Vice Commander Applications

[Eclipse]

I agree with Eclipse, they should call them something other than requirements my dictionary defines requirement as: something that is needed or that must be done; or something that is necessary for something else to happen or be done.  If you can waive them then they are not needed nor must they be done.

Well, if they didn't have waiver authority, the BoG has the authority to simply amend the C&BL of CAP.  So, if they wanted to, they can amend the requirements at any time they deem it to be appropriate to do so.  The C&BL simply formalizes this authority in this instance by granting them the ability to waive the requirement.

Agreed, but certainly a more taxing undertaking them simply saying "waived".

[BillB]

JeffDG
A silimar situation as you described actually happened. Col Lee McCormack, Vice Commander of CAP-USAF retired and became SER CC. At the time toi become Region CC, you had to be a current or former Wing CC. Col. McCormack never was a Wing CC. But due to his experience as Vice Commander CAP-USAF, he got appointed.

[JeffDG]

I agree with Eclipse, they should call them something other than requirements my dictionary defines requirement as: something that is needed or that must be done; or something that is necessary for something else to happen or be done.  If you can waive them then they are not needed nor must they be done.

Well, if they didn't have waiver authority, the BoG has the authority to simply amend the C&BL of CAP.  So, if they wanted to, they can amend the requirements at any time they deem it to be appropriate to do so.  The C&BL simply formalizes this authority in this instance by granting them the ability to waive the requirement.

Agreed, but certainly a more taxing undertaking them simply saying "waived".

Not really.

Amending CAP's C&BL can be done by the BoG by motion.

I presume that granting a waiver, as a power vested in the BoG as a body (and not in the Chairman for example) would be done precisely the same way, ie. by a motion approved by a majority vote.

[JeffDG]

JeffDG
A silimar situation as you described actually happened. Col Lee McCormack, Vice Commander of CAP-USAF retired and became SER CC.

Well, that's one way for a USAF Colonel not to get bumped down to Lt. Col. in CAP! 

[THRAWN]

As it turns out, two applicants for the National Commander position requested a waiver.  Neither was selected.

So out of curiosity, what would qualify, in your opinion, as a successful waiver request?  Obviously speaking in general as all situations are different.  So what would you think would be a good waiver request for say "former wing commander" or "level V"?

Just trying to see where in general the bar is.

Not a BoG member, but here's a for-instance for you.

Let's say that Col. Gloyd, CAP-USAF/CC were to retire from the USAF and apply for the job.  He has years of experience working with CAP at a strategic level, has worked closely with multiple CAP/CCs and CAP/CVs along with Region/CCs and Wing/CCs.  As he has not been a CAP member, he, of course, has never achieved his Level V, nor has he ever been a Wing/CC or Region/CC.

Now, that may or may not make him the best candidate for the job, but I would submit that his experience in CAP-USAF is sufficient to at least merit his consideration for such a role, and would merit a waiver of the Level V and Wing/Region Command requirements.

I'd disagree. Commanding an organization of volunteers is much different than commanding a military organization. I've seen what happens when a newly retired military officer, with little (nearly no) CAP experience, becomes a wing commander. It was like a plane full of nuns crashing into a train load of kittens...CAP experience, especially broad based experience and service to the organization, should not be waived.

[lordmonar]

As it turns out, two applicants for the National Commander position requested a waiver.  Neither was selected.

So out of curiosity, what would qualify, in your opinion, as a successful waiver request?  Obviously speaking in general as all situations are different.  So what would you think would be a good waiver request for say "former wing commander" or "level V"?

Just trying to see where in general the bar is.

Not a BoG member, but here's a for-instance for you.

Let's say that Col. Gloyd, CAP-USAF/CC were to retire from the USAF and apply for the job.  He has years of experience working with CAP at a strategic level, has worked closely with multiple CAP/CCs and CAP/CVs along with Region/CCs and Wing/CCs.  As he has not been a CAP member, he, of course, has never achieved his Level V, nor has he ever been a Wing/CC or Region/CC.

Now, that may or may not make him the best candidate for the job, but I would submit that his experience in CAP-USAF is sufficient to at least merit his consideration for such a role, and would merit a waiver of the Level V and Wing/Region Command requirements.

I'd disagree. Commanding an organization of volunteers is much different than commanding a military organization. I've seen what happens when a newly retired military officer, with little (nearly no) CAP experience, becomes a wing commander. It was like a plane full of nuns crashing into a train load of kittens...CAP experience, especially broad based experience and service to the organization, should not be waived.

