadron Worker bees FO1 to FO2.
You wear the rank while you fill the position...then revert back to your FO rank when you are no longer hold the position.
So....MGen Carr would be come Cheif Flight Officer (FO-5) Carr when he steps down from his stint as National CC.
No advanced promotions for anyone, former military start at FO-1 just like everyone else.
You can immediatly know someones level of responsibility (if not their ability) just by reading the rank.
Eliminates the "ex wing commander...now a squadorn assitant personnel officer Col, commanded by a brand new Capt squadron commander" issues.
How would that change requirements for RSC, NSC, SOS, ACSC, and AWC?
Quote from: RogueLeader on April 17, 2013, 02:50:36 PM
How would that change requirements for RSC, NSC, SOS, ACSC, and AWC?
You have to be a FO1 to enter BOC, SLS; an FO2 for CLS, SOS, and FO3 for RSC and ACSC; and FO-4 for NSC and AWC.
I would make BOC a requirement for Level 1, SLS and CLC both required for Level 2.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 17, 2013, 02:32:30 PM
Eliminates the "ex wing commander...now a squadorn assitant personnel officer Col, commanded by a brand new Capt squadron commander" issues.
I seriously doubt that reverting everyone back to a FO grade is going to get much traction. Even with our existing temporary grades (Col. and above) members are generally awarded the permanent grade after successful completion of their assignment. In my interactions with other members, I don't see much of an appetite to eliminate that. I also don't think this solves the problem of brand new Capt. Squadron Commanders. It would prevent them from commanding members of higher grade, but that ignores the basic problem discussed throughout this thread regarding the professionalism and competency of our officers. Far too often, members with very little time in the organization are appointed squadron commander without the skills and tools necessary. Under this proposal, these members would become Majors... I'm not so sure that is a solution.
I
STRONGLY agree that improvements need to be made in our senior member grade and PD system. I am just not sure we have found the winner yet. I think incompetent, immature, or unprofessional members reflect poorly on us as an organization, regardless of grade. I also agree that grade comes much to quickly and easily. I am only a 1st Lt, and while I think my accomplishments and future prospects warrant the grade, it was not a topic of discussion during my promotion. I would have no problem discussing both my accomplishments and future prospects during a promotion board when I get TIG for Capt.
I am not very interested in the FO grades because I don't think they would offer any solution to the root problem. If the issue is that members are progressing too quickly, do not possess necessary skills for their grade/position, or are pencil-whipping promotions based on minimum requirements without regard for the member's true capacity to function at the higher level, we should focus on that. I would be in favor of increasing TIG requirements, moving PD requirements earlier in the SM program, and adding new PD requirements as necessary to fill gaps that may exist. I would also suggest that expected skills, attitudes, behaviors, and service objectives be added as promotion requirments. This provides some consistency in the more subjective aspects of promotions, especially for field grades. For example, it would help commanders and promotion boards better evaluate a member and offer constructive feedback based on uniform expectations. It would also help a member develop the skills, attitudes, and behaviors necessary to reach his/her future goals, before facing a denied promotion.
Simply adding additional grades without changing the overall philosophy of our PD and promotion system accomplishes nothing toward the objective as I understand it.
What the Master Sergeant is suggesting is not distantly akin to the way the USCG Auxiliary does it, except they have too many Past Officers/Immediate Past Officers.
I would prefer the Warrant Officer titling be reinstated, but am not opposed to Flight Officer, since that was used in WWII.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Officer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Officer)
I don't see having
everyone in an F/O grade as being feasible, or even desirable.
Simply put, it could involve a restructuring of Speciality Tracks into Command and Support functions.
Command - standard officer ranks
Support - Flight Officers
Quote from: mwewing on April 17, 2013, 03:44:28 PM
I would have no problem discussing both my accomplishments and future prospects during a promotion board when I get TIG for Capt.
Promotion board? I never got to face one of those. My promotion was denied
in absentia by a promotion board.
Quote from: CyBorg on April 17, 2013, 04:34:42 PM
Simply put, it could involve a restructuring of Speciality Tracks into Command and Support functions.
Command - standard officer ranks
Support - Flight Officers
I don't think this idea solves the current issues as mentioned in the agenda item, and discussed previously in this thread. By itself, it does nothing to prevent incompetent people from obtaining promotions - it just puts them in two different categories. As an independent idea, it seems very similar to the proposed NCO program which would also function more as staff and support. If either option is a solution for other needs, they might warrant consideration. However, based on the current conversation, I don't think they are a solution to these problems.
Quote from: CyBorg on April 17, 2013, 04:34:42 PM
Quote from: mwewing on April 17, 2013, 03:44:28 PM
I would have no problem discussing both my accomplishments and future prospects during a promotion board when I get TIG for Capt.
Promotion board? I never got to face one of those. My promotion was denied in absentia by a promotion board.
There is no doubt, even based on my limited understanding of your situation, that you are getting screwed. This is exactly the need for consistent expectations at all levels of the organization. Basing evaluations not simply on previous experience and PD courses you took, but also on the attitudes, behaviors, values, and goals, needed at the next level. This allows members to prepare for their promotions in a much more effective manner, and seek out opportunities consistent with their personal goals and objectives. It also gives commanders the ability to measure a member against specific and universal criteria during a promotion board. This will generate much more constructive feedback, allowing a member retained in grade to focus their efforts on developing specific deficiencies as documented. It allows discretion to be exercised consistently without personal bias taking hold.
This is really employee relations 101. We may be volunteers, but there is no reason we can't operate as professionals.
mwewing: PM enroute.
Nothing prevents incompetent people from getting promotions except for the commanders and managers above them.
Be it CAP, military, business, or your condo association.
We need to accept that and just worry on the majority.
I wouldn't be opposed to changing the promotion system either, although I'm not crazy about the proposed structure. I do think that sometimes we promote people too quickly and easily (I'm sure some may disagree). In the Air Force, the typical time-in-grade requirements for officer promotions (this doesn't include below-the-zone or position vacancy) are as follow:
- 2d Lt - 3 months (full time training) to 4 years depending on commissioning source (for line officers)
- 1st Lt - 2 years as 2d Lt
- Capt - 2 years as 1st Lt
- Maj - 7 years as Capt
- Lt Col - 7 years as Maj
- Col - 4 years as Lt Col
Air Force time-in-grade requirements contrast significantly with those in CAP. The same goes for professional development requirements. Moreover, a squadron commander in the Air Force is typically a Lt Col for flying units and a Maj for support units. Group commanders are typically colonels.
NOTE: Time-in-grade requirements for field grade officers (Maj - Col) are not the minimum established by law and/or regulation. These are the typical time-in-grade requirements for the mandatory promotion boards and may change from time to time.
Until we have manning tables, billets, commensurate authority, and mandatory retirement, there's no point in comparing CAP grade to military grade.
Since the above is never going to happen, we should simply work on fixing what we can, and not trying to micro-manage the system.
I wasn't suggesting we mirror the Air Force, but simply pointing out that there are distinct differences. As long as we wear an Air Force uniform and have Air Force ranks, we will be compared (to a certain degree) to our Air Force brethren.
