Active vs Inactive Members

[DNall]

I'd say if a member isn't going to meetings, activities, etc. they should be transferred to Patron status within 60 days of their last activity with CAP.

This sounds harsh, but the bottom line is that the inactive members who aren't doing anything in CAP (especially in Operations) is becoming a liability in the program.

Why do I say this? Take a look at the Table of Allowances for Communications and Supply. Take a look at the funding for mission training we get from the USAF. It's based on ACTIVE people working for the benefit of CAP and the USAF.

If they're not doing anything, cut them loose and recruit those who will. This includes the "Walter Mitty" types who just want to wear a uniform and play officer once in awhile.

That's fine, can we go to 90 day quarters though, just keeps it neat & some latitude in case you have something going on. Also, I'd go w/ transfer to reserve Sq, at renewal you're at patron status unless you go get active at a unit again.

[BillB]

And how does the USAF know who is active or inactivein CAP that affects the Table of allowances? There is no report to National of who's inactive. So what difference does it make? Besides a Patron member can NOT take part in many activities where the inactive member may show up for such as missions. The only figures USAF sees are the total number of members at National or in Wings. There is no breakdown as to active/inactive.

[SarDragon]

One more (and for the last) time, it's all about the $$$! Someone in The Right Stuff said, "No bucks, no Buck Rogers". If they want to pay w/o playing, or only play once in a while, I'm not going to complain. If given the opportunity, I will thank them for their contribution and get back to business.

[/rant]

[Dragoon]

And how does the USAF know who is active or inactivein CAP that affects the Table of allowances? There is no report to National of who's inactive. So what difference does it make? Besides a Patron member can NOT take part in many activities where the inactive member may show up for such as missions. The only figures USAF sees are the total number of members at National or in Wings. There is no breakdown as to active/inactive.

That's the problem, and probably why NHQ hasn't solved it.  A HUGE number of our members are inactive, and if folks knew how many that was, we might lose funding and clout.

But nevertheless, it's the truth, and for that reason alone is worth pursuing.

[afgeo4]

Every Group or Wing (if no groups in Wing) should have a chartered administrative squadron where inactive members can be tranferred. That move will keep the funding coming to Regions, Wings, and Groups and will give the unit commanders a more accurate picture of their membership and capabilities.

This topic is very important to my work as a recruiting and retention officer because if I look at the MML I may see that a certain squadron isn't having difficulty in membership because they have 40 cadets and 60 senior members, but in reality, this unit may have just 20 cadets and 4 senior members who are active and needs more of my attention than say a unit where 17 cadets and 10 senior members are all active, but shows less members on paper  . This would also allow units to receive awards for recruiting and retention based on real statistics. Will allow the aircraft and vehicles to be better positioned for their use (even if someone will lose it, it's a service issue, not a unit issue) and will allow money to flow where it truly needs to, not where it looks like it needs to.

I know to many unit commanders having to transfer inactives out will feel like a slap in the face, but come on... they're just ignoring the truth. The best way to fix a problem is to first face it. If we don't trim our fat, we won't become lean.

[cyclone]

The reserve squadron should not be a "ghost" squadron.  It should have an active commander who communicates with the reserve members and keeps them abreast of what is going on in the Wing.   

That way it is not sending the inactive folks off into limbo where they forget about CAP and may never return. 

Then going to the Reserve Squadron will not be as ominous to the member.

[Dragoon]

Meaning you have to find a volunteer willing to "command" a squadron of folks he never sees.  I think you may have problems finding a quality candidate.

I think the wing holding squadron isn't a bad place for inactives, but without criteria on what is "inactive" this becomes a potential area for abuse.  You could transfer anyone you don't like there, just to get rid of them.  Without their permission.  This could lead to lots of IG complaints.

Plus, currently there are no restrictions on holding squadron folks showing up and participating at things.  Even though they don't attend any meetings or in any way contribute to a squadron.

These details need to be worked.

