I imagine this post will cause much flaming on my head because it is not going to be considered politically correct. I want everyone to understand that I am aware of the Americans With Disabilities Act and how it applies to CAP. However, with that said, I must mention the recent CAP news item on CAP.Gov that talks about a young Iowa man that recently got promoted to 2Lt. in spite of his handicaps. While I applaud this, what I must question is all of the glory and praise that has been laid on Iowa about how they have the keys to the universe and all knowledge necessary to revamp CAP and institute much stricter training for CAP officers in alignment with military standards. On the one hand, I am proud to serve in an organization that helps those less fortunate than ourselves to achieve, on the other hand, such situations can present distinct liabilities for commanders. I am just struck by the irony of Iowa Wing wanting stricter officer requirements and then they do something entirely different regarding promotions. Perhaps if we just stick with the current program and actually follow it, we will be okay. I am just seeking others thoughts on this matter and am not condemning anyone or anything. JMHO.
Depends on the handicap and what accomidations they made for him.
Since 2nd Lt is really easy to get, requiring only TIG, CPP and CAP Foundation course....I don't think it is a lowering of standards but a glaring example of how low the training requirments and standars actually are.
Bottom line....if the member met the published standards then he should be promoted.
Now to stay consitant with my posts on other threads, we do need to make our training harder and hold our members to a higher standard. (Just no useless gate keeping standards).
According to the article he was capable of passing the Curry and that he had trouble comprehending a lot of the AE program. It looks like he went senior upon age 21 without going beyond that after being in as a cadet since 15.
Yes....I can see that. And in my opinion Curry is harder to get than level I. Level I does not even have a test.
Although the article did leave a lot to be desired. It implies that the only rank he got as a cadet was Curry but it also implies that he is a pilot. You cannot judge the truth of an individual by what was left out of a 2 inch new article.
CAPChiro,
It isn't a matter of political correctness or of lowering standards arbitrarily, CAP UNLIKE the military (and its NG and RES components) cannot discriminate against people on the basis of disabilities. It isn't really the ADA (which applies to many entities whether or not they receive federal funds), it's the baggage CAP gets for accepting federal funds.
IAWG's motives for higher standards may (or may not) be noble, it matters not. CAP cannot violate the law and discriminate on the basis of physical abilities anymore than on the basis of skin color. I --for one-- am glad of that fact too.
While I can appreciate the needs of the war-fighting military, in CAP a physically challenged individual can still give exemplary service. For example, a wheelchair-bound man or woman (or cadet) could be a VERY effective Communications Unit Leader ... even a pilot with the necessary retrofits to her/his personal aircraft. A blind clergyperson could give devoted service as a chaplain.
A commander who is not flexible enough to work with a person with physical challenges likely lacks the fullness of maturity and leadership skills requisite for the job in the first place. In fact I would see that as a case of the standards for command being compromised, not those of membership.
I think we should applaud and accept all who wish to serve ... besides which ... it's the law of the land. And I suggest that if you're right, maybe some CC's need to find other specialty tracks in CAP.
Iowa Wing is far from having the keys to the universe... However, control of the 2d Lt promotions is at the unit commander level and this one never saw the light of day at the Wing.
This individual did complete the required minimum training (remember, no tests were required to complete Level 1) and held plenty of TIG. This promotion was also done months and months ago.
His recruitment was years before any of our transition even began as well.
Currently we are focusing on mission-oriented and position-oriented recruitment we are looking for individuals that bring skills and strengths to the table to help bolster the organization.
I don't see what the issue is with a handicapped person getting accepted. It's one thing to have a standard that excludes handicapped (such as the military), but quite another for CAP.
It really isn't going to matter if you have a handicapped person incapable of marching. And anyone that asks such a person about D&C and expecting them to know the answer is either insensitive or a moron. A handicapped person might actually know the answer, but doesn't really need to, not like they can march anyway.
Other than ES qualifications, what could we require of such people necessary to fulfill a mission? What kind of mission would fall apart because of their physical inconveniences?
If they can wear a uniform properly, do their job, and otherwise contribute how is it lowering standards to accept them?
On a side note, I don't see Iowa wing actually using anything "custom" made as far as training goes. They seem to be using standard Professional Training programs, just putting together into an initial training package.
Any squadron could do the same thing. Wouldn't really consider that the "keys to the universe" as far as their program goes.
Quote from: capchiro on January 16, 2007, 09:39:36 PM
...such situations can present distinct liabilities for commanders. I am just struck by the irony of Iowa Wing wanting stricter officer requirements and then they do something entirely different regarding promotions.
As a person who works for a non-profit for people with developmental disabilities, I don't understand how a person with any sort of disability would present a liability for a commander who appropriate assigned that person. They are no less a liability than, for mere example, a horribly out-of-shape individual being allowing on a rigorous ground team search or a cronically fatigued CAP pilot being allowed to fly an O-Flight.
The real responsibility lies within the commander (in your case,
you) to appropriately assign individuals to duties and tasks which they can handle. Can everybody handle an overnight ruck in the dense woods looking for a missing kid? Hell no. Can every member be smooth-talking, fully-knowledgable, professional, and presentable enough to represent your squadron to the local media? Again, probably not. Can two 300-lb. senior member pilots, no matter how well experienced, fly a critical distress mission together on a C-172? I doubt it.
You're the commander. Even though you might be short-handed in many positions, that doesn't make it okay to assign the abrasive, straight-forward, new member to the Public Affairs Officer position and think that he'll be sweet roses with the local press.
You are responsible for appropriate assigning individuals to positions within their capability.
I see people in my office who have several developmental disabilities. They may not be able to talk or communicate effectively and they may appear "different" to you. But they can file paperwork, make copies, shred documents, and manage the mail better than me! If this individual was volunteering, would you discount their ability to assit one of your administrative officers with maintaining your file cabinets, or your senior programs officer with maintaining the PD library because you don't think they can help CAP in every possible aspect?
How about the person who uses a wheelchair? Just because they can't ruck it in the woods with the GT, does that not mean that they are not capable of being the best [darn] Cadet Programs Officer to come through your squadron? What if they were a whiz at being an AOBD and had a solid background in aviation? What if they had a degree in public relations, would you tell them to take a hike?
QuotePerhaps if we just stick with the current program and actually follow it, we will be okay.
We'd be okay from what? Okay from being an accepting and human organization? One capable of recognizing that we need good volunteers desperately to carry out our missions and every contribution helps?
From what I understand from the seriously short article, no parts of the Level I training were waived. What did Iowa Wing skimp on? Did they let someone get promoted to 2d Lt that you don't think deserved it because of some additional qualifications you have mentally reserved for such promotions?
The National minimum is the national minimum. If you think the program overall needs to be improved, let your motivation be to improve the overall quality of incoming CAP officers and not to stymie the contributions of otherwise capable individuals.
My views are pretty clear on this. Let down your mental roadblocks to people with disabilities and perhaps you'll begin to see that they can make just as many, if not more, contributions to your unit than the next member.
Quote from: Pylon on January 17, 2007, 03:13:10 AM
How about the person who uses a wheelchair? Just because they can't ruck it in the woods with the GT, does that not mean that they are not capable of being the best [darn] Cadet Programs Officer to come through your squadron?
:)
Not knowing all the details... I will just say that as long as the officer can meet the established requirements of both initial senior membership and subsequent promotion to officer grade, there shouldn't be an issue.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 16, 2007, 10:19:16 PM
Yes....I can see that. And in my opinion Curry is harder to get than level I. Level I does not even have a test.
Although the article did leave a lot to be desired. It implies that the only rank he got as a cadet was Curry but it also implies that he is a pilot. You cannot judge the truth of an individual by what was left out of a 2 inch new article.
