Alternate for the CIC

[drrchief]

I was a CIC officer and went to the Regs with the infantry.  During my enlistment I injured my knees.  Since then I have not been able to maintain the higher level of fitness that I was accustomed.  I would like to mention (although not currently in the CIC) that some CIC officers are not able to maintain their fitness due to injuries.  These officers (although not physically fit) still have a lot to offer the system.  We should be encouraging these officers and getting them help, not bashing them.  I agree that there are those dorito eating, beer swallows, but hey you can find them anywhere.

>

 

[LF(CMO)]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So lets see if I can sum up the last little bit.  Generally we acknowledge that a good number of CIC officers do maintain a physical fitness level that lends credit to the image of the CF.  There are noted examples of CIC officers who, for whatever reason, do not maintain an adequate fitness level which may impact their ability to lead by example in a youth organization with physical fitness as one of its corner stones.  If I may stir the pot a little on this one, here is my thought, (and how I've councilled some of my fellow CIC officers in the past).  If you choose to and are called to wear the uniform of the CF you should be capable of meeting a minimum physical standard EQUAL to that of what we expect from our cadets (i.e. the army cadet fitness test), I would recommend that they be able to perform to a standard equal to that of what is expected of our PRes and RegF counterparts but there is not policy or standard on that at this time.  For those who are unable to meet the fitness standards, perhaps their contributions are best made as civilian instructors and they can fill roles in the administration and supply components, which are valuable and essential support tools for the cadets at large.  They can also then teach in their specialties as appropriate.  We should not look to preclude individuals participation in the CCM, but I think that we owe our cadets the best possible image we can present, and we owe the same to the CF.  This often falls to policing our own, and a gentle nudge from one officer to another does help, I've both nudged and been nudged in the past.  For those simply unable to meet a minimum fitness requirement, there should be some administrative action, or at least the use of common sense (i.e. if the uniform is stretching at the seams, get it re-twilored so at least it looks cleanly dressed).  But ultimately I'd support more stringent fitness requirements, and I don't think we'd have any fewer officers quite frankly, too many of my junior officers have left for other elements of the ResF because they don't want to be associated with "the doughnut crowd" in the CIC.  Perhaps water/juice and fruit at breaks at RCIS would be better than coffee and timbits which have become so common, and for those attending/facilitating courses, no more playing duck duck goose for PT.  In an organization where image is a great part of public relations, we must ensure we send the right message and ensure it is consistent.

« Last Edit: August 18, 2005, 12:52:55 by Bean » 

The above is a very wise comment on the subject!

 

[Deleted member 6930]

.... What is the first stated aim of the CCM? To promote physical fitness.   .....

Just to be technical ... The first aim of the CCM is to "Develop in youth the attributes of good citizenship" Second is to promote Physical Fitness.

;D

 

[Deleted member 6930]

Thought I would wade in and offer my 2 cents worth ... (not that anybody asked for it .. but here goes)

Background ... I have been a CIC officer and Commanding Officer of an Air Cadet Unit for 6 years. Currently Reg Force Cpl.

I think the bigger picture we should be concerned with (as a parent, Former CO, and Strong CCM supporter) is the quality of the person representing the CCM (whether Officer or CI).

What I mean by quality of the person is do they "come to the table" with a well developed skill set to be able to handle what the job will involve.

1.  Are they willing to work more that the 1/2 day per week they get paid for the benefit of the cadets (first) the unit (second) and the CCM (third). (as CO I often put in 6 evenings a week for the cause .. and loved every ... er almost every minute of it ... ;D )

2.  Are they mature enough to understand that the cadets are not and can not ever be their friends. The Officer is there to supervise, guide and develop youth (I have seen this too often, especially with young officers just coming in from the cadet program)

3.  Are they mature enough to understand that they are responsible for SOMEONE else's children and that if they (officer) screws up, the cadet may be "hauled out" of a fantastic program for youth  so the child looses. (Not to mention the headaches for the CO  : )

4.  Are mature enough to realize that when they are in uniform (or not in some cases) that they are representing the CF. Joe Public does not know the difference (and probably doesn't care) and will "paint the CF with the same broad brush" If a parent sees an officer stumbling out of the local pub after a training night or on a weekend and puke on the ground or getting into fights ... the parent has to ask if this is the best person to be looking after "My child."

5.  Mature enough to understand that he rules are there for a reason  and the the CO is responsible for everyone in the unit including volunteers ... enough said on that.

6. Mature enough that when the CO makes a decision, (popular or not) the officer can never go to the cadets and "bad mouth" the decision of the CO. This does nothing to benefit the Esprite de corp of the unit.

