Main Menu

CAP grades

Started by DNall, November 28, 2006, 01:50:45 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DNall

Quote from: ColonelJack on April 30, 2008, 01:38:52 AM
I couldn't and wouldn't argue with you in that regard.  The problem is, your point (and it's a good one!) is being made about 67 years too late.  The Army Air Forces took CAP into their organization and gave us uniform, grade, etc.  Things change over time, and what may have originally been what you describe has slowly evolved into the system we have now.  And I just don't see The Powers That Be (and that includes the Air Force, which has final say on CAP's grade structure from top to bottom) being at all willing to entertain ideas to change that.

A lot of us have learned about the business cycle at some point in our lives. That's the natural wavy progression of markets (or anything else). It's true that things are different now then they have been, but that hasn't been a nice gently slopping change from one end to the other. It's been way up & down. The very beginning was not the furthest to the other end of the spectrum we've been. That'd be more in the 50s. The current form though, here in the corporate era, is probably the furthest down we've come. I'm arguing that it's time for another swing back the other way in that natural cycle to re-attain the balance we need for the org to reach its potential.

QuoteAs far as signifying progression through what you laughably call "PD" through ribbons, there seems to be a similarly strong thread to do away with many of those, and perhaps represent the levels of PD with various devices on a single ribbon.  Even if professional development is something of a joke, it takes work and time, and should be reflected in some measure.  (You can already tell I like having both grade and ribbons -- one doesn't always wear one's ribbons.)
PD, when done right, is meaningful & should be designated by ribbons. I do agree it can be knocked down to one ribbon with clasps though. It's not saving the world, it's just training to be better at your job. We don't need to be pretentious about it. WE don't need 4 ribbons & we don't need that information on field utility uniforms. Service dress is where you strap your resume to your chest. The rest of the time you show thru your actions - it's generally better for people to underestimate you & then over-perform their expectations.

Quote
QuoteIt has to do with the extreme lack of quality well-trained leader/managers at all levels of the organization, the lack of an adequate program to create them from within, and the lack of a system to select people for positions based on their abilities in this arena.

To accomplish that, we need a top-to-bottom recreation of our PD program and the development of a leader/manager program.  And we would have to have the willingness to accept having potentially necessary positions unmanned if qualified members can't be found.
PD = Exactly.

As far as necessary positions going unmanned....Right now we have units with 10-30 people doing work that you'd expect from a real military unit with 100, including at least one full-time administrator if not a staff. That's nuts. We should consolidate our unit structure. I don't mean reduce the units, but reduce the administration performed at those units. This is back to another thread where I talk about most local unit need to be Flights with 3-5 sharing a single staff. We can train up and maintain an adequate staff to man 20-30% of our current "necessary positions." And we can actually accomplish all the work we're supposed to out of a Sq with that kind of teamwork.

Quote
QuoteThese problems are, IMO, the primary limiting factor that holds CAP back & causes the majority of our problems.
But will recreating our rank structure solve that factor?  The insignia displayed on a member's collar really isn't that big of a deal; the ability of the member to do the job needed at the level of proficiency required is the issue. 

Or did I misunderstand something?

Qualifications, experience, proven record, education, competence, ethics, leadership, etc all go into an individual quality rating if you will. Everyone else in the world entrusts levels of authority according to where people rank in that scale by comparison to both progressive standards & peers. That's what rank its in the military, any fire/police/etc agency, or the corporate world. We display that in uniform with some insignia for rapid recognition of both core ability level & associated authority. That then is the basis for deciding who gets what leadership positions within the org. That's true right now, and it should be true, but only if progression in the program is meaningful. Right now the difference between a LtCol & a Lt is not really meaningful at all in those terms.


As far as theory or willingness of the powers that be, etc... I'm for first & foremost massive revision of the PD program as described. The tie in with rank follows of its own accord. As will selection to leadership positions. Well down the road those ties can be better formalized.

