Information Officer

[Tubacap]

So I am currently taking a class in Risk Communication, and I am doing my final paper on the analysis between a CAP Information Officer, and what is available to the general volunteer and paid responders in regards to training from FEMA and local state EMA's.

So my questions are...

1.  Do we have a shortage of IOs in CAP?

2.  Should we use IOs more frequently so that they gain true experience, even for the local ELT hunt that turned up only a erroneous ELT.

3.  Why is the IO track not delineated like most of the others with various levels responding to various types of incidents.

4.  Could these be one of the contributing factors to the "best kept secret" syndrome?

5.  How do we improve, if we need to?

[Duke Dillio]

So I am currently taking a class in Risk Communication, and I am doing my final paper on the analysis between a CAP Information Officer, and what is available to the general volunteer and paid responders in regards to training from FEMA and local state EMA's.

So my questions are...

1.  Do we have a shortage of IOs in CAP?

2.  Should we use IOs more frequently so that they gain true experience, even for the local ELT hunt that turned up only a erroneous ELT.

3.  Why is the IO track not delineated like most of the others with various levels responding to various types of incidents.

4.  Could these be one of the contributing factors to the "best kept secret" syndrome?

5.  How do we improve, if we need to?

1.  I think that there is a definite shortage of trained IO's in CAP.
2.  We should use them more however we need to recruit people that are pretty good at that.  You can't just have any SM Schmoe in a wrinkled uniform giving interviews to the media.
3.  Are you asking if there should be different levels of IO like IO3, 2, and 1?  I would say that all IO's probably fall under the same category.  They release information per the instructions of the IC.  I don't see why you would need different levels.
4.  The best kept secret syndrome probably has more to do with CAP PAO's and not so much IO's.  IO's release information to the public as directed by an IC.  There is certain information that we do not release for good reason during SAR missions.  For example, we won't put out that a lost aircraft has been found and noone survived until the family has been notified.  We also don't routinely put out tactical information such as what grids we are searching and what not.  The IO's are specifically for ES.  The PAO's are the ones who would put out information on local squadron activities and things of that nature.
5.  To be honest, I think we need a better image for our IO's.  I was honestly horrified to see the IO for the Fossett mission talking to the public in a flight suit.  This did not really pass me as being professional.  Just my opinion though.

Just my thoughts on your questions.  Feel free to flame me now.

[RiverAux]

1.  Yes.
2.  Tricky.  Most ELT searches are not really newsworthy and you will get little benefit by trying to trump them up into one.  There are some exceptions to that general rule.  
3.  No real need.  Basically any CAP mission that is likely to garner any news coverage is likely to garner significant media attention with your state, and perhaps a few surrounding ones.  The Fosset-level search is so unusual and so extreme that it isn't something that you're going to be able to train for anyway.
4.  I've personally seen our Wing function without a real IO for several years and even on "big" missions where we were running the show we got little coverage.  Once we had an IO that would do something, we were covered considerably better.  

5.  The problem with our IO training is that it is non-existent.  The few piddly tasks that we have in no way prepare anyone to really do the job.  Personally, I think you should hold a public affairs technician rating before being allowed to even start training as an IO.  That assures that you know the basics of PA and have already had some experience dealing with the press on non-emergency situations before potentially being put in the spotlight of your local and regional media during an actual mission.  We should consider requiring some of the standardized national public affairs training such as the FEMA Basic and Advanced Public Information Officer courses.  Though not CAP specific, they provide far more useful training than anything CAP has, or is likely to have, in the near future for dealing with the press in emergency situations.

Information Officers are like Incident Commanders in that it is better to have a few high quality ones than a bunch of poor quality ones.  It is just so visible and there are so many ways you can screw things up for CAP that quality over quantity is vastly preferable.  I'd rather us get no coverage on a mission than have an IO give an absolutely horrible interview or quote. 

I was honestly horrified to see the IO for the Fawcett mission talking to the public in a flight suit. 

Agree to disagree here.  So long as it is a clean, presentable uniform I don't mind.  There is something to be said to presenting an image of "we're working hard" over "look at my ribbons" in terms of uniforms.

[DNall]

1) Yes shortage. Active membership is some number far south of what's on the books. Call it 50% just for argument, but that's probably high. Of that, what percentage are cadets under 18? Call it 60%, so now we're down to 20% of the total. Of that 20%, how many are in what jobs & how are they geographically distributed? Does that meet the comm TA picture of the AF defining min needs for their mission?

