Quote from: The USAF 'Little Blue Book'
QuoteFaith in the system. To lose faith in the system is to adopt the view that you know better than those above you in the chain of command what should or should not be done. In other words, to lose faith in the system is to place self before service. Leaders can be very influential in this regard: if a leader resists the temptation to doubt `the system', then subordinates may follow suit.
This quote was brought up in another thread and I thought it might deserve its own discussion.
My contention is that in CAP the system is not set up to generally guarantee that the leadership actually knows more or is more capable or qualified to do the job than lower-ranking and lower-positioned CAP members out in the field.
The AF And CAP are not comparable in this area. AF officers are under an up-or-out system which forces them to compete for the next higher slots at all times. Also, if the best person in the AF for a job wasn't interested, he can be ordered to do it anyway. So, everything pretty much forces the best people to be in command. Yes, there can be a political component to it, but it isn't the driving force.
In CAP, only a fraction of members are interested in taking a leadership role, and those are not necessarily the best people. Just because the Region Commander picked the best of the 4 or 5 candidates who applied for the Wing Commander slot, does not mean that that person was the best qualified person in the Wing to do the job -- just the best qualified of those who wanted and had the time and money to do it.
To believe that there CAP leaders are not always right is not to lose faith in the system. It is a recognition of the fact that CAP does not have a real merit-based system of selecting its leaders.
Does this mean that we should ignore our leaders? No, but it does mean that we should critically evaluate their decisions and offer our own advice when applicable.
The strength in an organization if one's belief in them.
We are a nation of LAWS, not of people. CAP should be the same. I think we have forgotten that. That, is the system. The established written word.
What we have seen lately is the opposite. Certain command level persons forgetting that THEY are not the SYSTEM, CAP is the system.
Now, the solution to all your woes, RiverAux, is to create a system and follow it.
That is what we have to have faith in, who is in charge is moot.
That goes for 60 series Flight/ES Regulations, CADET PROTECTION Policy and IG. The problem begins when the system is circumnavigated.
There is a difference between not thinking individual leaders know what is best and not trusting the system.
Even in CAP there is a system to challange your leadership and it is encumbant on us as leaders to use the system as designed and to make needed changes through channels when the system fails.
One of the problems with CAP is that over the years as defects in the system are discovered, noone takes makes the efforts to fix the system.
I wasn't even thinking of any of our recent woes.
QuoteThat is what we have to have faith in, who is in charge is moot.
No, our regulations cover a whole lot of basic issues, but not many real decisions of consequence. The regulations do not prescribe search strategy, they do not prescribe how to deal with specific personality conflicts within CAP, and they do not cover a wide range of issues. In these cases, the person who is in charge is much, much more important than the "system". And that person can be wrong.
CAP leaders are not immaculately infallible simply because they have been selected by someone to be in charge of a squadron, group, or wing or simply because they were elected by the National Board.
Am I unhappy with the system? No, not really. I just recognize that the system does not ensure that the best people are the ones making the decisions.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 19, 2008, 04:05:56 AM
I wasn't even thinking of any of our recent woes.
QuoteThat is what we have to have faith in, who is in charge is moot.
No, our regulations cover a whole lot of basic issues, but not many real decisions of consequence.
RiverAux, may I submit that the system needs to be restructured to do what you say. Based on a true Constitutional Model, like the one that governs the REPUBLIC styled the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.
Do we need a ture Legislative, Executive and Judicial model to goven CAP?
Currently we only have an executive committee "type" model. As many infer, we lack a coherent system of checks and balances and separation of powers.
Some might say we are tryingto follow a "military model" in structure, however, the military is governed by government oversight. Accountability and rank-in-file is a way of life, because it is livelihood.
Do you think it is time to follow such a model that would create a true Legislature (a SENATE made up of WING and REGION commander and a HOUSE of OFFICERS made up of elected memebrship, then an executive made up of a National Commander and advisory board and, finally, a Judicial Body where the IGs are autonomous arbitrs of the CAP Constitution?
While such a system is wrought with logistical issues, it would prevent much of what we see here.
