DCC changed to CDC, and DCS to CDS

[Mike W]

Does it really matter how it is organized?

Really?

If it is stupid but works.....it's not stupid.

Please send my regards to Chaplain Polk. I have just returned from spending a week teaching Cadets to fly RC airplanes at Camp Parks, Dublin, and spent a lot of time with him.

[lordmonar]

Does it really matter how it is organized?

Really?

If it is stupid but works.....it's not stupid.

Please send my regards to Chaplain Polk. I have just returned from spending a week teaching Cadets to fly RC airplanes at Camp Parks, Dublin, and spent a lot of time with him.

Sorry....don't know a Chaplain Polk.

[abdsp51]

There is a Chap Polk at Travis.  Is that whom you are referring to?

[Eclipse]

Does it really matter how it is organized?

Really?

If it is stupid but works.....it's not stupid.

Because there's a reason these things are as they are.

A unit does not need an XO or a COS. Working or otherwise, and again, if people
actually opened a reg once in a while, they would see that these titles don't exist at the unit level,
which means there is no way for them to be signed as such.

I would hazard that units with these sorts of issues are also having issues in other areas of
fundamental understanding as well.  This kind of thing is what WSOP players refer to as a "tell".

No one decides to make up title out of whole cloth without making up other stuff as well.

[Mike W]

There is a Chap Polk at Travis.  Is that whom you are referring to?

Yes, I got the two muddled up   

[lordmonar]

Does it really matter how it is organized?

Really?

If it is stupid but works.....it's not stupid.

Because there's a reason these things are as they are.

A unit does not need an XO or a COS. Working or otherwise, and again, if people
actually opened a reg once in a while, they would see that these titles don't exist at the unit level,
which means there is no way for them to be signed as such.

I would hazard that units with these sorts of issues are also having issues in other areas of
fundamental understanding as well.  This kind of thing is what WSOP players refer to as a "tell".

No one decides to make up title out of whole cloth without making up other stuff as well.

You see that's where I think you are wrong.  I don't think a unit needs a "deputy commander for seniors" and a "deputy commander for cadets".

A composite squadron needs a Commander, An XO, An Operations Officers and a Cadet Programs officers.

CC owns everything.  XO owns logistics, PD, Admin, Personnel,  Ops owns ES, ES training, comm, and Cadet programs owns cadet program.

But that's just me.

Like I said...if it works.....it's not stupid.

[Eclipse]

Like I said...if it works.....it's not stupid.

So standardization of terminology, function, and purpose have no place?  Just "do whatever works?"

This is precisely why we have so many problems in CAP, everyone thinks they can just " do whatever they want",
then people who actually follow things like regs and guidelines wander in unexpectedly and find some structure that
isn't a CAP model and titles that don't exist.

There's no point to that, especially when the reality is that it's generally just a bunch of guys in a room who
thankfully showed up blundering through whatever needs to be done.

I know you're all about field expediency, maybe that works in the military, but what I think you forget in a CAP
context is that our people don't have the consistency of training to know what the "norm" "is".  For most of our members,
local unit perception is their total CAP reality, so they don't know they are thinking outside the box,
whatever they are doing, right, wrong, or otherwise, to them that >is< the box.

We need to all do things THE SAME.

[lordmonar]

What ever.....listen if you are going to just say "well the book says....and we got to follow the book.....even if it makes no sense" is just fine and dandy.

Just stop criticizing everyone who does things differently than you.  You want to make all of us pull the company line just like you do in your neck of the woods.....become the National Commander.

But really.   On the one hand you say we can't follow regs....and then on the other hand you say that following regs is the only thing keeping CAP together. 

And finally........I agree we have to SOME things the same....PD, Promotions, Awards and Decs, CP, ES.......but WHY WHY must my squadron look exactly like your squadron?  What value is added or lost if I call the guy who runs my senior programs an XO instead of a Deputy Commander for Seniors?   The world will not end.....nor will I forget to do my monthly reports.....Wing will certainly be able to contact me and be what ever info they need from my XO just like they can from my DCS.

[The Infamous Meerkat]

I think that question is best answered with what I have been discussing with my squadron Commander as of late:

"This basic organizational structure has been determined to be the most workable structure for all CAP units, and deviations are not authorized, except to expand particular staff elements as required to accomplish the unit's mission."  ~CAPR 20-1

Meaning; That unless having your own structure, positions, and methods significantly boost the effectiveness of your squadron, it is not authorized (but beyond that not recommended, as it is just as easy to call yourselves by the appropriate titles). Further more, having extensions and changes are also limited to only a few things, and they aren't commanders positions...

