Promotion Requirements...A Standard?

[Dragoon]

Even if you did somehow fix that problem, it still would not account for those moving back down in the organization.

For instance, the Lt Col who was a hard charger, served his time on Wing and as an IC, but is now tired (or can't put in the same time) but still wants to be a part of the organization.  He moves back to a local squadron and serves as Historian or something.

This doesn't happen in the military, but can happen at any time with CAP.

That's what I was suggesting, CAP would need the same up or out model, which would also require a lot more recruiting, and more detailed planning of CAP careers to fulfill personnel requirements, just like active services have.  You'd also have to assign people jobs whether they like it or not, and while that may work in the real world, where people get paid and sign contracts to do what they are told, that wouldn't fly in CAP with only volunteers.

You would not have 75 year olds capts, but you might also not have anyone.

Or, you make rank temporary and tied to position.  Then "up or out" becomes "take a break and let someone else wear the bars for a while."

The big question remains - why have rank at all? 

If the answer is "to designate members with authority and responsiblity," you move towards one kind of system.

If the answer is "as an award to members for completingsome training and service" then you move towards our current system. 

[Eclipse]

The big question remains - why have rank at all? 

If the answer is "to designate members with authority and responsibility," you move towards one kind of system.

If the answer is "as an award to members for completing some training and service" then you move towards our current system. 

That's the Shakespearean question, always has been.

However, even though we don't actually hold people to the idea, even today, decorations are supposed to be for past service, and promotion is supposed to be acceptance of additional responsibility.  Most member view them as one and the same, and our current staffing levels and circular career paths don't do anything to negate that.

I'd be in favor of "up and out", with limitations on service for all.  The military model on this creates a finite time period to accomplish whatever you intend to accomplish, it also allows for closure and an endpoint without being a "quitter".  It would also force the whole cycle to better planning, more recruiting, and some acceptance of continuity.

I also realize that forcing your most experienced members out of a volunteer organization is a good way to kill it.

[RiverAux]

If one is actually following the senior member professional development program and not sidestepping it with one of the special appointments/promotions, rank is loosely tied with increasing responsibility within the organization.  It comes about through the command or staff duty requirements and through advancement in the specialty track system.  Its certainly not a perfect fit but it is there. 

Now, I don't disagree with the fact that it is sort of backward in that you get the rank after you've demonstrated that you can perform with the increased responsibility which is sort of the opposite of how it works in the real world, but I don't think it is that critical of a difference.   

[lordmonar]

Even if you did somehow fix that problem, it still would not account for those moving back down in the organization.

For instance, the Lt Col who was a hard charger, served his time on Wing and as an IC, but is now tired (or can't put in the same time) but still wants to be a part of the organization.  He moves back to a local squadron and serves as Historian or something.

This doesn't happen in the military, but can happen at any time with CAP.

That's what I was suggesting, CAP would need the same up or out model, which would also require a lot more recruiting, and more detailed planning of CAP careers to fulfill personnel requirements, just like active services have.  You'd also have to assign people jobs whether they like it or not, and while that may work in the real world, where people get paid and sign contracts to do what they are told, that wouldn't fly in CAP with only volunteers.

You would not have 75 year olds capts, but you might also not have anyone.

Sounds nice on paper...but why force out a perfectly good Lt Col who can't work at wing anymore....just because you can't have Lt Cols at the squadron?

[Dragoon]

Even if you did somehow fix that problem, it still would not account for those moving back down in the organization.

For instance, the Lt Col who was a hard charger, served his time on Wing and as an IC, but is now tired (or can't put in the same time) but still wants to be a part of the organization.  He moves back to a local squadron and serves as Historian or something.

This doesn't happen in the military, but can happen at any time with CAP.

That's what I was suggesting, CAP would need the same up or out model, which would also require a lot more recruiting, and more detailed planning of CAP careers to fulfill personnel requirements, just like active services have.  You'd also have to assign people jobs whether they like it or not, and while that may work in the real world, where people get paid and sign contracts to do what they are told, that wouldn't fly in CAP with only volunteers.

You would not have 75 year olds capts, but you might also not have anyone.

Sounds nice on paper...but why force out a perfectly good Lt Col who can't work at wing anymore....just because you can't have Lt Cols at the squadron?

Exactly.  Today's Wing Vice Commander is tomorrow's squadron ES officer.  And after his kids get a little older, he might be tomorrows Wing Operations officer.  If we kick him out early, we'll never know.

I've seen a lot of hard charging members back off during critical family or work years, and them come charging back as they near retirement and have the time to really kick CAP butt.

That's why I favor temporary grade - it motivates folks to keep working hard (in order to keep the grade), but gives them an out if they can't keep working hard (hand over the oak leaves for a while and take an easy job).

And then we could add in some ego-stroking clause like "you may wear the highest grade earned at CAP social functions and military balls", so now and then you can strut your former oak leaves in all their glory.

But really, the current system is ALL ego stroking - and that ain't good.

[Short Field]

[There are no grade restrictions for attaining the PD levels until you reach Level V, where you have to be a Major to take NSC.

Sorry, I was thinking 18 monts to 1st Lt, not 3 yrs to Capt.  FYI, I completed Level IV 27 months after I joined CAP.

[NavLT]

I just wanted to take a minute to thank everyone for their opinion.

What I often find is that people never challenge the why do we do it that way at all and I think Cap Talk encourages constant evaluation.

I also find that working groups/comittees etc are chosen by civilian and military all the time to review process and compare it to vision and we fail to do it enough in CAP.

Several posters thought I found no merit in any of our systems at all, far from it.  I merely bring out the quesion of if they are a highly motivate, highly qualified 1LT Incident commander then our system obviously does not reward Grade to those skills and attributes.  I do not recommend promotion of every commander to Col and demotion of every col to 1LT when not in command. Likewise I don't advocate promoting every team leader to Major.  I just think the PD system is currently linked to some old skill set hurdles and may need some review.  They only recently started waiving some PD items for progression in the cadet program, perhaps they could find a similar method for AE, and ES.

NavLT