Proposal: Require progression in professional development

[dwb]

I usually don't engage in the wild, impractical "what if" discussions, but this one has some merit and I think it's doable.

What if we required progression in the senior member professional development program?

I think our professional development program has gotten much better in recent years: the overhaul of SLS and CLC, the introduction of TLC, etc.  We just need to revamp the ADL-13 course, update the UCC curriculum, and maybe introduce training for instructors and in-residence program directors.

All of these great opportunities exist, and yet, the PD program beyond Level I remains completely optional.

A few benefits of requiring PD: 1. members would have a more solid foundation of how they fit into the organization, 2. they would benefit from in-residence training courses and be able to meet other s'members outside of their geographic area, and 3. more people would be eligible for duty performance promotions so they wouldn't develop "1st Lt Syndrome".

Possible drawbacks include: 1. overcoming institutional inertia and resisitance of people who "just want to fly", or "just want to help cadets", 2. adding more requirements to participation in CAP will inevitably cause some attrition, and for some people, CAP is already expensive and time-consuming enough, and 3. some people come in to CAP with training and experience that is arguably superior to what we offer in our PD program, and may feel they shouldn't be obligated to do our stuff.

Scope and rollout guidelines of my proposal:

• All senior members are required to complete up to Level III
  
  
• Levels IV and V remain optional for the hard-chargers, but would be required for senior leaders (Wing CC requires Lvl IV, above that requires Lvl V)
  
  
• Senior members would have to complete Level I within six months of joining, Level II within three years of joining, and Level III within five years of joining
  
  
• Senior members that did not complete the training within the specified timeframes would be moved to Patron status
  
  
• These rules do not apply to Cadet Sponsor Members
  
  
• Current members who have not yet completed Level III will have timeframes similar to new members (i.e., all existing members would have to complete Level III within five years of policy inception)

We teach that the Core Values are the price of admission to CAP.  One of CAP's Core Values is Excellence; I believe personal excellence and self-improvement are one facet of that.

Thoughts?

[kpetersen]

Concerns:  1) We have seniors who do have inactive periods (which can occur in the first 5 years), that need a break for certain reasons (children, marriage, real life).  They don't want their membership to lapse, because they plan on coming back to the program.  I just worry about their continued time in grade, that maybe we won't get them back.
2) This also includes active duty military, whose schedules can be hit or miss.  One of the guys I know in a local unit was deployed to the desert for at least 6 months of 2007.
3) Legal officers, and other random not as oftenly used individuals might not find it as beneficial. (No offense intended)
4) We'd have even worse retainment rates, possibly.  This could also be a pro to people hanging around more often.

Pros: 
1)  At least with TLC, any person who is "just wanting to help cadets" is greatly benefitted by attending this activity IMO.
2)  It would make PD officers more important to the sqdns.
3) see point 4 above.

[arajca]

I like the idea, but I'm sure about implementation. As with any new concept like this, the devil is in the details.

On problem that exists now in some units (more than half that I have seen) is while cadet promotions and achievements are treated with great ceremony and public recognition, the seniors are usually handed their stuff in passing i.e. 2d Lt Jones gets promoted to 1st Lt and the commander tells her as they are leaving the meeting. no one else realy knows about it and it leaves a distinct impression that senors are not nearly as important as cadets.

I will say that in my current unit, every promotion and award - cadet or senior - receives equal recognition. I've seen some seniors who initially joined "to help the cadets" get promoted to 2d Lt at the awards ceremony and realize that 1. they like the recognition and 2. they want to continue getting promoted. One in particular has decided to take on the PDO job since I am leaving to go to wing.

[dwb]

We have seniors who do have inactive periods (which can occur in the first 5 years), that need a break for certain reasons (children, marriage, real life).

Like I said above, if someone happens to be snagged by the five-year thing, they would just be automatically assigned as Patron members.  Which, if they really go five full years without participating in CAP, they should be Patron members.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, either.  There shouldn't be a stigma assigned to being a Patron; in fact, if every indefinitely inactive member transferred to Patron status, we'd have a better idea of how many Active personnel we really have.

A 2a is all it takes to become Active again, with all previous rank and training kept intact.  I'm sure there would be some sort of grace period to complete the required PD before they get reassigned as Patrons again.

And I certainly agree with arajca that senior member promotions ought to have a certain amount of ceremony.  When I was a squadron commander, the senior being promoted got called up in front of formation, and if the group commander was available that night, he would assist with the promotion.

[lordmonar]

It has to do with the mission.

Does the training help the mission....not the individual.

TLC is a great course but what does a Pilot need that for?
Same thing with any of the PD courses.  If you happy being in a one deep squadron admin position....why require more PD? 

Does it improve the mission?  Maybe....but probably not much.  If the member is just a "I fly airplanes" type member....well there is nothing wrong with that...how will CLC help them perfrom grid searches/conduct O-rides/complete night landings?

There is nothing wrong with the "1st Lt Syndrom".  If you need an individual to break out of their rut and take on more responsibilites....you don't do that by forcing them to take some "useless" (in their veiw) training.  You sell it to them.  You mentor them.  You get them to see that they can help the mission/squadron more effectively by gaining the training.....then you [darn] well be sure that the training is actually relevant.

That is what needs to be done.  People should WANT to go to these courses.  We should use all the tools available (be it bling, promotions, pride, mission requirments) to make them WANT to get the training.  You can't force people to make a mind set change by forcing them to a classroom.  And then you add the adminstrative overhead of managing the member's records and adverse actions for failing to complete the "required" training.

