CAC

[Masterone]

I'm on the CAC as a secondary person, ill be honest, I don't know how the primary got the primary spot, he barely participates and puts any input into the conversations he just sits back and does nothing, meanwhile I participate and put forth the effort. That's not my beef though, what is is that I want to continue in the CAC and move up to the wing level, but from my understanding of the rules only the primary can. Any suggestions?

[lordmonar]

The "rule" is that the commander at each level chooses his primary and alternate.

If you want to be your squadron primary....talk to your commander or DCC about your primary.

That simple.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Besides talking (and getting a ribbon after a year as a Primary), what else does your CAC do?

[DakRadz]

Also, there is a large push to have cadet officers in CAC- does the primary outrank you? Not saying that you're wrong or that you couldn't be put as the primary, but the original decision may have been made based on rank.

My CAC actually attempts to plan events at Group level such as Model Rocketry weekends, cadet SAREXs (where it's aimed at cadets participating with SM supervision), and maybe even a Military Ball.

And of course we forward suggestions up the chain, but it's easier to use it as a cadet planning forum as well, since most Cadet Commanders are on Group CAC.

[Майор Хаткевич]

And of course we forward suggestions up the chain, but it's easier to use it as a cadet planning forum as well, since most Cadet Commanders are on Group CAC.

That is not the intention of the CAC. Actually, given what the CAC is supposed to be, it's not much of anything...

[Eclipse]

My CAC actually attempts to plan events at Group level such as Model Rocketry weekends, cadet SAREXs (where it's aimed at cadets participating with SM supervision), and maybe even a Military Ball.

The "A" stands for "Advisory", not "Activity".

[DakRadz]

Okay, if we have to go that route...

The CAC advises. That takes... very little time. At the Group level, we are fairly like-minded (though I'm sure this isn't the case for everyone); decide what to advise on, and then we're done.

So then we pronounce the meeting over, change hats (or remove cords?) and act in capacity as the Group's ranking cadets and plan useful activities (other than the Mil Ball, which is low on priority list).
In all honesty, that was about the route the last CAC meeting took.

I guess this is the point of the "why have a CAC" argument. But if it were changed so that it could get cadets together and allow them to plan activities at their level, share best practices, etc., it might work out better.

[arajca]

WIWAC, the CAC actually ADVISED the wing commander on the cadet perspective of various policy and potential policies coming up. Wing commander tells CAC about a policy change. CAC goes back to their units and discusses the issue with the appropriate cadets (usually phase II and above). CAC meets at a specified location, compares notes, and writes up their report. CAC Secretary types up report (this was before everyone had computers). Next meeting, CAC reviews report (proof-read), CAC Chair signed it and sent it to the wing commander.

Lots of time spent for some, IMHO, well written reports. Until we found out the wing commander round filed the reports almost as soon as he got them.

[a2capt]

If done right, the CAC should be more than a 5 minute meeting. From that description, that sounds like a bunch of cadets that don't get it and instead are forming a clique of sorts.. 

..and that certainly does sound familiar ;-)

Sadly.. .

[Ned]

It is critical that the commander being supported (group, wing, etc.) actually identify topics and areas of concern, and communicate these to the CAC.

(And if the commander is having problems identifying the appropriate issues, the DCP and/or CAC senior advisor should be ready with a suggested list of areas of current concern for the commander's consideration.)

Once the commander has provided the areas/topics, the chair (working closely with the senior advisor) should structure the meeting to provide meaningful advice, which normally comes to the commander in the form of a position paper or similar presentation, supported by facts or other data.

This could be as simple as the wing commander asking what her/his position should be on the CP-related items on the upcoming NB agenda.

Or as complex a problem as asking for three specific suggestions that could be implemented at this echelon to improve cadet retention.


But it should never be just an unstructured meeting where the cadets offer unsolicted advice which is not recorded or otherwise transmitted in a useful format to the supported commander.

And I have always thought that it never hurts to ensure the meeting is useful, educational, and - just as importantly - fun.

Ned Lee
Senior Advisor to the NCAC

[arajca]

If done right, the CAC should be more than a 5 minute meeting. From that description, that sounds like a bunch of cadets that don't get it and instead are forming a clique of sorts.. 

..and that certainly does sound familiar ;-)

Sadly.. .

I'd argue that point. If the commander asks for a cadet viewpoint on policy XYZ, it'll take more than five minutes to come to an agreement on it. Yes, alot can be done electronically, but there's nothing like a face-to-face brawldiscussion to reach an appropriate response.

[titanII]

there's nothing like a face-to-face brawldiscussion to reach an appropriate response.

I lol'd 

[BillB]

There is nothinbg to prevent a Group CAC to plan training for cadets. Under CAPR 52-16 n7-1 C and 7-3 A, cadets can plan training and submit the activity paper to the Group CC for approval. They can not however plan and run the activity such as a training bivouac without the Group CC approval. While they can plan the activity, the problem is finding Senior Members for the instruction and control of the event. Thus quite often while the activity is worthwhile, the Group CC will not give the approval and staffing needed. Over the years since the 1950's when the original CAC was authorized, the duties and responsibilities of thre CAC has been downgraded, watered down if you wish.

