Squadron Commander Term Limits

[blinky]

I'd still like you to either support or recant your assertion about the BOG.

Get to know the group/wing staff from a state that hadn't implemented this rule previously.

[blinky]

I'd still like you to either support or recant your assertion about the BOG.

Get to know the group/wing staff from a state that hadn't implemented this rule previously.

So - just to set this straight - all "non-strategic" decision making is shifted to the full control of the national commander and is now out of the BOG hands.  The BOG reviews but can no longer overrule the National Commanders "non-strategic" policy making - which includes the changes to 20-1.  They reviewed the decision and the response from BOG was "We do not concur" with that section and the national commander did it anyway.  That's the new relationship between the BOG and the National Commander with the governance change.

[TCMajor]

Blinky,

No one is so good that they should stay in a position of command more than 4-years.  I actually think it should only be 3-years.  It creates stagnation in the unit.  I would consider my self a reasonably good commander.  However, I fully plan on being out of my position before I hit the 4-year mark.  I am coming up on two years March, and my squadron has seen measurable growth (took over at 90 now at 131 heading to 150 and beyond). I started talking about leaving command when I hit the one year mark, letting everyone know that I would be replaced at the 4-year mark or before.  I have trained several folks through that time.  I now have at least three or four folks who could step in and continue the squadron if I get hit by a bus tonight.  Every commander needs to understand the words "I am nobody special and I can and must be replaceable" the important people are the ones standing in front of me.

  As far as being a "youth" organization.  Well, while important, Cadet Programs is only one of our three missions.  The Boy Scouts (yes I am a leader who is wood badge) only has one. 

  The sad part here is that it took a regulation to make leaders do what they should have been doing all along...ensuring the existence of their unit beyond there exit. That is what leaders do.

[Eclipse]

I'd still like you to either support or recant your assertion about the BOG.

Get to know the group/wing staff from a state that hadn't implemented this rule previously.

That's not an answer to the question posted, and what you have provided is not evidence, either. 

That would be board minutes, committee discussions or similar.

Citing people from other wings who you say aren't happy isn't evidence of the BOG not being happy, either.
That's evidence of people not being happy, probably those who didn't like the idea.

[blinky]

TCMajor - thanks for the measured response.  I totally agree with everything you said.  I wish we had a squadron as large as yours to work with but we do not.  My concern here is that this is a one size fits all solution that - while it may work for your squadron which has a ton of resources - it is going to decimate our tiny squadron.  Many of the wings do not agree with this but it is being forced on them and for small squadrons (which is most squadrons in our region) this is sadly going to do lasting harm.  Time will tell and I honestly hope everyone here with their crass insults are right.  But I don't agree with it and I'm on board with this petition because the chain of command will not service the youth in our squadron.

[Eclipse]

Time will tell and I honestly hope everyone here with their crass insults are right.

Cite please.

[SamFranklin]

Blinky, you're confusing the BoG, empowered by Congress to lead as it deems best, with the now defunct National Board, perhaps?

That you're confused on that point ought to signal to you that the issues you are so opinionated about are more complex that you suspect. Have some faith that top leaders, including non-CAP types / AF general officers on our BoG, are pretty pleased with CAP's performance in recent years.

[blinky]

I'd still like you to either support or recant your assertion about the BOG.

Get to know the group/wing staff from a state that hadn't implemented this rule previously.

That's not an answer to the question posted, and what you have provided is not evidence, either. 

That would be board minutes, committee discussions or similar.

Citing people from other wings who you say aren't happy isn't evidence of the BOG not being happy, either.
That's evidence of people not being happy, probably those who didn't like the idea.

Look dude - you are happy with this - then be happy.  This isn't a right or wrong discussion and I am not going to sit here and try to prove something that won't make a hill of beans difference to you.  It is not right for us and many squadrons feel the same way.  You can argue till the cows come home but that isn't going to bring back the cadets we lose over this.  I am so happy for you that you have it all together and you are doing it right and you know best for you.  But you don't know best for everybody and frankly your opinion is just like your arm pitt - we both have two but yours stinks.  Get it?  I am right in the domain of influence that I have control over and you are wrong.

[abdsp51]

So Blinky, let me get this straight. You would rather have a guy establish his own little world and run things outside of the regulations established because he is good?  You do not support term limits because it will harm your tiny squadron and this whole thing is harmful to cadets?  The National Commander cannot dictate policy?  Hmmm are you aware you serve in your duty position at the discretion of the commander just like every other SM here and myself?  You have obviously never been a member of an overseas unit at all which changes squadron commanders anywhere from 1 year to 3 years give or take.

You claim the BoG does not agree with the decision for term limits yet you have not provided anything solid to substantiate it.  What type of example do you believe this is setting for cadets?  That you can challenge anything in the program you do not like via petition?  That anything you don't like is evil and not in someone or their best interests? 

