Deactivating a Squadron

[25orSix2Four]

Question for the masses...

Can a Group commander deactivate a squadron? According to R20-3

Deactivation of Units. Wing commanders are authorized to deactivate units for good cause. This is accomplished by submission of a properly prepared CAPF 27 with a concise statement on the reverse outlining the reasons for the action. (A copy must be forwarded IMMEDIATELY to the affected unit and, if applicable, its parent group.)

Additonally, should there be some sort of effort to recruit to the local squadron prior to a shut down? In the end it seems easier to shut down instead of working to maintain the charter.

I think there are a number of other options that are available, such as reassignment of the commander and appointmet of some new blood, or at least giving a timeline of a shutdown... "you need to do XXXX by XXXX time, or there will be a shut down, and everyone will be transferred to XXXX squadron."

Finally, is the group commander the sign off for reactivating the unit? Or should paperwork be filed with Wing, as specified in R20-3, and pay the $20 to CAP NHQ?

Thanks.

Tim

[Eclipse]

Yes, to a degree.

The wing is going to be the ultimate arbiter of deactivating or activation of a unit.

With struggling units, there are always options, but assuming a functional Group structure and support of the Group CC's by the Wing staff, it should be the Group CC's call, that's the whole point of span of control.

[IceNine]

As for reactivation, When we did it it was a very involved process that had the wing commander's direct attention.

If you are already thinking about reactivation, I'd think LONG and Hard about shutting them down in the first place.

[RiverAux]

Most squadrons go through up and down periods and I can't see many situations where I would want to close one down entirely.  After all, what does it cost CAP to have an underperforming unit on the books?  All it takes is one energetic person to join and BOOM, you've got a good unit again.  However, trying to do that from scratch is infinetely harder.

[SJFedor]

Question for the masses...

Can a Group commander deactivate a squadron? According to R20-3

Deactivation of Units. Wing commanders are authorized to deactivate units for good cause. This is accomplished by submission of a properly prepared CAPF 27 with a concise statement on the reverse outlining the reasons for the action. (A copy must be forwarded IMMEDIATELY to the affected unit and, if applicable, its parent group.)

Additonally, should there be some sort of effort to recruit to the local squadron prior to a shut down? In the end it seems easier to shut down instead of working to maintain the charter.

I think there are a number of other options that are available, such as reassignment of the commander and appointmet of some new blood, or at least giving a timeline of a shutdown... "you need to do XXXX by XXXX time, or there will be a shut down, and everyone will be transferred to XXXX squadron."

Finally, is the group commander the sign off for reactivating the unit? Or should paperwork be filed with Wing, as specified in R20-3, and pay the $20 to CAP NHQ?

Thanks.

Tim

The wing commander has the ultimate call, as he is the corporate officer for that Wing. But, if I was a Wing/CC, I would rely heavily on my GP/CC's input as to the viability of units within their command.

[25orSix2Four]

As for reactivation, When we did it it was a very involved process that had the wing commander's direct attention.

If you are already thinking about reactivation, I'd think LONG and Hard about shutting them down in the first place.

This is my point exactly. It was never addressed to i.e. change the commander, develop a recruiting effort to basically save the squadron. In the area where I am involved with there SEVERAL middle and high schools, in an area with a population of about 90,000. There are also a number of up and coming charter schools, so I personally think the decision was political, and really, and no involvement with the Wing Commander. That is what is frustrating. I have never seen a copy of the paperwork, but I am in the process of getting it to see what is actually says the reasons were for closing the squadron.

I personally don't think it will be really involved process reinstating it, as I have a very good reputation in my Wing, and well known by at least a dozen squadron commanders.

BTW.. I am NOT the group commander.

Tim

[MIKE]

19. Squadrons. The squadron is the community-level organization of CAP. Wing commanders may activate squadrons whenever there is a minimum of 15 members of the unit, three of whom must be senior members. Whenever the membership drops below these minimums, the wing commander will deactivate the squadron or redesignate it as a flight. The designation of each squadron will indicate whether it is a:

10. c. In those cases where a wing commander has reason to believe it is in the best interest of CAP to continue a unit even though the unit is below the minimum membership requirements, a waiver may be requested. The waiver is requested by submitting a letter of justification to the region commander who has authority to grant such waivers for all subordinate units in his/her region.
1) Approved requests will be returned to the wing commander to forward to National Headquarters as attachments to the authenticated charter listings.
2) Disapproved requests will be returned to the wing commander who will redesignate or deactivate as appropriate on the charter listing and return to National Headquarters.

[25orSix2Four]

Most squadrons go through up and down periods and I can't see many situations where I would want to close one down entirely.  After all, what does it cost CAP to have an underperforming unit on the books?  All it takes is one energetic person to join and BOOM, you've got a good unit again.  However, trying to do that from scratch is infinetely harder.

You're absolutely right. I have been a member for quite some time. The unit has had it ups and downs, but it seems it is basically a numbers game. This particular unit doesn't have the numbers, cadets and seniors, so lets shut it down, and lump it into another newer unit, so the numbers are better there.