[Ned]

There is nothinbg to prevent a Group CAC to plan training for cadets.

Of course.  There is nothing to prevent them from taking CPPT or going to a movie, either.

It just has nothing to do with the CAC's mission or structure.

Indeed, using a CAC to try to "plan" or conduct activities teaches all the wrong lessons.  If for no other reason than it would be difficult to imagine a a more poorly-designed structure to carry out detailed staff planning functions.

1.  CAC members were (presumeably) selected for their abilities to act as representatives for the unit, not their planning ability.
2.  The CAC leader (chair) does not have the ability to hire or fire the members of the group.  Each CAC member is accountable to their appointing authority, not the chair.
3.  The CAC leader does not have the ability to direct or supervise the CAC members outside of the meeting.
4.  The CAC leader cannot reward or punish the CAC members for good or poor performance as planners.
5.  All of the time the CAC spends planning or implementing activities could and should be spent actually performing their prescribed duties.

Using them to try to plan an activity just teaches them that the CAC is a poor vehicle to plan activities.  Not a totally useless lesson, but clearly not worth the frustration and negative attitudes generated. 

Please don't reinvent the wheel or use the wrong tool for a given job.

CACs, per the CAPR 52-16 and as thoroughly explained in the excellent CAPP 52-19 do three things:

1.  Provide an opportunity for cadets to gain leadership experience at higher organizational levels.
2.  Aid the commander in monitoring and implementing the cadet program.
3.  Make recommendations for improving the cadet program.

[a2capt]

Thank you, Ned.

I mean, you could have fooled me, where I've experienced garbage going on where the Chair has pretty much convinced themselves that they are a unit echelon and they have command over subordinates, complete with retaliation and retribution. Obviously the intention was for a group of cadets to be more like the House of Representatives, and create channels of communication from their constituents to their higher command.

[NCRblues]

Ned, I hate to be a stick in the mud but...

Your post is the reason CAC is dead and or on the way to being dead in many areas around the country. NCR still does not have a chair (it's listed as a c/Lt. Col, who is now a SM Capt. and squadron commander) and I don't see one coming down the line.

Why not use the CAC to help plan activities. Cadets know what they want to do. If all we can use the CAC for is to advise the commander on issues, than we might as well disband it on anything lower than national level.

A face to face meeting to do only what you described for many wings is worthless to say the least.

Our CAC recommends activities they would like to see done, and then helps plan them. I see nothing wrong with this; it keeps the CAC reps in the loop about the goings on of wing CP. They can then go back to the home squadron and inform that unit of the upcoming things and functions....not a bad deal if you ask me.

[Eclipse]

Thank you, Ned.

I mean, you could have fooled me, where I've experienced garbage going on where the Chair has pretty much convinced themselves that they are a unit echelon and they have command over subordinates, complete with retaliation and retribution. Obviously the intention was for a group of cadets to be more like the House of Representatives, and create channels of communication from their constituents to their higher command.

The problem comes with poor leadership from the Senior Advisers.   In many cases they know less about the cadet program then the cadets, but "someone had to unlock the building".

[a2capt]

The problem comes with poor leadership from the Senior Advisers.

Oh, I don't disagree there one bit. In fact, thats a prime argument as to why some of these hard core, hard cool cadets turned senior member should NOT be appointed CP positions, or become unit commanders even, except in special, well thought out cases,  for a couple years or so, after they've explored other parts of CAP. Because they hang on to that "I want to be a cadet", when sorry, the timer ran out. Just like the program existed before you came along, it will continue to exist after. There are others in the pipeline.

Thats when the clique/social club mentality starts and then it's a big downhill slide from there until someone does something stupid, or a leadership change becomes incompatible with it, and they break it up by appointing someone who understands what the goals and intentions of the program really are.

[Eclipse]

I know more than a few "seniors" in their 30's(+) who have never made the mental transition from being a cadet.
The realities of being young and headstrong don't make it any easier - there's noting like being a newly minted Senior Member
to really be able to "get things done with those troublesome cadets I was in ranks with yesterday...".

Most adults know how to deal appropriately with these situations, but cadets look upon these god-like creatures with awe and will
walk into a spinning prop before averting their gaze.

[lordmonar]

Ned, I hate to be a stick in the mud but...

Your post is the reason CAC is dead and or on the way to being dead in many areas around the country. NCR still does not have a chair (it's listed as a c/Lt. Col, who is now a SM Capt. and squadron commander) and I don't see one coming down the line.

Why not use the CAC to help plan activities. Cadets know what they want to do. If all we can use the CAC for is to advise the commander on issues, than we might as well disband it on anything lower than national level.

Because they have no authority, they are outside the chain of command, and that is not their job.