2B for inactivity?

[Ron1319]

The 35-3 and the form 2B allow for termination for failure to attend three consecutive meetings without an excuse.  I have a handful of cadets who's membership has not lapsed yet but are still on my roster and making my "no promotion for 120 days" report harder to sort through since I keep having to distinguish between them and cadets who are active and not progressing.  Does anybody scrub their roster in this way?  Would someone terminated for lack of interest have any issue rejoining later?

[Eclipse]

The 35-3 and the form 2B allow for termination for failure to attend three consecutive meetings without an excuse.  I have a handful of cadets who's membership has not lapsed yet but are still on my roster and making my "no promotion for 120 days" report harder to sort through since I keep having to distinguish between them and cadets who are active and not progressing.  Does anybody scrub their roster in this way?  Would someone terminated for lack of interest have any issue rejoining later?

Yes, for both seniors and cadets (seniors usually get partronized, cadets, until recently were "000'ed".

A returning cadet (or senior) for that matter could potentially have an issue at least as much as they will need to explain why
they are suddenly re-interested in CAP after being term'ed for lack of activity.

Many will have legitimate excuses, some won't.

As a commander I would also want to see some sort of plan with milestones that the cadet would adhere to.

[Al Sayre]

I'd make a few phone calls to the Cadets and/or their parents first.  It shows you are actually interested in them being there, and it makes it much more likely that you can recover any uniform/issue items if they really want to quit.  You may find that they have a legit reason for no shows - no ride, parent/family member ill, financial issues (no gas) etc.  I'm very hesitant to 2b a cadet if there is any chance that they are/may get something out of the program.  I really don't worry too much about unit stats...

[Ron1319]

I spent all afternoon yesterday doing exactly that.  I'd close the loop first.  I was extremely positive is all cases that we were here to help, that I'd love for them be successful in CAP, and that we'd love to have them back and an active part of the unit.  Meanwhile, they're making it very hard for me to generate meaningful statistics and making my "no promo for 120 days" report look worse than it actually is.  It's bad, but not that bad.

In an effort not to get flamed for that, I'll say more.  I'd like to manage the report to an absolute minimum and know that I had active conversations ongoing and mentors assigned to any cadets who are not progressing.  With as many cadets as are on the report right now, it's unmanageable.  I don't want to have make a list of "inactive" cadets and then go back and scratch them off every time I look at the report.  Another way of looking at it is that if I had 3 cadets on the list, then I'd notice a fourth with little effort.  Right now the number is embarrassingly high and if it one more cadet wound up on the list I wouldn't notice.  I'm using it as a tool to figure out how many of them just need a mentor, how many of them are no longer attending, and how many of them are having some problem.

For instance, one of the conversations I had last night was with a cadet who's membership was up in March and he was planning to non-renew to focus on school.  I explained my situation in 8th grade where I wasn't very interested in school, but that I also started CAP at that time and went on to be 2nd in my high school class and get an engineering degree.  I don't know if I attribute my ability to focus on school to being in CAP, but I told him that doing more exciting things might help him focus on school.  I asked him to think about it and to please come back next week so that we can have a conversation about what he's considered.  I also assured him that school is more important than CAP and that if he is going to quit in March to focus on school, he should quit now instead of waiting.

[Ron1319]

My commander has a question --  If someone is terminated before the end of their membership period for inactivity and wishes to rejoin before the end of that period, do they have to pay for full membership or do they just get reinstated?  Example - they renew in January, stop coming in March and then September comes around and they find that they really want to rejoin.  Can they be reinstated as having already paid dues until the end of their year in January?  It would seem like they could.

[coudano]

we maintain a roster with our active people
anyone who falls inactive gets moved to the inactive section of the roster

that said, when people go away for lack of interest they usually fall off at the end of their membership year


we do have a few floaters who keep renewing (more likely their parents keep renewing them every year when the notice shows up in the mail they just pay it)

i've never terminated a member just for being inactive, though.  we basically just ignore them.
no real reason CAP inc shouldn't get the donation, eh?

