Squadron Commander Term Limits

[DBlair]

One of the problems I see is that by not having term limits, there exists the possibility for a Commander to stay in for a substantial amount of time (perhaps a decade or more) and in the process some begin to feel that the unit is their property to do with as they please- like a King of sorts. In the course of seeing it this way, they start to lose sight of proper procedures and begin to establish their own way of doing things.

Not only that, but it prevents fresh thinking and ideas because (contrary to what some of these long-reigning 'Squadron Kings' seem to think) just because it is the way they have always done something does not mean it is the best way (or even the correct way) of doing something.

Having term limits would keep things fresh and then you know you aren't stuck with a sub-par commander for eternity without recourse beyond changing units. Granted, there are some commanders who are great and do an excellent job and the unit may benefit from having them in command for longer periods of time, but unfortunately, this is not the case for every Commander.

[Major Carrales]

Everyone knows the term limit for CAP Squadron Commanders is defined as "such time as another schmuck can be tricked into doing it."

The above is a joke (sort of)

[FW]

There's an old saying in CAP; if you want the job, you are nuts! 

Seriously, sq/cc's are in unique situations, IMO.  The only good I see out of term limits is forcing the squadron to recruit quality members who can and are motivated to take the lead.  Where the potential pool of "quality members" are sufficient, this should be no problem.  However, in small population areas, I think squadrons would have a tough time finding the extra qualified/motivated members to fill the position. 

A good wing/cc would keep tabs on this and insure no squadron had a commander who stayed passed their time.  (at least I would hope so )

[ZigZag911]

At one time (late 90s) NJW had a 'guideline" of 3 to 5 years maximum for squadron CCs.

In reality, few sqdn CCs lasted that ling!

There were, however, long term commanders, some who had become burned out or stagnant...including some who did not see it themselves.

Getting these officers to realize that it's good for everyone if they took some time off from command, or took higher command responsibility, is not always easy, but I think it's important.

When I was a sqdn CV in the 80s I used to complain about
"that flaming idiot @ Group!"...years passed, and ironically, I found that now I was "that flaming idiot @ Group"!

Gives you a  whole new perspective...the grass is always greener.

It ought to work conversely, too....we have folks serving 10 years or more in the same group/wing staff position....some times that's too long.

Stability is a good thing, stagnation isn't.

Granted, it's tough finding commanders...still, if there were a National policy on this, with few waivers, it would encourage greater breadth of experience among CAP officers.

[NavLT]

What worries me more about picking a # out of the air for term limits (2,4,6,8) is the tone of this thread indicates what I see....Most wing commanders don't realize they have a bad apple until too late.  That oversight and command involvement is critical to the success of our program.

When I hear things like "nobody is ready to take command in 8 years, or Nobody wants the job because of all of the stress and politics." we need to work on the commanders who are not actively training replacements and how can we reduce the stress and politics because from what I have seen most of it is organizationally created from the inside.

Just my 2 cents on the issue

[IceNine]

Great lakes Region recently mandated

Squadron Commander's get 3 and a possible 4th with approval of group and wing CC's

Group Commanders get 3 and a possible 4th with approval of wing and region CC's

You cannot succeed yourself in the same unit but may assume command of that unit again after 2 years break in service.

There has been conversations amongst the command staff in my wing and I'm sure in others addressing possible issues but generally with few exceptions the intention is understood and if a few cases its being embraced.

[ZigZag911]

GLR's approach seems sensible.

It is the constant problem in volunteer organizations, striking a balance between finding new leadership while reaping the benefit of experienced members.