The CAC. What can it really accomplish.

[Eclipse]

I'd be willing to bet that the majority of us are from states that have ineffective CAC's, assuming they have them at all.

My ongoing broken record in my wing has been that the CAC lacks enough adult guidance, and has no actual idea what their mission is.  Without at least one of the two of the above, they are doomed to failure, and I'd say the second is more important.

Most newly elected councils come out for a month or two with a lot of the same rhetoric about "increasing recruting and retention, getting cadets to progress faster and further, or making activities better..."  Then, by about month three, the steam runs out, extinguished by the realities of their lack of any authority, lack of a real channel for the voice they have, and the practical nightmare of wrangling anywhere from 6-30+ reps in wings with a 3-4 hour drive to the meetings.

Worse, some decide they are going to "fix the senior program" (which I would think we'd all agree is well outside a CAC's AOR), and are instantly marginalized and told to MYOB.

In either case you don't hear from them again until election time.  Rinse, Repeat.

So...

What is a CAC's real area of influence?

What places at the tactical level would be quantifiable, attainable goals for a CAC?

[BillB]

One thing I've noticed about CAC is that they try to reinvent themselves every year or so. Three years ago, I sent to Wing 15 laptops for the Wing CAC Oficers and all Group CAC Primary Representives. This would allow a new CAC Rep to see what prior CAC's had accomplished. Also on the laptops was a complete (as complete as CAP Regs can be) set of Regulations and CAP Forms. However, the Wing DCP never distributed them.
The original CAC Regulation provided that CAC Representatives were ELECTED by the cadets. Currently they are APPOINTED by the applicable Commander. The original concept was for a cadet chain of command to take to the next higher headquarters, problems at the local level. This concept worked fine for the first 25 years or so. Cadets were able to take the problems with the cadet program up the chain without senior interference. Now that cadets are appointed, it seems they are afraid to take local problems up the chain. So the CAC becomes more ineffective.

[Eclipse]

Cadets were able to take the problems with the cadet program up the chain without senior interference.

Actually, you're pointing to one of CAC's problems - cadets believing that the CAC is part of any chain of command, its not.
The chain for cadets ends and continues at the unit commander, not an outside advisory body.

Whether they are elected or appointed doesn't change that, and in most units these days the issue is moot because there is rarely a competition for the job.

[GoofyOne]

CAC members need to have good leadership to get anything done, starting with the Chairperson. As I witnessed first hand it takes good SM Advisor's to keep it on course.  The cadet, as a group, tended not to have a clue on what their actual duty was.  The Group Commander is to layout to the CAC Chair what they would like to see worked on, based on the cadets input. It takes the CAC Chair to communicate with the GC to get that vision.  The SM advisor is there to keep the CAC on track and advise, not tell how to do it. 

Also, the Unit Commanders need to appoint cadets who will fulfill the responsibility and expect them to participate and then report back to the unit.  If the cadet can't do this then they shouldn't be there. 

Unfortunately, while I feel this group has a good purpose, unless they have support from all areas, squadron, Group Commander and fellow members it is a waste of time for all involved.  This is not a popularity contest and should not be treated like one, dedication is the key.

[CASH172]

It's obvious that CAC doesn't have a great flavor or even exist in most wings.  What makes CAC seem important to the cadets is to give a meaningful purpose to the council.  The CAC doesn't have any real authority anywhere, so that kinda gives the the idea that what they discuss seem like it's gonna end up nowhere.  One thing to make it more meaningful to the cadets is to award a job that the CAC can accomplish from the appropriate commander.  One is to let the CAC handle all cadet related activities at a wing conference or such.  Another is to have a wing commander and such give other assignments, like figure out why a wing isn't using all of its O-Flight money. 

It really comes down to making the council seem meaningful and giving it a purpose.  Without it, cadets lose interest and see the council as pointless.  Senior advisers and commanders need to also set directions that can help encourage cadets to serve faithfully.  The CAC is what the cadets make of it. 

[jimmydeanno]

First you have to ask yourself - is the purpose of the Council to "accomplish" anything.  Is it a tool for doing assigned tasks related to the cadet program at their echelon or is it an advisory position for commanders?  The CAC isn't the "Cadet Activities Council."

