Hmmm... got a somewhat ambiguous note from the CAWG CC ...
.... "It's been a pleasure working with you all" .. "Please give your next commander your full support."
With the Wing Conference coming in a couple weeks.. what timing..
..of course, are we without a commander now, or as of the conference, do we have an acting CC?
... time will tell.
WTF? Over? Just got an E-mail wishing CAWG well and thanking the membership for all we have done, etc. etc. Whats up with that?
Major Lord
Quote from: a2capt on September 11, 2007, 06:54:11 PM
Hmmm... got a somewhat ambiguous note from the CAWG CC ...
.... "It's been a pleasure working with you all" .. "Please give your next commander your full support."
With the Wing Conference coming in a couple weeks.. what timing..
..of course, are we without a commander now, or as of the conference, do we have an acting CC?
... time will tell.
Like the refrain from
Grease:Tell me more; tell me more; tell me more!
Didn't the current CAWG/CC just very recently take office?
It has been about 5 months. He is a personal friend of Maj Gen Pineda and was the former director of AE for Colorado Wing.
Major Lord
Could this mean that we are about to hear something more about TP?
Just askin', just askin' :angel:
Col Muniz was relieved by Col Ernie Pearson, the Pacific Region Commander, without any explanation. He is being replaced, on an interim basis, by Col Larry Myrick, an ex-CAWG Wing Commander and currently the Deputy Commander of the Region. Nothing further has been said nor released and it will likely stay that way.
Speculation is simply grist for the mill.
Quote from: CaptLord on September 11, 2007, 07:39:57 PMHe is a personal friend of Maj Gen Pineda...
Well, now we know how he got his job!
Quote from: bosshawk on September 11, 2007, 07:42:50 PM
Col Muniz was relieved by Col Ernie Pearson, the Pacific Region Commander, without any explanation.
Col Pearson doesn't need to give any kind of explanation. According to the rules, the Region Commanders are the people who hire and fire Wing Commanders, not the National Commander.
Precisely what I was hoping to find out.
Muniz had no support. The whole thing stunk anyway.
Col. Nelson was too hands off, Col. Myrick wouldn't stand for most of the shenanigans that went on after his departure. Too many good folks were dumped by Muniz or leaned on until they left. The Pineda Machine at work. No trust at all.
I wonder how many other Cronies will suffer a similar fate now.. curious.
Speculation is human nature.
None the less, I like what I see, maybe it's time to register for the Wing Conference now.
.. guess the dunk tank idea happened early. ;)
QuoteCould this mean that we are about to hear something more about TP?
Probably not. What it does mean is that Colonel Ernie Pearson is not part of the
Pineda Posse and he has more
cojones than most of the National Board. It is good to see command decisions being made for the good of the organization rather than on the basis of political support.
Aman to that!
My understanding is the the CAWG/CC was releived due to his actions related to the Fosset search.
His actions?
Major Lord
Quote from: lordmonar on September 11, 2007, 11:01:28 PM
My understanding is the the CAWG/CC was releived due to his actions related to the Fosset search.
His actions at the SAR EVAL didn't help him either.
On another forum I commented that Bowling and Pineda had never been known for making their appointments with regard to ES skill or efficiency.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 11, 2007, 11:01:28 PM
My understanding is the the CAWG/CC was releived due to his actions related to the Fossett search.
Vwwwwy Into-westing ... :o :o ;)
ES morale in CAWG is in pretty big disarray.
OTOH, Col. Muniz, while being our Commander, was put in that place under non-standard circumstances and had a major uphill battle which he largely had little support for, it seemed.
Col. Nelson had a lack of emphasis, hands off, unless it was Cadet related, approach to everything. It showed. But TP's actions were also wrong. None of the funny business and non-team-player-approach that ES has became with Col. Nelson's arrival would have ever happened otherwise.
Col. Muniz buddied up with TP and 'earned' the CAWG position, seemingly as it's been reported, without ever holding a command position of similar nature. You know, of a unit, group, etc.
What cometh, get taketh away.
We can only hope a replacement worth of Col. Myrick type of leadership is found, to fix this once and for all. At least for 3 more years.
I will say that in the 5 months, Col. Muniz attempted to reach out to the membership, he revived the CAWG safety bulletin, sent regular emails to the general membership, replied to topics, etc. Something I can't say I've ever seen before from any unit CC past the local squadron level.
Quote from: CaptLord on September 11, 2007, 11:06:17 PM
His actions?
Major Lord
This is all third hand information....but he did not learn to play and work well with others. I was told that The Govinator got involved.
Wow. When Arnold gets involved, there are some heads to be rolled!
Quote from: lordmonar on September 12, 2007, 12:36:38 AMThis is all third hand information....but he did not learn to play and work well with others. I was told that The Govinator got involved.
That is why CAP officers without command experience should
never be appointed as commanders. If Col Muniz wasn't good friends with the general-who-shall-not-be-named, he probably would never have been appointed as CAWG/CC in the first place.
It would also do CAP a lot of good to have most officers
voted into their positions, rather than appointed. That would solve a lot of problems, including the "officer appointed as a commander because he's best friends with a general" syndrome.
