Should this really NOT happen?

[SARDOC]

I think the question "um, what membership committee?" pretty much says it all.

Major Lord

The Question was pointed because many units have no membership Committee because they are not Required to have one.  Our Prospective members meet with the Commander and if they want to join they are invited to come back to the next meeting at that point we will give them an application.  No Committee necessary because we don't have any restrictive membership criteria other than those found in CAP Regulations...all determined in the meeting with the Commander.

Why do you have a Membership Committee?  What do they do for you?  We just see it as unnecessary Bureaucracy in something that is really not that complicated.

[Eclipse]

Not all recruits are created equal, especially members requesting a transfer.  All units should have a membership committee.

[SARDOC]

Not all recruits are created equal, especially members requesting a transfer.  All units should have a membership committee.

I agree, but I still don't know what the Committee is supposed to do.  How do they help you?  Membership Criteria is clearly written out, unless you guys add subjective material to prospective members.

[Eclipse]

The membership committee can simply ask the prospective member or transfer some simple, direct questions about their
understanding of CAP, expectations of the unit, and why they want to join.  In most cases it will set the tone of seriousness
and "not-a-giveness" of membership, but a few times a year, someone's spidersense may tingle and it can be decided this particular person
is not a fir, whether for just the unit or CA as a whole.

Membership criteria always includes the acceptance of the respective commander.

I've been involved in far too many cases involving both new people and transfers where the commander didn't even consider the
idea of not accepting them, even though they "had a bad feeling".

[Ron1319]

If you want to talk about a potential legal issue.. try finding a legally justifiable way to deny someone membership.  I not sure about a guideline or regulation for that, but it sounds like a much more likely source of law suits than someone drilling with CAP in a uniform having already signed their membership agreement.  In my past life as an engineer, I had to attend an all day training before I could interview people to come to work for the company.  The list of questions you can't ask or areas you can't discuss is quite long, to say the least.

[davidsinn]

If you want to talk about a potential legal issue.. try finding a legally justifiable way to deny someone membership.

"Because we don't feel you would be a good fit for the organization."

[Ron1319]

I have this feeling I'd rather be the defendant in the "your kid marched in the parade even though he wasn't on the roster and stubbed his toe" court case than the "your kid can't be a cadet because he wouldn't be a good fit for the organization" court case.

"Well why wouldn't he be a good cadet?"
"Isn't the purpose of the cadet program to instill values and grow youth into the leaders of the future?"
"Are you sure you didn't make that decision because of X reason?"  (gender, age, family status, other protected class?)
"Why would you not allow Johnny to be a member when Jordan is a member?  Jordan has more of Y problem than Johnny?"

Eek gads.  Nightmare.

[EMT-83]

There are many reasons why prospective members should be interviewed.

Make sure the kids with long hair and piercings know what's expected before they sign on the dotted line. That crusty old dude that's joining to "straighten out the cadets" also comes to mind.

I can't imagine accepting a member without an interview by the membership committee. Why place the burden on the commander? Consistent application of the process will cover your butt if someone attempts to file a complaint. Just don't run afoul of the EO requirements.

As to the OP, it's simple: the person is either a member or not a member. No gray area there.

[Spaceman3750]

"I'm sorry Mr. Bagodoughnuts, but unfortunately we do not have an open position which matches your qualifications."

[Eclipse]

+1 on the last 3 comments.

If you want to talk about a potential legal issue.. try finding a legally justifiable way to deny someone membership.

CAP is an "at will" organization - just like employment in most states these days.  The only justification it needs to terminate or refuse a
membership is the will to do so.  The only time someone would have any standing to sue CAP in this regard is if he could prove his
membership was denied on the basis of being in a protected class.

One of the sacred responsibilities of CAP Commanders is to filter people who should not be members.  Anyone unwilling or unable to
make those distinctions should not be wearing the CC badge.

