Squadron commander term limit?

Started by cadet zimmerman, January 21, 2011, 11:58:26 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

cadet zimmerman

what regulation talks about the term length of the squadron commander?
Kyle S. B. Zimmerman
C/MSgt CAP
In between squadrons

Eclipse

None - depends on the prerogative of the Wing or Region CC.  Many are now holding CC's to 3 years no more than 4, but that is not consistent across the organization.

"That Others May Zoom"

a2capt

There is a CAWG Operating Instruction that was issued May 2008 that covers this within your scope of probable interest:

http://www.cawg.cap.gov/Files/Pubs/OI/OI_02.pdf
From this page: http://www.cawg.cap.gov/html/Pubs/orders.htm

"four years max", the first being probationary, then a two year term of appointment and an optional fourth year.

cadet zimmerman

does anyone know if there is one in WAWG?
Kyle S. B. Zimmerman
C/MSgt CAP
In between squadrons

Eclipse

Quote from: cadet zimmerman on January 22, 2011, 12:19:39 AM
does anyone know if there is one in WAWG?

You're in California, why are you interested?

"That Others May Zoom"

cadet zimmerman

lol not anymore I havent changed my signature yet
Kyle S. B. Zimmerman
C/MSgt CAP
In between squadrons

Eclipse

Quote from: cadet zimmerman on January 22, 2011, 12:30:44 AM
lol not anymore I havent changed my signature yet

Ok, fair enough.

Next question - why are you questioning CC's terms and PT policies of your new unit publicly?

"That Others May Zoom"

ßτε


Larry Mangum

Quote from: cadet zimmerman on January 22, 2011, 12:30:44 AM
lol not anymore I havent changed my signature yet
Nor changed squadron. You are still assigned to PCR-CA-445
Larry Mangum, Lt Col CAP
DCS, Operations
SWR-SWR-001

RiverAux

Quote from: Eclipse on January 22, 2011, 01:03:56 AM
Quote from: cadet zimmerman on January 22, 2011, 12:30:44 AM
lol not anymore I havent changed my signature yet

Ok, fair enough.

Next question - why are you questioning CC's terms and PT policies of your new unit publicly?
Where did he "question" any such policy?  He just asked if there was one. 

And even if he did "question" his wing's policy in this area, so what?  Thats what we do here all the time. 

Westernslope

Quote from: Larry Mangum on January 22, 2011, 03:52:23 AM
Quote from: cadet zimmerman on January 22, 2011, 12:30:44 AM
lol not anymore I havent changed my signature yet
Nor changed squadron. You are still assigned to PCR-CA-445

I am curious. How do you know he is still assigned to this squadron. I am sure that you would not misuse permissions in e-services to check the location of a cadet not in your unit or even in your Region.

SarDragon

Anyone (possibly restricted to SMs) with eServices access can type in part of a name, do a search, and come up with a member's name, unit, CAPID, and rank/grade. The 'part of a name' ensures that you be able to access someone with a unique name. I don't see that as a misuse of permissions.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

Camas

Quote from: Westernslope on January 22, 2011, 04:52:03 AM
I am sure that you would not misuse permissions in e-services to check the location of a cadet not in your unit or even in your Region.
Quote from: SarDragon on January 22, 2011, 05:19:27 AM
I don't see that as a misuse of permissions.
Correct. If you have the permissions you're not abusing anything in e-services. There's alot in e-services that's restricted but that's not the issue at hand here. Commanders have a pile of stuff they can get into but once their tour of command is over that all goes.

SarDragon

This is available through Member Search on the left side menu. No special permissions required. It is not a Restricted Application.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

Eclipse

#14
Quote from: RiverAux on January 22, 2011, 04:37:19 AM
Next question - why are you questioning CC's terms and PT policies of your new unit publicly?
Where did he "question" any such policy?  He just asked if there was one. 

And even if he did "question" his wing's policy in this area, so what?  Thats what we do here all the time.

This is called "reading between the lines", which is what most people here did immediately on his rapid-fire posts.

First about CC term limits, second about PT schedules.  Once you've been doing this a while you can see the patterns.

"That Others May Zoom"

a2capt

You have to admit, statistically speaking - people don't ask these kinds of things unless they have an issue with something.

Generally it's related to "we didn't do this that way at my other unit.. " and sometimes it's just differences in execution, other times it's something plainly wrong being routed out. At one end, or the other.

manfredvonrichthofen

Maybe he wants to better understand CAP? Why not just give someone the benefit of the doubt? Instead of attacking him right off, help him with the answer and ask if something is wrong.

Like this.

Zimmerman, the regulation on unit commanders varies by region and sometimes by wing, depending on how the wing has set it up. You might try checking your wing's personal regulations, they can often be found on the wing website.
Is there something wrong, or is this a curiosity?

