What's happened over the years?

[jimmydeanno]

I been doing some thinking (which I suppose could be a good thing )

I was originally thinking about how things get grossly distorted as time passes.  I posted an AFA uniform article previously that talked about the original premise behind the AF uniform was to have it be plain, simple and understated.  Here we are 61 years later and that original vision has been tossed to the wayside.

Now, I didn't really want to start a discussion about uniforms, but rather the 'climate' in our organization.  I was reading Maj Gen John F. Curry's bio (for those of you who don't know, he was our first National Commander) and it included this blurb about CAP...

...There was no discrimination because of one's gender. Individual ability, experience and past records were the real criteria for selection. Again, in Curry's words, "There must be no doubt in the minds of out gallant women fliers that they are needed and, in my opinion, indispensable to the full success of the CAP organization. A great part of the progress made in organizing civilian aviation under Civil Air Patrol has been due to the volunteer help given by women flyers...

If we look at the intent of that passage, I think it too has been grossly re-directed.  There is very much a caste system in CAP.  We have formed separate groups, fat, fuzzy, fit, AF Uniform, Corporate Uniform, prior-service, non-prior, ES, CP, etc.  In many cases, ones past experience and abilities are not the deciding factor in determining ones value to our organization.  I find this sad.

While we have our legal statements of non-discrimination I see a lot of anger between these 'groups' when everyone is here to accomplish the same missions.  "We should trim the fat people out so everyone is in one uniform," hatred from a lot of SMs towards cadets in general.  A devaluation of members abilities based solely on the fact they wear a beard.  Why do we do this?

The biography also speaks of CAP having over 100K pilots when the organization started.  If we look at what we are today, we don't even have that many members - never mind pilots.  Are our personal biases and personal agendas getting in the way of us accomplishing our mission?  Are they alienating people from joining because we are creating our own standards contrary to what the organization wants? 

I think that we could learn a lot if we looked at our founding members vision of this organization. Not operationally (since we don't participate in war anymore), but in terms of accepting people and what they have to offer - even if it is very little.

[mikeylikey]

Two things.  The military had more ways for a person to be excluded (not serve) and CAP was an option for those people.  Remember at that time it was shameful for a person not to serve the war effort.  People who were 4F even committed suicide because they could not serve in the military. 

Second CAP was an entry for children to become Army Aviators.  There were not many Cadet oriented programs in the 1940's.  CAP was one of the more respected flying programs. 

After the war CAP was a place where discharged military could continue to serve their communities.  Of course the numbers were higher back then. 

Now that leads us to present day.  Unless you can specifically say "on this date" the organization changed, the whole premise about todays CAP being worse than yesterdays CAP is void.  I agree we are DIFFERENT, but not any worse. 

There are some things I don't agree with and certain law changes that should never have taken place, and some uniform changes that were stupid, and some corporate issues that seemes illegal, but I find no fault in the membership today!

[jimmydeanno]

Two things.  The military had more ways for a person to be excluded (not serve) and CAP was an option for those people.  Remember at that time it was shameful for a person not to serve the war effort.  People who were 4F even committed suicide because they could not serve in the military. 

Second CAP was an entry for children to become Army Aviators.  There were not many Cadet oriented programs in the 1940's.  CAP was one of the more respected flying programs. 

After the war CAP was a place where discharged military could continue to serve their communities.  Of course the numbers were higher back then. 

Now that leads us to present day.  Unless you can specifically say "on this date" the organization changed, the whole premise about todays CAP being worse than yesterdays CAP is void.  I agree we are DIFFERENT, but not any worse. 

There are some things I don't agree with and certain law changes that should never have taken place, and some uniform changes that were stupid, and some corporate issues that seemes illegal, but I find no fault in the membership today!

I'm not really talking about the organizations role or missions, etc.  But rather the current attitudes of many of our members.  Unfortunately, I've found over the years that many people look for ways to exclude potential members, whether it be from joining entirely or segregating them into some sort of clique. 

Why is there such an "us versus them" attitude that is becoming so prevalent?  Even on this board you can see it -
"cut out the fat people"
"we should have PT standards for our adults"
"let's force everyone to shave"
"parents shouldn't be allowed to participate in the CP."
"The guy who only does O-Flights but doesn't come to every meeting shouldn't be allowed to progress"

I wasn't necessarily saying that the organization was better or worse than before the organization has vastly changed in its role - but the fundamentals should be the same.  Everyone who joins wants to make some sort of contribution, no matter how small or large.  So why do we as members look for ways to exclude or segregate people when that type of attitude was obviously not taken by those who founded the organization?