The other option would be for the current system to be run strictly, like a force of nature. Where the IG boards are taken seriously and procedure is equitable to all.
We should have a system where everyone remembers the basic reason why we are here...to serve our communities.
I can really care less about who is the boss and how he/she got there. I don't need to care.
If you hate wing politics...stay out of them. If you hate national politics stay out of them. Do your job and press on.
As for the system....it works after a fashion. Those leaders who can't do the job find staff members to do it for them....we get the mission done. The really bad people get caught and removed.
The really bad part is when nominally good people get burned because they pissed off the "bad leaders" and left themselves open for "corrective action".
That is the nature of the beast...not just CAP but any large organisation....if you piss off the boss you are going to get nailed.
CAP is no different than many other volunteer service organizations and I think we should do what most do -- elect leaders at all levels. It still may not always put the best person in the job, but at least the leaders are accountable to the members instead of the other way around.
^ You Sir are a genius! When we start having elections, I would vote for........you!
Electing our Officers would not be a bad thing at all.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 19, 2008, 05:05:14 AM
^ You Sir are a genius! When we start having elections, I would vote for........you!
Electing our Officers would not be a bad thing at all.
You do know that would serve to replace the current form of "CAP politics" with the ususal form of "politics." Still, it works for us in the Knights of Columbus and for my wife in the Royal Neighbors and for the Rotary.
For some reason this keep running through my head:
NOW this is the Law of the Jungle—as old and as true as the sky;
And the Wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the Wolf that shall break it must die.
As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk the Law runneth forward and back—
For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.
-Kipling
You know....I've worked with two very large volunteer organizations that DO NOT ELECT their leaders and they do very well.
The Boy Scouts and the Red Cross.
Elections would be a terrible thing IMHO.
If I were god for a day here is what I would do.
I would set up an elected representative body as part of the Board of Governors.
Each unit would elect one representative much like a union rep. He would represent the unit membership at wing. The Wing would select from the unit rep 1 delegate to represent the wing at Region. The Region would select a rep to be a voting member on the BoG.
To be elected to the next level one must serve for one year at the lower level and if you cannot represent more than one level at a time. Nor can they hold any command position (or vice command) at any level.
This body of representatives have no power, no agenda and authority accept to be a conduit for the general membership to communicate their desires to the BoG.
The BoG will consist of the regional reps, USAF appointees, the outside agency appointees brought in by the Board and the National Commander as the CEO.
The BoG will APPOINT the National Commander from the active membership and he will then lead the organization.
NO MORE National Board or NEC. Wing and regional commanders will serve at the pleasure of the National Commander who will serve at the pleasure of the BoG.
This will still allow for the general membership to have a say. It will still allow for political interests to be worked out. It will also separate the leadership from any conflicts of interests.
USAF MAJCOM commanders do not have to have each and every one of their orders and directives vetted and approved by their Wing commanders.
Why do we do that? If there is a problem we need to fix (uniform, operations, finance) the commander assigns some staff office to come up with a plan, regulation re-write or solution, and then he implements it.
They don't have to go around and balance what is the right thing to do with what would make his wing commander happy and his political position.
This allows for those who want to be politicians to follow their dreams and those who want to be leaders to focus on being good at their jobs.
So here ends the rant.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 19, 2008, 01:17:28 AM
My contention is that in CAP the system is not set up to generally guarantee that the leadership actually knows more or is more capable or qualified to do the job than lower-ranking and lower-positioned CAP members out in the field.
Leaving aside the "capable" thing for a moment, I would submit that the system is pretty well designed to ensure that senior leaders (NB/NEC) do indeed have a great deal of information to make decisions.
To use a not-so-random example, when the NB voted to close CAPMart and contract with Vanguard, they had the benefit of having the hard numbers on the CAPMart situation, a detailed explanation of the terms of the proposed Vanguard contract, and the written comments and analyses done by professional staff at NHQ and the various NB committees that weighed in on the topic. Run of the mill members like you and me did not.
