Should a retired Major General not have the "(Ret.)" designation assigned to their identification, so as not to misrepresent their authority?

How would something like that play out if working with Active or Reserves, but under the state? You'd be considered a Major General since you're in the state and in traditional Guard status, but I'd assume you technically wouldn't outrank anyone higher than your true rank of major since their rank was granted by the Federal Government where as your stars only from State Government.

Thanks MAJ. Does the Michigan TAG have "ret" after their identification? With the "dual mandate".. I'd also ask if there's a difference between the legitimacy of a federally recognized officer being put into an AG position, and a civilian retired SM?

SSG (Join to see)
I don't interface with the TAG but my assumption is his Signature Block would be: MG, MI
Not MG, US Army Retired

SPC (Join to see) Great comment.

Roger, LTC. Should they have "ret" after their title?

Well, SSG (Join to see), we’ve had all this discussion (a lot of it mine), and still no one has really answered your initial question! I’m afraid I still can’t answer it! I know what my title should be as a retired officer:
Name
Rank
USA Retired
However, I do not know how the various states adjutants general signature block should appear. It may vary by state and by status. I just don’t know. I do know that (within reason) each are in their position legally.
I do know that all the GOs in the Alabama National Guard (Army and Air) are legitimate general officers. In other words, they met all military and civilian requirements and went before a federal GO promotion board. How they are brought back as TAG if retired, I simply can’t address.

Roger, LTC. The site I was referring to is NGB, so I'm guessing they post what each state presents them, without fact checking. It's also not represented on the state site. https://calguard.ca.gov/army/

LTC Stephen C. -

Not surprised at the vagueness of some of them.

District of Columbia:
"It is hereby provided that the adjutant general shall have had previous military experience."

I wasn't expecting to see any accept state guard however. Even more interesting is of all states that would I figured it'd be Texas, not Hawaii.

SPC (Join to see), in earlier times, some of the states were likely compelled to be vague and ambiguous regarding AG eligibility criteria due to the size of the state and thus their respective national guards. Some of these states simply didn’t have a sufficient pool of qualified officers within their ranks. Hawaii, being an isolated and remote island(s), is a perfect example of such.
Nowadays, each state has upped their game (likely because of NGB oversight) and each has more officers that are qualified to serve as TAG.
However, since TAG is appointed by the governor (in most states), politics and cronyism will almost always prevail. Fortunately, in many instances, TAG proves to be an effective leader, manager and administrator, but that is simply coincidental to the political appointment process.
SSG (Join to see) CPT Gabe Snell Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen LTC (Join to see) SFC Ralph E Kelley SSG Warren Swan

LTC Stephen C. - I agree. Even with the politics involved (never Guard but worked with them both active and civilian contractor) I have found they are qualified in leadership and management. A different style maybe than active army but still qualified.

LTC Stephen C. -

That does make sense Sir, and seeing that State Governments have much larger fish to fry no one is concerned about updating it. Haha

Occasionally I skim the Guard Association's magazine, Whatever the Guard calls it's own magazine these days (seems to change a lot), as well as various online articles, and from I have read most states appoint a serving officer that meets their requirements.