Organizational Excellence specialty track

[swamprat86]

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/forms_publications__regulations/publications_for_comment.cfm

Has anyone had a chance to look this over?  I am still going through it but I am curious as to what others think.

Once I have finished it and processed the info I will post my thoughts.  Might be a while, reading govt docs before 8 am and coffee takes a little longer to work through.

[Capt_Redfox30]

Yah I noticed that last night, I went through it, not quite sure what it all is.  What I am getting from it is that you are the "Jack Of All Trades" of the program.  Knowledgeable in every aspect of all parts of the program.   

[dwb]

This looks like a great track to groom future commanders.  You need to understand safety and finance, participate in the core missions, and complete senior member PD.  Sounds like a commander training track to me.

It's not for everybody, but this looks like a really good idea for "straight shooters with upper management written all over them".

[jimmydeanno]

I read through it and the sad thing is (other than the horrible flow and organization) it doesn't say what the track is for.  That should be the first line.

Is it to groom future commanders?  I don't know, because there isn't any definition of what an "Organizational Excellence Officer" is.

I like that there is focus on mentoring and it provides a framework for guidance and collaboration.

The requirements are a little weird to me - they're essentially "be a CAP expert in everything."  So in addition to completing requirements for this rating you also have to acquire [master] ratings in multiple other specialty tracks and it's required that you complete level V.

I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with the statement "few will earn the executive rating."  The draft pamphlet requirements (with exception of writing papers) would place more than a few at meeting the requirements for the Master rating right out of the gate.

I wonder what the ribbon will look like 

[cnitas]

I read through the pamphlet.
It looks like an interesting idea to identify, like dwb said;"straight shooters with upper management written all over them". My second impression was that it will codify the GOB system.

You need wing approval just to enroll in the track.

Just my random initial thoughts after reading the document.

[davedove]

I will agree with what others said.  What is this track for?

Just reading through it, it seems it's not really for any particular job, but rather to track those who pursue a variety of CAP disciplines.  This looks more like a checklist of things one might look at to choose an upper level commander rather than a specialty track.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

The rest of our tracks are about doing a job. There was a commander's track that had no requirements I could ever find. We've got CAPPs that refer to regulations a decade out of date and this is a priority?

The requirement for a rating in a mission area (AE, CP, ES) are particularly odd and discriminatory. So an IT officer who is an IC and spends a week every year at encampment is not contributing to Organizational Excellence? All speciality tracks are equal but some more than others?

[jimmydeanno]

Phil,

I don't think that was the intent at all - the point isn't to discriminate or make specialties more or less than another.  However, it is important to recognize that there are support fields - which something like IT would qualify as.

I don't think that you can argue that the IT specialty is on par with that of an actual mission. 

But, I agree with you that the other tracks are about doing a specific job, specializing in a specific area (specialty track, that's the point right?) - this one is broad and focuses on specializing in almost everything.

You example above meets the concept of organizational excellence, but since we don't know what an OEO's purpose is...

[jeders]

All I have to say is, Organizational Exellence Officer, WTF???

Do they actually have monkeys at type writers trying to write Shakespeare and ythis is the first draft? I get that it's meant as a commander's specialty track, I think I recall a NB or NEC meeting talking about that. But they could at least title it something like Command Specialty Track or Executive Specialty track or something that gives you some idea of what it is. And what's with the 4 levels?

[Duke Dillio]

And what's with the 4 levels?

Just a guess but I would say maybe squadron, group, wing, and region?

[MIKE]

Notice how it's CAPP 223.  I'd say it's 222 in disguise.

Hey, wait a minute... CAPP 223 is the Historian track.

[James Shaw]

I see this as a vetting process on paper. I have heard about this and think it is a great idea. This to me is a Commanders Track, someone who wants to be in command and is willing to do the work for it. It also helps to keep a balance on those who may be "magically" promoted from Captain to Wing Commander without the proper preperation or training.

I like the multi participation requirements for all areas of CAP missions. I have always felt that a commander should have experience to some level in all three.

