Kicking out inactive members - why different standards for cadets and seniors

[RADIOMAN015]

We don't bother.

We send them letters....You need to get active, get current and stay current or we will convert you to Patron.

We just did that at the begging of the year to about 20 or so members.

Those that did not respond at all we 000'ed.

You must have a rich squadron with money overflowing out of your coffers .  Why would anyone want to transfer any dues paying (or even potential dues paying) senior member anywhere else, especially where they won't be paying any dues to support anyone???
I can see placing adults in patron status with the unit (after a telephone or face to face conversation with them about this status), BUT if at all possible even IF we can get them to attend one meeting a month and get them to help out on some activities a few times a year, that can be a great help overall.  Family situations come up; illness; work requirements/changes, school/education schedules, etc all can impact an adult members' availability.   

As far as cadets go, let them keep their membership until it expires, they may decide to come back before that.  I know in our squadron we had a young man that had many difficulties to overcome (in and out of active status), got his Mitchell and is now in the active USAF -- If the squadron didn't have "heart" (so to speak), not sure where he would be today.   Remember we are talking about teenagers, not robots, and things do come up, and it isn't just because they want to play video games

BTW CAP as an organization is interested in seeing increases in every squadron's membership totals, not decreases.
RM
   

[Spaceman3750]

BTW CAP as an organization is interested in seeing increases in every squadron's membership totals, not decreases.
RM

What's the point of increasing numbers if those people aren't furthering one of CAP's missions?

I would rather have 10 seniors working towards CAP's goals than 30 seniors with 3 doing the work and 27 not even answering the phone.

[titanII]

What's the point of increasing numbers if those people aren't furthering one of CAP's missions?

Well they do pay dues, don't they?
But seriously, i think that tuere is a point where if we increase membership enough, even with 1 meeting per month or what have you, it will be alright. Because if we have mamy of those members, that adds up. Also, you're keeping the committed, die-hard, at-every-activity members.

[Eclipse]

What's the point of increasing numbers if those people aren't furthering one of CAP's missions?

Well they do pay dues, don't they?

The dues question is another reason why patronising them and putting them in 000 is a good solution.

Something not mentioned is that you have to maintain patron-member records at the unit as well.  My wing made some noise about the fact that they would be losing several thousand dollars a year in their dues if we actually punched the tickets of all the empty shirts, so no problem.  If the wing feels that these members have value for that reason, they can maintain the file cabinet with the "P's". 

Why should a local unit CC have to deal with the extra administrative overhead of members who bring him no value whatsoever?

If these same patrons are paying unit dues (which is rarely the case), then the CC can make the subjective decision that the hassle is worth the shekels. 

Otherwise, the best solution is probably to digitize their records, move all the patrons to the national patron squadron and move on.

[lordmonar]

We don't bother.

We send them letters....You need to get active, get current and stay current or we will convert you to Patron.

We just did that at the begging of the year to aboud 20 or so members.

Those that did not respond at all we 000'ed.

Um, you just gave me what-for about six times as this exact thing being "poor leadership".  Why didn't you 2b them?

No...we 2b our PITA's  not our inactives....different things.  Go back and re-read what I said/

[lordmonar]

We don't bother.

We send them letters....You need to get active, get current and stay current or we will convert you to Patron.

We just did that at the begging of the year to aboud 20 or so members.

Those that did not respond at all we 000'ed.

Lordmonar's spell check broke

Nothing wrong with that post.   

I "begging" to differ

I really have no idea what you are talking about.   :angel:

[lordmonar]

You must have a rich squadron with money overflowing out of your coffers .  Why would anyone want to transfer any dues paying (or even potential dues paying) senior member anywhere else, especially where they won't be paying any dues to support anyone???

a.  They were not paying dues to the squadron.  They would renew their national dues each year but not ours.
b.  They were not doing their required training.  Wing was getting on our ass over it....so we attempted to contact them...no response...so bye bye they go.

I can see placing adults in patron status with the unit (after a telephone or face to face conversation with them about this status), BUT if at all possible even IF we can get them to attend one meeting a month and get them to help out on some activities a few times a year, that can be a great help overall.  Family situations come up; illness; work requirements/changes, school/education schedules, etc all can impact an adult members' availability.

That was in fact the very line we (I should say our squadron commander) took.  He contacted them, talked to them about their intentions, gave them the sales pitch about getting active again, but if they could not...but still wanted to affiliated with CAP we gave them the option to go Patron.

As far as cadets go, let them keep their membership until it expires, they may decide to come back before that.

We could not afford the butt pain over their required training.  If the cadets were not going to be active...we 2b'ed them...we had to get them off the books.

I know in our squadron we had a young man that had many difficulties to overcome (in and out of active status), got his Mitchell and is now in the active USAF -- If the squadron didn't have "heart" (so to speak), not sure where he would be today.   Remember we are talking about teenagers, not robots, and things do come up, and it isn't just because they want to play video games

I am with you....don't think we just said "well he has not been here for 3 weeks let's 2b him.  We contacted all the 2b'ed cadets and asked them their intentions and worked with them if we could. 

BTW CAP as an organization is interested in seeing increases in every squadron's membership totals, not decreases.
RM

CAP need to take a big flying leap with those unrealistic recruiting goals.  My squadron is plenty big enough....80+  If they think our drop in membership is a problem (we were at 90+) then we can have a sit down about all the extra training CAP has been dumping on us and the butt pain wing has been giving us to get complaint with national's safety goals.