RADIOMAN015

I don't think there needs to be any term limits on commanders UNLESS there's an indicator that there's a problem in the unit.
e.g. fails sui's, no new recruits, high turnover of senior members, no progression of seniors and cadets, many complaints.
RM

Eclipse

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on January 23, 2011, 02:18:28 AM
I don't think there needs to be any term limits on commanders UNLESS there's an indicator that there's a problem in the unit.
e.g. fails sui's, no new recruits, high turnover of senior members, no progression of seniors and cadets, many complaints.

So no new ideas?  No opportunity for someone else to do the job?

Just let somebody park themselves for 20 years?

"That Others May Zoom"

SARDOC

Quote from: Eclipse on January 23, 2011, 02:22:02 AM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on January 23, 2011, 02:18:28 AM
I don't think there needs to be any term limits on commanders UNLESS there's an indicator that there's a problem in the unit.
e.g. fails sui's, no new recruits, high turnover of senior members, no progression of seniors and cadets, many complaints.

So no new ideas?  No opportunity for someone else to do the job?

Just let somebody park themselves for 20 years?

Why not some have done it for much longer?

http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays_features.cfm/nys_pantanelli_relinquishes_command_of_namesake_squadron?show=news&newsID=9531


Eclipse

Yes, and for every one who is a hero, there are 2 or 3 who set up a little fiefdom and/or ran a flying club for a decade or two.

"That Others May Zoom"

JeffDG

Quote from: Eclipse on January 23, 2011, 02:22:02 AM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on January 23, 2011, 02:18:28 AM
I don't think there needs to be any term limits on commanders UNLESS there's an indicator that there's a problem in the unit.
e.g. fails sui's, no new recruits, high turnover of senior members, no progression of seniors and cadets, many complaints.

So no new ideas?  No opportunity for someone else to do the job?

Just let somebody park themselves for 20 years?
I've never really understood term limits...why stop someone who is doing a good job from continuing to do that job?

JeffDG

Quote from: Eclipse on January 23, 2011, 05:19:58 AM
Yes, and for every one who is a hero, there are 2 or 3 who set up a little fiefdom and/or ran a flying club for a decade or two.

Sooooo....

Instead of dealing with the abusive ones, you want to punish those who do great jobs.  That's just being lazy not wanting to actually look at performance and lump everyone together and presume they're all on the worst side.

a2capt

Well, if a policy is in place and it has a clause of exemption, then that takes care of both. The exemplary performers can be allowed to stay, and the others can be phased out.

JeffDG

Quote from: a2capt on January 23, 2011, 03:50:36 PM
Well, if a policy is in place and it has a clause of exemption, then that takes care of both. The exemplary performers can be allowed to stay, and the others can be phased out.

But without such a policy, the same objective can be achieved.  Wing Commander can appoint a new CC and voila, deadwood is gone.

Term limit policies come from the assumption that everyone is deadwood.

PHall

From what I've seen, usually about the time you complete 4 years as a Commander you're ready for a change.

Major Carrales

Quote from: PHall on January 23, 2011, 05:31:34 PM
From what I've seen, usually about the time you complete 4 years as a Commander you're ready for a change.

I agree, I did almost 4 years as the Commander of the Corpus Christi Comp Squadron and I felt it was a good experience.  We built up an old squadron that had some three active members into a good operational unit that can implement the Missions of CAP in an effective manner.  The time, however, does come for a commander to "spread the wealth" as it were.  To give someone else a chance.  Now I command a cadet unit we "budded" off of the former squadron. 

Now there is time to build, and when the time comes, I am sure it will be time for me to move on to build another unit in the area.
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

Major Carrales

Quote from: Eclipse on January 22, 2011, 02:45:30 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on January 22, 2011, 04:37:19 AM
Next question - why are you questioning CC's terms and PT policies of your new unit publicly?
Where did he "question" any such policy?  He just asked if there was one. 

And even if he did "question" his wing's policy in this area, so what?  Thats what we do here all the time.

This is called "reading between the lines", which is what most people here did immediately on his rapid-fire posts.

First about CC term limits, second about PT schedules.  Once you've been doing this a while you can see the patterns.

Ahhh...the infamous CAPTALK double standard.  You see, when and if I were to make such a speculation you would be all over me for it saying "I didn't say that" or you would  mock any attempt by me to "head off" where the logical flow of the discussion is going.  However, a select few can get away with any and everything here.  Dirty football, indeed!!!

This is also the class "dogpile on a cadet" tendency that I see here and on other forums.

Let's keep it fair here people.

The cadet can have a question without some sinister motive...give the cadet the benefit of the doubt.   Maybe he/she was curious?  Maybe he wanted to look at the regulations to better understand how it works?  An, just maybe, this cadet has read posting and tried to ask a question in the "style" of those that so many others have asked.

"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

Major Lord

Is excessive time in the command slot more of a problem than trying to find someone willing ( and competent) to accept the job?

