National Communications Team Leader Tenders Resignation

[RADIOMAN015]

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   

[davidsinn]

Hearsay. Rumor and innuendo. Why did you post this again? Perhaps to stir up trouble WRT to the new Ops guy?

[Eclipse]

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.

[tsrup]

^^^
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.

[RADIOMAN015]

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   

       

[Eclipse]

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?

[arajca]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

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.).

[FW]

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? 

[Ed Bos]

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.

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

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.

[arajca]

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.

[arajca]

"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.

[Eclipse]

"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...

[arajca]

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.

[RADIOMAN015]

.......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     

[Eclipse]

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.

[FW]

.......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. 

[RADIOMAN015]

Col 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

[FW]

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.