New NHQ Job Posting

[JeffDG]

For CAP/CC

http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?cap_announces_ceo_position&show=news&newsID=17932

OK, I gotta take issue with the first "Desirable" qualification:

Be a person of high character and integrity, willing to commit to a belief in the missions and core values of CAP

That really needs to move to the "Minimum Qualifications" section.

[jeders]

For CAP/CC

http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?cap_announces_ceo_position&show=news&newsID=17932

OK, I gotta take issue with the first "Desirable" qualification:

Be a person of high character and integrity, willing to commit to a belief in the missions and core values of CAP

That really needs to move to the "Minimum Qualifications" section.

Why? The minimum quals, which come from the C&BL, are quantitative measurable gatekeeping requirements. While I'll agree to the importance of character and integrity, they arent quantitative.

My question is, will the membership be told who applies? The last time TXWG got a new commander, the region CC asked for input from members about the candidates, will the BOG do the same?

[JeffDG]

For CAP/CC

http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?cap_announces_ceo_position&show=news&newsID=17932

OK, I gotta take issue with the first "Desirable" qualification:

Be a person of high character and integrity, willing to commit to a belief in the missions and core values of CAP

That really needs to move to the "Minimum Qualifications" section.

Why? The minimum quals, which come from the C&BL, are quantitative measurable gatekeeping requirements. While I'll agree to the importance of character and integrity, they arent quantitative.

My question is, will the membership be told who applies? The last time TXWG got a new commander, the region CC asked for input from members about the candidates, will the BOG do the same?

Personally, if I had a choice between a brand new SMWOG with "high character and integrity" and a former Region/CC without, I would select the SMWOG without hesitation.  (Note, I have no knowledge of any Region/CC without "high character and integrity", simply providing a hypothetical situation)

And all of the "minimum qualifications" are waiverable by the BoG (ref C&BL, Article XIII, 1(c)), so they're not actually mandatory.

[jeders]

Personally, if I had a choice between a brand new SMWOG with "high character and integrity" and a former Region/CC without, I would select the SMWOG without hesitation.  (Note, I have no knowledge of any Region/CC without "high character and integrity", simply providing a hypothetical situation)

And all of the "minimum qualifications" are waiverable by the BoG (ref C&BL, Article XIII, 1(c)), so they're not actually mandatory.

If I had a choice between someone with zero experience or knowledge in leading a large volunteer organization and someone with likely a decade of experience, much of it at the upper levels, I'll take the experienced person and then evaluate their character. With the BoG having the stronger oversight, a "bad" or "low character" commander becomes somewhat less of an issue as they can be more easily removed. However, an inexperienced, un-knowledgeable commander remains a major concern, as they can do a lot more damage a lot quicker simply because they don't know what they're doing.

[dwb]

Anyone taking bets on whether a cadet with a lot of pluck will apply and ask the BoG to waive the minimums?

[NIN]

Anyone taking bets on whether a cadet with a lot of pluck will apply and ask the BoG to waive the minimums?

Not taking that bet. At all

[Flying Pig]

If I was a cadet, Id do it.   And on my college resume Id make sure I listed "Applicant, Civil Air Patrol CEO"   For what its worth 

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

So what exactly does

"Have served as a CAP Wing Commander who completed his/her term of office other than due to a removal for cause."

mean?

If you complete your term clearly you were not removed. So if you served less than a full term but it was for any other reason than removed for cause, you qualify?

[Ned]

So what exactly does

"Have served as a CAP Wing Commander who completed his/her term of office other than due to a removal for cause."

mean?

That is what the CAP Consitution requires, so I just repeated it verbatim in an attempt to avoid any confusion that might be caused if it looked like we were deviating from the Constitutional requirements.

I suspect it applies to Wing Commanders who asked to be relieved due to health or other issues not related to duty performance.  If I had successfully completed my four years as a wing commander and was asked to serve a fifth (CAPR 20-1), I'd hate to think I was disqualified for the CEO position just because my civilian boss transferred me to another state or a family member developed a severe illness that required my time and attention partway through my fifth year.

