New Requirements for Unit Commander

[ADCAPer]

That's nice. Good for him. I am sure he has his reasons but that does not mean you should be alarmed.

Well, I'm a little confused as to how you managed to determine that I am "alarmed".

I am curious as to how they expect anything to get done in a timely manner. There are more than a few things that are supposed to be accomplished by the Unit Commander, and now they are sitting up roadblocks to appointing a commander. Considering the fact that this class is offered infrequently at best, this isn't going to be a workable policy for a volunteer organization.

The logical thing to do would be to establish a time limit in which an individual must complete UCC training to remain as a Unit Commander, because it's pretty obvious that requiring the training first is never going to work.

I do like the idea of having the Deputy Commanders take the training, that would probably help a lot.

[LtCol White]

Well, regardless of how they work out the logistics of offering it, I think requiring the UCC course is a good thing. At least within the 1st 3 months of taking command if not possible prior.

[DNall]

I am not against a requirment like that....it makes sense in just about every way that you can think of.

But again it comes down to implementaiton.

I don't really care about the content of the stupid courses.......I just need the course taught!

Requiring UCC before appointment means that the wing is going to have to be more proactive in providing the course.

We have see this thing before.

TLC....mandiotry for CP guys...but who is teaching it?

SLS....manditory for Level II....but who is teaching it?

UCC....manditory for commanders....but who is teaching it?

Beefing up Level I to include SLS is all great....but who is teaching it?

When wings are only holding these courses once or twice a year then you see why it takes so long to get anyone trained and qualified.

So...I am not against the training requirment per se.....but if National does implement it....they have to mandate the wings to provide the training in a timely manner and hold them accountable for the training to take place.

Well we do two enhanced TLCs & couple normal ones per year. Two SLS/CLC sessions per Gp per year, & UCC about one per year per Gp.... Gp staff teaches all of them, Wg Staff helps, a few promising officers fro Sqs fill in... I've taught at a few, I'd be happy to teach at more. It's not very hard. The same people teach all of the courses & all can & should be offered on the same day in the same place with shared staff & logistics.

I realize smaller Wgs have fewer sessions cause there's not as much demand, but I believe they're still doing a couple sessions a year. Part of that though is why I said UCC should just be combined with SOS material & offered in place of CLC to all members, hence the demand is higher & more courses get offered.

Far as the requirements, that's NHQ saying Wgs have to offer these courses more often & members are required to go, but they aren't going to provide funds for more than one session per Wg a year.

Many Wings do not have Groups.  

I think you're missing the point.... if an entire Wing does not have enough new unit commanders to make it feasible to have a class, how will it get taught?  

By requiring a lot more than New unit commanders to take it, how about that for starters, that & get in your car & drive a couple hundred miles to take it. We have people from other Gps at every session we do. Can't do that, well then sorry you don't need to advance in CAP & certainly don't need a CC or Deputy CC job, you don't have the professional education for it so you're not qualified. If that means the threat of units getting shut down, but that motivates people to get their butts to teh course then huh? By the way, how many people is the right size to conduct a course? How many do you need to conduct a level I? If it's two people then that's what you teach, if it's none, then get the sitting unit commanders back for a refresher & bring the Deputies in with them.

Help me understand something here. Why are you all offer suggestions and solutions to a problem that does not exist?

It is a rumor and therefore not worth the time. When and if it is presented as a requirement you will have all the information necessary to determine what the problem is if there is one.

When it's presented as a requirement then it's too late to make changes w/o incurring cost, and too late for suggestions from teh field to be considered. Even if it's not happening, this is the time & way that people get to discuss issues & move the communal wisdom on a topic. When the official word comes down no one will listen to or care what anyone including Wg CCs think.

Anyway, no one seems to have a problem with the requirement, just the logistics of getting these course presented in a timely & geographically convenient fashion.

[RiverAux]

Dnall, you tend to forget that you're in one of the 3 largest Wings (in terms of membership) in the country.  What works in TX just ain't going to work quite as well in a Wing that has the membership of one of your smaller Groups. 

To make it work in an average or small Wing we would have to make it a requirement for many more folks than squadron commanders.  As I've said, I got no problem with that IF its a worthwhile class.  However, that doesn't seem to be what the proposal is thats on the table. 

How small is too small for a class?  Well, if we're talking a day or two class, then I personally wouldn't want to teach it unless there were at least 10 people there.  Laziness on my part?  To some extent.  But, there is a fine line to teaching a class that is just the right size to get good participation from the students -- and I hope this class has a lot of stuff for them to do and isn't straight lecture.  Less than 5 and I don't think it would work well.  Much more than 15 and then you start getting the effect from people scared to speak up.