ColonelJack

We actually agree much more than we disagree, Dennis.  I have no issue at all with making rank meaningful.  My thoughts simply run counter to the idea of not having a grade unless you're doing a particular job in a squadron/group/wing/region.  This "flight officer 1-5" nonsense (no offense intended, LordMonar) really rankles me, because a) we are -- nominally -- the auxiliary of the Air Force and should use their grade structure, and they don't have such things; and b) it seems that some espouse tying actual officer grade to ES qualifications.  Well, everyone who joins CAP doesn't join for ES work.  Don't leave them out of the grade structure.

Sorry to intrude; resume your discussions!  Thanks for letting me play.

Jack
Jack Bagley, Ed. D.
Lt. Col., CAP (now inactive)
Gill Robb Wilson Award No. 1366, 29 Nov 1991
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
Honorary Admiral, Navy of the Republic of Molossia

DNall

You know you can play all you want.

You could change his idea to say: 18-21 are Amn-SrA, 21+ are SSgt to CMSgt along the current PD program. Officer grade reserved for positions (both ES & unit).

That's the CGAux model, and it's okay, but I disagree with it. As I said, position comes from rank BECAUSE rank comes from a career track of developed leader/mgr competencies by comparison to others.

You can no more assign a member up from membership to hold an officer position than you can make an A1C a MSgt in the AF & give him lordmonars's job. They simply are not interchangeable. The rank insignia isn't built with zippers on it so anyone can do anything as long as it looks right. It's the quality of the people in the positions that matters.

lordmonar

Two problems with what DNall is saying....in relation to CAP.

One....is that it the system that got us to where we are now.  People hold positions that are grossly out of sync with the grade they are wearing.  Right, wrong, indifferent.  So when you have a 1st Lt (who should only be a 2nd Lt) commanding a squadron with eight Lt Cols, five majors, and a boat load of Capts we end up with the complain that "grade means nothing (other than denoting progression in the PD system).

Two...in the real military you would never give an A1C a MSgt's job....they just can't do it.  CAP is different.  We have people who may only be in CAP for a short time but have a lot of leadership ability.  He may only be a 2d Lt in the CAP PD system but has the ability to lead small to medium squadron with only a little bit of familiarisation training and a competant staff.

In theory we should be wearing the rank before we assume the particular position.  I agree with that 100%.....in a perfect world.  But how many squadrons have 100 people all learning and doing their jobs where you have a pool of highly qualified officers to do the job?  Usually squadrons have maybe 40 to work with.  And the real factor is whether people stand up and take the jobs.

Here is another suggestion.

Leave the system we have now more or less intact....but still tie grade in with positions.   That is you can't ever put on a particular rank with out holding one of the critical jobs appropriate for that rank.

That is you have to hold a squadron level staff postion to be 1st Lt...A squadron deputy/or group staffer to be Capt, Squadron CC to be Major...etc.

No matter what level PD you have.  Still stop the advanced promotions for everyone (including prior military officers).  That way we know each and every Capt you meet has been at least a Group Staffer or squadron deputy commander.  Every Lt Col has been a national staffer or wing vice.

But we still end up with what we do with them once they go back to the squadron.....and how that makes the grade hierarchy all screwed up.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Dragoon

lordmonar is has identified some of our major differences with USAF.

And his suggestion is a good one, and in fact the easiest to implement - simply add a requirement for promotion that you must serve in a position requiring that grade.  It's perhaps the easiest one to implement. 

But, as he points out, it still allows for massive grade inversion, because unlike USAF, CAP officers move up AND down the heirarchy throughout their carreers.

A USAF Major can't say "this job is too hard, I want to keep my oak leaves but just to an Lt's job."  He's only got two choices

1.  Keep doing Major's work.

2.  Retire/Resign.

This ain't gonna work for CAP, for obvious reasons.


Since we can't tie a person's rank to a position we COULD tie a position to a person's rank - pin it on when you're in the job and take it off when you leave.  This would actually be closer to USAF then we are now - the only guys wearing Majors grade would be folks doing Major's work.

Of course, folks don't like getting demoted.  And, as some have pointed out, just handing out rank for position without any connection to training seems a little "off."

