What constitutes "active participation"?

[Eclipse]

But your administrative advice to someone who is running a good program to kick out the "empty shirts" because other units are struggling....is not fixing the problem that you guys seem to be concerned about.

Any unit with more then a few empty shirts isn't "running a good program"

Low turn out for encampment....okay.....let's kick out all the cadets who have not promoted in the last year and who have not shown up for a meeting in six months.

Unit commander has "real life issues"......okay.....let's kick out those "empty shirts" because that will help the unit.

Neither of these examples are in any way related to the conversation, especially the former.

Unit with 15 cadets on the books....and only 5 show up....yep....let's kick out those 10...then force the unit to close....that will help.

This is not a unit, this is an illusion.

Lt Col who is ready for Spaatz....and has done nothing else....is not a failure.....it is the program. 

Depends - is this cadet actively participating in a way that brings someone value?  That's the question.
A double-diamond on the books who doesn't show up any more isn't any more valuable then a slick sleeve.

What you don't seem to understand, or just don't care about, is that normalizing the ranks is the only thing that
is going to get people to wake up and see the sad state CAP is in.

NHQ tells the world there are 60k members. We all know that isn't true, not by actual number, and not by
participation, but as long as the illusion is allowed to perpetuate, then no one has to care or see the forest
because the trees block everything nicely.

In many wings 000 is the largest unit.  Drop or move them and the wing's numbers change radically overnight.

All of a sudden there is visibility of the actual numbers.  CAP has an annual churn of something like 30-40%
depending on who is doing the math.  Because of the fact that those empty shirts are left on the books,
the trend line, while still moving SE, doesn't move as fast or as much as it actually should, shielding the real issue.

Do you think NHQ could ignore the issue if, say over the course of one quarter, or even one FY, the posted numbers
dropped by 1/3+?  Not to mention probably 15-20% of the charters?

CAP exists for only two reasons, serving cadets, and serving the community.  There is zero value in members or charters
that don't do these things properly.  We have any number of units with 50-75 members on the books which can't even
muster enough people on meeting nights to comply with CPPT.  The effort in maintaining those charters is a waste of
everyone's time and effort, and the people involved are either fooling themselves, or are saddled with the inability to
pull the plug because they don't want to be the bad guy.  Either situation is unacceptable and unnecessary.

There is no CAP participation trophy, yet to a lot of those on the rosters, that's all it is.

[lordmonar]

You actually think NHQ is unaware of the "problem"?

[Eclipse]

You actually think NHQ is unaware of the "problem"?

Being "aware" and being "willing to act" are many times two sides of the Grand Canyon.

Of course they are aware, which makes the fiction all the more unacceptable.

[lordmonar]

Why act?

I have yet to see a real need to act on the fact that 30% of our members are "empty shirts" of one sort or another.

And how are they going to act?   

When we had the argument about NHQ imposing the two member and Same Sex requirment for cadet over nights.....I suggested that higher headquarters would be the place to go for help in recruiting.....and you emphatically said it was not their job.

So if the squadrons is where the job is......and you are closing down the squadrons......who's going to fix the problem?

Listen I get it.

We are undermanned.   We need to have more, better, trained leaders at the unit level.   

I get all that.

Kicking out people and closing down units.....does not fix the problem.  It does not force HHQ to fix the problem.

It makes the problem worse.......it makes recruiting harder, it makes reforming the units harder, and it takes away what little program and presence we do have in these "dysfunctional" units from those few dedicated people who are doing their best to put on the program.

So.....once again I go back to my original statement.   I question the value added of 2b'ing the empty shirts.

[Eclipse]

When we had the argument about NHQ imposing the two member and Same Sex requirment for cadet over nights.....I suggested that higher headquarters would be the place to go for help in recruiting.....and you emphatically said it was not their job.

It's not their job.

Their job is to press those who choose to serve as commanders to do their jobs.  Something which has been indicated as "not possible".

So if the squadrons is where the job is......and you are closing down the squadrons......who's going to fix the problem?

Well certainly not dysfunctional units, that's kinda the point.  To fix things you have three choices, force the issue
with the commanders you have, replace them with people who will do the job, or quit fooling yourself that having two people
staring at two cadets in a church basement serves any purpose whatsoever.

Knowing who and where your members are focus' the limited resources where they might actually have some
real value beyond lip service.