Also, this group commander arrived from another wing... so I can only assume that the other wing ran things differently - either they shut down a lot of under performing units, or this is some sort of political move. I have no idea what he is thinking, other than let's have a least one ideal, perfectly functioning, unit in the wing. If he succeeds, it will be the first. There are no ideal or perfectly functioning units.

Tim

[RiverAux]

If the squadron being shut down is all by itself in the area with 90,000 people in it as you described earlier, the demographics would certainly support a squadron and I wouldn't support such a position. 

However, if it is being folded into another unit in that same area (rather than one an hour away or something like that), then maybe its not such a bad thing.  I'm not sure a 90,000 person area can easily support multiple squadrons.  Personally, I would think having one very strong squadron in such an area would be better than having two weak ones. 

[jimmydeanno]

I'm not sure a 90,000 person area can easily support multiple squadrons. 

A 90K area should easily be able to support multiple squadrons.  Two squadrons of 45 people each is only .1% of the population.

My current squadrons area (city) has a population of about 25K and has just over 80 members.  Just up the road is another squadron (albeight in a different town, but 20 minutes away) is a squadron of 35 and 20 minutes from our squadron in the other direction is a squadron of 45.

My previous squadron had over 100 members in an area with 100K +.  The squadron in the same city (5 minutes away) had another 75 members.

90K can easily support multiple squadrons, including multiple flying programs.

[RiverAux]

I think there is a difference when you're talking about isolated cities vs where each "city" is jammed up right against each other.  Its all about travel time.  Once you start talking 20-30 minutes of travel time the number of people willing to make that drive weekly or every other week is going to drop.  One 90K city with nothing nearby is probably not going to support multiple squadrons -- at least of the same type.  Sure, technically it wouldn't take a large percentage of the city's population t come up with two decent sized units, but that just doesn't seem to be how it works in general practice. 

But, if you get a large metropolitan area with quite a few cities right up against each other, you probably can have multiple squadrons.  But even then its not guaranteed.  I've seen a weak squadron in a town with several hundred thousand people. 

However, it is inarguable that on a state level, population size has a major, if not the dominant role, in determining how many CAP members you have.  I think that relationship holds at the town level though factors involving individual members have an opportunity to tip it on occassion. 

[Cecil DP]

Every year the Wing Commander receives a list of those squadrons under his command which do not meet the standards to remain a squadron. He has the option of continuing the charter for another year to give them time to rebuild and make whatever changes are needed to make the squadron viable. If the squadron shows up on the hit list again, they will be deactivated or designated a flight under another chartered unit.

[25orSix2Four]

Every year the Wing Commander receives a list of those squadrons under his command which do not meet the standards to remain a squadron. He has the option of continuing the charter for another year to give them time to rebuild and make whatever changes are needed to make the squadron viable. If the squadron shows up on the hit list again, they will be deactivated or designated a flight under another chartered unit.

True... but the wing commander made no decision in this case. But like an earlier post pointed out, span of control by the group comander was utilized. I think the Wing commander really needed to be included in this decision.

Also, the point with driving is also

I think there is a difference when you're talking about isolated cities vs where each "city" is jammed up right against each other.  Its all about travel time.  Once you start talking 20-30 minutes of travel time the number of people willing to make that drive weekly or every other week is going to drop.  One 90K city with nothing nearby is probably not going to support multiple squadrons -- at least of the same type.  Sure, technically it wouldn't take a large percentage of the city's population t come up with two decent sized units, but that just doesn't seem to be how it works in general practice. 

But, if you get a large metropolitan area with quite a few cities right up against each other, you probably can have multiple squadrons.  But even then its not guaranteed.  I've seen a weak squadron in a town with several hundred thousand people. 

However, it is inarguable that on a state level, population size has a major, if not the dominant role, in determining how many CAP members you have.  I think that relationship holds at the town level though factors involving individual members have an opportunity to tip it on occassion. 

Drive time is now moved to about 25-30 mnutes from my house. I am not a huge fan, as I was 10-15 minutes from the previous unit.

With gas prices hovering where they are now (or at a month ago), some parents have stopped coming to the new unit because of the drive. It is really in the middle of nowhere. It does take a lot of time and money to drive two trips at 20-30 minutes one way. It hurts the cadets since they ae in a great program, but these people are not made of money, especially with uniforms, fuel oil for winter heat going through the roof, etc...

[Cecil DP]

Every year the Wing Commander receives a list of those squadrons under his command which do not meet the standards to remain a squadron. He has the option of continuing the charter for another year to give them time to rebuild and make whatever changes are needed to make the squadron viable. If the squadron shows up on the hit list again, they will be deactivated or designated a flight under another chartered unit.

True... but the wing commander made no decision in this case. But like an earlier post pointed out, span of control by the group comander was utilized. I think the Wing commander really needed to be included in this decision.

Actually the Wing Commander has to have made a decision, because only he can sign the CAPF 27 to deactivate the unit.

