Suspending quals of those in XX-000

[lordmonar]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[JeffDG]

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?

[lordmonar]

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.

[peter rabbit]

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?

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

[BillB]

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.

[JeffDG]

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?

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.

[Larry Mangum]

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.

[lordmonar]

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".

[RiverAux]

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. 

[Eclipse]

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. 

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.

[lordmonar]

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. 

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. 

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

[RiverAux]

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? 

[Eclipse]

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.

[Ed Bos]

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'.

[Ed Bos]

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

You're wrong. Period.

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

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.

[Ed Bos]

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.

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.

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?

[Eclipse]

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.

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. 

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?

[AirDX]

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.