It provides councils with tools to fulfill their core mission of advising their commanders on issues affecting cadets. Further, by emphasizing the CAC's need to be responsive to their echelon
commander, the guide encourages them to follow the example of a similar advisory body, U.S. Air Force Company Grade Officer Councils.

They have three goals:

1. "Provide an organization where cadets gain leadership experience at higher organizational levels."

2. "Aid the commander in monitoring and implementing the Cadet Program."

3. "3. "Make recommendations for improving and running the Cadet Program."

To me, that says that the commander at whatever level should provide advance copies of NB agendas and larger "plans" for the cadet program for the council do talk about. 

For example, the Wing Commander sends over the NB agenda 45 days out, on it is an item that would put age restrictions on cadet milestone awards.  The CAC meets and hashes out arguments both for and against, takes a vote and "advises" the Wing Commander on what they think of the proposal - including their written proposal and arguments for their decision.  The Wing Commander now has a purely cadet perspective on a cadet related agenda item that they can weigh into their decision.

The CAC could also bring items to the Commander at each level that tries to ammed current policies and programs.  Put together a proposal and send it to their appropriate commander.  Then the chairman can bring their cause to the next level CAC.

I think that affecting the vote of one of the corporate officers is an accomplishment and the CAC CAN be a valuable tool for commanders who are willing to utilize them.  If there is a commander that doesn't care either way, they won't accomplish anything.

At the end of the term their "done" list shouldn't consist of "planning the wing conference," but rather, "Advised the Wing Commander to adopt our proposed Cadet Orientation Flight distribution program to better allot orientation flights throughout the wing."

One of the steps is to get the appropraite commander at each level to understand what the role of their CAC is and what they should be used for.  The second is getting a good advisor that understands what the CAC is there for.  The third is getting the CAC to understand what they are there for.  Get all three in alignment and everything is peachy.

[dwb]

CAPR 52-16

3-1. Purpose. Cadet Advisory Council (CAC) will be established at the national, region and wing levels. Group commanders may establish CACs, with the wing commander’s discretion. The three purposes of the CAC are to:

a. Provide an organization where cadets gain leadership experience at higher organizational levels.

b. Aid the commander in monitoring and implementing the Cadet Program.

c. Make recommendations for improving and running the Cadet Program.



3-3. Duties.

a. Advisory Nature. The CAC has no authority to implement policy. Councils send their recommendations to the echelon commander, through the director of cadet programs, in the format of staff study reports or position papers.

b. Service to the Echelon Commander. The echelon commander, or CAC senior member advisor, may direct the CAC to deliberate on a particular Cadet Program issue (not related to an official complaint or the inspection program) and require the CAC to submit their recommendations in writing.

[...]

That's sort of nebulous, but it's clear CAC is not designed to have a chain-of-command-style authority.  The first two duties seem to indicate that CAC is to deliberate on cadet programs issues and provide reports and analysis to the echelon commander via the cadet programs officer.

You may have already spotted the potential bug here.  If the echelon commander doesn't task CAC, then it will be forced to task itself, which usually results in things like CAC becoming a "Wing bivouac planning committee" or some such thing.

The other frequent CAC problem I've seen (besides being under-tasked) is that the CAC model extends down too low.  I don't think there is much for a Group CAC to do, for instance.  Wing/Group CCs have the discretion to extend CAC to the Group level, but they often don't have much to do.  Even some squadrons have felt compelled to have a CAC, which is just silly, especially considering the purpose of CAC is to expose cadets to cadet programs issues at higher echelons.

The CAC guide, CAPP 52-19, expounds on all of the duties of the CAC and gives sample agenda formats and direction on how to use CAC effectively.

My personal opinion is that CAC is as valuable a tool as the echelon commander wants it to be.

[NavLT]

a. Provide an organization where cadets gain leadership experience at higher organizational levels.

This sounds to Me like the Group and Wing Commander should have the CAC Chair(or Rep) at meetings to expose them to the higher organizational level issues and get the Cadet input.  The group I am in has a CAC meeting while the Seniors meet in the other room and then they trot the CAC rep in to Report on what they discussed.  This does not realy gain them much of anything.

b. Aid the commander in monitoring and implementing the Cadet Program.