Just got wind the Arizona Wing CC Col Lynch has resigned as Wing CC. Something is happening somewhere..
Now even more interesting, not playing well with others? Gee, there's some pretty high profile ES folks that fit that bill, too, that Col. Nelson allowed them to prosper, and while they did, the responders lagged, found other parts of the program that were .. more interesting, and thats still happening.
New Horizons, at the CA Wing Conference in two weeks, for sure. This should be exciting. Maybe we can finally move on.
With all of this talk of Wing Commanders and ES problems, I'm starting to rethink my ES position.
Quote from: ♠ on September 12, 2007, 01:11:05 AMIt would also do CAP a lot of good to have most officers voted into their positions, rather than appointed. That would solve a lot of problems, including the "officer appointed as a commander because he's best friends with a general" syndrome.
I completely disagree!
No CAP officer should be voted in! Gods....that would bring the politics down the the squadron level! It's bad enough as it is.
The BOG should have some elected positions on it to represent the members of CAP...but each and ever officer from that level on down should be selected by the next level solely on the basics of how well they do their job.
If you want to remove politics from CAP Leadership......make the positions a non political job.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 12, 2007, 05:54:53 AM
Quote from: ♠ on September 12, 2007, 01:11:05 AMIt would also do CAP a lot of good to have most officers voted into their positions, rather than appointed. That would solve a lot of problems, including the "officer appointed as a commander because he's best friends with a general" syndrome.
I completely disagree!
No CAP officer should be voted in! Gods....that would bring the politics down the the squadron level! It's bad enough as it is.
The BOG should have some elected positions on it to represent the members of CAP...but each and ever officer from that level on down should be selected by the next level solely on the basics of how well they do their job.
If you want to remove politics from CAP Leadership......make the positions a non political job.
Having officers promoted on the basis of election seems to work well for the Coast Guard Auxiliary, and their politics is not as bad as CAP's. Giving squadron personnel a say in who should/shouldn't command them would work better than what is currently going on.
And the politics, (or rather, corruption) in CAP is due to a lack of oversight. The way officers are brought into their command positions is not going to change the politics (or remove it).
Part of the biggest problem with selection of qualified commanders/officers is that we don't have enough personnel at almost any level to fill the rosters with people, much less good, qualified people. How many of you aren't filling more than one role wherever you are??
QuoteHaving officers promoted on the basis of election seems to work well for the Coast Guard Auxiliary, and their politics is not as bad as CAP's. Giving squadron personnel a say in who should/shouldn't command them would work better than what is currently going on.
And the politics, (or rather, corruption) in CAP is due to a lack of oversight. The way officers are brought into their command positions is not going to change the politics (or remove it).
Electing officers is not what makes the Coast Guard Auxiliary different. No auxiliarist can terminate any other auxiliarist. Granted, at the flotilla and division level having the commanders elected does tend to get more qualified people into the job than being selected because you are a suck up to the district commodore. One Florida Wing Commander who shall not be named sucked up to his superior and had all of his competition systematically eliminated; until he got to the level of wing commander and could do his own pruning of the orchard that he was growing in. And you can all see what a wonderful legacy he is leaving us. I got an anonymous email yesterday telling me that a Deputy Commander for Cadets who was alleged to be trading sexual favors from a female cadet for answers to achievements was "
not doing anything wrong." My answer to this astounding allegation was that I didn't know that, because his wing commander blocked the mandatory investigation, and the Knoxville Mafia allowed it.
Quote from: Skyray on September 12, 2007, 12:40:35 PM
QuoteHaving officers promoted on the basis of election seems to work well for the Coast Guard Auxiliary, and their politics is not as bad as CAP's. Giving squadron personnel a say in who should/shouldn't command them would work better than what is currently going on.
And the politics, (or rather, corruption) in CAP is due to a lack of oversight. The way officers are brought into their command positions is not going to change the politics (or remove it).
Electing officers is not what makes the Coast Guard Auxiliary different. No auxiliarist can terminate any other auxiliarist. Granted, at the flotilla and division level having the commanders elected does tend to get more qualified people into the job than being selected because you are a suck up to the district commodore. One Florida Wing Commander who shall not be named sucked up to his superior and had all of his competition systematically eliminated; until he got to the level of wing commander and could do his own pruning of the orchard that he was growing in. And you can all see what a wonderful legacy he is leaving us. I got an anonymous email yesterday telling me that a Deputy Commander for Cadets who was alleged to be trading sexual favors from a female cadet for answers to achievements was "not doing anything wrong." My answer to this astounding allegation was that I didn't know that, because his wing commander blocked the mandatory investigation, and the Knoxville Mafia allowed it.
I'm thinking of starting a pool - how long can Doug Johnson go before he "Tourette's" over TP.
I think we'll have to bid in hours, maybe minutes.
The smart money says bid in years.
. . . "I got an anonymous email yesterday telling me that a Deputy Commander for Cadets who was alleged to be trading sexual favors from a female cadet for answers to achievements was "not doing anything wrong." My answer to this astounding allegation was that I didn't know that, because his wing commander blocked the mandatory investigation, and the Knoxville Mafia allowed it."
