I need some advice...

[Storm Chaser]

Devil's Advocate here,  .  Could it be that the squadron is short handed and these people are assigned to several positions.  I know I had four duty positions once.  (What a hassle that was.)  Or have I missed something? 

I'm not sure why you're quoting my post since I never questioned members assigned to multiple positions. I referred to the OP statement that his unit was significantly modifying duty positions to areas that have nothing to do with the positions in question.

As to your question, I too have been in situations where I had to assume multiple duty positions. I used to have 5 primary duty positions and I currently have 3. I would gladly step aside to let someone else take some of these responsibilities, but no one else has stepped up. I'm trying to train some assistants so that eventually they can take a more active role within these duties.

Now, the OP mentioned a member with 16 duty positions. Even as an assistant, this seems to me a bit of an extreme. No one should have to assume these many jobs, even in a small unit. I counted 23 positions in the cadet squadron org chart and 25 in the composite squadron one in CAPR 20-1, and many of these are optional positions (e.g. historian, homeland security, health services, etc.). You only need a communications officer if your unit has radios assigned to it. The same goes for the transportation officer; you only need the position if a vehicle has been assigned to the unit. In addition, the logistics officer can assume all of its subordinate officers' roles (supply, transportation, etc.) and the same goes for other positions indicated with **.

Many of these positions can be assisted by cadets, freeing up some of the SMs. The bottom line is that there are ways to tailor the unit org chart to meet unit needs without resorting to completely changing the positions themselves. And no one should have that many positions assigned to them, as there's no way they can be effective in every one of them.

[Eclipse]

I used to have 5 primary duty positions and I currently have 3. I would gladly step aside to let someone else take some of these responsibilities, but no one else has stepped up.

That's what is so amusing about steady increases in "required" staff appointments from NHQ, generally that just means one of the handful of
active members in a given unit gets another assignment on paper, with the same result in output as before the position was required.

Solution?  More people.

[Storm Chaser]

That's what is so amusing about steady increases in "required" staff appointments from NHQ, generally that just means one of the handful of
active members in a given unit gets another assignment on paper, with the same result in output as before the position was required.

Solution?  More people.

Agree. I'm one of those who try his best to do the required job (and more) on every assigned position (I don't like having positions assigned on paper only), with the side effect of making CAP an almost full-time job. When this happens, my goal has always been to train other members so that they can assume the role in the near future; I've done that with several positions. The problem I keep encountering is people volunteering for jobs and then not carrying out their respective duties.

I don't mind if someone can't commit to giving 100%; it's a volunteer organization after all. But if someone commits to giving 10%, then I expect to get no less. To do otherwise affects other folks that end up picking up the slack.

We certainly need "more [active] people".

[arajca]

I currently have 12 or 15 positions assigned. Not because I wanted all of them, but because I have ratings in them. At our recent SUI, we received an observation that members where not assigned to staff positions they have ratings in. Therefore I went from three that I am active in to a whole bunch because the inspectors felt if a member has a rating in a track, they MUST be serving in an appropriate position.

I have a bunch of ratings because I took on various jobs as needed and turned them over when appropriate. Also, as any long term member can attest, interests and available time do change.

[Storm Chaser]

I currently have 12 or 15 positions assigned. Not because I wanted all of them, but because I have ratings in them. At our recent SUI, we received an observation that members where not assigned to staff positions they have ratings in.

That is very surprising and an incorrect "observation" on part of the inspector(s). There's no requirement to be assigned to positions you have a rating on. You should be assigned to the positions you're actively working on. Anything else is a misrepresentation of your role and responsibilities in the squadron.

[Eclipse]

I currently have 12 or 15 positions assigned. Not because I wanted all of them, but because I have ratings in them. At our recent SUI, we received an observation that members where not assigned to staff positions they have ratings in.

That is very surprising and an incorrect "observation" on part of the inspector(s). There's no requirement to be assigned to positions you have a rating on. You should be assigned to the positions you're actively working on. Anything else is a misrepresentation of your role and responsibilities in the squadron.

That's why it's an "observation" and not a finding discrepancy.  Observations, now referred to as "Areas of Concern" do not require a response or an action (at least in terms of the inspection process).

Most, if not all, of the staff appointment questions on SUI's and CI's now ask about the staffers ratings and experience.

[a2capt]

..and an answer to that "concern" might be, "It's ludicrous to put someone in 14 slots."?