The point is that there may be a square peg out there who can do the job.....but for one reason or another does not have all the boxes checked on his/her resume and the BoG holds the right to make that decision.

With out the caveat then they BoG's hands are tied....or they have to go out of their way to make the changes.

So.....the foward thinking people on the BoG who wrote the C&BL anticipated that they may in some unknown future need to hire someone who does not meet all the requirements but is the best person for the job.

[NIN]

Look, the military has all kinds of requirements that are put forth all the time. And there are sometimes waivers for those requirements, with appropriate justification, documentation, and higher headquarters sign off. It does not make them any less of a requirement, it just means that if you can justify the request for a waiver you may actually be granted that request. Then again you might not.

In the matter at hand, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider the minimum requirements as a baseline. However if an individual has some other experience that, say, would stand in the stead of something like level 5, and they feel that they have a reason to request a waiver, and they have the ability to do so. The BoG also has the ability to opine that their request for a waiver is wanting.

Think of it like this: would you turn down an applicant who was highly qualified, say of the caliber of a Jack Welch, just because he had not been a wing commander in Civil Air Patrol previously? Maybe he had been a long time member, has excellent equivalent qualification otherwise, and might be a great candidate. Do you tell the guys to sit down and shut up just because he did not attend National Staff College?

[Eclipse]

Think of it like this: would you turn down an applicant who was highly qualified, say of the caliber of a Jack Welch, just because he had not been a wing commander in Civil Air Patrol previously? Maybe he had been a long time member, has excellent equivalent qualification otherwise, and might be a great candidate. Do you tell the guys to sit down and shut up just because he did not attend National Staff College?

There's a pretty big difference, frankly, between a "long time member who has never been a Wing CC" and someone who has never worn a CAP uniform.

There are a lot of members who have been Wing and Region CVs and CSs who would know as much or more then anyone in the center seat,
but it probably speaks volumes as to how much day-to-day influence Regions and NHQ have over day-to-day operations below wing level
that anyone could just walk in the door having never been a member and assume the role of Region CC.  Those jobs are purely strategic
in nature, big ideas, hand out awards, say "no" a lot and write checks with no idea if your subordinates can actually cash them,
but yo could skate quietly and never have any idea how to run a CAP unit, group, or ES mission.

[NIN]

I'm not saying a guy shouldn't have a lot of experience in the program. What I am saying is that there may be a equivalent experience to certain requirements that may actually trump other candidates.

The other side of the coin is, as an old commander of mine used to say all the time, " if you are doing things the way you always did them, you're going to get the results you always got." It might be in our best interest to have someone in the top slot who is -not- a long time member. I am NOT saying there are a lot of candidates who would fit this definition, but when you start talking about people who are qualified to be the CEO of a national organization like Civil Air Patrol, sometimes, just maybe, they need really good advisors on the "Tuesday night" part, and maybe someone who is a leading authority on nonprofit management, or strategic management, etc.

A guy like Jack Welch, to use my prior example, might not know how to administer a physical fitness test or flight release a mission. But maybe that is the problem we've had all along: our national leadership is not well versed in strategic thinking and long-term planning, but rather is built from the ground up with a lot of tactical experience in CAP. 

Again, nothing wrong with being well experienced in the organization. However, perhaps what we need is someone who is well experienced outside of the organization.

[lordmonar]

You are probably right......hence the reason whey we have the waiver rule. 

Again the point being.........the BoG considers everyone who wants to apply and hires the best.....even if they don't have all the "requirements".

No Wing or Region CC experience.......but you got say wing CV or Region CS or National experience......okay we will consider you.
No Level V.........but it is just because you need NSC.......okay we will consider you.
No Degree......okay we will consider you.

Or it could be someone from completely outside the organization (say a former CAP-USAF CC)........okay we will consider you.

Now what trade offs the BoG would actually make........we opinions are like FPOCs....everyone's got one and they all hurt when you land on them!

This way we keep our options open.

[PHall]

JeffDG
A silimar situation as you described actually happened. Col Lee McCormack, Vice Commander of CAP-USAF retired and became SER CC.

Well, that's one way for a USAF Colonel not to get bumped down to Lt. Col. in CAP! 

But he's still drawing that COL retirement check!

[Mitchell 1969]

I agree with Eclipse, they should call them something other than requirements my dictionary defines requirement as: something that is needed or that must be done; or something that is necessary for something else to happen or be done.  If you can waive them then they are not needed nor must they be done.

Reminds me of something I heard once about either making jaywalking a felony or murder a misdemeanor...