Major Lord
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

RiverAux

I refuse to believe that there is any place in the country where it is absolutely impossible to find a competent CAP member able and willing to take over for some of these commanders that have been in the job for 10+ years.  My suspicion has been that those long-terms don't really want to give up the job and subtly drive drive away folks with potential leadership qualities.  Those folks are are a rarity as most squadron commanders only last 2-4 years anyway and that being the case, a fixed term limit probably isn't necessary. 

But, the one advantage to very hard defined squadron commander term limits is that I think it actually makes it easier to get people to do the job.  If they know for a fact that they're only going to do it for 2-3 years, they might take it while under the current system they don't really know if they're going to do it for 6 months or 10 years.  This lack of certainity over when the term ended was one of the biggest factors that almost made me turn down a chance at squadron command. 

I think the current system makes squadron commanders anxious to try to turn the squadron over to the first person that shows some capability even if they're very new to CAP because they don't want to miss their chance to get out of the job. 

The CG Aux, which has a 1 year term with potential for 1 year extension (future terms possible after a break) seems to work pretty good.  However, this short a term probably wouldn't work for CAP since CAP squadron command is infinately more complicated and difficult to learn than running a CG Aux flotilla.  You really need more time to learn to run a squadron correctly.

Major Carrales

We had countless great leaders in our unit's history, the problem was that these people "burnt" out because they were working alone without a staff.  If one approaches the idea of a squadron commander as a person who is there to "shoulder the burden alone" while the unit members show up only to fly...of course you are gonna have problems (especially if its a Composite squadron with cadet issues to deal with along with senior member issues).

In building our unit, it was key to insure that the unit "staff" was functional.  That the commander was more of a "manager" guiding subject matter experts, or experts in training, than a person doing it all.  We should heed the examples made present in the Incident Command System where span of control and unity of command demonstrate that a 1 to 5 ratio is most efficient in allowing excellent control of a situation.  A squadron has to operate in this way, the command well informed and made so by having staff members who support the unit.

In this way, a potential commander has an excellent support system. 

In units where the commander is alone workhorse, handling it by themselves; it can look like a horrible complicated job, foreboding and burdensome.  In fact, when I first joined, that is how I looked at it.  "I'll never want to command a unit..." I recall telling another member.  Then, it was thrust on me back in 2003...I failed at it because I tried to "be an island."  In 2006, after have been burnt out and disgusted by it all for a short hiatus, I returned and we built the unit based on having a staff.  It worked, the current commander of that unit has an excellent staff that come through every time.  That...my dear friends... is the key to Squadron Command.  Not fancy computer software alone(which helps), but a solid staff able to concentrate on the minutia. 

"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

Eclipse

Quote from: JeffDG on January 23, 2011, 05:22:54 PM
But without such a policy, the same objective can be achieved.  Wing Commander can appoint a new CC and voila, deadwood is gone.

Term limit policies come from the assumption that everyone is deadwood.

Without a policy in place, in many cases attention is never paid to the issue.

As an FYI - everyone is deadwood.  No one can stay in a CAP command position for a prolonged period of time without stangnating themselves, and / or limiting the progression of others.

No.

Body.

"That Others May Zoom"

Major Carrales

#32
Quote from: Eclipse on January 24, 2011, 12:58:21 AMAs an FYI - everyone is deadwood.  No one can stay in a CAP command position for a prolonged period of time without stangnating themselves, and / or limiting the progression of others.

This is true...I have scarified some of my own personal advancement for the squadron.  Which is why I am not Lt Col Carrales or a Master Public Affairs Officer.  It is a side effect of of Command and a full time job. 
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

SarDragon

Quote from: Major Carrales on January 24, 2011, 01:09:55 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 24, 2011, 12:58:21 AMAs an FYI - everyone is deadwood.  No one can stay in a CAP command position for a prolonged period of time without stangnating themselves, and / or limiting the progression of others.

This is true...I have scarified some of my own personal advancement for the squadron.  Which is why I am not Lt Col Carrales or a Master Public Affairs Officer.  It is a side effect of of Command and a full time job.

Scarified? Did you bleed a lot?
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

Major Carrales

Quote from: SarDragon on January 24, 2011, 01:36:37 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 24, 2011, 01:09:55 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 24, 2011, 12:58:21 AMAs an FYI - everyone is deadwood.  No one can stay in a CAP command position for a prolonged period of time without stangnating themselves, and / or limiting the progression of others.

This is true...I have scarified some of my own personal advancement for the squadron.  Which is why I am not Lt Col Carrales or a Master Public Affairs Officer.  It is a side effect of of Command and a full time job.

Scarified? Did you bleed a lot?

It only hurt when I laughed!
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

RiverAux

Quote from: Major Carrales on January 24, 2011, 12:32:38 AM
In building our unit, it was key to insure that the unit "staff" was functional.  That the commander was more of a "manager" guiding subject matter experts, or experts in training, than a person doing it all. 
I actually had a great staff that took care of most of the time consuming stuff but even with that great support system, I don't see many CAP commanders who don't get burnt out after 2-3 years anyway.  I can't imagine how bad it would have been without a couple of those folks taking up a lot of the burden.

