Quote from: miked95 on November 30, 2021, 04:24:02 PMso thoughts on just terminating them vs moving them to 000 or patron? sounds like 000 doesn't exist anymore? I wouldn't mind moving them to patron so they can still pay their membership for nationals. We are just trying to them the off our roster as they don't contribute we don't want to see them expired on all our reports. like example we are trying to maintain an 100% AGH for our squadron but when we have 15 inactive SM it's impossible to reach our squadron goals since when we pull up reports it have them all listed as expired.

000 exists, it was just abused over the years and this is the result.

You're characterizing one of the administrative challenges nicely - NHQ wants bulked up
member numbers, while at the same time it wants compliance with various initiatives
like AGH and Safety.

Probably the most expedient fix is putting them in Patron and moving on, at least that
alleviates the reporting issues.

just saw that patrons show up on reports anyway to make them not show? looking at training reports I wonder why they show up there if they don't train. 

Quote from: miked95 on November 30, 2021, 06:15:39 PMjust saw that patrons show up on reports anyway to make them not show?

No. They will show on your roster numbers as long as they are members,
you may start to see the issue now with the way NHQ reports readiness and member strength.

Quote from: miked95 on November 30, 2021, 06:15:39 PMlooking at training reports I wonder why they show up there if they don't train.

Because not all of the reports and modules have been tuned to filter out patrons
and the which of that doesn't seem to have been coordinated between various departments.

You may find this amusing, but back when Safety Currency was first introduced, there
were instructions that >ALL< members, regardless of status, needed to be Safety Current.

Yes, there was literally an expectation that members in a non-active category should be
contacted to take a monthly online safety class. It took more then a few years to have
patrons not show up in those reports (assuming they don't today).

how about moving them from patron to cadet sponsor membership? i think then they wont show up on the roster at all

Challenge #1 there would be that cadet sponsor members have to be in an in loco parentis relationship with a cadet, e.g. parent/grandparent/guardian, and part of the same unit as said cadet.

Quote from: NovemberWhiskey on November 30, 2021, 07:35:31 PMChallenge #1 there would be that cadet sponsor members have to be in an in loco parentis relationship with a cadet, e.g. parent/grandparent/guardian, and part of the same unit as said cadet.

And as soon as the cadet leaves CAP then the Cadet Sponsor Member has to leave too. Their memberships are linked.

Quote from: NovemberWhiskey on November 30, 2021, 07:35:31 PMChallenge #1 there would be that cadet sponsor members have to be in an in loco parentis relationship with a cadet, e.g. parent/grandparent/guardian, and part of the same unit as said cadet.

Yep - and they show up on the roster like everyone else.

Quote from: Bayareaflyer 44 on November 30, 2021, 06:02:44 PM- Do NOT transfer to a -000 holding unit.  This will keep the member engaged at the unit level should they decide to come back.

I guess I'm just lost on this concept. If the person hasn't engaged in a year, or more in many cases, why hold onto them and assume that they're just one day going to suddenly come back and be completely reengaged?

That person clearly has a history now of walking away, with no notice. That, to me, is a risk where I would have a serious conversation with that person should they contact me and want to randomly return.

QuoteMake one last attempt to contact the member.  Email, phone.  In the email, stipulate a "if we do not hear back from you by DDMMMYY, then we understand that you are presently unable to actively participate, and we will update your membership to Patron status".  Please phrase in a positive and not punitive manner.
o Emphasize the fact that should the member wish to return to an active status, that the unit stands ready to make the change quickly

I would agree with this. Make the "last ditch" attempt. Really, it's probably for the sake of just documenting it to say that you did and heard nothing back.

If they don't respond by that deadline, make the cut.

QuoteThe key is that this is being done cooperatively and collaboratively, and that you are truly value the member and their contributions to the unit (which, we should).

I'm going back to the top of my reply. What contribution?

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on November 30, 2021, 09:01:08 PM

Quote from: Bayareaflyer 44 on November 30, 2021, 06:02:44 PM- Do NOT transfer to a -000 holding unit.  This will keep the member engaged at the unit level should they decide to come back.

I guess I'm just lost on this concept. If the person hasn't engaged in a year, or more in many cases, why hold onto them and assume that they're just one day going to suddenly come back and be completely reengaged?

