Group/Squadron/Flight Commander Term Limits

[Tim Medeiros]

It seems with the new 20-1 Group/Squadron/Flight Commander Term Limits are a nation-wide thing now.

The wing commander appoints group, squadron, and flight commanders. These commanders serve a four-year term of office. Upon completion of the initial term, the Commander may be appointed to subsequent four-year terms with the approval of the Wing and Region commander.

I have bolded the changed text in that paragraph (14.c for those interested)

[a2capt]

Now if they had only covered the special instances where there is one in place already who's been there for the last 19 years.  You still got 4-8 more years of Fiefdom Central.

[JeffDG]

Why only 4 or 8...there's no restriction on subsequent terms

[a2capt]

Heh, missed that plurality. Then, really, how is this different? Since the the lower echelon commander serves at the will of the higher HQ. It gives them a once every 4 years of absolutely no reason to re-appoint, but since they can, what's the point?

[JeffDG]

Heh, missed that plurality. Then, really, how is this different? Since the the lower echelon commander serves at the will of the higher HQ. It gives them a once every 4 years of absolutely no reason to re-appoint, but since they can, what's the point?

The Region/CC must approve reappointment, so the Wing/CC must go up the chain to reappoint.

What it DOES do is give Squadron/CCs a term of office.  This could well be interpreted that a Squadron/CC is not an "at-will" job, and can only be relieved (except at the term end) for cause.

[arajca]

It could also get more members willing to serve as commander since it's no longer an open-ended commitment. I think it would be difficult to extend the term of a commander who doesn't want it extended.

[docbiochem33]

This is a good thing.  I have seen commanders who refused to give up a position for years and it was because of a variety of reasons. One didn't want to give up his position because he wanted to make sure his kids could at least get to the Spaatz exam.

One group commander used to use the comment, "No one wants to take over," but there were about 5 people standing there waiting.  One quit the program eventually and the others have drifted into the barely alive status in CAP.

[Eclipse]

About time.

As always it should have gone further, but anything is better then nothing.

This has been the policy, unevenly enforced, in my Region for nearly a decade.  The vast majority of the changes were positive.

[JeffDG]

This is a good thing.  I have seen commanders who refused to give up a position for years and it was because of a variety of reasons. One didn't want to give up his position because he wanted to make sure his kids could at least get to the Spaatz exam.

Until this, they served at the pleasure of the Wing/CC, so if the Wing/CC said "You are relieved", then "refusal" was not relevant.

[Eclipse]

The fact that commanders "refuse" to step down, believe they have anything more then a suggestion of their successor, or that the new guy has to come from within the unit indicates those CC's really have no idea how this is supposed to work.

It's not a game, it's not a popularity contest, and you haven't "earned the right".  You're either qualified and have a plan or you aren't.

[docbiochem33]

The unit was one where no one really paid attention.  The commander was replaced eventually because of a comment he made about getting too busy for all the stuff he was doing and that is when Wing finally acted.  They found about 3 replacements in the unit that wanted to take over and were qualified.

The group commander I knew of had those at wing thinking that there was no one that wanted it until they had a former Group Commander from another wing move to the area.  When they started asking questions, they found out that people wanted a change and that people were asking to give her job a try.  They did give it to the newer member to the wing since he had experience and they thought it would end any type of favoritism.

It worked and people were happy, but it still took at least 12 years of one person in a position.

[dwb]

This is actually a really interesting change. And it just sort of flew in under the radar (under my radar, anyway).

I know some Regions and Wings were instituting term limits, much to the dismay of some long-standing unit commanders. Ultimately, I think it's the right thing to do, even if it has to be phased in over a year or two to allow Group/Wing commanders to find suitable replacements.

Also, this change stymies the "just take the squadron for a year and we'll see how it goes" deals (which I have, unfortunately, been a part of). Now it's codified that squadron commander is a term of office.

Methinks this is a change that will be met with some resistance. The next few years should be interesting as all of the "forever commanders" are replaced.

[RogueLeader]

Here in Wyoming, Squadron Commanders are hard to replace, relatively speaking, due to lower numbers.  This is excepting Cheyenne Composite Squadron, where the last Squadron Commanders have been AD Air Force, to where they were only here for a couple years, three at best.  We found out that our current CC will be leaving somewhere between April and September.  It looks like I might get the job.

[PHall]

CAWG started doing Commander Term Limits about 10 years ago.
Haven't noticed any difference in getting people to be a Squadron Commander, it's still a pain.
One thing we have seen is that two or three people in some units will rotate the squadron commander job among themselves.
So we still have the problem of "Empires"... and the GOBN still running things.

[NIN]

I'm not a fan of specific term limits but I darn sure think that someone being a squadron commander for like 12 or 16 years is "way too darn long!"  You know that the wing & group commanders (if they have groups) have changed in that timeframe.  Were the new commanders unwilling to do any boat-rocking?

My longest command term was 5 years, and that was "about on the high side of just about right."  I could have done 4 years (and had I known that I would have had 4 years, I would have probably been a little more aggressive about some things) without it being a big deal.  I commanded that squadron twice, for a total of 7 years (there were two commanders between my two terms).

