What constitutes "active participation"?

[Eclipse]

Even if we had enough people that every person had only one job, everyone is supposed to be doing ES, CP or AE

How do you figure that? As much as anyone I've said the mission isn't a menu, but that applies to
unit operations as a whole, not individual members.

In a properly staffed and manned organization, the HQ people would not also be expected to turn the wrenches.
Do the staff accountants at your company also build the products and then put them on the UPS trucks?
Of course not, but that's essentially the situation in CAP - the word "no" is basically nonexistent, so
"everyone can do everything anytime they want". 

I've also as much as anyone said it's a good idea to be involved in both missions - ES and CP, but when you accept
a staff job, that's the foremost, not your experience.  Assuming you can do both, great.  If you can't, which do
you think is supposed to suffer?

The proper way to handle the situation would be the same way as most other similar organizations -
you join and "do" for a few years.  Gain experience, and figure out things work.  You get the wrench turning
out of your system and then move on to guide the next wave.

Instead, we have people who join and get a wing staff job before their ID card is dry, and then they
quit after a year because they never get to do anything "fun", while at the same time we have 75 year
old Lt Col GTMs still wandering in the woods, mentoring no one and wasting the effort invested in
training them, because all they want is "fun" - "let someone else do it".

[lordmonar]

I responded with pieces of what would be part of a comprehensive plan, some of which has been detailed in
other long beaten posts.

Your repeated assertions that tasks which are part and parcel of being a commander are somehow "extra work"
are simply incorrect, but at this point you're clearly focused on avoiding this non-existent extra work regardless of
the positive impact on the membership.

To the other point, that's just ridiculous - of course NHQ would "notice" - they are the ones implementing the
comprehensive plan.  If you choose to ignore the totality of the idea and focus on what is a very small first step,
you'll never get out of the station-keeping rut you're in.

But thank you for your continued, non-disruptive service to CAP.

So....NHQ.....who right now does not care about empty shirts......will not tell everyone to manage your empty shirts.  So that they will know what are real numbers are....so that they will care about the fact that we don't have as many people as they currently know that they don't have.   And then somehow that is going to get them to come up with way to help us recruit.

That's simply crazy.

As for what we are doing on our level......you have no idea...none at all.   So don't think that I'm not working to improve the CAP.

As for NON-disruptive service......well that's a good point.   We do have to factor the disruption any change is going to generate in our cost/benefit analysis.

Now you can keep say "you are just lazy and looking for excuses not to do the work"........to a point that is true.  I am lazy and would rather spend my limited personal time time on "better" things.    But my motivations for countering you....have nothing to do with the validity of my basic premis.

KICKING OUT THE EMPTY SHIRTS DOES NOTHING TO HELP MANNING!

Nothing.
Zero.
Nada.

You have not shown me anything that it would improve.   

[JeffDG]

Thus revealed is the absurdity of your position.

We need admin people, so we'll prohibit them from participating in mission areas. 

That works great in a company where you give folks paycheques for their time.  In the volunteer space, however, the "fun" is how you actually get people to do the admin crap that goes along with it.

Segregation in such a way that "admin" people would not be allowed to participate in CP/AE/ES would be an almost instantaneous death-knell to the organization.  We'd go from 30% empty shirts to 90% disgruntled former members in a literal heartbeat.

For someone who talks about "basic management principles" you don't seem to have any grasp whatsoever on motivating volunteers.

[lordmonar]

Even if we had enough people that every person had only one job, everyone is supposed to be doing ES, CP or AE

How do you figure that? As much as anyone I've said the mission isn't a menu, but that applies to
unit operations as a whole, not individual members.

In a properly staffed and manned organization, the HQ people would not also be expected to turn the wrenches.
Do the staff accountants at your company also build the products and then put them on the UPS trucks?
Of course not, but that's essentially the situation in CAP - the word "no" is basically nonexistent, so
"everyone can do everything anytime they want". 

I've also as much as anyone said it's a good idea to be involved in both missions - ES and CP, but when you accept
a staff job, that's the foremost, not your experience.  Assuming you can do both, great.  If you can't, which do
you think is supposed to suffer?

The proper way to handle the situation would be the same way as most other similar organizations -
you join and "do" for a few years.  Gain experience, and figure out things work.  You get the wrench turning
out of your system and then move on to guide the next wave.

Instead, we have people who join and get a wing staff job before their ID card is dry, and then they
quit after a year because they never get to do anything "fun", while at the same time we have 75 year
old Lt Col GTMs still wandering in the woods, mentoring no one and wasting the effort invested in
training them, because all they want is "fun" - "let someone else do it".

