CAP Talk

From: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=12556.msg228944

Quote from: Ed Bos on March 31, 2011, 08:50:54 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on March 31, 2011, 03:05:21 AM
I agree 100%, however during my wing's last SUI, the inspectors made a fair deal about the fact that 000 was the second largest unit
in the wing.  Apparently they would prefer these members be "patroned" instead of sit in 000, because some loopholes in the 60-series and
other regs basically allow for these members to be ES and pilot aircraft active without any command supervision or responsibility.

Pardon this little bit of thread drift, but I was curious about this situation during your SUI.

I hadn't heard about folks being concerned about XX-000 members participating in ES. Was it CAP or CAP-USAF folks that brought that to your attention?

I think a protocol to suspend the ES qualifications of the inactive members in XX-000 would be appropriate. Anyone have thoughts on the matter? Does this merit its own thread?

Didn't see this until now, sorry.  Not sure who made noise about it, but it was certainly a topic of conversation.  I agree that members in 000 should automatically have all of their ES quals suspended, including flight privileges, until such time that they find a new squadron, if for no other reason than
an offt-ignored tenet of our program is that unit CC's are ultimately responsible for the participation and behavior of sll of their members, and 000 units don't have commanders (by design), so there is no oversight of these members whatsoever.

The problem is that program has no allowance for unit membership being a precept of ES qualifications, and suspension of flight privileges has very specific circumstances and procedures.  Until that changes, members can continue to ride their existing quals, 5's, and 91's, until at least the next year when they expire and need a CC's approval for the check rides or qual updates.

Is it really a big problem that members in the "000" unit come out of the woodwork to participate in ES activities? 

This kind of conversation reoccurs from time to time however, nothing much comes from it as, no one has come up with statistics indicating it is a problem in CAP.  By definition, this "unit" is for inactive members.

There was a problem in PAWG years ago with a certain group who did not want to participate in a unit or any other activity except for 10 days in July....
We ended up chartering a unit just for them and found a commander who would "take care" of these members.  It was amazing how active they became with a little coaxing. >:D

Quote from: FW on April 28, 2011, 07:20:46 PM
Is it really a big problem that members in the "000" unit come out of the woodwork to participate in ES activities? 

This isn't an issue of "coming out of the woodwork" - this is an issue of members who don't "work and play well with others"
who wind up homeless but still holding flight and other quals, or members who are only interested in participating in
specific activities and can't be bothered to keep current.  The end result is that instead of discouraging their bad behavior by
telling them to "knock it off or find another sandbox", they wind up being able to basically do whatever they want with no
one to rein them in.

Lighting up random charters isn't an option anymore as they are subject to the same SUI rules as all the others, which
means that a unit that "can't be bothered", would likely be stood down which beings us back to where we started...

Technically, I don't see why you couldn't appoint a commander and other positions in the 000 squadron to oversee such things.  As far as I'm aware it is no different than any other CAP squadron.  Never seen a regulation specific to the 000 (usually known as "XX Wing Headquarters Squadron").   

That being said, if someone is active enough to want to use their ES and other quals then they need to be in a "real" squadron.  So, I'd be on board with suspending ES and flight quals. 

The larger question is whether or not we really need the 000 units anymore now that we have patron status available for use in these cases. 

Quote from: RiverAux on April 28, 2011, 09:05:47 PM
The larger question is whether or not we really need the 000 units anymore now that we have patron status available for use in these cases.

I agree.  I think shifting them to a patron status handles all of the issues and what if's that may be brought up.  I would like to see a reg that authorizes commanders to make the move or at least criteria for changing someone's membership status.

Quote from: SARDOC on April 28, 2011, 09:13:46 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on April 28, 2011, 09:05:47 PM
The larger question is whether or not we really need the 000 units anymore now that we have patron status available for use in these cases.

I agree.  I think shifting them to a patron status handles all of the issues and what if's that may be brought up.  I would like to see a reg that authorizes commanders to make the move or at least criteria for changing someone's membership status.

Works for me as well.  000 is nothing more than a place to park people when you refuse to have the uncomfortable conversation.

Currently no authorization is required to put someone in patron status, nor even the concurrence of the member, you simply send the form to NHQ.

Quote from: Eclipse on April 28, 2011, 07:30:29 PM
Lighting up random charters isn't an option anymore as they are subject to the same SUI rules as all the others, which
means that a unit that "can't be bothered", would likely be stood down which beings us back to where we started...

Obviously, I wasn't clear.  Forming a unit for certain individuals who only wanted to selectively participate in 1 special activity was not a "random" event.  It was done, not only to "encourage" more participation in these members but, to keep them current in their qualifications.  It was very successful.

An "000" unit, IMHO, has a purpose.  It should be used as a temporary placement for members "in transition".  I also agree that chronic inactive members should be reclassified as Patrons however, it should be done after no other alternative can be found to get them active; in an active unit.

Quote from: FW on April 29, 2011, 12:42:18 AMAn "000" unit, IMHO, has a purpose.  It should be used as a temporary placement for members "in transition".  I also agree that chronic inactive members should be reclassified as Patrons however, it should be done after no other alternative can be found to get them active; in an active unit.

Point taken on your first comment, though still, that just encourages people who treat CAP like their personal club where they can come and go as they please.  The "pay" for the fun, is grabbing your corner of the "not fun" once in a while.

To the second comment, why would anyone in a CAP context, ever be "in transition"?  Transition to where?

There are other reasons to be in -000 other than issues with the member.   I was transferred to -000 while I was in Iraq since I was unable to attend mandatory in-person safety briefings.  I had just re-qualified almost all my quals before I left; I would have been pretty annoyed if they had been revoked.   

To piggy back on what Joe said, I was transferred from 001 to 000 simply because I was heading off to BMT and wouldn't be able to complete the online safety briefing for the month of March (was able to slide it in during Feb thanks to some crappy weather).  Does that mean everything of mine should have been suspended?  I personally don't think so.

That's a pretty bogus reason to be transferred to triple-zero.

Quote from: Tim Medeiros on April 29, 2011, 01:48:38 AM
To piggy back on what Joe said, I was transferred from 001 to 000 simply because I was heading off to BMT and wouldn't be able to complete the online safety briefing for the month of March (was able to slide it in during Feb thanks to some crappy weather).  Does that mean everything of mine should have been suspended?  I personally don't think so.

Transfering you out of the unit for just a month?  Surely a better option could have been found. 

QuoteI had just re-qualified almost all my quals before I left; I would have been pretty annoyed if they had been revoked.   

Note that the suggestion was to suspend them.  Return to the country, get them reactivated.  No big deal. 

If members become more active and keep current, we should be satisfied.  The group/wing commander insures the squadron commander is keeping things in order and SUI requirements are handled.

"Transition"  is any temporary circumstance which requires you to be inactive and "out of touch". Patron status is a more permanent or long term "solution" to inactivity.  Removal of membership status is for those who fail to conform to any standard of "participation"; especially when they don't wish to play by the rules and agreements made when they joined.

The point of my original post was to say that 000 unit members are there because they DON'T participate.  Qualifications should not be a factor nor, should be a concern.  Members who participate in "the fun" part of CAP are not in 000 units by definition...  The few who need the "uncomfortable conversation"  should have it.  As leaders, it is our responsibility to conduct it.

Quote from: RiverAux on April 29, 2011, 02:04:30 AM

Quote from: Tim Medeiros on April 29, 2011, 01:48:38 AM
To piggy back on what Joe said, I was transferred from 001 to 000 simply because I was heading off to BMT and wouldn't be able to complete the online safety briefing for the month of March (was able to slide it in during Feb thanks to some crappy weather).  Does that mean everything of mine should have been suspended?  I personally don't think so.

Transfering you out of the unit for just a month?  Surely a better option could have been found.

Was actually 2 months, just non-current on my safety for a month thanks to how the expirations work (I would have been current for the wing CI too).  Another thing that would have been nice is a notification other than me getting home from MEPS because my flight to BMT got cancelled (weather was fun that week) and logging into eServices only to see 000 on the screen.

Quote from: Eclipse on April 28, 2011, 09:49:45 PM

Quote from: SARDOC on April 28, 2011, 09:13:46 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on April 28, 2011, 09:05:47 PM
The larger question is whether or not we really need the 000 units anymore now that we have patron status available for use in these cases.

I agree.  I think shifting them to a patron status handles all of the issues and what if's that may be brought up.  I would like to see a reg that authorizes commanders to make the move or at least criteria for changing someone's membership status.

Works for me as well.  000 is nothing more than a place to park people when you refuse to have the uncomfortable conversation.

Currently no authorization is required to put someone in patron status, nor even the concurrence of the member, you simply send the form to NHQ.

The folks I know of that were transfered to the 000 unit were the ones who refused to have the conversation. If the member won't return calls, won't return emails, and has moved and didn't bother to update their physical address (physical address and mailiing address are not always the same) for CAP, but always renews, what do you do? Several members made every effort short of maintaining a vigil on their homes (or where we thought their homes were) to no avail.

It is interesting that we talk about the XX-000 squadron as a place we shove people who are not active.....we shove them there because we are too busy to do our job of tracking these people down.

Now we are talking about appointing commanders for these units and managing their records/qualifications/et al?

Guys it is simple.

If bozo has not shown up for a year....but he keeps paying his dues....but because he does not do anything else safety/cpp/ethics what ever and he is causing you to take hits on the SUI.....you send him a letter...."you have 90 days to complete XYZ or you will be 2b'ed...have a nice day".

If Bozo is in active....are we really he may still have active ES quals?  If he is inactive....then he will not be safety current.....and therefore can't sign into a mission base, enter information into WMRS, or get into Eservices.

If Bozo is showing up for ES stuff or trying to fly your aircraft....then by definition he is not inactive.

If Bozo is a member "at large" because he has pissed off all his local squadrons....then maybe he just needs to be 2b'ed.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 29, 2011, 05:54:40 AM
Now we are talking about appointing commanders for these units and managing their records/qualifications/et al?

Actually, I just said that it was possible, not that I was in favor of it. 

QuoteIf bozo has not shown up for a year....but he keeps paying his dues....but because he does not do anything else safety/cpp/ethics what ever and he is causing you to take hits on the SUI.....you send him a letter...."you have 90 days to complete XYZ or you will be 2b'ed...have a nice day".

So, its better to kick such people out of the organization rather than moving them to a status where they still provide some level of financial support to CAP but otherwise don't require any time to manage (either in 000 or as a patron)?  Not sure how that is in our best interests. 

