Prospective cadet and parent visit their first squadron meeting. Parent explains (boasts) kid is a top athlete involved in a number of sports. Sports are a high priority for the family, and cadet would only be able to attend every other squadron meeting (i.e., twice a month) on an ongoing basis. They're told this is "not a deal-breaker."
Does that sound acceptable to anyone?
Does the need to recruit new members outweigh the importance of only taking on members who will make the cadet program a high priority where absences are the exception and not the rule?
Does anyone out there ever turn down applications for membership for this kind of thing?
I think I would probably be a terrible R & R Officer...
Active participation is the subjective call of the respective commander.
The CP has always made it clear that school is to be considered a priority over CAP.
"Every other meeting" would be, sadly, a lot more then many cadets attend. As long as all parties understand
that a cadet who is only participating at 1/2-speed may not be the first picked for leadership or similar plum roles,
I don't see an issue.
In a perfect world we'd like everyone there for every minute of CAP time, but that's not realistic, and as long as
the cadet or any member is making a legit effort to be involved the best they can, we can use them.
That's why we need to increase the membership, so that units are so dependant on any one person or small group
that when those people have other things to do, things grind to a halt.
The key is proper expectations for all parties.
First.....sure 2 meetings a month with a valid excuse for the other two is perfectly acceptable.
Second.....is there a "need to increase membership"? Sure we want to expand out CP to as many young people as we can.....but that is a goal not a need.
As Eclipse says.....if you let them know how the program works....and they understand that less the "full" particpation will result in less the optimal progression.....I don't see any problem.
If Cadet Athlete thinks that he is going to progress every 8 weeks, and that you are going to bend over backwards helping make up things that he missed......that needs to be addressed right from the start.
I got no problem with making accommodations, when able. But I'm not going to take away from the program for the rest of the cadet members just to make these accommodations.
Concur with the above replies. I've told cadets (and officers) for decades that their faith, their family, and their school (job for adults) MUST come before CAP or life becomes out of balance.
However, I've had a bunch of cadets/parents like that. I have one who still emails me as DCP asking me for tailored, individual tutoring/testing/O flight scheduling for her cadet who attends once a month due to sports (DENIED... not my yob, ma'am).
Some units may have specific rotating schedules that a part timer may routinely miss (e.g., 1st week Character Development, 3rd week CPFT) hindering his advancement. R52-16 para. 5-5e requires that "Commanders will provide cadets an opportunity to test at least once every 30 days" but the provision of that opportunity logistically may only be on set nights.
CAPR 52-16 and the Super Chart it promulgates call out specific expectations, including leadership expectations: "Enforces standards; trustworthy in supervising a small team and leading them in fulfillment of a series of simple tasks; given a plan, is able to carry it out" (this is the stated expectation for a C/TSGT candidate, post Wright Bros award). If you're not there to lead and supervise, we can't evaluate your fitness (Form 50 eval).
Were it me, I'd tell the recruit/parent that up to the fourth promotion their choice to be a part timer would not affect their ability to meet promotion requirements, but once he/she progresses to the point of being a line leader (C/TSGT candidate) their lack of presence would increasingly cripple their ability to demonstrate fitness for promotions, especially for the Mitchell and above. The Commander reserves the right to deny advancement under para. 5-2e if they haven't seen the caliber of maturity or mastery of the material suitable to the achievement, as documented in a Form 50 evaluation (and it is mandatory to do that written evaluation so they get feedback)!
When as a cadet I had to go inactive due to my math grades, I surrendered my leadership job and learned the lesson about prioritization and making choices. I've respected people who felt they needed a varsity sport for an Academy slot, yet their lack of presence factored in their non selection for cadet leadership billets... life is full of tradeoffs and choices to prioritize. If CAP offers such folks only that lesson, that at least can be seen as a "win".
Sign him up with eyes wide open!
(http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/rockbeyondbelief/files/2012/09/Army-recruiter-meme.jpg)
V/R,
Spam
I'm still new and maybe a little too idealistic, but I think the expectations of the program are high (52-16 p. 4-4a) and should be communicated as such from the get-go.
Anyway, it's one thing dealing with existing members, but I'm talking about prospective members who are telling us up front that they'll show up half the time. CAP requires 3 squadron visits before applying, and the trial period is 30 days (39-2 p. 2-2h). Why? In this scenario the prospective cadet wouldn't even be able to meet that very first requirement. It's not a good sign IMO.
Quote from: veritec on January 14, 2015, 06:23:24 PM
I'm still new and maybe a little too idealistic, but I think the expectations of the program are high (52-16 p. 4-4a) and should be communicated as such from the get-go.
Anyway, it's one thing dealing with existing members, but I'm talking about prospective members who are telling us up front that they'll show up half the time. CAP requires 3 squadron visits before applying, and the trial period is 30 days (39-2 p. 2-2h). Why? In this scenario the prospective cadet wouldn't even be able to meet that very first requirement. It's not a good sign IMO.
If the cadet and parents know up front what the deal is....and they still want to give you their money. Smile take the check and move on.
If you lay the deal out for them and they don't want to play....say thank you and let them leave.
This appears to be a case of a resume stuffing parent. I wouldn't turn the prospective cadet away but there would have to be extensive discussion of the expectations and ROE. We all know the Cadet Program requires more than two meetings a mo. It might work in the very short term but not long term. For instance, encampments require 80% participation for credit as do other activities. It isn't just a matter of showing up for 2 meetings a mo.
The larger question for me is why would any parent set their child up for failure? The CAP person that told them it was doable is probably the same person that approves a cadet to go to PJOC who looks like a Butterball Turkey and pencil whips their application. :'(
So, would I turn them away from the get go? No, although I would like to. I would allow them in with the very clear understanding that the parents are setting their child up for failure from the start and it rests entirely on them. The Cadet Program is not for everyone.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 14, 2015, 06:34:21 PM
Quote from: veritec on January 14, 2015, 06:23:24 PM
I'm still new and maybe a little too idealistic, but I think the expectations of the program are high (52-16 p. 4-4a) and should be communicated as such from the get-go.
Anyway, it's one thing dealing with existing members, but I'm talking about prospective members who are telling us up front that they'll show up half the time. CAP requires 3 squadron visits before applying, and the trial period is 30 days (39-2 p. 2-2h). Why? In this scenario the prospective cadet wouldn't even be able to meet that very first requirement. It's not a good sign IMO.
If the cadet and parents know up front what the deal is....and they still want to give you their money. Smile take the check and move on.
If you lay the deal out for them and they don't want to play....say thank you and let them leave.
No, you are not too idealistic. The expectations are high and we should not make excuses or apologize for it. You have properly thought out the logistics of it already and see the issues. There are some who think the Cadet Program should be all things to all people and fail to understand that the CP is simply not for everyone.
Just had a staff meeting with my cadet staff last night.
"These are 3 cadets with safety currency beyond X days expired. They will be 2B'd at the end of the week unless you can resolve this"
"Sir, how do we do that?"
"Call/email/text them. If no response, thanks for your interest, 2B'd."
"Roger Sir"
"These are your cadets who have not promoted in the past 120 days. How can you address it, C/CC?"
"Sir, we've been trying to communicate the importance of progression to the cadets, but some don't seem to be motivated. I'm not sure how to motivate them"
"Understood, starting March 1st, we'll be notifying all cadets that failure to progress within a 6 month period opens them up to a 2B action. This is fully supported by the regulations. As much as I'd love for us to hit 35 cadets, I'd rather have half as many that are participating than a half empty room based on the numbers. If they want to go to cool activities, o-flights, NCSAs, flight academies, etc, they will need to put in work on the progression side. Is that enough for you to motivate them?"
"Yes Sir."
It's really, not that hard. I'm getting a lot of leeway in my role as assistant CDC, but I'm going to grab the bull by the...horns, and either drop 1/3 of our "dead weight" cadets, or turn them into active cadets who actually participate. Anything outside of that is wasting their parents money and time, as well as the time I could dedicate on my end to helping those cadets that DO want to participate actively.
^^^ Agree 100%. There will never be discussion about 2Bing anyone where I'm from, though, I think because no one in authority wants to have those hard conversations. But what good are expectations without potential consequences for failing to meet them? The idea of not making the achievements isn't seen as a consequence for a lot of cadets who just want to put on the uniform and show up once in a while for the fun stuff. Personally I don't want anyone gone. I just want kids to push themselves and be successful.
Quote from: veritec on January 14, 2015, 09:28:40 PM
^^^ Agree 100%. There will never be discussion about 2Bing anyone where I'm from, though, I think because no one in authority wants to have those hard conversations. But what good are expectations without potential consequences for failing to meet them? The idea of not making the achievements isn't seen as a consequence for a lot of cadets who just want to put on the uniform and show up once in a while for the fun stuff. Personally I don't want anyone gone. I just want kids to push themselves and be successful.
There's no tough conversations to be had. If you don't stay safety current, the only recourse is a 2B for a cadet. If someone isn't showing up/progressing, after a point (of trying to get them to re-engage), a 2B is the only option.
There's a reason that we had 80 cadets that needed an encampment last year in our group alone, yet had under 20 first year attendees from the group. Some couldn't/didn't want to go to a Spring encampment. I'd say 1/3 or 1/2 of that number are the "joined, showed up a few times, won't be back" types.
On the subject of 2b'ing someone for not showing up/progressing/staying safety current.
While I agree that the regs support a 2b....I question what is gained by anyone for going through the process.
We talk all the time about added paperwork pushed down from HHQ.....why would anyone choose to add to their paperwork for what I see as little gain.
Incentives to get cadets to progress......I'm all for using a little stick if you need it. Have not promoted in six months.....and you don't have a valid excuse (such as trying to pass the test but keep failing).....no extra curricular activities until you do. Cadet Leadership not progressing.....removal from leadership positions so you can find the time to hit the books and get your boxes checked off.
All those are good tools to us.
2b'ing should IMHO be used only in the most extreme cases of discipline issues....cadet stops showing up, and does not answer E-mails/phone calls......ignore them. Eventually their membership will expire and it is the same thing....with out having to go through the process of kicking them out.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 14, 2015, 10:18:20 PM
2b'ing should IMHO be used only in the most extreme cases of discipline issues....cadet stops showing up, and does not answer E-mails/phone calls......ignore them. Eventually their membership will expire and it is the same thing....with out having to go through the process of kicking them out.
Except when they stop doing their safety tests, and higher HQ is breathing down the CCs neck about compliance levels. SMs go to Patron, cadets get 2B'd after multiple attempts to correct the issue. Lost interest in the program? They get an opportunity to voluntarily resign. Why would we keep them around? To inflate our numbers? I suppose that's what most units do, but that explains how a unit with 60+ cadets can barely get 30 cadets to a meeting
once in a while and at the same time has a poor showing at larger events.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 14, 2015, 10:18:20 PM
While I agree that the regs support a 2b....I question what is gained by anyone for going through the process.
Not much of a "process" - 5 minutes to kick out a form, done.
One less name to deal with, one less "not safety current" conversation upstream, also sets the tone and
sends a message - "Play or leave."
Personally, if it's ever my problem again, they will be xferred to 996 instead of 2b'ed, same message.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 14, 2015, 10:24:27 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 14, 2015, 10:18:20 PM
While I agree that the regs support a 2b....I question what is gained by anyone for going through the process.
Not much of a "process" - 5 minutes to kick out a form, done.
One less name to deal with, one less "not safety current" conversation upstream, also sets the tone and
sends a message - "Play or leave."
Personally, if it's ever my problem again, they will be xferred to 996 instead of 2b'ed, same message.
Unless 2 weeks later they show up and want to play again....or they decide to fight the 2b. I don't mind having to tell those upstream that they don't have to be safety compliant if they are not playing.
Add to that the bad blood for getting kicked out of CAP.....now not only are you losing one person you will have to fight the negetive PR that person spreads about CAP.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 14, 2015, 10:42:59 PMUnless 2 weeks later they show up and want to play again....or they decide to fight the 2b.
2 weeks later they can play - somewhere else. Fight the 2b? Fine. Grounds were "non-participation and failure to progress"
unless the cadet was in the CAPSOC and got double-secret promoted, not much issue there.
You may feel some parts of the program are "optional" and higher HQ directives can be ignored at your whim, others don't,
and the idea that they >can< is why CAP is in the state it's in.
If more commanders actually worked the full program, including holding people to the expectations they agreed to and that
NHQ puts forth, things would change - either the membership or the expectations (if numbers started dropping in relation to the real
safety compliance, I'd hazard that would be gone in 6 months). We've also got charters all over being sustained only through empty
shirts - again, false assurance "everything is OK". If people started doing what they are actually supposed to, NHQ would have no choice
but to notice.
One thing is sure, things won't change if no one cares to change things.
Who said any parts of the program are optional?
Not safety complaint.....no play.
Not showing up.....no progression in the CP/PD/
I'm just questioning the extra effort needed to 2b someone. The bad PR we get from these people....it's one thing for them to say "I was in CAP but I dropped out" and another for them to say "those D-bags kicked me out because I would not do some useless on line safety briefing every month". Also.....my point about someone wanting to challenge the 2b.......that's a whole lot more then 5 minutes of my time, even if I'm iron clad 100% sure to win the appeal. You already complain that we are under manned to do the stuff we have to do.....why borrow trouble.
I'm not saying we don't hold people accountable for being part of the program. I'm saying that we are not required to kick them out....we can by regs.....but we don't HAVE TO do it.
Your argument about false assurance don't play out....as we don't have any OPLANS to bump those number against in the first place.....so there is nothing/no one to assure that we are meeting mission goals.
Well perhaps you don't have to get yourself involved in the regular conversations
about empty shirts and how they skew the numbers, but a lot of commanders do, on a regular basis.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 14, 2015, 10:59:41 PM
Your argument about false assurance don't play out....as we don't have any OPLANS to bump those number against in the first place.....so there is nothing/no one to assure that we are meeting mission goals.
It's false
self-assurance. CC's who think some arbitrary number means something even if 2/3'rds of that number haven't been to
a meeting in 10 years. This is akin to people who can't understand who they could be overdrawn when they still have checks left.
It's also an ethics and integrity issue to maintain charters for units that would close without the empty shirts, or for a wing to play chess with
empty shirts just to keep the number of charters it has instead of doing the actual work of fixing the issue.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 14, 2015, 10:48:55 PM
We've also got charters all over being sustained only through empty
shirts - again, false assurance "everything is OK". If people started doing what they are actually supposed to, NHQ would have no choice
but to notice.
One thing is sure, things won't change if no one cares to change things.
Oh this...this 100%.
One of the larger issues with my local area is this, keeping units open to look good at the next HQ.
We had a unit CC that timed out, and the only person Wing HQ could get to fill the slot was a person from another squadron about 45 minutes away. As a very active Wing staff member at the time I honestly thought this guy who took over had transferred from another Wing, because I had never seen him at anything... And I mean anything.
The latest Encampment numbers was published for my local area online and I was floored. 80 basic cadets with 50 (holy... ) yes that's right 50 cadet staff positions. That would have never flown with me. I would have turned those cadets away and told them to go preach and recruit first year cadets for the encampment, but I will not make up jobs to appease cadet SSGT snuffy when there are not enough basic cadets to have him on as staff. Failure all around.
Failing, cap is so afraid to look at that word. Failure is what I see of the local area.
Unit commander who show up for maybe one meeting a month because she works an odd shif. Failure of that unit because she isn't on hand to command, failure of that group to allow her to keep that slot and of the wing for not minting oversight.
Unit with 15 cadets on the books but 3 to 5 show up any given Thursday night. Failure of that unit, failure of the group to step in and help, failure of the Wing to close that unit down or find it real help.
Cadet Lt. Col. who wants to test for Spaatz, nothing but a basic encampment on his eServices, never seen at group of wing functions and in a unit with 10 cadets and only 3 active. Failure everywhere.
Failure everywhere but never discussed or confronted. Never addressed or brought into the light. Just promulgated, pushed forward and covered up. CAPs numbers are a lie that we are telling ourselves, let alone everyone else. CAPs expected performance is a lie we tell ourselves. Core values trashed and tarnished, members of all levels running unchecked.
Failure is real in CAP. We must want change, and right now I don't see many that care.
And kicking out people who don't show up fixes that how?
Listen I get what you all are saying.
But your administrative advice to someone who is running a good program to kick out the "empty shirts" because other units are struggling....is not fixing the problem that you guys seem to be concerned about.
Low turn out for encampment....okay.....let's kick out all the cadets who have not promoted in the last year and who have not shown up for a meeting in six months.
Unit commander has "real life issues"......okay.....let's kick out those "empty shirts" because that will help the unit.
Unit with 15 cadets on the books....and only 5 show up....yep....let's kick out those 10...then force the unit to close....that will help.
Lt Col who is ready for Spaatz....and has done nothing else....is not a failure.....it is the program. Wanting the Spaatz Program to be more is admirable....but don't say the CP unit is at fault......and again kicking out all the empty shirt members fixes that problem how?
Again......I get what you all are saying. I agree with a lot of it. But....in the context of this thread.......kicking out people is NOT the answer.
Sorry for the rant.......did not really want to take it there.....but you guys found one of my buttons. We are gearing up for an SUI and I just has a similar conversation with my commander who wanted to "clean up the books" to look good. But I don't think kicking out the the "empty shirts" or transferring them to the ghost squadron is the productive.
End of rant.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 14, 2015, 11:37:29 PM
But your administrative advice to someone who is running a good program to kick out the "empty shirts" because other units are struggling....is not fixing the problem that you guys seem to be concerned about.
Any unit with more then a few empty shirts isn't "running a good program"
Quote from: lordmonar on January 14, 2015, 11:37:29 PM
Low turn out for encampment....okay.....let's kick out all the cadets who have not promoted in the last year and who have not shown up for a meeting in six months.
Unit commander has "real life issues"......okay.....let's kick out those "empty shirts" because that will help the unit.
Neither of these examples are in any way related to the conversation, especially the former.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 14, 2015, 11:37:29 PM
Unit with 15 cadets on the books....and only 5 show up....yep....let's kick out those 10...then force the unit to close....that will help.
This is not a unit, this is an illusion.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 14, 2015, 11:37:29 PM
Lt Col who is ready for Spaatz....and has done nothing else....is not a failure.....it is the program.
Depends - is this cadet actively participating in a way that brings someone value? That's the question.
A double-diamond on the books who doesn't show up any more isn't any more valuable then a slick sleeve.
What you don't seem to understand, or just don't care about, is that normalizing the ranks is the only thing that
is going to get people to wake up and see the sad state CAP is in.
NHQ tells the world there are 60k members. We all know that isn't true, not by actual number, and not by
participation, but as long as the illusion is allowed to perpetuate, then no one has to care or see the forest
because the trees block everything nicely.
In many wings 000 is the largest unit. Drop or move them and the wing's numbers change radically overnight.
All of a sudden there is visibility of the actual numbers. CAP has an annual churn of something like 30-40%
depending on who is doing the math. Because of the fact that those empty shirts are left on the books,
the trend line, while still moving SE, doesn't move as fast or as much as it actually should, shielding the real issue.
Do you think NHQ could ignore the issue if, say over the course of one quarter, or even one FY, the posted numbers
dropped by 1/3+? Not to mention probably 15-20% of the charters?
CAP exists for only two reasons, serving cadets, and serving the community. There is zero value in members or charters
that don't do these things properly. We have any number of units with 50-75 members on the books which can't even
muster enough people on meeting nights to comply with CPPT. The effort in maintaining those charters is a waste of
everyone's time and effort, and the people involved are either fooling themselves, or are saddled with the inability to
pull the plug because they don't want to be the bad guy. Either situation is unacceptable and unnecessary.
There is no CAP participation trophy, yet to a lot of those on the rosters, that's all it is.
You actually think NHQ is unaware of the "problem"?
Quote from: lordmonar on January 14, 2015, 11:53:16 PM
You actually think NHQ is unaware of the "problem"?
Being "aware" and being "willing to act" are many times two sides of the Grand Canyon.
Of course they are aware, which makes the fiction all the more unacceptable.
Why act?
I have yet to see a real need to act on the fact that 30% of our members are "empty shirts" of one sort or another.
And how are they going to act?
When we had the argument about NHQ imposing the two member and Same Sex requirment for cadet over nights.....I suggested that higher headquarters would be the place to go for help in recruiting.....and you emphatically said it was not their job.
So if the squadrons is where the job is......and you are closing down the squadrons......who's going to fix the problem?
Listen I get it.
We are undermanned. We need to have more, better, trained leaders at the unit level.
I get all that.
Kicking out people and closing down units.....does not fix the problem. It does not force HHQ to fix the problem.
It makes the problem worse.......it makes recruiting harder, it makes reforming the units harder, and it takes away what little program and presence we do have in these "dysfunctional" units from those few dedicated people who are doing their best to put on the program.
So.....once again I go back to my original statement. I question the value added of 2b'ing the empty shirts.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 12:03:30 AM
When we had the argument about NHQ imposing the two member and Same Sex requirment for cadet over nights.....I suggested that higher headquarters would be the place to go for help in recruiting.....and you emphatically said it was not their job.
It's not their job.
Their job is to press those who choose to serve as commanders to
do their jobs. Something which has been indicated as "not possible".
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 12:03:30 AM
So if the squadrons is where the job is......and you are closing down the squadrons......who's going to fix the problem?
Well certainly not dysfunctional units, that's kinda the point. To fix things you have three choices, force the issue
with the commanders you have, replace them with people who will do the job, or quit fooling yourself that having two people
staring at two cadets in a church basement serves any purpose whatsoever.
Knowing who and where your members are focus' the limited resources where they might actually have some
real value beyond lip service.
More units = more span of control, equals more echelons in many wings, and those extra echelons aren't doing anything, either,
because if they were doing more then checking their boxes, this conversation wouldn't be necessary.
As we saw today, every charter gets inspected, that's work. What's the use inspecting an empty unit with 4 people in it
who have no interest in the conversation.
Every minutes spent on something which serves no purpose is a minute not spent elsewhere. Money is easy, we
can get that. Time wasted is never recovered.
Tick...tick...tick...
Quote from: Eclipse on January 14, 2015, 04:33:48 PM
Active participation is the subjective call of the respective commander.
The CP has always made it clear that school is to be considered a priority over CAP.
"Every other meeting" would be, sadly, a lot more then many cadets attend. As long as all parties understand
that a cadet who is only participating at 1/2-speed may not be the first picked for leadership or similar plum roles,
I don't see an issue.
In a perfect world we'd like everyone there for every minute of CAP time, but that's not realistic, and as long as
the cadet or any member is making a legit effort to be involved the best they can, we can use them.
That's why we need to increase the membership, so that units are so dependant on any one person or small group
that when those people have other things to do, things grind to a halt.
The key is proper expectations for all parties.
Hmmm...only January..and I find myself in agreement with Eclipse....!
I've done this with several cadets - lay out the program, especially the *expectations* of communication between the parents / cadet and the unit, lay out the impact of their level of participation ...still interested? Fantastic - sign here, move on!
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 12:03:30 AM
Why act?
Good question. What benefit is gleaned from aggressively 2bing empty shirts? Does it help anyone else? Nope. Just an extra piece of paper (best case), or worst case, a lot of administrative BS around appeals and such.
2Bing empty shirts is a solution that doesn't actually solve anything.
What benefit is keeping them, other then financial?
And if NHQ, the wing, or anyone else thinks they are a benefit, so be it, allow for a status that
ends the conversation and rhetoric about participation and currency.
You can't have it both ways and not expect the conversation, nor maintain any sort of organizational
integrity about following regulations, participation, or the ramifications or not doing those things.
We have vague regulations about participation being a requirment for porgression and promotion
for both classes of members, yet while in some areas members get held back for missing a meeting or
two, in others members no one has ever sen get promoted through the mail, or after a prolonged absence
they show up for a few weeks because their TIG is up, get promoted, and then leave for the next 3-4 years.
I had this conversation offline last night in regards to the QCU award - some CCs won't make the needed changes
because the attrition will drop their numbers below the minimums or skew their percentage and then
they won't get a QCUA. What's the point of that? The certificate on the wall stands as a literal
reminder of your lack of integrity in reaching for the award itself.
When you kid yourself, who is fooled?
Quote from: Eclipse on January 15, 2015, 02:42:05 PM
You can't have it both ways and not expect the conversation, nor maintain any sort of organizational
integrity about following regulations, participation, or the ramifications or not doing those things.
Absolutely correct.
I'm sorry to say that a lot of these opinions, as well as my experience in CAP so far, make it hard for me to feel like I'm a part of something that is to be taken very seriously.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 15, 2015, 02:42:05 PM
What benefit is keeping them, other then financial?
None really. So?
You're advocating a change in how things are done. The onus is on you to establish a cost-benefit relationship to your proposed change.
The onus is on someone to justify something that the regulations already support?
As a CAP Legal Officer, I would recommend you restrain yourself on the 2B'ing. Someone being 2B'ed has rights of appeal and investigations begin and questions are asked and Boards are held. As a participant in these matters, if I found out someone was 2B'ing members for non-participation, I might wonder about their leadership skills and ability to motivate someone. We are a voluntary organization and being able to convince someone to do something without a big stick is a requirement. You would be surprised at what comes up during the appeal process and how skeletons are revealed. These things can and often do backfire. Govern Thyself Accordingly..
Quote from: AirAux on January 15, 2015, 03:54:34 PM
As a CAP Legal Officer, I would recommend you restrain yourself on the 2B'ing. Someone being 2B'ed has rights of appeal and investigations begin and questions are asked and Boards are held. As a participant in these matters, if I found out someone was 2B'ing members for non-participation, I might wonder about their leadership skills and ability to motivate someone. We are a voluntary organization and being able to convince someone to do something without a big stick is a requirement. You would be surprised at what comes up during the appeal process and how skeletons are revealed. These things can and often do backfire. Govern Thyself Accordingly..
Sorry, strong non-concur. This kind of "afraid someone might ask questions" mentality is what keps CCs from doing their job.
Question leadership and ability to motivate? In an organization where "presence" is a key delimiter for being appointed as a Commander?
Ask away. If there are skeletons, so be it. Then the next echelon isn't doing their job and you, as a Legal officer, should
want to be aware of these issues.
Quote from: veritec on January 15, 2015, 03:00:12 PM
The onus is on someone to justify something that the regulations already support?
The regulations say you can......no one is disputing that. What we are questioning is.......why would you pressure units to then actually do it? What is the cost/benefit of the the action? If you see the benefit......then by all means go right ahead. But.......to accuse those of us who don't see a need to actively 2b our inactive members on a recurring basis so that our numbers don't "lie".....of having less integrity, or that we are failing in our program is NOT conclusive to the conversation.
To point out all the leadership, training, and program problems in CAP and say "it's because YOU don't 2b your empty shirts" is just wrong.
And that is the point I am making.
You got inactive people.....then make them active.
You got a manning issue.....recruit.
You got a training issue....train.
If you got 30 people on the books but only 20 show up regularly......kicking out the 10 does not suddenly make your program better. It will IMHO poison the well for future recruiting. It turns a former member into a former disgruntled member for no real good reason.
2b'ing someone should be a last resort for bad behavior. It says.....not only do we not want your services....but we NEVER want your services and we are ashamed that we ever accepted your services in the first place.
Quote from: veritec on January 15, 2015, 03:00:12 PM
The onus is on someone to justify something that the regulations already support?
+1 - Regulations aren't supposed to be enforced based on ROI. They are enforced because they are regulations.
The problem is so many of them are considered "optional", if for no other reason then there is no command imperative
to enforce them, that these kinds of conversations seem like they make sense.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 03:59:55 PM
If you got 30 people on the books but only 20 show up regularly......kicking out the 10 does not suddenly make your program better.
Yes, it actually might, because if nothing else, it allows the national leadership to see the REAL MEMBERSHIP.
You cannot be successful if yo don't even know who your members are.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 15, 2015, 04:02:55 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 03:59:55 PM
If you got 30 people on the books but only 20 show up regularly......kicking out the 10 does not suddenly make your program better.
Yes, it actually might, because if nothing else, it allows the national leadership to see the REAL MEMBERSHIP.
You cannot be successful if yo don't even know who your members are.
What color is that coolaid? Everyone already knows the real membership. They know that 30% of our members on the books are all empty shirts....this is not a new phenomenon. It was true back in '86 when I first joined, it was true back in 2003 when I rejoined. It is true in just about every volunteer agency. It is true in a lot of guard and reserve units too.....heck it is true to an extent in AD units.
Being successful has to do with meeting your goals.......and now this is the kicker. What are my manning goals?
Got none.
I say again.....we don't have any manning goals.
We got chartering requirements......but that is it.
Now you want to talk about being successful and putting in tools and goals into place that really allow leaders at all levels to manage and meet those mission requirements.....I've got a long long long rant about that.
But on this topic (kicking out empty shirts).......your proposed action does NOTHING to address whether a unit is being successful or not. It simply adds more admin burden to an already undermanned unit. It makes future recruiting harder by turning ex-members into disgruntled ex-members. And that is all that I can see that comes from it.
YMMV
Quote from: Eclipse on January 15, 2015, 04:01:24 PM
Quote from: veritec on January 15, 2015, 03:00:12 PM
The onus is on someone to justify something that the regulations already support?
+1 - Regulations aren't supposed to be enforced based on ROI. They are enforced because they are regulations.
The problem is so many of them are considered "optional", if for no other reason then there is no command imperative
to enforce them, that these kinds of conversations seem like they make sense.
Where......where does it say in any regulations that you MUST.....MUST 2b inactive members?
I agree that we should be very careful in enforcing our regulations. But by that same token.....the regulation in question is very discretionary on purpose.
CAPR 35-3 clearly states that "[l]ack of interest demonstrated by failure to attend three successive regular meetings
without an acceptable excuse" is cause for cadet membership termination. The regulation may not force you to terminate their membership, but if they don't have a reasonable reason for not participating, then why do you want to keep them on the books?
^ Yes. This thread and my concern is about Cadet Programs. And why do we want to put them on the books in the first place when indications are there will be a lack of dedication and participation (they can't even meet the trial period requirement).
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 15, 2015, 04:35:26 PM
CAPR 35-3 clearly states that "[l]ack of interest demonstrated by failure to attend three successive regular meetings
without an acceptable excuse" is cause for cadet membership termination. The regulation may not force you to terminate their membership, but if they don't have a reasonable reason for not participating, then why do you want to keep them on the books?
I don't want to keep them on the books....I also don't want to go through the hassle of 2b'ing them. If someone wants to go through the process of cleaning up their books....okay. The regs support it. I'm not going to go out of my way to stop them. I simply raised the question if the administrative effort was actually beneficial in the long run.
Cadet X....does not show up or maybe does show up.....but just enough to dodge 35-3 but has not progressed twice in the last year......sure you can 2b him. So cost benefits. Pro....your books are clean. You have one less member not safety compliant every month. Con.....admin over head.....someone has to keep track, double check to make sure Cadet X did in fact miss those three meetings....this should happen on a recurring basis....yearly? Quarterly? Monthly? Weekly? More time your CP/Admin/Personnel officers has to take from doing other work. Then there is the 2b Process itself. Okay maybe 5 minutes to do the paperwork.....then you got CC wing, send a certified copy the member...now you are spending money. Then....low and behold the member challenges it. Now you got wing forming a board...that's more time spent. Now the commander of the unit has to do more paperwork and spend more time justifying to the board why he wants to do it. Okay...so the board agrees with you and approves the 2b....but Cadet X's parents are those types of parents....and now they want to go to the MARB.....again more time spend by CAP members outside your unit. More time you spend doing paperwork. The MARB decides that all is good and Cadet X is now a former member.....forever. You move Cadet X's file to the inactive file. But now Cadet X is not just a former member who dropped out. He is a former member who was kicked out and hates CAP and all its doings!
OR
You see that Cadet X has stopped coming to meetings. You make a valid effort to find out what the deal is. And then when Cadet X's membership expires you move his records to the inactive file and move on.
My personnel officer is already busy. I'm not going to ask them to do more work....and open a can of worms for so little pay back.
Sure.....we sometimes need to hitch up our pants and do the hard conversation. We should not be afraid to what is right because we might have to justify ourselves to HHQ on the issues. But likewise we need to pace ourselves and choose our battles. 2b'ing someone is a lot of work. It should be reserved for those who really need it.
I certainly can't justify adding it to my work load simply to make the books look good.
Concur.
Great, now I can look at the QCUA next year, and know that Nellis Composite isn't "all that" because a large number of those cadets are not actually active.
What's the big fear of 2B'ing a member? My best friend 2B'd himself when he lost interest in CAP.
IT. IS. A. FORM.
Here are the reasons for cadet terminations:
Voluntary Resignation
Married
Joined Armed Forces
Failed to Progress Satisfactorily in the CAP Cadet Program
Failure to Maintain Acceptable Academic Record in School
Dropped out of School
Lack of Interest (failure to attend three meetings without acceptable excuse)
Moved from the area, Did not request
Misconduct
I already stated our cadets get the choice to resign if they tell us they no longer are interested, before they are terminated for other causes.
We've yet to have a cadet fight a 2B. You know why? Cadets get plenty of chances NOT to be terminated. It's a non-issue. I've also heard nothing bad from those cadets down the line, primarily because when they do resign/get removed, they either made the choice, or made the choice not to care any more. Simple. As. That.
For Reference: http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/F002B_E249721A9E98E.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/F002B_E249721A9E98E.pdf)
Because when we investigate and find out that cadets are dropping other cadets for push ups and you either have or should have knowledge of it, we will be having serious talks with you. These things can get ugly quicker than you think. Are you making the cadets aware that they have the right to appeal your 2B?
Quote from: AirAux on January 15, 2015, 05:38:30 PM
Because when we investigate and find out that cadets are dropping other cadets for push ups and you either have or should have knowledge of it, we will be having serious talks with you. These things can get ugly quicker than you think. Are you making the cadets aware that they have the right to appeal your 2B?
And that has what to do with anything being discussed here?
To the OP,
if the cadet, parents, and squadron staff go in with eyes wide open about the cadets participation, then participating in every other meeting would be active participation. Is he going to get as much out of the program as someone who is there nearly every week, probably not. Is he going to stick around very long, entirely possible that he won't. However, this cadet may also find that CAP is really his thing and end up participating more in order to get out of it what he wants. So I see nothing wrong with accepting him and letting him try to make a go of it.
As to the matter of 2B'ing inactive members, I see nothing wrong with that when they become a drain on the unit. However, Eclipse, I see the financial contribution that you are always so eager to dismiss as being helpful to the organization as a whole and to the individuals who are active.
You can terminate a cadet for getting married?
Quote from: BHartman007 on January 15, 2015, 05:47:21 PM
You can terminate a cadet for getting married?
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/57572057.jpg)
Quote from: BHartman007 on January 15, 2015, 05:47:21 PM
You can terminate a cadet for getting married?
Of course. Why not?
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 15, 2015, 05:29:39 PM
Great, now I can look at the QCUA next year, and know that Nellis Composite isn't "all that" because a large number of those cadets are not actually active.
What's the big fear of 2B'ing a member? My best friend 2B'd himself when he lost interest in CAP.
IT. IS. A. FORM.
Here are the reasons for cadet terminations:
Voluntary Resignation
Married
Joined Armed Forces
Failed to Progress Satisfactorily in the CAP Cadet Program
Failure to Maintain Acceptable Academic Record in School
Dropped out of School
Lack of Interest (failure to attend three meetings without acceptable excuse)
Moved from the area, Did not request
Misconduct
I already stated our cadets get the choice to resign if they tell us they no longer are interested, before they are terminated for other causes.