Him becoming the Nat. Cmdr. has nothing to do with it Lordmonar, as this has already been passed by our current Nat. Cmdr. and there are still groups who say, "That's not fair/ I don't want to/ You can't make me/ why does it matter.... Etc. etc.  The value lost (my opinion) is that we signed up to be part of CAP, but there seem to be a lot of groups that think they can do it better, and thus don't want to be part of CAP, they want to be on their own program. They ask/tell us to play in a box because it's a standardized, efficient model. Not staying in the box is contrary to good order and discipline, no matter whether it works better or not.

[lordmonar]

I think it is a stretch to say "hey we need a Chief Of Staff" is people trying to have their own program.

In my own squadron we use the standard designations.....because they work....but that's the point.  What works here....may not work elsewhere....and do we really need to go to region to beg permission to have a slightly different organization?  Really?

That is just asinine.

[Eclipse]

And what does a CS or XO at the unit level "do"?

Where is their status recorded?  How are rights assigned (hint: has to be manually via other duty assignments).

Where is their tenure as a CS or XO recorded for their own F24's or OE track later (hint: nowhere, it didn't happen).

What is the command succession in the event the CC is indisposed?  (hint: there isn't one).

There are plenty of places that being creative is encouraged.  Organizational structure isn't one of them, as indicted
by 20-1's specific prohibition - (expanding a role is not the same as creating one from whole cloth).

As to needing approval - that's how the universe works.  Units do not exist in a vacuum, and just because you
think it's a good idea to rebuild it in your own image, doesn't mean anyone else does.  Your average corporation,
or even military unit isn't going to allow a new manager to simply change the structure "because".   Dwight Schrute
died a thousand deaths on that sword as "assistant to the Regional Manager", which is basically what an XO or COS
would be at the unit level in CAP.

"Forcing", for lack of a more appropriate term, units to adhere to the public structure also "forces" other
situations and structure downstream.  It also relieves the burning of calories in areas they need not be burned.

The program, as it exists on the page, pretty much "works", and in all but a few cases, mucking with the structure
is an affectation of "I know better".

[The Infamous Meerkat]

I think it is a stretch to say "hey we need a Chief Of Staff" is people trying to have their own program.

And my thought on that is that it is trying to have your own program, because, frankly, you don't. You don't need a Chief of staff, you have two Dep. Cmdrs. that handle specific taskings, but somebody wants a super-kewl title. Just as my squadron doesn't need two Dep. Cmdrs and two Vice Cmdrs, you don't NEED a Chief of Staff... You WANT one.

And actually, yes, you need the Region Cmdrs permission because It's his bloody region, not yours and because the organization is CAP, not yours.  That way when the Region Cmdr gets lit up for having units out of spec, at least he signed off on it rather than being completely ignorant. I don't think I need to tell a MSgt how the Chain of Command works...

It's not asinine, it's logical.

[JeffDG]

What value is added or lost if I call the guy who runs my senior programs an XO instead of a Deputy Commander for Seniors?   

Well, for me, it will impact communication from Group and Wing.

We have automatically updated mailing lists for certain duty positions, including deputy commanders.  So, if I as a wing staff member, want to reach out to all commanders and deputy commanders, your XO won't get the message.

Alternatively, you need to develop systems to take into account all the customization, all so one squadron can change a well-defined title.

[lordmonar]

I think it is a stretch to say "hey we need a Chief Of Staff" is people trying to have their own program.

And my thought on that is that it is trying to have your own program, because, frankly, you don't. You don't need a Chief of staff, you have two Dep. Cmdrs. that handle specific taskings, but somebody wants a super-kewl title. Just as my squadron doesn't need two Dep. Cmdrs and two Vice Cmdrs, you don't NEED a Chief of Staff... You WANT one.

And actually, yes, you need the Region Cmdrs permission because It's his bloody region, not yours and because the organization is CAP, not yours.  That way when the Region Cmdr gets lit up for having units out of spec, at least he signed off on it rather than being completely ignorant. I don't think I need to tell a MSgt how the Chain of Command works...

It's not asinine, it's logical.

See....now you are projecting your assumptions on to me that just don't exist.

You assume that a Region cmdr is going to get lit up because the Homer J. Simpson Composite squadron thinks a Chief of Staff is a better duty then two deputy commanders.

It would be asinine to light up a commander at that level.
It is asinine to even have that level of micro-management.

I am not saying anyone should just do what they want....never said that...never would.....because it is in the regulations to get permission.
I am saying that it is asinine that it IS IN THE REGULATION.

Squadron Organization should be up to the local commander....and of course coordinated through his chain of command.   If as JeffDG said non-standard organization disrupts timely communication....then you should not do it.  But that is a function of the group and wing staffs....not the region commander.

My point is while 20-1 is okay......it is not necessarily the end all beat all of the "best" way to do it.  We teach situational leadership.   Organizing your squadron should be based on your organizational needs.  Not what I think you need, not what someone in another wing thinks what your needs are ....but what you think your needs are based on how your wing/group is organized and how your squadron functions.

This is not about having a cool title.....and I resent that you suggest that is all I am concerned with.

