Main Menu

2-Month Suspension

Started by West MI-CAP-Ret, March 13, 2012, 07:34:44 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

West MI-CAP-Ret

Being involved with CAP, on and off, since 1974, I have found myself without allies and in trouble.  I did not get here overnight, but with a couple of mistakes, with the admonishments of "sin no more" I finally found myself in a good squadron, with a Sqdrn co who really loved his people.  We had a change of command, and poof, I crossed the brand new female 1st Lt, and instead of talking about the mistake, she labeled me a liar and sent me a Letter of Reprimand, via email.  Finally, I asked for a leave of absence until July. 

I received the wing's invitation to their annual conference, but because of illness, I could not go, so I offered my funds to one of our cadets.  This is when I received a 2-month suspension because I didn't go through her (Sqdrn co).  I have never in the past 8 years have done anything more than send my money in to attend our wing conference.  Whatever I have done, this woman has had it in for me since she took command.  My guess is that I'm a victim of gossip, in which some of it is true.  I have requested to speak with the group commander, and it has been approved.  This will be the only time in which I have given my side of the story.  Can anyone give me some guidance as to what my rights per regulations I could use?  I'd like to gently message this suspension to be armed with practical knowledge when I meet with the group commander (our group commander wears a purple heart, bronze star with V device and a CIB, so I have no desire as coming off as a Barracks Lawyer).

Anything you could share would be helpful.
Drc3dave
MAJ DAVID J. D'ARCY, CAP (Ret) 8 Apr 2018 (1974-1982, 1988-2018)
A former member of:
West Michigan Group MI-703,
Hudsonville Cadet Sqdron MI-135 (name changed to Park Township, Al Johnson Cadet Sqdrn)
Lakeshore Cadet Sqdrn MI-119
Van Dyke Cadet Sqdrn, MI-117
Phoenix Cadet Sqdrn MI-GLR-MI-065 (inactive)
Novi Sixgate Cadet Sqdrn (inactive), MI-068
Inkster Cherry Hill Cadet Sqdrn MI-GLR-MI-283 (inactive)

FW

Going to the Group Commander is the right thing to do.  Going with the squadron commander would be better.  A private conference to hammer out problems is the way to handle things at "the lowest possible level". 

BTW; what you do with your money is your business...

bflynn

This isn't about regulations, it's about values.  You don't feel like you're getting respect from your leadership and if your story is accurate, you're probably right.  Attempting to control volunteers is usually a bad idea.

You've been doing this for nearly 40 years and you just want to keep serving.  It isn't the Lt's decision who is fit to serve and who isn't.  A new leader who imposes two punitive actions on the same person in short order is suspect. 

Your GC is probably a reasonable person.

BTW - A 1stLt as squadron commander?

Eclipse

Quote from: FW on March 13, 2012, 07:41:11 PM
Going to the Group Commander is the right thing to do.  Going with the squadron commander would be better.  A private conference to hammer out problems is the way to handle things at "the lowest possible level". 

There's going to be no better advice on this...

"That Others May Zoom"

Grumpy

Quote from: bflynn on March 13, 2012, 07:59:55 PM
This isn't about regulations, it's about values.  You don't feel like you're getting respect from your leadership and if your story is accurate, you're probably right.  Attempting to control volunteers is usually a bad idea.

You've been doing this for nearly 40 years and you just want to keep serving.  It isn't the Lt's decision who is fit to serve and who isn't.  A new leader who imposes two punitive actions on the same person in short order is suspect. 

Your GC is probably a reasonable person.

BTW - A 1stLt as squadron commander?

Yep, this is CAP

whatevah

Quote from: Grumpy on March 13, 2012, 08:32:38 PM
Quote from: bflynn on March 13, 2012, 07:59:55 PM
This isn't about regulations, it's about values.  You don't feel like you're getting respect from your leadership and if your story is accurate, you're probably right.  Attempting to control volunteers is usually a bad idea.

You've been doing this for nearly 40 years and you just want to keep serving.  It isn't the Lt's decision who is fit to serve and who isn't.  A new leader who imposes two punitive actions on the same person in short order is suspect. 

Your GC is probably a reasonable person.

BTW - A 1stLt as squadron commander?

Yep, this is CAP
sheesh, I was a Squadron CC as a 22 year old 1st Lt. :)
Jerry Horn
CAPTalk Co-Admin

jeders

Quote from: bflynn on March 13, 2012, 07:59:55 PM
This isn't about regulations, it's about values.  You don't feel like you're getting respect from your leadership and if your story is accurate, you're probably right.  Attempting to control volunteers is usually a bad idea.

You've been doing this for nearly 40 years and you just want to keep serving.  It isn't the Lt's decision who is fit to serve and who isn't.  A new leader who imposes two punitive actions on the same person in short order is suspect. 

Your GC is probably a reasonable person.

BTW - A 1stLt as squadron commander?

Not to derail, but why not? There are SMWOG as squadron commanders.
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse

Eclipse

Quote from: bflynn on March 13, 2012, 07:59:55 PMBTW - A 1stLt as squadron commander?

Not unusual.  The last time I looked it up, there were ten SMWOG as CC's, some with less than 6 months in CAP.

You have to play the team that shows up.

(Jeders beat me to it...)

Quote from: bflynn on March 13, 2012, 07:59:55 PMIt isn't the Lt's decision who is fit to serve and who isn't.
Yes, it is.  In fact it is the specific responsibility of a commander to make those decisions.

Quote from: bflynn on March 13, 2012, 07:59:55 PM
A new leader who imposes two punitive actions on the same person in short order is suspect. 
Or is a decisive leader who is setting a tone for behavior.  The OP admits some of the issue is true.

"That Others May Zoom"

bflynn

Just surprised.  Our SCs have always been Maj or greater.

Probably because we have a larger squadron.

Eclipse

Quote from: bflynn on March 13, 2012, 08:52:43 PM
Probably because we have a larger squadron.

Not related, other than the luck of numbers.

"That Others May Zoom"

bflynn

Quote from: Eclipse on March 13, 2012, 08:52:13 PM
Quote from: bflynn on March 13, 2012, 07:59:55 PMIt isn't the Lt's decision who is fit to serve and who isn't.
Yes, it is.  In fact it is the specific responsibility of a commander to make those decisions.

It is?

I read through CAPR 20-1, but I didn't see it.  Where it it?

Eclipse

Page 27.

Eliminate members whose continued membership is determined undesirable in accordance with the provisions of CAPR 35-3 Membership Termination...


