What manual covers member's rights regarding non-renewal of membership

[West MI-CAP-Ret]

As I labor through the Senior Rating for Personal, I can't find the manual that answers the following question:


   True or False. Since nonrenewal is not a termination action for which a right of appeal exists under the Con-stitution and Bylaws of the Civil Air Patrol, the unit commander is not required to notify the member concerned regarding the reasons for non-renewal.

I don't believe the answer to this question is found in CAPR 39-2.  Any other suggestions?

Thank you for your assistance.

[West MI-CAP-Ret]

The system didn't copy the entire body of question.  Here is the following question I can't find the answer to:

True or False. Since non-renewal is not a termination action for which a right of appeal exists under the Constitution and Bylaws of the Civil Air Patrol, the unit commander is not required to notify the member concerned regarding the reasons for non-renewal.

[Private Investigator]

46. False. A letter stating reasons for nonrenewal will be personally delivered by the unit commander or his official
representative or will be forwarded by certified mail. The member concerned will be given 30 days from the date of the
postmark on the letter of notification in which to respond in writing to the approving authority.

[JeffDG]

46. False. A letter stating reasons for nonrenewal will be personally delivered by the unit commander or his official
representative or will be forwarded by certified mail. The member concerned will be given 30 days from the date of the
postmark on the letter of notification in which to respond in writing to the approving authority.

You have a cite for that?

[Eclipse]

OK, what, exactly, is "non renewal"?

Is that a thing now?

My understanding was that we either terminate a member or we don't, we don't (officially) just let their membership lapse and then not allow them to renew.

Edit: I don't see that term used in either 39-2 or 35-3, and "nonrenewed" is only mentioned in passing once in 39-2.

[a2capt]

The non-renewal in this context is when they're not allowed to renew by approval of at least their region.  No renewal option is given.

[JeffDG]

OK, what, exactly, is "non renewal"?

Is that a thing now?

My understanding was that we either terminate a member or we don't, we don't (officially) just let their membership lapse and then not allow them to renew.

Yeah, I would see a "non-renewal" option as an end-run around the due process afforded to members who are 2b'd

[Eclipse]

The non-renewal in this context is when they're not allowed to renew by approval of at least their region.  No renewal option is given.

But again, how does that happen, process-wise.

I'm trucking along as a member, no official disciplinary actions or other issues, and then my renewal check is returned with no
explanation? 

How would Region or Wing even be involved unless there was an open investigation?

[a2capt]

That would be the result of an investigation, your check wouldn't get returned. You would not be offered the opportunity to send the check. The option to renew would not be visible on eServices.

The investigation result would need to pursued the region commander to approve the "non-renewal" flag to to tripped.

Bam. Your next scheduled renewal period has just been tripped. You got a notice, and had 30 days to rebut. It would be no surprise to you.

Thats of course, if the system is used properly. Otherwise that MARP meeting may be a slam dunk in your favor, presuming you're not just fed up with the whole thing.

[MIKE]

I thought non-renewal for cause was removed from the bag of tricks a few updates ago?

[Eclipse]

I thought non-renewal for cause was removed from the bag of tricks a few updates ago?

Ditto.

[a2capt]

..and seemed to come back via some scuttlebutt, however, none the less- the previously denied renewal may still want to be questioned should that individual wish to re-join.

[Eclipse]

Non-renewal of membership was removed from the constitution in Oct 2012.

2008

"SECTION 5
TERMINATION AND NONRENEWAL OF MEMBERSHIP

5.1 Membership in Civil Air Patrol is a privilege, not a right. Membership is conditioned on adherence
to Civil Air Patrol rules and regulations.

5.2 Membership in Civil Air Patrol may be terminated at any time for cause or may be non-renewed at
the end of a membership year. Procedures for such actions including review and appeals, if any, shall be
as set forth in the regulations and shall be consistent with provisions of Article XVI of the Constitution. "

2012

"SECTION 5
TERMINATION OF MEMBERSHIP

5.1 Membership in Civil Air Patrol is a privilege, not a right. Membership is conditioned on adherence
to Civil Air Patrol rules and regulations.

5.2 Membership in Civil Air Patrol may be terminated at any time for cause. Procedures for such
actions including review and appeals, if any, shall be as set forth in the regulations and shall be consistent
with provisions of Article XVI of the Constitution."

[JeffDG]

..and seemed to come back via some scuttlebutt, however, none the less- the previously denied renewal may still want to be questioned should that individual wish to re-join.

So, it's basically a back-door 2b without the right to appeal to the MARP

[FW]

Non renewal of membership (the old CAPF 2d) was done away with in 2001.  It is the reason why NHQ established the national patron squadron; to allow all those who were "non renewed" to become members again. 

Recently, the volunteer leadership wanted the BoG to revisit the non renewal option.  I don't think it went anywhere. 