More units = more span of control, equals more echelons in many wings, and those extra echelons aren't doing anything, either,
because if they were doing more then checking their boxes, this conversation wouldn't be necessary.

As we saw today, every charter gets inspected, that's work.  What's the use inspecting an empty unit with 4 people in it
who have no interest in the conversation.

Every minutes spent on something which serves no purpose is a minute not spent elsewhere.  Money is easy, we
can get that.  Time wasted is never recovered.

Tick...tick...tick...

[Brit_in_CAP]

Active participation is the subjective call of the respective commander.

The CP has always made it clear that school is to be considered a priority over CAP.

"Every other meeting" would be, sadly, a lot more then many cadets attend.  As long as all parties understand
that a cadet who is only participating at 1/2-speed may not be the first picked for leadership or similar plum roles,
I don't see an issue.

In a perfect world we'd like everyone there for every minute of CAP time, but that's not realistic, and as long as
the cadet or any member is making a legit effort to be involved the best they can, we can use them.

That's why we need to increase the membership, so that units are so dependant on any one person or small group
that when those people have other things to do, things grind to a halt.

The key is proper expectations for all parties.

Hmmm...only January..and I find myself in agreement with Eclipse....!

I've done this with several cadets - lay out the program, especially the *expectations* of communication between the parents / cadet and the unit, lay out the impact of their level of participation ...still interested?  Fantastic - sign here, move on! 

[JeffDG]

Why act?

Good question.  What benefit is gleaned from aggressively 2bing empty shirts?  Does it help anyone else?  Nope.  Just an extra piece of paper (best case), or worst case, a lot of administrative BS around appeals and such.

2Bing empty shirts is a solution that doesn't actually solve anything.

[Eclipse]

What benefit is keeping them, other then financial? 

And if NHQ, the wing, or anyone else thinks they are a benefit, so be it, allow for a status that
ends the conversation and rhetoric about participation and currency.

You can't have it both ways and not expect the conversation, nor maintain any sort of organizational
integrity about following regulations, participation, or the ramifications or not doing those things.

We have vague regulations about participation being a requirment for porgression and promotion
for both classes of members, yet while in some areas members get held back for missing a meeting or
two, in others members no one has ever sen get promoted through the mail, or after a prolonged absence
they show up for a few weeks because their TIG is up, get promoted, and then leave for the next 3-4 years.

I had this conversation offline last night in regards to the QCU award - some CCs won't make the needed changes
because the attrition will drop their numbers below the minimums or skew their percentage and then
they won't get a QCUA.  What's the point of that?  The certificate on the wall stands as a literal
reminder of your lack of integrity in reaching for the award itself.

When you kid yourself, who is fooled?

[vorteks]

You can't have it both ways and not expect the conversation, nor maintain any sort of organizational
integrity about following regulations, participation, or the ramifications or not doing those things.

Absolutely correct.

I'm sorry to say that a lot of these opinions, as well as my experience in CAP so far, make it hard for me to feel like I'm a part of something that is to be taken very seriously.

[JeffDG]

What benefit is keeping them, other then financial? 

None really.  So?

You're advocating a change in how things are done.  The onus is on you to establish a cost-benefit relationship to your proposed change.

[vorteks]

The onus is on someone to justify something that the regulations already support?

[AirAux]

As a CAP Legal Officer, I would recommend you restrain yourself on the 2B'ing.  Someone being 2B'ed has rights of appeal and investigations begin and questions are asked and Boards are held.  As a participant in these matters, if I found out someone was 2B'ing members for non-participation, I might wonder about their leadership skills and ability to motivate someone.  We are a voluntary organization and being able to convince someone to do something without a big stick is a requirement.  You would be surprised at what comes up during the appeal process and how skeletons are revealed.  These things can and often do backfire.  Govern Thyself Accordingly..     

[Eclipse]

As a CAP Legal Officer, I would recommend you restrain yourself on the 2B'ing.  Someone being 2B'ed has rights of appeal and investigations begin and questions are asked and Boards are held.  As a participant in these matters, if I found out someone was 2B'ing members for non-participation, I might wonder about their leadership skills and ability to motivate someone.  We are a voluntary organization and being able to convince someone to do something without a big stick is a requirement.  You would be surprised at what comes up during the appeal process and how skeletons are revealed.  These things can and often do backfire.  Govern Thyself Accordingly..   

