CAP Members & Interactions with the Public

[Pylon]

The matter has obviously been brought up that CAP members don't always play well with others.  In this day and age of multi-agency collaboration being a necessity on every mission, and our continued coverage in the public eye, I think this is a very critical topic to address.

We are already addressing how to deal with and task, if possible, volunteer resources that show up a mission bases in another thread, but I wanted to specifically address the average CAP member's attitude, professionalism, and tact.

It's happened before that CAP units go to make contact with another agency only to find themselves shut out or turned away because years in the past they had bad dealings with a CAP member.    While the media deals primarily with the Mission Information Officer on missions, or the PAO otherwise, there are plenty of other opportunities for memebrs of CAP to interact with those outside the agency.

How do we instill the requisite level of professionalism, tact, and courtesy our members must exhibit when volunteering in any capacity with Civil Air Patrol?

[SeattleSarge]

With the average CAP Officer age of 52, I don't know that you can teach members how to exhibit the positive traits you mentioned.

We can do a good job with SLS and other professional development training, but in the end, our members bring those traits with them (or not) when they join.  Maybe we should do a better job screening potential recruits?

Problem attitudes, lack of courtesy and professionalism are not specific to the CAP.  In my 30 year experience with a variety of volunteer emergency service organizations, I've seen all these issues before.

Could it be because of the type of people these organizations attract?

[floridacyclist]

You hit on one of my favorite topics. At some point, we have got to realize that we are all on the same team here and that we have one common set of overriding goals: saving lives, helping people in distress, aiding our communities, and in short doing our best to make the world a better place to live. I'm sure more could be added in there.

Once we get that attitude, the rest of it is just trying to work together as well as possible within the limits of the rules, or working through the process of changing the rules when necessary.

[Eclipse]

By:

A: Working on creating these relationships with national support before they are needed, including
detailed MOU's which spell out responsibilities, authority, and expenses. (i.e. if its our job, get a federal
stick to stop people having others do it, and in turn, don't ask us to do stuff we're not supposed to).

B: Holding our members to existing rules and regulations regarding conduct and procedures, and
taking the drastic steps necessary when these rules are broken, whether that means censure, retraining or termination.

C: Being more selective in who is placed in positions of authority / outside contact.

D: Reemphasizing our actual place in the grand scheme to avoid the impression we are "running the show"
(even lead agencies don't do "everything").

I think "A" is the critical one, if we heard "CA-Who?" less often, and got called more, our sensitivity about being #2 would lessen.

B needs to happen regardless, but people have been asking for that since before I was born, and few are willing to accept the attrition it would generate initially.

[SDF_Specialist]

I will admit that I have been spoken to by command staff before regarding my behavior, or "conduct" if you will. Regardless of a members conduct, it all comes down to one of two things. Either A, the member being spoken to has a conflict of interest with another member within that unit, group, etc. Or B, that member just does not take the program seriously. I've stated quite a few times that I love this organization, and I am proud to put my uniform on for the various activities that are offered in my area. But when I attend those activities, and see cadets talking like they should be eating soap, or officers wearing uniforms that would enrage Gen. Patton, I am ashamed. Not ashamed of the organization, but ashamed that there are commanders out there who would allow this type of behavior to happen in the public eye, or that the members who should have pride in themselves when wearing the uniform don't care. If we want professionalism, I think it should start at the command level, and work it's way down. Not necessarily National/CC, but even a Flight Commander can have an impact if he/she wants to show that Civil Air Patrol is not full of people who feel they never accomplished any thing in the military, or deserved to be in the military, but to show that the people who are apart of this organization are dedicated to the three missions, and will carry those missions out according to the regulations, and turn out some fine Americans in the process.

Just my two cents.

[flyerthom]

NIMS compliance. FEMA ICS100 and 200 as part of level one.
FEMA support and shared funding of some large scale multi agency exercices with CAP ,FD, EMS and PD participation so we work together before the balloon goes up for real. If you don't play with others, you don't learn how to play together.

CAP could invite other agencies to our SAREXes. We could also volunteer to play in theirs. You don't make friends holing up in your own house.

[A.Member]

How do we instill the requisite level of professionalism, tact, and courtesy our members must exhibit when volunteering in any capacity with Civil Air Patrol?

SeattleSarge is right.  This is not an issue unique to our organization.  As an example, the real military is kind of going through this issue right now as well as it relates to blogs and such.