So much for CAPR 52-10. You will probably push it and see that the right thing is done.
You're pushing it alright, Doug. Easy.
Quote from: tedda on September 12, 2007, 03:44:18 PM
You're pushing it alright, Doug. Easy.
I don't understand. What I meant was that he sounded like he would see that 52-10 would be implemented and the correct actions would be taken. Did I miss something here?
Hi Guys,
Regarding Col. Lynch in AZ, the official story is that his work commitments were becoming too difficult to manage alongside of his CC position. I would tend to believe this as he was, indeed, trying to work a full-time job while being Commander - I always wondered how he was pulling that off, and I guess the answer was "not quite".
In my experience, he was a good CC, if a little distracted sometimes - and I've not heard of any political problems associated with AZ or him.
73 DE Hartley
Why are yall putting California's business out on a public website? I hope you don't tell family business like this. This is CAWG's personal business and probably doesnt need to be put out like that
Quote from: Skyray on September 12, 2007, 01:03:10 PM
The smart money says bid in years.
(Holds up bidder sigh)
SIX <never could pass up a wise ***** remark> >:D
Quote from: flyguy06 on September 12, 2007, 06:54:13 PM
Why are yall putting California's business out on a public website? I hope you don't tell family business like this. This is CAWG's personal business and probably doesnt need to be put out like that
I'm a member of the CAWG and I personally see no problem with this thread. After all, when "the-major-general-who-will-remain-nameless" removed Col. Nelson as the CAWG CC and replaced her with then Lt. Col. Muniz, there was a thread devoted to that event and speculation surrounding it. Now that the situation has seemed to be rectified with Col. Pearson removing Col. Muniz, why shouldn't the news of that event be published in a thread?
Sure there is speculation that has taken place regarding the removal of the CAWG CC....but this isn't the first time I have seen speculation on this board :o
Quote from: flyerthom on September 12, 2007, 07:44:23 PM
Quote from: Skyray on September 12, 2007, 01:03:10 PM
The smart money says bid in years.
(Holds up bidder sign)
SIX
<never could pass up a wise ***** remark> >:D
I like you Thom, and if you will tell me when the counting started, I will arrange to
Tourette so that you win. See you in
2013.
Good call Chappie. The conference might turn out to be exciting after all.
Looking forward to seeing ya there. ;D
Quote from: Hartley on September 12, 2007, 06:27:49 PM
Hi Guys,
Regarding Col. Lynch in AZ, the official story is that his work commitments were becoming too difficult to manage alongside of his CC position. I would tend to believe this as he was, indeed, trying to work a full-time job while being Commander - I always wondered how he was pulling that off, and I guess the answer was "not quite".
In my experience, he was a good CC, if a little distracted sometimes - and I've not heard of any political problems associated with AZ or him.
73 DE Hartley
I have always maintained that a Wing/Region commander would have to...should best be...someone who is retired or otherwise independentally wealthy. The demands, according to my paradigm of CAP where work and family take precedent over meetings/SARex where feasible, are overwhelming to a person managing their family's livelihood.
Thus, until I am either retired or I win a lotto...I would not plan to rise much higher than a Group Level officer.
I posted, and the moderators removed, the real reason Bill Lynch resigned. Overwork might have had something to do with it, but if the news articles are correct, he will not only be out as Wing Commander, but he will need a waiver to remain a member of CAP.
Don't know if voting would help. Electing the most popular doesn't mean your voting in the guy who can best work with the Governer......
Yep, I don't believe that elections would solve any issues in CAP - in fact, IMO, they would case more problems. You think the flying clubs are bad now, imagine people voting in commanders because he's a "swell guy" or no one wants to hurt his feelings. Competence should be the number factor, not how well someone can put together a campaign website or how many phonecalls they can make, but that they can get the job done right, the first time.
Being able to work with the Governor is key as is working with other politicians. But it doesn't require you to be a "politician." Your decisions would be based on the needs of the organization rather than which decisions would get you (re)elected.
Taken from another forum (dated 9/13):
An email just came through from Col Myrick about some of the things going on. If anybody cares I can post the text of the entire thing, but it's not that interesting. Col Myrick is not trying to be the CAWG King. The process of selecting one will probably take six weeks, an announcement about it will come out next week. And I found this line funny. "FYI: LTC Jesus Muniz has transferred to COWG."
* * * * * *
I also received the same e-mail and can confirm its veracity. I, too, find it very interesting that Lt. Col. Muniz returned to COWG where his membership was prior to his appointment as CAWG CC by the "major general who shall remain nameless".
I find it more interesting that he reverted to LTC, rather than retaining his Colonelcy.
Quote from: Cecil DP on September 17, 2007, 12:03:49 AM
I find it more interesting that he reverted to LTC, rather than retaining his Colonelcy.
You need to be a Wing CC for a year before your grade can be retained. After a year, the grade can be retained. Colonel is a temporary grade, until the "end" of a Wing CC gig. And, if you don't make it past the year probation period, you get reverted to your previous grade. (Although, once you are past a year, they often make the grade permanent when you leave.)