[Ron1319]

It's a management nightmare and cost me a lot of time yesterday.  The eServices report is good.  If I could LOA flag someone and they'd disappear from the reports, I'd be fine with that instead.

[EMT-83]

Your 120 day report is just that, a report.

You don't need to justify to anyone the status of members who appear there.

[Ron1319]

It has nothing to do with justifying it to anyone, and only to do with being able to effectively manage and have a clear picture of our status.  If there really is a two promotion a year requirement, then these are the cadets who are in danger of failing to meet that requirement and it is a very high priority issue.

[Eclipse]

i've never terminated a member just for being inactive, though.  we basically just ignore them.
no real reason CAP inc shouldn't get the donation, eh?

What do you do when your required reports like EO, safety, etc., don't = 100%.

I, for one, am not interested in having the conversation month after month. 

That is what 000 or patron is for.

[coudano]

i've never terminated a member just for being inactive, though.  we basically just ignore them.
no real reason CAP inc shouldn't get the donation, eh?

What do you do when your required reports like EO, safety, etc., don't = 100%.

I, for one, am not interested in having the conversation month after month. 

That is what 000 or patron is for.

We haven't had anyone bring that up for at least 2 years...
maybe longer.

who cares.

[Eclipse]

Wait until your wing sits for a CI - it'll be an issue.

[coudano]

just had one a few weeks ago
not a finding
no big deal

[Eclipse]

Showing again what an effective, consistently implemented process the CI/SUI is...

[coudano]

the opsec status was not the biggest coup of them all hehhh

what it shows is how people get whipped up into some big frenzy over relatively (or temporarily) important stuff.
everyone chillax; breathe in and out.  CAP will continue to go round and round
this is not an emergency.

[Eclipse]

Emergency?  Maybe not.

Problem, yes.  Big time.

I will continue to assert that allowing units to carry empty shirts distorts our readiness and allows unit CC's to have an inappropriate
sense of security.

Towing the line on empty shirts would be the first step in running the tighter ship most of us want.

[coudano]

first of all, on a national basis what do you think is a higher priority,
$40 or $70 annually for maybe 15,000 or more of the members on our roles

Or 'distorted readiness numbers' (which should be being pulled out of Ops Quals, not general membership anyway) to all of our customers out there banging down our doors for operational capability *crickets*?


In terms of tightening the ship, people who pay but never show are hardly loosening up the ship.
We need to shape up or ship out the people who DO show up, but don't do what they are supposed to or do do what they aren't supposed to.



All that is of course beside the fact that our opsec NDA is not really authenticated.
It is literally meaningless.

[IceNine]

  You'd be surprised how many cadets around driving age use CAP as an excuse to be out of the house without supervision.

  BITD- If a cadet was to be excused I asked to talk to mom/dad, and if they were absent I would call about an hour into the meeting and ask mom/dad where they were.  You'd be surprised the responses, anywhere from they are ill to they are at the CAP meeting.

  Once a cadet say's they are on our time parents are more forgiving to not answering cell phones.  That can mean anywhere from 2.5 hours a week to entire weekends where we are being used for AWOL time.

[SamFranklin]

When I notice someone is inactive, I ensure someone gives them a call. "Hey, we've missed you, what's up?"

I can't see any good in terminating membership among dues-paying volunteers. That sort of idea makes sense only on captalk.

[Thrashed]

No need to terminate, just make them patrons. CAP gets money, the person remains a CAP member.

[Eclipse]

No need to terminate, just make them patrons. CAP gets money, the person remains a CAP member.

Not cadets.

[Flying Pig]

A 2b for inactivity is LAME.  Just let them fall off the books.  If they keep paying their dues, who cares.  Some people really do have intentions of someday getting back in. If they keep renewing, I assume their intentions are genuine.  If they aren't causing you any grief, I say "No".  But to me, inactivity means they aren't bothering you.