One thing all CAP members must be instilled with is the notion that we are all PAOs! 

As such, whenever we put on our uniform or in any way perform actions on behalf of CAP, those actions will reflect on the greater organization.  As such, we must take our core values to heart - INTEGRITY, VOLUNTEER SERVICE, EXCELLENCE, and RESPECT.  They are of the utmost importance.  How well an individual adheres to these defines not only the individual but the organization.

How to do it?  That is a tough question.  Again, as SeattleSarge mentioned, from an officer perspective we're often talking about older adults volunteering their time.  Fortunately, many of us do this well.  Still, it's tough to teach old dogs (and sometimes new dogs) new tricks and, frankly, not everyone understands what it means or knows how to adhere to the core values.  What's more is that many haven't been taught the skills to handle conflict.  Thus, these members must be taught these skills and the expectation set.

First, and I think it's been discussed before, not everyone that says they want to be a member of this organization should be a member.  We must truly embrace that concept as a professional organization.   If a new member does not seem amenable to the values set forth, their membership fee should be refunded and they should be sent on their way (essentially a 90-day "trial" window).  Simple as that.  No hard feelings.

The initial membership program (Level 1) should be revamped.  A significant amount of time she be spent  formally on understanding on our values and what it means for us to be officers...to be PAOs!  It doesn't stop there though.  This should be recurring training for all members that happens at least semi-annually, if not quarterly.  And it shouldn't be a glossed over sign a form type of scenario. 

A member is always free and be encouraged to raise questions about conduct should they feel it's warranted. 

These concepts must be embraced at the top of the chain and pushed down.  We lead by example. 

However, there is another aspect to this topic that is more complex and I think is the reason this thread was created.  That is the issue of on-line discussions.  This is much more difficult to control, particularly in open/public forums such as this (which I think provide great value). 

Members and non-members can participate here.  Moderators exist but even with the most heroic efforts, there will be always some level of trouble posts/posters.  In these instances, CAP members must keep in mind our core values and not take posts personally.  And never respond in anger.  There's a saying:  If you don't have something nice to say, don't say it at all.  We can all heed that advice sometimes.  But above all do not lash out/attack someone simply because they have a differing viewpoint.  Step back if you have to.   Address the comments objectively.  Perhaps there is indeed truth in what is being told?  If there is no truth, rebut the points politely and factually.  If you're incapable of doing so, feel free to ignore the person and not respond at all.  If you still feel the need to address an issue, take your concern off-line via the use of PM (sometimes not used enough here IMO).   It also wouldn't hurt for the owner's of such sites to follow the web standards set forth by CAP and prominently display the disclaimer (ie. views are not reflective of CAP, etc...)

Despite all this, there will always be issues, especially in an organization as large as CAP.  So, long as the issues don't define us as an organization and we have a plan in place to address the issues, we should have some level of comfort.

[Civilian_Pilot]

OK here is a question.

I am the "general public".

I found this website by doing a Goggle Search for an update on Fossett and am somewhat aghast of what I have read on the attitudes within Ops. on this search.

Specifically from a CAP within Ops:

I often come across as "RUDE".

Since none of you seem to have the courage to confront me directly, then I will say I really don't care how you feel about it. If you don't like me or my style, you are cordially invited to not participate in future events where I am involved.

These were not aimed at the "general public" but as a member of the "general public" to get a glimpse of these type statements during an active search makes me question if I would want CAP involved in any search concerning myself.

It appears to me that the well being of the lost individual is eclipsed by the ego of CAP Ops.

So my question is:  Is this CAP attitude once they put an Ops center into place?

[A.Member]

Again, you seem particularly focused on the comments of one individual - comments that other members here have taken exception to as well.  As such, I would caution you heavily against taking the comments of any one person here to be reflective of the broader organization.  We have ~50,000+ members nationwide.

[Eclipse]

OK here is a question.

I am the "general public".

So my question is:  Is this CAP attitude once they put an Ops center into place?

Give it a rest....

[aveighter]

By:
C: Being more selective in who is placed in positions of authority / outside contact.

Eclipse hits it out of the park here.  Politically incorrect in todays uber-sensitive society but absolutely true.

Do you think Lt. Col. Critelli and company would have achieved the level of success in IAWG they have if they had initially appeared in the AGs office as a couple of doddering old goats yukking it up about the neat comm gear they had squirreled away?