Every time we have a Wing change of command, they read orders that state the outgoing Wing CC is being granted the permanent grade of Colonel. (And, when they read the incoming CC's orders, they state that he/she is being promoted to the temporary grade of Colonel.)
Quote from: Cecil DP on September 17, 2007, 12:03:49 AM
I find it more interesting that he reverted to LTC, rather than retaining his Colonelcy.
I find it more interesting that you use the abbreviation LTC, rather than Lt Col.
See: CAP Has Official Grade Abbreviations (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1030.0)
Smitty, leave the dead horse beating to the proffessionals... Mmkay.
Quote from: MIKE on September 17, 2007, 01:50:46 AM
Smitty, leave the dead horse beating to the proffessionals... Mmkay.
Show me it's a dead horse, and I'll stop beating it. Deal?
I can't think of any thread where the topic of grade abbreviations has been beaten into the ground.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on September 14, 2007, 02:27:13 PM
Yep, I don't believe that elections would solve any issues in CAP - in fact, IMO, they would case more problems. You think the flying clubs are bad now, imagine people voting in commanders because he's a "swell guy" or no one wants to hurt his feelings.
Well, considering that's the criteria commanders use now for appointing officers, what makes you think things would be any worse by having officers elected?
Keep in mind, I'm talking about elections that have criteria as to what makes an officer eligible for election or not. There would be no way to elect officers based on popularity or personal issues.
Quote from: jimmydeanno on September 14, 2007, 02:27:13 PMCompetence should be the number factor, not how well someone can put together a campaign website or how many phonecalls they can make, but that they can get the job done right, the first time.
I agree. Unfortunately, there's too much 'Good Ole Boy' networking going on in CAP to ensure that this is the case for all (or even most) levels of command.
Quote from: ♠ on September 17, 2007, 02:12:17 AM
Keep in mind, I'm talking about elections that have criteria as to what makes an officer eligible for election or not. There would be no way to elect officers based on popularity or personal issues.
Then why have elections at all? Anytime you appeal to the masses for justification then you are infact making the postion based on popularity and/or personal/political issues.
If we removed all normal politics from the process then the only factor we have to deal with is the GOB network.
That is easilly fixed by becoming a member of the GOB.
Do you think that elections would solve it? If you are an outsider and completely qualified for the position.....why would the local GOBs pick you over their buddy?
Electing our leaders is NOT the answer to fixing the GOB proglem of CAP.
Standarsiation, training and upper headquarters over sight are what is needed.
Quote from: ♠ on September 17, 2007, 01:44:48 AM
Quote from: Cecil DP on September 17, 2007, 12:03:49 AM
I find it more interesting that he reverted to LTC, rather than retaining his Colonelcy.
I find it more interesting that you use the abbreviation LTC, rather than Lt Col.
See: CAP Has Official Grade Abbreviations (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1030.0)
I used LTC because that's how the original poster used it in his. Isn't it interesting that after 60 years since the DOD was established the military still has 3 different ways to say the same title depending on what color your uniform is. As long as everyone knows we were discussing a Lieutenant Colonel, I think that your remarks were indeed beating a dead horse.
Quote from: TankerT on September 17, 2007, 12:14:27 AM
You need to be a Wing CC for a year before your grade can be retained. After a year, the grade can be retained. Colonel is a temporary grade, until the "end" of a Wing CC gig. And, if you don't make it past the year probation period, you get reverted to your previous grade. (Although, once you are past a year, they often make the grade permanent when you leave.)
I'm dying to ask how a certain former FLWG and SER CC ... who apparently didn't make a full year in either slot ... retains his eagles, but ...
(John Wayne)
I'm not gonna do it ... I'm not ...
The hell I'm not.
(/John Wayne)
Ten bonus points to anyone who can name the movie that quote came from.
Jack
A Region Commander has the authority to make permanant a promotion to Colonel based on performance during the year if lacking only a couple of months of the year. The National CC has to approve the promotion if less than a year on the recommendation of the Region CC. This was done for the Florida Wing Commander, prior to his becoming Region Commander. At the time neither the Wing Commander or the Region Commander knew the Wing CC would be appointed Region CC several months later.
Quote from: ColonelJack on September 18, 2007, 08:43:07 PM
(John Wayne)
I'm not gonna do it ... I'm not ...
The hell I'm not.
(/John Wayne)
Ten bonus points to anyone who can name the movie that quote came from.
Jack
That's too easy. Somebody needs to punch you in the nose, Bagley.
Quote from: BillB on September 18, 2007, 08:54:13 PM
A Region Commander has the authority to make permanant a promotion to Colonel based on performance during the year if lacking only a couple of months of the year. The National CC has to approve the promotion if less than a year on the recommendation of the Region CC. This was done for the Florida Wing Commander, prior to his becoming Region Commander. At the time neither the Wing Commander or the Region Commander knew the Wing CC would be appointed Region CC several months later.
You guys are baiting me so Delaney can poke fun, right? Is four months a couple of months short of a year? And Region Command came a couple of years after he was granted the right to keep his eagles. No, Victoria, he got to keep them because he
whines really well.