000 is not the place to put people who have legitimate reasons to be temporarily inactive.  If its a few months, then they can just sit on the books
and not play until they get active, if you're going to BMT and will be gone for a year, then you go Patron.

The more this is talked through, the more I see 000 should be eliminated, and you're either active, patron, or out.  In our context there is no reason to be anything else.

Quote from: RiverAux on April 29, 2011, 11:37:01 AMSo, its better to kick such people out of the organization rather than moving them to a status where they still provide some level of financial support to CAP but otherwise don't require any time to manage (either in 000 or as a patron)?  Not sure how that is in our best interests.

Putting them in patron status allows these people to continue their "financial support" of CAP without being an administrative burden to a unit, nor conferring them the full benefit of CAP membership. Members should not be allowed to maintain their full active status, including uniform and other privileges of membership, purely for writing a check.

Quote from: RiverAux on April 29, 2011, 11:37:01 AMSo, its better to kick such people out of the organization rather than moving them to a status where they still provide some level of financial support to CAP but otherwise don't require any time to manage (either in 000 or as a patron)?  Not sure how that is in our best interests.

Yes. 

Cut the dead wood.  If he wants to be a patron then let them make the effort.  I got better things to do getting the SUI off my back then begging non-players to do their required training.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 29, 2011, 05:45:26 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on April 29, 2011, 11:37:01 AMSo, its better to kick such people out of the organization rather than moving them to a status where they still provide some level of financial support to CAP but otherwise don't require any time to manage (either in 000 or as a patron)?  Not sure how that is in our best interests.

Yes. 

Cut the dead wood.  If he wants to be a patron then let them make the effort.  I got better things to do getting the SUI off my back then begging non-players to do their required training.

I think one needs to be careful about what members one cuts from the rolls in the unit.   There are some people in a unit that may do something only once a year (or may be a go to person that know the right people to get something done with the least amount of hassle, When the unit needs the help, on a random basis) but that may be very important to the unit.  All this administrative training mumbo jumbo input into the computer is foolish anyways.  You can send someone (actually everyone) a one page summary "talking paper" for safety training once a month (EXCEPTION actual & training missions they DO get an in person briefing detailing potential safety issues) and for the yearly EO etc, another talking paper email.   The commander only has the obligation to notify the member that they need to take those briefings and training.

IF National still allows them to renew each year as an active member, than that decision has already been made, to keep them on the roll, hasn't it ???   Remember this is a VOLUNTEER organization called CIVIL Air Patrol.  No one is in the military and frankly IF they know they might be limited as to what they can do than I would think the unit CC has fulfilled his/her requirements.  Of course in CAP's world of fantasy statistics surely 100% compliance will make those "career CAP'er officers" look great, but honestly get real with expectations  ::) :angel: 
RM     

Of course....and those people would not be transfered to the 000 squadron.

I got plenty of people who never show up for meetings...but do thing behind the scenes or once in a blue moon.  They also always answer the mail and do their required training.

I am talking about the true dead....only pays dues....members....and I got a few of those too.

We send them their letters, give them time to get their training done or 2b the.

I don't care about what national does.  National cannot make a squadron accept a member.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 29, 2011, 05:45:26 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on April 29, 2011, 11:37:01 AMSo, its better to kick such people out of the organization rather than moving them to a status where they still provide some level of financial support to CAP but otherwise don't require any time to manage (either in 000 or as a patron)?  Not sure how that is in our best interests.

Yes. 

Cut the dead wood.  If he wants to be a patron then let them make the effort.  I got better things to do getting the SUI off my back then begging non-players to do their required training.

It would actually take more effort on your part to 2b them than it would be to transfer them to patron status or send them to 000 so I'm not sure why you're so anxious to get rid of them. 

Also, I would think that if you  2b'd them they would have access to the appeals process making this a potentially ugly affair for someone who may have just missed a few meetings.  I would think that you'd want to hold 2B's for someone who has done something a little more wrong than just subjectively identified as "deadwood"  I would still send them to Patron and encourage and recruit them back into becoming a more productive member of the unit rather then terminate their membership forever.

If they wanted to appeal.....then they would do their required training and they would not be inactive.

My point is that we make an attempt to get them back active or we cut them out.

If they want to go patron....let them.....if not then we cut out the dead wood.

It is a whole lot easier to do a 2b on an inactive member then it is to try to keep them current with all the training requirements NHQ has imposed on us.

Back to the OP.......suspending OPS QAULS for inactive members and appointing someone at wing to manage all the dead weight in the 000 squadron is counter productive.

If individual squadrons don't mind manageing the inactives....then good on them.  At my squadron we simply contact the inactive members tell them what they have to do and when they have to do it by......or we send them their 2b.

The question is, can the Safety Briefing be done by a unit email? This would be the simplist way to get safety information to all members of a Squadron. Since most units send out meeting notices or other emails a Safety Briefing could be done and the Commander just check the box

Quote from: BillB on April 30, 2011, 09:01:28 AM
The question is, can the Safety Briefing be done by a unit email? This would be the simplist way to get safety information to all members of a Squadron. Since most units send out meeting notices or other emails a Safety Briefing could be done and the Commander just check the box

Basically it's "the method" that is causing the problems for units and not necessarily the information that is presented. At our squadron safety briefings as far as interactions go it varies greatly, sometimes they are like "deers in the headlights" and other times some may get too gabby and will need to be cut off to keep everyone on schedule.

I don't think the AF is requiring their personnel to sign onto a computer once a month for safety training but instead relies on just typical bulletin board type activities for general safety type items.  I know when we ran "Commander's Call" in the AF monthly, a safety topic was also provided at that time.   HOWEVER, if there's a specific maintenance or operational issue via a safety notification or change to a technical order, than of course the individuals concerned are going to be specifically briefed and there likely is some sort of documentation kept at the local level.   Additionally, in maintenance shop or aircraft specific safety training is likely documented in some sort of record system showing attendees.  Of course we are talking about paid personnel.
RM 

Quote from: lordmonar on April 30, 2011, 05:57:58 AM
If they wanted to appeal.....then they would do their required training and they would not be inactive.

My point is that we make an attempt to get them back active or we cut them out.

If they want to go patron....let them.....if not then we cut out the dead wood.

It is a whole lot easier to do a 2b on an inactive member then it is to try to keep them current with all the training requirements NHQ has imposed on us.

Back to the OP.......suspending OPS QAULS for inactive members and appointing someone at wing to manage all the dead weight in the 000 squadron is counter productive.

If individual squadrons don't mind manageing the inactives....then good on them.  At my squadron we simply contact the inactive members tell them what they have to do and when they have to do it by......or we send them their 2b.

I hope you are using the procedures outlined in CAPR 35-5.
For anything other than voluntary resignation for Senior Members, you will need to follow para. 6b.
If they appeal, follow Section D.
There is no guarantee that they will still do the training if they appeal.

It seems much simpler to use a CAPF 2a and transfer to Patron Status, and then if they decide to complete the training, to transfer them back to active status if desired.

 

Simpler is not always the right answer.

My point is and always has been.......you get into contact with your in active members....."Hey! Where have you been?  Listen, if you still want to be part of CAP you need to accomplish XYZ by 1 July.  If you don't want to be part of CAP or don't want to do the training we will terminate your membership".

It is not like the first thing they hear from us in over a year is "here's your 2b....have a nice day."

Quote
Posted by: lordmonar
« on: Today at 12:29:31 PM »Insert Quote


Simpler is not always the right answer.

My point is and always has been.......you get into contact with your in active members....."Hey! Where have you been?  Listen, if you still want to be part of CAP you need to accomplish XYZ by 1 July.  If you don't want to be part of CAP or don't want to do the training we will terminate your membership".

It is not like the first thing they hear from us in over a year is "here's your 2b....have a nice day."

Transfer them to Patron status - many of them want to continue supporting CAP through dues payment. I sure don't want to turn down their money and any positive things they say to others.

^ I agree.  Transferring a member who only wishes to pay dues every year to Patron Status seems to be the best idea.  It keeps us with a positive cash flow and, a member who is less likely to become "disgruntled". 

Question - what are the Patron dues?

IIRC, they only pay national dues, so the region and wing no longer receives the financial benefit.

Quote from: SarDragon on May 01, 2011, 01:44:40 AM
Question - what are the Patron dues?

IIRC, they only pay national dues, so the region and wing no longer receives the financial benefit.

Patron dues are $35...and technically they become members of the National Patron Squadron...so I would think that Yes the Region and Wing would no longer receive the benefit.  But the member would be able to maintain their grade and not have to resubmit a fingerprint card if they decided to become active again.  I think it's a great option for people who for one reason or another become inactive but may consider it again when their work or life situation improves...instead of being permanently barred from reentry because some overzealous commander decided that your prior service isn't deserving of some consideration creating a disgruntled member.

Patron dues are the same as active member dues. Members in the National Patron Squadron pay National Dues of $35. Patron members in other units pay the amount of dues set for active members in their wing.

OK. Thanks for the answer.

Interesting Sardoc and whoever's reply are completely opposite. One says Patrons pay National dues only, the other says National plus wing and region. One is correct answer, the other is mistaken. which is which?

It depends on who the patron belongs to. If to NHQ99?, then it's apparently only $35. If to a local unit, then full dues are paid. I know my dues were only the NHQ figure when I belonged to NHQ113.

QuoteThere was a problem in PAWG years ago with a certain group who did not want to participate in a unit or any other activity except for 10 days in July....

3101.....

Would that really be a problem even for other wings....I can see a place for this as a wing level sort of squadron.  Some wings have re-occuring activites that require certain specialties or even more specific certain individuals; ie highly specialized instructors.  They may not have the time/ability to be part of or provide meaningful contribution to a local level unit; does that mean that the rest of the wing should suffer the loss of thier specialty... things like Water Survival instructors or NIMS instructors come to mind or a cadet programs personnel that just run/support wing leadership programs and encampments.  (or would you just make them an assistant to the assistant (etc) to one of the 20-1 approved postions. 

I know for example (sorry in PA.....) of some (very) specialized instructors that their home commander required attendance at weekly meetings (they didnt have a squadron job or even any duties for them there, but they had to show up.....) otherwise no partcipation at HMRS.  (the wing and the school suffer....)

mk

Patron members pay all dues of the unit they are assigned.  They are financial supporters of the unit.  ref; CAPR 39-2

Quote from: SARDOC on May 01, 2011, 02:14:58 AM

Quote from: SarDragon on May 01, 2011, 01:44:40 AM
Question - what are the Patron dues?

