New NHQ Job Posting

[JeffDG]

For CAP/CC

http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?cap_announces_ceo_position&show=news&newsID=17932

OK, I gotta take issue with the first "Desirable" qualification:

Be a person of high character and integrity, willing to commit to a belief in the missions and core values of CAP

That really needs to move to the "Minimum Qualifications" section.

[jeders]

For CAP/CC

http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?cap_announces_ceo_position&show=news&newsID=17932

OK, I gotta take issue with the first "Desirable" qualification:

Be a person of high character and integrity, willing to commit to a belief in the missions and core values of CAP

That really needs to move to the "Minimum Qualifications" section.

Why? The minimum quals, which come from the C&BL, are quantitative measurable gatekeeping requirements. While I'll agree to the importance of character and integrity, they arent quantitative.

My question is, will the membership be told who applies? The last time TXWG got a new commander, the region CC asked for input from members about the candidates, will the BOG do the same?

[JeffDG]

For CAP/CC

http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays-features/?cap_announces_ceo_position&show=news&newsID=17932

OK, I gotta take issue with the first "Desirable" qualification:

Be a person of high character and integrity, willing to commit to a belief in the missions and core values of CAP

That really needs to move to the "Minimum Qualifications" section.

Why? The minimum quals, which come from the C&BL, are quantitative measurable gatekeeping requirements. While I'll agree to the importance of character and integrity, they arent quantitative.

My question is, will the membership be told who applies? The last time TXWG got a new commander, the region CC asked for input from members about the candidates, will the BOG do the same?

Personally, if I had a choice between a brand new SMWOG with "high character and integrity" and a former Region/CC without, I would select the SMWOG without hesitation.  (Note, I have no knowledge of any Region/CC without "high character and integrity", simply providing a hypothetical situation)

And all of the "minimum qualifications" are waiverable by the BoG (ref C&BL, Article XIII, 1(c)), so they're not actually mandatory.

[jeders]

Personally, if I had a choice between a brand new SMWOG with "high character and integrity" and a former Region/CC without, I would select the SMWOG without hesitation.  (Note, I have no knowledge of any Region/CC without "high character and integrity", simply providing a hypothetical situation)

And all of the "minimum qualifications" are waiverable by the BoG (ref C&BL, Article XIII, 1(c)), so they're not actually mandatory.

If I had a choice between someone with zero experience or knowledge in leading a large volunteer organization and someone with likely a decade of experience, much of it at the upper levels, I'll take the experienced person and then evaluate their character. With the BoG having the stronger oversight, a "bad" or "low character" commander becomes somewhat less of an issue as they can be more easily removed. However, an inexperienced, un-knowledgeable commander remains a major concern, as they can do a lot more damage a lot quicker simply because they don't know what they're doing.

[dwb]

Anyone taking bets on whether a cadet with a lot of pluck will apply and ask the BoG to waive the minimums?

[NIN]

Anyone taking bets on whether a cadet with a lot of pluck will apply and ask the BoG to waive the minimums?

Not taking that bet. At all

[Flying Pig]

If I was a cadet, Id do it.   And on my college resume Id make sure I listed "Applicant, Civil Air Patrol CEO"   For what its worth 

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

So what exactly does

"Have served as a CAP Wing Commander who completed his/her term of office other than due to a removal for cause."

mean?

If you complete your term clearly you were not removed. So if you served less than a full term but it was for any other reason than removed for cause, you qualify?

[Ned]

So what exactly does

"Have served as a CAP Wing Commander who completed his/her term of office other than due to a removal for cause."

mean?

That is what the CAP Consitution requires, so I just repeated it verbatim in an attempt to avoid any confusion that might be caused if it looked like we were deviating from the Constitutional requirements.

I suspect it applies to Wing Commanders who asked to be relieved due to health or other issues not related to duty performance.  If I had successfully completed my four years as a wing commander and was asked to serve a fifth (CAPR 20-1), I'd hate to think I was disqualified for the CEO position just because my civilian boss transferred me to another state or a family member developed a severe illness that required my time and attention partway through my fifth year.

Don't overthink it.  The provision applies only to a very tiny number of officers, and they know who they are.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

Sorry, dad was an English teacher. The sentence structure made my head hurt.

[JeffDG]

Don't overthink it.  The provision applies only to a very tiny number of officers, and they know who they are.

Just curious...

How would this apply to a Wing Commander who, hypothetically speaking, was relieved by his Region Commander, reinstated by the MARB, relieved again by the Region Commander, and reinstated a second time by the MARB/MARP?

[Storm Chaser]

So what exactly does

"Have served as a CAP Wing Commander who completed his/her term of office other than due to a removal for cause."

mean?

If you complete your term clearly you were not removed. So if you served less than a full term but it was for any other reason than removed for cause, you qualify?

I suspect this could also apply to a Wing Commander who was relieved from that command to assume greater responsibilities, i.e. as a Region Commander, etc. You wouldn't want to penalize that person for not completing the 4-year term.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

How would this apply to a Wing Commander who, hypothetically speaking, was relieved by his Region Commander, reinstated by the MARB, relieved again by the Region Commander, and reinstated a second time by the MARB/MARP?

That hypothetical seems familiar. Can't remember where I heard or saw it. 

[Luis R. Ramos]

Ned-

No matter how you phrase something, you will always find someone in here questioning a statement, regulation, manual, etc.

In Puerto Rico we used to say buscando las cinco patas del gato. Translated directly it means looking for the cat's five paws.



Which sounds kind of silly as we know a cat has only four paws...



But philosophically speaking it means someone is over-analyzing a statement, situation, etc....

Flyer

[JeffDG]

Probably could have simplified that one by just saying "Former Wing or higher command" as the requirement.

It's not like it's a checklist, if you match each criteria, you're in.  If you were hounded out of Wing command for sheer incompetence, then it's likely the selection committee and the BoG will be fully aware of the circumstances related to that and can simply reject on subjective grounds, rather than trying to codify everything.

