Cultural Shift in CAP

[arajca]

I've watching and I have noticed a very slow cultural shift occuring in CAP. CAP is starting to become a more professional organization. Standardized training. Standardized processes. Standardized equipment. As witnessed on multiple threads here, there is a hunger for professionalism.

Law enforcement underwent this type of cultural shift in the 50's and 60's. EMS went through it in the 70's and 80's. The volunteer fire service did it in the 80's and 90's. It is a change for the better, although it's not an easy change. We also have a unique issue - cadets.

I feel the pace needs to speed up. CAP needs to set forth a plan for this shift. For the past few years, we've heard tales of such and seen occasional outputs (new SLS & CLC curricula, ES tracking, ORMS, wing banker, etc), but no one has ever put forth a roadmap or destination. Right now, there are hundreds of members who would eagerly contribute, if there was a plan.

Issues that continue to simmer and slow the process down include branding, or lack thereof, uniforms (you knew that was coming), <insert preferred group> vs everyone else, "we just volunteers" attitude, and perceived lack of appreciation and support from the AF.

Two major issues can be, I think, easily handled if someone at the top has the intestinal fortitude to do so. National has been throwing the term "branding" around for the past couple years, but hasn't done anything about except introduce a new logo the many do not like and do not use, and establish a committee to review our branding program or lack thereof. Uniforms. Easily the most visible (pun intended) and contentious issue to the folks here and for many in the field. The CAP/CC needs to develop - or bring in a small team of members to develop - a comprehensive uniform plan and program and submit it to the AF for approval followed by NB approval. Then uniforms are DONE. At least for the CAP/CC's term. No annual proposals at the winter NB. No back door changes at the NEC.

The "we're just volunteers" attitude needs to be squashed by command. Yes, we'll lose some members, but are they really productive or just filling a spot on the org chart. When a member comes out with that attitude, un-volunteer them. Send them home. Ops Quals has (or had) a Member Availability application that members could use to list the days and times they are generally available for CAP missions. Most members do not know about this. That needs to change. Every member with an ES qual should be using it. Using it would provide a good general idea of how many members CAP can pull out on any given day. It would also help with notion of activity level, if members are not listed if they do not have a current ES qual.

This shift is most seriously needed in the Emergency Services arena. The "Boy Scouts with planes" notion needs to be killed. Hard. Please keep in mind as you read the couple of lines that I am not anti-cadet. Cadet participation in ES needs to be limited by age. 14 or 15 should be the lowest age for a cadet doing ES. They should be limited to base staff or flight line duties until age 16, when it would be appropriate to involve them in ground teams. Cadets should not be in supervisory roles in ES until age 18. I've seen a change away from the flying club mentality, toward a more well-rounded team based mentality in many of the senior units I've visited. We need the ICs to accept that they cannot run everything from their kitchen table and if a mission runs into a second day or needs more than an aircraft or two and a ground team, they need to stand up a base. CAP needs to be able to integrate into existing ICS structures, not merely attach a CAP branch. We need people, members or staff, to talk to other ES groups. We should be having displays and seminars at SAR conferences, police chiefs' conventions, DR conferences, etc.

These are just a few ideas. I don't have all the answers. I'm sure many here will agree and many will disagree.

I think after this thread runs its course, it should be consolidated adn forwarded to National for consideration.

[Hawk200]

Sounds good, especially "un-volunteering" those who choose not to contribute in meaningful capacity. The Boy Scout stuff needs to stay with the Boy Scouts.

Defined destinations seems to be something that needs to be put out there, not just "understood."

[Eclipse]

Yes, please.

[Smithsonia]

arajca is Colorado Senior Member of the Year. He knows of what he speaks. I agree.

I can't tell if we are more professional than we used to be. I wasn't here "in the day." I think you are right but I don't have enough time in the Patrol to compare. I know the skill sets that are my core competency do not exist in the Military. Not that there aren't pieces and parts and those are good pieces and parts... but not the whole package. Working every darn day in media for past 44 years. Working for magazines, newspaper, in radio, TV, developing Networks both domestic and international, spending thousands of days inside too many news rooms to remember - gives me some insights that the military begs and pays me for. For CAP I do it for free and don't cut a corner in my presentations.

Lots of people on CAPTALK run us down for one reason or another. I don't join in this abuse. It is simple.

I fly with combat vets and longtime commercial captains, I practice my work to the highest standard I know. I do the same in history. I do the same in Aerial Photo. I am new (4 years) to Ground Teams and other search cadre but I try my best. Those around me do too.

I think we could use some more missions. Bigger brains than mine are working on it. In the meantime I work to the highest professional standards I know. You do too. We all should. And while we do... shouldn't be discouraged by those that aren't - but complain and run down the program.

If we complain less and do more we'll do better. By the way most of the regular Air Force Officers that I have spoken with about this issue recognize this self degradation with a chuckle and agree. We ain't perfect. BUT, we ain't bad either.

[capmaj]

It's hard to choose a path if you aren't sure of your destination. But that is up to our leadership, with our input.

[FW]

It's hard to choose a path if you aren't sure of your destination. But that is up to our leadership, with our input.

If it was all up to the leadership, we'd be there by now.  Fact is, without getting total buy in from the membership, we aren't going anywhere fast.  We need to know exactly where we are now and then, together, figure out a way ahead.  All leaders can do is create the environment for us to get there.  It is a symbiosis.  We all want the highest standards possible however, orders and mandates will not make it happen.  It takes a well motivated membership to train and perform to professional standards and, until we realize we are all in this together, it will be much more difficult to succeed.
(BTW; I'm plagiarizing Townsend here..)

IMHO, the only way to "squash" the "I'm only a volunteer" attidtude is with an environment that encourages professionalism.  That includes everything from a PIC flying to the highest standard to the newest SMWOG and CB wearing our uniforms correctly.  That, starts with a leadership which follows the standards to the highest level possible as an example.  A leadership which insists on following every principle we believe in.  And, a leadership not afraid to solicit and hear the input of the membership.

Just my  $.02   :angel:

[coudano]

There are a number of (better and worse) articles and talks on the rise of the pro-am.

I have actually (in some contexts) told the "just a volunteer" crowd, that we can only usefully employ pro-am's.
Puts the ball in their court to re-consider their orientation and attitude.  Sometimes you will see people step up, other times you will see people step away.

In other contexts, 'just a volunteer' is just fine, and i'm happy to use them in that role, in those contexts.

[arajca]

I hear the "I'm just a volunteer" when a member has stepped up to do a job, does a crappy job, refuses to accept responsibilty for their 'work', and throws that card as a justification for failing to do a satisfactory job. We don't need those members. On the other hand, those who, for whatever reasons, volunteer for only certain duties, but perform those duties well, won't pull that card. They understand that professional is a mindset and act accordingly.

When I was an active volunteer firefighter, we had those volunteers who would show up once a quarter and for the 'good' calls. They complained when the company officers left them behind and took rookies who were making all calls they could. The chief's response was "Thanks for your time. See the asst. chief for your exit interview." He set the expectation and followed through with it.

[RiverAux]

I don't think there has been a real shift in CAP towards more professionalism.  I think it has been there all along. 

There most certainly has been a shift towards more bureaucracy in the name of professionalism. 

Yes, we have moved towards greater standardization in ES training, but has that really improved our abilities?  Are our missions better organized now than 15 years ago?  Are our aircrews finding targets faster?  I think that the people who just achieved a qualification are probably better prepared to do work than newly qualified people in the old days.  But, in the old days they also had plenty of real world missions to use to maintain and increase their skills.  I wouldn't be surprised if our aircrew's ability to locate ELTs has already begun to degrade over what it was 5 years ago due to lack of practice. 

I guess I just haven't run across of the "we're just volunteers" attitude to be seriously worried about it.  Any good commander knows what the strengths and weaknesses of their folks are and works around them.   I'm sure my commander has begun to think of me as being in the "less than fully active" category over the last years as I have cut back on my CAP participation.  I certainly don't expect to be near the top of the call list anymore. 

I very much agree that CAP does need to spend more time being part of the local and state SAR and DR communities.  Unfortunately, that is one of those things that needs to be pushed from the top to emphasize that this is actually important.   

[Eclipse]

CAP's challenge with standardization is people who believe they "know better" - so they ignore history and past success in favor of reinventing the wheel every mission.

Worse, it's not usually the experienced members who do the worst damage - they know there will be plenty to do and
plenty of accolades to go around when things go well.

It's usually marginal players with little real-world CAP experience under their belt who decide to do things "their way", which is never briefed, generally over-complicated, and almost never scales outside their involvement.

CAP experience is the key.  I've seen slick-sleeve professional ES managers walk in the door believing they are going to rock everyone's world, only to find that not only is CAP something unto itself, but the volunteer / uneven experience / uneven expectations paradigm is different from the professional ES world as well (though it shouldn't be).

We need a full set of everything - "ICP In A Can" - from NHQ and the fortitude to require it be used, everywhere, every time, with consequences when it isn't.  We can spend a year arguing in committees about what should be in the can - get NESA people, HMRS people, bring in the Fossett, Challenger and Katrina guys, find people who actually have graphic and IT experience beyond AOL, lock the door and let them fight it out.

Then it's done.  Period.

A big chunk of time, effort, and money is spent reinventing the wheel, or "re-answering" baseline questions because somebody abdicated a tough decision in favor of making everyone happy, so then no one is happy and the mission suffers.

[Spaceman3750]

We need a full set of everything - "ICP In A Can" - from NHQ and the fortitude to require it be used, everywhere, every time, with consequences when it isn't.

While I understand what you're going for here, I don't think it works in practice. Let's take our wing for example. Let's assume for argument's sake that we get one ICP in a can from NHQ and that kit is located at Wing HQ. Let's say that ol'fido puts together a SAREX or actual mission in the nether reaches of our wing. That's a significant amount of AvGas to fly in the kit and assuming they have 2-3 exercises & actuals annually down there that money adds up quick (heck, at the last SAREX my squadron hosted it was expensive just to fly DPA-BMI-DPA, in the $200 range IIRC). I don't know what a 182/172 burns hourly but I know that a DPA-ALN-DPA flight wouldn't be cheap.

The logical solution to that would be to allocate 2 or more cans to big wings like IL, CA, TX, FL, etc but you're still spending a lot of money just to move equipment and a couple of people around.

[Ron1319]

Why wouldn't you take a smart, motivated, well trained 14 year old on a UDF mission?  One of my first activities as a 14 year old cadet was a mission and it really set the mission oriented tone for my CAP cadet career.  I was later a GTL and mission observer with real mission experience in both capacities.

[davidsinn]

I don't know what a 182/172 burns hourly

8gal/hr for a 172. 10-11gal/hr for a 182R and 11-12gal/hr for a 182T NavIII. I think the Airvans are 16+ gal/hr.

[ol'fido]

We need a full set of everything - "ICP In A Can" - from NHQ and the fortitude to require it be used, everywhere, every time, with consequences when it isn't.

While I understand what you're going for here, I don't think it works in practice. Let's take our wing for example. Let's assume for argument's sake that we get one ICP in a can from NHQ and that kit is located at Wing HQ. Let's say that ol'fido puts together a SAREX or actual mission in the nether reaches of our wing. That's a significant amount of AvGas to fly in the kit and assuming they have 2-3 exercises & actuals annually down there that money adds up quick (heck, at the last SAREX my squadron hosted it was expensive just to fly DPA-BMI-DPA, in the $200 range IIRC). I don't know what a 182/172 burns hourly but I know that a DPA-ALN-DPA flight wouldn't be cheap.

The logical solution to that would be to allocate 2 or more cans to big wings like IL, CA, TX, FL, etc but you're still spending a lot of money just to move equipment and a couple of people around.