IIRC, they only pay national dues, so the region and wing no longer receives the financial benefit.

Patron dues are $35...and technically they become members of the National Patron Squadron...

No, they do not. 

Patron membership does not change the unit of assignment, including the local unit's requirement to maintain their records as
long as that membership is "active".   This is one of the reasons 000 units have swollen, because in most cases units do not
have local dues which run through NHQ, mostly that is only wings, so the only advantage to a patron membership, to CAP,
is at the wing level, yet the onus on maintaining records is on the unit of assignment.

Ergo, if wing gets the only advantage of their membership, they go to 000 or 001 as patrons.

The trouble, as previously mentioned, starts when a wing's CI uncovers 100 empty shirts in 000 without the required documentation.
One can make the argument that personnel jackets on patron and inactive members are unnecessary, but that doesn't change the
regulation.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 01, 2011, 01:30:06 PM

Quote from: SARDOC on May 01, 2011, 02:14:58 AM

Quote from: SarDragon on May 01, 2011, 01:44:40 AM
Question - what are the Patron dues?

IIRC, they only pay national dues, so the region and wing no longer receives the financial benefit.

Patron dues are $35...and technically they become members of the National Patron Squadron...

No, they do not. 

Patron membership does not change the unit of assignment, including the local unit's requirement to maintain their records as
long as that membership is "active".   This is one of the reasons 000 units have swollen, because in most cases units do not
have local dues which run through NHQ, mostly that is only wings, so the only advantage to a patron membership, to CAP,
is at the wing level, yet the onus on maintaining records is on the unit of assignment.

Ergo, if wing gets the only advantage of their membership, they go to 000 or 001 as patrons.

The trouble, as previously mentioned, starts when a wing's CI uncovers 100 empty shirts in 000 without the required documentation.
One can make the argument that personnel jackets on patron and inactive members are unnecessary, but that doesn't change the
regulation.

Well if they follow the process that is found in CAPR 39-2

3) Transfers to patron member status will be submitted to National Headquarters on CAPF 2a.  Section II, Duty
Assignment/Status Change, will be used, i.e., transfer from "Active Status" to "Patron Status." The original copy will be
forwarded directly to National Headquarters and the file copy placed in the members' personnel file.  Members desiring to
transfer back to active status will use the same procedure.   NOTE: Patrons transferring to active status who have not
previously completed the FBI screening procedures must include a FD Form 258 with the CAPF 2a. 

As well as the process published on their website


2.   Current CAP Member -  You can transfer your membership to the National Patron Squadron.  Simply have your commander submit a CAP Form 2A and transfer from your current squadron to charter number NHQ 996.  No extra dues are required and when your renewal is due, you will be charged $35.00.   Current members (not yet expired) who transfer into the National Patron Squadron retain their grade.

If you want to return to active status at a later date, you can transfer to a local squadron.  If you had no break in service, you will not be required to undergo an additional FBI screening provided you were already screened before transferring to patron status.

Being realistic though I know the process is actually practiced differently.  We have Patron members on our squadron books but I can't find anything in the regulations that actually state that as an option.  According to the Regs all Patron members are members of the National Patron Squadron and I can't find anything to the contrary.  I think the current process of leaving the member assigned to the original unit is a matter of administrative convenience and actually not in accordance with the established policies.

Quote from: SARDOC on May 01, 2011, 03:10:42 PMAccording to the Regs all Patron members are members of the National Patron Squadron and I can't find anything to the contrary.  I think the current process of leaving the member assigned to the original unit is a matter of administrative convenience and actually not in accordance with the established policies.

You may be right, but I can't find anything which states Patrons are, by design, supposed to go to 996, either.

The fact that you can go to 996 doesn't mean you have to.  996 was created during the tenure of HWSRN as some sort of weird "supporter" unit, not the home of all Patrons, especially when patrons can actually join at the unit level.

A member has the option of transferring to NHQ996.  This unit was actually formed during the Bowling administration and the formation of the "Pre MARB".  as a way to bring back members who were "non renewed" or 2D'd. 
Any unit can have a Patron member assigned to it.  It's a good way for inactive members to support their "home" unit without going into "000" or resigning all together. 

CAPR 39-2's requirement that a 2a must be submitted is a transfer of status; not of unit, which is optional as stated above.

Quote'...a great way to support their "home" unit..'

except when higher HQ is breathing and spitting fire over reports showing non-currency without looking at the member type, thus missing the fact that they are patron members.

The membership classes are not in sync with the requirements, and the XX-000 thing is just another example. When you have IC's operating out of 000, and the general rank and file knows (thinks) that 000 is the penal colony, what does that say to them?

It's happened.

According to NHQ, members of XX-000 are considered Patron members and cannot participate in missions. If you have ICs operating out of XX-000 and IMU or WMIRS are permitting them to participate, then I suggest you send the details of the problem to the contact for the application that is letting that happen.

Quote from: peter rabbit on May 02, 2011, 11:22:09 PM
According to NHQ, members of XX-000 are considered Patron members and cannot participate in missions. If you have ICs operating out of XX-000 and IMU or WMIRS are permitting them to participate, then I suggest you send the details of the problem to the contact for the application that is letting that happen.

No, they aren't, at least not by regulation, which in fact says differently in regards to what, specifically, can be used to suspend
a member's quals.

As of today, there is no connection between unit membership and active status.  This isn't an issue of random exceptions, this is
a program-wide issue that will require regulatory change as well as command will.

There was a proposal at the 2010 summer boards to make a XX-99X squadron to hold those who simply had expired quals, but were not candidates for Patron membership.  IIRC, it was sent to comittee/NHQ staff for further development.

In making the remark that started this thread, I was suggesting that the Wing (or higher echelon) Commander of the XX-000 unit involved take a look at the members assigned to the "ghost unit" and adjust the ES Qualifications accordingly.

This could easily be done via a policy letter that says members transferred to XX-000 for non-participation will have their ES qualifications indefinitely suspended.

This still allows for participating members that are assigned to XX-000 for whatever-extraordinary-reason to maintain their qualifications.

These members still have a commander responsible for them, so I personally don't see where an argument can successfully be made that members of XX-000 cannot or should not be able to participate in Emergency Services.

Thoughts?

Quote from: Ed Bos on May 03, 2011, 01:03:26 AMThis could easily be done via a policy letter that says members transferred to XX-000 for non-participation will have their ES qualifications indefinitely suspended.

That's the issue, a wing CC doesn't have the authority to suspend ES quals on arbitrary grounds, especially the flight quals - we beat this
up pretty hard in my wing with staff motivated to remove 000 members from flight status and the end of the conversation was "we can't".  60-1 is
very specific about the reasons you can ground someone, and don't currently include "active unit participation".  The savior is that F5's and 91's
have to be CC approved, but of course anything can be "done" in an organization where people participate at 4 different levels.

Quote from: Ed Bos on May 03, 2011, 01:03:26 AM
This still allows for participating members that are assigned to XX-000 for whatever-extraordinary-reason to maintain their qualifications.

These members still have a commander responsible for them, so I personally don't see where an argument can successfully be made that members of XX-000 cannot or should not be able to participate in Emergency Services.

Why should anyone who can't maintain the barest of minimums in a local unit (i.e. a few online briefings, and the occasional pretending you recognize a unit commander has authority over your participation), be allowed to do anything in CAP?  That is the core of the discussion.

If anything, that idea punishes the active members who wind up having to do more than their fair share just to allow the "no shows" to be able to
play once or twice a year (if that often).

Quote from: Eclipse on May 03, 2011, 01:15:35 AM

Quote from: Ed Bos on May 03, 2011, 01:03:26 AMThis could easily be done via a policy letter that says members transferred to XX-000 for non-participation will have their ES qualifications indefinitely suspended.

That's the issue, a wing CC doesn't have the authority to suspend ES quals on arbitrary grounds, especially the flight quals - we beat this
up pretty hard in my wing with staff motivated to remove 000 members from flight status and the end of the conversation was "we can't".  60-1 is
very specific about the reasons you can ground someone, and don't currently include "active unit participation".  The savior is that F5's and 91's
have to be CC approved, but of course anything can be "done" in an organization where people participate at 4 different levels.

Quote from: Ed Bos on May 03, 2011, 01:03:26 AM
This still allows for participating members that are assigned to XX-000 for whatever-extraordinary-reason to maintain their qualifications.

These members still have a commander responsible for them, so I personally don't see where an argument can successfully be made that members of XX-000 cannot or should not be able to participate in Emergency Services.

Why should anyone who can't maintain the barest of minimums in a local unit (i.e. a few online briefings, and the occasional pretending you recognize a unit commander has authority over your participation), be allowed to do anything in CAP?  That is the core of the discussion.

If anything, that idea punishes the active members who wind up having to do more than their fair share just to allow the "no shows" to be able to
play once or twice a year (if that often).

I have also seen 000 referred to as the member-at-large squadron. We have large chunks of the state with no squadron - why should those who can contribute but live 2 hours from their  closest squadron not be allowed to contribute to ES?

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on May 03, 2011, 01:45:36 AMI have also seen 000 referred to as the member-at-large squadron.

You heard incorrect, and perhaps that misconception is part of the problem.  The old 235 unit in our wing was a holding squadron with an actual CC,
and that was dissolved in favor of 000.  000 is not intended for "members at large" whatever that means.

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on May 03, 2011, 01:45:36 AM
We have large chunks of the state with no squadron - why should those who can contribute but live 2 hours from their  closest squadron not be allowed to contribute to ES?

Because, despite foibles and challenges, CAP has a standard of training and proficiency we are selling to the USAF and our customers, a standard which the Unit CC is supposed to be the center of in terms of the maintenance and integrity of that standard.  Allowing people to wander in, out, and around imperils that standard and results in the situation we have - people with no clue as to the current state of operations showing up unannounced at missions and other activities with all their quals expired, online compliance out of date, and other certification issues, and expecting the base staff
to fix their problems for them (problems which are supposed to be the responsibility of a local unit CC, not a Group, Wing or incident CC).

No one says those members have to give up CAP, nor not participate, but if they are so disconnected as to not be able to stay off the compliance reports, then they are likely of little to no value to CAP anyway.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 03, 2011, 01:15:35 AM

Quote from: Ed Bos on May 03, 2011, 01:03:26 AMThis could easily be done via a policy letter that says members transferred to XX-000 for non-participation will have their ES qualifications indefinitely suspended.

