Alternate for the CIC

[chalk1]

I meant raising standards for entry, as well as more leadership-oriented training time for CIC officers. But then again, this is only from a cadet‘s frame of reference...Also, would any of you agree that leadership time in the field helps improve ldshp skills? I found that after just four weeks trg with the brits (‘cause we cant handle rifles and do the whole combat trg thing here) was the possibly the best learning experience ive had in my time with cadets. Comments?

 

[Jason Jarvis]

Scott937 wrote:
You do not have to be a CIC to take a very active role in the the Cadet movement, civilian instructors are a huge asset to any corps. This is the location for those who want to commit some time and work with cadets, but cannot or do not want to take on the responsibilties of putting on a uniform.

Yes, but being a CI can often be a very frustrating experience. People assume that because you‘re not in uniform you‘re not committed, don‘t understand what it takes to be an officer, lack professional credibility, and don‘t really want to fit in. When these attitudes are combined with poor organization and leadership at the corps CIC level, the aggravation factor can blow off the charts.

All that said, my current corps has tried very hard to help me fit in. From pints in the officer‘s mess, to meeting the regiment‘s officers and CO, to inviting me to the soldier‘s dinner at Christmas, these activities have given me the chance to demonstrate some knowledge in a field other soldiers can identify with (shooting), and I think my integration is going well. Things aren‘t perfect, of course, but nothing ever is.

If I had my druthers -- and $5000 for LASIK -- I‘d join the CIC in a heartbeat. But even though I can‘t, I‘m still going to do what I can to ensure that the level of training and instruction I provide is the best it can be. I would expect no less as a cadet, and as a CO I would expect nothing less from my instructors -- commissioned or not.

 

[Caz]

CIC are specialist officers employed to run the government funded youth program.

Yes, we should be commissioned officers. Yes, we should have a higher standard. Yes, given our limited recruiting base, that standard is going to be very difficult not only to attain, but to define in the first place.

If you look at the structure of most units, having PRes or RegF NCMs working with us is great. However, they again are even more specialized, running range or first aid or fieldcraft.

In a well-run cadet corps, the cadets fill the positions that NCMs would take. The four positions that are mandatory for officers to have in the LHQ are positions that should be filled with officers: Trg O, Sup O, Adm O, and of course, CO.

Being a CI, as Jason can attest, can be a very frustrating experience, indeed. You are not able to attend the majority of training which allows you to better serve the corps and the cadets, so you are very much left to your own to develop your professional self. This can definitely make you feel like part of the scenery.

It‘s a catch .22 argument - is Jason, being V5 or less, a risk to the cadets? Likely not. But then again, we scream, "increase our physical standards!"

Remember to put the focus on training. A truly professional officer will go beyond what is offered to them at RCIS.

 

[elscotto937]

I did not realize the frustrations felt as a CIs... Having never been one, except for a month before enrolling in the CIL. Caz, well put, CIC problems are in a "catch .22" situation... Many people had stated that they need to be CF commissioned officers but no one has given me a good reason. Maybe you all have, but I really haven‘t picked up on it. Go beyond personal pride in the uniform, and consider that the troops that you supervise are not CF soldiers, why would you have to be an CF officer to supervise them. It doesn‘t mean that you couldn‘t be some form of part time civil servant, in a uniform and similar rank structure to the CF. But the training could then be focused on the preparing people to supervise cadets and not waste time on becoming military officers.

 

[Caz]

I guess there is no good reason that we are associated with the military at all, as cadets, or Officers.

Except that our aims are to stimulate an interest in the CF, so having real live members of the CF there usually helps with that. As for the NCM argument, we‘ve been over that...

CIC are commissioned officers because that is what legislation (NDA Sec 46) currently dictates.

Our training at the RCIS does focus on us being military officers, however, the primary focus is the supervision of youth and the admininstration of the cadet programs.

Pulling the officers out of the CF and putting them in para-military wing would only prove to weaken our ties to the CF, which are fragile enough in many places. As well, many officers use the CIC as a branch to get a foot-hold while moving to other components of the CF.

 

[Jason Jarvis]

Caz wrote:
Pulling the officers out of the CF and putting them in para-military wing would only prove to weaken our ties to the CF, which are fragile enough in many places. As well, many officers use the CIC as a branch to get a foot-hold while moving to other components of the CF.

This appears to be what the Aussies have done. I‘m having a tough time digging up how cadet officers fit into the structure of the ADF, but a claims guide I found states that "Officers and instructors of cadets serve as members of the Australian Services Cadet Scheme. While they are not members of the Defence Force, they are taken to be members for the purpose of this Part."

