Terms of Office

[ZigZag911]

That is a really good observation.  Do we then need a standard for all of our leaders.  for example if the national commander has a maximum of a 3 year term should all squadron comanders be imposed to the same thing.  While i like the idea of turning things over, forcing a turn over is never a good idea.  I think a turn over should only be forced to happen if there is someone else that wants it.

There may need to be exceptions....for instance, a unit in a rural area, or one of the overseas squadrons, undoubtedly has a much smaller pool of candidates for command. But this should be the exception, and there ought to be some accountability involved....too much of what we do is on the whim of a corporate officer, who in the final analysis answers to no one.

I respectfully disagree that forcing a turnover is never a good idea....sometimes there is no choice....sometimes the last to recognize burnout is, in fact, the commander ---whose dedication is certainly genuine....but sometimes people need a break.

[capchiro]

It seems like a lot of the people that think a forced turn over in command is a good idea are not or have not been in a position of command.  There are many small cadet or composite squadrons that do not have the depth of leadership to force a turn over to someone else.  A good leader is always trying to train his replacement, but a squadron with a commander with 30 years in CAP that only has a few active seniors that do not have the experience or drive to be in command causes concern.  A lot of seniors in the cadet squadrons or composite squadrons are there because they are parents.  They are happy to help with testing and driving cadets around and supporting the program in general, but have no desire to engage in the senior program to any great depth.  Most also have no military experience.  If your squadron has a lot of experienced and willing seniors, by all means consider rotation in leadership positions, but don't try to force the same on small, understaffed squadrons.  I have seen squadrons close down due to inadequate, untrained, inexperienced (but goodhearted and well-intentioned) commanders.  There is also the problem of a higher headquarters, such as Group or Wing robbing a squadrons best people for their usage, but I digress.   As usual, just my humble opinion.

[Chris Jacobs]

It seems like a lot of the people that think a forced turn over in command is a good idea are not or have not been in a position of command.  There are many small cadet or composite squadrons that do not have the depth of leadership to force a turn over to someone else.  A good leader is always trying to train his replacement, but a squadron with a commander with 30 years in CAP that only has a few active seniors that do not have the experience or drive to be in command causes concern.  A lot of seniors in the cadet squadrons or composite squadrons are there because they are parents.  They are happy to help with testing and driving cadets around and supporting the program in general, but have no desire to engage in the senior program to any great depth.  Most also have no military experience.  If your squadron has a lot of experienced and willing seniors, by all means consider rotation in leadership positions, but don't try to force the same on small, understaffed squadrons.  I have seen squadrons close down due to inadequate, untrained, inexperienced (but goodhearted and well-intentioned) commanders.  There is also the problem of a higher headquarters, such as Group or Wing robbing a squadrons best people for their usage, but I digress.   As usual, just my humble opinion.

I think that is what i was trying to say in my last point.  Although you sir said it much better than i could have ever said it.

[ZigZag911]

It seems like a lot of the people that think a forced turn over in command is a good idea are not or have not been in a position of command.  There are many small cadet or composite squadrons that do not have the depth of leadership to force a turn over to someone else.  A good leader is always trying to train his replacement, but a squadron with a commander with 30 years in CAP that only has a few active seniors that do not have the experience or drive to be in command causes concern.  A lot of seniors in the cadet squadrons or composite squadrons are there because they are parents.  They are happy to help with testing and driving cadets around and supporting the program in general, but have no desire to engage in the senior program to any great depth.  Most also have no military experience.  If your squadron has a lot of experienced and willing seniors, by all means consider rotation in leadership positions, but don't try to force the same on small, understaffed squadrons.  I have seen squadrons close down due to inadequate, untrained, inexperienced (but goodhearted and well-intentioned) commanders.  There is also the problem of a higher headquarters, such as Group or Wing robbing a squadrons best people for their usage, but I digress.   As usual, just my humble opinion.

As I said earlier, circumstances vary and allowances need to be made....however, in there needs to be a standard.

Bear in mind, too, that this thread began focusing on terms of office for corporate officers.....if THEY have not trained successors in 3, 4, 5 years (whatever is settled upon), then I seriously question whether they were qualified for the position to begin with.

By the way, for the record, I have held several command positions.....