Kicking out inactive members - why different standards for cadets and seniors

[RiverAux]

In another thread it has been asserted that you can't kick inactive senior members out of CAP.  While it generally hasn't been the practice, I think such an action could be done under 35(3)(4) for habitual failure to perform duty or substandard performance of duty over an extended period of time. 

However, while pondering this issue it occurred to me that my squadron regularly kicked out inactive cadets while we generally sent inactive seniors to the ghost squadron.  I never thought much about it when I was commander -- I don't care if we have "inactive" people on our rolls, but our personnel officer like a clean roster and in return for doing that drudge work, I let him do it his way. 

But, I just took a look at the regulations and I noticed that we are very specifically allowed to kick cadets out if they miss 3 meetings without good reason. 

Why don't we have similar language in the program for seniors?  I tend to think that 3 meetings is a little too much of a hair-trigger for kicking a senior out given the difference in purposes of the cadet and senior programs, but something like missing meetings for 3 months should be enough to prove "lack of interest". 

Given the change in CAP's program since I was a squadron commander, I probably would be a much bigger proponent of getting the inactives out, though I'd probably still send them to the ghost squadron on the off-chance that they may change their mind (though in my experience, once a ghost, always a ghost).  But, I think that option for 2b for inactivity should be the same for seniors as for cadets. 

[ßτε]

That is what patron status is for. Senior members should not be terminated for cause simply because they are inactive.

As far as I can tell, the only use of XX-000 units is for transferring members of deactivated units to. They should not be used to get rid of inactive members.

[SamFranklin]

Great observation, RiverAux, but you are exactly wrong about the big picture.

Only CAP would spend time and energy trying to reverse its membership retention rate while also having a self-defeating policy that allows commanders to boot cadets for missing a few meetings. If a cadet is inactive right now, who can really say that he or she won't return a little later in the membership year?

CAP should prohibit commanders from kicking cadets out of CAP unless the cadet has been violent. Even a cadet who mouths-off belongs in CAP -- the whole point of the program is to affect youth.

Terminating cadets for any other reason does not serve the cadet, the parents, the Air Force, the community at large, or even CAP itself.

[Eclipse]

Magoo, CAP is not a rec center, either you are in line with the others, or find some other place to spend your time.  CAP is also not a parental surrogate or any other counselor, therapy, or "kid fixer".  The program requires a fair amount of interest and initiative, and if the cadet cannot or will not exhibit that, they don't belong in CAP.

I would hazard that the reason for the allowance is that cadets need structure and continuity.  3 missed meetings (presumably missed without a valid  excuse), will put off a cadet's progression, attention span, and can potentially spin them off of the program.  At a minimum it is an indication that something, even if that something is X-Box, is more important than CAP on those nights.   Some things are legit and should be more important, others are not.

[titanII]

I think that the rules for "booting" cadets is too harsh. Sometimes it's just how the chips fall that cadets miss meetings. Often times it can be not the cadet's fault for missing, but their family's. And all too often in those cases a cadet is too embarassed or is just being a kid- and therefore doesn't explain the situation. In which case, I think, after 3 missed meetings, the Squadron CC (or someone reasonably involved in the Cadet program of the unit) should have a talk with the cadet. Whether in person, over the phone, or over email (preferred in that order); that seems much more reasonable to me than immediately kicking the cadet out.

[N Harmon]

The three missed meetings thing is not a requirement. It is a minimum amount of inactivity for which the commander may consider termination. I have never, and know no commander who has terminated a cadet for missing meetings; even when there did not exist a valid excuse. Still, the rule exists to make it more difficult to terminate inactive cadets.

With seniors there is no such rule, because it may not even be necessary for a senior member to attend every meeting in order to accomplish his/her responsibilities.

[titanII]

The three missed meetings thing is not a requirement. It is a minimum amount of inactivity for which the commander may consider termination. I have never, and know no commander who has terminated a cadet for missing meetings; even when there did not exist a valid excuse. Still, the rule exists to make it more difficult to terminate inactive cadets.

With seniors there is no such rule, because it may not even be necessary for a senior member to attend every meeting in order to accomplish his/her responsibilities.

Well that clears things up! Thanks for your insight!!!

[RiverAux]

I have never, and know no commander who has terminated a cadet for missing meetings; even when there did not exist a valid excuse.

As I said, we did it regularly. 

[Daniel]

I always thought it was because cadets are, as the saying goes, a dime a dozen.

[lordmonar]

I understand you point Riveraux....but it is an apple to orange comparison.

Seniors join CAP to serve......they are expect to perform to a certain level...hence the sections in Para 5 that allows you to kick them out.

Cadets however joint to particpate in the cadet program.  Failing to go regularly to meetings and failing to progress in the program are grounds (not automatic) to clear them out of the way so that you can concentrate on the cadets who are willing to particpate in the program.

Senior Members are expected to do assigned duties.  Beyond certain manditory obligations (manditory training, level I, CPP, etc) there is no requirment for them progress any farther in the professional development program.  So long as they are perfroming their assigned duties then there is no need for them to particpate in regular scheduled meetings.   Ergo there is no need to develope stricter rules on getting rid of said dead weight.

If a squadron commander wanted to get rid of his dead weight....all he has to do is assign them to duty position and then wait six months or so....and he is free to 2b them. 

[RiverAux]

Keep in mind that there is a separate clause that lets you kick out cadets that aren't progressing in the cadet program.  There is no such clause in the senior program professional development for the reasons you suggest and I agree that no such clause is needed for seniors. 