I dont think it said he was a pilot
We are proud of the member in question and I am very proud that the members of the Iowa Wing have helped him achieve the recognition and dignity to which he is entitled.
The Iowa Wing fully supports the Civil Rights of 1964, the American with Disabilities Act and Department of Defense Directive 5500. To ensure complete compliance, all applicants for membership are reviewed by the Wing JA. No one will be turned away because of a handicap.
It's all about core values. Judge us not only on how we perform our missions but also on how we treat those among us who are not as fortunate as we.
Those who claim that we have somehow lowered our standards by admitting the gentleman in question to our ranks are not welcome in the IAWG.
NICK CRITELLI, Lt Col CAP
Chief of Staff -- Iowa Wing.
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 17, 2007, 03:45:17 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 16, 2007, 10:19:16 PM
Yes....I can see that. And in my opinion Curry is harder to get than level I. Level I does not even have a test.
Although the article did leave a lot to be desired. It implies that the only rank he got as a cadet was Curry but it also implies that he is a pilot. You cannot judge the truth of an individual by what was left out of a 2 inch new article.
I dont think it said he was a pilot
It said he loved to fly...soaring over the world below. Now...one may assume that he was a pilot or that he just loves to ride in the back...we will never know from the article. Just as we'll never know if he got anything beyond Curry because the article looks like it got hacked something terrible by the copy editors.
BTW...I don't think he is a pilot either...I am only pointing out that these sorts of news articles are terrible for finding out the history of someone.
Quote from: Nick Critelli, Lt Col CAP on January 17, 2007, 04:31:43 AM
We are proud of the member in question and I am very proud that the members of the Iowa Wing have helped him achieve the recognition and dignity to which he is entitled.
The Iowa Wing fully supports the Civil Rights of 1964, the American with Disabilities Act and Department of Defense Directive 5500. To ensure complete compliance, all applicants for membership are reviewed by the Wing JA. No one will be turned away because of a handicap.
It's all about core values. Judge us not only on how we perform our missions but also on how we treat those among us who are not as fortunate as we.
Those who claim that we have somehow lowered our standards by admitting the gentleman in question to our ranks are not welcome in the IAWG.
NICK CRITELLI, Lt Col CAP
Chief of Staff -- Iowa Wing.
Nick:
I haven't seen you around the boards in a while. Everything OK? No problems with your relationships? You don't feel like hurting yourself today, do you?
Do you want to talk some more about your dream about the supermodel and the bottle of Wesson Oil?
Quote from: Chaplaindon on January 16, 2007, 10:21:43 PM
CAPChiro,
It isn't a matter of political correctness or of lowering standards arbitrarily, CAP UNLIKE the military (and its NG and RES components) cannot discriminate against people on the basis of disabilities. It isn't really the ADA (which applies to many entities whether or not they receive federal funds), it's the baggage CAP gets for accepting federal funds.
IAWG's motives for higher standards may (or may not) be noble, it matters not. CAP cannot violate the law and discriminate on the basis of physical abilities anymore than on the basis of skin color. I --for one-- am glad of that fact too.
Actually we can. CAP is specifically exempted from ADA by Congress. They recognize us as emergency reponders, and consider it appropriate for us to impose physical standards commensurate with teh ES work we do, even if the member is not directly involved in that activity. The AF specifically asked for this. After it passed however, CAP issued a letter saying we'd voluntarily comply anyway. That means you are bound by ADA according to CAP policy, but not legally required to do so & cannot be sued or held accountable for not doing so. CAP is free to reverse itself on this policy at any time by simply issuing a second letter to Congress.
QuoteWhile I can appreciate the needs of the war-fighting military, in CAP a physically challenged individual can still give exemplary service. For example, a wheelchair-bound man or woman (or cadet) could be a VERY effective Communications Unit Leader ... even a pilot with the necessary retrofits to her/his personal aircraft. A blind clergyperson could give devoted service as a chaplain.
A commander who is not flexible enough to work with a person with physical challenges likely lacks the fullness of maturity and leadership skills requisite for the job in the first place. In fact I would see that as a case of the standards for command being compromised, not those of membership.
I think we should applaud and accept all who wish to serve ... besides which ... it's the law of the land. And I suggest that if you're right, maybe some CC's need to find other specialty tracks in CAP.
I tend to agree in general that commanders should be adaptable. I had a fairly handicap (partially paralyzed) individual in my unit when I first joined & he was in fact a very effective comm officer.
On the other hand I have a guy in my unit now that's mentally handicap. He's disruptive & incapable of comprehending any concept necessary to be useful, including being unable to pass GES. He made 2Lt tonight after the CC felt like he could no longer prevent it since the guy had done the training, actively participated. We may lose a couple other high quality senior members over it.
Same time I got a lawyer in my unit (sometimes) that argued we can't use the upstairs portion of our facility because that would not be ADA compliant. I don't have any cadets with issues climbing the stairs. We keep supply up there & they bound right up to get items when they need them. But, half my facily is cut off to comply with a theoretical standard we don't really have to comply with & that effects no one. We're going to have to leave our facility that we've had for over 20 years, for free all bills paid by the city, because of that.
On the end of this I'd tell you to go look at the NIMS certification standards that we're going to be moving to in the next couple years. That'd be the one requiring PFTs for pretty much everything. There's a thread on it in the ES section with smarter people than me talking about it.
Nick, I guess I was wrong, I thought Iowa was requesting all senior members to attend some officer training weekend/encampment OTS type of thing. If not, I humbly apologize. I am a little taken back by your attitude of not welcoming members who may have different ideas than your own.
DNALL, your example of your mentally handicapped member that is creating problems for your squadron was exactly what I was referring to in my initial posting regarding distinct liabilities. In a nearby squadron, there is a senior member that is mentally handicapped and he wants to take observer training. IQ wise he can handle it, but if he is not taking his medication as he is supposed to he is unpredictable and therefore unsafe in an aircraft. Now, when a commander denies him the opportunity to take observer training, and he starts waving the ADA flag, the commander has a problem, and not one of his own creating.
With the example of the member from Iowa, if he has is so handicapped that he can't pass anything other than the Curry, I would question if he is competent to truly understand and "pass" the cadet protection program and therefore be around cadets.
DNall,
I never asserted that it was the ADA that is/was the issue here (although I did mention that it applies to many organizations --the church I pastor, for example-- regardless of federal funding) it has to do with federal LAW and CAP Regulation IAW those laws.
I encourage you and others to read CAPR 36-2 (15MAY2006) http://level2.cap.gov/documents/R036_002.pdf to verify what I am saying.
The Paragraph 1 (a) of that Regulation states unambiguously, "The Constitution of the Civil Air Patrol, Article VII, states 'Discrimination based on race, sex, age, color, religion, national origin, or disability is prohibited.'"
Paragraph 1 (e) & (f) speak to the DoD and USAF policies relative to this matter IAW the Rehabilitation of Act of 1973, section 504. This paragraph in CAPR 36-2 states the DoD policy explictly that, "no qualified handicapped person ... shall on the basis of handicap be excluded from participation in, denied the benefit of, or otherwise subject to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the Federal Government or receiving Federal financial assistance."
As to what "qualified handicapped person" is to be understood to mean in CAP, CAPR 36-2, 3 (e) states, "Qualified Member with a Disability means a CAP member with a disability who, either with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions required by a CAP program or activity that such CAP member desires to participate in."
Paragraph 4 (c) 1 tasks "all commanders" with "... implementing and enforcing CAP policies, procedures and directives prohibiting discrimination, as well as DOD Directives 5500.11, 1020.1, and AFI 36-2707, throughout their respective commands."
Thus, this is not a matter of ADA compliance, nor politically-correct speech or action, it is nothing less than compliance with Federal Law, DOD, USAF, and CAP regulations and instructions.