Major Carrales

Quote from: RiverAux on January 24, 2011, 02:55:39 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 24, 2011, 12:32:38 AM
In building our unit, it was key to insure that the unit "staff" was functional.  That the commander was more of a "manager" guiding subject matter experts, or experts in training, than a person doing it all. 
I actually had a great staff that took care of most of the time consuming stuff but even with that great support system, I don't see many CAP commanders who don't get burnt out after 2-3 years anyway.  I can't imagine how bad it would have been without a couple of those folks taking up a lot of the burden.

Believe me, it is not a good thing to see.  It is almost in stages.  A person come and is passionate about CAP, they take command, are alone...GROUP and WING start demanding reports and thing start to build up, then there are those certain members who "give heck" no matter what.  It eats at them until they start to wretch at the sight of the uniform.  In then end...they leave CAP and some, unfortunately, almost become "anti-CAP."

Having marinaded in the "worst" of it, petty politics, strain and all the "bad" that get reported here from time to time...is it not a wonder.

However, a properly running squadron with a Staff is a joy to command.  There is camaraderie, the desire to work together and even fellowship.  I would recommend we build the latter squadron than the former of this example.
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

ColonelJack

I know nobody was actually asking for an opinion on the topic or anything, but ...

I was a squadron commander for six years.  The first three or four were absolutely wonderful, as I had the kind of staff most CCs only dream of.  But the last two years were tough ... most of my good people drifted into other things, as folks will do, and I found myself having to be more and more a one-man band.  I had at that point put out the word that if anybody wanted the CC position I was more than willing to step down ... nobody took me up on the offer.

At the end of my six-year time in the job, I was burned out.  So incredibly burned out that even after accepting a group position, I found it mentally easier on myself to just retire.  The unit folded after another year with a CC who wanted the job but couldn't be a one-man band.

After a 12-year hiatus I rejoined, serving in the squadron that sprung up in the town a few years after the unit I commanded folded.  And the fellow in the CC slot now ... I hope he NEVER leaves.  He's a fantastic unit CC and he seems to have endless energy for the job.  He also has a pretty good sized staff (of which I am proud to be a member) and he utilizes me as a resource person for new officers, seeing as how I have the longest combined service in the unit.  (I also know where all the bodies are buried.)

It's a good job if you want it, but it can be a booger and a half if you're doing the whole thing all by yourself.

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

CAPSGT

One issue on this topic I haven't really seen brought up yet is building up a corps of qualified members to take on roles at higher headquarters.  One of the most common qualifications that I see sought after in group/wing commanders is prior command experience.  If the same members are remaining in command at the unit level for eternity, you end up with an extremely limited pool of candidates for these higher headquarters positions.  It also seems to be detrimental to even finding staff members for higher headquarters, as you don't have prior commanders taking on new challenges as a higher HQ staff officer.

One thing that struck me about ColonelJack's experience with being so burned out that it was simply easier to retire from the organization altogethor.  By staying in command to that point, it deprives the succossor of the opportunity to have their predecessor around as a sounding board, particularly during their first several months of command.  I know that for me it was invaluable having my predecessor around to bounce ideas off of.
MICHAEL A. CROCKETT, Lt Col, CAP
Assistant Communications Officer, Wicomico Composite Squadron

Eclipse

Quote from: CAPSGT on January 24, 2011, 05:01:46 PM
One issue on this topic I haven't really seen brought up yet is building up a corps of qualified members to take on roles at higher headquarters.  One of the most common qualifications that I see sought after in group/wing commanders is prior command experience.  If the same members are remaining in command at the unit level for eternity, you end up with an extremely limited pool of candidates for these higher headquarters positions.  It also seems to be detrimental to even finding staff members for higher headquarters, as you don't have prior commanders taking on new challenges as a higher HQ staff officer.

Bingo!  Something I was discussing, specifically, this week.

An unintended consequence of this is having Group and Wing staffers who bypass the unit experience and go straight to a higher HQ staff job without much, if any, experience.  Seriously, is it appropriate to have butter-bar wing staffers with a wet membership ribbon appointed to Directorships?

The result is people who are trying to manage a program they have never actually used at the unit level, so they have no fundamental understanding of what a Unit CC and regular member needs to be successful, then we can't figure out why these members usually struggle.

"That Others May Zoom"

ColonelJack

Quote from: CAPSGT on January 24, 2011, 05:01:46 PM
One thing that struck me about ColonelJack's experience with being so burned out that it was simply easier to retire from the organization altogethor.  By staying in command to that point, it deprives the succossor of the opportunity to have their predecessor around as a sounding board, particularly during their first several months of command.  I know that for me it was invaluable having my predecessor around to bounce ideas off of.

