My understanding is that LTC Mike Marek has tended his resignation. :(
Allegedly the resignation is do to the changes made (likely by the Senior Ops Advisor ) in the way the volunteer communications team interacts with National Hq. Mike Marek does not believe the change are in the best interest of the communications program ???.
I think the senior ops advisor is relatively new to that position. Should be interesting to see & hear more about this change in protocol which caused this dedicated member to quit this position
RM
Hearsay. Rumor and innuendo. Why did you post this again? Perhaps to stir up trouble WRT to the new Ops guy?
If LTC Lt. Col. Marek wants to make a public statement, you should let him do it, otherwise you should not put words in his mouth.
^^^
Agreed,
I have worked with Lt Col Marek personally on more than one occasion. He more than possesses the capacity to make his own statements.
Quote from: davidsinn on February 27, 2011, 06:46:01 PM
Hearsay. Rumor and innuendo. Why did you post this again? Perhaps to stir up trouble WRT to the new Ops guy?
My only posting is here. I'm not trying to stir up anything -- I do not know the new ops adviser and do NOT have any personal agenda against anyone. Again I don't know, maybe others on the website have more information. It would seem logical that likely it involves the chain of command, and if I remember correctly Comm comes under the Ops Adviser. Yes I'm confident that the Comm Adviser did render his resignation since my source got it from an official source.
To me I'm a bit confused about all these advisory positions. For example in comm at every level in CAP (sq, gp, wg, rg) we have a Communications Staff Officer, BUT yet at National HQ we don't but just have the paid staff ??? It's a bit confusing as to why there wouldn't be a complete volunteer chain of command, and than the National HQ Staff members would be the staff that makes it happen OR advises why it can't happen.
Maybe the organizational/goverence study will also address this.
RM
For starters Communications staffers (or any other for that matter), do not have a "chain of command" related to comms.
You allege the resignation was due to a disagreement between him and others on staff, and then insinuate the Comm advisor is
inexperienced and you didn't intend that to "stir things up"?
Then what was your intention?
A couple points:
1. Lt Col Marek has tendered his resignation as Communications Team Leader.
2. All levels of staff have a chain of command. It is not a "Communications" chain of command, but does set policy for those in the chain.
3. No details (inappropriate to ask for them), but Lt Col Marek's chain of command did ask for a significant change in the way the Communicaitons Team volunteers interact with national Headquarters. Most likely, more information will be forthcoming in the near future as an official announcement.
4. Lt Col Marek sent this information out to the wing DC email list this morning. I do not know when a general announcement will be made, but presumably, Gen Courter will send something out this week.
5. No, I will not post his email here.
Quote from: arajca on February 27, 2011, 07:34:55 PM2. All levels of staff have a chain of command. It is not a "Communications" chain of command, but does set policy for those in the chain.
Yes, they do, however it is not through the staff officers, it is through the commanders, and staffers do not "set policy" without the authorization
of the respective commander, this is probably the singular least properly understood part of the way CAP works and causes the most problems.
The command chain - Flight / Unit CC - Group CC - Wing CC - Region CC - National CC.
A unit Comms officer does not "report to" a Group or Wing Comms officer, nor do those respective officers have downstream authority of any kind.
If they want something done that is not already part of the program, it has to go from their echelon's CC to the next echelon's CC.
Yes, there are practical and operational chains based on who has been assigned rights for a given task, but this is not the same thing, and causes
a whole lot of grief when staffers use their golden keys and pens to create fiefdoms outside the regulations. As an example, the fact that a Wing DC may
have to approve the property transfer and issue of a piece of equipment because of oversight responsibility of the system does not give him the
authority to say who gets the gear in the first place, once it has been assigned to the respective unit (TOA's for ES, notwithstanding, etc.).
Col Marek is a hard worker and, his resignation is his own business. Col Murell, the Senior Ops Adviser, is a talented individual and will coordinate the staff as the commander wishes. In any event, everything will be changing in about 6 months. Everyone on the staff will be tendering resignations at that time. The new commander will be making decisions on personell and we'll have new gossip to begin.
Isn't life grand? 8)
Quote from: Eclipse on February 27, 2011, 07:44:22 PM
Quote from: arajca on February 27, 2011, 07:34:55 PM2. All levels of staff have a chain of command. It is not a "Communications" chain of command, but does set policy for those in the chain.
Yes, they do, however it is not through the staff officers, it is through the commanders, and staffers do not "set policy" without the authorization
of the respective commander, this is probably the singular least properly understood part of the way CAP works and causes the most problems.
The command chain - Flight / Unit CC - Group CC - Wing CC - Region CC - National CC.
A unit Comms officer does not "report to" a Group or Wing Comms officer, nor do those respective officers have downstream authority of any kind.
If they want something done that is not already part of the program, it has to go from their echelon's CC to the next echelon's CC.
