Membership Board Form

[NIN]

I'm working on a membership board interview form to give some structure and consistency to my membership board process.

Attached to this post is a "first pass" at such a form.  Where I'm having issues is the "verbiage" for the suitability rating areas.  I've stolen that format from an old AFROTC D&C form that I liked (a lot) and modified it, but I would be very interested in your input concerning the rating areas...

Thanks

[mikeylikey]

Looks good.  Change 1.d. from # to number.  Allways spell out words on forms!  Also, you have a section for former military, perhaps you need a section for current military.  Also don't forget to create the 1 page instruction that details what to do for each section that you can put on the reverse of the form. 

Other than those, look good.  I may steal some of your ideas.  Right now we do an informal interview with a yellow pad of legal paper.

[Pylon]

I'm working on a membership board interview form to give some structure and consistency to my membership board process.

Attached to this post is a "first pass" at such a form.  Where I'm having issues is the "verbiage" for the suitability rating areas.  I've stolen that format from an old AFROTC D&C form that I liked (a lot) and modified it, but I would be very interested in your input concerning the rating areas...

Thanks

Darin, I love it.  Very thorough and looks like it would paint a fairly complete picture of any individual.  The only thing it doesn't address is background with regards to violations (traffic or others) and criminal history, though part of that is addressed with the initial application and fingerprint card.  But if you've got a applicant whose got 22 moving violations, a couple disorderly conduct complaints, three license suspensions, and a DUI or three with no special qualifications to bring to the table, it may intice your membership board to examine their worth to the squadron more closely.  It's just good to have all of those facts in front of the board when they're considering a candidate.

[MIKE]

Ewww...  He used OFFICER on the form.  I'd use SENIOR MEMBER until something comes out that changes the terms officially, and not just for external presentations.

Agree with mikeylikey about including serving military.  Do you also want to do the same for a current CAP member who might be looking to transfer?

[CAP Producer]

Do you also want to do the same for a current CAP member who might be looking to transfer?

I think that's a great idea. Lots of "trouble/d" members transfer from unit to unit and this process could be used to prevent problems. It also makes life easy for the CC. If the board says no and can document why a member should not transfer, it's easy for a CC to say no and off you go back to your original unit or the 000 squadron.

[NIN]

Ewww...  He used OFFICER on the form.  I'd use SENIOR MEMBER until something comes out that changes the terms officially, and not just for external presentations.

Agree with mikeylikey about including serving military.  Do you also want to do the same for a current CAP member who might be looking to transfer?

Mike, you kill me.  Its called "leaning forward in the saddle." Get with the program, buddy.

In our circumstance, the member comes before the membership board and the board has his/her CAPF12/15, supporting documentation and such, and the membership checklist.  Anything indicated on the CAPF 12 is fair game.

What I'm trying to avoid is what I have now: the board asks 2 questions and then makes sure the CAPF 12 or 15 is filled out.  That's not the purpose of the membership board!  Per CAPR 39-2:

1-5. Unit Membership Board (Applicable to cadets, cadet sponsors, and senior members only). All unit commanders should appoint a unit membership board comprised of a minimum of three members to assist the commander in determining the eligibility of new applicants and membership renewals.

Also, para 3-2 of 39-2 states, as a requirement for senior members:

a. General. Possess the desire, willingness, and capability to promote the objectives and purposes of CAP.

(there is not a similar requirement for cadet membership, but one could assume that cadet membership, apart from the baseline requirements laid out in 39-2 Chapter 2, would have some similar but lesser requirements...)

So my rating areas need work within those 4 discrete categories.

Help with that would be appreciated.

[NIN]

Do you also want to do the same for a current CAP member who might be looking to transfer?

I think that's a great idea. Lots of "trouble/d" members transfer from unit to unit and this process could be used to prevent problems. It also makes life easy for the CC. If the board says no and can document why a member should not transfer, it's easy for a CC to say no and off you go back to your original unit or the 000 squadron.

My transfer policy has caused a lot of heartburn to a lot of people who want to transfer to my unit, but has caused me VERY little heartburn:

"If your transfer does not involve a change of zip code, your old commander, you and me need to have a conversation..."

