If you had the power

[Robert Hartigan]

Well without naval-gazing too much on this penultimate CAPTALK topic, I would flatten the organization! Technology and the number of contributing members does not necessate the expanded hierarchy. Eliminate two echelons. I am pretty sure you could secretly eliminate the Region level and the Group level and no one would notice?

I would also require one and only one duty assignment. It is a tad ridiculous to read some people's signature blocks when they include all their duty assignements like the Squadron Waffle Press Cleaning Officer, the Group Assistance Maple Syrup Tasting Officer and the Wing Director of Griddle Procurement. There is either a problem recruiting able body members to fill all the required jobs or there are too many superfluous jobs.

Oh, and bring back the Guayabera shirt.

[Luis R. Ramos]

From Mr. Hartigan.

Well without navalnavel-gazing... FTFY

Naval, pertainining to ships. Navel, that little hole in the middle of your abdomen. The expression itself is navel-gazing.

[JeffDG]

Well without naval-gazing too much on this penultimate CAPTALK topic, I would flatten the organization! Technology and the number of contributing members does not necessate the expanded hierarchy. Eliminate two echelons. I am pretty sure you could secretly eliminate the Region level and the Group level and no one would notice?

Non-concur.  Both Regions and Groups exist to make span-of-control manageable.  "Technology" often makes Span-of-control more difficult, not less.

If you did this, the National Commander would have 52 Wing Commanders reporting directly to him.  That's simply not a manageable span-of-control for anyone, regardless of the technology.  Some wings would have a worse situation, with more squadrons than that sans groups.  A Wing Commander, per CAPR 20-1, already has 7 people as direct reports (CV, CS, SE, JA, IG, GR, plus the Wing Admin).

[Storm Chaser]

I don't think the problem is so much the current organizational structure, which is needed for an appropriate span of control, but the bureaucracy and convoluted approval process for some things. It doesn't help that every level wants to issue their own set of rules or policies beyond what's in the national regulations.

We also need to streamline many staff functions at the lower levels. We're just not manned to support so many staff functions, hence why most contributing members have between 3-5 duty assignments.

[LSThiker]

We also need to streamline many staff functions at the lower levels. We're just not manned to support so many staff functions, hence why most contributing members have between 3-5 duty assignments.

I would like to hear your thoughts about which ones and how.  However, that is not to say that I disagree with you.  It annoys me when a squadron assigns a member as the unit historian and then when I contact that person, he/she either does not know he/she was or have no real desire to serve in that position.

[CAPDCCMOM]

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, sometimes a person is given a Duty Assignment, then no OTJ. People sometimes don't even know where to look on CAP Members etc etc etc. CAP E-Services is so user friendly, note hint of sarcasm. We also assume that everybody in a Squadron has equal access to internet, in many rural areas this is not the case.

[Holding Pattern]

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, sometimes a person is given a Duty Assignment, then no OTJ. People sometimes don't even know where to look on CAP Members etc etc etc. CAP E-Services is so user friendly, note hint of sarcasm. We also assume that everybody in a Squadron has equal access to internet, in many rural areas this is not the case.

Ah, thank you for reminding me:

Wish list, continued:

16. Make eServices and all CAP websites more user friendly.
17. Create supplemental workflows for all jobs outlined in regulations.

[LSThiker]

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, sometimes a person is given a Duty Assignment, then no OTJ.

No devil's advocate. It happens all of the time.  However, not knowing you were assigned as well as not having the desire to serve in that position are not the result of no OJT. 

[CAPDCCMOM]

Very true, I concur. Better communication and a solution for dealing with "ghost members" would be on my wish list. But that is unit level usually not a CAP issue.

[Robert Hartigan]

If you did this, the National Commander would have 52 Wing Commanders reporting directly to him.  That's simply not a manageable span-of-control for anyone, regardless of the technology.  Some wings would have a worse situation, with more squadrons than that sans groups.  A Wing Commander, per CAPR 20-1, already has 7 people as direct reports (CV, CS, SE, JA, IG, GR, plus the Wing Admin).

You assume you need a wing in every state! There are squadrons in Florida that have more non safety current members than some wings have total members (and for those that are driven to focus only on the most trivial of items like a misplaced vowel this claim might be an exaggeration for illustrative purposes only).  I am pretty sure Rhode Island would work just fine as a squadron.  I contend you could eliminate state driven wings and go more along the lines of a regional wing structure. For example, Great Lakes Wing. One of the many benefits would be cost savings and it would short circuit a lot of political jockeying that plagues the organization.

[Ned]

Robert,

It is certainly reasonable to work towards a system where the "wing-equivalent" units are roughly the same size in terms of membership / units/ or operational responsibilities.

The roadblock, however, is the significant funding that some wings receive from state governments.  I don't have the latest financial report in front of me, but as I recall it amounts to many hundreds of thousands of dollars.

For example, the State of California is much more likely to generously support California Wing rather than something named Northern Sierra Wing.  Even if a Northern Sierra Wing might otherwise make sense to cover the mountainous but lightly populated areas of California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.  Politically, state and local governments will not financially support efforts that might occur outside their jurisdictions.

So until and unless we can find hundreds of thousands of dollars in replacement funds, we will just have to make the "state=wing" model work.  Which it has, of course, for the last 70 years or so.

[Robert Hartigan]

Now, we are at the center of the issue. It is money not span of control. If it is money, then let California Wing stay California Wing. Maybe that is the justification for a wing structures? If your state provides money then you are a wing. If you only get funny license plates then, you are not a wing, you are a Group. Since the National governance structure has changed the whole voting argument is no longer applicable. The only thing left is money. Flatten the org chart. If you want to be a Full Bird Colonel in CAP then get your state to cough up money and you can be a wing commander.

[FW]

^ Robert, that is a good point.  After all, the BSA makes "promotions" based on how much cash you bring into the organization.  Kind of solves two "Bird (cols.) with one stone...

[Holding Pattern]

Oh goody, we can go full circle and start selling commissions!

[CAPDCCMOM]

The Confederacy did that....didn't work out well. They also elected their officers. You can't lead and try to win a popularity contest.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Many Northern militias did elect too... And it worked for them.

What do ya mean?

[CAPDCCMOM]

This is about to go so far off topic, even for CAP Talk. But here we go. Selling promotions should never even be considered when integrity and respect are at stake.

Now back to the Civil War reference. The North would have won the War regardless. They had he newly arrived immigrant population to fill the ranks as soldiers ere killed. They also had the entire North American Manufacturing Center. Then they locked up the South's harbors. The only the thing the South has was agriculture and the best military minds of the time.

[Nolan Teel]

Did I hear.. Wing Director of Griddle Procurement.

Now that's a job I want to hear more about.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Now you are talkin'! It was not selling commissions or electing officers that did in the Confederacy but the other reasons you stated!

[CAPDCCMOM]

I beg to differ. My first stated reasons are the primary reasons the South lost. But there were also many other issues. You had ranks filled with "gentlemen"  that refused to take orders from those they considered beneath them. They also refused, on the basis  of being "gentlemen" to perform what they saw as menial tasks. As a result they died of cholera, measles, and other diseases. The elected officers would not require the "gentlemen" to dig latrines. They did not want to lose the next election.