Inactive senior members

[Chief2009]

I have three senior members on the book who in my ten years as a member of this squadron I have never seen. One of my members tells me they were transferred into our squadron after their squadron was disbanded. One is a Lieutenant Colonel and the other two are 1st Lieutenants. Somehow their memberships keep renewing. I don't know if they've got automatic renewals set up with a bank or what. eServices and the WMU have no contact info, and I'm stumped as to what to do.

I have tried to convince my commander to transfer them to the ghost squadron because, as far as I know, we have no paperwork for them at all. Something tells me a SUI would not look favorably upon not having any paperwork on an LtC or a former Earhart cadet.

Any ideas would be appreciated.

DN

[arajca]

Ask your wing if they have the members' files. In writing, official letter format to the wing personnel officer.

Also, start a file. True, you'll only have name, grade, and CAPID, but include a formal letter describing the situation as it exists. Include the letter mentioned above. Have the member who provided the information about their transfer in write a similar letter.

Have you tried looking them up in the phone book? I know it's an old fashioned idea, but it's a start.

[brasda91]

I have three senior members on the book who in my ten years as a member of this squadron I have never seen. One of my members tells me they were transferred into our squadron after their squadron was disbanded. One is a Lieutenant Colonel and the other two are 1st Lieutenants. Somehow their memberships keep renewing. I don't know if they've got automatic renewals set up with a bank or what. eServices and the WMU have no contact info, and I'm stumped as to what to do.

I have tried to convince my commander to transfer them to the ghost squadron because, as far as I know, we have no paperwork for them at all. Something tells me a SUI would not look favorably upon not having any paperwork on an LtC or a former Earhart cadet.

Any ideas would be appreciated.

DN

Their membership keeps renewing because the renewel form is sent to the member, not to the unit.     Not to mention the ability to renew through eServices.

Sounds like they are more of a Patron member.  Submit the paperwork to change their membership status.  Or change their duty position to Advisor to the Commander.

I have a few members that due to their health and age are not able to attend the meetings.  I changed my members to Advisors to the Commander.  That way they still have a role within the squadron.  Theses guys have been in for many years and I can always call them and ask their opinion on a subject, you know, let them advise.  They have a wealth of knowledge and I don't want to lose that avenue of information.

[IceNine]

For my money there is no better place than 000 for empty shirts.

The arguement that you make to your commander is that.

If you have people that are not operational then your books are not actually representative of your unit, they are representative of a fictional subset with half truth.

Plus, they just make your percentages ugly.  OPSEC, NIMS, CPPT, etc all continue to take a hit and I can tell you that when I talk to my unit commander's about their numbers I don't accept the excuse "This guy never shows up".  I tell them to fix their numbers or start figuring out what to do when they have all the extra time that command is taking up.

[EMT-83]

I think that there's a huge difference between a valuable member with health issues and someone who hasn't shown up in years.

After a 10 year absence, Advisor to the Commander? No, show them the door.

We have a 97 year old member, who comes once or twice a year. She's got a Master rating and over 20 years in the squadron. She has a home for life.

We also have three members who renew their membership but haven't been seen in 3 years. They're headed for the ghost squadron. It's about quality, not quantity.

[RiverAux]

I personally don't have a problem with keeping seniors who devoted a lot of years of active service in the squadron even though they are inactive now.  It would be a bit of an insult to put them in the ghost squadron.  Those sort of people provide a valuable link with unit history, even if they don't always show up.

Someone who joined and never really got very active wouldn't rate that sort of consideration though. 

[Flying Pig]

I have a few in my unit.  They continue to renew every year and Ive never met them.  I dont sweat it.  If they want to keep paying, I figure someday they plan on getting back in when they have the time.  When they do, we'll be here. 

[IceNine]

I personally don't have a problem with keeping seniors who devoted a lot of years of active service in the squadron even though they are inactive now.  It would be a bit of an insult to put them in the ghost squadron.  Those sort of people provide a valuable link with unit history, even if they don't always show up.

Someone who joined and never really got very active wouldn't rate that sort of consideration though. 

So where is the cutoff.

Because what you are describing is exactly the problem.

I understand keeping them around for a little while but if they were around long enough to warrant that treatment they were around long enough to retire. 