So yes, there is a dramatic shortage in all areas of CAP, ES in a big way, and jobs that aren't front line critical or sexy get very little to no attention. That's MIO, MSO, FASC, LSC, etc. All very important functions.

2) Yes IOs should be used more frequently. There's no reason not to use them on a simple ELT activation where there won't be significant media inquiries. At the same time, they should be PAOs on the unit side & have experience pushing the story with media outside of ES. Hopefully they are thinking about marketing while all this is going on.

3) What do you mean? GBD, AOBD, Observer, scanner, MP... none of those are broken down. Really it's only GT & IC. That's less about the level of incident than the basic level of qualification SHOULD be the 1 level, but we need a quantity of people to cover the mission so we break it down to lower levels that will suffice for most supervised situations. That's not an attitude to take with IO.

4) I don't think we reach our potential in many ways, how we tell that story is part of the problem, but no I would not say it's important as a contributing factor in our best kept secret status. The fact is what CAP does is not that important in the scheme of things. If it were, we'd be a full blown paid & resourced agency like Coast Guard. I do think media mgmt & situational marketing need a whole ton of work though, and ICs in particular need some training in that area, and in fully utilizing IOs.

5) Better training & practices. Right now the training for IO is very limited. There's lots of external courses that decent IOs will seek out & take, but none of that continuing education is required. the advanced education as well as interaction with other agency IOs is very important I think to developing a professional IO response. In practice, we do need to do a better job of utilizing these resources when we can get our hands on them.

[Duke Dillio]

and I spelled Fossett wrong....  Bad me....

I really didn't say anything about ribbons but it just seemed wierd to me.  I have no idea if she was a flight crew member or not but wearing a bag in front of the camera just didn't appeal to me.  I think the aviator shirt combo would have been acceptable in that situation.  Granted, if she was on a flight crew, she would have had to change several times a day...  I'm just not a big fan of the flight suit for purposes other than flying.

Not trying to change this to a uniform thread.  Just saying that our IO's should realize that they are representing the CAP and many people out there might not even know who we are or what we do.  That spot on the camera might be the first impression for a whole lot of people and could lead to a good recruiting symbol.

[RiverAux]

There's no reason not to use them on a simple ELT activation where there won't be significant media inquiries.

Whats the story?  Do the police put out press releases about every false burglar alarm they investigate?  Does the fire department do it for false fire alarms? 

To some extent public affairs folks have to keep their powder dry.  If you send in to many press releases you might just make the media less interested in what you're doing. 

Here are the valid reasons in my book for trying to get the media interested in an ELT story:
1.  The ELT is in a town with no CAP presence, but it near enough that you could possibly get some recruits from some positive media coverage.
2.  There is something extremely unusual about the ELT mission itself -- such as it turns out to be a pizza oven or some other crazy item, or is in the back of a pickup that has to be tracked down the highway for hours.  Your standard accidental activation of an ELT/EPIRB isn't going to be reported. 
3.  The media hears about it and calls.  Sometimes word about an ELT mission will be picked up by the media or someone will think it is an actual crash.  In that case you need to get an IO on it to get the right story out. 
4.  First mission for a new unit or a new ground team. 
5.  ELT missions are so rare where you are at that it actually is newsworthy in and of itself.  And by rare, I'm talking about the first one in a few years.  If you do one every month, its not news.
6.  If the ELT is far away from your unit, sending your unit on an "away game" might just be newsworthy enough to get some coverage and show your capabilities. 
7.  Obviously if it turns out to be a distress mission and you find yourself at a wrecked plane, you need to get your IO on the ball ASAP after you figure it out. 

Now, for just about any other type of actual mission you can imagine, you should be using an IO if at all possible. 

[Short Field]

Personally, I think you should hold a public affairs technician rating before being allowed to even start training as an IO.  ...  I'd rather us get no coverage on a mission than have an IO give an absolutely horrible interview or quote. 

I was honestly horrified to see the IO for the Fawcett mission talking to the public in a flight suit. 

Agree to disagree here.  So long as it is a clean, presentable uniform I don't mind.  There is something to be said to presenting an image of "we're working hard" over "look at my ribbons" in terms of uniforms.

Totally agree on establishing a PAO requirement for IOs. 

CAP got some of the best press we have ever had for the Fosset search.  And that TV clip Lordmonar posted from his DRE is stuff you can't buy.  It took some really professional contacts and prep work to get it to come out like it did.  The quote "It 's what we do" is priceless! 

