CAC "Positions"

[kpetersen]

Your cadet commander should be the squadron representative to the wing CAC anyway and is thus eligible for the cord and ribbon.

Sorry, but I didn't want to get called on for being off topic .

Personally, I prefer to NOT have the current cadet commander be on the CAC.  The regs have no requirements that it be the C/CC (officer, if available), and frankly, cadet commanders are too busy worrying about their own squadron to worry about trying to attend meetings and plan activities (depending on what the wing or other echelon requests of the CAC).  I prefer having a cadet that has just recently stepped down as cadet commander because 1) they're kind of lost in the adviser role, and need something to do, 2) they have a bit more leadership experience than current cadet commanders.  That's also why for my wing's CAC, we let the CAC chair serve as the alternate to the region, and the former chair as the primary (except where the chair is requested to not be allowed to stay on region CAC, but that's a different story).

That's my 2 cents on CAC, any others?

[jimmydeanno]

I agree with that, it sounds like you have the makings of a good CAC program.  Good work!

[mikeylikey]

^ I don't understand......your Chair of the CAC is not the primary REP for the Region CAC?  He or she should be the Primary Rep.  Sounds to me like you let the previous CAC rep be primary because you like him or her better.  Or it is some "this is how we always have done it" thing.

[MIKE]

I think reps should be elected versus appointed... particularly those above squadron level.... Officers should be elected from the pool of primary representatives at that echelon.  Elected officers should be obligated to serve as representatives at the next echelon.  i.e. Wing chair is representative to Region with vice, recorder serving as alternate/proxy.

[CASH172]

There is no set guideline on who goes to Region CAC from Wing CAC.  My wing has a slot elected just for the region rep job. 

[DNall]

Yeah, we don't have the chair serve by default as the rep to the next level either. It seems like it'd make sense if we did, but it doesn't for good reason. The Gp level CAC reps are SNCOs & Jr Officers. They are the up & coming people from their Sqs that run the mid-scale stuff on a Gp lvl. The Wg Rep is almost always a C/field grade officer with several years more experience & involvement with CAC, as is the region rep. The Gp lvl folks are gaining a lot of valuable experience & it's getting spread around to more people each year, but they aren't generally ready for the Wg or higher level, and they are far too busy locally to be a decent advocate at the next level.

[BlackKnight]

Applicable CAC regulations from CAPR 52-16 Section 3-2:

c. CAC Officers. The CAC will have a cadet chairperson and a vice chairperson and/or recorder. The echelon commander may appoint cadets to these positions, or allow the council to fill them through elections.
(1) To be appointed or elected chairperson, the cadet should have served on the CAC during the previous term. This promotes continuity between councils.
(2) For the national CAC, the National Commander appoints the chairperson, upon the recommendation of the senior member advisor.
(3) If a primary representative is elected or appointed chairperson, the commander of the affected unit should appoint another cadet to replace him or her as the unit's primary representative.

It would seem that the spirit of paragraph (3) supports the convention in kpetersen's wing.  If a cadet is the wing CAC chair, he or she really doesn't have time to also be the primary CAC rep to region. There's no particular requirement that the same cadet hold both the wing chair position and the region primary representative slot. Share the workload and experience and get better results overall. Let the previous chairman be the region rep when possible.

[Pace]

Sounds to me like you let the previous CAC rep be primary because you like him or her better.  Or it is some "this is how we always have done it" thing.

This right here is how flame wars start (and I assure you that I'm ready to throw it all in on this one).

1. You have no basis for such a rash accusation.
2. The most efficiently run CACs I've ever observed had a separate person (usually the former chair or vice chair, but theoretically could be anyone who meets the requirements).
3. This system allows for more people to gain leadership experience.
4. This system prevents a monopoly where one person is controlling the wing CAC and simultaneously having a hand in region CAC affairs.
5. This frees the wing CAC chair to do their job, and it frees up the region CAC rep to do theirs.
6. Most importantly, in the midst of criticizing others so rudely, you gave no support (either through reg/manual cites or persuasive argument) for your belief whatsoever.

Flame or No Flame?  Your choice.

[DNall]

play nice

[nesagsar]

Well we didnt have much of a choice. Our squadron hadent had an officer in 15 years. That cadet was the squadron commanders son and he also was the only cadet to ever reach Spaatz. I was the cadet commander and I was also the only cadet to ever go to an encampment.

[Tim Medeiros]

Personally, I like the setup that kpetersen's wing has, ensures continuity and that the chair isn't bogged down with too much work, basically for all the reasons listed by dcpacemaker.

[mikeylikey]

6. Most importantly, in the midst of criticizing others so rudely, you gave no support (either through reg/manual cites or persuasive argument) for your belief whatsoever.

Flame or No Flame?  Your choice.

I was under the impression that we can criticize here?  Am I mistaken, or did you just decide that because you don't agree with me (which you are allowed to do) that you would bash me?  Why do I have to cite regs and make an argument for a brief statement of what I believe?  Is that in the CAPTALK rules, and I missed it?  I was not trying to start a "Flame War", but I suspect that is what you expect. 

I think you Sir are the one that wanted to start a "Flame War", but I am a better man than that, and I will not be drawn into your tempting, but otherwise useless attempt to show that you are the.....

Dark S'Member Lord

Whatever that means.

Just remember I don't hate you.  Even if you hate me!   

[nesagsar]

My group had a huge terrirtory but only 2 squadrons in it. We figured it wouldnt be nescessary to have group level CAC's.

[Pace]

I was under the impression that we can criticize here?  Am I mistaken, or did you just decide that because you don't agree with me (which you are allowed to do) that you would bash me?  Why do I have to cite regs and make an argument for a brief statement of what I believe?  Is that in the CAPTALK rules, and I missed it?  I was not trying to start a "Flame War", but I suspect that is what you expect. 

Criticizing is fine.  Being rude and presumptive is not, especially when you have nothing to support such accusations.

I think you Sir are the one that wanted to start a "Flame War", but I am a better man than that, and I will not be drawn into your tempting, but otherwise useless attempt to show that you are the.....

Dark S'Member Lord

Whatever that means.

1. That was an old line I used to have in my signature as a joke.  The admins/mods at the time thought it was so funny they decided to put it in my profile (or whatever it's called).  Again, presumptive without knowing the facts behind the matter.
2. I'm not the one posting derogatory statements about someone you don't even know or a situation you are ill-equipped to opine on or criticize.

Just remember I don't hate you.  Even if you hate me!   

I don't hate you, I just wish you'd be a little less rash in criticizing that which you know nothing about.