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

[RADIOMAN015]

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 about 20 or so members.

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

You must have a rich squadron with money overflowing out of your coffers .  Why would anyone want to transfer any dues paying (or even potential dues paying) senior member anywhere else, especially where they won't be paying any dues to support anyone???
I can see placing adults in patron status with the unit (after a telephone or face to face conversation with them about this status), BUT if at all possible even IF we can get them to attend one meeting a month and get them to help out on some activities a few times a year, that can be a great help overall.  Family situations come up; illness; work requirements/changes, school/education schedules, etc all can impact an adult members' availability.   

As far as cadets go, let them keep their membership until it expires, they may decide to come back before that.  I know in our squadron we had a young man that had many difficulties to overcome (in and out of active status), got his Mitchell and is now in the active USAF -- If the squadron didn't have "heart" (so to speak), not sure where he would be today.   Remember we are talking about teenagers, not robots, and things do come up, and it isn't just because they want to play video games

BTW CAP as an organization is interested in seeing increases in every squadron's membership totals, not decreases.
RM
   

[Spaceman3750]

BTW CAP as an organization is interested in seeing increases in every squadron's membership totals, not decreases.
RM

What's the point of increasing numbers if those people aren't furthering one of CAP's missions?

I would rather have 10 seniors working towards CAP's goals than 30 seniors with 3 doing the work and 27 not even answering the phone.

[titanII]

What's the point of increasing numbers if those people aren't furthering one of CAP's missions?

Well they do pay dues, don't they?
But seriously, i think that tuere is a point where if we increase membership enough, even with 1 meeting per month or what have you, it will be alright. Because if we have mamy of those members, that adds up. Also, you're keeping the committed, die-hard, at-every-activity members.

[Eclipse]

What's the point of increasing numbers if those people aren't furthering one of CAP's missions?

Well they do pay dues, don't they?

The dues question is another reason why patronising them and putting them in 000 is a good solution.

Something not mentioned is that you have to maintain patron-member records at the unit as well.  My wing made some noise about the fact that they would be losing several thousand dollars a year in their dues if we actually punched the tickets of all the empty shirts, so no problem.  If the wing feels that these members have value for that reason, they can maintain the file cabinet with the "P's". 

Why should a local unit CC have to deal with the extra administrative overhead of members who bring him no value whatsoever?

If these same patrons are paying unit dues (which is rarely the case), then the CC can make the subjective decision that the hassle is worth the shekels. 

Otherwise, the best solution is probably to digitize their records, move all the patrons to the national patron squadron and move on.

[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 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?

No...we 2b our PITA's  not our inactives....different things.  Go back and re-read what I said/

[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 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

I really have no idea what you are talking about.   :angel:

[lordmonar]

You must have a rich squadron with money overflowing out of your coffers .  Why would anyone want to transfer any dues paying (or even potential dues paying) senior member anywhere else, especially where they won't be paying any dues to support anyone???

a.  They were not paying dues to the squadron.  They would renew their national dues each year but not ours.
b.  They were not doing their required training.  Wing was getting on our ass over it....so we attempted to contact them...no response...so bye bye they go.

I can see placing adults in patron status with the unit (after a telephone or face to face conversation with them about this status), BUT if at all possible even IF we can get them to attend one meeting a month and get them to help out on some activities a few times a year, that can be a great help overall.  Family situations come up; illness; work requirements/changes, school/education schedules, etc all can impact an adult members' availability.

That was in fact the very line we (I should say our squadron commander) took.  He contacted them, talked to them about their intentions, gave them the sales pitch about getting active again, but if they could not...but still wanted to affiliated with CAP we gave them the option to go Patron.

As far as cadets go, let them keep their membership until it expires, they may decide to come back before that.

We could not afford the butt pain over their required training.  If the cadets were not going to be active...we 2b'ed them...we had to get them off the books.

I know in our squadron we had a young man that had many difficulties to overcome (in and out of active status), got his Mitchell and is now in the active USAF -- If the squadron didn't have "heart" (so to speak), not sure where he would be today.   Remember we are talking about teenagers, not robots, and things do come up, and it isn't just because they want to play video games

I am with you....don't think we just said "well he has not been here for 3 weeks let's 2b him.  We contacted all the 2b'ed cadets and asked them their intentions and worked with them if we could. 

BTW CAP as an organization is interested in seeing increases in every squadron's membership totals, not decreases.
RM

CAP need to take a big flying leap with those unrealistic recruiting goals.  My squadron is plenty big enough....80+  If they think our drop in membership is a problem (we were at 90+) then we can have a sit down about all the extra training CAP has been dumping on us and the butt pain wing has been giving us to get complaint with national's safety goals.

[RiverAux]

Just to be clear, I would probably prefer to "patronize" inactives rather than kick them out, but I just think that the option should be there to kick them out just like with cadets. 

[Eclipse]

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

No...we 2b our PITA's  not our inactives....different things.

Not to me, but if you did 2b them, you must have either had sustainable cause, or they were less interested in membership than being a PITA.
Good on 'ye for the luck, but not all situations are that clean.