Yes, there are practical and operational chains based on who has been assigned rights for a given task, but this is not the same thing, and causes
a whole lot of grief when staffers use their golden keys and pens to create fiefdoms outside the regulations. As an example, the fact that a Wing DC may
have to approve the property transfer and issue of a piece of equipment because of oversight responsibility of the system does not give him the
authority to say who gets the gear in the first place, once it has been assigned to the respective unit (TOA's for ES, notwithstanding, etc.).
This focus on the "chain of command" is a simplistic view of a dynamic organization.
What you're overlooking here is the authority and discretion that directorates have over their "fiefdoms" as part of their program management responsibility.
Unit Communications Officers don't "report" to a Wing DC, but the Wing DC is responsible for the program that supports their mission. The communication and coordination that should occur to make any program (not just communications) successful mustn't be marginalized and forgotten.
Remember, Command is a responsibility that sets the tone for an organization, and sets mission priorities. The rest of these pieces are what can make or break the actual mission accomplishment.
Even with the explanation at the end of your post, it's important to point out that commanders at all echelons must support or at least remain aware of these non-command relationships. The chain of command is vitally important, but we cannot entrust the strict-view of the chain of command to conduct all the business needed to accomplish the mission.
Quote from: Ed Bos on February 27, 2011, 10:38:29 PMEven with the explanation at the end of your post, it's important to point out that commanders at all echelons must support or at least remain aware of these non-command relationships. The chain of command is vitally important, but we cannot entrust the strict-view of the chain of command to conduct all the business needed to accomplish the mission.
In a perfect world, I agree, but CAP is hardly that.
I get the chills when people start talking about staffers "making policy" or "chains of command" that involve staffers who feel they can direct
effort without including commanders.
Working together to accomplish the mission in the most expedient way possible? Sure. A commander does not need to be involved
in the minutia of (in this case), antenna specifications, radio programming, or the best source for accessories.
But start making up rules like "only HAMs can be issued radios", "only GT's can be issued radios", "no one will be issued radios and they must all be stored at the unit", etc., and that is a problem.
BTDT.
As a staffer, my chain is: me - Chief of Staff - Wing CC.
For my staff it's: staff - me - CoS - CC
At the national level it could be: Comm Team Leader - Operations advisor - Senior Ops Advisor - CAP/CC.
The commander sets the chain for their organization.
Col Marek said HIS chain of command, which is different from mine or yours.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 27, 2011, 10:50:03 PM
"only GT's can be issued radios"
In regards to handheld radios, that is the rule. Reference the ToA. The only authorization for handhelds at wing and lower levels is ground teams.
Quote from: arajca on February 27, 2011, 11:00:38 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 27, 2011, 10:50:03 PM
"only GT's can be issued radios"
In regards to handheld radios, that is the rule. Reference the ToA. The only authorization for handhelds at wing and lower levels is ground teams.
My point isn't about the minutia of a specific radio type, nor did I say handhelds.
There was a time in the not-too-distant past
where in many wings no one but hams were issued radios, regardless of TOA's, ES quals, etc.I do agree with your point about chains being different for different areas, however they can't jump down a click, or bypass legitimate commanders
just for expediency without the overt approval of the respective commander(s) involved.
The other issue with CAP is the circular reporting structures we allow to be created by having members serve in different roles
at different levels.
"Wait, who's in charge today?" "Well, I'm the Group 'x', so if it is about 'x' it is me, but you're the 'y', so if it is about the
'y's', then it is you." ::)
For the record, at least here, Lt. Col. Marek hasn't actually said anything...
Quote from: Eclipse on February 27, 2011, 11:10:43 PM
I do agree with your point about chains being different for different areas, however they can't jump down a click, or bypass legitimate commanders
just for expediency without the overt approval of the respective commander(s) involved.
The other issue with CAP is the circular reporting structures we allow to be created by having members serve in different roles
at different levels.
"Wait, who's in charge today?" "Well, I'm the Group 'x', so if it is about 'x' it is me, but you're the 'y', so if it is about the
'y's', then it is you." ::)
For the record, at least here, Lt. Col. Marek hasn't actually said anything...
All your comments about chains of command are irrelevent IN THIS CASE, since the only one that is involved is Col Marek's.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on February 27, 2011, 05:38:12 PM
.......the resignation is due to the changes made in the way the volunteer communications team interacts with National Hq. Mike Marek does not believe the changes are in the best interest of the communications program .........
Gee it looks to me basically like the comm adviser probably has to funnel all of his requests or comments thorough one person. Now whether that's on the CAP volunteer side OR on the National HQ paid side is the hundred dollar question ??? Marek has a strong education and likely can take a lot of organizational abuse, BUT when he throws in the towel, I be aware (or maybe beware) of what is really happening there :(
Are we going to get a lame duck appointment of someone outside of the current team and how will this affect the entire communications program ??? :(
HOWEVER again organizationally shouldn't we have A CAP National HQ Director of Communications on the volunteer side, and the paid staff as well as regions & wings DC's work with him or her in supporting & administering the programs :-\ ???
