I have a question. CAP20-1 gives the Wing Commander authority to form Group when the number of units is too large to properly supervise (I am paraphrasing) and a minimum of 5 units is what the Regulations requires, Why can't the regulations set a maximum of units that a Group Commander should be assigned to? I believe that 10 should be a maximum amount to efficiently supervise and be able to visit. Imagine a Group Commander with 20 squadrons to supervise. I think that creating a limit would allow opportunities for other seniors to grow in the program and have greater exposure and opportunities. Please send your opinions. I only ask to be a gentleman in your responses, but I would love to hear from you.
Good question. When I was a Group Commander I had ten Squadrons. I was really extended if I wanted to visit Squadrons, attend Group meetings and make an appearance at weekend activities.
Five to seven would be best. In Idaho Wing when they had Groups. The North Group (the panhandle) only had two Squadrons because of geography. So that is another consideration. Now if Wing would authorize Group Commanders travel pay, I would not mine flying to CAP Posts in the boonies.
Group Commander is an excellent way to prepare to be Wing Commander and you will also see how different each Squadron is.
Good luck and have fun. 8)
My group in SoCal has 12 units, six in each county (San Diego, and Orange). The two most widely separated squadrons are 108 miles apart, but the units within each county are more closely located, with a distance between the farthest San Diego County units at 49 miles. The Orange County units are much closer together. It's pretty easy for the group commander to visit the OC units, since they are close to group HQ, and a little harder to visit in SD County. But it gets done.
I think the group geography makes the biggest difference, and the availability of group commanders. CAWG went from a large number of groups (>15?) to 7 right before I transferred to the wing. I don't know what the impetus was (PHall or bosshawk?) but it happened.
Quote from: SarDragon on April 04, 2013, 10:39:05 AMCAWG went from a large number of groups (>15?) to 7 right before I transferred to the wing.
I am thinking that would be a "span of control" issue.
Only a relatively small minority of Wings have Groups, so it's left to the Wing CC to make sure they're divided up in a sensible fashion.
I was a Group CC in NYWG, and I had six squadrons. Here in VAWG, there are three Groups with eight squadrons each.
It's not only the number of squadrons, but also the geographic expanse of those units. The Groups in VA cover a lot of square miles, and I wouldn't necessarily want to be a Group CC here because of that.
Quote from: dwb on April 04, 2013, 01:17:09 PM
Only a relatively small minority of Wings have Groups, so it's left to the Wing CC to make sure they're divided up in a sensible fashion.
Actually, of 52 wings, 23 of them have Groups, ranging from New Mexico that has 1 Group (Wha? One group) up to New York with 9. That's nearly half, so not a "small minority".
AZ 4
CA 7
CO 2
FL 6
GA 4
IL 6
IN 4
LA 3
MD 3
MI 8
MN 4
MO 5
NC 5
NJ 3
NM 1
NY 9
OH 6
PA 7
PR 7
TN 4
TX 7
VA 3
WI 6
Quote from: dwb on April 04, 2013, 01:17:09 PM
Only a relatively small minority of Wings have Groups...
How many wings still have groups?
TNWG has four groups covering a state with a land area of 42,000+ square miles. I currently have 5 squadrons in the SE portion of the state.
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on April 04, 2013, 01:26:52 PM
Quote from: dwb on April 04, 2013, 01:17:09 PM
Only a relatively small minority of Wings have Groups...
How many wings still have groups?
TNWG has four groups covering a state with a land area of 42,000+ square miles. I currently have 5 squadrons in the SE portion of the state.
I think our posts passed in the aether.
How many wings are under 5 units?
Quote from: usafaux2004 on April 04, 2013, 01:32:30 PM
How many wings are under 5 units?
Here's a breakdown, I think these include the -000 units too, so none are under 5, but RI is 5.
Wing Unit Count
FL 81
TX 71
CA 69
NY 59
PA 58
OH 43
MI 41
GA 40
PR 35
NC 33
IL 32
CO 32
IN 32
MD 31
TN 31
MO 30
WI 30
WA 29
AZ 28
NJ 26
VA 25
MN 24
NM 23
NHQ 21
AL 21
SC 21
AK 20
KY 17
MA 17
NE 17
OK 17
LA 16
NV 16
CT 16
MS 15
UT 14
WV 14
OR 13
AR 12
HI 12
ID 11
KS 11
ME 11
IA 10
MT 10
WY 10
NH 10
DE 9
VT 8
ND 8
SD 8
DC 7
RI 6
SER 1
RMR 1
PCR 1
GLR 1
SWR 1
MER 1
NER 1
NCR 1
Grand Total 1309
Six wings under 10, so no groups with the 5 unit criteria.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on April 04, 2013, 01:43:36 PM
Six wings under 10, so no groups with the 5 unit criteria.
Well, they could be like New Mexico with 1 Group...
Anyone from NMWG that can say why they have a single Group?
We had a discussion a in 2011 about wings with groups. http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=14408.0 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=14408.0)
Posted in that discussion was the attached chart of wings with groups and wing membership as of 2010 (so the numbers may have changed). From that discussion:
Using 2010 CAP membership data and US census data, a couple of correlations can be seen:
1. CAP wings with membership of over 1000 have groups with the exception of AKWG (1003) and ALWG (1027). CAP wings with less than 1000 members which have groups are NMWG (943) and LAWG (585).
2. CAP wings in states with a population of 4 million or greater have groups, with three exceptions: KYWG (4.3 mil), ALWG (4.8 mil) and MAWG (6.6 mil). Wings with groups in states/territories with less than 4 million residents are PRWG (3.7 mil) and NMWG (2.1 mil).