Just because a member has not progressed, does not automatically make him dead weight. 

Now I whole heartely endorse the idea that higher levels of PD is required for higher rank (even advanced promotion).  You must have level X to work at wing level.  If you have an advanced promotion for Lt Col you will have n number of months/years to complete the required PD or you will be demoted to the appropriate rank.

But kicking out (moving to patron status) members because they like being 2d Lt's and have not want/need to progress only makes my job as a squadron commander that much harder.

[Short Field]

But Lordmonar, this would be a great way to weed out all those CFIs who got advanced promotions to Captain and only want to fly, do Fm 5 & Fm 91 Checkrides for the rest of the pilots, and provide training for insturment ratings to those interested.   Just dead weight!!!   

[DNall]

One of the biggest problems in CAP at the local level is just not having the staffing to make it work the way it's supposed to. PD is supposed to make those individuals more capable (quality), but it doesn't address quantity of staff I have to get the job done. An up or out policy that forces progression or pushes people out is going to be hard sell with our retention & staffing issues.

In reference to that... I really do have a problem with people that come in "just to fly," or whatever else. Private pilots are a dime a dozen. I don't need those people. I need officers, which means they take on additional responsibilities as part of the team that allows us to operate.

There would need to be a waiver process to extend for inactivity, deployments, etc. But surely we could find a reasonable solution.

I also do give some credence to what Patrick is saying. You can't JUST mandate, you also have to motivate people to development. We do need to better develop these courses for practical application. Right now they all seem like progressive levels of orientation, not practical leader skills development, and certainly not leadership training that would benefit people beyond CAP. We also need to better connect the dots within those courses so people can see the practical applications of the leadership/mgmt skills we're teaching them.

[lordmonar]

But Lordmonar, this would be a great way to weed out all those CFIs who got advanced promotions to Captain and only want to fly, do Fm 5 & Fm 91 Checkrides for the rest of the pilots, and provide training for insturment ratings to those interested.   Just dead weight!!!   

I saw the  .

But if they are in-fact doing the checkrides...they are not dead weight.

[lordmonar]

I agree with DNall to a point....if you need leaders to do job....and we all do...then we need a system that helps us build that capability.  But I disagree with those who only come to do a particular job (fly, comm, AE, ES, cadet, what-ever).  We have to use the resources given to us.  We don't have the luxury of turning away "limited participation" officers (at least I don't).

My only criteria is that you actually do the job that you volunteered to do.

[dwb]

Requiring PD would be a culture shift, to say the least.  Ambitious people can knock out the requirements for Levels II and III in one year, I don't think it's unreasonable to think most people could get them done in five.

You'd have to change the way you pitch CAP membership.  To use the pilot example: "yes, you get to fly, there's all this great stuff you can do with the aircraft, but as an officer in the Air Force auxiliary, we also expect that you'll complete this handful of training that will make you a more well-rounded participant in the organization."

Would we lose a lot of people?  Honestly, I don't think we would.  Our retention rates are notoriously bad, but who are we losing every year?  We're losing people who don't have a deep personal stake in the organization, we're losing people that were never given meaningful duty assignments, and/or were blown off when they did volunteer for a position, and we're losing people that joined then couldn't figure out what to do next.

We're losing people because of poor leadership.

I don't have access to statistics to back me up, but I can go on a gut feeling and personal experience here: people who complete higher levels of the program are less likely to leave; they're the dedicated ones, the lifers, the people that see value in hanging a Wilson Award on their wall.

That senior member that joins and hangs around at the squadron looking for something to do... we're going to lose him if we don't get him into an SLS, if we don't get him into a specialty track.

We're not talking about requiring Region Staff College here, we're taking about a couple of weekends, a correspondence course, an actual duty assignment, and attendance at some higher-echelon functions.  All things that we, frankly, should expect long-time members (or potential long-time members) to do.

I know everyone is busy; I'm busy, too.  The point is, if people are going to make CAP a high enough priority to actively participate year after year, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some advancement in that time.

[DNall]

I agree with DNall to a point....if you need leaders to do job....and we all do...then we need a system that helps us build that capability.  But I disagree with those who only come to do a particular job (fly, comm, AE, ES, cadet, what-ever).  We have to use the resources given to us.  We don't have the luxury of turning away "limited participation" officers (at least I don't).

I don't entirely disagree with that statement. This is just where I depart calling them officers & start talking about we really should have an enlisted system. Enlisted folks do a specific job & stay in a lane. Officers get trained for a job so they can supervise the NCOs supervising the people doing it, but their real function is to be operational leaders/staff/etc to make the thing function.

I just think we need to incentivize those leadership/staff roles that we're not over incentivizing roles that are important, but very limited in scope & authority. You're right that the pilot who does nothing else doesn't need leadership development courses to fulfill the mission. He also doesn't need to be an officer. He just needs to show & have the authority necessary to do his very limited job.

[DNall]

Would we lose a lot of people?  Honestly, I don't think we would.  Our retention rates are notoriously bad, but who are we losing every year?  We're losing people who don't have a deep personal stake in the organization, we're losing people that were never given meaningful duty assignments, and/or were blown off when they did volunteer for a position, and we're losing people that joined then couldn't figure out what to do next.

We're losing people because of poor leadership.

