Suspending quals of those in XX-000

[Eclipse]

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.

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.

[FW]

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.

[a2capt]

'...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.

[peter rabbit]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[Al Sayre]

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.

[Ed Bos]

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?

[Eclipse]

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.

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.

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).

[Spaceman3750]

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.

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.

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?

[Eclipse]

I 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.

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.

[Ed Bos]

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.

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.

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[RiverAux]

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. 

[afgeo4]

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.

[Larry Mangum]

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.

[afgeo4]

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.

[FW]

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.

[a2capt]

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.

[Short Field]

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. 

[peter rabbit]

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. 

^+1