[Stonewall]

At a veterans day parade, there was this female cadet, who has most of her uniform put together, (we wore BDUs) and she ( for some weird reason) has not shown up on eservices yet. But she marched in the parade anyway with her sister, who has shown up on eservices, and has a CAPID. Shouldn't she refrain from marching in parades and other squadron activities until she gets her CAPID and is on eservices?

I joined CAP in February 1987.  I submitted my application, got issued blues, completed the 8 week T-Flight and was promoted to C/Amn.  I applied for and was accepted to encampment in August 1987.  I showed up with a note from my squadron commander that said "Cadet Stonewall is a member of CAP, however he has yet to get a CAP ID card.  We're checking on it".  Somehow my CAPF 15 got lost and I didn't show up on the MML until after encampment. 

So yeah, I attended encampment before I was officially a CAP member.  I'm pretty sure I flew an O-flight too.  But [darn] it, don't let that cadet march in the Veterans Day parade 

[Major Lord]

Sweet mother of Buddha, another set of paranoid delusions of civil liability? Okay, write this down, you will see this information again: Membership in CAP is a privilege not a "right". There are only a few "protected classes" that apply to CAP, largely as a result of our strictly voluntary adherence to certain government practices. We don't even deny membership to people who belong to organizations that have advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government, so trust me, if you have a bad member, its probably because you did not have a membership committee, or at least one capable of doing its job.

Why have a membership committee? In the case of Cadets, you need to determine if a child can ( as discussed above) voluntarily meet the Uniform and Grooming standards, determine if a child is mature enough to handle membership, and make sure that the child is performing well enough in school that the extra burden of CAP membership won't add to his or her education collapsing. ( Among other things)

For potential Senior Members, a membership committee can help pre-screen potential members applying for bad, incomplete, or even evil reasons. The standards of membership committees are in no way completely objective; if we just needed an objective standard, we could turn it over to the background people to go through the check-off procedures. A membership committee can and should use subjective criteria in screening potential members. Would they be a good fit? Do they strike you as being social misfits? Child molesters? Walter Mitties? Amway salesmen? God gave ( most of ) us intuition, reason, curiosity, skepticism, and a desire to protect our Cadets and Seniors. Its perfectly legitimate to use these tools to screen out potential dangers to our people and organization. A member of the committee should start his assessment early in the process. For instance, it will be a lot less awkward for a member of the M.C. to ask a walk-in for identification at the first meeting. Refusing or failing to show I.D. is an a priori reason to bounce their butts into the street.

Can a membership committee make an error? Sure. For instance, when a group of people at a high level in CAP's past decided that race, gender, sexual orientation, political connections, past service, etc. could tip the scales of preponderance towards justifiably questionable members, they erred on  side of  political correctness, with disastrous consequences, and collateral damage was caused to many of our organizations' good and faithful servants. This is why a commander needs to be prudent in whom he selects for a membership committee. All of us as individuals have biases, but a well rounded membership committee can have a group dynamic that  prevents a squadron from becoming solely a flying club, cult of personality, coven of satanic pederasts, or just a club for one extended family of homes-schoolers.

In our squadron, we ignored our reluctance to prevent a man's entrance into our squadron even though 99% of the M.C. had a "bad feeling" about the applicant. His son was a Cadet, and this argument tipped the balance in favor of endorsement of his membership. As it turned out, the member was an "Industrial Psychopath", and it caused us all literally years of grief; even after we successfully  2B'd him.

Lessons learned? You may hurt someones feelings and lose a potentially valuable member by erring on the side of caution, but you may lose much more for failing to go with your reason and intuition in screening out potential members. Also, remember that nothing prevents an applicant who has been denied entry in one squadron from applying at another. ( Although we probably should create a "blacklist" to prevent the nastiest of infiltrators) And someone we see as a miscreant may fit in very well in another squadron.

Major Lord

[SARDOC]

CAP is an "at will" organization - just like employment in most states these days.  The only justification it needs to terminate or refuse a
membership is the will to do so.  The only time someone would have any standing to sue CAP in this regard is if he could prove his
membership was denied on the basis of being in a protected class.

