Quote from: Ned on August 22, 2013, 05:36:50 AM

Quote from: NCRblues on August 22, 2013, 05:14:23 AM
Wait wait... What proposal? I'm confused I guess.

Where did this come from? Is this a left over of the defunct national board? Why is a member of the BOG saying he has not seen it, but it's pending approval at the AF?

I guess I'm confused about why you are confused.

I'm saying I haven't seen it because I haven't seen it.  The BoG sets policy, we don't approve every piece of mail that leaves NHQ.  Clearly our existing policy is to have an NCO program because we currently have an NCO program.  (IOW, if the BoG decided to change our policy and eliminate the NCO program, we could do that. But we haven't.)

We don't wordsmith regulations or micromanage how existing programs are run.  (Arguably, that is one of happy results from recent changes in  CAP governance.)  So there is no reason for the BoG to see and approve modifications intended to improve an existing program.

But our AF colleagues do in this particular case.  So at the direction of our National Commander, the staff carefully assembled a package which was sent forward for approval by our AF friends.  No big mystery.

Ok, thank you. I am no longer confused on the situation.

I obviously was not aware of such a thought or proposal in the works, and was in all honestly a little shocked in the fact of one was done and gone on to high already.

Thanks for the update Ned.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 22, 2013, 05:40:35 AM

Quote from: Ned on August 22, 2013, 05:36:50 AMClearly our existing policy is to have an NCO program because we currently have an NCO program.

Allowing members to wear stripes from another service is not an NCO "program".

While not agreeing with your personal characterization of the program,  I suspect we can agree that the program can be improved.  Hence the pending package.  You should be pleased.

I've got to be up early, so I'm done for the night.

The only "improvements" that I recall as being noted as being discussed in official circles have involved the development of a way for existing NCOs to get CAP rank promotions.  That doesn't at all address the basic issue of the purpose of having NCOs in the first place which seems to be the main point of contention. 

If something more than that is being considered, we're in the dark about it. 

Quote from: RiverAux on August 22, 2013, 05:06:12 PM
The only "improvements" that I recall as being noted as being discussed in official circles have involved the development of a way for existing NCOs to get CAP rank promotions.  That doesn't at all address the basic issue of the purpose of having NCOs in the first place which seems to be the main point of contention. 

+1

Quote from: Eclipse on August 22, 2013, 03:31:06 AM

Quote from: Ned on August 21, 2013, 11:21:40 PMI have been briefed that the CAP NCO program is pending approval at the Air Staff level.  We should get a final answer soon.

Excellent, just what CAP needs, another artificial caste system to separate people even more, and / or cause and means
for members to further disassociate themselves from the whole of CAP by simply saying "I can't help, I'm a Cadet Program NCO (etc.)."

We already have cadres of pilots who will do nothing but fly, etc., etc.  Who's supposed to keep this ship running
if we keep finding more ways to let people specialize and disavow larger responsibilities?

In a volunteer organization, where SMWOG command squadrons and 2-stars empty trash cans, there is no
separated system of "doers" and "managers", at there isn't supposed to be.  NCOs exist to ensure the health, welfare, and preparedness,
of those at the lowest rungs who are sworn to execute the 1/2-baked ideas of the officers above them to the point of death, if necessary.

But in CAP there's no enlisted corps to "protect", essentially everyone in CAP is "enlisted" if you look at the distribution of duties.

This idea that NCO's can somehow be "more valuable" to training cadets then anyone else in similar circumstances simply isn't
true except at the most basic level of cadet training, and as we've seen in this and other recent threads, NCOs are reluctant
to "shed the mantle" even to the point of misguidedly encouraging cadets to delay promotion in favor of the "NCO experience",
which actually runs counter to the cadet oath and the curriculum.

We need tenfold of the NCOs we have to join CAP, not to be "NCOs", but to be members service the program and the
membership as it exists, and not try to reshape the cadet corps or the program as a whole into something it's not.

That's because you want all CAP members to be everything in CAP........and that is just not realistic.....not in the real military, in a real school, in a real company.

People specialize......they do what they are trained for and paid for.

What your real problem is......it is not that individuals don't want to help out other aspects of the program.......it is that NO ONE TELLS THEM THEY HAVE TO.  Squadron X with an airplane is not mandated to fly X number of O-rides each month.

Pilot Y.....just wants to fly SAR missions....what the hell is wrong with that?   
If you need someone to do something else.....as well as fly SAR missions.....either ground Pilot Y or find another pilot to do it.

I hate this us vs them attitude.

Quote from: Major Carrales on August 22, 2013, 04:20:11 AM
now...if we had a system where people off the street were given Level I and served as an "airman" then trained in a specialty area to work up to a Senior Airman.  At that point, if there were some NCO course work that would make the into NCO grades with Officers being those in command of units of staff positions with promotion based on working in those squadron, groups, wings regions then we would have a system that would place a merit on the NCO as a stage of unit level development.

Issue with this...

1) We already have as "NCO corps" in the from of the Cadet NCO grades.  Confusion?  Redundancy?