I do agree that we need to fix what we have. I'm not entirely sure the proposed change will do that. Frankly, I would like to see better trained, experienced, and professional officers within the higher ranks and positions in CAP. I think most of us agree that just because we're volunteers, doesn't mean we can't be professionals.
Lots of varied opinions. But keep in mind the BoG meeting was last week. Did any of this pass?
Quote from: BillB on April 17, 2013, 11:26:05 PM
Lots of varied opinions. But keep in mind the BoG meeting was last week. Did any of this pass?
This is a CSAG agenda, not a BoG item. We didn't discuss PD or promotions at the BoG meeting.
So, since they don't have any authority, it wouldn't mean much yet even if approved.
So far, Gen Carr has accepted their advice on everything they've offered it upon.
Dang Ned, nobody ever said I was a genus
Even if the suggestion to radically restructure our grade structure was approved; it would cost a serious amount of money to update the promotions module, CAPF 2, design the appropriate grade insignia, get Vanguard to make it, us to buy and sew it. Is the problem we have so bad that we need to deal with that huge expense? I really don't think so
Quote from: RogueLeader on April 18, 2013, 01:44:42 AM
Even if the suggestion to radically restructure our grade structure was approved; it would cost a serious amount of money to update the promotions module, CAPF 2, design the appropriate grade insignia, get Vanguard to make it, us to buy and sew it. Is the problem we have so bad that we need to deal with that huge expense? I really don't think so
Granted, there would be a transition period and regs and eServices would need to be updated, but I don't see the big expense for our members. Anyone currently holding a particular rank would most likely retain it. Only new members or those not having been promoted yet would start at these Flight Officer ranks and Vanguard already have them in stock. The main difference for current members would be the requirements to promote to the next rank.
I think that instead of adding Flight Officer ranks for all senior members, they should just increase the promotion requirements to include additional PD, time-in-grade and time-in-service. I support making the promotion to 2d Lt a bit harder, but not necessarily making it the 4th rank in our officer rank structure. If promoting SM directly to 2d Lt is not desirable, then I would support adding enlisted ranks instead. I believe CAP is already investigating and/or developing an NCO program, so why not have new members go through some of these ranks first. As an example, many police departments make their police officers go through NCO ranks first (i.e. Sgt) before promoting them to Lt.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 18, 2013, 02:04:14 AM
I think that instead of adding Flight Officer ranks for all senior members, they should just increase the promotion requirements to include additional PD, time-in-grade and time-in-service.
This, combined with the elimination of all advanced promotions, really is the solution to the "problem" that CAP is said to have.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 18, 2013, 11:39:02 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 18, 2013, 02:04:14 AM
I think that instead of adding Flight Officer ranks for all senior members, they should just increase the promotion requirements to include additional PD, time-in-grade and time-in-service.
This, combined with the elimination of all advanced promotions, really is the solution to the "problem" that CAP is said to have.
Instead of flight officer, I would rather see one or two ranks and titled "officer trainee." If flight officer is the way to go, then why not include the old rank of pilot officer for all those pilots that we recruit. That way there's an direct rank to offer incoming pilots. Otherwise, I'm really looking foward to seeing what the NCO program will look like -- and I hope that, too, starts to solve all of the issues.
IMO we need to fix the issues we currently have and before trying to implement or even suggest a drastic change such as this.
NCO solution would be expensive -- getting "CAP distinctive" grade insignia made could prove costly.
FO insignia already exist, just a matter of manufacturing more of them.
I got a few ideals re: senior promotions.
#1. Captain is max unless you go "Command" Speciality Track. Because a lot of CAP career Captains when asked, that is as far as they are interested and Captain sounds cool too.
#2. Have CAP enlisted ranks. (tie that in with our current PD program).
#3. Do what the USCG Aux do. Everyone is an Auxiliarist unless you are in a Command role.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 18, 2013, 11:39:02 AM
This, combined with the elimination of all advanced promotions, really is the solution to the "problem" that CAP is said to have.
I am really not sure why people have a problem with "advanced promotions". Doctors, lawyers and prior military officers. I do not have a problem with it.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 18, 2013, 06:49:19 PM
IMO we need to fix the issues we currently have and before trying to implement or even suggest a drastic change such as this.
I have to agree.
One does have to wonder why NHQ is even giving these kinds of things time and attention when we have so many other significant issues
to deal with.
Unless we're planning a full-scale reboot of the program, which I would be behind, then we just need to start enforcing the rules we already
have, working the program as already defined, and if we ever get to a proficient level with >that<, then we can say we have time to worry about
the nit-picky stuff.
Most of the nit-picky stuff only becomes an issue when commanders and staff fail to do their jobs properly. That's the place NHQ should be
spending their time and attention - telling people, in short sentences, to "lead, follow, or get out of the way".
Quote from: Eclipse on April 18, 2013, 08:00:41 PM
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 18, 2013, 06:49:19 PM
IMO we need to fix the issues we currently have and before trying to implement or even suggest a drastic change such as this.
I have to agree.
One does have to wonder why NHQ is even giving these kinds of things time and attention when we have so many other significant issues
to deal with.
Unless we're planning a full-scale reboot of the program, which I would be behind, then we just need to start enforcing the rules we already
have, working the program as already defined, and if we ever get to a proficient level with >that<, then we can say we have time to worry about
the nit-picky stuff.
Most of the nit-picky stuff only becomes an issue when commanders and staff fail to do their jobs properly. That's the place NHQ should be
spending their time and attention - telling people, in short sentences, to "lead, follow, or get out of the way".
Honestly I think we need to tweek the PD aspect, not trying to add new grades to the cycle. I think we all can agree that there needs to be a review of the promotion stuff not have it hammpered by extra crap or redone.
Quote from: Private Investigator on April 18, 2013, 07:51:40 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on April 18, 2013, 11:39:02 AM
This, combined with the elimination of all advanced promotions, really is the solution to the "problem" that CAP is said to have.
I am really not sure why people have a problem with "advanced promotions". Doctors, lawyers and prior military officers. I do not have a problem with it.
I don't have a problem with them, just have a problem with giving them advanced rank based on skills that often can't actually be utilized by CAP. And if the problem is people not knowing CAP culture, regulations, etc., and ensuring that CAP members of similar rank have similar experience and abilities, then advanced promotions actually work against the goal of having everyone on the same page.
Prior military officers are great, but they don't know diddly about CAP and their prior military experience really doesn't given them any insight into what it means to be a CAP officer other than already knowing some basic customs and courtesies. As I've often said, the Navy submarine engineer who served in the 50s has no special value to CAP.
Quote from: abdsp51 on April 18, 2013, 08:08:20 PM
Honestly I think we need to tweek the PD aspect, not trying to add new grades to the cycle. I think we all can agree that there needs to be a review of the promotion stuff not have it hammpered by extra crap or redone.
Like I said in my post earlier on this thread, instead of adding more hops or more grades, we need to fix the current system that we have. It can and does work when the rules and spirit of the system are followed. It fails when the rules and spirit of the system are ignored or "pencil whipped".
