Iowa Wing lowers officer requirements??

Started by capchiro, January 16, 2007, 09:39:36 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

capchiro


I imagine this post will cause much flaming on my head because it is not going to be considered politically correct.  I want everyone to understand that I am aware of the Americans With Disabilities Act and how it applies to CAP.  However, with that said, I must mention the recent CAP news item on CAP.Gov that talks about a young Iowa man that recently got promoted to 2Lt. in spite of his handicaps.  While I applaud this, what I must question is all of the glory and praise that has been laid on Iowa about how they have the keys to the universe and all knowledge necessary to revamp CAP and institute much stricter training for CAP officers in alignment with military standards.  On the one hand, I am proud to serve in an organization that helps those less fortunate than ourselves to achieve, on the other hand, such situations can present distinct liabilities for commanders.  I am just struck by the irony of Iowa Wing wanting stricter officer requirements and then they do something entirely different regarding promotions.  Perhaps if we just stick with the current program and actually follow it, we will be okay.  I am just seeking others thoughts on this matter and am not condemning anyone or anything.  JMHO.
Lt. Col. Harry E. Siegrist III, CAP
Commander
Sweetwater Comp. Sqdn.
GA154

lordmonar

Depends on the handicap and what accomidations they made for him.

Since 2nd Lt is really easy to get, requiring only TIG, CPP and CAP Foundation course....I don't think it is a lowering of standards but a glaring example of how low the training requirments and standars actually are.

Bottom line....if the member met the published standards then he should be promoted.

Now to stay consitant with my posts on other threads, we do need to make our training harder and hold our members to a higher standard.  (Just no useless gate keeping standards).
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

RiverAux

According to the article he was capable of passing the Curry and that he had trouble comprehending a lot of the AE program.  It looks like he went senior upon age 21 without going beyond that after being in as a cadet since 15. 


lordmonar

Yes....I can see that.  And in my opinion Curry is harder to get than level I.  Level I does not even have a test.

Although the article did leave a lot to be desired.  It implies that the only rank he got as a cadet was Curry but it also implies that he is a pilot.  You cannot judge the truth of an individual by what was left out of a 2 inch new article.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Chaplaindon

CAPChiro,

It isn't a matter of political correctness or of lowering standards arbitrarily, CAP UNLIKE the military (and its NG and RES components) cannot discriminate against people on the basis of disabilities. It isn't really the ADA (which applies to many entities whether or not they receive federal funds), it's the baggage CAP gets for accepting federal funds.

IAWG's motives for higher standards may (or may not) be noble, it matters not. CAP cannot violate the law and discriminate on the basis of physical abilities anymore than on the basis of skin color. I --for one-- am glad of that fact too.

While I can appreciate the needs of the war-fighting military, in CAP a physically challenged individual can still give exemplary service. For example, a wheelchair-bound man or woman (or cadet) could be a VERY effective Communications Unit Leader ... even a pilot with the necessary retrofits to her/his personal aircraft. A blind clergyperson could give devoted service as a chaplain.

A commander who is not flexible enough to work with a person with physical challenges likely lacks the fullness of maturity and leadership skills requisite for the job in the first place. In fact I would see that as a case of the standards for command being compromised, not those of membership.

I think we should applaud and accept all who wish to serve ... besides which ... it's the law of the land. And I suggest that if you're right, maybe some CC's need to find other specialty tracks in CAP.

Rev. Don Brown, Ch., Lt Col, CAP (Ret.)
Former Deputy Director for CISM at CAP/HQ
Gill Robb Wilson Award # 1660
ACS-Chaplain, VFC, IPFC, DSO, NSO, USCG Auxiliary
AUXOP

cyclone

Iowa Wing is far from having the keys to the universe...  However, control of the 2d Lt promotions is at the unit commander level and this one never saw the light of day at the Wing.

This individual did complete the required minimum training (remember, no tests were required to complete Level 1) and held plenty of TIG.   This promotion was also done months and months ago.

His recruitment was years before any of our transition even began as well.

Currently we are focusing on mission-oriented and position-oriented recruitment we are looking for individuals that bring skills and strengths to the table to help bolster the organization.




Hawk200

I don't see what the issue is with a handicapped person getting accepted. It's one thing to have a standard that excludes handicapped (such as the military), but quite another for CAP.