The thing that worries me about these long-time commanders is that many of them have "been doing it so long" that they're really not keeping up with the program as it evolves and changes.  They're still doing things based on their knowledge of the regs in 1995.  Well, thats great, but this is a CAP squadron, not your personal appreciation society.

[ELTHunter]

Also, this change stymies the "just take the squadron for a year and we'll see how it goes" deals (which I have, unfortunately, been a part of). Now it's codified that squadron commander is a term of office.

Methinks this is a change that will be met with some resistance. The next few years should be interesting as all of the "forever commanders" are replaced.

Nowhere does it say a CC cannot step down inside of 4 years. An appointment isn't a prison sentence. CC's can step down if they just can't fulfill their term.

[dwb]

Obviously, CAP is a volunteer organization. If someone loses their job, moves, decides they don't want it anymore, etc. we can't compel them to keep their command.

That said, the new language in the reg does set a much stronger expectation that the person will serve four years. The "just do the job until we can train up someone else" instances will likely decrease.

[RiverAux]

This seems reasonable.  It does allow for extensions, but I assume that the Wing commander is going to have to make a really strong case to the Region CC to get them to approve it.  And, its not going to look very good for a Wing Commander to ask for that extension since it essentially says that they are failing to find and develop new leaders within their Wing. 

[lordmonar]

This seems reasonable.  It does allow for extensions, but I assume that the Wing commander is going to have to make a really strong case to the Region CC to get them to approve it.  And, its not going to look very good for a Wing Commander to ask for that extension since it essentially says that they are failing to find and develop new leaders within their Wing.

That's an assumption that may or may not be supported by relaity.

If wing and regional commanders were doing thier jobs in the first place there would be no problems with commanders sitting for years in their post.  This new rule only codified what we have already had.

If Squadron Commander X has been doing his job for 10+ years.....and is doing well.....why should he be removed?
If squadron commander X has been doing his job for only 1 year and is struggeling....he should be helped to improve or removed.
It is that simple.

I have always arguened against term limits because for the most part I don't see a need for them.

[Eclipse]

The simple idea that you have a limited time to accomplish your goals as a CC is more then we have now.

On a 4-year cycle a unit CC has essentially 1-2 years of actual command where he's not "new" or "lame duck".

If you come into the job with out a plans or goals, you shouldn't have the job to start with.

[Eclipse]

You know, the repetitive response on term limits, the uniform thread, and a constant comment from Ned is "If Commanders were doing their jobs, we wouldn't have these issues."

I agree 100%.

They aren't.

So that's it?  The great circle of life? 

[lordmonar]

No....my point is....forcing out some effective commander because he has termed out is as stupid as allowing some incompetant keep his job.

The answer is and always has been good leadership at all levels....not adminstrative BS with regs and policy.

[Майор Хаткевич]

No....my point is....forcing out some effective commander because he has termed out is as stupid as allowing some incompetant keep his job.

The answer is and always has been good leadership at all levels....not adminstrative BS with regs and policy.

Good commander should have mentored a replacement or two, and can help them out when they start out, no?

[Larry Mangum]

It is not always that simple.  I was asked to take over the squadron I command, because no current members would step up and take command. It has been slightly over two years since that happened and it took me well over a year to recruit someone who had an interest in any type of command experience. That member started out as a sponsor member, was recruited to become a senior member and is now my CDC. But if I had to relied upon the members that existed in the unit when I took over, there still would not be anyone in the pipeline and there is also no guarantee that he will still be interested in command by the time I reach the 4 year mark, as his daughter has now left for college.

In short very few seniors are interested in command.

[Patterson]

Wow!  No one brought up the fact that the National Vice Commander can serve for life (no term limit established, period).

Seriously, I doubt that there are even a handful of Squadron Commanders out there who have served in the same position for more than 15 years, yet that is everyones reasoning for term-limits. 

Look at the history of the organization and you will find Wing and Region Commanders who served upwards of 30 years in those positions.  Term-limits are good, but are useless unless a real Training Program for all these up and coming Commanders referenced within this and multiple other threads is implemented.

This is more of a "you suck, thus I fire you legally" change.  It allows the "no hard feelings", and "we can still be friends" relationships between Wing and Region Commanders and thier subordiante Commanders.  Nothing more than that!

[RiverAux]

With basically the same type of people involved in the organization, about the same number of local units, and about the same amount of membership, the CG Aux gets along swimmingly with commanders that have a 1 year term with an option for a 1-year renewal. 

If every 1-2 years my CG Aux unit can come up with a new commander, then my home CAP unit, which is about the same size should be able to every 4 years. 

Maybe now that CAP has term limits some of those people who have been afraid to raise their hand because they did not want to make an open-ended commitment to an incredibly time-intensive job will be willing to step up. 

[dwb]

Seriously, I doubt that there are even a handful of Squadron Commanders out there who have served in the same position for more than 15 years, yet that is everyones reasoning for term-limits.

