New CPP Codified - Updated 52-10

[LSThiker]

The whole bit about "sending feedback through your chain of command", too- where there are several layers of the ability to just divert your comments to /dev/nul  and be done with it. That's several different layers of opinions, hardly a standard to appeal to.

One might see merit in your words, another might not, but in reality it's for neither of them to decide because they too, don't write the regulation.

Well that is how a chain of command works.  The military, and thus CAP as an extension, works this way.  This is why people are given a title called "Commander" and why these commanders are given authority to command and make decisions.  Commanders do not have to agree with you, nor do you have to agree with them.  The fact that we have a "Ask the Commander" ability still boggles my mind.

[Eclipse]

a2capt,  I don't understand.

You don't trust the chain of command.  You don't trust the CAC.  You don't trust the commander.

It's not a matter of "trust", it's a matter of reality.  Addressing anything "through the chain" means literally
sending it into a blackhole with no expectation of response, action, or even being heard.

The average unit-level member has at least 4 hops before NHQ.  At any, or all of those hops, the CC
is well within his rights and authority to simply say "don't care", or "don't agree", in which case
the "conversation" is over.

That may well be appropriate in an actual military scenario, but in a volunteer paradigm, where
the buy-in of the membership is critical to operations, it doesn't fly.  Members get frustrated that
they have no voice, and disengage, quit, or disobey.

You think venting on CAPTALK is going to work?

Recent history has shown that CAPTalk is now the most effective means of bringing CAP issues to light.
That doesn't mean it's the >only< channel, just the most direct, with the largest exposure. When issues
like this pop up, the lurker quotient increases significantly. I noticed this week as many as 40-50
people, 1/2 of which were lurkers, viewing this particular conversation.

In this case, as in many others recently, we have a member of the BOG commenting on issues.
Whether we agree or disagree with the responses, the fact remains that you are rarely, if ever,
going to get that sort of response "through the chain".

Now, with that said, I get it, and I certainly don't believe all opinions are equal, they certainly aren't.

But typical of large organizations with a need for member buy-in and support, NHQ wants to
runs the game both ways - paramilitary, "salute and execute" when they are tired of having
the discussion, and "everyone has a voice" when things aren't as contentious or when they aren't really
all that important either way.

But you can't have it both ways.  As soon as you give people a voice "sometimes", they expect it
all the time, and when you consider that the debt sheet is decidedly in the member's favor in regards to
time and treasure, that's a reasonable expectation for CAP members.  Anyone who's worn the CC badge learns
quickly that while uncomfortable conversations are necessary, if you can't articulate your plans and ideas
in a way that gets a general buy-in from your members, you will quickly be an "Army of One".

And I think most of us would fully accept "salute and execute" 24x7, if it was actually applied properly and
consistently, from top to bottom, but it's not, and never has been since I've been in.  Regulations are
ambiguously written, poorly enforced, and there are no expectations of performance or ramifications for failure.

So as you and others have said, "It's salute, execute, but also discuss and consult."

And in all this, including your messages about a "plan", no one has actually told us what the
expectation is in regards to filling the significant gaps in the membership demos.

National awareness campaign?

Partner with FEMA and the military in a meaningful way?

Region and wing plans to recruit as a primary mission until we are at a reasonable strength?

"Recruit new (female) members" isn't enough.

[lordmonar]

So what is the solution?

How should we be able to make suggestions to get regs changed?

How does that apply to lower levels of leadership?

A regulation is no different then any other order....except that it is written down.

"Right Face!"
"But Sir, the Flight Steering Committee says we should go left!"
or
"But sir,  in a volunteer paradigm, where buy-in of the membership is critical to operations...."

Do you see my point?

So.....what is your ideal of a "better" way of issuing regulations.  And what is your idea on how your subordinates should respond to your orders that they disagree with?

[Eclipse]

I dunno, it's a complicated problem, but one NHQ does not appear particularly interested in discussing.

It's another of the baseline issues that should be brought to the light of day and fixed sooner then later.

At the core, no regulation should make a commander's job more difficult, impose costs of any kind, or
negatively impact a member's experience without legitimate data that it is justified.

I'll say this, not knowing how to personally change a tire doesn't make it less flat.