How long would it have taken Gen. Honore to order THE ROCK into custody had he shown up looking like a stuffed sausage crammed into a flight suit yammering like a ninny?

Yes I know, many have something of value to contribute.  Quite true.  Many also need to be kept out of the spotlight and nowhere near other agency representatives.  Sorry.

I still think that the operational portions of the organization will have to be separated to some degree from the more "corporate" elements (for lack of a better term) if CAP is to gain it's full potential and rise to meet the domestic challenges of our times both now and into the forseeable future.

I applaude Pylon for speaking of these things in such a direct manner.

[ZigZag911]

The keys here are:

1) to treat others respectfully -- the same way we ourselves want to be treated.

2) to recognize that, indeed, we are part of a team, especially in SAR/DR/CD/HLS operations...the missions are too big and too important to put all our eggs in one basket

3) believe it or not, other agencies recognize that we are volunteers, much of our leadership is middle aged (or older) and not all of us have the physique of a Marine private just out of basic! And frankly, they don't care -- what they care about is that we deliver what we promise, that we work and play well with others, that we operate safely, don't try to hog the credit or throw our weight around -- in other words, behave professionally!

[Pylon]

The keys here are:

1) to treat others respectfully -- the same way we ourselves want to be treated.

2) to recognize that, indeed, we are part of a team, especially in SAR/DR/CD/HLS operations...the missions are too big and too important to put all our eggs in one basket

3) believe it or not, other agencies recognize that we are volunteers, much of our leadership is middle aged (or older) and not all of us have the physique of a Marine private just out of basic! And frankly, they don't care -- what they care about is that we deliver what we promise, that we work and play well with others, that we operate safely, don't try to hog the credit or throw our weight around -- in other words, behave professionally!

So do we add focus and emphasis on these issues in Level I training?   

Do we add verbiage to a regulation or pamphlet that stresses that CAP members who are rude to members of the general public should be censured for their actions (not that they couldn't be now)? 

Do we limit people who have little tact and courtesy from holding any position of importance, even if they're darn good at doing it and volunteer countless hours and personal resources?   Where would a commander have to draw the line for that to balance out?

Everybody here understands the importance of it; I think we're mostly on the same page with that point.  But how do we fix that as an organization?   Somebody mentioned above, very aptly, that you're unlikely to change someone's personally attitude, etc.  That's probably quite true.  You can't take an ornery, mad-at-the-world old codger and turn him into an orator and a gentleman.   So how do you handle and utilize such volunteers to your advantage without letting them be a detriment to your organization?

[floridacyclist]

People skills are just like any other job skill...they may be the make or break factor in assigning someone to a particular job or they may be something that can be worked around. Someone may be good at the technical aspects of a job, but if the job involves people skills and they don't have them, you would not be able to say that they are good at their job.

It may just be a case-by-case issue where you weigh the advantages and disadvantages of putting someone in a job and make the best decision you can in the circumstances.

[aveighter]

Everybody here understands the importance of it; I think we're mostly on the same page with that point.  But how do we fix that as an organization?   Somebody mentioned above, very aptly, that you're unlikely to change someone's personally attitude, etc.  That's probably quite true.  You can't take an ornery, mad-at-the-world old codger and turn him into an orator and a gentleman.   So how do you handle and utilize such volunteers to your advantage without letting them be a detriment to your organization?

By exercising "Leadership" from a command structure.  Don't succumb to the "soft and sensitive" ethos infecting general society.  Ike, for example, was not a tyrant or dictator but he was most assuredly "in-charge".  General Patreaus is another case in point and a great study.

Actually, this entire problem has already been addressed in considerable detail in the real world.  We have but to listen and learn.

I speak of IAWG and their stunning transformation.  If you have read the material they have generously shared you will have noticed that they were confronted with these very issues along with many others in a similar vein.  Perhaps re-visiting the attitude with which their leadership addressed these conundrums would be instructive.

I think they did a lot of house cleaning in the process.  I think they got over the "oh my, we can't do this or that because we will lose lots of valuable contributing long time but otherwise absolutely undesirable life sucking stick in the mud members" thing real fast.

I'd PM Lt.Col Critelli, were I you.  The answers are there but leadership with a strong sense of purpose, deeply held beliefs and a stout constitution are required.  Oh, and be willing to take a few punches in the mouth along the way.