That's the issue, a wing CC doesn't have the authority to suspend ES quals on arbitrary grounds, especially the flight quals - we beat this
up pretty hard in my wing with staff motivated to remove 000 members from flight status and the end of the conversation was "we can't".  60-1 is
very specific about the reasons you can ground someone, and don't currently include "active unit participation".  The savior is that F5's and 91's
have to be CC approved, but of course anything can be "done" in an organization where people participate at 4 different levels.

Quote from: Ed Bos on May 03, 2011, 01:03:26 AM
This still allows for participating members that are assigned to XX-000 for whatever-extraordinary-reason to maintain their qualifications.

These members still have a commander responsible for them, so I personally don't see where an argument can successfully be made that members of XX-000 cannot or should not be able to participate in Emergency Services.

Why should anyone who can't maintain the barest of minimums in a local unit (i.e. a few online briefings, and the occasional pretending you recognize a unit commander has authority over your participation), be allowed to do anything in CAP?  That is the core of the discussion.

If anything, that idea punishes the active members who wind up having to do more than their fair share just to allow the "no shows" to be able to
play once or twice a year (if that often).

Well, the 2 subjects you're bringing up are:

1) Commander's don't have discretion with regard to mission and/or pilot participation privledges; and

2) Why do the schlubs who don't have to do all the paperwork 11 months out of the year get away with only doing the fun stuff?

My opinion is that:

A) Commanders can suspend ES and/or flight privileges because of non-participation. The fact they have to endorse the qualifications in the first place tells me that they can revoke their endorsement. CAPR 35-2, Para 1-4a states, "a.
To obey the decisions of those in authority and to follow and adhere to the appropriate regulations and the Constitution and Bylaws of the Civil Air Patrol."

While commander's can't arbitrarily revoke privileges willynilly, they do have the obligation to ensure their subordinates are safe, proficient, and show good judgment. No one can show those things if they're never around to do so.

B) It's still a volunteer organization. As long as someone can give some of their time and they maintain their currencies, who should determine what the appropriate threshold for someone's "fair share?" If they're competent, qualified, and can share some of the load when they're called upon, I wouldn't care if they only participate for the same few activities each year.

I honestly see your point regarding both of these subjects, but I disagree with your analysis of the particulars.

A) I'm with you, on this, but the regs aren't, for starters because there are two types of members in 000
1 - The ner-do-wells, who got kicked from their home squadron for being a PITA, but not a PITA at the level of getting a disciplinary action - so
those members are likely keeping up to the regulatory minimums to maintain currency.

2 - Those who can't be bothered except for "when they feel like it", that cause the administrative and compliance headaches for commanders.

Under the program it is extremely difficult to dis-qual #1 above, and those are the ones that are really the issue.

B) If they are maintaining the bare-minimum qual, then they aren't really a problem, though to your example, it should be up to the unit CC to determine
what "fair share" means, not the individual member.  Falling back on the "we're volunteers" mantra helps no one but the once-a-year-players.

Everyone has "life issues", and sometimes CAP eats itself (when people fail to use a calendar and plan the whole year in one month), but despite that,
most wings have about 1/3 their membership doing the heavy lifting, and everyone else just rides their efforts.

Two other types in 000
1.  Folks who have disappeared and are no longer active at all (probably the majority) and who were transferred out of the squadrons to avoid some of the issues previously discussed. 
2.  Folks who are basically "retired", but haven't actually gone to retired status yet.  I know we've got at least one ancient wing commander and maybe a WWII vet or two in there.  I used to keep a few like that on my squadron rolls just for the sake of their history with the organization.  Made my personnel officer mad because he always liked to clean house.  Seems like sort of a slap in the face to "patron" these sort of long-time active people who just don't have the ability anymore, but may want to come to a wing conference in uniform every now and again.

I personally have never seen or heard of anyone in our 000 squadron even having current quals much less trying to actively participate. 

Grim reality:  For Commanders who don't have legitimate causes to terminate a member, the XX-000 serves as loop hole. Simply transfer the member you don't like (for any reason) to the unit and flag them for non-renewal. Neither have to be explained and neither can be appealed.

In reality, there is no real reason that you need these units. In fact, these units can't exist. 000 units aren't exempt from any other requirement and technically have to have a functioning program or be shut down. If you have valid grounds to suspend the member, do so. If you have valid grounds to terminate the member, do so. If you have no valid grounds for an unfavorable personnel action, act like an adult and find a way to work with him/her or... RESIGN!  After all, if you as a leader can't find a way to work with people you might not like then you're not a good leader.

Quote from: afgeo4 on July 12, 2011, 06:19:40 AM
Grim reality:  For Commanders who don't have legitimate causes to terminate a member, the XX-000 serves as loop hole. Simply transfer the member you don't like (for any reason) to the unit and flag them for non-renewal. Neither have to be explained and neither can be appealed.

In reality, there is no real reason that you need these units. In fact, these units can't exist. 000 units aren't exempt from any other requirement and technically have to have a functioning program or be shut down. If you have valid grounds to suspend the member, do so. If you have valid grounds to terminate the member, do so. If you have no valid grounds for an unfavorable personnel action, act like an adult and find a way to work with him/her or... RESIGN!  After all, if you as a leader can't find a way to work with people you might not like then you're not a good leader.

That is a misconception, it is no longer possible to "flag a member for non renewal", it was done away with , for the same reason the MARB was created, to prevent abuse.

I have transferred people from my squadron to 000, because it was the only way I could clear SUI findings, that were caused by nonactive members not having complied with mandatory training requirements like "Intro to Safety" and EO. Did I want to do it, no, but it was necessary at the time for the betterment of the unit.

Quote from: Larry Mangum on July 12, 2011, 11:14:17 AM

Quote from: afgeo4 on July 12, 2011, 06:19:40 AM
Grim reality:  For Commanders who don't have legitimate causes to terminate a member, the XX-000 serves as loop hole. Simply transfer the member you don't like (for any reason) to the unit and flag them for non-renewal. Neither have to be explained and neither can be appealed.

In reality, there is no real reason that you need these units. In fact, these units can't exist. 000 units aren't exempt from any other requirement and technically have to have a functioning program or be shut down. If you have valid grounds to suspend the member, do so. If you have valid grounds to terminate the member, do so. If you have no valid grounds for an unfavorable personnel action, act like an adult and find a way to work with him/her or... RESIGN!  After all, if you as a leader can't find a way to work with people you might not like then you're not a good leader.

That is a misconception, it is no longer possible to "flag a member for non renewal", it was done away with , for the same reason the MARB was created, to prevent abuse.

I have transferred people from my squadron to 000, because it was the only way I could clear SUI findings, that were caused by nonactive members not having complied with mandatory training requirements like "Intro to Safety" and EO. Did I want to do it, no, but it was necessary at the time for the betterment of the unit.

Not only is it still done, but it was done to me a year and a half ago. Thankfully the next CC rectified the situation and I'm back in the organization.

George, I'm glad you're back.  As Larry said; what was done to you is not allowed.  If anyone is flagged for nonrenewal today (provided they did not let their membership lapse for over 90 days), a quick letter to the MARB is all you need if you don't get satisfaction from higer levels of command. 

Any commander has the authority to transfer an inactive member to the "000" squadron however, as already explained, qualifications can not be suspended arbitrarily or without regulatory cause.

Unless your wing says "no", keep them .. and put up with all the harassment that the SUI and reports will bring for them not doing the required training.

100% compliance is not possible, and penalizing the unit for dead weight is just lame. It may work for the RM, but this isn't the same thing.

The inactive members are the "dead weight" dragging down the rest of the squadron members.  It is lame to keep penalizing the rest of the squadron for the benefit of the empty shirts.  If they don't participate (and if you don't do the minimum training, you can't participate) but pay squadron dues, then make them Patron members.  If they don't pay squadron dues, transfer them out. 

QuoteThe inactive members are the "dead weight" dragging down the rest of the squadron members.  It is lame to keep penalizing the rest of the squadron for the benefit of the empty shirts.  If they don't participate (and if you don't do the minimum training, you can't participate) but pay squadron dues, then make them Patron members.  If they don't pay squadron dues, transfer them out. 

^+1

Quote from: Eclipse on May 03, 2011, 01:15:35 AM
That's the issue, a wing CC doesn't have the authority to suspend ES quals on arbitrary grounds, especially the flight quals - we beat this up pretty hard in my wing with staff motivated to remove 000 members from flight status and the end of the conversation was "we can't".  60-1 is very specific about the reasons you can ground someone, and don't currently include "active unit participation".  The savior is that F5's and 91'shave to be CC approved, but of course anything can be "done" in an organization where people participate at 4 different levels.

I've been doing a poor job of keeping track of this thread, my apologies.

It occurred to me that I've only thought about the suspension of Mission quals, not Form-5 pilot qualifications. My interpretation of the 60-3 and the training materials is that a commander has more discretion with these than with grounding a pilot.


I agree with everyone else's thoughts about what to do with dead weight or problem members... Patron status or other appropriate action at the local commander's discretion is the way to go.

Well.....isn't the problem kind of moot?

If the person were active and keeping up their required training....then they would never be sent to the 000 squadron in the first place.

If said person were then to try to show up at a mission base.....well they would have to go home as they would be locked out of IMU due to being NON SAFETY CURRENT....and at that point only the squadron commander can get them un-locked.   So....even if their ES and Pilot quals were still up to date....they would not be able to participated.

So.....the argument is circular.  You can't revolk the qualifications simply because they don't participate.  but if they don't participate they don't need their qualifications.  If you pull their qualifications for non particpation....but then they show up to use them....then they are in fact particapting and should have the quals un-frozen.

So.....long and short of it.

Move your inactive members to patrol status or the 000 squadron.  ignore their ES and Pilot quals as it is a non player at this point.  If they decide that they want to particpate in ES....well they have get someone to switch them back to active members or transfer them to a real squadron.  Either way they will have to become current on all reqirements before they can participate in ANY CAP activitiy.

Quote from: lordmonar on July 12, 2011, 11:12:30 PMIf the person were active and keeping up their required training....then they would never be sent to the 000 squadron in the first place.

Not necessarily - I am personally aware of a number of members who were basically a huge PITA and were 000'ed
to make them go away.  We all know one or two of these guys - once a year pilots who can't be bothered, blow-hard
GOB's who always "know better", or people who are borderline insubordinate in ways that are difficult to prove in a complaint
but just as divisive.

They are capable of completing a Form 5, but not capable of working and playing well with others, so 000 they went
until they could find a home, which was generally "never".