[JohnKachenmeister]

SARGrunt:

You are dating yourself.  There WAS a time when giving a media briefing in BDU's or a flight suit would have been a flogging offense.  Such is NOT the case anymore.

I'm not saying that the change is good, only that the world of "Appropriate Dress" in any given situation has changed.

Yes, there IS a shortage of QUALIFED IO's in CAP who can handle press relations at a mission.  

[DeputyDog]

1.  Do we have a shortage of IOs in CAP?

We have approximately 600 qualified information officers nationally (just pulled the data out of Ops Quals). However, there is no way in knowing what percentage of that number is active. That gives you around 11 qualified information officers per wing.

I have 6 qualified information officers in my wing, and in a recent wing SAREX that I was the IC of, 3 of them were filling other critical roles, and the other 3 refused to show up.

So yes, I would say there is a shortage. For every qualified IC, I would say you would want 2 to 3 qualified information officers (that way at least one is available and willing to be an IO at a mission). Right now we have approximately 680 qualified incident commanders nationally.

2.  Should we use IOs more frequently so that they gain true experience, even for the local ELT hunt that turned up only a erroneous ELT.

Oh yes. They can at least write a short press release to send out to the local newspapers. That could be done after the sun comes up.

[Duke Dillio]

SARGrunt:

You are dating yourself.  There WAS a time when giving a media briefing in BDU's or a flight suit would have been a flogging offense.  Such is NOT the case anymore.

I'm not saying that the change is good, only that the world of "Appropriate Dress" in any given situation has changed.

Yes, there IS a shortage of QUALIFED IO's in CAP who can handle press relations at a mission.  

I know Kach.  I'm an old fogey.  Let the flogging begin!!!  Beat me senseless please!!!

[Tubacap]

The reasoning for my question about layered levels for the IO slot is for guidance as to when to employ an IO.  I think that currently, the tasking for the IO would give a person the tools to handle a mission associated with an IC3.  If you look at the FEMA courses for PIOs a lot of the advanced lessons deal with law and missions, risk communication, and handling the pressures of being an IO.  I think this would be something associated with an IC2 or IC1 level mission.

So with a shortage already, just heaping on a bunch of requirements is just going to make the pool shrink further.  I think if you "bait" them into learning to get a higher qualification, you may get somewhere.  You also add in the number of training exercises, and get more people participating in the IO capacity at some level.

Thoughts?

[RiverAux]

Nah, I think this is one where if we strengthened up the requirements for all of them a bit that would be good enough.  Pretty much any mission we do has a small potential for becoming a major media storm even if it wasn't a major mission.

Frankly, I'm not really sure that we're really paying much attention to what IC level someone is when assigning missions anyway.

I wonder how many of those 600 IOs are actually hard-core IOs and how many are primarily ICs who picked that up on the side somewhere and don't really do that mission specifically very often.   

[Tubacap]

When I looked over at the PAWG list, they were mostly ICs. 

As far as being assigned to any ELT hunt, we don't have a ton, usually, in our area, so any deployment is noteworthy for that instance.  We do a lot of missing persons searches, and it would be nice to provide an IO for those, because usually it is the multi-agency IC running it, and it ends up looking very... backwaterish for lack of a better term.

[RiverAux]

Definetely for the missing person searches, though the approach to the lead agency will have to be very careful.  If you can get in a situation where they depend on your IO for these sorts of missions, you're golden.  But, their own agency IO might get a bit defensive (if they have one), in which case you've got to be even more careful about how you do things. 

[Tubacap]

Right, the idea being that most organizations that we deal with on these missions do not have any sort of formal IO.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Definetely for the missing person searches, though the approach to the lead agency will have to be very careful.  If you can get in a situation where they depend on your IO for these sorts of missions, you're golden.  But, their own agency IO might get a bit defensive (if they have one), in which case you've got to be even more careful about how you do things. 

One of the first things a PAO in the military does is clarify his release authority.  If I were the IO on a missiing person search I would coordinate all releases through the supported agency PAO.

This is DINFOS 101.

DINFOS= The Defense Information School.  "The Ranger School of the Mind."

(Graduate, Public Affairs Officer Course 2-84)

[Eagle400]

One of the first things a PAO in the military does is clarify his release authority.  If I were the IO on a missiing person search I would coordinate all released through the supported agency PAO.

This is DINFOS 101.

Isin't that also a requirement for CAP PAO's?  

If it is not, shame on CAP.

