2B for inactivity?

[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"?