I was troubled to read --- troubled for the potential impact on CAP-- "I have a guy in my unit now that's mentally handicap [I presume that is a MEDICAL DEFINITION and not a commander's or member(s)' PRESUMPTION]. He's disruptive & incapable of comprehending any concept necessary to be useful [again ... that's per a MD or mental health specialist, right???], including being unable to pass GES [is that required per CAPR 36-2, 3 (e)???] . He made 2Lt tonight after the CC felt like he could no longer prevent it since the guy had done the training [NOT granting him the grade if he was qualified "had done the training" would be a violation of CAPR], actively participated."
As a former unit commander myself and in light of the aforementioned regulations and laws, I would never deny ANY member what they earned, especially upon the ignorant presumptions of others unqualified to assess legal competency. This would be a legal/moral minefield to be avoided.
I find it sadly ironic and morally conflicted that CAP members see fit to inforce arbitrary uniform rules upon one another --out of fear of what the USAF might do if they saw a uniform worn improperly-- but would ignore what the USAF/DoD, CAPR's and even Federal law says about accommodation of those with disabilities. If anyone wants to see what will cause the USAF/DoD to "lower the boom" on CAP faster ---uniform wear or discrimination-- just keep doing what you're doing.
This is a civil rights issue ... it is a legal issue and it is a moral issue. We mustn't discriminate.
In the end, the key is to have standards tied to things like promotions and qualifications. Defendable standards. That way, you only promote people who can do the job.
For example, we were able to deny a blind person a GTM certification based on the task list - several of the tasks require the individual to, well, see things. It's kind of the key to searching. Saying no was not a big issue after that (and the SM in question is now a heck of a comms guy).
On the other hand, what exactly does CAP expect a 2d Lt to be able to do?
(Hint: the correct answer is "nothing more than any other senior member.")
So...we have no grounds to hold up a promotion. The individual can do the job of a CAP 2d Lt just fine.
Now, if we had duty standards for each officer rank, then someone who couldn't do that job at that level could easily be denied promotion.
Without duty standards, it's a lot tougher.
Quote from: DNall on January 17, 2007, 10:41:45 AM
On the other hand I have a guy in my unit now that's mentally handicap. He's disruptive & incapable of comprehending any concept necessary to be useful, including being unable to pass GES. He made 2Lt tonight after the CC felt like he could no longer prevent it since the guy had done the training, actively participated. We may lose a couple other high quality senior members over it.
Sounds like the whole story isn't there, to me. If the guy is disruptive and "can't comprehend any concept necessary to be useful," your commander shouldn't promote him and ask him to leave the organization. But if he couldn't comprehend any concept necessary, how did he get through Level I? Did somebody in your unit allow him a free pass because they didn't want to bother with him? Or did he actually comprehend the concepts necessary and legitimately earn his Level I? Either way, I see a problem with attitudes.
Not being able to pass GES doesn't mean a thing. Participating on an ES mission is but one-third of our mission. But I'm guessing that your unit feels it's necessary to contribute? I personally know other members of CAP who can't pass GES either. Should I assume they're worthless to the organization?
Again, as I said in my original post -- the job of the commander is to exercise his or her discretion. If a commander feels bound and cannot feel free to exercise their commander's discretion with regards to promotions, duty assignments, and other decisions they shouldn't be in command.
So which is it? Your commander can't exercise his or her proper discretion as a commander, or this member really wasn't all that disruptive and incompetent after all?
If you "lose a couple other high quality senior members" over this guy getting promoted to 2d Lt, I'd argue that these narrow-minded souls aren't actually all that high quality.
Dragoon,
I would not put PHYSICAL capabilities on the list of promotional requirements (e.g. a 9-min mile for 1st Lt, and a 8.5 min mile for Capt and so on). If CAP were to implement such requirements a brief complaint as outlined in CAPR 36-2 would immediately reverse it.
If we can have a Commander in Chief of all of the US Armed Forces lead this Country and its military from a wheelchair (President Franklin Roosevelt), then EVERY person --regardless of physical capacity-- could be capable of performing in ANY grade in CAP. For example, although blindness might make it impossible for a person to serve as a GTM, it shouldn't --on its own-- preclude one from serving as a Wing Commander or even Nat'l CC. We've had lawmakers and other leaders who've been blind ... it may make them unsafe to drive but not incapable of leading.
CAP simply cannot discriminate on the basis of physical ability or disability. That is, as long as we hungrily ask for and accept Federal dollars.
Let's break it down shall we:
Quote from: CAPR 39-23-2. Requirements for Membership. All applicants for senior membership in CAP must be accepted by the unit and higher headquarters and must meet the following criteria:
a. General. Possess the desire, willingness, and capability to promote the objectives and purposes of CAP.
b. Age. Be at least 18 years of age or be a member of the Armed Forces on active duty at any age.
c. Citizenship. Be a citizen of the United States of America or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence to the United States of America and its territories and possessions or any lawfully admitted non-citizen residing in the United States specifically approved by the National Commander's designee (NHQ CAP/LMM).
1) Those persons in "admitted for permanent residence" status must possess and present a current Alien Registration Receipt Card (Form I-151 or I-551) when making application for CAP membership. If an alien's status changes from "admitted for permanent residence" other then by reason of acquiring citizenship, the alien is no longer eligible for membership.
2) Requests for waiver of the citizenship criteria for lawfully admitted non-citizens residing in the United States who were not admitted for permanent residence will be submitted through the wing and region commander along with a copy of the membership application to NHQ CAP/LMM. The waiver, if approved, will be only for the period of residence within the United States.
d. Suitability. Subject to being waived by the Executive Director or National Commander, any one of the following may be the basis for rejection of membership.
1) Conviction of a felony by any court of record whether federal, state or military.
2) A pattern of arrests and/or convictions including but not limited to sex offenses, child abuse, DUIs, dishonesty and violence.
3) Discharge from the armed services under other than honorable conditions.
4) Falsification of information on the membership application.
5) Previously terminated or non renewed for cause from membership in CAP.
6) Any other unfavorable information brought to the attention of CAP officials at any level.
Quote from: CAPR 35-56. Minimum Eligibility Requirements. To qualify for initial appointment to CAP officer grade, senior members must meet the following minimum requirements:
a. Be at least 21 years of age.
b. Be a high school graduate (or educational equivalent).
c. Complete Level I of the Senior Member Professional Development Program (see CAPR 50-17). NOTE: Former members who have completed Level I training and have less than a 2 year membership break and former cadets who have earned the General Billy Mitchell Award, or higher, and have less than a 2 year membership break are exempt from Level I training requirements.
d. Complete Cadet Protection Program Training (CPPT).
e. Be recommended for promotion by the unit commander.
Quote from: Dragoon on January 17, 2007, 02:19:04 PM
Now, if we had duty standards for each officer rank, then someone who couldn't do that job at that level could easily be denied promotion.
Without duty standards, it's a lot tougher.
Yep, a lot tougher to keep people who want to help your unit down.
(And people wonder why we have such a hard time keeping volunteers in this organization ::) )
Quote from: Chaplaindon on January 17, 2007, 02:30:10 PM
Dragoon,
I would not put PHYSICAL capabilities on the list of promotional requirements (e.g. a 9-min mile for 1st Lt, and a 8.5 min mile for Capt and so on). If CAP were to implement such requirements a brief complaint as outlined in CAPR 36-2 would immediately reverse it.
If we can have a Commander in Chief of all of the US Armed Forces lead this Country and its military from a wheelchair (President Franklin Roosevelt), then EVERY person --regardless of physical capacity-- could be capable of performing in ANY grade in CAP. For example, although blindness might make it impossible for a person to serve as a GTM, it shouldn't --on its own-- preclude one from serving as a Wing Commander or even Nat'l CC. We've had lawmakers and other leaders who've been blind ... it may make them unsafe to drive but not incapable of leading.