000 has the advantage of being indisputable because a unit CC still has the right of refusal of any members, but the
disadvantage that the existing system does not automatically disqualify a member from participation or ES activity.
Anything in that direction is a Wing policy, not a national reg.

Patron status has the advantage that the minute is place, the member loses all quals and can't even wear a uniform,
but as a member action it can be appealed.

The empty shirts don't normally care or notice, it's the PITA's that are the issue.

Quote from: Eclipse on March 31, 2011, 03:05:21 AM
I agree 100%, however during my wing's last SUI, the inspectors made a fair deal about the fact that 000 was the second largest unit
in the wing.  Apparently they would prefer these members be "patroned" instead of sit in 000, because some loopholes in the 60-series and other regs basically allow for these members to be ES and pilot aircraft active without any command supervision or responsibility.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 13, 2011, 01:22:56 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on July 12, 2011, 11:12:30 PMIf the person were active and keeping up their required training....then they would never be sent to the 000 squadron in the first place.

Not necessarily - I am personally aware of a number of members who were basically a huge PITA and were 000'ed
to make them go away.  We all know one or two of these guys - once a year pilots who can't be bothered, blow-hard
GOB's who always "know better", or people who are borderline insubordinate in ways that are difficult to prove in a complaint
but just as divisive.

They are capable of completing a Form 5, but not capable of working and playing well with others, so 000 they went
until they could find a home, which was generally "never".

000 has the advantage of being indisputable because a unit CC still has the right of refusal of any members, but the
disadvantage that the existing system does not automatically disqualify a member from participation or ES activity.
Anything in that direction is a Wing policy, not a national reg.

Patron status has the advantage that the minute is place, the member loses all quals and can't even wear a uniform,
but as a member action it can be appealed.

The empty shirts don't normally care or notice, it's the PITA's that are the issue.

So was the concern brought forward at the SUI that members of -000 should not be participating in ES, since there's no "unit commander" responsible for them (despite the fact that the Wing, Region, or Nat'l Commander is still in their chain), or that these specific individuals were PITA's that should not be participating at all?

Quote from: Ed Bos on July 13, 2011, 01:42:46 AMSo was the concern brought forward at the SUI that members of -000 should not be participating in ES, since there's no "unit commander" responsible for them (despite the fact that the Wing, Region, or Nat'l Commander is still in their chain), or that these specific individuals were PITA's that should not be participating at all?

The concern in my particular wing was during the CI and that the 000 unit was the second largest unit in the state.

The concern on the ES side was raised by myself and others that these individuals who can't work and play well with others were still allowed to
fly and otherwise participate even though they now had no commander at all.  I don't know about other states, but in mine 000 had no CC of record
(unlike the legit "holding squadron" of days gone by), however what was happening was that some staffers with golden pens were allowing
"certain" members in 000 to do F5's or other ES qualifications "until they found a new home", and of course within our regs and program
a member in 000 could go 1-3 years on existing quals before needing anyone's pen, depending on which qual we're talking about.

After the CI, those in 000 were told "find new homes or you will go patron", and then they followed through and did just that, which is why they will be getting the nice holiday cards from me this year.

I'd say that its a pretty wussy move on the part of a squadron commander to involuntarily transfer people to the ghost squadron just because they are a PITA.  Inactive members, sure.  But, if the person is active and they are transferred to the ghost squadron and they automatically lose CAP quals, I would think they would have some standing to make some complaints about adverse membership actions. 

Its just plain poor leadership to transfer your problem to someone else.  Either man up and deal with the problem yourself or get out of the job. 

Quote from: RiverAux on July 13, 2011, 03:14:31 AMIts just plain poor leadership to transfer your problem to someone else.  Either man up and deal with the problem yourself or get out of the job.

How, exactly?  Considering the limited avenues we have, and further that it is impossible to curtail a member's participation
outside the unit, even though the "stink" ultimately gets back to you.

"I only want to fly at the downstate academy each year and do not care a lick about your little 'unit'.  I'll get my safety briefing when I show
up to the activity, and will do my Form 5 the first day.  Otherwise, I could care less about monthly currency, ORM, EO, or anything else
you think I have to do. There's nothing that requires it in the regs."

Suggestions?

If they aren't doing what they need to do to stay current with their qualifications, of course you yank them.   You implied that you were talking about active members that just had bad attitudes. 

In the situation you discuss the simple solution is to not give Form 5s at the event they want to participate in.  You can also allocate spots in the activity based on recent participation in CAP activities and currency in CAP planes and if they're that out of it, they'd be at the bottom of the list.   Or quite simply, just tell them, I'm not giving you a slot because you're not active enough in the program. 

No different than how you pick pilots for missions all the time.  I could have called the same mission pilot for every single mission that came up and been perfectly within my rights as squadron commander.  Certainly not a good idea to do things that way, but it could be done.  Members don't have a right to participate in every activity in the role they want. 

Quote from: RiverAux on July 13, 2011, 03:59:09 AM
If they aren't doing what they need to do to stay current with their qualifications, of course you yank them.   You implied that you were talking about active members that just had bad attitudes. 

In the situation you discuss the simple solution is to not give Form 5s at the event they want to participate in.  You can also allocate spots in the activity based on recent participation in CAP activities and currency in CAP planes and if they're that out of it, they'd be at the bottom of the list.   Or quite simply, just tell them, I'm not giving you a slot because you're not active enough in the program. 

No different than how you pick pilots for missions all the time.  I could have called the same mission pilot for every single mission that came up and been perfectly within my rights as squadron commander.  Certainly not a good idea to do things that way, but it could be done.  Members don't have a right to participate in every activity in the role they want.

How would a unit commander, not affiliated with the activity, control that?  Especially in light of the fact that staff of that activity have the access rights for the approvals?

The activity commander could care less if he is a generally-useful member, he just needs pilots that day, the rest is "your" problem.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 13, 2011, 01:22:56 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on July 12, 2011, 11:12:30 PMIf the person were active and keeping up their required training....then they would never be sent to the 000 squadron in the first place.

Not necessarily - I am personally aware of a number of members who were basically a huge PITA and were 000'ed
to make them go away.  We all know one or two of these guys - once a year pilots who can't be bothered, blow-hard
GOB's who always "know better", or people who are borderline insubordinate in ways that are difficult to prove in a complaint
but just as divisive.

They are capable of completing a Form 5, but not capable of working and playing well with others, so 000 they went
until they could find a home, which was generally "never".

000 has the advantage of being indisputable because a unit CC still has the right of refusal of any members, but the
disadvantage that the existing system does not automatically disqualify a member from participation or ES activity.
Anything in that direction is a Wing policy, not a national reg.

Patron status has the advantage that the minute is place, the member loses all quals and can't even wear a uniform,
but as a member action it can be appealed.

The empty shirts don't normally care or notice, it's the PITA's that are the issue.

Again.....what's the problem?

If these guys are in the 000 squadron or once a year pilots.....again they are probably not safety current and could not sign into the mission base if they wanted to.

So...why go the extra distance to take away their ES qualifications?  It would just open up the squadorn commander who 000'ed them up to a retaliation or failure of due process charge.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 13, 2011, 03:19:55 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on July 13, 2011, 03:14:31 AMIts just plain poor leadership to transfer your problem to someone else.  Either man up and deal with the problem yourself or get out of the job.

How, exactly?  Considering the limited avenues we have, and further that it is impossible to curtail a member's participation
outside the unit, even though the "stink" ultimately gets back to you.

"I only want to fly at the downstate academy each year and do not care a lick about your little 'unit'.  I'll get my safety briefing when I show
up to the activity, and will do my Form 5 the first day.  Otherwise, I could care less about monthly currency, ORM, EO, or anything else
you think I have to do. There's nothing that requires it in the regs."

Suggestions?

BS.

As a commander...you can say...."you are not to particpate in any CAP activity with out may permission."  That is a legal order.  I tell it to my cadets all the time.  We just demoted a cadet two achievements for blantantly disobaying such and order.  No one has a right to particpate.  If a SM is a PITA....then he can't play.  Transfering him to the leper colony is just bad leadership.  It is NOT doing the job of a commander.  If the person is a PITA...the 2b him for being a PITA.  It is within our perview as commanders (former on my part) to make judgement calls like this all the time.  It takes time, it take patients and it take a little CYA to make sure your ducks are in a row....but if the guy is a PITA....the get rid of him....don't just palm him off to someone else.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 13, 2011, 04:13:42 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on July 13, 2011, 03:59:09 AM
If they aren't doing what they need to do to stay current with their qualifications, of course you yank them.   You implied that you were talking about active members that just had bad attitudes. 

In the situation you discuss the simple solution is to not give Form 5s at the event they want to participate in.  You can also allocate spots in the activity based on recent participation in CAP activities and currency in CAP planes and if they're that out of it, they'd be at the bottom of the list.   Or quite simply, just tell them, I'm not giving you a slot because you're not active enough in the program. 

No different than how you pick pilots for missions all the time.  I could have called the same mission pilot for every single mission that came up and been perfectly within my rights as squadron commander.  Certainly not a good idea to do things that way, but it could be done.  Members don't have a right to participate in every activity in the role they want.

How would a unit commander, not affiliated with the activity, control that?  Especially in light of the fact that staff of that activity have the access rights for the approvals?

The activity commander could care less if he is a generally-useful member, he just needs pilots that day, the rest is "your" problem.

Well normally a unit CC must sign off on a member participating in a non unit activity (with the exception of ES).

Quote from: lordmonar on July 13, 2011, 07:37:06 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on July 13, 2011, 03:19:55 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on July 13, 2011, 03:14:31 AMIts just plain poor leadership to transfer your problem to someone else.  Either man up and deal with the problem yourself or get out of the job.

How, exactly?  Considering the limited avenues we have, and further that it is impossible to curtail a member's participation
outside the unit, even though the "stink" ultimately gets back to you.

"I only want to fly at the downstate academy each year and do not care a lick about your little 'unit'.  I'll get my safety briefing when I show
up to the activity, and will do my Form 5 the first day.  Otherwise, I could care less about monthly currency, ORM, EO, or anything else
you think I have to do. There's nothing that requires it in the regs."

Suggestions?

BS.