As for defining groups, I searched the membership directory for "group" and checked the websites of wings where group status was unclear. I included WAWG with its area commands, AZWG since it has four regional HQs which contain squadrons and "provide oversight" and NMWG which has Group 800 consisting of school chartered units. There are a total of 25 wings with groups by these definitions.
Mike
Quote from: JeffDG on April 04, 2013, 01:44:40 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on April 04, 2013, 01:43:36 PM
Six wings under 10, so no groups with the 5 unit criteria.
Well, they could be like New Mexico with 1 Group...
Anyone from NMWG that can say why they have a single Group?
Perhaps it is just an odd way of designating an NMWG vice commander.
Or....what Mike just posted, which makes sense.
My methodology was much simpler.
I went into the CAPWATCH organization table and picked Wings with a unit type of "GROUP" in it.
Quote from: JeffDG on April 04, 2013, 01:24:14 PMActually, of 52 wings, 23 of them have Groups, ranging from New Mexico that has 1 Group (Wha? One group) up to New York with 9. That's nearly half, so not a "small minority".
Well, I stand corrected. The last number I was told was much smaller than 23, but that was admittedly a long time ago.
What about making Groups mandatory? Restructuring the current Wings and Regions to be regional instead of based on state boundaries. RIWG effectively becomes a Group of Northern Northeast Region.
>:D
Quote from: MIKE on April 04, 2013, 05:02:05 PM
What about making Groups mandatory? Restructuring the current Wings and Regions to be regional instead of based on state boundaries. RIWG effectively becomes a Group of Northern Northeast Region.
You *might* have more difficulty with dealing with state governments if you're not the "home team" per se.
Think of how well you folks from Mass are regarded up here. "Buy some liquor on the highway, then go the hell home."
Quote from: NIN on April 04, 2013, 05:40:38 PM"Buy some liquor on the highway, then go the hell home."
"But not at any of the stores past Nashua, Salem, or Portsmouth."
I like Mike's suggestion, which should be applied more based on membership than geographical size...historically the smaller wings have fewer members, and, with the normal turnover in personnel, difficulty staffing wing HQs with experienced officers...it would be lifting a burden from some of the smaller wings to re-designate them "groups", either reporting through a neighboring wing or directly to region HQ.
The issue of dealing with state governments could actually be a non-issue...I doubt many state legislators would notice the difference if someone said they were the "______ State CAP Wing Commander" or "______ State CAP Group Commander".
JeffGD,
I'm not sure those numbers are exactly correct. At last check, FLWG was over 90 units.
2 of FLWG's 6 groups have around 20 squadrons. Each of these groups is larger than the vast majority of wings. It does present a span of control issue. Before I went to wing staff, I was on the largest group's staff. There were well over 1,000 members in the group. Challenging to say the least.
One issue we have in reducing the size of groups is finding qualified (and willing) members to staff the groups, without sucking the talent and life out of squadrons. When group or wing comes in and says "we need member so-and-so on group/wing staff so we're transferring them" the squadron can take a hit. Even if that member wants the position and agrees (I've never heard of a situation where someone was involuntarily transferred) it can still cause hard feelings at the squadron. I've seen that time and time again (including with me.)
Many new group/wing staff members scale back or even eliminate their involvement at their local squadron. This leaves the squadron in a lurch. Is there someone ready and willing to take over whatever position that person was? Of course, we should all be training our replacements, but the world rarely works in reality as it should on paper or in theory. When a squadron with 5 senior members loses it's finance officer to group, chances are there's not anyone ready to take over on a moments notice.
I believe it is IMPERATIVE for new (and seasoned) group/wing staff members to remain involved at the local squadron. How else are we to know what is going on day-to-day out in the field? Headquarters personnel can not just sit at home and read reports and have a full understanding of the challenges facing the front-line units (squadrons.)
Quote from: Woodsy on April 04, 2013, 06:35:58 PM
JeffGD,
I'm not sure those numbers are exactly correct. At last check, FLWG was over 90 units.
I just pulled the data out of CAPWATCH...I did exclude the "Groups" themselves and the 001 Wing HQ unit.
About your comment about remaining involved. Personally, I have duty positions on Unit, Group and Wing, and find the unit meetings invaluable in keeping connected with what's going on in the field.
Quote from: Woodsy on April 04, 2013, 06:35:58 PMI believe it is IMPERATIVE for new (and seasoned) group/wing staff members to remain involved at the local squadron. How else are we to know what is going on day-to-day out in the field?
No. No. No. (Is three enough? I wasn't sure.)
The circlular reporting structures that CAP is saddled with is(are?) one of the biggest problems in the organization.
"Who's in charge?" "I don't know - depends on which conversation we're having."
What's imperative is that
WE NEED MORE PEOPLE so that we're not just recycling the same 25% in every job in the wing, and
passing commands between a select few. Members should be able to move within and up in the organization, or on to new
challenges without having to worry about whether their old job is getting done.
Quote from: Woodsy on April 04, 2013, 06:35:58 PM
Headquarters personnel can not just sit at home and read reports and have a full understanding of the challenges facing the front-line units (squadrons.)
They shouldn't >be< headquarters personnel if they don't have a fundamental understanding of unit operations.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 04, 2013, 07:08:22 PM
Quote from: Woodsy on April 04, 2013, 06:35:58 PMI believe it is IMPERATIVE for new (and seasoned) group/wing staff members to remain involved at the local squadron. How else are we to know what is going on day-to-day out in the field?
No. No. No. (Is three enough? I wasn't sure.)
The circlular reporting structures that CAP is saddled with is(are?) one of the biggest problems in the organization.
"Who's in charge?" "I don't know - depends on which conversation we're having."
What's imperative is that WE NEED MORE PEOPLE so that we're not just recycling the same 25% in every job in the wing, and
passing commands between a select few. Members should be able to move within and up in the organization, or on to new
challenges without having to worry about whether their old job is getting done.