[Eclipse]

..and an answer to that "concern" might be, "It's ludicrous to put someone in 14 slots."?

That's the point where higher HQ is supposed to get involved and lead, decide if an AOC really is, and then press the CC to fix things if appropriate (or possible).

[Storm Chaser]

That's why it's an "observation" and not a finding discrepancy.  Observations, now referred to as "Areas of Concern" do not require a response or an action (at least in terms of the inspection process).

That is still a misguided observation and it makes absolutely no sense.

[Eclipse]

I currently have 12 or 15 positions assigned. Not because I wanted all of them, but because I have ratings in them. At our recent SUI, we received an observation that members where not assigned to staff positions they have ratings in. Therefore I went from three that I am active in to a whole bunch because the inspectors felt if a member has a rating in a track, they MUST be serving in an appropriate position.

I have a bunch of ratings because I took on various jobs as needed and turned them over when appropriate. Also, as any long term member can attest, interests and available time do change.

OK, wait - after a re-read I'm not clear what was cited as an AOC here.

That you had random members on the roster who weren't assigned in their area of specialty rating (but may or may not have something else to do).

or

That those assigned don't have experience or a rating in what they are assigned as?

[arajca]

I currently have 12 or 15 positions assigned. Not because I wanted all of them, but because I have ratings in them. At our recent SUI, we received an observation that members where not assigned to staff positions they have ratings in. Therefore I went from three that I am active in to a whole bunch because the inspectors felt if a member has a rating in a track, they MUST be serving in an appropriate position.

I have a bunch of ratings because I took on various jobs as needed and turned them over when appropriate. Also, as any long term member can attest, interests and available time do change.

OK, wait - after a re-read I'm not clear what was cited as an AOC here.

That you had random members on the roster who weren't assigned in their area of specialty rating (but may or may not have something else to do).

or

That those assigned don't have experience or a rating in what they are assigned as?

We had a few members, myself included, who have ratings in a multiple tracks. As we've gained more seniors, hats were passed on when appropriate and some members where not assigned to positions they had some ratings in. For example, I have an AE Tech rating, but I stepped out of an AE assignment since we had picked up a couple of folks who were more interested in it than I and took on that role. I was not needed as a 3rd asst. AEO. Now, I am back in that role because the inspector wrote us up for it. Same with Admin and Pers.

[Storm Chaser]

Now, I am back in that role because the inspector wrote us up for it. Same with Admin and Pers.

I'm pretty sure the inspector was wrong to write you up for it. There's no requirement whatsoever that once you achieve a specialty track rating, you must continue in that duty position indefinitely. Personnel change positions all the time.

You should only be assigned to those positions you're going to be actively working on. And no one can be required to have so many positions just because they've achieve multiple ratings in the course of their membership.

[Eclipse]

Now, I am back in that role because the inspector wrote us up for it. Same with Admin and Pers.

I'm pretty sure the inspector was wrong to write you up for it. There's no requirement whatsoever that once you achieve a specialty track rating, you must continue in that duty position indefinitely. Personnel change positions all the time.

You should only be assigned to those positions you're going to be actively working on. And no one can be required to have so many positions just because they've achieve multiple ratings in the course of their membership.

(OK, I get it now).

+1 a ridiculous assertion and the commander should have pushed back during the inspection, or simply ignored it when the report came in.

Just because you have a rating in something, there's no requirement you be doing something in that area, especially if you are already doing other jobs.

Seriously - I have a Master in CP and Senior in ES, soon to include a Senior in OE.  I'm the wing ESO - what's supposed to happen, the wing gets
an AOC because I'm not cross-pollinated in the CP shop and not also serving as a CC somehere?

Your wing IG's need some schoolin'...

[jimmydeanno]

Now, I am back in that role because the inspector wrote us up for it. Same with Admin and Pers.

I'm pretty sure the inspector was wrong to write you up for it. There's no requirement whatsoever that once you achieve a specialty track rating, you must continue in that duty position indefinitely. Personnel change positions all the time.

You should only be assigned to those positions you're going to be actively working on. And no one can be required to have so many positions just because they've achieve multiple ratings in the course of their membership.

(OK, I get it now).

+1 a ridiculous assertion and the commander should have pushed back during the inspection, or simply ignored it when the report came in.

Just because you have a rating in something, there's no requirement you be doing something in that area, especially if you are already doing other jobs.