CAP simply cannot discriminate on the basis of physical ability or disability. That is, as long as we hungrily ask for and accept Federal dollars.
I would absolutely agree that any kind of PT requirement tied to promotion makes no sense whatsoever, and didn't mean to intimate any such thing.
I was thinking more of duty requirements.
For example, what if we decided that all 2d Lts had to be able to write a 5 paragraph Op Order and successfully plan and run a squadron level day-long activity? And we weren't doing it to be arbitrary, but rather because we expect all CAP officers to be able to do this as part of their staff jobs?
If we set that requirement, and we had someone who, with reasonable accommodation, couldn't do it, it would make sense not to promote. Because they could not do the job at the next level.
But as long as rank isn't tied to any duties, we have no reason not to promote anyone who shows up for the necessary classes.
Quote from: Pylon on January 17, 2007, 02:47:01 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on January 17, 2007, 02:19:04 PM
Now, if we had duty standards for each officer rank, then someone who couldn't do that job at that level could easily be denied promotion.
Without duty standards, it's a lot tougher.
Yep, a lot tougher to keep people who want to help your unit down.
(And people wonder why we have such a hard time keeping volunteers in this organization ::) )
Hmmm...so you're against standards? And in favor of promoting everyone, regardless of competence? Because that's what I'm talking about - the ability to actually do the job you required for an officer of that grade? Would you promote someone to Major who couldn't do a Major's job?
This is one of those times I have to be careful cause people know who I am & what unit I'm in.
Quote from: Pylon on January 17, 2007, 02:24:15 PM
Quote from: DNall on January 17, 2007, 10:41:45 AM
On the other hand I have a guy in my unit now that's mentally handicap. He's disruptive & incapable of comprehending any concept necessary to be useful, including being unable to pass GES. He made 2Lt tonight after the CC felt like he could no longer prevent it since the guy had done the training, actively participated. We may lose a couple other high quality senior members over it.
Sounds like the whole story isn't there, to me. If the guy is disruptive and "can't comprehend any concept necessary to be useful," your commander shouldn't promote him and ask him to leave the organization. But if he couldn't comprehend any concept necessary, how did he get through Level I? Did somebody in your unit allow him a free pass because they didn't want to bother with him? Or did he actually comprehend the concepts necessary and legitimately earn his Level I? Either way, I see a problem with attitudes.
Can I say "no comment, it happened before I came back in" and get my meaning across? I can tell you my repeat of Lvl 1 consisted of "here take this video home with you & don't lose it." We promoted two other members to 2Lt on the same night, I've been Deputy CC a while now, been to every meeting in six months, and I never met either one of them.
QuoteNot being able to pass GES doesn't mean a thing. Participating on an ES mission is but one-third of our mission. But I'm guessing that your unit feels it's necessary to contribute? I personally know other members of CAP who can't pass GES either. Should I assume they're worthless to the organization?
No. I really don't do ES anymore either, I may go back to it at some point, but re-earning all or even some of my quals is somewhat daunting while quite busy with other aspects of the unit. I mention it because GES is easier than breating & the guy in question really wants to do ES.
QuoteAgain, as I said in my original post -- the job of the commander is to exercise his or her discretion. If a commander feels bound and cannot feel free to exercise their commander's discretion with regards to promotions, duty assignments, and other decisions they shouldn't be in command.
Harsh. I can think of many situations under which a CC's discression is more limited to non-existent & it doesn't compromise his leadership or command authority. This is more like feeling bad for somebody though, & guilty for not giving them something they might technically deserve but that they can't actually do & that may be counter-productive to the unit or organization if you allow it.
QuoteSo which is it? Your commander can't exercise his or her proper discretion as a commander, or this member really wasn't all that disruptive and incompetent after all?
If you "lose a couple other high quality senior members" over this guy getting promoted to 2d Lt, I'd argue that these narrow-minded souls aren't actually all that high quality.
No comment. I understand what you're saying, but members are recruited to be highspeed officers (and I don't mean just ES). They come here with the expectation that they're going to work in a para-military organization doing a volunteer fire dept version of the Air Force, and actually doing some good for kids & the country. We send a lot of kids off to service academies using that foundation, and have done quite a bit of serious ES work over the years.
Grade is meaningless because we make it so. It's not a merit badge or longevity device. I believe those are worn a bit lower on the uniform. If you promote a person incapable of functioning as a leader at the next level, and if you give the color of authority or endorsement to a person that will use it to the detriment of the organization, than you are doing a disservice to CAP & all of our members.
Quote from: capchiro on January 17, 2007, 01:37:11 PM
Nick, ... I am a little taken back by your attitude of not welcoming members who may have different ideas than your own.
...
I have no problem with divergent views...but we cannot tolerate discrimination in any form.
If this or any member can meet whatever CAP standards we have then they should be promoted. That being said our current standards are too low.
I am so gonna make myself flamebait....
I completely agree with Nick. Discrimination is not part of my job description as a Unit Commander.
That being said, we should should try to invoke common sense where necessary.
When I was a shiny new ESO I had a member of my unit show up with a CAP license plate, "Search & Rescue," and some kind of "Ground Team Vehicle," (or some-such) vinyled in big white letters on the windows of his POV.
(Forehead smacking ensued...)
At the time, he was a BIG guy, so big... that he had a handicapped parking tag issued to him due to his physical condition.
You have to picture it... "Ricky Rescue" bling on the car, blue handicap tag hanging from the window.
Ugh.
I asked him to please pick one. I told him that I had no problem with him displaying a handicap parking tag, OR (less so) him bragging about his Ground Pounder status... but please-for-the-love-of-pete not BOTH!!!
You can guess as to the schalacking I took over that one.
I just put it out there as a cautionary tale of woe. YMMV.
-M6
Quote from: MidwaySix on January 18, 2007, 04:35:37 AM
I am so gonna make myself flamebait....
I completely agree with Nick. Discrimination is not part of my job description as a Unit Commander.
That being said, we should should try to invoke common sense where necessary.
When I was a shiny new ESO I had a member of my unit show up with a CAP license plate, "Search & Rescue," and some kind of "Ground Team Vehicle," (or some-such) vinyled in big white letters on the windows of his POV.
(Forehead smacking ensued...)
At the time, he was a BIG guy, so big... that he had a handicapped parking tag issued to him due to his physical condition.
You have to picture it... "Ricky Rescue" bling on the car, blue handicap tag hanging from the window.
Ugh.
I asked him to please pick one. I told him that I had no problem with him displaying a handicap parking tag, OR (less so) him bragging about his Ground Pounder status... but please-for-the-love-of-pete not BOTH!!!
You can guess as to the schalacking I took over that one.
I just put it out there as a cautionary tale of woe. YMMV.
-M6
Was it a large red station wagon? Big Red Lives!
Quote from: RiverAux on January 18, 2007, 04:00:29 AM
If this or any member can meet whatever CAP standards we have then they should be promoted. That being said our current standards are too low.
Concur.
But let's be careful how we beef them up.
Quote from: MidwaySix on January 18, 2007, 04:35:37 AM
I am so gonna make myself flamebait....
I completely agree with Nick. Discrimination is not part of my job description as a Unit Commander.
That being said, we should should try to invoke common sense where necessary.
When I was a shiny new ESO I had a member of my unit show up with a CAP license plate, "Search & Rescue," and some kind of "Ground Team Vehicle," (or some-such) vinyled in big white letters on the windows of his POV.
(Forehead smacking ensued...)
At the time, he was a BIG guy, so big... that he had a handicapped parking tag issued to him due to his physical condition.
You have to picture it... "Ricky Rescue" bling on the car, blue handicap tag hanging from the window.