So, if you're in a Wing with 10-15 squadrons (as many are), then you're NEVER going to have enough new unit commanders to justify it (by my standards).   

This is really no different than the situation we face with ES courses.  Very, very few people are going to plan a whole weekend training event to train 3-4 people. 

Now, if it is a short little thing like Level 1, doing it for one or two people isn't a big deal.   

[DNall]

Dnall, you tend to forget that you're in one of the 3 largest Wings (in terms of membership) in the country.  What works in TX just ain't going to work quite as well in a Wing that has the membership of one of your smaller Groups. 

I know that seems true, and in many cases it is, but you forget how massive Texas is. I have 16 Sqs in my Gp, it's the smallest of all the Texas Gps, and hghest concentration of units & members. You look at some of our Gps out west & they are bigger geographically than half the Wgs & got that same 400-800 people range in 10 units. We have people driving 800 miles for events here. If you think it's easier here cause we got more people, you're wrong.

Anyway, like I said all wings are already doing SLS/CLC once a year, TLC & UCC just need to be integrated &/ conducted jointly. If all else fails, Region should be offering an additional session in one of the Wgs.

There will never be any place in the country that has 10 new unit commanders within a 400 mile radius. Any echelon commander that would even consider allowing such a situation should be shot. UCC should be conducted with lots of non-CCs, and can be taguht to one or two people if need be. I'm disappointed actually that they call it a unit Commander's Course, cause it makes it seem like that's the only people that should go, and if you stick to that then you hit this logistics problem everyone is bringing up.

Level I is supposed to be a day & a half event, just like all these others. The new version where muich of it is done n CD before coming in to do a couple hour capstone & discussion is okay, considering how worthless the content is.

[flyguy06]

Wing CC's and Region CC's are corporate officers. They are responsible to the corporation of CAP. SquadronCC's are not corporate officers. Theyare not responsible to the corporation. What I am getting at is Wing CC's and above have more responsiblility and therefore should be required to attned more training and be invloved with CAP more. They travel a lot, they have their own fax machines and computers because they are extremely involved in CAP matters.

Squadron CC's aonthe other hand are not. SO, to require them to attend certain training will be hard to do. I agree the UCC is a good course and future commanders should attend it. But to require them to attend I think is a bit of a stretch.

[ZigZag911]

I'd almost say replace CLC with UCC, or merge the two somehow.

CLC is supposed to be preparing Group & Wing staff officers, but I just don't see it doing that.

There also needs to be more cooperation between the wings & regions in doing these courses....often as small wing borders one of the 'mega-wings' that have more offerings, more frequently.

Finally, you really want to encourage folks to take this sort of course BEFORE they actually need it.

I like the suggestion of merging SLS into Level 1....if it takes a little longer to complete, so what? I know, I sound like I moved to Iowa (hope they are weathering their winter storms OK)

Then have UCC as the replacement for SLS, for promotion to captain.

Even those who never want to take command could get some benefit from a better understanding of the duties,, responsibilities, and challenges of the job.

[lordmonar]

I am not against a requirment like that....it makes sense in just about every way that you can think of.

But again it comes down to implementaiton.

I don't really care about the content of the stupid courses.......I just need the course taught!

Requiring UCC before appointment means that the wing is going to have to be more proactive in providing the course.

We have see this thing before.

TLC....mandiotry for CP guys...but who is teaching it?

SLS....manditory for Level II....but who is teaching it?

UCC....manditory for commanders....but who is teaching it?

Beefing up Level I to include SLS is all great....but who is teaching it?

When wings are only holding these courses once or twice a year then you see why it takes so long to get anyone trained and qualified.

So...I am not against the training requirment per se.....but if National does implement it....they have to mandate the wings to provide the training in a timely manner and hold them accountable for the training to take place.

The answer is actually simple on one level...shift this over to GROUP.  Yup, that means Groups have to be more than just people going up a chain.  they would have to be mentors.

Groups are local and can pull instructors from Squadrons, or import them from nearby groups.

Wings that do not have Groups will have to deal with another set of problems....or have "Squadron Coalitions" to do the training.

How would that fix anything?  If wing is not doing it....why would group do it?  The point is that National is not using things like "number of SLS's or UCC's taught" as a ruler for grading wing commanders.

I would rather have an on line course just to get it done.