As an example from my Wing that JUST occurred ~ A member came up for Lt. Col just recently past and he put in for promotion (how he got to Major is another story but..). The unit commander was brand new, so all she did was review the eServices of said member and seen all the boxes were checked and sent it on to the Wing Commander as she did not want to make someone "so senior angry". The Wing Commander was brand new and still in his year of "probation" and did not want to cause ripples and maybe get someone angry at him, so he approves it and sends it on to Region. Region clicks OK and bang we have a new Lt. Col. This member does not deserve to be even a Major let alone a Lt. Col. He does nothing, attends no functions and never ever leaves the good ol boy flying club squadron he belongs to. His son is a Cadet in a unit down the road and never ever functions with the CP at all. Drops him off and leaves, or sits in the car and does nothing as the units CP crashes and burns do to lack of help from Seniors. He honestly makes me sick and it really bugs me that he was promoted. What is even worse is everyone in the Wing acknowledges he should not have been promoted but yet he still was.
The above situation is exactly why we need to put real teeth into the promotion system for BOTH parties involved (the requester and approving authority). Commanders need to be able to say "NO" and not be afraid that this member who does not deserve a promotion cant cause to much problems for them. At the same time, a time limit and articulated reasons for disapproval needs to be mandated to be given to the requester. Something like 30-60 days for a reason for denial be provided in writing to the requester, and also sent onto the next level of command. If the member feels wronged, the next level appoints a review board of facts, looks at both sides and issue a recommendation to that level of command for upholding the lower decision or overturning it.
Enforce the system we have, don't just add things and hope to god it makes things better, because we all know it wont!! Make it a fair system for all with checks and balances. Take away the fear and the misunderstanding of what a promotion in CAP is and we can fix it!!
After reading the previous post, I wonder if maybe CAP should implement an annual performance evaluation. That would prevent things like described above, where a new commander approves a promotion base solely on eServices. An annual performance evaluation used for promotions would also ensure that the member being considered has actually performed well for the preceding years as opposed to just recently showing up after not having done much for years and then expecting to be promoted because the time-in-grade requirement was met.
The thing that is so horrible about the promotion system is its arbitrariness.
I have posted my example of my getting the unlubricated sideways shaft. NCRblues posts one from the opposite end of the spectrum.
And what happens if you try to complain officially? Too often a 2B for those who do not let sleeping dogs lie. I've seen it and wouldn't be surprised if I end up facing one soon.
I have about as much trust in the CAP IG machinery to handle it effectively as I would in Major Frank Burns to perform a heart transplant.
Quote from: Private Investigator on April 18, 2013, 07:46:38 PM
I got a few ideals re: senior promotions.
#1. Captain is max unless you go "Command" Speciality Track. Because a lot of CAP career Captains when asked, that is as far as they are interested and Captain sounds cool too.
A lot of those "career Captains" are not that way by choice.
Quote from: Private Investigator on April 18, 2013, 07:46:38 PM
#2. Have CAP enlisted ranks. (tie that in with our current PD program).
I would prefer warrant officers, but no problem with that suggestion either.
Quote from: Private Investigator on April 18, 2013, 07:46:38 PM
#3. Do what the USCG Aux do. Everyone is an Auxiliarist unless you are in a Command role.
Flotilla Commanders, Vice Flotilla Commanders etc. are all still Auxiliarists in the eyes of the Coast Guard. I was a Vice Flotilla Commander, which wears an adapted Lt j.g. insignia. My status as an Auxiliarist did not change when I put the half-piston ring/silver bar with blue "A" on.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 18, 2013, 09:37:22 PM
After reading the previous post, I wonder if maybe CAP should implement an annual performance evaluation.
Should they? Yes.
Can they? Not really.
Far too many members serve in the "you're lucky I showed up at all" mode, and as soon as you raise expectations, or give them any negative feedback, they
either disengage, or get disgruntled. Couple that with a relatively low percentage of Commanders with any management experience whatsoever and
you have the petri dish of attrition.
Attrition that I have argue we probably need, but we would likely lose a fair number of good people in the mix as well.
Good commanders I've served under already do annual evals. They're doable but nationwide implementation would not work. The best ones have been asset-based versus deficiency based but the level of management skills is too wide across commanders for effective implementation.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 18, 2013, 10:25:59 PM
Far too many members serve in the "you're lucky I showed up at all" mode, and as soon as you raise expectations, or give them any negative feedback, they
either disengage, or get disgruntled.
I am not quite in the "you're lucky I showed up at all" category. I do not think I am that arrogant, to say that someone is "lucky" to have my presence.
However, I will, and have, said that "if you tried to understand what I deal with on a daily basis just to put one foot in front of the other, you would not be so quick to discount the contributions I
do make."
By way of annual reviews: I vote "No" on them, mainly because they are a PITA, and a substantial reason I command the salary that I do in the real world is to compensate me for putting up with them.
Seriously man, if this is causing you this much angst, just rattle the cages and get it resolved.
I highly doubt that a group of people too wishy-washy to push your promotion through would also have the gumption to 2b you just for
doing professional inquires as to why it hasn't been processed, as is your right as a member.
You have the right to ask, they have the duty to answer (it may not be required, but it's common courtesy). If you don't like the
answer, take a break.
Just so you know, in the 50s to 70 there were quotas on each grade. If you squadron had this many members you were allowed this many Lt and this many Capt. They got rid of that but I am not sure why.
The problem with tieing a grade to a position is good people will rotate out so their buddy can promote. The way around that is grade comes and goes with the job but that confuses people outside the organization. The other problem is the available position may be 100 miles away.
There seems to be some agreement on the need to raise the criteria for promotions. But beyond CAPOBC for 2Lt I don't see any specific suggestions. What exactly do you think should the criteria be?
Quote from: lordmonar on April 13, 2013, 06:46:29 AM
The Grade restructuring is just another half measure.
Instead of getting rid of the advanced promotions, instead of holding commanders to a standard and stop the promotions for promotions sake, instead of putting real meat into the promtoion system in the first place.
the just stick on the Flight Officer grades in front of the Lt's and hope that that fixes everything.
Want to fix the CAP rank thing.....tie rank into postions....i.e. Want to be Major....serve as a Squadron Commander or wing Vice Commander, want to be Lt Col serve as a Group commander. The highest rank you can be with out being a commander is Capt.
:)
Quote from: CyBorg on April 19, 2013, 01:13:50 AM
I am not quite in the "you're lucky I showed up at all" category. I do not think I am that arrogant, to say that someone is "lucky" to have my presence.
However, I will, and have, said that "if you tried to understand what I deal with on a daily basis just to put one foot in front of the other, you would not be so quick to discount the contributions I do make."
With all due respect, I think you've said this on this forum way too many times. Look, I feel bad for you; I really do. But if this is the way you communicate and behave in your squadron and other CAP activities, it's definitely not going to help you get promoted. You need to show leadership and this is not it!