This is not about changing the CAP program.  I am not talking about changing anything with promotions, PD, CP, AE, Operations.

This is about exploring the different ways a squadron organizes it self where it is logical and uses their resources in the most efficient way.

So beyond JeffDG's good point about disrupting automated communications.

Why can't (beyond 20-1) a Composite Squadron be organized with an XO or COS?

You got the CC who directly is over his Operations Officer,  his Cadet Programs Officer, and his XO(or COS).
The COS owns the staff.....admin, finance, personnel, logistics,
The Ops Officer owns the ES function...planning, training, comms, etc.
The CPO owns the CP functions...testing, leadership,  AE.

What is not logical about that?

[Private Investigator]

You assume that a Region cmdr is going to get lit up because the Homer J. Simpson Composite squadron thinks a Chief of Staff is a better duty then two deputy commanders.

It would be asinine to light up a commander at that level.
It is asinine to even have that level of micro-management.

Exactly. When I was an IG and I visited Squadrons that had their own way of doing things. As long as they are not stealing or misusing CAP property, Wing Commanders and Region Commanders do not care what titles Bubba has. 

[The Infamous Meerkat]

What you're saying works Lordmonar, I'm sure it operates just fine. The only issue I, personally, take with it is that it's not a recognized format at any squadron but yours, and thus goes against good order. Standardization is something I appreciate in this case.
It does change operations, all the paper moves differently under your's than anyone elses, so, as in ICS, no one can just waltz in and know how to help you. You've set your group apart from the whole by instituting it...

Military units use XO's and CoS's, they work just fine. But, we have an instituted way in our organization that works fine, and it sounds to me like you're trying to re-invent the wheel. I don't see the necessity of change in your case, because your unit doesn't have any special circumstances that require this change, you guys just believe it works better. It leaves myself (and a few others) scratching my head.

[lordmonar]

Again......we use the standard organization at my unit.
And again......Which one of you have visited my unit and seen what/how we do thing and what our needs are?

"I don't see the necessity of change in your case, because your unit doesn't have any special circumstances that require this change, you guys just believe it works better"

And that's my angsts with the reactions here on the this thread to the simple suggestion that a unit do something different.

If unit X wants to have an XO instead of a CDS........or a COS instead of a CDS......the reactions were everything from "You don't need to be special" to "You are just trying to have a cool title".

The only real objections I have gotten are "20-1 requires Regional CC permission" (which IMHO is just stupid) and "non-standard organization my make communications to staff officers difficult".

As for your suggestion that it may make it hard for outsiders to "waltz in and know how to help" I would buy if in fact we had people ready to in fact waltz in and help.....they certainly don't come in and help when we beg them. 

[Eclipse]

As for your suggestion that it may make it hard for outsiders to "waltz in and know how to help"

Frankly, that's an argument in favor of doing your own thing, at least in CAP.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

You assume that a Region cmdr is going to get lit up because the Homer J. Simpson Composite squadron thinks a Chief of Staff is a better duty then two deputy commanders.

It would be asinine to light up a commander at that level.
It is asinine to even have that level of micro-management.

Exactly. When I was an IG and I visited Squadrons that had their own way of doing things. As long as they are not stealing or misusing CAP property, Wing Commanders and Region Commanders do not care what titles Bubba has. 

The current Subordinate Unit Inspection (SUI) Guide has specific questions on the staffing of the cadet programs side including is a CDC appointed in writing / e-services. If that's not there, in my opinion, that is minimum an area of concern write up for the SUI.

[lordmonar]

You assume that a Region cmdr is going to get lit up because the Homer J. Simpson Composite squadron thinks a Chief of Staff is a better duty then two deputy commanders.

It would be asinine to light up a commander at that level.
It is asinine to even have that level of micro-management.

Exactly. When I was an IG and I visited Squadrons that had their own way of doing things. As long as they are not stealing or misusing CAP property, Wing Commanders and Region Commanders do not care what titles Bubba has. 

The current Subordinate Unit Inspection (SUI) Guide has specific questions on the staffing of the cadet programs side including is a CDC appointed in writing / e-services. If that's not there, in my opinion, that is minimum an area of concern write up for the SUI.

Is the CDC appointed in writing.

Yes.  The Cadet Program Officer is appointed in writing via E-services. 

This alludes to my point about being asinine.   The SUI should be more focused on the fact that we have a competent individual doing the program not that he is a) appointed in writing and b) that his title on the org-chart is "deputy commander for cadets".

Do you see my point here?

Your concern from and inspection point is not about "are you all doing the Cadet Program right" but "Do you have all your I's dotted and T's Crossed and does it look nice and neat".

I am not saying that attention to detail to the I's and T's is not important.  I am not saying that we should not be doing the jobs we need to be doing.  But what we call the guy who oversees the squadron's cadet program/squadron staff/emergency services operations/et al is less important than having someone overseeing the squadron's programs and doing it "right".