[Major Carrales]

How would that fix anything?  If wing is not doing it....why would group do it?  The point is that National is not using things like "number of SLS's or UCC's taught" as a ruler for grading wing commanders.

I would rather have an on line course just to get it done.

Agreed, an on line course...or correspondence course work over time would be the best.

As for the Group/Wing issue...it is moot anyway.  Let's not bog down on it.

[lordmonar]

How small is too small for a class?  Well, if we're talking a day or two class, then I personally wouldn't want to teach it unless there were at least 10 people there.  Laziness on my part?  To some extent.  But, there is a fine line to teaching a class that is just the right size to get good participation from the students -- and I hope this class has a lot of stuff for them to do and isn't straight lecture.  Less than 5 and I don't think it would work well.  Much more than 15 and then you start getting the effect from people scared to speak up.

Not lazy at all.  There is a special group dynamic you get with a larger group then you get with just 2-3 people.

I used to be Red Cross CPR instructor.  I always felt I gave a better class when I had 5-6 students then when I had only 1-3.  I don't know why that is.....

Also with a course like the UCC you would want more participants for the problem solving and conflict resoution tasks.  Also getting more experince and different points of view also helps make the course more meaningful.

[DNall]

I'd almost say replace CLC with UCC, or merge the two somehow.

CLC is supposed to be preparing Group & Wing staff officers, but I just don't see it doing that.

There also needs to be more cooperation between the wings & regions in doing these courses....often as small wing borders one of the 'mega-wings' that have more offerings, more frequently.

Finally, you really want to encourage folks to take this sort of course BEFORE they actually need it.

I like the suggestion of merging SLS into Level 1....if it takes a little longer to complete, so what? I know, I sound like I moved to Iowa (hope they are weathering their winter storms OK)

Then have UCC as the replacement for SLS, for promotion to captain.

Even those who never want to take command could get some benefit from a better understanding of the duties,, responsibilities, and challenges of the job.

You know what I see happen is CLC just being a refresher of SLS (or there for those that skipped it with special promotions). SLS content with Lvl I yes absolutely, & if it takes six months to get done then that's fine too. Slide the CLC material down to make Capt, then do the UCC with material from SOS & overall content that actually achieves the objective of making competent Gp/Wg staff officers AND assessing possible future commanders. I'd be all for sliding TLC into that material as well. There's not really all that much to the formal course form HQ.

I'm interested to see wat happens with this new instructor program & when it's going to make it out to the field.

Far as grading Wg CCs on it, that's a little unreasonable when one has 200 people & the other has 3000. Besides, outside of getting us in trouble with the AF or the law, I think politics is probably about the only thing that can get them fired. NHQ could try to put out per capita course requirements, but that can get complicated.

Obviously 5-6 is nice, but 3 works & if you just have one you go to their place & have thier key staff attend as well. SLS can run 30 or more, the old observer courses would be over a hundred & that's technical material. There's a different dynamic at each leavel, and each has pros & cons. It's not that big a deal.

[RiverAux]

A requirement to take a class is going to be an even bigger disincentive to becoming a squadron commander than everything we already have that scares people out of that job. 

We're already asking them to take on a job with no term limit that they could essentially be stuck in forever if they don't manage to find a replacement at some point in the future.  We're already asking them to take a job that will involve them in the sometimes cutthroat world of CAP politics.  We're already asking them to take responsibility for managing cadets (in many instances) with potential legal issues that may crop up.  We're asking them to take responsibility for thousands (hundreds of thousands if they've got a plane) worth of equipment, etc., etc., etc.

A bridge too far?

[Monty]

As an aside to the notion that many wings are already requiring UCC either before or shortly after one assumes command, don't be so quick as to assume that having attended AND having directed a UCC, will count.

Some states/wings may rebuff the fact that you've attended and later, recently directed, a UCC because it wasn't *their* UCC.

Such was the case for me.....and it took some proverbial "drawing of the line in the sand" to get the infamous "they" to understand that a member who's attended AND directed a UCC recently is good to go, even if said courses happened outside of their area of coverage.

"You mean to tell me that the UCC I directed in Washington is somehow inferior to the UCC I'd sit through as a student in your Wing?  Ouch...not to sound like sour grapes, but if such a lack of confidence in a fellow Wing and I is so poor, perhaps I need to be rethinking my volunteering for the job here."

(Such a comment made the gripes go away.)

UCC for future commanders: good.  Watch out, though, if you are the rare case of a looming, interstate transfer, regardless of your level of understanding (and directing!) the UCC curriculum...

