What constitutes "active participation"?

[vorteks]

How does spending 20 posts nitpicking the exact wording of someone's post accomplish anything, or in any way pertain to the OP? Whether OBC is a requirement or not has no real relevance on my original position, or on the topic of the original post.

You used the word "required" several times seemingly to lend credibility to your assertions. The fact that OBC isn't required training for senior members might undermine your position slightly.

BTW, I'm the OP and the issue I raised has nothing to do with SMs.

[vorteks]

... countless hours on CapTalk....hmmm.

You've made 37 posts on about 13 different topics since Saturday. CAPTalk can be addicting!

[Capt Thompson]

Lol, free time at work.....and yes it can be.

[Eclipse]

Pssshh...amateurs....

[Capt Thompson]

That senior may have no interest in either of those things, or further, no ability.  I agree with the philosophical argument, but CAP as it exists today
doesn't set that expectation until after people join, and then only in very broad, CAP-typical "don't make people sad" terms.

True, we tend to care more about getting people in than setting expectations for members. PD conversations should happen before taking a check from a new member, but often don't occur until after a member has completed Level I. My new Squadron was very upfront with what they were asking, but then again as a former member I asked the right questions too. A parent who should probably be a Patron or Sponsor, gets brought in as an active member with no real idea of what the program is about, and then further up the road is asked to take part in areas they didn't know they would be involved in.

[Майор Хаткевич]

If a Senior can't find 10 mins once a month to sit down and mentor a cadet.....or one day a year teaching an external AE class to a middle school class or Boy Scout Troop, then maybe time management is the issue?

Sure, I can take a day to present on AE to a middle school (if they let me in). But then I'll take a day from something else. I'm married. My wife actually likes to spend time with me.

I already give up 45+ nights to regular meetings. 2 weekends (and Fridays) to an encampment. 1 Saturday to RST for said encampment. So far, 2-3 in face encampment meetings on weekends. A few days for training/sarexes. 1-2 days for PD training a year. I need 2 conferences for my next promotion, so there's 4 more days. Misc squadron activities. Phonecalls during week, emails, reading regs, etc. It adds up.

So, I can support CP and some ES, and I can tac on some AE, but I'll most certainly have to 'give' something up.

[foo]

A parent who should probably be a Patron or Sponsor, gets brought in as an active member with no real idea of what the program is about, and then further up the road is asked to take part in areas they didn't know they would be involved in.

There's nothing wrong with a parent joining a cadet sqdn to take on a duty position or three where needed and proceeding no further in PD than L1. I'm not sure what "areas" you're talking about taking part in, but if it's mission stuff, that's not PD.

[Майор Хаткевич]

A parent who should probably be a Patron or Sponsor, gets brought in as an active member with no real idea of what the program is about, and then further up the road is asked to take part in areas they didn't know they would be involved in.

There's nothing wrong with a parent joining a cadet sqdn to take on a duty position or three where needed and proceeding no further in PD than L1. I'm not sure what "areas" you're talking about taking part in, but if it's mission stuff, that's not PD.

As a new SM (out of college, but former cadet), I was gleefully taken as the testing officer for cadets. (All 3 CP people had kids in the program). It took me one read through the reg to "find my way", and I've been doing it ever since, with only half a though to the process. My former experience only helped in the fact of knowing how our scantron sheets work, what the tests look like and what they mean, but that wasn't necessary knowledge to be in that role. Probably could train a 3 year old to do it right.

[Eclipse]

That senior may have no interest in either of those things, or further, no ability.  I agree with the philosophical argument, but CAP as it exists today
doesn't set that expectation until after people join, and then only in very broad, CAP-typical "don't make people sad" terms.

True, we tend to care more about getting people in than setting expectations for members. PD conversations should happen before taking a check from a new member, but often don't occur until after a member has completed Level I. My new Squadron was very upfront with what they were asking, but then again as a former member I asked the right questions too. A parent who should probably be a Patron or Sponsor, gets brought in as an active member with no real idea of what the program is about, and then further up the road is asked to take part in areas they didn't know they would be involved in.

