Clarification for Professional Appointment

[BFreemanMA]

I did a search and didn't find anything related to my question yet, so I'm going to ask it here.

I was reading CAPR 35-5 since I wanted to review the standards for professional appointment. As an AEO with a Master's degree and 5 years' teaching experience, I was promoted to Captain after my Level I was complete and after proving to my SQ/CC that I was performing "at the Capt level."

Under 35-5, 5.2, I came across some text that confused me. "Health Service personnel, legal officers, professional educators serving as aerospace education officers and financial professionals serving as finance officers are exempt from all other training requirements prescribed for promotion to additional grades."

I know that our regs can sometimes be very fuzzy, but I can't quite figure out the application for this. Is it saying that those receiving professional appointment are exempt from the training requirements for promotion to a higher grade (ie. Capt to Maj)? Or is it saying that we do not need the training requirements for initial appointment, but must "back fill" our training in order to promote to our next grade?

If professional apppointees are exempt from training, that doesn't really strike me as fair. I just completed my Level II the other day and, in the process, I learned loads about CAP and how things operate. Without this knowledge, I don't feel I could do my job as well as without having completed the training requirements. If appointees weren't required to do the training, that would be a huge detriment to those appointed. We may know a lot about our areas of expertise, but I feel it's important that everyone has the same CAP background.

Long story short, what are your thoughts/interpretations on this reg? How has it worked in the past?

[arajca]

As long as you're serving as AEO, you're excempt for any other training requirments, i.e. SLS, CLC, RSC, etc. for promotion. Just stay in office and you get promoted when time-in-grade has passed.

I personally dislike it, because you end up with folks who don't know CAP, but are wearing Maj and Lt Col. I recommend and STRONGLY suggest all of those folks take the training so they will be well rounded (no pun intended) CAP members. We have a Finance Officer whose attitude, when told about not needing the classes (he's a CPA and a retired CFO), is "yeah, whatever. When is the next class? I need to schedule for it." Great guy. He wants to make sure he is a knowledgeable CAP member.

[NIN]

Long story short, what are your thoughts/interpretations on this reg? How has it worked in the past?

As a unit commander, I used that codicil to get one of my members (a Health Services Officer) promoted to Major.  He subsequently completed the PME for Major (after he was promoted) and it was not that big of a deal. He was  the kind of guy who was a sponge for information, so it wasn't like CLC was going to *really* give him a ton of knowledge.

Now, that being said, there are others who have used this to burn all the way to Lt Col and never did a lick of CAP PME, and it shows.

YMMV, but commanders should be cautious about how and when they promote members, even under professional appointments.  It is good to remember that you *CAN* do it, but you don't *HAVE* to do it.

[BFreemanMA]

Arajca: Wow, that strikes me as very unfair too. I appreciate the clarification and I side with you. I can't see myself wearing leaves and not having gone through the same experiences as everyone else!

NIN: good point about your HSO. I'd be afraid that this clause could be used to rail through the promotions without any personal development and, as you've mentioned, it does impact their ability to operate within CAP.

I wonder if this is a big enough problem to warrant a change of regs? It's probably not a huge problem, but, like NIN said, when it happens or is abused, it can hurt functionality, I think.

[Eclipse]

The number of people this actually effects approaches zero, but it's certainly a place where 35-5 needs revision.

We need to just drop all these advanced grade loopholes and "go directly-s" and recognize that everyone
brings their unique talents to the table, and that everyone should be treated equally so that by the time
they get to wear oaks (of either color), they actually have a clue.

[NIN]

Mind you, my guy was serving as our HSO AND safety officer, and he was absolutely KILLING it in safety.  Best safety officer I ever saw.  People would actually drop what they were doing to go to safety briefings.  (commanders: How many times do you have to round up and herd people into Safety Briefing, right?  Not in my unit.  Someone would say "safety briefing" and you'd better not fall down in front of the stampede..)

[Eclipse]

Mind you, my guy was serving as our HSO AND safety officer, and he was absolutely KILLING it in safety.  Best safety officer I ever saw.  People would actually drop what they were doing to go to safety briefings.  (commanders: How many times do you have to round up and herd people into Safety Briefing, right?  Not in my unit.  Someone would say "safety briefing" and you'd better not fall down in front of the stampede..)

OK, but then he should be recognized for his work in Safety, not "other". In the current paradigm of CAP, a safety professional would be able to do way more directly-related to
his job then a Health Professional, but that's not even factored in.

[NIN]

Mind you, my guy was serving as our HSO AND safety officer, and he was absolutely KILLING it in safety.  Best safety officer I ever saw.  People would actually drop what they were doing to go to safety briefings.  (commanders: How many times do you have to round up and herd people into Safety Briefing, right?  Not in my unit.  Someone would say "safety briefing" and you'd better not fall down in front of the stampede..)

OK, but then he should be recognized for his work in Safety, not "other". In the current paradigm of CAP, a safety professional would be able to do way more directly-related to
his job then a Health Professional, but that's not even factored in.

He was a Nurse Practitioner who worked (at the time) in basically an ambulatory "clinic" setting that saw substantially industrial folks who'd been injured in "on the job accidents."

He brought an interesting flavor of information to the table in that regard.

(NVM the safety briefing that included that afternoon's story about the guy working on the rolling garage door that had the door slam down on the pads of all 8 fingers, which then blew all the fat out the side of his fingertips like crushed grapes.... I leave you with that pretty picture in your heads. "Jolly Rancher?")

[Devil Doc]

We have a ACDC in our unit who was a Major in the Airforce, She refuses to but on Major Rank and wants to Go through the ranking system liek everyone else. Her reasoning is, she wants to learn how CAP does things, you cant learn that by starting from the top, you learn from starting at the bottom.

[RiverAux]

I"m confident that 99% of those who have gotten professional appointments wouldn't care a bit if they had had to go through the normal CAP PD process.  The 1% who would really want the advanced rank probably shouldn't be in CAP anyway. 

[JeffDG]

Someone would say "safety briefing" and you'd better not fall down in front of the stampede..)

Don't get me wrong, but that seems a bit counter-productive...

[NIN]

Someone would say "safety briefing" and you'd better not fall down in front of the stampede..)

Don't get me wrong, but that seems a bit counter-productive...

I know, right?

[Storm Chaser]

I think the problem with these professional appointments is that they copy (in many ways) the format in which military professional appointments are made. However, the reality and needs of CAP and the military are very different.

In the military, you need to provide an incentive to recruit certain professionals. You can't just train a line officer into a doctor or an attorney or a chaplain. These professionals required advanced degrees, licenses, etc. They also want to get financially compensated according to their qualifications. Their rank doesn't affect their branch much because they don't interact with the rest of the force in the same way. For example, a medical officer will not serve in a non-medical capacity and will not command a non-medical unit.