As far as cadets, again, I say leave it alone.  Im not going to 2b a cadet.  Just let their membership run out.  If they renew, contact them and ask them what their intentions are. Chances are most inactive cadets aren't renewing.

[PA Guy]

 ^^^^^^

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[flyboy53]

The 35-3 and the form 2B allow for termination for failure to attend three consecutive meetings without an excuse.  I have a handful of cadets who's membership has not lapsed yet but are still on my roster and making my "no promotion for 120 days" report harder to sort through since I keep having to distinguish between them and cadets who are active and not progressing.  Does anybody scrub their roster in this way?  Would someone terminated for lack of interest have any issue rejoining later?

These reports started out as a good thing for membership tracking and they become an example of mico management.

In short, just because some one stops participating, make some phone calls first and then just let their membership expire. Don't go through the process of 2Bing them because that may come back to haunt you and the member -- especially if that individual decides to rejoin for what ever reason some time in the future.

NHQ made such a big thing recently about the membership topping levels that they haven't seen in years. I wonder how many of them were non-participating members. One thing though, certainly if someone doesn't renew, they've demonstrated non-participating. What, however, if that member renews. That demonstrates a level of participation, doesn't it?

Think of also from another standpoint. The indivdiual paid for a year's membership and there's nothing on the membership application that requires them to participate. The only reference is about membership eligibility. I'd hate to think that someone may sometime in the future sue the CAP for a 2B on the basis of inactivity being a basis for being ineligible for membership. In a way that's discrimination.

[RADIOMAN015]

A 2b for inactivity is LAME.  Just let them fall off the books.  If they keep paying their dues, who cares.  Some people really do have intentions of someday getting back in. If they keep renewing, I assume their intentions are genuine.  If they aren't causing you any grief, I say "No".  But to me, inactivity means they aren't bothering you.

As far as cadets, again, I say leave it alone.  Im not going to 2b a cadet.  Just let their membership run out.  If they renew, contact them and ask them what their intentions are. Chances are most inactive cadets aren't renewing.

I think that "intention" is the key.  With cadets there's other activities that they may get an interest in that happens to be on the same evening as the squadron meetings, so it stands to reason they won't be able to attend.
IF they lose interest they won't renew anyways, and senior member time can be spent on better/more productive efforts than all the administrative mumbo jumbo associated with 2b'ing an inactive cadet.
RM

[Eclipse]

Clearly the attention the mandated training reports is not consistent among wings, which is sad, but regardless.

Empty shirts bring no value to the unit, skew our membership numbers, and increase the administrative burden.

000, patron, whatever works for you, but there is no excuse for unit CC's who have anything but 100% compliance on
anything mandated by the program.

"Intention" is not relevant, either a member is participating or they aren't.  "I was thinking about you guys while I was at band practice..." might be a nice status update, but doesn't help the unit or CAP.

There are any number of ways absentee members can be of value, and even some empty shirts pay local dues, but the one thing I don't accept from my unit CC's is "I have no idea who that is, never met him."  There is no point to that person staying in the active bucket.

There is no "mumbo jumbo" to a 2b - one form, sign, date, send.  Put the member's file in the "not pile" , destroy after 5 years.

[RADIOMAN015]

Clearly the attention the mandated training reports is not consistent among wings, which is sad, but regardless.

Empty shirts bring no value to the unit, skew our membership numbers, and increase the administrative burden.


"Intention" is not relevant, either a member is participating or they aren't.  "I was thinking about you guys while I was at band practice..." might be a nice status update, but doesn't help the unit or CAP.

There is no "mumbo jumbo" to a 2b - one form, sign, date, send.  Put the member's file in the "not pile" , destroy after 5 years.