And the whole wing staff structure is designed to process information and pass it to decision-makers like the commander. So, I'm thinking that our senior leaders do have access to better and more timely information than the average Joe Blow member.
Quote
The AF And CAP are not comparable in this area. AF officers are under an up-or-out system which forces them to compete for the next higher slots at all times. Also, if the best person in the AF for a job wasn't interested, he can be ordered to do it anyway. So, everything pretty much forces the best people to be in command. Yes, there can be a political component to it, but it isn't the driving force.
Yes and no. Sure, the AD AF is composed of full time folks who spend years in schools and on the job mastering their skills, while CAP officers are at best part-time professional volunteers who are also balancing careers and family. But I'm not seeing how this affects a duty of loyalty or faith in the system one way or another.
Loyalty and keeping faith with your fellow members has been an essential component of military (and paramilitary) organizations since the military system was invented a couple of thousand years ago. These values are necessary and shared in military-style organizations as diverse as fire departments, the armed forces, and CG Auxiliary.
Quote
In CAP, only a fraction of members are interested in taking a leadership role, and those are not necessarily the best people. Just because the Region Commander picked the best of the 4 or 5 candidates who applied for the Wing Commander slot, does not mean that that person was the best qualified person in the Wing to do the job -- just the best qualified of those who wanted and had the time and money to do it.
I think I agree with your description of the factors that tend to drastically limit the available volunteers for a wing cc job, but I would point out that it sounds like you agree with me that the Region Commander normally selects
the most qualified available candidate.IOW, be it ever so humble, the merit selection system ID'd the best qualified and available candidate. It is sophistry to worry about "more capable" candidates who simply aren't available to take the job.
Quote
To believe that there CAP leaders are not always right is not to lose faith in the system. It is a recognition of the fact that CAP does not have a real merit-based system of selecting its leaders.
Does this mean that we should ignore our leaders? No, but it does mean that we should critically evaluate their decisions and offer our own advice when applicable.
Nobody -- not even me -- has questioned your right to reflect on decisions that are made and to privately disagree. Or even to offer advice and support to our leaders. And to "critically evaluate" their performance.
But it is a bit of a leap to go from such private reflection to the continous public criticsim, complaints, and downright rude comments made by some members in public. "Praise in public, criticise in private" is sound advice for CAP as well as the AD military.
Before I retired from the military, I certainly disagreed with many of the decisions made by my Army bosses. And during MDMP I would offer suggestions and criticise plans and proposed decisions. But once the decisions were made and announced, the time for public crticism was over. It was quite literally "time to shut up and soldier."
At some point the second-guessing, gossip, and Monday morning quarterbacking becomes destabilizing to the organization and discouraging to the troops.
That's why faith in the system is as important in CAP as it is in the USAF.
Ned Lee
Well said Ned! :clap:
I think this whole thing started because of my comment about CAP faulting with its contract with Vanguard.
Gentlemen, I do not fault Vanguard for this contract or for how it is executed for it is a business and they exist to make money. They do a fine job at that and they provide exactly the service they were contracted for. As such, they are not the topic of my concern.
So what is the topic? It isn't the system. We have a system. I am comfortable with the system. It is very similar to the military system which I am somewhat familiar with.
Me questioning the actions made by people in the system is not the same thing as me questioning the system itself. In fact, me raising concerns may constitute an act of the system.
If a member feels wronged, they have channels of complaint. Their chain of command and/or the Inspector General. The system relies on people to make valid complaints known. It fails when people simply comply with "whatever". Our system is based on JUSTICE for all members.
In this instance, I believe some of our members have been unjustly treated by people who created and executed a corporate contract. I believe this matter may be a serious one. Do I know that for sure? No. Should someone more knowledgeable than myself look into the matter on behalf of others? I think so. That is the system, brothers, and I wholeheartedly believe in it.
Now... do I believe in some of our leadership? Especially in leadership that has recently departed, but managed to create lots of chaos before that? Nope. And that's my right. As long as I carry out their orders, I can trust or mistrust them. It is their job to earn my trust and respect. It is not my duty to issue it to them. I simply have to follow orders I promised to follow unless I believe they are illegal.