I think we would lose people any time we tell them they have to do something they don't want to do. I don't care!!! If it addresses even a little the leadership & other issues (the ones you listed & others), that will result in better future retention & help improve morale which results in better recruitment. More then that, I think it attracts the kind of people we need to the program rather than those just looking to take from us as part of their hobby.

[Short Field]

[But if they are in-fact doing the checkrides...they are not dead weight.

Right!  So what if they only have Level I and remain a Capt (due to being a CFI) forever.  They contribute a lot more to the success of the organization than the ones who hit all the schools and maintain just enough activity in a position to progress and get promoted.

[Fifinella]

Similar to the thread RiverAux started about linking PD and ES, but still in keeping with this thread:

At the very least, there should be a correlation between PD and duty positions (which may have been the original intent, but is not in the regs), i.e.:

In order to become a squadron commander, one must have completed Level II.
In order to assume a position on wing staff, one must have completed Level III.
In order to assume a position on regional staff, one must have completed Level IV.
In order to assume a position on national staff, one must have completed Level V.

At the very least, one may be selected for these positions before the completion of the required Level (one Level below), only if the person can and will fulfill the requirements within one year.  If the requirements cannot be met, (time in staff position, etc.), the person is not eligible for the position.  And if the person does not complete the requirements within the timeframe, s/he is removed from the position.

Perhaps this will only motivate the seniors interested in positions, but at least it's a start, and it will ensure the folks on the staffs have the appropriate Level of training for their positions.

[RickFranz]

Just a thought, maybe we should have a program like the Army Warrant Officer.  In that, we would take the "I only want to do flying, ES, COMM..." and not have interest in doing any thing else members and put them in that group of specialist and let them contribute and not fill pushed.  After a while, if they see that they would like to do more, have an instrument to make the move to Officership.  I know that the Air Force does not have WO's any more, but they don't have Flight Officers either.  That way the CFI that comes in would not be a Capt. but a W3.

I don't think you can push people to do things in Civil Air Patrol.  I do think you can lead people to do many things in Civil Air Patrol.  However it is a lot of work to do that.

[Gunner C]

Similar to the thread RiverAux started about linking PD and ES, but still in keeping with this thread:

At the very least, there should be a correlation between PD and duty positions (which may have been the original intent, but is not in the regs), i.e.:

In order to become a squadron commander, one must have completed Level II.
In order to assume a position on wing staff, one must have completed Level III.
In order to assume a position on regional staff, one must have completed Level IV.
In order to assume a position on national staff, one must have completed Level V.

At the very least, one may be selected for these positions before the completion of the required Level (one Level below), only if the person can and will fulfill the requirements within one year.  If the requirements cannot be met, (time in staff position, etc.), the person is not eligible for the position.  And if the person does not complete the requirements within the timeframe, s/he is removed from the position.

Perhaps this will only motivate the seniors interested in positions, but at least it's a start, and it will ensure the folks on the staffs have the appropriate Level of training for their positions.

I agree but to a point - let's tie promotions more solidly to PD:

• 2nd Lt - Level 1
• 1st Lt - Level 2
• Capt - Level 3
• Maj - Level 4
• Lt Col - Level 5
• Not eligible for Col (Wing/Region command w/o Level 5

Let's make officers go through some gates if they want to be WG/CC, RG/CC, CAP/CC.  There's too many wing/region CCs who haven't paid their dues - they're good politicians, but lousey leaders.

Gunner C

[DeputyDog]

<snip> You sell it to them.  You mentor them.  You get them to see that they can help the mission/squadron more effectively by gaining the training.....then you [darn] well be sure that the training is actually relevant.

That is what needs to be done.  People should WANT to go to these courses.  We should use all the tools available (be it bling, promotions, pride, mission requirments) to make them WANT to get the training.  You can't force people to make a mind set change by forcing them to a classroom.  </snip>

I have found that a good professional development officer makes the membership in the squadron WANT to progress. If you have a bad professional development officer, which I define as one that is reactive in their duties rather than proactive and doesn't have a clue as how to motivate the membership, making professional development mandatory will further fuel our retention problems.

A big part of the problem with the current professional development program is that there is no real guidance or standardized training for professional development officers outside of reading and following the CAPP 204 (which needs to be updated, BTW.).

[Flying Pig]

Could someone please describe the "Dead Weight" member?  How does this person impact your Sq? Do they cost you money? Do they cost you time?  I don't get it.  I am a Sq. Commander, and I have several people on my roster whom I have never met. They aren't active, they don't come to meetings, nobody in the unit currently has any idea who they are, yet, every year they continue to send in their $86. 
I have periodically sent them emails, but receive no response.  In no way have any of these members caused me any hardship.  I see no benefit in sending them a letter telling them they have been dropped from CAP.

The vast majority of people I have worked with over my 15 years in CAP have enjoyed the program, and many already participate to a level that has caused significant sacrifice on the part of themselves and their families.  I have a member who is a school teacher.  An asset to our unit in every way.  She has been a member for about 4 years.  She has not completed any of the PD courses.  She would like to, but she is an extremely busy person both with work and family.  I just learned she is going to be going inactive for about 1 year because she just cannot find the time for CAP right now.  Should I send her a letter telling her not to come back at all because she is dead weight?