While CAP may benefit from (or even need) certain professionals, there is no financial benefit linked with the advanced rank given to these. That makes rank an ineffective recruiting tool. And because CAP is a volunteer organization where most of its officers wear different 'hats' and participate in different capacities, you end up with a senior ranking officer that knows very little about CAP, yet may end up working as a staff officer in areas where such knowledge is needed.

[RiverAux]

you end up with a senior ranking officer that knows very little about CAP, yet may end up working as a staff officer in areas where such knowledge is needed.

or having them actually put in command of CAP units. 

[Ned]

I think the problem with these professional appointments is that they copy (in many ways) the format in which military professional appointments are made. However, the reality and needs of CAP and the military are very different.

Well, yes and no.

Sure, we do professional appointments for folks like physicians and attorneys in a manner roughly similar to the military, but in direct response to the "needs and realities of CAP" our leadership created the "mission related skills" category for appointment of things like CFIs, ATPs, and ATPs as well as special appointments for former cadets and former members.

I suppose a strong argument can be made that these particular incentives are not as an effective recruiting tool as we would like based on the simple observation that we still don't have enough of any of them.

Which just begs the question:  "what would be a more effective recruiting incentive for these categories?"

Until we can answer that, I suppose we will have to struggle on the way we have.

[Storm Chaser]

I think the problem with these professional appointments is that they copy (in many ways) the format in which military professional appointments are made. However, the reality and needs of CAP and the military are very different.

Well, yes and no.

Sure, we do professional appointments for folks like physicians and attorneys in a manner roughly similar to the military, but in direct response to the "needs and realities of CAP" our leadership created the "mission related skills" category for appointment of things like CFIs, ATPs, and ATPs as well as special appointments for former cadets and former members.

As I see it, the problem is not so much giving them advanced rank because of their professional background or mission related skills. The problem is that, unlike the military, a physician (or lawyer, etc.) in CAP can (and often does) assume other staff and command roles. Again, that doesn't happen in the military, but it's a reality in CAP.

[Eclipse]

Which just begs the question:  "what would be a more effective recruiting incentive for these categories?"

Meaningful service.

[Ned]

As I see it, the problem is not so much giving them advanced rank because of their professional background or mission related skills. The problem is that, unlike the military, a physician (or lawyer, etc.) in CAP can (and often does) assume other staff and command roles. Again, that doesn't happen in the military, but it's a reality in CAP.

Non-concur.

I had signficant positions of responsibility in the military (multiple command and XO billets in MP and Infantry outfits) despite being a lawyer, not because of it. 

(Like many in the Guard, I took endless amounts of ribbing because of my "outside job.")

Similarly, we theoretically select the best qualified and available officers to serve in command and staff roles.  It shouldn't matter if the person happens to be a dentist if she is indeed the best qualified person for the job.

And if we are not selecting the best qualified persons for the job, the problem is not related to officer appointments based on professional or mission-related skills.  Then it is just a garden-variety leadership failure to select the best qualified and available officer.

[Eclipse]

And if we are not selecting the best qualified persons for the job, the problem is not related to officer appointments based on professional or mission-related skills.  Then it is just a garden-variety leadership failure to select the best qualified and available officer.

Sounds good on paper, unfortunately, the "only willing" generally trumps the ongoing search for "best qualified", since the former is far too often the only choice.

The fix, again, is more people.

[lordmonar]

And if we are not selecting the best qualified persons for the job, the problem is not related to officer appointments based on professional or mission-related skills.  Then it is just a garden-variety leadership failure to select the best qualified and available officer.

Sounds good on paper, unfortunately, the "only willing" generally trumps the ongoing search for "best qualified", since the former is far too often the only choice.

The fix, again, is more people.

Ned did say the Best Qualified and Available.

[Eclipse]

And if we are not selecting the best qualified persons for the job, the problem is not related to officer appointments based on professional or mission-related skills.  Then it is just a garden-variety leadership failure to select the best qualified and available officer.

Sounds good on paper, unfortunately, the "only willing" generally trumps the ongoing search for "best qualified", since the former is far too often the only choice.

The fix, again, is more people.

Ned did say the Best Qualified and Available.

Yes, he did - but he's presumably using that in the pamphlet sense of the perfect CAP world, not the ground-level reality where "available" is all we have.
A unit with 3 seniors isn't going to have a lot of choice over "best" vs. "any". 

As he says, it's a leadership problem, but one which comes form much higher then the unit level.

[Storm Chaser]

A CAP captain promoted under standard duty performance has the following minimum training and experience:

• Officer Basic Course
• Squadron Leadership School
• Technician Rating on a CAP Specialty Track
• Experience in at least one CAP staff duty position
• Level II
• 3 years of CAP service

A CAP captain recently appointed under mission related skills will have one of the following qualifications in addition to Level I:

• CFI, or
• A&P with Inspection Authorization, or
  
• Instrument Instructor

While these are useful skills in CAP, they hardly translate to the type of experience and training expected of a CAP captain. CAP also provides such professional appointments for chaplains, legal officers, health professionals, educators, and finance officers. Again, all important professions and qualifications that can benefit CAP, but not necessarily representative of an experienced CAP officer. There are many other professionals that join CAP and contribute their skills and experience, yet do not receive accelerated promotions. Why do we make these exceptions? Is this meant as a recruiting tool?

The opportunity to provide meaningful volunteer service should be enough reward for those professionals. Rank should be used to recognize leadership and the potential for officers to assume greater responsibilities within CAP.

[lordmonar]

So....I am talking about reality.

And yes.....more people and more training and more assistance from wing and group is what all squadrons need.

Oh......wait......you said it is not Wing/Group's job to help squadrons....I keep forgetting that.

[lordmonar]

I have always thought that advanced promotions should always come with a time limit for the individual to make up the CAP training, even for former military officers.

Retire Lt Col.....(that's level IV) should have four years to catch up.....if he does not...then he is demoted to the appropriate rank.

CFI comes in as Capt.....(that's Level II and a Senior Rating) he has two years to catch up or he gets demoted.

So...we keep the recruiting benefit of advanced rank......and keep the integrity of the CAP rank system.....i.e. all CAP Majors are Level III or actively working on it.

YMMV.

[Eclipse]

...more people and more training and more assistance from wing and group is what all squadrons need.

Like what?

[Eclipse]

I have always thought that advanced promotions should always come with a time limit for the individual to make up the CAP training, even for former military officers.

Retire Lt Col.....(that's level IV) should have four years to catch up.....if he does not...then he is demoted to the appropriate rank.

CFI comes in as Capt.....(that's Level II and a Senior Rating) he has two years to catch up or he gets demoted.

So...we keep the recruiting benefit of advanced rank......and keep the integrity of the CAP rank system.....i.e. all CAP Majors are Level III or actively working on it.

YMMV.

On this we agree 100%, and the demotions should be system-level, automatic.  Do not pass go, no waivers.