I haven‘t been able to find a description of the "Australian Services Cadet Scheme," but with the recent amalgamation of all cadets in Australia under the "Australia Defence Force Cadets" umbrella it appears that cadet officers are not commissioned, and in fact operate as a para-military wing. Officers have their element acronym suffixed to their rank, eg, "Maj (AAC) Jarvis".

Officer Of Cadets training is also heavily focused on their primary job -- running a youth organization with a military emphasis. Like our cadet program -- but unlike the British model used by the ACF -- there is no "army" training (like patrolling, fieldcraft, small unit tactics, weapons handling, etc). AAC website.

All that said, I do agree with Caz that CIC should hold a commission, and for all of the same reasons. I‘m not sure whether or not the Australians have a better model, but at first glance it seems way too bureaucratic for my taste and not enough action-oriented. And I‘ve no idea of how good a job or not RCIS is doing in preparing new officers for their roles and responsibilities.

Now as for this statement:

It‘s a catch .22 argument - is Jason, being V5 or less, a risk to the cadets? Likely not. But then again, we scream, "increase our physical standards!"

I proved to everyone on my first FTX back in May that I was more than capable of holding my own -- and then some -- with a bunch of testosterone-charged teenagers, thank you very much!

In my case it‘s not a question of being physically capable of leading and maintaining control over cadets while on exercise, it‘s what happens if my glasses go into the water, get smashed on a cliff face or simply crushed during the night. I‘ll be the first to admit that I‘m next to blind without my glasses, and without them I would have a difficult time retaining command and control over an exercise. This is why I don‘t teach rapelling or white-water rafting.

But is this a more serious problem than a chain-smoking, 30 lbs overweight officer whose only exercise is lifting pints? While applicants such as this might not make it through the evaluation process today, there are many now in the CIC who fit this description -- right, Franko? :blotto:

That‘s my beef about CIC physical/medical standards.

 

[elscotto937]

Caz, Alright I can follow that - closer ties to the CF. That‘s a good enough answer for me.

 

[Caz]

Scott937 - No worries. If you‘d like me to get into further, I could

Jason - yep, that‘s the reason they give a lot of people - ‘in an emergency, if you break your glasses, you put everyone at risk‘. Is that a good reason? Well, I‘m a little jaded, because I know several top-notch people who were denied the opportunity to serve because of being V5 or lower. But the element of risk still remains.

Though I happen to think the 50lb overweight officer who gets their exercise in the pub would have a harder time running to the river to rescue said cadet(s) than the blind guy.

Do the Australians have a better model? For them, maybe. I do know that the Canadians have a cadet organization that is an envy of a lot of nations - mostly because there is no mandatory cost for the cadet to participate.

 

[elscotto937]

Caz, I saw on your profile that you were a CI prior to joining the CIC, was that for any other purpose other than the time it takes to get enrolled?

 

[Caz]

Scott, I was a CI for three years. Partly because I had been working, and needed to finish High School before I could enrol. Mostly because I came into the adult staff role right after I had graduated from Air Cadets, and needed time to adjust to the role. I started off as a Band O, which is a good spot for a CI. I was able to gain a separation between being the WO and being the "officer".

Now, did I need three years to make that adjustment? No, I probably only needed a year or two - but I did need that time to make some other adjustments in my life to make sure I could give the proper committment as a CF officer. I did spend about a year longer being a CI that I would have liked (my enrolment only took 14 weeks), but it was time well spent, as I went between roles of Band O and Sup O. I also felt by that time that I had reached the top of what I could learn, and thus pass to the cadets, by being a CI. As soon as I was in uniform, I was able to access all the training available to me, and become a little more involved.

Cheers,
-R.

 

[Franko]

Originally posted by Jason:
But is this a more serious problem than a chain-smoking, 30 lbs overweight officer whose only exercise is lifting pints? While applicants such as this might not make it through the evaluation process today, there are many now in the CIC who fit this description -- right, Franko? :blotto:
[/QB]

Jason....I‘m not sure if you‘re asking a question or trying to imply something.

If it‘s a question...absolutly, there are LOTS of officers who are in this boat. To aleiviate this there should be annual PT tests in place. It works for the Forces, whynot the CIC? I understand the points of it being a volunteer organization etc...but the lead by example thing comes into effect. I can‘t stand an officer barking out to cadets that if they want a course to get in shape(para, wilderness etc) and the chap can‘t see his own feet. Now I‘m not the perfect soldier by any standards but I have passed the express test, BFT, Regimental pt standards, and "fun runs"(10k run) and I expect the officers in my Regiment to be able to do the same if not better. It doesn‘t take long for a cadet to see through the smoke to see an officer who isn‘t as he appears, especially if he passes the corps on a ruck march in an SUV.

