I command a "Cadet-free" unit. I got a phone call last week from a very concerned community organization. The very nice young lady said she wanted to bring some representatives of her group to talk to my "Seniors" about bathroom safety.
Did I know that 60 percent of all home injuries suffered by "Seniors" are the result of falls in the bathroom? And did I know that most heart attacks and strokes occur in the bathroom?
Apparently, to her, the term "Senior" meant "Doddering Old Fart." That's what it means to a lot of people. Also, you are a Senior Member for 6 months before you are a second lieutenant. How can we call our newest members, who are junior to butterbars, "Senior" members?
A while back, HWSNBN began to phase out the term "Senior Member." I hope that baby did not get thrown out with the bath water.
Now, I DID consider bringing her in for "Safety Stand Down Day," but then I realized I would have to report it up the chain. Knowing the bonehead stuff coming out of National on safety lately, I am sure they would develop a new online course we would have to take every year on how not to die when taking a dump. Everybody would have blamed me for that!
If for only that reason, it's worth it.
Non issue, non-concur, more old road, get over it, correct assumptions and move on.
HWSRN took the wind out of any sales on a name change for a while trying to be too cool for his own good.
Did you know that a fair amount of people die while straining to take a dump each year? It's something that shold be looked into.
But in all hosesty yes I think a discussion in renaming the adult memebership might be a good idea. I know HWSNBN wanted to change the term to "Officers" however with the attempts to reintroduce the Enlisted Program a new name should be used. I think something simple like "Adult members."
Let's just stick with officer...and stop (and eliminate) the effort to resart the NCO program.
Quote from: lordmonar on October 07, 2010, 05:38:44 PM
Let's just stick with officer...and stop (and eliminate) the effort to resart the NCO program.
((*sigh*))
(R) Not all members are officers, in fact there are at least 10 SMWOG who are unit CC's.
"Members" is fine, or "Adult Members".
Adult member conjures all sorts of interesting images...
We will have a meeting of adult members
Two adult members must be present at overnight cadet activities
Beughhh
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2010, 05:44:46 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 07, 2010, 05:38:44 PM
Let's just stick with officer...and stop (and eliminate) the effort to resart the NCO program.
((*sigh*))
(R) Not all members are officers, in fact there are at least 10 SMWOG who are unit CC's.
"Members" is fine, or "Adult Members".
Police Officers are called officers even if they're patrolmen or sergeants. They're still officers. Just because the military uses the term one way doesn't mean
we have to use it that way.
Quote from: Pylon on October 07, 2010, 06:30:31 PM
Police Officers are called officers even if they're patrolmen or sergeants. They're still officers. Just because the military uses the term one way doesn't mean we have to use it that way.
In our context it does, we are a paramilitary organization in which the term "officer" has a specific meaning, especially to 1/2 the corps.
A police cadet or trainee is nearly always also an adult, not so in CAP, nor do most police departments have a distinction of membership category based on age.
Seriously, is this worth the digits for another new thread? Just because some people have no clue is not a reason to change the system.
When a "Senior Pentagon Official" is quoted as a news source, do 1/2 the people reading it think the person is over 65.
We've all heard this argument for years and, we all come back to the use of "senior member". As far as I'm concerned, those of us who are not cadets should just be considered as a "CAP member". Cadets are "cadets".
Then again, as long as you don't call me "late for dinner", I don't cringe.... 8)
Seriously, isn't this is just an argument over semantics? I don't think we have an identity crisis. And, "outsiders" don't really care now, do they...
Im all for "Hey! yeah you, new guy."
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2010, 05:44:46 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 07, 2010, 05:38:44 PM
Let's just stick with officer...and stop (and eliminate) the effort to resart the NCO program.
((*sigh*))
(R) Not all members are officers, in fact there are at least 10 SMWOG who are unit CC's.
"Members" is fine, or "Adult Members".
Easy fix.....SMWOG's can't be commanders.