Another problem with membership expectations of performance, is that they come with organizational expectations of performance,
or the whole thing collapses quickly.  That's why this issue absolutely has to be tackled at the national level and pressed down
through the chain with ongoing pressure.

In my experience, the majority of the membership will do just about anything and everything asked of it, as long as there is
value at the end of the tunnel. CAP, however, tends drag people along, and about 3/4 of the way through, shuts off the light,
leaving the members standing in the middle of a dark tunnel, with no idea which way is out, or why they are in the tunnel
to start with.  The only light available is an electronic copy of the Volunteer on a fading laptop, showing photos of members
on the outside of the tunnel who are doing cool stuff, and not looking back to check on the guys behind them.

This, I believe, is one of the major reasons disruptive change is frowned upon - not because of the affect on the membership,
but because of the affect and increased expectations on the leadership, at all levels above the unit.  I can get a unit
to dig in an train their hearts out for a year, and build a mission-ready team, that's easy, but there better be missions
waiting for them, or those same guys are gone by the next year.

Getting those missions is a higher HQ function, and CGMs don't help that much.

[Capt Thompson]

There's nothing wrong with a parent joining a cadet sqdn to take on a duty position or three where needed and proceeding no further in PD than L1. I'm not sure what "areas" you're talking about taking part in, but if it's mission stuff, that's not PD.

PD involves both the interests of the new member, and the needs of the Squadron. If the Squadron is heavily lacking in ES, CP or AE, they need to be up front with new members on what holes need to be filled. A lot of new members come in with no desire to participate at all, but the participation convo doesn't occur until after the app is processed. When the Squadron sets an expectation of participation, suddenly they stop showing up.

When I first spoke to the Commander of my new Squadron, he was up front with the areas they needed help in, and asked which I would role I would be able to fill. Expectations were set right away. A new member wishing to join, but not take on a role in the Squadron, should have that conversation before submitting the app, and be given the choice of Patron or Sponsor.

[Майор Хаткевич]

That's how its supposed to work anyway...

[foo]

There's nothing wrong with a parent joining a cadet sqdn to take on a duty position or three where needed and proceeding no further in PD than L1. I'm not sure what "areas" you're talking about taking part in, but if it's mission stuff, that's not PD.

PD involves both the interests of the new member, and the needs of the Squadron. If the Squadron is heavily lacking in ES, CP or AE, they need to be up front with new members on what holes need to be filled. A lot of new members come in with no desire to participate at all, but the participation convo doesn't occur until after the app is processed. When the Squadron sets an expectation of participation, suddenly they stop showing up.

When I first spoke to the Commander of my new Squadron, he was up front with the areas they needed help in, and asked which I would role I would be able to fill. Expectations were set right away. A new member wishing to join, but not take on a role in the Squadron, should have that conversation before submitting the app, and be given the choice of Patron or Sponsor.

Sponsors can't be assigned duty positions, and Patrons are even less useful. A senior member can meet all kinds of needs at the sqdn level without pursuing PD any further than Level I. They can also contribute to the needs of the organization and gain a sense of personal accomplishment through obtaining mission qualifications, which aren't tied to PD.

I wouldn't discourage anyone from pursuing PD, but the fact is that the ongoing fulfillment of the requirements for your next promotion is not an obligation for senior membership. People join for different reasons. Also keep in mind that the realities in your little corner of CAP aren't necessarily going to be everyone else's.

[foo]

A lot of new members come in with no desire to participate at all

That's a rather dubious claim. Why would anyone join without having some idea that they would have to do something, even if it's just to show up at some meetings and the occasional SAREX?

[Майор Хаткевич]

College resume builder, every club participant, etc. But by far a tiny minority.

[Capt Thompson]

College resume builder, every club participant, etc. But by far a tiny minority.

A tiny minority that routinely shows up on Squadron rosters....and many threads on a certain message board....and then disappear from the roster completely when their kids lose interest or age out. If this isn't a problem in your neck of the woods, then your Squadron is doing better than most.

That's a rather dubious claim. Why would anyone join without having some idea that they would have to do something, even if it's just to show up at some meetings and the occasional SAREX?