Ugh.
I asked him to please pick one. I told him that I had no problem with him displaying a handicap parking tag, OR (less so) him bragging about his Ground Pounder status... but please-for-the-love-of-pete not BOTH!!!
You can guess as to the schalacking I took over that one.
I just put it out there as a cautionary tale of woe. YMMV.
-M6
One option open to you would have been to simply prohibit him from using his POV for missions.
Though in practicality we'd all be walking if we were restricted only to corporate vehicles for missions, a technicality of the regs indicates all POVs must be approved in advance and in writing by a unit cc for mission use.
Quote from: MidwaySix on January 18, 2007, 04:35:37 AM
When I was a shiny new ESO I had a member of my unit show up with a CAP license plate, "Search & Rescue," and some kind of "Ground Team Vehicle," (or some-such) vinyled in big white letters on the windows of his POV.
(Forehead smacking ensued...)
At the time, he was a BIG guy, so big... that he had a handicapped parking tag issued to him due to his physical condition.
You have to picture it... "Ricky Rescue" bling on the car, blue handicap tag hanging from the window.
Ugh.
I asked him to please pick one. I told him that I had no problem with him displaying a handicap parking tag, OR (less so) him bragging about his Ground Pounder status... but please-for-the-love-of-pete not BOTH!!!
You can guess as to the schalacking I took over that one.
I just put it out there as a cautionary tale of woe. YMMV.
-M6
We used to refer to such guys as our Heavy Rescue Specialists. Emphasis on the "heavy." :D
Quote from: DNall on January 17, 2007, 10:41:45 AM
On the other hand I have a guy in my unit now that's mentally handicap. He's disruptive & incapable of comprehending any concept necessary to be useful, including being unable to pass GES. He made 2Lt tonight after the CC felt like he could no longer prevent it since the guy had done the training, actively participated. We may lose a couple other high quality senior members over it.
If you have a member that's disruptive, then suspend them. And as long as you don't mention his handicap as part of the suspension, you should be fine. Just thouroughly document the disruptive behaviour, times and dates help, and include that.
If this member has some type of medication that he's supposed to be taking to control his behaviour, and he's not doing it, that's not your or CAP's fault. You can't make him take his pills, that's his responsibility. And that's where he is failing to maintain standards to himself.
And before people jump me on this, I know it may sound insensitive, it's not. I do feel for those with such issues, and attempt to accomodate them when reasonably possible. Disruptive behaviour is not reasonable.
Thanks I appreciate it, that's my position as well. Unfortunately this guy comes as a package deal with two cadets that need to be in the situation with us. It's one big adoptive family, with all kinds of problems going on & I guess hoping I can deliver the structure & disciplie they're too overwhelmed to provide at home. From what I understand the individual was permitted to become a member on that basis, but with the understanding he'd never be promoted. Then he asked continually & out of pretty much guilt was moved up.
Let me try to clarify my feelings on the subject. I was in charge of risk mgmt on a volunteer multi-state board for a non-profit... God that sucked. Point being that I'm quite sensitive to legal issues. This guy presents a pattern of behavior that if something goes wrong in teh future there's no way I can say I shouldn't have known better & done more to prevent his contact. His behavior is problematic at times & has crossed the line on occation - to the degree that another member might well bounce twice on the way out the door for such actions. However, it's nothing I can't bring under control, as I said it's like dealing with a five year old. Primarily it's an annoyance to stop instruction to discipline or remove a senior in front of cadets. I've tried to keep him seperated, but that seems to be impossible. I'm also very unhappy that cadets view him almost like a mascot, which now they'll be saluting, which is going to become a joke quickly.
Currently I'd call him a detriment to good order & discipline, and a liability/risk mgmt issue of concern. I need to bring this situation under control or cut these people lose, which is not my first choice. This is not my top priority, but it's going to get that way fast if things get wierd after he puts on the grade.
Don't mean to make light, DNall, I'm viewing this seriously, but this is what I see:
Rock-you-hard place.
I don't envy your position there.
Yeah roger, I didn't figure there was a nice solution waiting out here either. I'll work thru it okay, one way or another. Proper application of leadership with a really mean look fixes just about everything. The main reason I cited the example (and really put out a lot more than I should), was to illitrate the state of our PD/promotion ssytem on one hand, and the degree to which the above legal/sesitivity perspective has to be tempered with practical reality. Appreciate the sympathy though. Hopefully I wan't need much of it.
Ladies & Gentlemen,
I was at the promotion of this individual. I read the orders for this individual.
Let me share some facts for you......
He does not need Iowa's OTC, he is a 3-4 year vet of CAP, grandfathered in to CAP before OTC was even a breeze in the wind.
He has Downs Syndrome. He is not a pilot, he is a Secone Leuitenant. I am Pround of this individual.
By all of CAP's regs and standards he is just as quallified to wear his bars as you and I are to wear ours.
Hypothetical for you.......Should a cadet that has taken the Mitchell 13 times be allowed NOT to wear his bars? he passed didn't he?
My bottom line is this....Let it go....
BTW.....I can't spell either.
Quote from: CadetProgramGuy on January 18, 2007, 10:45:16 PM
Ladies & Gentlemen,
I was at the promotion of this individual. I read the orders for this individual.
Let me share some facts for you......
He does not need Iowa's OTC, he is a 3-4 year vet of CAP, grandfathered in to CAP before OTC was even a breeze in the wind.
He has Downs Syndrome. He is not a pilot, he is a Secone Leuitenant. I am Pround of this individual.
By all of CAP's regs and standards he is just as quallified to wear his bars as you and I are to wear ours.
Hypothetical for you.......Should a cadet that has taken the Mitchell 13 times be allowed NOT to wear his bars? he passed didn't he?
My bottom line is this....Let it go....
[darn] straight.
Dnall, sounds to me that the best thing you can do (at least to protect yourself) is to document this behavior in writing to your superiors (and get proof that they received/reviewed the documentation). Even if no action is taken you will be able to show that you do what you could in accordance with CAP regs to bring it to the attention of the proper authorities.
Does IAWG require OTS to be a CAP officer?
Quote from: Nick Critelli, Lt Col CAP on January 18, 2007, 03:16:04 AM
I have no problem with divergent views...but we cannot tolerate discrimination in any form.
I understand what you're saying in the context of this discussion thread. You use the word discrimination in a social science context.
Be careful, discrimination, even in the social science environment, is an important tool used everyday in peace and war. Because of our unwillingness to discriminate (fear of lawyers), this country is falling apart thread by thread everyday because we no longer have the determination, the guts to discriminate or profile individuals or groups based on race or religion for fear of being called a racist or intolerant.
Frankly, I don't care. Call me what you will, but you would end up calling almost all of your military members and police the same thing (enlisted admit it candidly; officers probably won't due to "PC"). Discrimination will save lives. Profiling will save lives. The momentary inconvenience someone may experience I can care less about.
In the context of this thread, the general thought is that discrimination needs to take place more often in recommending promotions. I agree. If an individual meets the requirements for an advancement then you have participated in discrimination using regulations as a basis for the discrimination.
If the promoting authority has the will and authority to deny or delay a promotion because a member (meeting all of the basic criteria) lacks some important training for the position, then do so. The member can ask a higher authority to override the decision and that is fine too.
The important thing is that the immediate approving authority and his or her higher authority up through the chain concur on weither or not the individual requesting a promotion deserves it at that time (and are backed up by regulations).
Here's a thought, why not have a cap on grades such as the active duty have? A pyramid if you will. Wing "A" is authorized as many second lieutenants, first lieutenants, and captains as they can pump out, but only x number of majors per five years with an x number of those able to advance to lieutenant colonel, etc.
