Proposal: Require progression in professional development

[Short Field]

Those people are, in effect, Patron members.  They're just not listed as such.  Just as there is no harm in keeping their membership current, there is also no harm in categorizing their contribution to CAP more appropriately.

Why even bother with forcing them into Patron status?  About all that would do is cause some of them to not renew their membership since the unit they belonged to kicked them out. 

I can't believe you get this concerned about members who don't show up or even members who do show up but don't get involved.   

[Short Field]

We need to remember the main purpose of Professional Development - develop a cadre of people capable of running the day-to-day business of the squadron.  Promotions just reflect professional development.   

[dwb]

I can't believe you get this concerned about members who don't show up or even members who do show up but don't get involved.   

You obviously don't know me very well if you consider this thread to be an example of me being overly concerned about something. 

The funny thing is, I'm usually in lordmonar's camp on things like this, the pragmatist who says there's no use in dreaming about things that have no chance of seeing the light of day.

But I think the idea has merit.

A big issue that I didn't foresee is that there is an obvious stigma toward labeling indefinitely inactive members as Patron members, although that's what they are in practice.  It's like having a composite squadron that really only runs a cadet program; just call a spade a spade, fill out a CAPF 27 for re-designation, and be done with it.

I actually have no problem with people who want to keep their membership and not participate.  I took a sabbatical after relinquishing command of my squadron.  I'm in a duty assignment now that requires only infrequent attendance, because I'm just too busy to commit to another big duty assignment.

I totally get that participation will fluctuate, I'm not arguing that point.  My proposal was aimed more towards people that do participate regularly.

I also didn't say anything at all about promotions (besides that more people will qualify for them).  I know why promotions are partially decoupled from professional development, and I'm not proposing we change that.  I'm saying people should do PD because it inherently has merit, not because they can get promoted.

Finally, I'm not losing sleep over this.  I'm not planning to march on the National Board meeting this summer to demand we require PD.  I'm just floating an idea out to some fellow CAPers.

[lordmonar]

Those people are, in effect, Patron members.  They're just not listed as such.  Just as there is no harm in keeping their membership current, there is also no harm in categorizing their contribution to CAP more appropriately.

Why even bother with forcing them into Patron status?  About all that would do is cause some of them to not renew their membership since the unit they belonged to kicked them out. 

I can't believe you get this concerned about members who don't show up or even members who do show up but don't get involved.   

Also...patron members can't particpate in normal CAP stuff...by definition.  So if they guy you just shifted over to Patron Status because you have not seen him in six months, suddenly shows up at a SAREX....he can't play....gets mad....and quits for real.

Now you are out a fully qualified ES/COMM/Pilot/What ever.

People volunteer based on their own capabilities.   Forceing participation in anyway is not conductive to a volunteer organisation.

[lordmonar]

I totally get that participation will fluctuate, I'm not arguing that point.  My proposal was aimed more towards people that do participate regularly.

But that is not what you proposed.  You said "All senior members are required to complete up to Level III".

And if they don't we push them to patron status and don't let them play.  When push comes to shove...what are we going to do?  If you have a 2d Lt who does a great job doing his one deep every-other-week job that requires zero leadership and almost no interaction with anyone above wing....but his drop dead date comes up and he refuses to complete his level III....what is the greater good from forceing him to quit?

[lordmonar]

We teach that the Core Values are the price of admission to CAP.  One of CAP's Core Values is Excellence; I believe personal excellence and self-improvement are one facet of that.

So what do we do with the guy who has completed his Level V?  If he does not continue to "self improve" his is not meeting your vision of the core values?

Excellance is how you do your job.  If you NEED the training to become excellent...then it is by all means right and proper to force him out if he refuses to get the training (i.e. requiring Level III and UCC for commanders, Level IV for wing commanders).  However, for the rank and file staff guy....requiring more....just to be requiring it...serves no purpose.

[dwb]

So what do we do with the guy who has completed his Level V?

I don't know, congratulate him?  Considering how low the Wilson award numbers are, I'd say completing Level V is a shining example of a commitment to excellence and improving oneself.