So, here's a compromise - tie grade to position AND PD.

Your max grade in a position is a combination of your level of PD and the job you're in.

A level III guy in a Lt Col job?  He only gets Major.  He gets promoted when he makes it to level IV.

A level IV guy in a Captain's job?  He wears captain.  If he moved to a Lt Col job, he'd get his promotion to 05.


These promotions could be temporary (which would motivate folks to keep doing the hard jobs) or permanent (to assuage egos).

But either way, we'd be rewarding both job performance and training, which seems like a good idea.


DNall

Quote from: lordmonar on April 30, 2008, 07:18:50 PM
Two...in the real military you would never give an A1C a MSgt's job....they just can't do it.  CAP is different.  We have people who may only be in CAP for a short time but have a lot of leadership ability.  He may only be a 2d Lt in the CAP PD system but has the ability to lead small to medium squadron with only a little bit of familiarization training and a competant staff.
How is this remotely different than the reserve component?

What happens in CAP is you give the Sq CC job to that LT cause he's dumb enough willing to take it, while the 8 LtCols, etc are not. That says absolutely nothing about LT's ability to perform the job. It is very much the SrA thrown into the MSgt position that they just can't do. As a result, the job gets done for crap, but they don't get fired. That screws programs & retention real fast, not to mention massively limiting our ability to achieve our potential. That is only compounded as you move above Sq level. You apply that situation across the majority of leader/mngr positions in the org... That's exactly where CAP is right now, and why I'm saying this is the cause of the majority of our problems.

IF you just tie grade to position, w/o first tying grade to competence, then you're freely assigning SrA to MSgt positions & vice versa as if all warm bodies are interchangeable, cause the grade is the position & says nothing about the qualifications for it.

QuoteIn theory we should be wearing the rank before we assume the particular position.  I agree with that 100%.....in a perfect world.  But how many squadrons have 100 people all learning and doing their jobs where you have a pool of highly qualified officers to do the job?  Usually squadrons have maybe 40 to work with.  And the real factor is whether people stand up and take the jobs.

This is where I'm saying we're requiring the kind of administration & operations out of a 10-40 person all part-time volunteer unit as is required out of a paid reserve component unit of 100 people with at least one full-time NCO. That's craziness.

This is again where I talk about consolidating unit administration, management, leadership, etc into mini-Gps of 3-5 units. Makes more sense if you call the local units flights & consolidated admin/staff units the Sq, cause that's the echelon level of work they're doing.

Does that make sense? It consolidates from maybe 9 to 20 officer positions down to maybe 4 to 9. And you're filling them now from 100-150 or so people.

Dragoon

Quote from: DNall on April 30, 2008, 08:04:46 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on April 30, 2008, 07:18:50 PM
Two...in the real military you would never give an A1C a MSgt's job....they just can't do it.  CAP is different.  We have people who may only be in CAP for a short time but have a lot of leadership ability.  He may only be a 2d Lt in the CAP PD system but has the ability to lead small to medium squadron with only a little bit of familiarization training and a competant staff.
How is this remotely different than the reserve component?

What happens in CAP is you give the Sq CC job to that LT cause he's dumb enough willing to take it, while the 8 LtCols, etc are not. That says absolutely nothing about LT's ability to perform the job.

It is possible that maybe, just maybe,  if the Lt Col's couldn't keep their grade without filling  Lt Col slots, then they wouldn't just sit in the back and let the LT be the commander.  One or more of them might be interested in doing the job in order to keep their grade.

In other words, perhaps with incentives we can keep the trained, talented guys working hard.  After all, if I can get saluted and called sir all day without actually DOING anything......why bother?

Sounds cynical, but it mimics the real world.  If you want someone to work hard you have to "pay" them.   You don't get a CEO for a mail room worker's salary.   In CAP, the most prestigious "pay" we can give out is USAF grade.  It gets you a title, and various priviledges over those of lesser grade.

Why the heck should we "pay" someone to be a Lt Col who isn't willing to do a Lt Col's job?

