NER Imposes Term Limits?

[titanII]

Anyone from NER heard about this through channels?

I was somewhat surprised to read it, as I've heard no announcement.

I've heard nothing. But then again, I'm not important enough 

[ColonelJack]

Wow ... where was this policy when I needed it?   :clap:

I could've avoided total burnout after six years as a squadron CC.  I wish SER had had that policy back in the 90s ... heck, we had a Region CC who was in the job for almost 20 years, as I recall.

Jack

[Thrashed]

It's new. It will take time to get through channels to each wing, group, and squadron. They have six months either way.  My squadron will be looking for someone.

[FW]

Having term limits is a good idea.  However, as each wing has it's unique situation, wing commanders need the flexibility to be the final arbiters of a squadron commander's term.  There is good reason why we don't specify term limits for squadron and group commanders in the regs. They serve at the pleasure of the next higher command, not the region commander.  Wing commanders are the appointing authority.  Good wing commanders understand burnout and the idea of a squadron needing fresh "blood". They are duty bound to change commanders when needed.  This is what leadership is all about.  Any restriction on this authority is meaningless, IMHO. 

It is proper for a region commander to instruct wing commanders to form such a policy though. There should be a process in each wing where there is an acceptable turnover of unit leaders to keep ideas and programs fresh along with a productive and growing membership. 

[RiverAux]

It is easier to find someone to step up if they know it will be for a definite period rather than for the duration.

Which is one of the reasons why I probably won't ever become a CAP squadron commander again, but why I'm on track to take on my CG Aux flotilla -- they've got hardcore term limits and I know that I won't be getting myself stuck for an indefinite period of time. 

[JeffDG]

Having term limits is a good idea

I must respectfully disagree.

In my experience, term limits are put in place as an abdication by decision makers of their responsibility to make tough decisions.  That extends to almost all such limits, including things like term-limits for office holders in the political realm:  voters don't want to make a decision to throw a bum out after he's outlived his usefulness, so in come term-limits to force the issue.

A better solution, in the instant case, would be actual terms for Squadron CCs.  Say a 2 year term, with the Group or Wing CC being fully at liberty to renew or replace the commander at that time.  This would be an improvement from the present in that the decision maker would need to make a decision to either reappoint or appoint a new commander, making both tasks involve effort, while now, leaving the incumbent in place can occur from sheer apathy.

[Eclipse]

^ I don't necessarialy disagree with this, the issue being that if higher HQ were involved and active in weeding out
the ineffective commanders, the term limits probably would not be imposed to start with.

To be an effective squadron CC requires you be a manager first and a doer second.  A hard lesson for people who join
to be doers.  The ineffective ones tend to just "do" what they want to, ignore the rest of the program, and sometimes
even many of their members, and rest on single-threaded success instead the diverse reach they should have.

Perhaps instead of or in keeping with term limits, a pre-requisite of 2 years active services and a senior level in at least one
rating, preferably two...

Meh, we can hash requirements all day, but without the people, we're destined for "respiration, gravitational attraction" as the only
thing we can require.

Until we're in a position to comfortably disallow SMWOG and Butter bars from unit command (or higher), things are not going to change.

[SamFranklin]

Nearly everyone says that the squadron is the most important echelon in CAP, and that squadron commander is the most important job. I agree. If that's so, what are the implications?

We should recruit our very best people to serve as squadron commanders. Freeing up experienced commanders to serve at wing has it backwards.

The group / wing / region / national staff needs to understand they exist to serve the squadrons. Therefore, the fiefdom problem we most want to avoid is a wing staffer, for example, "owning" a functional area and imposing his or her way on the squadrons.

Sure, there are some squadron commanders who need to be politely thanked for their service, but instead of placing term limits on them, I say we greatly trim the higher echelon staffs, send those people to the squadrons where the help can do the most good, and tap the very best people in the wing to serve in command roles opposed to staff / director roles.

[Eclipse]

The group / wing / region / national staff needs to understand they exist to serve the squadrons.

I agree 100%.

Somehow this has gotten lost over the years.

[MIKE]

If you go off CAPR 39-3 and the Command Service Ribbon, a commanders term is 1 year.