As a commander...you can say...."you are not to particpate in any CAP activity with out may permission."  That is a legal order.  I tell it to my cadets all the time.  We just demoted a cadet two achievements for blantantly disobaying such and order.  No one has a right to particpate.  If a SM is a PITA....then he can't play.  Transfering him to the leper colony is just bad leadership.  It is NOT doing the job of a commander.  If the person is a PITA...the 2b him for being a PITA.  It is within our perview as commanders (former on my part) to make judgement calls like this all the time.  It takes time, it take patients and it take a little CYA to make sure your ducks are in a row....but if the guy is a PITA....the get rid of him....don't just palm him off to someone else.

What you and Larry are saying is correct, on paper, and we all know that is not how it actually works in CAP.  Members self deploy, "just show up", and/or "do what they will", and if they were inclined to actually obey superiors, they wouldn't be on the PITA list to start with.

And that also presupposes that someone higher than the unit CC at Group, Wing, Region, or National doesn't approve their participation because "he's a good guy", or "we needed the help".  Someone with no knowledge or care about the members home behavior or level of participation - he's active on eservices, so "welcome aboard".

Plus on more than one occasion, we've had ICs operating out of 000 in the past. Before the Wing came and said "you can't use 000 anymore", though they still do. ;)

That's why we say it is poor leadership to 000 these PITA members.  If you as a commander don't want to deal with him, you should also not want anyone else to deal with him.....so 2b him.

000 for inactivity is one thing.  It gets them off your books with out giving them the black mark of a 2b allowing them to come back into CAP later when they can/are willing to be active.

But anyone who is simply transfering their PITAs....is a poor leader IMHO.

2b on what grounds?

Quote from: Eclipse on July 13, 2011, 03:47:51 PM
2b on what grounds?

"Failure to obey rules, regulations, and orders of higher authority" and "Insubordination" might be two candidates depending on the situation.

For inactivity, disinterest in the CC's plans, or attending an activity with the full authorization of higher HQ?

How about tap-dancing on the commander's head with higher HQ every time they don't like the direction the unit takes, especially when higher HQ
encourages that behavior?

There's all sorts of ways to be a uncooperative PITA that would never stand a MARB termination challenge.

There is a subjective component to judging someone a PITA.  However, there is a process called "progressive discipline" which must be used to either change the behavior or, remove the "privilege" of membership.   There should be objective standards to prohibit a member from participation and, lack of activity is one.   It takes time to remove "dead weight" from a unit however, unless it is done properly, you will end up with an even bigger headache. 

If there is a weakness in the system, we need to correct it. 
So, what would be a solution to this, if you could rewrite the process?

Quote from: Eclipse on July 13, 2011, 03:56:06 PM
For inactivity, disinterest in the CC's plans, or attending an activity with the full authorization of higher HQ?

How about tap-dancing on the commander's head with higher HQ every time they don't like the direction the unit takes, especially when higher HQ
encourages that behavior?

There's all sorts of ways to be a uncooperative PITA that would never stand a MARB termination challenge.

Like I said, poor leadership.  Either take the stand that Member X should not be in CAP or let it go.  If you transfer him....then it is someone else's problem by definition.  Later trying to reach back and control it from outside the squadron is not the answer.

Quote from: FW on July 13, 2011, 04:00:36 PM
There is a subjective component to judging someone a PITA.  However, there is a process called "progressive discipline" which must be used to either change the behavior or, remove the "privilege" of membership.   There should be objective standards to prohibit a member from participation and, lack of activity is one.   It takes time to remove "dead weight" from a unit however, unless it is done properly, you will end up with an even bigger headache. 

If there is a weakness in the system, we need to correct it. 
So, what would be a solution to this, if you could rewrite the process?

We need that adverse actions regulation that was suggested by/to the NB years ago.
We need rule on progressive discipline...i.e.Verbal Counseling, Letter of Counseling, Letters of Admonishment, Letters of Reprimand, suspension, demotion etc.  How those actions are documented.  The documentation is stored.  How long it is stored, what the appeal process is, who can see it.

The Air Force has a UIF (Unfavorable Information File) program where this sort of stuff is controlled.
That way commanders can document the PITA's in a way that is fair and above board...and if need be can be used to justify the 2b action later on.

The 000 solution is not really good leadership....even for the inactives.  We need to reduce the amount of work we are placing on our people in the first place (some one needs to tell  Safety to stand down a little), we need to stop holding commanders accountable during the SUI's for Inactive members, or we need to make it very clear that we can 2b them for inactivity...and set up the rules for that.

Quote from: FW on July 13, 2011, 04:00:36 PM
There is a subjective component to judging someone a PITA.  However, there is a process called "progressive discipline" which must be used to either change the behavior or, remove the "privilege" of membership.   There should be objective standards to prohibit a member from participation and, lack of activity is one.   It takes time to remove "dead weight" from a unit however, unless it is done properly, you will end up with an even bigger headache. 

If there is a weakness in the system, we need to correct it. 
So, what would be a solution to this, if you could rewrite the process?

1) Objective standards for participation and being considered "active".

2) Automatic "inactive" status based on those standards, and / or non-compliance with national directives regarding currency requirements.

3) Top-down recognition that members should not be able to activity hop if they aren't in good standing at their home units.

I think #2 is probably the big one on this list, however without top-down pressure to enforce the idea, as well as a system to verify
status, it would be more of the same.  I can't tell you how many times I have been involved in activities where it comes to light
mid-day that Joe Member or Joe Cadet aren't even members due to expiration or worse, let alone qualified to participate.

I'd also +1 to what Lord says above.

Quote from: lordmonar on July 13, 2011, 04:12:43 PM
we need to stop holding commanders accountable during the SUI's for Inactive members, or we need to make it very clear that we can 2b them for inactivity...and set up the rules for that.

On that note, what regulation is violated (and worthy of an SUI writeup) for a member who is not current for Safety Education, if that member is not participating?

Well we take a lot of heat from wing about ORM training and safety fundementals....."New training everyone!  You need to get this done right now!".....sounds good on paper....but we got people on our books who we have not seen for years....but they still pay their dues every year.  My commander had to spend hours and hours sending out E-mails and trying to contact these individuals.  He finally had to 2b a bunch of them, transfer some more and change the membership status of the rest.

It's not in any reg...but certainly eats up a lot of time for the command staff.

QuoteOn that note, what regulation is violated (and worthy of an SUI writeup) for a member who is not current for Safety Education, if that member is not participating?

Primarily CAPR 62-1 para 4h & i regarding the Intro to CAP Safety.

It appears that all these people that say a PITS should be 2Bd havn't read the regulation. In the first place the Squadron Commander isn';t the 2B authority, the Wing Commander is. Then the member has to be furnished with the charges for the 2B and a copy of CAPR-35-3. Which lists the appeal process. The Squadron Commander could end up with egg on his face is the MARB reverses the 2B.

Quote from: peter rabbit on July 13, 2011, 05:28:00 PM

QuoteOn that note, what regulation is violated (and worthy of an SUI writeup) for a member who is not current for Safety Education, if that member is not participating?

Primarily CAPR 62-1 para 4h & i regarding the Intro to CAP Safety.

OK, those make sense, as they say "all members".  The montly briefings in (a) specifically state "in order to participate in any CAP functions".  If an SUI dings you on that for people who are not participating in CAP functions, I would push back on the inspector, honestly.

I have never transferred a member to 000 for being a PITA, and only a few for non compliance with mandatory training. The majority of the ones transferred to 000 were cadets, who had not been seen in over 6 months and did not respond to email or phone calls. In the case of senior members who are noncompliant for mandatory training, a CAPF 2a is sent to NHQ requesting their membership be changed to Patron status only after numerous attempts by email and phone calls to get them to comply, have failed. 

I have to agree with Patrick, that transferring PITA members to 000 is a failure of leadership.

Quote from: BillB on July 13, 2011, 05:29:43 PM
It appears that all these people that say a PITS should be 2Bd havn't read the regulation. In the first place the Squadron Commander isn';t the 2B authority, the Wing Commander is. Then the member has to be furnished with the charges for the 2B and a copy of CAPR-35-3. Which lists the appeal process. The Squadron Commander could end up with egg on his face is the MARB reverses the 2B.

Ah...no.....2b should be done at the lowest level possible.  The Wing Commander is the the appealing authority....but once a squadron commander 2b's someone....they are 2b'ed.  The Wing Commander can reverse it....but a squadron commander does not need permission to 2b someone.

A lot of this is hair splitting....but that's where we are in this argument.

As for egg on your face.......who cares?  if 2b'ing someone is the right thing to do.....don't worry that some other authority may reverse it.  As for the MARB....the only thing that they are going to look at is......if you followed due process.  If the action was retaliation in some way.  If the action was merited by the situation.

Like I said....if you have a difficult officer who is always skirting the regs or does not work and or play well with others......document it in a counseling letter.  Follow up with more counseling.  When it comes 2b time.....you have your ammo right there to back you up.

"Lt Col Dippshift on numerous occassions was counseled with not following directives, orders and policies.  He was counsed on several occassions about his abrassive and unproffessional demeaner toward other CAP members.  See the attached counseling records".

Quote from: Eclipse on July 13, 2011, 04:13:42 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on July 13, 2011, 03:59:09 AM
If they aren't doing what they need to do to stay current with their qualifications, of course you yank them.   You implied that you were talking about active members that just had bad attitudes. 

In the situation you discuss the simple solution is to not give Form 5s at the event they want to participate in.  You can also allocate spots in the activity based on recent participation in CAP activities and currency in CAP planes and if they're that out of it, they'd be at the bottom of the list.   Or quite simply, just tell them, I'm not giving you a slot because you're not active enough in the program. 

No different than how you pick pilots for missions all the time.  I could have called the same mission pilot for every single mission that came up and been perfectly within my rights as squadron commander.  Certainly not a good idea to do things that way, but it could be done.  Members don't have a right to participate in every activity in the role they want.

How would a unit commander, not affiliated with the activity, control that?  Especially in light of the fact that staff of that activity have the access rights for the approvals?

The activity commander could care less if he is a generally-useful member, he just needs pilots that day, the rest is "your" problem.

Well, that wasn't the situation we were talking about.  If the activity director doesn't really care that the person isn't "active" there isn't much you can do about that so long as the person is current with all the various requirements.  The activity director would certainly have the same authority to restrict that person's ability to participate if they chose to use it.

So, if the situation is that you've got a person that does follow all the rules to keep or regain currency but doesn't do anything beyond the absolute minimum required, you're going to have to live with them.  Now, if they do break some rules then you have the disciplinary alternatives mentioned in previous posts that you can use. 