[SamFranklin]

Instead of editing an announcement that intuitively makes sense, I just want to add that I think a self-nomination with final selection by the governors is a huge, positive step forward for CAP. It minimizes the politics and gives CAP a reasonable expectation that the "best candidate" will be selected on his or her merits.

As a lowly member with no special ambitions, I've always felt that "politics" has had a hugely negative effect on CAP. You used to have to be part of the "in" crowd. This new system won't be perfect, but it makes the obviously unqualified, obviously sycophantic less likely to get the job.

Now let's see those board of governors members put some really tough questions to the applicants!

[FW]

Don't overthink it.  The provision applies only to a very tiny number of officers, and they know who they are.

Just curious...

How would this apply to a Wing Commander who, hypothetically speaking, was relieved by his Region Commander, reinstated by the MARB, relieved again by the Region Commander, and reinstated a second time by the MARB/MARP?

If they were brought back, the relief would be expunged from their record...
Just for historical knowledge; this actually happened once.  Unfortunately, the region commander terminated their membership after the 2nd adverse membership action was reversed. By then, the former member wanted nothing to do with CAP.  It's also worth noting the structure of the MARB/MARP was drastically altered after this.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I am not intending to turn this into a uniform thread - honestly - but don't those Maj Gen slides look blue instead of grey?

[SARDOC]

I've thought about this so I called National Headquarters.   They told me what the job entailed and we discussed Salary.  That was kind of the end of the conversation.   

[MSG Mac]

How would this apply to a Wing Commander who, hypothetically speaking, was relieved by his Region Commander, reinstated by the MARB, relieved again by the Region Commander, and reinstated a second time by the MARB/MARP?

That hypothetical seems familiar. Can't remember where I heard or saw it. 

In the MARB notes in E-Services RIWG Commander fired twice, reinstated by MARB twice.

[flyboy53]

Kind of ends the politics of the other process, doesn't it.

I guess I've been wondering when this would occur. It's certainly a new era for the CAP.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

How would this apply to a Wing Commander who, hypothetically speaking, was relieved by his Region Commander, reinstated by the MARB, relieved again by the Region Commander, and reinstated a second time by the MARB/MARP?

That hypothetical seems familiar. Can't remember where I heard or saw it. 

In the MARB notes in E-Services RIWG Commander fired twice, reinstated by MARB twice.

Take a look at the 2 devil icons.  Now look at my Unit assignment.

[PHall]

Kind of ends the politics of the other process, doesn't it.

I guess I've been wondering when this would occur. It's certainly a new era for the CAP.

I do believe you just figured out why the BOG went to this new procedure!

Have a cookie!!!

[Luis R. Ramos]

Phil,

Let me guess... Maybe, perchance, is your unit RI Wing HQ?



Which thing do I get as a prize?

Flyer

[RogueLeader]

Phil,

Let me guess... Maybe, perchance, is your unit RI Wing HQ?



Which thing do I get as a prize?

Flyer

A cookie, at your expense.

[a2capt]

A cookie, at your expense.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I'm a bit surprised that a requirement of prior military service isn't part of it.

[PHall]

I'm a bit surprised that a requirement of prior military service isn't part of it.

Why would that need to be a requirement?

[SarDragon]

Phil,

Let me guess... Maybe, perchance, is your unit RI Wing HQ?



Which thing do I get as a prize?

Flyer

Not even close. His unit is almost as far away from RI as you can get and still be in CONUS. There are about ten units farther away.

You get the blue booby prize.

[PHall]

Phil,

Let me guess... Maybe, perchance, is your unit RI Wing HQ?



Which thing do I get as a prize?

Flyer

Not even close. His unit is almost as far away from RI as you can get and still be in CONUS. There are about ten units farther away.

You get the blue booby prize.

Wrong Phil there Dave. He was referring to Hirons not me.

You get the Blue Booby prize!

[Fubar]

Is the current commander going to apply?

[PHall]

Is the current commander going to apply?

He can if he wants to.

[ColonelJack]

Is the current commander going to apply?

He can if he wants to.

Remember, the degree requirement doesn't apply to General Carr; he was "grandfathered" in as the sitting NatCC when the change was made.

Jack

[ColonelJack]

How would this apply to a Wing Commander who, hypothetically speaking, was relieved by his Region Commander, reinstated by the MARB, relieved again by the Region Commander, and reinstated a second time by the MARB/MARP?

That hypothetical seems familiar. Can't remember where I heard or saw it. 

In the MARB notes in E-Services RIWG Commander fired twice, reinstated by MARB twice.

You can't really blame him for being thoroughly disgusted with CAP after something like that, can you?  I wonder why the NER CC worked so hard to get rid of the RIWG CC ... twice ... only to have it overturned both times.

There's got to be a story there.  (It's the journalist in me doing the asking, honest.)

Jack

[a2capt]

I wonder why the NER CC worked so hard to get rid of the RIWG CC ... twice ... only to have it overturned both times.

Mean people suck. Not everyone gets along.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I'm a bit surprised that a requirement of prior military service isn't part of it.

Why would that need to be a requirement?

Our National Commander does a lot of interfacing with the Air Force, and probably the Coast Guard on SAR issues(?).

My thinking is that it would be a bit more familiar than someone who has just had a career in the business world with no contact with the military.

I wonder why the NER CC worked so hard to get rid of the RIWG CC ... twice ... only to have it overturned both times.

Mean people suck. Not everyone gets along.

I often say "I can get along with anyone who wants to get along with me, and I try to get along with everyone until/if/when they give me a reason to do otherwise."

[PHall]

I'm a bit surprised that a requirement of prior military service isn't part of it.

Why would that need to be a requirement?

Our National Commander does a lot of interfacing with the Air Force, and probably the Coast Guard on SAR issues(?).

My thinking is that it would be a bit more familiar than someone who has just had a career in the business world with no contact with the military.

I wonder why the NER CC worked so hard to get rid of the RIWG CC ... twice ... only to have it overturned both times.