[Eclipse]

If you go off CAPR 39-3 and the Command Service Ribbon, a commanders term is 1 year.

An interesting position, but 1-year CC's would be useless.  It takes a year just to get the ship moving.

It should be like this:

First year - find the bathrooms, establish new posture, set plans in place, new staff, and generally "clean house".

Second year - implementation of plans, adjustment and tweaks.

3rd Year - steady state on plans, plus the beginning of transition planning.

4th year - steady state on plans, full transition planning, hopefully with buy-in of higher HQ on new CC-designee, or work with
higher HQ on selection of new CC to insure smooth transition.

If I ever see this happen at any echelon, I'll let you know.

[FW]

The group / wing / region / national staff needs to understand they exist to serve the squadrons.

I agree 100%.

Somehow this has gotten lost over the years.

Eclipse, I don't know if this has gotten lost or, we just forgot the need to work together in supporting the entire orgainization. 

Having term limits is a good idea

I must respectfully disagree.

In my experience, term limits are put in place as an abdication by decision makers of their responsibility to make tough decisions.  That extends to almost all such limits, including things like term-limits for office holders in the political realm:  voters don't want to make a decision to throw a bum out after he's outlived his usefulness, so in come term-limits to force the issue.

A better solution, in the instant case, would be actual terms for Squadron CCs.  Say a 2 year term, with the Group or Wing CC being fully at liberty to renew or replace the commander at that time.  This would be an improvement from the present in that the decision maker would need to make a decision to either reappoint or appoint a new commander, making both tasks involve effort, while now, leaving the incumbent in place can occur from sheer apathy.

Ok, Jeff, I agree with this however, flexibility is still needed.  And, there should be a limit to a squadron commander's tenure.  We need to develop new leaders to keep Civil Air Patrol Strong. 

[Eclipse]

The group / wing / region / national staff needs to understand they exist to serve the squadrons.

I agree 100%.

Somehow this has gotten lost over the years.

Eclipse, I don't know if this has gotten lost or, we just forgot the need to work together in supporting the entire orgainization. 

But the "entire organization" is the units.  I teach the inverse pyramid at encampment, where the entirety of the activity is focused on the experience
of the basic cadets - that's the mission of the encampment - anything else is ancillary.  Whether it's the cadet staff's experience, the O-rides,
how many awards there are, the dreaded "party", whatever.  The focus of the activity is supposed to be the basic cadets.

Same goes for daily organizational operations.  They should be focused on the needs and experience of the rank and file members, and
the plans and programs should be scaled for that.  Nothing happens without them.

No ES.
No Cadet Activities.
No AE.
No PD.

Nothing.

Yet much of the time and effort expended is focused on plans, programs, and administrivia at the wing and higher which in no way serve the
units, and in many cases are to the detriment of unit operations.

Pick your fiefdom that makes getting something signed off harder than declaring independence, or getting a radio harder than nuclear fission,
or any other area where the HQ staff thinks checking their box of a PoA, inventory, or CI is the end of their job, when in fact it is where the job starts.

You cannot show me a single area of CAP operations where the experience of the units should not be the focus.  And for those of you who would
respond "all ES is done at the wing level", the "wing has the planes", whatever.  Bear in mind that those situations are the evolution of a shrinking manpower and the inability to execute at the unit level, not the core design of the CAP model.

The base model of CAP, at least on paper, has the entity of operations being executed by unit members, with plans, programs, and coordination being assumed at higher HQ.  That's the paramilitary model we emulate, but we've corrupted that by having "doers" in command and staff roles, which means their attention and (duty) loyalties are divided at best, to the detriment of both.

[FW]

^ Well, Eclipse, if you want to put it that way.....   

[Eclipse]

I do go on sometimes...

[BillB]

We need to organize the International Association to censor Eclipse. Afterall he already has earned the TMFT award, and he has more posts than all the Mods combined. But the only problem is he's unuslly correct in his posts

[JeffDG]

Having term limits is a good idea

I must respectfully disagree.