If you really feel you're not being treated fairly, talk to your squadron commander. If that doesn't work, then talk to your group commander. If you think he's the problem, then go all the way to the wing commander who, after all, is the promoting authority for the rank of major. And finally, you have the IG complaint system if everything else fails.
If none of that works then you have the following options:
- Work harder to change their minds and get promoted
- Forget about the promotion
- Change units
- Or leave CAP and go do something else
But whatever you do, stop dwelling on it and move on. While disappointing, a missed promotion is NOT the end of the world. Good luck!
I believe if someone put time into the military, they should get some advanced rank, but that's my opinion, I like the current system (and yes, I did put in time but didn't hit E-7, so no advanced rank).
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 19, 2013, 04:38:06 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on April 19, 2013, 01:13:50 AM
I am not quite in the "you're lucky I showed up at all" category. I do not think I am that arrogant, to say that someone is "lucky" to have my presence.
However, I will, and have, said that "if you tried to understand what I deal with on a daily basis just to put one foot in front of the other, you would not be so quick to discount the contributions I do make."
With all due respect, I think you've said this on this forum way too many times. Look, I feel bad for you; I really do. But if this is the way you communicate and behave in your squadron and other CAP activities, it's definitely not going to help you get promoted. You need to show leadership and this is not it!
If you really feel you're not being treated fairly, talk to your squadron commander. If that doesn't work, then talk to your group commander. If you think he's the problem, then go all the way to the wing commander who, after all, is the promoting authority for the rank of major. And finally, you have the IG complaint system if everything else fails.
If none of that works then you have the following options:
- Work harder to change their minds and get promoted
- Forget about the promotion
- Change units
- Or leave CAP and go do something else
But whatever you do, stop dwelling on it and move on. While disappointing, a missed promotion is NOT the end of the world. Good luck!
And this is one of the problems in the promotions and complaints part of CAP.
If something not so good is happening to others, its never your problem. Members always say "take it up the chain, they will care cause they have to" or "file a complaint". Telling someone to forget about the promotion is crazy and is an insult to a hard working fellow officer, and you should be ashamed.
There is a stigma in CAP with bucking to much and this is because of the very recent past (the Pineda years come to mind) where if you questioned anything you were shown the door.
Everyone should care when a member is not being treated correct in any fashion. As members we have a responsibility to stand up for the organization, not your local commander or best buddy. It makes CAP look bad when someone who cares and wants to do more and is doing a good job is not promoted/awarded/thanked.
This affects each and every one of us. This is how CAP gets a very very bad name in the public and in the AF/DOD. When we promote members that do nothing and add nothing to the program, but pass over good hard working members for no reason, do you think we are taken serious? No way! When the AF denies a promotion, it goes into writing and the member has an appeal process. CAP needs, no must have, the same before our grades are taken serious by anyone. CAP needs to stop playing small town politics and realize that small town stories (due to the internet and instant news feeds) now make it world wide. Just take a look at the situation in NER with the Connecticut Wing (NOTF is bashing the selection process). Even if the selection process is all on the up and up, people outside CAP will now always believe it was not.
CAP needs to start caring about the little man, the ones that make CAP work, not the "commanders and staffers" who without the average squadron grunt would have nothing to "command or staff". On time promotions with real meaning behind them, and a way to effectively say "no" to someone who does not deserve it, is what CAP must have.
^ +100
Telling him to "Take it up the chain" by others, or "File up a complaint" by people more experienced than me, him, or probably you means those members have taken his problem at heart. They could have ignored him, not posted a solution, or offer... nothing.
After all, in real life when you loose your home because of a natural disaster, for a while people will hear what you are saying, but then will recommend you go out and rebuild.
This is what these more experienced members are doing. Suggesting to him that "Yes, crap happened to you, but get rid of it and get action."
Flyer
Quote from: NCRblues on April 19, 2013, 05:25:05 PM
If something not so good is happening to others, its never your problem. Members always say "take it up the chain, they will care cause they have to" or "file a complaint". Telling someone to forget about the promotion is crazy and is an insult to a hard working fellow officer, and you should be ashamed.
If you read my post again you'll see that I provided several options to help resolve his problem. I do feel for the guy and if I was his commander, I would take care of his situation. But I'm not. You may not like what I said, and that's fine, but it doesn't make it less valid.
Quote from: NCRblues on April 19, 2013, 05:25:05 PM
There is a stigma in CAP with bucking to much and this is because of the very recent past (the Pineda years come to mind) where if you questioned anything you were shown the door.
That shouldn't be the case. If that's a problem, then it must be fixed... through the appropriate channels. I doubt there's much we can do on this forum other than provide advice.
Quote from: NCRblues on April 19, 2013, 05:25:05 PM
Everyone should care when a member is not being treated correct in any fashion. As members we have a responsibility to stand up for the organization, not your local commander or best buddy. It makes CAP look bad when someone who cares and wants to do more and is doing a good job is not promoted/awarded/thanked.
I care. And as a CAP and Air Force officer, I take care of my people; always have. But again, explain to me how dwelling over a problem (as legitimate as it may be) in every post on this forum and not doing anything of consequence to resolve the situation doing any good.
Quote from: NCRblues on April 19, 2013, 05:25:05 PM
This affects each and every one of us. This is how CAP gets a very very bad name in the public and in the AF/DOD. When we promote members that do nothing and add nothing to the program, but pass over good hard working members for no reason, do you think we are taken serious? No way! When the AF denies a promotion, it goes into writing and the member has an appeal process. CAP needs, no must have, the same before our grades are taken serious by anyone. CAP needs to stop playing small town politics and realize that small town stories (due to the internet and instant news feeds) now make it world wide. Just take a look at the situation in NER with the Connecticut Wing (NOTF is bashing the selection process). Even if the selection process is all on the up and up, people outside CAP will now always believe it was not.
No arguments here.
Quote from: NCRblues on April 19, 2013, 05:25:05 PM
CAP needs to start caring about the little man, the ones that make CAP work, not the "commanders and staffers" who without the average squadron grunt would have nothing to "command or staff". On time promotions with real meaning behind them, and a way to effectively say "no" to someone who does not deserve it, is what CAP must have.
Fair enough. So what are you going to do to help this fellow officer get the promotion he deserves or at least a reasonable explanation for not getting it?
Like I said, others in this forum, care a lot about him. And offered sound advice...
Flyer
NCRBlues - you're kinda arguing both sides to the middle.
For the most part, CAP has very clearly defined processes and procedures, especially in regards to situations when things get "unpleasant", require disciplinary
action, or members don't receive something they believe they deserve. By far the majority of angst and hurt feelings in these cases comes from the failure of
someone, be it a commander or the member, to follow the proper procedure to its ultimate conclusion, whatever that may be.
Members with legitimate sustainable complaints never have their "day" because they can't be bothered to file a proper complaint. Commanders unnecessarily
sit on paperwork because they don't have the confidence to support their opinion in face to the member, etc., delay the uncomfortable conversation, and ultimately make things worse.
The system generally works, but people either don't understand it, can't be bothered, or make assumptions about the outcome based on a flawed initial premise.
