August 14, 2020, 12:43:32 am

Key Traits for SM Programs

Started by Holding Pattern, February 17, 2020, 04:48:20 am

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TheSkyHornet

Quote from: SarDragon on February 27, 2020, 01:52:10 am
Quote from: Eclipse on February 26, 2020, 10:00:32 pmAre the Names in that accurate enough?  I don't think you have to have the word in the name to be that thing.

That is correct, although it is much more common than not. I do not recall all that many units without the squadron type in the name.

We have three units in our wing that do not indicate the unit type in the official charter name. One is treated as a cadet squadron, one is a composite, and the third is a flight.

Майор Хаткевич

Quote from: baronet68 on February 27, 2020, 03:35:58 am
Quote from: Eclipse on February 26, 2020, 08:16:05 pm
Quote from: wacapgh on February 26, 2020, 07:31:08 pmThere are several wings that do not allow Cadet or Senior squadrons to be chartered

Cite please.

While not formally documented, my wing will only charter composite squadrons.
A few years back ILWG had a similar "goal". Every new unit was intended to be a "full" program. Not sure what the current leadership does, or if any new units are being charted.

TheSkyHornet

Quote from: Майор Хаткевич on February 27, 2020, 03:37:27 pm
Quote from: baronet68 on February 27, 2020, 03:35:58 amWhile not formally documented, my wing will only charter composite squadrons.
A few years back ILWG had a similar "goal". Every new unit was intended to be a "full" program. Not sure what the current leadership does, or if any new units are being charted.

The problem with this is the enforcement of it.

Sure, you can encourage a composite-style operation, but you really can't make that happen. I find that, in most cases, cadet-only units are much more active than senior-only units. And, in most cases, composite units are active more on the cadet side than on the senior side.

Wish lists are great. But they only work if the resources are available and people want to actually perform that function.

Eclipse

I don't disagree, but lack of enforcement is a command failing coupled with
no one caring about the SUIs (which would expose the issues if higher HQ is unaware).

I'd argue the root case is that units exist and are placed as much on the whim of
the current CC as actual demographic studies of population and mission need.

The second is a nation failing, but isn't unique to CAP.



catrulz

Was lurking for a while, but let me add a couple of points:

1.  The easiest way to get value or determine how much value your going to get from a new SM, is put them to work immediately.  In this light, try to place them in specialty they are interested in.  I know the reg. says assign positions based on member interest, commander and unit need, but.... If the unit needs an Admin officer, and you get a new senior that just is not a good fit, who are you helping.  I like the analogy about the square peg in the round hole.

Some members are never going to be more than casuals (babysitters, coffee makers) and as far as I'm concerned that's okay.  There should be a casual training track that provides those members the guidance they need to work around other volunteers and cadets safely.  Make these folks the backbone of the enlisted ranks (please don't make this about uniforms, and SrA or SSgt in polo is still an enlisted person, just as the Wing Commander in a polo is still a Col).  You want to wear bars or a lot of stipes, you need to pitch in.   

2.  If you changed the regs to incorporate only Composite Squadrons, I could see several things occurring:

A.  There would be squadrons that would refuse cadet applications.
B.  If command says you can't refuse cadet applications, we we would take an immediate dip in Sr. Membership.
C.  Cadet are good people, I used to be one!  But working with cadets at encampment, NCSA, or Mission is different than having them there all the time.  I know of several Sr. Units that train and operate efficiently BECAUSE they can concentrate on the mission of being a Sr Member.

PHall

I have a question for the wings that will only charter Composite units.
What do you do when someone wants to start a School Squadron?
By reg these are Cadet Squadrons.

Holding Pattern

Quote from: PHall on February 28, 2020, 05:07:46 pmI have a question for the wings that will only charter Composite units.
What do you do when someone wants to start a School Squadron?
By reg these are Cadet Squadrons.

Easy. Don't charter school squadrons. Why let an increase in membership get in the way of uniformity?

baronet68

Quote from: PHall on February 28, 2020, 05:07:46 pmI have a question for the wings that will only charter Composite units.
What do you do when someone wants to start a School Squadron?
By reg these are Cadet Squadrons.

In my neck of the woods, School Squadrons are a thing of legend and lore... no one's ever actually seen one and attempts to even raise the topic seem to fall upon deaf ears.
Michael Moore, Maj, CAP
National Recruiting & Retention Manager

Holding Pattern

Quote from: baronet68 on February 28, 2020, 05:50:54 pm
Quote from: PHall on February 28, 2020, 05:07:46 pmI have a question for the wings that will only charter Composite units.
What do you do when someone wants to start a School Squadron?
By reg these are Cadet Squadrons.

In my neck of the woods, School Squadrons are a thing of legend and lore... no one's ever actually seen one and attempts to even raise the topic seem to fall upon deaf ears.

And that's the reason you don't have 2 more squadrons with 50 more SMs and 300 more cadets on the East Side.

TheSkyHornet

Quote from: baronet68 on February 28, 2020, 05:50:54 pmIn my neck of the woods, School Squadrons are a thing of legend and lore... no one's ever actually seen one and attempts to even raise the topic seem to fall upon deaf ears.

Same here. We have one school squadron in the Wing. I've heard of an area considering it, but I don't think we're going to see much come of it.


Quote from: catrulz on February 28, 2020, 01:01:36 pmSome members are never going to be more than casuals (babysitters, coffee makers) and as far as I'm concerned that's okay. 

The problem I have with senior members in that regard is that they tend to want to participate on their own terms and then get upset when they're not involved more. If I find you unreliably, and whiny, I'm not going to involve you beyond the role of a chaperon. It creates animosity in both directions.


Eclipse

^ This x10.

Lots of people want a business card to show their friends, far less are willing to do
the less fun jobs that keep the doors open, but even though they are barely around, and
not doing much of anything, their opinion is never in question because it is shared at every
opportunity, regardless of their level of involvement or information.