CAP Talk

Approved today:

QuoteMARYLAND – Members of Civil Air Patrol's Board of Governors, the organization's policymaking body, presented the corporation's new internal governance structure today to CAP members attending the 2012 National Board and Annual Conference in Baltimore. 

BoG members participating in the announcement included Brig. Gen. Rich Anderson, BoG chairman; retired Air Force Maj. Gen. John Speigel, BoG Governance Committee chairman; CAP National Commander Maj. Gen. Chuck Carr; and retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Sanford Schlitt.

The changes, which address longstanding governance issues and include recommendations designed to ensure best practices, focus on the role of the BoG and CAP's National Board and National Executive Committee, as well as the selection process for the organization's top executives.

Key components are cited below:

    CAP's national commander will serve as chief executive officer and will report directly to the BoG, which will select and evaluate the commander's performance.

    The national commander will be selected from top candidates vetted by the BoG's Personnel Committee. Candidates must be a CAP member in good standing. Required credentials include a bachelor's degree, CAP Level V professional development and prior service as a CAP wing commander. Selection requires a two-thirds majority vote by the BoG.

    Annual goals identified by the BoG with input from the national commander will be used as the basis for the commander's performance evaluations.
     
    The position of National Headquarters executive director will be renamed chief operating officer. The BoG will hire and evaluate the COO, who will report to the BoG for administrative matters and to the CEO for operational matters. The BoG will review the COO's performance annually.
     
    The National Board will become the CAP Command Council. Its 63 members – the national commander, national vice commander, chief of staff, region commanders (eight) and wing commanders (52) – will serve as advisers to the  national commander. The CAP Command Council will continue to meet twice annually to discuss operational issues related to CAP's missions.
     
    The National Executive Committee will be renamed the CAP Senior Advisory Group. The CSAG will review and recommend policy changes to the BoG. It will consist of 11 voting members – the national commander, national vice commander, CAP chief of staff and eight region commanders. The COO and CAP-U.S. Air Force commander will be ex officio, nonvoting members.
     
    CAP membership on the BoG will change from two to four member-at-large positions. The national commander and national vice commander will not serve on the BoG; however, the national commander will continue as a permanent BoG adviser.   
     
    Term limits for BoG members will include a staggered rotation schedule to ensure orderly transitions. The term will be three years for Secretary of the Air Force appointees, CAP members and industry representatives. If approved by the appointing authority, BoG members may be extended one additional term beyond their original appointment.
     
    The national commander will nominate a candidate for vice commander and the BoG will confirm the selection. The vice commander will serve at the will and pleasure of the national commander, with no specified term of office.
     
    The general counsel will be the principal legal officer and secretary for the corporation. The volunteer national legal officer will become the chief, CAP legal corps.
     
    The chief financial officer will serve as treasurer of the corporation.

     

"The governance changes will streamline the organization's decision and policymaking processes while still taking into account the important inputs of CAP's leaders in the field," said Carr.

"Expanding the member-at-large positions from two to four also postures members to have a greater voice in policy changes affecting the future direction of the organization," Carr said, adding, "I encourage all members to embrace these changes, which will better position CAP to serve our nation and our communities."

The BoG's governance decisions will be provided to the Constitution and Bylaws Committee for action, with initial implementation of the changes set for October.

"I have been affiliated with the CAP governance structure for three decades, and I feel strongly the modifications we're implementing will significantly enhance the way in which CAP is governed by the BoG and led by our volunteer national leadership,"  said Anderson.

The board's recommendations were briefed to key Air Force leaders at the Pentagon, said Anderson, including the Secretary of the Air Force, and Air Force leadership has endorsed the changes.

The BoG formed the Governance Committee after receiving an internal governance report from a CAP Governance Committee consisting of volunteer leaders, as well as an external governance study conducted by BoardSource, a nonprofit organization based in Washington. These reports, as well as information gleaned from meetings with outside experts and member surveys, were used to help develop the new governance structure.

Question ... in the new governance structure, the National CC is now required to have achieved Level V.  Isn't this the first time Level V has been required for any position in CAP?

Jack

Everyone has a commander, no one is commanding themselves, an the emphasis will be on executing the mission in your AOR, not being worried about
trivialities three states away.

Between this, the CAP-USAF restructure, and the general culture of change this will bring, we have an opportunity to win back much of the important responsibilities that have eroded and evolved from the volunteer cadre over the last decade.

This is a good time to be in CAP, especially if you are prepared to embrace the changes and act on the opportunities they will afford.

+1 Eclipse!  Well said.

Jack

I guess the corporatists won. The new structure is far more corporate based than military based.

Quote from: arajca on August 24, 2012, 04:40:14 PM
I guess the corporatists won. The new structure is far more corporate based than military based.

How do you figure?  From a title perspective, maybe, but from a top-down chain of command, and from a "concentration of effort" perspective,
this is much more military then before.

Wing CC's in the USAF do not "vote" for the CSAF (etc.), he's appointed by people without a direct vested interest in who the appointee is.

You should also note that the COO now reports to the Nat CC for operational matters - this issue of the national staff competing with the
national CC has been noted by a lot of people as a factor in our inability to get trivial matters handled timely, and also in regards to
paid-staff usurping the regulatory-roles of volunteer staff and commanders simply because of expedience and access.

Quote from: ColonelJack on August 24, 2012, 04:30:10 PM
Question ... in the new governance structure, the National CC is now required to have achieved Level V.  Isn't this the first time Level V has been required for any position in CAP?

Jack

I believe it is the first time.

I know they push for Wing CCs to get Level V but only III is required. So does this mean at least Level IV for Region CC?

Quote from: Eclipse on August 24, 2012, 04:45:02 PM

Quote from: arajca on August 24, 2012, 04:40:14 PM
I guess the corporatists won. The new structure is far more corporate based than military based.

How do you figure?  From a title perspective, maybe, but from a top-down chain of command, and from a "concentration of effort" perspective,
this is much more military then before.

Wing CC's in the USAF do not "vote" for the CSAF (etc.), he's appointed by people without a direct vested interest in who the appointee is.

You should also note that the COO now reports to the Nat CC for operational matters - this issue of the national staff competing with the
national CC has been noted by a lot of people as a factor in our inability to get trivial matters handled timely, and also in regards to
paid-staff usurping the regulatory-roles of volunteer staff and commanders simply because of expedience and access.

We've always been aux and corp. The new corp titles for the volunteers are very much in line with their "military" titles. Like the AF, the "civilian" employees are now under the national commander. CC Trumps EX!

Did not mention if the Wing CCs are still corporate officers.

Quote from: arajca on August 24, 2012, 04:40:14 PM
I guess the corporatists won. The new structure is far more corporate based than military based.

Disagree.

While the titles are corporate.....the structure is much more military based than what we had before.

The BoG is SECAF....the National CC is CSAF, regional commanders are Numbered AF, and so on.

The Regional Commanders with the National CC advise and make suggestions to the BoG.

The Command Counsel advises the National Commander.....much like the MAJCOM commanders do for the CSAF.

But.....and here is the key point....the National Commander and his Vice are both hired by the BoG....i.e. their boss......and not their subordinates....and since the NB is gone.....the requirment for having all the regs and orders of the National Commander ratified by his subordinates is gone...which means stream lined regulations, clear lines of authority.  Some wing commander not following the regs or is doing poorly in his job, he can be removed with out cries of "politics" from every Blogger on the internet.

Quote from: phirons on August 24, 2012, 04:56:08 PM

Quote from: ColonelJack on August 24, 2012, 04:30:10 PM
Question ... in the new governance structure, the National CC is now required to have achieved Level V.  Isn't this the first time Level V has been required for any position in CAP?

Jack

I believe it is the first time.

I know they push for Wing CCs to get Level V but only III is required. So does this mean at least Level IV for Region CC?

That would make sense.  Five levels of command in CAP......Level I is requrired for Squadron, Level II for Group, Level III for wing, Level IV for Region, Level V for National.

Pre-announcement word is region and wing CCs will still be 'corporate officers' (much like in banking, with authority to sign and commit the corporation) but not 'corporate directors'.

LordMonar:  do you really think Level 1 is sufficient for a sqdn CC, Level 2 for a group CC?  I have to differ with you there:  Level 2 for sqdn, level 3 for group, level 4 for wing, level 5 for region or national.

My 2 cents!

Wing and region commanders going forward will no longer need to be "corporate officers."

Much like our colleagues in the AF,  contracting will not be a command function.  It will be handled by legal and contracting officers.  Commanders will be able to focus on operational concerns.

Does anyone know if there will be a set term for the National CC and CV or will they serve an indefinite term once appointed?  And will the National CC still be a volunteer or a full-time, paid staff member as CEO?

Overall, the changes appear to be good, but I'm still looking forward to more details.

Quote from: Ned on August 24, 2012, 06:15:15 PM
Wing and region commanders going forward will no longer need to be "corporate officers."

Much like our colleagues in the AF,  contracting will not be a command function.  It will be handled by legal and contracting officers.  Commanders will be able to focus on operational concerns.

IGs / IOs require indemnification from a corporate officer to start an investigation.  Was this issue raised / addressed?

(sit ting in a seminar)

The term for national cc is three years, with one possible extension.

The vice serves at the pleasure of the cc, and has no term limit.  In theory the vice could serve more than one commander, and a given commander could replace a sitting vice if necessary.

QuoteThe BoG will hire and evaluate the COO, who will report to the BoG for administrative matters and to the CEO for operational matters.

I guess I'm not sure exactly what this means.  What operational role has the paid national staff been filling? 

Quote from: RiverAux on August 24, 2012, 06:30:09 PM

QuoteThe BoG will hire and evaluate the COO, who will report to the BoG for administrative matters and to the CEO for operational matters.

I guess I'm not sure exactly what this means.  What operational role has the paid national staff been filling?

Isn't the NOC all or mostly paid staff?

The number of paid NOC staff members is very small. That is why NOC Augmenttes are used throughout the year.

I believe that the vehicle and aircraft maintenance folks are paid staff, as well as some of the NOC people. The aircraft, vehicle and communications equipment acquisition and distribution involves paid staff.  If I recall correctly, just about anything related to operations involves paid staff: I know that the CounterDrug operation is paid staff.  So------operations correctly involve paid staff with augmentation from volunteers.

Don't know about cadet stuff: was never involved in that side of CAP.

Quote from: RiverAux on August 24, 2012, 06:30:09 PM

QuoteThe BoG will hire and evaluate the COO, who will report to the BoG for administrative matters and to the CEO for operational matters.

I guess I'm not sure exactly what this means.  What operational role has the paid national staff been filling?

You have no idea!

I kinda like where this is going.  Not much else to say other then woo hoo!

I am quite impressed and pleased with this outcome. Like others have said, now we don't have to wait for a NB meeting just to get a little procedural correction made. For once the chain of command has some force behind it. All it took was a little common-sense and Occam's Razor application.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 24, 2012, 04:45:02 PM

Quote from: arajca on August 24, 2012, 04:40:14 PM
I guess the corporatists won. The new structure is far more corporate based than military based.

How do you figure?  From a title perspective, maybe, but from a top-down chain of command, and from a "concentration of effort" perspective,
this is much more military then before.

Wing CC's in the USAF do not "vote" for the CSAF (etc.), he's appointed by people without a direct vested interest in who the appointee is.

You should also note that the COO now reports to the Nat CC for operational matters - this issue of the national staff competing with the
national CC has been noted by a lot of people as a factor in our inability to get trivial matters handled timely, and also in regards to
paid-staff usurping the regulatory-roles of volunteer staff and commanders simply because of expedience and access.

I agree. the National Commander should be appointed, not voted on by his/her subordinates. I am up and her the announcement. I am just gonna see how it plays out. Change can be hard for some people. Inclding myself, but I am learning to embrace it..

Quote from: phirons on August 24, 2012, 04:59:24 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on August 24, 2012, 04:45:02 PM

Quote from: arajca on August 24, 2012, 04:40:14 PM
I guess the corporatists won. The new structure is far more corporate based than military based.

How do you figure?  From a title perspective, maybe, but from a top-down chain of command, and from a "concentration of effort" perspective,
this is much more military then before.

Wing CC's in the USAF do not "vote" for the CSAF (etc.), he's appointed by people without a direct vested interest in who the appointee is.

You should also note that the COO now reports to the Nat CC for operational matters - this issue of the national staff competing with the
national CC has been noted by a lot of people as a factor in our inability to get trivial matters handled timely, and also in regards to
paid-staff usurping the regulatory-roles of volunteer staff and commanders simply because of expedience and access.

We've always been aux and corp. The new corp titles for the volunteers are very much in line with their "military" titles. Like the AF, the "civilian" employees are now under the national commander. CC Trumps EX!

Did not mention if the Wing CCs are still corporate officers.

I dont think we have changed titles have we? I mean the National Commander hold the position of CEO of the corporation, but he will still be referred to as the NAtional Commander right?

Ned

I've completed Level 5, so where do I send my application to be National Commander?

Quote from: flyguy06 on August 24, 2012, 11:13:58 PM
I dont think we have changed titles have we? I mean the National Commander hold the position of CEO of the corporation, but he will still be referred to as the NAtional Commander right?

Correct, the "CEO" parlance might wind up being listed in a governance doc, or used in the context of donors and others who prefer that terminology,
but he or she will still be a 2-star.

Calling HEADCAP the "CEO" is as much a recognition of the new structure and to whom he is beholden as a title change per-se.  The line of command and decision-making authority has become very bright and clear - The Nat CC is the head of the organization, for both the paid and non-paid staff, but
will serve at the pleasure of a board which should be somewhat distanced from politics and the trivialities which have slowed our progress.

The BOG's authority is now final and absolute, with no ambiguity.  It may well have always been the case, but with all the voices in the room in the previous incarnation, it was hard to tell sometimes.

And since the BOG has members who are not CAP people, the assumption would that the decisions made would be more strategic "best practice" orientated (no matter who they make unhappy), vs. more tactical and related to personal needs and issues.

Having the Wing and Region CC's refocused on their AORs, without the politics of ascension involved, should be a big boost as well.  These jobs should
return to being the "hard-work / little recognition" roles of support the units and members that they are intended to be.

Quote from: BillB on August 24, 2012, 11:19:27 PM
Ned

I've completed Level 5, so where do I send my application to be National Commander?

Be careful worth stuff like that.  That's how I got stuck on the BoG.

While my preferences for an organizational structure much more like the CG Aux are well known, I'd say that if a top-down structure is what the AF and CAP want, then this is a much more efficient way of doing things than was the case with the previous structure. 

Unfortunately, while it does solve several problems we are still going to be stuck with the Wing King/Queen situation which is now even going to be stronger given less oversight by the AF due to the reduction in State Directors. 

The number of people driven out of CAP due to high level politics is quite small, but the dictatorial powers of the Wing Kings/Queens is probably responsible for the loss of more good people than just about anything else having to do with the structure of the organization. 

You can't run a 1200+ person organization as a democracy, especially within the CAP paradigm.

With the politics removed at the national level, one would hope that ineffective Wing CC's would be more readily removed, since neither National CC, nor the BOG would need to be concerned about those decisions haunting them later on (assuming the proper process is followed).

I disagree with you RiverAux.

While we will always have local politics.....at the unit group and wing levels....the Wing Commander who wish to move up will have to do it more on PERFORMANCE at the wing level instead of political reliability or any sort of fuedal system.

Wing commander can now focus more on execution of the policies and guidance coming from HQ instead of splitting all their time doing staffer jobs and jokeying for position for their next position or election.

Well, I have been pretty critical of the studies and the planning phase of this...

But, I must admit that I am pleasantly impressed....

This is all good stuff, folks. Very positive stuff for our organization. I'm eager to see how it all shakes out. Some of the best news I've seen in my 28 years in CAP!

QuoteThe national commander will be selected from top candidates vetted by the BoG's Personnel Committee. Candidates must be a CAP member in good standing. Required credentials include a bachelor's degree, CAP Level V professional development and prior service as a CAP wing commander. Selection requires a two-thirds majority vote by the BoG.

Well it is about time :clap:   This means an end to popularity contest of commander selection.  This will definitely eliminate a lot of the good-ol-boy network and a lot of the butt kissing.

I do not agree with the bachelor's degree requirement.  There are a lot of college educated idiots trying to run other government programs.   We can all see how that works out :o  Motivation and dedication are a much better judge of how smart a person is.

A good point on this is that 7 out of the 10 richest people in the US are college dropouts - you do not make that much money being stupid or not knowing how to lead.

QuoteDid not mention if the Wing CCs are still corporate officers.

According to an email put out by our Wing CC, they will no longer be corporate officers.  All contracts will have to go to NHQ for approval.

I hate to be the troll, but an authoritarian system only works when the person higher up is honorable. Give someone like the former National CC whose name shall not be mentioned these powers and we'll all regret it. Also, this in no way removes politics from the equation. Now the National CC can remove any Wing CC he doesn't like (for a personal reason) knowing that he won't be second-guessed.

Be careful what you all wish for, folks. Power corrupts and absolute power...

I'll take my chances.

Quote from: afgeo4 on August 25, 2012, 04:33:29 AM
I hate to be the troll, but an authoritarian system only works when the person higher up is honorable. Give someone like the former National CC whose name shall not be mentioned these powers and we'll all regret it. Also, this in no way removes politics from the equation. Now the National CC can remove any Wing CC he doesn't like (for a personal reason) knowing that he won't be second-guessed.

Be careful what you all wish for, folks. Power corrupts and absolute power...

While a National Commander could do so they certainly would be second guessed. If they were not justified (documentation) that is the kind of thing that would quickly go through an IG complaint and would hit the BoG in a very ugly manner. I would not want to be the CAP/CC that removed someone without just cause. It likely would be one of the last things they did as CAP/CC.

Also, Wing CCs are selected by the Region CCs, who are picked by the Nat CC, and the Nat CC is picked by the BoG.

I suspect the BoG will have the time, inclination, and ability to do a pretty thorough investigation into any applicants. Interviews, the whole works. Previously, a Nat CC campaign might include very limited amounts of knowledge by the majority of folks doing the voting. And I know some candidates for CAP/CC would try to pander to ANYONE who was at National Boards.

I was there last year, in civies, looking to chat with some of my NSC classmates and looking for them and suddenly one of the candidates approached me, tried to give me a button or sticker or something and a campaign speech. I found it repulsive.

I live and work in the authoritarian system of the USAF, sometimes you get bad leaders. Some of them may even well be dishonorable. With term limits on the CAP/CC and the various levels of command, and a greater emphasis on actual evaluation of performance, I see a lot of the people out for their own political ends being flushed into the open, and not doing so hot.

More importantly, I forsee people that may not have otherwise wanted to work on the NB due to the politics, and asinine procedures (Why do we have to vote on this? Seriously? I don't care what PRWG calls itself. I really, really don't, why are we wasting the time of the whole group on this?) but have otherwise served well as commanders and staff officers at other levels be willing to step up to higher levels. A lot of it will depend on what issues are put before the NAC.

Hopefully, they will be big strategic ideas that the Commander wants to hear some discussion on. But the nitpicky details (like uniforms) will be left to staff officers and a smaller group like a committee and then the CAP/CC can simply make a decision and press without having to worry about winning over the vote of the NB. And if the next CC doesn't like it, they can change it again. That's a lot like how the USAF does things, and frankly, I think it works pretty well.

Quote from: arajca on August 24, 2012, 04:40:14 PM
I guess the corporatists won. The new structure is far more corporate based than military based.

Looking at what they handed out at the NB and what I heard in the general assembly, the new governance seems to follow either the Catholic Church or the Soviet Government forms.

