CSAG May Meeting Agenda

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

WIWAC we had warrant grades, most seniors started out there; as a result, generally took five or six years to become a captain, ensuring our higher ranking folks actually had some CAP experience.

I would be very glad to go to, and remain, in a warrant officer grade.

While we're on the subject, let's lose ALL the special promotions, appointments,whatever, for everyone, in every job...period.

Except for physicians, nurses and lawyers (those that are actually practicing, not just someone with a JD), I agree wholeheartedly.

On the promotion issue:

This proposal isn't going to change the current culture of " I checked the boxes now promote me even though I never show up" problems.

I wish that were my problem.

Force the commanders to document why the promotion is being denied and give it a timeline for an up or down vote by 30-60 days after the initial request.

:clap: :clap: :clap:And really DOCUMENT, without just a water-weak reason of "s/he's not ready."

[MajorM]

The 116 does not have to be a stop point, as others have pointed out the open-book/online nature makes it manageable.  Though I would forward that if this comes to fruition it would be a good time to review the 116 for relevance.  Do cadets need the same 116 as seniors?  Especially when there are specific limits on what cadets can do.

In my unit all cadets are GenES and GTM3-T ready by the end of Phase I.  It's just part of our indoctrination program.  It arose out of my frustration with having to turn cadets away from SAREXs.  Of course since we meet on Saturday mornings that has a double impact on us.

I think familiarization is good.  Requiring it for promotion though seems a bit far.  I cringe at putting the onus on a 13 year old.  If its going to be done, put the onus on the adult leadership.

As a side note we also make having some ES rating, or at least significant progression towards one, a requirement for enrolling in our unit's Pilot Training Program.  That can be MSA, MRO, FLM, GTM or other rating.  They get to pick from what might interest them, but we do expect them to show well-roundedness.

[Eclipse]

Item 3:
The CSAG recommend to CAP/CC a regulatory change to CAPR 5-4 that allows Wing
Commanders to issue Operating Instructions that apply to the Wing as a whole.

Concur.

Item 4:
The CSAG recommend to CAP/CC that the format of the Command Council meetings be
restructured to accommodate an initial General Session, Working Group sessions, and a
closing General Session for Working Group out briefs.

No Opinion.

Item 5:
To enhance professionalism and security in CAP Internet Operations, that the CSAG
recommend to the CAP/CC the following regulatory changes to CAPR 110-1:
1) That CAP units starting a new CAP Internet operation do so on a secure server on
the CAP.GOV network or such other network as the CAP/CC or designee may
approve. With regard to CAP units that already have CAP Internet operations, that
those operations be transferred to a secure server on the CAP.GOV network, or
other network approved by the CAP/CC or designee within 6-months.
2) That any future use of any domain names other than CAP.GOV, CAPNHQ.GOV
and GOCIVILAIRPATROL.COM be approved by the CAP/CC or designee.
3) That the CAP/CC or designee approve of policies for security testing of domains
utilized in any CAP Internet operation.

Concur, with the caveat that services or more importantly functions not be disapproved if they
require the use of a non-CAP.GOV domain, and further, that the process for security review
be considered.  The lasat time I had to do this dance, a technicality of one server module in the
the way it reported its version (even though it was updated and secure), blocked the use of the entire server.

Technical people need to be making these reviews and decisions.

Frankly, the entire organization would be better off if NHQ just lit up 60000 licenses for a Google apps domain, required everyone use that address for CAP use and required the retirement of all other domains and web services - no more "loveuhellokitty42@juno.com" emails sent to officials for
CAP-based correspondence.

Items 6:
The CSAG recommend to CAP/CC a regulatory change to CAPR 52-16 to require cadets
seeking to advance through Phase I to take the online CAPT 116, General Emergency
Services Questionnaire examination and to possess a general emergency services (GES)
card in order to receive their Wright Brothers Award.

Concur.