Having said that... as previously stated, we were promised that funding would be used for Regional Training facilities (centers) and according to the article, they are being used to fun Blue Beret and Hawk Mountain, neither of which are Regional Training Facilities and neither of which are available to train members at large. I hope an IG reads this and reviews the contract made with Vanguard and what stipulations are actually made. Then I hope someone at the BoG reviews statements made by our leadership to our membership and considers if Integrity was used when it was made.
The USAF Core Values are
Integrity First
Service Before Self
Excellence In All We Do
"Trust in the System" isn't mentioned. The system, if it works, will earn its own trust. If it doesn't it will not. Trust in the system is NOT trust in the people. It is knowing that procedures are in place to fix things if they need fixing, the knowledge of how to follow those procedures, and the dedication of all to do just that.
What I think you speak of is called BLIND FAITH. I will leave for chaplains to comment on that.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 19, 2008, 01:17:28 AM
Quote from: The USAF 'Little Blue Book'QuoteFaith in the system. To lose faith in the system is to adopt the view that you know better than those above you in the chain of command what should or should not be done. In other words, to lose faith in the system is to place self before service. Leaders can be very influential in this regard: if a leader resists the temptation to doubt `the system', then subordinates may follow suit.
This quote was brought up in another thread and I thought it might deserve its own discussion.
My contention is that in CAP the system is not set up to generally guarantee that the leadership actually knows more or is more capable or qualified to do the job than lower-ranking and lower-positioned CAP members out in the field.
In a perfect world, the military system would be flawless. The highest ranking officer would be the best qualified, smartest, etc. But the active military doesn't work that way.
In my 20 years on active duty I ran into more bad commanders than I can count. I also served under some of the best people I have ever met. If I had to choose a ratio, I'd say it was probably close to 50/50 with a slight edge to the good. But even the good ones had their limitations - good in one area, not so good in another. But there were some real blisterheads.
In the 7th Special Forces Group we had a commander who was absolutely unbelievable - so bad that 20 captains in the unit resigned during his tenure. I was part of a task force that was on the Nicaraguan border interdicting arms going into El Salvador. When we got to our base camp location, we set up our tents (12-man GP mediums) in a random fashion. We didn't want one mortar round to get multiple detachments. The commander got an overhead photo of our base and saw what he thought was a disorderly mess and ordered us to get all of the tents in "dress-right-dress". We began to fantasize about ways we could send him off to the happy hunting grounds.
We
HATED that guy. We would stand for inspections for hours in our greens waiting for him to measure everyone's mustache. He required everyone to have a liner in their berets (big no-no in SF - the first thing you do is cut the liner out or it will look like a pizza). Every Monday we'd have a group formation before PT so we could salute when the cannon went off at reveille. It was like a Clint Eastwood movie. We had about 5 different PT uniforms. We'd all drive up to the parking lot and open our trunks. Whatever uniform the sgt maj had on, we'd pull it out and put it on. More times than not He'd call the group to attention and present arms. We'd stand there for what seemed like forever, waiting for the cannon. He'd get frustrated, call us to order arms, then
BOOM! Reveille would start. We'd hold back the laughter until tears rolled down our cheeks. Later, we got more brazen - The colonel would call out the preparatory command: "GROOOOOOOUP." We'd answer "WHAAAAAAAT." Everyone volunteered for every deployment going south just so we'd be as far away as possible rather risk death than put up with his crap. (Things got pretty bad when they limited El Salvador to 55 troops.)
The final straw for everyone was when he ordered the group chaplain to supply every soldier a Bible that had to be displayed on the night stand for inspections.
The colonel who was selected to replace him at the end of his command tour was making a visit six months before taking command. The general pulled him in and asked him if he'd take command that afternoon (he'd had enough, too). The blisterhead was relieved of command.
The next day the new colonel called us into the theater for a meeting. Everyone who wasn't deployed was there. When he walked in the command sergeant major called out "GENTLEMEN, THE COMMANDER." We jumped to our feet at attention. No one knew what to expect.
