CSAG May Meeting Agenda

[abdsp51]

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.

[jeders]

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[Private Investigator]

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:

[Private Investigator]

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."

That must be your RSC. The Pac Region RSC in 2009 did not have anything like that   

[Fubar]

(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.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[RogueLeader]

How would that change requirements for RSC, NSC, SOS, ACSC, and AWC?

[lordmonar]

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.

[RogueLeader]

I would make BOC a requirement for Level 1, SLS and CLC both required for Level 2.

[mwewing]

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.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

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

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

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.

[mwewing]

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.

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.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

mwewing: PM enroute.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Storm Chaser]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Storm Chaser]

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.

[BillB]

Lots of varied opinions. But keep in mind the BoG meeting was last week. Did any of this pass?