Active vs Inactive Members

[lordmonar]

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?

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.

[afgeo4]

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?

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.

[lordmonar]

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?

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.

[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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[Dragoon]

As I said before

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.

[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!   

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]

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!   

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Dragoon]

Some possible solutions below.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

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.

[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?

[lordmonar]

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.