IMHO, I wouldn't allow a commander to "non renew" a member for any reason.  We have a very good membership adverse action program in place.  It should be used.

[JeffDG]

IMHO, I wouldn't allow a commander to "non renew" a member for any reason.  We have a very good membership adverse action program in place.  It should be used.

If there's cause to punt a member, then, with due respect to the immediate past national commander, "man up" and fill out a 2b, with all the attendant due-process rights that it triggers.

[dwb]

Sounds like the Personnel rating questions are older than the removal of the non-renewal option.

You can pass feedback like this up the chain of command. A memo noting all of the outdated things to your unit commander, who would pass it up until it makes its way to NHQ/DP.

Will they fix it in a reasonable timeframe? Only one way to find out.

[SARDOC]

OK, what, exactly, is "non renewal"?

Is that a thing now?

My understanding was that we either terminate a member or we don't, we don't (officially) just let their membership lapse and then not allow them to renew.

Edit: I don't see that term used in either 39-2 or 35-3, and "nonrenewed" is only mentioned in passing once in 39-2.

It's a thing...just very obscure and not often utilized.  Keeping in mind that membership is a privilege and not a right.

In those cases where National Headquarters accepts a late membership renewal,
which is not acceptable to the member's unit or intermediate headquarters, the unit concerned will notify National Headquarters and the membership will be declared null and void and membership dues refunded.

[SARDOC]

Disregard^^^^  that applies to late renewals.

[lordmonar]

I thought non-renewal for cause was removed from the bag of tricks a few updates ago?

Ditto.

So you would think....but I know for a fact that people can still be "flagged" at national.   But as the OP is finding out, there is no process, and seeming no appeal.

I would thing a general IG complaint to the right level should fix this issue.   To the OP.....file an IG complaint with the National IG.

[SARDOC]

I would thing a general IG complaint to the right level should fix this issue.   To the OP.....file an IG complaint with the National IG.

I don't believe the OP has an actual complaint...just reading the regs.  I wouldn't recommend an IG complaint without an actual complaint.

[SARDOC]

46. False. A letter stating reasons for nonrenewal will be personally delivered by the unit commander or his official
representative or will be forwarded by certified mail. The member concerned will be given 30 days from the date of the
postmark on the letter of notification in which to respond in writing to the approving authority.

You have a cite for that?

That comes from CAPP 200 the Written test answer for the personnel senior rating.

Part of the reason why the other Senior Personnel Rating discussion board discusses the validity of requiring the written test.

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=18176.0

[FW]

NO ONE gets "non renewed" any longer, however a "former" member may be flagged from rejoining.  This is done after a proper membership termination process (2b action) is completed.  Some may try to "re up" after a year or two in another wing or squadron. "Flagging" prevents this.

As to the OP's question; the question is invalid.  It should be brought to someone's attention, to be corrected...
(I added the word "former" to clarify my statement)

[Eclipse]

We found it here in about 20 minutes by looking it up.

Why doesn't NHQ solicit assistance with the pamphlets and regs and just fix this stuff already?

There are SME's all over the place - hundreds if not thousands.  All it would take is reading the pamphlet, finding this issues, and changing them.

P213 has been broken for 10 years, and it took about 7 to finally get a waiver on a non-existent test. Many pamphlets refer to non-existent
processes and procedures, task guides are outdated by a decade.  NHQ - ASK FOR HELP, IT'S OUT HERE!

The go-forward challenge is history - there have been far too many "committees, working groups, and ad hoc people "put on task"
only to invest time and effort and then have their work discarded when someone "new" takes over a department.

Most of this stuff could be fixed in a weekend - the right people have been dodging the potholes for years and know right where they are.

We have 50-60k members, probably 10,000 of which are fully versed and knowledgeable on these issues end-to-end.

Heck, light up a wiki attached to eServices CAPID & pword, and let's get these things fixed.

[arajca]

I put that question on the "Ask the National Commander" function. I was informed that the paid staff at national is fully capable and committed to keeping the regs current.

I declined to pursue the issue any further as it seemed to be waste of time as I got the impression National doesn't want the vast unwashed masses volunteers to assist in doing their job.

[JeffDG]

I put that question on the "Ask the National Commander" function. I was informed that the paid staff at national is fully capable and committed to keeping the regs current.

I declined to pursue the issue any further as it seemed to be waste of time as I got the impression National doesn't want the vast unwashed masses volunteers to assist in doing their job.

Not Invented Here attitude seems pervasive.

[Eclipse]

I put that question on the "Ask the National Commander" function. I was informed that the paid staff at national is fully capable and committed to keeping the regs current.

I declined to pursue the issue any further as it seemed to be waste of time as I got the impression National doesn't want the vast unwashed masses volunteers to assist in doing their job.