As our more senior posters here have asked please provide proof and solid proof at that  the BoG did not and does not agree with this decision something other than talk to someone.  Without that you are lacking the credibility for your case and it is all just speculation.

If you do not like how things are going then either leave or advance and be elected as the National Commander or the BoG and SAG and change the policy.  You also claim we are going to lose cadets please provide concrete proof of this outside your speculation. 

[ßτε]

I'd still like you to either support or recant your assertion about the BOG.

Get to know the group/wing staff from a state that hadn't implemented this rule previously.

That's not an answer to the question posted, and what you have provided is not evidence, either. 

That would be board minutes, committee discussions or similar.

Citing people from other wings who you say aren't happy isn't evidence of the BOG not being happy, either.
That's evidence of people not being happy, probably those who didn't like the idea.

Look dude - you are happy with this - then be happy.  This isn't a right or wrong discussion and I am not going to sit here and try to prove something that won't make a hill of beans difference to you.  It is not right for us and many squadrons feel the same way.  You can argue till the cows come home but that isn't going to bring back the cadets we lose over this.  I am so happy for you that you have it all together and you are doing it right and you know best for you.  But you don't know best for everybody and frankly your opinion is just like your arm pitt - we both have two but yours stinks.  Get it?  I am right in the domain of influence that I have control over and you are wrong.  Period - so suck it up and go home.

Any credibility you may have had has been totally eradicated by that post. There in absolutely no reason to take any of your points seriously.

[RiverAux]

Uh, if the BOG isn't happy with something the National Commander does, they would just fire him and wouldn't think twice about it. 

And just because a beloved, irreplacable squadron commander no longer holds that position doesn't mean that they can't stay and help the new person do the job and be just as active in the unit as they had been.  Its not like they get kicked out of CAP. 

[Eclipse]

Home?

You wandered in here, violated the TOS with your first post, and then started making assertions and veiled accusations regarding the
national leadership and governance structure.

Not to mention that just about every "fact" or statistic you've cited in support of your opinions has literally been incorrect.

Any good commander puts the continuity of the unit above their own presence, and will also be there during the transition
and probably long after to help the new guy keep things running.  Good plans far outlive personalities and stand on their own,
regardless of who is wearing the badge.

Unit too small to have people progressing in their own development and interested in the job?  Failure of command.

No real plan for continuity, or the program is so personality-specific that it dissolves overnight when the commander can't be there?  Failure of command.

[blinky]

What I find very interesting in all this is how one sided the opinions of everyone on this forum (at least on this thread), and how totally opposite that is from the reaction of all the squadrons in our area.  Parents especially are comlaining loudly.  Does the membership of this forum have lopsided representation from a certain region?  I see a lot of mid west/southwest/west distribution here.  Anyone from the southeast region here?

[brian.bauer]

My squadron is currently in a predicament; both for the new term limits and because our SQ/CC (Squadron Commander) is no longer interested in having the position and wants to take it easy for a bit.

We're a very small squadron (~10 Cadets / ~ 7 SMs per mtg). We're having to figure it out. It's actually looking like I'm going to be the pick - and I'm an active duty AF Officer with a very busy j.o.b. If you care and have passion, you'll figure out how to make it work. Otherwise you let a very good thing dry up, be bitter for bitter's sake, and perhaps deny a great opportunity for someone who either needs or deserves it.

Keep plugging along and make the best of it. It may take some extra effort, but in the end your work will pay off.

Thanks for your time.

(Sorry I don't have a cool little graphic of my quals / ribbons yet) 

[blinky]

My squadron is currently in a predicament; both for the new term limits and because our SQ/CC (Squadron Commander) is no longer interested in having the position and wants to take it easy for a bit.

We're a very small squadron (~10 Cadets / ~ 7 SMs per mtg). We're having to figure it out. It's actually looking like I'm going to be the pick - and I'm an active duty AF Officer with a very busy j.o.b. If you care and have passion, you'll figure out how to make it work. Otherwise you let a very good thing dry up, be bitter for bitter's sake, and perhaps deny a great opportunity for someone who either needs or deserves it.

Keep plugging along and make the best of it. It may take some extra effort, but in the end your work will pay off.

Thanks for your time.

(Sorry I don't have a cool little graphic of my quals / ribbons yet) 

Thank you very much Brian.

[Critical AOA]

Blinky,

I understand that you and your squadron have a great commander and hate to see him replaced.  May I ask about his potential replacement?  Do you have some negative feelings about him or her that is helping to form your opinion on this subject? 

Is there even a potential well trained candidate ready to step in?

If so, then you should look forward to the next chapter in your squadron's history and be ready to lend him or her the same level of support you lent the current commander.  I am sure it would be greatly appreciated by all. 