Mean people suck. Not everyone gets along.

I often say "I can get along with anyone who wants to get along with me, and I try to get along with everyone until/if/when they give me a reason to do otherwise."

The President does a lot of interfacing with the military too, but there's no requirement for the President to be a veteran.

[JeffDG]

The President does a lot of interfacing with the military too, but there's no requirement for the President to be a veteran.

Even more so with the Secretary of Defense...the last few have served in the military, but I don't think Cohen (Clinton's final SecDef) did.

[LSThiker]

The President does a lot of interfacing with the military too, but there's no requirement for the President to be a veteran.

There is a line that can open an entirely new debate.  I am sure we can find some people that would think the President should be a veteran or at least the SECDEF.

[Eclipse]

The President does a lot of interfacing with the military too, but there's no requirement for the President to be a veteran.

Even more so with the Secretary of Defense...the last few have served in the military, but I don't think Cohen (Clinton's final SecDef) did.

Ditto with the service Secretaries, which are often political appointees with no military experience.  A quick check of biographies shows neither
the current Sec of the USAF or Army have military experience, though both appear to be well-respected and competent.

Our National Commanders need to be knowledgeable and experienced in CAP matters, not the military. Knowing the protocol and lingo
is always helpful, but being too far-afield and assuming prior military experience automatically equates to CAP success is a common and serious misconception.

The majority of CAP members are not prior or current service, and leading volunteers is a vastly more complex skill then leading people legally bound to follow orders.

I have no real issue with any of the requirements, other then I wish they would make them requirements and not waivable "guidelines".

[jeders]

The majority of CAP members are not prior or current service, and leading volunteers is a vastly more complex skill then leading people legally bound to follow orders.

It's amazing how easy it is to get people to do what you say when the alternative is potentially jail.

I have no real issue with any of the requirements, other then I wish they would make them requirements and not waivable "guidelines".

I can't disagree with this. Though I have a feeling that the chances of any of the requirements being waived ever are pretty low. Unless there is a truly exceptional candidate, I think that there will always be enough applicants to keep the minimums from being waived.

[skymaster]

I am not intending to turn this into a uniform thread - honestly - but don't those Maj Gen slides look blue instead of grey?

I personally think that they are grey, but it seems that the shade of grey has changed slightly in different production runs of the epaulet slides. Looking back through my collection of CAP grade insignia acquired from the CAP Bookstore, CAPMart, and Vanguard over the decades, it seems that, over time, the epaulet sleeves have been made in ever-so-slightly darker shades of grey in newer production runs. In fact, very recent ones that I have personally seen worn by persons with eagles and stars look almost as dark a shade of grey, as the old style blue CAP ones were blue. Still different from the AF, still distinctive, and definitely grey and not blue. Maybe it is just that the older ones in my collection have faded over time, but it is also possible that, over time, the AF has allowed Vanguard to produce insignia in a slightly darker (but definitely distinctive GREY) shade for CAP purposes.

[JeffDG]

I can't disagree with this. Though I have a feeling that the chances of any of the requirements being waived ever are pretty low. Unless there is a truly exceptional candidate, I think that there will always be enough applicants to keep the minimums from being waived.

I have a general dislike of non-waiverable requirements...personally, I think that if you can't trust people to exercise some judgement, you have no business putting them on the BoG.

Here's an example...purely hypothetical, I have absolutely zero knowledge of any of this at all...

Let's say that Col. Gloyd retired from the USAF and threw his hat in the ring for CAP/CC?  He has a wealth of CAP related experience as CAP-USAF/CC, but he doesn'thave either a region command or Level V.  I would submit that his application would still merit consideration by the BoG.  That's the type of thing the waiver authority is for.

[HGjunkie]

I think Col. Gloyd would make an excellent candidate, but there are probably people with more CAP-specific experience than him.

[JeffDG]

I think Col. Gloyd would make an excellent candidate, but there are probably people with more CAP-specific experience than him.

Not the point I was making.  In the absence of waiver authority, the BoG wouldn't even be able to consider such a candidate, as he is missing requirements.

I'm neither saying the Col is a candidate, nor the best one.  I was simply providing a "for instance" where rigid requirements without the ability to waiver would DQ a perfectly viable candidate.  I don't think that CAP CC should be chosen as a result of a checklist

[Eclipse]

Let's say that Col. Gloyd retired from the USAF and threw his hat in the ring for CAP/CC? He has a wealth of CAP related experience as CAP-USAF/CC, but he doesn't have either a region command or Level V.  I would submit that his application would still merit consideration by the BoG.  That's the type of thing the waiver authority is for.

Does he? 

Was he ever a member?  Does he understand how to run a squadron?  Encampment?  NCSA?  SAREx?  I don't think so.

I'm sure Col Gloyd is an excellent USAF Officer, that doesn't necessarily mean he understands ground-level CAP operations, or the minutia
of herding volunteer cats.

That's one of the problems I see with a lot of our leadership, they jumped in mid-level, or came up through the program with a narrow focus
and were never commanders, then they struggle to catch up because they have no hands-on experience with these situations.

Not the point I was making.  In the absence of waiver authority, the BoG wouldn't even be able to consider such a candidate, as he is missing requirements.

And that's the point - if the requirement is appropriate, then you should have plenty in the pool to choose from, if you find the pool is too
small, then you have a choice, adjust the bar or increase the pool.

But either way, knowing you have to meet some mandates in order to continue operations is supposed to spur you to action, not encourage
you to look for exceptions.

That's the problem with CAP, we set up pretty strict and appropriate expectations, but then we assume people won't step up,
so we always leave wiggle room "in case", then human nature being what it is, people live by the expectation of the exceptions
being the norm.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

The President does a lot of interfacing with the military too, but there's no requirement for the President to be a veteran.

There is a line that can open an entirely new debate.  I am sure we can find some people that would think the President should be a veteran or at least the SECDEF.

Which, however, would require a Constitutional Amendment.

