Cadet Advisory Counsil

[Ned]

No one yet has provided a single thing at a unit or group level that a CAC could address that they actually might get changed.

Gosh, Bob.

You're right.

The regulation requiring CACs is totally wrong.  What were those guys on the NB thinking when they passed it?  The nerve of them!

But maybe -- just maybe -- if you convened your CAC (as required) without berating them for "blank stares" and reminding them that they haven't told you  anything new, it might turn out somewhat differently.  Consider not blasting them upfront with the notion that "nothing they suggest could actually get changed" anyway.

Perhaps if their input was not sufficently specific, your Cadet Programs Officer could work with them to meet your requirements. 

The CAC is another staff-like entitiy designed to help you succeed as a commander.  But even if you choose to ignore their input as incomplete, unrealistic or redundant, they will still receive training and experience in valuable things like committee leadership that is not offered anywhere else in our program.


(And although others have already mentioned it, successful group CACs offer suggestions for improving existing unit and group activities, ideas for new ones, provide guidance on cadet retention issues by identifying training distractors and offering specific advice on measures to improve retention rates, identify fruitful areas for recruiting outreach, help coordinate activities between units, and serve as an additional information channel for the squadrons.  Effective commanders request specific advice on national and wing CP-related regulations posted for comment.  And of course, CAC can serve as an important way to engage the more senior cadets at a level outside the squadron.  Heck, it can serve as a way for cadets to informally network outside activities.)

You are certainly correct that modern technology has made it much easier for cadets to network and exchange information.  But the challenge is to harness this technology to improve the CAC (and your CP).  As you know, cadets enjoy and adapt more quickly to technology than us old guys.

Why not have your CAC try technology-based meetings?  It could be as simple as a traditional conference call or chatroom, or something slightly more upscale like online meetings with products like GoTo Meetings or Microsoft Office Online.  There are some shareware collaborative meeting software out there -- I'll bet your cadets know about them.


BTW, what does your group Cadet Programs Officer think about your CAC?  Has she/he worked with the wing DCP to engergize the group CAC?  Do you have a separate Senior Advisor for your CAC?  What guidance has been given to that person?


The bottom line is that CACs are not optional.  And in many ways they provide value to supported commanders and the CP in general.  You are certainly not alone in your frustrations, and are probably correct in observing that many CACs are less than fully functional. 

But let me also suggest that the best place for guidance and support for your CAC is not here on CT, but rather through normal staff CP channels starting with your group CPO.  These are the folks with the specific knowledge to help, and are also tasked with assisting you succeed with your CAC.

Ned Lee
National Cadet Advisor Spacing - MIKE

[Eclipse]

Sorry Ned, we're usually on the same page, but most of what you're saying above sounds
like the same things everybody else says, which is basically a re-state of the published objectives and
generalizations.

I never said the reg requiring CAC's is "wrong", per se, but I sure would like someone to show me
something I can hold up as an example of a CAC that is working, and worth more than the paper the empty
org chart is written on.

Don't mistake my discussions here for the onlydiscussions that I've engaged in on this subject, I've been trying to get this "fixed" for years, because the cohesion a working CAC could bring to the rest
of the local programs has great potential value.

I've talked to the multiple Wing CCs, multiple DCP's, reps, chairs, active seniors, and plenty of cadets.  Sadly, the answer is pretty much the same "I don't know" (or a rehash of the first couple paragraphs of the charter regs).  I've never had anyone actively engage me with anything that didn't occur "last century", and
much of it falls into activity planning vs. program advisement.

I was hoping that there would be a few people here or on CS that would jump in and give examples of what their CAC's are doing, which didn't happen.

I'm from a big state, one where the population is (literally) top-heavy.  They've tried about every kind of conference technology and other means to bring people together, but in the end, after everyone is signed in, the pizza is eaten, and the minutes from the last meeting are approved, the rooms (or conference lines) are pretty quiet.

What is the CAC in PCR actively doing?

What are the hot-topic subjects that keep the reps engaged enough to keep participating?

[BillB]

