Updated CAPR 35-5 released today (11 Aug 14)

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

If it was truly "level for grade," I would not have a problem with it.

However, I do not see much really changing.

I have had my Grover Loening (Level III) since 2005 and have almost everything for my Paul E. Garber.

It would be something worthy of a story in CAP Volunteer if I were to get my Gill Robb Wilson but still not promote, yes?

[LSThiker]

There are a number of interest items in those reports.

The biggest is the grade breakdown:
SM:  15%
2d Lt:  16%
1st Lt:  17%
Capt:  22%
Maj:  15%
Lt Col:  13%

I like the idea to require 1 year as commander and complete the Command Tech Rating for Maj. The requirement for evaluations. The additional year for Lt Col is interesting. I like the idea of 1 year as Lt Col for Wing Commander.

[abdsp51]

There are a number of interest items in those reports.

The biggest is the grade breakdown:
SM:  15%
2d Lt:  16%
1st Lt:  17%
Capt:  22%
Maj:  15%
Lt Col:  13%

I like the idea to require 1 year as commander and complete the Command Tech Rating for Maj. The requirement for evaluations. The additional year for Lt Col is interesting. I like the idea of 1 year as Lt Col for Wing Commander.

Then all pilots have to do oflights and everyone needs to get a tech rating in cp.   

[Eclipse]

Put simply, to claim this was done arbitrarily or with no notice is both false and disingenuous.

Please cite the notice(s) that was sent to members since 2012 that indicated that the PC bar was about to be raised significantly,
when that change would happen, and the justifications for the change. Maybe they were in the renewal packets, but I don't recall seeing them.

In the case of the Levels changing, this doesn't just affect new members, or members deficient in meeting the standard,
it also affects members who simply never got around to being submitted by their CC's, whether for PD or promotion.
There are lots of members in that position, with seemingly no interest in re-meditating the issue.  Punishing volunteers
for the lax adherence to procedure of commanders and staff is self-defeating.

Working committees have essentially no visibility to the membership, and further, it's been indicated by a member of
the respective committee that many of their recommendations were ignored, so even knowing about the discussions
would be meaningless.  Are you implying the average member should take action based on CSAG minutes and non-public meeting
notes?

Members had visibility on the NUCs discussions of an ABU proposal.  That also went nowhere.

The only meaningful notification is when a reg is published.

[SPAATZ1315]

Then all pilots have to do oflights and everyone needs to get a tech rating in cp.
[/quote]

That sounds good to me!

[vento]

There are a number of interest items in those reports.

The biggest is the grade breakdown:
SM:  15%
2d Lt:  16%
1st Lt:  17%
Capt:  22%
Maj:  15%
Lt Col:  13%

I like the idea to require 1 year as commander and complete the Command Tech Rating for Maj. The requirement for evaluations. The additional year for Lt Col is interesting. I like the idea of 1 year as Lt Col for Wing Commander.

Then all pilots have to do oflights and everyone needs to get a tech rating in cp.

And don't forget tech rating in Safety as well. Tech rating in ES shall be encouraged for all Mission Pilots.

[Bluelakes 13]

Um...no, there was plenty of notice.

Um...no, there was not.
I am a very active region staff member.
I checked my CAP inbox, no notification there.
I checked in Eservices, no notification there.
I checked with my region vice, he was not aware.
I checked with my region commander, he was not aware.

I checked all notification avenues available to me, none were there.  I will presume this is very indicative of the majority of members.
Saying it happened and there were meeting notes, so you were notified, is, well... I'll keep my colorful adverbs to myself.

[JeffDG]

Well,

I'm not on region staff.  I hold a junior role on Wing Staff (ES Training).  I hold a role at Group level.

I don't think I've done more than say "Good afternoon, sir" to the Region Commander.

However, I've known this was coming for quite a while.  The CSAG agendas and minutes are published for all members to see.  Heck, I've seen people who are [censored]ing here that there was no notice comment on agendas and minutes where this matter was documented in some detail.

[arajca]

A note in the minutes that "we are thinking about doing" something is not the same as a notice the "we are doing" something. Many items in the minutes do not go anywhere or get modified significantly between the minutes and the publication.

[Panache]

So, some people here are now saying that proposed changes to regulations buried in some CSAG meeting notes is now "proper notification to the membership at large"?

Is that the story we're going with now?