Quote from: ColonelJack on September 18, 2007, 08:43:07 PM
Quote from: TankerT on September 17, 2007, 12:14:27 AM
You need to be a Wing CC for a year before your grade can be retained. After a year, the grade can be retained. Colonel is a temporary grade, until the "end" of a Wing CC gig. And, if you don't make it past the year probation period, you get reverted to your previous grade. (Although, once you are past a year, they often make the grade permanent when you leave.)
I'm dying to ask how a certain former FLWG and SER CC ... who apparently didn't make a full year in either slot ... retains his eagles, but ...
(John Wayne)
I'm not gonna do it ... I'm not ...
The hell I'm not.
(/John Wayne)
Ten bonus points to anyone who can name the movie that quote came from.
Jack
McClintock, (John Wayne, Maureen O'Hara, Jerry Van Dyke)
You guys are baiting me so Delaney can poke fun, right? Is four months a couple of months short of a year? And Region Command came a couple of years after he was granted the right to keep his eagles. No, Victoria, he got to keep them because he whines really well.
Maybe because he was a prodigy of the Comander who cannot be named.
Quote from: a2capt on September 12, 2007, 01:36:19 AM
Now even more interesting, not playing well with others? Gee, there's some pretty high profile ES folks that fit that bill, too, that Col. Nelson allowed them to prosper, and while they did, the responders lagged, found other parts of the program that were .. more interesting, and thats still happening.
New Horizons, at the CA Wing Conference in two weeks, for sure. This should be exciting. Maybe we can finally move on.
The problem is not with the wing CC or his staff but with the many members that want and also demand to get first dibs on SAR missions. CAWG members complained that the Wing CC Col Munez would not allow member owned aircraft on the mission. That WAS NOT true! Look at the stats, CAWG did use member owned aircraft.
Our members came out of the woodwork for a mission in the middle of nowhere. Why? Because it was Steve Fossett. Had it been a nobody, nobody would have shown up. Little known fact is that a CAP member went missing out of the Los Angeles in his own aircraft. CAWG couldn't find one of the dozen wannabe ICs to take the mission so local CAP members located him w/o CAP support as citizens. They knew nobody from CAWG would go out and look for a nobdoy. These guys are the same few that support most of CAWGs missions. Our problem really belongs to our members that want the fame but will not lift a finger to be part of the solutuon. Col. Munez had an uphill battle because he would not accept our member's laziness, he demanded accountability. What a concept. Look at the stats on the Fosset search, same player until the news trucks came than the "heros" showed up! Funny, I haven't seen much from those at and running the missions, only those that want to cherry pick! Stay home, your not helping out.
Quote from: Cecil DP on September 18, 2007, 11:10:56 PM
Maybe because he was a prodigy of the Comander who cannot be named.
VOLDEMORT!!!There, I said it!
Oh, sorry, that was another film set! Didn't mean to crash this re-make of "Totally Non-Strategic Air Command"!
BTW, it was my impression that CAP (National) discouraged the use of member-owned aircraft on missions, principally because of equipment and liability concerns (i.e., if you use private AC that are less well equipped for search than CAP AC, could be an issue in a lawsuit, not to mention PR nightmare).
So what's the griping about in CA WG?
Our members want their cake and eat it too! There have been several e-mails and blogs saying the CAWG CC and IC were not allowing member owned a/c. The fact is that National was requesting that member owned aircraft not be used. The IC and CC took it under advisement and elected to use a limit number of member a/c. Kudos to them...not blame! As Sgt. Friday would have said...just the facts!
Talked to my wing DO today....his understanding is that the preference is not to use member owned aircraft on SAREX, but REDCAP is a different story, then there is often a desire to launch as many properly equipped AC as are available.
He also said it is ultimately up to 1AF.
"properly equipped AC" being the key term.
The CC got a bad rap! Stepped in at the wrong time to do a job and received no support. I have had to work with bosses I really didn't like but put those feelings aside to get the job done. I hope the new CC doesn't experience the same bad luck. I knew Col. Muniz through CAP & his work, he has been in CAP most of his life and loved the ogranization. I hope he continues to help out in CA or CO.
Well, your perceptions from afar differ from mine up close.
Quote from: SARPilotNY on September 26, 2007, 03:26:09 AM
The CC got a bad rap! [snip!]
Bad rap, eh?
Quote from: SarDragon on September 26, 2007, 05:37:09 AM
Well, your perceptions from afar differ from mine up close.
I second that. If we put it to a vote I guess you would be shocked.
Guess you were not here in CAWG the last 5 months plus a couple years to witness first hand the actions and methods used here. An appointed Wing CC who's never lead a squadron, never attended the UCC, is suddenly thrust before us as if it were a Good Thing.
CAWG got TP'ed.
I'm happy Col. Myrick is back for a short stint, clean house and set the ball rolling in the right direction, and lead a proper Selection Board for a new Wing CC.
Man, didn't take you long to get back on the computer after we left Denney's
Remember Larry Myrick "handpicked" Virginia Nelson and that went where?
I hope he can do better this time!