Sorry, strong non-concur.  This kind of "afraid someone might ask questions" mentality is what keps CCs from doing their job.

Question leadership and ability to motivate?  In an organization where "presence" is a key delimiter for being appointed as a Commander?

Ask away.  If there are skeletons, so be it. Then the next echelon isn't doing their job and you, as a Legal officer, should want to be aware of these issues.

[lordmonar]

The onus is on someone to justify something that the regulations already support?

The regulations say you can......no one is disputing that.   What we are questioning is.......why would you pressure units to then actually do it?    What is the cost/benefit of the the action?   If you see the benefit......then by all means go right ahead.     But.......to accuse those of us who don't see a need to actively 2b our inactive members on a recurring basis so that our numbers don't "lie".....of having less integrity, or that we are failing in our program is NOT conclusive to the conversation.

To point out all the leadership, training, and program problems in CAP and say "it's because YOU don't 2b your empty shirts" is just wrong.

And that is the point I am making.

You got inactive people.....then make them active.   
You got a manning issue.....recruit.
You got a training issue....train.

If you got 30 people on the books but only 20 show up regularly......kicking out the 10 does not suddenly make your program better.   It will IMHO poison the well for future recruiting.  It turns a former member into a former disgruntled member for no real good reason.

2b'ing someone should be a last resort for bad behavior.   It says.....not only do we not want your services....but we NEVER want your services and we are ashamed that we ever accepted your services in the first place.

[Eclipse]

The onus is on someone to justify something that the regulations already support?

+1 - Regulations aren't supposed to be enforced based on ROI.  They are enforced because they are regulations.

The problem is so many of them are considered "optional", if for no other reason then there is no command imperative
to enforce them, that these kinds of conversations seem like they make sense.

[Eclipse]

If you got 30 people on the books but only 20 show up regularly......kicking out the 10 does not suddenly make your program better.

Yes, it actually might, because if nothing else, it allows the national leadership to see the REAL MEMBERSHIP.

You cannot be successful if yo don't even know who your members are.

[lordmonar]

If you got 30 people on the books but only 20 show up regularly......kicking out the 10 does not suddenly make your program better.

Yes, it actually might, because if nothing else, it allows the national leadership to see the REAL MEMBERSHIP.

You cannot be successful if yo don't even know who your members are.

What color is that coolaid?   Everyone already knows the real membership.   They know that 30% of our members on the books are all empty shirts....this is not a new phenomenon.   It was true back in '86 when I first joined, it was true back in 2003 when I rejoined.    It is true in just about every volunteer agency.  It is true in a lot of guard and reserve units too.....heck it is true to an extent in AD units.   

Being successful has to do with meeting your goals.......and now this is the kicker.     What are my manning goals?

Got none.

I say again.....we don't have any manning goals.

We got chartering requirements......but that is it.

Now you want to talk about being successful and putting in tools and goals into place that really allow leaders at all levels to manage and meet those mission requirements.....I've got a long long long rant about that.

But on this topic (kicking out empty shirts).......your proposed action does NOTHING to address whether a unit is being successful or not.   It simply adds more admin burden to an already undermanned unit.  It makes future recruiting harder by turning ex-members into disgruntled ex-members.   And that is all that I can see that comes from it.

YMMV

[lordmonar]

The onus is on someone to justify something that the regulations already support?

+1 - Regulations aren't supposed to be enforced based on ROI.  They are enforced because they are regulations.

The problem is so many of them are considered "optional", if for no other reason then there is no command imperative
to enforce them, that these kinds of conversations seem like they make sense.

Where......where does it say in any regulations that you MUST.....MUST 2b inactive members?

I agree that we should be very careful in enforcing our regulations.    But by that same token.....the regulation in question is very discretionary on purpose. 

[Storm Chaser]

CAPR 35-3 clearly states that "[l]ack of interest demonstrated by failure to attend three successive regular meetings
without an acceptable excuse" is cause for cadet membership termination. The regulation may not force you to terminate their membership, but if they don't have a reasonable reason for not participating, then why do you want to keep them on the books?

[vorteks]

^ Yes. This thread and my concern is about Cadet Programs. And why do we want to put them on the books in the first place when indications are there will be a lack of dedication and participation (they can't even meet the trial period requirement).