[bosshawk]

FYI: Bob Gates was a Lt in the Air Force, before he came to CIA.

[LSThiker]

Does he? 

Was he ever a member?  Does he understand how to run a squadron?  Encampment?  NCSA?  SAREx?  I don't think so.

I'm sure Col Gloyd is an excellent USAF Officer, that doesn't necessarily mean he understands ground-level CAP operations, or the minutia
of herding volunteer cats.

First he said, CAP related experience, not CAP experience.  CAP related experience is pretty nebulous really.

But let us be frank about this.  Does he really need to? 

He is there to run a corporation and interact with the USAF.  Does he really need to understand the nuts and bolts of running a SARX, encampment, or NCSA?  No.  He needs the leadership ability to guide a staff that does know how to do that stuff. 

This is like saying "the CEO of Wal-Mart needs to understand how to be a cashier and customer service manager before taking the job".  It is not their job to understand this.

Listen to Gen Lorenz talk about his experience on taking over as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management and Comptroller.  He was a pilot, never had any training in finance prior to that job.

The military always thrusts officers into positions that they have no working knowledge or understanding of.

[husker]

.....and leading volunteers is a vastly more complex skill then leading people legally bound to follow orders.

So very true.

[Eclipse]

First he said, CAP related experience, not CAP experience.

His "related" experience is at the C-Level and that is where his concerns would be - big ticket money, coordination
of 500 airplanes, etc., and that's with CAP-USAF, not CAP.  Big. Difference.

CAP related experience is pretty nebulous really.

Not really, either you know it or you don't.

But let us be frank about this.  Does he really need to? 

He is there to run a corporation and interact with the USAF.  Does he really need to understand the nuts and bolts of running a SARX, encampment, or NCSA?  No.  He needs the leadership ability to guide a staff that does know how to do that stuff. 

He needs to understand when people are snowing him or literally lying, propagating agendas, etc.  He needs to understand what is actually important to the membership
in order to pick the appropriate staff to provide him good data to make decisions.

I don't know how much exposure you have outside a unit, but if you look around, I guarantee you that the majority of your best leaders
have all had extensive, hands-on experience in CAP.  There's always exceptions and good-fortune, but on the whole, members who haven't
been unit / group / activity commanders, or whose experience is in too narrow a lane make poor wing and higher CCs

This is like saying "the CEO of Wal-Mart needs to understand how to be a cashier and customer service manager before taking the job".  It is not their job to understand this.

Disagree, a huge problem with CEOs today. 10 years ago, CEOs physically built their companies and understood things from the line to the bank.  These days you
have "career" executives who haven't a clue what their company even does, all they care about is "shareholder value", which means a lot of times the don't even understand
the questions they are asked, or they don't care what the answer is, at least in terms of what happens at the product and store level.

Listen to Gen Lorenz talk about his experience on taking over as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management and Comptroller.  He was a pilot, never had any training in finance prior to that job.

The military always thrusts officers into positions that they have no working knowledge or understanding of.

That's very nice for them.  I don't see the word "volunteer" in that paragraph anywhere.  Again, you can move mountains without machines
when your workforce can't disagree or quit.  The military can roll the dice on people, or shuffle them around at will, CAP can't.
When the military appoints an in appropriate leader, they just put him elsewhere and grown more.  CAP can't do that, either.

How many thousands of times has the military, over the years, put someone in a command they didn't want or weren't qualified for,
but the person stuck it out for "retirement points", or "the next job", etc.  CAP doesn't do that, either, so there's no "I know you don't want this job, but
it's the best for you and the service, salute and execute."  We are a coalition of the willing.

Until that's the case in CAP, we need leaders who understand what the member-level impact will be of every decision.

[NIN]

By the way, in thinking about a requirement for our national commander to the prior military, think about the National commander prior to General Carr. I've known General Courter for 25 years she's never been in the military. However, I can tell you that she had been pretty good squadron commander, involved with drill team, professional development stuff, was a group commander, a vice Wing Commander, and then a wing commander and subsequently the Vice National commander and the National Commander. And all this while she was a successful IT executive, too. A C-level exec in a global company. That counts for something.


I'd say in those 20 plus years she got about all the experience she needed for Civil Air Patrol.

[Eclipse]

+1 And we are sadly left to wonder what she could have accomplished had she been allowed to lead instead of being mired in clean-up and baseless complaints.

Lost opportunity and time, never to be recovered.

[LSThiker]

His "related" experience is at the C-Level and that is where his concerns would be - big ticket money, coordination
of 500 airplanes, etc., and that's with CAP-USAF, not CAP.  Big. Difference.

For a CAP National Commander, why would this be a problem.  Are not their concerns on big ticket items?

Not really, either you know it or you don't.

So no one should get any advance rank based on related experience.  So NCOs, military officers, doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc should not be recognized for their related knowledge and experience?  Since you want to work in black/white, they do not know it so their experience does not count?

He needs to understand when people are snowing him or literally lying, propagating agendas, etc.

So a person cannot tell when people are "snowing him" or "lying to him" simply because they do not have CAP experience?

He needs to understand what is actually important to the membership
in order to pick the appropriate staff to provide him good data to make decisions.

I am pretty sure his staff is already picked at the Corporate Level.  How long has Susie Parker, Curt LaFond, and others been working there?  It is not like the new commander will need to instantly choose a new staff.

I don't know how much exposure you have outside a unit, but if you look around, I guarantee you that the majority of your best leaders
have all had extensive, hands-on experience in CAP.  There's always exceptions and good-fortune, but on the whole, members who haven't
been unit / group / activity commanders, or whose experience is in too narrow a lane make poor wing and higher CCs

So that is an opinion with no factual data to back it up?  Sure you can tell me some stories about so and so, but really that is anecdotal evidence.  So, do not know what to tell you on that.

I have met plenty of people with extensive CAP experience that are terrible leaders.  I have met plenty of people that have little CAP experience but extensive related experience that have allowed them to be great CAP leaders.  I have known great CAP leaders that due to their narrow experience, they relied and trusted their staff.