Item 7:
The CSAG recommend to CAP/CC that language in Paragraph 1. Policy of 35-8
referencing "adjudication" be deleted, and in Paragraph 7.f. General Case Procedures
delete any language suggesting the MARP may request a hearing to obtain additional
evidence, and rely on the submitted documentation.

No opinion.

Item 7:
The CSAG recommend to CAP/CC that the XP Specialty Track be deleted with a 6-month
phase-out period. Also recommend the retention of the Plans & Programs Officer duty
position but as an "Optional" position, that NHQ update CAPR 20-1 to reflect the position's
new optional status and provide a relevant, consistent position description for region and
wing XPs. Finally, recommend creation of relevant training products for XPs based on the
updated position description, if required.

Concur.


Item 8:
1. That, effective 1 January 2014, all special requirements in CAPR 50-17, Section 9-2 for
CAP legal officers be eliminated. CAP legal officers that have earned the Loening and
Garber awards under the prior special rules shall continue to be permitted to earn Level V
of the SMPDP as if they had progressed through Levels I through IV of the SMPDP under
the general rules applicable to all senior members.
2. That NLOC be treated as a training experience equivalent to CAP National Staff College
("NSC") for purposes of a CAP legal officer's completion of Level V of the SMPDP, with the
following limitations:
a. A CAP legal officer may use NLOC as a substitute for RSC for completion of Level
IV of the SMPDP; however, he or she may not then retake NLOC and use that
experience as a substitute for NSC as well. NLOC may substitute either for RSC or
for NSC, but not for both.
b. A CAP legal officer that has taken or that takes RSC (or an approved USAF course)
after taking NLOC may retroactively reallocate his or her training experiences so as May 2013 CSAG
25
to complete Level V of the SMPDP using NLOC as the substitute for NSC, and
substituting RSC (or the approved USAF course) for his or her prior completion of
Level IV. In other words, CAP legal officers who progressed through Level IV of the
SMPDP (Garber Award) under either the general or special rules scenarios using
NLOC as a substitute for RSC will have to take RSC or an approved USAF course
in order to qualify for completion of Level V under this new policy

Non-concur, strongly. Why do Legal Officer believe they are "special".  Everyone should complete
the PD as prescribed in the regs.  If RSC or NSC are that bad in comparision, fix those.


IC L1 & 2 SQTRs (Nov 2011 NEC).
Committee 'working the issue".

No idea why these proces take so long.


Booster Clubs (Aug 1012 NB)
A number of changes to remove points of conflict of interest.

Concur, mostly, but would prefer they just be disallowed.

IT Mission Qualification. (Aug 2012 NB)
That the National Board approve creation of a new Mission Support specialty qualification
and SQTR for Information Technology. Core skills need to cover basic computer
troubleshooting principles, software installation/configuration, and basic networking
principles sufficient to network computers together for information exchange.

Concur, but implementation is the key, and needs make sure it focus on operational and practical skills and demonstration tasks (as with other SQTRs), and not on certifications and other academic credentials that may have little to no ground-level value.

Also, the term "WMU" needs to be purged from any official mentions, lest members still think
we're supposed to use it.

To the DCS' comment.  Paper should be abandoned in all operations except as a stone-age fallback, and acknowledged as such.  All processes require contingency plans, but paper should no longer be the center of CAP's universe.  That doesn't mean we eliminate documentation, it means we eliminate paper.  There is a big difference.  Paper is no longer required for ANYTHING in ES, as the entirety of all operations can be run on spreadsheets and local electronic versions of documents in the rare instance no internet is available. But even to that issues, we don't operate in austere environments, and the ICP isn't supposed to be there.

Revision of Promotion Requirements (Nov 2012 CSAG)
That the CSAG recommend to CAP/CC changes to the promotion criteria to include:
1. Make current Flight Officer grades and requirements applicable to all new senior
members with no military or cadet background, regardless of age.
2. Modify the minimum skill level/training and time-in-grade for duty performance
promotions as follows:
a. Raise the skill level and training requirement one level for each grade
b. Make the Officer Basic Course a requirement for 2Lt instead of being taken at any time in the program
c. Require a letter of justification for promotion to field grade. This letter should include documentation of the candidate's outstanding capabilities and
experience, as well his/her plans for future contributions to CAP.