(and by the way, that's exactly the position I'm in right now.  Level V 0-5, former Wing Vice, now hanging out in a squadron doing 1st Lt's work.  There is zero reason for me to wear an oak leaf.  And I'd have no problem with a system that said "if you wanna wear it, you gotta do the job.")

RiverAux

Dragoon, I could go for your proposal linking PD, grade, and position in a sort of delayed fashion.  However, I would jump off the bandwagon at the point where you get demoted if you leave the position.  I do think it would be worthwhile to the organization to grant such recognition to folks who have BTDT.  But, as a minor concession I could go so far as to say that you would have to have performed satisfactorily in the position for a given period of time in order to permanently retain the rank (sort of like we do with wing commanders, though I think a longer period would be warranted -- 2 years?  3 years?).

jimmydeanno

Slightly off topic but related, if you were to institute something like this there would need to be a restructuring of the organization as a whole, not just the grades.

For example, you are the wing logistics officer of a wing that only has 500 members and we say that wing staff gets to be Lt Cols.

Move over a wing and they have 4000 members and 5 times the squadrons, that person also gets to be a Lt Col.

A sq cc that has barely enough members to remain a squadron gets to be a Capt.

The group commander for this group (only a group due to geograhical concerns) gets to be a Lt Col and his group comprises of 150 members.

A sq cc that has 200 members gets to be a captain.  This squadron commander, IMO has more responsibility than the group commander above, but isn't recognized for it.

See my point?
If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. - Winston Churchill

lordmonar

Quote from: Dragoon on April 30, 2008, 07:56:49 PM
lordmonar is has identified some of our major differences with USAF.

And his suggestion is a good one, and in fact the easiest to implement - simply add a requirement for promotion that you must serve in a position requiring that grade.  It's perhaps the easiest one to implement. 

But, as he points out, it still allows for massive grade inversion, because unlike USAF, CAP officers move up AND down the hierarchy throughout their careers.

A USAF Major can't say "this job is too hard, I want to keep my oak leaves but just to an Lt's job."  He's only got two choices

1.  Keep doing Major's work.

2.  Retire/Resign.

This ain't gonna work for CAP, for obvious reasons.


Since we can't tie a person's rank to a position we COULD tie a position to a person's rank - pin it on when you're in the job and take it off when you leave.  This would actually be closer to USAF then we are now - the only guys wearing Majors grade would be folks doing Major's work.

Of course, folks don't like getting demoted.  And, as some have pointed out, just handing out rank for position without any connection to training seems a little "off."

So, here's a compromise - tie grade to position AND PD.

Your max grade in a position is a combination of your level of PD and the job you're in.

A level III guy in a Lt Col job?  He only gets Major.  He gets promoted when he makes it to level IV.

A level IV guy in a Captain's job?  He wears captain.  If he moved to a Lt Col job, he'd get his promotion to 05.


These promotions could be temporary (which would motivate folks to keep doing the hard jobs) or permanent (to assuage egos).

But either way, we'd be rewarding both job performance and training, which seems like a good idea.

Dragoon has hit exactly what I was proposing in the first place.

You tie rank to position AND require the appropriate PD level of training.  Because we often have to put someone in the position (say like a new squadron or a group/wing that has an unexpected personnel change) so you give the new guy a time frame to complete the required training.....you could also hold the actual promotion until he get the right PD level.

We use the FO ranks to allow the non-command staffer to play urinary olypmics.....if we want to get away from the FO ranks....USAF NCO ranks could be used.

Amn=Level I
A1C=Technician rating
SRA=Level II
SSgt=Level III
TSgt=Level IIV
MSgt=Level V
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

DNall

Yeah it's possible if grade were linked to position that it would incentivize taking positions, but that doesn't have anything to do with the talent level. Right now, lordmonar is right in that the Lt could be potentially more talented as a leader than any of the LtCols.

I don't give a living crap about grade, or it's association with position. Particularly any need for it to look right or the grade to carry any authority that the position doesn't. What I care about is the qualification of the people in those positions. Right now there is zero link between the two.