Eliminate the NCO's
Ignore the sponsor and patron members
Call SMWOG....Officer Canidates.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2010, 06:36:05 PM
Quote from: Pylon on October 07, 2010, 06:30:31 PM
Police Officers are called officers even if they're patrolmen or sergeants. They're still officers. Just because the military uses the term one way doesn't mean we have to use it that way.
In our context it does, we are a paramilitary organization in which the term "officer" has a specific meaning, especially to 1/2 the corps.
A police cadet or trainee is nearly always also an adult, not so in CAP, nor do most police departments have a distinction of membership category based on age.
Seriously, is this worth the digits for another new thread? Just because some people have no clue is not a reason to change the system.
When a "Senior Pentagon Official" is quoted as a news source, do 1/2 the people reading it think the person is over 65.
Well...in our parent services jargon....Airman (with a big A) is the term for all USAF members officer, NCO and enlisted.
So....your reasoning does not carry through.
We can have two distintions....Officers and Cadets. Simple and easy...Members will be used for everyone. "Adult Member" does not work because we have cadets who are also adults.
Being a family friendly organization we can't call em FNGs. So just call them NEWBIES (initialed NOOB for the ID) and move along. Of course that won't address Cadets who move over to the "senior" side, though FO is there.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2010, 06:36:05 PM
When a "Senior Pentagon Official" is quoted as a news source, do 1/2 the people reading it think the person is over 65.
A lot of senior pentagon officials *ARE* over 65
bwahahaha
Quote from: lordmonar on October 07, 2010, 07:04:35 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2010, 05:44:46 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 07, 2010, 05:38:44 PM
Let's just stick with officer...and stop (and eliminate) the effort to resart the NCO program.
((*sigh*))
(R) Not all members are officers, in fact there are at least 10 SMWOG who are unit CC's.
"Members" is fine, or "Adult Members".
Easy fix.....SMWOG's can't be commanders.
Eliminate the NCO's
Ignore the sponsor and patron members
Call SMWOG....Officer Canidates.
Again, where do I sign?
Here's a concept that I've started to discover works wonders in the Engineering field:
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
All that matters is that CAP, and Ma Blue knows what our internal schemes mean.
Nothing else matters.
To a point I agree with you.
But the subject of this thread is....maybe it is broke.
Internally and with MA Blue everything is find....but we have all seen confusion with our terms with the outside world.
So....just suppose for an few seconds...that our customers and our target audience are in fact confused with the term "Senior Member".
Changing it to something else "adult member", "Officer", "Old Fat Guys" may improve the communication and perceptions of those outside of CAP....and maybe it will help improve the relationship we have with outside agencies.
As others have stated......it's not really, really broke.......just as your car tire that is loosing a little air is not really flat.
So we either accept that we have to check the air and fill it up from time to time....or we can decide that it is time to just replace the [darn] thing and move on.
So...this discussion is about a)is the confusion our jargon causes worth fixing the problem and b) what sort of tire do we replace it if we decide to fix it.
If you don't think the topic is worth talking about....don't talk about it. :)
I'm all for changing terms for the sake of clarity. I don't really care if a term has a lot of history or sentimental value. In fact, when I do consulting, the things that make me cringe the most (and often results in justification of some of the most ridiculous/stupid things) include phrases like "that's the way we've always done it" and "well, it seems to work well enough for now".
If we can change "senior member" to "member" or "officer" or "insert just about anything here" and it results in a little more clarity, even a little better recruiting efficacy, or even just a little saved face in front of outside agencies or the media.
Just the same, if someone said that "Ground Team" is confusing or ambiguous and outside agencies would better understand what we were talking about if we changed the name, and it makes sense, I'd be all for it. Who cares how long we've used the term?
Quote from: lordmonar on October 07, 2010, 07:04:35 PM
Easy fix.....SMWOG's can't be commanders.
Eliminate the NCO's
Ignore the sponsor and patron members
Call SMWOG....Officer Canidates.
Non-concur.