Instead of walking up to the podium he sat on the edge of the stage, looked at us and said "I don't know who's happier about this, you guys or me." For about two seconds, no one said anything - it took a bit to process. Then EVERYONE jumped to their feet and gave him a cheering standing ovation for what seemed like 10 minutes.
Is the military system perfect? Heck no! But, it does have what we don't - a deep bench. Senior service training such as Air Command and Staff College and Air War College (and other service equivalents) are chosen by service-level boards. Promotions are centralized and tightly controlled. The training and promotion system pretty much weeds out the real weak ones. Sure, that leaves a bunch of guys that I wouldn't follow even out of curiosity, but it's still better than what CAP has at present.
I think I'll start a new thread on what I think might be a solution.
GC
^ Wow!
the stuff you mentioned......that can be a movie. 20 CPT's resigning.....I don't know what to think of that.
"But it is a bit of a leap to go from such private reflection to the continuous public criticism, complaints, and downright rude comments made by some members in public. "Praise in public, criticise in private" is sound advice for CAP as well as the AD military. "
Excellent comment, Ned. It's good advice for all venues.
If any member has a burning desire to understand decisions such as our Vanguard contract, try asking. Just find the right time and place. Maybe at a wing or region conf. There is an annual NB meeting every August your are more than welcome to attend. (small plug: '08 NB meeting at the Gaylord Palms Hotel in Orlando) I'm sure any member can find someone on the NB or NHQ staff who will take the time to provide an answer to your question. Besides going to these conferences is a great way to network with the leadership and fellow members.
Everytime I attend one, my batteries are recharged and I'm ready to get back to work.
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 19, 2008, 02:42:59 AM
The strength in an organization if one's belief in them.
We are a nation of LAWS, not of people.
What was that thing Benjamin Franklin said? "Of the people, by the people, and for the people?
And you said we are NOT a nation of people? I beg to differ.
What works for CAWG may not work for RIWG
George,
Let me start by sincerely thanking you for your service to CAP and your nation.
But I would like to talk a little about loyalty and trust.
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 19, 2008, 08:25:53 AM
Me questioning the actions made by people in the system is not the same thing as me questioning the system itself. In fact, me raising concerns may constitute an act of the system.
If a member feels wronged, they have channels of complaint. Their chain of command and/or the Inspector General. The system relies on people to make valid complaints known. It fails when people simply comply with "whatever".
I agree with you 100% here. And thank you for making my point for me.
Please note that your description of the way people can make complaints in the system does not include "going public" by members who may not have all the information, or who simply have an axe to grind.
Quote
[Re the Vanguard thing] Should someone more knowledgeable than myself look into the matter on behalf of others? I think so. That is the system, brothers, and I wholeheartedly believe in it.
Then I refer you to your own comments above. Absolutely make inquiry through your chain for more information, and if you have a good-faith belief that FWA and/or mismanagement occurred you are absolutely encouraged to make an official complant as described in CAPR 123-2 (http://level2.cap.gov/documents/u_082503080301.pdf)
That's the system you told us you believe in "wholeheartedly."That system does not include making negative comments on the internet or in public hoping that someone else will investigate and take action. If you honestly believe that wrong-doing has occurred, it is your responsibility to take action. If you're not sure, you need more information. Inquire through the chain, or gather information on your own.
Quote
Now... do I believe in some of our leadership? Especially in leadership that has recently departed, but managed to create lots of chaos before that? Nope. And that's my right. As long as I carry out their orders, I can trust or mistrust them. It is their job to earn my trust and respect. It is not my duty to issue it to them. I simply have to follow orders I promised to follow unless I believe they are illegal.
I suspect that you really mean that you give each of your leaders your trust and loyalty unless and until they do something that falls short That's probably a good thing.
Otherwise you wind up with a pretty unrealistic situation. You're not really saying that when you reported to BMI that you required every single person in the chain to personally demonstrate their personal characteristics before you would grant them your trust and respect?
