Suspending quals of those in XX-000

[Eclipse]

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

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.

[FW]

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.

[Eclipse]

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...

[RiverAux]

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. 

[SARDOC]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[FW]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

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?

[JoeTomasone]

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.   

[Tim Medeiros]

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.

[EMT-83]

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

[RiverAux]

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. 

I 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. 

[FW]

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.

[Tim Medeiros]

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.

[arajca]

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[RiverAux]

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. 

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".

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. 

[Eclipse]

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.

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.

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

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.

[RADIOMAN015]

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.

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