If there is not a ready candidate, what does that say about your commander?  A good commander is always involved in succession planning just in case. 

These are just questions from a curious bystander.

[LGM30GMCC]

but in my short stint it has become clear that CAP is loosing it's mission and it's clout

I'm afraid you have been exposed to a very small view of CAP if this is your impression. Over the last decade CAP has been building its operational relationship with the USAF including carrying out operations that have a very high profile. Additionally the CAP/CC has met with the Chief of Staff of the Air Force on several occasions, the CSAF also has visited  numerous generals have attended CAP functions throughout the country. I would say that is a pretty high level of clout. Senior leaders from the USAF continue to serve on our BoG as well.

It is true SAR missions have decreased to a certain extent, however overall mission hours are up. Disaster Relief and Homeland Security type missions are increasing in frequency. CAP support of Katrina and the Deep Water Horizon are two very high profile missions that CAP has recently been involved in.

Get to know the group/wing staff from a state that hadn't implemented this rule previously.

I have been a squadron commander, wing staff, and region staff prior to this rule being added. I have seen both good squadrons and poor squadrons with long-term squadron commanders, however I still support this rule. It definitely encourages continued shifting of personnel every few years. In many ways on this subject I (brace yourselves) agree with Eclipse. No squadron should have a single point of failure in its leadership and it is vitally important to continue to develop our senior members in leadership and management skills. Unfortunately far too many units see PD as merely an 'optional' program with limited value.

There are many possible sources of Sq/CCs, especially in the geographically smaller wings. Wing staffers could move back down to command units and be back filled by other members. Former squadron commanders can continue to serve in their squadrons as assistants. However I believe it is better for CAP, and the individual units if they move up perhaps to Region staff positions and the like. Another option would be to transfer staff members from one squadron to take command of another unit. This would be most feasible in areas where there are other units within a one hour commute or so.

So - just to set this straight - all "non-strategic" decision making is shifted to the full control of the national commander and is now out of the BOG hands.  The BOG reviews but can no longer overrule the National Commanders "non-strategic" policy making - which includes the changes to 20-1.

While there may be some reservations this is certainly within the realm of a commander. As has been pointed out, CAP is no longer a democracy for operational purposes. In many ways this brings us back to our fundamental beginnings though I think it will be a serious shock to the system for people used to command by committee. If, however, the CAP/CC is going too far, or doing something the BoG absolutely will not tolerate, the CAP/CC can be removed. If however, it's tried for the term of a CAP/CC and it is causing some horrific doom-gloom problems the next CAP/CC can rescind that guidance.

I think in many ways one of the greatest weaknesses of our organization is the number of members that are tunnel visioned on their little corner of the organization. I highly recommend you seek opportunities to work at group or wing levels, and to attend activities such as RCLS, NSC, and national conferences. It really can give you a different perspective on the organization as a whole and even your small slice of it.

A number of people here with quite a bit of experience have explained many of the reasons behind the change. If so many of our units are incapable of finding new, high quality, squadron commanders, we have some very serious problems that need to be addressed. Problems that it is clear current commanders are not addressing.

Finally, if a squadron absolutely cannot find a new commander in 90 days, a wing commander can put up an approval to have an Sq/CC in place serve another 4 years. It will just require Region/CC approval. At this point it should shine some very serious light on the unit and get some assistance to it.

I'm not going to get dragged down into the personal attacks no matter how tempting it really is.

[NIN]

Any good commander puts the continuity of the unit above their own presence, and will also be there during the transition
and probably long after to help the new guy keep things running.  Good plans far outlive personalities and stand on their own,
regardless of who is wearing the badge.

^^This

[SamFranklin]

What I find very interesting in all this is how one sided the opinions of everyone on this forum (at least on this thread), and how totally opposite that is from the reaction of all the squadrons in our area.  Parents especially are comlaining loudly.

I happen to agree with you that term limits is not something that should be mandated nationally, though I agree with the people who've said long-term commanders indicate poor unit health. Plus, I think a lot of us current and former CCs react to the new policy by saying, "Great, I've been waiting for a replacement but never found anyone, maybe Gen Carr has someone in mind?"

But it's difficult to get to the substance of your point mostly because so much of what you've said has been factually incorrect (BoG stuff, parity size-wise with BSA "back in the day"), representative of only your particular corner of CAP (PCR has no problems with it), and presumes certain things about CAP that not many people agree with (CAP is mostly cadets and this term limit policy is cadet-driven).

Instead of coming in here and lobbing so many opinions, why not ask questions and then engage the answers?   Hey, I hear commanders have term limits. I'm concerned about that for these reasons. Does anyone else feel the same way, or if differently, tell me why so I can either reconfirm my opposition or get swayed to your way....."

But keep throwing bombs if you prefer. Maybe that'll work.

[blinky]

.