What constitutes "active participation"?

[lordmonar]

Ok. 
I got no problem saying to safety.  They are not here.
I got no problem telling the encampment commander he is free to contact those cadets himself.
I don care about the QUA it has little benefit to me and my program.
So like I said.   If you want to go ahead.   But don't try to say that my unit is some how not doing it right.

And doing that every month takes more time and effort than filling out a form. Just sayin'.

You got to do it every month anyway.....I do almost the same thing...Cadets who are not showing up...we follow up on them.   We just don't do the 2b paper work.

That's the added admin burden I'm talking about.

If I were to kick out all my empty shirts today.....I'll just have to do it again next month as the next cadet crosses the line.   My unit has been at a stable growth for a few years now.   We take in each month about the same number as those who drop out.   We got the numbers to put on a good program.   So....the status quo is good as far as I can tell.   Adding more admin burden and spending money.....certified letters are not free.....makes no sense to me.

That is all I'm saying.

If you have that many "empty shirts" every month that it's creating an administrative burden to your unit, then perhaps you have bigger problems that filling out a 2B.

In E-service today my unit sits at 46 cadets 33 seniors.   I would estimate that 1/3 of them are "empty shirts" for one reason or another.   Like I said our manning numbers are pretty steady....we lose about the same number of members as we gain.   So we are looking about maybe 1-2 people (cadets and seniors) a month drop off our books.    It is part of the cadet staff's job to contact each cadet who does not attend a meeting and report it up their chain every week.   The First Sergeant's job is contact any cadet who has missed three in a row and find out what the deal is.

So....like I said we are doing well.   Adding doing 1-2 2b's every month is not going to fix any "problems" yet identified.

As for congress/USAF......they know the score.  They know that on 1 Jan or 14 Jul or when every the pull the "official" numbers for the budget process......a certain portion of those numbers are inactive members timing out, inactive members who keep paying dues, people on the books but are in active due to work, family, life concerns.

It is not an integrity issue.

If someone is out telling donars/congress we had 60K mission ready pilots based on e-service numbers....now that would be wrong.

[Storm Chaser]

It doesn't mater "why" someone isn't there.  Having a unit full of married cadets and reservists at training
doesn't carry the corners.   All the excuses, understanding sympathy, and benefit of the doubt won't
march with you into the woods on a SAR, or help you train the few members that do show up.

You're either >there< or you aren't.  If you aren't, there you go.

Bob,

I don't think this view is either mainstream or supported by the regulations.

We do indeed have provisions that allow cadets to be excused for various reasons.  They are still required to meet various standards for promotion, but the program indeed contemplates and embraces the real life / CP interface.

Need to study for your physics final?  Just let us know and you'll be excused.  The world won't come to an end, but you'll probably have to make up that CPFT / CD discusion / whatever in order to be promoted.

Same thing for your IET or ROTC summer camp.  That's important stuff and we will figure it out somehow.

Is the Academic Decathalon Team headed up to the State Capital for the finals?  We'll make it work.

Cadet and composite units are not tasked with ES & DR resposibilites.  Qualified members assigned to cadet units are encouraged and welcomed to participate, of course, and cadets have saved a lot of lives by doing so.

But a cadet unit's primary mission is CP.  And that is in no way hindered by allowing cadets to miss meetings on occasion.  The regs are there for a reason, even if you may (as usual) disagree.

Ned, I couldn't agree more.

[Майор Хаткевич]

It doesn't mater "why" someone isn't there.  Having a unit full of married cadets and reservists at training
doesn't carry the corners.   All the excuses, understanding sympathy, and benefit of the doubt won't
march with you into the woods on a SAR, or help you train the few members that do show up.

You're either >there< or you aren't.  If you aren't, there you go.

Bob,

I don't think this view is either mainstream or supported by the regulations.

We do indeed have provisions that allow cadets to be excused for various reasons.  They are still required to meet various standards for promotion, but the program indeed contemplates and embraces the real life / CP interface.

Need to study for your physics final?  Just let us know and you'll be excused.  The world won't come to an end, but you'll probably have to make up that CPFT / CD discusion / whatever in order to be promoted.

Same thing for your IET or ROTC summer camp.  That's important stuff and we will figure it out somehow.

Is the Academic Decathalon Team headed up to the State Capital for the finals?  We'll make it work.

Cadet and composite units are not tasked with ES & DR resposibilites.  Qualified members assigned to cadet units are encouraged and welcomed to participate, of course, and cadets have saved a lot of lives by doing so.