Wing Commander=Bishop or Commisar
Region Commander=Cardinal or member of the Supreme Soviet
National Commander=Pope or Premier
Board of Governors= Apostles or members of the party's governing Council. The Chairman of the BOG must be either Jesus or Lenin.

In reality the BOG in trying to bring about a new structure has gone from being an oversight group to taking over the entire organization. Ironically of the 10-12 members of the BOG only 4 are required to be members of CAP.

MSG MAC.  The Governence report says no powers are added to the BoG other than what they already have. The BoG could change the CAP Constitution or By-laws at any time under the authority theat already exists. They already showed they could remove the National CC, so what is your point? I still say the BoG should have one more SECAF appointee, any retired former Commander of CAP-USAF he selects as a voting member.

Quote from: ltcmark on August 25, 2012, 01:11:19 AMThis means an end to popularity contest of commander selection.  This will definitely eliminate a lot of the good-ol-boy network and a lot of the butt kissing.

Sorry to burst your and some other bubbles but the first thing a reorg of this type does is just change whose butt must be kissed.

Some of the politicians under the old school may not survive the new butt kissing, other will thrive and new players will come to the fore but there will be butt kissing and politics.

The politics may be even less transparent then they are today since the majority of the BOD are not even CAP members. The winners will be those who figure out how to kiss those butts, which will probably not occur in CAP view.

Quote from: MSG Mac on August 25, 2012, 09:43:40 AM
In reality the BOG in trying to bring about a new structure has gone from being an oversight group to taking over the entire organization. Ironically of the 10-12 members of the BOG only 4 are required to be members of CAP.

A lot of organizations have a board that is "disconnected" from the membership, in order to keep its mindset on the overall big picture instead of wanting to fall back into the more specific operational concerns because "well I remember we did this" or whatnot.

The county fire district that my fire department is under for example, I'm willing to bet a good number of the Board Of Directors have little to no fire experience. But they have the "pulse of the community." Same with the CAP BoG. This gives them more ability to center on the customers we serve, Air Force or otherwise (some people may forget that).

Quote from: MSG Mac on August 25, 2012, 09:43:40 AM
The Chairman of the BOG must be either Jesus or Lenin.

This ^ made my morning... I am stealing this.

That statement is meaningful for those of us over 20, but I suspect that the teenagers on this thread have no idea what it means.

Quote from: LGM30GMCC on August 25, 2012, 04:59:36 AM
While a National Commander could do so they certainly would be second guessed. If they were not justified (documentation) that is the kind of thing that would quickly go through an IG complaint and would hit the BoG in a very ugly manner. I would not want to be the CAP/CC that removed someone without just cause. It likely would be one of the last things they did as CAP/CC.

Also, Wing CCs are selected by the Region CCs, who are picked by the Nat CC, and the Nat CC is picked by the BoG.

I suspect the BoG will have the time, inclination, and ability to do a pretty thorough investigation into any applicants. Interviews, the whole works. Previously, a Nat CC campaign might include very limited amounts of knowledge by the majority of folks doing the voting. And I know some candidates for CAP/CC would try to pander to ANYONE who was at National Boards.

Next up: officer fitness reports? Promotion and selection boards that are meaningful? Granted, this is just conjecture on my part, but wouldn't that change the landscape for the better?

And wholesale defection from CAP.

Quote from: RRLE on August 25, 2012, 11:13:19 AM

Quote from: ltcmark on August 25, 2012, 01:11:19 AMThis means an end to popularity contest of commander selection.  This will definitely eliminate a lot of the good-ol-boy network and a lot of the butt kissing.

Sorry to burst your and some other bubbles but the first thing a reorg of this type does is just change whose butt must be kissed.

Some of the politicians under the old school may not survive the new butt kissing, other will thrive and new players will come to the fore but there will be butt kissing and politics.

The politics may be even less transparent then they are today since the majority of the BOD are not even CAP members. The winners will be those who figure out how to kiss those butts, which will probably not occur in CAP view.

Or....we will all just get promoted based on ability.

I like the new changes. As one who has seen the volunteer leadership slide down the slope consistantly for the last 15 years, this new structure will add a modicum of sense to governance. The only worry I still have is how the 4 at large CAP BoG members will be selected. These members need to be totally plugged in to the commanders/members needs to be effective advocates for the organization and it's members.  Also, the National Commander needs to be able to communicate the Policies of the Bog to his/her subortinate commanders in a way they will be motivated to impliment them.
Region and Wing commanders will serve "at the pleasure" of the next higher commander however, there is still a MARB. Also, I think I heard the BoG will be involved with approving the appointment and removal of region commanders.  It seems there will still be checks and balances for the system. We still don't know the "details" and, we won't see the new C&BLs until October 1. 

All and all, I strongly agree with CAP's new governance structure.  It is long overdue. As "new blood" comes into command, they will understand their roles and responsibiliities.  It will most likely take 3 to 4 years for things to settle in. I'm very optomistic. 

Quote from: bosshawk on August 25, 2012, 06:18:59 PM
And wholesale defection from CAP.

As you sir, have already done. Since you seem to be pretty happy about being a "former member", why do you even care? ???

To put a contrarian spin on it...

This change makes it such that those who contribute copious amounts of their time and their treasure have even less say in how the organization is run.

Quote from: JeffDG on August 25, 2012, 08:42:38 PM
To put a contrarian spin on it...

This change makes it such that those who contribute copious amounts of their time and their treasure have even less say in how the organization is run.

How much say do you have now?

Quote from: davidsinn on August 25, 2012, 09:32:13 PM

Quote from: JeffDG on August 25, 2012, 08:42:38 PM
To put a contrarian spin on it...

This change makes it such that those who contribute copious amounts of their time and their treasure have even less say in how the organization is run.

How much say do you have now?

Not a bunch, but that doesn't mean it should go to even less.

Perhaps we could be an anarcho-syndicalist commune.

Quote from: jimmydeanno on August 25, 2012, 11:37:11 PM
Perhaps we could be an anarcho-syndicalist commune.

so what, take turns acting as a chief executive for a week,
all of whose decisions have to be approved at  a special bi weekly meeting...




i didn't vote for you!!!

Of the previous national commanders, I wonder how many would not have met the new qualification standards.

Quote from: FlyTiger77 on August 26, 2012, 01:38:49 AM
Of the previous national commanders, I wonder how many would not have met the new qualification standards.

I'm not thinking about past national commanders.  The real question is of the potential pool of future national commanders, How many meet that benchmark?

Quote from: SARDOC on August 26, 2012, 02:33:28 AM

Quote from: FlyTiger77 on August 26, 2012, 01:38:49 AM
Of the previous national commanders, I wonder how many would not have met the new qualification standards.

I'm not thinking about past national commanders.  The real question is of the potential pool of future national commanders, How many meet that benchmark?

I guess that's me out. I have a 99.9% completed BA but...

Well, I meet two of the three qualifications - I have Level V and I have a bachelor's degree (and two beyond that).

I've just never been a Wing commander.

So I guess that leaves me out as well...

Jack

I saw the new badges today.  Essentially the same design but with different text reflecting the new titles.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 25, 2012, 12:30:03 AM
While we will always have local politics.....at the unit group and wing levels....the Wing Commander who wish to move up will have to do it more on PERFORMANCE at the wing level instead of political reliability or any sort of fuedal system.

Wing commander can now focus more on execution of the policies and guidance coming from HQ instead of splitting all their time doing staffer jobs and jokeying for position for their next position or election.

I don't think the issue of the ultimate CAP goal of the wing commander is really a factor.  Whether you've got the best wing commander ever or one of the worst most imcompetent jerks ever to wear the uniform, they still have to kiss butt to move up the chain just as they always have.  As far as I know, the worst wing commander I served under had no higher ambitions and there is no telling how many people he drove away.  The most ambitious wing commander I served under did some pretty darn good things in the wing -- and thats coming from a guy who had some conflicts with him. 

The fact of the matter is that no Regional Commander is ever going to know enough about potential Wing Commander candidates to really pick the best one.  They're not really going to know that person's reputation in the wing for competence and ability.  And once picked those people are going to stay in place 95% of the time even if they turn out to be horrible at the job because the Region Commander has no way to learn that they're doing horrible. 

Quote from: RiverAux on August 26, 2012, 03:35:43 PMThe fact of the matter is that no Regional Commander is ever going to know enough about potential Wing Commander candidates to really pick the best one.  They're not really going to know that person's reputation in the wing for competence and ability.  And once picked those people are going to stay in place 95% of the time even if they turn out to be horrible at the job because the Region Commander has no way to learn that they're doing horrible.

How do you figure?

The one's from his home wing will be known to him, and most candidates will have been on staff at a level to have visibility to the Region.
Anyone >not< visible at the region level shouldn't even be considered for the job, and a Region CC who does not have visibility of his commanders
isn't doing his job.

Success should be measured based on goals and performance, either you're meeting them or you aren't.

Changing the topic a little, there's a point I didn't quite follow from the presentation - how do BoG members get appointed?  It just says that the four from CAP get appointed by CAP without reference to how we do it.  General election?  A big huddle?  Conclave with white/black smoke? 

Quote from: bflynn on August 26, 2012, 05:20:42 PM
Changing the topic a little, there's a point I didn't quite follow from the presentation - how do BoG members get appointed?  It just says that the four from CAP get appointed by CAP without reference to how we do it.  General election?  A big huddle?  Conclave with white/black smoke?

;D  Under the "old" system, the commander and vice commander served as members and, the NEC selected two at large members. Now, the 4  "at large" CAP members will be selected in a manner not yet figured out. I would hope however, that the candidates would be vetted by the BoG before the general membership (or one of the new advisory bodies) selects them.

Quote from: FW on August 26, 2012, 06:29:31 PMI would hope however, that the candidates would be vetted by the BoG before the general membership (or one of the new advisory bodies) selects them.

I would actually hope that they're not vetted by the BoG.  The current board controlling who is eligible to be put on the board strikes me as encouraging some of the same bad practices that are complained about today.

But as you say, it isn't determined yet, or at least not made public yet. 

Quote from: Garibaldi on August 26, 2012, 02:37:55 AM

Quote from: SARDOC on August 26, 2012, 02:33:28 AM

Quote from: FlyTiger77 on August 26, 2012, 01:38:49 AM
Of the previous national commanders, I wonder how many would not have met the new qualification standards.

I'm not thinking about past national commanders.  The real question is of the potential pool of future national commanders, How many meet that benchmark?

I guess that's me out. I have a 99.9% completed BA but...

Level V = 10ish years?
BA =4-6+ years?
Wing Command Req. = Make sense.

We would want a Nat.CC who has Level 5.
We would want them to have served as a Wing commander.

But about the degree, Nationally or Regionally accredited? I can get a "BA" online in a year or less...would that work?

The CSAG / NEC will be responsible for selecting the CAP at large members as vacancies occur.  The minimum criteria will not change (major, level 4, etc) along with some exclusions / ineligibilities - no current commanders, vice commanders, or chiefs of staff at wing or higher; no former national commander until 6 years after leaving office.

There are three vacancies to fill (the two ex officio slots plus Gen Anderson's term ends in February 2013), and these will have their initial terms adjusted so that normally one CAP BoG slot will come open each year.  (of course every three years, two slots will open since there are four CAP slots).

The CSAG will likely work diligently between now and their next scheduled meeting in November to develop their selection process.  I would expect the process to include the normal public announcement and application used now for at large members.

The CSAG will select, or recommend.

I had the impression the CSAG had no powers past advice.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 26, 2012, 11:30:05 PM
The CSAG will select, or recommend.

I had the impression the CSAG had no powers past advice.

It is both.

You select your nominee and recommend him to the BoG who approves or disapproves.....much like congressional approval of cabinet members.

Ned,

What does CSAG stand for? and so since the requirement is Wing Commander. A person can go from Wing Commander to Nat'l CC skipping the Region CC job? Although I think if the competition is good and you have someone that was a Region CC versus someone who wasnt the person who was would hve favor.

Quote from: flyguy06 on August 27, 2012, 02:13:31 AM
Ned,

What does CSAG stand for? and so since the requirement is Wing Commander. A person can go from Wing Commander to Nat'l CC skipping the Region CC job? Although I think if the competition is good and you have someone that was a Region CC versus someone who wasnt the person who was would hve favor.

Read the press release in the first post in this thread and all will be revealed.

As I understand it, the CSAG/NEC is absorbing all the policymaking functions of the now-defunct NB. The new "Command Council" has as much authority/pull as the National Cadet Advisory Council (read: very, very little), and that's probably a good thing.

Regarding qualification levels, I agree strongly that the CAP/CC should have a baccalaureate degree at the very least and preferably a Master's or higher. I also think any candidate for a wing commander slot should have completed Level IV at a minimum.

Quote from: Mustang on August 27, 2012, 04:42:39 AM
As I understand it, the CSAG/NEC is absorbing all the policymaking functions of the now-defunct NB. The new "Command Council" has as much authority/pull as the National Cadet Advisory Council (read: very, very little), and that's probably a good thing.

Regarding qualification levels, I agree strongly that the CAP/CC should have a baccalaureate degree at the very least and preferably a Master's or higher. I also think any candidate for a wing commander slot should have completed Level IV at a minimum.

I happen to know a retired Lt. Colonel of Marines who only has a High School education.  A degree means nothing more than you had the money to do what many do not.  Leadership ability is born, NOT learned in school.....

Some replies:

1.  The CSAG / NEC will select the CAP BoG appointees.  No BoG approval or confirmation of the CSAG appointees.

2. The CSAG is the CAP Senior Advisory Group, which is a slimmer and more representative version of the old NEC.

3.  A wing commander already had the ability to go straight to National Commander.  No change.  I think Gen Courter had not been a region commander., but it is late and I might be wrong on that.

4.  If leadership is innate and not learned Uncle Sam sure wastes a lot of money on places like West Point and all my ROTC classes.  Our colleagues in the AF believe so strongly in a college education that they will not allow you to be a second lieutenant without a degree.  Our national commander will lead 60,000 volunteers and oversee management of $200 million of assets., most purchased with tax dollars.  A degree seems reasonable for the position.  But that can be waived for an exceptional individual.

Quote from: Ned on August 27, 2012, 05:11:54 AMA degree seems reasonable for the position.  But that can be waived for an exceptional individual.

Was there any research into the number of people that meet the new requirements? I'm concerned about the BOG having a very limited pool of people to choose a new national commander from.

Quote from: Ned on August 27, 2012, 05:11:54 AM

4.  If leadership is innate and not learned Uncle Sam sure wastes a lot of money on places like West Point and all my ROTC classes.  Our colleagues in the AF believe so strongly in a college education that they will not allow you to be a second lieutenant without a degree.  Our national commander will lead 60,000 volunteers and oversee management of $200 million of assets., most purchased with tax dollars.  A degree seems reasonable for the position.  But that can be waived for an exceptional individual.

The Air Force has too long equated education with leadership ability and officer potential.  There are junior enlisted personnel in the Army doing the same job that Commissioned Officers do in the Air Force for no reason other than the inherent snobbery the Air Force has with it's "Pilot Culture".  The fact that the Air Force does not have a Warrant Officer career field speaks volumes.  The recent recommendations that gut the Air Guard to ensure the career paths of AD Airmen regardless of the value for the dollar speaks volumes.

Why not put the round peg in the round hole rather than be worried about the educational accomplishments of an established leader??????

USAFux2004.    The USAF recognizes any Bachelors degree from a Regionally accredited institution. Makes no difference if it's all completed by corrospondance, in residence or whatever as long as it's regionally accredited.

Quote from: Fubar on August 27, 2012, 05:28:17 AM

Quote from: Ned on August 27, 2012, 05:11:54 AMA degree seems reasonable for the position.  But that can be waived for an exceptional individual.

Was there any research into the number of people that meet the new requirements? I'm concerned about the BOG having a very limited pool of people to choose a new national commander from.

I doubt that it's really going to effect the pool of NatCC nominees very much. Usually there's not more than 2 or 3 people who want the job to begin with.

Quote from: cap235629 on August 27, 2012, 05:44:41 AM
Why not put the round peg in the round hole rather than be worried about the educational accomplishments of an established leader? ??? ??

Methinks you don't quite understand said educational accomplishments. Where'd you say your degree was from, and in what discipline?

And the Lt Colonel of Marines you mentioned is the clear exception rather than the rule among Marine Corps commissioned officers today, so that argument doesn't really hold water.

On the other hand, I can't help but be reminded of the time many years back when CAP News published a centerfold spread featuring the NEC and listing all their impressive educational credentials--many of which were advanced degrees found to have been granted by a certain degree mill in the southeast.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 26, 2012, 10:46:41 PM

But about the degree, Nationally or Regionally accredited? I can get a "BA" online in a year or less...would that work?

Note that it does not have to just be a "BA"(Bachelor of Arts) but can be a Bachelor of Science or any other Bachelor's degree style.

If you are starting from scratch though, getting a bachelor's degree in one year or less is a huge feat requirement nothing but time devoted to bookwork.  Easier of course if you have transfer credits, tests outs via CLEP, DSST etc, and other items to supplement regular course credits.

Quote from: spacecommand on August 27, 2012, 01:57:15 PM

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 26, 2012, 10:46:41 PM

But about the degree, Nationally or Regionally accredited? I can get a "BA" online in a year or less...would that work?

Note that it does not have to just be a "BA"(Bachelor of Arts) but can be a Bachelor of Science or any other Bachelor's degree style.

If you are starting from scratch though, getting a bachelor's degree in one year or less is a huge feat requirement nothing but time devoted to bookwork.  Easier of course if you have transfer credits, tests outs via CLEP, DSST etc, and other items to supplement regular course credits.

I think he was referring to one of those "online schools" where you send them $1000.00 and they send you a diploma. Any "real" accredited college/university, even if it's all online, will take more than a year and would be fully accepted, I am sure.

We can argue over the merits and shortcomings of having an educational baseline requirement for the CEO position of a very large organization.  But bottom line is that this follows the existing practice of pretty much every national non-profit organization and our parent service.   There seems to be a recurring attitude I see within CAP that believes CAP is somehow unique from all other organizations.  This new governance structure is actually a welcome trend against that pervasive CAP-is-unique attitude, better aligning us with the standard practices & successful techniques of other major non-profit organizations.  The educational requirement for our "CEO" position is just a part of us becoming more like other successful organizations.  I welcome that trend and hope we continue down that path, rather than the "CAP is unique and we do things our own way because that's how it's always been" path.

Quote from: jeders on August 27, 2012, 01:06:37 PM
I doubt that it's really going to effect the pool of NatCC nominees very much. Usually there's not more than 2 or 3 people who want the job to begin with.

And if you ask me, that should be an automatic disqualification.

For me, take a list of people who are qualified, rank order them in order of "Best" to "Worst".  Start at the top, and ask each one "Do you want to be the National Commander", if they say "Yes", move on to the next name until someone says "Hell no, I don't want that crap!"  That's the guy/gal for the job.  I believe in the same system for almost all "high offices" from POTUS on down.   :D

Of interest was the comment that the US Air Force is our primary stockholder.  I think that was a significant reminder for a number of the more "independent" folks in the room (those that say, "Why does the Air Force get to tell us what to do?"). 

However, I hope the assignment of the new "At Large" members will reflect those other important stockholders: our dues paying members.  If the 90,000 members of my University Alumni Association can elect members to the University Board of Trustees, then surely CAP members could at least be considered to participate in electing at least a portion of the new At Large members.

I am also very hopeful for this new structure, and particularly appreciated discussion of holding the CEO and COO accountable.  Accountability was addressed several times; very unusual when discussing senior employees and officers in CAP. 

