Main Menu

Active vs Inactive Members

Started by lordmonar, January 05, 2007, 11:14:03 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lordmonar

The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether we need to make a distinction between active and inactive members.

My first thoughts on this are:

1.  How do we define active and inactive.

2.  What standard do we use to draw the line between the too.

3.  What actions should we do if a member goes into inactive status.

4.  Should we report our inactive member status up the the chain (as DNall asked in another thread, in E-Services).

IMHO, there is some value in reporting our membership status just so wing and national knows how many mission ready and available members we have so they can plan operations, allocate resources and to send assistance to shore up units that have a bad acitve/inactive ratio.

We should not do it punitivly...if a unit has too many inactive personnel, wing takes away their plane(s).  This would lead to lying on the reports, there would be no benifit for the squadron to accuratly report their member status.

We also have the problem of what exactly is inactive.  If a member does not show up for six months because he is in the hospitol or away at college or deployed to the desert, they are inactive...but have valid excuses.  Also if we have a guy who is just rank and file shows up for the monthly safety meeting and SAREX type of guy...is he inactive as opposed to a staff member who misses the same number of meetings.  The "I'm just a Pilot" (IJP) member is not really inactive but the unit staff member (USM) is because they are affecting their jobs in the unit.

Also what about those members who are Patron Members?  As a cadet squadron commander I don't really care about them unless it is time to drive cadets on a field trip or during a fund rasier or special activity.  So when they don't come to a meeting for 3 months are they inactive?

Just my thoughts on this subject.

I can see the value of accurate reporting in some cases...but I would have no idea how to we would create a system that would fit all the different scenerios that we have given the differences between all the squadrons we have in CAP.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

MIKE

I think it's already defined, it's just not utilized.

Quote from: CAPR 39-23-1. a. Active Member. A member who regularly attends meetings, performs a specific duty assignment, meets training requirements, and participates in the activities of his or her unit. An active member may wear the CAP uniform and compete for grade advancement (see CAPR 35-1, Assignment and Duty Status).
b. Patron Member. A patron member is a financial supporter who maintains current membership through payment of annual membership dues and participates in a limited capacity as outlined below. ...
Mike Johnston

flyguy06

Yes, but what do youcall members that pay their dues as active members but never come to meetings or participate in activities?

MIKE

Units should transfer these members to Patron status.  I would consider it a courtesy... It usually costs a little less per year and you can always transfer back when you become Active again.
Mike Johnston

lordmonar

Quote from: MIKE on January 06, 2007, 12:24:07 AM
I think it's already defined, it's just not utilized.

Quote from: CAPR 39-23-1. a. Active Member. A member who regularly attends meetings, performs a specific duty assignment, meets training requirements, and participates in the activities of his or her unit. An active member may wear the CAP uniform and compete for grade advancement (see CAPR 35-1, Assignment and Duty Status).
b. Patron Member. A patron member is a financial supporter who maintains current membership through payment of annual membership dues and participates in a limited capacity as outlined below. ...

I know that definition exists...what I want to discuss is what is the definition of "regularly attents meetins"..."performs a specfic duty assignment"..."Meet training requirments" and "participates"

I mean...Christmas comes around pretty regularly...so does Halley's Comet.....is that regular enought for a member to be considered active. 

"Performs a specific duty assignment" means what exactly?  Do all those members who show up every week for the meeting but just sit back take notes and go home, who have no "job" not qualifity as "perform a specifi duty"?

Meet training requirments.....what training requirments?  Is there in fact ANY requirment to do any training?  You can argue that Level is required....but is level II required?

And finally what does "participate" mean?

What I am looking at, is drawing some more specific guidelines about these definitions.

Does attending meetings regularly mean 1 meeting out of 4?  What if you squadron only meets every other week or once a month?  Is that 1 out of 4 rate acceptable then?

That is what I would like to discuss.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

SarDragon

Quote from: MIKE on January 06, 2007, 12:57:14 AM
Units should transfer these members to Patron status.  I would consider it a courtesy... It usually costs a little less per year and you can always transfer back when you become Active again.

Patron members only pay national dues, so the wing and region do not benefit. I'd rather leave them in a regular member status and spread the wealth around. We're certainly not getting complaints from the 1/3 of my unit that pays but doesn't play.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

sdcadet

Quote from: MIKE on January 06, 2007, 12:24:07 AM
I think it's already defined, it's just not utilized.

Quote from: CAPR 39-23-1. a. Active Member. A member who regularly attends meetings, performs a specific duty assignment, meets training requirements, and participates in the activities of his or her unit. An active member may wear the CAP uniform and compete for grade advancement (see CAPR 35-1, Assignment and Duty Status).
b. Patron Member. A patron member is a financial supporter who maintains current membership through payment of annual membership dues and participates in a limited capacity as outlined below. ...

Yes, but how many meetings, and activities does a cadet have to attend in order to be considered active?

SarDragon

Quote from: sdcadet on January 06, 2007, 02:47:29 AM
Quote from: MIKE on January 06, 2007, 12:24:07 AM
I think it's already defined, it's just not utilized.

Quote from: CAPR 39-23-1. a. Active Member. A member who regularly attends meetings, performs a specific duty assignment, meets training requirements, and participates in the activities of his or her unit. An active member may wear the CAP uniform and compete for grade advancement (see CAPR 35-1, Assignment and Duty Status).
b. Patron Member. A patron member is a financial supporter who maintains current membership through payment of annual membership dues and participates in a limited capacity as outlined below. ...

Yes, but how many meetings, and activities does a cadet have to attend in order to be considered active?

Enough to make satisfactory progress IAW 52-16?
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

MIKE

Quote from: sdcadet on January 06, 2007, 02:47:29 AM
Yes, but how many meetings, and activities does a cadet have to attend in order to be considered active?

Well... you can get kicked out if you miss three regular meetings in a row.

Quote from: CAPR 35-3Sec. A. (3) c. Lack of interest demonstrated by failure to attend three
successive regular meetings without an acceptable excuse.
Mike Johnston

sdcadet

#9
Quote from: MIKE on January 06, 2007, 02:58:15 AM
Well... you can get kicked out if you miss three regular meetings in a row.

Does that mean that if a cadet misses 3 meetings in a row that they then are kicked out, or does that just mean that the squadron commander has the ability to do so at that point?

Tags - MIKE

MIKE

Mike Johnston

Eclipse

Quote from: flyguy06 on January 06, 2007, 12:46:17 AM
Yes, but what do youcall members that pay their dues as active members but never come to meetings or participate in activities?

Useless...

Ok, admittedly that's a smartass answer, but seriously, members who are able-bodied but simply choose to not participate should just leave, or perhaps there should be a legit "hiatus" status for them.

People have lives outside of CAP, stuff happens, vacations, job situations, etc.  its one thing to have to step back for a while, and a whole 'nother to not show up for years.

We're required to maintain personnel files, and similiar and yet the local units get nothing in return, no dues money, no assistance, and the unit's strength is incorrect.

I know a lot of Unit CC's who would snap up my inactives in a minute, just so their eServices number goes higher.

I don't get it.

"That Others May Zoom"

SarDragon

Quote from: Eclipse on January 06, 2007, 03:11:09 AM
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 06, 2007, 12:46:17 AM
Yes, but what do youcall members that pay their dues as active members but never come to meetings or participate in activities?

Useless...

Their money spends just like yours and mine. I spent ten years in a pay-no-play status, and thought I was doing everyone a favor - myself and CAP with my continued monetary contribution. (As a member of an OS squadron, I only paid National dues.)
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

DNall

Quote from: Eclipse on January 06, 2007, 03:11:09 AM
Quote from: flyguy06 on January 06, 2007, 12:46:17 AM
Yes, but what do youcall members that pay their dues as active members but never come to meetings or participate in activities?

Useless...

Ok, admittedly that's a smartass answer, but seriously, members who are able-bodied but simply choose to not participate should just leave, or perhaps there should be a legit "hiatus" status for them.

People have lives outside of CAP, stuff happens, vacations, job situations, etc.  its one thing to have to step back for a while, and a whole 'nother to not show up for years.

We're required to maintain personnel files, and similiar and yet the local units get nothing in return, no dues money, no assistance, and the unit's strength is incorrect.

I know a lot of Unit CC's who would snap up my inactives in a minute, just so their eServices number goes higher.

I don't get it.
You mean like oh say Patron Status? Maybe it'd be better if we renamed that reserve status. Wait, I like what Iowa is doing w/ their inactives on reserve status. Okay so transfer everyone to that don't show regularly ghost reserve Sq (prob should have those at Gp level). The ones that want to participate a little & keep working on PME or soemthing can maintain regular membership & be called "Active Reserve," still go on missions & crap if they keep up their ratings, but they get a lower priority on training missions & are also not expected to contribute in any big way - whatever Iowa has pretty good rules going, stick to that. Then people who don't wnat to participate at all, they get put in Patron "Inactive Reserve" status. That's a placeholder so they don't get bumped out but they don't have any real rights & priviledges either, no missions, etc.

