Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 26, 2019, 11:15:31 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: Out ranking
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  All Send this topic Print
Author Topic: Out ranking  (Read 13446 times)
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,822

« Reply #40 on: April 12, 2012, 07:34:27 PM »

You're both showing the inherent problems with they way CAP implements grade, but neither is supporting your own arguments with anything
regulatory.

In CAP there is an inference of authority where none actually exists.  In Nathan's examples, he's got no business telling anyone to do anything if his only authority to make them do it is his collar insignia.  In the cadet example, that is primarily because of the senior-cadet paradigm and has nothing to do with grade.

We've all either had the experience, or know of new members who have, where as a slick-sleeve you join CAP all wide-eyed and will listen to
anybody with color on their shoulder, only to find out later that the Captain who's been giving you all sorts of orders got his grade because he's a CFI, hasn't ever flown for CAP, and has no authority whatsoever (not to mention no idea what he's talking about). He "...only started showing up after years away from CAP the week before you joined..."

If a random 1st Lt is directed to "do that" by a random Major, that 1st Lt. is certainly free to tell that Major "no, Sir".  There's no insubordination, because CAP doesn't create an environment of subordination based on grade.  If he didn't say "Sir", and didn't salute, you could probably make a case regarding respect, etc., but that would be pretty thin.

Nathan's example of the group going FUBAR doesn't hold water, either.  I've been in any number of situations where the highest ranking
member of the group was literally the last person who you'd want pulling a "Haig", and no one would ever expect him to take charge.

Even the oath acknowledges that authority is based on position, not grade.
"I, (full name), having been promoted to the grade of __________ in the Civil Air Patrol, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and comply with the Constitution, Bylaws and regulations of the Civil Air Patrol; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge all duties and responsibilities as well as obey the orders of the officers appointed over me according to regulations, so help me God."

Note, it doesn't say "superior officers", it says "officers appointed over me".

This issue has been beat to death on this forum, and no one has ever cited even a gray area in this regard, while anyone with Google could find the military regulations and/or public laws that establish the authority and responsibilities of those with commissioned and non-commissioned grade.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2012, 02:36:21 AM by Eclipse » Report to moderator   Logged


FlyTiger77
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 624

« Reply #41 on: April 12, 2012, 07:45:20 PM »

...obey the orders of the officers appointed over me according to regulations, so help me God."[/i]

Note, it doesn't say "superior officers", it says "officers appointed over me"...


Although I agree with your main point, "superior officers" vs. "officers appointed over me" is a distinction without a difference.

The current oath of enlistment for Soldiers states "officers appointed over me" as well, and rank/grade does matter there.

Again, I agree with your main point. In my experience, grade in CAP denotes personal accomplishment/achievement as opposed to authority (which is generally limited in any instance).
Report to moderator   Logged
JACK E. MULLINAX II, Lt Col, CAP
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,822

« Reply #42 on: April 12, 2012, 07:47:39 PM »

Although I agree with your main point, "superior officers" vs. "officers appointed over me" is a distinction without a difference.
In CAP it is a very important distinction.
The current oath of enlistment for Soldiers states "officers appointed over me" as well, and rank/grade does matter there.
I agree, but the military does things literally 180 off from the way CAP does in this regard, otherwise we would not have SMWOGs commanding units
full of field grade officers, nor the real possibility than an NCO could be the national commander.
Report to moderator   Logged


Nathan
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 685

« Reply #43 on: April 12, 2012, 07:49:33 PM »

Eclipse, I don't doubt that you believe what you're saying, but I'm trying to figure out WHY you believe that way.

Unfortunately, my work computer does not have a PDF reader on it (yeah, weird), so I can't peruse the regulations on my own from here. But off the top of my head, the "paradigm" of rank itself does indeed infer the authority that we're discussing. We can draw from many examples that the attempt is at least MADE to equate rank with authority, even if it is not always successful. IE, the leader of CAP is going to be promoted to a rank that outranks every other member of CAP.