Anecdotal evidence works both ways.

Disagree, a huge problem with CEOs today. 10 years ago, CEOs physically built their companies and understood things from the line to the bank.

10 years ago?  Really?  So apparently 10 years CEOs were building their companies.  Hmm, I guess Wal-Mart, Target, Lockheed Martin, Boeing are only 10 years old.

Also, are you really saying that there are not CEOs that have done the same thing today? 

These days you
have "career" executives who haven't a clue what their company even does, all they care about is "shareholder value", which means a lot of times the don't even understand
the questions they are asked, or they don't care what the answer is, at least in terms of what happens at the product and store level.

You really think that is something new to "these days"?  That has been going on for decades.  Even then, it does not matter.  That CEO knows how to run his interactions between the share holders and the staff that takes care of those decisions.  Why would he be required to know what the lowest person does in the company?  That is not his job.

That's very nice for them.  I don't see the word "volunteer" in that paragraph anywhere.

I see, so because volunteer is not in the paragraph the point was invalid?  You like to work in black/white situations do not you?  The point is a person at the top of an organization does not need to know the nuts and bolts of the jobs.  That is why you have experts and people do those jobs.  The leader needs to have a basic to minimal understanding of the jobs.  More importantly, those corporate positions require a person that has strategic thinking and leadership abilities. 

In the military, why do you think officers do not go through basic training and MOS courses.  Because that is not their job.  Their job is not to do the work or know all the in's and out's of it.  That is for the NCOs.  The officers job is to plan and make decisions at the tactical level.  As the officer increases in rank, he/she works towards an intermediate level and strategic level of leadership.

Just because a person does not have extensive CAP experience, it does not mean their experience as a corporate exec in a global company or equivalent is worthless.  Besides, even the requirements for wing commander are not that "strict".  A person could in theory go from nothing to being a wing commander in 5 years.  Or if a Spaatz Cadet, could make wing commander in 3 years.  Does not require extensive CAP experience does it? 

[Eclipse]

So no one should get any advance rank based on related experience.

Nope.

[Eclipse]

So a person cannot tell when people are "snowing him" or "lying to him" simply because they do not have CAP experience?

Not always.

So that is an opinion with no factual data to back it up?

Fact, backed up by 15 years of personal experience coupled with plenty of news from 'round the CAP world'.

Just because a person does not have extensive CAP experience, it does not mean their experience as a corporate exec in a global company or equivalent is worthless.

Who said it was?  CAP doesn't have the time for people to learn on the job at that level.

Besides, even the requirements for wing commander are not that "strict".  A person could in theory go from nothing to being a wing commander in 5 years.  Or if a Spaatz Cadet, could make wing commander in 3 years.  Does not require extensive CAP experience does it?

I'll take a Spaatz cadet or a 5-year member who was able to be a successful wing CC over someone who has never been a member all day.

[Eclipse]

Disagree, a huge problem with CEOs today. 10 years ago, CEOs physically built their companies and understood things from the line to the bank.

10 years ago?  Really?  So apparently 10 years CEOs were building their companies.  Hmm, I guess Wal-Mart, Target, Lockheed Martin, Boeing are only 10 years old.

Also, are you really saying that there are not CEOs that have done the same thing today?

(Should have been 100, not 10)

There are plenty, but not on the scale of Walmart.

[LSThiker]

Not always.

Exactly, so your point is moot.

Fact, backed up by 15 years of personal experience coupled with plenty of news from 'round the CAP world'.

Nope, still anecdotal evidence.  Mine is also ~15 years of personal experience.  So according to you, my statement is also fact. Hmmmm, still works both ways.

Who said it was?

You did because either you know it or don't.

I'll take a Spaatz cadet or a 5-year member who was able to be a successful wing CC over someone who has never been a member all day.

Neither would CAP.  The person would obviously need Level 1.

(Should have been 100, not 10)

So 100 years?  The problems of 100 years ago and the problems of today are vastly different.  Speaking from a corporate view, who cares about 100 years ago.  So again, moot point I guess.

Nope.

Well I guess that would eliminate the NCO program, which may or not may not be good.  I guess you would also eliminate the alternatives for the Officer Basic Course, RSC, and NSC?

So a person with 30 years of leading soldiers or airmen has nothing to contribute then?  I mean "volunteer" was not in their leadership experience and since you "either know it or don't", then they do not know how to apply leadership theories learned from the military to volunteers?

[Eclipse]

I guess you would also eliminate the alternatives for the Officer Basic Course, RSC, and NSC?

Yes, in a minute.  Those have no relevance to CAP whatsoever, and in most cases, the scale of the military school doesn't even
match the scale of the CAP level it's getting equivalence for.

Everyone should walk in the door with the same slick sleeves, do the same work and move up in the same way.

As they said to me at the DMV when I renewed my license and asked for a waiver on the motorcycle written
test because I've been teaching and administering that same test for 13 years...
"Well, then it shouldn't be too hard for you to get 100%, then should it?"

So a person with 30 years of leading soldiers or airmen has nothing to contribute then?

None?  Of course not.  Relevant?  Hard to say.  Few military units or echelons, other then an aircrew, really match
the way CAP is laid out in any meaningful way.

People say NCOs are more akin to a squadron then officers because NCOs are attuned to small squads, but that's
not a function of CAP's structure, that's a symptom of CAP's shrinkage.  A CAP squadron isn't supposed to
be a small squad in the typical military sense, nor are they single-task focused or specialists.

Another issue is the consistency of training, which is non-existent in CAP.  Much of the military moves because
everyone is on the same team, has the same (relative goals) and has had the same experience to get where they
are.   If you're a load-toad, you likely sat in the same classroom as everyone else you work with, etc., etc.

That also doesn't exist in CAP.

Further, there's zero authority based on grade. I've seen more then a few situations where a new Lt Col
with 30 years military walks into a room and expects to get things done based on his shirt collar.  When nothing
happens but blank stares, they are not sure where to go.