If a CFI has come into the program and is at the level where they are now doing Form 5's and Form 91's I wold hardly call them dead weight.  For those who have attained this level, its hardly a "check the box" goal to reach.  I don't care if Senior Member Smith joins and tells me that all he wants to do is clean toilets and nothing more.  I will say, "Thank You Senior Member Jones, I will find you the nicest toilet brush mankind has to offer.....Hey, SM Jones, do you want to go to SLS? They will let you clean toilets." Its no different than the 18 year old who enlists, and after 4 years leaves the military as an  E3/E4 with an Honorable Discharge.  They did their duty, and at the end of the day, rendered the final salute and drove through the main gate in a cloud of dust, while at the same time a different 18 year old reenlists for 4 more.  Was first one "Dead Weight"?

Believe me, we will have our share of CAP lifers.  Then we will have our share who do their "season" and move on and we have those who drop in every now and then. We need all of them.  Some of the most productive members I have had are the parents who have joined with their cadets, busted their butts making things happen for 3 or 4 years.  Then one day, High School graduation comes along, cadet moves on, and you part with the parent with a good handshake, never to be heard from again.
I enjoy wearing the uniform, I enjoy CAP activities and I enjoy being with like minded people.  I have no issue with PD or people progressing.  But lets knock of the "up or out" nonsense. 

[dwb]

I am a Sq. Commander, and I have several people on my roster whom I have never met. They aren't active, they don't come to meetings, nobody in the unit currently has any idea who they are, yet, every year they continue to send in their $86.

Those people are, in effect, Patron members.  They're just not listed as such.  Just as there is no harm in keeping their membership current, there is also no harm in categorizing their contribution to CAP more appropriately.

But lets knock off the "up or out" nonsense.

Remember that being in Patron status is not the same as being kicked out of CAP, so I'm not talking about "up or out" here.  You're misrepresenting my argument to make it easier to criticize.  I can't imagine kicking someone out of CAP because they're not active.

Again, for emphasis, I'm not proposing we drop people from CAP, or tell them to never come back, so stop using those terms.

[Flying Pig]

No, that is what your saying.  There are several aspects of CAP someon cant participate in as Patron, and your proposing this soley based on whether they are active in the PD program, vs being an active member contributing member.  I have been a Senior Member for about 6 years, and I am still a boot 1st Lt.  I havnt attended SLS, and havnt even completed ECI 13 and I can gaurantee I have more knowledge and real world experience in what CAP does than several LTC's I know.  Under your policy, I would have been dropped to Patron  status by now.

I will get to the courses when I can.  I have been so involved with CAP over the last couple of months with CD and taking on a new Sq Commander position, that I didnt even realize my son was on the track team and has his first meet this weekend.  So what did I do, I withdrew from the UCC Course I had signed up for this weekend. 
One of the most influential Seniors I ever knew was a 1st Lt for 10 years but somehow managed to take a Drill Team to NCC 4 years in a row.  I have no problem with PD and trying to motivatye people.  But dropping them to Patron soley based on their PD progression is silly.

Scope and rollout guidelines of my proposal:


All senior members are required to complete up to Level III


Levels IV and V remain optional for the hard-chargers, but would be required for senior leaders (Wing CC requires Lvl IV, above that requires Lvl V)


Senior members would have to complete Level I within six months of joining, Level II within three years of joining, and Level III within five years of joining


Senior members that did not complete the training within the specified timeframes would be moved to Patron status


These rules do not apply to Cadet Sponsor Members


Current members who have not yet completed Level III will have timeframes similar to new members (i.e., all existing members would have to complete Level III within five years of policy inception)

[Short Field]

Those people are, in effect, Patron members.  They're just not listed as such.  Just as there is no harm in keeping their membership current, there is also no harm in categorizing their contribution to CAP more appropriately.

Why even bother with forcing them into Patron status?  About all that would do is cause some of them to not renew their membership since the unit they belonged to kicked them out. 

I can't believe you get this concerned about members who don't show up or even members who do show up but don't get involved.   

[Short Field]

We need to remember the main purpose of Professional Development - develop a cadre of people capable of running the day-to-day business of the squadron.  Promotions just reflect professional development.   

[dwb]

I can't believe you get this concerned about members who don't show up or even members who do show up but don't get involved.   

You obviously don't know me very well if you consider this thread to be an example of me being overly concerned about something. 

The funny thing is, I'm usually in lordmonar's camp on things like this, the pragmatist who says there's no use in dreaming about things that have no chance of seeing the light of day.

But I think the idea has merit.

A big issue that I didn't foresee is that there is an obvious stigma toward labeling indefinitely inactive members as Patron members, although that's what they are in practice.  It's like having a composite squadron that really only runs a cadet program; just call a spade a spade, fill out a CAPF 27 for re-designation, and be done with it.

I actually have no problem with people who want to keep their membership and not participate.  I took a sabbatical after relinquishing command of my squadron.  I'm in a duty assignment now that requires only infrequent attendance, because I'm just too busy to commit to another big duty assignment.

I totally get that participation will fluctuate, I'm not arguing that point.  My proposal was aimed more towards people that do participate regularly.

I also didn't say anything at all about promotions (besides that more people will qualify for them).  I know why promotions are partially decoupled from professional development, and I'm not proposing we change that.  I'm saying people should do PD because it inherently has merit, not because they can get promoted.

Finally, I'm not losing sleep over this.  I'm not planning to march on the National Board meeting this summer to demand we require PD.  I'm just floating an idea out to some fellow CAPers.