2) We forget most units are understaffed as it is.  Do we have the personnel system wide to staff all positions?

3) Would an RM NCO be "offended" at a 10 years CAP developed NCO?

4) What distinguishes the CAP NCO from other officers?  Is it sort of a "club?"  Creating potentially more divisions than originally existed.

3 don't count.  As it has been that way for every anyways with the officer corps. 

Quote from: lordmonar on August 22, 2013, 09:00:47 PM
Pilot Y.....just wants to fly SAR missions....what the hell is wrong with that?   

Because we are not staffed or manned for people to join and cherry pick what they want to do while letting the rest of the organization
carry the load that lets them do "x".

Quote from: lordmonar on August 22, 2013, 09:00:47 PM
What your real problem is......it is not that individuals don't want to help out other aspects of the program.......it is that NO ONE TELLS THEM THEY HAVE TO.  Squadron X with an airplane is not mandated to fly X number of O-rides each month.

Certainly a big part of the overall problem.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 22, 2013, 09:03:05 PM

Quote from: Major Carrales on August 22, 2013, 04:20:11 AM
now...if we had a system where people off the street were given Level I and served as an "airman" then trained in a specialty area to work up to a Senior Airman.  At that point, if there were some NCO course work that would make the into NCO grades with Officers being those in command of units of staff positions with promotion based on working in those squadron, groups, wings regions then we would have a system that would place a merit on the NCO as a stage of unit level development.

Issue with this...

1) We already have as "NCO corps" in the from of the Cadet NCO grades.  Confusion?  Redundancy?

2) We forget most units are understaffed as it is.  Do we have the personnel system wide to staff all positions?

3) Would an RM NCO be "offended" at a 10 years CAP developed NCO?

4) What distinguishes the CAP NCO from other officers?  Is it sort of a "club?"  Creating potentially more divisions than originally existed.

3 don't count.  As it has been that way for every anyways with the officer corps.

I can see where you are coming from.  It has been suggeested that the proposal only provides for NCOs to get promoted up from the PM grade...that is only speculation and I will submit it as suspect on those grounds.  This has generated quite an distrubance here from the tenor of the discussion.  Thsi returns us to some fundamental questions.

1) What is the actual proposal?

2) Do we need an NCO corps?

3) What benefit does it provide system wide?

4) What is the role of the NCO?

and so on.

My main concern at this point is that someone somewhere has asked and answered these questions before making proposals and send them to the USAF.  I am not bashing the "brass," only expressing the hope that it was done with more than just "desire" as an impetus.

As I was a professional sign painter and also worked as a graphic artist, wanted to letter the signs for all of the C.A.P. squadrons in Los Angeles County and to do their posters, banners, etc., but our commanding officer did not want for me to assist other squadrons as well. I asked why can't I assist them all as we are the same family and wear the same uniform. They had no job description was the second answer, they wanted me to be a Public Affairs Officer and promoted me to Second Lieutenant, of course I asked not to be commissioned and to remain a Senior Member. The orders came down and on those orders I was promoted and demoted on the same letter - believe it or not? If I could not be an Airman or a Sergeant, Senior Member was just fine. I was ten pounds over the weight standard and told I could not wear the uniform until I shed the weight, but I did not join for the uniform and could serve as their P.A.O. and wore a business suit with a necktie. I never argued with them when they said they did not want to help the other units they considered competition. Later went to work at LeBeau Embroidery as a graphic artist making should sleeve insignia for Colonel Lee Baumount in L.A., he was a retied USAF officer. Maybe its the case that assignments are not delegated as they should be because people meet once a month for a few hours and don't have the time to draft a more comprehensive work schedule for volunteers like Pilot "Y" who wants to fly "Search & Rescue" mission?

Quote from: Eclipse on August 22, 2013, 09:28:03 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on August 22, 2013, 09:00:47 PM
Pilot Y.....just wants to fly SAR missions....what the hell is wrong with that?   

Because we are not staffed or manned for people to join and cherry pick what they want to do while letting the rest of the organization
carry the load that lets them do "x".

The duties of commander....any commander is to man, equip and train his unit to accomplish assigned missions.

"we are not staffed...." is not an acceptable answer.  For two reasons.  1)  We are a volunteer organization.....people are going to do what they HAVE TO do in order to what they WANT to do.  2) Not everyone is cut out to be all things....nor should they be expected to.

Everyone must be a CP officer.  Everyone must be an IC, GTM1, MP, AOBD etc. et al.  Everyone must be an AE officer, a personnel officer, Professional Development Officer....etc. and so on.

No.....that is simply not realistic.

It would really really really nice that every parent of a cadet is 100% into being a CP officer, and learning all there is to know about admin or supply and would just love to get into ES, and also has a flair for doing AE presentations.......so we have a guy who is into all phases of our program.

But that's not the way it is.   I would rather recruit 10 members to do 10 different small things then try to force the guy who just want to fly SAR stuff, or just work with cadets, or just do paperwork......to do something they don't want to do.

I will of course always encourage our members to expand and try other things.......but I will not give those who just want to X a hard time for NOT supporting "the whole mission".

[/rant]