Dropping squadron types

[Eclipse]

The angst regarding insingia, collateral and signage notwithstanding (that can be managed).  Is there any real advantage or even necessity in
keeping the (Composite / Cadet / Senior) designations, or even "flight" designations?

For the most part the impetus behind the Composite / Cadet / Senior designation is all but ignored, or used only as an excuse, and there are plenty of squadrons with flight-level membership (especially if you forced the empty shirt issue).

If you have a charter, you're subject to the same SUI and WBP policies regardless of size, so why are we maintaining this?  I'd be willing to bet there hasn't been much attention paid to this in decades (beyond these types of conversations).

I would posit that anything below Group should simply be called a "Squadron".

[Al Sayre]

We cleaned up and combined some of the squadrons due to the "empty shirt issue", and made a couple change from Composite to Senior and Senior to Composite because of their membership makeup.  Having the squadrons catagorized correctly makes everyones life easier in the SUI since depending on the catagory, some things become optional or not applicable.

[Ned]

And the "problem" that we are solving by this is . . . .?

IOW, don't dismiss as mere "angst" the very real issues that will result in actual, measurable costs to the members and the corporation.

We are talking tens of thousands of dollars for everything from unit patches, repainting unit signs, reprinting unit charters, etc. 

Not to mention having to re-sign hundreds of legal agreements and leases.

And the minor (but significant to the members actually doing them) issues of changing the unit address card at the post office, etc.

(Heck, I'll even grant you that with all the advances in administrivia in CAP, nobody would have to have their checks reprinted and probably realtively few folks still have printed stationary that would have to be changed.)

But it would still result in a non-significant cost to individual volunteers and the corporation.  What are we to weigh that cost against in order to make the decision?

Ned Lee

[Eclipse]

I granted the cost issue in my OP.  Checks are a non-issue as units don't have their own checkbooks anymore, they are all Wing checks.
While it would potentially cost some unit money, I would hazard it isn't as consistent as we would think.

I'd bet at least 1/3 or more of the units don't have an insignia of any kind, nor do they have signage or any leases or other agreements to worry about.
letterhead and business cards?  Not really a factor as they can all be used until depleted.

Of the 2/3rds that might have insignia, I'd bet 1/3rd of those are incorrect for either form, heraldry, or lack of proper art - this could be handled as part of that cleanup.

For the 1/3rd (maybe), who have any significant investment in the name, nothing says that the internal change of charter designation forces an external rebranding.  This could also be a going-forward, voluntary re-designation issue.  This is one of the reasons I encourage(d) my units and others not to use those terms on their insignia.

This is another of those baseline questions that should be answered and then we move on.

Either the designation is important, and we start enforcing the requirements of the designation, or it isn't and we drop them.  Otherwise it is just one more thing on the pile to argue about.  It's these little things that really erode the efforts of people trying to raise CAP to where we should be.
How many "Composite" squadrons do we have where there is no senior program to speak of?  The Group CC raises this issue, the unit CC says "those don't mean anything".  Rinse, repeat.

Perhaps we could spread some of the Vanguard money around to fix insignia and heraldry issues, I would think VG would be motivated to help on this as it would be some what of a circular arrangement.

This came to mind for me this AM while looking at 20-3 about charter composition. Clearly not a top-10 issue, but as we seem to be discussing change and issues with regards to the upcoming election, I thought it should be on the table.

[JeffDG]

And the "problem" that we are solving by this is . . . .?

Ahhh...the classic solution in desperate search of a problem.

[Eclipse]

And the "problem" that we are solving by this is . . . .?

Ahhh...the classic solution in desperate search of a problem.

I've already indicated above and in other threads what the problem is. 

And if it isn't a "problem", then drop the designations in the next rev of 20-3 and make all new units "units".  The problem works itself out from there.

[JeffDG]

And the "problem" that we are solving by this is . . . .?

Ahhh...the classic solution in desperate search of a problem.

I've already indicated above and in other threads what the problem is. 

And if it isn't a "problem", then drop the designations in the next rev of 20-3 and make all new units "units".  The problem works itself out from there.