[Storm Chaser]

I have always thought that advanced promotions should always come with a time limit for the individual to make up the CAP training, even for former military officers.

That would be reasonable. I have "benefited" from a special appointment as an officer of the Armed Forces, but I took it upon myself to complete all my professional development requirements. Unfortunately, not every military officer in CAP does that and the regulations don't require it. They should.

[lordmonar]

...more people and more training and more assistance from wing and group is what all squadrons need.

Like what?

First.....wing should be giving squadron clear guidance about what strength levels they should be maintaining.
They should be clearly identifiying ES qualifications that a composite or senior squadron should be maintaining.

Secondly.....as a squadron begins to fall below these levels they should be actively contacting these squadrons and assisting them with recruiting and training members to keep their levels up.

Thirdly.....they should be working with commanders to insure that there is a definite succession plan in place.   i.e. a squadron commander drops out for some reason (job, illness, burn out, incompetence) there is no scramble to find a replacement....and that replacement should have an identified go to person for assistance with anything they need.

Fourth......wing/group program officers should be required to make frequent Staff Assistance Visits.  To make sure that the squadron is on program, is following their recovery plan or is off the reservation.

A squadron with only three SM is not healthy.....and wing should know about it and be actively helping said squadron to recover.

[Storm Chaser]

A squadron with only three SM is not healthy.....and wing should know about it and be actively helping said squadron to recover.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but three senior members is the minimum requirement to start a cadet squadron. While not ideal, I'm not sure if I would go as far as to call such a squadron "not healthy", especially if all SMs in the unit are active.

[Eclipse]

A squadron with only three SM is not healthy.....and wing should know about it and be actively helping said squadron to recover.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but three senior members is the minimum requirement to start a cadet squadron. While not ideal, I'm not sure if I would go as far as to call such a squadron "not healthy", especially if all SMs in the unit are active.

I agree with Lord on pretty much his entire statement - a unit with only three seniors isn't healthy by any measure.  It can barely even make the bare minimum required appointments.

What's above is pretty much how I view a Wing / Group's responsibilities, the problem is that the practical ability to respond when a Unit simply refuses to comply are more then a
little limited, and wings and groups are just as hamstrung by our insufficient manning as everyone else - moreso where wings allow a lot of multi-echelon billeting.

The SAVs, frankly, are a minefield, because it opens the door to a lot of potential usurping of authority and autonomy.  In a perfect world, each echelon above would be better informed
and more experienced then the one below, and understand where the lines are, but in a world where members are allowed to join-in at the wing level and accept directorships
before their membership ribbon, that is not always the case, which circles around  to where we are today.

[lordmonar]

A squadron with only three SM is not healthy.....and wing should know about it and be actively helping said squadron to recover.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but three senior members is the minimum requirement to start a cadet squadron. While not ideal, I'm not sure if I would go as far as to call such a squadron "not healthy", especially if all SMs in the unit are active.

I understand where you are coming from....and yes 3 SM is the minimum to start a squadron.....but wing/group should be providing a lot of assistance to that unit....that unit should have clear goals on how to build to a sustainable level.

3 SM with 7 cadets (IIRC) is the minimum unit.  That unit should have been created not because 10 people just decided to create a unit...but because wing identified that community/neighbor hood as being able to support a unit.  That that unit should be XX size (with in a reasonable time frame).  That that unit should be supporting XX number of cadets or XX number of ground teams/aircrew/mission base staff.

That gives the commander clear guidance on how big his unit should be, what qualifications he should be training towards.....and it gives wing an instantaneous snap shot of how the squadron is doing.

We need clear guidance on what the "ideal" squadron should look like....(not the org chart from 20-1).

To use the BSA model as an example.

The BSA Idea troop has four patrols with eight boys in the patrol.  Four boys in the staff and four adult leaders working in the field with them.
Behind that there is a committee that does the admin/finance/logistics support made up of mostly parents who don't have to do any other boy scout stuff if they so choose.

Everything in BSA is built on that model.   Using the "patrol method" you can build and execute the program to produce an Eagle Scout.
They have a Quality Unit program that is aimed at troops reaching the ideal model.
They reward leaders and troops as they move to reaching the ideal model.
All their programs from their magazine to what they do at summer camp, district, council, and national activities are aimed at fulfilling these goals.   

CAP is kind of broken in that sense.

We don't have an idea squadron model.
We have a quality unit program (stolen whole cloth from the BSA) and is a step in the right direction.
We have an IDEAL of what a SPAATZ cadet should be able to do.....but it is not support by the rest of the program.
We complain that Cadet X is not really Spaatz material....but where can he get that experience if all he has to do is lead 7 cadets.
We complain that Cadet Y is put into the "command" spot too soon.....but with only 7 cadets.....what else is he going to do?

If I were god for a day.....I would break up all the composite squadrons and split CAP into ES squadrons and CP squadrons.
Cadets would be required to learn ES skills as part of their progression but could not activity participate in the ES program (including SAREXs).

I would accelerate the cadet program.  I would eliminate the sustained promotions for one and kill the Phase I and II AE books.
I would change the way we do encampments and when we recruit cadets.
I would restructure the cadet squadron where only 4-5 senior members are required to be in contact with cadets and everyone else is a behind the scenes support role....where uniforms, PD, Safety and all the rest of the BS are not required.

I would shift the SUI away from an I dotting T crossing exercise to covering only those areas that MUST be met to keep the USAF happy....i.e. money, and USAF supplied property.

......yep.....I got a lot of ideas.

YMMV. 

[Storm Chaser]

A squadron with only three SM is not healthy.....and wing should know about it and be actively helping said squadron to recover.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but three senior members is the minimum requirement to start a cadet squadron. While not ideal, I'm not sure if I would go as far as to call such a squadron "not healthy", especially if all SMs in the unit are active.

I agree with Lord on pretty much his entire statement - a unit with only three seniors isn't healthy by any measure.  It can barely even make the bare minimum required appointments.

I agree is not ideal, but if a cadet squadron can't function with 3 senior members, then why are we allowing this number as the minimum? By the way, I was part of a squadron like that both as a cadet and a senior member. We were able to managed by relying heavily on our cadet staff. Again, I'm not saying it's ideal.

[Eclipse]

You have to have some number in the reg, but there's simply no way a unit running on minimums for very long can be
successful in anything but slow-moving status quo.

Clearly they aren't growing, or have a high churn rate, and there will be limited opportunities internally for leadership roles
(for anyone), more importantly followership roles, and the unit's viability is in constant question, being dependent on
any one person to drop off, out, or dead.

Further, with everyone doing 4 jobs, that means they are either getting done at the lowest check-box level, or simply ignored
when not required.

[Storm Chaser]

^ Can't disagree with that.

[Cliff_Chambliss]

I have always thought that advanced promotions should always come with a time limit for the individual to make up the CAP training, even for former military officers.

Retire Lt Col.....(that's level IV) should have four years to catch up.....if he does not...then he is demoted to the appropriate rank.