I actually stayed one year longer than I wanted to ... and for another two years after giving up command, I was on group staff -- then I retired.  Sorry for the confusion ... I was available to the man who succeeded me at the squadron any time, but he seldom called on me -- and watched the unit fold under him.  (No dig at him, by the way, rest his soul ... the unit would probably have folded if I had stayed on as CC anyway.)

But you're right about a former CC being available to his successor ... in my opinion (which I value highly), a former CC is a resource that is worth its weight in gold.

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

RiverAux

Quote from: CAPSGT on January 24, 2011, 05:01:46 PM
One thing that struck me about ColonelJack's experience with being so burned out that it was simply easier to retire from the organization altogethor. 
Yet another reason that I favor the CG Aux's term limit system for commanders -- My local flotilla has had 5-6 commanders since I've been in it and they are all still very active within the unit.  The CAP squadron has absolutely no former squadron commanders still active in it and there are very few still active former squadron commanders in my wing.  Most leave CAP after their stint in command (a few move up to Wing). 

Term limits keep you from reaching your breaking point. 

Chappie

I am in favor of term limits for some of the reasons cited:
1) allows fresh blood to surface in leadership roles -- after all isn't that why the Professional Development and mentoring programs exist?   Why jump through all the hoops and get all the fancy bling to sit on the sidelines?
2) the burn out factor.

On the chaplain side of the house, Wing and Region chaplains are limited to 6 years in that position.  And frankly, 6 years is enough :)  In that time, the potential is that you get to serve 2 commanders as well as plan/conduct 6 Wing Chaplain Conferences or 6 Region Chaplain Corps Staff Colleges.  I was/am fortunate to have had great staff that shared/s the burn of fulfilling the responsibilities ... and had the opportunity to mentor others to fill the responsibility when the clock ran down to 00:00.  It is a mixed bag in that there are great opportunities for personal growth and also observe the growth in others.  And from personal experience about that 4th year, you hit a wall. 

It is also a different feel to be a "go to" person in the role as being a resource when your term of service is completed.  Kinda fun to be the "old sage" and be available to do other things within the organization.


Disclaimer:  Not to be confused with the other user that goes by "Chappy"   :)

FW

My couple of years as a squadron commander were more than adequate for me.  I would have loved to have a term limit in place.  Unfortunately, no one wanted the job.  I ended up threatening the group commander to appoint someone else as, I needed a break. 

On a related thought; I find it interesting no squadron commander ever asked the MARB to hear an appeal for relief of command.  I think that says something about the job.... ;D

RADIOMAN015

I think it is reasonable for Wing & Group Commanders to be asking the question to their squadron commanders every year IF they would like to stay as a commander for another year or so.  Also perhaps ask the question, IF you needed to leave the position who in your squadron could take the reins ???

Right now in our wing one squadron commander (who I think has been that unit's commander for at least 10 years) just decided to close the unit (a unit over 20 years old) because the other "active" seniors that were assisting him/her transferred to a closer squadron to their homes due partially to the cost just of the commute. The commander became an "army of one".   Long time members have told me that particular unit always had a problem keeping senior members.  So in this particular wing, does the wing staff bear some responsibility for the closure likely because the commander did burn out, but probably was burned out many years ago and the indicator might have been there with very high senior member turnover. :-\   

Also I think that some currently serving (but close to burn out) commanders are concerned that everything they worked to build up the squadron can be destroyed by selection of the "wrong" replacement commander.    I know in another nearby squadron a few years back a 'wrong' selection was made, and many of the senior members just basically took a leave of absence (or transferred to another local unit) UNTIL the commander left, then they came back to that unit again :(   

I don't think we need specific term limits BUT Wing (and where organized, Group) Commanders do need to be having some frank & open discussions with squadron commanders about what they want to do, coupled with an honest review of how the squadron is performing in recruiting/retention, training/advancement, and the various CAP missions accomplishments.  By far not easy for anyone :(
RM

Steve Kuddes

My personal experience as a Wing commander is that you must have term limits.  Without them, you have commander burnout and things get stagnant.  I have also seen numerous Wings experience having a Squadron commander in for so long that when the Wing CC tried to make a change they were informed "this is my Squadron and you can't take it away from me".  Several Squadron commanders have attempted to take the money and equipment they acquired for the squadron because they felt they "own" it because they worked for it.  I have had IG complaints filed against Wing commanders because they removed a Squadron commander on term limits.

How do you give others a chance to be leaders without experiencing being a Squadron commander?

Eclipse

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on January 27, 2011, 12:12:52 AMRight now in our wing one squadron commander (who I think has been that unit's commander for at least 10 years) just decided to close the unit...

A squadron commander does not "close a unit" - there are some practical realities to the situation, but the ultimate authority on that is the Wing CC.  The
fact that some CC's believe what happens to a unit after they leave is somehow their problem or under their control is part and parcel with the fundamental misunderstanding some people have about their place in CAP.