And in theory, by the time someone does have a Wilson, they've learned that you should never stop learning.

I think we're talking past each other here, Pat.  I'm not saying that Excellence = being required earn a new geegaw every year.  I know you don't think that's what I'm saying.  And I would hope by this point that you don't actually believe that I feel someone who has a Wilson (or a Spaatz for that matter) has not exhibited a good chunk of personal dedication.

If you have a 2d Lt who does a great job doing his one deep every-other-week job that requires zero leadership and almost no interaction with anyone above wing....but his drop dead date comes up and he refuses to complete his level III....what is the greater good from forceing him to quit?

A lot of these hypothetical situations are difficult to discuss because we don't have any statistics at our disposal.  For example, what percentage of active senior members have been in for 5+ years and have not completed Level II and still serve in regular duty assignments?

I can think of two off the top of my head, so I know they exist.  But how many people are really in that situation?  Furthermore, how many of those people would be willing to take the PD if it was offered regularly and encouraged by their squadron commander?

I'd like to think the number of people who would rather quit than take SLS is fairly small, and if they're that finicky about their involvement, they'll end up falling on their sword for some other minor issue eventually.

[SarDragon]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Patron dues just the NHQ amount ($30 ?)? I I transferred all the members in my unit, that I've never seen, to Patron status, then my region and wing would lose the additional financial assets they currently get from the inactive members.

[lordmonar]

I know you don't think that way....but we are talking regulations here...and reasoning behind such.

You reasoned that it is a core value to improve yourself...for the sake of improvement.

If a officer knows his job, has the necessary skills, and is doing his job....there is no requirement to force him to do more.

A good mentor will always encourage his protégés to improve themselves and to take any and all training opportunities that present themselves....but we are talking about mandating training that may not be necessary or wanted.

And we are addressing the consequences of not meeting those requirements.

We always have to look at the consequences.

If you MANDATE that such a position must have such and such training you must be ready to:

1) Provide the required training in a timely manner (SLS/CLC once a year is not timely IMHO).

2) Take up the slack of not having any qualified to fill the position (i.e. do it yourself).

Add to this that you want people to do the job until the clock runs out...you either burn CC's for not Patron Statusing their members or you kill your unit by loosing good officers.

As for people who have been active for 5+ years and not have their Level II finished.....I got 5 of them in my squadron alone!

One of the reasons I was picked to take over was to fix this situation!  I am not doing it by drawing a line in the sand...but by mentoring and encouraging them to understand how it will help the squadron.

But MANDATING training for no good reason is just stupid....and I am in the USAF were we got some really stupid mandated annual training!

I hate it at work...I certainly don't want to promote it in my fun activity.

What we really need is better training and more often.  

If an officer did not have to wait six months to a year to get his SLS or CLC we would be a whole lot better off all around.

[kpetersen]

How about we compromise?  Agree to mandatory professional development (because you already do most the stuff for the specialty tracks anyway if you do just your basic job), and you give 2 weekends in 5 years to learning stuff you don't care about as much...and we'll see if they'll do away with ECI (AFAIDL) 13? 

  Works for me.

[RiverAux]

I think this idea is just a bit too broad to be workable.  I believe there are situations where an individual member's PD status should be taken into consideration, but I don't think we will increase participation by hitting people with the big stick. I prefer the carrot approach which would increase the opportunities available to them based their participation in the program.  

That being said, I think it would be difficult to implement your idea as suggested based on our current specialty track requirements.  They vary so widely in terms of time-in-position requirements that I think we would probably end up with a lot of Senior-rated people in the "easy" tracks ("Wow, where did all these historians come from all of a sudden?).  

The other issue is that although our senior member training program doesn't actually say it, if you look at the way it is designed it is geared towards having 1 person working in each staff job.  Lets face it, there are many of these positions that don't really need assistants.  There are a few positions where assistants could come in handy, but not many.  So, we would end up having to have a bunch of people supposedly serving as assistants, but not really doing much.  

[bosshawk]

Folks add me to the list of those who have been in CAP for fifteen years and has not gotten Level Two.