If it's required, it can't be waived. If it can be waived, it's not required. This shouldn't even be a thing.

Ultimately, this is all about semantics. The desired qualities were announced, along with notice that waivers would be considered. There seems to be understanding of what was meant. No laws broken, no consciences shocked.

[Mitchell 1969]

As it turns out, two applicants for the National Commander position requested a waiver.  Neither was selected.

So out of curiosity, what would qualify, in your opinion, as a successful waiver request?  Obviously speaking in general as all situations are different.  So what would you think would be a good waiver request for say "former wing commander" or "level V"?

Just trying to see where in general the bar is.

Not a BoG member, but here's a for-instance for you.

Let's say that Col. Gloyd, CAP-USAF/CC were to retire from the USAF and apply for the job.  He has years of experience working with CAP at a strategic level, has worked closely with multiple CAP/CCs and CAP/CVs along with Region/CCs and Wing/CCs.  As he has not been a CAP member, he, of course, has never achieved his Level V, nor has he ever been a Wing/CC or Region/CC.

Now, that may or may not make him the best candidate for the job, but I would submit that his experience in CAP-USAF is sufficient to at least merit his consideration for such a role, and would merit a waiver of the Level V and Wing/Region Command requirements.

I'd disagree. Commanding an organization of volunteers is much different than commanding a military organization. I've seen what happens when a newly retired military officer, with little (nearly no) CAP experience, becomes a wing commander. It was like a plane full of nuns crashing into a train load of kittens...CAP experience, especially broad based experience and service to the organization, should not be waived.

There's no way to assemble a package of all possible waiver possibilities. It's a pretty individual process.

How about....

An Army Brigade Commander who is a 30 year CAP member but never held command of anything in CAP larger than a squadron? Or not even that, but who served as Director of a Wing HQ function?

Or....a Wing Commander with 110 units out of the 120 needed for a degree?

Or...a Wing CV who has been working for a CC with health problems limiting him/her to a low-profile participation?

[BillB]

Whan will the At Large member of the BoG be announced?

[Flying Pig]

Quals and requirements are waived all the time in civilian employment.  Not really a big deal if they are in CAP as well. 

[Alaric]

Quals and requirements are waived all the time in civilian employment.  Not really a big deal if they are in CAP as well.

I can tell you when my company sets a requirement in the HR system, if you don't have it, you don't even get throught the initial screening process.  For instance if we say requires a master's degree, and your resume and online application do not indicate a master's degree no human being will ever see your application.  That is a requirement, if we say we would prefer a master's in engineering; then the human who looks at your application (once it passes the REQUIREMENT of having a master's) will determine if you meet a preference.

[SunDog]

We had a hilarious one once - the guy had a Masters; the ad asked for a BS. He spelled them both out, and HR screened him out. That was the last time we allowed HR to be invovled in the hiring process. We screened ourselves, arranged the interviews, then told HR who to do the on-boarding paperwork for.

They screamed for a bit, about us not "being qualified to interview without an HR person present" - fiefdom nonsense; we got a one hour presentation from an independent expert, and a "cheat sheet" to follow, to stay out of EEO trouble.  Worked O.K. for the next 10 years I was there.

If you're screening with software/keywords, you might take an occasional look at the ones getting blocked - really, really good software is still pretty stupid. . .

[Private Investigator]

Where there is a will, there is a waiver.

Where there is a will, sometimes a murder occurs   

[Private Investigator]

JeffDG
A silimar situation as you described actually happened. Col Lee McCormack, Vice Commander of CAP-USAF retired and became SER CC. At the time toi become Region CC, you had to be a current or former Wing CC. Col. McCormack never was a Wing CC. But due to his experience as Vice Commander CAP-USAF, he got appointed.

Bill that was a very good example, thank you sir   :clap:

[Alaric]

We had a hilarious one once - the guy had a Masters; the ad asked for a BS. He spelled them both out, and HR screened him out. That was the last time we allowed HR to be invovled in the hiring process. We screened ourselves, arranged the interviews, then told HR who to do the on-boarding paperwork for.

They screamed for a bit, about us not "being qualified to interview without an HR person present" - fiefdom nonsense; we got a one hour presentation from an independent expert, and a "cheat sheet" to follow, to stay out of EEO trouble.  Worked O.K. for the next 10 years I was there.

If you're screening with software/keywords, you might take an occasional look at the ones getting blocked - really, really good software is still pretty stupid. . .

Not in my purview I work for a company with 200K+ employees they are not going to have people screening applications