It really isn't going to matter if you have a handicapped person incapable of marching. And anyone that asks such a person about D&C and expecting them to know the answer is either insensitive or a moron. A handicapped person might actually know the answer, but doesn't really need to, not like they can march anyway.

Other than ES qualifications, what could we require of such people necessary to fulfill a mission? What kind of mission would fall apart because of their physical inconveniences?

If they can wear a uniform properly, do their job, and otherwise contribute how is it lowering standards to accept them?

Hawk200

On a side note, I don't see Iowa wing actually using anything "custom" made as far as training goes. They seem to be using standard Professional Training programs, just putting together into an initial training package.

Any squadron could do the same thing. Wouldn't really consider that the "keys to the universe" as far as their program goes.

Pylon

Quote from: capchiro on January 16, 2007, 09:39:36 PM
...such situations can present distinct liabilities for commanders.  I am just struck by the irony of Iowa Wing wanting stricter officer requirements and then they do something entirely different regarding promotions.

As a person who works for a non-profit for people with developmental disabilities, I don't understand how a person with any sort of disability would present a liability for a commander who appropriate assigned that person.    They are no less a liability than, for mere example, a horribly out-of-shape individual being allowing on a rigorous ground team search or a cronically fatigued CAP pilot being allowed to fly an O-Flight.

The real responsibility lies within the commander (in your case, you) to appropriately assign individuals to duties and tasks which they can handle.  Can everybody handle an overnight ruck in the dense woods looking for a missing kid?  Hell no.   Can every member be smooth-talking, fully-knowledgable, professional, and presentable enough to represent your squadron to the local media?  Again, probably not.     Can two 300-lb. senior member pilots, no matter how well experienced, fly a critical distress mission together on a C-172?  I doubt it.

You're the commander.  Even though you might be short-handed in many positions, that doesn't make it okay to assign the abrasive, straight-forward, new member to the Public Affairs Officer position and think that he'll be sweet roses with the local press.  You are responsible for appropriate assigning individuals to positions within their capability.

I see people in my office who have several developmental disabilities.  They may not be able to talk or communicate effectively and they may appear "different" to you.  But they can file paperwork, make copies, shred documents, and manage the mail better than me!   If this individual was volunteering, would you discount their ability to assit one of your administrative officers with maintaining your file cabinets, or your senior programs officer with maintaining the PD library because you don't think they can help CAP in every possible aspect?

How about the person who uses a wheelchair?  Just because they can't ruck it in the woods with the GT, does that not mean that they are not capable of being the best [darn] Cadet Programs Officer to come through your squadron?  What if they were a whiz at being an AOBD and had a solid background in aviation?   What if they had a degree in public relations, would you tell them to take a hike?

QuotePerhaps if we just stick with the current program and actually follow it, we will be okay.
We'd be okay from what?  Okay from being an accepting and human organization?  One capable of recognizing that we need good volunteers desperately to carry out our missions and every contribution helps?

From what I understand from the seriously short article, no parts of the Level I training were waived.  What did Iowa Wing skimp on?   Did they let someone get promoted to 2d Lt that you don't think deserved it because of some additional qualifications you have mentally reserved for such promotions? 

The National minimum is the national minimum.  If you think the program overall needs to be improved, let your motivation be to improve the overall quality of incoming CAP officers and not to stymie the contributions of otherwise capable individuals.

My views are pretty clear on this.  Let down your mental roadblocks to people with disabilities and perhaps you'll begin to see that they can make just as many, if not more, contributions to your unit than the next member.
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP

MIKE

Quote from: Pylon on January 17, 2007, 03:13:10 AM
How about the person who uses a wheelchair?  Just because they can't ruck it in the woods with the GT, does that not mean that they are not capable of being the best [darn] Cadet Programs Officer to come through your squadron?

:) 

Not knowing all the details... I will just say that as long as the officer can meet the established requirements of both initial senior membership and subsequent promotion to officer grade, there shouldn't be an issue.
Mike Johnston

flyguy06

Quote from: lordmonar on January 16, 2007, 10:19:16 PM
Yes....I can see that.  And in my opinion Curry is harder to get than level I.  Level I does not even have a test.

Although the article did leave a lot to be desired.  It implies that the only rank he got as a cadet was Curry but it also implies that he is a pilot.  You cannot judge the truth of an individual by what was left out of a 2 inch new article.
I dont think it said he was a pilot

Nick Critelli


We are proud of the member in question and I am very  proud  that the  members of the Iowa Wing have helped him achieve the recognition and dignity to which he is entitled. 