In this case we have a member who took a break from CAP, is now eligible for a promotion but due to life circumstances not able to perform at a "level commensurate with promotion". The reasons "why" he can't perform aren't actually relevent, either he can or he can't. The "commensurate with grade" or "deserving of promotion" decision is the subjective authority and duty of the commanders to make. There is always room to question the actions of individuals, but at the macro level, this is the system we all agree to
when we write the annual check, and the subjugation and subordination to someone else's decisions is part of the game. Basically we agree to do what someone else is telling us is important, to their satisfaction, and in return we have access to opportunity and activities not open to Joe Couch rider.
In the current system, there is no obligation to act on a promotion request whatsoever, nor is anything more then a "disapproved" stamp required to close an open request.
Common sense and good leadership / management practices, not to mention common courtesy would dictate other behavior, but they are not mandated by the system.
In this case, we appear to have a commander who is not confident enough in his abilities to either stand by his own decision, or stand up for one of his people. Neither is against the regulations, both are poor leadership.
But good leaders deserve good followers, and in this case, the member has a duty to either accept the decision and move on, or use the means at his disposal to force action and response. A member with a clear upward curve in responsibility, participation, and accolades, should have zero issue with promotions. Those with more horizontal curves, or who perhaps even have occasional downward spikes, will, and should be considered more heavily, especially in CAPs renewed rhetoric about the weight of promotion. This is how it works in business, the military, and most similar organizations.
I was behind the curve once in this regard, and the respective commander paid me the courtesy to discuss the issue and indicate what he felt needed to be re-mediated.
However had he not done that, I would not have simply sat quietly out of a misguided idea of humility while still wearing my displeasure openly on my sleeve.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2013, 01:28:08 AM
Seriously man, if this is causing you this much angst, just rattle the cages and get it resolved.
I am doing so.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2013, 01:28:08 AM
I highly doubt that a group of people too wishy-washy to push your promotion through would also have the gumption to 2b you just for
doing professional inquires as to why it hasn't been processed, as is your right as a member.
I have seen 2B's done for much less.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2013, 01:28:08 AM
You have the right to ask, they have the duty to answer (it may not be required, but it's common courtesy). If you don't like the answer, take a break.
I have the right to ask, but they also can tell me to shut-up.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 19, 2013, 04:38:06 PM
With all due respect, I think you've said this on this forum way too many times.
I am sorry if you are offended. However, how would you handle it if it happened to you?
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 19, 2013, 04:38:06 PM
But if this is the way you communicate and behave in your squadron and other CAP activities, it's definitely not going to help you get promoted. You need to show leadership and this is not it!
It is not. I am quite introverted in person (to the point of being monosyllabic) - until I get backed into a corner.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 19, 2013, 04:38:06 PM
If you really feel you're not being treated fairly, talk to your squadron commander. If that doesn't work, then talk to your group commander. If you think he's the problem, then go all the way to the wing commander who, after all, is the promoting authority for the rank of major. And finally, you have the IG complaint system if everything else fails.
Squadron CC - Done it; he is the one who opted not to forward my promotion any further, and he is taking the attitude of "I don't want to know."
Group CC - Made formal enquiry on paper that has gone unanswered.
Wing CC - Quite likely doesn't know me from Adam, but will likely eventually end up knowing me.
IG - I went that route on another issue years ago which resulted in a reprimand to me and my then-Squadron CC losing his position for going to bat for me. You will forgive me, I hope, for scepticism regarding that route, but it is likely I will need to try to make use of it again.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on April 19, 2013, 04:38:06 PM
If none of that works then you have the following options:
- Work harder to change their minds and get promoted
- Forget about the promotion
- Change units
- Or leave CAP and go do something else
Option I: That would involve overcoming prejudices - a nearly-impossible task in many cases.
Option II: Shut-up and be a good little boy, accepting that I have dead-ended as far as CAP goes?
Option III: None within driving distance.
Option IV: It will probably come to that. I've left before but (stupidly) came back...if I go this time, it's for keeps.
Quote from: NCRblues on April 19, 2013, 05:25:05 PM
If something not so good is happening to others, its never your problem. Members always say "take it up the chain, they will care cause they have to" or "file a complaint". Telling someone to forget about the promotion is crazy and is an insult to a hard working fellow officer, and you should be ashamed.
I do not ask anyone to be ashamed for offering an opinion, as long as it is done in good faith and not as a shut-the-hell-up statement. I think Storm Chaser spoke in good faith, given his limited knowledge of me and my situation.
Quote from: NCRblues on April 19, 2013, 05:25:05 PM
There is a stigma in CAP with bucking to much and this is because of the very recent past (the Pineda years come to mind) where if you questioned anything you were shown the door.
Unfortunately, it still happens...with the implied warning that "if you talk about it too much, you could be next." The Form 2B as it now stands is one of the greatest evils in this organisation.
Quote from: NCRblues on April 19, 2013, 05:25:05 PM
It makes CAP look bad when someone who cares and wants to do more and is doing a good job is not promoted/awarded/thanked.
Not necessarily, as long as the cookie-cutter template for such things is given the appearance of being adhered to, and when those higher up the chain may share the same prejudices as those placing the stumbling blocks.
Quote from: NCRblues on April 19, 2013, 05:25:05 PM
This affects each and every one of us.
I think the maxim "you'd care if it were happening to YOU" is apropos.
Quote from: NCRblues on April 19, 2013, 05:25:05 PM
This is how CAP gets a very very bad name in the public and in the AF/DOD.
I thought it was trolling for salutes? >:D No, really, point taken; however, how many in the public/AF/DOD know or care about our promotion processes?
Quote from: NCRblues on April 19, 2013, 05:25:05 PM
When the AF denies a promotion, it goes into writing and the member has an appeal process.
There is an "appeal process." Unfortunately, making use of it can have the undesirable effect of giving the appellant a "scarlet letter" for not being a "good boy/girl" and keeping quiet.
Quote from: NCRblues on April 19, 2013, 05:25:05 PM
CAP needs to stop playing small town politics and realize that small town stories (due to the internet and instant news feeds) now make it world wide.
I am quite aware that my postings here are very likely to be read by those "in the know" of my situation, though I have been as circumspect as possible regarding specifics and intricacies. I am quite aware that such postings can be easily culled and used against me. In CAP, Tip O'Neill's saying "all politics is local" is still true to a very large extent.
Quote from: flyer333555 on April 19, 2013, 06:14:57 PM
Like I said, others in this forum, care a lot about him. And offered sound advice...
Flyer
Which I have keenly noticed - and appreciated...even the seemingly critical ones.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2013, 06:21:19 PM
For the most part, CAP has very clearly defined processes and procedures, especially in regards to situations when things get "unpleasant", require disciplinary
action, or members don't receive something they believe they deserve. By far the majority of angst and hurt feelings in these cases comes from the failure of
someone, be it a commander or the member, to follow the proper procedure to its ultimate conclusion, whatever that may be.