[FW]

Do you really think people's attitudes have changed much over the years?  Membership hovered around 100K until the 70's. And, I think, membership was over 75K until 1991 when we started fingerprinting members.  If my recollection is accurate, we lost about 1/3 of CAP over that 1 year period and, except for the 9/11 spike, that's where we've stayed. 

Every one is welcome to join CAP however, It's obviously not for most people.  The draft is no longer around and, for many, the idea of service is non-existant.  Most who join the "RM" stay or go into the Natl Guard and remain until they're in their 60s. CAP membership, for them, is not of interest. 

Those that join CAP today, do so for the same reasons they did in the 40s but, there are just fewer from that gene pool to pick from.  Reasons for people leaving  or staying haven't changed much over the years either. 

So, IMHO, SSDD.

[NIN]

I dunno. I have a bigger, more active squadron now than I did WIWAC, and my unit WIWAC was one of the biggest and most active units in Michigan Wing.

Honestly?  I had this chat with another member here the other day about how the ACA handles its "membership caste system" (for lack of a better term), keeping in mind that our origins & missions are *a little bit different*.

In the ACA, if you're "Fat or fuzzy" and either cannot, or do not, wish to conform to military grooming or weight standards to wear military uniforms, you can be a "Civilian Instructor."  You hold no grade except "Civilian Instructor."  You're not eligible to command a unit.  You can be a staff officer in some billets, but that's it.  You help out, you "instruct" or you do whatever you can, but you remain a Civilian Instructor.

If you're an officer in the organization, you conform to the military standards. Period. Or you become a Civilian Instructor,

That's pretty much it.

But unlike CAP (which is where this discussion with the other member got me), CIs have no grade, so they're just always CIs.  Period. 

And CI is a "different membership classification," unlike "officers who choose not to wear the military-style uniform" in CAP.   Its almost like a "Super CSM" with a little more latitude and a whole lot less stigma.

Not saying its better or worse, but I am suggesting that we in CAP almost force ourselves into this "Second Class Citizen" role with the uniform differences. We're ALL senior members, but some senior members may think they're better (different) than other senior members because of the uniform differences.

John K from MD Wing was in a unit where all the seniors wore the white/greys and BBDU combo no matter whether you met the grooming & weight standards or not.   He suggested that the espirit de corps from everybody being in the same uniform was far more advantageous than keeping the folks who met standards in a different set of clothes.

Food for thought.

[DNall]

I sympathize to an extent with the view that we want to be as inclusive as possible, but there is another side to that coin. When you are inclusive, you lower the common denomenator. That means you are less capable as an organization, be that emergency response, leadership, or whatever.

Just take ES as an example. Anyone can take an online GES test, execute tasks to whatever standard whatever grader is choosing to enforce that day, and those standards are written inclusively. There's no PT test for GT. Yet FEMA requires one of three standardized PT tests to be allowed to function as a WSAR (same thing as our GT) member in any federally declared or mutual aid response situation. They don't care if you're a volunteer or if you're paid 20k or 120k a yr by some fed/state/local agency. They have industry standards for what it takes to get the job done & no one anywhere is allowed to play unless you meet those. But, CAP doesn't and has all kinds of resistance to adopting those standards because we want to be as inclusive as possible.

What's more important, the mission, or keeping our members happy (= $$)? That's all it comes down to.

Personally, I say the mission. I know that loses us a whole lot of members, but it does so for the right reasons, and they'll be replaced just as quickly by people that do want to be part of something serious. I know a lot of people find that disciminatory because it may exclude them & their desire to serve or be important or whatever it is they're looking for our of CAP. I believe in mission first, and I believe in striving to improve my organization, even if that means the standards rise high enough that I'm not good enough anymore. That'd be a huge success story & something each of us could be proud of.

[lordmonar]

I sympathize to an extent with the view that we want to be as inclusive as possible, but there is another side to that coin. When you are inclusive, you lower the common denominator. That means you are less capable as an organization, be that emergency response, leadership, or whatever.

I got to take exception to this conclusion.  Being more inclusive does not you necessarily become less capable.  It all has to do with what criteria you are using to include or exclude your members.