Oh & while you're doing this, rig it so people can set it up to autodraft for their renewal if they like, it's optional & you get  afew more bucks, fewer senior officers thinking each year if it's still worth the hassle cause they don't get the notice in the mail no more - just a thank you for renewing here's your card.

How's that sound?

Lat part, I might have said this, I know I did somewhere... input attendence on eServices after each meeting - 30sec checkbox submit process. Little statement at the bottom: This information is collected by the AF for force strength analysis, & is considered a govt document. Intentionally providing false statements on this document constitutes a crime punishable by 5 years & a kick in the jewels or whatever it is. I don't care if it's true or not, I just don't want people reporting folks as there when they're out robbing a bank, & I really want accurate info to judge the right place to put my resources (planes, trains radios, & automobiles for starters, training dollars, etc).

Had some other thread going on another subject, talking about using stuff that's avail & terming it to your people as a reward: "Cadet Johnny you've been doing well the last couple months so we're going to offer you a chance at o-flights this weekend." Be nice to do that w/ Mission pilots/crews... Sir you've been participating actively at your unit & serving as ES training officer, you get first priority today versus bob over there that comes once a month, we'll try to get him flown too, but you gotta earn your keep around here. Some cool auto generated graphs & stuff would be nice also to actually do some mgmt.

Dragoon

Here's a thought

An "inactive member" is one who cannot participate in CAP activities beyond visiting unit meetings and social events that he is specifically invited to. (Meaning,  if you want to DO anything in CAP, you have to be listed as "active").  The inactive member may wear his uniform during the above listed events.

Unit commanders determine active/inactive status.  At the very least, members who attend and contribute to 75% of the meetings will be considered active.  Unit commanders may waive this attendance requirement on a case by case basis.

Inactive status should not be used as a punitive measure for anything other than unexcused absences.  Other measures should be used to handling disciplinary issues or poor duty performance.   Members may appeal innappropriate use of inactive status using standard CAP complaint procedures.

A commander may reinstate a member to active status at any time.  Members may use standard transfer procedures to change units while in inactive status.

Inactive status will be noted in the National Database.  Members who are inactive at their point of membership renewal will be issued an ID card that notes their status.  Inactive members continue to pay dues as normal members.

ES ratings do not automatically expire because of inactive status, but may not be exercised until the member is reinstated to active status.

Inactive members are not required to participate in any CAP training (including online training) or meet any emerging requirements levied on all members, but WILL have to meet all new training and other requirements prior to being returned to active status.




lordmonar

Dragoon,

I could not see a more complete waste of time!

So SM X does not show up for 3 months...at some point you make him go inactive....NHQ spends money on him to print and send him a new card....he gets the card....says "oh darn...they won't let me fly in the next SAREX"...so he shows up to the next meeting.  He is placed back on active status.  NHQ again spends money printing and sending a new card.  He goes to the next SAREX and then you don't see him for 3 months at which point you change him to inactive status.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

RiverAux

I don't think a new card would be required.  Just make it part of the MIMS system so that it can be checked, just like we check other currency information. 

Dragoon

Quote from: lordmonar on January 06, 2007, 05:42:21 PM
Dragoon,

I could not see a more complete waste of time!

So SM X does not show up for 3 months...at some point you make him go inactive....NHQ spends money on him to print and send him a new card....he gets the card....says "oh darn...they won't let me fly in the next SAREX"...so he shows up to the next meeting.  He is placed back on active status.  NHQ again spends money printing and sending a new card.  He goes to the next SAREX and then you don't see him for 3 months at which point you change him to inactive status.



I thought about that - which is why cards only go inactive at renewal time.  Heck, you could even make the guy pay a few bucks to get a new card if he wants to go active - that way you make a profit off the "absentee member who wants to fly but doesn't want to work."

Or you could just let him keep the card, but flag him in the database and not let him play.

Honestly, if you had a guy who kept going inactive, I would hope that when he comes back to be active the Squadron CC would say "tell you what, come to meetings for a month or so and help out, and THEN we'll talk about active status."

Dragoon

#18
Quote from: MIKE on January 06, 2007, 12:24:07 AM
I think it's already defined, it's just not utilized.

Quote from: CAPR 39-23-1. a. Active Member. A member who regularly attends meetings, performs a specific duty assignment, meets training requirements, and participates in the activities of his or her unit. An active member may wear the CAP uniform and compete for grade advancement (see CAPR 35-1, Assignment and Duty Status).
b. Patron Member. A patron member is a financial supporter who maintains current membership through payment of annual membership dues and participates in a limited capacity as outlined below. ...

The thing is, these two categories are not comprehensive.

The member who attends meetings sporadically and wishes to participate in the occasional activity doesn't meet the definition of "Active Member" above, nor the definition of "Patron."

I think the intent of Patron was just a way of getting dues from folks who have no desire to ever play.

But we really need to identify our true active strength from those folks who can't be counted on to help.  And a way to motivate people to actually show up by giving them something to lose - active status.

Removed extra quote tag - MIKE

Johnny Yuma

Quote from: lordmonar on January 05, 2007, 11:14:03 PM
The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether we need to make a distinction between active and inactive members.

My first thoughts on this are:

1.  How do we define active and inactive.

2.  What standard do we use to draw the line between the too.

3.  What actions should we do if a member goes into inactive status.

4.  Should we report our inactive member status up the the chain (as DNall asked in another thread, in E-Services).

IMHO, there is some value in reporting our membership status just so wing and national knows how many mission ready and available members we have so they can plan operations, allocate resources and to send assistance to shore up units that have a bad acitve/inactive ratio.

We should not do it punitivly...if a unit has too many inactive personnel, wing takes away their plane(s).  This would lead to lying on the reports, there would be no benifit for the squadron to accuratly report their member status.

We also have the problem of what exactly is inactive.  If a member does not show up for six months because he is in the hospitol or away at college or deployed to the desert, they are inactive...but have valid excuses.  Also if we have a guy who is just rank and file shows up for the monthly safety meeting and SAREX type of guy...is he inactive as opposed to a staff member who misses the same number of meetings.  The "I'm just a Pilot" (IJP) member is not really inactive but the unit staff member (USM) is because they are affecting their jobs in the unit.

Also what about those members who are Patron Members?  As a cadet squadron commander I don't really care about them unless it is time to drive cadets on a field trip or during a fund rasier or special activity.  So when they don't come to a meeting for 3 months are they inactive?

Just my thoughts on this subject.

I can see the value of accurate reporting in some cases...but I would have no idea how to we would create a system that would fit all the different scenerios that we have given the differences between all the squadrons we have in CAP.

I'd say if a member isn't going to meetings, activities, etc. they should be transferred to Patron status within 60 days of their last activity with CAP.

This sounds harsh, but the bottom line is that the inactive members who aren't doing anything in CAP (especially in Operations) is becoming a liability in the program.

Why do I say this? Take a look at the Table of Allowances for Communications and Supply. Take a look at the funding for mission training we get from the USAF. It's based on ACTIVE people working for the benefit of CAP and the USAF.

If they're not doing anything, cut them loose and recruit those who will. This includes the "Walter Mitty" types who just want to wear a uniform and play officer once in awhile.


Johnny Y.
"And Saint Attila raised the Holy Hand Grenade up on high saying, "Oh Lord, Bless us this Holy Hand Grenade, and with it smash our enemies to tiny bits. And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and stoats, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and lima bean-"

" Skip a bit, brother."

"And then the Lord spake, saying: "First, shalt thou take out the holy pin. Then shalt thou count to three. No more, no less. "Three" shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shall be three. "Four" shalt thou not count, and neither count thou two, execpting that thou then goest on to three. Five is RIGHT OUT. Once the number three, being the third number be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade to-wards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuffit. Amen."

Armaments Chapter One, verses nine through twenty-seven:

DNall

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on January 09, 2007, 12:32:19 AM
I'd say if a member isn't going to meetings, activities, etc. they should be transferred to Patron status within 60 days of their last activity with CAP.

This sounds harsh, but the bottom line is that the inactive members who aren't doing anything in CAP (especially in Operations) is becoming a liability in the program.

Why do I say this? Take a look at the Table of Allowances for Communications and Supply. Take a look at the funding for mission training we get from the USAF. It's based on ACTIVE people working for the benefit of CAP and the USAF.

If they're not doing anything, cut them loose and recruit those who will. This includes the "Walter Mitty" types who just want to wear a uniform and play officer once in awhile.
That's fine, can we go to 90 day quarters though, just keeps it neat & some latitude in case you have something going on. Also, I'd go w/ transfer to reserve Sq, at renewal you're at patron status unless you go get active at a unit again.

BillB

And how does the USAF know who is active or inactivein CAP that affects the Table of allowances? There is no report to National of who's inactive. So what difference does it make? Besides a Patron member can NOT take part in many activities where the inactive member may show up for such as missions. The only figures USAF sees are the total number of members at National or in Wings. There is no breakdown as to active/inactive.
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104

SarDragon

One more (and for the last) time, it's all about the $$$! Someone in The Right Stuff said, "No bucks, no Buck Rogers". If they want to pay w/o playing, or only play once in a while, I'm not going to complain. If given the opportunity, I will thank them for their contribution and get back to business.