Quote from: Woodsy on April 04, 2013, 06:35:58 PM
Headquarters personnel can not just sit at home and read reports and have a full understanding of the challenges facing the front-line units (squadrons.)
They shouldn't >be< headquarters personnel if they don't have a fundamental understanding of unit operations.
I see what you're saying, Eclipse. Let me rephrase my statement. When I say involved, I don't mean in a position of authority, command, etc. I agree that one person should have an official position in one unit. By involved, I meant as in showing up and knowing what's going on. The circular reporting as you call it isn't good.
FLWG has recently done a pretty good job with handling this by making wing staff members choose. We had lot's of staff members that were also a deputy commander at a squadron or group, and some who were even pulling primary duties at all 3 levels. The current CoS has insisted that staff members have one assignment at one unit. As such, a lot of duty assignments have been removed so members can fully concentrate on one unit. Example: One of my assistant PAO's and OIC/ Emergency Information (lead PIO) was also a deputy commander of one of the +/- 20 squadron groups. He is now just the group DC with no official duties at wing, though I know he's only a phone call away if I need advice.
The exception to this is some of the ADY assistant positions. The rule of thumb has been that no one with the word commander (including deputy) can be assigned at the director level or above at wing. Also, people with several assignments at different levels have been asked to pick a primary.
This has also allowed other members to step up into new positions and have a turn.
My point was that there are wing staff members that live in the back yard of my local squadron, that I only ever see at wing commander's calls and conference. Hope I explained that better.
Quote from: Woodsy on April 04, 2013, 07:40:10 PMMy point was that there are wing staff members that live in the back yard of my local squadron, that I only ever see at wing commander's calls and conference. Hope I explained that better.
I get it - but why would you expect to see them? Consider yourself lucky they aren't at your meetings trying to drive from the backseat.
As the Wing ESO, I have no role to play at a local squadron, I can't imagine what I would do at a unit meeting, absent being there to comment on some specific wing-level initiative (by invitation), or very rarely to provide hands-on training - my contacts are supposed to be with the Group ESOs OR Group CCs. That's what I accepted as my job and role when I moved up.
As a Unit and Group CC, one of my particular sore spots was staffers with no authority just showing up to unit meetings unannounced and deciding to
pontificate on "whatever" for 45 minutes while the meeting ground to a halt. That or an insinuation that they were there to "audit" operations. No thank you.
Just send the information through channels, and if you desperately feel the need to directly address the membership, make sure you send me talking points
in advance, and you get a fixed amount of time. We have actual unit business to take care of that doesn't include you reading 12 Powerpoint slides about a subject you're only 1/2 informed on, and that we knew about 2 months ago. (BTDT).
Now, I do participate in non-ES activities, encampment especially, and I still provide advice and counsel when asked to the unit and Group CC's who came up with me,
but the problem with "being around" is that it leaves room for "who's call is this?" questions, when someone from higher HQ is in the room - that's not fair to the guy who currently wears the badge.
I appreciate each of your comments. I am currently in NY but was originally from FL and I see the current situation in FL where 1 group covers over 20 squadrons - almost 1/3 of the state and over10 counties. I believe that it is a span of control issue. I also agree that sometimes there is not qualified or willing personnel to run the group. I wouldn't mind taking that role if I return there, the question is if the Wing Commander would be willing to re-open a new group and if the current Group Commander be willing to loose 10 - 11 squadrons. I think that it is important to the squadron to see an active Group Commander. When I was a cadet we used to see our Group Commander at least once every 4 months and when I was Group Cadet Programs in FL, my Group Commander visited a different unit every week. I think that it shows that your Group Commander cares when you see them often. Also he used to do his staff meeting / Commander's calls in a different unit every month. If a Group Commander doesn't visit it doesn't mean that is not working but I believe that is a morale boost when they do. I wouldn't mind doing that job. My hand to everybody that has posted so far, you all have been a group of gentlemen in this discussion.
Quote from: Eclipse on April 04, 2013, 07:58:11 PM
I get it - but why would you expect to see them? Consider yourself lucky they aren't at your meetings trying to drive from the backseat.
As a Unit and Group CC, one of my particular sore spots was staffers with no authority just showing up to unit meetings unannounced
This sort of drives me crazy though. Lets say the wing has no groups, and a unit is failing hard in a certain area, lets say CP as an example, it's the DCP that SHOULD be coming and talking to the unit trying to get it back on track. Even 20-1 says the directorates handle their area in a wing.
This bashing of higher HQ is something I hate dearly. Higher hq isn't there to "back seat drive" they are there to make sure the subordinate units are doing the job correct. If I was a squadron/cc and I was not doing so hot, I'd expect the random drop ins and talking to from wing staff, in fact I'd want all the help I can get. The squadron isn't an island all to itself...
I would like to say that in my honest opinion I believe that a member should be allowed to do more than one position, perhaps 2 one as primary and one as secondary. I use the example of the Army, when I was in the military a soldier had a primary MOS and was able to eventually select a secondary MOS to be qualified in. This concept works best when both assignments are related or similar. For example Personnel and Admin, Supply and Finance, Cadet Programs and Aerospace, PAO/Historian, ES?Communication. I am currently in my unit the Deputy Commander of Cadets and the PDO. It has been easy for my because is just the same principle on both just with different programs, he have new members and I am mentoring some to assume this roles because I want to grow myself. Having multiple positions has given my an experience close to a Unit CC and I have been blessed to have a fine staff mentor me as well (that with my previous experience in CAP). When I move to Florida I will see what I can be of service.