As has been indicated, there are a number of costs involved in what is proposed.  That said, other than some undefined sense of consistency, there's little if any benefit.

[davidsinn]

Let's reverse this: What problem did adding types solve? It appears to have created some so maybe we should return to the former status quo.

[Ned]

And if it isn't a "problem", then drop the designations in the next rev of 20-3 and make all new units "units".  The problem works itself out from there.

Sorry, no.

You are proposing a change that will cost me (and most other members) money.

The burden is on you to show why your proposed change is a Good Thing, not the other way around.

[Eclipse]

Let's reverse this: What problem did adding types solve? It appears to have created some so maybe we should return to the former status quo.

An excellent response...

How does maintaining them going forward, yet ignoring the mandates help the org?  Removing the designations for new charters costs zero, and sets the
framework for expectations of existing units, while also allowing an option for those who would like to change.

[Ned]

Let's reverse this: What problem did adding types solve? It appears to have created some so maybe we should return to the former status quo.

You are assuming that the types were "added" to solve some problem.  Why do you think that is so? 

I wasn't around between 1941 and 1969, but we have had the three squadron types for at least the last 40+ years.

As others have indicated, there are requirements related to the CP that don't apply to senior units and vice versa.  I would have to go through the inspection guides for a comprehensive list, but by making everyone a composite unit (in essence), it will add significantly to the adminstrative burden as former senior and cadet units have to take on additional administrative taskings.

[davidsinn]

I'd just like to point out that if you were thinking ahead when you designed your branding you wouldn't use the designator at all when you did it.

My wife designed both of these and I did the final polish. Note the lack of a unit type.

Let's reverse this: What problem did adding types solve? It appears to have created some so maybe we should return to the former status quo.

You are assuming that the types were "added" to solve some problem.  Why do you think that is so? 

I wasn't around between 1941 and 1969, but we have had the three squadron types for at least the last 40+ years.

As others have indicated, there are requirements related to the CP that don't apply to senior units and vice versa.  I would have to go through the inspection guides for a comprehensive list, but by making everyone a composite unit (in essence), it will add significantly to the adminstrative burden as former senior and cadet units have to take on additional administrative taskings.

It would be very easy to avoid the administrative burden by simply stating if you don't have cadets you don't do "X". Currently if you don't have an aircraft or van you do not get inspected on them so why would it be any different for non cadet units?

[coudano]

Let's reverse this: What problem did adding types solve? It appears to have created some so maybe we should return to the former status quo.

You are assuming that the types were "added" to solve some problem.  Why do you think that is so? 

I wasn't around between 1941 and 1969, but we have had the three squadron types for at least the last 40+ years.

As others have indicated, there are requirements related to the CP that don't apply to senior units and vice versa.  I would have to go through the inspection guides for a comprehensive list, but by making everyone a composite unit (in essence), it will add significantly to the adminstrative burden as former senior and cadet units have to take on additional administrative taskings.

I duno, off the top of my head, I can't think of anything a cadet squadron has to have that a composite doesnt, and vice verse.

This might apply to senior squadrons only, but the sui guides i've seen aren't written for squadron type,
if you don't have cadets because you are a senior squadron you just write a big NA over the sections that don't apply

I would think you would call new squadrons "squadron" not "unit"
Also, I think Eclipse has under estimated the number of squadrons without patches (i think more squadrons don' thave them)  And I think  a lot of squadrons that do (if not most) don't have the word 'composite' or 'cadet' on the patch.

If your problem is leases, then just don't switch until the lease is up.

[N Harmon]

I think the designation gives the unit a sense of its purpose and helps indicate whether or not it participates in cadet programs. I would not be all that opposed to losing the designation. Squadrons would simply decide if they want to embed a cadet program into their unit or not, and if so, would have to add the appropriate personnel.

And you could get rid of the designations without requiring squadrons to re-name themselves.

[Eclipse]

+1 to davidsinn, I've been saying and doing that with insignia for several years.  The designation does not need to be on patches or the logo.

As others have indicated, there are requirements related to the CP that don't apply to senior units and vice versa.  I would have to go through the inspection guides for a comprehensive list, but by making everyone a composite unit (in essence), it will add significantly to the adminstrative burden as former senior and cadet units have to take on additional administrative taskings.