The solution to this is not to have "ICP in a Can" in the literal sense. The solution is to mandate and publish a "ICP Kit" in much the same way that we have 24 and 72 hour kits. This would include standards and formats for status boards, comm/radio packages(which would have to come from wing and which could be added to the TA), hard copy manuals and forms, etc.

National could also put together on a CD-ROM all the needed software to support such a ICP Kit.

In another thread, I said that if you couldn't go into any little airport out in the middle of nowhere and set up a mission base, you were doing it wrong. I still believe this. We cannot rely on fixed bases or a kit several hours away at Wing HQ to do this. Every group and those squadrons that can should have one of these kits in a central secure location where it's available when need it.

[Thom]

We need a full set of everything - "ICP In A Can" - from NHQ and the fortitude to require it be used, everywhere, every time, with consequences when it isn't.

While I understand what you're going for here, I don't think it works in practice. Let's take our wing for example. Let's assume for argument's sake that we get one ICP in a can from NHQ and that kit is located at Wing HQ. Let's say that ol'fido puts together a SAREX or actual mission in the nether reaches of our wing. That's a significant amount of AvGas to fly in the kit and assuming they have 2-3 exercises & actuals annually down there that money adds up quick (heck, at the last SAREX my squadron hosted it was expensive just to fly DPA-BMI-DPA, in the $200 range IIRC). I don't know what a 182/172 burns hourly but I know that a DPA-ALN-DPA flight wouldn't be cheap.

The logical solution to that would be to allocate 2 or more cans to big wings like IL, CA, TX, FL, etc but you're still spending a lot of money just to move equipment and a couple of people around.

The solution to this is not to have "ICP in a Can" in the literal sense. The solution is to mandate and publish a "ICP Kit" in much the same way that we have 24 and 72 hour kits. This would include standards and formats for status boards, comm/radio packages(which would have to come from wing and which could be added to the TA), hard copy manuals and forms, etc.

National could also put together on a CD-ROM all the needed software to support such a ICP Kit.

In another thread, I said that if you couldn't go into any little airport out in the middle of nowhere and set up a mission base, you were doing it wrong. I still believe this. We cannot rely on fixed bases or a kit several hours away at Wing HQ to do this. Every group and those squadrons that can should have one of these kits in a central secure location where it's available when need it.

What he said.

It's not about 'things' it is about processes and procedures. Simply saying that everyone will use this procedure for tracking active sorties, and these are the standard forms (which can be downloaded and printed on demand) which every ICP will use for each necessary function. Some guidance on software such as 'Everyone will use IMU if possible' or, alternately, 'No one will use IMU' would go a long way in standardizing and regulating our mission support capabilities. None of which should in any way be tied to 'things' kept in a box 200 miles away.

We need to get out of the mindset of 'did Joe bring the Mission Base box?' and get into the mindset of 'Here's what an ICP is supposed to look like, and here's what I have, now how do I best fulfill the ICP needs, following as closely as possible the National Standard'. If I happen to have the 'big box' on hand, then I have all my neat toys, like the big laminated state map and prelabeled whiteboards, etc. If I don't have that, then I make do with printer paper taped to a wall and a dogeared sectional for planning, etc.

That's what Professionals do.


Thom

[Eclipse]

+4 (or whatever).

I didn't mean "literally" a physical piece of equipment, I meant primarily the spec, though Spaceman fell right into the groove
which tends to thwart these initiatives, which is letting trivial logistics dictate the process and procedure.

Once the spec is published, it is an administrative process to insure what is required is where it is needed.  If that means
12 kits, so be it, however in most cases the majority of what is needed is online, or preprinted forms.

In this day and age, if you publish the spec for a document, there will then be 12 ways to access it and use it.

Status board spec?

Print a few big ones at Kinko's and laminate them - that's your main set.

But you can also print them on regular paper, use them on your phone, laptop, tablet, or even draw the same spec
on a whiteboard, chalkboard, or side of the building.  When you have the resources, a shared Google version
projected on the wall and accessible in real-time at the FOB's is a great solution, but when you don't hand-written
works, too (for those who will espouse Armageddon).

The key is the format and the data, not the physical medium.  That way everyone is asking for, and expecting, the same
information, in the same field, no matter where you are.

For those areas with special needs, you add to the standard, in a way which is obviously an addition, not reinvent the process.

This is what ICS is about, and what form flexibility means.

I pick this particular issue not because it is the #1 thing, but because it is important, simple to fix, and sends a clear message.
We've had an ongoing fight about this issue for five years and 6 evals, with people just doing their own thing, sometimes expending considerable time and money on the "solution", then getting bent when they are told their idea is missing the mark and isn't usable.

Scalability and ease of use tend to be lost in these discussions.  Bottom line, if the "system" requires a specific person be involved, it is a fail.

Top-down, above the wing, answer the questions, move on.  No room for "not invented here", anymore than any other part of the
ES curriculum.

Rinse, repeat in every other directorate.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

This "cultural shift" is very much subject to YMMV.

[RADIOMAN015]

The "we're just volunteers" attitude needs to be squashed by command. Yes, we'll lose some members, but are they really productive or just filling a spot on the org chart. When a member comes out with that attitude, un-volunteer them. Send them home. Ops Quals has (or had) a Member Availability application that members could use to list the days and times they are generally available for CAP missions. Most members do not know about this. That needs to change. Every member with an ES qual should be using it. Using it would provide a good general idea of how many members CAP can pull out on any given day. It would also help with notion of activity level, if members are not listed if they do not have a current ES qual.

This shift is most seriously needed in the Emergency Services arena. The "Boy Scouts with planes" notion needs to be killed. Hard. Please keep in mind as you read the couple of lines that I am not anti-cadet. Cadet participation in ES needs to be limited by age. 14 or 15 should be the lowest age for a cadet doing ES. They should be limited to base staff or flight line duties until age 16, when it would be appropriate to involve them in ground teams. Cadets should not be in supervisory roles in ES until age 18. I've seen a change away from the flying club mentality, toward a more well-rounded team based mentality in many of the senior units I've visited. We need the ICs to accept that they cannot run everything from their kitchen table and if a mission runs into a second day or needs more than an aircraft or two and a ground team, they need to stand up a base. CAP needs to be able to integrate into existing ICS structures, not merely attach a CAP branch. We need people, members or staff, to talk to other ES groups. We should be having displays and seminars at SAR conferences, police chiefs' conventions, DR conferences, etc.

We ARE VOLUNTEERS.  In ES when the alert page goes out, each individual member can decided whether they want to participate in that mission or not, what's the big deal    For the most part I don't think updating that availability data base does much for planning, because things come up in adult members lives that they can't control, whether it be at the work place on the day of need OR personally, and most aren't going into the data base to update those changes.  I think that's why (at least in my wing) they use a simple short text message/email alert.  Regarding volunteers performing in certain positions in the squadron, forcing anyone (especially a volunteer)  to do something they don't want to do usually produces poor results.  The volunteer leadership needs to be able to carefully understand what the volunteer member wants to do (and has the aptitude to do).  Personally I don't want to do the same things I do at work all day long at CAP.  I know we've had members only show up once a month, but they contributed to the unit, due to their specialized training/skills/experience e.g. Character Development Officer.


As far as cadets in ES, I think they are all highly motivated would really want to saves someones life if the opportunity arose.  The challenge is some states (and even counties) have some age restrictions, so that may prevent some ground type operations with the cadets.   At least the training is a good cadet retention tool,and maybe in their lifetime the skills learned will be valuable to them.

Basically, I find that it's the same "core" people throughout the wing involved in emergency services, emergency services support (e.g.radio comms), cadet encampments, etc.  Not sure that will change very much in the future -- it can be frustrating 
RM
     

[Eclipse]

We ARE VOLUNTEERS.  In ES when the alert page goes out, each individual member can decided whether they want to participate in that mission or not, what's the big deal.

Basing your response plan on "I sure hope you can make it." and "You're lucky I showed up at all." is how we got where we are.
We have leaders at all echelons reluctant to commit resources they cannot count on, while at the same time those "twice-a-year" members are whining we don't have enough actual missions.  You cannot have it both ways and be taken seriously.

Which is the ultimate goal here.  Our members don't want to be considered "the best volunteers" for the job(s), they want to be considered the best resource, with their pay status being irrelevant to the discussion.  A volunteer force will always have people
with legit reasons why they can't respond, that's part of the game, but there's is a Grand Canyon's difference between "my whole family is sick..." and "I won't commit until I know what you want me to do, and I probably can't stay the whole day."

Or #2 on the hit parade, I'm not coming to training, but you can count on me for "the big one".  No thanks.

For the most part I don't think updating that availability data base does much for planning, because things come up in adult members lives that they can't control, whether it be at the work place on the day of need OR personally, and most aren't going into the data base to update those changes.   

It will make a huge difference if not updating it includes ramifications.  On the duty roster and you don't respond?  Perhaps you're not
called until round two next time, etc.  Can't make it this weekend?  Take your name off the lists.  (There's an app for that).

Just like volunteer fireman, auxiliary policemen, municipal emergency volunteer teams, whatever.  You're a volunteer in the respect that
you don't have to be here and we can't make you answer the phone, but if you expect to be taken seriously, then you should put on your big-boy pants and accept the responsibilities you swore to when you signed your app and accepted than pretty badge or
requested the final sig on the fancy qualification.

A lot of people like to tell their friends they are part of an emergency resource, far less actually want to do something when the phone rings.

[AirDX]

We ARE VOLUNTEERS.  In ES when the alert page goes out, each individual member can decided whether they want to participate in that mission or not, what's the big deal    

YGBSM.  Hohum, Monday Night Football's on, guess I'll stay here with my lard ass in the La-Z-Boy instead of going out to look for some ELT that will turn out to be nothing.

Yeah, buddy, that'll earn some respect.

I've been part of volunteer fire departments and paid-on-call rescue squads ($10/call! Yay!) and then part of a team that ran the ONLY civilian hyperbaric chamber in the central Pacific that treats DCS victims.  I was a VOLUNTEER - but and I took my commitment seriously.  When I was an ambulance crew leader in Virginia, if I just decided not to show up, our unit was out of service, and a significant portion of MY city had degraded EMS response times.  I FELT the responsibility and shouldered it happily, knowing I was protecting MY family, and MY town.

When the doc would call from the hyperbaric treatment center telling me we had a patient being flown in, I got my BUTT in there ASAP - minutes count.  I didn't just DECIDE if I was going to show up or not.

For any of those, if I didn't show up... the chief would happily excuse me from further participation.  No whining about recurrent training, mandated by both the state and the county.  Whatever they said, you did it, or you lost your certifications.  And then... buh-bye!

Anyone who claims to participate in CAP ES and does NOT have an "I'll be there if at all possible" attitude needs to quit.  Sure missions pop up at inopportune times, but you know what, you can't pick and choose.  Sometimes you CAN'T go - there are times, fortunately only a couple of times a month, when I can't leave work because I'm running a real world Air Force mission.  That's why we develop some depth on our roster, so enough qualified people will show regardless of day, date or time.

But you DON'T pick and choose based on a whim.  When I was on the ambulance, there were calls I HATED - going to the old folks home to hook someone up, read the DNR, call the ER doc, watch them die and have the doc certify it just sucked.  Picking up wildly incontinent old folks just sucked.  But I raised my hand, I volunteered, I WENT.

Personally in my 18 months back in CAP, I see a lot of YOUR attitude, RM, and a lot of flying club folks.  Screw that.  I think you've just steeled my resolve a bit more to lead by example, and pressure those in command to restore professionalism to CAP ES.

If you just  want to work with the cadet program, or AE, fine, be a slacker (though the GOOD folks in those programs don't need your version of fair-weather volunteering either).

