Suspending quals of those in XX-000

[Ed Bos]

XX-000 is the "Organization" Headquarters Squadron in eServices. That pretty clearly speaks to the idea that, for example, the OHWG/CC is directly responsible for the care and feeding of members assigned to both OH-001 (The Wing's staff) and OH-000, the Headquarters Squadron.

Those members aren't left out to dry, and the Wing (in this example) Commander is directly responsible for them.

Yes, the Wing CC of a respective 000 unit is "responsible" for them, but only in the most abstract sense.  There isn't supposed to be any care or feeding of these members until they find a new unit. 

I don't know where your supposition came from (the "supposed to" above), but I suppose my statements based on the best information I have available. Do you know something I don't about how -000 units were developed?

I don't know where our knowledge crosses, but we discussed their creation here, and I have had any number of conversations on this topic with my wing, region, CAP-USAF and others related to this topic.  I suppose that only means I know, for the most part, what is being done in my region.  The last time I did a CAPWatch download, there were no CC's assigned to any 000 charters, and in fact only three 000 units even appear in CAPWatch.

I also recall that the WMU no longer imports quals for members in 000 units.

I trust your expertise in your local/regional arena.

No separate Commanders would be assigned to -000, they're already assigned to -001.

WMU is irrelevant, Col Andersen is a terrific guy, but his software is not a guiding document.

[Ed Bos]

Are you asserting that members in 000 are supposed to be treated as "regular members" with full privelges and expectations of unit support, but from the wing staff?

Yes. I'm not just asserting that. I'm using guiding regulations to tell me that this is indeed the case. I know that's not how all members of -000 are treated, and I don't necessarily think that they all have to be.

What I'm declaring is that a member can be an active, participating member, assigned to -000, and their safety, personnel, professional development, and other administrative requirements are the responsibility of the Wing Staff.

[Eclipse]

The term is too subjective to withstand an appeal especially in light of the fact that many pilots fall into the inactive category.

This is the problem NHQ has set up - increasing "mandates" with no will or process to enforce them beyond por SUI grades which can never be fixed in that paradigm.

Setting aside for a minute the trouble makers, think about how many pilots your wing depends on for annual activities like encampments who are never seen any other time of year. They float to the top of every compliance list be a use they can't be bothered, yet start knocking them out and people start complaining.

If NHQ were serious about mandates they would start auto-patronizing members who don't comply within a reasonable spsn of time, if ever.  Locking people out of services, when they probably don't even use it, isn't the answer.

[Eclipse]

Are you asserting that members in 000 are supposed to be treated as "regular members" with full privelges and expectations of unit support, but from the wing staff?

Yes. I'm not just asserting that. I'm using guiding regulations to tell me that this is indeed the case. I know that's not how all members of -000 are treated, and I don't necessarily think that they all have to be.

What I'm declaring is that a member can be an active, participating member, assigned to -000, and their safety, personnel, professional development, and other administrative requirements are the responsibility of the Wing Staff.

Sorry, that is incorrect.

[Ed Bos]

Are you asserting that members in 000 are supposed to be treated as "regular members" with full privelges and expectations of unit support, but from the wing staff?

Yes. I'm not just asserting that. I'm using guiding regulations to tell me that this is indeed the case. I know that's not how all members of -000 are treated, and I don't necessarily think that they all have to be.

What I'm declaring is that a member can be an active, participating member, assigned to -000, and their safety, personnel, professional development, and other administrative requirements are the responsibility of the Wing Staff.

Sorry, that is incorrect.

My statements are based on the 35-series regulations. You said yours are based on hearsay and local rumor.  Saying I'm incorrect doesn't make me so.

I've only belabor the point because I think it's a good exercise in understanding what our organization is and where "we" collectively want it to be.

I don't know that we will get any more productivity out of this thread, but if you have something else to add, I'll keep an eye on it and respond appropriately. You're pretty shrewd, and have a few keen observations that help me understand how others interpret the regs, and I appreciate the chance to have these sorts of discussions.

Thank you for engaging on this, and I'll see you in other threads.

[peter rabbit]

Yes. I'm not just asserting that. I'm using guiding regulations to tell me that this is indeed the case. I know that's not how all members of -000 are treated, and I don't necessarily think that they all have to be.

What I'm declaring is that a member can be an active, participating member, assigned to -000, and their safety, personnel, professional development, and other administrative requirements are the responsibility of the Wing Staff.

What Eclipse and others have said in many threads is that the regs and how things actually work don't always agree. The answer from NHQ is that they treat -000 members as Patron members and suspend their operations qualifications - and if that isn't happening they (NHQ) want to know.

[Ed Bos]

The answer from NHQ is that they treat -000 members as Patron members and suspend their operations qualifications - and if that isn't happening they (NHQ) want to know.

I'm curious to know where that is written or indicated at all?

[Eclipse]

The answer from NHQ is that they treat -000 members as Patron members and suspend their operations qualifications - and if that isn't happening they (NHQ) want to know.

I'm curious to know where that is written or indicated at all?

It's not, and that's the problem, and clearly wings are implementing 000 unit differently, nor is there any reference to 000 units or membership therein within the 35-series, which is more of a problem.