We've yet to have a cadet fight a 2B. You know why? Cadets get plenty of chances NOT to be terminated. It's a non-issue. I've also heard nothing bad from those cadets down the line, primarily because when they do resign/get removed, they either made the choice, or made the choice not to care any more. Simple. As. That.
For Reference: http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/F002B_E249721A9E98E.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/F002B_E249721A9E98E.pdf)
I'm not afraid of doing a 2b. Done several in fact in my career. I just don't see the need to do a 2b for an "empty shirt".
Like I said....you want to......go ahead. I think you are are not doing yourself any favors....but it is your time.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 06:01:26 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 15, 2015, 05:29:39 PM
Great, now I can look at the QCUA next year, and know that Nellis Composite isn't "all that" because a large number of those cadets are not actually active.
What's the big fear of 2B'ing a member? My best friend 2B'd himself when he lost interest in CAP.
IT. IS. A. FORM.
Here are the reasons for cadet terminations:
Voluntary Resignation
Married
Joined Armed Forces
Failed to Progress Satisfactorily in the CAP Cadet Program
Failure to Maintain Acceptable Academic Record in School
Dropped out of School
Lack of Interest (failure to attend three meetings without acceptable excuse)
Moved from the area, Did not request
Misconduct
I already stated our cadets get the choice to resign if they tell us they no longer are interested, before they are terminated for other causes.
We've yet to have a cadet fight a 2B. You know why? Cadets get plenty of chances NOT to be terminated. It's a non-issue. I've also heard nothing bad from those cadets down the line, primarily because when they do resign/get removed, they either made the choice, or made the choice not to care any more. Simple. As. That.
For Reference: http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/F002B_E249721A9E98E.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/F002B_E249721A9E98E.pdf)
I'm not afraid of doing a 2b. Done several in fact in my career. I just don't see the need to do a 2b for an "empty shirt".
Like I said....you want to......go ahead. I think you are are not doing yourself any favors....but it is your time.
I don't get my ass chewed for cadet safety compliance on cadets I'll never see again.
I won't get my ass chewed by the encampment commander when he runs a report of XX cadets who need encampment in the group, but we only get 1/5 of those to show up to encampment.
I'll get to enjoy the QCUA "Enrollment" point, knowing that the magic 35 cadets are actual cadets, not electrons on eservices.
Ok.
I got no problem saying to safety. They are not here.
I got no problem telling the encampment commander he is free to contact those cadets himself.
I don care about the QUA it has little benefit to me and my program.
So like I said. If you want to go ahead. But don't try to say that my unit is some how not doing it right.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 06:16:33 PM
Ok.
I got no problem saying to safety. They are not here.
I got no problem telling the encampment commander he is free to contact those cadets himself.
I don care about the QUA it has little benefit to me and my program.
So like I said. If you want to go ahead. But don't try to say that my unit is some how not doing it right.
What do the dead numbers do as a benefit? Besides making a more impressive sounding number that is?
Nothing never said that they do. Simply said that fixing the dead numbers does not add any benefit worth the effort and could make more problems.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 06:26:34 PM
Nothing never said that they do. Simply said that fixing the dead numbers does not add any benefit worth the effort and could make more problems.
I've listed benefits. YMMV.
I still don't see any problems.
Cool like I said its your time to waste.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 06:31:24 PM
Cool like I said its your time to waste.
I spent a good half hour compiling data, looking up contact info, emailing, and prepping to call people who are either:
Not safety current
Not progressing
Haven't been to a meeting in a while, and haven't been in touch.
I've probably got another half hour of phone calls to do on this subject.
It's probably not going to be the last time contacting the same people. Probably.
OR.
CAPF2B, and done.
Quote from: BHartman007 on January 15, 2015, 06:38:36 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 15, 2015, 05:54:45 PM
Quote from: BHartman007 on January 15, 2015, 05:47:21 PM
You can terminate a cadet for getting married?
Of course. Why not?
...why would you? That doesn't make any sense.
Same reason cadets can't be cadets once they go into the military. We treat the 20 year old, 11 month old Spaatz cadet as a child/minor/non-adult/etc because of their status as a cadet.
If you're in the military, being a cadet has zero benefit (and you have zero time) for you. If you're married...the presumption being that you're now living with another adult, acting like an adult, and dealing with adult life, you don't quite fit into the role of a cadet.
IIRC you can't have dependents if you go to a Service Academy either. And the AF didn't want to let my cousin enlist because he was 18 with a kid. That's life.
So once a month you spend an hour dealing with no shows. Then another 30. Minutes doing the 2b. And the result is avoiding two conversations that should not even be taking place.
And you do this every month?
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 06:43:19 PM
So once a month you spend an hour dealing with no shows. Then another 30. Minutes doing the 2b. And the result is avoiding two conversations that should not even be taking place.
And you do this every month?
Who said it's done once a month? And 30 minutes for a 2B? What 2 conversations?
The one to wing about safer compliance and the one to the encampment commander
So how often do you do this exercise? I mean if it is important you should be doing it often enough that the numbers mean something.
Quote from: BHartman007 on January 15, 2015, 06:38:36 PM
...why would you? That doesn't make any sense.
39-2 p.2-6
Those empty shirts are numbers and we get money from Congress, the Air Force, and the States based on numbers.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 06:46:56 PM
The one to wing about safer compliance and the one to the encampment commander
So how often do you do this exercise? I mean if it is important you should be doing it often enough that the numbers mean something.
I'm just a lowly staffer. I get to hear about safety compliance from my CC. He says wing is pushing for better compliance. He tells me who is at risk (typically more than 30 days out of safety currency). I deal with it.
I've been staffing the encampment since coming back as a SM. Once as XO, once as Dep. Commandant. Both years we'd have to scale back our staff picks due to lack of first year trainees. In a wing with (currently) 533 cadets, at least half probably need an encampment. Call that 250 cadets. Of the 250, lets say half (that's a joke) live "too far" from Great Lakes Naval Station, and choose to go to Summer Encampment. Of the 125 left, some can't/don't want to go to a Spring encampment, and instead choose to go to Summer/not at all.
We should be turning cadets away at those numbers due to lack of sleeping space. But we don't. Instead we cut down cadet staff, causing those cadets to lose leadership experience opportunities, and end up dangerously close to having more staff than trainees (someone mentioned an encampment for 80 basics with 50 cadet cadre).
At some point we've got to start thinking whether:
1) The number of students warrants running an encampment
2) Are we giving the leadership opportunities necessary at current size
3) Are we wasting SM time by running same amount of SMs for half the size flights.
Encampments scale nicely - upwards. They don't do so well downwards.
And you may think "well, it's just your Spring encampment issue", except that Summer suffers as well.
Wing makes "goals" for encampments and "growth" for units based on current/last year numbers. Really hard to hit those numbers with phantom numbers to start with.
We can't get 80 basics to encampment, because there's probably THAT many in the wing that are active and NEED an encampment. NHQ thinks 40% retention rate is good? So if we take a look at the number of first year cadets, the 80 figure gets real plausible for our "book" size.
So why write all that?
Because if the wing showed the real numbers, which are probably closer to 350 cadets, with not half, but MOST having an encampment already, then we could plan better. That's not even mentioning whole GROUPS that for some reason choose to send their cadets to another wings encampment, just "because".
And I've been trying so hard to stay out of this one . . . .
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 15, 2015, 06:41:19 PM
Same reason cadets can't be cadets once they go into the military. We treat the 20 year old, 11 month old Spaatz cadet as a child/minor/non-adult/etc because of their status as a cadet.
Several corrections and additions here - cadets in the reserves remain eligible for cadet membership, and it is clearly a benefit to both the military and the cadet for cadet membership to continue.
More importantly, CAP has -- and will always -- treat cadets as cadets and seniors as seniors. We also treat minors as minors and adults as adults. The trick is that the age of majority is not the same in all the states, districts, and commonwealths where CAP operates, so some cadets are adults; some seniors are minors depending on where they happen to be standing at the time.
QuoteIf you're in the military, being a cadet has zero benefit (and you have zero time) for you.
Perhaps true for folks on active duty, but clearly not correct for cadets in the reserve / guard. Ultimately, however, that will be a choice for the majority of the cadets in that situation.
As it turns out, most cadets in the military service age bracket (17-20) are getting our more advanced training in Phases II - IV and are learning about indirect leadership and other subjects that will directly impact their military careers. OTOH, the military instruction given to new recruits is almost entirely focussed on followership. So when cadets serve in the military, it's a a win-win situation for both the cadet and Uncle Sam.
QuoteIf you're married...the presumption being that you're now living with another adult, acting like an adult, and dealing with adult life, you don't quite fit into the role of a cadet.
I was with you right up to the last part. As we've said all along, something like 10% of our cadets are adults in the jurisdiction where they happen to be.
And I'd like to think that all adults "act like adults and deal with adult life," regardless of their CAP membership category.
But now that I think about it, I know a bunch of senior members who appear to have difficulty with some of that. ;)
Quote from: AirAux on January 15, 2015, 06:59:14 PM
Those empty shirts are numbers and we get money from Congress, the Air Force, and the States based on numbers.
Integrity much?
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 06:16:33 PM
Ok.
I got no problem saying to safety. They are not here.
I got no problem telling the encampment commander he is free to contact those cadets himself.
I don care about the QUA it has little benefit to me and my program.
So like I said. If you want to go ahead. But don't try to say that my unit is some how not doing it right.
And doing that every month takes more time and effort than filling out a form. Just sayin'.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 15, 2015, 07:13:29 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 06:16:33 PM
Ok.
I got no problem saying to safety. They are not here.
I got no problem telling the encampment commander he is free to contact those cadets himself.
I don care about the QUA it has little benefit to me and my program.
So like I said. If you want to go ahead. But don't try to say that my unit is some how not doing it right.
And doing that every month takes more time and effort than filling out a form. Just sayin'.
Yep - not to mention this is supposed to be someone's actual
job. You know, Admin and Personnel?
Back to the original post. I don't think this has been answered yet:
39-2 para. 2-2.h
Prospective cadets visiting a traditional unit must participate in a trial period by attending three weekly squadron meetings before requesting membership. Unit commanders will not approve membership applications (online or in paper form) until the prospective cadet has attended his or her third squadron meeting... Prospective cadets may not explore CAP without joining for longer than 30 days.
Why does this regulation exist?
Should it be ignored or complied with?
Why?
Quote from: Ned on January 15, 2015, 07:11:59 PM
snip
Ned,
Fully agreed. I didn't go into the AD/Reserves/Guard differences because we were discussing the form (though I find interesting the little note about service academies!).
On the Marriage thing, agree or disagree, there's a presumption of "different" between married and unmarried. My wife and I have been married since June 2013. We were a bit over 23 years old. We're now closer to 25, and are still the only married couple in our friends circle.
They perceive us as different. Because we are. Now extrapolate that to a 17-20 year old being married vs their peers who are still in school/just out of the nest (maybe, ish, kinda, sorta)? Definitely had to be a factor in deciding that one (not that I was consulted).
It doesn't mater "why" someone isn't there. Having a unit full of married cadets and reservists at training
doesn't carry the corners. All the excuses, understanding sympathy, and benefit of the doubt won't
march with you into the woods on a SAR, or help you train the few members that do show up.
You're either >there< or you aren't. If you aren't, there you go.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 15, 2015, 07:13:29 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 06:16:33 PM
Ok.
I got no problem saying to safety. They are not here.
I got no problem telling the encampment commander he is free to contact those cadets himself.
I don care about the QUA it has little benefit to me and my program.
So like I said. If you want to go ahead. But don't try to say that my unit is some how not doing it right.
And doing that every month takes more time and effort than filling out a form. Just sayin'.
You got to do it every month anyway.....I do almost the same thing...Cadets who are not showing up...we follow up on them. We just don't do the 2b paper work.
That's the added admin burden I'm talking about.
If I were to kick out all my empty shirts today.....I'll just have to do it again next month as the next cadet crosses the line. My unit has been at a stable growth for a few years now. We take in each month about the same number as those who drop out. We got the numbers to put on a good program. So....the status quo is good as far as I can tell. Adding more admin burden and spending money.....certified letters are not free.....makes no sense to me.
That is all I'm saying.
Quote from: veritec on January 15, 2015, 07:27:13 PM
Back to the original post. I don't think this has been answered yet:
39-2 para. 2-2.h
Prospective cadets visiting a traditional unit must participate in a trial period by attending three weekly squadron meetings before requesting membership. Unit commanders will not approve membership applications (online or in paper form) until the prospective cadet has attended his or her third squadron meeting... Prospective cadets may not explore CAP without joining for longer than 30 days.
Why does this regulation exist?
It exist, I presume, because CAP has identified a large number of cadets who become inactive shortly after joining. While this regulation cannot ensure that new cadets will remain active after joining, it does provide an opportunity for prospective cadets to explore CAP before making a commitment and joining.
Quote from: veritec on January 15, 2015, 07:27:13 PMShould it be ignored or complied with?
We need to comply with all regulations, including this one. If there's an issue with a particular regulation or requirement, it should be elevated through the chain of command so that it can be corrected.
Quote from: veritec on January 15, 2015, 07:27:13 PMWhy?
Because it's mandatory. Furthermore, it makes sense. Any prospective member should get to know the unit and organization before making a commitment. This also allows the unit to get to know the prospective member before approving the application. It's a win-win.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 15, 2015, 07:30:24 PM
On the Marriage thing, agree or disagree, there's a presumption of "different" between married and unmarried. My wife and I have been married since June 2013. We were a bit over 23 years old. We're now closer to 25, and are still the only married couple in our friends circle. They perceive us as different. Because we are. Now extrapolate that to a 17-20 year old being married vs their peers who are still in school/just out of the nest (maybe, ish, kinda, sorta)? Definitely had to be a factor in deciding that one (not that I was consulted).
The only way to explain the marriage rule is from some sort of historical perspective, tied to long obsolete laws relating to the age of 21 as the age of majority in almost all states.
I have fought this (mostly losing) battle with the senior leadership for several decades. My issue is mostly one of fairness.
If one assumes that cadets in the 18-20.99 age bracket value their cadet membership, and one also believes in marriage as an important and special form of relationship, then CAP probably should not be in the business of discouraging marriage and instead encouraging our cadets to "shack up." (Or worse yet, marry in secret.)
On a fundamental fairlness level, it also seems odd that marriage would be forbidden but cadets engaged in a "registered domestic partnership" (or whatever it may be called in a given state) are unaffected.
It does not make a lot of sense, really. Cadets are permitted to marry and remain married as long as they are under 18. Again, I don't think CAP should be in the business of encouraging 16 & 17 year old cadets to marry, but punishing them by transferring them to senior status on their 18th birthday, thus depriving them of leadership training and college scholarships just when they might need them the most.
As I said, I have not yet pursuaded our senior leadership that this is an antiquated rule that does not belong in the 21st century. I will continue to respectfully engage from time to time. On the bright side, it is not a huge problem and affects only a small minority of our cadet membership.
Quote from: veritec on January 15, 2015, 07:27:13 PM
Back to the original post. I don't think this has been answered yet:
39-2 para. 2-2.h
Prospective cadets visiting a traditional unit must participate in a trial period by attending three weekly squadron meetings before requesting membership. Unit commanders will not approve membership applications (online or in paper form) until the prospective cadet has attended his or her third squadron meeting... Prospective cadets may not explore CAP without joining for longer than 30 days.
Why does this regulation exist?
Should it be ignored or complied with?
Why?
It exists...because we owe it to both our recruiting efforts, the perspective cadet and their parents to be sure that CAP and the perspective members are a good fit.
Recruiting and signing up kids at say a recruiting booth, taking their money and having them show up the next Monday.....and they find out that they don't like all the marching around...or "you mean we got to wear uniforms".
The 30 day clause is two fold....one is make sure the cadet can in fact meet the time demands that CAP requires. The second is to close out the loop whole that people were using to skate a person into CAP with out them actually joining CAP.
Someone come for weeks on end.....and they never actually join. At some point you got put up or shut up.
And no....we should not ignore the regulation. Can we/should we make exceptions to it? That's another debate.
Quote from: Ned on January 15, 2015, 07:45:27 PM
On a fundamental fairlness level, it also seems odd that marriage would be forbidden but cadets engaged in a "registered domestic partnership" (or whatever it may be called in a given state) are unaffected.
If the email signature thread is anything to follow by, expect additional language in the reg by next week. >:D
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 07:40:32 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 15, 2015, 07:13:29 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 06:16:33 PM
Ok.
I got no problem saying to safety. They are not here.
I got no problem telling the encampment commander he is free to contact those cadets himself.
I don care about the QUA it has little benefit to me and my program.
So like I said. If you want to go ahead. But don't try to say that my unit is some how not doing it right.
And doing that every month takes more time and effort than filling out a form. Just sayin'.
You got to do it every month anyway.....I do almost the same thing...Cadets who are not showing up...we follow up on them. We just don't do the 2b paper work.
That's the added admin burden I'm talking about.
If I were to kick out all my empty shirts today.....I'll just have to do it again next month as the next cadet crosses the line. My unit has been at a stable growth for a few years now. We take in each month about the same number as those who drop out. We got the numbers to put on a good program. So....the status quo is good as far as I can tell. Adding more admin burden and spending money.....certified letters are not free.....makes no sense to me.
That is all I'm saying.
If you have that many "empty shirts" every month that it's creating an administrative burden to your unit, then perhaps you have bigger problems that filling out a 2B.
That brings another question, why is retention such a challenge in CAP?
Eclipse, it is not an integrity thing, we are reporting dues paid members, that is all that is required. I have had many cadets over the years take a hiatus for 3-6 months, come back and re-engage. Glad I didn't 2B them.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 15, 2015, 07:35:28 PM
It doesn't mater "why" someone isn't there. Having a unit full of married cadets and reservists at training
doesn't carry the corners. All the excuses, understanding sympathy, and benefit of the doubt won't
march with you into the woods on a SAR, or help you train the few members that do show up.
You're either >there< or you aren't. If you aren't, there you go.
Bob,
I don't think this view is either mainstream or supported by the regulations.
We do indeed have provisions that allow cadets to be excused for various reasons. They are still required to meet various standards for promotion, but the program indeed contemplates and embraces the real life / CP interface.
Need to study for your physics final? Just let us know and you'll be excused. The world won't come to an end, but you'll probably have to make up that CPFT / CD discusion / whatever in order to be promoted.
Same thing for your IET or ROTC summer camp. That's important stuff and we will figure it out somehow.
Is the Academic Decathalon Team headed up to the State Capital for the finals? We'll make it work.
Cadet and composite units are not
tasked with ES & DR resposibilites. Qualified members assigned to cadet units are encouraged and welcomed to participate, of course, and cadets have saved a lot of lives by doing so.
But a cadet unit's primary mission is CP. And that is in no way hindered by allowing cadets to miss meetings on occasion. The regs are there for a reason, even if you may (as usual) disagree.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 07:46:24 PM
Quote from: veritec on January 15, 2015, 07:27:13 PM
Back to the original post. I don't think this has been answered yet:
39-2 para. 2-2.h
Prospective cadets visiting a traditional unit must participate in a trial period by attending three weekly squadron meetings before requesting membership. Unit commanders will not approve membership applications (online or in paper form) until the prospective cadet has attended his or her third squadron meeting... Prospective cadets may not explore CAP without joining for longer than 30 days.
Why does this regulation exist?
Should it be ignored or complied with?
Why?
It exists...because we owe it to both our recruiting efforts, the perspective cadet and their parents to be sure that CAP and the perspective members are a good fit.
Recruiting and signing up kids at say a recruiting booth, taking their money and having them show up the next Monday.....and they find out that they don't like all the marching around...or "you mean we got to wear uniforms".
The 30 day clause is two fold....one is make sure the cadet can in fact meet the time demands that CAP requires. The second is to close out the loop whole that people were using to skate a person into CAP with out them actually joining CAP.
Someone come for weeks on end.....and they never actually join. At some point you got put up or shut up.
And no....we should not ignore the regulation. Can we/should we make exceptions to it? That's another debate.
Agree completly. So in the scenario that started this thread, the kid that "can't" visit three meetings in 30 days because of sports and indeed has stated that their ongoing participation would only be 50% is not a good fit for the Cadet Program.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 15, 2015, 07:49:45 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 07:40:32 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 15, 2015, 07:13:29 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 06:16:33 PM
Ok.
I got no problem saying to safety. They are not here.
I got no problem telling the encampment commander he is free to contact those cadets himself.
I don care about the QUA it has little benefit to me and my program.
So like I said. If you want to go ahead. But don't try to say that my unit is some how not doing it right.
And doing that every month takes more time and effort than filling out a form. Just sayin'.
You got to do it every month anyway.....I do almost the same thing...Cadets who are not showing up...we follow up on them. We just don't do the 2b paper work.
That's the added admin burden I'm talking about.
If I were to kick out all my empty shirts today.....I'll just have to do it again next month as the next cadet crosses the line. My unit has been at a stable growth for a few years now. We take in each month about the same number as those who drop out. We got the numbers to put on a good program. So....the status quo is good as far as I can tell. Adding more admin burden and spending money.....certified letters are not free.....makes no sense to me.
That is all I'm saying.
If you have that many "empty shirts" every month that it's creating an administrative burden to your unit, then perhaps you have bigger problems that filling out a 2B.
In E-service today my unit sits at 46 cadets 33 seniors. I would estimate that 1/3 of them are "empty shirts" for one reason or another. Like I said our manning numbers are pretty steady....we lose about the same number of members as we gain. So we are looking about maybe 1-2 people (cadets and seniors) a month drop off our books. It is part of the cadet staff's job to contact each cadet who does not attend a meeting and report it up their chain every week. The First Sergeant's job is contact any cadet who has missed three in a row and find out what the deal is.
So....like I said we are doing well. Adding doing 1-2 2b's every month is not going to fix any "problems" yet identified.
As for congress/USAF......they know the score. They know that on 1 Jan or 14 Jul or when every the pull the "official" numbers for the budget process......a certain portion of those numbers are inactive members timing out, inactive members who keep paying dues, people on the books but are in active due to work, family, life concerns.
It is not an integrity issue.
If someone is out telling donars/congress we had 60K mission ready pilots based on e-service numbers....now that would be wrong.
Quote from: Ned on January 15, 2015, 07:58:54 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 15, 2015, 07:35:28 PM
It doesn't mater "why" someone isn't there. Having a unit full of married cadets and reservists at training
doesn't carry the corners. All the excuses, understanding sympathy, and benefit of the doubt won't
march with you into the woods on a SAR, or help you train the few members that do show up.
You're either >there< or you aren't. If you aren't, there you go.
Bob,
I don't think this view is either mainstream or supported by the regulations.
We do indeed have provisions that allow cadets to be excused for various reasons. They are still required to meet various standards for promotion, but the program indeed contemplates and embraces the real life / CP interface.
Need to study for your physics final? Just let us know and you'll be excused. The world won't come to an end, but you'll probably have to make up that CPFT / CD discusion / whatever in order to be promoted.
Same thing for your IET or ROTC summer camp. That's important stuff and we will figure it out somehow.
Is the Academic Decathalon Team headed up to the State Capital for the finals? We'll make it work.
Cadet and composite units are not tasked with ES & DR resposibilites. Qualified members assigned to cadet units are encouraged and welcomed to participate, of course, and cadets have saved a lot of lives by doing so.
But a cadet unit's primary mission is CP. And that is in no way hindered by allowing cadets to miss meetings on occasion. The regs are there for a reason, even if you may (as usual) disagree.
Ned, I couldn't agree more.
Quote from: Ned on January 15, 2015, 07:58:54 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 15, 2015, 07:35:28 PM
It doesn't mater "why" someone isn't there. Having a unit full of married cadets and reservists at training
doesn't carry the corners. All the excuses, understanding sympathy, and benefit of the doubt won't
march with you into the woods on a SAR, or help you train the few members that do show up.
You're either >there< or you aren't. If you aren't, there you go.
Bob,
I don't think this view is either mainstream or supported by the regulations.
We do indeed have provisions that allow cadets to be excused for various reasons. They are still required to meet various standards for promotion, but the program indeed contemplates and embraces the real life / CP interface.
Need to study for your physics final? Just let us know and you'll be excused. The world won't come to an end, but you'll probably have to make up that CPFT / CD discusion / whatever in order to be promoted.
Same thing for your IET or ROTC summer camp. That's important stuff and we will figure it out somehow.
Is the Academic Decathalon Team headed up to the State Capital for the finals? We'll make it work.
Cadet and composite units are not tasked with ES & DR resposibilites. Qualified members assigned to cadet units are encouraged and welcomed to participate, of course, and cadets have saved a lot of lives by doing so.
But a cadet unit's primary mission is CP. And that is in no way hindered by allowing cadets to miss meetings on occasion. The regs are there for a reason, even if you may (as usual) disagree.
That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about cadets who go incommunicado and aren't even responding / keeping up with requirements. On the football team? Great, see you in 3 months, please keep in touch and do your safety briefs online.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 15, 2015, 08:03:31 PM
That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about cadets who go incommunicado and aren't even responding / keeping up with requirements. On the football team? Great, see you in 3 months, please keep in touch and do your safety briefs online.
Exactly. And I'm talking about identifying that situation during the trial period.
Quote from: veritec on January 15, 2015, 08:01:24 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 07:46:24 PM
Quote from: veritec on January 15, 2015, 07:27:13 PM
Back to the original post. I don't think this has been answered yet:
39-2 para. 2-2.h
Prospective cadets visiting a traditional unit must participate in a trial period by attending three weekly squadron meetings before requesting membership. Unit commanders will not approve membership applications (online or in paper form) until the prospective cadet has attended his or her third squadron meeting... Prospective cadets may not explore CAP without joining for longer than 30 days.
Why does this regulation exist?
Should it be ignored or complied with?
Why?
It exists...because we owe it to both our recruiting efforts, the perspective cadet and their parents to be sure that CAP and the perspective members are a good fit.
Recruiting and signing up kids at say a recruiting booth, taking their money and having them show up the next Monday.....and they find out that they don't like all the marching around...or "you mean we got to wear uniforms".
The 30 day clause is two fold....one is make sure the cadet can in fact meet the time demands that CAP requires. The second is to close out the loop whole that people were using to skate a person into CAP with out them actually joining CAP.
Someone come for weeks on end.....and they never actually join. At some point you got put up or shut up.
And no....we should not ignore the regulation. Can we/should we make exceptions to it? That's another debate.
Agree completly. So in the scenario that started this thread, the kid that "can't" visit three meetings in 30 days because of sports and indeed has stated that their ongoing participation would only be 50% is not a good fit for the Cadet Program.
Can't make the call from this distance. Maybe, maybe not. Does a lot a lot of sports....may mean....football in the fall an base ball in the summer....but spring and winter are free. Meeting only twice a month, and working with leadership to make up missed events....slow down progression....but again......I don't know if it is a good or bad thing. Not being able to be there regularly will affect leadership positions available.....which again may not be acceptable to the perspective member.
In my gut feeling.......it is up to the cadet's parents. If they understand what the deal is, what their child must do to progress in the program and they still want to do it.....I'm not going to say no. I tell all our recruits and their parents what the deal is. Uniforms, hair cuts, weekly meetings, off night activities, encampments, money, money, money. We have a formal membership board with each new cadet recruit and we interview their parents separately.
So.....like I said to the OP. If everyone is honest up front....and they still want to try it. I see no reason NOT to allow them to join.
If up front the parent says....we can only make two meetings......and that breaks the letter of 39-2......Three meetings over a 45 day period or IMHO meets the spirit of the regulation for an exceptional situation (I can hear Eclipse cringing right now :) ).
My question would be....if Perspective Cadet Showed up on the Feb 1 meeting, the Feb 7 meeting and then dropped off the radar until March 7....what do you do?
Do you restart his clock...."you need to be here for two more meetings within the next 30 days"....but wait....that extends the clock...is that what 39-2 just said you can't do.
Do you say...."okay this is meeting 3 welcome to CAP"......but he is outside his current clock?
The answer is somewhere in between based on the what CAP is intending by the regulation, and what the actual situation with the perspective member.
YMMV.
Say....sorry you can't join now.
Quote from: AirAux on January 15, 2015, 07:50:19 PM
Eclipse, it is not an integrity thing, we are reporting dues paid members, that is all that is required. I have had many cadets over the years take a hiatus for 3-6 months, come back and re-engage. Glad I didn't 2B them.
It's 100% an integrity issue, especially in light of using those mischaracterized numbers to request or support funding.
CAP is not an affinity organization where writing a check actually means something, as do raw numbers.
When an organization like the American Motorcyclist Association reports that it has "125,000 members", those listening
can assume that at least that many people have enough of a passing interest in riding that they are willing to write a check
every year and that there is a fair chance they may vote based on related issues. In those situations, writing the check
>is< the expectation.
CAP, on the other hand, is a service organization and writing the check is where you >start<.
When CAP cites its numbers in reports to Congress, press releases, or marketing collateral, they don't add an asterisk
that says "only 1/3 of the member shows up enough to be counted as an asset". The use the 60k number specifical
to infer and insinuate the scope and scale of CAP's presence and influence, which isn't any where near
what a national organization of 60k members with military affiliation actually should be.
Ergo. "Integrity".
Quote from: Ned on January 15, 2015, 07:58:54 PM
But a cadet unit's primary mission is CP. And that is in no way hindered by allowing cadets to miss meetings on occasion. The regs are there for a reason, even if you may (as usual) disagree.
Agreed, though somewhat meaningless in the context of this thread, as that isn't what we're discussing here. The below is.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 15, 2015, 08:03:31 PM
That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about cadets who go incommunicado and aren't even responding / keeping up with requirements. On the football team? Great, see you in 3 months, please keep in touch and do your safety briefs online.
I think the spirit of the 30 day rule is to prevent a 3 year cadet in Nevada who's not a member, but is totally at all CAP meetings. Come for a month, explore what we have to offer, join or don't.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 15, 2015, 08:22:43 PM
I think the spirit of the 30 day rule is to prevent a 3 year cadet in Nevada who's not a member, but is totally at all CAP meetings. Come for a month, explore what we have to offer, join or don't.
Agreed.
Eclipse....they don't add the asterisk because they already know the score.
Making the books look clean would have to be a daily job.
We would have to write another regulation defining active and inactive.
Then we would need to have to write rules on what is excused and what is not, and how to get exceptions to the rule.
All to make sure the books look good.
So my question....when do the books have to look good?
In the Boy Scouts...the books only have to look good at the begging of the charter year. They send out the official charters.....tell you to cross out anyone who is a ghost, update all the information, add all the new members and send it (and all the checks) up the chain.
The BSA from that point on.....could care less about the numbers. Those are the numbers they report to their donor, to congress, and everyone. Even if they know that summer 1/3 of them will be gone.
So....is this book cleaning just something we should do before we report to congress? Before we report to the USAF for budget requests? If they are good on 1 Jan.....is it an integrity issue when we use the same numbers on 1 July to someone else.....when we "know" that they may not be right?
Sorry Eclipse......it is not an integrity issue. The congress critters are smart enough to know what is what....if not......well...that's another thread.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 15, 2015, 08:24:38 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 15, 2015, 08:22:43 PM
I think the spirit of the 30 day rule is to prevent a 3 year cadet in Nevada who's not a member, but is totally at all CAP meetings. Come for a month, explore what we have to offer, join or don't.
Agreed.
+1
See we do agree sometimes.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 15, 2015, 08:22:43 PM
I think the spirit of the 30 day rule is to prevent a 3 year cadet in Nevada who's not a member, but is totally at all CAP meetings. Come for a month, explore what we have to offer, join or don't.
Okay so where do you draw the line? We have people who've been visiting off and on since last summer. Again, I don't think that behavior bodes well for those kids' future level of participation in the program. Yet here we are still with arms wide open.
If you want to pretend this is just to "make the books look good" then you're serving as a very nice example of the problem.
It's not, you know it isn't, but choose to say "meh". You're unfortunate prerogative, however that's not the
case in regards to the mandate of the leadership (at least conceptually).
Quote from: veritec on January 15, 2015, 08:36:07 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 15, 2015, 08:22:43 PM
I think the spirit of the 30 day rule is to prevent a 3 year cadet in Nevada who's not a member, but is totally at all CAP meetings. Come for a month, explore what we have to offer, join or don't.
Okay so where do you draw the line? We have people who've been visiting off and on since last summer. Again, I don't think that behavior bodes well for those kids' future level of participation in the program. Yet here we are still with arms wide open.
It's always going to be the Commander's ultimate and subjective call.
The "30 day rule" is unenforceable, for starters because not all CAP units, cadet or otherwise, meet every week.
Were it me making the decision, and the expectations were clear, then it's not unreasonable to
have the cadet in question attend the next three meetings in succession that the expectation is
they would be attending normally (every other week, etc.).
Beyond that, if the CC's good with it, it's his call.
Quote from: veritec on January 15, 2015, 08:36:07 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 15, 2015, 08:22:43 PM
I think the spirit of the 30 day rule is to prevent a 3 year cadet in Nevada who's not a member, but is totally at all CAP meetings. Come for a month, explore what we have to offer, join or don't.
Okay so where do you draw the line? We have people who've been visiting off and on since last summer. Again, I don't think that behavior bodes well for those kids' future level of participation in the program. Yet here we are still with arms wide open.
Make the call. Tell them that "okay....you got to make a decisions. You've seen us in action, you know what we require of you. let's make a choice or figure out what the problem is.:
I say the last as we had a couple of cadets who were waffling because their parents were having trouble coming up with the money.
Again....a nice time for an honest converstation....and maybe some creative thinking to over come the obstacle.
Quote from: veritec on January 15, 2015, 08:36:07 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 15, 2015, 08:22:43 PM
I think the spirit of the 30 day rule is to prevent a 3 year cadet in Nevada who's not a member, but is totally at all CAP meetings. Come for a month, explore what we have to offer, join or don't.
Okay so where do you draw the line? We have people who've been visiting off and on since last summer. Again, I don't think that behavior bodes well for those kids' future level of participation in the program. Yet here we are still with arms wide open.
At least 3 meetings. Stick to under 30 days (does that make it 4-5 meetings depending on the month?) total. Outside of that, "Now that you've seen 3-5 meetings of how we operate, are you interested in joining? If you need time to think about it, that's acceptable, but please let us know, as regulations and insurance requires us to limit non-member attendance outside of that period".
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 08:45:30 PM
Quote from: veritec on January 15, 2015, 08:36:07 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 15, 2015, 08:22:43 PM
I think the spirit of the 30 day rule is to prevent a 3 year cadet in Nevada who's not a member, but is totally at all CAP meetings. Come for a month, explore what we have to offer, join or don't.
Okay so where do you draw the line? We have people who've been visiting off and on since last summer. Again, I don't think that behavior bodes well for those kids' future level of participation in the program. Yet here we are still with arms wide open.
Make the call. Tell them that "okay....you got to make a decisions. You've seen us in action, you know what we require of you. let's make a choice or figure out what the problem is.:
I say the last as we had a couple of cadets who were waffling because their parents were having trouble coming up with the money.
Again....a nice time for an honest converstation....and maybe some creative thinking to over come the obstacle.
This, as well.