I have no doubt that was the answer, with the two glaring issues being.

A) Historical fact disagrees.

B) It is (or should be) the volunteers job to be updating these things, NOT PAID STAFF.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

So, Colonel Weiss, basically, someone subjected to non-renewal is SOL?  Or do they have enumerated rights of appeal?

I've seen people canned - almost had it done to me - because someone at Squadron, or more often, Wing, level, simply did not like a member and wanted to exercise their "power" to have said member disappear into the night and fog of CAP non-existence.

I'm in two minds about what I would do if subjected to this.

A big part of me is still the street kid who was taught never to pick a fight - but never to run from one either and stand your ground.  That way, even if I lose, I'll have bloodied a couple of noses in the process (figuratively, of course).

However, maybe the late-middle-aged part of me, also says that it's more prudent to pick your battles and ask myself "do I really need the hassle?"  Then I take the attitude "you can't fire me; I quit."

[Eclipse]

So, basically, someone subjected to non-renewal is SOL?

No, non-renewal is no longer a valid termination option, at least not per the regulations and constitution.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

So, basically, someone subjected to non-renewal is SOL?

No, non-renewal is no longer a valid termination option, at least not per the regulations and constitution.

You were too quick off the mark, sir.

You posted while I was editing my post.

[FW]

So, basically, someone subjected to non-renewal is SOL?

No, non-renewal is no longer a valid termination option, at least not per the regulations and constitution.

It was the practice of a certain past national commander to force the resignation of members who disagreed with their policies.  Once the member resigned, they were "flagged" from rejoining.  Turns out that former national commander is no longer a member... just sayn'...

[MSG Mac]

So, basically, someone subjected to non-renewal is SOL?

No, non-renewal is no longer a valid termination option, at least not per the regulations and constitution.

It was the practice of a certain past national commander to force the resignation of members who disagreed with their policies.  Once the member resigned, they were "flagged" from rejoining.  Turns out that former national commander is no longer a member... just sayn'...

But only after they had done his homework.

[FW]

We found it here in about 20 minutes by looking it up.

Why doesn't NHQ solicit assistance with the pamphlets and regs and just fix this stuff already?

There are SME's all over the place - hundreds if not thousands.  All it would take is reading the pamphlet, finding this issues, and changing them.

P213 has been broken for 10 years, and it took about 7 to finally get a waiver on a non-existent test. Many pamphlets refer to non-existent
processes and procedures, task guides are outdated by a decade.  NHQ - ASK FOR HELP, IT'S OUT HERE!

The go-forward challenge is history - there have been far too many "committees, working groups, and ad hoc people "put on task"
only to invest time and effort and then have their work discarded when someone "new" takes over a department.

Most of this stuff could be fixed in a weekend - the right people have been dodging the potholes for years and know right where they are.

We have 50-60k members, probably 10,000 of which are fully versed and knowledgeable on these issues end-to-end.

Heck, light up a wiki attached to eServices CAPID & pword, and let's get these things fixed.

Much has already been corrected, however there is much more to go.  NHQ paid staff has been cut to the bone.  I understand there are still unresolved issues which make it difficult to move forward on administrative tasks.  For all I know, it isn't a priority to examine every word in every publication not regulatory.  I would hope these things are resolved before to long. 
It's nice to hope...

[Eclipse]

NHQ paid staff has been cut to the bone.  I understand there are still unresolved issues which make it difficult to move forward on administrative tasks.  For all I know, it isn't a priority to examine every word in every publication not regulatory.  I would hope these things are resolved before to long. 

That's my point - CAP's ROI is professionals bringing skills to the table at little to no cost, yet the constant thread is
we don't have the funding for this or that, HQ staff has been cut to the bone, etc., etc.

You could make the argument that we've relied too much for decades on paid staff and it's time to put the work back
on the volunteers.

And if there's no-confidence in the volunteers, then we need to focus on fixing that or just closing up, because
if we can't depend on the volunteers to do these pretty basic and mundane tasks, we're sunk.

Guaranteed all NHQ has to do is ask for help, but when they ask they also have to accept it and not waste people's time.

[West MI-CAP-Ret]

The question is # 46, from CAPP 200 (E) Attachment 5, Personnel Officer Special Training Specialty Track Study Guide:


    46. True or False. Since nonrenewal is not a termination action for which a right of appeal exists under the Constitution and Bylaws of the Civil Air Patrol, the unit commander is not required to notify the member concerned regarding the reasons for non-renewal. [CAPM 39-2]

I can't find the answer in CAPM 39-2.  My boss correctly called me on this by asking "where did you find this?"  He couldn't find it in 39-2, and to be honest, I got the answer via third-party; shame on me!

Any Senior or Master Rated person in Personnel, have clues where I can find this (I need chapter and verse, possibly page number... ) ?