I realize that DOPMA guidelines for active duty officers will not be the best solution (CAP members stay in longer than 20 years and it's not "up or out") but it is a framework in place to work from.
DOPMA= Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (1980)
http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R4246/R4246.sec2.pdf
[/soapbox controversy]
New thread?
Would need to arrange the pyramid based on percentage of membership rather than absolute numbers to account for the fact that CAP membership isn't capped like AF is.
Can anyone say rank stagnation?
"Sorry you can't get promoted to Maj because we have too many Lt Cols in the squadron"
"Sorry you can't get promoted to Captain because our squadron is too small".
Capping CAP rank to membership levels will only work if you have a mechanism of retiring or discharging members not working at the rank on their shoulder.
Unless we make the ranks temporary and tied to specific jobs. (which I am not totally opposed to.)
But this is back to the same old argument about our rank structure.
On the Iowa issue.
Right now just about anyone can become a 2nd Lt. It takes reading a couple of power point slides, one on line test and a mentoring session with your PD officer/commander.
So no Iowa is not lowering standards....there is just a general misconceptions of what the standards really were.
Do we need to raise those standards? Sure. Make Level training required for FO. Make all members be FO when they first join. Make Level II the requirement for 2d Lt. 1st Lt and Capt can be mission related skills, continuing education, staff time, and other "harder" requirements.
A hard pyramid will only hurt the organisation. It will make it hard for new energetic officers to make rank because the old guys just won't die off.
Ask anyone who is in a guard unit. They move up very fast to a particular level and then stagnate because the crusty old chief will not retire. Even if they younger TSgt or MSgt is better qualified for the job...he can't move up because there is no mechanism of getting rid of the old guys.
So in CAP the small units will be able to quickly fill up their Table Of Allowance but larger squadrons will be stagnated with ex CC's and ex wing staffers.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 18, 2007, 11:48:54 PM
Does IAWG require OTS to be a CAP officer?
Yes. I believe the current class is the sixth OTS "cycle" since it started.
I believe the only exception would be a Mitchell or higher Cadet transitioning to Officer membership. They would not have to go through the sixth-month OTS.
Quote from: TDHenderson on January 19, 2007, 01:00:17 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 18, 2007, 11:48:54 PM
Does IAWG require OTS to be a CAP officer?
Yes. I believe the current class is the sixth OTS "cycle" since it started.
I believe the only exception would be a Mitchell or higher Cadet transitioning to Officer membership. They would not have to go through the sixth-month OTS.
Not wanting to throw a monkey wrench into the Iowa Program...because they are at least trying.....but is it not against the regulations to add additional requirments for promtion?
Last year...they could "require" everyone to attend OTS because the only way to get your Level I was to go to the class that they only taught at their OTS.
But now that Level I is CPP, Foundation Training and the OPSEC course...all on-line. How can they justify not awarding Level I to someone who demonstately has met CAP requirements?
Secondly...Wing has little or no direct control over 2d Lt promotions. Squadron CC Gumby of the Far Back Composite Squadron can send in the 2A with our wing intervention.
Now...they can apply indirect pressure by giving Capt Gumby a hard time, even kick him out....but by regulations IOWG cannot add additional requirements to the promotion process and AFAK you have to use the on-line program now.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2007, 02:07:12 AM
Not wanting to throw a monkey wrench into the Iowa Program...because they are at least trying.....but is it not against the regulations to add additional requirments for promtion?
Good point. 35-5 says in the first paragraph that it will not be supplemented. They may have waiver from National on their program.
However, 39-2 doesn't appear to have anything restricting a supplement to it. They could be working that angle. Basically, "You join us, you take our OTS." Don't know, just a supposition.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2007, 02:07:12 AMNot wanting to throw a monkey wrench into the Iowa Program...because they are at least trying.....but is it not against the regulations to add additional requirements for promotion?
Last year...they could "require" everyone to attend OTS because the only way to get your Level I was to go to the class that they only taught at their OTS.
Yes sir, it is against regulations to add additional requirements for promotion.
Requiring everyone to attend OTS by having Level I only available at OTS would also be against regulations, I believe. I think Level I (before going on-line) was supposed to be done at the squadron level, and a wing OTS would constitute a wing activity.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2007, 02:07:12 AMBut now that Level I is CPP, Foundation Training and the OPSEC course...all on-line. How can they justify not awarding Level I to someone who demonstratively has met CAP requirements?
They can't sir; it's discrimination.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2007, 02:07:12 AMSecondly...Wing has little or no direct control over 2d Lt promotions. Squadron CC Gumby of the Far Back Composite Squadron can send in the 2A with our wing intervention.
Now...they can apply indirect pressure by giving Capt Gumby a hard time, even kick him out....but by regulations IOWG cannot add additional requirements to the promotion process and AFAK you have to use the on-line program now.
I'm not sure if the online program is required or not, but WIWAC it was done at the squadron and it was against regulations to add additional requirements for promotion. If such a move was sanctioned by National, I would think the additional requirements would be required for all wings nationwide.
Quote from: Guardrail on January 19, 2007, 02:37:42 AM
If such a move was sanctioned by National, I would think the additional requirements would be required for all wings nationwide.
Not necessarily. The Iowa program might be in consideration as a blueprint or a pilot program (not in the sense of flying pilot). Could be the prototype of things to come.
Before you enact something, it's got to be tested. What better way than let a wing take the reins? Besides, if it falls flat, you've got someone to blame ;)
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 19, 2007, 02:32:36 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2007, 02:07:12 AM
Not wanting to throw a monkey wrench into the Iowa Program...because they are at least trying.....but is it not against the regulations to add additional requirments for promtion?
Good point. 35-5 says in the first paragraph that it will not be supplemented. They may have waiver from National on their program.
However, 39-2 doesn't appear to have anything restricting a supplement to it. They could be working that angle. Basically, "You join us, you take our OTS." Don't know, just a supposition.
Thank you, that's the exact angle I was aiming at. 35-5 can't be supplanted. NYWG found that out fast as soon as their nonsense saw the light of day.
If there is an addendum or supplement in place, I'd like to see it.
Does this mean they would not accept grade from other Wings?
That question is the whole point of having a level-playing field for the whole country. You don't want one Wing creating "super officers" walking around with superior attitudes. Their uber-Lt's would still need to salute out plain ordinary capts.
From what I can tell IAWG would be better off reincorporating as a state defense force and rocking their own world. The more I read, the more they appear to be more of an IANG/Aux than CAP.
But they'd never do that, would they? Because out would go the planes, the money, the bling, and the attention.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 19, 2007, 02:44:03 AMNot necessarily. The Iowa program might be in consideration as a blueprint or a pilot program (not in the sense of flying pilot). Could be the prototype of things to come.
Then wouldn't National at least tell us about it? Not only would it put an end to speculation and rumors, but it would also help boost morale. This is a big step forward in CAP's officer training program, and people should know about it.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 19, 2007, 02:44:03 AMBefore you enact something, it's got to be tested. What better way than let a wing take the reins? Besides, if it falls flat, you've got someone to blame ;)
Very true, Hawk200. And it seems like Iowa Wing is a great place to test an OTS program to see if it would work nationwide.
Quote from: Guardrail on January 19, 2007, 02:49:00 AMThen wouldn't National at least tell us about it? Not only would it put an end to speculation and rumors, but it would also help boost morale. This is a big step forward in CAP's officer training program, and people should know about it.
Yeah, people should know about it. But think what it's been like for the last year. A number of people want National to tell us what's going on, and it doesn't seem like they are.
People want to know where we're headed, what the organization's vision is. We're not hearing about that stuff, IAWG's OTS program probably isn't even an afterthought.
My guess would be that it simply never occurred to them to tell anyone, or they know that the wailing and gnashing of teeth will be so loud that they would want to get some momentum before its rolled. out.