In ES, you are committing to serve your neighborhood, your city, your county, your state, and your nation.  If you won't commit to getting out of the La-Z-Boy, just stay home.  Get the heck out of CAP and join the quilting circle.       

[AirDX]

IMHO, the only way to "squash" the "I'm only a volunteer" attidtude is with an environment that encourages professionalism.  That includes everything from a PIC flying to the highest standard to the newest SMWOG and CB wearing our uniforms correctly.  That, starts with a leadership which follows the standards to the highest level possible as an example.  A leadership which insists on following every principle we believe in.  And, a leadership not afraid to solicit and hear the input of the membership.

Fred: make it real, make it harder, encourage those with enough professionalism to forge links with state and local ES folks, find real missions.  Then uphold standards.  Make people toe the line or get out.  There are 34790 SMs in the system today.  By the time I was done there might be only 20000.  Or less.  But then we would build up again - people want to be part of an elite, or at least a professional organization, and have pride in it.  I have some pride in CAP - but it could be so much more.

[COL Land]

From the other side...

    The use of "volunteer" is pretty well taboo within the U.S. Army Cadet Corps (USAC), due to the "hey, I'm a volunteer, whatta they gonna do....fire me?" attitude that exists within some folks.

     Yes will will fire you.   In our culture, we use the term "non-paid professional."   The attitude is that we should be as professional at our unique mission as our active, guard and reserve colleagues are at their mission.  USAC is not about fighting America's wars...therefore, to be an effective USAC officer or NCO does not require current warfighter proficiency.  However, there are a host of other skills - including military skills - which are essential. 

     The wear of the uniform is a privilege which comes - in part - based on the skills, experience and drive that an officer or NCO brings to the program.  If you can't live up to that expectation, go home.  Further, rank is a symbol of proficiency and responsibility.   When senior, you ARE in charge.  There is no provision to be "just another officer" within USAC.   To wear the rank, you must fill a valid slot.  Otherwise, an individual can retire or request a change in status to a Civilian Instructor or Civilian Executive, depending on qualifications.

Respectfully,

[N Harmon]

Otherwise, an individual can retire or request a change in status to a Civilian Instructor or Civilian Executive, depending on qualifications.

Are USAC officers and NCOs not considered civilians?

[Ron1319]

I think that the shift towards higher standards at the cost of fewer members is dangerous.  One of my best seniors attends once a month to teach an excellent aerospace class to the cadets and is a chaplain and can teach CD when needed.  Based on your description, you'd run him out of the program for being inadequate or not dedicated enough.  I value him highly. 

I have another friend and employee of my business who joined a squadron with an airplane and seniors that are very into ES.  She has gotten to go flying a couple of times but is a college student and very involved in many other things.  She may decide in the next 5-10 years that she has a place as a mission pilot and is very dedicated to CAP, or she may decide that she doesn't have time for it.  Based on your description, she would not have a place in the organization now and it would not be worth the time to train her because she is not hard core enough.

Once you create too high of a sense of elitism in any group, you fail to get enough new members due to their inability to feel like they can become a part of the group.  Some seniors may join for what is at first a very limited purpose and then later discover that they have more to offer.

In other words, it's dangerous to post on a forum about how you want to grow elitism in CAP and exclude new members due to their inability to live up to your higher than necessary standards. 

[Eclipse]

^ I don't think that is what he (we) said at all.

Members who want to only be involved in AE or CP are fine and appreciated, but then don't kid yourself that you are a resource on the ES side.

And by "standards", we're talking about some pretty low-level expectations considering the potential impact of our purported missions.
Things like "showing up when you say you will", "fulfilling personal commitments", "not expecting the 'other guy'" to do all the crap jobs so you can have fun.

[Ron1319]

Really?

" Make people toe the line or get out.  There are 34790 SMs in the system today.  By the time I was done there might be only 20000.  Or less."

[AirDX]

I think that the shift towards higher standards at the cost of fewer members is dangerous.  One of my best seniors attends once a month to teach an excellent aerospace class to the cadets and is a chaplain and can teach CD when needed.  Based on your description, you'd run him out of the program for being inadequate or not dedicated enough.  I value him highly. 

I have another friend and employee of my business who joined a squadron with an airplane and seniors that are very into ES.  She has gotten to go flying a couple of times but is a college student and very involved in many other things.  She may decide in the next 5-10 years that she has a place as a mission pilot and is very dedicated to CAP, or she may decide that she doesn't have time for it.  Based on your description, she would not have a place in the organization now and it would not be worth the time to train her because she is not hard core enough.

Once you create too high of a sense of elitism in any group, you fail to get enough new members due to their inability to feel like they can become a part of the group.  Some seniors may join for what is at first a very limited purpose and then later discover that they have more to offer.

In other words, it's dangerous to post on a forum about how you want to grow elitism in CAP and exclude new members due to their inability to live up to your higher than necessary standards.

I am primarily directing my ire towards the ES side.  Your AE/chaplain guy is just fine doing what he's doing.

However, the ES side cannot afford "maybe-maybe not" people.  CAP as a whole cannot afford people who pick and choose what regulation to follow. 

I disagree with your analysis of not getting sufficient new blood if the bar is set high for participation.  The Marines never have a problem meeting recruiting goals... people want to part of a program that's tough, and rewarding.

I'm not proposing turning CAP into the Marines.  I am saying we have enough unenforced standards that, if we started requiring everyone to toe the line, would result in a better, stronger, more capable organization.   

[Eclipse]

Really?

" Make people toe the line or get out.  There are 34790 SMs in the system today.  By the time I was done there might be only 20000.  Or less."

Fair enough, and he can defend his own messages, but I, frankly, agree, with the asterisk of what and where the line is.

Are you in favor of "no line" and people can float in and out as they please?  That's not really a good way to run a hair salon, let alone a military auxiliary.

As to the numbers, I'd say those are about right.  We'd drop 5k+ tomorrow if we just changed the member status of the empty shirts.

20K committed, invested, active members is better than twice that number if half never show (other than the obvious revenue issues).  And I guarantee that those 20k happy(er) members who feel appreciated and as if they are contributing will start bringing in their friends and pretty soon you won't even remember you lost anyone.

Either way everyone is happy.

[AirDX]

Really?

" Make people toe the line or get out.  There are 34790 SMs in the system today.  By the time I was done there might be only 20000.  Or less."

Yep.  Look at your own wing: 1,665 senior members, 727 of them are not current with their safety briefs - an extremely minimal requirement, but one that tells me those folks are not participating.  276 of your SMs have not even completed the Intro to Safety module.  If people aren't bothering to complete even these minimal requirements, they aren't participating in the program.  Why are they here?

Note I am not accounting for the vanishingly small number of Patron members, cadet sponsors or legislative members (BTW, there's only one legislative member in CA?  Really?).

My own much smaller wing has 302 SMs, of which only 119 are safety current.  I was going to guess that we had about 100 members that were the backbone of membership that you saw all the time - I was pretty close.  Safety currency is a big thing to me, because here the theory that you can get a brief when (or if) you show up for mission doesn't hold water.  Our prime mission is the tsunami mission, and it depends on immediate response - there is no call out, when we go to tsunami warning members are expected to report directly to the hangars, preflight and be ready to fly - other folks report directly to the state and county EOCs for duty.  Does lack of a safety brief in the last month really destroy your ability to perform your job? No, that's not what I'm saying.  I am saying that we need to be ready ALL THE TIME, meeting ALL THE REGS - not just the ones we choose.  safety is just an easy one to look at as a barometer.

[AirDX]

20K committed, invested, active members is better than twice that number if half never show (other than the obvious revenue issues). 

And the revenue issue is not what you may think.  In 2010, CAP took in $59M in operating revenue.  Of that, $3M were in membership dues.  Cut that by a third, or $1M, and it's only 1.5% of revenue.  Nothing to sneeze at, but not the apocalypse, either.

[Ron1319]

I'm sorry, but at the point of implementation, you are still telling me that some of the members of my unit are not good enough to be in "your" Civil Air Patrol.   The only way to implement what you're talking about is to require commanders to terminate members who are supporters of CAP and contributing in some way. 

Let's take the hair salon analogy, shall we?  Let's say I run a hair salon and I have 6 seats available for hair dressers.  If I have 4 dedicated full time employees who have four of those seats full 90% of the time, then they are producing a large amount of revenue.  Let's say I have 6 who share the other two seats and keep them occupied about 80% of the time.  Then I have two people who split the duties of cleaning.  I have one person who does a great job of going out and flyering for my specials.  I have another person who has great contacts at the local paper and gets me one free advertisement per month in that paper and bring in considerable business.  I only pay people when they are cutting hair and I give the person with the local paper contacts $20/month for that service and I pay a fixed rate for cleaning.  My business runs just fine.  By your definition I should cut the people who are keeping two seats mostly full, cleaning the floor and getting me free advertising and only hire full time people who are there all of the time.  It takes the whole team for the business to be successful.

However, we have ego in the game.  Those who are there all of the time keeping the four chairs full are going to get their feelings hurt somehow because I as the owner appreciate those who are only able to contribute a few hours a month instead of 40 hours/week?  Or do you think that they should be mature enough to accept that the contributions of the others are keeping them from having to do those other tasks, or keeping costs down enough that we can continue to run the business?

If you have problems with individual seniors in your wing, then be sure that your mission critical activities are staffed with people who have the level of dedication that you desire.  Then use the rest of the members who are available sometimes to support that effort with backups and ways to allow their contribution to be significant without endangering the mission.

[arajca]

Back at the hair salon...

one of the four employees commits to 90% full, but only manages 20% full seating while the other three maintain 90%. Are you going to keep the one?

The issue is there are a number of members who can only commit to a limited amount of CAP work, but do an great job within their limitations. That's fine. There is also a number of members who commit to CAP work and do a very poor job at it, but will not accept they are not the greatest thing in the world. Then you have the members who will only do one thing and then only for the fun stuff and will not do any required training or will do the bare minimum only after being harrassed by their commander and expect everyone else to do the tedious work of making sure they can still do the fun stuff. The last two are the problems. Those are ones we need to move out.

A member who can only make one meeting every two months, but keeps the sqdn's website running and current is contributing. A similar member who commits to the website maintenance, but lets it fall into disarray and blames everyone else for it is not contributing.

[AirDX]

Back at the hair salon...

one of the four employees commits to 90% full, but only manages 20% full seating while the other three maintain 90%. Are you going to keep the one?

The issue is there are a number of members who can only commit to a limited amount of CAP work, but do an great job within their limitations. That's fine. There is also a number of members who commit to CAP work and do a very poor job at it, but will not accept they are not the greatest thing in the world. Then you have the members who will only do one thing and then only for the fun stuff and will not do any required training or will do the bare minimum only after being harrassed by their commander and expect everyone else to do the tedious work of making sure they can still do the fun stuff. The last two are the problems. Those are ones we need to move out.

A member who can only make one meeting every two months, but keeps the sqdn's website running and current is contributing. A similar member who commits to the website maintenance, but lets it fall into disarray and blames everyone else for it is not contributing.

A very good description of the problem, and exactly what I'm talking about.  I think Eclipse calls them "empty shirts".  We don't need them, and in fact keeping track of them consumes valuable volunteer time far better expended elsewhere.

EVERYONE's time is limited.  I am tired of hearing that as an excuse for not doing something you've committed to do.

[SamFranklin]

I think Eclipse calls them "empty shirts".  We don't need them, and in fact keeping track of them consumes valuable volunteer time far better expended elsewhere.

As Ron said, perhaps many of us sort of nod to your sentiment, but in practice, that's another story.

