Proposal in the mix: New Restricted Application: Member Attendance

[DNall]

It's not just how things are distributed, it's how much is allocated in the first place. When CAP & the AF ask for money from congress to administer CAP, & for all the resources & training that gets spread around, all that is based on information we know for a fact is highly inaccurate. Misleading congress &/or the AF or any echelon within CAP as a part of a federal budget request or information leadering to one is a criminal act.

I understand some people can only give a little time & some of that is very valuable. That's the definition of a reservist. However, we cannot support the program without a large number of members regularly & consistently attending each unit.

In all honesty, our units are asked to meet guard/reserve Sq level admin requirements for inspections, but our manning is in most cases well below a flight sized element. You could shut down a lot of units because they can't legitimately get teh job done, or you can redesignate most units as flights & lift a lot of that admin load to a more centralized Sq structure where they can share resources & actually do what's expected of them.

If we allow units to focus on one area (say ES or CP over AE, or flight ops over GT), and if we can't really man all the positions so we struggle to make it look good for the reports but don't actually do much. All that kills the program. You are not as a unit allowed to make those choices. All you are allowed to do is recruit & retain enough people to do the job. If you can't do that, then your unit can't exist.

I'm not saying we need to shut down units. I'm sayin we need to pour resources into recruiting & retention, into unit oversight & mgmt support, that we need to reevaluate the mgmt & pgm goals we demand of our units. We do need to look at how we manage & distribute resources, and how we allocate those resources between members that contribute at different levels. We just can't operate at all without knowing what we're have to work with.

[RiverAux]

I believe it highly unlikely that CAP would get any additional information if we could prove that our units and individuals are "active".  I've never heard that this is an issue that has been limiting our funding in the past.  In fact, we've had a major bump in funding over the last few years for comms and have been replacing a whole lot of aircraft with things as they stand right now. 

[DNall]

You mean additional money? Yeah that's right, we would not get more money. We'd get less, a whole lot less, and that's the point. Not that we need less money, but that we need to know what's really going on so we can see where our problems are & focus on/resource them correctly & efficiently to fix the situation.

Right now we just sweep it under the rug & spin that same BS party line that plays in Congress to ourselves & our customers. That's not close to reality. There's people maintaining their membership and maybe ES quals as well that hadn't been in contact with CAP in a couple years. If you look at what we have now though, that person is going to show up as a fully mission ready member in his geographic area. I'm then going to tell our customer I have X capability in that area based on those figures. I'm going to assign all resources according to that data. That just doesn't work. It disincentivizes (is that a word) the behavior we need for our org to operate.

[RiverAux]

(yes, I meant money, sorry).

The real issue you're complaining about is our membership qualification system then.  Evidently you think there is a large percentage of our folks who only do the minimum to maintain their qualifications and are not willing or cannot actually respond to missions or participate in funded training beyond those requirements. 
That is what you need to focus on, not worrying about meeeting attendence. 

[afgeo4]

(yes, I meant money, sorry).

The real issue you're complaining about is our membership qualification system then.  Evidently you think there is a large percentage of our folks who only do the minimum to maintain their qualifications and are not willing or cannot actually respond to missions or participate in funded training beyond those requirements. 
That is what you need to focus on, not worrying about meeeting attendence. 

The issue is then not the membership qualification system, but the members themselves. They should be questioned on their sanity first (why would they put in the work to certify if they're not going to do missions anyway) and their commitment to the organization second.

However, how sane can we all be when so many of us put in 30 or more hours a week into this and it isn't even our job.

[RiverAux]

There's people maintaining their membership and maybe ES quals as well that hadn't been in contact with CAP in a couple years.

Well, no more than 2 years.

Incidentally, I am on record in another thread as being in favor of increasing the minimum sortie requirements for aircrew (and probably ground teams) members in order to re-certify.  Not because I think that we're somehow misleading folks with our capabilities, but because on the face of it I don't think they're adequate to maintain proficiency in the skills. 

[afgeo4]

There's people maintaining their membership and maybe ES quals as well that hadn't been in contact with CAP in a couple years.

Well, no more than 2 years.

Incidentally, I am on record in another thread as being in favor of increasing the minimum sortie requirements for aircrew (and probably ground teams) members in order to re-certify.  Not because I think that we're somehow misleading folks with our capabilities, but because on the face of it I don't think they're adequate to maintain proficiency in the skills. 

Well you can't really expect that with only 4 SAREX's being done by Wings per year. Maybe if they increase the ES training budget...

[mynetdude]

Maybe a "Monthly activity log" maintained by the member, and electronically certified by the unit CC.

Everyone enters the date, the activity, mileage, and number of hours spent on an activity.  Monthly it is submitted to the commander, who certifies it and enters it in the national DB.

This would also help keep members' records on tax deductable expenses.

I personally disagree, this places more burden on the commander to do more work than he already has to do unless he can/wants to setup designees to oversee this.  I'm all for this idea, but not giving the commander more work.  I don't know where to begin, I can tell you all about our squadron's troubles our commander is about a year away from completing his term and he is buried so high he can't get out from under it yet.