On a side note, Level 1 is NOT done online, a portion of it is, however completion still requires discussion with the unit CC.
Iowa's program is from the bottom up. They began with the idea to improve CAP in terms of its actual operation and public image.
National is trying to catch up.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 19, 2007, 02:57:52 AM
Iowa's program is from the bottom up. They began with the idea to improve CAP in terms of its actual operation and public image.
National is trying to catch up.
Oh, OK then the regs don't apply at all!
I understand now.
Sometimes it seems like much of the objection re: IAWG's efforts reeks of 'not invented here' syndrome.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 19, 2007, 02:59:40 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 19, 2007, 02:57:52 AM
Iowa's program is from the bottom up. They began with the idea to improve CAP in terms of its actual operation and public image.
National is trying to catch up.
Oh, OK then the regs don't apply at all!
I understand now.
What reg doesn't apply?
New members are brought in against the wing's charter number, and their unit (The wing) conducts training. They give them Level 1, CPPT, AFIADL-13, SLS, GES, BCUT, ACUT and for pilots their form 5 rides all in the first 6 months.
What regulation says they can't do that?
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 19, 2007, 02:57:52 AMNational is trying to catch up.
Or as some people might see it, trying to figure out how to take credit.
I'd bet a fitty that when this gets up to Congress or some other high muckety-muck, someone at National will start by saying "
We initially ran this program in Iowa Wing to see how it might work..."
Sorry, my cynical streak kicked into high gear tonight...
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 19, 2007, 03:28:21 AMWhat reg doesn't apply?
New members are brought in against the wing's charter number, and their unit (The wing) conducts training. They give them Level 1, CPPT, AFIADL-13, SLS, GES, BCUT, ACUT and for pilots their form 5 rides all in the first 6 months.
What regulation says they can't do that?
John...I really don't want to sound like a nay sayer because I like a lot of what Iowa is doing and I like the idea of an OTS....but the question is.....do you have to got to OTS?
Quote from: CAPR 35-5 Para 11. General. Criteria for promotion of CAP senior members will be applied uniformly throughout Civil Air Patrol. CAP unit supplements to this regulation in the form of publications or oral instructions that change the basic policies, criteria, procedures, and practices prescribed herein are prohibited.
Quote from: CAPR 35-5 Para 66. Minimum Eligibility Requirements. To qualify for initial appointment to CAP officer grade, senior members must meet the following minimum requirements:
a. Be at least 21 years of age.
b. Be a high school graduate (or educational equivalent).
c. Complete Level I of the Senior Member Professional Development Program (see CAPR 50-17). NOTE: Former members who have completed Level I training and have less than a 2 year membership break and former cadets who have earned the General Billy Mitchell Award, or higher, and have less than a 2 year membership break are exempt from Level I training requirements.
d. Complete Cadet Protection Program Training (CPPT).
e. Be recommended for promotion by the unit commander.
I don't see "AFIADL-13, SLS, GES, BCUT, ACUT and for pilots their form 5 rides all in the first 6 months" as one of the requirements for initial appointment.
So...by regulation....if a guy went to the first weekend class...got is CPPT credit and his foundation credit, came home and did his OPSEC training, his commander could appoint him 2d Lt....and there is nothing IOWG could do. Even then...does IOWG have a directive out there forbidding unit commanders (flight and squadron) from conducting the CPPT and Foundations mentorship sessions?
Additionally
Quote from: CAPR 50-17 Para 3-63-6. How Conducted. Commanders should ensure that regions, wings, groups, and squadrons offer Level I training at least once each quarter for new members.
Quote from: CAPR 50-17 opening statementCommanders at each echelon have the responsibility to support the Senior Member Professional Development Program in accordance with the provisions of this regulation.
Now...again....I love the idea of an OTS....but in regards to the regulations can you hold back a promotion (or demotion as the promotion does not go through wing) for someone who did not go to the OTS?
My understanding is that all new seniors in Iowa join IA001 and remain there through full Level 1 plus a number of other entry level courses (GES, for instance) that constitute some or all of IA OTS.
They are reassigned on OTS completion (and promotion to 2 Lt?) and transferred to squadrons.
It may seem like an unusual approach, but I don't think it violates CAP regs.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 19, 2007, 05:51:32 AM
My understanding is that all new seniors in Iowa join IA001 and remain there through full Level 1 plus a number of other entry level courses (GES, for instance) that constitute some or all of IA OTS.
They are reassigned on OTS completion (and promotion to 2 Lt?) and transferred to squadrons.
It may seem like an unusual approach, but I don't think it violates CAP regs.
What is to stop someone joining a squadron? I mean...application forms don't go through wing, by the time wing is even aware of a new member he could already be a 2d Lt.
Secondly...and this is a technical, devils advocate point of view. By the existing regulations the wing has 7 days to after the completion of the Level I/CPPT course to submit the CAPF11. So even if you only hold the mentoring portion of this training at the OTS weekend and the member never returned...they would still have to honor his 2a and promote him. They have no choice. You cannot add to the requirements for promotion. They have to report him as completing his Level I training at some point because they want to order his course 13. Once his level I is complete and he has his six months...they must promote him.
Again...I think that the Iowa plan has a lot of merits and I think it may be something that other wings should look at.....however....we need to be aware of what we can and cannot do to/with our members within the context of the regulations.
Good God!
I go away for a couple days and the biggest topic of conversation is a guy with Down's making 2LT in IAWG? I know of members(?) who haven't had grade for 5 years who haven't got everything they need for 2LT.
And this thread went 4 pages?
Johnny Yuma
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 19, 2007, 04:40:12 PM
Good God!
I go away for a couple days and the biggest topic of conversation is a guy with Down's making 2LT in IAWG? I know of members(?) who haven't had grade for 5 years who haven't got everything they need for 2LT.
And this thread went 4 pages?
Johnny Yuma
johnny....I got to say then that you got serious problems in your squadron.
Level one takes no more than 3-4 hours on the computer, a few hours reading the regs and an hour or so in a mentoring session!
Is there a copy of the OTS curriculum online? I'd be interested in what they think are the key skills that need to be taught to all CAP second looies
Quote from: Dragoon on January 19, 2007, 07:07:54 PM
Is there a copy of the OTS curriculum online? I'd be interested in what they think are the key skills that need to be taught to all CAP second looies
Not that I've seen. From going by the letter sent to National, it's all pretty standard stuff, and available now. The only difference seems to be that they do most of it in residence. Which would have the benefit of consistency.
Quote from: Hawk200 on January 19, 2007, 08:06:39 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on January 19, 2007, 07:07:54 PM
Is there a copy of the OTS curriculum online? I'd be interested in what they think are the key skills that need to be taught to all CAP second looies
Not that I've seen. From going by the letter sent to National, it's all pretty standard stuff, and available now. The only difference seems to be that they do most of it in residence. Which would have the benefit of consistency.
Is there an online copy of the letter sent to National, by chance?
Quote from: Guardrail on January 19, 2007, 08:18:56 PM
Is there an online copy of the letter sent to National, by chance?
Pretty much all in this thread. The letter is the first link in the message.
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=911.0
Quote from: ZigZag911 on January 19, 2007, 05:51:32 AM
My understanding is that all new seniors in Iowa join IA001 and remain there through full Level 1 plus a number of other entry level courses (GES, for instance) that constitute some or all of IA OTS.
They are reassigned on OTS completion (and promotion to 2 Lt?) and transferred to squadrons.
It may seem like an unusual approach, but I don't think it violates CAP regs.
Pretty much no. While they can't make OTS completion a requirement for the promotion, the CAPR 39-2 doesn't state that it cannot be supplemented. And, as such, they could require that all new members join IA001. And, IA001 could very well have a policy that Level I is only offered during their OTS training sessions.