Of course I'm not going to call an absentee member to respond on an ES mission, except as a last resort. But I'll gladly help an occasionally-active member find a niche that allows him or her to contribute when their schedule allows.

If that "empty shirt" is not active today, perhaps tomorrow will be different. No volunteer non-profit can afford to alienate potential contributors. It's people over process, not vice versa. If your admin processes make you think you're better off without people, then you've got a counter-productive process.  Read Blanchard sometime: the time spent investing in people is the best time you can spend.

The corporate (not appropriated) budget sure could use the "empty shirts'" annual dues and donations. To say keeping those folks on the rolls is not worth your time betrays an ignorance of the big picture and the nature of volunteerism.

[DakRadz]

I think Eclipse calls them "empty shirts".  We don't need them, and in fact keeping track of them consumes valuable volunteer time far better expended elsewhere.

As Ron said, perhaps many of us sort of nod to your sentiment, but in practice, that's another story.

Of course I'm not going to call an absentee member to respond on an ES mission, except as a last resort. But I'll gladly help an occasionally-active member find a niche that allows him or her to contribute when their schedule allows.

If that "empty shirt" is not active today, perhaps tomorrow will be different. No volunteer non-profit can afford to alienate potential contributors. It's people over process, not vice versa. If your admin processes make you think you're better off without people, then you've got a counter-productive process.  Read Blanchard sometime: the time spent investing in people is the best time you can spend.

The corporate (not appropriated) budget sure could use the "empty shirts'" annual dues and donations. To say keeping those folks on the rolls is not worth your time betrays an ignorance of the big picture and the nature of volunteerism.

If you read arajca's post, to which AirDX responded with his "empty shirts" comments, you will see they are talking about the people who don't do their job or are very bad and refuse to accept they are bad, AND are empty shirts.

They acknowledged that a member who makes a meeting every month or two, but keeps the squadron website running, is still contributing in a big way. And all the other examples to match this.

Context helps.

[Eclipse]

If that "empty shirt" is not active today, perhaps tomorrow will be different.

Then call me tomorrow.

the time spent investing in people is the best time you can spend.

How about the time wasted training and tending to people who take more than they will ever give?

Volunteerism?  How about the 20-40% of members who are doing the heavy lifting that allows the other 60% to have a really cool card in their wallet?
Their time, patience, and initiative is not infinite, and because we carry so much dead weight, we burn out the good ones and then are stuck with people
who haven't a clue but have lots of free time.

ES tends to float to the top in these discussions because it tends to be the pinch point of effort, planning, preparation because the "goal" is somewhat
subjective.  We all know the paradigm of military and public service "Bad things usually have to happen to someone before we get to play.  It's also a lot
easier from a life-management perspective to be involved in CP or AE as they tend to be cyclical, structured, and scheduled.

But that doesn't make a CP-heavy member somehow "less-valuable".  CP is arguably 1/2 of our real mission, and things like encampments, NCSA's, or just the day-to-day herding of the cadet cats are crticial to our mission and serious draws on manpower and other resources.  However isn't it "funny" how in most wings the majority of the fully-engaged CP people are also involved in ES and AE, and vice-vice-versa?  And then those same members, usually about 20-40% of the wing, listen to other people complain how they have "no time", etc. (when in most case it is a choice, not a burden).

Anyone who wants to "contribute" is welcome in any party I run, but "contribute" does not equal "you're lucky I showed up at all".

[AirDX]

The corporate (not appropriated) budget sure could use the "empty shirts'" annual dues and donations. To say keeping those folks on the rolls is not worth your time betrays an ignorance of the big picture and the nature of volunteerism.

Ignorance (you used the I-word, not me) is failing to actually look at the financials and see just how much of our operating revenue is made up of dues and contributions.  Between the two they total about $4.7M of out $59M operating budget.  Roughly 8%,  AGAIN, nothing to sneeze at, but not the difference between life and death.  If we lost a third of that in one stroke, it's not great, but again, not the apocalypse you think.

I'll go out on a limb and say that I sincerely doubt we're getting much in the way of contributions from the empty shirts, and a lot more from the folks that actually participate in the program.  I can't prove it, but.... think about it.

Everyone seems to think I want to change CAP into the Marines, and that's not the case.  In fact, we wouldn't need to change anything except to enforce the regulations and standards as they are written.  If people want to contribute in a small way they can - but they need to actually DO what they say they will DO.  And if ES is a special case, if you can't train, keep up your quals and show up when needed, then don't pretend to be an ES person.  If your niche is sweeping the salon floor, then be the best [darn]ed sweeper ever.  Have some pride.

My background and frame of reference is 25 years in the FAA as an air traffic controller.  I have zero tolerance for anyone who shows up at a job, paid or unpaid, and doesn't give it 100%.

One of the exchange students who have cycled through my house over the years, a young man from Uzbekistan, observed that Americans all seem to have two jobs: one they do for money, and one they do for free.  Just because you are doing something for free, don't give it less than your best shot.

[RiverAux]

Everyone seems to think I want to change CAP into the Marines, and that's not the case.  In fact, we wouldn't need to change anything except to enforce the regulations and standards as they are written. 

I don't think that would get you what you want.  There is no regulation that would, for example, force a member to participate in a particular number of squadron meetings.  And in the ES field there is no regulation requiring a participation in a certain percentage of missions in order to maintain your qualifications.  It doesn't really take that much work to maintain ES quals. 

So, current regulations would not remove those being called deadwood. 

[SamFranklin]

Ignorance (you used the I-word, not me) is failing to actually look at the financials and see just how much of our operating revenue is made up of dues and contributions.  Between the two they total about $4.7M of out $59M operating budget.  Roughly 8%,  AGAIN, nothing to sneeze at, but not the difference between life and death.  If we lost a third of that in one stroke, it's not great, but again, not the apocalypse you think.

Sorry to divert the main conversation, but I wonder if you understand that the corporate budget funds activities and programs that by law the appropriated budget cannot.

Operating budgets for the regions. Travel funds for wing and region and higher commanders. National Cadet activities. Cadet scholarships. Chaplains. Legislative services. Volunteer magazine. Aerospace programs. Professional development. The list goes on.

People will certainly disagree about which of those areas ought to be the priority, but you're mistaken if you think foregoing roughly one-third of the measely 8% of our revenue represented by dues income would have only a modest impact on CAP's effectiveness. It would be a devastating blow.

Seems the "empty shirts" are more valuable after all.

[Ron1319]

The counter argument is rather straightforward.  It sounds like this, "A more professional organization would attract more members to replace those who were lost due to the higher standards so the budget would remain flat."  or "I'd be willing to pay 30-40% more per year, still less than $10/month, for membership in a more professional organization."

I'd personally be willing to pay $2/year more so that the NCSAs wouldn't have to cut things like pins and T-shirts because of budget cuts.  We'll have to wait and see if the federal budget news of the last few weeks has any impact on CAP.

[AirDX]

Ignorance (you used the I-word, not me) is failing to actually look at the financials and see just how much of our operating revenue is made up of dues and contributions.  Between the two they total about $4.7M of out $59M operating budget.  Roughly 8%,  AGAIN, nothing to sneeze at, but not the difference between life and death.  If we lost a third of that in one stroke, it's not great, but again, not the apocalypse you think.

Sorry to divert the main conversation, but I wonder if you understand that the corporate budget funds activities and programs that by law the appropriated budget cannot.

Operating budgets for the regions. Travel funds for wing and region and higher commanders. National Cadet activities. Cadet scholarships. Chaplains. Legislative services. Volunteer magazine. Aerospace programs. Professional development. The list goes on.

People will certainly disagree about which of those areas ought to be the priority, but you're mistaken if you think foregoing roughly one-third of the measely 8% of our revenue represented by dues income would have only a modest impact on CAP's effectiveness. It would be a devastating blow.

Seems the "empty shirts" are more valuable after all.

Dues income is only 5% of total revenue, not 8%.  8% includes donations.  I don't think the slackers among us are donating a lot of cash to CAP.

[jimmydeanno]

I don't think the slackers among us are donating a lot of cash to CAP.

Actually, the local squadrons typically get a number of donations throughout the year.  I know that my "contributions" so far this year have been around $750, in places like encampment scholarship funds, starter money for cyberpatriot, starter money for a squadron snack bar, NCOA & ALS fees for needy cadets, etc.  I've even "donated" money for O-Flights in the past when money ran out, or the wing didn't allocate much.

Do I write a check to NHQ?  Nope, but the local unit certainly gets more than my membership dues each year.

I figure if, I, as a member, am not willing to support our missions, why should anyone else? 

[SamFranklin]

I don't think the slackers among us are donating a lot of cash to CAP.

Sure they do. I haven't been able to volunteer for a few years, but I pay dues and write a check at tax time, too. I'm no saint. I know other long-time, inactive members who do likewise. In my old unit one guy wrote checks for 10 years, no exaggeration.  He was such a lapsed slacker i dont think anyone knew him enough to say hello on the street.  Perhaps these examples show why NHQ went to the trouble of making the Patron category.

Professional fundraisers would tell you that inactive guys like me aren't "slackers" but easy targets for donations. It's called "guilt money," as in, "Still haven't been able to get back active again, so the least I can do is write a check to assuage my guilt."

I respect your motives, but your cavalier willingness to trim 15,000 or more contributors is exactly wrong and at odds with the basic concept of volunteerism.

[RADIOMAN015]

We ARE VOLUNTEERS.  In ES when the alert page goes out, each individual member can decided whether they want to participate in that mission or not, what's the big deal.

Basing your response plan on "I sure hope you can make it." and "You're lucky I showed up at all." is how we got where we are.
We have leaders at all echelons reluctant to commit resources they cannot count on, while at the same time those "twice-a-year" members are whining we don't have enough actual missions.  You cannot have it both ways and be taken seriously.
COMMENT:  Well, I do in fact have my availability listed in the ES data base, BUT I don't think it really is used by ANYONE in any wing.  Most wings I think are using either a wing wide page (just as your wing does) or are calling specific individuals based upon what the Alert Officer already knows.   I've been conservative on when I am available, However, if the page goes out during the work day, I'll evaluate IF I can help and even IF later, if the mission isn't completed I may call the IC.     


Which is the ultimate goal here.  Our members don't want to be considered "the best volunteers" for the job(s), they want to be considered the best resource, with their pay status being irrelevant to the discussion.  A volunteer force will always have people with legit reasons why they can't respond, that's part of the game, but there's is a Grand Canyon's difference between "my whole family is sick..." and "I won't commit until I know what you want me to do, and I probably can't stay the whole day."
COMMENT:  Well volunteers can limit the time they can do something, at least they are being right up front as to their limitations, IF you get someone who doesn't have those limitations use them first.  No one wants to get "trapped" either by the IC that doesn't want to call out additional resources OR no one else answer the call, and you are at the 12 hour mark (including the entire overnight period).  When you hit 10 hours of ground team time (or even at mission base), it's time to start looking for replacements.  How far away you are from your home squadron on the response may also affect availability.  No ones out there wants to get themselves killed/injuried because they are tired

For the most part I don't think updating that availability data base does much for planning, because things come up in adult members lives that they can't control, whether it be at the work place on the day of need OR personally, and most aren't going into the data base to update those changes.   

It will make a huge difference if not updating it includes ramifications.  On the duty roster and you don't respond?  Perhaps you're not called until round two next time, etc.  Can't make it this weekend?  Take your name off the lists.  (There's an app for that).

Just like volunteer fireman, auxiliary policemen, municipal emergency volunteer teams, whatever.  You're a volunteer in the respect that you don't have to be here and we can't make you answer the phone, but if you expect to be taken seriously, then you should put on your big-boy pants and accept the responsibilities you swore to when you signed your app and accepted than pretty badge or requested the final sig on the fancy qualification.