However, there is ALSO a clause that lets you kick cadets out for inactivity.   And while seniors don't join to do the senior program, they do join to contribute to the organization in some way and a failure to participate at all is no different than a cadet not participating in the cadet program and there should be the option of treating them the same way.   

all he has to do is assign them to duty position and then wait six months or so....and he is free to 2b them.

I don't know how well that would fly.  CAP generally doesn't assign people to jobs that they haven't agreed to do in the first place.  I suppose it is possible to do so, but it certainly isn't the general practice.  And quite frankly, it would be bad business on the part of the squadron commander to assign someone to a duty position that hasn't been participating in the program.  How is that going to look on your next inspection?  "Well sir, I know I assigned this ghost to be the AEO, but I didn't expect him to do the job and I just did it so I could kick him out for inactivity." 

[Short Field]

CAP is not the local socal club with benfits.  Cadet take an oath when joining and on every promotion that clearly states what is expected of them.  Cadet Oath:  ... I will attend meetings regularly, participate actively in unit activities, obey my officers, wear my uniform properly, and advance my education and training rapidly to prepare myself to be of service...

Here are some of the reasons, exactly as written, to terminate a cadet IAW CAPR 35-3:
-- Failure to maintain a satisfactory academic school record.
-- Failure to progress satisfactorily in the CAP cadet program.
-- Lack of interest demonstrated by failure to attend three successive regular meetings without an acceptable excuse.

Cadets are expected to promote on a regular basis, maintain good grades in school, and be an active and regular participant in the squadron.  If you can't motivate cadets to do this, then CAP is probably not the right place for them.

I see it as a failure of squadron leadership to allow them to hang around being a bad example to the other cadets.  This especially includes squadrons that allow cadets to stall at C/Amn or C/CMSgt for years because they are having too much fun to bother advancing.   Cadets learn what is expected of them by seeing what is expected of other cadets.

As long as a Senior Member stays current on mandatory training and pays his squadron dues on time, I don't mind him being on the books.   If he pays squadron dues but fails to keep up with his mandatory training, then it is time for Patron Status.  No squadron dues - time for either 000 or a 2B. 

 

[jks19714]

If a cadet is in academic trouble, his/her parents might just caught back their CAP time until their grades come up.  Totally understandable and (IMHO) absolutely the right thing to do.

If the situation persists, the parents will more than likely tire of paying dues for no reason.

Again in my humble opinion, the last thing most kids need in this predicament is pressure or punishment from a volunteer activity.  I've seen some pretty bad examples of this in my days of University teaching and advising.

[lordmonar]

I don't know how well that would fly.  CAP generally doesn't assign people to jobs that they haven't agreed to do in the first place.  I suppose it is possible to do so, but it certainly isn't the general practice.  And quite frankly, it would be bad business on the part of the squadron commander to assign someone to a duty position that hasn't been participating in the program.  How is that going to look on your next inspection?  "Well sir, I know I assigned this ghost to be the AEO, but I didn't expect him to do the job and I just did it so I could kick him out for inactivity."

Well isn't that a circular argument?

You wonder why we don't have a hard and fast "if we have not seen you in six months your out" rule.....but then you say "it's all volunteer, we can't make anyone do anything they don't want".

Cadets are work intensive.  They wrote the rules in a way that you CAN kick out non progressors and those who just drop out (you don't have to but you can).  The senior side, until a few years ago, was not nearly as work intensive.  It was possiblible to have member you never see.  There is no set program that requires you to have structured meetings every week....now...with all the extra funness that has been added....these ghost members are becomming a burden....so now we are noticing that the rules no longer help support the reality of the day.

So there is the reason for the difference in standards.

We have tools to get rid of these people if we want to.  I don't see a need to add a new standard for SM side of thing.

[RiverAux]

I don't know how well that would fly.  CAP generally doesn't assign people to jobs that they haven't agreed to do in the first place.  I suppose it is possible to do so, but it certainly isn't the general practice.  And quite frankly, it would be bad business on the part of the squadron commander to assign someone to a duty position that hasn't been participating in the program.  How is that going to look on your next inspection?  "Well sir, I know I assigned this ghost to be the AEO, but I didn't expect him to do the job and I just did it so I could kick him out for inactivity."

Well isn't that a circular argument?

You wonder why we don't have a hard and fast "if we have not seen you in six months your out" rule.....but then you say "it's all volunteer, we can't make anyone do anything they don't want".

No, I'm saying its stupid to assign someone to a duty position when they haven't been participating in the program and haven't agreed to do the job.  The work obviously won't get done and the squadron commander would look dumb for doing so.  Going to such crazy lengths to try to justify kicking someone out is why we there should be the same termination for inactivity clause for seniors as there is for cadets. 

I really doubt that you regularly assign duty positions to people who have not agreed to do them.  If so, how is that working out for you?

[lordmonar]

We don't bother.

We send them letters....You need to get active, get current and stay current or we will convert you to Patron.

We just did that at the beginning of the year to about 20 or so members.

Those that did not respond at all we 000'ed.

[BillB]

Lordmonar's spell check broke

[lordmonar]

Lordmonar's spell check broke

Nothing wrong with that post.   

[Eclipse]

We don't bother.

We send them letters....You need to get active, get current and stay current or we will convert you to Patron.

We just did that at the begging of the year to aboud 20 or so members.

Those that did not respond at all we 000'ed.

Um, you just gave me what-for about six times as this exact thing being "poor leadership".  Why didn't you 2b them?

[titanII]

We don't bother.

We send them letters....You need to get active, get current and stay current or we will convert you to Patron.

We just did that at the begging of the year to aboud 20 or so members.

Those that did not respond at all we 000'ed.

Lordmonar's spell check broke

Nothing wrong with that post.   

I "begging" to differ