Next you have the 5+ hats worn by the typical member, generally based on little more then willingness to "do",
and rarely having anything to do with grade or relative experience.

Ultimately, people are either leaders or they aren't.  Anyone successful in the military is going to be able to translate
those skills, experience, and abilities into success in CAP, or any similar organization, but not as a day-1 Messiah basis,
and no more, or less, then anyone else with the same relative life experience working as an adult in the real world.

Consider this #1:  How much rhetoric do we get here about all the senior squadrons and members who
feel CAP doesn't need to emphasize the paramilitary aspects, and in too many cases, ignore them
altogether.  How effective is someone used to leading in an environment of military discipline and
structure when the subordinates can't be bothered to care?

Consider this #2:
You can usually tell in CAP where the real risk and importance is vs. rhetoric and appearance.
There's plenty of equivalence, waivers, and exceptions in grade, specialties, and staff appointments,
but zero in ES.

Army Ranger?  Great.  You still have to demo a compass like everyone else.
Head of your County EMA?  Excellent, still have to take 100/200/300/400, etc., whether you "know this"
or not.  Etc., etc.

Flew SAR missions for the CG in 182s?.  Congrats!  That Form 91 should be breeze.

No, there should not be equivalences or waivers for anyone.

[Luis R. Ramos]

then they do not know how to apply leadership theories learned from the military to volunteers?

Nope, not the same situation.

Military: "Do this, or its the UCMJ with ya."

Volunteer: "Do this, or its... what? 2b???" "Oh yes? MARB for ya!"

We could say the same thing for Police and Fire Commissioners, the top-of-the-line jobs for NYPD and FDNY. "The commissioner is a civilian appointment, they do not need to know how to arrest a criminal, how to patrol a beat, how to fight a fire, how to drive a bus (ambulance), how to drive a fire engine, they only need to know how to interact with politicos, unions, etc." Yet each commissioner has always arose from the ranks or had previous experience in another city's department. Once those commissioners get appointed, they stop wearing the respective uniform instead wears a business suit, but they are previous experience police and fire.

Flyer

[LSThiker]

Military: "Do this, or its the UCMJ with ya."

Actually no.  Only commanders can initiate UCMJ.  Trust me, it is not that simple to initiate UCMJ on minor infractions.  If you have to start UCMJ, then you should be talking with JAG.  If the situation comes to UCMJ, then that same action is probably worthy of a 2B.  If you 2B a person, you should probably also be talking with JAG.  In fact, I would say getting a 2B through is probably significantly easier than getting a UCMJ through for minor infractions.

Also, if this is really your leadership style, then you failed to apply leadership theories and principles in general.

Yet each commissioner has always arose from the ranks or had previous experience in another city's department.

Might want to check your history before using the word "always".  In fact, a number of NY Police Commissioners were never police officers prior.  They were military officers.  This includes a famous US President as well.

[SarDragon]

In my 21 years in the Navy, I initiated three report chits. One ended up as a travesty best left to history, one was handled at the division officer level, and one went to Article 15 proceedings (Captain's Mast).

Anyone can initiate the process.

[JeffDG]

In fact, a number of NY Police Commissioners were never police officers prior.  They were military officers.  This includes a famous US President as well.

Walk softly...

[LSThiker]

In my 21 years in the Navy, I initiated three report chits. One ended up as a travesty best left to history, one was handled at the division officer level, and one went to Article 15 proceedings (Captain's Mast).

Anyone can initiate the process.

No.  Any one can recommend to the commander UCMJ, but only commanders can initiate the process.  Although in the Navy and USMC, I think that is actually given to officers-in-charge (not the position title, but rather the person appointed by a flag officer for those not understanding the difference).

3–4. Personal exercise of discretion (para 1d(2), part V, MCM, 2008)
a. A commander will personally exercise discretion in the nonjudicial punishment process by—
(1) Evaluating the case to determine whether proceedings under UCMJ, Art. 15 should be initiated.
(2) Determining whether the Soldier committed the offense(s) where UCMJ, Art. 15 proceedings are initiated and
the Soldier does not demand trial by court-martial.
(3) Determining the amount and nature of any punishment, if punishment is appropriate.

3–7. Who may impose nonjudicial punishment
a. Commanders. Unless otherwise specified in this regulation or if authority to impose nonjudicial punishment has been limited or withheld by a superior commander (see d, below), any commander is authorized to exercise the disciplinary powers conferred by UCMJ, Art. 15. The management of installations by Installation Management Command (IMCOM) will not affect the exclusive authority of commanders, as defined by this regulation, to impose nonjudicial punishment.
(1) The term commander, as used in this chapter, means a commissioned officer who, by virtue of that officer's grade and assignment, exercises primary command authority over a military organization or prescribed territorial area, that under pertinent official directives is recognized as a command.

b. Usually the preliminary investigation is informal and consists of interviews with witnesses and/or review of
police or other informative reports. If, after the preliminary inquiry, the commander determines, based on the evidence currently available, that the Soldier probably has committed an offense and that a nonjudicial punishment procedure is appropriate, the commander should (unless the case is to be referred to a superior commander (see para 3–5)) take action as set forth in this section.

If an imposing commander determines that summarized proceedings are appropriate, the designated subordinate officer or noncommissioned officer (NCO) (see para 3–18, below), or the commander personally, will notify the Soldier of the following:
(1) The imposing commander's intention to initiate proceedings under UCMJ, Art. 15.

e. Commanders will not initiate or proceed with courts-martial actions pursuant to UCMJ authority against civilians for matters in which DOJ has asserted jurisdiction under the MEJA, 18 USC 3261, or other extraterritorial application of Federal law.

[LSThiker]

In fact, a number of NY Police Commissioners were never police officers prior.  They were military officers.  This includes a famous US President as well.

Walk softly...