[DNall]

What I'm trying to avoid is what I have now: the board asks 2 questions and then makes sure the CAPF 12 or 15 is filled out.  That's not the purpose of the membership board!  Per CAPR 39-2:

1-5. Unit Membership Board (Applicable to cadets, cadet sponsors, and senior members only). All unit commanders should appoint a unit membership board comprised of a minimum of three members to assist the commander in determining the eligibility of new applicants and membership renewals.

Also, para 3-2 of 39-2 states, as a requirement for senior members:

a. General. Possess the desire, willingness, and capability to promote the objectives and purposes of CAP.

(there is not a similar requirement for cadet membership, but one could assume that cadet membership, apart from the baseline requirements laid out in 39-2 Chapter 2, would have some similar but lesser requirements...)

So my rating areas need work within those 4 discrete categories.

Help with that would be appreciated.

Great form, and a hell of a lot more than we do. We got no board, hell everyone just about begs someone to join, at that poitn you're in no position to refuse. It's completely bass-ackwards. I'd love to implement somethng like this & already saved a copy to steal when I can find a way to use it.

Far as the standards, I don't think the form necessarily needs to be modified. I think varriable enforcement across a set of varriable standards is appropriate. Obviously the way you rate a 13yo kind on a factor will vary from how you rate an adult. You have to play with the numbers some, and it looks like you've done some of that. I'm going to be interested in things like hw mature & disciplined a kid is, & that spectrum will vary with age. On the other hand, I'm going to look at that for an adult too, but I'm going to be paying more attention to professional experience & a proven track reocrd with them. And at that I'm looking for something different out of a 24yo go-getter that's ambitious but humble & ready to learn, versus a 60yo retired professional that really needs to be humble, realize tehy don't know everything and won't be picking it up fast, and are ready to learn - I know I just wronte the same kind of factors, but they come at them from different angles demonstrating a different dynamic. You need questions & rating categories that cause the board to ask the right questions & consider the right facotrs. I honestly think your form is fins for that now. What I might do is write a one page preamble brief for the board to read before executing the form that reminds them of some of the varriables they should be looking at & some sample questions to ask.

That's all I can think to tell ya, it looks pretty dng good already.

[MIKE]

Ewww...  He used OFFICER on the form.  I'd use SENIOR MEMBER until something comes out that changes the terms officially, and not just for external presentations.

Agree with mikeylikey about including serving military.  Do you also want to do the same for a current CAP member who might be looking to transfer?

Mike, you kill me.  Its called "leaning forward in the saddle." Get with the program, buddy.

I don't like the term... And I was trying to be funny.

[SarDragon]

Looks good.  Change 1.d. from # to number.  Allways spell out words on forms!  Also, you have a section for former military, perhaps you need a section for current military.  Also don't forget to create the 1 page instruction that details what to do for each section that you can put on the reverse of the form. 

Other than those, look good.  I may steal some of your ideas.  Right now we do an informal interview with a yellow pad of legal paper.

# to number - happy for glad change. It all fits in one line like it is.

Former and current military can addressed in the same box, as can former and current CAP members. Change box labels to "IF FORMER/CURRENT  [MILITARY | CAP] ...

As for the overall form, I like it a lot. It closely resembles military performance evaluations, with changes to reflect our different needs.

I definitely agree with using "Senior Member" vice "Officer".

[NIN]

OK, guys, I appreciate the corrections to spelling and such.

However, what I am looking for is this:

In each of the suitability sections, there are three sort of "broad areas" of rating, starting at one and going to ten, with text descriptors for each (to give the rater something to perhaps hang his / her hat on)

for example: Availability (schedule, workload, restrictions).  The first blurb is

"Not available for weekly or monthly meetings, has little available disposable time, not available for weekends, nights or on-call/alert scheduling, additional time restrictions or scheduling constraints that reduce or preclude participation."

This represents "the low end" of the rating scale.  Not everybody meets these criteria like this, but between  this and

"Able to make many but not all unit meetings, has some disposable time, available for some weekends, nights or on-call/alert scheduling, has some time restrictions or scheduling constraints that may impact participation;"

there is some room to rate.

Take a look at each rated area (desire, willingness, capability and availability) (the first three correspond to the 39-2 requirements, if you notice) and see what you think of the guidelines provided.   Do they match the broad subject areas for each area? (ie. "(interest in organization, motivation, commitment to volunteerism, why Civil Air Patrol)")  What might be some better descriptors for each rating area (low, middle, high) for each?

