AF View Of CAP Senior Members

[RADIOMAN015]

Interesting to read the "Statement of Work" agreed to between the USAF and CAP Inc
See:  http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/u_011504073611.pdf
9/15/2001, no changes listed on the website

Couple things to notice.
1.  Definition of an "Active" Senior Member
2.  Definition of a CAP Member.

Also mention for the cadet program ONLY.....
...     Where practical, this program should make
accommodations for physically and mentally challenged individuals....

So take a look at this, unless there's a new statement of work, that's the AF contract with CAP Inc, and why they award them money.

RM 

[ßτε]

For the life of me, I cannot at all tell what point you are trying to make with this post.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

That makes two of us.

This is almost 11 years old.  How many of these situations still apply?

The bit about "mentally and physically challenged individuals"....what are you trying to get at?  That it only applies to cadets?

Our Nondiscrimination Statement would say otherwise.

I have a disability, medically documented.  Does that mean I get out of CAP?

"Active senior member?"  My unit meets regularly, one night a week.  If I don't make it to every meeting night in a given month, am I not "active" any more?

[Eclipse]

I thought we were asked not to respond to this kind of stuff?

[RADIOMAN015]

That makes two of us.

This is almost 11 years old.  How many of these situations still apply?

The bit about "mentally and physically challenged individuals"....what are you trying to get at?  That it only applies to cadets?

Our Nondiscrimination Statement would say otherwise.

I have a disability, medically documented.  Does that mean I get out of CAP?

"Active senior member?"  My unit meets regularly, one night a week.  If I don't make it to every meeting night in a given month, am I not "active" any more?

What I've posted is what is on the official CAP site regarding our "Statement of Work" with the USAF.   I would assume that if there were changes that CAP National HQ would post them appropriately.  I don't see any changes posted.  As you know FW has also mentioned this regarding the recent discussions involving CAP organizational change at the National level.   

What you state above is what I get out of it also.  Should we really have a category for membership called "active", (and meeting that specific definition) in order to comply with the AF SOW    Should senior members have to meet certain physical & mental requirements in order to serve in CAP

Remember again, what is NOT mentioned is not a requirement for funding.  ONLY what is mentioned in that agreement is required.
RM

[lordmonar]

I think you are just reading too much into it.

[RADIOMAN015]

I think you are just reading too much into it.

Well from an AF funding standpoint what is listed in that document is the "expectation" and contract obligation of CAP.

As an example of what is still in there:
..." 7.1.1.3. Short Notice Inspections. CAP shall develop a viable, short-notice,
inspection program for CAP units having assigned aircraft or mission pilots...."
Are we still doing this

Also there's another provision:
....."2.3.2.2. Radio Communications. CAP is encouraged to maintain their
nationwide communications capability for Air Force mission support to include
high frequency (HF), very high frequency (VHF) AM, and VHF-FM (fixed, mobile,
and repeater systems). CAP is encouraged to operate national, regional, and local communications networks to provide appropriate levels of connectivity
during national, regional, or local emergencies or major disasters....".

Now don't you think that since over $30 million in taxpayers funds were utilized to upgrade our radio systems that the word "encouraged" would be changed to "will"

Again, maybe the SOW has been modified over the years and just hasn't been posted to the website.

BTW I have absolutely NO issue with physically challenged personnel joining Civil Air Patrol as senior members.  There are many people I know that have challenges and in the right position in CAP emergency services can perform outstandingly.    HOWEVER, I'm still of the opinion that on the aptitude/skills/memory, and stability side, there can be some significant challenges with the effective utilization (especially in emergency services)  adult members.   I personally would like to see job descriptions for both regular & ES positions that outline both physical & mental requirements.
RM         

[abdsp51]

I think you are just reading too much into it.

Well from an AF funding standpoint what is listed in that document is the "expectation" and contract obligation of CAP.

As an example of what is still in there:
..." 7.1.1.3. Short Notice Inspections. CAP shall develop a viable, short-notice,
inspection program for CAP units having assigned aircraft or mission pilots...."
Are we still doing this

Also there's another provision:
....."2.3.2.2. Radio Communications. CAP is encouraged to maintain their
nationwide communications capability for Air Force mission support to include
high frequency (HF), very high frequency (VHF) AM, and VHF-FM (fixed, mobile,
and repeater systems). CAP is encouraged to operate national, regional, and local communications networks to provide appropriate levels of connectivity
during national, regional, or local emergencies or major disasters....".

Now don't you think that since over $30 million in taxpayers funds were utilized to upgrade our radio systems that the word "encouraged" would be changed to "will"

Again, maybe the SOW has been modified over the years and just hasn't been posted to the website.