Right.....and the fix for that is to kick out all the people we have not seen for six months!

[Eclipse]

You have not shown me anything that it would improve.

Clearly Matthew Henry had a point...

[lordmonar]

You have not shown me anything that it would improve.

Clearly Matthew Henry had a point...

Eclipse...I'm a pretty smart guy.   
And I'm asking nice.   I really want to know.  Please spell it out for me.

How...does.....kicking out the empty shirts.....get me at the unit level......more people.

[Eclipse]

No one said it did, in and of itself.

[Alaric]

Even if we had enough people that every person had only one job, everyone is supposed to be doing ES, CP or AE

How do you figure that? As much as anyone I've said the mission isn't a menu, but that applies to
unit operations as a whole, not individual members.

In a properly staffed and manned organization, the HQ people would not also be expected to turn the wrenches.
Do the staff accountants at your company also build the products and then put them on the UPS trucks?
Of course not, but that's essentially the situation in CAP - the word "no" is basically nonexistent, so
"everyone can do everything anytime they want". 

I've also as much as anyone said it's a good idea to be involved in both missions - ES and CP, but when you accept
a staff job, that's the foremost, not your experience.  Assuming you can do both, great.  If you can't, which do
you think is supposed to suffer?

The proper way to handle the situation would be the same way as most other similar organizations -
you join and "do" for a few years.  Gain experience, and figure out things work.  You get the wrench turning
out of your system and then move on to guide the next wave.

Instead, we have people who join and get a wing staff job before their ID card is dry, and then they
quit after a year because they never get to do anything "fun", while at the same time we have 75 year
old Lt Col GTMs still wandering in the woods, mentoring no one and wasting the effort invested in
training them, because all they want is "fun" - "let someone else do it".

First, you are making a comparison that makes no sense, CAP is not a full time job (with rare exceptions).  So no, at my company, I do not turn wrenches to build products.  In CAP however, I spend anywhere from 5 -10 hours (sometimes shorter, sometimes longer) on the Admin/Personnel role of my job.  Our administrative/personnel requirements are not all consuming in this organization.  This was even more true when I was at the squadron/group level.  I would, at an average meeting, perhaps process a promotion or award, give advice on a regulation, etc.  It didn't take the entire meeting.  Also, one of the dangers of just doing staff work (if there was enough to keep one occupied) is that they lose connection with the purpose of the organization, which is CP, AE and ES by congressional mandate.

Second, since there is no set "work week" for CAP, if a staff officer chooses to spend all their time only doing their job, that's fine.  They go to the meetings, do what they need to do, and their done until the next meeting.  If however, they choose to give up their weekends at the Rocketry event, or doing CD missions, etc.  Since that doesn't impact their job and does increase the operational capability of the organization, not seeing the issue.

Third, using your method "turn wrenches for a few years and get it out of your system" would guarantee a lack of the experienced ES personnel you lament the lack of.

[lordmonar]

No one said it did, in and of itself.

Then why are we doing it?

Which was I said alllll the way back in the beginning of this thread.

[Storm Chaser]

In TODAY's CAP we do have members wearing 2-3 hats.   In today's CAP we are undermanned.   In today's CAP there is no value added in moving all the empty shirts to patron status.

The fix is to recruit and train more personnel.  It is to get group/wing/national out there helping units recruit and train more personnel.
Kicking out/transferring/Patron-ing "empty shirts" does not get us any closer to having more personnel.

The problem is that on paper we look in better shape than we really are. If we had accurate numbers reporting our active membership, perhaps group/wing/region/national would feel more compelled to do something to fix this problem.

Forcing people out and closing units in the HOPE that NHQ notices.......something they already know...and then does "something" about....is not going to get more people in the units.

How do you know they know? Or are you saying that they don't care our organization is undermanned for the amount of work required of us? I bet they would do more to fix our membership problem if it was obvious at every level that there was in fact a problem. Providing accurate numbers on those who are, without doubt, inactive may do just that.

[lordmonar]

In TODAY's CAP we do have members wearing 2-3 hats.   In today's CAP we are undermanned.   In today's CAP there is no value added in moving all the empty shirts to patron status.

The fix is to recruit and train more personnel.  It is to get group/wing/national out there helping units recruit and train more personnel.
Kicking out/transferring/Patron-ing "empty shirts" does not get us any closer to having more personnel.

The problem is that on paper we look in better shape than we really are. If we had accurate numbers reporting our active membership, perhaps group/wing/region/national would feel more compelled to do something to fix this problem.