No walking softly.  It is a historical fact.  Prior to 1901 NYPD was led by a group of commissioners of which most were not appointed police officers prior to taking the position of commissioners.  After 1901, when the city determined it will only have 1 commissioner, the first 6 or 7 NYPD commissioners were not police officers.

Those that were appointed as police commissioner were mostly military officers.  In fact, one or two commissioners were MOH awardees. 

Roosevelt took a Civil Service Commission in 1889.  In 1895, Roosevelt was appointed a police commissioner and then the president of the police commissioners.  1897, he became the Assistant Secretary of the Navy.  In 1898 he conducted the San Juan Hill.  After leaving the military in 1898, he was elected the Governor of NY.  1900, he becomes Vice President.  1901, he becomes President after the assassination of McKinley.

I was not trying to claim anything beyond what has happened and to never use the word "always" unless you know for sure it was "always".  However, in the case of NYPD commissioners, it has not always been police officers appointed as police commissioners. 

[Eclipse]

My city had a PD superintendent who was never a uniformed officer.  He was an FBI agent for 15 or 20 years before being appointed as PD-Sup.

This was a pretty sore spot for most patrol officers who felt he was clueless about the day-to-day life of a typical officer.

Having "related" experience is not the same as having "relevent" experience.

[SarDragon]

In my 21 years in the Navy, I initiated three report chits. One ended up as a travesty best left to history, one was handled at the division officer level, and one went to Article 15 proceedings (Captain's Mast).

Anyone can initiate the process.

No.  Any one can recommend to the commander UCMJ, but only commanders can initiate the process.  Although in the Navy and USMC, I think that is actually given to officers-in-charge (not the position title, but rather the person appointed by a flag officer for those not understanding the difference).

3–4. Personal exercise of discretion (para 1d(2), part V, MCM, 2008)
a. A commander will personally exercise discretion in the nonjudicial punishment process by—
(1) Evaluating the case to determine whether proceedings under UCMJ, Art. 15 should be initiated.
(2) Determining whether the Soldier committed the offense(s) where UCMJ, Art. 15 proceedings are initiated and
the Soldier does not demand trial by court-martial.
(3) Determining the amount and nature of any punishment, if punishment is appropriate.

3–7. Who may impose nonjudicial punishment
a. Commanders. Unless otherwise specified in this regulation or if authority to impose nonjudicial punishment has been limited or withheld by a superior commander (see d, below), any commander is authorized to exercise the disciplinary powers conferred by UCMJ, Art. 15. The management of installations by Installation Management Command (IMCOM) will not affect the exclusive authority of commanders, as defined by this regulation, to impose nonjudicial punishment.
(1) The term commander, as used in this chapter, means a commissioned officer who, by virtue of that officer's grade and assignment, exercises primary command authority over a military organization or prescribed territorial area, that under pertinent official directives is recognized as a command.

b. Usually the preliminary investigation is informal and consists of interviews with witnesses and/or review of
police or other informative reports. If, after the preliminary inquiry, the commander determines, based on the evidence currently available, that the Soldier probably has committed an offense and that a nonjudicial punishment procedure is appropriate, the commander should (unless the case is to be referred to a superior commander (see para 3–5)) take action as set forth in this section.

If an imposing commander determines that summarized proceedings are appropriate, the designated subordinate officer or noncommissioned officer (NCO) (see para 3–18, below), or the commander personally, will notify the Soldier of the following:
(1) The imposing commander's intention to initiate proceedings under UCMJ, Art. 15.

e. Commanders will not initiate or proceed with courts-martial actions pursuant to UCMJ authority against civilians for matters in which DOJ has asserted jurisdiction under the MEJA, 18 USC 3261, or other extraterritorial application of Federal law.

Imposing the punishment is done by the commander. Everything else in the process is done by other people at the commander's direction. I, as an NCO, was empowered by the regulations to initiate the report chit, which, upon review by the legal beagles, starts the process.

YMMV.

Now that I look at this, it seems we've gone far afield from the OP. If we wish  to continue this line of discussion, it ought to be split off into a separate thread. Or not.

[Luis R. Ramos]

At the beginning what you stated re police commissioners may be true but look the history of the rest. Those not prior police were/are resented by the rank and file  just as Eclipse stated.

However this does not change my point. Which is a criticism of the belief that just because you are prior military all of a sudden you are ready to apply those years of military leadership skills to a volunteer organization.

Paid police and NYPD are uniformed services and are more akin to the military.

Now find me an example of a military officer with a successful career leading a volunteer fire department, and will change my tune...



Flyer

[LSThiker]

Imposing the punishment is done by the commander. Everything else in the process is done by other people at the commander's direction. I, as an NCO, was empowered by the regulations to initiate the report chit, which, upon review by the legal beagles, starts the process.

YMMV.

Now that I look at this, it seems we've gone far afield from the OP. If we wish  to continue this line of discussion, it ought to be split off into a separate thread. Or not.

Imposing the punishment is done by the commander. Everything else in the process is done by other people at the commander's direction. I, as an NCO, was empowered by the regulations to initiate the report chit, which, upon review by the legal beagles, starts the process.

Exactly.  As you said, "at the commander's direction".  Again, only commander's can initiate the UCMJ process.  I did not say that certain processes of the UCMJ cannot be delegated, but only the commander can initiate the UCMJ process.  For example, the commander does not conduct the "Commander's Inquiry" or AR-15-6 Investigation.  That is conducted by an investigating officer appointed by the commander. In order to deliver a DA Form 2627 to the soldier, the commander may delegate this to either an officer or an E7 or above enlisted.

Also, JAG does not initiate UCMJ for minor offenses.  The purpose of the JAG is to advise a commander on whether or not to seek UCMJ on a Soldier.  If the JAG says do not, the commander can still initiate the process (albeit not a smart move).  If the JAG says yes the evidence supports it, the commander still has the option of doing nothing about it.  The decision whether to initiate UCMJ on a Soldier relies solely on the commander and no one else except that listed in AR 27-10, 3-7B1.   