If we need to talk start up costs...there's the actual membership fee (call it $50). Then there's "stuff". Uniforms and insignia. ($200 - rough pie in the sky number). Outside of that? You aren't required to do much outside of the meetings, or go to events with a cost. CAP is still one of the most affordable activities out here, but there are costs.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 15, 2015, 08:37:17 PM
If you want to pretend this is just to "make the books look good" then you're serving as a very nice example of the problem.
It's not, you know it isn't, but choose to say "meh". You're unfortunate prerogative, however that's not the
case in regards to the mandate of the leadership (at least conceptually).
Then what is the issue?
Why kick out the empty shirts?
You were the one who brought up the issue about the numbers not being right and it being an integrity issue.
I'm just saying......that IMHO in my AOR the stated benefits of 2b'ing empty shirts does not justify the costs of doing so.
Because many times you portend to speak with a voice that encompasses the organization as a whole,
and certainly many people view you in that light, like it or not.
And while no one unit's efforts in normalizing make that much difference, as an organization it's critical that
this happen and happen soon, otherwise it's status quo as the train rolls to a stop.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 08:49:21 PM
Then what is the issue?
Why kick out the empty shirts?
You were the one who brought up the issue about the numbers not being right and it being an integrity issue.
I'm just saying......that IMHO in my AOR the stated benefits of 2b'ing empty shirts does not justify the costs of doing so.
We're just going in circles now. Already addressed, asked, answered, etc.
Why kick empty shirts? Because of higher HQ directives. For easier planning internally without having to sit down with a list, an start crossing off those empties to see who is actually around to help.
Don't want/need to boot them in your unit? Great. But the next time you mention your 46 cadets, I'll mentally go "30" in my head, and understand that we're on the same footing, and you don't have a 50% advantage in numbers in your program.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 15, 2015, 08:53:26 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 08:49:21 PM
Then what is the issue?
Why kick out the empty shirts?
You were the one who brought up the issue about the numbers not being right and it being an integrity issue.
I'm just saying......that IMHO in my AOR the stated benefits of 2b'ing empty shirts does not justify the costs of doing so.
We're just going in circles now. Already addressed, asked, answered, etc.
Why kick empty shirts? Because of higher HQ directives. For easier planning internally without having to sit down with a list, an start crossing off those empties to see who is actually around to help.
Don't want/need to boot them in your unit? Great. But the next time you mention your 46 cadets, I'll mentally go "30" in my head, and understand that we're on the same footing, and you don't have a 50% advantage in numbers in your program.
Show me a directive that says we must kick them out. I accept we can.....but you just say HHG directives!
You should be lopping off 30% every time you hear any number about CAP.
Also please know....we are not competition for anything so why you even worried about an advantage?
I got 46 cadets on the books....30 active. You got 30 people on your book and 30 active.....and you kick out 16 cadets before their member ship is up.
End result is the same....but I have more time to spend on program or to just sit back and enjoy myself.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 09:03:18 PM
End result is the same....but I have more time to spend on program or to just sit back and enjoy myself.
And this is the small-squad mentality which will be the backbone of CAP? Don't worry, be happy?
And? You have yet to show that 'fixing' the issue fixed anything.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 09:03:18 PM
Show me a directive that says we must kick them out. I accept we can.....but you just say HHG directives!
You should be lopping off 30% every time you hear any number about CAP.
Also please know....we are not competition for anything so why you even worried about an advantage?
I got 46 cadets on the books....30 active. You got 30 people on your book and 30 active.....and you kick out 16 cadets before their member ship is up.
End result is the same....but I have more time to spend on program or to just sit back and enjoy myself.
Word I got is that if someone is safety expired past x-days, they are to be transferred to Patron or 2B'd. Cadets can't go Patron, so it's a 2B. Chances are, if they are 60 days out of safety currency, they are not coming back. Already addressed that we reach out, give them plenty of chances, and offer to do a "resignation" if that's the way they want to go. Temporary absences are completely alright if we know what's going on.
I know we're not competing (unless of course, it's silly things like Squadron of Merit, and units play the numbers just for that purpose, including clicking off Awards in FY A or B depending on need...seriously), but it's a nice benchmark to go by. When I hear a unit has 60 cadets, I expect to see an average meeting of 45 cadets. When I see 30-25, I have to start wondering why the attendance is so low.
Actually, I'd have more time to spend on the program NOT dealing with inactives (by 2B'ing them). They skew all reports, they skew flight sizes (nothing like flight A having 10 cadets and flight B 3 because they happened to draw the inactive pile), they take up that mental work time by having to go in and "cross them out" each time I'm looking at said reports.
I don't care about SoM or SoD anymore. That program is so mismanaged at the local level, that it feels like it's a "pick out of a hat" type thing, based on no criteria outlined whatsoever. I don't "really" care about QCUA, but I also see the benefit of AEX, STEM program, etc, so why not strive to hit those benchmarks. Do I really care to have 40% cadets with WBA or higher? Perhaps, depending on how many cadets we have, and how many staff positions need to be filled. 50% encampment? I'd love to see a 60-75% rate instead of trying to hit that minimum 50%. Cadet growth year to year? Yep, would love to grow 10 cadets or 10% a year, but lets be realistic, the retention is based on 40%, so if I have 30 on the books, 10% is 3, and only 40% stick around, so I really need to get 10-11 in the door to keep those 3, and I also need to think about replacing aging out cadets (7 last year), and the random non-first year drops. So realistically, I need to be bringing in 15-20 new cadets to keep up with our last year numbers. Then I need another 10-12 to keep the growth going.
Word? What word is that? And transferring the does not fix the numbers just adds overhead.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 09:29:33 PM
Word? What word is that? And transferring the does not fix the numbers just adds overhead.
Word from my CC. I'm not going to question him on it. If he says he got a directive, I salute, try to save a few cadets from the ax, and if I can't report back that unfortunately he can file the paperwork to make them former members. Transfering to patron absolutely does fix the problem, as their safety currency is a non-factor.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2015, 09:26:02 PM
And? You have yet to show that 'fixing' the issue fixed anything.
No, you're simply ignoring reality.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 15, 2015, 08:03:31 PMOn the football team? Great, see you in 3 months, please keep in touch and do your safety briefs online.
Why? If they are not participating, then there is
no requirement to be safety current.
Quote from: Fubar on January 16, 2015, 02:46:21 AM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 15, 2015, 08:03:31 PMOn the football team? Great, see you in 3 months, please keep in touch and do your safety briefs online.
Why? If they are not participating, then there is no requirement to be safety current.
Because NHQ considers the 4 minutes it takes to redo knife safety the absolute bare minimum
to be considered an "active member".
If that is too much, you're not an asset, nor are you being served. Concentrate on whatever is more
shiny to you and move on.
Site please
Quote from: Fubar on January 16, 2015, 02:46:21 AM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 15, 2015, 08:03:31 PMOn the football team? Great, see you in 3 months, please keep in touch and do your safety briefs online.
Why? If they are not participating, then there is no requirement to be safety current.
It is when it's coming down from wing. Until NHQ makes an "inactive" button for commanders to put those people under, they are listed as active members, who are out of safety currency.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 16, 2015, 03:15:58 AM
Site please
http://capmembers.com (http://capmembers.com) >:D
I have heard that someone getting 2B'ed is flagged at National and not allowed to rejoin. Do you really want to lose a possible lifetime asset because they missed three meetings or safety requirements as a 12 year old cadet? As Ned said, 2B'ing is for serious discipline problems. Your mentality appears to be that of a bully. We are not here to ruin peoples lives. We are here to help them. I have been a member 37 years. I have been a Deputy Commander or Commander 22 of those years. I have never 2B'ed anyone. I have represented CAP in several 2B actions and during the investigation stage almost all of the attention is on the person issuing the 2B and many Squadron members, including other cadets will be asked about your actions. Again, Govern Yourself Accordingly.
Quote from: AirAux on January 16, 2015, 09:09:33 PM
I have heard that someone getting 2B'ed is flagged at National and not allowed to rejoin. Do you really want to lose a possible lifetime asset because they missed three meetings or safety requirements as a 12 year old cadet?
Depends. While a 2B can get you kicked out permanently, that is not always the case. We had a Squadron Commander 2B a cadet for lack of attendance and progression. He later rejoined the program as a senior member without any problems. YMMV.
Quote from: AirAux on January 16, 2015, 09:09:33 PMduring the investigation stage almost all of the attention is on the person issuing the 2B and many Squadron members, including other cadets will be asked about your actions.
This is the reason you run a unit by the book and aboveboard, then you're not concerned about "attention". Shying away from
appropriate personnel actions because you don't want "attention" is dereliction of duty.
In regards to a termination for non-participation or lack of progression, I can't begin to imagine why there would be any
"investigation" to start with. We're generally talking about people who don't show up and have no interest in CAP. Many wouldn't even
notice. Assuming their was a hearing, why would anyone involve other cadets?
Also, for the record, when >any< member is terminated at the unit level, the appeal is to either Group or Wing (the next echelon).
Since I wouldn't terminate a member without discussing the matter with the next echelon, that issue is closed, since any appeal
would be denied upon submittal. Beyond that, it's a MARB case and not likely to be considered (since all the i's would be dotted, etc.)
There's only one question: "Did the cadet participate to the satisfaction of the CC and / or progress at a reasonable rate (generally still considered
to be at least once every 6 months, but that's a subjective call). If either or both parts are "no", there's no appeal.
Quote from: LSThiker on January 16, 2015, 09:19:09 PM
Quote from: AirAux on January 16, 2015, 09:09:33 PM
I have heard that someone getting 2B'ed is flagged at National and not allowed to rejoin. Do you really want to lose a possible lifetime asset because they missed three meetings or safety requirements as a 12 year old cadet?
Depends. While a 2B can get you kicked out permanently, that is not always the case. We had a Squadron Commander 2B a cadet for lack of attendance and progression. He later rejoined the program as a senior member without any problems. YMMV.
+1 The only reason a former member would be "flagged" would be for gross disciplinary issues, of which "just never showed up"
isn't generally going to be one of them, especially for a cadet, but even for a senior.
Asking "What's different this time around?" would be fair game, though.
Quote from: AirAux on January 16, 2015, 09:09:33 PM
I have heard that someone getting 2B'ed is flagged at National and not allowed to rejoin. Do you really want to lose a possible lifetime asset because they missed three meetings or safety requirements as a 12 year old cadet? As Ned said, 2B'ing is for serious discipline problems. Your mentality appears to be that of a bully. We are not here to ruin peoples lives. We are here to help them. I have been a member 37 years. I have been a Deputy Commander or Commander 22 of those years. I have never 2B'ed anyone. I have represented CAP in several 2B actions and during the investigation stage almost all of the attention is on the person issuing the 2B and many Squadron members, including other cadets will be asked about your actions. Again, Govern Yourself Accordingly.
A misconduct 2b may flag them, any of the other reasons listed on the form? No.
2b, again, is not a lifetime banhammer, it's a form to end somones membership in CAP. That. Is. All.
Never 2b'd anyone? Is that supposed to be an accomplishment? I think of NIN as a BTDT type of guy. He's done it plenty. Still would say he's been one of the better commanders I've heard of.
Being a bully? Seriously? Next thing you'll say is that the proper way to terminate membership is hazing too.
Take a look at my topic about the online cadet application, and the commitment the cadet and parent needs to check off before being able to submit the application.
CAPR 52-16, 39-2, and yes, even CAPF 2B are on my side of this.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2015, 09:29:37 PM
Also, for the record, when >any< member is terminated at the unit level, the appeal is to either Group or Wing (the next echelon).
Since I wouldn't terminate a member without discussing the matter with the next echelon, that issue is closed, since any appeal
would be denied upon submittal. Beyond that, it's a MARB case and not likely to be considered (since all the i's would be dotted, etc.)
Pre-coordination of an action with the echelon to whom the appeal is vested could easily be challenged as a fundamental breech of due process. So, all your "i"s would actually be crossed, not dotted.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 16, 2015, 10:01:49 PM
Pre-coordination of an action with the echelon to whom the appeal is vested could easily be challenged as a fundamental breech of due process. So, all your "i"s would actually be crossed, not dotted.
Consulting your superiors is not a "breach of process", if anything it >is< the process.
There isn't a wing CC in this organization who would tell you not to consult with them or the JA if you're concerned
in regards to a termination action, nor a JA or IG who would respond "I can't discuss this issue as it might be appealed."
There have been any number of times where I have been sent VFR-Direct to NHQ Legal for one thing or another,
including disciplinary issues. Who does the "breach of process" appeal go to then? The Supreme Court of Civil Air Patrol?
Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2015, 10:25:16 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 16, 2015, 10:01:49 PM
Pre-coordination of an action with the echelon to whom the appeal is vested could easily be challenged as a fundamental breech of due process. So, all your "i"s would actually be crossed, not dotted.
Consulting your superiors is not a "breach of process", if anything it >is< the process.
There isn't a wing CC in this organization who would tell you not to consult with them or the JA if you're concerned
in regards to a termination action, nor a JA or IG who would respond "I can't discuss this issue as it might be appealed."
There have been any number of times where I have been sent VFR-Direct to NHQ Legal for one thing or another,
including disciplinary issues. Who does the "breach of process" appeal go to then? The Supreme Court of Civil Air Patrol?
So, you consider it appropriate to have an action pre-approved by the person to whom an appeal would be decided by?
Were I a Group Commander and a squadron commander did this, I would advise the Wing Commander to appoint another Group Commander to hear the appeal.
That effectively makes the appeal pre-decided, and that is a fundamental denial of due process.
And the MARP has authority to deal with decisions reached without due process.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 16, 2015, 10:01:49 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2015, 09:29:37 PM
Also, for the record, when >any< member is terminated at the unit level, the appeal is to either Group or Wing (the next echelon).
Since I wouldn't terminate a member without discussing the matter with the next echelon, that issue is closed, since any appeal
would be denied upon submittal. Beyond that, it's a MARB case and not likely to be considered (since all the i's would be dotted, etc.)
Pre-coordination of an action with the echelon to whom the appeal is vested could easily be challenged as a fundamental breech of due process. So, all your "i"s would actually be crossed, not dotted.
It's not pre-coordination. It's part of the process.
"Hey GroupCC, I've got an inactive cadet, haven't seen him in months, he's not answering calls or emails, we're going to 2B him for lack of attendance"
"Thanks for the heads up SquadronCC".
Now, if a cadet appeals it, what's the defense?
"I was there, but no one saw me because I'm part of CAPSOC"?
Quote from: JeffDG on January 16, 2015, 10:31:57 PM
So, you consider it appropriate to have an action pre-approved by the person to whom an appeal would be decided by?
Hey, take it up with NHQ - it's their process.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 16, 2015, 10:31:57 PM
And the MARP has authority to deal with decisions reached without due process.
Yes they do, and your example isn't that.
Seriously, this is the level of over-thinking that stifles action and has stagnated CAP.
An empty shirt no one has seen for 6-months to a year plus is not about to start filing appeals
if he is terminated, and if he does, fine - the termination isn't a subjective issue.
It's not a disciplinary action, it's not punitive or discriminatory, and it doesn't bar readmission.
You. Never. Show. Up.
And the end benefit to CAP is???????
Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2015, 10:44:53 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 16, 2015, 10:31:57 PM
So, you consider it appropriate to have an action pre-approved by the person to whom an appeal would be decided by?
Hey, take it up with NHQ - it's their process.
No, the process is:
Commander makes a decision
Commander informs member and higher echelon
Member has right of appeal to higher echelon
What you describe, pre-clearing with the higher echelon is simply a way to vitiate the member's right to a meaningful appeal of the action taken.
If a Squadron Commander pre-clears a 2b with the Group Commander, then that Group Commander should, to preserve the member's due process rights, recuse themselves and ask the Wing Commander to select another Group Commander to rule on the appeal.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2015, 09:29:37 PM
since any appeal would be denied upon submittal. Beyond that, it's a MARB case and not likely to be considered (since all the i's would be dotted, etc.)
Please cite the regulation that permits an adverse membership action to be "denied upon submittal".
The approving authority is required by regulation to convene an appeal board.
For someone who insists that commanders either do something discretionary or they are in breach of their duty of integrity, you seem to play pretty fast and loose with regulations governing the due process rights of members. Regulations that impose substantive duties upon commanders and other officers, not discretionary ones.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 16, 2015, 11:33:26 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2015, 10:44:53 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 16, 2015, 10:31:57 PM
So, you consider it appropriate to have an action pre-approved by the person to whom an appeal would be decided by?
Hey, take it up with NHQ - it's their process.
No, the process is:
Commander makes a decision
Commander informs member and higher echelon
Member has right of appeal to higher echelon
What you describe, pre-clearing with the higher echelon is simply a way to vitiate the member's right to a meaningful appeal of the action taken.
If a Squadron Commander pre-clears a 2b with the Group Commander, then that Group Commander should, to preserve the member's due process rights, recuse themselves and ask the Wing Commander to select another Group Commander to rule on the appeal.
This sounds very nice and logical, except it isn't the way the system is defined, nor the way the system works in practice.
If you feel that consulting your superiors before taking a membership action is verboten, so be it. That's not the case,
but if it makes you feel good, carry on.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 16, 2015, 11:37:11 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2015, 09:29:37 PM
since any appeal would be denied upon submittal. Beyond that, it's a MARB case and not likely to be considered (since all the i's would be dotted, etc.)
Please cite the regulation that permits an adverse membership action to be "denied upon submittal".
Forgive my shorthand in moving the conversation along. Cadets terminated for reasons other then misconduct
have no appeal, ergo, "denied upon submittal".
See 35-3 Page 5, Section 6 A&B
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R035_003_B74F5A60C44CF.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R035_003_B74F5A60C44CF.pdf)
Also note that on CAPF 2b, "Failure to Progress" and "Lack of Interest" are not considered "misconduct".
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/F002B_E249721A9E98E.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/F002B_E249721A9E98E.pdf)
And as long as we're here, for those wondering where the definition of "Non-participation" is, NHQ specifically
defines it on this form as "failure to attend three meetings without acceptable excuse".
In summary, a cadet terminated for nonparticipation or lack of progression
has no avenue of appealand the termination is considered "final" upon submission.
(http://1.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/99/69/fd4254de3fe67bb9425d2580d47b4019-micdrop15.gif)
Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2015, 11:54:06 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 16, 2015, 11:37:11 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2015, 09:29:37 PM
since any appeal would be denied upon submittal. Beyond that, it's a MARB case and not likely to be considered (since all the i's would be dotted, etc.)
Please cite the regulation that permits an adverse membership action to be "denied upon submittal".
Forgive my shorthand in moving the conversation along. Cadets terminated for reasons other then misconduct
have no appeal, ergo, "denied upon submittal".
See 35-3 Page 5, Section 6 A&B
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R035_003_B74F5A60C44CF.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R035_003_B74F5A60C44CF.pdf)
Also note that on CAPF 2b, "Failure to Progress" and "Lack of Interest" are not considered "misconduct".
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/F002B_E249721A9E98E.pdf (http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/F002B_E249721A9E98E.pdf)
And as long as we're here, for those wondering where the definition of "Non-participation" is, NHQ specifically
defines it on this form as "failure to attend three meetings without acceptable excuse".
In summary, a cadet terminated for nonparticipation or lack of progression has no avenue of appeal
and the termination is considered "final" upon submission.
(http://1.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/99/69/fd4254de3fe67bb9425d2580d47b4019-micdrop15.gif)
Classy...
Still trying to get where a commander who doesn't exercise his/her discretion is violating his duty of integrity.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 17, 2015, 02:44:27 AM
Still trying to get where a commander who doesn't exercise his/her discretion is violating his duty of integrity.
Why? I certainly didn't say that. What I said was:
Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2015, 09:29:37 PM
This is the reason you run a unit by the book and aboveboard, then you're not concerned about "attention". Shying away from
appropriate personnel actions because you don't want "attention" is dereliction of duty.
This also calls back to integrity.
A commander who decides not to act in good conscience is exercising his discretion. One who decides not to
act because it might draw attention, questions would be raised, etc., etc., is derelict in his duty, because one
of the
fundamental duties of a commander is making difficult, sometimes unpopular decisions,
and the fortitude to act in difficult circumstances.
And with that said, IMHO, this is a "decision" which for the most part should be out of a CC's hands,
and thus removing a pinch point to action. Attendance records and realistic expectations of participation
would automate the process - members who "pop" an expectation would be assumed terminated unless
acted upon by the commander (just like promotions should be handled).
Quote from: JeffDG on January 16, 2015, 11:33:26 PM
If a Squadron Commander pre-clears a 2b with the Group Commander, then that Group Commander should, to preserve the member's due process rights, recuse themselves and ask the Wing Commander to select another Group Commander to rule on the appeal.
That makes no sense. Why would a group commander from a different group and not in the chain of command of the member appealing or the commander who initiated the action hear the appeal? You need to go back and read the regs.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 16, 2015, 10:31:57 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 16, 2015, 10:25:16 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 16, 2015, 10:01:49 PM
Pre-coordination of an action with the echelon to whom the appeal is vested could easily be challenged as a fundamental breech of due process. So, all your "i"s would actually be crossed, not dotted.
Consulting your superiors is not a "breach of process", if anything it >is< the process.
There isn't a wing CC in this organization who would tell you not to consult with them or the JA if you're concerned
in regards to a termination action, nor a JA or IG who would respond "I can't discuss this issue as it might be appealed."
There have been any number of times where I have been sent VFR-Direct to NHQ Legal for one thing or another,
including disciplinary issues. Who does the "breach of process" appeal go to then? The Supreme Court of Civil Air Patrol?
So, you consider it appropriate to have an action pre-approved by the person to whom an appeal would be decided by?
Since when is notification the same as pre-approval?
Quote from: JeffDG on January 16, 2015, 10:31:57 PM
Were I a Group Commander and a squadron commander did this, I would advise the Wing Commander to appoint another Group Commander to hear the appeal.
Not part of the process. Already discussed on previous post.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 16, 2015, 10:31:57 PM
That effectively makes the appeal pre-decided, and that is a fundamental denial of due process.
How? CAPR 35-5 specifically states that termination due to misconduct or cause must be notified to the commander in the next echelon. This doesn't constitute approval. CAPR 35-5 also states that the termination action can be withdrawn at any time by the initiating unit commander or the approving authority [commander at next echelon]. How can that commander withdraw a termination action unless he or she is aware of it?
Quote from: JeffDG on January 16, 2015, 10:31:57 PM
And the MARP has authority to deal with decisions reached without due process.
Again, you've failed to show how notifying the next commander in the chain is a breach of due process or where in the regulations is stated that that's not allowed.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 17, 2015, 04:18:21 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 16, 2015, 11:33:26 PM
If a Squadron Commander pre-clears a 2b with the Group Commander, then that Group Commander should, to preserve the member's due process rights, recuse themselves and ask the Wing Commander to select another Group Commander to rule on the appeal.
That makes no sense. Why would a group commander from a different group and not in the chain of command of the member appealing or the commander who initiated the action hear the appeal? You need to go back and read the regs.
Because if there is a conflict of interst, thats who hears the appeal. You might want to follow your advice.
FYI, from the regulations:
QuoteIn the event the approving
authority is determined by the next higher level commander to be disqualified from making the
final decision due to an impermissible conflict of interest, the next higher level commander shall
appoint another commander at the same level to act as the approving authority and appoint the
appeal board
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 17, 2015, 04:35:03 PM
Again, you've failed to show how notifying the next commander in the chain is a breach of due process or where in the regulations is stated that that's not allowed.
Acting as the appeal authority for a decision you helped make is a fundamental breach of due process.
Your quotes and assertions are not relevent as NHQ as specifically defined this as the process,
meaning it's >not<, by design, a "conflict of interest".
Quote from: Eclipse on January 17, 2015, 10:27:47 PM
Your quotes and assertions are not relevent as NHQ as specifically defined this as the process,
meaning it's >not<, by design, a "conflict of interest".
Where has NHQ "defined this as the process"? Citation please. You seem to confuse how you do things with what the regulations actually say.
The process as designed (as evidenced by the actual regulations) has the squadron commander making a decision, and sending it up the chain. Not playing "Mother may I". An individual cannot sit in judgement of a decision they participated in making and have any resemblance to "due process". Just doesn't work.
How can it not be a conflict of interest for someone to act as the appeal authority for a decision they made?
Quote from: Eclipse on January 17, 2015, 10:27:47 PM
Your quotes and assertions are not relevent as NHQ as specifically defined this as the process,
meaning it's >not<, by design, a "conflict of interest".
In defining the basic elements of due process, which CAP has adopted by using the term without offering a competing definition, the law is pretty clear that a hearing before an impartial tribunal is critical.
QuoteThe neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life, liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the facts or the law. At the same time, it preserves both the appearance and reality of fairness, "generating the feeling, so important to a popular government, that justice has been done," by ensuring that no person will be deprived of his interests in the absence of a proceeding in which he may present his case with assurance that the arbiter is not predisposed to find against him.
(Ray MARSHALL, Secretary of Labor, et al., Appellants, v. JERRICO, INC.
446 U.S. 238 (100 S.Ct. 1610, 64 L.Ed.2d 182), internal citations omitted)
How can a member have the "assurance that the arbiter is not predisposed to find against him" if that arbiter was involved in making the decision that is under appeal in the first place?
I am fairly new to CAP but I would assume that some basic things would work like they do in the Air Force. One of those things is notifying your chain of command of actions that you do that may come up to them. It is called keeping command informed so they are not blindsided. It is not seeking permission but it may be seeking advice and guidance.
Jeff, you're wrong.
Read the regs, it's all there.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 17, 2015, 09:52:44 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 17, 2015, 04:18:21 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 16, 2015, 11:33:26 PM
If a Squadron Commander pre-clears a 2b with the Group Commander, then that Group Commander should, to preserve the member's due process rights, recuse themselves and ask the Wing Commander to select another Group Commander to rule on the appeal.
That makes no sense. Why would a group commander from a different group and not in the chain of command of the member appealing or the commander who initiated the action hear the appeal? You need to go back and read the regs.
Because if there is a conflict of interst, thats who hears the appeal. You might want to follow your advice.
FYI, from the regulations:
QuoteIn the event the approving
authority is determined by the next higher level commander to be disqualified from making the
final decision due to an impermissible conflict of interest, the next higher level commander shall
appoint another commander at the same level to act as the approving authority and appoint the
appeal board
Nice try. Informing the commander at the next level of a termination action does not constitute conflict of interest. The regulation quoted does not apply.
Part of what the problem is right now is a matter of spectrum.
It is one thing to call up the a appealing authority to say "Hey, just to let you know I'm going to 2'b this guy." It is another to call up your appealing authority and lay out everything, sell your 2b and then ask him "so what do you think? and he say "I think you should 2b him".
From an IG perspective......the first is completely acceptable...the other is a little not.
It could generate a situation where the appealing authority is directing the 2b action at the lower level.....which is JeffDG's problem about due process.
If the 2b was "directed" by the appealing authority.....then the member has lost his normal appeal rights....The appealing authority should never direct a lower level commander to 2b someone. If they think that the member should be 2b'ed....the the member should be 2b'ed at that level.....so that he can appeal to the next higher level for a fair hearing.
So.....yes it is a major gray area. How does a squadron commander ask advice and help with a situation but at the same time protect the rights of members of due process and a fair appellate process?
And to let you know.....they have this same problem all the time in the military all the time. It is a mine field....good luck! :)
Quote from: Eclipse on January 18, 2015, 12:56:38 AM
Jeff, you're wrong.
Read the regs, it's all there.
where?
Quote from: lordmonar on January 18, 2015, 02:02:42 AM
Part of what the problem is right now is a matter of spectrum.
It is one thing to call up the a appealing authority to say "Hey, just to let you know I'm going to 2'b this guy." It is another to call up your appealing authority and lay out everything, sell your 2b and then ask him "so what do you think? and he say "I think you should 2b him".
From an IG perspective......the first is completely acceptable...the other is a little not.
It could generate a situation where the appealing authority is directing the 2b action at the lower level.....which is JeffDG's problem about due process.
If the 2b was "directed" by the appealing authority.....then the member has lost his normal appeal rights....The appealing authority should never direct a lower level commander to 2b someone. If they think that the member should be 2b'ed....the the member should be 2b'ed at that level.....so that he can appeal to the next higher level for a fair hearing.
So.....yes it is a major gray area. How does a squadron commander ask advice and help with a situation but at the same time protect the rights of members of due process and a fair appellate process?
And to let you know.....they have this same problem all the time in the military all the time. It is a mine field....good luck! :)
That doesn't sound right. What you are saying is that a squadron commander can't seek advice or guidance from the group commander. Adverse actions against members are often discussed up the chain of command before they are implemented. This is to ensure the action is appropriate. I know that is how it works in the Air Force and in all of the civilian jobs I have held. Both in the USAF and in the civilian world I have had to discipline subordinates and if the form of discipline was of a severe nature I had present my case to upper management for their approval.
If one of the managers under me were to attempt to fire (or take a stripe on the military side) without consulting me there would a major issue between me and that manager.
I've only been in CAP for a couple of years but is there a CAP reg or guideline that directs squadron commanders to not consult their bosses before initiating member removal actions? If so, there is something really wrong with a system that prohibits a squadron commander from seeking wisdom and guidance from their boss.
Not saying that they can't. Just saying that by asking advice.....may....may.....poison the due process rights of the member being 2b'ed.
And yes....this does make it a very grey area. How does one seek advice with out jeopardizing due process.
Be careful of the analogies.....your managers can't fire with out consultation....because they don't have the authority to do so. Only you do (by your statement). That is not true for CAP.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 18, 2015, 11:32:47 PM
Not saying that they can't. Just saying that by asking advice.....may....may.....poison the due process rights of the member being 2b'ed.
And yes....this does make it a very grey area. How does one seek advice with out jeopardizing due process.
Be careful of the analogies.....your managers can't fire with out consultation....because they don't have the authority to do so. Only you do (by your statement). That is not true for CAP.
Again, what is the gray area? Just because the appeal authority is the next higher headquarters why is it a gray area? This is how business and the military work every day? Why is CAP different? What CAP reg or guideline supports this difference?
So a squadron commander can 2b someone without talking to their group commander. The person appeals to the group commander and gets reinstated and the squadron commander has egg on their face. I don't see the point. The way something like this is handled nearly everywhere is the squadron commander would consult with the group commander to see if they agree and support the action. If the group commander doesn't agree with the 2b action then what is the point for the squadron commander to even submit it since it will be reversed if the member appeals?
The same logic goes with awards. If the next higher level of management does not agree with giving an award to an individual then taking the time to write it up and submit it is pointless as you already know it will be denied.
I never said that the managers under me did not have that authority I said that I expected to be consulted first just like my boss expects to be consulted before I did something like that. The last thing I want is HR or my boss coming down on me because one of my managers fired someone (or some other adverse action) that really wasn't warranted and that I didn't know about.
Where does it say that the appeal authority should have no knowledge of the circumstances before the appeal is filed? What do you think happens during the appeal process? The member and the commander (and any other parties as necessary) present their case to the appeal authority and a decision is made after hearing both sides. Just because the appeal authority already may know one side of the story does not hinder any due process.
^ That's the biggest dose of Common Sense this thread has seen yet.
Quote from: veritec on January 19, 2015, 03:10:32 PM
^ That's the biggest dose of Common Sense this thread has seen yet.
The people arguing against it have it...they just don't think padding our numbers is a bad thing.
Quote from: kwe1009 on January 19, 2015, 02:51:14 PM
Again, what is the gray area? Just because the appeal authority is the next higher headquarters why is it a gray area? This is how business and the military work every day? Why is CAP different? What CAP reg or guideline supports this difference?
It is a gray area in the USAF too. Lots of Art 15's overturned for undue command influence or bread down of due process. Lots of courts martial too.
QuoteSo a squadron commander can 2b someone without talking to their group commander. The person appeals to the group commander and gets reinstated and the squadron commander has egg on their face. I don't see the point. The way something like this is handled nearly everywhere is the squadron commander would consult with the group commander to see if they agree and support the action. If the group commander doesn't agree with the 2b action then what is the point for the squadron commander to even submit it since it will be reversed if the member appeals?
It is due process. And again.....never said that the commander could not talk to the upper echelons...only that it could violate due process. Let's say that commander wants to 2b member X for non participation. but the conversation he has with wing is about how member X is horse's FPOC, and is always causing problems pointing out errors, abrasive to other members, etc, and so forth. So they 2b Member X....Member X appeals explaining why he did not participate and that he had a valid excuse, but the wing commander has all this "extra" testimony not presented to appeals board and the member never got a change to rebut the evidence against him. That is the violation of due process that we can accidentally slip into by talking with upper echelons.
QuoteThe same logic goes with awards. If the next higher level of management does not agree with giving an award to an individual then taking the time to write it up and submit it is pointless as you already know it will be denied.
A little different....but yes....and of course you can always go over their head.
QuoteI never said that the managers under me did not have that authority I said that I expected to be consulted first just like my boss expects to be consulted before I did something like that. The last thing I want is HR or my boss coming down on me because one of my managers fired someone (or some other adverse action) that really wasn't warranted and that I didn't know about.
If you expect to be consulted FIRST....then they don't in fact have the authority to fire. They may have the responsibility to fire....but not the true authority. I whole heatedly agree that you need to be NOTIFIED that someone got fired, and why.....but notification and consultation are two different things.
QuoteWhere does it say that the appeal authority should have no knowledge of the circumstances before the appeal is filed?
Never said that. Just that it does present a conflict of interest and that it could constitute a violation of due process.
QuoteWhat do you think happens during the appeal process? The member and the commander (and any other parties as necessary) present their case to the appeal authority and a decision is made after hearing both sides. Just because the appeal authority already may know one side of the story does not hinder any due process.
If the appeal authority already knows "more of one side" then the member knows he know.........that is the violation of due process. When the commander prio to the 2b.....or heck even after the 2b before the hearing......lays down all the real reasons why he wanted member X gone.......but never gives member X the opportunity to rebut those accusations/resons.....that is the violation of due process.
All this sounds very nice, other then it is neither practically correct, nor by regulation.
The process is clear, unambiguous and conflicts with the narrative above.
There is no inherent conflict of interest, the next echelon is required to be notified, and
the responsibility and duty of that echelon is to ask "why?". You can't breach a process mandated
by the organization involved.
It's also fun to play pretend that all parties are devoid of knowledge regarding the situation
until it crosses their "desk" in regards to a complaint or termination submission.
We >all< know that isn't the case, especially in regards to disciplinary action.
So, from a practical perspective, it's not how CAP works, and from a regulatory
perspective it's not the process as defined.
And the only "why" discussed should be what is in the 2b.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2015, 07:02:54 PM
And the only why discussed should be what is in the 2b.
Yep. So when a SM tries to throw a punch, that goes on the 2B, and the Group CC gets a "I'm terminating Dumbledore for trying to deck my Deputy".
Quote from: Eclipse on January 19, 2015, 06:56:46 PM
All this sounds very nice, other then it is neither practically correct, nor by regulation.
The process is clear, unambiguous and conflicts with the narrative above.
There is no inherent conflict of interest, the next echelon is required to be notified, and
the responsibility and duty of that echelon is to ask "why?".
It's also fun to play pretend that all parties are devoid of knowledge regarding the situation
until it crosses their "desk" in regards to a complaint or termination submission.
We >all< know that isn't the case, especially in regards to disciplinary action.