Warmly, Dave




[/size][size=0pt][/size]
   

[Storm Chaser]

NHQ paid staff has been cut to the bone.  I understand there are still unresolved issues which make it difficult to move forward on administrative tasks.  For all I know, it isn't a priority to examine every word in every publication not regulatory.  I would hope these things are resolved before to long. 

That's my point - CAP's ROI is professionals bringing skills to the table at little to no cost, yet the constant thread is
we don't have the funding for this or that, HQ staff has been cut to the bone, etc., etc.

You could make the argument that we've relied too much for decades on paid staff and it's time to put the work back
on the volunteers.

And if there's no-confidence in the volunteers, then we need to focus on fixing that or just closing up, because
if we can't depend on the volunteers to do these pretty basic and mundane tasks, we're sunk.

Guaranteed all NHQ has to do is ask for help, but when they ask they also have to accept it and not waste people's time.

Agree. I remember the time when the Executive Director (now COO) was an Air Force AD Col and many NHQ functions were done by HQ CAP-USAF. Many of these functions were transferred to a paid corporate Executive Director and paid NHQ staff when the CAP-USAF commander became a Senior Advisor.

Now that our paid staff continues to be cut due to financial constraints, we need to look to our volunteer staff to pick up the slack. We have many talented and experienced members that could easily help alleviate the workload of NHQ if given the opportunity. Why are we not doing it?

[Private Investigator]

Non-renewal of membership was removed from the constitution in Oct 2012.

2008

"SECTION 5
TERMINATION AND NONRENEWAL OF MEMBERSHIP

5.1 Membership in Civil Air Patrol is a privilege, not a right. Membership is conditioned on adherence
to Civil Air Patrol rules and regulations.

5.2 Membership in Civil Air Patrol may be terminated at any time for cause or may be non-renewed at
the end of a membership year. Procedures for such actions including review and appeals, if any, shall be
as set forth in the regulations and shall be consistent with provisions of Article XVI of the Constitution. "

2012

"SECTION 5
TERMINATION OF MEMBERSHIP

5.1 Membership in Civil Air Patrol is a privilege, not a right. Membership is conditioned on adherence
to Civil Air Patrol rules and regulations.

5.2 Membership in Civil Air Patrol may be terminated at any time for cause. Procedures for such
actions including review and appeals, if any, shall be as set forth in the regulations and shall be consistent
with provisions of Article XVI of the Constitution."

About ten years ago we had a Senior Member who was writing bad checks to the bookstore and his check to renew his membership bounced also. That was enough to end his membership.

[Papabird]

I can't find the answer in CAPM 39-2.  My boss correctly called me on this by asking "where did you find this?"  He couldn't find it in 39-2, and to be honest, I got the answer via third-party; shame on me!

Any Senior or Master Rated person in Personnel, have clues where I can find this (I need chapter and verse, possibly page number... ) ?

CAP REGULATION 39-2, dated 27 DECEMBER 2012  (INCLUDES CHANGE 1, 4 SEPTEMBER 2013) has ZERO reference to "nonrenewal". 

So, the answer is false.  Just not for the reason given in the answer key (that positive contact must be made per CAPR 35-3 Section C, Para 6 Sections A, B, & C).

So, why?  Because the regulation doesn't mention the old "nonrenewal", the statement, is false.     You can't give anything more specific than the regulation itself.  You can't "prove" that negative, but you can prove its absence.

[Ned]

We have many talented and experienced members that could easily help alleviate the workload of NHQ if given the opportunity. Why are we not doing it?

We are, of course. 

But be careful what you wish for.  Every single word in the revised 39-1 has been written by volunteers.  Volunteers comprise almost all of the NUC (we also benefit from Susie Parker's wisdom and that of the CAP-USAF representative), and the photographs are going to be taken by qualified  volunteers.

Maybe I've misread portions of this thread, but some of you have expressed some impatience at the length of time it has taken the talented and experienced volunteers to complete their task.

There are many, many talented and experienced volunteers working on the National Staff.  Since I used to be the senior volunteer assigned to Cadet Programs, I can assure you that volunteers work extremely closely with the corporate CP staff (both of them) to develop and write doctrine, training materials, and do the necessary research.  These volunteers (including cadets) do a great deal of the nuts-and-bolts work of running the NHQ section. 

Who racks and stacks scholarship applicants?  A panel of volunteers.  Who are the NCSA activity directors?  Volunteers.  Who coordinates and trains the NCSA activity directors?  The national special activities officer, a volunteer.  Who is on the committee reviewing and potentially restructuring NCC?  Volunteers.  Who wrote the majority of the new (draft) encampment and CPP doctrines?  Volunteers.

Like you and me.

I'm using CP as an example because I am most familiar with its inner workings, but there are volunteer staff assigned to each mission and function.