"That Others May Zoom"

bflynn

Nice - Encyclopedia Eclipse...

Capt_Redfox30

Quotesheesh, I was a Squadron CC as a 22 year old 1st Lt. :)

I got you beat I was a Squadron CC as 21 Year old 2nd Lt!,Quickly was promoted to 1st shortly after taking command.
Kirk Thirtyacre, Lt Col, CAP
(Acting) Group Commander
Group 3 HQ

West MI-CAP-Ret

Not knowing all the facts, the Sqdrn co could be setting the tone.  What I did was not waiting for her to return the news article I typed up regarding her change of command.  Only recently did you have to go through eServices to submit a story, so I was checking out the process.  I didn't realize, she had not sent the article back with her blessings.  So I sent the story.  Without a face-to-face, she emails me a Letter of Reprimand.  I didn't like the way it was handled.  If we could have had a meeting, I would of explained my mistake, it was stupid, and I would make sure never submit a story without first hearing from her, and if It is time sensitive, I would call.  Firing me from being the PAO, in which I was decorated for my stories to national and winning the 2008 Wg PAO of the Year award, I thought was a bit harsh, especially since I hadn't done anything else wrong.  Soon after this happened, we had a meeting with her and the deputy commander.  This is when I was called a liar again (the first time was in the LOR).  I really couldn't believe my ears. I have been a victim of gossip, but nothing major.  I have always had a good working relationship with the chain of command.  Either this woman has taken a strong disliking to me, or she has been told things about me (without checking the facts) and is acting accordingly. 
I know the group commander, and what I have heard he is fair and honest.  Also, this is a 2-month suspension, not a 2-B to the curve.  With so much going on, would it be viewed as stupid, unpractical or just not worth the bother to offer to return, and given all the facts, try to prove myself to her?  This is also a time I want to share with the group commander that this woman has made me assistant to everyone, and master of none, due to my disabilities, having contracted Multiple Sclerosis when I was in Turkey before the war.  I can make most of the meetings, but maybe a few in the winter I'll miss just because it is hard for me to get around.  Maybe the best thing to do is to listen to the group commander and if possible, ask if I could be sent to one of our struggling cadet squadrons.  I don't believe they can through me out.  I just need to keep my head down and try to be humble.
MAJ DAVID J. D'ARCY, CAP (Ret) 8 Apr 2018 (1974-1982, 1988-2018)
A former member of:
West Michigan Group MI-703,
Hudsonville Cadet Sqdron MI-135 (name changed to Park Township, Al Johnson Cadet Sqdrn)
Lakeshore Cadet Sqdrn MI-119
Van Dyke Cadet Sqdrn, MI-117
Phoenix Cadet Sqdrn MI-GLR-MI-065 (inactive)
Novi Sixgate Cadet Sqdrn (inactive), MI-068
Inkster Cherry Hill Cadet Sqdrn MI-GLR-MI-283 (inactive)

Eclipse

Clearly there's a whole lot going on here, and as usual it's hard to really provide anything meaningful because we aren't personally involved.

An LOR, or anything similar, must contain the following to be valid:

A description of what the member did, or failed to do, including date, time, and location.
• Language that admonishes or reprimands the member.
• A statement of what improvement is expected.
• A warning that further deviation may result in more severe action.
• A statement telling the member to acknowledge receipt of the counseling and to return a response (if any) within a fixed number of days.

The process provides an avenue to respond, and you certainly have the right to file a complaint, or address it up the chain if you feel
you were honestly wronged.

On the face, this seems somewhat extreme, however it's not unusual for members who have a "history" (as you say you do), to claim
that something happened out of the blue with a new commander, only to find later that this was the first "infraction" under the
new regime, but the "history" deemed what might seem like a harsh response to be necessary.

I have no idea whether this is applicable in your case, but it's not unusual for members with a "history" to try and test a new CC
to see if they will be susceptible to whatever it was that may have caused them "issues" with the previous CC.  The smart CC's
can see this coming and will generally stop it on the first pass.

"That Others May Zoom"

The CyBorg is destroyed

This looie is wayyyy out of line and is a very bad exemplar of why people finally say "sod it, I'm outta here."

In your shoes, after meeting one-on-one with this looie, if you get nowhere, I would be looking for another unit.

If you get nowhere with that...you've certainly done your bit.

Thankfully it's not a 2B.  The very existence of the 2B is one thing that imperils this organisation.  It's an axe that someone in authority can wield with near-impunity.
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

Private Investigator

Quote from: 123070 on March 13, 2012, 07:34:44 PMI finally found myself in a good squadron, with a Sqdrn co who really loved his people.  We had a change of command, and poof, I crossed the brand new female 1st Lt, and instead of talking about the mistake, she labeled me a liar and sent me a Letter of Reprimand

So she is a 1st Lt and what are you? What type of dynamics is going on at the Unit? Because some 40 year members are like the wise man of the tribe and others is that neighbor who sprays noisy kids with water. Is the 1st Lt a middle age housewife or a 21 year old former Cadet know-it-all?

Good luck ..

DrJbdm

Sounds like you need to just change squadrons or better yet perhaps move to group or wing staff as the PAO. You may just be spinning you wheels in your current squadron, it isn't likely to improve regardless of the outcome with the Group Commander. Your best course of action is to remove yourself from her chain of command.

bflynn

I'm more than a little baffled at what could be going on here too...

How does a 38 year veteran of CAP suddenly become unfit to serve at the whim of a 1LT new squadron commander?

On the general topic of leadership, I grade "setting a new tone" as a bad thing for a new leader to do.  I've been taught again and again through leadership courses that first three months as a new leader, you make no changes at all because you don't know all the facts.  Even after that, you make changes very carefuly for the next year.

EE set aside, the duty of the SC to must out those who are unfit is not the same as deciding who is unfit and then making it work out that way.

Organizational authority - the more you use it, the less of it you have.

Eclipse

Quote from: bflynn on March 14, 2012, 12:27:29 PMHow does a 38 year veteran of CAP suddenly become unfit to serve at the whim of a 1LT new squadron commander?

For starters, being involved "on and off since 1974" does not make someone a "38 year veteran" and there's no specific way to know whether the CC has more or less actual experience and program knowledge than the poster.   There are thousands of members in this organization who have CAPID's in the 100xxx's simply because they have written a check.  Their total time participating might be months.

You're also assuming that the new CC had no input from anyone else on the history of this unit.  By the OP's own admission, he has "history", and stepped right back into "issues" just about from the get-go.  He also appears to be wearing irrelevant outside factors on his sleeve, which may be coloring every input from the commander in a way not intended.