CFI comes in as Capt.....(that's Level II and a Senior Rating) he has two years to catch up or he gets demoted.

So...we keep the recruiting benefit of advanced rank......and keep the integrity of the CAP rank system.....i.e. all CAP Majors are Level III or actively working on it.

YMMV.

On this we agree 100%, and the demotions should be system-level, automatic.  Do not pass go, no waivers.

+1

[RiverAux]

I have always thought that advanced promotions should always come with a time limit for the individual to make up the CAP training, even for former military officers.

I've always been a strong advocate of eliminating them, but this would be a compromise that I could live with. 

On the one hand it does give them a certain period of time to cause havoc before they figure things out, but on the other it gives them a strong incentive to get caught up on PD.  Even if they didn't join because of the advanced rank (which they didn't) they're not going to want to be demoted even if rank isn't something that they care a lot about.  It just looks bad to get demoted even for relatively benign reasons such as this. 

[JeffDG]

How about giving commanders the authority to waive time-in-grade for professional appointments?

Let's say you're a CFI...

Level 1:  2nd LT
Tech:  1st LT
Level 2:  Capt

All regardless of time in grade...you get to Capt quicker, but you've done SLS, OBC and that stuff before you slap on the bars.

Honestly, I think approving authorities should be able to waive TIG more generally for members who show initiative and take on higher levels of responsibility.  I would advocate giving commanders the authority to waive TIG up to one less than their approving authority...so Squadron/CCs could waive TIG for 2nd LT, Group/CCs for 1st LT, Wing Commanders for Captains, Region/CCs for Major, and CAP/CC for Lt Col.

[Storm Chaser]

How about giving commanders the authority to waive time-in-grade for professional appointments?
...
Honestly, I think approving authorities should be able to waive TIG more generally for members who show initiative and take on higher levels of responsibility...

I'm not crazy about that. While time-in-grade doesn't guarantee anything, the time spent in grade can provide additional experience needed for subsequent grades. CAP already has too many accelerated promotions and required time-in-grade is much less than in the Air Force. As an example, a CAP major requires 3 years time-in-grade as a captain. In the Air Force, the average major spends 7 years time-in-grade as a captain. I don't think we need to provide commanders with another option to promote officers faster.

[jimmydeanno]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but three senior members is the minimum requirement to start a cadet squadron.

In essence, it's a starting point.  You've found 10 people, 3 of which are adults, who are willing to give this "CAP thing" a go.  However, there is an expectation (albeit unwritten) that the unit will grow from its meager beginnings.  Those three seniors are the three that are going to build and grow the unit, not be the permanent level of the unit. 

[Storm Chaser]

In essence, it's a starting point.  You've found 10 people, 3 of which are adults, who are willing to give this "CAP thing" a go.  However, there is an expectation (albeit unwritten) that the unit will grow from its meager beginnings.  Those three seniors are the three that are going to build and grow the unit, not be the permanent level of the unit.

I understand and agree with this as a starting point for a new unit or turning an old one around. You have 3 (hopefully) active senior members that will build/rebuild the squadron and recruit more senior members in the process. As Eclipse said earlier, there are limitations and challenges when everyone is trying to do multiple jobs. I've been there and it's not ideal since you can't focus 100% of your time on each of them.

The conversation about the minimum 3 senior members required for a squadron started with a comment that Eclipse made and a response from Lordmonar.

Yes, he did - but he's presumably using that in the pamphlet sense of the perfect CAP world, not the ground-level reality where "available" is all we have.
A unit with 3 seniors isn't going to have a lot of choice over "best" vs. "any". 

A squadron with only three SM is not healthy.....and wing should know about it and be actively helping said squadron to recover.

I agree with Eclipse since we don't always have a lot of choice when it comes to experience, qualifications, aptitude, talents and capabilities. You may have a brand new captain who's a CFI having to assume command of a squadron because he's the ranking officer (I know rank is not the determining factor for command) since the other two are brand new senior members without rank. Obviously rank here is misleading since the captain in this scenario may know very little about CAP; he was promoted because he knows enough about aviation and is an instructor pilot.

I somewhat agree with Lordmonar on his comment about the health of a squadron. While I agree that a squadron with only 3 senior members will have some challenges moving forward, I'm hesitant to call such squadron "not healthy" as a generalization, without understanding its background and not knowing the experience, qualifications and leadership capabilities of its senior members.

Going back to the topic at hand, professional appointments may sometimes work, but they also allow for individuals that have no business having higher ranks to get promoted over more experienced and competent individuals. Personally, I would eliminate or at least limit them. A good compromise as mentioned by Lordmonar and a few other posters would be to make those officers receiving accelerated promotion complete the professional development requirements commensurable with their rank within a specific timeframe. Failure to complete these requirements may result in the officers being reverted to their previous rank.

[NIN]

Honestly, I think approving authorities should be able to waive TIG more generally for members who show initiative and take on higher levels of responsibility. 

Unfortunately, what that tends to do is give the people who "don't do anything but" a serious leg up. My experience is that they're not the most well rounded individuals.  So you have a guy who is retired and can do pretty much nothing but knock out PME left & right, and he's a Captain immediately?

Years ago, I had a gent apply for TAC officer at encampment. We had a slot come open at the last minute due to an unexpected conflict. 

It was one of those situations where everybody I would have wanted was booked, and this guy was the only person who was *available*.  (retired, etc).

Yeah, it was a complete trainwreck. I would have been better off not filling the position.

[RiverAux]

I can't think of an idea that I like less than waiving TIG in CAP.  That would so open up the opportunities for more Good Old Boyism than just about anything I can think of.

If you have a really super high-performer working for you, how about making full use of the CAP award system?  In general, commanders don't come close to using this as much as they should. 

[Eclipse]

Fast burners and slow burners raise the same eyebrows, and I haven'r really met anyone in CAP, yet,
that was such a top performer that it would justify waiving TIG.

[Tim Day]

I have always thought that advanced promotions should always come with a time limit for the individual to make up the CAP training, even for former military officers.

That would be reasonable. I have "benefited" from a special appointment as an officer of the Armed Forces, but I took it upon myself to complete all my professional development requirements. Unfortunately, not every military officer in CAP does that and the regulations don't require it. They should.

I'd support that, actually. I'm a retired Navy Commander who just promoted to Lt Col based on my military rank. It took almost a year, during which I not only made progress on level II (SLS, OBC) but served as the Deputy Commander for Cadets. SLS and OBC didn't really cover much new ground for me, but I felt like they're appropriate for baselining our CAP professional knowledge. I just finished level II and am embarking on Level III.

There's enough review in the service-related promotion process to mitigate most of the risk of abuse. My promotion required CC recommendation and group/wing board approval.

There's also enough variation in how well CAP officers follow the standards they learn in CAP professional development that I don't believe PD / TIG really ensures quality service.