It sure sounds like there are some pamphlets and training materials that are out of date, and I don't think anyone disagrees that volunteers can and should update the materials. 

So, being as specific as possible, let your chain of command know that you are having a hard time doing your job because X, Y, & Z are incorrect or outdated and need to be updated.

[a2capt]

Turns out that former national commander is no longer a member... just sayn'...

..and undoubtedly "flagged".

I hope.

[Larry Mangum]

Everything Ned said is also happening on the ES and Comm side of the house as well.  How do you think ICUT came about, or all of the ES curriculum and SQTR's came about.  CAP Members are fully engaged in rewriting and updating things all of the time. But most do so quietly and without any fanfare. 

But it takes time to have proposed changes vetted and approved and coordinated. Does that take longer than it should, absolutely.

[Storm Chaser]

I don't disagree and I'm glad to hear that many volunteers across the nation are collaborating with NHQ on this and other efforts. I think some of the "impatience" Ned is referring to is due to the fact that some publications haven't been updated in over a decade (CAPP 200, 205 and 213 come to mind). I know all these revisions are a huge undertaking, but in this day and age and with current technologies available, we could do better.

[Eclipse]

About ten years ago we had a Senior Member who was writing bad checks to the bookstore and his check to renew his membership bounced also. That was enough to end his membership.

As I recall, the finance rules going back that far did have some allowance for bounced checks being grounds for suspension or termination.

I recall a number of conversations regarding unit dues, encampment fees, or similar, that had that threat at the end of the sentence.
That may have been an idle threat, but seems to have been a "thing" back then.

[Eclipse]

Maybe I've misread portions of this thread, but some of you have expressed some impatience at the length of time it has taken the talented and experienced volunteers to complete their task.

You haven't misread it, many of us are frustrated.

10 year for a uniform manual.  10+ for the ES curriculum.  A similar amount of time for an encampment handbook, which has now been in draft form
going into its third year.

Saying people are "working hard" doesn't change that.  "Effort" does not equal "results".

Somehow when lawyers, accountants, or actuaries get involved,
things can happen in weeks or months, generally with plenty of smoke and no fire, but these things, which are actually important and involve mission-centric
issues, take years or are simply ignored.

That which is made a priority seems to be smoke and mirrors to the membership as well.  No one is saying all of these things
can't be addressed in parallel, but the outward impression many times is that per projects get all the attention and
the core "hard" stuff is ignored or left for "some other dude" (the same dude my kids think does the dishes).

[Ned]

  You haven't misread it, many of us are frustrated.

Of course you are.  I'm frustrated, too.

10 year for a uniform manual.  10+ for the ES curriculum.  A similar amount of time for an encampment handbook, which has now been in draft form
going into its third year.

It's kind of sad that a "uniform manual" tops your list of frustrations.  You're a senior leader, for Goodness sakes.  But you're certainly not alone.  The great majority of the participants on this forum is want to spend more time discussing how we dress than what we do.  Talk about frustration.

But, we do need a new uniform manual.  And, after many false starts, a new team of volunteers will be providing you with a draft uniform manual for your review soon.   

Saying people are "working hard" doesn't change that.  "Effort" does not equal "results".

True enough.  Similarly, complaining constantly about it on the internet doesn't change it either.  What it takes is dedicated volunteers like yourself actually performing the work that needs to be done.

Somehow when lawyers, accountants, or actuaries get involved,
things can happen in weeks or months, generally with plenty of smoke and no fire, but these things, which are actually important and involve mission-centric
issues, take years or are simply ignored.

Yup, sometimes things take a long time.  But if it helps, "lawyers, accountants, or actuaries" had nothing to do with any delays in the uniform manual.  But you knew that, right?

That which is made a priority seems to be smoke and mirrors to the membership as well.  No one is saying all of these things
can't be addressed in parallel, but the outward impression many times is that per projects get all the attention and
the core "hard" stuff is ignored or left for "some other dude" (the same dude my kids think does the dishes).

Well, I can only agree that priorities are set by the leadership, which are senior officers just like you and me.  And some projects get higher priorities than others.  And as you have observed so often, sometimes we run out of names of people to do projects before we run out of projects.

Remind me, Colonel, which of these important projects are you working on?

[Eclipse]

Remind me, Colonel, which of these important projects are you working on?

Every one in which I have been asked to assist - and for the record, I was, in fact, asked to assist with the uniform manual and I provided
fairly significant notes and corrections.

If you want to try and trivialize and marginalize my points by pretending I spoke of nothing but the uniform, so be it. 

The level of "no thanks, we've got this handled, we don't need your help" that comes out of NHQ staff is literally overwhelming.