On a separate note, I want to get this of my chest. I was a cadet for 3 years and I am always grateful to all the senior that took the time to teach me and guide me, my CAP foundation helped me when I joined the military and also while on Group and Wing staff. Now I am in a unit and I see and feel through my cadets what my senior staff felt and why they gave their time and effort to CAP. I want to use this forum t thank all the seniors on behalf of the cadets for all of your effort and service, you might not see it in the moment but you are changing lives and not just at Sq level but everybody that helps is putting a little something in the development of our youth. In might sound corny but THANK YOU. I really mean it.
Quote from: NCRblues on April 04, 2013, 10:38:20 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on April 04, 2013, 07:58:11 PM
I get it - but why would you expect to see them? Consider yourself lucky they aren't at your meetings trying to drive from the backseat.
As a Unit and Group CC, one of my particular sore spots was staffers with no authority just showing up to unit meetings unannounced
This sort of drives me crazy though. Lets say the wing has no groups, and a unit is failing hard in a certain area, lets say CP as an example, it's the DCP that SHOULD be coming and talking to the unit trying to get it back on track. Even 20-1 says the directorates handle their area in a wing.
This bashing of higher HQ is something I hate dearly. Higher hq isn't there to "back seat drive" they are there to make sure the subordinate units are doing the job correct. If I was a squadron/cc and I was not doing so hot, I'd expect the random drop ins and talking to from wing staff, in fact I'd want all the help I can get. The squadron isn't an island all to itself...
But that's not the responsibility of the Wing's staff, at least not self-initiated. If a Squadron is struggling, it's the commander's responsibility to >ask< for help, or a higher commander to direct staff to go and help, with the acquiescence of the down-stream people. Absent that, a higher HQ staffers has no authority or warrant to be
randomly wandering into unit meetings to "help", not to mention that a CC who isn't aware he needs, capabe of asking, or interested in, "help" isn't likely to receptive to the
random "pop in".
The wing staff's job is administrative in nature, tracking what is happening, making sure resources are ready and available, and deconflicting when they can,
but it's not their place to be going down and "fixing" things.
I see all the points brought up about who's responsibility. I believe that if a Group Commander visits a squadron regularly, not to inspect but as a cordial visit, it creates a better sense of open communication and also it gives a sense of familiarity that opens the communication channels better. It is my personal opinion that it helps the flow of communication when you see an individual on a regular bases, than if you only speak with them via email. I think it creates a more personal setting. On the other hand this has to go along with the leadership style. This does not only applies to the CC but also to their staff. Is not only a matter of I have a problem but also opens the door of communication to I have some ideas that I would like to discuss. By nature people are better receptors when they hear and see things than when they just read it. You can see expressions that can give you better clues of a message. I honestly believe that if you have a good leader and add a more personal interaction, it creates more committed subordinates and a solid operation. I have experienced this many times. That it works all the time? absolutely not, nothing is flawless, but it sure worth's a try. Again is my opinion
I agree wholeheartedly that the Group CC should absolutely be a regular presence at unit meetings and events, after all, he can make policy and
direct action within his AOR, it's the staffers that become somewhat of a geometric problem.
In a Group with 6 squadrons, and 6-10 or so Group staff, if every staffer only visits one unit a month, individually, you wind up with just about every meeting
that has someone hanging around who really has little to do, isn't locally invested, and may potentially be writing checks for the Group CC that
he isn't interested in cashing, though at the Group-Unit level this is less of an issue then at the Wing-Unit level when there are groups.
In Wings with Groups, having wing staffers attending unit meetings smacks of jumping the chain. Good staffers will know when to sit quietly and listen,
poor ones will be "telling people questions", etc.
When I was on wing staff, the wing commander EXPECTED his staff to visit units. That was part of our job. Now, there was a procedure that had to be followed:
1. Contact unit commander at least a week ahead of time. No pop-in visits.
2. Make it clear that this visit is not an inspection, an audit, an interview, or looking for trouble.
3. The unit commander could request a different date, but they could not say no.
4. Show up in proper uniform - service dress, blazer, or CSU.
5. Make sure to talk to your counterpart. Let them ask questions. Answer honestly.
6. Send a report to the wing commander. We were expected to be able to identify problems or potential problems, even if they were not in our field.
I see your point Eclipse. When I was part of Group staff in Florida, my Group Commander wanted that if we were to visit a Squadron, to be the same one he was visiting, exactly for that reason, unless there were issues in a squadron that needed my visit. Half of his visits were during Commander's Call, each month was hosted on a different unit, therefore that unit made it a big deal to show their best since there were a lot of commanders visiting. It created a sense of importance on that meeting. I don't say that every Group Commander should do that but at that time it worked for him and we had a better communication and cooperation from the units.
arajca, I believe on that when there Is no Group structure, otherwise, my opinion, otherwise it gives the impression that the Wing undermines the Group's capacity to lead. I am a believer that a leader should let his subordinates develop and lead freely, as long as it follows the Regs and is for the good of the organization. Everybody has different styles of leadership and they all can be effective.
Quote from: coloncapfl on April 05, 2013, 02:25:43 AM
arajca, I believe on that when there Is no Group structure, otherwise, my opinion, otherwise it gives the impression that the Wing undermines the Group's capacity to lead.
Exactly - and I've seen this exact thing happen. The whole point of a Group structure is proper span-of-control, and a big part of span-of-control is being a filter and a pressure
valve between the wings and the units. I can see a Wing CC wanting his staff to be in communication with his Groups, but going lower just negates the point of having groups to start with.
And an off-handed, 1/2-informed comment by a wing staffer could undo months of work by a Group CC.
Quote from: arajca on April 05, 2013, 02:14:12 AM
When I was on wing staff, the wing commander EXPECTED his staff to visit units.
It's encouraged by regulation for some...