Quote from: RiverAux on July 13, 2011, 07:21:22 PMSo, if the situation is that you've got a person that does follow all the rules to keep or regain currency but doesn't do anything beyond the absolute minimum required, you're going to have to live with them. 

No, in fact I don't, which brings us back to the reason for 000.

If you can't work and play well with others according to the unit CC's plan, then off you go to 000.  Fully within regs, no appeals are possible, and
the problem is "fixed".  From there if the wing (or higher), chooses to allow this person to participate without a commander, it is not my problem
(other than the likelihood that this person will be "around").

In some cases the threat alone adjusts attitudes, in others people find different units that the mesh with, and in most they simply sit on the bench for a while or forever.

I don't see how that isn't "leadership", especially considering the limited options available to commanders.  What isn't leadership is what most unit CC's do which is ignore the divisiveness, or worse let people like this walk all over them until they are so bent they (the CC) step down or quit.

CAP reaps what it sows, and if you allow people like this to continue to play while messing it up for everyone else, then you haven't done anyone a service at all.

I'm also not interested in a round-robin cycle of patron-active-patron-active-patron-active while these people sit on the fence about their free time and their attitudes.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 13, 2011, 09:00:44 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on July 13, 2011, 07:21:22 PMSo, if the situation is that you've got a person that does follow all the rules to keep or regain currency but doesn't do anything beyond the absolute minimum required, you're going to have to live with them. 

No, in fact I don't, which brings us back to the reason for 000.

If you can't work and play well with others according to the unit CC's plan, then off you go to 000.  Fully within regs, no appeals are possible, and the problem is "fixed".

Badly.  You have not fixed anything.  You simply wished it away.  Now you have some PITA running around doing what he wants with out any supervision. 

QuoteFrom there if the wing (or higher), chooses to allow this person to participate without a commander, it is not my problem
(other than the likelihood that this person will be "around").

So...instead of being a good leader you simply absolved yourself of responsibility.  Nice.

QuoteIn some cases the threat alone adjusts attitudes, in others people find different units that the mesh with, and in most they simply sit on the bench for a while or forever.

I don't see how that isn't "leadership", especially considering the limited options available to commanders.  What isn't leadership is what most unit CC's do which is ignore the divisiveness, or worse let people like this walk all over them until they are so bent they (the CC) step down or quit.

Oh it's leadership.....it is just not good leadership.  There are plenty of options that you have not even looked into. 

QuoteCAP reaps what it sows, and if you allow people like this to continue to play while messing it up for everyone else, then you haven't done anyone a service at all.

Then 2b them instead of just 000'ing them.  You are doing exactly what you want us NOT to do.

QuoteI'm also not interested in a round-robin cycle of patron-active-patron-active-patron-active while these people sit on the fence about their free time and their attitudes.

Is it an inactive problem or a PITA problem.   If the member is simply inactive.....the by all means 000 them.  However if it is a PITA problem do what is right and fix the problem using all your options not what is just easiest for you.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 13, 2011, 09:00:44 PM
If you can't work and play well with others according to the unit CC's plan, then off you go to 000.  Fully within regs, no appeals are possible, and
the problem is "fixed".  From there if the wing (or higher), chooses to allow this person to participate without a commander, it is not my problem
(other than the likelihood that this person will be "around").

So, you're saying that you would rather that the Wing Commander deal with this person from your unit rather than yourself?  In other words, pass the buck.  You do realize that the Wing Commander has the exact same set of tools for dealing with the PITA that you do.  That being the case, how is it better for the organization to do it your way? 

You guys can continue to ignore the facts and what I am writing and just make things up if you want, but it won't get get us anywhere.

You can't 2b someone for inactivity.  Period.

You also can't put someone in patron status if they are "around" and don't want to be patrons, that would never stand a MARB appeal either.

The wing CC doesn't have to "deal" with 000 members at all.  They sit there until they find a home or quit.  That's not passing the buck, that is
doing the best a commander can with limited options.

If we had consistent enforcement of regs and expectations across the organization, your arguments would have more weight, but we don't and they
don't.

If you are going to pretend it isn't not only possible but fairly routine that members go wherever they want to and do whatever they want to and
people they know approve things and sign them off, because they want to, then you are ignoring the facts of CAP membership.

I don't like it, but it is what it is.

Once again, you can't 2b a member for inactivity.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 13, 2011, 09:00:44 PM
From there if the wing (or higher), chooses to allow this person to participate without a commander, it is not my problem (other than the likelihood that this person will be "around").

No one in CAP is "without a commander." You keep using this as a point, and it's undermining some of the valid points you are trying to emphasize.

Being assigned to -000 isn't necessarily banishment to no-man's-land, and there is always a commander available to assist and guide members in any unit... from Flights, to the National Staff.

Just sayin'.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 13, 2011, 10:06:05 PM
You can't 2b someone for inactivity.  Period.

You're wrong. Period.

Quote from: CAPR 35-3:Membership Terminations link=http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R035_003_B74F5A60C44CF.pdf

CAPR 35-3: Membership Terminations
   Section B: Seniors
      Paragraph 4. Causes To Terminate Senior Membership:
         Sub-paragraph b. Termination for Cause: Termination action may be justified by the seriousness of a single incident or by
                                                                          repeated minor incidents, none of which alone would justify termination action.
             Cause (#5): Habitual failure to perform duty. & Cause (#8) Substandard performance of duty over an extended period of time.

Not participating in any CAP activity, and not maintaining any qualifications of membership other than renewing dues are both failing to perform duty, and substandard performance of duty. A commander can initiate 2B action based on non-performance under this regulation. Such action is subject to possible MARB overruling, but that doesn't negate the fact that the regulations provide for the possibility to dismiss members that do not participate.

Conversion to Patron status makes much more sense though.

Quote from: Ed Bos on July 13, 2011, 10:22:16 PMBeing assigned to -000 isn't necessarily banishment to no-man's-land, and there is always a commander available to assist and guide members in any unit... from Flights, to the National Staff.

By design there is no commander (supposed to) be assigned to xx-000 units.  Those members may have a "commander" in the "Grande Scheme^®", but they have no one who is responsible directly for their day-to-day typical unit administrative and approval functions.

The 000 units are not supposed to be used in the same way the old "holding squadrons' were.  In fact when they were created it was in specific
response to wings that would park bad actors in those charters and let them play like anyone else, up to and including the supposed commander
who in many cases was just there to clock time towards a command ribbon or promotion.

The SUI process kiboshed that because those units were subject to inspections, 000's are not.

As to the 2b'ing someone for inactivity, good luck with that.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 13, 2011, 10:32:38 PM

Quote from: Ed Bos on July 13, 2011, 10:22:16 PMBeing assigned to -000 isn't necessarily banishment to no-man's-land, and there is always a commander available to assist and guide members in any unit... from Flights, to the National Staff.

By design there is no commander (supposed to) be assigned to xx-000 units.  Those members may have a "commander" in the "Grande Scheme^®", but they have no one who is responsible directly for their day-to-day typical unit administrative and approval functions.

XX-000 is the "Organization" Headquarters Squadron in eServices. That pretty clearly speaks to the idea that, for example, the OHWG/CC is directly responsible for the care and feeding of members assigned to both OH-001 (The Wing's staff) and OH-000, the Headquarters Squadron.

Those members aren't left out to dry, and the Wing (in this example) Commander is directly responsible for them.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 13, 2011, 10:32:38 PM
In fact when they were created it was in specific response to wings that would park bad actors in those charters and let them play like anyone else, up to and including the supposed commander who in many cases was just there to clock time towards a command ribbon or promotion.

I don't know where your supposition came from (the "supposed to" above), but I suppose my statements based on the best information I have available. Where can I find that information on how -000 units were developed?

Quote from: Ed Bos on July 13, 2011, 10:38:20 PMXX-000 is the "Organization" Headquarters Squadron in eServices. That pretty clearly speaks to the idea that, for example, the OHWG/CC is directly responsible for the care and feeding of members assigned to both OH-001 (The Wing's staff) and OH-000, the Headquarters Squadron.

Those members aren't left out to dry, and the Wing (in this example) Commander is directly responsible for them.

Yes, the Wing CC of a respective 000 unit is "responsible" for them, but only in the most abstract sense.  There isn't supposed to be any care or feeding of these members until they find a new unit. 

Quote from: Ed Bos on July 13, 2011, 10:38:20 PM
I don't know where your supposition came from (the "supposed to" above), but I suppose my statements based on the best information I have available. Do you know something I don't about how -000 units were developed?

I don't know where our knowledge crosses, but we discussed their creation here, and I have had any number of conversations on this topic with my wing, region, CAP-USAF and others related to this topic.  I suppose that only means I know, for the most part, what is being done in my region.  The last time I did a CAPWatch download, there were no CC's assigned to any 000 charters, and in fact only three 000 units even appear in CAPWatch.

I also recall that the WMU no longer imports quals for members in 000 units.

Are you asserting that members in 000 are supposed to be treated as "regular members" with full privelges and expectations of unit support, but from the wing staff?

Quote from: Eclipse on July 13, 2011, 10:06:05 PM
You can't 2b someone for inactivity.  Period.

Why?

CAPR 39-2, para.3-1a. defines an active member:

Active Member. A member who regularly attends meetings, performs a specific duty assignment, meets training requirements, and participates in the activities of his or her unit. An active member may wear the CAP uniform and compete for grade advancement (see CAPR 35-1, Assignment and Duty Status).

35-3 gives the following as some reasons for a 2b:

(5) Habitual failure to perform duty.
(7) Serious or willful violations of CAP regulations or
directives.
(8) Substandard performance of duty over an extended
period of time.
(9) Failure to obey rules, regulations, and orders of higher
authority.

If an individual is not willing to maintain active status as defined above, then it would seem to me one could offer patron status, and if the individual refuses that, then 2b for one or all of the reasons allowed.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 13, 2011, 10:47:45 PM

Quote from: Ed Bos on July 13, 2011, 10:38:20 PMXX-000 is the "Organization" Headquarters Squadron in eServices. That pretty clearly speaks to the idea that, for example, the OHWG/CC is directly responsible for the care and feeding of members assigned to both OH-001 (The Wing's staff) and OH-000, the Headquarters Squadron.

Those members aren't left out to dry, and the Wing (in this example) Commander is directly responsible for them.

Yes, the Wing CC of a respective 000 unit is "responsible" for them, but only in the most abstract sense.  There isn't supposed to be any care or feeding of these members until they find a new unit. 

Quote from: Ed Bos on July 13, 2011, 10:38:20 PM
I don't know where your supposition came from (the "supposed to" above), but I suppose my statements based on the best information I have available. Do you know something I don't about how -000 units were developed?

