Main Menu

CSAG Agenda

Started by arajca, May 04, 2014, 03:31:29 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Brit_in_CAP

Quote from: arajca on May 05, 2014, 06:43:46 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 05, 2014, 06:31:42 PM
Interesting note...there are 3000 SMs in 000. That's 10% of our SMs who are effectively not there. What I'm really baffled by are the almost 1000 cadets...You are either a cadet or your not. Why is that even an option?
Because there are many not-yet-former cadets who joined and decided CAP was not right for them or had conflicts with school/sports/life after joining and are not going to formally quit and are not worth the 2B process headaches, but are not going to do anything CAP related. They get transferred to the 000 units to remove them non-safety compliance problem from the units until their membership lapses.

Check on all points.  Nice and easy.  Save the 2B for the problem cases where you need something on the record.  At that time I use it without regret.... >:D

GroundHawg

Quote from: Panache on May 06, 2014, 05:01:52 AM
Quote from: a2capt on May 06, 2014, 04:51:24 AM
The moment you realize that it's CAP grade and nothing else, the confusion is over. Deal with the violators, not the whole system.

Sure, we can tell the CAP membership to "deal with it", but what about everybody else we interact with?

When they see a certain grade insignia, they have certain expectations from that person.  That's a fact.

And while we're not the only organization outside the armed forces which uses a similar system, I can't think of any which allows you to keep the grade title when you're not actually doing a job or function which would be normal for that grade title.

Scenario:  Podunk Composite Squadron invites a Army LTC who's the uncle of the cadets to come in and give a lecture or presentation.  He arrives and the Squadron's CC, 1st Lt. Goodguy, greets him.

Eventually, the good LTC notices the CAP Lt. Col. in the background, making the coffee and handing out slices of cake.  "Oh, is that the.... what do you guys call it, the Wing Commander?" the LTC asks.  No, that's Lt. Colonel Silverhair.  He's a member of our squadron.  "What does he do?" asks the LTC.  Oh, nothing much, just helps out here and there...

...what sort of impression do you think that leaves?

This happens in the active, reserve and guard of the military all the time. The ADA officer (a LTC whom we called colonel cake) of the aviation group I was in, in the National Guard had exactly ZERO function. We did not have any ADA equipment or weaponry of any sort, and only one other ADA slot (E5). He came in on drill weekends and signed in, went to his little cubby hole, and stayed in there for the entire weekend. The only thing we ever saw him do (and he joked with us about this btw) was pass out cake at retirement ceremonies. He wanted to retire, but he was making like $1500 a month to do literally nothing.  He hated when we had to do range quals as he then actually had to salute people and "play Army". He never went with us annually to Foal Eagle either come to think of it.

Fubar

Quote from: Brit_in_CAP on May 06, 2014, 01:48:08 PM
Quote from: arajca on May 05, 2014, 06:43:46 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 05, 2014, 06:31:42 PM
Interesting note...there are 3000 SMs in 000. That's 10% of our SMs who are effectively not there. What I'm really baffled by are the almost 1000 cadets...You are either a cadet or your not. Why is that even an option?
Because there are many not-yet-former cadets who joined and decided CAP was not right for them or had conflicts with school/sports/life after joining and are not going to formally quit and are not worth the 2B process headaches, but are not going to do anything CAP related. They get transferred to the 000 units to remove them non-safety compliance problem from the units until their membership lapses.

Check on all points.  Nice and easy.  Save the 2B for the problem cases where you need something on the record.  At that time I use it without regret.... >:D

Why are you so afraid of CAPF 2B? It's not punitive, it simply says person X will no longer be a member. There's no reason to wait until a membership lapse nor move them to some phantom squadron that pads our numbers and provides zero return.

SarDragon

A 2b is considered an adverse administrative action, and is subject to appeal. If someone wants to make trouble, they can do this, and waste a lot of time and energy.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

Fubar

Quote from: SarDragon on May 07, 2014, 04:33:17 AM
A 2b is considered an adverse administrative action, and is subject to appeal. If someone wants to make trouble, they can do this, and waste a lot of time and energy.

