Does anyone have any experience with being a member of a squadron, but also having a staff position at group? Would your eservices permissions still be set for your squadron functions? I have had several people make reference to the status of "ADY" which I believe is a temporary assignment to a higher headquarters, but I can find no reference to "ADY" in any CAP documentation.
If anyone can shed any light on how this might work I would appreciate it.
ADY is Additional Duty.
There is absolutely no issue with being on both squadron or group staff. Once assigned as a staff officer at any unit your permissions are the same until you are removed from that staff position.
The only stipulation that I personally impose is anyone that I expect to manage my FWA areas has to transfer to group HQ.
This means finance, logistics, communications, safety, and operations are actually assigned to my unit. All the rest may stay members of their home units (at their discretion).
The problem comes when people work for skipped echelons. So someone working for squadron and wing has a circular reporting that tends to start a bit of a fluid velocity contest. Wing staffers are required to report to wing for wing matters, they are required to report to group for squadron/group matters. There is a tendency to skip group all together because of the upgraded status as a wing staffer.
In the last few years in my wing we've made it a practice to keep wing members who are not directors assigned to squadrons. They are just as much of a wing staffer as anyone who is assigned to wing headquarters with the same permissions in e-services as if they were assigned to wing. The differences are that their personnel files are retained by their units, they have to be approved by their unit commanders or unit-level officers for stuff like ES tasks and specialty track ratings. Promotions are also initiated at the unit just like any other unit-level member. Many of our directors have even opted to remain with their unit by choice without transferring to wing.
Quote from: IceNine on April 15, 2010, 03:33:21 PMThe problem comes when people work for skipped echelons. So someone working for squadron and wing has a circular reporting that tends to start a bit of a fluid velocity contest. Wing staffers are required to report to wing for wing matters, they are required to report to group for squadron/group matters. There is a tendency to skip group all together because of the upgraded status as a wing staffer.
That only exists when there are groups in place there are some Wings where Group doesn't exist. example MAWG.
^ Wasn't always the case though... MAWG had groups up into the late '90s.
Sometimes I get stuck in the Wing/Squadron Officer position. As far as eServices goes, just make sure the permissions are good at whichever unit comes in. It gets tricky doing inter-personal things and just like everyone else said. Keep group in the loop!
Some members just prefer to remain officially in the squadron even if they take on a Wing/Group staff job. I think it is generally preferable for folks to remain active with their local unit as it keeps them in touch rather than getting used to being in the "ivory tower" at HQ. With CG Aux you still remain part of your local unit no matter what higher office you hold though I suppose you don't necessarily still have to continue to attend and participate locally when holding down a higher level job (though the folks in my flotilla do).
I've done it in the past...done well it enhances everything from your the "field training" of your specilaty track to keeping in touch with SQUADRON LEVEL issues. It can, however, be daunting and overwhealming.
Okay, thank you all for the input. I appreciate the help.
This forum never disappoints.
Have a great weekend-
Quote from: RiverAux on April 15, 2010, 10:41:34 PM
Some members just prefer to remain officially in the squadron even if they take on a Wing/Group staff job. I think it is generally preferable for folks to remain active with their local unit as it keeps them in touch rather than getting used to being in the "ivory tower" at HQ. With CG Aux you still remain part of your local unit no matter what higher office you hold though I suppose you don't necessarily still have to continue to attend and participate locally when holding down a higher level job (though the folks in my flotilla do).
Alittle OT, thanks for pointing out the CG Aux bit. I am looking to join CG Aux as well :).
I've heard of people who work at wing and stay at the squadron. In fact I know of a vice commander for a wing who regularly goes to the squadron meetings at the squadron he used to be commander at and his personnel file is held at the wing level not at the squadron level which makes sense.
So are wing directors allowed to have squadron jobs? Or are squadron directors allowed to hold any wing jobs as well? (I guess there are no directors at the squadron level technically?). I saw that someone here mentioned that sometimes wing directors prefer to remain a member of a local unit while holding down a higher level wing job but that does not indicate they have a job at the squadron level though.
I'm not aware of any limitations on that sort of thing. I've seen people on Wing staff also hold squadron staff jobs. Heck, I know one person on Wing staff who is also a squadron commander.
^Riv: I'm living proof. I'm Wing LO but still on the rolls with my squadron and at least for the foreseeable future, I hope to stay that way. I love my squadron and working directly with our cadets and SMs.
There seemed to be regulation somewhere, guess its back to looking for it so I can cite it that prohibits director level persons from working at the lower echelons unless that is a region/wing policy then that makes sense too.
Quote from: mynetdude on April 24, 2010, 03:14:27 PM
There seemed to be regulation somewhere, guess its back to looking for it so I can cite it that prohibits director level persons from working at the lower echelons unless that is a region/wing policy then that makes sense too.
That sounds like a Wing or maybe Region reg/policy.
"director level" is really sort of meaningless in my book. At least in my wing, whether you're a "Director" or just a staff "officer" seems to have been a random choice at some time in the past as there is often no discernable difference in number of people overseen or extent of job duties.
I know it's a wide spread practice but it's a bad leadership model. With which commander does your loyalty lie? You can't have two masters. If your squadron commander disagrees with policy X from wing and wants to brief the wing king on an alternative, how do you handle this? You, as the director of X probably wrote policy X. How can you support the Sq CC in this alternative approach? You can't. Your loyalties are split. Your commander has the right to expect your complete support.
It's a basic organizational principle. This is one of the reasons that CAP is rudderless or nearly so.
It doesn't matter if your squadron commander disagrees with a wing policy or directive -- they are still required to carry it out. Sure, they can make their case to get it changed, but that doesn't mean in the interim that they can choose to ignore it.
So, no conflict.
Quote from: Gunner C on April 24, 2010, 06:41:22 PM
I know it's a wide spread practice but it's a bad leadership model. With which commander does your loyalty lie? You can't have two masters. If your squadron commander disagrees with policy X from wing and wants to brief the wing king on an alternative, how do you handle this? You, as the director of X probably wrote policy X. How can you support the Sq CC in this alternative approach? You can't. Your loyalties are split. Your commander has the right to expect your complete support.
It's a basic organizational principle. This is one of the reasons that CAP is rudderless or nearly so.
Gun:
Nice idea. My Wing has less than 400 members. 200 are Cadets. We have 9 squadrons. Do the math. We have far more positions than members that need to be staffed.
Many of us in our civilian jobs have more than one boss. My boss is the wing commander. If there is a conflict with my squadron commander, chain of command says I have to do what the wing commander says. But we also communicate with each other. Hasn't been a problem yet in my experience. My experience in not atypical. As squadrons are the heart of CAP, peopl have to wear multiple hats.
As I said above, it's a widespread practice. Sounds like your unit's problem is more structure than bodies. There's fixes for that.
Quote from: Gunner C on April 24, 2010, 09:23:05 PM
As I said above, it's a widespread practice. Sounds like your unit's problem is more structure than bodies. There's fixes for that.
Gun: I'm all ears.
I was just added at wing as a staff member and was offered the choice of staying at my squadron or transferring the wing "squadron". I chose to transfer, however I will continue to attend and continue what I do at my home squadron.
Quote from: tdepp on April 24, 2010, 09:27:16 PM
Quote from: Gunner C on April 24, 2010, 09:23:05 PM
As I said above, it's a widespread practice. Sounds like your unit's problem is more structure than bodies. There's fixes for that.
Gun: I'm all ears.
Depends on how your wing is situated, what you have in the way of SMs, etc. I'd have to see it. But what I've seen in the past is that wings want to maintain their top-heavy structure but want squadrons to maintain all functions, too. Can't do it.