My unit meets on an active air force base. We have:
O-6 members that do not want to be an O-5 in CAP, thus remaining as SM. Any one of them would make an excellent unit CC if they were so inclined, and if they don't want to regress to LTC, they
really won't want to be
Officer Candidates. We have professional NCO members who only want to be professional NCOs in CAP. Why throw them out with the bathwater?
The word "senior" being misinterpreted is just not a good reason to change. "Senior" is used all over the working world without misunderstanding. In my job, I interface with the Senior Director in the PACAF AMD. I also work with the TACC Senior Directors at Scott Air Force Base. As a contractor my boss was a Senior Program Manager, and we had Senior Logistics Analysts, Senior Intel Analysts, etc. Trust me, none of them need help in the bathroom. This is another non-issue.
Quote from: AirDX on October 07, 2010, 09:56:21 PMO-6 members that do not want to be an O-5 in CAP, thus remaining as SM.
They have a clear misunderstanding of CAP and are too hung up on their birds. Rather than garner the respect due their advanced grade, they just raise eyebrows as to why they have none? People are due what they are due, but anyone getting that hung up on the birds needs to get over themselves.
Any one of them would make an excellent unit CC if they were so inclined, and if they don't want to regress to LTC, they
really won't want to be
Officer Candidates.
Quote from: AirDX on October 07, 2010, 09:56:21 PM
We have professional NCO members who only want to be professional NCOs in CAP.
Doesn't exist in CAP, by duty or structure, another group with a misunderstanding of how CAP works.
Anything else?
Just "member" should be fine so long as all the other categories of membership are very well defined and that the regs make clear that the term "member" only applies to those other than cadets, patrons, AE members, and the other various categories.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 07, 2010, 10:22:22 PM
Just "member" should be fine so long as all the other categories of membership are very well defined and that the regs make clear that the term "member" only applies to those other than cadets, patrons, AE members, and the other various categories.
I've been using the term "adult leaders/leadership/mentoring", adult members and cadets (primarily teenagers) with the press. I've seen a few CAP members try to use "Officers" with the news media, with little success (because frankly the newspaper reporter, knew the difference between a "real" officer and a CAP adult member and made the adjustment).
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on October 07, 2010, 10:28:58 PM(because frankly the newspaper reporter, knew the difference between a "real" officer and a CAP adult member and made the adjustment).
Really? And what would that "difference" be?
"Officer" would work, both for officers with commissioned or flight officer grades, and for Non-Commissioned... OFFICERS.
Officers, Officers everywhere.
The USCG Aux doesn't have the cadet issue since it does not have a youth group.
However, all Auxies are members. Only members elected or appointed to an office are officers. It works for them.
^ Yes, but for the reason you noted, it won't work for us.
HWSNBN was the one who tried to get us all called "Officers"
I will never support a name change to that now.
Quote from: coudano on October 07, 2010, 07:20:03 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2010, 06:36:05 PM
When a "Senior Pentagon Official" is quoted as a news source, do 1/2 the people reading it think the person is over 65.
A lot of senior pentagon officials *ARE* over 65
bwahahaha
Really? A lot? Who might they be? Certainly not many of the generals. Retirement age for a 4-star runs from the early to mid-50s - commission at 22, +30 or so years of service.
Quote from: lordmonar on October 07, 2010, 07:04:35 PM
Easy fix.....SMWOG's can't be commanders.
Eliminate the NCO's
We have a SM in a very high position in CAP. In the Air Force, he was a Lieutenant General. Just because he is a SM doesn't mean he isn't involved or the like. He is in a rather influential position....
NCOs- that depends on the person. Some NCOs like the idea of staying what they were on AD. Others go the officer route and are very successful (NVC, anyone?).
Senior Members does sound olde, IMO. Plus, it's just not accurate in its description of the member.
Quote from: Krapenhoeffer on October 08, 2010, 01:14:52 AM
HWSNBN was the one who tried to get us all called "Officers"
I will never support a name change to that now.