Now if your making an implication...
Please elaborate

As for pers who are wanting to get in with a physical disability(such as an amputee), go for it. If you meet the criteria, by all means sign up! I‘ll never talk down to someone who got in on their own merrit!

Regards

 

[Jason Jarvis]

Franko: I was referring to an earlier comment of yours:

I‘ve seen one officer that should have been punted a long time ago. Overweight, doesn‘t adhere to dress regs(won‘t divuldge too much)etc.
He thinks he has the world by the tail right now, wait until I get back from this hole.

Doom on him!

 

[Franko]

Originally posted by Jason:
[qb] Franko: I was referring to an earlier comment of yours
Doom on him! [/qb]

He has NO idea what‘s coming. He is going to have a rude awakening, the likes of which his corps has never seen before!

:evil:

Regards

 

[Feist]

I just replied in the "What would you fix about cadets?" thread, and much of my post was on this issue, so I will try to be more brief here.

I think that OCdt Caswell is correct in stating that we need higher standards and, at the moment, face closure of units if we implement them. I do not think, however, that it is because we have a limited recruiting base. I think it is because the low standard for CIC officers has become so ingrained in our branch culture that we cannot get rid of it. When Captains, Majors, and even Light Colonels do not hold university degrees, it is hard to call this problem a problem without insulting senior personnel. But I think that the Cadets deserve the same base standard for their officers as do their counterparts in the Primary Reserve, and making waves on this issue is definitely worthwhile.

My unit has no formal standard requiring university education for officers. That said, of our six officers, four hold university degrees, and a fifth, an OCdt, is completing her BSc. in Anatomy. And I unapologetically contend that we hose almost every unit I know of in training quality, discipline, and NCO Development. We took home top NSCE in Saskatchewan last year, and are in a position to do so again this year. Our past four consecutive BOQ candidates have held the RCIS (Pra) Parade Commander position on BOQ (yours truly included ). Our last ACO report held (the exact quote escapes me) that we should be the model for Army Cadet Training. While it may sound like boasting (well, okay, it is blatant boasting) we run an excellent training program because we have excellent, well-educated officers. No question about it.

Our Logistics (Supply) Officer is a former Reg Log Tech. His duties now greatly resemble his duties when enrolled as an NCM. He will very likely seek his commission, but I contend that his position, while nominally an Officer position, is functionally an NCM role.

The point of my contention is that if the CIC would have its own NCMs, not to supplant cadets from NCM roles, but to fill specialist roles filled in the Regs by NCMs (Log Tech, Coy Clk, Trg NCO) units would be able to fill these positions, but would not have to provide commissions based on a low standard unique to the CIC branch.

Thus, I see no need to remove CIC officers from the CF. I think the way the CIC fits in to the CF benefits both the CCM and the CF. I do, however, feel that something needs to change, and that standards need to increase. It is just a matter of jarring people out of the complacency of the standard we have now.

 

[big_castor]

Bad news, Feist.

CIC officers will remain commissioned officers of the CF and they will remain a branch of the Reserve. That‘s not likely to change for quite a while. The training will change, some policies will be adjusted to our specific needs but that‘s it. More or less a "status quo" for the years to come.

Having had this discussion with many, many many other people before, I personally the question of "higher standards" for the CIC all comes down to a question of perceived respect. I think the majority of people who think the standards for the CIC should be higher are those who feel that CIC officer don‘t get the respect they deserve form the other members of the CF.

Even if CIC officers had the same standards in terms of education, physical fitness and training then members of the P Res, that would not solve the problems. We would still be in the eyes of most other members of the CF, the "baby sitter" officers. Actually, some might argue that we training CIC officers the same way then P Res officers would be a waste of money since their role is so different.

We have to accept our specific role in the CF. I chose to be a CIC officer ; Not an officer of Infantry, Artillery or Armour or anything else. It comes with some advantage and some disadvantages. I‘m all for a better educated better trained, more professional corps of CIC officers. But if changes are made, they should be made fort the greater good of the Movement. If I get us more cadets, if it allows us to give more to ours kids, fine. If it‘s only for a reason of ego and self-satisfaction of a few officers at the expense of our cadets, then we shouldn‘t change a thing. I‘m not in this business to serve myself.

 

[cdhoult]

While I agree, to a point, the perhaps there needs to be higher standards, it really depends on where you‘re from.

For example (sorry, using a Sea Corps, it‘s what I know better..) getting Reg Force NCM‘s/Officer‘s, etc, is far easier here in Victoria, where there is a strong Naval Precence, than say, Burns Lake.