Grade Min Skill Level/Trng Time-In-Grade In Addition
FO Level I 3 months as SM
TFO Technician Rating 6 months as FO
SFO Senior Rating 12 months as TFO
2 Lt OBC 6 months as SFO Wing Level Board
1 Lt Level II 12 months as 2 Lt
Capt Level III 18 months as 1 LT Justification letter
Maj Level IV 3 years as Capt Justification letter
Lt Col Level V 4 years as Maj Justification letter


Concur 100%.  If our grade is ever to regain credibility, both internally and externally, even as only a gauge of knowledge and experience,
we need to suppress the grade level, with a recognition that the majority of members will never rise higher than Captain unless they
have clearly shown more then typical participation, knowledge, and responsibility.  Promotions are not, and should nor ever, be considered
as "reward" for past performance, they are supposed to be acknowledgments of future responsibility.  We already have plenty of ways
to reward our people outside promotion and need to learn to better use those means and stop treating promotions as some kind of payback.
That's what has broken the system we have.  A roomful of Majors and Lt Cols, none of them in command or significant responsibility, is akin
to a corporation with a roomful of "managers".  Likewise butter bars on Wing staff.  Neither is generally a good idea.

Members wearing Field Grade should be the "Yodas" in the room, and if they aren't or can't, don't deserve to be wearing oaks, no matter
what color they are.

[Ned]

It won't.

But the test takes about 15 minutes in an online / open book fashion.

Really?

When is the last time you took it?

I just re-took it and I thought it was a fairly nit-picky and overly technical for something that is an entry-level gate-keeping exam. 

But far more importantly, why do you think the average seventh grader could do it open book in 15 minutes?

Neither of us have seen age 12 for multiple decades, and have a fair amount of college and work experience under out belts, so perhaps before making this a requirement for cadet promotion, we should actually field-test this by taking a bunch of Phase I cadets, plonking them in front of the computer and toss down a couple copies of the 60-3 and 171-3. 

(Field testing new-concepts before enacting new requirements is an under-used paradigm in CAP.  We should probably change that.)


I have terrific faith in our outstanding cadets, but asking them to take a test - even open book - on regulations that are written far beyond their academic level is to set them up for failure.

You might as well give them an calculus exam, stand back and say "hey, it's open book, you can do it!"

All of our aerospace education materials are written specifically for the intended grade-level audience, and some of our cadets still struggle with them.  Same for our leadership texts and exams.

How an earth is this going to "hurt" anyone?

I apologize for not being more clear.

Essentially by definition a certain percentage of cadets will have difficulty with the exam and accordingly will be denied promotion.  You and I may disagree about the approximate percentage, but it is only reasonable to assume that a significant number of seventh and eighth graders will have trouble with an exam based on materials written at a level that even the DoD would not allow to be used for their own regulations.

All policy changes have to be carefully examined by the leadership to make sure they are more helpful than damaging.  Here, we can safely assume that at least some cadets will be delayed or even roadblocked by the CAPT116.  And that should be weighed against the benefit of having more cadets "exposed to ES" and available to help in emergencies.  As I indicated above, the cadet program already requires an even more comprehensive exposure to ES, but does so in Phase IV rather than Phase I.  Phase IV cadets are older, typically juniors or seniors in high school (or even college-aged), and are much more likely to be available to actually work in ES.  (They are far more mobile, and have higher maturity levels to enable them to be effective on a search base.)

And finally, I would like to submit a basic fairness issue.  Why is this being proposed only for cadets and not for seniors?  Wouldn't make even more sense to ensure that seniors not already ES-rated "be exposed to ES and available to emergencies?"  It just seems problematic to require this for 12 & 13 year-olds to be promoted, but somehow not 32 & 33 year-olds.

