Dropping squadron types

[RiverAux]

I've never really liked "Senior" or "Composite" Squadrons just because the titles are not at all descriptive of what they do, which is one of the primary parts of military unit names.  I'm sure I've started a few threads that propose alternatives for these. 

"Cadet Squadron" is actually fine with me as it accurately describes that the primary purpose of the unit is the cadet program. 

[Tim Medeiros]

How about we address the real problem this is trying to solve?  That is, lack of enforcement of currently published regulations.

[Eclipse]

How about we address the real problem this is trying to solve?  That is, lack of enforcement of currently published regulations.

Certainly that would be the best and ultimate goal,  but lacking that will, the terminology is meaningless, and if it serves no purpose, it should go.

Some of this gets back what CAP has evolved into and whether we intend to allow it to stay that way.

Are we a nomadic community organization like the BSA with most units serving only a small group of people (internally) connected to a specific geographic location (church, school, airport), with functionality based primarily on the whim and initiative of a single person?

Or are we a national organization with an operational mandate that plants and grows unit based on demographics and operational readiness?

We know what we are today, but the personality-based model is, in my opinion, what is allowing and in some cases forcing the organizational shrinkage, and the designations, especially when used as an excuse, are part of the problem.

Typing this on screen doesn't provide the hands to fix the problem, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be on someone list.

There's also the issue of "expectation" - if the expectation is low, that's what people will hit.  Raise the bar and make people understand the ultimate goal, and even if they don't hit it, they probably did better than before, and then they aren't resting on their laurels as "mission accomplished).  Status quo is never supposed to be your goal.

[RiverAux]

How about we address the real problem this is trying to solve?  That is, lack of enforcement of currently published regulations.

Except for a few legacy squadrons that received their names prior to the establishment of these criteria, there certainly aren't many units that are not in compliance. 

[Tim Medeiros]

How about we address the real problem this is trying to solve?  That is, lack of enforcement of currently published regulations.

Except for a few legacy squadrons that received their names prior to the establishment of these criteria, there certainly aren't many units that are not in compliance.

I'm talking in regards to the original purpose of this thread, ie the type of unit, not the naming.

[Eclipse]

^ Ditto.  Not name compliance, but compliance with the name.

[RiverAux]

Got ya.

So, since I have a hard time believing that there are many cadet squadrons with no cadets or senior squadrons with active cadet programs, the "problem" seems to be composite squadrons that have either inactive cadet or inactive senior sides.  I have seen that in my wing and we have them go in both directions.  I suppose there may be some cadet units with such large senior programs that they could probably function as composite units. 

I don't see that as a major problem in itself since it mostly represents a temporary failure on the part of the squadron to maintain.  Like with all CAP squadrons, these things go in cycles.  I have seen seniorized composite squadrons go heavily cadet and have seen cadet squadrons where all the cadets graduated leaving mostly seniors for a while.  Leaving them as composite squadrons at least leaves the regulatory ground work in place to revive the lagging program in the future.  Forcing them to go senior or cadet doesn't really accomplish anything other than guaranteeing that you'll never get a true composite squadron going again.