What I want is a system by which people are rated based on their advancement through an increasingly difficult & selective internal leader/mgr dev system. And that positions/authority are distributed on that basis with the minimum necessary competence level for each echelon.

In ANY other situation where rank is used, that ^ right there is what defines what rank a person is. In other words, the qualification is the determiner of rank, and so rank relates to position.

I understand you saying "if you wanna wear it you gotta do the job." I'm okay with that, but it's WAY down the priority list. What I'm MUCH more concerned with is no one is capable of adequately doing the job because we don't provide any legitimate training, and no reward for good leaders versus limitations for people that can't do the job.

lordmonar

Jimmeydeano,

Wing staffers would not be Lt Cols...they would all be atleast FO-3s.  Only commanders/vices/deputys would hold "rank".  The Wing PDO officer would have to be at least a FO-3 and his regional counterpart would have to be FO-4.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

lordmonar

Quote from: DNall on April 30, 2008, 11:32:35 PM
Yeah it's possible if grade were linked to position that it would incentivize taking positions, but that doesn't have anything to do with the talent level. Right now, lordmonar is right in that the Lt could be potentially more talented as a leader than any of the LtCols.

I don't give a living crap about grade, or it's association with position. Particularly any need for it to look right or the grade to carry any authority that the position doesn't. What I care about is the qualification of the people in those positions. Right now there is zero link between the two.

What I want is a system by which people are rated based on their advancement through an increasingly difficult & selective internal leader/mgr dev system. And that positions/authority are distributed on that basis with the minimum necessary competence level for each echelon.

In ANY other situation where rank is used, that ^ right there is what defines what rank a person is. In other words, the qualification is the determiner of rank, and so rank relates to position.

I understand you saying "if you wanna wear it you gotta do the job." I'm okay with that, but it's WAY down the priority list. What I'm MUCH more concerned with is no one is capable of adequately doing the job because we don't provide any legitimate training, and no reward for good leaders versus limitations for people that can't do the job.

I understand and agree with you 100%...but that is not the purpose of this particular thread.  I assume for the purpose of this thread that we are putting the round peg in the correct shaped hole.

Requiring the right leadership skill for a particular job is very easy to legislate....but we have trouble seeing the reality because the "right person" for the job just does not stand up and take a swing at it.

So you go with who ever wants it.....

One way to fix that would be to take away the rank of those back room Lt Cols and Majors.   If they are so in love with their grade insignia maybe they would make an effort to keep them and do the job.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

RiverAux

QuoteWhat I want is a system by which people are rated based on their advancement through an increasingly difficult & selective internal leader/mgr dev system. And that positions/authority are distributed on that basis with the minimum necessary competence level for each echelon.
Can you think of another national organization that really manages volunteers that way?  I understand that this is the norm for "real life", but I really don't know how well it would work in a volunteer outfit.  I know that your standard position is quality not quantity, but I really don't think many people are going to be interested in a CAP operated in that fashion and at some point we do have to maintain a minimum number of members to have any viability at all.  Maybe there is an example of this, but I can't think of one.  

DNall

River,
Another org that puts people actually capable of doing the job in positions? Yeah I'm pretty sure that's the norm.

Would members want to be part of something like that? Well yeah I think they absolutely would. Some of the chief complaints now are lack of leadership, petty unethical BS, and too much admin at the operational level. This fixes those issue & frees members to do what they came here for, which is help people, not rise to power over their fellow volunteers. So, I think it'd initially cause some people to leave, as any change at all would, but shortly thereafter would cause a strong spike in recruiting & retention numbers with much more success in our operations/programs.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 30, 2008, 11:38:17 PM
I understand and agree with you 100%...but that is not the purpose of this particular thread.  I assume for the purpose of this thread that we are putting the round peg in the correct shaped hole.

Requiring the right leadership skill for a particular job is very easy to legislate....but we have trouble seeing the reality because the "right person" for the job just does not stand up and take a swing at it.

So you go with who ever wants it.....