All that said, the CAP PD is useful enough without really being too time consuming that mandatory completion to avoid an automatic reduction in grade seems reasonable.

You could always throw a waiver process in so executive leadership could retain the people that demonstrate some kind of invaluable presence that we need to retain them.

[Eclipse]

You could always throw a waiver process in so executive leadership could retain the people that demonstrate some kind of invaluable presence that we need to retain them.

I'd be very curious to know what sort of skills are so invaluable that they warrant advanced promotion, while at the same time
the only reason we can get the member to stay is by giving them advanced grade.  Frankly, those things are pretty
much 180 opposed and would be more an indication the member doesn't really "get" CAP enough to warrant the grade in the first place.

As a note to your personal experience, good on your wing for pressing a higher standard, but the majority of current / former military officers
are promoted to match their grade before they qualify for their membership ribbon.

[Storm Chaser]

Fast burners and slow burners raise the same eyebrows, and I haven'r really met anyone in CAP, yet,
that was such a top performer that it would justify waiving TIG.

I have, but that was the exception not the rule. I think allowing commanders the option to waive TIG is a bad idea. I would instead support extending the TIG, and maybe providing a below-the-zone option for top performers, equivalent to what the current TIG is now.

[Bobble]

There's also enough variation in how well CAP officers follow the standards they learn in CAP professional development that I don't believe PD / TIG really ensures quality service.

All that said, the CAP PD is useful enough without really being too time consuming that mandatory completion to avoid an automatic reduction in grade seems reasonable.

I don't understand.  You don't believe that the current PD/TIG program ensures quality service on the part of Senior Member participants, and then you state that the CAP's PD program is useful, so useful in fact that you posit that Senior Members who have already received advance promotion but who don't progress satisfactorily (is there a maximum time limit/schedule between promotions I am not aware of?) in the standard PD program should receive a reduction in grade for failure to progress.  Did I read that correctly?  It seems contradictory, or did I miss something along the way?  Thanks.

[Storm Chaser]

I'd support that, actually. I'm a retired Navy Commander who just promoted to Lt Col based on my military rank. It took almost a year, during which I not only made progress on level II (SLS, OBC) but served as the Deputy Commander for Cadets. SLS and OBC didn't really cover much new ground for me, but I felt like they're appropriate for baselining our CAP professional knowledge. I just finished level II and am embarking on Level III.

Good on you! I know an officer in a similar situation, except that after 3 years he hasn't even completed his technician rating. He's a good officer, but because he already has the maximum rank he can attain in CAP (without being appointed wing commander or higher), PD hasn't been a priority.

[Tim Day]

There's also enough variation in how well CAP officers follow the standards they learn in CAP professional development that I don't believe PD / TIG really ensures quality service.

All that said, the CAP PD is useful enough without really being too time consuming that mandatory completion to avoid an automatic reduction in grade seems reasonable.

I don't understand.  You don't believe that the current PD/TIG program ensures quality service on the part of Senior Member participants, and then you state that the CAP's PD program is useful, so useful in fact that you posit that Senior Members who have already received advance promotion but who don't progress satisfactorily (is there a maximum time limit/schedule between promotions I am not aware of?) in the standard PD program should receive a reduction in grade for failure to progress.  Did I read that correctly?  It seems contradictory, or did I miss something along the way?  Thanks.

In general, good training programs are no guarantee that the trainees will use their training. That doesn't negate the value of the training program. Does that clarify?

[Storm Chaser]

There's also enough variation in how well CAP officers follow the standards they learn in CAP professional development that I don't believe PD / TIG really ensures quality service.

All that said, the CAP PD is useful enough without really being too time consuming that mandatory completion to avoid an automatic reduction in grade seems reasonable.

I don't understand.  You don't believe that the current PD/TIG program ensures quality service on the part of Senior Member participants, and then you state that the CAP's PD program is useful, so useful in fact that you posit that Senior Members who have already received advance promotion but who don't progress satisfactorily (is there a maximum time limit/schedule between promotions I am not aware of?) in the standard PD program should receive a reduction in grade for failure to progress.  Did I read that correctly?  It seems contradictory, or did I miss something along the way?  Thanks.

I think that most of agree that our current PD requirements and courses are not perfect and that many who complete them still fail to meet standards and/or expected performance. But I think most of us also agree that we need to have a minimum set of training standards and that, in general, officers who complete PD levels equivalent to their rank progression, tend to have a better understanding and knowledge of CAP than those who have the rank, but haven't completed the appropriate PD levels.

[Tim Day]

I'd be very curious to know what sort of skills are so invaluable that they warrant advanced promotion, while at the same time
the only reason we can get the member to stay is by giving them advanced grade.  Frankly, those things are pretty
much 180 opposed and would be more an indication the member doesn't really "get" CAP enough to warrant the grade in the first place.

Leadership experience, emergency services experience, medical, law, aerospace education - there's 5. Not sure what you mean by "get" CAP. I've known plenty of CAP members who don't get all aspects of the CAP mission areas, including myself. I'm personally thankful for the diversity of people we have.

As a note to your personal experience, good on your wing for pressing a higher standard, but the majority of current / former military officers
are promoted to match their grade before they qualify for their membership ribbon.

Actually they're just following the CAPR 35-5. Region Commander (yeah, I said Wing - my mistake) appoints member to Lt Col via a one year temporary promotion. At the anniversary, the approval authority then reviews the promotion and either extends, revokes, or makes permanent the promotion.

[BillB]

One aspect to consider is comparing the cadet program to senior program as far as promotions go. In all cases the cadet has to complete training (achievements) for promotion. Seniors on the other hand can get initial appointments to officer positions. Seniors can also get what amounts to automatic promotions, suich as serving as Commander for one year. I know of one case a senior was promoted to Captain after only completing level 1 and servings as a commander for one year. Granted they did have technician level in two professional development areas. And what of the member who has completed level 5 and isn't promoted to LCol because Region doesn't want to appoint to many LCol's?

[Tim Day]

I think that most of agree that our current PD requirements and courses are not perfect and that many who complete them still fail to meet standards and/or expected performance. But I think most of us also agree that we need to have a minimum set of training standards and that, in general, officers who complete PD levels equivalent to their rank progression, tend to have a better understanding and knowledge of CAP than those who have the rank, but haven't completed the appropriate PD levels.

Adeptly summarized.

[Eclipse]

One aspect to consider is comparing the cadet program to senior program as far as promotions go. In all cases the cadet has to complete training (achievements) for promotion. Seniors on the other hand can get initial appointments to officer positions. Seniors can also get what amounts to automatic promotions, suich as serving as Commander for one year. I know of one case a senior was promoted to Captain after only completing level 1 and servings as a commander for one year. Granted they did have technician level in two professional development areas. And what of the member who has completed level 5 and isn't promoted to LCol because Region doesn't want to appoint to many LCol's?

This is drying up in many wings - mine won't consider it unless you've completed UCC.

