Composite Squadrons & Senior Squadrons At Same Location?

[RiverAux]

You don't need the commander there for everything, same for various admin officers.  Assistants can be used for those positions where the officer doesn't do everything.

Also, keep in mind that not all squadrons, especially senior squadrons and senior parts of composite squadrons, don't meet weekly.  Many only meet twice a month.  So, supporting both meeting nights might not be a big deal. 

[lordmonar]

You don't need the commander there for everything, same for various admin officers.  Assistants can be used for those positions where the officer doesn't do everything.

Also, keep in mind that not all squadrons, especially senior squadrons and senior parts of composite squadrons, don't meet weekly.  Many only meet twice a month.  So, supporting both meeting nights might not be a big deal.

Oh to a point I agree.
But the commander and senior staff will still have to spend some time with those who meet on other nights...and or meet with their assitants who are doing the work on those nights....so an increase in the amount of work.

And you also have to look at numbers.  If you got two 40 member squadrons combining them (and still meeting on two different nights) does not simply double the work.

[Eclipse]

Also, keep in mind that not all squadrons, especially senior squadrons and senior parts of composite squadrons, don't meet weekly.

Another issue.

[RiverAux]

And you also have to look at numbers.  If you got two 40 member squadrons combining them (and still meeting on two different nights) does not simply double the work.

Oh, I agree that there can be a numbers issue, but its going to be hard to get "too big" for a single squadron to handle.  There is a big difference in work between 50-100 cadets and 50-100 seniors.  A 100 member senior squadron should be easy to handle with one admin group.  That many cadets starts to be a major drag as they require a significantly higher amount of senior member time to work with.  If they're in that category of numbers, several squadrons might be the best way to go. 

[Eclipse]

Every unit in the wing also adds another SUI per charter.

Any finding where the solution is "more people" is fixed by retiring the unnecessary charters.

[lordmonar]

Every unit in the wing also adds another SUI per charter.

Any finding where the solution is "more people" is fixed by retiring the unnecessary charters.

The added SUI work load is next to zero compared to the work load or a large or too large squadron.

[Eclipse]

Every unit in the wing also adds another SUI per charter.

Any finding where the solution is "more people" is fixed by retiring the unnecessary charters.

The added SUI work load is next to zero compared to the work load or a large or too large squadron.

Workload for who?  Larger squadrons are simply an exercise in scale, especially in this case where you have at least three Unit-CC caliber people
standing in the same space-time.  SUI's are separate processes of inspection, findings, and remediation, and three smaller units are bound to have more
findings than one larger unit.

It simply makes no sense whatsoever.

[lordmonar]

I guess we should not encourage new unit growth anywhere then.

If the SUI work load is the driving factor on whether a unit should exist or not.

Bottom line.  If the community can sort five squadrons working out of the same facility....and those units meet the minimums for being a unit....there is NO....I SAY AGAIN NO reason not to have as many squadrons as you want.

Some people can easily run a small 15-20 people squadron but have problems runnin a 30 person squadron.  It is a span of control thing.
Having said that.....if someone wants to run a 100 person mega quadron and meet on several nights in the week and maybe even differnt facilties and they have the manpower to do so.....good on them.

My point is......each location and each squadron is different.  We should not be arbitrarily saying "NO.....you can't do that!" simply because we think that it may be easier to do it our way.  And we certainly should not be putting limits on squadrons because of the work load of the WING/Group IG.

[Eclipse]

This is where the thing you harp on, leadership, comes into play.

If the unit grows beyond the ability of the current commander, you replace the commander, you don't seed a new squadron next to it.

And we both know we're not talking here about mega-squadrons.  I'll bet a Venti Trenta this is about drama and "Jimmy's touching my stuff" issues.

[lordmonar]

This is where the thing you harp on, leadership, comes into play.

If the unit grows beyond the ability of the current commander, you replace the commander, you don't seed a new squadron next to it.

And we both know we're not talking here about mega-squadrons.  I'll bet a Venti Trenta this is about drama and "Jimmy's touching my stuff" issues.

Okay....on one level I agree with you.  But WHY CAN'T we have more then one?  What is really BAD about it?
Here in Las Vegas we have 3 SEP squadrons 2 composite Squadrons 1 Senior Squadron and 1 National squadron.
And we have one squadron in Hendersen....a suburb of Las Vegas.