So, from a practical perspective, it's not how CAP works, and from a regulatory
perspective it's not the process as defined.
Just because you keep repeating that doesn't make it so.
Where do the regulations require that you pre-notify the next echelon? I've asked you for a cite before which you ignored.
Yes, the regulation require notification of a 2B, once it occurs, not before. Reasons for the action are laid out in the CAPF 2B document, not through some ex parte conversation between the Squadron and Group Commanders. Once the 2B is filed, there is a clear process to handle the appeal of such a decision, none of which involves ex parte communication between the initiating commander and the approving authority.
How is a Group Commander who helped make a decision able to act as an impartial arbiter of that decision? You cannot answer that.
If a squadron commander asks such advice from a Group Commander, the Group Commander has a few options:
1. Provide such advice. If the matter proceeds to an appeal, advise the Wing Commander of the fact that you as Group/CC was part of the decisionmaking process, and advise him to appoint another Group/CC to handle the appeal.
2. If your advice would be to 2B the member, do it yourself, vesting the appeal rights with the next echelon, the Wing Commander.
3. Demur to provide advice in your role as appeal authority, perhaps directing the squadron commander to seek advice from the Group Personnel Officer (who would then be precluded from serving on an Appeal Board), or alternatively to have the Squadron/CC seek advice instead from Wing (who are not part of the appeal process)
4. Provide advice, then simply rule on the appeal and pretend you're not reviewing your own decision, and hope the member doesn't find out and appeal to the MARP. This options shows a total lack of integrity.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 19, 2015, 07:16:19 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2015, 07:02:54 PM
And the only why discussed should be what is in the 2b.
Yep. So when a SM tries to throw a punch, that goes on the 2B, and the Group CC gets a "I'm terminating Dumbledore for trying to deck my Deputy".
That's perfectly fine. The member receives the same information, and has the opportunity to challenge the factual basis for the 2B.
It's the pre-clearing of the 2B with the higher echelon that implicates due process rights of the member.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 07:20:33 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 19, 2015, 07:16:19 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2015, 07:02:54 PM
And the only why discussed should be what is in the 2b.
Yep. So when a SM tries to throw a punch, that goes on the 2B, and the Group CC gets a "I'm terminating Dumbledore for trying to deck my Deputy".
That's perfectly fine. The member receives the same information, and has the opportunity to challenge the factual basis for the 2B.
It's the pre-clearing of the 2B with the higher echelon that implicates due process rights of the member.
What are you trying to say?
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 07:19:13 PM
Just because you keep repeating that doesn't make it so.
Agreed, so you can stop now.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 07:19:13 PM
Where do the regulations require that you pre-notify the next echelon?
Who said "pre-notify"? We said "discuss". So now Commanders aren't allowed to discuss disciplinary
actions with their bosses?
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 07:19:13 PM
How is a Group Commander who helped make a decision able to act as an impartial arbiter of that decision?
Irrelevant question, since NHQ has defined the process. You're confusing the fact that you don't like it
with what the process >is<
Quote from: Eclipse on January 19, 2015, 07:25:36 PM
Irrelevant question, since NHQ has defined the process. You're confusing the fact that you don't like it
with what the process >is<
It's the very definition of due process, and intensely relevant.
Where has NHQ defined this mythical process? Cite please. I've provided regulatory and legal citations, you just keep trying proof-by-repeated-assertion that this is the "NHQ defined process". If so, you should be able ti cite where they defined it as such.
Where has NHQ demanded ex parte communication with higher echelons before a squadron commander 2Bs someone?
Just because you ran things violating due process doesn't mean that's the process.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 19, 2015, 07:25:24 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 07:20:33 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 19, 2015, 07:16:19 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2015, 07:02:54 PM
And the only why discussed should be what is in the 2b.
Yep. So when a SM tries to throw a punch, that goes on the 2B, and the Group CC gets a "I'm terminating Dumbledore for trying to deck my Deputy".
That's perfectly fine. The member receives the same information, and has the opportunity to challenge the factual basis for the 2B.
It's the pre-clearing of the 2B with the higher echelon that implicates due process rights of the member.
What are you trying to say?
The process is simple:
Commander decides to 2B member
Fills out paperwork
Advises Group Commander and member of action
Member appeals
Group Commander appoints board
Board reviews evidence, makes recommendation
Group commander considers and endorses or overrules recommendation.
Nowhere there is there a process where the initiating commander discusses in advance with the Group Commander. If he does so, he has seriously damaged the member's due process rights by having the approving authority, who hears the appeal, participate in making the initial decision. You cannot act as an impartial arbiter of a decision, which is a fundamental aspect of due process, if you were involved in making that decision.
OK, you know what, even >I< don't have this much free time.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 19, 2015, 07:30:44 PM
OK, you know what, even >I< don't have this much free time.
Ahhh...so you can't find an actual citation that what you claim is the NHQ process is indeed the process.
I've provided several. You, not so much.
Nowhere does 35-3 discuss informing the next echelon of the intention to terminate membership, other than with the 2B form itself. But there's nothing prohibiting it, either. Don't you think there would be if such a (very likely) conversation is considered an inherent conflict to a member's due process rights?
Also, the appeal is decided by an appeals board, not an individual.
And nowhere in the regs is the term "due process" even defined other than in 35-8:
(1) notice of the adverse action, an explanation of the adverse evidence and an opportunity to present the member's position or (2) a legitimate CAP interest or regulatory provision that results in an unfair or arbitrary treatment of an individual.
You're blowing the whole due process concern way out of proportion. This isn't a court of law. It's a membership action in an organization where "Membership ... is a privilege and not a right."
Quote from: veritec on January 19, 2015, 07:44:14 PM
Nowhere does 35-3 discuss informing the next echelon of the intention to terminate membership, other than with the 2B form itself. But there's nothing prohibiting it, either. Don't you think there would be if such a (very likely) conversation is considered an inherent conflict to a member's due process rights?
You cannot provide an impartial appeal for a decision you made. That's a fundamental aspect of due process.
Quote from: veritec on January 19, 2015, 07:44:14 PM
Also, the appeal is decided by an appeals board, not an individual.
You might want to re-read 35-3 again. The approving authority makes the final decision, and can choose to ignore the appeals board, with the restriction that if the appeals board recommends against termination, the punishment may not include termination
Quote from: veritec on January 19, 2015, 07:44:14 PMAnd nowhere in the regs is the term "due process" even defined other than in 35-8:
(1) notice of the adverse action, an explanation of the adverse evidence and an opportunity to present the member's position or (2) a legitimate CAP interest or regulatory provision that results in an unfair or arbitrary treatment of an individual.
You're blowing the whole due process concern way out of proportion. This isn't a court of law. It's a membership action in an organization where "Membership ... is a privilege and not a right."
And that's why I provided a definition from common law of due process. It includes the right to a hearing before an impartial arbiter.
CAP could ignore due process if it chose to, but has chosen to incorporate due process rights in its regulations, and as a result those rights attach.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 07:29:56 PM
Fills out paperwork
Advises Group Commander and member of action
By your logic, group CC shouldn't see anything of the CAPF2B unless there's an appeal...
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 19, 2015, 08:01:46 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 07:29:56 PM
Fills out paperwork
Advises Group Commander and member of action
By your logic, group CC shouldn't see anything of the CAPF2B unless there's an appeal...
No...he should see it when it is filed as per the regs.
Opps.....doubled checked......it depends on the reason for the 2b.
Quote6. Termination Procedures. When a unit commander determines that it is appropriate to terminate an individual's CAP membership, the following procedures will be followed:
a. For reasons not involving misconduct or termination for cause, the unit commander will prepare a CAPF 2B, Personnel Action Request-Termination of CAP Membership, in three copies. The original copy will be mailed to National Headquarters; the second copy will be mailed to the member's last known address; and the third copy will be retained in the unit's file.
b. Cadets being terminated for misconduct and senior members being terminated for cause are entitled to the appeal procedures set out in section D hereafter. In such cases, the unit commander will initiate the termination action by notifying the individual by letter (see attachment 2). Commanders should ensure that the notification letter states each appropriate charge and a brief statement of the facts believed to support the charge and follows the format in attachment 2. Within 10 days of the commander's decision to terminate, the letter of notification should be delivered by personal delivery to the member or a copy mailed both by certified mail and by regular mail to the member's residence address as recorded in the membership unit. At the time the letter of notification is sent to the member, a copy of the letter will be sent to the appropriate approving authority, to the wing commander (if the approving authority is below wing level) and to NHQ/DP. Upon notification of a proposed termination action, the appellant will be considered in suspended status and will not be authorized to participate in CAP activities or represent the corporation in any capacity until the termination action is completed. A flow chart outlining the entire termination process is shown in attachment 3.
c. Members not appealing termination of their CAP membership
So....for a non cause 2b....the approving authoirty is not notified of the 2b.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2015, 08:03:55 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 19, 2015, 08:01:46 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 07:29:56 PM
Fills out paperwork
Advises Group Commander and member of action
By your logic, group CC shouldn't see anything of the CAPF2B unless there's an appeal...
No...he should see it when it is filed as per the regs.
Taints the whole impartial bit, doesn't it?
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 19, 2015, 08:04:57 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2015, 08:03:55 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 19, 2015, 08:01:46 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 07:29:56 PM
Fills out paperwork
Advises Group Commander and member of action
By your logic, group CC shouldn't see anything of the CAPF2B unless there's an appeal...
No...he should see it when it is filed as per the regs.
Taints the whole impartial bit, doesn't it?
No, it is the same information provided to the member. As such, it is
not an ex parte communication between one party (the initiating commander) and the appeal authority (group commander).
Too much back and forth... >:(
Simple...
Jeff, how many times have you undergone the 2b process?
Eclipse, how many times have you undergone the 2b process?
:-\
Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on January 19, 2015, 08:14:40 PM
Too much back and forth... >:(
Simple...
Jeff, how many times have you undergone the 2b process?
Eclipse, how many times have you undergone the 2b process?
:-\
That's called "appeal to authority" and is a logical fallacy.
Eclipse keeps saying that it's all in the regs, yet he can't seem to quote them. He's arguing "proof by repeated assertion", I'm providing citations for my statements.
Everything relevent was quoted and cited, multiple times by multiple people.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 19, 2015, 08:23:59 PM
Everything relevent was quoted and cited, multiple times by multiple people.
Yep, mostly by me.
You are continuing "Proof by repeated assertion"
(http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/head-bang.gif)
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 08:08:33 PM
No, it is the same information provided to the member. As such, it is not an ex parte communication between one party (the initiating commander) and the appeal authority (group commander).
If the
ex parte communication is to be considered an "impermissible conflict of interest" (using the language in 35-3), the regulation addresses this by simply requiring the appointment of a new approving authority. If it's not an "impermissible" conflict of interest, is due process violated?
Quote from: veritec on January 19, 2015, 08:37:56 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 08:08:33 PM
No, it is the same information provided to the member. As such, it is not an ex parte communication between one party (the initiating commander) and the appeal authority (group commander).
If the ex parte communication is to be considered an "impermissible conflict of interest" (using the language in 35-3), the regulation addresses this by simply requiring the appointment of a new approving authority. If it's not an "impermissible" conflict of interest, is due process violated?
I've addressed that above in terms of recusal:
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 07:19:13 PM
If a squadron commander asks such advice from a Group Commander, the Group Commander has a few options:
1. Provide such advice. If the matter proceeds to an appeal, advise the Wing Commander of the fact that you as Group/CC was part of the decisionmaking process, and advise him to appoint another Group/CC to handle the appeal.
2. If your advice would be to 2B the member, do it yourself, vesting the appeal rights with the next echelon, the Wing Commander.
3. Demur to provide advice in your role as appeal authority, perhaps directing the squadron commander to seek advice from the Group Personnel Officer (who would then be precluded from serving on an Appeal Board), or alternatively to have the Squadron/CC seek advice instead from Wing (who are not part of the appeal process)
4. Provide advice, then simply rule on the appeal and pretend you're not reviewing your own decision, and hope the member doesn't find out and appeal to the MARP. This options shows a total lack of integrity.
As for non-recusal, here's the basic concept of neutrality, fundamental to due process:
QuoteThe neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life, liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the facts or the law. At the same time, it preserves both the appearance and reality of fairness, "generating the feeling, so important to a popular government, that justice has been done," by ensuring that no person will be deprived of his interests in the absence of a proceeding in which he may present his case with assurance that the arbiter is not predisposed to find against him.
(Ray MARSHALL, Secretary of Labor, et al., Appellants, v. JERRICO, INC.
446 U.S. 238 (100 S.Ct. 1610, 64 L.Ed.2d 182), internal citations omitted)
If you're pre-clearing your 2B with the approving authority, how can it be that the member has the "assurance that the arbiter [approving authority] is not predisposed to find against him." The very act of pre-coordination places the approving authority in a position where they are pre-disposed to find against the member...they had a hand in the adverse decision against that member.
You can't suck and blow at the same time.
Quote from: veritec on January 19, 2015, 08:37:56 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 08:08:33 PM
No, it is the same information provided to the member. As such, it is not an ex parte communication between one party (the initiating commander) and the appeal authority (group commander).
If the ex parte communication is to be considered an "impermissible conflict of interest" (using the language in 35-3), the regulation addresses this by simply requiring the appointment of a new approving authority. If it's not an "impermissible" conflict of interest, is due process violated?
Which was what we all said way back when! If a conflict of interest arises....the higher authority should take it upon itself to initiate the 2b and let the next level be the appeal authority.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2015, 08:46:34 PM
Quote from: veritec on January 19, 2015, 08:37:56 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 08:08:33 PM
No, it is the same information provided to the member. As such, it is not an ex parte communication between one party (the initiating commander) and the appeal authority (group commander).
If the ex parte communication is to be considered an "impermissible conflict of interest" (using the language in 35-3), the regulation addresses this by simply requiring the appointment of a new approving authority. If it's not an "impermissible" conflict of interest, is due process violated?
Which was what we all said way back when! If a conflict of interest arises....the higher authority should take it upon itself to initiate the 2b and let the next level be the appeal authority.
Option #2 in my list.
For those reading CAPR 35-3, here's a question for you.
The National Commander decides to terminate the membership of the National Vice Commander for misconduct. The National Vice Commander appeals the decision. Who appoints the Appeal Board and acts as the Approving Authority deciding the appeal? (Note, the regulation specifically waives conflict-of-interest provisions in this situation)
As a layman I find this all very interesting. But I still fail to see the problem with discussing a potential membership action with your commander, given the provisions in the regulations. It just makes sense and I bet it goes on all the time. Maybe just discussing the circumstances without mentioning names is the way to do it.
Quote from: veritec on January 19, 2015, 09:44:02 PM
As a layman I find this all very interesting. But I still fail to see the problem with discussing a potential membership action with your commander, given the provisions in the regulations. It just makes sense and I bet it goes on all the time. Maybe just discussing the circumstances without mentioning names is the way to do it.
The issue with discussing it with your immediate commander is simple: That commander is required to rule on any appeal.
There are no provisions in the regulations that require such consultation. None, despite Eclipse's repeated assertions that that is "NHQ designed process", he's been unwilling to provide any citations to that fact.
If you involve your commander in the decision, through discussions and seeking advice, then the member no longer has any "assurance that the arbiter is not predisposed to find against him". How can a commander who advised you to do something, or said "Sounds good, go ahead", then provide a credible assurance that he is not predisposed to follow his own advice?
It's called "integrity".
Quote from: Eclipse on January 19, 2015, 10:02:27 PM
It's called "integrity".
And acting as the appeal authority for a decision you helped make, shows a distinct lack thereof.
Quote from: veritec on January 19, 2015, 09:44:02 PM
As a layman I find this all very interesting. But I still fail to see the problem with discussing a potential membership action with your commander, given the provisions in the regulations. It just makes sense and I bet it goes on all the time. Maybe just discussing the circumstances without mentioning names is the way to do it.
On the surface there is nothing wrong with discussing the situation with the commander.......IF and this is the big IF.....only the circumstances that are going to be on the 2b are the only circumstances discussed.
Even asking for advices is okay.
But.....if you call up your next higher CC and lay out all the stupid things that a member needs to be gone, and then you pick one of those things for the 2b......then you have poised the well of a fair an unbiased hearing on the part of the appeal authority.
The member is going to rebut the info provided on 2b and the info provided to the board during the appeal process (as per 35-3). But if the commander has shared information to the appeal commander then THAT is the violation of DUE process.
Now some (IG's for instance) are always on the look out for loop holes. Both to make sure our members get fair hearings and have due process and to make sure that CAP is a professional organization and we try to keep the level of BS down to a low roar.
Like I said before....it is a gray area. How does a commander get advice on how to proceed and not trip over due process.
One way.....is to ask advice up one level of authority. Another is for the the level that you ask for advice to take on the job him/her self. Another way is for you to keep to the point of the 2b and only 2b and nothing but the 2b. "He won't do his safety compliance, won't answer his e-mails, won't do any work for the unit. Have not seen him in six months....so I'm gonna 2b him.....what do you think". That would be the absolute limit of any "pre clearance" that I would think is okay.
Yes...it goes on all the time......but that does not mean it is right. Not mentioning names is useless....as it is the circumstances that count....and it is not like you produce so many 2bs that the next level commander is not going to remember that conversation you had just last month. (remember there is a time line on this).
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 09:55:03 PM
There are no provisions in the regulations that require such consultation.
Nor are there any prohiting it, which I think there would be if it were an inherant problem.
"d. To protect members' due process rights, the initiating unit commander may not discuss the potential termination action with the approving authority at any time prior to submission of form 2B"
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 09:55:03 PM
If you involve your commander in the decision, through discussions and seeking advice, then the member no longer has any "assurance that the arbiter is not predisposed to find against him".
The regulations provide a way to address an impermissible conflict of interest, whatever that is.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 09:55:03 PM
How can a commander who advised you to do something, or said "Sounds good, go ahead", then provide a credible assurance that he is not predisposed to follow his own advice?
Because he can change his mind if/when made aware of new facts. The regulation provides that a termination action can be withdrawn by the initiating unit commander or the approving authority at any time.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 09:26:15 PM
For those reading CAPR 35-3, here's a question for you.
The National Commander decides to terminate the membership of the National Vice Commander for misconduct. The National Vice Commander appeals the decision. Who appoints the Appeal Board and acts as the Approving Authority deciding the appeal? (Note, the regulation specifically waives conflict-of-interest provisions in this situation)
Although highly unlikely, the matter would be handled by the BoG. How they would handle it is up to them. The BoG would also deal with the removal of the National Commander.
Quote from: veritec on January 19, 2015, 10:25:58 PM
Because he can change his mind if/when made aware of new facts. The regulation provides that a termination action can be withdrawn by the initiating unit commander or the approving authority at any time.
I'm sorry to sound a little harsh......but "how can he get a fair hearing" is the question.
Because the tainted officer can change his mind......does not make anything fair.
How does a member rebut accusations that he does not even know may be laid against him?
That is what this conversation is about right now.
If the appeal authority has been prejudiced by information/accusations that the defendant does not know about.....how is that fair?
Now like I said before.....it is possible to ask for advice with out crossing that line. But it is hard. JeffDG comes at the problem from the "not only ethical but maintaining the appearance of ethical". So unless you are prepared to record your conversation and be prepared to rebut an counter accusation of "but they colluded to get me kicked out!" the "easiest" thing to do is....not to discuss it with the appeal authority. If you have to......discuss it with them because you simply just don't know what you are doing (very possible in CAP...and that is not a dig on anyone....until the first 2b comes alone....most of us did not know what the heck we were doing)......then the solution is after talking with the next higher commander.....then THEY initiate the 2b, which simply pushes everything up one level....but keeps the member's due process rights.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 19, 2015, 08:04:57 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2015, 08:03:55 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 19, 2015, 08:01:46 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 07:29:56 PM
Fills out paperwork
Advises Group Commander and member of action
By your logic, group CC shouldn't see anything of the CAPF2B unless there's an appeal...
No...he should see it when it is filed as per the regs.
Taints the whole impartial bit, doesn't it?
Nope. Informing the "approving authority"; etc. is just good practice. If the subject of a 2b appeals, a whole other process begins. Boards are convened, hearings held, decisions are made based on all. If an appeals board recommends reinstatement; it's a done deal. If not, the approving authority can reinstate or agree to terminate. There is a MARP review if wanted. It is pretty tough these days NOT to get a fair hearing.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 10:05:20 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 19, 2015, 10:02:27 PM
It's called "integrity".
And acting as the appeal authority for a decision you helped make, shows a distinct lack thereof.
No it shows a distinct adherence to the regulations.
As FW says, the MARP is there to address accusations of collusion or lack or process.
You may want to read their notes. Many reasons are given for the occasional reversal.
" Talked to my boss." Is not one of them.
BTW - "kicking it upstairs" might "sound right" but I can tell you from experience its frowned upon
at best, because it overcomplicates things and can make it more difficult then it needs to be for everyone
involved.
Quote from: FW on January 19, 2015, 10:43:43 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 09:26:15 PM
For those reading CAPR 35-3, here's a question for you.
The National Commander decides to terminate the membership of the National Vice Commander for misconduct. The National Vice Commander appeals the decision. Who appoints the Appeal Board and acts as the Approving Authority deciding the appeal? (Note, the regulation specifically waives conflict-of-interest provisions in this situation)
Although highly unlikely, the matter would be handled by the BoG. How they would handle it is up to them. The BoG would also deal with the removal of the National Commander.
In reality, probably what would happen. Much like the BoG basically rewrote the process when they terminated Mr. Pineda. The preexisting regulations were not adhered to, but then the BoG has the legal authority to, paraphrasing the words of Darth Vader, "Alter the agreement, pray they don't alter it further."
However, the regulations stipulate that the Approving Authority in the event of a termination initiated by the National Commander is the National Vice Commander. And it specifically exempts it from conflict-of-interest rules. So, the CAP/CV would appoint the board, and rule on their recommendation...ie. his own termination.
For students of odd rules like this, a similar bug exists in the US Constitution. If the Vice President is impeached, he presides over his own trial before the Senate. The exception where the Chief Justice presides is only for cases where the President is impeached.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 19, 2015, 10:59:24 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 10:05:20 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 19, 2015, 10:02:27 PM
It's called "integrity".
And acting as the appeal authority for a decision you helped make, shows a distinct lack thereof.
No it shows a distinct adherence to the regulations.
Which you are somehow unable to cite.
OK, where are these invisible regulations? I believe this is request number 5 for you to cite them.
Or is it that you've presided over such sham appeals, and don't want to admit your lack of integrity?
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2015, 10:53:02 PM
Quote from: veritec on January 19, 2015, 10:25:58 PM
Because he can change his mind if/when made aware of new facts. The regulation provides that a termination action can be withdrawn by the initiating unit commander or the approving authority at any time.
I'm sorry to sound a little harsh......but "how can he get a fair hearing" is the question.
Because the tainted officer can change his mind......does not make anything fair.
The question was "How can a commander who advised you to do something, or said "Sounds good, go ahead", then provide a credible assurance that he is not predisposed to follow his own advice?" and I answered it directly.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2015, 10:53:02 PM
How does a member rebut accusations that he does not even know may be laid against him?
He only has to rebut accusations laid out against him in the 2B.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 11:02:17 PM
OK, where are these invisible regulations?
I don't think the regulations are helping either of you. Evidently there's nothing saying a conversation with your commander is part of the process, nor is there anything saying that such a conversation would be prohibited or otherwise inappropriate.
Quote from: veritec on January 19, 2015, 11:25:31 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2015, 10:53:02 PM
Quote from: veritec on January 19, 2015, 10:25:58 PM
Because he can change his mind if/when made aware of new facts. The regulation provides that a termination action can be withdrawn by the initiating unit commander or the approving authority at any time.
I'm sorry to sound a little harsh......but "how can he get a fair hearing" is the question.
Because the tainted officer can change his mind......does not make anything fair.
The question was "How can a commander who advised you to do something, or said "Sounds good, go ahead", then provide a credible assurance that he is not predisposed to follow his own advice?" and I answered it directly.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2015, 10:53:02 PM
How does a member rebut accusations that he does not even know may be laid against him?
He only has to rebut accusations laid out against him in the 2B.
No.....and that's the point....the commander making the final decision may have other information that he is using to make his decision if....if....if the 2bing commander and he had a conversation about the member that was NOT included in the 2b. Sometimes that information is personal contact....sometimes it is because the 2bing commander has been talking about ALL the things that are wrong with the member....not just that he violated regulation XY-Z Para 1.a.1).
That's JeffDG's and my point.
You got to be careful about what you talk about in relation to the member with initiator of the 2b and the appeal authority. The member has the right to see ALL the evidence/accusations against him.
Quote from: veritec on January 19, 2015, 11:25:31 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2015, 10:53:02 PM
Quote from: veritec on January 19, 2015, 10:25:58 PM
Because he can change his mind if/when made aware of new facts. The regulation provides that a termination action can be withdrawn by the initiating unit commander or the approving authority at any time.
I'm sorry to sound a little harsh......but "how can he get a fair hearing" is the question.
Because the tainted officer can change his mind......does not make anything fair.
The question was "How can a commander who advised you to do something, or said "Sounds good, go ahead", then provide a credible assurance that he is not predisposed to follow his own advice?" and I answered it directly.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2015, 10:53:02 PM
How does a member rebut accusations that he does not even know may be laid against him?
He only has to rebut accusations laid out against him in the 2B.
The ability to "change your mind" does not rebut a predisposition against a member.
Quote from: veritec on January 19, 2015, 11:31:21 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 11:02:17 PM
OK, where are these invisible regulations?
I don't think the regulations are helping either of you. Evidently there's nothing saying a conversation with your commander is part of the process, nor is there anything saying that such a conversation would be prohibited or otherwise inappropriate.
He talks about regulations, I cite them.
I've provided a definition of the right to an impartial decisionmaker. The regulations, by providing due process, import common law concepts such as that. The fact its not defined strengthens my point.
It is clearly inappropriate. It creates a predisposition in the ultimate arbiter against the member. A man may not impartially judge his own decisions.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 11:01:24 PM
Quote from: FW on January 19, 2015, 10:43:43 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 09:26:15 PM
For those reading CAPR 35-3, here's a question for you.
The National Commander decides to terminate the membership of the National Vice Commander for misconduct. The National Vice Commander appeals the decision. Who appoints the Appeal Board and acts as the Approving Authority deciding the appeal? (Note, the regulation specifically waives conflict-of-interest provisions in this situation)
Although highly unlikely, the matter would be handled by the BoG. How they would handle it is up to them. The BoG would also deal with the removal of the National Commander.
In reality, probably what would happen. Much like the BoG basically rewrote the process when they terminated Mr. Pineda. The preexisting regulations were not adhered to, but then the BoG has the legal authority to, paraphrasing the words of Darth Vader, "Alter the agreement, pray they don't alter it further."
However, the regulations stipulate that the Approving Authority in the event of a termination initiated by the National Commander is the National Vice Commander. And it specifically exempts it from conflict-of-interest rules. So, the CAP/CV would appoint the board, and rule on their recommendation...ie. his own termination.
For students of odd rules like this, a similar bug exists in the US Constitution. If the Vice President is impeached, he presides over his own trial before the Senate. The exception where the Chief Justice presides is only for cases where the President is impeached.
Good reply, however this is how it would probably work:
The National Commander relieves the Vice Commander.
A majority of the BoG agrees. The CV is gone.
A new Vice Commander is appointed.
A CAPF2b is completed for the former CV by the CC.
The new CV presides as the approving authority.
Done deal... ::)
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 11:02:17 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 19, 2015, 10:59:24 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 10:05:20 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 19, 2015, 10:02:27 PM
It's called "integrity".
And acting as the appeal authority for a decision you helped make, shows a distinct lack thereof.
No it shows a distinct adherence to the regulations.
Which you are somehow unable to cite.
OK, where are these invisible regulations? I believe this is request number 5 for you to cite them.
Or is it that you've presided over such sham appeals, and don't want to admit your lack of integrity?
There's no point in requoting that which has been quoted a number of times.
You have chosen to color between the lines and make assertions and assumptions where
none are warranted, and regarding what is a very straightforward process.
You are essentially asking for "proof of the negative" to buoy your own whole-cloth creations.
Absent the acceptance of these creations, you then resort to a personal attack, because that's
usually a good way to "win the internet".
Your problem here is that you are confusing the philosophical / theoretical argument about
whether the process, as defined, is "fair", or might have the potential for abuse with the reality that
those arguments are irelevent to the process as defined.
You have also failed to cite anything which prohibits the Group or Wing CC from doing their actual
duty in discussing the termination, nor anything in the regulations which provide that those discussions
become some breach of process or collusion, or which would limit those discussions in that regard.
Your quotation(s) of precedent regarding bias and neutrality are also irrelevant since there
is no
legal guarantee in that regard to the membership - internal policies
and regulations do not have any legal standing. In the end, if CAP wants you out, you're out.
The next echelon is the appeal authority. Period. That's defined by NHQ with no limit or
definition of discussions in that regard between a commander and his subordinate. The only
comment to that effect is direct conflict of interest (which is not defined anywhere as
previous discussions or knowledge of the situation).
The cite is in your court.
And the middle-of-the-afternoon soapbox...
Semper!
:angel:
Quote from: Eclipse on January 19, 2015, 11:45:00 PM
There's no point in requoting that which has been quoted a number of times.
You have chosen to color between the lines and make assertions and assumptions where
none are warranted, and regarding what is a very straightforward process.
Waiting for you to cite, just once. You haven't because you can't. You keep saying "This is the NHQ process", yet I've quoted the NHQ process, none of which refers to pre-coordination with higher HQ...you keep saying that it is part of the process, but have yet to provide one single cite, other than your repeated assertions, as evidence of this mythical NHQ process.
I get it, you're defensive. You presided over sham appeals, but you honestly didn't know any better, no malice intended. Now you can't wrap your head around the simple fact that you were judge in a Kangaroo Court. I get it, you'll not admit it due to cognitive dissonance.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 19, 2015, 11:45:00 PM
The next echelon is the appeal authority. Period. That's defined by NHQ with no limit or
definition of discussions in that regard between a commander and his subordinate. The only
comment to that effect is direct conflict of interest (which is not defined anywhere as
previous discussions or knowledge of the situation).
The cite is in your court.
I've provided case law regarding the need for a neutral impartial arbiter as the sine qua non of due process. You just don't like the fact that it puts you in the role of Kangaroo Court judge.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 19, 2015, 11:45:00 PM
Your quotation(s) of precedent regarding bias and neutrality are also irrelevant since there
is no legal guarantee in that regard to the membership - internal policies
and regulations do not have any legal standing. In the end, if CAP wants you out, you're out.
CAP has chosen in the regulations to implement a due process standard, and as a result, they import the entire concept of due process from the common law, so my citation of legal precedent is entirely apt and appropriate.
What's your definition of due process that does not include a neutral arbiter? If its not in the regs, then legal precedent controls, but you can't find anything. My mistake, you're more of a Kangaroo Court Jester than Judge.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 20, 2015, 01:50:57 AM
CAP has chosen in the regulations to implement a due process standard, and as a result, they import the entire concept of due process from the common law,
Wow - I hope you didn't hurt yourself making that leap.
JeffDG and Eclipse - Please do not degenerate this interesting discussion by turning it personal. Calling people unethical and participants in "kangaroo courts" is a bit beyond the line, no?
Just to throw something else in here that has no bearing on CAP, but that does show how far things have changed in the world over the past 70 years, I just read a historical article that discussed the War Crimes trials of Japanese after World War II by the Dutch in Indonesia. As it turned out, the Dutch had temporary courts-martial review the cases of ~1000 Japanese war criminals. The thing that relates it to this discussion is that all the Dutch judges were people who were POWs during World War II, and POWs who suffered in the Japanese camps. So, they had people who were judges who witnessed first hand the war crimes that they were then the judges of! Quite a ways away from the Due Process discussion of this thread, eh?
;)
Quote from: MacGruff on January 20, 2015, 03:04:31 AM
JeffDG and Eclipse - Please do not degenerate this interesting discussion by turning it personal. Calling people unethical and participants in "kangaroo courts" is a bit beyond the line, no?
I agree - and please make sure to direct that at the people making those statements.
..and it all comes down to debate over interpretation. This is a futile contradiction.
Argument Clinic - Monty Python's The Flying Circus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y#)
One says "the regulation does not say that" .. but the other says "and it doesn't say you can't do that" ..
CAPM 39-1 doesn't say tie shoes, but the staunch will proclaim if it's -NOT- in there, you can't do it.
Jeff, I'm typically down with what you put down, but somehow you've turned "notifying higher HQ of a termination" to "pre-notification" and "collusion".
How?
We started about talking 2b'ing cadets/SMs who aren't active in the program. Typically that's first year, non-invested (remember, they aren't even participating!) new members who probably don't care 1/100th about CAP compared to the " regulars" here.
We've established a few facts. We've established a complete disconnect in the conversation.
I don't think anyone will find a sustainable IG/MARB complaint in "Hey Group CC I talk to regularly and consider a buddy, I'm terminating a cadet for lack of safety currency/communication/attendance, will have the paperwork done later this week. We still on for that BBQ on Saturday?".
A higher HQ commander worth his CC Badge will tell the Unit CC to stop talking if he goes into details about C/Noshow being mouthy, so good riddance, IN CASE there IS an appeal. BTDT, told to not talk about a situation in case it escalated.
Supposedly we waste time on CAPTalk to participate in a level of CAP most members aren't interested in, and occasionally find out that we didn't sink any subs, a new reg update dropped three minutes ago, and the rumors someone heard from a friend close to NHQ. We're all (except for a few like Radioman was) on the same team.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 20, 2015, 04:49:55 AM
I don't think anyone will find a sustainable IG/MARB complaint in "Hey Group CC I talk to regularly and consider a buddy, I'm terminating a cadet for lack of safety currency/communication/attendance, will have the paperwork done later this week. We still on for that BBQ on Saturday?".
Just so we're staying in the fact lane, this example doesn't have an avenue of appeal, so there's no issue regardless.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 20, 2015, 04:53:22 AM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 20, 2015, 04:49:55 AM
I don't think anyone will find a sustainable IG/MARB complaint in "Hey Group CC I talk to regularly and consider a buddy, I'm terminating a cadet for lack of safety currency/communication/attendance, will have the paperwork done later this week. We still on for that BBQ on Saturday?".
Just so we're staying in the fact lane, this example doesn't have an avenue of appeal, so there's no issue regardless.
True, and that's what got this conversation started.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 20, 2015, 04:53:22 AM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 20, 2015, 04:49:55 AM
I don't think anyone will find a sustainable IG/MARB complaint in "Hey Group CC I talk to regularly and consider a buddy, I'm terminating a cadet for lack of safety currency/communication/attendance, will have the paperwork done later this week. We still on for that BBQ on Saturday?".
Just so we're staying in the fact lane, this example doesn't have an avenue of appeal, so there's no issue regardless.
Actually no...that is not correct....not in the case of a senior member anyway.
Also while 35-3 6.b seems to show that non misconduct terminations for cadets are not appeal able....I don't think that it is the intention of NHQ that those 2bs are not appealable.
I will grant that is what the regs say....but when talking about fairness....and due process I don't think it is the right way to do. Unit's make mistakes and there should always be a way for members....or ex-members to seek redress for that.
