A Commission?

[ddelaney103]

None is EVER due?

How about the orders of a pilot in command to a crewmember?

How about the orders of the IC to a GTL?

How about the orders of a senior staff officer to a junior staff officer?

How about the orders of a squadron commander?

"I know I've been ordered by the IC to search grid #456, but I'd rather search grid #458, so that's what I'll do.  After all, this is only CAP, and orders from persons based on their grade and position don't mean doggy-doo."

Sorry, Delaney and Dragoon.  Your plan will result in more chaos than than the National Board designing new uniforms.

I have never said anything about position because a commission is all about granting inherent authority based on grade.  You commission someone to a grade, not a position.

Last time I checked, PIC, IC, GTL, "senior staff officer" and sqdn cc aren't grades, they're positions.

In CAP, authority and responsibility are based on position.  Grade has nothing to do with it.

I can have a jacket with more bling than Bob Hope on a USO tour but unless I'm in a position of authority over another CAP member, I'm not the boss of him.  Giving me a pretty wall hanger commissioning me as a CAP Major isn't going to change that - not even if it's signed by the President and countersigned by Darth Vader.

In CAP, grade means nothing, position means everything.  And that's the name of that tune...

[Eclipse]

None is EVER due?

How about the orders of a pilot in command to a crewmember?

How about the orders of the IC to a GTL?

How about the orders of a senior staff officer to a junior staff officer?

How about the orders of a squadron commander?

"I know I've been ordered by the IC to search grid #456, but I'd rather search grid #458, so that's what I'll do.  After all, this is only CAP, and orders from persons based on their grade and position don't mean doggy-doo."

Sorry, Delaney and Dragoon.  Your plan will result in more chaos than than the National Board designing new uniforms.

I'm not sure where you're going with this - every example you cited already has authority granted based on the staff or command position, irrespective to grade.

[CAP_truth]

The debate over SDF, militia etc. From what I found can be call up under federal  law to active duty. Units like the MI VDF age requirement is 17 to 65, OH SDF age 17 to 59, and IN Guard Reserve ages 18 to 65. nay gates age as a consideration for commission for most members. The biggest factor if you receive a commission for the governor or the president you would be governed by the UCMJ. I think that first we must act like professionals and earn the respect of the RM if we want to be given the respect of the grade that you hold. I have been at meeting where junior officers have addressed the wing commander by his/her first name and not by their rank. This was done while cadets were near by. We must give the respect to our own higher ranking officer before we can get the respect from others outside of our organization. This is my opinion.

[JohnKachenmeister]

None is EVER due?

How about the orders of a pilot in command to a crewmember?

How about the orders of the IC to a GTL?

How about the orders of a senior staff officer to a junior staff officer?

How about the orders of a squadron commander?

"I know I've been ordered by the IC to search grid #456, but I'd rather search grid #458, so that's what I'll do.  After all, this is only CAP, and orders from persons based on their grade and position don't mean doggy-doo."

Sorry, Delaney and Dragoon.  Your plan will result in more chaos than than the National Board designing new uniforms.

I'm not sure where you're going with this - every example you cited already has authority granted based on the staff or command position, irrespective to grade.

I never contended that such a document conferred any additional authority.  It is just a nice framable document that attests to the confidence of the National Commander in an officer, and directs persons to obey him within the framework of existing law and regulation.

It is something beyond tossing a pair of gray epaulets at a member and saying "Here... you're a lieutenant now."

Personally, I think there IS an inherent value in ceremony, including a nice certificate.  When you get married and pledge in front of God and your friends to love one another there is something in that ceremony that just shacking up seems to lack.  Although both result in cohabitation.

[aveighter]

Personally, I think there IS an inherent value in ceremony, including a nice certificate.

What you have said here is very interesting in that it brings out the two very different worlds that comprise CAP.

Those here who have a background of military service or public service in the nature of police or fire services, probably with few exceptions, understand at a deep level exactly what you mean by that statement. It is no surprise that the military, police and fire organizations are very ceremony, plaque and ribbon/patch oriented groups with many formal traditions and codified behaviors.  Many informal, but no less important, ones too.