Quote from: JeffDG on August 27, 2012, 03:01:33 PM

Quote from: jeders on August 27, 2012, 01:06:37 PM
I doubt that it's really going to effect the pool of NatCC nominees very much. Usually there's not more than 2 or 3 people who want the job to begin with.

And if you ask me, that should be an automatic disqualification.

For me, take a list of people who are qualified, rank order them in order of "Best" to "Worst".  Start at the top, and ask each one "Do you want to be the National Commander", if they say "Yes", move on to the next name until someone says "Hell no, I don't want that crap!"  That's the guy/gal for the job.  I believe in the same system for almost all "high offices" from POTUS on down.   :D

Isn't that an established theory about those who seek power vs those who don't want it and are thrust into it? The attitudes and morals of those who don't seek power or office are much more stable than those who actively campaign for positions. Kind of an indictment on our government officials...

There's a difference between actively campaigning, i.e. the mess on TV now, and applying for a position. There's also a HUGE difference in someone campaigning for the CAP/CC office and someone accepting it if offered. I know a couple of folks who wouldn't try to get the job, but would accept it if offered. By your definition, they are unqualified.

Quote from: cap235629 on August 27, 2012, 04:54:10 AM
Leadership ability is born, NOT learned in school.....

Which is directly opposite of what we teach our cadets in their leadership book.

Leaders are made, not born.  They are a culmination of their past experiences and education.  A leader who sees no value in education is doomed to fail. 

The Air Force philosophy is one that values education.  They don't have warrant officers because the Senior NCOs in the Air Force fulfill that role.  A majority of the Air Force NCOs have a degree past HS. 

Sure, you can point to a select few individuals that don't have degrees and have been successful, but statistically speaking it is not the case.  The typical HS graduate will never reach the level of success that someone with a BS/BS or MA/MS has - period.  Additionally, those with degrees will be offered opportunities in which to exercise those theories they learned about in school, giving them - yet another - leg up on their HS graduate competition.

We are talking about an organization of ~65K with hundreds of millions in assets.  We need a leader with strong executive experience and education, not someone who is a nice guy and thinks he can do a good job because he completed NSC.

Quote from: cap235629 on August 27, 2012, 04:54:10 AMLeadership ability is born, NOT learned in school.....

90% incorrect.  Leadership is not inborn and it is not learned in school....it is learned in the field/on the job/at the mentor's side......building on the the theory learned in the class room.

If you don't understand this simple concept.....then you have failed to understand everything about the cadet program.

As for the concept of a degree for high positions......even low positions....like any large corporations they use degrees as a gate keeper.  To stream line the process of selecting those with ability....and like all things there are always exceptions and waivers.

Why is it that the only people who feel strongly about judging the value of a college degree tend to be the people who don't have one?

Quote from: Nathan on August 27, 2012, 06:18:17 PM
Why is it that the only people who feel strongly about judging the value of a college degree tend to be the people who don't have one?

The same can be said in the inverse.

If NHQ has chosen to draw this as the line, so be it, it has to be somewhere.

Pop quiz - how many current active-duty General Officers in USAF don't have a bachelor's degree?

Hint: Zero.


And that, my friends, is why our GOs need to have one.  Simple.

Final Exam:  How many active duty generals are unpaid volunteers?

Hint: Zero.

That's why the discussion is far from "simple".

Quote from: Eclipse on August 27, 2012, 08:07:36 PM
Final Exam:  How many active duty generals are unpaid volunteers?

Hint: Zero.

That's why the discussion is far from "simple".

Don't know about that.  Lost of GO are unpaid volunteers with organisations like the Boy Scouts, ARC, church organisations and the like.

But that is neither here nor there.

The BoG wants our National Commander (and I assume the Vice Commander) to have degrees (or a waiver for exceptional cases)......end of story.

Paid or unpaid doesn't remove the necessity of having an exceptionally qualified person occupy the position.  For us to behave and operate as a real non-profit organization / para-military organization, we need to have the "best and brightest" we can find. 

While the degree itself doesn't denote actual leadership ability, it is a good indicator of certain qualities and acts as a credential to prove a certain amount of knowledge that is applicable to whatever it is that your degree is in.

Quote from: jimmydeanno on August 27, 2012, 08:21:17 PM
Paid or unpaid doesn't remove the necessity of having an exceptionally qualified person occupy the position.  For us to behave and operate as a real non-profit organization / para-military organization, we need to have the "best and brightest" we can find. 

While the degree itself doesn't denote actual leadership ability, it is a good indicator of certain qualities and acts as a credential to prove a certain amount of knowledge that is applicable to whatever it is that your degree is in.

I agree - the "qualified" being the important and the degree one of many potential delimiters of "qualified".  Knowledge and successful experience within CAP should be the first and foremost thing considered.  While a college degree is certainly one route to knowledge, it isn't the only one, nor
even the best one in certain cases.  The number of art-history majors, with a minor in romance languages who will spend their working
careers asking whether you'd like to biggie-size your order, or want extra foam on your latte, should show you that.

There are career fields where being a proficient technician requires years of formal education and even more hands-on working, being a surgeon
comes to mind, but the fact that you can transplant a heart doesn't automatically mean you can also manage the hospital - those are disparate disciplines with different mindsets and experiential needs.

Some of our most brilliant scientific minds can't balance a checkbook, (etc., etc).

Quote from: lordmonar on August 27, 2012, 08:13:36 PM
The BoG wants our National Commander (and I assume the Vice Commander) to have degrees (or a waiver for exceptional cases)......end of story.

If a waiver is possible, then there isn't even a discussion here - highly-qualified individuals are highly qualified individuals.  I'm 100%
behind the idea of having "requirements" vs. "suggestions", but there isn't a corporation worth working for that would not accept
relevant experience and success in lieu of a degree for the right candidate.

The key to leadership is being a leader.  Lesson #1 of being a leader is knowing that yo have to surround yourself with SME's you can trust.
For years there was an unspoken rule that you could not be a Wing CC unless you were a pilot.  We all know that's nonsense, but doesn't
change the history.

Bottom line, by raising the bar, some people will have to accept that they can never be considered for the top job. So be it.  The pool
might be a bit smaller, and there will be some sour grapes, but there won't be a shortage of well-qualified applicants for these positions,
and clearing the board (so to speak), may make room for people who thought they would never have a shot.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 27, 2012, 06:36:17 PM

Quote from: Nathan on August 27, 2012, 06:18:17 PM
Why is it that the only people who feel strongly about judging the value of a college degree tend to be the people who don't have one?

The same can be said in the inverse.

Eh, really?

I think that people with college degrees recognize better than most how our job situations change. I know for a fact that I only got the job I have now because of my degree, and I'm literally making twice as much money as I was making before I graduated last year. People with degrees have actually lived on both sides of the line.

Obviously, that doesn't mean I'm necessarily smarter than any given non-degree-holding individual, but it does apparently mean that many companies have a greater faith in my ability to succeed and are willing to pay me more because of it, despite the fact that I had almost no work experience in this field before I started. College isn't exactly a cakewalk, and regardless of my intelligence relative to someone else, I have at least proved I am smart and dedicated enough to complete a four-year degree.

That's not to say that someone else who currently doesn't have a degree COULDN'T have completed the coursework, but a company simply has more information about me than it does about someone who hasn't had to prove that level of academic fortitude or perseverance.

It reminds me of the arguments people make about how the Spaatz apparently means nothing. I would argue that while a Spaatz cadet isn't SURE to be more competent than a C/Lt Col, what the Spaatz cadet has done is prove a certain level of capability, which the Eaker cadet cannot match. It's true that some Spaatz cadets are morons and many C/Lt Cols are very competent, but if you need a quick reference of how qualified an individual is for a high-level position, the Spaatz (analogous to a college degree# gives you a pretty good standard as to what the individual has accomplished in the past. Quite simply, the Eaker cadet #or non-college person) hasn't had to prove themselves by an easily-standardized test, and therefore have a much greater population of underqualified people for high-level jobs.

That being said, I'm not against the concept of having a non-degree-holding commander. I just understand how much easier and safer it is to simply require the degree. It eliminates a lot of wild cards.

I realize that it comes off as biased, since I have both a Spaatz award and a college degree, so you can take my words with whatever weight you want.

Quote from: Nathan on August 27, 2012, 08:43:34 PMEh, really?

I think that people with college degrees recognize better than most how our job situations change. I know for a fact that I only got the job I have now because of my degree, and I'm literally making twice as much money as I was making before I graduated last year. People with degrees have actually lived on both sides of the line.

Yes, at entry-level, with little work experience, that is the case.  Why?  Because you have no relevant work history to substitute
for the paper on the wall.  After ten years in the workforce, you'll see that the subject rarely comes up, unless you happen to be in
a field where collegiate affiliation is important, or root for the same sports team as the recruiter.

After your third or fourth job, if you are still getting jobs solely because of of your degree, you're doing something wrong.

Something else to consider - statistically speaking, the average US worker changes careers, not jobs, careers, 3-5 times in his lifetime.
That degree becomes less and less relevant every time, and can actually become a liability if your career change comes after a masters or Ph.d.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 27, 2012, 08:50:33 PM
Yes, at entry-level, with little work experience, that is the case.  Why?  Because you have no relevant work history to substitute
for the paper on the wall.  After ten years in the workforce, you'll see that the subject rarely comes up, unless you happen to be in
a field where collegiate affiliation is important, or root for the same sports team as the recruiter.

After your third or fourth job, if you are still getting jobs solely because of of your degree, you're doing something wrong.

Something else to consider - statistically speaking, the average US worker changes careers, not jobs, careers, 3-5 times in his lifetime.
That degree becomes less and less relevant every time, and can actually become a liability if your career change comes after a masters or Ph.d.

Yeah, it probably depends on the career field and the employer quite a bit.

It's less important in some jobs than others.
It's less important in some companies (particularly smaller ones) than others.

I have been on the hiring authority for both cases,
cases where we normally require a college degree, and hired only candidates who had one;
as well as hiring candidates anyway even if they didn't have one when required.

I got my start in full time IT without a college degree;
However I earned one later and can testify that it has been a jump in pay and responsibility level.
Would I have gotten that jump without the degree???   Peers who started with me, but never finished that degree off never did...  Many of them aren't even employed in the career field anymore...  fwiw.

I have been rejected numerous times for not meeting educational, experience, or certification requirements for employers, which are pretty much all BS.  My work experience, competence on the job, and outstanding recommendations from people I have worked with and for _MORE_ than make up for any deficiency I might have in the actual requirements criteria.  An insider who knows me might hire me through it (and infact i've gotten offers that way), and if I somehow got to the interview, I can usually stand for myself (and infact i've gotten offers that way).  But I would have never made it past the HR office.  Particularly for not having a master's degree... (in my case).  And have been turned at the door for that reason many times.  Like it or not...  fair or not...  that's the way it is.

Quite frankly, I think that a BA for a national commander, 'field grade officer', leader of a corporation of our size, assets, and budget, and expected to interface in terms of business, politics, and yes education as a peer with people generally far more educated than a BA/BS, is ridiculously low-balling it.  Keeping the requirement that low is a tremendous reach toward making national commandership accessible and attainable.

I find two points to agree with in your post, Eclipse.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 27, 2012, 08:50:33 PM
After your third or fourth job, if you are still getting jobs solely because of of your degree, you're doing something wrong.

Something else to consider - statistically speaking, the average US worker changes careers, not jobs, careers, 3-5 times in his lifetime.

Concur.  I found it out the hard way ... after HS and my brief time on AD, I became a radio announcer.  Loved the work, but the pay stunk.  So I went to college and got my degree and became a teacher.  Pay soared, because I entered a career where a degree is mandatory.

Quote
That degree becomes less and less relevant every time, and can actually become a liability if your career change comes after a masters or Ph.d.

Again, concur.  After two years of total bovine scatology at my school, I "retired" this past year.  Now I find getting a new career going very difficult, because I have a Specialist in Education degree (one step below a doctorate, for those who don't know what that is).  And my degree is the very thing keeping me from finding that elusive great job that I know is out there for me.

All that said, I'm rather glad that our next National CC will have to have a degree and Level V to be considered.

Jack

Quote from: Eclipse on August 27, 2012, 08:50:33 PM
After your third or fourth job, if you are still getting jobs solely because of of your degree, you're doing something wrong.

I disagree.  At the director and executive level, I find that while yes — it's your experience which gets you the job — they won't look at your experience because a baccalaureate and oftentimes a post-graduate degree is a bare minimum pre-requisite.  In other words, the degree doesn't get you the job.  But having a bachelor's degree or higher does mean you meet the minimum pre-requisites for many management & executive level jobs, which get you the interview wherein your experience can get you the job.   The degree isn't a be-all-end-all to getting better paying jobs or being better qualified.  But for many career fields, at a certain point experience without the degree still won't get you the interview.

I'd go 50/50 on this - in the tech sector, a lot of it is street cred, but at a certain level, and for certain situations, the collegiate background
becomes important, not because of ability, but because the financial world is invested in collegiate propagation.

It can be difficult (though not impossible), to get venture funding if you aren't in the "club".

While I understand the arguments in favor of allowing the possibility of someone without a bachelors to be chosen as National Commander we can't plan our regulations around the remote possibility that Super CAP Commander is out there without one making his/her way up the ranks causing grand improvements in the organization on the way up.  You can't regulate for the exceptions. 

Quote from: RiverAux on August 27, 2012, 10:44:53 PM
While I understand the arguments in favor of allowing the possibility of someone without a bachelors to be chosen as National Commander we can't plan our regulations around the remote possibility that Super CAP Commander is out there without one making his/her way up the ranks causing grand improvements in the organization on the way up.  You can't regulate for the exceptions.

Agreed.  We'd be a lot better off if we had more bright lines and less "suggestions". 

More "wills" and "shalls" and less "shoulds".

Quote from: Eclipse on August 27, 2012, 10:41:10 PMI'd go 50/50 on this - in the tech sector, a lot of it is street cred, but at a certain level, and for certain situations, the collegiate background becomes important,

I'd say the "tech sector" is an anomaly from the baseline, because it's a field heavily dependent on hard technical skills which rapidly change and the vast majority of which are not taught in a collegiate environment.  Still, any company I've been with, the CIO-type has had a degree (and was required to have one), most often a post-graduate level degree.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 27, 2012, 10:41:10 PM
not because of ability, but because the financial world is invested in collegiate propagation.

And that's where your objective observations end and your personal view comes in.

Quote from: RiverAux on August 27, 2012, 10:44:53 PM
While I understand the arguments in favor of allowing the possibility of someone without a bachelors to be chosen as National Commander we can't plan our regulations around the remote possibility that Super CAP Commander is out there without one making his/her way up the ranks causing grand improvements in the organization on the way up.  You can't regulate for the exceptions.

+1
You allow for the exceptions in the regulations but write the regulaitons for your base line expectations.

And just to note something about the trickle down theory.

If the National CC has to have a BA/BS and be a former wing commander.....then by extention we are going to see a strong suggestion to people who are or want to be wing commanders to have or get their BA/BS....because you are looking at them not just for their ability to do the wing CC job but also on their "promoteablity".  If I am a Regional CC looking at three candidates for wing CC.....and all things being more or less equal......the guy with a BA/BS would be more attractive pick because it allows him to move up.

Quote from: JeffDG on August 27, 2012, 03:01:33 PMFor me, take a list of people who are qualified, rank order them in order of "Best" to "Worst".  Start at the top, and ask each one "Do you want to be the National Commander", if they say "Yes", move on to the next name until someone says "Hell no, I don't want that crap!"  That's the guy/gal for the job.  I believe in the same system for almost all "high offices" from POTUS on down.   :D

Quote from: Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe"The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.

To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.

To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."

Quote from: lordmonar on August 27, 2012, 11:31:24 PM
If the National CC has to have a BA/BS and be a former wing commander.....then by extention we are going to see a strong suggestion to people who are or want to be wing commanders to have or get their BA/BS....because you are looking at them not just for their ability to do the wing CC job but also on their "promoteablity".  If I am a Regional CC looking at three candidates for wing CC.....and all things being more or less equal......the guy with a BA/BS would be more attractive pick because it allows him to move up.

Sorry, but if someone rushes out to get a bachelor's degree just to be a wing commander, they're crazy.

I think SOS and possibly ACSC should be additional requirements for a wing commander.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on August 28, 2012, 12:14:32 AM

Sorry, but if someone rushes out to get a bachelor's degree just to be a wing commander, they're crazy.

I think SOS and possibly ACSC should be additional requirements for a wing commander.

So, you think someone is crazy when they get a BS for wing king, but you think they need SOS and ACSC?

I am all supportive for a BS for the Nat/CC but, let's take it easy on wing commander requirements here. We have to remember that some wings have no one who CURRENTLY wants to take the wing king chair, let alone after we heap more and more pre-reqs on it. Requiring SOS and ACSC would leave some wings high and dry on anyone ABLE to take command

IMO cap235629 has a major axe to grind with the AF.  There are plenty of fields in which NCOs/SNCOs have led the way for years, case in point PJ/CCT,  that filed had no officers until the last few years. I just learned that the log plans field also has NCOs/SNCOs basiclly running that field too.  And a real kicker USAF SF are intrusted with a loaded weapon from the time they arrive at their first duty station.

Interesting note - am I missing something, or did they remove the NHQ list of contacts from capmembers.com? It had a list of most of the extensions and email addresses you would need to pose a question to the NHQ staff. Does this mean we must now ask membership questions through a wing staff member? Is this something to do with the change in governance or just a coincidence?

You mean this?

http://capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/nhq_contacts.cfm (http://capmembers.com/cap_national_hq/nhq_contacts.cfm)

Quote from: NCRblues on August 28, 2012, 12:39:03 AM

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on August 28, 2012, 12:14:32 AM

Sorry, but if someone rushes out to get a bachelor's degree just to be a wing commander, they're crazy.

I think SOS and possibly ACSC should be additional requirements for a wing commander.

So, you think someone is crazy when they get a BS for wing king, but you think they need SOS and ACSC?

I am all supportive for a BS for the Nat/CC but, let's take it easy on wing commander requirements here. We have to remember that some wings have no one who CURRENTLY wants to take the wing king chair, let alone after we heap more and more pre-reqs on it. Requiring SOS and ACSC would leave some wings high and dry on anyone ABLE to take command

It takes four years, at least, to get a bachelor's degree. If your aim is to get a diploma just so you can be a wing commander, that's silly. If you already have one, fine.

You don't need to have a bachelor's degree to take SOS in CAP. All you need is to be a major. That's a year and a half, tops. And the management/leadership skills and rationale you learn is more than worth it. You learn it the Air Force way.

Quote from: NCRblues on August 28, 2012, 12:39:03 AM

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on August 28, 2012, 12:14:32 AM

Sorry, but if someone rushes out to get a bachelor's degree just to be a wing commander, they're crazy.

I think SOS and possibly ACSC should be additional requirements for a wing commander.

So, you think someone is crazy when they get a BS for wing king, but you think they need SOS and ACSC?

I am all supportive for a BS for the Nat/CC but, let's take it easy on wing commander requirements here. We have to remember that some wings have no one who CURRENTLY wants to take the wing king chair, let alone after we heap more and more pre-reqs on it. Requiring SOS and ACSC would leave some wings high and dry on anyone ABLE to take command

I agree.......hence the way I stated it.  A BS/BA for wing commanders should never be a requirment.....but should be a desirable qualification.
Because if we take the military model to the extreame....your wing commander would come from the pool of willing/available former group and unit commanders. Your Regional commander should come from your group of willing/available former wing commanders.....and your national and vice commander would come from your former regional commanders.  With of course the ability to jump a qualified former wing commander straight to the command slot.

