NCO Program Launched

[Ned]

Maybe it is time for someone who is in a high control position within this organization to come on here and help dispel some "end of the world" theories.. Cough cough Ned cough cough...

Colleagues,

I haven't said anything up to this point because, like you, I have not been briefed on the program.  I believe that significantly inhibits my ability to contribute to this conversation.  Obviously, most of the contributors to this thread feel differently and are comfortable dealing with guesswork and speculation. 

I may be old fashioned, but it would perhaps save us some collective angst and consternation if we could wait and actually look at the AF-approved program before commenting and offering suggestions / alternatives.  I may not know the specifics of the program, but I do know it was studied carefully and approved at the Air Staff level.  I have great respect and trust for our AF colleagues.  I would also counsel thread participants to carefully consider our Core Value of Respect when commenting.

I expect that there will be implementing regulations, and that the drafts of those regulations will be posted for the normal comment period.  Once we know the specifics, we will all be in a much better position to comment.

Ned Lee

[Майор Хаткевич]

My suggestion.  An update to usafaux2004's previous work... 

Those look great!

[RiverAux]

Ned you were right about the first 20 pages of the thread and I tried (and failed) to limit my participation.  But, I think the powerpoint is clear enough for us to understand what is being done and the reviews don't look good so far. 

[Tim Medeiros]

I see the logic of limiting the number of SMSgts and CMSgts, but I don't see the need to limit MSgts. If NHQ doesn't want too many of them, then why not just make the grade harder to attain?

As it stands now, it's quite simple. Move your MSgt buddy to unit B, while Unit A has TSgt promote. move MSgt back to unit A when done. Repeat for unit B moving guys to unit A to get the "at time of promotion" slot open.

I see this happening a lot if the system as posted goes in.  TSgt's going to Group HQ to get their 6th stripe, then right back down after a "successful" tour of 3-6 months.  Even though they are at Group, they still would go to their local meetings, etc.  Just "off the books".

Bleh.  The NCO idea had such possibilities.

My interpretation of the "minimum tenure" column says that timeline would be prevented.

I think they mean TIG.

Then why have TIG listed in the slide posted before it?

[AlphaSigOU]

And where is the link to this PowerPoint? (I may have overlooked it in the flood of messages in this thread...)

[jimmydeanno]

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like this is coming out a bit backwards.

With something like this that could have dramatic implications on our entire organization, there sure is a lot of silence.  Large policy matters usually have some sort of "this is what we are trying to pass" announcement that precedes their approval.

"This is what we're proposing in regards to texting and driving laws."

"This is what is being sent to Congress for Healthcare reform."

"The company is planning to implement the following changes to our HR systems, we'll let you know when the changes are official."

In our case, we have "The Air Staff has approved that we have a new NCO program." 

The entire membership goes, "WHAT!? Where did this come from?"  Then they start searching for details, of which...there are none.  No draft regulations, no white paper on the background thoughts behind the change, nothing but a few powerpoint slides that, like most powerpoint slides, have no real detail as to what the heck is going on.

If it's so awesome, and going to be such great thing, can we at least get a background paper or something - surely there was one when the justification was being drawn up and sent to the Air Staff, no?

I'm not trying to be a naysayer, but without at least a modicum of detail on what the heck the plan is, all we are doing is setting the program up for failure because everyone is going to speculate as to what the program is going to be, what it isn't going to be, what its goals are, and it is going to have a sour taste in peoples' mouths before it even has a draft regulation to work from.

[RiverAux]

I do not see any disclaimers that do not allow me to post this, so here goes...

This is the post with the powerpoint. 

With something like this that could have dramatic implications on our entire organization, there sure is a lot of silence. 

C'mon now.  I don't like what is being proposed, but the development of an NCO "program" has been on the national agenda for years (3-5?) now.  We've extensively discussed it here many times since.  Now, the details of what is being proposed are brand new to everyone, but that was always going to be the case when they finally decided on what they wanted to propose. 

[jimmydeanno]

C'mon now.  I don't like what is being proposed, but the development of an NCO "program" has been on the national agenda for years (3-5?) now.  We've extensively discussed it here many times since.  Now, the details of what is being proposed are brand new to everyone, but that was always going to be the case when they finally decided on what they wanted to propose.

There is a big difference between having something on the agenda and what comes out in the details.  My point is that if this has been on the agenda for years, and a proposal has been sent to and approved by the Air Staff, there has to be some sort of "detail" outlining its purpose, mission, problem its solving, etc.  I'm not talking about how someone gets promoted, I'm talking the strategic perspective of why CAP needs to have an NCO corps: the argument presented to the Air Staff for approval.

I could care less what the stripes look like.  From a command perspective, if you want buy-in from commanders and want them to tout the party line and give the program the support it needs, there has to be the sales pitch.  Where is it?  I sat in on a briefing at NSC where the idea was pitched, and the same wishy-washy presentation was given that we see today.  Words like "Respect" and "Honor" were thrown around, but no -meat- was given, even from the guy with the idea in the first place.

[RogueLeader]

In our case, we have "The Air Staff has approved that we have a new NCO program." 

The entire membership goes, "WHAT!? Where did this come from?"  Then they start searching for details, of which...there are none.  No draft regulations, no white paper on the background thoughts behind the change, nothing but a few powerpoint slides that, like most powerpoint slides, have no real detail as to what the heck is going on.

If it's so awesome, and going to be such great thing, can we at least get a background paper or something - surely there was one when the justification was being drawn up and sent to the Air Staff, no?