Identifying uniforms are worn with accoutrement's that show ability, qualification, standing and experience and one is constantly being judged on quality and performance.  These people live in the world of immediate experience and consequence where decisions made and actions taken on a moment by moment basis have the very real possibility of life-altering outcomes.  For themselves or someone else.  They use tools, devices, weapons and information and (relative to the average citizen) act decisively on a regular basis.  It is the everyday experience of this world.

Living in this world requires order, understanding, responsibility, reliability, respect.  This structure is defined and reinforced by ceremony, recognition and reward and as money rarely enters into the picture the ceremonial presentation of bits of recognition are substituted.  These things are received in the form of ribbons and medals, plaques and public recitation of deeds and honors.

Because those in this world understand, at some level, that they do a job that underpins the very fabric of civil society and makes our life in a functioning civilization possible and sustainable these bits and trinkets and ceremonies are deemed sufficient.  That and the knowledge that they are among the few who can and will do it.  The Marines have made a publicity campaign of this fact "The Few, The Proud"...  The concepts of honor, service and duty are palpable and frame such a life.

Now, everyone work is important at some level, but really.  What does the average man have to face in his daily activities?  Spilling coffee into the keyboard or managing the morning commute is about the most dangerous part.  Negotiating office politics or suffering withering scorn over your teams loss last night is pretty much it.  Slack off that day and the chances are it will matter not one whit.  Competition for employee-of-the-month with the associated bag of candy or some other lame HR scheme pretty much round it out.  It is the world of TGIF and whats-in-it-for-me.

To this person the worldview of the other group is almost incomprehensible and in these threads you see the gulf, and it is wide.

To be sure, I am generalizing a little bit.  One of the greatest assets of this organization are those members who do not come from a military, police or fire background but have an deep and abiding desire to serve and have an intrinsic understanding of that other world.  They have found an outlet and an opportunity in this military auxiliary.

I find it amusing that John K  is castigated and lectured in such a fashion on this matter.  Especially as the good Major is the holder of an actual Military Commission and not some raving lunatic wannabe.  Since the flash-point of wisdom is the realization of just how dumb you really are, perhaps some of you could pay some actual attention to whats said before opining.

Careful with that coffee.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Thanks, Aveighter.  That was nice of you.

[Short Field]

Personally, I think there IS an inherent value in ceremony, including a nice certificate. 

How true.  And it starts with the leadership believing that all the awards, certificates, and promotions really do mean something and act accordingly in discussing them and presenting them.   These bits of paper and cloth work as great motivators - both to the person getting them and the people watching the presentation.  I always hope there is someone in the audience who is looking at the awardee and thinking, "Gee, if that dumb SOB can get it, there is no reason I can't".   I'll take motivation anywhere I can get it... 

[Dragoon]

None is EVER due?

How about the orders of a pilot in command to a crewmember?

How about the orders of the IC to a GTL?

How about the orders of a senior staff officer to a junior staff officer?

How about the orders of a squadron commander?

"I know I've been ordered by the IC to search grid #456, but I'd rather search grid #458, so that's what I'll do.  After all, this is only CAP, and orders from persons based on their grade and position don't mean doggy-doo."

Sorry, Delaney and Dragoon.  Your plan will result in more chaos than than the National Board designing new uniforms.

While others have posted, let me explain because I think we have a primary disconnect.

My concern was specifically the phrase in the commission claiming others owed that guy obedience due to his grade.  The rest is just fine, but that phrase would cause problems.

In CAP, no obedience is ever required due to a person's GRADE.

Obedience IS, however, often required due to a person's POSITION.  Like all the examples you mention above.  And CAP rules require that - you can be 2B'd for disobeying someone appointed to a position over you (as well you should be).

The problem is in the concept of a "commission."  This would grant authority due to GRADE alone.  And right now, CAP just doesn't work that way.


The 1st Lt PIC has authority over the Lt Col observer, in spite of the Lt Col's "seniority"

The 1st Lt IC has authority over the Lt Col GTL, in spite of the Lt Col's "seniority"

The 1st Lt senior staff officer has authority over the Lt Col junior staff member, in spite of the Lt Col's "seniority"

The 1st Lt Squadron Commander has authority over the Lt Col squadron member, in spite of the Lt Col's "seniority"


And that's the problem.  Given CAPs grade inversion (and basically, CAP's complete disregard for grade when it comes to assignments or authority, it just doesn't make much sense to grant authority based on grade.  You'd have to really restructure CAP to make it work.