It's not going to increase the burden, but it would change things. 

A composite unit's mandate, by charter, is to have full programs for both seniors and cadets.  We all know that's not being remotely enforced, with many "composite" units being just cadet units with a few seniors thrown in.

Make them all "units", you're inspected on the things you're doing, and not inspected on what you're not doing.  At least the charade of the mandates
by designation is gone.

Further to that, I would disallow cadet / senior units and require everything to be "composite" composite and fulfill our missions, instead of people's
menu choices.  But I don't see that happening, so why continue to pretend with the designations?

If commanders chose to specialize, so be it, let them do so within the framework of their operations, not by their unit designation.

[Ned]

^^

Bob,

While I certainly agree with you and David that units are free to design their patches without including a unit type designator, I'm still not getting your point.

If you believe that some composite squadrons are not offering full cadet and senior programs, but you are OK with allowing commanders of your proposed generic non-designated units to specialize if they want to, what was the point of your thread? 



Oh, wait.  If forgot that this was CT and your are the most prolific poster.   

[coudano]

It frees the squadron to reorganize as it sees fit, without re-chartering.

Suppose you start a composite squadron, but after years you just can't maintain a cadet base.
All your guys who want to work with cadets move off,
So you don't have a cadet program whatsoever.
I guess you could re-charter as a senior squadron, so that you're "justified" in N/A the SUI for CP items
or you could just do an internal re-organization, and have that be reality without all the associated hastle

Suppose 10 or 15 years go by and the situation completely reverses itsself,
now the same squadron doesn't have an airplane anymore, and it's just a handfull of cadet program nerds
and they have a thriving cadet program
re-charter??

do the same thing again in another 10 years?

[Ed Bos]

A composite unit's mandate, by charter, is to have full programs for both seniors and cadets.  We all know that's not being remotely enforced, with many "composite" units being just cadet units with a few seniors thrown in.

It frees the squadron to reorganize as it sees fit, without re-chartering.

A) Having different designations for units of different types serves a personnel function, specifically it allows commanders to know what types of units are in their area, and how this affects the mission of the organization... which brings me to the point the two excerpts above ignore:

B) All units' "mandates" have nothing to do with whether or not their chartered as a flight, composite squadron, or cadet squadron, per se. Their "mandates" are to support the three chartered missions of the Civil Air Patrol. That means all of them, to the greater or lessor degrees that the interests of unit members and leadership dictate.

I believe you're finding fault with the unit designation system because you find fault with "empty shirts" and the regulatory requirement for maintaining a certain number of personnel in a unit before it's rechartered or closed.  If that's where your problem is, address that, not the useful tool (designations) that's being ignored.

[LTC Don]

I believe units should have to choose a command/management structure as part of their charter (CAPF-27/CAPR 20-1).  I don't believe units should have to have that structure (cadet/composite/senior) in their unit name.

From CAPR 20-3:
"c. A proposed name for the unit. Unit names must include the following elements:
1) Identifying prefix - a short identifier, preferably associated with location (example: Shamrock, Dayton, Hot Springs, Midville, etc.). DO NOT use names such as "Black Sheep," "Flying Tigers," etc., or terms descriptive of major functions such as "Communications," "Jeep," or "Rescue," etc.
2) Type of unit (group, cadet squadron, senior squadron, composite squadron, or flight)."

I prefer my unit be marketed as a "Civil Air Patrol Unit or Squadron", not a "Civil Air Patrol Cadet Squadron", especially when we work as an all mission squadron, not just the Cadet Program mission. 

But, you need a command structure, so the cadet squadron structure works best for us with only one Deputy Commander.

[wacapgh]

I could see making use of the word "Composite" optional, and retaining "Cadet" and "Senior" when needed.

I'd estimate "Composite" is 80% - 90% of the units (YMMV), in effect the default unit type.

Design for the rule, then make the exceptions. Make it optional, and any costs are local units decision.

From x day forward, allow units to drop "composite" and it will be understood that you are running both programs . If not, you need to let everyone else know so include "Cadet" or "Senior".