Grooming standards (hair length and facial hair) do not necessarily make anyone more or less a better pilot, ground team member, mission base staff.

Education standards on the other hand, may have a direct impact on ES, leadership, etc.

Just take ES as an example. Anyone can take an online GES test, execute tasks to whatever standard whatever grader is choosing to enforce that day, and those standards are written inclusively. There's no PT test for GT. Yet FEMA requires one of three standardized PT tests to be allowed to function as a WSAR (same thing as our GT) member in any federally declared or mutual aid response situation. They don't care if you're a volunteer or if you're paid 20k or 120k a yr by some fed/state/local agency. They have industry standards for what it takes to get the job done & no one anywhere is allowed to play unless you meet those. But, CAP doesn't and has all kinds of resistance to adopting those standards because we want to be as inclusive as possible.

True...but in this case it is a situation of raising the standards...from those that have existed for years.  And we then come to a quantity vs quality issue.   Is it more important to have 10 "fit" and qualified ground team members or 50 qualified team members?

The question that has to be asked is the "standard" really necessary...or is it just something to make it more exclusive.

On the GT issue I agree that to a point some sort of physical fitness/medical clearance is a good idea...but to what degree?  That is a larger more complex question.

What's more important, the mission, or keeping our members happy (= $$)? That's all it comes down to.

It may also be whether we can meet our mission requirements with out those people....money issues aside. 

Personally, I say the mission. I know that loses us a whole lot of members, but it does so for the right reasons, and they'll be replaced just as quickly by people that do want to be part of something serious. I know a lot of people find that discriminatory because it may exclude them & their desire to serve or be important or whatever it is they're looking for our of CAP. I believe in mission first, and I believe in striving to improve my organization, even if that means the standards rise high enough that I'm not good enough anymore. That'd be a huge success story & something each of us could be proud of.

Then the question right now is....are NOT completing the mission due to "low" standards.  And that is the crux of this issue.  WHY RAISE THE STANDARDS?  How do you want to "improve" the organization?

Sure on the GT issue we should have a PT standard just to ensure that those going out to the field are not going to become a liability......however on that same token....the standards for a hawk mountain type GT and a GT in another more level part of the country can be very different.  It is hard to come up with a consistent standard set for mountainous territory that locks out a bunch of people in the plains of Kansas.

[LtCol White]

You're forgetting that there is also the same clique mentality in the regular armed forces. Active/Reserve/NG. Pilot/non-aviation specialties. Regular forces/special forces, etc...

So, CAP is really no different from Military forces in this when it comes right down to it. I'm not saying this is right or a good thing, just stating that its a fact and not unique to CAP by any sense of the imagination.

[sarmed1]

You're forgetting that there is also the same clique mentality in the regular armed forces.

Show me a wing commander (other than medical wings...ie Wilford Hall) thats not a pilot.  If they are out there, I am sure the comparison puts them very very much in the minority.

mk

[LittleIronPilot]

Well as others have said, these cliques exist in the RM.

Also....and this is hard for some to swallow but you know what, things change. The only constant is change.

[davedove]

What's more important, the mission, or keeping our members happy (= $$)? That's all it comes down to.

Personally, I say the mission. I know that loses us a whole lot of members, but it does so for the right reasons, and they'll be replaced just as quickly by people that do want to be part of something serious. I know a lot of people find that disciminatory because it may exclude them & their desire to serve or be important or whatever it is they're looking for our of CAP. I believe in mission first, and I believe in striving to improve my organization, even if that means the standards rise high enough that I'm not good enough anymore. That'd be a huge success story & something each of us could be proud of.

It's not quite that cut and dried.  You have to maintain a certain level of member happiness; call it morale if you like.  Otherwise, you won't have enough members to complete your mission.  It's more like a spectrum.  At one end is complete focus on the mission, at the other member happiness.  CAP can't really function completely at either end, but must be somewhere in the middle.  Of course, it can be debated endlessly where on the spectrum the proper balance point should fall.

[ColonelJack]

I know that loses us a whole lot of members, but it does so for the right reasons, and they'll be replaced just as quickly by people that do want to be part of something serious.

Are you sure about that?  Sure enough to bet the existence of the organization?  Because in the scenario you describe, the overwhelming odds state that CAP as a useful organization would not exist between the time all those members left and others took their place.

The problem I see is that you seem to be making ES the sole focus of CAP, or its major focus.  That is an error, in that CP and AE are equal parts of the mission, unless you're also advocating changing the focus of the organization.