[BillB]

I'm still trying to figure out, what is the problem with having inactive members in a Squadron. USAF or CAP-NHQ doesn't know they are inactive. In fact they pad the MML which in turn leads to more equipment being issued to a Squadron. Why all this talk about moving them out of a unit when there is no reason to do so?

[RiverAux]

Is there anything in CAP regulations right now about how these ghost squadrons are to be used?  Are we sure there isn't some little clause hidden somewhere right now that requires that inactives be transferred to one? 

[afgeo4]

NYW has a "ghost" squadron.  It works just fine when they use it.  BTW... no IG complaints can happen since your current squadron commander cannot initiate a transfer.  The transfer is initiated by the gaining unit and the losing unit has the right to reject or let it happen, but they cannot initiate the action. Thus a request to Wing HQ would be submitted with a brief outline of why this person is deemed "inactive".  The Wing HQ personnel director would make the call at that point in time on whether to initiate transfer or not.

[lordmonar]

As I mentioned in another thread...

Why do we care about inactive members being on our books?

If we had a requirement to report our readiness levels to some higher headquarters....and if our readiness requirements were somehow tied to squadron strength (such as 50% of squadron must be GTM or MSA qualified) then it is in your interest to identify to HQ who is active and inactive.

But otherwise....it is just another administrative burden you are placing on your squadron commanders and we already have too many of these useless reports.

If someone joins and then goes inactive....after a year or so...his dues go overdue and then he is dropped from your rolls.  Simple no changing status or transferring to ghost squadrons...and no need to reverse this process if they member suddenly shows up out of the blue from a long business trip to the dessert or an unreported illness (or in the case of a cadet...he gets ungrounded for getting his grades up).

If you have someone who has not shown up in a while....give him a call.  Ask him what's up.  Find out if he has quit or if it something else.  This is where you find out that member x had a falling out with another member and just does not want to go to meetings anymore.  Or that he is disgruntled because he wants to do observer training and you have not offered it in the last six months.  Here is where you find out that the guy has been to 3 months of meetings and still does not have a job.

All this transferring and status change....just sounds like squadron commanders just don't care about their personnel.

If a guy just does not want to come anymore...and tells you so....then you tell him you are going to 2b him.  That gets him off the books completely.

[Dragoon]

Sadly, you cannot 2B a senior member for non-attendance.  The regs do not allow it.  They only allow it for cadets.

There are a bunch of reasons to somehow identify inactive members

1.  It allows us to make better decisions about distributing radios, vehicles, etc.  If you worked at Wing, this could be a big help.

2.  It might allow certain "bennies" - we can't afford to buy every member a new uniform (or issue them, say, the sleeve American flag insignia), bu we MIGHT be able to issue them to "active" members.  Ditto photo ID cards or other stuch things)

3.  It allows us to levy requirements on active members (like, for example taking the OPSEC class) and actually know when we have everyone that matters.   Right now, if only 50% of CAP has taken the OPSEC class, what does that mean?   If we knew that the 50% that haven't taken it were the "inactive" memebers, we could declare victory and move on.

4.  It's a morale thing.  By making it formal, being an "active member" would be a much bigger deal than those just paying dues and doing nothing.


And here's the big one.

5.  It makes it clear that participation ain't optional.  No, you can't just come when you want to.  You're either in, or you're out.  Setting and enforcing minimum standards of work will, I believe, increase the amount of work that gets done.

[cyclone]

I agree with Dragoon.   For distribution it does help in the management.   By leaning out the numbers it can bring some more "bennies" to light because of our size.   It makes the unit CC job a little easier when it comes to monitoring CPPT, Level 1, OPSEC, etc.  That way you can be closer to 100% and move on.  If someone intends to be inactive then it helps clarify that and you don't waste time trying to make them active.

The morale thing is huge too.  In Iowa we have had several people go into the Reserve Squadron for a while (baby on the way, job change, etc).  That way they don't feel the burden of a staff job, they don't worry that the unit is not happy that they are not at meetings, and they can gracefully return when life settles down.