Those processes can and are too often circumvented/distorted.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2013, 06:21:19 PM
In this case we have a member who took a break from CAP, is now eligible for a promotion but due to life circumstances not able to perform at a "level commensurate with promotion". The reasons "why" he can't perform aren't actually relevent, either he can or he can't.
And just
why are the reasons "not relevant," especially in light of CAP's stated non-discrimination policy? Would it be different if I were a double amputee?
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2013, 06:21:19 PM
In the current system, there is no obligation to act on a promotion request whatsoever, nor is anything more then a "disapproved" stamp required to close an open request.
Common sense and good leadership / management practices, not to mention common courtesy would dictate other behavior, but they are not mandated by the system.
And as long as they remain as such, there will continue to be injustices in a volunteer organisation with a stated policy
against such things.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2013, 06:21:19 PM
In this case, we appear to have a commander who is not confident enough in his abilities to either stand by his own decision, or stand up for one of his people. Neither is against the regulations, both are poor leadership.
More like taking an "I don't wanna know" policy, in case things
do get uncomfortable, said commander can feign ignorance.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2013, 06:21:19 PM
But good leaders deserve good followers, and in this case, the member has a duty to either accept the decision and move on, or use the means at his disposal to force action and response.
I am doing what I can with the means available to me. But as my caregivers and my wife have said to me, "how much energy do you want to waste on people who don't care to begin with?"
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2013, 06:21:19 PM
A member with a clear upward curve in responsibility, participation, and accolades, should have zero issue with promotions.
In a perfect world.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 19, 2013, 06:21:19 PM
Those with more horizontal curves, or who perhaps even have occasional downward spikes, will, and should be considered more heavily, especially in CAPs renewed rhetoric about the weight of promotion. This is how it works in business, the military, and most similar organizations.
Please enlighten me: Do you describe a documented disability as an "occasional downward spike?"
But in the interest of all who are sick to the gut of my issue...this shall be my last post on the subject. Any further communications will be PM only.
Quote from: CyBorg on April 19, 2013, 09:03:37 PM
I am sorry if you are offended.
I am not offended. Believe it or not, I was trying to help. If I offended you, I apologize for that, but I stand by my comments.
Quote from: CyBorg on April 19, 2013, 09:03:37 PM
However, how would you handle it if it happened to you?
I would fight it to the best of my ability until all recourses were exhausted. If I couldn't get the issue resolved, I would think long and hard if this is where I need to be. The one thing I wouldn't do is go on and on about my problems in a public forum where no one can do anything for me except give me advice. Unless, of course, I was looking for the advice and, in that case, I would listen to what others have to say and act on it.
Quote from: CyBorg on April 19, 2013, 09:03:37 PM
The Form 2B as it now stands is one of the greatest evils in this organisation.
Sir, I realize you are upset, but this just goes too far. It is inaccurate and unfair.
Every organization I know of has a procedure to terminate membership. As in every organization, whether it is the high school glee club, the American Legion, or Costco. And so does CAP, as described in CAPR 35-3.
And the current CAPR 35-3 ( "Form 2B
as it now stands") provides powerful safeguards to prevent improper membership terminations. Seniors who don't resign, pay their dues on time, and maintain their intitial membership eligibility can
only be terminated "for cause." And the eleven definitions llisted "for cause" seem fairly unobjectional ("habitual drunkenness, habitual failure to perform duty, serious or willful violations of CAP regulations, etc.) and are the same sort of things that can get you tossed out of any organization.
But more importantly, the regulation contains provisions for multiple levels of appeals. Members have extensive protections and rights, including the right to notice, the right to appear personally before an unbiased appeals board for a full and fair hearing, the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against them, and the the right to put on their own evidence (witnesses and documents).
And even if the majority of the appeals board votes against the member the approving authority may elect not to terminate the membership. Even if the approving authority elects to terminate the membership, the member has yet another appeal available under CAPR 35-8, the MARP.
The MARP may reverse the membership termination if it finds that a termination action was motivated by retaliation, reached without due process, or involved a material failure to follow applicable CAP regulations. A MARP decision to reverse a termination action is final. I would note that the MARP has carried out their duties, reversing membership terminations, and displaying an admirable independence while doing so. MARP results are published on eServices for the membership to review.
One of my jobs is to advocate for the membership on the Board of Governors, and I believe that the current 35-3 strikes a fair balance between the rights of the members and the protection of CAP and our membership from members who need to be separated.
I also believe that previous versions of the regulation were not as protective of the membership as they should have been, and the current "member-friendly" form of the regulation is in place at least partly because of perceived abuses in the past.
All of our members deserve to be treated fairly and respectfully during their CAP duties, and that includes the awards and promotion processes. And any member who feels that they have been treated unfairly or improperly denied an award or a promotion should be able to speak directly with commanders and staffers about the situation in a respectful manner without fear of retaliation or membership termination.
It is also worth remembering that in the not-so-distant past some of our most senior leaders have been disciplined and even terminated for attempting to abuse the termination process. And that lesson is not lost on our current leadership.
I want to again thank you for your service to CAP. It is honestly and truly appreciated.
Ned Lee
+1.....for every person railroaded out of CAP with out justification.....there are 10-20 who are legetimatly rail roaded out of CAP.
My personal problem with the 2b is that it is not used ENOUGH!
Too many times we have some goober who should not be in CAP...but becasue we are too lazy, or don't know the rules, or too nice.....we just let these guys slink off, transfer away or time out....with out documenting their gooberness.
The system is not nice, it is not fast, it is not pretty.....but it does work. Get a bogus 2b....you can fight it....and mostly win...if it really is bogus.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 18, 2013, 06:58:28 PM
NCO solution would be expensive -- getting "CAP distinctive" grade insignia made could prove costly.
FO insignia already exist, just a matter of manufacturing more of them.
And the CSU jacket was cheap????
On the subject of 2B I agree with both Ned and Patrick. With Ptrick in that the 2B is not used enough to weed out the undesirables or used where other methods of corecting behavior fail. I agree with Ned that there are safguards in the system to protect members from improper membership termination. But let me add to that "if the regulation is followed and an unbiased appeals board hearing is held". To an extent this refers back to what many in CAP have said, the "IG system is broken". When one Region goes 10 months without an IG assigned, or the IG has to fear being removed if he/she does not follow what a Wing Commander or higher wants, the system is broken. Getting a balance between the rights of a member, and protecting the organization under 35-3 seems to be where the problem lies. In that personalities or politics, often comes into play. In Florida Wing, several members were terminated due to the perceived wishs of a former National Commander whose name we do not mention which resulted in a biased Board. Several others were terminated for vlid justifiable reasons and through due process.
Is the existing system for terminations working, the answer is probably not. Should the system be junked and a new system provided. Here again the answer is probably not. The existing system for termination is valuable to both the member and the organization, but needs to be followed exactly as provided in the regulation, which often is not the case.
Quote from: BillB on April 20, 2013, 10:25:17 AM
The existing system for termination is valuable to both the member and the organization, but needs to be followed exactly as provided in the regulation, which often is not the case.