And what is your idea on how your subordinates should respond to your orders that they disagree with?

Ultimately they have to comply, as will the majority of those in this situation, but there needs to be
an acceptance that when adhering to the letter means simply not getting involved, or that in many cases,
even those who agree with the idea will be unable to comply because of resource constraints, then you have
to reconsider how stringent the expectation will be as you are likely to defeat your own purpose.

And when confronted with legitimate issues, responding with "little has changed" or ignoring actual
real-world problems like one parent families with opposite genders, etc. adjusting, not deflecting.

Seriously, does anyone think it's reasonable to tell a male father / commander he can't chaperon his own
daughter on an overnight?  How is it possible there is no allowance for this when a number of us in this
thread alone know of one or two people in this situation?

The same goes for a waiver with proper higher HQ notification and parental consent?  Those are reasonable
compromises that address and fit CAP's actual situation.

[lordmonar]

But you can't have it both ways.  As soon as you give people a voice sometimes, they expect it
all the time, and when you consider that the debt sheet is decidedly in the member's favor in regards to
time and treasure, that's a reasonable expectation.

And I think most of would fully accept "salute and execute" 24x7, if it was actually applied properly and
consistently, from top to bottom, but it's not, and never has been since I've been in.  Regulations are
ambiguously written, poorly enforced, and there are no expectations of performance or ramifications for failure.

Sure you can have it both ways.

It is called situational leadership.  Sometimes you do the whole collaborative collective leadership exercise....and sometimes you say "do this now!"

The regulation went through a rigorous staffing.  It went out for TWO.....TWO comments periods....and then was issued (this goes into effect in 6 months).   The effective date was changed.....but we still have six months to take care of the "hard parts".

What.....what has NHQ done wrong that is not inclusive, collaborative, rational and transparent.....other then that YOU disagree with one provision in the regulation?

Okay....you may or may not have a point about that provision....or others......that's cool.   Write up you concerns in a white paper and send it up the chain of command.   Go to E-services and drop a "ask the commander" e-mail with your concerns.

In the mean time......start working with your unit's leadership and start working the problem and get the co-ed supervision you need to run your overnight activities.....you got until October.

[lordmonar]

I dunno, it's a complicated problem, but one NHQ does not appear particularly interested in discussing.

You contacted NHQ?  Who did you contact?  How did you contact them?

To use your favorite quip......Cite Please.

It's another of the baseline issues that should be brought to the light of day and fixed sooner then later.

So....months of staffing and two comment periods is not enough?

At the core, no regulation should make a commander's job more difficult, impose costs of any kind, or
negatively impact a member's experience without legitimate data that it is justified.

I got to drop the BS card on this.

All regulations do that.   No one wants to follow any of them.  Show me where anything in 39-1 has any "legitimate data that it is justified."

I'll say this, not knowing how to personally change a tire doesn't make it less flat.

And standing on the side of the road complaining about Goodyear and undermining the authority of the "tire mechanic" is doing what to make it less flat?

What was those four leadership rules you posted in the other tread.....if you don't know ASK.

Nothing is going to get fixed if we don't try to fix it.

[Eclipse]

And standing on the side of the road complaining about Goodyear and undermining the authority of the "tire mechanic" is doing what to make it less flat?

Wow did the point go over your head.

What you do is tell someone with the ability (authority) to fix the tire that it is broken and ask them to
either come and fix it themselves, or provide you the resources for you to fix it.

And to stay with this analogy...

Absent one of the above, it stays flat, but since the vehicle is still drive-able, it's ignored
until there is 12 miles of grooved asphalt behind you, or the sparks attract the attention of a cop,
at which point you leave it at the side of the road for someone else to deal with.

CAP has a proven track record of poor retention, and being unable to attract female members,
saying "get more" or "make a plan" is not providing the resources the unit CCs clearly do not have to fix this.

One thing CAP >is< good at is pushing poorly considered, unfunded mandates down to unsuspecting  unit CC's and then
holding then (theoretically) accountable for things they have no control over.

[lordmonar]

ASK FOR HELP.

If you don't have the answer.....start being a leader and find one.

[Eclipse]

ASK FOR HELP.