CAPR 100-1, 5-5b:
Quote(2) Subordinate unit visits by the wing/region DC or other communications staff
members to brief communicators and gather input. Such visits may also be performed using
Internet videoconferencing technology. A summary of the meeting, including a log of the
participants, should be submitted to the next higher echelon within 30 days after the activity.
But seriously, if you're a Group and/or Wing staff member, and you don't know the limits of your job, then the solution is not to avoid unit visits, its to give up your higher HQ job.
Part of my reason for joining CAP was actively participating in a squadron, and at no point was I told I would have to stop that in order to assist at Group or Wing.
Quote from: JeffDG on April 05, 2013, 11:51:44 AM
Quote from: arajca on April 05, 2013, 02:14:12 AM
When I was on wing staff, the wing commander EXPECTED his staff to visit units.
It's encouraged by regulation for some...
CAPR 100-1, 5-5b:
Quote(2) Subordinate unit visits by the wing/region DC or other communications staff
members to brief communicators and gather input. Such visits may also be performed using
Internet videoconferencing technology. A summary of the meeting, including a log of the
participants, should be submitted to the next higher echelon within 30 days after the activity.
It could be argued that a wing's subordinate unit is the group in the 23-25 wings that have a group structure.
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on April 05, 2013, 11:55:40 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on April 05, 2013, 11:51:44 AM
Quote from: arajca on April 05, 2013, 02:14:12 AM
When I was on wing staff, the wing commander EXPECTED his staff to visit units.
It's encouraged by regulation for some...
CAPR 100-1, 5-5b:
Quote(2) Subordinate unit visits by the wing/region DC or other communications staff
members to brief communicators and gather input. Such visits may also be performed using
Internet videoconferencing technology. A summary of the meeting, including a log of the
participants, should be submitted to the next higher echelon within 30 days after the activity.
It could be argued that a wing's subordinate unit is the group in the 23-25 wings that have a group structure.
True, that...that reminds me, I should come visit y'all someday as encouraged by the regulation (as a member of Group I staff, I talk to them all the time!)...that and finding someone to take my job, your Group/DC has been highly recommended to me (not that I'm trying to steal him...but I like to talk to people whom I've heard good things about!)
Quote from: JeffDG on April 05, 2013, 11:59:21 AM
Quote from: FlyTiger77 on April 05, 2013, 11:55:40 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on April 05, 2013, 11:51:44 AM
Quote from: arajca on April 05, 2013, 02:14:12 AM
When I was on wing staff, the wing commander EXPECTED his staff to visit units.
It's encouraged by regulation for some...
CAPR 100-1, 5-5b:
Quote(2) Subordinate unit visits by the wing/region DC or other communications staff
members to brief communicators and gather input. Such visits may also be performed using
Internet videoconferencing technology. A summary of the meeting, including a log of the
participants, should be submitted to the next higher echelon within 30 days after the activity.
It could be argued that a wing's subordinate unit is the group in the 23-25 wings that have a group structure.
True, that...that reminds me, I should come visit y'all someday as encouraged by the regulation (as a member of Group I staff, I talk to them all the time!)...that and finding someone to take my job, your Group/DC has been highly recommended to me (not that I'm trying to steal him...but I like to talk to people whom I've heard good things about!)
We meet the 4th Thursday of each month at a different location. C'mon down.
When I was Group CC I required my staff to visit our units (at various times we ranged from 6 to 9 squadrons) regularly, mainly to support, assist, train.
They were expected to clear their visit with unit CC in advance (this rule did not apply to me, deputy or IG).
For most part, worked well...helped units with less experienced staff, picked up ideas and encouraged inter-squadron cooperation with the more established members/squadrons.
I totally have been witness of the benefits of maintaining a regular physical contact with subordinate squadrons. Like the previous comments said, it not only helps struggling units but also gather ideas and maybe finding a good candidate to mentor in our position. We can't grow unless we prepare our replacement. On the other hand, I see at times a few people with power that use their position like a politician an try to muscle their ways just because they have a position. I think that we see the ranting in forums like this and sometimes the span of control is part of the issue other times the problem is the buddy system. There are times that the people put in command might not be the best choice but rather the most convenient for me (my buddy). That is a beast that unfortunately will never end, but could be minimized. Again this is my opinion.
when I was in my previous Wing our Group Commander and his staff NEVER visited our unit. In fact the Squadron Commander notified him that he was not renewing and they didn't notice for two months when Wing was asked why we didn't have a new CC, despite sending in a F27, which was never processed at Group.
As a current group commander, I try to get to as many squadron activities outside of regular meetings as I can and I plan on attending some of the meetings even if it is just to put in an appearance, show my interest, and pass along new information. I only took command at the end of January but it seems as if more weekends than not I am on the road somewhere. This last Tuesday I made the 1 hour and 15 minute trip up to Scott AFB for their awards ceremony. I had not planned on going to Scott this week as I have to go up there tomorrow for a group staff meeting. However, when I got the email that they were having their awards night and that the LtGen who is second in command at Transcom was going to be there, I thought I should make the trip. When I do attend a function, I try to avoid disrupting the schedule and I usually wear the golf shirt so as to keep the visit somewhat informal. I don't mind staff visits as long as they don't disrupt the meeting and don't come in like they are on an inspection team. Shake hands, keep to the side, don't be an inconvenience. Simple rules.
My group is a combination of the old IL Groups 12 and 19 that is now Group 1. The geographic area is everything from just north of St. Louis south. We are bigger than a few wings. Right now we have four units and we are getting ready to stand up a fifth. I think that groups should be limited to a maximum of seven units just for span of control purposes.
Quote from: MSG Mac on April 06, 2013, 12:07:34 AM
when I was in my previous Wing our Group Commander and his staff NEVER visited our unit. In fact the Squadron Commander notified him that he was not renewing and they didn't notice for two months when Wing was asked why we didn't have a new CC, despite sending in a F27, which was never processed at Group.