That asside.....definitely on the senior side though......what ever paragraph you wanted to 2b a guy for being and Empty shirt would definitely not fit one of the automatic terminations definitions.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 20, 2015, 04:49:55 AM
Jeff, I'm typically down with what you put down, but somehow you've turned "notifying higher HQ of a termination" to "pre-notification" and "collusion".
How?
We started about talking 2b'ing cadets/SMs who aren't active in the program. Typically that's first year, non-invested (remember, they aren't even participating!) new members who probably don't care 1/100th about CAP compared to the " regulars" here.
We've established a few facts. We've established a complete disconnect in the conversation.
I don't think anyone will find a sustainable IG/MARB complaint in "Hey Group CC I talk to regularly and consider a buddy, I'm terminating a cadet for lack of safety currency/communication/attendance, will have the paperwork done later this week. We still on for that BBQ on Saturday?".
A higher HQ commander worth his CC Badge will tell the Unit CC to stop talking if he goes into details about C/Noshow being mouthy, so good riddance, IN CASE there IS an appeal. BTDT, told to not talk about a situation in case it escalated.
Supposedly we waste time on CAPTalk to participate in a level of CAP most members aren't interested in, and occasionally find out that we didn't sink any subs, a new reg update dropped three minutes ago, and the rumors someone heard from a friend close to NHQ. We're all (except for a few like Radioman was) on the same team.
I pointed out before....that sometimes people look at things differently based on their point of view or from their staff position/job.
Jeff is an IG. Who would get involved in a situation like this when the wing CC gets an appeal letter from some member.....and he's got to look at things, not on just what the regs say, but also on the due process side of things, the justice side of things, the what's right for the organization side of things.
Like I said before from a normal leadership point of view.....it is natural for a subordinate to take issues up his chain of command, for advice, sanity checks, just to let off steam as part of the normal mentoring process. But from a semi-legal point of view....doing so, in the case of membership termination and the published regulations, may unintentionally violate the concept of due process, and a fair and unbiased hearing.
That the regulations don't address it.....is not surprising.....CAP regs are never wholly complete, not by a long shot. That's why the spirit/intent of what the reg writers is sometimes more important then what they actually wrote down. (see my comments about non-misconduct terminations for cadets).
I don't think anyone really thinks that you are Eclipse is out rail roading members out of CAP and "fixing" the appeals process.....not intentionally. But.....we all remember the bad old days.....where a lot of people did get rail roaded out. And the system failed them because of less then ethical "leaders" in our organization.
One of Jeff's jobs as an IG is to find, stop and fix those sort of "leaders"....but also to make sure that we don't even have the apperance of anything like that going on. So that is his point of view when he hears "I called the Group Commander and told him this and he said we should proceed with the 2b's". Simply on the surface...that statement give the impression that some sort of "fix" is in........and it probably kick up his IG Spider Senses.
It is just like we do on the CP side of things.......We saw that video some was putting together.....I saw a 1/2 second of two cadets doing push ups in the cabin of an airplane.....my CPP Threat Warning kicked in. May have been totally innocent, may have been nothing....but it pings my radar and I would advise those who were doing it....to be aware of HOW IT LOOKS.
Like I said before.
It is natural in right to seek advice from your supervisor over leadership issues. We all just need to be aware of the implications of those actions. And while we all hope that as member move up in responsibility our supervisors are all knowing and all wise in all things CAP.......we also know that they are just like us for the most part. They may never had to do a 2b as a squadron commander (if they ever were) and may be just in the dark as everyone else.
This is evident when you see Wing Kings instructing commanders to transfer or terminate empty shirts.....which is why I got involved in this conversation in the first place.
:)
(http://www.colganmarketing.com/img/warning.png)
Quote from: JeffDG on January 19, 2015, 08:20:43 PM
That's called "appeal to authority" and is a logical fallacy.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 20, 2015, 01:50:57 AM
... My mistake, you're more of a Kangaroo Court Jester than Judge.
That's called
ad hominem and is a logical fallacy. It's a sign someone feels they're losing an argument.
This is straight out of L2L chapter 5, which my cadet just studied. Too bad you had to resort to that. You were doing great up to that point.
JeffDG, I've yet to see a single citation from CAP regulations stating that notifying the commander at the next echelon prior to filing a termination action is prohibited, a conflict of interest or against due process. You keep stating over and over your opinion that it's against due process, but without a CAP citation to substantiate it, that is just your opinion (one of many). If you could provide such citation from a CAP regulation, in black and white (no interpretations), then this discussion would be over.
You've quoted some court cases to justify your position, but last I checked, CAP doesn't require its squadron commanders to be attorneys or have degrees in law. That makes your quotes irrelevant to the discussion, as most commanders would not be familiar with them (nor required to know them). CAP, however, have attorneys and if they deem something necessary for the organization in order to comply with the law or government regulations, it would ensure it was codified as such in CAP regulations.
Since we keep going in circles with this discussion, I recommend seeking guidance from NHQ. If it's determined that your position is the intent of the regulation, then the regulation should be changed to reflect that so there's no doubt. Otherwise, let's allow commanders to do their jobs and not hinder them with additional unwritten rules and requirements.
CAPR35-3 has already been quoted. It details the notification procedures for the process. I am really confused about the "arguments" presented in this thread, however that isn't anything new... ::)
JeffDG, you are a good man and on the right track. The whole thing will boil down to the Wing Legal officer before it is all done and then people will understand due process. Until then, I believe the question should be, "What uniform should one wear when pondering, 2B or not 2B, that is the question?" I go polo shirt up until the Hearing and then Dress uniform when representing the Corps. And at the hearing, the Wing Commander showed up to testify what a great CAP Officer the defendant was, but she was dismissed after two questions. Did you hear what the officer said? Did you see the officer hit the other officer? Dismissed. We stipulated he was a great CAP officer, one of the best, but you can't hit a subordinate officer, no matter how good you are..
Quote from: AirAux on January 20, 2015, 05:11:08 PM
... you can't hit a subordinate officer, no matter how good you are..
Cite, please. >:D
I will look, I think it's under that one about conduct unbecoming an officer...
Quote from: AirAux on January 20, 2015, 05:33:36 PM
I will look, I think it's under that one about conduct unbecoming an officer...
With precedent cited as:
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/on-this-day/July-August-08/On-this-Day--General-Patton-Shocks-Public-by-Slapping-Crying-Soldier.html (http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/on-this-day/July-August-08/On-this-Day--General-Patton-Shocks-Public-by-Slapping-Crying-Soldier.html)
Quote"I am well aware of the necessity for hardness and toughness on the battle field. ... But this does not excuse brutality, abuse of the 'sick,' nor exhibition of uncontrollable temper in front of subordinates," Eisenhower wrote.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 20, 2015, 03:42:21 PM
JeffDG, I've yet to see a single citation from CAP regulations stating that notifying the commander at the next echelon prior to filing a termination action is prohibited, a conflict of interest or against due process.
Let me draw a map. Not everything is contained in the regulations
CAP guarantees due process. As a result they import the definition of due process from common law applicable within the legal jurisdiction concerned.
The US Supreme Court (cited multiple times above) has defined a fundamental aspect of due process being a hearing and a decision by an arbiter that the individual reasonably expects will not be predisposed against him/her. It's why, if you get into a scrape with the FAA, the appeal is heard by the NTSB, not the FAA. An agency cannot judge it's own actions impartially.
If just one person can square the circle where a Group Commander who advised a Squadron Commander that he was good with a 2B is not "predisposed" towards finding that his advice was good, not guaranteed, simply predisposition is enough, then I'll eat my hat.
I provided 3 options for a Group Commander with integrity to follow in such a situation:
1. Demure to provide advice to the Squadron Commander and consider the issue in due course if the matter is subject to an appeal on the record provided. This refusal to provide pre-advice could be tempered by advice to seek counsel from Group Personnel Officer, or Wing. The Group Personnel Officer or wing staff that provided advice on the substance of the termination would be precluded from serving on the Appeal Board.
2. Listen the the Squadron Commander's case, and if it warrants termination, initiate the 2B him/herself, vesting the appeal with the Wing Commander
3. Provide advice to the Squadron Commander, and if an appeal is lodged, advise the Wing Commander that you have a conflict-of-interest and ask him/her to appoint another Group Commander to consider the appeal instead of yourself.
All three of these preserve the member's due process rights and are fully in accordance with the regulations.
The situation I have a problem with is where a Group Commander provides advice to a Squadron Commander and advises that termination is in order, or worse yet, directs the Squadron Commander to terminate, then accepts jurisdiction over the appeal him/herself.
And for the record (from above), I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be, an IG.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 20, 2015, 08:44:32 PM
And for the record (from above), I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be, an IG.
That is my bad....I got the impression from other threads that you were an IG or on the IG staff.
Sigh...
Quote from: lordmonar on January 20, 2015, 09:07:50 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 20, 2015, 08:44:32 PM
And for the record (from above), I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be, an IG.
That is my bad....I got the impression from other threads that you were an IG or on the IG staff.
Nah, I help coordinate inspections in my Group, not an IG. I'm an Inspection Augmentee now!
Thou shalt be not slapping an officer: CAPR 35-5 is the authority for demotions.
CAPR 35-5, Section 1-9, Demotions:
1-9. Demotions. If an officer fails to perform the duties satisfactorily or
conducts himself or herself in a manner unbecoming his or her grade, the
unit commander will recommend demotion to an appropriate grade. The unit
commander will initiate this action on a CAPF 2, which will be routed through
channels to the promoting authority, who is also the demoting authority. The
demoting authority will indicate concurrence or non-concurrence and sign the
CAPF 2. If the demoting authority concurs, he or she will forward it to
National Headquarters for validation; if the demoting authority non-concurs,
he or she will return it through channels to the unit commander.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 20, 2015, 08:44:32 PM
The situation I have a problem with is where a Group Commander provides advice to a Squadron Commander and advises that termination is in order, or worse yet, directs the Squadron Commander to terminate, then accepts jurisdiction over the appeal him/herself.
That is a problem, and IMHO is a violation of due process. If the group commander has a problem with a member, he should initiated the 2B. This isn't rocket science... though it may be a uniform issue... >:D
Quote from: AirAux on January 20, 2015, 09:24:04 PM
Thou shalt be not slapping an officer: CAPR 35-5 is the authority for demotions.
CAPR 35-5, Section 1-9, Demotions:
1-9. Demotions. If an officer fails to perform the duties satisfactorily or
conducts himself or herself in a manner unbecoming his or her grade, the
unit commander will recommend demotion to an appropriate grade. The unit
commander will initiate this action on a CAPF 2, which will be routed through
channels to the promoting authority, who is also the demoting authority. The
demoting authority will indicate concurrence or non-concurrence and sign the
CAPF 2. If the demoting authority concurs, he or she will forward it to
National Headquarters for validation; if the demoting authority non-concurs,
he or she will return it through channels to the unit commander.
I've always wondered about that reg...who is the demoting authority?
So, let's say I'm a Group Commander and someone on my staff screws up royally, but not quite royally enough to 2b them. I want to demote them from Maj to Capt. So, it says: "which will be routed through channels to the promoting authority, who is also the demoting authority."
Which one? He's currently a Major (Promoting Authority=Wing Commander), but I want to demote to Capt (Promoting Authority=Group Commander). It's horribly written and unclear. Something like "routed through channels to the promoting authority
for the member's current grade" would make that so much more clear.
Quote from: FW on January 20, 2015, 09:25:03 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 20, 2015, 08:44:32 PM
The situation I have a problem with is where a Group Commander provides advice to a Squadron Commander and advises that termination is in order, or worse yet, directs the Squadron Commander to terminate, then accepts jurisdiction over the appeal him/herself.
That is a problem, and IMHO is a violation of due process. If the group commander has a problem with a member, he should initiated the 2B. This isn't rocket science... though it may be a uniform issue... >:D
What I've been saying, but Eclipse keeps claiming that it is the NHQ deisgned process to pre-clear the 2b.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 20, 2015, 09:30:06 PM
Quote from: AirAux on January 20, 2015, 09:24:04 PM
Thou shalt be not slapping an officer: CAPR 35-5 is the authority for demotions.
CAPR 35-5, Section 1-9, Demotions:
1-9. Demotions. If an officer fails to perform the duties satisfactorily or
conducts himself or herself in a manner unbecoming his or her grade, the
unit commander will recommend demotion to an appropriate grade. The unit
commander will initiate this action on a CAPF 2, which will be routed through
channels to the promoting authority, who is also the demoting authority. The
demoting authority will indicate concurrence or non-concurrence and sign the
CAPF 2. If the demoting authority concurs, he or she will forward it to
National Headquarters for validation; if the demoting authority non-concurs,
he or she will return it through channels to the unit commander.
I've always wondered about that reg...who is the demoting authority?
So, let's say I'm a Group Commander and someone on my staff screws up royally, but not quite royally enough to 2b them. I want to demote them from Maj to Capt. So, it says: "which will be routed through channels to the promoting authority, who is also the demoting authority."
Which one? He's currently a Major (Promoting Authority=Wing Commander), but I want to demote to Capt (Promoting Authority=Group Commander). It's horribly written and unclear. Something like "routed through channels to the promoting authority for the member's current grade" would make that so much more clear.
As a personnel officer I have always channeled it through the promoting authority that approved the last rank. Of course in my last Wing there were groups for only a small period of time, so the Wing would have been promoting authority for both Captain and Major
Quote from: JeffDG on January 20, 2015, 09:31:24 PM
Quote from: FW on January 20, 2015, 09:25:03 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 20, 2015, 08:44:32 PM
The situation I have a problem with is where a Group Commander provides advice to a Squadron Commander and advises that termination is in order, or worse yet, directs the Squadron Commander to terminate, then accepts jurisdiction over the appeal him/herself.
That is a problem, and IMHO is a violation of due process. If the group commander has a problem with a member, he should initiated the 2B. This isn't rocket science... though it may be a uniform issue... >:D
What I've been saying, but Eclipse keeps claiming that it is the NHQ deisgned process to pre-clear the 2b.
Pre-clearing was your verbiage, not his.
Quote from: Alaric on January 20, 2015, 09:32:58 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 20, 2015, 09:30:06 PM
Quote from: AirAux on January 20, 2015, 09:24:04 PM
Thou shalt be not slapping an officer: CAPR 35-5 is the authority for demotions.
CAPR 35-5, Section 1-9, Demotions:
1-9. Demotions. If an officer fails to perform the duties satisfactorily or
conducts himself or herself in a manner unbecoming his or her grade, the
unit commander will recommend demotion to an appropriate grade. The unit
commander will initiate this action on a CAPF 2, which will be routed through
channels to the promoting authority, who is also the demoting authority. The
demoting authority will indicate concurrence or non-concurrence and sign the
CAPF 2. If the demoting authority concurs, he or she will forward it to
National Headquarters for validation; if the demoting authority non-concurs,
he or she will return it through channels to the unit commander.
I've always wondered about that reg...who is the demoting authority?
So, let's say I'm a Group Commander and someone on my staff screws up royally, but not quite royally enough to 2b them. I want to demote them from Maj to Capt. So, it says: "which will be routed through channels to the promoting authority, who is also the demoting authority."
Which one? He's currently a Major (Promoting Authority=Wing Commander), but I want to demote to Capt (Promoting Authority=Group Commander). It's horribly written and unclear. Something like "routed through channels to the promoting authority for the member's current grade" would make that so much more clear.
As a personnel officer I have always channeled it through the promoting authority that approved the last rank. Of course in my last Wing there were groups for only a small period of time, so the Wing would have been promoting authority for both Captain and Major
Reading it purposefully, in addition to literally, I would come to the same conclusion. Otherwise the Squadron Commander for Maj Gen Courter's unit (she's a member of a MIWG squadron now) could demote her to 1st Lt.
But just putting those few words in there would eliminate the question.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 20, 2015, 09:45:35 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 20, 2015, 09:31:24 PM
Quote from: FW on January 20, 2015, 09:25:03 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 20, 2015, 08:44:32 PM
The situation I have a problem with is where a Group Commander provides advice to a Squadron Commander and advises that termination is in order, or worse yet, directs the Squadron Commander to terminate, then accepts jurisdiction over the appeal him/herself.
That is a problem, and IMHO is a violation of due process. If the group commander has a problem with a member, he should initiated the 2B. This isn't rocket science... though it may be a uniform issue... >:D
What I've been saying, but Eclipse keeps claiming that it is the NHQ deisgned process to pre-clear the 2b.
Pre-clearing was your verbiage, not his.
If there's no discussion or back-and-forth, why on earth wouldn't you just send the completed paperwork as specified in the regulation? If you're not looking for advice, pre-notification serves no purpose whatsoever, and only serves to erode the due process rights of the member.
And despite MULTIPLE requests, he's not cited one regulation or other directive that makes this the "NHQ designed process" as he claims.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 20, 2015, 09:47:42 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 20, 2015, 09:45:35 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 20, 2015, 09:31:24 PM
Quote from: FW on January 20, 2015, 09:25:03 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 20, 2015, 08:44:32 PM
The situation I have a problem with is where a Group Commander provides advice to a Squadron Commander and advises that termination is in order, or worse yet, directs the Squadron Commander to terminate, then accepts jurisdiction over the appeal him/herself.
That is a problem, and IMHO is a violation of due process. If the group commander has a problem with a member, he should initiated the 2B. This isn't rocket science... though it may be a uniform issue... >:D
What I've been saying, but Eclipse keeps claiming that it is the NHQ deisgned process to pre-clear the 2b.
Pre-clearing was your verbiage, not his.
If there's no discussion or back-and-forth, why on earth wouldn't you just send the completed paperwork as specified in the regulation? If you're not looking for advice, pre-notification serves no purpose whatsoever, and only serves to erode the due process rights of the member.
And despite MULTIPLE requests, he's not cited one regulation or other directive that makes this the "NHQ designed process" as he claims.
I'd like him to know its coming under the "don't surprise your boss" doctrine. If I send the paperwork on the same day to both the person I am 2b'ing and the group commander, it is quite possible that the member will receive it first and call the group commander. Giving the group/CC a heads up that its coming at least allows him to say "Sorry Captain Doe, I haven't received the paperwork yet, but will be happy to discuss your appeals rights with you." Or worse, if Captain Doe is a friend of the Wing/CC calls him, who calls down the chain, he can say, yes I was aware sir, I don't have any details yet.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 20, 2015, 09:30:06 PM
Quote from: AirAux on January 20, 2015, 09:24:04 PM
Thou shalt be not slapping an officer: CAPR 35-5 is the authority for demotions.
CAPR 35-5, Section 1-9, Demotions:
1-9. Demotions. If an officer fails to perform the duties satisfactorily or
conducts himself or herself in a manner unbecoming his or her grade, the
unit commander will recommend demotion to an appropriate grade. The unit
commander will initiate this action on a CAPF 2, which will be routed through
channels to the promoting authority, who is also the demoting authority. The
demoting authority will indicate concurrence or non-concurrence and sign the
CAPF 2. If the demoting authority concurs, he or she will forward it to
National Headquarters for validation; if the demoting authority non-concurs,
he or she will return it through channels to the unit commander.
I've always wondered about that reg...who is the demoting authority?
So, let's say I'm a Group Commander and someone on my staff screws up royally, but not quite royally enough to 2b them. I want to demote them from Maj to Capt. So, it says: "which will be routed through channels to the promoting authority, who is also the demoting authority."
Which one? He's currently a Major (Promoting Authority=Wing Commander), but I want to demote to Capt (Promoting Authority=Group Commander). It's horribly written and unclear. Something like "routed through channels to the promoting authority for the member's current grade" would make that so much more clear.
You go by current rank. It take a wing commander to make him a major....it takes a wing commander to make him a captain again.
Quote from: Alaric on January 20, 2015, 09:54:04 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 20, 2015, 09:47:42 PM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on January 20, 2015, 09:45:35 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 20, 2015, 09:31:24 PM
Quote from: FW on January 20, 2015, 09:25:03 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 20, 2015, 08:44:32 PM
The situation I have a problem with is where a Group Commander provides advice to a Squadron Commander and advises that termination is in order, or worse yet, directs the Squadron Commander to terminate, then accepts jurisdiction over the appeal him/herself.
That is a problem, and IMHO is a violation of due process. If the group commander has a problem with a member, he should initiated the 2B. This isn't rocket science... though it may be a uniform issue... >:D
What I've been saying, but Eclipse keeps claiming that it is the NHQ deisgned process to pre-clear the 2b.
Pre-clearing was your verbiage, not his.
If there's no discussion or back-and-forth, why on earth wouldn't you just send the completed paperwork as specified in the regulation? If you're not looking for advice, pre-notification serves no purpose whatsoever, and only serves to erode the due process rights of the member.
And despite MULTIPLE requests, he's not cited one regulation or other directive that makes this the "NHQ designed process" as he claims.
I'd like him to know its coming under the "don't surprise your boss" doctrine. If I send the paperwork on the same day to both the person I am 2b'ing and the group commander, it is quite possible that the member will receive it first and call the group commander. Giving the group/CC a heads up that its coming at least allows him to say "Sorry Captain Doe, I haven't received the paperwork yet, but will be happy to discuss your appeals rights with you." Or worse, if Captain Doe is a friend of the Wing/CC calls him, who calls down the chain, he can say, yes I was aware sir, I don't have any details yet.
As a squadron commander, one has a certain authority to ACT. This includes a termination of membership action on a member under your command. Asking the group (or wing commander) for advice or permission serves no useful purpose. Yes, it's tough to be a commander, and sometimes you need to be tough to make a decision which is best for the unit and CAP. It is not a good idea to "run it by the boss" first. That's why CAP, has a CAPR 35-3. The process actually works. Not following the process invites MARP review.
I kind of smell "CYA actions" and indecisiveness; not command... :o
That's where I was saying it is a grey area.
It is natural for a subordinate to call up the boss and ask advice, mentoring, santity check.
But in this case doing so violates due process.
Now...there are lots of other people in the wing you can call and ask for help.
Wing/group personnel officer, wing JA, other peer commanders. They all can be consulted with out violating due process. (assuming they don't sit on the appeal board).
it is not like you are really all alone out there.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 20, 2015, 08:44:32 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 20, 2015, 03:42:21 PM
JeffDG, I've yet to see a single citation from CAP regulations stating that notifying the commander at the next echelon prior to filing a termination action is prohibited, a conflict of interest or against due process.
Let me draw a map. Not everything is contained in the regulations
So there's no citation. Got it.
This is what I see. There are several intelligent and experienced members on this board arguing different interpretations or points of view regarding the regulation and proper process. That tells me that we need clarification from those with authority to provide it. Better yet, CAPR 35-3 should be updated so that there's no question about the proper process to be followed when (and before) a termination action is initiated.
Until then, we're going to continue going in circles.
^ There is a difference between sending copies of a termination action to the approving authority and above (notification), and asking for advice or "preclearing" with the approving authority; which can be considered a violation of due process. Is regulatory clarification needed for this?
Besides, going in circles is one of CT's favorite pastimes... >:D
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 20, 2015, 10:37:20 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on January 20, 2015, 08:44:32 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 20, 2015, 03:42:21 PM
JeffDG, I've yet to see a single citation from CAP regulations stating that notifying the commander at the next echelon prior to filing a termination action is prohibited, a conflict of interest or against due process.
Let me draw a map. Not everything is contained in the regulations
So there's no citation. Got it.
This is what I see. There are several intelligent and experienced members on this board arguing different interpretations or points of view regarding the regulation and proper process. That tells me that we need clarification from those with authority to provide it. Better yet, CAPR 35-3 should be updated so that there's no question about the proper process to be followed when (and before) a termination action is initiated.
Until then, we're going to continue going in circles.
Storm....it is the other way around. 35-3 does emphatically state commanders who have been tainted should not appoint the appeals board.
Quote8. Action to Be Taken on Appeal. Normally, within 10 days of the receipt of a timely appeal from a member, the approving authority will appoint an appeal board on orders and name a chairperson thereto to consider the appeal and report its findings. In the event the approving authority is determined by the next higher level commander to be disqualified from making the final decision due to an impermissible conflict of interest, the next higher level commander shall appoint another commander at the same level to act as the approving authority and appoint the appeal board. For example, if a region commander determines that a wing commander has an impermissible conflict of interest, the region commander shall appoint another wing commander within the region to appoint an appeal board and decide the outcome of the appeal. The appeal board will consist of a minimum of three CAP officers, including the chairperson, who should be equal or higher in grade to that of the terminated member. Only those members who can impartially judge the case will be appointed to serve on the appeal board. Appeal Board orders should have limited distribution to only those involved in the case. In circumstances in which the National Commander is the initiating commander, the approving authority shall be the National Vice Commander, and the conflict of interest rules in this section shall not apply.
The proper procedures are spelled out.
Initiate the 2b. Send two copies to the member, to next higher command, the wing commander, NHQ and one for the records. See Attachment 3.
No where in the regulation does it say "before you initiate a 2b contact your approving authority to notify them of action" Or "before you initiate a 2b contact the approving authority for advice/approval".
So.....there is nothing to interpret. Any contact prior to initiation of the 2b could constitute a violation of due process.
If you follow the process as spelled out in the reg.....then there is no problem what so ever.
This is the sort of stuff we should be teaching in UCC and CLC instead of the current curriculum.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 20, 2015, 11:01:23 PM
This is the sort of stuff we should be teaching in UCC and CLC instead of the current curriculum.
You mean we actually teach the ins and outs of CAP? Would never happen >:D
Quote from: JeffDG on January 20, 2015, 08:44:32 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on January 20, 2015, 03:42:21 PM
JeffDG, I've yet to see a single citation from CAP regulations stating that notifying the commander at the next echelon prior to filing a termination action is prohibited, a conflict of interest or against due process.
Let me draw a map. Not everything is contained in the regulations
Everything relevent to this conversation
is, and as soon as you have to start trotting out common law,
and external legal precedents, you're well outside of anything relevent to the normal course of CAP business.
The JAs and others make decisions about what is important to members and how they should comport themselves,
and the regulations are drafted as such. Beyond that, 100% irrelevant.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 20, 2015, 08:44:32 PM
CAP guarantees due process.
Yes, it does, and that due process is outlined within the regs, with the MARP being the final authority as to a breach of such.
Any member who feels their termination came without it, is free to appeal to the MARP, which is theoretically as impartial
and as close to the Supreme Court of CAP in this regard as is available.
Quoting external legal statutes because you think they apply, doesn't mean they do, nor does it change what members have,
and will continue to do.
Your continued assertions that Commanders discussing personnel matters as a normal course of business, including
terminations, constitutes a de facto breach of process, are simply incorrect. Like everything in CAP, there's always potential
for abuse everywhere, but that isn't the same as the defacto condition.
If NHQ felt it did, then those discussions would be specifically prohibited during the termination process, however, they are very clearly >not<.
You keep making assertions that my failure to cite "something" somehow makes your argument, yet you
have not cited anything relevent to CAP or within the regulations that supports your arguments beyond the
common sense idea that there "might be abuse" for which the MARP is the safety valve.
"Might be" does not equal "always is", nor does it inform, direct, or prohibit any action on the part of the commanders involved.
What you may be discounting is that disciplinary terminations stand or fall based on the merits and evidence of the charge,
not some pre-conceived idea that "awareness = collusion".
Quote from: Eclipse on January 21, 2015, 12:14:38 AM
If NHQ felt it did, then those discussions would be specifically prohibited during the termination process, however, they are very clearly >not<.
Like all the other contradictory, or inadequate regulations NHQ puts out?
In this thread very thread you pointed out how the reg governing prospective members is not enforceable (the three meetings in 30 days rule).
Not everything is in the regs....if it were...we would not need leaders in the field.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 21, 2015, 12:28:33 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on January 21, 2015, 12:14:38 AM
If NHQ felt it did, then those discussions would be specifically prohibited during the termination process, however, they are very clearly >not<.
Like all the other contradictory, or inadequate regulations NHQ puts out?
Absolutely agree on that, though our agreement doesn't magically support Jeff's assertion.
When Leaders are consistently trained, vetted, and receive a clear message, then the ambiguities
and conflicts can be left to the field. CAP, sadly, has no consistent training, vetting, or message.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 21, 2015, 12:28:33 AM
In this thread very thread you pointed out how the reg governing prospective members is not enforceable (the three meetings in 30 days rule).
Can't really argue this, either. It's wholly enforceable, but from a practical perspective not always a good idea.
Again, no clear message - what is important in regards to membership? Quantity or quality?
And why isn't there a allowance for times when there aren't three meetings in 30 days, or the CC is comfortable
excusing one or more of the three?
Quote from: lordmonar on January 21, 2015, 12:28:33 AM
Not everything is in the regs....if it were...we would not need leaders in the field.
Here we part ways. CAP would be much better on the whole if people just did what the regs say.
The structure is there, if people would just take the time to read it.
The kind of stuff we get into it about here are almost always edge cases.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 21, 2015, 12:42:37 AM
Here we part ways. CAP would be much better on the whole if people just did what the regs say.
The structure is there, if people would just take the time to read it.
The kind of stuff we get into it about here are almost always edge cases.
Yep.
Where in the regs does it say you MUST 2b your empty shirts.
:) and now we are back to where we began. >:D
Quote from: lordmonar on January 21, 2015, 12:45:58 AM
Where in the regs does it say you MUST 2b your empty shirts.
Nowhere, and I have never made the assertion it's required.
Critical to CAP's future? Command responsibility? A matter of integrity? Yep.
Required? Nope.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 21, 2015, 12:50:03 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 21, 2015, 12:45:58 AM
Where in the regs does it say you MUST 2b your empty shirts.
Nowhere, and I have never made the assertion it's required.
Critical to CAP's future? Command responsibility? A matter of integrity? Yep.
Required? Nope.
Ahhh..so when you want something done your way that's not in the regs, it's a breach lf integrity not to do it your way, just because you say so.
I quote actual legal authority for something that is in the regs, just not defined, and "everything relevant is is in the regs"
Give me a break. How arrogant can someone be!
Two separate threads.
Trying to connect them doesn't make your argument better,
or your quotes applicable. I've made my reasoning clear on the
empty shirt issue and the integrity issues of misrepresenting CAP's numbers.
So, is the Corporation not being truthful when they report these numbers to Congress? They know that 1/3 of the members are empty shirts? Is it still an integrity thing when our leaders do it??
Quote from: AirAux on January 21, 2015, 12:48:06 PM
So, is the Corporation not being truthful when they report these numbers to Congress? They know that 1/3 of the members are empty shirts? Is it still an integrity thing when our leaders do it??
Have you ever actually read anything I, and others, have written and said on this issue?
There's your answer...
Quote from: lordmonar on January 21, 2015, 12:45:58 AM
Where in the regs does it say you MUST 2b your empty shirts.
It's another of those imaginary rules in Eclipse's head, like the pre-notification that he says is part of the "NHQ designed process" but he can't seem to cite.
Someday, I'd really like to get all these designs out of Eclipse's head....they seem fascinating, even if not actually real.
C'mon guys, I skipped breakfast and everything this morning. I'm hungry and still waiting for someone to do something to make me eat my hat.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 20, 2015, 08:44:32 PM
If just one person can square the circle where a Group Commander who advised a Squadron Commander that he was good with a 2B is not "predisposed" towards finding that his advice was good, not guaranteed, simply predisposition is enough, then I'll eat my hat.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 21, 2015, 01:49:55 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 21, 2015, 12:45:58 AM
Where in the regs does it say you MUST 2b your empty shirts.
It's another of those imaginary rules in Eclipse's head, like the pre-notification that he says is part of the "NHQ designed process" but he can't seem to cite.
Someday, I'd really like to get all these designs out of Eclipse's head....they seem fascinating, even if not actually real.
Again, this is not an assertion I have ever made, so in this case, yeah, not real, but if it helps your narrative to keep repeating it,
I guess you will.
Quote from: JeffDG on January 21, 2015, 01:54:41 PM
If just one person can square the circle where a Group Commander who advised a Squadron Commander that he was good with a 2B is not "predisposed" towards finding that his advice was good, not guaranteed, simply predisposition is enough, then I'll eat my hat.
I would suggest Kashi GoLean or perhaps FiberOne. My understanding is they can be quite "clarifying", since no one
is going to provide you with a citation which is unnecessary to the conversation. Simply repeating your unsupported assertions,
and asking people to "prove the negative" perpetuates the thread, but it's not going to change the requirements or the process.
If you aren't comfortable with the level of due process provided by NHQ, take it up the chain.
Seriously, eventually even the wall gets tired of it.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 21, 2015, 02:28:01 PM
If you aren't comfortable with the level of due process provided by NHQ, take it up the chain.
I'm not claiming to know the mind of the secret halls of NHQ like you.
My group does it right.
I just finished my second cup of coffee. If a squadron commander informs their group commander of an impending 2b action, and the group commander is ok with it, I doubt there would be a problem. If a squadron commander has written documentation of progressive disciplinary actions taken on a member, and asks for advice, I don't think it would be a conflict of interest, however I may be tempted to recuse during an appeal.
If a group commander tells a squadron commander to initiate a 2b action for a member in their command; that would be a conflict. The group commander is the defacto initiator and approving authority in this case. Bad...
I think 35-3 is very clear on the subject of notification. My examples noted above are open to interpretation, however I like to err on the conservative side. Let the lowest level commander make the decision without getting involved in the process until needed.
I've been in my squadron almost two years, and there are several cadets on the roster I've never seen. Several seniors, too.
Quote from: BHartman007 on January 22, 2015, 07:03:50 PM
I've been in my squadron almost two years, and there are several cadets on the roster I've never seen. Several seniors, too.
On the SM side...my personal opinion is "whatever". I'd move them to Patron Status, and keep in the unit, but to each his own.
On the cadet side...always have to wonder why they bother renewing. Unless it's a parent "padding" the college resume with non-accomplishment in various organizations.
Question: In terms of membership numbers reported, do they include patron members and congressional members?
Last I heard, reported membership numbers include Active, Patron, Congressional, Legislative, CSMs, and AE members. "Active" members reported may be really "active" or "empty shirts", and those members in "000" units.
Isn't 000 the very definition of "empty shirt"? Besides those stuck due to unit closings...
Well. No one has really defined an empty shirt yet as per the regs......so no. :)
Quote from: lordmonar on January 22, 2015, 10:32:57 PM
Well. No one has really defined an empty shirt yet as per the regs......so no. :)
There's literal restrictions on what they can do.
Restrictions on who?
All those not regular members.
Regarding empty shirt, since all patron, legislative, etc are essentially empty shirts in the numbers reported since they can't do anything.
Not all members in 000 are Patrons, at least by design, and not all wings push those in 000 to patron.
The lack of a proper CC for 000 causes some practical issues, but at least technically non-patrons
in 000 can pretty much do whatever they want until there is something that needs a CCs approval,
and then the Wing CC (or anyone else with the proper pen) can punch those tickets.
Since one wants to 2'B members who are not safety current, one might note that unless an activity requires a GES card to participate, the Unit Commander may waive safety requirements, thereby cleaning up that ugly safety currency requirement...
What excuse could someone possibly have for not staying safety current? It's so easy it can literally be accomplished while sitting in front of a computer in your underwear in the space of a few minutes. If you don't have a computer (who doesn't these days?), show up at a safety briefing once in a while. Not being safety current over a period of time is just another indication that a member isn't interested in participating. Why waive the requirements for those folks? Communicate the expectations, then say goodbye to the disinterested member if they don't play ball.