One of my officers suggested that it be "more concrete". 

[NIN]

Let me add to the above:

Using "Availability" as an example, the membership board could ask a potential applicant:

"OK, there, Mr. Smith, lets talk about your availability... What kind of time do you have to devote to Civil Air Patrol?  Do you have any restrictions on your time that may preclude your participation?"

And Mr. Smith may respond: "Well, I work second shift, and I have my kids every weekend but one during the month. Plus, I'm in the Elks Club, the Moose Club, a member of the VFW and I'm a Rotarian... And my girlfriend has dominatrix training on alternate Thursdays afternoons, and I pick her up from there when I get off my 2nd shift job.."

Were I scoring Mr. Smith, he would get a big fat 1 for availability. 

However, if Mr. Smith responded: "I'm semi-retired at 45, teaching school just part time. I'm available pretty much after noon three days a week,  and any time the other two days a week. My kids are grown, so weekends are pretty much no factor for now.  I'm not a member of any other organization, but I do like going to the local pub on Tuesday nights for the Celtic music group that plays there..."

Mr. Smith would probably get an 8 or 9 out of me at that point, with a note for additional follow up on the Celtic music... (Note: I already enjoy Tuesdays at the pub for the Celtic music, so that's a non-factor..)

So look at some of the other areas and tell me whether you think the example text matches the rating schemes, or suggest rewording/additional wording to fit.

For example:

Leadership potential not apparent, lacks professional skills related to CAP missions or functions, character unclear or negative, has negative background, does not meet membership requirements in CAPR 39-2.

(I've already gotten the suggestion to put a go/no-go box for negative background information and remove it from the subjective rating areas. Remember, the board sits with the CAPF12 in front of them, so they see this data anyway. If there is negative information, ie. "I have three felony arrests for parking tickets.." that would probably demand a check in the "not qualified" box... I need to alter the form to incorporate that concept)

So using the above, how do you quantify "leadership potential" in a simple board setting?  Certainly, you can see there is a wide gulf between an ARNG Medical Service Corps Lt Col who has commanded a hospital unit and a 30 year postal clerk, but is that even a factor in membership?  (personally, I think it is, but help us do a better job of quantifying..)

[CAPOfficer]

I know that this will appear as wordsmithing; however, shouldn't block's 1f & 6 reflect the terms recommend/non-recommend?  After all, the board is a recommending instrument to the commander only.  I am also assuming that each member of the board has their own form they are completing during the interview process, which would also indicate that the final totals would be an average of all those on the board and not that of any one member.  Is this correct or have I misinterpreted the purpose of the form?

I wonder about the value of question 3c, "Do qualifications or experience match interests?"  In my experience, those that apply don't do so because of what they do in their jobs day to day, but because they have their own interests in how they can either assist; be it for their own children, community service, or other.  I believe I have seen it mentioned here on a few occasions that most individuals don't like to be slotted into a specialty that mirrors their daily environment.

Overall, good work!  I hope you plan on submitting the final cut to National for consideration as a new form.

[NIN]

I wouldn't suggest that each member complete their own form per applicant.  Lets face it, we want to keep this simple and generating 3-4 sheets of paper MORE per applicant is not keeping anything simple.

Board members might have a copy of the sheet to guide them, but the responsibility for completing the rating and supplying the board recommendation is that of the president/chair of the membership board.

I just adjusted the layout of the bottom of the form, signatures and concurrence, a little to use the space better. 

Also, I need to suggest (in the instructions, perhaps, and in the rating areas under suitability) that the information found Background and Organizational Interest sections factor into the suitability ratings..

Again, folks, some assistance with the verbiage found in the suitability ratings is appreciated...

EDIT: here's the current version attached.

[flight dispatcher]

"Using "Availability" as an example, the membership board could ask a potential applicant:

"OK, there, Mr. Smith, lets talk about your availability... What kind of time do you have to devote to Civil Air Patrol?  Do you have any restrictions on your time that may preclude your participation?"

And Mr. Smith may respond: "Well, I work second shift, and I have my kids every weekend but one during the month. Plus, I'm in the Elks Club, the Moose Club, a member of the VFW and I'm a Rotarian... And my girlfriend has dominatrix training on alternate Thursdays afternoons, and I pick her up from there when I get off my 2nd shift job.."