BTW I have absolutely NO issue with physically challenged personnel joining Civil Air Patrol as senior members.  There are many people I know that have challenges and in the right position in CAP emergency services can perform outstandingly.    HOWEVER, I'm still of the opinion that on the aptitude/skills/memory, and stability side, there can be some significant challenges with the effective utilization (especially in emergency services)  adult members.   I personally would like to see job descriptions for both regular & ES positions that outline both physical & mental requirements.
RM         

So you are advocating discrimination in this case?

[lordmonar]

I think you are just reading too much into it.

Well from an AF funding standpoint what is listed in that document is the "expectation" and contract obligation of CAP.

As an example of what is still in there:
..." 7.1.1.3. Short Notice Inspections. CAP shall develop a viable, short-notice,
inspection program for CAP units having assigned aircraft or mission pilots...."
Are we still doing this

Yes we are.

Also there's another provision:
....."2.3.2.2. Radio Communications. CAP is encouraged to maintain their
nationwide communications capability for Air Force mission support to include
high frequency (HF), very high frequency (VHF) AM, and VHF-FM (fixed, mobile,
and repeater systems). CAP is encouraged to operate national, regional, and local communications networks to provide appropriate levels of connectivity
during national, regional, or local emergencies or major disasters....".

Now don't you think that since over $30 million in taxpayers funds were utilized to upgrade our radio systems that the word "encouraged" would be changed to "will"

It could....but you would have to ask the USAF.

Again, maybe the SOW has been modified over the years and just hasn't been posted to the website.

It has not been changed.

BTW I have absolutely NO issue with physically challenged personnel joining Civil Air Patrol as senior members.  There are many people I know that have challenges and in the right position in CAP emergency services can perform outstandingly.    HOWEVER, I'm still of the opinion that on the aptitude/skills/memory, and stability side, there can be some significant challenges with the effective utilization (especially in emergency services)  adult members.   I personally would like to see job descriptions for both regular & ES positions that outline both physical & mental requirements.
RM

Come up with some standards a way to measure them and then we can talk.

[RADIOMAN015]

I think you are just reading too much into it.

...snip..snip...snip....
BTW I have absolutely NO issue with physically challenged personnel joining Civil Air Patrol as senior members.  There are many people I know that have challenges and in the right position in CAP emergency services can perform outstandingly.    HOWEVER, I'm still of the opinion that on the aptitude/skills/memory, and stability side, there can be some significant challenges with the effective utilization (especially in emergency services)  adult members.   I personally would like to see job descriptions for both regular & ES positions that outline both physical & mental requirements.
RM         

So you are advocating discrimination in this case?

Quite the contrary, right now this could be an arbitrary decision made.   Every position needs to outline what are essential duties and the physical & mental requirements to perform these.   Some examples:  Adult Volunteer that is legally blind wants to be an aircrew member "scanner" or lead a ground team.   Adult Volunteer has Tourette syndrome, and wants to train to be the unit's Public Affairs Officer.

Sometimes with adults, until they start training one doesn't know what their mental capabilities/aptitude/memory condition really is.   The Professional Development Officer may discover a fairly serious issue with the new member, which likely will affect their progression in CAP and possibility the capability to perform in ANY position without extensive supervision (which may mean it is easier for the supervisor to do the work than to supervise it).   Perhaps that's why we require HS graduates or GED, but things can happen to people after they graduate HS.   So perhaps we need more specific guidance.     

Let me give you some additional examples:  Potential adult member approaches unit PAO after CAP general briefing to another organization.  Has very extensive photography experience, is walking with a cane & states he/she has back problems.  Wants to be an airborne photographer.  Basically told  that he/she would have to talk with our Operations folks on what the airborne photographer would entail and if there would be an impact on the individual's chronic condition. Surely the individual could be used in a PAO capacity on the ground, BUT the prospective member really has a strong interest in aerial photography.     Another example:   A new senior member is recovering from a serious illness and has current memory retention problems -- the individual has a strong interest in ES wanting to volunteer for everything, IF you are the only other adult with a team or even mission base function, would you be comfortable using that individual, especially if you have to step away for a brief rest period  

Personally I know my physical & mental limitations and frame my volunteer activities to match what I can be effective at, not hurt myself, or cause concern to others.    However, you won't see that with all volunteers and a stronger regulatory backup in my opinion is necessary.  It's interesting that the AF SOW with CAP is silent on this matter.
 
RM           

[abdsp51]

I think you need to allow all commanders and ground team leaders exercise their discretion and judgement.  And who is going to front the bill in determining the fitness level of a member in any capacity?  There are already requirements in place for many of these positions and job descriptions.  Could just be me but sounds like you are advocating discrimination based off of a perceived disability which would go against the organizations EO policies but the AF's as well.