Incidentally, I'm FOR restructuring CAP to make it work.  But just tacking on a "commission" to today's system would just cause confusion.

Hope that explains the point better.

Authority based on position - good.
Authority based on grade - not good, without fundamental changes in CAP's structure.


Now if you remove the stuff about granting authority and just say "wouldn't it be nice if we made a bigger deal when someone gets promoted" I'd say heck yes.  We always make an incredible big deal about officer promotions in my squadron, including formal ceremonies and a "wetting down" of the new grade at the local bar afterwards.  Adding a certificate would be just fine.

[JohnKachenmeister]

"... as is due an officer of this grade AND position."

Redundant and superfluous?  Yes.  Problematic?  No.

Sort of like:

"Null and void."

"Cease and desist."

"Will and wishes"

"Hopes and dreams"

and...

"Redundant and superfluous."   

[SJFedor]

"Vanguard" and "Customer Service"

I wouldn't mind an extra piece of paper to put on my "I love me" wall, but, along with what everyone else is saying, there's a big inversion between grade and position. I'm a Capt, but a Group level DO (which I think works well), but I work with UNIT DOs and DOV's that are Lt Cols. One doesn't complement the other too well with the current system, and unless it changes, we're stuck.

[Hawk200]

Got a question to throw into the mix. We have folks that outrank people, position wise, that think there should be positional grade. That the squadron CC, for example, should be the highest ranking in the unit, period.

My question: How many majors or lieutenant colonels are out there that have a position subordinate to a lower ranking person? (Such as a group CC that's a captain, but a squadron CC that's a major or lieutenant colonel). And how many of those majors, lieutenant colonels , or even captains have problems taking directives from these folks that are lower ranking, but higher positions?

If a major in a unit doesn't have a problem taking directions from a captain squadron commander, then is there really a problem? Unless a majority of field grade officers have problems with it, then nothing really needs to be fixed.

If I'm a captain, and have a major in the unit that follows my directions because I'm the CC, then there really aren't any issues. Has anyone seen a number of cases where it's really an actual problem? Or are we trying to justify a solution when there is really no actual problem?

[Dragoon]

"... as is due an officer of this grade AND position."

Redundant and superfluous?  Yes.  Problematic?  No.

As ddelaney103 said

I suppose if you want a lot of pretty, empty phrases - sure, knock yourself out.

I suppose you could add, "and exercise such superhuman powers granted as a result of this commission, in accordance with the laws of physics."

But more seriously..

My concern is that it's one further step down the wannabee trail.  To the uninformed and ill trained (and we've got a lot of them) it may give the impression that these butter bars actually carry some weight.  Which they don't.  We already have folks trolling for salutes on military bases - I don't want to embolden them by making them think they might have actual power.

YMMV.  But I'd expect this simple "feel good" phrase to result in inflated heads and some embarassment down the road.  If we take that phrase out, we eliminate the potential issue (and save a few milli-cents of printer ink per certificate)  :-)

[Dragoon]

Got a question to throw into the mix. We have folks that outrank people, position wise, that think there should be positional grade. That the squadron CC, for example, should be the highest ranking in the unit, period.

My question: How many majors or lieutenant colonels are out there that have a position subordinate to a lower ranking person? (Such as a group CC that's a captain, but a squadron CC that's a major or lieutenant colonel). And how many of those majors, lieutenant colonels , or even captains have problems taking directives from these folks that are lower ranking, but higher positions?

If a major in a unit doesn't have a problem taking directions from a captain squadron commander, then is there really a problem? Unless a majority of field grade officers have problems with it, then nothing really needs to be fixed.

If I'm a captain, and have a major in the unit that follows my directions because I'm the CC, then there really aren't any issues. Has anyone seen a number of cases where it's really an actual problem? Or are we trying to justify a solution when there is really no actual problem?

I outrank my squadron CC, and I've discovered that that gives my opinion more weight than it probably should. All eyes should be on him - not the old 0-5 in the corner who's now doing 1st Lt work.

I've also seen members who don't really give the commander the deference they should - and why should they?  He has to call THEM sir, not the other way round. So yeah, they help him out when they want to.  But it's hardly the enthusiastic support a new commander would prefer to have.