Col. Muniz is a "manager" with years of experience in leadership with law enforcement in the Federal Government. He was trying to decentralize a very large wing. He had increased his span of control by having a vice CC as well as a north and south deputies too. His goals and methods were very foreign from what CAWG had seen in the past but not uncommon in the today's world. Nobody likes change it seems, he shook things up and pissed people off. CAWG which I have been a member of on and off for over 30 years needs change. He cut a lot of deadwood from his staff, put units on notice with aircraft that rarely if ever flew " A" missions that they would lose their (CAP) aircraft, had plans to replace some lazy group commanders and he was hold personnel and units accountable. No wonder why the vocal minority were so concerned and afraid.
Quote from: SarDragon on September 26, 2007, 05:37:09 AM
Well, your perceptions from afar differ from mine up close.
And what did Col. Muniz do to you directly that left you with such a negative opinion? Can you give an example or two?
Quote from: SARPilotNY on September 26, 2007, 07:28:08 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on September 26, 2007, 05:37:09 AM
Well, your perceptions from afar differ from mine up close.
And what did Col. Muniz do to you directly that left you with such a negative opinion? Can you give an example or two?
I must graciously decline to air my laundry on a public forum. Thanks for asking, though.
A couple of comments about some of the negative comments about Col Muniz. He had finished level five in the PD system, had commanded numerous squadrons, had completed the UCC and just about every other course that some people seem to hold sacred in this Wing and had been a member of CAP for almost 50 years. If that isn't qualification, I don't know what was.
Yes, he irritated people and he instituted change, but none of that bothers me one whit. He only put in about 60 hours a week on CAP while he was the CAWG CC: not exactly ignoring the Wing. Since when is a Wing Commander in a popularity contest? I guess that, if you aren't in the CAWG mafia, you aren't going to be accepted.
There is an old wag that says something to this effect: ''let he who is without fault, cast the first stone". Does that apply to some of you naysayers? Probably.
Flog away at me, if you choose. I will ignore that just like I ignore most other criticism on this blog.
Col Jack,
Let's look at the regulation.
Quote from: CAPR 36-5 Para 13a. Region Commander and Vice Commander. Promotion to the temporary appointment as region commander or vice commander. Region vice commanders, who will revert to the grade of lieutenant colonel (regardless of grade prior to appointment) vice commander, unless approved by the National Executive Committee.
b. Wing Commander. Promotion to the temporary grade of colonel is concurrent
commander. The permanent grade of colonel is contingent upon the recommendation wing commander's satisfactory completion of assignment as wing commander.
Para 13b says that the grade is permanent contingent upon the satisfactory completion of the assignment.
Getting moved up in the chain for any reason by definition is satisfactory completion of the assignment no matter how long you spent in the job.
It would be hard to argue that the SER/CC did not satisfactorily completed his job as wing CC no matter what happened subsequently.
Quote from: bosshawk on September 26, 2007, 11:28:12 PM
A couple of comments about some of the negative comments about Col Muniz. He had finished level five in the PD system, had commanded numerous squadrons, had completed the UCC and just about every other course that some people seem to hold sacred in this Wing and had been a member of CAP for almost 50 years. If that isn't qualification, I don't know what was.
Interesting, you are the very first person to say that he did have any kind of CAP Command experience.
You wouldn't want to disclose the sources of this infomation so that the rest of us could be enlightened would you?
Quote from: PHall on September 27, 2007, 01:07:18 AMInteresting, you are the very first person to say that he did have any kind of CAP Command experience.
You wouldn't want to disclose the sources of this infomation so that the rest of us could be enlightened would you?
He won't be able to. One of the requirements for taking command without any prior command experience is to be good friends with the Major General who-shall-not-be-named. (http://forums.cadetstuff.org/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif)
Guys: I had a pretty good source: Col Jesse Muniz. Whenever I had a question about his qualifications, I asked him.
:-X
Commanded numerous squadrons? :o
Seems that people also put faith in what the currently suspended National CC said, too. ;)
Just like the aforementioned suspended individual, there are simply too many questioning ...
:-X
I personally would like our next CAWG Commander be a former military officer who has been successful at managing military and civilian assets. Is easy to get along with, instills professionalism can work in the old world and the new high tech world, is available to be equal distance between North and South and has a fast plane.
I agree with all those traits, and would even be willing to forego the second to last if thats what it takes.
Might I add, too, has open and clear communications channels, and is aware of what is going on around the Wing, in tune with the beat of the various CAP missions at large, and like Col. Myrick wouldn't, that they too, will not stand for the anti-teamwork, regulations bashing and farcical regulation interpretations and actions of some.
..and I see another one has followed down the path of Former Cronies now Dismissed. ;)
Quote from: wingnut on September 30, 2007, 01:50:37 AM
I personally would like our next CAWG Commander be a former military officer who has been successful at managing military and civilian assets. Is easy to get along with, instills professionalism can work in the old world and the new high tech world, is available to be equal distance between North and South and has a fast plane.
I can think of a couple of people that meet those requirements. And another one who already has been the CAWG/CC.
But being a former military officer is not a guarantee of success as a CAP Wing Commander.