The Iowa Wing fully supports the Civil Rights of 1964, the American with Disabilities Act and Department of Defense Directive 5500.  To ensure complete compliance, all applicants for membership are reviewed by the Wing JA. No one will be turned away because of a handicap.

It's all about core values.  Judge us not only on how we perform our missions but also on how we treat those among us who are not as fortunate as we. 

Those who claim that we have somehow lowered our standards by admitting the gentleman in question to our ranks are not welcome in the IAWG. 

NICK CRITELLI, Lt Col CAP
Chief of Staff -- Iowa Wing.

lordmonar

Quote from: flyguy06 on January 17, 2007, 03:45:17 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 16, 2007, 10:19:16 PM
Yes....I can see that.  And in my opinion Curry is harder to get than level I.  Level I does not even have a test.

Although the article did leave a lot to be desired.  It implies that the only rank he got as a cadet was Curry but it also implies that he is a pilot.  You cannot judge the truth of an individual by what was left out of a 2 inch new article.
I dont think it said he was a pilot

It said he loved to fly...soaring over the world below.   Now...one may assume that he was a pilot or that he just loves to ride in the back...we will never know from the article.  Just as we'll never know if he got anything beyond Curry because the article looks like it got hacked something terrible by the copy editors.

BTW...I don't think he is a pilot either...I am only pointing out that these sorts of news articles are terrible for finding out the history of someone.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

JohnKachenmeister

Quote from: Nick Critelli, Lt Col CAP on January 17, 2007, 04:31:43 AM

We are proud of the member in question and I am very  proud  that the  members of the Iowa Wing have helped him achieve the recognition and dignity to which he is entitled. 

The Iowa Wing fully supports the Civil Rights of 1964, the American with Disabilities Act and Department of Defense Directive 5500.  To ensure complete compliance, all applicants for membership are reviewed by the Wing JA. No one will be turned away because of a handicap.

It's all about core values.  Judge us not only on how we perform our missions but also on how we treat those among us who are not as fortunate as we. 

Those who claim that we have somehow lowered our standards by admitting the gentleman in question to our ranks are not welcome in the IAWG. 

NICK CRITELLI, Lt Col CAP
Chief of Staff -- Iowa Wing.

Nick:

I haven't seen you around the boards in a while.  Everything OK?  No problems with your relationships?  You don't feel like hurting yourself today, do you?

Do you want to talk some more about your dream about the supermodel and the bottle of Wesson Oil?
Another former CAP officer

DNall

#14
Quote from: Chaplaindon on January 16, 2007, 10:21:43 PM
CAPChiro,

It isn't a matter of political correctness or of lowering standards arbitrarily, CAP UNLIKE the military (and its NG and RES components) cannot discriminate against people on the basis of disabilities. It isn't really the ADA (which applies to many entities whether or not they receive federal funds), it's the baggage CAP gets for accepting federal funds.

IAWG's motives for higher standards may (or may not) be noble, it matters not. CAP cannot violate the law and discriminate on the basis of physical abilities anymore than on the basis of skin color. I --for one-- am glad of that fact too.

Actually we can. CAP is specifically exempted from ADA by Congress. They recognize us as emergency reponders, and consider it appropriate for us to impose physical standards commensurate with teh ES work we do, even if the member is not directly involved in that activity. The AF specifically asked for this. After it passed however, CAP issued a letter saying we'd voluntarily comply anyway. That means you are bound by ADA according to CAP policy, but not legally required to do so & cannot be sued or held accountable for not doing so. CAP is free to reverse itself on this policy at any time by simply issuing a second letter to Congress.

QuoteWhile I can appreciate the needs of the war-fighting military, in CAP a physically challenged individual can still give exemplary service. For example, a wheelchair-bound man or woman (or cadet) could be a VERY effective Communications Unit Leader ... even a pilot with the necessary retrofits to her/his personal aircraft. A blind clergyperson could give devoted service as a chaplain.

A commander who is not flexible enough to work with a person with physical challenges likely lacks the fullness of maturity and leadership skills requisite for the job in the first place. In fact I would see that as a case of the standards for command being compromised, not those of membership.

I think we should applaud and accept all who wish to serve ... besides which ... it's the law of the land. And I suggest that if you're right, maybe some CC's need to find other specialty tracks in CAP.
I tend to agree in general that commanders should be adaptable. I had a fairly handicap (partially paralyzed) individual in my unit when I first joined & he was in fact a very effective comm officer.