The commander needs all the help he can get - even subtle things like getting salutes.  Everyone in the unit should know that HE is the boss.  He's the Man (or Woman).  It's not like he's got any power over our paychecks.  Any little bit of authority we can give him will help.

There's a REASON the Wing CC gets eagles - it's to make sure he outranks 99% of the guys in his wing.  Why don't we do the same for Group and Squadron CCs?

In the same way, we often have problems filling high level staff positions at Wing.  It's been this way for over 25 years.  If the only way to get promoted was to serve in those high positions, we'd have less people "coasting" down at squadron (where the fun is) and more guys busting their humps to help out CAP at the higher levels (where the no-fun) work is.

Are we broke?  No.  Are we less effective/efficient than we could be with some changes?  You betcha!


And if we're gonna wear the rank of the U.S. military, it would sure help us deal with them if we used it the way they do - to recognize authority and responsibility - not just length of service and training.

[Hawk200]

 We already have folks trolling for salutes on military bases - I don't want to embolden them by making them think they might have actual power.

That's something someone needs to be educated on from the get-go. I make a point of informing people of this when I give "mini-classes" (which are usually only one or two people) on C&C to new personnel. Not educating people as such is not a justification for revamping a system that's been working satisfactorily for many years.

I don't think this is really an issue for our higher ranking personnel, they know better. And their advanced rank indicates as such.

[Hawk200]

I outrank my squadron CC, and I've discovered that that gives my opinion more weight than it probably should.

First time I've ever seen someone complaining about their rank and experience being a bad thing. You'd rather be a 2LT, and have him ignore you?

All eyes should be on him - not the old 0-5 in the corner who's now doing 1st Lt work.

Shouldn't be a problem if they know that in the first place. One unit I was in had a 25 year old captain squadron CC. When I first talked to him, he asked me if I would have a problem with taking orders from someone his age. I told him no, and I don't understand how it could be an issue. Should be the same way with our positions in our units.

I've also seen members who don't really give the commander the deference they should - and why should they? 

Because he's the commander? Creating positional grade will simply bring up cases of "I've been around longer than you!" instead of "I outrank you!". Either way it's human nature to do such things. You will not remove that, regardless of how you revamp the system. People will simply rationalize their own superiority in other ways.

In the same way, we often have problems filling high level staff positions at Wing.  It's been this way for over 25 years.  If the only way to get promoted was to serve in those high positions, we'd have less people "coasting" down at squadron (where the fun is) and more guys busting their humps to help out CAP at the higher levels (where the no-fun) work is.

This has numerous downsides to it as well. The guy/gal in northern California, or Interior Alaska, or on the outskirts of Texas, or anyone else that is far removed from the wing never gets to promote. And you would justify it with "Well, if you can't make the commitment you don't deserve to advance." Why should the guy 20 minutes from the wing get an opportunity to promote over a hard charger that's six hours from the wing with no practical way to serve at that level? Still not fair, and it's an issue you would have to deal with.

Person may not get "hired" at the wing level due to GOB network, or there just might not be positions available, and then it's back to the same issue of how they can get to advance in an equally inequitable system.

Are we broke?  No.  Are we less effective/efficient than we could be with some changes?  You betcha!

No, human nature is broke. Revamping the officer rank system won't fix it. And I don't see how positional grade is going to make the system any more efficient. Folks keep saying rank is only an insignia that doesn't mean anything. If it doesn't mean anything, then it's really not in the way. It shows experience, if we would treat it that way, many wouldn't be so hung up on it.

You may think I'm being stubborn on this, but I will consider any practical system that deals with the downsides in a fair and equitable manner. Show me something that is guaranteed to work, and I'll support it. So far I haven't seen anything that is fair to everyone. In order for it to be a legitmately practical system, it must be.

[ddelaney103]

In the same way, we often have problems filling high level staff positions at Wing.  It's been this way for over 25 years.  If the only way to get promoted was to serve in those high positions, we'd have less people "coasting" down at squadron (where the fun is) and more guys busting their humps to help out CAP at the higher levels (where the no-fun) work is.