[tarheel gumby]

I see this as a vetting process on paper. I have heard about this and think it is a great idea. This to me is a Commanders Track, someone who wants to be in command and is willing to do the work for it. It also helps to keep a balance on those who may be "magically" promoted from Captain to Wing Commander without the proper preperation or training.

I like the multi participation requirements for all areas of CAP missions. I have always felt that a commander should have experience to some level in all three.

Ditto

[NC Hokie]

I'll echo the previous two posters with one caveat.  If this is intended to be a commanders track, why confuse the issue with a name like Organizational Excellence Officer?  That doesn't say future commander to me.  Use one of jeders' suggested names; if you don't like those, I'll suggest Command Officer Specialty Track.

[lordmonar]

Because Command Officer Track is a little presumpusous for a lowly 1st Lt. 

It is a great tool for grooming your up and comming officers.

I kind of like it.....but I have got to read it more in depth for a final verdict.

[swamprat86]

Along with the other items mentioned, I have noticed that some of the requirements for the various levels are the same requirements for complete some of the PD levels, things such as staff experience, public presentations.

I think that we may be better served integrating parts of this into the existing PD levels, minus the command specific portions.

[Trung Si Ma]

I consider the title a red herring.  This is the command track, but with a different name during the comment and vetting periods.

My question is are they going to count prior execution of the safety briefs, presentations, school instructor tasks or are they going to only count the ones that you do once you are approved for the track?  I'd like to see them only count them if they are done after you are enrolled in one of the levels of the track.

Additionally, are we now going to see "executive" levels produced in the existing tracks?  Some way to get us grey beards involved in keeping out skills up to date?  An example is that my CP Master Rating was completed in 1977 and it is no longer relative.

[James Shaw]

I consider the title a red herring.  This is the command track, but with a different name during the comment and vetting periods.

My question is are they going to count prior execution of the safety briefs, presentations, school instructor tasks or are they going to only count the ones that you do once you are approved for the track?  I'd like to see them only count them if they are done after you are enrolled in one of the levels of the track.

Additionally, are we now going to see "executive" levels produced in the existing tracks?  Some way to get us grey beards involved in keeping out skills up to date?  An example is that my CP Master Rating was completed in 1977 and it is no longer relative.

I do believe it said something about it being retroactive in the main 25 page description.

[lordmonar]

How do you mean "we may be better served"?

I think the point to this specialty track is to broaden the horizons of our command officers and those who may seek command.

Notice how it makes you get tech levels in all three mission sets, notice how it makes you learn about safety, finance, and public affairs.

And it does this on a volunteer basis.

If you like being an just a Cadet Programs guy....you can....no need to learn all that other stuff.  But if you have been tapped for future command you now have a plan on how to get up to speed and be ready to take command and continue to approve getting you ready for higher command.

I don't think there is any cabal ...or that they are trying to sneak anything past us....it is just a generic name for those who want to help the organisation improve and it opens it up for everyone...not just those people in command.

[Trung Si Ma]

This is what I sent my wing commander for inclusion in the Wing's official comments:

Comments on Draft CAPP 223 Organizational Excellence Specialty Track Study Guide.

Overall, an interesting concept and I intend to submit my application as soon as it is finalized.

Somewhere in this document, "grandfathering" needs to be addressed.  You have to grandfather the AEPSM and the completion of the PD levels since they can only be completed once, but something must be done about those of us with ancient specialty track completion dates.  Some sort of requirement for me to update my 1970's and 1980's Cadet Programs, Aerospace Education, and Emergency Services Master Ratings is needed.  One possibility is to require persons with existing core mission ratings to "re-qualify" if the master rating is more than five years old while recognizing that they have already met the "time-in-service" requirements.  Without this consideration, I am eligible for the Senior Rating as soon as I take a UCC and I don't believe that that is in accordance with the spirit of the proposed specialty track.

I am not going to discuss the Executive Rating since all of its requirements are subjective rather than objective, but I will ask if there are plans for Executive ratings in all of the other specialty tracks?

1.  There is already a CAPP 223, so this one will have to be renumbered.  I believe that this is actually going to end up being the Commander Specialty Track, so it will probably be renumbered to CAPP 222.