First off....this assumes Group/Wing/Region/National are not aware of the problem.
Second.....this is wishful thinking.   Maybe the would feel more compelled to do something to fix the problem.   They have not been compelled so far.   And I know that they know that the problem exists.   Ergo.....this is just wishful thinking....If we do it....they will fix it.

Forcing people out and closing units in the HOPE that NHQ notices.......something they already know...and then does "something" about....is not going to get more people in the units.

How do you know they know? Or are you saying that they don't care our organization is undermanned for the amount of work required of us? I bet they would do more to fix our membership problem if it was obvious at every level that there was in fact a problem. Providing accurate numbers on those who are, without doubt, inactive may do just that.

I know they know...because I have told them....and they have told me that they know.
NHQ and everyone is not some faceless entity from another planet.    They are us.   People just like you and me who slugged it out at the unit level and moved up.

Eclipse is a group guy.  We just had a wing staff meeting last weekend were we discussed our manning issues.  The last regional meeting I was at it was brought up.   I personally had the conversation about manning with several staffers at the last national conference. 

They know.

And again....you used the wishful thinking argument.   If we just worked harder and clean out all the empty shirts....they MAY do something about it.

No....I don't think it would do any good.

[FW]

"And again....you used the wishful thinking argument.   If we just worked harder and clean out all the empty shirts....they MAY do something about it.

No....I don't think it would do any good."

Uh, yes....

So?

Do you think we've rung our hands over this long enough?  Maybe, it's actually time to truly address this issue; and I don't mean by adding a new position at NHQ to put a band aid on it.  There are so many reasons we've got to this point, we may not be able to overcome the inertia to make the changes necessary to succeed in getting more members willing to get the job done.  That said, it is possible. It will just take a lot of effort on all concerned.

[SarDragon]

Every time I take 10 minutes of time away from someone to do Admin over head....that's 10 minutes of time they can't be doing ES, CP or AE.

Your admin people aren't SUPPOSED TO BE DOING "ES, CP, or AE".

Doesn't work that way, Bob. I haven't been in a squadron yet that the guys who pushed paper didn't do ES, CP or AE type stuff, too, especially ES. Many military flying squadrons work that way, too, in that pilots are assigned as Admin, etc.

In my own unit, a senior squadron, the AEO is a mission pilot, the Personnel officer is an MO, the PDO is a GTL, Commo is an MP, LG is an MP, PAO is an MO, Finance is an MP, Safety is an MP. The only staff officers not qualified in ES are Admin (not his thing, he's there to push paper), and the ITO ( new guy, but in training for MS/MO).

As a BTW, I guess my wing commander isn't supposed to be out doing UDF missions, based on your philosophy?

[Eclipse]

In my own unit, a senior squadron, the AEO is a mission pilot, the Personnel officer is an MO, the PDO is a GTL, Commo is an MP, LG is an MP, PAO is an MO, Finance is an MP, Safety is an MP. The only staff officers not qualified in ES are Admin (not his thing, he's there to push paper), and the ITO ( new guy, but in training for MS/MO).

You've made my point and characterized the problem nicely.

As a BTW, I guess my wing commander isn't supposed to be out doing UDF missions, based on your philosophy?

If the Wing CC job the getting done, he can change the oil in the CAP Vans.  What I >said< was that you can't
make an excuse that "admin is too much because I want to do ES" if you accept two jobs.

But frankly, no, I don't think a Wing CC should be chasing ELTs, he's got plenty to do already.

[lordmonar]

"And again....you used the wishful thinking argument.   If we just worked harder and clean out all the empty shirts....they MAY do something about it.

No....I don't think it would do any good."

Uh, yes....

So?

Do you think we've rung our hands over this long enough?  Maybe, it's actually time to truly address this issue; and I don't mean by adding a new position at NHQ to put a band aid on it.  There are so many reasons we've got to this point, we may not be able to overcome the inertia to make the changes necessary to succeed in getting more members willing to get the job done.  That said, it is possible. It will just take a lot of effort on all concerned.

Sure there are things we can do.

One is to automate as much as possible......we are doing a pretty good job of it now.....but not nearly there.
Second.....wings need to build OPLANs and then TASK squadrons with specific portions of that OPLAN so that a squadron commander can do his job of "Man, Train and Equip his squadron to perform assigned missions".   Until we know what the "assigned missions" we are just guessing about how we should be manned.  If the unit leader knows what his tasks are...he can figure out his manning, training and equipment levels are supposed to be.  And then he can focus his recruiting and training to meet those goals.   Since we have hard goals from wing on his manning and training it is easy to manage using the existing E-Services tool.  And wing and group can support the squadron if it starts to struggle.
Third....Eliminate the fluff at the squadron level.  History, Chaplain, DDR, CD, IT, PAO, SAFETY.   Having to have dedicated officers to these positions....eats up time away from missions.
Finally.....reorganization.   Reorg all of CAP with clear lines of responsibilities.