See a theme here ...

After the Sponsoring committee and CO evaluate these aspects of the person wishing to become a member of the CF and CIC. Then is is up to the Recruiters (Ottawa - D Cadets) (yes recruiters ... the same recruiters which recruit Reg Force pers) to set a Physical standard (which they have ... like it or not), and do what they do to enroll a CIC officer.


As for an alternative for the CIC ... I can't come up with one. I know that the NDHQ as said no to a NCM/NCO component of the CCM ( too bad really) ... but that is their decision to make not mine.

(just a side note ... I still have my Commissioning Scroll up on my livingroom wall ... get lots of questions when the "guys" from the Sqn come to visit ... Some want to know what the He%% I did to get busted from Captain to Cpl ... great conversation starter ...  : )


**** soapbox off ****

**** anti-flame suit on ****

I await your collective approval / disapproval  8)

 

[Neill McKay]

I await your collective approval / disapproval  

Then I offer my approval.  I've seen some of the issues you've mentioned (not the bit about staggering out of the pub and heaving in the bushes, thank God!) and agree that the expectations have to be made clear to young prospective officers very early on.

 

[Springroll]

I agree with what you have written, Shadowhawk.

 

[Nobby]

I have a simple rule. I don't ask anyone to do something that I wouldn't do myself. So to not keep my requests limited, I try to stay in good enough shape and stay informed enough to have an example set that allows me use my lawful authority to command.

 

[Bean]

A good rule to be sure Nobby.

ShadowHawk, I agree completely with your post in selection of the personnel we try and put into uniform, but I must admit if they are planning on amking a commitment to the organization, a higher physical standard would be recommended (and I checked, the literaure in air army and sea and the first point in the manuals is To promote Physical Fitness, but probably only because its the shortest line of text).  All the guiding principals of the CCM are important, and as CIC officers we need to represent each of these through demonstrable activities, physical fitness through maintaining a good personal fitness level, good citizenship through volunteerism and community involvement, Leadship by example, and promoting an interest in the CF through continued education and learning programs such as the OPME.  As officers of the CF we have an obligation to present every aspect of the cadet programme equally, and it is my belief and practice that we should practice what we preach.  If I expect my armt cadet challenge team to p[erform a task I should be able to perform it myself (granted I still wear an air element uniform), if I expect cadets to be up for PT on exercise I should be there right along side them for both safety and demonstrative purposes, and if I expect a greater sense of citizenship I should be doing the same.  Nothing you have said contradicts the points raised to date, however we as CIC officers must stand up and take personal accountability for the image we produce to the cadets around us.  If the cadets see us as slack and idle, doughnut eating staff, we do not promote an environment to recruit new youth leaders who are looking for a way to serve.  Granted this is NOT the majority, but a minority that hurts us greatly.  When cadets start to see the officers in thier units as no better than scout leaders (not knocking that program just respecting the differences) there is a problem.  We hold a commission and should be held to the same standards all those who do.  When we seek credibility within the CF we cannot simply say we are different, we must demonstrate that we are capable and different at the same time.  If we are not capable, then perhaps the model of the CAP or the british cadet forces needs to apply.

I fully believe in the current model with the CIC as a distinct component of the CF, but with changing attitutdes and the CF doing more with less its time we either put up or shut up.  Not that that is reflected in policy or the NDA at this point in time.  If we are to be a priemier organization that we constantly seel ourselves as being, we need to be able to present ourselves this way in any forum (CF, youth leadership, or community leader).  We play a vital role in the development of our citizenry so lets represt that in the best positive light.

I don't think the majority of CIC officers aren't already doing this, but there are those few who regularly bring us down, so lets deal with that appropriately and we may find we have more people looking to join us (just a personal opinion having been a CO and seeing officers and senior cadets opt for other branches of the CF).  Clean up our image and we'll be better off.

 

[Deleted member 6930]

Well said Bean. I have been preaching this to my staff the whole time I was CIC. Most of my staff was exceptional. 

 

[dgrayca]

In certain circumstance a CI can hold the TrgO position.

cheers

PV

yes, but that is a last case measure.  If there is a CIC officer on the slate (besides the CO), the CIC must hold the TrgO position even though the CI may be more qualified for the position.

 

[Neill McKay]

yes, but that is a last case measure.   If there is a CIC officer on the slate (besides the CO), the CIC must hold the TrgO position even though the CI may be more qualified for the position.

I don't think it's possible for a civilian instructor to be more qualified for the Training Officer position than a CIC officer.

 

[dgrayca]

I don't think it's possible for a civilian instructor to be more qualified for the Training Officer position than a CIC officer.