Just because he was an horse's south end.....does not mean he was a complete idiot.
Rejecting a good idea just be cause HWSNBN suggested it is just plain dumb.
All those "real" officers who refuse to accept their proper rank.....are an INSULT to all other CAP officers.
It shows their contempt to our rank system....and therefore their contempt towards all who wear CAP rank.
End of rant.
I've seen and heard talk from (a very few) certain longtime SMs that they keep that rank because it is the only true CAP rank (other than FO, and that has age limits). Somewhere on here is where I saw it, actually.
I see the point lordmonar makes about those who simply hold CAP officer ranks in contempt, however. And I know this exists too, but that's a person problem. They'll stay like that..
That's all I'll add to this. Back to my lane now.
Quote from: SarDragon on October 08, 2010, 01:24:45 AM
Quote from: coudano on October 07, 2010, 07:20:03 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2010, 06:36:05 PM
When a "Senior Pentagon Official" is quoted as a news source, do 1/2 the people reading it think the person is over 65.
A lot of senior pentagon officials *ARE* over 65
bwahahaha
Really? A lot? Who might they be? Certainly not many of the generals. Retirement age for a 4-star runs from the early to mid-50s - commission at 22, +30 or so years of service.
yah i considered that some time after posting it,
i was mostly just being mouthy heh heh
though there are some 'elder statesmen' there, and they aren't all generals, or even "military" for that matter. maybe not over 65 though, but pretty darned close heh
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2010, 10:17:58 PM
They have a clear misunderstanding of CAP and are too hung up on their birds. Rather than garner the respect due their advanced grade, they just raise eyebrows as to why they have none? People are due what they are due, but anyone getting that hung up on the birds needs to get over themselves.
We have professional NCO members who only want to be professional NCOs in CAP.
Doesn't exist in CAP, by duty or structure, another group with a misunderstanding of how CAP works.
Anything else?
I think it's CAP that has a clear misunderstanding of people that have worked very hard for a long time to achieve what they have, only to be told "well, your real O-6 is about equal to a CAP O-5". That statement is a joke and a half.
Quote from: SarDragon on October 08, 2010, 01:24:45 AM
Quote from: coudano on October 07, 2010, 07:20:03 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2010, 06:36:05 PM
When a "Senior Pentagon Official" is quoted as a news source, do 1/2 the people reading it think the person is over 65.
A lot of senior pentagon officials *ARE* over 65
bwahahaha
Really? A lot? Who might they be? Certainly not many of the generals. Retirement age for a 4-star runs from the early to mid-50s - commission at 22, +30 or so years of service.
the 30 plus rule does not apply to general officers
Quote from: AirDX on October 08, 2010, 02:33:22 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2010, 10:17:58 PM
They have a clear misunderstanding of CAP and are too hung up on their birds. Rather than garner the respect due their advanced grade, they just raise eyebrows as to why they have none? People are due what they are due, but anyone getting that hung up on the birds needs to get over themselves.
We have professional NCO members who only want to be professional NCOs in CAP.
Doesn't exist in CAP, by duty or structure, another group with a misunderstanding of how CAP works.
Anything else?
I think it's CAP that has a clear misunderstanding of people that have worked very hard for a long time to achieve what they have, only to be told "well, your real O-6 is about equal to a CAP O-5". That statement is a joke and a half.
You are absoutley right....that's why I advocate eliminating advanced promotion. CAP rank is CAP rank and it does not matter what you were in a prior life.
Quote from: cap235629 on October 08, 2010, 02:37:33 AM
the 30 plus rule does not apply to general officers
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER III > § 635
Prev | Next
§ 635. Retirement for years of service: regular brigadier generals and rear admirals (lower half)
Except as provided under section 637 (b) of this title, each officer of the Regular Army, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps who holds the regular grade of brigadier general, and each officer of the Regular Navy who holds the regular grade of rear admiral (lower half), who is not on a list of officers recommended for promotion to the regular grade of major general or rear admiral, respectively, shall, if not earlier retired, be retired on the first day of the first month beginning after the date of the fifth anniversary of his appointment to that grade or on the first day of the month after the month in which he completes 30 years of active commissioned service, whichever is later.