[Alaric]

b) I'll give you the no notice.....but it was in the works for a while and it was not a secret so it is not like they were trying to trick anyone.

Um...no, there was plenty of notice.

The "Level for Grade" proposal (ie. removing the stutter-step at 1st Lt) seems to have originated at the November 2012 CSAG meeting (to be precise 647 days before the regulation was issued).  It included significantly more steps to promote, inlcuding a Wing Level Board to become a 2nd Lt.  It was referred to a committee at this time.  That committee delivered an interim report at the May, 2013 CSAG meeting with not notation as to recommendations made in the interim report, but the committee was instructed to report to the next meeting.

At the November 2013 CSAG meeting, the committee delivered a report (reproduced in the minutes of said meeting), and CSAG recommended (by a vote of 7-3) that "CAP/CC form a working group to study revisions to the rank structure and requirements). Their report (17 pages worth) is worth a read.  For example, a Major was expected to be able to "Develop and implement strategic policy above local level" and "Serve successfully as a commander or deputy commander or chief of staff for a unit. For one year".  Additionally, they recommended removing (entirely) grade advancements for Squadron and Group commanders, along with all "Mission Related Skills".   The committee also did significant research into levels and grade of members.  Definitely worth a read, particularly if you think this was done arbitrarily.

Finally, at the May, 2014 CSAG meeting, a final report came forward.  It reflected may of the November recommendations, but not all.  It kept the Level-Grade link (that by this time was years old), and had no phase-in period as proposed.  CSAG considered and amended the proposal to include a TIG grandfather, but considered and rejected other grandfathering proposals.

Put simply, to claim this was done arbitrarily or with no notice is both false and disingenuous.

It is neither false nor disingenuous.  A minutes from a meeting saying that they are thinking of doing something is not notification any more than if I say I'm thinking about Chinese for dinner is notification that I will be at Fantastic Wok in Maineville.  Notifying means sending out a notification to the membership

[Panache]

http://youtu.be/HNmIQX_ImgM

Mr. Prosser:   But, Mr. Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.
Arthur:   Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or anything.
Mr. Prosser:   But the plans were on display...
Arthur:   On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.
Mr. Prosser:   That's the display department.
Arthur:   With a torch.
Mr. Prosser:   The lights had probably gone out.
Arthur:   So had the stairs.
Mr. Prosser:   But look, you found the notice, didn't you?
Arthur:   Yes yes I did. It was on display at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard."

[JeffDG]

So, some people here are now saying that proposed changes to regulations buried in some CSAG meeting notes is now "proper notification to the membership at large"?

Is that the story we're going with now?

Yes.

Publicly available agendas and meeting minutes from the body charged with reviewing and recommending changes to the regulations over a year and a half before the regulation change occurs are absolutely proper notification.

[ColonelJack]

http://youtu.be/HNmIQX_ImgM

Mr. Prosser:   But, Mr. Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.
Arthur:   Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or anything.
Mr. Prosser:   But the plans were on display...
Arthur:   On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.
Mr. Prosser:   That's the display department.
Arthur:   With a torch.
Mr. Prosser:   The lights had probably gone out.
Arthur:   So had the stairs.
Mr. Prosser:   But look, you found the notice, didn't you?
Arthur:   Yes yes I did. It was on display at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard."

Makes you wonder if the CSAG has ever considered going into advertising.......

Jack

[ßτε]

Change 1 posted today. Updated grandfather clause.

NOTE:Members applying for duty performance promotions during the period 11 August 2014 to 11 August 2018 may use the previous duty performance promotion requirements for their next promotion. The member's present date of grade must be prior to 11 August 2014 in order to be eligible for this grandfather clause. This clause may only be used once for the member's next promotion.[/font]
[/font]

No more griping allowed.

[Майор Хаткевич]

[darn]. Now I have to go to CLC, get my Senior rating, and go to two conferences. Bummer.

[catrulz]

There are a number of interest items in those reports.

The biggest is the grade breakdown:
SM:  15%
2d Lt:  16%
1st Lt:  17%
Capt:  22%
Maj:  15%
Lt Col:  13%

I like the idea to require 1 year as commander and complete the Command Tech Rating for Maj. The requirement for evaluations. The additional year for Lt Col is interesting. I like the idea of 1 year as Lt Col for Wing Commander.