Quote from: bflynn on March 14, 2012, 12:27:29 PM
On the general topic of leadership, I grade "setting a new tone" as a bad thing for a new leader to do.  I've been taught again and again through leadership courses that first three months as a new leader, you make no changes at all because you don't know all the facts.  Even after that, you make changes very carefuly for the next year.

What you're describing is the typical "status quo" mentality of a lot of commanders.  If you are not knowledgeable enough to make good decisions about course and speed, you should not be wearing the uniform.  A good commander sets the course and tone from day one,
adjusts as necessary, but expects their people to follow it.  Sacrificing the 3-6 months of "new guy shine" just to avoid making waves is
much of the reason people who cause issues in CAP stay on for decades - they run over the new commander and never look back.

A good commander assess the programs, puts the ones which are running successfully on the back burner, and addresses the failing parts immediately. 


"That Others May Zoom"

bflynn

Eclipse, I go back to a previous statement - you need to learn a lot about dealing with people.

If you'd like some suggestions, PM me privately please.

The CyBorg is destroyed

If you are indeed "without allies and in trouble," and I mean really on your own, it's time to pull the eject handle, one way or another.

I usually have a pretty good head for telling when I'm in a no-win situation, and I will not willingly remain in such a situation.

As others have advised, removing yourself from her chain of command, indeed interacting with her as little as possible, is probably a good idea.  If she really has you on her list, and is as immature and childish as you have presented her, then there is no way under the sun that you are going to change her.

There are people who place themselves in positions of authority who have unstable personalities and use that as a form of bullying.

There are also people whose personalities just do not mix and never will.

Getting on at Group or Wing may be a good idea.  In your position, I would, after trying to talk reasonably with her, depending on the outcome of that, distance myself from her as soon as it is feasible.  Why?  Speaking for myself, and myself only, I usually have a pretty long, slow-burn smoulder of a "fuze."  However, once it is burnt down...well, in your position I would likely end up calling it just like I saw it, which would not be good for anyone involved.
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

lordmonar

Quote from: bflynn on March 13, 2012, 11:36:21 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 13, 2012, 08:52:13 PM
Quote from: bflynn on March 13, 2012, 07:59:55 PMIt isn't the Lt's decision who is fit to serve and who isn't.
Yes, it is.  In fact it is the specific responsibility of a commander to make those decisions.

It is?

I read through CAPR 20-1, but I didn't see it.  Where it it?
The commander is the first line of defense in keeping the organisation sound.

The commander is the one who signs the initial application, the commander is the one who signs the promotion, it the commander who initiates adverse actions.

We all have the right to challenge those decisions through the chain of command if we feel that are out of line.
But bottom line is....we have one side of the story here.  Not saying the OP is right or wrong....not saying the commander is right or wrong. 

I am saying is that we as leaders need to be loyal to the organisation and support the processes in place and support the leaders placed in command.

Yes...there is abuse.
Yes...there are incompetants.

We need to support the leader in the hot seat unless it is clear that something is wrong.

38 year veteran of CAP suddenly not desirable?

Maybe yes....maybe no......I have seen it go both ways.
Bottom line......the commander of the squadron is having problems with this senior member.  She used one of her tools to correct the problem.  If she is doing it wrong.....the place to make the complaint and the person to fix that problem is the group commander.

End of story.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Private Investigator

Quote from: lordmonar on March 14, 2012, 05:06:48 PM
We need to support the leader in the hot seat unless it is clear that something is wrong.

38 year veteran of CAP suddenly not desirable?

Maybe yes....maybe no......I have seen it go both ways.
Bottom line......the commander of the squadron is having problems with this senior member.  She used one of her tools to correct the problem.  If she is doing it wrong.....the place to make the complaint and the person to fix that problem is the group commander.

End of story.

Good points sir. I knew a Captain who stopped participating but kept his dues up. After about six years of not doing anything he came back and told the Squadron Commander he was due for promotion to Major. I vetoed that promotion.

bflynn

Quote from: lordmonar on March 14, 2012, 05:06:48 PMWe need to support the leader in the hot seat unless it is clear that something is wrong.

Is the leader on the hot seat or is the leader creating the hot seat?  I don't think we know, but I suspect the latter.

CAP - and that includes leaders at all levels - have to be careful not to run afoul of civil laws, of course.  Outside fo CAP, I've seen new leaders time and again run straight into EEOC laws without even realizing they're doing it. 

Therefore, I'd say that the leader needs to be supported unless the is issue is something dealing with race, age, national origin, religion, gender, sexual identity or orientation (etc, I think I missed a few).

Given that the OP doesnt' want to talk about it and that the new SC based her decision on gossip, some of it true, I'm suspicious of what can have changed..  Does the OP not meet CAP's standards or does he not meet the new squadron commander's standards?  It seems to me that if someone has been here for 40 years, their fitness to serve is probably already established. 

EMT-83


bflynn


Spaceman3750

Quote from: bflynn on March 15, 2012, 02:01:45 PM
squadron commander.

The correct symbol, per regs, is CC :).

[/nitpick]

Eclipse

#29
Quote from: bflynn on March 15, 2012, 01:00:09 PMCAP - and that includes leaders at all levels - have to be careful not to run afoul of civil laws, of course.  Outside fo CAP, I've seen new leaders time and again run straight into EEOC laws without even realizing they're doing it. 

EEOC does not apply to CAP, so what people do outside of CAP in that regard irrelevant.  Further, the OP has not asserted this is in any way related
to his being discriminated against based on a protected class.

"That Others May Zoom"

abdsp51

Without all the facts it's hard to say who is right who is wrong.  To support one side over the other without the full story in imho is wrong.  Based off information given the OP has been given sound advice and the best course of action.

lordmonar

Quote from: bflynn on March 15, 2012, 01:00:09 PMIt seems to me that if someone has been here for 40 years, their fitness to serve is probably already established.
I would not necessarily agree with that statement.

Lots of old BTDT types don't know how or just don't want to change with the times.

A new commander sometimes has to put their foot down.....and it is possible this is just an old guy with lots of history and issues runnung into someone who is not willing to put up with the Old Guy BS.

Not saying this is true.....We don't have enough information no make a call one way or the other......hence the advice to go up the chain is the best and ONLY course of action that we can give.

We can all point out stories where someone got screwed over by a commander.....but we also have a lot of stories where a commander took appropriate action to correct substandard performance.