Now if it is a major offense (sexual assault, trafficking, etc) that is a CID issue.  If it is property damage, that is a MP issue.  I do not know how those work.

Now whether the Navy is the same, I do not know.  However, for the Army (and also the USAF I believe), UCMJ can only be initiated by commanders.

[LSThiker]

At the beginning what you stated re police commissioners may be true but look the history of the rest. Those not prior police were/are resented by the rank and file  just as Eclipse stated.

They may have been resented by the rank, but that does not mean they did a poor job.  Roosevelt was the one that pushed for a bicycle police squad and forced police officers to "walk a beat".  In fact, rumor has it that Roosevelt himself would walk around the city at night and morning just to see if the officers were actually patrolling their beats.  During his time, the entire NYPD was overhauled.  I forget which of the NYPD commissioners it was, but he was a military officer, that started the NYPD motorcycle squad. 

However this does not change my point. Which is a criticism of the belief that just because you are prior military all of a sudden you are ready to apply those years of military leadership skills to a volunteer organization.

That is not my point either.  Just because you are prior military does not mean anything either.  As a veteran, I get annoyed by others that think being a veteran should get you some special privileges.  So you do not get 10% off on your purchase, who cares.  Or the:  I am a veteran and the cop still gave me a ticket for going 10 over.  Tough deal with it. 

My point is that just because you did not lead volunteers, that does not mean your leadership skills do not transfer.  A lot of the leadership skills I learned in CAP have served me well in the military and a lot of the military leadership skills have served me well in CAP.  Is it a direct transfer, no.  Does it require an adaptation to your leadership skills?  Yes. 

Just because you do not have specific experience to that particular field does not mean your skills are worthless.  The basics and foundations of leadership are for the most part pretty universal.  This would be like saying an infantry officer cannot lead a transportation unit and vice versa.  However, the military is full of exactly those leadership stories.  Or a senior squadron commander cannot be a leader in a cadet squadron.  Even in the business world, you will find company execs that change and find themselves in a field they were not previous.  A good leader, whether for paid employees or volunteers, will know how to adapt themselves.  It may take a period of transition, but it will happen.  Can all leaders do this?  No.

Now find me an example of a military officer with a successful career leading a volunteer fire department, and will change my tune...

I just do not have the time to really look.  However, do you think a paid fire chief could successfully lead a volunteer fire department? 

[Luis R. Ramos]

Then why did you reply to my post? That is exactly why these threads move away from what started them.

And yes, a paid fire chief could successfully lead a volunteer fire department. However, volunteer fire departments elect their chiefs, so at least for many of them, it is volunteers from the top down.

Flyer

[LSThiker]

Then why did you reply to my post? That is exactly why these threads move away from what started them.

And yes, a paid fire chief could successfully lead a volunteer fire department. However, volunteer fire departments elect their chiefs, so at least for many of them, it is volunteers from the top down.

Flyer

No you misunderstood my question.  I was not saying a paid fire chief within a volunteer fire department, but rather a paid fire chief that left the department and became a volunteer department fire chief.

[Luis R. Ramos]

For starters, he probably would not start as a fire chief off the bat. Unless other volunteers are awed by his experience. If he is elected off the bat, he may or may not have problems. Normally he would start with no responsibilities as just another fireman. If his ego then gets in the way...



Flyer

[LSThiker]

For starters, he probably would not start as a fire chief off the bat. Unless other volunteers are awed by his experience. If he is elected off the bat, he may or may not have problems. Normally he would start with no responsibilities as just another fireman. If his ego then gets in the way...



Flyer

Okay.  So we are saying essentially the same thing but in two different disagreeing ways.  I think we both agree on the overall picture.  Thanks

[Eclipse]

I was not saying a paid fire chief within a volunteer fire department, but rather a paid fire chief that left the department and became a volunteer department fire chief.

Which is not relevent to this conversation, since the USAF does not equal CAP in the way you indicate above.

[JeffDG]

In fact, a number of NY Police Commissioners were never police officers prior.  They were military officers.  This includes a famous US President as well.

Walk softly...

No walking softly.  It is a historical fact.

"Walk softly" was intended to be part of TR's famous like "Walk softly, but carry a big stick." approach to foreign policy, not a warning for you to tread lightly on a sensitive topic.

[LSThiker]

I was not saying a paid fire chief within a volunteer fire department, but rather a paid fire chief that left the department and became a volunteer department fire chief.

Which is not relevent to this conversation, since the USAF does not equal CAP in the way you indicate above.

Did I say it was relevant to the conversation?  I was using it as a gauge.

[LSThiker]

"Walk softly" was intended to be part of TR's famous like "Walk softly, but carry a big stick." approach to foreign policy, not a warning for you to tread lightly on a sensitive topic.

Oh duh, I cannot believe I did not catch that

[Mitchell 1969]

So no one should get any advance rank based on related experience.

Nope.

So, you're saying that our Mitchell cadets should politely decline E-3 when they join the Air Force?

[Eclipse]

Not related.

[ZigZag911]

At the beginning what you stated re police commissioners may be true but look the history of the rest. Those not prior police were/are resented by the rank and file  just as Eclipse stated.

However this does not change my point. Which is a criticism of the belief that just because you are prior military all of a sudden you are ready to apply those years of military leadership skills to a volunteer organization.

Paid police and NYPD are uniformed services and are more akin to the military.

Now find me an example of a military officer with a successful career leading a volunteer fire department, and will change my tune...



Flyer

How about a career MP officer or senior NCO (E-7 or above)?

[ZigZag911]

On another note, I sincerely doubt that anyone who has served recently at CAP-USAF will either apply or be appoint as National Commander.

I say this because, WIWAC, the National CC was a serving Air Force officer...for various reasons, including budget, USAF and CAP got away from that model...as we did with wing liaison officers/LNCOs, who became state directors and assistants, who then more or less disappeared.

Could the next National CC be a retired AF officer or NCO?  Yes...but I'd suspect that individual would have significant, current experience as a CAP volunteer.

Of course, I've been wrong before!