CAPR 35-3 6a reads to me that if you are separating someone from the organizations for reasons other than "cause" (read: misbehavior), then it's a simple matter of sending off copies to the appropriate places.

CAPR 35-3 6b says "Cadets being terminated for misconduct and senior members being terminated for cause are entitled to the appeal procedures set out in section D hereafter."

A quick email/voicemail to the member you haven't seen in two months (hopefully you've been trying to reach them for awhile) that says, "Hey, are you coming back? If we don't hear from you in a week, we'll go ahead and file the paperwork to remove you from the roster. If you want to come back at a later date, feel free to stop by and we'll look at your options at returning to the organization. Have a nice day." Nothing heard a week later? File the non-punative 2b as described in CAPF 35-3 6a. The fact that 6a talks about sending a copy to "the last known address" reinforces that we will occasionally need this procedure for folks we can't get ahold of anymore.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not out to kick people out at the drop of a hat, but we do have non-adverse options to remove people from the roster who don't want to be there anymore anyway.

lordmonar

The point should be.....why are we under pressure to move or kick out people who's only "crime" is not showing up?

The whole push to get 100% safety compliant is a waste of time.

Yes.....everyone needs to be safety compliant to play......but if you only play once a quarter...you only need to be safety complaint once a quarter.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

a2capt

Quote from: lordmonar on May 07, 2014, 07:20:42 AMThe whole push to get 100% safety compliant is a waste of time.
When you've got your wing commander sending out harping emails bordering on "this is not acceptable" and encouraging groups to "compete" for who has the most.. that sure seems like time wasted that could be put to better use actually directing/managing the organization.

If the goal is to have compliance for participants, then audit activities for compliance.

The whole thing really is an administrative hack anyway. A reactionary knee-jerking hack.

JeffDG

You know what should happen?

The Wing Recruiting and Retention Officer should become the Commander of the -000 unit...and work on retention of members who have drifted away from active service and encourage them to get back to being active!

MacGruff

We had a guy show up at last night's meeting for the first time in six months. After letting him know that we were glad to see him, I asked him why he did not show up for the past few months? his answer was that his job duties had him travelling every Tuesday for the past six months so he could not attend the meetings. He was unhappy that he was unable to attend the meeting and contribute to the squadron and expressed that unhappiness.

I want him to progress in the program and contribute and it turns out that he is in the IT business. So, as of yesterday, we have a new IT officer who can manage our network and server remotely and he is happy he can start contributing again.

;D

Eclipse

Quote from: JeffDG on May 07, 2014, 02:24:33 PM
You know what should happen?

The Wing Recruiting and Retention Officer should become the Commander of the -000 unit...and work on retention of members who have drifted away from active service and encourage them to get back to being active!

That is an outstanding idea.

"That Others May Zoom"

Eclipse

#90
Quote from: lordmonar on May 07, 2014, 07:20:42 AM
The point should be.....why are we under pressure to move or kick out people who's only "crime" is not showing up?

The whole push to get 100% safety compliant is a waste of time.

Yes.....everyone needs to be safety compliant to play......but if you only play once a quarter...you only need to be safety complaint once a quarter.

The safety compliance thing is nonsense - "Safety Theater", it results in zero "safer" however it must fulfill some actuarie's needs.

The reason it is important to properly categorize, or terminate the empty shirts, is that CAP does not
properly report manpower in its collateral, but worse, those empty shirts give a lot of Commanders, including
wing CCs false security.

We'd all be a lot better off if we started using actual data to frame the actual problems instead of
dancing around the numbers and ignoring the attrition and shrinkage.

I was discussing this very issue the other day with leaders who should already be aware - they were shocked
at how bad it has gotten, the problem being when all you do is pay attention to raw member numbers, with no
filters, it's easy to ignore the realities - then you start counting units, filter empty shirts, and realize your
biggest units in some wings are 000 and it's a different story.

"That Others May Zoom"

CAP_truth

We should just change patron members to inactive.
Cadet CoP
Wilson