Tags - MIKE

[DeputyDog]

Isin't that also a requirement for CAP PAO's?  

If it is not, shame on CAP.

Tags - MIKE

In emergency services, it is IO. Yes, IO's are required to do so.

[PWK-GT]

So I am currently taking a class in Risk Communication, and I am doing my final paper on the analysis between a CAP Information Officer, and what is available to the general volunteer and paid responders in regards to training from FEMA and local state EMA's.

So my questions are...

1.  Do we have a shortage of IOs in CAP?

2.  Should we use IOs more frequently so that they gain true experience, even for the local ELT hunt that turned up only a erroneous ELT.

3.  Why is the IO track not delineated like most of the others with various levels responding to various types of incidents.

4.  Could these be one of the contributing factors to the "best kept secret" syndrome?

5.  How do we improve, if we need to?

1.) Yes. Definitely. But, then again, we seem to have a shortage of Tech rated (or higher) PAO's as well here in my Wing.

2.) We need more mission types that would truly utilize an IO. As others have mentioned here, in most cases the standard non-distress ELT mission gets them no real training to gain proficiency. That stated, I do think an IO should be alerted on any mission, as you never know what the 'real' end story will be... it could be an actual.

3.) I'm not sure there is a need there for the multi-levels, but YMMV. (See my answer to #5)

4.) Possibly. But, the real job falls to the unit-level PA in MHO. The IO will tend to be 'the guy' in a visible situation......but how many potential new members or exposure do we get here, as opposed to the weekly unit-level offings of a good PAO. My experience has been that the PAO is the real determining factor in a unit being known locally or not.

5.) Stop playing the 'add more Fam-Prep' game in this SQTR (and others). As a Tech rated PAO (need 2 IO missions for my Senior Level), I have been frustrated somewhat by opening the SQTR up for IO, progressing thru it to about 80%, and then finding that MSA was inserted in e-services under FAM-Prep. So, I knock out MSA over a couple of months, and BAM-- now we have the NIMS IS 300-400 issue inserted. While I hold 100,200,700,and 800 completion..the availability locally of the in-residence courses conflict with my paying job 100% of the time. So, here we go again. And frankly, with the 300 / 400 completion complete, I'm not sure there would be a need for the multi-layers of IO as suggested in Tubacap's #3.

I should say that I agree with the notion that an IO should be up to the 300-400 level, as it fills in the 'big picture' nicely. The few IO-T's that I know all are on hold for this completion, even though we have some time before this inclusion's enforcement date.

And another big issue locally, is the number of SET's available for this rating. Hard to get the training and the sign-off if you can't get one in front of you at a mission. I am currently wondering if there might be a way to insert a 'media person' (role-playing CAP member) at a SAREX, in order to get some practice on these tasks. But, I'm not convinced it does anything more practical than getting boxes checked off.

Just my $0.02 worth.....

[DNall]

There's no reason not to use them on a simple ELT activation where there won't be significant media inquiries.

Whats the story?  Do the police put out press releases about every false burglar alarm they investigate?  Does the fire department do it for false fire alarms? 

To some extent public affairs folks have to keep their powder dry.  If you send in to many press releases you might just make the media less interested in what you're doing. 

Granted. It's a PAO situation, and depends on your market. Small town/subrub paper. Slow news day. keep up the contacts. Have some cool looking B-roll pics from training. Same story has run a thousand times. It makes the front of the NHQ site a couple times a month. It's almost always good for a blotter type blurb on page 14. It might be good to catch some interest & get a feature down the road.

The better one is build up that contact & give them an in-depth at a SaREx. The more you can do to foster those relations, the better it'll pay off when the situation really hits the fan.

Obviously you don't oversell a small time story. At the same time, I think we do a very poor job of selling up our part in big stories. IO is a critical position for the org, and one I think we don't make best use of. I've worked with some very good ICs & mission staffs, but my chief complaint in those situations has been bad media mgmt. I know that's not their concern at the moment, and it shouldn't be, which is why we have IOs. We got some good ones around too, but I'm not running a mission again with the IO working from home/office a hundred miles away over his cell while there's five live trucks parked outside my ICP. That's silly.

[JohnKachenmeister]

One of the first things a PAO in the military does is clarify his release authority.  If I were the IO on a missiing person search I would coordinate all released through the supported agency PAO.

This is DINFOS 101.

Isin't that also a requirement for CAP PAO's?  

If it is not, shame on CAP.

Tags - MIKE

Should be.