One of the things I hope the governance change will fix....is that it will increase the number of people who are willing to take on wing and regional leadership positions....because it reduced (but not eliminates) the political BS they have to deal with.  They can focus on the mission at hand.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on August 28, 2012, 12:59:26 AM

Quote from: NCRblues on August 28, 2012, 12:39:03 AM

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on August 28, 2012, 12:14:32 AM

Sorry, but if someone rushes out to get a bachelor's degree just to be a wing commander, they're crazy.

I think SOS and possibly ACSC should be additional requirements for a wing commander.

So, you think someone is crazy when they get a BS for wing king, but you think they need SOS and ACSC?

I am all supportive for a BS for the Nat/CC but, let's take it easy on wing commander requirements here. We have to remember that some wings have no one who CURRENTLY wants to take the wing king chair, let alone after we heap more and more pre-reqs on it. Requiring SOS and ACSC would leave some wings high and dry on anyone ABLE to take command

It takes four years, at least, to get a bachelor's degree. If your aim is to get a diploma just so you can be a wing commander, that's silly. If you already have one, fine.

You don't need to have a bachelor's degree to take SOS in CAP. All you need is to be a major. That's a year and a half, tops. And the management/leadership skills and rationale you learn is more than worth it. You learn it the Air Force way.

Well....maybe you have hit on something that needs to be looked at.
The USAF (I would assume) would love for us to REQUIRE a BS/BA for senior members......and that we make it harder for our members to make rank....i.e. no more 22 year old Capts.  Et Al.

But the point being.......if you take a 12 year old who says "I want to fly figher jets".......you tell him what he needs to do to reach that goal.  So you take your brand new Senior Member who says "I want to be top dog some day" you tell him what he needs to do to reach that goal.

It is that simple.

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on August 28, 2012, 12:59:26 AM

Quote from: NCRblues on August 28, 2012, 12:39:03 AM

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on August 28, 2012, 12:14:32 AM

Sorry, but if someone rushes out to get a bachelor's degree just to be a wing commander, they're crazy.

I think SOS and possibly ACSC should be additional requirements for a wing commander.

So, you think someone is crazy when they get a BS for wing king, but you think they need SOS and ACSC?

I am all supportive for a BS for the Nat/CC but, let's take it easy on wing commander requirements here. We have to remember that some wings have no one who CURRENTLY wants to take the wing king chair, let alone after we heap more and more pre-reqs on it. Requiring SOS and ACSC would leave some wings high and dry on anyone ABLE to take command

It takes four years, at least, to get a bachelor's degree. If your aim is to get a diploma just so you can be a wing commander, that's silly. If you already have one, fine.

You don't need to have a bachelor's degree to take SOS in CAP. All you need is to be a major. That's a year and a half, tops. And the management/leadership skills and rationale you learn is more than worth it. You learn it the Air Force way.

Actually, you do need a bachelor's degree to take SOS in CAP. This changed when the Air Force realized that CAP Majors don't necessarily have bachelor's degrees.

Quote from: PHall on August 27, 2012, 03:59:12 AM

Quote from: flyguy06 on August 27, 2012, 02:13:31 AM
Ned,

What does CSAG stand for? and so since the requirement is Wing Commander. A person can go from Wing Commander to Nat'l CC skipping the Region CC job? Although I think if the competition is good and you have someone that was a Region CC versus someone who wasnt the person who was would hve favor.

Read the press release in the first post in this thread and all will be revealed.

I did read it.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 27, 2012, 08:07:36 PM
Final Exam:  How many active duty generals are unpaid volunteers?

Hint: Zero.

That's why the discussion is far from "simple".

Yes it is. As long as it's their uniform and their titles, it's gonna be their rules.  Whine all you want - you take the King's shilling, you do the King's bidding.  It's their culture.  And my guess is we'll find plenty of candidates who meet that simple requirement.

Quote from: Ned on August 27, 2012, 05:11:54 AM
Some replies:

1.  The CSAG / NEC will select the CAP BoG appointees.  No BoG approval or confirmation of the CSAG appointees.

2. The CSAG is the CAP Senior Advisory Group, which is a slimmer and more representative version of the old NEC.

3.  A wing commander already had the ability to go straight to National Commander.  No change.  I think Gen Courter had not been a region commander., but it is late and I might be wrong on that.

4.  If leadership is innate and not learned Uncle Sam sure wastes a lot of money on places like West Point and all my ROTC classes.  Our colleagues in the AF believe so strongly in a college education that they will not allow you to be a second lieutenant without a degree.  Our national commander will lead 60,000 volunteers and oversee management of $200 million of assets., most purchased with tax dollars.  A degree seems reasonable for the position.  But that can be waived for an exceptional individual.

Thank you Ned. CSAG is the CAP Senior Advisory Council. Thank you for that clarification. That abbreviation wasnt in the original press release. And I didnt know WIng CC's could go straight to Nat'l CC. I think Gen Courter was the GLR Commander but I could be wrong. I live down south. Anyway, thatsnks again and it wa a pleasure meeting you.

Quote from: Nathan on August 27, 2012, 06:18:17 PM
Why is it that the only people who feel strongly about judging the value of a college degree tend to be the people who don't have one?

Who said I don't have a degree?

I am speaking from experience and maybe that has jaded my opinion a bit. To the man, every bad "leader" I have ever encountered was a college educated incompetent.  Inversely every leader I have served under who came up through the ranks and did not have a degree proved to be some of the best leaders I have encountered.  I just don't see why we would choose to exclude a large portion of our membership from the pool of talent for a VOLUNTEER position.

MG Courter was the Michigan wing commander prior to running for VC. She had not been a region commander.

Quote from: ßτε on August 28, 2012, 01:08:49 AM

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on August 28, 2012, 12:59:26 AM

Quote from: NCRblues on August 28, 2012, 12:39:03 AM

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on August 28, 2012, 12:14:32 AM

Sorry, but if someone rushes out to get a bachelor's degree just to be a wing commander, they're crazy.

I think SOS and possibly ACSC should be additional requirements for a wing commander.

So, you think someone is crazy when they get a BS for wing king, but you think they need SOS and ACSC?

I am all supportive for a BS for the Nat/CC but, let's take it easy on wing commander requirements here. We have to remember that some wings have no one who CURRENTLY wants to take the wing king chair, let alone after we heap more and more pre-reqs on it. Requiring SOS and ACSC would leave some wings high and dry on anyone ABLE to take command

It takes four years, at least, to get a bachelor's degree. If your aim is to get a diploma just so you can be a wing commander, that's silly. If you already have one, fine.

You don't need to have a bachelor's degree to take SOS in CAP. All you need is to be a major. That's a year and a half, tops. And the management/leadership skills and rationale you learn is more than worth it. You learn it the Air Force way.

Actually, you do need a bachelor's degree to take SOS in CAP. This changed when the Air Force realized that CAP Majors don't necessarily have bachelor's degrees.

Yes, that's right. I skipped right over that.

My point is, who's going to go back to school for four years to get a degree just to be CAP wing commander?

I don't have a problem with requiring a bachelor's degree to be a CAP officer. We require additional training beyond that, of course, but I think to make full colonel, it wouldn't hurt to have some Air Force PME in your background. Wanna be part of the larger Air Force team, gotta learn how the team works. Ain't nuthin' wrong with that.

If, in some wings, there aren't qualified candidates, the rules will have to bend one way or another, it would seem. We'll see how the governors and region commanders handle those circumstances.

My question is why even bother making a BA/BS a REQUIREMENT for SOS or promotion, if one doesn't need it to be a Wing King? Why put that sort of requirement on volunteers who may not want to further their edumication? As I stated a few posts back, I have 99% of a BA and have no interest in completing it, not for CAP or anyone.

Having an educational requirement beyond a HS diploma or GED seems really out of place in a volunteer organization. It just really makes no sense to me, and you will cut out a large portion of potential LTCs and COLs with that kind of requirement. Were I not so close to LTC I might make more of a stink about it, but this just seems so silly. There's no practical reason for anyone to HAVE a BS/BA in order to be a CAP officer. If you have one already, congratulations. But for those of us who lack a baccalaureate or post-graduate degree, I doubt that we will rush out to get one just for the sake of a promotion. Math says $50,000 in student or private loans plus a non-tangible return on that investment equals a waste of time if you get turned down for wing king or region command. Many of us do not plan to serve on wing staff, much less run for wing king. Having this requirement filtered down to the local squadron level is asinine.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 28, 2012, 01:07:59 AM
The USAF (I would assume) would love for us to REQUIRE a BS/BA for senior members......and that we make it harder for our members to make rank....i.e. no more 22 year old Capts.  Et Al.

Then we'd need some other grade structure for those w/o a degree.

As to 22 Year old Captains...

At 21 someone finishes college, by 22 they are a 1st Lt, and by 23 1/2 they are a Captain. Doesn't shift it much in terms of CAP.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 28, 2012, 02:36:22 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on August 28, 2012, 01:07:59 AM
The USAF (I would assume) would love for us to REQUIRE a BS/BA for senior members......and that we make it harder for our members to make rank....i.e. no more 22 year old Capts.  Et Al.

Then we'd need some other grade structure for those w/o a degree.

As to 22 Year old Captains...

At 21 someone finishes college, by 22 they are a 1st Lt, and by 23 1/2 they are a Captain. Doesn't shift it much in terms of CAP.

Maybe bring back CAP NCOs? With the option to field promote contingent upon completion of a baccalaureate degree?

Another thing I've been advocating for a long time is billet-based promotions.  We have 22 - year old Captains because we promote based on PD, not need.

Quote from: Garibaldi on August 28, 2012, 02:30:02 AM
My question is why even bother making a BA/BS a REQUIREMENT for SOS or promotion, if one doesn't need it to be a Wing King? Why put that sort of requirement on volunteers who may not want to further their edumication? As I stated a few posts back, I have 99% of a BA and have no interest in completing it, not for CAP or anyone.

Having an educational requirement beyond a HS diploma or GED seems really out of place in a volunteer organization. It just really makes no sense to me, and you will cut out a large portion of potential LTCs and COLs with that kind of requirement. Were I not so close to LTC I might make more of a stink about it, but this just seems so silly. There's no practical reason for anyone to HAVE a BS/BA in order to be a CAP officer. If you have one already, congratulations. But for those of us who lack a baccalaureate or post-graduate degree, I doubt that we will rush out to get one just for the sake of a promotion. Math says $50,000 in student or private loans plus a non-tangible return on that investment equals a waste of time if you get turned down for wing king or region command. Many of us do not plan to serve on wing staff, much less run for wing king. Having this requirement filtered down to the local squadron level is asinine.

So, you want someone with a High School diploma running a major organization. Wheather it be CAP, BSA, the YMCA or any other 501(c)3? I dont know about that.

Quote from: flyguy06 on August 28, 2012, 02:55:58 AMSo, you want someone with a High School diploma running a major organization. Wheather it be CAP, BSA, the YMCA or any other 501(c)3? I dont know about that.

Experience and knowledge of CAP is what should be important.

Formal education should be a distant second to the above.

I"m confused Eclipse.  You agreed with my statement that we shouldn't regulate for the exceptions and that a bachelors requirement made sense, but now you're arguing against it.  Did you misunderstand my point?

Quote from: RiverAux on August 28, 2012, 03:07:18 AM
I"m confused Eclipse.  You agreed with my statement that we shouldn't regulate for the exceptions and that a bachelors requirement made sense, but now you're arguing against it.  Did you misunderstand my point?

No - I'm making the point from a general perspective.

I agree fully that we need a bright line, and have no issue with where it's been set.

Quote from: flyguy06 on August 28, 2012, 02:55:58 AM

So, you want someone with a High School diploma running a major organization. Wheather it be CAP, BSA, the YMCA or any other 501(c)3? I dont know about that.

Define what part of the major organization. Squadron level? Region? National? Perhaps. Minions within the unit or wing who have no aspirations beyond doing their job? No, unless their particular job requires it (legal, medical, etc.).

I don't believe that this requirement would be good for CAP as a whole. Granted, having someone in charge of a wing who never went to college and barely graduated high school...questionable for several reasons, no matter the level of CAP experience. So let's break this down a bit. Officers in charge of units, groups, wings and regions should have a BA/BS or post grad degree. Officers on the staff of a unit, group, or wing, unless their CAP job requires an advanced degree, no. I am perfectly happy to be a career major even if it means I can't ever promote or be a unit commander. Ain't gonna affect my retirement package one little bit. No up or out in CAP, right?

I guess I should have argued that for KEY POSITIONS like wing/region CC, even a unit CC, a baccalaureate degree should be desired. You can't force someone who doesn't have a degree but who wants to promote up and be in charge to get one, nor is it fair to say that a person has to have a degree even if they don't want to run a unit or a wing or a region, or even the whole organization. That's a whole lot of crap in a two pound bag.

To answer your question: No. I don't want CAP's commanding general to be a graduate of Podunk High School with a GPA and IQ that can't be measured.

Quote from: flyguy06 on August 28, 2012, 02:55:58 AM
So, you want someone with a High School diploma running a major organization. Wheather it be CAP, BSA, the YMCA or any other 501(c)3? I dont know about that.

How about Microsoft of Virgin?  Both Bill Gates and Richard Branson are college dropouts.

Quote from: flyguy06 on August 28, 2012, 02:55:58 AM
So, you want someone with a High School diploma running a major organization. Wheather it be CAP, BSA, the YMCA or any other 501(c)3? I dont know about that.

What if I got a degree in Arts or Music? Does that make me a competent CAP leader? You can get many degrees.

Folks, this is absolutely insane! How many times have we all complained that we cant get anyone to command squadrons/groups (sometimes even wings) now? Let alone start requiring SQUADRON commanders to have a BA/BS? This is crazy talk!! A BA/BS requirement for anything less than Nat/CC or Nat/VC is crazy and is never going to happen. I mean come on, does Capt. BagOnuts who was also E-7 AD BogOnuts really need a BA/BS to command a 20 person squadron with one radio and one van??? Crazy foolishness!! This is a volunteer organization, we depend on the good natured and those with abundant time to handle the day to day.

Quote from: AngelWings on August 28, 2012, 03:45:55 AM

Quote from: flyguy06 on August 28, 2012, 02:55:58 AM
So, you want someone with a High School diploma running a major organization. Wheather it be CAP, BSA, the YMCA or any other 501(c)3? I dont know about that.

What if I got a degree in Arts or Music? Does that make me a competent CAP leader? You can get many degrees.

Any accredited degree implies a level of commitment. That is its value to our (and any) organization. On top of that, sometimes the coursework will even have relevance to CAP, often not.

Quote from: SarDragon on August 28, 2012, 03:54:23 AM

Quote from: AngelWings on August 28, 2012, 03:45:55 AM

Quote from: flyguy06 on August 28, 2012, 02:55:58 AM
So, you want someone with a High School diploma running a major organization. Wheather it be CAP, BSA, the YMCA or any other 501(c)3? I dont know about that.

What if I got a degree in Arts or Music? Does that make me a competent CAP leader? You can get many degrees.

Any accredited degree implies a level of commitment. That is its value to our (and any) organization. On top of that, sometimes the coursework will even have relevance to CAP, often not.

You know, there are forms of commitment beyond school work...

What about people who commit themselves to building a business instead of school?  Does that not show a level of commitment?

Basically, a degree shows that you could put up with a bunch of bullcrap for 4 years.  Not a skill that particularly defines leadership to me.

Quote from: JeffDG on August 28, 2012, 03:35:09 AM

Quote from: flyguy06 on August 28, 2012, 02:55:58 AM
So, you want someone with a High School diploma running a major organization. Wheather it be CAP, BSA, the YMCA or any other 501(c)3? I dont know about that.

How about Microsoft of Virgin?  Both Bill Gates and Richard Branson are college dropouts.

That's kind of a false correlation. Geniuses don't need college to gain the same level of knowledge that most people gain in college to succeed. I'm sure there are some people out there who are innately good at math as well, but that certainly doesn't support the argument that we should remove math as a school requirement just because of the rare exceptional individual who succeeds mathematically without any formal schooling.

Quote from: Nathan on August 28, 2012, 04:03:28 AM

Quote from: JeffDG on August 28, 2012, 03:35:09 AM

Quote from: flyguy06 on August 28, 2012, 02:55:58 AM
So, you want someone with a High School diploma running a major organization. Wheather it be CAP, BSA, the YMCA or any other 501(c)3? I dont know about that.

How about Microsoft of Virgin?  Both Bill Gates and Richard Branson are college dropouts.

That's kind of a false correlation. Geniuses don't need college to gain the same level of knowledge that most people gain in college to succeed. I'm sure there are some people out there who are innately good at math as well, but that certainly doesn't support the argument that we should remove math as a school requirement just because of the rare exceptional individual who succeeds mathematically without any formal schooling.

But the statement I was referring to was the fact that you don't want someone with just HS running a major organization.  That assertion is demonstrably false, as evidenced by the examples given.

People are leaders, experts, or whatever not because they managed to drink with the right crowd for 4 years, but because of their innate skills, and drive.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 28, 2012, 02:53:55 AM
Another thing I've been advocating for a long time is billet-based promotions.  We have 22 - year old Captains because we promote based on PD, not need.

Alrighty...I am starting to get a bit irked about this 'ZOMG 22 YEAR OLD CAPTAINS!!!' thing you've got going.

There are only a few ways to become a 22 year old Captain in CAP:
One is to be a former cadet, yeah you could theoretically have gotten the Spaatz in 2.5 years. Or gotten to Eaker and then spent 18 months as a TFO and completed all the other requirements for Level II.

Or you could join as a brand new SM at 18, complete slick sleeve, and complete all requirements for Level II in the minimum time, getting promoted at the fast rate possible and make captain in 36 months. (6 to FO, 18 total to TFO, 36 Total to SFO)

You could go the Army Warrant Officer route and make CWO 1 after 21 weeks at 18, and then do everything else for captain quickly

Finance officers you could get your Master's after your bachelor's in a total of 4 years of school, then you could be a 22 yr old captain if you joined CAP

Now for the 'Real Military':

Guess what, the Army you can make O-3 in 3 years, and if you went to OTS you would have had X weeks of training prior to that. Granted, (unless I'm mistaken about the Army) you will have had a 4 year degree prior to that. So really, that isn't too bad.

Air Force you make captain in 4 years, after a bachelor's degree so you are generally about 26ish, though some are a couple years younger, though it is uncommon. Heck, if you really could push it, if you were one of those crazy kids that has a bachelor's degree when you're 16 or whatever, do OTS at 18, comission, and Poof! 22 year old AF Captain. (Doubt this would happen, but it is possible)

The point though is active duty you may have 3-4 years job experience in the military and as little as 13 weeks of military training prior to that. CAP you are looking at around 3-4 years of CAP experience minimum.

And if you're concerned about it looking like we have inexperienced kids wearing captain's bars...I'm an active duty USAF Captain...and I could easily pass for a young college student, if I kept my mouth shut, I could probably pass for an older high school student still. And I'm 27.

Ya missed the CFI route to 21 yo Captain.

Quote from: JeffDG on August 28, 2012, 04:02:26 AM

Quote from: SarDragon on August 28, 2012, 03:54:23 AM

Quote from: AngelWings on August 28, 2012, 03:45:55 AM

Quote from: flyguy06 on August 28, 2012, 02:55:58 AM
So, you want someone with a High School diploma running a major organization. Wheather it be CAP, BSA, the YMCA or any other 501(c)3? I dont know about that.

What if I got a degree in Arts or Music? Does that make me a competent CAP leader? You can get many degrees.

Any accredited degree implies a level of commitment. That is its value to our (and any) organization. On top of that, sometimes the coursework will even have relevance to CAP, often not.

You know, there are forms of commitment beyond school work...

What about people who commit themselves to building a business instead of school?  Does that not show a level of commitment?