Bottom line....it is the squadron commander's unit.  They were appointed to run it and they are the guys on the ground.  As a leader I have always supported my subordinates' leadership decisions.....unless it was very very clear they were in the wrong.   In private we may have a discussion about their leadership decisions/critical analysis.....but by default I support them.

So......back to the OP.
If you think you are getting a raw deal......take it to the Group CC and get them to help.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

bflynn

Quote from: Eclipse on March 15, 2012, 02:14:45 PMEEOC does not apply to CAP

I sincerely doubt this.  What is the basis of your assertion that CAP does not have to comply with Equal Opportunity laws?

JeffDG

Quote from: bflynn on March 15, 2012, 05:24:14 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 15, 2012, 02:14:45 PMEEOC does not apply to CAP

I sincerely doubt this.  What is the basis of your assertion that CAP does not have to comply with Equal Opportunity laws?
Well, CAP does in the fact that it employs some people, but such laws are not applicable to volunteers.

EEOC=Equal Employment Opportunities Commission

lordmonar

Quote from: bflynn on March 15, 2012, 05:24:14 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on March 15, 2012, 02:14:45 PMEEOC does not apply to CAP

I sincerely doubt this.  What is the basis of your assertion that CAP does not have to comply with Equal Opportunity laws?
EEOC does not apply because we are not employers (except the Corp Employees).....EEO standards apply because we receive funds from the USAF and so we have REGs that drive us.

It is a subtle but important distinction.

We can't get sued under EEOC....but the USAF would pull our funds.

But either way......EEOC is not the issue here.  The issue is command authority to correct (alleged) substandard behavior.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

In fact, the regulations are pretty vehement that volunteer members are never employees, even during AFAM.

ADA didn't apply, either, except that we promised Congress we would abide by it voluntarily.

"That Others May Zoom"

bflynn

#36
State EEOC laws probably apply.  These frequently apply to volunteer organizations.

Additionally, there's been some recent cases where federal courts have held that if a member received significant fiscal benefit from the activity (such as flight time), then they can be considered an employee.  EEOC was designed to ensure equal access to financial opportunities and free flight time definately qualifies as a significant financial opportunity to me.

Ned

Are there any more lawyers here in the barracks?  Because I have this legal problem I need help with . . . ..   ;)

Legal advice and information given by anonymous folks on the internet is worth exactly what you pay for it.  And frequently less.




Folks, if you have a CAP-related legal question, please ask your friendly, neighborood legal officer.  That is why we have them.   And they are dedicated, knowledgeable volunteers.

Just like you.


abdsp51

Quote from: Ned on March 15, 2012, 06:39:22 PM
Are there any more lawyers here in the barracks?  Because I have this legal problem I need help with . . . ..   ;)

Legal advice and information given by anonymous folks on the internet is worth exactly what you pay for it.  And frequently less.





Folks, if you have a CAP-related legal question, please ask your friendly, neighborood legal officer.  That is why we have them.   And they are dedicated, knowledgeable volunteers.

Just like you.

+1 sir.  I don't think we have hit a legal per say,  and without the full story it's hard to say. The bulk of the responses have been unaminous in going and talking to the Group CC.

bflynn

Ok, I did more reading on this and as I suspected, it's rather complicated.  In short, there are multiple avenues by which the various Equal Opportunity laws are brought unto us.  The confusion came because I labeled them "EEOC" - in the context I used them, I was refering to business leaders outside of CAP so EEOC was correct.  The responses would lead one to believe that CAP is not required to comply with Equal Oportunity laws, which is NOT correct.

Rather than regurgitate all the different rules and laws, I'll just refer to CAPR 36-1, which is the nondiscrimination program - http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R036_001_D6D80CB431788.pdf

The short answer is that CAP volunteers do have to abide by Equal Opportunity laws, which is what was applicable to the original context.  My sense is that the squadron commander may be stepping very close to the limits of various discriminations laws without knowing it.  I base that on my experience of seeing new leaders in business.

Eclipse

Quote from: bflynn on March 15, 2012, 07:24:41 PMThe short answer is that CAP volunteers do have to abide by Equal Opportunity laws, which is what was applicable to the original context.  My sense is that the squadron commander may be stepping very close to the limits of various discriminations laws without knowing it.  I base that on my experience of seeing new leaders in business.

What is your CAP experience?

There was never a "mention" of discrimination by the OP.

"That Others May Zoom"

JeffDG

Pet Peeve...

Saying the word "discrimination" like it's a bad thing.  We all discriminate all the time.  Go to Burger King instead of McD's...you're discriminating.  Every single time you make a choice or decision, you're discriminating.  Don't believe me, pick up that dictionary that's gathering dust nearby and read the definition of the word...

There are specific grounds of discrimination that we, as a society, have determined are not appropriate to use.  For example, if I'm hiring someone to design a bridge, I'm entirely free to discriminate against those who have not received a degree in civil engineering.  I'm not, however, allowed to exclude Catholics just because I don't like the Pope.  If I'm renting an apartment, I can discriminate against you if you have no visible means of financial support and I don't think you can pay, but cannot discriminate against you because you're Chinese.

lordmonar

#42
Quote from: Ned on March 15, 2012, 06:39:22 PM
Are there any more lawyers here in the barracks?  Because I have this legal problem I need help with . . . ..   ;)

Legal advice and information given by anonymous folks on the internet is worth exactly what you pay for it.  And frequently less.




Folks, if you have a CAP-related legal question, please ask your friendly, neighborood legal officer.  That is why we have them.   And they are dedicated, knowledgeable volunteers.

Just like you.
Sorry your Judgeship, sir.  :-[
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

Quote from: JeffDG on March 15, 2012, 07:38:07 PM
Pet Peeve...

Saying the word "discrimination" like it's a bad thing.  We all discriminate all the time.  Go to Burger King instead of McD's...you're discriminating.  Every single time you make a choice or decision, you're discriminating.  Don't believe me, pick up that dictionary that's gathering dust nearby and read the definition of the word...

There are specific grounds of discrimination that we, as a society, have determined are not appropriate to use.  For example, if I'm hiring someone to design a bridge, I'm entirely free to discriminate against those who have not received a degree in civil engineering.  I'm not, however, allowed to exclude Catholics just because I don't like the Pope.  If I'm renting an apartment, I can discriminate against you if you have no visible means of financial support and I don't think you can pay, but cannot discriminate against you because you're Chinese.

An excellent point.