That's why its DINFOS 101.  This is basic stuff.

IF CAP is working with other agencies, the IO/PAO (The military abandoned "IO" in favor of "PAO" to better describe the nature of the job, which is more than simply providing information, and to avoid confusion with "Information Management."

[RiverAux]

One of the isssues that is starting to arise is how to best use an IO on one of these distributed SAREXs or on a mission where there is an ICP quite a distance away from where our planes are landing, getting fueled, etc.  The media is more likely to show up where the planes are, which is close to where the search area is.  Meanwhile, your IO is probably back at the ICP leaving no one to really deal with the on-scene media. 

[DNall]

Nothing wrong with an IO staff reporting through IO to IC. You go where the work is. Honestly, with solid media coverage you're going to want to be doing formal press briefings on a regular basis, every couple hours would be nice. That's going to be your primary at the ICP. If you have media hanging around remote locations then you should have someone out there to take questions off camera, read prepared statements, and pass requests thru the IO. A media LO basically.

Far as distributed SaRExs. I don't know how others are running those, but it's really just an umbrella for several small virtually seperate SaRExs. We have a full up staff at each regional location. You get more staff training in that way. We may also remotely dispatch from sub-locations that are doing other training on the ground.

[RiverAux]

Dnall, you are very correct about how things should be run in an ideal world, but the fact is that we don't have enough IOs to operate that way in the real world. 

The obvious answer is to train more Information Officers, but it isn't that easy.  This is a real different skill than that of the majority of folks recruited into CAP bring to the table.  Its one thing to train a pilot to be an AOBD or a GTL into a GBD, but this is a different story. 

Sure, there are some PAOs out there in the squadrons that could become IOs, but not all of them are interested in it whether because they're not ES-oriented in general or perhaps they're not interested in the stress of serving as an IO on a high-profile mission. 

The shocking thing is that this issue isn't actually confined to the smaller states.  I have heard that even Texas is quite short of IOs. 

[floridacyclist]

I think one of the first things to do is to get what IO-interested people you can into the FEMA intro PIO course. It is usually offered by the state EMA and is two days long. Just having a little formal training under the belt can help with confidence a lot when it is time to step up.

[DNall]

Dnall, you are very correct about how things should be run in an ideal world, but the fact is that we don't have enough IOs to operate that way in the real world. 

The obvious answer is to train more Information Officers, but it isn't that easy.  This is a real different skill than that of the majority of folks recruited into CAP bring to the table.  Its one thing to train a pilot to be an AOBD or a GTL into a GBD, but this is a different story. 

Sure, there are some PAOs out there in the squadrons that could become IOs, but not all of them are interested in it whether because they're not ES-oriented in general or perhaps they're not interested in the stress of serving as an IO on a high-profile mission. 

The shocking thing is that this issue isn't actually confined to the smaller states.  I have heard that even Texas is quite short of IOs. 

Two things on that point.

One, the guy out at the remote location is not the IO. He's an LO. He's just accepting questions from media & passing them to the IO for answers, providing off-camera background info, and maybe reading prepared statements from the IO. That is not all that challenging.

Second, this is one of the narrow areas where I do feel ES should be tied to a specialty track progression like it is in Comm. All those Sq PAOs could be required to meet the IO standards to gate thru their tech/sr/master ratings. That doesn't mean they have to stay qual'd or have to do much in the way of ES, but it gives them some ES familiarization, which they need as a unit PAO anyway, and it should increase the pool from which we can draw.

[RiverAux]

One, the guy out at the remote location is not the IO. He's an LO. He's just accepting questions from media & passing them to the IO for answers, providing off-camera background info, and maybe reading prepared statements from the IO. That is not all that challenging.

Actually he is not, or would not in any mission I run.  You can set up a more in-depth system for handling IO duties during a major mission and could employ multiple Information Officers at remote locations.  This is covered in the Joint Information Center concept in various NIMs documents. 

The media will not want to really talk to a guy who is just passing on questions and waiting for answers.  That just won't work.  They're not going to want to submit a list of prepared questions for transmittal to mission base and then have Lt. Snuffy read those answers to them.  They just don't work that way. 

Second, this is one of the narrow areas where I do feel ES should be tied to a specialty track progression like it is in Comm. All those Sq PAOs could be required to meet the IO standards to gate thru their tech/sr/master ratings. That doesn't mean they have to stay qual'd or have to do much in the way of ES, but it gives them some ES familiarization, which they need as a unit PAO anyway, and it should increase the pool from which we can draw.