As to the Lt Col issue, if you could prove it that would be grounds for a sustainable complaint as the promotion criteria is about the member, not how many there are.

[Bobble]

There's also enough variation in how well CAP officers follow the standards they learn in CAP professional development that I don't believe PD / TIG really ensures quality service.

All that said, the CAP PD is useful enough without really being too time consuming that mandatory completion to avoid an automatic reduction in grade seems reasonable.

I don't understand.  You don't believe that the current PD/TIG program ensures quality service on the part of Senior Member participants, and then you state that the CAP's PD program is useful, so useful in fact that you posit that Senior Members who have already received advance promotion but who don't progress satisfactorily (is there a maximum time limit/schedule between promotions I am not aware of?) in the standard PD program should receive a reduction in grade for failure to progress.  Did I read that correctly?  It seems contradictory, or did I miss something along the way?  Thanks.

In general, good training programs are no guarantee that the trainees will use their training. That doesn't negate the value of the training program. Does that clarify?

Got it, thanks.  I think that second part would be a fairly tough "row to hoe", telling SM's with advanced grade that resulted from a professional appointment that they'll be demoted if they fail to progress in the standard PD program, based on whatever schedule there might be.  JMHO.

[Tim Day]

Got it, thanks.  I think that second part would be a fairly tough "row to hoe", telling SM's with advanced grade that resulted from a professional appointment that they'll be demoted if they fail to progress in the standard PD program, based on whatever schedule there might be.  JMHO.

Agree, but the CAPR 35-5 already provides for this, the PD program isn't that hard, and military folks (and I assume those with civilian professional backgrounds) should be familiar with the concept.

I'm not really an advocate for changing the regs (since I think they already provide sufficient guidance). I'm just saying I could live with the practice (if implemented by the Region / Wing) of revoking the temporary promotion when the member opted not to pursue PD or otherwise contribute to the organization.

[Eclipse]

CAP needs to start hoeing these rows, tough or otherwise.

[arajca]

Got it, thanks.  I think that second part would be a fairly tough "row to hoe", telling SM's with advanced grade that resulted from a professional appointment that they'll be demoted if they fail to progress in the standard PD program, based on whatever schedule there might be.  JMHO.

It wouldn't be so tough if:
1. It was made clear to the member from the outset
2. It was automatic though eServices

Which means you'd need to grandfather current folks - or provide a rigid schedule. Also, eServices would need to track what type of promotion a member received. Finally, a successive duty performance promotion would need to cover the backfill requirement.

[lordmonar]

Got it, thanks.  I think that second part would be a fairly tough "row to hoe", telling SM's with advanced grade that resulted from a professional appointment that they'll be demoted if they fail to progress in the standard PD program, based on whatever schedule there might be.  JMHO.

It wouldn't be so tough if:
1. It was made clear to the member from the outset
2. It was automatic though eServices

Which means you'd need to grandfather current folks - or provide a rigid schedule. Also, eServices would need to track what type of promotion a member received. Finally, a successive duty performance promotion would need to cover the backfill requirement.

I don't know we would have to grandfather anyone.

If were to make the change......and Eservice automatically did the demotion.......It would just be a matter of when the clock starts.

Say....1 Jan 2014.   So.....all those Level I Lt Cols would have 4 years (1 Jan 2018) to catch up.    If they don't like it.....oh well.

[bflynn]

If they don't like it.....oh well.

I don't understand the "oh well" part.  There's lots of ways that can be taken.

[Eclipse]

How about...

"You've had 4 years to catch up, on top of however much time you had before that. You're out of uniform, Lieutenant."

Seems pretty clear to me.  Adults who can't handle an objective standard with years of notice, are likely not much value to
CAP anyway, and if they didn't value the grade they were given enough to do the work, then it shouldn't matter to them anyway.

[SARDOC]

As I see it, the problem is not so much giving them advanced rank because of their professional background or mission related skills. The problem is that, unlike the military, a physician (or lawyer, etc.) in CAP can (and often does) assume other staff and command roles. Again, that doesn't happen in the military, but it's a reality in CAP.

Military Medical Officers and Lawyers assume staff and command roles all the time.  Just not typically for a Line Unit.

[RiverAux]

When CAP has Lawyer Squadrons and Hospital units we can start following that model then. 

[SARDOC]

Touche...But They can still hold staff positions in CAP units within their professional domain though.  For Example, Wing Legal Officer is a Staff Position...

[Eclipse]

The biggest issue I've had with members who are Legal or Medical professionals is that in their professional life they tend to be
leaders and given deference, while in a CAP context, since much of what they bring to the table isn't directly useful, they don't
receive that same deference until they prove themselves with skills a unit, etc., can use.

Your central-casting Dr. / pilot may get to order first at the FBO, but he's just the "FNG" at an active flying unit, especially
one that has ex-military pilots.

The JAG club in CAP tends to be fairly closed, and getting an invite can be somewhat of a challenge, despite the rhetoric about
needing to recruit lawyers actively.

So what you (potentially) wind up with are field-grade officers with no CAP experience, nothing to do within the field they
received their bump for, and no one particularly interested in their opinion.  Not exactly a recruiting poster.

[lordmonar]

If they don't like it.....oh well.

I don't understand the "oh well" part.  There's lots of ways that can be taken.

One would assume that unit commanders and PD officers would be working with and pushing their "out of phase" officers to get with the program.    The "oh well" part is that we have to enforce standards.....if you don't want to....there's the door or you can put on your Maj/Capt/Lt's ranks as appropriate.

[Private Investigator]

We have a ACDC in our unit who was a Major in the Airforce, She refuses to but on Major Rank and wants to Go through the ranking system liek everyone else. Her reasoning is, she wants to learn how CAP does things, you cant learn that by starting from the top, you learn from starting at the bottom.

ACDC is by KISS ain't it? Have no clue what a ACDC is in CAP.

I bet six years from now she will not be in the program. I knew a retired Army Guard LTC that wanted to fly and work ES but his Unit told him he had to work up from SMWOG and then made him PAO since nobody wanted that job, etc, etc.

[Private Investigator]

Honestly, I think approving authorities should be able to waive TIG more generally for members who show initiative and take on higher levels of responsibility. 

Unfortunately, what that tends to do is give the people who "don't do anything but" a serious leg up. My experience is that they're not the most well rounded individuals.  So you have a guy who is retired and can do pretty much nothing but knock out PME left & right, and he's a Captain immediately?

Years ago, I had a gent apply for TAC officer at encampment. We had a slot come open at the last minute due to an unexpected conflict. 

It was one of those situations where everybody I would have wanted was booked, and this guy was the only person who was *available*.  (retired, etc).

Yeah, it was a complete trainwreck. I would have been better off not filling the position.

That is a training issue.

A swimming lesson should be applied before being tossed into the deep end. YMMV 

[Private Investigator]

I have always thought that advanced promotions should always come with a time limit for the individual to make up the CAP training, even for former military officers.