Boy, I'd sure hate to be the Training Wing commander at Lackland. It sounds like she/he would have to spend all of their time talking personally with incoming airmen. 8)
Loyalty, respect, and trust involve far more than merely obeying orders.
Quote
The USAF Core Values are
Integrity First
Service Before Self
Excellence In All We Do
"Trust in the System" isn't mentioned.
Actually, it is. The "Faith in the System" quote comes directly from the USAF's Basic Guide to the Core Values (http://www.usafa.af.mil/core-value/cv-mastr.html) (aka "The Little Blue Book"). I surprised you didn't remember that from BMT. The quote is the fourth bullet under Service Before Self, right after Rule Following, Respect for Others, and Discipline and Self Control.
Really.
Take a few minutes and check it out. It's a pretty good read.
Respectfully,
Ned Lee
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 19, 2008, 04:49:29 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on January 19, 2008, 02:42:59 AM
The strength in an organization if one's belief in them.
We are a nation of LAWS, not of people.
What was that thing Benjamin Franklin said? "Of the people, by the people, and for the people?
And you said we are NOT a nation of people? I beg to differ.
What works for CAWG may not work for RIWG
Ah, a reason why I write it PEOPLE, instead of people.
Abraham Lincoln said that in his famous address.
The US Constitution is the highest authority in the land, the voice of the people works within that. If not, if anarchy is allowed to take priority over the establish Constitution, then right will be trambled one.
Individual rights are important...paramount!!! People have a tendency to be stupid, that is why we have had institutional racism and slavery and the like in the past. That curtails FREEDOMs and Rights.
Once the Constitution was changed to elimante slavery and voter discrimination, it became the LAW of the LAND. Thus, the people can vote for slavery in our times, but it will never be.
The Constitution, when used properly, helps to stablize injustices while "leaders" can't avoid the tempation to abuse power. That is why I said what I said, we are a nation of alws made by the people for the people.
If I vote for someone for President, I am voting for them to fill a role in the system...not to be a dictator.
Having elected commanders may work for the USCG/Aux but can not and would not work for CAP.
Who would vote?
How soon after membership is a member eligible to vote?
Senior members?
Cadet members?
How would they vote?
Who would and how would the votes be handled?
Who would run for positions?
We elect our national commander like the catholic church, our leadership elects one of its own and head. We have a system that may not work all the time, and you have to play politics to really get ahead within this organization. But its the current game in town. If its not to your liking become a wing commander or higher and work to change it, or you can can find and organization that fits your beliefs and become a member there.
I have been a member for a long time and seen many commanders come and go. Some good ones and others not so good. I have seen dictator's and do nothings. I have seen membership levels over 100,00 members nationally. These was my opinions only.
There is basically no difference in the type and quality of senior members in CAP than in CG Aux. You could take and Aux flotilla and a CAP squadron, switch their uniforms, and no one could tell the difference. There is nothing so unique about CAP that we could not run it by elections.
One of the strengths of the CG Aux is the fact that even if you get a bad leader elected now and again, they have clearly defined term limits and you know you won't have to live with them long. Once someone gets appointed a squadron commander in CAP they may stick in that position for 10-20 years. Or, more likely, quite capable CAP members refuse to take a leadership position because they know there isn't a real exit strategy. They worry about getting stuck with it forever. If they knew that they would only be doing it for 2 years max, they're much more likely to do it.
Gentlemen, whatever the issue may be, I think the recent developments with Gen Pineda show us that in the end, the system does work. It isn't perfect and it probably needs to be monitored more stringently to minimize any negative effect on our membership, but it works.
Just as a reminder to all members of CapTalk... I believe that this is an open forum for members of the Civil Air Patrol. Please be courteous to others and please respect others' rights to voice their opinions when they do it with respect. This is not the place to put people's opinions down or to tell them not to voice them. This is I believe the place to have well-formulated and unbiased arguments. Telling someone that they should not voice opinions is neither.
^ Well said!
So basically, we learned that no matter who you are in our organization, you are not above the "law"?!?