[NCRblues]

Just stop feeding the troll radioman

[arajca]

I think you need to allow all commanders and ground team leaders exercise their discretion and judgement.  And who is going to front the bill in determining the fitness level of a member in any capacity?  There are already requirements in place for many of these positions and job descriptions.  Could just be me but sounds like you are advocating discrimination based off of a perceived disability which would go against the organizations EO policies but the AF's as well.

Job performance fitness requirements are an accepted 'discrimination' practice. You don't put the 60 yo who needs two canes to walk on the front lines of a firem no matter how much he wants to or threatens to take legal action. He won't meet the physical requirements based on the duties actually performed. He may easily meet the requirements for a 'non-stress' job such as time recorder for the Finance section, which involes mainly sitting at a desk doing data entry.

As long as the requirements are legitmately based on the actual or anticipated duties performed, they're accepted. If (and this has happened), a disabled individual can demonstrate they can perform the duties to the SAME STANDARD as non disabled, they can be considered for the job. There is not an automatic "disabled gets the job" clause. The disabled individual still has to compete for the job. There was a firefighter in CO a few years ago who had lost both legs. He was able to successfully complete the fitness test and basic fire training with his disability. IIRC, the dept had to make some minor mods to the engine he ran on, but they were reasonable (lowering hand grips and padding the steps). This did not lead to a blanket approval of all double leg amputees for the job, but did allow for him to compete.

[abdsp51]

At no time did I say that there was a "if your disabled you get the job" clause.  And there are some organizations that you have to have a certain disability percentage to be considered for employment.  And what I said was allow the people that I mentioned use their judgement in determining if a member is able or unable to fill the position.   To advocate physical and mental standards would alienate members and potential members.  And who is going to fund the exams required to determine that aptitude?  And I am well aware that there are accepted/lawful discrimination practices.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

BTW I have absolutely NO issue with physically challenged personnel joining Civil Air Patrol as senior members.  There are many people I know that have challenges and in the right position in CAP emergency services can perform outstandingly.    HOWEVER, I'm still of the opinion that on the aptitude/skills/memory, and stability side, there can be some significant challenges with the effective utilization (especially in emergency services) adult members.   I personally would like to see job descriptions for both regular & ES positions that outline both physical & mental requirements.
RM         

And you're looking at CAP facing lawsuits out the wazoo should something like that ever be implemented.

Who would make those evaluations?  Who would write those "job descriptions?"

Also, again, your focus is just ES, ES, ES.

[RADIOMAN015]

BTW I have absolutely NO issue with physically challenged personnel joining Civil Air Patrol as senior members.  There are many people I know that have challenges and in the right position in CAP emergency services can perform outstandingly.    HOWEVER, I'm still of the opinion that on the aptitude/skills/memory, and stability side, there can be some significant challenges with the effective utilization (especially in emergency services) adult members.   I personally would like to see job descriptions for both regular & ES positions that outline both physical & mental requirements.
RM         

And you're looking at CAP facing lawsuits out the wazoo should something like that ever be implemented.

Who would make those evaluations?  Who would write those "job descriptions?"

Also, again, your focus is just ES, ES, ES.

Well let me correct that I mean ANY senior member position in Civil Air Patrol should have a description that addresses physical & mental requirements.   As far as who writes these job descriptions, likely there's professional human resources personnel who are volunteers in CAP and are well schooled on meeting ADA requirements.   BTW, I do believe that we need to be all inclusive as much as we can, but also as an organization have a consistent approach.   As you said about lawsuits, those happen when you don't have a consistent policy, and not having good volunteer job descriptions covering physical/mental requirements, actually puts the organization (as well as the individual saying "no") more at risk in my opinion.
RM   

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I have a documented (though not visible) disability.

I have never filed a lawsuit in my life.

However, if what RM suggests comes to pass in CAP, chances are very good that I would do so.

Unless you've lived with a disability, you don't have a clue what it's like, and that includes "human resources" types.

[RADIOMAN015]

I might also add that the USAF uses for enlisted duty positions the Military Physical Profile Serial System see http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/l/blpulse.htm as well as another category for physical lift strength capability in pounds see http://usmilitary.about.com/od/airforceenlistedjobs/l/blstregnth.htm
So this could be incorporated into CAP job descriptions (and would be especially important for any Emergency Services mission duty positions).    The member would have to certify they meet certain physical, mental, & physical lift strength (as defined in that specific job description).  IF there was doubt on the self certification, the unit commander would talk with the member and IF an accord was not reached the member would have to get a physician to certify.   
RM       

[ßτε]

Or.........

