An idea.. WRT those 'members' you can't do anything about...

[a2capt]

Well, you sometimes can't do anything about them .

With all the mandates coming down on compliance, with your higher headquarters assessing fees on subordinate units based on the head count on paper ..

What do you do about those members who never show, but yet keep paying the membership fee each year?

They have good intentions, well, they must. Otherwise I can't imagine forking over ~$80/year. Used to be you just pushed them off to the '000' squadron, or other 'ghost' squadron. Or pushed them to your higher headquarters. Some of you still can.. but some of us can't.

The issue? When you have your higher HQ on your unit about all these folks who have not yet done the OPSEC training, or other such mandate. They're never going to do it. They don't even come, ever.

What if the National records had a 'suspense' flag, members in suspense would be those on extended LOA, those 'meaning well supporters', etc.

Those supporters actually cause more hassle in some cases. Lets say you have a wing full of units and the Wing awards one unit the "Everyone got OPSEC done" award. Well, there's some units that would NEVER stand a chance. Those same ones face always getting bugged about compliance, etc. When there is not a thing we can do, and with the group assessing the unit per head count for "services", we have to pay them for the dead weight.

One thing we have considered on the unit level is if you show up, it's 'free', if you don't, it's $20/year or something. Sounds weird, but there's logic to it. Those who show up are those who contribute. If they don't pay, we still can't transfer 'em, but if they do ... at least it will cover the group assessment. Or it will convince 'em not to pay that membership the next year.

Basically, get 'em off our reports. So we don't have to keep looking at the same ones that don't show and still pay another year. Yes, we have several. We can't be the only ones...

It just gets really challenging..

[SarDragon]

On the OPSEC issue, how about you do what we did in my unit - send emails directly to those members requesting completion, or lacking an email address, send a short letter via USPS. You might be surprised what you get.

[a2capt]

Been there. Done that. ;-)

..and you're right. .. it was no surprise that 4 months later, no OPSEC..

... tis the problem.. and yours and my higher HQ is still charging us for them. ;-)

[SarDragon]

Actually, we got some positive responses. What can I say...

[Pylon]

It's called Patron status.  They stay on your membership roster, and pay their dues, and keep their membership active and maybe come to the annual squadron banquet or something and everyone's happy.  Patrons don't need to complete OPSEC, don't need to be transferred to a 000 squadron, etc.

As an aside, I can't imagine why your higher headquarters charges you an annual assessment based on how many members you have.  I find that pretty ridiculous.  Wing HQ has the ability to properly assess dues via National for all members in the Wing.  Each member joining or renewing in the wing then automatically pays their own "assessment" when doing so.  Nothing to track, no phantom members to track down, etc.   If your Group HQ is charging you $ for members in your squadron, I'd seriously look into the legitimacy of that move.  And besides, what does your Group HQ do for you that they need your members money?

[Tim Medeiros]

Patrons don't need to complete OPSEC, ...

Actually  http://level2.cap.gov/documents/2007_12_03_OPSEC.pdf says

1. At the recent National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting the NEC decided to mandate OPSEC training for ALL members including cadets and patron members.

emphasis mine

[Cecil DP]

Patrons don't need to complete OPSEC, ...

Actually  http://level2.cap.gov/documents/2007_12_03_OPSEC.pdf says

1. At the recent National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting the NEC decided to mandate OPSEC training for ALL members including cadets and patron members.

emphasis mine

The problem is how do they enforce it? The only thing I've seen is the exclusion from ES quals and mission activity. If you're not into ES you're not affected according to the Letter that was sent out. If they want teeth in this interdict promotions and milestone awards.

[Eclipse]

Why can't you just triple-zero them?

[lordmonar]

Well it is simple....if the have no OPSEC...they don't play and they can't renew.

Problem gone.

[SSgt Rudin]

Patrons don't need to complete OPSEC, ...

Actually  http://level2.cap.gov/documents/2007_12_03_OPSEC.pdf says

1. At the recent National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting the NEC decided to mandate OPSEC training for ALL members including cadets and patron members.

emphasis mine

The problem is how do they enforce it? The only thing I've seen is the exclusion from ES quals and mission activity. If you're not into ES you're not affected according to the Letter that was sent out. If they want teeth in this interdict promotions and milestone awards.

The other problem is the log in to OPSEC wont let patron members in, at least when I was one it didn't.

As for what to do with members who don't show up, we send them a letter via USPS that basically sates they have one month to either start coming to meetings or transfer otherwise we will submit a 2b to national stating "voluntary resignation."

[Pylon]

Requiring Patron members to have OPSEC makes zero sense.

Do patron members participate in ES missions, go to briefings, use CAP radios, hold staff positions where they may hear of stuff, or even come to most meetings?  No.   They're quite literally just a patron of your squadron.   Why on God's green earth would they need to take OPSEC?