[Larry Mangum]

Things are changing, we have seen more changes to regulations, since the Governance change, then we had in the previous decade (at least it feels that way). Why you might ask, because the former NB or NSC  does not get to argue over every i' t and every comma.  But it is still going to take time to free up the backlog of things that need to be updated.  Volunteers can write the proposed changes and have done so, but it still takes someone at NHQ to be to OP of the item and to shepherd it through the approval process; and NHQ staff has been cut to the bone. As Ned alluded to requests have to be prioritized and there are only so many hours in a day.

I know for a fact that a large portion of CAPR 60-3 has been rewritten and changes submitted twice in the last two years. This year the AirForce Instruction on Evals was rewritten for CAP\USAF. Would I like to see that work released, sure because I believe it will benefit all of the organization.  But it takes time, when changes that effect CAP Operations have to be coordinated with CAP\USAF and others.

Eclipse, you are a Wing ES Director, are you telling us  that, when your wing decided to make a change it instantly happens and there is no coordination involved, when outside groups or organizations or involved? Heck, I'll wager that even events internal to your wing, take a lot more effort and coordination than most people think.

[SamFranklin]

Drifting a bit to pick up on the "update stuff faster" theme....

Those of us who've been around since the 70s lived under a more "efficient" system in that we had zero say in regs, manuals, curriculum, handbooks, etc. CAP-USAF ran the NatHQ until 95 and we had to take what they gave us, whether we were satisfied or not. Now that the membership has rightly been given more of a say, the downside is stuff takes longer to get done than we'd like. Well, actually about the same amount of time as before because, the AF moved at a glacial pace back then and I'm talking about pre-PC era.

I was glad to read that Gen. Carr is putting 39-1 out for member comment. I don't know anything about the details of the new 39-1 but just being a casual reader of CAP Talk tells me there's a huge diversity of opinion on what that manual should say, how it should say it, what pictures to use, etc. My hat's off to the uniform committee people because they have to take time to build a consensus for whatever changes are coming and that takes time. It's like ordering pizza for 60,000 members and stopping to ask who wants anchovies.

As an old time member believe me, that's still a better situation than having some AF LTC with very little CAP expertise try to write a publication for us. Today's pubs aren't updated as quickly as we'd all like, but back in the day, the writers obviously had zero clue on what they were writing about. How could they? They weren't members. 

I guess what I'm saying is that we can't ask for member review of everything on one hand and also ask for paid or member national staff to just edit PDFs, click Save, and call it done without any input but their own personal opinions.

NASA:  "Better, Faster, Cheaper.  Pick any two."  Sorta applies here.

---
edit:  Lt Col Larry Magnum said it better than I could. Messages crossed at the same time.

[Eclipse]

Things are changing, we have seen more changes to regulations, since the Governance change, then we had in the previous decade

Such as?  Other then documents related to the governance itself, I haven't' seen much of anything.


(at least it feels that way). Why you might ask, because the former NB or NSC  does not get to argue over every i' t and every comma.  But it is still going to take time to free up the backlog of things that need to be updated.  Volunteers can write the proposed changes and have done so, but it still takes someone at NHQ to be to OP of the item and to shepherd it through the approval process; and NHQ staff has been cut to the bone. As Ned alluded to requests have to be prioritized and there are only so many hours in a day.

I know for a fact that a large portion of CAPR 60-3 has been rewritten and changes submitted twice in the last two years.

Yes, 60-3 was revised, thogh very little of any substance changed.  The ES curriculm as a whole has remained unchanged since before 2004.

This year the AirForce Instruction on Evals was rewritten for CAP\USAF. Would I like to see that work released, sure because I believe it will benefit all of the organization.  But it takes time, when changes that effect CAP Operations have to be coordinated with CAP\USAF and others.

The CAP-USAF changes to the inspection program is because they no longer have the manpower to execute the program as it was before.

Eclipse, you are a Wing ES Director, are you telling us  that, when your wing decided to make a change it instantly happens and there is no coordination involved, when outside groups or organizations or involved? Heck, I'll wager that even events internal to your wing, take a lot more effort and coordination than most people think.

What changes, exactly, would the wing be making?  Though I will say that once internal administrative decisions are made, they are generally
implemented in real-time, local gnashing of teeth not withstanding.

We're not talking weeks or months here, are we?  We're talking years, sometimes more then a decade for things which have been
known problems, pointed out, discussed, committees, and then left to stagnate.

[Eclipse]

I guess what I'm saying is that we can't ask for member review of everything on one hand and also ask for paid or member national staff to just edit PDFs, click Save, and call it done without any input but their own personal opinions.

Members should have comment on every publication before it is adopted, and paid staffers should not be involved in making the updates at all.

Take the Personnel pamphlet issue - if you take only the posted PDOs at every echelon, you have (or should) over 1000 people with
skin in the game and at least some knowledge of the program.