The CAC Rep is supposed to function like the First Shirt/SEA.  They are supposed to be meeting regularly with the commander and let them know if the seniors running the cadet program are being effective.  They should be providing feedback on what is working and what is missing in the CAC opinion. 

c. Make recommendations for improving and running the Cadet Program.

This is where the program usually operates but ineffectively.   The CAC gets together and determines there is a problem, but usually lack the experience and ability to propose multiple solutions with benefits to the commander in a written proposal.  When the CAC comes in and says there are not enough activities, but don't come in with 3 planned activities (Cost, Supervision, Scheduling, Liason with outside reps, staffing etc) the seniors just see another "[censored]ing" member.  If the seniors mentoring the program set a fairly  high standard for the solution part of the "[censored]ing" then CAC would be usefull and listened to.

I go to alot of activities and very rarely do I see a Cadet OIC with a real Job.  80% of the time (if they bother to appoint an OIC), they are only involved at the event and had nothing to do with the planning. 

With the Cadet Program you "Reap what you Sew" if you train them to plan, schedule, fund raise, staff, critique and liason then they will do amazing things. 

V/R
Lt J.

[kpetersen]

b. Aid the commander in monitoring and implementing the Cadet Program.

The CAC Rep is supposed to function like the First Shirt/SEA.  They are supposed to be meeting regularly with the commander and let them know if the seniors running the cadet program are being effective.  They should be providing feedback on what is working and what is missing in the CAC opinion. 

I'm not sure that is how I would want to interpret that line.  If by commander, you mean wing commander, then possibly.  The CAC is designed to give the seniors a cadet's perspective on the cadet program.  It's not really a job of babysitting the seniors, but a way of helping monitor the cadet program.  Part of the requirement of a wing DCP, for example, is to keep track of how the squadrons are doing.  The CAC is a valuable tool for this, since often times the DCP is not able to visit each squadron constantly.  Can they report on seniors?  yes.  Should they only focus on seniors?  No.  Cadets also play a vital role in the program, and it should be looked upon as a whole, not as a "here's why we like the older half of CAP members, and here's how they aren't so good"

I.E. at the beginning of every NEWG CAC meeting, the first item on the agenda is a squadron report, after role call. 

a. Provide an organization where cadets gain leadership experience at higher organizational levels.

This sounds to Me like the Group and Wing Commander should have the CAC Chair(or Rep) at meetings to expose them to the higher organizational level issues and get the Cadet input.  The group I am in has a CAC meeting while the Seniors meet in the other room and then they trot the CAC rep in to Report on what they discussed.  This does not realy gain them much of anything.

It's not necessarily about meeting with higher-up seniors.  It's about cadets discussing higher-up issues that affect more than just an individual squadron.  While having seniors report on what they're talking about is good (commander's meetings), they should be an entirely separate function.  I actually applaud them for letting the CAC know what they are discussing.  WIWAC, we wouldn't even see minutes from their meeting.  We just had ours, and then sent the minutes and anything else to the CAC Adviser, who would give it to the DCP/Wing CC.

If cadets only view something as productive as long as senior members are involved, then they're missing the point of cadets being in charge of the council.  It is being able to bring forth and discuss issues, along with discussing directed issues by the wing commander, that is teaching the cadets higher up leadership.

c. Make recommendations for improving and running the Cadet Program.

This is where the program usually operates but ineffectively.   The CAC gets together and determines there is a problem, but usually lack the experience and ability to propose multiple solutions with benefits to the commander in a written proposal.  When the CAC comes in and says there are not enough activities, but don't come in with 3 planned activities (Cost, Supervision, Scheduling, Liason with outside reps, staffing etc) the seniors just see another "[censored]ing" member.  If the seniors mentoring the program set a fairly  high standard for the solution part of the "[censored]ing" then CAC would be usefull and listened to.

I go to alot of activities and very rarely do I see a Cadet OIC with a real Job.  80% of the time (if they bother to appoint an OIC), they are only involved at the event and had nothing to do with the planning. 

Here's how I think CAC's should be involved with events:  CAC or the wing DCP proposes an event.  CAC hashes out a few details of the activity initially, a first thought type of thing.  They then go back to their squadron and get cadet squadron level feedback, rate interest, etc.  They go to the next CAC meeting, discuss further, and vote as to recommend or not recommend wing undertakes the activity.  If approved, then the wing decides who as a senior will head it, and asks for cadet staff volunteers, if necessary.  The cadet staff can or cannot be on the CAC.  The staff then plans and carries out the activity.  After the activity, the CAC asks for feedback for the activity, to give the wing a better idea as to whether they should hold it again.