In my experience, term limits are put in place as an abdication by decision makers of their responsibility to make tough decisions.  That extends to almost all such limits, including things like term-limits for office holders in the political realm:  voters don't want to make a decision to throw a bum out after he's outlived his usefulness, so in come term-limits to force the issue.

A better solution, in the instant case, would be actual terms for Squadron CCs.  Say a 2 year term, with the Group or Wing CC being fully at liberty to renew or replace the commander at that time.  This would be an improvement from the present in that the decision maker would need to make a decision to either reappoint or appoint a new commander, making both tasks involve effort, while now, leaving the incumbent in place can occur from sheer apathy.

Ok, Jeff, I agree with this however, flexibility is still needed.  And, there should be a limit to a squadron commander's tenure.  We need to develop new leaders to keep Civil Air Patrol Strong.

And on that we disagree.  The higher-echelon should have the flexibility to select the individual who is best able to fill the role, whether that be a new SMWOG with tons of leadership and management experience outside of CAP who can reinvigorate a moribund squadron, or the current squadron commander who's held the job for the last two decades, but still produces great results for the squadron.  Placing artificial limits on terms is just an excuse to not actually evaluate results and qualifications and go back to "You know, Col, you're doing a fantastic job, but the policy says I have to replace you."

[FW]

You are correct Jeff, on that, we disagree. No member "owns" their positition in CAP.  A squadron commander is not doing their job if they can't recognize leadership potential in the members they lead, nurture it and, eventually move on to let new talent take over.   

We need squadron commanders to feel comfortable leaving to assume duties at higher levels.  We need mentors.  We need a constant flow of new ideas.  I do not think a squadron with the same commander for 20 years is successful or effective.  I've seen great squadrons fall apart because such a long term-er decided to leave unexpectedly.  A commander who stays for 20 years stifles the members in a unit.  It happens all the time.  It also makes it more difficult for a wing commander to find talent for group command or staff.  Also, letting a squadron commander stay on for such an extended time is an abdication of duty.  We just can not afford to stagnate our leadership pool at any level.

Yes, having a set term is preferrable to a term limit however, no one should be allowed to serve an unlimited amount of terms. 

[Eclipse]

And on that we disagree.  The higher-echelon should have the flexibility to select the individual who is best able to fill the role, whether that be a new SMWOG with tons of leadership and management experience outside of CAP who can reinvigorate a moribund squadron,

The creature does not exist.  While general management skills and leadership experience will serve any CAP leader well, just because you can manage a company, doesn't mean you can manage a paramilitary squadron of volunteers.  Ditto for those with previous military experience.  I have seen way too many people look in from the outside, think they have it knocked, and then fail because they had no idea what or why CAP was, let alone how to inspire people who are free to come and go as they please.

If anything, SMWOG should be disallowed from command, period.  Because anyone at that level is either too new to be of value as a commander, or
doesn't' "get it" (i.e. the misguided notion that grade and PD don't mean anything).  Of course saying that won't make commanders with more experience magically appear for the 10 or so units with SMWOG as CC last time I checked which is CAP's eternal conundrum of raising the bar when you can't requisition personnel or make people do things they don't want to.

or the current squadron commander who's held the job for the last two decades, but still produces great results for the squadron.

There are so few of those as to be statistically zero.

Placing artificial limits on terms is just an excuse to not actually evaluate results and qualifications and go back to "You know, Col, you're doing a fantastic job, but the policy says I have to replace you."

The problem is those evaluations were not being done, which forced the issue.

The correct statement is, "Well Capt., you've done such a fantastic job with this unit, that you need to move up and export your ideas and success to the rest of the group, etc."  If we're waiting until they are field grade to move them up, we've done everyone a disservice, or in some cases they shouldn't be field grade to start with (a whole 'nother argument).

[lordmonar]

I got to disagree.

There are plenty of times where bringing in outside management who know nothing about the nuts and bolts of the day to day operations can work.

Being a good leader is as much nature as it is nurture.

You can teach anyone the nuts and bolt of how to run a squadron in a fairly short time.....getting a good manager and motivator takes a much longer time.

Of course the best situation is to have someone with the leadership skills needed AND the experince in CAP.  But it is possible to bring in outside leadership if that is the best fix for the situation.