Sure it does, but a degree is an easy common denominator.

Basically, a degree shows that you could put up with a bunch of bullcrap for 4 years.  Not a skill that particularly defines leadership to me.


Yup, 4 years of bullcrap, along with a lot of money, and a lot of work. I have 2 BS degrees, which took 31 years, start to finish, and which turned out to be mostly useless based on the subject matter. I did get some of the other benefits, though, so I don't consider them a wasted effort.

Quote from: JeffDG on August 28, 2012, 03:35:09 AM

Quote from: flyguy06 on August 28, 2012, 02:55:58 AM
So, you want someone with a High School diploma running a major organization. Wheather it be CAP, BSA, the YMCA or any other 501(c)3? I dont know about that.

How about Microsoft of Virgin?  Both Bill Gates and Richard Branson are college dropouts.

And if you want a job at either one of them....you better have a degree.

Quote from: NCRblues on August 28, 2012, 03:47:23 AM
Folks, this is absolutely insane! How many times have we all complained that we cant get anyone to command squadrons/groups (sometimes even wings) now? Let alone start requiring SQUADRON commanders to have a BA/BS? This is crazy talk!! A BA/BS requirement for anything less than Nat/CC or Nat/VC is crazy and is never going to happen. I mean come on, does Capt. BagOnuts who was also E-7 AD BogOnuts really need a BA/BS to command a 20 person squadron with one radio and one van??? Crazy foolishness!! This is a volunteer organization, we depend on the good natured and those with abundant time to handle the day to day.

Now we are gettins somewhere.......I agree 100%  We don't need a BA/BS at the squadron level......but I do think we need on at the National CC level.

Bah. I should have looked for a separate thread. My comments, here...

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=15985.msg288961#msg288961

Since most "squadrons" are USAF flight sized at best (and many are really just element sized), adding real world USAF officer education and training requirements is a bit silly.  Plus adding in the fact that we often can't find a good squadron CC volunteer, and we can put that idea to bed.

Finding a single, qualified guy to be National CC won't be hard.  Lots of folks want that job.  Adding in some extra "hoops" (like level V or a bachelor's degree) isn't going to leave us with no viable candidate.  And if we ever find the legendary self-educated, multi-millionaire  genius executive who runs his own 50,000 person company, I'm sure we'll get him a waiver (of course, that guy will likely be too busy running his company to want a second non-paying job...)

The National CC has to be credible to USAF.  He's wearing two stars - the other GOs and SESs need to seem him as a "real" general to treat him (and by extension, the CAP) as competent and qualified.  And they, not us, decide what to judge as "qualified."  We have to fit into their world.

(FYI, I have 60-ish credit hours, but no college degree. I've had a successful career in adverting and design for 22 years)

Why all the hate toward college? "4 years of jumping through hoops"? Really? There are a huge number of professions that there's no way you can work in without college.

Case in point: I work for an architecture & engineering firm. Are you going to trust the entire infrastructure of the nation to people that didn't study civil engineering and then were certified and licensed?

I don't want to trust that my water will be clean, the roads & bridges won't collapse and that there won't be flooding every time it rains to anyone who just has a raw talent for numbers and spatial thinking. I also would never buy a home that wasn't designed by a licensed architect, so I can be sure that it won't collapse on my head, the foundation won't sink or that I'll actually be warm enough in the winter because its properly insulated and the HVAC is tuned.

As much as I respect the hard won wisdom about animals that someone might learn from growing up on a farm with livestock, when my dog needs to be spade, I'm going to a Vet that went to college.

I'm not even going to touch the medical profession.

What about teachers? I got a adjunct position at a college once because of my experience, BUT just because I was a "subject-matter expert" didn't automatically make me a great teacher. I've had to learn things about teaching, which looking back would have been nice to have done in a college setting. My children have ADHD, I'd like to think that their teachers have had an education on human development and some child sociology and psychology and not just how to add 2+2.

Any hunters here? The state biologist that helps manage the game's health across the state has a degree.

A person with a good head for math can do the books for a small business and taxes at home, but if I'm running a company with 100+ employees, I want someone with an accounting degree.

YES, there are those that are successful that don't have a degree. YES, that are a good careers out there that don't require a college education. BUT to make the assertion that higher education of any sort is worthless isn't true.

The argument that a degree = leadership holds water. I understand that, and I agree. Just because someone attended college doesn't mean they are automatically leaders. One could argue that those that attend the service academies receive a formal education in leadership. Aside from that, there are few places to learn the aspects of leadership in a formal setting.

But let's get off the college = worthless train, it's not true.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 28, 2012, 05:43:07 AM

Quote from: JeffDG on August 28, 2012, 03:35:09 AM

Quote from: flyguy06 on August 28, 2012, 02:55:58 AM
So, you want someone with a High School diploma running a major organization. Wheather it be CAP, BSA, the YMCA or any other 501(c)3? I dont know about that.

How about Microsoft of Virgin?  Both Bill Gates and Richard Branson are college dropouts.

And if you want a job at either one of them....you better have a degree.

Not true at Microsoft.

Quote from: Larry Mangum on August 28, 2012, 01:26:56 PM
Not true at Microsoft.

Your statement is actually what's not true.  Of course any company will have jobs that don't require college education.  But if you want any managerial position or job in administration, you will need a degree at Microsoft.   All of these job categories at Microsoft require a degree, and they have a whole category of jobs that also require an MBA post-grad degree just to be considered:  http://careers.microsoft.com/careers/en/us/graduate-jobs.aspx (http://careers.microsoft.com/careers/en/us/graduate-jobs.aspx)

The Degree dosnt make the Person, The Person makes the Degree- Anonymous

Quote from: Pylon on August 28, 2012, 01:43:45 PMYour statement is actually what's not true.  Of course any company will have jobs that don't require college education.  But if you want any managerial position or job in administration, you will need a degree at Microsoft.   All of these job categories at Microsoft require a degree, and they have a whole category of jobs that also require an MBA post-grad degree just to be considered:  http://careers.microsoft.com/careers/en/us/graduate-jobs.aspx (http://careers.microsoft.com/careers/en/us/graduate-jobs.aspx)

My experience has been that what an employer "requires" is also a product of market forces.

The word "required" becomes much less firm when the pool of otherwise qualified applicants is small. 

These days we have Ph.ds stocking shelves at Walmart, so companies can pretty much "require" anything they want.

Quote from: Devil Doc on August 28, 2012, 01:48:50 PM
The Degree dosnt make the Person, The Person makes the Degree- Anonymous

I think when the "Person Makes the Degree" you get in trouble for that.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 28, 2012, 01:56:49 PM

Quote from: Devil Doc on August 28, 2012, 01:48:50 PM
The Degree dosnt make the Person, The Person makes the Degree- Anonymous

I think when the "Person Makes the Degree" you get in trouble for that.

So...my Master's in Starship Engineering and Bachelor's in Klingon History from Starfleet Academy are meaningless?  :'(

Quote from: Dragoon on August 28, 2012, 01:05:06 PM
Finding a single, qualified guy to be National CC won't be hard.  Lots of folks want that job.  Adding in some extra "hoops" (like level V or a bachelor's degree) isn't going to leave us with no viable candidate.  And if we ever find the legendary self-educated, multi-millionaire  genius executive who runs his own 50,000 person company, I'm sure we'll get him a waiver (of course, that guy will likely be too busy running his company to want a second non-paying job...)

I know you were speaking primarily to the BA requirement, but some of us on the BoG are actually somewhat worried about having sufficient qualified national commander applicants in the future.

Now that we have clarified that the National Commander is the CEO in both name and function, we will be looking for folks with a "CEO skill set" to apply.  And I am a little concerned because the CEO skill set is substantially different from the "Operational skill set" displayed by successful wing and region commanders, and this may make the pool of qualified National Commander applicants smaller than we would like.

I would expect that most of our future national commanders will have aquired and displayed the necessary skills as successful business persons or key executives at large non-profits or government agencies.  As distinct from "merely" being a highly successful wing or region commander.  Mostly because even the largest wings and regions are rather unlike the organization as a whole.  (E.g., wings or regions have relatively few employees when compared to the nearly 200 that work for the corporation as whole, etc.)

And as you have all noticed, it is not as common as we would like for highly successful business persons or key executives in large non-profits or government agencies to serve as wing or region commanders.  There are undoubtedly a lot of reasons for this, starting simply with the limited number of hours in a day to both run a wing and a business / agency.  Oh, and tend to a family and community responsibilities.

Looking forward, I would like to challenge our PD folks to come up with ways to inculcate and grow strategic skills into our best and brightest volunteers.  We can probably do a better job of teaching leadership and management as academic skills at each level of our professional development.  CAP-specific skills and knowledge are critical, of course, but on the upside, management and leadership training in general will be transferable back to the volunteer's "outside life" (if any of us really have one of those.)

Any thoughts on how we can add to our existing PD program to help us grow "Future CEOs"?

[edit - spelling]

Quote from: Ned on August 28, 2012, 04:18:13 PM
Any thoughts on how we can add to our existing PD program to help us grow "Future CEOs"?

I would think that this would be an integral function of the Staff College program, particularly NSC. I don't know when the last time the curriculum was updated for NSC, though apparently RSC is going through some updating now. I think that at RSC we need to add some basic managerial course work. Then revamp NSC to build on what is learned at RSC and expand on it for strategic level stuff.

I also think that the OE track, or something like it, could be used to focus training on strategic level planning and organization for those individuals who have expressed a desire to lead CAP at the wing and above level. If this were done I would probably make this specialty track, or at least active participation in it, a requirement for wing commanders. Since you have to be a wing commander to become Nat/CC now, this track wouldn't have to be made a requirement for Nat/CC. By having the wing commanders continue in some sort of "commander grooming" track, you hopefully create a much larger pool of potential applicants.

I think our Senior Member PD program needs to be more challenging as a whole and needs to include more classroom time. I've been a Senior Member for five years now and the only item I am missing for my Level 5 is National Staff College which I don't currently qualify for as I am not a Major yet. I have a full time job, a family and I was still able to fly through the PD levels.

CAP seems to be stuck in a mode of allowing everyone to progress no matter what, all you need to do is show up and sign in to receive credit. Why are the courses not more in depth? Instead of a weekend SLS/CLC, turn them into multi-weekend activities and really delve deeper into leadership and management skills and actually grade the coursework.

You shouldn't pass and progress just because you showed up and paid for your share of the donuts and coffee.

I'm sure I will get blowback for my comments, but if we want to be taken seriously we need to increase our standards and those that don't meet standards for PD ascension don't move up. We can't expect anyone else to take our "officers" seriously if they are lacking in education and professional training.

I do believe that the BA/BS requirement for the National Commander is great, honestly it should be more.

Quote from: Ned on August 28, 2012, 04:18:13 PM
Looking forward, I would like to challenge our PD folks to come up with ways to inculcate and grow strategic skills into our best and brightest volunteers.  We can probably do a better job of teaching leadership and management as academic skills at each level of our professional development.  CAP-specific skills and knowledge are critical, of course, but on the upside, management and leadership training in general will be transferable back to the volunteer's "outside life" (if any of us really have one of those.)

Any thoughts on how we can add to our existing PD program to help us grow "Future CEOs"?

Revamping the RSC to include wing and region commander operational skills and, NSC to include more stratigic planning and organizaional leadership skill sets may be helpful.  We have an "Organizaional Excellence" program which could use some real meat.  It could be developed more with an in residence CAP "Graduate Leadership" School; to help develop the further skills necessary to be, not only a successful senior leader but, to serve as National Commander, Vice or, at large BoG member.

Now this is something worth discussing... ;D

Quote from: Eeyore on August 28, 2012, 04:43:10 PM
I think our Senior Member PD program needs to be more challenging as a whole and needs to include more classroom time. I've been a Senior Member for five years now and the only item I am missing for my Level 5 is National Staff College which I don't currently qualify for as I am not a Major yet. I have a full time job, a family and I was still able to fly through the PD levels.

I've there for a few years. Last year, when the stars aligned and I could afford to do NSC, my application wasn't accepted.

QuoteCAP seems to be stuck in a mode of allowing everyone to progress no matter what, all you need to do is show up and sign in to receive credit. Why are the courses not more in depth? Instead of a weekend SLS/CLC, turn them into multi-weekend activities and really delve deeper into leadership and management skills and actually grade the coursework.

You shouldn't pass and progress just because you showed up and paid for your share of the donuts and coffee.

Multi weekend courses cause all sorts of heartburn, in part due to the lack of weekend time available for most volunteers with families. I think making SLS/CLC multimode course would be better - online reading/testing components and discussion groups with a weekend capstone in person session required to complete the training. We got this new Learning Management System, let's REALLY work it.

QuoteI'm sure I will get blowback for my comments, but if we want to be taken seriously we need to increase our standards and those that don't meet standards for PD ascension don't move up. We can't expect anyone else to take our "officers" seriously if they are lacking in education and professional training.

I do believe that the BA/BS requirement for the National Commander is great, honestly it should be more.

I suggested a dual track system - Warrant/Flight Officers for those staying at the squadron or group staff level, with limited PD (current system?) requirements to progress and Commissioned Officers for those going to command any level or wing/region/national staff levels with a more intensive PD system that fully incorporates the current system and adds more leadership/management/planning training.

On a point I keep hearing about college, ...well some of the most successful business owners don't have a college degree.  On the other hand the amount of folks who are under and unemployed does tend to be much much higher among those with a HS degree or less, kinda offsets the few who are very very successful without a degree.  Here in Ohio the state militia has required a degree above HS for years,for officers, and you can't tell me their units are larger then those in CAP.  I'm not sure CAP could survive requiring a college degree for officers, to do that we'd have to have a good NCO program, which we don't.  I'm glad to hear that the CAP/CC is still  being called Maj/Gen, better then cutting off the upward mobility of members at Col.  Of course since the Nat/CC picks the Vice, and I'm sure being Vice would help with the BoG picking that member for CC, that'll mean that the sucking sound you will soon hear anytime the Nat/CC is near will be the Wing Kings and Region Kings sucking up.  In this CAP has finally come closer to the AD USAF.

I think some may be looking at CAP in its current state, instead of where the organization is/should be going.  If we want to continue to progress and grow, we need to look at the future.  This means getting a CEO for our non-profit that can think like a CEO.  That, in 99.9% of cases comes from someone with a degree and experience - not a nice guy that feels the organization owes him upward mobility because he was successful as a unit testing officer.

I envision a scenario where our organization grows and changes to the point where the wing commanders would need a BA/BS because of a need for those skills at the state level.  At the local level, I don't foresee a need for anything huge in terms of executive experience, because the scope is smaller, and its a management position. 

In reality, I doubt that many of our current Wing or Region commanders don't have a degree of some sort anyway...

Quote from: jhsmith400 on August 28, 2012, 05:34:58 PM
On the other hand the amount of folks who are under and unemployed does tend to be much much higher among those with a HS degree or less, kinda offsets the few who are very very successful without a degree. 

Not really.

A HS diploma, for all its current issues in some parts of the country, is still considered the societal minimum to be able to function.

Quote from: jimmydeanno on August 28, 2012, 06:09:22 PMIn reality, I doubt that many of our current Wing or Region commanders don't have a degree of some sort anyway...

The "some sort" raises an interesting point.

In more rural parts of the country, unit cc's required to have a degree are likely to be hanging something regarding "animal husbandry" or "farm economics"
on their walls.

The real "fix" for this, assuming you acknowledge there a problem, is for CAP to provide the training - just like the military.  Basic Training, tech schools, officer schools, the works.  Clearly that breaks the economics of "bring what you have" that is CAP's strongest ROI, but that is the only way to compare
military officers with CAP officers.

I guarantee we'd see a huge spike in both recruiting and higher education if CAP started popping for college.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 28, 2012, 07:30:00 PM

I guarantee we'd see a huge spike in both recruiting and higher education if CAP started popping for college.

Heh...I'd love to see that happen.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 28, 2012, 02:36:22 AM
Then we'd need some other grade structure for those w/o a degree.

Bring back warrant officers, as I've suggested before.

Before going further:

• Yes, I know the USAF doesn't have them!
• Yes, I know that the Flight Officer grades are quasi-warrant(ish)...but the USAF doesn't have those either!

I would gladly trade in my train tracks for CWO-3 bars to be able to focus on one thing, since I'm really too introverted to consider myself (or want to be considered) "command" material (though I have been a Squadron Deputy CC).

I'm the "red shirt" from Star Trek type.

For the record, I have an A.A.S. degree with honours (GPA 3.735) in Computer Information Systems...but that was so long ago that it's virtually meaningless now.

I also have college-level psychology and logic courses (4.0, Dean's List) but not a full BSc.

None of that plays into what I do with CAP.  I've been offered the post of IT Officer at various levels so many times it's silly but I don't want it...I left that career for a reason (burnout) and have no desire to jump back into that snake pit.

Unless the entire paradigm of CAP was changed, including adding about 50-75% more people, the grade you're wearing will never,
ever, have any bearing on what you're actually doing.

Being a CWO-3 will not allow you to "focus" any more then being a Captain forces you to be a manager.

Absent lots more people, everyone from SMWOGs to Maj Gens will continue to be generalists, allowed to focus anywhere they want.

Implemented correctly, and with a multi-year phase-in, I'd probably be in favor of a structure that allowed specialization,
but it would also have to limit access and benefits for those who choose to specialize, just like the military, and inn a volunteer
paradigm, that's as sure to foster sour grapes as an NCO structure would.

I have an Associates of Applied Science in Network Administration, a Bacholars in Business Administration, and I'm a Network Engineer... hmm..

The Associates I have means NOTHING.. isn't asked for, isn't verified, it has collected dust since the day it was handed to me. Instead, I am required to get dozens of certifications and keep them current.. that means something.. not the 60+ credit hours spent on my AAS.. no.. its the 12 credit hours (if they even GIVE credit hours...) for the certificate that makes my 60k+ income. Hmmmm..

My BBA? Not used either. However, I personally take pride in it, as it is a milestone to my MBA, which is my goal. Why? Not so I can use it to make money somewhere, its a personal goal.. see.. Network Engineers don't have any need for a BBA or MBA..

So on that note..

QuoteThe real "fix" for this, assuming you acknowledge there a problem, is for CAP to provide the training - just like the military.  Basic Training, tech schools, officer schools, the works.  Clearly that breaks the economics of "bring what you have" that is CAP's strongest ROI, but that is the only way to compare military officers with CAP officers

This is the exactly needed solution. You want quality officers running this organization? TRAIN THEM TO BE THE OFFICERS YOU EXPECT THEM TO BE. The issue with a purely volunteer force is the mixed bag of tricks that comes with it.

Personally, I seriously think we need to revamp the NCO Corps.. the current idea that only AD/RET military members can hold NCO ranks is BS. Use the NCO structure to make better use of our grade system, training, and standardization. All officers should be required to have degrees, no degree? NCO Corps.. That makes sure proper leadership is earned with proper experience vs a squadron filled with Captains... You want to use the AF system of grade/tis/tig? THEN USE AF STANDARDS FOR EACH GRADE.

If you don't want to, then bring the "Polo Corps" into play and stop the AF grade system all together.

I'm VERY pro military structure, but CAP needs to be either the United States Air Force Auxiliary (and thus act like it..) or drop our AF association and just be purely Civil Air Patrol......

Just my 2 cents :)

I'd be in favor of upping the requirements for CAP commissioned grade, just because it would increase our status with the active duty folks.  The more comparable our training and selection process is to theirs, the more respect we will get.

Using the flight officer grades would be best for the rest I think, exactly because the Air Force has nothing like it.  No worries about stepping on anyone's toes. 