Our squadron does something like this but not exactly electronically either.  Every week our previous Personnel/IT officer would print a sign in roster for the regular meetings and this is managed via an MSAccess database which I have now been trained to do for my squadron since his departure.  When the meeting is over, I send the hardcopy to an archival binder that archives the whole one/two years worth of meeting sign ins.

We still submit safety briefings electronically and by fax.  I generate a safety briefing sign in from the SAME MSAccess DB, everyone initials I get it back, enter it in via the WMU (Wing Management Utility) forward the copy to the safety officer who did the briefing that night he faxes it sometime thereafter.

I did see there is an option to enter meeting attendance as well, however it seems to be through the same interface you would do safety briefings as well.  So I have to experiment and see how I could report electronically for regular meetings as well as safety briefings. And btw, we also do the same thing for cadet safety briefings as well.

[mynetdude]

That won't work.  CG Aux has members report their own time and 25-50% never bother reporting time spent at meetings. 

I log mine... 'cause when I hit 750 hours, I get a ribbon.   

How do you keep track of hours? What kind of hours? training, meetings, admin work you do at the unit and/or at home? Etc?

[MIKE]

7029 Member Activity Log http://forms.cgaux.org/archive/a7029f.pdf

7030 Mission Activity Report http://forms.cgaux.org/archive/a7030f.pdf

7038 Vessel Examination Activity Report http://forms.cgaux.org/archive/a7038f.pdf

7039 Workshop Mission & Attendance Report http://forms.cgaux.org/archive/a7039f.pdf

7046 RBS Visitation Report http://forms.cgaux.org/archive/a7046f.pdf

[mynetdude]

Thats pretty neat, although I haven't seen any regs (yet) that indicate that CAP members have to log (or if they choose to) their hours to get ribbons.  I do know that members CAN log 10 actual missions (SAR, disaster relief, anything that comes from NOC/AFRCC) they get a ribbon but... then let me ask the member has to locate each and every one of those missions via NIMS/WIMIRS or the WMU depending on how you access your ES data per wing then you have to write/print that information down create a CAPF 2A Personnel Actions and list every single one of those missions and cite the regulation that says you are entitled for that ribbon.

We already have CAPF 45A and 45Bs these are also kept to record your activities however many seniors at least in my squadron are all still handwriting it in their personnel file do I as a Personnel officer (I just been recently assigned that duty) want to read all those handwritings? Sorry, nope I have 20/50 vision bad enough I need a magnifier I'm don't feel like playing find the needle in the haystack when its simple to teach someone to generate their own electronic CAPF45A/B and submit a copy each time they generate a CAPF2A electronically and attach it for the records to make things go smoother rather than just writing a bunch of stuff in the "REMARKS".

Additional tracking requirements won't solve the problem, at least not at the individual level. But I DO like the CGAux way of tracking hours and since it is done electronically CAPF45A/Bs can be done the same way I don't see why that can't be utilized in addition to the silly pink folder in your personnel file with the same information and hard to write in spaces because they are so tiny.

[SarDragon]

Thats pretty neat, although I haven't seen any regs (yet) that indicate that CAP members have to log (or if they choose to) their hours to get ribbons.  I do know that members CAN log 10 actual missions (SAR, disaster relief, anything that comes from NOC/AFRCC) they get a ribbon but... then let me ask the member has to locate each and every one of those missions via NIMS/WIMIRS or the WMU depending on how you access your ES data per wing then you have to write/print that information down create a CAPF 2A Personnel Actions and list every single one of those missions and cite the regulation that says you are entitled for that ribbon.

We already have CAPF 45A and 45Bs these are also kept to record your activities however many seniors at least in my squadron are all still handwriting it in their personnel file do I as a Personnel officer (I just been recently assigned that duty) want to read all those handwritings? Sorry, nope I have 20/50 vision bad enough I need a magnifier I'm don't feel like playing find the needle in the haystack when its simple to teach someone to generate their own electronic CAPF45A/B and submit a copy each time they generate a CAPF2A electronically and attach it for the records to make things go smoother rather than just writing a bunch of stuff in the "REMARKS".

Additional tracking requirements won't solve the problem, at least not at the individual level. But I DO like the CGAux way of tracking hours and since it is done electronically CAPF45A/Bs can be done the same way I don't see why that can't be utilized in addition to the silly pink folder in your personnel file with the same information and hard to write in spaces because they are so tiny.

For tracking ES participation, particularly finds, I  print out a copy of the closing traffic that goes out at the end of the mission, and stick it in their record. The record is periodically reviewed, and when there are enough missions documented, the 2a gets generated.

[mynetdude]

Thats pretty neat, although I haven't seen any regs (yet) that indicate that CAP members have to log (or if they choose to) their hours to get ribbons.  I do know that members CAN log 10 actual missions (SAR, disaster relief, anything that comes from NOC/AFRCC) they get a ribbon but... then let me ask the member has to locate each and every one of those missions via NIMS/WIMIRS or the WMU depending on how you access your ES data per wing then you have to write/print that information down create a CAPF 2A Personnel Actions and list every single one of those missions and cite the regulation that says you are entitled for that ribbon.