[/rant]
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

Dragoon

Quote from: BillB on January 09, 2007, 12:52:32 AM
And how does the USAF know who is active or inactivein CAP that affects the Table of allowances? There is no report to National of who's inactive. So what difference does it make? Besides a Patron member can NOT take part in many activities where the inactive member may show up for such as missions. The only figures USAF sees are the total number of members at National or in Wings. There is no breakdown as to active/inactive.

That's the problem, and probably why NHQ hasn't solved it.  A HUGE number of our members are inactive, and if folks knew how many that was, we might lose funding and clout.

But nevertheless, it's the truth, and for that reason alone is worth pursuing.

afgeo4

Every Group or Wing (if no groups in Wing) should have a chartered administrative squadron where inactive members can be tranferred. That move will keep the funding coming to Regions, Wings, and Groups and will give the unit commanders a more accurate picture of their membership and capabilities.

This topic is very important to my work as a recruiting and retention officer because if I look at the MML I may see that a certain squadron isn't having difficulty in membership because they have 40 cadets and 60 senior members, but in reality, this unit may have just 20 cadets and 4 senior members who are active and needs more of my attention than say a unit where 17 cadets and 10 senior members are all active, but shows less members on paper  :-X . This would also allow units to receive awards for recruiting and retention based on real statistics. Will allow the aircraft and vehicles to be better positioned for their use (even if someone will lose it, it's a service issue, not a unit issue) and will allow money to flow where it truly needs to, not where it looks like it needs to.

I know to many unit commanders having to transfer inactives out will feel like a slap in the face, but come on... they're just ignoring the truth. The best way to fix a problem is to first face it. If we don't trim our fat, we won't become lean.
GEORGE LURYE

cyclone

The reserve squadron should not be a "ghost" squadron.  It should have an active commander who communicates with the reserve members and keeps them abreast of what is going on in the Wing.   

That way it is not sending the inactive folks off into limbo where they forget about CAP and may never return. 

Then going to the Reserve Squadron will not be as ominous to the member.

Dragoon

Meaning you have to find a volunteer willing to "command" a squadron of folks he never sees.  I think you may have problems finding a quality candidate.

I think the wing holding squadron isn't a bad place for inactives, but without criteria on what is "inactive" this becomes a potential area for abuse.  You could transfer anyone you don't like there, just to get rid of them.  Without their permission.  This could lead to lots of IG complaints.

Plus, currently there are no restrictions on holding squadron folks showing up and participating at things.  Even though they don't attend any meetings or in any way contribute to a squadron.

These details need to be worked.

BillB

I'm still trying to figure out, what is the problem with having inactive members in a Squadron. USAF or CAP-NHQ doesn't know they are inactive. In fact they pad the MML which in turn leads to more equipment being issued to a Squadron. Why all this talk about moving them out of a unit when there is no reason to do so?
Gil Robb Wilson # 19
Gil Robb Wilson # 104

RiverAux

Is there anything in CAP regulations right now about how these ghost squadrons are to be used?  Are we sure there isn't some little clause hidden somewhere right now that requires that inactives be transferred to one? 

afgeo4

NYW has a "ghost" squadron.  It works just fine when they use it.  BTW... no IG complaints can happen since your current squadron commander cannot initiate a transfer.  The transfer is initiated by the gaining unit and the losing unit has the right to reject or let it happen, but they cannot initiate the action. Thus a request to Wing HQ would be submitted with a brief outline of why this person is deemed "inactive".  The Wing HQ personnel director would make the call at that point in time on whether to initiate transfer or not.
GEORGE LURYE

lordmonar

As I mentioned in another thread...

Why do we care about inactive members being on our books?

If we had a requirement to report our readiness levels to some higher headquarters....and if our readiness requirements were somehow tied to squadron strength (such as 50% of squadron must be GTM or MSA qualified) then it is in your interest to identify to HQ who is active and inactive.

But otherwise....it is just another administrative burden you are placing on your squadron commanders and we already have too many of these useless reports.

If someone joins and then goes inactive....after a year or so...his dues go overdue and then he is dropped from your rolls.  Simple no changing status or transferring to ghost squadrons...and no need to reverse this process if they member suddenly shows up out of the blue from a long business trip to the dessert or an unreported illness (or in the case of a cadet...he gets ungrounded for getting his grades up).

If you have someone who has not shown up in a while....give him a call.  Ask him what's up.  Find out if he has quit or if it something else.  This is where you find out that member x had a falling out with another member and just does not want to go to meetings anymore.  Or that he is disgruntled because he wants to do observer training and you have not offered it in the last six months.  Here is where you find out that the guy has been to 3 months of meetings and still does not have a job.

All this transferring and status change....just sounds like squadron commanders just don't care about their personnel.

If a guy just does not want to come anymore...and tells you so....then you tell him you are going to 2b him.  That gets him off the books completely.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Dragoon

Sadly, you cannot 2B a senior member for non-attendance.  The regs do not allow it.  They only allow it for cadets.

There are a bunch of reasons to somehow identify inactive members

1.  It allows us to make better decisions about distributing radios, vehicles, etc.  If you worked at Wing, this could be a big help.

2.  It might allow certain "bennies" - we can't afford to buy every member a new uniform (or issue them, say, the sleeve American flag insignia), bu we MIGHT be able to issue them to "active" members.  Ditto photo ID cards or other stuch things)

3.  It allows us to levy requirements on active members (like, for example taking the OPSEC class) and actually know when we have everyone that matters.   Right now, if only 50% of CAP has taken the OPSEC class, what does that mean?   If we knew that the 50% that haven't taken it were the "inactive" memebers, we could declare victory and move on.

4.  It's a morale thing.  By making it formal, being an "active member" would be a much bigger deal than those just paying dues and doing nothing.


And here's the big one.

5.  It makes it clear that participation ain't optional.  No, you can't just come when you want to.  You're either in, or you're out.  Setting and enforcing minimum standards of work will, I believe, increase the amount of work that gets done.

cyclone

I agree with Dragoon.   For distribution it does help in the management.   By leaning out the numbers it can bring some more "bennies" to light because of our size.   It makes the unit CC job a little easier when it comes to monitoring CPPT, Level 1, OPSEC, etc.  That way you can be closer to 100% and move on.  If someone intends to be inactive then it helps clarify that and you don't waste time trying to make them active.

The morale thing is huge too.  In Iowa we have had several people go into the Reserve Squadron for a while (baby on the way, job change, etc).  That way they don't feel the burden of a staff job, they don't worry that the unit is not happy that they are not at meetings, and they can gracefully return when life settles down.

I also do not see it as much of a burden for an active unit cc.  An e-mail to a Wing DP and saying:  "Please transfer the following because they are inactive..." doesn't take but a few keystrokes.

lordmonar

Quote from: cyclone on January 11, 2007, 02:18:44 PMI also do not see it as much of a burden for an active unit cc.  An e-mail to a Wing DP and saying:  "Please transfer the following because they are inactive..." doesn't take but a few keystrokes.

The request for transfer is not hard...but the accountability...taking and recording attandance and checking records every month to see who has "passed the line" is what takes up admin time.  Yes it is not very hard and only takes a few minutes....but is that not one of our problems.  HQ is asking us to do a few million things that take "just a few minutes" of our time...next thing you know you are spending a couple of hours a week doing admin work.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

lordmonar

Quote from: Dragoon on January 11, 2007, 01:35:57 PM
1.  It allows us to make better decisions about distributing radios, vehicles, etc.  If you worked at Wing, this could be a big help.

A big help for who?  Wing or the squadron?  Are wings actaully issuing radios based on squadron size?  If they are....you get into a situation of divided loayaties.  If I don't report my inactive people I get more resources.....to me that would be good thing from a squadron point of view.

Quote from: Dragoon on January 11, 2007, 01:35:57 PM
2.  It might allow certain "bennies" - we can't afford to buy every member a new uniform (or issue them, say, the sleeve American flag insignia), bu we MIGHT be able to issue them to "active" members.  Ditto photo ID cards or other stuch things)

That's a pretty big MIGHT in that argument.

Quote from: Dragoon on January 11, 2007, 01:35:57 PM
3.  It allows us to levy requirements on active members (like, for example taking the OPSEC class) and actually know when we have everyone that matters.   Right now, if only 50% of CAP has taken the OPSEC class, what does that mean?   If we knew that the 50% that haven't taken it were the "inactive" memebers, we could declare victory and move on.

This is the only argument I think carries any weight.  However....as it stands now, requirments are not levied against squadorns.  That is, squadron x with 100 members on the books is not tasked to provide x number of air crew or y number of ground team or anything like that. 

Quote from: Dragoon on January 11, 2007, 01:35:57 PM
4.  It's a morale thing.  By making it formal, being an "active member" would be a much bigger deal than those just paying dues and doing nothing.