[lordmonar]

Those people are, in effect, Patron members.  They're just not listed as such.  Just as there is no harm in keeping their membership current, there is also no harm in categorizing their contribution to CAP more appropriately.

Why even bother with forcing them into Patron status?  About all that would do is cause some of them to not renew their membership since the unit they belonged to kicked them out. 

I can't believe you get this concerned about members who don't show up or even members who do show up but don't get involved.   

Also...patron members can't particpate in normal CAP stuff...by definition.  So if they guy you just shifted over to Patron Status because you have not seen him in six months, suddenly shows up at a SAREX....he can't play....gets mad....and quits for real.

Now you are out a fully qualified ES/COMM/Pilot/What ever.

People volunteer based on their own capabilities.   Forceing participation in anyway is not conductive to a volunteer organisation.

[lordmonar]

I totally get that participation will fluctuate, I'm not arguing that point.  My proposal was aimed more towards people that do participate regularly.

But that is not what you proposed.  You said "All senior members are required to complete up to Level III".

And if they don't we push them to patron status and don't let them play.  When push comes to shove...what are we going to do?  If you have a 2d Lt who does a great job doing his one deep every-other-week job that requires zero leadership and almost no interaction with anyone above wing....but his drop dead date comes up and he refuses to complete his level III....what is the greater good from forceing him to quit?

[lordmonar]

We teach that the Core Values are the price of admission to CAP.  One of CAP's Core Values is Excellence; I believe personal excellence and self-improvement are one facet of that.

So what do we do with the guy who has completed his Level V?  If he does not continue to "self improve" his is not meeting your vision of the core values?

Excellance is how you do your job.  If you NEED the training to become excellent...then it is by all means right and proper to force him out if he refuses to get the training (i.e. requiring Level III and UCC for commanders, Level IV for wing commanders).  However, for the rank and file staff guy....requiring more....just to be requiring it...serves no purpose.

[dwb]

So what do we do with the guy who has completed his Level V?

I don't know, congratulate him?  Considering how low the Wilson award numbers are, I'd say completing Level V is a shining example of a commitment to excellence and improving oneself.

And in theory, by the time someone does have a Wilson, they've learned that you should never stop learning.

I think we're talking past each other here, Pat.  I'm not saying that Excellence = being required earn a new geegaw every year.  I know you don't think that's what I'm saying.  And I would hope by this point that you don't actually believe that I feel someone who has a Wilson (or a Spaatz for that matter) has not exhibited a good chunk of personal dedication.

If you have a 2d Lt who does a great job doing his one deep every-other-week job that requires zero leadership and almost no interaction with anyone above wing....but his drop dead date comes up and he refuses to complete his level III....what is the greater good from forceing him to quit?

A lot of these hypothetical situations are difficult to discuss because we don't have any statistics at our disposal.  For example, what percentage of active senior members have been in for 5+ years and have not completed Level II and still serve in regular duty assignments?

I can think of two off the top of my head, so I know they exist.  But how many people are really in that situation?  Furthermore, how many of those people would be willing to take the PD if it was offered regularly and encouraged by their squadron commander?

I'd like to think the number of people who would rather quit than take SLS is fairly small, and if they're that finicky about their involvement, they'll end up falling on their sword for some other minor issue eventually.

[SarDragon]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Patron dues just the NHQ amount ($30 ?)? I I transferred all the members in my unit, that I've never seen, to Patron status, then my region and wing would lose the additional financial assets they currently get from the inactive members.

[lordmonar]

I know you don't think that way....but we are talking regulations here...and reasoning behind such.

You reasoned that it is a core value to improve yourself...for the sake of improvement.

If a officer knows his job, has the necessary skills, and is doing his job....there is no requirement to force him to do more.

A good mentor will always encourage his protégés to improve themselves and to take any and all training opportunities that present themselves....but we are talking about mandating training that may not be necessary or wanted.

And we are addressing the consequences of not meeting those requirements.

We always have to look at the consequences.

If you MANDATE that such a position must have such and such training you must be ready to:

1) Provide the required training in a timely manner (SLS/CLC once a year is not timely IMHO).

2) Take up the slack of not having any qualified to fill the position (i.e. do it yourself).

Add to this that you want people to do the job until the clock runs out...you either burn CC's for not Patron Statusing their members or you kill your unit by loosing good officers.

As for people who have been active for 5+ years and not have their Level II finished.....I got 5 of them in my squadron alone!

One of the reasons I was picked to take over was to fix this situation!  I am not doing it by drawing a line in the sand...but by mentoring and encouraging them to understand how it will help the squadron.

But MANDATING training for no good reason is just stupid....and I am in the USAF were we got some really stupid mandated annual training!

I hate it at work...I certainly don't want to promote it in my fun activity.

What we really need is better training and more often.  

If an officer did not have to wait six months to a year to get his SLS or CLC we would be a whole lot better off all around.

[kpetersen]

How about we compromise?  Agree to mandatory professional development (because you already do most the stuff for the specialty tracks anyway if you do just your basic job), and you give 2 weekends in 5 years to learning stuff you don't care about as much...and we'll see if they'll do away with ECI (AFAIDL) 13? 

  Works for me.

[RiverAux]

I think this idea is just a bit too broad to be workable.  I believe there are situations where an individual member's PD status should be taken into consideration, but I don't think we will increase participation by hitting people with the big stick. I prefer the carrot approach which would increase the opportunities available to them based their participation in the program.  