But a cadet unit's primary mission is CP.  And that is in no way hindered by allowing cadets to miss meetings on occasion.  The regs are there for a reason, even if you may (as usual) disagree.

That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about cadets who go incommunicado and aren't even responding / keeping up with requirements. On the football team? Great, see you in 3 months, please keep in touch and do your safety briefs online.

[vorteks]

That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about cadets who go incommunicado and aren't even responding / keeping up with requirements. On the football team? Great, see you in 3 months, please keep in touch and do your safety briefs online.

Exactly. And I'm talking about identifying that situation during the trial period.

[lordmonar]

Back to the original post. I don't think this has been answered yet:

39-2 para. 2-2.h

Prospective cadets visiting a traditional unit must participate in a trial period by attending three weekly squadron meetings before requesting membership. Unit commanders will not approve membership applications (online or in paper form) until the prospective cadet has attended his or her third squadron meeting... Prospective cadets may not explore CAP without joining for longer than 30 days.

Why does this regulation exist?
Should it be ignored or complied with?
Why?

It exists...because we owe it to both our recruiting efforts, the perspective cadet and their parents to be sure that CAP and the perspective members are a good fit.

Recruiting and signing up kids at say a recruiting booth, taking their money and having them show up the next Monday.....and they find out that they don't like all the marching around...or "you mean we got to wear uniforms".

The 30 day clause is two fold....one is make sure the cadet can in fact meet the time demands that CAP requires.   The second is to close out the loop whole that people were using to skate a person into CAP with out them actually joining CAP.

Someone come for weeks on end.....and they never actually join.   At some point you got put up or shut up.

And no....we should not ignore the regulation.   Can we/should we make exceptions to it?   That's another debate.

Agree completly. So in the scenario that started this thread, the kid that "can't" visit three meetings in 30 days because of sports and indeed has stated that their ongoing participation would only be 50% is not a good fit for the Cadet Program.

Can't make the call from this distance.   Maybe, maybe not.   Does a lot a lot of sports....may mean....football in the fall an base ball in the summer....but spring and winter are free.    Meeting only twice a month, and working with leadership to make up missed events....slow down progression....but again......I don't know if it is a good or bad thing.  Not being able to be there regularly will affect leadership positions available.....which again may not be acceptable to the perspective member.

In my gut feeling.......it is up to the cadet's parents.   If they understand what the deal is, what their child must do to progress in the program and they still want to do it.....I'm not going to say no.   I tell all our recruits and their parents what the deal is.   Uniforms, hair cuts, weekly meetings, off night activities, encampments, money, money, money.    We have a formal membership board with each new cadet recruit and we interview their parents separately.

So.....like I said to the OP.    If everyone is honest up front....and they still want to try it.  I see no reason NOT to allow them to join.

If up front the parent says....we can only make two meetings......and that breaks the letter of 39-2......Three meetings over a 45 day period or IMHO meets the spirit of the regulation for an exceptional situation (I can hear Eclipse cringing right now ).

My question would be....if Perspective Cadet Showed up on the Feb 1 meeting, the Feb 7 meeting and then dropped off the radar until March 7....what do you do?

Do you restart his clock...."you need to be here for two more meetings within the next 30 days"....but wait....that extends the clock...is that what 39-2 just said you can't do.

Do you say...."okay this is meeting 3 welcome to CAP"......but he is outside his current clock?

The answer is somewhere in between based on the what CAP is intending by the regulation, and what the actual situation with the perspective member.

YMMV.
Say....sorry you can't join now.

[Eclipse]

Eclipse, it is not an integrity thing, we are reporting dues paid members, that is all that is required.  I have had many cadets over the years take a hiatus for 3-6 months, come back and re-engage.  Glad I didn't 2B them.

It's 100% an integrity issue, especially in light of using those mischaracterized numbers to request or support funding.

CAP is not an affinity organization where writing a check actually means something, as do raw numbers.
When an organization like the American Motorcyclist Association reports that it has "125,000 members", those listening
can assume that at least that many people have enough of a passing interest in riding that they are willing to write a check
every year and that there is a fair chance they may vote based on related issues.  In those situations, writing the check
>is< the expectation.

CAP, on the other hand, is a service organization and writing the check is where you >start<. 