IMHO, the problem with this is that the system only provides relief to those who were wronged, with no requirement to actually punish those who abuse the system. Kicking a wing commander (for example) out of CAP after an overturned attempt to railroad another member would send a powerful message that these shenanigans will no longer be tolerated.
Quote from: NC Hokie on April 20, 2013, 02:39:34 PM
Quote from: BillB on April 20, 2013, 10:25:17 AM
The existing system for termination is valuable to both the member and the organization, but needs to be followed exactly as provided in the regulation, which often is not the case.
IMHO, the problem with this is that the system only provides relief to those who were wronged, with no requirement to actually punish those who abuse the system. Kicking a wing commander (for example) out of CAP after an overturned attempt to railroad another member would send a powerful message that these shenanigans will no longer be tolerated.
That would be true if we could proved that the railroading was malicious....as it was sometimes.....but as we know....we are still in a new era of CAP. The old paradigm is gone. The National Commander no longer has to curry favor from his regional and wing commanders to affect the changes he/she wants. He no longer has to get their consent to do what is right for the organisation. Regional and wing commanders can't work they system to their own political ends.
Which was part and parcel of why the old system was so corrupt.
In the last few years it seems to me, that the 2b system is working more or less like it is supposed to. Yes it still needs some work....but it is getting better and will continue to get better as we continue to challend our leaders to do what is right and follow the regs.
Quote from: BillB on April 20, 2013, 10:25:17 AM
On the subject of 2B I agree with both Ned and Patrick. With Ptrick in that the 2B is not used enough to weed out the undesirables or used where other methods of corecting behavior fail.
The majority of the 2B types should have never got beyond the Unit Membership Board. Junior may be a good Cadet but do we really need their parents as Senior Members where it is obvious they have some issues? I see lots of parents get into CAP for the same reason they want to be involved in Little League. If your a coach or the team mom, Junior will not seat on the bench. They think CAP is the same thing.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 20, 2013, 04:04:28 PM
Quote from: NC Hokie on April 20, 2013, 02:39:34 PM
Quote from: BillB on April 20, 2013, 10:25:17 AM
The existing system for termination is valuable to both the member and the organization, but needs to be followed exactly as provided in the regulation, which often is not the case.
IMHO, the problem with this is that the system only provides relief to those who were wronged, with no requirement to actually punish those who abuse the system. Kicking a wing commander (for example) out of CAP after an overturned attempt to railroad another member would send a powerful message that these shenanigans will no longer be tolerated.
That would be true if we could proved that the railroading was malicious....as it was sometimes.....but as we know....we are still in a new era of CAP. The old paradigm is gone. The National Commander no longer has to curry favor from his regional and wing commanders to affect the changes he/she wants. He no longer has to get their consent to do what is right for the organisation. Regional and wing commanders can't work they system to their own political ends.
Which was part and parcel of why the old system was so corrupt.
In the last few years it seems to me, that the 2b system is working more or less like it is supposed to. Yes it still needs some work....but it is getting better and will continue to get better as we continue to challend our leaders to do what is right and follow the regs.
I agree. The current governance gives the MARP a level of independence not seen under the old system. The MARB was supposed to be independent however, as seen, could be manipulated out of existence when a ruling or two went against the National Commander and/or a region commander.
This "manipulation" can no longer happen. And, if the BoG accepts the idea of further MARP authority when conducting appeals, will give greater protection to the membership and CAP's credibility. Membership termination procedures now can be followed through for the benefit of all concerned.
Perhaps I should have not used such strong language to describe the 2B and I do apologise to Colonel Ned Lee.
When I first joined CAP, 2B was presented to me as something along the line of the Sword of Damocles, or the Tantalus Field in one of my favourite Star Trek episodes, "Mirror Mirror."
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Tantalus_field (http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Tantalus_field)
The saying was "2B or not 2B," and it was described to me as something that anyone up the food chain from you could use at any time, for any reason (kind of like the concept of "employment-at-will"), to make you disappear from CAP and put a permanent black mark on your record to keep you from ever rejoining.
A CAP Chaplain told me that it was once attempted against him by a squadron CC who didn't like something he said and if not for a Wing Commander who valued this Chaplain rescinding it, he would have been gone from CAP.
However, there is one thing I have often wondered:
If you were confronted with a patently, clearly unjust 2B, would you fight it or would you just see that as a signal to leave before being kicked out?
Quote from: NC Hokie on April 20, 2013, 02:39:34 PM
Quote from: BillB on April 20, 2013, 10:25:17 AM
The existing system for termination is valuable to both the member and the organization, but needs to be followed exactly as provided in the regulation, which often is not the case.
IMHO, the problem with this is that the system only provides relief to those who were wronged, with no requirement to actually punish those who abuse the system. Kicking a wing commander (for example) out of CAP after an overturned attempt to railroad another member would send a powerful message that these shenanigans will no longer be tolerated.
Or, and this is just an example, a Region Commander for multiple attempts to run out a Wing Commander being overturned...nah, something like that would never happen in the real world.
Quote from: BillB on April 20, 2013, 10:25:17 AM
To an extent this refers back to what many in CAP have said, the "IG system is broken". When one Region goes 10 months without an IG assigned, or the IG has to fear being removed if he/she does not follow what a Wing Commander or higher wants, the system is broken.
It took 10 months to find a Region IG? Did the IG program suffer in the region? I'd guess all the Wing IGs were in place and neighboring region IGs could help.
Quote from: CAPR 123-1 para 6 d
"Inspectors general may be removed by the commander only with the concurrence of the next higher commander."
So in the case you state the Wing and Region Commander would need to agree on the removal. This is a good deal of protection for keeping the IGs independent once assigned. Is it perfect? No, human beings are involved, therefore it can not be.
The IG program has changed a lot in the last few years. Some of the people saying, "I'll never use IG system again." should reconsider.
There is a quote I use in my IG presentation to the squadrons in my wing. It paraphrases a quote from King Charles I in about 1629 .
Quote from: Former CAP / IG, Duddly Hargrove
"The IG must have a computer and e-mail and some lawyers to help him and all the rest should cooperate and assist, or else the Civil Air Patrol will suffer. For the IG is but one and must correct many, therefore, he PROBABLY WILL NOT be beloved ..."
Quote from: JeffDG on April 20, 2013, 05:55:51 PM
Or, and this is just an example, a Region Commander for multiple attempts to run out a Wing Commander being overturned...nah, something like that would never happen in the real world.
That sounds somewhat familiar. ;D ;D
Quote from: CyBorg on April 20, 2013, 05:26:21 PM
A CAP Chaplain told me that it was once attempted against him by a squadron CC who didn't like something he said and if not for a Wing Commander who valued this Chaplain rescinding it, he would have been gone from CAP.
So the system worked after a fashion.
QuoteHowever, there is one thing I have often wondered:
If you were confronted with a patently, clearly unjust 2B, would you fight it or would you just see that as a signal to leave before being kicked out?
Our core values are integrinty first, Excellance in all we do, Vounteer Service and Respect.
