Inactive senior members

[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.