A quick glance at the Commanders file in today's CAPWATCH download shows 32 Commanders with 10+ years in the job, and 150 with 5+ years in. Longest-serving Commander is in TXWG and was appointed in Jan 1999.

[Eclipse]

Seriously, I doubt that there are even a handful of Squadron Commanders out there who have served in the same position for more than 15 years, yet that is everyones reasoning for term-limits.

A quick glance at the Commanders file in today's CAPWATCH download shows 32 Commanders with 10+ years in the job, and 150 with 5+ years in. Longest-serving Commander is in TXWG and was appointed in Jan 1999.

Nicely done, you beat me to it.  I was going to check that but had to run out.

Last I checked we had 1445 units.  I'm sure that's changed a bit, but not much.  I'm guessing No more then 1500, tops, and that charter lists
all echelons, so if you drop off Wings and Groups, we're looking at an excess of 10% of the units with commanders in excess of 5 years. 

I'd also hazard that a good percentage of those are in units that are struggling in general (assertions based on my wing's experience).  Add-in those
lazy-Susan areas where 2-3 people are just exchanging jobs every couple of years and the percentage gets worse.

My WAG would be that we have 20% of the units who have command issues related to stagnated commanders, probably more.

Add to this mix the bottom side as well.  At one point there at least ten units with SMWOG as CC and most of them had less then 6 months in CAP.

[docbiochem33]

I agree with NIN about commanders being in positions for a long time and not staying up with the changes to the program.

I used to have to spend hours online looking up regs and manuals that had changed and send the information to a group commander.  Her comment was always, "How am I supposed to know, I can only go with what I have in writing." 

I would argue with her that this was a bad argument because she could email people a half dozen times a week about stuff at wing and region, but couldn't go online to look stuff up.  She had been there so long she got lazy. 

When there are changes even every 4 to 5 years it is easy to make sure changes happen.  I still remember the complaints about how CAP was putting things online.  I hated some of it, but it was so much easier when it came to making forms available.  With many of the older members they complained that this new way was horrible and in some ways I agree as some are too computer reliant, but it sure beats ordering forms and getting complaints when a form is out of date.

[JeffDG]

I just realized this...

If an outgoing Wing/CC wanted to screw with his successor, he could cycle all the Squadron/CCs just before heading out the door, then the new Wing/CC wouldn't be able to change any of them for almost his entire term, absent cause.

That's one of the consequences of this new reg...Squadron/CC is now a term position, not an at-will position.  If a squadron commander is appointed, he can keep his job regardless of the wishes of the wing commander unless he gives cause for removal.

[Eclipse]

I don't read that as providing a commander any less, or more, "at will" removal then before.

You had to have cause for commander removal before.

"Cause" isn't generally hard to find, since anything from insubordination (i.e. not doing what you are told), to
lack of mission execution (and I haven't ever seen a unit that was 100% successful, anywhere).

[NIN]

Depending on the size of the wing, it would take some effort to cycle out commanders just to mess with the new guy.  And by "some effort" I mean "A nearly Herculean effort"

We have a hard time finding someone to take the reigns now even when its an expected thing.   

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

The (third) commander of my first squadron was a great guy, we became good friends and I eventually became his Deputy CC.

We built the squadron up from almost-downgrading to a Flight to one, though we didn't have an aircraft, we forged a good partnership with a nearby squadron who did and we did a lot of training together.  I got my signoffs for Mission Scanner then.

He continued to lead the squadron after I moved and transferred to another squadron (we unfortunately lost contact)...I think eventually he led the squadron for better than 10 years and finally got so burnt out that he left CAP entirely.  That deprived the organisation of a dedicated volunteer.

I think that the term limits are a good thing, if only to keep someone from that kind of burnout.

After all, National CC's are term-limited.

[Private Investigator]

I think that the term limits are a good thing, if only to keep someone from that kind of burnout.

I think it should have been three years and a fourth year for a exceptional Commander. When I was a Group Commander I knew who was burnt out, who was making progress and who needed to be relieved of duties. Most Squadron Commanders should not have a 4th, 5th, 6th year, etc, etc.

[Cool Mace]

For those who haven't seen this yet.

https://www.change.org/petitions/civil-air-patrol-stop-rule-mandating-squadron-commanders-step-down-after-4-years-of-service?

[JeffDG]

For those who haven't seen this yet.

For the love of...

OK, I make no secret that I'm not a fan of the term limits...IMHO, it's a crutch for Wing Commanders who don't want to clean out deadwood on their own, and will cost us some excellent commanders...but this whole petition craze is getting out of hand!

[FlyTiger77]

For those who haven't seen this yet.

For the love of...

This seems to be a misguided method for fixing a non-problem. Using petitions instead of the chain of command presumably will not accomplish what the petittioner(s) are trying to accomplish and flight/squadron/group commanders can still serve forever--just in 4 year blocks approved by the wing and region commanders.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Wow!

Now I only ask.

Will we now see petitions for...

...a CSU?

   ...an ABU?

      ...a return to wing patches in/on the Blues?

         ...to have "AF Auxiliary" on everything that those words were removed from vehicles, ACFT,
               and all else?

Seriously, how can that person think that all commanders are the very best for cadets?