Additionally, how are squadrons supposed to give training to people who, by definition, don't actively participate, come to meetings or the like?  Ridiculous. 

[a2capt]

Additionally, how are squadrons supposed to give training to people who, by definition, don't actively participate, come to meetings or the like?  Ridiculous. 

Exactly. But they appear on the training record, and on the reports as not progressing by virtue of they have done nothing. Hence, when those above look at the units below and see "wow, they're not pushing OPSEC" (or whatever the current mandate is).. it's not that we're not. ..

Why can't we Triple Zero 'em? Can't, ironically .. probably because someone else doesn't wanna track 'em, probably.  That used to be the way to do it, transfer to group, group pushed theirs to wing. Now they stay.

I can see the ones that fall off when membership lapses, but when you have those who for some reason keep on paying ..

Hmmmm... 

[Gunner C]

WRT?

[MIKE]

With Regard To, IIRC.

[Pylon]

Exactly. But they appear on the training record, and on the reports as not progressing by virtue of they have done nothing. Hence, when those above look at the units below and see "wow, they're not pushing OPSEC" (or whatever the current mandate is).. it's not that we're not. ..

Why can't we Triple Zero 'em? Can't, ironically .. probably because someone else doesn't wanna track 'em, probably.  That used to be the way to do it, transfer to group, group pushed theirs to wing. Now they stay.

I can see the ones that fall off when membership lapses, but when you have those who for some reason keep on paying ..

Hmmmm... 

But that's completely against the entire concept of having a Patron member.  They shouldn't be expected to "progress" in anything, they shouldn't be expected to know the latest of what's the newest ICL or the latest uniform requirement or the next squadron training activity, and the squadron's shouldn't be expected to even really be keeping track of them!  Otherwise, what would be the difference between a Patron member and a SM who doesn't come to meetings?  A few bucks in dues?

Additionally, sending these types of Patron people to a ghost squadron makes little sense either.  If I've got a former member in the local area who still likes to support Civil Air Patrol, make the annual squadron dining-out every year and occasionally stay in touch through a Patron membership - why on earth would I want to reassign him to a non-existent holding squadron administered out of Wing HQ over 300 miles away?

And the SM's who don't come to meetings, but keep paying their dues ought to be able to be moved to Patron status by the unit.  That would be the ideal answer to the original poster's dillema.  That way, if they want to stay in touch, come to your annual awards banquet or attend the Wing Conference, they can - but they're not expected to make meetings, progress in their training, keep up with the latest CAP mandates, etc.  And the unit's administrative requirements for them would drop to near zero.

The Patron membership should be exactly how its defined by our membership regulation.  Adding training requirements and requiring the squadron's to keep track of Patron's (besides making no sense whatsoever) just makes them like the rest of the senior members.  Might as well abandon that class of membership all together if we're going start that.

[brasda91]

Exactly. But they appear on the training record, and on the reports as not progressing by virtue of they have done nothing. Hence, when those above look at the units below and see "wow, they're not pushing OPSEC" (or whatever the current mandate is).. it's not that we're not. ..

Why can't we Triple Zero 'em? Can't, ironically .. probably because someone else doesn't wanna track 'em, probably.  That used to be the way to do it, transfer to group, group pushed theirs to wing. Now they stay.

I can see the ones that fall off when membership lapses, but when you have those who for some reason keep on paying ..

Hmmmm... 

But that's completely against the entire concept of having a Patron member.  They shouldn't be expected to "progress" in anything, they shouldn't be expected to know the latest of what's the newest ICL or the latest uniform requirement or the next squadron training activity, and the squadron's shouldn't be expected to even really be keeping track of them!  Otherwise, what would be the difference between a Patron member and a SM who doesn't come to meetings?  A few bucks in dues?

Additionally, sending these types of Patron people to a ghost squadron makes little sense either.  If I've got a former member in the local area who still likes to support Civil Air Patrol, make the annual squadron dining-out every year and occasionally stay in touch through a Patron membership - why on earth would I want to reassign him to a non-existent holding squadron administered out of Wing HQ over 300 miles away?

And the SM's who don't come to meetings, but keep paying their dues ought to be able to be moved to Patron status by the unit.  That would be the ideal answer to the original poster's dillema.  That way, if they want to stay in touch, come to your annual awards banquet or attend the Wing Conference, they can - but they're not expected to make meetings, progress in their training, keep up with the latest CAP mandates, etc.  And the unit's administrative requirements for them would drop to near zero.

The Patron membership should be exactly how its defined by our membership regulation.  Adding training requirements and requiring the squadron's to keep track of Patron's (besides making no sense whatsoever) just makes them like the rest of the senior members.  Might as well abandon that class of membership all together if we're going start that.

:clap:  I agree.

[CASH172]

WRT?

I'm assuming, "with regard to."

EDIT: Oops, didn't see MIKE's post.