Morale for who?  The guy not showing up but once a quarter or the guy showing up every week?  That is the point I am trying to make.  The inactive guy does not show up.  He already does not care about the program or he would make the effort to attend.  Making him "inactive" does nothing to him as punishment and there is no incentive for him to become active.

Quote from: Dragoon on January 11, 2007, 01:35:57 PM
5.  It makes it clear that participation ain't optional.  No, you can't just come when you want to.  You're either in, or you're out.  Setting and enforcing minimum standards of work will, I believe, increase the amount of work that gets done.

To a point I agree with this....but where do you draw the line?  Is it the same for every job?   I mean if my job is GTM...do I have to show up for every meeting or is just the once a quarter GTM training enought and a SAREX or two?  Does the MLO have to show up for every cadet meeting or just the ML classes?  But if you Admin Officer does not show up for two meetings in a row you notice it right away!

I whole heartedly support minimumn job standards but each job has a different standard and there is no requirment to actaully take on a job.

That is my rant.  Right now....until we get a real requirement to report readiness levels and a real need to have everyone gainfully employed.  I think any active vs inactive activities will just be a waste of time.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

afgeo4

#35
Quote from: lordmonar on January 11, 2007, 04:21:17 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on January 11, 2007, 01:35:57 PM
1.  It allows us to make better decisions about distributing radios, vehicles, etc.  If you worked at Wing, this could be a big help.

A big help for who?  Wing or the squadron?  Are wings actaully issuing radios based on squadron size?  If they are....you get into a situation of divided loayaties.  If I don't report my inactive people I get more resources.....to me that would be good thing from a squadron point of view.

Quote from: Dragoon on January 11, 2007, 01:35:57 PM
2.  It might allow certain "bennies" - we can't afford to buy every member a new uniform (or issue them, say, the sleeve American flag insignia), bu we MIGHT be able to issue them to "active" members.  Ditto photo ID cards or other stuch things)

That's a pretty big MIGHT in that argument.

Quote from: Dragoon on January 11, 2007, 01:35:57 PM
3.  It allows us to levy requirements on active members (like, for example taking the OPSEC class) and actually know when we have everyone that matters.   Right now, if only 50% of CAP has taken the OPSEC class, what does that mean?   If we knew that the 50% that haven't taken it were the "inactive" memebers, we could declare victory and move on.

This is the only argument I think carries any weight.  However....as it stands now, requirments are not levied against squadorns.  That is, squadron x with 100 members on the books is not tasked to provide x number of air crew or y number of ground team or anything like that. 

Quote from: Dragoon on January 11, 2007, 01:35:57 PM
4.  It's a morale thing.  By making it formal, being an "active member" would be a much bigger deal than those just paying dues and doing nothing.

Morale for who?  The guy not showing up but once a quarter or the guy showing up every week?  That is the point I am trying to make.  The inactive guy does not show up.  He already does not care about the program or he would make the effort to attend.  Making him "inactive" does nothing to him as punishment and there is no incentive for him to become active.

Quote from: Dragoon on January 11, 2007, 01:35:57 PM
5.  It makes it clear that participation ain't optional.  No, you can't just come when you want to.  You're either in, or you're out.  Setting and enforcing minimum standards of work will, I believe, increase the amount of work that gets done.

To a point I agree with this....but where do you draw the line?  Is it the same for every job?   I mean if my job is GTM...do I have to show up for every meeting or is just the once a quarter GTM training enought and a SAREX or two?  Does the MLO have to show up for every cadet meeting or just the ML classes?  But if you Admin Officer does not show up for two meetings in a row you notice it right away!

I whole heartedly support minimumn job standards but each job has a different standard and there is no requirment to actaully take on a job.

That is my rant.  Right now....until we get a real requirement to report readiness levels and a real need to have everyone gainfully employed.  I think any active vs inactive activities will just be a waste of time.

Patrick, belive it or not, our job in CAP isn't to make squadrons' lives better and easier. It's to perform missions for America. If squadron staff are too lazy to perform their daily routines to assure better performance of those missions then as a retention officer I would recommend them that they find another organization to volunteer for. We have enough dead weight here already. If you want to make their lives easier, find how to simplify the process of submitting these names to Wing DP, not eliminate the procedure. How about having the squadron personnel officer do the job and not the unit CC. I mean it is their job. Don't have one showing up to meetings? Well, empty out the slot and advertise the position. THAT will help the squadron, not ignoring problems.

A lot of equipment IS issued based on unit size actually. Larger units tend to have more ES qualified personnel and pilots. They require equipment to perform taskings. Equipment like radios, DF, aircraft, vehicles, etc. If you know who's where, why, and how, you as a Wing DL can make better decisions on where the equipment is really needed.

The morale he's talking about is the morale of members who ARE active. Who show up every day and get discouraged by the way things work and by the fact that they have to put in work for those that don't show up. People like that feel better knowing that those who don't put in the work, get dropped. That they, by default are aknowledged to be doing the work they've been asked to do and they do it to a satisfactory level. That way, when they receive an award or a letter of commendation, they'll know it's because they've done an above average job, not just shown up. NOTHING raises morale of CAP members than proper, fair, and justified recognition of work well done.

We do need to set standards for each position, but I believe that's the job of the unit CC, not NHQ. After all, it's the unit CC who will evaluate your performance and fire you if you don't perform to standard. These administrative units are being offered as a tool to unit leaders so they can get a handle on their actual activities, participation, and readiness. Also so the higher headquarters stop questioning and start trusting the data they get from the squadrons. Right now it's not happening and if I were a group commander and was going to allocate resources, but knew that my squadrons have no idea of their current state and thus cannot report it to me, I'd keep the resources with me, not allocate them, for risk of them "misplacing" those resources like they misplaced the rest of the data.
Which is I think what happens in CAP now. The money doesn't go below Wing. Most groups have no resources being allocated outside of vehicles because they aren't trusted.

There's a word in the military that rings louder than any church bell... ACCOUNTABILITY. It is key to efficient, fair, and successful operations. We have none. Let's get some.
GEORGE LURYE

lordmonar

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 11, 2007, 05:54:25 PM
Patrick, belive it or not, our job in CAP isn't to make squadrons' lives better and easier. It's to perform missions for America. If squadron staff are too lazy to perform their daily routines to assure better performance of those missions then as a retention officer I would recommend them that they find another organization to volunteer for. We have enough dead weight here already. If you want to make their lives easier, find how to simplify the process of submitting these names to Wing DP, not eliminate the procedure. How about having the squadron personnel officer do the job and not the unit CC. I mean it is their job. Don't have one showing up to meetings? Well, empty out the slot and advertise the position. THAT will help the squadron, not ignoring problems.

My point is....who cares about "dead weight" members?  I don't have to do paper work on a guy who is not training, not promoting, not participating.  I don't have to do anything about the guys who are "too lazy to perform their daily rountines".  But you want to institute a system where I as a squadron commander or admin officer tracks member attendance and then at some point do some paperwork to move them to "inactive status".  Instead I ignore them...they ignore me...and I don't have to do anything.

Is this ignoring a problm?  No because I don't see a problem.  Now if a guy holds a staff position...I just get someone else to do it.  Again...no problem.  If he shows up 6 months later asking to get promoted because he has done his staff time...I will point out he has not and move on.

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 11, 2007, 05:54:25 PMA lot of equipment IS issued based on unit size actually. Larger units tend to have more ES qualified personnel and pilots. They require equipment to perform taskings. Equipment like radios, DF, aircraft, vehicles, etc. If you know who's where, why, and how, you as a Wing DL can make better decisions on where the equipment is really needed.

Then it is NOT in my intrest to tell wing how many of my people are just ghosts.  If I tell them that half my people are not here I may not get all the radios I need.  Do you see what I am saying?  Equipment should be issued based on mission taskings not squadron size.  Of course larger squadrons can be tasked with more missions...but you do that by having the units report the number of teams they can field...and then you hold them to that tasking.   If sqadron X's commander shows 100 people on his books and accepts a tasking for 4 Ground Teams....and gets the equipment.....at the next SAREX he had better have 4 Ground Teams in tow or you pull his equipment.  But if you issue gear just because of squadron size and do not lay an equal mission tasking you are really wasting resources.

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 11, 2007, 05:54:25 PM
The morale he's talking about is the morale of members who ARE active. Who show up every day and get discouraged by the way things work and by the fact that they have to put in work for those that don't show up. People like that feel better knowing that those who don't put in the work, get dropped. That they, by default are aknowledged to be doing the work they've been asked to do and they do it to a satisfactory level. That way, when they receive an award or a letter of commendation, they'll know it's because they've done an above average job, not just shown up. NOTHING raises morale of CAP members than proper, fair, and justified recognition of work well done.

Read that again.  I'm a bling guy and I am always taken to task about how a little ribbon will raise morale and we should all grow up and just be happy with a job well done.  Now you want squadron commanders to make their people feel good by dropping they guys who don't show up off the rolls.  How many people actually even look at the CAPWATCH down loads.  Do you sit around your meetings going "He, he, they finally dropped that guy who showed up for 2 meetins!  I feel so good about myself!"