Would it make as much sense to require that every senior take and pass TLC before completing Level 1?  Shouldn't all seniors be exposed to the CP mission and prepared to help out if needed in a CP situation?  Do you think any non-CP officers might protest if their promotions were held up until they passed their CP exam?

I hope our leadership will find another way -- a non-punitive way -- to expose our cadets further to ES and potentially engage in ES when needed.

Ned Lee
CP Enthusiast

[Eclipse]

I agree it should be for all members.

[BillB]

If a 12 or 13 year old cadet has to take the GES test, the question is why? To many ES activities have a minimum age of 18.  I can see possibly requiring it for the Mitchell, but even that may have age problems. What can a 13 year old do in ES that would even rquire taking CAPT116? Requiring the test for ALL Seniors regardless of specialty track makes more sense.

[Eclipse]

What can a 13 year old do in ES that would even rquire taking CAPT116?

They can do all the Ground / UDF work, MSA, and many base staff positions.

We need to leave state and local restrictions to separate conversations, as they do not have anything to do with CAP on a national basis, and
in most cases represent local politics, or failures by local leaders to get CAP included properly in response plans.

I've spent plenty of time doing training and actual missions with cadets in the 12-15 year old range.  Are there issues of maturity in the younger
ranges, of course, but that goes across the board in the cadets ranks and is not specific to ES, and yes, there are some areas where younger
cadets may not belong, and the likely hood they can participate during school weeks adds another wrinkle, however...

If we take the view that those under 18 can never participate, then we should simply not allow participation in ES by cadets under 18 and
move on.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Concur 100%.  If our grade is ever to regain credibility, both internally and externally, even as only a gauge of knowledge and experience,
we need to suppress the grade level, with a recognition that the majority of members will never rise higher than Captain unless they
have clearly shown more then typical participation, knowledge, and responsibility.  Promotions are not, and should nor ever, be considered
as "reward" for past performance, they are supposed to be acknowledgments of future responsibility.  We already have plenty of ways
to reward our people outside promotion and need to learn to better use those means and stop treating promotions as some kind of payback.

Then new members should be told that the chances are better than not that they will not rise above Captain.

This has about as much chance of passing muster as revival of Warrant Officer grades, but some military services do have a rank of Senior Captain, or in the German Bundeswehr, Stabshauptmann.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabshauptmann

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senior_Captain

A roomful of Majors and Lt Cols, none of them in command or significant responsibility, is akin to a corporation with a roomful of "managers".

A roomful of Captains, given my experience, tells me several things:

1.  Direct appointments who have gone no further, through design or intent
2.  Those who have reached the rank and are content to remain there; like pilots who really don't care about anything except flying
3.  Those, like me, who have worked to try to exceed the rank and are told that they very likely will not
4.  Those who have sucked up to the "right" people in the GOBN

Members wearing Field Grade should be the "Yodas" in the room, and if they aren't or can't, don't deserve to be wearing oaks, no matter
what color they are.

Interesting that you would put it that way.  In my promotion denial I was told that my knowledge of regulations and the CAP in general was "impressive," and I was told face-to-face by another member just recently that I was "a fount of information."

If that's not a "Yoda," it should be at least a "Mace Windu."

[RiverAux]

with a recognition that the majority of members will never rise higher than Captain

mostly already the case under the current system. 

[Eclipse]

with a recognition that the majority of members will never rise higher than Captain

mostly already the case under the current system.

Everyone who was in my "class" from 99 and remained active and engaged - increasing responsibility, PD on a reasonable schedule,
etc., etc., has made it to Major, and a fair number are now, or will presumably soon be, Lt Cols.  The only real gateway to Level IV
right now is RSC, which has held back a few because they choose to put their time in at NESA, encampments, etc.  I'd agree that
should be addressed somehow, but I wouldn't agree that you can't expect to make at least Major in 7-10 years.

Those from my cadre who didn't make it, and probably won't, aren't interested in more responsibility, command, or serving outside
the squadron, which is fine, but then why should they expect advanced grade?