If I was offered a bogus 2B.....my answer would be....give it your best shot. I would appeal to the wing CC as per my right and the regulations and if I failed there to go to the MARB.
As we have advised you about your promotion.....if you feel you truely deserve the promotion....fight for it. They can't 2b you simply for following the chain of command to resolve a greivance, They can't order you to drop it, they can't tell you to drop it, they can't tell you to shut up.
Follow the chain, be respectful, give each echelon a legetimate amount of time to respond to you......but fight it.
If the 2b you on some bogus charge......well that is just more ammo for you to win both the MARB and getting your promotion.
Quote from: lordmonar on April 20, 2013, 08:06:17 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on April 20, 2013, 05:26:21 PM
A CAP Chaplain told me that it was once attempted against him by a squadron CC who didn't like something he said and if not for a Wing Commander who valued this Chaplain rescinding it, he would have been gone from CAP.
So the system worked after a fashion.
QuoteHowever, there is one thing I have often wondered:
If you were confronted with a patently, clearly unjust 2B, would you fight it or would you just see that as a signal to leave before being kicked out?
Our core values are integrinty first, Excellance in all we do, Vounteer Service and Respect.
If I was offered a bogus 2B.....my answer would be....give it your best shot. I would appeal to the wing CC as per my right and the regulations and if I failed there to go to the MARB.
As we have advised you about your promotion.....if you feel you truely deserve the promotion....fight for it. They can't 2b you simply for following the chain of command to resolve a greivance, They can't order you to drop it, they can't tell you to drop it, they can't tell you to shut up.
Follow the chain, be respectful, give each echelon a legetimate amount of time to respond to you......but fight it.
If the 2b you on some bogus charge......well that is just more ammo for you to win both the MARB and getting your promotion.
Remember that a 2B doesn't always mean that someone is booted out of CAP -- at least that was my experience as a group commander. In my first year, I dealt with three. None of them resulted in being booted from the organization. Two were senior members ultimately reduced in grade and one was a cadet who ended up being suspended long enough that it derailed ALL of his career options (milestone testing).
The cadet was the one that bugged me the most. He disrespected senior officers and when the investigation was completed, it was determined that most of his ES qualifications were fake -- talk about a train wreck leading other cadets. He actually transitioned to senior member status but could never be promoted commenserate with the cadet milestone awards he achieved. He stayed a SMWOG until his membership expired.
In all three incidents, none are now CAP members by their own choice.
Having close knowledge of the 2B system, I think the changes brought in the past year are good, fair changes.
As far as the MARP, remember in this very CSAG agenda is a proposal to water down MARP's authority - the language used in the proposal is
"In recent actions the MARP seems to have acted as an advocate for the appellant by waiving the appellant’s requirement to file in a timely manner, yet holding the decision making body to strict compliance with CAP procedures as well as presuming the members of the deciding body were prejudicial."
The propsal wants to eliminate the MARP's ability to hold hearings as well as deleting the word adjudication.
So there is a proposal to tilt the balance of power away from the MARP and to the commanders, the very commanders that many have talked about on the board. Here is my take - if what the member did was so bad that they were 2b'd, why would any commander be afraid to have their actions looked at? What is right is right - so if their actions were right - why are should they be worried that the MARP looks at it from the member side as well as the command side? If their actions are borderline - well - our legal system is "innocent until proven guilty." Shouldn't our 2b system be the same way - "member until proven you should not be a member"?
The MARP should be member-sensitive (notice I did not say member-friendly). What the CSAG proposal is saying is “The MARP should rubber-stamp all 2Bs unless there is overwhelming evidence that the member is not guilty.” When it should be “The MAPR should objectively examine all evidence, be able to hold a hearing to clear up possible confusion and gain clarity of evidence, and reach a decision that is fair and just to CAP and the member.”
I also think an idea that was mentioned earlier has merit - if a 2B is overturned by the MARP, it should trigger a review of the commander initiating the 2B: a Region Commander for Squadron / Group Commanders and National Commander for Wing / Region Commanders. That would hold the commanders accountable for their actions and help insure the integrity of the 2B process. Again, if the commanders can justify their actions, they should not be afraid. If they cannot justify their actions, they should not have instituted a 2B to begin with. I am not saying remove the commander, but that ithe commander should be reviewed and perhaps given some training (this is how you can handle similar situations in the future), given a warning (this is not acceptable for a person in your position, if this happens again there may be action brought against you) etc. Just as there should be a progression of discipline PRIOR to most 2Bs, there should be a progression with the commanders.
Which brings up something else - there should be training in the use, and type, of discipline with members. There should be a codified (either regulation or pamphlet) means of progressive discipline. This would help standardize discipline across CAP, as well as give members a more clearly defines set of expectations. This would also be a partial answer to the CSAG proposal’s points - not strip the MARP of power, but to give commander a more airtight case when it goes to MARP. If a commander can show that they followed the recommended progression of discipline and STILL have to 2B a person, chances are far more likely that the action will be upheld and will not be viewed as arbitrary and capricious.
To me the issue described in the paragraph you quoted is something different than a desire to 'rubber stamp' all 2Bs.
'waiving the appellant's requirement to file in a timely manner, yet holding...' To me the complaint is there is a double standard: That is, that members under review don't have to follow the letter of the regulation but initiating commanders do. This could create a situation where someone could 'get off' on a technicality. ('Well you did haze a cadet...but the commander didn't send the letter until X+1 days...so guess you're back in!' for commanders while members get a 'Oh, the mean commander 2b'd you but you were 5 days past the deadline to take it up the chain, that's ok. You must not have understood the process.') Whether this is true or not, I don't know. I don't pay attention to that level of personnel decisions.
I definitely agree with more training for commanders (part of UCC, and I think UCC should be mandatory...probably before assuming command, but hey. And I realize that opens an entirely different can of worms, not going there) and perhaps codified rising disciplinary actions. (At least LOC's, LOA's, LOR's etc. They do have their benefits and drawbacks.) That being said, a lot of disciplinary actions are blunt objects. They should be the last resorts a commander is falling back on. (While every order I give on active duty is backed up by the power of the UCMJ, you can bet I didn't give LOC's or more every time one of subordinates didn't do what I told them to do or something like that)
Quote from: LGM30GMCC on April 21, 2013, 04:07:58 PM
I think UCC should be mandatory.
California Wing supplement to CAPR 50-17 (10 APR 2013)
2-1.b.(11) Added. Unit Commanders Course. CAPR 50-17 indicates the availability of
training material online to support a Unit Commanders Course, but does not address any
requirement for course completion. California Wing has made this training mandatory for all
new unit commanders. Therefore, the following requirement is applicable to all members of
California Wing who aspire to assume unit command positions.
(a) It is the policy of California Wing that all subordinate unit commanders attend the Unit
Commanders Course during the first year after assuming command, unless previously
completed. A waiver may be requested by the group commander with approval of the wing
commander for an additional 12 months.
(b) Since trained squadron commanders are an asset to their Group, the Groups will pay all
course fees for incumbent commanders or those selected for appointment. Other senior members
may take the course at their own expense when space is available.