Well, I've already said I'm for making tech rating a requirement for IO, but I don't really think we want to make all our PAOs into Information Officers.  Frankly, some just won't be able to cut it working in that environment.  They may be fine sending out press releases about cadet promotions and occassionally escorting a media person around at some local event and talking about CAP in general, but being an IO is a little bit different.  A lot more high pressure situation. 

[Tubacap]

Dealing with the pressure aspect is why I think that going to the advanced PIO course would be outstanding.  Or for that matter taking any sort of risk communication course.

[SARMedTech]

Since we are working toward being NIMS compliant: a LO or Liaison Officer is the bridge between agencies to help assure some semblance of interoperability. the IO or PIO gathers and disseminates information. A reporter asks a question, the IO (PIO) gets the information and relates it as prudently as possible.

[DesertFlyer]

5.) Stop playing the 'add more Fam-Prep' game in this SQTR (and others). As a Tech rated PAO (need 2 IO missions for my Senior Level), I have been frustrated somewhat by opening the SQTR up for IO, progressing thru it to about 80%, and then finding that MSA was inserted in e-services under FAM-Prep. So, I knock out MSA over a couple of months, and BAM-- now we have the NIMS IS 300-400 issue inserted. While I hold 100,200,700,and 800 completion..the availability locally of the in-residence courses conflict with my paying job 100% of the time. So, here we go again. And frankly, with the 300 / 400 completion complete, I'm not sure there would be a need for the multi-layers of IO as suggested in Tubacap's #3.

I agree.  My paying job is as a PIO. In that function for the past 15 years, I've logged a lot of time in front of TV cameras being grilled by the media.  Before that, I was a newspaper reporter and editor.  Naturally, I thought I could contribute to CAP pretty quickly as an IO, and started cranking out the NIMS courses.  Now there's MSA.  And if 300/400 are required, I haven't seen those offered anywhere near here. There may be a need for IOs, but it's going to be a long time before I can help fill that need, even though I've been doing that kind of work for decades.

[SARMedTech]

5.) Stop playing the 'add more Fam-Prep' game in this SQTR (and others). As a Tech rated PAO (need 2 IO missions for my Senior Level), I have been frustrated somewhat by opening the SQTR up for IO, progressing thru it to about 80%, and then finding that MSA was inserted in e-services under FAM-Prep. So, I knock out MSA over a couple of months, and BAM-- now we have the NIMS IS 300-400 issue inserted. While I hold 100,200,700,and 800 completion..the availability locally of the in-residence courses conflict with my paying job 100% of the time. So, here we go again. And frankly, with the 300 / 400 completion complete, I'm not sure there would be a need for the multi-layers of IO as suggested in Tubacap's #3.

I agree.  My paying job is as a PIO. In that function for the past 15 years, I've logged a lot of time in front of TV cameras being grilled by the media.  Before that, I was a newspaper reporter and editor.  Naturally, I thought I could contribute to CAP pretty quickly as an IO, and started cranking out the NIMS courses.  Now there's MSA.  And if 300/400 are required, I haven't seen those offered anywhere near here. There may be a need for IOs, but it's going to be a long time before I can help fill that need, even though I've been doing that kind of work for decades.

There lots of emergeny services courses offered up in Albuquerque and I am sure you could find ICS 300.

[DNall]

One, the guy out at the remote location is not the IO. He's an LO. He's just accepting questions from media & passing them to the IO for answers, providing off-camera background info, and maybe reading prepared statements from the IO. That is not all that challenging.

Actually he is not, or would not in any mission I run.  You can set up a more in-depth system for handling IO duties during a major mission and could employ multiple Information Officers at remote locations.  This is covered in the Joint Information Center concept in various NIMs documents.

Dnall, you are very correct about how things should be run in an ideal world, but the fact is that we don't have enough IOs to operate that way in the real world.

Okay great, now juxtapose those two statements for me...

The media will not want to really talk to a guy who is just passing on questions and waiting for answers.  That just won't work.  They're not going to want to submit a list of prepared questions for transmittal to mission base and then have Lt. Snuffy read those answers to them.  They just don't work that way.

Granted. What they will do it talk to the on-scene media liaison. That person can readily say they aren't authorized to release any information at this time. Regular briefings are happening at the ICP by the IO, but if they have any issues here at this remote location then I'll be happy to help you with those. He can still do most of the IO position, but the central IO is still the decision maker.