COMMENT:   Many volunteer and even paid call fire departments have issues with getting personnel to respond during certain times of the day (and evening late nights/very early mornings can be problematic).  Some volunteer ambulance services actually have paid employees during the daytime and volunteers only nights, due to most of the volunteers being "out of town" during the day.   I hear that constantly on my radio scanner/receiver, when the 4th page has gone out with no response and they are calling for mutual aid.    I think some volunteer fire departments/ambulance services actually have personnel that sleep over in the facility so an immediate response is available.   Maybe CAP someday will need that type of "alert" manning right at the hanger or very closed by for an immediate response.

Within Northeast Region, a nearby wing can also be alerted to assist IF if it comes necessary.  Most of our missions now are more liked scheduled "patrols", (basically like many of our missions during WW II, which were scheduled type patrols or assistance with training) at least on the air side, so there usually enough members available.


A lot of people like to tell their friends they are part of an emergency resource, far less actually want to do something when the phone rings.
COMMENT:  Well I don't think it's that many people doing this.

RM

[AirDX]

I respect your motives, but your cavalier willingness to trim 15,000 or more contributors is exactly wrong and at odds with the basic concept of volunteerism.

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I don't think all 15,000 are cash contributors - in fact I'd bet you that the huge majority are not.   I can also bend a bit and say those 15,000 are prefectly welcome, as long as they don't pretend to be ES responders.  There are venues, such as Patron membership, where you can park yourself for a few years if you so desire, and not be a drag on the rest of us.

[Eclipse]

RM - when you learn to properly use the quote tags, we can continue this.  I'm not wading through that mess.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Again, ES is not the be-all and end-all of CAP.

Professionalism is equally applicable to CP and AE.

I have done ES, both training and operationally.

However, health conditions I have now have severely restricted that.  Squadron and wing personnel both know that.

BUT...I also have not put my name out as a "go to" person on an ELT call.

The primary thing I do now in CAP is instructing, mentoring and generally behind-the-scenes operations.

No, it'll never earn me a Find ribbon, a BMV/SMV, or any of the "glamour" CAP decorations.

I just show up every week (or whenever asked), do what I can with the time that I have, hope it does some good, and then go home.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

There are venues, such as Patron membership, where you can park yourself for a few years if you so desire, and not be a drag on the rest of us.

There are also venues outside of being a Patron where you can contribute.

Again...with feeling...

NOT EVERYONE IN CAP IS INTERESTED IN ES!

If the rest of us who do behind the scenes stuff like make sure paperwork A gets to recipient B with signature C is a "drag" on the rest of you...well, thankfully I don't need the permission or endorsement of the ES-only zealots to do what I do in CAP.

[AirDX]

There are also venues outside of being a Patron where you can contribute.

Again...with feeling...

NOT EVERYONE IN CAP IS INTERESTED IN ES!
If the rest of us who do behind the scenes stuff like make sure paperwork A gets to recipient B with signature C is a "drag" on the rest of you...well, thankfully I don't need the permission or endorsement of the ES-only zealots to do what I do in CAP.

Absolutely correct and I do not intend for the Cadet or AE programs to be belittled or shuffled aside, they are 2/3s of the CAP.  I preach that all the time.

All I am saying is whatever the CAP venue, I am [darn]ed sick and tired of those who SAY they will do something and DON't do it.  ES is the part that stared this, with our friend RM's remarks up-thread.

I AM one of those charged with shuffling paper around.  I am tired of sending e-mails to empty shirts about training requirements they need to complete, or events we need bodies for or whatever, and I can't even get the courtesy of a reply.  I am tired of leaving voicemails that are ignored.  That is the time that is being wasted.

I am tired of the "I'm a volunteer, I don't need to show up even if I say I will" attitude and level of performance.  It is within our grasp to transform CAP into a professional organization, not the near-joke it seems to be sometimes.  Why is everyone hell-bent on accepting miserable performance?  Maybe the CAP's culture is mediocre performance, and it's too deeply entrenched to save.  I don't think so.

[Pump Scout]

I am tired of the "I'm a volunteer, I don't need to show up even if I say I will" attitude and level of performance. 

Couldn't agree more - that's an attitude that can become a cancer in any organization it shows up in. I'd bet a bunch of us see it in our day jobs as well. People who think their performance and professionalism should be dictated by their paycheck are a pox on the folks who strive to be the best at whatever it is they do.

[Eclipse]

In the military, everyone from top to bottom knows their place and their role. Not so in CAP, and this is the key, I believe, to fixing things.

This requires high-speed Plans and Programs People at nearly every level.

1) Identify the mission (beyond the rhetoric of the "Big 3")
2) Identify our "customer".

       These are intertwined, may not be in this order, and includes both internal and external people and agencies as "customers".

3) Create a National Level Plan which fulfills the mission and customer needs.

4) Give each Region their plan with an explanation of their piece of the puzzle.
This plans needs to be specific based on the mandates of the mission, regardless of existing resources, etc.
(i.e. you will have "x" aircrews, "x" ground teams, "x" cadets, "x encampments", etc., they will be here, here, here, and here.
Plans are negotiable, but once adopted, they need to be reviewed annually, with actual real numbers and data, and ramifications for failure.
You won't need to be worrying about the nonsense of compliance inspections, because wings executing the plans
properly will have to be doing things right to get things done.

5) Each Region identifies where each Wing fits and publishes a plan for that Wing, identifying how they
fill the Region's plan, and Region fills the National Plan.

6) Each Wing publishes their mandates for the Group CC's.

7) The Group CC's publish their Group's plan mandates to the units.

8) The Units, which are the heart of CAP, fulfill their plans, which in turn fulfill everyone else's, and
everyone knows where they fit in the "Grande Scheme^®".  No one is allowed to sit on the
bench without realizing they are a burden to the plan, and those who wish to be empty shirts go into a
different category of membership.

There is no successful organization in this world that does not know what product or service it provides,
or that has a "vague idea" and "hopes we figure it out along the way".

There is no successful organization in this world that allows its employees, divisions, and echelons to drift
in a sea of self-motivation and self-actualization, while at the same time being demonstrably deficient in
baseline performance.  You can execute and be Hawkeye Pierce, but if you don't, you better look sharp, stand straight,
and tread lightly.  You can't have it both ways.

In other words, we have to stop people from doing as they please, treating the "mission" as a menu, and
deciding themselves when they are done.  The excuse of "we are only volunteers" carries no weight, since as a
volunteer we make a voluntary commitment to excellence, and our compensation is that excellence and personal knowledge
of a job done right which serves a greater good.  The greatest military this earth has ever seen is all volunteer, so
are many police and fire departments, most of the ARC, Salvation Army, Sea Cadets, ACA, and yes, even most employment
is essentially voluntary.

Monetary compensation is not the delineation of professionalism or excellence.  Those who believe it is, miss the point entirely.

Few if any of those other organizations, or any successful company, allow its members or employees to come and go as they please,
wear whatever they want, dictate their personal mission (to the detriment of the greater good), ignore regulatory and training mandates,
or simply wander around without purpose, bothering others who are actually getting things done (do not confuse flexible work environments
like Microsoft, Apple, and Google with "doing as you please" - those are environments which value execution above all else, and those
who do not perform do not stick around long).

Every successful company and organization is laser-focused and knows exactly what their product or service is,
stays in its lane, and you can usually chart their down years when they lost focus or tried to be "all things to all people".
Only huge, successful corporations, with capital to burn, can experiment and take tangential tracks from their core
competencies, and CAP is not, and will never be, on that scale (nor should it be).

We need to get back to a member-focused organization that realizes it has to commit on a national scale, but execute locally.

The only important resource in CAP is the membership, and the pyramid of support is supposed to be inverted to support the members executing the broader mission, not the upper echelons treating their administrivia and check boxes as if that was the mission, and in order to help our members execute the mission...

...we need to decide what it is, and let them know...

[gregma]

Very well said Eclipse.  Thank you.

Greg

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

In other words, we have to stop people from doing as they please, treating the "mission" as a menu, and
deciding themselves when they are done.  The excuse of "we are only volunteers" carries no weight, since as a
volunteer we make a voluntary commitment to excellence, and our compensation is that excellence and personal knowledge
of a job done right which serves a greater good.  The greatest military this earth has ever seen is all volunteer, so
are many police and fire departments, most of the ARC, Salvation Army, Sea Cadets, ACA, and yes, even most employment
is essentially voluntary.

Earlier someone mentioned the AE officer who joins with a commitment / agreement to teach once a month. For the sake of argument, he's the Asst. AEO (Internal). Do you see this as treating the mission as a menu?

I would not.

[Eclipse]

In other words, we have to stop people from doing as they please, treating the "mission" as a menu, and
deciding themselves when they are done.  The excuse of "we are only volunteers" carries no weight, since as a
volunteer we make a voluntary commitment to excellence, and our compensation is that excellence and personal knowledge
of a job done right which serves a greater good.  The greatest military this earth has ever seen is all volunteer, so
are many police and fire departments, most of the ARC, Salvation Army, Sea Cadets, ACA, and yes, even most employment
is essentially voluntary.

Earlier someone mentioned the AE officer who joins with a commitment / agreement to teach once a month. For the sake of argument, he's the Asst. AEO (Internal). Do you see this as treating the mission as a menu?

I would not.

For starters, someone who shows up once a month is not an AEO, they are an instructor, and would depend on whether he is fulfilling his part of the mission by staying current on required personal training, and is pursuing professional development.  In my view it is a package.

That's one of the problems we have right now - people with signature lines longer than their appointment books. They get the satisfaction of a nice business card to show off to their friends at bridge games, but don't actually do half what the job actually entails.

So yes, someone posted as Assistant AEO, who only shows up once a month, is treating the mission like a menu.  Few similar organizations that purport to be the professionalized resource we do would allow similar behavior.

[RiverAux]

So Eclipse, what is the consequence for failure to meet the targets given to you from above?  Just what are you going to do to the squadron that fails to have the required number of cadets, for example? 

The only real influence CAP has over such things is shifting corporate resources around.  And that tool is already being used -- if your unit is too small you may lose your van.  If you're not flying enough, the plane goes bye bye. 

We already know what squadrons, groups, and wings are not performing, so what will this massive planning process produce but statistical data to prove what we already know to be true. 

And you must not be very familiar with the massive waste of time already involved in producing plans in CAP.  Ask your PAOs about their mandated plans. 

[Eclipse]

So Eclipse, what is the consequence for failure to meet the targets given to you from above?  Just what are you going to do to the squadron that fails to have the required number of cadets, for example? 

Replace the commander, move people around, or retire the charter.  Harsh, unpopular, and necessary.  CAP is not a rec center, it is a structured program
with requirements. Many that people largely ignore.  Like all goals, there is always latitude.  A commander who misses a goal by 2 but did 5 recruiting drives and lost a couple because they moved is different then the one who says "meh, whatever, what can they do to me?" and then continues to march his 4 cadets in a circle and hopes they bring his friends.

In that case, the number itself has to be a product of actual data - demographics of the area, population density, etc.  And charters might have to move around.  Right now we put a charter basically wherever the commander lives.  That doesn't mean they belong there.   Again, on this specific point, were I HEADCAP, I'd start asking why the three major metro areas of this country - NY, ORD, and LA, have so little CAP presence as to be invisible.  That's unacceptable, and until you fix that, how is rural anywhere going to know who we are.

"By accident" hasn't been working to well.

This will not be an overnight process, nor will it be painless.

The PAO plans, like every other plan executed in the vacuum of a silo, fails because it is not part of a greater plan, and there are no ramifications for failure.  There's no standard, no barometer, no mid-cycle reevaluation, just some seed cast into the wind, and then surprise when nothing happens.