That person clearly has a history now of walking away, with no notice. That, to me, is a risk where I would have a serious conversation with that person should they contact me and want to randomly return.

Quote from: undefinedMake one last attempt to contact the member.  Email, phone.  In the email, stipulate a "if we do not hear back from you by DDMMMYY, then we understand that you are presently unable to actively participate, and we will update your membership to Patron status".  Please phrase in a positive and not punitive manner.
o Emphasize the fact that should the member wish to return to an active status, that the unit stands ready to make the change quickly

I would agree with this. Make the "last ditch" attempt. Really, it's probably for the sake of just documenting it to say that you did and heard nothing back.

If they don't respond by that deadline, make the cut.

Quote from: undefinedThe key is that this is being done cooperatively and collaboratively, and that you are truly value the member and their contributions to the unit (which, we should).

I'm going back to the top of my reply. What contribution?

Thank you for the questions. 

1.  National has the policy of not to move individuals to a holding unit.  In fact, they simply will not allow the transfer.  So, in light of not having another unit to place these individuals in, it is incumbent for the originating unit to retain them.  They can choose to rejoin, or self-terminate by not re-upping next dues cycle.

2.  The contribution was the original intent to participate.  Remember, your unit membership board in theory fully vet these individuals, and should have only allowed an individual to join if the intent was to fully participate.  Flash forward and time as passed, and they are no longer active.  However, they clearly are still supporting the program because they are paying dues as active members.  At this point, you recognize the fact that they still believe in the aims of the organization enough to keep paying dues, so out of respect of the fact that they could return to their former participation level (which, on several occasions I have witnessed – some do), holding the member at a patron level is appropriate.  This takes care of the not carrying the member on the safety compliance, as well as giving the member an option to stay informed about CAP.

Thanks again.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 30, 2021, 06:11:39 PMYou're characterizing one of the administrative challenges nicely - NHQ wants bulked up
member numbers, while at the same time it wants compliance with various initiatives
like AGH and Safety.

Please cite your source.

Because in 5 years as the recruiting and retention manager,  nobody ever said "Ninness,  we need to bulk up our numbers. Get on that."

So this mythical idea that "NHQ" wants "[something]" (you decide the something), absent a policy letter,  doctrinal publication,  secret email trail,  whatever,  is not really a thing.

So only Commanders and Personnel officers can move members to patron? and we need to fill out 002a or can we just transfer on eservices some how.

I personally like to make sure that I am following the regulation, so for initiating the transfer process please reference the CAPR 39-2
Page 6
1.11.4. Transfer Procedures:

1.11.4.1. When a member transfers to another unit, the gaining unit will normally initiate
the transfer through the online transfer application. Once the gaining commander has approved
the transfer action the member's record will immediately be updated to reflect the new unit of
assignment. A notification of the transfer action will then appear in the losing unit commander's
online Commanders Corner. If there is any reason why the transfer is not acceptable to the losing
unit, the commander may simply deny the transfer. Losing commanders must deny the transfer
action within two months of the notification. Commanders not wishing to use the online
application may submit a CAPF 2A, Request for and Approval of Personnel Actions (Section IV,
Transfer). The personnel officer initiates the personnel action which is approved by the unit
commander and forwards the form to CAP/DP. If there is any reason why the transfer is not
acceptable to the losing unit, the losing unit commander must notify CAP/DP within two months.
The transfer will then be declared void and the member returned to the losing unit until the
problem can be resolved.

Quote from: NIN on November 30, 2021, 11:46:31 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on November 30, 2021, 06:11:39 PMYou're characterizing one of the administrative challenges nicely - NHQ wants bulked up
member numbers, while at the same time it wants compliance with various initiatives
like AGH and Safety.

Please cite your source.

Because in 5 years as the recruiting and retention manager,  nobody ever said "Ninness,  we need to bulk up our numbers. Get on that."

So this mythical idea that "NHQ" wants "[something]" (you decide the something), absent a policy letter,  doctrinal publication,  secret email trail,  whatever,  is not really a thing.

You and I both know that's not the case, and we both know that a certain HEADCAP was on the
burner about not increasing the membership as he'd committed to, the result of which was
in-person directives not to do any culling or normalization.

This was a directive given to me by an eagle, presented as being given to him by an eagle.