Many corps away from bases, and away from big cities, have "Ma and Pa" Operations running. These are parents who were never cadets, but kind of got roped into the role. If you go, "Well, you need to be able to do x number of push ups..." to the 55 year old OCdt...I mean, come on, be realistic.

Time for a Commission is 1 year, or 9 months with 3 years of Cadet Experience. Many do NOT get promoted right on the date...I talked to a guy in Recruiting about the Naval Reserves, and he said after your second summer you get commissioned. In Theory, it could be just over a year (fast enrollment, and then magically getting on BOTC your first summer).

While we can sit there, and go "Lead by Example!!!", just like in the ‘PRes‘, there are some...chubby...senior NCM‘s and Officers lying around. It happens. Doesn‘t make them bad leaders as a whole, it means they‘re not in great shape for whatever reason. Maybe they happen to have a really slow metabolism? Who knows.

And from my understanding, although a PRes OCdt may undergo more training during the summer months, at least they have the benefit of being just that...under training.

Biggest joke in the CIC (Or so I‘m told) is that famous recruiting line, "One night a week, and the occassional weekend"....then people join, and realise it‘s a little bit more. Many CIC OCdt‘s have HUGE workloads, and then instead of getting trained over the summer, they are the ones trainING others. And they do that with their 10 days of BOQ, and a LOT of experience at the corps level perfecting there skills.

You get duds in every organization, some slip through the cracks. Such is life.

CH

 

[Franko]

Squadron CO...I agree with SOME of what you said but....
Quote:
"I think the majority of people who think the standards for the CIC should be higher are those who feel that CIC officer don‘t get the respect they deserve form the other members of the CF."

If these officers want respect they must first EARN it...I don‘t give it. Almost every CIC officer I have meet or have worked with have their act together to the point that I don‘t feel ill about giving them a salute. After working with them for a few days or years the majority have my respect...save a few(the one in question particularly)

As for the CIC not being up to the same standards as the Reserves...that is to be expected. How can you get all the info crammed into a few weekends? You can‘t, it‘s not possible. But they should instigate a refresher course every year that would be manditory. It should include PT testing, Drill instruction, theory mutuals, office work, first aid and RSO review.

I can hear it now...PT?

Look you‘re part of the CF therefore you should be tested once a year,the same as everyone else...no exception. The Coopers test can be done within 45 minutes...surely you can put 45min aside once a year? If you fail, so be it. You‘ll be put on written warning and given an appropriate time to get in shape so you can pass...the same as the rest of us.

As for Reg NCOs coming in to do CIC officer work...I don‘t think so. You are responsible for the outfit you command be it supply O or Trg O.

Personally I have helped out in every position in cadets with the exception of CO. You make it up to that position...you‘re on your own.

As for the MOM and POP corps out there...the ACOs should be helping you out even more if you are having problems.

Regards

 

[cdhoult]

As ideal as it would be, what would you like the ACO to do? Especially since ACO‘s can change a lot (sometime‘s it‘s just a temporary posting, and the guy/girl knows NOTHING about cadets).

BC has fewer corps than Ontario (sea-wise), however, they are much less centralized....when the only way to get up to some corps is an overnight ferry ride, well....

Not saying the Ma/Pa corps can‘t run themselves, but, without a strong military background, and maybe not being able to come down to RCIS once a year, and maybe not being in the best of shape...they do a pretty good job.

What I‘m saying is that you can‘t expect the 55 year old OCdt who just joined so the corps wouldn‘t close, to come down, and get in shape, and if not, be put on written warning, etc...the guy did it to help a whole bunch of youth out.

 

[Franko]

And I commend him for his willingness to support such a noble cause. But with becoming a CIC comes responsibilities...such as meeting standards. If he is 55, the standards are lower for him because of his age for PT...everyone knows this.

I‘m quite sure the ACO gives him a bit of an allowance for not meeting the standards, which is his perogative.

The point I was trying to make is make it a national standard...cut and dry. If there are instances where it is determined that a person has a disability or condition then certain rules apply in such cases. The majority of the CIC are not in this boat however, and they should be able to keep a standard of fitness that is acceptable.

Regards

 

[big_castor]

Franko,

If these officers want respect they must first EARN it...

Yes, absolutely. My point is that some people think that requiring a university degree or any other type of "higher standards" will immediately earn them that respect from other officers.

We can have a very long argument about what should change in the CIC. I just think that any change that is implemented should be done with full knowledge of the impact on the number of officers and the quality of training and supervision of our cadets.

We shouldn‘t do anything because it looks good on paper or to fix an "image problem" at the expense of our real responsibilities.