Quote from: veritec on February 10, 2015, 07:32:54 PM
What excuse could someone possibly have for not staying safety current? It's so easy it can literally be accomplished while sitting in front of a computer in your underwear in the space of a few minutes. If you don't have a computer (who doesn't these days?), show up at a safety briefing once in a while. Not being safety current over a period of time is just another indication that a member isn't interested in participating. Why waive the requirements for those folks? Communicate the expectations, then say goodbye to the disinterested member if they don't play ball.
You speak from experience? I see what you mean... too bad safety currency doesn't add up, because I've done most of the modules (except for "hurricane preparedness" this is Kansas). Hydration can be done in 5 minutes. The questions can be answered without looking over the material.
It is becoming a farce because if you have been doing it long enough, you are re-doing prior lessons. Duhhhhhh. What a waste. If National isn't interested enough to prepare new lessons, why should we participate?? Just waive it...
My personal favorite is "downed power lines."
Quote from: AirAux on February 10, 2015, 09:26:29 PM
It is becoming a farce because if you have been doing it long enough, you are re-doing prior lessons. Duhhhhhh. What a waste. If National isn't interested enough to prepare new lessons, why should we participate?? Just waive it...
I question national's decision of requiring "safety currency" every month. I am all for being aware of safety, but surely there is a way that actually ensures that cadets are safe at CAP activities (or learn anything related to safety in the first place). Online Safety Education has become a joke.
Quote from: AirAux on February 10, 2015, 06:44:08 PM
Since one wants to 2'B members who are not safety current, one might note that unless an activity requires a GES card to participate, the Unit Commander may waive safety requirements, thereby cleaning up that ugly safety currency requirement...
Quote from: CAPR 62-1, Para. 4f
Commanders at any level may waive all safety education requirements for meetings or activities which do not require a General Emergency Services (GES) rating if, in the opinion of the commander, such waiver serves the best interests of CAP. An example of a situation which might justify such a waiver includes meeting attendance by legislators or distinguished visitors who happen to be CAP members; however, regularly scheduled unit meetings, whether or not they require GES ratings (see above), still require regular safety education and operational risk safety briefings under this regulation, since fire prevention and general housekeeping, warehouse (storage) and hazard communication are valid safety requirements for regularly scheduled meetings and unit facilities. Waivers of safety education requirements should be the exception, not the rule.
Emphasis mine
Quote from: Ned on February 10, 2015, 09:49:45 PM
My personal favorite is "downed power lines."
Spatial Disorientation all the way!
Quote from: CadetSnuffy on February 10, 2015, 09:02:50 PM
You speak from experience?
No. I attend unit meetings regularly and receive in-person safety briefings, and that's how it should be done IMO. The point is you don't even have to get dressed to meet the requirement, so there's really no excuse for not being current other than not giving a garsh dang.
Quote from: CadetSnuffy on February 10, 2015, 09:52:24 PM
Quote from: AirAux on February 10, 2015, 09:26:29 PM
It is becoming a farce because if you have been doing it long enough, you are re-doing prior lessons. Duhhhhhh. What a waste. If National isn't interested enough to prepare new lessons, why should we participate?? Just waive it...
I question national's decision of requiring "safety currency" every month. I am all for being aware of safety, but surely there is a way that actually ensures that cadets are safe at CAP activities (or learn anything related to safety in the first place). Online Safety Education has become a joke.
Actually, it was CAP-USAF which demanded us to be "safety current". They kinda implied we would be in violation of our "Statement of Work" if we didn't come up with a more "formal program". NHQ made it as painless as possible to comply. I actually don't think about it any longer. I keep current with AOPA Foundation seminars and courses every month. It goes right to the FAA, which transfers it to CAP automatically. I get a substantive education, and remain safety current without a second thought... 8)
The question....is not is keeping safety current hard or not.
The question is where in the regulations does it say you maintain safety currency just be a member.
The various wing/group/unit policies to transfer or 2b members who don't maintain safety currency is NOT supported by regulations, nor is it supported by the safety policy itself.
I go back to my original statement.
I question the value of transferring or terminating members simply for not showing up and for not maintaining safety currency.
I have yet to see from anyone who supports doing this....produce a good definition of an "empty shirt".
Let's start with that.
We got one for cadets (three meetings with out a valid excuse).....so what exactly is an "empty shirt".
From there we can debate the pro's and cons of what we should do with said empty shirts.
Spatial D is an excellent module, I agree (and I've taught it at USNTPS). CAP has a few professional Human Factors and Pilot Vehicle Interface (PVI) engineers that I've worked with or know of (one in Iowa, a couple in California, a couple in Texas, one at Pax). I wonder who the author(s) were...
Half joking here, and this might be a topic for a couple of new threads, but:
1. What is the quickest and easiest Safety module to complete, in case of rare need.
2. What is the most rewarding and best prepared Safety module in terms of content, so that NHQ could emulate it in crafting future modules. Using CT to provide constructive feedback to them would be a productive and useful thing to promote compliance and active participation.
V/R,
Spam
Quote from: lordmonar on February 10, 2015, 11:02:21 PM
The question is where in the regulations does it say you maintain safety currency just be a member.
The various wing/group/unit policies to transfer or 2b members who don't maintain safety currency is NOT supported by regulations, nor is it supported by the safety policy itself.
Please cite where anyone said it is, or is basis for termination. I certainly didn't say that.
Not maintaining safety currency is simply a short-hand way to find your empty shirts - a member incapable of
that small amount of participation is sure to have other issues, since they are literally
doing nothing.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 10, 2015, 11:02:21 PM....so what exactly is an "empty shirt".
Anyone who is on the active roles, yet not participating in a way which brings value to CAP in the subjective view of their commander.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 10, 2015, 11:53:04 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 10, 2015, 11:02:21 PM....so what exactly is an "empty shirt".
Anyone who is on the active roles, yet not participating in a way which brings value to CAP in the subjective view of their commander.
Not good enough. Try again. Anything that is that subjective is not gonna work as a blanket policy we can communicate to all our units.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 10, 2015, 11:02:21 PM
The question....is not is keeping safety current hard or not.
The question is where in the regulations does it say you maintain safety currency just be a member.
The various wing/group/unit policies to transfer or 2b members who don't maintain safety currency is NOT supported by regulations, nor is it supported by the safety policy itself.
I go back to my original statement.
I question the value of transferring or terminating members simply for not showing up and for not maintaining safety currency.
I have yet to see from anyone who supports doing this....produce a good definition of an "empty shirt".
Let's start with that.
We got one for cadets (three meetings with out a valid excuse).....so what exactly is an "empty shirt".
From there we can debate the pro's and cons of what we should do with said empty shirts.
There is, of course, nothing in the regulations stating safety currency is a requirement for membership, however it is a requirement to participate in CAP activities. This basically makes those who are not current, Patron members. Terminating a senior member for not being safety current is ridiculous. A cadet who is not safety current, is most likely not active. A cadet may be terminated for inactivity according to regs.
IMHO, an "empty shirt" is a member who does not participate in any of the missions or activities of CAP. I would transfer these members to PATRON status. I would never support termination. We already have enough "disgruntled former members"...
Quote from: lordmonar on February 10, 2015, 11:56:26 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 10, 2015, 11:53:04 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 10, 2015, 11:02:21 PM....so what exactly is an "empty shirt".
Anyone who is on the active roles, yet not participating in a way which brings value to CAP in the subjective view of their commander.
Not good enough. Try again. Anything that is that subjective is not gonna work as a blanket policy we can communicate to all our units.
See the above from FW.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 11, 2015, 12:03:50 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 10, 2015, 11:56:26 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 10, 2015, 11:53:04 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 10, 2015, 11:02:21 PM....so what exactly is an "empty shirt".
Anyone who is on the active roles, yet not participating in a way which brings value to CAP in the subjective view of their commander.
Not good enough. Try again. Anything that is that subjective is not gonna work as a blanket policy we can communicate to all our units.
See the above from FW.
Still not objective enough. Is there a time line? 30 days, 60 days, what? Is keeping safety current enough?
Let's write the regulation.
Let's write in the exceptions and the waivers too while we are at it.
Then we can see how much admin burden we are adding to our units, and run the cost benefit analysis on whether it is a good idea or not.
Patrick, do you think a regulation is needed for this? I would think this issue would fall under "commander's prerogative", and maybe, be dealt with in the UCC curriculum.
Keeping safety current is the basic level of continued eligibility for active participation in CAP. There are other factors which, I think, play into the process for determining if a (senior) member is an "active participant". It is something that needs to be discussed at the unit level, however it should be the commander who makes the decision what's best for the unit. IMHO, the current regulations provide enough guidance, and flexibility; as to admin burden, cost effectiveness, or unit moral.
No I don't think there should be a regulation for this.
I don't think we should be doing anything about this.
If you are not safety current....you must get current before you can participate. Just like the reg says.
All the other policies and actions that people are taking to move empty shirts to patron status, or to 000 squadrons or as some here on CT have suggested termination.....is just point less.
I am demanding a definition from those who support that......to show how subjective a definition it is. How problematical it would be to administer, and how much damage it can do to CAP.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 11, 2015, 12:59:18 AM
I am demanding a definition from those who support that......to show how subjective a definition it is. How problematical it would be to administer, and how much damage it can do to CAP.
"Demanding", that's actually funny. Everybody wants to play Army until they have to get their crayons out.
It's subjective by design, that doesn't make it pointless. There are plenty of people in CAP who do not serve in a
standard unit model who bring value by their contributions. The respective commander, to whom the burden of
the membership applies, is free to determine that value.
This is as simple as the fact. FACT (note the capital letters) that CAP, as an organization, has literally no idea how many
"members" it actually has beyond the number of checks it cashes each year. The are many MANY (more caps) units with 50%
or more of the roster that never show up or participate in any way. There are many more that have "members" they have never
seen or who haven't shown up in a decade.
As someone in the military, we'd all expect you to understand the importance of an organization which purports to be
a ready force in times of disaster (in fact is mandated by its charter to that effect), to have an accurate count of the
real status of all its members.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 11, 2015, 01:32:15 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 11, 2015, 12:59:18 AM
I am demanding a definition from those who support that......to show how subjective a definition it is. How problematical it would be to administer, and how much damage it can do to CAP.
"Demanding", that's actually funny. Everybody wants to play Army until they have to get their crayons out.
It's subjective by design, that doesn't make it pointless.
This is as simple as the fact. FACT (note the capital letters) that CAP, as an organization, has literally no idea how many
"members" it actually has beyond the number of checks it cashes each year. The are many MANY (more caps) units with 50%
or more of the roster that never show up or participate in any way. There are many more that have "members" they have never
seen or who haven't shown up in a decade.
As someone in the military, we'd all expect you to understand the importance of an organization which purports to be
a ready force in times of disaster (in fact is mandated by its charter to that effect), to have an accurate count of the
real status of all its members.
Yes.....and I as a former military member also know that I need to have clear definitions of what "Cow" is and what a "Duck" is before I report it one way or the other.
I am simply asking you.....for said definitions.
What is an "active" member as opposed to an "inactive" member.
Define it.
Once we can agree on that. Then we can move on to what that means.
After publication date of the new policy, unit CC contacts all members on his roster and
ascertains the current interest in CAP participation, moving anyone to Patron status (w/ xfer to 996)
who is unresponsive or indicates "no interest" - this resets the clock for every one and clears the
books of the members with 100### series CAP IDs no one has ever seen. 50% of the problem is
fixed immediately.
From there:
No safety currency = "inactive".
"inactive" members are removed from all reporting in regards to readiness, and qualifications.
Any publication of membership numbers is required to subtract the day's "inactive" members.
90 days in "inactive" state = "at risk". This status is purely for reporting purposes and to
indicate to all levels the number of members who are "at risk" for termination or patron status.
No contact for 6 months, or indication after contact that they "won't be participating any time soon", patron.
Members who wish to be "safed" from patron status, such as deployed military, sick leave, or who otherwise
are considered "excused" are placed into "inactive reserve". The also barred from any participation until
removed from this status, and their numbers are filtered from reporting for readiness and qualifications.
Members may not be "safed" for more then one calendar year, nor can they be "re-safed" without
30 days of active status.
Members in inactive status of any kind do not accrue TIG towards promotion or specialties during the periods they are inactive
(that alone would fix a lot of the issues as we have far too many people who get slotted into a job, wander off
and don't come back until they want a new pin or higher grade.)
All automatic, requires no action by the unit CC except to make exceptions if warranted.
Done.
So....inactive is not safety current.
That's your only criteria?
No, and that's not what it says up there either, it's one of several criteria.
You need to get over and past the fact that NHQ has defined this as the bare-minimum
for a member to be considered "active". Anything less and, by regulation, they
aren't allowed to do anything in CAP except for getting current. Waivers, by regulation,
are to be exceptions (and why any CC would even entertain the idea is beyond me).
A much better solution would be to actually track attendance and participation - perhaps
another ribbon for annual minimum participation would stir men's souls - but until then,
Safety currency is the only touchstone CAP has, and a pretty darn good indicator of
interest, whether by design or not.
Other criteria for being placed in "inactive" is stated above, and I would go further to
to say that the same level of "no show" as cadets is a reasonable expectation - miss three
meetings without an excuse, and you are put on the inactive list. The rest is already there.
Groups and above would need adjusted criteria, since some don't meet regularly, but again,
safety currency is the bare-bones minimum. Groups and Wings, etc., would be required to
publish an approved OI to deviate from the above, and publish their meeting schedule to
insure there is record-keeping.
Why? Because there are only two ways to get that ticket punched - an in-face briefing, or
an online quiz (yeah, yeah, Wings, FASST, blah blah). And that means that at least once every
30 days yo had to at least think about CAP for 10 minutes, or attend one meeting.
And before you go there, this isn't an effort to bounce people because they got sick, busy,
or otherwise can't make meetings - the key is the notification of the CC, and caring enough to
stay in contact for 10 minutes a month, beyond that, there are other avenues to voting off
members who serve no value to CAP or cause other issues. This is focused on normalizing
the ranks and properly reporting, which, if people ever see the >REAL< numbers would be either a wake up
call or a panic, but either way no one is kidding themselves anymore.
And this isn't "extra effort" nor an ROI issue, since this is literally the job of the Personnel officer.
Okay....we got a basic.
If you are not safety current for 6 months...you get Patroned.
So....what if you maintain safety currency.........it's three meetings with out a valid excuse?
And yes you are adding admin burden....because right now.....there is no requirement for the personnel officers to do anything....now they have to keep track of attendance on an individual member level.
They have to make those phone calls.....and if after six months....they have initiate a Patron Transfer.
That's all more time you are adding to what they already have to do.
And like you said......Group, wing and regional guys will have different levels and rules for "attendance".
Do you see where I am going with this?
Sure the concept of "let's get rid of the empty shirts" sounds good.....but once you start putting down on paper it starts to get really ugly fast.
Then you of course forget about the time group and wing personnel will have to exert to ensure compliance.
And right now....all of this is done by hand.....E-Services does not have a way to enter attendance. So that means written reports up to wing so they can verify that the units are cleaning up their books.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 11, 2015, 04:32:28 AM
there is no requirement for the personnel officers to do anything
There's no requirement anyone do anything I guess. So much for core values like excellence and integrity.
This is a Personnel Officer's >JOB<.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 11, 2015, 04:32:28 AM
Do you see where I am going with this?
Yes, you've decided it's not worth your time because apparently your unit is a shining beacon that fits no
normal mold of CAP and therefore you can pick and choose which regs you can follow, which you can ignore,
and which are a "waste of time".
Quote from: lordmonar on February 11, 2015, 04:32:28 AM
Then you of course forget about the time group and wing personnel will have to exert to ensure compliance.
I forget nothing. This, AGAIN is THEIR JOB. Managing the organization is supposed to be an active process,
not a spectator sport. The trouble is that many members at higher HQs, from Group on up, are so invested in
their own experiences and pet projects that they forget what their actual jobs are - and those are >not<
flying the planes, training cadets, installing radios, launching rockets, or any of the other wrench-turning that is supposed
to be reserved for the units. Their singular mandate is managing the organization and providing the vision and resources
for the units to do the actual work.
The trouble is the organization is so shorthanded that in many cases the entire food chain for a respective department
in a wing is >one guy< and he's off "flying a CD mission" so he doesn't have time to do the job he's supposed to beyond
checking the boxes.
And that fundamental lack of active management and people doing their actual assigned jobs is the reason why all
these things that are a normal part of any successful organization seem like so much "extra work", because
"well if I do that, when will I have time to fly?"
If we had a clue who the real members are, and some pressure to increase REAL MEMBERSHIP, there would be plenty of
people to do ONE JOB, and things like this would be EXPECTED not "extra".
Tell me, please, how long any USAF unit would last if 2/3rds of the membership were AWOL most of the time?
Or showed up, "when they felt like it" and only did "what they felt like"?
And further, how you'd even know who's missing when you haven't even met 1/3rd of them?
First off......CAP is NOT the USAF....especially not the AD USAF.
We are more like a guard or reserve unit........where 2/3 of the people are in fact AWOL most of the time....they are there just for the one week end a month and two weeks a year.......and sometimes not even for that. Depending on the unit and mission their duty time is often very different.
Second....what reg am I ignoring? If your idea were to be put into a reg....then yes I would have to follow it. I am just pointing out that if your idea were to be implemented.....then you would increase the work load of the personnel officers.
Sure it would be their job. but as we keep saying.....we are already stressed and overworked/undermanned........this idea of yours would make that worse.
Finally....as you pointed out we are short handed. And until that issue is fixed.....we need to focus on getting the mission done vice getting all the paper work done. So the Wing Personnel Officer choosing to fly CD missions....instead of doing his other job is simply someone making a priority call. We all have to do it....every day. We have to decide what our priorities are. Do I go to work, go to my son's soccer game, go to school, do chores around the house, walk the dog. Which one of my CAP jobs do I do? My admin job, my ES job, my wing job. We got to do this all the time.
So.......we decide to add this admin burden.
We clean up the empty shirts.
We can report "real" numbers for once.
And we (CAP in general, and Units Specifically) get in return for all this work?
We are still short manned....but now we got more work to do.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 11, 2015, 07:02:59 AM
First off......CAP is NOT the USAF....especially not the AD USAF.
So, you're not going to answer the question then? Change it to "any company", or the fire department, etc, if you can't get past "CAP isn't the USAF" as if that
means anything in the context of the question.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 11, 2015, 07:02:59 AM
We are more like a guard or reserve unit........where 2/3 of the people are in fact AWOL most of the time....they are there just for the one week end a month and two weeks a year.......and sometimes not even for that. Depending on the unit and mission their duty time is often very different.
You know that's not true, again in the context of the QUESTION, which is whether they can be counted on when >CALLED<
and participate in training and other exercises, which you well know is required by regulation and law when they raise their right hand.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 11, 2015, 07:02:59 AM
Sure it would be their job. but as we keep saying.....we are already stressed and overworked/undermanned........this idea of yours would make that worse.
This conversation goes nowhere if you don't read what is written, and remember what has been written. It doesn't make it "worse", it removes an administrative burden
from the local units and then provides a CLEAR PICTURE of the manpower and situation CAP is actually in. If a unit is too understaffed
to take 10 minutes to know who is actually a value to CAP, they have already failed in their mandates.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 11, 2015, 07:02:59 AM
Finally....as you pointed out we are short handed. And until that issue is fixed.....we need to focus on getting the mission done vice getting all the paper work done.
Again, surprising coming from someone who was in the military. The "paperwork" is not separate from the mission. And certainly an NCO should know
that the care, feeding, and appropriate culling of the flock is a core responsibility of the people charged with managing the program.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 11, 2015, 07:02:59 AM
So the Wing Personnel Officer choosing to fly CD missions....instead of doing his other job is simply someone making a priority call. We all have to do it....every day. We have to decide what our priorities are.
Missed the point completely - the wrench turners should not also be the managers. You're the one who advocates a real NCO corps in CAP,
yet you fail to recognize that CAP will never get there unless the above also comes to fruition. The guy dispatching the trucks at UPS doesn't also drive them. Why?
Because his job is dispatching them. If he wants to drive, he has to give up dispatching and find someone else for the job. No decisions at the organizational level are necessary. If your response is "we don't have the people for that", you've made my point.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 11, 2015, 07:02:59 AM
Which one of my CAP jobs do I do? My admin job, my ES job, my wing job. We got to do this all the time.
You're only supposed to have >ONE<.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 11, 2015, 07:02:59 AM
we decide to add this admin burden.
We clean up the empty shirts.
We can report "real" numbers for once.
It's not a "burden" it's the commander's >JOB<.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 11, 2015, 07:02:59 AM
And we (CAP in general, and Units Specifically) get in return for all this work?
Less administrative work in maintaining empty files for empty shirts, no discussions with higher HQ about
missed currency and PD (among other mandates, which you have repeatedly said you are free to ignore on a whim).
The real picture of CAP and either the imperative to fix it or the imperative to shut it down, either way an end to
kidding themselves and wasting everyone's time.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 11, 2015, 07:02:59 AM
We are still short manned....but now we got more work to do.
Some how you've decided "doing your job" and "less work ultimately" = "more work" with that
math, there's no where else to go with the conversation.
It seems a little silly to define "not safety current" as "inactive."
Mostly because it is simply not a useful criteria. Anymore than, say, "not currently standing in uniform at the squadron headquarters" means that you are inactive. Safety currency does not provide any meaningful data as to how many members can be present and performing duty within a reasonable period of time.
Because it literally takes less time to become safety current than it does to put on a uniform and drive to the squadron headquarters.
When I commanded a Guard MP unit, one of the most time intensive tasks was compiling the monthly Unit Status Report (USR), which was Uncle Sam's way to gather the data that Bob thinks is desperately needed by the CAP leadership. We spend hours developing statistics on the number of personnel assigned, whether they were MOS qualified for their particular MTOE slot, how many were away at school, authorized leave, in transfer status seeking another unit in another state, on weight control, medically restricted, in civil confinement, pending discharge, etc., etc., etc. Then came the equipment part - how many vehicles, commo, and weapons were in maintenance (and at what level), which equipment was back-ordered, etc. Then came the training part - which of the collective and individual training had been accomplished, with documented training schedules, evaluations, etc.
All of it carefully placed on charts and briefed. And re-briefed. And briefed some more.
Since the USR was a "report card item" for the units, there was active gaming of the system -- soldiers were moved "on paper" into different slots to increase MOS qual rates. Leave or transfer dates might be adjusted a day or two forward or back depending on the reporting period. And of course, there were huge pressures and incentives to slow discharges and transfers to make the numbers look better, even if we knew the soldier had moved out of state. (After all, in an true emergency, they could come back.)
So, be very, very careful what you wish for in this regard. Tracking this kind of readiness data is extremely time-intensive, and always creates odd incentives and unexpected effects as senior leaders emphasize different aspects of the numbers.
But perhaps most importantly, it seems largely a wasted effort. When the balloon actually went up, units with lower USRs than ours were mobilized and deployed ahead of us. When our nation needed us, chronic AWOLs appeared ready to do their bit. Soldiers cancelled disability claims. We made equipment work. Units would magically "lateral transfer" surplus equipment and personnel to the mutual benefit of both. Within two months I went from reporting 90% strength to over 130%.
But that's the Army for you. I'm sure CAP could do a better job at it.
Quote from: Ned on February 11, 2015, 05:35:12 PM
But perhaps most importantly, it seems largely a wasted effort. When the balloon actually went up, units with lower USRs than ours were mobilized and deployed ahead of us. When our nation needed us, chronic AWOLs appeared ready to do their bit. Soldiers cancelled disability claims. We made equipment work. Units would magically "lateral transfer" surplus equipment and personnel to the mutual benefit of both. Within two months I went from reporting 90% strength to over 130%.
But that's the Army for you. I'm sure CAP could do a better job at it.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
I would venture to say that putting the level of administrative burden on volunteer members of CAP, for such minuscule (if any) benefit, would constitute FWA, if not legally, then morally.
Quote from: JeffDG on February 11, 2015, 05:53:12 PM
Quote from: Ned on February 11, 2015, 05:35:12 PM
But perhaps most importantly, it seems largely a wasted effort. When the balloon actually went up, units with lower USRs than ours were mobilized and deployed ahead of us. When our nation needed us, chronic AWOLs appeared ready to do their bit. Soldiers cancelled disability claims. We made equipment work. Units would magically "lateral transfer" surplus equipment and personnel to the mutual benefit of both. Within two months I went from reporting 90% strength to over 130%.
But that's the Army for you. I'm sure CAP could do a better job at it.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
I would venture to say that putting the level of administrative burden on volunteer members of CAP, for such minuscule (if any) benefit, would constitute FWA, if not legally, then morally.
Would you take an member you haven't seen in months/years on a mission as your first choice? How about Katrina/Sandy level event?
My 2 cent worth. CAP should activate a annual performance program similar to the ADAF or corporate world uses. We have the CAPF40 in place that could be used by OE program that could be used by units and uploaded to e-services for promotions, award recommendations, and SAV reviews.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on February 11, 2015, 06:15:48 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on February 11, 2015, 05:53:12 PM
Quote from: Ned on February 11, 2015, 05:35:12 PM
But perhaps most importantly, it seems largely a wasted effort. When the balloon actually went up, units with lower USRs than ours were mobilized and deployed ahead of us. When our nation needed us, chronic AWOLs appeared ready to do their bit. Soldiers cancelled disability claims. We made equipment work. Units would magically "lateral transfer" surplus equipment and personnel to the mutual benefit of both. Within two months I went from reporting 90% strength to over 130%.
But that's the Army for you. I'm sure CAP could do a better job at it.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
I would venture to say that putting the level of administrative burden on volunteer members of CAP, for such minuscule (if any) benefit, would constitute FWA, if not legally, then morally.
Would you take an member you haven't seen in months/years on a mission as your first choice? How about Katrina/Sandy level event?
If they were the one who showed up vs the "current in everything" member who didn't.
Quote from: Ned on February 11, 2015, 05:35:12 PM
It seems a little silly to define "not safety current" as "inactive."
This is NHQ's definition. It is also only >one< of the criteria for the above proposed policy.
Feel free to walk with Lord and continue to pretend it's all that is written. That will insure the productivity of the discussion.
Quote from: Ned on February 11, 2015, 05:35:12 PMSafety currency does not provide any meaningful data as to how many members can be present and performing duty within a reasonable period of time.
No one said it did - but you can't do >anything< without it.
Quote from: Ned on February 11, 2015, 05:35:12 PM
Because it literally takes less time to become safety current than it does to put on a uniform and drive to the squadron headquarters.
And yet...
Quote from: Ned on February 11, 2015, 05:35:12 PM
But perhaps most importantly, it seems largely a wasted effort.
So again we have someone form NHQ saying that knowing who your members are and whether your assets are serviceable is "a waste of time".
Considering that all this information is supposed to be available with a few clicks, that effort would be negligible if the data, most of it
required, was entered and maintained accurately on a regular basis, and CAP actually knew who their members were.
Quote from: Ned on February 11, 2015, 05:35:12 PM
When the balloon actually went up, units with lower USRs than ours were mobilized and deployed ahead of us. When our nation needed us, chronic AWOLs appeared ready to do their bit. Soldiers cancelled disability claims. We made equipment work. Units would magically "lateral transfer" surplus equipment and personnel to the mutual benefit of both. Within two months I went from reporting 90% strength to over 130%.
Citing the guard's inability to properly man and manage as a justification for CAP doing the same thing doesn't make the argument for anything but finger pointing.
This happens in CAP as well, and is ridiculous and demoralizing. Members who participate regularly and are trained and proficient sit idly
by as twice-a-year members crawl out of the woodwork during the big game and are called up directly outside the chain because they
"know a guy". I can tell you from personal experience that in most cases these low-timers are more trouble then they are worth and
significantly decrease CAP's actual capability, forcing a lot of missions and activities to be "brute-forced" on the backs of a small number
of people who actually do the real work, while the low-timers run into each other out in the rain in front of the cameras.
Reference Katrina and Sandy as easy examples.
CAP pay years' worth of lip-service to being trained, qualified and proficient, not to mention spends a pretty good chunk of taxpayers and member
funding, and then when the waters star to rise, starts yelling for "all hands" because it was negligent in its mandate and doesn't have enough people who actually followed the rules. This does not "stir men's souls" and in many cases results in "no thanks, pass" the next time training is "required", because in the end, it's only "pretend required".
The the organization wonders why it is not taken seriously in the ES community.
Eclipse.
Point is.
Right NOW....in today's CAP.
Doing what you suggest is stupid....yes I said stupid.
It ADDS admin burden on an already overstressed work force.
It does NOTHING to increase our readiness.
In a perfect world where squadrons all had 150 senior members with one job and one job only. Where wing and groups where manned enough to actually help train, mentor and assist squadrons in their missions, Where we had clear OPLAN taskings and Unit Manning Documents, and Unit Type Code assets, and SORTS reports........what you suggest would be important and helpful.
But not today.
Not when the average sized squadron is only 20 people....and everyone who is not an empty shirt is wearing 2-3 hats.....and doing ES on the side, and "oh by the way why aren't you doing any external AE stuff?".
So.....again.
Sure...in a perfect world......anyone who misses more then three meetings is out! But in the real world. I would rather spend that 10 minutes a week on managing that......on my cadets, or doing AE, or preparing for the next SAREX.....you know....our mission.
NHQ, USAF and Congress is perfectly aware of the state our personnel numbers. They know all about empty shirts. So there is no integrity issue, we are not lying to anyone. Fixing the numbers does not change our readiness status at all. At the end of the day those ready and able to respond to a crisis will still be there. Removing the empty shirts does not somehow multiply their numbers.
That is why it would be a waste of time. Added work....with no value added.
Bob,
You seem unusually feisty today. . .
Initially, it sounds like we agree that "safety currency" is not a useful criteria for determining unit or individual readiness or a member's ability to positively participate in the immediate future.
So far, so good.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 11, 2015, 06:30:15 PM
Quote from: Ned on February 11, 2015, 05:35:12 PM
But perhaps most importantly, it seems largely a wasted effort.
So again we have someone form NHQ saying that knowing who your members are and whether your assets are serviceable is "a waste of time".
Bob, you are absolutely free to criticize me, but you're not allowed to put words in my mouth or quote me out of context. That's just intellectually dishonest.
What I said was that detailed USR-like reporting systems are indeed largely a waste of time, for exactly the reasons I indicated. It is time-intensive, and not reasonably related to a unit's ability to perform it's assigned taskings. Particularly since CAP units do not have MTOE-style taskings ("be able to perform aerial search of
X number of square miles of mountainous terrain,
2X square miles of non-mountainous terrain, for a period of
Y days; provide
Z mobile UDF teams that can sustain operations for NLT 48 hours; support and train
X CAP Cadets by providing weekly meetings, and monthly activities, etc.)
Quote from: Eclipse
This happens in CAP as well, and is ridiculous and demoralizing. Members who participate regularly and are trained and proficient sit idly
by as twice-a-year members crawl out of the woodwork during the big game and are called up directly outside the chain because they
"know a guy". I can tell you from personal experience that in most cases these low-timers are more trouble then they are worth and
significantly decrease CAP's actual capability, forcing a lot of missions and activities to be "brute-forced" on the backs of a small number
of people who actually do the real work, while the low-timers run into each other out in the rain in front of the cameras. Reference Katrina and Sandy
as easy examples.
Hmmm. Interesting. Sounds like you have seen some leadership issues unrelated to the qualifications and readiness of the units and members.
Members are either qualified and signed off for an ES qualification or they are not. If the "low-timers" have their qualifications and show up ready to work, why on Earth would you not employ them in a given mission? Sure, for a given task if I had multiple people to choose from, I might select the most qualified and experienced member, but to summarily exclude "low-timers" just because you have some more experienced folks seems a little . . . . short sighted.
QuoteCiting the guard's inability to properly man and manage as a justification for CAP doing the same thing doesn't balance.
Again, it may be your lack of military experience, but over-managing a process (something that Uncle Sam excels at in a military context) is certainly not the same thing as "inability to manage."
But thank you for your thoughts on the Guard.
You're welcome.
Beyond that, since CAP's reality doesn't match your narrative, there's not much more to be said that hasn't already been said, a dozen times.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on February 11, 2015, 06:15:48 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on February 11, 2015, 05:53:12 PM
Quote from: Ned on February 11, 2015, 05:35:12 PM
But perhaps most importantly, it seems largely a wasted effort. When the balloon actually went up, units with lower USRs than ours were mobilized and deployed ahead of us. When our nation needed us, chronic AWOLs appeared ready to do their bit. Soldiers cancelled disability claims. We made equipment work. Units would magically "lateral transfer" surplus equipment and personnel to the mutual benefit of both. Within two months I went from reporting 90% strength to over 130%.
But that's the Army for you. I'm sure CAP could do a better job at it.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
I would venture to say that putting the level of administrative burden on volunteer members of CAP, for such minuscule (if any) benefit, would constitute FWA, if not legally, then morally.
Would you take an member you haven't seen in months/years on a mission as your first choice? How about Katrina/Sandy level event?
Yes.
If they're qualified, use them. What do I care if someone is going to a weekly meeting or not? If they're qualified to do the job, I use them.
Qualified ≠ Proficient
Quote from: Storm Chaser on February 11, 2015, 09:15:53 PM
Qualified ≠ Proficient
And what does going to a meeting every week have to do with either?
Quote from: Ned on February 11, 2015, 07:06:44 PM
Hmmm. Interesting. Sounds like you have seen some leadership issues unrelated to the qualifications and readiness of the units and members.
Members are either qualified and signed off for an ES qualification or they are not. If the "low-timers" have their qualifications and show up ready to work, why on Earth would you not employ them in a given mission? Sure, for a given task if I had multiple people to choose from, I might select the most qualified and experienced member, but to summarily exclude "low-timers" just because you have some more experienced folks seems a little . . . . short sighted.
Actually, my concern with the low-timers gets back to the idea of qualified versus proficient. If someone gets signed off as an observer, doesn't show up to anything for two years and then when a "Sandy" type event happens, they may be technically qualified, but would I want them in the cockpit if I had other people, who had been to SAREX's and other training to do the work, not sure that would be a good idea. The best advertisement for getting called back is by being able to do the job. "qualified" people sometimes aren't
Quote from: Eclipse on February 11, 2015, 01:32:15 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 11, 2015, 12:59:18 AM
I am demanding a definition from those who support that......to show how subjective a definition it is. How problematical it would be to administer, and how much damage it can do to CAP.
"Demanding", that's actually funny. Everybody wants to play Army until they have to get their crayons out.
It's subjective by design, that doesn't make it pointless. There are plenty of people in CAP who do not serve in a
standard unit model who bring value by their contributions. The respective commander, to whom the burden of
the membership applies, is free to determine that value.
This is as simple as the fact. FACT (note the capital letters) that CAP, as an organization, has literally no idea how many
"members" it actually has beyond the number of checks it cashes each year. The are many MANY (more caps) units with 50%
or more of the roster that never show up or participate in any way. There are many more that have "members" they have never
seen or who haven't shown up in a decade.
As someone in the military, we'd all expect you to understand the importance of an organization which purports to be
a ready force in times of disaster (in fact is mandated by its charter to that effect), to have an accurate count of the
real status of all its members.
I don't always agree with Eclipse, but on this instance I think he's right.
I'm not interested so much on how many members pay their dues in my group, which is what our membership data reports, but on how many are actively contributing to the organization. It's not so much about safety currency, although that provides a useful indicator, but about how a member is contributing according to his unit (squadron, group, wing, etc.), duty assignment, ES specialty, special activity staff assignment, among others.