I think we did, here.  An excellent forum to get that help to the field, and discuss ideas.

You have nothing to offer but "make a plan".

Ned has nothing to offer but "make a plan".

NHQ has pointed zero resources at recruiting for years, or this issue, except rendering the .pdf.

Your idea is, exactly?

[SunDog]

If this dust-up was in a vacuum, this thread would have ended a few days ago. This sustained outrage is about a long train of management face-plants.  Might not even be the current folk's fault (much); but they have the reigns now.

NHQ - management by decree is within your authority. It's a poor way to manage a volunteer group; you need some major cultural change, and might need it rather sooner than appears evident.  Hire some folks in dark suits to help you look at the trajectory you're describing.  Business as usual is putting CAP in jeoporady.  We don't have to be here, and Ned's numbers aside, I think you know, that increasingly, we are not.

Yeah, yeah,  ". . .full transparancy, feedback, comments . . . yadda, yadda. . ." for the most part, you aren't credible; and if we're wrong, what's that tell you? Look up master communicators in the dictionary; you won't see a CAP logo.

It's been a long haul for CAP; a big makeover is due, is needed.

[Pingree1492]

Again, my region has been operating under the "new" co-ed rules for YEARS now- at least since 2003... probably longer, but I was a cadet and didn't really pay attention.  In all the ranting and raving, I've not actually seen a legitimate response to this question (granted, I started skimming a while ago):

I've still not heard an authoritative answer to the following sitution:

A unit plans an event.  They dutifully recruit appropriate co-ed supervision for the event.  Come the day of the event, the female supervisor is striken with a severe case of the flu and cannot attend.

Does the event:
a)  Go forward as planned (probable violation of 52-10)
b)  Send the girls home and proceed (probable violation of EO)
c)  Send everyone home (resulting in resentment of female cadets by male cadets)

This happened to us once on a planned overnight weekend activity, held in the mountains of Colorado (so, kinda remote).  We had two female senior members for an all male group of cadets.  Our 'token male senior' at the time cancelled on us too late for us to get a replacement.  We had awesome training scheduled and overnight facilities planned.  We didn't cancel the activity, as we could still proceed with the day-time portions of the training (which were the vast majority of the training anyway).  So, we coordinated transportation with parents so that the cadets would get picked up in the evening, and we went back up the following morning, and we ended up missing only a few hours of the planned training. 

Bottom line here, as cadet program leaders, we make the mission happen within the regulations that are put forth for us.  It may require creativity, and some last second scrambling, and maybe a little bit more mileage on your vehicle, but we make it happen!

[Pingree1492]

Something else to bring up from my last post... for a while when we were operating with only two female CP officers, we recruited a few 'token male seniors' to fill in for overnight activities and the like.  We complained about not being able to find a male senior, in a sea of dads and male seniors on the 'senior side' of the squadron to come help out with the cadets.

Part of the problem (not the whole problem, but a good chunk of it) was with our attitude in recruiting.  When you think of someone as a warm body filling in a place in your organization (for most of you, that mystical female CP officer), and not as a full-fledged member of your organization from the get-go, you will NEVER succeed in recruiting the people you want/need.  Once we started looking for specific positions to fill (small, low-time commitment positions), with a specific purpose, we started getting more seniors of both genders to join.  When recruiting CSMs, we asked for two activities a year, and for all CSMs to be able to drive the CAP vehicles (once we got them). 

Give people something specific to do and contribute, and you will be surprised at the results.  Giving the non-answer of "whatever you can give" with nothing specific is seen on the outside as a lame cop-out, and a sign of a disorganized unit. 

Also, invite new senior members, even ones you just recruited to your CP staff meetings.  Don't make the meeting mandatory, but do invite them as soon as you can.  Treating them like they are part of the team from the get-go will help significantly with your retention, and getting your new seniors fully involved in the unit.  As a female, this is one of the best things you can do for your new female CP officer recruits.  Turning away a new recruit from 'staff meetings' of a staff that she is there to join is one of the quickest ways to get her to walk away.

[lordmonar]

ASK FOR HELP.

I think we did, here.  An excellent forum to get that help to the field, and discuss ideas.

You have nothing to offer but "make a plan".