That being said, I think it would be difficult to implement your idea as suggested based on our current specialty track requirements.  They vary so widely in terms of time-in-position requirements that I think we would probably end up with a lot of Senior-rated people in the "easy" tracks ("Wow, where did all these historians come from all of a sudden?).  

The other issue is that although our senior member training program doesn't actually say it, if you look at the way it is designed it is geared towards having 1 person working in each staff job.  Lets face it, there are many of these positions that don't really need assistants.  There are a few positions where assistants could come in handy, but not many.  So, we would end up having to have a bunch of people supposedly serving as assistants, but not really doing much.  

[bosshawk]

Folks add me to the list of those who have been in CAP for fifteen years and has not gotten Level Two.

That said, I have commanded a Sq, been the deputy twice, am currently on the Wing Staff as a Director of a major program, have done UCC, SLS, CLS, Level one, been to more Wing Conferences than I can count, have taught at several CLC and SLS and simply have never gotten the Certificate of Proficiency or whatever it is called for Level Two.  As I see it, I qualify for Level Three, maybe even level Four.

I am a graduate of Army ROTC, Commissioned in the Army for 30 years, retired as a Colonel, graduated from the Basic Officers Course, the Advance Course, Command and General Staff College, the War College and several MOS producing courses over the years.

I am a Mission Pilot, a Mission Scanner, a Mission Check Pilot, an instructor in the Mt Flying Course, an AOBD, a Planning Branch Director and I suspect some more things that I can't remember right now.

Now, because I haven't jumped through all the hoops that some of you propose, you will make me a Patron?   Huh???

[lordmonar]

Now, because I haven't jumped through all the hoops that some of you propose, you will make me a Patron?   Huh???

That's right sir!  I need you to turn in your BTDT card by 0800 tommor or there will be trouble!

[bosshawk]

Pat: now tell me what a BTDT card is.  After more years than most of you folks have been alive, I still can't fathom some of the acronyms: especially the ones created in the computer world.  Have we forgotten how to speak English?

[O-Rex]

It's all about setting the example:  I love listening to the "career Lieutenant" harp on a cadet to move through his or her achievements.

penalize a member for not progressing?  Not likely, but its a matter of pride in what you do.

As an ACSC grad, I had the satisfaction of talking a CAP-USAF Major through a prticularly difficult chapter of ACSC material while we were at a mission base, waiting for weather to clear: how's that for turning the tables?  It was a definite win-win, and I'd like to think that I helped give CAP a little credibility in the eyes of at least one USAF Officer.

With the exception of USAF PME courses, the CAP PD program isn't really all that challenging, so what's the fuss?

To those who have the BTDT credentials, but don't validate them: what kind of message are you sending subordinates and peers, particularly if you are in a command or staff position?

Let's collectively make the extra effort, lest we be deserving of the amateur status we are sometimes given.

[lordmonar]

Pat: now tell me what a BTDT card is.  After more years than most of you folks have been alive, I still can't fathom some of the acronyms: especially the ones created in the computer world.  Have we forgotten how to speak English?

Been There, Done That!

[Major Carrales]

Service before self

Some are in CAP to serve, service as a CAP Captain or CAP Lt Col is equal in value by all definitions of the words. 

If I have a pilot or Cadet Programs person (or of the colorful gamut in between) dedicated to their craft in CAP but not really keen on moving up in rank, how would removing them or punishing them help the unit?

[lordmonar]

O-Rex,

I agree with you 100% about what we "should" be doing as good leaders, officers and mentors.

But in this case we are talking about FORCING people to do these things or kicking them out...ops sorry changing them to patron status (i.e. taking their money but not letting them play).

As for credentials...a 20+ year AD Lt Col already has more credentials then CAP could ever give them as far as PD is concerned.

Again I point the finger at the PD program itself.  The training needs to be timely and relevant.

On time and On target.

We need to offer it more often, we need to make it longer and more focused on leadership and less on "this is CAP" and it needs to be more focused on the needs of the squadron.

[kpetersen]

As for credentials...a 20+ year AD Lt Col already has more credentials then CAP could ever give them as far as PD is concerned.

i hate butting into directed to other people, but as much as I can appreciate an AF AD Lt Col, I'm currently cleaning up the meses of one, because he views CAP the same as boyscouts.  While in certain areas, sure AD does meet those needs, and therefore parts of it should count.  But just because someone is AD doesn't make them more qualified in a different area of CAP then where they're working.  The person I'm thinking of does a wonderful job in logistics, but not in CP.  Had he attended a TLC, i think i'd have a lot less problems now.

[lordmonar]

Notice I said about PD.....a 30 Pilot wing commander....probably has great leadership and managerial skills...but it does not mean he is an expert in CP or AE.

And requiring said Lt Col to attend SLS and CLC would not make him better in CP anyway......as you said TLC would be the appropriate training for the job.

[Short Field]

Just went back and check the record of one of our CAP Lt Cols - a retired USAF O6.  He is still Level I despite having completed War College.  He is one heck of a leader and pilot and greatly contributes to our Wing mission.

He has credit for War College - but it was applied against RSC instead of ECI-13.  The rest of his military schools don't count because they are outside the 20 year window to be counted.  If he ever decides to complete ECI-13, he would bounce up to Level IV immediately.

ECI-13 works for the people it was targeted at - new non-military career types.  For a senior military NCO or Officer to take it is just mindless busy work.  Too much work for too little return for some people.   