The next echelon always bears responsibility when a unit collapses, but the majority of the burden of success if on the commander AND HIS PEOPLE.
The failure of a CAP unit is a group effort with plenty of blame to spread around.

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on January 27, 2011, 12:12:52 AMtransferred to a closer squadron to their homes due partially to the cost just of the commute. The commander became an "army of one".   Long time members have told me that particular unit always had a problem keeping senior members.  So in this particular wing, does the wing staff bear some responsibility for the closure likely because the commander did burn out, but probably was burned out many years ago and the indicator might have been there with very high senior member turnover.

I seriously doubt it, though it is interesting that you were able to find a way to make this about the cost of CAP.  People leave CAP or transfer units because they are not getting whatever it is that they want / expect from the experience.  With the exception of Wing staffers in large states, anyone belonging to a unit where the weekly commute is a financial burden doesn't belong to the right unit to start with, and in a lot of the case can't, or more often won't work with the leadership of the local squadron for typical 6th grade interpersonal issues.

"That Others May Zoom"

CAP Producer

#47
Speaking as a staff officer who has served at Wing, Region and National levels I would strongly encourage unit and group commander term limists for all of the reasons previously stated. This wouls also apply to all staff postions.

I served as a wing PAO for 6 years and was burned out. Moving to region gove me new challenges and when I moved to national those challeges and opprotunites multiplied.

Had I stayed on another year at wing I would have completely burned out and possibly quit all together. Thankfully I spent 2 great years at region where my batteries got recharged for my tour on the National Staff.

And I am having a great time as a member of the National Staff.

I hope to serve 2-3 more years (If the CC lets me) and then find a new CAP job. Any suggestions?  :)
AL PABON, Major, CAP

Eclipse

Quote from: CAP Producer on January 27, 2011, 02:45:35 AM
I hope to serve 2-3 more years (If the CC lets me) and then find a new CAP job. Any suggestions?

You're seriously asking this bunch where you should go?   ;D

"That Others May Zoom"

CAP Producer

AL PABON, Major, CAP

RiverAux

Quote from: CAP Producer on January 27, 2011, 02:45:35 AM
I would strongly encourage unit and group commander term limists for all of the reasons previously stated. This wouls also apply to all staff postions.
I served as a wing PAO for 6 years and was burned out. Moving to region gove me new challenges and when I moved to national those challeges and opprotunites multiplied.
Also a very good idea based on my personal experience as well.

FW

#51
Quote from: Eclipse on January 27, 2011, 02:53:25 AM
Quote from: CAP Producer on January 27, 2011, 02:45:35 AM
I hope to serve 2-3 more years (If the CC lets me) and then find a new CAP job. Any suggestions?

You're seriously asking this bunch where you should go?   ;D

Gee Al, after August 20, you'll get a chance to figure it out... >:D

Quote from: Ben There on January 27, 2011, 12:22:43 AM
How do you give others a chance to be leaders without experiencing being a Squadron commander?

There is always the option of instituting a wing policy creating term limits in a wing. Of course, the next wing/cc can make a change.  Unfortunately, without such a (written) policy, a squadron (or group) commander can only be removed for cause.  And, that cause must be documented.  So, unless a squadron commander wants to leave, your stuck.

Eclipse

Quote from: FW on January 27, 2011, 03:31:57 AMUnfortunately, without such a (written) policy, a squadron (or group commander can only be removed for cause.  And, that cause must be documented.  So, unless a squadron commander wants to leave, your stuck.

Cite Please.

Group and Squadron Commanders serve at the whim and pleasure of the Wing CC, there is no inherent protection or requirement to have "cause" to remove them.

Per 20-1:
Appoint high caliber commanders of subordinate units when replacements are needed and remove unit commanders from positions whenever they are considered unqualified or otherwise unsuitable.

"That Others May Zoom"

FW

Sorry, Eclipse.  CAPR 35-8 allows a MARB appeal for any squadron commander who was removed due to retaliation, failure to follow regulations (in removal) or lack of due process.
Also, as you noted, CAPR 20-1 gives the reasons for removal.  However, these reasons must be documented.  These days, no commander can be removed at the whim of the next higer command.
(except for wing commanders in their probationary year).

Major Carrales

The first time I took command, the time I failed epically, I was told by the Group Commander that the unit would be "folded" and that unless I took command of the squadron I would be responsible for its closure and its member divided among neighboring squadron (the nearest which was over 150 miles away).

I assumed command as 1st Lt Carrales and had great ideas.  We had lost local use of the aircraft and usually I would drive to Corpus Christi from Premont, Texas (70 plus miles) at attend either a "empty meeting" or me "alone" with 12 cadets.  I burnt out of that really fast.

The second time was after two years hiatus...we built up a unit that was dying from three people.  Ended up with a great group of folks that it was a pleasure to serve as the squadron commander.  Now, I am the commander of a cadet unit...building process again.