Task and EMPOWER a committee of the Region PDOs to fix it, solicit the answers, and give them 6 months (I'd say 3).
30 more days for national general comment and you're done.

Next.

[Eclipse]

Further to this, why should unit-level PDOs (or respective staff for other areas) have to up-channel these issues?

There are volunteer staff whose literal and only job at the Region and National is to implement and administer
their respective programs. 

What are they doing?

Why aren't there errata web pages to address these things when they come up?

Why do members have to beg through the HelpDesk and KB to have someone take the time to address these things
as if they are new problems?

[DMinick]

Since nonrenewal is not in the regs and constitution does that make #47 void? #47 says Who is the minimum approving authority for all nonrenewal actions?

Let me ask another one about nonrenewals! Could this be referring to those members who choose not to renew their membership rather than termination? I seem to also remember reading that we do not have to accept a member who does choose to renew his membership. Or am I mistaken?

[Larry Mangum]

Things are changing, we have seen more changes to regulations, since the Governance change, then we had in the previous decade

Such as?  Other then documents related to the governance itself, I haven't' seen much of anything.


(at least it feels that way). Why you might ask, because the former NB or NSC  does not get to argue over every i' t and every comma.  But it is still going to take time to free up the backlog of things that need to be updated.  Volunteers can write the proposed changes and have done so, but it still takes someone at NHQ to be to OP of the item and to shepherd it through the approval process; and NHQ staff has been cut to the bone. As Ned alluded to requests have to be prioritized and there are only so many hours in a day.

I know for a fact that a large portion of CAPR 60-3 has been rewritten and changes submitted twice in the last two years.

Yes, 60-3 was revised, thogh very little of any substance changed.  The ES curriculm as a whole has remained unchanged since before 2004.

This year the AirForce Instruction on Evals was rewritten for CAP\USAF. Would I like to see that work released, sure because I believe it will benefit all of the organization.  But it takes time, when changes that effect CAP Operations have to be coordinated with CAP\USAF and others.

The CAP-USAF changes to the inspection program is because they no longer have the manpower to execute the program as it was before.

Eclipse, you are a Wing ES Director, are you telling us  that, when your wing decided to make a change it instantly happens and there is no coordination involved, when outside groups or organizations or involved? Heck, I'll wager that even events internal to your wing, take a lot more effort and coordination than most people think.

What changes, exactly, would the wing be making?  Though I will say that once internal administrative decisions are made, they are generally
implemented in real-time, local gnashing of teeth not withstanding.

We're not talking weeks or months here, are we?  We're talking years, sometimes more then a decade for things which have been
known problems, pointed out, discussed, committees, and then left to stagnate.

,

You know Eclipse, I usually think you are fairly well informed, but this time I have to throw the BS flag.  The changes to CAPR 60-3, to which I am alluding to have not been released yet for public comment, so I don't think you have probably seen the proposed changes . You were also not part of the working group that  worked on updating the EVAL Guide, and those changes since they were for CAP\USAF were not released for public comment either.   

So you can postulate all you want about what NHQ and the volunteer members are not doing, but in reality, you really don't have a leg to stand on, rather then your own opinions, certainly not in facts.  Colonel have you asked Colonel Oeth, how you can get on some of these working groups and help bring about the changes you so desire?

[Eclipse]

You know Eclipse, I usually think you are fairly well informed, but this time I have to throw the BS flag.  The changes to CAPR 60-3, to which I am alluding to have not been released yet for public comment, so I don't think you have probably seen the proposed changes . You were also not part of the working group that  worked on updating the EVAL Guide, and those changes since they were for CAP\USAF were not released for public comment either.   

So you can postulate all you want about what NHQ and the volunteer members are not doing, but in reality, you really don't have a leg to stand on, rather then your own opinions, certainly not in facts.

"Effort" does not equal "results".  It's not "postulating" when the facts speak for themselves.  "Not released" is exactly the
same to the membership as "non existent".

You indicated 60-3 was changed in a meaningful way, I said it hadn't been.  Pointing to a committee revising things that
has been working for two years with no output is literally the exact thing I'm whining talking about.

We're not even talking about the non-existent high-level discussions regarding MOUs, our evolving mission and purpose,
or something easy like "fusion vs. fission", we're talking about significant ongoing program loopholes, omissions,
ambiguities about important training, self-conflicting or circular regulations, and on and on.

Most of those could be corrected in a weekend and should have been last decade.

Colonel have you asked Colonel Oeth, how you can get on some of these working groups and help bring about the changes you so desire?

No one's asked, and I'm not aware of any public posting in regards to ES curriculum committees, publication review committees, etc., etc.
Understandably these committees are kept fairly close to the vest.  No issue, as long as something gets done.
When asked to contribute, which does occasionally happen, I do.  On more then one occasion I've been asked to put together whole
training curricula with promises they would have national visibility, they went exactly nowhere.