CAP commanders and others in leadership roles are actually charged with "good" discrimination.  Whether we're talking about specific skills (flying), or behavior (Creepy McWeirdington).  Failure to exercise those decisions properly is at least as detrimental to the organization as improperly singling people out based on a legally protected class.

And again, the OP never alleged any discrimination.

"That Others May Zoom"

The CyBorg is destroyed

The issue of discrimination, as JeffDG pointed out, can be a touchy one.

It is for me because I have experienced it in the workplace to the point where I lost a job due to a disability I have and I did take it to the state EEOC.  However, it was in a hardcore "employment-at-will" state and the attitude of state government was first, the employer is always right and second, see rule number 1.

CAP has a clearly-stated antidiscrimination policy, as bflynn pointed out.  However, the trouble is discerning where personality conflicts (which aren't illegal) and legitimate discrimination (which is) begin and end.  Just because you don't like someone isn't discrimination.  However, not wanting someone in your unit/corporation because of a factor like race, religion, disability, etc. and using terms like "unsuitability" to cover yourself is a potential minefield.

Not everyone is going to like you.  There are many who don't like me.  It's life.  However, I prefer to be told simply that "I don't like you" rather than trying to pretty it up with other terms.  Who knows?  Maybe I don't like you either!

I have a disability, not one that is visually apparent but nonetheless one I live with every day of my life.  I have also told CAP commanders I have this disability, and it is clearly documented on my Form 60.

Thus far, I haven't experienced any grief in CAP over this, and I hope I don't.  If I do, you can bet I'll be causing some continental seismic shift over it.

This case sounds, with the limited amount of information the OP gives, like a personality conflict.  It is usually very difficult to resolve those when one person refuses to budge.
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

bflynn

Quote from: JeffDG on March 15, 2012, 07:38:07 PMSaying the word "discrimination" like it's a bad thing.

When it's used to deny someone what they want to do, then I think it is a bad thing.

I don't know that's what is happening here.  I just said that I get that sense based on my experience in the professional world.

Eclipse

#46
Ignore - (ravings)

"That Others May Zoom"

JeffDG

Quote from: bflynn on March 15, 2012, 11:29:54 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on March 15, 2012, 07:38:07 PMSaying the word "discrimination" like it's a bad thing.

When it's used to deny someone what they want to do, then I think it is a bad thing.

I don't know that's what is happening here.  I just said that I get that sense based on my experience in the professional world.
So, if you have two candidates who want a job with you, you hire them both?  What about 5?

SarDragon

Quote from: JeffDG on March 16, 2012, 01:36:04 AM
Quote from: bflynn on March 15, 2012, 11:29:54 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on March 15, 2012, 07:38:07 PMSaying the word "discrimination" like it's a bad thing.

When it's used to deny someone what they want to do, then I think it is a bad thing.

I don't know that's what is happening here.  I just said that I get that sense based on my experience in the professional world.
So, if you have two candidates who want a job with you, you hire them both?  What about 5?

Objectively evaluate each applicant's skills and knowledge, as related to the job requirements, and hire the most qualified.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

davidsinn

Quote from: SarDragon on March 16, 2012, 02:05:38 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on March 16, 2012, 01:36:04 AM
Quote from: bflynn on March 15, 2012, 11:29:54 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on March 15, 2012, 07:38:07 PMSaying the word "discrimination" like it's a bad thing.

When it's used to deny someone what they want to do, then I think it is a bad thing.

I don't know that's what is happening here.  I just said that I get that sense based on my experience in the professional world.
So, if you have two candidates who want a job with you, you hire them both?  What about 5?

Objectively evaluate each applicant's skills and knowledge, as related to the job requirements, and hire the most qualified.

So you discriminate against the lesser qualified...
Former CAP Captain
David Sinn

NIN

Quote from: whatevah on March 13, 2012, 08:50:00 PM
sheesh, I was a Squadron CC as a 22 year old 1st Lt. :)

Me too. Twice.
Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

Eclipse

Wait, who's hiring?  Do you have a contact?  I have a hammer.

"That Others May Zoom"

FlyTiger77

I love these threads when they get to this point.
JACK E. MULLINAX II, Lt Col, CAP

SarDragon

Quote from: davidsinn on March 16, 2012, 02:12:02 AM
Quote from: SarDragon on March 16, 2012, 02:05:38 AM
Quote from: JeffDG on March 16, 2012, 01:36:04 AM
Quote from: bflynn on March 15, 2012, 11:29:54 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on March 15, 2012, 07:38:07 PMSaying the word "discrimination" like it's a bad thing.

When it's used to deny someone what they want to do, then I think it is a bad thing.

I don't know that's what is happening here.  I just said that I get that sense based on my experience in the professional world.
So, if you have two candidates who want a job with you, you hire them both?  What about 5?

Objectively evaluate each applicant's skills and knowledge, as related to the job requirements, and hire the most qualified.

So you discriminate against the lesser qualified...

Yup. See post #41 above.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

bflynn

Quote from: davidsinn on March 16, 2012, 02:12:02 AM
So you discriminate against the lesser qualified...

There is a difference between discrimination and selection.  They are related, but distinctly different activities.

If this has drifted into a contest of sematics the thread isn't worth continuing to me.

SarDragon

It appears that you attach an entirely negative connotation to the word. I do not.

The specific definition depends on context. In our example, it could be taken as positive or negative, based on the surrounding verbiage.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

RRLE

Since the word 'discriminate' was brought up in an employment relationship discussion and you are discussing the law, then a peek at the legal definition may clear up the confusion. First, the law does not bar discrimination per se. The law does not allow an individual to
Quotediscriminate against a qualified individual.

So with the modifier 'qualified' in place the arguement about discriminating against lesser qualified individuals goes away. Nor does the law care about whether you eat at McDonald's or Burger King or decide to select a chicken eatery instead.

See 42 USC 1211 Definitions and 42 USC 1212 Discrimination

JeffDG

Quote from: bflynn on March 16, 2012, 09:21:51 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on March 16, 2012, 02:12:02 AM
So you discriminate against the lesser qualified...

There is a difference between discrimination and selection.  They are related, but distinctly different activities.

If this has drifted into a contest of sematics the thread isn't worth continuing to me.
So, you decided to criticize my post without reading it.

Actually, there isn't a difference between discrimination and selection.  They are, effectively, synonyms.  If you go back and read what I actually wrote, you will note that I made clear that there are grounds of discrimination that society has deemed unacceptable.