Basically, we follow a military structure, and we have a rank hierarchy that is loosely associated with position. Reasonable minds would conclude that those with a higher rank therefore have an authority over those with a lower rank. There is, based on the nature and existence of our rank structure, no reason to assume otherwise.

So why are you assuming otherwise?

For instance, I would say that the "obey the orders of the officers appointed over me" doesn't in any way invalidate my argument. I assume rank to be a measure of authority, so when someone is promoted to a higher rank than me, then they are by default appointed to an authority over me. The only way that it supports your argument is if I were to accept your argument first, and then say that since rank holds no authority, then there is no appointment.

I am not closed off to the idea that you could be right, at least as far as the books go. I am just not familiar with a regulation that either removes authority from rank, or states that rank itself has no authority simply because positional authority exists. The two authorities are not mutually exclusive. And as much as this makes some people shudder, I don't think that there needs to be a regulation specifically stating that those in higher ranks have authority in situations unrelated to the chain of command.
Report to moderator   Logged
Nathan Scalia

The post beneath this one is a lie.
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,822

« Reply #44 on: April 12, 2012, 08:01:01 PM »

the leader of CAP is going to be promoted to a rank that outranks every other member of CAP.
Until their tour is done, and then they retain the grade and go back to a unit.  This is especially true with former Wing CC's.

Basically, we follow a military structure, and we have a rank hierarchy that is loosely associated with position.
Below the Wing CC slots, grade isn't connected with position in any way.  There are no grade requirements to hold any position in
CAP at any level, including the ability to have those who choose to wear NCO grade from another service appointed as commanders.

I am just not familiar with a regulation that either removes authority from rank, or states that rank itself has no authority simply because positional authority exists. The two authorities are not mutually exclusive. And as much as this makes some people shudder, I don't think that there needs to be a regulation specifically stating that those in higher ranks have authority in situations unrelated to the chain of command.
That's exactly what the military has, and exactly what we would need in order for grade to have any meaning beyond professional development in CAP.
Report to moderator   Logged


Nathan
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 685

« Reply #45 on: April 12, 2012, 08:06:46 PM »

Is there a similar, specific recognition of undebateable authority that every senior member (including 18 yo flight officers) always has authority over cadets (including 20 yo cadets)?

Like I said, I can't get the regulation up on this computer, otherwise I would look myself.
Report to moderator   Logged
Nathan Scalia

The post beneath this one is a lie.
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,822

« Reply #46 on: April 12, 2012, 08:20:22 PM »

Is there a similar, specific recognition of undebateable authority that every senior member (including 18 yo flight officers) always has authority over cadets (including 20 yo cadets)?

Like I said, I can't get the regulation up on this computer, otherwise I would look myself.

Yes - I would say the CP regulations establish the senior authority and responsibility for cadets.
Specifically 52-16 2.1a
a. Role of Adult Leaders. A critical duty of adult leaders is to keep cadets safe by monitoring their conduct, following operational risk management (ORM) principles, and exercising sound judgment. Unit commanders will take all reasonable measures necessary to protect cadets from harm while under CAP supervision. Senior members will be present at all activities involving cadets. Detailed position descriptions for the senior staff are suggested in CAPP 216 Cadet Programs Officer’s Handbook & Specialty Track Study Guide Apr 2011 .

As to the military piece that CAP lacks, it's the commission.  The commission grants authority from a sovereign power, and in the US, Title 10 which is the UCMJ delineates the enforcement of that power.

10 USC § 890 - ART. 90. ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER

Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his office; or
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer;
shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.


CAP officers lack any commission from a sovereign power, and their is no equivalent to the UCMJ that delineates enforcement of disobeying a superior officer (as such).   We are essentially a corporation, the Col's, while serving as wing CC's, are literally the board of directors (corporate "officers"), but the
other commanders and staff are just managers working their divisions or departments. 

Someone working in finance doesn't generally have any authority over people working in HR, just because they've worked there a long time and have the gold pen set you get for 10 years service.
Report to moderator   Logged


Nathan
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 685

« Reply #47 on: April 12, 2012, 08:24:57 PM »

Is there a similar, specific recognition of undebateable authority that every senior member (including 18 yo flight officers) always has authority over cadets (including 20 yo cadets)?