You can reach any of the squadrons with in 45 minutes or less from anywhere  in the Metro area.

3 of those squadrons meet at the same facility (the national squadorn meets at the same airport but different facilities.
They are all healthy Medium sized squadrons. (50+ persons)

There is no real NEED to consolidate them.
There is no real leadership problems.

Now if one of them was some minumum or below minumum squadron (15 members) maybe I would (If I were the wing king) consider closeing one of them down.  But as it is.....there is NOTHING WRONG with having multiple squadrons in one place.

Again......if 15 senior members want to form a new squadron....then they can.  It is up to you to show why they can't.   END OF RANT.

[Eclipse]

Clearly they "can", so that's not the issue.   However to paraphrase Ian Malcom - "It's not whether you 'can', it's whether you 'should'..."

These units now have three separate finance committees, three liaisons (and risk for "unpleasantness") to their host facility.  Three picnics, three banquets,
etc., etc.,  Further, they skew and compete for things like SOM, Quality Cadet, and they rob each other's members of the experience of an
actual squadron with a real need for flights and indirect management.

If you want to make the case that their critical mass is "too big", then that's a management issue of the unit as a single entity - breaking them apart actually increases the challenges, because instead of a single group with one leader, you have three.  All with an opinion, and all with a full "you can't make me" about when they will meet and what resources they will compete for.

They will also, inevitably, compete with each other any time Cadet Bago doesn't like the CC of unit one, he'll be free to shop to units 2 or 3.  Tell me that doesn't happen.  And a wing inclined to let three units meet in the same place isn't likely to be disinclined to prevent this from happening.

[Spaceman3750]

While I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with this, it certainly doesn't make optimum use of resources (absent other circumstances like what lordmonar mentioned). If span of control or quantity of work is an issue, then you need to rearrange your staff. Since composite squadrons have two deputy commanders plus assistants (as silly as this sounds sometimes, it works) and the ability to assign as many assistant staff officers as necessary, I argue that this point is moot. If you have too much admin work, appoint an experienced admin officer to administer an admin department with 1+ assistants. My squadron is only about 30 big but we have an assistant for almost every staff position (multi-hatted though they may be).

Personally, I would rather see multiple squadrons spread out across a metropolitan area based on the membership's location. It increases CAP's geographic reach and it allows CAP as a whole to create more diverse ties into the community.

[Private Investigator]

My point is......each location and each squadron is different.  We should not be arbitrarily saying "NO.....you can't do that!" simply because we think that it may be easier to do it our way.  And we certainly should not be putting limits on squadrons because of the work load of the WING/Group IG.

It is common to have a Cadet and a Senior Squadron in the same building on different nights of the week.

But to have two (2) Cadet Squadrons in the same building on different nights or two Composite Squadrons. That would be interesting to know if one split off from the other or what the history was. Remember when Squadron Commanders stayed king in their little kingdoms forever? I could see how someone decided to take create a "new" kingdom. That makes sense in 1977 but not so much in 2012.   

[FlyTiger77]

I tend to agree with Maj Harris.

As long as the formation of each unit is aboveboard and not caused by sour grapes on the part of a vocal minority, then having two squadrons may make perfect sense.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find a good commander able to attend two sets of meetings if the squadron had two meeting nights. And, a good commander is going to want to be at most meetings both nights.

YMMV.

[Patterson]

No one has yet to explain the advantages to having separate Squadrons (both Cadet or Composite) meeting different nights at the same location.  All we have are questions wanting those opposed to such a scenario explain the negatives.

Having two Composite Squadrons meeting at the same location on different days may be possible and some would say it serves a much larger membership base.  I would agree.

However, there will come a point where one Squadron gets a better leader, better resources or cooler opportunities for its Cadets.  You then begin walking a slippery slope as animosities, power struggles and poaching will be a huge possibility.

I can predict that eventually one of those Squadrons that share the same facility on different days will start shrinking.  What do you do then?  Folding that dieing unit into the more successful unit at that time will be so much harder than folding them both into one while they are equally successful.