That would be reasonable. I have "benefited" from a special appointment as an officer of the Armed Forces, but I took it upon myself to complete all my professional development requirements. Unfortunately, not every military officer in CAP does that and the regulations don't require it. They should.

I'd support that, actually. I'm a retired Navy Commander who just promoted to Lt Col based on my military rank. It took almost a year, during which I not only made progress on level II (SLS, OBC) but served as the Deputy Commander for Cadets. SLS and OBC didn't really cover much new ground for me, but I felt like they're appropriate for baselining our CAP professional knowledge. I just finished level II and am embarking on Level III.

In my experience most former military officers were exceptional members of CAP  YMMV   

[Private Investigator]

RE: Professional Appointments, it is what it is.

In CAP PD I do not think somebody should take SLS, CLC and RSC in one year. But whatever 

[a2capt]

If someone needed those two classes, and then to do RSC, it's entirely possible in CAWG. Just call it a 12 month period from April to March, in a "catch to duty based promotion" scenario.

[capchiro]

I think you all are missing the point.  A lawyer does not normally deal with search and rescue.  He is spending his time protecting the Corporation from spending beaucoup dollars on dumb stunts done by seasoned trained leadership members and making sure leases are favorable to Corporate.  Most are not interested in spending the night in the woods or running a cadet squadron.  Over a period of time they may develop an interest in that and being professionals, they will obtain proper training prior to accepting such position.  I dare say most Wings have less than a handful of legal officers. All legal officers represent Corporate, not individual suqadrons and they are either Wing Legal officer or Assistant Wing Legal Officers, even if attached to a squadron.  Surprise, surprise..

[RiverAux]

As far as I know there are zero restrictions on CAP lawyers from taking part in any of CAP's programs.  Since there is so little for most CAP lawyers to actually do to serve CAP I suspect that most of them spend their time on other CAP programs.  Same goes for most others who receive the professional appointments. 

[Private Investigator]

I know several lawyers that were Squadron Commanders as well as other important tasks in CAP Units at all levels.

RE: Professional Appointments I think are CAP Chaplains do not get enough recognition. They all do exceptional work   :clap:

[RiverAux]

If I remember correctly CAP chaplains themselves pushed to make sure that they were part of the PD program in some way.  They understood the value of having the same training as everyone else. 

[Eclipse]

I dare say most Wings have less than a handful of legal officers. All legal officers represent Corporate, not individual suqadrons and they are either Wing Legal officer or Assistant Wing Legal Officers, even if attached to a squadron.  Surprise, surprise..

As far as I know there are zero restrictions on CAP lawyers from taking part in any of CAP's programs.  Since there is so little for most CAP lawyers to actually do to serve CAP I suspect that most of them spend their time on other CAP programs.  Same goes for most others who receive the professional appointments.

CAP may have less then a hand full of JAGs, but there's plenty of lawyers serving at all levels and functions.  The GLR/CC, for example is an accomplished lawyer,
as is our own Ned, who currently sits on the board.

[Storm Chaser]

I think you all are missing the point.  A lawyer does not normally deal with search and rescue.  He is spending his time protecting the Corporation from spending beaucoup dollars on dumb stunts done by seasoned trained leadership members and making sure leases are favorable to Corporate.  Most are not interested in spending the night in the woods or running a cadet squadron.  Over a period of time they may develop an interest in that and being professionals, they will obtain proper training prior to accepting such position.  I dare say most Wings have less than a handful of legal officers.

That may be true of wing or region legal officers, but not of lawyers in general as you're stating. Many lawyers join CAP and serve in multiple different capacities. They can receive the professional appointment and get a promotion to the corresponding rank, and still be assigned to other duties in addition to legal officer.

All legal officers represent Corporate, not individual suqadrons and they are either Wing Legal officer or Assistant Wing Legal Officers, even if attached to a squadron.  Surprise, surprise..

CAPR 20-1 allows for legal officers to be assigned to squadrons and groups as squadron or group legal officers. If you read the duty description in this regulation, you will see that a legal officer can do much more at the local level that just represent the corporation. As an example, they serve in unit membership boards, render legal opinions regarding CAP activities, assist the unit safety officer in conducting investigations, develop relationships with other local agencies, etc. Where do you get that they're always assigned as wing legal officers or assistants? That is just simply incorrect. Furthermore, they're not prohibited from being assigned to other duty positions or participating in other CAP activities, including ES.

If I remember correctly CAP chaplains themselves pushed to make sure that they were part of the PD program in some way.  They understood the value of having the same training as everyone else.

Our unit chaplain doesn't have any other duty positions in the squadron, but does participate in PD for the Chaplain Specialty Track. He also participates in ES and it's a qualified aircrew member.

EDITED FOR GRAMMAR

[capchiro]

Stormchaser, you noted, "CAPR 20-1 allows for legal officers to be assigned to squadrons and groups as squadron or group legal officers. If you read the duty description in this regulation, you will see that a legal officer can do much more at the local level that just represent the corporation. As an example, they serve in unit membership boards, render legal opinions regarding CAP activities, assist the unit safety officer in conducting investigations, develop relationships with other local agencies, etc. Where do you get that they're always assigned as wing legal officers or assistants? That is just simply incorrect. Furthermore, they're not prohibited from being assigned to other duty positions or participating in other CAP activities, including ES."

I will find the citation for you.  Although they can assist at Squadron and Group levels, they are all assigned as Assistant Wing Legal officers and their primary responsibility is representing Corporate, not Wing, not Group, nor Squadron.  A squadron commander that is in trouble with corporate will soon find that the legal officer working with his squadron will not and can not assist him.  A CAP legal officers only client is Corporate.  I, too, was surprised to find this out.  They may very well fill in other positions, but they should be aware that as long as they are legal officers, duly appointed by the Wing legal officer, their first duty is to Corporate CAP and not the local squadron..  Once they drop the legal officer status, they are free to do as they want.

CAPR-111:
3. Qualifications of Legal Officers. "Legal officer" means a CAP senior member and licensed attorney who has Civil Air Patrol as a client.

4. Duties of Legal Officers.
a. Fiduciary Duty. Civil Air Patrol is the client of each and every attorney assigned as a legal officer.

All CAP Legal Officers are appointed by Wing Commander after review by the Legal officer at Wing or a higher level if appointment is for Wing or Above.  National, region and wing legal officers shall be responsible for managing legal officers assigned to their respective headquarters and the unit legal officers of the headquarters immediately below them.  Squadron commanders do not have authority over legal officers.   

[Storm Chaser]

@ capchiro

I'm not a legal officer or expert in legal matters, so I will defer to you on that. However, I still stand by what I said about you making assumptions that "[a] lawyer does not normally deal with search and rescue." And that "[m]ost are not interested in spending the night in the woods or running a cadet squadron." That may be your opinion, but I doubt that represents the sentiment of ALL lawyers that join CAP. Unless there's a regulation that prohibits legal officers from participating in other duty positions or CAP activities (if there is, please cite), I will assume that they can and that many do.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Both capchiro and stormchaser are correct.