This allows 3 things:  1) It gives the CAC the higher level though process, which is more than just implementation.  2) It doesn't over shadow the CAC's primary purpose to provide information to the echelon commander; a lot of times, CACs get caught up in planning an activity and forget their purpose.  3) It allows more cadets an opportunity to be involved; being on CAC may help their ability to staff the activity, but some activities take more than the level of involvement the CAC wants to provide.

With the Cadet Program you "Reap what you Sew" if you train them to plan, schedule, fund raise, staff, critique and liason then they will do amazing things.

100% agree, the key is in which forum.

[lordmonar]

I think one of the problems is that the CAC thinks is should be listened to.

I don't mean this in a bad way...even on AD we have airman's counsels and dorm counsels where we get good feed back from the troops.  But they also ask for or suggest things that just aren't going to happen due to money, time, resourse ect.

The CAC suggesting that there are not enough activities....may be a good suggestion...but when it gets turned down...the CAC then feels they are being marganlized.  When the truth is that there is only so much time/money/resources to do things.

My honest opinion is that CAC is really a waste of time in the long run.  Wing/regional/national CP can get the same or better feed back from the field on how the CP is running by sampeling cadet's opinion during NSCAs, encampments, events.

CAC at all levels just adds another "activity" to what must done to fill a block on a CI or SUI.  The few CACs that actually do anything of value are being used in a way outside the intention of the CAC program (setting up the cadet portion of wing conference, coordinating the cadet ball, planning cadet FTXs). 

We can still use senior cadets to do these type of functions....but remove the usless CAC functions and the necessity to have them in order for your CP to get a passing CI grade.

I would replace the need of a CAC with requirment of the CP directors at each level to do field interviews on a bi-annual period.

[Ned]

Great discusion, keep it going.

I would like to note that CAC is the only place in CP where we teach committee leadership and parlimentary procedure.

Relatively few cadets go on to a military or paramilitary career, but every single one of us will work on committees at work, church, NGOs, etc. until we die.

And CAC is the only place we teach these skills.


While watching the web stream, you can certainly tell which of the NB members have had CAC or similar experience.

Just a thought.

Ned Lee

[Major Carrales]

You know, we have to make sure that "leadership" is more than just the chapter title in our cadet program.  A well run CAC, where cadets feel they are contributing (even if just in an advisory capacity) allows CADET leaders really put the lessons to the test.

Now, CAC is advisory...cadets should know that.  The Wing Commander should "listen" the the CAC.  By that I mean the Wing Commander should dedicate a portion of time...be it at the Wing Conference...to take into advisment what they discuss.  If it is group level, then the Group Commander should also "listen" to the concerns of the CADETS under that person's command.

The term "listen" this occasion does not mean..."do what they say and adopt their policies without question," but rather interact with and entertain the ideas of the best our cadet have to offer.  The Commander should then dicuss the reasons, flaws and other issues the advice might represent.

It's akin to when a person curses GOD because their prayers went "unanswered," it's not that GOD wasn't listening...it was that the answer was NO!

The worst thing a Group, Wing or Region commander can do is to "blow off" the CAC.  That would, in my opinion, show cadets exactally what CAP's Officers think of them...second class and worthless.  If you do that to Cadets, you might as well have handed them over the the gangs and other elements were tend to save them from.  They can be treated like "worthless kids" by someone else.

[lordmonar]

What my point of view is....the cadets feel they are "blown off" because they think that CAC will result in immediate changes at the squadron level.  That because they met, decided that XYZ  would be "good idea" it will get immediatly implemented.

When it does not happen...not because no one think cadets are important, but because XYZ is not feasiable or something that can happen at the wing level....the cadets get bent out of shape.

While I agree with Ned that CAC is the first exposure that cadets have to leadership by committee....it is in my opinion a bad example because there is no goal for the committee to accomplish...expect to "make the CP better".  In my opinion it is a failure from the starting gate as they do not have clearly defined goals, no authority to reach those goals, and no way to measure progress of their goals.