I was lucky I had enough equivlant schools to fill the squares - as my commissioning program, the two time I completed SOS (correspondence & in-residence), and the first time I completed ACSC (correspondence) didn't count for anything. 

[SarDragon]

Folks add me to the list of those who have been in CAP for fifteen years and has not gotten Level Two.

That said, I have commanded a Sq, been the deputy twice, am currently on the Wing Staff as a Director of a major program, have done UCC, SLS, CLS, Level one, been to more Wing Conferences than I can count, have taught at several CLC and SLS and simply have never gotten the Certificate of Proficiency or whatever it is called for Level Two.  As I see it, I qualify for Level Three, maybe even level Four.

I am a graduate of Army ROTC, Commissioned in the Army for 30 years, retired as a Colonel, graduated from the Basic Officers Course, the Advance Course, Command and General Staff College, the War College and several MOS producing courses over the years.

I am a Mission Pilot, a Mission Scanner, a Mission Check Pilot, an instructor in the Mt Flying Course, an AOBD, a Planning Branch Director and I suspect some more things that I can't remember right now.

Now, because I haven't jumped through all the hoops that some of you propose, you will make me a Patron?   Huh???

Paul, actually if you sit down with a Personnel person who is on the ball, thay can do all that paperwork in a couple of hours (max) and get you up to date. From what I see, you should be good through Level IV. I'm not going to look it all up tonight, but I think that's where you stand/sit.

YMMV.

[O-Rex]

O-Rex,

I agree with you 100% about what we "should" be doing as good leaders, officers and mentors.

But in this case we are talking about FORCING people to do these things or kicking them out...ops sorry changing them to patron status (i.e. taking their money but not letting them play).

As for credentials...a 20+ year AD Lt Col already has more credentials then CAP could ever give them as far as PD is concerned.

Again I point the finger at the PD program itself.  The training needs to be timely and relevant.

On time and On target.

We need to offer it more often, we need to make it longer and more focused on leadership and less on "this is CAP" and it needs to be more focused on the needs of the squadron.

As I said before, you really can't expect to enforce a "up or out" policy to a membership that pays for the privilege of being members.

It's not like the military, where there are only so many Colonel slots as mandated by Congress, and far more applicants seeking them.   But funny thing: I remember someone in another thread actually dug into the stats, and found that the distribution of rank among CAP members wasn't that far off from that of USAF. 

If a member wants to keep their PD in second gear, that's up to them.

HOWEVER, my pet peeve is SMWOG's who become Sqdn CC's and are appointed to 1st Lt, then Capt after a year, don't pursue any PME program, and there they sit for years.

Also, I have known some gurus in Commo, ES, AE etc. who but PME on the back-burner,  take their respective functional areas to the next level, and THEN realize the need to progress in the program, because they begin to interface with other agencies or the public and find that there might be the appearance of a credibility gap as a 5-year Second Lieutenant who holds a wing-level position or higher.  Sure;  the CAP Major title and three bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks, but other agencies and/or Mil branches see it differently, and perception is important.

I'll admit that the current CAP PME program needs to kick it up a notch (some in my circle refer to CLC and SLS as "show up, maintain a pulse and get a certificate..)  and I understand that there is an effort underway to revamp it. 

As for current/former military: IMHO, I kind of have a problem with the 20 year limit for PME credit for mil schools: I guess folks feel that you'll brain-drain what you learned in OTS/OCS after 20 years. . . .  As for the Mil Officer with the schooling and command time, if they have the experience and werewhitall from their 'past-life,' then they will soon realize that CAP is it's own breed of animal, and appreciate the need to learn it's nuances (I came to CAP with a former mil's perspective, and had to make some adjustments.)

To all who balk at CAP PME, I'd admit that in it's current state, it's far from ideal, but like many other things in CAP (and life in-general) you get out what you put into it.  If you make the committment and extra effort (particularly with respect to SOS, ACSC and AWC) you might find the experience rewarding, and gain alot of credibility, both personally and for the organization.  You don't need to clutter your ribbon rack or your 'love me wall' with PME doo-dads: just understanding the different areas of CAP, and being able to effectively articulate who we are and what we do will have an impact on others, in CAP and out.     

[bosshawk]

Pat: thanks for clarifying BTDT.  I certainly qualify for that card, having had two years in Germany, a year in Korea and a year in VN and several tours in the Pentagon.

Dave Bowles: I have tried that route, including the Wing CoS, and can't seem to get anyone off the dime.  Therefore, I just move on and get my job done.

Getting a certificate or a decoration or a ribbon or achieving some level of PD simply doesn't rank very high in my hierachy.  As Pat said, Been There/Done That excuses some things.

[Fifinella]

Here's my bottom line:  I work with cadets.  My cadets, being children, ask very blunt questions, such as "why is that old pilot still a 1LT?"  Hmmm, how do I answer that?

Rationally, I can understand the reasons people have for not doing PD.  But I see *everyone* in CAP as a role model for the cadets.

I don't want to offend anyone.  I know the paperwork can be a hassle.  But please consider the example you're setting for the cadets. 

[RiverAux]

While there are quite a few former military members in CAP, I see no reason to warp our training system to try to accomodate their past training activities.  They're in CAP now.  While I don't agree with this particular proposal, there is no reason that were it to be adopted that we exempt military members. 

[Flying Pig]

Here's my bottom line:  I work with cadets.  My cadets, being children, ask very blunt questions, such as "why is that old pilot still a 1LT?"  Hmmm, how do I answer that?

