Change in NHQ Structure / Affect Change & do something

[Tubacap]

Just got this off the national website.

http://www.cap.gov/documents/Volunteer_Directors_Vacancy_Announcement.pdf

I thoroughly enjoy the Generals leadership ability and think she is going to be outstanding.

Good luck to all the LtCol's out there!

[jimmydeanno]

Just noticing that the Uniform Team Leader slot appears to be open...how's this going to affect the members on this very board who would report to this person? 

[captrncap]

How does one find these letters on NHQ website?

[dwb]

How does one find these letters on NHQ website?

I saw this latest one on the main e-Services page (after I logged in).  In the center column, there's a whole list of news items.

[dhon27]

I think the attached is a step in the right direction.  Thoughts?

https://www.capnhq.gov/news/AllUnitCCLetter28Nov07.pdf

[RiverAux]

Seems strange to have the homeland security advisor and border operations advisors reporting to different people. 

Why are some positions Advisors while others are team leaders?

What the heckare CAP's "urban programs"?  They've already got a slot for the school enrichment program (middle school program) advisor.  Is this the Junior Cadet program?  If so, why not name it that way?  And if it is the Junior Cadets, why is it under Cadet Program rather than AE?

And more generally, why are we setting up two entirely separate national command structures?  We've got the paid staff and then a whole parallel organization for volunteers.  For example, why aren't the public affairs and marketing advisors reporting to the national public affairs staff? 

[isuhawkeye]

the volunteer staff have not traditionally reported to the career folks, and vice versa

[DNall]

I especially like para 5 down by the sig block. Lovely verbage that.

[RiverAux]

the volunteer staff have not traditionally reported to the career folks, and vice versa

Explains more than a few things.  Parallel command structures make no sense and they need to be integrated in some form or fashion. 

[jimmydeanno]

The volunteers are the policy makers, the paid employees are the day to day managers of those policies.

As an organization we use their specialized training to help us as volunteers. 

I think it would be a BAD idea to integrate the structures.

[RiverAux]

When the people making policy have no actual control over those doing the work, there is no way to ensure that it actually ever gets done.  Yes, at the very top level there is some integration. 

However, I am thinking more of having volunteers associated with the paid employees to help do some of the work and increase overall productivity. 

Just a basic example are the unacceptable delays in turning NEB/BoG decisions into CAP regulations.  Yes, they've cut out some of the bottlenecks, but it shouldn't take that long.

Now, if the applicable paid staff member had a team of volunteers around the country who could jump on these assignments and develop the initial drafts it might speed things up. 

[CAP_truth]

I see a problem a member can be a captain or major and a master rating in a specialty but if they have not served on wing or higher they can not be considered for a position. I know of some members who did have the qualification to hold these positions but they are not Lt. Col. or have had service at wing. A major with Level IV can become a wing commander or serve as a member at large but can not serve as a national staff adviser.

[RiverAux]

I've been thinking of CG Aux, which by comparison does a lot more with their national staff, which is entirely volunteer.  Just one example is the fact that they produce their own national magazine and probably half a dozen national-level program newsletters on their own.  CAP used to have about the same number of national level newsletters, but they've all dropped away except Safety.  They've made stabs at a few lately, but none have yet made it past their first issue (the Homeland Security newsletter for one). 

[Grumpy]

I think the attached is a step in the right direction.  Thoughts?

https://www.capnhq.gov/news/AllUnitCCLetter28Nov07.pdf

Well, just on the surface, the open application looks like it'll get rid of the "good ol' boy" system.

[RiverAux]

That part is definetly a major improvement. 

[ZigZag911]

I'm not sure I like the 'advisor' title, it's so out of phase with our lower echelon duty titles.

It's good to see, though, that there is both a commitment to increasing volunteer involvement @ NHQ level, and a willingness to make adjustments for the sake of improvement.

And the General's expressed wish to offer opportunities to serve at National to a broad base of the membership is particularly gratifying....perhaps we've entered an era in which 'what you know' is more important than 'who you know'!

[Grumpy]

I'm not sure I like the 'advisor' title, it's so out of phase with our lower echelon duty titles.

It's good to see, though, that there is both a commitment to increasing volunteer involvement @ NHQ level, and a willingness to make adjustments for the sake of improvement.

And the General's expressed wish to offer opportunities to serve at National to a broad base of the membership is particularly gratifying....perhaps we've entered an era in which 'what you know' is more important than 'who you know'!

[Grumpy]

"I'm not sure I like the 'advisor' title, it's so out of phase with our lower echelon duty titles."

Perhaps we could suggest they replace the title "advisor" to liaison.

[Maj Ballard]

I think the overall concept is a step in the right direction.

Only thing I was disappointed about is the requirements for Wing+/Lt Col. I would love to apply for eLearning Advisor, but no dice. I wish they had some way to apply with a Wing CC's endorsement or something if you don't meet the quals, especially if your "real world" quals are exceptional.

[RiverAux]

I've got mixed feelings on the rank issue.  On the one hand everybody knows that CAP rank doesn't necessarily relate to CAP experience in any particular field and limiting applicants to a certain rank has the possibility of keeping out people who are otherwise fully qualified.  On the other hand, this is a national level position and a high rank is appropriate given the ranks of the people you will be working with on a regular basis. 

Wing+ staff experience seems very appropriate as that implies that you've learned quite a bit about the nuts and bolts of running CAP and have probably been around long enough that you've seen things that you would like to fix.