NEC Meeting Video Stream notes

[isuhawkeye]

Shouldn't this only be done if the -000 squadron system is applied uniformly throughout the organization?  PAWG's PA-000 has only one member.  (there are a number of reasons for that, at least one of which would cause bloodshed if they tried implementing the 000 squadron for real)

Not to be confrontational, but if your wing doesn't use the 000 squadron where do your inactive members go?

how do you determine a squadrons strength?

Thanks

[Eclipse]

there is nothing in the regs prohibiting 000 members form participating in anything.

Except that since it is not an operational unit, no one is in place to approve ES training and other required administrivia - you cannot be a pilot in a 000, for starters, nor should you be.  If you're at least active enough to maintain your Form 5 / 91 status, you're active enough to be kept out of 000.


000's are relived from all but the most basic record keeping requirements, do not get inspected, and are not considered operational on any level - they are parking lots designed to retain the dues of members who, for whatever reason continue to write a check to NHQ but don't want to play anymore.

Assuming the conversations continue in the same direction, by the next board meeting 000's will be barred from access to eServices and other sensitive systems.

000 is not the place to put members who are don't "work and play well with others", as many Wings have
used in the year's past.  Once in 000, while its easy enough to get back out, they can't do much of anything, and frankly that's the way it should be - members should not be parked there until its been ascertained that they are legitimately empty shirts.

I've been having this debate with my unit CC's for a few months now, and other than these members being used as a buffer against losing your charter, or being downgraded to flight status, etc., inactive members who don't pay unit dues (as some do), serve no value to the unit whatsoever and may well be skewing our readiness assumptions (as Col. Hodgkins pointed out) by as much as 30% nationally.

[capchiro]

All, I believe that part of our funding is based upon our numbers and not upon our active participating numbers.  In other words, if you discharge all of those that you want to, our funding may go down and how will that help mission effectiveness?  I may have Capt. Smitty on my roles and she is a dues paying member pilot and she may decide to not be active for a year or so because she has just had a baby.  She will return someday and she is willing to continue to pay her dues to maintain her CAP records and rank.  How is she a detriment to the program?  I may have a new cadet that joins and comes to one meeting and doesn't return, despite phone calls, etc.  He continues to pay dues and then shows up two years later all hot to trot and participate.  Should I have gotten rid of him?  If we are getting money based upon total membership numbers why throw people out?  How about the congressional squadron that is not functional at all?  Why do we maintain that squadron?  It's all about the money..

[JC004]

Shouldn't this only be done if the -000 squadron system is applied uniformly throughout the organization?  PAWG's PA-000 has only one member.  (there are a number of reasons for that, at least one of which would cause bloodshed if they tried implementing the 000 squadron for real)

Not to be confrontational, but if your wing doesn't use the 000 squadron where do your inactive members go?

how do you determine a squadrons strength?

Thanks

They go nowhere.  They remain assigned to the unit.  We can't and we don't determine a unit's strength, and I have been opposed to this system for a long time.  The amount of money given to the units from the state appropriation is based on MML numbers, so the likelihood of commanders wanting to utilize the PA-000 is pretty low.

[isuhawkeye]

so,

our state and federal funding is based upon how many people pay dues,a nd not upon how affectively we accomplish a mission. 

[Eclipse]

Shouldn't this only be done if the -000 squadron system is applied uniformly throughout the organization?  PAWG's PA-000 has only one member.  (there are a number of reasons for that, at least one of which would cause bloodshed if they tried implementing the 000 squadron for real)

Not to be confrontational, but if your wing doesn't use the 000 squadron where do your inactive members go?

how do you determine a squadrons strength?

Thanks

They go nowhere.  They remain assigned to the unit.  We can't and we don't determine a unit's strength, and I have been opposed to this system for a long time.  The amount of money given to the units from the state appropriation is based on MML numbers, so the likelihood of commanders wanting to utilize the PA-000 is pretty low.