Discrimination is a critical skill that needs to be developed.  If you're going to go and scream "RACIST" every time someone discriminates, then you don't have a clue what the term means.

bflynn

Sorry, you're playing semantics games, trying to convince everyone that black is white and red is green.  Please, in the interest of safety, avoid crosswalks for a while?

abdsp51


JeffDG

Quote from: bflynn on March 16, 2012, 01:55:15 PM
Sorry, you're playing semantics games, trying to convince everyone that black is white and red is green.  Please, in the interest of safety, avoid crosswalks for a while?
No, you're cutting a line completely out of context and ignoring the clear definition of the term in question.

For reference, here's the post, with the context that you, intentionally, ignored:
Quote from: JeffDG on March 15, 2012, 07:38:07 PM
Pet Peeve...

Saying the word "discrimination" like it's a bad thing.  We all discriminate all the time.  Go to Burger King instead of McD's...you're discriminating.  Every single time you make a choice or decision, you're discriminating.  Don't believe me, pick up that dictionary that's gathering dust nearby and read the definition of the word...

There are specific grounds of discrimination that we, as a society, have determined are not appropriate to use.  For example, if I'm hiring someone to design a bridge, I'm entirely free to discriminate against those who have not received a degree in civil engineering.  I'm not, however, allowed to exclude Catholics just because I don't like the Pope.  If I'm renting an apartment, I can discriminate against you if you have no visible means of financial support and I don't think you can pay, but cannot discriminate against you because you're Chinese.

Oh, and the advice to actually pick up the dictionary still stands.

bflynn

Quote from: JeffDG on March 16, 2012, 03:09:19 PM
Oh, and the advice to actually pick up the dictionary still stands.

Noted.  Advice swapped.  I'll pick up the dictionary if you avoid the crosswalks.

bflynn

You know, I tried to avoid this, but since you're insisting, let's play that game.

Quote from: JeffDG on March 15, 2012, 07:38:07 PM
Pet Peeve...

Saying the word "discrimination" like it's a bad thing.  We all discriminate all the time.  Go to Burger King instead of McD's...you're discriminating.  Every single time you make a choice or decision, you're discriminating.  Don't believe me, pick up that dictionary that's gathering dust nearby and read the definition of the word...


dis·crim·i·na·tion   /dɪˌskrɪməˈneɪʃən/ Show Spelled[dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4. Archaic . something that serves to differentiate.

So, when we go to Burger King, we practice discrimination.  Hmmm, do we practice the art of instance of discriminating?  Perhaps, this is a candidate.

Are we making a distinct in favor of or against a person based on the group, class or catgory to which it belongs rather than the actual merits?  No, food at Burget King pretty much has no merit.  The "hambuger" is almost certainly pink slime and they messed the french fries up years ago and still haven't fixed them.

Are we making fine distinctions?  That the hamburger would go well with a 2011 Coke, but the 2012 is still too young?  No, we're not.

Which means that if we practice discrimination, we must be discriminating.

dis·crim·i·nate   /v. dɪˈskrɪməˌneɪt; adj. dɪˈskrɪmənɪt/ Show Spelled [v. dih-skrim-uh-neyt; adj. dih-skrim-uh-nit] Show IPA verb, -nat·ed, -nat·ing,  adjective
verb (used without object)
1. to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.
2. to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things.

Definition 1 is the verb side of a definition we rejected above - we are not making a choice to eat Burger King because we favor hamburgers over chicken.  If we were, we'd have to also consider McDonalds, Sonic, Five Guys or our own backyard grill (I choose the grill).

Are we accurately noting or observing a difference between things?  No, I don't think so, we're expresessing preference.  You eat at Burget King because that's what you like.  You are discriminating between things by making a choice.

Neither are you disciminating between things when you choose between two candiates.

But regardless, that isn't the definition that I was using in the original context and I think that if you're honest with yourself, you'll know that.  If you're not honest...hey, you have to live with yourself, it's your call.

Quote from: JeffDG on March 15, 2012, 07:38:07 PM
There are specific grounds of discrimination that we, as a society, have determined are not appropriate to use.  For example, if I'm hiring someone to design a bridge, I'm entirely free to discriminate against those who have not received a degree in civil engineering.  I'm not, however, allowed to exclude Catholics just because I don't like the Pope.  If I'm renting an apartment, I can discriminate against you if you have no visible means of financial support and I don't think you can pay, but cannot discriminate against you because you're Chinese.

Actually, you are free to choose whoever you want for any reason you want.  You're a private individual, you are not bound by title VI, title VII or any other part of the CRA.

lordmonar

When talking about the common term "discrimination" and the way it is used in EEOC terms....there is legal and illegal discrimanation.

By our regulations we CANNOT discriminate base on race, sex, ethnics, etc.......but we are free to discriminate based on age, rank, ,membership status, safety compliance status, training, skills, availabilty, likebility, abiliites, et al.

As leaders we need to avoid favortism....that is discriminating bases solely on likeablity as opposed to abilities, training, skills ect.

But we do discriminate.

So long as we are not do so because of one of the "EEOC" reasons (race, color, sexs, etc) then we just need to avoid the favortism trap.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

abdsp51

Someone here hit the nail on the head though I believe with this being a personality conflict.

The CyBorg is destroyed

Quote from: abdsp51 on March 16, 2012, 05:45:06 PM
Someone here hit the nail on the head though I believe with this being a personality conflict.

I described it as such, though I don't think I was the only one.

Personality conflicts are rarely solvable without a commitment from both parties.

Sometimes a situation has no "good" outcome.

In that case, I think of Kenny Rogers' advice in "The Gambler:"

You gotta know when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em, when to walk away, and know when to run.

Exiled from GLR-MI-011

bflynn

Quote from: CyBorg on March 16, 2012, 06:12:41 PM
In that case, I think of Kenny Rogers' advice in "The Gambler:"

You gotta know when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em, when to walk away, and know when to run.

It's sad that the answer to so many problem in CAP are "the member quits"...

Eclipse

Quote from: bflynn on March 16, 2012, 06:14:50 PM
It's sad that the answer to so many problem in CAP are "the member quits"...

CAP is not for everyone, sometimes the only way to "win" is not to play.

"That Others May Zoom"

bflynn

Perhaps, but that doesn't make it less sad.

In one way it's selfish.  If my airplane ever puts me in a position where I'm stuck and my elt is my only chance of getting out of it, I'd like it a lot better to be rescued by an organization where all the member haven't quit; :)

Eclipse

#69
It's not "sad" at all, it just "is".

You're no more likely to be found with an organization full of people who can't work and play well with others, either, and SAR is only a part of our total mission, which includes the ability to help shape our youth membership into productive citizens. 

