Interesting treatment of rejoining members.

[afgeo4]

So according to regs, if a senior member who has resigned voluntarily decides to rejoin, he/she is automatically reverted to SMWOG. It is up to the appropriate level authority to reinstate the member's immediate past grade (or not) if they so choose to. However, the time in grade (TIG) of that grade is lost and the clock starts all over again from the beginning.

If a member decides to just drop off the earth and become inactive, after giving the commander and staff trouble is turned into patron status and if he/she does not renew, he/she will have the option to back pay their membership and have their grade AND time in grade (TIG) reinstated as if nothing ever happened (up to 2 year lapse.)

Question:  The ethical thing to do if you no longer have time to donate to CAP would be to resign membership until such time as you do have time to donate to CAP. It's a simple procedure and should carry no punishments. However, the policies encourage members to just lapse their safety and other requirements, to put their squadron in a bad position and to add work to the CC and his/her staff.  WHY???  Why do we encourage bad behavior? Why do we punish those who are responsible and appropriate?  WHY?!

[RADIOMAN015]

Some senior members are 'active' for very short periods of time each year, BUT also during that 'active' time contribute significantly.  Members also keep training current.  Not sure why they should be penalized as long as they are "contributing" to the organization.

Some senior members run into issues and can't participate, therefore can by regulation go to "patron" status.

IF a senior member is  still going to support the squadron by paying his/her dues, why not just let them stay in

The various membership categories were developed so that adults could have flexibility and yet have the option to returning relatively easy to active CAP membership.
RM       

[afgeo4]

Some senior members are 'active' for very short periods of time each year, BUT also during that 'active' time contribute significantly.  Members also keep training current.  Not sure why they should be penalized as long as they are "contributing" to the organization.

Some senior members run into issues and can't participate, therefore can by regulation go to "patron" status.

IF a senior member is  still going to support the squadron by paying his/her dues, why not just let them stay in

The various membership categories were developed so that adults could have flexibility and yet have the option to returning relatively easy to active CAP membership.
RM       

My question and situation above have nothing to do with active members or patron statuses. They have to do with members who are re-joining CAP. Was my title and body not clear enough? CAP membership isn't a good or a service. We don't just sell memberships for profit. The dues are charged to members because we can't do without it. If we could, we wouldn't charge them a penny.

[Eclipse]

Question:  The ethical thing to do if you no longer have time to donate to CAP would be to resign membership until such time as you do have time to donate to CAP. It's a simple procedure and should carry no punishments. However, the policies encourage members to just lapse their safety and other requirements, to put their squadron in a bad position and to add work to the CC and his/her staff.  WHY???  Why do we encourage bad behavior? Why do we punish those who are responsible and appropriate?  WHY?!

Why would it be "unethical" to go patron?

We don't just sell memberships for profit.

Yes, we do.  In fact that is specifically the intention and mission of patron memberships, to generate revenue.

I don't think CAP encourages bad behavior in their membership categories, the problem lies in the lack of will to enforce member regulations, and / or uneven treatment of members in this regard.

Some of this would be fixed if things were taken out of the unit CC's hands and happened automatically when things lapsed.  For a long time that was not a capability to be expected nationally, but should be fairly simple. 

Members who are out of currency for anything, for any reason, whether it be an ES qual issue, member dues, or some required training like EO or Safety, should not be under the remotest impression they are still "members in good standing" until the "thing" is corrected.

Unit CC's or personnel officer should recieved a monthly "no play" list for these members.

How many of us know of multiple situations where members were "not" for months because of lapsed memberships or worse?

[Eclipse]

The various membership categories were developed so that adults could have flexibility and yet have the option to returning relatively easy to active CAP membership.

The "flexibility" is what causes most of the problems.

People come and go as they please and then expect to be welcomed and treated as equal stakeholders with those who carry the load every week, including a "wink and nod" to their quals which lapsed, etc.

[afgeo4]

Question:  The ethical thing to do if you no longer have time to donate to CAP would be to resign membership until such time as you do have time to donate to CAP. It's a simple procedure and should carry no punishments. However, the policies encourage members to just lapse their safety and other requirements, to put their squadron in a bad position and to add work to the CC and his/her staff.  WHY???  Why do we encourage bad behavior? Why do we punish those who are responsible and appropriate?  WHY?!

Why would it be "unethical" to go patron? 

It wouldn't be. This has nothing to do with patron memberships. It has to do with members who become inactive because of life and then when they find a chance to become active again, coming back into the organization. It has to do with the fact that those who resigned their membership are being treated unfairly by regulation. It has to do with the fact that those who just drop off the end of the earth and create problems for their squadrons by doing so (and not going patron) are rewarded by keeping their TIG if they pay back their dues.