I also do not see it as much of a burden for an active unit cc.  An e-mail to a Wing DP and saying:  "Please transfer the following because they are inactive..." doesn't take but a few keystrokes.

[lordmonar]

I also do not see it as much of a burden for an active unit cc.  An e-mail to a Wing DP and saying:  "Please transfer the following because they are inactive..." doesn't take but a few keystrokes.

The request for transfer is not hard...but the accountability...taking and recording attandance and checking records every month to see who has "passed the line" is what takes up admin time.  Yes it is not very hard and only takes a few minutes....but is that not one of our problems.  HQ is asking us to do a few million things that take "just a few minutes" of our time...next thing you know you are spending a couple of hours a week doing admin work.

[lordmonar]

1.  It allows us to make better decisions about distributing radios, vehicles, etc.  If you worked at Wing, this could be a big help.

A big help for who?  Wing or the squadron?  Are wings actaully issuing radios based on squadron size?  If they are....you get into a situation of divided loayaties.  If I don't report my inactive people I get more resources.....to me that would be good thing from a squadron point of view.

2.  It might allow certain "bennies" - we can't afford to buy every member a new uniform (or issue them, say, the sleeve American flag insignia), bu we MIGHT be able to issue them to "active" members.  Ditto photo ID cards or other stuch things)

That's a pretty big MIGHT in that argument.

3.  It allows us to levy requirements on active members (like, for example taking the OPSEC class) and actually know when we have everyone that matters.   Right now, if only 50% of CAP has taken the OPSEC class, what does that mean?   If we knew that the 50% that haven't taken it were the "inactive" memebers, we could declare victory and move on.

This is the only argument I think carries any weight.  However....as it stands now, requirments are not levied against squadorns.  That is, squadron x with 100 members on the books is not tasked to provide x number of air crew or y number of ground team or anything like that. 

4.  It's a morale thing.  By making it formal, being an "active member" would be a much bigger deal than those just paying dues and doing nothing.

Morale for who?  The guy not showing up but once a quarter or the guy showing up every week?  That is the point I am trying to make.  The inactive guy does not show up.  He already does not care about the program or he would make the effort to attend.  Making him "inactive" does nothing to him as punishment and there is no incentive for him to become active.

5.  It makes it clear that participation ain't optional.  No, you can't just come when you want to.  You're either in, or you're out.  Setting and enforcing minimum standards of work will, I believe, increase the amount of work that gets done.

To a point I agree with this....but where do you draw the line?  Is it the same for every job?   I mean if my job is GTM...do I have to show up for every meeting or is just the once a quarter GTM training enought and a SAREX or two?  Does the MLO have to show up for every cadet meeting or just the ML classes?  But if you Admin Officer does not show up for two meetings in a row you notice it right away!

I whole heartedly support minimumn job standards but each job has a different standard and there is no requirment to actaully take on a job.

That is my rant.  Right now....until we get a real requirement to report readiness levels and a real need to have everyone gainfully employed.  I think any active vs inactive activities will just be a waste of time.

[afgeo4]

1.  It allows us to make better decisions about distributing radios, vehicles, etc.  If you worked at Wing, this could be a big help.

A big help for who?  Wing or the squadron?  Are wings actaully issuing radios based on squadron size?  If they are....you get into a situation of divided loayaties.  If I don't report my inactive people I get more resources.....to me that would be good thing from a squadron point of view.

2.  It might allow certain "bennies" - we can't afford to buy every member a new uniform (or issue them, say, the sleeve American flag insignia), bu we MIGHT be able to issue them to "active" members.  Ditto photo ID cards or other stuch things)

That's a pretty big MIGHT in that argument.

3.  It allows us to levy requirements on active members (like, for example taking the OPSEC class) and actually know when we have everyone that matters.   Right now, if only 50% of CAP has taken the OPSEC class, what does that mean?   If we knew that the 50% that haven't taken it were the "inactive" memebers, we could declare victory and move on.