One thing I would love to see in the education realm is CAP getting a few seats a year in the AU online masters program.  According to the website they allocate 150 seats a year to AF civilians, getting 10 or 15 for CAP would be a great way to hook those rising majors and give some of our best and brightest a serious qualification.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to go write a screed on the French Revolution for MY masters degree class.     

Quote from: AirDX on August 28, 2012, 10:12:50 PM
I'd be in favor of upping the requirements for CAP commissioned grade, just because it would increase our status with the active duty folks.  The more comparable our training and selection process is to theirs, the more respect we will get.

Using the flight officer grades would be best for the rest I think, exactly because the Air Force has nothing like it.  No worries about stepping on anyone's toes. 

One thing I would love to see in the education realm is CAP getting a few seats a year in the AU online masters program.  According to the website they allocate 150 seats a year to AF civilians, getting 10 or 15 for CAP would be a great way to hook those rising majors and give some of our best and brightest a serious qualification.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to go write a screed on the French Revolution for MY masters degree class.   

I like this. Now, what do we do with those folks who wear officer grade but don't meet the requirements?

And how might this bolster an enlisted corps?

We could have 2 ways to fix that offer those folks a lateral movement right over to an NCO rank, or grandfather them in the positions, kind of like the USAF did for USAAF folks who joined during WW2 as flight cadets, many of whom had no college degrees (think BGen Yeager, why he couldn't become an astronaut), well this is just an easy comparison and not as complex as was often the way it happened.

Quote from: Walkman on August 28, 2012, 01:26:32 PM
professions that there's no way you can work in without college.

Case in point: I work for an architecture & engineering firm. Are you going to trust the entire infrastructure of the nation to people that didn't study civil engineering and then were certified and licensed?

I don't want to trust that my water will be clean, the roads & bridges won't collapse and that there won't be flooding every time it rains to anyone who just has a raw talent for numbers and spatial thinking. I also would never buy a home that wasn't designed by a licensed architect, so I can be sure that it won't collapse on my head, the foundation won't sink or that I'll actually be warm enough in the winter because its properly insulated and the HVAC is tuned.

I guarantee that the majority of the construction, maintenance and operation of the infrastructure you mention is completed by skilled laborers that never went to college. So this point is ridiculous because though an "engineer" may have designed the system he didn't actually construct it.  Someone with callouses on their hands did.  Those hands are what keep you safe, not the degree the designer has. 

As for the enlisted folks they could start as slick sleeve AB's, with exceptions for non-CAP training.  In example; a new member with an EMT might start as a "two stripe" airman, a Paramedic as a SRA.  Now this is just an idea and only an example.

As for that cap23..., many of the designs that crumbled were also built by those hands, so the hands will build what they are paid to, yes with great skill and care, but those hands don't know the difference the brains should have.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 28, 2012, 07:30:00 PM

Quote from: jimmydeanno on August 28, 2012, 06:09:22 PMIn reality, I doubt that many of our current Wing or Region commanders don't have a degree of some sort anyway...

The "some sort" raises an interesting point.

In more rural parts of the country, unit cc's required to have a degree are likely to be hanging something regarding "animal husbandry" or "farm economics"
on their walls.

The real "fix" for this, assuming you acknowledge there a problem, is for CAP to provide the training - just like the military.  Basic Training, tech schools, officer schools, the works.  Clearly that breaks the economics of "bring what you have" that is CAP's strongest ROI, but that is the only way to compare
military officers with CAP officers.

I guarantee we'd see a huge spike in both recruiting and higher education if CAP started popping for college.

I would be happy if they opened the CCAF to CAP

Ned is right. Other than people that start their own small business. The CEO of Delta Airlines or Coca Cola is going to be someone with at least an MBA.

Heck, Even in the military, why do you think they require Officers to have derees? General Officers have Masters degrees. I mean the National Commander has to do the following:
Aquisition and sustain and maintain 550 aircraft, Hundreds of vehicles, and thousands of dollars worth of communication equipment.
He has oversee a ful time staf at National Headquarters through the COO
He has to make timely decisions that effect thousands of volunteers.

You just dont want anyone doing that. Heck, I couldnt do that job right now.

Quote from: flyguy06 on August 29, 2012, 02:27:29 AM
Ned is right. Other than people that start their own small business. The CEO of Delta Airlines or Coca Cola is going to be someone with at least an MBA.

Heck, Even in the military, why do you think they require Officers to have derees? General Officers have Masters degrees. I mean the National Commander has to do the following:
Aquisition and sustain and maintain 550 aircraft, Hundreds of vehicles, and thousands of dollars worth of communication equipment.
He has oversee a ful time staf at National Headquarters through the COO
He has to make timely decisions that effect thousands of volunteers.

You just dont want anyone doing that. Heck, I couldnt do that job right now.

The National Commander has many responsibilities however, the aquisition, sustainence, and maintainence of our "stuff" is not in the job discription. Nor is the oversight of the paid staff. That responsibity falls directly to the COO who, reports directly to the BoG in these matters. All matters regarding the expendatures of government funds is handled by either the COO or CFO; depending on the BoG's wishes.

^ And this is typical for a corporate leader - they are not "wrench turners", nor generally even SME's for their companies.
In fact, this is noted in a lot of high-visibility failures - namely that the highly paid Cxx had no idea how the company actually
functioned, nor what it really took to "git her done".

I've been involved in more than one start-up, and a couple or "used to be" companies, where when it came to IPO time or financial difficulties, "corporate types" had to be brought in to make the company more attractive to VCs.  They brought their sheepskins, high salaries, and "no idea what we did" and ran the places into the ground.

The people who had the vision and an actual clue were marginalized, and the suits "BC'ed out the door with a few more magic bucks.

The point is that the leaders have to be invested in the ideas and organization, not their external business plans.

Quote from: FW on August 29, 2012, 03:31:36 AM
The National Commander has many responsibilities however, the aquisition, sustainence, and maintainence of our "stuff" is not in the job discription. Nor is the oversight of the paid staff. That responsibity falls directly to the COO who, reports directly to the BoG in these matters. All matters regarding the expendatures of government funds is handled by either the COO or CFO; depending on the BoG's wishes.

So what is the line between "administrative" and "operational" now?

I'm not sure I really like the fact that our CEO actually isn't the CEO since he/she will not actually control the paid staff of the organization that they are supposedly leading.  Is that normal in other national volunteer-based organizations?  '

Sort of violates that unity of command thing. 

Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2012, 03:44:21 AM
So what is the line between "administrative" and "operational" now?

My take on it is that operational is the general direction of how our paid resources are going to be used, and administrative is personnel issues.  It's probably not a good idea to place the employment status of a paid individual at the whim of one volunteer.

Quote from: cap235629 on August 29, 2012, 12:36:34 AM

I guarantee that the majority of the construction, maintenance and operation of the infrastructure you mention is completed by skilled laborers that never went to college. So this point is ridiculous because though an "engineer" may have designed the system he didn't actually construct it.  Someone with callouses on their hands did.  Those hands are what keep you safe, not the degree the designer has.

Ah, no.  The guys with the calluses build what's on the blueprints.  The engineers and architects need to design a safe structure.  That's why they have all those degrees and licenses.  There's an excellent book out there called Why Buildings Fall Down: How Structures Fail that gives a lot of insight into the subtle errors made in design that cause disasters.

Quote from: flyguy06 on August 29, 2012, 02:27:29 AM
Heck, Even in the military, why do you think they require Officers to have derees? General Officers have Masters degrees.

Out in the regular Air Force, if you don't have a masters degree, you're not getting past major, let alone to GO rank.

Quote from: AirDX on August 29, 2012, 10:33:23 AMAh, no.  The guys with the calluses build what's on the blueprints.  The engineers and architects need to design a safe structure.  That's why they have all those degrees and licenses.  There's an excellent book out there called Why Buildings Fall Down: How Structures Fail that gives a lot of insight into the subtle errors made in design that cause disasters.

In this example, the degree is technical training, no different then learning to be a pilot - required to understand the job, but no more indication
that Mr. Brady could run the company, then the average airline pilot could.

Knowing how to use a slide-rule and a t-square, or understanding the physics of load-bearing curtain walls doesn't mean you have a clue
about running the company that is paying your salary.

Quote from: AirDX on August 29, 2012, 10:36:14 AM

Quote from: flyguy06 on August 29, 2012, 02:27:29 AM
Heck, Even in the military, why do you think they require Officers to have derees? General Officers have Masters degrees.

Out in the regular Air Force, if you don't have a masters degree, you're not getting past major, let alone to GO rank.

Out in the "regular Air Force" you're a full-time employee, which includes being paid for your housing, food an clothing.

Oh, and you'll be getting that masters on the USAF nickel.

Quite apart from the debate over whether or not a Bachelor's of some sort is a desirable qualification for a Nat CC, I'm mystified by the outright derision some people here seem to have for degrees and, by extension, for those who have them.

It boils down to whether you consider a degree just another vocational/trade qualification, like a Commercial Driver's License, a Barber's License, an RN, an NREMT-P, etc., or something more.

I happen to believe in the idea of education as a means of improving your ability to think, to reason, to understand, to challenge and to grow. Really.

Here are some of the "useless" courses I took: European History, Medieval History, American History, Military History, Money and Banking, Economics 1, Economics 2, the History of Political Thought, Statistics 1, English Composition , Advanced English Composition, Principles of International Trade, Monetary Systems, Revolutions and Reform, Comparative Religion.

Because I took those things, I am aware of how political movements have formed and fared over the years...I know how Europe has been shaped by dynasty and the clash of nobility over centuries...the conflicting ideas and threads that kicked off the Protestant reformation and how those conflicts and ideas remain unresolved today...I'm not mystified by how banking works...or how economic policy is made, managed and mismanaged. I can balance a checkbook...build a spreadsheet to analyze the pros and cons of a business plan...interpret budget documents...read complex reports enough to formulate questions about them, so I can learn more. I have a lens with which to view the world around me. There are many things I don't know, but the world around me doesn't baffle me the way it otherwise would. I can write a coherent sentence, organize my thoughts and make myself understood.

None of the above are "useless" skills. All of the above can be acquired in different ways. College is just one of those ways, and it happens to be a pretty efficient and streamlined way to do it. Many of these skills I have since honed dramatically in 30 years of professional life. But the fact that I built the foundation for knowing these things in a collegiate setting doesn't NEGATE the value of knowing those things or of learning the skills needed to enable me to learn more.

And just to add the final irony...I learned all of those things in my CORE classes, that everyone who wants to graduate had to take. NOT in my major, which was...wait for it...Art History. Really. And I've been gainfully employed every day of my life since I was 16. 

Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 03:49:05 AM
I'm not sure I really like the fact that our CEO actually isn't the CEO since he/she will not actually control the paid staff of the organization that they are supposedly leading.  Is that normal in other national volunteer-based organizations?  '

Sort of violates that unity of command thing.

But he will...through because he controls the COO who controls the paid staff.

The value of a degree is in the eye of the beholder.

The derision works both ways, and I don't think an academic (pun intended) discussion of whether or not having a BA, in and of itself, would make you a "better' National CC should be considered "derision" of college degrees as a concept.

As you say, college is one option for education.  It isn't the only one, and depending on the career field, isn't necessarily the best one.

It's a subjective decision and should be treated that way.

^^^^
^^^^^
Fair enough. I guess my point here was not the merits of the debate itself...which I think is worth having and there are points on both sides...but more the tone of some commenters (not you) about college being a waste by definition, for anybody. Kind of a sidebar to the main argument on which, for the moment, I think I'll reserve judgment.

My Mom was DIRT poor...college wasn't handed to me...I won a full ride and wound up walking away from it for family reasons after two and a half years. It then took me a long, long, long time to get that "useless" degree, and I value what I learned along the way. I have no problem with debating whether Nat CC ought to have a degree, but I believe that's a different argument than the value of a college education generally.

Quote from: ProdigalJim on August 29, 2012, 02:14:55 PM
I have no problem with debating whether Nat CC ought to have a degree, but I believe that's a different argument than the value of a college education generally.

That's where I was trying to go. The debate should be about whether the degree requirement is appropriate for the NatCC position, NOT about if college is worthwhile. Two very different lines of thinking.

That being said, in all my years online I don't recall ever seeing a forum debate where anyone's mind was changed. From my view, it always devolves into a "I'm right!' "No, I'm right" circus. Everyone spends all their effort defending their platform to the death, usually without a hint of the notion that other other person might have some valid points. It happens here on a regular basis.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 29, 2012, 01:54:29 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 03:49:05 AM
I'm not sure I really like the fact that our CEO actually isn't the CEO since he/she will not actually control the paid staff of the organization that they are supposedly leading.  Is that normal in other national volunteer-based organizations?  '

Sort of violates that unity of command thing.

But he will...through because he controls the COO who controls the paid staff.

No, the COO is the Executive Director who reports to and answers only to the Board of Governors, Not the CEO aka National Commander

Quote from: MSG Mac on August 29, 2012, 02:49:25 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on August 29, 2012, 01:54:29 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 03:49:05 AM
I'm not sure I really like the fact that our CEO actually isn't the CEO since he/she will not actually control the paid staff of the organization that they are supposedly leading.  Is that normal in other national volunteer-based organizations?  '

Sort of violates that unity of command thing.

But he will...through because he controls the COO who controls the paid staff.

No, the COO is the Executive Director who reports to and answers only to the Board of Governors, Not the CEO aka National Commander

That's not what the BoG said.....AdCon the BoG Hires and Rates the COO (former EX) but OpCon he falls under the National CC (CEO).

It's like being on deployment....your Deployed Commander owns your butt....but your supervisor writes your EPR.  Which makes it 100 times better then what it used to be...where the National CC was....the commander....but the EX was the CEO....so who was in charge?
Now...while it is still not a 100% clear supervisor/subordinate role.....it is clearer then then it used to be....which is a goood thing.

BoG->National CC(CEO)->COO->Paid staff.
BoG->National CC->Regional CC->Wing CC->Group CC->Squadron CC->Member.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 29, 2012, 02:56:44 PM
That's not what the BoG said.....AdCon the BoG Hires and Rates the COO (former EX) but OpCon he falls under the National CC (CEO).

This.

Quote from: Ned on August 29, 2012, 03:47:31 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on August 29, 2012, 02:56:44 PM
That's not what the BoG said.....AdCon the BoG Hires and Rates the COO (former EX) but OpCon he falls under the National CC (CEO).

This.

The relationship between the BoG, CC and EX has been clarified; not changed, IMHO.  National Commanders have always had operational control of CAP. The EX directed the paid staff and controlled the flow of appropriated dollars. The EX and paid staff's function was to assist the membership. This "assistance" is directed by the CC.  How well the two offices function (together) is now evaluated by the BoG.  I kind of like this set up.

Fred: I like it, too, and think that it is the single most-positive thing that has happened in the governance of CAP in the 20 years that I have been watching this process. 

Eliminating the NEC and the NB is nothing but positive, IMHO, because it puts all that poliltics right where it belongs(in people's minds).  You now have 8 Region Commanders and 52 Wing Commanders whose focus should be on their people and their local areas, not on who is getting elected to what position and other bits of nonsense.

I am sure that there is a lot of wailing and nashing of teeth on the part of some of them: their political pull has gone away.  Now, the attempts at moving around these roadblocks will begin.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 29, 2012, 01:56:26 PM
The value of a degree is in the eye of the beholder.

The derision works both ways, and I don't think an academic (pun intended) discussion of whether or not having a BA, in and of itself, would make you a "better' National CC should be considered "derision" of college degrees as a concept.

As you say, college is one option for education.  It isn't the only one, and depending on the career field, isn't necessarily the best one.

It's a subjective decision and should be treated that way.

I've heard from many hiring personnel that the value of the degree isn't so much what individual field it is in or what specific knowledge it imparts.  They said the real value of the degree is that it shows the individual can complete a long term project. The individual took the time and effort to complete all the requirements to get the degree, no matter how uninteresting some of the requirements may have been.  Nobody wants an employee that doesn't complete a project.

Quote from: FW on August 29, 2012, 05:08:10 PM

Quote from: Ned on August 29, 2012, 03:47:31 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on August 29, 2012, 02:56:44 PM
That's not what the BoG said.....AdCon the BoG Hires and Rates the COO (former EX) but OpCon he falls under the National CC (CEO).

This.

The relationship between the BoG, CC and EX has been clarified; not changed, IMHO.  National Commanders have always had operational control of CAP. The EX directed the paid staff and controlled the flow of appropriated dollars. The EX and paid staff's function was to assist the membership. This "assistance" is directed by the CC.  How well the two offices function (together) is now evaluated by the BoG.  I kind of like this set up.

The "operational" control of the paid staff is meaningless since 95% of what they do is administrative in nature.  The National Commander will still not have any authority in that area, hence is not a CEO by any real standard.  If we're going to use a corporate structure and model we should do it right and put everything in the hands of the CEO.  Basically we have put day-to-day operations in the hands of a committee (National Commander and Executive Director) who are in turn each separately supervised by another committee (the BOG).  What sense does that make?

Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 07:13:40 PMThe "operational" control of the paid staff is meaningless since 95% of what they do is administrative in nature.  The National Commander will still not have any authority in that area, hence is not a CEO by any real standard.  If we're going to use a corporate structure and model we should do it right and put everything in the hands of the CEO.  Basically we have put day-to-day operations in the hands of a committee (National Commander and Executive Director) who are in turn each separately supervised by another committee (the BOG).  What sense does that make?

Administrative authority over the offices and people is not the same thing as authority over their functions.

I read this as the NHQ CC having directive ability over what the paid staff does, but the BOG having directive authority over the people and the offices.

BOG - hire / fire / reviews.

NAT CC - "pick up this box and put it over there..."

Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 07:13:40 PM

Quote from: FW on August 29, 2012, 05:08:10 PM

Quote from: Ned on August 29, 2012, 03:47:31 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on August 29, 2012, 02:56:44 PM
That's not what the BoG said.....AdCon the BoG Hires and Rates the COO (former EX) but OpCon he falls under the National CC (CEO).

This.

The relationship between the BoG, CC and EX has been clarified; not changed, IMHO.  National Commanders have always had operational control of CAP. The EX directed the paid staff and controlled the flow of appropriated dollars. The EX and paid staff's function was to assist the membership. This "assistance" is directed by the CC.  How well the two offices function (together) is now evaluated by the BoG.  I kind of like this set up.

The "operational" control of the paid staff is meaningless since 95% of what they do is administrative in nature.  The National Commander will still not have any authority in that area, hence is not a CEO by any real standard.  If we're going to use a corporate structure and model we should do it right and put everything in the hands of the CEO.  Basically we have put day-to-day operations in the hands of a committee (National Commander and Executive Director) who are in turn each separately supervised by another committee (the BOG).  What sense does that make?

Let me explain the concepts of OPCON and ADCON.

OPCON means that you do what I say......or the guys with ADCON over you will fire your.

It is that simple.  The National CC is the CEO....hired and fired by the BoG.  He is the "boss" of the COO who is hired and fired by the BoG.   This is exactly how many corporations are run.  If the CEO and the COO are not working together well then the BoG will make the changes.

Also......if you think that the NHQ staffers are just "admin" you are mistaken.  You don't see what they do at the squadron or even wing level very often.....but they do in fact do a lot of "operational" tasks.

The also do a lot of "admin" tasks (i.e. shuffleing paper, paying billes, data entry) but they are also makeing a lot of operational calls (no we won't/can't support that mission, securing funding from customers to make missions go).

Oh....and by the way the military runs in the ADCON/OPCON mode all the time particuarlly with deployed and detached operations.
As does CAP.....here is an example......when you report to a mission base for a SAREX you are OPCONed to the IC, OSC, GBD, GTL.....but your unit commander still maintains ADCON.

