Main Menu

Rank structure question

Started by Nikos, June 02, 2014, 11:33:12 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Panache

Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on June 05, 2014, 02:39:48 PM
So, you're proposing "Cadet Sponsor Member Plus." Or "active member light."

Most CSMs I've met were happy as CSMs. They didn't need USAF type uniforms, weren't interested in the rest of it. Those who became interested in more participation bit the bullet and participated as active members. I'm not sure that CSM Plus or active light would have been of much interest or served any real purpose.

I guess you're right.  We can just continue doing what we're doing because it seems to be working so well at recruiting people, so there's no need to change.

Ned

Hmmmm.  We have over a dozen membership categories already.


  • Cadet
  • Senior - Active
  • Senior - Patron
  • Senior - Retired
  • Cadet Sponsor
  • AEM - Student
  • AEM - Organization
  • Business Members
  • Affiliate Members
  • State Legislative Members
  • Congressional Members
  • Honorary
  • Life
  • 50 Year


But that's probably not enough categories for an organization our size.

Let's add another.

SARDOC

Quote from: JeffDG on June 03, 2014, 06:46:52 PM
Quote from: CyBorg on June 03, 2014, 04:58:08 PM
I imagine, and hope, that there are much less politics with enlisted/NCO promotions in CAP than there are with officers.
From what I've seen of the NCO program, you imagine wrong.  Not only will you need approval of higher echelons to progress through the NCO program, you will need to be appointed to one of the numerically limited duty assignment slots in order to promote.

Agreed, For what I saw of the draft, it's easier to make Lieutenant Colonel than it is for CMSgt.

The CyBorg is destroyed

My ex-brother-in-law tried repeatedly to make E-7/SFC in the Army.  He never did.
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

Mitchell 1969

Quote from: Panache on June 05, 2014, 05:03:06 PM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on June 05, 2014, 02:39:48 PM
So, you're proposing "Cadet Sponsor Member Plus." Or "active member light."

Most CSMs I've met were happy as CSMs. They didn't need USAF type uniforms, weren't interested in the rest of it. Those who became interested in more participation bit the bullet and participated as active members. I'm not sure that CSM Plus or active light would have been of much interest or served any real purpose.

I guess you're right.  We can just continue doing what we're doing because it seems to be working so well at recruiting people, so there's no need to change.

You will never convince me that targeting potential CSMs (or the proposed "CSM Plus") is the answer to CAP recruiting needs.  Face it - most CSMs are in to support their kids being in a youth program.  Kid leaves, they leave.  If, by chance, they become interested in becoming full participants in CAP. then they will be full participants and won't need a "CSM Plus" program.
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.

Eclipse

Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on June 06, 2014, 09:58:21 PM
You will never convince me that targeting potential CSMs (or the proposed "CSM Plus") is the answer to CAP recruiting needs.  Face it - most CSMs are in to support their kids being in a youth program.  Kid leaves, they leave.  If, by chance, they become interested in becoming full participants in CAP. then they will be full participants and won't need a "CSM Plus" program.

+1 - We need more full members, not more excuses why people don't have to fully participate.

"That Others May Zoom"

Panache

Quote from: Eclipse on June 06, 2014, 10:23:45 PM
Quote from: Mitchell 1969 on June 06, 2014, 09:58:21 PM
You will never convince me that targeting potential CSMs (or the proposed "CSM Plus") is the answer to CAP recruiting needs.  Face it - most CSMs are in to support their kids being in a youth program.  Kid leaves, they leave.  If, by chance, they become interested in becoming full participants in CAP. then they will be full participants and won't need a "CSM Plus" program.

+1 - We need more full members, not more excuses why people don't have to fully participate.

So, I guess in CAP world, a person who isn't a member is more desirable than a member that does not fully participate.

Huh.  0 > 1.  Must be that new Common Core math.

The CyBorg is destroyed

I was never any good at math; one of the most loathsome subjects I had to endure in school.

CAP is laden with "funny math."

Some squadrons like to be laden with members-on-paper who never show up, just to give the impression that they're bigger than they really are, whereas others are more of a "contribute or out."

