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

[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!