This is the only argument I think carries any weight.  However....as it stands now, requirments are not levied against squadorns.  That is, squadron x with 100 members on the books is not tasked to provide x number of air crew or y number of ground team or anything like that. 

4.  It's a morale thing.  By making it formal, being an "active member" would be a much bigger deal than those just paying dues and doing nothing.

Morale for who?  The guy not showing up but once a quarter or the guy showing up every week?  That is the point I am trying to make.  The inactive guy does not show up.  He already does not care about the program or he would make the effort to attend.  Making him "inactive" does nothing to him as punishment and there is no incentive for him to become active.

5.  It makes it clear that participation ain't optional.  No, you can't just come when you want to.  You're either in, or you're out.  Setting and enforcing minimum standards of work will, I believe, increase the amount of work that gets done.

To a point I agree with this....but where do you draw the line?  Is it the same for every job?   I mean if my job is GTM...do I have to show up for every meeting or is just the once a quarter GTM training enought and a SAREX or two?  Does the MLO have to show up for every cadet meeting or just the ML classes?  But if you Admin Officer does not show up for two meetings in a row you notice it right away!

I whole heartedly support minimumn job standards but each job has a different standard and there is no requirment to actaully take on a job.

That is my rant.  Right now....until we get a real requirement to report readiness levels and a real need to have everyone gainfully employed.  I think any active vs inactive activities will just be a waste of time.

Patrick, belive it or not, our job in CAP isn't to make squadrons' lives better and easier. It's to perform missions for America. If squadron staff are too lazy to perform their daily routines to assure better performance of those missions then as a retention officer I would recommend them that they find another organization to volunteer for. We have enough dead weight here already. If you want to make their lives easier, find how to simplify the process of submitting these names to Wing DP, not eliminate the procedure. How about having the squadron personnel officer do the job and not the unit CC. I mean it is their job. Don't have one showing up to meetings? Well, empty out the slot and advertise the position. THAT will help the squadron, not ignoring problems.

A lot of equipment IS issued based on unit size actually. Larger units tend to have more ES qualified personnel and pilots. They require equipment to perform taskings. Equipment like radios, DF, aircraft, vehicles, etc. If you know who's where, why, and how, you as a Wing DL can make better decisions on where the equipment is really needed.

The morale he's talking about is the morale of members who ARE active. Who show up every day and get discouraged by the way things work and by the fact that they have to put in work for those that don't show up. People like that feel better knowing that those who don't put in the work, get dropped. That they, by default are aknowledged to be doing the work they've been asked to do and they do it to a satisfactory level. That way, when they receive an award or a letter of commendation, they'll know it's because they've done an above average job, not just shown up. NOTHING raises morale of CAP members than proper, fair, and justified recognition of work well done.

We do need to set standards for each position, but I believe that's the job of the unit CC, not NHQ. After all, it's the unit CC who will evaluate your performance and fire you if you don't perform to standard. These administrative units are being offered as a tool to unit leaders so they can get a handle on their actual activities, participation, and readiness. Also so the higher headquarters stop questioning and start trusting the data they get from the squadrons. Right now it's not happening and if I were a group commander and was going to allocate resources, but knew that my squadrons have no idea of their current state and thus cannot report it to me, I'd keep the resources with me, not allocate them, for risk of them "misplacing" those resources like they misplaced the rest of the data.
Which is I think what happens in CAP now. The money doesn't go below Wing. Most groups have no resources being allocated outside of vehicles because they aren't trusted.

There's a word in the military that rings louder than any church bell... ACCOUNTABILITY. It is key to efficient, fair, and successful operations. We have none. Let's get some.

[lordmonar]

Patrick, belive it or not, our job in CAP isn't to make squadrons' lives better and easier. It's to perform missions for America. If squadron staff are too lazy to perform their daily routines to assure better performance of those missions then as a retention officer I would recommend them that they find another organization to volunteer for. We have enough dead weight here already. If you want to make their lives easier, find how to simplify the process of submitting these names to Wing DP, not eliminate the procedure. How about having the squadron personnel officer do the job and not the unit CC. I mean it is their job. Don't have one showing up to meetings? Well, empty out the slot and advertise the position. THAT will help the squadron, not ignoring problems.