[flyguy06]

NIMS compliance. FEMA ICS100 and 200 as part of level one.
FEMA support and shared funding of some large scale multi agency exercices with CAP ,FD, EMS and PD participation so we work together before the balloon goes up for real. If you don't play with others, you don't learn how to play together.

CAP could invite other agencies to our SAREXes. We could also volunteer to play in theirs. You don't make friends holing up in your own house.

I disagree with this because it assumes that everyone that joins CAP is interetsed in ES. Nobody in my squadron is interested in ES. They mainly want to work wth youths. So, to require NIMS as part of Level I would turn a lot of potentially good people away.

Now to answer the question. I think attitude is everything. I think professionalism should be taught as part of Level I. Interaction with others should also be taught.

[floridacyclist]

We include GES and NIMS compliance as part of our OTS, but we live in a potential disaster zone (actually everyone does, us just more so than many) and we want everyone to be able to deploy to help each other out even if all they do is serve coffee at mission base. Sure, we don't make it absolutely mandatory, but we do prefer for everyone to have at least a minimum level of knowledge of how these things work. Besides, they teach some good basic leadership and management ideas in those classes if you care enough to try to translate them to the real world. Span of control common terminology, management by objective..those are all good things for everyone to learn.

Beyond those minimum basic standards, it is totally optional.

[ZigZag911]

The basic answer to Pylon's questions is "YES"....fold more material about human relations into Level 1, SLS, UCC, CLC...it is critical.

Some early interagency contact is certainly worthwhile....if not part of Level 1, then SLS....I don't accept the "we're not all interested in ES" argument....I understand that many join CAP to participate in other missions....but I bet, were there a disaster of some sort in their home area, they'd want to pitch in....which is why I feel GES should be mandatory part of Level 1....so every senior member has the fundamental credential.....if all they can do is make coffee and hand out bologna sandwiches, well, at least they will be able to volunteer if they wish.

Finally, but perhaps most importantly, this is one of those things that needs to work from two directions 00 grass roots action is important, but LEADERSHIP AND PERSONAL EXAMPLE from the upper echelons is crucial!

[Dragoon]

Training is nice, but for many of our members, level 1 was 20 years ago. We don't require recurrency training.

If we want to raise the standards of our members behavior, here's a few ideas.

1.  Require regular attendance at meetings.  Right now it's optional.  Allow a commander to remove a guy (or at least restrict him from any CAP activities) if he can't come to meetings. 

Meetings are a weekly opportunity to train and retrain our members.

2.  Once you've got them coming to meetings, task commander with various training to conduct throught the year.  This would include PAO stuff, general conduct issues, etc.  That way every member is constantly refreshed on the important stuff.

This won't solve the true malcontents (they'll have to be dealt with through the discipline process).  But it will give us more control over the rank and file, and more chances to impact their behavior and job performance.

[floridacyclist]

Even now, I see people that are all about "whatever is best for me (or my squadron or CAP in a multiagency mission)" forgetting that the mission comes first. Pure and simple management by objective. If meeting the objective means that you have to smile and say nice things to or do nice things for others, then so be it...you smile and say/do nice things to/for others. In the long run it will look good on us and the mission will be accomplished much more effectively and efficiently than if we grumbled and fought our way through on our own.

Even at unit command levels, it is not uncommon to see commanders willing to cut other unit's throats (or at least cut them out of local training events) if it makes their own unit look better or is even minutely easier on their own members...forgetting that as a group, we are much stronger than as individual squadrons and that if everyone scratches everyone else's backs, then we'll all stop itching together.

The same is true of the public or press. Without their support, cooperation and warm fuzzy feelings, we will eventually not be as effective as we would be otherwise if not grind to a halt. That doesn't mean that we ignore operational limits, rules, or regulations, only that we do our best within the existing limits to work and play well with others whether they be other agencies, CAP units, press, or the victim's Aunt Thelma

Those kinds of attitudes are only going to come with announcing expectations of "Thou shalt play well with others" and then exercising with others, including actors who are playing genuinely interested members of the public or press and not just drunk, deranged, or bereaved relatives trying to break into a crash site like we normally see at SAREXes. I get all these questions from cadets about what to do if folks try to get past them on crash site security and have to explain that the vast majority of people on a scene are well-intentioned and at the worst maybe curious or trying to do a job, not cause them trouble. At the most, they simply need to be informed of the rules and limits, not tackled by a team of deputies.