Let's make some changes now

[ltcmark]

In light of what has happened at the National level, I thought that I would put in my two cents worth.

After having served in the command staff of wing and applying for the Wing Commander slot on three different occasions, I have learned that to be Wing Commander does not take any specific knowledge of the CAP program.  Currently, the biggest determining factors for being Wing Commander is not "what you know, it is who you know".   The second is the ability to be a "yes" person for the higher ups.

This has been proven over and over again throughout the country.  Now, if you do not believe this, just look at the shape of the wings, regions and national.

OK, so how do we prevent this?

1.  Do away with commanders appointing commanders above the group level.  Start a selection process for wing, group and National commanders that utilizes a command selection board. 

a.  For Wing and Region, I would make this a minimum of 5 people with at least 3 being USAF officers (Major and above), the other 2 former commanders at the level above the application.   These 5 people will be from a different region of the country where the selection process is being held.

b.  The national commander would be selected by 7 officers, 5 of which would be USAF senior command officers, 2 from the BoG.  Final approval by the BoG Chairman and Air University Commander.

I would also require that anyone that applies for wing commander and above must have certain qualifications in CAP.  In my experience, my Level 5 counts for nothing other than a pretty award hanging on my wall.  I know for a fact, commanders have been selected with only a level 3!!!

The CAPR 35-9 as it stands now is a joke.  Let's go from suggestion to some cold hard requirements.

OLD suggested requirements:               
Minimum qualifications for consideration as wing commander are:

a. Hold at least the CAP grade of major.
b. Completed Level IV of the Senior Member Training Program.
c. Three years command and staff experience at any level within a wing.
d. Budget and asset acquisition knowledge gained within or outside CAP.
e. Five years supervisory experience gained within or outside CAP.
f. Five years total CAP membership with no less than three continuous years of service prior to appointment.
g. Prior to appointment as wing commander, individual must complete a successful fingerprint rescreening.

NEW qualifications to even apply:

Qualifications for consideration as wing commander are:

a. Hold the CAP grade of Lt Col.
b. Completed Level V of the Senior Member Training Program.
c.  Hold a master rating in one:  Emergency Services, Cadet Programs, Aerospace Education.
d.  Hold a current emergency services rating.
e. 5 years command experience as squadron or group commander.
f. Budget and asset acquisition knowledge gained within or outside CAP.
g. 15 years total CAP membership with no less than five continuous years of service prior to appointment.
h.  Individual must complete a successful fingerprint rescreening with application.
i.  These requirements cannot be waived.

The other big change that I would make is a change to the Constitution and By-Laws:

All voting by the National Board and the National Executive Committee shall be by closed voting in one box.

The overall effect would be elimination of the good-ol-boy network and this would give us a tremendous amount of credibility with the Air Force.

I know that the USAF and CAP commanders read this, lets put some good suggestions on this posting that they can seriously consider.

[RiverAux]

I think your selection criteria are excellent though I'm skeptical of the selection process you outlined.  Frankly, I don't really think that AF officers are necessarily the best judges of the people who have what it takes to run a volunteer organization.

Personally I favor elections of commanding officers at all levels suc has the CG Aux does:
-squadron members elect squadron commanders
-squadron commanders elect group commanders and wing commanders (I don't think enough states have enough groups to make an election where group commanders elect the wing commander.  I think squadron commanders would still make good judges of potential wing commanders.
-wing commanders elect region commanders and national commanders (for same reason as given above for skipping elections by group commanders). 

However, to make this workable, we have to take the power to kick members out away from the hands of CAP members and give it to CAP-USAF State Directors.  This will eliminate the "stacking the deck" issue.   

[mdickinson]

[suggested] NEW qualifications for consideration as wing commander:
Hold the CAP grade of Lt Col

Bad idea. Sometimes the most qualified person, best for the wing, hasn't been in long enough to be a Lt Col yet. Major is the right level to require.

Completed Level V of the Senior Member Training Program.

Bad idea. Level V is not required for any grade and is a thoroughly optional thing, undertaken only by people who have the time and inclination. A highly skilled squadron or group commander is likely to be someone who has been up to their ears in the running their (highly successful) unit, and is therefore likely to have gotten no farther than level III or IV. The current reqt (Level IV) is the correct level to require.

Hold a master rating in one:  Emergency Services, Cadet Programs, Aerospace Education.

That's a great idea - except it should be a senior rating, not master. (Do you realize how insanely difficult it is to attain a master rating in ES?) Or perhaps this would be even better: "must attain at least a technician rating in each of these specialty tracks: ES, CP, and AE."

Hold a current emergency services rating.