[25orSix2Four]

Every year the Wing Commander receives a list of those squadrons under his command which do not meet the standards to remain a squadron. He has the option of continuing the charter for another year to give them time to rebuild and make whatever changes are needed to make the squadron viable. If the squadron shows up on the hit list again, they will be deactivated or designated a flight under another chartered unit.

True... but the wing commander made no decision in this case. But like an earlier post pointed out, span of control by the group comander was utilized. I think the Wing commander really needed to be included in this decision.

Actually the Wing Commander has to have made a decision, because only he can sign the CAPF 27 to deactivate the unit.

As quoted in the regs, but as pointed out earlier, the group commander utilized his span of control. I know for a fact the wing commander did not sign the paperwork.

This is basically the most frustrating thing. We are shut down all because of, basically, someone with an agenda. In the entire wing, from the latest CAPWATCH download, nearly a third of the squadrons in the wing are in the same situation or worse, the majority of which are composite squadrons. You know the kind, the ones with 5 or 6 senior members, and a handfull of cadets. There is no way they would even fill up the typical 50-senior-or-less squadron with 17 senior positions. Let alone the same on the cadet side. If anything, it should have been redesignated a cadet squadron, or the very least, a flight.

[DNall]

I know it sucks for you, being so close to the situation, but big picture... it does seem to me like he's trying to fold a couple weak units into one strong one.

20-30mins each way is not a serious commute. I do that now for CAP. Several others do the same or more. I drive 50 miles each way to my guard unit. Some of the soldiers there are driving hundreds of miles, even in from other states, to be part of that unit, and they have to do so more than once a month w/o reimbursement & basically eating up the little pay we give them. In other words, it could be a lot worse - is a lot worse for a lot of other people that take it in stride and drive on with the mission.

I'm personally a proponent of cleaning up the books to show accurate reporting of active members so we can see actual strength of units, and in turn redistribute resources accordingly, and in many cases reducing units to flights. A unit with 8 volunteers working a couple hours a week can't do the administrative & staff workload of a real military squadron - which is basically what's expected of a CAP Sq. Those 8 dedicated people end up running a hundred directions to cover the minimums, which just burns them out while providing a poor performing unit and poor quality experience for the cadets &/or community/customers the unit is there to serve. I don't necessarily think locations need to be shutdown en masse. I think they need the burden of staff/reporting/admin lifted off them so they can refocus their energy on the missions. There is a time & place for combining units though.

[RiverAux]

People commuting more than half an hour for a volunteer activity are going to be in the minority, but they will exist.  That doesn't mean that it is ideal.  Comparing this to people getting paid at the activity they're commuting to (job/Guard) isn't really right. 

[Eclipse]

I'm personally a proponent of cleaning up the books to show accurate reporting of active members so we can see actual strength of units, and in turn redistribute resources accordingly, and in many cases reducing units to flights.

Ditto.

People commuting more than half an hour for a volunteer activity are going to be in the minority, but they will exist.  That doesn't mean that it is ideal.  Comparing this to people getting paid at the activity they're commuting to (job/Guard) isn't really right. 

20-30 minutes (+) is average in these parts.  The days of a CAP unit in every park, within walking distance are gone. 
I have 4 of 6  units CC's who have about a 45-60 minute commute depending on traffic, maybe 30 on the way home at 9pm.

Airports and military resources are...where they are...if you want to use them, and garner the advantages to a unit or the program of those resources, you go to them.

Bottom line, either a unit is performing to the satisfaction of at least the next higher commander, or they aren't - the annual charter reviews aside, "performance is completely subjective, as it should be.

I wouldn't shut down a unit that had a good, recent, track record, and still had a core of good members, just because they were in a down swing, but that would assume the members still active are engaged enough to fix the problem.

If its two guys and a cadet who don't even acknowledge there are "issues", well, its time to stand down.

[ZigZag911]

Ultimately it's wing CC's call, but normally they listen to group CC.

I reluctantly had to recommend deactivating a squadron during my years as group CC -- we simply could not get a reliable officer to remain in command (unit was in the most remote part of the group, considerable distance from my other units, as well as the rest of the wing).


There were senior members present, but none would accept squadron CC post when the founding commander moved on.

We spent the better part of 2 years trying to resolve the situation in any other way, up to and including re-designating the unit a flight, having the next nearest sqdn CC command 2 units for about 6 months.

It was a sad day....we got as many cadets as remained interested into other units, which unfortunately involved considerable travel time for the parents.

[LtCol057]

I wish my commute for meetings was only 20 minutes. My commute is about an hour and 15 minutes, depending on traffic. At least an hour. Thats 6x a month. 2 for senior meetings, 4 for cadet meetings. That doesn't include the quarterly Commanders Call (2.5 hr commute then) or the quarterly Group commanders call. I'm lucky there, only about 30 minutes.  We have members in our squadron from a 4 county area. 9 or 10 members live in same town I do.  There used to be a senior squadron here years ago, but the area didn't support it, plus they became a "flying club".  I jokingly mentioned starting a flight in this town, because of the travel, thought I was gonna have to run.  Now we're having a problem keeping the senior component going. Had 5 seniors at last night's meeting, out of 22.