That's what retirement is there for.  To thank those that were around forever but because of health, economy or global warming can't be around anymore, keeping them on the roster isn't doing anyone any good.

And if no one in the unit knows them is there really any nostalgia left?

[Spike]

^ Keeping them on the roster does help the unit.  Membership numbers (even ghost members) boost the eligibility for things and awards. 

[FW]

Having inactive members renew year after year without participation in any way is kind of a drag however, if they are paying squadron dues....
they do participate in a small way and, you never know.. they may decide to be active again. 

I wouldn't worry about it unless your gunning for squadron of distinction. 

[IceNine]

^ Keeping them on the roster does help the unit.  Membership numbers (even ghost members) boost the eligibility for things and awards.

And by doing so may take it away from the units that actually earned the award with real numbers.

[FW]

Actually, unless something changed in the last 6 years, "competition" for unit awards is based on membership "percentages".  It actually is a benefit for units to get rid of "deadwood"; especially in a composite or cadet squadron.

[brasda91]

I personally don't have a problem with keeping seniors who devoted a lot of years of active service in the squadron even though they are inactive now.  It would be a bit of an insult to put them in the ghost squadron.  Those sort of people provide a valuable link with unit history, even if they don't always show up.

Someone who joined and never really got very active wouldn't rate that sort of consideration though. 

So where is the cutoff.

Because what you are describing is exactly the problem.

I understand keeping them around for a little while but if they were around long enough to warrant that treatment they were around long enough to retire. 

That's what retirement is there for.  To thank those that were around forever but because of health, economy or global warming can't be around anymore, keeping them on the roster isn't doing anyone any good.

And if no one in the unit knows them is there really any nostalgia left?

They've been in long enough to retire.  But how do you suggest that to them without offending them?

[RiverAux]

If they retire they leave CAP entirely and the organization no longer benefits from the support provided by their dues. 

Keeping inactive senior members does not help you at all to get the Squadron of Merit or Distinction Award.  They are both based on cadets. 

Squadron of Distinction award elements:
1. # of cadet members
2.  Squadron growth rate
3.  # of cadet officer awards
4. 1st time cadet encampment attendence.
5.   cadet o-flight participation

Unfortunately, CAP fails to recognize superior senior squadrons or composite squadrons with strong senior programs but relatively weak cadet programs. 

So, there is no real reason NOT to keep inactive senior members unless you are one of those purists who like to keep your roster "clean". 

[Airrace]

I personally don't have a problem with keeping seniors who devoted a lot of years of active service in the squadron even though they are inactive now.  It would be a bit of an insult to put them in the ghost squadron.  Those sort of people provide a valuable link with unit history, even if they don't always show up.

Someone who joined and never really got very active wouldn't rate that sort of consideration though.

I would have to agree with River. Who knows they may come back at some point and you could use their services again.

[RiverAux]

I just keep thinking of one member of my squadron who was involved in the founding of the unit during WWII and was still a member in the early 2000s, but probably hadn't been active in 20 years.  I felt that it was an honor to have her on our squadron membership rolls. 

[Spike]

I know many Wings base Van and aircraft deployments on Squadron Numbers. 

So there is a benefit right there!

[Eclipse]

I just keep thinking of one member of my squadron who was involved in the founding of the unit during WWII and was still a member in the early 2000s, but probably hadn't been active in 20 years.  I felt that it was an honor to have her on our squadron membership rolls.

Then you bump her to patron status, end of problem, honor continued.

I know many Wings base Van and aircraft deployments on Squadron Numbers. 

So there is a benefit right there!

A benefit to whom?  Which part of FW&A is confusing here?  If you're getting a vehicle, aircraft, or even keeping the charter open based a few empty shirts, then there is a real problem there because you certainly can't justify the equipment issue or even the existence.

Wings can no longer support putting aircraft at a unit based purely on raw membership numbers because if they aren't putting 200 hours per airframe actual on their airplanes, they risk losing them.

Empty shirts should be moved to either patron or 000 and we should all move on.  There's room for exceptions out there, of course, but if you're one of these units who are "pushing to 100 members", but you won't normalize your roster, its meaningless.

[heliodoc]

What' the big deal??

If those members are paying dues and paying dues every year, let them

Many organizations have people who are paying and not showing up.  Sometimes they show up later.