Second, this is one of the narrow areas where I do feel ES should be tied to a specialty track progression like it is in Comm. All those Sq PAOs could be required to meet the IO standards to gate thru their tech/sr/master ratings. That doesn't mean they have to stay qual'd or have to do much in the way of ES, but it gives them some ES familiarization, which they need as a unit PAO anyway, and it should increase the pool from which we can draw.

Well, I've already said I'm for making tech rating a requirement for IO, but I don't really think we want to make all our PAOs into Information Officers.  Frankly, some just won't be able to cut it working in that environment.  They may be fine sending out press releases about cadet promotions and occassionally escorting a media person around at some local event and talking about CAP in general, but being an IO is a little bit different.  A lot more high pressure situation. 

Absolutely it's a higher pressure situation. Maybe something you'd equate to a Sr Rating in Public Affairs rather than the ordinary tech rating?

[Duke Dillio]

I have some difficulty accepting that any rating as a PAO would be extremely helpful to a mission IO.  The first point that I would make is that they are two totally different spectrums.  I would expect a squadron PAO to be looking for things to get into the local newspaper, TV, or radio.  I would want them to disseminate all kinds of information on CAP, its' mission, and where to contact us.  On the other hand, I wouldn't want a mission IO just spreading all kinds of information.  It is good that they work with the local media to get the "true story" out however there are some types of information that the IO needs to keep "hidden" until the right moment. 

Sometimes, the media just doesn't care about the impact of information.  They just want to get their story out to boost their ratings.  There have been instances in the past where reporters, armed with scanners, showed up at crash sites and started taking pictures of bodies and reporting fatalities on their broadcasts, much to the horror of the families who hadn't been notified.  There was a plane crash, which CAP was not involved with, near Sacramento last Thanksgiving in which the reporter and the camera were showing live pictures of the upturned airplane, reporting that two people had been killed with the tail number visible to all.

This is most probably why the wings I have been in have switched to code words or use of cell phones to report finds.  The information officer gets this information and, through the IC, relays it to the media if they ask.  If you were to take the PAO approach to being an IO, I could see bad things being put out.  I understand that there is good information in the tech and senior PAO specialty tracks however I think that it is easier to train someone as an IO correctly from scratch then to have to untrain them and then retrain them.  It just seems like there is a different theology there to me between the two jobs.

OK, flame me now.....

[Smithsonia]

Crisis Management in the Media/PR field looks like IO and PAO in the CAP world. Think of it as a hostage negotiations. The local on-camera guy is the hostage. The background mysterious "higher authority" is the negotiator... the media (while not the bad guys in any real sense... ARE analogous to the hostage takers.) PAOs are there to be nice, shake hands, kiss babies, look for stories to push, be the good cop, etc. IOs are fierce resources waging war inside the hot crucible of the deadline driven always multiple agenda-ridden battleground of the time pressured press conference. They are the negotiator the arbitor of information. What to say and when to say it.
It's no place to learn to swim... except as a background player.  

4 in 5 PAOs will NOT make good IOs until they've seen the messy battle in slow-mo while serving as an assistant. You can't train for war when no one around you has ever been to war, ever seen a war, or knows what a war looks like. Something the Swiss Army may want to keep in mind, by the way. Anyway, the best way to teach crisis managment is to go watch it up close, as such... ALL THOSE who wish to be an IO should take sub-assignments for/with Homeland Security. Work the war room under a pro... or in some cases watch what NOT to do by serving with an overwhelmed or incompotent pro. GO sit at a Wildland Fire HQ for a few days, be a resource for a FEMA manager at a tornado site. Do more than check boxes in the CAP manual.

We need to get better at everything. We need to get more professional. It's not just for our own good. Eventually it will be for our own survival. I advocate that all wanna-bee IOs and PAOs get with their WING's Homeland Security Liaison and start setting up a program of internship and intergration... NOW!!! Bring it up at your next Wing Staff meeting and implement it the following week.

With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[DNall]

Let me explain very clearly, I didn't say wave a magic wand & all PAOs become IOs. I said IO should be one of the requirements spread over the PAO specialty track, possibly at the Sr rating level.

I fundamentally disagree that they are different things. They're as different as IC on a practice mission to IC on a real mission. As a PAO you certainly are looking to push the story, where as an IO the story is pushing you to an extent. Controlling the story & delivering it thru the media is the same.

Even when I've seen good IOs they many times are just playing defense, trying to give the media enough information to leave ours staff alone. In a lot of ways they do need to be thinking more like PAOs.