Simple concept.  The GTL can't promote you, can't fire you, can't 2b you.....but he can tell you what to do....and if fail to follow his orders then your ADCON will take care of the appropriate actions.

Nope, in this case the National Commander cannot tell the Executive Director or any of the paid staff what to do except for those small number of individuals directly involved in prosecuting ES missions.  That is like the CEO of Pepsi having to go to the Board to get his Chief Operating Officer to tell the Accounting Department to do something. 

It is also not at all like the military model.  They ultimately report to 1 person even though at various times units may report to someone else for operational purposes. 

Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 08:33:18 PM
Nope, in this case the National Commander cannot tell the Executive Director or any of the paid staff what to do . . .

You keep saying that.

But it's simply not true. 

That's one of the whole points of the new governance structure -- unity of command.

The CEO is the CEO.

A CEO is in charge of ALL aspects of the organization.  Our CEO is not.  He does not control "administrative" matters under the authority of the Executive Director.  Therefore he is not a CEO and there is no ultimate unity of command. 

Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 08:53:11 PM
A CEO is in charge of ALL aspects of the organization.  Our CEO is not.  He does not control "administrative" matters under the authority of the Executive Director.  Therefore he is not a CEO and there is no ultimate unity of command.

You're either misinterpreting the situation or misrepresenting it.
Regardless, the Nat CC now has defined authority over the Ex Dir in all matters of consequence to the membership.

As to this idea of not being in charge of all aspects of the organization - this is not uncommon for a CEO or other executive officer.  For example,
few Mayors have hire / fire authority over police and fire personnel, that's generally charged to a PD/FD Commission (etc., etc.).

Who said I was talking about member-issues? 

We are not using CEO as understood throughout the business and non-profit world.  Sure, we can keep calling him National Commander, but he is not a CEO based on how the new structure of CAP has been described. 

All comparisons to the military and civil organizations are irrelevant.  We made a decision to move the organization more fully into the way most large non-profits are run, but we failed to go all the way. 

Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 09:15:43 PM
Who said I was talking about member-issues? 

We are not using CEO as understood throughout the business and non-profit world.  Sure, we can keep calling him National Commander, but he is not a CEO based on how the new structure of CAP has been described. 

All comparisons to the military and civil organizations are irrelevant.  We made a decision to move the organization more fully into the way most large non-profits are run, but we failed to go all the way.

I actually disagree with pretty much every word of the above and your last few posts.  It seems almost as if you haven't read the last handful of direct replies to you, and then just keep re-posting the same assertion with a shuffled order of words.


The CEO (aka: NHQ/CC) has full control over the COO and the paid-staff.  He can say "Do this." or "Stop doing that." or "Here's our new strategic plan for next year. You're on board; this is how you'll change things."  The only thing he can't do is hire/fire, for which he needs approval from the BoG.


This is not a departure from corporations.  There are plenty of instances where a non-profit executive needs board approval to hire/fire senior staff positions.


You keep repeating that the comparisons are "irrelevant" and we're "moving away" from the corporate/non-profit world, but have cited not a single source to suggest that's true.  At least I have experience working full-time, paid in non-profit executive positions and sitting on actual non-profit boards of directors — and my first hand knowledge of non-profit organization & governance says that what CAP has done is indeed best practice, is not unique, and is perfectly normal.

No, I did not say that we are moving away from corporations.  The changes will actually move us much closer than we were to most normal corporations.  What I said is that the National Commander/Executive Director relationship is not one you would find in corporations. 

At the top level nothing has essentially changed in terms of the relationship of the National Commander and Executive Director, at least not as described in the press release which constitutes all the details we have of the situation.   Perhaps when the actual documents come out, they will show something different. 

QuoteThe CEO (aka: NHQ/CC) has full control over the COO and the paid-staff. 

No, he has "operational" but not "administrative" control.  No matter how you slice it, he does not have "full" control.  Perhaps what is meant by "operational" includes all day-to-day activities, but it isn't "full" control. 

I said comparisons to the military and civil government are irrelevant.  We are not either and we don't actually have elements of either in our top-level organization (which is what we are discussing now).  With the glaring exception of the Executive Director and paid staff, the new structure is extremely corporate in nature. 

My .02 on the college degree issue:

BG Heinie Aderholt,aka Air Commando One, did not have a college degree and considered most USAF officers to be "over-educated". I think that he is one of the best leaders and organizers that the USAF ever had.

Col. George "Bud" Day, aka Misty One, had a law degree and was considered one of the most highly educated officers in the USAF during his career. I think he is one of the best leaders and organizers that the USAF ever had.

I've known Ph.D.s that were complete nitwits outside of the classroom and a backroads welder that told some engineers from a very popular tractor company how their piece of farm equipment was going to fail and how to fix it.

My .02? On this forum we too often try to make general statements about specific things. Whether someone has a college degree or not doesn't automatically make someone competent or incompetent at any given task. It is the sum total of a person's environment, education, experience, personality, and confidence that make someone a success.

The overwhelming trait of any successful person in my very humble opinion is the ability to focus on setting a goal and striving continuously to meet that goal. In other words, working hard and never quitting.

I went to college because...everyone told me to. School teachers, counselors, parents, CAP SMs, etc.

Did I enjoy it? Not really. I did find a field I found interesting and challenging however.

Now that I'm done? I plan on getting a well paying job, at least $19-24/hour to start (as opposed to a cap of around $13 you can find without a degree through a staffing company). It was hard to come to grips as to why someone would pay me basically double or more of minimum wage JUST because I went to college. But now I realize that while most of my classes (I had about 2/3rds of a year of Fin, and maybe a year of various business classes) were BS college money pits, it's the fact that I DO see the world differently, I DO think about issues differently, and I believe it did make me a better thinker and decision maker that I "deserve" a better paying job.

There's a lot of talk that investment firms would prefer Liberal Arts majors and Philosophy majors over Business students. Why? Because they are creative, thinking people. The company will have to train you to do things their way anyway. They don't really care for the four-years-of-business-courses-omg-I-am-so-awesome-at-business kids. They want thinkers. Idea people.

That's the value of a degree. Proof that you can stick with something that may not be your interest, but also get it done. I could have probably been a straight A Management degree guy. But I found the field to be boring. I ended up being a B student of Finance, but it was challenging and rewarding at the same time.

Here's hoping I didn't waste four years of my life!

Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 03:49:05 AM
I'm not sure I really like the fact that our CEO actually isn't the CEO since he/she will not actually control the paid staff of the organization that they are supposedly leading.  Is that normal in other national volunteer-based organizations?  '

Sort of violates that unity of command thing.

He will control the paid staff THROUGH the COO. If I'm a Commander, I dont have to have direct contact with my subordinates. Thats what subordinate management is for. The CEO of Delta Airlines is responsible for the guys that load bags on the airplanes,but he doesnt directly supervise them does he?

Quote from: usafaux2004 on August 30, 2012, 01:26:30 AM
I went to college because...everyone told me to. School teachers, counselors, parents, CAP SMs, etc.

Did I enjoy it? Not really. I did find a field I found interesting and challenging however.

Now that I'm done? I plan on getting a well paying job, at least $19-24/hour to start (as opposed to a cap of around $13 you can find without a degree through a staffing company). It was hard to come to grips as to why someone would pay me basically double or more of minimum wage JUST because I went to college. But now I realize that while most of my classes (I had about 2/3rds of a year of Fin, and maybe a year of various business classes) were BS college money pits, it's the fact that I DO see the world differently, I DO think about issues differently, and I believe it did make me a better thinker and decision maker that I "deserve" a better paying job.

There's a lot of talk that investment firms would prefer Liberal Arts majors and Philosophy majors over Business students. Why? Because they are creative, thinking people. The company will have to train you to do things their way anyway. They don't really care for the four-years-of-business-courses-omg-I-am-so-awesome-at-business kids. They want thinkers. Idea people.

That's the value of a degree. Proof that you can stick with something that may not be your interest, but also get it done. I could have probably been a straight A Management degree guy. But I found the field to be boring. I ended up being a B student of Finance, but it was challenging and rewarding at the same time.

Here's hoping I didn't waste four years of my life!

Why do you suppose the military requires its officers to have formal higher education and now adays Senior NCO's while not required most Senior NCO's have Msters degrees.

Quote from: flyguy06 on August 30, 2012, 02:48:11 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on August 29, 2012, 03:49:05 AM
I'm not sure I really like the fact that our CEO actually isn't the CEO since he/she will not actually control the paid staff of the organization that they are supposedly leading.  Is that normal in other national volunteer-based organizations?  '

Sort of violates that unity of command thing.

He will control the paid staff THROUGH the COO. If I'm a Commander, I dont have to have direct contact with my subordinates. Thats what subordinate management is for. The CEO of Delta Airlines is responsible for the guys that load bags on the airplanes,but he doesnt directly supervise them does he?

Very true but our CEO doesn't supervise the COO like the CEO of Delta does.  The Delta baggage handlers report to someone that reports to the CEO. 

The BOG supervises the COO when it comes right down to it no matter how much influence the National Commander has over their day-to-day activities. 

I'm actually pretty familiar with the position the National Commander is in -- I get operational control over a lot of folks at various times in my real job but I'm not their actual supervisor. 

Separate from the issue of just how much control the National Commander has over the Executive Director, the larger issue is the obvious implication that the BOG doesn't trust a volunteer National Commander to exercise FULL authority over the paid staff, including hiring and firing. 

Some may argue that we can't trust a volunteer with that much authority given some of the issues we've had with previous National Commanders.

That may be true, but remember the BOG are nothing but volunteers.  Sure, some have had distinguished careers, but then again, so have National Commanders.  What evidence is there that they would give the paid staff any fairer of a shake than the National Commander?

Additionally, if the National Commander is supposedly good enough to trust with the lives of 60,000 volunteers, which he/she does have some impact on in terms of their oversight of people that actually do make life and death decisions on every mission, why couldn't that person be trusted to really oversee some paid personnel? 

^Good questions, Riv.  The BoG, in it's infinate wisdom, has decided on this division of labor between the CEO and COO; probably due to past practices and political infighting.  After a few years, when the pipline has been purged of "the old ways", there could be a realignment of the CEO/COO responsibilities. The BoG needs to see how everything unfolds. They may be volunteers too however, they are the body which congress created to govern CAP. Remember, it was due to CAP's weaknesses the BoG was "thrust apon us" 12 years ago.

It's the BoG which determines policy and strategic vision now. The Commander translates these into action plans then, directs the COO and subordinate commanders for action.  The COO and Subordinate Commanders are responsible for implimentation.  Scheduled meetings will, most likely, discuss, evaluate and, recommend changes to the BoG for consideration. This is all good.  It's done like this in the Corporate Profit/Non Profit world and, in the Pentagon.

Quote from: RiverAux on August 30, 2012, 03:20:01 AM
Separate from the issue of just how much control the National Commander has over the Executive Director, the larger issue is the obvious implication that the BOG doesn't trust a volunteer National Commander to exercise FULL authority over the paid staff, including hiring and firing. 

I would say it appears that past leadership, both within and outside CAP did not trust the National CC, and the BOG will now transition the Nat CC back to a full place of authority, one piece at a time.

We prove ourselves operationally, the rest will follow.

And no matter "who trusts who", the bottom line is that the Nat CC has more defined authority then he had before the meeting.

Quote from: Ned on August 28, 2012, 04:18:13 PM


Any thoughts on how we can add to our existing PD program to help us grow "Future CEOs"?

[edit - spelling]

I don't think you're going to grow them through CAP.  Because as you pointed out, the experiences needed aren't available in most CAP leadership positions.   Teaching the stuff won't matter if they have no place to apply it within the organization (and be evaluated on it).   Successful business leaders won't have the time to put in to something like CAP and gain the necessary CAP skills.  Especially without pay. 

I predict you will find  a few retirees, some  military and and some high level business guys who have the skills you want from their previous lives.  Your challenge will be identify them early, and fast track them into positions within CAP to give them the necessary operational experience while somehow not alienating the large numbers of the membership who will protest any "favoritism" given to those with fancy book learnin' and high falutin' white collar job titles.  Good luck with that.   :D

But while looking for that perfect CEO candidate, at the very least, the changes will give the BOG more control over the best (not perfect) candidate you CAN find.  And that's gotta help. 

Use the CEO for the vision thing  and get a good executive (paid) as COO.  And then just be ready to adjudicate the inevitable ego problems between the two leaders as necessary.

I think we can grow them....we start at the vice wing and wing commander level.  Find some sort of NGO/NFP corporate level training (online and in person) and start sending them to those courses.

Quote from: RiverAux on August 30, 2012, 03:20:01 AM
[T]he larger issue is the obvious implication that the BOG doesn't trust a volunteer National Commander to exercise FULL authority over the paid staff, including hiring and firing. 

I can honestly say that the word "trust" was not used during by anyone on the BoG during the governance reform process.

Because the integrity, character, and abilities of our senior leaders have been demonstrated and are simply assumed to be the minimum qualification for office in CAP.  The BoG collectively places great trust in both Gen Carr and Mr. Rowland.  Indeed, both are highly trustworthy men -- they have each served their country in the armed forces with distinction and demonstrated skills and integrity both within and without CAP.  If we did not trust them, they would simply not be in their positions.  For the record, I would trust both of them with my life.

Ask yourself what happened to the last CAP leader that the BoG could no longer trust.

But corporate governance (and indeed government itself) is not about "trust."  It is not like we look hard, find the person we "trust the most", and then turn over the keys to the castle in the form of absolute authority, and walk away.  As long as people are people, that is simply the recipe for disaster.

The point of governance is to design a system where average trustworthy leaders can work together to make the organization highly successful.  In fact, it seems wise to design a system where even trustworthy leaders who are "below average" will be successful.  (Because to paraphrase Garrison Keillor, by definition half of our senior leaders are going to be below average.)

And while CAP is an unusual organization in terms of makeup and mission, principles of good corporate governance tend to be universal.  That is one reason why we hired outside nonprofit governance experts --  in addition to the internal governance experts -- to review best practices, specifically compare us to similar organizations, and make recommendations.

And both groups showed us that some form of checks and balances is both the norm and best practice when it comes to the relationship between the CEO and the COO.  As well as between the senior leadership and the "compliance folks"; the CFO and GC.  So we placed some controls on who could hire and fire some of the senior level folks in the corporate governance scheme.

Not because of who we did or did not "trust."  Because one thing is certain: sooner than later the leadership (including me) will change, and people that we do not even know at this point will become our senior leaders.  Our challenge was to design a system that has nothing to do with personal trust or relationships between the BoG and any current or future leaders.  We sought to create a governance structure that will stand the test of time and allow CAP to be highly successful with regular folks like you and me in charge.

It's possible that the idea of National CC having a bachelor's degree is simply to ensure that his/her educational background is comparable with that required of the commissioned USAF officers with whom Nat. CC is in contact...to see to it that they 'speak the same language', in effect.

Some further education or recognized equivalent (not necessarily a degree) eventually ought to be expected of wing & region commanders, vices, chiefs of staff...these individuals should exceed the minimum requirement for CAP membership, a high school diploma...we can discuss what ought to be accepted, but I think senior CAP leaders need to learn something beyond what they knew when they were 18 years old!

A lot of people will say that life is their learning experience.

One can always argue that some sort of "requirement" is not really needed.

Why the requirement for being a former wing commander?
Say some retired USAF general wants to be national commander after finishing his level I training.
His life experince certainly is comprable to running a CAP wing....so where is the angst over that requirement?

Let it go.....it is new requirment that the BoG has implemented and can waive if they see fit.  Where exactly is the problem?

Of course to be POTUS, you only have to be 35 years old and be a natural born citizen of the USA.  That is about it.  One could argue the lack of more qualifications is the reason we get what we get when it comes to that office.

So I have no issue with adding reasonable qualifications to any important post such as CAP National Commander.  And in my opinion, higher education cumulating in the award of a degree is certainly a reasonable qualification.  However the degree needs to be relevant to the position and its duties to some degree. Having a degree in music for example while maybe meeting the requirement to have a degree adds nothing of real value.  In contrast having a degree in public policy, business, aviation, or something that has some relevance to CAP and its leadership / management would be of benefit. 

Also one also needs knowledge and experience specific to the job in question and to its subordinate positions if one expects to be successful.  This experience can come from a multitude of sources including years of service and experience in CAP itself.  Other sources of useful experience would be the military and other emergency organizations, especially if the experience involved aviation assets and personnel.   

To be honest, I am a bit surprised that having a degree, especially a relevant one was not already a requirement. 

Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on August 30, 2012, 06:26:50 PM
Of course to be POTUS, you only have to be 35 years old and be a natural born citizen of the USA.  That is about it.  One could argue the lack of more qualifications is the reason we get what we get when it comes to that office.

So I have no issue with adding reasonable qualifications to any important post such as CAP National Commander.  And in my opinion, higher education cumulating in the award of a degree is certainly a reasonable qualification.  However the degree needs to be relevant to the position and its duties to some degree. Having a degree in music for example while maybe meeting the requirement to have a degree adds nothing of real value.  In contrast having a degree in public policy, business, aviation, or something that has some relevance to CAP and its leadership / management would be of benefit. 

Also one also needs knowledge and experience specific to the job in question and to its subordinate positions if one expects to be successful.  This experience can come from a multitude of sources including years of service and experience in CAP itself.  Other sources of useful experience would be the military and other emergency organizations, especially if the experience involved aviation assets and personnel.   

To be honest, I am a bit surprised that having a degree, especially a relevant one was not already a requirement.

Our last non college degree President was Harry Truman and no one can say he was anything less than a great President.

Dewey didn't care for him much...

Quote from: Eclipse on August 30, 2012, 07:25:54 PM
Dewey didn't care for him much...

And in a fit of rage Dewey unleased his decimal system on us.  We were decimated.

Quote from: MSG Mac on August 30, 2012, 07:03:42 PM
Our last non college degree President was Harry Truman and no one can say he was anything less than a great President.

He also appointed another non-college educated individual, Justice (yes, a Supreme Court justice who never went to college) Jackson, as the Chief Prosecutor for the Nuremberg tribunals.  Although many consider that a consolation prize, as Roosevelt had promised Jackson the job of Chief Justice.

I could have sworn that Dewey defeated Truman...

Quote from: jimmydeanno on August 30, 2012, 09:35:32 PM
I could have sworn that Dewey defeated Truman...

It was in the papers and everything:
(http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/.a/6a00d8341c60fd53ef013488a86865970c-500wi)

Quote from: MSG Mac on August 30, 2012, 07:03:42 PM
Our last non college degree President was Harry Truman and no one can say he was anything less than a great President.

Actually, one could say that he was less than great and make a sound argument in doing so.  However this isn't the proper venue so I will refrain.

Quote from: RiverAux on August 30, 2012, 03:20:01 AM
Separate from the issue of just how much control the National Commander has over the Executive Director, the larger issue is the obvious implication that the BOG doesn't trust a volunteer National Commander to exercise FULL authority over the paid staff, including hiring and firing. 

Some may argue that we can't trust a volunteer with that much authority given some of the issues we've had with previous National Commanders.

That may be true, but remember the BOG are nothing but volunteers.  Sure, some have had distinguished careers, but then again, so have National Commanders.  What evidence is there that they would give the paid staff any fairer of a shake than the National Commander?

Additionally, if the National Commander is supposedly good enough to trust with the lives of 60,000 volunteers, which he/she does have some impact on in terms of their oversight of people that actually do make life and death decisions on every mission, why couldn't that person be trusted to really oversee some paid personnel?

I can understand your point of view of this River and I dont disagree.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on August 30, 2012, 05:18:16 PM
It's possible that the idea of National CC having a bachelor's degree is simply to ensure that his/her educational background is comparable with that required of the commissioned USAF officers with whom Nat. CC is in contact...to see to it that they 'speak the same language', in effect.