What you really mean....is that some squadrons give rewards to guys who only show up once and a while.  They give to same rewards to those who are there all the time.  That is a leadership issue with that unit...not a systemic problem of units carrying inactive people on their member rosters.

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 11, 2007, 05:54:25 PMWe do need to set standards for each position, but I believe that's the job of the unit CC, not NHQ. After all, it's the unit CC who will evaluate your performance and fire you if you don't perform to standard. These administrative units are being offered as a tool to unit leaders so they can get a handle on their actual activities, participation, and readiness. Also so the higher headquarters stop questioning and start trusting the data they get from the squadrons. Right now it's not happening and if I were a group commander and was going to allocate resources, but knew that my squadrons have no idea of their current state and thus cannot report it to me, I'd keep the resources with me, not allocate them, for risk of them "misplacing" those resources like they misplaced the rest of the data.

Sure...if wing and group had a valid reason for accurate readiness reports I would have no problem with that.  But as individual units are not levied specific mission requirments there is currently no need to do readiness reports.

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 11, 2007, 05:54:25 PMThere's a word in the military that rings louder than any church bell... ACCOUNTABILITY. It is key to efficient, fair, and successful operations. We have none. Let's get some.

Accountablity for what though?  I don't get anything extra for carrying these inactive people on my roster.  None of their dues come to me.  Wing does though.  If I am being issued equipment based solely on my unit strength, but I am not being levied mission taskings based on those same numbers...then wing is being stupid.

Give a squadron commander a reason to be acountable before you yell at him about it being an accountablity issue.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

afgeo4

Quote from: lordmonar on January 12, 2007, 12:29:48 AM
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 11, 2007, 05:54:25 PM
Patrick, belive it or not, our job in CAP isn't to make squadrons' lives better and easier. It's to perform missions for America. If squadron staff are too lazy to perform their daily routines to assure better performance of those missions then as a retention officer I would recommend them that they find another organization to volunteer for. We have enough dead weight here already. If you want to make their lives easier, find how to simplify the process of submitting these names to Wing DP, not eliminate the procedure. How about having the squadron personnel officer do the job and not the unit CC. I mean it is their job. Don't have one showing up to meetings? Well, empty out the slot and advertise the position. THAT will help the squadron, not ignoring problems.

My point is....who cares about "dead weight" members?  I don't have to do paper work on a guy who is not training, not promoting, not participating.  I don't have to do anything about the guys who are "too lazy to perform their daily rountines".  But you want to institute a system where I as a squadron commander or admin officer tracks member attendance and then at some point do some paperwork to move them to "inactive status".  Instead I ignore them...they ignore me...and I don't have to do anything.

Is this ignoring a problm?  No because I don't see a problem.  Now if a guy holds a staff position...I just get someone else to do it.  Again...no problem.  If he shows up 6 months later asking to get promoted because he has done his staff time...I will point out he has not and move on.

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 11, 2007, 05:54:25 PMA lot of equipment IS issued based on unit size actually. Larger units tend to have more ES qualified personnel and pilots. They require equipment to perform taskings. Equipment like radios, DF, aircraft, vehicles, etc. If you know who's where, why, and how, you as a Wing DL can make better decisions on where the equipment is really needed.

Then it is NOT in my intrest to tell wing how many of my people are just ghosts.  If I tell them that half my people are not here I may not get all the radios I need.  Do you see what I am saying?  Equipment should be issued based on mission taskings not squadron size.  Of course larger squadrons can be tasked with more missions...but you do that by having the units report the number of teams they can field...and then you hold them to that tasking.   If sqadron X's commander shows 100 people on his books and accepts a tasking for 4 Ground Teams....and gets the equipment.....at the next SAREX he had better have 4 Ground Teams in tow or you pull his equipment.  But if you issue gear just because of squadron size and do not lay an equal mission tasking you are really wasting resources.

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 11, 2007, 05:54:25 PM
The morale he's talking about is the morale of members who ARE active. Who show up every day and get discouraged by the way things work and by the fact that they have to put in work for those that don't show up. People like that feel better knowing that those who don't put in the work, get dropped. That they, by default are aknowledged to be doing the work they've been asked to do and they do it to a satisfactory level. That way, when they receive an award or a letter of commendation, they'll know it's because they've done an above average job, not just shown up. NOTHING raises morale of CAP members than proper, fair, and justified recognition of work well done.

Read that again.  I'm a bling guy and I am always taken to task about how a little ribbon will raise morale and we should all grow up and just be happy with a job well done.  Now you want squadron commanders to make their people feel good by dropping they guys who don't show up off the rolls.  How many people actually even look at the CAPWATCH down loads.  Do you sit around your meetings going "He, he, they finally dropped that guy who showed up for 2 meetins!  I feel so good about myself!"

What you really mean....is that some squadrons give rewards to guys who only show up once and a while.  They give to same rewards to those who are there all the time.  That is a leadership issue with that unit...not a systemic problem of units carrying inactive people on their member rosters.

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 11, 2007, 05:54:25 PMWe do need to set standards for each position, but I believe that's the job of the unit CC, not NHQ. After all, it's the unit CC who will evaluate your performance and fire you if you don't perform to standard. These administrative units are being offered as a tool to unit leaders so they can get a handle on their actual activities, participation, and readiness. Also so the higher headquarters stop questioning and start trusting the data they get from the squadrons. Right now it's not happening and if I were a group commander and was going to allocate resources, but knew that my squadrons have no idea of their current state and thus cannot report it to me, I'd keep the resources with me, not allocate them, for risk of them "misplacing" those resources like they misplaced the rest of the data.

Sure...if wing and group had a valid reason for accurate readiness reports I would have no problem with that.  But as individual units are not levied specific mission requirments there is currently no need to do readiness reports.

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 11, 2007, 05:54:25 PMThere's a word in the military that rings louder than any church bell... ACCOUNTABILITY. It is key to efficient, fair, and successful operations. We have none. Let's get some.

Accountablity for what though?  I don't get anything extra for carrying these inactive people on my roster.  None of their dues come to me.  Wing does though.  If I am being issued equipment based solely on my unit strength, but I am not being levied mission taskings based on those same numbers...then wing is being stupid.

Give a squadron commander a reason to be acountable before you yell at him about it being an accountablity issue.

Ah... apathy... just what we need more of in CAP.
GEORGE LURYE

capchiro

Might I suggest that you not load the squadron commanders with more work and if you are indeed a retention officer, take it upon your self and your brother retention officers to contact the squadrons and find out which members are inactive and then you contact them and find out what you (as retention officer) or someone needs to do to motivate and re-activate an asset.  With retention being as poorly as it is in CAP, I don't think the problem is with inactive members, it is with members leaving.  Moving an occasionally active member to a Ghost squadron might just be the motivation they need to drop all of the way out.  Again, come at this from a "retention" problem and try to come up with a solution.  I question a person that is in the slot of "retention" that comes up with solutions to remove members from squadrons where they might possibly be motivated to become active again.  Figure out how you as a "retention" officer can help the squadron commanders, not just sit around and come up with more work for overworked squadron commanders.  Group and wing are there to assist the squadrons, not just pile on more and more work in the form of non-essential (to mission readiness) reports.  As usual, JMHO
Lt. Col. Harry E. Siegrist III, CAP
Commander
Sweetwater Comp. Sqdn.
GA154

Dragoon

Quote from: lordmonar on January 12, 2007, 12:29:48 AM


Then it is NOT in my intrest to tell wing how many of my people are just ghosts.  If I tell them that half my people are not here I may not get all the radios I need.  Do you see what I am saying?  Equipment should be issued based on mission taskings not squadron size.  Of course larger squadrons can be tasked with more missions...but you do that by having the units report the number of teams they can field...and then you hold them to that tasking.   If sqadron X's commander shows 100 people on his books and accepts a tasking for 4 Ground Teams....and gets the equipment.....at the next SAREX he had better have 4 Ground Teams in tow or you pull his equipment.  But if you issue gear just because of squadron size and do not lay an equal mission tasking you are really wasting resources.

I would agree.  But there's still a component of "active"

For example - I've got 40 cadets, so I deserve a van.  Sounds good. Or "I've got 10 ground team members, so I deserve a van" also good.

Except it's really only 10 active cadets and 3 ground team members who you've seen or heard from in the last 6 months (remember, it takes 3 YEARS for an ES rating to expire...)  Now do you deserve that van?


And you're right - pencil whipping members makes you look bigger.  (This is EXACTLY why National doesn't have an inactive status right now).  But....it's a two edged sword.  I would expect there to be checks and balances.  For example, the Group CC should expect (nay, demand) that he physically see at least 75% of the actives when he shows up at  meetings.  If not....looks like a commander is lying.  Not upholding the standards of the organization.  And not a guy we can trust.  The commander would also look a lot worse on things like Senior Member PD and Cadet Program progression if he can't exclude inactive members.

I think commanders at the higher levels deserve to know how many folks they have under them that they are actually doing work, that they need to train, etc.  As long as the inactives are part of the mix, commanders above squadron level have no clue who their true audience is.