On the other hand I have a guy in my unit now that's mentally handicap. He's disruptive & incapable of comprehending any concept necessary to be useful, including being unable to pass GES. He made 2Lt tonight after the CC felt like he could no longer prevent it since the guy had done the training, actively participated. We may lose a couple other high quality senior members over it.

Same time I got a lawyer in my unit (sometimes) that argued we can't use the upstairs portion of our facility because that would not be ADA compliant. I don't have any cadets with issues climbing the stairs. We keep supply up there & they bound right up to get items when they need them. But, half my facily is cut off to comply with a theoretical standard we don't really have to comply with & that effects no one. We're going to have to leave our facility that we've had for over 20 years, for free all bills paid by the city, because of that.

On the end of this I'd tell you to go look at the NIMS certification standards that we're going to be moving to in the next couple years. That'd be the one requiring PFTs for pretty much everything. There's a thread on it in the ES section with smarter people than me talking about it.

capchiro

Nick, I guess I was wrong, I thought Iowa was requesting all senior members to attend some officer training weekend/encampment OTS type of thing.  If not, I humbly apologize.  I am a little taken back by your attitude of not welcoming members who may have different ideas than your own.

DNALL, your example of your mentally handicapped member that is creating problems for your squadron was exactly what I was referring to in my initial posting regarding distinct liabilities.  In a nearby squadron, there is a senior member that is mentally handicapped and he wants to take observer training.  IQ wise he can handle it, but if he is not taking his medication as he is supposed to he is unpredictable and therefore unsafe in an aircraft.  Now, when a commander denies him the opportunity to take observer training, and he starts waving the ADA flag, the commander has a problem, and not one of his own creating. 

With the example of the member from Iowa, if he has is so handicapped that he can't pass anything other than the Curry, I would question if he is competent to truly understand and "pass" the cadet protection program and therefore be around cadets.     
Lt. Col. Harry E. Siegrist III, CAP
Commander
Sweetwater Comp. Sqdn.
GA154

Chaplaindon

DNall,

I never asserted that it was the ADA that is/was the issue here (although I did mention that it applies to many organizations --the church I pastor, for example-- regardless of federal funding) it has to do with federal LAW and CAP Regulation IAW those laws.

I encourage you and others to read CAPR 36-2 (15MAY2006) http://level2.cap.gov/documents/R036_002.pdf to verify what I am saying.

The Paragraph 1 (a) of that Regulation states unambiguously, "The Constitution of the Civil Air Patrol, Article VII, states 'Discrimination based on race, sex, age, color, religion, national origin, or disability is prohibited.'"

Paragraph 1 (e) & (f) speak to the DoD and USAF policies relative to this matter IAW the Rehabilitation of Act of 1973, section 504. This paragraph in CAPR 36-2 states the DoD policy explictly that, "no qualified handicapped person ... shall on the basis of handicap be excluded from participation in, denied the benefit of, or otherwise subject to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the Federal Government or receiving Federal financial assistance."

As to what "qualified handicapped person" is to be understood to mean in CAP, CAPR 36-2, 3 (e) states, "Qualified Member with a Disability means a CAP member with a disability who, either with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions required by a CAP program or activity that such CAP member desires to participate in."

Paragraph 4 (c) 1 tasks "all commanders" with "... implementing and enforcing CAP policies, procedures and directives prohibiting discrimination, as well as DOD Directives 5500.11, 1020.1, and AFI 36-2707, throughout their respective commands."

Thus, this is not a matter of ADA compliance, nor politically-correct speech or action, it is nothing less than compliance with Federal Law, DOD, USAF, and  CAP regulations and instructions.

I was troubled to read --- troubled for the potential impact on CAP-- "I have a guy in my unit now that's mentally handicap [I presume that is a MEDICAL DEFINITION and not a commander's or member(s)' PRESUMPTION]. He's disruptive & incapable of comprehending any concept necessary to be useful [again ... that's per a MD or mental health specialist, right???], including being unable to pass GES [is that required per CAPR 36-2, 3 (e)???] . He made 2Lt tonight after the CC felt like he could no longer prevent it since the guy had done the training [NOT granting him the grade if he was qualified "had done the training" would be a violation of CAPR], actively participated."

As a former unit commander myself and in light of the aforementioned regulations and laws, I would never deny ANY member what they earned, especially upon the ignorant presumptions of others unqualified to assess legal competency. This would be a legal/moral minefield to be avoided.