So if you had a 40 year old teacher with years of teaching experience and experience in making teaching plans they would be less qualified for a TrgO position than a 19 year old OCdt?

 

[Burrows]

So if you had a 40 year old teacher with years of teaching experience and experience in making teaching plans they would be less qualified for a TrgO position than a 19 year old OCdt?

  But does the teacher know the content of the star manuals more than the OCdt?  Plus, you can always find the MLPs on the cadet website.

 

[dgrayca]

  But does the teacher know the content of the star manuals more than the OCdt?   Plus, you can always find the MLPs on the cadet website.

Why not?  I had a CI on staff who had 8 years experience.  He never became CIC because due to many reasons.  He knew the manuals inside out.

At any rate - I'm just stating that its possible.

 

[Neill McKay]

Why not?   I had a CI on staff who had 8 years experience.   He never became CIC because due to many reasons.   He knew the manuals inside out.

At any rate - I'm just stating that its possible.

Given that we're talkling about qualifications, as opposed to experience as a teacher, and the preferred qualification for a Training Officer is the Lieutenant Qualification course (which civilian instructors cannot take), we'll never see a CI who is considered by the powers that me to be qualified as a Training Officer.  That's why the policy is in place to restrict CIs in the position.  The training officer's role isn't just to teach; it's to implement the training programme: establish the training plan in accordance with the QSP, to supervise and develop instructors, to perform the "quality control" functions, and so on.  I will grant you that a long-serving CI could pick that necessary skills up through years of experience and private study, but he or she will never have the military qualification normally required to do the job.

For comparison, consider whether the navy would allow a merchant marine officer with a master mariner's ticket to stand watch on one of their ships, or a private pilot to fly a military aircraft.

 

[dgrayca]

Given that we're talkling about qualifications, as opposed to experience as a teacher, and the preferred qualification for a Training Officer is the Lieutenant Qualification course (which civilian instructors cannot take), we'll never see a CI who is considered by the powers that me to be qualified as a Training Officer.   That's why the policy is in place to restrict CIs in the position.   The training officer's role isn't just to teach; it's to implement the training programme: establish the training plan in accordance with the QSP, to supervise and develop instructors, to perform the "quality control" functions, and so on.   I will grant you that a long-serving CI could pick that necessary skills up through years of experience and private study, but he or she will never have the military qualification normally required to do the job.

For comparison, consider whether the navy would allow a merchant marine officer with a master mariner's ticket to stand watch on one of their ships, or a private pilot to fly a military aircraft.

That is exactly what is being debated here... yes, the CI in most cases (with a few exceptions) will NEVER be qualified for the position (even though they have the experience and skill set to boot) since CIs can not take the LTQ (should be named TrgO course).  That comes back to the original point why a CO may wish to enroll an less than fit, but otherwise out of shape, CI into the CIC... So they can take courses and be qualified.

Oh yeah - and a teacher's job isn't just to teach either, but also to "it's to implement the training programme: establish the training plan (lesson plans, term work etc) in accordance with the QSP (Ministry Standards), to supervise and develop instructors (for self learning units), to perform the "quality control" functions, and so on"

 

[Neill McKay]

Oh yeah - and a teacher's job isn't just to teach either, but also to "it's to implement the training programme: establish the training plan (lesson plans, term work etc) in accordance with the QSP (Ministry Standards), to supervise and develop instructors (for self learning units), to perform the "quality control" functions, and so on"

If we were going to compare a cadet unit to a school, the Training Officer would more closely resemble the principal or the vice-principal than a teacher.  Cadet units employ senior cadets, and sometimes officers, in the "teacher" role.

 

[PViddy]

yes, but that is a last case measure.  If there is a CIC officer on the slate (besides the CO), the CIC must hold the TrgO position even though the CI may be more qualified for the position.

That may be written somwhere, however their are ways around it.  PM me for specific examples from my unit.

PV

 

[dgrayca]

If we were going to compare a cadet unit to a school, the Training Officer would more closely resemble the principal or the vice-principal than a teacher.   Cadet units employ senior cadets, and sometimes officers, in the "teacher" role.

Now we're just arguing semantics really.  So, okay, substitute VP for teacher in my example.

I think we both agree on the same point though... the regs state that unless there is no other CIC officer on slate, the TrgO cannot be a CI.  AND.... CIs cannot take the LTQ course to be qualified for the position.

So... hence, why the desire to put someone in uniform... so they can TAKE courses... and be QUALIFIED.

 

[bwatch]

Back in my days as a Cadet, we had Officers who would Volunteer their time who were Reg Force or Militia. We didn't have the CIC in my days. Officers came from Cadet Services of Canada