When CAP cites its numbers in reports to Congress, press releases, or marketing collateral, they don't add an asterisk
that says "only 1/3 of the member shows up enough to be counted as an asset".  The use the 60k number specifical
to infer and insinuate the scope and scale of CAP's presence and influence, which isn't any where near
what a national organization of 60k members with military affiliation actually should be.

Ergo.  "Integrity".

But a cadet unit's primary mission is CP.  And that is in no way hindered by allowing cadets to miss meetings on occasion.  The regs are there for a reason, even if you may (as usual) disagree.

Agreed, though somewhat meaningless in the context of this thread, as that isn't what we're discussing here.  The below is.

That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about cadets who go incommunicado and aren't even responding / keeping up with requirements. On the football team? Great, see you in 3 months, please keep in touch and do your safety briefs online.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I think the spirit of the 30 day rule is to prevent a 3 year cadet in Nevada who's not a member, but is totally at all CAP meetings. Come for a month, explore what we have to offer, join or don't.

[Eclipse]

I think the spirit of the 30 day rule is to prevent a 3 year cadet in Nevada who's not a member, but is totally at all CAP meetings. Come for a month, explore what we have to offer, join or don't.

Agreed.

[lordmonar]

Eclipse....they don't add the asterisk because they already know the score.

Making the books look clean would have to be a daily job.   

We would have to write another regulation defining active and inactive. 
Then we would need to have to write rules on what is excused and what is not, and how to get exceptions to the rule. 

All to make sure the books look good.

So my question....when do the books have to look good?

In the Boy Scouts...the books only have to look good at the begging of the charter year.   They send out the official charters.....tell you to cross out anyone who is a ghost, update all the information, add all the new members and send it (and all the checks) up the chain.

The BSA from that point on.....could care less about the numbers.   Those are the numbers they report to their donor, to congress, and everyone.   Even if they know that summer 1/3 of them will be gone.

So....is this book cleaning just something we should do before we report to congress?   Before we report to the USAF for budget requests?   If they are good on 1 Jan.....is it an integrity issue when we use the same numbers on 1 July to someone else.....when we "know" that they may not be right?

Sorry Eclipse......it is not an integrity issue.    The congress critters are smart enough to know what is what....if not......well...that's another thread.

[lordmonar]

I think the spirit of the 30 day rule is to prevent a 3 year cadet in Nevada who's not a member, but is totally at all CAP meetings. Come for a month, explore what we have to offer, join or don't.

Agreed.

+1
See we do agree sometimes.   

[vorteks]

I think the spirit of the 30 day rule is to prevent a 3 year cadet in Nevada who's not a member, but is totally at all CAP meetings. Come for a month, explore what we have to offer, join or don't.

Okay so where do you draw the line? We have people who've been visiting off and on since last summer. Again, I don't think that behavior bodes well for those kids' future level of participation in the program. Yet here we are still with arms wide open.

[Eclipse]

If you want to pretend this is just to "make the books look good" then you're serving as a very nice example of the problem.

It's not, you know it isn't, but choose to say "meh".  You're unfortunate prerogative, however that's not the
case in regards to the mandate of the leadership (at least conceptually).

[Eclipse]

I think the spirit of the 30 day rule is to prevent a 3 year cadet in Nevada who's not a member, but is totally at all CAP meetings. Come for a month, explore what we have to offer, join or don't.

Okay so where do you draw the line? We have people who've been visiting off and on since last summer. Again, I don't think that behavior bodes well for those kids' future level of participation in the program. Yet here we are still with arms wide open.

It's always going to be the Commander's ultimate and subjective call.

The "30 day rule" is unenforceable, for starters because not all CAP units, cadet or otherwise, meet every week.

Were it me making the decision, and the expectations were clear, then it's not unreasonable to
have the cadet in question attend the next three meetings in succession that the expectation is
they would be attending normally (every other week, etc.).

Beyond that, if the CC's good with it, it's his call.

[lordmonar]

I think the spirit of the 30 day rule is to prevent a 3 year cadet in Nevada who's not a member, but is totally at all CAP meetings. Come for a month, explore what we have to offer, join or don't.

Okay so where do you draw the line? We have people who've been visiting off and on since last summer. Again, I don't think that behavior bodes well for those kids' future level of participation in the program. Yet here we are still with arms wide open.

Make the call.   Tell them that "okay....you got to make a decisions.  You've seen us in action, you know what we require of you.  let's make a choice or figure out what the problem is.:

I say the last as we had a couple of cadets who were waffling because their parents were having trouble coming up with the money.