§ 636. Retirement for years of service: regular officers in grades above brigadier general and rear admiral (lower half)
(a) Major Generals and Rear Admirals Serving in Grade.— Except as provided in subsection (b) or (c) and under section 637 (b) of this title, each officer of the Regular Army, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps who holds the regular grade of major general, and each officer of the Regular Navy who holds the regular grade of rear admiral, shall, if not earlier retired, be retired on the first day of the first month beginning after the date of the fifth anniversary of his appointment to that grade or on the first day of the month after the month in which he completes 35 years of active commissioned service, whichever is later.
(b) Lieutenant Generals and Vice Admirals.— In the administration of subsection (a) in the case of an officer who is serving in the grade of lieutenant general or vice admiral, the number of years of active commissioned service applicable to the officer is 38 years.
(c) Generals and Admirals.— In the administration of subsection (a) in the case of an officer who is serving in the grade of general or admiral, the number of years of active commissioned service applicable to the officer is 40 years.
Yah but you can start your commissioned service as late as 40 years of age in some cases.
40might be a little ridic to make gen, but 30 seems reasonable
Quote from: AirDX on October 08, 2010, 02:33:22 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2010, 10:17:58 PM
They have a clear misunderstanding of CAP and are too hung up on their birds. Rather than garner the respect due their advanced grade, they just raise eyebrows as to why they have none? People are due what they are due, but anyone getting that hung up on the birds needs to get over themselves.
We have professional NCO members who only want to be professional NCOs in CAP.
Doesn't exist in CAP, by duty or structure, another group with a misunderstanding of how CAP works.
Anything else?
I think it's CAP that has a clear misunderstanding of people that have worked very hard for a long time to achieve what they have, only to be told "well, your real O-6 is about equal to a CAP O-5". That statement is a joke and a half.
CAP understands CAP just fine. So does the Air Force.
Members who are colonels and above are (or were members of) the senior leadership and management of CAP.
It is not a slight to those military officers who are colonels/naval captains that they cannot be appointed to those ranks in CAP.
These ranks (colonel, general officers) are earned by (and restricted to those) members who are chosen to serve as wing and region commanders, or serve on sleected positions on the national staff and as region vice commanders.
This decision was made a long time ago by CAP and the USAF. It seems to work well for us.
I personally know about a dozen members who hold the rank of Colonel in the military and serve in CAP as Lt Col's. They are happy contributing members who are not hung up on rank. I do smile when I see them at events like a wing conference when they suit up in military mess dress with their eagles.
At least we do not have the grade inflation issues that the military has.
The term "officers" is not dumb because HWSNBN advocated it...
HWSNBN advocated it because he was a wannabee. Most of the things he suggested screamed of wannabee.
Deciding on calling SMs "Officers" was his decision based on that he thought he was a real General in the "USCAP".
I would be fine with the title Corporate Officer, or Corporate Member... So long as it can't be construed by somebody with half a brain that the title = RealMilitaryTM Officer.
Well, I don't see the word "corporate" flying anywhere in it ever because "corporate officer" is what your Wing CC is, that implies signatory authority in the real/business/legal world.
Quote from: SarDragon on October 08, 2010, 03:13:00 AM
Quote from: cap235629 on October 08, 2010, 02:37:33 AM
the 30 plus rule does not apply to general officers
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER III > § 635
Prev | Next
§ 635.
[~snip~]
10 U.S.C. § 637 :
(3) Any deferral of retirement and continuation on active duty
under this subsection shall be for a period not to exceed five
years, but such period may not (except as provided under section
1251(b) of this title) extend beyond the date of the officer's
sixty-second birthday.
62 is the be all and end all age.
Which goes right along with the 40 years of commissioned service.