Exiled from GLR-MI-011

Eclipse

Quote from: Panache on June 07, 2014, 04:09:46 AM
So, I guess in CAP world, a person who isn't a member is more desirable than a member that does not fully participate.

Huh.  0 > 1.  Must be that new Common Core math.

Your reasoning sounds exactly like "common core math".  For starters, it's not a "zero sum game".
Partial-members have value, but their value increases inverse to the number of full members, to the point where a unit with enough full members doesn't need partials.

However, in a less exact world, a non-member has the potential to be more valuable then a
partial member, and certainly is equal to an empty shirt (beyond financial support).

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

That just made my head hurt.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

ColonelJack

Quote from: Eclipse on June 07, 2014, 05:15:59 PM
Your reasoning sounds exactly like "common core math".  For starters, it's not a "zero sum game".
Partial-members have value, but their value increases inverse to the number of full members, to the point where a unit with enough full members doesn't need partials.

However, in a less exact world, a non-member has the potential to be more valuable then a
partial member, and certainly is equal to an empty shirt (beyond financial support).

Would you mind going over that one more time ... in English, please?   ;D

Jack
Jack Bagley, Ed. D.
Lt. Col., CAP (now inactive)
Gill Robb Wilson Award No. 1366, 29 Nov 1991
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
Honorary Admiral, Navy of the Republic of Molossia

Shuman 14

Quote from: Eclipse on June 07, 2014, 05:15:59 PM
Quote from: Panache on June 07, 2014, 04:09:46 AM
So, I guess in CAP world, a person who isn't a member is more desirable than a member that does not fully participate.

Huh.  0 > 1.  Must be that new Common Core math.

Your reasoning sounds exactly like "common core math".  For starters, it's not a "zero sum game".
Partial-members have value, but their value increases inverse to the number of full members, to the point where a unit with enough full members doesn't need partials.

However, in a less exact world, a non-member has the potential to be more valuable then a
partial member, and certainly is equal to an empty shirt (beyond financial support).

Translation.... If your check clears the bank.  ;)
Joseph J. Clune
Lieutenant Colonel, Military Police

USMCR: 1990 - 1992                           USAR: 1993 - 1998, 2000 - 2003, 2005 - Present     CAP: 2013 - 2014, 2021 - Present
INARNG: 1992 - 1993, 1998 - 2000      Active Army: 2003 - 2005                                       USCGAux: 2004 - Present

MacGruff

Quote from: ColonelJack on June 07, 2014, 06:27:45 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on June 07, 2014, 05:15:59 PM
Your reasoning sounds exactly like "common core math".  For starters, it's not a "zero sum game".
Partial-members have value, but their value increases inverse to the number of full members, to the point where a unit with enough full members doesn't need partials.

However, in a less exact world, a non-member has the potential to be more valuable then a
partial member, and certainly is equal to an empty shirt (beyond financial support).

Would you mind going over that one more time ... in English, please?   ;D

Jack

Eclipse chose an odd sentence structure, but once you parse it, the logic is correct.

If you have a squadron with a slew of Active Senior Members who fall into the "empty shirt" category, and you also have Cadet Sponsor Members, the latter can carry the weight of the non-contributing Seniors. However, the more really active Senior Members you have who pull their own weight, the less you really need the Cadet Sponsor Members - although I suggest you NEVER turn them away!

In his second statement, he points out that an interested outsider has the POTENTIAL to become a larger contributor than a member who is dormant (with the financial exception mentioned_.

See? Clear as daylight!!!    >:D

Luis R. Ramos

As rainy daylight or sunny daylight...?   :P
Squadron Safety Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer

lordmonar

Take all the potential out there and put it one hand.... >:D

First off.....I hate the term empty shirt.   Unless we define it better.

The only thing I use to judge a CAP SM member is how much does he contribute to the mission vs how much butt pain he makes me go through to get that work done.

So I got people in my squadron that I have never seen.   The pay their dues, keep safety current and say they are there if I need them.   I get zero out of them (as I don't call them), I get some money out of them,  but it costs me nothing to maintain them on the books.