[RiverAux]

Mandates do not motivate volunteers.  If anything they demotivate folks since it becomes very clear that those upon whom the mandate is being placed are less important to the organization than those doing the mandating. 

Now, I don't have a particular problem with developing goals because in some areas it isn't really clear what CAP thinks is important.  But the idea that any of these goals are worth trashing the program for is insane. 

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

For starters, someone who shows up once a month is not an AEO, they are an instructor, and would depend on whether he is fulfilling his part of the mission by staying current on required personal training, and is pursuing professional development.  In my view it is a package.

That's one of the problems we have right now - people with signature lines longer than their appointment books. They get the satisfaction of a nice business card to show off to their friends at bridge games, but don't actually do half what the job actually entails.

So yes, someone posted as Assistant AEO, who only shows up once a month, is treating the mission like a menu.  Few similar organizations that purport to be the professionalized resource we do would allow similar behavior.

20-1 does not have an instructor position. So working within the CAP framework the Squadron CC and AEO agree that they can use some one to teach once a month. He's assigned Asst AEO. His classes are assisting the AEO in completing the squadron level AE program goals. So in 6 months we have 2nd Lt Once A. Month.
He can't teach if he fails to keep up on Safety, EO or any new training that comes down the pipe, so let's assume he does. Like it or not, PD past Level I is optional in CAP. The AEO is happy with his work and works on the requirements for the AE Tech Rating with him. The CC is happy and signs off on it and a year later we have 1st Lt Once A. Month. And for the next 5 years he continues to provide outstanding AE classes to the cadets.

How is this squadron helped by saying "Come 4 times a month or leave"?

Does the opinion change if a local CPA says I can come once a month for the finance meeting and do all the finance paperwork? He might even end up as Maj Once A Month, Squadron Finance Officer.

A squadron commander and his staff need to get all the tasks done. The AEO listed above might hold an other staff position and be the GTL for the unit's GT. He might be very happy to have a night where AE is getting done and he's not doing it.

I don't see anything unprofessional in committing to a certain schedule and keeping to it.

[Eclipse]

20-1 does not have an instructor position.

You're making my point.  Anyone can be an instructor, and does need a fancy title to do it, nor should they get equal recognition of someone who is actually doing that job.  AEO, done properly, has a lot more to do than just launch rockets and teach the force of flight.  If you're a member who "just wants to help", great!  Thank you!  But don't expect a badge and a business card until you step up as a staffer and carry the same weight.

How is this squadron helped by saying "Come 4 times a month or leave"?

That's not what I am saying, but will be the knee-jerk of everyone with excuses.

Does the opinion change if a local CPA says I can come once a month for the finance meeting and do all the finance paperwork? He might even end up as Maj Once A Month, Squadron Finance Officer.

No.  Again, if you want to "help", great.  If you want the recognition of staff appointment, the professional development credit, and the personal accomplishment that comes with that, you need to do more.  This is exactly why we have an entire generation of clueless field-grade officers!  They did some job that auto-checked their boxes and no one cared enough to keep them in an appropriate grade.  We reap what we sow.

A squadron commander and his staff need to get all the tasks done. The AEO listed above might hold an other staff position and be the GTL for the unit's GT. He might be very happy to have a night where AE is getting done and he's not doing it.

You can't move your argument all over the board like that - one minute the guy shows up once a month, the next he's a GTL, you have to pick one angle.

But...

...that's the other issue we have - that everyone has to be "somebody".  What's wrong with letting members be members and just "do"? Instruct, be GTM's, run ES, help the cadets.  They don't need a staff posting to be valuable resources, but we post everyone because we are so shorthanded, and NHQ keeps upping the useless posting requirements while not giving us any need for filling those jobs.

I've said for years we should bar any staff or command post in the first two years and just let members be members in the same way we let cadets be cadets, and the USAF let's Airmen be Airmen.

"But I need to to progress..."  Again, huge problem.  If the only reason you're taking a staff job is for progression, you're missing the point, and
as we all are reminded so often and painfully, the grade doesn't show much except progression, so if you're not looking for a command slot, and you're
only taking a job to progress, jump out of the circle, and find something you enjoy, and leave the staff jobs to others who are doing it because they
want the job, have something to contribute, or on a track of upward mobility.

Some would say "once a month members are the core of CAP".  I would say that if that is true, we can see the problem bright as day.

Regardless, those people are, for the most part, the exception, and we can't fix CAP by starting with the exceptions.  That's why we are where we are.

We set the course, and ask people to follow.  Most will, some won't.

Now, I don't have a particular problem with developing goals because in some areas it isn't really clear what CAP thinks is important.  But the idea that any of these goals are worth trashing the program for is insane.

Without goals, structure, and expectations, there is no program to trash, it's just a mish-mash of mess with a few pockets of anecdotal and usually accidental success.  Success that doesn't scale, or live beyond the personalities that pushed the rock uphill.

[RiverAux]

I've said for years we should bar any staff or command post in the first two years and just let members be members in the same way we let cadets be cadets, and the USAF let's Airmen be Airmen.

CG Aux, which has many more active programs with accompanying staff officer positions than CAP, has a general guideline against appointing someone to a staff position in their first year.  I think that is probably a good idea, but I wouldn't make it a firm rule. 

For starters, someone who shows up once a month is not an AEO, they are an instructor, and would depend on whether he is fulfilling his part of the mission by staying current on required personal training, and is pursuing professional development.  In my view it is a package.

Is the Chaplain who shows up once a month for moral leadership not a Chaplain?  A staff officer positions takes the amount of time that it takes.  Some take hardly any time, while others need to be scurrying their rear off at every meeting to get the job done. 

Without goals, structure, and expectations, there is no program to trash, it's just a mish-mash of mess with a few pockets of anecdotal and usually accidental success.

You do realize that we basically have a similar structure already as part of the SUI process?  It doesn't give numerical targets for accomplishments, but it certainly lays out what is expected to be done.  I've never seen any proof that our SUI system really does much to make CAP a better organization, so I'm not sure why anyone would think adding numeric goals to it would significantly improve things. 

[Eclipse]

We're not "adding numeric goals" - that is what we're doing now - some random staffer wakes up on a Tuesday, decides he'll "play CAP today" and writes a list of goals that meet no mandate, mean nothing to the mission, and fall on deaf ears.

The is a top-down mission requirement we commit to, and then either do or do not, with all that goes with that.

CAP is will be the secondary response asset to 'x' agency here, here, and here.

Therefore, we need this, this, and this, here, here, and here.

To put those assets there, you will, do x, y, and z.

That is your primary mission and mantra this year.  Anything else is secondary, or an additional part of this plan.

This is across the board in ES, CP, and AE, and includes elimination of unnecessary duplication of effort and activities, calendar and resource
deconfliction with extreme prejudice, and standardization across the board.

And no one, anywhere, is doing anything significant "their way".  We stop wasting time on start-up tasks every time we do something, and
get down to the business at hand, the mission.

[Eclipse]

Is the Chaplain who shows up once a month for moral leadership not a Chaplain? A staff officer positions takes the amount of time that it takes.  Some take hardly any time, while others need to be scurrying their rear off at every meeting to get the job done. 

Again, if we're going to micro this out of the box, we're dead, but I would also say "no".  Chaplains, for starters, are "special", and suffice to say I have significant issues with the existing program, the way it is implemented, and the seemingly conflicting goals of that program.  There is more to being a "CAP Chaplain" than a once a month CD class, and if that is all you are doing, you don't need or deserve the status.  You can teach the classes without the title.

You do realize that we basically have a similar structure already as part of the SUI process?  It doesn't give numerical targets for accomplishments, but it certainly lays out what is expected to be done.  I've never seen any proof that our SUI system really does much to make CAP a better organization, so I'm not sure why anyone would think adding numeric goals to it would significantly improve things.

Most units and wings treat the SUI / CI process as a final exam, not the snapshot it should be, and few do anything on purpose beyond the bare minimums.

[lordmonar]

I have advocated much of what Eclipse is say as well.

National, Region and Wings all need to have clear OPLANS that specifically identify operational requirments.

Wings then tasks squadrons with specific portions of that OPLAN.

Squadron commanders then have the same job description as all USAF squadron commanders......equip, man and train their squadrons to carry out assigned missions.

Right now squadrons can exist for the sole sake of existing.

Can this demotivate members?  Sure it could.  But it also can motivate them by giving them goals.

The Homer J. Simpson Composite squadron is tasked with providing X number of trained aircrews.  They are tasked with providing X number of Ground Teams, Y number of MROs, Z number of FLMs, ICs, AOBD, GBD, etc and so on.

This then gives the commander a idea of how much recruiting he needs to do.  "My squadron needs to have 5 air crew (15 bodies), 2 ground teams  (10 bodies), 2 ICs, 1 GBD, 1 AOBD, 1 PSC, 1 OSC.  That means I need to have 31 members minimum to meet my OPLAN taskings".

It gives the wing a tool to actually manage our personnel.  When they see the HJS squadron start to drop to 31 members they know they need to send someone down there to find out what help they need to recruit and train more people.

This does seveal things.

One.  It would give us a score card that we can judge the effectiveness of a squadron commander. 
Two.  It gives us the ability to do real time status reporting which will improve out ability to meet customer needs.
Three.  It gives our member a better sense of mission. 
Four.  It allows for better target recruiting.   (someone wants to join to be on ground teams....but your squadron is not tasked to ground teams....then you can steer him to a better squadron).  Likewise if you don't have enough pilots you know you have to go out and find some.
Five.  It allows us to better manage training.  Why do a tone of MRO training if we already have enough MROS.

This works really well for ES....but can also be extended to CP and AE as well.

City X has 1000 children in our target age group.   Wing can task squadrons to get and keep a certain percentage of those kids in our program.  Tasking CP squadrons to maintain specific numbers of CP officers based on the size of their units.  (say the HMJ squadron is tasked with maintaining a cadet population of 20 cadets...then they need to have a minum of 2 CP officers and a ratio of 1 officer per 10 cadets.

So now the HJS squadorn needs to have 53 members to meet their ES and CP taskings.

That then drives the support side of the equation.  You need 1 personnel officer for ever 20 members, 1 Admin officer for ever 15 members.  If they are assigned CAP assets then they are mandated to have a logistics officer.  If they have a vehicle then the need a Vehicle officer.

And note...that the goal here is not to allow double billeting.  You can have a pilot who is also a GTM-1 and an AOBD.....but he can only be counted in one of those billets.

The real work on this and the biggest road block to this is the amount of analysis that would be needed to get it up to speed.

On the ES side.....Wings will have to first write the bloody OPLANS.  This tells them specifically how many people they need and what sort of equipment (aircraft, vans, radios, ELPRs, Ground Team gear, etc) they need to meet the OPLAN.

Then they have to look at their wing's geography and demographics.  Where is the best place to place those ground teams, aircraft and support teams.  Which city can support a large squadron or multiple squadrons.  In cities and towns with squadrons how many people can the reasonablly be expected to recruit.

Then the taskings will need to be divided up and given to the squadron commanders.

These will drive everything else.

No more arbitrary numerical goals.  "every needs to increase their squdron by 10%".
If you are meeting your OPLAN taskings then you are done.

[RiverAux]

We actually already sort of have some of those goals.  Those who have access to Commander's Dashboard know where they stand in terms of goals for mission pilots.  Has anyone observed this driving recruitment of pilots?

[lordmonar]

Goals for pilots....but no OPLAN.

With out the OPLAN all goals are just arbitrary.

[RiverAux]

So, Eclipse, how are you doing at implementing these plans and requirements in your group?  A group commander has all the authority necessary to require this within the scope of their command.  How about we try these things out small scale before going national?