Quote from: Krapenhoeffer on October 08, 2010, 04:28:55 AM
The term "officers" is not dumb because HWSNBN advocated it...
HWSNBN advocated it because he was a wannabee. Most of the things he suggested screamed of wannabee.
Deciding on calling SMs "Officers" was his decision based on that he thought he was a real General in the "USCAP".
I would be fine with the title Corporate Officer, or Corporate Member... So long as it can't be construed by somebody with half a brain that the title = RealMilitaryTM Officer.
CAP is a paramilitary organization and the rank structure is approved by the USAF. When I run a mission, I do the same job that a USAF officer would have to do if CAP was not there. I soldiered for my rank up to major, and I earned the promotion to lieutenant colonel. Don't call me a wannabe.
Quote from: AirDX on October 08, 2010, 02:33:22 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2010, 10:17:58 PM
They have a clear misunderstanding of CAP and are too hung up on their birds. Rather than garner the respect due their advanced grade, they just raise eyebrows as to why they have none? People are due what they are due, but anyone getting that hung up on the birds needs to get over themselves.
We have professional NCO members who only want to be professional NCOs in CAP.
Doesn't exist in CAP, by duty or structure, another group with a misunderstanding of how CAP works.
Anything else?
I think it's CAP that has a clear misunderstanding of people that have worked very hard for a long time to achieve what they have, only to be told "well, your real O-6 is about equal to a CAP O-5". That statement is a joke and a half.
If a colonel is being told "well, your real O-6 is about equal to a CAP O-5", then the problem we have is with the messenger providing the wrong message.
CAP is not the military and the military is not CAP. There are many similarities but there are many more differences.
I JUST had this situation... a USAF-retired colonel joining, and I had to tell him the bad news. He fully understood, since he had already looked into it. At the upper rank levels of the USAF, most USAF types know more about CAP than some of our own members. They learn about CAP in their PME.
Quote from: AirDX on October 08, 2010, 02:33:22 AM
Quote from: Eclipse on October 07, 2010, 10:17:58 PM
They have a clear misunderstanding of CAP and are too hung up on their birds. Rather than garner the respect due their advanced grade, they just raise eyebrows as to why they have none? People are due what they are due, but anyone getting that hung up on the birds needs to get over themselves.
We have professional NCO members who only want to be professional NCOs in CAP.
Doesn't exist in CAP, by duty or structure, another group with a misunderstanding of how CAP works.
Anything else?
I think it's CAP that has a clear misunderstanding of people that have worked very hard for a long time to achieve what they have, only to be told "well, your real O-6 is about equal to a CAP O-5". That statement is a joke and a half.
More fundamental misunderstanding.
O-6 from the USAF doesn't "equal" anything in CAP, anymore than it equals something in a Police Department, The Red Cross, or a corporation. Respect for the service and valuable management experience are not what we are discussing here, and as a matter of information, it is not uncommon for military officers to accept a temporary lower grade when transferring services because a billet for their existing grade is not open. This is especially common in regards to the Guard, Reserves, or as said, when moving between services. If eligible, they get they higher grade back for retirement, but while they are in the different service, they might be a click or two lower.
I think an AF O-6 who comes into CAP should be paid the same salary in CAP as every other CAP Colonel is paid.
Who's with me? ;D
I address the issue during presentation like this:
For adults we have several categories of membership - patron, AEM, CSM, Senior. I proceed to explain each and end by saying the Senior Member has nothing to do with age, but rather that they are the highest category in the adult program, similar to senior management.
Quote from: arajca on October 08, 2010, 01:53:19 PM
I address the issue during presentation like this:
For adults we have several categories of membership - patron, AEM, CSM, Senior. I proceed to explain each and end by saying the Senior Member has nothing to do with age, but rather that they are the highest category in the adult program, similar to senior management.
So... why is your "Senior Member" in fact junior to your lowest-ranking officers? They are actually even junior to your lowest ranking NCO's, if you have any. How can he be similar to a senior manager, when there are no managers junior to him? Now I'm REALLY confused.
