CAC

[capcadet378980]

So whats the big deal with cac? m i the only one who its run be arrogant people?

[CAP428]

I don't quite understand your question.  Rephrase, please?

So whats the big deal with cac?

It is our [cadets'] way of giving input on more "major" things that affect our cadet involvement.  We can also propose ideas and suggestions through cac.

[Newhall]

i'm going to agree with cap428.  no not all cac meetings are run and held by arrogant people.  if you think a change in cap should occur.  cac can send the message from the wing level to the region level and finally to the national level.  I know first hand that cac does plenty of amazing things with the right leadership.

[Chris Jacobs]

I think you could end up with some bad apples in some CAC's but for the most part i have found CAC to be a really good thing.  I am on Oregon wing CAC staff, and i think it is really good for the cadets in the wing.

[BillB]

The only problem I have with the CAC is under the current 52-16 CAC members are APPOINTED. The original CAC regulation in 1955 and all those through the mid 1990's the CAC representatives at all levels were ELECTED by cadets. This brought problems or suggestions to the next higher CAC level with more freedom and lack of senior interference.

[shorning]

The original CAC regulation in 1955 and all those through the mid 1990's the CAC representatives at all levels were ELECTED by cadets.

Cadets have been appointed since at least 1982...

[BillB]

Steve, yes they were appointed but the regulation also included OR ELECTED. The elected was dropped from the regulation.

[Chris Jacobs]

But at my squadron the people that are appointing are most the time getting a lot of impute from the cadet staff.

[DNall]

I haven't found CAC leadership to be arrogant, just phase IV cadets getting about the business of running cadet programs for the Gp or Wg. They tend to have their conversation & do their business at high speed, and new kids coming in there blind may feel left out, but that's how cadet officers are & frankly what we want the younger kids emulating.

I think the bigger issue is that in fact they do more operating of the echelon cadet program, planning events, etc than acting like a 1Sgt system for cadets to get their concerns to the command elements. They also tend not to be well organized & a little hung up on roberts rules when they don't really know how to use them right.

I do appoint my folks. I've found that works better than a popularity contest. I prefer to have my 1Sgt & C/CC if possible, both for pretty obvious reasons. If that doesn't work then being able to show up is a good qualifier.

[BillB]

I was one of three former cadets that wrote the original CAC Regulation. I think it was in 1955. One of the three ended up being a Wing Commander. The idea was to give cadets a direct chain of command to higher headquarters via the CAC. One of the problems faced by cadets was favoritism by Squadron Commanders in selecting cadet staff. So to eliminate that the CAC Reps at all levels were to be elected by cadets.  Is that a popularity contest? Do NOT underestimate cadets, which many seniors seem to do, they can pick a good CAC rep at the Squadron level. The squadron reps elect the Group reps, the Group elects the chair to be the Rep to wing and so on. This eliminates favoritism at all levels and provides the cadets with a chain of command that bypasses possible roadblocks of poor commanders, problems in a squadron etc.
A survey done in 1980 showed cadets loved the CAC election concept, but seniors hated it since it removed some power from Commanders and/or senior staff. Cadets felt it eliminated senior interference in cadet programs (I was unable to gets cadets to define what they meant by interference).

[DNall]

^ They meant micro-management.

I appoint my people locally. I personally appoint all cadet staff at this point. I have used a board process when there were enough qualified candidates, and then work thru that C/CC in a socratic method to get the right people in the right jobs. That's about people needing to be in a place that they're ready for in their development process. I pay very close attention to each & every one of my people & bring them along at the fastest pace they can muster, and have to keep up with parents to ensure they aren't overtasked. W/ CAC specifically, I'm not adverse to elections in concept, but I prefer it to be C/CC & 1Sgt as the functions of CAC are part of their in-Sq job description, and being on CAC allows them the opportunity to expand that a bit further. However, in practice it's whoever I can get to go to the meetings.

[Eclipse]

The CAC, executed properly, can have a lot of value, unfortunately in many cases the cadets participate only to get the cord.

[DNall]

That's unfortunate. Between drill team, color guard, four CTEP courses, C/CC, & CAC it's not that difficult to get a cord around here. Our CAC is quite good actually. That comes from a core group of phase IV cadets that hold it together with their bare hands, but they control the Gp Cadet calender of one event a month year-round. They plan & execute all thsoe events to varrying degrees of success. There's problems don't get me wrong, but they're quite active. I actually don't know if it's a good idea to have them doing that much stuff. It seems like the advisory capacity drops by the wayside a bit. I know it did suck here back in the day, but cadet programs has changed a lot in our wing over the last 10 years.