We already have CAPF 45A and 45Bs these are also kept to record your activities however many seniors at least in my squadron are all still handwriting it in their personnel file do I as a Personnel officer (I just been recently assigned that duty) want to read all those handwritings? Sorry, nope I have 20/50 vision bad enough I need a magnifier I'm don't feel like playing find the needle in the haystack when its simple to teach someone to generate their own electronic CAPF45A/B and submit a copy each time they generate a CAPF2A electronically and attach it for the records to make things go smoother rather than just writing a bunch of stuff in the "REMARKS".

Additional tracking requirements won't solve the problem, at least not at the individual level. But I DO like the CGAux way of tracking hours and since it is done electronically CAPF45A/Bs can be done the same way I don't see why that can't be utilized in addition to the silly pink folder in your personnel file with the same information and hard to write in spaces because they are so tiny.

For tracking ES participation, particularly finds, I  print out a copy of the closing traffic that goes out at the end of the mission, and stick it in their record. The record is periodically reviewed, and when there are enough missions documented, the 2a gets generated.

So, being the last person out on the mission whether you are at the ICP or remote base, if there is a find you will put them in the appropriate members' files? A great idea, except now you have to divulge into that much more time to getting to the locked files or locked room that contain the files.

I will certainly ask my commander about that, I have never seen anybody mention ever putting find information into a members' personnel file which seems like a perfect way to do it. Rather than having to go through the WMU and look at ES participation records, which can be done too a bit more time consuming because that information does not (to my knowledge) tell you whether you have a find or not all it does it tells you what mission # you participated in and in what capacity.

Since I am the squadron's newly assigned Personnel officer, I would like to find ways to have meaningful information in the members' files and make the job smoother and less time consuming when possible.

[SarDragon]

Our closing traffic goes out on an email list that anyone in the wing can subscribe to.

A typical message looks like this [identifying info redacted]:

Search mission 08Mxxxx was opened and closed 24 January 2008 for an ELT
signal in the [xx] area.  First signal was located and secured in a King Air, Nxxxx at [xx] Field, [xx].  Non distress finds authorized for [member], [unit] and [member], [unit].

Additional signals were df'ed off the coast and into Mexico.  Those signals were later secured by the USCG and authorities in Mexico. Non distress finds (1) authorized for [member] and [member], [unit].
*****

It doesn't take all that long to look through a couple of messages a day (probably fewer in your wing), and print them out. I have all messages from that source and with "mission" in the subject go to a separate mailbox, so it's even that much easier. I just use the tools that are available to me.

YMMV.

[DNall]

The mission qual system & attend are a bit related in my mind.

Back to the example I mentioned. If you have one member working hard on a weekly basis to keep CAP up & runing, and constantly training to do ES. That means they are up to date on the latest stuff. Versus they crusty old guy that isn't very active. They both show to a mission or SaREx, old guy busts outy his log book says he's got a billion hours & been a mission pilot for 20 years. That guy is almost always going to get the ride before the one that's otherwise busting his butt.

What that does is discourage people from getting/staying qual'd for ES, and discourages paying their dues keeping the unit afloat so they can eventually do the more exciting stuff. What I'd rather do is track people's contributions as best we can & reward the accordingly.

On the unit scale, it's kind of the same thing. I don't want to put a plane with a unit that will fly the crap out of it if those aircrews are just looking for a cheap ride & not really contriibuting otherwise. I'd rather put that in a place where it gets fewer hours but better quality ones with people that are here to be CAP members first & fly second (at best). Same deal with radios, vans, uniforms, etc. I know how we gave out radios, and the system we used to decide how many we need. That was all highly flawed cause we don't actually have any idea what's going on at the street level with our membership.

The real truth is CAP's active membership is somewhere the very low side of half what we say our national membership is. The ES qual'd numbers are far lower then that, and the actual mission ready not to mention also active in the program numbers are miniscule. You look at that on a geographic basis, and we're not capable of operating in any legitimate way. That's all anecdotal cause there are no hard numbers to work with, but you know it's pretty close to the truth.

I'm not saying CAP needs to go away, just the opposite. I'm saying we need to look at reality & begin addressing it right away. If we aren't willing to do that, and be accountable for the results, then we don't deserve anyone's money - taxpayer or member dues.

[RiverAux]

You're talking about a "good old boy" problem that will not be solved with any sort of statistical analysis.  A commander who would chose the old guy that is barely active over the young, super active guy is not going to do something different just because the difference is documented and recorded back in eservices. 

While I agree that we should not advertise our whole membership as ES ready volunteers, I don't think this is a big deal.  The AF certainly knows that we've only got 530+/- planes and that we're not going to put 55,000 people on them at the same time.  Just about all our other customers are down at the local and state level and they really don't care about our national capabilities in the first place. 

Now, down at the Wing level is where there is probably greater possibility for overemphasising our capabilities.  But, again, our folks have a pretty good idea of our response capabilities right now and if they're doing things right, won't overpromise.