From a CP management position...if the goal is to get feed back from the field on how the CP is being implemented....direct interviews and field visits by the DCP's staff is more efficent.  Sure we loose the "hands on leadership" experiment in commitee leadership but by looking at the results we seem to be getting IMHO it would not be that big of a loss.

[BillB]

Patrick,  what Wing does the DCP visit Squadrons?  In the past 25 years, I have NEVER seen a Wing DCP staff visit Squadrons in this area of the Wing. When I was Wing DCP, I visited one Squadron each week (of course Gas was 32 cents a gallon) Plus I had the Wing CAC Chair and Vice Chair as well as two members of DCP staff do unit visitations. When I was Region DCP, I tried to attend a cadet activity, or Wing Conference in each Wing in the Region. But over the years, I've seen this type visitation become rare. In Wings like California, Florida where there are many Squadrons, it's almost impossible to visit each Squadron once a year. So the CAC can and should fill that void. With the Wing CAC Chair visiting each Group Commanders call (usually a CAC meeting is held at the same time) once a year. The Group CAC Chair should visit the Squadrons at least twice a year. This would allow the CAC to advise their level Commander of needs, activities, problems with the Cadet Program in that Wing.

[Eclipse]

Lord has hit on my point - no mission or direction.  In any large organization, similar group dynamic, or even individual task, the areas where people have the most success are when they know the

Goals
Resources
Time Line

of a project.

Without all three a project is likely not reasonable, attainable, or quantifiable. (i.e. you won't know what you're supposed to be doing, won't know if you did it, or won't know when you are done...sound familiar?)

Missing one is death to structured projects, most CAC's are given none of the above.

They are essentially a legislative body with no authority, mandate, and little outside input.

Its sets the cadets up to believe they have a voice, and then that voice is a tree falling in an empty forest.

The CAC isn't the 1st Shirt - there already is a first shirt, and a cadet commander, and his staff, and a plethora of seniors in the mix, all with a say, some that actually have authority, and none that have to even listen to a CAC rep, let alone do what they are suggesting.

So the CAC's invariably degrade into pizza party free-for-alls and anything but the most self-motivated cadets quit.

And with all the text above, there are practical issues with havng cadets participate in anything outside the unit.  In some states, mine included, CAC in face meetings have been held in areas where the majority of cadets have to drive 8+hours round trip for a 2-3 hour meeting with little to no agenda.  Most won't waste their time like that more than once, and even if they are willing, mom & dad won't be.

I've been in CAP 9 years, and this has been "my problem" on one level or another for about 5, and with all the discussion, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, no one has ever come up with a single, quantifiable, attainable goal or project that the CAC is capable, and willing, to undertake.

For those of you doing ICS - the CAC doesn't even have a "S.M.A.R.T." objective, let alone a tactical solution for success.

[lordmonar]

Patrick,  what Wing does the DCP visit Squadrons?  In the past 25 years, I have NEVER seen a Wing DCP staff visit Squadrons in this area of the Wing. When I was Wing DCP, I visited one Squadron each week (of course Gas was 32 cents a gallon) Plus I had the Wing CAC Chair and Vice Chair as well as two members of DCP staff do unit visitations. When I was Region DCP, I tried to attend a cadet activity, or Wing Conference in each Wing in the Region. But over the years, I've seen this type visitation become rare. In Wings like California, Florida where there are many Squadrons, it's almost impossible to visit each Squadron once a year. So the CAC can and should fill that void. With the Wing CAC Chair visiting each Group Commanders call (usually a CAC meeting is held at the same time) once a year. The Group CAC Chair should visit the Squadrons at least twice a year. This would allow the CAC to advise their level Commander of needs, activities, problems with the Cadet Program in that Wing.

My point is that leadership is observing the program you are in charge of.  Yes distance and miles add up......that is why you have a staff.  Let's look at this as an AD squadron.

The CC sits in his office....he does not want the airman to have a union meeting and submit a shopping list of ideas, activities and gripes...he wants his senior and mid level leaders to be out there seeing what is working and what is not working.  Sure his door is always open for direct input.  But he would never saddle one of his NCOs to ride hurd on a an airman's advisory counsil (yes the USAF has these at wing level...but everyone knows that they are 90% BS sessions).