Don't overthink it.  The provision applies only to a very tiny number of officers, and they know who they are.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Sorry, dad was an English teacher. The sentence structure made my head hurt.

[JeffDG]

Don't overthink it.  The provision applies only to a very tiny number of officers, and they know who they are.

Just curious...

How would this apply to a Wing Commander who, hypothetically speaking, was relieved by his Region Commander, reinstated by the MARB, relieved again by the Region Commander, and reinstated a second time by the MARB/MARP?

[Storm Chaser]

So what exactly does

"Have served as a CAP Wing Commander who completed his/her term of office other than due to a removal for cause."

mean?

If you complete your term clearly you were not removed. So if you served less than a full term but it was for any other reason than removed for cause, you qualify?

I suspect this could also apply to a Wing Commander who was relieved from that command to assume greater responsibilities, i.e. as a Region Commander, etc. You wouldn't want to penalize that person for not completing the 4-year term.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

How would this apply to a Wing Commander who, hypothetically speaking, was relieved by his Region Commander, reinstated by the MARB, relieved again by the Region Commander, and reinstated a second time by the MARB/MARP?

That hypothetical seems familiar. Can't remember where I heard or saw it. 

[Luis R. Ramos]

Ned-

No matter how you phrase something, you will always find someone in here questioning a statement, regulation, manual, etc.

In Puerto Rico we used to say buscando las cinco patas del gato. Translated directly it means looking for the cat's five paws.



Which sounds kind of silly as we know a cat has only four paws...



But philosophically speaking it means someone is over-analyzing a statement, situation, etc....

Flyer

[JeffDG]

Probably could have simplified that one by just saying "Former Wing or higher command" as the requirement.

It's not like it's a checklist, if you match each criteria, you're in.  If you were hounded out of Wing command for sheer incompetence, then it's likely the selection committee and the BoG will be fully aware of the circumstances related to that and can simply reject on subjective grounds, rather than trying to codify everything.

[SamFranklin]

Instead of editing an announcement that intuitively makes sense, I just want to add that I think a self-nomination with final selection by the governors is a huge, positive step forward for CAP. It minimizes the politics and gives CAP a reasonable expectation that the "best candidate" will be selected on his or her merits.

As a lowly member with no special ambitions, I've always felt that "politics" has had a hugely negative effect on CAP. You used to have to be part of the "in" crowd. This new system won't be perfect, but it makes the obviously unqualified, obviously sycophantic less likely to get the job.

Now let's see those board of governors members put some really tough questions to the applicants!

[FW]

Don't overthink it.  The provision applies only to a very tiny number of officers, and they know who they are.

Just curious...

How would this apply to a Wing Commander who, hypothetically speaking, was relieved by his Region Commander, reinstated by the MARB, relieved again by the Region Commander, and reinstated a second time by the MARB/MARP?

If they were brought back, the relief would be expunged from their record...
Just for historical knowledge; this actually happened once.  Unfortunately, the region commander terminated their membership after the 2nd adverse membership action was reversed. By then, the former member wanted nothing to do with CAP.  It's also worth noting the structure of the MARB/MARP was drastically altered after this.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I am not intending to turn this into a uniform thread - honestly - but don't those Maj Gen slides look blue instead of grey?

[SARDOC]

I've thought about this so I called National Headquarters.   They told me what the job entailed and we discussed Salary.  That was kind of the end of the conversation.   

[MSG Mac]

How would this apply to a Wing Commander who, hypothetically speaking, was relieved by his Region Commander, reinstated by the MARB, relieved again by the Region Commander, and reinstated a second time by the MARB/MARP?

That hypothetical seems familiar. Can't remember where I heard or saw it. 

In the MARB notes in E-Services RIWG Commander fired twice, reinstated by MARB twice.