CAP expects a pretty high level of performance and behavior from its members, far more than a lot of other volunteer organizations that people want to compare, but are, in fact, nothing like CAP.

Leaving because you don't fit in, or aren't enjoying your time spent, is just accepting reality - there's 100 other organizations that need help,
find one you're more suited to.

Life does not provide participation trophies, and we shouldn't either.

"That Others May Zoom"

Spaceman3750

Quote from: bflynn on March 16, 2012, 06:39:17 PM
Perhaps, but that doesn't make it less sad.

In one way it's selfish.  If my airplane ever puts me in a position where I'm stuck and my elt is my only chance of getting out of it, I'd like it a lot better to be rescued by an organization where all the member haven't quit; :)

I'll take a ground team of 5 highly trained professionals than 10 nincompoops any day.

lordmonar

Yes it is sad that we all can't be adults and get over our differences and keep the mission (what ever it is) as our prime focus.

But push comes to shove.....If we can't resolve the differences then someone has got to go.

Sometimes that would be the member, sometimes that would be the leader.

Hence why the advice to go up to wing/group is still the best and only course of action.  Let them know what the problems are and let them fix it.

Bottom line.....if you can't work and play with in the organisation (no matter who you are or what position you hold) you need to move on.

Again as  a leader we tend to side with the other leaders of the organisation.....this is called loyalty.....unless we have clear proof that they leader is out of line.

That is why these sort of threads are so unsatisfying.  We usually only have one side of the story (and usually only second hand).  There is no way of objectively looking at the situation and finding out what the facts are.

So even if it comes down to a personality conflict........"I don't like you, you don't like me".......it all falls at the feet of the commander.

This situation reads to me as simply a new commander putting her foot down.  Saying "You will not go around me and usurp my authority."  So she used one of here tools to correct the situation.

That is the basic facts of the situation as I read them.

The member is free....and encouraged....to go up the chain of command for redress of greivances.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

FlyTiger77

Quote from: Eclipse on March 16, 2012, 06:45:20 PM
Life does not provide participation trophies, and we shouldn't either.

+1
JACK E. MULLINAX II, Lt Col, CAP

bflynn

Quote from: lordmonar on March 16, 2012, 07:35:52 PMsometimes that would be the leader.

When is the last time that happened?

Quote from: Eclipse on March 16, 2012, 06:45:20 PMLife does not provide participation trophies, and we shouldn't either.

???

The CAP doesn't give participation trophies.  Pithy, but hardly relevent.

AngelWings

This has gotten ridiculously off topic.

lordmonar

Quote from: bflynn on March 16, 2012, 09:52:34 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on March 16, 2012, 07:35:52 PMsometimes that would be the leader.

When is the last time that happened?

There have been a lot of squadron/group/wing/region/national commanders removed.

Not to mention a lot of other staff officers and just plain members.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

Quote from: bflynn on March 16, 2012, 09:52:34 PM
The CAP doesn't give participation trophies.  Pithy, but hardly relevent.

On target relevant, because there are many people, both within and outside, who would like to see CAP as an all-inclusive rec center, which little thought to how that would negatively effect our mission, and this idea that we should just let people "do what they will" with no ramifications is at the center of that.

A lot of people want to carry the card and wear the uniform, but not behave in the way that is required.

"That Others May Zoom"

abdsp51

There have been AD AF leaders removed or whichever term you want to use from positions as well. 

FW

Quote from: Eclipse on March 16, 2012, 10:38:57 PM
Quote from: bflynn on March 16, 2012, 09:52:34 PM
The CAP doesn't give participation trophies.  Pithy, but hardly relevent.

On target relevant, because there are many people, both within and outside, who would like to see CAP as an all-inclusive rec center, which little thought to how that would negatively effect our mission, and this idea that we should just let people "do what they will" with no ramifications is at the center of that.

A lot of people want to carry the card and wear the uniform, but not behave in the way that is required.

Well said.  Unfortunately for us, the time has come to "pay the piper" in regards to our disregard for our core values and ethics.  It's been reported the volunteers, in the form of the NB, have lost the right to elect the national leaders who, will appoint everyone else. 

Yes, there are accountablities to our actions.  We are now seeing the payback.  I just wonder how much we will be "paying" in the next few years...

rustyjeeper

Quote from: Littleguy on March 16, 2012, 10:06:34 PM
This has gotten ridiculously off topic.

Maybe its time to introduce how we are all suffering ABU discrimination >:D   

RADIOMAN015

Frankly I can't find anything in any CAP regulation that states that the squadron leadership or anyone else in a leadership position can issue a letter of reprimand to any other adult volunteer. ??? :-\   Also what is the retention period for the documentation  ???, even the USAF destroys certain personal unfavorable information after X years.

As far as the suspension goes, none of us have enough information to really form an opinion, as to the total dynamics of what is going on.    I don't think overall in CAP there's a large number of suspensions of adult volunteers (be interesting to see those statistics broken down by wings & regions) BUT formal suspension is VERY SERIOUS matter and shouldn't be taken lightly by the OP.  Surely a visit to the next level of adult leadership might be of benefit (and hopefully (likely)) the new adult leadership in the squadron had (already) spoken to the group leader before initiating the action).

As far as others mentioning about being a rec club etc, this is a Civilian organization (we are not in the military), composed of civilian uncompensated volunteers, many if not most want to contribute to the organization's success.  Just like in the workplace you have people with a variety of skills, aptitudes, limitations, and external personal matters, that you have to deal with.  No one is the perfect volunteer, everyone makes mistakes.  IF you are too harsh, volunteers will look to move elsewhere; IF you are too easy, I also think that volunteers will look to move elsewhere, cause they will tire of the other adults sitting around doing little or nothing.  Pity the poor soul that takes on the job of being the commander/adult leader, IF they aren't careful they could become an army of one, or a leader of self >:D
RM       

 

abdsp51

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on March 18, 2012, 01:34:13 AM
Frankly I can't find anything in any CAP regulation that states that the squadron leadership or anyone else in a leadership position can issue a letter of reprimand to any other adult volunteer. ??? :-\   Also what is the retention period for the documentation  ???, even the USAF destroys certain personal unfavorable information after X years.

As far as the suspension goes, none of us have enough information to really form an opinion, as to the total dynamics of what is going on.    I don't think overall in CAP there's a large number of suspensions of adult volunteers (be interesting to see those statistics broken down by wings & regions) BUT formal suspension is VERY SERIOUS matter and shouldn't be taken lightly by the OP.  Surely a visit to the next level of adult leadership might be of benefit (and hopefully (likely)) the new adult leadership in the squadron had (already) spoken to the group leader before initiating the action).