[Ron1319]

Called out.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Called out.

Troll?

Eclipse also is not the Group CC as of April/May.

[Eclipse]

Called out.

Called out?  Give me a break.  I did exactly a lot of the things in that list, and most felt short as it is difficult to be a part of a bigger plan when there isn't any, so when I would insinuate there was one, those members who knew better and were disinterested in the idea used this as their excuse.

I was blessed with good commanders, but it is not possible to do the things that need to be done from the middle.
The fact that people think they can causes us a lot of problems.

My units were some of the larger and more successful in the wing, but with nothing to integrate into, where do you go from there.

The fact that I was personally self-actualized was a constant complaint from me.

[RiverAux]

I did exactly a lot of the things in that list, and most felt short as it is difficult to be a part of a bigger plan when there isn't any, so when I would insinuate there was one, those members who knew better and were disinterested in the idea used this as their excuse.

Why would you need to insinuate that there was a larger plan?  Under your system all the squadron commander needs to know is what is required of them in the group plan.  You had the power to tell them that they are required to staff X number of ground teams or else.  Find Y number of new cadets or else.  If they didn't want to go along with the planning process, under which you did say that the targets would be subject to some negotiation, then you had the power to chuck them out of the way.  Did you do that?  Did you find a replacement that then met those goals? 

Now, I certainly wouldn't fault you for not meeting all the goals you wanted to achieve (no one does), but if you're advocating implementing harsh measures including firing commanders and closing down units for them not meeting goals, why didn't you do it when you had the chance (and I do realize that a group commander isn't able to do all of that on their own, but they certainly have a lot of influence with the person who could)?

[Eclipse]

Right now, at least in my wing, very little of consequence in terms of ES or CP is done at the unit level.  All missions encampments, and major CP activities are wing level affairs.

Any plans I put together would have been completely arbitrary as I have no say in who gets called or where they go, etc.

Putting together coherent teams, when they won't likely get called together doesn't serve much purpose.  We also have some "challenges " in regards to people respecting the chain of command, AORs, and sandboxes, which also makes it difficult to walk a path, because you spend a lot of time fighting fires and redoing things needlesly. In some cases, Lincoln Logs stacked neatly and with care were knocked over by people unwilling to even ask why they were there, let alone that they should be left ststanding.

In most areas where I had autonomy, I got things done, but in areas where I was not the "end point" I was not as successful, and frankly I ran out of steam near the end due to a confluence of situations out of my control the last year.

That doesn't change what is needed, nor the fact that it has to be top-down.

Every second of discussed about trivial matters that should be decided as baseline but are left to arbitrary decisions is time we never get back, and time that is not spent on the mission.

[RiverAux]

In most areas where I had autonomy, I got things done, but in areas where I was not the "end point" I was not as successful, and frankly I ran out of steam near the end due to a confluence of situations out of my control the last year.

I can appreciate that and I can actually get on board with a lot of the macro-level ideas you were putting out, but just don't think that how you would want to implement them would ever work in CAP. 

It is a fairly well-established fact that in any organization most of the most valuable work is going to be done by a relatively small percentage of the members.  No matter how small or large the organization, thats the way it is.  We have to accept that fact and understand that if we want more real work to get done there are only two ways to do it:
1.  Recruit more members so that the total number of "hard workers" rises even though their relative percentage remains the same.
2.  Make it possible for the "hard workers" you have to spend as much time as possible on doing the most important things that the organization needs done.  This is where CAP has the most problems due to very high paperwork burdens (even if electronic in form, its still paperwork to me).   Going through the intensive planning process you advocate will primarily just give them more busy work to do in making and sustaining those plans and actually reduce the time available to spend on important things.   

As CAP has become more professional (back to main topic of thread), we have increased the paperwork burdens so that it takes so much of the "hard workers" time to just keep the papers properly shuffled that they just don't have the time to do the important stuff. 

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

A squadron commander and his staff need to get all the tasks done. The AEO listed above might hold an other staff position and be the GTL for the unit's GT. He might be very happy to have a night where AE is getting done and he's not doing it.

You can't move your argument all over the board like that - one minute the guy shows up once a month, the next he's a GTL, you have to pick one angle.

In my example the once a month guy was the Asst AEO. I suggested that his superior, the AEO, might be the dual hat / GTL.

If the OPLAN calls for this squadron to accomplish X in AE and that would normally require 1 AEO, then where is the problem to solve if the AEO has a part time assistant?

[RADIOMAN015]

We're not "adding numeric goals" - that is what we're doing now - some random staffer wakes up on a Tuesday, decides he'll "play CAP today" and writes a list of goals that meet no mandate, mean nothing to the mission, and fall on deaf ears.

The is a top-down mission requirement we commit to, and then either do or do not, with all that goes with that.

CAP is will be the secondary response asset to 'x' agency here, here, and here.

Therefore, we need this, this, and this, here, here, and here.

To put those assets there, you will, do x, y, and z.

That is your primary mission and mantra this year.  Anything else is secondary, or an additional part of this plan.

This is across the board in ES, CP, and AE, and includes elimination of unnecessary duplication of effort and activities, calendar and resource
deconfliction with extreme prejudice, and standardization across the board.

And no one, anywhere, is doing anything significant "their way".  We stop wasting time on start-up tasks every time we do something, and
get down to the business at hand, the mission.

Hmm, your wing and group must be lagging behind in planning     Actually my wing knows the typical missions the wing will be performing and has taken action to train additional personnel.  Primarily the missions have increased on the aerial/aircraft/flying but nothing very concrete on the ground side.  So GT training is pretty much the standard training/exercising typical for CAP, for "just in case" type missions.   CAP pretty much has a mission "box" we will remain in at least for the near future.

Some on this board, seem to think that the typical senior member "volunteer" in Civil Air Patrol, has little motivation, and therefore a stick/punitive method always has to be used.  I think that the majority of senior members do join with a purpose of service that they have a comfort level with and are motivated within that comfort zone.   It's up to the leadership to properly utilize these members and if a staffing void occurs due to a 'different' mission requirement or typical squadron support , exercise some persuasive/leadership skills to get the member(s) to leave their zone of comfort OR specifically try to recruit adult members that have an interest or developed skill in the specific short fall areas.  (That's what I do for the radio communications side, I go to the amateur radio groups about 3 times a year and post a short recruiting email about what we are doing and that we are always looking for skilled radio personnel and usually pickup 1 member each time around for different geographic areas within the wing).
RM
           

[ol'fido]

As someone who has just left squadron command, I felt that one of the main things hindering me from doing my job was the mandated requirements and the poor tools that are provided to fulfill them. For someone like me, who doesn't use computers at work or even on a daily basis sometime, eServices is a poor interface to try to keep up with those requirements. I am all for making clear and coherent strategic goals for each level of the organization. I am also against the "I'm Just a volunteer" mentality. So if we are going to make this type of commitment to the organization, let's do a couple of things.

1.) Realize that most of our members no matter how dedicated have only so many hours to devote to the program each week/month.

2.) Develop a "on stop shopping" interface for commanders that is KISS ready. Having multiple data bases to hunt and peck through wasted a heck of a lot of time. A commander shouldn't have to hopscotch all over eServices, Capwatch, ORMS, WMU/IMU, WMIRS, etc. to do the things they need to do.

The easier we make the squadron commander's job, the more enthusiatstic and long lasting their tenure will be. From what I have seen and experienced is that commanders want to things right but they do what works when they run out of time to do it "by the book".

[arajca]

1) Amen.

2) eServices is pretty much a one-stop shopping center. ORMS, Ops Quals, and WIMRS are all accessible from there depending on what specialized area you need to go to. Capwatch is provided as a convienence to members. There are a plethora of reports available from the various modules of eServices, again, depending on what you need. WMU/IMU are NOT Civil air Patrol programs, but are programs developed by a member that are tolerated by National and provided access the the CAPWATCH database.

Like it or not, computers are here to stay. I will not claim that eServices is a easy to use interface, but it is easier than the stuff I have to use at work daily.

[a2capt]

2a) .. it may be a one stop shop, in that you can do everything with one login. But thats the where the one stops.  The interface consistency is horrid, to say the least. An awful lot of it is so un-untuitive, it must have been coded on April Fools, by labor that was second-level-outsourced, as it's so out of touch with what the rest of the system is doing, I can't come up with any other explanation for the disconnect.

[arajca]

I never said it was easy to use. In fact, I said:

I will not claim that eServices is a easy to use interface, but it is easier than the stuff I have to use at work daily.

I think the reason for the disconnects are that no one sat down and put together a proper requirements list. i.e. The system will have modules to a,b,c,d, etc. Without that, as ideas come up and are approved by the NB/NEC, they get thrown into eServices, without proper vetting or interfacing. From the field, there does not appear to be a plan for eServices expansion. (Hint. Hint) The B-CUT/A-CUT addition is a prime example. It was discussed several years ago, but not acted on at the time. Suddenly, without warning to the Communications team (at ANY level incl. National), it appears. No time for testing. No time to develop policies and procedures for it. Boom. There it is.

[Eclipse]

Randy - I'm not dissing you specifically on this, but the "computer conversation" is something that needs to be had before appointing
someone as a commander or even key staff.

I understand that not everyone is as tethered at the same level, but the hard-fast reality is that CAP has evolved into a structure that requires
nearly ubiquitous connectivity in order to participate.  Most of that is the reality and expectations of the real world.

For the most part, the majority of the administrative requirements for a unit CC are 10x's easier than they were a decade ago, still a pita, but easily accomplished with little need for in-face meetings or even phone calls.

But "I don't like / use computers much." cannot be the response to every question why things aren't done.  Especially when the corporation
provides the equipment, and for years provided access as well (which most people didn't utilize).

[ol'fido]

You've got to understand that where I work(IDOC), I don't have access to a computer period until after 4 pm on any given weekday. I also don't have access to a personal cell phone(by law as well as dept regs) except on the way to and from work. When I get home in the evening, I have the normal chores, shower, meals, etc that most people have. So, on any given day I may have 1-1.5 hours to do any CAP work or e mails. During a two month period following the May 8, 2009 inland hurricane down here, I was working until about 7 pm every night and bone tired from being on my feet for 10+ hours so I didn't turn the computer on except for maybe 2-3 times for that 8 week period.

It's not a matter of connectivity. It's a matter of making the most of the time I have available to do CAP work. I can over time learn how to do most things on e services.  But when I have to search around for 20-30 minutes before finding the right form or page on eServices and learning how to properly fill it out/enter data, it limits what I can do in any given work session. What my beef is that we could make much better use of the time available for the new commander and some of the old ones if we simplified the interface. In time, as the more computer savvy generation start taking command positions, this problem may solve itself.

What I would like to see is a SQCC webpage that would have each functional area on one side, Logistics, CP, Safety, etc.  And when you clicked on that tab, more tabs would pop up for everything a commander might need in that functional area. For instance in Safety, you would get tabs on ORM worksheet, Safety Survey, Safety Courses, Currency, etc. The CC could do anything a Squadron commander might need here and it would automatically update any other relevant database.

I just want simplicity for efficiency's sake.

[Spaceman3750]

I rarely have issues with eServices. I don't know, maybe I'm just more flexible than most of the people on here, but honestly it's not any more challenging than any other computer operation you do on a routine basis. I don't know why so many are so resistant to it because it's not nearly as bad as they make it out to be. Occasionally frustrating? Maybe, but no more than any other aspect of my life.

[SAR-EMT1]

I'd personally be willing to pay $2/year more so that the NCSAs wouldn't have to cut things like pins and T-shirts because of budget cuts.  We'll have to wait and see if the federal budget news of the last few weeks has any impact on CAP.