This has numerous downsides to it as well. The guy/gal in northern California, or Interior Alaska, or on the outskirts of Texas, or anyone else that is far removed from the wing never gets to promote. And you would justify it with "Well, if you can't make the commitment you don't deserve to advance." Why should the guy 20 minutes from the wing get an opportunity to promote over a hard charger that's six hours from the wing with no practical way to serve at that level? Still not fair, and it's an issue you would have to deal with.

Person may not get "hired" at the wing level due to GOB network, or there just might not be positions available, and then it's back to the same issue of how they can get to advance in an equally inequitable system.

I can answer this one - tough luck!

I'm an E-8 and I understand to make E-9 I may have to move, change AFSC or both.  Access to CAP oak leaves is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution.

This belief that everyone should be allowed to make Lt Col is the reason we're in this topsy turvey, grade inversion world right now.

[JohnKachenmeister]

It took me a while to adjust from my Army thinking to CAP's way of doing things.  In CAP all positions below Wing commander are grade immaterial.  In our group, we have a former Wing commander (Col.) in a squadron commanded by a senior captain.  I was IG as a major working for a captain as Group CC.  (He has since been promoted, but in about two years I will be a Lt Col deputy commander reporting to a major CC.)  I see no problem with a commander calling his officers "Sir," regardless of rank.  I worked for a general one time who called all of his officers "Sir."  

A CAP "Commission" document is innocuous and carries no more meaning than we are willing to give it.  I see it as a nice addition to a ceremony, and something that others can see as testimony to a member's voluntary service to the United States.

If this leads to someone "Trolling for salutes," we can deal with that as we have dealt with it before, using the "TCB" method.

TCB:

Train,

Counsel,

BOOT!

[star1151]

When I first talked to him, he asked me if I would have a problem with taking orders from someone his age. I told him no, and I don't understand how it could be an issue.

I don't understand how that can be an issue either.  All of my military family members became officers in their early 20's and were giving orders to people all the way up to forced retirement age.  It's certainly not a new concept and not even limited to CAP or the military.  I have people older than myself reporting to me.  It SHOULDN'T be an issue and most of the time, I don't think it is.

I've also seen members who don't really give the commander the deference they should - and why should they?  He has to call THEM sir, not the other way round.

Aren't we over thinking things?  I outrank mine and call him sir anyway, and can't figure out why people would think his position is meaningless because his rank just happens to be lower than theirs.

[davedove]

I can answer this one - tough luck!

I'm an E-8 and I understand to make E-9 I may have to move, change AFSC or both.  Access to CAP oak leaves is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution.

This belief that everyone should be allowed to make Lt Col is the reason we're in this topsy turvey, grade inversion world right now.

I understand the sentiment, but there is one major flaw to that answer.  No matter how many miltary trappings we use, we are not the military, we are unpaid civilians.  Military personnel get paid to deal with the whims of their respective service.  CAP members are all unpaid volunteers who have other jobs, other lives outside of CAP.

No the rank is not guaranteed, and a lot of members don't get the higher grades, mainly because they don't pursue the professional development.

They are not guaranteed the grade, but everyone is given the opportunity, should they choose to pursue it.

[ddelaney103]

I can answer this one - tough luck!

I'm an E-8 and I understand to make E-9 I may have to move, change AFSC or both.  Access to CAP oak leaves is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution.

This belief that everyone should be allowed to make Lt Col is the reason we're in this topsy turvey, grade inversion world right now.

I understand the sentiment, but there is one major flaw to that answer.  No matter how many miltary trappings we use, we are not the military, we are unpaid civilians.  Military personnel get paid to deal with the whims of their respective service.  CAP members are all unpaid volunteers who have other jobs, other lives outside of CAP.

No the rank is not guaranteed, and a lot of members don't get the higher grades, mainly because they don't pursue the professional development.

They are not guaranteed the grade, but everyone is given the opportunity, should they choose to pursue it.

And that is one of the major jack up of the system.  I have no problems with members getting ribbons for their progress through the PD system, but why do we have to pervert the military's system of grade to provide further merit badge status for a member?

The military uses grade to show who is in charge or is capable of taking charge in the event of a crisis.  We use it as a merit badge. Why?

I keep seeing the same two faced message of 1) grade don't mean nothin' and 2) I have a right to promote.  If it doesn't mean anything, why is it so important to be able to promote?

Why?