As far as others mentioning about being a rec club etc, this is a Civilian organization (we are not in the military), composed of civilian uncompensated volunteers, many if not most want to contribute to the organization's success.  Just like in the workplace you have people with a variety of skills, aptitudes, limitations, and external personal matters, that you have to deal with.  No one is the perfect volunteer, everyone makes mistakes.  IF you are too harsh, volunteers will look to move elsewhere; IF you are too easy, I also think that volunteers will look to move elsewhere, cause they will tire of the other adults sitting around doing little or nothing.  Pity the poor soul that takes on the job of being the commander/adult leader, IF they aren't careful they could become an army of one, or a leader of self >:D
RM       



I think people realize that this is a civil organization. Be that it is a civil organization its paramilitary in terms of the use of the uniform, grade structure, customs and courtesies, and it has AF oversight.  As with any civil volunteer organization there needs to be some sort of regulation (term used loosely to denote any sort of charter, bylaws, etc) to direct member conduct.  Most volunteer have some sort of chain of command even if it a loose one.   

The CyBorg is destroyed

^^Yes, we do realise that, but RM doesn't believe that we realise it enough and has made it his task to remind us that we are the CIVIL Air Patrol and should not have any sort of quasi-military trappings.

The CGAUX has a chain of leadership and management, in which the Coast Guard is much more closely involved than the AF is with us...including an active duty USCG four-piston-ring Captain as Chief Director Auxiliary, in addition to the various other commissioned officers, warrant officers and NCO's who oversee the CGAUX's day-to-day work.

The USAC has a chain of command (I'm sure Colonel Land can elaborate).

I'm not sure about the NSCC, but they use Navy ranks, so it's quite likely that they use that as a basis for their system of leadership, along with oversight from various USN, USCG and USMC personages with stripes, brass and egg on their caps.

Exiled from GLR-MI-011

RADIOMAN015

Quote from: CyBorg on March 18, 2012, 02:31:29 AM
^^Yes, we do realise that, but RM doesn't believe that we realise it enough and has made it his task to remind us that we are the CIVIL Air Patrol and should not have any sort of quasi-military trappings.

In most instance adults attending unit meetings and other function are under the umbrella of Civil Air Patrol Incorporated charter, which is a civilian non profit corporation.    The AF is very clear in it's guidance that CAP members are civilians.  When one talks about "quasi military trappings", it is NOT what the individual adult leader desires (e.g. letter of reprimand) BUT what the corporation as part of it's policies authorizes.  I can't find anything in any regulations that authorizes anyone to give anyone a letter of reprimand.     

Now personally, I think there should be a policy clearly spelled out the process that must be adhered to when a member is not meeting "perceived" standards with appropriate review on ANY adverse actions BEFORE the action is taken against the member.   Likely this could be added into the membership regulation.

The question of  adverse information documentation access and retention also comes into question.   Example, adult leader speaks with adult member about a problem brought to his/her attention about the member within CAP's regulatory reach and an agreement/acknowledge/correction is agreed to.   The leader makes a memo for record about this discussion.  Is this an official record of CAP corporation and what is the retention period ???  Should the member be able to get a copy of this ???  Should the member be required to sign and acknowledge the problem discussion ???   At what point does informal (non documented) become formal documented counselling ???

Now I've seen an "informal" 60 day suspension to a member & also that same member met a membership board that placed specific conditions on retaining membership.  In that case it was well warranted, since I (as well as others) personally warned the member that his/her certain actions could become very detrimental to the organization.   

So again I'm not against some sort of "counselling" and acknowledgement/documentation by the member to resolve issues  -- one should know where they stand.   However, again we are NOT in the military and letters of admonishment/reprimand do not seem to be what a "Civilian" organization of uncompensated "civilian" volunteers needs to be doing. :-\

The USAF regulatory polices on adverse actions can be found at:
http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/afi36-704.pdf
http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI36-703.pdf
http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI36-2907.pdf

Again there needs to be some protection also for the member -- When you don't interject that protection early enough the member goes to congress or directly to the USAF with their complaint, and this isn't in CAP as an organization interest, but may be well warranted. :( :-\ :angel:
RM   

       

FW

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on March 18, 2012, 02:54:38 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on March 18, 2012, 02:31:29 AM
^^Yes, we do realise that, but RM doesn't believe that we realise it enough and has made it his task to remind us that we are the CIVIL Air Patrol and should not have any sort of quasi-military trappings.


Now personally, I think there should be a policy clearly spelled out the process that must be adhered to when a member is not meeting "perceived" standards with appropriate review on ANY adverse actions BEFORE the action is taken against the member.   Likely this could be added into the membership regulation.

The question of  adverse information documentation access and retention also comes into question.   Example, adult leader speaks with adult member about a problem brought to his/her attention about the member within CAP's regulatory reach and an agreement/acknowledge/correction is agreed to.   The leader makes a memo for record about this discussion.  Is this an official record of CAP corporation and what is the retention period ???  Should the member be able to get a copy of this ???  Should the member be required to sign and acknowledge the problem discussion ???   At what point does informal (non documented) become formal documented counselling ???

Now I've seen an "informal" 60 day suspension to a member & also that same member met a membership board that placed specific conditions on retaining membership.  In that case it was well warranted, since I (as well as others) personally warned the member that his/her certain actions could become very detrimental to the organization.   

So again I'm not against some sort of "counselling" and acknowledgement/documentation by the member to resolve issues  -- one should know where they stand.   However, again we are NOT in the military and letters of admonishment/reprimand do not seem to be what a "Civilian" organization of uncompensated "civilian" volunteers needs to be doing. :-\

Again there needs to be some protection also for the member -- When you don't interject that protection early enough the member goes to congress or directly to the USAF with their complaint, and this isn't in CAP as an organization interest, but may be well warranted. :( :-\ :angel:
RM   
     

For the last 5 years, the National Board has tried to develop a member "adverse action" manual/regulation specifying the path which needs to be taken.  Unfortunately, it never got out of committee.  It seems the leadership of CAP really doesn't want to be hemmed in.  It's percieved at the higher levels to be restricting.  So, we are left with regulations on membership termination and demotions/promotions.  There is also CAPR 35-8 which, somewhat, defines membership "adverse actions". 

Bottom line; in CAP, there is quite a wide latitude given to commanders for their actions.  And, there is no real motivation to change this.