Like I said, I can't get the regulation up on this computer, otherwise I would look myself.

Yes - I would say the CPT regulations establish the senior authority and responsibility for cadets.

Really? Which part? It might be there, but if it's only IMPLIED by the status of the senior members as higher-ranking individuals (since the definition of "adult" doesn't get much attention with cadets), then there is no reason to assume that similarly-worded implications of authority regarding rank should be treated any differently.

That, or by your logic, cadets don't have to obey seniors outside of their chain of command because the regs don't specifically say that they do.

And since we're being nit-picky and laying it all out on the table, are you able to cite the regulation that specifically grants the authority of a commander to command those in the chain of command? Is a squadron commander prevented from giving a direct order to a subordinate several links down the chain because there is no specific regulation permitting it? Or is that authority only IMPLIED?
Report to moderator   Logged
Nathan Scalia

The post beneath this one is a lie.
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,822

« Reply #48 on: April 12, 2012, 08:39:57 PM »

I cited 52-16 above as to the authority of cadets vs. seniors.

The authority of squadron commanders is actually a delegation of the real authority of the respective wing CC, which itself is granted by the constitution, bylaws and AFI's.  Unit CC's don't have the same type of authority as a corporate officer.  A wing CC has vested authority and fiduciary responsibility for the corporation, a unit CC does not, indicated in part by the fact that no one below wing CC can sign a contract.

Squadron CC's have a specific area of authority as defined by their appointment - those assigned to his charter are subordinate to the appointed commander, those who are assigned to other charters, aren't.  A Group CC's charter includes the subordinate units are defined by the respective wing.
You could make the argument that any authority below wing is somewhat artificial because it is a delegation of higher authority.

Military officers have an inherent authority conveyed via the commission itself.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2012, 08:43:51 PM by Eclipse » Report to moderator   Logged


Spaceman3750
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,684

« Reply #49 on: April 12, 2012, 08:47:17 PM »

That, or by your logic, cadets don't have to obey seniors outside of their chain of command because the regs don't specifically say that they do.

I saw a C/LtCol tell one of my lieutenants to pound sand once... I didn't like what my SM wanted the cadet to do - "Here cadet, I need two people to go unload uniforms from my car.", but I also wasn't thrilled with the cadet for her attitude.

Seniors should not be directly involved in the affairs of the cadet program (including giving cadets direct orders) unless:

1) They are the commander
2) They are CP staff
3) They are staffing an activity/ES and they have subordinate cadets
4) There is an immediate safety or cadet protection issue

I try very hard to stay in my lane and I expect my seniors to do the same (as a CDS). Those who directly inject their own "solutions" or "directions" into the cadet program without working through the CP staff are likely to be taken off of my Christmas card list (full disclosure: I'm guilty of minor infractions to this rule. I do not send myself a Christmas card as a result.)

When I need something from a cadet or cadet staff, I work through the chain.
Report to moderator   Logged
The moment any commander or staff member considers themselves a gatekeeper, instead of a facilitator, they have failed at their job.
I can't fix all of CAP's problems, but I can lead from the bottom by building my squadron as a center of excellence to serve as an example of what every unit can be.
Nathan
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 685

« Reply #50 on: April 12, 2012, 08:51:21 PM »

That, or by your logic, cadets don't have to obey seniors outside of their chain of command because the regs don't specifically say that they do.

I saw a C/LtCol tell one of my lieutenants to pound sand once... I didn't like what my SM wanted the cadet to do - "Here cadet, I need two people to go unload uniforms from my car.", but I also wasn't thrilled with the cadet for her attitude.

Seniors should not be directly involved in the affairs of the cadet program (including giving cadets direct orders) unless:

1) They are the commander
2) They are CP staff
3) They are staffing an activity/ES and they have subordinate cadets
4) There is an immediate safety or cadet protection issue

I try very hard to stay in my lane and I expect my seniors to do the same (as a CDS). Those who directly inject their own "solutions" or "directions" into the cadet program without working through the CP staff are likely to be taken off of my Christmas card list (full disclosure: I'm guilty of minor infractions to this rule. I do not send myself a Christmas card as a result.)