Which is why this should be a top-down initiative with objective "active" criteria so that unit cc's will have little say in who is bumped up or out.

Pretending we have 30% more people than we actually do is self-defeating.

[capchiro]

It all depends on what we define mission as.  A hardcore ES squadron is a lot different than a primary cadet oriented squadron.  I have worked both and understand the mission of both.  To touch the lives of cadets may make a difference in them that is incomprehensible to us at the time.  Whether they work the program hard or not it still may make an impression on them and their decision to join the Air Force ro go to a military academy later.  Therefore the effectiveness of a cadet oriented squadron cannot be measured the same as a senior ES squadron that is working with outside customers and has a different set of accountable issues.  For a cadet squadron to have a few or several seniors on the roles that only show up to teach moral leadership or go on occasional field trips does not detract but adds to the program.  For them to be on  the roles and thus allow our Wing to draw federal and state money to be used by the ES squadrons based on our membership numbers is not a bad thing, it is beneficial to all.  Very little if any money comes down to our squadron, except for O flights, so I think having the roles padded is not a bad thing for all.  Again, I think that what works for Iowa doesn't necessarily work for everyone else.  I would imagine that our organization is like almost all other volunteer organization with only 10% doing most of the work, whether it is ES or running a cadet squadron.  I would hate to see us lose the other 90% that are with us in spirit and also lose the funding that goes with them.  JMHO..

[Eclipse]

I think it again needs to be said that the arbiter of "active", at least today, is the unit CC, and though I'd be in favor of a national guideline, I would imagine that seniors who >do< occasionally show up at all would not fall into the inactive class.

We're talking about legitimate, never show, never contact, I keep my membership for historic value only members.

Other than dues, these members serve no purpose to the units, no matter which of the three missions you are  discussing.

members who continue their relationship with CAP as benefactors could be placed in a nation "patron" unit or status, which wouldn't change their participation one iota, but would take them off the books when reporting our numbers..

And yes, obviously a unit CC has a fair idea how many people he has, but as soon as you go higher than that things get much more gray - and at the Wing level and higher, CC's have no way to know who is active and who isn't.

If you don't even know how many people you really have, its difficult to decide what you really can do.

[Dragoon]

Thoughts.

1.  It seems that "Patron" was originally designed to serve as "inactive", but it's not really described that way in the regs.  Commanders can involuntarily turn anyone in their unit into a Patron.  Some units use this to segregate active from inactive.  With some minor reg rewording, this could become a CAP standard practice.

But..

2.  Patrons can't do ANYTHING.  That's too harsh, IMHO.  "Inactive" members should be allowed to wear uniforms for occasional visits to their squadron, or to any social event (like the Wing Conference) that they are invited to.  That way someone can occasionally help out without being counted as Active.

3.  Inactive members would not be required to do any mandatory training (OPSEC, Safety Stand down days, etc, etc.) Basically, commanders would only need to focus on keeping Active members qualified.  Anyone coming back to active status would need to make up what they missed.

4.  We don't want it to be a stigma to be "inactive." We want it to be a temporary thing - you go into it when you don't have time to do CAP, and you come out of it when you do again.

5. Inactive members should be restricted from anything other than the events listed above.  No ES, no flying, no chaperoning cadets.  Basically, since we label them as inactive, we don't need to insure them, which might lower CAP's corporate rates (fewer folks to insure)

6.  Inactive time probably should not count towards promotions.  If you're not doing anything, you shouldn't get credit for the time.

7.  It would be nice if dues for inactive members were lower, but I doubt that would work as many folks will go in and out of inactive status throughout the year.  Perhaps folks choosing to go inactive at renewal time could get a break, but would need to pay extra to become active again.

8. Commanders should make the call on who , and have the ability to waive minimum requirements as needed.  A good standard for Inactive might be "unable to attend 50% of the required unit meetings, or to successfully handle assigned duties without the unit commander's permission."  With something like this in place, a commander could except the CFI who does all the checkrides in the unit, but works Wednesday nights, or the college student with night classes who is heavily involved in weekend CAP training events.