When did we become an organization that's willing to sell out ethics for dues?

[Eclipse]

I think you might have a point in there, but you're making more of it than it really is.

You're also assuming the "system" assumes people who voluntarily resign are going to come back, which is not likely.

I'd agree that we should treat "resign" and "fail to renew" the same.

[lordmonar]

I don't quite see what you are getting at.

If you pay your back dues.....and your commander reinstates your rank.....there is no break in service (assuming you rejoin before 2 years).

Beyond that....it is assumed that you have been out of the loop too long to be accepted back at the old rank and need to start freash.

This is not punishment per say.....but effective management.

I can't find anywhere in the regulations that if you resign you loose everything.  I did a quick search of Membership Termination, Officer promotions and Membership regs and can't find anything that specifically says that.   

Anyone point me in the right direction or know of a written policy that says otherwise?

[MSG Mac]

The reason that those who leave are required to be reinstated is that regulations and requirements for the grades change, and you are required to be fully up to date on training before reinstatement. So if someone dropped out of CAP a year ago, and hasn't done the new Introduction to CAP Safety Course. They are not eligible for reinstatement, until it's done along with the requisite fingerprint review. Bottom line, you must meet the current eligibility standards, not last years or even yesterdays. This becomes even more evident when there is a professional appointment and that member no longer has the license or credentials that enabled the original appointment.

[RiverAux]

The difference between someone returning after dropping entirely from CAP and someone "going active" after being in patron status makes plenty of sense --- one person dropped out of CAP while the other person stayed in CAP.  Of course things should be easier for the person that stayed in and kept making at least a minor contribution to the organization.

[RADIOMAN015]

In all fairness to the original poster, he does mention about an individuals that "just stop coming" and this causes issues with the unit's operations.   I would think that the unit leadership would at least try doing some followups by telephone, email & than by formal letter.   That's very childish/immature for an adult to just stop coming to meetings without giving a reason, and personally in those circumstances of non response to calls, that should be a 2B action.  HOWEVER, from a practical standpoint, it is easier to just place the member in a patron status.   It's too bad that Patron status couldn't have a sub category of individual requested patron status versus was involuntarily placed in patron status.  Also if someone renews, IF their status is patron, I would think that the notification ID card to them would indicate patron and not active member.  It's unclear if (and how long)  CAP keeps information in the data base on expired members, BUT if someone doesn't show up for 6 months and can't be contacted, I would hope that the unit leadership would at least place them in a patron status prior to their member expiration date.

In my opinion, CAP seems to be very concerned about showing increases in membership every year.  I don't think there's strong interest in categorizing that membership into active, patron, etc as far as news releases (or what shows up in e services when you sign on for your squadron).    Locally I try to be realistic with the media on "active" adult membership (the cadet 'active' side is a bit more challenging, because we normally will not dismiss a teenager from the program if they don't attend, but will let the membership run out, just in case they decide to return). 

IF someone can't show up to meetings and participate at all but elects to still support the squadron (and we've had people in patron status make some cumulatively large donations over the years to the squadron), I have no problems with this.

As the unit PAO our patron members do get copies via email of all pertinent news releases to keep them informed.  Some have been patrons for many years (and likely were "patrons" even before patron was in the regulation).

RM

[ol'fido]

Most of the so-called "Patrons" I have dealt with are long time members who for one reason or another don't actively participate. These reasons include poor health, advanced age, military service, and other legitimate long term reasons for absence. Some are geographically separated yet keep their membership in the local squadron they were cadets in. These types of individuals want to keep their membership with a particular unit for nostalgia over transfer or retirement. Some joined later in life and after several years are unable to participate but they keep their membership up until they are eligible for retirement. Some retain it till they pass away. These types of "Patron" member I have no interest in transferring to 000 or taking any kind of punitive action against. Perhaps we should add a new membership category for these members known as "Legacy" members.

[afgeo4]

I notice that most people here are waaaay too infatuated with uniforms and patron member status, so I will attempt to make this clear one more time.  THIS ISN'T ABOUT and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PATRON MEMBERS.

There, I hope that works.

Members who resigned membership voluntarily have no option to pay back dues and hold on to their time in grade.
Members who don't bother renewing their membership do.

That's my problem with it.

[ol'fido]

In 35 some odd years of CAP, I have seen members not renew, get 2b'ed, get flagged for non-renewal, say loudly and often "I quit" and show up later/or not, but in all that time, I have never known anyone to formally resign from CAP. Why bother? It's not like they will prorate your membership and send you a refund check for your dues. So why did they resign as opposed to just allowing their membership to lapse? How is it the "ethical" thing to do?

[Eclipse]

Can you quote the exact regs on this?

I recall this provision, but can't find it anywhere in 35-3, 35-5,  or 39-2.