One of the sacred responsibilities of CAP Commanders is to filter people who should not be members.  Anyone unwilling or unable to
make those distinctions should not be wearing the CC badge.

I can see where a membership committee might be of benefit to a commander but ultimately the Commander is still responsible to ensure membership suitability regardless of a recommendation by a membership Committee.

The Membership reg CAPR 39-2 states the criteria that can be used to reject membership nothing in there says we can reject membership on "the Will to Do so".  If you find specific unfavorable information in an interview document it and reject the member.  Not just because you feel they just would not be a good fit.  Anybody can sue for any reason whatsoever even if it's really frivolous not just because they feel they have been denied by being in a protected class.  As far as Burden of Proof in an EEO complaint the burden is on the organization to demonstrate why they denied the membership not the other way around.  Make sure your documentation is specific to why you denied membership not just because something vague like membership is a privilege so we denied it to this person because there is something we just don't like about this individual.  You would just be feeding the sense of distrust that accompanies EEO Complaints.

[Eclipse]

The Membership reg CAPR 39-2 states the criteria that can be used to reject membership nothing in there says we can reject membership on "the Will to Do so". 

All membership in CAP is at the pleasure of the respective commander accepting the member, whether a new guy or a transfer.  Commanders have the subjective right to refuse membership of anyone they see fit, with the caveat they may not discriminate based on a protected class. 

The above presupposes that the commander has some experience and common sense in how to handle these matters discreetly and the trust and support of their Wing commander in the decisions they make.

I've also found that the simple act of asking direct questions and requiring substantiation of the answers is enough to make people self-select out, thus the value of the membership committee in asking things about their purported previous military service, other volunteer affiliations, etc.  We potentially trust our members with hundreds of thousands of dollars of property, as well as the safety of other members, especially cadets, and we can't just let people wander in because they felt like it.  That mentality is one of the reasons we are where we are.

I agree the ultimate responsibility lies with the commander, and if they are incapable of handling things like this in a manner which protects all involved, they should not be in that job.

[Major Lord]

At a veterans day parade, there was this female cadet, who has most of her uniform put together, (we wore BDUs) and she ( for some weird reason) has not shown up on eservices yet. But she marched in the parade anyway with her sister, who has shown up on eservices, and has a CAPID. Shouldn't she refrain from marching in parades and other squadron activities until she gets her CAPID and is on eservices?

I joined CAP in February 1987.  I submitted my application, got issued blues, completed the 8 week T-Flight and was promoted to C/Amn.  I applied for and was accepted to encampment in August 1987.  I showed up with a note from my squadron commander that said "Cadet Stonewall is a member of CAP, however he has yet to get a CAP ID card.  We're checking on it".  Somehow my CAPF 15 got lost and I didn't show up on the MML until after encampment. 

So yeah, I attended encampment before I was officially a CAP member.  I'm pretty sure I flew an O-flight too.  But [darn] it, don't let that cadet march in the Veterans Day parade 

Stonewall,

You were just a bad egg and fecally disruptive individual from day-one, weren't you! I think you should have to repeat encampment to justify your grade! (If you really are a member!) 

Major Lord

[SARDOC]

All membership in CAP is at the pleasure of the respective commander accepting the member, whether a new guy or a transfer.  Commanders have the subjective right to refuse membership of anyone they see fit, with the caveat they may not discriminate based on a protected class. 

The above presupposes that the commander has some experience and common sense in how to handle these matters discreetly and the trust and support of their Wing commander in the decisions they make.

I've also found that the simple act of asking direct questions and requiring substantiation of the answers is enough to make people self-select out, thus the value of the membership committee in asking things about their purported previous military service, other volunteer affiliations, etc.  We potentially trust our members with hundreds of thousands of dollars of property, as well as the safety of other members, especially cadets, and we can't just let people wander in because they felt like it.  That mentality is one of the reasons we are where we are.