I don't know where our knowledge crosses, but we discussed their creation here, and I have had any number of conversations on this topic with my wing, region, CAP-USAF and others related to this topic.  I suppose that only means I know, for the most part, what is being done in my region.  The last time I did a CAPWatch download, there were no CC's assigned to any 000 charters, and in fact only three 000 units even appear in CAPWatch.

I also recall that the WMU no longer imports quals for members in 000 units.

I trust your expertise in your local/regional arena.

No separate Commanders would be assigned to -000, they're already assigned to -001.

WMU is irrelevant, Col Andersen is a terrific guy, but his software is not a guiding document.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 13, 2011, 10:47:45 PM
Are you asserting that members in 000 are supposed to be treated as "regular members" with full privelges and expectations of unit support, but from the wing staff?

Yes. I'm not just asserting that. I'm using guiding regulations to tell me that this is indeed the case. I know that's not how all members of -000 are treated, and I don't necessarily think that they all have to be.

What I'm declaring is that a member can be an active, participating member, assigned to -000, and their safety, personnel, professional development, and other administrative requirements are the responsibility of the Wing Staff.

The term is too subjective to withstand an appeal especially in light of the fact that many pilots fall into the inactive category.

This is the problem NHQ has set up - increasing "mandates" with no will or process to enforce them beyond por SUI grades which can never be fixed in that paradigm.

Setting aside for a minute the trouble makers, think about how many pilots your wing depends on for annual activities like encampments who are never seen any other time of year. They float to the top of every compliance list be a use they can't be bothered, yet start knocking them out and people start complaining.

If NHQ were serious about mandates they would start auto-patronizing members who don't comply within a reasonable spsn of time, if ever.  Locking people out of services, when they probably don't even use it, isn't the answer.

Quote from: Ed Bos on July 13, 2011, 11:02:49 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on July 13, 2011, 10:47:45 PM
Are you asserting that members in 000 are supposed to be treated as "regular members" with full privelges and expectations of unit support, but from the wing staff?

Yes. I'm not just asserting that. I'm using guiding regulations to tell me that this is indeed the case. I know that's not how all members of -000 are treated, and I don't necessarily think that they all have to be.

What I'm declaring is that a member can be an active, participating member, assigned to -000, and their safety, personnel, professional development, and other administrative requirements are the responsibility of the Wing Staff.

Sorry, that is incorrect.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 13, 2011, 11:17:19 PM

Quote from: Ed Bos on July 13, 2011, 11:02:49 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on July 13, 2011, 10:47:45 PM
Are you asserting that members in 000 are supposed to be treated as "regular members" with full privelges and expectations of unit support, but from the wing staff?

Yes. I'm not just asserting that. I'm using guiding regulations to tell me that this is indeed the case. I know that's not how all members of -000 are treated, and I don't necessarily think that they all have to be.

What I'm declaring is that a member can be an active, participating member, assigned to -000, and their safety, personnel, professional development, and other administrative requirements are the responsibility of the Wing Staff.

Sorry, that is incorrect.

My statements are based on the 35-series regulations. You said yours are based on hearsay and local rumor.  Saying I'm incorrect doesn't make me so.

I've only belabor the point because I think it's a good exercise in understanding what our organization is and where "we" collectively want it to be.

I don't know that we will get any more productivity out of this thread, but if you have something else to add, I'll keep an eye on it and respond appropriately. You're pretty shrewd, and have a few keen observations that help me understand how others interpret the regs, and I appreciate the chance to have these sorts of discussions.

Thank you for engaging on this, and I'll see you in other threads.

QuoteYes. I'm not just asserting that. I'm using guiding regulations to tell me that this is indeed the case. I know that's not how all members of -000 are treated, and I don't necessarily think that they all have to be.

What I'm declaring is that a member can be an active, participating member, assigned to -000, and their safety, personnel, professional development, and other administrative requirements are the responsibility of the Wing Staff.

What Eclipse and others have said in many threads is that the regs and how things actually work don't always agree. The answer from NHQ is that they treat -000 members as Patron members and suspend their operations qualifications - and if that isn't happening they (NHQ) want to know.

Quote from: peter rabbit on July 14, 2011, 12:39:39 AM
The answer from NHQ is that they treat -000 members as Patron members and suspend their operations qualifications - and if that isn't happening they (NHQ) want to know.

I'm curious to know where that is written or indicated at all?

Quote from: Ed Bos on July 14, 2011, 01:03:15 AM

Quote from: peter rabbit on July 14, 2011, 12:39:39 AM
The answer from NHQ is that they treat -000 members as Patron members and suspend their operations qualifications - and if that isn't happening they (NHQ) want to know.

I'm curious to know where that is written or indicated at all?

It's not, and that's the problem, and clearly wings are implementing 000 unit differently, nor is there any reference to 000 units or membership therein within the 35-series, which is more of a problem.

#1 We have no clear, objective standard for senior members as to what being "active" means, yet we have about 6 or more different areas in which
unit CC's are being held responsible for the conduct of members who can't be bothered to comply with what NHQ purports to be the minimum requirements to be called a member.

Say, for example, the surprisingly high number of members with no record of ever completing Level 1.  Ever.  This includes field grade officers all over the
organization, most of which simply have paperwork issues, we all know that, but why is that allowed to stand on the books?  Either Level 1 is required or it isn't.

"Well, that guy never shows up anyway, we haven't seen him in 10 years..."

My point exactly.  He can sit on the books, with no safety, ORM, CPPT, nothing but his clusters and an SLS from 1975, yet many on this board would say "What's the big deal?"

Movement into 000 does not, in and of itself do anything to qualifications, and that is problem #2.

#3 on the hit parade is that CAP-USAF and others have indicated a "concern" (as noted in board minutes and other publications and conversations), regarding real-world troop strength vs. reported numbers, yet we don't seem to have a consensus at any level if that is important, nor even a fundamental understanding of why that is important.

So #4 is that we have commanders who simply ignore the monthly compliance reports as irrelevant, which in turn shows the SUI process to be the
paper tiger that it is, and those who are actually trying to get to a baseline of performance for their units are told that have poor leadership skills
because they are using the only tool they have to try and make things better, when clearly the answer is to simply ignore the entire situation,
let the bad actors run around at their whim, and just continue at status quo.

Oh, and then wonder why nothing changes or gets better.

Quote from: Ed Bos on July 14, 2011, 01:03:15 AM

Quote from: peter rabbit on July 14, 2011, 12:39:39 AM
The answer from NHQ is that they treat -000 members as Patron members and suspend their operations qualifications - and if that isn't happening they (NHQ) want to know.

I'm curious to know where that is written or indicated at all?

I actually have something from NHQ stating that's how Ops Quals is supposed to treat -000 members. However, as stated, there isn't a regulation to that effect.

I have seen some commanders be very successful in giving members the alternative of complying with EO, Intro to CAP Safety, etc; changing to Patron status; or moving to -000.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 13, 2011, 10:06:05 PM
You guys can continue to ignore the facts and what I am writing and just make things up if you want, but it won't get get us anywhere.

You can't 2b someone for inactivity.  Period.

You also can't put someone in patron status if they are "around" and don't want to be patrons, that would never stand a MARB appeal either.

The wing CC doesn't have to "deal" with 000 members at all.  They sit there until they find a home or quit.  That's not passing the buck, that is
doing the best a commander can with limited options.

If we had consistent enforcement of regs and expectations across the organization, your arguments would have more weight, but we don't and they
don't.

If you are going to pretend it isn't not only possible but fairly routine that members go wherever they want to and do whatever they want to and
people they know approve things and sign them off, because they want to, then you are ignoring the facts of CAP membership.

I don't like it, but it is what it is.

Once again, you can't 2b a member for inactivity.

a)  Yes you can.

Quote from: CAPR 35-3 Para 4.b.8.( 8 ) Substandard performance of duty over an extended period of time.

b) No one is really suggesting that we 2b members simply for inactivity.  000 those guys or send them off to Patron Status.  We are arguing that 000 PITA members is poor leadership.

If a member does not want to be a patron.....then he is going to respond to your commander's e-mails about getting his required training done, showing up for activities and meetings and all those other things that would make him an active member.   So there would not be a MARB appeal in the first place.  I think you are missing the whole point of what we are saying.  Squadrons Commanders must exercise due dilligance in these situations.  If some member has not been to a meeting for months and is not responding to e-mails to get his training done.....I don't really see him as carring if he is suddenly sent to patron status......especially if the commander can show the e-mail trail

(on Jan 1 Member X was contacted via E-mail that he has not been to a meeting in three months and that his requuired training is incomplete.  On Feb 1 Member X was contacted via E-mail that if he does not contact me by Mar 1, attend a meeting or complete his required training then he is going to be converted to Patron Status.  On May 1 Member X has not completed his required training, attended any meeting or contact me on why he is unable to accomplish these task and his membership was converted to Patron Status.)

If the MARB does not support that....the there is a major malfunction in the system.  I don't see where the member would have a leg to stand on to appeal the action, let alone proove that the squdron commander did not exercise due process or that the "adverse action" was not justified by the actions or inactions of the member.

"be a patrol"? You've used that term twice.. I think you mean "patron". Otherwise what you say is hard to follow..

Quote from: a2capt on July 14, 2011, 06:15:06 AM
"be a patrol"? You've used that term twice.. I think you mean "patron". Otherwise what you say is hard to follow..

Did I get them all?  My dyslexia makes it hard for me to correct my own spelling.   :o

Quote from: lordmonar on July 14, 2011, 05:09:51 AMIf some member has not been to a meeting for months and is not responding to e-mails to get his training done.....I don't really see him as carring if he is suddenly sent to patron status......especially if the commander can show the e-mail trail

Which CAP are you in?

You and I both know this is not only status quo for a lot of members who consider themselves "active", but some staffers at important echelons.
You can start with the snowbirds, and work your way out from there.

Quote from: Eclipse on July 14, 2011, 01:00:16 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on July 14, 2011, 05:09:51 AMIf some member has not been to a meeting for months and is not responding to e-mails to get his training done.....I don't really see him as carring if he is suddenly sent to patron status......especially if the commander can show the e-mail trail

Which CAP are you in?

You and I both know this is not only status quo for a lot of members who consider themselves "active", but some staffers at important echelons.
You can start with the snowbirds, and work your way out from there.

All the more reason to take the road of good leadership and do what is right and not what is easy.