RM
Quote from: arajca on February 27, 2011, 11:33:26 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 27, 2011, 11:10:43 PM
I do agree with your point about chains being different for different areas, however they can't jump down a click, or bypass legitimate commanders
just for expediency without the overt approval of the respective commander(s) involved.
The other issue with CAP is the circular reporting structures we allow to be created by having members serve in different roles
at different levels.
"Wait, who's in charge today?" "Well, I'm the Group 'x', so if it is about 'x' it is me, but you're the 'y', so if it is about the
'y's', then it is you." ::)
For the record, at least here, Lt. Col. Marek hasn't actually said anything...
All your comments about chains of command are irrelevent IN THIS CASE, since the only one that is involved is Col Marek's.
True enough.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on February 27, 2011, 11:42:56 PM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on February 27, 2011, 05:38:12 PM
.......the resignation is due to the changes made in the way the volunteer communications team interacts with National Hq. Mike Marek does not believe the changes are in the best interest of the communications program .........
Gee it looks to me basically like the comm adviser probably has to funnel all of his requests or comments thorough one person. Now whether that's on the CAP volunteer side OR on the National HQ paid side is the hundred dollar question ??? Marek has a strong education and likely can take a lot of organizational abuse, BUT when he throws in the towel, I be aware (or maybe beware) of what is really happening there :(
Are we going to get a lame duck appointment of someone outside of the current team and how will this affect the entire communications program ??? :(
HOWEVER again organizationally shouldn't we have A CAP National HQ Director of Communications on the volunteer side, and the paid staff as well as regions & wings DC's work with him or her in supporting & administering the programs :-\ ???
RM
What needs to be the focal point is current policy regarding CAP communications. Anyone who is appointed will need to proceed with current agreements, policies and regulations. I think we all know what the priorities are and how they are to be accomplished. At this point in time, things are pretty well mapped out. Who has the job should not be a major factor as, the region and wing DC's are already doing the job.
QuoteCol Weiss Wrote:
What needs to be the focal point is current policy regarding CAP communications. Anyone who is appointed will need to proceed with current agreements, policies and regulations. I think we all know what the priorities are and how they are to be accomplished. At this point in time, things are pretty well mapped out. Who has the job should not be a major factor as, the region and wing DC's are already doing the job.
[/color]
I actually agree with you on this BUT with Marek's further explanation about this on his public comm list server, it centers around the comm adviser having more access to the Mission Directorate, than other advisers do to their directorates, and the "discovery" by the leadership about the enhanced access, and apparently pulled the plug to that relationship. There's also something about a candid email sent "frank & direct language" between HQ CAP (paid staffers) and the comm adviser that caused an issue.
Marek's a smart guy, and if he throws in the towel, he's got a very good reason, and it does center around 'effectiveness' of his team with the reduced access to the paid staffers at National.
I guess subsequent events over the next 6+ months will determine who was right in this :-\
RM
I don't think it a matter of "who was right" . The paid staff at NHQ is concerned with the logistical solutions in distributing equipment and, regulatory administration in purchasing. The volunteer staff is supposed to coordinate and place with corporate officers signing off on any lease agreements. It seems simple enough however, I'm not part of the organizational plan.
This being said, the communications plan for CAP is basically set. And, in 6 or so months, the volunteer side will change anyway. As far as comm goes, IMHO, things will progress just fine as, the team has already done the hard work.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on February 27, 2011, 05:38:12 PM
My understanding is that LTC Mike Marek has tended his resignation. :(
Allegedly the resignation is do to the changes made (likely by the Senior Ops Advisor ) in the way the volunteer communications team interacts with National Hq. Mike Marek does not believe the change are in the best interest of the communications program ???.
I think the senior ops advisor is relatively new to that position. Should be interesting to see & hear more about this change in protocol which caused this dedicated member to quit this position
RM
Sorry, Ladies and Gentlemen, but all I can say is good riddance.
For those of us who have been around long enough to know the difference, Mr. Marek's departure is long overdue. I am hard-pressed to see how his resignation could be anything but a plus for Civil Air Patrol.
As for what Mr. Marek believes is or is not good for the communications program, I for one believe that he readily confuses his ideology for program effectiveness, and the results have been telling.
This organization's communications program, despite the infusion of tens-of-millions of dollars of the tax payer's trust, is EXPONENTIALLY LESS CAPABLE than it was BEFORE Mr. Marek's meddling. It makes one wonder why he's not under federal indictment. His "Fresh Start" exercise AAR (After Action Report) should have been the nail in his professional (CAP) coffin, but only in CAP can you manifest a single digit efficiency score of a multi-million dollar program and be lauded for your 'performance'.