I find it sadly ironic and morally conflicted that CAP members see fit to inforce arbitrary uniform rules upon one another --out of fear of what the USAF might do if they saw a uniform worn improperly-- but would ignore what the USAF/DoD, CAPR's and even Federal law says about accommodation of those with disabilities. If anyone wants to see what will cause the USAF/DoD to "lower the boom" on CAP faster ---uniform wear or discrimination-- just keep doing what you're doing.

This is a civil rights issue ... it is a legal issue and it is a moral issue. We mustn't discriminate.


Rev. Don Brown, Ch., Lt Col, CAP (Ret.)
Former Deputy Director for CISM at CAP/HQ
Gill Robb Wilson Award # 1660
ACS-Chaplain, VFC, IPFC, DSO, NSO, USCG Auxiliary
AUXOP

Dragoon

In the end, the key is to have standards tied to things like promotions and qualifications.  Defendable standards.  That way, you only promote people who can do the job.

For example, we were able to deny a blind person a GTM certification based on the task list - several of the tasks require the individual to, well, see things.  It's kind of the key to searching.  Saying no was not a big issue after that (and the SM in question is now a heck of a comms guy).

On the other hand, what exactly does CAP expect a 2d Lt to be able to do?

(Hint: the correct answer is "nothing more than any other senior member.")

So...we have no grounds to hold up a promotion.  The individual can do the job of a CAP 2d Lt just fine.

Now, if we had duty standards for each officer rank, then someone who couldn't do that job at that level could easily be denied promotion.

Without duty standards, it's a lot tougher.

Pylon

Quote from: DNall on January 17, 2007, 10:41:45 AM
On the other hand I have a guy in my unit now that's mentally handicap. He's disruptive & incapable of comprehending any concept necessary to be useful, including being unable to pass GES. He made 2Lt tonight after the CC felt like he could no longer prevent it since the guy had done the training, actively participated. We may lose a couple other high quality senior members over it.

Sounds like the whole story isn't there, to me.  If the guy is disruptive and "can't comprehend any concept necessary to be useful," your commander shouldn't promote him and ask him to leave the organization.  But if he couldn't comprehend any concept necessary, how did he get through Level I?  Did somebody in your unit allow him a free pass because they didn't want to bother with him?  Or did he actually comprehend the concepts necessary and legitimately earn his Level I?   Either way, I see a problem with attitudes.

Not being able to pass GES doesn't mean a thing.  Participating on an ES mission is but one-third of our mission.   But I'm guessing that your unit feels it's necessary to contribute?   I personally know other members of CAP who can't pass GES either.  Should I assume they're worthless to the organization?

Again, as I said in my original post -- the job of the commander is to exercise his or her discretion.  If a commander feels bound and cannot feel free to exercise their commander's discretion with regards to promotions, duty assignments, and other decisions they shouldn't be in command.

So which is it?  Your commander can't exercise his or her proper discretion as a commander, or this member really wasn't all that disruptive and incompetent after all?

If you "lose a couple other high quality senior members" over this guy getting promoted to 2d Lt, I'd argue that these narrow-minded souls aren't actually all that high quality.
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP

Chaplaindon

Dragoon,

I would not put PHYSICAL capabilities on the list of promotional requirements (e.g. a 9-min mile for 1st Lt, and a 8.5 min mile for Capt and so on). If CAP were to implement such requirements a brief complaint as outlined in CAPR 36-2 would immediately reverse it.

If we can have a Commander in Chief of all of the US Armed Forces lead this Country and its military from a wheelchair (President Franklin Roosevelt), then EVERY person --regardless of physical capacity-- could be capable of performing in ANY grade in CAP. For example, although blindness might make it impossible for a person to serve as a GTM, it shouldn't --on its own-- preclude one from serving as a Wing Commander or even Nat'l CC.  We've had lawmakers and other leaders who've been blind ... it may make them unsafe to drive but not incapable of leading.

CAP simply cannot discriminate on the basis of physical ability or disability. That is, as long as we hungrily ask for and accept Federal dollars.
Rev. Don Brown, Ch., Lt Col, CAP (Ret.)
Former Deputy Director for CISM at CAP/HQ
Gill Robb Wilson Award # 1660
ACS-Chaplain, VFC, IPFC, DSO, NSO, USCG Auxiliary
AUXOP