9.  There would need to be strict wording and an appeals process to ensure that being labled as inactive isn't done a disciplinary measure. 

10.  An inactive member should be able to transfer to another unit with the intent of becoming active there (or remaining inactive, if he or she wishes)

11.  If we had such a program, we might be able to come up with additional benefits for the active members.  For example, perhaps we could convince USAF to grant better base access to active members.  The argument would be "these are our core people, and under our direct control.  We can hold these folks to a higher standard."

12.  Most importantly - the goal of such an effort would be to establish and enforce minimum standards of participation/performance, eliminate the need for the unit commander to worry about "training" inactive personnel,  and provide better visibility on the true operational strength of CAP.  If it doesn't do those things, it's probably not worth doing.

[Smokey]

My unit has some members I have never seen in the 10 years ( In fact TODAY is my 10th Anniversay in CAP) I have been on. I asked recently about this and was told,  "Hey, they pay dues so why not let them stay on the memberhip rolls."  Although the money is nice going to National, many of them have not paid squadron dues. It seems all they do is inflate our numbers and really serve no other purpose than to list CAP as a tax deduction.

[MIKE]

7.  It would be nice if dues for inactive members were lower, but I doubt that would work as many folks will go in and out of inactive status throughout the year.  Perhaps folks choosing to go inactive at renewal time could get a break, but would need to pay extra to become active again.

The way it works now is fine.  Status changes during the membership year are at no additional charge, with the renewal charge applied at the appropriate rate.  It really should not be used as a short term thing though.... The point of it should be for years, not months.  Short term active versus inactive could be handled much like it is in SIMS.  Taking 6 months off... set them to Inactive.  Haven't seen them in a year... Patron.

And with that let's not let this thread drift beyond it's scope.

[BillB]

Why this big rush to get rid of inactive members and move them to Patron? So they inflate the Squadron membership numbers, but has anyone thought that those membership numbers often are the deciding factor of what corporate equipment to issue to a Squadron? And has anyone called these inactive members when there is a mission? Probably they will show up if asked. I've seen cases where members went inactive due to poor leadership in a Squadron. When needed they showed up. I know one unit where the Commander drove off the working active members and then cried that there were no members and wanted the unit deactivated. The cadets moved their meeting night so they wouldn't be around the seniors where there were problems, and the Commander forgot the meeting nights were moved for two meetings. Placing someone in Patron category does do the member any good or the Squadron.

[Grumpy]

In my squadron I have 32 seniors, ten of which are active, and 42 cadets, 20 are active. 
I have made attempts to contact the inactive people, forward emails that tell about activities going on at wing and the squadron level.  They never respond to anything.  Yet, they keep paying the national dues every year.  Some have been inactive for up wards of 4 years.

Our Group Hq charges us for services rendered based on the head count on the MML.  That's 40+ people that we are paying "extortion" payments for really aren't there. 

If I could move the inactive members to the 000 squadron it would cut our cost.

[Short Field]

Our Group Hq charges us for services rendered based on the head count on the MML.  That's 40+ people that we are paying "extortion" payments for really aren't there. 

We are lucky.  First we have no Group Hq dues.  Second, most of our inactive members actually pay our squadron dues each year.  That is a nice chunk of change that costs us nothing but an annual dues notice.   

Now, if they stop paying squadron dues .....   

[Eclipse]

Why this big rush to get rid of inactive members and move them to Patron? So they inflate the Squadron membership numbers, but has anyone thought that those membership numbers often are the deciding factor of what corporate equipment to issue to a Squadron?

Then that equipment issue would be inappropriate as it is based on a need which does not really exist. In many goverment arenas, that would be considered fraud.

And has anyone called these inactive members when there is a mission? Probably they will show up if asked.

