Main Menu

CSAG May Meeting Agenda

Started by arajca, April 12, 2013, 10:49:12 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

abdsp51

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.

PHall

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.

Walkman

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.

NIN

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?
Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Walkman

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.

Walkman

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.

NIN

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!
Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Luis R. Ramos

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
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer

abdsp51

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.

lordmonar

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.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Dracosbane

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.

The CyBorg is destroyed

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.
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

abdsp51

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. 

Luis R. Ramos

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
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer

Capt_Redfox30

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. 
Kirk Thirtyacre, Lt Col, CAP
(Acting) Group Commander
Group 3 HQ

abdsp51

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.

Luis R. Ramos

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
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer

abdsp51

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.

Luis R. Ramos

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
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer

abdsp51

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.