The other piece is "Have you ever heard anyone at NHQ direct CC's to cull the ranks and normalize
members?" Because that's what any similar operational organization would do in regards to
reporting member strength and readiness, or is CAP always excited to print the highest number possibly
which include Patrons, AE's, CSM, and other NPCs, not to mention having zero interest in terminating,
or even identifying empty shirts?

NHQ literally has no idea how many active members it actually has.

Quote from: miked95 on December 01, 2021, 12:01:04 AMSo only Commanders and Personnel officers can move members to patron?

Correct, ultimately I believe it has to have a CC sign on it.

Quote from: miked95 on December 01, 2021, 12:01:04 AMand we need to fill out 002a or can we just transfer on eservices some how.

2A required for status change to Patron, transfer to another unit can be done by
the gaining Commander in eServices. If you're pushing 15 people to 000, best bet is discuss
with Wing and have them click the box.

And because this erroneously keeps coming up, again, please refer to the latest CAPR 39-2.  In the summary of changes, it specifies:
"It also deletes the requirement for a cadet sponsor nametag, the ability to join as a patron at the National level, and
prohibits transfers into the National Patron Squadron (NHQ 996)."

So, to reiterate, National does not want individuals transferred to a holding unit, nor will the request be honored.

Yes, you can change membership status via eServices.  Both the CC and DP can facilitate.

Quote from: Bayareaflyer 44 on November 30, 2021, 09:58:11 PM2.  The contribution was the original intent to participate.  Remember, your unit membership board in theory fully vet these individuals, and should have only allowed an individual to join if the intent was to fully participate.  Flash forward and time as passed, and they are no longer active.  However, they clearly are still supporting the program because they are paying dues as active members.  At this point, you recognize the fact that they still believe in the aims of the organization enough to keep paying dues, so out of respect of the fact that they could return to their former participation level (which, on several occasions I have witnessed – some do), holding the member at a patron level is appropriate.  This takes care of the not carrying the member on the safety compliance, as well as giving the member an option to stay informed about CAP.

Let's be clear here that membership renewal is an automatic process in which nobody in the unit is actually aware that Member A renewed their membership. Even if a person falls off the roster, and renews late, they reappear on the roster with nobody being the wiser.

I think we're on the same page here as far as this being a mandatory process, regardless of which route you go: whether moving them to Patron status or removing them altogether.

My personal preference is to let them expire and hope they don't auto-renew, or, if they're not making contact for an extensive period of time, I'm going to file 2Bs.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 30, 2021, 03:06:18 PMleaving the 000 units for their original purpose of a legitimate holding unit for members
between units due to charter retirements, disciplinary action, etc.

Citation please....

Quote from: Dwight Dutton on November 30, 2021, 03:09:32 PMWay back, decades ago now, the commander of California group 19 cleaned up his roster this way.  And eliminated group 19, as there were no longer enough members in it to justify its existence.

This was back when CAWG was so large there was another level of command between groups and wing called "Sectors", a name and concept probably copied from the USCGAUX which still has these. 

Incorrect. The Coast Guard Auxiliary does not have Sectors in their administrative structure.  Sectors are a Coast Guard structure though Coast Guard Auxiliary units are sort of aligned with Sectors in some regards. 

Additionally, Sectors are very new to the Coast Guard and were only created in the early 2000s.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 02, 2021, 11:12:22 PMAdditionally, Sectors are very new to the Coast Guard and were only created in the early 2000s.

The early 2000's were literally decades ago - as to the purpose of 000,it is ill-defined in the regs,
(however the single line in 20-3 supports my position), inconsistently implemented, and what they are used for varies with regime change.

Quote from: RiverAux on December 02, 2021, 11:12:22 PMIncorrect. The Coast Guard Auxiliary does not have Sectors in their administrative structure.  Sectors are a Coast Guard structure though Coast Guard Auxiliary units are sort of aligned with Sectors in some regards. 

Additionally, Sectors are very new to the Coast Guard and were only created in the early 2000s.

Well, I am in sector LA/LB so I sort of think it exists.

Yes, Sectors exist, but as part of the Coast Guard, not the Coast Guard Auxiliary.  There is absolutely no administrative linkage between the Auxiliary and Sectors even though a given Auxiliary unit may be within the boundary of a Coast Guard Sector.  Yes, Sectors can have some operational control over Auxiliary units while on patrol, but that doesn't make them part of the Sector.