Ditto

[flyboy]

In order for the membership to "buy into" cultural shift it has to start at the top.  In my 10+ years in CAP I've seen countless dedicated volunteers walk out the door due to frustrations with the leadership.  They give of their time to come out and train, then submit paperwork that is then lost or never acted upon.  I've seen members wait years for action on ribbons and awards.  There is no independent review of the CAP command structure performance and no true ability of a member to seek accountability by those in command. 

[Spaceman3750]

There is no independent review of the CAP command structure performance and no true ability of a member to seek accountability by those in command.

But there doesn't have to be - we're a paramilitary organization, not the Boy Scouts. You follow the orders of those appointed above you (and put up with their crap) or you take your ball and go somewhere else/home. Since we're all volunteers, we're all free to take our ball elsewhere or go home (go to a different squadron, group, etc or just plain quit), but that doesn't make chiefs any more accountable to the Indians - it just means that the commander's retention is going to suck.

I'm not saying we don't have some dopes in command - we do - but in a paramilitary organization you don't have commanders answering to their followers (unless you're the CAP/CC).

[Eclipse]

^ the flaw in that idea is that there is no legal compulsion to act on orders, and little to any ramifications for failures of command.  Both sides
are generally allowed to simply say "no" and leave on a whim, and in many cases with no consequences.  Military commanders risk their careers and even their freedom for poor choices and / or lack of performance, that is a powerful (but not foolproof) motivator.

There also is a lack of standardized training, few real expectations for either side, and, while no organization can exist without its "doers", CAP
is much more dependent on the benevolent cooperation of subordinates than a "normal" paramilitary organisation.  Worse, in many cases it's not just
the benevolence of subordinates in general, but all too often the benevolence of specific subordinates who control access to a specific resource(s) or
who don't understand the concept of collateral damage.  (i.e. Jimmy' sick, and he's got the keys to the hangar...)

The real culture shift has to be towards personality-agnostic, scale-able systems (of both people and technology), which have consistent expectations and
consistent consequences for failure.  No one is going to Levenworth because they fell 2 hours short on the required encampment curriculum, but perhaps they should also not be running the show next time around (etc.).

[flyboy]

There is no independent review of the CAP command structure performance and no true ability of a member to seek accountability by those in command.

But there doesn't have to be - we're a paramilitary organization, not the Boy Scouts. You follow the orders of those appointed above you (and put up with their crap) or you take your ball and go somewhere else/home. Since we're all volunteers, we're all free to take our ball elsewhere or go home (go to a different squadron, group, etc or just plain quit), but that doesn't make chiefs any more accountable to the Indians - it just means that the commander's retention is going to suck.

If CAP were truly a private not-for-profit organization I'd agree with you.  However, that is not really the case.  CAP receives the majority of its funding from the government. Absent our tax dollars, there would be no CAP.   As both a taxpayer, and a member, I think it's only fair to expect transparency and a degree of accountability within the organization, especially at the top.  Instead, CAP leadership plays the "corporation" versus "military organization" game as it suits them to avoid any degree of meaningful accountability. 

[Ned]

CAP receives the majority of its funding from the government. Absent our tax dollars, there would be no CAP.   As both a taxpayer, and a member, I think it's only fair to expect transparency and a degree of accountability within the organization, especially at the top.  Instead, CAP leadership plays the "corporation" versus "military organization" game as it suits them to avoid any degree of meaningful accountability.

Speak plainly, please.

What specificly should be changed?

In this respect, how is CAP different than any other Federally-chartered corporation like, say, the Red Cross?

Do you think the senior leadership at BSA is more or less transparent and accountable than CAP?  Why?

Uncle Sam spends millions of dollars specfically to oversee CAP and our use of taxpayer dollars.  That is the primary mission of all of the good folks at CAP-USAF.  CAP has outside auditors go over our books, and report their findings publicly.  The minutes of the NB, NEC, and the BoG are posted on line for the world to see.  Heck, we broadcast the overwhelming majority of the business meetings of the NB and NEC.

We have an active IG system as well as command oversight.  Senior commanders have been fired because they were accountable for their mistakes.  Sometimes leaders and members are terminated for misconduct.  (Because they are accountable for their actions.)

So, what are you looking for?

[flyboy]

How about an independent system of review? The way it works now, each level of command is reviewed by the next most senior level.  For instance, you appeal a Group Commander's actions to the Wing Commander.  Of course, the Wing Commander is the person who appointed the Group Commander, so it's a pretty good bet they're friends.  Even the IG's are appointed within the chain of command and serve at the will of the existing command structure.  That's hardly critical review or meaningful oversight. Rampant cronyism is a better description.  Add in the fact that CAP Command comes to the table with an entire command staff, including legal officers, how fair is that playing field going to be for a member seeking review? 

No, the government doesn't spend millions over-seeing CAP operations.  The government was completely unaware of the rampant corruption within the Pineda Command and only found out because those guys all started fighting with each other.  The government's biggest issue is making sure the members don't run off with government property.  I don't think the government much cares whether or not the organization runs ethically or provides its members with a fair review process.

In closing, I would point out that the military has the JAG corps who function independently of the command structure and provide for what should be neutral and fair hearings to their members. 

[RiverAux]

No, the government doesn't spend millions over-seeing CAP operations. 

Sure they do.  The cost of all the State Directors salary, office budgets, travel expenses as well as the same for the CAP-USAF operation and CAP-RAPs has got to easily be in the low millions. 

[Ned]

How about an independent system of review? The way it works now, each level of command is reviewed by the next most senior level.  For instance, you appeal a Group Commander's actions to the Wing Commander.  Of course, the Wing Commander is the person who appointed the Group Commander, so it's a pretty good bet they're friends.

Like, say, the MARB?  The independant board of officers that can (and have) reviewed and reversed the actions of the wing, region, and national commanders?

That sounds pretty independant.

Even the IG's are appointed within the chain of command and serve at the will of the existing command structure.  That's hardly critical review or meaningful oversig

Well, the wing commander cannot fire his/her IG without the region commander's permission.  Similarly, the region commander can't fire an IG without the permission of the national cc.  And the CAP IG cannot be relieved without permission of the BoG.  See CAPR 123-1.

And I submit this IG same IG system has resulted in the sacking and disciplining of wing, region, and national commanders in the not-so-distant past.  If that is "rampant cronyism," I susect that is has not worked as the cronys would have liked.

Add in the fact that CAP Command comes to the table with an entire command staff, including legal officers, how fair is that playing field going to be for a member seeking review? 

Commanders are held responsible for all that their command does or fails to do.  That traditionally means that they get to select their staff within the limits of the C&BL.  CAP is hardly unique in this regard, as most organizations allow CEOs and executives to select the best staff possible.

No, the government doesn't spend millions over-seeing CAP operations.  The government was completely unaware of the rampant corruption within the Pineda Command and only found out because those guys all started fighting with each other.  The government's biggest issue is making sure the members don't run off with government property.  I don't think the government much cares whether or not the organization runs ethically or provides its members with a fair review process.

Non-concur.  The whole point of the CAP-USAF organization is to provide oversight to CAP.  That includes multiple O6s, O5s, O4s, and a whole lot of civilians from SDs on up.  That is millions of dollars, my friend, even if you don' t agree.  And we send tens of thousands of dollars on outside auditors - licensed CPAs - who look at our books and conduct forensic analysis specifically to uncover evidence of corruption at any level of our organization.

They are humans, or course, and not perfect.  But licensed CPAs have a lot on the line when they certify our books.

In closing, I would point out that the military has the JAG corps who function independently of the command structure and provide for what should be neutral and fair hearings to their members.

As a retired Army officer and a former CAP legal officer, I know something about the JAG structure, and I think you are confusing it with the IG system.  JAG officers are special staff officers supporting military commanders.  Commanders write their OERs and recommend them for promotion when appropriate.  There is nothing particularly independant about JAG officers.  Of course, every officer  - regardless of branch - has ethcal responsibilities that require them to be fair and neutral when sitting as hearing officers or conducting routine staff responsibilities.

Which is inherent in the CAP Core Values of Integrity, required of all members.

Thank you for your service.

Ned Lee

[Dracosbane]

Throughout this discussion, I'm seeing one theme recurring, and it was only touch upon once.

If you are having an issue with someone who you're asking to perform a task, and they're not doing so, you find out why.  If they don't have a good reason, or any reason, or they just aren't reliable, you note that and don't count on them in the future. 

If I had a cadet or senior member who I tasked with a project and they didn't follow through, I'd discuss it with them and hope to rectify the situation.  If they can't or won't follow through, they don't get picked to play and I get someone else who will.  Same goes for ES specifically.  You're a member of my team (hypothetical team, not my real life GT) and you put out to train, keep your quals, "go camping" and do the fun stuff, but when it comes time to go out at o-dark thirty and do the work you're always unavailable, I stop calling you.  You can come and have fun (I'm hoping you're actually providing something while you're participating) but you don't get to do the real work.  If you're not providing any benefit, even while training or "having fun," then you're no longer on the team. 

Sure, you can do all the ES stuff you want.  It's part of the program.  That doesn't mean you're on the team.  A bit elitist, but not uncommon.  Same goes for ICs or Group CCs, or anyone in the program.  You can be a part of the program, but if you're not reliable or willing to do the work, you just don't get called on to participate.  Why would you? 

Now, I'm not referring to that "once in a while" where you're not able to help, or go out on a mission, or just don't feel like you want anything to do with CAP.  Everyone has those days and I'll admit to not liking CAP and being honked off and not wanting to go and do and be.  That's part of the "we'll discuss it later" and I'll move on to the next person.

However, being volunteers, I can't force anyone to do anything.  I can only hope that they have the personal dedication, drive and willingness to accomplish the mission to do so.    I also hope that the "not today" is a rare occurrence and even if you do feel that way, that you're willing to plow through and do it anyway.

As far as specified goals, hard numbers, OPPLANs and consequences, you run into the same problem that every program, volunteer and paid, runs into.  That is having people.  I'm in a squadron, and I'm sure we're not unique, where our SMs are dedicated and putting forth effort to make our squadron the best we can.  However, I'm also wearing several hats officially (and a few unofficially) as are the others.  Our squadron runs smoothly and like all squadrons has ups and downs in all aspects.  But we're still dedicated to making everything we can work as it should. 

You're saying that if I don't meet some goal (I have goals.  I'm not SQCC.  Just clarifying.) that my squadron is now not worth having and should be disbanded?  Or have the CC removed?  Or some other punitive measure?

I don't agree.  CAP has operating regulations and requirements, but when you clamp down or make it more restrictive based on new "do this or punishment" you don't allow for the fluid changes that happen within the program. 

Example:  I know my squadron needs to do more recruiting.  I want more cadets (who doesn't?).  I had a good core group that unfortunately have grown up and gone to college (2 to USAFA and one to West Point, btw) and that damaged my cadet ranks.  I look at the numbers being put out by the wing on membership and I see that we've dropped significantly in their tracking.  I don't like it, and I know that it's not because we're bleeding cadets, but someone who's looking at those numbers sees such a large drop and (hypothetically) now based on some new guidelines we're in jeopardy of sanctions or something else because of it?

Reading through all the posts above, I do agree that there are some things that CAP could be doing better.  I agree that there are some things CAP can change, and should.  I have to say, though, that change is constant and fluid, and CAP should recognize that as well.  Restricting people further can have negative consequences even if your intentions are meant to make the program better. 

Saying to members "to hell with you, go elsewhere" when they don't, or won't live up to ever restrictive standards isn't the best policy and will do more damage than good.  I want the program to be great, and I'm all for making things better, making necessary changes, and having standards.  But sometimes the "ends justify the means" isn't worth the damage.