Seriously - I have a Master in CP and Senior in ES, soon to include a Senior in OE.  I'm the wing ESO - what's supposed to happen, the wing gets
an AOC because I'm not cross-pollinated in the CP shop and not also serving as a CC somehere?

Your wing IG's need some schoolin'...

I would probably have a concern if a unit had a Master Rated CP person that was the Finance Officer (with no rating), while a rated Finance Officer was the assigned CDC.  But, if the bases are covered, and someone with a rating isn't in a position, I see no reason to have that person assigned simply because.

[FlyTiger77]

Now, I am back in that role because the inspector wrote us up for it. Same with Admin and Pers.

I'm pretty sure the inspector was wrong to write you up for it. There's no requirement whatsoever that once you achieve a specialty track rating, you must continue in that duty position indefinitely.

I agree. Who is assigned a certain duty position is the commander's perogative not an inspector's. If the commander has a valid reason for making personnel assignments a certain way, he is only answerable to his commander--assuming personnel are qualified, competent and enrolled  and progressing in the specialty track for the position they hold.

This is much the same as if an inspector cited an AoC for a unit not being enrolled in the optional AEX program with a recommendation that the unit enroll. That is strictly the inspector's opinion. The commander's decision is what carries the day. Opinion doesn't merit an AoC.

[Laplace]

Now, I am back in that role because the inspector wrote us up for it. Same with Admin and Pers.

I'm pretty sure the inspector was wrong to write you up for it. There's no requirement whatsoever that once you achieve a specialty track rating, you must continue in that duty position indefinitely.

I agree. Who is assigned a certain duty position is the commander's perogative not an inspector's. If the commander has a valid reason for making personnel assignments a certain way, he is only answerable to his commander--assuming personnel are qualified, competent and enrolled  and progressing in the specialty track for the position they hold.

This is much the same as if an inspector cited an AoC for a unit not being enrolled in the optional AEX program with a recommendation that the unit enroll. That is strictly the inspector's opinion. The commander's decision is what carries the day. Opinion doesn't merit an AoC.

I'm not sure of what the Inspector's thought process was, nor have I read the AoC as it was exactly written.  As an IG, I have written AoCs suggesting that the staff officer enroll and progress in the specialty track.  This is done when the individual may be new to the position and in need of training or had some deficiencies during the SUI.  As said before, the AoC does not require corrective action.  It is meant to be a helpful suggestion.  The SUI report gives the following as an example of an AoC:  "(3)   Non-mandatory processes or activities that are not accomplished, but would be beneficial or useful to the program."  Is enrollment in the specialty track mandatory? No.  Would it be beneficial?  Yes.  Several of the specialty tracks have been recently updated and I am impressed with their content.

It is hard for me to believe that the intent of the inspector or IG was for the squadron to do what they did. 

[Eclipse]

As an IG, I have written AoCs suggesting that the staff officer enroll and progress in the specialty track.  This is done when the individual may be new to the position and in need of training or had some deficiencies during the SUI. 

That's totally appropriate, and even called for.

I would probably have a concern if a unit had a Master Rated CP person that was the Finance Officer (with no rating), while a rated Finance Officer was the assigned CDC.  But, if the bases are covered, and someone with a rating isn't in a position, I see no reason to have that person assigned simply because.

At the unit level, especially, by the time you get a master's in anything, you've probably had 10 years of it and a snootful - time to move on to "new".

[a2capt]

At the unit level, especially, by the time you get a master's in anything, you've probably had 10 years of it and a snootful - time to move on to "new".

Give that man a cookie.
.. and you know what? I have no problem mentoring someone new in that position. But one may just be spent on doing it.

[JeffDG]

Is enrollment in the specialty track mandatory? No.  Would it be beneficial?  Yes. 

Enrollment is actually mandatory, progress is not.

CAPR 35-1, 1.2b:
b. Additionally, when assigned to an authorized duty position, the member will also enroll in the appropriate specialty track of the CAP Professional Development Program unless he/she has already earned the master's rating in that specialty. When a member is assigned to more than one duty position, he/she will enroll in the specialty track for the primary duty. Training in remaining specialties is encouraged. Note: For promotion purposes, the highest skill rating earned, in any specialty, will be considered, regardless of the member's skill level in his or her primary duty.

[Eclipse]

And if you're not enrolled in a track of some kind, you will not get credit for things like CLC, etc.