Think it this way. Not all the lawyers that join CAP end up appointed as Legal Officers, approved as an unit Legal Officer. In this case Storms' assumptions and allegations are correct. But for those that do end as Legal Officers, their behavior must be, as Chiro states.

However for even those Legal Officers there is nothing that prohibits them from doing what Storm states. In this case those that are appointed at Group and below, they have to remember they wear two hats. It will not be the first time, nor the last...

Flyer

[Storm Chaser]

Members serving as legal officers are encouraged to accept and serve in other additional assignments, to the extent permitted by their professional responsibilities. Legal officers shall also report to the commander of the unit to which they are assigned for receipt of specific tasking as a legal officer as well as for assignments not related to their status as a legal officer (emergency services missions and government relations assignments are examples of these).

[capchiro]

You are correctemundo, however, their first duty, if they are appointed as legal officers is corporate matters and sometimes conflicts happen.  A Commander that encourages thinking outside the box will quickly presnt a conflict to our legal officer.  Were you aware that a legal officer may not represent a CAP member brought up on 2B charges?  Try explaining that to a squadron Commander..  A legal officer that resigns his legal position is just another member and can do whatever.  I would hope that if that happened they would want to complete the learning tracts for their own good.  Further if they are no longer serving in the legal officer position they are not entitiled to promotion without completing said tracts..   It makes it hard for a legal officer to step down until they make Lt.Col.   

[Ned]

My personal experience may be helpful here.

I was in CAP for over 10 years before I went to law school, working as a CP officer.

After law school and working as a prosecutor for a couple of years I was assigned as a Group Legal Officer (IAOD).  The Legal Officer workload was fairly minor compared to my CP duties, and mostly consisted of answering questions from squadron commanders and the occasional review of leases and contracts.  Maybe a couple hours a month on average. 

I had completed SLS and CLC along the way.  I received RSC credit by attending (and teaching at) a week long Legal Officers College.

I had to stop working as a legal officer in early 1992 when my license was suspended and I was forbidden to practice law.  I kept working in CP at the wing, region, and national levels.

So, pretty much everyone is right concerning legal officer duties:

From an ethics / professional responsibility standpoint, CAP, Inc is the client for every legal officer.  As a practical matter, there are relatively few instances where that matters when dealing with members.

Legal officers can and do frequently perform other duties.  I don't have the numbers to back this up, but my guess is that lawyers in general have pilot's licenses and own aircraft at a higher percentage than, say, restaurant workers or real estate agents.  Accordingly, they often available to serve as CAP aircrew.  And all things being equal, anyone with a lot of aviation experience and intimate knowledge of CAP rules and regulations can be a good candidate for a command slot.

Not surprisingly, we have a fair number of lawyers serving as wing and higher commanders.  We have had lawyers serve as our national commander.

I am not trying to suggest that lawyers are better, more talented, smarter, or whatever than all of our other terrific members.  (Indeed, there is a lot of truth in all of those "lawyer jokes" that we've all heard.)

My point is that they can be as talented and versatile as any of our non-lawyer members.

And we are happy to use their generous volunteer services in any capacity they choose to work in.



Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

[Devil Doc]

Appreciate you Response NED. If you dont mind, can you tell us how you lost you Legal License? I hope it wasnt from an CAP Issue.

[JeffDG]

Appreciate you Response NED. If you dont mind, can you tell us how you lost you Legal License? I hope it wasnt from an CAP Issue.

Off the top of my head, and this is based on nothing more than what I've seen publicly about him, he probably had to surrender it upon being elevated to the bench.

[Storm Chaser]

Appreciate you Response NED. If you dont mind, can you tell us how you lost you Legal License? I hope it wasnt from an CAP Issue.

Off the top of my head, and this is based on nothing more than what I've seen publicly about him, he probably had to surrender it upon being elevated to the bench.

I've never heard that a judge had to "surrender" their legal license to be a judge. Then again, every jurisdiction is different. Now, Ned said that his license "was suspended and [he] was forbidden to practice law". To me, that sounds different than surrendering it. I guess we'll have to wait until Ned tells us the story, if he so chooses to.

[Ned]

Subtle judge humor.  Sorry about that.

In California, full time bench officers are not permitted to practice law.  Our license is suspended and goes into "inactive status". 

The good news is that I don't have to pay State Bar dues, currently over $400 annually.

When I retire from the bench, I may resume the practice of law by paying the dues and catching up on my MCLE.

Sorry to distract from the thread.

[JeffDG]

Appreciate you Response NED. If you dont mind, can you tell us how you lost you Legal License? I hope it wasnt from an CAP Issue.

Off the top of my head, and this is based on nothing more than what I've seen publicly about him, he probably had to surrender it upon being elevated to the bench.

I've never heard that a judge had to "surrender" their legal license to be a judge. Then again, every jurisdiction is different. Now, Ned said that his license "was suspended and [he] was forbidden to practice law". To me, that sounds different than surrendering it. I guess we'll have to wait until Ned tells us the story, if he so chooses to.

OK, remember I'm a foreigner here.

But where I'm from, a lawyer gives up his right to practice law when appointed to the bench.  It's considered inappropriate for judges to practice law in front of other judges.

So, suspending the license makes sense.  Should he step down, or otherwise leave the bench, then I presume the license would be reinstated as a matter of course.  Well, I guess the circumstances of "otherwise leaving the bench" could make that less routine, but for someone who leaves honourably, I would expect that it would be highly unlikely to be be denied.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Ned-

Although sometimes I personally joke about threads being sidelined about other issues, I do not really mean that as I always appreciate a little opportunity, here and there, to learn a little beyond issues under discussion. No need to apologize...

Flyer

[Storm Chaser]

In California, full time bench officers are not permitted to practice law.  Our license is suspended and goes into "inactive status".

Well, that answers our question. Thank you, sir.

But where I'm from, a lawyer gives up his right to practice law when appointed to the bench.  It's considered inappropriate for judges to practice law in front of other judges.

I guess I've been watching too much 'Law & Order'. 

[capchiro]

Ned, that is strange since a Federal Judge I know is required to maintain his state license while he is a Judge.  I guess he could continue to be a CAP Legal Officer and you couldn't?  The more I learn the wierder it gets..

[SARDOC]

Ned, that is strange since a Federal Judge I know is required to maintain his state license while he is a Judge.  I guess he could continue to be a CAP Legal Officer and you couldn't?  The more I learn the wierder it gets..

The Federal Judges Code of Conduct allows Judges to participate in extrajudicial activities for certain things noted in Canon 4.  See the link

http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/CodesOfConduct/CodeConductUnitedStatesJudges.aspx