If you are mailing out invites to a Wing training function, or Wing newsletters, and you're short on funds, wouldn't it be nice to tailor the mailing to the actives.

When the warning order for Katrina came out to each Wing and they were asked to provide a quick estimate of the total number of active ES folks, by qual, in the Wing, wouldn't it have been nice to have MIMS have the ability to screen out the guys no one has heard from in two years?

If you are the Wing PD guy, and you're trying to determine how many SLSs to put on this year, wouldn't it help to have some idea how big your real audience is?  (the active members without SLS)?

There's a million more.

lordmonar

Quote from: Dragoon on January 12, 2007, 02:43:08 PMI would agree.  But there's still a component of "active"

For example - I've got 40 cadets, so I deserve a van.  Sounds good. Or "I've got 10 ground team members, so I deserve a van" also good.

Except it's really only 10 active cadets and 3 ground team members who you've seen or heard from in the last 6 months (remember, it takes 3 YEARS for an ES rating to expire...)  Now do you deserve that van?

You illistrate my over all point exactly.  You should not be given a van because you have 10 GTM.  Wing should task you to maintain at least 10 GTM and give you a van to that mission....and the standard shoul be that at the next and each following SAREX you be able to produce 10 GTM.  If we had a requirement like that....then I would not have a problem with status reporting and doing something with the inactive people.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

afgeo4

Quote from: lordmonar on January 12, 2007, 04:29:12 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on January 12, 2007, 02:43:08 PMI would agree.  But there's still a component of "active"

For example - I've got 40 cadets, so I deserve a van.  Sounds good. Or "I've got 10 ground team members, so I deserve a van" also good.

Except it's really only 10 active cadets and 3 ground team members who you've seen or heard from in the last 6 months (remember, it takes 3 YEARS for an ES rating to expire...)  Now do you deserve that van?

You illistrate my over all point exactly.  You should not be given a van because you have 10 GTM.  Wing should task you to maintain at least 10 GTM and give you a van to that mission....and the standard shoul be that at the next and each following SAREX you be able to produce 10 GTM.  If we had a requirement like that....then I would not have a problem with status reporting and doing something with the inactive people.


Great idea, but you cannot require people to come to any specific SAREX. We're volunteers, remember?  Perhaps they should require a member to participate in 2 missions, training or actual a year?  Wait, that sounds familiar... I must have read that somewhere before.
GEORGE LURYE

lordmonar

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 12, 2007, 06:04:03 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 12, 2007, 04:29:12 PM
Quote from: Dragoon on January 12, 2007, 02:43:08 PMI would agree.  But there's still a component of "active"

For example - I've got 40 cadets, so I deserve a van.  Sounds good. Or "I've got 10 ground team members, so I deserve a van" also good.

Except it's really only 10 active cadets and 3 ground team members who you've seen or heard from in the last 6 months (remember, it takes 3 YEARS for an ES rating to expire...)  Now do you deserve that van?

You illustrate my over all point exactly.  You should not be given a van because you have 10 GTM.  Wing should task you to maintain at least 10 GTM and give you a van to that mission....and the standard should be that at the next and each following SAREX you be able to produce 10 GTM.  If we had a requirement like that....then I would not have a problem with status reporting and doing something with the inactive people.
Great idea, but you cannot require people to come to any specific SAREX. We're volunteers, remember?  Perhaps they should require a member to participate in 2 missions, training or actual a year?  Wait, that sounds familiar... I must have read that somewhere before.

No but I can task squadrons to with specific taskings.  A squadron commander would either say he can meet the tasking or he cannot meet the tasking.  It would then be up to him to follow through.

If squadron x is tasked to provide say 1 GTM, 1 air crew and and 3 mission base personnel....the squadron would train enough people to meet those requirements.  If his unit strength starts to fall off due to people going in active...then he should be required to report that.

I don't have any problems with requiring participation for trained ES personnel.  I would think that some sort of bi annual training would be a good thing.

I just have a problem with a more or less arbitrary active or inactive status.

I still have not heard a very good definition of what exactly is inactive anyway.  As I pointed out before...if you have a MLO who only shows up once a quarter to do his ML training for your cadets...is he inactive or not?  He if fulfilling his squadron requirements...doing what he volunteered to do....but he does nothing else.  I would say that he was an "active" member.  But on the other hand, if my admin officer misses two meetings in a row then the squadron suffers almost immediately.  But how can I keep the MLO on the active roster and the AO on the inactive?

The third flavor of member is one who joins...finishes level I then slowly drops off in attendance.  Then suddenly you notice you have not seen him for six months.  My issue is why should I bother to do anything about his status?   I should be calling him to find out why he is not comming any more.  If he is quiting, I should find out why and do a 2b.   Maybe he was not gainfully employed in the squadron and I should find him a job.  But moving him to  inactive is just a paper work shuffles.  It does nothing for the squadron.  It could help with readiness reporting...if we had a valid reason to make those reports....but until we are tasked for a specific readiness....I can't see any need to do readiness reports.

The one example of where this would make sense is the OPSEC training.  We were tasked to make sure everyone got this training.  If by that date your squadron only shows that you are 50% compliant....then you can report that all of your active members are complaint and the other 50% are inactive......or you can contact the inactive 50% find out why they are inactive and if they want to continue to participate.  If they want to continue to participate then you get them to do the training...if not...you 2b them.

That is all that I am saying.  If you establish a hard and fast rule for active/inactive (say you don't show up for 60 days), then you are now required to take and track attendance (that means sign in sheets and filing them).  Then periodically (once a week?) you would have to check attendance to see if you have anyone go beyond the 60 day mark.....fill out the inactive request....mail/e-mail it to NHQ, Wing, Group to change his status....and then the next week he shows up out of the blue.  Now you have to go back see if any of your inactive guys show up....make a report and send it up to NHQ.  Do you see where I am going with this?

Any new administrative requirement you levee against a squadron should have a cost/benefit analysis done on it.  What benefit is it to the squadron/wing/region/CAP vs the amount of time it takes to do it.

Again....If we had a valid mission tasking...reporting on just that tasking would be beneficial...i.e. you are tasked with 3 mission base personnel and one of them goes inactive you should report that to wing and the plan to fix the LIMFACT (that is USAFeses for not being able to meet a mission tasking).

That way you are only tracking a smaller number of people and it is easier to determine what is/is not active.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

afgeo4

How's this for a clear definition:

If the unit CC believes that the member has been unable to meet member expectations set forth by such CC due to inactivity of said member, the CC may transfer such member to an administrative hold unit after making a reasonable effort to contact said member and counsel him/her. The said member will be able to change his/her status any time after transfer if the can show their ability to be active.
GEORGE LURYE

lordmonar

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 13, 2007, 06:22:48 AM
How's this for a clear definition:

If the unit CC believes that the member has been unable to meet member expectations set forth by such CC due to inactivity of said member, the CC may transfer such member to an administrative hold unit after making a reasonable effort to contact said member and counsel him/her. The said member will be able to change his/her status any time after transfer if the can show their ability to be active.

This basically says its up to the commander...that is not a standard...that is permission to do what you want.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

afgeo4

Patrick, some things DO have to be left up to the commanders. That's why they're there. To make executive decisions. This way the commanders have freedom to determine what their needs are in members and what is useful to them in contributions by these members.

The members, if they feel unjustly transferred, can take the issue up with the gaining commander (Wing HQ). If they prove that they are in fact active and that the commander of the squadron was doing this for reasons other than professional, then the member would be transferred back and the commander would be dealt with by the Wing CC. The other route is through the IG. Unit commanders have to have some say in who comes, who stays, and who goes.
GEORGE LURYE

DNall

This can't though cause there's a conflict of interest currently being illistrated. If you decide to keep teh bum on your roster it helps you get more resources. There's incentive not to tell the truth. That's bad. It has to be objective & out of the CCs hands. I don't so much care if they're moved out of the unit or some new reserve designation is created that can change their category & leave them on the roster. I don't care where they're assigned, just so I can see reality & distribute resources on that basis.

On teh standards mentioned, if you'll look at the NIMS standards for somthing like WSAR, which most people are starting to see as the future GTM standard, it's going to require pretty constant effort to get & stay current. I think you're going to be spending pretty much all you CAP time on just that & need to be quite active or fall out. It's going to require a lot of adjustment. When you get to that point though your 10 GTMs aren't going to be ghosts.

lordmonar

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 14, 2007, 07:34:36 AM
Patrick, some things DO have to be left up to the commanders. That's why they're there. To make executive decisions. This way the commanders have freedom to determine what their needs are in members and what is useful to them in contributions by these members.

The members, if they feel unjustly transferred, can take the issue up with the gaining commander (Wing HQ). If they prove that they are in fact active and that the commander of the squadron was doing this for reasons other than professional, then the member would be transferred back and the commander would be dealt with by the Wing CC. The other route is through the IG. Unit commanders have to have some say in who comes, who stays, and who goes.

George,

My point I was making to those who favor changing or transfering your "inactive" members...is that we have no good definition of what "inactive" is.  With out some objective standard we can't realy yell at the Squadron Commander who does nothing even though he as not seen 80% of his squadron in over six months.  Nor can we do anything to the commander who has a grudge against one of his members and transers him after he misses one meeting.