How about calling ALL adult members of CAP "Officers," with the newbies holding the rank of Officer Without Grade (OWG).
That's better than SMWOG. I always thought that acronym sounded like something out of Tolkien. And the SMWOG led a horde of orcs against the elves.
Auxiliarist. >:D
Quote from: MIKE on October 08, 2010, 03:51:16 PM
Auxiliarist. >:D
Love it! Except when we're Aux Off = Corporatists. 8)
I just fail to see why the sudden pressing need to change this, and fail to see how changing Senior Member to Officer is suddenly going to make O-6s happy.
We have several classes of members,
Cadet Members,
Aerospace Education Members,
Cadet Sponsor Members,
Congressional Members,
Patron Members,
and the ones running the show, and making things happen for all the other members...
Senior Members. It makes sense. No need to go breaking lots of things, to fix something very tiny.
Considering that CAP is a Corporation, the logic of the system makes perfect sense.
While we are at it....we need to dump "Senior Squadron". I've had the same problem as Kack. I've had folks tell me they didn't contact a senior squadron to join as they thought it was for those over 65. They joined a composite squadron because they believed that was all they could join. (Not knocking composite squadrons in any way).
The misperception by the PUBLIC is a problem for recruiting, public relations and the like. I would like to see senior squardon replaced with .....squadron. Plain and simple. Instead of Senior Squadron 40 or Podunk Senior Squadron 40 it would be Squdron 40 or 40th Squadron.
Discuss...
I've abandoned the term completely when talking to people that aren't members.
I just tell them that I'm in CAP's adult program. Even our national webpage has a section for "CAP Adults." I also find that using "adult program" implies that we have a "youth program" as well.
Quote from: Krapenhoeffer on October 08, 2010, 07:20:26 PM
I just fail to see why the sudden pressing need to change this, and fail to see how changing Senior Member to Officer is suddenly going to make O-6s happy.
We have several classes of members,
Cadet Members,
Aerospace Education Members,
Cadet Sponsor Members,
Congressional Members,
Patron Members,
and the ones running the show, and making things happen for all the other members...
Senior Members. It makes sense. No need to go breaking lots of things, to fix something very tiny.
Considering that CAP is a Corporation, the logic of the system makes perfect sense.
Perhaps you should read the thread before you comment. The issue of full colonels was peripheral to the discussion. And the term "Senior Member" makes even LESS sense in a corporation.
Quote from: Smokey on October 08, 2010, 10:39:44 PM
While we are at it....we need to dump "Senior Squadron". I've had the same problem as Kack. I've had folks tell me they didn't contact a senior squadron to join as they thought it was for those over 65. They joined a composite squadron because they believed that was all they could join. (Not knocking composite squadrons in any way).
The misperception by the PUBLIC is a problem for recruiting, public relations and the like. I would like to see senior squardon replaced with .....squadron. Plain and simple. Instead of Senior Squadron 40 or Podunk Senior Squadron 40 it would be Squdron 40 or 40th Squadron.
Discuss...
Yes, Iand I call our unit the 122nd Civil Air Patrol Squadron. I don't use the term "Senior." I live in Florida. There's a lot of meaning attached to "Senior" here, mostly involving a discount on breakfast at Denny's.
One of the requirements for membership in CAP is to be a citizen of the United States. So when a cadet turns 21 and moves to the dark side does he become a Senior Citizen?
Quote from: BillB on October 09, 2010, 12:18:20 AM
One of the requirements for membership in CAP is to be a citizen of the United States.
No, it isn't.
Quote from: BillB on October 09, 2010, 12:18:20 AM
One of the requirements for membership in CAP is to be a citizen of the United States. So when a cadet turns 21 and moves to the dark side does he become a Senior Citizen?
Nope, I speak from experience on this one, you need to be a Citizen, a Lawful Permanent Resident (ie. a Green Card holder) or be in some lawful status (me, I'm an L-1) and receive a waiver.