We aren't talking about adult members, instead teenagers, some of whom like CAP but also they (and their parents) feel that other activities are important. also some may be involved in advance placement school courses and just don't have the time.  Perhaps a leave of absence is one way to go for the cadet.  I know we've had cadets gone 30 to 60 days out of the program.  Even if a cadet is unhappy, I think it's best to do a leave of absence, and even extend it until the membership lapses.  Sometime young people will change their minds (and attitudes) towards the program.  They paid for membership for the year, lets let them retain it and give them a call (or email) every so often.

What I'm not sure of now is with all these training requirements e.g. safety, equal opportunity/non discrimination, etc. allow a cadet in leave of absence type status to forgo these requirements, which likely they can't.  So there may be NO choice at the squadron as far as keeping them on the membership roles.  As you know CAP has a lot of mumbo jumbo stats and units that want to look good have to work on those numbers.
RM     

[RiverAux]

I couldn't care less how many inactive seniors are on the books.  It doesn't distort anyone's idea of "readliness".  I knew who my active reliable members were. 

But, if cadets are required to do certain things and then they aren't doing them then they need to not be there anymore. 

[BillB]

What's the difference between your "reliable" senior not training and a cadet not training?

[RiverAux]

Seniors don't have the same specific mandates on them. 

[Eclipse]

I couldn't care less how many inactive seniors are on the books.  It doesn't distort anyone's idea of "readliness".  I knew who my active reliable members were. 

But, if cadets are required to do certain things and then they aren't doing them then they need to not be there anymore.

Yes, you do, but by the time it gets 1-3 clicks higher, they are just numbers, all equal.

[coudano]

Bob, what's the difference between an 'empty shirt' active member
and an 'empty shirt' patron member?

they both show up on your membership report...

the only way to solve your crushing administrative burden (eye strain?) is to transfer them out of the unit (or terminate them)

[Eclipse]

Bob, what's the difference between an 'empty shirt' active member
and an 'empty shirt' patron member?

they both show up on your membership report...

Patron members are not required to complete the various online and other training such as EO, CPPT, Safety, etc., the reports
of which, respectively, will always show a deficiency in compliance for all the empty shirts, which then in supposed to result in a monthly conversation with the Wing CC as to why this is.

Reports, btw, that the CC or designate is supposed to be running each month and fixing.

the only way to solve your crushing administrative burden (eye strain?) is to transfer them out of the unit (or terminate them)

Yep, 000 or out the door.  The result is the same, though wings that attach dues to their renewals don't want to lose the revenue, so in that case 000 or patron.

It's not a "crushing" burden, it is good housekeeping and baseline maintenance of the unit and its records.  Ignoring this is just one more thing on the pile as to why we have issues, however if the wing is ignoring deficient required training reports, that is a bigger problem.

We can argue separately as to whether the training is necessary or appropriate, but right now it is required, respectively, for all members in the active category.  It doesn't say "except those who never show up..."

[RiverAux]

I couldn't care less how many inactive seniors are on the books.  It doesn't distort anyone's idea of "readliness".  I knew who my active reliable members were. 

But, if cadets are required to do certain things and then they aren't doing them then they need to not be there anymore.

Yes, you do, but by the time it gets 1-3 clicks higher, they are just numbers, all equal.

The higher ups look at ES qualifications if they care about readiness not total unit membership.  Inactive members don't make it more difficult to carry out any of CAP's missions.  Incidentally, if they are active enough to complete whatever required safety training is mandated in any given month, they're ok by me.  But, if not, then they can go. 

[Eclipse]

Incidentally, if they are active enough to complete whatever required safety training is mandated in any given month, they're ok by me.  But, if not, then they can go.

I agree.  As long as you can at least stay off the nag lists, whatever.

But how many of those reading this have members with ID's in the 120's that they have never met, and who have never signed into eServices?

How many of you have a unit in your wing bragging about having "x" number of members, only to find 1/3 are empty shirts?

How many successful companies keep thousands of former employees on their books because it is too much work to terminate them?  "Who cares, right? We don't pay them anymore, and you never know, they might come by sometime and work a shift..."