Maybe he's the best 'mass media' professor in the midwest, but when it comes to operational radio communications, he's dropped the ball. He just doesn't get it. He doesn't have a 'big picture' concept of what 'emergency communications' is, nor does he have an inkling as to what is required for effective command and control of dispersed forces, that being the most basic need for an organization like CAP.
Furthermore, his heavy handed, "I'm In Charge And You Can Shut Up" censorship practices have led to predictable failures. When you won't listen to the rank-and-file or at least accomodate their counsel, you're doomed to fail.
For those of us who are actually involved in other real-world emergency communications, CAP's reputation in the realm of radio communications has been so hobbled as to make one wonder why Congress hasn't intervened yet. We can't communicate with each other let alone get messages from coast-to-coast like we used to be able to do, but the current management doesn't see this as failures. They continue to enact policy changes that are, in a word, Orwellian.
And "interoperability"...?!?! CAP's been a perennial no-show at the DICE, or Defense Interoperability Communications Exercise for five years running...How can you be 'interoperable' when you won't 'interact"...?!?!
Of course, since his 'staff' has cut the legs out from under the program, Marek and his associates want to use that as justification for buying even more expensive gear to 'fix' the 'problem'. The 'fixes' for what ails this program, ironically, can be implemented for volunteer provided pennies-on-the-taxpayer's hard-earned dollar, but then that doesn't provide the ego-salving rush of spending millions of appropriated tax dollars.
This organization's communications program was once one of the most robust, vibrant, and exciting places for a 'radio geek' to be because it brought together the satisfaction of knowing your skills and talents were being used for a meaningful and necessary mission. Where is that today?
And before anyone jumps up and starts nay-saying my comments herein: I challenge ANY commander at ANY level of CAP command and control to conduct an un-announced exercise where it is presumed that the commerical communications infrastructure has been compromised and CAP communications are the ONLY means by which he/she can manage deployed forces for at least 48 hours. No cellphones...No telephone...No Internet...
Think it can't happen? Ask the folks in the midwest floods of the 90's. Ask the folks in Louisiana.
I for one have taken my "Communications" patches off of my BDU's until we get a competent program back, I get frustrated enough to resign, or I get -2B'd for being too vocal about the malfeasance of certain program managers.
Steven J Robeson, LPN
Major NatPatRon CAP
K4YZ
[admin edit. removed font settings]
Don't hold back. What do you really think? :o
I kept telling myself to resist posting something, until I saw that one....
Here's my personal opinion...
Mike is a volunteer. He stepped forward at a seriously challenged time, when pretty much everyone else in our ranks took the attitude that "someone else will handle it". He had to make some really hard decisions, and do what he felt was the right thing. I can't even begin to judge the guy, because I have no idea what environment he had to deal with.
But I can tell you this... Do not forget that Mike stepped up to the plate when most of everyone else didn't. If you have not dealt with issues such as the NB transition, policy changes, major re-write regarding the communications mission, and all the nasty politics and arguments that come with it, then maybe you should think twice before jabbing him, or anyone with the brass to step up and try to make a difference.
I was making futile attempts to work a seriously historic effort at our wing a year or so ago. Mike NEVER ignored my emails pleading for help or clarification on how to get something done. He was one of maybe three guys working to help those of us at wing level get systems that AF paid serious $$ for up.
Personally, I am saddened that Mike departs our ranks. We need about 20 more of him to get the rest of the work up to par.
Just as the military branches have learned the hard way, we must also realize that communications is no longer a "service" complimenting our missions. It is a mission in itself.
I take offense to any comments such as the one I just read. They anger me because these guys are busting butts to make a difference. They are stepping up to take on hard challenges.
So, might I recommend that instead of lobbing bricks around in your glass houses, either step up to take a little load off the guys trying to get us up to par, or keep such unprofessional opinions to yourselves. It's not professional. It's not cool. It's not what we are about.
We're better than that. If you can't "get that", then maybe it's time you consider another organization.
The worst part of this is that we started with one member looking to make some sort of "hay" in someone else's name, and now we have an inactive member coming out to disparage that person, and in all of this, the person being discussed did not appear to be interested in the conversation.
Quote from: STEVEN ROBESON on February 28, 2011, 03:01:38 AM
Sorry, Ladies and Gentlemen, but all I can say is good riddance.
---removed rant---
Steven J Robeson, LPN
Major NatPatRon CAP
K4YZ
I Love this guy! Well said Major!
I don't see this thread going anywhere positive. Locked.
It's already crossed the Membership Code of Conduct line of making accusations against other people. That's not a line we've allowed to be crossed before, and we're not about to begin now.