So. I got other people who I see maybe once a quarter.  They come in do their thing (such as Comm Training) and jet out again.   Sometimes they don't keep safety current, sometimes they cost me a few phone calls and e-mails.

Sometimes I go a guy (usually a cadet) who has just dropped off the face of the earth.   Costs me nothing to keep him on the books.

Sometimes I got a guy who shows up every meeting, who wants to be there for every sarex and wants to active in everything we do.  But he can't work with others, can't do the job effectively, can't or won't learn.  "Back in my cadet days we just did it like this".

I would love to have an empty shirt instead of one of these guys.

The only.....THE ONLY guy I can't stand in CAP....is the guy who says "Oh don't worry I got this.....I'll be there." and fails to come through.   That is the one thing I say to any potential senior member....I don't care how much or how little you do....but if you commit to XYZ....I really really need you to XYZ.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

That's great for your micro view of the universe - you know the status of the CAPIDS so you can manage properly.

It's different at the macro level where CAP uses raw, non-normalized membership numbers for everything from funding requests to
operational readiness reporting, not to mention patting itself on the back.

How can you manage a group of people who have no expectation of performance and no ramifications of absence?

Patron members should not even be on the books, certainly not below the wing level - run their files through a scanner and transfer them to
NHQ-000.

As for the other vacant tunics, we need to set expectations - start with safety currency - a waste of time from a safety perspective,
but indicative of participation.

Drop off safety?  Even once, for any reason? The member goes into sub-active status, can't access anything in eservices
except safety education, and is removed from being counted for anything.

3 months?  Probationary membership which requires a commander's approval to put on indefinite hold.

6 months with no indefinite hold?  NHQ-000.

The uninhabited smocks become no one's problem in 6 months, CAP still gets the checks.

Done.

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

So the problem is how does big cap manage empty shirts at the squadron level

And your answer is to add more admin at the squadron level

Why not leave them alone and let the squadron deal with them as the feel like they need to.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Eclipse

#57
Quote from: lordmonar on June 09, 2014, 03:03:24 AM
So the problem is how does big cap manage empty shirts at the squadron level

And your answer is to add more admin at the squadron level

My suggestion removes them from the squadron level, and thus eliminates hassles for the Unit CC.
It's all automatic, requires no intervention, other then dealing with the records once they exceed the 6 months.
Units should be working on digitizing their personnel records anyway, but if that's too much trouble,
just send it to NHQ, or Wing, anything that removes them from the Unit and being counted.

Quote from: lordmonar on June 09, 2014, 03:03:24 AMWhy not leave them alone and let the squadron deal with them as the feel like they need to.

That's what we have today, and it's not working.

They are still unabashedly counted in many member reports without any caveat or asterisk, and many who are inherited
are ignored and passed on to the "next guy" for years if not decades.  Some unit CC's actually cultivate these hollow
blouses from other squadrons in an effort to pad their rolls.

If you're a CC, and you can say "...no idea who that guy is..." after you've had time to get situated, you're doing it wrong.

I continue to assert that if our >real< membership situation were more publicly and easily available, we'd see a lot
more action on this front, included, possibly, some pressure from CAP-USAF (though probably not).  Even the
most recent comments by Ned about how our membership numbers are "essentially static" indicates an undeserved
comfort with the status quo.

Accurate statistics have a way of shining light on things that assumptions and obfuscation can hide.
Remove the deserted doublets from the roles in a meaningful was and things might start happening.
This could literally be a 20% reduction in membership numbers overnight, and that's just based on the 000 numbers.

"That Others May Zoom"

lordmonar

What is not working?

I got plenty of No Shows.....costs us nothing.

WHERE IS THE PROBLEM?

Accurate Statistics?   
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

a2capt

The ones that don't keep safety current, or do any of the other "required" things that comes along..

..and then you've got the Wing CC sending out nagging emails saying that Group/Unit/Whatever requirements/currency is lagging and is unacceptable. So, you push non-participants to patron, and get dead weight off your roster.