#1 We have no clear, objective standard for senior members as to what being "active" means, yet we have about 6 or more different areas in which
unit CC's are being held responsible for the conduct of members who can't be bothered to comply with what NHQ purports to be the minimum requirements to be called a member.

Say, for example, the surprisingly high number of members with no record of ever completing Level 1.  Ever.  This includes field grade officers all over the
organization, most of which simply have paperwork issues, we all know that, but why is that allowed to stand on the books?  Either Level 1 is required or it isn't.

"Well, that guy never shows up anyway, we haven't seen him in 10 years..."

My point exactly.  He can sit on the books, with no safety, ORM, CPPT, nothing but his clusters and an SLS from 1975, yet many on this board would say "What's the big deal?"

Movement into 000 does not, in and of itself do anything to qualifications, and that is problem #2.

#3 on the hit parade is that CAP-USAF and others have indicated a "concern" (as noted in board minutes and other publications and conversations), regarding real-world troop strength vs. reported numbers, yet we don't seem to have a consensus at any level if that is important, nor even a fundamental understanding of why that is important.

So #4 is that we have commanders who simply ignore the monthly compliance reports as irrelevant, which in turn shows the SUI process to be the
paper tiger that it is, and those who are actually trying to get to a baseline of performance for their units are told that have poor leadership skills
because they are using the only tool they have to try and make things better, when clearly the answer is to simply ignore the entire situation,
let the bad actors run around at their whim, and just continue at status quo.

Oh, and then wonder why nothing changes or gets better.

[peter rabbit]

The answer from NHQ is that they treat -000 members as Patron members and suspend their operations qualifications - and if that isn't happening they (NHQ) want to know.

I'm curious to know where that is written or indicated at all?

I actually have something from NHQ stating that's how Ops Quals is supposed to treat -000 members. However, as stated, there isn't a regulation to that effect.

I have seen some commanders be very successful in giving members the alternative of complying with EO, Intro to CAP Safety, etc; changing to Patron status; or moving to -000.

[lordmonar]

You guys can continue to ignore the facts and what I am writing and just make things up if you want, but it won't get get us anywhere.

You can't 2b someone for inactivity.  Period.

You also can't put someone in patron status if they are "around" and don't want to be patrons, that would never stand a MARB appeal either.

The wing CC doesn't have to "deal" with 000 members at all.  They sit there until they find a home or quit.  That's not passing the buck, that is
doing the best a commander can with limited options.

If we had consistent enforcement of regs and expectations across the organization, your arguments would have more weight, but we don't and they
don't.

If you are going to pretend it isn't not only possible but fairly routine that members go wherever they want to and do whatever they want to and
people they know approve things and sign them off, because they want to, then you are ignoring the facts of CAP membership.

I don't like it, but it is what it is.

Once again, you can't 2b a member for inactivity.

a)  Yes you can.

( 8 ) Substandard performance of duty over an extended period of time.

b) No one is really suggesting that we 2b members simply for inactivity.  000 those guys or send them off to Patron Status.  We are arguing that 000 PITA members is poor leadership.

If a member does not want to be a patron.....then he is going to respond to your commander's e-mails about getting his required training done, showing up for activities and meetings and all those other things that would make him an active member.   So there would not be a MARB appeal in the first place.  I think you are missing the whole point of what we are saying.  Squadrons Commanders must exercise due dilligance in these situations.  If some member has not been to a meeting for months and is not responding to e-mails to get his training done.....I don't really see him as carring if he is suddenly sent to patron status......especially if the commander can show the e-mail trail

(on Jan 1 Member X was contacted via E-mail that he has not been to a meeting in three months and that his requuired training is incomplete.  On Feb 1 Member X was contacted via E-mail that if he does not contact me by Mar 1, attend a meeting or complete his required training then he is going to be converted to Patron Status.  On May 1 Member X has not completed his required training, attended any meeting or contact me on why he is unable to accomplish these task and his membership was converted to Patron Status.)

If the MARB does not support that....the there is a major malfunction in the system.  I don't see where the member would have a leg to stand on to appeal the action, let alone proove that the squdron commander did not exercise due process or that the "adverse action" was not justified by the actions or inactions of the member.

[a2capt]

"be a patrol"? You've used that term twice.. I think you mean "patron". Otherwise what you say is hard to follow..

[lordmonar]

"be a patrol"? You've used that term twice.. I think you mean "patron". Otherwise what you say is hard to follow..

Did I get them all?  My dyslexia makes it hard for me to correct my own spelling.   

[Eclipse]

If some member has not been to a meeting for months and is not responding to e-mails to get his training done.....I don't really see him as carring if he is suddenly sent to patron status......especially if the commander can show the e-mail trail

Which CAP are you in?

You and I both know this is not only status quo for a lot of members who consider themselves "active", but some staffers at important echelons.
You can start with the snowbirds, and work your way out from there.

[lordmonar]

If some member has not been to a meeting for months and is not responding to e-mails to get his training done.....I don't really see him as carring if he is suddenly sent to patron status......especially if the commander can show the e-mail trail

Which CAP are you in?

You and I both know this is not only status quo for a lot of members who consider themselves "active", but some staffers at important echelons.
You can start with the snowbirds, and work your way out from there.

All the more reason to take the road of good leadership and do what is right and not what is easy.