I have faith that in 20 years, we will look back on this past year and 2008 and say "that was the beginning of the best years of CAP". (Speaking of course 20 years from now, at that time, looking back 20 years will be our future, and our future will be when CAP got even more awesome than it currently is.)
I think we may begin to see a shift in the CAP culture, and possibly a major expansion. At least I hope so!
Quote from: RiverAux on January 19, 2008, 07:32:39 PM
There is basically no difference in the type and quality of senior members in CAP than in CG Aux. You could take and Aux flotilla and a CAP squadron, switch their uniforms, and no one could tell the difference. There is nothing so unique about CAP that we could not run it by elections.
One of the strengths of the CG Aux is the fact that even if you get a bad leader elected now and again, they have clearly defined term limits and you know you won't have to live with them long. Once someone gets appointed a squadron commander in CAP they may stick in that position for 10-20 years. Or, more likely, quite capable CAP members refuse to take a leadership position because they know there isn't a real exit strategy. They worry about getting stuck with it forever. If they knew that they would only be doing it for 2 years max, they're much more likely to do it.
We do not need term limits for Squadron Commanders. Squadrons are the community level organizations. these are volunteers. If someone wants to volunteer to be a Squadron Commander and nobody else wants to do it, then that guy should be able to do it. Some units are small and not everyone wants to be a SquadronCommander. My former CC was in it for 20 years because he had the time and nobody else inthe unit wanted it. We dont want somebody from the outside comming in that we dont know
Who said anything about people coming in from outside the squadron?
Somehow I doubt that there are many units with the same guy running them for 10-20 years that actually never had anyone else interested in doing the job. The thing is that there isn't really a good way to "volunteer" for the position without implying that the current person is doing a bad job. Any why would you volunteer yourself for a job that the current fellow has had for 10-20 years? No one wants to get into that position. However, if there were clear term limits and a up-front way of filling the position, I think many would do it.
My Squadron has been around since 1984. We have had 4 Commanders. Its true. The first one was CC from 84-92. The second 92-94 the third 94-04 and now we have the current one. Our squadron is not very active and so there is not much for them to do. With term limits that forces someone who may not want the job to take it and last iI checked you cant force volunteers to do anything they dont want to
You may want to consider the possibility that your squadron has gone stale because you've had the same commander for so long. A little new-guy dynamics can go a long way.
Quote from: RiverAux on January 20, 2008, 02:20:14 AM
You may want to consider the possibility that your squadron has gone stale because you've had the same commander for so long. A little new-guy dynamics can go a long way.
Yeah, but who's gonna do it? There is no one willing to do it. I know another unit that has had the same CC for about as long and they are still a dynamic active Squadron.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 19, 2008, 03:56:27 PM
^ Wow!
the stuff you mentioned......that can be a movie. 20 CPT's resigning.....I don't know what to think of that.
It was one of the darkest chapters of Special Forces history. The only one that I can think of was when Gen Creighton Abrams became chief of staff. He said' "I will destroy Special Forces." He darned near did. He reduced us from 7 active duty groups to 3 and one of them was so undermanned the army almost got rid of it, too.
He was so hated in SF that when he was on his deathbed from lung cancer (I believe he was at Walter Reed), the Vietnam vets in the 19th SF Group (Utah Army National Guard) sent him a box of Cuban cigars with a note "Smoke in good health." I got that story from one of the guys who was in on it. [/drift]
But it does illustrate a couple of points. One: the flashiest guy for the job is not necessarily the best guy for the job; two: until the Army changed the way it trained its enlisteds (E-1 to E-3), NCOs (E-4 to E-9) and officers (W-1 to O-10) there was only one note being played - me me me me me.
That's what's happening in CAP. Service before self is being given lip service, but in practice, there's too many in chains of command who are looking out for number one and their cronies. That's what happened with HWNWNBM and is still happening elsewhere. Just read this board for a while.
But while there are a HUGE number of officers and cadets who are doing the right thing, there's still a inner core (not corps) of people who can't get past the mirror. It would probably take a generation (as it did in the military) to weed out those who are only looking out for themselves.
GC