Very few military officers have had to deal with the politics that seems to exist in CAP.
And politics at Wing Headquarters is not just a California Wing thing either.
A friend of mine, who was the Base Comdr at George AFB before he retired from active duty, was a Group/CC in CAWG and resigned because he couldn't take the politics here.
He flew a fast plane too. ;D
I'll point out another aspect of having AD officers in command......they may not be best suited for leading a volunteer force.
An AD officer is used to having authority backed by law and a network of officers and NCO's all with legal authority and years of experience.
In CAP we just don't have that.
Heck even our National Command Structure is a bloody democracy. The US military is an autocracy. The commander is only bound by the wishes of his superiors and the regulations and law. Not so in CAP. The National Commander and his staff must lead by the consent of the National Board. At lower levels a commander must balance his actions with the possibility of a mass exodus of dissatisfied members.
An AD officer has a lot of experience leading and managing large units....but does not normally have to worry about his squadron just picking up and moving to another unit or just quiting if they don't like the way things are going.
Also...the AD commander would have to learn how to live in a very political world. That is what needs to change to eliminate the politics in CAP.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 30, 2007, 10:12:40 PM
I'll point out another aspect of having AD officers in command......they may not be best suited for leading a volunteer force.
An AD officer is used to having authority backed by law and a network of officers and NCO's all with legal authority and years of experience.
In CAP we just don't have that.
Heck even our National Command Structure is a bloody democracy. The US military is an autocracy. The commander is only bound by the wishes of his superiors and the regulations and law. Not so in CAP. The National Commander and his staff must lead by the consent of the National Board. At lower levels a commander must balance his actions with the possibility of a mass exodus of dissatisfied members.
An AD officer has a lot of experience leading and managing large units....but does not normally have to worry about his squadron just picking up and moving to another unit or just quiting if they don't like the way things are going.
Also...the AD commander would have to learn how to live in a very political world. That is what needs to change to eliminate the politics in CAP.
A National Guard officer would probably be best prepared to handle the politics since the politics does exist in the Guard.
Most State's National Guards tend to be closed communities, much like CAP is. And closed communities tend to have politics.
It's the small town syndrone.
It's just that in the Guard the breaking the rules, and getting caught, carries a much bigger penalty then it does in CAP.
Has anyone noticed that it is the large to mid size wings (CA, PA, NY among the large ones....I'll only mention my own, NJ, among the mediums) that seem to suffer most from internal CAP politics?
Could it be as much a 'span of control' problem as anything else? Perhaps coupled with lack of unit cohesion?
It's hard controlling or even guiding multiple subordinate commanders.
It is also difficult o get people, who have little else in common, to feel a sense of loyalty to an institution that is too big.
Smaller wings seem to get along better.
Maybe we need to divide wings into units no larger than 500-600 members...maybe even less...for administrative command & control.
In other words, standardize the concept of smaller "wings".
Of course this won't help the National politics....though if we did this, changed NB members to state representatives, open only to former wing CCs, and chosen at the state level....and simultaneously found another way to select our national officers....might make the politicking a lot harder to try to rig, if nothing else.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on October 01, 2007, 03:19:19 AM
Has anyone noticed that it is the large to mid size wings (CA, PA, NY among the large ones....I'll only mention my own, NJ, among the mediums) that seem to suffer most from internal CAP politics?
Could it be as much a 'span of control' problem as anything else? Perhaps coupled with lack of unit cohesion?
It's hard controlling or even guiding multiple subordinate commanders.
It is also difficult o get people, who have little else in common, to feel a sense of loyalty to an institution that is too big.
Smaller wings seem to get along better.
Maybe we need to divide wings into units no larger than 500-600 members...maybe even less...for administrative command & control.
In other words, standardize the concept of smaller "wings".
Of course this won't help the National politics....though if we did this, changed NB members to state representatives, open only to former wing CCs, and chosen at the state level....and simultaneously found another way to select our national officers....might make the politicking a lot harder to try to rig, if nothing else.
We have Groups here in Texas. That seems to help shrink things down to a managable level between the Squadron and Wing.
In California we have 7 groups, mine hase seven squadrons in it.
Quote from: Grumpy on October 01, 2007, 04:27:32 AM
In California we have 7 groups, mine hase seven squadrons in it.
Grump, you're way behind the power curve - we have ten units in our group! By number - 40, 47, 56, 57, 68, 87, 144, 150, 153, 201.
Oops.
The issue of span of control is what Col. Muniz identified and was trying to deal with. As a manager of a very large Federal organization in real life, he knew CAWG could not be well run from one location in Southern California. He added two deputy commanders in addition to his vice commander . The first thing Col. Myrick did was eliminate the two deputy commanders, fire the vice commander and replace him with one of the previous deputy commanders when he took back the Wing. Talk about two different styles! I think what Col. Myrick knew and Col. Muniz had not found out yet was that the vice commander was not supportive of his bosses. This is one of the guys that torpedoed the SAREVAL to make the CC look bad.
I understand he is now not putting his name in for the CC position.