National....at nation
Region....at FEMA region (there are 10 FEMA regions)
Wing.....at state
Group is an administrative/span of control level....not responsible for for plans and programs.
Squadron....at county
Flight at city/town level......or alternately is broken up functional....ie. the Cadet Programs Flight, Ground Teams Flight, Air SAR Flight.
Elements.....this is where the rubber hits the road....they would be tasked with just one small aspect of the entire mission.   Such as CP in just this AOR/school.  Maintaining the crews for this assigned aircraft., maintaining the comm assets in this AOR, maintaining the mission base and its support staff in this AOR/Airport.

At my location....we are addressing this issue in this way.   Lacking taskings from Wing or higher up....we have decided that our OPLAN would be to have a 100 member cadet program and to be able to man one operational period for full on SAR (to include three aircraft and to ground teams).

We are currently at this point in the effort.   We are still hammering out what those numbers are supposed to be and how big of a support staff we are going to need to get there.

The next set is to implement the recruiting/training/operating piple line.  Basically it will run on quarters...One quarter will be the recruiting effort, followed by a quarter of Level I training, followed  by a quarter of ES training, followed by a quarter of integration into the squadron.

Once it is up and running.....every quarter ES and CP will give recruiting their needs to meet the OPLAN tasking.   At the end of each quarter recruiting will give PD or CP their quota of members to start in the training pipeline.  At the end of each quarter PD and CP basic traiing will be handing off their quota of members to the next step in the pipeline.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Its a big job....will take 2-3 get us to that level...but it is what we want to do.

[stixco1]

Every one here realizes this is not just a CAP problem right?

Overall in America only about 15% of Americans volunteer their time. Split those 15% into Boy Scouts, Fire Companies, Rotary clubs, CAP...etc...

I have been a member of 2 (at different times) pretty active Fire Companies. In both it was the same small group of people who showed up to do the majority of the "work". However a lot of people would show up for the "big one" or for a social event where they could walk around shaking hands. I held positions as either EMS and/or Fire Lieutenants as well as Board of Directors positions. (President/Treasurer) We did keep attendance records and had "mandatory trainings & meetings.    (However very rarely was anyone kicked out)

Right now I am a corrections officer in a county jail with about 150 officers. However most months we cant get a Quarom at the monthly union meetings....

[PHall]

But frankly, no, I don't think a Wing CC should be chasing ELTs, he's got plenty to do already.

I'll make sure he knows that when I see him in about 24 hours...

[JeffDG]

But frankly, no, I don't think a Wing CC should be chasing ELTs, he's got plenty to do already.

I'll make sure he knows that when I see him in about 24 hours...

yeah.  Folks in that job need to get out and have some fun more than anyone else.

[Capt Thompson]

While I don't think it's a requirement anywhere in regs, in the OBC (Level II) it states that all CAP members "should" be involved in all 3 missions. Therefore....the Wing CC "should" be running down ELT's, and the Historian "should" take part in the rocketry program.

In my Squadron, every Senior takes part to some extent in ES. Every Senior is expected to help in some way with the external AE program. Any Senior not already directly involved with Cadets, takes part in mentoring in some way. A Senior that comes to meetings just to do Admin isn't fulfilling any of the congressionally mandated missions. If a report gets sent to Wing a week late because the Admin Officer was out searching for a downed plane, I doubt anyone at Wing will say much.

Remember, we're a volunteer organization.....if you take away the fun stuff, and make it a job, you'll have a lot less people getting the job done.

Just my .02

[Storm Chaser]

While I don't think it's a requirement anywhere in regs, in the OBC (Level II) it states that all CAP members "should" be involved in all 3 missions. Therefore....the Wing CC "should" be running down ELT's, and the Historian "should" take part in the rocketry program.

If your assertion was correct, then every squadron in CAP would be composite and we wouldn't have a need for senior and cadet squadrons. As it stands, that's not he way CAP does things.

While a wing commander can certainly do UDF missions, what I think Eclipse meant was that at that level the wing commander is usually busy enough running the wing, developing strategic goals, establishing plans, policies and procedures, ensuring the wing has adequate resources to accomplish the mission, attending meetings of the CAP Command Council, etc. to do these types of missions. I know that while I enjoy searching for ELTs and teaching others how to do it, I'm usually busy running a group and running our missions, that I don't get to do it all that much. I like being in the field as much as the other guy, but that's no longer my primary role in CAP.