Were I scoring Mr. Smith, he would get a big fat 1 for availability. "

I'm going to be the non-PC on this one. Dinging a guy for not being able to make all meetings or training sessions is not the way to go. The people your are trying to attract to this organization your going to prevent from joining. People with real aviation backgrounds, especially pilots, work shift work and have their schedules based on seniority. Especially pilots, their schedules change from month to month. Have weekends off, get real. Only non-operational cube farmers work 9 - 5, weekends off  these days.

I'm not a parent, but many of my friends are. Putting the person on the spot to choose time with my kids or CAP, the answer will be screw CAP.

I applaud the efforts, but this form gives me the creepy feel, that if we selected all members based on this, only the people with no life or soccer moms would be in this organization.

I would suggest re-weighing the scales on some of these. Iowa has the right mindset in this part, one weekend a month at most. Be flexable.

[NIN]

I'm going to be the non-PC on this one. Dinging a guy for not being able to make all meetings or training sessions is not the way to go. The people your are trying to attract to this organization your going to prevent from joining. People with real aviation backgrounds, especially pilots, work shift work and have their schedules based on seniority. Especially pilots, their schedules change from month to month. Have weekends off, get real. Only non-operational cube farmers work 9 - 5, weekends off  these days.

Not disagreeing with you, but this is partly why I was asking for input.

Although, how many times have we seen this: "I can't be active, but I want to be a member.."

Face it: The CAP that I'm a part of requires training, participation, activity, etc.  As a commander, I hate getting members who join and then they're like "Saturdays?  Oh, well, I can only get one Saturday off every 9 weeks, and that one is devoted to my kid's soccer games.."  So much for that guy being an orientation pilot.   Or even "Oh, well, I don't have the time to do Level I."  In my experience, these kinds of members very quickly fall to the wayside because they're seldom at a meeting, they seldom make a SAREX or other training event, etc. They become a disembodied voice on the other end of the phone, or worse, let their membership lapse at the end of the first year because "I didn't do anything" when in reality, they were never available TO do anything.  I'd rather know that at the front end than after a year of membership.

Using availability as an example, a "perfect 10" member would be the retired 747 captain with beaucoup disposable income and a trophy wife.   

You are correct: who has that kind of time?  But more to the point: why recruit people who don't have the time?

I'm not a parent, but many of my friends are. Putting the person on the spot to choose time with my kids or CAP, the answer will be screw CAP.

OK, I am a parent, and a commander. I have worked around choosing time with my kids and with my squadron. It works, you can make it work, but if you're in a situation where "I'm the custodial parent of two small kids and my deadbeat ex-wife only gets them once every six months whether she wants them or not.." CAP is probably the last thing you need to be trying to join, and I want to know that BEFORE you waste $50 on membership, etc...

Again, if the person has a time constraint, that's FINE.  Will it knock their score down? Yeah, a little. Is it a show stopper?  No. 

I had a guy call me recently about membership. He's a nurse at a children's hospital. He works 2nd shift, but wants to volunteer his time.  He's going to be seriously bumming when he finds out that  a) Training missions don't always occur on his days off, even if its that's a weekend; b) There are little to no training opportunities that happen between 8am and 2pm M-F because EVERYBODY ELSE in the world is working; and c) he misses all the "action" of CAP because most of the meat & potatoes of the program happens on a weeknight or two, and weekends.   While I applaud this gentleman's desire to serve, I'm skeptical of his ability TO serve. He's trying to "rearrange his schedule" to make it to one of our meetings.  OK, but what about the OTHER meetings, training events, etc.  You can't rearrange your schedule every week.. Based on this information, when he sits in front of the membership board his availability is going to be rated well down the scale, correct?    As it should be.  How worthwhile is a member who is never available when everybody else is?

(Conversely, if he has a special skill, say, he's a CFII, or is a broadcasting engineer, his willingness to serve and his skill set may trump the limits to his availability.  Maybe.  But he could be the greatest CFI ever in the history of CFIs, but if he can't fly due to his schedule, he's worth next to nothing to us.)

I applaud the efforts, but this form gives me the creepy feel, that if we selected all members based on this, only the people with no life or soccer moms would be in this organization.

I would suggest re-weighing the scales on some of these. Iowa has the right mindset in this part, one weekend a month at most. Be flexable.