For those of you suggesting the income from these members is important, fine patronize them and move on, but I would suggest that the revenue is inconsequential when compared to the damage caused by the attitude that membership is a revolving door and that if you choose to simply blow us off, you can still carry the same ID card as everyone else.

If we continue to run CAP like the PTA or a rec center, instead of a corporation or a paramilitary organization, then we can't expect much to change.

The devil is in the attention to the details.  One or two never seems like a big deal, until they start piling up and getting away from you.

[SamFranklin]

^ No one has asked you to terminate cadets for not attending. Having the authority to do something and concluding that doing that thing is appropriate are two different issues.

What part about working with kids don't you get? Chasing them away with the CAP equivalent of the death penalty doesn't help the kids, the community, or CAP.

[RiverAux]

^ No one has asked you to terminate cadets for not attending. Having the authority to do something and concluding that doing that thing is appropriate are two different issues.

Well, the regulation has said that failure to progress in the cadet program is an appropriate reason for termination.  So, it is clear that CAP would prefer them to leave, but that doesn't mean you do it willy nilly. 

What part about working with kids don't you get? Chasing them away with the CAP equivalent of the death penalty doesn't help the kids, the community, or CAP.

The original poster has been personally calling cadets to see what is up.  That seems to be the actions of someone who is taking this responsibility seriously and being more than fair with the cadets.  Doesn't sound like "chasing them away" at all. 

[Ron1319]

The regs say that they can be terminated for not attending three consecutive meetings.  It's not a question of whether I can, it's a question of whether I should.  I've concluding that I should terminate the ones who say that they are not coming back.  It's a waste of time having to keep asking ourselves if they are coming back and I don't like distorting the numbers.  I still want to know if they want to come back before their year is up if they have to pay a full year's dues to rejoin.  I'm not sure if anyone has ever encountered that problem before, though.

[lordmonar]

If you 2b them.....they are no longer members and they would have to pay full price to get back in.  They may not be able to get back in anywhere depending on how they code their files at national.

If you wing let's you......ghosting them to the 000 squadron may be the better answer.

In my unit we are in the process of getting rid of the dead weight.

We have sent letters to everyone on our roster who is in acitive.  We told them to show up, do their required training and pay their squadron dues.

They have 60 days to comply......or we transfer them to 000.

If they want to still pay national dues and get the magazine and say they are in CAP......okay by me.  Wing gets their money, we don't have to maintain their records and all is good.

It is easier to transfer someone back into the squadron then have to redo all their initial membership paperwork.

[Tim Medeiros]

Think of also from another standpoint. The indivdiual paid for a year's membership and there's nothing on the membership application that requires them to participate. The only reference is about membership eligibility. I'd hate to think that someone may sometime in the future sue the CAP for a 2B on the basis of inactivity being a basis for being ineligible for membership. In a way that's discrimination.

Curious, on what basis would they be discriminated against?  Race, Color, Religion, National Origin, Age, or Sex, etc?

Also, think about it this way (as a counter against a discrimination claim), they signed on the dotted line saying they would obey the regs, regs state if your not active, your eligible for termination (if you're a cadet), that to me throw out the discrimination claim.


Sort of on topic, how many units check cadets report cards to make sure they "maintain a satisfactory academic school record"?

[IceNine]

The regs say that they can be terminated for not attending three consecutive meetings.  It's not a question of whether I can, it's a question of whether I should.  I've concluding that I should terminate the ones who say that they are not coming back.  It's a waste of time having to keep asking ourselves if they are coming back and I don't like distorting the numbers.  I still want to know if they want to come back before their year is up if they have to pay a full year's dues to rejoin.  I'm not sure if anyone has ever encountered that problem before, though.

I would recommend that if they are generally good fella's that you ask them to swing by and sign the 2b.  You can fill it out as voluntary resignation which doesn't flag anything at NHQ.

If you terminate them for cause NHQ will at a minimum ask about it if not deny new membership all together.