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

[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processes and procedures, task guides are outdated by a decade.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.