Since the original regulation on the CAC was written in the 1950's, the entire concept of the CAC has changed. The original concept was for a cadet chain of command without senior interference. Cadets elected their CAC reps at each level. Reps can be read as CAC officers, Chair, Vice and Recorder. The original idea was that problems or suggestions could be brought to the next higher level CAC and thus to the higher Commander.
I can see both sides of the argument that CAC has a value and that CAC is useless. One year I served as Adviser to the National CAC. They brough forth several suggestions from Wing CACs that were of value and were suggested to the National CommanderOne or two were actually included in regulation changes in the cadet program.
But looking at the current CAC, I see many examples of cadets appointed to the CAC that have no idea what their role is in cadet programs. Commanders seem to be appointing cadets to the CAC at each level that may be based on favoritism. And the CAC reps do NOT want to rock the boat, they just want to wear the shoulder cord and not bring forward suggestions they think the Commander may not approve.
Never the less the CAC can be of value once you get to Region and National levels. Below that the CAC seems at the Wing level trying to take the same actions year after year. By this I mean coming up with bylaws for the Wing CAC, not being aware that the same bylaws they try to institute arealready in place. I shipped 15 laptop computers to Wing for the CAC. One to each Group CAC Chair and Wing CAC officers. This would have allowed the CAC reps to see what previous CAC's had accomplished and activities, suggestions taken to the Wing Commander. However, last I heard the DCP had not distributed the laptops to the CAC.
One of the problems I see on the CAC is the regulation doesn't provide the guidance to the new CAC reps each year. They start off in the blind with no goals or idea of the purpose of the CAC. Changing the regulation to have CAC reps appointed by the Commander rather than cadets selecting (voting) on their reps was a mistake. It lessened the  input from the CAC to the various level commanders. No matter how you look at it the CAC could be of value to Commanders if run effectively.

[FW]

Personally, I'm not concerned about the "results" of the CAC.  I am concerned however, with getting a CAC to be active and participate with proper senior member guidance.  To me, the CAC should be, as Ned states so well, a learning opportunity in committee leadership

"The CAC is another staff-like entity designed to help you succeed as a commander.  But even if you choose to ignore their input as incomplete, unrealistic or redundant, they will still receive training and experience in valuable things like committee leadership that is not offered anywhere else in our program."

IMHO, this is the aspect we should be emphasising.  Cadets are our students.  It is our job to teach them and, the CAC structure is one of our tools.  

[Ned]

What are the hot-topic subjects that keep the reps engaged enough to keep participating?

A CAC generally rises or sinks to the level of expectations and support provided by the echelon commander.

Too many commanders just approach the CAC as an item on the CI/SUI checklist and are happy as long as they have one and the cadets don't bother them too much.

Just like any other part of the cadet program, a crappy cadet program is not the fault of the cadets or funky regulatory guidance, but rather a failure on the part of the CP officers who are responsible for the program. 

I have never seen a small, struggling squadron that had 4 or more master-rated CP officers actively engaged, but suffered from "bad cadets" or a lack of support from above.  But I have seen too many small struggling units without enough qualified senior support.

CACs are no different.  Put them off in a room with an unqualified senior advisor (or no senior at all) and no quidance beyond "dazzle me with your advice" and they will in all probablilty be unsuccessful.

If a vital and successful CAC is part of a commander's vision, and that vision is successfully communicated to subordinate commanders, it is more likely to be successful.  A CAC needs to be supported with a qualifed, motivated Senior Advisor.  And both subordinate commanders and the CAC advisor need to clearly hear how important a successful CAC is to the boss.  A successful CAC should be a "report card" item for these officers, and especially the advisor.

If you currently have a sub-optimal CAC, engage them with specific taskings.  Simple at first, then more complicated as they mature organizationally.  The whole "crawl, walk, run" thing.




Here's a quick list of suitable CAC taskings, some simple; some more complex:

1.  My personnel officer says first year cadet retention is at 33%.  I need 5 specific ideas on how to increase that to 50%.

2.  Last year, only X number of cadet officers applied for NCSAs compared to Y the year before.  I am concerned about the decline.  Please tell me 3 things I can do to increase the NCSA application rate from our wing.

3.  In our wing/group, unit A is doing a lot of ES training, unit B is into model rocketry, unit C is doing a lot of AE in the local schools.  What activities could we schedule that would support all three units?

4.  On the national website, the following proposed regulations have been posted for comment (xx-x, yy-y, zz-z.)  I think they may impact the cadet program, but I'm not sure how.  Please analyze the regulation and tell me how you feel it will affect the cadet program.

5.  What would be the best way for this command to engage in Wreaths Across America / Red Ribbon?

6.  Should this command engage in joint activities with the US Army Cadet Corps / US Naval Sea Cadets / Young Marines?  Why or why not?  If so, what sorts of activities should they be?

7.  We clearly need better ways to retain cadets in the 18-21 year age group and engage them in CP.  Give me three specific suggestions we could do in this command to help?

8.  Is there a need for an Honor Guard program in this command?  Why or why not?

9.  Historically, this command has been lagging / about average / above average in implementing  DDR.  I need five specific ideas that can be implemented in this command that will improve on this record.

10.  I would like to increase the number of minority / disabled / insert an under-represented catagory here cadets.  Please provide a half-dozen specific suggestions on how to reach out to these communities for recruiting purposes.

(None of which involve uniform items or "revising the Constitution and Bylaws."  )