In which case, why not just start something completely new?

I know a lot of people find that disciminatory because it may exclude them & their desire to serve or be important or whatever it is they're looking for our of CAP. I believe in mission first, and I believe in striving to improve my organization, even if that means the standards rise high enough that I'm not good enough anymore. That'd be a huge success story & something each of us could be proud of.

I'm not too sure about this.  Making something so dog-goned good that I can't be a part of it seems ... counterproductive ... to me.  If I want to make something better, I also want to be a part of it when it becomes better.

Jack

[jimmydeanno]

I've been a member of a few squadrons that frequently have members that only come in on AE night or ML night to teach once a month.  Many times these people are the type that don't meet AF standards for uniform wear, but they are darn tootin' some of the best instructors I've ever seen.

Some might say that they are 'a drain on the organization' and shouldn't be there, but I say they actually help to strengthen it.  I don't see it as 'settling until something better comes along' but the epitome of our core value volunteer service.  They are there because they want to help - in some way.

I think that the elimination of the caste system would be ideal and people shouldn't look upon those types as an inferior membership class. 

I also think that if our organization were to raise its standards to the point that normal people couldn't join anymore, they would be going against everything it stands for.

A more organized caste system isn't any better than a dis-organized one.  It is still establishing classes of membership and someone will always end up being a "second class" member.  How does that tie in with our core value of respect?

[DNall]

Several replies, I'll try to cover at once...

I understand the concern that upping standards > reduces mbrshp > makes us less/un-operable at least until those operators are replaced.

This is NOT us talking about CAP upping our internal standards in hopes of getting more missions.

This is federal law saying DHS will develop industry standards, transition the community to them, then credential responders according to those standards & no one else will be allowed to participate or even be in the area in any other capacity. That further, any state/local agency that chooses to utilize a non-credentialed resource will forfeit all federal assistance. This has been a done deal for a years now. The execution by FEMA is still in the transition phase, but it's on the back side of that now. The standards for everything CAP does are done. They're still working on some that are unrelated to us. CAP chose not to participate in that VERY open process. There's no going back. Agencies have been working with billions in federal funds to get on these standards as they came on line. At this point we're waiting on the final mandatory compliance date. What they're currently working on is the credentialing system via agency issued FEMA standard smart cards.

You understand me when I say this is out of CAP's hands & already a done & very quickly approaching deal that'll put us out of business if we aren't fully up to speed?

You understand that we have no choice as to what the standards are?

We can comply with this or we can get out of the ES business. That's your choices.

So, now you can tell me about we need to maintain member morale by having lax standards cause we don't want to lose so many people we become inoperable. We already are almost inoperable & about to be completely there & it's beyond our control.

What I'm saying on the big picture is teams are only as capable as their weakest link & orgs are judged by the whole org, not the one team they may or may not be able to put out there. I don't like the idea of telling people we can't use their help, but there has to be some kind of line in the sand cause right now most of the emergency response community is telling CAP they can't use our help either at all or for anything more serious than door to door surveys well after the fact.

We got enormous resources that most states & agencies can't put in the field. We got some really talented people, and I really believe in the volunteer spirit that exists in our country. I think CAP has the great potential to bring those things together & make a huge difference. However, I think we're being held back because of some of our own decisions.

[jimmydeanno]

We've transitioned... you're talking about operational needs, ie: training required to meet a standard to operate (NIMS courses, etc) versus people personal biases towards others...that's what I was bringing up.

We can still complete our missions without excluding people based off personal biases and our own membership creating false standards for people that don't line up with our core values or the organizations mission.  If we were expected to all hold degrees and spend 20 hours a week to meet the minimum standards to be involved and feel 'needed' we would no longer be an organization that would enable average citizens to serve their communities with us.

Things I'm talking about are things like:

1) The potential member report getting sent to squadrons and those people never being contacted.
2) Potential members showing up and being told 'they're not needed.'
3) People joining and being told they have no use for them because they only show up once a month.
4) People making assumptions about others experiences and skills.
5) Thinking of ways to further segregate our membership into different classes.

I'm not talking about "we should let everyone do GT that hasn't completed the training to make them feel good."

[flyguy06]

You're forgetting that there is also the same clique mentality in the regular armed forces.