And just so you know... the mil calls it PAO, NIMS calls it IO, it's the same thing.

[SARMedTech]

Practically speaking, under NIMS, a PAO and an IO are no where near the same job. Public affairs is a public relations job. IO is getting relevant and cleared information to outlets that have been cleared by the IC.

[DNall]

Practically speaking, under NIMS, a PAO and an IO are no where near the same job. Public affairs is a public relations job. IO is getting relevant and cleared information to outlets that have been cleared by the IC.

PAO is absolutely moving relevant cleared information to outlets. And IO is absolutely presenting CAP in the best light, keeping the attention of media, promoting CAP thru action.

They are different aspects of the same person. I understand the role of the PAO outside operations is a bit different than the IO during missions, but there is more similar about the two aspects than most other positions. I'm saying:

1) IO's don't have to be PAOs, but PAOs at some point in the their specialty track should also be trained as an IO. I mean bldg falls in kills cadet. Here's my PAO. And..

2) From the other side, I need more trained IOs, and I need IOs to be less defensive with a dash more PAO in there. Most of our people get hosed by the media cause they aren't controlling the situation, and certainly they are missing massive opportunities to do things right. It's important in a crisis to promote an org so as to create public confidence. Any follow on benefit is bonus.

[RiverAux]

Dnall, in the situation where an ICP is far from the actual mission site, there should be an IO at the ICP and an Assist. IO at the mission site (or nearest location where CAP members are concentrated).  The Asst. would be able to handle just about all questions from the media in a responsible way, but of course would do so in the context of what information is cleared for release by the IC through the IO. 

A liasion officer would be a very poor choice since they may or may not be a person you can trust to go on camera to even answer basic questions about CAP and the mission. 

PAO is basically the minor leagues compared to being an IO on a real mission, but to be a good IO you should also probably be a qualified PAO since being in that position has equipped you with the tools, experience, and contacts to become a good IO.   The reverse is not the case and I would not be at all in favor of having IO be a part of the PA specialty track. 

I think a tech rating in PAO is enough to qualify you to begin training as an IO.  You will have spent at least a year doing PAO duties and have gone through what PAO training CAP has.  The higher ratings basically just ask for more time in a PAO staff position and don't have much that would help you out more. 

[DNall]

River, you didn't fix the part where you contradict yourself...

One, the guy out at the remote location is not the IO. He's an LO. He's just accepting questions from media & passing them to the IO for answers, providing off-camera background info, and maybe reading prepared statements from the IO. That is not all that challenging.

Actually he is not, or would not in any mission I run.  You can set up a more in-depth system for handling IO duties during a major mission and could employ multiple Information Officers at remote locations.  This is covered in the Joint Information Center concept in various NIMs documents.

Dnall, you are very correct about how things should be run in an ideal world, but the fact is that we don't have enough IOs to operate that way in the real world.

Okay great, now juxtapose those two statements for me...

I agree that the remote location media liaison should be an IO, or at least an IO trainee that's trusted by the ICP staff. I didn't say it'd be any random LO, just that they'd be media liaison for that site & I belive I explained prety well what they'd be doing, which is a dang sight better than letting aircrews & GTs be addressed by the media & hope they aren't stupid.

I agree also that PAO is the minor leagues compared to IO. I didn't at any point say get rid of IO training cause the PAO specialty track will suffice. I believe I very clearly added that IO be added as a requirement for the PAO senior rating. In what way is a person with both a Sr PAO rating AND IO on their 101 less qualified than an IO w/o PAO experience? In what way does this make the PAO worse at their unit level job?

On the other hand, there are distinct advantages to adding IO to the PAO Sr rating requirements. from increasing the pool from which we can draw to making better PAOs.

[RiverAux]

No contradiction.  I was agreeing with your earlier statement that there should be an IO at the remote site under the control of the primary IO.  I was disagreeing with your idea that a LO could do the job.

[DNall]

Right, but we don't have adequate IOs. In such a situation, it's preferable to put a trainee over there, and the duties are really more like LO than IO, or maybe a combination of the two.

[PWK-GT]

Some have mentioned that IO should be tied to Sr. PAO ratings......but it already is, FYI. CAPP 201 lists it as a requirement under Senior Level (number 6 on the check list)...."Perform as trainee or primary IO on 2 SAR missions, training or actual".

Just my $0.02 worth......the wheel has already been invented.

[DNall]

^ Thanks. I'm not too familiar with that particular track. Glad to see that's the case.