My point is....who cares about "dead weight" members?  I don't have to do paper work on a guy who is not training, not promoting, not participating.  I don't have to do anything about the guys who are "too lazy to perform their daily rountines".  But you want to institute a system where I as a squadron commander or admin officer tracks member attendance and then at some point do some paperwork to move them to "inactive status".  Instead I ignore them...they ignore me...and I don't have to do anything.

Is this ignoring a problm?  No because I don't see a problem.  Now if a guy holds a staff position...I just get someone else to do it.  Again...no problem.  If he shows up 6 months later asking to get promoted because he has done his staff time...I will point out he has not and move on.

A lot of equipment IS issued based on unit size actually. Larger units tend to have more ES qualified personnel and pilots. They require equipment to perform taskings. Equipment like radios, DF, aircraft, vehicles, etc. If you know who's where, why, and how, you as a Wing DL can make better decisions on where the equipment is really needed.

Then it is NOT in my intrest to tell wing how many of my people are just ghosts.  If I tell them that half my people are not here I may not get all the radios I need.  Do you see what I am saying?  Equipment should be issued based on mission taskings not squadron size.  Of course larger squadrons can be tasked with more missions...but you do that by having the units report the number of teams they can field...and then you hold them to that tasking.   If sqadron X's commander shows 100 people on his books and accepts a tasking for 4 Ground Teams....and gets the equipment.....at the next SAREX he had better have 4 Ground Teams in tow or you pull his equipment.  But if you issue gear just because of squadron size and do not lay an equal mission tasking you are really wasting resources.

The morale he's talking about is the morale of members who ARE active. Who show up every day and get discouraged by the way things work and by the fact that they have to put in work for those that don't show up. People like that feel better knowing that those who don't put in the work, get dropped. That they, by default are aknowledged to be doing the work they've been asked to do and they do it to a satisfactory level. That way, when they receive an award or a letter of commendation, they'll know it's because they've done an above average job, not just shown up. NOTHING raises morale of CAP members than proper, fair, and justified recognition of work well done.

Read that again.  I'm a bling guy and I am always taken to task about how a little ribbon will raise morale and we should all grow up and just be happy with a job well done.  Now you want squadron commanders to make their people feel good by dropping they guys who don't show up off the rolls.  How many people actually even look at the CAPWATCH down loads.  Do you sit around your meetings going "He, he, they finally dropped that guy who showed up for 2 meetins!  I feel so good about myself!"

What you really mean....is that some squadrons give rewards to guys who only show up once and a while.  They give to same rewards to those who are there all the time.  That is a leadership issue with that unit...not a systemic problem of units carrying inactive people on their member rosters.

We do need to set standards for each position, but I believe that's the job of the unit CC, not NHQ. After all, it's the unit CC who will evaluate your performance and fire you if you don't perform to standard. These administrative units are being offered as a tool to unit leaders so they can get a handle on their actual activities, participation, and readiness. Also so the higher headquarters stop questioning and start trusting the data they get from the squadrons. Right now it's not happening and if I were a group commander and was going to allocate resources, but knew that my squadrons have no idea of their current state and thus cannot report it to me, I'd keep the resources with me, not allocate them, for risk of them "misplacing" those resources like they misplaced the rest of the data.

Sure...if wing and group had a valid reason for accurate readiness reports I would have no problem with that.  But as individual units are not levied specific mission requirments there is currently no need to do readiness reports.

There's a word in the military that rings louder than any church bell... ACCOUNTABILITY. It is key to efficient, fair, and successful operations. We have none. Let's get some.

Accountablity for what though?  I don't get anything extra for carrying these inactive people on my roster.  None of their dues come to me.  Wing does though.  If I am being issued equipment based solely on my unit strength, but I am not being levied mission taskings based on those same numbers...then wing is being stupid.