Command in CAP can be a great experience, but it can also be made a living heck on earth.
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

CAP Producer

Quote from: FW on January 27, 2011, 03:31:57 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 27, 2011, 02:53:25 AM
Quote from: CAP Producer on January 27, 2011, 02:45:35 AM
I hope to serve 2-3 more years (If the CC lets me) and then find a new CAP job. Any suggestions?

You're seriously asking this bunch where you should go?   ;D

Gee Al, after August 20, you'll get a chance to figure it out... >:D

I think you are right sir!  :P
AL PABON, Major, CAP

JeffDG

Quote from: Eclipse on January 27, 2011, 03:37:09 AM
Quote from: FW on January 27, 2011, 03:31:57 AMUnfortunately, without such a (written) policy, a squadron (or group commander can only be removed for cause.  And, that cause must be documented.  So, unless a squadron commander wants to leave, your stuck.

Cite Please.

Group and Squadron Commanders serve at the whim and pleasure of the Wing CC, there is no inherent protection or requirement to have "cause" to remove them.

Per 20-1:
Appoint high caliber commanders of subordinate units when replacements are needed and remove unit commanders from positions whenever they are considered unqualified or otherwise unsuitable.[/b]

You actually provided your own citation for his statement.

That right there is a working definition of "cause".  Squadron CCs cannot be relieved on a whim, there needs to be a reason.

Eclipse

This is the standard as defined by the regs:

"...whenever they are considered unqualified or otherwise unsuitable..."

and you guys seriously think this isn't the definition of "whim"?  Like all things in CAP, there is plenty of room for people to do things in a way which
allows for a sustainable IG complaint, but the above is so subjective that unless you can prove you the "retaliation or discrimination angle", you're not
going to be a Commander if you aren't on the page of the next higher HQ.

The other question, more important, is "Why would you want to be?"  Being a commander these days is hard enough, why would you want to do it
when you are constantly fighting with the next HQ and always looking over your shoulder?

"That Others May Zoom"

ColonelJack

Quote from: Eclipse on January 27, 2011, 03:44:16 PM
The other question, more important, is "Why would you want to be?"  Being a commander these days is hard enough, why would you want to do it
when you are constantly fighting with the next HQ and always looking over your shoulder?

"It's a dirty, rotten, stinking job, but somebody's gotta do it...."

And there are people out there who are just gluttons for punishment.

;)

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

FW

Quote from: Eclipse on January 27, 2011, 03:44:16 PM
and you guys seriously think this isn't the definition of "whim"?  Like all things in CAP, there is plenty of room for people to do things in a way which
allows for a sustainable IG complaint, but the above is so subjective that unless you can prove you the "retaliation or discrimination angle", you're not
going to be a Commander if you aren't on the page of the next higher HQ.


Like I said; no one (yet) has ever bothered to argue about being removed from squadron command to the MARB.  Probably, because of the reason you mentioned, it is unlikely it will happen.
Though, if it did, I would hope the next higher commander documented the reasons for the "victim" becoming "unqualified or otherwise unsuitable". 

And, no, I don't think that is the definition of "whim".  It is the reason why you should remove an ineffective squadron (or group) commander.  And, the MARB gives considerable leeway to the commander responsible for relief.  The key is documentation. 

But, hey, what do I know....  ;D

JeffDG

Quote from: FW on January 27, 2011, 05:55:38 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 27, 2011, 03:44:16 PM
and you guys seriously think this isn't the definition of "whim"?  Like all things in CAP, there is plenty of room for people to do things in a way which
allows for a sustainable IG complaint, but the above is so subjective that unless you can prove you the "retaliation or discrimination angle", you're not
going to be a Commander if you aren't on the page of the next higher HQ.

And, no, I don't think that is the definition of "whim".  It is the reason why you should remove an ineffective squadron (or group) commander.  And, the MARB gives considerable leeway to the commander responsible for relief.  The key is documentation. 

The reg writers could just as easily have made Squadron/Group CCs either "at will" or serve "at the pleasure of" the next echelon, but they specifically required cause to relieve.

You could argue that Wing/Region policies WRT term limits violate that regulation, as there is no finding of lack of qualification or unsuitability of the commander relieved under the term limit.

Eclipse

Unit and Group CC's are essentially just staffers of the extended Wing.

They have no corporate authority, cannot enter into contracts, and are appointed and removed with a signature.
Wing CC's are corporate officers with specific terms of appointment spelled out by the rules of governance.

One only needs to look at the appointment process to see they serve at the whim of the Wing CC. 

There is no protection or appeal to their removal.  Saying the MARB could here the appeal doesn't mean they would.

"That Others May Zoom"

FW

Actually, commanders below the wing level do have authority and, are more than "just staffers of the extended wing".  They have some protections in the CAP C&BL's as well as in CAPR 35-8.

The MARB is obligated to consider any proper request sent it (however it is under no obligation to hear the case).  And, removal of a group or squadron commander is specifically written in the language of the regulation.  Dont' our "Core Values" mean anything?