When I need something from a cadet or cadet staff, I work through the chain.

My philosophy is no different.

However, we're talking about two different things. One is the ideal way that the program SHOULD be run, and one is the authority that a senior member has the right to exercise over a cadet regardless of the situation. I do my best to be as hands-off in administering the cadet program as possible, but that task is made much easier and safer since I know I have the authority to intervene directly if need be.
Report to moderator   Logged
Nathan Scalia

The post beneath this one is a lie.
Ned
Resident Philosopher

Posts: 2,217

« Reply #51 on: April 12, 2012, 09:29:41 PM »

Interesting discussion.

I think we can all agree that there is no CAP version of the UCMJ which specifically requires obedience to the orders of officers/ NCOs of superior grade and establishes consequences for disobedience and/or disrespect.

Yet we do go to all the trouble of promoting people in a hierarchical sequence from SM through Maj Gen and base some customs and courtesies for cadets and seniors entirely upon grade.  You'd think there would be a reason for that other than simple tradition and mirroring of our AF partners.

And Nathan, I think the authority for unit commanders is found in the specific regulations that authorize commanders (and pretty much commanders only) to assign, transfer, promote, and discipline members.  Commanders are the only folks with a "stick" in CAP, and the rest of us pretty much have to do what the officer-with-a-stick says we have to do.

It might be interesting to draft a simple CAP "UCMJ" type regulation that would provide some sort of guidance for the exercise of authority.  We could do things like create an actual CAP commission granted by the National Commander / NB / BoG (pick one or more) that requires obedience from inferior grades and move on from there.

What do you suppose such a regulation would look like?
Report to moderator   Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,822

« Reply #52 on: April 12, 2012, 09:36:37 PM »

What do you suppose such a regulation would look like?

I can't honestly see how it would be workable without a lot of changes to the existing curriculum and plans.

For starters we'd need to have a lot more expectations of responsibility to go with the authority.  Far too many people
are happy to boss people around, but then raise the "I'm just a volunteer / not my problem" flag when it's their turn to listen.

The circular way members are appointed to command slots, then cycle back into the racks would be an issue as well.

I've advocated not promoting anyone unless they are moving up the chain, and suppressing the grade structure in general,
with the commensurate expectation that anyone wanting to move up the chain, has to promote.  With that idea we'd
get back to the balance where the field grades are at an appropriate scope and experience, and those who choose not
to take the responsibility, can stay in the company grades.
Report to moderator   Logged


spacecommand
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 545

« Reply #53 on: April 12, 2012, 10:13:02 PM »

What kind of answer was the OP looking for?  A hypothetical situation or a "real world" situation that the OP finds himself in?
Report to moderator   Logged
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,694

« Reply #54 on: April 13, 2012, 12:37:22 AM »

Even the oath acknowledges that authority is based on position, not grade.
"I, (full name), having been promoted to the grade of __________ in the Civil Air Patrol, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and comply with the Constitution, Bylaws and regulations of the Civil Air Patrol; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge all duties and responsibilities as well as obey the orders of the officers appointed over me according to regulations, so help me God."

Note, it doesn't say "superior officers", it says "officers appointed over me".

When a member is promoted to a higher grade......he is "appointed" over you.

Eclipse....be careful of what you are saying.  If ONLY the chain of command applies......then my cadets don't have to listen to you.
My cadets don't have to salute you.  My cadets don't have to be respectful to you.

Think of all the time here on CT you brought some cadet NOOB to task for not being respectful to someone else on this board?
If what you are saying is true....then you violated your own ideas of authority.