Flyer

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Now I only ask.

Will we now see petitions for...

...a CSU?

There was one of those on Facebook ("Save The Corporate Service Uniform!").

...to have "AF Auxiliary" on everything that those words were removed from vehicles, ACFT,
               and all else?

An issue I support...but if it doesn't work through the existing CAP structure, it sure isn't going to work through a petition.

[Cool Mace]

For some reason people tend to forget what the CoC is. They think that if they start yelling wolf, then things will change.
They don't consider the time and effort national staff put in to changes. It's not just an overnight ordeal.

[Luis R. Ramos]

I know, I also support to have "USAF Auxiliary" on everything we were told to take it off. I added it to my earlier message because I just did not know what else to add.

My earlier message was a little bit of sarcasm, as I realize that petitions are not the way to make changes.

Can you imagine the military?

"Sergeant, you have to patrol that area at irregular intervals."

The Sergeant prefers to patrol at regular intervals so he starts "A Petition Not To Patrol Areas at Irregular Intervals." Please sign my petition... 

Flyer

[Eclipse]

For those who haven't seen this yet.

https://www.change.org/petitions/civil-air-patrol-stop-rule-mandating-squadron-commanders-step-down-after-4-years-of-service?utm_campaign=url_share_before_sign&utm_medium=url_share&utm_source=share_petition&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=url_share&utm_campaign=url_share_before_sign

There is so much wrong with that petition - Grammar, terminology, presupposes the issue only involves cadets.

Does anyone understand how the world actually "works" anymore?

[Luis R. Ramos]

Eclipse-

No, there is so much "instant gratification" and "dumbing down" that what we knew, is gone!



"Common sense?" It is the least common of everything...



Flyer

[a2capt]

Can someone edit that post with the URL?
Either nuke everything from the question mark onward, or put the whole thing into a text descriptor like "This Change.org Link"instead.

The stuff passed the question mark is not needed, it screws up the formatting for this whole thread.

[Cool Mace]

No, there is so much "instant gratification" and "dumbing down" that what we knew, is gone!

This is a sad fact. Many people today think the whole world is Burger King, where they can have it their way.

Although there are a few out there who do not like the change. I believe a vast majority support it.
It will also pressure CC's to develop the seniors below them, as it should be done.

[Майор Хаткевич]

That's the point of the change. If you can't find someone to replace you in four years (and advise after the term), then how good are you

[PHall]

We've had term limits in Pacific Region for over 10 years now.
It's simply not an issue...

[blinky]

Here is an easier link to that same petition http://tinyurl.com/capregpetition - and I don't agree that if you can't get it done through the chain of command you shouldn't voice your opinion.  Consider that many of the people are parents and there is a serious trust issue here.  CAP is for the most part a youth program - and all the "chain of command" talk is fine and dandy until the rubber meets the road and parents start pulling their kids out.  It's hard to lead with no followers and unfortunately CAP seems to go out of it's way to eliminate followers.

[blinky]

Can someone edit that post with the URL?
Either nuke everything from the question mark onward, or put the whole thing into a text descriptor like "This Change.org Link"instead.

The stuff passed the question mark is not needed, it screws up the formatting for this whole thread.

http://tinyurl.com/capregpetition

[Eclipse]

Here is an easier link to that same petition http://tinyurl.com/capregpetition - and I don't agree that if you can't get it done through the chain of command you shouldn't voice your opinion.  Consider that many of the people are parents and there is a serious trust issue here.  CAP is for the most part a youth program - and all the "chain of command" talk is fine and dandy until the rubber meets the road and parents start pulling their kids out.  It's hard to lead with no followers and unfortunately CAP seems to go out of it's way to eliminate followers.

So then the answer is, "No, I don't understand how CAP works..."  There are plenty of ways to voice an opinion directly, and around the chain.
Members have access, for better or worse, directly to the leadership at all levels, including NHQ.

The one thing that is sure to be easily ignored is a public petition which has no way to bet for membership, or even fundamental understanding
of the actual program.

The evidence is clear that term limits are a positive, or at least neutral, influence in the program.  Several of the largest regions have had them in place for years with no negative issues.  If you "can't be replaced" as a commander, the program has failed everyone involved.

And again, this is not an issue which only affects cadets as is insinuated in the description.

[blinky]

Here is an easier link to that same petition http://tinyurl.com/capregpetition - and I don't agree that if you can't get it done through the chain of command you shouldn't voice your opinion.  Consider that many of the people are parents and there is a serious trust issue here.  CAP is for the most part a youth program - and all the "chain of command" talk is fine and dandy until the rubber meets the road and parents start pulling their kids out.  It's hard to lead with no followers and unfortunately CAP seems to go out of it's way to eliminate followers.

So then the answer is, "No, I don't understand how CAP works..."  There are plenty of ways to voice an opinion directly, and around the chain.
Members have access, for better or worse, directly to the leadership at all levels, including NHQ.

The one thing that is sure to be easily ignored is a public petition which has no way to bet for membership, or even fundamental understanding
of the actual program.