Yes - great idea to require current ES experience.
I would also consider making it more specific, such as "must hold one of the following ratings: Transport Mission Pilot, SAR/DR Mission Pilot, Mission Observer, or Mission Scanner." Serving on an aircrew is an experience that no wing commander should be without - there's something comforting about knowing the person who approves maintenance expenditures has been up there in the air, dealing with the results (good or bad) of the wing's maintenance policies...

5 years command experience as squadron or group commander.

No. What if the most brilliant, clearly-best-choice person has only 3 years of command experience? Might not happen in your wing, but in the smaller wings (Idaho, Wyoming, Delaware, Rhode Island, etc.) the best-person-for-the-job may very well have only 2 or 3 years of command. Don't tie the hands of those who must make the choice!

15 years total CAP membership with no less than five continuous years of service prior to appointment.

No! See above argument regarding years of command. While it's true that a member gains valuable experience in years 7 through 15, it would be ridiculous to disqualify everyone with less than 15 years in CAP. Seven years seems like it would be the right number - ten at the most.

Some of your suggested requirements sound great; others sound (forgive me) as if you were trying to develop a formula that will disqualify everyone in your wing but you... 

[ZigZag911]

I don't think Mashcraft is trying to disqualify everyone but himself; I believe he is trying to disqualify the 'instant wing commanders' who take over a wingmere months after joining CAP.

His ideas, I think, are on the right track.....I think we should want to raise the standards and criteria for appointment to senior commands:

1) Lt Col is the right eligibility gateway for wing commanders....it means a promotion to O-6, and frankly, I'm tired of seeing incompetent clowns skip multiple grades simply because of who their friends are!

2) Level IV is sufficient for wing commander; region or national ought to require Level V.

3) Some promotion/selection process ought to be in place for all commanders; I like USAF involvement, though I don't think AF members need to be majority: I'd like to see one USAF O-5 and one E-7 for squadron & group selection boards; an O-6 and an E-8 for wing & region; and a General Officer and an E-9 for national commander & vice commander (all these AF folks could be active or retired, Regular, Reserve, or Guard). Criteria for CAP board members should be same as selectees for CAP rep to BOG.  Through region level the boards would submit a 'short list' of 2 or 3  to appointing authority for final selection; national appointment recommendations would go to BOG for selection.


4) Commander/deputy or vice experience is necessary....3-5 years squadron or group for a wing CC or region CC (if you can command a wing, you can command a region, it's almost entirely an administrative HQ)...a full term as wing or region CC
for national office.for

[davedove]

I like the idea of requirements to hold the Commanders' positions, but what do you do if you don't have any candidates that are qualified?  You would have to have some sort of provision for that.  Perhaps if there weren't any qualified candidates, part of the requirement for them to take the position would be to complete the requirments within a certain amount of time.  If they weren't showing adequate progress, they would be removed.

[jimmydeanno]

^then you hire someone from another wing to the east?

[capchiro]

Although I appreciate the want to place someone of the Holy Trinity at the Master Level, I would not limit it to that.  I can see where someone such as a PAO with a master's level could be a great Wing Commander and really be instrumental making sure that the word was getting out.  A great leader doesn't need to be great in everything or even one of the Holy Trinities, but they must know how to surround themselves with really good people expert in each area.  i don't know if Schwartzkopf (pardon the spelling) could drive a tank or shoot a howitzer, but he sure knew who could and where they needed to be..

[Sgt. Savage]

SKip the prerequisites for wing commander. Make them do a promotion borad with all of the region commanders. That eliminates favoritism. As a matter of fact, I could support making all commanders do a promotion board of some sort. Appointed positions are often political and don't always select the best candidate.

[O-Rex]

Wow, this is good stuff: probably the most insightful CAPTalk thread yet!  :angel:

Selection Boards to elimiante "Goombah-ism" would be a real plus!

[davedove]

Although I appreciate the want to place someone of the Holy Trinity at the Master Level, I would not limit it to that.  I can see where someone such as a PAO with a master's level could be a great Wing Commander and really be instrumental making sure that the word was getting out.  A great leader doesn't need to be great in everything or even one of the Holy Trinities, but they must know how to surround themselves with really good people expert in each area.  i don't know if Schwartzkopf (pardon the spelling) could drive a tank or shoot a howitzer, but he sure knew who could and where they needed to be..

That's true.  A leader doesn't have to know, and in reality can't know, everything.  However, a good leader is wise enough to know what he doesn't know and surrounds himself with those who do have the knowledge.

[dwb]

I like the requirements as they are now.  They provide a guideline, but don't tie the hands of the person making the decision.

Ultimately, some bad eggs will make it into the carton, no matter what the criteria are.  For instance, if you had:

- Candidate A: Lt Col, Level V, five years Sq CC experience, been in CAP for 25 years, several Master ratings, SAR/DR pilot, and completely politically inept and has earned the ire of lots of his associates, or

- Candidate B: Maj, Level IV, three years Sq CC, been in CAP 10 years, one Master rating, politically savvy and understands the "big picture" and the responsibilities of a corporate officer

Who would you choose?  By the OP's criteria, B is automatically ruled out because the requirements aren't flexible.