Bingo - whether or not the degree actually helps with running the organization, it's important for "street cred" with the USAF leadership.  And never, ever, underestimate the importance of "street cred" in establishing trust.  It's their basement - their rules.

Quote from: lordmonar on August 30, 2012, 02:36:38 PM
I think we can grow them....we start at the vice wing and wing commander level.  Find some sort of NGO/NFP corporate level training (online and in person) and start sending them to those courses.

But, as Ned pointed out, running a wing more operational than strategic - so even with a few weeks of courses (which I'm sure they'll be happy to do in their copious free time   :)  ), they aren't going to exercise those CEO level skills in performance of their duties.  So atrophy sets it - if you don't use it, you lose.

Maybe Region CC's get a little of it - after all, you have to learn to lead indirectly, since your area is too big to cover personally.  That's at least SOME of the skills. 

And while CAP just loves online courses, I question their value in preparing a CEO. Or indeed, in imparting any practical, hands-on skill set.

Ya gotta do it, make mistakes, and learn from them, in order to master the skills.

"Street cred"?  Really?  How about just using the word credibility? 

Quote from: Dragoon on August 31, 2012, 01:08:21 PMBingo - whether or not the degree actually helps with running the organization, it's important for "street cred" with the USAF leadership.  And never, ever, underestimate the importance of "street cred" in establishing trust.  It's their basement - their rules.

Our "street cred" comes from wearing the uniform properly, obeying regulations to the letter, not being a huge PITA or small, trivial things, and
...

...

...

...properly accomplishing the mission.

The last thing is all that is important at the end of the fiscal year, with the PITA issues being #2.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 31, 2012, 02:55:25 PM

Quote from: Dragoon on August 31, 2012, 01:08:21 PMBingo - whether or not the degree actually helps with running the organization, it's important for "street cred" with the USAF leadership.  And never, ever, underestimate the importance of "street cred" in establishing trust.  It's their basement - their rules.

Our "street cred" comes from wearing the uniform properly, obeying regulations to the letter, not being a huge PITA or small, trivial things, and
...

...

...

...properly accomplishing the mission.

The last thing is all that is important at the end of the fiscal year, with the PITA issues being #2.

You've never worked at the Pentagon, have you?  :-)

For example, accomplishing the mission is one good way to get your resources cut.  As silly as that sounds, the bean counters figure if you can do it all, then you can certainly do almost all with less.....

Personal reputation, background resume/qualifications and interpersonal skills all play very heavily into getting what you want out of the five sided building.   But you are right about the PITA thing - that'll assure you of never getting the access you need in the first place.

As members, upholding standards, not being a PITA, looking (and acting) good in public are all critical to the preserving the reputation of the organization.  But our leader needs even more than that to build HIS credibility with a military culture that views civilians and potential wanna-bees (in their eyes) with a bit of suspicion.  The more our leader resembles his USAF counterparts, the easier it will be for him to interface with them, and advance the cause of CAP.

Quote from: David Vandenbroeck on August 31, 2012, 01:46:51 PM
"Street cred"?  Really?  How about just using the word credibility?

Because I was implying a kind of club-like belonging that may or may not be justified objectively, but is critical to being accepted by the group and getting things done.  A flavor term, if you like.  Sorry if that meaning didn't come through for you in the posting.

Quote from: NCRblues on August 28, 2012, 12:39:03 AM

Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on August 28, 2012, 12:14:32 AM

Sorry, but if someone rushes out to get a bachelor's degree just to be a wing commander, they're crazy.

I think SOS and possibly ACSC should be additional requirements for a wing commander.

So, you think someone is crazy when they get a BS for wing king, but you think they need SOS and ACSC?

I am all supportive for a BS for the Nat/CC but, let's take it easy on wing commander requirements here. We have to remember that some wings have no one who CURRENTLY wants to take the wing king chair, let alone after we heap more and more pre-reqs on it. Requiring SOS and ACSC would leave some wings high and dry on anyone ABLE to take command

Thought #1: SOS and ACSC have close to zero applicability to CAP. Requiring these of anyone in CAP is ridiculous. We already have CAP-specific PME, we should insist on that.

Thought #2: If a wing has no qualified applicants for the wing king job, rather than lowering the standards, an interim commander should be appointed--but without the perks: no promotion to colonel, no shiny Command Council badge, do not collect $200.

Requiring the SOS and/ or ACSC is not about education at all.  Completing those courses demonstrates that the CAP member has invested the neccessary time and effort into "something greater".  Those courses are not strictly military in concept.  They equate to many different career fields.

Perhaps requiring a standard for Wing and Region Commanders other than being a "check-box Lt Col" is what the organization needs!!

Quote from: Mustang on September 14, 2012, 11:42:38 PM
Thought #2: If a wing has no qualified applicants for the wing king job, rather than lowering the standards, an interim commander should be appointed--but without the perks: no promotion to colonel, no shiny Command Council badge, do not collect $200.

So you:

1. Start with a job no one wants.

2. Force reluctant member into the job.

3. Strip the job of its usual office insignia, badge and any other perk.

4. Wonder why the member 'phoned it in' and couldn't care less how the wing did.

That certainly reads like a recipe for success (NOT).

Quote from: Mustang on September 14, 2012, 11:42:38 PMThought #2: If a wing has no qualified applicants for the wing king job, rather than lowering the standards, an interim commander should be appointed--but without the perks: no promotion to colonel, no shiny Command Council badge, do not collect $200.

Or you could do something even more radical.

Can't find a qualified applicant? Then place the Wing under the control of the Wing next door until a qualified applicant can be found.

Of course the Region Commander should be getting some heat for allowing this to happen too.

They all come from the same pool, all volunteers, inconsistently trained and with divided attention spans.

Until something in that sentence changes, the paradigm will not.

Let's not kid ourselves, a wing with such poor leadership and management of transition is not going to grow a Patton or a Gates overnight if they didn't have one already.  Further, the membership isn't going to be more inclined towards excellence with someone no one knows who is brought in from outside to "lead".

This is certainly not true if the current reticence towards attrition is maintained.  This isn't a business or the military. At the end of the day we rely 100% on the benevolence and complicity of the members, and while the rank and file may well accept people they don't know, that "Golden 20%", the ones who actually do all the work, will not accept random management insertions they don't support.

We all know that we currently exist at the crossroads of "you can't make me" & "you're lucky I showed up at all".

"Too bad?" "Shut up and color?"

Fair enough, except we have people who whine and quit when you change the font on letterhead, or who will give themselves an aneurism with the mental gymnastics required to justify a bizzare stance for or against the wear of an individual badge or hat, rather then just STAC for the greater good.

Is this the time to start pressing the membership on expectations, and accept the likely 30-50% attrition?

Maybe.  Perhaps radical change of on that level would be and indicator to congress and the SECAF that we're willing to take the hard, necessary steps to maintain our value.

But it'll be a painful 3-5 years, with an uncertain outcome.

QuoteThis isn't a business or the military. At the end of the day we rely 100% on the benevolence and complicity of the members, and while the rank and file may well accept people they don't know, that "Golden 20%", the ones who actually do all the work, will not accept random management insertions they don't support.

I think that depends on the culture of the unit/wing where you are. The (current) last MTWG/CC was an outsider brought in and people accepted that there was someone with zero experience in MTWG now running it.

And at the unit level, if you build a culture (like the military) where the leadership changes every 2-4 years it doesn't cause the shock you describe. For one, people can accept that if you get stuck with a commander you don't like, you can wait it out for a couple years.

It's because the need to rotate leadership around (I truly believe it is best for a unit in the long run to develop more leaders) and staff groups, wings, and regions that our culture toward this needs to change a little anyway. Currently it's often seen as promotion to move up to wing staff or something, but somehow a squadron commander is a lesser position than a wing staff one. I believe this needs to change and is best done by simply moving people around. Sq/CCs can move up to higher levels (gp, wing, or region) and do staff work there to destress a bit, and staffers that have gotten a chance to see the big picture can move back down to the unit level.

I know 'We can't do this! People will quit!' but just sitting stagnant and saying oh we can't do that, only helps contribute to that problem. People get so entrenched that few truly grow and develop as volunteers in CAP.

Quote from: LGM30GMCC on September 16, 2012, 08:09:01 PMAnd at the unit level, if you build a culture (like the military) where the leadership changes every 2-4 years it doesn't cause the shock you describe. For one, people can accept that if you get stuck with a commander you don't like, you can wait it out for a couple years.

I agree, and my region has this, but many don't, and it takes several cycles to get the cultural shift in place.
And when you suggest term limits, far too many people argue it's unnecessary, despite evidence to the contrary (i.e. 1 unit leader successful for 25 years doesn't a trend make).

So assuming we started this year, it's 6-8 years before it's commonplace.

Depends. If you are a Wing/CC that wants to make a change...it's real easy.

'Hey SQ/CC Bob, I'd really like you to come work at the wing in this area of expertise, you're doing a good/decent/wonderful/whatever job at the SQ and I'd like to have you look at some things we're trying to accomplish. I'll help ya, but let's get a new CC in place in 6 months.'

'Hey Joe Staffer Awesome Sauce....you've been doing really well at X Y and Z and would like to give you an opportunity to bring your perspective and whatever to X Y and Z local squadron.'

Ya also focus on making sure people are either doing a wing staff job, or a squadron job, not both. And the reasoning is not that they can't, but it's better for them, and the organization as a whole, if they only have one thing to really worry about/focus on. If they have lots of spare time, an additional duty may not be out line. (an SLS or CLC directorship, or something)

I agree completely, but agreeing doesn't get it done.

Not everyone is interested, nor able to work at a level above the unit, and in some cases the logistics are daunting.  I understand these are excuses, not valid reasons, but in a culture of "do whatever you want, however you want, for as long as you want", people are caught unprepared to do "other".

The higher you go, the more indirect both the management and the rewards are, and there's a lot more
commanders who can blunder through the year at bare minimum then that same commander could function as a manager at group or wing.  At the unit you can still brute-force a 1-man show.

We need much better day-1 expectations, and much better pipe-lining of professional development.  IMHO, no one below Major should ever be considered for a job above group - you need the experience
that comes with the TIG, but if we did that, 1/2 the jobs would be vacant.

Seriously, slick-sleeves as wing officers just because they will take the job?

Again, the results of the "fix" is several years of pain, with uncertain outcomes on the farside.

I feel one of the problems is that some wings have so few members.

Now, where it's large state/small population, not sure much can be done; however, some East Coast states have very few CAP members (would amount to a group in a larger wing) and one or more other wings close by.

It might be time to look at Coast Guard/CG Aux model of 'districts', stop tying our hands with the notion that each state must be a separate wing, where the demographics simply don't supply a large enough pool of leaders -- both commanders at all levels, and staff.

But those East Coast states are very densely populated, so if anything they should have more members then the fly-over-states.

I've said it before, if I were CAP king, the first thing I would do is address the major cities, where for whatever inexplicable reason we have next to no presence.

If we can't recruit in NY, ORD, and LA, how are we going to to it in the middle of SD?

Some are densely populated, others less so (examples: NH, VT, DE, RI)

Quote from: ZigZag911 on September 16, 2012, 10:28:58 PM
It might be time to look at Coast Guard/CG Aux model of 'districts', stop tying our hands with the notion that each state must be a separate wing, where the demographics simply don't supply a large enough pool of leaders -- both commanders at all levels, and staff.

While I generally think there are some good things that CAP could take from the CG Aux (as well as the other way around), I'm not sure that this is one of the.  For one thing CAP Wings are much more tied in with each state's emergency management agency (and often have funding given to them by the state) such that what CAP does in one state can be radically different than what is done in another (at least as far as ES goes) that it would make trying to manage a CAP wing divided by state lines quite difficult.  And untangling the money would become almost impossible. 

And this lesser degree of local authority works for CG Aux because the CG Aux leadership has very little direct control over the units in its area.  They don't appoint our leaders, control our budgets, approve our training events, approve our awards, issue qualifications, etc.  Almost all of that is done by the actual USCG folks at the District Director of Auxiliary office.  Actually with the cutbacks in CAP State Directors the AF is actually moving its oversight to a system much more like CG Aux.  However, CAP for just about all purposes is commanded by CAP which is not how it works in the Aux. 

So, in CAP terms we would basically need to strip Wing Commanders of pretty much all their authority and give it to the regional CAP-USAF folks in order to be more like the Aux.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on September 16, 2012, 10:38:04 PM
Some are densely populated, others less so (examples: NH, VT, DE, RI)

All 4 of those states are in the midpoint or higher of population density per sq mile:

NH #21

VT #30

RI #2

DE #6

In fact all of the NE states rank higher in density then the largest states and CAP Wings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density)

The NE states should be our membership mass.  They have more people in more consolidated areas,
while the bigger states have to cover more ground with less population density and / or centralized populations in one area.

I think we would all probably agree that the whole purpose of organizations above the squadron level is for "command and control" of the organizaton as a whole, and that all things being equal, subordinate commanders should probably command and control roughly the same number of members and corporate assets based on well-known principles like Span of Control ,etc.

There are a lot of historical and geographical reasons that we break up the regions the way we do.  While it never hurts to periodically review such things, I haven't heard any significant issues developing about whether wing X should be in Region A or Region B.  It just doesn't appear to be a problem.

Obviously, our wings vary signficantly along many dimensions - geographical size, population, demographics, terrain, etc.  And some of you recognize the traditional arguments about "why should SDWG be treated like FLWG (a colonel commanding and -- under the old governance scheme -- the same number of votes at the NB, various committees, etc.)

But the real world must often trump ideal organizational charts.  And one of the primary reasons to retain the state=wing organization pattern is the not inconsiderable amount of money that state governments appropriate for CAP.  While many - if not most - wings do not receive direct funding, all of it would come to a halt if we decoupled the wing/state paradigm.  The California Legislature is simply not going to appropriate money for the Cal-Nev Wing, even if we explain things like how one of the primary challenges is the Sierra Nevada mountains that are shared by both states.

(Interestingly enough, there is at least one squadron located in California, made up mostly of Californians, that is a Nevada Wing unit.    Shhhhh.)

QuoteWhile many - if not most - wings do not receive direct funding

Last time I checked the annual reports about 2/3 of wings reported receiving state funding. 

Quote from: RiverAux on September 17, 2012, 02:04:24 AM

QuoteWhile many - if not most - wings do not receive direct funding

Last time I checked the annual reports about 2/3 of wings reported receiving state funding.

In the current economic climate, I seriously doubt 2/3 of the wings are getting state funding right now.

Quote from: PHall on September 17, 2012, 02:35:32 AMIn the current economic climate, I seriously doubt 2/3 of the wings are getting state funding right now.

Define "funding" - while not all get cash, a lot get facilities, services, fuel, or similar.

Well, without going through every individual 2012 state report (thanks to the idiotic decision to do away with real annual reports), I can say that in 2011 total state appropriations for CAP across the country were 2.9 million dollars down from 3.9 million dollars according to the 2008 annual report. 

And that $2.9 million was the total of 33 wings, or the 2/3 you mentioned in a prior post. I had already gone through the individual reports for my other stats on wing size vs. population.

Mike

Thanks Mike, you've got more patience than I do.

Real world or not, I still consider it ridiculous that a wing commander with 4 squadrons and 150 members is a colonel, and a group commander with 8 squadrons and 500 plus members is a major or lt col...granting all Ned's points, I still think it's crazy...sorry!

As has been pointed out, the money issue is likely what keeps states aligned as wings. Otherwise it would make more sense to do it by X number of people/units comprises a wing. And rather than name them, just number them. (Gee, whoever does something like that)

Regions could also be numbered and there ya have it. Poof. MAJCOM like structure. But the issue of money likely keeps it where it is.

As for grade, yeah some group CCs definitely have enough folks to be equivalent to a Wg/CC in terms of grade. There was a difference before that Wing/CCs were all corporate officers and voting members as the NB. As that paradigm no longer exists, it is something that could be looked at perhaps. *shrug*

Just remember that, in CAP, grade means absolutely nothing except that the holder has or has not progressed through the PD system or has a grade authorized based on some outside qualifications.  The fact that Wing CCs are colonels is a means of denoting his/her making it to some noted position(?).

In my 18 years in CAP, I often was on the verge of upchucking when I looked at a CAP colonel and then thought about what it took me to get mine.

Quote from: PHall on September 17, 2012, 02:35:32 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on September 17, 2012, 02:04:24 AM

QuoteWhile many - if not most - wings do not receive direct funding

Last time I checked the annual reports about 2/3 of wings reported receiving state funding.

In the current economic climate, I seriously doubt 2/3 of the wings are getting state funding right now.

I would not be too suprised that they still do get some sort of funding....above and beyond support like free license plates, use of state facilities ect.

Quote from: lordmonar on September 18, 2012, 01:03:16 AM

Quote from: PHall on September 17, 2012, 02:35:32 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on September 17, 2012, 02:04:24 AM

QuoteWhile many - if not most - wings do not receive direct funding

Last time I checked the annual reports about 2/3 of wings reported receiving state funding.

In the current economic climate, I seriously doubt 2/3 of the wings are getting state funding right now.

I would not be too suprised that they still do get some sort of funding....above and beyond support like free license plates, use of state facilities   ect.

For which we pay for. In California we don't even get the "military" rate...

Quote from: bosshawk on September 18, 2012, 12:31:39 AM
In my 18 years in CAP, I often was on the verge of upchucking when I looked at a CAP colonel and then thought about what it took me to get mine.

Congratulations on the effort it took you to get O-6 in the US Army. Thank you for your service.

I assume you have the same nausea when you see a Salvation Army Col or an honorary Col from some of our southern states.

Phil: I guess that I didn't word my post too well: what I should have said was that "certain" CAP Colonels cause me to get nearly sick.  Not all, because some of the guys and gals whom I have met earned their positions through hard work and accomplishments.  Having left CAP, at least in part, because of two of these "phony" Colonels, I have nothing but contempt for the system and the way that it is implimented.

Enough about me, lets start a uniform argument.

I can see where "a CAP colonel" could mean a specific one (or ones).

Not interested in a uniform argument. Currently have met my quota for the decade.

OK: no uniform arguments.  Since I stashed my golf shirts and flight suits in a plastic box, I don't have much interest in CAP uniforms: never did.

This might be slightly off topic...but could somebody explain the differences between this structure and the old structure...from the looks of this, I don't think to much could go wrong.

Thanks in advance!

Quote from: Jon Knapp on September 20, 2012, 10:27:08 PM
could somebody explain the differences between this structure and the old structure

In simple terms - they changed the butts that must be kissed and apparently made the kissing a little more private then in the past.

Most organizational changes of this sort amount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The USCG Aux recently completed a similar but almost top to bottom overall of its organizational structure. It took three years - all sorts of promises were made about it aligning the Aux more closely with the USCG - yadda, yadda, yadda. Down at the deckplate, where the (in CAP terms) the rubber meets the tarmac - nothing changed. There isn't any more morale then before. No clearer vision. Just a lot of doorplates, business cards and stationary got changed. That change occured about 3 years after the previous change that promised the same thing.

Don't expect much and you will not be disappointed.

Thanks!.

I have to disagree with those viewing this as "rearranging deck chairs".

Removing the selection of the National CC by the National Board ends the paradox of the commander needing to curry favor with subordinates to receive command.

Making the National CV an appointed post without defined term ends the ridiculous annual election and its attendant politicking.

Are the BOG members above the influence of others?  Certainly not, they are, after all, people...but the majority of the BOG members are not CAP members, so hopefully will approach making the choice of a national commander in a somewhat more objective manner.