Hence the reason I'm asking for input on the weighting/verbiage of these suitability areas.   Instead of telling me how "creepy" you feel about a way of  taking an organized, balanced and objective look at the suitability of new members (remember, CAPR 39-1?  Non-discrimination?  If I give 30-year old Susie Soccer Mom more consideration for her schedule than I do 57-year old Corporate Pilot without something to hang my hat on, I may have just opened the organization up to an age-discrimination lawsuit..), why don't you give me some concrete suggestions on how to make the wording more usable and accurate?  Or would you prefer I do what mikeylikey's squadron does and chicken scratch things on a piece of yellow legal paper? 

Having been a party to a lawsuit where a member action was involved, I can tell you that anything you can do that promotes consistency and solidly objective evaluation of a member or potential member against a set of criteria that is deemed suitable to the organization, you're doing a lot to shield yourself and the organization from legal action when someone feels wronged. 

I'll tell you some day about the "sue-happy" young lady who joined my unit several years back and proceeded to continually come to me alleging that various officers "spoke down to me," "patronized me," "touched my arm inappropriately," etc.  Had we (the collective "we") interviewed this candidate more carefully in the first place, we would have NEVER allowed her to join (she conveniently left the arrests line on her CAPF 12 blank instead of writing "NONE" as the instructions suggest... The screening caught her, but while she was going back and forth with NHQ to get it sorted out, she was still "around," and started causing all manner of problems.  Had a membership board asked her "Do you have any arrests" we might have been able to head this problem off before it started. Instead, she was a member for 6-9 mo while this ran its course).

I don't disagree that one weekend a month "is enough," but wouldn't you think that a member who is available all the time is potentially "more suitable" than someone who is not?

(again, I'm not trying to run off commercial pilots with rotating schedules, or people like that, but I am trying to quantify their level of participation vice their skill sets and potential contributions to the unit and the organization.)

[Major Carrales]

I, for example, am a musician (which pays for my CAP activity) This happens Saturday evening...I have to maintain a balance.  As I am sure we all do with various things we do.

[DNall]

I think it's perfectly valid to ask tough questions about family, work, CAP balance. No one on eath is saying you should choose CAP over your kid's birthday or even baseball games. I'd feel fine asking that question in an interview & if the guy said he'd skip out on his kids to do CAP stuff, then I'd have to give some serious thought to how much stock I put in his other answers. Of all things necessary to CAP adult membership, time & financial balance are fairly key. You do want to make sure people know what they're getting into, and you want to make sure they have a firm grasp on priorities & ability to balance them. I'd try not to offend anyone in the verbage, as you said, but I'd follow that line of quesitoning. The guy says "screw CAP" in response, that's good & I'd tell him so & explain about balance before moving on to the next question.

[flight dispatcher]

You are correct: who has that kind of time?  But more to the point: why recruit people who don't have the time?"

My point is, if they have 10 hours in a month total, still use them. If they are willing to pull some of the not so glamorous jobs, use them for the behind the scenes work, items that don't require regular attendance. In due time, their schedule may change and be able to be more productive. To back my previous  statements further:

1. As a 17 year old cadet, we had a Deputy Commander for Cadets, with unlimited time due to he was self employed. After I turned Senior, his membership wasn't renewed. Why, former conviction on child molestation.

2. Also as a 17 year old cadet, had a Army National Guard E-5, that wanted to join, liked working with us (his unit and ours worked together on many community projects). His reason, explained to a few of us cadets, he didn't have the time to put in one evening every week, with working his job and his Guard commitments. I think we could have kept him if we could have found him a spot where he didn't feel that he had to commit himself so much.

3. As a senior member, our squadron had an Aerospace Education Officer that fulfilled his duties, but only made one meeting a month, the night he taught Aerospace Education. He was an astronomer at the planetarium in the metro area.

Anybody with the rank of Major or Lt. Col. knows that it is easy to get sucked up into activities to the point where this organization can become a part-time job. If people feel pressured, directly or indirectly, that may turn them off.

I think if it feasible to write into your questionnaire questions that will not so much ascertain if he can commit time, but quality time to the organization, that would be better.

And on my note regarding aviation professionals, if are trying to recruit qualified pilots, not hangar pilots, flexibility is the key issue.


Respectfully

[NIN]

Thanks everybody for the voluminous assistance