I have seen that happen before. Some Group Commanders do not do anything until the Wing Commander tells them. I always kept a spreadsheet so I knew exactly when a Squadron Commander started and since we had term limits, when he will turn command over.
Quote from: ol'fido on April 06, 2013, 04:01:37 AM
As a current group commander, I try to get to as many squadron activities outside of regular meetings as I can and I plan on attending some of the meetings even if it is just to put in an appearance, show my interest, and pass along new information. ...
You are off to a good start. Having a Deputy Commander who wants to be a Group Commander in the future is very helpful. Eventually you will have two events at the same time and no way possible to attend them both.
One thing to watch out for is some Deputy Commanders just want the title and never want to be a Group Commander. They just want to influence the movement of resources such as a NIB G1000
Earlier in the thread it was proposed that we have Groups crossing state lines and that the Group become more of a defining unit than the current Wing.
This is essentially how CG Aux does thing. In most cases, 5 local units (flotillas) make up a Division which reports to a District (CAP region). The Divisions often cross state boundaries, though they seem to try to avoid it when reasonable. Now, many Districts are split up into several "areas" that have a single Aux person that supervises the Groups in their area, but they don't have a supporting staff.
This actually works fairly well for the Aux, but primarily because the Aux really only works with the CG and aren't anywhere near as tied into state and local governments as CAP. About the only interactions with the state are in regards to boating education instructor training and certification.
However, CAP is different in that a significant part of our operations are dependent on the state asking for our help. For that assistance many states provide funding to their CAP Wing. If the Wing essentially disappears and all of a sudden there are 5 CAP groups, several of which also have units in another state, we've got a problem. The first state isn't going to want to have to deal with 5 CAP Groups rather than 1 wing and they're not at all going to be interested in running 5 different state grants, some of which would go to Groups that might spend part of the money in another state (directly or indirectly).
Now, the comment about Group staffs sucking up talent is incredibly valid and is a major problem in the Aux, especially since their Divisions almost always only have 5 units. That isn't enough of a talent pool to provide people that can only be on Division staff. Almost every Division staff officer I know also has a local position and is often reporting to themselves. Thats a recipe for ineffective staffing. CAP Groups tend to cover more units so this isn't quite as big a problem, but still something to keep in mind.
Quote from: Private Investigator on April 06, 2013, 04:36:53 PM
Quote from: ol'fido on April 06, 2013, 04:01:37 AM
As a current group commander, I try to get to as many squadron activities outside of regular meetings as I can and I plan on attending some of the meetings even if it is just to put in an appearance, show my interest, and pass along new information. ...
You are off to a good start. Having a Deputy Commander who wants to be a Group Commander in the future is very helpful. Eventually you will have two events at the same time and no way possible to attend them both.
One thing to watch out for is some Deputy Commanders just want the title and never want to be a Group Commander. They just want to influence the movement of resources such as a NIB G1000
Actually, I am filling in right now for the appointed Group CC. He had family and professional obligations that were eating up all his time and decided to step away for a while until his non-CAP situation settles down. We basically flipped jobs as I was the deputy. Our new G1000 is assigned by wing to the Alton, IL airport and the group also has a round dial 172 at Marion that is currently in MX. We have had to cancel almost 24 hours of scheduled flying in the last 5 weeks due to maintenance issues with the 172. I let the pilots and the ops people worry about that part. They just keep me informed. With this large a geographic area, I don't know if I could handle any more units right now than 5.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 06, 2013, 06:51:45 PM
Now, the comment about Group staffs sucking up talent is incredibly valid ...
When I was Group Commander I was always looking for talent because I did not want my Group to be like other Group Staffs that was just a GOBN. A good sign of talent is the Wing wants to steal your people or somebody moves out of state for a job assignment and they contact you later because they are on Wing Staff or became a Group Commander.
Quote from: ol'fido on April 06, 2013, 08:39:47 PM
Quote from: Private Investigator on April 06, 2013, 04:36:53 PM
Quote from: ol'fido on April 06, 2013, 04:01:37 AM
As a current group commander, I try to get to as many squadron activities outside of regular meetings as I can and I plan on attending some of the meetings even if it is just to put in an appearance, show my interest, and pass along new information. ...
You are off to a good start. Having a Deputy Commander who wants to be a Group Commander in the future is very helpful. Eventually you will have two events at the same time and no way possible to attend them both.
One thing to watch out for is some Deputy Commanders just want the title and never want to be a Group Commander. They just want to influence the movement of resources such as a NIB G1000
Actually, I am filling in right now for the appointed Group CC. He had family and professional obligations that were eating up all his time and decided to step away for a while until his non-CAP situation settles down. We basically flipped jobs as I was the deputy. Our new G1000 is assigned by wing to the Alton, IL airport and the group also has a round dial 172 at Marion that is currently in MX. We have had to cancel almost 24 hours of scheduled flying in the last 5 weeks due to maintenance issues with the 172. I let the pilots and the ops people worry about that part. They just keep me informed. With this large a geographic area, I don't know if I could handle any more units right now than 5.
Sir that is a perfect example of Group Commander and Deputy Commander teamwork. :clap:
I wish that NHQ would realize the issues that we have in some locations with span of control and would work on a solution. I don't know how plausible it could be for NHQ to chance the Regulations to where some staff positions at Group could be optional and where Wing staff would handle some non critical tasks. In other words allowing the Group to operate on a basic staff to assist the Wing Commander in the overseen of units until that Group could develop a full staff. I apologize if I sound like a fool with this remark and enlighten me if that is already in place.