Because expectations aren't set otherwise. Again, if you've never seen this in your own Squadron, it's doing very well.

[lordmonar]

That senior may have no interest in either of those things, or further, no ability.  I agree with the philosophical argument, but CAP as it exists today
doesn't set that expectation until after people join, and then only in very broad, CAP-typical "don't make people sad" terms.

True, we tend to care more about getting people in than setting expectations for members. PD conversations should happen before taking a check from a new member, but often don't occur until after a member has completed Level I. My new Squadron was very upfront with what they were asking, but then again as a former member I asked the right questions too. A parent who should probably be a Patron or Sponsor, gets brought in as an active member with no real idea of what the program is about, and then further up the road is asked to take part in areas they didn't know they would be involved in.

Another problem with membership expectations of performance, is that they come with organizational expectations of performance,
or the whole thing collapses quickly.  That's why this issue absolutely has to be tackled at the national level and pressed down
through the chain with ongoing pressure.

In my experience, the majority of the membership will do just about anything and everything asked of it, as long as there is
value at the end of the tunnel. CAP, however, tends drag people along, and about 3/4 of the way through, shuts off the light,
leaving the members standing in the middle of a dark tunnel, with no idea which way is out, or why they are in the tunnel
to start with.  The only light available is an electronic copy of the Volunteer on a fading laptop, showing photos of members
on the outside of the tunnel who are doing cool stuff, and not looking back to check on the guys behind them.

This, I believe, is one of the major reasons disruptive change is frowned upon - not because of the affect on the membership,
but because of the affect and increased expectations on the leadership, at all levels above the unit.  I can get a unit
to dig in an train their hearts out for a year, and build a mission-ready team, that's easy, but there better be missions
waiting for them, or those same guys are gone by the next year.

Getting those missions is a higher HQ function, and CGMs don't help that much.

This I completely agree with.

It is hard for a commander...at any level....to know how to do his job of manning, training and equipping the unit perform their assigned mission(s).....if they have been told what those missions are. (and I mean more specifically then just "Do the Three Missions").

Need to do CP....okay....How many cadets do I need?  What is my market penetration of the target audience? (keep you minds out of the gutter).
Need to do AE...Okay...what are my internal AE goals?  What are my external AE goals?  Not just "do them and then tell us about them" but what does HHQ think I should be doing?
Need to do AE...okay....what specialties should I be training and how many?

The goals need to be set from above.   Certainly the commander needs to be in on the conversation.  100 cadets.....that's not gonna happen this year sir.....how about we shoot for 30 and then we reevaluate in a year?

The goal needs to be set from above, executed at the unit level, supported by the group and wing staff.   At the end of the year we compare the end state with the stated goals.....divide one into the other anything less then ONE means a short fall....which means a D or Lower Grader.   A one means a solid C....good job!  Anything greater then one and you are looking at B or A work.

Now we can do an SUI to make sure you are dotting the "T"s and Crossing the "I"s......and then we actually would have and inspection system that gives a REAL report card about our mission effectiveness.

[Майор Хаткевич]

College resume builder, every club participant, etc. But by far a tiny minority.

A tiny minority that routinely shows up on Squadron rosters....and many threads on a certain message board....and then disappear from the roster completely when their kids lose interest or age out. If this isn't a problem in your neck of the woods, then your Squadron is doing better than most.

That's a rather dubious claim. Why would anyone join without having some idea that they would have to do something, even if it's just to show up at some meetings and the occasional SAREX?

Because expectations aren't set otherwise. Again, if you've never seen this in your own Squadron, it's doing very well.

Don't confuse local issues with systematic issues. Even if CAPTalk is just a microcosm of the overall in a narrow lane, your assertion isn't one that often (ever?) comes up.

The regs state new members have to attend 3 meetings, and SMs get a membership board. While I'm not part of the process at my unit, I do know that expectations, preferences and needs, etc, are discussed at said meetings/board before the ppwk is done.

[vorteks]

...and then disappear from the roster completely when their kids lose interest or age out

What's wrong with that? A lot of parents join to help run their cadet's squadron with no intention of making a career of it. They can still be a tremendous benefit to the unit during their time in.