That said, I have commanded a Sq, been the deputy twice, am currently on the Wing Staff as a Director of a major program, have done UCC, SLS, CLS, Level one, been to more Wing Conferences than I can count, have taught at several CLC and SLS and simply have never gotten the Certificate of Proficiency or whatever it is called for Level Two.  As I see it, I qualify for Level Three, maybe even level Four.

I am a graduate of Army ROTC, Commissioned in the Army for 30 years, retired as a Colonel, graduated from the Basic Officers Course, the Advance Course, Command and General Staff College, the War College and several MOS producing courses over the years.

I am a Mission Pilot, a Mission Scanner, a Mission Check Pilot, an instructor in the Mt Flying Course, an AOBD, a Planning Branch Director and I suspect some more things that I can't remember right now.

Now, because I haven't jumped through all the hoops that some of you propose, you will make me a Patron?   Huh???

[lordmonar]

Now, because I haven't jumped through all the hoops that some of you propose, you will make me a Patron?   Huh???

That's right sir!  I need you to turn in your BTDT card by 0800 tommor or there will be trouble!

[bosshawk]

Pat: now tell me what a BTDT card is.  After more years than most of you folks have been alive, I still can't fathom some of the acronyms: especially the ones created in the computer world.  Have we forgotten how to speak English?

[O-Rex]

It's all about setting the example:  I love listening to the "career Lieutenant" harp on a cadet to move through his or her achievements.

penalize a member for not progressing?  Not likely, but its a matter of pride in what you do.

As an ACSC grad, I had the satisfaction of talking a CAP-USAF Major through a prticularly difficult chapter of ACSC material while we were at a mission base, waiting for weather to clear: how's that for turning the tables?  It was a definite win-win, and I'd like to think that I helped give CAP a little credibility in the eyes of at least one USAF Officer.

With the exception of USAF PME courses, the CAP PD program isn't really all that challenging, so what's the fuss?

To those who have the BTDT credentials, but don't validate them: what kind of message are you sending subordinates and peers, particularly if you are in a command or staff position?

Let's collectively make the extra effort, lest we be deserving of the amateur status we are sometimes given.

[lordmonar]

Pat: now tell me what a BTDT card is.  After more years than most of you folks have been alive, I still can't fathom some of the acronyms: especially the ones created in the computer world.  Have we forgotten how to speak English?

Been There, Done That!

[Major Carrales]

Service before self

Some are in CAP to serve, service as a CAP Captain or CAP Lt Col is equal in value by all definitions of the words. 

If I have a pilot or Cadet Programs person (or of the colorful gamut in between) dedicated to their craft in CAP but not really keen on moving up in rank, how would removing them or punishing them help the unit?

[lordmonar]

O-Rex,

I agree with you 100% about what we "should" be doing as good leaders, officers and mentors.

But in this case we are talking about FORCING people to do these things or kicking them out...ops sorry changing them to patron status (i.e. taking their money but not letting them play).

As for credentials...a 20+ year AD Lt Col already has more credentials then CAP could ever give them as far as PD is concerned.

Again I point the finger at the PD program itself.  The training needs to be timely and relevant.

On time and On target.

We need to offer it more often, we need to make it longer and more focused on leadership and less on "this is CAP" and it needs to be more focused on the needs of the squadron.

[kpetersen]

As for credentials...a 20+ year AD Lt Col already has more credentials then CAP could ever give them as far as PD is concerned.

i hate butting into directed to other people, but as much as I can appreciate an AF AD Lt Col, I'm currently cleaning up the meses of one, because he views CAP the same as boyscouts.  While in certain areas, sure AD does meet those needs, and therefore parts of it should count.  But just because someone is AD doesn't make them more qualified in a different area of CAP then where they're working.  The person I'm thinking of does a wonderful job in logistics, but not in CP.  Had he attended a TLC, i think i'd have a lot less problems now.

[lordmonar]

Notice I said about PD.....a 30 Pilot wing commander....probably has great leadership and managerial skills...but it does not mean he is an expert in CP or AE.

And requiring said Lt Col to attend SLS and CLC would not make him better in CP anyway......as you said TLC would be the appropriate training for the job.