If I had stayed in CAP, over my 25 yr break, did not show up and STILL paid my dues AND CAP was still cashing the checks....... and you know VERY WELL they will continue to cash the checks to operate.  CAP probably does NOT care if they show up or not.....they will just keep cashin' in.   Does that violate core values, to cash checks from people who do not attend...  I ask alll you CAP experts!!

Again what do you folks care, CAP is still getting their dinero.  Why screw up a good thing???

[swamprat86]

That is what we have the Patron status for.  You can always change it back if the member becomes active.

This way the members still writes out the checks, National still cashes it, the numbers don't change on the squadron roster but the active member numbers for the unit, which is important for various reasons, some already mentioned, stay realistic.

[Eclipse]

What' the big deal??
Again what do you folks care, CAP is still getting their dinero.

You're the one who's always pushing for CAP to raise the bar on training and professionalism.
CAP is not supposed to be a social affiliation organization, nor is it a lobbying body like the AOPA
where sheer numbers mean something.

Over reporting our actual membership numbers is a problem which has been cited by CAP-USAF as an issue that concerns them.

Normalizing the rosters by moving members to 000 or patron status fixes that easily and maintains the wing receiving those dues.  Its also an eye-opener to unit CC's who have been comfortable with a given number for too long when they have to take a hard look at their real capabilities.

[heliodoc]

You know, Eclipse

I do ask CAP to raise a bar on a few things especially when it comes to their desire to become a REPUTABLE resource for DHS / HLS missions....some of the membership needs to remember a few things when entering the new world of SAR and emergency response.  CAP hasn't demonstrated much but aversion to training such as rapelling, and other high risk items.  IF CAP does not come to the table with a few more credentials in the 21st Century HLS mssions, then they are better off doing Search and Recovery, radio work and handing out MRE's.  There is nothing wrong with that service to community and country!

So if CAP wants more missions and MORE higher profile missions, they MAY need to accept more risk other than worrying about the current hangar rash problems, which is serious enough itself.  But real natural disasters do not worry about 39-1 violations and other somewhat petty problems when a bigger balloon goes up!!

CAP not a social affiliation organization......REALLY ??    I have seen CAP in many States that treat CAP as BOTH a training AND  social organization.  Where did you come up with that?   Dining outs...patting ourselves on the back,  after meeting dinners and "staff meetings"

CAP  IS A social organization

[Eclipse]

CAP not a social affiliation organization......REALLY ??    I have seen CAP in many States that treat CAP as BOTH a training AND  social organization.  Where did you come up with that?   Dining outs...patting ourselves on the back,  after meeting dinners and "staff meetings"

CAP  IS A social organization

I suppose the next thing you're going to tell me is that the military, police, fire, EMA's, and similar organizations never do anything but train, work, and go home?  They never give out awards or other recognition?

CAP is not a social organization by design.  The fact that in some areas it has become that is part of the problem.  But to assert that CAP is somehow unique in the fact that its members socialize or want recognition for their participation and achievement is silly.

"I did not join CAP to make friends, however I have made plenty of friends in CAP."

Those who don't understand the difference (especially seniors), are the problem.

[heliodoc]

Not "gonna" tell you anything

Didn't say the EMA's  PD, fire etc just do training work, and go home

Those folks are part of the community as well as CAP and are just as social.  But of course, not by design.

It's all semantics

[Ned]

FWIW, this is not merely a CAP-specific concern.

There were times when I was a Guard officer that higher headquarters placed special emphasis on numbers like total unit strength.

Once commanders got hammered on low strength numbers, human nature and creativity being what they are, the numbers would go up when folks were not, say, discharged or transferred promptly.  At its worst, we had an entire ghost platoon.

At some point we got smart and began using more effective performance measures and the strength numbers got honest again.

But as long as there is some small advantages to retaining inactive members on the rosters - and no specific disincentives - then it should not be very surprising that the practice continues or even flourishes.

Ned Lee
Retired Guard Guy

[majdomke]

Here's a question to the original poster...

Why is a DCC concerned with senior members who don't have files or remain inactive? It would seem more appropriate for a DCS or CC right? Maybe the personnel officer?

[Eclipse]

Here's a question to the original poster...

Why is a DCC concerned with senior members who don't have files or remain inactive? It would seem more appropriate for a DCS or CC right? Maybe the personnel officer?

What's a DCC?  Directer of Communications, Cadets?