Give a squadron commander a reason to be acountable before you yell at him about it being an accountablity issue.

[afgeo4]

Patrick, belive it or not, our job in CAP isn't to make squadrons' lives better and easier. It's to perform missions for America. If squadron staff are too lazy to perform their daily routines to assure better performance of those missions then as a retention officer I would recommend them that they find another organization to volunteer for. We have enough dead weight here already. If you want to make their lives easier, find how to simplify the process of submitting these names to Wing DP, not eliminate the procedure. How about having the squadron personnel officer do the job and not the unit CC. I mean it is their job. Don't have one showing up to meetings? Well, empty out the slot and advertise the position. THAT will help the squadron, not ignoring problems.

My point is....who cares about "dead weight" members?  I don't have to do paper work on a guy who is not training, not promoting, not participating.  I don't have to do anything about the guys who are "too lazy to perform their daily rountines".  But you want to institute a system where I as a squadron commander or admin officer tracks member attendance and then at some point do some paperwork to move them to "inactive status".  Instead I ignore them...they ignore me...and I don't have to do anything.

Is this ignoring a problm?  No because I don't see a problem.  Now if a guy holds a staff position...I just get someone else to do it.  Again...no problem.  If he shows up 6 months later asking to get promoted because he has done his staff time...I will point out he has not and move on.

A lot of equipment IS issued based on unit size actually. Larger units tend to have more ES qualified personnel and pilots. They require equipment to perform taskings. Equipment like radios, DF, aircraft, vehicles, etc. If you know who's where, why, and how, you as a Wing DL can make better decisions on where the equipment is really needed.

Then it is NOT in my intrest to tell wing how many of my people are just ghosts.  If I tell them that half my people are not here I may not get all the radios I need.  Do you see what I am saying?  Equipment should be issued based on mission taskings not squadron size.  Of course larger squadrons can be tasked with more missions...but you do that by having the units report the number of teams they can field...and then you hold them to that tasking.   If sqadron X's commander shows 100 people on his books and accepts a tasking for 4 Ground Teams....and gets the equipment.....at the next SAREX he had better have 4 Ground Teams in tow or you pull his equipment.  But if you issue gear just because of squadron size and do not lay an equal mission tasking you are really wasting resources.

The morale he's talking about is the morale of members who ARE active. Who show up every day and get discouraged by the way things work and by the fact that they have to put in work for those that don't show up. People like that feel better knowing that those who don't put in the work, get dropped. That they, by default are aknowledged to be doing the work they've been asked to do and they do it to a satisfactory level. That way, when they receive an award or a letter of commendation, they'll know it's because they've done an above average job, not just shown up. NOTHING raises morale of CAP members than proper, fair, and justified recognition of work well done.

Read that again.  I'm a bling guy and I am always taken to task about how a little ribbon will raise morale and we should all grow up and just be happy with a job well done.  Now you want squadron commanders to make their people feel good by dropping they guys who don't show up off the rolls.  How many people actually even look at the CAPWATCH down loads.  Do you sit around your meetings going "He, he, they finally dropped that guy who showed up for 2 meetins!  I feel so good about myself!"

What you really mean....is that some squadrons give rewards to guys who only show up once and a while.  They give to same rewards to those who are there all the time.  That is a leadership issue with that unit...not a systemic problem of units carrying inactive people on their member rosters.

We do need to set standards for each position, but I believe that's the job of the unit CC, not NHQ. After all, it's the unit CC who will evaluate your performance and fire you if you don't perform to standard. These administrative units are being offered as a tool to unit leaders so they can get a handle on their actual activities, participation, and readiness. Also so the higher headquarters stop questioning and start trusting the data they get from the squadrons. Right now it's not happening and if I were a group commander and was going to allocate resources, but knew that my squadrons have no idea of their current state and thus cannot report it to me, I'd keep the resources with me, not allocate them, for risk of them "misplacing" those resources like they misplaced the rest of the data.