Safety currency is but one indicator. That said, a member who have not been safety current for several months is most likely not actively participating or contributing in any meaningful way. There are, of course, exceptions and that's up to each commander to determine.
Quote from: JeffDG on February 11, 2015, 09:17:30 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on February 11, 2015, 09:15:53 PM
Qualified ≠ Proficient
And what does going to a meeting every week have to do with either?
Clearly nothing.
There's simply no reason to attend them. There's nothing that ever happens at them of any value.
Once qualified, recurrent training is clearly a waste of everyone's time, and expecting people
to do the staff jobs they agreed to is a burden. The sooner CAP can eliminate any in-face contact and expectations, the better for all involved.
There's no way for NHQ to compel commanders to enforce regulations, and why should they
as the organization is in better condition then it has been in a decade. Membership is up,
real missions happen so frequently that they don't make much notice of them anymore, and
CAPs standing and reputation in the ES, aviation, and military community is higher then ever.
Status quo is clearly serving the organization well, carry on.
Quote from: JeffDG on February 11, 2015, 09:17:30 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on February 11, 2015, 09:15:53 PM
Qualified ≠ Proficient
And what does going to a meeting every week have to do with either?
Nothing. But that's something you brought up.
The previous statement made was whether you would want to use someone who you haven't seen in months or years. You said that all you care is that they're qualified. I replied that being qualified is not the same as being proficient. How can you be proficient if you never participate? As an IC, I care whether they can do the job. And in my experience, not everyone who's qualified can.
Quote from: Alaric on February 11, 2015, 09:18:13 PM
Quote from: Ned on February 11, 2015, 07:06:44 PM
Hmmm. Interesting. Sounds like you have seen some leadership issues unrelated to the qualifications and readiness of the units and members.
Members are either qualified and signed off for an ES qualification or they are not. If the "low-timers" have their qualifications and show up ready to work, why on Earth would you not employ them in a given mission? Sure, for a given task if I had multiple people to choose from, I might select the most qualified and experienced member, but to summarily exclude "low-timers" just because you have some more experienced folks seems a little . . . . short sighted.
Actually, my concern with the low-timers gets back to the idea of qualified versus proficient. If someone gets signed off as an observer, doesn't show up to anything for two years and then when a "Sandy" type event happens, they may be technically qualified, but would I want them in the cockpit if I had other people, who had been to SAREX's and other training to do the work, not sure that would be a good idea. The best advertisement for getting called back is by being able to do the job. "qualified" people sometimes aren't
Then you need to address the ES regulations about qualifications and re-qualification.
And being active in the squadron....not an empty shirt....doing your AE job or your CP job or your admin job........does not address your ES proficiencies and qualifications.
Which keeps circling back to my point.......the concept that managing our empty shirts will bring value to our organization just does not pass the common sense test.
It adds work for little or no value.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 11, 2015, 09:40:15 PM
Which keeps circling back to my point.......the concept that managing our empty shirts will bring value to our organization just does not pass the common sense test.
But not knowing who the members really are, that does?
Quote from: lordmonar on February 11, 2015, 09:40:15 PMAnd being active in the squadron....not an empty shirt....doing your AE job or your CP job or your admin job........does not address your ES proficiencies and qualifications.
No one said it did, that addresses your...
wait for it...
...AE & CP skills.
And if the organization was fuly staffed, then CAP wouldn't need people having to wear 12 hats, so "doing their AE or CP job" would be enough.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 11, 2015, 09:48:44 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 11, 2015, 09:40:15 PMAnd being active in the squadron....not an empty shirt....doing your AE job or your CP job or your admin job........does not address your ES proficiencies and qualifications.
No one said it did, that addresses your...
wait for it...
...AE & CP skills.
And if the organization was fuly staffed, then CAP wouldn't need people having to wear 12 hats, so "doing their AE or CP job" would be enough.
And kicking our empty shirts....helps getting fully staffed how?
That is the fallacy of your idea.
The problem is and always has been not enough active and trained people to do all the jobs we need to do.
I question the value of managing the empty shirts in rectifying that problem.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on February 11, 2015, 09:36:15 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on February 11, 2015, 09:17:30 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on February 11, 2015, 09:15:53 PM
Qualified ≠ Proficient
And what does going to a meeting every week have to do with either?
Nothing. But that's something you brought up.
The previous statement made was whether you would want to use someone who you haven't seen in months or years. You said that all you care is that they're qualified. I replied that being qualified is not the same as being proficient. How can you be proficient if you never participate? As an IC, I care whether they can do the job. And in my experience, not everyone who's qualified can.
Honestly, I have no clue if a member goes to weekly meetings, and honestly it has no bearing.
I might be running a mission 300 miles away from me, and whether the qualified Mission Pilot attends his squadron meetings or not has, within rounding error, zero to do with whether he can do the job or not. Weekly squadron meetings have nothing to do with neither qualification nor proficiency.
Same thing on a Katrina level event. You need bodies who are qualified. They will rapidly gain proficiency. And whether they go to every meeting ever will not make them proficient any quicker.
Again, no one said weekly meeting. Why do you keep repeating it? Active participation doesn't necessarily mean attending weekly meetings. But not participating at all will mostly likely translate into lack of proficiency. We require that CAP pilots maintain certain levels of currency and proficiency. Why not require it for other specialties?
Quote from: Storm Chaser on February 11, 2015, 10:00:44 PM
Again, no one said weekly meeting. Why do you keep repeating it? Active participation doesn't necessarily mean attending weekly meetings. But not participating at all will mostly likely translate into lack of proficiency. We require it for pilots, why not for other specialties?
Eclipse has suggested that missing 3 meetings is reason to be declared inactive and moved to patron status.
And no.....we don't require it the FAA requires it. But a MP is good for 2 years just like every other specialty. The form 5 must be done every year and the FAA requires a medial and currency.
Perhaps a clear communication to members of the expectations and potential consequences in the Eclipse plan would result in some of those "empty shirts" becoming more engaged again.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 11, 2015, 09:51:04 PMAnd kicking our empty shirts....helps getting fully staffed how?
Kicking empty shirts is step 1. Why is that so hard to see? I've said it that way bout eleventy-twelveteen times,
yet you keep characterizing that as my saying it's an end-all fix, which I never have. It's a personnel's officer's job
to manage the membership, and a baseline of any successful organization. It's
Management 101.
The rest comes after. Right now, there is no impetus to recruit or retain beyond local
commanders self-initiating and self-actualizing, and a lot of that self-actualization is
allowed to continue because on paper the unit doesn't look too bad, but in reality
no one ever shows up, and the wing has been shuffling sock puppets for years just to keep the charter viable.
Units with a 30-50% sock puppet rate, or that would lose their charter if the socks were removed form active
status are not only >not< the exception, they are actually relatively common.
Normalizing the membership forces the issue in a way which cannot be ignored. Doing so would absolutely
cost CAP 30%+ in raw numbers, and probably 20% of the charters would be in jeopardy. The leadership
at all levels, but especially NHQ, might be able to wrap itself in the "60k" fallacy because it ignores the
churn and looks the other way on empty shirts, so things just continue to slowly spiral down.
Losing 30% of the member and 20% of the charters could not be ignored by anyone, regardless of the spin,
and the policies put in place prevent it from happening again, while raising the quality of the new members
who come in because expectations are set properly.
The majority of the first step is a one-time purge that then sets up CAP for success with the rest of a comprehensive
retention and recruiting plan.
It is so hard to see....because you can't show me it helps?
How does that help my staffing issues?
It makes them worse....because I got to actually to the kicking out....to that means more work for my understaffed unit.
"normalizing" so it can't be ignored, assumes the powers that be are not aware of the situation........they are. They are ignoring it now. If in six months we start reporting 40K members instead of 60K member.....suddenly someone at NHQ will say "Gee we need to start building OPLANS, UTCs, UMDs, and UMPRs for all our units....and we need our wing commanders to split up those tasking up to all the units, so that they can know what their manning levels, training requirements, and equipment requirements are. "
"loosing 30% of manning and 20% of charters can't be ignored".......they are ignoring it now.
You think General Vasquez does not know the score? John Demeris? Gen Myrick? They know....right now.....30% of our members are empty shirts and that 20% of our units are shells.
Making me and all those units do extra work......does not fix anything.
Now......going to the NHQ types politely and respectfully with a thought out suggestion and a plan of action.....that may get them off the dime. Or maybe working your way up the chain where you have the influence to make your view know and effect change.
Sorry......but doing it just because.....does not spark the change that you are suggesting.
It adds more work. It causes animosity toward CAP by former members. It does nothing to put more bodies in the squadrons. It does nothing to improve our readiness to respond to emergencies. It does nothing to accomplish our AE mission or our CP mission.
Value added. I don't see it.....I don't see it even as a price for further value added down the road. Not one based on the notion of "if you break it then they have to respond".
Quote from: lordmonar on February 11, 2015, 10:43:32 PMMaking me and all those units do extra work...
What.
Extra.
Work.
Nothing I am suggesting is outside what is supposed to already be the Commander's job, and on the other side,
everyone has less to do - you clearly missed it, but those members are going to 996, so they aren't your problem
anymore - 30-50% less administrative overhead, no more SUI issues, no retention issue. Done.
Less.
Work.
As to your other comments, people ignore a lot of things, until they can't any more.
But thank you for confirming what most of us already knew anyway, that the situation is
relatively dire, and the leadership is doing nothing to fix it.
Honestly, I don't understand how you, of all people, can think it is healthy for an organization
like CAP, one which purports to install core values of excellence and integrity, to just
walk around in a haze of kidding itself about some of the most fundamental issues such as "who's a member".
The basis for any successful enterprise is knowing three things Goals, Resources, and Timeline.
These are interdependent and none of them are optional for anything resembling a successful plan.
Management 101.
I gotta go with Bob here. Squadron commanders know who their active members are. Why would it be a problem to put non participating members in Patron Status? I, for one, don't think it's fair to let those MP's, MO's; etc, be active twice a year during SAREX's or missions because it's "more important", or "free flying for me" because they are in the "GOBN".
We need to do a much better job of motivating all members to participate, stay proficient, and engaged in performing missions. Contrary to popular opinion, CAP is a social organization. We can't survive just on emails, online services, and texts. Every once in a while, we must actually meet face to face and get some real work accomplished... ::)
Quote from: AirAux on February 10, 2015, 06:44:08 PMSince one wants to 2'B members who are not safety current, one might note that unless an activity requires a GES card to participate, the Unit Commander may waive safety requirements, thereby cleaning up that ugly safety currency requirement...
Until the next commander says "WTF!" .. since it's not uncommon for some of us to be seeing the Wing CC himself sending out notes that pretty much amount to ragging on units that are not "100%" compliant.
They're doing it totally wrong.
If the safety currency is a requirement, then let it be an SUI item where rosters can be looked at .. "how did this member participate if they were not .. ahem, uh, 'current'?" and start sending people away from the sign in table .. go use your phone, go answer the downed power line questions, and come back. Whatever.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 11, 2015, 11:11:05 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 11, 2015, 10:43:32 PMMaking me and all those units do extra work...
What.
Extra.
Work.
Nothing I am suggesting is outside what is supposed to already be the Commander's job, and on the other side,
everyone has less to do - you clearly missed it, but those members are going to 996, so they aren't your problem
anymore - 30-50% less administrative overhead, no more SUI issues, no retention issue. Done.
No...it is not.
Show me one regulation that suggest one of our duties is to "clean up the books" of inactive members.
It is not our job. You are ADDING a new requirement.
You are adding a now weekly or monthly activity to "check up on the attendance" and "call the inactives" to see if they are going to come back. You are ADDING a requirement that we now have to do patron paperwork on those who are "inactive" for six months.
This is all new stuff that we don't do right now.
I don't do any admin stuff on the 30% of my empty shirts. I don't have to....they are inactive.
So moving them to inactive.....increases my work load...not decreases it.
And of course....this is not a one time good deal. I clean up my 30% right now....but I will still have a certain percent of my current active members go inactive over the course of the year.....and if it is important that our numbers be true.....they should be "live" that is we are always updating them.....at least monthly. So the process of managing this....even if it only takes 10 minutes a week.....is 10 minutes that I'm adding to my already overworked admin staff.
Quote
Less.
Work.
No....more work.
QuoteAs to your other comments, people ignore a lot of things, until they can't any more.
But thank you for confirming what most of us already knew anyway, that the situation is
relatively dire, and the leadership is doing nothing to fix it.
I'm not confirming nothing. The situation is the situation. Nothing DIRE about it.
QuoteHonestly, I don't understand how you, of all people, can think it is healthy for an organization
like CAP, one which purports to install core values of excellence and integrity, to just
walk around in a haze of kidding itself about some of the most fundamental issues such as "who's a member".
I don't see your fix.....as fixing anything. I see it as adding to the admin burden that we are already struggling to overcome.
I don't see the problem as dire. I do see it as something we have to over and I do have some ideas of how we can fix some of the problems.
FORCING OUR UNITS TO SWEEP UP THEIR EMPTY SHIRTS does NOTHING....NOTHING.....to fix the base line problem of too much mission, too much overhead, not enough people.
QuoteThe basis for any successful enterprise is knowing three things Goals, Resources, and Timeline.
These are interdependent and none of them are optional for anything resembling a successful plan.
Management 101.
Yep. So....moving out empty shirts helps me as a unit leader to under stand my goals how? My resources? I already know 30% of them are empty shirts. My Timeline?
You can spout managment slogans at me all day.
Bottom line.
Problem is not enough people to do the job.
Kicking out the empty shirts does NOTHING to fix that.
Kicking out the empty shirts ADDS to the work for which we don't have enough people to do.
Kicking out the empty shirts will not magically make "THEM" suddenly worried about the status quo.
So....again.....COST/BENIFIT.
Quote from: FW on February 11, 2015, 11:47:00 PM
I gotta go with Bob here. Squadron commanders know who their active members are. Why would it be a problem to put non participating members in Patron Status? I, for one, don't think it's fair to let those MP's, MO's; etc, be active twice a year during SAREX's or missions because it's "more important", or "free flying for me" because they are in the "GOBN".
We need to do a much better job of motivating all members to participate, stay proficient, and engaged in performing missions. Contrary to popular opinion, CAP is a social organization. We can't survive just on emails, online services, and texts. Every once in a while, we must actually meet face to face and get some real work accomplished... ::)
So....this is not about mission readiness.....but more about "I work my butt off....and he get's to just waltz in and fly twice a year".
Yes....we need to do a much better job of keeping those who have joined, active, engaged, and busy. We need to get more of them to step up to the plate and take on some of the [mess] work we got to do to keep the three missions running.
I don't see requiring......and this is not discretionary here......if it we leave it up to 'what they want to do" Bob's plan will not work........requiring unit commanders to clean up their roles based on more or less arbitrary definition of "inactive". We are going to require them to do this at least once month...to keep the numbers clean.
And at the end of the day....what have we gained?
You don't want that one guy who only flies every six months flying......don't let him fly. Give it to someone who works his butt off.
But moving that guy to Patron status.....against his will....because he does not "do" anything else......decreases our readiness. Makes this guy now pissed at CAP.
Net result? More work for the squadron, less readiness, more animosity from former members.....oh....and our numbers are now clean.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 12, 2015, 12:16:17 AM
Kicking out the empty shirts does NOTHING to fix that.
Kicking out the empty shirts ADDS to the work for which we don't have enough people to do.
Kicking out the empty shirts will not magically make "THEM" suddenly worried about the status quo.
(http://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6215/6351639973_555db09687_z.jpg)
No....I see the forest.....and I see the trees.
Your problem is you are attacking the wrong trees.
We have identified the problem.....too much job....not enough workers.
The fix is easy.
Less job....more workers.
You are suggesting the opposite.
You are wishing that "they" will do their job....and some how that will magically make the people appear and work load decrease.
So you have come up with this plan.......This evil master plan........we start forcing them to close units and we force them to see our membership numbers drop 30%.....they will have do something.
Now who is ignoring reality?
We already have units well below their minim membership....and that is before you factor in the empty shirts. Do you see any wings or group guys driving out and finding out what the problem is?
No....in fact you have emphatically stated that it is not their job to do so. I.e. they don't care if that unit is okay or folds.
So what makes you think that the nefarious "them" at NHQ is any different then you?
If your unit....in your opinion is undermanned......suddenly dropping 30% off your books is not going to get wing off their butts to come down to help you.
Calling wing and saying "I could use some help here"...now that might work....but not the other.
Someone goes inactive......okay...they go inactive. I may or may not have the time to follow up and find out what's going on. Eventually they will drop off my books...I move their records to the inactive file...and in five years I destroy them.
That is my base line of work.
You would want me to MANDATORY follow up on the individual. Six months into the inactive status I would have to initiate paperwork to transfer him. and then six months (or less) his membership expires, I move his files to the inactive file and five years later I destroy them.
Tell me that is not more work. Tell me that we actually get some benifit from it.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 12, 2015, 12:38:52 AM
You would want me to MANDATORY follow up on the individual. Six months into the inactive status I would have to initiate paperwork to transfer him. and then six months (or less) his membership expires, I move his files to the inactive file and five years later I destroy them.
It's not. It's the CC's job. You also ignored where I indicated that all the status transfers are automatic, absent action.
Less. Work. Forest / trees.
Unless you're telling me your unit doesn't track attendance and participation, I mean that would just be dereliction of duty, right?
No commander worth his pin would stand in front of a superior and tell him "I have no idea who my people are, when they have
participated last, or even if they intend to eve show up again..."
And absent a clear change in the entire organization, the solution is "more people", not less work.
You can nitpick about "this or that", but the majority of the defined duties of the respective departments
are important to a fully-functional organization.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 12, 2015, 12:42:34 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 12, 2015, 12:38:52 AM
You would want me to MANDATORY follow up on the individual. Six months into the inactive status I would have to initiate paperwork to transfer him. and then six months (or less) his membership expires, I move his files to the inactive file and five years later I destroy them.
It's not. It's the CC's job.
And absent a clear change in the entire organization, the solution is "more people", not less work.
You can nitpick about "this or that", but the majority of the defined duties of the respective departments
are important to a fully-functional organization.
Okay...I agree with you.
The work is requuired.....so the only solution is more people.
Now.......how does kicking out our empty shirts get us more people.
Please have a solution that does not involve wishful thinking.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 12, 2015, 12:44:51 AM
Now.......how does kicking out our empty shirts get us more people.
Asked and answered, about 4 times - it doesn't, in and of itself, any more then putting gas in a vehicle gets you to
your destination. It's the first step, but you can't get there without it.
It's a sad comment when one of CAP's most active and knowledgeable members thinks expecting the leadership to
employ proper,
basic managerial principles is "wishful thinking".
Quote from: Eclipse on February 12, 2015, 12:47:40 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 12, 2015, 12:44:51 AM
Now.......how does kicking out our empty shirts get us more people.
Asked and answered, about 4 times - it doesn't, in and of itself, any more then putting gas in a vehicle gets you to
your destination. It's the first step, but you can't get there without it.
It's a sad comment when one of our most active and knowledgeable members thinks expecting the leadership to
employ proper, basic managerial principles is "wishful thinking".
Basic managerial principles.....adding work to your peers that does nothing to fix the problem but maybe, might, possibly would "force" management into doing something about the original problem. I don't know what management school you went to......but I would go get my money back.
When I went to school
Identify the Problem
Brainstorm Solutions
Pick Solution
Implement Solution
Review Results
Assuming we are at "pick a solution" your idea would be dropped due to cost/benifit and applicable to the problem.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 12, 2015, 12:56:30 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 12, 2015, 12:47:40 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 12, 2015, 12:44:51 AM
Now.......how does kicking out our empty shirts get us more people.
Asked and answered, about 4 times - it doesn't, in and of itself, any more then putting gas in a vehicle gets you to
your destination. It's the first step, but you can't get there without it.
It's a sad comment when one of our most active and knowledgeable members thinks expecting the leadership to
employ proper, basic managerial principles is "wishful thinking".
Basic managerial principles.....adding work to your peers that does nothing to fix the problem but maybe, might, possibly would "force" management into doing something about the original problem. I don't know what management school you went to......but I would go get my money back.
When I went to school
Identify the Problem
Brainstorm Solutions
Pick Solution
Implement Solution
Review Results
Assuming we are at "pick a solution" your idea would be dropped due to cost/benifit and applicable to the problem.
I see your point, but I don't buy the "adding [extra] work" argument. Most personnel actions discussed here can be accomplished with a few clicks or by filling a simple form. Your personnel officer and commander may have to do a bit of work the first time, but after that it should be easy. Unless you're implying that dozens of members go inactive every month. If that was the case, those units would have bigger problems than cleaning up the books.
(
edited for grammar)
It does not matter how easy it is.
Today there is no requirement to check your attendance records and see when the last time SM Noshow was there.
Today there is no requirement to do the transfer paperwork for SM Noshow if he has missed XX meetings.
So adding this requirement....adds work.
It is an additional admin burden on the squadron. It is an additional admin burden on wing/group.
Every time I take 10 minutes of time away from someone to do Admin over head....that's 10 minutes of time they can't be doing ES, CP or AE.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 12, 2015, 04:04:28 PM
Every time I take 10 minutes of time away from someone to do Admin over head....that's 10 minutes of time they can't be doing ES, CP or AE.
Your admin people aren't SUPPOSED TO BE DOING "ES, CP, or AE".
Quote from: Eclipse on February 12, 2015, 04:05:49 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 12, 2015, 04:04:28 PM
Every time I take 10 minutes of time away from someone to do Admin over head....that's 10 minutes of time they can't be doing ES, CP or AE.
Your admin people aren't SUPPOSED TO BE DOING "ES, CP, or AE".
But they are. That is the reality of the situation. That is the root problem that we are talking about here.
We got too much stuff to do and not enough people to do it.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 12, 2015, 04:05:49 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 12, 2015, 04:04:28 PM
Every time I take 10 minutes of time away from someone to do Admin over head....that's 10 minutes of time they can't be doing ES, CP or AE.
Your admin people aren't SUPPOSED TO BE DOING "ES, CP, or AE".
That is the single dumbest thing I have ever heard, I am both an Admin and Personnel officer. That does not, and should not prevent me from participating in SAREXs, being a scorekeeper at the color guard competition, working an encampment, or anything else. The function of the staff is to do their jobs in support of the missions. I do my Admin/Personnel work and also participate in the missions, its all about how much time you want to give CAP.
You missed the point running to disagree.
The reason members have to wear 12 hats is because CAP is woefully undermanned and understaffed, and the divided attention
is to the detriment of both, and allows for comments like "I don't have time for admin stuff because I have to ES more..."
A properly staffed CAP would still allow for people to participate where they want to, but it would' force people to have to make as
many time choices.
Bottom line, if you take a support job, you don't get to complain that the requirements, whatever they are, take you away from something else.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 12, 2015, 04:08:47 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 12, 2015, 04:05:49 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 12, 2015, 04:04:28 PM
Every time I take 10 minutes of time away from someone to do Admin over head....that's 10 minutes of time they can't be doing ES, CP or AE.
Your admin people aren't SUPPOSED TO BE DOING "ES, CP, or AE".
But they are. That is the reality of the situation. That is the root problem that we are talking about here.
We got too much stuff to do and not enough people to do it.
Yep, and that pretty much sums up the problem. Why "patronize" senior members who don't want to participate? Keep them on the rolls to avoid further burnout of those who are already overworked? Keep hoping non participating members have a change of heart?
The idea, here, is to find a way to recruit and retain enough members to make it easier for everyone. I know I state the obvious, however we aren't getting anywhere. As JeffDG so aptly puts in his signature block; how long do we keep hitting our heads against the wall before we realize we need to go in a different direction....?
So that's a big "up yours" to all the support staff.
And one wonders why we can't fill support staff jobs.
But that is neither here nor there.
In TODAY's CAP we do have members wearing 2-3 hats. In today's CAP we are undermanned. In today's CAP there is no value added in moving all the empty shirts to patron status.
The fix is to recruit and train more personnel. It is to get group/wing/national out there helping units recruit and train more personnel.
Kicking out/transferring/Patron-ing "empty shirts" does not get us any closer to having more personnel.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 12, 2015, 05:05:37 PM
So that's a big "up yours" to all the support staff.
I can't begin to imagine how you could draw that line.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 12, 2015, 05:05:37 PM
Kicking out/transferring/Patron-ing "empty shirts" does not get us any closer to having more personnel.
You're simply wrong here, sorry, that's just the fact of the matter. If you can't see that, you need to take a hard
look at how you view "management" and why you can't see past a simple task that is part of a larger plan.
Okay....spell it out to me.
How does kicking out the empty shirts....get me more people or reduce my work load?
How does it help recruiting?
How does it help training?
How does it help retention?
As for the "up yours" comment.
"Bottom line, if you take a support job, you don't get to complain that the requirements, whatever they are, take you away from something else."......so that's the up yours! That is shut up and color. so...the solution there is.....If I want to fly...I'm not going to volunteer to do any staff work. If I want to do CP.....to hell with the staff work. If I want do AE...to hell with the staff work.
That's the result of your management attitudes.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 12, 2015, 05:15:59 PM
How does kicking out the empty shirts....get me more people or reduce my work load?
Asked and answered.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 12, 2015, 05:15:59 PM
How does it help recruiting?
How does it help training?
How does it help retention?
Asked and answered.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 12, 2015, 05:15:59 PM
As for the "up yours" comment.
"Bottom line, if you take a support job, you don't get to complain that the requirements, whatever they are, take you away from something else."......so that's the up yours! That is shut up and color. so...the solution there is.....If I want to fly...I'm not going to volunteer to do any staff work. If I want to do CP.....to hell with the staff work. If I want do AE...to hell with the staff work.
No one told you to take the staff job - you either do it right, or don't do it. Anything else is intellectually dishonest.
Doing it 1/2-way actually causes many of the problems we're discussing, because >AGAIN< it gives people
a level of comfort that "X is handled", when in fact, it isn't. Checking the box for the SUI isn't doing the job.
Good management is insuring you have enough of the right people to properly fulfill the whole job, not just backfilling
the org chart with the same three names to get wing off your back.
CAP has this problem >HUGE< in the summer - commanders and key staff go off to encampments and NCSAs, and
basically ignore their home squadron for weeks and months at a time, complaining that they don't have time to address their
"real" CAP job because of the "fun" one they accepted.
Want to go to NESA, HMRS, COS, and staff a flight academy? Fine. You don't get to let your eServices queue sit dormant
while you're gone, nor do you get to leave your unit to bump into each other for weeks at a time because you're overloaded.
Asked...but not answered. You responded....but your "answer" makes no sense.
Forcing people out and closing units in the HOPE that NHQ notices.......something they already know...and then does "something" about....is not going to get more people in the units.
You are right no one told me to take the job.
But you are also telling me to shut up and color...when you want to add more work to my job.
That's where you are failing in leadership.
That is one reason why we can't get more people in the "hard" jobs.
And telling people who are doing the hard jobs...that they can't do the "fun" jobs.......that is again wrong.
I responded with pieces of what would be part of a comprehensive plan, some of which has been detailed in
other long beaten posts.
Your repeated assertions that tasks which are part and parcel of being a commander are somehow "extra work"
are simply incorrect, but at this point you're clearly focused on avoiding this non-existent extra work regardless of
the positive impact on the membership.
To the other point, that's just ridiculous - of course NHQ would "notice" - they are the ones implementing the
comprehensive plan. If you choose to ignore the totality of the idea and focus on what is a very small first step,
you'll never get out of the station-keeping rut you're in.
But thank you for your continued, non-disruptive service to CAP.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 12, 2015, 04:52:40 PM
Bottom line, if you take a support job, you don't get to complain that the requirements, whatever they are, take you away from something else.
I totally agree with that point, but not with the idea that
"Your admin people aren't SUPPOSED TO BE DOING "ES, CP, or AE"."That statement implies its one or the other. Even if we had enough people that every person had only one job, everyone is supposed to be doing ES, CP or AE
Quote from: Alaric on February 12, 2015, 05:55:44 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 12, 2015, 04:52:40 PM
Bottom line, if you take a support job, you don't get to complain that the requirements, whatever they are, take you away from something else.
I totally agree with that point, but not with the idea that "Your admin people aren't SUPPOSED TO BE DOING "ES, CP, or AE"."
That statement implies its one or the other. Even if we had enough people that every person had only one job, everyone is supposed to be doing ES, CP or AE
Yeah...looking forward to that nirvana when we're fully manned and nobody needs to wear multiple hats.
Someone comes in and wants to work on CP...you, as the commander, tell them "We'd love to have you, but we're full up on CP. We could use an extra hand in Personnel, but you'll not be allowed to do anything in CP, becase our admin people aren't SUPPOSED TO BE DOING ES, CP or AE, so sayeth Bob, our National Commander."
No one is saying you can't do the "fun" jobs; just do the "hard" jobs. Just recruit and retain members willing to be part of a team. Encourage them to enjoy each others' company while engaged in all we do. Make the "fun" stuff worth dealing with the "hard" stuff. Maybe then, the "empty shirts" will come back to "play"...
Now, go enjoy the day. 8)
Quote from: Alaric on February 12, 2015, 05:55:44 PMEven if we had enough people that every person had only one job, everyone is supposed to be doing ES, CP or AE
How do you figure that? As much as anyone I've said the mission isn't a menu, but that applies to
unit operations as a whole, not individual members.
In a properly staffed and manned organization, the HQ people would not also be expected to turn the wrenches.
Do the staff accountants at your company also build the products and then put them on the UPS trucks?
Of course not, but that's essentially the situation in CAP - the word "no" is basically nonexistent, so
"everyone can do everything anytime they want".
I've also as much as anyone said it's a good idea to be involved in both missions - ES and CP, but when you accept
a staff job, that's the foremost, not your experience. Assuming you can do both, great. If you can't, which do
you think is supposed to suffer?
The proper way to handle the situation would be the same way as most other similar organizations -
you join and "do" for a few years. Gain experience, and figure out things work. You get the wrench turning
out of your system and then move on to guide the next wave.
Instead, we have people who join and get a wing staff job before their ID card is dry, and then they
quit after a year because they never get to do anything "fun", while at the same time we have 75 year
old Lt Col GTMs still wandering in the woods, mentoring no one and wasting the effort invested in
training them, because all they want is "fun" - "let someone else do it".
Quote from: Eclipse on February 12, 2015, 05:52:33 PM
I responded with pieces of what would be part of a comprehensive plan, some of which has been detailed in
other long beaten posts.
Your repeated assertions that tasks which are part and parcel of being a commander are somehow "extra work"
are simply incorrect, but at this point you're clearly focused on avoiding this non-existent extra work regardless of
the positive impact on the membership.
To the other point, that's just ridiculous - of course NHQ would "notice" - they are the ones implementing the
comprehensive plan. If you choose to ignore the totality of the idea and focus on what is a very small first step,
you'll never get out of the station-keeping rut you're in.
But thank you for your continued, non-disruptive service to CAP.
So....NHQ.....who right now does not care about empty shirts......will not tell everyone to manage your empty shirts. So that they will know what are real numbers are....so that they will care about the fact that we don't have as many people as they currently know that they don't have. And then somehow that is going to get them to come up with way to help us recruit.
That's simply crazy.
As for what we are doing on our level......you have no idea...none at all. So don't think that I'm not working to improve the CAP.
As for NON-disruptive service......well that's a good point. We do have to factor the disruption any change is going to generate in our cost/benefit analysis.
Now you can keep say "you are just lazy and looking for excuses not to do the work"........to a point that is true. I am lazy and would rather spend my limited personal time time on "better" things. But my motivations for countering you....have nothing to do with the validity of my basic premis.
KICKING OUT THE EMPTY SHIRTS DOES NOTHING TO HELP MANNING!
Nothing.
Zero.
Nada.
You have not shown me anything that it would improve.
Thus revealed is the absurdity of your position.
We need admin people, so we'll prohibit them from participating in mission areas.
That works great in a company where you give folks paycheques for their time. In the volunteer space, however, the "fun" is how you actually get people to do the admin crap that goes along with it.
Segregation in such a way that "admin" people would not be allowed to participate in CP/AE/ES would be an almost instantaneous death-knell to the organization. We'd go from 30% empty shirts to 90% disgruntled former members in a literal heartbeat.
For someone who talks about "basic management principles" you don't seem to have any grasp whatsoever on motivating volunteers.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 12, 2015, 06:05:50 PM
Quote from: Alaric on February 12, 2015, 05:55:44 PMEven if we had enough people that every person had only one job, everyone is supposed to be doing ES, CP or AE
How do you figure that? As much as anyone I've said the mission isn't a menu, but that applies to
unit operations as a whole, not individual members.
In a properly staffed and manned organization, the HQ people would not also be expected to turn the wrenches.
Do the staff accountants at your company also build the products and then put them on the UPS trucks?
Of course not, but that's essentially the situation in CAP - the word "no" is basically nonexistent, so
"everyone can do everything anytime they want".
I've also as much as anyone said it's a good idea to be involved in both missions - ES and CP, but when you accept
a staff job, that's the foremost, not your experience. Assuming you can do both, great. If you can't, which do
you think is supposed to suffer?
The proper way to handle the situation would be the same way as most other similar organizations -
you join and "do" for a few years. Gain experience, and figure out things work. You get the wrench turning
out of your system and then move on to guide the next wave.
Instead, we have people who join and get a wing staff job before their ID card is dry, and then they
quit after a year because they never get to do anything "fun", while at the same time we have 75 year
old Lt Col GTMs still wandering in the woods, mentoring no one and wasting the effort invested in
training them, because all they want is "fun" - "let someone else do it".
Right.....and the fix for that is to kick out all the people we have not seen for six months!
Quote from: lordmonar on February 12, 2015, 06:10:05 PM
You have not shown me anything that it would improve.
Clearly Matthew Henry had a point...
Quote from: Eclipse on February 12, 2015, 06:16:01 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 12, 2015, 06:10:05 PM
You have not shown me anything that it would improve.
Clearly Matthew Henry had a point...
Eclipse...I'm a pretty smart guy.
And I'm asking nice. I really want to know. Please spell it out for me.
How...does.....kicking out the empty shirts.....get me at the unit level......more people.
No one said it did, in and of itself.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 12, 2015, 06:05:50 PM
Quote from: Alaric on February 12, 2015, 05:55:44 PMEven if we had enough people that every person had only one job, everyone is supposed to be doing ES, CP or AE
How do you figure that? As much as anyone I've said the mission isn't a menu, but that applies to
unit operations as a whole, not individual members.
In a properly staffed and manned organization, the HQ people would not also be expected to turn the wrenches.
Do the staff accountants at your company also build the products and then put them on the UPS trucks?
Of course not, but that's essentially the situation in CAP - the word "no" is basically nonexistent, so
"everyone can do everything anytime they want".
I've also as much as anyone said it's a good idea to be involved in both missions - ES and CP, but when you accept
a staff job, that's the foremost, not your experience. Assuming you can do both, great. If you can't, which do
you think is supposed to suffer?
The proper way to handle the situation would be the same way as most other similar organizations -
you join and "do" for a few years. Gain experience, and figure out things work. You get the wrench turning
out of your system and then move on to guide the next wave.