2.  Page 8, paragraph numbered 1 discusses that the wing commander will appoint an Organizational Excellence Committee (OEC) and farther down the page, it talks about appointing mentors.  I believe that the proper way to do this is to appoint six people with command experience who have completed level V to the OEC and as mentors.  A quorum would be the five members who are not the individual's mentor.  I would require a "super majority" of 80% for a recommendation to go forward to you.  The member with the NAY vote should be forced to provide a written statement for attachment to the CAPF 40 so that you would see why they disapproved.

3.  Page 14, the first Knowledge, Training and Performance Requirement is that the member "Demonstrate to the assigned mentor the knowledge of CAP customs, courtesies, and proper wear of the CAP uniform." This is a Level I requirement and should be eliminated.  If the desire is to increase the awareness of proper uniform standards, then this requirement should be changed to "Present a class on CAP Customs and Courtesies at a wing or region conference" as one requirement and a second one saying basically the same thing about a class on proper uniform wear.

4.  Page 14, the sixth requirement under Knowledge, Training and Performance Requirements specifically mentions the completion of the CAP Senior Officer Correspondence Course.  Does this mean that anyone who completed Level II without taking ECI-13 will have to take it now?  I did mine in 1975 as ECI-7C but many of our members have had the course waived by attending other military courses.  Are we "grandfathered"?

5.  Page 15, the first requirement under Service Requirements states:  "One year effective staff service at the squadron, group, wing, region, or National level, as documented by the student's mentor on the CAPF 40, and with a letter of recommendation from the student's immediate commander. If serving at the wing, region or National level, the letter of recommendation must be counter-signed by the appropriate Chief of Staff."  This should be modified to require that this service requirement happen after enrollment in the OE specialty track.

6.  Page 15, the second requirement under Service Requirements states: "Effective participation at group, wing, region, or National level activities."  This is a subjective rather than an objective requirement.  Some sort of quantifiable measure needs to be derived and published.  If it is important, we should be able to measure it.

7.   Page 15, the fourth requirement under Service Requirements states: "Serve as an instructor, staff member, or director at one of the courses/activities listed in CAPR 50-17, Attachment 14, Instructor, Staff, Director Course/Activity Opportunities."  This should be modified to require that this service requirement happen after enrollment in the OE specialty track.

8.  Page 18, the last requirement under Service Requirements states: "Mentor a new CAP member to at least the Technician Level in one of CAP's specialty tracks."  This should be moved to the Technician Rating and the Master Rating requirement to "Mentor a candidate to completion of Senior Level in a Specialty Track." be substituted for this requirement.  This ensures that the OE Specialty Track candidates are current in the professional development program.

9.  Page 19, the fifth requirement under Knowledge, Training and Performance Requirements requires attendance at two National Board meetings.  Will there be a policy granting preferred seating in the NB meeting for non-NB members who are working on the OE Specialty Track?

10.  Page 20, the third requirement under Service Requirements states: "Effectively conduct a squadron, group or wing level safety seminar/briefing." without specifying how do determine the effectiveness of the seminar / briefing.  Since the same requirement on page 17 for the Senior Rating does not specify that the seminar / briefing be conducted "effectively" does it mean that an ineffective safety meeting / seminar is acceptable for the senior rating?

11.  There are no requirements for Inspections or Complaints in this program. 

a.  Recommend that the following be added to the Service Requirements for the Technician Level:

"Demonstrate to the mentor a thorough understanding of the CAP Complaints resolution process"

"Serve as a member of a Subordinate Unit Inspection Team since becoming enrolled in the Technician Level of the OE Specialty Track"

b.  Recommend that the following be added to the Service Requirements for the Senior Level:

"Serve as an Investigating Officer for a complaint since becoming enrolled in the OE Specialty Track."

"Serve as the leader of a Subordinate Unit Inspection Team since becoming enrolled in the Senior Level of the OE Specialty Track.  Attach the SUI Report to the CAPF 1A."

c.  Recommend that the following be added to the Service Requirements for the Master Level:

"Complete the Senior Level classroom instruction conducted by the National Inspector General Section."