On the numerous (and likely bothersome) occasions when I have raised issues directly to national staffers and SMEs,
I'm just as likely to receive a "well, it is what it is" response, as any interest in fixing things.

But since you bring it up, why has there been a non-public committee working on ES curriculum for "over two years"?
What's the secret?  Why hasn't the work-product been released to the membership for comment?

[FW]

Since nonrenewal is not in the regs and constitution does that make #47 void? #47 says Who is the minimum approving authority for all nonrenewal actions?

Let me ask another one about nonrenewals! Could this be referring to those members who choose not to renew their membership rather than termination? I seem to also remember reading that we do not have to accept a member who does choose to renew his membership. Or am I mistaken?

To restate a previous post; no current member gets non renewed. Now, if you don't renew on time, there is always the possibility of a"flag" preventing you from renewing. Your membership experation date is just that; an experation of membership.

[Storm Chaser]

To be fair, we can't blame the current leadership, working committees or volunteers for issues or problems that have been around for over a decade. If they are working to correct those issues now, then that's good enough for me. Let's give it a few more months for these efforts to take their course.

[FW]

^ To be really fair, don't blame this on anyone.  This is an administration issue which needs to be addressed by staff.  It's a staff function to keep things current.  It is leadership's responsibility to make decisions based on priority.  The decisions have been made.  Staff is doing the job.  The time it takes is problematical.  No one is getting paid to do this job, and know one is getting thanks for it. 

If an error is found by someone, it should be brought to the appropriate staffer to be corrected; thru the chain.  With all the noise posted, I wonder if the OP, armed with the correct knowledge, will do the right thing.  I hope Eclipse is wrong when stating no one listens...

[Panache]

You know, maybe I'm just showing my age here, but I've just had a flashback to the old Infocom game, "Bureaucracy."

[a2capt]

You know, maybe I'm just showing my age here, but I've just had a flashback to the old Infocom game, "Bureaucracy."

I participated in a two day play test on that thing in San Diego.. went home and promptly wrote up the walkthrough and posted it on my BBS.

..because that's what you did back then

[lordmonar]

You know, maybe I'm just showing my age here, but I've just had a flashback to the old Infocom game, "Bureaucracy."

I participated in a two day play test on that thing in San Diego.. went home and promptly wrote up the walkthrough and posted it on my BBS.

..because that's what you did back then

Dailing up with the speedy 75 Baud Modem and the 1 Meg hard drive....that you would never fill up!

Oh....those were the days!

[a2capt]

Well, in this case.. it was -my- BBS. The Apple //e was right there in the bedroom, with it's 300 baud Apple-Cat II

..and we had an "email" function. Who'd have ever guessed we'd have "unlimited long distance" and the TV people would service us with a worldwide network.

Try flagging that for non-renewal.

[Panache]

Try flagging that for non-renewal.

...for only $10 p/hour!

[SarDragon]

The question is # 46, from CAPP 200 (E) Attachment 5, Personnel Officer Special Training Specialty Track Study Guide:


    46. True or False. Since nonrenewal is not a termination action for which a right of appeal exists under the Constitution and Bylaws of the Civil Air Patrol, the unit commander is not required to notify the member concerned regarding the reasons for non-renewal. [CAPM 39-2]

I can't find the answer in CAPM 39-2.  My boss correctly called me on this by asking "where did you find this?"  He couldn't find it in 39-2, and to be honest, I got the answer via third-party; shame on me!

Any Senior or Master Rated person in Personnel, have clues where I can find this (I need chapter and verse, possibly page number... ) ?

Warmly, Dave

There is NO CAPM 39-2. It changed to CAPR 39-2 on 4 Dec 03. The provision for non-renewal went away at that time. This is a bogus Q now, and should be ignored.

If your CC is really froggy about this, PM me an email addy, and I'll send a copy of the olde manual.

[Brad]

I would thing a general IG complaint to the right level should fix this issue.   To the OP.....file an IG complaint with the National IG.

I don't believe the OP has an actual complaint...just reading the regs.  I wouldn't recommend an IG complaint without an actual complaint.

From what I read, it simply seems as if the OP was making an observation, not reporting a matter of fact that occurred. If you sent the observation up to IG that the regulations don't match the test, your complaint would get dismissed or at the most you'd get a referral to send it up the chain to have the information corrected.

[Johnny Yuma]

About ten years ago we had a Senior Member who was writing bad checks to the bookstore and his check to renew his membership bounced also. That was enough to end his membership.

FWIW - I dunno who NHQ uses for their bank, but I've had 2 checks supposedly bounce on them with money sitting in the account and my bank saying the checks were never presented to them for payment. I use plastic exclusively for anything CAP ever since.