[Ladyhawk]

For those who have expressed doubt about whether the requirement that UCC may become mandatory, I offer the text of the policy letter issued by the GAWG commander:

***********************************
               22 February 2007

GAWG Policy Letter 07P-007: Unit Commanders Course (UCC)

1.   Last week the CAP National Commander, in conference with the Region/Wing Commanders Course attendees (RWCC), made the following decision on the Unit Commanders Course (UCC).

2.   It was decided that the UCC will be a mandatory required course in order to be a unit commander.

3.   For sitting unit commanders, the course will be required in order to continue as the current unit commander.  Sitting commanders must complete the UCC within one (1) year from the date of this Policy Letter.

4.   For anyone desiring to become a unit commander, the UCC must be completed prior to your becoming a unit commander.


               Lyle E. Letteer, Col. CAP
               Commander
               Georgia Wing

*******************************

GAWG has previously required that unit commanders attend the UCC within the first year of their command.  The wing typically holds two UCCs each year - one in the northern part of the state and one in the southern part.  At least in GAWG, all the courses discussed here (SLS, CLC, TLC and UCC) are administered at Wing level.  (As an additional note, I've taken all these courses, taught segments in all of the courses and acted as director for CLC, TLC and UCC).

Is the new policy going to create some problems? - Yes.  As a group commander, it's my responsibility to select appropriate replacement squadron commanders.  I have a unit in my group where the unit commander has resigned.  The replacement I identified has not taken UCC and is not able to attend the upcoming course because of work-related commitments.  There are no other acceptable and qualified (by the new requirements) officers in the squadron currently.  The result is that for the forseeable future, I will have to act as interim squadron commander (as per the wing commander's orders) as well as group commander.  (As another note: my group has the largest membership of any of the 6 group in GAWG with over 300 members.  That makes it larger than some of the smaller wings.)  There appears to be no other option but to make this work somehow.

I do believe that UCC is a valuable course.  There are actually two courses that I think anyone contemplating command should take.  One is UCC and the other is the Inspector General course.  I took the 2-day senior-level course that is offered at the National Conference each summer.  That one is a real eye-opener!

[BlackKnight]

...

[arajca]

COWG has had the policy that if a unit commander hasn't completed UCC before taking command, they are required to complete it the next time it is offered.

[ADCAPer]

I can't believe you guys sat there for over 24 hrs and let her have the last word.   

Sigh... I'll never hear the end of it. 

My guess is that there are more than a few people sitting out there scratching their heads  trying to figure out why anyone, much less a Wing CC, would actually put there name onto a policy that is so obviously out of sync with reality.

He should have at least waited until national cranked out the official policy from their end, then he would have been able to just say that they were the ones who made the screwup.

Oh well, what else can you say at this point?

[Eclipse]

This class is not going to make an ineffective Commander, effective, nor make an effective one MORE effective.  Like most CAP classes, it is death by Powerpoint when a GOOD, experienced, instructor presents it.

Good, experienced, instructors are few and far between.  Generally it is a prolonged period of trying to stay awake while clueless members read directly from the slides, argue about regs they don't understand, and bumble through topics that their audience is more current on.

Any Wing or Group CC who would remove an effective Commander because he hasn't taken this class should reconsider what he is trying to accomplish.  The ineffective ones should be gone, regardless.  But let's face it.  Its not like there are usually 2-3 additional members just chomping at the bit for a second full time job.

ILWG used to have such a policy, I think going back to about 2003.  The trouble was the Wing did not provide the very classes it was purporting to require, so it would be hard to make an issue of it.

I looked just now and it appears to be gone.

[ZigZag911]

I can't believe you guys sat there for over 24 hrs and let her have the last word.   

Sigh... I'll never hear the end of it. 

Why, she's right?

Bet you here that a lot!!

[DNall]

My guess is that there are more than a few people sitting out there scratching their heads  trying to figure out why anyone, much less a Wing CC, would actually put there name onto a policy that is so obviously out of sync with reality.

He should have at least waited until national cranked out the official policy from their end, then he would have been able to just say that they were the ones who made the screwup.

GAWG is in a wierd position. If you recall they had a CC removed for a jacked up inspection, then a new one appointed to take care of it. That one came in & picke d& chose which items would be address "& which wouldn't & made some progress, but was also removed when that wasn't enough. GAWG/CC is a dangerous job tohave int he short-term. Being out front of NHQ on a couple policy items & proving their position right by using the time to make it possible rather than waiting to start from scratch when they say go... it's survival instinct you're seeing over there, least that's my guess.