And, remember, "Be recommended for promotion by the unit commander" is also fairly subjective as well. They could very well not promote someone if they don't complete OTS for "not being an active participant."
Now, the basis probably wouldn't be that they didn't finish OTS, it would probably be that they weren't coming to training sessions, or were not a cooperative/productive member.
Let's face it, we've all seen Lt Col Critelli's posts. He's no dummy. And, as an attorney, he's probably very careful to ensure they are staying within the regulations and laws.
You may/may not agree with how they do it. But, I think they are working within the regulations while running the program they want. And, sure, they may have a slot based system. But, turning people away because they don't currently have an open slot isn't discrimination, as long as it is applied the same way across the board.
Lt Col Critelli has been the first to say that they have problems like everyone else. And, their model may not work for everyone. (I see some areas that would work for my wing, and some that might not.) Just because it is new or different, doesn't make it bad.
Read the first section (GENERAL) of 35-3 again, where it states that certain accomplishments or certifications [may qualify CAP seniors for promotion....nothing is automatic, no one is 'entitled' to promotion....the only way discrimination could be claimed would be if all were not held to the same criteria.
For the record....I whole heartedly approve of the OTS program that Iowa is doing. And while it violate the letter of the regulations (by my read at least) it does not violate the spirit of the regulation when it is applied across the board.
So again...Iowa...keep up the good work.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2007, 05:58:18 PM
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 19, 2007, 04:40:12 PM
Good God!
I go away for a couple days and the biggest topic of conversation is a guy with Down's making 2LT in IAWG? I know of members(?) who haven't had grade for 5 years who haven't got everything they need for 2LT.
And this thread went 4 pages?
Johnny Yuma
johnny....I got to say then that you got serious problems in your squadron.
Level one takes no more than 3-4 hours on the computer, a few hours reading the regs and an hour or so in a mentoring session!
Actually this is across the entire Wing, but to say we've had members that haven't progressed in that amount of time is a problem.
ok gang. How about asking questions, and not jumping to conclusions. the Iowa folks have been more that willing to answer questions.
In short. Iowa has not, and is not changing regulations. we are clearly not subverting anyone's ability to promote (given our 2nd lt), but we are puting the program together in a way that it can be valuable to our members
Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 21, 2007, 06:59:30 AM
ok gang. How about asking questions, and not jumping to conclusions. the Iowa folks have been more that willing to answer questions.
Q: Are there any additional requirments to progress in grade beyond those indicated in 35-5 (at any grade)?
NO
the program has been optomised to ensure high quality education before a member gets to the promotion stage.
If someone could not or would not attend the OTS sessons at the Wing Training Event...can he still be promoted?
what could keep them from being promoted?
As I stated no policy or regulation changes are on file. How hard is that to understand
Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 21, 2007, 08:12:42 PM
what could keep them from being promoted?
As I stated no policy or regulation changes are on file. How hard is that to understand
Hey...you asked me to ask questions....don't give me attitude!
It has been implied seveal times...that the OTS prorgram was manditory. That was what I was trying to clarify. That is all...and you answered my question. Thank you.
Fine
Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 21, 2007, 08:10:23 PM
the program has been optomised to ensure high quality education before a member gets to the promotion stage.
Define optimized, please.
Respectfully
If you have specific questions or concerns regarding the OTS please move the discussion to one of those threads. I am getting a little tired of explaining the program. Or better yet come by and see things as they work
In short we have done nothing more than package the existing program so that new members have an organised efficient way to accomplish enough education to be functional.
Level 1
Specialty track,
Pilot rating,
etc.
Midway 6 came out a little while ago. I have been hoping that he would blog on the subject form his perspective.
Sorry for any perceived negative attitude. we have been hashing out the same points of this program for almost a year now with very little input that has helped to improve our program.
Suggestion:
If you don't want to answers questions, don't offer to answer questions.
good bye
:'(
He PM'ed me and we are continuing this offline...
Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 21, 2007, 06:59:30 AM
ok gang. How about asking questions, and not jumping to conclusions. the Iowa folks have been more that willing to answer questions.
Quote from: isuhawkeye on January 21, 2007, 09:22:42 PM
...I am getting a little tired of explaining the program.
Okay. ::)
He provided me with more color and background to the situation, and suggested I read the public docs and letters.
I have a better understanding now. It doesn't mean I agree, but k-sara sara.
If he wants to share, he can.
Discussion about Iowa's OTS picking up in the "Iowa Wing CAP" thread over on the Membership board, FYI.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2007, 04:55:48 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 19, 2007, 03:28:21 AMWhat reg doesn't apply?
New members are brought in against the wing's charter number, and their unit (The wing) conducts training. They give them Level 1, CPPT, AFIADL-13, SLS, GES, BCUT, ACUT and for pilots their form 5 rides all in the first 6 months.
What regulation says they can't do that?
John...I really don't want to sound like a nay sayer because I like a lot of what Iowa is doing and I like the idea of an OTS....but the question is.....do you have to got to OTS?
Quote from: CAPR 35-5 Para 11. General. Criteria for promotion of CAP senior members will be applied uniformly throughout Civil Air Patrol. CAP unit supplements to this regulation in the form of publications or oral instructions that change the basic policies, criteria, procedures, and practices prescribed herein are prohibited.
Quote from: CAPR 35-5 Para 66. Minimum Eligibility Requirements. To qualify for initial appointment to CAP officer grade, senior members must meet the following minimum requirements:
a. Be at least 21 years of age.
b. Be a high school graduate (or educational equivalent).
c. Complete Level I of the Senior Member Professional Development Program (see CAPR 50-17). NOTE: Former members who have completed Level I training and have less than a 2 year membership break and former cadets who have earned the General Billy Mitchell Award, or higher, and have less than a 2 year membership break are exempt from Level I training requirements.
d. Complete Cadet Protection Program Training (CPPT).
e. Be recommended for promotion by the unit commander.
I don't see "AFIADL-13, SLS, GES, BCUT, ACUT and for pilots their form 5 rides all in the first 6 months" as one of the requirements for initial appointment.
So...by regulation....if a guy went to the first weekend class...got is CPPT credit and his foundation credit, came home and did his OPSEC training, his commander could appoint him 2d Lt....and there is nothing IOWG could do. Even then...does IOWG have a directive out there forbidding unit commanders (flight and squadron) from conducting the CPPT and Foundations mentorship sessions?
Additionally
Quote from: CAPR 50-17 Para 3-63-6. How Conducted. Commanders should ensure that regions, wings, groups, and squadrons offer Level I training at least once each quarter for new members.
Quote from: CAPR 50-17 opening statementCommanders at each echelon have the responsibility to support the Senior Member Professional Development Program in accordance with the provisions of this regulation.
Now...again....I love the idea of an OTS....but in regards to the regulations can you hold back a promotion (or demotion as the promotion does not go through wing) for someone who did not go to the OTS?
LM:
What unit would he go to?
New members of IA are ALL assigned to Wing. You cannot be a 2LT unless you have 6 months in grade as SM. His first 6 months are managed by the Wing, and consist of intensive training. THEN the fully-trained 2nd Lt. is assigned to a local unit.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 22, 2007, 11:54:32 PMLM:
What unit would he go to?
New members of IA are ALL assigned to Wing. You cannot be a 2LT unless you have 6 months in grade as SM. His first 6 months are managed by the Wing, and consist of intensive training. THEN the fully-trained 2nd Lt. is assigned to a local unit.
Well John that was what I was asking....is it legal to require all new members to be assigned to wing? I'm not saying that I don't like the program I do. I was just wondering if you had some squadron in the back beyond that did not want to play...would it be legal for wing to deny their accession and promotion?
I already got my answer....the answer is that OTS is not 100% mandatory but very highly recommended...which I think is a good idea.