Bottom line.....REG are NOT the only source of authority. 
Report to moderator   Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,822

« Reply #55 on: April 13, 2012, 12:49:44 AM »

When a member is promoted to a higher grade......he is "appointed" over you.
No, he isn't.  Some random Major in RMR is not " appointed over" a random captain in NCR simply by virtue of grade.
Absent a unit, activity, or ES chain, he has zero authority whatsoever to direct that NCR Captain to do anything.  He has
no sovereign commission to grant him power based purely on his grade.  Were they to meet, the Captain owes him
a salute, and "sirs", and the general respect that should exist between members, but he is under no obligation to
tote any bales the major might want moved.

Eclipse....be careful of what you are saying.  If ONLY the chain of command applies......then my cadets don't have to listen to you.
My cadets don't have to salute you.  My cadets don't have to be respectful to you.
Two places you're wrong.

First, we're not talking about military courtesies and respect, those have never been on the table, and are not disputed.
Second, cadets are bound to obey the directive of senior members by virtue of the senior-member cadet relationship.
Now, I'm not about to tell cadets not in my charge to lift barges just because they are cadets and some seniors view them
as hired hands, but in terms of safety or bad ideas, I would fully expect they would comply, and that authority and
responsibility is implicit in 52-16 as quoted above.

Bottom line.....REG are NOT the only source of authority.
Regulations are, in fact, the only source of authority, you're trying to compare "power" with "authority", and that's not what we are discussing.  "Power" comes from all sorts of places.  A member who has obtained the Wing CC's password to eServices has "power", that doesn't give him the "authority" to use it or to promote everyone in his unit to Major.

"Authority" can only come from regulation, rule of law, or consensus of the governed, the latter of which is essentially the same as the first two.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2012, 12:58:39 AM by Eclipse » Report to moderator   Logged


lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,694

« Reply #56 on: April 13, 2012, 01:01:32 AM »

Wrong again!

Authority and power come from many different places.

Line.....position
Staff....Rank
Functional.....The dotted lines that cross the chain of command.

Period....end of story.

Our customs and courtisies are based around the understanding about STAFF authority.  Our regulations and pamples "see customs on display" even point out the unique nature of CAP compared to the real military.

But if you don't accept the concept of STAFF authority......then outside your immidiate chain of command you don't have to listen to anyone.   

You can't have your cake and eat it too.  You can't jump a cadet/senior member from another squadron for failing to salute you.  You can't dress down a poster here on CT for being less then repectful.

Finally authority and power come from places outside rules of law and/or the consensus of the governed.........I simply point out to you that North Korea does exist.  ;D

Report to moderator   Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,822

« Reply #57 on: April 13, 2012, 01:13:42 AM »

We're.

Not.

Talking.

About.

Power.

Nor respect in the form of courtesies, either has been debated.

But if you don't accept the concept of STAFF authority......then outside your immidiate chain of command you don't have to listen to anyone.
Any authority a staff officer has is delegated from the commander, and is regarding the narrow lane of their staff posting.

As ESO has no authority whatsoever in regards to the cadet program in their AOR (etc, etc.)They may have knowledge, they may even have "power",
but they have no authority.
   
You can't have your cake and eat it too.  You can't jump a cadet/senior member from another squadron for failing to salute you.  You can't dress down a poster here on CT for being less then respectful.
Yes, I can, because both the "loco parentis" relationship between cadets and seniors, as well as the requirement for customs and courtesies are
explicitly called out within regulations and pamphlets.

I've provided several cites in defense of my arguments, no one has come up with anything that grants authority in CAP based on grade.

Report to moderator   Logged


FlyTiger77
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 624

« Reply #58 on: April 13, 2012, 02:31:59 AM »

I see that but I am still going to have to disagree.

+1
Report to moderator   Logged
JACK E. MULLINAX II, Lt Col, CAP
bflynn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 748

« Reply #59 on: April 13, 2012, 03:41:40 AM »

I've provided several cites in defense of my arguments, no one has come up with anything that grants authority in CAP based on grade.

So if a General speaks to you, do you listen more respectfully and thoughtfully than you would for a 2dLt?

Yes, you do?  That's authority based on nothing more than your respect for their grade.

It's not a bad thing. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  All Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: Out ranking
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.068 seconds with 26 queries.
click here to email me