I'm not trying to be a naysayer, but without at least a modicum of detail on what the heck the plan is, all we are doing is setting the program up for failure because everyone is going to speculate as to what the program is going to be, what it isn't going to be, what its goals are, and it is going to have a sour taste in peoples' mouths before it even has a draft regulation to work from.

I have a fairly detailed document that talks about what is going on, and I'm checking to see if i can release it.  I will let you know if I can or cannot.

[NCRblues]

I have a fairly detailed document that talks about what is going on, and I'm checking to see if i can release it.  I will let you know if I can or cannot.

No offense at all, but why would the document in question be super squirrel secret if a random squadron CC in Wyoming has it?

[RogueLeader]

I have a fairly detailed document that talks about what is going on, and I'm checking to see if i can release it.  I will let you know if I can or cannot.

No offense at all, but why would the document in question be super squirrel secret if a random squadron CC in Wyoming has it?

Well, I do happen to be a Commander of a squadron that a vast majority of the Senior Members are AD Military, and about half of those are NCOs.

Not to mention that all of the CC's in Wyoming have it.

[Ned]

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like this is coming out a bit backwards.

No, I think it is pretty much just you.   

With something like this that could have dramatic implications on our entire organization, there sure is a lot of silence. 

I'm not sure why you think that a modification to our existing NCO program would have "drastic implications on our entire organization."  As others have pointed out, we have had NCOs since WWII.  Our program has been modified significantly several times in the last 70 years or so without any appreciable overall effect on CAP.  There is certainly nothing to suggest that the latest approved changes will have any more or less effect than the previous changes.

I'm not trying to be a naysayer, but without at least a modicum of detail on what the heck the plan is, all we are doing is setting the program up for failure because everyone is going to speculate as to what the program is going to be, what it isn't going to be, what its goals are, and it is going to have a sour taste in peoples' mouths before it even has a draft regulation to work from.

Really?  Not trying to be a naysayer? 

I suppose anyone is free to speculate about what the next 10 changes in CAP regulations are going to be.  Perhaps that is human nature.

But I am disappointed that any CAP officer would not approach a change in an existing program that has been approved not only by our senior leadership but the Air Staff as well with an attitude like "I don't know any of the details now, but when the draft regulations are posted for comment, I will offer my best advice.  And when the implementing regulations are issued, I will support them and do my best to implement them."

Seriously, isn't that the duty of every CAP officer?

[Eclipse]

I'm not sure why you think that a modification to our existing NCO program would have "drastic implications on our entire organization."

And that pretty much sums up the issue.

[AirAux]

This is the same type of stuff we went through when we discussed this before, along with the Iowa Wing plan to change everything we ever did..  Along with the Pineda fiasco.  If I recall correctly, Chief was behind this before and it does seem to be very personality driven.  If I remember correctly, this would affect as few as 40 or so current NCOs??  Having been in CAP for over 35 years I can't personally name two NCOs that I have seen in CAP that wanted to remain NCOs.  They all seem happy to receive their officership.  This seems to be an answer to a problem that isn't there.  If I remember some of the good things about NCOs it was that they did the job without causing friction.  I doubt that a good NCO would come to join and then say, well if I can't wear my stripes (and continue to get promoted) then I will just take my ball and bat and go home.  That would sound much more like a new Lieutenant than a seasoned NCO.  Considering the financial problems we are having I just don't see a need for this program.  But then again, I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time. 

Oh, Ned, where would we be if everyone would have supported Pineda based on your philosophy.  You should know that just because a law is passed, it may not be a good law and someone needs to speak up against it and work to get it changed.

[RiverAux]

Ned, you know as well as anyone that by the time a draft regulation is being reviewed by the membership that it is a done deal that it is going to happen.  The ONLY way CAP membership has to impact something before it is decided by the leadership is to voice strenuous opposition to it on CAPTalk.

We barely have the opportunity to fix silly mistakes in draft regulations since comments are generally stovepiped in the chain of command.  A comment saying, "this change is a bad idea" is not going anywhere. 

[AirAux]

"No offense at all, but why would the document in question be super squirrel secret if a random squadron CC in Wyoming has it?"

"Not to mention that all of the CC's in Wyoming have it."

So, instead of the old IOWA plan it is now going to be the WYOMING PLAN... 

Geeesh, what is it with the midwest??

[RiverAux]

If I remember correctly, this would affect as few as 40 or so current NCOs??

Think I saw something that it was about 100 not that long ago.  So, yes, there are effectively no NCOs in CAP right now.  However, the potential market is probably quite large, but assumes that many former NCOs now serving as officers are going to demote themselves now that they have the ability to promote as a NCO -- a dubious assumption at best. 

[RogueLeader]

A comment saying, "this change is a bad idea" is not going anywhere.

As it should be, if that's all the comment is.  If you have a detailed explanation of why it is a bad change, and how to fix whatever issue it was trying to solve . . .usually gets a better reception.

[RiverAux]

A comment saying, "this change is a bad idea" is not going anywhere.

As it should be, if that's all the comment is.  If you have a detailed explanation of why it is a bad change, and how to fix whatever issue it was trying to solve . . .usually gets a better reception.

Well, I was summarizing, but my experience does not provide any evidence that a well-thought objection to a proposal or even current program ever gets beyond Wing Commander. 

[RogueLeader]

"No offense at all, but why would the document in question be super squirrel secret if a random squadron CC in Wyoming has it?"

"Not to mention that all of the CC's in Wyoming have it."

So, instead of the old IOWA plan it is now going to be the WYOMING PLAN... 

Geeesh, what is it with the midwest??

No, it is not the Wyoming plan.   

There was traffic from Utah and Idaho.  So, I'm stepping out on a limb, and speculate its going around certain circles all across the nation.  The powerpoint from PA is an example of this.