Any member inactive enough to be considered for 000 status is likely not current in ES, either - the last thing we need are more "twice a year" members stumbling around mission bases.  Again, this should not be a punishment for people who don't hit every meeting, 000 should be for legitimately inactive members who have no intention of participating, or will not for an extended (i.e. years) period of time.

I've seen cases where members went inactive due to poor leadership in a Squadron. When needed they showed up. I know one unit where the Commander drove off the working active members and then cried that there were no members and wanted the unit deactivated. The cadets moved their meeting night so they wouldn't be around the seniors where there were problems, and the Commander forgot the meeting nights were moved for two meetings. Placing someone in Patron category does do the member any good or the Squadron.

It doesn't matter >why< members are inactive, protest, age, college, the choice of other activities, unless they are attending meetings, participating in activities, or >somehow bringing value to the unit and organization, what is the point of maintaining their membership? CAP is not a rec center or a social club, accepting that, and the attrition that will folow when we finally do, is a big part of our transition to a more professional, lean force.

[Larry Mangum]

In my squadron I have 32 seniors, ten of which are active, and 42 cadets, 20 are active. 
I have made attempts to contact the inactive people, forward emails that tell about activities going on at wing and the squadron level.  They never respond to anything.  Yet, they keep paying the national dues every year.  Some have been inactive for up wards of 4 years.

Our Group Hq charges us for services rendered based on the head count on the MML.  That's 40+ people that we are paying "extortion" payments for really aren't there. 

If I could move the inactive members to the 000 squadron it would cut our cost.

So what does your Group use the money for?  Assuming it is like most groups it has 4 or 5 squadrons in it so some where between 40 and 150 seniors in average at 15 bucks a pop that is a pretty hefty toll on its members.  Groups are suppose to be administrative units and not operational so I don't see the need for taxing its squadrons.

[RiverAux]

That is almost as much as our Wing gets back from national for members dues.  Seems totally out of line for Group and I would enquire as to whether there is anything in writing that has been properly approved for the procedure they're using to implement it. 

[Grumpy]

In my squadron I have 32 seniors, ten of which are active, and 42 cadets, 20 are active. 
I have made attempts to contact the inactive people, forward emails that tell about activities going on at wing and the squadron level.  They never respond to anything.  Yet, they keep paying the national dues every year.  Some have been inactive for up wards of 4 years.

Our Group Hq charges us for services rendered based on the head count on the MML.  That's 40+ people that we are paying "extortion" payments for really aren't there. 

If I could move the inactive members to the 000 squadron it would cut our cost.

So what does your Group use the money for?  Assuming it is like most groups it has 4 or 5 squadrons in it so some where between 40 and 150 seniors in average at 15 bucks a pop that is a pretty hefty toll on its members.  Groups are suppose to be administrative units and not operational so I don't see the need for taxing its squadrons.

They say it's for operating costs.  We have seven squadrons in the group.  I believe our squadron paid either 270 or 370 dollars this year.

[a2capt]

There are, in some wings, folks in 000 because they were unable to function, read- play with anyone else, and after several failed assignments end up in the 000 file. So that they are not a drag on anyones MML. Why then, are they allowed to continue to serve at the helm of a few when they demonstrate the inability to work with a unit as a whole? Their folder needs to live somewhere. They need to be active. If you're pushed off in a 000 unit then where do you go to your meetings, where do you stay abreast of things? The 000 squadron needs to have limits. From another viewpoint, it's kind of an slap in the face to those who do participate, show up to the meetings, contribute back, etc.

[O-Rex]

Most 000 members were usually "ghosts" at their original units anyway.

It would stand to reason that if a member is so sub-standard in performance or behavior as to warrant exile to the "CAP gulag," then the local leadership may want to examine their continued membership.  On the other hand, if we are sitting in the corner office at NHQ-Maxwell, the view from the top is membership equals dues equals revenue.

I've heard that some wings change membership categories to "Patron" along with the transfer to 000.