The fact is, Eclipse, this isn't your CAP of the past as, some in "authority" may insist.  We have rules, regulations and, policies which effect our operations and what we do.  All commanders have protections other members do not.  They have these protections because they are asked to make decisions which effect those under them and, must be allowed the freedom to act within their scope of responsibility. 

What bothers me is your failure to understand this.  We must know that decisions relating to commanders can be reviewed and, if made wrongly, can be corrected. 

What continues to be a thorn in my side is the perception that, in this CAP, some have the feeling they are above these regulations and can make any decison they want only because "they can".

Term limits for all commanders would lessen this perception.  It would force everyone realize they need to pitch in for, one day, they may be in command. 

Eclipse

#63
There are no "regulations" in this case to "be above" - no one has quoted a single word that provides any specific term or protection to a commander below the wing level.

35-8 only applies in that it grants the MARB their very broad powers to basically hear an appeal to just about anything.

The only "protection" is a single subjective sentence which I will continue to quote since the  implications are bing missed.

"...whenever they are considered unqualified or otherwise unsuitable..."

"Unqualified" or "unsuitable" - not exactly a laundry list of do's and don'ts.

Actual insubordination aside, which is usually the way these things play themselves out, the myriad ways a person could be subjectively
considered "unsuitable" or "unqualified" are plentiful.

Failure to progress "I'm too busy being a commander".

Failure to maintain ES quals (see above)

Poor showing on an SUI, even in what some consider "trivial" areas

Poor member retention

etc., etc.

Things that are all part and parcel of being a CAP commander, and fairly common, but none of which has to be acceptable to the next higher HQ, even
though they routinely are because of the practical realities of an all-volunteer organization.

Also, the fact that there is an avenue to a sustainable appeal does not make unit command less subject to the whims of the next HQ.  It simply means
that by regulation CAP wants to try and be fair to its members.  That doesn't mean that a new incoming Wing CC, as part of a revitalization plan for
his wing, could not simply whole-scale replace all his unit CC's (might not be a bad idea in some places, either).

As to the authority of unit CC's, it is all delegated from the Wing CC, not inherent to their office, per-se, nor can a unit CC do anything that a Wing CC can't undo.

"That Others May Zoom"

FW

Oh, I get it now!  You just like to argue.  It's ok.  No one is debating the above points.  And, no one is even suggesting a unit commander be retained for the above.  The point being made is there must be a valid reason to remove and, that reason should be documented.  And, thank you, the point has been made.   35-8, BTW, gives the MARB the authority to reinstate a squadron or group commander who has been wrongly relieved.  Do you understand what that would mean to a group or wing?  All I'm trying to communicate is that relieving a commander is not a matter which should be taken lightly.

I still agree with those who would set a term for a squadron commander.   ::)

Eclipse

I have 10k+ posts, it isn't a news flash I like to argue.

And  my point is...

The only "valid reason" needed is "I am the Wing CC and I no longer wish for you to be a unit CC".

The only way the MARB could reverse the decision is if it could be proven that the action was retaliatory or based on discrimination.

"I am the Wing CC and no longer wish for you to be a Unit CC." is neither of those things, it is, however, fully within the authority of a Wing or Region CC.

"That Others May Zoom"

FW

Eclipse, I guess we will just have to agree we disagree.   ???
I appreciate your view on the subject.

Eclipse

Quote from: FW on January 28, 2011, 05:16:59 AM
Eclipse, I guess we will just have to agree we disagree.   ???
I appreciate your view on the subject.

Well...if that's your attitude... :D

"That Others May Zoom"

JeffDG

Quote from: Eclipse on January 28, 2011, 02:38:11 AM
"I am the Wing CC and no longer wish for you to be a Unit CC." is neither of those things, it is, however, fully within the authority of a Wing or Region CC.

That's not what the reg says.  It says that Unit CC must be unqualified or unsuitable.  Is it a high burden for the Wing CC to meet?  No, but it's not at will/at the pleasure.

MIKE

It's a CAP squadron, not the Supreme Court.  If it has to be removal for cause... than that should be changed and term limits established across the board.
Mike Johnston

cadet zimmerman

to answer some of your questions I am under investigation for something i did not do and my father and I are filing a counter suit against this commander that has been the commander for over 25 consecutive years and about the PT post it was just something this squadron does that im curious about
Kyle S. B. Zimmerman
C/MSgt CAP
In between squadrons

Spaceman3750

Quote from: cadet zimmerman on April 08, 2011, 05:44:23 PM
to answer some of your questions I am under investigation for something i did not do and my father and I are filing a counter suit against this commander that has been the commander for over 25 consecutive years and about the PT post it was just something this squadron does that im curious about

Counter... Suit... Huh? Do you mean an IG complaint (not that I encourage you to talk in detail in public about either issue)? If that's the case, IMHO your dad has nothing to do with it unless he's a member as well - you're in the hotseat for whatever happens.