Squadron commander term limit?

and you guys seriously think this isn't the definition of "whim"?  Like all things in CAP, there is plenty of room for people to do things in a way which
allows for a sustainable IG complaint, but the above is so subjective that unless you can prove you the "retaliation or discrimination angle", you're not
going to be a Commander if you aren't on the page of the next higher HQ.

And, no, I don't think that is the definition of "whim".  It is the reason why you should remove an ineffective squadron (or group) commander.  And, the MARB gives considerable leeway to the commander responsible for relief.  The key is documentation. 

The reg writers could just as easily have made Squadron/Group CCs either "at will" or serve "at the pleasure of" the next echelon, but they specifically required cause to relieve.

You could argue that Wing/Region policies WRT term limits violate that regulation, as there is no finding of lack of qualification or unsuitability of the commander relieved under the term limit.

Unit and Group CC's are essentially just staffers of the extended Wing.

They have no corporate authority, cannot enter into contracts, and are appointed and removed with a signature.
Wing CC's are corporate officers with specific terms of appointment spelled out by the rules of governance.

One only needs to look at the appointment process to see they serve at the whim of the Wing CC. 

There is no protection or appeal to their removal.  Saying the MARB could here the appeal doesn't mean they would.

Actually, commanders below the wing level do have authority and, are more than "just staffers of the extended wing".  They have some protections in the CAP C&BL's as well as in CAPR 35-8.

The MARB is obligated to consider any proper request sent it (however it is under no obligation to hear the case).  And, removal of a group or squadron commander is specifically written in the language of the regulation.  Dont' our "Core Values" mean anything?

The fact is, Eclipse, this isn't your CAP of the past as, some in "authority" may insist.  We have rules, regulations and, policies which effect our operations and what we do.  All commanders have protections other members do not.  They have these protections because they are asked to make decisions which effect those under them and, must be allowed the freedom to act within their scope of responsibility. 
 
What bothers me is your failure to understand this.  We must know that decisions relating to commanders can be reviewed and, if made wrongly, can be corrected. 
 
What continues to be a thorn in my side is the perception that, in this CAP, some have the feeling they are above these regulations and can make any decison they want only because "they can".
 
Term limits for all commanders would lessen this perception.  It would force everyone realize they need to pitch in for, one day, they may be in command. 

There are no "regulations" in this case to "be above" - no one has quoted a single word that provides any specific term or protection to a commander below the wing level.

35-8 only applies in that it grants the MARB their very broad powers to basically hear an appeal to just about anything.

The only "protection" is a single subjective sentence which I will continue to quote since the  implications are bing missed.

"...whenever they are considered unqualified or otherwise unsuitable..."

"Unqualified" or "unsuitable" - not exactly a laundry list of do's and don'ts.

Actual insubordination aside, which is usually the way these things play themselves out, the myriad ways a person could be subjectively
considered "unsuitable" or "unqualified" are plentiful.

Failure to progress "I'm too busy being a commander".

Failure to maintain ES quals (see above)

Poor showing on an SUI, even in what some consider "trivial" areas

Poor member retention

etc., etc.

Things that are all part and parcel of being a CAP commander, and fairly common, but none of which has to be acceptable to the next higher HQ, even
though they routinely are because of the practical realities of an all-volunteer organization.

Also, the fact that there is an avenue to a sustainable appeal does not make unit command less subject to the whims of the next HQ.  It simply means
that by regulation CAP wants to try and be fair to its members.  That doesn't mean that a new incoming Wing CC, as part of a revitalization plan for
his wing, could not simply whole-scale replace all his unit CC's (might not be a bad idea in some places, either).

As to the authority of unit CC's, it is all delegated from the Wing CC, not inherent to their office, per-se, nor can a unit CC do anything that a Wing CC can't undo.

Oh, I get it now!  You just like to argue.  It's ok.  No one is debating the above points.  And, no one is even suggesting a unit commander be retained for the above.  The point being made is there must be a valid reason to remove and, that reason should be documented.  And, thank you, the point has been made.   35-8, BTW, gives the MARB the authority to reinstate a squadron or group commander who has been wrongly relieved.  Do you understand what that would mean to a group or wing?  All I'm trying to communicate is that relieving a commander is not a matter which should be taken lightly.

I still agree with those who would set a term for a squadron commander.   

I have 10k+ posts, it isn't a news flash I like to argue.

And  my point is...

The only "valid reason" needed is "I am the Wing CC and I no longer wish for you to be a unit CC".

The only way the MARB could reverse the decision is if it could be proven that the action was retaliatory or based on discrimination.

"I am the Wing CC and no longer wish for you to be a Unit CC." is neither of those things, it is, however, fully within the authority of a Wing or Region CC.

Eclipse, I guess we will just have to agree we disagree.   
I appreciate your view on the subject.

Eclipse, I guess we will just have to agree we disagree.   
I appreciate your view on the subject.

Well...if that's your attitude...

"I am the Wing CC and no longer wish for you to be a Unit CC." is neither of those things, it is, however, fully within the authority of a Wing or Region CC.

That's not what the reg says.  It says that Unit CC must be unqualified or unsuitable.  Is it a high burden for the Wing CC to meet?  No, but it's not at will/at the pleasure.

It's a CAP squadron, not the Supreme Court.  If it has to be removal for cause... than that should be changed and term limits established across the board.

to answer some of your questions I am under investigation for something i did not do and my father and I are filing a counter suit against this commander that has been the commander for over 25 consecutive years and about the PT post it was just something this squadron does that im curious about

to answer some of your questions I am under investigation for something i did not do and my father and I are filing a counter suit against this commander that has been the commander for over 25 consecutive years and about the PT post it was just something this squadron does that im curious about

Counter... Suit... Huh? Do you mean an IG complaint (not that I encourage you to talk in detail in public about either issue)? If that's the case, IMHO your dad has nothing to do with it unless he's a member as well - you're in the hotseat for whatever happens.