The idea...is to reduce the work load on squadron commanders not increase it.

Again...IF.....IF we had a legitimate need to report rediness numbes (and I think we should) then I would support some sort of member ship participation tracking.   Until then is is only make work that will piss off our members, overload our Admin officers and start a bunch of IG investigations.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Dragoon

As I said before

Quote from: Dragoon on January 06, 2007, 11:47:31 AM


Unit commanders determine active/inactive status.  At the very least, members who attend and contribute to 75% of the meetings will be considered active.  Unit commanders may waive this attendance requirement on a case by case basis.

In other words, you are active unless the unit commander decides you're not.  And if you attend and contribute to 75% of the meetings, he can't decide you're not.  I'd probably require some period, say 3 months.

I understand the worry about taking attendance.  I wouldn't bother with it.  Rather, I'd document non-attendance - not to report to higher, but for myself.  That way, when I make a guy inactive, I'd have a reason why.

It would go something like this.

First, I notice Dave hasn't been around in a while, and hasn't asked for an excused absence.  And when he does show up every couple of months, he just hangs around and doesn't do anything.


STEP ONE - VERBAL COUNSELING - "Dave, I've noticed you haven't been attending and contributing to our meetings.  You aren't doing anything in your assigned staff job.  Is something going on that I need to know about?  Do you think you should go inactive?

STEP TWO - (which you only have to do if the guy says he wants to be active) KEEP TRACK.  I just make a little tick mark every time Dave isn't around.  And then I probably call him again to remind him of our previous counseling.

STEP THREE - WRITTEN COUNSELING - "Lt Dave, this is to inform you that you have not been actively attending and contributing to our squadron for the last 3 months.  IAW with _____ I'm am considering moving you to inactive status based on this.  If you do not wish to be placed in inactive status, please come to our next meeting and discuss the issue with me.

And then I press the button.

After I do this once or twice, I'll set the precedent.  Folks will start asking to be excused from meetings, or will request inactive status when they're going to be out for a while.  I can't imagine having to make someone inactive involuntary that many times. 

And for folks who want to help but can't come all the time, you can always grant them excused absences.  This way, you only have to go after the guy who's really doing nothing.

And everyone else will learn the rules - you gotta show up and help.

How does that sound

lordmonar

I like the standard.

But again...what benefit do we get from putting people into inactive status?  What does the individual have to do to get out of inactive status?  What can the person on inactive status do or not do?

That is my point in all of this.

We are punishing people for not being there.....well if they are not there....they don't care about the punishment.

But when they return.....what hoops do they have to jump through to become 'active again"?

Again...I don't understand the push for this.  Except of saying "I'm and active member of CAP and you're not" why are we pushing for this program?

I mean I have no problem with saying to the guy who has not shown up for the last month that NO he can't get on the flying schedule...no until he show up for some meetings and being productive to the unit.  I have no problem of saying to the inactive member that he can't be scheduled for training because there are limited slots and I'm going to prioritize them by how active someone is in the squadron.

But a program to move people back and forth between active and inactive is only going to be an admin nightmare.

Any administrative action has to be documented and the supporting evidence must also be documented.  That means you can't just wait until you notice Joe has not been coming to meetings and then start a paper trail.  Because then you will open yourself to accusations of favoritism.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Dragoon

I don't think it's an admin nightmare to push a button in some eServices module.

I know as a commander I wanted to get rid of the "dead wood" so I could focus on, for example, scanning the printouts from National to see who needed what PD or who had to jump through what hoops for promotion.

It would have been nice to have not had to constantly skip over the 20 or so names I'd never actually seen.

Any attempt to give commanders actual power to reward or punish will result in accusations of favoritism.  Which is probably why every gets rubber stamp promotions.  But if someone wants to say "how come I got put inactive when so and so didn't," he'd have to first prove that the other guy missed over 25% of the meetings unexcused.   Hard to do if you're not there yourself!   :D

And your comments about prioritzing people for flying or training based on participation (which I completely agree with) opens you up to exactly the same favoritism complaints.  Yet as a commander you handle them head on.  This just gives you one more tool in the 'ol toolbox.

Seriously, the key is to keep it from being punitive.  If someone thinks they are being punished, then they SHOULD file an IG complaint. 

But if someone doesn't show at all, it's pretty cut and dried.

afgeo4

Quote from: Dragoon on January 16, 2007, 06:47:44 PM
I don't think it's an admin nightmare to push a button in some eServices module.

I know as a commander I wanted to get rid of the "dead wood" so I could focus on, for example, scanning the printouts from National to see who needed what PD or who had to jump through what hoops for promotion.

It would have been nice to have not had to constantly skip over the 20 or so names I'd never actually seen.

Any attempt to give commanders actual power to reward or punish will result in accusations of favoritism.  Which is probably why every gets rubber stamp promotions.  But if someone wants to say "how come I got put inactive when so and so didn't," he'd have to first prove that the other guy missed over 25% of the meetings unexcused.   Hard to do if you're not there yourself!   :D

And your comments about prioritzing people for flying or training based on participation (which I completely agree with) opens you up to exactly the same favoritism complaints.  Yet as a commander you handle them head on.  This just gives you one more tool in the 'ol toolbox.

Seriously, the key is to keep it from being punitive.  If someone thinks they are being punished, then they SHOULD file an IG complaint. 

But if someone doesn't show at all, it's pretty cut and dried.

That is EXACTLY my point.  An administrative action, not a punitive one, to lighten the burden of unit commanders in managing their units's personnel and mission readiness that also allows for better logistical and financial management at higher echelons.
GEORGE LURYE

NIN

Hey, guys, I'm going thru this right now in my unit.

My former Deputy Commander for Seniors, when I was the commander the first time around, transferred a bunch of our "dead wood" (inactive, not showing up, never see, live in another state) members to PATRON status. 

I got a phone call from one of my buddies who is "housing" his membership in my unit to keep his dues down: "Why did you put me on patron status? I don't want to be on patron status!"  Well, the problem wasn't so much that he was now a patron. The problem was that he didn't realize what it meant, and we didn't do a good job of warning/explaining it to him.

Now fast foward two years.

We have a number of inactives on the roles still.  Couple off to college, one or two who are elsewhere due to work, etc.  But these same guys keep showing up on my OPSEC not completed report, they need to confirm they've gotten a safety briefing, etc.  One of them is 1200 miles away. He's not doing OPSEC or safety any time soon due to college.

My executive officer (formerly the deputy for seniors) is hot to trot to 'clean up our roster' after I forwarded the "OPSEC training not completed" report to the officers and requested that they again do the OPSEC training if they're on the report.  He noted that several are people who aren't active at all yet still affect our ability to accomplish this training to standard.  He wants to transfer them to patron status.

I agreed, but this time with the proviso that anybody we ID for movement to patron status needs to be notified that its happening, and the reason why. (ie. "We're moving you to patron status so that you don't have to maintain qualification in certain areas, and so that we don't have to hound you to complete training events that don't mean anything to you right now.." or words to that effect) so that they don't feel like my buddy, relegated to second-class citizen status with no understanding what it means or how to get out of it..

so this week, we'll ID all our potential patrons, mail merge the database to give us a list with mailing addresses, and we'll mail merge letters and CAPF 2As for those folks.  Mail out the letters, wait a week or so, send the 2As to NHQ.


Darin Ninness, Col, CAP
I have no responsibilities whatsoever
I like to have Difficult Adult Conversations™
The contents of this post are Copyright © 2007-2024 by NIN. All rights are reserved. Specific permission is given to quote this post here on CAP-Talk only.

SAR-EMT1

Example of inactive: member who is current to my unit 'on the books'  however has not shown up for a SINGLE meeting in the 5 years Ive been associated with CAP,  the personnel officer and I HAVE made attempts to get them to come in...but sheesh one lives OUT OF THE STATE, but mails in a yearly dues check.
ACTIVE member: 1 cadet has not missed a meeting in 3 years.
C. A. Edgar
AUX USCG Flotilla 8-8
Former CC / GLR-IL-328
Firefighter, Paramedic, Grad Student

davedove

I think you really have more than just two categories.

First, you have what I'll call active members.  These members attend most meetings and training, and are often available for missions.  From time to time their "real life" will make them miss something, but not often.

Second, you have the members who are still on the books, but only until their membership expires.  These are the ones who muddy up the reports and should be removed.

Third, you have what I will call the truly inactive members.  The are on the books and they keep renewing their membership, but they do not come to meetings.  I'm not sure what you can do with these members, but they really should be Patron members.

Fourth, you have the "semi-active" members.  These members come to the occasional meeting, exercise, etc. but not often.  Perhaps their other commitments keep them from coming more often, but they do contribute when they can.  These can still be valuable members as long as they are not placed in a critical position.

Finally, there are those who would normally be active members.  Their jobs, or even an illness, keep them from away from the unit temporarily for an extended period of time (more than a few weeks).  These are working members normally, and will again be working members when they return.  You could say they are "on leave" from the unit.  They really shouldn't be holding a staff position while they are absent, but it's not really right to remove them from the unit.