Again....a nice time for an honest converstation....and maybe some creative thinking to over come the obstacle.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I think the spirit of the 30 day rule is to prevent a 3 year cadet in Nevada who's not a member, but is totally at all CAP meetings. Come for a month, explore what we have to offer, join or don't.

Okay so where do you draw the line? We have people who've been visiting off and on since last summer. Again, I don't think that behavior bodes well for those kids' future level of participation in the program. Yet here we are still with arms wide open.

At least 3 meetings. Stick to under 30 days (does that make it 4-5 meetings depending on the month?) total. Outside of that, "Now that you've seen 3-5 meetings of how we operate, are you interested in joining? If you need time to think about it, that's acceptable, but please let us know, as regulations and insurance requires us to limit non-member attendance outside of that period".

[Майор Хаткевич]

I think the spirit of the 30 day rule is to prevent a 3 year cadet in Nevada who's not a member, but is totally at all CAP meetings. Come for a month, explore what we have to offer, join or don't.

Okay so where do you draw the line? We have people who've been visiting off and on since last summer. Again, I don't think that behavior bodes well for those kids' future level of participation in the program. Yet here we are still with arms wide open.

Make the call.   Tell them that "okay....you got to make a decisions.  You've seen us in action, you know what we require of you.  let's make a choice or figure out what the problem is.:

I say the last as we had a couple of cadets who were waffling because their parents were having trouble coming up with the money.

Again....a nice time for an honest converstation....and maybe some creative thinking to over come the obstacle.

This, as well.


If we need to talk start up costs...there's the actual membership fee (call it $50). Then there's "stuff". Uniforms and insignia. ($200 - rough pie in the sky number). Outside of that? You aren't required to do much outside of the meetings, or go to events with a cost. CAP is still one of the most affordable activities out here, but there are costs.

[lordmonar]

If you want to pretend this is just to "make the books look good" then you're serving as a very nice example of the problem.

It's not, you know it isn't, but choose to say "meh".  You're unfortunate prerogative, however that's not the
case in regards to the mandate of the leadership (at least conceptually).

Then what is the issue?

Why kick out the empty shirts?

You were the one who brought up the issue about the numbers not being right and it being an integrity issue.

I'm just saying......that IMHO in my AOR the stated benefits of 2b'ing empty shirts does not justify the costs of doing so.

[Eclipse]

Because many times you portend to speak with a voice that encompasses the organization as a whole,
and certainly many people view you in that light, like it or not.

And while no one unit's efforts in normalizing make that much difference, as an organization it's critical that
this happen and happen soon, otherwise it's status quo as the train rolls to a stop.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Then what is the issue?

Why kick out the empty shirts?

You were the one who brought up the issue about the numbers not being right and it being an integrity issue.

I'm just saying......that IMHO in my AOR the stated benefits of 2b'ing empty shirts does not justify the costs of doing so.

We're just going in circles now. Already addressed, asked, answered, etc.


Why kick empty shirts? Because of higher HQ directives. For easier planning internally without having to sit down with a list, an start crossing off those empties to see who is actually around to help.


Don't want/need to boot them in your unit? Great. But the next time you mention your 46 cadets, I'll mentally go "30" in my head, and understand that we're on the same footing, and you don't have a 50% advantage in numbers in your program.

[lordmonar]

Then what is the issue?

Why kick out the empty shirts?

You were the one who brought up the issue about the numbers not being right and it being an integrity issue.

I'm just saying......that IMHO in my AOR the stated benefits of 2b'ing empty shirts does not justify the costs of doing so.

We're just going in circles now. Already addressed, asked, answered, etc.


Why kick empty shirts? Because of higher HQ directives. For easier planning internally without having to sit down with a list, an start crossing off those empties to see who is actually around to help.


Don't want/need to boot them in your unit? Great. But the next time you mention your 46 cadets, I'll mentally go "30" in my head, and understand that we're on the same footing, and you don't have a 50% advantage in numbers in your program.

Show me a directive that says we must kick them out.    I accept we can.....but you just say HHG directives!

You should be lopping off 30% every time you hear any number about CAP.
Also please know....we are not competition for anything so why you even worried about an advantage?

I got 46 cadets on the books....30 active.   You got 30 people on your book and 30 active.....and you kick out 16 cadets before their member ship is up.

End result is the same....but I have more time to spend on program or to just sit back and enjoy myself.