My guess is the higher Leaderhip was weak and afraid of upsetting one or both unit Commanders when it was decided to allow two of the same type of Squadron meet at the same location on different days.

[lordmonar]

My point is......each location and each squadron is different.  We should not be arbitrarily saying "NO.....you can't do that!" simply because we think that it may be easier to do it our way.  And we certainly should not be putting limits on squadrons because of the work load of the WING/Group IG.

It is common to have a Cadet and a Senior Squadron in the same building on different nights of the week.

But to have two (2) Cadet Squadrons in the same building on different nights or two Composite Squadrons. That would be interesting to know if one split off from the other or what the history was. Remember when Squadron Commanders stayed king in their little kingdoms forever? I could see how someone decided to take create a "new" kingdom. That makes sense in 1977 but not so much in 2012.

In this case.....One squadron used to meet on the other side of town.  They felt it more convientent to meet at the air port where there was an existing composite squadron.
The Composite squadron years later split into a senior and a cadet squadron...after a couple of years the cadet squadron rechartered as a composite squadorn.

All of them a full up squadrons of 40+ people.

Eclipse.....a) how is running two squadrons instead of one robbing anyone of leadership.  In fact it increases the leadership opportunities...because now there are two commanders, two Deputy Commadners, Two Opertions officers ect, et al.

Sure they all do all those thing indepnedant of each other....but how is this different then two squadrons that meet on opposite sides of town?

As for competing for cadets/seniors.....maybe this is a good thing.  Squadron A must have a good program and good leadership or they will leak members to Squadron B and vice versa.  If Squadron A is the only game in town....then the choce is Squadron A or the Boy Scouts....which helps the BSA and not CAP.

All the rest of your arguments.....go back to good leadership.  The "you can't make me" attitude exists in slingle unit communities as much as it does in entire wings.......(Ranger Bing Anyone?).  If a unit is not healthy...then it needs to be fixed and or disbanded.....but a blanket policy of NO YOU MUST NOT DO THIS is simply assinine.

[lordmonar]

No one has yet to explain the advantages to having separate Squadrons (both Cadet or Composite) meeting different nights at the same location.  All we have are questions wanting those opposed to such a scenario explain the negatives.

a) The faclilty can only support so many people...say 30....at a time.
b) The staff can only support so many people effectively.
c) The community has enough people to support two squadrons and different nights work best for them.
d) Multiple squadrons allow more people to particpate (see number a)
e) More squadrons means more leadership opportuninities.

Having two Composite Squadrons meeting at the same location on different days may be possible and some would say it serves a much larger membership base.  I would agree.

However, there will come a point where one Squadron gets a better leader, better resources or cooler opportunities for its Cadets.  You then begin walking a slippery slope as animosities, power struggles and poaching will be a huge possibility.

I can predict that eventually one of those Squadrons that share the same facility on different days will start shrinking.  What do you do then?  Folding that dieing unit into the more successful unit at that time will be so much harder than folding them both into one while they are equally successful.

My guess is the higher Leaderhip was weak and afraid of upsetting one or both unit Commanders when it was decided to allow two of the same type of Squadron meet at the same location on different days.

How is this any different then two squadrons across town or in two nearby towns?  I will admit that there is some hurt feelings and transfers between squadrons due to "they don't let me do anything" or "I never get to fly" or "I don't get along with commander X" or any number of things...but again....how is this any different then cross town squadrons.  We see here on CT all the time, people looking for "nearby" squadrons because their local unit does not fit right.

I have been here in NVWG for six years now...and the three squarons meeting in the same location has been going on for five of them (two have been meeting in the same location for about 9 year now) and yes their membership does ebb and flow....but so does the membership of most squadrons.

Again...with the caviate that the community can suppor them and they get along with each otheer.....why MUST we close down a squadron just because it meets in the same location as another squadron?

[Private Investigator]

However, there will come a point where one Squadron gets a better leader, better resources or cooler opportunities for its Cadets.  You then begin walking a slippery slope as animosities, power struggles and poaching will be a huge possibility.

I have been guilty of poaching. If I had another Cadet Squadron sharing the same facility as my Cadet Squadron. I will have all your coolest Cadets in my Unit in 90 days. No brag just facts