Instead, we have people who join and get a wing staff job before their ID card is dry, and then they
quit after a year because they never get to do anything "fun", while at the same time we have 75 year
old Lt Col GTMs still wandering in the woods, mentoring no one and wasting the effort invested in
training them, because all they want is "fun" - "let someone else do it".
First, you are making a comparison that makes no sense, CAP is not a full time job (with rare exceptions). So no, at my company, I do not turn wrenches to build products. In CAP however, I spend anywhere from 5 -10 hours (sometimes shorter, sometimes longer) on the Admin/Personnel role of my job. Our administrative/personnel requirements are not all consuming in this organization. This was even more true when I was at the squadron/group level. I would, at an average meeting, perhaps process a promotion or award, give advice on a regulation, etc. It didn't take the entire meeting. Also, one of the dangers of just doing staff work (if there was enough to keep one occupied) is that they lose connection with the purpose of the organization, which is CP, AE and ES by congressional mandate.
Second, since there is no set "work week" for CAP, if a staff officer chooses to spend all their time only doing their job, that's fine. They go to the meetings, do what they need to do, and their done until the next meeting. If however, they choose to give up their weekends at the Rocketry event, or doing CD missions, etc. Since that doesn't impact their job and does increase the operational capability of the organization, not seeing the issue.
Third, using your method "turn wrenches for a few years and get it out of your system" would guarantee a lack of the experienced ES personnel you lament the lack of.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 12, 2015, 06:21:36 PM
No one said it did, in and of itself.
Then why are we doing it?
Which was I said alllll the way back in the beginning of this thread.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 12, 2015, 05:05:37 PM
In TODAY's CAP we do have members wearing 2-3 hats. In today's CAP we are undermanned. In today's CAP there is no value added in moving all the empty shirts to patron status.
The fix is to recruit and train more personnel. It is to get group/wing/national out there helping units recruit and train more personnel.
Kicking out/transferring/Patron-ing "empty shirts" does not get us any closer to having more personnel.
The problem is that on paper we look in better shape than we really are. If we had accurate numbers reporting our active membership, perhaps group/wing/region/national would feel more compelled to do something to fix this problem.
Quote from: lordmonar on February 12, 2015, 05:42:31 PM
Forcing people out and closing units in the HOPE that NHQ notices.......something they already know...and then does "something" about....is not going to get more people in the units.
How do you know they know? Or are you saying that they don't care our organization is undermanned for the amount of work required of us? I bet they would do more to fix our membership problem if it was obvious at every level that there was in fact a problem. Providing accurate numbers on those who are, without doubt, inactive may do just that.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on February 12, 2015, 06:56:52 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 12, 2015, 05:05:37 PM
In TODAY's CAP we do have members wearing 2-3 hats. In today's CAP we are undermanned. In today's CAP there is no value added in moving all the empty shirts to patron status.
The fix is to recruit and train more personnel. It is to get group/wing/national out there helping units recruit and train more personnel.
Kicking out/transferring/Patron-ing "empty shirts" does not get us any closer to having more personnel.
The problem is that on paper we look in better shape than we really are. If we had accurate numbers reporting our active membership, perhaps group/wing/region/national would feel more compelled to do something to fix this problem.
First off....this assumes Group/Wing/Region/National are not aware of the problem.
Second.....this is wishful thinking. Maybe the would feel more compelled to do something to fix the problem. They have not been compelled so far. And I know that they know that the problem exists. Ergo.....this is just wishful thinking....If we do it....they will fix it.
QuoteQuote from: lordmonar on February 12, 2015, 05:42:31 PM
Forcing people out and closing units in the HOPE that NHQ notices.......something they already know...and then does "something" about....is not going to get more people in the units.
How do you know they know? Or are you saying that they don't care our organization is undermanned for the amount of work required of us? I bet they would do more to fix our membership problem if it was obvious at every level that there was in fact a problem. Providing accurate numbers on those who are, without doubt, inactive may do just that.
I know they know...because I have told them....and they have told me that they know.
NHQ and everyone is not some faceless entity from another planet. They are us. People just like you and me who slugged it out at the unit level and moved up.
Eclipse is a group guy. We just had a wing staff meeting last weekend were we discussed our manning issues. The last regional meeting I was at it was brought up. I personally had the conversation about manning with several staffers at the last national conference.
They know.
And again....you used the wishful thinking argument. If we just worked harder and clean out all the empty shirts....they MAY do something about it.
No....I don't think it would do any good.
"And again....you used the wishful thinking argument. If we just worked harder and clean out all the empty shirts....they MAY do something about it.
No....I don't think it would do any good."
Uh, yes....
So?
Do you think we've rung our hands over this long enough? Maybe, it's actually time to truly address this issue; and I don't mean by adding a new position at NHQ to put a band aid on it. There are so many reasons we've got to this point, we may not be able to overcome the inertia to make the changes necessary to succeed in getting more members willing to get the job done. That said, it is possible. It will just take a lot of effort on all concerned.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 12, 2015, 04:05:49 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on February 12, 2015, 04:04:28 PM
Every time I take 10 minutes of time away from someone to do Admin over head....that's 10 minutes of time they can't be doing ES, CP or AE.
Your admin people aren't SUPPOSED TO BE DOING "ES, CP, or AE".
Doesn't work that way, Bob. I haven't been in a squadron yet that the guys who pushed paper didn't do ES, CP or AE type stuff, too, especially ES. Many military flying squadrons work that way, too, in that pilots are assigned as Admin, etc.
In my own unit, a senior squadron, the AEO is a mission pilot, the Personnel officer is an MO, the PDO is a GTL, Commo is an MP, LG is an MP, PAO is an MO, Finance is an MP, Safety is an MP. The only staff officers not qualified in ES are Admin (not his thing, he's there to push paper), and the ITO ( new guy, but in training for MS/MO).
As a BTW, I guess my wing commander isn't supposed to be out doing UDF missions, based on your philosophy?
Quote from: SarDragon on February 12, 2015, 07:38:24 PM
In my own unit, a senior squadron, the AEO is a mission pilot, the Personnel officer is an MO, the PDO is a GTL, Commo is an MP, LG is an MP, PAO is an MO, Finance is an MP, Safety is an MP. The only staff officers not qualified in ES are Admin (not his thing, he's there to push paper), and the ITO ( new guy, but in training for MS/MO).
You've made my point and characterized the problem nicely.
Quote from: SarDragon on February 12, 2015, 07:38:24 PMAs a BTW, I guess my wing commander isn't supposed to be out doing UDF missions, based on your philosophy?
If the Wing CC job the getting done, he can change the oil in the CAP Vans. What I >said< was that you can't
make an excuse that "admin is too much because I want to do ES" if you accept two jobs.
But frankly, no, I don't think a Wing CC should be chasing ELTs, he's got plenty to do already.
Quote from: FW on February 12, 2015, 07:34:16 PM
"And again....you used the wishful thinking argument. If we just worked harder and clean out all the empty shirts....they MAY do something about it.
No....I don't think it would do any good."
Uh, yes....
So?
Do you think we've rung our hands over this long enough? Maybe, it's actually time to truly address this issue; and I don't mean by adding a new position at NHQ to put a band aid on it. There are so many reasons we've got to this point, we may not be able to overcome the inertia to make the changes necessary to succeed in getting more members willing to get the job done. That said, it is possible. It will just take a lot of effort on all concerned.
Sure there are things we can do.
One is to automate as much as possible......we are doing a pretty good job of it now.....but not nearly there.
Second.....wings need to build OPLANs and then TASK squadrons with specific portions of that OPLAN so that a squadron commander can do his job of "Man, Train and Equip his squadron to perform assigned missions". Until we know what the "assigned missions" we are just guessing about how we should be manned. If the unit leader knows what his tasks are...he can figure out his manning, training and equipment levels are supposed to be. And then he can focus his recruiting and training to meet those goals. Since we have hard goals from wing on his manning and training it is easy to manage using the existing E-Services tool. And wing and group can support the squadron if it starts to struggle.
Third....Eliminate the fluff at the squadron level. History, Chaplain, DDR, CD, IT, PAO, SAFETY. Having to have dedicated officers to these positions....eats up time away from missions.
Finally.....reorganization. Reorg all of CAP with clear lines of responsibilities.
National....at nation
Region....at FEMA region (there are 10 FEMA regions)
Wing.....at state
Group is an administrative/span of control level....not responsible for for plans and programs.
Squadron....at county
Flight at city/town level......or alternately is broken up functional....ie. the Cadet Programs Flight, Ground Teams Flight, Air SAR Flight.
Elements.....this is where the rubber hits the road....they would be tasked with just one small aspect of the entire mission. Such as CP in just this AOR/school. Maintaining the crews for this assigned aircraft., maintaining the comm assets in this AOR, maintaining the mission base and its support staff in this AOR/Airport.
At my location....we are addressing this issue in this way. Lacking taskings from Wing or higher up....we have decided that our OPLAN would be to have a 100 member cadet program and to be able to man one operational period for full on SAR (to include three aircraft and to ground teams).
We are currently at this point in the effort. We are still hammering out what those numbers are supposed to be and how big of a support staff we are going to need to get there.
The next set is to implement the recruiting/training/operating piple line. Basically it will run on quarters...One quarter will be the recruiting effort, followed by a quarter of Level I training, followed by a quarter of ES training, followed by a quarter of integration into the squadron.
Once it is up and running.....every quarter ES and CP will give recruiting their needs to meet the OPLAN tasking. At the end of each quarter recruiting will give PD or CP their quota of members to start in the training pipeline. At the end of each quarter PD and CP basic traiing will be handing off their quota of members to the next step in the pipeline.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Its a big job....will take 2-3 get us to that level...but it is what we want to do.
Every one here realizes this is not just a CAP problem right?
Overall in America only about 15% of Americans volunteer their time. Split those 15% into Boy Scouts, Fire Companies, Rotary clubs, CAP...etc...
I have been a member of 2 (at different times) pretty active Fire Companies. In both it was the same small group of people who showed up to do the majority of the "work". However a lot of people would show up for the "big one" or for a social event where they could walk around shaking hands. I held positions as either EMS and/or Fire Lieutenants as well as Board of Directors positions. (President/Treasurer) We did keep attendance records and had "mandatory trainings & meetings. (However very rarely was anyone kicked out)
Right now I am a corrections officer in a county jail with about 150 officers. However most months we cant get a Quarom at the monthly union meetings....
Quote from: Eclipse on February 12, 2015, 08:03:25 PM
But frankly, no, I don't think a Wing CC should be chasing ELTs, he's got plenty to do already.
I'll make sure he knows that when I see him in about 24 hours... >:D
Quote from: PHall on February 12, 2015, 11:10:53 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 12, 2015, 08:03:25 PM
But frankly, no, I don't think a Wing CC should be chasing ELTs, he's got plenty to do already.
I'll make sure he knows that when I see him in about 24 hours... >:D
yeah. Folks in that job need to get out and have some fun more than anyone else.
While I don't think it's a requirement anywhere in regs, in the OBC (Level II) it states that all CAP members "should" be involved in all 3 missions. Therefore....the Wing CC "should" be running down ELT's, and the Historian "should" take part in the rocketry program.
In my Squadron, every Senior takes part to some extent in ES. Every Senior is expected to help in some way with the external AE program. Any Senior not already directly involved with Cadets, takes part in mentoring in some way. A Senior that comes to meetings just to do Admin isn't fulfilling any of the congressionally mandated missions. If a report gets sent to Wing a week late because the Admin Officer was out searching for a downed plane, I doubt anyone at Wing will say much.
Remember, we're a volunteer organization.....if you take away the fun stuff, and make it a job, you'll have a lot less people getting the job done.
Just my .02
Quote from: S/M Thompson on February 15, 2015, 05:12:14 PM
While I don't think it's a requirement anywhere in regs, in the OBC (Level II) it states that all CAP members "should" be involved in all 3 missions. Therefore....the Wing CC "should" be running down ELT's, and the Historian "should" take part in the rocketry program.
If your assertion was correct, then every squadron in CAP would be composite and we wouldn't have a need for senior and cadet squadrons. As it stands, that's not he way CAP does things.
While a wing commander can certainly do UDF missions, what I think Eclipse meant was that at that level the wing commander is usually busy enough running the wing, developing strategic goals, establishing plans, policies and procedures, ensuring the wing has adequate resources to accomplish the mission, attending meetings of the CAP Command Council, etc. to do these types of missions. I know that while I enjoy searching for ELTs and teaching others how to do it, I'm usually busy running a group and running our missions, that I don't get to do it all that much. I like being in the field as much as the other guy, but that's no longer my primary role in CAP.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on February 15, 2015, 07:29:38 PM
If your assertion was correct, then every squadron in CAP would be composite and we wouldn't have a need for senior and cadet squadrons. As it stands, that's not he way CAP does things.
Not entirely. The Cadet Programs Professional Development module in OBC Block 2 states that even Senior Squadrons should have a knowledge of the Cadet Program, and do all they can to support it. I.E. a Senior Squadron could still send pilots to Summer Encampment to help with O-Flights.
I know that's not how it's done, but that doesn't mean it's now how it should be imo. The propeller has 3 blades, and if it's missing one, it doesn't spin properly. CAP = 3 missions, not the 1 or 2 I feel like taking part in.
A lot of seniors don't want to be bothered with "those pesky kids," but they're arguably our most important mission, and the future of our organization.
Quote from: S/M Thompson on February 15, 2015, 07:38:32 PM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on February 15, 2015, 07:29:38 PM
If your assertion was correct, then every squadron in CAP would be composite and we wouldn't have a need for senior and cadet squadrons. As it stands, that's not he way CAP does things.
Not entirely. The Cadet Programs Professional Development module in OBC Block 2 states that even Senior Squadrons should have a knowledge of the Cadet Program, and do all they can to support it. I.E. a Senior Squadron could still send pilots to Summer Encampment to help with O-Flights.
I know that's not how it's done, but that doesn't mean it's now how it should be imo. The propeller has 3 blades, and if it's missing one, it doesn't spin properly. CAP = 3 missions, not the 1 or 2 I feel like taking part in.
Please cite the regulation requiring every CAP member to directly participate in every one of these missions.
Quote from: S/M Thompson on February 15, 2015, 07:42:23 PM
A lot of seniors don't want to be bothered with "those pesky kids," but they're arguably our most important mission, and the future of our organization.
As a former Earhart cadet myself, I can tell you that working with cadets is NOT a requirement to be a member of CAP. Some members choose to work directly with cadets. Others choose to support the Cadet Programs indirectly through other staff work. Yet others support our organization's missions without working with cadets and there's nothing wrong with that. We need senior squadrons as much as we need cadet squadrons.
There's a place for everyone in CAP... and plenty of work to go around.
Again, not anywhere I could find in the regs, but in several places in the required training. In the OBC modules (required for level II) the word "should" comes up several times. "Senior Squadrons should have a knowledge of the Cadet Program, and do all they can to support it." True if it was mandatory it would be in a reg, but the fact that it is stated several times in mandatory training, as well as a mission mandated by congress, "should" be enough that every member makes some attempt to take part in all 3 missions in some way.
Quote from: S/M Thompson on February 15, 2015, 07:38:32 PM
I know that's not how it's done, but that doesn't mean it's now how it should be imo. The propeller has 3 blades, and if it's missing one, it doesn't spin properly. CAP = 3 missions, not the 1 or 2 I feel like taking part in.
(http://www.sbcswolfpack.us/images/cap172.jpg)
Quote from: S/M Thompson on February 15, 2015, 08:18:23 PM
Again, not anywhere I could find in the regs, but in several places in the required training. In the OBC modules (required for level II) the word "should" comes up several times. "Senior Squadrons should have a knowledge of the Cadet Program, and do all they can to support it." True if it was mandatory it would be in a reg, but the fact that it is stated several times in mandatory training, as well as a mission mandated by congress, "should" be enough that every member makes some attempt to take part in all 3 missions in some way.
So your only reference is OBC?
It should be noted that support of the 3 missions is not necessarily direct, and could be behind the scenes. As a Cadet, we had a Senior that didn't have any direct involvement with the Cadet Program, but ran fundraisers meant entirely to provide Cadets with money for Encampment, uniforms etc., and would regularly make trips to MCSS in base to pick up Cadet uniform needs. Not everyone needs to be the TCO or the AE Officer, but they should have some involvement in every mission, even if it's a small, behind the scenes part.
Yes, my citation is Level I Orientation, Level II OBC, and I'm sure plenty of other required trainings.
Is a member who joins to be part of the "flying club" and doesn't support the 3 missions any better than the empty shirts that don't show up?
Mr. Thompson, thank you for joining us "older cadets" in the discussion. Yes, "Senior Squadrons should have a knowledge of the cadet programs", however not all members in the squadron should have a want or need to support it. Life is difficult enough. "Active members" do not usually look for more to do; they already are dealing with "more than enough". In the perfect CAP world, all squadrons would be composite, however we're not there. For now, I guess we have to make do with what we have and try to make things better for all of us.
Quote from: S/M Thompson on February 15, 2015, 08:26:01 PM
Yes, my citation is Level I Orientation, Level II OBC, and I'm sure plenty of other required trainings.
Is a member who joins to be part of the "flying club" and doesn't support the 3 missions any better than the empty shirts that don't show up?
So a mission pilot (or observer, scanners, etc.) who flies search and rescue or damage assessment or counterdrug or other operational missions and chooses not to work with cadets is in a "flying club"? You have much to learn about CAP.
By the way, cadets are not required to participate in ES either and some choose not to. There's also nothing wrong with that.
People get defensive when you say that "their thing" isn't the "only thing" and they should be doing "all the things".
that's why a strategic discussion like this gets bogged down in the micro, because it insinuates an adjustment of behavior
might be necessary, and that scares people.
The bottom line is, you're either a value to your CC or not. Period. The how's and why's are subjective and always will be.
If you are a once-a-year member who flies at a summer activity, but can't be bothered the rest of the year, it's fair game for
your CC to tell you that you are bringing no value to his unit and need to go elsewhere - one of the reasons there probably should
be charters for activities like encampments and NCSA that tend to collect these types of members - maybe, again, a holding
squadron at a higher level. What people often forget is that these members still have to go through a unit, etc., for all approvals,
including flight quals - how can a CC who never has contact with an individual know whether they are flight ready when they pop
up 2 weeks before NFA and start hounding him to approve his requals?
NHQ has provided a very quick short-hand way for them to see who is bare-bones active and who isn't. That doesn't mean
that short-hand should be the end-of, or only factor in the conversation, but it's an undeniable baseline indicator.
There are plenty of empty shirts that maintain safety currency, I can't begin to understand why someone who hasn't been
seen in a decade would go online every month and take a safety class contoniutes to do so, but whatever, people enjoy
mental gymnastics. At least they aren't on the radar as inactive from that particular vector.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on February 15, 2015, 08:31:42 PM
So a mission pilot (or observer, scanners, etc.) who flies search and rescue or damage assessment or counterdrug or other operational missions and chooses not to work with cadets is in a "flying club"? You have much to learn about CAP.
When did I say that a mission pilot, mo etc. is in a flying club? Hold on, let me reread my previous..........(jeopardy theme).......nope, didn't say that, but thanks for playing.
We have several members who are pilots, but not mission qualified, who show up to a meeting every couple of months to put miles on the plane and get an hour behind the stick, that don't do anything else to support CAP. Not only is this of no use to CAP, but also borders on an ethics violation.
When dealing with a group of volunteers, we always deal with "in a perfect world" and members "should." CAP could never mandate involvement in all 3 missions, only suggest it. Any attempt to mandate involvement would also require mandating required levels of participation, which would end up causing members with no desire to work in a particular mission to leave the program.
Quote from: S/M Thompson on February 15, 2015, 08:26:01 PM
Yes, my citation is Level I Orientation, Level II OBC, and I'm sure plenty of other required trainings.
OBC isn't "required" training.
Sorry, required for advancement in the professional development program, I stand corrected.
Actually, it's not. It's one of the required options, others being NCO Academy, OCS, OTS, ROTC, SOS, just to name a few (see CAPR 50-17).
50-17, page 17
CHAPTER 4–LEVEL II, TECHNICAL TRAINING
4-1. Technical Training. This training provides opportunities to learn new skills for CAP and
for individual growth and leadership. Criteria for completion of this level include:
a. Completion of Level I training.
b. Attainment of technician rating in a CAP specialty track.
c. Completion of the CAP Officer Basic Course (OBC).
d. Completion of Squadron Leadership School (SLS).
Only substitute for OBC is a Professional Military Education equivalent course. OCS, NCO Academy, ROTC etc aren't options for 90% of the membership, so no point in mentioning.
How does spending 20 posts nitpicking the exact wording of someone's post accomplish anything, or in any way pertain to the OP? Whether OBC is a requirement or not has no real relevance on my original position, or on the topic of the original post.
No, but you using OBC to justify an incorrect statement is. Cheers and welcome to CAP Talk!
Welcome to captalk. You'll either get used to it...or move on!
Ah but it only would've been an incorrect statement if I said it was required that all Seniors take part in all 3 missions. I only said OBC states that all Seniors "should" take part in all 3. That is a correct statement. The CAP wants every member to take part in all 3.....it doesn't set a requirement, only suggests that all members "should" in several trainings.
The fact of the matter is, the position was brought up that Seniors shouldn't have to participate in all missions because there's too much to do and not enough time to do it all.......but there's time to spend looking up regs to disprove a statement that doesn't need to be, and countless hours on CapTalk....hmmm.
If a Senior can't find 10 mins once a month to sit down and mentor a cadet.....or one day a year teaching an external AE class to a middle school class or Boy Scout Troop, then maybe time management is the issue?
Quote from: S/M Thompson on February 16, 2015, 08:59:21 PM
The fact of the matter is, the position was brought up that Seniors shouldn't have to participate in all missions because there's too much to do and not enough time to do it all...
Which is why you need 2-3 times the people for CAP to function as the curriculum proposes.
Quote from: S/M Thompson on February 16, 2015, 08:59:21 PM
but there's time to spend looking up regs to disprove a statement that doesn't need to be, and countless hours on CapTalk....hmmm.
That's an ad hominem and assumes time on Captalk is subtracted from general CAP time, which it generally isn't.
Quote from: S/M Thompson on February 16, 2015, 08:59:21 PM
If a Senior can't find 10 mins once a month to sit down and mentor a cadet.....or one day a year teaching an external AE class to a middle school class or Boy Scout Troop, then maybe time management is the issue?
That senior may have no interest in either of those things, or further, no ability. I agree with the philosophical argument, but CAP as it exists today
doesn't set that expectation until after people join, and then only in very broad, CAP-typical "don't make people sad" terms.
Quote from: S/M Thompson on February 16, 2015, 08:00:35 PM
How does spending 20 posts nitpicking the exact wording of someone's post accomplish anything, or in any way pertain to the OP? Whether OBC is a requirement or not has no real relevance on my original position, or on the topic of the original post.
You used the word "required" several times seemingly to lend credibility to your assertions. The fact that OBC isn't required training for senior members might undermine your position slightly.
BTW, I'm the OP and the issue I raised has nothing to do with SMs.
Quote from: S/M Thompson on February 16, 2015, 08:59:21 PM
... countless hours on CapTalk....hmmm.
You've made 37 posts on about 13 different topics since Saturday. CAPTalk can be addicting!
Lol, free time at work.....and yes it can be.
Pssshh...amateurs....
Quote from: Eclipse on February 16, 2015, 09:08:39 PM
That senior may have no interest in either of those things, or further, no ability. I agree with the philosophical argument, but CAP as it exists today
doesn't set that expectation until after people join, and then only in very broad, CAP-typical "don't make people sad" terms.
True, we tend to care more about getting people in than setting expectations for members. PD conversations should happen before taking a check from a new member, but often don't occur until after a member has completed Level I. My new Squadron was very upfront with what they were asking, but then again as a former member I asked the right questions too. A parent who should probably be a Patron or Sponsor, gets brought in as an active member with no real idea of what the program is about, and then further up the road is asked to take part in areas they didn't know they would be involved in.
Quote from: S/M Thompson on February 16, 2015, 08:59:21 PM
If a Senior can't find 10 mins once a month to sit down and mentor a cadet.....or one day a year teaching an external AE class to a middle school class or Boy Scout Troop, then maybe time management is the issue?
Sure, I can take a day to present on AE to a middle school (if they let me in). But then I'll take a day from something else. I'm married. My wife actually likes to spend time with me.
I already give up 45+ nights to regular meetings. 2 weekends (and Fridays) to an encampment. 1 Saturday to RST for said encampment. So far, 2-3 in face encampment meetings on weekends. A few days for training/sarexes. 1-2 days for PD training a year. I need 2 conferences for my next promotion, so there's 4 more days. Misc squadron activities. Phonecalls during week, emails, reading regs, etc. It adds up.
So, I can support CP and some ES, and I can tac on some AE, but I'll most certainly have to 'give' something up.
Quote from: S/M Thompson on February 16, 2015, 09:45:02 PM
A parent who should probably be a Patron or Sponsor, gets brought in as an active member with no real idea of what the program is about, and then further up the road is asked to take part in areas they didn't know they would be involved in.
There's nothing wrong with a parent joining a cadet sqdn to take on a duty position or three where needed and proceeding no further in PD than L1. I'm not sure what "areas" you're talking about taking part in, but if it's mission stuff, that's not PD.
Quote from: neummy on February 16, 2015, 10:10:41 PM
Quote from: S/M Thompson on February 16, 2015, 09:45:02 PM
A parent who should probably be a Patron or Sponsor, gets brought in as an active member with no real idea of what the program is about, and then further up the road is asked to take part in areas they didn't know they would be involved in.
There's nothing wrong with a parent joining a cadet sqdn to take on a duty position or three where needed and proceeding no further in PD than L1. I'm not sure what "areas" you're talking about taking part in, but if it's mission stuff, that's not PD.
As a new SM (out of college, but former cadet), I was gleefully taken as the testing officer for cadets. (All 3 CP people had kids in the program). It took me one read through the reg to "find my way", and I've been doing it ever since, with only half a though to the process. My former experience only helped in the fact of knowing how our scantron sheets work, what the tests look like and what they mean, but that wasn't necessary knowledge to be in that role. Probably could train a 3 year old to do it right.
Quote from: S/M Thompson on February 16, 2015, 09:45:02 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 16, 2015, 09:08:39 PM
That senior may have no interest in either of those things, or further, no ability. I agree with the philosophical argument, but CAP as it exists today
doesn't set that expectation until after people join, and then only in very broad, CAP-typical "don't make people sad" terms.
True, we tend to care more about getting people in than setting expectations for members. PD conversations should happen before taking a check from a new member, but often don't occur until after a member has completed Level I. My new Squadron was very upfront with what they were asking, but then again as a former member I asked the right questions too. A parent who should probably be a Patron or Sponsor, gets brought in as an active member with no real idea of what the program is about, and then further up the road is asked to take part in areas they didn't know they would be involved in.
Another problem with membership expectations of performance, is that they come with organizational expectations of performance,
or the whole thing collapses quickly. That's why this issue absolutely has to be tackled at the national level and pressed down
through the chain with ongoing pressure.
In my experience, the majority of the membership will do just about anything and everything asked of it, as long as there is
value at the end of the tunnel. CAP, however, tends drag people along, and about 3/4 of the way through, shuts off the light,
leaving the members standing in the middle of a dark tunnel, with no idea which way is out, or why they are in the tunnel
to start with. The only light available is an electronic copy of the Volunteer on a fading laptop, showing photos of members
on the outside of the tunnel who are doing cool stuff, and not looking back to check on the guys behind them.
This, I believe, is one of the major reasons disruptive change is frowned upon - not because of the affect on the membership,
but because of the affect and increased expectations on the leadership, at all levels above the unit. I can get a unit
to dig in an train their hearts out for a year, and build a mission-ready team, that's easy, but there better be missions
waiting for them, or those same guys are gone by the next year.
Getting those missions is a higher HQ function, and CGMs don't help that much.
Quote from: neummy on February 16, 2015, 10:10:41 PM
There's nothing wrong with a parent joining a cadet sqdn to take on a duty position or three where needed and proceeding no further in PD than L1. I'm not sure what "areas" you're talking about taking part in, but if it's mission stuff, that's not PD.
PD involves both the interests of the new member, and the needs of the Squadron. If the Squadron is heavily lacking in ES, CP or AE, they need to be up front with new members on what holes need to be filled. A lot of new members come in with no desire to participate at all, but the participation convo doesn't occur until after the app is processed. When the Squadron sets an expectation of participation, suddenly they stop showing up.
When I first spoke to the Commander of my new Squadron, he was up front with the areas they needed help in, and asked which I would role I would be able to fill. Expectations were set right away. A new member wishing to join, but not take on a role in the Squadron, should have that conversation before submitting the app, and be given the choice of Patron or Sponsor.
That's how its supposed to work anyway...
Quote from: S/M Thompson on February 16, 2015, 10:32:06 PM
Quote from: neummy on February 16, 2015, 10:10:41 PM
There's nothing wrong with a parent joining a cadet sqdn to take on a duty position or three where needed and proceeding no further in PD than L1. I'm not sure what "areas" you're talking about taking part in, but if it's mission stuff, that's not PD.
PD involves both the interests of the new member, and the needs of the Squadron. If the Squadron is heavily lacking in ES, CP or AE, they need to be up front with new members on what holes need to be filled. A lot of new members come in with no desire to participate at all, but the participation convo doesn't occur until after the app is processed. When the Squadron sets an expectation of participation, suddenly they stop showing up.
When I first spoke to the Commander of my new Squadron, he was up front with the areas they needed help in, and asked which I would role I would be able to fill. Expectations were set right away. A new member wishing to join, but not take on a role in the Squadron, should have that conversation before submitting the app, and be given the choice of Patron or Sponsor.
Sponsors can't be assigned duty positions, and Patrons are even less useful. A senior member can meet all kinds of needs at the sqdn level without pursuing PD any further than Level I. They can also contribute to the needs of the organization and gain a sense of personal accomplishment through obtaining mission qualifications, which aren't tied to PD.
I wouldn't discourage anyone from pursuing PD, but the fact is that the ongoing fulfillment of the requirements for your next promotion is not an obligation for senior membership. People join for different reasons. Also keep in mind that the realities in your little corner of CAP aren't necessarily going to be everyone else's.
Quote from: S/M Thompson on February 16, 2015, 10:32:06 PM
A lot of new members come in with no desire to participate at all
That's a rather dubious claim. Why would anyone join without having some idea that they would have to do something, even if it's just to show up at some meetings and the occasional SAREX?
College resume builder, every club participant, etc. But by far a tiny minority.
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on February 16, 2015, 11:48:17 PM
College resume builder, every club participant, etc. But by far a tiny minority.
A tiny minority that routinely shows up on Squadron rosters....and many threads on a certain message board....and then disappear from the roster completely when their kids lose interest or age out. If this isn't a problem in your neck of the woods, then your Squadron is doing better than most.
Quote from: neummy on February 16, 2015, 11:44:10 PM
That's a rather dubious claim. Why would anyone join without having some idea that they would have to do something, even if it's just to show up at some meetings and the occasional SAREX?
Because expectations aren't set otherwise. Again, if you've never seen this in your own Squadron, it's doing very well.
Quote from: Eclipse on February 16, 2015, 10:31:31 PM
Quote from: S/M Thompson on February 16, 2015, 09:45:02 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on February 16, 2015, 09:08:39 PM
That senior may have no interest in either of those things, or further, no ability. I agree with the philosophical argument, but CAP as it exists today
doesn't set that expectation until after people join, and then only in very broad, CAP-typical "don't make people sad" terms.
True, we tend to care more about getting people in than setting expectations for members. PD conversations should happen before taking a check from a new member, but often don't occur until after a member has completed Level I. My new Squadron was very upfront with what they were asking, but then again as a former member I asked the right questions too. A parent who should probably be a Patron or Sponsor, gets brought in as an active member with no real idea of what the program is about, and then further up the road is asked to take part in areas they didn't know they would be involved in.
Another problem with membership expectations of performance, is that they come with organizational expectations of performance,
or the whole thing collapses quickly. That's why this issue absolutely has to be tackled at the national level and pressed down
through the chain with ongoing pressure.
In my experience, the majority of the membership will do just about anything and everything asked of it, as long as there is
value at the end of the tunnel. CAP, however, tends drag people along, and about 3/4 of the way through, shuts off the light,
leaving the members standing in the middle of a dark tunnel, with no idea which way is out, or why they are in the tunnel
to start with. The only light available is an electronic copy of the Volunteer on a fading laptop, showing photos of members
on the outside of the tunnel who are doing cool stuff, and not looking back to check on the guys behind them.
This, I believe, is one of the major reasons disruptive change is frowned upon - not because of the affect on the membership,
but because of the affect and increased expectations on the leadership, at all levels above the unit. I can get a unit
to dig in an train their hearts out for a year, and build a mission-ready team, that's easy, but there better be missions
waiting for them, or those same guys are gone by the next year.
Getting those missions is a higher HQ function, and CGMs don't help that much.
This I completely agree with.
It is hard for a commander...at any level....to know how to do his job of manning, training and equipping the unit perform their assigned mission(s).....if they have been told what those missions are. (and I mean more specifically then just "Do the Three Missions").
Need to do CP....okay....How many cadets do I need? What is my market penetration of the target audience? (keep you minds out of the gutter).
Need to do AE...Okay...what are my internal AE goals? What are my external AE goals? Not just "do them and then tell us about them" but what does HHQ think I should be doing?
Need to do AE...okay....what specialties should I be training and how many?
The goals need to be set from above. Certainly the commander needs to be in on the conversation. 100 cadets.....that's not gonna happen this year sir.....how about we shoot for 30 and then we reevaluate in a year?
The goal needs to be set from above, executed at the unit level, supported by the group and wing staff. At the end of the year we compare the end state with the stated goals.....divide one into the other anything less then ONE means a short fall....which means a D or Lower Grader. A one means a solid C....good job! Anything greater then one and you are looking at B or A work.
Now we can do an SUI to make sure you are dotting the "T"s and Crossing the "I"s......and then we actually would have and inspection system that gives a REAL report card about our mission effectiveness.
Quote from: S/M Thompson on February 17, 2015, 03:45:48 AM
Quote from: Capt Hatkevich on February 16, 2015, 11:48:17 PM
College resume builder, every club participant, etc. But by far a tiny minority.
A tiny minority that routinely shows up on Squadron rosters....and many threads on a certain message board....and then disappear from the roster completely when their kids lose interest or age out. If this isn't a problem in your neck of the woods, then your Squadron is doing better than most.
Quote from: neummy on February 16, 2015, 11:44:10 PM
That's a rather dubious claim. Why would anyone join without having some idea that they would have to do something, even if it's just to show up at some meetings and the occasional SAREX?
Because expectations aren't set otherwise. Again, if you've never seen this in your own Squadron, it's doing very well.
Don't confuse local issues with systematic issues. Even if CAPTalk is just a microcosm of the overall in a narrow lane, your assertion isn't one that often (ever?) comes up.
The regs state new members have to attend 3 meetings, and SMs get a membership board. While I'm not part of the process at my unit, I do know that expectations, preferences and needs, etc, are discussed at said meetings/board before the ppwk is done.
Quote from: S/M Thompson on February 17, 2015, 03:45:48 AM
...and then disappear from the roster completely when their kids lose interest or age out
What's wrong with that? A lot of parents join to help run their cadet's squadron with no intention of making a career of it. They can still be a tremendous benefit to the unit during their time in.