Sure...if wing and group had a valid reason for accurate readiness reports I would have no problem with that.  But as individual units are not levied specific mission requirments there is currently no need to do readiness reports.

There's a word in the military that rings louder than any church bell... ACCOUNTABILITY. It is key to efficient, fair, and successful operations. We have none. Let's get some.

Accountablity for what though?  I don't get anything extra for carrying these inactive people on my roster.  None of their dues come to me.  Wing does though.  If I am being issued equipment based solely on my unit strength, but I am not being levied mission taskings based on those same numbers...then wing is being stupid.

Give a squadron commander a reason to be acountable before you yell at him about it being an accountablity issue.

Ah... apathy... just what we need more of in CAP.

[capchiro]

Might I suggest that you not load the squadron commanders with more work and if you are indeed a retention officer, take it upon your self and your brother retention officers to contact the squadrons and find out which members are inactive and then you contact them and find out what you (as retention officer) or someone needs to do to motivate and re-activate an asset.  With retention being as poorly as it is in CAP, I don't think the problem is with inactive members, it is with members leaving.  Moving an occasionally active member to a Ghost squadron might just be the motivation they need to drop all of the way out.  Again, come at this from a "retention" problem and try to come up with a solution.  I question a person that is in the slot of "retention" that comes up with solutions to remove members from squadrons where they might possibly be motivated to become active again.  Figure out how you as a "retention" officer can help the squadron commanders, not just sit around and come up with more work for overworked squadron commanders.  Group and wing are there to assist the squadrons, not just pile on more and more work in the form of non-essential (to mission readiness) reports.  As usual, JMHO

[Dragoon]

Then it is NOT in my intrest to tell wing how many of my people are just ghosts.  If I tell them that half my people are not here I may not get all the radios I need.  Do you see what I am saying?  Equipment should be issued based on mission taskings not squadron size.  Of course larger squadrons can be tasked with more missions...but you do that by having the units report the number of teams they can field...and then you hold them to that tasking.   If sqadron X's commander shows 100 people on his books and accepts a tasking for 4 Ground Teams....and gets the equipment.....at the next SAREX he had better have 4 Ground Teams in tow or you pull his equipment.  But if you issue gear just because of squadron size and do not lay an equal mission tasking you are really wasting resources.

I would agree.  But there's still a component of "active"

For example - I've got 40 cadets, so I deserve a van.  Sounds good. Or "I've got 10 ground team members, so I deserve a van" also good.

Except it's really only 10 active cadets and 3 ground team members who you've seen or heard from in the last 6 months (remember, it takes 3 YEARS for an ES rating to expire...)  Now do you deserve that van?


And you're right - pencil whipping members makes you look bigger.  (This is EXACTLY why National doesn't have an inactive status right now).  But....it's a two edged sword.  I would expect there to be checks and balances.  For example, the Group CC should expect (nay, demand) that he physically see at least 75% of the actives when he shows up at  meetings.  If not....looks like a commander is lying.  Not upholding the standards of the organization.  And not a guy we can trust.  The commander would also look a lot worse on things like Senior Member PD and Cadet Program progression if he can't exclude inactive members.

I think commanders at the higher levels deserve to know how many folks they have under them that they are actually doing work, that they need to train, etc.  As long as the inactives are part of the mix, commanders above squadron level have no clue who their true audience is.

If you are mailing out invites to a Wing training function, or Wing newsletters, and you're short on funds, wouldn't it be nice to tailor the mailing to the actives.

When the warning order for Katrina came out to each Wing and they were asked to provide a quick estimate of the total number of active ES folks, by qual, in the Wing, wouldn't it have been nice to have MIMS have the ability to screen out the guys no one has heard from in two years?

If you are the Wing PD guy, and you're trying to determine how many SLSs to put on this year, wouldn't it help to have some idea how big your real audience is?  (the active members without SLS)?

There's a million more.