Ned has nothing to offer but "make a plan".

NHQ has pointed zero resources at recruiting for years, or this issue, except rendering the .pdf.

Your idea is, exactly?

Dude.....you know I can't offer specific help because I don't know your AOR.   But the weenies at Group and Wing should.  Your peers in other squadrons should.

[Eclipse]

Dude.....you know I can't offer specific help because I don't know your AOR.   But the weenies at Group and Wing should.  Your peers in other squadrons should.

Rigghhhttt.

"Make a plan."  Got it.

[SunDog]

Something else to bring up from my last post... for a while when we were operating with only two female CP officers, we recruited a few 'token male seniors' to fill in for overnight activities and the like.  We complained about not being able to find a male senior, in a sea of dads and male seniors on the 'senior side' of the squadron to come help out with the cadets.

Part of the problem (not the whole problem, but a good chunk of it) was with our attitude in recruiting.  When you think of someone as a warm body filling in a place in your organization (for most of you, that mystical female CP officer), and not as a full-fledged member of your organization from the get-go, you will NEVER succeed in recruiting the people you want/need.  Once we started looking for specific positions to fill (small, low-time commitment positions), with a specific purpose, we started getting more seniors of both genders to join.  When recruiting CSMs, we asked for two activities a year, and for all CSMs to be able to drive the CAP vehicles (once we got them). 

Give people something specific to do and contribute, and you will be surprised at the results.  Giving the non-answer of "whatever you can give" with nothing specific is seen on the outside as a lame cop-out, and a sign of a disorganized unit. 

Also, invite new senior members, even ones you just recruited to your CP staff meetings.  Don't make the meeting mandatory, but do invite them as soon as you can.  Treating them like they are part of the team from the get-go will help significantly with your retention, and getting your new seniors fully involved in the unit.  As a female, this is one of the best things you can do for your new female CP officer recruits.  Turning away a new recruit from 'staff meetings' of a staff that she is there to join is one of the quickest ways to get her to walk away.

This is good stuff, this is worth taking to heart.  I spent a chunk of time involved in military recruiting, heavy focus on female accessions.  Management has already blown the bigger call, and isn't wualified to assist with targeted recruiting, anyway. . .if you're gonna try and make this work,  print her post and save it. . .

[Garibaldi]

You know, no one ever answered my post. It must have gotten lost in the sea of other posts. In case you missed it, here is my question. And, I know I am going to get thrown under a bus.

Why, if we can entrust an 18 YO flight officer to be a chaperone, can we not entrust a 20 year old Eaker cadet to do the same? They both have to take CPPT. I know, it's the whole "cadet" thing. But, why not? What conceivable reason could we not have a waiver of sorts if there is a SM on board?

[Eclipse]

It's a legitimate question left on the table for decades.

[lordmonar]

You know, no one ever answered my post. It must have gotten lost in the sea of other posts. In case you missed it, here is my question. And, I know I am going to get thrown under a bus.

Why, if we can entrust an 18 YO flight officer to be a chaperone, can we not entrust a 20 year old Eaker cadet to do the same? They both have to take CPPT. I know, it's the whole "cadet" thing. But, why not? What conceivable reason could we not have a waiver of sorts if there is a SM on board?

Because of the "cadet" status.....by definition a cadet is not able to take on that responsibility.   It is the same reason why the 18 year old flight officer can't date the 20 year Eaker.    It does not have to make logical sense....but it make "legal" sense.

And this has not been left on the table....go look at ALL the CPP threads where we bring this very subject up.....and the bottom line is that "legally"...i.e. in the eyes of CAP....cadets are not capable of accepting "adult" responsibilities.

It is the same reason why a 28 year old Capt can be a detachment commander....but the 45 year old CMSgt can't....by definition the CMSgt cannot "command" and can't accept the responsibilities of command.


NEXT question.

[coudano]

'regulatorily' is a better word than 'legally'

CAP regs, unlike military ones, don't carry force of law.

[lordmonar]

'regulatorily' is a better word than 'legally'

CAP regs, unlike military ones, don't carry force of law.

Hence all the " ".  .

And just for completeness sake......military regs don't carry force of law.....but yes.