I have personal experience with a number of these situations where the best possible scenario, one recommended by the wing, was 000, because we
knew we'd waste a year in hearings if we punched their tickets.  Ultimately they left anyway.

It was from those conversations that the weaknesses in the idea (i.e. they could still fly, etc.) were brought to light and discussed in my wing and region.

[lordmonar]

All I got to say is that I'd hate to be in your wing where the groups and wing do not support the squadrons.

[Eclipse]

All I got to say is that I'd hate to be in your wing where the groups and wing do not support the squadrons.

Seriously, man.  You have no idea what you're talking about in that regard, the 000 solution is/was the best one for the units, and was agreed upon by all parties as the best solution for all involved.  I don't see how you don't get that.

This isn't / wasn't about some weird notion you have about "leadership", this was about relieving the burden of the empty shirts and a few PITAs
who we knew would not go quietly, and who, while being PITA's, we're not doing anything that would stand a MARB appeal, especially when a couple
chain-hopped so much we never knew who was going to be calling next.  These were / are people with nothing better to do that write complaint
after complaint that makes my time on CT look sparse.

You don't know what you are talking about and/or you are trying to make this something it isn't.

You 000'ed people who would not return your calls?  How is that any different?  Why weren't they gone as well?

[Short Field]

As far as cadets go, let them keep their membership until it expires, they may decide to come back before that. 

Each cadet is different.  I don't dump cadets just because they missed three meetings.  However, when I haven't see a cadet at a meeting in two years, they do not communicate with the squadron, and their membership keeps getting renewed by their parents, it is time for a 2B.   A 2B sends a message to National that we really don't want this cadet to renew without a discussion.


Our squadron meets on a major military installation and our relationship with the base is strong enough that a CAP ID card will get you base access 24/7.  If a 18+ cadet isn't attending meetings, hasn't taken CPPT, has no safety training, hasn't promoted in two years, but likes to hang at the base exchange, it is time to 2B him and get the ID card back.   

If a cadet has problems or has expressed a desire to let his membership expire in a few months, I will probably let it ride as not being worth the paperwork. 

[titanII]

CAP need to take a big flying leap with those unrealistic recruiting goals.  My squadron is plenty big enough....80+

Not to air any dirty laundry but... my squadron definitely isn't big enough. Probably about 1/6th of that size.. You're squadron isn't the same as every other one. Some squadrons  (like mine) really need big recruitment.

[MIKE]

^ It's time to play "How many cadets can we squeeze into this Quonset Hut?"

[lordmonar]

CAP need to take a big flying leap with those unrealistic recruiting goals.  My squadron is plenty big enough....80+

Not to air any dirty laundry but... my squadron definitely isn't big enough. Probably about 1/6th of that size.. You're squadron isn't the same as every other one. Some squadrons  (like mine) really need big recruitment.

I whole heartely agree with you.....target recruiting goals is what we need.  The wing retention/recruiting team needs to assess each squadron to find out if they need more people, what kind of more people and how best to find them.  They should not just be saying "all sqauadrons need to increase 10%".

[Grumpy]

^ It's time to play "How many cadets can we squeeze into this Quonset Hut?"

What, huh, do they still have those?  My cadets don't even know what they are/were.

[titanII]

What, huh, do they still have those?  My cadets don't even know what they are/were.

Oh, I know all about those things... 

^ It's time to play "How many cadets can we squeeze into this Quonset Hut?"

So true...

[Eclipse]

I whole heartely agree with you.....target recruiting goals is what we need.  The wing retention/recruiting team needs to assess each squadron to find out if they need more people, what kind of more people and how best to find them.  They should not just be saying "all sqauadrons need to increase 10%".

I agree that fews wings, nor NHQ for that matter, have a clear, baseline understanding of their manpower strength, or even the distribution of their people vs where the unit actually are.  The entity of the situation is hit or miss.  Most units ebb and flow by chance, with total numbers being static for over a decade.

But it's not like you can redistribute people just because Unit A needs them more than Unit B.  If the units are close enough to be a wash logistically,
and offer the same or similar programs and resources, there is an argument to combine them to one charter.

Then there's the Unit CC's who think they get paid more for a higher number on the MML and who discourage, or at least don't encourage members to go to other units where they might be needed more, even if ultimately it is better for everyone.   I had this silly idea about exporting the successes of my largest unit to smaller, struggling ones, either on a temporary or permanent basis, and in some cases the "new" unit was physically closer to the person's house then the one they were at.

What I got was a lot of grief about how I was going to "force people to transfer", and those who would be the beneficiaries could not have been less interested in the idea.  ((*sigh*)).

As to R&R, we have no issue with recruiting, our issue is with retention, and that isn't going to be fixed with recruiting ribbons. That is a core program issue that needs top-down evolution to fix.

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

^ It's time to play "How many cadets can we squeeze into this Quonset Hut?"

We'll try to find out here in RIWG. Soon 1 squadron and Wing HQ will be on the Quonset ANG base. The hut was invented here