This breakdown is interesting, it also indicates, that once again maybe a solution was applied to where there was no problem.  Turn over amongst within the field grade ranks will be less than withing the company grade ranks.  There are always Capt becoming Maj and Maj Becoming LtCol, and there are LtCol stepping up into the executive levels becoming COL.  But there are also Maj and LtCol retiring every year.

Why is 25% of the total CAP officer force, considered too high?

If the other problem is field grade officers that don't know anything, sorry but no system that can be printed is going to stop pencil whipping.  While I would agree that I have never met a Level V individual that was not knowledgeable.  I attribute this to those with the impetus to go that far in PD, are pretty much not slackers.  I had intended to get my GRW someday.  But since NSC will now be filled with LtCol seekers, I probably won't be able to get one of the limited slots.  Tag on that most new Wing CC's are not GRW, some of the annual slots are for new Wing CC's so that also reduces the slots available.  Agreed in 10 years this problem will self correct, but most of us aren't spring chickens.

But the problem was not in the old 35-5, it has always been a CAPR 50-17 issue!  SLS & CLC, shoot even RSC do not have to be passed, just attended.  You can sleep through all of the above and check a box, and your done.  The guy that sleeps or plays during these classes get the same credit as they individual that really learns from them.  This Reg change doesn't address the real problem.  I found the training and curriculum in all tree of these courses to be excellent.  So, I don't think they were a waste of my time.

I have seen this at NESA, encampments, local SAR schools, RSC, SLS and CLC.  Activity directors do not fail people!  I know of an individual who received credit for SLS and didn't even return for the second day of training.  I know lots of cases of tech ratings where the person simply spent six months in the track and got the rating.  Without completing required distance learning and so on.

Just like in our legal system, it's better to let a guilty man walk free that to incarcerate an innocent.  This change penalizes those that completed their requirements with integrity, right along with those that are guilty of cheating the system.  Also, let me add that I believe in many cases when the system is cheated, it's not all on the member, this is also a leadership issue.  The commander that hasn't read the applicable regs or the specialty track pamphlet, or has an agenda to advance someone.

I wish I could suggest a solution.  If training and certification gets too hard on the membership, you'll get just as many if not more complaints as there have been in this thread.  But, when you consider that the promotion authority for all field grade officers is Wing or higher, and most Wings have no qualms with saying no to a promotion, this reg change was not IMO the correct solution to real issue.

[Eclipse]

Change 1 posted today. Updated grandfather clause.

NOTE:Members applying for duty performance promotions during the period 11 August 2014 to 11 August 2018 may use the previous duty performance promotion requirements for their next promotion. The member's present date of grade must be prior to 11 August 2014 in order to be eligible for this grandfather clause. This clause may only be used once for the member's next promotion.[/font]
[/font]

No more griping allowed.

There's a glass 1/2 full and a glass 1/2 empty stance on this, but the bottom line is that a comment period would have
likely avoided the appearance of NHQ not being sensitive to what motivates the membership.

Say what you will about CT, but it's interesting what came out of this discussion - a committee worked 10 man weeks to
put together what they considered to be a comprehensive fix for a long-standing tenuous situation, and the people
who charged that committee decided to adopt only parts of the recommendation, potentially making the situation worse
then before the "fix".

It has also been asserted that there may be members of the Command Council who were unaware of this
significant change, even after it was adopted, leading one to believe that while the new governance may be more
efficacious, it isn't necessarily "better" in regards to the affect on the rank and file, or the voice of the membership being
heard through that council.

Of course the CSAG and Board aren't required to get buy-in from the Council on everything any more, but something
that affects the rank and file as directly as this did should have (maybe it did) and at the least none of the Council should be caught unaware,
because it's the council who will have to deal with what I'm sure we some pretty "direct" emails and phones calls, not to
mention the risk of attrition at a time when CAP can ill afford to lose anyone participating at a level deserving or promotion.

This will still ultimately accomplish the stated goal of reducing the number of field grade officers in the organization,
just more slowly, however no one has yet been able to articulate why this is a "problem" in the greater context of CAP as a whole.

From a technical / IT perspective, this now creates two classes of promotion submission procedures, so
that will be fun for those who need to make that work.

[AirAux]

Strange how the requirements are so well laid out for the rank and file, but virtually non-existent for full bird or general.  Basically the requirement is to be part of the GOB system.  No additional levels required at all..  But then again, I forgot, not all pigs are created equal..   

[JeffDG]

I forgot, not all pigs are created equal..

Man, if you're going to allude to a classic work of literature, at least get it right...