The office symbol for Deputy Commander for Cadets is CDC.

[Chief2009]

Why is a DCC concerned with senior members who don't have files or remain inactive? It would seem more appropriate for a DCS or CC right? Maybe the personnel officer?

Because when I left college, I knew my current commander needed help running the unit. I agreed to help in any way I could. I was appointed to Deputy Commander of Cadets because I was a cadet for eight years and that is where my experience is centered. We do not have a Deputy Commander for Seniors or a Personnel Officer. Currently I'm unemployed, so I have a lot of time on my hands.

The previous commanders were less than stellar in keeping up with paperwork, and the CC and I am trying to fix problems that might come up in an SUI. CAP really helped me when I was a cadet, and I want to make sure the opportunity is there for others.

DN

[Rotorhead]

You know, Eclipse

I do ask CAP to raise a bar on a few things especially when it comes to their desire to become a REPUTABLE resource for DHS / HLS missions....some of the membership needs to remember a few things when entering the new world of SAR and emergency response.  CAP hasn't demonstrated much but aversion to training such as rapelling, and other high risk items.  IF CAP does not come to the table with a few more credentials in the 21st Century HLS mssions, then they are better off doing Search and Recovery, radio work and handing out MRE's.  There is nothing wrong with that service to community and country!

So if CAP wants more missions and MORE higher profile missions, they MAY need to accept more risk other than worrying about the current hangar rash problems, which is serious enough itself.  But real natural disasters do not worry about 39-1 violations and other somewhat petty problems when a bigger balloon goes up!!

CAP not a social affiliation organization......REALLY ??    I have seen CAP in many States that treat CAP as BOTH a training AND  social organization.  Where did you come up with that?   Dining outs...patting ourselves on the back,  after meeting dinners and "staff meetings"

CAP  IS A social organization

You really don't like the Civil Air Patrol, do you?

[RiverAux]

Over reporting our actual membership numbers is a problem which has been cited by CAP-USAF as an issue that concerns them.

Never heard that before.  Source?

[IceNine]

CAP-USAF

Our regional team made note of it during out eval earlier this year.

Something to the effect of you have X number of members in the state and only X% can respond in an emergency.

If our roster reflected accurate numbers the % would be much higher.

The higher you go the more the black and white numbers become reality, whether accurate or not.

I am fully aware of those members in my units that can be relied upon to perform whatever funcitions I need.  My wing Commander knows that my units have 12 pilots, my region commander knows that my wing has 74 pilots, and so on.  If I don't accurately portray which of these members is active the upper echelons gain a false sense of readiness.

There are any number or real issues with having empty shirts.

[Short Field]

Your problem seems a bit different than just senior members who pay dues but never show up.  If the members are showing up as CAP Pilots, they have a current Fm 5.  MPs have a current Fm 91 (but may not have a current Fm 5) and TMPs don't expire.   Our wing has fewer CAP Pilots than we have MPs and we have almost 50% more TMPs than we have MPs.   

If you have inactive members who are maintaining CAP Pilot and ES qualifications, then they are not that inactive. 

[IceNine]

^ All of that was an example of the real problems

I really don't have issues with membership, or inactivity.  The OP does and there are some here that are trying to marginalize the impact

[Eclipse]

Over reporting our actual membership numbers is a problem which has been cited by CAP-USAF as an issue that concerns them.

Never heard that before.  Source?

You can check the minutes from a board meeting about 2 years or so ago.  Without spending the research time I can't remember if this was the tail end of the HWSRN regime, or in the early days of Maj. Gen. Courter's term, but I personally watched the video stream where Col. Hodgkins raised this exact issue and a less than superficial discussion ensued.  Part of the discussion entailed the issue of how accurate our reports to Congress were if 25% or more of our membership were long-term no-shows.

As I recall it was right around this time that the wings were directed to dissolve their holding squadrons and create the 000's.

Since then,  normalizing the rosters has been a mantra coming down to us in my region, supported for the most part by the wing and region CC. 

We've talked about it on a number of occasions on this board as well.