The evidence is clear that term limits are a positive, or at least neutral, influence in the program.  Several of the largest regions have had them in place for years with no negative issues.  If you "can't be replaced" as a commander, the program has failed everyone involved.

And again, this is not an issue which only affects cadets as is insinuated in the description.

CAP is a glorified boy scouts program.  If you think otherwise go strut your uniform on any military base, try to buy something at the PX, etc.  If you want 4 year term limits on senior member squadrons then have at it - but do not delude yourself into thinking this issue isn't all about cadets.  And the Wing is exactly where a decision like this should reside - some wings can handle it some cannot.

[Eclipse]

CAP is a glorified boy scouts program.  If you think otherwise go strut your uniform on any military base, try to buy something at the PX, etc.  If you want 4 year term limits on senior member squadrons then have at it - but do not delude yourself into thinking this issue isn't all about cadets.  And the Wing is exactly where a decision like this should reside - some wings can handle it some cannot.

Well that pretty much summed up all that most of us need to know here...

Enjoy the rest of your stay at Marriott's Great America!

[JeffDG]

The evidence is clear that term limits are a positive, or at least neutral, influence in the program.  Several of the largest regions have had them in place for years with no negative issues. 

Where is this "evidence"?

If regions have no issues, that's fine...let them continue as they have been doing, but they forced their preferences upon others who did not wish these rules.

[Eclipse]

Come on, seriously?  Are you just arguing the point or really believe that?

I can certainly tell you that in my wing, it has been nothing but positive - those long term commanders were stagnating the entire situation.
Now we've got people invested in a culture of change, and those members have moved on to other jobs either in the unit or at other activities
and echelons.

CAP is quite literally >not< the BSA (which is a fine organization I am peripherally involved in).  It has a level of requirements that rivals
a full-time job, very little optional. Commanders that stagnate tend to ignore 1/2 the program, its requirements, and are a source of constant
friction in the wing.

Commanders who don't stagnate, owe it to others to mentor the new guys, while stepping out of the way for others to have a chance.

[JeffDG]

Come on, seriously?  Are you just arguing the point or really believe that?

I can certainly tell you that in my wing, it has been nothing but positive - those long term commanders were stagnating the entire situation.
Now we've got people invested in a culture of change, and those members have moved on to other jobs either in the unit or at other activities
and echelons.

CAP is quite literally >not< the BSA (which is a fine organization I am peripherally involved in).  It has a level of requirements that rivals
a full-time job, very little optional. Commanders that stagnate tend to ignore 1/2 the program, its requirements, and are a source of constant
friction in the wing.

Commanders who don't stagnate, owe it to others to mentor the new guys, while stepping out of the way for others to have a chance.

Anecdote <> Evidence.

So, you're saying that "Commander" is a full time job...but when you get a good one, who does a great job, keeps up with the program and devotes that level of time to it, you should replace him just because he's held the job for a while.

If it works for your wing, FANTASTIC...keep doing what works in your wing.

[blinky]

Come on, seriously?  Are you just arguing the point or really believe that?

I can certainly tell you that in my wing, it has been nothing but positive - those long term commanders were stagnating the entire situation.
Now we've got people invested in a culture of change, and those members have moved on to other jobs either in the unit or at other activities
and echelons.

CAP is quite literally >not< the BSA (which is a fine organization I am peripherally involved in).  It has a level of requirements that rivals
a full-time job, very little optional. Commanders that stagnate tend to ignore 1/2 the program, its requirements, and are a source of constant
friction in the wing.

Commanders who don't stagnate, owe it to others to mentor the new guys, while stepping out of the way for others to have a chance.

So - being that CAP is primarily a youth organization with a small cadre of planes and pilots - I think the comparison to BSA is pretty apt here.  BSA has 3.7 million members and CAP has 60k.  Just to put that in terms you might understand Eclipse - if CAP and BSA were both cadet squadrons - the CAP squadron would have 10 cadets and the BSA squadron would have 500 cadets.  So - since you are satisfied being from a squadron with 10 cadets - then more power to ya son.  You probably weren't born then - but back in the 70's BSA and CAP were considered on par with each other and there was healthy competition between them for youth.  Over the last 40 years BSA pretty much blew CAP out of the water in terms of growth and programs while CAP has stagnated.  BSA didn't bother to create this great new rule that throws out scout masters every 4 years.  You know why?  Because only an idiot would make that rule in an all volunteer organization.

[Eclipse]

So, you're saying that "Commander" is a full time job...but when you get a good one, who does a great job, keeps up with the program and devotes that level of time to it, you should replace him just because he's held the job for a while.

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying - for starters, where do the people for the higher echelons come from?  Those >not< capable of being a good commander?  What we need are the good CC's moving up and around, instead of stagnating themselves, their people, and the rest of the program.

And 4 years is hardly "a while" in the sense you're using it.  Most Commanders, especially the good ones, are more then ready to move out, up, or around after 4 years.  Those that aren't are either not running a full program, or are the wholesale exception.

I loved my time as a Commander, hated to leave, and hope to get the chance again, however the bottom line is that it was best for me, my people, and CAP, because I had trained my replacements.  Now we've got a fair number of people who served under me in commands of their own, and / or
running large activities and other areas of positive influence in the wing.

