A Song of Work and Time

[Eclipse]

You have 100% access to your money and the WBP has zero say how you spend it.  If anything is
different and you feel it is in violation of the program file a complaint. Experience has shown
that CC's and local finance people with unti credit cards or a checkbook in their physical hands
can lead to all sorts of "badness".  Like most things in CAP, bad actors brought us to where we are today.

You also don't >need< to know if you want to want to spend $250 on a BBQ next June.  If things change,
amend the budget, or simply put in the request, again, the WBP has no say over how you spend your money.
They may try and insinuate they do, but they don't BTDT.

No similar organization expects anything less - my wife is the Finance Chair for the scout troop - the money
is held more locally, but there's still the same committees and approvals needed.

[Eclipse]

Back to the OP's point.

The fix for every problem CAP has today is MORE PEOPLE.

Period.

Not money, not planes, not uniforms...people.

More people = more time, more hands and more contacts.

Get more people and everything else falls into place.

So simple, yet seemingly lost on NHQ.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Lost on many units as well. Recruiting is simply not a priority....at any level.

[RiverAux]

I could argue the time spent on a non-profit board is a much more efficient use of my time & leadership.  My CAP-time is 90% compliance work (file the form properly & timely) whereas my non-profit board member time is 90% thinking about strategy execution & efficient management.

Sort of an apples and oranges comparison.  Being a board member isn't equivalent to being a squadron commander.  Trying comparing how much time the Executive Director of your non-profit spends on their work vs a CAP squadron commander and I bet a lot of the issues and time requirements are similar. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

There are some people for whom CAP=LIFE=CAP.

Many of these (not all) are retirees/empty-nesters who can afford (financially and time-wise) to be at every mission, every training activity, every SUI (though I believe the SUI concept has merit, I believe that it is taken WAY too far to the Nth Degree) to do that.  I say "more power to them," except for the ones who openly try to use their involvement for sucking up political advancement.

However, most of us, for work/health/family/personal reasons, cannot give that kind of commitment.

[Eclipse]

There are some people for whom CAP=LIFE=CAP.

Many of these (not all) are retirees/empty-nesters who can afford (financially and time-wise) to be at every mission, every training activity, every SUI (though I believe the SUI concept has merit, I believe that it is taken WAY too far to the Nth Degree) to do that.  I say "more power to them," except for the ones who openly try to use their involvement for sucking up political advancement.

However, most of us, for work/health/family/personal reasons, cannot give that kind of commitment.

So...then we just don't do what needs to be done, and/or resent the people who do put in mondo hours?

I don't understand these responses - everyone contributes as they can, that's the nature of CAP, but
just because you have a restriction, whether physical, work related, family issues, whatever, that precludes
you from either putting in "more" or putting in "what you'd like" doesn't mean you should get defensive
about what you >can< do.

It doesn't matter, even a little, to the workload why a given person is or isn't engaged, it either gets done
or it doesn't, and when it doesn't, the pile is still there, left for someone else, usually the CC.

This calls back to the "more people" broken record.  If CAP units were properly manned and staffed,
and we could pry the dead fingers off some delegation by poor managers, we would not be having these conversations.

1 person working 40 hours a week on CAP is not the same as 40 people working 1 - because those 40 people will
all have "more" left, while that one person's cup is likely empty.

Unless they >want< to, no one should feel that their decision to participate in one area detracts from the
efficacy of another area.  Any time that happens, the "more people" issue is staring you in the face.

[raivo]

Well, having more people helps, but in my view that's more of a "band-aid" fix on the root problem of generating too much unnecessary work for people. Because (and this happens in the RM, and in the corporate world as well) the "higher-ups" look down and see a bunch of units that are getting everything done that they're required to... and don't think it'll be too much of a burden to add a little extra regulation here, or a few more "compliance" items there. And eventually it gets to the point where people start punching out because the "queep" has slowly but gradually crept up to the point that it's taking up so much time that it's just not worth dealing with.

Point in case: I took about a year and a half off from CAP, and while I was gone the concept of "safety currency" was introduced. Due to my work schedule, I ended up missing the meeting with the monthly safety briefing, then the next month got "restricted" from participating in the meeting until I went and did a safety module online. In what universe does it make sense that I, as a responsible adult (who happens to be a military officer who routinely has custody of nuclear weapons) am too dangerous to participate in CAP activities until I've taken a ten-question test on how to use a fire extinguisher? Now that's a fairly minor timesink, but that's the kind of thing that adds up over time.

So...then we just don't do what needs to be done, and/or resent the people who do put in mondo hours?

I don't understand these responses - everyone contributes as they can, that's the nature of CAP, but
just because you have a restriction, whether physical, work related, family issues, whatever, that precludes
you from either putting in "more" or putting in "what you'd like" doesn't mean you should get defensive
about what you >can< do.

It doesn't matter, even a little, to the workload why a given person is or isn't engaged, it either gets done
or it doesn't, and when it doesn't, the pile is still there, left for someone else, usually the CC.

This calls back to the "more people" broken record.  If CAP units were properly manned and staffed,
and we could pry the dead fingers off some delegation by poor managers, we would not be having these conversations.

So that's where I respectfully disagree - I don't think more people is the long-term answer to the workload, I think we should be looking at the workload and tossing out the things that are unnecessary.

[Eclipse]

So that's where I respectfully disagree - I don't think more people is the long-term answer to the workload, I think we should be looking at the workload and tossing out the things that are unnecessary.

So you would argue that CAP, on the average, is appropriately manned and staffed?

[raivo]

No, but I think if you solve the "queep" problem, then that will also solve (or alleviate) the retention problem.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

So...then we just don't do what needs to be done, and/or resent the people who do put in mondo hours?

I am not suggesting resentment of anyone, unless it is of people within CAP who are shameless, self-promoting (in every sense of the word) operatives of the GOB/GN.

As I said, some of the people who are able/willing to put in those kind of hours are often people with very few other commitments in life - I used retirees and empty-nesters as a couple of examples.  I personally know one who is a Lieutenant Colonel, well-known at Group, Wing and Region level, the recipient of many well-deserved commendations and accolades, and who is one of the most ethical people I can think of.  This person would never try to ingratiate with any GOB/GN.  Said person is also divorced, with grown children and I think may be self-employed.  This Lt Col is at virtually EVERY CAP activity.  I have no resentment toward this person at all, nor to the many others like this one who put in such time in CAP - because they are able to.

I don't understand these responses - everyone contributes as they can, that's the nature of CAP, but just because you have a restriction, whether physical, work related, family issues, whatever, that precludes you from either putting in "more" or putting in "what you'd like" doesn't mean you should get defensive about what you >can< do.

No, but what I do tend to get a bit defensive about are those "shameless self-promoters" I mentioned who do try to belittle what others do to make themselves look "better."  However, you find those types of jerks in virtually any walk of life, whether employment or volunteer...the "Eddie Haskell" type.

It doesn't matter, even a little, to the workload why a given person is or isn't engaged, it either gets done or it doesn't, and when it doesn't, the pile is still there, left for someone else, usually the CC.

This calls back to the "more people" broken record.  If CAP units were properly manned and staffed,
and we could pry the dead fingers off some delegation by poor managers, we would not be having these conversations.

I think the answer, if there is one, is somewhere in the middle.

We do need more engaged-in-the-task people, but I think virtually any volunteer organisation would say that.

However, there is also a lot of "administrivia" (and I speak with experience, as I have a Master rating in Administration) that could be reduced, and a lot of positions that could be combined, because there is a lot of overlap.