[Short Field]

I have a real dilemma when it comes to handling inactive members.  One part of me really wants to move them all to the 000 squadron.  However, there is another part that recognizes formerly very active members might just need the break or are too old to actively participate.  Then there is the business side of me that says as long as they pay dues (National and Squadron), they are still supporting us - and why run the risk of having them stop paying dues.  After all, what are they really hurting?  If anyone thinks it would actually help CAP to show Congress and the Air Force just how small a number are truely "active", I have some waterfront property to sell them.  A smaller organization just means a "less significant" organization.

[Eclipse]

A smaller organization just means a "less significant" organization.

Yes, it does, which is the point.  People use numbers to delude themselves into thinking they are actually being successful.  Show them reality and things start to happen, or at a minimum many of the old arguments die naturally.

Do you really think that if active membership dropped 30% overnight no one at NHQ would notice?

I think a lot of people are confusing 000'ing inactive members as some sort of punitive measure and perhaps that reflects how some commanders run their operations, but ICE and I, among others are talking about the legitimately "never been, never coming backs" who do nothing but artificially inflate readiness and cause all manner of administrivia for our commanders and staff.

When things are mandated by NHQ, they rarely allows for exceptions because members don't show.  100% means 100% - safety briefings, online training, EO, CPPT, whatever.  Show less than 100 and you're not complying, which then becomes an unnecessary hit on your SUI, etc.

All for nothing - the empty shirts don't care what unit it says on their card, and they aren't helping you, as a commander, perform your mission, which is all this is about.

If for any reason the commander see a respective member still has value being on the roster, so be it, as long as it's an overt decision based on return, and not just ignoring the issue, or worse, some misguided attempt to be "big" for no other reason than the number.

I would also say that if they are still paying squadron dues than they have some objective value, but rarely is that the case, and if it is, there's always patron membership...

[majdomke]

Here's a question to the original poster...

Why is a DCC concerned with senior members who don't have files or remain inactive? It would seem more appropriate for a DCS or CC right? Maybe the personnel officer?

What's a DCC?  Directer of Communications, Cadets?

The office symbol for Deputy Commander for Cadets is CDC.

I think if you do a search on the NHQ website, you will find it refers to us as DCC numerous times. I know the technical abbr is CDc but I think its safe to say that everyone I know calls us DCC's. I'd also like to know which reg or publication you get CDC from. I can find one but it never calls out the CDs or CDc directly, just says Deptuy Commander is CD.

[heliodoc]

Scott

It's not the matter if I like CAP or not..... I have been through a couple of Wings and I am in larger one right now that has some major malfunctions when it come to number of things in the flying program.

Then I get on this board and I see alot of worse than make work projects...2b's, misunderstandings, misquotes, more misunderstandings, ICL on uniforms, EVEN a current ICL on the G1000  project and yet the FBO / flight schools on the outside of CAP seem not to have problems  or aren't always advertised.

So it's not that I do not like CAP...it's some of their antics

[RiverAux]

Something to the effect of you have X number of members in the state and only X% can respond in an emergency.

If our roster reflected accurate numbers the % would be much higher.

If you're interested in ES response capability, then the percentage of members who can respond is 100% meaningless.  If CAP has 2500 mission pilots it makes no difference if there are 10,000 or 500,000 inactive members on the rolls. 

What counts is the number able to respond and if we're using the total membership number as a way of promoting our ES response capability (which I know we do), then we should stop doing that.  The easy replacement is the number of people with current 101 cards.  This provides the max number of people that can respond.  If more detail is needed (# of pilots, # of ground team members) that can be requested or promoted separately.

[Eclipse]

I can find one but it never calls out the CDs or CDc directly, just says Deptuy Commander is CD.

OK, then call it CD.  Whether we know what DCC means or not doesn't make it any more correct than 1LT or 2LT.

[RADIOMAN015]

Something to the effect of you have X number of members in the state and only X% can respond in an emergency.

If our roster reflected accurate numbers the % would be much higher.

If you're interested in ES response capability, then the percentage of members who can respond is 100% meaningless.  If CAP has 2500 mission pilots it makes no difference if there are 10,000 or 500,000 inactive members on the rolls. 

What counts is the number able to respond and if we're using the total membership number as a way of promoting our ES response capability (which I know we do), then we should stop doing that.  The easy replacement is the number of people with current 101 cards.  This provides the max number of people that can respond.  If more detail is needed (# of pilots, # of ground team members) that can be requested or promoted separately.