Quote from: coloncapfl on April 07, 2013, 04:35:57 PM
I wish that NHQ would realize the issues that we have in some locations with span of control and would work on a solution. I don't know how plausible it could be for NHQ to chance the Regulations to where some staff positions at Group could be optional and where Wing staff would handle some non critical tasks. In other words allowing the Group to operate on a basic staff to assist the Wing Commander in the overseen of units until that Group could develop a full staff. I apologize if I sound like a fool with this remark and enlighten me if that is already in place.
Other then staff which are required by having a charter, all staff positions are optional at all levels, either in fact, or by practical reality
that the open position is maintained by the Commander.
Required positions for a unit / group charter:
Commander
Safety - may be the CC
Finance - may not be the CC
AEO - May be the CC
PAO - May be the CC
Last I checked those were the positions required by their respective regulations to be filled with a name.
I don't have a reference, so it may be an OWT, but I thought Safety could not be the CC, leading to the minimum of 3 Senior Members (CC, SE, FM) in any unit.
Quote from: JeffDG on April 07, 2013, 04:45:42 PM
I don't have a reference, so it may be an OWT, but I thought Safety could not be the CC, leading to the minimum of 3 Senior Members (CC, SE, FM) in any unit.
The language is "should not be", at least it was last time I checked, which means the preference is he isn't, but that it is still at the
discretion of the commander.
Thank you Eclipse for your response. I will be moving to Florida soon. I would love to have the opportunity to be assigned someday as a Group Commander, I am currently CDC and have been in Group and Wing staff before. I know that the current Group CC there has 23 units under the group and expands from North FL (Jax) to Central Fl (south of Orlando) I really don't know the situation but no matter how great staff you got that could be a span of control issue. By no means I am trying to tell anyone how to run their Wing. I am a believer of C&C but I think that having less units, A group CC can dedicate more time to the units and help them to become stronger. I believe that stronger units could be a stronger Group. What do you think?
23 units is a mini-wing.
Any management seminar, including ICS training, worth its salt tells you that 5-7 is the max span of control that any manager can handle with efficacy.
Not to mention the issues of calendar and that most of the work has to be done evenings and weekends.
Just doing hand-shake visits to the units would take a quarter to complete one cycle, and that's not doing any actual "work".
I totally agree. I just don't know the whole story. This is an example why the Regs should be a little bit more detailed. In my honest opinion.
Quote from: coloncapfl on April 07, 2013, 04:52:33 PMI know that the current Group CC there has 23 units under the group ...
Somebody created a Chinese Fire Drill. Actually it is only 21 Squadrons and a Flight which should report to a SQ not Group. Actually FLWG should create another Group. It looks like Wing wants to keep it to 7 Groups for span of control issues wiotout thinking what is is like farther down the chain.
WIWAC there was a level called "sector", described as an extension of the wing HQ staff...sector CCs supervised 3-5 groups in a LARGE wing, with very limited staff --deputy for ops, deputy for CC, mainly to address span of control issues for wing CCs
Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 07, 2013, 06:10:44 PM
WIWAC there was a level called "sector", described as an extension of the wing HQ staff...sector CCs supervised 3-5 groups in a LARGE wing, with very limited staff --deputy for ops, deputy for CC, mainly to address span of control issues for wing CCs
Well, the new 20-1 (Page 13, see asterisk on the Vice Commander slot) permits a Wing to have two vice commanders if approved by the Region/CC.
That would be a way to bridge Span-of-Control, each CV supervises a set of Groups...it's actually how SER is structured, with the two CVs each responsible for some of the Wings
Quote from: Eclipse on April 07, 2013, 04:58:54 PM
23 units is a mini-wing.
Actually, it is sort of a large wing.
Quote from: JeffDG on April 07, 2013, 06:13:58 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 07, 2013, 06:10:44 PM
WIWAC there was a level called "sector", described as an extension of the wing HQ staff...sector CCs supervised 3-5 groups in a LARGE wing, with very limited staff --deputy for ops, deputy for CC, mainly to address span of control issues for wing CCs
Well, the new 20-1 (Page 13, see asterisk on the Vice Commander slot) permits a Wing to have two vice commanders if approved by the Region/CC.
That would be a way to bridge Span-of-Control, each CV supervises a set of Groups...it's actually how SER is structured, with the two CVs each responsible for some of the Wings
CAWG used to do that at the wing level (CV North and CV South), as did my group, because of the geographical considerations.
Quote from: coloncapfl on April 07, 2013, 04:52:33 PM
Thank you Eclipse for your response. I will be moving to Florida soon. I would love to have the opportunity to be assigned someday as a Group Commander, I am currently CDC and have been in Group and Wing staff before. I know that the current Group CC there has 23 units under the group and expands from North FL (Jax) to Central Fl (south of Orlando) I really don't know the situation but no matter how great staff you got that could be a span of control issue. By no means I am trying to tell anyone how to run their Wing. I am a believer of C&C but I think that having less units, A group CC can dedicate more time to the units and help them to become stronger. I believe that stronger units could be a stronger Group. What do you think?
The group you are talking about is group 2, which I was on staff at the time of the expansion. The group 4 CC left the position and an interim (who was a former NYWG CC) was appointed. The interim was just helping out and didn't want the position permanently and told the wing CC that he would be willing to do it for X amount of months, I don't remember exactly but I'm thinking it was 3 or 4... The wing posted and advertised the group CC position but an appropriate replacement could not be found at that time. Thus group 4 was dissolved and squadrons became part of group 2, 3 or 5. The CC is a great guy and is somehow managing, but it's definitely a challenge.
Coloncapfl, where in FL are you moving?
Easy. Make a group 5-10 units max.
Orlando, sir
Quote from: coloncapfl on April 07, 2013, 08:42:03 PM
Orlando, sir
Cool. Several good squadrons in that area.