This isn't an unrealistic scenario, either... even in big Wings, there are probably 3-5 viable candidates for Wing CC at most, and not all of them meet the stringent requirements laid out in this proposal.

I understand what you're trying to do here, I really do.  However, there are no objective criteria that can be applied that will weed out all of the clearly-not-qualified Wing CCs.  Sometimes they pluck a guy that has only been in for four years, because there's just no one else.

This all said, I do agree with the idea of getting the CAP-USAF folks involved in the Region/National CC vetting process.  If you can establish a baseline of quality NEC members, eventually, the NB will improve as well, becuase those good Region CCs aren't going to want bad Wing CCs.

[mikeylikey]

Lets also add that to be a commander at any level you had to have been a a cadet who AT LEAST earned the Mitch.  That will add to making the candidate "well rounded".

[Hawk200]

Lets also add that to be a commander at any level you had to have been a a cadet who AT LEAST earned the Mitch.  That will add to making the candidate "well rounded".

I don't like that one. Only former cadets would be eligible for command. Any experience that a former cadet had by the time they would be nominated would be outdated now. The cadet program changes a good bit over the generations.

Now if you wanted a potential commander to have taken all the CP tests, I wouldn't have a problem with that. At least they'd know what the cadets are learning.

[mikeylikey]

^OK.  How about instead of that, the candidate must hold a Master rating in the three missions. 

I have a huge problem with the PRO DEV program as it is right now.  You can pencil whip a person thorugh the program if you wanted to.     

[Hawk200]

^OK.  How about instead of that, the candidate must hold a Master rating in the three missions. 

I have a huge problem with the PRO DEV program as it is right now.  You can pencil whip a person thorugh the program if you wanted to.     

You get people just pencil whipping anything. It's not hard to do. You just have to pay attention to the resume provided, and ensure that everything is kosher. Hopefully, the people that would be nominated for command positions have the integrity to have done things the right way, and the foresight to bring copies of all the paperwork documenting what they have done.

One of our cadets went to an encampment, and had a discussion on when people got their awards. Another cadet hadn't finished all the Armstrong requirements, but was wearing the C/CMSGT anyway. Said he just put it on, and that no one really cared if he hadn't completed everything yet. The lack of intergrity isn't limited to the Senior Member side of the house.

Sounds like a selection board is probably the best idea for higher command positions. Anyone that has performed certain jobs should be able to answer questions about it. It's about the only way to know if they have legitimately met the requirements. It would involve more time, but at least their experience would be verified.

[BillB]

Why require a Master rating in ES? That's only a third of the program. I can see having a Masters rating in at least one area, but how many people nationwide have all three Masters ratings in AE, ES, and CP? And I question having been an active member for past five years. You have alot of people that drop membership for a couple of years then come back to the program. The requirement for a total of X years is logical depending on how many years is slected. I know several people that have 35+ years in the program, completed level 5, but may have a break in membership of a few years.  X number of years in a command position is also logical. But here again, you often drop from command to take another position after a few years. Burn out is very common in several areas namely command, and higher level cadet programs and ES.

[ZigZag911]

How about this for Wing CC PD requirement?

Meet the mandatory requirements for appointment as Plans & Programs Officer, Senior Level:

that involves Master in any specialty, and at least a Tech in AE, CP or ES (plus completion of Level II)

Region CCs & up should meet mandatory requirements for P & P, Master level.

Note I am saying meet requirements, not actually hold position.

[RogueLeader]

I think a tech in PD should also be included for various reasons, more later, gtg.

[Hawk200]

How about this for Wing CC PD requirement?

Meet the mandatory requirements for appointment as Plans & Programs Officer, Senior Level:

that involves Master in any specialty, and at least a Tech in AE, CP or ES (plus completion of Level II)

Region CCs & up should meet mandatory requirements for P & P, Master level.

Note I am saying meet requirements, not actually hold position.

That seems like something worth considering. Covers a number of bases, and meeting requirements, as opposed to actually serving in it, doesn't really discriminate.

[RogueLeader]

I think a tech in PD should also be included for various reasons, more later, gtg.

Continued, I understand why the AE, ES, and CP are desired, but I also think that a knowledge of Senior Programs( aka PD) is also a plus. Say you have an officer that came in as a Capt with a Special Promotion.  That member does Level One and then gets his Tech Rating.  Then the Wing King sees that the member has been in for a few years and says "Oh you've been in for XX years, and should be a Major."  Thats fine, except that the member doesn't have Level II done- No AFIADL-13.  That member could be qualified for Level III if the test was taken.  While its good that those on top notice their people, and want to reward them; it needs to be done properly.