Each category should be treated differently, because their circumstances are different.  If you were going to truly track active members, all these factors would have to be considered.
David W. Dove, Maj, CAP
Deputy Commander for Seniors
Personnel/PD/Asst. Testing Officer
Ground Team Leader
Frederick Composite Squadron
MER-MD-003

Dragoon

Some possible solutions below.

Quote from: davedove on January 23, 2007, 01:34:10 PM
I think you really have more than just two categories.

First, you have what I'll call active members.  These members attend most meetings and training, and are often available for missions.  From time to time their "real life" will make them miss something, but not often.


Quote from: davedove on January 23, 2007, 01:34:10 PM
Second, you have the members who are still on the books, but only until their membership expires.  These are the ones who muddy up the reports and should be removed.

Since they have the option to reup until the last minute, as long as you could lable them as "inactive" they are out of the way until they quit.


Quote from: davedove on January 23, 2007, 01:34:10 PM
Third, you have what I will call the truly inactive members.  The are on the books and they keep renewing their membership, but they do not come to meetings.  I'm not sure what you can do with these members, but they really should be Patron members.

If you lable them as "inactive", they fall off your active books.  If they keep paying dues, it doesn't really matter.  Just so long as no one has to account for them and their training.


Quote from: davedove on January 23, 2007, 01:34:10 PM
Fourth, you have the "semi-active" members.  These members come to the occasional meeting, exercise, etc. but not often.  Perhaps their other commitments keep them from coming more often, but they do contribute when they can.  These can still be valuable members as long as they are not placed in a critical position.

These would be active members to whom the commander has granted a waiver.  They would still have to do mandatory things like OPSEC, safety briefings and the like, but for whatever personal reason the commander has accepted a lower level of participation.

Now, if you want to have a member who doesn't do any mandatory stuff and yet still comes in every 3 months for a meeting, I'm not sure what to do about it.  If the definition of "inactive" means you can't do anything EXCEPT squadron meetings and socials, then these folks could still help out locally.  Just not go on an exercise.




Quote from: davedove on January 23, 2007, 01:34:10 PM
Finally, there are those who would normally be active members.  Their jobs, or even an illness, keep them from away from the unit temporarily for an extended period of time (more than a few weeks).  These are working members normally, and will again be working members when they return.  You could say they are "on leave" from the unit.  They really shouldn't be holding a staff position while they are absent, but it's not really right to remove them from the unit.

They would be listed as "inactive" as well.


The idea here is that you don't put people in a holding squadron - you keep them on your books, but flag them as inactive.  That way, they show up on all reports as a seperate bunch of guys from your actives - and you don't have to worry about them.  We just get dues.

And if they every want to become active, they have to see you first.

afgeo4

But you don't get dues. National and Wing get dues, not the squadrons or flights.

Remember, if they're on your roster, you are responsible for them. If they're not, you're not.

Think if there was a disaster in your area... think if it was on a scale of 9/11 or Katrina or Rita. Think of the phone calls to your squadron members to make sure they're ok. Would you wanna track down a member who's been inactive for 7 years, changed his address 3 times (but only once on file), and lives 8 states away from you or would you rather just know that everyone on your roster is here and needs to be confirmed.

How about when you create or update an ES roster and figure in those 4 Majors and LtC's with high ES ratings into your mix because they show up on roster online. Then you have to answer for where they are and what they're doing when Group or Wing HQ calls up cause they need them.
GEORGE LURYE

lordmonar

#57
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 24, 2007, 10:39:47 PMHow about when you create or update an ES roster and figure in those 4 Majors and LtC's with high ES ratings into your mix because they show up on roster online. Then you have to answer for where they are and what they're doing when Group or Wing HQ calls up cause they need them.

Doesn't work that way.

The only good reason to differentiate between active and inactive is so that higher HQ know the true status of your membership.

When tasked to make sure everyone has gotten OPSEC training...you can show that all your "active" members have gotten it.

When the wing is seeing how many radios it needs to send your squadron...it can see that you have an active status of x number and need x number or radios.

But lets face it....except for the OPSEC training when was the last time we have gotten a tasking like that?

Wing does not need to know how many are active/inactive...not really.  Because once you start making status reports you suddenly find that there are a lot of ghosts at college, overseas, whatever.  No inactive member ever caused anyone any problem with the exception of national using the roster to track OPSEC compliance...and that is just because they don't want to have to terminate anyone.

It looks to me...all this changing of status is just too much work.  If someone stops showing up....I ignore him.   If he renews his dues....so what....CAP thanks you for your donation.

If you don't like your inactive members....tell them to show up or quit.  If they don't...then you 2b them and be done with it.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

SarDragon

Hey, Pat -
When you took over at Misawa, didn't you have a Captain on the MML that you never met? Might have even had a CA address?

Did his absence/nonparticipation ever cause any problems for you?
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

lordmonar

Quote from: SarDragon on January 25, 2007, 02:36:26 AM
Hey, Pat -
When you took over at Misawa, didn't you have a Captain on the MML that you never met? Might have even had a CA address?

Did his absence/nonparticipation ever cause any problems for you?

not a bit.  E-mailed him once to ask him if we had forgetten to transfer and he said that no...he just wanted to let his membership ride...he renewed twice IIRC and the finally let it lapse.

No harm, no foul, no paperwork.

I he wanted a card to get into a aeroclub or to just get the magazine or access to a base...I don't know...and did not care.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Fifinella

Quote from: BillB on January 10, 2007, 06:30:34 PM
I'm still trying to figure out, what is the problem with having inactive members in a Squadron. USAF or CAP-NHQ doesn't know they are inactive. In fact they pad the MML which in turn leads to more equipment being issued to a Squadron. Why all this talk about moving them out of a unit when there is no reason to do so?
OK, I understand what folks are saying about not creating more paperwork.  Agreed.  What is the problem w/ inactive members?  In our (cadet) squadron, we've got a bunch of inactive SMs.  We keep getting busted in the chops for our low turnout (%wise) at Wing events.  If they looked behind the curtain, they'd see 2 folks furiously juggling, and one guy blowing smoke.  I'd LOVE to transfer the inactive SMs to a Senior sq., a ghost sq., *anywhere* so folks knew what our situation really was. 
Judy LaValley, Maj, CAP
Asst. DCP, LAWG
SWR-LA-001
GRW #2753

capchiro

If you truly only have three active member, then you are no longer a squadron.  Are you really ready to admit that to Wing and become a flight under another squadron?  If so, transfer the inacive members out.  Most Wings have a "ghost" squadron and then you can get rid of all of the dead wood and responsibility that goes with having a squadron.
Lt. Col. Harry E. Siegrist III, CAP
Commander
Sweetwater Comp. Sqdn.
GA154

Fifinella

Quote from: capchiro on January 25, 2007, 05:10:00 AM
If you truly only have three active member, then you are no longer a squadron.  Are you really ready to admit that to Wing and become a flight under another squadron?  If so, transfer the inacive members out.  Most Wings have a "ghost" squadron and then you can get rid of all of the dead wood and responsibility that goes with having a squadron.
WADR Sir, I said I'm in a Cadet Sq. with about 3 truly active Senior members.
CAPR 20-1, Part I, Section E, 19b defines a cadet sq. as being "comprised primarily of cadets with a minimum of 3 senior members to meet supervisory, administrative, and training requirements in the conduct of cadet programs." 

I'm not trying to get rid of the "responsibility" of a squadron.  I'm trying desperately to save this squadron, and I need help from REAL bodies.
Judy LaValley, Maj, CAP
Asst. DCP, LAWG
SWR-LA-001
GRW #2753

brasda91

Sadly, I'm one of those senior members this thread is talking about.  Couple years ago, I was sqd. cc and needed a break.  Our sqd. has only a few seniors and as the cc, you get to do what is not assigned to a senior member.  I resigned my command and took some time off.  I have been/was inactive since then.  I kept my dues paid to keep the numbers up for the sqd.  I didn't attend meetings.  I had a call from the new chaplain where he asked me if I would start attending the meetings and participating.  I said no, I have a 3 month old that occupies the majority of my free time.  I told him that if they ever needed a question answered, I would be more than willing to advise them to the best of my ability.  He had a couple of questions and I told him I would find out what I could get get back with him.  Since I started looking for the answers to his questions, it has renewed my desire to participate actively with my sqd (haven't broke the news to my wife yet  :o).  Since I've started refreshing myself with the changes over the last couple of years, I have been amazed in what has changed.  Honestly, I had noticed the "Patron" status and I feel like my membership status should have been changed.  Conversely, I have been in communication with a fellow senior member who hasn't attended a meeting in years due to his limited mobility, who I thought should be transferred to "Patron" status, only to be informed he put in over 150 hours on the Wing HF net last year.  I believe it is up to the sqd cc to know his members and know which ones simply pay their dues for the benefit of the sqd.
Wade Dillworth, Maj.
Paducah Composite Squadron
www.kywgcap.org/ky011