I agree with you & I fail to see how total membership numbers have anything to do with ES response capabilities .  The members that are active in CAP ES, retain their ES qualifications & that is reflected in E Services.  Also members' can indicate when they are available for missions.  Pretty easy to determine as a percentage of total membership.  HOWEVER, just like volunteer fire departments you really have NO idea who is going to show up when the alert goes out until the alert calls go out.

HOWEVER, that being said when CAP says it has 56,000 members, it really doesn't indicate how many are patron, non active, retired, etc.....   Additionally though, don't wings get credit for keeping aircraft IF they have so many pilots etc?
RM

[Eclipse]

I agree with you & I fail to see how total membership numbers have anything to do with ES response capabilities .  The members that are active in CAP ES, retain their ES qualifications & that is reflected in E Services.  Also members' can indicate when they are available for missions.  Pretty easy to determine as a percentage of total membership.  HOWEVER, just like volunteer fire departments you really have NO idea who is going to show up when the alert goes out until the alert calls go out.

The last time we cycled 101 cards was 2004 - that's 5 years of members with active 101 cards who may have found different places to spend their time.  A rating is generally considered "current" for at least three years.  3-5 years exceeds many CAP careers, especially cadets.

But we're not just talking ES.  Our three missions require people and resources.  Incorrectly reporting the membership skews everything, as well as the assumptions made by higher HQ and Big Brother Blue.  As an organization, our ability to execute our three missions, especially the "Big-2" is severely challenged by a lack of people at all levels, but worse, the assumption of our capabilities is artificially high as well, which means our performance potentially looks worse than it really is.

Does anyone seriously expect the same level of performance and execution of a 10-man flight as of a 100-member composite squadron?

...don't wings get credit for keeping aircraft IF they have so many pilots etc?

No, its based on hours flown, and anything under 200 actual per airframe makes that plane vulnerable to reassignment.  Inside a wing aircraft placement decisions are generally made with an eye to where the most pilots are, with a tie going to units with more MPs,  but the inactive member issue isn't relevant there, because "inactive members" as we are describing aren't going to be current Form 5 and 91 pilots.

The reality is that many commanders consider anyone with a PPL to be a "pilot" in the CAP context, regardless of whether these members can fly as PIC.  I had one commander who boasted of the "...most pilots in the wing..."

PPL's?  Lots.  F5's? 2, with no one working their way up, because the two F5's were taking up the rest of the PPL's for cheap right-seat time, which was all they cared about.

[SarDragon]

That is what we have the Patron status for.  You can always change it back if the member becomes active.

This way the members still writes out the checks, National still cashes it, the numbers don't change on the squadron roster but the active member numbers for the unit, which is important for various reasons, some already mentioned, stay realistic.

But, and this, IMHO, is a big but, Patron members only pay National dues. Those empty shirts on the unit rosters y'all are talking about pay the full ride, so the region and wing get their piece of the pie, too. If someone is willing to pony up the bucks, why not give them a little slack.

YMMV.

[Eclipse]

But, and this, IMHO, is a big but, Patron members only pay National dues. Those empty shirts on the unit rosters y'all are talking about pay the full ride, so the region and wing get their piece of the pie, too. If someone is willing to pony up the bucks, why not give them a little slack.

That's fine, and what 000 is for.

If you've got a twice-a-year member who likes to wander into a meeting on the random 5th Tuesday when Desperate Housewives is a rerun, no problem. 000 status preserves grade, allows casual participation, and relieves anyone from having to pay attention to PD and other compliance issues which the member himself has no interest in.

The only limitations to participation (in my wing, anyway) is that once your ticket(s) run out, theres no opportunity for renewal because there is no 000 commander.  Find a new home and you're right back in the game.

Meanwhile, no one is reporting you as an asset to the organization on any level but financial. 

[RiverAux]

Apparently in TX they moved some ghost squadron members into a squadron under the membership limit giving the remaining active members time to turn it around and less than 2 years later have 20 active.  http://lubbockonline.com/stories/090409/fea_489750383.shtml

[Eclipse]

Apparently in TX they moved some ghost squadron members into a squadron under the membership limit giving the remaining active members time to turn it around and less than 2 years later have 20 active.  http://lubbockonline.com/stories/090409/fea_489750383.shtml

I saw that article, too.

An excellent use of the chess pieces, though I don't know that'd I'd be going around talking about it.