Show me a wing commander (other than medical wings...ie Wilford Hall) thats not a pilot.  If they are out there, I am sure the comparison puts them very very much in the minority.

mk

The Wing Commander at Air Force Basic Training is a Security Forces Colonel. befoe her wasa Combat Control Colonel. Neither were pilots. A Mission Support Group Commander is generally not a pilot. Neither is the Maintence Commander

[flyguy06]

I will admit that I am a military guy and Ilike CAP because it is psuedo military. I am in CAP for the cades. I want to make a difference in my community. That being said. I always wear a military CAP uniform when I am working with the cadets. My philosophy is how can I enforce the uniform and grooming standard to the cadets if I dont meet them myself. That to me is hypocritical.

Now I agree that CAP does create cliques and that is wrong. I think with a change in membership, you get a change in focus. If DNall were the national CC you would probably see a lot of agreements with FEMA and DHS and things like that. If I were the National CC you would see a closer relationship withthe USAF and more cadet flying activities.

It just depends on the culture of who is incharge. And you find that in the military, in business, and in government. The leaders determine the culture of the organization. Right now, CAP is in a state of change. we are transforming leaders.

So, again, I dont think its neccessarily discrimination. Its just the culture of that particular unit. I know a Senore Squadron that is filled with pilots, so the culture of that unit is going to be more flying based. They are one of the premeire Mission aircrew units inthe Wing. My Squadron is located in the inner city, so we talk a lot about the Tuskegee Airmen, Bessie Colman and others. You probably wont get that in other units. Its just the culture we are in.

[DNall]

We've transitioned... you're talking about operational needs, ie: training required to meet a standard to operate (NIMS courses, etc)....

We haven't transitioned. NB is about to vote on NIMS compliance. That's the equiv of GES. It still doesn't allow you to do anything. See also this link for WSAR (last few pages) which is GT standards:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/sar_jobtitle_111806.pdf

I'm not talking about "we should let everyone do GT that hasn't completed the training to make them feel good."

I understand what you're saying. I'm citing an example of where being inclusive is not appropriate, yet where CAP has fought compliance so they could stay inclusive cause they don't want to lose members ($).

That's ES, lets put that aside for a minute.... I got a member in my unit made a 4 on the ASVAB & it isn't cause he tests badly. Yet he's a 2Lt, CAP DL, BCUT, GTL. My CC doesn't have basis to deny him promotion or ES quals, and doing so on the basis of physical/mental disability would get him in some serious trouble. So, I'm stuck with this guy that's disruptive in mtgs, had to be assigned away from cadets because of his behavior/influence, etc. But, as a senior member who has completed lvl I, according to regs he's fully trusted with the legal fate of the org in a supervisory capacity. How do I deal with that? How much of my highly limited resources do I take away from my cadet program to keep this guy in occupied & supervised seperate from them? I might feel bad about it later, but I don't have time to babysit. I'd lie to be able to tell that guy his help isn't needed, but CAP is a big tent org.

I'm still giving you finite examples though, right? If a member behaves with professionalism, demonstrates a high degree of competence, and presents a professional appearance... then I'm mostly okay with them. If you weight 300lbs though, I'm gonna tell you exactly why I won't allow you to train for aircrew, maybe GT either for that matter.

[DNall]

My philosophy is how can I enforce the uniform and grooming standard to the cadets if I dont meet them myself. That to me is hypocritical.

My philosophy as well.

I think with a change in membership, you get a change in focus. If DNall were the national CC you would probably see a lot of agreements with FEMA and DHS and things like that. If I were the National CC you would see a closer relationship withthe USAF and more cadet flying activities.

All of the above? I'd absolutely re-militarize CAP to a degree & build much much stronger ties w/ AF over a large range of issues. That said, DHS/FEMA are lead agency in domestic SaR/DR/HLS. CAP tried to ride the mil exemption when they thought it'd let them ignore the standards & play anyway. AF decided to comply voluntarily so CAP has no choice. I'm highly in favor of that. I think it moves us from boyscouts w/ airplanes to a serious team member able to make a real contribution, and I think membership will reflect that.

[jimmydeanno]

We've transitioned... you're talking about operational needs, ie: training required to meet a standard to operate (NIMS courses, etc)....

We haven't transitioned. NB is about to vote on NIMS compliance. That's the equiv of GES. It still doesn't allow you to do anything. See also this link for WSAR (last few pages) which is GT standards:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/sar_jobtitle_111806.pdf

I meant the topic has transitioned from the original message to operational training needs.