In 35 some odd years of CAP, I have seen members not renew, get 2b'ed, get flagged for non-renewal, say loudly and often "I quit" and show up later/or not, but in all that time, I have never known anyone to formally resign from CAP.

I had one cadet who believed it was the "honorable" thing to do.  Whatever.

My suspicion on this is that you are correct, and that NHQ would treat someone willing to back-date 2 years worth of dues who was otherwise in good standing, the same provisions for restoration of grade, whether they resigned or quit.

[RiverAux]

I notice that most people here are waaaay too infatuated with uniforms and patron member status, so I will attempt to make this clear one more time.  THIS ISN'T ABOUT and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PATRON MEMBERS.

Well, your initial post specifically complained about treatment of non-renewing patron members in comparison to non-renewing "active" members, so what do you expect?

[afgeo4]

I notice that most people here are waaaay too infatuated with uniforms and patron member status, so I will attempt to make this clear one more time.  THIS ISN'T ABOUT and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PATRON MEMBERS.

Well, your initial post specifically complained about treatment of non-renewing patron members in comparison to non-renewing "active" members, so what do you expect?

Does it though?  Care to quote me?

[lordmonar]

I still don't understand the problem?

If I resign (sign a 2b and everthing) and come back with 2 years and pay my back dues........there should be no different then if I just let my membership laps and came back within 2 years and paid by back dues.

Unless you know of a regulation that says otherwise.....as you aluded to in your original post.

[RADIOMAN015]

I notice that most people here are waaaay too infatuated with uniforms and patron member status, so I will attempt to make this clear one more time.  THIS ISN'T ABOUT and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PATRON MEMBERS.

There, I hope that works.

Members who resigned membership voluntarily have no option to pay back dues and hold on to their time in grade.
Members who don't bother renewing their membership do.

That's my problem with it.

OK we get it, but I don't think very many adults will formally resign from the program, but likely will just let their membership lapse.  That's the way it is.    Sound to me that you've had a bad personal experience with this.  Perhaps you can get your commander to send a suggestion up the chain of command to change this policy.  Personally, administratively, the easiest thing for the unit leadership to do is to transfer the member into a patron status.  We can't solve this on CAPTALK (but sure has heck can talk about it :angel: ).
RM
 

[RiverAux]

I notice that most people here are waaaay too infatuated with uniforms and patron member status, so I will attempt to make this clear one more time.  THIS ISN'T ABOUT and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PATRON MEMBERS.

Well, your initial post specifically complained about treatment of non-renewing patron members in comparison to non-renewing "active" members, so what do you expect?

Does it though?  Care to quote me?

Yeah, re-read the entire second paragraph of your post in which you discuss patron members.

[Luis R. Ramos]

This thread is pointless.

Let's take two scenarios.

A captain gives his commander grief. Then decides to resign, sends the necessary paperwork. Then comes back after two years. Versus giving his commander grief, then letting his membership lapse then decides to come back.

Is this what the OP is stating? If so, why oh why should it be different? When that captain comes back after two years, he does not have any TIG! Resuming his old rank and grade has STILL to be accepted by the new commander!

[afgeo4]

This thread is pointless.

Let's take two scenarios.

A captain gives his commander grief. Then decides to resign, sends the necessary paperwork. Then comes back after two years. Versus giving his commander grief, then letting his membership lapse then decides to come back.

Is this what the OP is stating? If so, why oh why should it be different? When that captain comes back after two years, he does not have any TIG! Resuming his old rank and grade has STILL to be accepted by the new commander!

Even more realistic... the commander (squadron/group/wing) is giving the Captain grief. The Captain decided that enough's enough and leaves. Within a couple of years, that said commander leaves (or is relieved) and is then replaced by a competent commander. The Captain decides to now come back.

Think that never happens? That happens all the time! Except usually, the member who quits harbors enough anger toward the organization not to come back.

[Eclipse]

Think that never happens? That happens all the time! Except usually, the member who quits harbors enough anger toward the organization not to come back.

Not sure how that is relevant. Use the system for relief or transfer.

Otherwise, quit is quit.

And this wouldn't be an issue at all if we were all held to a standard of participation so that no one could just sit idle.

[afgeo4]

Think that never happens? That happens all the time! Except usually, the member who quits harbors enough anger toward the organization not to come back.

Not sure how that is relevant. Use the system for relief or transfer.

Otherwise, quit is quit.

And this wouldn't be an issue at all if we were all held to a standard of participation so that no one could just sit idle.

I'd hate to break this to you, but we have a system that's built for full-time qualified professionals and is being run by part-time usually unqualified volunteers. The system that we currently have doesn't work. Need a sharp example? Pineda. Nuff said.