We could do it the same way we do it now.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I might also add that the USAF uses for enlisted duty positions the Military Physical Profile Serial System see http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/l/blpulse.htm as well as another category for physical lift strength capability in pounds see http://usmilitary.about.com/od/airforceenlistedjobs/l/blstregnth.htm
So this could be incorporated into CAP job descriptions (and would be especially important for any Emergency Services mission duty positions).    The member would have to certify they meet certain physical, mental, & physical lift strength (as defined in that specific job description).  IF there was doubt on the self certification, the unit commander would talk with the member and IF an accord was not reached the member would have to get a physician to certify.   
RM     

However...

As you have so often pointed out, we are not the AF and not military.

There's also this touchy little item.

http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R036_001_D6D80CB431788.pdf

[lordmonar]

BTW I have absolutely NO issue with physically challenged personnel joining Civil Air Patrol as senior members.  There are many people I know that have challenges and in the right position in CAP emergency services can perform outstandingly.    HOWEVER, I'm still of the opinion that on the aptitude/skills/memory, and stability side, there can be some significant challenges with the effective utilization (especially in emergency services) adult members.   I personally would like to see job descriptions for both regular & ES positions that outline both physical & mental requirements.
RM         

And you're looking at CAP facing lawsuits out the wazoo should something like that ever be implemented.

Who would make those evaluations?  Who would write those "job descriptions?"

Also, again, your focus is just ES, ES, ES.

Well let me correct that I mean ANY senior member position in Civil Air Patrol should have a description that addresses physical & mental requirements.   As far as who writes these job descriptions, likely there's professional human resources personnel who are volunteers in CAP and are well schooled on meeting ADA requirements.   BTW, I do believe that we need to be all inclusive as much as we can, but also as an organization have a consistent approach.   As you said about lawsuits, those happen when you don't have a consistent policy, and not having good volunteer job descriptions covering physical/mental requirements, actually puts the organization (as well as the individual saying "no") more at risk in my opinion.
RM   

So basically you have a sort of a solution.....looking for a problem. 

"We should have physical and mental standards.  I don't know what they should be....but someone out there in CAP land is proabably a HR professional and they could do it for me for free!"

Dude.......Let me tell you as someone who hired and fired people as part of my job.   No HR type would touch this job with a 10 foot pole!
If you can think of a job in CAP that needs physical or mental standards....by all means  trot it out.

We alread have some out there.....but I don't think you are really thinking this thing through.....so I'll help you out.

MPs and TPs both have a physical requirement.
All CAP officers have an educational requirment....which I think passes for your mental requirment.

[abdsp51]

And the USAF uses PULHESS not MPPSS.  There are standards in place for a lot of this, lets not reinvent the wheel.  And you talking about having members certified for all this and expect them to foot the bill?  Outside of those requiring something outside of the organization (IE pilots, etc.)  I don't see members wanting to foot the bill for it.  If the organization were to set such a thing then they can foot the bill for an experienced, and licensed experts to certify the individual and guess what that is not cheap.  This would be a surefire way to alienate people. 

[flyboy53]

This whole conversation is one big red flag.

Lets all not forget that the intent of this organization, from the beginning, was to be an outlet for those individuals to serve their country who otherwise were not qualified for military service. I have known several individuals who fall into these categories over the years, including a cadet who was blind, and they frankly amazed me with their determination.

Never forget that physical and mental standards apply to the military side of the Air Force due to the missions they perform. It has no bearing on the civil service or DAFC side of the service, other than job classification, and, frankly, I don't see the Air Force EVER coming back on the CAP and saying anything that would hint at discrimination.

I welcome disabled individuals who want to serve their country in our uniform. They, themselves, understand the limitations of their disabilities and usually serve in an appropriate capacity. At the same time, if someone wants to be challenged and enter into those areas requiring higher physical standards, then so be it as long as he or she isn't a safety hazard to the rest of their team.

If someone doesn't cut it academically, most of them never get beyond second or first lieutenant. BUT, I've also seen those individuals who met the challenge.

I welcome them either way.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Nicely said.

Again, I think RM has a view coloured so much by ES that he doesn't see much besides that in CAP; if someone isn't "fit" to do ES (in his opinion), there needs to be a screening process to keep them out of ES.

I think most CAP members have a self-screening process (consciously or unconsciously) that they know their limitations and aren't going to push the envelope.

There are things in CAP that I don't think are suited to me, or me to them.  I am profoundly introverted.  That would make it a very bad idea for me and CAP for me to be in a Public Affairs position.

I knew a CAP colleague who was nearly blind.  He wouldn't have been good for a Scanner or Observer position and he knew it...but he did well otherwise.

[abdsp51]

I am an equal opportunist.  I believe that everyone and anyone should have the opportunity to do what they want to do.  If they succeed let them continue if they fail then the attempt was made.  Now all of this is within the scope of the regulations, laws etc.   I do not think that we need additional guidelines especially ones that can have a increased fiscal impact on membership.