Rationally, I can understand the reasons people have for not doing PD.  But I see *everyone* in CAP as a role model for the cadets.

I don't want to offend anyone.  I know the paperwork can be a hassle.  But please consider the example you're setting for the cadets. 

You explain that Seniors have different priorities and offer different things to the program.  You explain that that person is an adult with a family, responsibilities and a job and is in CAP for a different reason than a 16 year old cadet who is still living at home with mom and dad.  You explain to them that promotion in CAP has a different meaning than a promotion to a cadet and that Senior promotion is not a requirement in the program, and that the "old pilot" performs an important role in the unit regardless of their rank.   And then you tell them, "That old pilot doesn't answer to you cadet, and I better never hear you speak about a Senior Member in a disrespectful manner again."

I am not opposed to PD, but quite honestly, most PD is designed for people with no military background. I can guarantee the NCO school I attended in the Marines along with my professional background has far exceeded any weekend course in public speaking and military tradition CAP can teach.  Will I do PD?  Sure, I would like to move up in the program, but there is no need to require it.  I find it funny that the members who were never in the military are the ones who always seem to want military training exempted from promotion requirements and that someone believes attending the Air War College as military officer has no place in the promotion process.
Again, I have no issue with going to SLS or CLC, and frankly would love to go, and I am sure I would bring something away from it..  The fact is, its offered once or twice per year.  I have a career where my schedule changes quite often, and over the last couple of years getting the time off to go has been impossible. Not to mention, the last two times I have been signed up for SLS, I was called into work on the very weekend of the course.  But I still find it disturbing that people would suggest that members like myself, and Bosshawk and others should at this point be dropped to Patron Status or would consider us poor role models based on whether or not we attended a weekend course and finished ECI-13.

[RiverAux]

I think you've really misinterpreted our professional development program if you think its primary purpose is to provide a substitute education in military leadership to CAP members. 

[Flying Pig]

No, I know exactly what it is.  And Im not opposed to taking the courses.  However I don't agree that it should be required with penalties attached if they are not completed.  I am perfectly happy, and effective, and active,  being a CAP Mission Pilot, CD Pilot and Sq. Commander and I am doing the jobs well. SLS, CLC, etc would be great to attend,  but not attending is not a sign of my lack of interest or dedication to the program.

[wuzafuzz]

I'm all for Professional Development.  It should be required to become a leader above squadron level or to qualify for ICS leadership roles. 

I don't see much need to attach a PD requirement to a career CAP 1st Lt who is perfectly happy in their niche.  We should thank them for their contribution instead of suggesting they ought to leave.  Life happens and we should be grateful for the time and effort all our members devote to CAP.

ES training is another story.  That same career 1st Lt should be on top of their game when they do their thing.  Our job skills should be a match for other ES organizations with similar jobs.  I'll paraphrase someone's comment: We shouldn't show up to a major league game with little league skills.

Back to PD:

What should we do with members of a cadet squadron when we force out the few parents who were willing to run the program?  "Sorry, we have to shutdown because Mr and Mrs Smith spent all their spare time running the squadron instead of taking classes."  What about those remote flights with a few members, none of whom participate in PD but who do participate in SAREX's and missions?  Shut them down too? 

Professional Development is a good thing and I strongly believe in setting a good example whenever possible.  However, requiring PD of ALL senior members could have unexpected negative consequences.  Full disclosure: I am progressing through my PD steps, even though the courses have yet to teach me anything I didn't already know.  Hopefully that will change.

[ZigZag911]

Wing CCs should have Level 4 prior to appointment; Group CCs should have Level 3; Squadron CCs should have Level 2.

In those rare instances where necessity demands appointing someone lacking the training, it should be an "Acting" appointment, with 12 months allowed to get the training done -- and any accompanying promotion (including wing CC to colonel) is delayed until the officer is fully qualified.

If members don't want to do PD beyond Level 1, that's fine....but they should be FO or warrant officers of some sort, with limitations on staff jobs (e.g., can't be deputy, can't serve at wing or higher, etc)

[davidsinn]

So what happens where you stand up a new squadron and everyone is a new member? How do you work that? Because my unit was that way 21 months ago.

[Flying Pig]

Wing CCs should have Level 4 prior to appointment; Group CCs should have Level 3; Squadron CCs should have Level 2.

In those rare instances where necessity demands appointing someone lacking the training, it should be an "Acting" appointment, with 12 months allowed to get the training done -- and any accompanying promotion (including wing CC to colonel) is delayed until the officer is fully qualified.

If members don't want to do PD beyond Level 1, that's fine....but they should be FO or warrant officers of some sort, with limitations on staff jobs (e.g., can't be deputy, can't serve at wing or higher, etc)

[/b]

Sure, make me a Warrant Officer.  Something tells me I would still end up being the Sq. Commander!

[ZigZag911]

Sure, make me a Warrant Officer.  Something tells me I would still end up being the Sq. Commander!

For one year, for one time only.....there would need to be a requirement that the Acting jobs only last up to 12 months....failure to complete requires giving up the post.

What's the big deal about completing Level 2? I would think a squadron commander would want to have at least that much formal training in the program -- to lead by example.

[lordmonar]

I got no problem of requiring people who hold certain level jobs of completing a certain level of PD to continue holding the job....but for the standard ranks and file...I don't think so.