One way to fix that would be to take away the rank of those back room Lt Cols and Majors.   If they are so in love with their grade insignia maybe they would make an effort to keep them and do the job.
Is it easy to legislate? I don't think it is w/o some other set of clear dividing lines on who falls into what competence level. That's what grade is really all about in the real world.

I also don't think motivation to hold positions is the issue. I don't think there are enough people qualified to the needed standards for each echelon to staff out the organization, not even with some reasonable consolidation & admin reduction.

I got little issue with taking away grade from a person that downgrades position. I'm willing to go with that, BUT I want to fill the position ONLY from people that have at least a particular PD level required for the positions - mind you this is assuming a massively overhauled PD program that actually produces leader/mgrs of the necessary quality, and that not everyone can get through. As long as that is true, I'm willing to compromise within the bounds of your system.

However, I really dislike using FO as a grade. It's MUCH more appropriate to use the alternative I mentioned above... 18-21 = Amn to SrA, 21+ = SSgt to CMSgt linked to five level PD system.

I'm not in love with that solution. I really don't think the majority of people in society are capable of achieving officer or SNCO standards (as adapted to CAP - meaning minus PT & combat related skills) regardless of education & training. I really value a entry level officer program (OTS) to seperate those two groups & become the gatekeeper to leadership positions, particularly above Sq level.

I know you're saying they're two seperate subjects, and they are, but I think they're ultimately linked right at the heart of things. I don't think doing what you're saying with rank alone will accomplish anything, nor does fixing the PD program as I'm saying either. I think the two things have to happen in concert for this to work. And if it does work, I really think that revolutionizes CAP.

RiverAux

QuoteRiver,
Another org that puts people actually capable of doing the job in positions? Yeah I'm pretty sure that's the norm
That may be the result of what you are proposing, but is there any other national volunteer organization doing it based on the method you are proposing? 

QuoteSome of the chief complaints now are lack of leadership, petty unethical BS, and too much admin at the operational level. This fixes those issue & frees members to do what they came here for, which is help people, not rise to power over their fellow volunteers.
The essence of what you are proposing is further limiting CAP leadership positions to a very small, select group of people.  That has the strong possibility of making the current situation even worse.  As it stands now there is no clear route to becoming a squadron or group commander other than through becoming buddy-buddy with the person next highest up the chain of command.  No matter how bad your current commander really is there is nothing that can be done about it, and you just might have them in that same position for 10-20 years (it happens). 

And you are actually proposing that CAP members be even more directly involved in the success and advancement of other members.  Some CAP members will have to be faced with telling a good volunteer they're not worthy of promotion.  People don't like doing that in their paying jobs, and this would make them get involved with that in their volunteer life.  Few will want to deal with the hassles and broken friendships that are very likely to develop.

DNall

Quote from: RiverAux on May 01, 2008, 02:20:49 AM
QuoteRiver,
Another org that puts people actually capable of doing the job in positions? Yeah I'm pretty sure that's the norm
That may be the result of what you are proposing, but is there any other national volunteer organization doing it based on the method you are proposing?
Most non-profits/volunteer based orgs are different from CAP in the extreme.

The the field level, tends to consist of either: a) minimally trained folks off the street (CERT, Red cross, etc); or, b) better trained folks in local teams (local SaR teams, volunteer FDs, etc. There are exceptions like DMAT & the like, but they basically fall into this structure as well. The key here is the "volunteer" membership isn't the leadership. They do the work & that's it. In order to rise above the field level to organizational mgmt they need to seek employment from the governing agency, which is going to be based on very specific education, experience, etc requirements, and will involve progressive levels of leader/manager training.

The organization of the governing structure is the key difference. Most non-profit/volunteer based orgs are governed by an extremely strong central governing body. Virtually no authority exists locally or regionally. The popular modern trend is the dominant executive director system. That's the paid full-time staff govern the org & make policy. They are usually hired from outside & have no field or member experience within the org. The board of directors (NEC/NB) become a rubber stamp for the most part, and focus on kind of vague strategic planning to give the paid staff a general direction to operate in.