I know. I used to be first part of Group 9 CP then went to 259 until I had a financial situation and was hard for me to even go to the meetings. Good Sq.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on April 07, 2013, 08:11:27 PM
Easy. Make a group 5-10 units max.
It will be easy as soon as you come up with a solid plan to staff the additional groups. That's why CAWG has seven now, instead of the fifteen or so they used to have.
Woodsy. Thanks for the info. Is always good to know. I know it could really be challenging for the Group CC with not only that many Sq but also the ammount of counties involved. Plus you got 4 major counties (Orange, Volusio, Brevard, and the Jacksonville Metroplex) those alone are a handful. I lived in Central Florida for 16 yrs
Part of the solution could be to have groups with a basic staff and oversee the core solutions where other issues could just be forward to Wing. We have to remember that the Groups are optional and the reason for them is to assist the Wing CC with span of control. I rather see several Group CCC at least resolving some of the solutions and expediting to Wing others, than overloading a Group CC in order to have a full staff. I am not saying that it could work in all scenarios but I think it could work on some. Besides I believe that Seniors in Level 3 or higher could benefit of the experience. There could even be terms like the CC's. They are just ideas.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on April 07, 2013, 08:11:27 PM
Easy. Make a group 5-10 units max.
but then you end up with span of control issues for the wing/cc
Quote from: coloncapfl on April 07, 2013, 10:04:13 PM
Part of the solution could be to have groups with a basic staff and oversee the core solutions where other issues could just be forward to Wing.
I think there are a decent number of positions that don't really need to be staffed at a Group level.
Quote from: JeffDG on April 08, 2013, 02:15:30 AM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on April 07, 2013, 08:11:27 PM
Easy. Make a group 5-10 units max.
but then you end up with span of control issues for the wing/cc
So the wing/cc has "span of control issues" with 5-10 group commanders reporting, but a group commander should have to burden 10-20? I'd rather have 5 group commanders with 8 units each than 3 group commanders with 13 units. But, it's one of the reasons that I have some heartburn about CAP's organizational model in the first place. CAWG, for example, has an "O-6" with around hundred units and 7 groups. That means that the group commanders have a bigger "span of control" than the wing commander does. In CAWG, you also have some group commanders who have 12 units while others have 5.
I think we're letting geography play too much of a role in our organizational model.
Jeff:
I understand your concern , but I think someone else commented a solution for that, which is having more than 1 Deputy Commander at wing in charge of an amount of Groups, SER has 2 Vice commanders, one that covers Georgia, Florida and Puerto Rico (where I'm from, sorry had to say it) and the other covering Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi. I think that could solve the span of control issue
Quote from: JeffDG on April 07, 2013, 06:13:58 PM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 07, 2013, 06:10:44 PM
WIWAC there was a level called "sector", described as an extension of the wing HQ staff...sector CCs supervised 3-5 groups in a LARGE wing, with very limited staff --deputy for ops, deputy for CC, mainly to address span of control issues for wing CCs
Well, the new 20-1 (Page 13, see asterisk on the Vice Commander slot) permits a Wing to have two vice commanders if approved by the Region/CC.
That would be a way to bridge Span-of-Control, each CV supervises a set of Groups...it's actually how SER is structured, with the two CVs each responsible for some of the Wings
+1
Quote from: SarDragon on April 07, 2013, 09:51:18 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on April 07, 2013, 08:11:27 PM
Easy. Make a group 5-10 units max.
It will be easy as soon as you come up with a solid plan to staff the additional groups. That's why CAWG has seven now, instead of the fifteen or so they used to have.
Staffing is an interesting question. For example, Communications. Does the Group/DC, Wing/DC and Region/DC suppose to help Squadron Communication Officers? Or did we just create a mess? What expertise do we expect at Group level?
For a Group Staff how many bodies do we need? 30 of which 10 is assigned and the other 20 is IAOD. Or just three bodies.
The Group echelon is an optional level to assist Wing in span of control. You can have a Group staff with 9 to 10 people and have the group take care of basic concerns and assist the Squadrons as when Group can just forward other issues to the Wing and be like a liaison in assisting with the process. This is just a rough idea, something like this could be worked out and planned until there is enough talent to fill all group positions, but with a strategy plan in place, the Group does not have the urgency of filling certain positions since it has SOP's in place. At least that is what I would do.
When I was a Group Commander I was always recruiting Staff. When the Wing IG came to inspect my Group I had ten or twelve Staff members and it was done quickly. The Wing IG mentioned the other Groups he inspected. One took all day because the Group Commander was the only person there. Another Group had just a husband and wife team.
Best Group Commander I ever had pulled out the Group HQ SOP from 1952 and said, we will follow directions. Most people in CAP today has no ideal what a SOP.
Some Group positions can be "dual hatted" very easily, e.g., LG/LGT, DA/DP.
Some can be filled by experienced squadron personnel on an ADY basis; it's good for them to see the 'bigger picture', too, particularly if they hope to command a squadron at some point
Quote from: SarDragon on April 04, 2013, 10:39:05 AM
My group in SoCal has 12 units, six in each county (San Diego, and Orange). The two most widely separated squadrons are 108 miles apart, but the units within each county are more closely located, with a distance between the farthest San Diego County units at 49 miles. The Orange County units are much closer together. It's pretty easy for the group commander to visit the OC units, since they are close to group HQ, and a little harder to visit in SD County. But it gets done.
..and the scuttlebutt on drawing a line at the county line and making a Group 8 out of one of them is growing louder, for much that very reason.
Well when we had Deputy North and Deputy South, it seemed to work fairly well, so I'm not sure why that died. Breaking it at the county line isn't a hot idea either, since the two units up north are closer to OC than SD downtown.
Now that I think about it, Group 7 HQ was at NAS NORIS for a while, and we know how that turned out.