What other organization is going to promote people based solely on time-in with no education or technical training?

[RiverAux]

You didn't specify "the majority of members who stay active in CAP for X amount of time".  The truth is that most people that join CAP don't make it past Captain. 

Overall, CAP has a very pyramid-shaped rank structure with only a few near the tip. 

Introducing required flight officer grades will probably prevent quite a few of those who were going to drop out in a year or two anyway the "privilege" of calling themselves CAP officers and will make it take a while longer for those who are going to stay in to reach higher rank.

I'm not sure its worth the effort unless they do away with all the advanced grade promotions.  Those are usually the folks that are going to cause the most problems of one kind or another due to unfamiliarity with CAP. 

If all we're doing is making those folks who work their way up the CAP system the hard way take even longer to do it while giving some CPA a big leg up, its going to do nothing other encourage the belief that CAP rank is not worth the effort. 

[abdsp51]

If we want to mandate ES across the board then let's mandate that anyone working directly with cadets also have a Tech rating in CP irregardless of what type of unit they are assigned too.  Cadets have plenty on their plate already to worry about without an additional requirement to promote between phases.  Want to do a fam class sure why not but let's be really honest would you rather have someone who accomplishes it because they have to and it becomes a check the box type thing or someone who wants to because that's what they are into?  Quality of people in ES vs quantity. 

[Eclipse]

You didn't specify "the majority of members who stay active in CAP for X amount of time".  The truth is that most people that join CAP don't make it past Captain. 

I didn't specify that because it's not true, nor was it my point.  I said the majority in my class who accepted increasing responsibility, did reasonable PD, and worked outside the unit.  There's plenty who couldn't be bothered, some not interested, a few with "life issues" that got in their way of serving, etc., etc.  All valued members, many who have been frequently decorated and continue to serve in meaningful, enjoyable ways.  Just not in a way deserving of advanced promotion.

Overall, CAP has a very pyramid-shaped rank structure with only a few near the tip. 

By design, as does any other similar organization, the military, successful corporations, and even your local condo board.  All men may well have been created equal, but they don't stay that way permanently.  Those who choose to invest themselves at a higher level are expected to rise within the structure by design. 

Introducing required flight officer grades will probably prevent quite a few of those who were going to drop out in a year or two anyway the "privilege" of calling themselves CAP officers and will make it take a while longer for those who are going to stay in to reach higher rank.

Sounds like the right track to me.

I'm not sure its worth the effort unless they do away with all the advanced grade promotions.

There are many who agree with you, and until grade is connected to authority, no one is required to play the game, though at least in my opinion,
within the current paradigm, there is something "suspect" about people who distance themselves from the core structure of a respective organization's
traditions and expectations and then disdain the majority who do, or expect the same level of respect and deference.  The simple reality is that a member who chooses not to participate in PD can be an excellent technical asset, or single-threaded resource, but is not likely to be educated generally
about CAP and it's procedures and culture as someone who is.  As in all things there are rare exceptions.

Those are usually the folks that are going to cause the most problems of one kind or another due to unfamiliarity with CAP.

I would tend to agree with this.  They tend to know only what they absolutely have to know to participate in their small lane, many times to their
own detriment or conflict with others.  As in all things, there are rare exceptions.

If all we're doing is making those folks who work their way up the CAP system the hard way take even longer to do it while giving some CPA a big leg up, its going to do nothing other encourage the belief that CAP rank is not worth the effort.

I think we agree here as well - I think all advanced promotions should be eliminated, including military equivalence.  They serve very little
in CAP except to dilute the meaning of our grade structure.  At a minimum, new members seeking advanced grade should be required to
demonstrate advanced knowledge of CAP before the grade is proffered, and perhaps it should be provisional on future service at a specific level.
Few people are much use to CAP in their first 6 months to one year while they learn what it means to be a member.  The fact that we hang
a staff shingle on someone before their L1 clears is a significant problem in CAP related to lack of enough members. 