[RiverAux]

Just to be clear, I would probably prefer to "patronize" inactives rather than kick them out, but I just think that the option should be there to kick them out just like with cadets. 

[Eclipse]

Um, you just gave me what-for about six times as this exact thing being "poor leadership".  Why didn't you 2b them?

No...we 2b our PITA's  not our inactives....different things.

Not to me, but if you did 2b them, you must have either had sustainable cause, or they were less interested in membership than being a PITA.
Good on 'ye for the luck, but not all situations are that clean.

I have personal experience with a number of these situations where the best possible scenario, one recommended by the wing, was 000, because we
knew we'd waste a year in hearings if we punched their tickets.  Ultimately they left anyway.

It was from those conversations that the weaknesses in the idea (i.e. they could still fly, etc.) were brought to light and discussed in my wing and region.

[lordmonar]

All I got to say is that I'd hate to be in your wing where the groups and wing do not support the squadrons.

[Eclipse]

All I got to say is that I'd hate to be in your wing where the groups and wing do not support the squadrons.

Seriously, man.  You have no idea what you're talking about in that regard, the 000 solution is/was the best one for the units, and was agreed upon by all parties as the best solution for all involved.  I don't see how you don't get that.

This isn't / wasn't about some weird notion you have about "leadership", this was about relieving the burden of the empty shirts and a few PITAs
who we knew would not go quietly, and who, while being PITA's, we're not doing anything that would stand a MARB appeal, especially when a couple
chain-hopped so much we never knew who was going to be calling next.  These were / are people with nothing better to do that write complaint
after complaint that makes my time on CT look sparse.

You don't know what you are talking about and/or you are trying to make this something it isn't.

You 000'ed people who would not return your calls?  How is that any different?  Why weren't they gone as well?

[Short Field]

As far as cadets go, let them keep their membership until it expires, they may decide to come back before that. 

Each cadet is different.  I don't dump cadets just because they missed three meetings.  However, when I haven't see a cadet at a meeting in two years, they do not communicate with the squadron, and their membership keeps getting renewed by their parents, it is time for a 2B.   A 2B sends a message to National that we really don't want this cadet to renew without a discussion.


Our squadron meets on a major military installation and our relationship with the base is strong enough that a CAP ID card will get you base access 24/7.  If a 18+ cadet isn't attending meetings, hasn't taken CPPT, has no safety training, hasn't promoted in two years, but likes to hang at the base exchange, it is time to 2B him and get the ID card back.   

If a cadet has problems or has expressed a desire to let his membership expire in a few months, I will probably let it ride as not being worth the paperwork. 

[titanII]

CAP need to take a big flying leap with those unrealistic recruiting goals.  My squadron is plenty big enough....80+

Not to air any dirty laundry but... my squadron definitely isn't big enough. Probably about 1/6th of that size.. You're squadron isn't the same as every other one. Some squadrons  (like mine) really need big recruitment.

[MIKE]

^ It's time to play "How many cadets can we squeeze into this Quonset Hut?"

[lordmonar]

CAP need to take a big flying leap with those unrealistic recruiting goals.  My squadron is plenty big enough....80+

Not to air any dirty laundry but... my squadron definitely isn't big enough. Probably about 1/6th of that size.. You're squadron isn't the same as every other one. Some squadrons  (like mine) really need big recruitment.

I whole heartely agree with you.....target recruiting goals is what we need.  The wing retention/recruiting team needs to assess each squadron to find out if they need more people, what kind of more people and how best to find them.  They should not just be saying "all sqauadrons need to increase 10%".

[Grumpy]

^ It's time to play "How many cadets can we squeeze into this Quonset Hut?"

What, huh, do they still have those?  My cadets don't even know what they are/were.

[titanII]

What, huh, do they still have those?  My cadets don't even know what they are/were.

Oh, I know all about those things... 

^ It's time to play "How many cadets can we squeeze into this Quonset Hut?"

So true...

[Eclipse]

I whole heartely agree with you.....target recruiting goals is what we need.  The wing retention/recruiting team needs to assess each squadron to find out if they need more people, what kind of more people and how best to find them.  They should not just be saying "all sqauadrons need to increase 10%".

I agree that fews wings, nor NHQ for that matter, have a clear, baseline understanding of their manpower strength, or even the distribution of their people vs where the unit actually are.  The entity of the situation is hit or miss.  Most units ebb and flow by chance, with total numbers being static for over a decade.

But it's not like you can redistribute people just because Unit A needs them more than Unit B.  If the units are close enough to be a wash logistically,
and offer the same or similar programs and resources, there is an argument to combine them to one charter.

Then there's the Unit CC's who think they get paid more for a higher number on the MML and who discourage, or at least don't encourage members to go to other units where they might be needed more, even if ultimately it is better for everyone.   I had this silly idea about exporting the successes of my largest unit to smaller, struggling ones, either on a temporary or permanent basis, and in some cases the "new" unit was physically closer to the person's house then the one they were at.

What I got was a lot of grief about how I was going to "force people to transfer", and those who would be the beneficiaries could not have been less interested in the idea.  ((*sigh*)).

As to R&R, we have no issue with recruiting, our issue is with retention, and that isn't going to be fixed with recruiting ribbons. That is a core program issue that needs top-down evolution to fix.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

^ It's time to play "How many cadets can we squeeze into this Quonset Hut?"

We'll try to find out here in RIWG. Soon 1 squadron and Wing HQ will be on the Quonset ANG base. The hut was invented here