If I don't leave, I'm not encouraging others to leave / grow either (because I want them to hang around).

Bad for all around.

[Eclipse]

So - being that CAP is primarily a youth organization with a small cadre of planes and pilots - I think the comparison to BSA is pretty apt here.  BSA has 3.7 million members and CAP has 60k.  Just to put that in terms you might understand Eclipse - if CAP and BSA were both cadet squadrons - the CAP squadron would have 10 cadets and the BSA squadron would have 500 cadets.  So - since you are satisfied being from a squadron with 10 cadets - then more power to ya son.  You probably weren't born then - but back in the 70's BSA and CAP were considered on par with each other and there was healthy competition between them for youth.  Over the last 40 years BSA pretty much blew CAP out of the water in terms of growth and programs while CAP has stagnated.  BSA didn't bother to create this great new rule that throws out scout masters every 4 years.  You know why?  Because only an idiot would make that rule in an all volunteer organization.

Then here's a suggestion.

Have your cadets join the BSA and support that worthwhile organization.

At this point you're just trolling, and worse, don't really have any idea what you're even talking about.

[blinky]

So - being that CAP is primarily a youth organization with a small cadre of planes and pilots - I think the comparison to BSA is pretty apt here.  BSA has 3.7 million members and CAP has 60k.  Just to put that in terms you might understand Eclipse - if CAP and BSA were both cadet squadrons - the CAP squadron would have 10 cadets and the BSA squadron would have 500 cadets.  So - since you are satisfied being from a squadron with 10 cadets - then more power to ya son.  You probably weren't born then - but back in the 70's BSA and CAP were considered on par with each other and there was healthy competition between them for youth.  Over the last 40 years BSA pretty much blew CAP out of the water in terms of growth and programs while CAP has stagnated.  BSA didn't bother to create this great new rule that throws out scout masters every 4 years.  You know why?  Because only an idiot would make that rule in an all volunteer organization.

Then here's a suggestion.

Have your cadets join the BSA and support that worthwhile organization.

At this point you're just trolling, and worse, don't really have any idea what you're even talking about.

Lol - trolling.  Okee dokee pot - kettle here.  But you didn't answer my other question - are you aware that the BOG doesn't agree with the National Commander on this?

[Eclipse]

But you didn't answer my other question - are you aware that the BOG doesn't agree with the National Commander on this?

No.  All we have is your assertion, and you have ignored 3 requests by me, and one by Ned (who, BTW is the Vice Chair of the BOG) as to evidence of
this assertion.

[blinky]

But you didn't answer my other question - are you aware that the BOG doesn't agree with the National Commander on this?

No.  All we have is your assertion, and you have ignored 3 requests by me, and one by Ned (who, BTW is the Vice Chair of the BOG) as to evidence of
this assertion.

So - aaaaaaaaaaaanyway - I'll post this again for those of you who actually are concerned that CAP is a dying organization because of myopic policy wonks and want to do something about it.

http://tinyurl.com/capregpetition

[Майор Хаткевич]

Can we get the troll patrol to clean this wreck?

[Cool Mace]

Can we get the troll patrol to clean this wreck?

I was thinking the same thing...

Sorry, Blinky. But you have brought nothing to this thread to help people see your way.

[keystone102]

You do know that the BOG can revoke the term limit reg if they wanted to. Please tell us how you know what the BOG is thinking. I'm sure Lt Col Lee would like to know.

[blinky]

Can we get the troll patrol to clean this wreck?

I was thinking the same thing...

Sorry, Blinky. But you have brought nothing to this thread to help people see your way.

Apology accepted.  My opinion - it is hard enough to find GOOD Squadron Commanders, but to force those good ones out, just does not make sense. We are a VOLUNTEER organization, NOT active duty military. Our overburden of mindless regulations is why Senior Member retention is such a problem.

[blinky]

You do know that the BOG can revoke the term limit reg if they wanted to. Please tell us how you know what the BOG is thinking. I'm sure Lt Col Lee would like to know.

Not anymore they can't.

[ßτε]

You do know that the BOG can revoke the term limit reg if they wanted to. Please tell us how you know what the BOG is thinking. I'm sure Lt Col Lee would like to know.

Not anymore they can't.

You are mistaken. The BoG has full authority over the organization, including the National Commander. If the BoG has an opinion on policy, or the implementation thereof, they simply direct the National Commander to revise it. If the National Commander refuses, then he or she will soon be a former National Commander.

I am fairly confident that the vast majority of the BoG has no opinion on this issue whatsoever. The BoG is more concerned with more strategic issues like funding.

[I think you may be confusing the BoG (Board of Governors) with the now defunct NB (National Board).]

[keystone102]

How do you know the BOG is against thiso regulation?

[NIN]

So - aaaaaaaaaaaanyway - I'll post this again for those of you who actually are concerned that CAP is a dying organization because of myopic policy wonks and want to do something about it.
<snip>

I'm trying to understand something. You'll forgive me if I seem a little, I dunno, retarded. I've been retired from CAP for 3 1/2 years now, so maybe I'm just becoming senile and slow.