The problem with CACs is that it takes time and money to manage it with little or no pay off in the way of program improvement or leadership opportunity.  You would get more bang for your buck to hit up your cadets during major events...wing conference, encampment, air shows, large SAREXs than you would get with a monthly CAC meetings at the group and wing level.

[NavLT]

I had the pleasure of never serving on CAC as a Cadet, But I worked with several members (who still are members) who did.  The greatest benefit they saw from serving in the role was the getting to sit in on commanders calls/Staff meetings to bring a Cadet point of view to a all senior discussion (mostly older seniors).  The Commander of the Group made a point of actively engaging the CAC chair at the group with adgendas prior to these meetings to the CAC could meet by phone or at a residence to determine the collective Cadet reponse.  It Made the cadets a voice in the chain without being in the chain.

I have also had the pleasure of serving on the staff of some flag officers and in a room filled with Generals and Cols where captains and LTs make the coffee there sits one non-officer and that is the Senior Enlisted Advisor.  It is a foolish commander that disreguards their input, because there is always some separation of reality between the managers and the troops in the field.  Yes the cadet Program has a 1st Sgt (which does not work really well because the 1LT next to him was the 1st sgt a month ago....but) but does the Squadron, Group, Wing, Region Commander have a representative of the Cadets sitting at the table to voice the cadet view?  I would agree that Cadet Staff roles like the cadet commander would have a seat at the squadron staff meeting but is there a cadet commander at the group, wing, region level.....No, so in that seat goes the CAC.

As the the DCP folks there are various levels of skill in that role (like everything in life) and I have seen a large number of former (Eaker and above) cadets that become DCP that continue to run the CAC as though they are the Cadet Chair themselves still.  I have had frequent issue with the Hot DCP (a position that in our wing has not been filled by one person for longer than a few years before they vanish) with bold plans and initiatives now that they are the Senior in charge of the whole cadet program.....that still lack the practical planning steps for success.  The best example is the Grand training that is TBD, with Large Costs with no defined measure of expected outcome.

Goals
Resources
Time Line

quantifiable, attainable goal or project that the CAC is capable, and willing, to undertake.

This is also very often missing from the DCP folks which teaches the same to the Cadets.

Not that all DCP folks are evil and incapable but the assumption that you can rely on the DCP folks to unfailingly do right by the cadet program without command guidance and review is just as crazy as assuming the CAC has no value or is invaluble.  It is what you make of it and how you develop it and most importantly how you task and grow it.

V/R
Lt J.

[dwb]

I would like to note that CAC is the only place in CP where we teach committee leadership and parlimentary procedure.

Important skills to have, I agree.  But this statement assumes a CP officer at that echelon that knows how to teach committee leadership and parlimentary procedure, and a commander at that echelon actively seeking input from his CAC.

If you don't have those two key ingredients, then CAC will be a missed opportunity.

A challenge CAP faces today (that, say, a National Cadet Advisor can help solve) is to train Wing CCs and CPs on how to effectively train and use the CAC.

[Ned]

Important skills to have, I agree.  But this statement assumes a CP officer at that echelon that knows how to teach committee leadership and parlimentary procedure, and a commander at that echelon actively seeking input from his CAC.

If you don't have those two key ingredients, then CAC will be a missed opportunity.

Agreed.

A challenge CAP faces today (that, say, a National Cadet Advisor can help solve) is to train Wing CCs and CPs on how to effectively train and use the CAC.

Or, better yet, a National Chief of Cadet Prgrams like Curt  LaFond who wrote and fielded the relatively new 52-19 .

This is aimed directly at the problems you described.  Now we just need to get  the DCPs to read it.

Ned

[Eclipse]

I would whole-heartedly agree that the CAC issues are symptoms of larger problems - low membership, low engagement by cadets and seniors, and inadequate training and lack of a program at the state level.

At the unit level we are still executing the curriculm, and some units actually have a program, but go outside the unit and all we have are activities, just like on the senior side there has not been any sort of coordinated program in CAP since before I joined.

Don't believe me?  Pick your favorite activity, at any level, and just cancel it.  Would any notice?  Probably.  Would it have an impact on anything else, doubtful, which means that activity was not integrated in any meaningful way with the rest of CAP.