With such a system you are: a) NOT developing people from within to fill key org leader roles; and, b) with a hire/fire from outside system, you seek out whatever skill you temporarily need on the open market & employ it till no longer needed then throw it away.

A lot of corporations do that as well, but then there are also those that value bringing people up from the inside thru executive development programs. Those are not popular in non-profits because of the cost. You're taking a worker off the line & he's still not ready for management for a long time yet. It's more efficient to keep that person on the line & hire a ready made manager off the street, or even to hire a management trainee off the street rather than have to fill two positions.

CAP is wholly different. We're a great big org that requires some rather serious operational training & a whole lot of leader positions to be filled. There's not a lot of other instances where that's true (incl CGAUx, as they have a lot of direct involvement & oversight by CG).

The system I'm talking about is obviously closer to how the military does things. I kind of dismiss active duty on these kinds of things cause that really is apples to oranges, but reserve components are a pretty good example. I know people like to talk about how they get paid, but that's really not true on the officer side. You do get a little, but honestly you spend a lot more unpaid time than any CAP officer & have to spend a whole lot of that money as part of your job. Most SDFs also follow a similar system. I'm not saying we need to copy either, but both are good to look at.

Quote
QuoteSome of the chief complaints now are lack of leadership, petty unethical BS, and too much admin at the operational level. This fixes those issue & frees members to do what they came here for, which is help people, not rise to power over their fellow volunteers.
The essence of what you are proposing is further limiting CAP leadership positions to a very small, select group of people.  That has the strong possibility of making the current situation even worse.  As it stands now there is no clear route to becoming a squadron or group commander other than through becoming buddy-buddy with the person next highest up the chain of command.  No matter how bad your current commander really is there is nothing that can be done about it, and you just might have them in that same position for 10-20 years (it happens). 

And you are actually proposing that CAP members be even more directly involved in the success and advancement of other members.  Some CAP members will have to be faced with telling a good volunteer they're not worthy of promotion.  People don't like doing that in their paying jobs, and this would make them get involved with that in their volunteer life.  Few will want to deal with the hassles and broken friendships that are very likely to develop.

Absolutely it reduces the number of positions to a much more reasonable & manageable size. However, it takes selection authority away from that next higher commander too, for the most part. It says the position can only be filled by a qualified candidate, and lays out what the qualifications are. That means PD progression on one hand, but also that they've been comparatively/competitively successful thru their career in order to promote. So you're looking at actually qualified people. At that point certainly the next echelon commander has input, but it's a board that does the selection, and the echelon above that which has to sign off on it.

A big part of the concept is to do away with that kind of buddy system that elevates unqualified people & holds back quality folks. It's really not doing anything TOO overly complicated, just formalizing the process a little with checks & balances, and of course quality training & enforcing minimum qualification standards.


RiverAux

So a Wing commander won't be able to chose his squadron commanders or group commanders?  That will be the day.  And I'm not saying that just due to being a cynic.  So long as the Wing Commander is the only corporate officer in the wing I just don't think it would be practical for them to not have final say unless we change out a whole lot of other things about CAP. 

DNall

I think any version of what's been said above is changing a whole lot of things about CAP. I think that's kind of the point is getting away from some things that have really held us back.

As far as the appointment process. It's really pretty simple. Sq CC requires X qual level (PD/grade), that means Y people are qual'd, each will automatically be considered but are asked to submit a resume & letter on why they should or should not be selected. Gp CC is free to make recommendations to a board, but the board makes the decision, and Wg CC must sign off on it. Obviously if the Gp CC absolutely doesn't want someone they have plenty ability to stop that from happening, but it makes it a lot harder for the buddy system to be the controlling factor in who gets moved up when.

If there aren't qual'd candidates, then it's opened up to other area units, if still no then lesser qual'd candidates can be considered on the condition that they must complete to the req qual levels in a year or lose the job.

RiverAux

You know, that sounds exactly like how our Wing Commanders are appointed now, and I'm not so sure that is really all that great an example.