You keep asserting that the BOG "does not agree with the National Commander" regarding term limits. 

You've been asked at least twice to back up that assertion, and every time, you seem to ignore the question and go off in a different direction.

Since one of the participants in one of the two threads here on CAP-Talk on this subject is actually a real, live honest-to-goodness member of the BOG and is, in fact, the VICE CHAIR of that august body, I would think, nay, I'd guarantee, he is in a position to know whether or not the BOG is in disagreement with the National Commander on any number of subjects. Not the least of which might be term limits for unit commanders.

While I know Ned pretty well, I know he takes his duties as a BOG'er (you see what I did there?) seriously and just doesn't tell random people all about the secret handshakes, meetings and whether or not the BOG chair likes celery in his tuna fish sandwiches. 

But, if Ned says "Yeah, not on the BOG's radar. We gots way, way bigger fish to fry..." then my thought is that the BOG could probably not give a rats ass whether the worlds most awesomest squadron commander is getting a raw deal vis-a-vis this new requirement or not.

Having been a squadron commander 5 times in 4 units in 2 states, including leading two units that received Squadron of Merit and Squadron of Distinction, I think I've in a position to understand most, if not all, the dynamics facing CAP unit commanders during their tenures.

If your unit commander is the most awesome unit commander in the history of Civil Air Patrol, then I'm sure that your unit is wicked high speed, well organized, well staffed and is currently experiencing a positive vector that a Space Shuttle would be envious of.   And the unit should survive that commander getting hit by a bus. Tomorrow. 

And if the unit cannot survive that circumstance, then that unit really is not wicked high speed, well organized, well staffed or on a positive vector.

But what do I know? I'm just some guy on the Internet who claims to have been in CAP over 28 years and been, you know, successful.

[FlyTiger77]

So - aaaaaaaaaaaanyway - I'll post this again for those of you who actually are concerned that CAP is a dying organization because of myopic policy wonks and want to do something about it.
<snip>

I'm trying to understand something. You'll forgive me if I seem a little, I dunno, retarded. I've been retired from CAP for 3 1/2 years now, so maybe I'm just becoming senile and slow.

You keep asserting that the BOG "does not agree with the National Commander" regarding term limits. 

You've been asked at least twice to back up that assertion, and every time, you seem to ignore the question and go off in a different direction.

Since one of the participants in one of the two threads here on CAP-Talk on this subject is actually a real, live honest-to-goodness member of the BOG and is, in fact, the VICE CHAIR of that august body, I would think, nay, I'd guarantee, he is in a position to know whether or not the BOG is in disagreement with the National Commander on any number of subjects. Not the least of which might be term limits for unit commanders.

While I know Ned pretty well, I know he takes his duties as a BOG'er (you see what I did there?) seriously and just doesn't tell random people all about the secret handshakes, meetings and whether or not the BOG chair likes celery in his tuna fish sandwiches. 

But, if Ned says "Yeah, not on the BOG's radar. We gots way, way bigger fish to fry..." then my thought is that the BOG could probably not give a rats ass whether the worlds most awesomest squadron commander is getting a raw deal vis-a-vis this new requirement or not.

Having been a squadron commander 5 times in 4 units in 2 states, including leading two units that received Squadron of Merit and Squadron of Distinction, I think I've in a position to understand most, if not all, the dynamics facing CAP unit commanders during their tenures.

If your unit commander is the most awesome unit commander in the history of Civil Air Patrol, then I'm sure that your unit is wicked high speed, well organized, well staffed and is currently experiencing a positive vector that a Space Shuttle would be envious of.   And the unit should survive that commander getting hit by a bus. Tomorrow. 

And if the unit cannot survive that circumstance, then that unit really is not wicked high speed, well organized, well staffed or on a positive vector.

But what do I know? I'm just some guy on the Internet who claims to have been in CAP over 28 years and been, you know, successful.

And that leaves really nothing to add!

Well done, NIN, as per usual.

[Private Investigator]

My opinion - it is hard enough to find GOOD Squadron Commanders, but to force those good ones out, just does not make sense.

What makes a "good" Squadron Commander? And what about developing future Squadron Commanders?

[Майор Хаткевич]

My opinion - it is hard enough to find GOOD Squadron Commanders, but to force those good ones out, just does not make sense.

What makes a "good" Squadron Commander? And what about developing future Squadron Commanders?

He's been suspended, so I don't know when he may (or probably not) get back to you.

[NIN]

And that leaves really nothing to add!

Well done, NIN, as per usual.

Thanks.  20 years of CAP internet operations (starting with the old CAP-Talk majordomo list on cap.gov BITD, and continuing thru CadetStuff's forums and now CAPTalk) has taught me a thing or two about how people behave on the Internet.

I don't mind discussing/debating issues in a forum as long as the participants are being above board and open-minded.  But refusing to acknowledge that people are asking you difficult questions, or refusing to act appropriately when reminded repeatedly is usually a red-flag for someone with an axe to grind.