I agree the ultimate responsibility lies with the commander, and if they are incapable of handling things like this in a manner which protects all involved, they should not be in that job.

I agree to an extent.  I just think the Justification for denying membership needs to be a little more specific than having the subjective right to refuse membership to anyone.  Because Everyone is a member of a protected Class...Everyone has a race, gender, etc...  it's better to have something a little more in line with the regulations to act as a tool to protect you than a subjective spidey sense justification.  Major Lord points to a case where they had 2B'd a member he identifies as an "industrial Sociopath" as the example for why a membership Committee should properly investigate a potential member.  I think if an interview results in "unfavorable information" just document it and refuse.  If that information is not discovered on application you kind of own it and can start a termination procedure at any point you can justify it.

Remember the same "troublemakers" that you find are not suitable for membership are the same people that appeal termination and rejection decisions even to the point of lawsuits even if you justify your decision.  Google Aric W. Hall v. Civil Air Patrol inc. if you want to see some outlandish stuff.  Better to document especially if you are justified...even a bad attorney can find and read our regulations and make a case if you don't document.

Suitability.   Subject to being waived by the Executive Director  and/or National
Commander, as noted below, any one of the following may be the basis for rejection of membership.
(1) Conviction of a felony by any court of record whether federal, state or military.
(Requires both Executive Director and National Commander concurrence to accept as member.)
(2) A pattern of arrests and/or convictions including but not limited to sex offenses, child
abuse, DUIs, dishonesty and violence.
(3) Discharge from the armed services under other than honorable conditions.
(4) Falsification of information on the membership application. 
(5) Previously terminated or non renewed for cause from membership in CAP.  (Requires
both Executive Director and National Commander concurrence to accept as member.)
(6) Any other unfavorable information brought to the attention of CAP officials at any level.

[Spaceman3750]

"Upon completion of an interview, the unit membership board felt that the applicant did not posses the character, interpersonal skills, and attitude that we want to see in this squadron."

I'm going to be a little bit more blunt than usual here - it's way easier to deny a schmuck's application from the get-go than it is to get rid of him later. Aside from the schmucks, some people just aren't a fit for the unit - they can always pursue another unit. My squadron denied an application earlier this year because his personality just wasn't a good fit - he went to another nearby squadron (whose CDC is on this board) and as far as I'm aware he's doing fine in the different environment.

[Eclipse]

^ I think we're on the same page here, though #6 above is likely to be enough to cover the random "others".  I agree anyone with common sense
is going to document their concerns and will be able to use something more than "my spidey sense was tingling" when Creepy McWeirdington wanders into
the unit and starts talking about how he wants to bring the Lord to our cadets (BTDT).

Spaceman3750's got it right, and also to the comment about a member not being a fit for a particular unit - again why membership committees are so important.  Some units are so desperate for raw numbers, they never find out why someone joined until after they are already on the road to quitting.

To the one comment - as a middle-aged White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male with no physical or mental impairments - I'm not in any protected class that I know of.

[Buzz]

So, it would be okay for me to march with the local National Guard unit if I went out and bought a uniform even though I wasn't a member yet?

Apropos of absolutely nothing, in the Reno Veteran's Day parade some of the kids of NG members marched in the parade, in uniform, including a toddler who would make about 10 feet then fall down (leading to suggestions that he was officer material).

[Eclipse]

So, it would be okay for me to march with the local National Guard unit if I went out and bought a uniform even though I wasn't a member yet?

Apropos of absolutely nothing, in the Reno Veteran's Day parade some of the kids of NG members marched in the parade, in uniform, including a toddler who would make about 10 feet then fall down (leading to suggestions that he was officer material).

Actually, I disagree - because no one would mistake a 10-year old or a toddler for a guardsman, but they certainly could mistake a 12 year old in uniform
for an actual cadet, or an adult as an actual senior member, and as we are constantly "reminded", a senior member for someone in the USAF.

Context is everything.