[Майор Хаткевич]

I'm curious how a shift in the grade structure would shift milestone recipients.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

(Field testing new-concepts before enacting new requirements is an under-used paradigm in CAP.  We should probably change that.)

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

I felt this needed to be repeated as a stand alone statement. If we don't do this we are just guessing what will make the program better.

[Walkman]

I've just caught up on the 2.5 pages I missed over the weekend. Honestly many of those in opposition to the ES req for cadets are making me think about my first response. I see Ned's point about the 116 itself. My oldest son had trouble with it as a cadet his first go around and he was in HS at the time. Son #3 is a new cadet, is 12 and pretty smart, but as I really think about it, he might have some trouble with it as well, without some orientation of some sort.

So, the general principal of trying to make sure that all cadets get some exposure to the full three mission world of CAP is good. I'm sure some units have built their own ES orientation classes. Maybe a national standard class could be used. IDK, just throwing stuff out there...

Even with all the variations from state to state, I still think its not a bad idea to have a much higher percentage of our cadets and SMs qual'd at the UDF/MSA level.

[Eclipse]

When is the last time you took it?

Just now - 4 Mins 33 seconds with a passing score of 76%.  That score is partially due to the fact that at least two questions
from this 2009-era test are incorrect in regards to the current state of CAP regulations.  I answered then "incorrectly" on
purpose mostly to see if the test had been updated.

Had I been more interested in the score then in simply passing or my time, the "false positives" notwithstanding, I would have been
able to easily find the answers to the questions using the search function within the PDFs of the documents cited.

While there were a couple that were more verbose, or which were inappropriate for >any< entry-level ES operator (I can't imagine why
a new MSA needs to even be aware of the wing's annual training plan, let alone that one is required to be sent to region)
the vast majority of the questions were common-sense and would be / should be easily covered by even the 2004-era slides
still available on the website (along with broken web test links).

Now, obviously, NHQ does not intend for this to be a pencil-whip exercise in using the F3 key. The intention is clearly for the unit
to have some baseline Emergency Services orientations for all hands which cover the majority of this information.  The Unit's ESO,
or one from another echelon could easily cover what is needed in one evening, probably in an hour or two, as is done regularly all over
the country.  But for the cadets who will Twitter their friends during the presentation, or who are from units where the commanders
can't be bothered, either, this is not going to be more then a speed pimple to getting Wright Brothers.

This isn't remotely calculus, and the analogy is not appropriate.  Could the average slick-sleeve cadet sit down and pass this test
cold in 15 minutes? Probably not, but that's also not the intention. I'd put a Venti on the table that any cadet capable of making
Wright Brothers could do it in 45 or less, especially after being invested in CAP online test procedures and receiving the type of orientation
NHQ clearly intends for this situation.

In fact we already know this is true, because hundreds of cadets already do it every year.

(Hopefully someone from NHQ will see this and address the false-positive questions before this requirement is pushed out).

[abdsp51]

If we want to mandate basic ES for all then IMO we mandated that all SMs who will directly come in contact with cadets as well as in SM in a cadet or composite sq be at least tech rated in CP. 

[Eclipse]

If we want to mandate basic ES for all then IMO we mandated that all SMs who will directly come in contact with cadets as well as in SM in a cadet or composite sq be at least tech rated in CP.

This isn't "mandating ES for all", this is mandating an orientation and one test.  There is no requirement for participation of any kind beyond that.

[arajca]

If we want to mandate basic ES for all then IMO we mandated that all SMs who will directly come in contact with cadets as well as in SM in a cadet or composite sq be at least tech rated in CP.

You got your Catch 22 going. You can't get a CP Tech rating without being in contact with cadets, but you can't be in contact with cadets until you have your CP Tech rating.

There is a HUGE difference between taking a short online test and completing a six month internship. Most folks are not advocating requiring an ES rating, nor does the proposal require that. Just complete GES, which consists of, for cadets, completing the Curry achievement and CAPT 116.