Internet forums are about community norms and standards.  What flies here wouldn't last 5 second on Reddit, but what flies on Reddit would get modded to the moon here, too.  Knowing your audience is important and requires you to pay attention, listen and respond appropriately.

Wanna spout off on a gigantic frothing rant? Do so on Facebook or Twitter.

[Devil Doc]

Darin to the Rescue!!! BTW who has been on this forum the longest and and still participates in discussions?

[Cool Mace]

Darin to the Rescue!!! BTW who has been on this forum the longest and and still participates in discussions?

I was about to go through the list of members. But after looking at it, I don't have time to go through 124 pages of members.
Maybe one of the Mods can pull it up without any head ache?

[SarDragon]

Darin to the Rescue!!! BTW who has been on this forum the longest and and still participates in discussions?

I was about to go through the list of members. But after looking at it, I don't have time to go through 124 pages of members.
Maybe one of the Mods can pull it up without any head ache?

You can do it yourself.

Click the Members tab to bring up the members list. Click the top of the Date Registered column, and you'll get the list of registered members from day 1. You should be able to recognize the folks whose posts you have seen the most often.

Sort by Posts, and you'll have another point of view.

[Pylon]

Darin to the Rescue!!! BTW who has been on this forum the longest and and still participates in discussions?

I was about to go through the list of members. But after looking at it, I don't have time to go through 124 pages of members.
Maybe one of the Mods can pull it up without any head ache?

You can do it yourself.

Click the Members tab to bring up the members list. Click the top of the Date Registered column, and you'll get the list of registered members from day 1. You should be able to recognize the folks whose posts you have seen the most often.

Sort by Posts, and you'll have another point of view.

Yup, or just click here: http://captalk.net/index.php?action=mlist;sort=registered;start=0

Users in order of registration.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Silly SarDragon.

I recognize most of the early names, but excluding mods/admins, he's the winner!

[Devil Doc]

Dang SarDragon, you the winner of the "Salty Dog" award. Any comments?

[Rick-DEL]

Wow, on page 96. I missed a ton of info !

[SarDragon]

Dang SarDragon, you the winner of the "Salty Dog" award. Any comments?

Yeah, 7170 of them.

I'm retired. Most of the other frequent posters allegedly have full time jobs. Ever wonder how they manage so many posts?

[Майор Хаткевич]

2600 posts in 5 years...500 per year. Under 2 per day. Some days 15, some months none..

[Eclipse]

Dang SarDragon, you the winner of the "Salty Dog" award. Any comments?

Yeah, 7170 of them.

I'm retired. Most of the other frequent posters allegedly have full time jobs. Ever wonder how they manage so many posts?

Not being engaged in social nonsense is a good place to start.

[NIN]

Not being engaged in social nonsense is a good place to start.

Dave has 7100 posts. And he's active on FB.

I have 2100, and I'm active on FB (and retired from CAP now).

Your point?

[Eclipse]

Your point?

Well, the insinuation, made occasionally, is how someone with high post counts can possibly sustain employment, CAP activities, etc.

And my response is that this is literally the only forum I participate in, have no involvement in the social nonsense, and having a tab open here isn't exactly a huge drain on resources.  My employment tends to be lots of waiting punctuated by periods of short-bursts of activity, and then more waiting.

A fair number of people here participate actively in lots of other military, gaming, political, aviation, etc., etc., forums, plus MyBook, Twitspace, Google-, etc.    Add up that time and it would make my time here look pretty mild.  I'm not closing this tab and then checking status on 12 other sites.

I only ad hominem here.

[Devil Doc]

Well, i have a full time job. My work involves a Computer, so yes, access to the internet is a plus. I have to be carefull the government monitors there computer 

[johnnyb47]

"Book-face, *pssshhh*... Book-face is of the DEVIL. It's not for mah Bobby Bouchette!" 

I keep up with Family and post pictures on facebook. Otherwise I'm with Eclipse. I have too much going on to get wrapped up in social media.

To be on-topic, I'm a fan of term limits. I believe that if it weren't for term limits and some careful watching, none of us (squadron mates and me) would ever have the opportunity to command. Our current commander inherited nothing but problems from two people who kept passing command back and forth. While they may have done a great job with many things they sure didn't have much of a contingency/continuity plan.
Our current commander has basicaly turned the squadron into a turn-key opportunity for the next in line and has been training replacements since day 1.
She's my personal hero.

[a2capt]

It's kinda funny, I think. From the perspective of that's all I've ever known. In the 11 years I've been here, I've seen 6 CC's at my unit. Some have run out their terms, others were pushed from their terms.

Over all, I see absolutely no problem with it. We've had our weak eras, and our strong ones. It's the strong ones that help us with the weak ones, and the weak ones that help us with the strong ones.

What are we doing right, what are we doing wrong, and what are we not doing at all, that we really should be. The Commander is just one part of a well oiled, well timed engine just firing away.  Yes, the CC is responsible for the unit, and answers above, but the CC can't do their job without a support staff and communication, at least in the larger units, though I'd apply that all the way down the line. Changing out a piece of it every so often is par for the course.