I'm being good and keeping my mouth shut. Right Bosshawk? :-X
Grumpy: you are doing well. Hang in there until we get our new Wing King(or Queen) and life in CAWG will go on: probably as before.
I wish that I had some insight into why the dramatic changes at the VC level, but I don't. I am one of the Norcal pukes who is seldom involved in what happens at Wing, except in the CD program. 300 miles sometimes is a blessing(that is about how far I am from the Wing Hq).
I think you're dead-on about span of control. CAP units are verryyy disbursed. And while the internet has helped a bit, if a commander and his staff can't do regular face-to-face with subordinate leaders at all levels, things are gonna get wonky.
And when you add to that the fact that many of our subordinate leaders aren't exactly fully trained, but just were a bit slow when everyone else took a giant step backwards.....
Without a heck of a big travel budget, and oodles of "I'm retired" spare time, I doubt the staff in a wing like CA can really oversee what's going on.
Using Groups to decrease the span of control is a great idea...but finding good group commanders is hard. Mainly because
1. There's no real reward except a little star on a command ribbon.
2. If you do the job poorly, you probably still keep the job. Because there's no one ready to replace you (see #1).
I think one radical way to fix this would be to reserve CAP Lt Col for Group CCs (and a few key Wing jobs) in the same way we reserve CAP Colonel for Wing CCs. That would increase the pool of viable candidates big time.
Wing CCs work hard to earn and keep their eagles. I'd love to see that same kind of energy in CAP's group commanders.
Seems like one must be a group commander first, hard to find good seed these days to grow a wing commander.
Quote from: calguy on October 06, 2007, 11:52:03 PM
Seems like one must be a group commander first, hard to find good seed these days to grow a wing commander.
Then what about those wings that don't have groups?
Consider them lucky!
Quote from: ♠1 on October 06, 2007, 11:57:00 PM
Quote from: calguy on October 06, 2007, 11:52:03 PM
Seems like one must be a group commander first, hard to find good seed these days to grow a wing commander.
Then what about those wings that don't have groups?
These would generally be the smaller wings (in terms of number of members and/or squadrons)....in effect, a group, but not in name!
Of course there are a few large wings (I've heard through the grapevine, not sure which ones) that don't use groups.....I guess there are 'control' issues there rather than 'span of control' concerns!
I think some of the reasons not to have groups is the commander's fear of losing control. They seem always to be the micro-manager types. CAWG, FLWG, TXWG are so large I could not understand how a commander could effectively run their wing. Interesting that the new CAWG CC fired all of the Wing's deputy commanders. I wonder what the new FLWG CC will do?
Quote from: SARPilotNY on October 08, 2007, 03:02:44 AM
I think some of the reasons not to have groups is the commander's fear of losing control. They seem always to be the micro-manager types. CAWG, FLWG, TXWG are so large I could not understand how a commander could effectively run their wing. Interesting that the new CAWG CC fired all of the Wing's deputy commanders. I wonder what the new FLWG CC will do?
Ah, but he didn't fire
ALL of the Deputy (actually Vice) Commanders. He just went back to the old system of one Vice Commander.
CAWG has operated very nicely for years with only one Vice Commander. There really wasn't much of a reason to go with two.
Quote from: PHall on October 08, 2007, 04:21:19 AM
CAWG has operated very nicely for years with only one Vice Commander. There really wasn't much of a reason to go with two.
I could think of one, logistical reason under an assumed scenario,
A largely unpopular leader placed at the top that would like to stack the deck in their favor. Create a few more positions and give them to people.. Regardless of actual need.
I do agree however, two were not needed.
At one point in CAP's history we also had "Sectors" in the larger wings. (FL, CA, TX, and maybe one or two more). These were commanded by LtCol's. and each consisted of several groups. Maybe it's time to consider using them again to reestablish span of control.
Quote from: PHall on October 08, 2007, 04:21:19 AM
Quote from: SARPilotNY on October 08, 2007, 03:02:44 AM
I think some of the reasons not to have groups is the commander's fear of losing control. They seem always to be the micro-manager types. CAWG, FLWG, TXWG are so large I could not understand how a commander could effectively run their wing. Interesting that the new CAWG CC fired all of the Wing's deputy commanders. I wonder what the new FLWG CC will do?
Ah, but he didn't fire ALL of the Deputy (actually Vice) Commanders. He just went back to the old system of one Vice Commander.
CAWG has operated very nicely for years with only one Vice Commander. There really wasn't much of a reason to go with two.
IIRC...this system was initiated around 1998 prior to Col. Myrick becoming the Wing Commander (Col. Brian Brammer was Wing CC). At that time there were 2 vice commanders (one serving Northern CA and the other serving Southern CA). At that time there were 25 Groups in the CAWG and there were consolidations to form the 7 Groups now currently utilized.
IMHO....the system had been working well and serving the needs of the CAWG. Both Col. Myrick (1999-2003) and Col. Nelson (2003-2007) conducted regular meetings with the Group Commanders --- something that hadn't happened during the tenure of Lt. Col. Muniz. So the operational span of control for the past 8-9 years was through the Group Commanders.
Discontinuing thread drift.